English
it shows that one who has concealed his knowing must undergo probation unwillingly. "That bhikkhu must undergo probation unwillingly" — this is said to show that the bhikkhu dwelling there must undergo probation unwillingly, not by the mere mark of undergoing probation. "Having completed probation" — at the beginning, by "having completed probation," it means the bhikkhu must undergo six nights from the start, beyond the probation itself, by this method. And even beyond, by the mark of undergoing probation, he must proceed to the bhikkhu's Mānatta, not like in probation, where Mānatta is not performed due to that condition. Only one who has performed Mānatta should be reinstated. not the other, not like one deserving of penance in a period of probation, and when a bhikkhuni is observing a half-month penance, if her gender changes, the bhikkhu who has completed the penance, after taking the bhikkhu's penance again, is to be reinstated as a bhikkhu who has completed the penance. "Where there may be" means where there is a community of twenty bhikkhus in a common residence boundary. If it is "less than twenty" even by one, it is not appropriate to say "a community of twenty," if it is less. For it is not a community of twenty, if the community is less. Therefore, if it is said that "a community less even by one" is all that should be said? No, because it serves to prevent the implication of a four-member, five-member, or ten-member community. Therefore, if a community of twenty bhikkhus is less even by one bhikkhu, it should be considered invalid. Some who are unfamiliar with the Vinaya might think, "Just as a community of more than four members is called 'a four-member community' for a four-member act, so too a community of more than five or ten members is called 'a five-member or ten-member community' for a five-member or ten-member act. Therefore, it is a four-member, five-member, ten-member, or twenty-member community even if it is less." To prevent their misconception, "even if it is less by one" and so on, is stated. Or, if there is a community of twenty bhikkhus, excluding even one who is insignificant, the meaning here should be understood as "excluding even one." The statement "this is the proper procedure there" is to be understood as having been said to clarify what is stated everywhere: "the community imposes a period of probation for that offense, reinstates to the original status, imposes penance, and reinstates." Therefore, among these, this proper procedure as stated is to be definitely desired, not indefinite as in the case of royal ordinances and so on. For there, it is indicated that there is no offense even if one does not follow that procedure due to some impediment. The description of Saṅghādisesa is finished. The Section on Undetermined Offenses 1. Description of the First Undetermined Offense This is a miscellaneous section from the very beginning of the Undetermined Offenses. If it is said that this section on Undetermined Offenses is useless because there is nothing new in it? No, it is for the purpose of imposing offenses divided into grave and light categories. For showing the mark of the act of accusation. Here indeed, "If she should say: 'Sir, by me... (etc.)... and he acknowledges it, he is to be charged with an offense'" (Pārā. 446) and so on, the mark of accusation for grave and light offenses is shown. And by "he is not to be charged," the mark of non-accusation is also shown. From showing the mark, should it be designated at the beginning, or at the end, if so? No, because it is not possible. How is it not possible at the beginning? Because the training rules for which this is a mark have not been shown. Nor at the end, because of being mixed with grave offenses. Therefore, it is fitting that it should be designated only in the middle of grave and light offenses, because of being mixed with both. The light offense called pācittiya that is shown there, that too is said to be grave. Therefore it is said, "by the secret pleasure called defilement associated with sexual intercourse," and so on. Therefore, some say it is designated immediately after the grave offenses. If this is so, is the first aniyata sufficient? Since the showing of the mark is accomplished by that much, what then of the second, if so? No, due to the purpose of preventing wrong understanding concerning the condition of the fixed place. Indeed, from the fixed place "in a concealed, suitable seat," a wrong understanding arises that this mark is not applied in a place contrary to that. From preventing that, the second aniyata is also meaningful, this is the intention. Why? From the difference in place, from showing the difference in privacy, from showing the difference in the pleasure of private sitting. And if there is a fixed place, a difference in the pleasure of private sitting arises. And there would be knowledge of the distinctness of the two training rules concerning private sitting, as well as from showing the difference in bodily contact. Indeed, even in an unsuitable place, unconcealed, or for one sitting in a concealed place, bodily contact is obtained by grasping hair, etc., protruding through windows, door cracks, etc. Such methods and others should be understood in detail. Here is a mere introductory illustration – "from the difference in place" means from the difference between suitable and unsuitable. Indeed, some concealed places are unsuitable because they are obstructed by windows, etc. And some places concealed in both ways are unsuitable... For those who know what is suitable, being in the open. Here, by 'explaining the distinction of privacy,' it is meant that even in the general sense of privacy, privacy is of two kinds: concealed and unconcealed; this is the intention. By 'explaining the distinction of the pleasure of private sitting,' it means sitting for sexual pleasure, and sitting for the pleasure of coarse things; this is the meaning of explaining such a distinction. They say, "Because of the method stated here, this section should be understood as omitted in the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha." Some say, "Because no incident arose there." That is unsuitable, as it shows a lack of certainty. Indeed, in all Buddha-periods, there are five recitations for monks, and four for nuns. Some say, "Because the promulgation of the Pātimokkha recitation is not common, the Saṅghādisesa and Pācittiya offenses are specified there." Indeed, for those nuns, a special kind of bodily contact, above the kneecap (Pāci. 658), involving eight matters (Pāci. 675), is a Parājika offense matter. By the saying, "should accept a hand-grasp, or should bring her body for that purpose" (Pāci. 675), even accepting is included. By the saying, "or should stand together" (Pāci. 675), even standing is included. By the saying, "or should go to a rendezvous" (Pāci. 675), even going is included. By the saying, "or should enter a concealed place" (Pāci. 675), even entering a concealed place occurs. Similarly, by the saying, "in the dark of night, without a lamp, in a concealed place, in an open space, one with another should stand or converse" (Pāci. 839), even coarse speech is a Pācittiya matter. Having made it thus, their intention is that the Aniyata section is not stated because otherwise, for them, it would lead to the consequence of not being stated. Miscellaneous. Because it has been stated, "the shameless ones and others will accuse the conscientious ones by way of offenses leading to confession and rising from the offense," for the purpose of upholding the conscientious, it should not be done by the word even of a suitable laywoman, but should be done only by the confession of a monk. But as for the offenses, it is suitable to state them, taking only the detailed method promulgated for the purpose of showing their characteristic, as in the recitation: "Now, venerable sirs, these are the two undetermined rules" (Pārā. 443). It is written as 'due to not seeing'. Here, 'raho' for the ear is said from the common meaning of the word 'raho'. Like the word 'pārājika' in the training rules concerning the revealing and concealing of gross offenses, from the common meaning of 'gross'. Therefore, it is said that "here, 'raho' is intended only for the eye." If it is asked, "How is this known?" Because it is said, "A woman... even a girl born on that very day" (Pārā. 445), it is indeed shown that gross speech is not intended here. By the word 'even' in 'even within twelve cubits', the meaning is 'even if sitting at the door of a chamber with an unclosed door'. In the training rule concerning sitting in a private, concealed place in the Acelaka chapter (Pāci. 288), in accordance with "any discerning man is a second person," it is said that "even a hundred women do not cause an offense." By the statement in the Vibhaṅga (Pārā. 445), "is capable of action, it is possible to engage in sexual intercourse," the pleasure of private sitting here is a defilement associated with sexual intercourse, not a defilement of enjoying gross speech as in the second (rule). And therefore, it is understood that privacy of the ear is not intended. It is said, "should speak by one of the three ways," for the purpose of showing the distinction of offenses, even for pārājika and saṅghādisesa, not just saying 'pācittiya' for one who has sat according to the training rule of private sitting. Again, why is 'a bhikkhu confessing the sitting' — confessing the basis — said, instead of 'confessing the offense'? It is said: When accused of an offense, and asked by the Vinaya-holder, "In what matter?", and the accused says, "In this matter," and the Vinaya-holder asks, "You did such a thing?", then for the purpose of showing that he should be dealt with only by confessing the basis, "a bhikkhu confessing the sitting" is said. If so, should he be dealt with only by the offense, even if confessing the sitting?