English
only a little was stated, in accordance with the subsequent regulation. Here, too, it should be understood that this was said to show that those matters were disciplined by the Blessed One. Some, not paying attention to this meaning, say, "These are cases of ignorance." "Kusa" means kusa grass. "Kesehi" means with human hair. 68. In "vaṇṇapokkharatāya" (beauty and radiance), "pokkhala" means prosperous and beautiful. Its state is expressed as "pokkharatā" by making it with the 'ra' sound. The meaning is prosperity and beauty. "Padhaṃsesī" means overcame. "Na limpatī" means does not cling. 69. Such bhikkhunis whose gender has changed, even though they are essentially ordained by one (sangha), are included among those ordained by both sanghas, because the ordination of bhikkhus is superior to the ordination of bhikkhunis. In the Pāli, the phrase "by those offenses, no offense" should be connected with the word "I allow," making it an instrumental usage. "Itthiliṅga" (female gender) is said to mean the female form, such as breasts, etc. He says: "A male... (and so on) ...a female form has arisen." However, from the immediate context, it is said that "the male faculty has disappeared, and the female faculty has arisen." Thus, further on, by taking "liṅga" (gender), the meaning of "female faculty" and so on should be understood. "Tā" refers to the offenses. It is connected with "tassa vuṭṭhātunti" (to rise from that). The meaning is "to make them rise from those offenses." How? He says: "All those (actions) should be done by bhikkhunis," and so on. By this, he shows the procedure for a serious offense, whether concealed or unconcealed, such as undergoing the half-month penance (mānatta). "Okkantikavinicchaya" (determination of descent) is a determination of entering in accordance with the context. "By strong unwholesome kamma" means by adultery and so on. "By weak wholesome kamma" (is the opposite of) the strong (kamma) mentioned. by the good deed that has destroyed the power, and thus by the good deed that has become weak. By the weak unwholesome deed, meaning, by the unwholesome deed such as adultery, which has destroyed the power of the strong wholesome deed like the holy life that produces the state of a man, and thus has become weak. In a good destination, since the two states are born of wholesome kamma, destruction is only by the unwholesome, and origination is only by the wholesome, thus it is said, "both," and so on. In a bad destination, however, origination and destruction of both are only by the unwholesome; there, the distinction is only the state of weak or strong. "Come, let us go," said with a nun, to avoid the offense of a pācittiya for going together on the same path, it is said, "having abandoned the agreement." This shows that even within the same village area, going from outside the village to inside a house with an agreement is also an offense. Showing the method of abandoning, it is said, "we," and so on. "Outside the village" means in another village. "The second nun has departed," and so on, the characteristic of non-offense stated in (Pāci. 693) is confirmed by what is said, "another village...etc....non-offense." "Having abandoned" means having given up. "Modest ones...etc....is obtained," this is said in accordance with the non-offense stated in "in dangers," because if there is no inclusion of one afflicted by the suffering of gender change, there might be a turning to a lower state. She must go taking a second nun. "Immodest ones...etc....is obtained," this is said because there is a possibility of offense in cohabitation, etc., with immodest ones, so they belong to the side of the non-existent; by this, it should also be understood that "association with immodest ones is not proper." For if it were proper, even there, without a second nun, in going to another village, etc., there would be an offense, just as from the group of modest ones who are included, because they are included. "They are not relatives...etc....is proper," by this, it indicates their absence in the commentaries. Even there, it should be understood that that statement, though not rejected, is not proper for others, due to the possibility of a dangerous situation for one who is proud by nature, who does not delight in the state of a nun without trusted relative nuns. "Even in the state of a monk" means during the time of being a monk. pi. Relying on that, means making that teacher a reliance. The preceptor should be taken, means the preceptor should be taken for the purpose of receiving ordination. Vinaya action, is said with reference to a declaration. Again to be done, means again to be declared. Again having received, it is allowable for seven days, is said to show that it is allowable to consume again after receiving, by the saying, "I allow, monks, for nuns to have a store with monks, and for monks to have a store with nuns, having received it, to consume it" (Cūḷava. 421). On the seventh day, this is said to show that without incurring a Nissaggiya, it is allowable to consume it again for seven days. In a normal state, means with an unchanged gender. Protects, means it protects from abandoning that reception; the intention is that by not being divided, the reception is not abandoned. Having taken it himself, he should put it away, means having received it with his own hand, he should put it away. An offense for one who consumes, means when there is a change of gender, an offense for one who consumes without receiving it again. By reverting to a lower state, here some say, "For a monk in a normal state, without renouncing the training, the assumption of a lay gender, saying 'I will be a layman,' is reverting to a lower state." That is not appropriate, because the state of being a monk is not abandoned by that much. Others, however, say, "For one who has incurred a Pārājika, abandoning the declaration of being a monk and adopting the state of a lay gender is also reverting to a lower state." That is indeed appropriate. For one who has incurred a Pārājika, as long as he conceals it and declares himself a monk, he is still a monk, because the Pārājika is prescribed only for monks. For it is said, "Whatever monk..." Thus, even if he assents to cohabitation, he is not a thief-cohabitant, and he does not incur offenses like co-sleeping, and he incurs a Pācittiya for insulting himself. For it is said: "If a person is impure, having incurred a certain Pārājika offense, and if one with pure view, having made him give an opportunity, speaks with the intention of reviling, it is an offense of insulting." will give." Some, however, say: "The taking of the lay-garb by those who have fallen into a pārājika, after acknowledging their fault, is included in the renunciation of training. Therefore, by that acknowledgment, the state of a bhikkhu is abandoned. For this reason, in the Vinayavinicchaya and other texts, falling into a lower state is included in the renunciation of training, and is not stated separately. Therefore, for bhikkhunīs, the taking of the lay-garb out of a desire to wander astray is here a falling into a lower state, because there is no renunciation of training for them. And their abandonment of acceptance is to be understood in every way." This is also not to be gainsaid. Therefore, for bhikkhus who have committed a pārājika, and for bhikkhunīs, the taking of the lay-garb with the thought "I will go forth" is to be understood as falling into a lower state. "Wandering astray" is also a name for this very thing. For this reason, in the Khuddasikkhā, it is called "wandering astray" in the context of abandoning the determination, as "cutting off, abandoning, grasping, wandering astray." By "abandoning without concern" means casting out the accepted items without giving them to another, as if one has no use for them. Some say: "For one who is concerned about accepted items, the mere abandoning of acceptance of them is also 'abandoning without concern,' like the revocation of the determination of robes and so forth, because they were accepted before for the purpose of release." That is not good, because there is no such statement. Just as, regarding robes and so forth, after stating that the determination is abandoned by abandoning without concern, a separate revocation is also mentioned, so it should be stated here. And just as, regarding robes and so forth, even when they are attached to the body, the determination ceases by revocation, it is not so here. Here, however, even if one is unconcerned about the accepted item, the acceptance of it ceases only when it is released from the body. Thus it is said: "Let him renounce it a hundred times, as long as it is in his hand, it is still accepted." In "by abandoning without concern," it should only be said "by unconcern," because apart from unconcern, there is no separate abandoning here. For here, there is no method of abandoning as in revocation. Furthermore, if there is merely a relinquishing of acceptance, then even food previously accepted, when the desire to eat arises, having relinquished merely the acceptance, and having accepted it again, it would be permissible to eat as one pleases. And in that case, all the distinctions in determination stated in the rule concerning storing (food) would indeed be meaningless. For it is said there: “Or if oil has entered between the knots of a knotted leaf-plate… (etc.)… even in such a leaf-plate, for one eating on the next day, there is an offense of expiation,” and so on. (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 253). But there, only this much should be said: “having relinquished acceptance with an unattached mind, it should be eaten,” but it is not said. Sometimes, in such knotted leaf-plates and so on, there is no attachment to acceptance for anyone at all, due to the effort to abandon it. Nevertheless, the acceptance of the food contained therein does not cease. Why?