English
"even he who partakes with a shameless one who is his charge, he too should be prevented" is seen. Nevertheless, in meaning, it fits both ways. Even one's own co-residents and the like, due to their shamelessness, should be prevented. Others who partake in common with shameless co-residents and the like should also be prevented. If he does not desist, "this one too is shameless." Here, if that person, thus prevented, desists and refrains from partaking with the shameless, this is wholesome. If he does not desist, this one too is shameless. The meaning is that he who partakes with him, he too is shameless. Therefore it was said: "Thus one shameless person makes a hundred shameless." "Unrighteous" means arisen from improper seeking and so on. "Righteous" means arisen from alms-round and so on. "Gives only to the Saṅgha" means not taking the meal, but giving only the ticket received by oneself. In the Vimativinodanī, however, "partaking with a modest one" means mixing in terms of Dhamma-offerings. "With a shameless one" - here too, the same method applies. "From the very beginning, there is no such thing as a shameless one" - by this, it shows that no suspicion should be made concerning those seen and perceived, but only when there is a reason seen or heard should it be done. One's own charges are co-residents and the like. "If he does not desist" means he does not desist from partaking of Dhamma-offerings by way of improper conduct. "There is no offense" - this was said with reference to the requisites arisen righteously for the shameless, and also to righteous actions. For even for them, when they partake of requisites arisen from defiling families and so on, and perform factional acts and so on, there is indeed an offense. Since it was said, "Righteous and unrighteous partaking should be understood by way of requisites," it should be known that the partaking with the modest and partaking with the shameless mentioned below were indeed spoken of by way of requisites and by way of single actions and so on. Therefore, in the Commentary on the training rule concerning malicious accusation (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.385-386), two shameless ones, being in the state of accuser and accused, even Dhamma-offerings... having been told, ‘Live having one enjoyment and one use,’ there is no opposition among them in the non-use of the Dhamma and material things. For, the use of both by a modest person together with an immodest person is not proper, it is said. But if a modest person supports an immodest person… …(rest omitted)… causes him to disappear, here, it is not proper to do so merely out of a desire to support. But it should be understood that it is proper for the sake of the Dhamma, for the sake of the Teaching, and for the sake of the listeners. Because it was said in the former way, “He should be made to incur an offense,” they say that this is indeed an offense. The use of the Dhamma by way of recitation and acceptance, etc., is the use of the Dhamma. Even in the absence of an offense for one who accepts for the sake of the Dhamma, the Elder, referring to his immodest nature, said, “Indeed, this one is evil,” and so on. “In his presence” means in the presence of the Elder Mahārakkhita. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.585), this point is extensively determined. How? “Use of the Dhamma” should be understood as the co-residence mentioned by “one act, one recitation,” and so on, and all non-material use, such as the acceptance of dependence. Because it was said, “He should not be made to incur an offense,” it should be understood that there is an offense for a modest person who supports an immodest person. “The other also” means the modest person also. It shows that a modest person, who supports that immodest person —who supports himself— either due to a love for material things or due to a householder-based affection, because of obtaining praise and so on from this immodest person, causes the Teaching to disappear. Thus, an immodest person, supported by householders and so on, gains strength, overpowers the scrupulous ones, and before long makes the Teaching un-Dhamma and un-Vinaya. “The use of the Dhamma is also proper there” shows that the use of the Dhamma is more serious than the use of material things. Therefore, it should be done with extreme separation from the immodest. Because it was said, “It is proper to accept for the sake of the Dhamma,” when the Teaching is declining due to the prevalence of the immodest, and when the modest are insufficient, some, taking an immodest person who is a natural member and a quorum-filler, by way of ordination and so on, and some, By collecting the Dhamma-material enjoyment of the victors, and by suppressing the group of remaining shameless ones, it is indeed proper to uphold the Dispensation. But some say, "Because it is said, 'the text stands at the apex,' only the mastery of texts is Dhamma-enjoyment, not single acts and so on. Therefore, it is proper to perform Uposatha and other acts with the shameless, there is no offense." That is not suitable, because among the many Dhamma-enjoyments like single acts and so on, to show the Dhamma-enjoyment that depends on the state of being performed even with the shameless, here only the text has been cited as an example. Indeed, it cannot be said that a procedure like a single act is not Dhamma-enjoyment, because it is not material, and because there is nothing that is not included in Dhamma-materials. Therefore, in the Aṭṭhasālinī, in the discourse on Dhamma-courtesy (Dhs.A. 1351), "A meditation subject should be taught, the Dhamma should be recited... and so on... Abbhāna, Vuṭṭhāna, Mānatta, Parivāsa should be given, one worthy of ordination should be ordained, one worthy of full ordination should be fully ordained... and so on... this is called Dhamma-courtesy," thus even Saṅgha-acts and so on are shown as parts of Dhamma. But among those parts of Dhamma, that which, by way of being a quorum-completer and so on, is done, relying on the shameless, whether Uposatha and so on, or learning Dhamma from them, or taking dependence and so on, that is called both Dhamma and enjoyment, thus Dhamma-enjoyment. This should not be done without such a condition. For one who does it, it is enjoyment of the shameless and also a dukkaṭa offense. But that which is done without relying on a hundred shameless ones, whether an act of suppression like Tajjanīya and so on, or an act of assistance like Parivāsa and so on, or giving instruction, questioning, and so on, that is only Dhamma, not enjoyment. This is proper to do for suitable ones. There is no offense, as in giving material things. Even the giving of dependence, and the giving of the thirteen agreements and so on, because they are also causes for the enjoyment of accepting practices and so on, are not proper. But if a greatly shameless one makes the Teacher's Dispensation against Dhamma and against Vinaya, for his co-residents and so on, acts of assistance like full ordination and so on... nor is it proper to make any such as admonition, questioning, or giving, it is only an offense, the act of punishment must be done. Therefore, the support of the shameless is also prohibited. Indeed, by avoiding the enjoyment of the Dhamma-flesh, the punishment of ill-behaved individuals is intended, and this is for the sake of the comfortable living of the virtuous, the establishment of the True Dhamma, and the support of the Vinaya, as this is the purpose of the promulgation of the training rules. Therefore, whatever is for the support of the ill-behaved, for the discomfort of the virtuous, for the decline of the True Dhamma, and so on, all of that, whether it be enjoyment or non-enjoyment, is not proper to do. Those who do so cause the Dispensation to disappear, and they commit an offense. Among the enjoyments of Dhamma-flesh here, it is only the enjoyment of Dhamma, such as a single act, by the shameless that leads to the discomfort of the virtuous and the decline of the True Dhamma, and so on, not so much the enjoyment of material things. For it is not merely by the enjoyment of requisites by the shameless that discomfort, etc., arises for the virtuous, but it does arise by the enjoyment of Dhamma as stated. And by avoiding that, comfortable living, etc., arises. Thus, shameless individuals who have transgressed the training rules, when they enter into Uposatha, etc., are to be told by the bhikkhus, "You commit transgressions through the door of body and the door of speech," and so on. And if they do not abide by the Vinaya, they should be severely punished by means of expulsion from the Sangha, etc. If they are not treated thus, and one lives together with them, one also becomes shameless, as it is said, "Even one shameless person makes a hundred shameless." For if they were not thus punished, they would increase strife in the Sangha, and by obstructing communal acts like Uposatha, etc., causing discomfort to the virtuous, they would gradually increase their following, like Devadatta and the Vajjiputtakas, and by demonstrating their wrong conduct as Dhamma and Vinaya, they would even cause a schism in the Sangha, and before long, they would cause the Dispensation to disappear. But when they are punished by means of expulsion from the Sangha, etc., all this trouble does not arise. For it is said, "Depending on immoral individuals, the Uposatha does not stand, the invitation does not stand, Sangha acts do not proceed, harmony does not exist… …but when the immoral are suppressed, all this trouble does not occur, then the scrupulous bhikkhus dwell at ease.” Therefore, the enjoyment of the one-act and other Dhamma, even more than the enjoyment of material things, should be done with the expulsion of the shameless, and it should be understood that committing an offense is a cause for the decline of the True Dhamma. Moreover, this is also established