English
that the words of a immoral person are not authoritative. But for bhikkhunīs, since they are not authorized to accuse a bhikkhu, it is said "only a bhikkhunī." Even if a bhikkhunī Regarding the bhikkhus' lack of authority, the accusations made by them, being worthy of accusation, are indeed accusations. With this intention, it is said, "The five co-dhamma practitioners obtain." In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.385-386), it is stated, "The Elder cited the Sutta," to show that since the accuser, having heard from a bhikkhu, accuses, and their words are also considered authoritative, being accepted, their accusations are also valid. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.386), it is stated, "To show the characteristics of a well-founded accusation, in contrast to the possibility of a baseless accusation, 'Who is allowed to accuse, who is not allowed?' and so on, was initiated. The Sutta beginning, 'Having heard from a bhikkhu, he accuses,' is to be understood as being cited here as supportive evidence, because those who reveal the transgression of others to the accuser, also reveal it at that moment, standing in the position of an accuser. And the other person, having taken their words, is able to accuse, and is able to make those who do not accept it, accept it, by those first accusers, who are at the end of the Tīrthiya disciples." "Of the two grave ones" refers to Pārājika and Saṅghādisesa offenses. "Of the remaining ones" refers to the five offenses such as Thullaccaya. "Wrong view" is the ten-fold view that proceeds in the manner of "There is no giving," and so on. "Grasping at extremes" is the view that grasps at an extreme, such as "The world is finite, the world is infinite." "Of the six prescribed for the sake of livelihood" refers to the six mentioned in the Parivāra (Pari. 287), which are to be committed even for the sake of livelihood: Pārājika for a superhuman state, Saṅghādisesa for acting as a go-between, Thullaccaya by saying indirectly, "He who dwells in your monastery is an Arahant," Pācittiya for a bhikkhu begging for choice food, Pāṭidesanīya for a bhikkhunī begging for choice food, and Dukkaṭa for begging for broth and rice. These offenses are not prescribed only for the sake of livelihood, as Sañcaritta and others can be committed in other ways as well. It is said thus, referring to the commission of these offenses even for the sake of livelihood. "Prescribed even for the sake of livelihood" means Even if he accuses by wrong views and wrong livelihoods, he accuses only of an offense rooted in them. When asked, "Why do you not pay homage to me?" because the reason for not paying homage was stated: "You are no recluse, you are no son of the Sakyas," they say that one who has committed a final offense should not be paid homage to. Having not paid homage with the intention to accuse, setting aside what was said by oneself, that is not a reason for not paying homage; so it is stated in the Cūḷagaṇṭhipada and in the Majjhimagaṇṭhipada. Because one who has committed a final offense is not mentioned among those not to be paid homage to, and because there is no offense of sleeping together for one who sleeps with him, and because his acceptance is valid, it is understood that that is more appropriate. Although as long as he acknowledges his monkhood, he should be paid homage to, but when he acknowledges, "I am no recluse," then he should not be paid homage to; this distinction should be understood here. Indeed, for one who has committed a final offense, monkhood exists only as long as he acknowledges his monkhood, not beyond that. Indeed, one who does not acknowledge monkhood belongs to the side of the unordained. Since one giving material offerings gives only in the place he desires, therefore, even if one giving gruel, rice, and so on, to those seated in order, does not give to one with the intention to accuse, it is not called an accusation. So he says, "Those are not accusations yet." 231. "Codetabba" means "accused," "accused" is indeed "cuditaka," a person who has committed an offense. "Codeti" means "accuser," one who reveals an offense. The accused and the accuser are the accused and the accuser. By the Ubbāhikā: that by which they remove or separate the shameless, or by which they remove threats or quarrels, that is Ubbāhikā, a Sangha resolution, by that. "Investigation" means investigation by monks authorized by that. Indeed, in an assembly crowded with shameless ones, two or three monks, endowed with the ten qualities mentioned in the Samathakkhandhaka, should be authorized by a ñattidutiyakammavācā stated therein. This is stated in the Samathakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 231-232) – "If, O monks, by those monks, while that case is being investigated, without... endless disputes arise, and the meaning of what is said is not understood. I allow, monks, to settle such a case by a committee. A monk endowed with ten qualities is to be appointed to the committee: He is virtuous, he lives restrained by Pātimokkha restraint, accomplished in conduct and resort, seeing danger in the slightest faults, undertaking and training in the training rules. He is learned, a holder of what is heard, a collector of what is heard. Those teachings which declare the holy life to be good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end, with meaning and with letter, entirely complete and purified— such teachings are much heard by him, held, familiarized by speech, contemplated by mind, well penetrated by view. And both Pātimokkhas are well-received by him in detail, well-divided, well-practiced, well-determined by sutta and by commentary. And he is skilled and unconfused in the Vinaya. He is able to reassure, convince, make understand, observe, see, and gladden both the plaintiff and the defendant. He is skilled in the arising and settling of cases. He knows the case, he knows the origin of the case, he knows the cessation of the case, he knows the path leading to the cessation of the case. I allow, monks, to appoint a monk endowed with these ten qualities to the committee. And thus, monks, he is to be appointed. First, the monk is to be requested, and having requested, a competent and able monk is to inform the Saṅgha: ‘May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. While this case of ours is being decided, endless disputes arise, and the meaning of what is said is not understood. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should appoint such-and-such a monk and such-and-such a monk to the committee to settle this case. This is the motion. ‘May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. While this case of ours is being decided, endless disputes arise, and the meaning of what one says is not understood. The Saṅgha appoints such and such a bhikkhu to settle this case by arbitration. If it is agreeable to your reverence that such and such a bhikkhu be appointed to settle this case by arbitration, then be silent. If it is not agreeable, then speak. “Such and such a bhikkhu has been appointed by the Saṅgha to settle this case by arbitration; it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent, thus I hold this.” And by those appointed ones, having sat separately or having made it known to that very assembly that “nothing is to be said by others,” that case should be decided. “To you” is said referring to the accuser and the accused. “‘Kimhī’ means in what matter. ‘Kimhi nampi na jānāsi’ means you do not even know the word ‘kimhi naṃ’. ‘Nāssa anuyogo dātabbo’ means no questioning or counter-questioning should be given to him,” this is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.385-386). But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.386): ‘Kimhī’ means in what matter, the meaning is in what offense. ‘Kimhi naṃ nāmā’ is a question for an accuser who, due to his ignorance of the Vinaya, is unable to understand “Does he ask me in which of the offenses of conduct, custom, view, or livelihood?” even when it is said in any understandable language, “By what offense do you accuse this one?” It is not for one who does not know merely the meaning of the words like “kimhi.” For an investigator does not ask a foolish accuser “kimhi naṃ” in an unfamiliar language. “Kimhi nampi na jānāsi” is also not said referring to merely the word. It should be understood that even when “by what offense” is said, “you do not know” refers to the intention of the statement “you do not know how to say ‘by such and such an offense’.” Therefore, it will say, “no questioning should be given to him.” “‘Tassa nayo dātabbo’ means to him, to the foolish, to the shy. ‘Tassa nayo dātabbo’ means And it is said that "By what do you admonish him, by moral lapse?" This kind of declaration of intent is called giving a method, not merely showing the meaning of the words "by what." For a fool, even if he knows the meaning of the statement "by what lapse do you admonish him," cannot understand the types of lapses, and the nature of the lapse by which he is being admonished. Therefore, by that very ignorance, the shameless one should be expelled. "By what" is merely an indication. Or by any other means, having revealed his lack of understanding, he should be dismissed. From the statement "for the suppression of unruly individuals," it is said, "for the suppression of the shameless... it was laid down." "Ehi" means "comes"; the particle "hi" here should be understood as an augment, meaning "will come." "By the observed sequence" means by the observed rule. "It should be done only by the confession of the shameless one" means that even when the faults are revealed through the sequence of question and answer, it should be done only by the confession of the shameless one admitting his fault, saying, "I am impure." Some, however, say, "The meaning here is included that for the shameless one, this does not exist, and it should be done only by a confession of purity, without an offense." That is not appropriate,