English
which corrupted the act, even a person who was previously not ordained can be re-ordained later, when he has reached maturity, by purifying the five defects of failure and performing the ordination kammavācā again. That person, though not ordained at the time of the former act, is to be understood as ordained at the time of the later act. Some bhikkhus, however, renounced their old training and took up only new training. Those bhikkhus, by virtue of their new training, are indeed young. Doing this would be proper if done out of respect for the Dhamma, wishing to attend upon a person, seeing a bhikkhu who is more excellent in qualities and newer than oneself, desiring to make that person older than oneself, and desiring to make oneself younger. But if one does this wishing to make one's training complete, training is complete when it is endowed with five factors; purity of sīla is the cause. Therefore, if the former training were not established, there is no need for an act of renunciation; it would have fallen away by itself. If the former training is established, one would renounce only wishing to stray, not wishing to be a bhikkhu. Such a person would only have the sīla of fourfold purity. should be purified. Therefore, renouncing the old training seems improper. Thus, repeatedly doing it, having renounced the old training and taken up the new training, seems more proper. Why? When, having renounced the old training and taken up the new training, the former act is not accomplished, but the latter act is accomplished, even though there is no former training to be renounced, still, because the new training is accomplished, there is no fault. And even having attained a youthful state, it is proper. If both the former act and the latter act are accomplished, then renouncing the old training is meaningless. Even if one stands in the new training, having attained a youthful state, it is improper. But if only the former act is accomplished, not the latter act, then the old training, which stood before, has fallen by renunciation. And the new training is not accomplished due to its connection with one of the five failures of the latter act. Therefore, having fallen from the old training and not having obtained the new training, being deprived of both, it is improper. However, if one takes up the new training without renouncing the old training, even if the former act is accomplished and the latter act is not accomplished, one is still established in the old training. Even if the former is not accomplished and the latter is accomplished, one stands in the new training. Even if both the former and latter acts are accomplished with the five factors, that bhikkhu is established in the old training, which has become firmer and stronger. Therefore, it should be understood that repeatedly taking up the new training without renouncing the old training is more proper than taking up the new training after renouncing the old training. But other teachers, not paying attention to the view of those teachers who do this repeatedly, speak various kinds of undesirable words. How? Some elders say this: "What? Do these bhikkhus, by doing this, intend to re-establish a bhikkhu who has incurred a pārājika offense in the training?" they know. Those elders, seeing the bhikkhus repeatedly reciting the formal act, thought, "These bhikkhus do this for this reason," and said thus. But some elders [thought], "Why do these bhikkhus do it repeatedly? Just as a thunderbolt, falling once, brings beings to the end of life, even so, the formal act, which is the Buddha's command, being recited once, accomplishes the act, not many times." They too, thinking, "They recite it repeatedly for the accomplishment of the act," said thus. But many bhikkhus, seeing them doing it repeatedly, said thus: "These bhikkhus do this, not trusting the training given by their teachers and preceptors. These recluses are offenders against the virtues of their teachers and preceptors." They, thinking, "They do it repeatedly, not trusting the former training," said thus. Other elders, however, [said], "It should be recited repeatedly only at the time of the first recitation of the upasampadā formal act, not afterwards." The reason for that is stated below. Others said thus: "It is stated in the Aṭṭhakathā that it should be recited repeatedly only in a ñattidutiya formal act, not in a ñatticatuttha act. But these bhikkhus do it repeatedly with the upasampadā formal act, which is a ñatticatuttha act. This does not accord with the Aṭṭhakathā." They said that, taking it as of explicit meaning. However, from the interpretative meaning, it shows that it should be done repeatedly in all four acts in this manner. Indeed, it speaks specifically of the confusion of acts in the ñattidutiya act, but the repeated recitation should be understood as applicable to all. For this reason, it is stated in the Aṭṭhakathā that a person who was not ordained before should be ordained afterwards, even in the context of a ñatticatuttha formal act. Here, by "etc." in "in matters to be done by questioning, etc.," are included matters to be done by declaration, etc. There, what is to be done by questioning, if one does it without questioning, it should be done by questioning, admonishing, and reminding; without questioning, without admonishing, without reminding... Or he does. Having imposed a declaration (on him), saying "he does without a declaration what should be done with a declaration," he does by force for one who, without a declaration, does not make a declaration, for one lamenting, what should be done according to the given declaration. Worthy of the Discipline of Mindfulness: for one whose defilements are destroyed, like the Elder Dabbamallaputta. Worthy of the Discipline for the Undeluded: for an insane person, like the monk Gagga. Worthy of the Act of Further Punishment: for one with abundant evil, like the monk Upavāḷa. Worthy of the Act of Rebuke: for one who causes quarrels, like the monk Paṇḍakalohitaka. Worthy of the Act of Banishment: for one who frequently commits offenses, like the monk Seyyasaka. Worthy of the Act of Expulsion: for one who corrupts families, like the monks Assaji and Punabbasu. Worthy of the Act of Reconciliation: for one who abuses lay followers by birth and so forth, like the monk Sudhamma. Worthy of the Act of Suspension: for one not seeing an offense, for one not confessing an offense, like the monk Channa; for one not giving up wrong view, like the monk Ariṭṭha. Worthy of Probation: for one who has committed a concealed Saṅghādisesa offense. Worthy of Reinstatement to the Beginning: for one who has committed an intermediate offense. Worthy of Penance: for one who has committed an unconcealed Saṅghādisesa offense. Worthy of Rehabilitation: a monk who has completed penance. "He gives ordination" means he performs the act of ordination. "He performs Uposatha on a non-Uposatha day" means he performs Uposatha on a non-Uposatha day. An Uposatha day is the day of unity for a divided Saṅgha in the remaining eleven months, excluding the month of Kattika, and the aforementioned fourteenth and fifteenth days. One who performs Uposatha on another day, excluding these three kinds of Uposatha days, is said to perform Uposatha on a non-Uposatha day. Where indeed, quarreling over trifling reasons concerning bowls, robes, etc., they postpone Uposatha or Pavāraṇā, there, when that dispute is settled, they are not allowed to perform an intermediate Uposatha of unity, saying "we have become united." By those who do so, Uposatha is said to have been performed on a non-Uposatha day. He performs Pavāraṇā on a non-Pavāraṇā day, this is called "performing Pavāraṇā on a non-Pavāraṇā day." A Pavāraṇā day is the day of unity for a divided Saṅgha in the month of Kattika, and a day postponed and set aside, and two full moon days. Excluding these four kinds of Pavāraṇā days, one who performs Pavāraṇā on another day is said to perform Pavāraṇā on a non-Pavāraṇā day. Even here, they are unable to perform the Pavāraṇā of unity for the settlement of a minor dispute. If they do so, it is a Pavāraṇā performed on a non-Pavāraṇā day. This is the commentary text (Pari. Aṭṭha. 483). For an insane monk, the declaration of insanity, if requested by the insane monk, may be given even without his presence. Even if he is present, it does not become invalid, as there is no strict rule. However, to show that there is no fault when done without his presence, it is said, "What is done without presence is well done." But ordination by a messenger cannot be done in presence, due to the possibility of variations in the formal declaration. Actions like overturning the bowl may be done even when the monk is merely removed from arm's reach. Regarding "presence of the Saṅgha" and so on: as many monks as are eligible for the act are present; the consent of those eligible for consent is taken; those present do not object. This is the presence of the Saṅgha. By which Dhamma, by which Vinaya, by which teaching of the Master the Saṅgha performs the act, this is the presence of Dhamma and the presence of Vinaya. Therein, Dhamma means the actual matter. Vinaya means both admonition and reminding. The teaching of the Master means both the completeness of the motion and the completeness of the announcement. The presence of the person for whom the Saṅgha performs the act is the presence of the individual. Because Kattika month is the month for Pavāraṇā, it is said, "excluding Kattika month." And the day postponed and set aside is said with reference to the fourteenth or fifteenth day of the dark half. "Two full moon days" is said with reference to those who entered the Rains Retreat early and late. This comes from the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Parivāra 3.483). For Uposatha and Pavāraṇā that have been set aside, when unity is achieved in the month of Kattika, the Pavāraṇā of unity...