English
There, "having purified the Sangha within the boundary" means having purified the Sangha within the great boundary, which is called the 'non-departure' boundary. For there is no need to purify the Sangha assembled within a small boundary, but in the great boundary, called the 'non-departure' boundary, because of its vastness, and because it is a dwelling place for many bhikkhus, it must be purified for the sake of unity. "Having brought the consent of those worthy of consent" means having brought the consent of those ordinary bhikkhus who are not within arm's reach, by the bhikkhus who are within arm's reach, having completed the group of four or more within that boundary. For it is said, "In an act requiring four, four bhikkhus are ordinary and qualified for the act; the remaining ordinary bhikkhus are worthy of consent" (Pari. 497). "By the permission of the united Sangha" means because consent has been brought, all bhikkhus, whether within arm's reach or not, are united; therefore, by the permission of the united Sangha. "Having made it known three times" means without reciting a formal motion with "May the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me," and so on, but by making it known three times with "It is agreeable to the Sangha. A second time... and a third time, it is agreeable to the Sangha," the act to be done is called the 'declaration act' - this is the connection. "In the manner stated" means in the manner stated for the declaration act. By this, these two are extended: "having purified the Sangha within the boundary, having brought the consent of those worthy of consent." The same method applies to the others as well. There, referring to the question, "Among those four acts, which act should be done by way of another act?" he says, "There," and so on. "Let it be so. If it is so, then all acts without distinction should be done by way of another act," he says, "But the ñatti-second act," and so on. There, the word 'pana' (but) indicates a special meaning, ñatti-du... The meaning is that there is a distinction in the triple act. What follows is easily understood. "It is rejected in the commentary" is the connection by ellipsis. If so, thinking of the objection that "if there are omissions of letters, etc., the act might be flawed," he said, "but if..." Therein, "omission of letters" means the dropping of the letters 'su', 'ṇā', 'tu', etc., in "suṇātu me" (listen to me), etc. "Omission of words" means the dropping of case-ending words like "suṇātu" (may he listen), etc. "Ill-pronounced word" will be explained later. Now, showing the purpose of repeating the utterance, he said, "This becomes a strengthening act in an unshakeable act, and it becomes an act in a shakeable act." Therein, "this" means this act uttered repeatedly. "In an unshakeable act" means in a previously performed act that is unshakeable and fit to stand. "It becomes a strengthening act" means it becomes a very firm act, like binding a load that is to be bound with one rope, with second and third ropes. "In a shakeable act" means in a previously performed act that is shakeable and unfit to stand due to omission of letters, etc. "It becomes an act" means that when it is uttered repeatedly, because those omissions of letters, etc., have been corrected, it becomes a purified act and stands. "In an unshakeable act, in a shakeable act" is a locative case in the sense of a characteristic of being and non-being. When the previously performed act is unshakeable, this repeatedly uttered act becomes a strengthening act. When the previously performed act is shakeable, this repeatedly uttered act becomes an unshakeable, fit-to-stand, purified act. Relying on this passage, the excellent teachers perform the ordination act for even one person multiple times. Why do those bhikkhus receive training from their own teachers and preceptors who are modest, amiable, learned, and desirous of training? They do not reject the training received from their own teachers and preceptors and receive other training; rather, they make it double or triple with that very training. Even so, they would do it if they did not believe in the former training, not if they did believe? No, not disbelieving. , those bhikkhus, even though faithful, do not see the danger in repeating it again and again, neither from reasoning nor from tradition; they see only the benefit, and so they do it. How do they see the benefit from reasoning? Just as in the world, they do not see danger in repeatedly anointing an already anointed king, but rather see benefit in the king's attainment of royal power and great influence through the anointing, and just as in the Dispensation, when making an anointing ceremony for a completed stupa or image, with the Buddha's words like "many births in transmigration," they do not see danger in repeating it again and again, but rather see the benefit of greater power and great influence, and so they do it again and again; in the same way, they do not see danger in reciting the kammavācā again for a bhikkhu whose ordination ceremony has already been performed. They see the benefit that if in the previously performed ceremony, even one of the five factors, such as the object, was incomplete, there was a possibility of the ceremony being invalid, but now, with the performed ceremony, when the factors are complete, there is a possibility of the ceremony succeeding; and even if the ceremony had already succeeded before, there is a possibility of it becoming stronger and more stable. So, seeing this benefit, they do it. How do they see the benefit from tradition? Because of the saying in the Pāli texts of the commentaries, the Vinaya compendiums, and the Pāli texts of the mentioned entourage, that for the purification of a badly pronounced word, it should be said again and again, by way of indicating that it should be repeated. And the purification of the faults of the remaining ñatti and anussāvana, and the faults of the object's imperfection, the boundary's imperfection, and the assembly's imperfection, is shown. And for that very reason, this latter text was also stated by the teacher. Its meaning is as stated below. Thus, it should be understood that even if there was a possibility of the previously performed ceremony being invalid, they see the benefit, from tradition, that it now succeeds through the performed ceremony. Some teachers, however, say that this text, "it is proper to say it again and again," refers to saying it for the purification of a badly pronounced word at the very time of performing the first ceremony, not after a long time. But this statement is found neither in the commentaries nor in the sub-commentaries and other decisive texts. it is rejected, it is merely their opinion, therefore it should not be accepted. Moreover, at that moment, even by repeating the words again and again, speaking later on is greatly fruitful, greatly beneficial. For at that time, by repeating the recitation again and again, one could rectify the faults of the motion and the faults of the announcement by reciting properly in the final recitation, but not the faults of the object, the faults of the boundary, or the faults of the assembly. For at that moment, it is the same object, it is the same boundary, it is the same assembly, therefore those cannot be rectified by repeating the words again and again. However, by doing it later on, even if there was a fault of the object due to not having completed twenty years previously, now, due to having completed twenty years, there is accomplishment of the object. Even if there was a fault of the boundary due to boundary confusion previously, now, due to being properly purified to avoid that, there is accomplishment of the boundary. Even if there was a fault of the assembly due to factional acts previously, now, due to being properly purified to avoid that, there is accomplishment of the assembly. Thus, having rectified the five faults and having achieved the five accomplishments, since it can be done, it should be understood that speaking later on is greatly fruitful, greatly beneficial, even more than repeating the recitation at the first time. If so, would he be young in the higher ordination training? He would not be. Why? Because he is established in that [previous training] without having renounced the old training. Even so, if he remains by the accomplishment of the previously done act, then, being established in that, he would not be young. If he remains in the state of higher ordination only by the act done now, due to the non-accomplishment of the previous act, why would he not be young? If so, he would be young. Being thus young, would he be greatly blameworthy by counting the years of the previous training and accepting greetings and so forth as an elder? If one truly knows that he was not established in the previous training and that he received higher ordination only in the later training, and acts thus, he is blameworthy. However, if he does not know this, and thinks "I am established in the previous training," and acts thus, should be known as faultless. How is it understood? If it is asked, "In the phrase 'no offense for one under twenty years old who is fully conscious,' although there is no offense for the ordainer, the person himself is not ordained. But if, after ten years, he ordains another, and the assembly is complete without counting him, he is well-ordained. And as long as he does not know, there is no obstacle for him to heaven, nor to liberation. But having known, he should be re-ordained." This is understood from its mention in the Samantapāsādikā. Thus, because the matter was flawed, and the act was corrupted, it is stated in the commentary that a person who was not ordained becomes ordained by being re-ordained at the proper time to be an upajjhāya. In this way, because of flaws in the boundary, flaws in the residence, flaws in the declaration, and flaws in the announcement,