English
By the same token, it is shown that all these ordained persons are indeed well-ordained. Otherwise, the undesirable consequence would arise that all these are higher ordained, not ordained. How? If the text were established as "Monks, one whose hand is cut off should not be ordained; if ordained, he should be expelled," or "Monks, one whose hand is cut off should not be ordained; whoever ordains him incurs a dukkata offense, and he is not ordained" (Mahāvagga 119), then because it is said "he is restored" in the Campeyya Khandhaka, the undesirable consequence would merely be that "these persons with cut hands, etc., are higher ordained, not ordained," or "even if higher ordained, if they are ordained, they should be expelled." This is the intention. Here, this should be considered: "How does this undesirable consequence not arise, that due to the absence of the statement 'and he is not ordained,' and due to the possibility of a mute person's ordination being valid, ordination is also valid by one-sided purity?" It does not arise by rightly understanding that higher ordination is intended here by the mention of ordination. Otherwise, if the meaning is taken literally, another undesirable consequence arises, namely, the absence of the dukkata offense as prescribed. How? The dukkata offense mentioned in "Monks, a mute person should not be ordained; whoever ordains him incurs a dukkata offense" occurs at the completion of ordination, not during its incomplete state. For it is indeed the dukkata of the preliminary action that first arises. Therefore, due to the very absence of the completion of a mute person's ordination, there is no scope for this dukkata. and that might not always be possible. But if the meaning is taken as ordination, it is possible, as it is produced by action. Therefore, in the Pāli, it is not laid down as a dukkaṭa offense: “Monks, a paṇḍaka should not be ordained. Whoever ordains one, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.” Since it is not laid down, only a dukkaṭa for the preliminary action is possible here, not another. By this much, it is established that by the desire for going forth, ordination is intended there, not going forth itself. Here it is asked: How is it known that novice ordination does not arise from bodily action? It is said: It comes from the teaching “he makes known by body,” and so on. From the saying “Let him announce even by gotra,” it is established that it is valid by whatever term one uses. Therefore, when asked “What is your preceptor’s name?” it is established that one should state the gotra as the name. Therefore, they say that the announcement should be made by any one of the four kinds of names. One person has many names. It is not permissible to use one name for the ñatti and another for the announcement. The announcements must be identical in meaning and expression. Although in the Pāli “So-and-so, of the venerable So-and-so,” the word “venerable” is stated later, in the kammavācā Pāli, they write first “This Buddharakkhita, of the venerable Dhammarakkhita.” That should not be believed to be stated in reverse order. For in the Pāli, “So-and-so, of So-and-so,” only the meaning is shown. Therefore, even if not stated in the Pāli, the usage “This Buddharakkhita, of the venerable Dhammarakkhita” is shown in the kammavācā Pāli. They say this is because the usage of “venerable” first is shown in “I have not seen him before, thus said Venerable Sāriputta” and “Venerable Sāriputta is skilled in meaning.” Sometimes, having said “of the venerable Buddharakkhita,” sometimes one announces simply “of Buddharakkhita.” It is not said that the announcement is omitted, because the name is not omitted, say some. If sometimes saying "of the venerable Buddharakkhita" and sometimes announcing "of Buddharakkhita the venerable," some say it is permissible as it conforms to the reading. They say it is not permissible for announcements due to the risk of differing pronunciations. But if one speaks in only one way in all places, it is permissible. Here, 'ekānussāvana' (single announcement) should be understood as a compound word referring to an external meaning, where 'ekato anussāvanaṃ etesaṃ' means 'for whom there is an announcement together.' Therefore it is said, "two announcements together." There, 'ekato' means 'at one moment'; and this expression is with the elision of the case ending. In the same way as before, to make announcements together, as previously stated, "by one for one, by another for the other," it is to be done by two or three teachers, or by one, making announcements together. 'He who observes what is faulty and faultless is an upajjhā' (teacher/preceptor); by this, the 'Sāratthadīpanī' (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.123) shows that the word 'upajjhā' also has the same meaning as 'upajjhāya'. By clan name also: The meaning is that without saying the name thus, "the venerable Pippali, the ordination candidate," it is by the clan name. Therefore, when asked "What is your preceptor's name?", it is established that one should say "The venerable Kassapa" by the clan name. Therefore, any other name of his that is well-known, or a name assigned at that moment for easy understanding, all of that should be taken into account for the announcement. Just as for the preceptor, so too for the ordination candidate, it is permissible to make the announcement by clan name and by a temporary name. And at that moment, when making a name like "this is Tissa" or "Nāga," it should be done immediately after the agreement of the instructors. Even without doing so, during the times of asking about the instruction on obstructive factors, by making it known, "What is your name? Venerable sir, I am Nāga by name. What is your preceptor's name? Venerable sir, my preceptor is Tissa by name," in such a way that the perception "this is my name" arises in the minds of both, it should be made known. If p And at that moment, having said the usual name, afterwards announces with an unfamiliar name, "Tissa by name," it is not valid. And there, although not having taken the preceptor's name, but having referred to the person with any name, such as "Tissa's ordination candidate," the act is well-performed, like the ordination act of those without a preceptor, because the act is completed when the person is referred to in the kammavācā, even in the absence or unsuitability of the preceptor. But for the ordination candidate, without his own name, if announced with another name, the act fails, he is not ordained. He remains there like another unordained person, because the actual person with the name taken is not there, and because this name was not stated in the announcement. Therefore, having changed the ordination candidate's usual name, if one wishes to announce him with an unfamiliar name like Nāga, one should first inform him, saying "You are Nāga," etc., and even at the time of instruction and questioning about the obstructing factors, making it clear to him and to the Saṅgha, then he should be announced with the name Nāga, etc. One person may have many names, it is valid to take one of them. But the name taken for the ordination candidate and the preceptor in one place, that same name must be taken in the ñatti and in all announcements. For if a different name is taken from the one already taken, the wording becomes different, and the act fails. For only the ñatti and the announcement that are identical in meaning and wording are valid. But before the preceptor's name, one may announce by adding the term 'venerable' everywhere, such as "of the venerable Tissa." Even if not added in that way, there is no fault. But in the Pāli (Mahāvagga 126), although the word "venerable" is stated after the name, as in "of the venerable so-and-so," nevertheless, as seen in examples like "the venerable Sāriputta is skilled in meaning," where the term 'venerable' is used before the name, the usage before the name is more appropriate, and even if it is used in one place and not used in another, in one place... Even if placed in front, or placed elsewhere, behind, there is no loss for the announcement, because the name is not lost. Therefore, in the Pāli (text) also, having placed "of the venerable so-and-so" in one place, they say that "venerable" is not placed in "by the preceptor so-and-so" and so on. And although it is so, nevertheless, in all places, by placing it in one way, or not placing it, the announcement is more commendable, it should be understood. For these, the announcement is together, at the same time, in one moment, thus they are 'single announcement' (ekānussāvanā), the ordination candidates, to make these 'single announcement'. Therefore, it says "in a single announcement". And this should be seen as one word with the case ending elided. "By one" means by one teacher, announcing for two at the same time with one formal motion. The method of announcing for two at the same time by one teacher, in the manner of: "This Buddharakkhita and this Dhammarakkhita are candidates for ordination of the venerable Saṅgharakkhita," should be understood. And in this same manner, the announcement for three by one teacher at one moment should be known. To make a single announcement in the former way, by two teachers for two, or by three teachers for three, in the manner previously stated: "by one for one, by another for the other," and so on, or by one teacher for all three, to make a single announcement, that is the meaning. The phrase: "And indeed by one preceptor, but not by different preceptors," is a prohibitive statement that it is not permissible for one teacher to make a single announcement for two or three ordination candidates at one moment with one announcement, with two or three preceptors. But it does not say that it is not permissible for different teachers and different preceptors to make a single announcement for three, as it says: "but if there are different teachers,