English
"to be known by way of," the scrupulous one's use below is said to be by way of requisites and by way of a single act, etc. Thus it should be known. Therefore, in the commentary on the rule of malicious fault, two shameless ones, being accuser and accused, were told, referring even to Dhamma's use, "Live having a single enjoyment and use," because there was no conflict in their mutual use of Dhamma and requisites. Indeed, for the scrupulous, the use of both with the shameless is not permissible. "Enjoyment of Dhamma" means co-residence as "one act, one dedication," etc., and all non-material enjoyment like receiving and giving support, should be known. Because it is said, "He should not be made to incur an offense," it should be known that for the scrupulous, there is an offense in supporting the shameless. "The other one also" means the scrupulous one also. For that shameless one who supports himself, and for this scrupulous one, due to gaining praise, etc., or due to valuing requisites, or due to household-based affection, the scrupulous one supporting that shameless one shows that he causes the Dispensation to disappear. Thus, the shameless one supported by householders, etc., gaining strength and overcoming the scrupulous ones, soon makes the Dispensation go against Dhamma and Vinaya. By this, "Even the enjoyment of Dhamma is permissible there," the enjoyment of Dhamma is more serious than the enjoyment of requisites. Therefore, it shows it should be done with extreme separation from the shameless. Because it is said, "It is permissible to uplift by the favor of Dhamma," when the Dispensation is declining due to the abundance of the shameless, and when the scrupulous are insufficient, taking even the shameless as ordinary members to complete the quorum, and by performing ordination, etc., and by gathering some shameless ones through the enjoyment of Dhamma and requisites, and by suppressing the remaining group of shameless ones, it is indeed permissible to uplift the Dispensation. But some say, because it is said, "The text stands at the end," that the enjoyment of Dhamma is only the mastery of texts, not a single act, etc. Therefore, they say, "It is permissible to perform acts like Uposatha with the shameless, there is no offense." That is not appropriate, one Among many uses of Dhamma, such as non-acts, to show the use of Dhamma suitable to be done even with shameless ones, here, by way of example, only the text is extracted. Indeed, it cannot be said that a procedure like a single act is not a use of Dhamma, because it is not material, and there is no one not included among Dhamma-materials. Therefore, in the Aṭṭhasālinī, in the discourse on Dhamma-connection, "A meditation subject should be taught, Dhamma should be recited... etc... rehabilitation, penance, and probation should be given, one worthy of going forth should be made to go forth, one worthy of higher ordination should be given higher ordination... etc... this is called Dhamma-connection." Thus, even Sangha-acts and so on are shown as parts of Dhamma. But among those parts of Dhamma, that which, by way of completing a quorum or similar, relying on shameless ones, such as Uposatha, or learning Dhamma or receiving reliance from them, is done, that is called both Dhamma and use, thus "use of Dhamma." This should not be done without such a condition. And for one who does it, it is a use of the shameless and a wrong-doing. But that which, not relying on a hundred shameless ones, an act of rebuke or similar punishment, or an act of assistance like probation, or giving instruction and asking questions, is done, that is Dhamma only, not a use. This is proper to do for suitable ones. There is no offense, like giving material things. Even giving reliance, and giving the thirteen agreements and so on, because it is also a cause for the use of reciprocal duties and so on, is not proper. But if a greatly shameless one makes the Teacher's teaching against Dhamma and against discipline, then even acts of assistance like higher ordination for his co-residents and so on, and giving instruction and asking questions, should not be done. It is indeed an offense. Only an act of punishment should be done. Therefore, even supporting the shameless is forbidden. Indeed, by avoiding the use of Dhamma-materials, the punishment of ill-behaved individuals is intended. And that is for the sake of the comfortable living of good people, the establishment of the good Dhamma, and the support of the Vinaya, because the precept's promulgation is for this purpose. Therefore, That which, for the support of the shameless, for the discomfort of the virtuous, for the decline of the True Dhamma, and so forth, whatever it may be, whether it is to be used or not to be used, it is not proper to do it. Those who do so cause the Dispensation to disappear, and they incur an offense. Among the uses of Dhamma and material things here, it is the use of Dhamma, such as participating in the same acts, by the shameless, that causes discomfort to the virtuous and leads to the decline of the True Dhamma, and so forth, not so much the use of material things. For it is not merely by the shameless using requisites that discomfort, and so forth, arises for the virtuous, but it arises through the use of Dhamma as stated, and by avoiding that, comfort and so forth arise. Thus, shameless individuals who have transgressed training rules, when they enter into Uposatha and so forth, should be told by the bhikkhus, "You commit transgressions through the door of body and the door of speech," and so forth. They should be strongly rebuked, by expulsion from the Sangha and so forth, so that they do not stand against the Vinaya. If, without doing so, one associates with them, one also becomes shameless, as it is said, "Even one shameless person makes a hundred shameless." (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.585) If indeed they are not thus rebuked, they would increase quarrels and so forth in the Sangha, and by obstructing Uposatha and other acts of communal harmony, causing discomfort to the virtuous, they would gradually, like Devadatta and the Vajji-puttakas, increase their following, and by showing their wrong conduct as Dhamma and Vinaya, they would even cause schisms in the Sangha, and before long, cause the Dispensation to disappear. But when they are rebuked by expulsion from the Sangha and so forth, no trouble arises in any way. For it has been said: "Uposatha does not stand by relying on immoral individuals, Pavāraṇā does not stand, Sangha acts do not proceed, harmony does not exist... But when the immoral are rebuked, all this trouble does not exist, then the virtuous bhikkhus dwell comfortably." (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.39) Therefore, the use of Dhamma, such as participating in the same acts, should be avoided by the shameless even more than the use of material things, and it causes offense and the decline of the True Dhamma. It should be known as the cause of the decline. Moreover, because it is declared in the commentary that the Uposatha does not stand, the Pavāraṇā does not stand, and Sangha acts do not proceed when performed with shameless ones, this also holds true. Likewise, in the discourse on the practice of a monk whose gender has changed, when he goes to a nunnery, it is said: "If the nuns are agreeable and supportive, and are conscientious, one should not anger them and go elsewhere. If one goes, one is not free from the offenses of staying overnight in another village, crossing a river, or being left behind by the group... If they are shameless, but still provide support, one may abandon them and go elsewhere." Thus, to avoid the offense of cohabitation with shameless nuns, the permission to commit serious offenses like crossing a river is granted. From this, it is understood that the offense of cohabitation with shameless ones is even more serious than the cause of the decline of the True Dhamma. For teachers do not permit the transgression of a serious offense to avoid a minor offense or a non-offense. Similarly, in the commentary on the term "non-cohabitation," it is stated: "Because all conscientious individuals must train together, it is called 'training together.' Here, since all conscientious ones dwell together in these acts, and not even one is seen outside of them, taking all of them together, this is called 'cohabitation.'" Thus, it is declared that cohabitation in acts is proper only with conscientious ones. If so, why are the shameless not included among those with whom there is no cohabitation? This is not a contradiction, because only those who are unrecovered from serious offenses like pārājika, and whose acts performed by including them in the quorum become invalid, are considered as those with whom there is no cohabitation. However, there are also shameless ones who are recovered. If they complete an act by being part of the quorum, they merely become liable for an offense, like those who have committed a similar offense, by acting out of an improper course, one to another. This is because shamelessness and conscientiousness are tied to the mind-moments of ordinary people, not to all times. For when a mind of intentional transgression arises, the shameless one thinks, "I will not do such a thing again." and they are ashamed in mind. And among them, those who, even when advised by gentle ones, do not desist, repeatedly transgress, they indeed are not to be associated with, not others, because they have entered the state of shame. Therefore, not counting the shameless among those not to be associated with, for the purpose of avoiding them, it is allowed to purify and then perform the Uposatha and so on. Thus, indeed, by "Venerables, declare your purity, I shall recite the Pātimokkha," and so on (Mahāva. 134), the impropriety of performing Uposatha with an impure assembly is declared. And the method of performing Uposatha, by establishing even the shameless