English
there is no breaking of the precept of abstaining from taking life, nor any other precept, nor breaking of the refuges. However, it should be understood that unwholesome kamma and the breaking of the precept of abstaining from liquor occur, just as in wearing garlands and so on. "The others" refers to abstaining from eating at the wrong time and so on. Indeed, for one who intentionally transgresses these, that particular precept is broken. But for others, if they are not broken, they do not become grounds for expulsion. Therefore, the word "broken" is used in "when these are broken." "He should be made to confess his transgression" means that the intention is that he should be made to confess in the midst of the Sangha, saying "A transgression, venerable sir, has come upon me," and so on, and then the refuges and precepts should be given, because these are offenses entailing defeat. Therefore, it is said: "He should be expelled by disrobing." Indeed, this very expulsion is intended here, and it is said because the causes for disrobing, such as taking life, and speaking ill of others, fall together. But is not Kaṇṭaka the novice also a holder of wrong view? And for him, only expulsion by punishment was mentioned below. Here, however, disrobing is mentioned for one with wrong view. Bearing in mind the question "What is the difference between these?", it is said: "For he is one who holds one of the views of eternalism or annihilationism." And here is the meaning: Whoever, firmly holding any view of eternalism or annihilationism conceived by sectarians, such as "the self or God is eternal, permanent," or "the self will be annihilated, will perish," speaks accordingly, for him, that becomes a ground for defeat. And he should be expelled by disrobing. But whoever does not hold such a view... Having become a follower of the Dispensation, and having taken the sole meaning of the Buddha's word in a reversed way, even when being advised by monks, he speaks without giving it up. That view of his is not a pārājika, but he should be destroyed by a thorn-like destruction. The commentary on the story of the matter of the unasked-for covering, etc., is finished. Commentary on the story of the Paṇḍaka 109. In the matter of the paṇḍaka, the three types: āsitta, usūya, and pakkha paṇḍakas, are endowed with male characteristics and signs, and have a rebirth without cause. They are called "paṇḍakas" because of the strength of their defilement-infestation, making them similar to a napuṃsaka paṇḍaka. Among these, for the two, the āsitta and usūya paṇḍakas, the infestation of defilements can be prevented from transgressing by means of wise attention and so forth. Therefore, it is said that they should be ordained. But for the pakkha paṇḍaka, like madness in the dark fortnights, a burning of defilements comes overwhelming him, and it only ceases after transgression has occurred. Therefore, it is said that he should not be ordained during that fortnight. To show this distinction, the phrase "whose others" and so forth was spoken. There, regarding the āsitta, for one into whose mouth (semen) has been poured, the burning (of defilement) subsides by his own emission of impurity. Regarding "when envy arises," when the lustful desire to engage in sexual activity arises in oneself due to envy, the burning (of defilement) subsides by the emission of impurity. Because it is said "the seeds have been removed," if only the mere sign is removed while the seeds remain, one is not a paṇḍaka. Even for a monk, if it is removed due to a non-affliction cause, it is only a grave offense, not paṇḍaka-hood. But when the seeds are removed, the sexual organ is no longer functional due to lust, manhood disappears, male characteristics like beard, etc., and even the higher ordination disappear. The burning of defilements also becomes an irresistible transgression, like that of a napuṃsaka paṇḍaka. Therefore, they say that even one who has received higher ordination, if he is like this, should be destroyed. If so, why was a pārājika not laid down for the removal of the seeds? Here, some say: "This was indeed laid down by the Blessed One: 'A paṇḍaka, monks, who is not yet ordained, should not be ordained; one who is ordained should be destroyed.'" because it is said. But some say: "Since he is not a paṇḍaka at the time of seed extraction, therefore no pārājika is laid down at that moment. But since that monk, whose seed has been extracted, later becomes a paṇḍaka in the manner described, he is without existence, not a proper subject for ordination, and from that very moment his ordination ceases. Therefore, from the time he becomes a paṇḍaka, he is considered 'incapable' (abhabba), to be expelled if ordained, equating him with a born eunuch, not before that time. And although this is with a cause, due to the cessation of his being, it is like being without a cause, and even the path does not arise for him," they say. Others say: "It is said 'he who is ordained should be expelled' referring to one who became a paṇḍaka through an act before renunciation; but for one who is ordained, ordination does not cease later through an act." That is not suitable. For by whatever reason he is incapable through an act before renunciation, by that same reason he is also incapable afterwards, this should be understood after investigation. He who has no such state of being is "without existence" (abhāvako). Here, by the mention of "renunciation is not forbidden," ordination is also included. Therefore it is said, "for whom renunciation is forbidden here," and so on. But where it says "renunciation is forbidden in his case," even in the case of a non-paṇḍaka, only renunciation is obtained; ordination, however, is not valid even then. But when he becomes a paṇḍaka, he should be expelled by the destruction of his gender, this should be understood. The exposition on the story of the paṇḍaka is finished. The exposition on the story of the thief-dweller. 110. In the story of the thief-dweller, "kolaññā" means born in a family, or known and famous there, or they know him as "kolaññā," which is a name for relatives. Even merely assuming the insignia for thievery is dwelling here, thus it is said "three thief-dwellers." "They do not pay homage according to seniority" means homage to monks or novices is not accepted. "They pay homage according to seniority" means homage to monks according to the seniority shown by their own false speech is accepted. however, a young novice accepting salutations from elder novices, and a young monk from elders, even if he accepts them, is not a thief-dweller. In this, "dwelling" means dwelling by way of acceptance. "Monk-years" is said in the sense of dwelling, as stated in the text. But even if one counts novice-years after having gone forth, one is both. And not only a man, but a woman too, acting thus among nuns, is a thief-dweller. Even first offenders are not exempt here. First offenders are mentioned in relation to an offense enacted for the fully ordained. Therefore, even a first offender is not exempt here. "From fear of the king...etc." Here, the word "fear" should be applied to each. "As long as he is pure-minded" means that he is pure-minded by not having an impure thought like "I will deceive monks with this emblem and dwell with them." For if he takes the emblem with such an impure mind, whether he dwells with monks later or not, he is an emblem-dweller. If he dwells later, he dwells as one unworthy. Therefore, it should be understood that one who is both falls into the emblem-dweller category. But if one, pure-minded due to fear of the king, etc., takes the emblem and wanders, and later develops an impure thought, "I will count monk-years and live," he is not a thief-dweller by the mere arising of the thought, because the emblem was taken with a pure mind. However, if he goes to the monks and performs actions like counting novice-years, then he is a dwelling-dweller or both, it should be seen. What is said later, along with the laying down of the burden, "this one is also a thief-dweller," that is said with reference to laying down the burden by way of agreeing to dwell after associating with monks. Therefore, it is said, "he does not agree to dwell as long as..." The connection should be seen that such a one is not called a thief-dweller. And here, even without fear of thieves, etc., if one takes the emblem with the intention of play, and shows a desire for ordination in the presence of monks, and performs salutations, etc. Even if not assenting, even if taking (the robes) with a pure mind, thinking "Does my monastic attire look good?" and so on, it should be understood that he is not a thief-dweller. "All sectarian meals" means meals prescribed as common for all adherents (of various sects). And this "common meal" is stated (in the rule) because co-residence (saṃvāsa) could occur even in the taking of meals specifically designated for bhikkhus. But even if not assenting to co-residence, and eating monastery meals and so on in monasteries without bhikkhus, he is certainly not a thief-dweller. "By engaging in work" means by performing work such as farming. "Taking bowl and robe" means wearing them on the body in the guise of a bhikkhu. "Whoever thus goes forth, he is called a thief-dweller" - this is merely an example. But even if not knowing the name "thief-dweller", if he knows "it is not proper to do this," or "doing this, one is not a recluse," or "if I reveal it, they will expel me," or "my going forth is not valid in any way," he is a thief-dweller. But if one, having first the perception "my going forth was taken thus," merely out of shame does not reveal one's deviation such as wearing white clothes in between, he is not a thief-dweller. Here, by the emphasis "only during the period of not having received higher ordination," it is shown that even if one knows the characteristic of a thief-dweller