English
because it is declared in the commentary that Sangha acts should not be performed with the shameless, saying, “the Uposatha does not stand, the invitation does not stand, Sangha acts do not proceed.” Likewise, in the discourse on the practice of a bhikkhu whose gender has changed, who goes to a bhikkhuni's dwelling, it is said: “If there are agreeable and helpful scrupulous bhikkhunis, one should not make them angry and go elsewhere. If one goes, one is not freed from offenses like being left behind from a group, or staying overnight across a river or in another village… …If there are shameless bhikkhunis, but they are helpful, one is allowed to abandon them and go elsewhere.” Thus, since it is permitted to commit serious offenses like going across a river, in order to avoid the offense of cohabitation with the shameless in matters like taking a second companion, it is understood from this too that the offense of cohabitation with the shameless is a more serious cause for the decline of the True Dhamma. For teachers do not permit the transgression of a serious offense to avoid a light offense or a non-offense. Similarly, in the commentary on the term ‘non-cohabitation,’ it is declared: “It is called ‘equal training’ because all scrupulous individuals should train together. Here, since all scrupulous individuals dwell together in these acts and so on, and not a single one is seen outside of them, therefore, taking all of them together, this is called ‘cohabitation’.” Thus, it is declared that cohabitation in one act and so on is proper only with the scrupulous. 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 not reinstated from a Parajika offense, whose acts performed by making them part of the quorum are invalid, are considered as those with whom there is no cohabitation. The shameless, however, There are also those who are not inherently unregenerate. If they, as quorum-completers, perform the act, merely by doing it, for those acting with improper conduct, they incur an offense, as if they had fallen into a similar offense with each other. Because shamelessness and shame in ordinary people are bound to a mind-moment, not for all time. Indeed, when a mind of intentional transgression arises, the shameless become ashamed with the thought: "I will not do such a thing again." And among them, those who, even when advised by the scrupulous, do not refrain, and do it again and again, they alone are not to be associated with, not the others, because they have entered the state of shame. Therefore, even if the shameless are not counted among the unassociable, it is not unknown that the performance of Uposatha and so forth is purified for the purpose of avoiding them. Thus, it is declared that it is improper for an impure assembly to perform the Uposatha, as in "Venerables, declare your purity, I will recite the Pātimokkha" (Mahāva. 134). And the method of performing Uposatha, establishing even the shameless in the state of shame, is stated as: "If anyone has an offense, let him reveal it... it is wholesome" (Mahāva. 134). And the purity of those performing Uposatha is declared, as in "Are you pure here?... You are pure here, Venerables" (Pārā. 233) in the purity-Uposatha, and "I am pure, Venerable Sir, consider me pure" (Mahāva. 168). And the method of suspending Uposatha and Pavāraṇā for those who do not refrain merely by words is stated. The prohibition of giving or receiving reliance due to the impropriety of association with those who in no way enter the state of shame, and the method of causing the shameless one to become unassociable by performing acts of rebuke and suspension by the compliant assembly, are also stated. Therefore, according to the Suttanta methods and commentary statements mentioned above, association in common acts and so forth is not proper with any shameless persons, whether they are naturally unregenerate or not. For those who do so, there is an offense, and it should be concluded here that all training rules are laid down precisely for the restraint of ill-behaved individuals. They Even though they were dealt with at the Second Council, the shameless Vajjiputtakas were separated from the Saṅgha by Yasa Thera and others with great effort. For there was no offense of expulsion or non-communion in them, as it is said that the ten points they put forth were matters of light offenses. "In his presence" (refers to) in the presence of Mahārakkhita Thera. Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinaya Saṅgaha, The Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of Accepting Silver and the Like, by name, The Twelfth Chapter. 13. Discourse on the Determination of the Characteristic of Giving and So Forth. 69. Having thus explained the determination of accepting silver and the like, now, in order to explain the determination of the dedication of gains from giving, trust, and acceptance, he begins with "by giving, trust, and acceptance." Therein, "dāna" (giving) is that which is given; it is a mind-moment of wholesome action in the sense-sphere, predominantly non-greed, arisen with a robe or other object as its support. "Sāsa" is harming; the root is "sasu" meaning "to harm"; the meaning is "harming." "Vissāsa" is an acceptance from which harming has departed. "Gāha" is acceptance. Acceptance by trust is "vissāsaggāha." Here, in the specification, it is an instrumental case, meaning acceptance by way of trust, not by way of a thieving mind. "Lābha" is that which is obtained, a robe or other object, of that gain. "Pariṇāmana" is that which is dedicated; it is the dedication of one's own (property) that has been transformed for the benefit of others, or the dedication of another's (property), meaning "causing to be given." The connection is that, in this statement "dedication of gain by giving, trust, and acceptance," the determination of the meaning of the word "dāna" (giving), which is included in the enumeration, should first be understood thus. The connection is the giving of one's own robe or other requisites. "To whosoever" is an indication of the recipient; meaning to any recipient whatsoever. As for what is called "dāna" (giving), he asks what its characteristic is, and says, "Here is the characteristic of giving." The connection is that when one says, "This I give to you," this is the characteristic of giving, complete with three factors. Therein, "this" is an indication of the object to be given. "To you" is an indication of the recipient. "I give" is an indication of the giver. And "I give" and so forth... are synonymous terms. For it is said: “Like the giver and receiver of a gift,” and “When three are present, it is wholesome.” And “Because giving is characterized by the relinquishing of an object” — this is merely a statement of a partial characteristic. Does that which is given in this way become given in person, or also in absence? He says: “It is given both in person and in absence.” In phrases like “Take it for yourself,” this is the meaning: When “Take it” is said, it is like saying “I give.” Therefore, being primarily given, it is well-given. And when “I take” is said, there is primarily a taking. Therefore, it is well-taken. But “for you” and “for me” are words that create a connection with the receiver. Phrases like “Make it yours” are, however, indirect ways of giving and taking. Therefore, it is ill-given and ill-taken. In the world, even those unwilling to relinquish, or wishing to take back, “Let it be yours” they hand over, like the mother of King Kusara handing over the kingdom. Therefore, he says: “Neither does the giver know how to give, nor the other how to take.” But if, in such cases, the giver, being unskilled in convention, uses an indirect term, but the receiver, being skilled in convention, takes it with a direct term, therefore it is said to be “well-taken.” But if, in cases like “If one,” the giver gives with a direct term, and the receiver rejects with a direct term, therefore, even the robe previously determined by the giver loses its determination as a gift. Because it is relinquished, it is not his own, and it is not an extra robe. Therefore, even after ten days have passed, there is no offense. And for the receiver, because it was rejected, it is not his own. Therefore, it is not an extra robe, so even after ten days have passed, there is no offense. In “Whoever wishes,” because this robe is ownerless, and stands in the place of a rag-robe, whoever wishes, should take it as a rag-robe and use it. But the one using it, the giver, previously Even that which was determined, by way of giving, because the determination has been abandoned, should be used again after re-determining it by the other, as it was not determined by them before—so it should be understood. But in phrases like "Give to so-and-so," because it is expressed by the fifth case ending used in the sense of a command, it becomes the property of the recipient only at the time it is given to the recipient by the one commanded, not before that. Before, it is the property of the one who commanded. Therefore, it is said, "It belongs to the one who sends." But in "I give to so-and-so," because it is expressed by the present tense verb used in the present sense, from that point onwards, it becomes the property of the recipient. Therefore, it is said, "It belongs to the one to whom it is sent." By this, it shows that the determinations taught by the Blessed One in the story of sending robes to Venerable Sāriputta by the Venerable Elder Revata should be known without confusion by the characteristics mentioned here. There, "twice-determined" and "well-determined" are not said with reference to the determination of the triple robe. But rather, they are said with reference to taking a robe by trust while the owner is alive,