English
like one who has fallen into the final offense. He is not one who has undertaken the training and livelihood. But in the other case, he is. This is the difference between this and that. Is this with cause, or without cause? Not without cause. Because his ordination is allowed in the non-eunuch side, due to having a rebirth with cause. If it is asked, why is it not allowed in the case of being a eunuch? Because he is a eunuch, like an adventitious eunuch. Furthermore, by "one who has undertaken the training and livelihood," it is suitable to say that his undertaking of the training is shown, and that he has not renounced that undertaken training, and has not revealed weakness therein, and not otherwise. For this reason, to avoid the undesirable consequence as stated, it is said, "Whatever monk, having undertaken the training and livelihood of monks, not having renounced the training," and so on. And just as here, so too, "Whatever monk, having undertaken the training and livelihood of monks, not having renounced the training, not having revealed weakness, from village or forest, not given… (etc.)… Whatever monk, having undertaken the training and livelihood of monks, not having renounced the training, not having revealed weakness, should have a robe made of the size of the Sugata's robe," should be applied everywhere. "Even to an animal" is said with reference to a human female. For it is not suitable to say "to eunuchs or men" in the first place. The rest is as stated in each place. This is the decision on the matrix so far, which should be explained by applying it elsewhere as appropriate. Why are Sāriputta, Belaṭṭhasīsa, Ānanda, and others, since they were the cause for the promulgation of the training rules, and since they committed offenses, not mentioned in the Mahāvibhaṅga with the four-fold motion of the act of formal procedure? Has he come without ordination? Elder Upatissa says: "For fear of allowing ordination by taking refuge, which was rejected." If that were said, referring to suitability for an offense, then a wrong view or doubt would arise among the bhikkhus: "What was previously rejected by the Blessed One is again allowed." Therefore, it is said that it was not said. Since "an improper act, a factional act" (Mahāvagga 387) means that a faulty act is sometimes called "an act," therefore "by an un-faulty one" is said. Since some un-faulty acts are not suitable, by which one who has not attained restoration is called "well-restored," therefore "by a suitable one" is said. If so, should only "by a suitable one" be said, implying "un-faulty" by this? No, one ordained by an unsuitable and un-faulty act is not intended in this context, due to the undesirable implication. But when these two are said together, this meaning is understood: "A bhikkhu ordained merely by an un-faulty act is also intended in this context," and "A bhikkhu ordained by a suitable and un-faulty act is also intended in this context," but "One ordained by a faulty act is not intended." Since it is said, "one who has not completed twenty years from the moment of conception," they say that an spontaneously arisen being (opapātika) who is sixteen years old is one who has not completed twenty years from the moment of conception. Some say: "Since it is said, 'they are sixteen years old,' another four years are desired, and 'from the moment of conception' is said with reference to those born from the womb." Wherever "some say" is written, one should investigate there and clearly discern the meaning. The state of being a eunuch due to external causes should be understood by the method of ascension. It is written: "A 'half-eunuch' (pakkhapaṇḍaka) should be ordained during the non-eunuch period and expelled during the eunuch period" (Vajiraṭṭhīkā, Mahāvagga 109). They say, "If one resides without giving a drop (of semen), he is not a thief-companion." This should be investigated. "According to the mark" means a novice-worthy companion... The intention is that it is enjoyed. Even if there is a deceptive thought, "Let householders know me as a 'monk'," for those who have taken the marks (of a monk) due to fear of the king, etc., because there is no desire to deceive the bhikkhus and no desire to dwell with them, a fault does not arise. If he does not know, "Whoever goes forth thus is called a thief-dweller," or "It is not allowed to do so," or "One who has gone forth thus is not a novice," it is permissible. It is also written, "If he knows, it is not permissible." "One who, for the purpose of (escaping) royal danger, famine, etc., having put on the robe, enjoys dwelling (with monks), is a thief-dweller. Why? Because of an impure mind. Again, if he, having a pure mind, thinking, 'I will practice pure celibacy, what is this (for)?' or with regret, or 'I will do it for the ease of requisites, etc.,' as long as he does not approve of dwelling (with them), he is not a thief-dweller. If, from the arising of such a pure mind, he enjoys dwelling (with them), he is intended to be a thief-dweller. 'Otherwise, everything would be contradictory,' say some." "If one born from (a union) not by touching the navel, etc., kills such a father, they say he is a parricide." But whoever, by bodily contact, causes the destruction of morality, he is not a defiler of a bhikkhuni, according to the saying "of the three paths." But even having defiled a bhikkhuni who has received ordination from one side, he is a defiler of a bhikkhuni, and he is also subject to expulsion — this is the decision. But a bhikkhuni is a thief-dweller, a killer of mother, father, or Arahant, one who causes blood to flow (from a Buddha), and one who goes over to another sect. These are things not found in the commentaries, but the Vinaya-holders accept them. One who does not transgress the boundary, as said in "For intentional false speech, there is an offense of expiation" (Pacittiya 2), is said to train in that rule of training. "Rule of training" is merely a conventional designation, not an ultimate reality; here, a designation is intended. "This is a designation for restraint from sexual intercourse" is said in the Samantapāsādikā. That is written with that meaning in mind. "Training" is that particular rule of training, the arising of a mental state that proceeds by way of training. "Living together" is a designation. It is. To show its meaning, it was said before, "This is a designation for restraint in sexual intercourse." Since, due to the absence of a tradition esteemed for its training, esteemed for its merit, the manifestation of weakness is not possible there for the world. For it is desirable. Therefore, it was said, "And having entered into the livelihood, without manifesting weakness therein." For weakness is possible in a command, says Upatissa. The term "manifestation of weakness" should be understood as being phonetically similar to the term "renunciation of training," or as being a subordinate part of it. Or, since some manifestation of weakness is not a renunciation of training, therefore, referring to that, explaining the meaning of the phrase "without renouncing the training," he said, "without manifesting weakness." There might be a question: Since not every manifestation of weakness is a renunciation of training, should it first be said, "without manifesting weakness," and then, to define its meaning, "without renouncing the training"? That is not so. Why? Because of the lack of sequence in meaning. For, since it was said, "having entered into the training and livelihood," if it is said, "the training into which one has entered, without renouncing that, and the livelihood into which one has entered, without manifesting weakness therein," then the meaning is stated in sequence, not otherwise. Therefore, this was said first. "Of those very ones" refers to the fourteen. Regarding "without renouncing the training," it was said, "this is an additional rule here," as a common meaning for all training rules. "Insertion" means the contact of the organ when inserting the organ. "Inserted" means the time of effort, the time of exertion, when inserting it up to the root. The organ is "at rest" at the time of semen emission. "Withdrawal" means the time of pulling out. However, in the Vinaya Gaṇṭhipada, it was said, "the state of resting after ceasing exertion is called 'at rest'." That was said to show it without confusion. Semen emission can occur even during insertion, insertion up to the root, and withdrawal. "Assenting" means the production of a mind of enjoyment, a mind of endurance. From both sides It is said, “This is the origin of all training rules,” referring to the rules established in the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga. Since it is said, “Ordination by a group of five, with a Vinaya-holder,” the third case here is stated with cooperation. Therefore, even if twenty bhikkhus are seated, the fifth must be a Vinaya-holder. If the Vinaya-holder is a pārājika, does it invalidate the ordination act? No, because the characteristics of an invalid act, stated in the section on acts at the end of the Parivāra, are not present in that case. It is said, “How, by reason of the object, or the motion, or the announcement, or the boundary, or the assembly?” Is this not included by the phrase “or the assembly”? No, because in the analysis of the Sutta, “Acts are invalidated by twelve aspects of the assembly,” that is not mentioned. This meaning can be known only from the Pāli text stated in its original form here and there. Therefore, it is written “briefly,” showing the method. The word “factor” is extracted, and it is said, “The factors and non-factors of offenses in all training rules should be known.” But here it is said, “factor.” Why? Because the origins, etc., are briefly mentioned in the Parivāra, etc., and are taken from there. And here, there is no determination of non-factors for those specified. And because if non-factors were to be stated