English
that should not be accepted." This is well-said, because it is stated in the manner of "If, bhikkhus, an act is to be done by five, a bhikkhu who is the fifth should perform the act; it should not be done as a non-act." This means the act is invalid only when eunuchs are part of the quorum, not in all cases. Otherwise, the Pāli text should have been "One should perform the act with a eunuch as preceptor; it should not be done as a non-act." Just as when ordaining someone without complete bowl and robes, if the formal act is performed by proclaiming the non-existent fact "with complete bowl and robes," the ordination is valid even though that was non-existent; similarly, even if the act is performed by proclaiming a non-existent fact, such as a eunuch preceptor, "This Buddharakkhita is an ordination candidate of the Venerable Dhammarakkhita," or a non-existent fact, the quorum members... This ordination is indeed valid. Because there is no statement like, "Monks, one should not ordain with a eunuch preceptor; whoever ordains, there is an offense of wrong-doing, and that person is not ordained," this meaning is indeed established. For the Buddhas do not speak what should not be spoken. Therefore it is said, "But if a monk, knowing, ordains one under twenty years of age... that person is not ordained" (Pāci. 403). Similarly, the statement that an ordination performed by a competent and capable monk who has informed the Sangha by announcing it to those who are thieves, or living together with them, or other such teachers, is not valid because they are not monks, should not be accepted. Moreover, the statement that "these four acts fail in five ways" (Pari. 482) and similar ways of explaining the success and failure of acts, should not be accepted because it is not stated that "acts fail in seven ways: due to the object, or the announcement, or the proclamation, or the boundary, or the assembly, or the preceptor, or the teacher." If it is said that "or the assembly" includes the teachers and preceptors, no, because in the analysis of "acts fail due to the assembly in twelve ways," they are not mentioned by name. This meaning can only be known from the Pāli texts themselves as stated in various places, therefore, it is said that this is a search for justification, by showing the method in brief. Here this should be considered: Did those monks, when ordaining without a preceptor, declare a non-existent matter in the aforementioned way, or did they, for fear of falsehood, not announce those very words? And what here? If they did not announce it due to the absence of a preceptor, there would be the problem of failure as stated, "it does not refer to the person." But if they did announce it, falsehood would arise for them. It is said: They did announce it, for fear of the aforementioned problem of failure, and because it is stated in the commentary that "the act does not become invalid." No, because falsehood is impossible, even with falsehood, the act is possible. and also. For it is not possible to achieve success in the act by means of falsehood. Therefore, for the phrase "they ordain without an instructor," a meaning free from both faults must be sought. And this is the reasoning here: Just as previously, even when instructors for renunciation and ordination were present, because they were not taken in the manner of taking an instructor, it was said, "At that time, the bhikkhus were without an instructor," and so on; similarly here, too, even though the instructor is present, because he was not taken, it is said, "they ordain without an instructor." However, the reciter of the kammavācā should recite the kammavācā after proclaiming the instructor, with the perception that "the instructor has been taken by him." Or, for some reason, having taken the consent of an instructor who does not give physical presence, he recites the kammavācā. Or, the instructor, having given instruction to the ordination candidate, and afterwards, when that person is ordained, whether questioned or not questioned in such a case, the novice acknowledges even before the giving of instruction, or one who has renounced the training, or one who has committed the last offense, acknowledges. Or, like the bearers of consent, the instructor is in another boundary. It is said that the kammavācā is valid, because it is said, "I allow, bhikkhus, ordination in border regions by a group of five, with a Vinaya-holder as the fifth." Some say, "The instructor, who is a Vinaya-holder, must be present," as stated in the ancient commentaries. And that reading is not authoritative, because that statement is absent in the central regions. If it is asked, "Does the kammavācā become valid even if the instructor is not present?" No. Why? For the success of the act, the reading "he refers to the person" is our authority. For there, the person designated as instructor, who is not present, is not fit for reference. Therefore, there, reference to the person should be understood like reference to the Sangha. They ordain with the Sangha, with the group, with the instructor, because they are persons in essence. They ordain with an instructor who is a eunuch, etc., the ordination... Because it was unknown at the time of ordination, say the ancients. They ordained one without bowl and robe, because the preceptor of the formal act, with the perception "he has a complete bowl and robe," without considering the actual possession of the items, or by merely uttering the words, recited the formal act "he has a complete bowl and robe." Just as nowadays, even one whose parents are dead or separated, when asked "Are you permitted by your parents?" says "Yes, venerable sir." Why elaborate? This is the essence here – because the characteristic "at that time four acts fail in five ways" was not yet laid down, they ordained one without a preceptor, etc. Because forbidden persons were not mentioned, they ordained one with a eunuch preceptor, etc. Because the thirteen obstacles were not asked about, they ordained one without bowl and robe. The non-mention of "he has a complete bowl and robe" in the formal act first allowed, "Monks, I allow ordination by a ñatti-catuttha kamma" (Mahāva. 69), should be understood as the proof here. For that statement was allowed gradually. Let this be so in every way. But how can this be possible: "they ordain a mute, they ordain a deaf person," since from the very beginning it was allowed by "Monks, I allow going forth by these three refuges," etc.? It is said: Taking the wrong meaning of the statement "And thus, monks, one should ordain. He should be told, 'Say thus...' ... 'For the third time, I go for refuge to the Sangha,'" they ordained a mute. Having instructed that candidate for ordination, "Say thus," the preceptor himself should say, "For the third time, I go for refuge to the Sangha." Whether that candidate, thus instructed, repeats the preceptor's words or not, there, the Blessed One says: "He makes known by body, he makes known by speech, he makes known by body and speech. The preceptor is taken. Consent is given, purity is given, given is He says "pavāraṇā." Or by inference, by body, by that one seeking ordination, it is made known as 'going for refuge.' In the world too, making known by body, he speaks thus, it is said. Taking that method, it should be understood that they ordain a mute person. In the ancient commentaries, having asked "How do they ordain a mute person?", it is said, "Because of the possibility of his bodily assent, they ordained him by giving a blow with the body and making it known by hand gestures." Why elaborate? This is the essence here: Just as previously, when the section on ordination was current, having cut off the term 'ordination,' the term was made in terms of 'full ordination' by the method of "Monks, a eunuch, not fully ordained, should not be fully ordained" and so on (Mahāva. 109). Although it was not done in the section on 'living with a thief' due to impossibility, only ordination was done there. But everywhere, it is intended by the term 'full ordination.' Due to its power, when ordination is prohibited, full ordination is prohibited, having made it so. Similarly here, when the section on full ordination is current, having cut off the term 'full ordination,' the term 'ordination' is made with reference to full ordination itself, so it should be understood. Indeed, it should not be done so. In the section on the mute, due to impossibility, it seems that the term 'full ordination' should be used from the beginning. Nevertheless, due to that very section on the mute, the term 'ordination' is used from the beginning to prevent a wrong understanding. How? For by the saying "Monks, a mute person, not having reached the declaration, if the Sangha declares him, he is declared" (Mahāva. 396), it is established that a mute person is fully ordained. A wrong understanding would be that he is merely fully ordained, but not ordained, because ordination is impossible for him. Avoiding that, whoever is fully ordained is also ordained. But the Blessed One causes this correct understanding to arise: that among those ordained, some are fully ordained, and some are not fully ordained. This should be understood. Moreover, to show the state of being well-ordained for those ordained ones, such as those with severed hands, etc. , and here the mention of ordination is made to prevent the doubt of its non-existence. How? By the prohibition, "Monks, one whose hand is cut off should not be ordained," and so on (Mahāvagga 119), and by the absence of a statement like "those ordained are well-ordained," a doubt about their ordination might arise, and such a doubt would be established as it might arise. In the Khandhaka, with reference to higher ordination, the Blessed One prevents it by saying, "Monks, one whose hand is cut off is not entitled to restoration; if the Sangha restores him, he is restored" (Mahāvagga 396).