English
In this very way, non-returners, once-returners, stream-enterers, were spoken of. This too, was said in the Aṅguttara Nikāya. In the commentary to the Saṃyutta Nikāya, however: At the first enlightenment, the monks attained the discriminations. Then, as time went on, they were not able to attain the discriminations, they became those with the six superknowledges. Then, being unable to attain even the six superknowledges, they attained the three knowledges. Now, as time goes on, being unable to attain the three knowledges, they will attain the destruction of the āsavas, being unable to do even that, the fruit of non-returning, being unable to do even that, the fruit of once-returning, being unable to do even that, the fruit of stream-entry. As time goes on, they will not be able to attain even the fruit of stream-entry. Since those teachers have differing views, therefore, their teachers... The opinion of the reciters should be taken as written by Buddhaghosa, otherwise there would be a contradiction between the beginning and the end of the teacher's words. For Buddhaghosa himself wrote the Buddha's words with their commentaries in Magadhi, having removed the Sinhala language, not another teacher. Therefore, the statement in the commentary should be taken as authoritative. If all four Nikaya commentaries have ascended to the Saṅgīti, then why are they different? It is true, yet it was said to express the views of some elders, not of the compiling elders. Therefore, the statement in the commentary should be taken as authoritative. One who has previously committed an offense requiring expulsion, a Pārājika bhikkhu, is incapable of receiving the upasampadā ordination in the Sāsana. A hermaphrodite, paṇḍaka, is fivefold: the one aroused by being sprinkled, the envious hermaphrodite, the hermaphrodite by operation, the impotent one, and the seasonal hermaphrodite. Among these, one whose burning sensation subsides when another's genitals are taken into the mouth and sprinkled with impurity, this is called the one aroused by being sprinkled. One whose burning sensation subsides when seeing another's misconduct and envy arises, this is called the envious hermaphrodite. One whose seeds have been removed by operation, this is called the hermaphrodite by operation. But one who is born impotent from the moment of conception, this is called the impotent one. However, one who, due to the effect of unwholesome karma, is a hermaphrodite in the dark fortnight, but whose burning sensation subsides in the bright fortnight, this is called the seasonal hermaphrodite. Some say that one who is a woman in the dark fortnight and a man in the bright fortnight is the seasonal hermaphrodite, but that is merely their opinion. Among these, ordination is not prohibited for the one aroused by being sprinkled and the envious hermaphrodite. However, it is prohibited for the hermaphrodite by operation, the impotent one, and the seasonal hermaphrodite. Even among these, for the seasonal hermaphrodite, ordination is prohibited only in the fortnight in which he is a hermaphrodite. And here, it is said in all three Gaṇṭhipadas that having ordained in the non-hermaphrodite fortnight, he should be expelled in the hermaphrodite fortnight. Some, however, say "ap One who, having castrated himself, attains cessation of defilements, they say, "he should not be rejected." That is merely their opinion, since cessation of defilements is possible for a eunuch, and the state of being a eunuch is incompatible with one who has extinguished defilements. In the discussion of causeless rebirth, the eunuch is said to have a causeless rebirth without distinction. And those eunuchs who are born as a result of being sprinkled, incited, or by choice are eunuchs from the moment of rebirth, not just in the course of life, they say. Therefore, in the section on causeless rebirth, the eunuch is specified with the word "by birth," like the blind from birth, the deaf from birth, etc. However, in the commentary on the Fourth Pārājika, when showing those incapable, the three who are defective in their faculties—eunuchs, animals, and hermaphrodites—have causeless rebirths, and heaven is not barred to them, it is said without distinction. Thus, the five kinds of eunuchs should be understood as being referred to by the general term "eunuch" without distinction, and it is said, "Monks, a eunuch should not be ordained." A "thief-associate" is one who, having taken the outward signs of a renunciate himself, counts the years of a monk's life and claims to be a monk, accepting salutations according to seniority. Because of the theft of both the outward signs and the association, he is called a "thief in both respects." But one who does not accept salutations according to seniority, due to impure intention, is a "thief in outward signs" because of the theft of the outward signs. Or one who, having remained in the state of a novice, claims to be a monk by lying and accepts salutations, etc., according to the years of a monk's life, is not a "thief in outward signs" because the outward signs were given by the monks; he is called a "thief in association" because of the theft of association. Here, it should be understood that even the "thief in both respects" is included in the "thief in outward signs" due to impure intention. Even if a novice accepts salutations from senior novices, or a junior monk accepts salutations from senior monks, he is not a "thief-associate" because there is no theft. Or even if a monk who has committed a Pārājika offense remains in the outward signs of a monk, as long as he acknowledges it, it is indeed a theft. His state of being a bhikkhu, does not go to the number of not fully ordained. Thus, even enjoying cohabitation, he is not a thief-cohabitant. He does not incur an offense of sharing a bed, etc., nor does he incur a pācittiya for abusive speech. Therefore, "An impure person, who has fallen into one of the pārājika offenses, if, being of pure view, having made an opportunity, speaks with the intention of abuse, there is an offense of abusive speech," thus a pācittiya is stated for abusive speech. For if there is no state of being a bhikkhu, he would speak a dukkata. But a novice who, with the marks of a novice, incurs the fivefold violation of precepts, beginning with killing, even he, having come for the destruction of the marks, having destroyed them, the refuges and precepts should be given. Then he does not even attain the state of being unfit for ordination due to lack of basis. But for one doing things like eating at the wrong time, having confessed the offense in the midst of the Saṅgha, saying "An offense has overtaken me, venerable sir," etc., or having done a penalty, the precepts should certainly be given. One who has defected to the heretics is obvious. "A being of the animal kingdom" means any non-human being, even the four destined for misery, is unfit for ordination. They are incapable of going forth in the Dispensation, due to the baseness of their rebirth. If the four destined for misery were unfit for ordination, then why, without specifying the rest, is only "a being of the animal kingdom" said to be unfit? Because the unfitness of the rest is not obvious. Thus, in the time of the Buddha, a certain Nāga king, born in the animal realm, was disgusted, repulsed, and loathed by the Nāga realm. Then this thought occurred to the Nāga: "By what means might I be freed from the Nāga realm, and quickly attain human status?" Then this thought occurred to the Nāga: "These Samaṇas, sons of the Sakyans, are Dhamma-farers, righteous-farers, Brahmā-farers, truth-speakers, virtuous, of good qualities. If I were to go forth among the Samaṇas, sons of the Sakyans, thus I might be freed from the Nāga realm, and quickly regain human status." Then that Nāga, in the guise of a young man, approached the bhikkhus and requested ordination. Yes. The monks ordained and admitted him to the Sangha. Now at that time, that Nāga was living with a certain monk in a monastery on the frontier. Then that monk, rising early in the morning, was walking in the open. Then that Nāga, when the monk had left, fell into a deep sleep. The whole monastery was full of snakes, and coils were sticking out of the windows. Then that monk, thinking, "I will enter the monastery," knocked on the door and saw the whole monastery full of snakes, and coils sticking out of the windows. Seeing this, he cried out in fear. The monks ran up and said to that monk, "Why are you crying out, friend?" "Friend, this whole monastery is full of snakes, and coils are sticking out of the windows." Then that Nāga, awakened by that sound, sat down on his seat. The monks said, "Who are you, friend?" "I am a Nāga, venerable sirs." "Why have you done such a thing, friend?" Then that Nāga told the monks this matter. The monks told the Blessed One this matter. Then the Blessed One, on this occasion, in this connection, convened the Sangha of monks and said to that Nāga, "You Nāgas are immature in this Doctrine and Discipline. Go, Nāga, observe the Uposatha on the fourteenth, fifteenth, and eighth days of the fortnight. Thus you will be freed from the Nāga existence and quickly attain human status." Then that Nāga, thinking, "I am immature in this Doctrine and Discipline," sorrowful and dejected, shedding tears, cried out and departed. Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "There are two reasons, monks, for a Nāga's manifestation of its true nature. When it engages in sexual intercourse with its own kind, and when it falls into a deep sleep. These, monks, are the two reasons for a Nāga's manifestation of its true nature. A monk who is an animal... "He should not be ordained, if ordained, he should be expelled," thus, it is clearly stated regarding animals. Here, in this statement, "two reasons" are mentioned, due to the frequent manifestation of their inherent nature.