English
are overlooked with a certain reasoning by this example, “who is said to be expelled,” and so it is not accepted. Moreover, by the saying, “Both are to be expelled, the defiler is to be expelled” (Pārā. 66), and by the saying, “Expel the bhikkhunī Mettiyā” (Pārā. 384), whoever enters the midst of the Saṅgha and, being questioned by an examiner, is defeated, he too is unordained, and not subject to an offense of disparagement. This is to be understood as generating. Moreover, here, the fourfold group of those who renounce the training is to be understood. Indeed, there is a person who has renounced the training but has not entered the livelihood of the training, there is a person who has not renounced the training but has entered the livelihood of the training, there is a person who has both renounced the training and entered the livelihood of the training, there is a person who has neither renounced the training nor entered the livelihood of the training. Among these, the third is to be understood as a bhikkhunī who has renounced the training. For as long as she does not abandon the emblem, being zealous in the saffron robes, even though desiring to depart from recluseship and renouncing the training, she is still a bhikkhunī, having entered the livelihood of the training. For it was said by the Blessed One: "There is no renunciation of training for a bhikkhunī, monks." But when does she become a non-bhikkhunī? When she is considered to have gone astray. For it was said by the Blessed One: "When she has gone astray, then she is a non-bhikkhunī." (Cūḷavagga 434) But by how much is she considered to have gone astray? Desiring to depart from recluseship, having no attachment to the saffron robes, she either removes the saffron robe, or goes naked, or goes covering herself with grass, leaves, etc., or wears the saffron robe itself in the manner of a layperson's clothing, or wears white clothing, or, together with her emblem, enters among sectarians, and undertakes practices like hair-plucking, or adopts the emblem of a sectarian, then she is called one who has gone astray. Among these, she who, while remaining in her own emblem, undertakes sectarian practices, like a monk who has gone over to sectarians, does not obtain even subsequent ordination. The others obtain only renunciation (pabbajjā), not full ordination (upasampadā). Although in the Pāli it is said: "Monks, a bhikkhunī who has gone from her own dwelling to a sectarian abode, when she returns, should not be given full ordination" (Cūḷavagga 434), by this, it seems to be permitted that one who first went astray and then went to a sectarian abode, when she returns, should be given full ordination. However, since the compilers of the Councils have said "twenty-four pārājikas" (Pārājika Aṭṭhakathā 2.233), she should not be given full ordination again. that. Therefore, the renunciation of training was not permitted by the Blessed One. But a bhikkhunī who has fallen into the last offense is indeed so. A hermaphrodite is also a bhikkhunī. This method should be applied to all four and explained as appropriate. The explanation of the Pārājika is finished. The Saṅghādisesa Section 1. Explanation of the Training Rule on Emission of Semen "Except in a dream" – this, being a weak basis, is unable to draw a connection with intention, for a sign appearing in a dream is weak. But when it occurs, supported by other wholesome and unwholesome actions, it yields results. Although it yields results, yet because it arises in an unsuitable sphere, the intention in a dream is considered non-transactional. What is said here, "a sign appearing in a dream is weak," is not absolute, nor is the mental activity weak due to the weakness of the object, as it is not weak with respect to past or future objects, or conceptual objects. Therefore, "being a weak basis" means "being a weak heart-basis," this is not our opinion, says the teacher (Vajira. ṭī. Pārājika 236-237). If it is argued that weakness is appropriate due to being without a basis? No, because there is a possibility of extraordinary strength arising from meditation without a basis. For a mind endowed with the power of meditation, even though formless, can take a very heavy body and, in a single moment of consciousness, place it in the Brahma-world, and a Kāma-sphere mind, even if not endowed with such a counterpart, can make a body capable of leaping in the air. What is the inference here? By which it would be known that it is the power of the mind, seeing the production of special actions like placing and leaping by the power of the mind. The teachers postulate three places for semen: the urethra, the waist, and the body, as it is not mixed like a naturally arisen form of mind, and because it exits. It should be seen like poison. And there is no fixed place for poison; it occurs to one who sees it out of anger. Thus, there is no fixed place for it; it occurs to one who approaches it out of lust, this is not our opinion, says the teacher. "A stream of water, a "Even if not descended" – if this contradicts "as soon as descended," to show that, it is said, "fallen from its place," and so on. Its meaning is: Having made an effort at the sign, having dislodged semen from its place, it is not possible to prevent its descent into the urinary tract again by way of regret. Yet, having endured with the intention of enduring, because it is impossible to prevent it from rising up from the urinary tract in between, it is said, "or when it has come out." Therefore, what has fallen from its place must necessarily descend into the urinary tract – this is the commentary's intention. Therefore, it should be understood that both are consistent. Here it is asked: Why in this training rule is the agent not specified with "whatever monk," and so on? It is said: Because of its dependence on intention, the agent is not specified, to show its dependent nature. How? For one who intends with the intention of scratching and so on, for one who makes an effort with the effort of scratching and so on, even if there is emission of semen, it is not a Saṅghādisesa, in cases of minor offense (dukkata) like thighs etc., due to sexual desire, or in cases of grave offense (thullaccaya) like wounds etc., for one who makes an effort. "No offense for a monk who has no intention of emission" — according to this saying (Pārā. 263). Therefore, to show that meaning, the agent is not specified here. Otherwise, if the agent were specified thus: "Whatever monk intentionally causes emission of semen, it is a Saṅghādisesa," there would be a contradiction with the saying (Pārā. 262): "He intends but does not make an effort to emit, no offense." Similarly, even if specified in the locative case: "By intentional emission of semen, except in a dream, it is a Saṅghādisesa," that same contradiction would arise due to the establishment of the rule of causal meaning. Therefore, without stating both those wordings, it is said: "Intentional emission of semen, except in a dream, is a Saṅghādisesa." There, because of the absence of the locative case in the sense of a sign, the rule of causal meaning is not made. When that is not made, this meaning is illuminated: "Intentional emission of semen, except in a dream, is a Saṅghādisesa," and if there is no effort, there is no offense. So, it should be understood. In this training In one step, there are two thousand offenses. How? For one who, in the internal form, in the various parts of one's own body such as the hand, with the support of lust, when the sexual organ is ready for action, releases blue (fluid) for the sake of health, there is one offense. In the internal form itself, with the support of lust, by releasing yellow and other (fluids), nine (offenses), making ten. Thus, by means of the nine (reasons) such as "for the sake of pleasure," with the support of lust, in relation to the internal form, there are one hundred. And likewise, in the supports of feces, urine, wind, erection, and insect bites, making one hundred for each, the total is five hundred. Just as there are five hundred in the internal form, so too, by shaking the waist in an external form, or in an internal-external form, or in space, there are two thousand offenses. The explanation of the training rule concerning the emission of semen is concluded. 2. Explanation of the training rule concerning physical contact By "otiṇṇo" (having descended/entered), his intention to engage is shown. Therefore, it is said, "This is a designation for one endowed with the lust for physical contact." By "with a perverted (mind)... etc. ...together," his effort is shown. For the word "saddhi" (together) indicates connection, and that connection is union. With what kind of mind? With a perverted mind, not with the intention of receiving alms or the like—this is the meaning. By "should engage in physical contact," the recognition of touch by his effort is shown. For one who, having made effort, recognizes touch, is said to engage. Thus, his three-factor accomplishment is shown. Or else, "otiṇṇo" (descended/entered) with a perverted mind, like one possessed by a yakkha or the like. Or this is an instrumental case in the sense of "use," "otiṇṇo" (descended/entered) the perverted mind, like one fallen into a well or the like. Or else, a bhikkhu who, even having attained monkhood with the thought "I shall be free from lust," is nevertheless "otiṇṇo" (descended/entered) into that very lust, with a perverted mind as the cause, due to the intention of being free from it. By a woman who has come near him, or by himself having approached. By this, whether the woman is infatuated or dispassionate, that is of no consequence here. In "or taking by hand," here, by hand, all that is grasped What kind of body is collected? Not a broken continuum, but one connected to it, like clothes and ornaments. It should be understood that by grasping a braid,