dvematikapali-pali-eng-ai-generated-translations

Dvemātikāpāḷi

(Pāḷi-English AI-Generated Translations)

WARNING: THIS IS AN AI-TRANSLATED EXPERIMENT.

Please do not blindly trust the LLM output. LLMs can produce errors. If you are uncertain, refer to the original Pāḷi text for verification.

The main purpose of this page is to facilitate quick searches using English keywords to locate relevant Pāḷi passages.

- For the Table of Contents, please click on the 📜 icon in the left-hand corner.
- Click on any word to pop up ONLINE dictionaries.
- Code files to assist with translation: https://github.com/vpnry/ai-translation

Pāḷi display script

Hide|Show Translations:

Tr. 1 Tr. 2 Tr. 3

Source text: https://tipitakapali.org (Feb 2025)

Translation 1: Grok3 (26 Feb 2025)

Translation 2: gemini-2.0-pro-exp-02-05 (26 Feb 2025)

Translation 3: Deepseek (08 Mar 2025)

This file was last generated on: 2025-03-18 19:43:18

Dvemātikāpāḷi

The Two Mātikā Texts

Bhikkhupātimokkhapāḷi

The Bhikkhu Pātimokkha Text

Sammajjanī padīpo ca, udakaṃ āsanena ca;
Uposathassa etāni, “pubbakaraṇa”nti vuccati.

Sweeping, a lamp, water, and a seat; these for the Uposatha are called “pubbakaraṇa”.

A broom, a lamp, water and a seat; these for the Uposatha are called “pubbakaraṇa” [preliminary duties].

Sweeping, lighting the lamp, water, and a seat;
These are called the “preliminary duties” for the Uposatha.

Chanda, pārisuddhi, utukkhānaṃ, bhikkhugaṇanā ca ovādo;
Uposathassa etāni, “pubbakicca”nti vuccati.

Consent, purity, declaration of the season, counting of monks, and admonition; these for the Uposatha are called “pubbakicca”.

Consent, declaration of purity, determination of the season, counting the bhikkhus, and the exhortation; these for the Uposatha are called “pubbakicca” [prior duties].

Consent, purity, season, counting the monks, and instruction;
These are called the “preliminary tasks” for the Uposatha.

Uposatho , yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattā;
Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjanti;
Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na honti, “pattakalla”nti vuccati.

The Uposatha, as many monks as are eligible for the act; no common offenses exist; and no persons to be excluded are present there, it is called “pattakalla”.

The Uposatha, and as many bhikkhus as are competent for the act; and there are no offenses of the same class; and persons to be excluded are not present in it, it is called “pattakalla” [the proper time].

The Uposatha, the number of monks who are eligible for the transaction;
There are no shared offenses;
And there are no individuals to be avoided present, these are called “suitable conditions.”

Pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni samāpetvā desitāpattikassa samaggassa bhikkhusaṅghassa anumatiyā pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ ārādhanaṃ karoma.

Having completed the preliminary duties and preliminary actions, we make the request to recite the Pātimokkha with the consent of the united Bhikkhu Saṅgha, whose offenses have been confessed.

Having completed the preliminary actions and preliminary duties, for the one who has confessed his offenses, with the consent of the harmonious Bhikkhu Sangha, I request the recitation of the Pātimokkha.

Having completed the preliminary duties and tasks, with the consent of the united Sangha of monks who have declared their purity, we request to recite the Pātimokkha.

Nidānuddeso

The Recitation of the Introduction

The Introduction

Suṇātu me bhante saṅgho? Ajjuposatho pannaraso, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyya, pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyya.

May the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs? Today is the Uposatha of the fifteenth day. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, let the Saṅgha perform the Uposatha and recite the Pātimokkha.

May the Sangha hear me, venerable sirs. Today is the fifteenth day of the Uposatha. If it is a valid meeting for the Sangha, the Sangha should perform the Uposatha, and recite the Pātimokkha.

Venerable sirs, may the Sangha listen. Today is the Uposatha, the fifteenth day. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha perform the Uposatha and recite the Pātimokkha.

Kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakiccaṃ? Pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocetha, pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmi, taṃ sabbeva santā sādhukaṃ suṇoma manasi karoma. Yassa siyā āpatti, so āvikareyya, asantiyā āpattiyā tuṇhī bhavitabbaṃ, tuṇhībhāvena kho panāyasmante “parisuddhā”ti vedissāmi. Yathā kho pana paccekapuṭṭhassa veyyākaraṇaṃ hoti, evamevaṃ evarūpāya parisāya yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ hoti. Yo pana bhikkhu yāvatatiyaṃ anusāviyamāne saramāno santiṃ āpattiṃ nāvikareyya, sampajānamusāvādassa hoti. Sampajānamusāvādo kho panāyasmanto antarāyiko dhammo vutto bhagavatā, tasmā saramānena bhikkhunā āpannena visuddhāpekkhena santī āpatti āvikātabbā, āvikatā hissa phāsu hoti.

What is the preliminary action of the Saṅgha? Let the venerable ones declare their purity. I will recite the Pātimokkha; let us all, being present, listen carefully and keep it in mind. He who has an offense should reveal it; if there is no offense, one should remain silent. By your silence, venerable ones, I will know that you are pure. Just as an answer would be given when questioned individually, so too in such an assembly it is proclaimed up to three times. If any bhikkhu, when it is proclaimed up to three times, remembering an existing offense does not reveal it, it becomes a deliberate lie. A deliberate lie, venerable ones, has been declared by the Blessed One as an obstructive quality. Therefore, a bhikkhu who remembers and has fallen into an offense, desiring purification, should reveal that existing offense; for when it is revealed, it becomes light for him.

What is the Sangha’s preliminary duty? Venerable sirs, declare your purity. I will recite the Pātimokkha. All of us being present should listen to it carefully and pay attention. Whoever has an offense should declare it. If there is no offense, one should remain silent. By your silence, venerable sirs, I will know that you are “pure”. Just as there is an individual response to a question, in the same way, in such an assembly, it is announced up to three times. If a bhikkhu, when it is being announced up to three times, remembers a present offense and does not declare it, he is guilty of a conscious lie. Venerable sirs, a conscious lie is an obstructive condition, declared by the Blessed One. Therefore, a bhikkhu who remembers, who has committed an offense, and who desires purification, should declare a present offense. Having declared it, it is comfortable for him.

What are the preliminary tasks for the Sangha? Venerable ones, declare your purity. I will recite the Pātimokkha. Let us all listen carefully and pay attention. If anyone has an offense, let him declare it. If there is no offense, remain silent. By your silence, I will know that you are pure. As in the case of an individual being questioned, so too in such an assembly, it is announced up to the third time. If a monk, being reminded up to the third time, remembers an offense and does not declare it, he commits an intentional falsehood. Venerable ones, intentional falsehood has been declared by the Blessed One as an obstructive act. Therefore, a monk who remembers an offense and desires purity should declare it. For it is only by declaring it that he will find peace.

Uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānaṃ. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyasmanto, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

The introduction has been recited, venerable ones. Here I ask you: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The venerable ones are pure in this; therefore, they are silent. Thus I hold it to be.

Venerable sirs, the introduction has been recited. I ask you, venerable sirs, are you pure in this? A second time, I ask, are you pure in this? A third time, I ask, are you pure in this? The venerable sirs are pure in this, therefore they are silent. Thus I understand it.

Venerable ones, the introduction has been recited. In this matter, I ask you, are you pure? A second time I ask, are you pure? A third time I ask, are you pure? The venerable ones are pure, therefore they remain silent. Thus I hold it.

Pārājikuddeso

The Recitation of the Pārājikas

The Recitation of the Pārājika Rules

1. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya, antamaso tiracchānagatāyapi, pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso.

1. If any bhikkhu, having undertaken the bhikkhus’ training and livelihood, without renouncing the training or declaring his weakness, should engage in sexual intercourse, even with an animal, he becomes pārājiko, excluded from communion.

1. If any bhikkhu, participating in the training and livelihood of the bhikkhus, without having renounced the training, without having declared his weakness, engages in sexual intercourse, even with an animal, he is defeated, he is not in communion.

1. If a monk, who has undertaken the training and way of life of the monks, engages in sexual intercourse, even with a female animal, he is defeated and no longer in communion.

2. Yo pana bhikkhu gāmā vā araññā vā adinnaṃ theyyasaṅkhātaṃ ādiyeyya, yathārūpe adinnādāne rājāno coraṃ gahetvā haneyyuṃ vā bandheyyuṃ vā pabbājeyyuṃ vā corosi bālosi mūḷhosi thenosīti, tathārūpaṃ bhikkhu adinnaṃ ādiyamāno ayampi pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso.

2. If any bhikkhu should take, from a village or a forest, what is not given, in a manner reckoned as theft—such that kings, having caught a thief, would kill him, imprison him, or banish him, saying, “You are a thief, you are a fool, you are deluded, you are a robber”—if a bhikkhu takes what is not given in such a manner, he too becomes pārājiko, excluded from communion.

2. If any bhikkhu, from a village or from a forest, takes by way of theft what is not given, in such a manner of taking what is not given that kings, having seized a thief, would beat him or bind him or banish him, saying, “You are a thief, you are foolish, you are stupid, you are a robber,” a bhikkhu taking what is not given in such a manner is also defeated, he is not in communion.

2. If a monk takes what is not given, in the manner of stealing, whether from a village or the wilderness, and kings would seize, kill, imprison, or banish a thief for such an act, saying, “You are a thief, a fool, a rogue,” a monk who takes what is not given in such a way is also defeated and no longer in communion.

3. Yo pana bhikkhu sañcicca manussaviggahaṃ jīvitā voropeyya, satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyya, maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyya, maraṇāya vā samādapeyya “ambho purisa kiṃ tuyhiminā pāpakena dujjīvitena, mataṃ te jīvitā seyyo”ti, iti cittamano cittasaṅkappo anekapariyāyena maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyya, maraṇāya vā samādapeyya, ayampi pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso.

3. If any bhikkhu should intentionally deprive a human being of life, or seek a weapon-bearer for him, or praise the advantages of death, or encourage him toward death, saying, “Good man, what use is this evil, difficult life to you? Death is better for you than life,” thus with such a mind and intention, praising the advantages of death or encouraging him toward death in various ways, he too becomes pārājiko, excluded from communion.

3. If any bhikkhu intentionally deprives a human being of life, or seeks an assassin for him, or praises the advantages of death, or incites him to die, saying, “My good man, what use is this wretched, miserable life to you? Death is better for you than life,” if with such an intention and purpose of mind, he by various methods praises the advantages of death or incites him to die, he is also defeated, he is not in communion.

3. If a monk intentionally deprives a human being of life, or seeks an assassin for him, or praises the advantages of death, or incites him to die, saying, “My good man, what use is this wretched, difficult life to you? Death would be better for you than life,” and he does so with such an intention and purpose, in various ways, he is also defeated and no longer in communion.

4. Yo pana bhikkhu anabhijānaṃ uttarimanussadhammaṃ attupanāyikaṃ alamariyañāṇadassanaṃ samudācareyya “iti jānāmi, iti passāmī”ti, tato aparena samayena samanuggāhīyamāno vā asamanuggāhīyamāno vā āpanno visuddhāpekkho evaṃ vadeyya “ajānamevaṃ āvuso avacaṃ jānāmi, apassaṃ passāmi, tucchaṃ musā vilapi”nti, aññatra adhimānā, ayampi pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso.

4. If any bhikkhu, without knowing it, should claim a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision pertaining to himself, saying, “Thus I know, thus I see,” and later, whether questioned or unquestioned, having fallen and desiring purification, should say, “Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see—empty, false, idle talk,” except in the case of overestimation, he too becomes pārājiko, excluded from communion.

4. If any bhikkhu, not knowing, claims a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision befitting the noble ones, as pertaining to himself, saying, “Thus I know, thus I see,” and if later, on another occasion, whether questioned or not questioned, having committed an offense, and desiring purification, he should say, “Venerable sirs, not knowing, I said ‘I know,’ not seeing, I said ‘I see,’ I spoke idly, falsely, emptily,” except through over-estimation, he is also defeated, he is not in communion.

4. If a monk, without direct knowledge, claims a superhuman state, a noble knowledge and vision, saying, “I know this, I see this,” and later, whether being questioned or not, he admits to being mistaken, saying, “Friends, I said I knew, I said I saw, but I spoke falsely,” except out of overestimation, he is also defeated and no longer in communion.

Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto cattāro pārājikā dhammā. Yesaṃ bhikkhu aññataraṃ vā aññataraṃ vā āpajjitvā na labhati bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ saṃvāsaṃ yathā pure, tathā pacchā, pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyasmanto, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

The four pārājika rules have been recited, venerable ones. A bhikkhu who commits any one of them does not obtain communion with the bhikkhus as before, so afterward; he becomes pārājiko, excluded from communion. Here I ask you: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The venerable ones are pure in this; therefore, they are silent. Thus I hold it to be.

Venerable sirs, the four Pārājika rules have been recited. If a bhikkhu has committed any one of them, he does not attain communion with the bhikkhus; as before, so afterwards; he is defeated, he is not in communion. I ask you, venerable sirs, are you pure in this? A second time, I ask, are you pure in this? A third time, I ask, are you pure in this? The venerable sirs are pure in this, therefore they are silent. Thus I understand it.

Venerable ones, the four pārājika rules have been recited. If a monk commits any one of these offenses, he is no longer in communion with the monks, as before, so after. He is defeated and no longer in communion. In this matter, I ask you, are you pure? A second time I ask, are you pure? A third time I ask, are you pure? The venerable ones are pure, therefore they remain silent. Thus I hold it.

Saṅghādisesuddeso

The Recitation of the Saṅghādisesas

The Recitation of the Saṅghādisesa Rules

2. Yo pana bhikkhu otiṇṇo vipariṇatena cittena mātugāmena saddhiṃ kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjeyya hatthaggāhaṃ vā veṇiggāhaṃ vā aññatarassa vā aññatarassa vā aṅgassa parāmasanaṃ, saṅghādiseso.

2. If any bhikkhu, overcome with lust and with a corrupted mind, should engage in physical contact with a woman—holding her hand, or her hair, or touching any part of her body—it is a saṅghādiseso.

2. If any bhikkhu, overcome with a changed mind, engages in bodily contact with a woman, such as holding of the hand, holding of the braid of hair, or touching any part of the body, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

2. If a monk, overcome by lust, engages in physical contact with a woman, whether holding her hand, touching her hair, or touching any part of her body, it is a saṅghādisesa.

3. Yo pana bhikkhu otiṇṇo vipariṇatena cittena mātugāmaṃ duṭṭhullāhi vācāhi obhāseyya yathā taṃ yuvā yuvatiṃ methunupasaṃhitāhi, saṅghādiseso.

3. If any bhikkhu, overcome with lust and with a corrupted mind, should speak lewd words to a woman, as a young man might to a young woman concerning sexual intercourse, it is a saṅghādiseso.

3. If any bhikkhu, overcome with a changed mind, addresses a woman with corrupt words, as a young man to a young woman, referring to sexual intercourse, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

3. If a monk, overcome by lust, speaks lewd words to a woman, suggesting sexual intercourse, it is a saṅghādisesa.

4. Yo pana bhikkhu otiṇṇo vipariṇatena cittena mātugāmassa santike attakāmapāricariyāya vaṇṇaṃ bhāseyya “etadaggaṃ bhagini pāricariyānaṃ yā mādisaṃ sīlavantaṃ kalyāṇadhammaṃ brahmacāriṃ etena dhammena paricareyyā”ti methunupasaṃhitena, saṅghādiseso.

4. If any bhikkhu, overcome with lust and with a corrupted mind, should in the presence of a woman praise service to his own desire, saying, “This is the highest service, sister, that a woman such as you serves one like me—a virtuous one, of good qualities, a brahmacāri—with this act,” concerning sexual intercourse, it is a saṅghādiseso.

4. If any bhikkhu, overcome with a changed mind, praises personal service in the presence of a woman, saying, “Sister, it would be the highest of services if you were to serve me, a virtuous, well-conducted, celibate one, with this act,” referring to sexual intercourse, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

4. If a monk, overcome by lust, praises the benefits of serving his desires to a woman, saying, “Sister, the highest service is to serve a virtuous monk like me, who lives the holy life,” with sexual implications, it is a saṅghādisesa.

5. Yo pana bhikkhu sañcarittaṃ samāpajjeyya itthiyā vā purisamatiṃ purisassa vā itthimatiṃ, jāyattane vā jārattane vā, antamaso taṅkhaṇikāyapi, saṅghādiseso.

5. If any bhikkhu should act as a go-between, arranging a woman’s intention for a man or a man’s intention for a woman, whether as a wife or a lover, even for a momentary affair, it is a saṅghādiseso.

5. If any bhikkhu acts as a go-between, conveying a man’s intentions to a woman or a woman’s intentions to a man, regarding marriage or concubinage, even for a momentary stay, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

5. If a monk acts as a matchmaker, arranging a marriage or a liaison between a man and a woman, even for a moment, it is a saṅghādisesa.

6. Saññācikāya pana bhikkhunā kuṭiṃ kārayamānena assāmikaṃ attuddesaṃ pamāṇikā kāretabbā, tatridaṃ pamāṇaṃ, dīghaso dvādasa vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṃ sattantarā, bhikkhū abhinetabbā vatthudesanāya, tehi bhikkhūhi vatthu desetabbaṃ anārambhaṃ saparikkamanaṃ. Sārambhe ce bhikkhu vatthusmiṃ aparikkamane saññācikāya kuṭiṃ kāreyya, bhikkhū vā anabhineyya vatthudesanāya, pamāṇaṃ vā atikkāmeyya, saṅghādiseso.

6. When a bhikkhu, by his own request, has a hut built without a sponsor, intended for himself, it should be made to measure. Here is the measure: twelve spans in length using the sugata span, seven spans in width internally. Bhikkhus should be brought to designate the site; those bhikkhus should designate a site free from disturbance and with access around it. If the bhikkhu should have the hut built on a site with disturbance and without access, or not bring bhikkhus to designate the site, or exceed the measure, it is a saṅghādiseso.

6. If a bhikkhu is having a hut built by subscription, without an owner, for his own use, it must be made to the standard measurement. Herein, this is the standard measurement: twelve spans in length, using the accepted span, seven spans across internally. The bhikkhus must be brought for the approval of the site. The bhikkhus should approve a site that is not in a dangerous place and has a surrounding space. If a bhikkhu should have a hut built by subscription on a dangerous site without a surrounding space, or should not bring the bhikkhus for the approval of the site, or should exceed the standard measurement, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

6. If a monk builds a hut for himself without ownership, he should have it built to a specified size. The size is twelve spans long, using the Sugata span, and seven spans wide. He should invite monks to designate the site, which should be free from obstacles and have space around it. If he builds the hut on an obstructed site without space, or without inviting monks to designate the site, or exceeds the size, it is a saṅghādisesa.

7. Mahallakaṃ pana bhikkhunā vihāraṃ kārayamānena sassāmikaṃ attuddesaṃ bhikkhū abhinetabbā vatthudesanāya, tehi bhikkhūhi vatthu desetabbaṃ anārambhaṃ saparikkamanaṃ. Sārambhe ce bhikkhu vatthusmiṃ aparikkamane mahallakaṃ vihāraṃ kāreyya, bhikkhū vā anabhineyya vatthudesanāya, saṅghādiseso.

7. When a bhikkhu has a large vihāra built with a sponsor, intended for himself, bhikkhus should be brought to designate the site; those bhikkhus should designate a site free from disturbance and with access around it. If the bhikkhu should have the large vihāra built on a site with disturbance and without access, or not bring bhikkhus to designate the site, it is a saṅghādiseso.

7. If a bhikkhu is having a large dwelling built with an owner, for his own use, the bhikkhus must be brought for the approval of the site. The bhikkhus should approve a site that is not in a dangerous place and has a surrounding space. If a bhikkhu should have a large dwelling built on a dangerous site without a surrounding space, or should not bring the bhikkhus for the approval of the site, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

7. If a monk builds a large dwelling for himself with ownership, he should invite monks to designate the site, which should be free from obstacles and have space around it. If he builds the dwelling on an obstructed site without space, or without inviting monks to designate the site, it is a saṅghādisesa.

8. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhuṃ duṭṭho doso appatīto amūlakena pārājikena dhammena anuddhaṃseyya “appeva nāma naṃ imamhā brahmacariyā cāveyya”nti , tato aparena samayena samanuggāhīyamāno vā asamanuggāhīyamāno vā amūlakañceva taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ hoti, bhikkhu ca dosaṃ patiṭṭhāti, saṅghādiseso.

8. If any bhikkhu, angry and displeased, should accuse a bhikkhu with an unfounded pārājika offense, thinking, “Perhaps I may make him fall from this brahmacariya,” and later, whether questioned or unquestioned, if that case is found to be baseless and the bhikkhu admits to malice, it is a saṅghādiseso.

8. If any bhikkhu, malicious, through anger and displeasure, smears another bhikkhu with a groundless Pārājika offense, thinking, “Perhaps I might drive him away from this celibate life,” and if later, on another occasion, whether questioned or not questioned, that legal case is groundless, and the bhikkhu admits his anger, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

8. If a monk, angry and displeased, falsely accuses another monk of a pārājika offense, hoping to expel him from the holy life, and later, whether being questioned or not, the accusation is found to be baseless, and the monk persists in his anger, it is a saṅghādisesa.

9. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhuṃ duṭṭho doso appatīto aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassa kiñcidesaṃ lesamattaṃ upādāya pārājikena dhammena anuddhaṃseyya “appeva nāma naṃ imamhā brahmacariyā cāveyya”nti, tato aparena samayena samanuggāhīyamāno vā asamanuggāhīyamāno vā aññabhāgiyañceva taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ hoti kocideso lesamatto upādinno, bhikkhu ca dosaṃ patiṭṭhāti, saṅghādiseso.

9. If any bhikkhu, angry and displeased, should accuse a bhikkhu with a pārājika offense based on some minor detail of a different case, thinking, “Perhaps I may make him fall from this brahmacariya,” and later, whether questioned or unquestioned, if that case is found to pertain to a different matter with only a minor detail used, and the bhikkhu admits to malice, it is a saṅghādiseso.

9. If any bhikkhu, malicious, through anger and displeasure, smears another bhikkhu with a Pārājika offense, taking up some trifling point or other of a legal case that has another basis, thinking, “Perhaps I might drive him away from this celibate life,” and if later, on another occasion, whether questioned or not questioned, that legal case has another basis, and some trifling point or other has been taken up, and the bhikkhu admits his anger, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

9. If a monk, angry and displeased, takes up a groundless issue related to another matter and falsely accuses another monk of a pārājika offense, hoping to expel him from the holy life, and later, whether being questioned or not, the issue is found to be unrelated, and the monk persists in his anger, it is a saṅghādisesa.

10. Yo pana bhikkhu samaggassa saṅghassa bhedāya parakkameyya, bhedanasaṃvattanikaṃ vā adhikaraṇaṃ samādāya paggayha tiṭṭheyya, so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi evamassa vacanīyo “māyasmā samaggassa saṅghassa bhedāya parakkami, bhedanasaṃvattanikaṃ vā adhikaraṇaṃ samādāya paggayha aṭṭhāsi, sametāyasmā saṅghena, samaggo hi saṅgho sammodamāno avivadamāno ekuddeso phāsu viharatī”ti, evañca so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi vuccamāno tatheva paggaṇheyya, so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbo tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamāno taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce paṭinissajjeyya, saṅghādiseso.

10. If any bhikkhu should strive for division in a united Saṅgha, or take up and persist in a legal issue conducive to schism, that bhikkhu should be told by the bhikkhus, “Venerable sir, do not strive for division in a united Saṅgha or persist in taking up a legal issue conducive to schism; unite with the Saṅgha, venerable sir, for a united Saṅgha, harmonious, without dispute, with a single recitation, dwells at ease.” If that bhikkhu, being so told by the bhikkhus, persists as before, he should be admonished by the bhikkhus up to three times for relinquishment. If, being admonished up to three times, he relinquishes it, that is good; if he does not relinquish it, it is a saṅghādiseso.

10. If any bhikkhu endeavors to cause a schism in the harmonious Sangha, or persists in taking up a matter conducive to schism, that bhikkhu should be addressed by the bhikkhus thus: “Do not, venerable sir, endeavor to cause a schism in the harmonious Sangha, or persist in taking up a matter conducive to schism. Let the venerable sir be in harmony with the Sangha, for the harmonious Sangha, being in concord, without dispute, having a common recitation, dwells in comfort.” And if that bhikkhu, being thus addressed by the bhikkhus, should persist as before, that bhikkhu should be admonished by the bhikkhus up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, he should abandon that course, that is good. If he should not abandon it, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

10. If a monk seeks to cause schism in a united Sangha, or persists in supporting a cause leading to schism, the monks should say to him, “Venerable, do not seek to cause schism in the united Sangha or persist in supporting a cause leading to schism. Reconcile with the Sangha, for a united Sangha lives in harmony, free from dispute, with a single recitation.” If he persists, he should be admonished up to three times to abandon his position. If he abandons it, that is good. If not, it is a saṅghādisesa.

11. Tasseva kho pana bhikkhussa bhikkhū honti anuvattakā vaggavādakā eko vā dve vā tayo vā, te evaṃ vadeyyuṃ “māyasmanto etaṃ bhikkhuṃ kiñci avacuttha, dhammavādī ceso bhikkhu, vinayavādī ceso bhikkhu, amhākañceso bhikkhu chandañca ruciñca ādāya voharati, jānāti, no bhāsati, amhākampetaṃ khamatī”ti, te bhikkhū bhikkhūhi evamassu vacanīyā “māyasmanto evaṃ avacuttha, na ceso bhikkhu dhammavādī, na ceso bhikkhu vinayavādī, māyasmantānampi saṅghabhedo ruccittha, sametāyasmantānaṃ saṅghena, samaggo hi saṅgho sammodamāno avivadamāno ekuddeso phāsu viharatī”ti , evañca te bhikkhū bhikkhūhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyyuṃ, te bhikkhū bhikkhūhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyyuṃ, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce paṭinissajjeyyuṃ, saṅghādiseso.

11. If there are bhikkhus, followers and supporters of that same bhikkhu, one or two or three, speaking divisively, and they say, “Venerable ones, do not say anything to this bhikkhu; this bhikkhu speaks Dhamma, this bhikkhu speaks Vinaya, this bhikkhu speaks according to our wish and liking, he knows and speaks for us, and this suits us,” those bhikkhus should be told by the bhikkhus, “Venerable ones, do not say this; this bhikkhu does not speak Dhamma, this bhikkhu does not speak Vinaya; let not division in the Saṅgha please you, venerable ones, unite with the Saṅgha, for a united Saṅgha, harmonious, without dispute, with a single recitation, dwells at ease.” If those bhikkhus, being so told by the bhikkhus, persist as before, they should be admonished by the bhikkhus up to three times for relinquishment. If, being admonished up to three times, they relinquish it, that is good; if they do not relinquish it, it is a saṅghādiseso.

11. If there are bhikkhus who are followers of that bhikkhu, partisans, one or two or three, and they should speak thus: “Do not, venerable sirs, say anything to this bhikkhu. This bhikkhu is a speaker of Dhamma, this bhikkhu is a speaker of Vinaya. This bhikkhu speaks taking up our wish and our desire; he knows, he speaks for us; this is pleasing to us,” those bhikkhus should be addressed by the bhikkhus thus: “Do not, venerable sirs, speak thus. This bhikkhu is not a speaker of Dhamma, this bhikkhu is not a speaker of Vinaya. Do not let a schism in the Sangha be pleasing to the venerable sirs. Let the venerable sirs be in harmony with the Sangha, for the harmonious Sangha, being in concord, without dispute, having a common recitation, dwells in comfort.” And if those bhikkhus, being thus addressed by the bhikkhus, should persist as before, those bhikkhus should be admonished by the bhikkhus up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, they should abandon that course, that is good. If they should not abandon it, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

11. If one, two, or three monks support that monk, saying, “Do not say anything to this monk. He speaks the Dhamma, he speaks the Vinaya. He acts according to our wishes and preferences. We approve of his actions,” those monks should be told, “Do not say that. This monk does not speak the Dhamma or the Vinaya. Do not approve of schism in the Sangha. Reconcile with the Sangha, for a united Sangha lives in harmony, free from dispute, with a single recitation.” If they persist, they should be admonished up to three times to abandon their position. If they abandon it, that is good. If not, it is a saṅghādisesa.

12. Bhikkhu paneva dubbacajātiko hoti uddesapariyāpannesu sikkhāpadesu bhikkhūhi sahadhammikaṃ vuccamāno attānaṃ avacanīyaṃ karoti “mā maṃ āyasmanto kiñci avacuttha kalyāṇaṃ vā pāpakaṃ vā, ahampāyasmante na kiñci vakkhāmi kalyāṇaṃ vā pāpakaṃ vā, viramathāyasmanto mama vacanāyā”ti, so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi evamassa vacanīyo “māyasmā attānaṃ avacanīyaṃ akāsi, vacanīyamevāyasmā attānaṃ karotu, āyasmāpi bhikkhū vadatu sahadhammena, bhikkhūpi āyasmantaṃ vakkhanti sahadhammena, evaṃ saṃvaddhā hi tassa bhagavato parisā yadidaṃ aññamaññavacanena aññamaññavuṭṭhāpanenā”ti, evañca so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi vuccamāno tatheva paggaṇheyya, so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbo tassa paṭinissaggāya , yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamāno taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce paṭinissajjeyya, saṅghādiseso.

12. If a bhikkhu is by nature difficult to admonish and, when rightly admonished by bhikkhus regarding the training rules included in the recitation, makes himself unadmonishable, saying, “Venerable ones, do not say anything to me, good or bad, and I will not say anything to you, good or bad; refrain, venerable ones, from admonishing me,” that bhikkhu should be told by the bhikkhus, “Venerable sir, do not make yourself unadmonishable; make yourself admonishable, venerable sir; let the venerable sir admonish the bhikkhus with Dhamma, and let the bhikkhus admonish the venerable sir with Dhamma, for thus the Blessed One’s following grows, through mutual admonition and mutual assistance.” If that bhikkhu, being so told by the bhikkhus, persists as before, he should be admonished by the bhikkhus up to three times for relinquishment. If, being admonished up to three times, he relinquishes it, that is good; if he does not relinquish it, it is a saṅghādiseso.

12. If a bhikkhu is of a difficult nature, and when spoken to according to the Dhamma by the bhikkhus regarding the training rules included in the recitation, he makes himself unadmonishable, saying, “Do not, venerable sirs, say anything to me, good or bad, and I will not say anything to the venerable sirs, good or bad. Refrain, venerable sirs, from speaking to me,” that bhikkhu should be addressed by the bhikkhus thus: “Do not, venerable sir, make yourself unadmonishable. Make yourself admonishable, venerable sir. Let the venerable sir speak to the bhikkhus according to the Dhamma, and the bhikkhus will speak to the venerable sir according to the Dhamma. For thus is the assembly of the Blessed One grown, that is to say, by mutual speaking and by mutual rehabilitation.” And if that bhikkhu, being thus addressed by the bhikkhus, should persist as before, that bhikkhu should be admonished by the bhikkhus up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, he should abandon that course, that is good. If he should not abandon it, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

12. If a monk is by nature difficult to correct and, when being legitimately corrected by the monks regarding the training rules, makes himself uncorrectable, saying, “Do not say anything to me, venerables, whether good or bad, and I will not say anything to you, venerables, whether good or bad. Refrain from correcting me,” the monks should say to him, “Venerable, do not make yourself uncorrectable. Allow yourself to be corrected, and correct the monks in accordance with the Dhamma. The monks will also correct you in accordance with the Dhamma. For it is in this way that the Blessed One’s community grows, through mutual correction and mutual support.” If he persists, he should be admonished up to three times to abandon his position. If he abandons it, that is good. If not, it is a saṅghādisesa.

13. Bhikkhu paneva aññataraṃ gāmaṃ vā nigamaṃ vā upanissāya viharati kuladūsako pāpasamācāro, tassa kho pāpakā samācārā dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, kulāni ca tena duṭṭhāni dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi evamassa vacanīyo “āyasmā kho kuladūsako pāpasamācāro, āyasmato kho pāpakā samācārā dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, kulāni cāyasmatā duṭṭhāni dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, pakkamatāyasmā imamhā āvāsā, alaṃ te idha vāsenā”ti, evañca so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi vuccamāno te bhikkhū evaṃ vadeyya “chandagāmino ca bhikkhū, dosagāmino ca bhikkhū, mohagāmino ca bhikkhū, bhayagāmino ca bhikkhū tādisikāya āpattiyā ekaccaṃ pabbājenti, ekaccaṃ na pabbājentī”ti, so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi evamassa vacanīyo “māyasmā evaṃ avaca, na ca bhikkhū chandagāmino, na ca bhikkhū dosagāmino, na ca bhikkhū mohagāmino, na ca bhikkhū bhayagāmino, āyasmā kho kuladūsako pāpasamācāro, āyasmato kho pāpakā samācārā dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, kulāni cāyasmatā duṭṭhāni dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, pakkamatāyasmā imamhā āvāsā, alaṃ te idha vāsenā”ti, evañca so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi vuccamāno tatheva paggaṇheyya, so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbo tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamāno taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce paṭinissajjeyya, saṅghādiseso.

13. If a bhikkhu dwells in dependence on a certain village or town, corrupting families and behaving badly, and his bad behavior is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by him are both seen and heard, that bhikkhu should be told by the bhikkhus, “The venerable sir is a corrupter of families and behaves badly; the venerable sir’s bad behavior is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by the venerable sir are both seen and heard; depart, venerable sir, from this residence, enough of your dwelling here.” If that bhikkhu, being so told by the bhikkhus, says to those bhikkhus, “The bhikkhus are biased by favoritism, anger, delusion, and fear; they expel some and do not expel others for such an offense,” he should be told by the bhikkhus, “Venerable sir, do not say this; the bhikkhus are not biased by favoritism, anger, delusion, or fear; the venerable sir is a corrupter of families and behaves badly, the venerable sir’s bad behavior is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by the venerable sir are both seen and heard; depart, venerable sir, from this residence, enough of your dwelling here.” If that bhikkhu, being so told by the bhikkhus, persists as before, he should be admonished by the bhikkhus up to three times for relinquishment. If, being admonished up to three times, he relinquishes it, that is good; if he does not relinquish it, it is a saṅghādiseso.

13. If a bhikkhu lives in dependence on a certain village or town, and is one who corrupts families and is of evil conduct, and his evil conduct is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by him are both seen and heard, that bhikkhu should be addressed by the bhikkhus thus: “The venerable sir is one who corrupts families and is of evil conduct. The venerable sir’s evil conduct is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by the venerable sir are both seen and heard. Let the venerable sir depart from this residence. Enough of your dwelling here.” And if that bhikkhu, being thus addressed by the bhikkhus, should say to those bhikkhus, “The bhikkhus are following desire, the bhikkhus are following aversion, the bhikkhus are following delusion, the bhikkhus are following fear; for such an offense, they banish some, they do not banish others,” that bhikkhu should be addressed by the bhikkhus thus: “Do not, venerable sir, speak thus. The bhikkhus are not following desire, the bhikkhus are not following aversion, the bhikkhus are not following delusion, the bhikkhus are not following fear. The venerable sir is one who corrupts families and is of evil conduct. The venerable sir’s evil conduct is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by the venerable sir are both seen and heard. Let the venerable sir depart from this residence. Enough of your dwelling here.” And if that bhikkhu, being thus addressed by the bhikkhus, should persist as before, that bhikkhu should be admonished by the bhikkhus up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, he should abandon that course, that is good. If he should not abandon it, it is a Saṅghādisesa.

13. If a monk lives near a village or town, corrupting families and behaving badly, and his bad behavior is seen and heard, and the families he has corrupted are seen and heard, the monks should say to him, “Venerable, you are corrupting families and behaving badly. Your bad behavior is seen and heard, and the families you have corrupted are seen and heard. Leave this monastery, you have stayed here long enough.” If he replies, “The monks are biased, acting out of desire, hatred, delusion, or fear, for they expel some for such offenses but not others,” the monks should say, “Do not say that, venerable. The monks are not biased. You are corrupting families and behaving badly. Your bad behavior is seen and heard, and the families you have corrupted are seen and heard. Leave this monastery, you have stayed here long enough.” If he persists, he should be admonished up to three times to abandon his position. If he abandons it, that is good. If not, it is a saṅghādisesa.

Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto terasa saṅghādisesā dhammā nava paṭhamāpattikā, cattāro yāvatatiyakā. Yesaṃ bhikkhu aññataraṃ vā aññataraṃ vā āpajjitvā yāvatīhaṃ jānaṃ paṭicchādeti, tāvatīhaṃ tena bhikkhunā akāmā parivatthabbaṃ. Parivutthaparivāsena bhikkhunā uttari chārattaṃ bhikkhumānattāya paṭipajjitabbaṃ, ciṇṇamānatto bhikkhu yattha siyā vīsatigaṇo bhikkhusaṅgho, tattha so bhikkhu abbhetabbo. Ekenapi ce ūno vīsatigaṇo bhikkhusaṅgho taṃ bhikkhuṃ abbheyya, so ca bhikkhu anabbhito, te ca bhikkhū gārayhā, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyasmanto, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

The thirteen saṅghādisesa rules have been recited, venerable ones: nine effective from the first offense, four requiring up to three admonitions. If a bhikkhu commits any one of them, for as many days as he knowingly conceals it, for that many days he must unwillingly undergo parivāsa. Having completed parivāsa, the bhikkhu must further practice mānatta for six nights. A bhikkhu who has completed mānatta should be rehabilitated where there is a Saṅgha of at least twenty bhikkhus. If a Saṅgha of fewer than twenty bhikkhus, even by one, rehabilitates that bhikkhu, that bhikkhu is not rehabilitated, and those bhikkhus are blameworthy; this is the proper procedure here. Here I ask you: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The venerable ones are pure in this; therefore, they are silent. Thus I hold it to be.

Venerable sirs, the thirteen Saṅghādisesa rules have been recited, nine requiring initial meetings of the Sangha, four requiring meetings of the Sangha up to three times. If a bhikkhu has committed any one of them, and knowingly conceals it for however many days, for that many days that bhikkhu must, even against his will, undergo probation. After undergoing probation, that bhikkhu must, for a further six nights, undertake the Mānatta discipline. When the Mānatta discipline has been completed, that bhikkhu, where there is a Sangha of twenty bhikkhus, is to be rehabilitated. If a Sangha of twenty bhikkhus, even if one is lacking, should rehabilitate that bhikkhu, that bhikkhu is not rehabilitated, and those bhikkhus are blameworthy. This is the proper course in this case. I ask you, venerable sirs, are you pure in this? A second time, I ask, are you pure in this? A third time, I ask, are you pure in this? The venerable sirs are pure in this, therefore they are silent. Thus I understand it.

Venerable ones, the thirteen saṅghādisesa rules have been recited. Nine are offenses requiring initial confession, and four are offenses requiring penance until the third announcement. If a monk commits any one of these offenses and conceals it for as long as he knows, he must undergo probation for that period. After completing probation, he must undertake penance for six nights. Having completed penance, he must be rehabilitated in a Sangha of at least twenty monks. If even one monk less than twenty rehabilitates him, he is not rehabilitated, and those monks are at fault. This is the proper procedure. In this matter, I ask you, are you pure? A second time I ask, are you pure? A third time I ask, are you pure? The venerable ones are pure, therefore they remain silent. Thus I hold it.

Aniyatuddeso

The Recitation of the Aniyatas

The Recitation of the Aniyata Rules

1. Yo pana bhikkhu mātugāmena saddhiṃ eko ekāya raho paṭicchanne āsane alaṃkammaniye nisajjaṃ kappeyya, tamenaṃ saddheyyavacasā upāsikā disvā tiṇṇaṃ dhammānaṃ aññatarena vadeyya pārājikena vā saṅghādisesena vā pācittiyena vā, nisajjaṃ bhikkhu paṭijānamāno tiṇṇaṃ dhammānaṃ aññatarena kāretabbo pārājikena vā saṅghādisesena vā pācittiyena vā, yena vā sā saddheyyavacasā upāsikā vadeyya, tena so bhikkhu kāretabbo, ayaṃ dhammo aniyato.

1. If any bhikkhu should sit alone with a woman in a private, concealed seat suitable for wrongdoing, and a trustworthy female lay follower, having seen it, accuses him of one of three offenses—either pārājika, saṅghādisesa, or pācittiya—and the bhikkhu admits to sitting, he is to be dealt with according to one of those three offenses—either pārājika, saṅghādisesa, or pācittiya—or according to whichever offense the trustworthy female lay follower accuses him of; this rule is undetermined.

1. If any bhikkhu sits down alone with a woman in a secluded, screened place, suitable for doing wrong, and a trustworthy female lay follower, having seen them, should speak of any of three rules, a Pārājika or a Saṅghādisesa or a Pācittiya, and the bhikkhu, admitting to sitting, is to be dealt with according to any of three rules, a Pārājika or a Saṅghādisesa or a Pācittiya, or whichever rule that trustworthy female lay follower should speak of, that bhikkhu is to be dealt with accordingly. This rule is undetermined.

1. If a monk sits in private, on a secluded and suitable seat, alone with a woman, and a trustworthy female lay follower sees him and accuses him of one of three offenses—pārājika, saṅghādisesa, or pācittiya—the monk, admitting to the sitting, must be dealt with according to one of these three offenses, or according to what the trustworthy female lay follower accuses him of. This is an indefinite rule.

2. Na heva kho pana paṭicchannaṃ āsanaṃ hoti nālaṃkammaniyaṃ, alañca kho hoti mātugāmaṃ duṭṭhullāhi vācāhi obhāsituṃ, yo pana bhikkhu tathārūpe āsane mātugāmena saddhiṃ eko ekāya raho nisajjaṃ kappeyya, tamenaṃ saddheyyavacasā upāsikā disvā dvinnaṃ dhammānaṃ aññatarena vadeyya saṅghādisesena vā pācittiyena vā, nisajjaṃ bhikkhu paṭijānamāno dvinnaṃ dhammānaṃ aññatarena kāretabbo saṅghādisesena vā pācittiyena vā, yena vā sā saddheyyavacasā upāsikā vadeyya, tena so bhikkhu kāretabbo, ayampi dhammo aniyato.

2. Though the seat is not concealed nor suitable for wrongdoing, but is suitable for speaking lewd words to a woman, if any bhikkhu should sit alone with a woman in private on such a seat, and a trustworthy female lay follower, having seen it, accuses him of one of two offenses—either saṅghādisesa or pācittiya—and the bhikkhu admits to sitting, he is to be dealt with according to one of those two offenses—either saṅghādisesa or pācittiya—or according to whichever offense the trustworthy female lay follower accuses him of; this rule too is undetermined.

2. Indeed, the place is not secluded and screened, and it is not suitable for doing wrong, but it is suitable for addressing a woman with corrupt words. If any bhikkhu sits down alone with a woman in such a place, and a trustworthy female lay follower, having seen them, should speak of either of two rules, a Saṅghādisesa or a Pācittiya, and the bhikkhu, admitting to sitting, is to be dealt with according to either of two rules, a Saṅghādisesa or a Pācittiya, or whichever rule that trustworthy female lay follower should speak of, that bhikkhu is to be dealt with accordingly. This rule is also undetermined.

2. If the seat is not secluded but suitable for speaking lewd words to a woman, and a monk sits alone with a woman in such a seat, and a trustworthy female lay follower sees him and accuses him of one of two offenses—saṅghādisesa or pācittiya—the monk, admitting to the sitting, must be dealt with according to one of these two offenses, or according to what the trustworthy female lay follower accuses him of. This is also an indefinite rule.

Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto dve aniyatā dhammā. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyasmanto, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

The two aniyata rules have been recited, venerable ones. Here I ask you: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The venerable ones are pure in this; therefore, they are silent. Thus I hold it to be.

Venerable sirs, the two Aniyata rules have been recited. I ask you, venerable sirs, are you pure in this? A second time, I ask, are you pure in this? A third time, I ask, are you pure in this? The venerable sirs are pure in this, therefore they are silent. Thus I understand it.

Venerable ones, the two indefinite rules have been recited. In this matter, I ask you, are you pure? A second time I ask, are you pure? A third time I ask, are you pure? The venerable ones are pure, therefore they remain silent. Thus I hold it.

Nissaggiyapācittiyā

The Nissaggiya Pācittiyas

The Recitation of the Nissaggiya Pācittiya Rules

1. Niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretabbaṃ, taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

1. When a bhikkhu’s robe is finished and the kathina privileges are withdrawn, an extra robe may be kept for a maximum of ten days; exceeding that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

1. When a bhikkhu’s robes are completed, and the Kathina has been withdrawn, an extra robe may be kept for up to ten days. If he keeps it beyond that, it is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya.

1. When the robe season has ended, a monk may keep an extra robe for at most ten days. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

2. Niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine ekarattampi ce bhikkhu ticīvarena vippavaseyya, aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

2. When a bhikkhu’s robe is finished and the kathina privileges are withdrawn, if a bhikkhu should be separated from his three robes even for one night, except with the consent of the bhikkhus, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

2. When a bhikkhu’s robes are completed, and the Kathina has been withdrawn, if a bhikkhu lives apart from the three robes even for one night, except with the permission of the bhikkhus, it is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya.

2. When the robe season has ended, if a monk spends even one night apart from his three robes without the Sangha’s permission, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

3. Niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine bhikkhuno paneva akālacīvaraṃ uppajjeyya, ākaṅkhamānena bhikkhunā paṭiggahetabbaṃ, paṭiggahetvā khippameva kāretabbaṃ, no cassa pāripūri, māsaparamaṃ tena bhikkhunā taṃ cīvaraṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ ūnassa pāripūriyā satiyā paccāsāya. Tato ce uttari nikkhipeyya satiyāpi paccāsāya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

3. When a bhikkhu’s robe is finished and the kathina privileges are withdrawn, if an out-of-season robe arises for the bhikkhu, he may accept it if he wishes; having accepted it, it should be made up quickly. If it is not completed, that robe may be kept by the bhikkhu for a maximum of one month, expecting its completion if there is hope for it. If he keeps it beyond that, even with hope, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

3. When a bhikkhu’s robes are completed, and the Kathina has been withdrawn, if out-of-season cloth should arise for a bhikkhu, if he wishes, he may accept it. Having accepted it, he should quickly have it made into a robe. If it is not enough for him, that bhikkhu may lay that cloth aside for up to a month, if he has a reasonable expectation of completing the shortage. If he should lay it aside beyond that, even if he has a reasonable expectation, it is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya.

3. When the robe season has ended, if a monk receives out-of-season cloth, he may accept it if he wishes. Having accepted it, he must make it up quickly. If it is not enough, he may keep it for at most one month, hoping to complete it. If he keeps it beyond that, even with the hope of completing it, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

4. Yo pana bhikkhu aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā purāṇacīvaraṃ dhovāpeyya vā rajāpeyya vā ākoṭāpeyya vā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

4. If any bhikkhu should have an old robe washed, dyed, or beaten by an unrelated bhikkhuni, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

4. If any bhikkhu has an old robe washed or dyed or beaten by a bhikkhuni who is not a relative, it is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya.

4. If a monk has an old robe washed, dyed, or beaten by a nun who is not a relative, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

5. Yo pana bhikkhu aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā hatthato cīvaraṃ paṭiggaṇheyya aññatra pārivattakā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

5. If any bhikkhu should accept a robe from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhuni, except in exchange, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

5. If any bhikkhu accepts a robe from the hand of a bhikkhuni who is not a relative, except in exchange, it is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya.

5. If a monk receives a robe from a nun who is not a relative, except in exchange, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

6. Yo pana bhikkhu aññātakaṃ gahapatiṃ vā gahapatāniṃ vā cīvaraṃ viññāpeyya aññatra samayā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo, acchinnacīvaro vā hoti bhikkhu, naṭṭhacīvaro vā, ayaṃ tattha samayo.

6. If any bhikkhu should request a robe from an unrelated householder or householder’s wife, except at the proper time, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. Here the proper time is when a bhikkhu’s robe has been stolen or destroyed; this is the proper time here.

6. If any bhikkhu asks for a robe from a householder or a householder’s wife who is not a relative, except at the right time, it is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya. Herein, this is the right time: a bhikkhu is without a robe, or his robe has been destroyed; this is the right time in this case.

6. If a monk asks for a robe from a layperson or lay follower who is not a relative, except at the right time, it is to be forfeited and confessed. The right time is when the monk’s robe has been stolen or destroyed.

7. Tañce aññātako gahapati vā gahapatānī vā bahūhi cīvarehi abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya, santaruttaraparamaṃ tena bhikkhunā tato cīvaraṃ sāditabbaṃ. Tato ce uttari sādiyeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

7. If an unrelated householder or householder’s wife should invite him with an offer of many robes, a bhikkhu should accept from there a maximum of an inner and outer robe. If he accepts more than that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

7. If that unrelated householder or householder’s wife offers many robes to him, then at most a set of robes consisting of an upper and lower robe may be accepted by that bhikkhu. If he should accept more than that, it is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya.

7. If a layperson or lay follower who is not a relative offers a monk many pieces of cloth, he may accept at most one upper and one lower robe. If he accepts more, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

8. Bhikkhuṃ paneva uddissa aññātakassa gahapatissa vā gahapatāniyā vā cīvaracetāpannaṃ upakkhaṭaṃ hoti “iminā cīvaracetāpannena cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarena acchādessāmī”ti, tatra ce so bhikkhu pubbe appavārito upasaṅkamitvā cīvare vikappaṃ āpajjeyya “sādhu vata maṃ āyasmā iminā cīvaracetāpannena evarūpaṃ vā evarūpaṃ vā cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā acchādehī”ti kalyāṇakamyataṃ upādāya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

8. If a robe fund is prepared by an unrelated householder or householder’s wife with a bhikkhu in mind, intending, “Having purchased a robe with this robe fund, I will clothe the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe,” and if that bhikkhu, uninvited beforehand, approaches and suggests a preference regarding the robe, saying, “It would be good, venerable sir, if you purchased such-and-such a robe with this robe fund and clothed me,” out of a desire for something fine, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

8. If a robe-fund has been prepared for a bhikkhu by a householder or a householder’s wife, who is not a relative, with the intention: ‘Having purchased a robe with this robe-fund, I will provide a robe to a bhikkhu named thus’, and if that bhikkhu, uninvited beforehand, approaches and makes specifications regarding the robe, saying: ‘It would be good, sir, if you would purchase a robe of such-and-such a type with this robe-fund and provide it to me,’ out of a desire for something fine, it entails expiation.

8. If a robe-fund intended for a bhikkhu has been set aside by an unknown male or female householder, thinking, “With this robe-fund, I will buy a robe and then present it to such-and-such bhikkhu,” and if that bhikkhu, without being invited beforehand, approaches and makes a stipulation regarding the robe, saying, “It would be good if you, venerable, would buy such-and-such a robe with this robe-fund and then present it to me,” out of a desire for something fine, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

9. Bhikkhuṃ paneva uddissa ubhinnaṃ aññātakānaṃ gahapatīnaṃ vā gahapatānīnaṃ vā paccekacīvaracetāpannāni upakkhaṭāni honti “imehi mayaṃ paccekacīvaracetāpannehi paccekacīvarāni cetāpetvā itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarehi acchādessāmā”ti, tatra ce so bhikkhu pubbe appavārito upasaṅkamitvā cīvare vikappaṃ āpajjeyya “sādhu vata maṃ āyasmanto imehi paccekacīvaracetāpannehi evarūpaṃ vā evarūpaṃ vā cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā acchādetha ubhova santā ekenā”ti kalyāṇakamyataṃ upādāya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

9. If two unrelated householders or householders’ wives each prepare separate robe funds with a bhikkhu in mind, intending, “Having purchased separate robes with these separate robe funds, we will clothe the bhikkhu named so-and-so with robes,” and if that bhikkhu, uninvited beforehand, approaches and suggests a preference regarding the robe, saying, “It would be good, venerable sirs, if you both purchased such-and-such a robe with these separate robe funds and clothed me, both acting together with one robe,” out of a desire for something fine, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

9. If separate robe-funds have been prepared for a bhikkhu by two householders or householders’ wives, who are not relatives, with the intention: ‘Having purchased separate robes with these separate robe-funds, we will provide robes to a bhikkhu named thus’, and if that bhikkhu, uninvited beforehand, approaches and makes specifications regarding the robe, saying: ‘It would be good, sirs, if you would purchase a robe of such-and-such a type with these separate robe-funds and provide it to me, both of you together with one robe,’ out of a desire for something fine, it entails expiation.

9. If separate robe-funds intended for a bhikkhu have been set aside by two unknown male or female householders, thinking, “With these separate robe-funds, we will buy separate robes and then present them to such-and-such bhikkhu,” and if that bhikkhu, without being invited beforehand, approaches and makes a stipulation regarding the robe, saying, “It would be good if you, venerables, would buy such-and-such a robe with these separate robe-funds and then present it to me, combining both into one,” out of a desire for something fine, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

10. Bhikkhuṃ paneva uddissa rājā vā rājabhoggo vā brāhmaṇo vā gahapatiko vā dūtena cīvaracetāpannaṃ pahiṇeyya “iminā cīvaracetāpannena cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarena acchādehī”ti. So ce dūto taṃ bhikkhuṃ upasaṅkamitvā evaṃ vadeyya “idaṃ kho, bhante, āyasmantaṃ uddissa cīvaracetāpannaṃ ābhataṃ, paṭiggaṇhātu āyasmā cīvaracetāpanna”nti. Tena bhikkhunā so dūto evamassa vacanīyo “na kho mayaṃ, āvuso, cīvaracetāpannaṃ paṭiggaṇhāma, cīvarañca kho mayaṃ paṭiggaṇhāma kālena kappiya”nti. So ce dūto taṃ bhikkhuṃ evaṃ vadeyya “atthi panāyasmato koci veyyāvaccakaro”ti. Cīvaratthikena, bhikkhave, bhikkhunā veyyāvaccakaro niddisitabbo ārāmiko vā upāsako vā “eso kho, āvuso, bhikkhūnaṃ veyyāvaccakaro”ti. So ce dūto taṃ veyyāvaccakaraṃ saññāpetvā taṃ bhikkhuṃ upasaṅkamitvā evaṃ vadeyya “yaṃ kho, bhante, āyasmā veyyāvaccakaraṃ niddisi, saññatto so mayā, upasaṅkamatāyasmā kālena, cīvarena taṃ acchādessatī”ti. Cīvaratthikena, bhikkhave, bhikkhunā veyyāvaccakaro upasaṅkamitvā dvattikkhattuṃ codetabbo sāretabbo “attho me, āvuso, cīvarenā”ti, dvattikkhattuṃ codayamāno sārayamāno taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce abhinipphādeyya, catukkhattuṃ pañcakkhattuṃ chakkhattuparamaṃ tuṇhībhūtena uddissa ṭhātabbaṃ, catukkhattuṃ pañcakkhattuṃ chakkhattuparamaṃ tuṇhībhūto uddissa tiṭṭhamāno taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, tato ce uttari vāyamamāno taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. No ce abhinipphādeyya, yatassa cīvaracetāpannaṃ ābhataṃ, tattha sāmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ, dūto vā pāhetabbo “yaṃ kho tumhe āyasmanto bhikkhuṃ uddissa cīvaracetāpannaṃ pahiṇittha, na taṃ tassa bhikkhuno kiñci atthaṃ anubhoti, yuñjantāyasmanto sakaṃ, mā vo sakaṃ vinassā”ti, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci.

10. If a king, a king’s official, a brahmin, or a householder sends a robe fund by messenger with a bhikkhu in mind, saying, “Having purchased a robe with this robe fund, clothe the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe,” and if that messenger approaches the bhikkhu and says, “Venerable sir, this robe fund has been brought with you in mind; may the venerable sir accept the robe fund,” that bhikkhu should say to the messenger, “Friend, we do not accept robe funds; we accept robes at the proper time, when allowable.” If the messenger says to that bhikkhu, “Does the venerable sir have anyone to assist?” a bhikkhu needing a robe should designate an assistant—a monastery attendant or a lay follower—saying, “This, friend, is the assistant of the bhikkhus.” If the messenger, having instructed that assistant, approaches the bhikkhu and says, “Venerable sir, I have instructed the assistant you designated; let the venerable sir approach at the proper time, and he will clothe you with a robe,” a bhikkhu needing a robe should approach the assistant and urge or remind him two or three times, saying, “Friend, I need a robe.” If, urging or reminding him two or three times, he obtains that robe, that is good; if he does not obtain it, he should stand silently with that in mind a maximum of four, five, or six times. If, standing silently with that in mind a maximum of four, five, or six times, he obtains that robe, that is good; if he strives further and obtains that robe, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. If he does not obtain it, he should either go himself or send a messenger to where the robe fund was brought from, saying, “Venerable sirs, the robe fund you sent with a bhikkhu in mind has not been of any use to that bhikkhu; take back what is yours, lest what is yours be lost.” This is the proper procedure here.

10. If a king, a royal official, a brahmin, or a householder sends a robe-fund for a bhikkhu via a messenger, with the intention: ‘Having purchased a robe with this robe-fund, provide a robe to a bhikkhu named thus’, and if that messenger approaches the bhikkhu and says: ‘Venerable sir, this robe-fund has been brought for you; please accept the robe-fund’, that bhikkhu should say to the messenger: ‘Friend, we do not accept robe-funds; we accept robes if they are timely and allowable.’ If the messenger says to the bhikkhu: ‘Is there anyone who acts as your attendant?’, then, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu in need of a robe should designate an attendant, either a monastery attendant or a lay follower, saying: ‘Friend, this is the attendant of the bhikkhus.’ If the messenger, having informed the attendant, approaches the bhikkhu and says: ‘Venerable sir, the attendant whom you designated has been informed by me; approach at the proper time, and he will provide you with a robe’, then, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu in need of a robe should approach the attendant and prompt and remind him two or three times, saying: ‘Friend, I need a robe.’ If, being prompted and reminded two or three times, he produces the robe, that is good. If he does not produce it, he should stand silently, facing him, four, five, or at most six times. If, standing silently, facing him, four, five, or at most six times, he produces the robe, that is good. If, striving beyond that, he produces the robe, it entails expiation. If he does not produce it, he should either go himself or send a messenger to where the robe-fund was brought from, saying: ‘Sirs, the robe-fund that you sent for the bhikkhu does not serve any purpose for that bhikkhu; use your own property, lest your own be lost.’ This is the proper course in this case.

10. If a king, a royal official, a brahmin, or a householder sends a robe-fund through a messenger to a bhikkhu, saying, “With this robe-fund, buy a robe and then present it to such-and-such bhikkhu,” and if that messenger approaches the bhikkhu and says, “Venerable, this robe-fund has been brought for you. Please accept the robe-fund,” then that bhikkhu should say to the messenger, “Friend, we do not accept robe-funds. We accept robes at the appropriate time.” If the messenger says to the bhikkhu, “Does the venerable have an attendant?” then a bhikkhu in need of a robe may point out an attendant, either a monastery worker or a lay follower, saying, “This, friend, is the attendant for the bhikkhus.” If the messenger, having instructed the attendant, approaches the bhikkhu and says, “Venerable, the attendant you pointed out has been instructed by me. Please approach him at the appropriate time, and he will present you with the robe,” then the bhikkhu in need of a robe should approach the attendant and remind him two or three times, “I need a robe.” If, after being reminded two or three times, the attendant produces the robe, that is good. If he does not produce it, the bhikkhu should stand silently in front of the attendant four, five, or six times at most. If, after standing silently four, five, or six times at most, the attendant produces the robe, that is good. If he still does not produce it, and the bhikkhu makes further effort and the robe is produced, it is to be forfeited and confessed. If it is not produced, the bhikkhu should either go himself or send a messenger to where the robe-fund was brought, saying, “The robe-fund you sent for the bhikkhu has not been of any use to him. Please take care of your own property, and do not let it go to waste.” This is the proper procedure.

11. Yo pana bhikkhu kosiyamissakaṃ santhataṃ kārāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

11. If any bhikkhu should have a rug made mixed with silk, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

11. If any bhikkhu should have a rug made mixed with silk, it entails expiation.

11. If a bhikkhu has a blanket made with a mixture of silk, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

12. Yo pana bhikkhu suddhakāḷakānaṃ eḷakalomānaṃ santhataṃ kārāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

12. If any bhikkhu should have a rug made of pure black goat wool, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

12. If any bhikkhu should have a rug made of pure black sheep’s wool, it entails expiation.

12. If a bhikkhu has a blanket made entirely of black wool, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

13. Navaṃ pana bhikkhunā santhataṃ kārayamānena dve bhāgā suddhakāḷakānaṃ eḷakalomānaṃ ādātabbā, tatiyaṃ odātānaṃ, catutthaṃ gocariyānaṃ. Anādā ce bhikkhu dve bhāge suddhakāḷakānaṃ eḷakalomānaṃ, tatiyaṃ odātānaṃ, catutthaṃ gocariyānaṃ, navaṃ santhataṃ kārāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

13. When a bhikkhu has a new rug made, he should take two parts of pure black goat wool, a third part of white, and a fourth part of brown. If a bhikkhu does not take two parts of pure black goat wool, a third part of white, and a fourth part of brown, and has a new rug made, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

13. When a bhikkhu is having a new rug made, he should take two parts of pure black sheep’s wool, a third of white, and a fourth of brown. If a bhikkhu should have a new rug made without taking two parts of pure black sheep’s wool, a third of white, and a fourth of brown, it entails expiation.

13. When a bhikkhu is having a new blanket made, two parts must be taken of pure black wool, a third part of white wool, and a fourth part of brown wool. If a bhikkhu does not take two parts of pure black wool, a third part of white wool, and a fourth part of brown wool, and has a new blanket made, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

14. Navaṃ pana bhikkhunā santhataṃ kārāpetvā chabbassāni dhāretabbaṃ, orena ce channaṃ vassānaṃ taṃ santhataṃ vissajjetvā vā avissajjetvā vā aññaṃ navaṃ santhataṃ kārāpeyya aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

14. When a bhikkhu has had a new rug made, it should be kept for six years. If, before six years, whether he relinquishes that rug or not, he has another new rug made, except with the consent of the bhikkhus, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

14. A new rug made by a bhikkhu should be kept for six years. If, within six years, he should discard or not discard that rug and have another new rug made, except with the permission of the bhikkhus, it entails expiation.

14. After a bhikkhu has had a new blanket made, it must be used for six years. If, before six years have passed, he abandons it or has another new blanket made without the Sangha’s permission, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

15. Nisīdanasanthataṃ pana bhikkhunā kārayamānena purāṇasanthatassa sāmantā sugatavidatthi ādātabbā dubbaṇṇakaraṇāya. Anādā ce bhikkhu purāṇasantha tassa sāmantā sugatavidatthiṃ, navaṃ nisīdanasanthataṃ kārāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

15. When a bhikkhu has a sitting rug made, a strip of a sugata span from an old rug should be taken around the border to disfigure it. If a bhikkhu does not take a strip of a sugata span from an old rug around the border and has a new sitting rug made, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

15. When a bhikkhu is having a sitting rug made, he should take a handspan according to the Sugata span from the border of the old rug to discolour it. If a bhikkhu should have a new sitting rug made without taking a Sugata handspan from the border of the old rug, it entails expiation.

15. When a bhikkhu is having a sitting cloth made, he must take a border from an old blanket to prevent it from looking shabby. If he does not take a border from an old blanket and has a new sitting cloth made, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

16. Bhikkhuno paneva addhānamaggappaṭipannassa eḷakalomāni uppajjeyyuṃ, ākaṅkhamānena bhikkhunā paṭiggahetabbāni, paṭiggahetvā tiyojanaparamaṃ sahatthā haritabbāni asante hārake. Tato ce uttari hareyya, asantepi hārake, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

16. If goat wool arises for a bhikkhu traveling on a road, he may accept it if he wishes; having accepted it, he may carry it in his own hands for a maximum of three yojanas if there is no carrier. If he carries it further than that, even without a carrier, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

16. If sheep’s wool should arise for a bhikkhu who has set out on a journey, the bhikkhu, if he desires, may accept it. Having accepted it, he may carry it himself for a maximum of three yojanas, if there is no one to carry it. If he should carry it further, even if there is no one to carry it, it entails expiation.

16. If a bhikkhu is traveling on a road and wool comes into his possession, he may accept it if he wishes. Having accepted it, he may carry it for at most three leagues if there is no one to carry it. If he carries it further than that, even if there is no one to carry it, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

17. Yo pana bhikkhu aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā eḷakalomāni dhovāpeyya vā rajāpeyya vā vijaṭāpeyya vā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

17. If any bhikkhu should have goat wool washed, dyed, or carded by an unrelated bhikkhuni, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

17. If any bhikkhu should have sheep’s wool washed, dyed, or carded by a bhikkhuni who is not a relative, it entails expiation.

17. If a bhikkhu has wool washed, dyed, or carded by an unrelated bhikkhunī, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

18. Yo pana bhikkhu jātarūparajataṃ uggaṇheyya vā uggaṇhāpeyya vā upanikkhittaṃ vā sādiyeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

18. If any bhikkhu should take, have taken, or consent to gold or silver being set aside for him, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

18. If any bhikkhu should pick up, or have someone pick up, or consent to the deposit of gold and silver, it entails expiation.

18. If a bhikkhu takes gold or silver, or has it taken, or consents to it being placed near him, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

19. Yo pana bhikkhu nānappakārakaṃ rūpiyasaṃvohāraṃ samāpajjeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

19. If any bhikkhu should engage in various transactions involving gold or silver, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

19. If any bhikkhu should engage in various kinds of transactions involving money, it entails expiation.

19. If a bhikkhu engages in various kinds of monetary exchange, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

20. Yo pana bhikkhu nānappakārakaṃ kayavikkayaṃ samāpajjeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

20. If any bhikkhu should engage in various forms of buying and selling, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

20. If any bhikkhu should engage in various kinds of buying and selling, it entails expiation.

20. If a bhikkhu engages in various kinds of buying and selling, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

21. Dasāhaparamaṃ atirekapatto dhāretabbo, taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

21. An extra bowl may be kept for a maximum of ten days; exceeding that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

21. An extra bowl may be kept for a maximum of ten days; exceeding that entails expiation.

21. An extra bowl may be kept for at most ten days. If it is kept beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

22. Yo pana bhikkhu ūnapañcabandhanena pattena aññaṃ navaṃ pattaṃ cetāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Tena bhikkhunā so patto bhikkhuparisāya nissajjitabbo , yo ca tassā bhikkhuparisāya pattapariyanto, so tassa bhikkhuno padātabbo “ayaṃ te bhikkhu patto yāva bhedanāya dhāretabbo”ti, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci.

22. If any bhikkhu should exchange a bowl with fewer than five mends for another new bowl, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. That bhikkhu should relinquish that bowl to the assembly of bhikkhus, and whatever is the last bowl in that assembly of bhikkhus, it should be given to that bhikkhu with the words, “This, bhikkhu, is your bowl; keep it until it breaks.” This is the proper procedure here.

22. If any bhikkhu should acquire a new bowl while having a bowl with less than five mendings, it entails expiation. That bowl should be forfeited by that bhikkhu to the assembly of bhikkhus. And whatever is the last bowl of that assembly of bhikkhus, it should be given to that bhikkhu, saying: ‘This is your bowl, bhikkhu; it should be kept until it breaks.’ This is the proper course in this case.

22. If a bhikkhu has another new bowl made when his current bowl has fewer than five mends, it is to be forfeited and confessed. That bhikkhu must relinquish the bowl to the Sangha, and the bowl that is the last among the Sangha’s bowls should be given to him, saying, “This, bhikkhu, is your bowl. It is to be used until it breaks.” This is the proper procedure.

23. Yāni kho pana tāni gilānānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ paṭisāyanīyāni bhesajjāni, seyyathidaṃ – sappi navanītaṃ telaṃ madhu phāṇitaṃ, tāni paṭiggahetvā sattāhaparamaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbāni, taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

23. Those medicines allowable for sick bhikkhus—namely, ghee, butter, oil, honey, and molasses—having been accepted, may be used with storage for a maximum of seven days; exceeding that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

23. Those medicines which are suitable for sick bhikkhus, namely: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, molasses, having received them, may be used while stored for a maximum of seven days; exceeding that entails expiation.

23. The tonics that are allowed for sick bhikkhus—ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and sugar—may be kept for at most seven days. If they are kept beyond that, they are to be forfeited and confessed.

24. “Māso seso gimhāna”nti bhikkhunā vassikasāṭikacīvaraṃ pariyesitabbaṃ, “addhamāso seso gimhāna”nti katvā nivāsetabbaṃ. Orena ce “māso seso gimhāna”nti vassikasāṭikacīvaraṃ pariyeseyya, orena“ddhamāso seso gimhāna”nti katvā nivāseyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

24. “One month remains of the hot season”: a bhikkhu should seek a rains robe; “half a month remains of the hot season”: having made it, he should wear it. If he seeks a rains robe before “one month remains of the hot season,” or wears it before “half a month remains of the hot season” after making it, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

24. A bhikkhu should seek a rains-bathing cloth when one month of the hot season remains; having made it, it should be worn when half a month of the hot season remains. If he should seek a rains-bathing cloth before one month of the hot season remains, or, having made it, wear it before half a month of the hot season remains, it entails expiation.

24. When one month of the hot season remains, a bhikkhu should search for a rainy-season robe. When half a month of the hot season remains, he should wear it. If he searches for a rainy-season robe before one month of the hot season remains, or wears it before half a month of the hot season remains, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

25. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ datvā kupito anattamano acchindeyya vā acchindāpeyya vā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

25. If any bhikkhu, having himself given a robe to a bhikkhu, should, out of anger and displeasure, take it back or have it taken back, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

25. If any bhikkhu, having himself given a robe to a bhikkhu, should, in anger and displeasure, take it back or have it taken back, it entails expiation.

25. If a bhikkhu, having given a robe to another bhikkhu, later becomes angry and takes it back or has it taken back, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

26. Yo pana bhikkhu sāmaṃ suttaṃ viññāpetvā tantavāyehi cīvaraṃ vāyāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

26. If any bhikkhu, having himself requested thread, should have a robe woven by weavers, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

26. If any bhikkhu, having himself requested thread, should have weavers weave a robe, it entails expiation.

26. If a bhikkhu asks for thread and then has weavers make a robe, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

27. Bhikkhuṃ paneva uddissa aññātako gahapati vā gahapatānī vā tantavāyehi cīvaraṃ vāyāpeyya, tatra ce so bhikkhu pubbe appavārito tantavāye upasaṅkamitvā cīvare vikappaṃ āpajjeyya “idaṃ kho, āvuso, cīvaraṃ maṃ uddissa viyyati, āyatañca karotha, vitthatañca, appitañca, suvītañca, suppavāyitañca, suvilekhitañca, suvitacchitañca karotha, appeva nāma mayampi āyasmantānaṃ kiñcimattaṃ anupadajjeyyāmā”ti. Evañca so bhikkhu vatvā kiñcimattaṃ anupadajjeyya antamaso piṇḍapātamattampi, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

27. If an unrelated householder or householder’s wife has a robe woven by weavers with a bhikkhu in mind, and if that bhikkhu, uninvited beforehand, approaches the weavers and suggests a preference regarding the robe, saying, “Friends, this robe is being woven with me in mind; make it long, wide, thick, well-woven, well-spread, well-scraped, and well-smoothed; perhaps we may give you something small in return,” and having said this, he gives something small, even just a lump of almsfood, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

27. If a householder or a householder’s wife, who is not a relative, should have weavers weave a robe for a bhikkhu, and if that bhikkhu, uninvited beforehand, approaches the weavers and makes specifications regarding the robe, saying: ‘Friend, this robe is being woven for me; make it long, wide, well-woven, tightly woven, well-scraped, and well-carded; perhaps we might also give you something small,’ and if that bhikkhu, having said this, gives something small, even as much as almsfood, it entails expiation.

27. If an unrelated male or female householder has weavers make a robe for a bhikkhu, and if that bhikkhu, without being invited beforehand, approaches the weavers and makes a stipulation regarding the robe, saying, “This robe is being made for me. Make it long, make it wide, make it tightly woven, well-woven, well-finished, well-cut, and well-sewn. Perhaps I will give you something in return,” and if, having said this, he gives them even a lump of almsfood, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

28. Dasāhānāgataṃ kattikatemāsikapuṇṇamaṃ bhikkhuno paneva accekacīvaraṃ uppajjeyya, accekaṃ maññamānena bhikkhunā paṭiggahetabbaṃ, paṭiggahetvā yāva cīvarakālasamayaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ. Tato ce uttari nikkhipeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

28. If, ten days before the full moon of the Kattika three-month period, an urgent robe arises for a bhikkhu, considering it urgent, the bhikkhu may accept it; having accepted it, it should be kept until the robe season. If he keeps it beyond that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

28. If an urgent robe should arise for a bhikkhu when ten days remain before the Kattika full moon of the three-month period, the bhikkhu, recognizing it as urgent, may accept it. Having accepted it, it may be kept until the robe-making season. If he should keep it beyond that, it entails expiation.

28. If an urgent robe comes into a bhikkhu’s possession more than ten days before the Kattika full moon, and he perceives it as urgent, he may accept it. Having accepted it, he should keep it until the robe season. If he keeps it beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

29. Upavassaṃ kho pana kattikapuṇṇamaṃ yāni kho pana tāni āraññakāni senāsanāni sāsaṅkasammatāni sappaṭibhayāni, tathārūpesu bhikkhu senāsanesu viharanto ākaṅkhamāno tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññataraṃ cīvaraṃ antaraghare nikkhipeyya, siyā ca tassa bhikkhuno kocideva paccayo tena cīvarena vippavāsāya, chārattaparamaṃ tena bhikkhunā tena cīvarena vippavasitabbaṃ. Tato ce uttari vippavaseyya aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

29. During the rains retreat up to the full moon of Kattika, in those wilderness dwellings considered dangerous and fearful, a bhikkhu dwelling in such places, if he wishes, may keep one of his three robes in a village. If that bhikkhu has some reason to be separated from that robe, he may be separated from it for a maximum of six nights. If he is separated from it beyond that, except with the consent of the bhikkhus, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

29. When the Kattika full moon has passed, if a bhikkhu is dwelling in forest dwellings, which are considered dangerous and risky, and he desires, he may keep one of the three robes inside the village. And if that bhikkhu should have some reason to live apart from that robe, he may live apart from that robe for a maximum of six nights. If he should live apart from it beyond that, except with the permission of the bhikkhus, it entails expiation.

29. On the Kattika full moon, if a bhikkhu is staying in a wilderness dwelling that is considered dangerous and frightening, and if he wishes, he may leave one of his three robes in a village. If there is a reason for him to be separated from that robe, he may stay apart from it for at most six nights. If he stays apart from it beyond that, except with the Sangha’s permission, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

30. Yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ saṅghikaṃ lābhaṃ pariṇataṃ attano pariṇāmeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

30. If any bhikkhu knowingly redirects a benefit belonging to the Saṅgha to himself, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

30. If any bhikkhu, knowing that a gain intended for the Sangha has been allocated, should divert it to himself, it entails expiation.

30. If a bhikkhu knowingly diverts to himself a gift intended for the Sangha, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto tiṃsa nissaggiyā pācittiyā dhammā. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyasmanto, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

The thirty nissaggiya pācittiya rules have been recited, venerable ones. Here I ask you: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The venerable ones are pure in this; therefore, they are silent. Thus I hold it to be.

Venerable sirs, the thirty rules entailing expiation have been recited. I ask the venerable sirs, are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask, are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask, are you pure in this matter? The venerable sirs are pure in this matter; therefore, they are silent. Thus I hold it.

Venerables, the thirty rules on forfeiture and confession have been recited. In regard to these, I ask you, “Are you pure?” A second time, I ask, “Are you pure?” A third time, I ask, “Are you pure?” You are pure, therefore you remain silent. Thus, I remember it.

Suddhapācittiyā

The pure rules of confession.

4. If any bhikkhu should teach Dhamma to an unordained person word by word, it is a pācittiya.

4. If any bhikkhu should recite the Dhamma word by word with an unordained person, it entails expiation.

4. If a bhikkhu teaches Dhamma word by word to an unordained person, it is to be confessed.

5. Yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannena uttaridirattatirattaṃ sahaseyyaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

5. If any bhikkhu should lie down together with an unordained person for more than two or three nights, it is a pācittiya.

5. If any bhikkhu should sleep in the same lodging with an unordained person for more than two or three nights, it entails expiation.

5. If a bhikkhu lies down together with an unordained person for more than two or three nights, it is to be confessed.

6. If any bhikkhu should sleep in the same lodging with a woman, it entails expiation.

7. Yo pana bhikkhu mātugāmassa uttarichappañcavācāhi dhammaṃ deseyya aññatra viññunā purisaviggahena, pācittiyaṃ.

7. If any bhikkhu should teach Dhamma to a woman with more than five or six words, except in the presence of a knowledgeable man, it is a pācittiya.

7. If any bhikkhu should teach the Dhamma to a woman with more than five or six sentences, except in the presence of an intelligent man, it entails expiation.

7. If a bhikkhu teaches Dhamma to a woman in more than five or six sentences, except in the presence of a knowledgeable man, it is to be confessed.

8. Yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ āroceyya, bhūtasmiṃ pācittiyaṃ.

8. If any bhikkhu should declare a superior human state to an unordained person, when it is true, it is a pācittiya.

8. If any bhikkhu should report a superhuman attainment to an unordained person, when it is true, it entails expiation.

8. If a bhikkhu truthfully reveals a superhuman quality to an unordained person, it is to be confessed.

9. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa duṭṭhullaṃ āpattiṃ anupasampannassa āroceyya aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā, pācittiyaṃ.

9. If any bhikkhu should declare a bhikkhu’s grave offense to an unordained person, except with the consent of the bhikkhus, it is a pācittiya.

9. If any bhikkhu should report a grave offense of a bhikkhu to an unordained person, except with the permission of the bhikkhus, it entails expiation.

9. If a bhikkhu reveals a grave offense of another bhikkhu to an unordained person, except with the Sangha’s permission, it is to be confessed.

10. If any bhikkhu should dig or have someone dig the earth, it entails expiation.

14. Yo pana bhikkhu saṅghikaṃ mañcaṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā bhisiṃ vā kocchaṃ vā ajjhokāse santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā taṃ pakkamanto neva uddhareyya, na uddharāpeyya, anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

14. If any bhikkhu should spread or have spread a bed, seat, mat, or bundle belonging to the Saṅgha in the open air, and on departing neither remove it nor have it removed, or go without asking permission, it is a pācittiya.

14. If any bhikkhu, having spread out or having had someone spread out a bed, a chair, a mattress, or a stool belonging to the Sangha in the open air, should depart without removing it, or without having it removed, or without taking leave, it entails expiation.

14. If a bhikkhu spreads out or has spread out a Sangha bed, chair, mattress, or stool in the open air, and then departs without putting it away or having it put away, or without informing anyone, it is to be confessed.

15. Yo pana bhikkhu saṅghike vihāre seyyaṃ santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā taṃ pakkamanto neva uddhareyya, na uddharāpeyya, anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

15. If any bhikkhu should spread or have spread bedding in a dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha, and on departing neither remove it nor have it removed, or go without asking permission, it is a pācittiya.

15. If any bhikkhu, having spread out or having had someone spread out bedding in a dwelling belonging to the Sangha, should depart without removing it, or without having it removed, or without taking leave, it entails expiation.

15. If a bhikkhu spreads out or has spread out a bed in a Sangha dwelling, and then departs without putting it away or having it put away, or without informing anyone, it is to be confessed.

16. Yo pana bhikkhu saṅghike vihāre jānaṃ pubbupagataṃ bhikkhuṃ anupakhajja seyyaṃ kappeyya “yassa sambādho bhavissati, so pakkamissatī”ti etadeva paccayaṃ karitvā anaññaṃ, pācittiyaṃ.

16. If any bhikkhu, knowing a bhikkhu has arrived earlier, should lie down in a dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha, intruding on him, thinking, “If it becomes cramped for him, he will leave,” doing so for that reason alone and no other, it is a pācittiya.

16. If any bhikkhu, knowing that a bhikkhu has previously occupied a dwelling belonging to the Sangha, should intrude and lie down, thinking, ‘Whoever finds it cramped will depart,’ making that the very reason and no other, it entails expiation.

16. If a bhikkhu, knowing that a bhikkhu has arrived first, encroaches on him by lying down in a Sangha dwelling, thinking, “Whoever feels crowded will leave,” and does so for this reason only, it is to be confessed.

17. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhuṃ kupito anattamano saṅghikā vihārā nikkaḍḍheyya vā nikkaḍḍhāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

17. If any bhikkhu, angry and displeased, should evict or have a bhikkhu evicted from a dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha, it is a pācittiya.

17. If any bhikkhu, being angry and displeased with a bhikkhu, should evict him or have him evicted from a dwelling belonging to the Sangha, it entails expiation.

17. If a bhikkhu, angry and displeased, ejects or has ejected another bhikkhu from a Sangha dwelling, it is to be confessed.

18. Yo pana bhikkhu saṅghike vihāre uparivehāsakuṭiyā āhaccapādakaṃ mañcaṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā abhinisīdeyya vā abhinipajjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

18. If any bhikkhu should sit or lie down on a bed or seat with detachable legs in an upper room of a dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha, it is a pācittiya.

18. If any bhikkhu should sit or lie down on a bed or chair with removable legs on the upper storey of a dwelling belonging to the Sangha, it entails expiation.

18. If a bhikkhu sits or lies down on a bed or chair with detachable legs in an upper-story room of a Sangha dwelling, it is to be confessed.

19. Mahallakaṃ pana bhikkhunā vihāraṃ kārayamānena yāva dvārakosā aggaḷaṭṭhapanāya ālokasandhiparikammāya dvatticchadanassa pariyāyaṃ appaharite ṭhitena adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, tato ce uttari appaharitepi ṭhito adhiṭṭhaheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

19. When a bhikkhu has a large dwelling built, he should stand in a place free from greenery to supervise it up to the door frame, for setting the latch, preparing the window space, and for two or three layers of roofing. If he supervises beyond that, even standing in a place free from greenery, it is a pācittiya.

19. When a bhikkhu is having a large dwelling built, he should supervise, while standing on ground that is not covered with vegetation, up to two or three layers of roofing for the door frame, the placing of the door bolt, and the surrounding work of the window openings. If he should supervise while standing on ground that is not covered with vegetation beyond that, it entails expiation.

19. When a bhikkhu is having a large dwelling built, he may have it plastered up to the door frame and the window frames, and he may have it roofed up to two or three layers. If he has it plastered or roofed beyond that, even if it is not yet finished, it is to be confessed.

20. Yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ sappāṇakaṃ udakaṃ tiṇaṃ vā mattikaṃ vā siñceyya vā siñcāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

20. If any bhikkhu, knowing water contains living beings, should pour it or have it poured onto grass or clay, it is a pācittiya.

20. If any bhikkhu, knowing that water contains living beings, should pour it or have it poured on grass or clay, it entails expiation.

20. If a bhikkhu knowingly pours water containing living beings on grass or clay, or has it poured, it is to be confessed.

21. If any bhikkhu, not authorized, should admonish bhikkhunis, it is a pācittiya.

21. If any bhikkhu, not authorized, should instruct bhikkhunis, it entails expiation.

21. If a bhikkhu instructs bhikkhunīs without being authorized, it is to be confessed.

22. Sammatopi ce bhikkhu atthaṅgate sūriye bhikkhuniyo ovadeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

22. Even if authorized, if a bhikkhu should admonish bhikkhunis after sunset, it is a pācittiya.

22. Even if authorized, if a bhikkhu should instruct bhikkhunis after sunset, it entails expiation.

22. Even if authorized, if a bhikkhu instructs bhikkhunīs after sunset, it is to be confessed.

23. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhunupassayaṃ upasaṅkamitvā bhikkhuniyo ovadeyya aññatra samayā, pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo, gilānā hoti bhikkhunī, ayaṃ tattha samayo.

23. If any bhikkhu should go to a bhikkhuni monastery and admonish bhikkhunis, except at the proper time, it is a pācittiya. Here the proper time is when a bhikkhuni is ill; this is the proper time here.

23. If any bhikkhu should approach a bhikkhuni residence and instruct bhikkhunis, except on a proper occasion, it entails expiation. The proper occasion in this case is: a bhikkhuni is sick; this is the proper occasion in this case.

23. If a bhikkhu visits a bhikkhunī residence and instructs bhikkhunīs, except on an appropriate occasion, it is to be confessed. The appropriate occasion here is when a bhikkhunī is sick.

24. Yo pana bhikkhu evaṃ vadeyya “āmisahetu therā bhikkhū bhikkhuniyo ovadantī”ti, pācittiyaṃ.

24. If any bhikkhu should say, “The elder bhikkhus admonish bhikkhunis for material gain,” it is a pācittiya.

24. If any bhikkhu should say: ‘The elder bhikkhus instruct bhikkhunis for the sake of material gain,’ it entails expiation.

24. If a bhikkhu says, “The senior bhikkhus instruct bhikkhunīs for the sake of material gain,” it is to be confessed.

25. Yo pana bhikkhu aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā cīvaraṃ dadeyya aññatra pārivattakā, pācittiyaṃ.

25. If any bhikkhu should give a robe to an unrelated bhikkhuni, except in exchange, it is a pācittiya.

25. If any bhikkhu should give a robe to a bhikkhuni who is not a relative, except in exchange, it entails expiation.

25. If a bhikkhu gives a robe to an unrelated bhikkhunī, except in exchange, it is to be confessed.

26. Yo pana bhikkhu aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā cīvaraṃ sibbeyya vā sibbāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

26. If any bhikkhu should sew or have a robe sewn for an unrelated bhikkhuni, it is a pācittiya.

26. If any bhikkhu should sew or have someone sew a robe for a bhikkhuni who is not a relative, it entails expiation.

26. If a bhikkhu sews or has sewn a robe for an unrelated bhikkhunī, it is to be confessed.

27. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhuniyā saddhiṃ saṃvidhāya ekaddhānamaggaṃ paṭipajjeyya antamaso gāmantarampi aññatra samayā, pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo, satthagamanīyo hoti maggo, sāsaṅkasammato, sappaṭibhayo, ayaṃ tattha samayo.

27. If any bhikkhu should arrange and travel together with a bhikkhuni on the same road, even between villages, except at the proper time, it is a pācittiya. Here the proper time is when the road is suitable for a caravan, considered dangerous and fearful; this is the proper time here.

27. If any bhikkhu, having made an arrangement with a bhikkhuni, should travel on the same road, even as far as the next village, except on a proper occasion, it entails expiation. The proper occasion in this case is: the road is to be traveled with a caravan, is considered dangerous, and is risky; this is the proper occasion in this case.

27. If a bhikkhu makes an arrangement to travel together with a bhikkhunī on the same road, even just to the next village, except on an appropriate occasion, it is to be confessed. The appropriate occasion here is when the road is considered dangerous and frightening.

28. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhuniyā saddhiṃ saṃvidhāya ekaṃ nāvaṃ abhiruheyya uddhaṃgāminiṃ vā adhogāminiṃ vā aññatra tiriyaṃ taraṇāya, pācittiyaṃ.

28. If any bhikkhu should arrange and board the same boat with a bhikkhuni, whether going upstream or downstream, except for crossing to the other side, it is a pācittiya.

28. If any bhikkhu, having made an arrangement with a bhikkhuni, should board the same boat, whether going upstream or downstream, except for crossing to the other shore, it entails expiation.

28. If a bhikkhu makes an arrangement to board the same boat with a bhikkhunī, whether going upstream or downstream, except for crossing to the other side, it is to be confessed.

29. Yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ bhikkhuniparipācitaṃ piṇḍapātaṃ bhuñjeyya aññatra pubbe gihisamārambhā, pācittiyaṃ.

29. If any bhikkhu knowingly eats almsfood arranged by a bhikkhuni, except when previously arranged by a householder, it is a pācittiya.

29. If any bhikkhu, knowing that almsfood has been prepared by a bhikkhuni’s direction, should eat it, except if the householders had started it beforehand, it entails expiation.

29. If a bhikkhu knowingly eats food procured by a bhikkhunī, except if it was previously arranged by a layperson, it is to be confessed.

30. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhuniyā saddhiṃ eko ekāya raho nisajjaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

30. If any bhikkhu should sit alone with a bhikkhuni in private, it is a pācittiya.

30. If any bhikkhu should sit alone with a bhikkhuni in a secluded place, it entails expiation.

30. If a bhikkhu sits in private with a bhikkhunī, one on one, it is to be confessed.

31. Agilānena bhikkhunā eko āvasathapiṇḍo bhuñjitabbo. Tato ce uttari bhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

31. A bhikkhu who is not ill may eat one meal at a public almshouse. If he eats more than that, it is a pācittiya.

31. A bhikkhu who is not sick should eat only one alms meal at a lodging. If he should eat more than that, it entails expiation.

31. A bhikkhu who is not sick may eat one meal at a public rest house. If he eats more than that, it is to be confessed.

32. Gaṇabhojane aññatra samayā pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo, gilānasamayo, cīvaradānasamayo, cīvarakārasamayo, addhānagamanasamayo, nāvābhiruhanasamayo, mahāsamayo, samaṇabhattasamayo, ayaṃ tattha samayo.

32. In eating with a group, except at the proper time, there is a pācittiya. Here the proper time is the time of illness, the time of giving robes, the time of making robes, the time of traveling, the time of boarding a boat, a great occasion, the time of a meal for ascetics; this is the proper time here.

32. In the case of eating in a group, except on a proper occasion, it entails expiation. The proper occasion in this case is: a time of sickness, a time of giving robes, a time of making robes, a time of traveling on a journey, a time of boarding a boat, a great occasion, a time of a meal for recluses; this is the proper occasion in this case.

32. Eating a group meal, except on an appropriate occasion, is to be confessed. The appropriate occasion here is when one is sick, when giving robes, when making robes, when traveling, when boarding a boat, during a large gathering, or during a meal for ascetics.

33. Paramparabhojane aññatra samayā pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo, gilānasamayo, cīvaradānasamayo, cīvarakārasamayo, ayaṃ tattha samayo.

33. In eating in succession, except at the proper time, there is a pācittiya. Here the proper time is the time of illness, the time of giving robes, the time of making robes; this is the proper time here.

33. In the case of eating out of turn, except on a proper occasion, it entails expiation. The proper occasion in this case is: a time of sickness, a time of giving robes, a time of making robes; this is the proper occasion in this case.

33. Eating successive meals, except on an appropriate occasion, is to be confessed. The appropriate occasion here is when one is sick, when giving robes, or when making robes.

34. Bhikkhuṃ paneva kulaṃ upagataṃ pūvehi vā manthehi vā abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya, ākaṅkhamānena bhikkhunā dvattipattapūrā paṭiggahetabbā. Tato ce uttari paṭiggaṇheyya, pācittiyaṃ. Dvattipattapūre paṭiggahetvā tato nīharitvā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ saṃvibhajitabbaṃ, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci.

34. If a family invites a bhikkhu who has come to their house with cakes or confections, a bhikkhu who wishes may accept two or three bowlfuls. If he accepts more than that, it is a pācittiya. Having accepted two or three bowlfuls and taken them away, he should share them with the bhikkhus; this is the proper procedure here.

34. If a bhikkhu has gone to a family and they offer him cakes or sweets, the bhikkhu, if he desires, may accept two or three bowlfuls. If he should accept more than that, it entails expiation. Having accepted two or three bowlfuls, he should take them from there and share them with bhikkhus; this is the proper course in this case.

34. If a bhikkhu approaches a family and is offered cakes or pastries, he may accept two or three bowlfuls if he wishes. If he accepts more than that, it is to be confessed. Having accepted two or three bowlfuls, he should take them away and share them with the bhikkhus. This is the proper procedure.

35. Yo pana bhikkhu bhuttāvī pavārito anatirittaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

35. If any bhikkhu who has eaten and refused further food should eat or consume leftover chewable or edible food, it is a pācittiya.

35. If any bhikkhu, having eaten and declined further food, should eat or consume staple or non-staple food that has not been left over, it entails expiation.

35. If a bhikkhu, having eaten and refused more food, eats non-leftover fresh or cooked food, it is to be confessed.

36. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhuṃ bhuttāviṃ pavāritaṃ anatirittena khādanīyena vā bhojanīyena vā abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya “handa bhikkhu khāda vā bhuñja vā”ti jānaṃ āsādanāpekkho, bhuttasmiṃ pācittiyaṃ.

36. If any bhikkhu, knowing and expecting a favor, should invite a bhikkhu who has eaten and refused further food with leftover chewable or edible food, saying, “Come, bhikkhu, eat or consume this,” and when he has eaten, it is a pācittiya.

36. If any bhikkhu, knowing that a bhikkhu has eaten and declined further food, should offer him staple or non-staple food that has not been left over, saying, ‘Come, bhikkhu, eat or consume,’ intending to find fault, it entails expiation when he [the latter] has eaten.

36. If a bhikkhu, having eaten and refused more food, invites another bhikkhu who has eaten and refused more food to eat non-leftover fresh or cooked food, thinking, “Come, bhikkhu, eat this,” knowing that the other bhikkhu desires it, it is to be confessed.

37. Yo pana bhikkhu vikāle khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

37. If any bhikkhu should eat or consume chewable or edible food at the wrong time, it is a pācittiya.

37. If any bhikkhu should eat or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it entails expiation.

37. If a bhikkhu eats fresh or cooked food at the wrong time, it is to be confessed.

38. Yo pana bhikkhu sannidhikārakaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

38. If a monk should eat or consume chewable or edible food that has been stored, it is a pācittiya.

38. If a bhikkhu should eat or consume stored-up chewable food or solid food, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

38. Should any bhikkhu consume or partake of stored-up edible food or staple food, it is to be confessed.

39. Yāni kho pana tāni paṇītabhojanāni, seyyathidaṃ – sappi, navanītaṃ, telaṃ, madhu, phāṇitaṃ, maccho, maṃsaṃ, khīraṃ, dadhi. Yo pana bhikkhu evarūpāni paṇītabhojanāni agilāno attano atthāya viññāpetvā bhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

39. Those foods that are considered refined, namely – ghee (sappi), fresh butter (navanītaṃ), oil (telaṃ), honey (madhu), molasses (phāṇitaṃ), fish (maccho), meat (maṃsaṃ), milk (khīraṃ), curd (dadhi). If a monk who is not ill, having requested such refined foods for his own sake, should consume them, it is a pācittiya.

39. Now these are considered choice foods: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, molasses, fish, meat, milk, curds. If a bhikkhu, not being ill, should have choice foods like these requested for his own sake and consume them, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

39. Whatever fine foods there are, such as ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, molasses, fish, meat, milk, and curds—should any bhikkhu, not being ill, request and consume such fine foods for his own benefit, it is to be confessed.

40. Yo pana bhikkhu adinnaṃ mukhadvāraṃ āhāraṃ āhareyya aññatra udakadantaponā, pācittiyaṃ.

40. If a monk should take into his mouth food that has not been given, except for water and tooth-wood (udakadantapona), it is a pācittiya.

40. If a bhikkhu should take into his mouth anything edible that has not been given, except for water and a toothpick, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

40. Should any bhikkhu take into his mouth any food or drink, except for water and tooth cleaners, that has not been given, it is to be confessed.

41. Yo pana bhikkhu acelakassa vā paribbājakassa vā paribbājikāya vā sahatthā khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā dadeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

41. If a monk should personally give chewable or edible food to a naked ascetic (acelaka), a male wanderer (paribbājaka), or a female wanderer (paribbājikā), it is a pācittiya.

41. If a bhikkhu should give with his own hand chewable food or solid food to a naked ascetic, a male wanderer, or a female wanderer, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

41. Should any bhikkhu give, with his own hand, edible food or staple food to a naked ascetic, a male wanderer, or a female wanderer, it is to be confessed.

42. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhuṃ “ehāvuso, gāmaṃ vā nigamaṃ vā piṇḍāya pavisissāmā”ti tassa dāpetvā vā adāpetvā vā uyyojeyya “gacchāvuso, na me tayā saddhiṃ kathā vā nisajjā vā phāsu hoti, ekakassa me kathā vā nisajjā vā phāsu hotī”ti etadeva paccayaṃ karitvā anaññaṃ, pācittiyaṃ.

42. If a monk should say to another monk, “Come, friend, let us enter the village or town for alms,” and then, whether having caused food to be given or not, should dismiss him, saying, “Go, friend, it is not comfortable for me to talk or sit with you; it is comfortable for me to talk or sit alone,” doing so for this reason alone and no other, it is a pācittiya.

42. If a bhikkhu should say to a bhikkhu, “Come, friend, let us enter the village or town for alms,” and then, whether having given him something or not, dismiss him, saying, “Go away, friend; I find it agreeable neither to converse nor to sit with you, I find it agreeable to converse or sit alone,” doing it solely for that reason and no other, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

42. Should any bhikkhu, having invited another bhikkhu, “Come, friend, let us enter the village or town for alms,” then give or not give him something and dismiss him, saying, “Go away, friend; I do not find it comfortable to converse or sit with you; I prefer to converse or sit alone,” and do so for that reason and no other, it is to be confessed.

43. Yo pana bhikkhu sabhojane kule anupakhajja nisajjaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

43. If a monk should sit intrusively in a household where people are eating together (sabhojane kule), it is a pācittiya.

43. If a bhikkhu should sit down intruding in a family where there is a meal, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

43. Should any bhikkhu sit down in a household that is offering a meal, intruding upon it, it is to be confessed.

44. Yo pana bhikkhu mātugāmena saddhiṃ raho paṭicchanne āsane nisajjaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

44. If a monk should sit privately with a woman on a secluded, concealed seat, it is a pācittiya.

44. If a bhikkhu should sit down with a woman in a secluded, concealed place, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

44. Should any bhikkhu sit down in a secluded place with a woman on a concealed seat, it is to be confessed.

45. Yo pana bhikkhu mātugāmena saddhiṃ eko ekāya raho nisajjaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

45. If a bhikkhu should sit down alone with a woman in a secluded place, one on one, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

45. Should any bhikkhu sit down in private with a woman, one on one, it is to be confessed.

46. Yo pana bhikkhu nimantito sabhatto samāno santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā purebhattaṃ vā pacchābhattaṃ vā kulesu cārittaṃ āpajjeyya aññatra samayā, pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo, cīvaradānasamayo, cīvarakārasamayo, ayaṃ tattha samayo.

46. If a monk, invited and furnished with a meal, without informing a present monk, should engage in wandering among families (cārittaṃ) either before or after the meal, except at the proper time, it is a pācittiya. Here, the proper time is the time for giving robes (cīvaradānasamayo) or the time for making robes (cīvarakārasamayo); this is the proper time therein.

46. If a bhikkhu, having been invited and is eating, without having asked a residing bhikkhu, should go on a visit to families before or after the meal, except at the proper time, it is [an offense] requiring expiation. The proper time in this case is: the time for giving robes, the time for making robes; this is the proper time in this case.

46. Should any bhikkhu, having been invited to a meal and having eaten, visit families before or after the meal without informing an available bhikkhu, except during the proper time, it is to be confessed. Here, the proper time is the time of giving robes, the time of making robes, or the time of illness. This is the proper time in this case.

47. Agilānena bhikkhunā catumāsappaccayapavāraṇā sāditabbā aññatra punapavāraṇāya, aññatra niccapavāraṇāya. Tato ce uttari sādiyeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

47. A monk who is not ill may accept a four-month invitation for requisites (catumāsappaccayapavāraṇā), except in cases of a repeated invitation (punapavāraṇā) or a perpetual invitation (niccapavāraṇā). If he should accept beyond that, it is a pācittiya.

47. A bhikkhu who is not ill should accept a four-month invitation for requisites, except if it is a repeated invitation, except if it is a permanent invitation. If he should accept beyond that, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

47. A bhikkhu who is not ill may accept an invitation for the four-month period, except for a re-invitation or a permanent invitation. Should he accept beyond that, it is to be confessed.

48. Yo pana bhikkhu uyyuttaṃ senaṃ dassanāya gaccheyya aññatra tathārūpappaccayā, pācittiyaṃ.

48. If a monk should go to see an army on active duty (uyyuttaṃ senaṃ), except for a specific reason, it is a pācittiya.

48. If a bhikkhu should go to see a deployed army, except for a reason of that kind, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

48. Should any bhikkhu go to see an army on active duty, except for a proper reason, it is to be confessed.

49. Siyā ca tassa bhikkhuno kocideva paccayo senaṃ gamanāya, dirattatirattaṃ tena bhikkhunā senāya vasitabbaṃ. Tato ce uttari vaseyya, pācittiyaṃ.

49. If a monk has some reason to go to an army, he may stay with the army for two or three nights. If he should stay beyond that, it is a pācittiya.

49. If that bhikkhu should have any reason to go to the army, he may stay with the army for two or three nights. If he should stay beyond that, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

49. If there is some reason for a bhikkhu to go to an army, he may stay with the army for two or three nights. Should he stay beyond that, it is to be confessed.

50. Dirattatirattaṃ ce bhikkhu senāya vasamāno uyyodhikaṃ vā balaggaṃ vā senābyūhaṃ vā anīkadassanaṃ vā gaccheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

50. If a monk, staying with an army for two or three nights, should go to see a battle (uyyodhikaṃ), a troop formation (balaggaṃ), an army array (senābyūhaṃ), or a review of units (anīkadassanaṃ), it is a pācittiya.

50. If a bhikkhu, while staying with an army for two or three nights, should go to a military parade, a roll call, a battle array, or an inspection of troops, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

50. Should any bhikkhu staying with an army for two or three nights go to see a battle formation, a troop review, or the array of forces, it is to be confessed.

51. In drinking fermented liquor or intoxicants (surāmerayapāne), it is a pācittiya.

55. If a bhikkhu should startle a bhikkhu, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

56. Yo pana bhikkhu agilāno visibbanāpekkho jotiṃ samādaheyya vā samādahāpeyya vā aññatra tathārūpappaccayā, pācittiyaṃ.

56. If a monk who is not ill, desiring warmth, should kindle a fire (jotiṃ) or have one kindled, except for a specific reason, it is a pācittiya.

56. If a bhikkhu, not being ill, desiring to warm himself, should light a fire or have a fire lit, except for a reason of that kind, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

56. Should any bhikkhu, not being ill, kindle a fire or have one kindled for his own comfort, except for a proper reason, it is to be confessed.

57. Yo pana bhikkhu orenaddhamāsaṃ nahāyeyya aññatra samayā, pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo “diyaḍḍho māso seso gimhāna”nti “vassānassa paṭhamo māso” iccete aḍḍhateyyamāsā uṇhasamayo, pariḷāhasamayo, gilānasamayo, kammasamayo, addhānagamanasamayo, vātavuṭṭhisamayo, ayaṃ tattha samayo.

57. If a monk should bathe at intervals less than half a month, except at the proper time, it is a pācittiya. Here, the proper time is: “the last month and a half of the hot season” (diyaḍḍho māso seso gimhānaṃ) and “the first month of the rainy season” (vassānassa paṭhamo māso)—these two and a half months are the hot time (uṇhasamayo), the fever time (pariḷāhasamayo), the time of illness (gilānasamayo), the time of work (kammasamayo), the time of traveling (addhānagamanasamayo), and the time of wind and rain (vātavuṭṭhisamayo); this is the proper time therein.

57. If a bhikkhu should bathe at intervals of less than half a month, except at the proper time, it is [an offense] requiring expiation. The proper time in this case is: “The last month and a half of the hot season” and “the first month of the rains,” these two and a half months are the hot season, the season of discomfort, the time of illness, the time of work, the time of traveling, the time of wind and rain; this is the proper time in this case.

57. Should any bhikkhu bathe at intervals of less than half a month, except during the proper time, it is to be confessed. Here, the proper time is the last month and a half of the hot season, the first month of the rainy season, the time of illness, the time of work, the time of travel, the time of wind and rain. This is the proper time in this case.

58. Navaṃ pana bhikkhunā cīvaralābhena tiṇṇaṃ dubbaṇṇakaraṇānaṃ aññataraṃ dubbaṇṇakaraṇaṃ ādātabbaṃ nīlaṃ vā kaddamaṃ vā kāḷasāmaṃ vā. Anādā ce bhikkhu tiṇṇaṃ dubbaṇṇakaraṇānaṃ aññataraṃ dubbaṇṇakaraṇaṃ navaṃ cīvaraṃ paribhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

58. When a monk obtains a new robe (cīvara), he must apply one of the three methods of discoloration (dubbaṇṇakaraṇaṃ)—blue (nīlaṃ), mud-colored (kaddamaṃ), or dark brown (kāḷasāmaṃ). If a monk uses a new robe without applying one of these three methods of discoloration, it is a pācittiya.

58. When a bhikkhu has obtained a new robe, one of three discoloring agents should be applied: blue, mud, or dark brown. If a bhikkhu should use a new robe without applying one of the three discoloring agents, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

58. When a bhikkhu receives a new robe, he must choose one of three discoloring agents: blue, mud-colored, or black. Should a bhikkhu use a new robe without choosing one of these three discoloring agents, it is to be confessed.

59. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa vā bhikkhuniyā vā sikkhamānāya vā sāmaṇerassa vā sāmaṇeriyā vā sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ vikappetvā appaccuddhāraṇaṃ paribhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

59. If a monk should personally assign a robe (cīvaraṃ vikappetvā) to another monk, a nun (bhikkhunī), a female trainee (sikkhamānā), a novice monk (sāmaṇera), or a novice nun (sāmaṇerī) and then use it without it being relinquished (appaccuddhāraṇaṃ), it is a pācittiya.

59. If a bhikkhu, having himself formally assigned a robe to a bhikkhu, a bhikkhuni, a female probationer, a male novice, or a female novice, should use it without having it formally unassigned, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

59. Should any bhikkhu, having allocated a robe to himself from a bhikkhu, bhikkhunī, female trainee, novice monk, or novice nun, use it without rescinding the allocation, it is to be confessed.

60. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa pattaṃ vā cīvaraṃ vā nisīdanaṃ vā sūcigharaṃ vā kāyabandhanaṃ vā apanidheyya vā apanidhāpeyya vā antamaso hasāpekkhopi, pācittiyaṃ.

60. If a monk should hide or cause to be hidden another monk’s bowl (pattaṃ), robe (cīvaraṃ), sitting cloth (nisīdanaṃ), needle case (sūcigharaṃ), or waistband (kāyabandhanaṃ), even with the intent to jest, it is a pācittiya.

60. If a bhikkhu should hide or cause to be hidden a bhikkhu’s bowl, robe, sitting cloth, needle case, or belt, even as a joke, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

60. Should any bhikkhu conceal a bowl, robe, sitting cloth, needle case, or belt belonging to another bhikkhu, even if only as a joke, it is to be confessed.

61. If a monk should intentionally deprive a living being (pāṇaṃ) of life (jīvitā voropeyya), it is a pācittiya.

61. If a bhikkhu should intentionally deprive a living being of life, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

61. Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a living being of life, it is to be confessed.

62. Yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ sappāṇakaṃ udakaṃ paribhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

62. If a monk should knowingly use water containing living beings (sappāṇakaṃ udakaṃ), it is a pācittiya.

62. If a bhikkhu should knowingly use water containing living beings, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

62. Should any bhikkhu knowingly consume water containing living beings, it is to be confessed.

63. Yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ yathādhammaṃ nihatādhikaraṇaṃ punakammāya ukkoṭeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

63. If a monk should knowingly reopen a matter (adhikaraṇaṃ) that has been settled according to the Dhamma (yathādhammaṃ nihataṃ) for further action, it is a pācittiya.

63. If a bhikkhu should knowingly stir up a legal question that has been settled according to the Dhamma for renewed action, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

63. Should any bhikkhu knowingly reopen a legal issue that has been properly settled, it is to be confessed.

64. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa jānaṃ duṭṭhullaṃ āpattiṃ paṭicchādeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

64. If a monk should knowingly conceal another monk’s grave offense (duṭṭhullaṃ āpattiṃ), it is a pācittiya.

64. If a bhikkhu should knowingly conceal a grave offense of a bhikkhu, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

64. Should any bhikkhu knowingly conceal a serious offense committed by another bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.

65. Yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ ūnavīsativassaṃ puggalaṃ upasampādeyya, so ca puggalo anupasampanno, te ca bhikkhū gārayhā, idaṃ tasmiṃ pācittiyaṃ.

65. If a monk should knowingly ordain (upasampādeyya) a person under twenty years of age (ūnavīsativassaṃ puggalaṃ), that person is not ordained (anupasampanno), and those monks are blameworthy (gārayhā); this is a pācittiya for him.

65. If a bhikkhu should knowingly give full ordination to a person under twenty years of age, that person is not ordained, and those bhikkhus are to be censured; this is [an offense] requiring expiation in that case.

65. Should any bhikkhu knowingly ordain a person under twenty years of age, and that person is not ordained, and the bhikkhus are blameworthy, it is to be confessed in that case.

66. Yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ theyyasatthena saddhiṃ saṃvidhāya ekaddhānamaggaṃ paṭipajjeyya antamaso gāmantarampi, pācittiyaṃ.

66. If a monk should knowingly travel by arrangement on the same road with a caravan of thieves (theyyasatthena), even as far as one village, it is a pācittiya.

66. If a bhikkhu should knowingly travel together with a caravan of thieves on the same route, even for the distance between villages, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

66. Should any bhikkhu knowingly travel by arrangement with a thief, even for the distance between villages, it is to be confessed.

67. Yo pana bhikkhu mātugāmena saddhiṃ saṃvidhāya ekaddhānamaggaṃ paṭipajjeyya antamaso gāmantarampi, pācittiyaṃ.

67. If a monk should travel by arrangement on the same road with a woman (mātugāmena), even as far as one village, it is a pācittiya.

67. If a bhikkhu should travel together with a woman on the same route, having arranged it, even for the distance between villages, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

67. Should any bhikkhu travel by arrangement with a woman, even for the distance between villages, it is to be confessed.

68. Yo pana bhikkhu evaṃ vadeyya “tathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi, yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā, te paṭisevato nālaṃ antarāyāyā”ti, so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi evamassa vacanīyo “māyasmā evaṃ avaca, mā bhagavantaṃ abbhācikkhi, na hi sādhu bhagavato abbhakkhānaṃ, na hi bhagavā evaṃ vadeyya, anekapariyāyenāvuso antarāyikā dhammā antarāyikā vuttā bhagavatā, alañca pana te paṭisevato antarāyāyā”ti. Evañca so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi vuccamāno tatheva paggaṇheyya, so bhikkhu bhikkhūhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbo tassa paṭinissaggāya. Yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamāno taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce paṭinissajjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

68. If a monk should say, “I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One thus: those things called obstructive (antarāyikā dhammā) by the Blessed One are not sufficient to obstruct one who indulges in them,” that monk should be addressed by the monks thus: “Do not speak so, venerable sir; do not misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not speak thus. In many ways, friend, obstructive things have been declared obstructive by the Blessed One, and they are indeed sufficient to obstruct one who indulges in them.” And if that monk, when so addressed by the monks, persists in the same way, he should be admonished by the monks up to three times to abandon that view. If, being admonished up to three times, he abandons it, that is good. If he does not abandon it, it is a pācittiya.

68. If a bhikkhu should say this: “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called ‘obstructions’ by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them,” that bhikkhu should be addressed by the bhikkhus thus: “Do not say this, venerable. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One; it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say this. In many ways, friend, the obstructions have been called obstructions by the Blessed One, and they are able to obstruct one who engages in them.” And if that bhikkhu, being addressed by the bhikkhus thus, should persist as before, that bhikkhu should be admonished by the bhikkhus up to three times to abandon that [view]. If, being admonished up to three times, he should abandon that [view], that is good. If he should not abandon it, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

68. Should any bhikkhu say, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstacles by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who indulges in them,” that bhikkhu should be admonished by the bhikkhus thus: “Do not say that, venerable one. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say that. In many ways, friend, the Blessed One has described those things as obstacles, and they are able to obstruct one who indulges in them.” If that bhikkhu, being admonished by the bhikkhus, persists as before, he should be admonished up to three times to make him desist. If he desists after being admonished up to three times, that is good. If he does not desist, it is to be confessed.

69. Yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ tathāvādinā bhikkhunā akaṭānudhammena taṃ diṭṭhiṃ appaṭinissaṭṭhena saddhiṃ sambhuñjeyya vā, saṃvaseyya vā, saha vā seyyaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

69. If a monk should knowingly eat with, dwell with, or sleep with a monk who speaks thus (tathāvādinā bhikkhunā) and has not acted according to the Dhamma (akaṭānudhammena) nor abandoned that view (diṭṭhiṃ appaṭinissaṭṭhena), it is a pācittiya.

69. If a bhikkhu should knowingly eat with, associate with, or share a sleeping place with a bhikkhu who speaks thus, who has not acted according to the rule, and who has not abandoned that view, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

69. Should any bhikkhu knowingly eat, dwell, or lie down together with a bhikkhu who speaks thus, who has not given up that view, and who has not been disciplined according to the rule, it is to be confessed.

70. Samaṇuddesopi ce evaṃ vadeyya “tathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi, yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā, te paṭisevato nālaṃ antarāyāyā”ti, so samaṇuddeso bhikkhūhi evamassa vacanīyo “māvuso, samaṇuddesa evaṃ avaca, mā bhagavantaṃ abbhācikkhi, na hi sādhu bhagavato abbhakkhānaṃ, na hi bhagavā evaṃ vadeyya, anekapariyāyenāvuso, samaṇuddesa antarāyikā dhammā antarāyikā vuttā bhagavatā, alañca pana te paṭisevato antarāyāyā”ti, evañca so samaṇuddeso bhikkhūhi vuccamāno tatheva paggaṇheyya, so samaṇuddeso bhikkhūhi evamassa vacanīyo “ajjatagge te, āvuso, samaṇuddesa na ceva so bhagavā satthā apadisitabbo, yampi caññe samaṇuddesā labhanti bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ dirattatirattaṃ sahaseyyaṃ, sāpi te natthi, cara pire, vinassā”ti. Yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ tathānāsitaṃ samaṇuddesaṃ upalāpeyya vā, upaṭṭhāpeyya vā, sambhuñjeyya vā, saha vā seyyaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

70. If even a novice (samaṇuddeso) should say, “I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One thus: those things called obstructive (antarāyikā dhammā) by the Blessed One are not sufficient to obstruct one who indulges in them,” that novice should be addressed by the monks thus: “Do not speak so, friend novice; do not misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not speak thus. In many ways, friend novice, obstructive things have been declared obstructive by the Blessed One, and they are indeed sufficient to obstruct one who indulges in them.” And if that novice, when so addressed by the monks, persists in the same way, he should be told by the monks: “From this day forth, friend novice, you may not refer to the Blessed One as your teacher, nor may you have the privilege that other novices have of sleeping with monks for two or three nights; go away, be lost!” If a monk should knowingly support, assist, eat with, or sleep with such an expelled novice (tathānāsitaṃ samaṇuddesaṃ), it is a pācittiya.

70. If even a novice should say this: “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called ‘obstructions’ by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them,” that novice should be addressed by the bhikkhus thus: “Do not say this, friend novice. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One; it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say this. In many ways, friend novice, the obstructions have been called obstructions by the Blessed One, and they are able to obstruct one who engages in them.” And if that novice, being addressed by the bhikkhus thus, should persist as before, that novice should be addressed by the bhikkhus thus: “From today, friend novice, that Blessed One is not to be referred to as your teacher, and even the opportunity other novices get to sleep with bhikkhus for two or three nights, that is not for you. Go away, depart!” If a bhikkhu should knowingly entice, support, eat with, or share a sleeping place with a novice thus expelled, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

70. If a samaṇuddesa says, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstacles by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who indulges in them,” that samaṇuddesa should be admonished by the bhikkhus thus: “Do not say that, friend samaṇuddesa. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say that. In many ways, friend samaṇuddesa, the Blessed One has described those things as obstacles, and they are able to obstruct one who indulges in them.” If that samaṇuddesa, being admonished by the bhikkhus, persists as before, he should be told, “From today, friend samaṇuddesa, you are not to refer to the Blessed One as your teacher, nor are you entitled to the privileges that other samaṇuddesas enjoy, such as sharing a seat with bhikkhus for two or three nights. Go away, perish.” Should any bhikkhu knowingly support, assist, or lie down together with such a samaṇuddesa, it is to be confessed.

71. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhūhi sahadhammikaṃ vuccamāno evaṃ vadeyya “na tāvāhaṃ, āvuso, etasmiṃ sikkhāpade sikkhissāmi, yāva na aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ byattaṃ vinayadharaṃ paripucchāmī”ti, pācittiyaṃ. Sikkhamānena, bhikkhave, bhikkhunā aññātabbaṃ paripucchitabbaṃ paripañhitabbaṃ, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci.

71. If a monk, when being spoken to by monks regarding a rule of training (sahadhammikaṃ), should say, “I will not train in this rule, friends, until I have questioned another monk who is experienced and learned in the Vinaya,” it is a pācittiya. Monks, a monk who is training should understand, should question, and should investigate; this is the proper course therein.

71. If a bhikkhu, when being spoken to by bhikkhus in accordance with the Dhamma, should say this: “I will not train in this training rule, friends, until I have questioned another bhikkhu who is experienced and a master of the Vinaya,” it is [an offense] requiring expiation. Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is training should know, should inquire, should ask. This is the proper course in that case.

71. Should any bhikkhu, being admonished by the bhikkhus in accordance with the Dhamma, say, “I will not train under this training rule until I have asked another bhikkhu who is learned in the Discipline,” it is to be confessed. A bhikkhu who is training should learn, inquire, and investigate. This is the proper course here.

72. Yo pana bhikkhu pātimokkhe uddissamāne evaṃ vadeyya “kiṃ panimehi khuddānukhuddakehi sikkhāpadehi uddiṭṭhehi, yāvadeva kukkuccāya vihesāya vilekhāya saṃvattantī”ti, sikkhāpadavivaṇṇake pācittiyaṃ.

72. If a monk, when the Pātimokkha is being recited, should say, “What is the use of reciting these minor and lesser rules (khuddānukhuddakehi sikkhāpadehi), which only lead to anxiety, trouble, and vexation?” in disparaging the rules, it is a pācittiya.

72. If a bhikkhu, when the Pātimokkha is being recited, should say this: “What is the use of reciting these minor and lesser training rules? They only lead to anxiety, bother, and confusion,” disparaging the training rules is [an offense] requiring expiation.

72. Should any bhikkhu, while the Pātimokkha is being recited, say, “Why are these minor training rules recited? They only lead to remorse, vexation, and confusion,” it is to be confessed for disparaging the training rules.

73. Yo pana bhikkhu anvaddhamāsaṃ pātimokkhe uddissamāne evaṃ vadeyya “idāneva kho ahaṃ jānāmi, ayampi kira dhammo suttāgato suttapariyāpanno anvaddhamāsaṃ uddesaṃ āgacchatī”ti. Tañce bhikkhuṃ aññe bhikkhū jāneyyuṃ nisinnapubbaṃ iminā bhikkhunā dvattikkhattuṃ pātimokkhe uddissamāne, ko pana vādo bhiyyo, na ca tassa bhikkhuno aññāṇakena mutti atthi, yañca tattha āpattiṃ āpanno, tañca yathādhammo kāretabbo, uttari cassa moho āropetabbo “tassa te, āvuso, alābhā, tassa te dulladdhaṃ, yaṃ tvaṃ pātimokkhe uddissamānena sādhukaṃ aṭṭhiṃ katvā manasi karosī”ti, idaṃ tasmiṃ mohanake pācittiyaṃ.

73. If a monk, when the Pātimokkha is being recited every half-month, should say, “Only now do I realize that this rule, it seems, is included in the Sutta, part of the Sutta, and comes up for recitation every half-month,” and if other monks know that this monk has sat through the recitation of the Pātimokkha two or three times before, not to mention more, there is no exemption for that monk due to ignorance. Whatever offense he has committed therein should be dealt with according to the Dhamma, and further, his delusion (moho) should be pointed out: “It is a loss for you, friend; it is ill-gained for you that when the Pātimokkha is being recited, you do not pay proper attention and focus your mind.” This is a pācittiya for him in that delusion.

73. If a bhikkhu, when the Pātimokkha is being recited every half-month, should say this: “Only now do I realize that this rule is included in the Suttas, comes down in the Suttas, and comes up for recitation every half-month.” If other bhikkhus should know of that bhikkhu: “This bhikkhu has previously sat two or three times when the Pātimokkha was being recited, to say nothing of more often,” that bhikkhu is not freed by ignorance, and he should be dealt with according to the rule for whatever offense he has committed, and in addition, he should be charged with feigning ignorance: “It is no gain for you, friend, it is ill-gotten by you, that when the Pātimokkha is being recited, you do not pay proper attention and apply your mind.” This is [an offense] requiring expiation in that case of feigning ignorance.

73. Should any bhikkhu, while the Pātimokkha is being recited every half-month, say, “Only now do I understand that this Dhamma, included in the Suttas, comes up for recitation every half-month,” and if other bhikkhus know that this bhikkhu has sat through the recitation of the Pātimokkha two or three times before, not to mention more, there is no exemption for that bhikkhu due to ignorance. He is to be dealt with according to the rule for the offense he has committed, and further deception is to be charged against him: “It is a loss for you, friend, it is unfortunate for you, that you do not pay proper attention and take the Pātimokkha seriously.” This is the offense of deception to be confessed.

74. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa kupito anattamano pahāraṃ dadeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

74. If a monk, angry and displeased, should strike another monk, it is a pācittiya.

74. If a bhikkhu, being angry and displeased, should strike a bhikkhu, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

74. Should any bhikkhu, angry and displeased, strike another bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.

75. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa kupito anattamano talasattikaṃ uggireyya, pācittiyaṃ.

75. If a monk, angry and displeased, should raise his hand (talasattikaṃ) against another monk, it is a pācittiya.

75. If a bhikkhu, being angry and displeased, should raise his hand against a bhikkhu, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

75. Should any bhikkhu, angry and displeased, raise his hand against another bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.

76. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhuṃ amūlakena saṅghādisesena anuddhaṃseyya, pācittiyaṃ.

76. If a monk should accuse another monk of a saṅghādisesa offense without basis (amūlakena), it is a pācittiya.

76. If a bhikkhu should groundlessly accuse a bhikkhu of a Saṅghādisesa offense, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

76. Should any bhikkhu groundlessly accuse another bhikkhu of a saṅghādisesa offense, it is to be confessed.

77. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa sañcicca kukkuccaṃ upadaheyya “itissa muhuttampi aphāsu bhavissatī”ti etadeva paccayaṃ karitvā anaññaṃ, pācittiyaṃ.

77. If a monk should intentionally cause anxiety (kukkuccaṃ) in another monk, thinking, “Thus, he will be uncomfortable even for a moment,” doing so for this reason alone and no other, it is a pācittiya.

77. If a bhikkhu should intentionally create anxiety in a bhikkhu, thinking, “Thus, even for a moment, he will be uncomfortable,” doing it solely for that reason and no other, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

77. Should any bhikkhu intentionally cause anxiety to another bhikkhu, thinking, “This will trouble him even for a moment,” and do so for that reason and no other, it is to be confessed.

78. Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhūnaṃ bhaṇḍanajātānaṃ kalahajātānaṃ vivādāpannānaṃ upassutiṃ tiṭṭheyya “yaṃ ime bhaṇissanti, taṃ sossāmī”ti etadeva paccayaṃ karitvā anaññaṃ, pācittiyaṃ.

78. If a monk should stand eavesdropping on monks who are arguing, quarreling, or disputing, thinking, “I will hear what they say,” doing so for this reason alone and no other, it is a pācittiya.

78. If a bhikkhu should stand eavesdropping on bhikkhus who are quarreling, arguing, and disputing, thinking, “What they say, I will hear,” doing it solely for that reason and no other, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

78. Should any bhikkhu stand eavesdropping on bhikkhus who are arguing, quarreling, or disputing, thinking, “I will hear what they say,” and do so for that reason and no other, it is to be confessed.

79. Yo pana bhikkhu dhammikānaṃ kammānaṃ chandaṃ datvā pacchā khīyanadhammaṃ āpajjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

79. If a monk, having given his consent (chandaṃ) to a lawful act (dhammikānaṃ kammānaṃ) and later criticizes it (khīyanadhammaṃ), it is a pācittiya.

79. If a bhikkhu, having given his consent to legal procedures, should later fall into complaining, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

79. Should any bhikkhu, having given his consent to legal acts, afterwards speak disparagingly of them, it is to be confessed.

80. Yo pana bhikkhu saṅghe vinicchayakathāya vattamānāya chandaṃ adatvā uṭṭhāyāsanā pakkameyya, pācittiyaṃ.

80. If a monk, when a discussion on a decision is taking place in the Sangha, should leave his seat and depart without giving his consent (chandaṃ adatvā), it is a pācittiya.

80. If a bhikkhu, when a discussion concerning a decision is taking place in the Saṅgha, should get up from his seat and leave without giving his consent, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

80. Should any bhikkhu, while a legal discussion is being conducted in the Saṅgha, leave without giving his consent, it is to be confessed.

81. Yo pana bhikkhu samaggena saṅghena cīvaraṃ datvā pacchā khīyanadhammaṃ āpajjeyya “yathāsanthutaṃ bhikkhū saṅghikaṃ lābhaṃ pariṇāmentī”ti, pācittiyaṃ.

81. If a monk, after a robe (cīvaraṃ) has been given by a unanimous Sangha (samaggena saṅghena), should later criticize it, saying, “The monks distribute the Sangha’s gains according to their preferences (yathāsanthutaṃ),” it is a pācittiya.

81. If a bhikkhu, having given a robe with the unanimous Saṅgha, should later fall into complaining, saying, “The bhikkhus apportion the Saṅgha’s gains according to friendship,” it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

81. Should any bhikkhu, having given a robe to a united Saṅgha, afterwards speak disparagingly of it, saying, “The bhikkhus allocate the Saṅgha’s gains according to friendship,” it is to be confessed.

82. Yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ saṅghikaṃ lābhaṃ pariṇataṃ puggalassa pariṇāmeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

82. If a monk should knowingly redirect a gain (lābhaṃ) belonging to the Sangha (saṅghikaṃ) to an individual (puggalassa), it is a pācittiya.

82. If a bhikkhu should knowingly divert to an individual a gain that was designated for the Saṅgha, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

82. Should any bhikkhu knowingly divert Saṅgha property to an individual, it is to be confessed.

83. Yo pana bhikkhu rañño khattiyassa muddhābhisittassa anikkhantarājake aniggataratanake pubbe appaṭisaṃvidito indakhīlaṃ atikkāmeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

83. If a monk, without prior arrangement, should pass beyond the threshold (indakhīlaṃ) of a consecrated king (rañño khattiyassa muddhābhisittassa) whose royal duties are not yet completed (anikkhantarājake) and whose treasures are not yet removed (aniggataratanake), it is a pācittiya.

83. If a bhikkhu should step over the threshold of a consecrated Khattiya king, when the king has not yet left, and the royal treasures have not yet been removed, without having been informed beforehand, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

83. Should any bhikkhu, without being previously announced, cross the threshold of a consecrated noble king’s inner palace while the king and queen are present, it is to be confessed.

84. Yo pana bhikkhu ratanaṃ vā ratanasammataṃ vā aññatra ajjhārāmā vā ajjhāvasathā vā uggaṇheyya vā uggaṇhāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ. Ratanaṃ vā pana bhikkhunā ratanasammataṃ vā ajjhārāme vā ajjhāvasathe vā uggahetvā vā uggahāpetvā vā nikkhipitabbaṃ “yassa bhavissati, so harissatī”ti, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci.

84. If a monk should pick up or cause to be picked up a jewel (ratanaṃ) or what is regarded as a jewel (ratanasammataṃ), except within a monastery (ajjhārāmā) or a lodging (ajjhāvasathā), it is a pācittiya. A jewel or what is regarded as a jewel, when picked up or caused to be picked up by a monk within a monastery or lodging, should be set aside with the thought, “Whoever it belongs to will take it”; this is the proper course therein.

84. If a bhikkhu should pick up or cause to be picked up a valuable or what is considered a valuable, except within a monastery or within a dwelling, it is [an offense] requiring expiation. But a bhikkhu should pick up or cause to be picked up a valuable or what is considered a valuable within a monastery or within a dwelling, and keep it, [thinking,] “Whoever it belongs to will claim it.” This is the proper course in that case.

84. Should any bhikkhu pick up or have someone pick up a precious thing or something considered a precious thing, except within a monastery or a dwelling, it is to be confessed. If a bhikkhu picks up or has someone pick up a precious thing or something considered a precious thing within a monastery or a dwelling, he should set it aside, thinking, “Whoever owns it will take it.” This is the proper course here.

85. Yo pana bhikkhu santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchāvikāle gāmaṃ paviseyya aññatra tathārūpā accāyikā karaṇīyā, pācittiyaṃ.

85. If a monk, without informing a present monk, should enter a village at the wrong time (vikāle), except for an urgent task of that nature, it is a pācittiya.

85. If a bhikkhu, without having asked a residing bhikkhu, should enter a village at the wrong time, except for a pressing matter of that kind, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

85. Should any bhikkhu enter a village at the wrong time without informing an available bhikkhu, except for a proper reason, it is to be confessed.

86. Yo pana bhikkhu aṭṭhimayaṃ vā dantamayaṃ vā visāṇamayaṃ vā sūcigharaṃ kārāpeyya, bhedanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

86. If a monk should have a needle case (sūcigharaṃ) made of bone (aṭṭhimayaṃ), ivory (dantamayaṃ), or horn (visāṇamayaṃ), it is a pācittiya requiring breaking.

86. If a bhikkhu should have a needle case made of bone, ivory, or horn, it is [an offense] requiring expiation and breaking.

86. Should any bhikkhu have a needle case made of bone, ivory, or horn, it is to be broken and confessed.

87. Navaṃ pana bhikkhunā mañcaṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā kārayamānena aṭṭhaṅgulapādakaṃ kāretabbaṃ sugataṅgulena aññatra heṭṭhimāya aṭaniyā. Taṃ atikkāmayato chedanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

87. When a monk has a bed (mañcaṃ) or a stool (pīṭhaṃ) made, it should be made with legs eight finger-breadths (aṭṭhaṅgulapādakaṃ) high according to the Sugata finger-breadth (sugataṅgulena), except for the lowest frame (heṭṭhimāya aṭaniyā). If he exceeds this, it is a pācittiya requiring cutting down.

87. When a bhikkhu is having a new bed or chair made, it should be made with legs eight fingerbreadths [long] in the Sugata’s measurement, excluding the lower frame. If he exceeds that, it is [an offense] requiring expiation and cutting down.

87. When a bhikkhu is having a new bed or chair made, it must have legs no more than eight fingerbreadths long, according to the Sugata’s fingerbreadth, excluding the lower crosspiece. Should he exceed that, it is to be cut down and confessed.

88. Yo pana bhikkhu mañcaṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā tūlonaddhaṃ kārāpeyya, uddālanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

88. If a monk should have a bed or stool stuffed with cotton (tūlonaddhaṃ), it is a pācittiya requiring removal.

88. If a bhikkhu should have a bed or a chair upholstered with cotton, it is [an offense] requiring expiation and tearing out.

88. Should any bhikkhu have a bed or chair padded with cotton, it is to be stripped and confessed.

89. Nisīdanaṃ pana bhikkhunā kārayamānena pamāṇikaṃ kāretabbaṃ, tatridaṃ pamāṇaṃ, dīghaso dve vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṃ diyaḍḍhaṃ, dasā vidatthi. Taṃ atikkāmayato chedanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

89. When a monk has a sitting cloth (nisīdanaṃ) made, it should be made to the proper measure (pamāṇikaṃ). Here, the measure is: two spans (dve vidatthiyo) in length according to the Sugata span (sugatavidatthiyā), one and a half (diyaḍḍhaṃ) in width, and a border (dasā) of one span (vidatthi). If he exceeds this, it is a pācittiya requiring cutting down.

89. When a bhikkhu is having a sitting cloth made, it should be made according to the standard measurement. The standard measurement in this case is: two spans in the Sugata’s span in length, one and a half spans in width, and a border of one span. If he exceeds that, it is [an offense] requiring expiation and cutting down.

89. When a bhikkhu is having a sitting cloth made, it must be made to the proper measure. Here, the proper measure is: in length, two spans according to the Sugata’s span; in width, one and a half spans; and the border, one span. Should he exceed that, it is to be cut down and confessed.

90. Kaṇḍuppaṭicchādiṃ pana bhikkhunā kārayamānena pamāṇikā kāretabbā, tatridaṃ pamāṇaṃ, dīghaso catasso vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṃ dve vidatthiyo. Taṃ atikkāmayato chedanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

90. When a monk has an itch-covering cloth (kaṇḍuppaṭicchādiṃ) made, it should be made to the proper measure (pamāṇikā). Here, the measure is: four spans (catasso vidatthiyo) in length according to the Sugata span (sugatavidatthiyā), two spans (dve vidatthiyo) in width. If he exceeds this, it is a pācittiya requiring cutting down.

90. When a bhikkhu is having an itch-covering cloth made, it should be made according to the standard measurement. The standard measurement in this case is: four spans in the Sugata’s span in length, two spans in width. If he exceeds that, it is [an offense] requiring expiation and cutting down.

90. When a bhikkhu is having a skin covering made, it must be made to the proper measure. Here, the proper measure is: in length, four spans according to the Sugata’s span; in width, two spans. Should he exceed that, it is to be cut down and confessed.

91. Vassikasāṭikaṃ pana bhikkhunā kārayamānena pamāṇikā kāretabbā, tatridaṃ pamāṇaṃ, dīghaso cha vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṃ aḍḍhateyyā. Taṃ atikkāmayato chedanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

91. When a monk has a rains-bathing cloth (vassikasāṭikaṃ) made, it should be made to the proper measure (pamāṇikā). Here, the measure is: six spans (cha vidatthiyo) in length according to the Sugata span (sugatavidatthiyā), two and a half (aḍḍhateyyā) in width. If he exceeds this, it is a pācittiya requiring cutting down.

91. When a bhikkhu is having a rains-bathing cloth made, it should be made according to the standard measurement. The standard measurement in this case is: six spans in the Sugata’s span in length, two and a half spans in width. If he exceeds that, it is [an offense] requiring expiation and cutting down.

91. When a bhikkhu is having a rain cloak made, it must be made to the proper measure. Here, the proper measure is: in length, six spans according to the Sugata’s span; in width, two and a half spans. Should he exceed that, it is to be cut down and confessed.

92. Yo pana bhikkhu sugatacīvarappamāṇaṃ cīvaraṃ kārāpeyya, atirekaṃ vā, chedanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ . Tatridaṃ sugatassa sugatacīvarappamāṇaṃ, dīghaso nava vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṃ cha vidatthiyo, idaṃ sugatassa sugatacīvarappamāṇanti.

92. If a monk should have a robe (cīvaraṃ) made to the measure of the Sugata robe (sugatacīvarappamāṇaṃ) or larger (atirekaṃ), it is a pācittiya requiring cutting down. Here, the measure of the Sugata robe (sugatacīvarappamāṇaṃ) is: nine spans (nava vidatthiyo) in length according to the Sugata span (sugatavidatthiyā), six spans (cha vidatthiyo) in width; this is the measure of the Sugata robe.

92. If a bhikkhu should have a robe made to the size of the Sugata robe, or larger, it is [an offense] requiring expiation and cutting down. The standard size of the Sugata robe in this case is: nine spans in the Sugata’s span in length, six spans in width. This is the standard size of the Sugata’s Sugata robe.

92. Should any bhikkhu have a robe made the size of the Sugata’s robe or larger, it is to be cut down and confessed. Here, the size of the Sugata’s robe is: in length, nine spans according to the Sugata’s span; in width, six spans. This is the size of the Sugata’s robe.

Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto dvenavuti pācittiyā dhammā. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyasmanto, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

Venerable sirs, the ninety-two pācittiya rules have been recited. Herein I ask the venerable ones: Are you pure in this regard? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this regard? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this regard? The venerable ones are pure herein; therefore, they are silent. Thus, I record it.

Venerables, the ninety-two rules requiring expiation have been recited. In regard to them, I ask the venerables, “Are you pure in this?” A second time I ask, “Are you pure in this?” A third time I ask, “Are you pure in this?” The venerables are pure in this. Therefore they are silent. Thus I understand it.

Venerable ones, the ninety-two rules to be confessed have been recited. In this matter, I ask you, venerable ones: Are you pure in this? A second time, I ask: Are you pure in this? A third time, I ask: Are you pure in this? The venerable ones are pure in this, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I remember it.

Pāṭidesanīyā

The Rules to be Acknowledged

1. Yo pana bhikkhu aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā antaragharaṃ paviṭṭhāya hatthato khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā sahatthā paṭiggahetvā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, paṭidesetabbaṃ tena bhikkhunā “gārayhaṃ, āvuso, dhammaṃ āpajjiṃ asappāyaṃ pāṭidesanīyaṃ, taṃ paṭidesemī”ti.

1. If a monk should take chewable or edible food from the hand of an unrelated nun (aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā) who has entered a household (antaragharaṃ) and eat or consume it with his own hand, he must confess it thus: “Friends, I have committed a blameworthy act, improper and requiring confession (pāṭidesanīyaṃ); I confess it.”

1. If a bhikkhu should accept with his own hand chewable food or solid food from the hand of a bhikkhuni who is not a relative and has entered among the houses, and should eat or consume it, it should be confessed by that bhikkhu, [saying,] “Friend, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act, [an offense] requiring confession. I confess it.”

1. Should any bhikkhu, having entered an inhabited area, receive with his own hand from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī edible food or staple food and consume it, that bhikkhu must acknowledge it: “Friends, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge it.”

2. Bhikkhū paneva kulesu nimantitā bhuñjanti, tatra ce sā bhikkhunī vosāsamānarūpā ṭhitā hoti “idha sūpaṃ detha, idha odanaṃ dethā”ti. Tehi bhikkhūhi sā bhikkhunī apasādetabbā “apasakka tāva bhagini, yāva bhikkhū bhuñjantī”ti. Ekassapi ce bhikkhuno na paṭibhāseyya taṃ bhikkhuniṃ apasādetuṃ “apasakka tāva bhagini, yāva bhikkhū bhuñjantī”ti, paṭidesetabbaṃ tehi bhikkhūhi “gārayhaṃ, āvuso, dhammaṃ āpajjimhā asappāyaṃ pāṭidesanīyaṃ, taṃ paṭidesemā”ti.

2. If monks are eating in families where they have been invited, and a nun is standing there giving instructions (vosāsamānarūpā), saying, “Give curry here, give rice here,” those monks must dismiss that nun, saying, “Step aside, sister, while the monks are eating.” If not even one monk should think to dismiss that nun, saying, “Step aside, sister, while the monks are eating,” they must confess it thus: “Friends, we have committed a blameworthy act, improper and requiring confession (pāṭidesanīyaṃ); we confess it.”

2. Bhikkhus, indeed, being invited, are eating in families. If a bhikkhuni stands there giving directions, [saying,] “Give soup here, give cooked rice here,” those bhikkhus should dismiss that bhikkhuni, [saying,] “Stand back, sister, while the bhikkhus are eating.” If it should not occur to even one bhikkhu to dismiss that bhikkhuni, [saying,] “Stand back, sister, while the bhikkhus are eating,” it should be confessed by those bhikkhus, [saying,] “Friends, we have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act, [an offense] requiring confession. We confess it.”

2. When bhikkhus are invited to eat in families, if a bhikkhunī stands there giving directions, saying, “Give curry here, give rice here,” that bhikkhunī should be dismissed by the bhikkhus: “Stand aside, sister, while the bhikkhus eat.” If not even one bhikkhu is able to dismiss that bhikkhunī, saying, “Stand aside, sister, while the bhikkhus eat,” those bhikkhus must acknowledge it: “Friends, we have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. We acknowledge it.”

3. Yāni kho pana tāni sekkhasammatāni kulāni, yo pana bhikkhu tathārūpesu sekkhasammatesu kulesu pubbe animantito agilāno khādanīyaṃ vā, bhojanīyaṃ vā sahatthā paṭiggahetvā khādeyya vā, bhuñjeyya vā, paṭidesetabbaṃ tena bhikkhunā “gārayhaṃ, āvuso, dhammaṃ āpajjiṃ asappāyaṃ pāṭidesanīyaṃ, taṃ paṭidesemī”ti.

3. Those families that are agreed upon as training-grounds (sekkhasammatāni kulāni), if a monk who is not ill, without prior invitation, should take chewable or edible food from such families with his own hand and eat or consume it, he must confess it thus: “Friends, I have committed a blameworthy act, improper and requiring confession (pāṭidesanīyaṃ); I confess it.”

3. Now, there are families that are designated as being in training. If a bhikkhu, not being ill, should accept with his own hand chewable food or solid food in such families designated as being in training, without having been invited beforehand, and should eat or consume it, it should be confessed by that bhikkhu, [saying,] “Friend, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act, [an offense] requiring confession. I confess it.”

3. Whatever families are designated as training families, should any bhikkhu, not being previously invited and not being ill, receive with his own hand from such families edible food or staple food and consume it, that bhikkhu must acknowledge it: “Friends, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge it.”

4. Yāni kho pana tāni āraññakāni senāsanāni sāsaṅkasammatāni sappaṭibhayāni, yo pana bhikkhu tathārūpesu senāsanesu pubbe appaṭisaṃviditaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā, bhojanīyaṃ vā ajjhārāme sahatthā paṭiggahetvā agilāno khādeyya vā, bhuñjeyya vā, paṭidesetabbaṃ tena bhikkhunā “gārayhaṃ, āvuso, dhammaṃ āpajjiṃ asappāyaṃ pāṭidesanīyaṃ, taṃ paṭidesemī”ti.

4. Those lodgings in the wilderness (āraññakāni senāsanāni) that are considered dangerous (sāsaṅkasammatāni) and fearful (sappaṭibhayāni), if a monk who is not ill, without prior arrangement, should take chewable or edible food with his own hand within the monastery (ajjhārāme) and eat or consume it, he must confess it thus: “Friends, I have committed a blameworthy act, improper and requiring confession (pāṭidesanīyaṃ); I confess it.”

4. Now, there are wilderness dwellings that are considered dubious and dangerous. If a bhikkhu, not being ill, should accept with his own hand chewable food or solid food within the monastery, without having been informed beforehand, in such dwellings, and should eat or consume it, it should be confessed by that bhikkhu, [saying,] “Friend, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act, [an offense] requiring confession. I confess it.”

4. Whatever wilderness dwellings are designated as dangerous and frightening, should any bhikkhu, not being previously announced, receive with his own hand within the monastery from such dwellings edible food or staple food and consume it, not being ill, that bhikkhu must acknowledge it: “Friends, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge it.”

Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto cattāro pāṭidesanīyā dhammā. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyasmanto, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

Venerable sirs, the four pāṭidesanīya rules have been recited. Herein I ask the venerable ones: Are you pure in this regard? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this regard? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this regard? The venerable ones are pure herein; therefore, they are silent. Thus, I record it.

“Venerable sirs, the four pāṭidesanīya rules have been recited. In this regard, I ask the venerable sirs, are you pure in this? A second time, I ask, are you pure in this? A third time, I ask, are you pure in this? The venerable sirs are pure in this, therefore they are silent. Thus I hold it.”

Venerables, the four Pāṭidesanīya rules have been recited. Concerning this, I ask you, venerables: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The venerables are pure in this matter, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I bear this in mind.

Sekhiyā

Sekhiyās

Sekhiya Rules

1. “I will wear the lower robe evenly around (parimaṇḍalaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

1. Training should be done: ‘I will dress with the lower robe wrapped around evenly,’

1. I will wear the lower robe evenly around—this is a training to be observed.

2. “I will wear the upper robe evenly around (parimaṇḍalaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

2. Training should be done: ‘I will put on the upper robe wrapped around evenly.’

2. I will wear the upper robe evenly around—this is a training to be observed.

3. “I will go well-covered (suppaṭicchanno) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

3. I will enter an inhabited area well-covered—this is a training to be observed.

4. “I will sit well-covered (suppaṭicchanno) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

4. I will sit in an inhabited area well-covered—this is a training to be observed.

5. “I will go well-restrained (susaṃvuto) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

5. I will enter an inhabited area with restraint—this is a training to be observed.

6. “I will sit well-restrained (susaṃvuto) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

6. Training should be done: ‘I will sit well-restrained in inhabited areas.’

6. I will sit in an inhabited area with restraint—this is a training to be observed.

7. “I will go with lowered eyes (okkhittacakkhu) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

7. Training should be done: ‘I will go with eyes lowered in inhabited areas.’

7. I will enter an inhabited area with eyes lowered—this is a training to be observed.

8. “I will sit with lowered eyes (okkhittacakkhu) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

8. Training should be done: ‘I will sit with eyes lowered in inhabited areas.’

8. I will sit in an inhabited area with eyes lowered—this is a training to be observed.

9. “I will not go with my robes lifted up (ukkhittakāya) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

9. Training should be done: ‘I will not go with robes hitched up in inhabited areas.’

9. I will not enter an inhabited area with the robe raised up—this is a training to be observed.

10. “I will not sit with my robes lifted up (ukkhittakāya) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

10. Training should be done: ‘I will not sit with robes hitched up in inhabited areas.’

10. I will not sit in an inhabited area with the robe raised up—this is a training to be observed.

11. “I will not go laughing loudly (ujjagghikāya) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

11. Training should be done: ‘I will not go laughing loudly in inhabited areas.’

11. I will not enter an inhabited area laughing loudly—this is a training to be observed.

12. “I will not sit laughing loudly (ujjagghikāya) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

12. Training should be done: ‘I will not sit laughing loudly in inhabited areas.’

12. I will not sit in an inhabited area laughing loudly—this is a training to be observed.

13. “I will go with a low voice (appasaddo) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

13. Training should be done: ‘I will go with a quiet voice in inhabited areas.’

13. I will enter an inhabited area speaking quietly—this is a training to be observed.

14. “I will sit with a low voice (appasaddo) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

14. Training should be done: ‘I will sit with a quiet voice in inhabited areas.’

14. I will sit in an inhabited area speaking quietly—this is a training to be observed.

15. “I will not go swaying the body (kāyappacālakaṃ) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

15. Training should be done: ‘I will not go swinging the body in inhabited areas.’

15. I will not enter an inhabited area swinging the body—this is a training to be observed.

16. “I will not sit swaying the body (kāyappacālakaṃ) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

16. Training should be done: ‘I will not sit swinging the body in inhabited areas.’

16. I will not sit in an inhabited area swinging the body—this is a training to be observed.

17. “I will not go swinging the arms (bāhuppacālakaṃ) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

17. Training should be done: ‘I will not go swinging the arms in inhabited areas.’

17. I will not enter an inhabited area swinging the arms—this is a training to be observed.

18. “I will not sit swinging the arms (bāhuppacālakaṃ) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

18. Training should be done: ‘I will not sit swinging the arms in inhabited areas.’

18. I will not sit in an inhabited area swinging the arms—this is a training to be observed.

19. “I will not go swaying the head (sīsappacālakaṃ) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

19. Training should be done: ‘I will not go shaking the head in inhabited areas.’

19. I will not enter an inhabited area swinging the head—this is a training to be observed.

20. “I will not sit swaying the head (sīsappacālakaṃ) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

20. Training should be done: ‘I will not sit shaking the head in inhabited areas.’

20. I will not sit in an inhabited area swinging the head—this is a training to be observed.

21. “I will not go with hands on hips (khambhakato) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

21. Training should be done: ‘I will not go with arms akimbo in inhabited areas.’

21. I will not enter an inhabited area with hands on hips—this is a training to be observed.

22. “I will not sit with hands on hips (khambhakato) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

22. Training should be done: ‘I will not sit with arms akimbo in inhabited areas.’

22. I will not sit in an inhabited area with hands on hips—this is a training to be observed.

23. “I will not go with my head covered (oguṇṭhito) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

23. Training should be done: ‘I will not go with the head covered in inhabited areas.’

23. I will not enter an inhabited area covered with a robe—this is a training to be observed.

24. “I will not sit with my head covered (oguṇṭhito) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

24. Training should be done: ‘I will not sit with the head covered in inhabited areas.’

24. I will not sit in an inhabited area covered with a robe—this is a training to be observed.

25. “I will not go squatting (ukkuṭikāya) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

25. I will not enter an inhabited area walking on the heels—this is a training to be observed.

26. “I will not sit with legs crossed (pallatthikāya) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

26. Training should be done: ‘I will not sit with legs crossed [or: with arms wrapped around knees] in inhabited areas.’

26. I will not sit in an inhabited area with legs crossed—this is a training to be observed.

27. “I will receive almsfood (piṇḍapātaṃ) respectfully (sakkaccaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

28. “I will receive almsfood (piṇḍapātaṃ) with attention to the bowl (pattasaññī)” is a training to be observed.

28. Training should be done: ‘I will receive almsfood with attention to the bowl.’

29. “I will receive almsfood (piṇḍapātaṃ) with an even amount of curry (samasūpakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

29. Training should be done: ‘I will receive almsfood with an equal proportion of curry.’

29. I will receive almsfood with equal portions—this is a training to be observed.

30. “I will receive almsfood (piṇḍapātaṃ) level with the brim (samatittikaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

30. Training should be done: ‘I will receive almsfood level with the rim [of the bowl].’

31. “I will eat almsfood (piṇḍapātaṃ) respectfully (sakkaccaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

32. “I will eat almsfood (piṇḍapātaṃ) with attention to the bowl (pattasaññī)” is a training to be observed.

32. Training should be done: ‘I will eat almsfood with attention to the bowl.’

33. “I will eat almsfood (piṇḍapātaṃ) methodically (sapadānaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

33. Training should be done: ‘I will eat almsfood methodically [without skipping around].’

34. “I will eat almsfood (piṇḍapātaṃ) with an even amount of curry (samasūpakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

34. Training should be done: ‘I will eat almsfood with an equal proportion of curry.’

34. I will eat almsfood with equal portions—this is a training to be observed.

35. Na thūpakato omadditvā piṇḍapātaṃ bhuñjissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

35. “I will not eat almsfood (piṇḍapātaṃ) by pressing it into a lump from the top (thūpakato omadditvā)” is a training to be observed.

35. Training should be done: ‘I will not eat almsfood pressing down from the top of a heap.’

35. I will not eat almsfood by piling it up—this is a training to be observed.

36. Na sūpaṃ vā byañjanaṃ vā odanena paṭicchādessāmi bhiyyokamyataṃ upādāyāti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

36. “I will not cover rice (odana) with curry (sūpaṃ) or side dishes (byañjanaṃ) out of a desire for more (bhiyyokamyataṃ upādāya)” is a training to be observed.

36. Training should be done: ‘I will not cover curry or relish with rice, wishing for more.’

36. I will not cover rice with curry or side dishes out of desire for more—this is a training to be observed.

37. Na sūpaṃ vā odanaṃ vā agilāno attano atthāya viññāpetvā bhuñjissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

37. “I will not, when not ill, request curry (sūpaṃ) or rice (odana) for myself and eat it” is a training to be observed.

37. Training should be done: ‘Unless sick, I will not ask for curry or rice for my own benefit and eat it.’

37. I will not request curry or rice for myself when not ill—this is a training to be observed.

38. “I will not look at others’ bowls (paresaṃ pattaṃ) with envy (ujjhānasaññī)” is a training to be observed.

38. Training should be done: ‘I will not look at another’s bowl with a fault-finding mind.’

38. I will not look at others’ bowls with discontent—this is a training to be observed.

39. “I will not make an overly large mouthful (kabaḷaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

39. I will not take excessively large mouthfuls—this is a training to be observed.

40. “I will make a rounded morsel (parimaṇḍalaṃ ālopaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

41. “I will not open my mouth when the mouthful (kabaḷe) has not been brought to it (anāhaṭe)” is a training to be observed.

41. Training should be done: ‘I will not open my mouth until the mouthful has been brought near.’

41. I will not open my mouth before the food is brought—this is a training to be observed.

42. Na bhuñjamāno sabbahatthaṃ mukhe pakkhipissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

42. “I will not, while eating (bhuñjamāno), put my whole hand (sabbahatthaṃ) into my mouth” is a training to be observed.

42. Training should be done: ‘While eating, I will not put my whole hand into my mouth.’

42. I will not put the whole hand in my mouth while eating—this is a training to be observed.

43. “I will not speak with a mouth full of food (sakabaḷena mukhena)” is a training to be observed.

44. “I will not eat by tossing food into the mouth (piṇḍukkhepakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

44. Training should be done: ‘I will not eat tossing bits of food [into my mouth].’

44. I will not eat by throwing food into my mouth—this is a training to be observed.

45. “I will not eat by breaking off mouthfuls (kabaḷāvacchedakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

45. I will not eat by breaking off pieces of food—this is a training to be observed.

46. “I will not eat by puffing out the cheeks (avagaṇḍakārakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

47. “I will not eat by shaking food off the hand (hatthaniddhunakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

48. “I will not eat by scattering rice grains (sitthāvakārakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

49. “I will not eat by sticking out the tongue (jivhānicchārakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

49. I will not eat while sticking out my tongue—this is a training to be observed.

50. “I will not eat making a smacking sound (capucapukārakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

50. Training should be done: ‘I will not eat making a “capu-capu” sound.’

50. I will not eat while making a smacking sound—this is a training to be observed.

51. “I will not eat making a slurping sound (surusurukārakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

51. I will not eat while making a slurping sound—this is a training to be observed.

52. “I will not eat by licking the hands (hatthanillehakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

53. “I will not eat by licking the bowl (pattanillehakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

54. “I will not eat by licking the lips (oṭṭhanillehakaṃ)” is a training to be observed.

55. Na sāmisena hatthena pānīyathālakaṃ paṭiggahessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

55. “I will not receive a drinking vessel (pānīyathālakaṃ) with a hand soiled with food (sāmisena hatthena)” is a training to be observed.

55. Training should be done: ‘I will not take hold of a drinking vessel with a hand soiled with food.’

55. I will not receive a water vessel with food-stained hands—this is a training to be observed.

56. Na sasitthakaṃ pattadhovanaṃ antaraghare chaḍḍessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

56. “I will not throw away bowl-washing water with rice grains (sasitthakaṃ pattadhovanaṃ) in inhabited areas (antaraghare)” is a training to be observed.

56. Training should be done: ‘I will not throw away, in an inhabited area, bowl-washing water that has grains of rice in it.’

56. I will not dispose of rice-washing water in an inhabited area—this is a training to be observed.

57. Na chattapāṇissa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

57. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone holding a parasol (chattapāṇissa) who is not ill (agilānassa)” is a training to be observed.

57. Training should be done: ‘I will not teach Dhamma to a person holding an umbrella, unless he is sick.’

57. I will not teach Dhamma to someone holding an umbrella who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

58. Na daṇḍapāṇissa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

58. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone holding a staff (daṇḍapāṇissa) who is not ill (agilānassa)” is a training to be observed.

58. Training should be done: ‘I will not teach Dhamma to a person holding a staff, unless he is sick.’

58. I will not teach Dhamma to someone holding a staff who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

59. Na satthapāṇissa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

59. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone holding a weapon (satthapāṇissa) who is not ill (agilānassa)” is a training to be observed.

59. Training should be done: ‘I will not teach Dhamma to a person holding a knife, unless he is sick.’

59. I will not teach Dhamma to someone holding a knife who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

60. Na āvudhapāṇissa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

60. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone holding arms (āvudhapāṇissa) who is not ill (agilānassa)” is a training to be observed.

60. Training should be done: ‘I will not teach Dhamma to a person holding a weapon, unless he is sick.’

60. I will not teach Dhamma to someone holding a weapon who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

61. Na pādukāruḷhassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

61. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone wearing sandals (pādukāruḷhassa) who is not ill (agilānassa)” is a training to be observed.

61. Training should be done: ‘I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing sandals, unless he is sick.’

61. I will not teach Dhamma to someone wearing sandals who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

62. Na upāhanāruḷhassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

62. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone wearing shoes (upāhanāruḷhassa) who is not ill (agilānassa)” is a training to be observed.

62. Training should be done: ‘I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing shoes, unless he is sick.’

62. I will not teach Dhamma to someone wearing shoes who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

63. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone in a vehicle (yānagatassa) who is not ill (agilānassa)” is a training to be observed.

63. Training should be done: ‘I will not teach Dhamma to a person in a vehicle, unless he is sick.’

63. I will not teach Dhamma to someone in a vehicle who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

64. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone lying down (sayanagatassa) who is not ill (agilānassa)” is a training to be observed.

64. Training should be done: ‘I will not teach Dhamma to a person lying down, unless he is sick.’

64. I will not teach Dhamma to someone lying down who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

65. Na pallatthikāya nisinnassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

65. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone sitting with legs crossed (pallatthikāya nisinnassa) who is not ill (agilānassa)” is a training to be observed.

65. Training should be done: ‘I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting with legs crossed [or: with arms wrapped around knees], unless he is sick.’

65. I will not teach Dhamma to someone sitting with legs crossed who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

66. Na veṭhitasīsassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

66. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone with a wrapped head (veṭhitasīsassa) who is not ill (agilānassa)” is a training to be observed.

66. Training should be done: ‘I will not teach Dhamma to a person with his head wrapped up, unless he is sick.’

66. I will not teach Dhamma to someone with a head covering who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

67. Na oguṇṭhitasīsassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

67. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone with a covered head (oguṇṭhitasīsassa) who is not ill (agilānassa)” is a training to be observed.

67. Training should be done: ‘I will not teach Dhamma to a person with his head covered, unless he is sick.’

67. I will not teach Dhamma to someone with a covered head who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

The Training Rule on Not Teaching Dhamma While Sitting on the Ground to Someone Sitting on a Seat

68. Na chamāyaṃ nisīditvā āsane nisinnassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

68. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone sitting on a seat (āsane nisinnassa) who is not ill (agilānassa) while I sit on the ground (chamāyaṃ nisīditvā)” is a training to be observed.

68. Training should be done: ‘Sitting on the ground, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a seat, unless he is sick.’

68. I will not teach Dhamma while sitting on the ground to someone sitting on a seat who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

The Training Rule on Not Teaching Dhamma While Sitting on a Low Seat to Someone Sitting on a High Seat

69. Na nīce āsane nisīditvā ucce āsane nisinnassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

69. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone sitting on a high seat (ucce āsane nisinnassa) who is not ill (agilānassa) while I sit on a low seat (nīce āsane nisīditvā)” is a training to be observed.

69. Training should be done: ‘Sitting on a low seat, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a high seat, unless he is sick.’

69. I will not teach Dhamma while sitting on a low seat to someone sitting on a high seat who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

70. Na ṭhito nisinnassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

70. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone sitting (nisinnassa) who is not ill (agilānassa) while I stand (ṭhito)” is a training to be observed.

70. Training should be done: ‘Standing, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting, unless he is sick.’

70. I will not teach Dhamma while standing to someone sitting who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

The Training Rule on Not Teaching Dhamma While Walking Behind to Someone Walking in Front

71. Na pacchato gacchanto purato gacchantassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

71. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone walking ahead (purato gacchantassa) who is not ill (agilānassa) while I walk behind (pacchato gacchanto)” is a training to be observed.

71. Training should be done: ‘Walking behind, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking ahead, unless he is sick.’

71. I will not teach Dhamma while walking behind to someone walking in front who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

The Training Rule on Not Teaching Dhamma While Walking Off the Path to Someone on the Path

72. Na uppathena gacchanto pathena gacchantassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

72. “I will not teach Dhamma to someone walking on the path (pathena gacchantassa) who is not ill (agilānassa) while I walk off the path (uppathena gacchanto)” is a training to be observed.

72. Training should be done: ‘Walking on a side path, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking on the main path, unless he is sick.’

72. I will not teach Dhamma while walking off the path to someone on the path who is not ill—this is a training to be observed.

73. Na ṭhito agilāno uccāraṃ vā passāvaṃ vā karissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

73. “I will not, when not ill (agilāno), urinate (uccāraṃ) or defecate (passāvaṃ) while standing (ṭhito)” is a training to be observed.

73. Training should be done: ‘Unless sick, I will not defecate or urinate while standing.’

73. I will not relieve myself while standing if I am not ill—this is a training to be observed.

74. Na harite agilāno uccāraṃ vā passāvaṃ vā kheḷaṃ vā karissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

74. “I will not, when not ill (agilāno), urinate (uccāraṃ), defecate (passāvaṃ), or spit (kheḷaṃ) on green vegetation (harite)” is a training to be observed.

74. Training should be done: ‘Unless sick, I will not defecate, urinate, or spit on living green crops.’

74. I will not relieve myself, urinate, or spit on green plants if I am not ill—this is a training to be observed.

75. Na udake agilāno uccāraṃ vā passāvaṃ vā kheḷaṃ vā karissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

75. “I will not, when not ill (agilāno), urinate (uccāraṃ), defecate (passāvaṃ), or spit (kheḷaṃ) in water (udake)” is a training to be observed.

75. Training should be done: ‘Unless sick, I will not defecate, urinate, or spit in water.’

75. I will not relieve myself, urinate, or spit in water if I am not ill—this is a training to be observed.

Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto sekhiyā dhammā. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyasmanto, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

Venerable sirs, the sekhiya rules have been recited. Herein I ask the venerable ones: Are you pure in this regard? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this regard? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this regard? The venerable ones are pure herein; therefore, they are silent. Thus, I record it.

“Venerable sirs, the sekhiyā rules have been recited. In this regard, I ask the venerable sirs, are you pure in this? A second time, I ask, are you pure in this? A third time, I ask, are you pure in this? The venerable sirs are pure in this, therefore they are silent. Thus I hold it.”

Venerables, the Sekhiya rules have been recited. Concerning this, I ask you, venerables: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The venerables are pure in this matter, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I bear this in mind.

Adhikaraṇasamathā

Adhikaraṇasamathā

Methods for Settling Disputes

Uppannuppannānaṃ adhikaraṇānaṃ samathāya vūpasamāya sammukhāvinayo dātabbo.

For the settling and pacification of disputes that have arisen, a face-to-face verdict (sammukhāvinayo) may be given.

“For the settling and pacifying of disputes that have arisen, sammukhāvinaya should be given.

For the settling and pacifying of disputes as they arise, face-to-face resolution should be given.

Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto satta adhikaraṇasamathā dhammā. Tatthāyasmante, pucchāmi kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyasmanto, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

Venerable sirs, the seven adhikaraṇasamatha rules have been recited. Herein I ask the venerable ones: Are you pure in this regard? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this regard? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this regard? The venerable ones are pure herein; therefore, they are silent. Thus, I record it.

“Venerable sirs, the seven adhikaraṇasamathā rules have been recited. In this regard, I ask the venerable sirs, are you pure in this? A second time, I ask, are you pure in this? A third time, I ask, are you pure in this? The venerable sirs are pure in this, therefore they are silent. Thus I hold it.”

Venerables, the seven methods for settling disputes have been recited. Concerning this, I ask you, venerables: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The venerables are pure in this matter, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I bear this in mind.

Uddiṭṭhā satta adhikaraṇasamathā dhammā, ettakaṃ tassa bhagavato suttāgataṃ suttapariyāpannaṃ anvaddhamāsaṃ uddesaṃ āgacchati, tattha sabbeheva samaggehi sammodamānehi avivadamānehi sikkhitabbanti.

The seven adhikaraṇasamatha rules have been recited; this much comes down in the Blessed One’s Sutta, is included in the Sutta, and comes up for recitation every half-month. Herein, all should train in harmony, rejoicing together, without dispute.

The seven adhikaraṇasamathā rules have been recited. This much of the Fortunate One’s Sutta has come down, contained in the Sutta, comes up for recitation every half-month. In this, all should train together in harmony, cordially, without dispute.”

The seven methods for settling disputes have been recited. This much of the Buddha’s teachings in the form of discourses comes up for recitation every half-month. Herein, all should train in unity, harmony, and without dispute.

Homage to that Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-Awakened One (Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa)

Bhikkhunīpātimokkhapāḷi

Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha

Sammajjanī padīpo ca, udakaṃ āsanena ca;
Uposathassa etāni, “pubbakaraṇa”nti vuccati.

Sweeping, a lamp, water, and a seat; these for the Uposatha are called “pubbakaraṇa”.

A broom, a lamp, and water with a seat; these for the Uposatha, are called “pubbakaraṇa” [preliminary duties].

Sweeping, lighting the lamp, water, and a seat;
These are called the “preliminary duties” for the Uposatha.

Chanda, pārisuddhi, utukkhānaṃ, bhikkhunigaṇanā ca ovādo;
Uposathassa etāni, “pubbakicca”nti vuccati.

Consent, purity, declaration of the season, counting of nuns, and admonition; these for the Uposatha are called “pubbakicca”.

Consent, declaration of purity, determination of the season, counting the bhikkhunis, and the exhortation; these for the Uposatha, are called “pubbakicca” [prior duties].

Consent, purity, declaration of the season, counting the bhikkhunīs, and instruction;
These are called the “preliminary tasks” for the Uposatha.

Uposatho, yāvatikā ca bhikkhunī kammappattā;
Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjanti;
Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na honti, “pattakalla”nti vuccati.

The Uposatha, as many nuns as are eligible for the act; no common offenses exist; and no persons to be excluded are present there, it is called “pattakalla”.

The Uposatha, and as many bhikkhunis as are competent for the act; and there are no offenses of the same class; and persons to be excluded are not present in it; it is called “pattakalla” [the proper time].

The Uposatha, and as many bhikkhunīs as are eligible;
There are no shared offenses;
And there are no individuals to be avoided present;
These are called the “suitable conditions.”

Pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni samāpetvā desitāpattikassa samaggassa bhikkhunisaṅghassa anumatiyā pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ ārādhanaṃ karoma.

Having completed the preliminary duties and preliminary tasks (pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni), with the consent of the united Sangha of nuns (samaggassa bhikkhunisaṅghassa anumatiyā) who have confessed their offenses (desitāpattikassa), we request to recite the Pātimokkha.

Having completed the preliminary duties and preliminary activities, for the pātimokkha recitation, with the consent of the harmonious bhikkhunī saṅgha that has confessed their offenses, I will make the invitation.

Having completed the preliminary duties and tasks, with the consent of the united bhikkhunī Saṅgha, we request to recite the Pātimokkha.

Nidānuddeso

Nidānuddeso

The Introduction

Suṇātu me ayye saṅgho, ajjuposatho pannaraso, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyya, pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyya.

May the Sangha listen to me, noble ladies (ayye). Today is the Uposatha of the fifteenth day (pannaraso). If it is suitable for the Sangha (pattakallaṃ), the Sangha should perform the Uposatha and recite the Pātimokkha.

“Let the Saṅgha hear me, venerable ladies. Today is the fifteenth, the uposatha day. If it is opportune for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should perform the uposatha, and recite the Pātimokkha.

Sisters, may the Saṅgha listen. Today is the fifteenth day, the Uposatha. If the Saṅgha is ready, let the Saṅgha perform the Uposatha and recite the Pātimokkha.

Kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakiccaṃ? Pārisuddhiṃ ayyāyo ārocetha, pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmi, taṃ sabbāva santā sādhukaṃ suṇoma manasi karoma. Yassā siyā āpatti, sā āvikareyya, asantiyā āpattiyā tuṇhī bhavitabbaṃ, tuṇhībhāvena kho panāyyāyo, “parisuddhā”ti vedissāmi. Yathā kho pana paccekapuṭṭhassā veyyākaraṇaṃ hoti, evamevaṃ evarūpāya parisāya yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ hoti. Yā pana bhikkhunī yāvatatiyaṃ anusāviyamāne saramānā santiṃ āpattiṃ nāvikareyya, sampajānamusāvādassā hoti. Sampajānamusāvādo kho panāyyāyo, antarāyiko dhammo vutto bhagavatā, tasmā saramānāya bhikkhuniyā āpannāya visuddhāpekkhāya santī āpatti āvikātabbā, āvikatā hissā phāsu hoti.

What is the preliminary task of the Sangha? Declare your purity (pārisuddhiṃ), noble ladies (ayyāyo); I will recite the Pātimokkha. Let us all, being present, listen well and pay attention to it. Whoever has an offense should declare it; if there is no offense, one should remain silent. By your silence, noble ladies, I will know that you are pure (parisuddhā). Just as an answer would be given if questioned individually, so too in such an assembly, it is proclaimed up to three times. If any nun, when it has been proclaimed up to three times, remembering an existing offense does not declare it, it becomes deliberate false speech (sampajānamusāvāda) for her. Deliberate false speech, noble ladies, has been declared an obstructive matter (antarāyiko dhammo) by the Blessed One. Therefore, a nun who remembers an offense she has committed and seeks purification (visuddhāpekkhāya) should declare that existing offense; when declared, it will be comfortable for her.

What is the Saṅgha’s preliminary activity? Declare your purity, venerable ladies. I will recite the Pātimokkha. All of us being present, let us listen carefully and pay attention. Whoever has an offense should declare it. If there is no offense, you should remain silent. By your silence, venerable ladies, I will know that you are pure. Just as there is an individual declaration for one who is asked, in the same way, in an assembly like this, there is a declaration up to three times. If any bhikkhunī, when it is being declared up to three times, remembers an existing offense and does not declare it, she is guilty of a conscious lie. A conscious lie, venerable ladies, has been declared by the Fortunate One to be an obstructive state. Therefore, a bhikkhunī who remembers, who has committed an offense, and who desires purification, should declare an existing offense. Having declared it, it becomes light for her.”

What are the preliminary tasks for the Saṅgha? Sisters, declare your purity. I will recite the Pātimokkha. Let all of you listen carefully and pay attention. If anyone has an offense, let her confess it. If there is no offense, remain silent. By your silence, sisters, I will know that you are pure. As in the case of an individual being questioned, so too in an assembly like this, it is announced up to the third time. Any bhikkhunī who, when it is announced up to the third time, remembers an offense and does not confess it, commits an intentional falsehood. Sisters, an intentional falsehood has been declared by the Blessed One to be an obstacle. Therefore, a bhikkhunī who remembers an offense and desires purity should confess it. Having confessed it, she will find peace.

Uddiṭṭhaṃ kho, ayyāyo, nidānaṃ. Tatthāyyāyo pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyyāyo, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

The introduction (nidānaṃ) has been recited, noble ladies. Herein I ask the noble ladies: Are you pure in this regard? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this regard? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this regard? The noble ladies are pure herein; therefore, they are silent. Thus, I record it.

“Venerable ladies, the introduction has been recited. In this regard, I ask the venerable ladies, are you pure in this? A second time, I ask, are you pure in this? A third time, I ask, are you pure in this? The venerable ladies are pure in this, therefore they are silent. Thus I hold it.”

Sisters, the introduction has been recited. Concerning this, I ask you, sisters: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The sisters are pure in this matter, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I bear this in mind.

Pārājikuddeso

Pārājikuddeso

The Pārājika Recitation

1. Yā pana bhikkhunī chandaso methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya, antamaso tiracchānagatenapi, pārājikā hoti asaṃvāsā.

1. If a nun should willingly engage in sexual intercourse (methunaṃ dhammaṃ), even with an animal (tiracchānagatenapi), she becomes a pārājikā and is not in communion (asaṃvāsā).

1. Whatever bhikkhunī engages in the practice of sexual intercourse, even with an animal, is pārājikā, not in communion.

1. If any bhikkhunī willingly engages in sexual intercourse, even with an animal, she is defeated and no longer in communion.

2. Yā pana bhikkhunī gāmā vā araññā vā adinnaṃ theyyasaṅkhātaṃ ādiyeyya, yathārūpe adinnādāne rājāno coraṃ gahetvā haneyyuṃ vā bandheyyuṃ vā pabbājeyyuṃ vā corāsi bālāsi mūḷhāsi thenāsīti, tathārūpaṃ bhikkhunī adinnaṃ ādiyamānā ayampi pārājikā hoti asaṃvāsā.

2. If a nun should take what is not given (adinnaṃ) from a village (gāmā) or a forest (araññā), reckoned as theft (theyyasaṅkhātaṃ), in such a way that kings, having caught a thief, would kill, imprison, or banish her, saying, “You are a thief (corāsi), a fool (bālāsi), deluded (mūḷhāsi), a robber (thenāsīti),” a nun taking what is not given in such a way also becomes a pārājikā and is not in communion (asaṃvāsā).

2. Whatever bhikkhunī, from a village or from a forest, takes what is not given, intending to steal it, in such a way that for such taking what is not given, kings would seize a thief and kill him, or bind him, or banish him, saying, ‘You are a thief, you are a fool, you are misguided, you are a robber;’ a bhikkhunī taking what is not given in such a way, this one also is pārājikā, not in communion.

2. If any bhikkhunī takes what is not given, considered as theft, from a village or forest, such that kings, having caught a thief, would execute, imprison, or banish her, saying, “You are a thief, a fool, a deluded one, a robber,” then if a bhikkhunī takes what is not given in such a way, she is also defeated and no longer in communion.

3. Yā pana bhikkhunī sañcicca manussaviggahaṃ jīvitā voropeyya, satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyya, maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyya, maraṇāya vā samādapeyya “ambho purisa, kiṃ tuyhiminā pāpakena dujjīvitena, mataṃ te jīvitā seyyo”ti, iti cittamanā cittasaṅkappā anekapariyāyena maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyya, maraṇāya vā samādapeyya, ayampi pārājikā hoti asaṃvāsā.

3. If a nun should intentionally deprive a human being (manussaviggahaṃ) of life (jīvitā voropeyya), or seek a weapon-bearer (satthahārakaṃ) for him, or praise the advantages of death (maraṇavaṇṇaṃ), or incite him to death (maraṇāya samādapeyya), saying, “Friend, what use is this evil, miserable life to you? Death is better for you than life,” thus with such a mind and intention (cittamanā cittasaṅkappā), praising the advantages of death or inciting him to death in various ways, she also becomes a pārājikā and is not in communion (asaṃvāsā).

3. Whatever bhikkhunī intentionally deprives a human being of life, or seeks an অস্ত্র bearer for him, or praises the advantages of death, or incites him to death, saying, ‘Good man, what use is this wretched, miserable life to you? Death is better for you than life,’ with such a mind and purpose, in various ways praises the advantages of death or incites him to death, this one also is pārājikā, not in communion.

3. If any bhikkhunī intentionally deprives a human being of life, seeks a weapon for that purpose, praises the advantages of death, or incites someone to die, saying, “Hey, man, what good is this miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life,” and with such thoughts and intentions, in various ways praises death or incites someone to die, she is also defeated and no longer in communion.

4. Yā pana bhikkhunī anabhijānaṃ uttarimanussadhammaṃ attupanāyikaṃ alamariyañāṇadassanaṃ samudācareyya “iti jānāmi, iti passāmī”ti, tato aparena samayena samanuggāhīyamānā vā asamanuggāhīyamānā vā āpannā visuddhāpekkhā evaṃ vadeyya “ajānamevaṃ, ayye, avacaṃ jānāmi, apassaṃ passāmi, tucchaṃ musā vilapi”nti, aññatra adhimānā, ayampi pārājikā hoti asaṃvāsā.

4. If a nun, without knowing it (anabhijānaṃ), should claim a superior human state (uttarimanussadhammaṃ) pertaining to herself (attupanāyikaṃ), a noble knowledge and vision (alamariyañāṇadassanaṃ), saying, “Thus I know, thus I see,” and later, whether questioned or not, having fallen into an offense and seeking purification (visuddhāpekkhā), should say, “Noble ladies (ayye), I spoke unknowing, saying ‘I know’ when I did not know, ‘I see’ when I did not see; it was empty, false, idle talk (tucchaṃ musā vilapi),” except in cases of overestimation (adhimānā), she also becomes a pārājikā and is not in communion (asaṃvāsā).

4. Whatever bhikkhunī, without direct knowledge, claims a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision, as pertaining to herself, saying, ‘Thus I know, thus I see,’ and then on a later occasion, whether questioned or not questioned, having committed an offense, and desiring purification, says, ‘Venerable ladies, without knowing, I said “I know,” without seeing, “I see,” I spoke falsely, emptily,’ except through overestimation, this one also is pārājikā, not in communion.

4. If any bhikkhunī, without direct knowledge, claims a superhuman state, a noble knowledge and vision, for herself, saying, “Thus I know, thus I see,” and later, whether being questioned or not, being remorseful and desiring purity, says, “Sisters, I spoke thus without knowing, I claimed to know, I claimed to see, I spoke falsely,” except out of overestimation, she is also defeated and no longer in communion.

5. Yā pana bhikkhunī avassutā avassutassa purisapuggalassa, adhakkhakaṃ ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalaṃ āmasanaṃ vā parāmasanaṃ vā gahaṇaṃ vā chupanaṃ vā paṭipīḷanaṃ vā sādiyeyya, ayampi pārājikā hoti asaṃvāsā ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalikā.

5. If a nun, being lustful (avassutā), should consent to a lustful man (avassutassa purisapuggalassa) touching (āmasanaṃ), rubbing (parāmasanaṃ), grasping (gahaṇaṃ), contacting (chupanaṃ), or pressing (paṭipīḷanaṃ) her below the collarbone and above the knee (adhakkhakaṃ ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalaṃ), she also becomes a pārājikā and is not in communion (asaṃvāsā), being one who touches above the knee (ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalikā).

5. Whatever bhikkhuni, being lustful, consents to a lustful man’s physical contact below the collarbone and above the circle of the knees, whether rubbing, stroking, grasping, touching, or squeezing, this one also is pārājikā, not in communion, because of [touching above] the circle of the knees.

5. If any bhikkhunī, being lustful, consents to a lustful man touching her between the ankles and the knees, whether by stroking, rubbing, holding, pressing, or squeezing, she is also defeated and no longer in communion.

6. Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpannaṃ bhikkhuniṃ nevattanā paṭicodeyya, na gaṇassa āroceyya, yadā ca sā ṭhitā vā assa cutā vā nāsitā vā avassaṭā vā, sā pacchā evaṃ vadeyya “pubbevāhaṃ, ayye, aññāsiṃ etaṃ bhikkhuniṃ ’evarūpā ca evarūpā ca sā bhaginī’ti, no ca kho attanā paṭicodessaṃ, na gaṇassa ārocessa”nti, ayampi pārājikā hoti asaṃvāsā vajjappaṭicchādikā.

6. If a nun, knowing (jānaṃ) that another nun has committed a pārājika offense (pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpannaṃ), should neither admonish her herself (attana paṭicodeyya) nor inform the community (gaṇassa āroceyya), and when that nun has either remained, passed away (cutā), been expelled (nāsitā), or withdrawn (avassaṭā), should later say, “Even before, noble ladies (ayye), I knew this nun as being of such and such a nature (evarūpā ca evarūpā ca sā bhaginī), but I did not admonish her myself nor inform the community,” she also becomes a pārājikā and is not in communion (asaṃvāsā), being one who conceals a fault (vajjappaṭicchādikā).

6. Whatever bhikkhunī, knowing that a bhikkhunī has committed a pārājikā offense, neither herself reproves her, nor informs the group, and when that bhikkhunī is still present, or has passed away, or has been expelled, or has left, she later says, ‘Before, venerable ladies, I knew this bhikkhunī, “This sister is of such and such a kind,” but I did not reprove her myself, nor did I inform the group,’ this one also is pārājikā, not in communion, because of concealing an offense.

6. If any bhikkhunī knows that another bhikkhunī has committed a Pārājika offense and neither accuses her herself nor informs the group, and later, whether that bhikkhunī is still in the community, has left, has died, or has been expelled, she says, “Sisters, I knew before that this bhikkhunī was of such and such a nature, but I did not accuse her myself nor inform the group,” she is also defeated and no longer in communion.

7. Yā pana bhikkhunī samaggena saṅghena ukkhittaṃ bhikkhuṃ dhammena vinayena satthusāsanena anādaraṃ appaṭikāraṃ akatasahāyaṃ tamanuvatteyya, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “eso kho, ayye, bhikkhu samaggena saṅghena ukkhitto, dhammena vinayena satthusāsanena anādaro appaṭikāro akatasahāyo, māyye, etaṃ bhikkhuṃ anuvattī”ti, evañca sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyya, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyaṃ ce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce paṭinissajjeyya, ayampi pārājikā hoti asaṃvāsā ukkhittānuvattikā.

7. If a bhikkhunī follows a bhikkhu who has been suspended by the united Saṅgha in accordance with Dhamma, Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction, showing disrespect, not making amends, and lacking support—if she follows such a bhikkhu, that bhikkhunī should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, this bhikkhu has been suspended by the united Saṅgha in accordance with Dhamma, Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction; he is disrespectful, does not make amends, and lacks support. Venerable, do not follow this bhikkhu.” And if, when so admonished by the bhikkhunīs, that bhikkhunī persists in the same way, she should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times for the relinquishment of that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she relinquishes it, that is good. If she does not relinquish it, that bhikkhunī too becomes one defeated, unfit for communion, known as an “ukkhittānuvattikā” (one who follows the suspended).

7. If a bhikkhunī should follow a monk who has been expelled by a unanimous Saṅgha, in accordance with Dhamma and Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction, who is disrespectful, incorrigible, and uncooperative, that bhikkhunī should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs in this way: “Sister, this monk has been expelled by a unanimous Saṅgha, in accordance with Dhamma and Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction; he is disrespectful, incorrigible, and uncooperative. Sister, do not follow this monk.” If that bhikkhunī, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should persist as before, that bhikkhunī should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she abandons that course, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī also is defeated and no longer in communion, one who follows an expelled monk.

7. If a bhikkhunī, having been expelled by a unanimous Saṅgha in accordance with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction, for being disrespectful, unrepentant, and not seeking companionship, should follow that bhikkhu, she is to be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, this bhikkhu has been expelled by a unanimous Saṅgha in accordance with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction, for being disrespectful, unrepentant, and not seeking companionship. Do not, Venerable, follow this bhikkhu.” If that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists as before, she is to be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon her course of action. If, after being admonished up to three times, she abandons it, that is good. If she does not abandon it, she also is defeated and no longer in communion—this is the case of one who follows an expelled bhikkhu.

8. Yā pana bhikkhunī avassutā avassutassa purisapuggalassa hatthaggahaṇaṃ vā sādiyeyya, saṅghāṭikaṇṇaggahaṇaṃ vā sādiyeyya, santiṭṭheyya vā, sallapeyya vā, saṅketaṃ vā gaccheyya, purisassa vā abbhāgamanaṃ sādiyeyya, channaṃ vā anupaviseyya, kāyaṃ vā tadatthāya upasaṃhareyya etassa asaddhammassa paṭisevanatthāya, ayampi pārājikā hoti asaṃvāsā aṭṭhavatthukā.

8. If a bhikkhunī, being lustful, consents to a lustful man holding her hand, or consents to him holding the corner of her outer robe, or stands with him, converses with him, goes to a rendezvous with him, consents to his approach, enters a secluded place with him, or offers her body for that purpose—for the sake of indulging in such unrighteous conduct—that bhikkhunī too becomes one defeated, unfit for communion, known as an “aṭṭhavatthukā” (one with eight grounds).

8. If a bhikkhunī, being impassioned, should consent to a man, who is impassioned, grasping her hand, or should consent to his grasping the edge of her outer robe, or should stand with him, or should converse with him, or should go to a rendezvous, or should consent to a man’s approaching her, or should enter a concealed place, or should dispose her body for that purpose, for the sake of indulging in that improper behavior, this bhikkhunī also is defeated and no longer in communion, one involving eight cases.

8. If a bhikkhunī, being lustful, consents to being grasped by the hand by a lustful man, or consents to being grasped by the edge of his robe, or stands with him, or converses with him, or goes to a meeting place with him, or consents to his approaching her, or enters a concealed place with him, or extends her body toward him for the purpose of engaging in improper conduct, she also is defeated and no longer in communion—this is the case of one who commits an offense on eight grounds.

Uddiṭṭhā kho, ayyāyo, aṭṭha pārājikā dhammā. Yesaṃ bhikkhunī aññataraṃ vā aññataraṃ vā āpajjitvā na labhati bhikkhunīhi saddhiṃ saṃvāsaṃ yathā pure, tathā pacchā, pārājikā hoti asaṃvāsā. Tatthāyyāyo, pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyyāyo, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

Recited, venerables, are the eight pārājika rules. If a bhikkhunī commits one or another of these, she no longer obtains communion with the bhikkhunīs as before, so afterwards; she becomes defeated, unfit for communion. Therein, venerables, I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The venerables are pure herein, therefore they are silent. Thus I hold it to be.

Venerable sirs, the eight grounds for defeat have been recited. Concerning which, if a bhikkhunī commits any one of them, she is not entitled to communion with the bhikkhunīs; as formerly, so afterwards, she is defeated, she is not in communion. In this matter, I ask you, venerable sirs, “Are you pure in this?” A second time I ask, “Are you pure in this?” A third time I ask, “Are you pure in this?” The venerable sirs are pure in this. Therefore they are silent. Thus I take it to be.

Venerables, these eight rules leading to defeat have been recited. If a bhikkhunī commits any one of them, she is no longer permitted to live in communion with the bhikkhunīs, neither as before nor afterward. She is defeated and no longer in communion. In this matter, I ask the venerables: Are you pure in this? A second time, I ask: Are you pure in this? A third time, I ask: Are you pure in this? The venerables are pure in this, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I remember it.

Saṅghādisesuddeso

Recitation of the Saṅghādisesa

The Recitation of the Saṅghādisesas

The Recitation of the Saṅghādisesa Rules

1. Yā pana bhikkhunī ussayavādikā vihareyya gahapatinā vā gahapatiputtena vā dāsena vā kammakārena vā antamaso samaṇaparibbājakenāpi, ayampi bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattikaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

1. If a bhikkhunī lives quarrelsomely with a householder, a householder’s son, a slave, a worker, or even a wanderer or ascetic, that bhikkhunī, committing an initial offense, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

1. If a bhikkhunī should dwell contentiously, with a householder or a householder’s son, a slave or a worker, or even with a wandering ascetic, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

1. If a bhikkhunī speaks with contempt to a householder, a householder’s son, a slave, a worker, or even a wandering ascetic, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

2. Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ coriṃ vajjhaṃ viditaṃ anapaloketvā rājānaṃ vā saṅghaṃ vā gaṇaṃ vā pūgaṃ vā seṇiṃ vā, aññatra kappā vuṭṭhāpeyya, ayampi bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattikaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

2. If a bhikkhunī knowingly ordains a female thief liable to execution, known as such, without permission from the king, the Saṅgha, a group, a guild, or an assembly—except in permissible cases—that bhikkhunī, committing an initial offense, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

2. If a bhikkhunī, knowingly, without having consulted the king, or the Saṅgha, or a chapter, or a company, or a guild, unless it is otherwise permissible, should ordain a known female thief, who has been marked for execution, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

2. If a bhikkhunī, knowing a thief to be guilty, reinstates her without informing the king, the Saṅgha, a group, a guild, or a company, except when it is allowable, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

3. Yā pana bhikkhunī ekā vā gāmantaraṃ gaccheyya, ekā vā nadīpāraṃ gaccheyya, ekā vā rattiṃ vippavaseyya, ekā vā gaṇamhā ohiyeyya, ayampi bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattikaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

3. If a bhikkhunī goes alone to another village, crosses alone to the far bank of a river, stays apart alone at night, or remains behind alone from a group, that bhikkhunī, committing an initial offense, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

3. If a bhikkhunī should go alone to another village, or should go alone to the other side of a river, or should spend the night alone, or should linger behind alone from the group, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

3. If a bhikkhunī travels alone to another village, crosses a river alone, spends the night alone, or falls behind her group, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

4. Yā pana bhikkhunī samaggena saṅghena ukkhittaṃ bhikkhuniṃ dhammena vinayena satthusāsanena anapaloketvā kārakasaṅghaṃ, anaññāya gaṇassa chandaṃ osāreyya, ayampi bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattikaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

4. If a bhikkhunī reinstates a bhikkhunī suspended by the united Saṅgha in accordance with Dhamma, Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction, without permission from the acting Saṅgha and without knowing the group’s consent, that bhikkhunī, committing an initial offense, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

4. If a bhikkhunī should reinstate a bhikkhunī who has been expelled by a unanimous Saṅgha, in accordance with Dhamma and Vinaya and the Teacher’s instruction, without having consulted the acting Saṅgha, without knowing the consent of the chapter, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

4. If a bhikkhunī, without informing the acting Saṅgha and without knowing the consent of the group, reinstates a bhikkhunī who has been expelled by a unanimous Saṅgha in accordance with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

5. Yā pana bhikkhunī avassutā avassutassa purisapuggalassa hatthato khādanīyaṃ vā, bhojanīyaṃ vā sahatthā paṭiggahetvā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, ayampi bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattikaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

5. If a bhikkhunī, being lustful, takes edible or chewable food from the hand of a lustful man and eats or consumes it with her own hand, that bhikkhunī, committing an initial offense, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

5. If a bhikkhunī, being impassioned, should with her own hand accept from the hand of a man, who is impassioned, solid food or soft food, and should chew or consume it, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

5. If a bhikkhunī, being lustful, receives hard or soft food directly from the hand of a lustful man and consumes it, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

6. Yā pana bhikkhunī evaṃ vadeyya “kiṃ te, ayye, eso purisapuggalo karissati avassuto vā anavassuto vā, yato tvaṃ anavassutā, iṅgha, ayye, yaṃ te eso purisapuggalo deti khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā, taṃ tvaṃ sahatthā paṭiggahetvā khāda vā bhuñja vā”ti, ayampi bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattikaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

6. If a bhikkhunī says thus: “What does it matter to you, venerable, whether this man is lustful or not, since you are not lustful? Come, venerable, whatever this man gives you—edible or chewable—take it with your own hand and eat or consume it,” that bhikkhunī, committing an initial offense, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

6. If a bhikkhunī should say thus: “Sister, what will this man, whether impassioned or unimpassioned, do to you, since you are unimpassioned? Come, sister, accept with your own hand the solid food or soft food that this man is giving, and chew or consume it,” this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

6. If a bhikkhunī says, “What will this man, whether lustful or not, do to you, Venerable, since you are not lustful? Come, Venerable, take whatever hard or soft food this man gives you and consume it,” this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

7. Yā pana bhikkhunī sañcarittaṃ samāpajjeyya itthiyā vā purisamatiṃ, purisassa vā itthimatiṃ, jāyattane vā jārattane vā antamaso taṅkhaṇikāyapi, ayampi bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattikaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

7. If a bhikkhunī engages in matchmaking—arranging a man’s desire for a woman, a woman’s desire for a man, or acting as a wife, a lover, or even for a momentary liaison—that bhikkhunī, committing an initial offense, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

7. If a bhikkhunī should undertake to act as a go-between for a woman’s intentions to a man, or a man’s intentions to a woman, for marriage or for concubinage, even for a momentary meeting, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

7. If a bhikkhunī engages in sexual misconduct, whether with a woman who has the mindset of a man or with a man who has the mindset of a woman, whether in youth or in old age, even for a moment, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

8. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniṃ duṭṭhā dosā appatītā amūlakena pārājikena dhammena anuddhaṃseyya “appeva nāma naṃ imamhā brahmacariyā cāveyya”nti, tato aparena samayena samanuggāhīyamānā vā asa manuggāhīyamānā vā amūlakañceva taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ hoti, bhikkhunī ca dosaṃ patiṭṭhāti, ayampi bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattikaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

8. If a bhikkhunī, out of anger and displeasure, without satisfaction, accuses another bhikkhunī with an unfounded pārājika offense, thinking, “Perhaps I might expel her from this holy life,” and later, whether questioned or not, that matter is found to be baseless and the bhikkhunī admits her anger, that bhikkhunī, committing an initial offense, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

8. If a bhikkhunī, being malicious, angered, and displeased, should defame a bhikkhunī with a groundless charge of Defeat, thinking, “Perhaps I might drive her away from this celibate life,” and then later, whether she is interrogated or not, the case is groundless, and the bhikkhunī admits her malice, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

8. If a bhikkhunī, out of malice and displeasure, accuses another bhikkhunī of a groundless pārājika offense, thinking, “Perhaps I can make her fall away from the holy life,” and later, whether being questioned or not, the accusation is found to be groundless and the bhikkhunī persists in her malice, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

9. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniṃ duṭṭhā dosā appatītā aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassa kiñcidesaṃ lesamattaṃ upādāya pārājikena dhammena anuddhaṃseyya “appeva nāma naṃ imamhā brahmacariyā cāveyya”nti, tato aparena samayena samanuggāhīyamānā vā asamanuggāhīyamānā vā aññabhāgiyañceva taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ hoti. Kocideso lesamatto upādinno, bhikkhunī ca dosaṃ patiṭṭhāti, ayampi bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattikaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

9. If a bhikkhunī, out of anger and displeasure, without satisfaction, accuses another bhikkhunī with a pārājika offense based on some trifling point related to a different matter, thinking, “Perhaps I might expel her from this holy life,” and later, whether questioned or not, that matter is found to pertain to a different issue with only a trifling point involved and the bhikkhunī admits her anger, that bhikkhunī, committing an initial offense, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

9. If a bhikkhunī, being malicious, angered, and displeased, taking up some trivial part of a partially relevant case, should defame a bhikkhunī with a charge of Defeat, thinking, “Perhaps I might drive her away from this celibate life,” and then later, whether she is interrogated or not, the case is partially relevant, and some trivial part has been taken up, and the bhikkhunī admits her malice, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

9. If a bhikkhunī, out of malice and displeasure, takes up a minor aspect of a different legal issue and accuses another bhikkhunī of a pārājika offense, thinking, “Perhaps I can make her fall away from the holy life,” and later, whether being questioned or not, the issue is found to be different and only a minor aspect has been taken up, and the bhikkhunī persists in her malice, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

10. Yā pana bhikkhunī kupitā anattamanā evaṃ vadeyya “buddhaṃ paccācikkhāmi dhammaṃ paccācikkhāmi, saṅghaṃ paccācikkhāmi, sikkhaṃ paccācikkhāmi, kinnumāva samaṇiyo yā samaṇiyo sakyadhītaro, santaññāpi samaṇiyo lajjiniyo kukkuccikā sikkhākāmā, tāsāhaṃ santike brahmacariyaṃ carissāmī”ti. Sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “māyye kupitā anattamanā evaṃ avaca ’buddhaṃ paccācikkhāmi, dhammaṃ paccācikkhāmi, saṅghaṃ paccācikkhāmi, sikkhaṃ paccācikkhāmi, kinnumāva samaṇiyo yā samaṇiyo sakyadhītaro, santaññāpi samaṇiyo lajjiniyo kukkuccikā sikkhākāmā, tāsāhaṃ santike brahmacariyaṃ carissāmī’ti, abhiramāyye, svākkhāto dhammo, cara brahmacariyaṃ sammā dukkhassa antakiriyāyā”ti, evañca sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyya, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce paṭinissajjeyya, ayampi bhikkhunī yāvatatiyakaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

10. If a bhikkhunī, angry and displeased, says thus: “I reject the Buddha, I reject the Dhamma, I reject the Saṅgha, I reject the training. What are these recluses, these daughters of the Sakyan? There are other recluses who are modest, conscientious, and eager for training; I will live the holy life in their presence,” that bhikkhunī should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, do not say, when angry and displeased, ‘I reject the Buddha, I reject the Dhamma, I reject the Saṅgha, I reject the training. What are these recluses, these daughters of the Sakyan? There are other recluses who are modest, conscientious, and eager for training; I will live the holy life in their presence.’ Delight, venerable, in the well-expounded Dhamma; live the holy life rightly for the ending of suffering.” And if, when so admonished by the bhikkhunīs, that bhikkhunī persists in the same way, she should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times for the relinquishment of that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she relinquishes it, that is good. If she does not relinquish it, that bhikkhunī, committing an offense up to the third time, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

10. If a bhikkhunī, being angry and displeased, should say thus: “I renounce the Buddha, I renounce the Dhamma, I renounce the Saṅgha, I renounce the training. What are these Sakyan daughters, the nuns, alone? There are other nuns who are scrupulous, conscientious, and desirous of training. I will practice the holy life in their presence,” that bhikkhunī should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs in this way: “Sister, being angry and displeased, do not speak thus: ‘I renounce the Buddha, I renounce the Dhamma, I renounce the Saṅgha, I renounce the training. What are these Sakyan daughters, the nuns, alone? There are other nuns who are scrupulous, conscientious, and desirous of training. I will practice the holy life in their presence.’ Be content, sister. The Dhamma is well-proclaimed; practice the holy life for the complete ending of suffering.” If that bhikkhunī, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should persist as before, that bhikkhunī should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she abandons that course, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense requiring up to three formal meetings, entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

10. If a bhikkhunī, being angry and displeased, says, “I renounce the Buddha, I renounce the Dhamma, I renounce the Saṅgha, I renounce the training. There are other female ascetics, daughters of the Sakyan, who are conscientious, scrupulous, and desirous of training. I will practice the holy life in their presence,” she is to be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Do not, Venerable, being angry and displeased, say, ‘I renounce the Buddha, I renounce the Dhamma, I renounce the Saṅgha, I renounce the training. There are other female ascetics, daughters of the Sakyan, who are conscientious, scrupulous, and desirous of training. I will practice the holy life in their presence.’ Be content, Venerable, the Dhamma is well-proclaimed. Practice the holy life for the complete ending of suffering.” If that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists as before, she is to be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon her course of action. If, after being admonished up to three times, she abandons it, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

11. Yā pana bhikkhunī kismiñcideva adhikaraṇe paccākatā kupitā anattamanā evaṃ vadeyya “chandagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo, dosagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo, mohagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo, bhayagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo”ti, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “māyye, kismiñcideva adhikaraṇe paccākatā kupitā anattamanā evaṃ avaca ’chandagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo, dosagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo, mohagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo, bhayagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo’ti, ayyā kho chandāpi gaccheyya, dosāpi gaccheyya, mohāpi gaccheyya, bhayāpi gaccheyyā”ti. Evañca sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyya, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce paṭinissajjeyya, ayampi bhikkhunī yāvatatiyakaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

11. If a bhikkhunī, opposed in some matter, angry and displeased, says thus: “The bhikkhunīs are swayed by desire, swayed by anger, swayed by delusion, swayed by fear,” that bhikkhunī should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, do not say, when opposed in some matter, angry and displeased, ‘The bhikkhunīs are swayed by desire, swayed by anger, swayed by delusion, swayed by fear.’ Venerable, you too might be swayed by desire, anger, delusion, or fear.” And if, when so admonished by the bhikkhunīs, that bhikkhunī persists in the same way, she should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times for the relinquishment of that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she relinquishes it, that is good. If she does not relinquish it, that bhikkhunī, committing an offense up to the third time, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

11. If a bhikkhunī, having been dismissed in any dispute, being angry and displeased, should say thus: “The bhikkhunīs are following a course of favoritism, the bhikkhunīs are following a course of aversion, the bhikkhunīs are following a course of delusion, the bhikkhunīs are following a course of fear,” that bhikkhunī should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs in this way: “Sister, having been dismissed in any dispute, being angry and displeased, do not speak thus: ‘The bhikkhunīs are following a course of favoritism, the bhikkhunīs are following a course of aversion, the bhikkhunīs are following a course of delusion, the bhikkhunīs are following a course of fear.’ Indeed, the sister may be following a course of favoritism, a course of aversion, a course of delusion, a course of fear.” If that bhikkhunī, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should persist as before, that bhikkhunī should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she abandons that course, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense requiring up to three formal meetings, entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

11. If a bhikkhunī, being angry and displeased over some legal issue, says, “The bhikkhunīs are biased by favoritism, by aversion, by delusion, or by fear,” she is to be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Do not, Venerable, being angry and displeased over some legal issue, say, ‘The bhikkhunīs are biased by favoritism, by aversion, by delusion, or by fear.’ You too, Venerable, may act out of favoritism, aversion, delusion, or fear.” If that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists as before, she is to be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon her course of action. If, after being admonished up to three times, she abandons it, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

12. Bhikkhuniyo paneva saṃsaṭṭhā viharanti pāpācārā pāpasaddā pāpasilokā bhikkhunisaṅghassa vihesikā aññamaññissā vajjappaṭicchādikā, tā bhikkhuniyo bhikkhunīhi evamassu vacanīyā “bhaginiyo kho saṃsaṭṭhā viharanti pāpācārā pāpasaddā pāpasilokā bhikkhunisaṅghassa vihesikā aññamaññissā vajjappaṭicchādikā, viviccathāyye, vivekaññeva bhaginīnaṃ saṅgho vaṇṇetī”ti, evañca tā bhikkhuniyo bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyyuṃ, tā bhikkhuniyo bhikkhunīhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyyuṃ, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce paṭinissajjeyyuṃ, imāpi bhikkhuniyo yāvatatiyakaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

12. If some bhikkhunīs live together with evil conduct, evil reputation, and evil notoriety, troubling the bhikkhunī Saṅgha and concealing each other’s faults, those bhikkhunīs should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Sisters, you live together with evil conduct, evil reputation, and evil notoriety, troubling the bhikkhunī Saṅgha and concealing each other’s faults. Separate, venerables; the Saṅgha praises only separation for sisters.” And if, when so admonished by the bhikkhunīs, those bhikkhunīs persist in the same way, they should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times for the relinquishment of that course. If, being admonished up to three times, they relinquish it, that is good. If they do not relinquish it, those bhikkhunīs, committing an offense up to the third time, incur a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

12. If bhikkhunīs are living closely associated, having bad conduct, uttering evil words, with evil reputations, disturbing the community of bhikkhunīs, each concealing the others’ offenses, those bhikkhunīs should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs in this way: “Sisters, you are living closely associated, having bad conduct, uttering evil words, with evil reputations, disturbing the community of bhikkhunīs, each concealing the others’ offenses. Separate, sisters. The Saṅgha praises only separation for the sisters.” If those bhikkhunīs, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should persist as before, those bhikkhunīs should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, they abandon that course, that is good. If they do not abandon it, these bhikkhunīs also have committed an offense requiring up to three formal meetings, entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

12. If bhikkhunīs live in association with those of bad conduct, bad reputation, and bad habits, who are a nuisance to the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and who conceal each other’s faults, they are to be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Sisters, you live in association with those of bad conduct, bad reputation, and bad habits, who are a nuisance to the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and who conceal each other’s faults. Separate yourselves, Venerables, for the Saṅgha praises seclusion for sisters.” If those bhikkhunīs, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persist as before, they are to be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon their course of action. If, after being admonished up to three times, they abandon it, that is good. If they do not abandon it, these bhikkhunīs commit an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

13. Yā pana bhikkhunī evaṃ vadeyya “saṃsaṭṭhāva, ayye, tumhe viharatha, mā tumhe nānā viharittha, santi saṅghe aññāpi bhikkhuniyo evācārā evaṃsaddā evaṃsilokā bhikkhunisaṅghassa vihesikā aññamaññissā vajjappaṭicchādikā, tā saṅgho na kiñci āha tumhaññeva saṅgho uññāya paribhavena akkhantiyā vebhassiyā dubbalyā evamāha – ’bhaginiyo kho saṃsaṭṭhā viharanti pāpācārā pāpasaddā pāpasilokā bhikkhunisaṅghassa vihesikā aññamaññissā vajjappaṭicchādikā, viviccathāyye, vivekaññeva bhaginīnaṃ saṅgho vaṇṇetī”’ti, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “māyye, evaṃ avaca, saṃsaṭṭhāva ayye tumhe viharatha, mā tumhe nānā viharittha, santi saṅghe aññāpi bhikkhuniyo evācārā evaṃsaddā evaṃsilokā bhikkhunisaṅghassa vihesikā aññamaññissā vajjappaṭicchādikā, tā saṅgho na kiñci āha, tumhaññeva saṅgho uññāya paribhavena akkhantiyā vebhassiyā dubbalyā evamāha – ’bhaginiyo kho saṃsaṭṭhā viharanti pāpācārā pāpasaddā pāpasilokā bhikkhunisaṅghassa vihesikā aññamaññissā vajjappaṭicchādikā, viviccathāyye, vivekaññeva bhaginīnaṃ saṅgho vaṇṇetī”’ti, evañca sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyya, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce paṭinissajjeyya, ayampi bhikkhunī yāvatatiyakaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

13. If a bhikkhunī says thus: “Venerables, live together as you are; do not live separately. There are other bhikkhunīs in the Saṅgha with such conduct, such reputation, and such notoriety, troubling the bhikkhunī Saṅgha and concealing each other’s faults, and the Saṅgha says nothing to them. It is only to you that the Saṅgha, out of disdain, contempt, intolerance, scorn, and weakness, says, ‘Sisters, you live together with evil conduct, evil reputation, and evil notoriety, troubling the bhikkhunī Saṅgha and concealing each other’s faults. Separate, venerables; the Saṅgha praises only separation for sisters,’” that bhikkhunī should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, do not say, ‘Venerables, live together as you are; do not live separately. There are other bhikkhunīs in the Saṅgha with such conduct, such reputation, and such notoriety, troubling the bhikkhunī Saṅgha and concealing each other’s faults, and the Saṅgha says nothing to them. It is only to you that the Saṅgha, out of disdain, contempt, intolerance, scorn, and weakness, says, “Sisters, you live together with evil conduct, evil reputation, and evil notoriety, troubling the bhikkhunī Saṅgha and concealing each other’s faults. Separate, venerables; the Saṅgha praises only separation for sisters.”’” And if, when so admonished by the bhikkhunīs, that bhikkhunī persists in the same way, she should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times for the relinquishment of that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she relinquishes it, that is good. If she does not relinquish it, that bhikkhunī, committing an offense up to the third time, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

13. If a bhikkhunī should say thus: “Sisters, live closely associated; do not live separately. There are other bhikkhunīs in the Saṅgha having similar conduct, uttering similar words, with similar reputations, disturbing the community of bhikkhunīs, each concealing the others’ offenses. The Saṅgha says nothing to them. The Saṅgha says thus only to you, out of contempt, insult, intolerance, recklessness, and weakness: ‘Sisters, you are living closely associated, having bad conduct, uttering evil words, with evil reputations, disturbing the community of bhikkhunīs, each concealing the others’ offenses. Separate, sisters. The Saṅgha praises only separation for the sisters,‘” that bhikkhunī should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs in this way: “Sister, do not speak thus: ‘Sisters, live closely associated; do not live separately. There are other bhikkhunīs in the Saṅgha having similar conduct, uttering similar words, with similar reputations, disturbing the community of bhikkhunīs, each concealing the others’ offenses. The Saṅgha says nothing to them. The Saṅgha says thus only to you, out of contempt, insult, intolerance, recklessness, and weakness:”Sisters, you are living closely associated, having bad conduct, uttering evil words, with evil reputations, disturbing the community of bhikkhunīs, each concealing the others’ offenses. Separate, sisters. The Saṅgha praises only separation for the sisters.”’” If that bhikkhunī, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should persist as before, that bhikkhunī should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she abandons that course, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense requiring up to three formal meetings, entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

13. If a bhikkhunī says, “Stay together, Venerables, do not separate. There are other bhikkhunīs in the Saṅgha who are of bad conduct, bad reputation, and bad habits, who are a nuisance to the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and who conceal each other’s faults, but the Saṅgha says nothing to them. It is only because of contempt, disdain, impatience, and weakness that the Saṅgha says to you, ‘Sisters, you live in association with those of bad conduct, bad reputation, and bad habits, who are a nuisance to the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and who conceal each other’s faults. Separate yourselves, Venerables, for the Saṅgha praises seclusion for sisters,’” she is to be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Do not, Venerable, say, ‘Stay together, Venerables, do not separate. There are other bhikkhunīs in the Saṅgha who are of bad conduct, bad reputation, and bad habits, who are a nuisance to the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and who conceal each other’s faults, but the Saṅgha says nothing to them. It is only because of contempt, disdain, impatience, and weakness that the Saṅgha says to you, “Sisters, you live in association with those of bad conduct, bad reputation, and bad habits, who are a nuisance to the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and who conceal each other’s faults. Separate yourselves, Venerables, for the Saṅgha praises seclusion for sisters.”’” If that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists as before, she is to be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon her course of action. If, after being admonished up to three times, she abandons it, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

14. Yā pana bhikkhunī samaggassa saṅghassa bhedāya parakkameyya, bhedanasaṃvattanikaṃ vā adhikaraṇaṃ samādāya paggayha tiṭṭheyya, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “māyyā, samaggassa saṅghassa bhedāya parakkami, bhedanasaṃvattanikaṃ vā adhikaraṇaṃ samādāya paggayha aṭṭhāsi, sametāyyā, saṅghena, samaggo hi saṅgho sammodamāno avivadamāno ekuddeso phāsu viharatī”ti. Evañca sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyya, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce paṭinissajjeyya, ayampi bhikkhunī yāvatatiyakaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

14. If a bhikkhunī strives for a schism in a united Saṅgha or persists in upholding a matter conducive to schism, that bhikkhunī should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, do not strive for a schism in a united Saṅgha or persist in upholding a matter conducive to schism. Unite, venerable, with the Saṅgha, for a united Saṅgha, rejoicing, without dispute, with one recitation, dwells in comfort.” And if, when so admonished by the bhikkhunīs, that bhikkhunī persists in the same way, she should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times for the relinquishment of that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she relinquishes it, that is good. If she does not relinquish it, that bhikkhunī, committing an offense up to the third time, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

14. If a bhikkhunī should endeavor to break a united Saṅgha, or should persist in taking up a divisive issue, that bhikkhunī should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs in this way: “Sister, do not endeavor to break a united Saṅgha, or persist in taking up a divisive issue. Let the sister be united with the Saṅgha. For a united Saṅgha, harmonious, not disputing, with a common recitation, dwells in comfort.” If that bhikkhunī, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should persist as before, that bhikkhunī should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she abandons that course, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense requiring up to three formal meetings, entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

14. If a bhikkhunī strives to cause schism in a united Saṅgha or persists in taking up a legal issue that leads to schism, she is to be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Do not, Venerable, strive to cause schism in a united Saṅgha or persist in taking up a legal issue that leads to schism. Be reconciled, Venerable, for a united Saṅgha lives in comfort, in harmony, and in agreement.” If that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists as before, she is to be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon her course of action. If, after being admonished up to three times, she abandons it, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

15. Tassāyeva kho pana bhikkhuniyā bhikkhuniyo honti anuvattikā vaggavādikā ekā vā dve vā tisso vā, tā evaṃ vadeyyuṃ “māyyāyo, etaṃ bhikkhuniṃ kiñci avacuttha dhammavādinī cesā bhikkhunī, vinayavādinī cesā bhikkhunī, amhākañcesā bhikkhunī chandañca ruciñca ādāya voharati, jānāti, no bhāsati, amhākampetaṃ khamatī”ti, tā bhikkhuniyo bhikkhunīhi evamassu vacanīyā “māyyāyo, evaṃ avacuttha, na cesā bhikkhunī dhammavādinī, na cesā bhikkhunī vinayavādinī, māyyānampi saṅghabhedo ruccittha, sametāyyānaṃ saṅghena, samaggo hi saṅgho sammodamāno avivadamāno ekuddeso phāsu viharatī”ti, evañca tā bhikkhuniyo bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyyuṃ, tā bhikkhuniyo bhikkhunīhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyyuṃ. Iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce paṭinissajjeyyuṃ, imāpi bhikkhuniyo yāvatatiyakaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

15. If there are bhikkhunīs who follow that very bhikkhunī, supporting her faction and speaking divisively—one, two, or three—and they say thus: “Venerables, do not say anything to this bhikkhunī; this bhikkhunī speaks Dhamma, this bhikkhunī speaks Vinaya, she speaks in accordance with our wish and liking, she knows and speaks for us, and this suits us,” those bhikkhunīs should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerables, do not say, ‘This bhikkhunī speaks Dhamma, this bhikkhunī speaks Vinaya, she speaks in accordance with our wish and liking, she knows and speaks for us, and this suits us.’ This bhikkhunī does not speak Dhamma, this bhikkhunī does not speak Vinaya. Venerables, do not delight in a schism in the Saṅgha. Unite, venerables, with the Saṅgha, for a united Saṅgha, rejoicing, without dispute, with one recitation, dwells in comfort.” And if, when so admonished by the bhikkhunīs, those bhikkhunīs persist in the same way, they should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times for the relinquishment of that course. If, being admonished up to three times, they relinquish it, that is good. If they do not relinquish it, those bhikkhunīs, committing an offense up to the third time, incur a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

15. If that same bhikkhunī has bhikkhunīs who are followers, partisans, one or two or three, they should speak thus: “Sisters, do not say anything to this bhikkhunī. This bhikkhunī is a speaker of Dhamma, this bhikkhunī is a speaker of Vinaya, and this bhikkhunī speaks taking up our wish and our preference; she knows and speaks for us; this is pleasing to us,” those bhikkhunīs should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs in this way: “Sisters, do not speak thus. This bhikkhunī is not a speaker of Dhamma, this bhikkhunī is not a speaker of Vinaya. Do not let schism in the Saṅgha be your preference. Let the sisters be united with the Saṅgha. For a united Saṅgha, harmonious, not disputing, with a common recitation, dwells in comfort.” If those bhikkhunīs, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should persist as before, those bhikkhunīs should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, they abandon that course, that is good. If they do not abandon it, these bhikkhunīs also have committed an offense requiring up to three formal meetings, entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

15. If one, two, or three bhikkhunīs support that bhikkhunī and say, “Do not, Venerables, say anything to this bhikkhunī. She speaks according to the Dhamma, she speaks according to the Vinaya. She speaks according to our wishes and preferences. We approve of her,” they are to be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Do not, Venerables, say, ‘Do not, Venerables, say anything to this bhikkhunī. She speaks according to the Dhamma, she speaks according to the Vinaya. She speaks according to our wishes and preferences. We approve of her.’ This bhikkhunī does not speak according to the Dhamma, nor does she speak according to the Vinaya. Do not, Venerables, approve of schism in the Saṅgha. Be reconciled, Venerables, for a united Saṅgha lives in comfort, in harmony, and in agreement.” If those bhikkhunīs, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persist as before, they are to be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon their course of action. If, after being admonished up to three times, they abandon it, that is good. If they do not abandon it, these bhikkhunīs commit an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

16. Bhikkhunī paneva dubbacajātikā hoti uddesapariyāpannesu sikkhāpadesu bhikkhunīhi sahadhammikaṃ vuccamānā attānaṃ avacanīyaṃ karoti “mā maṃ ayyāyo kiñci avacuttha kalyāṇaṃ vā pāpakaṃ vā, ahampāyyāyo, na kiñci vakkhāmi kalyāṇaṃ vā pāpakaṃ vā, viramathāyyāyo, mama vacanāyā”ti, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “māyyā, attānaṃ avacanīyaṃ akāsi, vacanīyameva, ayyā, attānaṃ karotu, ayyāpi bhikkhuniyo vadatu sahadhammena, bhikkhuniyopi ayyaṃ vakkhanti sahadhammena, evaṃ saṃvaddhā hi tassa bhagavato parisā yadidaṃ aññamaññavacanena aññamaññavuṭṭhāpanenā”ti. Evañca sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyya, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce paṭinissajjeyya, ayampi bhikkhunī yāvatatiyakaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

16. If a bhikkhunī is by nature difficult to admonish and, when rightly admonished by bhikkhunīs regarding the rules included in the recitation, makes herself unadmonishable, saying, “Venerables, do not say anything to me, good or bad, and I too will not say anything to you, good or bad; refrain, venerables, from admonishing me,” that bhikkhunī should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, do not make yourself unadmonishable; rather, make yourself admonishable, venerable. You too should admonish the bhikkhunīs in accordance with Dhamma, and the bhikkhunīs will admonish you in accordance with Dhamma, for thus the Blessed One’s following grows—through mutual admonition and mutual rehabilitation.” And if, when so admonished by the bhikkhunīs, that bhikkhunī persists in the same way, she should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times for the relinquishment of that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she relinquishes it, that is good. If she does not relinquish it, that bhikkhunī, committing an offense up to the third time, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

16. If a bhikkhunī is by nature difficult to speak to, when she is addressed in accordance with Dhamma by the bhikkhunīs concerning the training rules included in the recitation, she makes herself unaddressable, [saying:] “Sisters, do not say anything to me, either good or bad, and I will not say anything to you, sisters, either good or bad. Refrain, sisters, from speaking to me,” that bhikkhunī should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs in this way: “Sister, do not make yourself unaddressable. Make yourself addressable, sister. Let the sister speak to the bhikkhunīs in accordance with Dhamma, and the bhikkhunīs will speak to the sister in accordance with Dhamma. For thus is the assembly of the Blessed One increased, that is, by mutual speaking and mutual rehabilitation.” If that bhikkhunī, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should persist as before, that bhikkhunī should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she abandons that course, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense requiring up to three formal meetings, entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

16. If a bhikkhunī is by nature difficult to admonish, and when being legitimately admonished by the bhikkhunīs regarding the training rules, she makes herself unadmonishable, saying, “Do not, Venerables, say anything to me, whether good or bad. I will not say anything to you, Venerables, whether good or bad. Refrain, Venerables, from admonishing me,” she is to be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Do not, Venerable, make yourself unadmonishable. Be admonishable, Venerable. Admonish the bhikkhunīs in accordance with the Dhamma, and the bhikkhunīs will admonish you in accordance with the Dhamma. For it is in this way that the community of the Blessed One is nurtured, that is, through mutual admonition and mutual rehabilitation.” If that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists as before, she is to be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon her course of action. If, after being admonished up to three times, she abandons it, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

17. Bhikkhunī paneva aññataraṃ gāmaṃ vā nigamaṃ vā upanissāya viharati kuladūsikā pāpasamācārā, tassā kho pāpakā samācārā dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, kulāni ca tāya duṭṭhāni dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “ayyā, kho kuladūsikā pāpasamācārā, ayyāya kho pāpakā samācārā dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, kulāni cāyyāya, duṭṭhāni dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, pakkamatāyyā imamhā āvāsā, alaṃ te idha vāsenā”ti. Evañca sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tā bhikkhuniyo evaṃ vadeyya “chandagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo, dosagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo, mohagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo, bhayagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo, tādisikāya āpattiyā ekaccaṃ pabbājenti ekaccaṃ na pabbājentī”ti, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “māyyā, evaṃ avaca, na ca bhikkhuniyo chandagāminiyo, na ca bhikkhuniyo dosagāminiyo , na ca bhikkhuniyo mohagāminiyo, na ca bhikkhuniyo bhayagāminiyo, ayyā kho kuladūsikā pāpasamācārā, ayyāya kho pāpakā samācārā dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, kulāni cāyyāya duṭṭhāni dissanti ceva suyyanti ca, pakkamatāyyā, imamhā āvāsā alaṃ te idha vāsenā”ti. Evañca sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyya, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce paṭinissajjeyya, ayampi bhikkhunī yāvatatiyakaṃ dhammaṃ āpannā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesaṃ.

17. If a bhikkhunī dwells dependent on a certain village or town, corrupting families and behaving badly, and her bad behavior is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by her are both seen and heard, that bhikkhunī should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, you are corrupting families and behaving badly; your bad behavior is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by you are both seen and heard. Depart, venerable, from this residence; you have dwelt here long enough.” And if, when so admonished by the bhikkhunīs, that bhikkhunī says to those bhikkhunīs, “The bhikkhunīs are swayed by desire, swayed by anger, swayed by delusion, swayed by fear; for such an offense they expel some and not others,” that bhikkhunī should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, do not say, ‘The bhikkhunīs are swayed by desire, swayed by anger, swayed by delusion, swayed by fear; for such an offense they expel some and not others.’ The bhikkhunīs are not swayed by desire, not swayed by anger, not swayed by delusion, not swayed by fear. Venerable, you are corrupting families and behaving badly; your bad behavior is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by you are both seen and heard. Depart, venerable, from this residence; you have dwelt here long enough.” And if, when so admonished by the bhikkhunīs, that bhikkhunī persists in the same way, she should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times for the relinquishment of that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she relinquishes it, that is good. If she does not relinquish it, that bhikkhunī, committing an offense up to the third time, incurs a saṅghādisesa requiring suspension.

17. If a bhikkhunī lives in dependence upon some village or town, corrupting families, with bad conduct, and her bad conduct is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by her are both seen and heard, that bhikkhunī should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs in this way: “Sister, you are one who corrupts families, with bad conduct. Your bad conduct is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by you are both seen and heard. Depart, sister, from this residence. You have lived here long enough.” If that bhikkhunī, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should say to those bhikkhunīs: “The bhikkhunīs are following a course of favoritism, the bhikkhunīs are following a course of aversion, the bhikkhunīs are following a course of delusion, the bhikkhunīs are following a course of fear; for such an offense they expel some, but they do not expel others,” that bhikkhunī should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs in this way: “Sister, do not speak thus. The bhikkhunīs are not following a course of favoritism, the bhikkhunīs are not following a course of aversion, the bhikkhunīs are not following a course of delusion, the bhikkhunīs are not following a course of fear. You, sister, are one who corrupts families, with bad conduct. Your bad conduct is both seen and heard, and the families corrupted by you are both seen and heard. Depart, sister, from this residence. You have lived here long enough.” If that bhikkhunī, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should persist as before, that bhikkhunī should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon that course. If, being admonished up to three times, she abandons that course, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī also has committed an offense requiring up to three formal meetings, entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, requiring expulsion.

17. If a bhikkhunī lives in dependence on a certain village or town, corrupting families and behaving improperly, and her improper behavior is seen and heard about, and the families she has corrupted are seen and heard about, she is to be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, you corrupt families and behave improperly. Your improper behavior is seen and heard about, and the families you have corrupted are seen and heard about. Leave this monastery, Venerable, you have stayed here long enough.” If that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, says, “The bhikkhunīs are biased by favoritism, by aversion, by delusion, or by fear. For such an offense, they banish some but not others,” she is to be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Do not, Venerable, say, ‘The bhikkhunīs are biased by favoritism, by aversion, by delusion, or by fear. For such an offense, they banish some but not others.’ You, Venerable, corrupt families and behave improperly. Your improper behavior is seen and heard about, and the families you have corrupted are seen and heard about. Leave this monastery, Venerable, you have stayed here long enough.” If that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists as before, she is to be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon her course of action. If, after being admonished up to three times, she abandons it, that is good. If she does not abandon it, this bhikkhunī commits an offense entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha.

Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo sattarasa saṅghādisesā dhammā nava paṭhamāpattikā, aṭṭha yāvatatiyakā,

Recited, venerables, are the seventeen saṅghādisesa rules: nine initial offenses and eight up to the third time.

Venerable sirs, the seventeen Saṅghādisesa rules have been recited: nine entailing immediate meetings, eight requiring up to three formal meetings.

Venerables, these seventeen Saṅghādisesa rules have been recited, of which nine entail initial and subsequent meetings, and eight entail being admonished up to three times.

Yesaṃ bhikkhunī aññataraṃ vā aññataraṃ vā āpajjati, tāya bhikkhuniyā ubhatosaṅghe pakkhamānattaṃ caritabbaṃ. Ciṇṇamānattā bhikkhunī yattha siyā vīsatigaṇo bhikkhunisaṅgho, tattha sā bhikkhunī abbhetabbā. Ekāyapi ce ūno vīsatigaṇo bhikkhunisaṅgho taṃ bhikkhuniṃ abbheyya, sā ca bhikkhunī anabbhitā, tā ca bhikkhuniyo gārayhā, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci. Tatthāyyāyo pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi, pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyyāyo, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

If a bhikkhunī commits one or another of these, that bhikkhunī must undergo mānatta discipline for half a month in both Saṅghas. Having completed mānatta, that bhikkhunī should be rehabilitated where there is a bhikkhunī Saṅgha of at least twenty. If a bhikkhunī Saṅgha of less than twenty, even by one, rehabilitates that bhikkhunī, she remains unrehabilitated, and those bhikkhunīs are blameworthy; this is the proper procedure therein. Therein, venerables, I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The venerables are pure herein, therefore they are silent. Thus I hold it to be.

Concerning which, if a bhikkhunī commits any one of them, that bhikkhunī must undergo a fortnight’s penance in both Saṅghas. After the bhikkhunī has completed the penance, she must be rehabilitated by a community of twenty bhikkhunīs. If a community of bhikkhunīs, even one less than twenty, should rehabilitate that bhikkhunī, that bhikkhunī is not rehabilitated, and those bhikkhunīs are blameworthy; this is the proper procedure in this case. In this matter, I ask you, venerable sirs, “Are you pure in this?” A second time I ask, “Are you pure in this?” A third time I ask, “Are you pure in this?” The venerable sirs are pure in this. Therefore they are silent. Thus I take it to be.

If a bhikkhunī commits any one of them, she must undergo penance for half a month in both Saṅghas. After completing the penance, she is to be rehabilitated in a Bhikkhunī Saṅgha of at least twenty members. If even one member of the twenty-member Bhikkhunī Saṅgha is lacking, and they rehabilitate that bhikkhunī, she is not rehabilitated, and those bhikkhunīs are at fault. This is the proper procedure. In this matter, I ask the venerables: Are you pure in this? A second time, I ask: Are you pure in this? A third time, I ask: Are you pure in this? The venerables are pure in this, therefore they remain silent. Thus, I remember it.

Nissaggiya pācittiyā

Nissaggiya Pācittiya

Forfeiture with Expiation

The Nissaggiya Pācittiya Rules

1. If a bhikkhunī should accumulate robes, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

1. If a bhikkhunī hoards bowls, she commits an offense entailing relinquishment and confession.

2. Yā pana bhikkhunī akālacīvaraṃ “kālacīvara”nti adhiṭṭhahitvā bhājāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

2. If a bhikkhunī determines an out-of-season robe as a “seasonal robe” and has it distributed, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

2. If a bhikkhunī should determine a robe out of season as “a robe in season” and distribute it, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

2. If a bhikkhunī, having determined an out-of-season robe as “in-season,” distributes it, she commits an offense entailing relinquishment and confession.

3. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā saddhiṃ cīvaraṃ parivattetvā sā pacchā evaṃ vadeyya “handāyye, tuyhaṃ cīvaraṃ, āhara metaṃ cīvaraṃ, yaṃ tuyhaṃ tuyhamevetaṃ, yaṃ mayhaṃ mayhamevetaṃ, āhara metaṃ cīvaraṃ, sakaṃ paccāharā”ti acchindeyya vā acchindāpeyya vā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

3. If a bhikkhunī exchanges a robe with another bhikkhunī and later says thus: “Here, venerable, is your robe; bring me this robe. What is yours is yours, what is mine is mine; bring me this robe, take back your own,” and takes it back or has it taken back, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

3. If a bhikkhunī, having exchanged a robe with another bhikkhunī, should afterwards say: “Here, sister, is your robe; give me back my robe; what is yours is yours indeed, what is mine is mine indeed; give me back my robe; return what is yours,” and should snatch it away or have it snatched away, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

3. If a bhikkhunī, having exchanged robes with another bhikkhunī, should later say to her, “Come, sister, take your robe, bring me my robe; what is yours is yours, what is mine is mine; bring me my robe, take back what is yours,” and then seizes it or has it seized, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

4. Yā pana bhikkhunī aññaṃ viññāpetvā aññaṃ viññāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

4. If a bhikkhunī requests one thing and then requests another, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

4. If a bhikkhunī, having requested one thing, requests another, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

4. If a bhikkhunī requests one thing and then requests something different, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

5. Yā pana bhikkhunī aññaṃ cetāpetvā aññaṃ cetāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

5. If a bhikkhunī has one thing purchased and then has another purchased, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

5. If a bhikkhunī, having procured one thing, procures another, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

5. If a bhikkhunī exchanges one thing and then exchanges something different, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

6. Yā pana bhikkhunī aññadatthikena parikkhārena aññuddisikena saṅghikena aññaṃ cetāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

6. If a bhikkhunī, with a requisite intended for one purpose and designated for the Saṅgha, has something else purchased, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

6. If a bhikkhunī, with requisites belonging to another, intended for another, and belonging to the Saṅgha, procures something else, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

6. If a bhikkhunī exchanges something intended for one purpose with something intended for another purpose that belongs to the Sangha, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

7. Yā pana bhikkhunī aññadatthikena parikkhārena aññuddisikena saṅghikena saññācikena aññaṃ cetāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

7. If a bhikkhunī, with a requisite intended for one purpose, designated for the Saṅgha, and agreed upon, has something else purchased, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

7. If a bhikkhunī, with requisites belonging to another, intended for another, belonging to the Saṅgha, and obtained by request, procures something else, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

7. If a bhikkhunī exchanges something intended for one purpose with something intended for another purpose that belongs to the Sangha and has been set aside, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

8. Yā pana bhikkhunī aññadatthikena parikkhārena aññuddisikena mahājanikena aññaṃ cetāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

8. If a bhikkhunī, with a requisite intended for one purpose and designated for a group, has something else purchased, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

8. If a bhikkhunī, with requisites belonging to another, intended for another, and belonging to the general public, procures something else, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

8. If a bhikkhunī exchanges something intended for one purpose with something intended for another purpose that belongs to a group, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

9. Yā pana bhikkhunī aññadatthikena parikkhārena aññuddisikena mahājanikena saññācikena aññaṃ cetāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

9. If a bhikkhunī, with a requisite intended for one purpose, designated for a group, and agreed upon, has something else purchased, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

9. If a bhikkhunī, with requisites belonging to another, intended for another, belonging to the general public, and obtained by request, procures something else, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

9. If a bhikkhunī exchanges something intended for one purpose with something intended for another purpose that belongs to a group and has been set aside, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

10. Yā pana bhikkhunī aññadatthikena parikkhārena aññuddisikena puggalikena saññācikena aññaṃ cetāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

10. If a bhikkhunī, with a requisite intended for one purpose, designated for an individual, and agreed upon, has something else purchased, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

10. If a bhikkhunī, with requisites belonging to another, intended for another, belonging to an individual, and obtained by request, procures something else, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

10. If a bhikkhunī exchanges something intended for one purpose with something intended for another purpose that belongs to an individual and has been set aside, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

11. Garupāvuraṇaṃ pana bhikkhuniyā cetāpentiyā catukkaṃsaparamaṃ cetāpetabbaṃ. Tato ce uttari cetāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

11. For a bhikkhunī purchasing a heavy covering, it should be purchased up to a maximum of four kaṃsas. If she purchases beyond that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

11. When a bhikkhunī is having a heavy outer robe made, she may have it made up to a maximum of four kaṃsas. If she exceeds that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

11. When a bhikkhunī is having a heavy robe made, it should be made to a maximum measure of four spans. If it exceeds that, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

12. Lahupāvuraṇaṃ pana bhikkhuniyā cetāpentiyā aḍḍhateyyakaṃsaparamaṃ cetāpetabbaṃ. Tato ce uttari cetāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

12. For a bhikkhunī purchasing a light covering, it should be purchased up to a maximum of two and a half kaṃsas. If she purchases beyond that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

12. When a bhikkhunī is having a light outer robe made, she may have it made up to a maximum of two and a half kaṃsas. If she exceeds that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

12. When a bhikkhunī is having a light robe made, it should be made to a maximum measure of two and a half spans. If it exceeds that, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

13. Niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhuniyā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretabbaṃ. Taṃ atikkāmentiyā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

13. When the robe-making is completed and the kathina privileges are withdrawn for a bhikkhunī, an extra robe may be kept for a maximum of ten days. If she exceeds that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

13. When a bhikkhunī’s robe is completed, and the kathina has been withdrawn, she may keep an extra robe for a maximum of ten days. If she exceeds that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

13. When a bhikkhunī has finished making her robe and the Kathina has been lifted, she may keep an extra robe for a maximum of ten days. If she keeps it beyond that, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

14. Niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhuniyā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine ekarattampi ce bhikkhunī ticīvarena vippavaseyya, aññatra bhikkhunisammutiyā nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

14. When the robe-making is completed and the kathina privileges are withdrawn for a bhikkhunī, if she stays apart from her three robes even for one night, except with the agreement of the bhikkhunīs, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

14. When a bhikkhunī’s robe is completed, and the kathina has been withdrawn, if a bhikkhunī lives apart from the three robes even for one night, except with the permission of the bhikkhunīs, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

14. When a bhikkhunī has finished making her robe and the Kathina has been lifted, if she spends even one night without her three robes, except with the permission of the bhikkhunīs, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

15. Niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhuniyā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine bhikkhuniyā paneva akālacīvaraṃ uppajjeyya, ākaṅkhamānāya bhikkhuniyā paṭiggahetabbaṃ, paṭiggahetvā khippameva kāretabbaṃ, no cassa pāripūri, māsaparamaṃ tāya bhikkhuniyā taṃ cīvaraṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ ūnassa pāripūriyā satiyā paccāsāya. Tato ce uttari nikkhipeyya satiyāpi paccāsāya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

15. When the robe-making is completed and the kathina privileges are withdrawn for a bhikkhunī, if an out-of-season robe arises for her, it may be accepted by the bhikkhunī if she wishes. Having accepted it, it should be made up quickly. If it is not completed, that bhikkhunī may keep that robe for a maximum of one month for the sake of completing what is lacking, provided there is expectation. If she keeps it beyond that, even with expectation, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

15. When a bhikkhunī’s robe is completed, and the kathina has been withdrawn, if an out-of-season robe should arise for a bhikkhunī, the bhikkhunī, if she wishes, may accept it; having accepted it, she should have it made up quickly; if it is not enough, that bhikkhunī may keep that robe for a maximum of one month, if there is hope of making up the deficiency. If she should keep it beyond that, even if there is hope, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

15. When a bhikkhunī has finished making her robe and the Kathina has been lifted, if an out-of-season robe becomes available to her, she may accept it if she wishes. Having accepted it, she should make it up quickly. If it is not enough, she may keep it for a maximum of one month, with the hope of completing it. If she keeps it beyond that, even with the hope of completing it, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

16. Yā pana bhikkhunī aññātakaṃ gahapatiṃ vā gahapatāniṃ vā cīvaraṃ viññāpeyya aññatra samayā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo acchinnacīvarā vā hoti bhikkhunī, naṭṭhacīvarā vā, ayaṃ tattha samayo.

16. If a bhikkhunī requests a robe from an unrelated householder or householder’s wife, except at the proper time, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. Herein, this is the proper time: when a bhikkhunī’s robe is stolen or lost; this is the proper time therein.

16. If a bhikkhunī requests a robe from an unrelated householder man or householder woman, except at the right time, it is to be forfeited and confessed. The right time here is: when a bhikkhunī’s robe has been snatched away, or when her robe has been lost; this is the right time here.

16. If a bhikkhunī requests a robe from a layperson or lay follower, except at the proper time, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred. The proper time here is when the bhikkhunī’s robe has been stolen or destroyed. This is the proper time in this case.

17. Tañce aññātako gahapati vā gahapatānī vā bahūhi cīvarehi abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya, santaruttaraparamaṃ tāya bhikkhuniyā tato cīvaraṃ sāditabbaṃ. Tato ce uttari sādiyeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

17. If that unrelated householder or householder’s wife invites her with an offer of many robes, that bhikkhunī may accept robes up to the maximum of an inner and an outer robe from there. If she accepts beyond that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

17. If that unrelated householder man or householder woman offers to provide her with many robes, that bhikkhunī may accept robes from that up to a set of inner and outer robes. If she accepts more than that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

17. If a layperson or lay follower offers a bhikkhunī many robes, she may accept up to an inner and outer robe. If she accepts more than that, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

18. Bhikkhuniṃ paneva uddissa aññātakassa gahapatissa vā gahapatāniyā vā cīvaracetāpannaṃ upakkhaṭaṃ hoti “iminā cīvaracetāpannena cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuniṃ cīvarena acchādessāmī”ti. Tatra cesā bhikkhunī pubbe appavāritā upasaṅkamitvā cīvare vikappaṃ āpajjeyya “sādhu vata, maṃ āyasmā iminā cīvaracetāpannena evarūpaṃ vā evarūpaṃ vā cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā acchādehī”ti kalyāṇakamyataṃ upādāya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

18. If funds for purchasing a robe are prepared by an unrelated householder or householder’s wife with the intention, “Having purchased a robe with these funds, I will provide it to the bhikkhunī named so-and-so,” and that bhikkhunī, uninvited beforehand, approaches and makes a suggestion about the robe, saying, “It would be good, sir, if you purchased such-and-such a robe with these funds and provided it to me,” motivated by a desire for something fine, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

18. If a robe-fund has been set aside for a bhikkhunī by an unrelated householder man or householder woman, [with the intention], “Having purchased a robe with this robe-fund, I will clothe the bhikkhunī named so-and-so with a robe,” and if that bhikkhunī, not previously invited, approaches and makes stipulations regarding the robe, [saying]: “It would be good, venerable sir, if you, having purchased a robe of such-and-such a kind with this robe-fund, would clothe me,” out of a desire for something fine, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

18. If a robe fund has been set aside for a bhikkhunī by a layperson or lay follower with the intention, “I will have a robe made with this robe fund and give it to such-and-such a bhikkhunī,” and if that bhikkhunī, without having been invited beforehand, approaches the robe fund and makes a request, saying, “It would be good if you, venerable, would have such-and-such a robe made for me with this robe fund,” out of a desire for something fine, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

19. Bhikkhuniṃ paneva uddissa ubhinnaṃ aññātakānaṃ gahapatīnaṃ vā gahapatānīnaṃ vā paccekacīvaracetāpannāni upakkhaṭāni honti “imehi mayaṃ paccekacīvaracetāpannehi paccekacīvarāni cetāpetvā itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuniṃ cīvarehi acchādessāmā”ti. Tatra cesā bhikkhūnī pubbe appavāritā upasaṅkamitvā cīvare vikappaṃ āpajjeyya “sādhu vata maṃ āyasmanto imehi paccekacīvaracetāpannehi evarūpaṃ vā evarūpaṃ vā cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā acchādetha ubhova santā ekenā”ti kalyāṇakamyataṃ upādāya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

19. If funds for purchasing separate robes are prepared by two unrelated householders or householders’ wives with the intention, “With these separate funds, we will purchase separate robes and provide them to the bhikkhunī named so-and-so,” and that bhikkhunī, uninvited beforehand, approaches and makes a suggestion about the robes, saying, “It would be good, sirs, if you both purchased such-and-such a robe with these separate funds and provided it to me together as one,” motivated by a desire for something fine, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

19. If separate robe-funds have been set aside for a bhikkhunī by two unrelated householder men or householder women, [with the intention], “Having purchased separate robes with these separate robe-funds, we will clothe the bhikkhunī named so-and-so with robes,” and if that bhikkhunī, not previously invited, approaches and makes stipulations regarding the robe, [saying]: “It would be good, venerable sirs, if you, having purchased a robe of such-and-such a kind with these separate robe-funds, would clothe me with one, both of you together,” out of a desire for something fine, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

19. If separate robe funds have been set aside for a bhikkhunī by two laypersons or lay followers with the intention, “We will have separate robes made with these separate robe funds and give them to such-and-such a bhikkhunī,” and if that bhikkhunī, without having been invited beforehand, approaches the robe funds and makes a request, saying, “It would be good if you, venerables, would have such-and-such a robe made for me with these separate robe funds, combining them into one,” out of a desire for something fine, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

20. Bhikkhuniṃ paneva uddissa rājā vā rājabhoggo vā brāhmaṇo vā gahapatiko vā dūtena cīvaracetāpannaṃ pahiṇeyya “iminā cīvaracetāpannena cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuniṃ cīvarena acchādehī”ti. So ce dūto taṃ bhikkhuniṃ upasaṅkamitvā evaṃ vadeyya “idaṃ kho, ayye, ayyaṃ uddissa cīvaracetāpannaṃ ābhataṃ, paṭiggaṇhātāyyā cīvaracetāpanna”nti. Tāya bhikkhuniyā so dūto evamassa vacanīyo “na kho mayaṃ, āvuso, cīvaracetāpannaṃ paṭiggaṇhāma, cīvarañca kho mayaṃ paṭiggaṇhāma kālena kappiya”nti. So ce dūto taṃ bhikkhuniṃ evaṃ vadeyya “atthi panāyyāya, koci veyyāvaccakaro”ti, cīvaratthikāya, bhikkhave, bhikkhuniyā veyyāvaccakaro niddisitabbo ārāmiko vā upāsako vā “eso kho, āvuso, bhikkhunīnaṃ veyyāvaccakaro”ti. So ce dūto taṃ veyyāvaccakaraṃ saññāpetvā taṃ bhikkhuniṃ upasaṅkamitvā evaṃ vadeyya “yaṃ kho, ayye, ayyā veyyāvaccakaraṃ niddisi, saññatto so mayā, upasaṅkamatāyyā kālena, cīvarena taṃ acchādessatī”ti. Cīvaratthikāya, bhikkhave, bhikkhuniyā veyyāvaccakaro upasaṅkamitvā dvattikkhattuṃ codetabbo sāretabbo “attho me, āvuso, cīvarenā”ti, dvattikkhattuṃ codayamānā sārayamānā taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce abhinipphādeyya, catukkhattuṃ pañcakkhattuṃ chakkhattuparamaṃ tuṇhībhūtāya uddissa ṭhātabbaṃ, catukkhattuṃ pañcakkhattuṃ chakkhattuparamaṃ tuṇhībhūtā uddissa tiṭṭhamānā taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. Tato ce uttari vāyamamānā taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. No ce abhinipphādeyya, yatassā cīvaracetāpannaṃ ābhataṃ, tattha sāmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ, dūto vā pāhetabbo “yaṃ kho tumhe āyasmanto bhikkhuniṃ uddissa cīvaracetāpannaṃ pahiṇittha, na taṃ tassā bhikkhuniyā kiñci atthaṃ anubhoti, yuñjantāyasmanto sakaṃ, mā vo sakaṃ vinassā”ti, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci.

20. If a king, a king’s official, a brahmin, or a householder sends funds for purchasing a robe via a messenger with the intention, “Purchase a robe with these funds and provide it to the bhikkhunī named so-and-so,” and that messenger approaches that bhikkhunī and says, “Venerable, these funds for a robe have been brought for you; accept them, venerable,” that bhikkhunī should say to that messenger, “Friend, we do not accept funds for robes; we accept robes at the proper time when they are allowable.” If that messenger says to that bhikkhunī, “Does the venerable have any assistant?” then, bhikkhave, for a bhikkhunī needing a robe, an assistant—either a monastery attendant or a lay follower—should be indicated, saying, “This, friend, is the bhikkhunīs’ assistant.” If that messenger, having instructed that assistant, approaches that bhikkhunī and says, “Venerable, the assistant you indicated has been instructed by me; approach him at the proper time, and he will provide you with a robe,” then, bhikkhave, for a bhikkhunī needing a robe, she should approach that assistant and prompt or remind him two or three times, saying, “Friend, I need a robe.” If, prompting or reminding him two or three times, she succeeds in obtaining that robe, that is good. If she does not succeed, she should stand silently for that purpose up to a maximum of six times—four, five, or six times. If, standing silently for that purpose up to a maximum of six times—four, five, or six times—she succeeds in obtaining that robe, that is good. If she succeeds in obtaining it by exerting beyond that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. If she does not succeed, she should either go herself to where the funds for the robe were brought from or send a messenger, saying, “Sirs, the funds for a robe that you sent for the bhikkhunī have not been of any benefit to that bhikkhunī; take back what is yours, lest what is yours be lost.” This is the proper procedure therein.

20. If a king, or a royal official, or a brahmin, or a householder sends a robe-fund for a bhikkhunī by means of a messenger, [with the intention], “Having purchased a robe with this robe-fund, clothe the bhikkhunī named so-and-so with a robe,” and if that messenger approaches that bhikkhunī and says: “This robe-fund, venerable lady, has been brought for the venerable lady; may the venerable lady accept the robe-fund,” that bhikkhunī should say to that messenger: “We do not, friend, accept a robe-fund; but we do accept a robe at the right time, if it is allowable.” If that messenger says to that bhikkhunī: “Does the venerable lady have any attendant?” then, bhikkhunīs, the bhikkhunī who needs a robe should indicate an attendant, whether a monastery attendant or a lay follower, [saying]: “That, friend, is the bhikkhunīs’ attendant.” If that messenger, having instructed that attendant, approaches that bhikkhunī and says: “The one whom the venerable lady indicated as an attendant, he has been instructed by me; may the venerable lady approach at the right time; he will clothe you with a robe,” then, bhikkhunīs, the bhikkhunī who needs a robe, having approached the attendant, should prompt and remind him two or three times: “I have need of a robe,” prompting and reminding him two or three times, if she obtains that robe, that is good; if she does not obtain it, she should stand silently for that purpose four times, five times, up to a maximum of six times; standing silently for that purpose four times, five times, up to a maximum of six times, if she obtains that robe, that is good. If, striving beyond that, she obtains that robe, it is to be forfeited and confessed. If she does not obtain it, she should either go herself or send a messenger to the place from which that robe-fund was brought, [saying]: “That robe-fund which you, venerable sirs, sent for a bhikkhunī, that has not served any purpose for that bhikkhunī; may the venerable sirs take back what is theirs; may what is yours not be lost;” this is the proper course here.

20. If a robe fund has been sent for a bhikkhunī by a king, a royal official, a brahmin, or a householder through a messenger, saying, “Have a robe made with this robe fund and give it to such-and-such a bhikkhunī,” and if that messenger approaches the bhikkhunī and says, “Venerable, this robe fund has been brought for you. Please accept the robe fund,” the bhikkhunī should reply, “We do not accept robe funds, but we do accept robes at the proper time.” If the messenger says, “Does the venerable have an attendant?” then a bhikkhunī in need of a robe should point out an attendant, either a monastery worker or a lay follower, saying, “This is the attendant for the bhikkhunīs.” If the messenger, having instructed the attendant, approaches the bhikkhunī and says, “Venerable, I have instructed the attendant you pointed out. Please approach him at the proper time, and he will give you the robe,” then the bhikkhunī in need of a robe should approach the attendant and remind him two or three times, “I need a robe.” If, after being reminded two or three times, he produces the robe, that is good. If he does not produce it, she should stand silently in his presence for up to four, five, or six times. If, after standing silently in his presence for up to four, five, or six times, he produces the robe, that is good. If she makes further effort beyond that and he produces the robe, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred. If he does not produce it, she should go herself or send a messenger to the place from which the robe fund was sent, saying, “The robe fund you sent for the bhikkhunī has not been of any use to her. Please attend to your own affairs. Do not let your own affairs be neglected.” This is the proper procedure in this case.

21. Yā pana bhikkhunī jātarūparajataṃ uggaṇheyya vā uggaṇhāpeyya vā upanikkhittaṃ vā sādiyeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

21. If a bhikkhunī takes up, causes to be taken up, or consents to gold or silver being deposited, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

21. If a bhikkhunī picks up or has someone pick up gold and silver, or accepts it if it is placed down, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

21. If a bhikkhunī takes gold or silver, or has it taken, or consents to it being placed near her, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

22. Yā pana bhikkhunī nānappakārakaṃ rūpiyasaṃvohāraṃ samāpajjeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

22. If a bhikkhunī engages in various transactions with money, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

22. If a bhikkhunī engages in various kinds of monetary transactions, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

22. If a bhikkhunī engages in various kinds of monetary exchange, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

23. Yā pana bhikkhunī nānappakārakaṃ kayavikkayaṃ samāpajjeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

23. If a bhikkhunī engages in various forms of buying and selling, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

23. If a bhikkhunī engages in various kinds of buying and selling, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

23. If a bhikkhunī engages in various kinds of buying and selling, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

24. Yā pana bhikkhunī ūnapañcabandhanena pattena aññaṃ navaṃ pattaṃ cetāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Tāya bhikkhuniyā so patto bhikkhuniparisāya nissajjitabbo, yo ca tassā bhikkhuniparisāya pattapariyanto, so tassā bhikkhuniyā padātabbo “ayaṃ te bhikkhuni patto yāvabhedanāya dhāretabbo”ti, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci.

24. If a bhikkhunī exchanges a bowl with fewer than five mends for another new bowl, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. That bowl must be forfeited by that bhikkhunī to the assembly of bhikkhunīs, and the last bowl in that assembly of bhikkhunīs should be given to her, saying, “This is your bowl, bhikkhunī, to be kept until it breaks.” This is the proper procedure therein.

24. If a bhikkhunī procures a new bowl, having a bowl with less than five bindings, it is to be forfeited and confessed. That bowl is to be forfeited by that bhikkhunī to the bhikkhunī community; and whichever is the last bowl in that bhikkhunī community, that is to be given to that bhikkhunī, [with the words]: “This, bhikkhunī, is your bowl; it is to be kept until it breaks;” this is the proper course here.

24. If a bhikkhunī exchanges an incomplete set of five bowls for a new bowl, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred. That bowl should be forfeited by that bhikkhunī to the community of bhikkhunīs, and whichever bowl is the last among the community of bhikkhunīs should be given to her, saying, “This is your bowl, bhikkhunī, to be used until it breaks.” This is the proper procedure in this case.

25. Yāni kho pana tāni gilānānaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ paṭisāyanīyāni bhesajjāni, seyyathidaṃ – sappi navanītaṃ telaṃ madhu phāṇitaṃ, tāni paṭiggahetvā sattāhaparamaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbāni. Taṃ atikkāmentiyā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

25. Those medicines allowable for sick bhikkhunīs—namely, ghee, butter, oil, honey, and sugar—having been accepted, may be used with storage for a maximum of seven days. If she exceeds that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

25. Those medicines which are to be used by sick bhikkhunīs, that is to say: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, molasses, having received them, are to be used for a maximum of seven days, stored away. If she exceeds that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

25. The medicines that are suitable for sick bhikkhunīs, such as ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and sugar, may be kept and used for a maximum of seven days. If they are kept beyond that, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

26. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ datvā kupitā anattamanā acchindeyya vā acchindāpeyya vā, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

26. If a bhikkhunī, having herself given a robe to another bhikkhunī, then, angry and displeased, takes it back or has it taken back, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

26. If a bhikkhunī, having herself given a robe to a bhikkhunī, being angry and displeased, snatches it back or has it snatched back, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

26. If a bhikkhunī, having given a robe to another bhikkhunī, becomes angry and displeased and seizes it back or has it seized, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

27. Yā pana bhikkhunī sāmaṃ suttaṃ viññāpetvā tantavāyehi cīvaraṃ vāyāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

27. If a bhikkhunī, having herself requested thread, has a robe woven by weavers, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

27. If a bhikkhunī, having herself requested thread, has weavers weave a robe, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

27. If a bhikkhunī requests thread and then has weavers make a robe, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

28. Bhikkhuniṃ paneva uddissa aññātako gahapati vā gahapatānī vā tantavāyehi cīvaraṃ vāyāpeyya, tatra cesā bhikkhunī pubbe appavāritā tantavāye upasaṅkamitvā cīvare vikappaṃ āpajjeyya “idaṃ kho āvuso cīvaraṃ maṃ uddissa viyyati, āyatañca karotha, vitthatañca appitañca suvītañca suppavāyitañca suvilekhitañca suvitacchitañca karotha, appeva nāma mayampi āyasmantānaṃ kiñcimattaṃ anupadajjeyyāmā”ti, evañca sā bhikkhunī vatvā kiñcimattaṃ anupadajjeyya antamaso piṇḍapātamattampi, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

28. If an unrelated householder or householder’s wife has a robe woven by weavers for a bhikkhunī, and that bhikkhunī, uninvited beforehand, approaches the weavers and makes a suggestion about the robe, saying, “Friends, this robe is being woven for me; make it long, wide, thick, well-woven, well-spread, well-scraped, and well-smoothed. Perhaps we might give you something small in return,” and having said this, she gives something small—even as little as a lump of almsfood—it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

28. If an unrelated householder man or householder woman has weavers weave a robe for a bhikkhunī, and if that bhikkhunī, not previously invited, approaches the weavers and makes stipulations regarding the robe, [saying]: “This robe, friends, is being woven for me; make it long, and make it broad, and well-spaced, and well-woven, and well-combed, and well-smoothed, and well-scraped, and perhaps we might give the venerable ones a little something,” and if that bhikkhunī, having said this, gives a little something, even as much as almsfood, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

28. If a layperson or lay follower has weavers make a robe for a bhikkhunī, and if that bhikkhunī, without having been invited beforehand, approaches the weavers and makes a request, saying, “This robe is being made for me. Make it long, wide, tightly woven, well woven, well spread, well combed, and well finished. Perhaps I may give you something in return,” and then, having spoken thus, gives them something, even if it is only almsfood, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

29. Dasāhānāgataṃ kattikatemāsikapuṇṇamaṃ bhikkhuniyā paneva accekacīvaraṃ uppajjeyya, accekaṃ maññamānāya bhikkhuniyā paṭiggahetabbaṃ, paṭiggahetvā yāva cīvarakālasamayaṃ nikkhipitabbaṃ. Tato ce uttari nikkhipeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

29. If an urgent robe arises for a bhikkhunī ten days before the full moon of the Kattika three-month period, it may be accepted by the bhikkhunī considering it urgent. Having accepted it, it may be kept until the robe-season time. If she keeps it beyond that, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

29. When ten days remain until the full moon of the third month of the hot season, if a rush robe should arise for a bhikkhunī, considering it to be a rush, the bhikkhunī should accept it; having accepted it, she should keep it until the robe-making season. If she keeps it beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

29. If an extra robe becomes available to a bhikkhunī more than ten days before the Kattika full moon, and she, thinking it is extra, accepts it, she should keep it until the robe season. If she keeps it beyond that, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

30. Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ saṅghikaṃ lābhaṃ pariṇataṃ attano pariṇāmeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

30. If a bhikkhunī knowingly redirects a benefit belonging to the Saṅgha to herself, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya.

30. If a bhikkhunī knowingly diverts to herself a gain belonging to the Saṅgha that has been allocated, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

30. If a bhikkhunī knowingly diverts a gain intended for the Sangha to herself, it is to be forfeited and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

Uddiṭṭhā kho, ayyāyo, tiṃsa nissaggiyā pācittiyā dhammā. Tatthāyyāyo, pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyyāyo, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

Recited, venerables, are the thirty nissaggiya pācittiya rules. Therein, venerables, I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The venerables are pure herein, therefore they are silent. Thus I hold it to be.

Recited, venerable ladies, are the thirty nissaggiyā pācittiyā dhammā. In this regard, I ask the venerable ladies, are you pure in this? A second time I ask, are you pure in this? A third time I ask, are you pure in this? The venerable ladies are pure in this; therefore they are silent; thus I hold it.

Venerables, the thirty rules on forfeiture have been recited. In regard to these, I ask you, “Are you pure in this matter?” A second time I ask, “Are you pure in this matter?” A third time I ask, “Are you pure in this matter?” You are pure in this matter, therefore you remain silent. Thus I remember it.

Suddhapācittiyā

Suddha Pācittiya

Suddhapācittiyā

The Pure Pācittiya Rules

2. If a bhikkhunī has hair removed from intimate places, it is pācittiyaṃ.

5. Udakasuddhikaṃ pana bhikkhuniyā ādiyamānāya dvaṅgulapabbaparamaṃ ādātabbaṃ. Taṃ atikkāmentiyā pācittiyaṃ.

5. For a bhikkhunī using a water-purifier, it should be used up to a maximum of two finger-joints. If she exceeds that, it is a pācittiya.

5. When a bhikkhunī is using water purification, she should use a maximum of two finger-joints. If she exceeds that, it is pācittiyaṃ.

5. When a bhikkhunī is playing in water, she may take up to two finger-joints’ depth. If she exceeds that, it is a pācittiya offense.

6. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhussa bhuñjantassa pānīyena vā vidhūpanena vā upatiṭṭheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

6. If a bhikkhunī attends to a bhikkhu who is eating with water or a fan, it is a pācittiya.

6. If a bhikkhunī attends a bhikkhu who is eating with water or a fan, it is pācittiyaṃ.

6. If a bhikkhunī attends on a bhikkhu who is eating, offering him water or a fan, it is a pācittiya offense.

7. Yā pana bhikkhunī āmakadhaññaṃ viññatvā vā viññāpetvā vā bhajjitvā vā bhajjāpetvā vā koṭṭetvā vā koṭṭāpetvā vā pacitvā vā pacāpetvā vā bhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

7. If a bhikkhunī requests raw grain, has it requested, roasts it, has it roasted, pounds it, has it pounded, cooks it, has it cooked, and then eats it, it is a pācittiya.

7. If a bhikkhunī, having requested or having had someone request raw grain, having roasted or having had someone roast it, having ground or having had someone grind it, having cooked or having had someone cook it, eats it, it is pācittiyaṃ.

7. If a bhikkhunī, having requested or had requested, having shared or had shared, having pounded or had pounded, having cooked or had cooked, eats raw grain, it is a pācittiya offense.

8. Yā pana bhikkhunī uccāraṃ vā passāvaṃ vā saṅkāraṃ vā vighāsaṃ vā tirokuṭṭe vā tiropākāre vā chaḍḍeyya vā chaḍḍāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

8. If a bhikkhunī throws or has thrown excrement, urine, rubbish, or leftovers beyond a wall or fence, it is a pācittiya.

8. If a bhikkhunī throws or has someone throw excrement, or urine, or rubbish, or leftovers over a wall or over a fence, it is pācittiyaṃ.

8. If a bhikkhunī disposes of feces, urine, rubbish, or leftover food over a wall or a fence, or has it disposed of, it is a pācittiya offense.

9. Yā pana bhikkhunī uccāraṃ vā passāvaṃ vā saṅkāraṃ vā vighāsaṃ vā harite chaḍḍeyya vā chaḍḍāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

9. If a bhikkhunī throws or has thrown excrement, urine, rubbish, or leftovers onto greenery, it is a pācittiya.

9. If a bhikkhunī throws or has someone throw excrement, or urine, or rubbish, or leftovers onto a green, it is pācittiyaṃ.

9. If a bhikkhunī disposes of feces, urine, rubbish, or leftover food on green grass, or has it disposed of, it is a pācittiya offense.

10. Yā pana bhikkhunī naccaṃ vā gītaṃ vā vāditaṃ vā dassanāya gaccheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

10. If a bhikkhunī goes to see dancing, or singing, or instrumental music, it is pācittiyaṃ.

10. If a bhikkhunī goes to see dancing, singing, or music, it is a pācittiya offense.

11. Yā pana bhikkhunī rattandhakāre appadīpe purisena saddhiṃ ekenekā santiṭṭheyya vā sallapeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

11. If a bhikkhunī stands or converses alone with a man in the dark of night without a lamp, it is a pācittiya.

11. If a bhikkhunī stands or converses alone with a man in the dark of night, without a lamp, it is pācittiyaṃ.

11. If a bhikkhunī sits or talks alone with a man in the dark without a light, it is a pācittiya offense.

12. Yā pana bhikkhunī paṭicchanne okāse purisena saddhiṃ ekenekā santiṭṭheyya vā sallapeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

12. If a bhikkhunī stands or converses alone with a man in a secluded place, it is a pācittiya.

12. If a bhikkhunī stands or converses alone with a man in a concealed place, it is pācittiyaṃ.

12. If a bhikkhunī sits or talks alone with a man in a concealed place, it is a pācittiya offense.

13. Yā pana bhikkhunī ajjhokāse purisena saddhiṃ ekenekā santiṭṭheyya vā sallapeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

13. If a bhikkhunī stands or converses alone with a man in an open place, it is a pācittiya.

13. If a bhikkhunī stands or converses alone with a man in the open, it is pācittiyaṃ.

13. If a bhikkhunī sits or talks alone with a man in an open place, it is a pācittiya offense.

14. Yā pana bhikkhunī rathikāya vā byūhe vā siṅghāṭake vā purisena saddhiṃ ekenekā santiṭṭheyya vā sallapeyya vā nikaṇṇikaṃ vā jappeyya dutiyikaṃ vā bhikkhuniṃ uyyojeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

14. If a bhikkhunī stands or converses alone with a man on a street, in a lane, or at a crossroads, or whispers, or dismisses a second bhikkhunī, it is a pācittiya.

14. If a bhikkhunī stands or converses alone with a man on a street, or at a crossroads, or at a junction, or whispers in his ear, or sends away a companion bhikkhunī, it is pācittiyaṃ.

14. If a bhikkhunī walks alone with a man on a road, in a village, or at a crossroads, or whispers in his ear, or dismisses a companion bhikkhunī, it is a pācittiya offense.

15. Yā pana bhikkhunī purebhattaṃ kulāni upasaṅkamitvā āsane nisīditvā sāmike anāpucchā pakkameyya, pācittiyaṃ.

15. If a bhikkhunī, having gone to families before the meal and sat on a seat, departs without informing the owners, it is a pācittiya.

15. If a bhikkhunī, having gone to families before the meal, having sat down on a seat, leaves without asking the owners, it is pācittiyaṃ.

15. If a bhikkhunī, having entered a family’s home before the meal, sits on a seat and leaves without informing the owner, it is a pācittiya offense.

16. Yā pana bhikkhunī pacchābhattaṃ kulāni upasaṅkamitvā sāmike anāpucchā āsane abhinisīdeyya vā abhinipajjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

16. If a bhikkhunī, having gone to families after the meal, sits or lies down on a seat without informing the owners, it is a pācittiya.

16. If a bhikkhunī, having gone to families after the meal, sits down or lies down on a seat without asking the owners, it is pācittiyaṃ.

16. If a bhikkhunī, having entered a family’s home after the meal, sits or lies down on a seat without the owner’s permission, it is a pācittiya offense.

17. Yā pana bhikkhunī vikāle kulāni upasaṅkamitvā sāmike anāpucchā seyyaṃ santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā abhinisīdeyya vā abhinipajjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

17. If a bhikkhunī, having gone to families at an improper time, spreads or has a bedspread spread and sits or lies down on it without informing the owners, it is a pācittiya.

17. If a bhikkhunī, having gone to families at the wrong time, having spread out or having had someone spread out a bedding, sits down or lies down without asking the owners, it is pācittiyaṃ.

17. If a bhikkhunī, having entered a family’s home at an improper time, spreads a bed or has it spread, and then sits or lies down on it without the owner’s permission, it is a pācittiya offense.

18. Yā pana bhikkhunī duggahitena dūpadhāritena paraṃ ujjhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

18. If a bhikkhunī, with a wrongly grasped and badly held view, criticizes another, it is a pācittiya.

18. If a bhikkhunī annoys another with what is poorly received and poorly maintained, it is pācittiyaṃ.

18. If a bhikkhunī reproves another based on what was poorly grasped and poorly remembered, it is a pācittiya offense.

19. Yā pana bhikkhunī attānaṃ vā paraṃ vā nirayena vā brahmacariyena vā abhisapeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

19. If a bhikkhunī curses herself or another with hell or the holy life, it is a pācittiya.

19. If a bhikkhunī curses herself or another with hell or with the holy life, it is pācittiyaṃ.

19. If a bhikkhunī curses herself or another with hell or the holy life, it is a pācittiya offense.

20. If a bhikkhunī, having beaten herself, cries and cries, it is pācittiyaṃ.

22. Udakasāṭikaṃ pana bhikkhuniyā kārayamānāya pamāṇikā kāretabbā, tatridaṃ pamāṇaṃ , dīghaso catasso vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṃ dve vidatthiyo. Taṃ atikkāmentiyā chedanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

22. For a bhikkhunī making a bathing cloth, it should be made to measure: four spans long and two spans wide according to the Sugata span. If she exceeds that, it is a pācittiya requiring cutting.

22. When a bhikkhunī is having a bathing cloth made, it should be made to the standard measurement; here is the standard measurement: four spans in length, according to the accepted span, two spans in width. If she exceeds that, it is pācittiyaṃ, involving cutting down.

22. When a bhikkhunī is having a bathing cloth made, it should be made to a standard measure. Here, the measure is four sugata spans in length and two spans in width. If it exceeds that, it is to be cut down and a pācittiya offense is incurred.

23. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā cīvaraṃ visibbetvā vā visibbāpetvā vā sā pacchā anantarāyikinī neva sibbeyya, na sibbāpanāya ussukkaṃ kareyya aññatra catūhapañcāhā, pācittiyaṃ.

23. If a bhikkhunī unsews or has another bhikkhunī’s robe unsewn and, unless prevented, neither sews it nor makes an effort to have it sewn within four or five days, it is a pācittiya.

23. If a bhikkhunī, having unstitched or having had someone unstitched a bhikkhunī’s robe, and afterwards, not being obstructed, neither sews it, nor makes an effort to have it sewn, except for four or five days, it is pācittiyaṃ.

23. If a bhikkhunī unravels another bhikkhunī’s robe or has it unraveled, and then, without any obstacle, neither sews it nor makes an effort to have it sewn, except for four or five days, it is a pācittiya offense.

24. Yā pana bhikkhunī pañcāhikaṃ saṅghāṭicāraṃ atikkāmeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

24. If a bhikkhunī exceeds the five-day period for wearing the outer robe, it is a pācittiya.

24. If a bhikkhunī exceeds the five-day wearing of the outer robe, it is pācittiyaṃ.

24. If a bhikkhunī exceeds five days without using her saṅghāṭi robe, it is a pācittiya offense.

26. Yā pana bhikkhunī gaṇassa cīvaralābhaṃ antarāyaṃ kareyya, pācittiyaṃ.

26. If a bhikkhunī obstructs the group’s robe distribution, it is a pācittiya.

26. If a bhikkhunī obstructs the gain of robes for a group, it is pācittiyaṃ.

26. If a bhikkhunī obstructs the gaining of robes by a group, it is a pācittiya offense.

27. Yā pana bhikkhunī dhammikaṃ cīvaravibhaṅgaṃ paṭibāheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

27. If a bhikkhunī obstructs the proper distribution of robes, it is pācittiyaṃ.

27. If a bhikkhunī prevents a legitimate distribution of robes, it is a pācittiya offense.

28. Yā pana bhikkhunī agārikassa vā paribbājakassa vā paribbājikāya vā samaṇacīvaraṃ dadeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

28. If a bhikkhunī gives a recluse’s robe to a householder, a wanderer, or a female wanderer, it is a pācittiya.

28. If a bhikkhunī gives a monastic robe to a householder, or to a male wanderer, or to a female wanderer, it is pācittiyaṃ.

28. If a bhikkhunī gives a monastic robe to a householder, a male wanderer, or a female wanderer, it is a pācittiya offense.

29. Yā pana bhikkhunī dubbalacīvarapaccāsāya cīvarakālasamayaṃ atikkāmeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

29. If a bhikkhunī, with the expectation of a worn robe, exceeds the robe-season time, it is a pācittiya.

29. If a bhikkhunī, on account of needing a poor-quality robe, exceeds the robe-making season, it is pācittiyaṃ.

29. If a bhikkhunī, hoping for a better robe, exceeds the robe season, it is a pācittiya offense.

30. Yā pana bhikkhunī dhammikaṃ kathinuddhāraṃ paṭibāheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

30. If a bhikkhunī obstructs a lawful withdrawal of the kathina privileges, it is a pācittiya.

30. If a bhikkhunī obstructs the proper withdrawal of the kathina, it is pācittiyaṃ.

30. If a bhikkhunī prevents the legitimate lifting of the Kathina, it is a pācittiya offense.

32. Yā pana bhikkhuniyo dve ekattharaṇapāvuraṇā tuvaṭṭeyyuṃ, pācittiyaṃ.

32. If two bhikkhunīs sleep under one covering and one blanket, it is a pācittiya.

32. If two bhikkhunīs lie down with the same bedding and covering, it is pācittiyaṃ.

32. If two bhikkhunīs lie down on one mattress and one covering, it is a pācittiya offense.

33. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā sañcicca aphāsuṃ kareyya, pācittiyaṃ.

33. If a bhikkhunī intentionally causes discomfort to another bhikkhunī, it is a pācittiya.

33. If a bhikkhunī intentionally causes discomfort to a bhikkhunī, it is pācittiyaṃ.

33. If a bhikkhunī intentionally causes discomfort to another bhikkhunī, it is a pācittiya offense.

34. Yā pana bhikkhunī dukkhitaṃ sahajīviniṃ neva upaṭṭhaheyya, na upaṭṭhāpanāya ussukkaṃ kareyya, pācittiyaṃ.

34. If a bhikkhunī neither attends to a suffering co-dweller nor makes an effort to have her attended to, it is a pācittiya.

34. If a bhikkhunī neither attends nor makes an effort to attend a sick fellow living-together nun, it is pācittiyaṃ.

34. If a bhikkhunī does not attend to a sick companion or make an effort to have her attended to, it is a pācittiya offense.

35. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā upassayaṃ datvā kupitā anattamanā nikkaḍḍheyya vā nikkaḍḍhāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

35. Any bhikkhunī who, having given a lodging to another bhikkhunī, being angry and displeased, expels her or causes her to be expelled, incurs a pācittiya.

35. If a bhikkhunī, having given a dwelling to a bhikkhunī, then being angry and displeased, evicts her or has her evicted, it is pācittiya.

35. If a bhikkhunī, having given a dwelling to another bhikkhunī, becomes angry and dissatisfied and evicts her or has her evicted, she commits a pācittiya offense.

36. Yā pana bhikkhunī saṃsaṭṭhā vihareyya gahapatinā vā gahapatiputtena vā, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “māyye, saṃsaṭṭhā vihari gahapatināpi gahapatiputtenāpi, viviccāyye, vivekaññeva bhaginiyā saṅgho vaṇṇetī”ti. Evañca sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyya, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya, yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce paṭinissajjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

36. Any bhikkhunī who lives closely associated with a householder or a householder’s son, that bhikkhunī should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, do not live closely associated with a householder or a householder’s son. Live apart, Venerable; indeed, the Saṅgha praises only seclusion for a sister.” And if that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists in the same way, she should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to the third time for the relinquishment of that behavior. If, being admonished up to the third time, she relinquishes it, that is good. If she does not relinquish it, she incurs a pācittiya.

36. If a bhikkhunī lives in cohabitation with a householder or a householder’s son, that bhikkhunī should be addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs: “Sister, do not live in cohabitation with a householder or a householder’s son. Live separately, sister. The Sangha praises only the seclusion of a sister.” And if that bhikkhunī, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists as before, that bhikkhunī should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon that [course of action]. If, being admonished up to three times, she abandons it, that is good. If she does not abandon it, it is pācittiya.

36. If a bhikkhunī lives in association with a householder or a householder’s son, that bhikkhunī should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, do not live in association with a householder or a householder’s son. Live secluded, sister, for the Sangha praises seclusion.” If that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists as before, she should be admonished up to three times to give it up. If she gives it up after being admonished up to three times, that is good. If she does not give it up, she commits a pācittiya offense.

37. Yā pana bhikkhunī antoraṭṭhe sāsaṅkasammate sappaṭibhaye asatthikā cārikaṃ careyya, pācittiyaṃ.

37. Any bhikkhunī who travels on a journey within the country in a place deemed dangerous and fearsome without a companion incurs a pācittiya.

37. If a bhikkhunī travels within the kingdom in a region deemed dangerous and unsafe without an escort, it is pācittiya.

37. If a bhikkhunī travels within a country that is considered dangerous and risky, without a weapon, she commits a pācittiya offense.

38. Yā pana bhikkhunī tiroraṭṭhe sāsaṅkasammate sappaṭibhaye asatthikā cārikaṃ careyya, pācittiyaṃ.

38. Any bhikkhunī who travels on a journey outside the country in a place deemed dangerous and fearsome without a companion incurs a pācittiya.

38. If a bhikkhunī travels outside the kingdom in a region deemed dangerous and unsafe without an escort, it is pācittiya.

38. If a bhikkhunī travels beyond a country that is considered dangerous and risky, without a weapon, she commits a pācittiya offense.

39. Any bhikkhunī who travels on a journey during the rains retreat incurs a pācittiya.

40. Yā pana bhikkhunī vassaṃvuṭṭhā cārikaṃ na pakkameyya antamaso chappañcayojanānipi, pācittiyaṃ.

40. Any bhikkhunī who, having observed the rains retreat, does not set out on a journey, even for five or six yojanas, incurs a pācittiya.

40. If a bhikkhunī, having completed the rains, does not set out on travel, even for five or six yojanas, it is pācittiya.

40. If a bhikkhunī, having completed the rains residence, does not set out on a journey even for five or six leagues, she commits a pācittiya offense.

41. Yā pana bhikkhunī rājāgāraṃ vā cittāgāraṃ vā ārāmaṃ vā uyyānaṃ vā pokkharaṇiṃ vā dassanāya gaccheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

41. Any bhikkhunī who goes to see a royal palace, a painted hall, a park, a garden, or a lotus pond incurs a pācittiya.

41. If a bhikkhunī goes to see a royal residence, a pleasure house, a park, a grove, or a pond, it is pācittiya.

41. If a bhikkhunī goes to see a royal residence, a shrine, a park, a garden, or a pond, she commits a pācittiya offense.

42. Yā pana bhikkhunī āsandiṃ vā pallaṅkaṃ vā paribhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

42. If a bhikkhunī uses a high chair or a couch, she commits a pācittiya offense.

44. If a bhikkhunī performs household duties, she commits a pācittiya offense.

45. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā “ehāyye, imaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasamehī”ti vuccamānā “sādhū”ti paṭissuṇitvā sā pacchā anantarāyikinī neva vūpasameyya, na vūpasamāya ussukkaṃ kareyya, pācittiyaṃ.

45. Any bhikkhunī who, being told by another bhikkhunī, “Come, Venerable, settle this dispute,” agrees by saying “Very well” but later, without hindrance, neither settles it nor makes an effort to settle it, incurs a pācittiya.

45. If a bhikkhunī, being addressed by a bhikkhunī, “Come, sister, settle this dispute,” acknowledges with “Good,” but afterwards, without compelling reason, neither settles it nor makes an effort to settle it, it is pācittiya.

45. If a bhikkhunī, being told by another bhikkhunī, “Venerable, settle this legal dispute,” agrees by saying, “Yes,” but later, being free from obstacles, neither settles it nor makes an effort to settle it, she commits a pācittiya offense.

46. Yā pana bhikkhunī agārikassa vā paribbājakassa vā paribbājikāya vā sahatthā khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā dadeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

46. Any bhikkhunī who personally gives edible or consumable food to a householder, a wanderer, or a female wanderer incurs a pācittiya.

46. If a bhikkhunī gives with her own hand hard food or soft food to a non-Buddhist householder, a male wanderer, or a female wanderer, it is pācittiya.

46. If a bhikkhunī gives food with her own hand to a householder, a male wanderer, or a female wanderer, she commits a pācittiya offense.

47. Yā pana bhikkhunī āvasathacīvaraṃ anissajjetvā paribhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

47. Any bhikkhunī who uses an āvasatha robe without relinquishing it incurs a pācittiya.

47. If a bhikkhunī uses a dwelling-robe without formally giving it up, it is pācittiya.

47. If a bhikkhunī uses a lodging robe without relinquishing it, she commits a pācittiya offense.

48. Yā pana bhikkhunī āvasathaṃ anissajjitvā cārikaṃ pakkameyya, pācittiyaṃ.

48. Any bhikkhunī who sets out on a journey without relinquishing an āvasatha dwelling incurs a pācittiya.

48. If a bhikkhunī sets out on travel without formally giving up a dwelling, it is pācittiya.

48. If a bhikkhunī sets out on a journey without relinquishing her lodging, she commits a pācittiya offense.

49. If a bhikkhunī learns worldly knowledge (tiracchānavijjā), it is pācittiya.

50. If a bhikkhunī recites worldly knowledge (tiracchānavijjā), it is pācittiya.

50. If a bhikkhunī teaches worldly knowledge, she commits a pācittiya offense.

51. Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ sabhikkhukaṃ ārāmaṃ anāpucchā paviseyya, pācittiyaṃ.

51. Any bhikkhunī who knowingly enters a monastery with bhikkhus without permission incurs a pācittiya.

51. If a bhikkhunī knowingly enters a monastery with bhikkhus without asking permission, it is pācittiya.

51. If a bhikkhunī, knowing that a monastery is inhabited by bhikkhus, enters without asking permission, she commits a pācittiya offense.

52. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuṃ akkoseyya vā paribhāseyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

52. If a bhikkhunī insults or reviles a bhikkhu, she commits a pācittiya offense.

53. If a bhikkhunī, being angry, reviles a group, she commits a pācittiya offense.

54. Yā pana bhikkhunī nimantitā vā pavāritā vā khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

54. Any bhikkhunī who, having been invited or offered food, eats or consumes edible or consumable food incurs a pācittiya.

54. If a bhikkhunī, having been invited or formally requested, eats hard food or soft food, it is pācittiya.

54. If a bhikkhunī, being invited or requested, eats or consumes non-staple or staple food, she commits a pācittiya offense.

56. Any bhikkhunī who spends the rains retreat in a residence without bhikkhus incurs a pācittiya.

56. If a bhikkhunī spends the rains in a residence without bhikkhus, it is pācittiya.

56. If a bhikkhunī lives in a residence without bhikkhunīs during the rains, she commits a pācittiya offense.

57. Yā pana bhikkhunī vassaṃvuṭṭhā ubhatosaṅghe tīhi ṭhānehi na pavāreyya diṭṭhena vā sutena vā parisaṅkāya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

57. Any bhikkhunī who, having observed the rains retreat, does not invite scrutiny from both Saṅghas in three respects—regarding what was seen, heard, or suspected—incurs a pācittiya.

57. If a bhikkhunī, having completed the rains, does not make a formal request (pavāraṇā) before both Sanghas in three respects: concerning what has been seen, heard, or suspected, it is pācittiya.

57. If a bhikkhunī, having completed the rains residence, does not invite both Sanghas in three matters—what has been seen, heard, or suspected—she commits a pācittiya offense.

58. Yā pana bhikkhunī ovādāya vā saṃvāsāya vā na gaccheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

58. Any bhikkhunī who does not go for exhortation or for communal living incurs a pācittiya.

58. If a bhikkhunī does not go for instruction or communion, it is pācittiya.

58. If a bhikkhunī does not go for instruction or for communal living, she commits a pācittiya offense.

59. Anvaddhamāsaṃ bhikkhuniyā bhikkhusaṅghato dve dhammā paccāsīsitabbā uposathapucchakañca ovādūpasaṅkamanañca. Taṃ atikkāmentiyā pācittiyaṃ.

59. Every half-month, a bhikkhunī should request two things from the Bhikkhu Saṅgha: the asking of the Uposatha and the approach for exhortation. If she exceeds this, she incurs a pācittiya.

59. Every half-month a bhikkhunī should expect two things from the Bhikkhu Sangha: the asking about the Uposatha day and the approaching for instruction. If she neglects that, it is pācittiya.

59. Every half-month, a bhikkhunī should seek two things from the bhikkhu Sangha: asking about the Uposatha and going for instruction. If she transgresses this, she commits a pācittiya offense.

60. Yā pana bhikkhunī pasākhe jātaṃ gaṇḍaṃ vā rudhitaṃ vā anapaloketvā saṅghaṃ vā gaṇaṃ vā purisena saddhiṃ ekenekā bhedāpeyya vā phālāpeyya vā dhovāpeyya vā ālimpāpeyya vā bandhāpeyya vā mocāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

60. Any bhikkhunī who, without consulting the Saṅgha or a group, together with a man, alone with him, lances, splits, washes, anoints, binds, or releases a boil or sore that has arisen below the waist incurs a pācittiya.

60. If a bhikkhunī, having a grown boil or a festering sore, without informing the Sangha, a group, or having it informed, has it burst, split, washed, smeared, bandaged, or unbandaged one-on-one with a man, it is pācittiya.

60. If a bhikkhunī, without informing the Sangha or a group, has a man alone split, cut, wash, anoint, bandage, or unbandage a swelling or sore on her body, she commits a pācittiya offense.

63. Yā pana bhikkhunī dve vassāni chasu dhammesu asikkhitasikkhaṃ sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

63. Any bhikkhunī who ordains a sikkhamānā who has not trained for two years in the six dhammas incurs a pācittiya.

63. If a bhikkhunī ordains a probationer who has not trained in the six rules for two years, it is pācittiya.

63. If a bhikkhunī ordains a probationer who has not trained for two years in the six rules, she commits a pācittiya offense.

64. Yā pana bhikkhunī dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhaṃ sikkhamānaṃ saṅghena asammataṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

64. Any bhikkhunī who ordains a sikkhamānā who has trained for two years in the six dhammas but has not been approved by the Saṅgha incurs a pācittiya.

64. If a bhikkhunī ordains a probationer who has trained in the six rules for two years, without the consent of the Sangha, it is pācittiya.

64. If a bhikkhunī ordains a probationer who has trained for two years in the six rules but has not been approved by the Sangha, she commits a pācittiya offense.

65. Yā pana bhikkhunī ūnadvādasavassaṃ gihigataṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

65. Any bhikkhunī who ordains a married woman under twelve years of age incurs a pācittiya.

65. If a bhikkhunī ordains one who has gone forth to a household who is less than twelve years old, it is pācittiya.

65. If a bhikkhunī ordains a former householder who is less than twelve years old, she commits a pācittiya offense.

66. Yā pana bhikkhunī paripuṇṇadvādasavassaṃ gihigataṃ dve vassāni chasu dhammesu asikkhitasikkhaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

66. Any bhikkhunī who ordains a married woman of full twelve years who has not trained for two years in the six dhammas incurs a pācittiya.

66. If a bhikkhunī ordains one who has gone forth to a household who is fully twelve years old, but has not trained in the six rules for two years, it is pācittiya.

66. If a bhikkhunī ordains a former householder who is fully twelve years old but has not trained for two years in the six rules, she commits a pācittiya offense.

67. Yā pana bhikkhunī paripuṇṇadvādasavassaṃ gihigataṃ dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhaṃ saṅghena asammataṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

67. Any bhikkhunī who ordains a married woman of full twelve years who has trained for two years in the six dhammas but has not been approved by the Saṅgha incurs a pācittiya.

67. If a bhikkhunī ordains one who has gone forth to a household who is fully twelve years old and has trained in the six rules for two years, without the consent of the Sangha, it is pācittiya.

67. If a bhikkhunī ordains a former householder who is fully twelve years old and has trained for two years in the six rules but has not been approved by the Sangha, she commits a pācittiya offense.

68. Yā pana bhikkhunī sahajīviniṃ vuṭṭhāpetvā dve vassāni neva anuggaṇheyya na anuggaṇhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

68. Any bhikkhunī who, having ordained a co-resident, neither assists her nor has her assisted for two years incurs a pācittiya.

68. If a bhikkhunī, having ordained a co-resident, neither supports her nor has her supported for two years, it is pācittiya.

68. If a bhikkhunī ordains a companion and then neither trains her nor has her trained for two years, she commits a pācittiya offense.

69. Yā pana bhikkhunī vuṭṭhāpitaṃ pavattiniṃ dve vassāni nānubandheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

69. Any bhikkhunī who does not follow her preceptor, whom she has ordained, for two years incurs a pācittiya.

69. If a bhikkhunī does not follow the preceptor who ordained her for two years, it is pācittiya.

69. If a bhikkhunī does not follow her mentor for two years after being ordained, she commits a pācittiya offense.

70. Yā pana bhikkhunī sahajīviniṃ vuṭṭhāpetvā neva vūpakāseyya na vūpakāsāpeyya antamaso chappañcayojanānipi, pācittiyaṃ.

70. Any bhikkhunī who, having ordained a co-resident, neither separates from her nor has her separated, even for five or six yojanas, incurs a pācittiya.

70. If a bhikkhunī, having ordained a co-resident, neither keeps her nearby nor has her kept nearby, even for five or six yojanas, it is pācittiya.

70. If a bhikkhunī ordains a companion and then neither sends her away nor has her sent away, even for five or six leagues, she commits a pācittiya offense.

71. Yā pana bhikkhunī ūnavīsativassaṃ kumāribhūtaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

71. Any bhikkhunī who ordains a maiden under twenty years of age incurs a pācittiya.

71. If a bhikkhunī ordains a girl becoming an adult who is less than twenty years old, it is pācittiya.

71. If a bhikkhunī ordains a maiden who is less than twenty years old, she commits a pācittiya offense.

72. Yā pana bhikkhunī paripuṇṇavīsativassaṃ kumāribhūtaṃ dve vassāni chasu dhammesu asikkhitasikkhaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

72. Any bhikkhunī who ordains a maiden of full twenty years who has not trained for two years in the six dhammas incurs a pācittiya.

72. If a bhikkhunī ordains a girl becoming an adult who is fully twenty years old, but has not trained in the six rules for two years, it is pācittiya.

72. If a bhikkhunī ordains a maiden who is fully twenty years old but has not trained for two years in the six rules, she commits a pācittiya offense.

73. Yā pana bhikkhunī paripuṇṇavīsativassaṃ kumāribhūtaṃ dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhaṃ saṅghena asammataṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

73. Any bhikkhunī who ordains a maiden of full twenty years who has trained for two years in the six dhammas but has not been approved by the Saṅgha incurs a pācittiya.

73. If a bhikkhunī ordains a girl becoming an adult who is fully twenty years old and has trained in the six rules for two years, without the consent of the Sangha, it is pācittiya.

73. If a bhikkhunī ordains a maiden who is fully twenty years old and has trained for two years in the six rules but has not been approved by the Sangha, she commits a pācittiya offense.

74. Any bhikkhunī who ordains someone under twelve years of ordination incurs a pācittiya.

74. If a bhikkhunī ordains [a woman] less than twelve years old, it is pācittiya.

74. If a bhikkhunī ordains someone who is less than twelve years old, she commits a pācittiya offense.

75. Yā pana bhikkhunī paripuṇṇadvādasavassā saṅghena asammatā vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

75. Any bhikkhunī who, being of full twelve years of ordination but not approved by the Saṅgha, ordains someone incurs a pācittiya.

75. If a bhikkhunī who is fully twelve years old ordains [another] without the consent of the Sangha, it is pācittiya.

75. If a bhikkhunī ordains someone who is fully twelve years old but has not been approved by the Sangha, she commits a pācittiya offense.

76. Yā pana bhikkhunī “alaṃ tāva te, ayye, vuṭṭhāpitenā”ti vuccamānā “sādhū”ti paṭissuṇitvā sā pacchā khiyyanadhammaṃ āpajjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

76. Any bhikkhunī who, being told, “Enough for you, Venerable, with ordaining,” agrees by saying “Very well” but later falls into grumbling incurs a pācittiya.

76. If a bhikkhunī, being told, “Sister, for now, let be your ordaining,” acknowledges with “Good,” but afterwards engages in fault-finding behavior, it is pācittiya.

76. If a bhikkhunī, being told, “Enough, Venerable, with ordaining,” agrees by saying, “Yes,” but later disparages the ordination, she commits a pācittiya offense.

77. Yā pana bhikkhunī sikkhamānaṃ “sace me tvaṃ, ayye, cīvaraṃ dassasi, evāhaṃ taṃ vuṭṭhāpessāmī”ti vatvā sā pacchā anantarāyikinī neva vuṭṭhāpeyya, na vuṭṭhāpanāya ussukkaṃ kareyya, pācittiyaṃ.

77. Any bhikkhunī who says to a sikkhamānā, “If you, Venerable, give me a robe, then I will ordain you,” but later, without hindrance, neither ordains her nor makes an effort to ordain her, incurs a pācittiya.

77. If a bhikkhunī says to a probationer, “Sister, if you give me a robe, then I will ordain you,” but afterwards, without compelling reason, neither ordains her nor makes an effort for her ordination, it is pācittiya.

77. If a bhikkhunī tells a probationer, “If you give me a robe, I will ordain you,” but later, being free from obstacles, neither ordains her nor makes an effort to ordain her, she commits a pācittiya offense.

78. Yā pana bhikkhunī sikkhamānaṃ “sace maṃ tvaṃ, ayye, dve vassāni anubandhissasi, evāhaṃ taṃ vuṭṭhāpessāmī”ti vatvā sā pacchā anantarāyikinī neva vuṭṭhāpeyya, na vuṭṭhāpanāya ussukkaṃ kareyya, pācittiyaṃ.

78. Any bhikkhunī who says to a sikkhamānā, “If you, Venerable, follow me for two years, then I will ordain you,” but later, without hindrance, neither ordains her nor makes an effort to ordain her, incurs a pācittiya.

78. If a bhikkhunī says to a probationer, “Sister, if you follow me for two years, then I will ordain you,” but afterwards, without compelling reason, neither ordains her nor makes an effort for her ordination, it is pācittiya.

78. If a bhikkhunī tells a probationer, “If you follow me for two years, I will ordain you,” but later, being free from obstacles, neither ordains her nor makes an effort to ordain her, she commits a pācittiya offense.

79. Yā pana bhikkhunī purisasaṃsaṭṭhaṃ kumārakasaṃsaṭṭhaṃ caṇḍiṃ sokāvāsaṃ sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

79. Any bhikkhunī who ordains a sikkhamānā who is quarrelsome, associated with men or boys, and lives in a place of sorrow incurs a pācittiya.

79. If a bhikkhunī ordains a probationer who is associated with men, associated with young men, irritable, and dwelling in sorrow, it is pācittiya.

79. If a bhikkhunī ordains a probationer who is associated with men, associated with boys, or is quarrelsome and lives in a troubled residence, she commits a pācittiya offense.

80. Yā pana bhikkhunī mātāpitūhi vā sāmikena vā ananuññātaṃ sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

80. Any bhikkhunī who ordains a sikkhamānā not permitted by her parents or husband incurs a pācittiya.

80. If a bhikkhunī ordains a probationer who is not permitted by her parents or husband, it is pācittiya.

80. If a bhikkhunī ordains a probationer without the permission of her parents or husband, she commits a pācittiya offense.

81. Yā pana bhikkhunī pārivāsikachandadānena sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

81. Any bhikkhunī who ordains a sikkhamānā by giving her probation through favor incurs a pācittiya.

81. If a bhikkhunī ordains a probationer through the giving of consent for a probationary period, it is pācittiya.

81. If a bhikkhunī ordains a probationer by giving consent for the probationary period, she commits a pācittiya offense.

83. If a bhikkhunī ordains two people in one year, she commits a pācittiya offense.

84. Any bhikkhunī who, when not ill, wears sandals with straps incurs a pācittiya.

84. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill uses a parasol and shoes, it is pācittiya.

84. If a bhikkhunī, not being sick, uses an umbrella or sandals, she commits a pācittiya offense.

85. If a bhikkhunī, not being sick, travels by vehicle, she commits a pācittiya offense.

87. If a bhikkhunī wears women’s ornaments, she commits a pācittiya offense.

88. If a bhikkhunī bathes with perfumes or cosmetics, she commits a pācittiya offense.

90. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā ummaddāpeyya vā parimaddāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

90. Any bhikkhunī who rubs or has another bhikkhunī rubbed incurs a pācittiya.

90. If a bhikkhunī has another bhikkhunī massage or rub her, she commits a pācittiya offense.

91. Yā pana bhikkhunī sikkhamānāya ummaddāpeyya vā parimaddāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

91. If a bhikkhunī has a probationer massage or rub her, she commits a pācittiya offense.

92. Yā pana bhikkhunī sāmaṇeriyā ummaddāpeyya vā parimaddāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

92. If a bhikkhunī has a novice nun massage or rub her, she commits a pācittiya offense.

93. Yā pana bhikkhunī gihiniyā ummaddāpeyya vā parimaddāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

93. Any bhikkhunī who rubs or has a female householder rubbed incurs a pācittiya.

93. If a bhikkhunī has a householder massage or rub her, she commits a pācittiya offense.

94. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhussa purato anāpucchā āsane nisīdeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

94. Any bhikkhunī who sits on a seat in front of a bhikkhu without asking permission incurs a pācittiya.

94. If a bhikkhunī sits down on a seat in front of a bhikkhu without asking permission, it is pācittiya.

94. If a bhikkhunī sits on a seat in front of a bhikkhu without asking, she commits a pācittiya offense.

95. Yā pana bhikkhunī anokāsakataṃ bhikkhuṃ pañhaṃ puccheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

95. Any bhikkhunī who asks a question of a bhikkhu without being given permission incurs a pācittiya.

95. If a bhikkhunī asks a question of a bhikkhu without having made an opportunity, it is pācittiya.

95. If a bhikkhunī asks a bhikkhu a question without being given permission, she commits a pācittiya offense.

96. If a bhikkhunī enters a village without her upper robe, she commits a pācittiya offense.

100. Yā pana bhikkhunī anupasampannaṃ padaso dhammaṃ vāceyya, pācittiyaṃ.

100. Any bhikkhunī who recites the Dhamma line by line with an unordained person incurs a pācittiya.

100. If a bhikkhunī recites the Dhamma word by word to an unordained person, it is pācittiya.

100. If a bhikkhunī teaches Dhamma word by word to an unordained person, she commits a pācittiya offense.

101. Yā pana bhikkhunī anupasampannāya uttaridirattatirattaṃ sahaseyyaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

101. Any bhikkhunī who lies down with an unordained woman for more than two or three nights incurs a pācittiya.

101. If a bhikkhunī sleeps in the same lodging with an unordained person for more than two or three nights, it is pācittiya.

101. If a bhikkhunī shares a bed with an unordained woman for more than two or three nights, she commits a pācittiya offense.

102. If a bhikkhunī sleeps in the same lodging with a man, it is pācittiya.

102. If a bhikkhunī shares a bed with a man, she commits a pācittiya offense.

103. Yā pana bhikkhunī purisassa uttarichappañcavācāhi dhammaṃ deseyya aññatra viññunā itthiviggahena, pācittiyaṃ.

103. Any bhikkhunī who teaches the Dhamma to a man with more than five or six words, except in the presence of an intelligent woman, incurs a pācittiya.

103. If a bhikkhunī teaches the Dhamma to a man in more than five or six sentences, except in the presence of a knowledgeable woman, it is pācittiya.

103. If a bhikkhunī teaches Dhamma to a man in more than five or six sentences, except in the presence of a knowledgeable woman, she commits a pācittiya offense.

104. Yā pana bhikkhunī anupasampannāya uttarimanussadhammaṃ āroceyya, bhūtasmiṃ pācittiyaṃ.

104. Any bhikkhunī who declares a superhuman state to an unordained person, when it is true, incurs a pācittiya.

104. If a bhikkhunī declares a superhuman attainment (uttarimanussadhamma) to an unordained person, it is pācittiya if it is true.

104. If a bhikkhunī reports a superhuman state to an unordained person, stating it as true, she commits a pācittiya offense.

105. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā duṭṭhullaṃ āpattiṃ anupasampannāya āroceyya aññatra bhikkhunisammutiyā, pācittiyaṃ.

105. Any bhikkhunī who declares a gross offense of another bhikkhunī to an unordained person, except with the permission of the bhikkhunīs, incurs a pācittiya.

105. If a bhikkhunī declares a bhikkhunī’s serious offense to an unordained person, except with the consent of the bhikkhunīs, it is pācittiya.

105. If a bhikkhunī reports a grave offense of another bhikkhunī to an unordained person, except with the consent of the bhikkhunīs, she commits a pācittiya offense.

106. Yā pana bhikkhunī pathaviṃ khaṇeyya vā khaṇāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

106. If a bhikkhunī digs the ground or has it dug, she commits a pācittiya offense.

108. Making evasive statements or causing annoyance is a pācittiya offense.

110. Yā pana bhikkhunī saṅghikaṃ mañcaṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā bhisiṃ vā kocchaṃ vā ajjhokāse santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā taṃ pakkamantī neva uddhareyya, na uddharāpeyya, anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

110. Any bhikkhunī who spreads or has spread a bed, chair, mattress, or mat belonging to the Saṅgha in the open air and, when departing, neither removes it nor has it removed, or goes without asking permission, incurs a pācittiya.

110. If a bhikkhunī, having spread out or having had spread out a Sangha-owned bed, chair, mattress, or stool in the open air, departs without putting it away, without having it put away, or without asking permission, it is pācittiya.

110. If a bhikkhunī, having spread out or had spread out a Sangha bed, bench, mattress, or stool in the open air, departs without putting it away or having it put away, or departs without asking permission, she commits a pācittiya offense.

111. Yā pana bhikkhunī saṅghike vihāre seyyaṃ santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā taṃ pakkamantī neva uddhareyya, na uddharāpeyya, anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

111. Any bhikkhunī who spreads or has spread a bed in a dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha and, when departing, neither removes it nor has it removed, or goes without asking permission, incurs a pācittiya.

111. If a bhikkhunī, having spread out or having had spread out bedding in a Sangha-owned dwelling, departs without putting it away, without having it put away, or without asking permission, it is pācittiya.

111. If a bhikkhunī, having spread out or had spread out a bed in a Sangha dwelling, departs without putting it away or having it put away, or departs without asking permission, she commits a pācittiya offense.

112. Yā pana bhikkhunī saṅghike vihāre jānaṃ pubbupagataṃ bhikkhuniṃ anupakhajja seyyaṃ kappeyya “yassā sambādho bhavissati, sā pakkamissatī”ti etadeva paccayaṃ karitvā anaññaṃ, pācittiyaṃ.

112. Any bhikkhunī who knowingly lies down in a dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha, intruding on a bhikkhunī who arrived earlier, thinking, “Whoever finds it cramped will leave,” doing so for that reason alone and no other, incurs a pācittiya.

112. If a bhikkhunī in a Sangha-owned dwelling, knowingly intrudes upon a previously arrived bhikkhunī and lays out bedding, thinking, “Whoever will be cramped will leave,” making that the very reason and no other, it is pācittiya.

112. If a bhikkhunī, knowing that a bhikkhunī has arrived first, encroaches on her space in a Sangha dwelling, thinking, “Whoever is inconvenienced will leave,” and does so for this reason and no other, she commits a pācittiya offense.

113. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniṃ kupitā anattamanā saṅghikā vihārā nikkaḍḍheyya vā nikkaḍḍhāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

113. Any bhikkhunī who, being angry and displeased, expels or causes another bhikkhunī to be expelled from a dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha incurs a pācittiya.

113. If a bhikkhunī, being angry and displeased, evicts or has evicted a bhikkhunī from a Sangha-owned dwelling, it is pācittiya.

113. If a bhikkhunī, being angry and dissatisfied, evicts or has evicted another bhikkhunī from a Sangha dwelling, she commits a pācittiya offense.

114. Yā pana bhikkhunī saṅghike vihāre uparivehāsakuṭiyā āhaccapādakaṃ mañcaṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā abhinisīdeyya vā abhinipajjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

114. Any bhikkhunī who sits or lies down on a bed or chair with detachable legs in an upper room of a dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha incurs a pācittiya.

114. If a bhikkhunī in a Sangha-owned dwelling, in an upper-story hut, sits or lies down on a bed or chair with unfixed legs, it is pācittiya.

114. If a bhikkhunī sits or lies down on a bed or bench with detachable legs in an upper loft of a Sangha dwelling, she commits a pācittiya offense.

115. Mahallakaṃ pana bhikkhuniyā vihāraṃ kārayamānāya yāva dvārakosā aggaḷaṭṭhapanāya, ālokasandhiparikammāya dvatticchadanassa pariyāyaṃ appaharite ṭhitāya adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Tato ce uttari appaharitepi ṭhitā adhiṭṭhaheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

115. When a bhikkhunī is having a large dwelling constructed, she should supervise it up to the door frame, the installation of the latch, the preparation of the window openings, and the completion of two or three layers of roofing while standing in a place without grass. If she supervises beyond that, even in a place without grass, she incurs a pācittiya.

115. When a bhikkhunī is having a large dwelling built, she should stand on ground that is not covered with vegetation to supervise the setting up of the doorframe, the placing of the bolt, and the finishing work around a window opening, up to two or three layers of roofing. If she stands on ground that is not covered with vegetation and supervises beyond that, it is pācittiya.

115. When a bhikkhunī is having an old dwelling built, she may authorize it up to the door frame, the window frames, and the roofing for two or three layers, provided she stands in a place that is not harmful. If she authorizes it beyond this, even standing in a place that is not harmful, she commits a pācittiya offense.

116. Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ sappāṇakaṃ udakaṃ tiṇaṃ vā mattikaṃ vā siñceyya vā siñcāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

116. Any bhikkhunī who knowingly pours or has poured water containing living creatures onto grass or soil incurs a pācittiya.

116. If a bhikkhunī, knowing that there are living beings in water, sprinkles or has sprinkled grass or clay with it, it is pācittiya.

116. If a bhikkhunī, knowing that it contains living beings, pours water, grass, or clay, or has it poured, she commits a pācittiya offense.

117. Agilānāya bhikkhuniyā eko āvasathapiṇḍo bhuñjitabbo. Tato ce uttari bhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

117. A bhikkhunī who is not ill may partake of one meal at a public resthouse. If she partakes of more than that, she incurs a pācittiya.

117. A bhikkhunī who is not ill should eat only one dwelling-almsfood [per day]. If she eats more than that, it is pācittiya.

117. A bhikkhunī who is not sick may eat one meal at a lodging. If she eats more than that, she commits a pācittiya offense.

118. Gaṇabhojane aññatra samayā pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo, gilānasamayo, cīvaradānasamayo , cīvarakārasamayo, addhānagamanasamayo, nāvābhiruhanasamayo, mahāsamayo, samaṇabhattasamayo, ayaṃ tattha samayo.

118. In eating with a group, except at the proper time, there is a pācittiya. Here, the proper time is: a time of illness, a time of giving robes, a time of making robes, a time of traveling, a time of embarking on a boat, a great occasion, a time of a meal for ascetics. This is the proper time here.

118. In the case of a group meal, except on special occasions, it is pācittiya. Herein, the special occasions are these: illness time, robe-giving time, robe-making time, traveling time, embarking on a boat time, a great occasion, a meal for recluses time; these are the special occasions therein.

118. Eating a group meal, except on appropriate occasions, is a pācittiya offense. The appropriate occasions here are: when one is sick, when giving robes, when making robes, when traveling, when boarding a boat, during a large gathering, during a meal for ascetics. These are the appropriate occasions here.

119. Bhikkhuniṃ paneva kulaṃ upagataṃ pūvehi vā manthehi vā abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya, ākaṅkhamānāya bhikkhuniyā dvattipattapūrā paṭiggahetabbā. Tato ce uttari paṭiggaṇheyya, pācittiyaṃ. Dvattipattapūre paṭiggahetvā tato nīharitvā bhikkhunīhi saddhiṃ saṃvibhajitabbaṃ, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci.

119. If a family visited by a bhikkhunī invites her with cakes or sweets, a bhikkhunī desiring them may accept two or three bowlfuls. If she accepts more than that, she incurs a pācittiya. Having accepted two or three bowlfuls and taken them away, she should share them with the bhikkhunīs; this is the proper conduct here.

119. If a bhikkhunī has gone to a family and is formally requested with cakes or cooked grain, the bhikkhunī, if she desires, may accept two or three bowlfuls. If she accepts more than that, it is pācittiya. Having accepted the two or three bowlfuls, she should take them from there and share them with bhikkhunīs; this is the proper course therein.

119. If a bhikkhunī, having gone to a family, is offered cakes or pastries, she may accept two or three bowlfuls if she desires. If she accepts more than that, she commits a pācittiya offense. Having accepted two or three bowlfuls, she should take them away and share them with the bhikkhunīs. This is the proper procedure here.

120. Yā pana bhikkhunī vikāle khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

120. Any bhikkhunī who eats or consumes edible or consumable food at the wrong time incurs a pācittiya.

120. If a bhikkhunī eats hard food or soft food at the wrong time, it is pācittiya.

120. If a bhikkhunī eats or consumes non-staple or staple food at the wrong time, she commits a pācittiya offense.

121. Yā pana bhikkhunī sannidhikārakaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ.

121. Any bhikkhunī who eats or consumes stored-up edible or consumable food incurs a pācittiya.

121. If a bhikkhunī eats stored-up hard food or soft food, it is pācittiya.

121. If a bhikkhunī eats or consumes stored non-staple or staple food, she commits a pācittiya offense.

122. Yā pana bhikkhunī adinnaṃ mukhadvāraṃ āhāraṃ āhareyya aññatra udakadantaponā, pācittiyaṃ.

122. Any bhikkhunī who puts food into her mouth that was not given, except for water and tooth-cleaning wood, incurs a pācittiya.

122. If a bhikkhunī takes in through the mouth what is not given, except for water and a tooth-cleaning stick, it is pācittiya.

122. If a bhikkhunī takes food through the mouth door that has not been given, except for water and tooth cleaners, she commits a pācittiya offense.

123. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniṃ “ehāyye, gāmaṃ vā nigamaṃ vā piṇḍāya pavisissāmā”ti tassā dāpetvā vā adāpetvā vā uyyojeyya “gacchāyye, na me tayā saddhiṃ kathā vā nisajjā vā phāsu hoti, ekikāya me kathā vā nisajjā vā phāsu hotī”ti etadeva paccayaṃ karitvā anaññaṃ, pācittiyaṃ.

123. Any bhikkhunī who says to another bhikkhunī, “Come, Venerable, let us enter the village or town for alms,” and then, whether having caused something to be given or not, dismisses her, saying, “Go, Venerable, it is not comfortable for me to talk or sit with you; it is comfortable for me to talk or sit alone,” doing so for that reason alone and no other, incurs a pācittiya.

123. If a bhikkhunī should say to a bhikkhunī, “Come, venerable sister, let us enter the village or town for alms,” and after having something given to her or not, should dismiss her, saying, “Go, venerable sister; conversation or sitting with you is not pleasant for me; conversation or sitting alone is pleasant for me,” doing this for that very reason and no other, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

123. If a bhikkhunī, having invited another bhikkhunī, saying, “Come, venerable, let us enter the village or town for alms,” then dismisses her, whether having given her something or not, saying, “Go, venerable, it is not pleasant for me to converse or sit with you; it is pleasant for me to converse or sit alone,” making this the reason and no other, she commits a pācittiya offense.

124. Yā pana bhikkhunī sabhojane kule anupakhajja nisajjaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

124. Any bhikkhunī who sits intruding in a household where a meal is being shared incurs a pācittiya.

124. If a bhikkhunī should sit down intruding upon a family having a meal in company, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

124. If a bhikkhunī sits down in a household where a full meal is being served, she commits a pācittiya offense.

125. Yā pana bhikkhunī purisena saddhiṃ raho paṭicchanne āsane nisajjaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

125. Any bhikkhunī who sits privately with a man on a concealed seat incurs a pācittiya.

125. If a bhikkhunī should sit down with a man in a secluded, screened-off place, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

125. If a bhikkhunī sits down in a secluded place with a man, she commits a pācittiya offense.

126. Yā pana bhikkhunī purisena saddhiṃ ekenekā raho nisajjaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

126. Any bhikkhunī who sits privately alone with a man incurs a pācittiya.

126. If a bhikkhunī should sit down alone with a man in a secluded place, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

126. If a bhikkhunī sits down alone with a man in a private place, she commits a pācittiya offense.

127. Yā pana bhikkhunī nimantitā sabhattā samānā santiṃ bhikkhuniṃ anāpucchā purebhattaṃ vā pacchābhattaṃ vā kulesu cārittaṃ āpajjeyya aññatra samayā, pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo, cīvaradānasamayo, cīvarakārasamayo, ayaṃ tattha samayo.

127. Any bhikkhunī who, having been invited and being with companions, visits families before or after a meal without informing a present bhikkhunī, except at the proper time, incurs a pācittiya. Here, the proper time is: a time of giving robes, a time of making robes. This is the proper time here.

127. If a bhikkhunī, having been invited and having a meal, should go about among families before or after the meal without taking leave of an available bhikkhunī, except at the proper time, it is [an offense] requiring expiation. The proper time here is: the time for giving robes, the time for making robes; this is the proper time in this case.

127. If a bhikkhunī, having been invited to a meal and being present, without informing another bhikkhunī, engages in conduct in households either before or after the meal, except on a suitable occasion, she commits a pācittiya offense. Here, the suitable occasions are: the time of giving robes, the time of making robes, and the time of illness. These are the suitable occasions here.

128. Agilānāya bhikkhuniyā catumāsappaccayapavāraṇā sāditabbā aññatra punapavāraṇāya, aññatra niccapavāraṇāya. Tato ce uttari sādiyeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

128. A bhikkhunī who is not ill may accept an invitation for requisites for four months, except in the case of a repeated invitation or a permanent invitation. If she accepts beyond that, she incurs a pācittiya.

128. A bhikkhunī who is not ill should accept an invitation for requisites for four months, except for a renewed invitation, except for a permanent invitation. If she should accept beyond that, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

128. A bhikkhunī who is not ill may accept the four-month invitation, except for the re-invitation or the permanent invitation. If she accepts beyond that, she commits a pācittiya offense.

129. Yā pana bhikkhunī uyyuttaṃ senaṃ dassanāya gaccheyya aññatra tathārūpappaccayā, pācittiyaṃ.

129. Any bhikkhunī who goes to see an army on the march, except for a specific reason, incurs a pācittiya.

129. If a bhikkhunī should go to see a deployed army, except for a suitable reason, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

129. If a bhikkhunī goes to see an army on the march, except for a suitable reason, she commits a pācittiya offense.

130. Siyā ca tassā bhikkhuniyā kocideva paccayo senaṃ gamanāya, dirattatirattaṃ tāya bhikkhuniyā senāya vasitabbaṃ. Tato ce uttari vaseyya, pācittiyaṃ.

130. If a bhikkhunī has some reason to go to an army, she may stay with the army for two or three nights. If she stays beyond that, she incurs a pācittiya.

130. If that bhikkhunī should have some reason for going to the army, the bhikkhunī may stay with the army for two or three nights. If she should stay beyond that, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

130. If there is a reason for a bhikkhunī to go to the army, she may stay with the army for two or three nights. If she stays beyond that, she commits a pācittiya offense.

131. Dirattatirattaṃ ce bhikkhunī senāya vasamānā uyyodhikaṃ vā balaggaṃ vā senābyūhaṃ vā anīkadassanaṃ vā gaccheyya, pācittiyaṃ.

131. If a bhikkhunī staying with an army for two or three nights goes to see a battle, a troop formation, a military array, or a review of forces, she incurs a pācittiya.

131. If a bhikkhunī, while staying with an army for two or three nights, should go to [see] military exercises, or the front line, or a roll call, or an inspection of the troops, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

131. If a bhikkhunī, staying with the army for two or three nights, goes to see the army’s battle formations, the troops in position, or the troops on the march, she commits a pācittiya offense.

136. If a bhikkhunī should startle a bhikkhunī, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

136. If a bhikkhunī frightens another bhikkhunī, she commits a pācittiya offense.

137. Yā pana bhikkhunī agilānā visibbanāpekkhā jotiṃ samādaheyya vā samādahāpeyya vā aññatra tathārūpappaccayā, pācittiyaṃ.

137. Any bhikkhunī who, when not ill, lights or has a fire lit with the expectation of warming herself, except for a specific reason, incurs a pācittiya.

137. If a bhikkhunī, not being ill, desiring warmth, should light a fire or have a fire lit, except for a suitable reason, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

137. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill and not in need of warmth lights a fire or has one lit, except for a suitable reason, she commits a pācittiya offense.

138. Yā pana bhikkhunī orenaddhamāsaṃ nahāyeyya aññatra samayā, pācittiyaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ samayo “diyaḍḍho māso seso gimhāna”nti “vassānassa paṭhamo māso” iccete aḍḍhateyyamāsā uṇhasamayo, pariḷāhasamayo, gilānasamayo, kammasamayo, addhānagamanasamayo, vātavuṭṭhisamayo, ayaṃ tattha samayo.

138. Any bhikkhunī who bathes at intervals of less than half a month, except at the proper time, incurs a pācittiya. Here, the proper time is: “the remaining month and a half of summer,” “the first month of the rains”—these two and a half months are the hot season, the fever season—also a time of illness, a time of work, a time of traveling, a time of wind and rain. This is the proper time here.

138. If a bhikkhunī should bathe at intervals of less than half a month, except at the proper time, it is [an offense] requiring expiation. Here the proper time is: “a month and a half is the remainder of the hot season,” and “the first month of the rains,” these two and a half months are the hot season, the season of discomfort, the time of illness, the time of work, the time of traveling, the time of wind and rain; this is the proper time in this case.

138. If a bhikkhunī bathes more than once every half-month, except on a suitable occasion, she commits a pācittiya offense. Here, the suitable occasions are: the last month and a half of the hot season, the first month of the rainy season, the time of illness, the time of work, the time of travel, and the time of wind and rain. These are the suitable occasions here.

139. Navaṃ pana bhikkhuniyā cīvaralābhāya tiṇṇaṃ dubbaṇṇakaraṇānaṃ aññataraṃ dubbaṇṇakaraṇaṃ ādātabbaṃ nīlaṃ vā kaddamaṃ vā kāḷasāmaṃ vā. Anādā ce bhikkhunī tiṇṇaṃ dubbaṇṇakaraṇānaṃ aññataraṃ dubbaṇṇakaraṇaṃ navaṃ cīvaraṃ paribhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

139. When a bhikkhunī obtains a new robe, she must apply one of three methods of discoloration: blue, mud-colored, or dark brown. If a bhikkhunī uses a new robe without applying one of these three methods of discoloration, she incurs a pācittiya.

139. When a bhikkhunī obtains a new robe, one of three discoloring agents should be applied: blue, mud, or dark brown. If a bhikkhunī should use a new robe without applying one of the three discoloring agents, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

139. When a bhikkhunī receives a new robe, she must take one of three discoloring agents: blue, mud, or black dye. If a bhikkhunī uses a new robe without taking one of these three discoloring agents, she commits a pācittiya offense.

140. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhussa vā bhikkhuniyā vā sikkhamānāya vā sāmaṇerassa vā sāmaṇeriyā vā sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ vikappetvā apaccuddhāraṇaṃ paribhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

140. Any bhikkhunī who assigns a robe to a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, or a sāmaṇerī herself and uses it without withdrawing the assignment incurs a pācittiya.

140. If a bhikkhunī, having herself formally relinquished a robe to a bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a female trainee, a male novice, or a female novice, should use it without having it re-relinquished, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

140. If a bhikkhunī allocates a robe to a bhikkhu, bhikkhunī, sikkhamānā, sāmaṇera, or sāmaṇerī and then uses it without having rescinded the allocation, she commits a pācittiya offense.

141. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā pattaṃ vā cīvaraṃ vā nisīdanaṃ vā sūcigharaṃ vā kāyabandhanaṃ vā apanidheyya vā apanidhāpeyya vā antamaso hasāpekkhāpi, pācittiyaṃ.

141. Any bhikkhunī who hides or causes to be hidden another bhikkhunī’s bowl, robe, sitting cloth, needle case, or waistband, even with the intention of jest, incurs a pācittiya.

141. If a bhikkhunī should hide or cause to be hidden a bhikkhunī’s bowl, robe, sitting cloth, needle case, or belt, even in jest, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

141. If a bhikkhunī conceals or has someone conceal another bhikkhunī’s bowl, robe, sitting cloth, needle case, or belt, even as a joke, she commits a pācittiya offense.

142. Yā pana bhikkhunī sañcicca pāṇaṃ jīvitā voropeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

142. Any bhikkhunī who intentionally deprives a living being of life incurs a pācittiya.

142. If a bhikkhunī should intentionally deprive a living being of life, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

142. If a bhikkhunī intentionally deprives a living being of life, she commits a pācittiya offense.

143. Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ sappāṇakaṃ udakaṃ paribhuñjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

143. Any bhikkhunī who knowingly uses water containing living creatures incurs a pācittiya.

143. If a bhikkhunī should knowingly use water containing living beings, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

143. If a bhikkhunī knowingly uses water containing living beings, she commits a pācittiya offense.

144. Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ yathādhammaṃ nihatādhikaraṇaṃ punakammāya ukkoṭeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

144. Any bhikkhunī who knowingly reopens a case that has been settled according to the Dhamma incurs a pācittiya.

144. If a bhikkhunī should knowingly stir up a legal question that has been settled according to the Dhamma for renewed action, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

144. If a bhikkhunī knowingly reopens a legal issue that has been properly settled, she commits a pācittiya offense.

145. Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ theyyasatthena saddhiṃ saṃvidhāya ekaddhānamaggaṃ paṭipajjeyya antamaso gāmantarampi, pācittiyaṃ.

145. Any bhikkhunī who knowingly travels together with a caravan of thieves on the same road, even as far as the next village, incurs a pācittiya.

145. If a bhikkhunī should knowingly travel the same road together with a band of thieves, even for the distance between villages, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

145. If a bhikkhunī knowingly travels by arrangement with a thief, even for the distance of a village, she commits a pācittiya offense.

146. Yā pana bhikkhunī evaṃ vadeyya “tathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi, yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā, te paṭisevato nālaṃ antarāyāyā”ti. Sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “māyye evaṃ avaca, mā bhagavantaṃ abbhācikkhi, na hi sādhu bhagavato abbhakkhānaṃ, na hi bhagavā evaṃ vadeyya, anekapariyāyenāyye antarāyikā dhammā antarāyikā vuttā bhagavatā, alañca pana te paṭisevato antarāyāyā”ti. Evañca sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyya, sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbā tassa paṭinissaggāya. Yāvatatiyañce samanubhāsiyamānā taṃ paṭinissajjeyya, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce paṭinissajjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

146. Any bhikkhunī who says, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things declared by the Blessed One as obstructive are not sufficient to be an obstruction when indulged in,” that bhikkhunī should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable, do not say this; do not misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say this. In many ways, Venerable, obstructive things have been declared obstructive by the Blessed One, and they are indeed sufficient to be an obstruction when indulged in.” And if that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists in the same way, she should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to the third time for the relinquishment of that view. If, being admonished up to the third time, she relinquishes it, that is good. If she does not relinquish it, she incurs a pācittiya.

146. If a bhikkhunī should say, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called ‘obstructions’ by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them.” That bhikkhunī should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Do not say so, venerable sister, do not misrepresent the Blessed One; misrepresentation of the Blessed One is not good; the Blessed One would not speak thus. In many ways, venerable sister, the obstructions have been called obstructions by the Blessed One, and they are indeed able to obstruct one who engages in them.” And if that bhikkhunī, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should persist as before, that bhikkhunī should be admonished by the bhikkhunīs up to three times to abandon that [view]. If, being admonished up to three times, she should abandon that [view], that is good. If she should not abandon it, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

146. If a bhikkhunī says, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them,” the bhikkhunīs should say to her, “Venerable, do not say that. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say that. In many ways, venerable, the Blessed One has described obstructive things as obstructive, and they are able to obstruct one who engages in them.” If that bhikkhunī, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists as before, she should be pressed up to three times to abandon that view. If she abandons it within three times, that is good. If she does not abandon it, she commits a pācittiya offense.

147. Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ tathāvādiniyā bhikkhuniyā akaṭānudhammāya taṃ diṭṭhiṃ appaṭinissaṭṭhāya saddhiṃ sambhuñjeyya vā, saṃvaseyya vā, saha vā seyyaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

147. Any bhikkhunī who knowingly eats together with, lives with, or lies down with a bhikkhunī who holds such a view, who has not acted according to the Dhamma, and has not abandoned that view incurs a pācittiya.

147. If a bhikkhunī should knowingly eat with, associate with, or share sleeping quarters with a bhikkhunī who speaks thus, who has not been dealt with according to the rule, and who has not abandoned that view, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

147. If a bhikkhunī knowingly eats, lives, or sleeps together with a bhikkhunī who speaks thus, who has not performed the proper duties, and who has not abandoned that view, she commits a pācittiya offense.

148. Samaṇuddesāpi ce evaṃ vadeyya “tathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi, yathā yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā, te paṭisevato nālaṃ antarāyāyā”ti. Sā samaṇuddesā bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “māyye, samaṇuddese evaṃ avaca, mā bhagavantaṃ abbhācikkhi, na hi sādhu bhagavato abbhakkhānaṃ, na hi bhagavā evaṃ vadeyya, anekapariyāyenāyye, samaṇuddese antarāyikā dhammā antarāyikā vuttā bhagavatā, alañca pana te paṭisevato antarāyāyā”ti. Evañca sā samaṇuddesā bhikkhunīhi vuccamānā tatheva paggaṇheyya, sā samaṇuddesā bhikkhunīhi evamassa vacanīyā “ajjatagge te, ayye, samaṇuddese na ceva so bhagavā satthā apadisitabbo, yampi caññā samaṇuddesā labhanti bhikkhunīhi saddhiṃ dirattatirattaṃ sahaseyyaṃ, sāpi te natthi, cara pire, vinassā”ti. Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ tathānāsitaṃ samaṇuddesaṃ upalāpeyya vā, upaṭṭhāpeyya vā, sambhuñjeyya vā, saha vā seyyaṃ kappeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

148. If even a samaṇuddesā says, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things declared by the Blessed One as obstructive are not sufficient to be an obstruction when indulged in,” that samaṇuddesā should be spoken to by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Venerable samaṇuddesā, do not say this; do not misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say this. In many ways, Venerable samaṇuddesā, obstructive things have been declared obstructive by the Blessed One, and they are indeed sufficient to be an obstruction when indulged in.” And if that samaṇuddesā, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists in the same way, she should be told by the bhikkhunīs: “From this day forward, Venerable samaṇuddesā, you may not refer to the Blessed One as your teacher, nor do you have the privilege that other samaṇuddesās have of lying down with bhikkhunīs for two or three nights. Go away, be lost!” Any bhikkhunī who knowingly encourages, supports, eats together with, or lies down with such an expelled samaṇuddesā incurs a pācittiya.

148. If even a novice should say, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called ‘obstructions’ by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them.” That novice should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “Do not say so, venerable novice, do not misrepresent the Blessed One; misrepresentation of the Blessed One is not good; the Blessed One would not speak thus. In many ways, venerable novice, the obstructions have been called obstructions by the Blessed One, and they are indeed able to obstruct one who engages in them.” And if that novice, being addressed thus by the bhikkhunīs, should persist as before, that novice should be addressed by the bhikkhunīs thus: “From today, venerable novice, you may not claim the Blessed One as your teacher, and you do not have even that sleeping together for two or three nights which other novices have with bhikkhunīs. Go away, depart!” If a bhikkhunī should knowingly entice, support, eat with, or share sleeping quarters with a novice thus expelled, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

148. If a samaṇuddesā says, “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those things called obstructions by the Blessed One are not able to obstruct one who engages in them,” the bhikkhunīs should say to her, “Venerable, do not say that. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say that. In many ways, venerable, the Blessed One has described obstructive things as obstructive, and they are able to obstruct one who engages in them.” If that samaṇuddesā, being spoken to thus by the bhikkhunīs, persists as before, the bhikkhunīs should say to her, “From today, venerable, you are not to refer to the Blessed One as your teacher. Also, you are not to enjoy the same privileges as other samaṇuddesās, such as sharing a seat with bhikkhunīs for two or three nights. Go away, perish!” If a bhikkhunī knowingly supports, serves, eats, or sleeps together with such a samaṇuddesā, she commits a pācittiya offense.

149. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi sahadhammikaṃ vuccamānā evaṃ vadeyya “na tāvāhaṃ, ayye, etasmiṃ sikkhāpade sikkhissāmi, yāva na aññaṃ bhikkhuniṃ byattaṃ vinayadharaṃ paripucchāmī”ti, pācittiyaṃ. Sikkhamānāya, bhikkhave, bhikkhuniyā aññātabbaṃ paripucchitabbaṃ paripañhitabbaṃ, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci.

149. Any bhikkhunī who, when being spoken to by bhikkhunīs in accordance with the Dhamma, says, “I will not train in this rule, Venerables, until I have questioned another bhikkhunī who is experienced and learned in the Vinaya,” incurs a pācittiya. For a bhikkhunī who is training, bhikkhus, things should be understood, questioned, and examined; this is the proper conduct here.

149. If a bhikkhunī, being addressed by the bhikkhunīs according to the rule, should say, “I will not train, venerable sisters, in this training rule until I have questioned another bhikkhunī, one who is skilled and expert in the discipline,” it is [an offense] requiring expiation. Bhikkhunīs, while training, a bhikkhunī should inquire, should ask, should investigate; this is the proper course in this case.

149. If a bhikkhunī, being rightly addressed by the bhikkhunīs regarding a training rule, says, “Venerable, I will not train in this training rule until I have asked another bhikkhunī who is skilled in the Vinaya,” she commits a pācittiya offense. A sikkhamānā, bhikkhus, should learn, inquire, and investigate. This is the proper procedure here.

150. Yā pana bhikkhunī pātimokkhe uddissamāne evaṃ vadeyya “kiṃ panimehi khuddānukhuddakehi sikkhāpadehi uddiṭṭhehi, yāvadeva kukkuccāya vihesāya vilekhāya saṃvattantī”ti, sikkhāpadavivaṇṇake pācittiyaṃ.

150. Any bhikkhunī who, when the Pātimokkha is being recited, says, “What is the point of reciting these minor and lesser training rules, since they only lead to anxiety, annoyance, and vexation?” incurs a pācittiya for disparaging the training rules.

150. If a bhikkhunī, when the Pātimokkha is being recited, should say, “What is the use of reciting these minor and lesser training rules? They only lead to anxiety, annoyance, and confusion,” criticizing the training rules is [an offense] requiring expiation.

150. If a bhikkhunī, while the Pātimokkha is being recited, says, “Why are these minor training rules recited? They only lead to remorse, vexation, and confusion,” she commits a pācittiya offense for disparaging the training rules.

151. Yā pana bhikkhunī anvaddhamāsaṃ pātimokkhe uddissamāne evaṃ vadeyya “idāneva kho ahaṃ, ayye, jānāmi ayampi kira dhammo suttāgato suttapariyāpanno anvaddhamāsaṃ uddesaṃ āgacchatī”ti, tañce bhikkhuniṃ aññā bhikkhuniyo jāneyyuṃ nisinnapubbaṃ imāya bhikkhuniyā dvattikkhattuṃ pātimokkhe uddissamāne, ko pana vādo bhiyyo, na ca tassā bhikkhuniyā aññāṇakena mutti atthi, yañca tattha āpattiṃ āpannā, tañca yathādhammo kāretabbo, uttari cassā moho āropetabbo “tassā te, ayye, alābhā, tassā te dulladdhaṃ, yaṃ tvaṃ pātimokkhe uddissamāne na sādhukaṃ aṭṭhiṃ katvā manasi karosī”ti, idaṃ tasmiṃ mohanake pācittiyaṃ.

151. Any bhikkhunī who, when the Pātimokkha is being recited every half-month, says, “Only now, Venerables, do I understand that this rule is also included in the Sutta, part of the Sutta, and comes up for recitation every half-month,” and if other bhikkhunīs know that this bhikkhunī has sat through the recitation of the Pātimokkha two or three times before, not to mention more, there is no exemption for that bhikkhunī due to ignorance. She must be dealt with according to the Dhamma for whatever offense she has committed, and further, her delusion should be pointed out: “It is a loss for you, Venerable, it is unfortunate for you that when the Pātimokkha is being recited, you do not pay proper attention and focus your mind.” This, in that case of delusion, is a pācittiya.

151. If a bhikkhunī, when the Pātimokkha is being recited every half-month, should say, “Just now I realize, venerable sisters, that this rule is in the Sutta, comes in the Sutta, and comes up for recitation every half-month,” and if other bhikkhunīs should know that this bhikkhunī has previously sat two or three times, let alone more, when that Pātimokkha was being recited, there is no release for that bhikkhunī on account of ignorance; and as for the offense she has committed, she should be dealt with according to the rule, and in addition, she should be charged with feigning ignorance: “It is no gain for you, venerable sister, it is ill-gotten by you, that when the Pātimokkha is being recited, you do not properly attend and apply your mind.” This is feigning ignorance in that case, [and it] is [an offense] requiring expiation.

151. If a bhikkhunī, while the Pātimokkha is being recited every half-month, says, “Only now do I understand that this Dhamma, included in the Suttas, comes up for recitation every half-month,” and if other bhikkhunīs know that this bhikkhunī has sat through the Pātimokkha two or three times before, not to mention more, then there is no exemption for that bhikkhunī due to ignorance. She is to be dealt with according to the rule for whatever offense she has committed, and further deceit is to be charged against her: “Venerable, it is a loss for you, it is a misfortune for you, that you do not pay proper attention and take it to heart while the Pātimokkha is being recited.” This is the pācittiya offense for deceit.

152. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā kupitā anattamanā pahāraṃ dadeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

152. Any bhikkhunī who, being angry and displeased, strikes another bhikkhunī incurs a pācittiya.

152. If a bhikkhunī, being angry and displeased, should strike a bhikkhunī, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

152. If a bhikkhunī, being angry and displeased, strikes another bhikkhunī, she commits a pācittiya offense.

153. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā kupitā anattamanā talasattikaṃ uggireyya, pācittiyaṃ.

153. Any bhikkhunī who, being angry and displeased, raises her hand against another bhikkhunī incurs a pācittiya.

153. If a bhikkhunī, being angry and displeased, should make a threatening gesture with the open palm to a bhikkhunī, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

153. If a bhikkhunī, being angry and displeased, raises her hand against another bhikkhunī, she commits a pācittiya offense.

154. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniṃ amūlakena saṅghādisesena anuddhaṃseyya, pācittiyaṃ.

154. Any bhikkhunī who accuses another bhikkhunī of a saṅghādisesa offense without basis incurs a pācittiya.

154. If a bhikkhunī should charge a bhikkhunī with a groundless [offense] entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Saṅgha, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

154. If a bhikkhunī groundlessly accuses another bhikkhunī of a saṅghādisesa offense, she commits a pācittiya offense.

155. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā sañcicca kukkuccaṃ upadaheyya “itissā muhuttampi aphāsu bhavissatī”ti etadeva paccayaṃ karitvā anaññaṃ, pācittiyaṃ.

155. Any bhikkhunī who intentionally causes anxiety in another bhikkhunī, thinking, “This way she will be uncomfortable even for a moment,” doing so for that reason alone and no other, incurs a pācittiya.

155. If a bhikkhunī should deliberately arouse anxiety in a bhikkhunī, [thinking], “Thus, even for a moment, she will be uncomfortable,” doing this for that very reason and no other, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

155. If a bhikkhunī intentionally causes distress to another bhikkhunī, thinking, “This will trouble her even for a moment,” making this the reason and no other, she commits a pācittiya offense.

156. Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhunīnaṃ bhaṇḍanajātānaṃ kalahajātānaṃ vivādāpannānaṃ upassutiṃ tiṭṭheyya “yaṃ imā bhaṇissanti, taṃ sossāmī”ti etadeva paccayaṃ karitvā anaññaṃ, pācittiyaṃ.

156. Any bhikkhunī who stands eavesdropping on bhikkhunīs who are arguing, quarreling, or disputing, thinking, “I will hear what they say,” doing so for that reason alone and no other, incurs a pācittiya.

156. If a bhikkhunī should stand eavesdropping on bhikkhunīs who are quarreling, arguing, and disputing, [thinking], “Whatever they say, I will hear,” doing this for that very reason and no other, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

156. If a bhikkhunī stands eavesdropping on bhikkhunīs who are arguing, quarreling, or disputing, thinking, “I will hear what they say,” making this the reason and no other, she commits a pācittiya offense.

157. Yā pana bhikkhunī dhammikānaṃ kammānaṃ chandaṃ datvā pacchā khīyanadhammaṃ āpajjeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

157. Any bhikkhunī who, having given consent for a lawful act, later falls into grumbling incurs a pācittiya.

157. If a bhikkhunī, having given her consent to official acts, should later fall into complaining, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

157. If a bhikkhunī, having given her consent to a legal procedure, afterwards speaks disparagingly about it, she commits a pācittiya offense.

158. Yā pana bhikkhunī saṅghe vinicchayakathāya vattamānāya chandaṃ adatvā uṭṭhāyāsanā pakkameyya, pācittiyaṃ.

158. Any bhikkhunī who, when a discussion on a decision is taking place in the Saṅgha, rises from her seat and leaves without giving consent incurs a pācittiya.

158. If a bhikkhunī, when a deliberative discussion is taking place in the Saṅgha, should get up from her seat and leave without giving her consent, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

158. If a bhikkhunī, while a legal discussion is being conducted in the Saṅgha, leaves without having given her consent, she commits a pācittiya offense.

159. Yā pana bhikkhunī samaggena saṅghena cīvaraṃ datvā pacchā khīyanadhammaṃ āpajjeyya “yathāsanthutaṃ bhikkhuniyo saṅghikaṃ lābhaṃ pariṇāmentī”ti, pācittiyaṃ.

159. Any bhikkhunī who, after a robe has been given by a united Saṅgha, later falls into grumbling, saying, “The bhikkhunīs redirect the Saṅgha’s gains according to their preferences,” incurs a pācittiya.

159. If a bhikkhunī, after having given a robe with the unanimous Saṅgha, should later fall into complaining, [saying], “The bhikkhunīs are diverting the Saṅgha’s gains according to friendship,” it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

159. If a bhikkhunī, having given a robe to the Saṅgha, afterwards speaks disparagingly, saying, “The bhikkhunīs allocate the Saṅgha’s gains according to friendship,” she commits a pācittiya offense.

160. Yā pana bhikkhunī jānaṃ saṅghikaṃ lābhaṃ pariṇataṃ puggalassa pariṇāmeyya, pācittiyaṃ.

160. Any bhikkhunī who knowingly redirects a gain belonging to the Saṅgha to an individual incurs a pācittiya.

160. If a bhikkhunī should knowingly divert to an individual a gain already designated for the Saṅgha, it is [an offense] requiring expiation.

160. If a bhikkhunī knowingly misappropriates Saṅgha property for an individual, she commits a pācittiya offense.

161. Yā pana bhikkhunī ratanaṃ vā ratanasammataṃ vā aññatra ajjhārāmā vā ajjhāvasathā vā uggaṇheyya vā uggaṇhāpeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ. Ratanaṃ vā pana bhikkhuniyā ratanasammataṃ vā ajjhārāme vā ajjhāvasathe vā uggahetvā vā uggahāpetvā vā nikkhipitabbaṃ “yassa bhavissati, so harissatī”ti, ayaṃ tattha sāmīci.

161. Any bhikkhunī who picks up or causes to be picked up a jewel or what is considered a jewel, except within a monastery or a residence, incurs a pācittiya. A jewel or what is considered a jewel, having been picked up or caused to be picked up by a bhikkhunī within a monastery or a residence, should be placed down with the thought, “Whoever it belongs to will take it.” This is the proper conduct here.

161. If a bhikkhunī should pick up or have someone pick up a jewel or something considered a jewel, except within a monastery or a dwelling, it is [an offense] requiring expiation. A bhikkhunī may pick up or have someone pick up a jewel or something considered a jewel within a monastery or a dwelling [and] should keep it, [thinking], “Whoever it belongs to will take it;” this is the proper course in this case.

161. If a bhikkhunī takes or has someone take a precious substance or something considered a precious substance, except within a monastery or dwelling, she commits a pācittiya offense. A precious substance or something considered a precious substance taken within a monastery or dwelling should be set aside, thinking, “Whoever it belongs to will take it.” This is the proper procedure here.

162. Yā pana bhikkhunī aṭṭhimayaṃ vā dantamayaṃ vā visāṇamayaṃ vā sūcigharaṃ kārāpeyya, bhedanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

162. Any bhikkhunī who has a needle case made of bone, ivory, or horn incurs a pācittiya requiring breaking.

162. If a bhikkhunī should have a needle case made of bone, ivory, or horn, it is to be broken, [and it is an offense] requiring expiation.

162. If a bhikkhunī has a needle case made of bone, ivory, or horn, it is to be broken, and she commits a pācittiya offense.

163. Navaṃ pana bhikkhuniyā mañcaṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā kārayamānāya aṭṭhaṅgulapādakaṃ kāretabbaṃ sugataṅgulena aññatra heṭṭhimāya aṭaniyā. Taṃ atikkāmentiyā chedanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

163. When a bhikkhunī is having a new bed or chair made, it should be made with legs eight fingerbreadths high according to the Sugata fingerbreadth, except for the lowest frame. If she exceeds this, it is a pācittiya requiring cutting.

163. When a bhikkhunī is having a new bed or chair made, it should be made with legs eight fingerbreadths [high], according to the accepted fingerbreadth, excluding the lower frame. If she should exceed that, it is to be cut down, [and it is an offense] requiring expiation.

163. When a bhikkhunī is having a new bed or bench made, it is to have legs no more than eight Sugata fingerbreadths high, excluding the lower crosspiece. If it exceeds that, it is to be cut down, and she commits a pācittiya offense.

164. Yā pana bhikkhunī mañcaṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā tūlonaddhaṃ kārāpeyya, uddālanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

164. Any bhikkhunī who has a bed or chair stuffed with cotton incurs a pācittiya requiring removal.

164. If a bhikkhunī should have a bed or chair upholstered, it is to be torn off, [and it is an offense] requiring expiation.

164. If a bhikkhunī has a bed or bench padded with cotton, it is to be stripped, and she commits a pācittiya offense.

165. Kaṇḍuppaṭicchādiṃ pana bhikkhuniyā kārayamānāya pamāṇikā kāretabbā, tatridaṃ pamāṇaṃ, dīghaso catasso vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṃ dve vidatthiyo. Taṃ atikkāmentiyā chedanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

165. When a bhikkhunī is having a kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi made, it should be made to measure. Here is the measure: four spans in length according to the Sugata span, two spans in width. If she exceeds this, it is a pācittiya requiring cutting.

165. When a bhikkhunī is having an itch-covering cloth made, it should be made according to the standard measurement. Here, this is the standard measurement: in length, four spans according to the accepted span; in width, two spans. If she should exceed that, it is to be cut down, [and it is an offense] requiring expiation.

165. When a bhikkhunī is having a mattress made, it is to be made to the standard measure. Here, the standard measure is: four Sugata spans in length, two in width. If it exceeds that, it is to be cut down, and she commits a pācittiya offense.

166. Yā pana bhikkhunī sugatacīvarappamāṇaṃ cīvaraṃ kārāpeyya, atirekaṃ vā, chedanakaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Tatridaṃ sugatassa sugatacīvarappamāṇaṃ, dīghaso nava vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṃ cha vidatthiyo, idaṃ sugatassa sugatacīvarappamāṇanti.

166. Any bhikkhunī who has a robe made to the measure of the Sugata robe or beyond incurs a pācittiya requiring cutting. Here is the measure of the Sugata robe: nine spans in length according to the Sugata span, six spans in width. This is the measure of the Sugata robe.

166. If a bhikkhunī should have a robe made of the size of the Sugata robe, or larger, it is to be cut down, [and it is an offense] requiring expiation. Here, this is the size of the Sugata’s Sugata robe: in length, nine spans according to the accepted span; in width, six spans; this is the size of the Sugata’s Sugata robe.

166. If a bhikkhunī has a robe made to the measure of the Sugata or larger, it is to be cut down, and she commits a pācittiya offense. Here, the measure of the Sugata’s robe is: nine Sugata spans in length, six in width. This is the measure of the Sugata’s robe.

Uddiṭṭhā kho, ayyāyo, chasaṭṭhisatā pācittiyā dhammā. Tatthāyyāyo, pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyyāyo, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

Recited, Venerables, are the one hundred and sixty-six pācittiya rules. Regarding these, I ask the Venerables: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The Venerables are pure in this matter; therefore, they are silent. Thus, I hold it to be so.

Venerable sisters, the one hundred and sixty-six rules requiring expiation have been recited. In regard to them, I ask the venerable sisters, “Are you pure in this?” A second time I ask, “Are you pure in this?” A third time I ask, “Are you pure in this?” The venerable sisters are pure in this; therefore they are silent. Thus I understand it.

Venerables, the one hundred and sixty-six pācittiya rules have been recited. In this matter, I ask you, venerables, are you pure in this? A second time, I ask, are you pure in this? A third time, I ask, are you pure in this? You are pure in this, venerables, therefore you remain silent. Thus, I remember it.

Pāṭidesanīyā

[Offenses to be] Acknowledged

The Pāṭidesanīya Rules

1. Yā pana bhikkhunī agilānā sappiṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjeyya, paṭidesetabbaṃ tāya bhikkhuniyā “gārayhaṃ, ayye, dhammaṃ āpajjiṃ asappāyaṃ pāṭidesanīyaṃ, taṃ paṭidesemī”ti.

1. Any bhikkhunī who, when not ill, requests ghee and consumes it should confess it thus: “Venerables, I have committed a blameworthy act, unsuitable, requiring confession; I confess it.”

1. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill should ask for clarified butter and consume it, it should be acknowledged by that bhikkhunī: “Venerable sister, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act, an offense to be acknowledged; I acknowledge it.”

1. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill requests ghee and consumes it, she is to confess it, saying, “Venerable, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable pāṭidesanīya offense. I confess it.”

2. Yā pana bhikkhunī agilānā telaṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjeyya…pe… taṃ paṭidesemīti.

2. Any bhikkhunī who, when not ill, requests oil and consumes it… should confess it.

2. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill should ask for oil and consume it… (as in 1)… I acknowledge it.

3. Yā pana bhikkhunī agilānā madhuṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjeyya…pe… taṃ paṭidesemīti.

3. Any bhikkhunī who, when not ill, requests honey and consumes it… should confess it.

3. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill should ask for honey and consume it… (as in 1)… I acknowledge it.

3. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill requests honey and consumes it… I confess it.

4. Yā pana bhikkhunī agilānā phāṇitaṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjeyya…pe… taṃ paṭidesemīti.

4. Any bhikkhunī who, when not ill, requests molasses and consumes it… should confess it.

4. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill should ask for molasses and consume it… (as in 1)… I acknowledge it.

4. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill requests molasses and consumes it… I confess it.

5. Yā pana bhikkhunī agilānā macchaṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjeyya…pe… taṃ paṭidesemīti.

5. Any bhikkhunī who, when not ill, requests fish and consumes it… should confess it.

5. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill should ask for fish and consume it… (as in 1)… I acknowledge it.

5. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill requests fish and consumes it… I confess it.

6. Yā pana bhikkhunī agilānā maṃsaṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjeyya…pe… taṃ paṭidesemīti.

6. Any bhikkhunī who, when not ill, requests meat and consumes it… should confess it.

6. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill should ask for meat and consume it… (as in 1)… I acknowledge it.

6. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill requests meat and consumes it… I confess it.

7. Yā pana bhikkhunī agilānā khīraṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjeyya…pe… taṃ paṭidesemīti.

7. Any bhikkhunī who, when not ill, requests milk and consumes it… should confess it.

7. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill should ask for milk and consume it… (as in 1)… I acknowledge it.

7. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill requests milk and consumes it… I confess it.

8. Yā pana bhikkhunī agilānā dadhiṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjeyya, paṭidesetabbaṃ tāya bhikkhuniyā “gārayhaṃ, ayye, dhammaṃ āpajjiṃ asappāyaṃ pāṭidesanīyaṃ, taṃ paṭidesemī”ti.

8. Any bhikkhunī who, when not ill, requests curds and consumes it should confess it thus: “Venerables, I have committed a blameworthy act, unsuitable, requiring confession; I confess it.”

8. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill should ask for curds and consume it, it should be acknowledged by that bhikkhunī: “Venerable sister, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act, an offense to be acknowledged; I acknowledge it.”

8. If a bhikkhunī who is not ill requests curd and consumes it, she is to confess it, saying, “Venerable, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable pāṭidesanīya offense. I confess it.”

Uddiṭṭhā kho, ayyāyo, aṭṭha pāṭidesanīyā dhammā. Tatthāyyāyo, pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyyāyo, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

Recited, Venerables, are the eight pāṭidesanīya rules. Regarding these, I ask the Venerables: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? The Venerables are pure in this matter; therefore, they are silent. Thus, I hold it to be so.

Venerable sisters, the eight offenses to be acknowledged have been recited. In regard to them, I ask the venerable sisters, “Are you pure in this?” A second time I ask, “Are you pure in this?” A third time I ask, “Are you pure in this?” The venerable sisters are pure in this; therefore they are silent. Thus I understand it.

Venerables, the eight pāṭidesanīya rules have been recited. In this matter, I ask you, venerables, are you pure in this? A second time, I ask, are you pure in this? A third time, I ask, are you pure in this? You are pure in this, venerables, therefore you remain silent. Thus, I remember it.

Sekhiyā

Training Rules

The Sekhiya Rules

1. “I will wear my robe evenly all around”—this training should be observed.

2. “I will cover myself evenly all around”—this training should be observed.

3. “Well-covered, I will go among houses”—this training should be observed.

4. “Well-covered, I will sit among houses”—this training should be observed.

5. “Well-restrained, I will go among houses”—this training should be observed.

6. “Well-restrained, I will sit among houses”—this training should be observed.

6. Training should be done: “I will sit well-restrained in inhabited areas.”

7. “With eyes lowered, I will go among houses”—this training should be observed.

7. Training should be done: “I will go with eyes downcast in inhabited areas.”

8. “With eyes lowered, I will sit among houses”—this training should be observed.

8. Training should be done: “I will sit with eyes downcast in inhabited areas.”

9. “I will not go among houses with my robe lifted up”—this training should be observed.

9. Training should be done: “I will not go with robes lifted up in inhabited areas.”

10. “I will not sit among houses with my robe lifted up”—this training should be observed.

10. Training should be done: “I will not sit with robes lifted up in inhabited areas.”

8. I will sit with lowered gaze when in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

11. “I will not go among houses laughing loudly”—this training should be observed.

11. Training should be done: “I will not go laughing aloud in inhabited areas.”

12. “I will not sit among houses laughing loudly”—this training should be observed.

12. Training should be done: “I will not sit laughing aloud in inhabited areas.”

9. I will not walk with raised robes in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

13. “With little noise, I will go among houses”—this training should be observed.

13. Training should be done: “I will go [making] little noise in inhabited areas.”

10. I will not sit with raised robes in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

14. “With little noise, I will sit among houses”—this training should be observed.

14. Training should be done: “I will sit [making] little noise in inhabited areas.”

15. “I will not go among houses swaying my body”—this training should be observed.

15. Training should be done: “I will not go swaying the body in inhabited areas.”

16. “I will not sit among houses swaying my body”—this training should be observed.

16. Training should be done: “I will not sit swaying the body in inhabited areas.”

12. I will not sit laughing loudly in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

17. “I will not go among houses swinging my arms”—this training should be observed.

17. Training should be done: “I will not go swaying the arms in inhabited areas.”

18. “I will not sit among houses swinging my arms”—this training should be observed.

18. Training should be done: “I will not sit swaying the arms in inhabited areas.”

19. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not go about in a village shaking my head.”

19. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not walk in a village swinging my head.

19. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not go inside a house shaking my head.”

20. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not sit in a village shaking my head.”

20. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not sit in a village swinging my head.

20. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not sit inside a house shaking my head.”

21. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not go about in a village with my arms akimbo.”

21. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not walk in a village with arms akimbo.

21. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not go inside a house with arms akimbo.”

22. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not sit in a village with my arms akimbo.”

22. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not sit in a village with arms akimbo.

22. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not sit inside a house with arms akimbo.”

23. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not go about in a village with my head covered.”

23. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not walk in a village with my head covered.

23. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not go inside a house covered up.”

24. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not sit in a village with my head covered.”

24. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not sit in a village with my head covered.

24. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not sit inside a house covered up.”

25. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not go about in a village squatting.”

25. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not walk in a village squatting on my heels.

25. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not go inside a house squatting.”

26. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not sit in a village with my legs crossed.”

26. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not sit in a village with my knees clasped.

26. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not sit inside a house with legs extended.”

27. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will receive almsfood respectfully.”

27. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will receive almsfood respectfully.

27. A training rule is to be observed: “I will receive almsfood respectfully.”

28. Pattasaññinī piṇḍapātaṃ paṭiggahessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

28. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will receive almsfood with attention to the bowl.”

28. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will receive almsfood with attention to the bowl.

28. A training rule is to be observed: “I will receive almsfood with mindfulness of the bowl.”

29. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will receive almsfood with an even amount of broth.”

29. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will receive almsfood with an equal amount of curry.

29. A training rule is to be observed: “I will receive almsfood with equal curry.”

30. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will receive almsfood level with the rim.”

30. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will receive almsfood level with the rim of the bowl.

30. A training rule is to be observed: “I will receive almsfood with equal portions.”

31. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will eat almsfood respectfully.”

31. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will eat almsfood respectfully.

32. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will eat almsfood with attention to the bowl.”

32. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will eat almsfood with attention to the bowl.

32. A training rule is to be observed: “I will eat almsfood with mindfulness of the bowl.”

33. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will eat almsfood methodically.”

33. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will eat almsfood consecutively.

34. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will eat almsfood with an even amount of broth.”

34. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will eat almsfood with an equal amount of curry.

34. A training rule is to be observed: “I will eat almsfood with equal curry.”

35. Na thūpakato omadditvā piṇḍapātaṃ bhuñjissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

35. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat almsfood by pressing it down from a heap.”

35. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not eat almsfood by pressing down from the top of a heap.

35. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat almsfood by pressing it into a heap.”

36. Na sūpaṃ vā byañjanaṃ vā odanena paṭicchādessāmi bhiyyokamyataṃ upādāyāti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

36. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not cover curry or condiments with rice out of a desire for more.”

36. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not cover curry or sauce with rice, wishing for more.

36. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not cover rice with curry or side dishes out of desire for more.”

37. Na sūpaṃ vā odanaṃ vā agilānā attano atthāya viññāpetvā bhuñjissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

37. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not request and eat broth or rice for myself when not sick.”

37. Training should be undertaken in the rule: Not being ill, I will not ask for curry or rice for my own benefit and eat it.

37. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat curry or rice after requesting it for myself when not sick.”

38. Na ujjhānasaññinī paresaṃ pattaṃ olokessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

38. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not look at others’ bowls with envy.”

38. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not look at another’s bowl with a disapproving thought.

38. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not look at others’ bowls with discontent.”

39. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not make an overly large mouthful.”

39. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not make too large a morsel.

39. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not make excessively large mouthfuls.”

41. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not open my mouth when the mouthful is not yet brought to it.”

41. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not open my mouth before the morsel is brought to it.

41. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not open my mouth for unbrought food.”

42. Na bhuñjamānā sabbahatthaṃ mukhe pakkhipissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

42. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not put my whole hand into my mouth while eating.”

42. Training should be undertaken in the rule: While eating, I will not put my whole hand into my mouth.

42. A training rule is to be observed: “While eating, I will not put my whole hand into my mouth.”

43. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not speak with a mouth full of food.”

43. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not speak with a morsel of food in my mouth.

43. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not speak with food in my mouth.”

44. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat by tossing morsels.”

44. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat by throwing food into my mouth.”

45. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat by breaking off mouthfuls.”

45. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not eat nibbling at morsels.

45. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat by breaking off pieces.”

46. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat by puffing out my cheeks.”

46. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not eat with stuffed cheeks.

47. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat while shaking my hand.”

47. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat while shaking my hand.”

48. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat while scattering rice grains.”

48. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not eat scattering grains of rice.

48. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat while scattering rice.”

49. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat while sticking out my tongue.”

49. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not eat protruding my tongue.

49. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat while sticking out my tongue.”

50. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat making a smacking sound.”

50. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not eat making smacking sounds.

50. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat while making smacking sounds.”

51. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat making a slurping sound.”

51. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not eat making slurping sounds.

51. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat while making slurping sounds.”

52. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat while licking my hands.”

52. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat while licking my hand.”

53. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat while licking my bowl.”

53. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat while licking the bowl.”

54. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not eat while licking my lips.”

54. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not eat while licking my lips.”

55. Na sāmisena hatthena pānīyathālakaṃ paṭiggahessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

55. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not receive a water vessel with a hand soiled with food.”

55. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not hold a drinking vessel with a hand soiled with food.

55. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not receive a water vessel with a soiled hand.”

56. Na sasitthakaṃ pattadhovanaṃ antaraghare chaḍḍessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

56. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not discard bowl-washing water with rice grains in a village.”

56. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not throw bowl-washing water containing rice grains in a village.

56. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not discard rice water inside a house.”

57. Na chattapāṇissa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

57. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one holding an umbrella, unless they are sick.”

57. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not teach the Dhamma to someone holding an umbrella, who is not ill.

57. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma to someone holding an umbrella who is not sick.”

58. Na daṇḍapāṇissa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

58. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one holding a staff, unless they are sick.”

58. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not teach the Dhamma to someone holding a staff, who is not ill.

58. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma to someone holding a staff who is not sick.”

59. Na satthapāṇissa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

59. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one holding a weapon, unless they are sick.”

59. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not teach the Dhamma to someone holding a knife, who is not ill.

59. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma to someone holding a knife who is not sick.”

60. Na āvudhapāṇissa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

60. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one holding an armed weapon, unless they are sick.”

60. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not teach the Dhamma to someone holding a weapon, who is not ill.

60. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma to someone holding a weapon who is not sick.”

61. Na pādukāruḷhassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

61. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one wearing sandals, unless they are sick.”

61. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not teach the Dhamma to someone wearing sandals, who is not ill.

61. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma to someone wearing sandals who is not sick.”

62. Na upāhanāruḷhassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

62. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one wearing shoes, unless they are sick.”

62. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not teach the Dhamma to someone wearing shoes, who is not ill.

62. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma to someone wearing shoes who is not sick.”

63. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one in a vehicle, unless they are sick.”

63. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not teach the Dhamma to someone in a vehicle, who is not ill.

63. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma to someone in a vehicle who is not sick.”

64. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one lying down, unless they are sick.”

64. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not teach the Dhamma to someone lying down, who is not ill.

64. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma to someone on a bed who is not sick.”

65. Na pallatthikāya nisinnassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

65. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one sitting with legs crossed, unless they are sick.”

65. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not teach the Dhamma to someone sitting with clasped knees, who is not ill.

65. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma to someone sitting with legs extended who is not sick.”

66. Na veṭhitasīsassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

66. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one with a wrapped head, unless they are sick.”

66. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not teach the Dhamma to someone with a head-wrap, who is not ill.

66. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma to someone with a covered head who is not sick.”

67. Na oguṇṭhitasīsassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

67. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one with a covered head, unless they are sick.”

67. Training should be undertaken in the rule: I will not teach the Dhamma to someone with their head covered, who is not ill.

67. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma to someone with a wrapped head who is not sick.”

68. Na chamāyaṃ nisīditvā āsane nisinnassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

68. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one seated on a chair while I sit on the ground, unless they are sick.”

68. Training should be undertaken in the rule: Sitting on the ground, I will not teach the Dhamma to someone sitting on a seat, who is not ill.

68. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma while sitting on the ground to someone sitting on a seat who is not sick.”

69. Na nīce āsane nisīditvā ucce āsane nisinnassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

69. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one seated on a high seat while I sit on a low seat, unless they are sick.”

69. Training should be undertaken in the rule: Sitting on a low seat, I will not teach the Dhamma to someone sitting on a higher seat, who is not ill.

69. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma while sitting on a low seat to someone sitting on a high seat who is not sick.”

70. Na ṭhitā nisinnassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

70. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one seated while I stand, unless they are sick.”

70. Training should be undertaken in the rule: Standing, I will not teach the Dhamma to someone sitting, who is not ill.

70. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma while standing to someone sitting who is not sick.”

71. Na pacchato gacchantī purato gacchantassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

71. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one walking ahead while I walk behind, unless they are sick.”

71. Training should be undertaken in the rule: Walking behind, I will not teach the Dhamma to someone walking ahead, who is not ill.

71. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma while walking behind to someone walking in front who is not sick.”

72. Na uppathena gacchantī pathena gacchantassa agilānassa dhammaṃ desessāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

72. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not teach Dhamma to one walking on a path while I walk off the path, unless they are sick.”

72. Training should be undertaken in the rule: Walking beside the path, I will not teach the Dhamma to someone walking on the path, who is not ill.

72. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not teach the Dhamma while walking beside the path to someone walking on the path who is not sick.”

73. Na ṭhitā agilānā uccāraṃ vā passāvaṃ vā karissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

73. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not, while standing, urinate or defecate, unless I am sick.”

73. Training should be undertaken in the rule: Not being ill, I will not defecate or urinate while standing.

73. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not defecate or urinate while standing if I am not sick.”

74. Na harite agilānā uccāraṃ vā passāvaṃ vā kheḷaṃ vā karissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

74. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not urinate, defecate, or spit on green vegetation, unless I am sick.”

74. Training should be undertaken in the rule: Not being ill, I will not defecate, urinate, or spit on living greenery.

74. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not defecate, urinate, or spit on green plants if I am not sick.”

75. Na udake agilānā uccāraṃ vā passāvaṃ vā kheḷaṃ vā karissāmīti sikkhā karaṇīyā.

75. The training rule to be practiced is: “I will not urinate, defecate, or spit in water, unless I am sick.”

75. Training should be undertaken in the rule: Not being ill, I will not defecate, urinate, or spit in water.

75. A training rule is to be observed: “I will not defecate, urinate, or spit in water if I am not sick.”

Uddiṭṭhā kho, ayyāyo, sekhiyā dhammā. Tatthāyyāyo, pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyyāyo, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

The sekhiya rules have been recited, noble ladies. Herein I ask you: Are you pure in this regard? I ask a second time: Are you pure in this regard? I ask a third time: Are you pure in this regard? You are pure in this regard, noble ladies, therefore you are silent. Thus I hold it to be so.

The sekhiyā rules have been recited, venerable sirs. Concerning them, I ask you, venerable sirs: Are you pure in this? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this? The venerable sirs are pure in this. Therefore, they are silent. Thus I hold it.

Venerable ones, the training rules have been recited. In regard to them, I ask you: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? Since you are silent, venerable ones, I consider you pure in this matter. Thus, I remember it.

Adhikaraṇasamathā

The Settling of Disputes

Venerable ones, these seven methods for settling disputes come up for recitation.

For the settling and pacification of disputes as they arise, face-to-face resolution should be given.

Uppannuppannānaṃ adhikaraṇānaṃ samathāya vūpasamāya sammukhāvinayo dātabbo.

For the settling and pacifying of disputes that have arisen, a sammukhāvinaya should be given.

For the settling and pacifying of legal questions that have arisen, a verdict in the presence of the Sangha should be given.

Venerable ones, the seven methods for settling disputes have been recited. In regard to them, I ask you: Are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this matter? Since you are silent, venerable ones, I consider you pure in this matter. Thus, I remember it.

Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo satta adhikaraṇasamathā dhammā. Tatthāyyāyo pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā , tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyyāyo, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmīti.

The seven adhikaraṇasamatha dhammas have been recited, noble ladies. Herein I ask you: Are you pure in this regard? I ask a second time: Are you pure in this regard? I ask a third time: Are you pure in this regard? You are pure in this regard, noble ladies, therefore you are silent. Thus I hold it to be so.

The seven rules for settling legal questions have been recited, venerable sirs. Concerning them, I ask you, venerable sirs: Are you pure in this? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this? The venerable sirs are pure in this. Therefore, they are silent. Thus I hold it.

Uddiṭṭhā satta adhikaraṇasamathā dhammā, ettakaṃ tassa bhagavato suttāgataṃ suttapariyāpannaṃ anvaddhamāsaṃ uddesaṃ āgacchati, tattha sabbāheva samaggāhi sammodamānāhi avivadamānāhi sikkhitabbanti.

The seven adhikaraṇasamatha dhammas have been recited. All this comes up for recitation from the Blessed One’s discourses every half month; herein all should train together in harmony, rejoicing, without dispute.

The seven adhikaraṇasamathā rules have been recited. This much of the Blessed One’s Sutta, included in the Sutta, comes up for recitation every half-month. In this, all should train together in harmony, cordially, and without dispute.

This much of the Buddha’s teachings comes up for recitation every half-month. Herein, all should train in harmony, with mutual appreciation, without dispute.

Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī-aṭṭhakathā

The Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Commentary

Ganthārambhakathā

Introductory Verses

The Chapter on Beginning the Text

Buddhaṃ dhammañca saṅghañca, vippasannena cetasā;
Vanditvā vandanāmāna, pūjāsakkārabhājanaṃ.

The Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, with a clear and serene mind; having paid homage with reverence, the worthy recipient of offerings and respect.

Having worshipped, with a fully devoted mind, the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, who deserve honor and offerings.

With a clear mind, I pay homage to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, the objects of veneration, honor, and respect.

Theravaṃsappadīpānaṃ, thirānaṃ vinayakkame;
Pubbācariyasīhānaṃ, namo katvā katañjalī.

To the lineage of elders, steadfast in the discipline’s order; to the ancient teachers, lions among men, I pay homage with joined hands.

Having made a respectful salutation, with hands clasped in añjali, to the ancient teachers, lions, lamps of the Theravāda lineage, steadfast in the discipline.

Having paid homage to the elders, the lamps of the Theravāda tradition, the steadfast ones in the discipline, and the former teachers, the lions, with joined palms, I bow.

Pāmokkhaṃ anavajjānaṃ, dhammānaṃ yaṃ mahesinā;
Mukhaṃ mokkhappavesāya, pātimokkhaṃ pakāsitaṃ.

The faultless Dhamma, declared by the great sage; the gateway to liberation, the Pātimokkha was proclaimed.

The Pātimokkha, the foremost of the blameless teachings, proclaimed by the Great Sage, is the gateway to liberation.

The foremost of the blameless teachings, proclaimed by the great sage as the gateway to liberation, is the Pātimokkha.

Sūratena nivātena, sucisallekhavuttinā;
Vinayācārayuttena, soṇattherena yācito.

By the eloquent, steadfast, pure, and austere Elder Soṇa, who was disciplined in conduct, I was requested.

Being requested by the Elder Soṇa, who is well-restrained, pure, diligent in the ascetic practices, and endowed with the conduct of discipline.

Requested by Soṇatthera, who is endowed with purity, good conduct, and adherence to the Vinaya, I will compose this commentary.

Tattha sañjātakaṅkhānaṃ, bhikkhūnaṃ tassa vaṇṇanaṃ;
Kaṅkhāvitaraṇatthāya, paripuṇṇavinicchayaṃ.

There, for the monks who had doubts arisen, its explanation; for the sake of dispelling doubts, a complete determination.

For those bhikkhus who have doubts therein, a complete determination of its explanation, for the purpose of dispelling doubt.

For the monks who have doubts, I will explain this text, the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, which is complete in its analysis, for the purpose of dispelling doubts.

Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ, vācanāmagganissitaṃ;
Vattayissāmi nāmena, kaṅkhāvitaraṇiṃ subhanti.

Following the tradition of the Mahāvihāra residents, based on the method of recitation; I shall expound by name the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, the auspicious.

I will relate, relying on the textual tradition of the dwellers of the Mahāvihāra, that which by name is the excellent Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī.

Based on the tradition of the Mahāvihāra, I will compose this commentary, known as the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, which is beautiful.

Nidānavaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Introduction

The Explanation of the Introduction

Tattha pātimokkhanti paatimokkhaṃ atipamokkhaṃ atiseṭṭhaṃ atiuttamanti attho. Iti iminā vacanatthena ekavidhampi sīlaganthabhedato duvidhaṃ hoti. Tathā hi “pātimokkhasaṃvarasaṃvuto viharatī”ti (ma. ni. 1.69; 3.75; vibha. 508) ca “ādimetaṃ mukhametaṃ pamukhametaṃ kusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ, tena vuccati pātimokkha”nti (mahāva. 135) ca ādīsu sīlaṃ pātimokkhanti vuccati, “ubhayāni kho panassa pātimokkhāni vitthārena svāgatāni hontī”tiādīsu (pāci. 147; a. ni. 8.52; 10.33) gantho pātimokkhanti vuccati. Tattha sīlaṃ yo naṃ pāti rakkhati, taṃ mokkheti mocayati āpāyikādīhi dukkhehi, attānuvādādīhi vā bhayehīti pātimokkhaṃ. Gantho pana tassa pātimokkhassa jotakattā pātimokkhanti vuccati. Ādimhi pana vutto vacanattho ubhinnampi sādhāraṇo hoti.

Herein, Pātimokkha means the Pātimokkha, the foremost, the most excellent, the supreme—this is the meaning. Thus, by this meaning of the word, though it is of one kind, it becomes twofold due to the distinction of sīla and text. For indeed, in such passages as “He dwells restrained by the restraint of the Pātimokkha” (ma. ni. 1.69; 3.75; vibha. 508) and “This is the beginning, the door, the foremost of wholesome dhammas, hence it is called Pātimokkha” (mahāva. 135), sīla is called Pātimokkha; while in passages like “Both his Pātimokkhas are well-received in detail” (pāci. 147; a. ni. 8.52; 10.33), the text is called Pātimokkha. Herein, regarding sīla, it protects him who guards it and liberates him from suffering such as that of the lower realms or from fears such as self-reproach—thus it is Pātimokkha. The text, however, is called Pātimokkha because it illuminates that Pātimokkha. The meaning stated at the outset applies to both in common.

Here, Pātimokkha means the foremost protection, the supreme protection, the most excellent, the most superior. Thus, by this meaning of the word, although it is of one kind, it becomes twofold due to the distinction of the bond of moral discipline. Thus, “he dwells restrained by the restraint of the Pātimokkha” (M.I.69; M.III.75; Vibh.508) and “this is the beginning, this is the face, this is the foremost of wholesome dhammas, therefore it is called Pātimokkha” (Mahāvagga 135), and so on, moral discipline is called Pātimokkha. “Both Pātimokkhas are well-recited by him in detail,” and so on (Pācittiya 147; A.VIII.52; A.X.33), the text is called Pātimokkha. Here, moral discipline protects him who guards it, it liberates, releases from suffering such as the states of woe, or from fears such as self-reproach, thus it is Pātimokkha. The text, however, is called Pātimokkha because it illuminates that Pātimokkha. But the meaning of the word stated at the beginning is common to both.

Here, Pātimokkha means the foremost, the best, the highest. Thus, by this meaning, it is twofold: as the code of discipline and as the text. For example, “He dwells restrained by the Pātimokkha restraint” (M. Ni. 1.69; 3.75; Vibh. 508) and “This is the beginning, this is the face, this is the foremost of wholesome qualities, therefore it is called Pātimokkha” (Mahāva. 135) refer to the code of discipline as Pātimokkha. “Both Pātimokkhas have been learned in detail” (Pāci. 147; A. Ni. 8.52; 10.33) refers to the text as Pātimokkha. Here, sīla (morality) protects and liberates one from the sufferings of the lower realms and from the fears of self-reproach, etc., thus it is called Pātimokkha. The text, because it illuminates the Pātimokkha, is called Pātimokkha. The meaning of the term mentioned at the beginning applies to both.

Tatthāyaṃ vaṇṇanā sīlapātimokkhassāpi yujjati ganthapātimokkhassāpi, ganthe hi vaṇṇite tassa attho vaṇṇitova hoti. Taṃ panetaṃ ganthapātimokkhaṃ bhikkhupātimokkhaṃ bhikkhunipātimokkhanti duvidhaṃ hoti . Tattha “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho”tiādikaṃ (mahāva. 134) pañcahi uddesaparicchedehi vavatthitaṃ bhikkhupātimokkhaṃ, “suṇātu me, ayye, saṅgho”tiādikaṃ catūhi uddesaparicchedehi vavatthitaṃ bhikkhunipātimokkhaṃ. Tattha bhikkhupātimokkhe pañca uddesā nāma nidānuddeso, pārājikuddeso, saṅghādisesuddeso, aniyatuddeso , vitthāruddesoti. Tattha nidānuddeso tāva “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho…pe… āvikatā hissa phāsu hoti, tatthāyasmante pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, dutiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, tatiyampi pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhā, parisuddhetthāyasmanto, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti vatvā “uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidāna”ntiādinā nayena avasese sutena sāvite uddiṭṭho hoti. Pārājikuddesādīnaṃ paricchedā nidānassa ādito paṭṭhāya pārājikādīni osāpetvā yojetabbā. Vitthāro vitthāroyeva . “Avasesaṃ sutena sāvetabba”nti (mahāva. 150; pari. 325) vacanato pana pārājikuddesādīsu yasmiṃ vippakate antarāyo uppajjati, tena saddhiṃ avasesaṃ sutena sāvetabbaṃ. Nidānuddese pana aniṭṭhite sutena sāvetabbaṃ nāma natthi. Bhikkhunipātimokkhe pana aniyatuddeso parihāyati, sesaṃ vuttanayameva. Evametesaṃ pañcahi ceva catūhi ca uddesaparicchedehi vavatthitānaṃ dvinnampi pātimokkhānaṃ ayaṃ vaṇṇanā bhavissati. Yasmā panettha bhikkhupātimokkhaṃ paṭhamaṃ, tasmā tassa tāva vaṇṇanatthamidaṃ vuccati.

This explanation applies to both the sīla-Pātimokkha and the text-Pātimokkha, for when the text is explained, its meaning is also elucidated. This text-Pātimokkha, however, is twofold: the Bhikkhupātimokkha and the Bhikkhunipātimokkha. Herein, that which begins with “Listen to me, venerable sirs, the Saṅgha” (mahāva. 134) and is defined by five recitation sections is the Bhikkhupātimokkha, while that which begins with “Listen to me, noble ladies, the Saṅgha” and is defined by four recitation sections is the Bhikkhunipātimokkha. In the Bhikkhupātimokkha, the five recitation sections are: the nidāna recitation, the pārājika recitation, the saṅghādisesa recitation, the aniyata recitation, and the detailed recitation. The nidāna recitation begins with “Listen to me, venerable sirs, the Saṅgha… his confession brings him ease. Herein I ask the venerables: Are you pure in this regard? I ask a second time: Are you pure in this regard? I ask a third time: Are you pure in this regard? You are pure in this regard, venerables, therefore you are silent. Thus I hold it to be so,” and concludes with “The nidāna has been recited, venerables,” and so forth, with the remainder made known by what is heard. The divisions of the pārājika recitation and others should be understood by incorporating the pārājika and so forth from the beginning of the nidāna. The detailed recitation is simply the detailed one. However, according to the statement “The remainder should be made known by what is heard” (mahāva. 150; pari. 325), if an interruption occurs during the pārājika recitation or others, the rest should be made known along with it by what is heard. But if the nidāna recitation is not completed, there is nothing to be made known by what is heard. In the Bhikkhunipātimokkha, the aniyata recitation is omitted, but the rest follows the same method. Thus, the explanation of both these Pātimokkhas, defined by five and four recitation sections respectively, will be given. Since the Bhikkhupātimokkha comes first here, its explanation is stated first for that purpose.

This explanation is applicable both to the moral discipline Pātimokkha and the text Pātimokkha, for when the text is explained, its meaning is explained. But this text Pātimokkha is twofold: the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha and the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha. Here, “Let the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me,” and so on (Mahāvagga 134), arranged in five recitation sections, is the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha; “Let the Sangha, venerable ladies, listen to me,” and so on, arranged in four recitation sections, is the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha. Here, in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha, the five recitations are: the recitation of the introduction, the recitation of the pārājikas, the recitation of the sanghādisesas, the recitation of the undetermined rules, and the detailed recitation. Here, the recitation of the introduction is: “Let the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me… it is pleasant for them to be declared. Concerning them, I ask you, venerable sirs: Are you pure in this? A second time I ask: Are you pure in this? A third time I ask: Are you pure in this? The venerable sirs are pure in this. Therefore, they are silent. Thus I hold it,” having said this, “The introduction, venerable sirs, has been recited,” in this manner, having declared the remainder with the sutta, it is recited. The divisions of the pārājika recitation and the others should be connected, beginning from the introduction and concluding with the pārājikas and so on. The detailed recitation is the detailed recitation itself. But because of the statement, “The remainder should be declared with the sutta” (Mahāvagga 150; Parivāra 325), in the pārājika recitation and others, when an interruption arises while it is in progress, along with that, the remainder should be declared with the sutta. But in the recitation of the introduction, when it is not completed, there is nothing called declaring with the sutta. In the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha, however, the recitation of the undetermined rules is omitted, the rest is in the same manner as stated. Thus, this explanation will be of both Pātimokkhas, arranged in five and four recitation sections respectively. Since here the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha is first, therefore, this is said for the purpose of explaining it.

This explanation applies to both the code of discipline and the text. When the text is explained, its meaning is also explained. This Pātimokkha text is twofold: the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha and the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha. Here, the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha is divided into five sections: the introduction, the Pārājika section, the Saṅghādisesa section, the Aniyata section, and the detailed section. The Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha is divided into four sections, omitting the Aniyata section. The rest is the same. Thus, this commentary will cover both Pātimokkhas, divided into five and four sections respectively. Since the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha comes first, its explanation is given first.

“Suṇātu me”tiādīnaṃ, padānaṃ atthanicchayaṃ;
Bhikkhavo sīlasampannā, sikkhākāmā suṇantu meti.

The meaning of the words beginning with “Let him hear me” is determined thus; O monks endowed with virtue, eager for training, listen to me.

Bhikkhus who are accomplished in virtue, and desirous of training, may they listen to the determination of the meaning of the words, beginning with “Suṇātu me.”

The meaning of the words “Suṇātu me” (Listen to me) should be understood. Monks endowed with morality, desiring to train, should listen to me.

Ettha hi suṇātūtiidaṃ savanāṇattivacanaṃ. Meti yo sāveti, tassa attaniddesavacanaṃ. Bhanteti sagāravasappatissavacanaṃ. Saṅghoti puggalasamūhavacanaṃ. Sabbameva cetaṃ pātimokkhuddesakena paṭhamaṃ vattabbavacanaṃ. Bhagavatā hi pātimokkhuddesaṃ anujānantena rājagahe vuttaṃ, tasmā yo pātimokkhaṃ uddisati, tena sace saṅghatthero hoti, “āvuso”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace navakataro hoti, pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 134) āgatanayeneva “bhante”ti vattabbaṃ. Saṅghatthero vā hi pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyya “therādhikaṃ pātimokkha”ntivacanato (mahāva. 154), navakataro vā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yo tattha bhikkhu byatto paṭibalo, tassādheyyaṃ pātimokkha”ntivacanato (mahāva. 155).

Here, suṇātu is a command to listen. Me refers to the one who recites, a self-referential term. Bhante is a term of respect and deference. Saṅgho is a term for a group of individuals. All this is to be spoken first by the reciter of the Pātimokkha. For the Blessed One, in permitting the recitation of the Pātimokkha, spoke thus in Rājagaha. Therefore, one who recites the Pātimokkha, if they are the elder of the Saṅgha, should say “āvuso”; if they are more junior, they should say “bhante” as per the method given in the text (mahāva. 134). Either the elder of the Saṅgha may recite the Pātimokkha, as per the statement “The Pātimokkha pertains to the elders” (mahāva. 154), or a more junior one may, as per the statement “I allow, monks, that it be entrusted to a monk who is capable and competent there” (mahāva. 155).

Here, suṇātu (let… listen) is a word commanding to listen. Me (to me) is a word indicating oneself, of the one who is reciting. Bhante (venerable sirs) is a word of respectful address. Saṅgho (Sangha) is a word for a group of individuals. All this is the first word to be spoken by the reciter of the Pātimokkha. For the Blessed One, when authorizing the recitation of the Pātimokkha, spoke in Rājagaha, therefore, whoever recites the Pātimokkha, if he is the Sangha elder, should say “āvuso” (friend). If he is a junior, he should say “bhante” (venerable sirs), in the same manner as it comes in the Pāḷi (Mahāvagga 134). For either the Sangha elder should recite the Pātimokkha, because of the statement, “The Pātimokkha is superior to the elders” (Mahāvagga 154), or a junior, because of the statement, “I allow, bhikkhus, that the bhikkhu who is learned and competent there, his competence is the Pātimokkha” (Mahāvagga 155).

Here, suṇātu is a term indicating the act of listening. Me refers to the one who is reciting. Bhante is a term of respect and deference. Saṅgho refers to the assembly of individuals. All this is to be spoken first by the one reciting the Pātimokkha. When the Buddha allowed the recitation of the Pātimokkha at Rājagaha, he said that if the reciter is a senior monk, he should address the assembly as “āvuso” (friend). If he is a junior monk, he should address them as “bhante” (venerable), according to the Pāli text (Mahāva. 134). A senior monk may recite the Pātimokkha because of the statement “the senior monk’s Pātimokkha” (Mahāva. 154), and a junior monk may recite it because of the statement “I allow, monks, whoever among you is competent and capable to take on the responsibility of reciting the Pātimokkha” (Mahāva. 155).

“Saṅgho”tiiminā pana padena kiñcāpi avisesato puggalasamūho vutto, atha kho so dakkhiṇeyyasaṅgho, sammutisaṅgho cāti duvidho hoti. Tattha dakkhiṇeyyasaṅghoti aṭṭha ariyapuggalasamūho vuccati. Sammutisaṅghoti avisesena bhikkhusamūho, so idha adhippeto. So panesa kammavasena pañcavidho (mahāva. 388) hoti – catuvaggo pañcavaggo dasavaggo vīsativaggo atirekavīsativaggoti. Tattha catuvaggena ṭhapetvā upasampadapavāraṇaabbhānāni sabbaṃ saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Pañcavaggena ṭhapetvā majjhimesu janapadesu upasampadañca abbhānakammañca sabbaṃ saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Dasavaggena abbhānakammamattaṃ ṭhapetvā sabbaṃ saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Vīsativaggena na kiñci saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, tathā atirekavīsativaggena.So pana catuvaggādinā saṅghena kattabbaṃ kammaṃ ūnakatarena kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, atirekena pana vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ vutto. Imasmiṃ panatthe catuvaggaṃ upādāya sabbopi sammutisaṅgho adhippeto.

By the word Saṅgho, though a group of individuals is generally indicated, it is twofold: the dakkhiṇeyya Saṅgha and the sammuti Saṅgha. Herein, the dakkhiṇeyya Saṅgha refers to the group of eight noble individuals. The sammuti Saṅgha refers generally to the community of monks, and it is intended here. This, by means of actions, is fivefold (mahāva. 388): a group of four, a group of five, a group of ten, a group of twenty, and a group exceeding twenty. Herein, with a group of four, all Saṅgha actions may be performed except for ordination, pavāraṇā, and rehabilitation. With a group of five, all Saṅgha actions may be performed except for ordination and rehabilitation in the middle regions. With a group of ten, all Saṅgha actions may be performed except for rehabilitation alone. With a group of twenty, no Saṅgha action may be performed, nor with a group exceeding twenty. However, an action that should be performed by a Saṅgha of four or more may not be performed by fewer, but it may be performed by more, and this is stated to show that. In this context, the entire sammuti Saṅgha, starting with a group of four, is intended.

But by the word “Sangha”, although a group of individuals is stated in general, yet it is twofold: the Sangha worthy of offerings and the Sangha by convention. Here, the Sangha worthy of offerings refers to the group of eight noble individuals. The Sangha by convention is a group of bhikkhus in general, that is what is meant here. But this is fivefold (Mahāvagga 388) according to its function: the group of four, the group of five, the group of ten, the group of twenty, and the group of more than twenty. Here, with a group of four, except for ordination, invitation (pavāraṇā) and reinstatement (abbhāna), all Sangha business can be done. With a group of five, except for ordination and reinstatement in the middle regions, all Sangha business can be done. With a group of ten, except only for the reinstatement ceremony, all Sangha business can be done. With a group of twenty, no Sangha business can be done, and similarly with a group of more than twenty. But the business to be done by a Sangha of four and so on cannot be done by a lesser number, but it can be done by a greater number, this is stated to show that. But in this context, taking a group of four as the basis, the entire Sangha by convention is meant.

By the word Saṅgho, although it refers generally to the assembly of individuals, it is twofold: the Saṅgha worthy of gifts and the conventional Saṅgha. Here, the Saṅgha worthy of gifts refers to the assembly of the eight noble individuals. The conventional Saṅgha refers to the assembly of monks in general, and this is the intended meaning here. This Saṅgha is fivefold in terms of its function (Mahāva. 388): the fourfold assembly, the fivefold assembly, the tenfold assembly, the twentyfold assembly, and the assembly exceeding twenty. Here, the fourfold assembly can perform all Saṅgha acts except for ordination, invitation, and rehabilitation. The fivefold assembly can perform all Saṅgha acts except for ordination and rehabilitation in the middle regions. The tenfold assembly can perform all Saṅgha acts except for rehabilitation. The twentyfold assembly cannot perform any Saṅgha acts, and neither can the assembly exceeding twenty. However, a Saṅgha act to be performed by a fourfold assembly, etc., cannot be performed by a smaller number, but it can be performed by a larger number. This is stated to show this meaning. In this context, the entire conventional Saṅgha is intended, based on the fourfold assembly.

Ajjuposathoti ajja uposathadivaso, etena anuposathadivasaṃ paṭikkhipati. Pannarasoti iminā aññaṃ uposathadivasaṃ paṭikkhipati. Divasavasena hi tayo uposathā cātuddasiko pannarasiko sāmaggiuposathoti, evaṃ tayo uposathā vuttā. Tattha hemantagimhavassānānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ utūnaṃ tatiyasattamapakkhesu dve dve katvā cha cātuddasikā, avasesā aṭṭhārasa pannarasikāti evaṃ ekasaṃvacchare catuvīsati uposathā, idaṃ tāva pakaticārittaṃ. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sakiṃ pakkhassa cātuddase vā pannarase vā pātimokkhaṃ uddisitu”nti (mahāva. 136) vacanato pana “āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabba”ntiādivacanato (mahāva. 178) ca tathārūpapaccaye sati aññasmimpi cātuddase uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Purimavassaṃvuṭṭhānaṃ pana pubbakattikapuṇṇamā vā, tesaṃyeva sace bhaṇḍanakārakehi upaddutā pavāraṇaṃ paccukkaḍḍhanti, atha pubbakattikamāsassa kāḷapakkhacātuddaso vā, pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā vā, pacchimavassaṃvuṭṭhānañca pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā evāti ime tayo pavāraṇādivasāpi honti, idampi pakaticārittameva. Tathārūpapaccaye pana sati dvinnaṃ kattikapuṇṇamānaṃ purimesu cātuddasesupi pavāraṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Yadā pana kosambakakkhandhake (mahāva. 451) āgatanayena bhinne saṅghe osārite tasmiṃ bhikkhusmiṃ saṅgho tassa vatthussa vūpasamāya saṅghassa sāmaggiṃ karoti, tadā “tāvadeva uposatho kātabbo, pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba”nti (mahāva. 475) vacanato ṭhapetvā cātuddasapannarase, aññopi yo koci divaso sāmaggiuposathadivaso nāma hoti, purimavassaṃvuṭṭhānaṃ pana kattikamāsabbhantare ayameva sāmaggipavāraṇādivaso nāma hoti. Iti imesu tīsu divasesu “pannaraso”tiiminā aññaṃ uposathadivasaṃ paṭikkhipati. Tasmā yvāyaṃ “ajjuposatho”tivacanena anuposathadivaso paṭikkhitto, tasmiṃ uposatho na kātabboyeva. Yo panāyaṃ añño uposathadivaso, tasmiṃ uposatho kātabbo. Karontena pana sace cātuddasiko hoti, “ajjuposatho cātuddaso”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace pannarasiko hoti, “ajjuposatho pannaraso”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace sāmaggiuposatho hoti, “ajjuposatho sāmaggī”ti vattabbaṃ.

Ajjuposatho means “Today is the uposatha day,” thereby excluding days that are not uposatha days. Pannaraso means “The fifteenth,” thereby excluding other uposatha days. For by means of days, three uposathas are spoken of: the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the sāmaggi uposatha—thus three uposathas are mentioned. Herein, in the three seasons of winter, summer, and rains, taking two each in the third and seventh fortnights, there are six cātuddasika uposathas, and the remaining eighteen are pannarasika uposathas—thus, in one year, there are twenty-four uposathas. This is the normal practice. However, according to the statement “I allow, monks, the Pātimokkha to be recited once a fortnight on the fourteenth or fifteenth” (mahāva. 136) and statements such as “Visitors should conform to the residents” (mahāva. 178), it is permissible to hold an uposatha on another fourteenth when such conditions arise. For those who have completed the earlier rains retreat, it may be the full moon of the earlier Kattika month; or, if they retract the pavāraṇā due to troublemakers, it may be the fourteenth of the dark fortnight of the earlier Kattika month, the full moon of the later Kattika month, or, for those who have completed the later rains retreat, only the full moon of the later Kattika month—these three are pavāraṇā days, and this too is the normal practice. However, when such conditions arise, it is permissible to hold the pavāraṇā on the fourteenth of either of the two Kattika full moons. When, as per the method given in the Kosambaka chapter (mahāva. 451), the Saṅgha, having expelled a monk in a divided community and settled that matter for the sake of harmony, then, according to the statement “The uposatha should be held immediately, and the Pātimokkha recited” (mahāva. 475), any day other than the fourteenth or fifteenth becomes known as the sāmaggiuposathadivaso. For those who have completed the earlier rains retreat, within the Kattika month, this is indeed the sāmaggi pavāraṇā day. Thus, by saying pannaraso among these three days, other uposatha days are excluded. Therefore, when “today is the uposatha” excludes non-uposatha days, the uposatha should not be held on those days at all. But on another uposatha day that is indicated, the uposatha should be held. When doing so, if it is the fourteenth, one should say, “Today is the uposatha, the fourteenth.” If it is the fifteenth, one should say, “Today is the uposatha, the fifteenth.” If it is the sāmaggi uposatha, one should say, “Today is the uposatha, the sāmaggi.”

Ajjuposathoti means today is the Uposatha day, this excludes a non-Uposatha day. Pannarasoti, by this, he excludes another Uposatha day. There are three Uposathas according to the day: the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the harmony Uposatha. Thus, three Uposathas have been mentioned. Among them, during the three seasons of winter, summer, and the rains, there are six cātuddasikā (fourteenth) Uposathas, two in each of the third and seventh fortnights. The remaining eighteen are pannarasikā (fifteenth) Uposathas. Thus, in one year, there are twenty-four Uposathas. This is, indeed, the regular practice. However, due to the statement, “I allow you, monks, to recite the Pātimokkha once a fortnight, either on the fourteenth or the fifteenth” (Mahāva. 136), and also because of the statements like “the visiting monks should follow the resident monks” (Mahāva. 178), when such a situation exists, it is permissible to perform the Uposatha on another fourteenth day as well. The concluding of the first rains retreat is either the full moon of the earlier Kাত্তিকা month, or if those very monks are hindered by quarrelsome ones, they may postpone the Pavāraṇā ceremony, then either the fourteenth day of the dark fortnight of the earlier Kাত্তিকা month, or the full moon of the later Kাত্তিকা month. The concluding of the later rains retreat is only the full moon of the later Kাত্তিকা. These three are also the days of the Pavāraṇā ceremony. This is also the regular practice. When such a situation exists, it is permissible to hold the Pavāraṇā on the fourteenth days of the earlier of the two Kাত্তিকা full moons. When, as stated in the Kosambakakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 451), in a divided Saṅgha, after that monk has been reinstated, the Saṅgha performs harmony for the purification of that matter of the Saṅgha, then, because of the statement “immediately the Uposatha should be performed, the Pātimokkha should be recited” (Mahāva. 475), apart from the fourteenth and fifteenth, any other day becomes what is called the sāmaggiuposathadivasa (harmony Uposatha day). However, for the concluding of the first rains retreat, within the month of Kাত্তিকা, this very day is called the harmony Pavāraṇā day. Thus, among these three days, by the word “pannaraso”, another Uposatha day is excluded. Therefore, whatever non-Uposatha day is excluded by the statement “ajjuposatho”, on that day, the Uposatha should certainly not be performed. But whatever is another Uposatha day, on that day, the Uposatha should be performed. However, when performing it, if it is the fourteenth, one should say, “ajjuposatho cātuddaso”. If it is the fifteenth, one should say, “ajjuposatho pannaraso”. If it is the harmony Uposatha, one should say, “ajjuposatho sāmaggī”.

Ajjuposatho means today is the Uposatha day; by this, the non-Uposatha day is excluded. Pannaraso means by this, other Uposatha days are excluded. For, based on the day, there are three Uposathas: the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the Uposatha of harmony. Thus, three Uposathas are mentioned. Among these, during the three seasons of winter, summer, and the rains, in the third and seventh fortnights, there are six cātuddasikā (fourteenth-day Uposathas), and the remaining eighteen are pannarasikā (fifteenth-day Uposathas). Thus, in one year, there are twenty-four Uposathas. This is the general practice. However, according to the statement, “I allow, monks, to recite the Pātimokkha once a fortnight on the fourteenth or fifteenth day” (Mahāva. 136), and according to the statement, “Resident monks should follow the newcomers” (Mahāva. 178), when such conditions arise, it is permissible to observe the Uposatha on another fourteenth day. Furthermore, for those who have completed the previous rains retreat, if they are harassed by quarrelsome individuals and postpone the Pavāraṇā, then the fourteenth day of the dark fortnight of the first Kattika month, or the full moon of the last Kattika month, or the full moon of the last Kattika month for those who have completed the latter rains retreat—these three are also days for Pavāraṇā. This too is the general practice. However, when such conditions arise, it is permissible to perform the Pavāraṇā on the fourteenth days of the two Kattika months. But when, according to the method described in the Kosambaka Khandhaka (Mahāva. 451), the Sangha is divided and the monk is expelled, and the Sangha reconciles for the sake of harmony, then “the Uposatha should be observed immediately, and the Pātimokkha should be recited” (Mahāva. 475). Apart from the fourteenth and fifteenth days, any other day is called the sāmaggiuposathadivaso (day of harmonious Uposatha). For those who have completed the previous rains retreat, within the Kattika month, this is indeed the day of harmonious Pavāraṇā. Thus, among these three days, by the term “pannaraso,” other Uposatha days are excluded. Therefore, by the term “ajjuposatho,” the non-Uposatha day is excluded, and on that day, the Uposatha should not be observed. However, on another Uposatha day, the Uposatha should be observed. When observing it, if it is the fourteenth-day Uposatha, one should say, “Today is the fourteenth-day Uposatha.” If it is the fifteenth-day Uposatha, one should say, “Today is the fifteenth-day Uposatha.” If it is the harmonious Uposatha, one should say, “Today is the harmonious Uposatha.”

Yadi saṅghassa pattakallanti ettha patto kālo imassa kammassāti pattakālaṃ, pattakālameva pattakallaṃ. Tadetaṃ idha catūhi aṅgehi saṅgahitaṃ. Yathāhu aṭṭhakathācariyā –

Yadi saṅghassa pattakalla means “If the Saṅgha is ready.” Here, “patto kālo” means “the time has come” for this action, and “pattakāla” becomes “pattakalla.” This is encompassed here by four factors. As the commentary teachers have said—

Yadi saṅghassa pattakallanti: here, patto kālo imassa kammassāti pattakālaṃ, pattakālameva pattakallaṃ. This is comprised of four factors here. As the commentators have said:

Yadi saṅghassa pattakalla means here that the time is suitable for this act; the suitable time is indeed the appropriate time. This is here encompassed by four factors. As the commentary teachers have said:

“Uposatho yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattā,
Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjanti;
Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na honti,
’Pattakalla’nti vuccatī”ti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168);

“The Uposatha, as many monks as are eligible for the act, no common offenses exist; and no persons to be excluded are present there, it is called ‘pattakalla’” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168).

“The Uposatha, and as many bhikkhus as are competent for the act, and there are no offenses of the same class; and persons to be excluded are not present in it, it is called ‘Pattakalla’” (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 168);

“The Uposatha, the monks who are eligible for the act, the absence of shared offenses, and the absence of disqualified individuals—this is called ‘suitable’” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 168).

Tattha uposathoti tīsu uposathadivasesu aññatarauposathadivaso. Tasmiñhi sati idaṃ saṅghassa uposathakammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati. Yathāha “na ca, bhikkhave, anuposathe uposatho kātabbo, yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 183).

Herein, uposatho means one of the three uposatha days. When this is present, this action of the Saṅgha, the uposatha, is called “pattakalla”; if it is not present, it is not. As it is said, “Monks, the uposatha should not be held on a non-uposatha day; whoever does so incurs an offense of dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 183).

Here, uposathoti means one of the three Uposatha days. When that exists, this Uposatha act of the Saṅgha is called competent, not when it does not exist. As he said, “And, monks, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day; whoever should do so, incurs an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 183).

Here, uposatho means any one of the three Uposatha days. When this is present, this Uposatha act of the Sangha is called suitable; when it is absent, it is not. As it is said, “Monks, the Uposatha should not be observed on a non-Uposatha day. Whoever does so commits an offense of wrongdoing” (Mahāva. 183).

Yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattāti yattakā bhikkhū tassa uposathakammassa pattā yuttā anurūpā, sabbantimena paricchedena cattāro pakatattā, te ca kho hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ekasīmāyaṃ ṭhitā.

Yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattā means “As many monks as are fit for this uposatha action”—at the very least four normal monks, standing within arm’s reach in one sīmā.

Yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattāti: As many monks as are competent, fit, and suitable for that Uposatha act, at the very least four individuals with full status, and they, without leaving the hand’s reach, are situated within a single boundary.

Yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattā means as many monks as are eligible, suitable, and appropriate for that Uposatha act, with the minimum being four resident monks, and they must be standing within a single boundary without leaving the hand’s reach.

Sīmā ca nāmesā baddhasīmā abaddhasīmāti duvidhā hoti. Tattha ekādasa vipattisīmāyo atikkamitvā tividhasampattiyuttā nimittena nimittaṃ sambandhitvā sammatā sīmā baddhasīmā nāma, “atikhuddakā, atimahatī, khaṇḍanimittā, chāyānimittā, animittā, bahisīme ṭhitā sammatā, nadiyā sammatā, samudde sammatā, jātassare sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā”ti imā hi “ekādasahi ākārehi sīmato kammāni vipajjantī”ti (pari. 486) vacanato ekādasa vipattisīmāyo nāma. Tattha atikhuddakā nāma yattha ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ na sakkonti . Atimahatī nāma yā antamaso kesaggamattenāpi tiyojanaṃ atikkamitvā sammatā. Khaṇḍanimittā nāma aghaṭitanimittā vuccati, puratthimāya disāya nimittaṃ kittetvā anukkameneva dakkhiṇāya pacchimāya uttarāya disāya kittetvā puna puratthimāya disāya pubbakittitaṃ paṭikittetvā ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati, evaṃ akkhaṇḍanimittā hoti. Sace pana anukkamena āharitvā uttarāya disāya nimittaṃ kittetvā tattheva ṭhapeti, khaṇḍanimittā nāma hoti. Aparāpi khaṇḍanimittā nāma yā animittupagaṃ tacasārarukkhaṃ vā khāṇukaṃ vā paṃsupuñjavālukapuñjānaṃ vā aññataraṃ antarā ekaṃ nimittaṃ katvā sammatā. Chāyānimittā nāma pabbatacchāyādīnaṃ yaṃ kiñci chāyaṃ nimittaṃ katvā sammatā. Animittā nāma sabbena sabbaṃ nimittāni akittetvā sammatā. Bahisīme ṭhitasammatā nāma nimittāni kittetvā nimittānaṃ bahiṭhitena sammatā. Nadiyā samudde jātassare sammatā nāma etesu nadiādīsu sammatā. Sā hi evaṃ sammatāpi “sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmā, sabbo samuddo asīmo, sabbo jātassaro asīmo”ti (mahāva. 147) vacanato asammatāva hoti. Sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā nāma attano sīmāya paresaṃ sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā. Sace hi porāṇakassa vihārassa puratthimāya disāya ambo ceva jambū cāti dve rukkhā aññamaññaṃ saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapā honti, tesu ambassa pacchimadisābhāge jambū, vihārasīmā ca jambuṃ anto katvā ambaṃ kittetvā baddhā hoti, atha pacchā tassa vihārassa puratthimāya disāya vihāre kate sīmaṃ bandhantā bhikkhū taṃ ambaṃ anto katvā jambuṃ kittetvā bandhanti, sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhinnā hoti. Sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā nāma attano sīmāya paresaṃ sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā. Sace hi paresaṃ baddhasīmaṃ sakalaṃ vā tassā padesaṃ vā anto katvā attano sīmaṃ sammannati, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharitā nāma hoti. Iti imā ekādasa vipattisīmāyo atikkamitvā sammatā.

This sīmā is of two kinds: baddhasīmā and abaddhasīmā. Herein, a baddhasīmā is a boundary agreed upon by connecting marker to marker, endowed with the threefold accomplishment, having transcended the eleven faulty boundaries. These eleven faulty boundaries are: “too small, too large, with broken markers, with shadow markers, without markers, agreed upon while standing outside the boundary, agreed upon in a river, agreed upon in the sea, agreed upon in a natural lake, agreed upon by overlapping one boundary with another, agreed upon by encroaching on another boundary”—for it is said, “Actions fail due to boundaries in these eleven ways” (pari. 486). Herein, too small means where twenty-one monks cannot sit. Too large means one that exceeds three yojanas even by the tip of a hair. With broken markers refers to unconnected markers; it is proper to designate a marker in the eastern direction, then sequentially in the southern, western, and northern directions, and again in the eastern direction to connect with the first marker—thus it is not broken. But if, after designating a marker in the northern direction sequentially, it is left there, it is called broken. Another broken marker is one agreed upon with an intervening marker such as a tree with a bark core, a stump, or a heap of earth or sand. With shadow markers means agreed upon using the shadow of a mountain or similar as a marker. Without markers means agreed upon without designating any markers at all. Agreed upon while standing outside the boundary means agreed upon by one standing outside the designated markers. Agreed upon in a river, sea, or natural lake means agreed upon in these. Though agreed upon thus, according to the statement “All rivers, monks, are non-boundaries; all seas are non-boundaries; all natural lakes are non-boundaries” (mahāva. 147), it remains unagreed. Agreed upon by overlapping one boundary with another means agreed upon by overlapping another’s boundary with one’s own. For example, if in an old monastery there are a mango tree and a rose-apple tree to the east with intertwined branches, the monastery boundary includes the rose-apple but designates the mango, and later monks building a monastery to the east designate the mango while including the rose-apple, the boundaries overlap. Agreed upon by encroaching on another boundary means agreed upon by encroaching on another’s boundary. If one agrees upon a boundary by including all or part of another’s baddhasīmā within one’s own, it is encroaching. Thus, having transcended these eleven faulty boundaries, it is agreed upon.

And this boundary is twofold: established boundary and unestablished boundary. Among them, having transgressed the eleven defective boundaries, connected by a marker to a marker, and properly established, a boundary is called an baddhasīmā (established boundary). “Extremely small, extremely large, with broken markers, with shadow markers, without markers, established while standing outside the boundary, established in a river, established in the ocean, established in a natural lake, established by joining one boundary with another boundary, established by overlapping one boundary with another boundary” – these are called the eleven defective boundaries, because of the statement, “By eleven ways, the acts of the boundary fail” (Pari. 486). Among them, atikhuddakā (extremely small) is that where twenty-one monks cannot sit. Atimahatī (extremely large) is that which is established exceeding three yojanas, even by a hair’s breadth. Khaṇḍanimittā (with broken markers) is said to be a marker that is not continuous. Having marked the marker in the eastern direction, and successively in the southern, western, and northern directions, again in the eastern direction, having re-marked the previously marked one, it should be established. Thus, it becomes a non-broken marker. But if, having brought them in sequence, and having marked the marker in the northern direction, one establishes it there, it is called a broken marker. Another khaṇḍanimittā (with broken markers) is that which is established by making one marker among any of the following, that are not close to a marker: a tree with inner bark, a stump, a heap of dust, or a heap of sand. Chāyānimittā (with shadow markers) is that which is established by making any shadow of mountain shadows, etc., a marker. Animittā (without markers) is that which is established without marking any markers at all. Bahisīme ṭhitasammatā (established while standing outside the boundary) is that which is established by one standing outside the markers after marking the markers. Nadiyā samudde jātassare sammatā (established in a river, ocean, or natural lake) is that which is established in these rivers, etc. Even though it is thus established, it is not properly established, because of the statement, “All rivers, monks, are unbounded; the entire ocean is unbounded; every natural lake is unbounded” (Mahāva. 147). Sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā (established by joining one boundary with another boundary) is that which is established by joining one’s own boundary with the boundary of others. If, in the eastern direction of an ancient monastery, there are two trees, a mango and a rose-apple, with their branches intertwined, and the rose-apple tree is in the western part of the mango tree, and the monastery boundary is established by including the rose-apple tree and marking the mango tree, and then later, when establishing a monastery in the eastern direction of that monastery, the monks establishing the boundary include that mango tree and mark the rose-apple tree, the boundary is joined with the boundary. Sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā (established by overlapping one boundary with another boundary) is that which is established by overlapping one’s own boundary with the boundary of others. If one establishes one’s own boundary by including the whole or a part of the established boundary of others, it is called overlapping the boundary with the boundary. Thus, these eleven defective boundaries have been transgressed.

The boundary is of two kinds: the baddhasīmā (fixed boundary) and the abaddhasīmā (unfixed boundary). Here, having avoided the eleven faulty boundaries and endowed with the threefold suitability, a boundary marked by connecting one marker to another is called a baddhasīmā. The eleven faulty boundaries are: “too small, too large, with broken markers, with shadow markers, without markers, marked outside the boundary, marked in a river, marked in the ocean, marked in a natural lake, marked by overlapping boundaries, and marked by encroaching boundaries.” These are called the eleven faulty boundaries because they cause the acts to fail (Pari. 486). Here, atikhuddakā means where twenty-one monks cannot sit. Atimahatī means even if it extends beyond three yojanas by a hair’s breadth. Khaṇḍanimittā means unestablished markers. For example, after marking a marker in the eastern direction, then successively marking in the southern, western, and northern directions, and then re-marking the previously marked eastern direction, the boundary is established. If, however, after marking the northern direction, the marker is left there, it is called a broken marker. Another khaṇḍanimittā is when a boundary is marked by taking a tree with bark, a stump, or a pile of sand or gravel as a marker. Chāyānimittā means marking a boundary using the shadow of a mountain or similar as a marker. Animittā means marking a boundary without any markers at all. Bahisīme ṭhitasammatā means marking a boundary while standing outside the markers. Nadiyā samudde jātassare sammatā means marking a boundary in a river, ocean, or natural lake. Even if marked thus, it is not valid, as it is said, “All rivers, monks, are without boundaries; all oceans are without boundaries; all natural lakes are without boundaries” (Mahāva. 147). Sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā means marking a boundary by overlapping another’s boundary. For example, if in an ancient monastery, there are two trees, a mango and a rose-apple, with intertwined branches, and the boundary is marked by including the rose-apple within the monastery boundary and marking the mango, and later, when building a new monastery in the eastern direction, the boundary is marked by including the mango and marking the rose-apple, the boundaries overlap. Sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā means marking a boundary by encompassing another’s boundary. For example, if one marks a boundary by including the entire or part of another’s fixed boundary within one’s own boundary, it is called an encroaching boundary. Thus, having avoided these eleven faulty boundaries, the boundary is established.

Tividhasampattiyuttāti nimittasampattiyā parisāsampattiyā kammavācāsampattiyā ca yuttā. Tattha nimittasampattiyā yuttā nāma pabbatanimittaṃ, pāsāṇanimittaṃ, vananimittaṃ, rukkhanimittaṃ, magganimittaṃ, vammikanimittaṃ, nadinimittaṃ, udakanimittanti evaṃ vuttesu aṭṭhasu nimittesu tasmiṃ tasmiṃ disābhāge yathāladdhāni nimittupagāni nimittāni “puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimittaṃ, pabbato, bhante, eso pabbato nimitta”ntiādinā nayena sammā kittetvā sammatā. Tatrevaṃ saṅkhepato nimittupagatā veditabbā – suddhapaṃsusuddhapāsāṇaubhayamissakavasena hi tividhopi pabbato hatthippamāṇato paṭṭhāya uddhaṃ nimittupago, tato omakataro na vaṭṭati. Pāsāṇanimitte ayoguḷampi pāsāṇasaṅkhameva gacchati, tasmā yo koci pāsāṇo ukkaṃsavasena hatthippamāṇato omakataraṃ ādiṃ katvā heṭṭhimaparicchedena dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍaparimāṇo nimittupago, na tato khuddakataro. Piṭṭhipāsāṇo pana atimahantopi vaṭṭati. Vananimitte antosārehi vā antosāramissakehi vā rukkhehi catupañcarukkhamattampi vanaṃ nimittupagaṃ, tato ūnakataraṃ na vaṭṭati. Rukkho jīvantoyeva antosāro bhūmiyaṃ patiṭṭhito, antamaso ubbedhato aṭṭhaṅgulo, pariṇāhato sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇopi nimittupago, tato omakataro na vaṭṭati. Maggo jaṅghamaggo vā hotu sakaṭamaggo vā, yo vinivijjhitvā dve tīṇi gāmakhettāni gacchati, tādiso jaṅghasatthasakaṭasatthehi valañjiyamānoyeva nimittupago, avalañjito na vaṭṭati. Vammiko pana heṭṭhimaparicchedena taṃdivasaṃjāto aṭṭhaṅgulubbedho govisāṇamattopi vammiko nimittupago, tato omakataro na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ pana abaddhasīmālakkhaṇe nadiṃ vakkhāma, sā nimittupagā, aññā na vaṭṭati. Udakaṃ yaṃ asandamānaṃ āvāṭapokkharaṇītaḷākajātassaraloṇisamuddādīsu ṭhitaṃ, taṃ ādiṃ katvā antamaso taṅkhaṇeyeva pathaviyaṃ khaṇite āvāṭake ghaṭehi āharitvā pūritampi yāva kammavācāpariyosānā saṇṭhamānakaṃ nimittupagaṃ, itaraṃ sandamānaṃ vā vuttaparicchedakālaṃ atiṭṭhantaṃ vā bhājanagataṃ vā na vaṭṭatīti.

Endowed with the threefold accomplishment means endowed with the accomplishment of markers, the accomplishment of the assembly, and the accomplishment of the formal declaration. Herein, endowed with the accomplishment of markers means agreed upon by properly designating markers available in each direction, such as a mountain marker, a rock marker, a forest marker, a tree marker, a path marker, an anthill marker, a river marker, or a water marker, as follows: “What is the marker in the eastern direction? A mountain, venerable sir. This mountain is the marker,” and so forth. These markers should be understood concisely thus: A mountain, whether pure earth, pure rock, or a mix of both, is suitable as a marker if it is at least the size of an elephant upward; smaller than that is not suitable. For a rock marker, even an iron ball counts as a rock, so any rock, starting from smaller than an elephant down to at least the size of a lump of thirty-two palas as the lower limit, is suitable; smaller than that is not. A flat rock, even if very large, is suitable. For a forest marker, a forest with at least four or five trees, either with solid cores or a mix, is suitable; fewer than that is not. A tree, living and with a solid core, rooted in the ground, at least eight fingerbreadths tall and as thick as a needle’s handle, is suitable; smaller than that is not. A path, whether a footpath or cart path, used by travelers and leading through two or three villages or fields, is suitable only if it is in use; an unused one is not. An anthill, at least eight fingerbreadths tall and the size of a cow’s horn, even if formed that day, is suitable as the lower limit; smaller than that is not. The river mentioned later in the context of an abaddhasīmā is suitable; others are not. Water that stands still in pits, lotus ponds, lakes, natural lakes, salt seas, etc., or even water brought in pots and poured into a pit dug in the ground that moment, remaining still until the end of the formal declaration, is suitable; flowing water, water that does not remain for that time, or water in a vessel is not.

Tividhasampattiyuttāti: endowed with the accomplishment of markers, the accomplishment of the assembly, and the accomplishment of the formal declaration. Among them, endowed with the accomplishment of markers means established after properly marking suitable markers, such as a mountain marker, a stone marker, a forest marker, a tree marker, a road marker, an anthill marker, a river marker, and a water marker, among the eight markers thus mentioned, in their respective directions, in the manner “What is the marker in the eastern direction? A mountain, venerable sir. This mountain is the marker”, and so on. In this context, the suitability of markers should be understood in brief as follows: Even a mountain, whether it is purely of dust, purely of stone, or a mixture of both, is suitable as a marker if it is at least the size of an elephant or larger; anything smaller is not permissible. In the case of stone markers, even an iron ball is considered a stone. Therefore, any stone, at its largest the size of an elephant or smaller, and at its smallest the size of a lump of thirty-two palas (a unit of weight), is a suitable marker; anything smaller is not permissible. However, a rock on a ridge, even if very large, is permissible. In the case of forest markers, even a small forest of four or five trees with inner bark or mixed with trees with inner bark is a suitable marker; anything smaller is not permissible. A tree, alive and with inner bark, established on the ground, even if it is only eight fingerbreadths in height and the circumference of a needle’s shaft, is a suitable marker; anything smaller is not permissible. A road, whether it is a footpath or a cart track, that goes through two or three villages or fields, such a road used by foot travelers, carts, and caravans is a suitable marker; an unused road is not permissible. An anthill, at its smallest, even one created on that very day, eight fingerbreadths high, and the size of a cow’s horn, is a suitable marker; anything smaller is not permissible. The river that we will describe in the characteristics of an unestablished boundary is a suitable marker; any other is not permissible. Water, which is not flowing, standing in a pit, pond, tank, natural lake, salt lake, ocean, etc., starting from that, even water brought in pots and poured into a pit dug in the ground at that very moment, as long as it remains stable until the end of the formal declaration, is a suitable marker. Other water, whether flowing, or not remaining for the stated period, or contained in a vessel, is not permissible.

Tividhasampattiyuttā means endowed with the threefold suitability: suitability of markers, suitability of the assembly, and suitability of the motion. Here, nimittasampattiyā yuttā means suitability of markers such as mountain markers, stone markers, forest markers, tree markers, road markers, anthill markers, river markers, and water markers. Among these eight markers, the markers obtained in each direction should be correctly marked, such as, “What is the marker in the eastern direction? A mountain, venerable sir, that mountain is the marker.” Thus, briefly, the markers should be understood as suitable. The pabbato (mountain) is suitable as a marker if it is at least the size of an elephant, and nothing smaller. For pāsāṇanimitta (stone markers), even an iron ball is considered a stone, so any stone that is at least the size of a thirty-two pala ball is suitable, and nothing smaller. A flat stone, however, can be very large. For vananimitta (forest markers), a forest with at least four or five trees with solid trunks is suitable, and nothing smaller. A rukkho (tree) must be alive, with a trunk rooted in the ground, at least eight fingers in circumference, and the size of a needle’s handle, and nothing smaller. A maggo (road) must be a footpath or cart path that passes through two or three villages, and it must be traversed by foot or cart, and nothing smaller. A vammiko (anthill) must be at least eight fingers high and the size of a cow’s horn, and nothing smaller. As for nadi (river), only the river described in the characteristics of an unfixed boundary is suitable, and no other. Udakaṃ (water) must be standing water in a pit, pond, lake, natural lake, or saltwater ocean, and it must be drawn and poured into a pit dug in the ground, and it must remain until the end of the motion. Flowing water or water that has been standing for too long or is in a vessel is not suitable.

Parisāsampattiyā yuttā nāma sabbantimena paricchedena catūhi bhikkhūhi sannipatitvā yāvatikā tasmiṃ gāmakhette baddhasīmaṃ vā nadisamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvā ṭhitā bhikkhū, te sabbe hatthapāse vā katvā chandaṃ vā āharitvā sammatā.

Endowed with the accomplishment of the assembly means agreed upon by at least four monks gathered together, all the monks present in that village field within a baddhasīmā, or in a river, sea, or natural lake without leaving it, either staying within arm’s reach or having their consent brought.

Parisāsampattiyā yuttā (endowed with the accomplishment of the assembly) means established after gathering at least four monks, and as many monks as are residing in that village or field, without encroaching upon an established boundary, river, ocean, or natural lake, either making them all within hand’s reach or having brought their consent.

Parisāsampattiyā yuttā means the assembly is suitable when at least four monks have gathered within a village boundary or a fixed boundary in a river, ocean, or natural lake, and they are all within hand’s reach or have given their consent.

Kammavācāsampattiyā yuttā nāma “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, yāvatā samantā nimittā kittitā”tiādinā (mahāva. 139) nayena vuttāya parisuddhāya ñattidutiyakammavācāya sammatā. Evaṃ ekādasa vipattisīmāyo atikkamitvā tividhasampattiyuttā nimittena nimittaṃ sambandhitvā sammatā sīmā “baddhasīmā”ti veditabbā. Khaṇḍasīmā samānasaṃvāsasīmā avippavāsasīmāti tassāyeva pabhedo.

Endowed with the accomplishment of the formal declaration means agreed upon by a pure ñattidutiyakammavācā stated thus: “Listen to me, venerable sirs, the Saṅgha, as far as the markers have been designated all around” (mahāva. 139). Thus, a sīmā agreed upon by connecting marker to marker, transcending the eleven faulty boundaries and endowed with the threefold accomplishment, should be understood as a baddhasīmā. Its subdivisions are khaṇḍasīmā, samānasaṃvāsasīmā, and avippavāsasīmā.

Kammavācāsampattiyā yuttā (endowed with the accomplishment of the formal declaration) means established by a pure formal declaration with a motion and second, stated in the manner “Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. As far as the markers have been marked all around” (Mahāva. 139), and so on. Thus, a boundary established by transgressing the eleven defective boundaries, endowed with the three accomplishments, and connected by a marker to a marker, should be known as an “established boundary” (baddhasīmā). Khaṇḍasīmā, samānasaṃvāsasīmā, avippavāsasīmā are its sub-divisions.

Kammavācāsampattiyā yuttā means the motion is suitable when it is correctly recited according to the method, “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. As far as the markers have been marked…” (Mahāva. 139). Thus, having avoided the eleven faulty boundaries and endowed with the threefold suitability, a boundary marked by connecting one marker to another is called a baddhasīmā. It is also known as khaṇḍasīmā, samānasaṃvāsasīmā, and avippavāsasīmā.

Abaddhasīmā pana gāmasīmā, sattabbhantarasīmā, udakukkhepasīmāti tividhā. Tattha yāvatā ekaṃ gāmakkhettaṃ, ayaṃ gāmasīmā nāma. Agāmake araññe samantā sattabbhantarā sattabbhantarasīmā nāma. Tattha agāmakaṃ nāma araññaṃ viñjhāṭaviādīsu vā samuddamajjhe vā macchabandhānaṃ agamanapathesu dīpakesu labbhati. Samantā sattabbhantarāti majjhe ṭhitānaṃ sabbadisāsu sattabbhantarā vinibbedhena cuddasa honti. Tattha ekaṃ abbhantaraṃ aṭṭhavīsatihatthappamāṇaṃ hoti, ayañca sīmā parisāvasena vaḍḍhati, tasmā samantā parisāpariyantato paṭṭhāya abbhantaraparicchedo kātabbo. Sace pana dve saṅghā visuṃ uposathaṃ karonti, dvinnaṃ sattabbhantarānaṃ antare aññamekaṃ sattabbhantaraṃ upacāratthāya ṭhapetabbaṃ. Yā panesā “sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmā”tiādinā (mahāva. 147) nayena nadiādīnaṃ sīmabhāvaṃ paṭikkhipitvā puna “nadiyā vā, bhikkhave, samudde vā jātassare vā yaṃ majjhimassa purisassa samantā udakukkhepā, ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā”ti vuttā ayaṃ udakukkhepasīmā nāma. Tattha yassā dhammikānaṃ rājūnaṃ kāle anvaḍḍhamāsaṃ anudasāhaṃ anupañcāhaṃ anatikkamitvā deve vassante valāhakesu vigatamattesu sotaṃ pacchijjati, ayaṃ nadisaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati. Yassā pana īdise suvuṭṭhikāle vassānassa catumāse sotaṃ na pacchijjati, yattha titthena vā atitthena vā sikkhākaraṇīye āgatalakkhaṇena timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādetvā antaravāsakaṃ anukkhipitvā uttarantiyā bhikkhuniyā ekadvaṅgulamattampi antaravāsako temiyati, ayaṃ samuddaṃ vā pavisatu taḷākaṃ vā, pabhavato paṭṭhāya nadī nāma. Samuddo pākaṭoyeva. Yo pana kenaci khaṇitvā akato sayaṃjāto sobbho samantato āgatena udakena pūrito tiṭṭhati, yattha nadiyaṃ vuttappakāre vassakāle udakaṃ santiṭṭhati, ayaṃ jātassaro nāma. Yopi nadiṃ vā samuddaṃ vā bhinditvā nikkhantaudakena khato sobbho etaṃ lakkhaṇaṃ pāpuṇāti, ayampi jātassaroyeva.

An abaddhasīmā is threefold: gāmasīmā, sattabbhantarasīmā, and udakukkhepasīmā. Herein, the extent of a single village field is called a gāmasīmā. In a non-village wilderness, all around seven abbhantaras is a sattabbhantarasīmā. Herein, a non-village wilderness is found in barren lands, dense forests, the middle of the sea, or uninhabited islands unreachable by fishermen. All around seven abbhantaras means fourteen abbhantaras in all directions from the center; one abbhantara equals twenty-eight handspans. This sīmā expands with the assembly, so the abbhantara limit should be measured from the edge of the assembly. If two Saṅghas perform the uposatha separately, an additional seven abbhantaras should be left between their two sets of seven abbhantaras as a buffer. As for that which, having denied the boundary status of rivers and so forth by saying “All rivers, monks, are non-boundaries” (mahāva. 147), is then stated as “In a river, monks, or in the sea, or in a natural lake, the extent that a person of average strength can throw water all around—that is the samānasaṃvāsā and single uposatha there”—this is called an udakukkhepasīmā. Herein, a river whose current stops when rain falls every half month, every ten days, or every five days in the time of righteous kings, when the clouds clear, does not count as a river. But one whose current does not stop during the four months of the rainy season in such a well-rained time, where a nun crossing at a ford or elsewhere, covering the three circles without lifting her inner robe as per the training rule, gets even one or two fingerbreadths of her inner robe wet—this, whether it flows into the sea or a lake, is a river from its source onward. The sea is obvious. A natural depression, not dug by anyone but formed on its own and filled with water flowing in from all around, where water remains during the rainy season as described for a river, is a jātassara. Even a depression dug by breaking off from a river or sea, if it meets this description, is also a jātassara.

Abaddhasīmā (unestablished boundary), however, is threefold: village boundary, seven-abbhantara boundary, and water-cast boundary. Among them, as far as one village field extends, this is called a gāmasīmā (village boundary). In a non-village forest, seven abbhantaras all around is called a sattabbhantarasīmā (seven-abbhantara boundary). Here, agāmakaṃ nāma araññaṃ (a non-village forest) is found in places like the Vindhyā forest, or in the middle of the ocean, or on islands in the paths not frequented by fishermen. Samantā sattabbhantarāti (seven abbhantaras all around) means fourteen in total, counting seven abbhantaras in all directions from the center. Here, one abbhantara is twenty-eight hands in length. And this boundary increases according to the assembly. Therefore, the measurement of the abbhantara should be made from the edge of the assembly all around. But if two Saṅghas perform the Uposatha separately, another seven abbhantaras should be established in between the two seven-abbhantaras for the purpose of the upacāra (surrounding area). But this boundary, having excluded the state of being a boundary for rivers, etc., by the statement “All rivers, monks, are unbounded” (Mahāva. 147), and so on, and then stated, “In a river, monks, or in the ocean, or in a natural lake, the area all around where a man of medium strength can cast water, this is there the same residence and one Uposatha”, this is called the udakukkhepasīmā (water-cast boundary). Here, a river which, during the time of righteous kings, does not cease to flow when the rain clouds are dispersed without exceeding half a month, ten days, or five days, is not considered a river. But one whose flow does not cease during the four months of the rainy season in such a well-rained time, where, with the three circles covering according to the description given in the training rules, and without lifting the inner robe, even one or two fingerbreadths of the inner robe of a nun crossing by a ford or a non-ford gets wet, whether it enters the ocean or a tank, from its source, it is called a nadī (river). Samuddo (ocean) is self-evident. But a hollow that is not dug by anyone, self-formed, and filled with water coming from all around, where water remains during the rainy season as described for a river, this is called a jātassaro (natural lake). Even a hollow dug by diverting water from a river or the ocean, which attains this characteristic, is also a jātassaro.

Abaddhasīmā is of three kinds: village boundary, seven-abbhantara boundary, and water-throwing boundary. Here, the extent of one village field is called gāmasīmā. In a village-less wilderness, the area within seven abbhantaras is called sattabbhantarasīmā. Here, agāmakaṃ nāma araññaṃ means a wilderness without villages, such as a desert or the middle of the ocean, or the paths of fishermen on small islands. Samantā sattabbhantarā means in all directions, seven abbhantaras from the center, making fourteen in total. Here, one abbhantara is twenty-eight hands in length, and this boundary increases with the size of the assembly. Therefore, the boundary should be measured from the edge of the assembly. If two Sanghas are observing the Uposatha separately, an additional abbhantara should be set between the two seven-abbhantara boundaries for the sake of proximity. However, as it is said, “All rivers, monks, are without boundaries” (Mahāva. 147), the boundary of rivers, etc., is excluded, but it is also said, “Monks, in a river, ocean, or natural lake, the area within a water-throw of a middle-sized man is the boundary for shared residence and a single Uposatha” (Mahāva. 147). This is called udakukkhepasīmā. Here, a river that does not dry up during the four months of the rainy season, even if it dries up during other times, is considered a river. The ocean is well-known. A natural lake is a self-formed pond filled with water from all sides. If a river or ocean is breached and the water flows out, the remaining pond is also called a natural lake.

Yaṃ majjhimassa purisassa samantā udakukkhepāti yaṃ ṭhānaṃ thāmamajjhimassa purisassa samantato udakukkhepena paricchinnaṃ, tattha yathā akkhadhuttā dāruguḷaṃ khipanti, evaṃ udakaṃ vā vālukaṃ vā hatthena gahetvā majjhimena purisena sabbathāmena khipitabbaṃ, tattha yattha evaṃ khittaṃ udakaṃ vā vālukaṃ vā patati, ayaṃ udakukkhepo nāma.

Yaṃ majjhimassa purisassa samantā udakukkhepā means “The extent that a person of average strength can throw water all around.” Just as gamblers throw a wooden ball, so a person of average strength should take water or sand in hand and throw it with full effort; where that thrown water or sand falls is called an udakukkhepo.

Yaṃ majjhimassa purisassa samantā udakukkhepāti (the area all around where a man of medium strength can cast water): the place that is delimited all around by the water cast by a man of medium strength and stamina. There, just as gamblers throw a wooden ball, water or sand should be taken in the hand and thrown with full strength by a man of medium stature. Wherever the water or sand thus thrown falls, this is called udakukkhepo (water-cast).

Yaṃ majjhimassa purisassa samantā udakukkhepā means the area within a water-throw of a middle-sized man. Just as gamblers throw dice, so a middle-sized man should throw water or sand with full strength. Where the water or sand falls is called the udakukkhepo (water-throw).

Ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathāti ayaṃ tesu nadiādīsu udakukkhepaparicchinnā sīmā samānasaṃvāsā ceva ekūposathā ca, ayaṃ pana etesaṃ nadiādīnaṃ antoyeva labbhati, na bahi. Tasmā nadiyā vā jātassare vā yattakaṃ padesaṃ pakativassakāle catūsu māsesu udakaṃ ottharati, samudde yasmiṃ padese pakativīciyo ottharitvā saṇṭhahanti, tato paṭṭhāya kappiyabhūmi, tattha ṭhatvā uposathādikammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati . Dubbuṭṭhikāle vā gimhe vā nadijātassaresu sukkhesupi sā eva kappiyabhūmi, sace pana sukkhe jātassare vāpiṃ vā khaṇanti, vappaṃ vā karonti, taṃ ṭhānaṃ gāmakkhettaṃ hoti. Yā panesā “kappiyabhūmī”ti vuttā, tato bahi udakukkhepasīmā na gacchati, antoyeva gacchati, tasmā tesaṃ anto parisāpariyantato paṭṭhāya samantā udakukkhepaparicchedo kātabbo. Sace pana dve saṅghā visuṃ visuṃ uposathādikammaṃ karonti, dvinnaṃ udakukkhepānaṃ antare añño eko udakukkhepo upacāratthāya ṭhapetabbo. Ayañhi sattabbhantarasīmā ca udakukkhepasīmā ca bhikkhūnaṃ ṭhitokāsato paṭṭhāya labbhati. Paricchedabbhantare hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhitopi paricchedato bahi aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopeti, idaṃ sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) sanniṭṭhānaṃ. Evaṃ abaddhasīmā veditabbā. Iti imaṃ baddhasīmābaddhasīmāvasena duvidhaṃ sīmaṃ sandhāyetaṃ vuttaṃ “te ca kho hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ekasīmāyaṃ ṭhitā”ti. Tesu hi catūsu bhikkhūsu ekasīmāyaṃ hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ṭhitesvevetaṃ saṅghassa uposathakammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, na itarathā. Yathāha “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, catunnaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitu”nti (mahāva. 168).

Ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā means “This sīmā, defined by the throwing of water in those rivers and so forth, is both samānasaṃvāsā and a single uposatha.” This is found only within those rivers and so forth, not outside. Thus, in a river or natural lake, the area covered by water during the four months of the normal rainy season, or in the sea, where the normal waves spread and settle, from there onward is permissible ground; it is allowable to perform actions like the uposatha standing there. Even in times of poor rain or summer, when rivers and natural lakes dry up, that remains permissible ground. But if a well or irrigation channel is dug in a dried-up natural lake, that place becomes a village field. What is called “permissible ground” does not extend beyond that into the udakukkhepasīmā but applies only within it. Thus, the limit of the udakukkhepo should be measured from the edge of the assembly within it. If two Saṅghas perform uposatha or other actions separately, an additional udakukkhepo should be left between their two udakukkhepos as a buffer. Both the sattabbhantarasīmā and udakukkhepasīmā are measured from where the monks stand. Even one standing outside arm’s reach within the limit, or outside the limit but not exceeding that same measure, disrupts the action—this is the conclusion in all commentaries (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147). Thus, an abaddhasīmā should be understood. Accordingly, referring to this twofold sīmā—baddhasīmā and abaddhasīmā—it is said, “They stand in one sīmā without leaving arm’s reach.” For among these four monks, only when they stand in one sīmā without leaving arm’s reach is this Saṅgha action, the uposatha, called “pattakalla,” not otherwise. As it is said, “I allow, monks, the Pātimokkha to be recited by four” (mahāva. 168).

Ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathāti (this is there the same residence and one Uposatha): this boundary delimited by the water-cast in these rivers, etc., is both the same residence and one Uposatha. But this is found only within these rivers, etc., not outside. Therefore, in a river or a natural lake, as far as the water spreads during the four months of the normal rainy season, and in the ocean, the place where the normal waves spread and settle, from that point onwards is suitable ground. Standing there, it is permissible to perform the Uposatha and other acts. Even during times of drought or in the summer, when the rivers and natural lakes are dry, that same ground is suitable. But if, in a dry natural lake, they dig a well or cultivate a field, that place becomes a village field. But this “suitable ground” that has been mentioned, the water-cast boundary does not extend beyond that; it extends only within. Therefore, within them, the measurement of the water-cast should be made all around from the edge of the assembly. But if two Saṅghas perform the Uposatha act separately, another water-cast should be established in between the two water-casts for the purpose of the upacāra (surrounding area). Indeed, this seven-abbhantara boundary and the water-cast boundary are obtained from the place where the monks are standing. Even one who has left the hand’s reach within the boundary, but is standing outside the boundary without exceeding the same measurement, disrupts the act. This is the conclusion in all the commentaries (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 147). Thus, the abaddhasīmā (unestablished boundary) should be understood. Thus, referring to this twofold boundary, established and unestablished, it has been said, “and they, without leaving the hand’s reach, are situated within a single boundary”. Indeed, among these four monks, only when they are situated within a single boundary without leaving the hand’s reach, is this Uposatha act of the Saṅgha called competent, not otherwise. As he said, “I allow, monks, the recitation of the Pātimokkha for four” (Mahāva. 168).

Ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā means this boundary marked by a water-throw in rivers, etc., is for shared residence and a single Uposatha. However, this boundary is only within the river, etc., and not outside. Therefore, in a river or natural lake, the area covered by water during the four months of the rainy season, or in the ocean, the area where the waves reach, is the allowable area. Standing there, it is permissible to perform the Uposatha and other acts. During a drought or summer, even if the river or natural lake dries up, the same allowable area remains. If, however, in a dry natural lake, they dig a well or cultivate the land, that place becomes a village field. The kappiyabhūmī (allowable area) does not extend beyond the water-throw boundary; it is only within. Therefore, the boundary should be measured from the edge of the assembly. If two Sanghas are performing the Uposatha and other acts separately, an additional water-throw should be set between the two water-throws for the sake of proximity. This seven-abbhantara boundary and water-throw boundary are determined based on where the monks are standing. If a monk stands outside the boundary, even if he is within the same distance, he disrupts the act. This is the conclusion in all the commentaries (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147). Thus, the abaddhasīmā should be understood. Therefore, it is said, “They must stand within a single boundary without leaving hand’s reach.” For, when these four monks are standing within a single boundary without leaving hand’s reach, the Uposatha act of the Sangha is called suitable; otherwise, it is not. As it is said, “I allow, monks, four to recite the Pātimokkha” (Mahāva. 168).

Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjantīti ettha yaṃ sabbo saṅgho vikālabhojanādinā sabhāgavatthunā lahukāpattiṃ āpajjati, evarūpā vatthusabhāgā “sabhāgā”ti vuccati, vikālabhojanapaccayā āpannaṃ pana āpattisabhāgaṃ anatirittabhojanapaccayā āpannassa santike desetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sabhāgāpattiyā pana sati tehi bhikkhūhi eko bhikkhu sāmantā āvāsā sajjukaṃ pāhetabbo “gacchāvuso, taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikaritvā āgaccha, mayaṃ te santike āpattiṃ paṭikarissāmā”ti, evañcetaṃ labhetha, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ, no ce labhetha, byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ sabbo saṅgho sabhāgaṃ āpattiṃ āpanno, yadā aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ suddhaṃ anāpattikaṃ passissati, tadā tassa santike taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissatī”ti (mahāva. 171) vatvā uposatho kātabbo. Sace pana vematiko hoti, “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ sabbo saṅgho sabhāgāya āpattiyā vematiko, yadā nibbematiko bhavissati, tadā taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissatī”ti vatvā uposatho kātabbo. Sace panettha koci taṃ sabhāgaṃ āpattiṃ desetuṃ vaṭṭatīti maññamāno ekassa santike deseti, desitā sudesitāva. Aññaṃ pana desanāpaccayā desako, paṭiggahaṇapaccayā paṭiggāhako cāti ubhopi dukkaṭaṃ āpajjanti, taṃ nānāvatthukaṃ hoti, tasmā aññamaññaṃ desetabbaṃ . Ettāvatā te dve nirāpattikā honti, tesaṃ santike sesehi sabhāgāpattiyo desetabbā vā ārocetabbā vā. Sace te evaṃ akatvā uposathaṃ karonti, “pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocethā”tiādinā (mahāva. 134) nayena sāpattikassa uposathakaraṇe paññattaṃ dukkaṭaṃ āpajjanti. Sace sabbo saṅgho sabhāgāpattiyā sati vuttavidhiṃ akatvā uposathaṃ karoti, vuttanayeneva sabbo saṅgho āpattiṃ āpajjati, tasmā sabhāgāpattiyā sati saṅghassa pattakallaṃ nāma na hoti, tena vuttaṃ “sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjantī”ti. Etāsu hi sabhāgāpattīsu avijjamānāsu visabhāgāpattīsu vijjamānāsupi pattakallaṃ hotiyeva.

Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjanti means “And there are no common offenses.” Here, when the entire Saṅgha commits a minor offense with a common basis, such as eating at the wrong time, such an offense based on a common object is called sabhāgā. An offense committed due to eating at the wrong time may be confessed in the presence of one who committed an offense due to not eating beyond what is offered. But when there is a common offense, those monks should quickly send one monk to a neighboring monastery, saying, “Go, friend, rectify that offense and return; we will rectify the offense in your presence.” If this can be done, it is good. If not, a skilled and competent monk should inform the Saṅgha: “Listen to me, venerable sirs, the Saṅgha. This entire Saṅgha has committed a common offense. When it sees another monk who is pure and free from offense, it will rectify that offense in his presence” (mahāva. 171). Then the uposatha may be held. If there is doubt, it should be said, “Listen to me, venerable sirs, the Saṅgha. This entire Saṅgha is doubtful about a common offense. When it becomes free from doubt, it will rectify that offense,” and the uposatha may be held. If someone here, thinking it permissible to confess a common offense, confesses in the presence of one, it is well confessed. But both the confessor, due to confessing, and the recipient, due to receiving, incur a dukkaṭa offense, and this is based on different objects, so they should confess to each other. By doing so, those two become free from offense, and the rest should confess or declare their common offenses in their presence. If they perform the uposatha without doing this, they incur the dukkaṭa offense prescribed for performing the uposatha while still at fault, as per “Venerables, declare your purity” and so forth (mahāva. 134). If the entire Saṅgha, when there is a common offense, performs the uposatha without following this procedure, the whole Saṅgha incurs an offense as stated. Thus, when there is a common offense, the Saṅgha is not “pattakalla.” Hence it is said, “And there are no common offenses.” For when these common offenses are absent, even if dissimilar offenses are present, it remains “pattakalla.”

Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjantīti (and shared offenses are not present): here, when the whole Saṅgha falls into a minor offense with a shared object, such as eating at the wrong time, such offenses with a shared object are called “sabhāgā” (shared). However, it is permissible to confess an offense incurred due to eating at the wrong time in the presence of one who has incurred an offense due to eating more than the allowed amount. But when there is a shared offense, these monks should quickly send one monk to a nearby monastery, saying, “Go, friend, having rectified that offense, come back. We will rectify the offense in your presence.” If this is obtained, it is good. If it is not obtained, a capable and competent monk should inform the Saṅgha, “Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. This entire Saṅgha has incurred a shared offense. When it sees another monk who is pure and without offense, then in his presence, it will rectify that offense” (Mahāva. 171). Having said this, the Uposatha should be performed. But if one is doubtful, one should say, “Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. This entire Saṅgha is doubtful about a shared offense. When it becomes free from doubt, then it will rectify that offense.” Having said this, the Uposatha should be performed. But if someone here, thinking that it is permissible to confess that shared offense, confesses it in the presence of one person, it is well confessed. However, due to the confession, the confessor, and due to the acceptance, the receiver, both incur an offense of wrong-doing. That is of a different object. Therefore, they should confess to each other. By this much, those two become free from offense. In their presence, the remaining monks should confess or declare their shared offenses. If they perform the Uposatha without doing this, they incur the offense of wrong-doing prescribed for performing the Uposatha with an offense, in the manner “Declare your purity, venerable sirs” (Mahāva. 134), and so on. If the whole Saṅgha, when there is a shared offense, performs the Uposatha without following the stated procedure, the whole Saṅgha incurs the offense in the stated manner. Therefore, when there is a shared offense, the Saṅgha is not called competent. Therefore, it has been said, “and shared offenses are not present”. Indeed, when these shared offenses are not present, even if unshared offenses are present, it is still competent.

Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjantī means here that if the entire Sangha commits a light offense such as eating at the wrong time, such offenses are called sabhāgā (shared offenses). An offense committed due to eating at the wrong time can be confessed to one who has committed a similar offense due to eating at an improper time. If there are shared offenses, a monk should be sent quickly to a nearby residence, saying, “Go, friend, confess that offense and return. We will confess the offense in your presence.” If this is possible, it is good. If not, a competent monk should inform the Sangha, saying, “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. The entire Sangha has committed a shared offense. When we see another monk who is pure and free from offenses, we will confess the offense in his presence” (Mahāva. 171). Then the Uposatha should be observed. If there is doubt, one should say, “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. The entire Sangha is in doubt regarding a shared offense. When we are free from doubt, we will confess the offense.” Then the Uposatha should be observed. If someone thinks that he can confess the shared offense to one person and confesses it, it is well confessed. However, the confessor and the receiver both commit an offense of wrongdoing. This is a separate matter. Therefore, they should confess to each other. Thus, these two become free from offenses. In their presence, the remaining shared offenses should be confessed or reported. If they do not do this and observe the Uposatha, they commit the offense of wrongdoing prescribed for observing the Uposatha with offenses, as stated, “Venerable ones, declare your purity” (Mahāva. 134). If the entire Sangha, having committed a shared offense, observes the Uposatha without following the prescribed procedure, the entire Sangha commits the offense. Therefore, when there are shared offenses, the Sangha’s act is not called suitable. Hence, it is said, “There are no shared offenses.” For, when these shared offenses are absent, even if there are unshared offenses, the act is still suitable.

Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na hontīti “na, bhikkhave, sagahaṭṭhāya parisāya pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbaṃ, yo uddiseyya āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (mahāva. 154) vacanato gahaṭṭho, “na, bhikkhave, bhikkhuniyā nisinnaparisāya pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba”ntiādinā (mahāva. 183) nayena vuttā bhikkhunī, sikkhamānā, sāmaṇero, sāmaṇerī, sikkhāpaccakkhātako, antimavatthuajjhāpannako, āpattiyā adassane ukkhittako, āpattiyā appaṭikamme ukkhittako, pāpikāya diṭṭhiyā appaṭinissagge ukkhittako, paṇḍako, theyyasaṃvāsako, titthiyapakkantako, tiracchānagato, mātughātako, pitughātako arahantaghātako, bhikkhunidūsako, saṅghabhedako, lohituppādako, ubhatobyañjanakoti ime vīsati cāti ekavīsati puggalā vajjanīyā nāma, te hatthapāsato bahikaraṇavasena vajjetabbā. Etesu hi tividhe ukkhittake sati uposathaṃ karonto saṅgho pācittiyaṃ āpajjati, sesesu dukkaṭaṃ. Ettha ca tiracchānagatoti yassa upasampadā paṭikkhittā, titthiyā gahaṭṭheneva saṅgahitā. Etepi hi vajjanīyā nāma. Evaṃ pattakallaṃ imehi catūhi aṅgehi saṅgahitanti veditabbaṃ.

Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na hontī means “And there are no persons to be excluded there.” According to the statement “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly including laypeople; whoever recites it incurs an offense of dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 154), a layperson; and according to the statement “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly where a bhikkhunī is seated” and so forth (mahāva. 183), a bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, a sāmaṇerī, one who has abandoned the training, one who has committed the final act, one expelled for not seeing an offense, one expelled for not making amends for an offense, one expelled for not relinquishing an evil view, a paṇḍaka, a theyyasaṃvāsaka, one who has gone over to another sect, an animal, a matricide, a patricide, an arahant-killer, a bhikkhunī-defiler, a saṅghabhedaka, one who sheds a Tathāgata’s blood, and a hermaphrodite—these twenty, or rather twenty-one, individuals are called vajjanīyā. They are to be excluded by being kept outside arm’s reach. For when any of the three types of expelled persons are present, a Saṅgha performing the uposatha incurs a pācittiya offense; with the others, it incurs a dukkaṭa. Here, tiracchānagato refers to one whose ordination is prohibited; sectarians are included as laypeople. These too are vajjanīyā. Thus, it should be understood that “pattakalla” is encompassed by these four factors.

Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na hontīti means, “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly that includes a householder. Whoever recites it [in such an assembly] commits an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāvagga 154). Therefore, a householder; and as stated, “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly where bhikkhunīs are sitting” (Mahāvagga 183) and so on, a bhikkhunī, a probationer (sikkhamānā), a male novice (sāmaṇera), a female novice (sāmaṇerī), one who has renounced the training (sikkhāpaccakkhātako), one who has committed a final offense (antimavatthuajjhāpannako), one suspended for not seeing an offense (āpattiyā adassane ukkhittako), one suspended for not redressing an offense (āpattiyā appaṭikamme ukkhittako), one suspended for not renouncing a wrong view (pāpikāya diṭṭhiyā appaṭinissagge ukkhittako), a eunuch (paṇḍako), one who lives in communion with a thief (theyyasaṃvāsako), one who has gone over to another sect (titthiyapakkantako), one who has become an animal (tiracchānagato), a matricide (mātughātako), a patricide (pitughātako), an arahant slayer (arahantaghātako), a bhikkhunī-molester (bhikkhunidūsako), a schismatic (saṅghabhedako), one who causes a Buddha to bleed (lohitupādako), a hermaphrodite (ubhatobyañjanaka) – these twenty-one individuals are called those to be excluded (vajjanīyā), meaning they should be excluded by removing them from the hand’s reach (hatthapāsa). Indeed, when any of the three types of suspended persons are present, the Saṅgha performing the Uposatha commits a pācittiya offense; with the others, a dukkaṭa offense. Here, tiracchānagato (one who has become an animal) means one whose full ordination is prohibited, and who is included with householders and sectarians. These, too, are called those to be excluded (vajjanīyā). Thus, it should be understood that being ready (pattakallaṃ) is comprised of these four factors.

And individuals who are to be avoided are not present there—this means, as stated in the phrase, “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly where a layperson is present. If one recites it, there is an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāva. 154), a layperson is to be avoided. Similarly, as stated in the phrase, “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly where a bhikkhunī is seated” (Mahāva. 183), a bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, a sāmaṇerī, one who has renounced the training, one who has committed a grave offense, one who has been suspended for not acknowledging an offense, one who has been suspended for not making amends for an offense, one who has been suspended for not relinquishing a wrong view, a paṇḍaka, one who has falsely joined the Saṅgha, one who has gone over to another sect, an animal, a matricide, a patricide, an arhat-slayer, one who has violated a bhikkhunī, one who has caused a schism in the Saṅgha, one who has shed the blood of a Tathāgata, and a hermaphrodite—these twenty or twenty-one individuals are to be avoided. They should be avoided by keeping them outside arm’s reach. For if any of the three types of suspended individuals are present, the Saṅgha commits a pācittiya offense by performing the Uposatha. In the case of the others, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Here, an animal refers to one whose ordination has been rejected, and sectarians are included under laypersons. These too are to be avoided. Thus, it should be understood that the assembly is properly constituted when these four factors are present.

Saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyyātiiminā ye te aparepi tayo uposathā saṅghe uposatho, gaṇe uposatho, puggale uposathoti, evaṃ kārakavasena tayo uposathā vuttā, tesu itare dve paṭikkhipitvā saṅghe uposathameva dīpeti. Pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyātiiminā ye te aparepi tayo uposathā suttuddeso, pārisuddhiuposatho, adhiṭṭhānauposathoti, evaṃ kattabbākāravasena tayo uposathā vuttā, tesu itare dve paṭikkhipitvā suttuddesameva dīpeti. Suttuddeso nāma pātimokkhuddeso vuccati, so duvidho ovādapātimokkhuddeso ca āṇāpātimokkhuddeso ca. Tattha

Saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyyā means “The Saṅgha should perform the uposatha.” By this, among the other three uposathas spoken of in terms of performers—the uposatha of the Saṅgha, the uposatha of a group, and the uposatha of an individual—the other two are excluded, and only the uposatha of the Saṅgha is indicated. Pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyā means “It should recite the Pātimokkha.” By this, among the other three uposathas spoken of in terms of actions to be done—the recitation of the text, the pārisuddhi uposatha, and the adhiṭṭhāna uposatha—the other two are excluded, and only the recitation of the text is indicated. Suttuddeso refers to the recitation of the Pātimokkha, which is twofold: the ovādapātimokkha recitation and the āṇāpātimokkha recitation. Herein,

Saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyyāti (The Saṅgha should perform the Uposatha) – with this, among the other three Uposathas that are mentioned, namely, the Saṅgha Uposatha, the group (gaṇa) Uposatha, and the individual (puggala) Uposatha, thus three Uposathas are mentioned based on the doer. Among these, excluding the other two, it emphasizes only the Saṅgha Uposatha. Pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyāti (should recite the Pātimokkha) – with this, among the other three Uposathas that are mentioned, namely, the recitation of the discourse (suttuddesa), the Uposatha of purity declaration (pārisuddhiuposatha), and the Uposatha of determination (adhiṭṭhānauposatha), thus three Uposathas are mentioned based on the manner of performance. Among these, excluding the other two, it emphasizes only the recitation of the discourse (suttuddesa). Suttuddeso (recitation of the discourse) is what is called the recitation of the Pātimokkha (pātimokkhuddeso), and it is of two kinds: the recitation of the Pātimokkha of exhortation (ovādapātimokkhuddeso) and the recitation of the Pātimokkha of command (āṇāpātimokkhuddeso). Of these:

The Saṅgha should perform the Uposatha—by this, the other three types of Uposatha are indicated: the Saṅgha Uposatha, the group Uposatha, and the individual Uposatha. Among these, the other two are excluded, and only the Saṅgha Uposatha is highlighted. The Pātimokkha should be recited—by this, the other three types of Uposatha are indicated: the sutta recitation, the purity Uposatha, and the determination Uposatha. Among these, the other two are excluded, and only the sutta recitation is highlighted. Sutta recitation refers to the recitation of the Pātimokkha, which is of two kinds: the exhortation Pātimokkha and the command Pātimokkha. In this regard,

“Khantī paramaṃ tapo titikkhā…pe….” (Forbearance is the highest austerity, Nibbāna…)

“Anūpavādo anūpaghāto”ti. (Dī. Ni. 2.90; Dhp. 184, 183, 185) (Not disparaging, not harming…)

Ādinā nayena vuttā tisso gāthāyo ovādapātimokkhaṃ nāma, taṃ buddhā eva uddisanti, na sāvakā. “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho”tiādinā (mahāva. 134) nayena vuttaṃ āṇāpātimokkhaṃ nāma, taṃ sāvakā eva uddisanti, na buddhā. Idameva ca imasmiṃ atthe “pātimokkha”nti adhippetaṃ.

The three verses stated in this manner are called the ovādapātimokkha. These are recited only by Buddhas, not by disciples. That which is stated beginning with “Listen to me, venerable sirs, the Saṅgha” and so forth (mahāva. 134) is called the āṇāpātimokkha. This is recited only by disciples, not by Buddhas. It is this that is intended here by “Pātimokkha” in this context.

The three verses stated in this manner are called ovādapātimokkhaṃ (Pātimokkha of exhortation). Only Buddhas recite this, not disciples. The āṇāpātimokkhaṃ (Pātimokkha of command), stated in the manner beginning with, “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho” (Mahāvagga 134) (May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me), is recited only by disciples, not by Buddhas. And it is this that is meant by “Pātimokkha” in this context.

These three verses, beginning in this way, are called the exhortation Pātimokkha, which only the Buddhas recite, not the disciples. The phrase, “Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha listen to me…” (Mahāva. 134), is called the command Pātimokkha, which only the disciples recite, not the Buddhas. This is what is meant by “Pātimokkha” in this context.

Ye pana itare dve uposathā, tesu pārisuddhiuposatho tāva aññesañca santike, aññamaññañca ārocanavasena duvidho. Tattha yvāyaṃ aññesaṃ santike karīyati, sopi pavāritānañca appavāritānañca santike karaṇavasena duvidho. Tattha mahāpavāraṇāya pavāritānaṃ santike pacchimikāya upagatena vā anupagatena vā chinnavassena vā cātumāsiniyaṃ pana pavāritānaṃ santike purimikāya upagatena vā anupagatena vā chinnavassena vā kāyasāmaggiṃ datvā “parisuddho ahaṃ, bhante, ’parisuddho’ti maṃ dhārethā”ti tikkhattuṃ vatvā kātabbo, ṭhapetvā ca pana pavāraṇādivasaṃ aññasmiṃ kāle āvāsikehi uddiṭṭhamatte pātimokkhe avuṭṭhitāya vā ekaccāya vuṭṭhitāya vā sabbāya vā vuṭṭhitāya parisāya ye aññe samasamā vā thokatarā vā āgacchanti, tehi tesaṃ santike vuttanayeneva pārisuddhi ārocetabbā. Yo panāyaṃ aññamaññaṃ ārocanavasena karīyati, so ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā ca aṭṭhapetvā ca karaṇavasena duvidho. Tattha yasmiṃ āvāse tayo bhikkhū viharanti, tesu uposathadivase sannipatitesu ekena bhikkhunā “suṇantu me āyasmantā ajjuposatho cātuddaso”ti vā “pannaraso”ti vā vatvā “yadāyasmantānaṃ pattakallaṃ mayaṃ aññamaññaṃ pārisuddhiuposathaṃ kareyyāmā”ti ñattiyā ṭhapitāya therena bhikkhunā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā “parisuddho ahaṃ, āvuso, ’parisuddho’ti maṃ dhārethā”ti (mahāva. 168) tikkhattuṃ vattabbaṃ. Itarehi “bhante”ti vatvā evameva vattabbaṃ. Evaṃ ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā kātabbo. Yattha pana dve bhikkhū viharanti, tatra ñattiṃ aṭṭhapetvā vuttanayeneva pārisuddhi ārocetabbāti ayaṃ pārisuddhiuposatho.

As for the other two uposathas, the pārisuddhiuposatha is twofold: performed in the presence of others and among one another. That which is performed in the presence of others is also twofold: in the presence of those who have performed pavāraṇā and those who have not. Herein, in the presence of those who have performed pavāraṇā at the great pavāraṇā, whether approached or not approached by one who has completed the rains retreat during the later period, or in the presence of those who have performed pavāraṇā during the four months but approached or not approached by one who has completed the rains retreat during the earlier period, it is to be done by giving physical presence and saying three times, “I am pure, venerable sirs, hold me as ‘pure.’” Except on the pavāraṇā day, at another time, when the resident monks have merely recited the Pātimokkha and some or all of the assembly have left or not left, if others arrive who are equal or fewer in number, they should declare pārisuddhi in their presence in the manner stated. That which is performed among one another is also twofold: with or without setting forth a motion. Where three monks dwell in a residence, when they gather on the uposatha day, one monk should say, “Listen to me, venerables, today is the uposatha, the fourteenth” or “the fifteenth,” and then, “When it is suitable for the venerables, we should perform the pārisuddhi uposatha among ourselves.” Having set forth this motion, the senior monk, arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, squatting, and raising his hands in añjali, should say three times, “I am pure, friends, hold me as ‘pure’” (mahāva. 168). The others should say “venerable sir” and do likewise. Thus, it is done with a motion. Where two monks dwell, without setting forth a motion, pārisuddhi should be declared in the manner stated—this is the pārisuddhiuposatha.

As for the other two Uposathas, pārisuddhiuposatho (Uposatha of purity declaration) is of two kinds: declaring it in the presence of others, and declaring it to each other. Of these, that which is done in the presence of others is also of two kinds: done in the presence of those who have given the invitation (pavāritā) and those who have not given the invitation (appavāritā). In that context, in the presence of those who have given the invitation for the Mahāpavāraṇā, whether one has arrived on the last day or not, or has completed the rains retreat or not, or on the four-month Pavāraṇā, in the presence of those who have given the invitation, whether one has arrived on the first day or not, or has completed the rains retreat or not, giving bodily agreement (kāyasāmaggiṃ), one should say three times, “I am pure, venerable sirs, consider me as pure,” and it should be done. But apart from the day of Pavāraṇā and so on, at another time, when the Pātimokkha has just been recited by the resident monks, whether the assembly has not yet risen, or some have risen, or all have risen, those others who arrive, being equal or slightly fewer, should declare their purity in their presence in the manner stated. But that which is done by declaring to each other is of two kinds: done with a motion (ñatti) being established and without a motion being established. Of these, in a dwelling where three monks are residing, when they have assembled on the Uposatha day, one monk should say, “May the venerable sirs listen to me, today is the fourteenth” or “fifteenth” day of the Uposatha. Saying “If it is agreeable to the venerable sirs, we will perform the Uposatha of purity declaration to each other”, when a motion has been established, the elder monk, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, sitting in a squatting posture, and raising his joined hands, should say three times, “I am pure, friends, consider me as pure” (Mahāvagga 168). The others, saying “Venerable sir,” should say the same. Thus, it should be done with a motion established. But where two monks are residing, without establishing a motion, purity should be declared in the manner stated. This is the pārisuddhiuposatho (Uposatha of purity declaration).

As for the other two Uposathas, first, the purity Uposatha is of two kinds: declaring purity in the presence of others and mutually declaring purity. The first kind, declaring purity in the presence of others, is further of two kinds: declaring purity in the presence of those who have completed the Pavāraṇā and those who have not. For those who have completed the Pavāraṇā, whether they have arrived at the final stage or not, or whether they have broken the rains residence, and for those who have completed the Pavāraṇā during the four-month period, whether they have arrived at the initial stage or not, or whether they have broken the rains residence, one should physically approach them and say three times, “Venerable sir, I am pure. Please remember me as pure.” Except on the day of the Pavāraṇā, at other times, when the Pātimokkha has been recited by the resident monks, if some or all of the assembly have not left, and others of equal or lesser number arrive, they should declare their purity to them in the same manner. The second kind, mutually declaring purity, is of two kinds: with or without a formal motion. In a residence where three monks reside, on the Uposatha day, after gathering, one monk should say, “Venerable sirs, today is the Uposatha, the fourteenth or fifteenth day.” After making the motion, the senior monk should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, sit on his heels, raise his joined palms, and say three times, “I am pure, venerable sirs. Please remember me as pure.” The others should respond, “Venerable sir,” and do the same. This is how it is done with a formal motion. In a residence where two monks reside, the purity should be declared without a formal motion in the same manner. This is the purity Uposatha.

Sace pana ekova bhikkhu hoti, sabbaṃ pubbakaraṇīyaṃ katvā aññesaṃ anāgamanaṃ ñatvā “ajja me uposatho cātuddaso”ti vā “pannaraso”ti vā vatvā “adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vattabbaṃ. Ayaṃ adhiṭṭhānuposathoti evaṃ kattabbākāravasena tayo uposathāti veditabbā. Ettāvatā nava uposathā dīpitā honti. Tesu divasavasena pannarasiko, kārakavasena saṅghuposatho, kattabbākāravasena suttuddesoti evaṃ tilakkhaṇasampanno uposatho idha niddiṭṭhoti veditabbo. Tasmiṃ pavattamāne uposathaṃ akatvā tadahuposathe aññaṃ abhikkhukaṃ nānāsaṃvāsakehi vā sabhikkhukaṃ āvāsaṃ vā anāvāsaṃ vā vāsatthāya aññatra saṅghena, aññatra antarāyā gacchantassa dukkaṭaṃ hoti.

If there is only one monk, after performing all preliminary duties and knowing that no others have come, he should say, “Today is my uposatha, the fourteenth” or “the fifteenth,” and then, “I resolve it.” This is the adhiṭṭhānuposatho. Thus, it should be understood that there are three uposathas in terms of actions to be done. By this, nine uposathas are indicated. Among them, the fifteenth by day, the Saṅgha uposatha by performer, and the recitation of the text by action to be done—thus, an uposatha endowed with these three characteristics is specified here. While it is being performed, one who does not perform the uposatha and on that uposatha day goes elsewhere—to a place without monks, or with monks of a different communion, or to a residence or non-residence—for the sake of dwelling, except with the Saṅgha or due to an obstacle, incurs a dukkaṭa.

But if there is only one monk, having done all the preliminary duties, knowing that others have not come, saying “Today is my fourteenth” or “fifteenth” day of the Uposatha, he should say, “I determine (adhiṭṭhāmī).” This is the adhiṭṭhānuposatho (Uposatha of determination). Thus, the three Uposathas based on the manner of performance should be understood. In this way, nine Uposathas are explained. Among these, it should be understood that the Uposatha endowed with three characteristics is indicated here: the fifteenth day based on the day, the Saṅgha Uposatha based on the doer, and the recitation of the discourse (suttuddesa) based on the manner of performance. When it is being performed, without having performed the Uposatha, on that Uposatha day, going elsewhere, except with the Saṅgha, except in case of danger, to a dwelling or non-dwelling with monks of different affiliation or with monks, for the purpose of residing, incurs a dukkaṭa offense.

If there is only one monk, after completing all the preliminary duties and knowing that others will not come, he should say, “Today is my Uposatha, the fourteenth or fifteenth day,” and then say, “I determine it.” This is the determination Uposatha. Thus, the three Uposathas are to be understood in terms of their manner of performance. In this way, nine Uposathas have been explained. Among these, the Uposatha characterized by the three features—the fifteenth day, the Saṅgha Uposatha, and the sutta recitation—is what is described here. If one does not perform the Uposatha on that day and goes to another monastery with or without monks, or to a non-monastery, except with the Saṅgha or due to an obstacle, one commits a dukkaṭa offense.

Kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakiccanti “saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyyā”ti evaṃ uposathakaraṇasambandheneva vuttassa saṅghassa uposathe kattabbe yaṃ taṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, uposathāgāraṃ sammajjitu”ntiādinā (mahāva. 159) nayena pāḷiyaṃ āgataṃ, aṭṭhakathāsu ca –

Kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakicca means “What is the preliminary duty of the Saṅgha?” Connected to the statement “The Saṅgha should perform the uposatha” (mahāva. 134), for the Saṅgha that is to perform the uposatha, that which is stated in the text as “I allow, monks, the uposatha hall to be swept” and so forth (mahāva. 159), and in the commentaries as—

Kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakiccanti (What is the preliminary duty of the Saṅgha?) “The Saṅgha should perform the Uposatha” – thus, in connection with the performance of the Uposatha, that which is to be done by the Saṅgha in performing the Uposatha, as stated in the Pāḷi in the manner beginning with, “I allow, monks, the sweeping of the Uposatha hall” (Mahāvagga 159), and in the commentaries:

What are the preliminary duties of the Saṅgha?—this refers to what is stated in the Pāli, “I allow, monks, the Uposatha hall to be swept,” etc. (Mahāva. 159), and in the commentaries—

“Sammajjanī padīpo ca, udakaṃ āsanena ca;
Uposathassa etāni, ’pubbakaraṇa’nti vuccati.

“Sweeping, a lamp, water, and a seat; these for the Uposatha are called ‘pubbakaraṇa’”.

“A broom, a lamp, and water with a seat; these for the Uposatha, are called ‘pubbakaraṇa’ [preliminary duties].”

“Sweeping, the lamp, water, and the seat;
These are called the preliminary duties of the Uposatha.

“Chandapārisuddhiutukkhānaṃ, bhikkhugaṇanā ca ovādo;
Uposathassa etāni, ’pubbakicca’nti vuccatī”ti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168);

“Consent, purity, declaration of the season, counting of monks, and admonition; these for the Uposatha are called ‘pubbakicca’” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168).

“Consent and declaration of purity, determination of the season, counting the bhikkhus, and the exhortation; these for the Uposatha, are called ‘pubbakicca’ [prior duties]” (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 168);

“Consent, purity, the season’s announcement, the counting of monks, and the exhortation;
These are called the preliminary duties of the Uposatha.” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 168).

Evaṃ dvīhi nāmehi navavidhaṃ pubbakiccaṃ dassitaṃ, kiṃ taṃ katanti pucchati. Na hi taṃ akatvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā therena āṇattena agilānena bhikkhunā uposathāgāraṃ sammajjitabbaṃ, pānīyaṃ paribhojanīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetabbaṃ, āsanaṃ paññāpetabbaṃ, padīpo kātabbo, akaronto dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, therenāpi patirūpaṃ ñatvā āṇāpetabbaṃ.

Thus, with two names, nine preliminary duties are shown. It asks, “What are these done?” For without doing them, it is not permissible to perform the uposatha. Therefore, a monk who is not sick, instructed by the elder, should sweep the uposatha hall, set out drinking water and water for use, prepare seats, and light a lamp. One who does not do so incurs a dukkaṭa. The elder, too, should instruct appropriately, knowing what is proper.

Thus, the ninefold preliminary duty is shown by these two terms. What is that done? He asks. Indeed, without doing that, it is not proper to perform the Uposatha. Therefore, the Uposatha hall should be swept, drinking water and rinsing water should be prepared, seats should be arranged, and a lamp should be lit by a monk who is not ill, instructed by the elder. Not doing so, he incurs a dukkaṭa offense. The elder, too, knowing what is suitable, should instruct.

Thus, by these two names, nine preliminary duties are shown. The question is asked, “What are they?” For without performing them, it is not proper to perform the Uposatha. Therefore, a senior monk should instruct a healthy monk to sweep the Uposatha hall, prepare drinking water and washing water, set out seats, and light the lamp. If one does not do so, one commits a dukkaṭa offense. The senior monk should also instruct appropriately after knowing what is suitable.

Chandapārisuddhīti ettha uposathakaraṇatthaṃ sannipatite saṅghe bahi uposathaṃ katvā āgatena sannipatitaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā kāyasāmaggiṃ adentena chando dātabbo. Yopi gilāno vā hoti kiccappasuto vā, tenāpi pārisuddhiṃ dentena chandopi dātabbo. Kathaṃ dātabbo? Ekassa bhikkhuno santike “chandaṃ dammi, chandaṃ me hara, chandaṃ me ārocehī”ti (mahāva. 165) ayaṃ attho kāyena vā vācāya vā ubhayena vā viññāpetabbo, evaṃ dinno hoti chando. Akatūposathena pana gilānena vā kiccappasutena vā pārisuddhi dātabbā. Kathaṃ dātabbā? Ekassa bhikkhuno santike “pārisuddhiṃ dammi, pārisuddhiṃ me hara, pārisuddhiṃ me ārocehī”ti (mahāva. 164) ayaṃ attho kāyena vā vācāya vā ubhayena vā viññāpetabbo, evaṃ dinnā hoti pārisuddhi, taṃ pana dentena chandopi dātabbo. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tadahuposathe pārisuddhiṃ dentena chandampi dātuṃ, santi saṅghassa karaṇīya”nti (mahāva. 165). Tattha pārisuddhidānaṃ saṅghassapi attanopi uposathakaraṇaṃ sampādeti, na avasesaṃ saṅghakiccaṃ. Chandadānaṃ saṅghasseva uposathakaraṇañca sesakiccañca sampādeti, attano pana uposatho akatoyeva hoti. Tasmā pārisuddhiṃ dentena chandopi dātabbo. Pubbe vuttaṃ pana suddhikacchandaṃ vā imaṃ vā chandapārisuddhiṃ ekena bahūnampi āharituṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana so antarāmagge aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ passitvā yesaṃ tena chando vā pārisuddhi vā gahitā, tesañca attano ca chandapārisuddhiṃ deti, tasseva sā āgacchati, itarā pana biḷālasaṅkhalikā chandapārisuddhi nāma hoti, sā nāgacchati, tasmā sayameva sannipatitaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā ārocetabbaṃ. Sace pana sañcicca nāroceti, dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Chandapārisuddhi pana tasmiṃ hatthapāsaṃ upagatamatteyeva āgatā hoti.

Chandapārisuddhi means that in a Saṅgha gathered to perform the uposatha, one who has performed the uposatha elsewhere and comes to the gathering place without giving physical presence should give consent (chanda). Even one who is sick or engaged in duties, when giving purity (pārisuddhi), should also give consent. How is it given? In the presence of one monk, the meaning of “I give consent, carry my consent, declare my consent” (mahāva. 165) should be made known by body, speech, or both—thus it is given. But one who has not performed the uposatha, whether sick or engaged in duties, should give pārisuddhi. How is it given? In the presence of one monk, the meaning of “I give purity, carry my purity, declare my purity” (mahāva. 164) should be made known by body, speech, or both—thus it is given. One giving it should also give consent. For it is said by the Blessed One, “I allow, monks, one giving purity on that uposatha day to also give consent, as there are duties for the Saṅgha” (mahāva. 165). Herein, giving pārisuddhi fulfills the uposatha for both the Saṅgha and oneself, but not the remaining Saṅgha duties. Giving consent fulfills the Saṅgha’s uposatha and other duties, but one’s own uposatha remains undone. Therefore, one giving pārisuddhi should also give consent. The pure consent mentioned earlier or this chandapārisuddhi may be brought by one for many. But if, along the way, he sees another monk and gives the chandapārisuddhi of those whose consent or purity he took and his own, it reaches only that monk. The other becomes known as biḷālasaṅkhalikā chandapārisuddhi (cat’s chain consent and purity), which does not reach. Thus, he should go to the gathering place himself and declare it. If he intentionally does not declare it, he incurs a dukkaṭa. The chandapārisuddhi, however, is considered received as soon as he comes within arm’s reach.

Chandapārisuddhīti (Consent and declaration of purity) – here, when the Saṅgha has assembled for the purpose of performing the Uposatha, one who has performed the Uposatha outside and come to the place of assembly without giving bodily agreement should give consent (chanda). And whoever is ill or engaged in duties should also give consent when giving the declaration of purity (pārisuddhi). How should it be given? In the presence of one monk, “I give consent, take my consent, declare my consent” (Mahāvagga 165) – this meaning should be communicated by body, speech, or both; thus, consent is given. But a declaration of purity should be given by one who has not performed the Uposatha, is ill, or engaged in duties. How should it be given? In the presence of one monk, “I give my declaration of purity, take my declaration of purity, declare my declaration of purity” (Mahāvagga 164) – this meaning should be communicated by body, speech, or both; thus, the declaration of purity is given. But when giving it, consent should also be given. It is stated by the Blessed One, “I allow, monks, that when giving the declaration of purity on that Uposatha day, consent should also be given, as there are duties of the Saṅgha” (Mahāvagga 165). There, giving the declaration of purity accomplishes the performance of the Uposatha for the Saṅgha and oneself, but not the remaining duties of the Saṅgha. Giving consent accomplishes the performance of the Uposatha and the remaining duties for the Saṅgha, but one’s own Uposatha is not performed. Therefore, when giving the declaration of purity, consent should also be given. But it is proper for one to bring either the previously mentioned simple consent (suddhikacchanda) or this consent and declaration of purity (chandapārisuddhi) for many. But if, on the way, he sees another monk and gives the consent or declaration of purity of those for whom he has taken consent or declaration of purity, and his own consent and declaration of purity, it reaches only him. But the other is called biḷālasaṅkhalikā chandapārisuddhi (cat-chain consent and declaration of purity), it does not arrive. Therefore, one should go to the place of assembly oneself and declare it. But if one intentionally does not declare it, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense. But consent and declaration of purity arrive as soon as they reach within hand’s reach.

Consent and purity—here, when the Saṅgha has gathered to perform the Uposatha, if someone has performed the Uposatha elsewhere and arrives at the gathering place, they should give consent by physically approaching. Even if one is sick or occupied with duties, one should give consent by declaring purity. How should it be given? To one monk, one should indicate, “I give consent. Take my consent. Inform my consent” (Mahāva. 165). This meaning should be conveyed by body, speech, or both. Thus, consent is given. If one has not performed the Uposatha due to illness or duties, one should declare purity. How should it be declared? To one monk, one should indicate, “I declare purity. Take my declaration. Inform my declaration” (Mahāva. 164). This meaning should be conveyed by body, speech, or both. Thus, purity is declared. When giving purity, consent should also be given. For the Blessed One has said, “I allow, monks, on the Uposatha day, when giving purity, to also give consent, as the Saṅgha has duties to perform” (Mahāva. 165). Here, giving purity completes the Uposatha for oneself but not the rest of the Saṅgha’s duties. Giving consent completes both the Uposatha and the remaining duties for the Saṅgha, but one’s own Uposatha remains unperformed. Therefore, when giving purity, consent should also be given. Previously, it was stated that one can bring the consent or purity of many by one. However, if on the way one meets another monk and gives consent or purity to them, and they also give consent or purity for themselves and others, only that consent or purity is valid. The others are called cat’s chain consent and purity, which are not valid. Therefore, one should go to the gathering place oneself and declare it. If one intentionally does not declare it, one commits a dukkaṭa offense. Consent and purity are valid as soon as they are within arm’s reach.

Utukkhānanti “hemantādīnaṃ utūnaṃ ettakaṃ atikkantaṃ, ettakaṃ avasiṭṭha”nti evaṃ utūnaṃ ācikkhanaṃ. Bhikkhugaṇanāti “ettakā bhikkhū uposathagge sannipatitā”ti bhikkhūnaṃ gaṇanā. Idampi hi ubhayaṃ katvāva uposatho kātabbo. Ovādoti bhikkhunovādo. Na hi bhikkhunīhi yācitaṃ ovādaṃ anārocetvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Bhikkhuniyo hi “sve uposatho”ti āgantvā “ayaṃ uposatho cātuddaso pannaraso”ti pucchitvā puna uposathadivase āgantvā “bhikkhunisaṅgho, ayya, bhikkhusaṅghassa pāde vandati, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācati, labhatu kira, ayya, bhikkhunisaṅgho ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti (cūḷava. 413) evaṃ ovādaṃ yācanti. Taṃ ṭhapetvā bālagilānagamiye añño sacepi āraññiko hoti, apaṭiggahetuṃ na labhati, tasmā yena so paṭiggahito, tena bhikkhunā uposathagge pātimokkhuddesako bhikkhu evaṃ vattabbo “bhikkhunisaṅgho, bhante, bhikkhusaṅghassa pāde vandati, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācati, labhatu kira, bhante, bhikkhunisaṅgho ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti. Pātimokkhuddesakena vattabbaṃ “atthi koci bhikkhu bhikkhunovādako sammato”ti. Sace hoti koci bhikkhu bhikkhunovādako sammato, tato tena so vattabbo “itthannāmo bhikkhu bhikkhunovādako sammato, taṃ bhikkhunisaṅgho upasaṅkamatū”ti (cūḷava. 413). Sace natthi, tato tena pucchitabbaṃ “ko āyasmā ussahati bhikkhuniyo ovaditu”nti. Sace koci ussahati, sopi ca aṭṭhahi aṅgehi samannāgato, taṃ tattheva sammannitvā ovādapaṭiggāhako vattabbo “itthannāmo bhikkhu bhikkhunovādako sammato, taṃ bhikkhunisaṅgho upasaṅkamatū”ti (cuḷava. 413). Sace pana koci na ussahati, pātimokkhuddesakena vattabbaṃ “natthi koci bhikkhu bhikkhunovādako sammato, pāsādikena bhikkhunisaṅgho sampādetū”ti. Ettāvatā hi sikkhattayasaṅgahitaṃ sakalaṃ sāsanaṃ ārocitaṃ hoti. Tena bhikkhunā “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchitvā pāṭipadadivase bhikkhunīnaṃ ārocetabbaṃ.

Utukkhāna means declaring the seasons, such as “This much of the winter and other seasons has passed, this much remains.” Bhikkhugaṇanā means counting the monks, such as “This many monks have gathered in the uposatha hall.” Both these must be done before performing the uposatha. Ovādo means the admonition to bhikkhunīs. For it is not permissible to perform the uposatha without declaring the admonition requested by bhikkhunīs. The bhikkhunīs, coming on the day before, saying “Tomorrow is the uposatha,” ask, “Is this uposatha the fourteenth or fifteenth?” and then, returning on the uposatha day, say, “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, noble sirs, pays homage at the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and requests to approach for admonition. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, noble sirs, receive permission to approach for admonition” (cūḷava. 413). Except for one who is foolish, sick, or traveling, even a forest-dweller cannot refuse to accept it. Thus, the monk who accepts it should say to the monk reciting the Pātimokkha in the uposatha hall, “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sir, pays homage at the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and requests to approach for admonition. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sir, receive permission to approach for admonition.” The Pātimokkha reciter should say, “Is there any monk appointed as an admonisher of bhikkhunīs?” If there is an appointed monk, he should be told, “Such-and-such a monk is appointed as the admonisher of bhikkhunīs; let the bhikkhunī Saṅgha approach him” (cūḷava. 413). If there is none, he should ask, “Which venerable one is willing to admonish the bhikkhunīs?” If someone is willing and endowed with the eight qualities, he should be appointed there and then, and the admonition recipient should be told, “Such-and-such a monk is appointed as the admonisher of bhikkhunīs; let the bhikkhunī Saṅgha approach him” (cūḷava. 413). If no one is willing, the Pātimokkha reciter should say, “There is no monk appointed as an admonisher of bhikkhunīs; let the bhikkhunī Saṅgha fulfill it with decorum.” By this, the entire teaching encompassed by the three trainings is declared. That monk, saying “Good,” should accept it and inform the bhikkhunīs on the first day of the fortnight.

Utukkhānanti (Announcement of the seasons) – “Of the seasons, such as winter, this much has passed, this much remains” – thus, the announcement of the seasons. Bhikkhugaṇanāti (Counting of monks) – “So many monks have assembled in the Uposatha hall” – the counting of monks. Indeed, both of these should be done before performing the Uposatha. Ovādoti (Exhortation) – the exhortation of bhikkhunīs. Indeed, without declaring the requested exhortation from the bhikkhunīs, it is not proper to perform the Uposatha. The bhikkhunīs, indeed, saying, “Tomorrow is the Uposatha,” come and ask, “Is this Uposatha the fourteenth or the fifteenth?” Then, on the Uposatha day, they come again and request the exhortation, saying, “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sir, venerates the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and requests the approaching for exhortation. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sir, obtain the approaching for exhortation” (Cūḷavagga 413). Apart from that, if another is a forest dweller, even if he is young, ill, or going away, he cannot refuse to accept it. Therefore, the monk by whom it has been accepted should say this to the monk reciting the Pātimokkha in the Uposatha hall: “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sir, venerates the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and requests the approaching for exhortation. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sir, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” The Pātimokkha reciter should say, “Is there any monk appointed as an exhorter of bhikkhunīs?” If there is any monk appointed as an exhorter of bhikkhunīs, then he should say to him, “The monk named so-and-so is appointed as an exhorter of bhikkhunīs. The bhikkhunī Saṅgha should approach him” (Cūḷavagga 413). If there is not, then he should ask, “Which venerable sir is capable of exhorting the bhikkhunīs?” If someone is capable, and he is endowed with the eight qualities, having appointed him right there, the one who accepted the request for exhortation should be told, “The monk named so-and-so is appointed as an exhorter of bhikkhunīs. The bhikkhunī Saṅgha should approach him” (Cūḷavagga 413). But if no one is capable, the Pātimokkha reciter should say, “There is no monk appointed as an exhorter of bhikkhunīs. The bhikkhunī Saṅgha should accomplish it with what is pleasing.” Indeed, by this much, the entire teaching included in the three trainings is declared. That monk, having accepted with “Good,” should declare it to the bhikkhunīs on the following day.

Announcement of the season—this is the announcement of the seasons, such as, “So much of the winter season has passed, so much remains.” Counting of monks—this is the counting of monks, such as, “So many monks have gathered for the Uposatha.” Both of these should be done before performing the Uposatha. Exhortation—this is the exhortation to the bhikkhunīs. For it is not proper to perform the Uposatha without informing the bhikkhunīs when they request it. The bhikkhunīs, knowing that the Uposatha is tomorrow, come and ask, “Is the Uposatha on the fourteenth or fifteenth day?” Then, on the Uposatha day, they come again and say, “Venerable sirs, the bhikkhunī Saṅgha pays homage at the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and requests exhortation and approach. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha receive exhortation and approach” (Cūḷava. 413). Except for the foolish, sick, or going, even a forest-dwelling monk cannot refuse to accept it. Therefore, the monk who has accepted it should inform the monk reciting the Pātimokkha at the Uposatha gathering, saying, “Venerable sir, the bhikkhunī Saṅgha pays homage at the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and requests exhortation and approach. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha receive exhortation and approach.” The reciter should say, “Is there any monk appointed as the bhikkhunīs’ exhorter?” If there is a monk appointed as the bhikkhunīs’ exhorter, he should be informed, “The monk so-and-so is appointed as the bhikkhunīs’ exhorter. Let the bhikkhunī Saṅgha approach him” (Cūḷava. 413). If there is none, the reciter should ask, “Who among the venerables is capable of exhorting the bhikkhunīs?” If someone is capable and possesses the eight qualities, he should be appointed on the spot as the exhorter and informed, “The monk so-and-so is appointed as the bhikkhunīs’ exhorter. Let the bhikkhunī Saṅgha approach him” (Cūḷava. 413). If no one is capable, the reciter should say, “There is no monk appointed as the bhikkhunīs’ exhorter. Let the bhikkhunī Saṅgha conduct themselves properly.” At this point, the entire teaching, encompassing the threefold training, has been communicated. That monk should acknowledge it with “Sādhu” and inform the bhikkhunīs on the following day.

Bhikkhunisaṅghenāpi tā bhikkhuniyo pesetabbā, gacchatha, ayyā, pucchatha “kiṃ, ayya, labhati bhikkhunisaṅgho ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti, tāhi “sādhu, ayye”ti sampaṭicchitvā taṃ bhikkhuṃ upasaṅkamitvā evaṃ vattabbaṃ “kiṃ, ayya, labhati bhikkhunisaṅgho ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti. Tena vattabbaṃ “natthi koci bhikkhu bhikkhunovādako sammato, pāsādikena bhikkhunisaṅgho sampādetū”ti, tāhi “sādhu ayyā”ti sampaṭicchitabbaṃ. Idañca ekato āgatānaṃ dvinnaṃ tiṇṇaṃ vā vasena vuttaṃ. Tāsu pana ekāya bhikkhuniyā vattabbañceva sampaṭicchitabbañca, itarā tassā sahāyikā. Sace pana bhikkhusaṅgho vā bhikkhunisaṅgho vā na pūrati , ubhayatopi vā gaṇamattameva puggalamattaṃ vā hoti.

The bhikkhunī Saṅgha should also send those bhikkhunīs, saying, “Go, noble ladies, ask, ‘Noble sirs, does the bhikkhunī Saṅgha receive permission to approach for admonition?’” They should accept it with “Good, noble ladies,” approach that monk, and say, “Noble sir, does the bhikkhunī Saṅgha receive permission to approach for admonition?” He should say, “There is no monk appointed as an admonisher of bhikkhunīs; let the bhikkhunī Saṅgha fulfill it with decorum,” and they should accept it with “Good, noble sirs.” This is stated for two or three arriving together. Among them, one bhikkhunī should speak and accept it, the others being her companions. If neither the bhikkhu Saṅgha nor the bhikkhunī Saṅgha is complete, or if there is only a group or an individual on either side,

The bhikkhunī Saṅgha should also send those bhikkhunīs, “Go, venerable ladies, ask, ‘Venerable sir, does the bhikkhunī Saṅgha obtain the approaching for exhortation?’” They, having accepted with “Good, venerable ladies,” should approach that monk and say this, “Venerable sir, does the bhikkhunī Saṅgha obtain the approaching for exhortation?” He should say, “There is no monk appointed as an exhorter of bhikkhunīs. The bhikkhunī Saṅgha should accomplish it with what is pleasing.” They should accept with “Good, venerable sir.” And this is said concerning two or three who have come together. But among them, one bhikkhunī should both speak and accept; the other is her companion. But if the bhikkhu Saṅgha or the bhikkhunī Saṅgha is not complete, or if there is only a group or an individual from either side,

The bhikkhunī Saṅgha should also send those bhikkhunīs, saying, “Go, venerables, and ask, ‘Venerable sirs, may the bhikkhunī Saṅgha receive exhortation and approach.’” They should acknowledge it with “Sādhu, venerable sirs” and approach that monk, saying, “Venerable sir, may the bhikkhunī Saṅgha receive exhortation and approach.” The monk should say, “There is no monk appointed as the bhikkhunīs’ exhorter. Let the bhikkhunī Saṅgha conduct themselves properly.” They should acknowledge it with “Sādhu, venerable sirs.” This is said for two or three who come together. For one bhikkhunī, it should be said and acknowledged, and her companion should do the same. If the bhikkhu Saṅgha or the bhikkhunī Saṅgha is not complete, or if both are only a group or individual.

Tatrāyaṃ vacanakkamo – “bhikkhuniyo, ayya, bhikkhusaṅghassa pādevandanti, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācanti, labhantu kira, ayya, bhikkhuniyo ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti, “ahaṃ, ayya, bhikkhusaṅghassa pāde vandāmi, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācāmi, labhāmahaṃ, ayya, ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti, “bhikkhunisaṅgho, ayyā, ayyānaṃ pāde vandati, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācati, labhatu kira, ayyā, bhikkhunisaṅgho ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti. “Bhikkhuniyo, ayyā, ayyānaṃ pāde vandanti, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācanti, labhantu kira, ayyā, bhikkhuniyo ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti, “ahaṃ, ayyā, ayyānaṃ pāde vandāmi, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācāmi, labhāmahaṃ, ayyā, ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti, “bhikkhunisaṅgho, ayya, ayyassa pāde vandati, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācati, labhatu kira, ayya, bhikkhunisaṅgho ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti. “Bhikkhuniyo, ayya, ayyassa pāde vandanti, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācanti, labhantu kira, ayya, bhikkhuniyo ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti, “ahaṃ, ayya, ayyassa pāde vandāmi, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācāmi, labhāmahaṃ, ayya, ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti. Tenāpi bhikkhunā uposathakāle evaṃ vattabbaṃ “bhikkhuniyo, bhante, bhikkhusaṅghassa pāde vandanti, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācanti, labhantu kira, bhante, bhikkhuniyo ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti, “bhikkhunī, bhante, bhikkhusaṅghassa pāde vandati, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācati, labhatu kira, bhante, bhikkhunī ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti. “Bhikkhunisaṅgho, bhante, bhikkhuniyo, bhante, bhikkhunī bhante āyasmantānaṃ pāde vandati, vandanti, vandati, ovādūpasaṅkamanañca yācati, yācanti, yācati, labhatu kira, bhante, bhikkhunisaṅgho, labhantu kira, bhante, bhikkhuniyo, labhatu kira, bhante, bhikkhunī ovādūpasaṅkamana”nti. Uposathaggepi pātimokkhuddesakena vā ñattiṭṭhapakena vā itarena vā bhikkhunā sace sammato bhikkhu atthi, purimanayeneva “taṃ bhikkhunisaṅgho, taṃ bhikkhuniyo, taṃ bhikkhunī upasaṅkamatu, upasaṅkamantu, upasaṅkamatū”ti vattabbaṃ. Sace natthi, “pāsādikena bhikkhunisaṅgho, bhikkhuniyo, bhikkhunī sampādetu, sampādentu, sampādetū”ti vattabbaṃ. Ovādappaṭiggāhakena pāṭipade taṃ paccāharitvā tatheva vattabbaṃ, ayamettha saṅkhepavinicchayo. Evaṃ bhikkhunīhi yācitaṃ ovādaṃ ārocetvāva uposatho kātabbo. Tena vuttaṃ –

This is the sequence of statements: “The bhikkhunīs, noble sirs, pay homage at the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and request to approach for admonition. May the bhikkhunīs, noble sirs, receive permission to approach for admonition”; “I, noble sirs, pay homage at the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and request to approach for admonition. May I, noble sirs, receive permission to approach for admonition”; “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, noble ladies, pays homage at the feet of the noble ones and requests to approach for admonition. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, noble ladies, receive permission to approach for admonition”; “The bhikkhunīs, noble ladies, pay homage at the feet of the noble ones and request to approach for admonition. May the bhikkhunīs, noble ladies, receive permission to approach for admonition”; “I, noble ladies, pay homage at the feet of the noble ones and request to approach for admonition. May I, noble ladies, receive permission to approach for admonition”; “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, noble sir, pays homage at the feet of the noble one and requests to approach for admonition. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, noble sir, receive permission to approach for admonition”; “The bhikkhunīs, noble sir, pay homage at the feet of the noble one and request to approach for admonition. May the bhikkhunīs, noble sir, receive permission to approach for admonition”; “I, noble sir, pay homage at the feet of the noble one and request to approach for admonition. May I, noble sir, receive permission to approach for admonition.” That monk, too, should say on the uposatha day, “The bhikkhunīs, venerable sir, pay homage at the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and request to approach for admonition. May the bhikkhunīs, venerable sir, receive permission to approach for admonition”; “The bhikkhunī, venerable sir, pays homage at the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and requests to approach for admonition. May the bhikkhunī, venerable sir, receive permission to approach for admonition”; “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sir, the bhikkhunīs, venerable sir, the bhikkhunī, venerable sir, pay(s) homage at the feet of the venerables and request(s) to approach for admonition. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, may the bhikkhunīs, may the bhikkhunī, venerable sir, receive permission to approach for admonition.” In the uposatha hall, if there is an appointed monk, the Pātimokkha reciter, the one setting forth the motion, or another monk should say, as before, “Let the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, let the bhikkhunīs, let the bhikkhunī approach him.” If there is none, it should be said, “Let the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, let the bhikkhunīs, let the bhikkhunī fulfill it with decorum.” The admonition recipient, bringing it back on the first day, should say the same. This is the concise determination here. Thus, the uposatha should be performed only after declaring the admonition requested by the bhikkhunīs. Hence it is said—

Here is the manner of speaking: “The bhikkhunīs, venerable sir, venerate the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and request the approaching for exhortation. May the bhikkhunīs, venerable sir, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” “I, venerable sir, venerate the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and request the approaching for exhortation. May I, venerable sir, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable ladies, venerates the feet of the venerable sirs and requests the approaching for exhortation. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable ladies, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” “The bhikkhunīs, venerable ladies, venerate the feet of the venerable sirs and request the approaching for exhortation. May the bhikkhunīs, venerable ladies, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” “I, venerable ladies, venerate the feet of the venerable sirs and request the approaching for exhortation. May I, venerable ladies, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sir, venerates the feet of the venerable sir and requests the approaching for exhortation. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sir, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” “The bhikkhunīs, venerable sir, venerate the feet of the venerable sir and request the approaching for exhortation. May the bhikkhunīs, venerable sir, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” “I, venerable sir, venerate the feet of the venerable sir and request the approaching for exhortation. May I, venerable sir, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” That monk, too, should say this at the time of the Uposatha: “The bhikkhunīs, venerable sir, venerate the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and request the approaching for exhortation. May the bhikkhunīs, venerable sir, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” “The bhikkhunī, venerable sir, venerates the feet of the bhikkhu Saṅgha and requests the approaching for exhortation. May the bhikkhunī, venerable sir, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sir, the bhikkhunīs, venerable sir, the bhikkhunī, venerable sir, venerates, venerate, venerates the feet of the venerable sirs and requests, request, requests the approaching for exhortation. May the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sir, obtain, may the bhikkhunīs, venerable sir, obtain, may the bhikkhunī, venerable sir, obtain the approaching for exhortation.” In the Uposatha hall, too, the Pātimokkha reciter, or the one who establishes the motion, or another monk, if there is an appointed monk, should say in the previous manner, “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, the bhikkhunīs, the bhikkhunī should approach, should approach, should approach him.” If there is not, he should say, “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, the bhikkhunīs, the bhikkhunī should accomplish, should accomplish, should accomplish it with what is pleasing.” The one who accepted the request for exhortation, having brought it back on the following day, should say the same. This is the brief determination here. Thus, the Uposatha should be performed only after declaring the requested exhortation from the bhikkhunīs. Therefore, it is said:

Here, the sequence of speech is as follows: “Venerable, the bhikkhunīs pay homage to the feet of the Bhikkhu Saṅgha and request advice and approach. May the bhikkhunīs, Venerable, receive advice and approach.” “I, Venerable, pay homage to the feet of the Bhikkhu Saṅgha and request advice and approach. May I, Venerable, receive advice and approach.” “Venerable, the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha pays homage to the feet of the venerable ones and requests advice and approach. May the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, Venerable, receive advice and approach.” “Venerable, the bhikkhunīs pay homage to the feet of the venerable ones and request advice and approach. May the bhikkhunīs, Venerable, receive advice and approach.” “I, Venerable, pay homage to the feet of the venerable ones and request advice and approach. May I, Venerable, receive advice and approach.” “Venerable, the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha pays homage to the feet of the venerable one and requests advice and approach. May the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, Venerable, receive advice and approach.” “Venerable, the bhikkhunīs pay homage to the feet of the venerable one and request advice and approach. May the bhikkhunīs, Venerable, receive advice and approach.” “I, Venerable, pay homage to the feet of the venerable one and request advice and approach. May I, Venerable, receive advice and approach.” Therefore, at the time of the Uposatha, the bhikkhu should say: “Venerable, the bhikkhunīs pay homage to the feet of the Bhikkhu Saṅgha and request advice and approach. May the bhikkhunīs, Venerable, receive advice and approach.” “Venerable, the bhikkhunī pays homage to the feet of the Bhikkhu Saṅgha and requests advice and approach. May the bhikkhunī, Venerable, receive advice and approach.” “Venerable, the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, the bhikkhunīs, the bhikkhunī pay homage to the feet of the venerable ones and request advice and approach. May the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, the bhikkhunīs, the bhikkhunī, Venerable, receive advice and approach.” In the Uposatha hall as well, the bhikkhu who is reciting the Pātimokkha or the one who proposes the motion or another bhikkhu, if there is an appointed bhikkhu, should say in the same manner as before: “May the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, the bhikkhunīs, the bhikkhunī approach.” If there is none, he should say: “May the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, the bhikkhunīs, the bhikkhunī complete [the Uposatha] in a proper manner.” The one who receives the advice should respond accordingly and say the same. This is the brief determination here. Thus, having informed the bhikkhunīs of the advice they requested, the Uposatha should be performed. Therefore, it is said:

“Chandapārisuddhiutukkhānaṃ , bhikkhugaṇanā ca ovādo;
Uposathassa etāni, ’pubbakicca’nti vuccatī”ti.

“Consent, purity, declaration of the season, counting of monks, and admonition; these for the Uposatha are called ‘pubbakicca’”.

“Consent and declaration of purity, determination of the season, counting the bhikkhus, and the exhortation; these for the Uposatha are called ‘pubbakicca’ [prior duties].”

“The declaration of purity, the determination of the season, the counting of the bhikkhus, and the advice;
These are called the preliminary duties of the Uposatha.”

Pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocethāti attano parisuddhabhāvaṃ ārocetha, “pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī”tiidaṃ pārisuddhiārocanassa kāraṇavacanaṃ. “Na ca, bhikkhave, sāpattikena pātimokkhaṃ sotabbaṃ, yo suṇeyya āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti (cūḷava. 386) hi vacanato aparisuddhehi pātimokkhaṃ sotuṃ na vaṭṭati. Tena vuttaṃ – pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocetha, pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmīti. Ettha siyā “saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyya, pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyā”ti (mahāva. 134) vuttattā idhāpi “pātimokkhaṃ uddisissatī”ti vattabbaṃ, evañhi sati pubbenāparaṃ sandhiyatīti. Vuccate, vacanamattamevetaṃ na sandhiyati, lakkhaṇato pana sameti, saṅghassa sāmaggiyā, gaṇassa sāmaggiyā, puggalassa uddesā saṅghassa uddiṭṭhaṃ hoti pātimokkhanti idañhettha lakkhaṇaṃ, tasmā “pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī”ti idamevettha vattabbaṃ.

Pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocethā means “Venerables, declare your purity.” “Pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī” is the reason for declaring purity. For according to the statement “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be listened to by one with an offense; whoever listens incurs an offense of dukkaṭa” (cūḷava. 386), it is not permissible for those who are impure to listen to the Pātimokkha. Hence it is said: “Venerables, declare your purity; I will recite the Pātimokkha.” Here, one might think that since it is said, “The Saṅgha should perform the uposatha, it should recite the Pātimokkha” (mahāva. 134), it should be said here too, “The Pātimokkha will be recited,” so that the earlier and later parts connect. It is replied: This is merely a matter of wording and does not connect. By characteristic, however, it aligns. The characteristic here is that when the Saṅgha recites it through the harmony of the Saṅgha, the harmony of the group, or an individual’s recitation, the Pātimokkha is recited for the Saṅgha. Therefore, “I will recite the Pātimokkha” is what should be said here.

Pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocethāti (Venerable sirs, declare your purity) – declare your own state of purity. “pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī”ti (I will recite the Pātimokkha) – this is the statement of the reason for declaring purity. Indeed, because it is said, “And, monks, the Pātimokkha should not be heard by one with an offense. Whoever listens commits an offense of wrong-doing” (Cūḷavagga 386), it is not proper to listen to the Pātimokkha by those who are not pure. Therefore, it is said: Venerable sirs, declare your purity, I will recite the Pātimokkha. Here, it might be: Since it is said, “The Saṅgha should perform the Uposatha, should recite the Pātimokkha” (Mahāvagga 134), here too, it should be said, “He will recite the Pātimokkha,” for in this way, the former is connected with the latter. It is said, this is only a matter of words, it is not connected. But from the point of view of the characteristic, it is the same: the agreement of the Saṅgha, the agreement of the group, the recitation of the individual is the Pātimokkha recited by the Saṅgha – this is the characteristic here. Therefore, “I will recite the Pātimokkha” – this is what should be said here.

Venerable ones, declare your purity means declare your own state of purity. “I will recite the Pātimokkha” is the reason for declaring purity. “Bhikkhus, one who has committed an offense should not listen to the Pātimokkha. If one listens, it is an offense of wrong conduct” (Cūḷavagga 386). Therefore, it is not permissible for those who are impure to listen to the Pātimokkha. Hence, it is said: “Venerable ones, declare your purity, I will recite the Pātimokkha.” Here, some might say, “The Saṅgha should perform the Uposatha and recite the Pātimokkha” (Mahāvagga 134), and thus here too, “The Pātimokkha will be recited” should be said, for in this way, the connection between the preceding and the following is maintained. It is said, this is merely a statement and does not connect [in meaning], but it fits in terms of characteristics. For the Saṅgha’s harmony, the group’s harmony, and the individual’s recitation, the Pātimokkha recited by the Saṅgha is considered as such. Therefore, here it should be said: “I will recite the Pātimokkha.”

Taṃ sabbeva santā sādhukaṃ suṇoma manasi karomāti nti pātimokkhaṃ. Sabbeva santāti yāvatikā tassā parisāya therā ca navā ca majjhimā ca. Sādhukaṃ suṇomāti aṭṭhiṃ katvā manasi karitvā sotadvāravasena sabbacetasā samannāharāma. Manasi karomāti ekaggacittā hutvā citte ṭhapeyyāma. Ettha ca kiñcāpi “pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī”ti vuttattā “suṇotha manasi karothā”ti vattuṃ yuttaṃ viya dissati, “saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyyā”tiiminā pana na sameti. Samaggassa hi saṅghassetaṃ uposathakaraṇaṃ, pātimokkhuddesako ca saṅghapariyāpannova, iccassa saṅghapariyāpannattā “suṇoma manasi karomā”ti idameva vattuṃ yuttaṃ.

Taṃ sabbeva santā sādhukaṃ suṇoma manasi karomā means “That Pātimokkha—all of us being present listen to it well and keep it in mind.” Sabbeva santā means all those present in that assembly—elders, novices, and those in between. Sādhukaṃ suṇoma means “We listen well,” focusing with full attention through the ear faculty, bringing it fully to mind. Manasi karoma means “We keep it in mind,” placing it in the mind with one-pointed concentration. Here, although it is said, “I will recite the Pātimokkha,” it might seem appropriate to say, “Listen and keep it in mind,” but this does not align with “The Saṅgha should perform the uposatha.” For this is the uposatha action of a harmonious Saṅgha, and the Pātimokkha reciter is included in the Saṅgha. Thus, because he is part of the Saṅgha, it is appropriate to say, “We listen and keep it in mind.”

Taṃ sabbeva santā sādhukaṃ suṇoma manasi karomāti (We all, being present, listen well and pay attention) – the Pātimokkha. Sabbeva santāti (We all, being present) – as many as are in that assembly, elders, new monks, and those in the middle. Sādhukaṃ suṇomāti (We listen well) – having made it bone, paying attention, we attend with all our mind through the door of the ear. Manasi karomāti (We pay attention) – becoming of one-pointed mind, we establish it in the mind. And here, although because it is said, “I will recite the Pātimokkha,” it seems proper to say, “Listen, pay attention,” but it does not agree with “The Saṅgha should perform the Uposatha.” Indeed, this performance of the Uposatha is of the harmonious Saṅgha, and the Pātimokkha reciter is included in the Saṅgha. Because he is included in the Saṅgha, it is proper to say, “We listen, we pay attention.”

All of us here, listen carefully and pay attention to the Pātimokkha. All of us here means all those present in the assembly, whether elders, newly ordained, or those in between. Listen carefully means listen with full attention, focusing the mind entirely through the ear-door. Pay attention means become one-pointed in mind and establish the mind. Here, although it seems appropriate to say, “Listen and pay attention,” because of the statement, “The Saṅgha should perform the Uposatha” (Mahāvagga 134), it does not fit. For the Uposatha is performed by the harmonious Saṅgha, and the reciter of the Pātimokkha is included in the Saṅgha. Therefore, it is appropriate to say, “We listen and pay attention.”

Idāni yaṃ vuttaṃ “pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocethā”ti, tattha yathā pārisuddhiārocanaṃ hoti, taṃ dassetuṃ yassa siyā āpatti, so āvikareyyāti āha. Tattha yassa siyāti yassa channaṃ ākārānaṃ aññatarena āpannāpatti bhaveyya. Āpattiñhi āpajjanto alajjitā, aññāṇatā, kukkuccappakatatā, akappiye kappiyasaññitā, kappiye akappiyasaññitā, satisammosāti imehi chahākārehi (pari. 295) āpajjati.

Now, regarding what was said, “Venerables, declare your purity,” to show how the declaration of purity is done, it is said: Yassa siyā āpatti, so āvikareyyā, “Whoever has an offense should confess it.” Herein, yassa siyā means “Whoever might have committed an offense by one of the six ways.” For one commits an offense through these six ways: lack of shame, ignorance, being overcome by remorse, perceiving the improper as proper, perceiving the proper as improper, and confusion of mindfulness (pari. 295).

Now, as for what is said, “Venerable sirs, declare your purity,” to show how the declaration of purity is, he says, yassa siyā āpatti, so āvikareyyāti (Whoever has an offense should declare it). Here, yassa siyāti (Whoever has) – whoever has an offense committed through any of the six modes. Indeed, one commits an offense through these six modes: shamelessness (alajjitā), ignorance (aññāṇatā), being prone to scruples (kukkuccappakatatā), considering the unallowable as allowable (akappiye kappiyasaññitā), considering the allowable as unallowable (kappiye akappiyasaññitā), and confusion of mindfulness (satisammosa) (Pari. 295).

Now, regarding what was said, “Venerable ones, declare your purity,” to show how the declaration of purity is made, it is said: If anyone has committed an offense, let them disclose it. Here, if anyone has means if anyone has committed an offense through any of the six ways. For an offense is committed through shamelessness, ignorance, doubt, perceiving the unallowable as allowable, perceiving the allowable as unallowable, and forgetfulness (Pārājika 295).

Kathaṃ alajjitāya āpajjati? Akappiyabhāvaṃ jānantoyeva madditvā vītikkamaṃ karoti.

How does one commit an offense through alajjitā (lack of shame)? Knowing it to be improper, one deliberately oversteps and transgresses.

How does one commit an offense through shamelessness (alajjitā)? Knowing the unallowable nature, one transgresses, overpowering it.

How does one commit an offense through shamelessness? Knowing something is unallowable, one still transgresses.

“Sañcicca āpattiṃ āpajjati, āpattiṃ parigūhati;
Agatigamanañca gacchati, ediso vuccati alajjipuggalo”ti. (pari. 359);

“He intentionally commits an offense, conceals an offense; and follows a wrong course, such a one is called a shameless person” (pari. 359).

“One intentionally commits an offense, conceals an offense, and indulges in wrong courses of action; such a person is called shameless” (pari. 359);

“One who intentionally commits an offense and conceals it,
And goes on the wrong path, is called a shameless person” (Pārājika 359).

Kathaṃ aññāṇatāya āpajjati? Aññāṇapuggalo hi mando momūho kattabbākattabbaṃ ajānanto akattabbaṃ karoti, kattabbaṃ virādheti, evaṃ aññāṇatāya āpajjati.

How does one commit an offense through aññāṇatā (ignorance)? An ignorant person, dull and foolish, not knowing what should or should not be done, does what should not be done and neglects what should be done—thus one commits an offense through ignorance.

How does one commit an offense through ignorance (aññāṇatāya)? Indeed, an ignorant person, being dull and confused, not knowing what should be done and what should not be done, does what should not be done and fails to do what should be done. Thus, one commits an offense through ignorance.

How does one commit an offense through ignorance? An ignorant person, being dull and foolish, not knowing what should and should not be done, does what should not be done and neglects what should be done. Thus, one commits an offense through ignorance.

Kathaṃ kukkuccappakatatāya āpajjati? Kappiyākappiyaṃ nissāya kukkucce uppanne vinayadharaṃ pucchitvā kappiyaṃ ce, kattabbaṃ siyā, akappiyaṃ ce, na kattabbaṃ, ayaṃ pana “vaṭṭatī”ti madditvā vītikkamatiyeva, evaṃ kukkuccappakatatāya āpajjati.

How does one incur [an offense] through kukkuccappakatatā? When doubt arises regarding what is allowable and what is not, having asked a Vinaya expert, if it is allowable, it may be done; if it is not allowable, it should not be done. However, this one, thinking “It is permissible,” overrides [the doubt] and transgresses nonetheless. Thus, one incurs [an offense] through kukkuccappakatatā.

How does one incur an offense through being scrupulous (kukkuccappakatatāya)? If, due to doubt about what is allowable and unallowable, scruples arise, one should ask a Vinaya expert. If it is allowable, it should be done; if it is unallowable, it should not be done. But if this monk, thinking, “It is permissible,” suppresses his scruples and transgresses, in this way he incurs an offense through being scrupulous.

How does one commit an offense through doubt? When doubt arises regarding what is allowable and what is not, one asks a Vinaya expert. If it is allowable, it should be done; if not, it should not be done. But one thinks, “It is permissible,” and transgresses anyway. Thus, one commits an offense through doubt.

Kathaṃ akappiye kappiyasaññitāya āpajjati? Acchamaṃsaṃ “sūkaramaṃsa”nti khādati, vikāle kālasaññāya bhuñjati, evaṃ akappiye kappiyasaññitāya āpajjati.

How does one incur [an offense] through akappiye kappiyasaññitā? One eats bear meat thinking, “This is pork”; one consumes [food] at the wrong time perceiving it as the right time. Thus, one incurs [an offense] through akappiye kappiyasaññitā.

How does one incur an offense through mistaking the unallowable for the allowable (akappiye kappiyasaññitāya)? If one eats bear meat thinking it is pork, or eats at the wrong time thinking it is the right time, in this way one incurs an offense through mistaking the unallowable for the allowable.

How does one commit an offense through perceiving the unallowable as allowable? One eats raw meat, thinking it is pork, or eats at the wrong time, perceiving it as the right time. Thus, one commits an offense through perceiving the unallowable as allowable.

Kathaṃ kappiye akappiyasaññitāya āpajjati? Sūkaramaṃsaṃ “acchamaṃsa”nti khādati, kāle vikālasaññāya bhuñjati, evaṃ kappiye akappiyasaññitāya āpajjati.

How does one incur [an offense] through kappiye akappiyasaññitā? One eats pork thinking, “This is bear meat”; one consumes [food] at the right time perceiving it as the wrong time. Thus, one incurs [an offense] through kappiye akappiyasaññitā.

How does one incur an offense through mistaking the allowable for the unallowable (kappiye akappiyasaññitāya)? If one eats pork thinking it is bear meat, or refrains from eating at the right time thinking it is the wrong time, in this way one incurs an offense through mistaking the allowable for the unallowable.

How does one commit an offense through perceiving the allowable as unallowable? One eats pork, thinking it is raw meat, or eats at the right time, perceiving it as the wrong time. Thus, one commits an offense through perceiving the allowable as unallowable.

Kathaṃ satisammosā āpajjati? Sahaseyyacīvaravippavāsādīni satisammosā āpajjati, iti imesaṃ channaṃ ākārānaṃ aññatarena ākārena āpannā yassa siyā sattannaṃ āpattikkhandhānaṃ aññatarā āpatti therassa vā navassa vā majjhimassa vāti attho.

How does one incur [an offense] through satisammosā? One incurs [offenses] such as lying down with another, being separated from one’s robes, and so forth due to a lapse of mindfulness. Thus, if one incurs [an offense] through any one of these six modes, it may be any one of the seven classes of offenses—whether for an elder, a novice, or one of middle standing—that is the meaning.

How does one incur an offense through forgetfulness (satisammosā)? One incurs offenses related to sleeping in the same room, leaving one’s robes, and so forth, through forgetfulness. Thus, if any of these six ways of incurring an offense apply, the meaning is that one incurs one of the seven classes of offenses, whether he be a senior, a junior, or a middle-standing monk.

How does one commit an offense through forgetfulness? One commits an offense through forgetfulness due to sleeping with a robe, leaving a robe behind, etc. Thus, through any of these six ways, if one has committed an offense, whether an elder, newly ordained, or one in between, it is an offense among the seven classes of offenses.

So āvikareyyāti so taṃ āpattiṃ desetu vā pakāsetu vāti vuttaṃ hoti. Asantiyā āpattiyāti yassa pana evaṃ anāpannā vā āpattiṃ āpajjitvā ca pana vuṭṭhitā vā desitā vā ārocitā vā āpatti, tassa sā āpatti asantī nāma hoti, evaṃ asantiyā āpattiyā tuṇhī bhavitabbaṃ. Tuṇhībhāvena kho panāyasmante “parisuddhā”ti vedissāmīti tuṇhībhāvenāpi hi kāraṇena ahaṃ āyasmante “parisuddhā”icceva jānissāmīti. Yathā kho pana paccekapuṭṭhassa veyyākaraṇaṃ hotīti yathā ekeneko puṭṭho byākareyya, yathā ekeneko paccekapuṭṭho “maṃ esa pucchatī”ti ñatvā byākareyyāti vuttaṃ hoti.

So āvikareyyā means: Let that one confess or declare that offense. Asantiyā āpattiyā means: For one who has not incurred an offense, or who, having incurred an offense, has arisen from it, confessed it, or declared it, that offense is considered “non-existent” (asantī). In the case of such a non-existent offense, one should remain silent. Tuṇhībhāvena kho panāyasmante “parisuddhā”ti vedissāmī means: Indeed, by your silence, for this reason, I will know the Venerables as “pure.” Yathā kho pana paccekapuṭṭhassa veyyākaraṇaṃ hotī means: Just as one would answer when questioned individually, knowing, “He is asking me,” and respond accordingly—that is what is meant.

He should reveal it (So āvikareyyā) means he should confess or disclose that offense. If there is no offense (Asantiyā āpattiyā): If, however, there is no such offense incurred, or having incurred an offense, one has emerged from it, or confessed it, or disclosed it, or informed about it, that offense is considered non-existent. Thus, if there is no offense, one should remain silent. Through your silence, I will know you to be pure (Tuṇhībhāvena kho panāyasmante ’parisuddhā’ti vedissāmī): Through the circumstance of silence, I will know you to be pure. Just as the answer is given when each one is questioned individually (Yathā kho pana paccekapuṭṭhassa veyyākaraṇaṃ hotī): Just as each one questioned individually would answer, just as each one questioned individually would answer knowing “He is asking me,” that is the meaning.

Let them disclose it means they should confess or reveal that offense. If there is no offense means if one has not committed an offense or has committed an offense but has emerged from it, confessed it, or declared it, then that offense is considered non-existent. In such a case, one should remain silent. By remaining silent, Venerable ones, I will understand that you are pure. By remaining silent, I will know that you are pure. Just as when each one is asked individually, a reply is given, just as one person, when asked individually, would reply, knowing, “He is asking me,” it is said.

Evamevaṃ evarūpāya parisāya yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ hotīti ettha ekacce tāva ācariyā evaṃ vadanti “evamevaṃ imissāya bhikkhuparisāya yadetaṃ ’yassa siyā āpatti, so āvikareyya, asantiyā āpattiyā tuṇhī bhavitabbaṃ, tuṇhībhāvena kho panāyasmante parisuddhāti vedissāmī’ti tikkhattuṃ anusāvitaṃ, taṃ ekamekena ’maṃ esa pucchatī’ti evaṃ jānitabbaṃ hotīti attho”ti. Taṃ na yujjati, kasmā? Atthabyañjanabhedato. Anussāvanañhi nāma atthato ca byañjanato ca abhinnaṃ hoti “dutiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmī”tiādīsu (mahāva. 72; cūḷava. 3) viya, “yassa siyā”tiādivacanattayaṃ pana atthatopi byañjanatopi bhinnaṃ, tenassa anussāvanattayaṃ na yujjati. Yadi cetaṃ yāvatatiyānussāvanaṃ siyā, nidānuddese aniṭṭhitepi āpatti siyā. Na ca yuttaṃ anāpattikkhette āpattiṃ āpajjituṃ.

Evamevaṃ evarūpāya parisāya yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ hotī means: Here, some teachers say, “In this way, for this assembly of bhikkhus, when it is said, ‘Let one who has an offense declare it; in the absence of an offense, one should remain silent; by your silence, I will know the Venerables as pure,’ and this is proclaimed three times, it should be understood by each one individually as ‘He is asking me’—that is the meaning.” This does not fit, why? Because of the difference in meaning and wording. For anussāvana (proclamation) is uniform in both meaning and wording, as in “For the second time, I state this matter” and so forth (mahāva. 72; cūḷava. 3), whereas the three statements beginning with “yassa siyā” differ in both meaning and wording. Therefore, a threefold proclamation does not fit here. If this were a threefold proclamation, an offense could arise even before the recitation of the introductory section (nidāna) is completed. But it is not proper to incur an offense in a context where no offense applies.

Similarly, in this assembly, it has been recited up to the third time (Evamevaṃ evarūpāya parisāya yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ hotī): Some teachers, indeed, say thus: “Similarly, in this assembly of monks, that which is recited three times, ‘Whoever has an offense should reveal it; if there is no offense, one should remain silent; through your silence, I will know you to be pure,’ should be understood by each one as ‘He is asking me,’ that is the meaning.” This is not correct. Why? Because of the difference in meaning and expression. A recitation, indeed, is identical in both meaning and expression, like “For the second time, I say this matter” and so on (Mahāva. 72; Cūḷava. 3). But the three statements beginning with “Whoever has…” are different both in meaning and expression. Therefore, their being a threefold recitation is not correct. If this were a threefold recitation, there would be an offense even if the introduction and recitation were incomplete. And it is not proper to incur an offense in a situation where there is no offense.

In the same way, in such an assembly, it is announced up to three times. Here, some teachers say: “In the same way, in this bhikkhu assembly, when it is said, ‘If anyone has committed an offense, let them disclose it; if there is no offense, one should remain silent; by remaining silent, Venerable ones, I will understand that you are pure,’ it is announced three times. Each one should understand, ‘He is asking me,’ and thus it is the meaning.” This is not correct. Why? Because of the difference in meaning and wording. For an announcement is the same in meaning and wording, as in “I say this meaning a second time,” etc. (Mahāvagga 72; Cūḷavagga 3). But the threefold statement, “If anyone has,” etc., differs in both meaning and wording. Therefore, the threefold announcement is not appropriate. If this were a threefold announcement, an offense could occur even during the introductory recitation. But it is not appropriate to commit an offense in a non-offense context.

Apare “anusāvita”ntipadassa anusāvetabbanti atthaṃ vikappetvā “yāvatatiya”ntiidaṃ upari uddesāvasāne “kaccittha parisuddhā…pe… tatiyampi pucchāmī”ti etaṃ sandhāya vuttanti āhu. Tampi na yujjati, kasmā? Atthayuttīnaṃ abhāvato. Idañhi padaṃ keci “anusāveta”nti sajjhāyanti, keci “anusāveta”nti, taṃ ubhayaṃ vāpi atītakālameva dīpeti, na anāgataṃ. Yadi cassa ayaṃ attho siyā, “anusāvitaṃ hessatī”ti vadeyya , evaṃ tāva atthābhāvato na yujjati. Yadi cetaṃ uddesāvasāne vacanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ siyā, “na āvikarissāmī”ti cittaṃ uppādentassa nidāne samattepi vuttamusāvādo na siyā, kasmā? “Yāvatatiyaṃ anussāviyamāne”tivacanato (mahāva. 134) “yāvatatiya”nti idaṃ vacanameva niratthakaṃ siyā, kasmā? Nidānuddese yāvatatiyānussāvanassa abhāvatoti evaṃ yuttiabhāvato tampi na yujjati. “Yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ hotī”ti idaṃ pana lakkhaṇavacanamattaṃ, tena imamatthaṃ dasseti – idaṃ pātimokkhaṃ nāma yāvatatiyaṃ anussāviyati, tasmiṃ yāvatatiyaṃ anussāviyamāne yo saramāno santiṃ āpattiṃ nāvikaroti, tassa yāvatatiyānussāvanāvasāne sampajānamusāvādo hotīti.

Others, interpreting the word “anusāvita” as “should be proclaimed,” say that “yāvatatiyaṃ” refers to the statement at the end of the recitation above, “Are you pure in this matter?… I ask for the third time,” and claim it is said with that in mind. This too does not fit, why? Because there is no logical coherence. Some recite this word as “anusāveta,” others as “anusāveta,” and both indicate only the past tense, not the future. If this were its meaning, it would say, “It will be proclaimed” (anusāvitaṃ hessati). Thus, due to the absence of such a meaning, it does not fit. Moreover, if this were said with reference to the statement at the end of the recitation, then for one who generates the thought, “I will not declare,” there would be no deliberate falsehood even after the introductory section is completed, why? Because of the statement “When it is proclaimed up to the third time” (mahāva. 134), the phrase “yāvatatiyaṃ” would become meaningless, why? Because there is no threefold proclamation in the recitation of the introductory section. Thus, due to this lack of logical coherence, this too does not fit. However, “yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ hotī” is merely an expression of characteristic, thereby indicating this meaning: This Pātimokkha is proclaimed up to the third time; when it is being proclaimed up to the third time, one who, remembering, does not declare an existing offense incurs a deliberate falsehood at the conclusion of the threefold proclamation.

Others, interpreting the word “anusāvitaṃ” as “anusāvetabbaṃ” (should be recited), say that the phrase “yāvatatiyaṃ” (up to the third time) refers to the statement at the end of the recitation, “Are you pure in this matter?… I ask for the third time.” That too is not correct. Why? Because of the lack of logical consistency. Some recite this word as “anusāvetaṃ,” some as “anusāvetaṃ,” but both of these express only the past tense, not the future. If this were the meaning, it should say “anusāvitaṃ hessati” (it will have been recited). Thus, because of the lack of meaning, it is not correct. If this were said referring to the statement at the end of the recitation, then one who forms the intention “I will not reveal it” would not have a deliberate lie when the introduction is completed. Why? Because of the statement “while it is being recited up to the third time” (Mahāva. 134), this phrase “up to the third time” would be meaningless. Why? Because there is no threefold recitation in the introduction and recitation. Thus, because of the lack of logical consistency, that too is not correct. “It has been recited up to the third time” is merely a descriptive statement, and it shows this meaning: This Pātimokkha is recited up to the third time. While it is being recited up to the third time, whoever, remembering a existing offense, does not reveal it, has a deliberate lie at the end of the threefold recitation.

Others interpret the word “announced” to mean “should be announced” and say that “up to three times” refers to the end of the recitation, “Are you pure?… I ask for the third time.” This is also not correct. Why? Because it lacks logical consistency. Some recite this word as “should announce,” others as “should announce,” but both refer to the past, not the future. If this were the meaning, one should say, “It will be announced.” Thus, due to the lack of meaning, it is not correct. If this were referring to the end of the recitation, even if one resolves not to disclose, there would be no intentional false speech, because of the statement, “While being announced up to three times” (Mahāvagga 134). “Up to three times” would be meaningless, as there is no threefold announcement in the introductory recitation. Therefore, due to the lack of logical consistency, this is also not correct. “It is announced up to three times” is merely a characteristic statement, indicating that the Pātimokkha is announced up to three times. While it is being announced up to three times, if one, remembering, does not disclose an existing offense, at the end of the threefold announcement, it becomes an intentional false speech.

Tadetaṃ yathā anusāvitaṃ yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ nāma hoti, taṃ dassetuṃ tatthāyasmante pucchāmītiādi vuttaṃ. Taṃ panetaṃ pārājikādīnaṃ avasāne dissati, na nidānāvasāne. Kiñcāpi na dissati, atha kho uddesakāle “āvikatā hissa phāsu hotī”ti vatvā “uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānaṃ, tatthāyasmante pucchāmī”tiādinā nayena vattabbameva. Evañhi nidānaṃ suuddiṭṭhaṃ hoti, aññathā duuddiṭṭhaṃ. Imameva ca atthaṃ sandhāya uposathakkhandhake vuttaṃ “yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ hotīti sakimpi anusāvitaṃ hoti, dutiyampi anusāvitaṃ hoti, tatiyampi anusāvitaṃ hotī”ti (mahāva. 134). Ayamettha ācariyaparamparābhato vinicchayo.

To show how it is proclaimed and becomes known as “proclaimed up to the third time,” it is said, tatthāyasmante pucchāmī and so forth. This, however, is seen at the end of the pārājika and other sections, not at the end of the introductory section. Although it is not seen [there], during the recitation, after saying, “For him, having declared it, it is comfortable,” it should indeed be said in this manner: “Venerables, the introductory section has been recited; regarding this, I ask the Venerables…” and so on. For in this way, the introductory section is well recited; otherwise, it is poorly recited. And it is with this very meaning in mind that it is said in the Uposatha Khandhaka, “It is proclaimed up to the third time: it is proclaimed once, it is proclaimed a second time, it is proclaimed a third time” (mahāva. 134). This is the determination handed down through the lineage of teachers.

To show how that which has been recited is called “recited up to the third time,” it is said, “In this matter, I ask you, venerable sirs” (tatthāyasmante pucchāmī) and so on. This, however, appears at the end of the Pārājikas and so on, not at the end of the introduction. Although it does not appear, yet at the time of recitation, having said, “Revealing it is beneficial,” it should be said in the manner of “The introduction has been recited, venerable sirs. In this matter, I ask you” and so on. For in this way, the introduction is well-recited; otherwise, it is poorly recited. And referring to this very meaning, it is said in the Uposatha section, “‘It has been recited up to the third time’ means it has been recited once, it has been recited for the second time, it has been recited for the third time” (Mahāva. 134). This is the determination here according to the tradition of teachers.

To show that it is announced up to three times, it is said: Here, Venerable ones, I ask you, etc. This is seen at the end of the Pārājika, etc., not at the end of the introduction. Although it is not seen, at the time of the recitation, one should say, “For one who discloses, it is comfortable,” and then, “Venerable ones, the introduction has been recited. Here, Venerable ones, I ask you,” etc. In this way, the introduction is well recited; otherwise, it is poorly recited. This very meaning is referred to in the Uposatha chapter: “It is announced up to three times means it is announced once, a second time, and a third time” (Mahāvagga 134). This is the determination according to the tradition of the teachers.

Yo pana bhikkhu…pe… sampajānamusāvādassa hotīti sampajānamusāvādo assa hoti, tenassa dukkaṭāpatti hoti, sā ca kho pana na musāvādalakkhaṇena, “sampajānamusāvāde kiṃ hoti, dukkaṭaṃ hotī”ti (mahāva. 135) iminā pana bhagavato vacanena vacīdvāre akiriyasamuṭṭhānāpatti hotīti veditabbā.

Yo pana bhikkhu…pe… sampajānamusāvādassa hotī means: There is deliberate falsehood for him, and thus he incurs a dukkaṭa offense. However, this is not due to the characteristic of falsehood; rather, it should be understood as an offense arising from inaction through speech, based on the Blessed One’s statement, “What is there in deliberate falsehood? There is a dukkaṭa” (mahāva. 135).

Whichever monk… has a deliberate lie (Yo pana bhikkhu…pe… sampajānamusāvādassa hotī): He has a deliberate lie, and therefore he has an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). But that, indeed, is not by the characteristic of a deliberate lie. It should be understood that, by the Blessed One’s statement, “What happens in the case of a deliberate lie? There is an offense of wrong-doing” (Mahāva. 135), there is an offense originating from inaction through the door of speech.

But if a bhikkhu… commits an intentional false speech, he commits an offense of wrong conduct, but it is not characterized as false speech. “What happens in intentional false speech? It is an offense of wrong conduct” (Mahāvagga 135). But by this statement of the Blessed One, it should be understood as an offense originating from verbal action.

“Anālapanto manujena kenaci,
Vācāgiraṃ no ca pare bhaṇeyya;
Āpajjeyya vācasikaṃ, na kāyikaṃ,
Pañhāmesā kusalehi cintitā”ti. (pari. 479);

“Not conversing with any person, he utters no speech to others; he may commit a verbal offense, not a bodily one, this question was considered by the skilled” (pari. 479).

“Not conversing with anyone, nor should he speak words to others; He might commit a verbal, but not a bodily [offense]; this question has been considered by the wise” (pari. 479);

“Not speaking to anyone,
Nor letting others speak;
One commits a verbal offense, not a bodily one,
This question is considered by the wise” (Pārājika 479).

Antarāyikoti vippaṭisāravatthutāya pāmojjādisambhavaṃ nivāretvā paṭhamajjhānādīnaṃ adhigamāya antarāyaṃ karoti. Tasmāti yasmā ayaṃ anāvikaraṇasaṅkhāto sampajānamusāvādo antarāyiko hoti, tasmā. Saramānenāti attani santiṃ āpattiṃ jānantena. Visuddhāpekkhenāti vuṭṭhātukāmena visujjhitukāmena. Santī āpattīti āpajjitvā avuṭṭhitā āpatti. Āvikātabbāti saṅghamajjhe vā gaṇamajjhe vā ekapuggale vā pakāsetabbā, antamaso anantarassāpi bhikkhuno “ahaṃ, āvuso, itthannāmaṃ āpattiṃ āpanno, ito vuṭṭhahitvā taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissāmī”ti (mahāva. 170) vattabbaṃ. Sacepi vematiko hoti, “ahaṃ, āvuso, itthannāmāya āpattiyā vematiko, yadā nibbematiko bhavissāmi, tadā taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissāmī”ti (mahāva. 169) vattabbaṃ. Āvikatā hissa phāsu hotītiettha āvikatāti āvikatāya, pakāsitāyāti attho. Alajjitātiādīsu (pari. 295) viya hi idampi karaṇatthe paccattavacanaṃ. Hīti nipātamattaṃ. Assāti etassa bhikkhuno. Phāsu hotīti paṭhamajjhānādīnaṃ adhigamāya phāsu hoti, avippaṭisāramūlakānaṃ pāmojjādīnaṃ vasena sukhappaṭipadā sampajjatīti attho.

Antarāyiko means: By being a basis for remorse, it obstructs the arising of joy and so forth, and creates an obstacle to the attainment of the first jhāna and other [states]. Tasmā means: Because this deliberate falsehood, known as non-declaration, is obstructive. Saramānenā means: By one who knows an existing offense in oneself. Visuddhāpekkhenā means: By one desiring to arise [from it], wishing to be purified. Santī āpattī means: An offense that has been incurred and not yet arisen from. Āvikātabbā means: It should be declared in the midst of the Saṅgha, in the midst of a group, or to a single person, even to the nearest bhikkhu, saying, “Friend, I have incurred such-and-such an offense; having arisen from this, I will make amends for that offense” (mahāva. 170). If one is uncertain, one should say, “Friend, I am uncertain about such-and-such an offense; when I become certain, then I will make amends for that offense” (mahāva. 169). Āvikatā hissa phāsu hotī means: Here, āvikatā means “having been declared,” that is, made known. Like “alajjitā” and so forth (pari. 295), this too is a nominative used in the sense of an action. Hi is merely a particle. Assa means: For that bhikkhu. Phāsu hotī means: It becomes comfortable for the attainment of the first jhāna and other [states], and through the absence of remorse as a root, the path to happiness arises due to joy and so forth—that is the meaning.

Obstructive (Antarāyiko): By being a basis for remorse, preventing the arising of joy and so forth, it creates an obstruction to the attainment of the first jhāna and so on. Therefore (Tasmā): Because this deliberate lie, consisting of not revealing, is obstructive, therefore. Remembering (Saramānenā): Knowing that there is an existing offense in oneself. Desiring purification (Visuddhāpekkhenā): Desiring to emerge, desiring to be purified. An existing offense (Santī āpattī): An offense that has been incurred and from which one has not emerged. Should be revealed (Āvikātabbā): It should be disclosed in the midst of the Saṅgha, or in the midst of a group, or to a single individual. At the very least, one should say to the nearest monk, “Friend, I have incurred such and such an offense. After emerging from this, I will rectify that offense” (Mahāva. 170). Even if one is doubtful, one should say, “Friend, I am doubtful about such and such an offense. When I am no longer doubtful, then I will rectify that offense” (Mahāva. 169). Revealing it is beneficial for him (Āvikatā hissa phāsu hotī): Here, revealing it (āvikatā) means by revealing it, by disclosing it. As in “shameless” and so on (Pari. 295), this is an instrumental case. Indeed (Hī) is just a particle. For him (Assā): For this monk. Is beneficial (Phāsu hotī): It is beneficial for the attainment of the first jhāna and so on; the path of happiness arises through joy and so on, which are rooted in non-remorse.

Obstructive means it creates an obstacle to the attainment of the first jhāna, etc., by preventing the arising of joy, etc., due to remorse. Therefore, because this intentional false speech, characterized by non-disclosure, is obstructive, therefore. Remembering means knowing an existing offense in oneself. Desiring purity means desiring to emerge, desiring to purify. An existing offense means an offense that has been committed but not emerged from. It should be disclosed means it should be revealed in the midst of the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, even to a bhikkhu who is not a close companion: “Friend, I have committed such and such an offense. Having emerged from it, I will make amends for that offense” (Mahāvagga 170). Even if one is doubtful, one should say: “Friend, I am doubtful about such and such an offense. When I am no longer doubtful, I will make amends for that offense” (Mahāvagga 169). For one who discloses, it is comfortable means disclosing means disclosing, revealing. This is a personal term in the sense of action, as in shamelessness, etc. (Pārājika 295). For is a particle. Him means this bhikkhu. It is comfortable means it is comfortable for the attainment of the first jhāna, etc., and the path of happiness is accomplished through the basis of non-remorse, joy, etc.

Pārājikakaṇḍo

The section on Pārājika

The Pārājika Chapter

Idāni yadetaṃ nidānānantaraṃ tatrime cattārotiādi pārājikakaṇḍaṃ, tattha tatrāti tasmiṃ “pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī”ti evaṃ vutte pātimokkhe. Imeti idāni vattabbānaṃ abhimukhīkaraṇaṃ. Cattāroti gaṇanaparicchedo. Pārājikāti evaṃnāmakā. Dhammāti āpattiyo. Uddesaṃ āgacchantīti sarūpena uddisitabbataṃ āgacchanti, na nidāne viya “yassa siyā āpattī”ti sādhāraṇavacanamattena.

Now, following the introductory section, there is the tatrime cattāro and so forth, the section on pārājika offenses. Here, tatra means: In that Pātimokkha which was stated as “I will recite the Pātimokkha.” Ime means: Bringing to attention what will now be stated. Cattāro means: A numerical limitation. Pārājikā means: Those so named. Dhammā means: Offenses. Uddesaṃ āgacchantī means: They come to be recited in their own form, not merely with a general statement like “Let one who has an offense declare it” as in the introductory section.

Now, after the introduction, there is the section on Pārājika, beginning with “Of these, there are four” (tatrime cattāro). Of these (Tatra): In that Pātimokkha which has been stated thus, “I will recite the Pātimokkha.” These (Ime): Bringing into focus what is now to be stated. Four (Cattāro): A numerical limitation. Pārājika (Pārājikā): Having this name. Dhammas (Dhammā): Offenses. Come to recitation (Uddesaṃ āgacchantī): They come to be recited by their specific form, not by a general statement like “Whoever has an offense” as in the introduction.

Now, after the introduction, these four etc., is the Pārājika chapter. Here, here means in the Pātimokkha, when it is said, “I will recite the Pātimokkha.” These means now bringing forward what is to be said. Four means the enumeration. Pārājikas means those named thus. Dhammas means offenses. Come for recitation means they come to be recited in their own form, not as in the introduction with the general statement, “If anyone has an offense.”

1. Paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the First Pārājika

Yo panāti rassadīghādinā liṅgādibhedena yo koci. Bhikkhūti ehibhikkhuupasampadā, saraṇagamanūpasampadā, ovādappaṭiggahaṇūpasampadā, pañhābyākaraṇūpasampadā, aṭṭhagarudhammappaṭiggahaṇūpasampadā, dūtenūpasampadā, aṭṭhavācikūpasampadā, ñatticatutthakammūpasampadāti imāsu aṭṭhasu upasampadāsu ñatticatutthena upasampadākammena akuppena ṭhānārahena upasampanno. Tassa pana kammassa vatthuñattianussāvana sīmā parisāsampattivasena akuppatā veditabbā.

Yo pana means: Anyone at all, by distinction of gender and so forth, due to the use of short and long vowels. Bhikkhū means: One who has been ordained by the motion-and-fourth ordination procedure (ñatticatutthakammūpasampadā), which is unshakable and worthy of standing, among the eight types of ordination: ordination by “Come, bhikkhu,” ordination by going for refuge, ordination by accepting exhortation, ordination by answering questions, ordination by accepting the eight grave rules, ordination by messenger, ordination by a group of eight, and ordination by motion-and-fourth. The unshakability of that ordination procedure should be understood in terms of the basis, the motion, the proclamation, the boundary, and the completion of the assembly.

Whichever (Yo panā): Whoever, due to differences in gender and so on, of any kind. Monk (Bhikkhū): One who has been fully ordained by the “Come, monk” ordination, the going for refuge ordination, the acceptance of instruction ordination, the answering of questions ordination, the acceptance of the eight serious rules ordination, the ordination by a messenger, the eight-statement ordination, or the ordination by a motion and three announcements. Of these eight ordinations, [it means] one who is fully ordained by the ordination by a motion and three announcements, which is unshakeable and worthy of the status. The unshakeability of that act should be understood as due to the perfection of the object, the motion, the announcement, the boundary, and the assembly.

But if any means anyone, whether by short or long syllables, etc., by gender, etc. Bhikkhu means one who has been fully ordained through the ehibhikkhu ordination, through taking refuge, through receiving advice, through answering questions, through accepting the eight garudhammas, through a messenger, through the eight proclamations, or through a formal act with motion and three announcements. Among these eight ordinations, the one who has been fully ordained through a formal act with motion and three announcements is irreversibly established as worthy of the status. The irreversibility of that act should be understood through the basis, motion, announcement, boundary, and suitability of the assembly.

Tattha vatthūti upasampadāpekkho puggalo, so ṭhapetvā ūnavīsativassaṃ antimavatthuajjhāpannapubbaṃ, paṇḍakādayo ca ekādasa abhabbapuggale veditabbo. Tattha ūnavīsativasso nāma paṭisandhiggahaṇato paṭṭhāya aparipuṇṇavīsativasso. Antimavatthuajjhāpannapubbo nāma catunnaṃ pārājikānaṃ aññataraṃ ajjhāpannapubbo. Paṇḍakādayo vajjanīyapuggalakathāyaṃ vuttā. Tesu āsittapaṇḍakañca usūyapaṇḍakañca ṭhapetvā opakkamikapaṇḍako napuṃsakapaṇḍako paṇḍakabhāvapakkhe ṭhito pakkhapaṇḍako ca idha adhippeto.

Here, vatthu means: The person seeking ordination, who should be understood as excluding those under twenty years of age, one who has previously committed an ultimate offense, and the eleven types of incapable persons such as paṇḍakas and so forth. Among these, ūnavīsativasso means: One whose twentieth year is not yet complete since conception. Antimavatthuajjhāpannapubbo means: One who has previously committed one of the four pārājika offenses. Paṇḍakā and others are as stated in the discussion of persons to be excluded. Among them, excluding the “sprinkled paṇḍaka” and the “jealous paṇḍaka,” intended here are the “surgical paṇḍaka,” the “neuter paṇḍaka,” the “half-month paṇḍaka” standing in the condition of paṇḍaka nature.

Here, the object (vatthū) is the individual seeking full ordination. He should be understood as one who is not less than twenty years old, who has not previously committed a serious offense, and who is not one of the eleven unsuitable individuals, such as eunuchs. Here, less than twenty years old (ūnavīsativasso) means one who has not completed twenty years from the time of conception. Has previously committed a serious offense (antimavatthuajjhāpannapubbo) means one who has previously committed one of the four pārājika offenses. Eunuchs (Paṇḍakā) and others are mentioned in the discussion of individuals to be rejected. Among them, excluding the āsittapaṇḍaka and the usūyapaṇḍaka, the opakkamikapaṇḍaka, the napuṃsakapaṇḍaka, and the pakkhapaṇḍaka who remains in the state of being a eunuch during his period are meant here.

Here, basis means the person seeking ordination. Except for one who is under twenty years of age or has previously committed a grave offense, and the eleven types of unqualified persons such as eunuchs, etc., should be understood. Here, under twenty years of age means from the moment of conception until the completion of twenty years. Previously committed a grave offense means one who has previously committed any of the four pārājikas. Eunuchs, etc., are mentioned in the discussion on objectionable persons. Among them, except for the passive eunuch and the jealous eunuch, the eunuch by intervention, the neuter eunuch, and the half-month eunuch are intended here.

Theyyasaṃvāsako pana tividho liṅgatthenako saṃvāsatthenako ubhayatthenakoti. Tattha yo sayaṃ pabbajitvā na bhikkhuvassāni gaṇeti, na yathāvuḍḍhaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vā sāmaṇerānaṃ vā vandanaṃ sādiyati, na āsanena paṭibāhati, na uposathādīsu sandissati, ayaṃ asuddhacittatāya liṅgamattasseva thenitattā liṅgatthenako nāma. Yo pana bhikkhūhi pabbajito sāmaṇero samāno kāsāyāni apanetvā tesu saussāhova methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevitvā puna nivāsetvā sāmaṇerabhāvaṃ paṭijānāti, ayaṃ bhikkhūhi dinnaliṅgassa apariccattattā na liṅgatthenako, na liṅgānurūpassa saṃvāsassa sāditattā nāpi saṃvāsatthenako. Antimavatthuajjhāpannakepi eseva nayo. Yo ca kho sāmaṇero samāno videsaṃ gantvā bhikkhuvassāni gaṇeti, yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyati, āsanena paṭibāhati, uposathādīsu sandissati, ayaṃ saṃvāsamattasseva thenitattā saṃvāsatthenako nāma. Bhikkhuvassagaṇanādiko hi sabbopi kiriyabhedo imasmiṃ atthe “saṃvāso”ti veditabbo. Sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya “na maṃ koci jānātī”ti puna evaṃ paṭipajjantepi eseva nayo. Yo pana sayaṃ pabbajitvā vihāraṃ gantvā yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyati, āsanena paṭibāhati, bhikkhuvassāni gaṇeti, uposathādīsu sandissati, ayaṃ liṅgassa ceva saṃvāsassa ca thenitattā ubhayatthenako nāma. Dhuranikkhepavasena kāsāyāni apanetvā antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpajjitvā puna tāni acchādetvā evaṃ paṭipajjantepi eseva nayo, ayaṃ tividhopi theyyasaṃvāsako idha adhippeto. Ṭhapetvā pana imaṃ tividhaṃ.

Theyyasaṃvāsako is of three kinds: one who steals the appearance, one who steals association, and one who steals both. Among these, one who, having gone forth himself, does not count the years as a bhikkhu, does not accept veneration from bhikkhus or sāmaṇeras according to seniority, does not obstruct with a seat, and does not appear at the Uposatha and so forth, is called liṅgatthenako due to the impurity of mind, having stolen merely the appearance. But one who, having been ordained by bhikkhus as a sāmaṇera, removes the robes and, with enthusiasm for them, engages in sexual intercourse, then puts them on again and claims the state of a sāmaṇera, is neither a liṅgatthenako—because he has not abandoned the appearance given by the bhikkhus—nor a saṃvāsatthenako—because he has not accepted association in accordance with the appearance. The same applies to one who has committed an ultimate offense. However, one who, as a sāmaṇera, goes to another region, counts the years as a bhikkhu, accepts veneration according to seniority, obstructs with a seat, and appears at the Uposatha and so forth, is called saṃvāsatthenako due to having stolen merely association. For all distinctions of action, such as counting the years as a bhikkhu, should be understood as “association” in this context. The same applies to one who, having rejected the training, thinking, “No one knows me,” acts in this way again. But one who, having gone forth himself, goes to a monastery, accepts veneration according to seniority, obstructs with a seat, counts the years as a bhikkhu, and appears at the Uposatha and so forth, is called ubhayatthenako due to having stolen both the appearance and association. The same applies to one who, having abandoned the robes by laying them aside, commits an ultimate offense, then covers himself with them again and acts in this way. All three of these types of theyyasaṃvāsako are intended here, excluding these three kinds.

A thieving co-resident (Theyyasaṃvāsako) is of three kinds: one who steals the signs, one who steals the co-residence, and one who steals both. Here, one who ordains himself and does not count the monastic years, does not pay respect to monks or novices according to seniority, does not prevent them from taking a seat, and is not seen at Uposatha and other ceremonies, is called one who steals the signs (liṅgatthenako) because he steals only the signs due to his impure mind. One who, having been ordained by monks as a novice, removes his yellow robes, indulges in sexual intercourse with great desire, and then puts them back on, claiming to be a novice, is not one who steals the signs because he has not abandoned the signs given by the monks, nor is he one who steals the co-residence because he has not indulged in a co-residence corresponding to the signs. The same applies to one who has committed a serious offense. One who, being a novice, goes to a foreign country, counts the monastic years, pays respect according to seniority, prevents others from taking a seat, and is seen at Uposatha and other ceremonies, is called one who steals the co-residence (saṃvāsatthenako) because he steals only the co-residence. Here, all the differences in actions, such as counting monastic years and so on, should be understood as “co-residence” in this context. The same applies to one who, having renounced the training, acts in this way again, thinking, “No one knows me.” One who ordains himself, goes to a monastery, pays respect according to seniority, prevents others from taking a seat, counts the monastic years, and is seen at Uposatha and other ceremonies, is called one who steals both (ubhayatthenako) because he steals both the signs and the co-residence. The same applies to one who, having removed his yellow robes due to laying down the burden, does not commit a serious offense, and then puts them back on and acts in this way. All these three kinds of thieving co-residents are meant here. Excluding these three kinds, however.

Theyyasaṃvāsako (one who falsely claims association) is of three kinds: one who deceives by appearance, one who deceives by association, and one who deceives by both. Herein, one who, having gone forth by himself, does not count the years of a bhikkhu, does not accept the respect due to seniority from bhikkhus or sāmaṇeras, does not refuse a seat, and does not appear at the Uposatha and other ceremonies, is called liṅgatthenako (one who deceives by appearance) because he deceives merely by the appearance due to his impure mind. One who, having been ordained by bhikkhus as a sāmaṇera, removes his robes, engages in sexual intercourse with enthusiasm, and then puts on the robes again, claiming to be a sāmaṇera, is not a liṅgatthenako because the appearance given by the bhikkhus has not been relinquished, nor is he a saṃvāsatthenako (one who deceives by association) because he does not accept the association that corresponds to the appearance. The same applies to one who has committed the most serious offense. One who, as a sāmaṇera, goes to another region, counts the years of a bhikkhu, accepts the respect due to seniority, refuses a seat, and appears at the Uposatha and other ceremonies, is called saṃvāsatthenako (one who deceives by association) because he deceives merely by association. For in this context, all actions such as counting the years of a bhikkhu are to be understood as “association.” The same applies to one who, having renounced the training, thinks, “No one knows me,” and then behaves in this way again. One who, having gone forth by himself, goes to a monastery, accepts the respect due to seniority, refuses a seat, counts the years of a bhikkhu, and appears at the Uposatha and other ceremonies, is called ubhayatthenako (one who deceives by both) because he deceives by both appearance and association. The same applies to one who, having removed his robes as a sign of giving up the burden, commits the most serious offense, and then puts on the robes again and behaves in this way. These three kinds of theyyasaṃvāsako are intended here. Excluding these three kinds.

“Rāja dubbhikkha kantāra-roga verī bhayena vā;
Cīvarāharaṇatthaṃ vā, liṅgaṃ ādiyatīdha yo.

“Due to a king, famine, wilderness, disease, enemies, or fear; or for the sake of obtaining a robe, one here takes up the insignia.

“By reason of a king, famine, wilderness, disease, enemy or fear; or for the purpose of taking robes, one here assumes the outward sign.

“Due to famine, a dangerous journey, disease, enemies, or fear;
Or for the sake of stealing robes, one who takes on the appearance here.

“Saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāseti, yāva so suddhamānaso;
Theyyasaṃvāsako nāma, tāva esa na vuccatī”ti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 110);

“He does not dwell together until his mind is pure; he is called a theyya-saṃvāsaka until then, this is not said of him” (mahāva. aṭṭha. 110).

“He does not dwell together [with the Sangha], as long as he is not of pure mind; he is not yet called a Theyyasaṃvāsaka [one who lives in communion through theft]” (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 110);

“He does not accept the association, as long as his mind is impure;
He is not called a theyyasaṃvāsako until then.” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 110);

Yo pana upasampanno titthiyabhāvaṃ patthayamāno sayaṃ vā kusacīrādikaṃ titthiyaliṅgaṃ ādiyati, tesaṃ vā santike pabbajati, naggo vā hutvā ājīvakānaṃ santikaṃ gantvā tesaṃ vatāni ādiyati, ayaṃ titthiyapakkantako nāma. Ṭhapetvā pana manussajātikaṃ avaseso sabbopi tiracchānagato nāma. Yena manussajātikā janetti sayampi manussabhūteneva sañcicca jīvitā voropitā, ayaṃ mātughātako nāma. Pitughātakepi eseva nayo. Yena antamaso gihiliṅge ṭhitopi manussajātiko khīṇāsavo sañcicca jīvitā voropito, ayaṃ arahantaghātako nāma. Yo pana pakatattaṃ bhikkhuniṃ tiṇṇaṃ maggānaṃ aññatarasmiṃ magge dūseti , ayaṃ bhikkhunidūsako nāma. Yo devadatto viya sāsanaṃ uddhammaṃ ubbinayaṃ katvā catunnaṃ kammānaṃ aññataravasena saṅghaṃ bhindati, ayaṃ saṅghabhedako nāma. Yo devadatto viya duṭṭhacittena vadhakacittena tathāgatassa jīvamānakasarīre khuddakamakkhikāya pivanamattampi lohitaṃ uppādeti, ayaṃ lohituppādako nāma. Yassa itthinimittuppādanakammato ca purisanimittuppādanakammato ca ubhato duvidhampi byañjanaṃ atthi, ayaṃ ubhatobyañjanako nāma. Iti ime terasa puggalā upasampadāya avatthū, ime pana ṭhapetvā aññasmiṃ upasampadāpekkhe sati upasampadākammaṃ vatthusampattivasena akuppaṃ hoti.

But one who, having been ordained, desiring the state of a sectarian, either takes up the sectarian appearance such as grass robes himself or goes forth among them, or, becoming naked and going to the Ājīvakas, adopts their practices, is called a titthiyapakkantako. Excluding those of human birth, all others are called tiracchānagato. One who intentionally deprives his mother, who is also of human birth, of life is called a mātughātako. The same applies to a pitughātako. One who intentionally deprives an arahant of life, even one standing in the lay appearance, provided he is of human birth, is called an arahantaghātako. One who, like Devadatta, corrupts a bhikkhunī established in one of the three paths, is called a bhikkhunidūsako. One who, like Devadatta, making the teaching contrary to Dhamma and Vinaya, splits the Saṅgha by one of the four procedures, is called a saṅghabhedako. One who, like Devadatta, with a corrupt mind and intent to kill, causes even a drop of blood the size of a small fly’s drinking to arise on the living body of a Tathāgata, is called a lohituppādako. One who has both characteristics arising from the act of producing female signs and the act of producing male signs is called an ubhatobyañjanako. Thus, these thirteen persons are not a basis for ordination. But when these are excluded, the ordination procedure performed for another person seeking ordination is unshakable due to the completion of the basis.

One who is fully ordained and, desiring the state of a heretic, himself takes up the heretical signs such as grass robes, or ordains in their presence, or goes naked to the presence of the Ājīvakas and takes up their vows, is called one who has gone over to the heretics (titthiyapakkantako). Excluding a human being, all others are called animals (tiracchānagato). One by whom a human mother is deliberately deprived of life, even though he himself is a human being, is called a matricide (mātughātako). The same applies to a patricide (pitughātake). One by whom even a human being who is an Arahant, even while remaining in the household life, is deliberately deprived of life, is called an Arahant-slayer (arahantaghātako). One who corrupts a fully ordained nun in one of the three paths, is called a corrupter of nuns (bhikkhunidūsako). One who, like Devadatta, making the teaching un-Dhamma and un-Vinaya, splits the Saṅgha by one of the four acts, is called a schismatic (saṅghabhedako). One who, like Devadatta, with a corrupted mind and a murderous mind, causes even a tiny amount of blood, as much as a small fly would drink, to appear on the living body of the Tathāgata, is called a causer of bloodshed (lohituppādako). One who has both female and male characteristics due to the act of producing female characteristics and the act of producing male characteristics, is called a hermaphrodite (ubhatobyañjanako). Thus, these thirteen individuals are the non-objects of full ordination. Excluding these, when there is another individual seeking full ordination, the act of full ordination is unshakeable due to the perfection of the object.

One who, having been fully ordained, desires the state of a sectarian, either takes on the sectarian appearance himself, such as wearing a kusa grass garment, or goes forth in their presence, or goes naked to the Ājīvikas and takes on their practices, is called titthiyapakkantako (one who has gone over to the sectarians). Excluding those born as humans, all others are called tiracchānagato (one who has gone to the animal realm). One who, born as a human, intentionally takes the life of his mother, is called mātughātako (matricide). The same applies to pitughātako (patricide). One who, even while remaining in the appearance of a householder, intentionally takes the life of a human who is an arahant, is called arahantaghātako (one who has killed an arahant). One who violates a bhikkhunī who has entered any of the three paths, is called bhikkhunidūsako (one who has violated a bhikkhunī). One who, like Devadatta, causes a schism in the Sangha by performing any of the four acts, is called saṅghabhedako (one who has caused a schism in the Sangha). One who, like Devadatta, with a malicious and murderous mind, causes even a drop of blood to flow from the living body of the Tathāgata, is called lohituppādako (one who has shed blood). One who has both male and female sexual characteristics due to actions that produce female and male characteristics, is called ubhatobyañjanako (one who is hermaphroditic). Thus, these thirteen individuals are unsuitable for full ordination. Excluding these, when another seeks full ordination, the act of ordination is unshakable if the basis is suitable.

Kathaṃ ñattisampattivasena akuppaṃ hoti? Vatthusaṅghapuggalañattīnaṃ aparāmasanāni, pacchā ñattiṭṭhapanañcāti ime tāva pañca ñattidosā. Tattha “ayaṃ itthannāmo”ti upasampadāpekkhassa akittanaṃ vatthuaparāmasanaṃ nāma. “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho”tiettha “suṇātu me, bhante”ti vatvā “saṅgho”ti abhaṇanaṃ saṅghaaparāmasanaṃ nāma. “Itthannāmassa upasampadāpekkho”ti upajjhāyassa akittanaṃ puggalaaparāmasanaṃ nāma. Sabbena sabbaṃ ñattiyā anuccāraṇaṃ ñattiaparāmasanaṃ nāma. Paṭhamaṃ kammavācaṃ niṭṭhāpetvā “esā ñattī”ti vatvā “khamati saṅghassā”ti evaṃ ñattikittanaṃ pacchā ñattiṭṭhapanaṃ nāma. Iti imehi dosehi vimuttāya ñattiyā sampannaṃ ñattisampattivasena akuppaṃ hoti.

How is it unshakable ñattisampattivasena? There are five faults in the motion: not mentioning the basis, the Saṅgha, the person, or the motion itself, and setting up the motion afterward. Here, not announcing the person seeking ordination as “This is so-and-so” is called vatthuaparāmasana. Saying “Listen to me, Venerables” but not saying “Saṅgha” is called saṅghaaparāmasana. Not announcing the preceptor as “The preceptor of so-and-so seeking ordination” is called puggalaaparāmasana. Not reciting the entire motion is called ñattiaparāmasana. Completing the procedure first and then saying, “This is the motion,” followed by “Does it please the Saṅgha?” is called pacchā ñattiṭṭhapana. Thus, a motion free from these faults is complete and unshakable due to the completion of the motion.

How is it unshakeable due to the perfection of the motion (ñattisampattivasena)? The non-mention of the object, the Saṅgha, and the individual, and the placing of the motion afterwards—these are the five defects of the motion. Here, not mentioning the name of the individual seeking full ordination, such as “This one is named so-and-so,” is called non-mention of the object (vatthuaparāmasanaṃ). Saying “May the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable sirs” (Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho) and then not saying “Saṅgha” after saying “May the venerable sirs listen to me” is called non-mention of the Saṅgha (saṅghaaparāmasanaṃ). Not mentioning the preceptor, such as “The seeker of full ordination of so-and-so,” is called non-mention of the individual (puggalaaparāmasanaṃ). Not reciting the motion at all is called non-mention of the motion (ñattiaparāmasanaṃ). Completing the first formal act and then saying “This is the motion,” and then reciting the motion, such as “It is agreeable to the Saṅgha,” is called placing the motion afterwards (pacchā ñattiṭṭhapanaṃ). Thus, when the motion is free from these defects, it is perfected and unshakeable due to the perfection of the motion.

How is it unshakable by ñattisampattivasena (the perfection of the motion)? There are five faults of the motion: non-mention of the basis, the Sangha, the individual, the motion, and the subsequent setting aside of the motion. Herein, not stating, “This is so-and-so,” for one seeking full ordination, is called vatthuaparāmasanaṃ (non-mention of the basis). Saying, “May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs,” but not saying, “the Sangha,” is called saṅghaaparāmasanaṃ (non-mention of the Sangha). Not stating, “So-and-so seeks full ordination,” for the preceptor, is called puggalaaparāmasanaṃ (non-mention of the individual). Not reciting the entire motion is called ñattiaparāmasanaṃ (non-mention of the motion). Completing the first part of the kammavācā and then saying, “This is the motion,” and “Is the Sangha satisfied?” is called pacchā ñattiṭṭhapanaṃ (subsequent setting aside of the motion). Thus, when the motion is free from these faults, it is unshakable by the perfection of the motion.

Anussāvanavasena akuppatāyapi vatthusaṅghapuggalānaṃ aparāmasanāni, sāvanāya hāpanaṃ, akāle sāvananti ime pañca anussāvanadosā. Tattha vatthādīnaṃ aparāmasanāni ñattiyaṃ vuttasadisāneva. Tīsu pana anussāvanāsu yattha katthaci etesaṃ aparāmasanaṃ aparāmasanameva. Sabbena sabbaṃ pana kammavācaṃ avatvā catukkhattuṃ ñattikittanameva, atha vā pana kammavācābbhantare akkharassa vā padassa vā anuccāraṇaṃ vā duruccāraṇaṃ vā sāvanāya hāpanaṃ nāma. Sāvanāya anokāse paṭhamaṃ ñattiṃ aṭṭhapetvā anussāvanakaraṇaṃ akāle sāvanaṃ nāma. Iti imehi dosehi vimuttāya anussāvanāya sampannaṃ anussāvanasampattivasena akuppaṃ hoti.

In terms of anussāvanavasena unshakability, there are five faults in the proclamation: not mentioning the basis, the Saṅgha, or the person, omission in the proclamation, and proclaiming at the wrong time. Here, not mentioning the basis and so forth is as stated in the motion. But in any of the three proclamations, not mentioning these is simply not mentioning them. Not reciting the entire procedure but merely announcing the motion four times, or omitting or mispronouncing a letter or word within the procedure, is called sāvanāya hāpana. Setting up the motion first and proclaiming it in an unauthorized place is called akāle sāvana. Thus, a proclamation free from these faults is complete and unshakable due to the completion of the proclamation.

Unshakeability due to the announcement (Anussāvanavasena) also has five defects: non-mention of the object, the Saṅgha, and the individual, omission of the announcement, and announcing at the wrong time. Here, the non-mentions of the object and so on are similar to those mentioned in the motion. But in the three announcements, the non-mention of any of these anywhere is non-mention. Not reciting the formal act at all and reciting the motion four times, or not reciting or mispronouncing a letter or a word within the formal act, is called omission of the announcement (sāvanāya hāpanaṃ). Placing the first motion in the wrong place for the announcement and then making the announcement is called announcing at the wrong time (akāle sāvanaṃ). Thus, when the announcement is free from these defects, it is perfected and unshakeable due to the perfection of the announcement.

By anussāvanavasena (the perfection of the proclamation), it is also unshakable. There are five faults of the proclamation: non-mention of the basis, the Sangha, the individual, omission in the proclamation, and untimely proclamation. Herein, the non-mention of the basis, etc., is the same as in the motion. In the three proclamations, wherever there is non-mention, it is simply non-mention. Not reciting the entire kammavācā and only reciting the motion four times, or omitting a syllable or word within the kammavācā, is called sāvanāya hāpanaṃ (omission in the proclamation). Setting aside the motion first and then making the proclamation at an inappropriate time is called akāle sāvanaṃ (untimely proclamation). Thus, when the proclamation is free from these faults, it is unshakable by the perfection of the proclamation.

Pubbe vuttaṃ vipattisīmālakkhaṇaṃ samatikkantāya pana sīmāya kataṃ sīmāsampattivasena akuppaṃ hoti. Yāvatikā bhikkhū kammappattā, tesaṃ anāgamanaṃ, chandārahānaṃ chandassa anāharaṇaṃ, sammukhībhūtānaṃ paṭikkosananti ime pana tayo parisādosā, tehi vimuttāya parisāya kataṃ parisāsampattivasena akuppaṃ hoti. Kāraṇārahattā pana satthu sāsanārahattā ṭhānārahaṃ nāma hoti. Iti yo iminā evaṃ akuppena ṭhānārahena ñatticatutthena upasampadākammena upasampanno, ayaṃ idha “bhikkhū”ti adhippeto. Paṇṇattivajjesu pana aññepi saṅgahaṃ gacchanti.

A procedure performed within a boundary that transcends the characteristics of an invalid boundary, as previously stated, is unshakable sīmāsampattivasena. The absence of bhikkhus eligible for the procedure, not bringing the consent of those entitled to consent, and the objection of those present are the three faults of the assembly. A procedure performed by an assembly free from these is unshakable parisāsampattivasena. Due to being worthy of the reason and worthy of the Teacher’s dispensation, it is called ṭhānārahaṃ. Thus, one who is ordained by this unshakable and worthy motion-and-fourth ordination procedure is intended here as a “bhikkhu.” But in offenses of prescribed rules, others are also included.

When the act is performed within a boundary that does not transgress the previously mentioned characteristics of a defective boundary, it is unshakeable due to the perfection of the boundary (sīmāsampattivasena). The non-arrival of the monks who are entitled to participate in the act, the non-bringing of the consent of those who are entitled to give consent, and the objection of those who are present—these are the three defects of the assembly. When the act is performed by an assembly that is free from these, it is unshakeable due to the perfection of the assembly (parisāsampattivasena). Because it is suitable for the purpose, because it is suitable for the teaching of the Teacher, it is called worthy of the status (ṭhānārahaṃ). Thus, one who is fully ordained by this unshakeable and worthy-of-the-status ordination by a motion and three announcements, he is meant here as “monk (bhikkhū).” But in prohibitive precepts, others are also included.

The previously mentioned boundary, having crossed the characteristic of failure, is unshakable by sīmāsampattivasena (the perfection of the boundary). The non-arrival of the bhikkhus who are entitled to participate, the non-taking of the consent of those entitled to give consent, and the objection of those present are the three faults of the assembly. When the assembly is free from these faults, it is unshakable by parisāsampattivasena (the perfection of the assembly). Due to being worthy of the cause and the Teacher’s instruction, it is called ṭhānārahaṃ (worthy of the place). Thus, one who is ordained by this unshakable, worthy of the place, fourfold motion, is here intended as “bhikkhu.” In the offenses of rules, others also are included.

Bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpannoti yā bhikkhūnaṃ adhisīlasaṅkhātā sikkhā, tañca, yattha cete saha jīvanti, ekajīvikā sabhāgavuttino honti, taṃ bhagavatā paññattaṃ sikkhāpadasaṅkhātaṃ sājīvañca, tattha sikkhanabhāvena samāpannoti bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamaāpanno. Samāpannoti sikkhañca paripūrento sājīvañca avītikkamanto hutvā tadubhayaṃ upagatoti attho. Sikkhaṃ apaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvāti yaṃ sikkhaṃ samāpanno, taṃ apaṭikkhipitvā, yañca sājīvaṃ samāpanno, tasmiṃ dubbalabhāvaṃ appakāsetvā. Tattha cittakhettakālapayogapuggalavijānanavasena sikkhāya paccakkhānaṃ ñatvā tadabhāvena apaccakkhānaṃ veditabbaṃ. Kathaṃ? Upasampannabhāvato cavitukāmatācitteneva hi sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ hoti, na davā vā ravā vā bhaṇantassa. Evaṃ cittavasena sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ hoti, na tadabhāvena. Tathā “buddhaṃ paccakkhāmi, dhammaṃ paccakkhāmi, saṅghaṃ paccakkhāmi, sikkhaṃ, vinayaṃ, pātimokkhaṃ, uddesaṃ, upajjhāyaṃ, ācariyaṃ, saddhivihārikaṃ, antevāsikaṃ, samānupajjhāyakaṃ, samānācariyakaṃ, sabrahmacāriṃ paccakkhāmī”ti evaṃ vuttānaṃ buddhādīnaṃ cuddasannaṃ, “gihīti maṃ dhārehi, upāsako, ārāmiko, sāmaṇero, titthiyo, titthiyasāvako, asamaṇo, ’asakyaputtiyo’ti maṃ dhārehī”ti evaṃ vuttānaṃ gihiādīnaṃ aṭṭhannañcāti imesaṃ dvāvīsatiyā khettapadānaṃ yassa kassaci savevacanassa vasena tesu yaṃkiñci vattukāmassa yaṃkiñci vadato sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ hoti, na rukkhādīnaṃ aññatarassa nāmaṃ gahetvā paccācikkhantassa. Evaṃ khettavasena paccakkhānaṃ hoti, na tadabhāvena.

Bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno means: The training of bhikkhus, known as higher virtue, and that common livelihood wherein they live together, sharing the same livelihood and harmonious conduct, established by the Blessed One as the training rules, he has entered into by the state of training—thus, he is one who has entered the training and common livelihood of bhikkhus. Samāpanno means: Having fulfilled the training and not transgressing the common livelihood, he has approached both—that is the meaning. Sikkhaṃ apaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā means: Without rejecting the training he has entered into, and without declaring weakness in the common livelihood he has entered into. Here, the rejection of training should be understood by the absence of rejection, known through the mind, context, effort, and persons involved. How? For the rejection of training occurs only through a mind desiring to fall away from the state of being ordained, not by one who speaks or shouts in jest. Thus, cittavasena there is rejection of training, not in its absence. Likewise, saying, “I reject the Buddha, I reject the Dhamma, I reject the Saṅgha, I reject the training, the Vinaya, the Pātimokkha, the recitation, the preceptor, the teacher, the co-resident, the pupil, those with the same preceptor, those with the same teacher, the fellow spiritual practitioners,” or saying, “Regard me as a householder, a lay follower, a monastery worker, a sāmaṇera, a sectarian, a sectarian disciple, a non-ascetic, a ‘son of the Sakyans,’” when one intends to say any one of these fourteen objects beginning with the Buddha or any one of these eight objects beginning with householder and says any one of them with an explicit statement, there is rejection of training—not by taking the name of a tree or something else and rejecting it. Thus, khettavasena there is rejection, not in its absence.

Endowed with the training and livelihood of monks (Bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno): The training known as the higher morality of monks, and that with which they live together, having a common livelihood and shared conduct, the livelihood known as the precepts prescribed by the Blessed One. Being endowed with the nature of training in that is being endowed with the training and livelihood of monks. Endowed (Samāpanno): Fulfilling the training and not transgressing the livelihood, having attained both, that is the meaning. Without renouncing the training, without revealing weakness (Sikkhaṃ apaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā): Without rejecting the training that he has undertaken, and without revealing weakness in the livelihood that he has undertaken. Here, knowing the renunciation of the training through the factors of mind, field, time, effort, and individual, its absence should be understood as non-renunciation. How? The renunciation of the training occurs only with the mind that desires to leave the state of being fully ordained, not for one who speaks playfully or jokingly. Thus, the renunciation of the training occurs through the mind (cittavasena), not in its absence. Similarly, “I renounce the Buddha, I renounce the Dhamma, I renounce the Saṅgha, I renounce the training, the Vinaya, the Pātimokkha, the recitation, the preceptor, the teacher, the fellow resident, the pupil, the one with the same preceptor, the one with the same teacher, the fellow monastic.” Of these fourteen, beginning with the Buddha, that have been stated, “Consider me a layman, a lay follower, a monastery attendant, a novice, a heretic, a follower of heretics, a non-ascetic, ‘a non-follower of the Sakyan son,’ consider me.” Of these eight, beginning with layman, that have been stated. Of these twenty-two field-words, speaking any one of them with the intention of saying any of them is renunciation of the training, not when taking the name of a tree or any other. Thus, renunciation occurs through the field (khettavasena), not in its absence.

Bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno (one who has entered upon the training and livelihood of the bhikkhus) refers to the training known as higher virtue, and also, where they live together, having the same livelihood and conduct, which the Blessed One has laid down as the training rules and livelihood. Samāpanno means having entered upon both, fulfilling the training and not transgressing the livelihood. Sikkhaṃ apaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā (without renouncing the training and without revealing weakness) means not rejecting the training one has entered upon, and not showing weakness in the livelihood one has entered upon. Herein, the renunciation of the training is to be understood by the absence of the factors of mind, field, time, effort, and individual. How? The renunciation of the training occurs by the mere thought of wishing to give up the state of full ordination, not by speaking loudly or softly. Thus, the renunciation of the training occurs by the mind, not by its absence. Similarly, “I renounce the Buddha, I renounce the Dhamma, I renounce the Sangha, I renounce the training, the discipline, the Pātimokkha, the recitation, the preceptor, the teacher, the fellow student, the novice, the co-preceptor, the co-teacher, the fellow practitioner,” thus renouncing the fourteen terms, and “Regard me as a layman, a male lay follower, a monastery worker, a sāmaṇera, a sectarian, a sectarian disciple, a non-ascetic, a non-Sakyaputtiyan,” thus renouncing the eight terms, the renunciation of the training occurs by any of these twenty-two terms, not by renouncing the name of a tree, etc. Thus, the renunciation of the training occurs by the field, not by its absence.

Tattha yadetaṃ “paccakkhāmī”ti ca, “maṃ dhārehī”ti (pārā. 51) ca vuttaṃ vattamānakālavacanaṃ, yāni ca “alaṃ me buddhena, kiṃ nu me buddhena, na mamattho buddhena , sumuttāhaṃ buddhenā”tiādinā (pārā. 52) nayena ākhyātavasena kālaṃ anāmasitvā purimehi cuddasahi padehi saddhiṃ yojetvā vuttāni “alaṃ me”tiādīni cattāri padāni, tesaṃyeva ca savevacanānaṃ vasena paccakkhānaṃ hoti, na “paccakkhāsi”nti vā “paccakkhissa”nti vā “maṃ dhāresī”ti vā “maṃ dhāressatī”ti vā “yaṃnūnāhaṃ paccakkheyya”nti (pārā. 45) vātiādīni atītānāgataparikappavacanāni bhaṇantassa. Evaṃ vattamāna kālavasena ceva anāmaṭṭhakālavasena ca paccakkhānaṃ hoti, na tadabhāvena.

Therein, the phrases “paccakkhāmī” and “maṃ dhārehī” (pārā. 51) are expressed in the present tense, and the four phrases beginning with “alaṃ me buddhena, kiṃ nu me buddhena, na mamattho buddhena, sumuttāhaṃ buddhenā” (pārā. 52), which are stated without specifying a tense by means of verbal forms and are connected with the preceding fourteen words, constitute a renunciation through those very expressions. This is not the case for someone saying past or future hypothetical statements such as “paccakkhāsi” or “paccakkhissa,” or “maṃ dhāresī” or “maṃ dhāressati,” or “yaṃnūnāhaṃ paccakkheyya” (pārā. 45). Thus, the renunciation occurs by means of the present tense as well as an unspecified tense, not by their absence.

In this context, the present tense statements are “I relinquish” and “consider me” (pārā. 51), and the four words like “Enough for me of the Buddha, what is the Buddha to me, I have no need of the Buddha, I am well rid of the Buddha” (pārā. 52), etc., which are stated by way of declension without specifying the tense, in conjunction with the previous fourteen terms, express relinquishment only in reference to those very same words, and not when someone utters the past, future, or speculative statements like, “I relinquished,” or “I will relinquish,” or “consider me as having relinquished,” or “consider me as one who will relinquish,” or “I should relinquish” (pārā. 45), and so on. Thus, relinquishment occurs through the present tense and the unspecified tense, not in their absence.

Herein, what is said, “I renounce,” and “Regard me,” is the present tense, and what is said, “Enough for me with the Buddha, what use is the Buddha to me, I am well freed from the Buddha,” etc., in the manner of declaration, without reference to time, combined with the previous fourteen terms, and the four terms, “Enough for me,” etc., the renunciation occurs by these, not by saying, “I renounced,” or “I will renounce,” or “Regard me,” or “Will regard me,” or “Perhaps I should renounce,” etc., in the past or future tense. Thus, the renunciation occurs by the present tense and by not referring to time, not by its absence.

Payogo pana duvidho kāyiko ca vācasiko ca. Tattha “buddhaṃ paccakkhāmī”tiādinā (pārā. 51) nayena yāya kāyaci bhāsāya vacībhedaṃ katvā vācasikappayogeneva paccakkhānaṃ hoti, na akkharalikhanaṃ vā hatthamuddādidassanaṃ vā kāyappayogaṃ karontassa. Evaṃ vācasikappayogeneva paccakkhānaṃ hoti, na tadabhāvena.

Practice, however, is of two kinds: bodily and verbal. Therein, by saying “buddhaṃ paccakkhāmī” and so forth (pārā. 51) in any language, through breaking into speech with verbal practice alone, renunciation occurs—not through writing letters, showing hand gestures, or engaging in bodily practice. Thus, renunciation takes place solely through verbal practice, not by its absence.

The act is twofold: bodily and verbal. Of these, relinquishment is effected only through a verbal act by uttering a verbal expression in any language, in the manner of “I relinquish the Buddha” (pārā. 51), etc., and not when someone performs a bodily act, such as writing letters or showing hand gestures, etc. Thus, relinquishment occurs only through a verbal act, not in its absence.

Payogo (effort) is of two kinds: bodily and verbal. Herein, the renunciation occurs by verbal effort, such as saying, “I renounce the Buddha,” etc., not by writing letters or showing hand gestures, which are bodily effort. Thus, the renunciation occurs by verbal effort, not by its absence.

Puggalo pana duvidho – yo ca paccakkhāti, yassa ca paccakkhāti. Tattha yo paccakkhāti, so sace ummattakakhittacittavedanāṭṭānaṃ aññataro na hoti. Yassa pana paccakkhāti, so sace manussajātiko hoti, na ca ummattakādīnaṃ aññataro, sammukhībhūto ca sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ hoti. Na hi asammukhībhūtassa dūtena vā paṇṇena vā ārocanaṃ ruhati. Evaṃ yathāvuttapuggalavasena paccakkhānaṃ hoti, na tadabhāvena.

The person, however, is of two kinds: the one who renounces and the one to whom it is renounced. Therein, the one who renounces must not be someone who is deranged, mentally unstable, or overwhelmed by pain. As for the one to whom it is renounced, if that person is of human birth, not deranged or the like, and present in person, the renunciation of training occurs. Indeed, informing someone not present through a messenger or letter does not suffice. Thus, renunciation occurs by means of the persons as described, not by their absence.

The person is twofold: the one who relinquishes and the one to whom he relinquishes. Of these, the one who relinquishes, if he is not one of the insane, deranged, or afflicted by pain. And, the one to whom he relinquishes, if he is of human birth, and not one of the insane, etc., and is present, then the relinquishment of the training takes place. For, it is not appropriate to inform someone who is not present by means of a messenger or a letter. Thus, relinquishment occurs according to the aforementioned person, not in his absence.

Puggalo (individual) is of two kinds: one who renounces and one to whom renunciation is made. Herein, the one who renounces, if he is not insane, mentally deranged, or in pain, and the one to whom renunciation is made, if he is a human, not insane, etc., and present, the renunciation of the training occurs. For it does not apply to one who is not present, whether through a messenger or a letter. Thus, the renunciation occurs by the individual as stated, not by its absence.

Vijānanampi niyamitāniyamitavasena duvidhaṃ. Tattha yassa yesaṃ vā niyametvā “imassa, imesaṃ vā ārocemī”ti vadati, sace te yathā pakatiyā loke manussā vacanaṃ sutvā āvajjanasamaye jānanti, evaṃ tassa vacanānantarameva tassa “ayaṃ ukkaṇṭhito”ti vā “gihibhāvaṃ patthayatī”ti vā yena kenaci ākārena sikkhāpaccakkhānabhāvaṃ jānanti, paccakkhātāva hoti sikkhā. Atha aparabhāge “kiṃ iminā vutta”nti cintetvā jānanti, aññe vā jānanti, apaccakkhātāva hoti sikkhā. Aniyametvā ārocentassa pana sace vuttanayena yo koci manussajātiko vacanatthaṃ jānāti, paccakkhātāva hoti sikkhā. Evaṃ vijānanavasena paccakkhānaṃ hoti, na tadabhāvena. Yo pana antamaso davāyapi paccakkhāti, tena apaccakkhātāva hoti sikkhā. Iti imesaṃ vuttappakārānaṃ cittādīnaṃ vā vasena, sabbaso vā pana apaccakkhānena sikkhaṃ apaccakkhāya sikkhāpaccakkhānasseva ca atthabhūtaṃ ekaccaṃ dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā.

Understanding is also of two kinds: specific and non-specific. Therein, if one specifies, saying, “I declare this to this person or these people,” and if those individuals, as is natural in the world, hear the words and at the moment of reflection understand them—such that immediately after the statement they recognize the renunciation of training in some way, whether as “this person is discontent” or “this person desires the lay life”—then the training is indeed renounced. However, if later they think, “What did he mean by this?” and understand it, or if others understand it, the training remains unrenounced. For one who declares without specifying, if anyone of human birth understands the meaning of the words as stated, the training is indeed renounced. Thus, renunciation occurs by means of understanding, not by its absence. However, one who renounces even in jest does not truly renounce the training. Thus, without renouncing the training through the aforementioned mental states or entirely through non-renunciation, and without revealing some weakness inherent in the very act of renouncing the training—

Understanding is also twofold: specified and unspecified. Of these, if one says to the one or ones whom he has specified, “I inform this one, or these,” and if those people, as is their normal way in the world, understand the meaning upon hearing the statement and reflection, immediately after his statement, understand the state of relinquishment of the training by any means, such as, “This one is disgusted,” or “He desires the state of a গৃহী (householder),” then the training is relinquished. But if, subsequently, they understand after pondering, “What was said by him?” or if others understand, the training is not relinquished. But for one who informs without specification, if anyone of human birth understands the meaning of the statement in the aforementioned manner, the training is relinquished. Thus, relinquishment occurs according to understanding, not in its absence. But if one relinquishes merely as a joke, the training is not relinquished by him. Thus, by means of the aforementioned states of mind, etc., or, in every way, without relinquishing the training by the very non-relinquishment of the training, and without revealing any weakness which is the essence of the relinquishment of the training.

Vijānana (understanding) is of two kinds: fixed and unfixed. Herein, if one specifies, “I inform this one or these,” and if they, like ordinary people in the world, understand the statement at the moment of hearing, then immediately after his statement, they understand by any means that he is discontented or desires the household life, the training is renounced. But if later they think, “What did he say?” and understand, or others understand, the training is not renounced. For one who informs without specifying, if any human understands the meaning of the statement, the training is renounced. Thus, the renunciation occurs by understanding, not by its absence. If one renounces even in jest, the training is not renounced. Thus, by the absence of renunciation in any of these ways, or by the absence of renunciation altogether, one does not renounce the training, and without revealing weakness, which is the essence of renouncing the training.

Methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyyāti ettha methunaṃ dhammanti rāgapariyuṭṭhānena sadisānaṃ ubhinnaṃ dhammaṃ. Paṭiseveyyāti paṭiseveyya ajjhāpajjeyya. Antamasoti sabbantimena paricchedena. Tiracchānagatāyapīti paṭisandhivasena tiracchānesu gatāyapi, ayamettha anupaññatti. Pārājiko hotīti parājito hoti, parājayaṃ āpanno. Asaṃvāsoti pakatattā bhikkhū saha vasanti etthāti ekakammādikova tividhopi vidhi saṃvāso nāma, so tena saddhiṃ natthīti asaṃvāso. Saṅghakammesu hi esa gaṇapūrakopi na hoti, ayaṃ tāva padavaṇṇanā.

“Methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya”—here, methunaṃ dhammaṃ refers to the act of both parties, akin to being overcome by passion. Paṭiseveyya means one would engage in or commit it. Antamaso denotes the minimal extent. Tiracchānagatāyapi refers even to one born among animals—this is an additional specification here. Pārājiko hoti means one becomes defeated, having fallen into defeat. Asaṃvāso means there is no co-residence; naturally ordained monks dwell together through the three kinds of procedures—single action and so forth—which is called saṃvāsa, and this does not exist with him, hence asaṃvāso. Indeed, such a one does not even serve to complete a quorum in Sangha actions. This, for now, is the explanation of the terms.

Here, “should engage in sexual intercourse,” sexual intercourse is the mutual practice of two people similarly aroused by lust. Should engage means should indulge, should commit. At the very least means with the most minimal limit. Even with a female animal means even with one born in the animal realm by way of rebirth; this is a supplementary regulation here. He becomes one who is defeated means he is defeated, he has fallen into defeat. Not in communion means that communal practice, namely, the threefold procedure, such as the single act, etc., where monks of proper conduct dwell together, does not exist with him; therefore, he is not in communion. For, in Sangha acts, he is not even a filler of the quorum. This is the explanation of the words.

Methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyyā (engages in sexual intercourse) refers to methunaṃ dhamma (sexual intercourse), the act of both parties overcome by lust. Paṭiseveyyā means engages in or commits. Antamaso means to the utmost limit. Tiracchānagatāyapi (even with an animal) refers to one reborn as an animal, this is an additional rule here. Pārājiko hoti (is defeated) means he is defeated, has committed a defeat. Asaṃvāso (no communion) means the bhikkhus do not live together with him, thus the threefold communion is called saṃvāso, and it does not exist with him, thus asaṃvāso. For in Sangha acts, he is not even a filler of the assembly. This is the explanation of the terms.

Ayaṃ panettha vinicchayo – manussāmanussatiracchānagatavasena hi tisso itthiyo, tāsaṃ vaccamaggapassāvamaggamukhamaggavasena tayo tayo katvā nava maggā, tathā ubhatobyañjanakānaṃ. Purisānaṃ pana vaccamaggamukhamaggavasena dve dve katvā cha maggā, tathā paṇḍakānanti evaṃ tiṃsa maggā. Tesu attano vā paresaṃ vā yassa kassaci maggassa santhatassa vā asanthatassa vā, paresaṃ pana matānampi akkhāyitassa vā yebhuyyena akkhāyitassa vā pakativātena asaṃphuṭṭhe allokāse yo bhikkhu ekatilabījamattampi attano aṅgajātaṃ santhataṃ vā asanthataṃ vā sevanacittena paveseti, parena vā pavesiyamāne pavesanapaviṭṭhaṭṭhitauddharaṇesu yaṃkiñci sādiyati, ayaṃ pārājikāpattiṃ āpanno nāma hoti, ayaṃ tāvettha asādhāraṇavinicchayo. Sabbasikkhāpadānaṃ pana sādhāraṇavinicchayatthaṃ ayaṃ mātikā –

Here, however, is the determination: There are three types of females—human, non-human, and animal—each with three paths (anus, urinary tract, and mouth), making nine paths, and likewise for hermaphrodites. For males, there are two paths each (anus and mouth), making six paths, and similarly for eunuchs, totaling thirty paths. Among these, if a monk, with the intention of indulgence, inserts even the tiniest seed-like portion of his own organ—whether covered or uncovered—into any path of himself or another, whether covered or uncovered, or even into the path of a corpse, whether largely decomposed or not, or if he consents to any act of insertion, penetration, remaining, or withdrawal when another causes it, he incurs a pārājika offense. This is the specific determination here. For the general determination of all training rules, here is the outline—

Here is the decision in this matter – there are three types of women: human, non-human, and animal. They have nine orifices in total, three each: the anus, the urinary tract, and the mouth. The same applies to those with both sexual characteristics (ubhatobyañjanaka). Men have six orifices in total, two each: the anus and the mouth. The same applies to eunuchs (paṇḍaka). Thus, there are thirty orifices in total. Among these, whether one’s own or another’s, any orifice, whether covered or uncovered, and even of those who are dead, of others, whether not fully destroyed or mostly not fully destroyed, in an open space not touched by natural wind, if a bhikkhu, with the intention of engaging, inserts his own sexual organ, even as small as a single sesame seed, whether covered or uncovered, or if, when it is being inserted by another, he enjoys any of the stages of insertion, penetration, remaining, or withdrawal, he is said to have committed a pārājika offense. This is the specific decision here. For the general decision of all training rules, this is the matrix:

Herein, the analysis is as follows: There are three kinds of women: human, non-human, and animal. For them, there are nine paths: the excrement path, the urine path, and the mouth path, each in three ways. Similarly, for hermaphrodites. For men, there are six paths: the excrement path and the mouth path, each in two ways. Similarly, for eunuchs. Thus, there are thirty paths. In these, whether one’s own or another’s, whether covered or uncovered, or even if another’s is dead, if it is mostly reported or generally reported, if a bhikkhu, with a lustful mind, inserts his own genital organ, whether covered or uncovered, into any of these paths, even to the extent of a sesame seed, or if another inserts it, and he consents to the insertion, entry, or remaining, he commits a pārājika offense. This is the specific analysis here. For the common analysis of all training rules, this is the outline:

Nidānaṃ puggalaṃ vatthuṃ, paññattividhimeva ca;
Āṇattāpattināpatti-vipattiṃ aṅgameva ca.

The origin, the person, the basis, and the threefold method of establishment; the command, the offense, the failure, and the factors too.

The introduction, the person, the object, and the method of promulgation; the instigation, offense, non-offense, transgression, and the constituent factors.

The origin, the individual, the basis, the rule, and the kind;
The order, the offense, the non-offense, the failure, and the factor.

Samuṭṭhānavidhiṃ kiriyā-saññācittehi nānattaṃ;
Vajjakammappabhedañca, tikadvayavidhiṃ tathā.

The method of arising, the action, the diversity through perception and mind; the types of faulty acts and the method of the two sets of three.

The method of arising, the action, the distinctions of consciousness and thought; the different types of unallowable actions, and the method of the groups of three and two.

The source, the method, the action, the perception, the mind, the diversity;
The prohibited action, the classification, and the twofold and threefold method.

Lakkhaṇaṃ sattarasadhā, ṭhitaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ idaṃ;
Ñatvā yojeyya medhāvī, tattha tattha yathārahanti.

The characteristic, established in seventeen ways, this is common; knowing this, the wise should apply it accordingly here and there as fitting.

The characteristic, established in seventeen ways, this is common; having understood, the wise one should apply [it] appropriately in each case.

The characteristic is seventeenfold, established as common;
The wise should apply it accordingly, wherever appropriate.

Tattha nidānaṃ nāma vesāli-rājagaha-sāvatthi-āḷavi-kosambi-sagga-bhaggānaṃ vasena sattavidhaṃ paññattiṭṭhānaṃ, idañhi sabbasikkhāpadānaṃ nidānaṃ. Puggalo nāma yaṃ yaṃ ārabbha taṃ taṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ. Vatthu nāma tassa tassa puggalassa ajjhācāro vuccati. Paññattividhinti paññattianupaññattianuppannapaññattisabbatthapaññattipadesapaññattisādhāraṇapaññatti asādhāraṇapaññattiekatopaññattiubhatopaññattivasena navavidhā paññatti. Tattha anuppannapaññatti nāma anuppanne dose paññattā, sā aṭṭhagarudhammappaṭiggahaṇavasena (cūḷava. 403) bhikkhunīnaṃyeva āgatā, aññatra natthi. Vinayadharapañcamena (mahāva. 259) gaṇena upasampadā, gaṇaṅgaṇūpāhanā (mahāva. 259) dhuvanhānaṃ cammattharaṇanti etesaṃ vasena catubbidhā padesapaññatti nāma. Majjhimadeseyeva hi etehi āpatti hoti, tesupi dhuvanhānaṃ paṭikkhepamattameva pātimokkhe āgataṃ, tato aññā padesapaññatti nāma natthi. Sabbāni sabbatthapaññattiyeva honti, sādhāraṇapaññattidukañca ekatopaññattidukañca atthato ekaṃ, tasmā anuppannapaññattiñca sabbatthapaññattidukañca ekatopaññattidukañca ṭhapetvā sesānaṃ catassannaṃ paññattīnaṃ vasena sabbattha vinicchayo veditabbo. Āṇattāpattināpattivipattintiettha āṇattītiāṇāpanā vuccati. Āpattīti pubbappayogādivasena āpattibhedo. Anāpattīti ajānanādivasena anāpatti. Vipattīti sīlaācāradiṭṭhiājīvavipattīnaṃ aññatarā. Iti imāsaṃ āṇattādīnampi vasena sabbattha vinicchayo veditabbo. Aṅganti sabbasikkhāpadesu āpattīnaṃ aṅgaṃ veditabbaṃ.

Therein, nidānaṃ refers to the sevenfold basis of enactment—Vesālī, Rājagaha, Sāvatthī, Āḷavī, Kosambī, Sagga, and Bhaggā—which is indeed the origin of all training rules. Puggalo refers to the person in relation to whom each training rule was established. Vatthu refers to the conduct of that person. Paññattividhi refers to the ninefold enactment: enactment, supplementary enactment, unarisen enactment, universal enactment, regional enactment, common enactment, specific enactment, one-sided enactment, and two-sided enactment. Among these, anuppannapaññatti refers to an enactment established before the fault arises; it pertains only to nuns through the acceptance of the eight heavy rules (cūḷava. 403) and is not found elsewhere. Ordination by a group of five Vinaya experts (mahāva. 259), the group’s use of footwear, regular bathing, and leather mats constitute the fourfold padesapaññatti. These apply only in the Middle Country; among them, only the prohibition on regular bathing is included in the Pātimokkha, and no other regional enactment exists. All are generally sabbatthapaññatti; the pair of sādhāraṇapaññatti and the pair of ekatopaññatti are essentially one in meaning. Thus, excepting the unarisen enactment, the pair of universal enactment, and the pair of one-sided enactment, the determination should be understood everywhere through the remaining four enactments. Āṇattāpattināpattivipatti: Here, āṇatti means command; āpatti refers to the classification of offenses based on prior effort and so forth; anāpatti refers to non-offense due to ignorance and so forth; vipatti refers to a failure in virtue, conduct, view, or livelihood. Thus, the determination should be understood everywhere through these commands and so forth as well. Aṅga refers to the factors of offenses in all training rules.

Of these, origin is the sevenfold place of regulation according to Vesāli, Rājagaha, Sāvatthi, Āḷavi, Kosambi, Sagga, and Bhaggā. This is the origin of all training rules. Person is the one with reference to whom each training rule was laid down. Object is said to be the transgression of each person. The method of regulation is the ninefold regulation: regulation, supplementary regulation, regulation for an unarisen case, general regulation, specific regulation, common regulation, uncommon regulation, one-sided regulation, and two-sided regulation. Of these, regulation for an unarisen case is the regulation for an unarisen fault, which came only to the bhikkhunīs by way of accepting the eight weighty rules (cūḷava. 403), and does not exist elsewhere. Ordination by a group with a Vinaya expert as the fifth (mahāva. 259), footwear within the boundary, bathing regularly, and leather spread, these four are called specific regulation. For, an offense arises from these only in the Middle Country. Among them, only the prohibition of bathing regularly is included in the Pātimokkha. Therefore, apart from that, there is no other specific regulation. All are general regulations, and the two common regulations and the two one-sided regulations are essentially one. Therefore, excluding the regulation for an unarisen case and the two general regulations and the two one-sided regulations, the decision should be understood everywhere by means of the remaining four regulations. Command, offense, non-offense, transgression – here, command is said to be instruction. Offense is the division of offenses by way of preliminary effort, etc. Non-offense is non-offense by way of not knowing, etc. Transgression is one of the transgressions of moral conduct, behavior, view, and livelihood. Thus, the decision should be understood everywhere by means of these commands, etc. Factor means the factor of offenses should be understood in all training rules.

Herein, nidānaṃ (origin) refers to the sevenfold place of the rule: Vesāli, Rājagaha, Sāvatthi, Āḷavi, Kosambi, heaven, and the Bhaggas. This is the origin of all training rules. Puggalo (individual) refers to whoever the training rule is laid down for. Vatthu (basis) refers to the behavior of that individual. Paññattividhi (the kind of rule) refers to the ninefold rule: the rule, the additional rule, the unarisen rule, the universal rule, the local rule, the common rule, the uncommon rule, the single rule, and the dual rule. Herein, anuppannapaññatti (the unarisen rule) refers to the rule laid down for unarisen faults, which applies only to bhikkhunīs in the acceptance of the eight grave rules (Cūḷava. 403), and nowhere else. The ordination by the fifth group of Vinaya holders (Mahāva. 259), the group and subgroup sandals (Mahāva. 259), and the permanent hides are the fourfold padesapaññatti (local rule). For these offenses occur only in the Middle Country, and even there, the prohibition of permanent hides is only mentioned in the Pātimokkha, beyond which there is no local rule. All are sabbatthapaññatti (universal rule), and the sādhāraṇapaññatti (common rule) and ekatopaññatti (single rule) are essentially the same. Therefore, excluding the unarisen rule, the universal rule, and the single rule, the analysis should be understood by the remaining four rules. Āṇattāpattināpattivipatti refers to āṇattī (order), āpattī (offense), anāpattī (non-offense), and vipattī (failure). Herein, āṇattī refers to the order. Āpattī refers to the kinds of offenses due to previous actions, etc. Anāpattī refers to non-offenses due to ignorance, etc. Vipattī refers to any of the failures in virtue, conduct, view, or livelihood. Thus, the analysis should be understood by these orders, etc. Aṅga (factor) refers to the factors of offenses in all training rules.

Samuṭṭhānavidhinti sabbāpattīnaṃ kāyo vācā kāyavācā kāyacittaṃ vācācittaṃ kāyavācācittanti imāni ekaṅgikadvaṅgikativaṅgikāni. Cha samuṭṭhānāni nāma yāni “sikkhāpadasamauṭṭhānānī”tipi vuccanti. Tattha purimāni tīṇi acittakāni, pacchimāni sacittakāni. Tesu ekena vā dvīhi vā tīhi vā catūhi vā chahi vā samuṭṭhānehi āpattiyo samuṭṭhahanti, pañcasamuṭṭhānā nāma natthi. Tattha ekasamuṭṭhānā nāma catutthena ca pañcamena ca chaṭṭhena ca samuṭṭhānena samuṭṭhāti, na aññena. Dvisamuṭṭhānā nāma paṭhamacatutthehi ca dutiyapañcamehi ca tatiyachaṭṭhehi ca catutthachaṭṭhehi ca pañcamachaṭṭhehi ca samuṭṭhānehi, samuṭṭhāti, na aññehi. Tisamuṭṭhānā nāma paṭhamehi ca tīhi, pacchimehi ca tīhi samuṭṭhānehi samuṭṭhāti, na aññehi. Catusamuṭṭhānā nāma paṭhamatatiyacatutthachaṭṭhehi ca dutiyatatiyapañcamachaṭṭhehi ca samuṭṭhānehi samuṭṭhāti, na aññehi. Cha samuṭṭhānā nāma chahipi samuṭṭhāti.

Samuṭṭhānavidhi refers to the method of arising of all offenses, which consists of body, speech, body and speech, body and mind, speech and mind, and body, speech, and mind—these being single-factor, two-factor, and three-factor categories. These six arisings are also called “sikkhāpadasamuṭṭhānāni” (the arisings of training rules). Among them, the first three are without mind, and the last three are with mind. Offenses arise through one, two, three, four, or all six of these arisings; there is no such thing as an offense with five arisings. Therein, ekasamuṭṭhānā arises through the fourth, fifth, or sixth arising alone, not otherwise. Dvisamuṭṭhānā arises through the pairs of first and fourth, second and fifth, third and sixth, fourth and sixth, or fifth and sixth arisings, not otherwise. Tisamuṭṭhānā arises through the first three or the last three arisings, not otherwise. Catusamuṭṭhānā arises through the combinations of first, third, fourth, and sixth, or second, third, fifth, and sixth arisings, not otherwise. Cha samuṭṭhānā arises through all six arisings.

The method of arising – all offenses have these: body, speech, body and speech, body and mind, speech and mind, body, speech, and mind, which are single-factored, two-factored, and three-factored. The six arisings are also called “the arisings of training rules.” Of these, the first three are without thought, and the last three are with thought. Offenses arise from one, or two, or three, or four, or six arisings; there are no five-arising offenses. Of these, one-arising arises from the fourth, fifth, and sixth arisings, not from any other. Two-arising arises from the first and fourth, the second and fifth, the third and sixth, the fourth and sixth, and the fifth and sixth arisings, not from any others. Three-arising arises from the first three and the last three arisings, not from any others. Four-arising arises from the first, third, fourth, and sixth, and the second, third, fifth, and sixth arisings, not from any others. Six-arising arises from all six.

The method of origination—For all offenses, the body, speech, body and speech, body and mind, speech and mind, or body, speech, and mind are the single, double, or triple factors. There are six origins, which are also called “the origins of the training rules.” Among these, the first three are non-mind-originated, while the latter three are mind-originated. Offenses arise through one, two, three, four, or six of these origins; there is no offense that arises through five origins. Here, offenses arising from a single origin arise only through the fourth, fifth, or sixth origin, not through others. Offenses arising from two origins arise through the first and fourth, second and fifth, third and sixth, fourth and sixth, or fifth and sixth origins, not through others. Offenses arising from three origins arise through the first three or the latter three origins, not through others. Offenses arising from four origins arise through the first, third, fourth, and sixth or the second, third, fifth, and sixth origins, not through others. Offenses arising from six origins arise through all six origins.

Tidhā ekasamuṭṭhānā, pañcadhā dvisamuṭṭhitā;
Dvidhā ticaturo ṭhānā, ekadhā chasamuṭṭhitāti.

Threefold are those with one origin, fivefold are those with two origins; twofold are those with three or four bases, singly are those with six origins.

In three ways arising from one source, in five ways arising from two sources; in two ways arising from three or four sources, in one way arising from six sources.

Offenses arising from one origin are of three kinds; offenses arising from two origins are of five kinds;
Offenses arising from three or four origins are of two kinds; offenses arising from six origins are of one kind.

Samuṭṭhānavasena sabbāva terasa āpattiyo honti (cūḷava. 165 ādayo), tā paṭhamapaññattisikkhāpadavasena samuṭṭhānato terasa nāmāni labhanti paṭhamapārājikasamuṭṭhānā, adinnādāna-sañcaritta-samanubhāsana-kathina-eḷakaloma-padasodhamma-addhāna-theyyasattha-dhammadesanābhūtārocana-corivuṭṭhāpana-ananuññātasamuṭṭhānāti. Tattha yā kāyacittato samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ paṭhamapārājikasamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā sacittakehi tīhi samuṭṭhānehi samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ adinnādānasamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā chahipi samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ sañcarittasamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā chaṭṭheneva samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ samanubhāsanasamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā tatiyachaṭṭhehi samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ kathinasamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā paṭhamacatutthehi samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ eḷakalomasamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā dutiyapañcamehi samuṭṭhāti , ayaṃ padasodhammasamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā paṭhamatatiyacatutthachaṭṭhehi samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ addhānasamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā catutthachaṭṭhehi samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ theyyasatthasamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā pañcameneva samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ dhammadesanāsamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā acittakehi tīhi samuṭṭhānehi samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ bhūtārocanasamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā pañcamachaṭṭhehi samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ corivuṭṭhāpanasamuṭṭhānā nāma. Yā dutiyatatiyapañcamachaṭṭhehi samuṭṭhāti, ayaṃ ananuññātasamuṭṭhānā nāmāti. Iti imassa samuṭṭhānavidhinopi vasena sabbattha vinicchayo veditabbo.

By way of arising, there are altogether thirteen offenses (cūḷava. 165 onward), which, based on the first-established training rules, receive thirteen names: paṭhamapārājikasamuṭṭhānā, adinnādāna-samuṭṭhānā, sañcaritta-samuṭṭhānā, samanubhāsana-samuṭṭhānā, kathina-samuṭṭhānā, eḷakaloma-samuṭṭhānā, padasodhamma-samuṭṭhānā, addhāna-samuṭṭhānā, theyyasattha-samuṭṭhānā, dhammadesanā-samuṭṭhānā, bhūtārocana-samuṭṭhānā, corivuṭṭhāpana-samuṭṭhānā, and ananuññāta-samuṭṭhānā. Therein, that which arises from body and mind is called paṭhamapārājikasamuṭṭhānā. That which arises from the three arisings with mind is called adinnādānasamuṭṭhānā. That which arises from all six is called sañcarittasamuṭṭhānā. That which arises only from the sixth is called samanubhāsanasamuṭṭhānā. That which arises from the third and sixth is called kathinasamuṭṭhānā. That which arises from the first and fourth is called eḷakalomasamuṭṭhānā. That which arises from the second and fifth is called padasodhammasamuṭṭhānā. That which arises from the first, third, fourth, and sixth is called addhānasamuṭṭhānā. That which arises from the fourth and sixth is called theyyasatthasamuṭṭhānā. That which arises only from the fifth is called dhammadesanāsamuṭṭhānā. That which arises from the three arisings without mind is called bhūtārocanasamuṭṭhānā. That which arises from the fifth and sixth is called corivuṭṭhāpanasamuṭṭhānā. That which arises from the second, third, fifth, and sixth is called ananuññātasamuṭṭhānā. Thus, the determination should be understood everywhere by this method of arising as well.

All thirteen offenses arise by way of arising (cūḷava. 165, etc.). They receive thirteen names from arising according to the first-laid-down training rule: arising from the first pārājika, arising from taking what is not given, arising from intentional deception, arising from formal admonition, arising from Kathina, arising from sheep’s wool, arising from Padasodhamma, arising from a journey, arising from a thieving caravan, arising from teaching Dhamma, arising from informing about a fault, arising from ordaining a thief, and arising from not being permitted. Of these, that which arises from body and mind is called arising from the first pārājika. That which arises from the three arisings with thought is called arising from taking what is not given. That which arises from all six is called arising from intentional deception. That which arises only from the sixth is called arising from formal admonition. That which arises from the third and sixth is called arising from Kathina. That which arises from the first and fourth is called arising from sheep’s wool. That which arises from the second and fifth is called arising from Padasodhamma. That which arises from the first, third, fourth, and sixth is called arising from a journey. That which arises from the fourth and sixth is called arising from a thieving caravan. That which arises only from the fifth is called arising from teaching Dhamma. That which arises from the three arisings without thought is called arising from informing about a fault. That which arises from the fifth and sixth is called arising from ordaining a thief. That which arises from the second, third, fifth, and sixth is called arising from not being permitted. Thus, the decision should be understood everywhere by means of this method of arising.

According to the method of origination, all thirteen offenses arise (see Cūḷavagga 165, etc.). These offenses, based on the first established training rule, are named according to their origins: the first pārājika offense, theft, sexual misconduct, coercion, the kathina ceremony, goat’s wool, correcting words, traveling, theft by deception, teaching Dhamma, reporting facts, expelling a thief, and acting without permission. Here, the offense that arises from body and mind is called the first pārājika offense. The offense that arises through the three mind-originated factors is called the theft offense. The offense that arises through all six origins is called the sexual misconduct offense. The offense that arises only through the sixth origin is called the coercion offense. The offense that arises through the third and sixth origins is called the kathina offense. The offense that arises through the first and fourth origins is called the goat’s wool offense. The offense that arises through the second and fifth origins is called the correcting words offense. The offense that arises through the first, third, fourth, and sixth origins is called the traveling offense. The offense that arises through the fourth and sixth origins is called the theft by deception offense. The offense that arises only through the fifth origin is called the teaching Dhamma offense. The offense that arises through the three non-mind-originated factors is called the reporting facts offense. The offense that arises through the fifth and sixth origins is called the expelling a thief offense. The offense that arises through the second, third, fifth, and sixth origins is called the acting without permission offense. Thus, the determination should be understood in all cases according to this method of origination.

Kiriyāsaññācittehi nānattanti etehi kiriyādīhi sabbāpattīnaṃ nānābhāvaṃ ñatvā sabbattha vinicchayo veditabbo. Sabbāpattiyo hi kiriyāvasena pañcavidhā honti, seyyathidaṃ – atthāpatti kiriyato samuṭṭhāti , atthi akiriyato, atthi kiriyākiriyato, atthi siyā kiriyato siyā akiriyato, atthi siyā kiriyato siyā kiriyākiriyatoti. Tattha yā kāyena vā vācāya vā pathavikhaṇanādīsu (paci. 84) viya vītikkamaṃ karontassa hoti, ayaṃ kiriyato samuṭṭhāti nāma. Yā kāyavācāhi kattabbaṃ akarontassa hoti paṭhamakathināpatti (pārā. 459 ādayo) viya, ayaṃ akiriyato samuṭṭhāti nāma. Yā karontassa ca akarontassa ca hoti aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā hatthato cīvarappaṭiggahaṇāpatti (pārā. 508-511) viya, ayaṃ kiriyākiriyato samuṭṭhāti nāma. Yā siyā karontassa ca, siyā akarontassa ca hoti rūpiyappaṭiggahaṇāpatti (pārā. 582) viya, ayaṃ siyā kiriyato siyā akiriyato samuṭṭhāti nāma. Yā siyā karontassa ca siyā karontākarontassa ca hoti kuṭikārāpatti (pārā. 342 ādayo) viya, ayaṃ siyā kiriyato siyā kiriyākiriyato samuṭṭhāti nāma.

Kiriyāsaññācittehi nānatta means that by understanding the diversity of all offenses through action, perception, and mind, the determination should be understood everywhere. All offenses are fivefold by way of action: some offenses arise from action, some from inaction, some from both action and inaction, some possibly from action or possibly from inaction, and some possibly from action or possibly from both action and inaction. Therein, that which occurs for one transgressing through body or speech, such as in digging the earth (paci. 84), is called kiriyato samuṭṭhāti. That which occurs for one not doing what should be done with body or speech, such as the first kathina offense (pārā. 459 onward), is called akiriyato samuṭṭhāti. That which occurs for one both doing and not doing, such as the offense of receiving a robe from an unrelated nun (pārā. 508-511), is called kiriyākiriyato samuṭṭhāti. That which possibly occurs for one doing or not doing, such as the offense of accepting money (pārā. 582), is called siyā kiriyato siyā akiriyato samuṭṭhāti. That which possibly occurs for one doing or for one both doing and not doing, such as the offense of building a hut (pārā. 342 onward), is called siyā kiriyato siyā kiriyākiriyato samuṭṭhāti.

The difference by action, cognition, and mind – knowing the difference of all offenses by these actions, etc., the decision should be understood everywhere. All offenses are fivefold by way of action, namely: some offenses arise from action, some from inaction, some from action and inaction, some may be from action or may be from inaction, some may be from action or may be from action and inaction. Of these, that which occurs when one commits a transgression with body or speech, like digging the earth, etc. (paci. 84), is called arising from action. That which occurs when one does not do what should be done with body and speech, like the first Kathina offense (pārā. 459, etc.), is called arising from inaction. That which occurs both when doing and not doing, like the offense of receiving robes from the hand of a non-relative bhikkhunī (pārā. 508-511), is called arising from action and inaction. That which may be from doing, or may be from not doing, like the offense of receiving money (pārā. 582), is called may be from action or may be from inaction. That which may be from doing, or may be from doing and not doing, like the offense of building a hut (pārā. 342, etc.), is called may be from action or may be from action and inaction.

The distinction based on action, perception, and mind—Knowing the diverse nature of all offenses through these factors of action, etc., the determination should be understood in all cases. All offenses are fivefold based on action: some offenses arise from performing an action, some from not performing an action, some from both performing and not performing an action, some from possibly performing or not performing an action, and some from possibly performing or both performing and not performing an action. Here, the offense that arises from performing an action, such as digging the earth (see Pacittiya 84), is called arising from performing an action. The offense that arises from not performing an action, such as the first kathina offense (see Pārājika 459, etc.), is called arising from not performing an action. The offense that arises from both performing and not performing an action, such as receiving robes from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī (see Pārājika 508-511), is called arising from both performing and not performing an action. The offense that arises from possibly performing or not performing an action, such as receiving money (see Pārājika 582), is called arising from possibly performing or not performing an action. The offense that arises from possibly performing or both performing and not performing an action, such as the offense of building a hut (see Pārājika 342, etc.), is called arising from possibly performing or both performing and not performing an action.

Sabbāpattiyo ca saññāvasena duvidhā honti saññāvimokkhā nosaññāvimokkhāti. Tattha yato vītikkamasaññāya abhāvena muccati, ayaṃ saññāvimokkhā, itarā nosaññāvimokkhā. Puna ca sabbāpi cittavasena duvidhā honti sacittakā acittakā cāti. Tattha yā sacittakasamuṭṭhānavaseneva samuṭṭhāti ayaṃ sacittakā. Yā acittakena vā sacittakamissakena vā samuṭṭhāti ayaṃ acittakā.

All offenses are also twofold by way of perception: saññāvimokkhā and nosaññāvimokkhā. Therein, that from which one is released due to the absence of perception of transgression is called saññāvimokkhā; the other is nosaññāvimokkhā. Further, all offenses are twofold by way of mind: sacittakā and acittakā. Therein, that which arises solely through arisings with mind is called sacittakā. That which arises through arisings without mind or mixed with mind is called acittakā.

And all offenses are twofold by way of cognition: released by cognition and not released by cognition. Of these, that from which one is released due to the absence of the cognition of transgression is released by cognition; the other is not released by cognition. Again, all are twofold by way of mind: with thought and without thought. Of these, that which arises only by way of arising with thought is with thought. That which arises from arising without thought or mixed with thought is without thought.

All offenses are twofold based on perception: those that are released through perception and those that are not released through perception. Here, the offense from which one is released due to the absence of the perception of transgression is called released through perception; the other is called not released through perception. Furthermore, all offenses are twofold based on mind: those that are mind-originated and those that are non-mind-originated. Here, the offense that arises through mind-originated factors is called mind-originated. The offense that arises through non-mind-originated or mixed factors is called non-mind-originated.

Vajjakammappabhedanti ettha sabbāpattiyo vajjavasena duvidhā honti lokavajjā paṇṇattivajjā cāti. Tattha yassā sacittakapakkhe cittaṃ akusalameva hoti, ayaṃ lokavajjā, sesā paṇṇattivajjā. Sabbā ca kāyakammavacīkammatadubhayavasena tividhā honti. Tattha kāyadvāre āpajjitabbā kāyakammanti vuccati, vacīdvāre āpajjitabbā vacīkammanti vuccati, ubhayattha āpajjitabbā kāyakammaṃ vacīkammañcāti, manodvāre āpatti nāma natthi. Iti iminā vajjakammappabhedenāpi sabbattha vinicchayo veditabbo.

Vajjakammappabheda means that all offenses are twofold by way of blame: lokavajjā and paṇṇattivajjā. Therein, that whose mind in the category with mind is invariably unwholesome is called lokavajjā; the rest are paṇṇattivajjā. All are also threefold by way of bodily action, verbal action, or both: that which is to be committed through the door of the body is called kāyakamma; that which is to be committed through the door of speech is called vacīkamma; that which is to be committed through both is called kāyakammaṃ vacīkammañca. There is no offense through the door of the mind. Thus, the determination should be understood everywhere by this classification of blameworthy actions as well.

The division of blameworthy acts – here, all offenses are twofold by way of blame: worldly blame and conventional blame. Of these, that in which the mind is only unwholesome in the case of being with thought is worldly blame; the rest are conventional blame. And all are threefold by way of bodily act, verbal act, and both. Of these, that which is to be committed through the bodily door is called bodily act, that which is to be committed through the verbal door is called verbal act, that which is to be committed through both is called bodily act and verbal act; there is no offense through the mind door. Thus, the decision should be understood everywhere by means of this division of blameworthy acts.

The classification of prohibitive actions—Here, all offenses are twofold based on prohibition: those that are prohibited by the world and those that are prohibited by rule. Here, the offense in which the mind is unwholesome in the mind-originated aspect is called prohibited by the world; the rest are called prohibited by rule. All offenses are threefold based on bodily action, verbal action, or both. Here, the offense that is committed through the body is called bodily action; the offense that is committed through speech is called verbal action; the offense that is committed through both is called both bodily and verbal action. There is no offense committed through the mind. Thus, the determination should be understood in all cases according to this classification of prohibitive actions.

Tikadvayavidhinti kusalattikavedanāttikavidhiṃ. Āpattiṃ āpajjamāno hi akusalacitto vā āpajjati kusalābyākatacitto vā, tathā dukkhavedanāsamaṅgī vā itaravedanādvayasamaṅgī vā. Evaṃ santepi sabbasikkhāpadesu akusalacittavasena ekaṃ cittaṃ, kusalābyākatacittavasena dve cittāni, sabbesaṃ vasena tīṇi cittāni. Dukkhavedanāvasena ekā vedanā, sukhaupekkhāvasena dve, sabbāsaṃ vasena tisso vedanāti. Ayameva pabhedo labbhati, na añño.

Tikadvayavidhi refers to the method of the two triads: the triad of wholesome states and the triad of feelings. One committing an offense does so either with an unwholesome mind or with a wholesome or neutral mind; likewise, with a feeling of pain or with one of the other two feelings. Even so, in all training rules, there is one mind by way of the unwholesome mind, two minds by way of the wholesome and neutral minds, and three minds altogether; one feeling by way of painful feeling, two by way of pleasant and neutral feelings, and three feelings altogether. This alone is the classification obtained, not otherwise.

The method of the two triads is the method of the wholesome triad and the feeling triad. For, one commits an offense either with an unwholesome mind or with a wholesome or indeterminate mind, and likewise, either accompanied by painful feeling or accompanied by the other two feelings. Even so, in all training rules, there is one mind by way of unwholesome mind, two minds by way of wholesome and indeterminate mind, and three minds by way of all. By way of painful feeling, there is one feeling, by way of pleasant and neutral feeling, there are two, and by way of all, there are three. Only this division is obtained, not any other.

The method of the threefold and twofold divisions—This refers to the divisions of the wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate, and the divisions of feeling. When committing an offense, one does so with an unwholesome mind, a wholesome or indeterminate mind, or with a mind associated with painful feeling or the other two feelings. Thus, in all training rules, there is one mind from the perspective of the unwholesome mind, two minds from the perspective of the wholesome and indeterminate minds, and three minds from the perspective of all. There is one feeling from the perspective of painful feeling, two from the perspective of pleasant and neutral feeling, and three from the perspective of all. This is the only classification; there is no other.

Lakkhaṇaṃ sattarasadhā, ṭhitaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ idaṃ, ñatvāti idaṃ nidānādivedanāttikapariyosānaṃ sattarasappakāraṃ lakkhaṇaṃ jānitvā yojeyya medhāvī. Tattha tattha yathārahanti paṇḍito bhikkhu tasmiṃ tasmiṃ sikkhāpade idaṃ lakkhaṇaṃ yathānurūpaṃ yojeyyāti attho. Taṃ pana ayojitaṃ dubbijānaṃ hoti, tasmā naṃ sabbasikkhāpadānaṃ asādhāraṇavinicchayapariyosāne imaṃ mātikaṃ anuddharitvāva yojetvā dassayissāma.

Lakkhaṇaṃ sattarasadhā, ṭhitaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ idaṃ, ñatvā means that having understood this characteristic, which is seventeenfold—from origin to the triad of feelings—the wise one should apply it. Tattha tattha yathāraha means that a learned monk should apply this characteristic appropriately in each training rule. However, when unapplied, it is hard to understand; therefore, without restating this outline, we will apply and demonstrate it at the conclusion of the specific determinations of all training rules.

The characteristic, in seventeen ways, established, common is this, having known – having known this seventeenfold characteristic, ending with the feeling triad, beginning with the origin, etc., the wise one should apply it. Here and there, as appropriate means the wise bhikkhu should apply this characteristic to each training rule as appropriate. But that which is not applied is difficult to understand. Therefore, at the end of the specific decision of all training rules, without extracting this matrix, we will show it applied.

The characteristic is seventeenfold, established as common. Knowing this—The wise should apply this seventeenfold characteristic, which concludes the discussion on the origin, etc., up to the threefold feeling. In each case, as appropriate—The wise monk should apply this characteristic appropriately in each training rule. However, if it is not applied, it becomes difficult to understand. Therefore, we will present this matrix after extracting it at the conclusion of the unique determinations for all training rules.

Idha panassa ayaṃ yojanā – idaṃ vesāliyaṃ sudinnattheraṃ ārabbha methunavītikkamavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. “Methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyyā”ti ayamettha paññatti, “sikkhaṃ apaccakkhāyā”ti ca “antamaso tiracchānagatāyapī”ti ca dve anupaññattiyo. Anupaññatti ca nāmesā āpattikarā ca hoti aññavādakasikkhāpadādīsu (pāci. 95 ādayo) viya, anāpattikarā ca aññatra supinantātiādīsu (pārā. 236-237) viya, āpattiupatthambhakarā ca adinnādānādīsu (pārā. 91) viya , idha pana upatthambhakarāti veditabbā. Ito paraṃ pana yattha anupaññatti atthi, tattha “ayaṃ anupaññattī”ti ettakameva dassayissāma. Ṭhapetvā pana anupaññattiṃ avasesā paññattiyevāti sabbattha vinicchayo veditabbo. Bhikkhuṃ ārabbha uppannavatthusmiṃyeva “yā pana bhikkhunī chandaso methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyyā”ti evaṃ bhikkhunīnampi paññattito sādhāraṇapaññatti. Āṇattiyā anāpajjanato anāṇattikaṃ. Bhikkhuṃ pana āṇāpento akappiyasamādānāpattito na muccati, methunarāgena kāyasaṃsagge dukkaṭaṃ, jīvamānakasarīrassa vuttappakāre magge sacepi tacādīni anavasesetvā sabbaso chinne nimittasaṇṭhānamattaṃ paññāyati, tattha antamaso aṅgajāte uṭṭhitaṃ anaṭṭhakāyappasādaṃ pīḷakaṃ vā cammakhilaṃ vā pavesentassāpi sevanacitte sati pārājikaṃ, naṭṭhakāyappasādaṃ sukkhapīḷakaṃ vā matacammaṃ vā lomaṃ vā pavesentassa dukkaṭaṃ, sace nimittasaṇṭhānamattampi anavasesetvā sabbaso maggo uppāṭito, tattha upakkamato vaṇasaṅkhepavasena thullaccayaṃ, tathā manussānaṃ akkhināsākaṇṇacchiddavatthikosesu satthakena katavaṇe vā, hatthiassādīnañca tiracchānānaṃ vatthikosanāsāpuṭesu thullaccayaṃ. Tiracchānānaṃ pana akkhikaṇṇanāsāvaṇesu ahimacchādīnaṃ pavesanappamāṇavirahite aṇunimitte sabbesañca upakacchakādīsu sesasarīresu dukkaṭaṃ. Matasarīre nimitte upaḍḍhakkhāyitato paṭṭhāya yāva na kuthitaṃ hoti, tāva thullaccayaṃ. Kuthite dukkaṭaṃ, tathā vaṭṭakate mukhe acchupantaṃ aṅgajātaṃ pavesentassa dukkaṭaṃ. Oṭṭhato bahi nikkhantajivhāya vā dantesu vā thullaccayaṃ. Nimittato bahi patitamaṃsapesiyaṃ dukkaṭanti ayamettha āpattibhedo.

Here, however, is its application: This was established in Vesālī regarding the Elder Sudinna in the context of the transgression of sexual intercourse. “Methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya” is the enactment here, and “sikkhaṃ apaccakkhāya” and “antamaso tiracchānagatāyapi” are two supplementary enactments. Anupaññatti can be offense-causing, as in rules like speaking otherwise (pāci. 95 onward); non-offense-causing, as in cases like dreams (pārā. 236-237); or supportive of an offense, as in taking what is not given (pārā. 91)—here, it should be understood as supportive. From here on, wherever there is a supplementary enactment, we will simply indicate “this is an anupaññatti.” Apart from the supplementary enactment, the rest is indeed the enactment, and the determination should be understood everywhere accordingly. Since it was established regarding a monk in this very context, and “yā pana bhikkhunī chandaso methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya” was also enacted for nuns, it is a common enactment. It is without injunction, as no offense arises from commanding it. However, a monk commanding it does not escape the offense of improper undertaking; with lustful intent in bodily contact, it is a dukkaṭa; in the specified paths of a living body, even if all skin and so forth is cut away and only the shape of the organ remains visible, if one inserts even a boil or callus arisen on the organ—lacking bodily sensitivity—with the intent of indulgence, it is a pārājika; if one inserts a dry boil, dead skin, or hair lacking bodily sensitivity, it is a dukkaṭa; if the path is entirely uprooted, leaving no trace of the organ’s shape, it is a thullaccaya due to the effort and resulting wound; likewise, in humans’ eyes, nose, ears, or genital openings, or wounds made by a knife, or in animals like elephants and horses in their genital openings or nostrils, it is a thullaccaya. In animals’ eyes, ears, nose, or wounds, or in snakes, fish, and the like, in minute organs lacking measurable insertion, or in armpits and other remaining parts of all beings, it is a dukkaṭa. In a corpse’s organ, from half-decayed until it putrefies, it is a thullaccaya; when putrefied, it is a dukkaṭa; likewise, inserting the organ into a rounded mouth with lips touching is a dukkaṭa; on a tongue extended beyond the lips or on the teeth, it is a thullaccaya; on flesh fallen outside the organ, it is a dukkaṭa. This is the classification of offenses here.

Here, however, is its application – this was regulated in Vesāli with reference to the venerable Sudinna, in the matter of the transgression of sexual intercourse. “Should engage in sexual intercourse” is the regulation here, and “without having relinquished the training” and “even with a female animal” are the two supplementary regulations. And supplementary regulation is that which causes an offense, like in the training rules concerning speaking otherwise, etc. (pāci. 95, etc.), and that which does not cause an offense, like “except in a dream,” etc. (pārā. 236-237), and that which supports an offense, like in taking what is not given, etc. (pārā. 91). Here, however, it should be understood as supporting. But hereafter, where there is a supplementary regulation, we will show only “this is a supplementary regulation.” But excluding the supplementary regulation, the remaining is the regulation itself; the decision should be understood everywhere. Because it was laid down for bhikkhunīs as well, in the very matter that arose with reference to a bhikkhu, “Whatever bhikkhunī, out of desire, should engage in sexual intercourse,” it is a common regulation. It is not a command because it is not committed by command. But one who commands a bhikkhu does not escape from the offense of accepting what is improper. With sexual lust, there is a dukkaṭa for bodily contact. If, in the aforementioned orifice of a living body, even if the skin, etc., are not completely removed, and only the shape of the mark remains, there, even if one inserts, with the intention of engaging, into the erected, non-hardened skin-pleasure, pimple, or skin-blemish, even the sexual organ, there is a pārājika. For inserting into hardened skin-pleasure, a dried pimple, dead skin, or hair, there is a dukkaṭa. If the orifice is completely destroyed, not even leaving the shape of the mark, there, from the effort, there is a thullaccaya by way of considering it a wound. Likewise, in the eye, nose, ear holes, and bladder openings of humans, in a wound made by a weapon, or in the bladder openings and nostrils of animals such as elephants, horses, etc., there is a thullaccaya. But in the eye, ear, and nose wounds of animals, in the small marks of snakes, fish, etc., lacking the size for insertion, and in the armpits, etc., and other parts of the body of all, there is a dukkaṭa. In the mark of a dead body, from the time it is half-destroyed until it is not rotten, there is a thullaccaya. When it is rotten, there is a dukkaṭa. Likewise, there is a dukkaṭa for inserting the sexual organ into the mouth, touching the round part. There is a thullaccaya for the tongue protruding outside the lips or for the teeth. There is a dukkaṭa for a piece of flesh fallen outside the mark. This is the division of offenses here.

Here, the application is as follows: This rule was established in Vesālī regarding the elder Sudinna, concerning the matter of sexual misconduct. The rule is: “Should engage in sexual intercourse,” and there are two supplementary rules: “Should not renounce the training,” and “Even with a female animal.” Supplementary rules are those that sometimes constitute an offense, as in the case of the rules on speaking differently (see Pacittiya 95, etc.), and sometimes do not constitute an offense, as in the case of dreaming, etc. (see Pārājika 236-237). They also support the offense, as in the case of theft (see Pārājika 91), but here they should be understood as supporting. From now on, wherever there is a supplementary rule, we will indicate it by saying, “This is a supplementary rule.” Apart from the supplementary rules, the rest are the main rules, and the determination should be understood in all cases. The rule established for bhikkhus also applies to bhikkhunīs: “Should a bhikkhunī engage in sexual intercourse willingly.” This is a shared rule. It is non-commandable because it is not committed by command. However, a bhikkhu who commands does not escape the offense of undertaking what is improper. If there is bodily contact with sexual desire, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If, while alive, the body is cut in the manner described, even if only the skin, etc., remains without being completely severed, and even if only the size of a mustard seed is visible, then inserting even a raised blister or a piece of skin into the genital organ with a mind intent on intercourse constitutes a pārājika offense. Inserting a dry blister or dead skin or hair constitutes a dukkaṭa offense. If the path is completely severed without leaving even the size of a mustard seed, then from the attempt, due to the brevity of the wound, it is a thullaccaya offense. Similarly, for humans, if a wound is made with a knife in the eye, ear, or genital area, it is a thullaccaya offense. For animals such as elephants and horses, if a wound is made in the genital area or ear, it is a thullaccaya offense. For animals, if a wound is made in the eye, ear, or nose, and if the size is less than that of a mustard seed, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For all other parts of the body, such as the armpits, etc., it is a dukkaṭa offense. In a dead body, if the sign is visible up to half, it is a thullaccaya offense. If it is decomposed, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Similarly, inserting the genital organ into the mouth of a bird without touching it is a dukkaṭa offense. If the tongue protrudes outside the lips, or if it is between the teeth, it is a thullaccaya offense. If flesh falls outside the sign, it is a dukkaṭa offense. This is the classification of offenses here.

Ajānantassa asādiyantassa ummattakassa khittacittassa vedanāṭṭassa ādikammikānañca anāpatti. Ettha pana yo niddaṃ okkantattā parena katampi upakkamaṃ na jānāti, so ajānanto. Yo jānitvāpi na sādiyati, so asādiyanto. Yo pittavasena atekicchaṃ ummādaṃ patto, so ummattako. Yakkhehi katacittavikkhepo khittacitto. Dvinnampi ca etesaṃ aggisuvaṇṇagūthacandanādīsu samappavattibhāvena ajānanabhāvova pamāṇaṃ. Yo adhimattavedanāya āturattā kiñci na jānāti, so vedanāṭṭo. Yo tasmiṃ tasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ ādibhūto, so ādikammiko. Ayaṃ pana anāpatti. Catūsu vipattīsu sīlavipatti. Tassā dve aṅgāni sevanacittañca maggena maggapaṭipādanañcāti. Samuṭṭhānādito idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paṭhamapārājikasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, dvivedananti, imāni ca samuṭṭhānādīni nāma āpattiyā honti, na sikkhāpadassa. Vohārasukhatthaṃ pana sabbaṭṭhakathāsu sikkhāpadasīsena desanā āgatā, tasmā aññesupi evarūpesu ṭhānesu byañjane ādaraṃ akatvā adhippetameva gahetabbaṃ.

There is no offense for one who does not know (ajānantassa), does not consent (asādiyantassa), is insane (ummattakassa), deranged (khittacittassa), overwhelmed by pain (vedanāṭṭassa), or is a beginner (ādikammikānañca). Here, one who does not know (ajānantassa) is someone who, due to falling asleep (niddaṃ okkantattā), does not know of an action done by another. One who does not consent (asādiyantassa) is someone who, though knowing, does not approve. One who, due to bile (pittavasena), reaches an incurable state of madness (atekichaṃ ummādaṃ), is insane (ummattako). One whose mind is disturbed by spirits (yakkhehi katacittavikkhepo) is deranged (khittacitto). For both of these, the criterion is their equal reaction (samappavattibhāvena) to gold, dung, sandalwood, and the like, indicating a lack of discernment (ajānanabhāvo). One who, overwhelmed by intense pain (adhimattavedanāya), knows nothing due to affliction (āturattā), is overwhelmed by pain (vedanāṭṭo). One who is a beginner (ādikammiko) is someone new to that particular matter (vatthusmiṃ ādibhūto). This is the absence of offense (anāpatti). Among the four failures (vipattīsu), this is a failure of virtue (sīlavipatti). It has two factors (aṅgāni): the intention to indulge (sevanacittaṃ) and the directing of the path to the path (maggena maggapaṭipādanaṃ). In terms of origin (samuṭṭhānādito), this training rule (sikkhāpadaṃ) arises like the first pārājika (paṭhamapārājikasamuṭṭhānaṃ); it is an action (kiriyaṃ), perception-released (saññāvimokkhaṃ), with consciousness (sacittakaṃ), a worldly fault (lokavajjaṃ), a bodily action (kāyakammaṃ), with unwholesome consciousness (akusalacittaṃ), and with two feelings (dvivedana). These origins and so forth (samuṭṭhānādīni) pertain to the offense (āpattiyā), not the training rule itself (sikkhāpadassa). However, for the sake of easy expression (vohārasukhatthaṃ), in all commentaries (sabbaṭṭhakathāsu), the exposition comes under the heading of the training rule (sikkhāpadasīsena desanā āgatā). Therefore, in other similar cases (evarūpesu ṭhānesu), one should grasp the intended meaning (adhippetameva) without attachment to the wording (byañjane ādaraṃ akatvā).

There is no offense for one who is unaware, for one who does not consent, for one who is insane, for one whose mind is deranged, for one who is afflicted by pain, and for the first offenders. Herein, he who does not know of an action done by another due to being overcome by sleep, he is unaware. He who, even knowing, does not consent, he is not consenting. He who is overcome by madness due to an excess of bile, which is incurable, he is insane. He whose mind is deranged by yakkhas is one whose mind is deranged. For both of these, the measure is their state of unknowing, due to their minds being equally affected by fire, gold, excrement, sandalwood, and other things. He who, due to being afflicted by excessive pain, knows nothing, he is afflicted by pain. He who is the originator in regard to various matters, he is the first offender. But this is a non-offense. Among the four transgressions, this is a transgression of morality. It has two factors: the intention to indulge and the practice of the path with the path [of sexual intercourse]. In terms of its arising and so forth, this training rule arises from the same source as the first pārājika, it is an action, it is freed by perception, it is intentional, it is a worldly fault, it is a bodily action, it is an unwholesome thought, it is of two feelings. These—arising and so forth—belong to the offense, not to the training rule. But for the sake of easy usage, in all the commentaries, the teaching has come down with the heading of the training rule, therefore, in other similar instances, without focusing on the letter, one should grasp only the intended meaning.

There is no offense for one who is unaware, does not consent, is insane, has a deranged mind, is in pain, or is a beginner. Here, one who does not know due to being asleep, even if another makes an attempt, is unaware. One who knows but does not consent is not consenting. One who has reached incurable insanity due to bile is insane. One whose mind is disturbed by spirits has a deranged mind. For these two, the measure is the same as not knowing due to the presence of gold, excrement, or sandalwood. One who does not know anything due to severe pain is in pain. One who is the first in such matters is a beginner. This is the non-offense. Among the four kinds of moral failure, the failure of virtue has two factors: the mind intent on indulgence and the path leading to indulgence. This training rule, from the origin, etc., is the first pārājika offense, action, release through perception, mind-originated, prohibited by the world, bodily action, unwholesome mind, and twofold feeling. These are the characteristics of the offense, not the training rule. However, for the sake of convenience, the commentary explains the training rule first, so in other similar cases, one should not pay attention to the wording but take only the intended meaning.

For the meaning, the protector called it a refuge; not the letter, the great sage who benefits the world.

For the Lord, the refuge, declared the meaning; the Great Sage, benefactor of the world, [did] not [declare] the mere letter.

For the meaning is the refuge, not the words;
The great sage spoke for the welfare of the world.

Therefore, without delighting in mere letters; the wise should fix their mind on the meaning.

Therefore, not taking delight in mere letters; one should fix one’s mind on the meaning, the wise one.

Therefore, without delighting in frivolous talk,
The wise should establish their mind on the meaning.

2. Dutiyapārājikavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Second Pārājika

2. Explanation of the Second Pārājika Offense

Dutiye gāmā vā araññāvāti ettha sabbopi ekakuṭikādibhedo parikkhitto vā aparikkhitto vā samanusso vā amanusso vā antamaso atirekacātumāsaniviṭṭho yo koci satthopi “gāmo”ti veditabbo. Ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca avasesaṃ araññaṃ nāma. Tattha asammohatthaṃ gharaṃ gharūpacāro gāmo gāmūpacāroti ayaṃ vibhāgo veditabbo. Nibbakosassa hi udakapatanaṭṭhānabbhantaraṃ gharaṃ nāma. Yaṃ pana dvāre ṭhito mātugāmo bhājanadhovanaudakaṃ chaḍḍeti, tassa patanaṭṭhānañca mātugāmeneva antogehe ṭhitena pakatiyā bahi khittassa suppassa vā saṃmuñjaniyā vā patanaṭṭhānañca gharassa purato dvīsu koṇesu sambandhitvā majjhe rukkhasūcidvāraṃ ṭhapetvā gorūpānaṃ pavesananivāraṇatthaṃ kataparikkhepo ca ayaṃ sabbopi gharūpacāro nāma. Yaṃ pana sabbantimaṃ gharaṃ hoti, tassa gharassa tādise gharūpacāre ṭhitassa thāmamajjhimassa purisassa yathā taruṇamanussā attano balaṃ dassento bāhuṃ pasāretvā leḍḍuṃ khipanti, evaṃ khittassa leḍḍussa patanaṭṭhānabbhantaraṃ gāmo nāma. Tato aññassa leḍḍupātassa abbhantaraṃ gāmūpacāro nāma. Patitassa pana leḍḍuno pavattitvā gataṭṭhānaṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Parikkhittassa pana gāmassa parikkhepoyeva gāmassa paricchedo, tassa sace dve indakhilā honti abbhantarime indakhile ṭhitassa leḍḍupātabbhantaraṃ gāmūpacāro nāma. Padabhājanepi (pārā. 92) hi imināva nayena attho veditabbo. Tattha yvāyaṃ aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāro dassito, tassa vasena vikāle gāmappavesanādīsu āpatti paricchinditabbā. Iti imaṃ ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca avasesaṃ imasmiṃ sikkhāpade araññaṃ nāma. Desanāmattameva cetaṃ “gāmā vā araññāvā”ti. Ye pana imesaṃ paricchedadassanatthaṃ gharagharūpacāragāmūpacārā vuttā, tatopi pārājikavatthuṃ avaharantassa pārājikaṃ hotiyeva.

In the second [pārājika], regarding “from a village or a forest” (gāmā vā araññā vā), every type of settlement—whether a single hut or more (ekakuṭikādibhedo), enclosed (parikkhitto) or unenclosed (aparikkhitto), inhabited by humans (samanusso) or non-humans (amanusso), even a caravan staying beyond four months (atirekacātumāsaniviṭṭho sattho)—is to be understood as a “village” (gāmo). Apart from the village (gāma) and its vicinity (gāmūpacāra), the remainder is called a forest (arañña). To avoid confusion, this distinction should be understood: house (gharaṃ), house vicinity (gharūpacāro), village (gāmo), and village vicinity (gāmūpacāro). For a house without a sheath (nibbakosassa), the area where water falls (udakapatanaṭṭhānabbhantaraṃ) is called the “house” (gharaṃ). The area where a woman standing at the door (dvāre ṭhito mātugāmo) throws dishwashing water (bhājanadhovanaudakaṃ), the spot where it lands, and where a woman standing inside (antogehe ṭhitena) naturally throws out a broom (suppassa) or sweeping brush (saṃmuñjaniyā) and it lands outside, as well as the enclosure (parikkhepo) made in front of the house by connecting two corners (dvīsu koṇesu sambandhitvā) with a stick or thorn gate (rukkhasūcidvāraṃ) in the middle to prevent cattle (gorūpānaṃ) from entering—all this is called the “house vicinity” (gharūpacāro). For the outermost house (sabbantimaṃ gharaṃ), the area within the landing spot of a clod (leḍḍussa patanaṭṭhānabbhantaraṃ) thrown by a person of average strength (thāmamajjhimassa purisassa), as young people show their strength (taruṇamanussā attano balaṃ dassento) by extending their arm (bāhuṃ pasāretvā) and throwing (khipanti), is called the “village” (gāmo). Beyond that, the area within the landing of another clod (aññassa leḍḍupātassa abbhantaraṃ) is called the “village vicinity” (gāmūpacāro). However, the spot where a fallen clod rolls to (pavattitvā gataṭṭhānaṃ) is not to be considered. For an enclosed village (parikkhittassa gāmassa), the enclosure itself (parikkhepoyeva) is the boundary of the village (gāmassa paricchedo). If it has two thresholds (indakhilā), the area within the landing of a clod thrown by someone standing at the inner threshold (abbhantarime indakhile ṭhitassa) is the “village vicinity” (gāmūpacāro). In the explanation of terms (padabhājanepi) (pārā. 92), the meaning should be understood in this same way. The vicinity (upacāro) shown for an unenclosed village (aparikkhittassa gāmassa) is the basis for determining an offense (āpatti) in cases like entering a village at the wrong time (vikāle gāmappavesanādīsu). Thus, apart from this village (gāma) and village vicinity (gāmūpacāra), the remainder in this training rule (imasmiṃ sikkhāpade) is called a forest (arañña). The phrase “from a village or a forest” (gāmā vā araññā vā) is merely for exposition (desanāmattameva). Even for one who takes an object subject to a pārājika (pārājikavatthuṃ) from beyond the house, house vicinity, or village vicinity as delineated for defining these boundaries (paricchedadassanatthaṃ), it is indeed a pārājika.

In the second, from a village or from the wilderness, here, any kind of dwelling, whether a single hut or otherwise, whether enclosed or unenclosed, whether inhabited by humans or non-humans, even up to that inhabited by any group of monks for more than four months, should be understood as a “village”. Apart from the village and the village vicinity, the remainder is called the wilderness. Therein, for the purpose of clarity, a house, the vicinity of a house, a village, and the village vicinity—this division should be understood. The inner area where water falls for one without possessions is called a house. Where a woman, standing at the door, throws out the water used to wash dishes, the place where that water falls, and the place where, from within the house, a woman of normal strength throws out a winnowing basket or a broom, and the enclosed area in front of the house, constructed to prevent the entry of cattle, with two corner posts connected and a tree-branch door placed in the middle, all this is called the vicinity of a house. The outermost house, standing in such a vicinity of a house, the area within the fall of a clod of earth thrown by a man of medium strength extending his arm as a young man would do to show his strength—the inner part of the place where that clod falls is called a village. The inner area of another clod-fall from that is called the village vicinity. But the place where the fallen clod rolls to should not be taken. In the case of an enclosed village, the enclosure itself is the boundary of the village; if it has two gateposts, the inner area of the clod-fall for one standing at the inner gatepost is called the village vicinity. In the Padabhājaniya (Pārā. 92), the meaning should be understood in this very way. Therein, by the way of the vicinity of the unenclosed village that has been shown, offenses in entering the village at the wrong time and so forth should be determined. Thus, apart from this village and village vicinity, the remainder in this training rule is called the wilderness. But “from a village or from the wilderness” is merely a way of speaking. But for one who steals an object of pārājika value, even beyond what has been stated in terms of boundaries of house, house vicinity, village, and village vicinity, there is indeed a pārājika.

In the second, “from a village or from the forest”—Here, any place, whether enclosed or unenclosed, inhabited or uninhabited, even if it is a place where a caravan has stayed for more than four months, is to be understood as a “village.” Apart from the village and its vicinity, the rest is called the “forest.” Here, to avoid confusion, the distinction should be understood as follows: a house, the vicinity of a house, a village, and the vicinity of a village. For a householder, the place where water is poured inside is called a house. The place where a woman standing at the door throws water for washing dishes, and the place where she throws water while standing inside the house, or the place where a broom or a cloth is thrown outside, and the place in front of the house connected to the two corners, with a tree or a needle gate in the middle, enclosed to prevent the entry of cattle, is called the vicinity of a house. The place where a young man, standing in such a vicinity of a house, throws a stone to show his strength, is called a village. The place where another stone thrown from there falls is called the vicinity of the village. The place where the stone rolls after falling is not to be taken into account. For an enclosed village, the enclosure itself is the boundary of the village. If there are two boundary posts, the place where a stone thrown from inside the inner post falls is called the vicinity of the village. In the case of words and vessels (see Pārājika 92), the meaning should be understood in the same way. Here, the vicinity of an unenclosed village is shown, and based on this, the offense of entering the village at the wrong time, etc., should be determined. Apart from this, in this training rule, the rest is called the “forest.” This is merely a teaching: “from a village or from the forest.” However, the house, vicinity of the house, and vicinity of the village are mentioned to show the boundaries. Even so, for one who steals from these, the pārājika offense is incurred.

Adinnanti aññassa manussajātikassa santakaṃ. Theyyasaṅkhātanti ettha thenoti coro, thenassa bhāvo theyyaṃ, avaharaṇacittassetaṃ nāmaṃ. Saṅkhā saṅkhātanti atthato ekaṃ, koṭṭhāsassetaṃ nāmaṃ “saññānidānā hi papañcasaṅkhā”tiādīsu (su. ni. 880; mahāni. 109) viya. Theyyañca taṃ saṅkhātañcāti theyyasaṅkhātaṃ, theyyacittasaṅkhāto eko cittakoṭṭhāsoti attho. Karaṇatthe cetaṃ paccattavacanaṃ, tasmā theyyasaṅkhātenāti atthato daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yo ca theyyasaṅkhātena ādiyati, so yasmā theyyacitto hoti, tasmā byañjanaṃ anādiyitvā atthameva dassetuṃ “theyyacitto avaharaṇacitto”ti (pārā. 92) evamassa padabhājanaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

“What is not given” (adinnaṃ) refers to something belonging to another human being (aññassa manussajātikassa santakaṃ). Regarding “reckoned as theft” (theyyasaṅkhātaṃ), “thief” (theno) means a robber (coro); the state of a thief (thenassa bhāvo) is theft (theyyaṃ), which is a name for the intention to steal (avaharaṇacittassetaṃ nāmaṃ). “Reckoning” (saṅkhā) and “reckoned” (saṅkhāta) are the same in meaning (atthato ekaṃ); this is a name for a portion (koṭṭhāsassetaṃ nāmaṃ), as in “due to perception arise proliferations and reckonings” (saññānidānā hi papañcasaṅkhā) (su. ni. 880; mahāni. 109). “Theft and reckoned” (theyyañca taṃ saṅkhātañca) means “reckoned as theft” (theyyasaṅkhātaṃ), a single portion of consciousness (eko cittakoṭṭhāso) reckoned as the intention to steal (theyyacittasaṅkhāto); this is the meaning. This is a nominative used in the sense of an instrument (karaṇatthe paccattavacanaṃ), so it should be understood in meaning as “by that reckoned as theft” (theyyasaṅkhātenāti atthato daṭṭhabbaṃ). Since one who takes by what is reckoned as theft (theyyasaṅkhātena ādiyati) has the intention to steal (theyyacitto), to show the meaning (atthameva dassetuṃ) without adhering to the wording (byañjanaṃ anādiyitvā), it is said in the explanation of terms (padabhājanaṃ) (pārā. 92), “with the intention to steal, with the intention to take away” (theyyacitto avaharaṇacitto); this should be understood.

What is not given, means what belongs to another human being. Considered as theft, here, thief means robber; the state of a thief is theft; this is a name for the thought of stealing. “Saṅkhā” and “saṅkhāta” are the same in meaning; this is a name for a category, like in “because perceptions are the cause of proliferation” and so forth (Su. Ni. 880; Mahāni. 109). “Theyya” and that which is “saṅkhāta” is “theyyasaṅkhāta”; meaning a single thought-category consisting of the thought of theft. This is a word in the instrumental case, therefore, it should be understood in meaning as “by means of the thought of theft”. And he who takes with the thought of theft, since he has the thought of theft, therefore, in order to show the meaning without adhering to the letter, its padabhājana is stated as “with the thought of theft, with the thought of stealing” (Pārā. 92), thus it should be understood.

“What is not given”—This refers to the belongings of another human being. “Designated as theft”—Here, “thief” means a robber; the state of being a thief is theft. This is the name for the intention to steal. “Designation” and “designated” mean the same thing; it is a section of a category, as in the phrase “designations are the root of conceptual proliferation” (see Sutta Nipāta 880; Mahā Niddesa 109). “Theft” and “designated” together mean “designated as theft,” i.e., a section of the mind characterized by the intention to steal. This is a personal term in the sense of action, so it should be understood as “designated as theft.” One who takes with the intention designated as theft has the intention to steal, so without taking the wording, the meaning should be shown: “with the intention to steal, with the intention to take away” (see Pārājika 92). This is how the analysis of the words should be understood.

Ādiyeyyāti pañcavīsatiyā avahārānaṃ aññataravasena hareyya. Te pana avahārā pañca pañcakāni samodhānetvā sādhukaṃ sallakkhetabbā. Pañca pañcakāni nāma nānābhaṇḍapañcakaṃ ekabhaṇḍapañcakaṃ sāhatthikapañcakaṃ pubbapayogapañcakaṃ theyyāvahārapañcakanti. Tattha purimāni dve pañcakāni etasseva padassa padabhājane vuttānaṃ “ādiyeyya hareyya avahareyya iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyya ṭhānā cāveyyā”ti imesaṃ padānaṃ vasena labbhanti. Tattha nānābhaṇḍapañcakaṃ saviññāṇakāviññāṇakavasena daṭṭhabbaṃ, itaraṃ saviññāṇakavaseneva. Kathaṃ? Ādiyeyyāti ārāmaṃ abhiyuñjati, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Sāmikassa vimatiṃ uppādeti, āpatti thullaccayassa. Sāmiko “na mayhaṃ bhavissatī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhipati, āpatti pārājikassa. Hareyyāti aññassa bhaṇḍaṃ haranto sīse bhāraṃ theyyacitto āmasati, dukkaṭaṃ. Phandāpeti, thullaccayaṃ. Khandhaṃ oropeti, pārājikaṃ. Avahareyyāti upanikkhittaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ “dehi me bhaṇḍa”nti vuccamāno “nāhaṃ gaṇhāmī”ti bhaṇati, dukkaṭaṃ. Sāmikassa vimatiṃ uppādeti, thullaccayaṃ. Sāmiko “na mayhaṃ bhavissatī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhipati, pārājikaṃ. Iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyyāti “saha bhaṇḍahārakaṃ nessāmī”ti paṭhamaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmeti, thullaccayaṃ. Dutiyaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmeti, pārājikaṃ. Ṭhānā cāveyyāti thalaṭṭhaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ theyyacitto āmasati, dukkaṭaṃ. Phandāpeti, thullaccayaṃ. Ṭhānā cāveti, pārājikaṃ. Evaṃ tāva nānābhaṇḍapañcakaṃ veditabbaṃ. Sasāmikassa pana dāsassa vā tiracchānagatassa vā yathāvuttena abhiyogādinā nayena ādiyanaharaṇaavaharaṇairiyāpathavikopanaṭhānācāvanavasena ekabhaṇḍapañcakaṃ veditabbaṃ.

“Should take” (ādiyeyya) means he should take by one of the twenty-five modes of taking (pañcavīsatiyā avahārānaṃ aññataravasena hareyya). These modes of taking (avahārā) are to be carefully considered (sādhukaṃ sallakkhetabbā) as five groups of five (pañca pañcakāni samodhānetvā). The five groups of five are: the group of various items (nānābhaṇḍapañcakaṃ), the group of a single item (ekabhaṇḍapañcakaṃ), the group of personal effort (sāhatthikapañcakaṃ), the group of prior effort (pubbapayogapañcakaṃ), and the group of theft transactions (theyyāvahārapañcakaṃ). The first two groups (purimāni dve pañcakāni) are derived from the words in the explanation of this very term (padassa padabhājane vuttānaṃ): “should take (ādiyeyya), should carry off (hareyya), should steal (avahareyya), should disrupt deportment (iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyya), should remove from its place (ṭhānā cāveyya).” Here, the group of various items (nānābhaṇḍapañcakaṃ) should be understood in terms of items with consciousness (saviññāṇaka) and without consciousness (aviññāṇaka), while the other (group of a single item) pertains only to items with consciousness (saviññāṇakavaseneva). How so? “Should take” (ādiyeyya): he encroaches on a garden (ārāmaṃ abhiyuñjati)—an offense of wrong conduct (dukkatassa); he causes doubt in the owner (sāmikassa vimatiṃ uppādeti)—a grave offense (thullaccayassa); the owner relinquishes responsibility (dhuraṃ nikkhipati), saying, “It will not be mine”—a pārājika. “Should carry off” (hareyya): while carrying another’s item on his head with the intention to steal (theyyacitto), he touches it (āmasati)—wrong conduct (dukkataṃ); he makes it tremble (phandāpeti)—a grave offense (thullaccayaṃ); he lowers it to his shoulder (khandhaṃ oropeti)—a pārājika. “Should steal” (avahareyya): regarding an item placed nearby (upanikkhittaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ), when told, “Give me my item” (dehi me bhaṇḍaṃ), he says, “I’m not taking it” (nāhaṃ gaṇhāmi)—wrong conduct (dukkataṃ); he causes doubt in the owner (sāmikassa vimatiṃ uppādeti)—a grave offense (thullaccayassa); the owner relinquishes responsibility (dhuraṃ nikkhipati), saying, “It will not be mine”—a pārājika. “Should disrupt deportment” (iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyya): intending, “I will take it along with the item-bearer” (saha bhaṇḍahārakaṃ nessāmi), he steps over with the first foot (paṭhamaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmeti)—a grave offense (thullaccayaṃ); he steps over with the second foot (dutiyaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmeti)—a pārājika. “Should remove from its place” (ṭhānā cāveyya): he touches an item on the ground (thalaṭṭhaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ) with the intention to steal (theyyacitto)—wrong conduct (dukkataṃ); he makes it tremble (phandāpeti)—a grave offense (thullaccayaṃ); he removes it from its place (ṭhānā cāveti)—a pārājika. Thus, the “group of various items” (nānābhaṇḍapañcakaṃ) should be understood. For an item with an owner (sasāmikassa), such as a slave (dāsassa) or an animal (tiracchānagatassa), the “group of a single item” (ekabhaṇḍapañcakaṃ) should be understood through the methods of encroaching, carrying off, stealing, disrupting deportment, and removing from its place (ādiyanaharaṇaavaharaṇairiyāpathavikopanaṭhānācāvanavasena) as described.

Should take, he should steal by one of the twenty-five modes of stealing. These modes of stealing should be carefully discerned by combining them into five groups of five. The five groups of five are: the fivefold group of various goods, the fivefold group of one kind of goods, the fivefold group of personal action, the fivefold group of prior effort, and the fivefold group of theft. Therein, the first two groups of five are obtained by way of the words of this very rule’s padabhājana: “should take, should steal, should carry away, should change posture, should move from its place”. Therein, the fivefold group of various goods should be understood as being with consciousness and without consciousness, the other only as being with consciousness. How? Should take: he solicits for a monastery, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). He creates doubt in the owner, there is an offense requiring expiation (thullaccaya). The owner gives up ownership, thinking, “It will not be mine,” there is an offense of defeat (pārājika). Should steal: stealing another’s goods, he touches the load on his head with the thought of theft, a dukkaṭa. He causes it to move, a thullaccaya. He lowers it from his shoulder, a pārājika. Should carry away: being asked, “Give me my goods,” regarding deposited goods, he says, “I did not take it,” a dukkaṭa. He creates doubt in the owner, a thullaccaya. The owner gives up ownership, thinking, “It will not be mine,” a pārājika. Should change posture: thinking, “I will take it along with the carrier of the goods,” he moves his first foot, a thullaccaya. He moves his second foot, a pārājika. Should move from its place: he touches goods placed on the ground with the thought of theft, a dukkaṭa. He causes it to move, a thullaccaya. He moves it from its place, a pārājika. Thus, the fivefold group of various goods should be understood. But in the case of a slave or an animal belonging to an owner, by the aforementioned method of solicitation and so forth, by taking, stealing, carrying away, changing posture, and moving from its place, the fivefold group of one kind of goods should be understood.

Ādiyeyyāti: He would take by any one of the twenty-five methods of theft. These methods of theft should be carefully analyzed by grouping them into five sets of five. The five sets of five are: the fivefold classification of diverse goods, the fivefold classification of a single item, the fivefold classification of direct action, the fivefold classification of prior arrangement, and the fivefold classification of theft. Among these, the first two sets are derived from the phrases: “he would take,” “he would steal,” “he would remove,” “he would disrupt the posture,” and “he would remove from the place.” Here, the fivefold classification of diverse goods should be understood as involving both conscious and unconscious actions, while the other is understood as involving only conscious actions. How? Ādiyeyyāti: If he engages in the monastery’s work, it is an offense of wrong conduct. If he causes doubt in the owner, it is a grave offense. If the owner gives up the responsibility, thinking, “It will not be mine,” it is an offense entailing expulsion. Hareyyāti: If, while stealing another’s goods, he touches the load on his head with the intention to steal, it is wrong conduct. If he causes it to tremble, it is a grave offense. If he removes it from the shoulder, it is an offense entailing expulsion. Avahareyyāti: If, when asked for goods placed nearby, he says, “I am not taking them,” it is wrong conduct. If he causes doubt in the owner, it is a grave offense. If the owner gives up the responsibility, thinking, “It will not be mine,” it is an offense entailing expulsion. Iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyyāti: If he steps forward with the intention, “I will take the goods carrier with me,” it is a grave offense. If he takes a second step, it is an offense entailing expulsion. Ṭhānā cāveyyāti: If he touches goods on the ground with the intention to steal, it is wrong conduct. If he causes them to tremble, it is a grave offense. If he removes them from the place, it is an offense entailing expulsion. Thus, the nānābhaṇḍapañcakaṃ should be understood. Regarding a slave or an animal belonging to someone else, the ekabhaṇḍapañcakaṃ should be understood in the same way through the methods of taking, stealing, removing, disrupting posture, and removing from the place.

Katamaṃ sāhatthikapañcakaṃ? Sāhatthiko āṇattiko nissaggiyo atthasādhako dhuranikkhepoti. Tattha sāhatthiko nāma parassa bhaṇḍaṃ sahatthā avaharati. Āṇattiko nāma “asukassa bhaṇḍaṃ avaharā”ti aññaṃ āṇāpeti. Nissaggiyo nāma suṅkaghātakaparikappitokāsānaṃ anto ṭhatvā bahi pātanaṃ. Atthasādhako nāma “asukassa bhaṇḍaṃ yadā sakkoti, tadā taṃ avaharā”ti aññaṃ āṇāpeti. Tattha sace paro anantarāyiko hutvā taṃ avaharati, āṇāpakassa āṇattikkhaṇeyeva pārājikaṃ. Parassa vā pana telakumbhiyā pādagghanakatelaṃ avassaṃ pivanakāni upāhanādīni pakkhipati, hatthato muttamatteyeva pārājikaṃ. Dhuranikkhepo pana ārāmābhiyogaupanikkhittabhaṇḍavasena veditabbo. Tāvakālikabhaṇḍadeyyāni adentassāpi esevanayoti idaṃ sāhatthikapañcakaṃ.

What is the “group of personal effort” (sāhatthikapañcakaṃ)? Personal effort (sāhatthiko), command (āṇattiko), relinquishment (nissaggiyo), accomplishing a purpose (atthasādhako), and abandonment of responsibility (dhuranikkhepo). Here, “personal effort” (sāhatthiko) means one who steals another’s item with his own hands (sahatthā avaharati). “Command” (āṇattiko) means one who orders another, “Steal so-and-so’s item” (asukassa bhaṇḍaṃ avaharāti aññaṃ āṇāpeti). “Relinquishment” (nissaggiyo) means standing within areas designated for tolls or planned spaces (suṅkaghātakaparikappitokāsānaṃ anto ṭhatvā) and throwing it outside (bahi pātanaṃ). “Accomplishing a purpose” (atthasādhako) means one who orders another, “Steal so-and-so’s item whenever you can” (asukassa bhaṇḍaṃ yadā sakkoti tadā taṃ avaharāti aññaṃ āṇāpeti). If that other person, being unobstructed (anantarāyiko), steals it, the one who ordered it incurs a pārājika at the moment of the command (āṇattikkhaṇeyeva). Or if he places items like shoes (upāhanādīni) that must be drunk from into another’s oil jar (telakumbhiyā pādagghanakatelaṃ), it is a pārājika the moment it is released from his hand (hatthato muttamatteyeva). “Abandonment of responsibility” (dhuranikkhepo) should be understood in terms of encroaching on a garden (ārāmābhiyoga) or an item placed nearby (upanikkhittabhaṇḍavasena). The same applies to one who does not return items borrowed temporarily (tāvakālikabhaṇḍadeyyāni adentassa). This is the group of personal effort (sāhatthikapañcakaṃ).

What is the fivefold group of personal action? Personal action, command, throwing out, accomplishing the purpose, and giving up ownership. Therein, personal action means stealing another’s goods with one’s own hand. Command means ordering another, “Steal so-and-so’s goods.” Throwing out means standing within the designated areas of toll-houses and throwing [goods] outside. Accomplishing the purpose means ordering another, “Steal so-and-so’s goods whenever you can.” Therein, if the other, being without hindrance, steals it, for the one who gave the order, there is a pārājika at the very moment of the command. Or, if he puts oil worth a pāda into another’s oil pot, or puts things like sandals, which should certainly be drunk, as soon as it is released from his hand, there is a pārājika. Giving up ownership, however, should be understood in terms of soliciting for a monastery and deposited goods. For one who does not give temporary gifts, the same principle applies. This is the fivefold group of personal action.

What is the sāhatthikapañcakaṃ? It involves direct action, command, relinquishment, achieving a purpose, and abandoning responsibility. Here, sāhatthiko means directly removing another’s goods with one’s own hand. Āṇattiko means ordering another, “Remove such and such goods.” Nissaggiyo means throwing something out after standing inside a space prepared by a tax collector. Atthasādhako means ordering another, “Remove such and such goods when you are able.” If the other person removes it without any hindrance, the one who gave the order incurs the offense of expulsion at the moment of giving the order. If, for example, he pours oil from another’s oil jar into his own sandals or other items, it is an offense of expulsion as soon as it leaves his hand. Dhuranikkhepo should be understood as abandoning responsibility by engaging in monastery work or placing goods nearby. Even if one does not give the goods temporarily, this is the method. This is the sāhatthikapañcakaṃ.

Katamaṃ pubbapayogapañcakaṃ? Pubbapayogo sahapayogo saṃvidhāvahāro saṅketakammaṃ nimittakammanti . Tattha āṇattivasena pubbapayogo veditabbo. Ṭhānā cāvanavasena, khilādīni saṅkāmetvā khettādiggahaṇavasena ca sahapayogo veditabbo. Saṃvidhāvahāro nāma “asukaṃ nāma bhaṇḍaṃ avaharissāmā”ti saṃvidahitvā saṃmantayitvā avaharaṇaṃ. Evaṃ saṃvidahitvā gatesu hi ekenāpi tasmiṃ bhaṇḍe ṭhānā cāvite sabbesaṃ avahārā honti. Saṅketakammaṃ nāma sañjānanakammaṃ. Sace hi purebhattādīsu yaṃkiñci kālaṃ paricchinditvā “asukasmiṃ kāle itthannāmaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ avaharā”ti vutto saṅketato apacchā apure taṃ avaharati, saṅketakārakassa saṅketakaraṇakkhaṇeyeva avahāro. Nimittakammaṃ nāma saññuppādanatthaṃ akkhinikkhaṇādinimittakaraṇaṃ. Sace hi evaṃ katanimittato apacchā apure “yaṃ avaharā”ti vutto, taṃ avaharati, nimittakārakassa nimittakaraṇakkhaṇeyeva avahāroti idaṃ pubbapayogapañcakaṃ.

What is the “group of prior effort” (pubbapayogapañcakaṃ)? Prior effort (pubbapayogo), joint effort (sahapayogo), agreed theft (saṃvidhāvahāro), signal action (saṅketakammaṃ), and signifying action (nimittakammaṃ). Here, “prior effort” (pubbapayogo) should be understood in terms of commanding (āṇattivasena). “Joint effort” (sahapayogo) should be understood in terms of removing from its place (ṭhānā cāvanavasena) and transferring stakes (khilādīni saṅkāmetvā) to seize fields and the like (khettādiggahaṇavasena). “Agreed theft” (saṃvidhāvahāro) means theft after arranging and consulting, “We will steal such-and-such an item” (asukaṃ nāma bhaṇḍaṃ avaharissāmāti saṃvidahitvā saṃmantayitvā avaharaṇaṃ). When they have thus agreed and gone, if even one of them removes that item from its place (tasmiṃ bhaṇḍe ṭhānā cāvite), it becomes theft for all (sabbesaṃ avahārā honti). “Signal action” (saṅketakammaṃ) means an act of recognition (sañjānanakammaṃ). If, having fixed a time such as before meals (purebhattādīsu yaṃkiñci kālaṃ paricchinditvā) and said, “Steal such-and-such an item at this time” (asukasmiṃ kāle itthannāmaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ avaharāti), the other steals it later or earlier than the signal (saṅketato apacchā apure), the theft occurs for the signal-maker at the moment of making the signal (saṅketakārakassa saṅketakaraṇakkhaṇeyeva avahāro). “Signifying action” (nimittakammaṃ) means making a sign, such as winking (akkhinikkhaṇādinimittakaraṇaṃ), to prompt recognition (saññuppādanatthaṃ). If, after making such a sign, the other, told “Steal it” (yaṃ avaharāti), steals it later or earlier (evaṃ katanimittato apacchā apure), the theft occurs for the sign-maker at the moment of making the sign (nimittakārakassa nimittakaraṇakkhaṇeyeva avahāro). This is the group of prior effort (pubbapayogapañcakaṃ).

What is the fivefold group of prior effort? Prior effort, joint effort, pre-arranged theft, pre-arranged action, and pre-arranged signal. Therein, prior effort should be understood in terms of command. Joint effort should be understood in terms of moving from its place, and in terms of taking a field and so forth by moving boundary markers. Pre-arranged theft means stealing after having conspired and agreed, “We will steal such-and-such goods.” For those who have conspired thus, if even one of them moves those goods from their place, all of them have stolen. Pre-arranged action means a pre-arranged act. For if, having determined some time like before the meal or whatever, he is told, “Steal such-and-such goods at such-and-such a time,” if he steals it after or before the pre-arranged time, for the one who made the arrangement, there is a theft at the very moment of making the arrangement. Pre-arranged signal means making a signal like winking to create an understanding. For if, after or before such a signal has been made, he is told, “Steal whatever,” and he steals it, for the one who made the signal, there is a theft at the very moment of making the signal. This is the fivefold group of prior effort.

What is the pubbapayogapañcakaṃ? It involves prior arrangement, simultaneous action, prearranged removal, signaling, and marking. Here, pubbapayogo should be understood as giving a command. Sahapayogo should be understood as removing obstacles or taking possession of fields, etc., by removing them from their place. Saṃvidhāvahāro means agreeing and consulting, saying, “We will remove such and such goods.” If, after such an agreement, even one person removes the goods from their place, it counts as theft for all. Saṅketakammaṃ means making a signal. If, for example, a specific time is set, such as before a meal, and someone is told, “Remove such and such goods at this time,” but he removes them before or after that time, it counts as theft at the moment of making the signal. Nimittakammaṃ means creating a mark, such as a scratch on the eye, etc., to indicate something. If someone is told, “Remove whatever is marked,” and he removes it based on that mark, it counts as theft at the moment of making the mark. This is the pubbapayogapañcakaṃ.

Katamaṃ theyyāvahārapañcakaṃ? Theyyāvahāro pasayhāvahāro parikappāvahāro paṭicchannāvahāro kusāvahāroti. Tattha yo sandhicchedādīni katvā adissamāno avaharati, kūṭamānakūṭakahāpaṇādīhi vā vañcetvā gaṇhāti, tassevaṃ gaṇhato avahāro theyyāvahāroti veditabbo. Yo pana pasayha balakkārena paresaṃ santakaṃ gaṇhāti gāmaghātakādayo viya, attano pattabalito vā vuttanayeneva adhikaṃ gaṇhāti rājabhaṭādayo viya, tassevaṃ gaṇhato avahāro pasayhāvahāroti veditabbo. Parikappetvā gahaṇaṃ pana parikappāvahāro nāma. So bhaṇḍokāsavasena duvidho. Tatrāyaṃ bhaṇḍaparikappo – sāṭakatthiko antogabbhaṃ pavisitvā “sace sāṭako bhavissati, gaṇhissāmi, sace suttaṃ, na gaṇhissāmī”ti parikappetvā andhakāre pasibbakaṃ gaṇhāti, tatra ce sāṭako hoti, uddhāreyeva pārājikaṃ. Suttaṃ ce hoti, rakkhati. Bahi nīharitvā muñcitvā “sutta”nti ñatvā puna āharitvā ṭhapeti, rakkhatiyeva. “Sutta”nti ñatvāpi “yaṃ laddhaṃ, taṃ gahetabba”nti gacchati, padavārena kāretabbo. Bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapetvā gaṇhāti, uddhāre pārājikaṃ. “Coro coro”ti anubandho chaṭṭetvā palāyati, rakkhati. Sāmikā disvā gaṇhanti, rakkhati yeva. Añño ce koci gaṇhāti, bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ. Sāmikesu nivattesu sayaṃ disvā paṃsukūlasaññāya “pagevetaṃ mayā gahitaṃ, mama dāni santaka”nti gaṇhantassāpi bhaṇḍadeyyameva. Tattha yvāyaṃ “sace sāṭako bhavissati, gaṇhissāmī”tiādinā nayena pavatto parikappo, ayaṃ bhaṇḍaparikappo nāma.

What is the “group of theft transactions” (theyyāvahārapañcakaṃ)? Theft transaction (theyyāvahāro), forceful theft (pasayhāvahāro), planned theft (parikappāvahāro), concealed theft (paṭicchannāvahāro), and blade-of-grass theft (kusāvahāro). Here, one who steals unseen by cutting through walls (sandhicchedādīni katvā adissamāno avaharati) or deceives with counterfeit weights or coins (kūṭamānakūṭakahāpaṇādīhi vā vañcetvā gaṇhāti)—his act of taking is to be understood as a “theft transaction” (theyyāvahāro). One who takes another’s property by force (pasayha balakkārena paresaṃ santakaṃ gaṇhāti), like village raiders (gāmaghātakādayo), or takes more than his due share by the aforementioned method, like royal officers (rājabhaṭādayo)—his act of taking is to be understood as “forceful theft” (pasayhāvahāro). Taking after planning (parikappetvā gahaṇaṃ) is called “planned theft” (parikappāvahāro). This is twofold: based on the item (bhaṇḍavasena) and based on the location (okāsavasena). Here is the “planning of the item” (bhaṇḍaparikappo): one desiring a cloth (sāṭakatthiko) enters a room (antogabbhaṃ pavisitvā) and plans, “If there is a cloth (sāṭako), I will take it; if there is thread (suttaṃ), I will not take it” (sace sāṭako bhavissati gaṇhissāmi sace suttaṃ na gaṇhissāmi). In the dark, he takes a bag (andhakāre pasibbakaṃ gaṇhāti). If it contains a cloth (tatra ce sāṭako hoti), it is a pārājika upon removal (uddhāreyeva). If it is thread (suttaṃ ce hoti), he is safe (rakkhati). Taking it outside, releasing it, and realizing it is thread (suttaṃ ñatvā), he returns and replaces it—he remains safe (rakkhatiyeva). Even knowing it is thread (suttaṃ ñatvāpi), if he thinks, “What I have obtained, I should take” (yaṃ laddhaṃ taṃ gahetabbaṃ) and goes, it must be dealt with step-by-step (padavārena kāretabbo). Taking it after placing it on the ground (bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapetvā gaṇhāti)—a pārājika upon removal (uddhāre). If pursued with cries of “Thief, thief” (coro coroti anubandho), he discards it and flees—he is safe (rakkhati). If the owners see and take it, he remains safe (rakkhati yeva). If someone else takes it, it is an item to be given up (bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ). If the owners, having returned and seen it, take it with the perception of discarded cloth (paṃsukūlasaññāya), thinking, “I took it earlier, now it is mine” (pagevetaṃ mayā gahitaṃ mama dāni santakaṃ), it is still an item to be given up (bhaṇḍadeyyameva). This planning that proceeds as “If there is a cloth, I will take it” (sace sāṭako bhavissati gaṇhissāmīti) is called the “planning of the item” (bhaṇḍaparikappo).

What is the fivefold group of theft? Theft, forceful theft, pre-determined theft, concealed theft, and kusa-theft. Therein, he who steals unseen after breaking in and so forth, or takes by deceiving with false measures, false coins, and so forth, his taking thus is to be understood as theft. He who takes what belongs to others by force, like village-robbers and so forth, or he who, from his position of power, takes more than what is due, like royal soldiers and so forth, his taking thus is to be understood as forceful theft. Taking after pre-determining, however, is called pre-determined theft. This is of two kinds, according to the object and the location. Herein, this is object pre-determination: one intending to get a cloth enters an inner room and pre-determines, “If it is a cloth, I will take it; if it is thread, I will not take it,” and takes a bundle in the dark; if there is a cloth in it, as soon as he lifts it, there is a pārājika. If it is thread, he is protected. If he takes it outside, releases it, and knowing it is “thread,” brings it back and puts it down, he is protected. Even knowing it is “thread,” if he goes thinking, “Whatever is obtained should be taken,” he should be made to do [penance] for each step. If he puts it down on the ground and takes it, as soon as he lifts it, there is a pārājika. If he flees, abandoning it, being chased with cries of “Thief, thief,” he is protected. If the owners see and take it, he is still protected. But if someone else takes it, it is goods to be given. If the owners, having returned, see it themselves and, with the perception of dust-heap-cloth, thinking, “This was taken by me earlier, it now belongs to me,” take it, it is still goods to be given. Therein, this pre-determination that proceeds with the method of “If it is a cloth, I will take it” and so forth, is called object pre-determination.

What is the theyyāvahārapañcakaṃ? It involves theft by stealth, theft by force, theft by arrangement, theft by concealment, and theft by substitution. Here, theyyāvahāro is understood as theft by stealth, such as breaking into a house and taking goods unseen, or deceiving with false weights, measures, or coins. Pasayhāvahāro is understood as theft by force, such as village raiders taking others’ property by force, or royal officers taking more than their due. Parikappāvahāro means theft by arrangement. This is of two kinds: arrangement regarding goods and arrangement regarding opportunity. Bhaṇḍaparikappo is as follows: A cloth-seeker enters a room and thinks, “If there is a cloth, I will take it; if there is thread, I will not take it.” In the dark, he grabs a bundle. If it is a cloth, it is an offense of expulsion as soon as he lifts it. If it is thread, he is exempt. If he takes it out, unties it, and realizes it is thread, he is exempt. If he thinks, “Whatever I get, I will take,” he should be dealt with according to the rule. If he places it on the ground and takes it, it is an offense of expulsion as soon as he lifts it. If he runs away shouting, “Thief, thief,” he is exempt. If the owners see and take it, he is exempt. If someone else takes it, it is a matter of returning the goods. If the owners return and he sees it, thinking, “This was taken by me, now it is mine,” or “They have left, this is discarded,” it is still a matter of returning the goods. This is the bhaṇḍaparikappo.

Okāsaparikappo pana evaṃ veditabbo – ekacco pana parapariveṇādīni paviṭṭho kiñci lobhaneyyaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ disvā gabbhadvārapamukhaheṭṭhāpāsādadvārakoṭṭhakarukkhamūlādivasena paricchedaṃ katvā “sace maṃ etthantare passissanti, daṭṭhukāmatāya gahetvā vicaranto viya dassāmi, no ce passissanti, harissāmī”ti parikappeti, tassa taṃ ādāya parikappitaparicchedaṃ atikkantamatte avahāro hoti. Iti yvāyaṃ vuttanayeneva pavatto parikappo, ayaṃ okāsaparikappo nāma. Evamimesaṃ dvinnampi parikappānaṃ vasena parikappetvā gaṇhato avahāro “parikappāvahāro”ti veditabbo.

The “planning of the location” (okāsaparikappo) should be understood thus: one entering another’s monastery or dwelling (parapariveṇādīni paviṭṭho) sees a desirable item (kiñci lobhaneyyaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ disvā) and sets a boundary (paricchedaṃ katvā) based on the room’s door, porch, lower palace door, gate, tree root, or similar (gabbhadvārapamukhaheṭṭhāpāsādadvārakoṭṭhakarukkhamūlādivasena), planning, “If they see me within this area (etthantare), I will show it as if I took it out of curiosity to look at it (daṭṭhukāmatāya gahetvā vicaranto viya dassāmi); if they do not see me, I will take it” (no ce passissanti harissāmi). For him, the theft occurs the moment he crosses the planned boundary with it (parikappitaparicchedaṃ atikkantamatte avahāro). Thus, this planning proceeding as described (vuttanayeneva pavatto parikappo) is called the “planning of the location” (okāsaparikappo). The act of taking after planning by either of these two methods (imessaṃ dvinnampi parikappānaṃ vasena) is to be understood as “planned theft” (parikappāvahāro).

Location pre-determination, however, should be understood thus: someone enters another’s enclosure and so forth, and seeing some desirable goods, makes a boundary in terms of the door of the room, the main door of the lower floor of the palace, the store-room, the root of a tree, and so forth, and pre-determines, “If they see me within this area, I will show myself as if looking around out of curiosity; if they do not see me, I will steal it”; for him, taking that and crossing the pre-determined boundary, there is a theft. Thus, this pre-determination that proceeds with the aforementioned method is called location pre-determination. Thus, taking after pre-determining by way of both of these pre-determinations, the theft is to be understood as “pre-determined theft”.

Okāsaparikappo should be understood as follows: Someone enters another’s dwelling and sees something desirable. He marks the boundaries, such as the doorframe, the base of the stairs, or the root of a tree, and thinks, “If they see me within these boundaries, I will pretend to be walking around with it; if they do not see me, I will take it.” As soon as he takes it beyond the marked boundaries, it counts as theft. This is the okāsaparikappo. Thus, theft by arrangement is understood as theft carried out through these two kinds of arrangement.

Paṭicchādetvā pana avaharaṇaṃ paṭicchannāvahāro nāma. So evaṃ veditabbo – yo bhikkhu uyyānādīsu paresaṃ omuñcitvā ṭhapitaaṅgulimuddikādīni disvā “pacchā gaṇhissāmī”ti paṃsunā vā paṇṇena vā paṭicchādeti, tassa ettāvatā uddhāro natthīti na tāva avahāro hoti . Yadā pana sāmikā vicinantā apassitvā “sve jānissāmā”ti sālayāva gatā honti, athassa taṃ uddharato uddhāre avahāro. Paṭicchannakāleyeva “etaṃ mama santaka”nti sakasaññāya vā “gatā dāni te, chaṭṭitabhaṇḍaṃ ida”nti paṃsukūlasaññāya vā gaṇhantassa pana bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ. Tesu dutiyatatiyadivase āgantvā vicinitvā adisvā dhuranikkhepaṃ katvā gatesupi gahitaṃ bhaṇḍadeyyameva. Pacchā ñatvā codiyamānassa adadato sāmikānaṃ dhuranikkhepe avahāro hoti. Kasmā? Yasmā tassa payogena tehi na diṭṭhaṃ. Yo pana tathārūpaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ yathāṭhāne ṭhitaṃyeva appaṭicchādetvā theyyacitto pādena akkamitvā kaddame vā vālukāya vā paveseti, tassa pavesitamatteyeva avahāro.

Taking after concealing (paṭicchādetvā avaharaṇaṃ) is called “concealed theft” (paṭicchannāvahāro). It should be understood thus: a monk in a park or elsewhere (uyyānādīsu), seeing items like a ring (aṅgulimuddikādīni) left behind by others (paresaṃ omuñcitvā ṭhapita), covers it with dust or leaves (paṃsunā vā paṇṇena vā paṭicchādeti), thinking, “I’ll take it later” (pacchā gaṇhissāmi). At that point, there is no removal (ettāvatā uddhāro natthi), so there is no theft yet (na tāva avahāro). When the owners search but, not seeing it, say, “We’ll know tomorrow” (sve jānissāmāti) and go to their dwelling (sālayāva gatā), then his removal of it (uddharato) becomes theft at the moment of removal (uddhāre avahāro). If he takes it at the time of concealing (paṭicchannakāleyeva) with the perception that it is his own (sakasaññāya), thinking, “This belongs to me” (etaṃ mama santakaṃ), or with the perception of discarded cloth (paṃsukūlasaññāya), thinking, “They’re gone now, this is abandoned” (gatā dāni te chaṭṭitabhaṇḍaṃ idaṃ), it is an item to be given up (bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ). Even if they return on the second or third day, search, do not see it, abandon responsibility (dhuranikkhepaṃ katvā), and leave, what is taken remains an item to be given up (bhaṇḍadeyyameva). If later, when accused (codiyamānassa), he does not return it, the theft occurs at the owners’ abandonment of responsibility (sāmikānaṃ dhuranikkhepe avahāro). Why? Because, due to his action (tassa payogena), they did not see it. One who, without concealing such an item in its place (yathāṭhāne ṭhitaṃyeva appaṭicchādetvā), presses it with his foot (pādena akkamitvā) into mud or sand (kaddame vā vālukāya vā paveseti) with the intention to steal (theyyacitto)—for him, the theft occurs the moment it is pressed in (pavesitamatteyeva avahāro).

Stealing after concealing, however, is called concealed theft. It should be understood thus: a monk sees finger-rings and so forth that have been taken off and put down by others in parks and so forth, and thinking, “I will take it later,” covers it with dust or leaves; for him, by this much, there is no lifting, therefore, there is no theft yet. But when the owners, searching and not finding it, have gone away reluctantly, thinking, “We will know tomorrow,” then for him, lifting that, at the moment of lifting, there is a theft. But if, at the very time of concealing, he takes it with the perception of ownership, thinking, “This belongs to me,” or with the perception of dust-heap-cloth, thinking, “They have gone now, this is abandoned goods,” it is goods to be given. If they come on the second or third day, search, and not finding it, give up ownership and go away, what is taken is still goods to be given. If, later, knowing and being accused, he does not give it, at the moment of the owners giving up ownership, there is a theft. Why? Because by his effort, it was not seen by them. But if he, with the thought of theft, steps on such goods, which are still in their original place, without concealing them, and presses them into mud or sand, for him, at the very moment of pressing, there is a theft.

Theft by concealment, paṭicchannāvahāro, is understood as follows: A monk sees a ring or other items left in a park and covers them with dust or leaves, thinking, “I will take them later.” At this point, there is no offense of expulsion, and it is not yet theft. When the owners search and do not find them, saying, “We will know tomorrow,” and leave, if he then takes them, it is theft at the moment of lifting. If he takes them while concealed, thinking, “This is mine,” or “They have left, this is discarded,” it is a matter of returning the goods. If they return on the second or third day and, not finding them, abandon the search, it is still a matter of returning the goods. If he is later accused and does not return them, it is theft due to the owners’ abandonment. Why? Because they did not see it due to his action. If, however, he steps on such goods with the intention to steal, pressing them into mud or sand, it is theft as soon as he presses them.

Kusaṃ saṅkāmetvā pana avaharaṇaṃ kusāvahāro nāma. Sopi evaṃ veditabbo – yo bhikkhu vilīvamayaṃ vā tālapaṇṇamayaṃ vā katasaññāṇaṃ yaṃkiñci kusaṃ pātetvā cīvare bhājīyamāne attano koṭṭhāsassa samīpe ṭhitaṃ appagghataraṃ vā mahagghataraṃ vā samasamaṃ vā agghena parassa koṭṭhāsaṃ haritukāmo attano koṭṭhāse patitaṃ kusaṃ parassa koṭṭhāse pātetukāmatāya uddharati, rakkhati tāva. Parassa koṭṭhāse pātite rakkhateva. Yadā pana tasmiṃ patite parassa koṭṭhāsato parassa kusaṃ uddharati, uddhatamatte avahāro. Sace paṭhamataraṃ parakoṭṭhāsato parassa kusaṃ uddharati, attano koṭṭhāse pātetukāmatāya uddhāre rakkhati, pātanepi rakkhati, attano koṭṭhāsato pana attano kusaṃ uddharato uddhāreyeva rakkhati, taṃ uddharitvā parakoṭṭhāse pātentassa hatthato muttamatte avahāro. Ayaṃ kusāvahāro. Iti yaṃ vuttaṃ “ādiyeyyāti pañcavīsatiyā avahārānaṃ aññataravasena hareyyā”ti, tassattho pakāsito hoti.

Taking by transferring a blade of grass (kusaṃ saṅkāmetvā avaharaṇaṃ) is called “blade-of-grass theft” (kusāvahāro). It should be understood thus: a monk, when robes are being divided (cīvare bhājīyamāne), regarding a blade of grass (kusaṃ)—whether made of vine (vilīvamayaṃ) or palm leaf (tālapaṇṇamayaṃ) or prepared as a marker (katasaññāṇaṃ)—wishing to take another’s share (parassa koṭṭhāsaṃ haritukāmo), whether less valuable (appagghataraṃ), more valuable (mahagghataraṃ), or equal in value (samasamaṃ agghena), that is near his own share (attano koṭṭhāsassa samīpe ṭhitaṃ), lifts the blade of grass that fell in his share (attano koṭṭhāse patitaṃ kusaṃ) with the desire to place it in the other’s share (parassa koṭṭhāse pātetukāmatāya uddharati)—he is safe so far (rakkhati tāva). When he places it in the other’s share (parassa koṭṭhāse pātite), he remains safe (rakkhateva). When he then lifts the other’s blade of grass from that share (yadā parassa koṭṭhāsato parassa kusaṃ uddharati), the theft occurs at the moment of lifting (uddhatamatte avahāro). If he first lifts the other’s blade of grass from their share (paṭhamataraṃ parakoṭṭhāsato parassa kusaṃ uddharati), intending to place it in his own share (attano koṭṭhāse pātetukāmatāya), he is safe at the lifting (uddhāre rakkhati) and placing (pātanepi rakkhati). But when he lifts his own blade of grass from his share (attano koṭṭhāsato attano kusaṃ uddharato), he is safe at the lifting (uddhāreyeva rakkhati); when he places it in the other’s share and it is released from his hand (parakoṭṭhāse pātentassa hatthato muttamatte), the theft occurs (avahāro). This is blade-of-grass theft (kusāvahāro). Thus, what was said—“should take (ādiyeyyāti) by one of the twenty-five modes of taking (pañcavīsatiyā avahārānaṃ aññataravasena hareyya)”—its meaning has been clarified (pakāsito).

Stealing after moving a kusa, however, is called kusa-theft. It should be understood thus: a monk, having dropped some marked kusa made of wicker or palm leaf, when robes are being distributed, wishing to steal the portion of another, which is near his own portion, whether of lesser or greater value, or of equal value, lifts the kusa that has fallen in his own portion, intending to drop it in the portion of the other; he is protected for the time being. When it is dropped in the portion of the other, he is still protected. But when, after it has fallen there, he lifts the other’s kusa from the other’s portion, at the very moment of lifting, there is a theft. If he first lifts the other’s kusa from the other’s portion, intending to drop it in his own portion, at the moment of lifting, he is protected; even at the moment of dropping, he is protected; but when he lifts his own kusa from his own portion, at the very moment of lifting, he is protected; when he lifts that and drops it in the other’s portion, at the very moment it is released from his hand, there is a theft. This is kusa-theft. Thus, the meaning of what was said, “Should take, he should steal by one of the twenty-five modes of stealing,” has been clarified.

Theft by substitution, kusāvahāro, is understood as follows: A monk, while cloth is being distributed, places a blade of grass on his own share, wanting to take another’s share, whether of lesser, greater, or equal value. He lifts the grass from his own share, intending to place it on another’s share. He is exempt as long as he lifts it. If he places it on another’s share, he is still exempt. If he then takes another’s grass from that share, it is theft as soon as he lifts it. If he first takes another’s grass from their share, intending to place it on his own, he is exempt when lifting and placing it. If he lifts his own grass from his own share, he is exempt when lifting it. If he lifts it and places it on another’s share, it is theft as soon as it leaves his hand. This is the kusāvahāro. Thus, the meaning of “he would take by any one of the twenty-five methods of theft” has been explained.

Yathārūpeti yādise. Adinnādāneti adinnassa parasantakassa gahaṇe. Rājānotiidaṃ bimbisāraṃyeva sandhāya vuttaṃ, aññe pana tathā kareyyuṃ vā na kareyyuṃ vāti te nappamāṇaṃ. Haneyyuṃ vāti hatthādīhi vā potheyyuṃ, satthena vā chindeyyuṃ. Bandheyyuṃ vāti rajjubandhanādīhi bandheyyuṃ vā. Pabbājeyyuṃ vāti nīhareyyuṃ vā. Corosi bālosi mūḷhosi thenosīti imehi vacanehi paribhāseyyuṃ. Kīdisassa pana adinnassa ādāne rājāno evaṃ karonti? Pādassa vā pādārahassa vā. Tathārūpaṃ bhikkhu adinnaṃ ādiyamānoti tādisaṃ bhikkhu porāṇakassa kahāpaṇassa pādaṃ vā pādārahaṃ vā bhaṇḍaṃ adinnaṃ bhūmiādīsu yattha katthaci ṭhitaṃ yaṃkiñci sajīvanijjīvaṃ vuttappakārānaṃ avahārānaṃ yena kenaci avahārena avaharanto pārājiko hoti, ko pana vādo tato atirekatarasminti.

“In such a way” (yathārūpe) means of such a kind (yādise). “Taking what is not given” (adinnādāne) means the taking (gahaṇe) of what is not given (adinnassa), belonging to another (parasantakassa). “Kings” (rājāno) is said specifically with reference to Bimbisāra (bimbisāraṃyeva sandhāya vuttaṃ); whether others would act similarly or not (aññe tathā kareyyuṃ vā na kareyyuṃ vā), they are not the standard (te nappamāṇaṃ). “Would kill” (haneyyuṃ vā) means they might strike with hands or the like (hatthādīhi potheyyuṃ) or cut with a weapon (satthena chindeyyuṃ). “Would imprison” (bandheyyuṃ vā) means they might bind with ropes or similar means (rajjubandhanādīhi bandheyyuṃ). “Would banish” (pabbājeyyuṃ vā) means they might expel (nīhareyyuṃ). They might revile with the words, “You are a thief (corosi), a fool (bālosi), deluded (mūḷhosi), a robber (thenosi).” But in what kind of taking of what is not given (kīdisassa adinnassa ādāne) do kings act thus? In the taking of a quarter (pādassa) or something worth a quarter (pādārahassa). “A monk taking such a thing that is not given” (tathārūpaṃ bhikkhu adinnaṃ ādiyamāno) means a monk taking (avaharanto) such a thing (tādisaṃ)—a quarter of an ancient coin (porāṇakassa kahāpaṇassa pādaṃ) or something worth a quarter (pādārahaṃ)—an item (bhaṇḍaṃ) that is not given (adinnaṃ), whether animate or inanimate (sajīvanijjīvaṃ), situated anywhere on the ground or elsewhere (bhūmiādīsu yattha katthaci ṭhitaṃ), by any of the aforementioned modes of taking (vuttappakārānaṃ avahārānaṃ yena kenaci avahārena)—he becomes a pārājika. How much more so for something exceeding that (ko pana vādo tato atirekatarasmiṃ)?

Such as, of what kind. In the taking of what is not given, in the taking of what belongs to another and is not given. Kings, this is said with reference to Bimbisāra; but others might or might not do so, therefore, they are not the standard. Would kill, or, would beat with their hands and so forth, or would cut with a weapon. Would bind, or, would bind with ropes and so forth, or. Would banish, or, would drive out, or. Would revile with these words: “You are a thief, you are a fool, you are stupid, you are a robber”. But for the taking of what kind of thing that is not given do kings do thus? For a pāda or for what is worth a pāda. A monk taking such a thing that is not given, a monk stealing a pāda or something worth a pāda of an ancient kahāpaṇa, any kind of goods that are not given, whether animate or inanimate, situated anywhere, on the ground or elsewhere, by any of the aforementioned modes of stealing, is defeated (pārājika); what need is there to speak of anything more than that?

Yathārūpeti: Of such a kind. Adinnādāneti: In the taking of what is not given, what belongs to another. Rājānoti: This refers specifically to King Bimbisāra, but others may or may not act similarly, so they are not a standard. Haneyyuṃ vāti: They may strike with hands, etc., or cut with a sword. Bandheyyuṃ vāti: They may bind with ropes, etc. Pabbājeyyuṃ vāti: They may banish. Corosi bālosi mūḷhosi thenosīti: They may rebuke with these words. For what kind of theft do kings act thus? For the value of a pāda or a pādāraha. Tathārūpaṃ bhikkhu adinnaṃ ādiyamānoti: A monk who takes such an item, whether an ancient coin or an item worth a pāda or a pādāraha, placed anywhere on the ground or elsewhere, any living or non-living thing, by any of the methods of theft described, commits an offense entailing expulsion. How much more so for something of greater value.

Rājagahe dhaniyattheraṃ ārabbha rañño dārūni adinnaṃ ādiyanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “gāmā vā araññā vā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, haraṇatthāya gamanādike pubbappayoge dukkaṭaṃ, āmasane dukkaṭaṃ, pārājikavatthuno phandāpane thullaccayaṃ. Ādiyantassa māsake vā ūnamāsake vā dukkaṭaṃ, atirekamāsake vā ūnapañcamāsake vā thullaccayaṃ, pañcamāsake vā atirekapañcamāsake vā pārājikaṃ. Sabbattha gahaṇakālavasena ca gahaṇadesavasena ca paribhogabhājanaparivattanādīhi ca parihīnāparihīnavasena vinicchayo veditabbo. Sakasaññissa, vissāsaggāhe, tāvakālike, petapariggahe, tiracchānagatapariggahe, paṃsukūlasaññissa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Sīlavipatti, aññassa manussajātikassa vasena parapariggahitaṃ, parapariggahitasaññitā, garuparikkhāro, theyyacittaṃ, vuttappakārānaṃ avahārānaṃ vasena avaharaṇañcāti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Adinnādānasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was established in Rājagaha concerning the elder Dhaniya, regarding the matter of taking timber belonging to the king that was not given (rañño dārūni adinnaṃ ādiyanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ). “From a village or a forest” (gāmā vā araññā vā) is an additional specification here (ayamettha anupaññatti), a general rule (sādhāraṇapaññatti), involving command (sāṇattikaṃ). Going to take it (haraṇatthāya gamanādike) as a preparatory effort (pubbappayoge)—wrong conduct (dukkataṃ); touching it (āmasane)—wrong conduct (dukkataṃ); making the pārājika object tremble (pārājikavatthuno phandāpane)—a grave offense (thullaccayaṃ). For one taking it (ādiyantassa): with a māsaka or less (māsake vā ūnamāsake)—wrong conduct (dukkataṃ); with more than a māsaka but less than five māsakas (atirekamāsake vā ūnapañcamāsake)—a grave offense (thullaccayaṃ); with five māsakas or more (pañcamāsake vā atirekapañcamāsake)—a pārājika. In all cases, the determination (vinicchayo) should be understood based on the time of taking (gahaṇakālavasena), the place of taking (gahaṇadesavasena), and whether it is relinquished or not relinquished (parihīnāparihīnavasena) through use, containers, exchanges, and so forth (paribhogabhājanaparivattanādīhi). There is no offense (anāpatti) for one who perceives it as his own (sakasaññissa), takes it in trust (vissāsaggāhe), takes it temporarily (tāvakālike), takes it from the departed (petapariggahe), takes it from animals (tiracchānagatapariggahe), perceives it as discarded cloth (paṃsukūlasaññissa), or is insane and the like (ummattakādīnañca). It is a failure of virtue (sīlavipatti). Here, the five factors (imāni pañca aṅgāni) are: belonging to another human being (aññassa manussajātikassa vasena parapariggahitaṃ), perception of it as belonging to another (parapariggahitasaññitā), a valuable item (garuparikkhāro), the intention to steal (theyyacittaṃ), and taking by the aforementioned modes of taking (vuttappakārānaṃ avahārānaṃ vasena avaharaṇaṃ). It arises from taking what is not given (adinnādānasamuṭṭhānaṃ), is an action (kiriyaṃ), perception-released (saññāvimokkhaṃ), with consciousness (sacittakaṃ), a worldly fault (lokavajjaṃ), a bodily action (kāyakammaṃ), a verbal action (vacīkammaṃ), with unwholesome consciousness (akusalacittaṃ), and with three feelings (tivedana).

In Rājagaha, it was promulgated concerning the matter of the venerable Dhaniya taking the king’s wood that was not given; “from a village or from the wilderness”, this is a supplementary regulation here, a general regulation, with command, a dukkaṭa for going with the intention to steal and so forth in prior effort, a dukkaṭa for touching, a thullaccaya for causing an object of pārājika to move. For one who takes, a dukkaṭa for a māsaka or less than a māsaka, a thullaccaya for more than a māsaka or less than five māsakas, a pārājika for five māsakas or more than five māsakas. Everywhere, the decision should be understood according to the time of taking, the place of taking, the exchange of the object of enjoyment and so forth, and whether it is diminished or undiminished. There is no offense for one with the perception of ownership, in taking in trust, in taking temporarily, in taking what is possessed by a departed spirit, in taking what is possessed by an animal, in taking with the perception of dust-heap-cloth, and for one who is insane and so forth. Transgression of morality, that which is possessed by another by way of belonging to another human being, the perception of it being possessed by another, valuable property, the thought of theft, and stealing by way of the aforementioned modes of stealing—these are the five factors here. Arising from the taking of what is not given, it is an action, it is freed by perception, it is intentional, it is a worldly fault, it is a bodily action, it is a verbal action, it is an unwholesome thought, it is of three feelings.

In Rājagaha, the case of the elder Dhaniya, who took the king’s wood without permission, was the basis for the rule. “From a village or from the wilderness” is a subsequent rule, a general rule. For a messenger, going to steal, etc., is wrong conduct at the stage of prior arrangement. Touching is wrong conduct. Causing the object to tremble is a grave offense. For the taker, taking a māsaka or less is wrong conduct. Taking more than a māsaka but less than five māsakas is a grave offense. Taking five māsakas or more is an offense entailing expulsion. In all cases, the determination should be made based on the time of taking, the place of taking, the exchange of containers, etc., and whether the value is diminished or not. There is no offense for one who perceives it as his own, for one who takes it in trust, for temporary use, for taking what belongs to a ghost or an animal, for one who perceives it as discarded, or for the insane, etc. The five factors here are: moral failure, taking what belongs to another human, perceiving it as belonging to another, a valuable object, the intention to steal, and the act of theft by one of the methods described. The origin of theft, the action, the release of perception, the involvement of mind, the worldly blame, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome mind, and the threefold feeling.

3. Tatiyapārājikavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Third Pārājika

3. Explanation of the Third Offense Entailing Expulsion

Tatiye sañciccāti saṃcetetvā saddhiṃ cetetvā. “Pāṇo”tisaññāya saddhiṃyeva “vadhāmi na”nti vadhakacetanāya cetetvā pakappetvā. Manussaviggahanti kalalato paṭṭhāya jīvamānakamanussajātikasarīraṃ. Jīvitā voropeyyāti kalalakālepi tāpanamaddanehi vā bhesajjasampadānena vā tato vā uddhampi tadanurūpena upakkamena jīvitā viyojeyya. Imassa panatthassa āvibhāvatthaṃ pāṇo veditabbo, pāṇātipāto veditabbo, pāṇātipātī veditabbo, pāṇātipātassa payogo veditabbo. Tattha pāṇoti vohārato satto, paramatthato jīvitindriyaṃ. Pāṇātipātoti yāya cetanāya jīvitindriyupacchedakapayogaṃ samuṭṭhāpeti, sā cetanā. Pāṇātipātīti vuttacetanāya samaṅgipuggalo. Pāṇātipātassa payogoti pāṇātipātassa cha payogā sāhatthiko nissaggiyo āṇattiko thāvaro vijjāmayo iddhimayoti . Tattha sāhatthikoti sayaṃ mārentassa kāyena vā kāyappaṭibaddhena vā paharaṇaṃ. Nissaggiyoti dūre ṭhitaṃ māretukāmassa kāyena vā kāyappaṭibaddhena vā ususattiyantapāsāṇādīnaṃ nissajjanaṃ. Tattha ekeko uddissānuddissabhedato duvidho. Tattha uddissake yaṃ uddissa paharati, tasseva maraṇena kammabaddho. “Yo koci maratū”ti evaṃ anuddissake pahārappaccayā yassa kassaci maraṇena kammabaddho. Ubhayatthāpi ca paharitamatte vā maratu, pacchā vā teneva rogena, paharitakkhaṇeyeva kammabaddho. Āṇattikoti “asukaṃ nāma mārehī”ti aññaṃ āṇāpentassa āṇāpanaṃ.

In the third [rule], “sañcicca” means having intended, having thought together with intention. Having recognized it as “a living being,” together with the intention to kill, thinking and planning, “I will kill it.” “Manussaviggaha” means a human form, a body of the human species, alive from the stage of the embryo onward. “Jīvitā voropeyyā” means he would deprive it of life—whether at the embryonic stage by means of heat or crushing, or by administering medicine, or thereafter by an appropriate method, separating it from life. To clarify the meaning of this, “a living being” should be understood, “killing a living being” should be understood, “one who kills a living being” should be understood, and “the effort of killing a living being” should be understood. Herein, “pāṇo” means, conventionally, a being; in the ultimate sense, the life faculty. “Pāṇātipāto” means the intention that initiates an effort to sever the life faculty; that is the intention. “Pāṇātipātī” means a person endowed with the aforesaid intention. “Pāṇātipātassa payogo” means the efforts of killing a living being, of which there are six: by one’s own hand, by relinquishing, by command, by fixed means, by knowledge, and by psychic power. Herein, “sāhatthiko” means striking with one’s own body or something attached to the body, as done by one who kills himself. “Nissaggiyo” means relinquishing—for one desiring to kill from a distance, the releasing of arrows, spears, stones, or similar things with the body or something attached to the body. In both cases, each is twofold: directed or undirected. In the directed case, when one strikes with intent toward a specific target, he is bound by kamma through that target’s death alone. In the undirected case, such as “Let anyone die,” he is bound by kamma through the death of anyone caused by that strike. In both cases, whether death occurs immediately upon striking or later due to that same injury, he is bound by kamma at the moment of striking. “Āṇattiko” means commanding another, saying, “Kill so-and-so,” the act of giving the command.

In the third, sañcicca means having intentionally formed, having formed together with intention. Having intentionally formed, having prepared with the volition to kill, together with the perception “It is a living being.” Manussaviggaha means the bodily form of a living human being, starting from the kalala (embryo) stage. Jīvitā voropeyyā means to deprive of life, even at the kalala stage, either through heating, crushing, administering medicines, or through any similar appropriate action, from then onwards. For the purpose of understanding this meaning, one should understand a living being, the act of killing a living being, the killer of a living being, and the instigations of killing a living being. Herein, pāṇo, a living being, conventionally refers to a being, but ultimately refers to the life-faculty (jīvitindriya). Pāṇātipāto, the act of killing, is the volition that initiates the action which cuts off the life-faculty. Pāṇātipātī, the killer, is the person endowed with the aforementioned volition. Pāṇātipātassa payogo, the instigations of killing, are sixfold: by one’s own hand (sāhatthika), by launching (nissaggiya), by command (āṇattika), by a fixed device (thāvara), by magical power (vijjāmaya), and by psychic power (iddhimaya). Among these, sāhatthiko is the striking, by one who kills by oneself, either with the body or with something attached to the body. Nissaggiyo is the launching, by one who desires to kill someone at a distance, of arrows, spears, nets, stones, etc., either with the body or with something attached to the body. Each of these is twofold: specific target and unspecific target. In the case of a specific target, one is bound by the kamma only upon the death of the one targeted. In the case of an unspecific target, expressed as “Let anyone die,” one is bound by the kamma upon the death of anyone due to the striking. And in both cases, whether the victim dies immediately upon being struck or later from the same wound, one is bound by the kamma at the very moment of striking. Āṇattiko is the command given by someone ordering another, saying, “Kill so-and-so.”

In the third, sañciccāti: Intentionally, having decided, having resolved. “A living being” with the perception of a living being, having resolved with the intention to kill, “I will kill.” Manussaviggahanti: A human body, from the embryo stage to a living human being. Jīvitā voropeyyāti: Depriving of life, even at the embryo stage, by crushing, burning, or administering medicine, or at any later stage by appropriate means. To clarify this meaning, a living being should be understood, the act of killing should be understood, the killer should be understood, and the effort to kill should be understood. Here, pāṇoti: Conventionally, a being; ultimately, the life faculty. Pāṇātipātoti: The volition that produces the effort to cut off the life faculty. Pāṇātipātīti: The person endowed with that volition. Pāṇātipātassa payogoti: The six methods of killing: direct action, relinquishment, command, stationary means, magical means, and psychic means. Here, sāhatthikoti: Striking with one’s own body or something connected to the body. Nissaggiyoti: Throwing something, such as a spear, arrow, or stone, at a distant target with the intention to kill. This is of two kinds: specific and non-specific. In the specific case, if one strikes aiming at a specific target, one is bound by the result of that death. In the non-specific case, if one strikes thinking, “Whoever dies,” one is bound by the result of any death. In both cases, one is bound by the result at the moment of striking, whether death occurs immediately or later from that injury. Āṇattikoti: Ordering another, “Kill so and so.”

Vatthu kālo ca okāso, āvudhaṃ iriyāpatho;
Kriyāvisesoti ime, cha āṇatti niyāmakā.

The basis, the time, the occasion, the means, the posture; and the specific action, these six determine the command.

Object, time, occasion, weapon, posture; and the specific nature of the action, these six are the regulators of instigation.

The basis, the time, the opportunity, the weapon, the posture, and the specific action—these six determine the command.

Tattha vatthūti puggalo. Yañhi puggalaṃ “mārehī”ti āṇatto sace tameva māreti, āṇāpakassa āpatti. Atha aññaṃ māreti, taṃmaññamāno vā aññaṃ māreti, āṇāpako muccati. “Imaṃ mārehī”ti āṇatte pana āṇāpakassa dukkaṭaṃ. Kāloti purebhattādikālo. Sace hi “purebhattaṃ mārehī”ti āṇatto purebhattameva māreti, āṇāpakassa āpatti. Atha yaṃ purebhattaṃ niyāmitaṃ, tato pacchā vā pure vā māreti, āṇāpako muccati. Iminā nayena sabbattha vinicchayo veditabbo. Thāvaroti asaṃhārimena upakaraṇena māretukāmassa opātakkhaṇanaṃ apassenasaṃvidhānaṃ asiādīnaṃ upanikkhipanaṃ taḷākādīsu visasampayojanaṃ rūpūpahārotievamādi. Vuttanayeneva cetthāpi uddissānuddissabhedo veditabbo. Vijjāmayoti māraṇatthaṃ vijjāparijappanaṃ. Iddhimayoti kammavipākajāya iddhiyā payojanaṃ.

Herein, “vatthu” means the person. If the person commanded, “Kill him,” kills that very person, the one who commands incurs an offense. But if he kills another, or kills another thinking it is that person, the one who commands is free. However, if it is commanded, “Kill this one,” and another is killed, the one who commands incurs a dukkaṭa. “Kālo” means the time, such as before the meal. If he commands, “Kill him before the meal,” and the killing occurs before the meal, the one who commands incurs an offense. But if the killing occurs after or before the specified time, the one who commands is free. By this method, the decision should be understood in all cases. “Thāvaro” means fixed means—for one desiring to kill with an immovable tool, digging a pit, setting a trap, placing a sword, mixing poison in a pond, or striking with a form; here too, the distinction between directed and undirected should be understood as stated. “Vijjāmayo” means reciting knowledge for the purpose of killing. “Iddhimayo” means employing psychic power born of kamma and its result.

Herein, vatthū, the subject, is the person. If the one commanded to “kill” kills that very person, the commander incurs the offense. But if he kills another, either thinking it is the intended victim or intending to kill another, the commander is freed. But if one is commanded to “kill this one,” the commander incurs a dukkaṭa. Kālo, time, refers to the time before the meal, etc. If the one commanded to “kill before the meal” kills before the meal, the commander incurs the offense. But if he kills after or before the specified time before the meal, the commander is freed. By this method, the decision should be understood in all cases. Thāvaro is, by one who desires to kill with a fixed device, the digging of a pitfall, the setting of a trap, the placing of weapons such as swords, the poisoning of ponds, etc., and the harming of appearance. Here also, the distinction between specific and unspecific targets should be understood as stated. Vijjāmayo is the incantation of a spell for the purpose of killing. Iddhimayo is the employment of psychic power born of the result of kamma.

Here, vatthūti: The person. If one is ordered, “Kill this person,” and one kills that very person, the one who gave the order incurs the offense. If one kills another, thinking it is the same person, the one who gave the order is exempt. If one is ordered, “Kill this person,” the one who gave the order incurs wrong conduct. Kāloti: The time, such as before a meal. If one is ordered, “Kill before the meal,” and one kills at that time, the one who gave the order incurs the offense. If one kills before or after that time, the one who gave the order is exempt. The determination should be made in this way throughout. Thāvaroti: Using stationary means, such as setting up a trap, placing a weapon unseen, or poisoning a pond. The distinction between specific and non-specific should be understood here as well. Vijjāmayoti: Using spells for the purpose of killing. Iddhimayoti: Using psychic power resulting from kamma.

Satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyyāti ettha haratīti hārakaṃ, kiṃ harati? Jīvitaṃ. Atha vā haritabbanti hārakaṃ, upanikkhipitabbanti attho. Satthañca taṃ hārakañcāti satthahārakaṃ. Assāti manussaviggahassa. Pariyeseyyāti yathā labhati, tathā kareyya, upanikkhipeyyāti attho. Etena thāvarapayogaṃ dasseti. Itarathā hi pariyiṭṭhimatteyeva pārājiko bhaveyya, na cetaṃ yuttaṃ. Padabhājane panassa byañjanaṃ anādiyitvā yaṃ ettha thāvarapayogasaṅgahitaṃ satthaṃ, tadeva dassetuṃ “asiṃ vā”tiādi vuttaṃ. Maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyyāti vācāya vā tālapaṇṇādīsu likhitvā vā “yo evaṃ marati, so dhanaṃ vā labhatī”tiādinā nayena maraṇe guṇaṃ pakāseyya. Etena yathā “adinnādāne ādiyeyyā”ti vuttattā pariyāyakathāya muccati, nayidha, evaṃ “saṃvaṇṇeyyā”ti vacanato pana idha pariyāyakathāyapi na muccatīti ayamattho veditabbo. Maraṇāya vā samādapeyyāti “satthaṃ vā āharā”tiādinā (pārā. 172) nayena maraṇatthāya upāyaṃ gāhāpeyya. Etena āṇattikappayogaṃ dasseti. Ambho purisāti ālapanametaṃ. Kiṃ tuyhiminātiādi saṃvaṇṇanākāranidassanaṃ. Iti cittamanoti iti citto iti mano. “Mataṃ te jīvitā seyyo”tiettha vuttamaraṇacitto maraṇamanoti attho. Ettha ca “mano”tiidaṃ cittassa atthadīpanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tenevassa padabhājane “yaṃ cittaṃ taṃ mano”ti (pārā. 172) āha. Cittasaṅkappoti vicittasaṅkappo. Etthāpi iti-saddo āharitabbo. “Saṅkappo”ti ca saṃvidahanamattassetaṃ nāmaṃ, na vitakkasseva. Tañca saṃvidahanaṃ imasmiṃ atthe saññācetanādhippāyehi saṅgahaṃ gacchati, tasmā “iti cittasaṅkappo”ti “mataṃ te jīvitā seyyo”tiettha vuttamaraṇasaññī maraṇacetano maraṇādhippāyoti evamettha attho daṭṭhabbo. Padabhājanepi hi ayameva nayo dassito . Etena maraṇacittādīhi vinā “ekāhaṃ jīvitaṃ seyyo, vīriyamārabhato daḷha”ntiādinā (dha. pa. 112) nayena dhammaṃ bhāsantassa saṃvaṇṇanā nāma na hotīti dasseti. Anekapariyāyenāti nānappakārena uccāvacena kāraṇena. Puna maraṇavaṇṇantiādi nigamanavacanaṃ. Pārājiko hotīti taṅkhaṇūpapannampi manussaviggahaṃ vuttanayena jīvitā voropento pārājiko hotīti.

“Satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyyā”—here, “harati” means it takes, hence “hārakaṃ,” meaning “that which takes.” What does it take? Life. Alternatively, “haritabbaṃ” means “to be taken,” implying “to be placed,” hence “hārakaṃ.” A weapon that takes—“satthahārakaṃ.” “Assa” means of that human form. “Pariyeseyyā” means he would arrange it so as to obtain it, meaning he would place it. This indicates the fixed-means effort. Otherwise, merely seeking it would make him pārājiko, which is not reasonable. In the word-analysis, however, disregarding its phrasing, to show only the weapon included in the fixed-means effort, it says, “a sword or…” and so forth. “Maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyyā” means he would proclaim the merits of death, either by speech or by writing on palm leaves or the like, saying, “One who dies thus gains wealth,” or similar statements, extolling the virtues of death. This indicates that, just as in “he would take what is not given” where indirect speech frees one, here, due to the word “saṃvaṇṇeyyā,” even indirect speech does not free one—this meaning should be understood. “Maraṇāya vā samādapeyyā” means he would incite toward death by means such as, “Bring a weapon,” or similar methods (pārā. 172), showing the commanding effort. “Ambho purisa” is a form of address. “Kiṃ tuyhiminā” and so forth exemplify the manner of extolling. “Iti cittamano” means “thus with mind, thus with thought”—having a mind and thought fixed on the death stated in “Death is better for you than life.” Here, “mano” is said to clarify the meaning of “citta,” which is why the word-analysis states, “What is citta is mano” (pārā. 172). “Cittasaṅkappo” means with manifold intention. The word “iti” should also be applied here. “Saṅkappo” is merely a term for arranging, not just initial thought. In this context, that arranging is encompassed by perception, intention, and purpose; thus, “iti cittasaṅkappo” means “with perception of death, intention of death, and purpose of death” as stated in “Death is better for you than life”—this is how the meaning should be seen here. The word-analysis indeed shows this method. This indicates that without a mind fixed on death and so forth, extolling Dhamma in a way such as “One day of life is better, with firm effort begun” (Dha. Pa. 112) is not considered extolling [death]. “Anekapariyāyena” means in various ways, with diverse reasons great and small. Again, “maraṇavaṇṇaṃ” and so forth is a concluding statement. “Pārājiko hoti” means one who deprives a human form of life, even one born at that moment, by the aforesaid method, becomes pārājiko.

Satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyyā - here, hārakaṃ means one who carries. What does he carry? Life. Or, hārakā means carriers, meaning those who place something down. Satthahārakaṃ is both a weapon and a carrier. Assā means of the human being. Pariyeseyyā means one should act in such a way that he obtains it, one should place it down. This indicates the instigation of a fixed device. Otherwise, one would become a pārājika merely by searching, and that is not appropriate. But in the section-by-section analysis, neglecting its wording, to show the weapon included in the fixed device instigation, it is said, “a sword, etc.” Maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyyā means to describe the advantages of death, either verbally or by writing on palm leaves, etc., saying, “Whoever dies in this way obtains wealth,” etc. This indicates that just as in the case of taking what is not given, one is freed by stating an alternative, it is not so here. Because it says saṃvaṇṇeyyā, here one is not freed even by stating an alternative. Maraṇāya vā samādapeyyā means to induce someone to take up a method for dying, saying, “Bring a weapon,” etc. (Pārā. 172) This indicates the instigation of command. Ambho purisā is a form of address. Kiṃ tuyhiminā etc., is an illustration of the manner of describing. Iti cittamano means thus-minded, thus-hearted. “Death is better for you than life” means having a mind for death, a heart for death. And here, “mano” is said to explain the meaning of “citta”. Therefore, in its section-by-section analysis, it says, “What is citta, that is mano” (Pārā. 172). Cittasaṅkappo means varied intention. Here also, the word “iti” should be supplied. And Saṅkappo is merely a name for arranging, not just for thought. And that arranging, in this context, is included by the intentions of perception, volition, etc. Therefore, iti cittasaṅkappo should be understood here as having the perception of death, the volition for death, the intention for death, as stated in “Death is better for you than life.” In the section-by-section analysis, this very method is shown. This indicates that without a mind for death, etc., one who teaches the Dhamma saying, “Life for even one day is better, if one strives diligently,” etc. (Dhp. 112), is not describing. Anekapariyāyenā means by various means, by high and low reasons. Again, maraṇavaṇṇa etc. is a concluding statement. Pārājiko hotī means one becomes a pārājika by depriving of life, in the stated manner, even a human being who has just come into existence at that moment.

Satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyyāti: Here, “hāraka” means one who carries. What does he carry? Life. Alternatively, “hāraka” means what is to be carried, i.e., what is to be entrusted. The knife and the one who carries it are called “satthahāraka.” Assāti refers to a human being. Pariyeseyyāti means one should do as one finds, i.e., one should entrust it. This indicates the use of a firm method. Otherwise, merely searching would result in a pārājika offense, which is not appropriate. In the word analysis, without considering the details, the term “satthaṃ” (knife) is used to indicate the inclusion of a firm method, as stated in “asiṃ vā” (a knife or something similar). Maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyyāti means one should praise death either verbally or by writing on palm leaves, etc., saying, “Whoever dies in this way obtains wealth,” etc., thus extolling the virtues of death. This shows that one is not free from the need for an indirect method, as stated in “adinnādāne ādiyeyyā” (one should take what is not given), but here, due to the use of “saṃvaṇṇeyyā” (one should praise), one is not free from the need for an indirect method. Maraṇāya vā samādapeyyāti means one should instigate death by saying, “Bring a knife,” etc. (Pārā. 172). This indicates the use of a command method. Ambho purisāti is an address. Kiṃ tuyhimināti is an example of praise. Iti cittamanoti means thus resolved, thus minded. Here, “mataṃ te jīvitā seyyo” (death is better for you than life) indicates a mind resolved on death. In this context, “mano” is used to clarify the meaning of “citta.” Therefore, in the word analysis, it is said, “yaṃ cittaṃ taṃ mano” (what is thought is mind) (Pārā. 172). Cittasaṅkappoti means a varied resolve. Here, the word “iti” should be understood. “Saṅkappo” refers to the mere act of forming a resolution, not just thought. This act of forming a resolution includes perception, intention, and aim, hence “iti cittasaṅkappo” (thus resolved) and “mataṃ te jīvitā seyyo” (death is better for you than life) indicate one who perceives death, intends death, and aims at death. This is the meaning to be understood here. In the word analysis, this method is shown. This also indicates that without a mind resolved on death, etc., there is no praise for one who speaks the Dhamma, saying, “Even a single day of life is better, strive diligently” (Dhammapada 112). Anekapariyāyenāti means in various ways, through various causes. Again, maraṇavaṇṇanti is a concluding statement. Pārājiko hotīti means that even at the moment of arising, one who deprives a human being of life in the manner described is a pārājika.

Vesāliyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha aññamaññaṃ jīvitā voropanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, māraṇatthāya opātakkhaṇanādīsu dukkaṭaṃ, anodissa khate opāte yassa kassaci patanepi dukkaṭaṃ, yakkhapetatiracchānagatamanussaviggahānaṃ tiracchānagatassa ca dukkhuppattiyaṃ dukkaṭameva, manussajātikassa dukkhuppattiyaṃ thullaccayaṃ, tathā yakkhādīnaṃ maraṇe, tiracchānagatamaraṇe pana pācittiyaṃ, manussamaraṇe pārājikanti. Iminā nayena sabbattha payogabhedavasena āpattibhedo veditabbo. Asañcicca mārentassa ajānantassa namaraṇādhippāyassa ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Tattha asañciccāti “iminā upakkamena imaṃ māremī”ti acetetvā katena upakkamena musalussāpanavatthusmiṃ (pārā. 180 ādayo) viya pare matepi anāpatti. Ajānantassāti “iminā ayaṃ marissatī”ti ajānantassa upakkamena visagatapiṇḍapātavatthusmiṃ (pārā. 181) viya pare matepi anāpatti. Namaraṇādhippāyassāti maraṇaṃ anicchantassa upakkamena bhesajjavatthusmiṃ (pārā. 187) viya pare matepi anāpatti. Evaṃ asañciccātiādīsu vinicchayo veditabbo. Sīlavipatti, manussajātikapāṇo, pāṇasaññitā, vadhakacittaṃ, upakkamo, tena maraṇanti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Adinnādānasamauṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, dukkhavedananti.

This was laid down in Vesālī concerning several bhikkhus who deprived one another of life. “Maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā” is an additional rule here, a general rule, involving command. In digging a pit and the like for the purpose of killing, there is a dukkaṭa; in an undirected pit where anyone falls, there is a dukkaṭa; in causing suffering to yakkhas, petas, animals, or a human form of the animal class, it is only a dukkaṭa; in causing suffering to one of the human species, it is a thullaccaya; likewise in the death of yakkhas and so forth; in the death of an animal, it is a pācittiya; but in the death of a human, it is a pārājika. By this method, the distinction of offenses according to the type of effort should be understood in all cases. For one who kills unintentionally, unknowingly, without intent to kill, or for the insane and the like, there is no offense. Herein, “asañcicca” means if another dies by an action done without the intention, “I will kill him with this method,” as in the case of pounding with a pestle (pārā. 180 onward), there is no offense. “Ajānantassa” means if another dies by an action done without knowing, “He will die by this,” as in the case of almsfood mixed with poison (pārā. 181), there is no offense. “Namaraṇādhippāyassa” means if another dies by an action done without desiring death, as in the case of medicine (pārā. 187), there is no offense. Thus, the decision in cases of “asañcicca” and so forth should be understood. Violation of virtue, a living being of the human species, perception of it as a living being, a mind intent on killing, the effort, and death by that effort—these are the five factors here. It arises like the taking of what is not given: it is an action, perception-dependent, with consciousness, a worldly fault, a bodily action, a verbal action, an unwholesome mind, and painful feeling.

It was promulgated in Vesāli concerning many monks who deprived each other of life, “one should describe the advantages of death” is a supplementary regulation here, a general regulation, with command, a dukkaṭa for digging pitfalls, etc., for the purpose of killing, even if anyone falls into a pit dug without a specific target, it is a dukkaṭa, for causing pain to non-human beings, ghosts, animals, and to animals, it is only a dukkaṭa, for causing pain to a human being, it is a thullaccaya, and likewise for the death of ghosts, etc., but for the death of an animal, it is a pācittiya, for the death of a human, it is a pārājika. By this method, the difference in offenses should be understood in all cases according to the difference in instigation. There is no offense for one who kills unintentionally, for one who is unaware, for one who has no intention to kill, and for one who is insane, etc. Herein, asañciccā means, as in the case of the pestle falling (Pārā. 180, etc.), even if another dies due to an action done without intending, “I will kill this one with this action,” there is no offense. Ajānantassā means, as in the case of the poisoned almsfood (Pārā. 181), even if another dies due to an action by one who is unaware, “This one will die by this,” there is no offense. Namaraṇādhippāyassā means, as in the case of the medicine (Pārā. 187), even if another dies due to an action by one who does not desire death, there is no offense. Thus, the decision should be understood in the cases of unintentionally, etc. Here, the five factors are: breach of morality, a living human being, the perception that it is a living being, the mind to kill, the action, and death caused by it. The arising, etc., are the same as for taking what is not given: action, release from perception, with intention, blameworthy by the world, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome mind, and painful feeling.

In Vesālī, several monks were involved in cases of depriving each other of life. The rule was established regarding this matter. “Maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā” (praising death) is an additional rule here, a common rule, a rule with a command. In cases of intending death, such as digging a pit, etc., it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one digs a pit without specifying a target and anyone falls into it, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For yakkhas, animals, and human beings, causing suffering to animals is a dukkaṭa offense, causing suffering to human beings is a thullaccaya offense. Similarly, for the death of yakkhas, etc., the death of animals is a pācittiya offense, and the death of human beings is a pārājika offense. In this way, the differences in offenses should be understood according to the variations in methods. There is no offense for one who kills unintentionally, unknowingly, without the intention of death, or for the insane, etc. Here, asañciccāti means without thinking, “I will kill this person with this method,” as in the case of striking with a pestle (Pārā. 180, etc.), even if the other dies, there is no offense. Ajānantassāti means not knowing, “This person will die by this,” as in the case of giving poisoned food (Pārā. 181), even if the other dies, there is no offense. Namaraṇādhippāyassāti means not desiring death, as in the case of giving medicine (Pārā. 187), even if the other dies, there is no offense. Thus, the determination should be understood in cases of unintentional killing, etc. The five factors here are: moral failure, a human being, perception of a living being, a mind intending to kill, the act of killing, and death resulting from it. The origins, etc., are similar to those in stealing.

4. Catutthapārājikavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Fourth Pārājika

4. Commentary on the Fourth Pārājika

Catutthe anabhijānanti sakasantāne anuppannattā attani atthibhāvaṃ ajānanto. Uttarimanussadhammanti uttarimanussānaṃ jhāyīnañceva ariyānañca dhammaṃ. Attupanāyikanti attani taṃ upaneti “mayi atthī”ti samudācaranto, attānaṃ vā tattha upaneti “ahaṃ ettha sandissāmī”ti samudācarantoti attupanāyiko, taṃ attupanāyikaṃ. Evaṃ katvā samudācareyyāti sambandho. Alamariyañāṇadassanantiettha mahaggatalokuttarapaññā jānanaṭṭhena ñāṇaṃ, cakkhunā ca diṭṭhamiva dhammaṃ paccakkhakaraṇato dassanatthena dassananti ñāṇadassanaṃ, ariyaṃ visuddhaṃ uttamaṃ ñāṇadassananti ariyañāṇadassanaṃ, alaṃ pariyattaṃ kilesaviddhaṃsanasamatthaṃ ariyañāṇadassanamettha jhānādibhede uttarimanussadhamme, alaṃ vā ariyañāṇadassanamassāti alamariyañāṇadassano, taṃ alamariyañāṇadassanaṃ. Samudācareyyāti vuttappakārametaṃ uttarimanussadhammaṃ attupanāyikaṃ katvā kāyena vā vācāya vā tadubhayena vā viññussa manussajātikassa āroceyya. Iti jānāmi iti passāmīti samudācaraṇākāradassanametaṃ, attupanāyikañhi katvā vinā aññāpadesena samudācaranto evaṃ samudācarati, tasmā yvāyaṃ padabhājane (pārā. 209) “paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpajjiṃ, samāpajjāmi, samāpanno”tiādibhedo vutto, so sabbo idheva saṅgahaṃ gacchatīti veditabbo. “Iti jānāmi iti passāmī”ti hi vadanto na yidaṃ vacanamattameva vadati, atha kho “iminā ca iminā ca kāraṇena ayaṃ dhammo mayi atthī”ti dīpeti, “samāpajji”ntiādīni ca vadantena hi samāpajjanādīhi kāraṇehi atthitā dīpitā hoti, tena vuttaṃ “yvāyaṃ padabhājane paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpajjiṃ, samāpajjāmi, samāpannotiādibhedo vutto, so sabbo idheva saṅgahaṃ gacchatī”ti. Tato aparena samayenāti tato ārocitakālato aññatarasmiṃ kāle. Iti āpattipaṭijānanakāladassanametaṃ, ayaṃ pana ārocitakkhaṇeva āpattiṃ āpajjati. Āpattiṃ pana āpanno yasmā parena codito vā acodito vā paṭijānāti, tasmā “samanuggāhīyamāno vā asamanuggāhīyamāno vā”ti vuttaṃ. Āpannoti ārocitakkhaṇeyeva pārājikaṃ āpanno. Visuddhāpekkhoti attano gihibhāvādikaṃ visuddhiṃ apekkhamāno icchamāno. Ayañhi yasmā pārājikaṃ āpanno, tasmā bhikkhubhāve ṭhatvā abhabbo jhānādīni adhigantuṃ, iccassa bhikkhubhāvo visuddhi nāma na hoti. Yasmā pana gihi vā upāsakārāmikasāmaṇerānaṃ vā aññataro hutvā dānādīhi saggamaggaṃ vā jhānādīhi mokkhamaggaṃ vā ārādhetuṃ bhabbo hoti, tasmāssa gihiādibhāvo visuddhi nāma hoti. Tena vuttaṃ “gihibhāvādikaṃ visuddhiṃ apekkhamāno”ti. Evaṃ vadeyyāti evaṃ bhaṇeyya, kathaṃ? “Ajānamevaṃ, āvuso”tiādiṃ. Tattha ajānanti ajānanto. Apassanti apassanto. Tucchaṃ musā vilapinti ahaṃ vacanatthavirahato tucchaṃ, vañcanādhippāyato musā vilapiṃ abhaṇinti vuttaṃ hoti. Aññatra adhimānāti yvāyaṃ tilakkhaṇaṃ āropetvā saṅkhāre sammasantassa āraddhavipassakassa apatte pattasaññitāsaṅkhāto adhimāno uppajjati, taṃ adhimānaṃ ṭhapetvā kevalaṃ pāpicchatāya yo samudācareyya, ayampi pārājiko hotīti attho.

In the fourth [rule], “anabhijānaṃ” means not knowing, due to its not having arisen in one’s own continuum, not recognizing its presence in oneself. “Uttarimanussadhammaṃ” means a quality superior to humans, belonging to meditators and noble ones. “Attupanāyikaṃ” means attributing it to oneself, declaring, “It exists in me,” or placing oneself in it, declaring, “I am seen in this”—thus “attupanāyikaṃ.” Having done so, he would declare it—thus the connection. “Alamariyañāṇadassanaṃ”—here, exalted and supramundane wisdom is “ñāṇa” in the sense of knowing, and “dassana” in the sense of direct realization, as if seen with the eye; thus “ñāṇadassanaṃ,” noble, pure, supreme knowledge and vision, is “ariyañāṇadassanaṃ,” sufficient, complete, capable of destroying defilements; this “ariyañāṇadassanaṃ” pertains to the superior human qualities like jhāna and so forth; or it is sufficient as noble knowledge and vision—thus “alamariyañāṇadassanaṃ.” “Samudācareyyā” means he would declare this superior human quality, having attributed it to himself, by body, speech, or both, to a perceptive human being. “Iti jānāmi iti passāmi” exemplifies the manner of declaration; having attributed it to himself without reference to another, he declares it thus. Therefore, the distinctions in the word-analysis (pārā. 209), such as “I attained the first jhāna, I attain it, I am attained,” all fall under this—thus it should be understood. By saying, “Iti jānāmi iti passāmi,” he does not merely speak words, but indicates, “By this and that reason, this quality exists in me.” By saying, “I attained” and so forth, its existence is indicated through reasons like attainment; thus it is said, “The distinctions in the word-analysis—‘I attained the first jhāna, I attain it, I am attained’—all fall under this.” “Tato aparena samayena” means at some time after that declaration—indicating the time of admitting the offense; yet he incurs the offense at the moment of declaration. Since one who has incurred an offense admits it, whether questioned by another or not, it is said, “samanuggāhīyamāno vā asamanuggāhīyamāno vā”. “Āpanno” means having incurred a pārājika at the moment of declaration. “Visuddhāpekkho” means desiring purification, wishing for the state of a householder or similar. Since he has incurred a pārājika, he is incapable of attaining jhāna and so forth while remaining a bhikkhu; thus, his bhikkhu state is not purification. However, as a householder, lay follower, monastery attendant, or novice, he is capable of achieving the path to heaven through giving and so forth, or the path to liberation through jhāna and so forth; thus, that state is purification for him. Hence it is said, “Desiring purification such as the state of a householder.” “Evaṃ vadeyyā” means he would say thus—how? “Ajānamevaṃ, āvuso,” and so forth. Herein, “ajānaṃ” means not knowing. “Apassaṃ” means not seeing. “Tucchaṃ musā vilapi” means I spoke empty words devoid of meaning, falsely due to an intent to deceive—thus it is said. “Aññatra adhimānā” means except for overestimation, where overestimation arises in one who contemplates conditioned phenomena with the three characteristics as a beginning insight practitioner, mistaking non-attainment for attainment; apart from that overestimation, if one declares it merely out of evil desire, he too becomes pārājiko—thus the meaning.

In the fourth, anabhijāna means not knowing, because it has not arisen within oneself, not knowing its existence within oneself. Uttarimanussadhamma means the dhamma of superior humans, of those who practice jhāna and of the Noble Ones. Attupanāyika means he directs it to himself, declaring, “It exists in me,” or he directs himself to it, declaring, “I am seen in this,” thus it is attupanāyika. The connection is that he should declare having done thus. Alamariyañāṇadassana - here, the great, supramundane wisdom is ñāṇa in the sense of knowing, and dassana in the sense of seeing, because it makes the dhamma evident as if seen with the eye; thus, ñāṇadassana, noble, pure, supreme ñāṇadassana is ariyañāṇadassana, sufficient, complete, capable of destroying the defilements is ariyañāṇadassana in the uttarimanussadhamma, which includes jhāna, etc., or sufficient is the ariyañāṇadassana of him, thus he is alamariyañāṇadassano, that alamariyañāṇadassana. Samudācareyyā means he should declare, having made this aforementioned uttarimanussadhamma attupanāyika, to a discerning human being, either by body, by speech, or by both. Iti jānāmi iti passāmī - this is a demonstration of the manner of declaring. For one who declares having made it attupanāyika, without any other pretext, declares in this way. Therefore, whatever is said in the section-by-section analysis (Pārā. 209), “I attained the first jhāna, I am attaining, I have attained,” etc., all of that is included right here. For one who says, “Thus I know, thus I see,” does not merely speak these words, but shows, “This dhamma exists in me because of this and this reason.” And by one who says, “I attained,” etc., existence is shown by the reasons of attaining, etc. Therefore, it is said, “Whatever is said in the section-by-section analysis, ‘I attained the first jhāna, I am attaining, I have attained,’ etc., all of that is included right here.” Tato aparena samayenā means at some other time after the time of declaring. This is a demonstration of the time of admitting the offense. But this one incurs the offense at the very moment of declaring. But because one who has incurred the offense admits it, whether questioned or unquestioned by another, therefore it is said, “samanuggāhīyamāno vā asamanuggāhīyamāno vā,” whether being questioned or not being questioned. Āpanno means having incurred the pārājika at the very moment of declaring. Visuddhāpekkho means desiring, wishing for one’s purity, such as the state of being a householder, etc. For this one, because he has incurred a pārājika, is incapable of attaining jhāna, etc., while remaining in the state of a monk; therefore, his state of being a monk is not called purity. But because he is capable of fulfilling the path to heaven through giving, etc., or the path to liberation through jhāna, etc., by becoming a householder, a lay follower, a temple attendant, or a novice, therefore his state of being a householder, etc., is called purity. Therefore, it is said, “gihibhāvādikaṃ visuddhiṃ apekkhamāno,” desiring purity, such as the state of being a householder, etc. Evaṃ vadeyyā means he should speak thus. How? “Not knowing, venerable sir,” etc. Herein, ajāna means not knowing. Apassa means not seeing. Tucchaṃ musā vilapi means I spoke emptily, because of the absence of the meaning of the words, and I spoke falsely, because of the intention to deceive. Aññatra adhimānā means, apart from the overestimation that arises in one who is developing insight, contemplating the aggregates having applied the three characteristics, and has the perception of having attained what has not been attained, whoever declares solely out of evil desire, this one also becomes a pārājika.

In the fourth, anabhijānanti means not knowing the existence of something not yet arisen in oneself due to its absence in one’s continuum. Uttarimanussadhammanti means the Dhamma of superior humans, i.e., meditators and noble ones. Attupanāyikanti means bringing it to oneself, thinking, “It exists in me,” or bringing oneself to it, thinking, “I appear in this,” thus it is attupanāyika. Having done so, one should conduct oneself accordingly. Alamariyañāṇadassananti: Here, “ñāṇa” means knowledge in the sense of knowing, and “dassana” means seeing in the sense of perceiving the Dhamma as if with the eye. “Ariyañāṇadassana” means noble, pure, supreme knowledge and vision. “Alamariyañāṇadassana” means knowledge and vision sufficient to destroy defilements, applicable to jhānas, etc., in the Dhamma of superior humans. Samudācareyyāti means one should declare this Dhamma of superior humans, made attupanāyika, to a knowing human being through body, speech, or both. Iti jānāmi iti passāmīti is an example of declaration. For one who declares without making it attupanāyika but through another’s example, thus declares, therefore in the word analysis (Pārā. 209), “I attained the first jhāna, I attain, I have attained,” etc., all these are included here. Saying, “I know thus, I see thus,” is not merely speaking words but indicating, “This Dhamma exists in me due to these reasons,” and saying, “I attained,” etc., indicates the existence due to the reasons of attainment, etc. Therefore, it is said, “All these are included here.” Tato aparena samayenāti means from the time of declaration to another time. This indicates the time of admitting the offense. However, the offense is committed at the moment of declaration. One who has committed the offense, when questioned or unasked, admits it, hence it is said, “whether being questioned or unasked.” Āpannoti means one has committed the pārājika at the moment of declaration. Visuddhāpekkhoti means one who desires purification, i.e., desiring the state of a householder, etc. For one who has committed a pārājika, being unable to attain jhānas, etc., while remaining a monk, there is no purification called monkhood. However, as a householder, lay follower, monastery worker, or novice, one can attain the path to heaven through generosity, etc., or the path to liberation through jhānas, etc., hence the state of a householder, etc., is called purification. Therefore, it is said, “desiring the purification of the state of a householder, etc.” Evaṃ vadeyyāti means one should speak thus, how? “I did not know, friend,” etc. Here, ajānanti means not knowing. Apassanti means not seeing. Tucchaṃ musā vilapinti means I spoke vainly, falsely, without meaning, with the intention to deceive. Aññatra adhimānāti means except for overestimation, which arises in one who is engaged in insight meditation, perceiving formations with the three characteristics, thinking he has attained what he has not. Except for this overestimation, if one declares out of sheer wickedness, he is also a pārājika.

Vesāliyaṃ vaggumudātīriye bhikkhū ārabbha tesaṃ uttarimanussadhammārocanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra adhimānā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, “paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpajji”ntiādinā nayena vuttappakāraṃ asantaṃ jhānādidhammaṃ ārocentassa sace yassa kassaci āroceti, so manussajātiko hoti, anantarameva “ayaṃ jhānalābhī”ti vā “ariyo”ti vā yena kenaci ākārena tamatthaṃ jānāti, pārājikaṃ. Sace na jānāti, thullaccayaṃ. Sace pana “yo te vihāre vasi, so bhikkhu paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpajjī”tiādinā (pārā. 220) nayena aññāpadesena ārocentassa jānāti, thullaccayaṃ. Sace na jānāti, dukkaṭaṃ. Adhimānena ārocentassa, anullapanādhippāyassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Sīlavipatti, uttarimanussadhammassa attani asantatā, pāpicchatāya tassa ārocanaṃ, anaññāpadeso, yassa āroceti, tassa manussajātikatā, taṅkhaṇavijānananti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādāne vuttasadisānevāti.

This was laid down in Vesālī concerning the bhikkhus of the Vaggumudā River who declared superior human qualities. “Aññatra adhimānā” is an additional rule here, a general rule, not involving command. If one declares a non-existent quality like jhāna in the manner of “I attained the first jhāna” and so forth, and if the one to whom he declares it is of the human species and immediately understands that meaning in any way, such as “He has attained jhāna” or “He is noble,” it is a pārājika. If he does not understand, it is a thullaccaya. If, however, he declares it indirectly, such as “The bhikkhu who dwelt in your monastery attained the first jhāna” (pārā. 220), and the other understands, it is a thullaccaya; if he does not understand, it is a dukkaṭa. For one declaring with overestimation, without intent to exaggerate, or for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. Violation of virtue, the non-existence of the superior human quality in oneself, declaring it out of evil desire, without reference to another, the human nature of the one to whom it is declared, and immediate understanding—these are the five factors here. The origin and so forth are as stated in the taking of what is not given.

It was promulgated in Vesāli concerning the monks on the banks of the Vaggumudā River, in the case of their declaring uttarimanussadhamma, “apart from overestimation” is a supplementary regulation here, a general regulation, without command. If one declares, saying, “I attained the first jhāna,” etc., in the stated manner, an untrue jhāna dhamma, etc., if he declares to anyone, and he is a human being, and immediately understands that meaning in any way, such as, “This one is a jhāna-attainer,” or, “He is a Noble One,” it is a pārājika. If he does not understand, it is a thullaccaya. But if one declares with another pretext, saying, “The monk who lived in your dwelling attained the first jhāna,” etc. (Pārā. 220), and he understands, it is a thullaccaya. If he does not understand, it is a dukkaṭa. There is no offense for one who declares due to overestimation, for one who has no intention to boast, and for one who is insane, etc. Here, the five factors are: breach of morality, the non-existence of the uttarimanussadhamma in oneself, the declaration of it out of evil desire, the absence of another pretext, the one to whom he declares being a human being, and understanding at that moment. The arising, etc., are the same as those stated for taking what is not given.

In Vesālī, regarding the monks of the Vaggumudā River, the rule was established concerning their declaration of superior human states. “Aññatra adhimānā” is an additional rule here, a common rule, a non-command rule. If one declares a non-existent Dhamma of jhāna, etc., in the manner stated, and if the person to whom it is declared is a human being, and if he knows immediately, “This one is a jhāna attainer” or “This one is a noble one,” it is a pārājika. If he does not know, it is a thullaccaya. If one declares through another’s example, saying, “The monk who stayed in your monastery attained the first jhāna,” etc. (Pārā. 220), and if he knows, it is a thullaccaya. If he does not know, it is a dukkaṭa. If one declares out of overestimation, without the intention to deceive, or if one is insane, etc., there is no offense. The five factors here are: moral failure, the non-existence of the superior human Dhamma in oneself, declaring it out of wickedness, not through another’s example, the human status of the one to whom it is declared, and knowing at that moment. The origins, etc., are similar to those in stealing.

Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto cattāro pārājikā dhammātiidaṃ idha uddiṭṭhapārājikaparidīpanameva. Samodhānetvā pana sabbāneva catuvīsati pārājikāni veditabbāni . Katamāni catuvīsati? Pāḷiyaṃ āgatāni tāva bhikkhūnaṃ cattāri bhikkhunīnaṃ asādhāraṇāni cattārīti aṭṭha, tāni ekādasannaṃ paṇḍakādīnaṃ abhabbabhāvasaṅkhātehi ekādasahi pārājikehi saddhiṃ ekūnavīsati, gihibhāvaṃ patthayamānāya bhikkhuniyā vibbhantabhāvapārājikena saddhiṃ vīsati, aparānipi lambī, mudupiṭṭhiko, parassa aṅgajātaṃ mukhena gaṇhāti, parassa aṅgajāte abhinisīdatīti imesaṃ catunnaṃ vasena “cattāri anulomapārājikānī”ti vadanti, iti imāni ca cattāri, purimāni ca vīsatīti samodhānetvā sabbāneva catuvīsati pārājikāni veditabbāni. Na labhati bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ saṃvāsanti uposathādibhedaṃ saṃvāsaṃ bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ na labhati. Yathā pure, tathā pacchāti yathā pubbe gihikāle anupasampannakāle ca, pacchā pārājikaṃ āpannopi tatheva asaṃvāso hoti, natthi tassa bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ uposathādibhedo saṃvāsoti. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmīti tesu catūsu pārājikesu āyasmante “kaccittha parisuddhā”ti pucchāmi. Kaccitthāti kacci ettha, etesu catūsu pārājikesu kacci parisuddhāti attho. Atha vā kaccittha parisuddhāti kacci parisuddhā attha, bhavathāti attho. Sesaṃ sabbattha uttānamevāti.

“Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto cattāro pārājikā dhammā”—this merely indicates the pārājika rules recited here. However, combining them, all twenty-four pārājika rules should be understood. Which are the twenty-four? First, those in the text: four for bhikkhus and four specific to bhikkhunis, making eight; together with the eleven pārājikas related to the incapacity of eleven types such as paṇḍakas, they become nineteen; with the pārājika of a bhikkhuni desiring the householder state, they become twenty; and further, due to the four—lambī, mudupiṭṭhiko, taking another’s genital organ in the mouth, and sitting on another’s genital organ—called “the four derivative pārājikas,” these four plus the previous twenty make all twenty-four pārājika rules to be understood. “Na labhati bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ saṃvāsaṃ” means he does not obtain communion with bhikkhus, such as Uposatha. “Yathā pure, tathā pacchā” means as before in the householder or unordained state, so after incurring a pārājika, he is similarly excluded from communion; there is no communion with bhikkhus, such as Uposatha, for him. “Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi” means I ask the venerable ones regarding these four pārājikas, “Are you pure in this matter?” “Kaccittha” means “Are you pure in these?”—in these four pārājikas. Alternatively, “kaccittha parisuddhā” means “Are you indeed pure?” The rest is clear everywhere.

Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto cattāro pārājikā dhammā - this is simply a declaration of the pārājikas recited here. But bringing them all together, all twenty-four pārājikas should be understood. What are the twenty-four? Those mentioned in the Pāḷi, namely, four for monks and four not shared with nuns, are eight. These, together with the eleven pārājikas related to the incapable state of the eleven types of eunuchs, etc., are nineteen. Together with the pārājika of a nun who has become disenchanted desiring the state of being a householder, they are twenty. And four more, namely, “one with long hanging testicles, one with a soft back, one who takes another’s genital organ in his mouth, one who sits on another’s genital organ,” these four are called “the four anuloma-pārājikas.” Thus, these four, and the previous twenty, bringing them all together, all twenty-four pārājikas should be understood. Na labhati bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ saṃvāsa means he does not obtain association with the monks, the association which is the uposatha, etc. Yathā pure, tathā pacchā means just as before, during the time of being a householder and during the time of being unordained, so also after incurring a pārājika, he is unassociated. He has no association with the monks, which is the uposatha, etc. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmī means in those four pārājikas, I ask you, venerable sirs, “Are you pure in this?” Kaccitthā means are you in this, in these four pārājikas, are you pure? Or, kaccittha parisuddhā means are you pure, do you exist? The rest is all clear everywhere.

Uddiṭṭhā kho āyasmanto cattāro pārājikā dhammāti: This is the explanation of the four pārājikas stated here. However, all twenty-four pārājikas should be understood when combined. What are the twenty-four? First, the four pārājikas for monks and the four for nuns, making eight. These, together with the eleven pārājikas for the eleven types of paṇḍakas, etc., make nineteen. Adding the pārājika for a nun who desires the state of a householder, making twenty. Further, the four pārājikas called “anulomapārājikāni” are: one who is long, one who has a soft back, one who takes another’s genital organ with the mouth, and one who sits on another’s genital organ. Thus, these four, together with the previous twenty, make twenty-four pārājikas. Na labhati bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ saṃvāsanti means one does not obtain communal living with monks, such as the Uposatha. Yathā pure, tathā pacchāti means as before, in the household life and before ordination, so after committing a pārājika, there is no communal living with monks; there is no Uposatha, etc., with monks. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmīti means I ask the venerable ones regarding these four pārājikas, “Are you pure in this?” Kaccitthāti means “Are you pure in these four pārājikas?” Alternatively, kaccittha parisuddhāti means “Are you pure?” The rest is clear throughout.

Saṅghādisesakaṇḍo

Section on Saṅghādisesa

The Saṅghādisesa Section

Ime kho panāti idāni vattabbānaṃ abhimukhīkaraṇaṃ. Āyasmantoti sannipatitānaṃ piyavacanena ālapanaṃ. Terasāti gaṇanaparicchedo. Saṅghādisesāti evaṃnāmakā. Dhammāti āpattiyo. Uddesaṃ āgacchantīti sarūpena uddisitabbataṃ āgacchanti, na nidāne viya “yassa siyā āpattī”ti sādhāraṇavacanamattena.

“Ime kho pana” indicates preparing to discuss what follows. “Āyasmanto” is an affectionate address to those assembled. “Terasa” denotes the numerical limit. “Saṅghādisesā” means those so named. “Dhammā” means offenses. “Uddesaṃ āgacchanti” means they come to be recited in their specific form, not merely with a general statement like “He who has an offense” as in the introduction.

Ime kho panā - now this is a facing towards those to be spoken about. Āyasmanto is an affectionate address to those assembled. Terasā is the enumeration. Saṅghādisesā is the name of these. Dhammā means offenses. Uddesaṃ āgacchantī means they come to be recited by their form, not merely by a general statement like in the introduction, “Whoever has an offense.”

Ime kho panāti: Now, what is to be said is brought forward. Āyasmantoti is an address to the assembled ones with a term of endearment. Terasāti is a numerical designation. Saṅghādisesāti means thus named. Dhammāti means offenses. Uddesaṃ āgacchantīti means they come to be recited in their proper form, not as in the origin story, “Whoever has an offense,” which is a general statement.

1. Sukkavissaṭṭhisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the Sukkavissaṭṭhi Training Rule

1. Commentary on the Sukkavissaṭṭhi Training Rule

Saṃvijjati cetanā assāti sañcetanā, sañcetanāva sañcetanikā, sañcetanā vā assa atthīti sañcetanikā. Sukkavissaṭṭhīti sukkassa vissaṭṭhi, rāgūpatthambhādīsu yena kenaci aṅgajāte kammaññataṃ patte ārogyādīsu yaṃkiñci apadisitvā ajjhattarūpādīsu yattha katthaci mocanassādacetanāya nimitte upakkamantassa āsayadhātunānattato nīlādivasena (pārā. 239-240) dasavidhesu sukkesu yassa kassaci sukkassa ṭhānā cāvanāti attho. Aññatra supinantāti yā supine sukkavissaṭṭhi hoti, taṃ ṭhapetvā. Saṅghādisesoti yā aññatra supinantā sañcetanikā sukkavissaṭṭhi, ayaṃ saṅghādiseso nāma āpattinikāyoti attho. Vacanattho panettha saṅgho ādimhi ceva sese ca icchitabbo assāti saṅghādiseso. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti – imaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjitvā vuṭṭhātukāmassa yaṃ taṃ āpattivuṭṭhānaṃ, tassa ādimhi ceva parivāsadānatthāya, ādito sese majjhe mānattadānatthāya mūlāya paṭikassanena vā saha mānattadānatthāya, avasāne abbhānatthāya ca saṅgho icchitabbo, na hettha ekampi kammaṃ vinā saṅghena sakkā kātuṃ. Iti saṅgho ādimhi ceva sese ca icchitabbo assāti saṅghādisesoti.

There exists intention for him—thus “sañcetanā”; “sañcetanā” itself is “sañcetanikā,” or there is intention for him—thus “sañcetanikā.” “Sukkavissaṭṭhi” means the emission of semen; with lustful excitement or similar states, when the genital organ becomes workable, without specifying health or the like, due to the intention of enjoyment in releasing it anywhere among internal forms or elsewhere, due to the variety of disposition and elements, among the ten types of semen such as blue (pārā. 239-240), it is the moving of any semen from its place. “Aññatra supinantā” means except for the emission of semen in a dream. “Saṅghādiseso” means that intentional emission of semen, apart from in a dream, is an offense group called saṅghādiseso—this is the meaning. The meaning of the term is that the Saṅgha is desired both at the beginning and at the end—thus “saṅghādiseso.” What is meant is this: For one who has committed this offense and wishes to rise from it, the Saṅgha is desired at the beginning for granting parivāsa, at the end in the middle for granting mānatta, or together with granting mānatta by returning to the root, and at the conclusion for rehabilitation; no act here can be done without the Saṅgha. Thus, the Saṅgha is desired at the beginning and at the end—hence “saṅghādiseso.”

One who has volition is sañcetana, sañcetanāva is sañcetanikā, or one who has volition is sañcetanikā. Sukkavissaṭṭhī is the emission of semen. Due to the support of lust, etc., when the genital organ, whichever it may be, has become workable, setting aside whatever is for health, etc., one who strives at a sign with the volition to ejaculate anywhere, in internal forms, etc., due to the variety of the element of intention, with regard to the ten types of semen, such as blue, etc., it means the moving from its place of any kind of semen. Aññatra supinantā means apart from the emission of semen that occurs in a dream. Saṅghādiseso means whatever sañcetanikā emission of semen there is, apart from in a dream, this is the category of offense called saṅghādisesa. The meaning of the word here is that the saṅgha is to be desired in the beginning and in the remainder, thus it is saṅghādisesa. What is said is this – having incurred this offense, for one who desires to emerge from it, whatever is the emergence from that offense, for that, in the beginning, for giving the parivāsa, and from the beginning, in the remainder, in the middle, for giving the mānatta, or for giving the mānatta together with the mūlāya paṭikassanā, and at the end, for the abbhāna, the saṅgha is to be desired. Not even one of these acts can be done without the saṅgha. Thus, the saṅgha is to be desired in the beginning and in the remainder, thus it is saṅghādisesa.

Saṃvijjati cetanā assāti: There is intention, hence it is intentional. Sukkavissaṭṭhīti means the emission of semen. In the case of lust, etc., when the genital organ becomes capable due to health, etc., or when one points to any internal or external form, etc., with the intention of releasing semen, due to the diversity of disposition and element, in the ten types of semen (Pārā. 239-240), the emission of any semen from its place is meant. Aññatra supinantāti means except for emission in a dream. Saṅghādisesoti means the emission of semen intentionally, except in a dream, is an offense called saṅghādisesa. The meaning of the term here is that the Saṅgha is to be sought at the beginning and the end. What is meant? For one who commits this offense and desires to be rehabilitated, the Saṅgha is to be sought at the beginning for giving probation, in the middle for giving penance, at the root for reinstatement, and at the end for rehabilitation. Not a single action can be done here without the Saṅgha. Thus, the Saṅgha is to be sought at the beginning and the end, hence it is called saṅghādisesa.

Sāvatthiyaṃ seyyasakaṃ ārabbha upakkamitvā asucimocanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra supinantā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ. Sace pana parena attano aṅgajāte upakkamaṃ kāretvā mocāpeti, āpajjatiyeva. Cetetvā antamaso ākāse kaṭikampanenapi nimitte upakkamantassa sace na muccati, thullaccayaṃ. Sace pana antamaso yaṃ ekā khuddakamakkhikā piveyya, tattakampi ṭhānato muccati, dakasotaṃ anotiṇṇepi saṅghādiseso. Ṭhānato pana cutaṃ avassameva dakasotaṃ otarati, tasmā “dakasotaṃ otiṇṇamatte bahi nikkhante vā anikkhante vā saṅghādiseso”ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.237) aṭṭhakathāsu vuttaṃ. Anupakkamantassa ca, amocanādhippāyassa ca, supinaṃ passantassa ca, ummattakādīnañca muttepi anāpatti. Sīlavipatti, cetanā, upakkamo , muccananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājike vuttasadisānevāti.

This was laid down in Sāvatthi concerning Seyyasaka, who made an effort and released impurity. “Aññatra supinantā” is an additional rule here, a specific rule, not involving command. If, however, he has another make an effort on his genital organ and causes release, he indeed incurs it. If, having intended and made an effort on a sign, even by shaking a stick in the air, it does not release, it is a thullaccaya. If even as much as a small fly might drink is released from its place, even without entering the water stream, it is a saṅghādiseso. But what moves from its place inevitably enters the water stream; thus, it is said in the commentaries, “When it enters the water stream, whether it exits outside or not, it is a saṅghādiseso” (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.237). For one who does not make an effort, has no intent to release, sees a dream, or for the insane and so forth, even if it is released, there is no offense. Violation of virtue, intention, effort, and release—these are the three factors here. The origin and so forth are as stated in the first pārājika.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthi concerning Seyyasaka, in the case of striving and ejaculating semen, “apart from in a dream” is a supplementary regulation here, a non-general regulation, without command. But if one causes another to strive at one’s own genital organ and causes ejaculation, one incurs the offense. Having intentionally formed, even if one strives at the sign by merely shaking the hip in the sky, if it is not emitted, it is a thullaccaya. But if even as much as a tiny fly could drink is emitted from its place, even if it has not entered the stream of water, it is a saṅghādisesa. But semen that has moved from its place inevitably enters the stream of water. Therefore, it is said in the commentaries, “Whether it has just entered the stream of water, or whether it has gone outside or not, it is a saṅghādisesa” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.237). And there is no offense for one who does not strive, for one who has no intention to ejaculate, for one who is dreaming, and for one who is insane, etc., even if it is emitted. Here, the three factors are: breach of morality, volition, striving, and emission. The arising, etc., are the same as those stated for the first pārājika.

In Sāvatthī, regarding the Seyyasaka, the rule was established concerning the emission of impurity. “Aññatra supinantā” is an additional rule here, a non-common rule, a non-command rule. If one has another person stimulate his genital organ and causes emission, he commits the offense. Even if one intends and makes an effort, such as shaking a branch in the air, and if there is no emission, it is a thullaccaya offense. If even a small fly drinks, and that much is emitted, it is a saṅghādisesa offense. However, what is emitted from the place immediately enters the stream, hence it is said, “When it has entered the stream, whether it has come out or not, it is a saṅghādisesa offense” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.237) as stated in the commentaries. There is no offense for one who does not make an effort, who does not intend emission, who sees it in a dream, or for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: moral failure, intention, effort, and emission. The origins, etc., are similar to those in the first pārājika.

2. Kāyasaṃsaggasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Kāyasaṃsagga Training Rule

2. Commentary on the Kāyasaṃsagga Training Rule

Dutiye otiṇṇoti yakkhādīhi viya sattā anto uppajjantena rāgena vā otiṇṇo, kūpādīni viya sattā asamapekkhitvā rajjanīye ṭhāne rajjanto sayaṃ vā rāgaṃ otiṇṇo, kāyasaṃsaggarāgasamaṅgissetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Vipariṇatena cittenāti parisuddhabhavaṅgasantatisaṅkhātaṃ pakatiṃ vijahitvā aññathā pavattena, virūpaṃ vā pariṇatena yathā parivattamānaṃ virūpaṃ hoti, evaṃ vuttarāgavasena parivattetvā ṭhitena cittenāti attho. Mātugāmena saddhinti tadahujātāyapi jīvamānakamanussitthiyā saddhiṃ. Kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjeyyāti hatthaggahaṇādikaāyasampayogaṃ kāyamissībhāvaṃ samāpajjeyya. Hatthaggāhaṃ vātiādi panassa vitthārena atthadassanaṃ. Tattha hattho nāma kapparato paṭṭhāya yāva agganakhā. Veṇī nāma vinandhitvā vā avinandhitvā vā suddhakesehi vā nīlādivaṇṇasuttakusumakahāpaṇamālāsuvaṇṇacīrakamuttāvaḷiādīsu aññataramissehi vā katakesakalāpassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Veṇiggahaṇena cettha kesāpi gahitāyeva saddhiṃ lomehi. Iti vuttalakkhaṇassa hatthassa gahaṇaṃ hatthaggāho, veṇiyā gahaṇaṃ veṇiggāho. Avasesassa sarīrassa parāmasanaṃ aññatarassa vā aññatarassa vā aṅgassa parāmasanaṃ nāma. Yo taṃ hatthaggāhaṃ vā veṇiggāhaṃ vā aññatarassa vā aññatarassa vā aṅgassa parāmasanaṃ samāpajjeyya, tassa saṅghādiseso nāma āpattinikāyo hotīti.

In the second, otiṇṇo means “overcome,” as beings are overcome by lust arising internally, like by yakkhas and similar entities; or beings, like wells and such, are overcome by lust themselves, delighting in delightful places without consideration—this is a designation for one endowed with the lust of physical contact. Vipariṇatena cittena means “with a transformed mind,” having abandoned the natural continuum of the pure bhavanga, proceeding otherwise, or transformed into an unbecoming state; just as something being turned becomes unbecoming, so too the mind established by being turned through the aforementioned lust—this is the meaning. Mātugāmena saddhiṃ means “together with a woman,” even one born that very day, still living, a human female. Kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjeyya means “he would engage in physical contact,” engaging in bodily connection such as holding hands or bodily intermingling. Hatthaggāhaṃ vā and so forth are explanations of its meaning in detail. Here, hattho means “hand,” from the elbow to the fingertips. Veṇī means “braid,” a designation for a complete arrangement of hair, whether bound or unbound, made purely of hair or mixed with threads of blue or other colors, flowers, garlands of coins, gold cloth, pearl strings, or similar adornments. By mentioning the braid, the hair itself is included along with body hair. Thus, the taking of a hand with the aforementioned characteristics is hatthaggāho, “holding the hand,” and the taking of a braid is veṇiggāho, “holding the braid.” Touching the rest of the body is called aññatarassa vā aññatarassa vā aṅgassa parāmasanaṃ, “touching this or that limb.” Whoever engages in holding the hand, holding the braid, or touching this or that limb incurs an offense group known as saṅghādisesa.

In the second, otiṇṇo means overwhelmed by passion arising internally, like with yakkhās and others, or one who, descending into passion himself, being attracted to a desirable object without considering the consequences, like into a well and others. This is a term for one who is possessed of the passion of physical contact. Vipariṇatena cittenāti means with a mind that has abandoned its natural state, which is the continuity of the pure life-continuum (bhavaṅga), and operates in a different way, or with a mind that has become distorted. Just as when it is revolving, it becomes distorted, in the same way, it means with a mind that has been transformed and established due to the aforementioned passion. Mātugāmena saddhinti means with a living human woman, even one born that very day. Kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjeyyāti means he should engage in physical contact, the mixing of bodies, such as holding hands. Hatthaggāhaṃ vāti and so on, is an elaboration showing the meaning of that. Here, hattho (hand) means from the elbow down to the tip of the fingernails. Veṇī (braid) means this is a designation for a braid of hair, whether tied or untied, made of pure hair or mixed with one of various items such as threads of blue and other colors, flowers, garlands of kahāpaṇa coins, gold, cloth, or strings of pearls. By grasping the braid, the hair is grasped, along with the downy hair. Therefore, grasping the hand as described is hatthaggāho (hand-grasping); grasping the braid is veṇiggāho (braid-grasping). Touching the rest of the body is called aññatarassa vā aññatarassa vā aṅgassa parāmasanaṃ (touching any other part of the body). He who would engage in that hand-grasping, or braid-grasping, or touching any other part of the body, for him, there is a type of offense called saṅghādisesa.

In the second case, otiṇṇo means being overwhelmed by lust that arises within, like beings possessed by spirits, or being overwhelmed by lust without proper reflection, like beings falling into a well, or being overwhelmed by lust oneself. This is a term for one who is endowed with bodily contact lust. Vipariṇatena cittenā means with a mind that has deviated from its natural state of purity, having abandoned the continuity of the naturally pure mind, or with a mind that has become distorted, as when something is turned upside down and becomes distorted. Thus, it means a mind that has been transformed by the aforementioned lust and remains in that state. Mātugāmena saddhiṃ means with a woman, even if she was born that very day or is a living human female. Kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjeyyā means engaging in bodily contact, such as holding hands or other forms of physical intimacy. Hatthaggāhaṃ vā and so on provide a detailed explanation of the meaning. Here, hattho refers to the hand from the wrist to the tip of the nails. Veṇī refers to hair, whether braided or unbraided, or hair mixed with other adornments such as blue or other colored threads, flowers, ornaments, garlands, gold, cloth, pearls, or strings. By grasping the braid, the hair and body hair are also included. Thus, grasping a hand with the described characteristics is called hatthaggāho, and grasping a braid is called veṇiggāho. Touching the rest of the body or any other part is called “aññatarassa vā aññatarassa vā aṅgassa parāmasanaṃ”. Whoever engages in such hand-grasping, braid-grasping, or touching any other part commits an offense entailing a formal meeting of the Sangha.

Sāvatthiyaṃ udāyittheraṃ ārabbha kāyasaṃsaggasamāpajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti , anāṇattikaṃ, itthiyā itthisaññino antamaso lomena lomaṃ phusantassāpi, itthiyā vā phusiyamānassa sevanādhippāyena vāyamitvā phassaṃ paṭijānantassa saṅghādiseso. Ekena pana hatthena gahetvā dutiyena hatthena divasampi tattha tattha phusantassa ekāva āpatti, aggahetvā phusanto pana sace sīsato yāva pādā, tāva kāyato hatthaṃ amocentoyeva phusati, ekāva āpatti, pañcannaṃ aṅgulīnaṃ ekato gahaṇepi ekāyeva. Sace pana nānitthīnaṃ pañcaṅguliyo ekato gaṇhāti, pañca āpattiyo. Itthiyā vematikassa, paṇḍakapurisatiracchānagatasaññissa ca thullaccayaṃ, tathā kāyena kāyappaṭibaddhena, amanussitthipaṇḍakehi ca saddhiṃ kāyasaṃsaggepi. Manussitthiyā pana kāyappaṭibaddhena kāyappaṭibaddhādīsu, purisakāyaphusanādīsu ca dukkaṭaṃ. Itthiyā phusiyamānassa sevanādhippāyassāpi kāyena avāyamitvā phassaṃ paṭijānantassa, mokkhādhippāyena itthiṃ phusantassa, asañcicca, assatiyā, ajānantassa, asādiyantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Sīlavipatti, manussitthī, itthisaññitā, kāyasaṃsaggarāgo, tena rāgena vāyāmo, hatthaggāhādisamāpajjananti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājike vuttasadisānevāti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning the Elder Udāyin in the matter of engaging in physical contact, an unshared rule, without prompting. For one perceiving a woman as a woman, even contact as slight as hair touching hair incurs a saṅghādisesa; likewise for one making effort with intent to enjoy and acknowledging contact when touched by a woman. However, if one holds with one hand and touches various places throughout the day with the other hand, it is a single offense. If one touches without holding, from head to foot without lifting the hand from the body, it is a single offense; even grasping with all five fingers together is one offense. But if one grasps the five fingers of a non-woman together, there are five offenses. For one uncertain about a woman, or perceiving a paṇḍaka, a man, or an animal, it is a thullaccaya; likewise with physical contact with a non-human woman or paṇḍaka. With a human woman, using something attached to the body, or touching a man’s body, it is a dukkaṭa. When touched by a woman, if one acknowledges contact without effort and without intent to enjoy, or touches a woman with intent to liberate, or does so unintentionally, without mindfulness, unknowingly, without delight, or if one is deranged, there is no offense. The five factors here are: moral failure, a human woman, perception of her as a woman, lust for physical contact, effort due to that lust, and engaging in holding the hand or similar acts. The origins and so forth are as stated in the first pārājika.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning Venerable Udāyī in the case of engaging in physical contact. It is a non-exclusive precept, not requiring a command, for one who has the perception of a woman as a woman, even touching the hair of a woman with his own hair, or for one who, being touched by a woman, strives with the intention of enjoyment and acknowledges the touch, there is a saṅghādisesa. But if one grasps with one hand and touches here and there with the other hand, even for a whole day, there is only one offense. If one touches without grasping, from the head down to the feet, touching the body without releasing the hand, there is only one offense. Even grasping the five fingers together counts as one offense. But if one grasps the five fingers of different women together, there are five offenses. For one who has doubt about a woman, and for one who perceives a paṇḍaka, a man, or an animal as a woman, there is a thullaccaya offense, likewise in the case of physical contact with the body, and with non-human women and paṇḍakas. But for physical contact with a human woman, and touching a man’s body and so forth, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who is being touched by a woman, and even without striving with the body with the intention of enjoyment, but acknowledges the touch, and for one who touches a woman with the intention of release, and unintentionally, unknowingly, unintentionally, without enjoying it, and for madmen and so on, there is no offense. The factors here are: moral transgression, a human woman, the perception of her as a woman, the passion for physical contact, striving due to that passion, and engaging in hand-grasping and so forth. These are the five factors. The arising and so forth are similar to what was stated in the first pārājika.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the Venerable Udāyi, regarding the act of engaging in bodily contact. It is a non-common rule, not subject to confession. For one who perceives a woman as a woman, even if he touches her hair with his hair, or if he admits to touching her with the intention of enjoying her, it entails a formal meeting of the Sangha. If one touches her repeatedly with one hand after grasping her with the other, it is only one offense. If he touches her from head to toe without releasing his hand, it is only one offense. If he grasps all five fingers at once, it is only one offense. However, if he grasps the fingers of five different women at once, it is five offenses. For one who is uncertain about the gender, or perceives a eunuch or an animal as a woman, it entails a grave offense. Similarly, bodily contact with a non-human female or a eunuch entails a grave offense. Bodily contact with a human female through something connected to the body, or touching a male body, entails a wrongdoing. For one who admits to touching a woman with the intention of enjoying her, but does not make an effort to touch her, or touches her with the intention of releasing her, or touches her unintentionally, unknowingly, or without consent, or if he is insane, there is no offense. The five factors here are: moral failure, a human female, perceiving her as a female, lust for bodily contact, and making an effort due to that lust. The origins, etc., are similar to those stated in the first Pārājika.

3. Duṭṭhullavācāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Corrupt Speech

3. Duṭṭhullavācāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Lewd Speech

Tatiye otiṇṇatā ca vipariṇatacittatā ca duṭṭhullavācassādarāgavasena veditabbā. Mātugāmanti duṭṭhullāduṭṭhullasaṃlakkhaṇasamatthaṃ manussitthiṃ. Duṭṭhullāhivācāhīti vaccamaggapassāvamaggemethunadhammappaṭisaṃyuttāhi vācāhi. Obhāseyyāti avabhāseyya, vaṇṇāvaṇṇayācanaāyācanapucchanapaṭipucchanaācikkhaṇānusāsanaakkosanavasena nānappakāraṃ asaddhammavacanaṃ vadeyya. Yathā tanti ettha nti nipātamattaṃ, yathā yuvā yuvatinti attho. Etena obhāsane nirāsaṅkabhāvaṃ dasseti. Methunupasaṃhitāhītiidaṃ duṭṭhullavācāya sikhāpattalakkhaṇadassanaṃ. Saṅghādisesoti dvinnaṃ maggānaṃ vasena vaṇṇāvaṇṇehi vā methunayācanādīhi vā “sikharaṇīsi, saṃbhinnāsi, ubhatobyañjanakāsī”ti imesu tīsu aññatarena akkosavacanena vā mātugāmaṃ obhāsantassa saṅghādiseso nāma āpattinikāyo hotīti.

In the third, the state of being overcome and having a transformed mind should be understood as arising from lust for corrupt speech. Mātugāmaṃ means “a woman,” a human female capable of distinguishing between corrupt and non-corrupt matters. Duṭṭhullāhi vācāhi means “with corrupt words,” words connected to the anus, urethra, or sexual intercourse. Obhāseyya means “he would speak,” meaning he would utter various kinds of unrighteous speech through praising, censuring, requesting, asking, questioning, counter-questioning, explaining, instructing, or reviling. Yathā taṃ—here “taṃ” is merely a particle—means “like a young man with a young woman,” indicating a lack of hesitation in speaking. Methunupasaṃhitāhi shows the characteristic by which corrupt speech reaches the training rule. Saṅghādiseso means that for one speaking to a woman with words of praise or censure concerning the two orifices, or requesting intercourse, or reviling her with any of the three terms—“you are a ridge, you are split, you are hermaphrodite”—it is an offense group known as saṅghādisesa.

In the third, being overwhelmed and having a distorted mind should be understood as due to lust for offensive speech. Mātugāmanti refers to a human woman capable of discerning offensive and non-offensive speech. Duṭṭhullāhivācāhīti means with words connected to the excretory passage, the urinary passage, and sexual intercourse. Obhāseyyāti means he should address her offensively, he should speak various kinds of improper words concerning praise, blame, requesting, asking, questioning, answering, informing, instructing, or abusing. Yathā tanti, here, nti is just a particle; the meaning is, as a young man to a young woman. By this, he shows the lack of restraint in the offensive address. Methunupasaṃhitāhīti, this shows the defining characteristic of the training rule regarding offensive speech. Saṅghādisesoti means that for one who addresses a woman with praise or blame concerning the two passages, or with requests for sexual intercourse and so forth, or with abusive words such as “you are a horned one, you are a split one, you are a double-sexed one,” among these three, using any one of them, there is a type of offense called saṅghādisesa.

In the third case, being overwhelmed and having a distorted mind should be understood as arising from lust for lewd speech. Mātugāma refers to a human female capable of understanding lewd and non-lewd speech. Duṭṭhullāhivācāhī refers to speech connected with the excretory or sexual organs. Obhāseyyā means to address her, to speak various improper words through praise, blame, request, inquiry, instruction, admonition, or scolding. Yathā ta here is merely a particle, meaning “as a young man to a young woman.” This indicates that there is no doubt in such speech. Methunupasaṃhitāhī shows the characteristic of the offense in lewd speech. Saṅghādiseso means that through two paths, whether by praise or blame, or by requesting sexual intercourse, saying, “You are a prostitute, you are promiscuous, you are a hermaphrodite,” in these three cases, using such abusive speech to address a woman entails an offense requiring a formal meeting of the Sangha.

Sāvatthiyaṃ udāyittheraṃ ārabbha duṭṭhullavācāhi obhāsanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, itthiyā itthisaññino antamaso hatthamuddāyapi vuttanayena obhāsantassa sace sā tamatthaṃ tasmiṃyeva khaṇe jānāti, saṅghādiseso. Paṇḍake thullaccayaṃ. Tasmiṃyeva itthisaññino dukkaṭaṃ. Punappunaṃ obhāsantassa, sambahulā ca itthiyo ekavācāya obhāsantassa vācāgaṇanāya ceva itthigaṇanāya ca āpattiyo. Sace yaṃ itthiṃ obhāsati, sā na jānāti, thullaccayaṃ. Adhakkhakaṃ ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalaṃ ādissa vaṇṇādibhaṇanepi thullaccayaṃ. Paṇḍake dukkaṭaṃ, ubbhakkhakaṃ adhojāṇumaṇḍalaṃ kāyappaṭibaddhañca ādissa vaṇṇādibhaṇane sabbattha dukkaṭaṃ. Atthadhammaanusāsanipurekkhārānaṃ ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Sīlavipatti, manussitthī, itthisaññitā, duṭṭhullavācassādarāgo, tena rāgena obhāsanaṃ, taṅkhaṇavijānananti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Adinnādānasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, dvivedananti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning the Elder Udāyin in the matter of speaking with corrupt words, an unshared rule, without prompting. For one perceiving a woman as a woman, even using a hand gesture in the aforementioned manner, if she understands the meaning at that very moment, it is a saṅghādisesa. With a paṇḍaka, it is a thullaccaya. For one perceiving her as a woman in that moment, it is a dukkaṭa. For repeatedly speaking, or speaking to multiple women with a single utterance, offenses are counted by the number of utterances and women. If the woman he speaks to does not understand, it is a thullaccaya. Speaking of the upper chest or above the knees with praise or otherwise is a thullaccaya; with a paṇḍaka, it is a dukkaṭa. Speaking of below the chest or below the knees or something attached to the body with praise or otherwise is a dukkaṭa everywhere. For those intent on teaching meaning or Dhamma, or the deranged, there is no offense. The five factors here are: moral failure, a human woman, perception of her as a woman, lust for corrupt speech, speaking due to that lust, and her understanding at that moment. It originates like theft, is an action, perception-dependent, with mind, worldly fault, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome mind, and twofold feeling.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning Venerable Udāyī in the case of addressing with offensive speech. It is a non-exclusive precept, not requiring a command, for one who has the perception of a woman as a woman, even addressing her with hand gestures in the manner described, if she understands that meaning at that very moment, there is a saṅghādisesa. For a paṇḍaka, there is a thullaccaya. For one who has the perception of a woman as a woman in that very case, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who repeatedly addresses offensively, or who addresses many women with one speech, the offenses are according to the number of words and the number of women. If the woman he addresses does not understand, there is a thullaccaya. Speaking of praise and so forth regarding the area below the collarbone and above the knees, there is also a thullaccaya. For a paṇḍaka, there is a dukkaṭa; speaking of praise and so forth regarding the area above the collarbone, below the knees, and that which is connected to the body, there is a dukkaṭa in all cases. For those who are intent on instructing in the Dhamma and the meaning, for madmen and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are: moral transgression, a human woman, the perception of her as a woman, the lust for offensive speech, addressing her offensively due to that lust, and her understanding at that moment. These are the five factors here. It arises from theft, it is an action, it is not freed from perception, it is intentional, it is blameworthy in the world, it is a bodily action, it is a verbal action, it is an unwholesome mind, it is of two feelings.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the Venerable Udāyi, regarding the act of addressing a woman with lewd speech. It is a non-common rule, not subject to confession. For one who perceives a woman as a woman, even if he addresses her with a gesture, if she understands the meaning at that moment, it entails a formal meeting of the Sangha. Addressing a eunuch entails a grave offense. Addressing someone perceived as a woman entails a wrongdoing. Repeatedly addressing her, or addressing many women with one speech, entails offenses counted by the number of speeches and women. If the woman addressed does not understand, it entails a grave offense. Speaking praise, etc., referring to the area below the navel and above the knees entails a grave offense. Speaking praise, etc., referring to the area above the navel and below the knees, or something connected to the body, entails a wrongdoing everywhere. For those who speak with the intention of teaching the Dhamma, or for the insane, there is no offense. The five factors here are: moral failure, a human female, perceiving her as a female, lust for lewd speech, and addressing her with that lust. The origins, etc., are similar to those stated in the rule on stealing.

4. Attakāmasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Self-Desire

4. Attakāmasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Acting as a Matchmaker

Catutthe otiṇṇatā ca vipariṇatacittatā ca attakāmapāricariyāvasena veditabbā. Mātugāmassa santiketi duṭṭhullobhāsane vuttappakārāya itthiyā samīpe. Attakāmapāricariyāyāti methunadhammasaṅkhātena kāmena pāricariyā kāmapāricariyā, attano atthāya kāmapāricariyā attakāmapāricariyā, attanā vā kāmitā icchitāti attakāmā, sayaṃ methunarāgavasena patthitāti attho, attakāmā ca sā pāricariyā cāti attakāmapāricariyā, tassā attakāmapāricariyāya. Vaṇṇaṃ bhāseyyāti guṇaṃ ānisaṃsaṃ pakāseyya. Etadaggantiādi tassā attakāmapāricariyāya vaṇṇabhāsanākāranidassanaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ padasambandhavaseneva saṅkhepattho – yā mādisaṃ pāṇātipātādīhi virahitattā sīlavantaṃ methunadhammā virahitattā brahmacāriṃ tadubhayenāpi kalyāṇadhammaṃ etena dhammena paricareyya abhirameyya, tassā evaṃ mādisaṃ paricarantiyā yā ayaṃ pāricariyā nāma, etadaggaṃ pāricariyānanti. Methunupasaṃhitena saṅghādisesoti evaṃ attakāmapāricariyāya vaṇṇaṃ bhāsanto ca “arahasi tvaṃ mayhaṃ methunadhammaṃ dātu”ntiādinā methunappaṭisaṃyutteneva vacanena yo bhāseyya, tassa saṅghādiseso.

In the fourth, the state of being overcome and having a transformed mind should be understood as arising from serving self-desire. Mātugāmassa santike means “in the presence of a woman,” a woman as described in the case of corrupt speech. Attakāmapāricariyāya means “for serving self-desire”: serving with desire called sexual intercourse is kāmapāricariyā, serving desire for one’s own sake is attakāmapāricariyā, or desired and wished for by oneself is attakāmā, meaning desired by oneself due to lust for intercourse—this is the meaning. It is both self-desire and service, thus attakāmapāricariyā, “for that serving of self-desire.” Vaṇṇaṃ bhāseyya means “he would speak praise,” proclaiming qualities or merits. Etadaggaṃ and so forth illustrate the manner of speaking praise for that serving of self-desire. Here, the concise meaning through word connection is: “One like me, sīlavantaṃ, virtuous due to abstaining from killing and so forth, brahmacāriṃ, celibate due to abstaining from intercourse, kalyāṇadhammaṃ, of good qualities due to both, if she served and delighted in me with this quality, that service of one like me would be the foremost of services.” Methunupasaṃhitena saṅghādiseso means that one speaking praise of serving self-desire thus, with words explicitly connected to intercourse such as “you should give me sexual intercourse,” incurs a saṅghādisesa.

In the fourth, being overwhelmed and having a distorted mind should be understood as due to service for one’s own desire. Mātugāmassa santiketi means in the presence of a woman of the type described in the offensive address case. Attakāmapāricariyāyāti: sexual intercourse is called desire; service with desire is kāmapāricariyā; service with desire for one’s own sake is attakāmapāricariyā; or, what is desired or wished for by oneself is attakāmā, meaning, what is desired due to one’s own passion for sexual intercourse; and that which is desired by oneself and is service is attakāmapāricariyā; of that attakāmapāricariyā. Vaṇṇaṃ bhāseyyāti means he should proclaim the quality, the advantage. Etadagganti, etc., is an indication of the manner of proclaiming the praise of that attakāmapāricariyā. Here, the concise meaning, according to the connection of the words, is: whoever serves one like me, sīlavantaṃ (virtuous), abstaining from killing living beings and so forth, brahmacāriṃ (celibate), abstaining from sexual intercourse, kalyāṇadhammaṃ (of good qualities) by both of these, etena dhammena paricareyya (should serve with this practice), should delight, for her who thus serves one like me, this service is called the foremost service. Methunupasaṃhitena saṅghādisesoti means that one who proclaims the praise of attakāmapāricariyā in this way, and who speaks with words connected to sexual intercourse, such as, “you are worthy to give me sexual intercourse,” for him, there is a saṅghādisesa.

In the fourth case, being overwhelmed and having a distorted mind should be understood as arising from acting as a matchmaker for one’s own pleasure. Mātugāmassa santike means in the presence of a woman of the type described in the rule on lewd speech. Attakāmapāricariyāyā means serving out of sexual desire, serving for one’s own pleasure, or serving because one desires it oneself. Vaṇṇaṃ bhāseyyā means to speak of her qualities and advantages. Etadagga and so on show the way of praising such service. Here, the condensed meaning is: “She who, being free from killing, etc., is virtuous, celibate, and endowed with good qualities, should serve me with this Dhamma and be pleased.” Such service is the highest service. Methunupasaṃhitena saṅghādiseso means that if one praises such service and says, “You should give me sexual pleasure,” etc., using words connected with sexual intercourse, it entails an offense requiring a formal meeting of the Sangha.

Sāvatthiyaṃ udāyittheraṃ ārabbha attakāmapāricariyāya vaṇṇabhāsanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, itthiyā itthisaññino antamaso hatthamuddāyapi vuttanayeneva attakāmapāricariyāya vaṇṇaṃ bhāsantassa sace sā tamatthaṃ tasmiṃyeva khaṇe jānāti, saṅghādiseso . No ce jānāti, thullaccayaṃ. Paṇḍake paṇḍakasaññinopi thullaccayaṃ. Tasmiṃyeva itthisaññino dukkaṭaṃ. Cīvarādīhi vatthukāmehi pāricariyāya vaṇṇaṃ bhāsantassa ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Sīlavipatti, manussitthī, itthisaññitā, attakāmapāricariyāya rāgo, tena rāgena vaṇṇabhaṇanaṃ, taṅkhaṇavijānananti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni duṭṭhullobhāsane vuttasadisānevāti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning the Elder Udāyin in the matter of speaking praise of serving self-desire, an unshared rule, without prompting. For one perceiving a woman as a woman, even with a hand gesture in the aforementioned manner, if she understands the meaning at that very moment, it is a saṅghādisesa. If she does not understand, it is a thullaccaya. With a paṇḍaka, even perceiving them as such, it is a thullaccaya. For one perceiving her as a woman in that moment, it is a dukkaṭa. Speaking praise of service with material desires like robes, or for the deranged, there is no offense. The five factors here are: moral failure, a human woman, perception of her as a woman, lust for serving self-desire, speaking praise due to that lust, and her understanding at that moment. The origins and so forth are as stated in the case of corrupt speech.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning Venerable Udāyī in the case of proclaiming the praise of attakāmapāricariyā. It is a non-exclusive precept, not requiring a command, for one who has the perception of a woman as a woman, even proclaiming the praise of attakāmapāricariyā with hand gestures in the manner described, if she understands that meaning at that very moment, there is a saṅghādisesa. If she does not understand, there is a thullaccaya. Even for one who perceives a paṇḍaka as a paṇḍaka, there is a thullaccaya. For one who has the perception of a woman as a woman in that very case, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who proclaims the praise of service with material things like robes, and for madmen and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are: moral transgression, a human woman, the perception of her as a woman, the lust for attakāmapāricariyā, speaking praise due to that lust, and her understanding at that moment. These are the five factors here. The arising and so forth are similar to what was stated in the case of offensive address.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the Venerable Udāyi, regarding the act of praising the service of acting as a matchmaker. It is a non-common rule, not subject to confession. For one who perceives a woman as a woman, even if he praises her service with a gesture, if she understands the meaning at that moment, it entails a formal meeting of the Sangha. If she does not understand, it entails a grave offense. Praising a eunuch, even if perceived as a eunuch, entails a grave offense. Praising someone perceived as a woman entails a wrongdoing. Praising service with robes, etc., or for the insane, there is no offense. The five factors here are: moral failure, a human female, perceiving her as a female, lust for acting as a matchmaker, and praising her with that lust. The origins, etc., are similar to those stated in the rule on lewd speech.

The explanation of the training rule on praising one’s own desire is finished.

5. Sañcarittasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Acting as a Go-Between

5. Sañcarittasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Matchmaking

Pañcame sañcarittanti itthipurisānaṃ antare saṃcaraṇabhāvaṃ. Samāpajjeyyāti sammā paṭiggaṇhanavīmaṃsanapaccāharaṇāni karonto āpajjeyya. Itthiyā vātiādi samāpajjanākāradassanaṃ. Tattha itthiyā vā purisamatinti purisena vā tassa mātāpitādīhi vā pesito purisassa matiṃ adhippāyaṃ itthiyā āroceyyāti attho. Purisassa vā itthimatinti itthiyā vā tassā mātāpitādīhi vā pesito itthiyā matiṃ adhippāyaṃ purisassa āroceyyāti attho. Jāyattane vā jārattane vāti jāyabhāve vā jārabhāve vā. Purisassa hi matiṃ itthiyā ārocento jāyattane āroceti, itthiyā matiṃ purisassa ārocento jārattane āroceti. Apica purisasseva matiṃ itthiyā ārocento jāyattane vā āroceti nibaddhabhariyabhāve, jārattane vā micchācārabhāve, tenevassa padabhājane (pārā. 302) “jāyattane vāti jāyā bhavissasi, jārattane vāti jārī bhavissasī”ti vuttaṃ. Eteneva upāyena itthiyā matiṃ purisassa ārocanepi “pati bhavissasi, jāro bhavissasī”ti vattabbatā veditabbā. Antamaso taṅkhaṇikāyapīti sabbantimena paricchedena yā ayaṃ taṅkhaṇe muhuttamatte saṃvasitabbato “taṅkhaṇikā”ti vuccati, muhuttikāti attho. Tassāpi “muhuttikā bhavissasī”ti evaṃ purisassa matiṃ ārocentassa saṅghādiseso, eteneva upāyena “muhuttiko bhavissasī”ti evaṃ purisassa itthimatiṃ ārocentopi saṅghādisesaṃ āpajjatīti veditabbo.

In the fifth, sañcarittaṃ means “acting as a go-between,” the state of moving between women and men. Samāpajjeyya means “he would engage,” performing it by properly receiving, examining, and conveying. Itthiyā vā and so forth illustrate the manner of engagement. Here, itthiyā vā purisamatiṃ means “conveying a man’s intent to a woman,” meaning he would inform the woman of the man’s intent, whether sent by the man or his parents or others. Purisassa vā itthimatiṃ means “conveying a woman’s intent to a man,” meaning he would inform the man of the woman’s intent, whether sent by the woman or her parents or others. Jāyattane vā jārattane vā means “in the state of wife or lover.” Conveying a man’s intent to a woman is in the state of wife; conveying a woman’s intent to a man is in the state of lover. Furthermore, conveying only a man’s intent to a woman may be in the state of wife, meaning a fixed wife, or in the state of lover, meaning illicit conduct, as stated in its analysis (pārā. 302): “in the state of wife means ‘you will be a wife,’ in the state of lover means ‘you will be a lover.’” By this method, conveying a woman’s intent to a man should be understood as “you will be a husband, you will be a lover.” Antamaso taṅkhaṇikāyapi means “even for a moment,” the minimal limit, referring to what is called taṅkhaṇikā, “momentary,” due to cohabitation for just a moment, meaning a brief time. Conveying a man’s intent to a woman as “you will be a momentary wife” incurs a saṅghādisesa; likewise, conveying a woman’s intent to a man as “you will be a momentary husband” incurs a saṅghādisesa—this should be understood.

In the fifth, sañcarittanti means the act of conveying messages between a woman and a man. Samāpajjeyyāti means he should engage in it, properly undertaking the acceptance, investigation, and reporting back. Itthiyā vāti, etc., is a showing of the manner of engaging. Here, itthiyā vā purisamatinti means he should convey the intention, the desire of a man, or of his parents and so forth, sent by him, to a woman. Purisassa vā itthimatinti means he should convey the intention, the desire of a woman, or of her parents and so forth, sent by her, to a man. Jāyattane vā jārattane vāti means in the state of being a wife or in the state of being a mistress. For when conveying the intention of a man to a woman, he conveys it for the state of being a wife; when conveying the intention of a woman to a man, he conveys it for the state of being a mistress. Moreover, when conveying the intention of the man himself to the woman, he conveys it either for the state of being a wife, in the case of a permanent wife, or for the state of being a mistress, in the case of misconduct. Therefore, in the explanation of the word (pārā. 302), it is said, “jāyattane vāti means ‘you will be a wife,’ jārattane vāti means ‘you will be a mistress.’” In the same way, when conveying the intention of a woman to a man, it should be understood that it should be said, “you will be a husband, you will be a lover.” Antamaso taṅkhaṇikāyapīti means, at the very least, even for a temporary one. This is the ultimate limit. She who is to be cohabited with for a moment is called “taṅkhaṇikā,” meaning, for a moment. Even for her, conveying the intention of a man, saying, “you will be a momentary one,” there is a saṅghādisesa. In the same way, conveying the intention of a woman to a man, saying, “you will be a momentary one,” he also incurs a saṅghādisesa.

In the fifth case, sañcarittaṃ means the act of mediating between men and women. Samāpajjeyyā means to properly receive, investigate, and report. Itthiyā vā and so on show the way of engaging in such mediation. Here, itthiyā vā purisamatiṃ means a woman reporting a man’s intention, sent by his parents, etc., to the woman. Purisassa vā itthimatiṃ means a man reporting a woman’s intention, sent by her parents, etc., to the man. Jāyattane vā jārattane vā means in the capacity of a wife or a mistress. When a woman reports a man’s intention, she does so in the capacity of a wife; when a man reports a woman’s intention, he does so in the capacity of a mistress. Furthermore, when a woman reports a man’s intention, she does so either in the capacity of a wife in a fixed marriage or in the capacity of a mistress in an illicit relationship. Thus, in the word analysis (pārā. 302), it is said, “In the capacity of a wife, you will become a wife; in the capacity of a mistress, you will become a mistress.” In the same way, when a man reports a woman’s intention, it should be understood as saying, “You will become a husband or a lover.” Antamaso taṅkhaṇikāyapī means even if it is for a momentary relationship, called “taṅkhaṇikā,” meaning temporary. Even if one says, “You will become a temporary mistress,” reporting the man’s intention in this way entails an offense requiring a formal meeting of the Sangha. Similarly, saying, “You will become a temporary husband,” reporting the woman’s intention in this way also entails an offense requiring a formal meeting of the Sangha.

Sāvatthiyaṃ udāyittheraṃ ārabbha sañcarittasamāpajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “antamaso taṅkhaṇikāyapī”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, “paṭiggaṇhāti, vīmaṃsati, antevāsiṃ paccāharāpetī”tiiminā (pārā. 338) nayena sāṇattikaṃ, aññatra nālaṃvacanīyāya yāya kāyaci itthiyā antamaso mātuyāpi purisamatiṃ ārocento “hohi kira bhariyā dhanakkītā”ti vattukāmo sacepi chandavāsinīādīsu aññatarākārena ārocetvā tāya “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchitepi asampaṭicchitepi puna āgantvā yena pahito, tassa taṃ pavattiṃ āroceti, saṅghādisesaṃ āpajjati. Sā pana tassa bhariyā hotu vā, mā vā, akāraṇametaṃ. Sacepi yassā santikaṃ pesito, taṃ adisvā aññatarassa avassārocanakassa “ārocehī”ti vatvā paccāharati, āpajjatiyeva. “Māturakkhitaṃ brūhī”ti pesitassa pana gantvā aññaṃ piturakkhitādīsu aññataraṃ vadantassa visaṅketaṃ hoti, purisassa vā itthiyā vā vacanaṃ “sādhū”ti kāyena vā vācāya vā ubhayena vā paṭiggaṇhitvā tassā itthiyā vā purisassa vā ārocetvā vā ārocāpetvā vā puna yena pesito, tassa taṃ pavattiṃ sayaṃ ārocentassa vā aññena ārocāpentassa vā saṅghādiseso . Ettāvatā hi “paṭiggaṇhāti, vīmaṃsati, paccāharatī”tiidaṃ aṅgattayaṃ sampāditameva hoti, ito pana yehi kehici dvīhi aṅgehi, paṇḍake ca aṅgattayenāpi thullaccayaṃ. Ekena dukkaṭaṃ. Saṅghassa vā cetiyassa vā gilānassa vā kiccena gacchantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning the Elder Udāyin in the matter of engaging as a go-between, with “even for a moment” as an additional rule, a shared rule, with prompting as per (pārā. 338): “he receives, examines, has an attendant convey.” For any woman, even a mother, conveying a man’s intent such as “be a purchased wife,” if he intends to say this and informs her in any manner among those subject to desire and she agrees or does not agree with “good,” and he returns and informs the sender of the outcome, he incurs a saṅghādisesa. Whether she becomes his wife or not is irrelevant. Even if sent to someone and, not seeing her, he tells another who must convey it, saying “inform her,” and conveys it back, he incurs it. If sent saying “tell the mother-protected one” but speaks to another, such as one father-protected, it becomes uncertain. If a man’s or woman’s words are received with “good” by body, speech, or both, and he informs or has it informed to that woman or man, and then informs or has the sender informed of the outcome, it is a saṅghādisesa. By this, the three factors—“he receives, examines, conveys”—are fulfilled. With any two of these, or with a paṇḍaka even with all three, it is a thullaccaya. With one, it is a dukkaṭa. Going for the sake of the Sangha, a shrine, or a sick person, or for the deranged, there is no offense.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning Venerable Udāyī in the case of engaging in conveying messages. “Antamaso taṅkhaṇikāyapī,” this is a subsequent precept here. It is an exclusive precept. By the method of “he accepts, he investigates, he causes a resident pupil to report back” (pārā. 338), it is with command. Except for a woman who is not suitable to be spoken to, conveying the intention of a man to any woman whatsoever, even to one’s own mother, intending to say, “be a wife, bought with wealth,” even if, after conveying it in one of the various ways, such as to a woman who lives according to her wishes, she accepts it, saying, “good,” or even if she does not accept it, and he returns and reports that matter to the one who sent him, he incurs a saṅghādisesa. Whether she is his wife or not is not the reason. Even if he is sent to someone, and without seeing her, he says to another person who is not suitable to be spoken to, “convey it,” and reports back, he incurs the offense. But if he is sent, saying, “tell the one protected by her mother,” and he goes and says it to another one, among those protected by her father and so forth, it is a deviation. Accepting the word of a man or a woman, saying, “good,” either by body, or by speech, or by both, and conveying it to that woman or man, or causing it to be conveyed, and then reporting that matter himself to the one who sent him, or causing another to report it, there is a saṅghādisesa. For by this much, these three factors, “he accepts, he investigates, he reports back,” are accomplished. But from here, with any two factors, and with a paṇḍaka, even with the three factors, there is a thullaccaya. With one, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who goes on business for the Saṅgha, or for a shrine, or for a sick person, and for madmen and so forth, there is no offense.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the Venerable Udāyi, regarding the act of engaging in matchmaking. “Antamaso taṅkhaṇikāyapī” is an additional rule here. It is a common rule, subject to confession. “Paṭiggaṇhāti, vīmaṃsati, antevāsiṃ paccāharāpetī” (pārā. 338) means receiving, investigating, and having a pupil report. Except in the case of one who is not to be spoken to, if one reports a man’s intention to any woman, even his mother, saying, “You should become a wife purchased with wealth,” even if she consents or does not consent, and then returns to report to the one who sent him, it entails an offense requiring a formal meeting of the Sangha. Whether she becomes his wife or not is irrelevant. If one does not see the person to whom he was sent and reports to another without being asked, it still entails an offense. If one is sent to say, “Tell her she is under her mother’s protection,” but instead says she is under her father’s protection, etc., it creates doubt. If one consents to the words of the man or woman, whether by body, speech, or both, and then reports to the woman or man, or has someone else report, it entails an offense requiring a formal meeting of the Sangha. At this point, the three factors of receiving, investigating, and reporting are fulfilled. Beyond this, if one engages in matchmaking with two factors, or with all three factors in the case of a eunuch, it entails a grave offense. With one factor, it entails a wrongdoing. For one going on business for the Sangha, a shrine, or a sick person, or for the insane, there is no offense.

Sīlavipatti, yesu sañcarittaṃ samāpajjati, tesaṃ manussajātikatā, na nālaṃvacanīyatā,

Moral failure, the human nature of those between whom he acts as a go-between, and their not being unsuitable for speech,

Moral transgression, the human status of those for whom he engages in conveying messages, their not being unsuitable to be spoken to,

Moral failure, the human nature of those for whom matchmaking is done, not being one who is not to be spoken to,

Paṭiggaṇhanavīmaṃsanapaccāharaṇānīti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Chasamuṭṭhānaṃ, paṇṇattiṃ vā alaṃvacanīyabhāvaṃ vā ajānantassa kāyavikārena sāsanaṃ gahetvā tatheva vīmaṃsitvā tatheva paccāharantassa kāyato samuṭṭhāti. “Itthannāmā āgamissati, tassā cittaṃ jāneyyāthā”ti kenaci vutte “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchitvā taṃ āgataṃ vatvā puna tasmiṃ purise āgate ārocentassa kāyena kiñci akatattā vācato samuṭṭhāti. Vācāya “sādhū”ti sāsanaṃ gahetvā aññena karaṇīyena tassā gharaṃ gantvā aññattha vā gamanakāle taṃ disvā vacībhedena vīmaṃsitvā punapi aññeneva kāraṇena tato apakkamma kadācideva taṃ purisaṃ disvā ārocentassāpi vācato samuṭṭhāti. Paṇṇattiṃ ajānantassa pana khīṇāsavassāpi pituvacanena gantvā alaṃvacanīyaṃ mātarampi “ehi me pitaraṃ upaṭṭhāhī”ti vatvā paccāharantassa kāyavācato samuṭṭhāti. Imāni tīṇi acittakasamuṭṭhānāni. Tadubhayaṃ pana jānitvā eteheva tīhi nayehi samāpajjantassa tāneva tīṇi tadubhayajānanacittena sacittakāni honti, kiriyaṃ, nosaññāvimokkhaṃ, acittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, kusalādivasena cettha tīṇi cittāni, sukhādivasena tisso vedanāti.

Receiving, examining, and conveying—these are the five factors here. It has six origins: For one unaware of the rule or suitability, taking a message by bodily gesture, examining it thus, and conveying it thus arises from the body. If someone says, “such a person will come, find out her mind,” and he agrees with “good,” informs her when she arrives, and informs the man when he returns without any bodily action, it arises from speech. Taking a message by speech with “good,” going to her house for another task or seeing her while going elsewhere, examining it with a verbal hint, and later seeing that man and informing him for another reason after leaving arises from speech. For one unaware of the rule, even an arahant going by a father’s words and telling a suitable mother, “come serve my father,” and conveying it back arises from body and speech. These three are mindless origins. Knowing both and engaging in these three ways with that knowing mind makes them mindful. It is an action, not perception-dependent, mindless, a rule-based fault, bodily action, verbal action, with three minds as wholesome or otherwise, and three feelings as pleasant or otherwise.

Acceptance, investigation, and reporting back: these are the five factors here. Six origins: for one who does not know the precept or the unsuitability to be spoken to, taking the message with a bodily gesture, investigating it in the same way, and reporting back in the same way, it arises from the body. When someone says, “so-and-so will come, you should know her mind,” and he accepts it, saying, “good,” and says that she has come, and then reports it when that man comes, it arises from speech, since he did not do anything with the body. Taking the message with speech, saying, “good,” and going to her house for some other business, or when going elsewhere, seeing her, investigating with a different speech, and then going away for some other reason, and sometime later seeing that man and reporting it, it also arises from speech. But for a perfected one who does not know the precept, even going at his father’s word and saying to his suitable-to-be-spoken-to mother, “come, attend to my father,” and reporting back, it arises from body and speech. These three are origins without intention. But knowing both of those, engaging in it with these same three methods, those same three become intentional with the mind that knows both of those. It is an action, it is not freed from perception, it is unintentional, it is a precept-transgression, it is a bodily action, it is a verbal action, there are three minds here, due to wholesomeness and so forth, three feelings due to happiness and so forth.

Receiving, investigating, and reporting are the five factors here. The six origins are: arising from the body, from speech, from the mind, from a combination of body and speech, from a combination of body and mind, and from a combination of speech and mind. For one who does not know the rule or the status of being one who is not to be spoken to, the offense arises from the body when one receives the instruction with a bodily gesture, investigates, and reports. If someone says, “So-and-so will come, you should know her mind,” and one consents and then reports to the man when he comes, the offense arises from speech because nothing was done by the body. If one consents to the instruction by speech and then goes to her house for another reason, and upon seeing her, investigates and reports, the offense arises from speech. For one who does not know the rule, even if he is an arahant, if he goes at his father’s request to one who is not to be spoken to, even his mother, saying, “Come and attend to my father,” and reports, the offense arises from body and speech. These are the three origins without mind. For one who knows both and engages in matchmaking in these three ways, the same three origins are with mind. The action is intentional, not a release of perception, not without mind, not contrary to the rule, bodily action, verbal action, and the mind is either wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate. The feeling is either pleasant, painful, or neutral.

6. Kuṭikārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Building a Hut

6. Kuṭikārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Building a Hut

Chaṭṭhe saññācikāya panāti ettha saññācikā nāma sayaṃ pavattitayācanā vuccati, tasmā saññācikāyāti attano yācanāyāti vuttaṃ hoti, sayaṃ yācitakehi upakaraṇehīti attho. Ettha ca yaṃkiñci parapariggahitakaṃ mūlacchedavasena yācituṃ na vaṭṭati, tāvakālikaṃ pana vaṭṭati. Sahāyatthāya kammakaraṇatthāya “purisaṃ dethā”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati, purisattakarampi yācituṃ vaṭṭati, purisattakaro nāma vaḍḍhakiādinā purisena kātabbaṃ hatthakammaṃ. Taṃ “purisattakaraṃ dehī”ti vā “hatthakammaṃ dehī”ti vā vatvā yācituṃ vaṭṭati. Hatthakammaṃ nāma kiñci vatthu na hoti, tasmā “kiṃ, bhante, āgatatthā”ti pucchite vā apucchite vā yācituṃ vaṭṭati, viññattipaccayā doso natthi, migaluddakādayo pana sakakammaṃ na yācitabbā. Kuṭinti ullittādīsu aññataraṃ. Tattha ullittā nāma ṭhapetvā thambhatulāpiṭṭhasaṅghāṭavātapānadhūmacchiddādibhedaṃ alepokāsaṃ avasese lepokāse kuṭṭehi saddhiṃ ghaṭetvā chadanassa anto sudhāya vā mattikāya vā littā. Avalittā nāma tatheva vuttanayeneva chadanassa bahi littā. Ullittāvalittā nāma tatheva chadanassa anto ca bahi ca littā. Kārayamānenāti sayaṃ vā karontena, āṇattiyā vā kārāpentena. Asāmikanti kāretā dāyakena virahitaṃ. Attuddesanti “mayhaṃ vāsāgāraṃ esā”ti evaṃ attā uddeso etissāti attuddesā, taṃ attuddesaṃ. Pamāṇikā kāretabbāti pamāṇayuttā kāretabbā. Tatridaṃ pamāṇanti tassā kuṭiyā idaṃ pamāṇaṃ. Dīghasoti dīghato. Dvādasa vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyātiettha sugatavidatthi nāma idāni majjhimassa purisassa tisso vidatthiyo, vaḍḍhakihatthena diyaḍḍho hattho hoti. Minantena pana kuṭiyā bahikuṭṭe paṭhamaṃ dinnaṃ mahāmattikapariyantaṃ aggahetvā thusapiṇḍapariyantena dvādasa vidatthiyo minetabbā, sace thusapiṇḍakena anatthiko hoti, mahāmattikalepeneva niṭṭhāpeti, sveva paricchedo. Tiriyanti vitthārato. Sattantarāti kuṭṭassa bahiantaṃ aggahetvā abbhantarimena antena satta sugatavidatthiyo pamāṇanti vuttaṃ hoti. Ettha ca kesaggamattampi dīghato hāpetvā tiriyaṃ, tiriyato vā hāpetvā dīghaṃ vaḍḍhetuṃ na vaṭṭati, ko pana vādo ubhatovaḍḍhane. Yā pana dīghato saṭṭhihatthāpi hoti, tiriyato tihatthā vā ūnakacatuhatthā vā, yattha pamāṇayutto mañco ito cito ca na parivaṭṭati, pacchimakoṭiyā catuhatthavitthārā na hoti, ayaṃ kuṭisaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati, tasmā vaṭṭati. Bhikkhū abhinetabbā vatthudesanāyāti yasmiṃ padese kuṭiṃ kāretukāmo hoti, taṃ sodhetvā padabhājane (pārā. 349) vuttanayena saṅghaṃ tikkhattuṃ yācitvā sabbe vā saṅghapariyāpannā saṅghena vā sammatā dve tayo bhikkhū tattha vatthudesanatthāya netabbā. Tehi bhikkhūhi vatthu desetabbaṃ anārambhaṃ saparikkamananti tehi bhikkhūhi kipillikādīnaṃ āsayādīhi terasahi, pubbaṇṇāparaṇṇanissitādīhi soḷasahi upaddavehi virahitattā anārambhaṃ, dvīhi vā catūhi vā balibaddhehi yuttena sakaṭena ekaṃ cakkaṃ nibbodakapatanaṭṭhāne ekaṃ bahi katvā āvijjhituṃ sakkuṇeyyatāya saparikkamananti sallakkhetvā sace saṅghapahonakā honti, tattheva, no ce, saṅghamajjhaṃ gantvā tena bhikkhunā yācitehi ñattidutiyena kammena vatthu desetabbaṃ. Sārambhe cetiādi paṭipakkhanayena veditabbaṃ.

In the sixth, saññācikāya pana—here saññācikā means “self-initiated request,” so saññācikāya means “by his own request,” with materials requested by himself—this is the meaning. Here, requesting anything owned by another that involves uprooting is not allowed, but temporary use is permitted. For a friend’s sake or work, saying “give a man” is allowed; requesting purisattakara, work done by a man like a carpenter, is also allowed. Purisattakaro means handiwork to be done by a man such as a carpenter. One may request it by saying “give handiwork” or “give work,” whether asked “what have you come for, venerable sir?” or not, as there is no fault from soliciting; however, hunters and the like must not be asked for their trade. Kuṭi means “hut,” one of the types such as plastered or unplastered. Here, ullittā means “plastered inside,” plastered with lime or clay inside the roof, excluding pillars, rafters, beams, windows, vents, or chimney gaps, joined with the walls. Avalittā means “plastered outside,” plastered similarly outside the roof. Ullittāvalittā means “plastered inside and out,” plastered both inside and outside the roof. Kārayamānena means “by one building,” either doing it himself or having it built by order. Asāmika means “without an owner,” lacking a donor who builds it. Attuddesaṃ means “for himself,” with “this is my dwelling” as the intent, thus for himself. Pamāṇikā kāretabbā means “it should be built according to measure,” meaning with proper dimensions. Tatridaṃ pamāṇaṃ means “this is its measure,” the measure of that hut. Dīghaso means “in length.” Dvādasa vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā—here sugatavidatthi means “the Blessed One’s span,” now three spans of an average man, one and a half carpenter’s hands. Measuring should be done with twelve spans up to the chaff limit, not including the initial great clay boundary outside the walls; if not needing chaff, it is completed with great clay alone—this is the boundary. Tiriyaṃ means “in width.” Sattantarā means “seven inside,” meaning seven sugatavidatthiyo measured by the inner limit, not the outer edge of the wall. Even a hair’s breadth reduction in length to increase width, or vice versa, is not allowed, let alone increasing both. A hut sixty hands long but three hands wide or less than four, where a measured bed cannot roll side to side and the rear width is not four hands, does not count as a hut, so it is allowed. Bhikkhū abhinetabbā vatthudesanāya means “monks should be brought for site designation”: in the place where he wishes to build the hut, having cleared it, he should request the Sangha three times as per the analysis (pārā. 349), and all within the Sangha or two or three monks approved by the Sangha should be brought there for site designation. Tehi bhikkhūhi vatthu desetabbaṃ anārambhaṃ saparikkamanaṃ means “those monks should designate the site as non-harming and accessible”: considering it non-harming due to freedom from thirteen disturbances like ant nests and sixteen dependencies like old or new grass, and accessible if a cart with two or four oxen can maneuver with one wheel on the cleared spot and one outside, they should designate it. If sufficient monks are present, they do so there; if not, going to the Sangha’s midst, it should be designated by a motion and second action requested by that monk. Sārambhe ce and so forth should be understood by the opposite method.

In the sixth, saññācikāya panāti, here, saññācikā means one’s own initiated request is called. Therefore, saññācikāyāti means by one’s own request, meaning, with requisites requested by oneself. And here, it is not proper to request anything that is possessed by another, causing the cutting off of the root, but it is proper to request it temporarily. It is proper to say, “give me a man,” for the sake of assistance, for the sake of doing work. It is proper to request even a man’s work. Purisattakaro means the handiwork that should be done by a man, such as a carpenter and so forth. It is proper to request, saying, “give me a man’s work,” or “give me handiwork.” Handiwork is not a thing. Therefore, whether asked or not asked, “Venerable Sir, what have you come for?”, it is proper to request it. There is no fault due to the condition of requesting. But hunters of deer and so forth should not be requested for their own work. Kuṭinti means one of those that are plastered and so forth. Here, ullittā means, setting aside the space for plastering, including the divisions of posts, beams, thresholds, windows, and smoke holes, the rest of the space for plastering is plastered inside the roof with lime or clay, together with the walls. Avalittā means, in the same way as described, plastered outside the roof. Ullittāvalittā means, in the same way, plastered both inside and outside the roof. Kārayamānenāti means either doing it oneself, or causing it to be done by command. Asāmikanti means without an owner, a donor, who causes it to be made. Attuddesanti means ‘this is my dwelling place,’ thus, oneself is the purpose of this, therefore, it is attuddesā; that attuddesaṃ. Pamāṇikā kāretabbāti means it should be made according to the standard. Tatridaṃ pamāṇanti, this is the standard of that hut. Dīghasoti means in length. Dvādasa vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyāti, here, sugatavidatthi (the Buddha’s span) means three spans of a present-day average man; it is one and a half cubits by the carpenter’s cubit. But when measuring, one should measure twelve spans, not including the outer edge of the outer wall of the hut where the first large lump of clay was given, but up to the lump of chaff. If one does not need the lump of chaff, one finishes it with just the large lump of clay; that is the limit. Tiriyanti means in width. Sattantarāti means, not including the outer and inner part of the wall, it is said that the inner measurement is seven Buddha-spans. And here, it is not proper to reduce even a hair’s breadth from the length to increase the width, or to reduce from the width to increase the length. How much less to increase both. But if it is sixty cubits long, and three cubits or less than four cubits wide, where a standard-sized bed cannot be turned around, and the back part is not four cubits wide, this is not counted as a hut, therefore, it is allowable. Bhikkhū abhinetabbā vatthudesanāyāti means, in the place where he desires to build the hut, having cleared it, having requested the Saṅgha three times in the manner described in the explanation of the word (pārā. 349), all the bhikkhus included in the Saṅgha, or two or three bhikkhus appointed by the Saṅgha, should be brought there for the purpose of showing the site. Tehi bhikkhūhi vatthu desetabbaṃ anārambhaṃ saparikkamananti, those bhikkhus, having observed that it is free from the nests of ants and so forth, the thirteen disturbances, and the sixteen disturbances dependent on grains and so forth, thus, it is anārambhaṃ (without disturbance), and that it is possible to drive a cart yoked with two or four oxen, making one wheel on the place where the water drips and one outside, thus, it is saparikkamananti (with space around), if they are capable for the Saṅgha, right there, if not, having gone to the midst of the Saṅgha, by that bhikkhu, with those requested, with a formal act with a motion and second, the site should be shown. Sārambhe ceti, etc., should be understood by way of opposition.

In the sixth, “saññācikāya panā”ti, here “saññācikā” refers to a request made by oneself, therefore “saññācikāya” means for one’s own request, that is, with requisites requested by oneself. Here, it is not permissible to request anything that has been acquired by others by cutting it from the root, but it is permissible temporarily. It is permissible to say, “Give a man for the purpose of companionship or for doing work,” and it is also permissible to request a “purisattakaro”, which refers to manual work to be done by a man such as a carpenter. It is permissible to request by saying, “Give a purisattakaro” or “Give manual work.” Manual work does not refer to any specific object, so it is permissible to request whether asked, “What, venerable sir, is the purpose of your coming?” or not asked. There is no offense by way of expression, but hunters and the like should not be requested to do their own work. “Kuṭi” refers to any one of the types such as “ullittā”, etc. Here, “ullittā” refers to plastering the interior of the roof, excluding pillars, beams, rafters, lattice windows, smoke vents, etc., with lime or clay after joining the remaining plastered areas with the walls. “Avalittā” refers to plastering the exterior of the roof in the same way. “Ullittāvalittā” refers to plastering both the interior and exterior of the roof in the same way. “Kārayamānenā”ti means either doing it oneself or having it done by command. “Asāmika” means without an owner, devoid of a donor. “Attuddesa” means “this is my dwelling,” thus the designation is for oneself, hence “attuddesa”. “Pamāṇikā kāretabbā”ti means it should be made according to measure. “Tatridaṃ pamāṇa”nti means this is the measure for that hut. “Dīghaso”ti means in length. “Dvādasa vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā”ti, here “sugatavidatthi” refers to three spans of a middle-sized man nowadays, which is one and a half spans by a carpenter’s measure. When measuring the hut, first mark the outer walls with a large clay boundary, then measure twelve spans with a bundle of straw as the limit; if one does not need the straw bundle, finish with the large clay plastering, and that is the boundary. “Tiriya”ti means in width. “Sattantarā”ti means measuring seven sugatavidatthiyas from the outer wall to the inner edge. Here, it is not permissible to reduce even a hair’s breadth in length and increase in width, or vice versa, let alone increasing both. A hut that is sixty spans in length and three or less than four spans in width, where a bed of proper size cannot be turned around, and the back corner does not have a four-span width, does not count as a hut, hence it is permissible. “Bhikkhū abhinetabbā vatthudesanāyā”ti means that in the place where one wishes to build a hut, after cleaning it, one should request the Sangha three times, as stated in the Pārājika (349), and all or some Sangha members appointed by the Sangha should lead two or three bhikkhus there for the purpose of site inspection. “Tehi bhikkhūhi vatthu desetabbaṃ anārambhaṃ saparikkamana”nti means those bhikkhus should inspect the site to ensure it is free from thirteen dangers such as ant hills, etc., and sixteen dangers such as dependence on the east or west, etc., and that it is accessible by a cart with two or four oxen, capable of turning one wheel outside a water drainage area. If they are Sangha messengers, they should do so there; if not, they should go to the Sangha and request the bhikkhu to declare the site with a motion and one announcement. “Sārambhe ce”tiādi should be understood in the opposite way.

Āḷaviyaṃ āḷavike bhikkhū ārabbha saññācikāya kuṭikaraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, “adesitavatthukaṃ pamāṇātikkantaṃ kuṭiṃ kāressāmī”ti upakaraṇatthaṃ araññaṃ gamanato paṭṭhāya sabbapayogesu dukkaṭaṃ, “idāni dvīhi piṇḍehi niṭṭhānaṃ gamissatī”ti tesu paṭhamapiṇḍadāne thullaccayaṃ, dutiyadānena lepe ghaṭite sace adesitavatthukā eva vā pamāṇātikkantā eva vā hoti, eko saṅghādiseso, dve ca dukkaṭāni. Ubhayavippannā, dve saṅghādisesā, dve ca dukkaṭāni. Sace pana dvārabandhaṃ vā vātapānaṃ vā aṭṭhapetvāva mattikāya limpati, ṭhapite ca tasmiṃ lepo na ghaṭiyati, rakkhati tāva. Puna limpantassa pana ghaṭitamatte saṅghādiseso. Sace taṃ ṭhapiyamānaṃ paṭhamadinnalepena saddhiṃ nirantarameva hutvā tiṭṭhati, paṭhamameva saṅghādiseso. Kevalaṃ sārambhāya dukkaṭaṃ, tathā aparikkamanāya. Vippakataṃ kuṭiṃ aññassa dadato ca, bhūmiṃ samaṃ katvā bhindantassa ca, leṇaguhātiṇakuṭipaṇṇacchadanagehesu aññataraṃ kārentassa, kuṭimpi aññassa vāsatthāya, vāsāgāraṃ ṭhapetvā uposathāgārādīsu aññataratthāya kārentassa ca ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Sīlavipatti, ullittādīnaṃ aññataratā, heṭṭhimapamāṇasambhavo, adesitavatthukatā, pamāṇātikkantatā, attuddesikatā, vāsāgāratā , lepaghaṭanāti imānettha cha vā satta vā aṅgāni. Chasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyañca, kiriyākiriyañca. Idañhi vatthuṃ desāpetvā pamāṇātikkantaṃ vā karoto kiriyato samuṭṭhāti, adesāpetvā karoto kiriyākiriyato samuṭṭhāti. Sesamettha sañcaritte vuttasadisamevāti.

At Āḷavī, concerning the monks of Āḷavī, this rule was laid down regarding the matter of building a hut with a designated sponsor, a rule specific to this case, requiring announcement. “I will have a hut built without a designated site or exceeding the standard measure”—from the moment of going to the forest for materials, there is a dukkaṭa for every effort made. “Now, with two lumps [of plaster], it will be completed”—with the giving of the first lump, there is a thullaccaya; with the second giving, when the plaster is applied, if it is indeed without a designated site or exceeds the standard measure, there is one saṅghādisesa and two dukkaṭas. If both faults are present, there are two saṅghādisesas and two dukkaṭas. However, if one smears it with clay after setting up the door frame or window, and the plaster does not adhere to what was set up, it remains safe for the time being. But when smearing again and the plaster adheres, there is a saṅghādisesa. If what is set up remains continuous with the plaster given on the first day, the saṅghādisesa applies from the first instance. There is merely a dukkaṭa for starting the work, and likewise for not inspecting the surroundings. There is no offense in giving an unfinished hut to another, in leveling the ground and breaking it up, in building a cave, a grass hut, or a leaf-roofed house, in building a hut for another’s residence, in building for purposes other than a residence—such as an uposatha hall—or for the deranged and similar cases. Moral failure, being one of the smeared or unsmeared states, meeting the minimum measure, being without a designated site, exceeding the standard measure, self-designation, being a residence, and plaster adhesion—these are the six or seven factors here. It has six origins: action and both action and non-action. For this matter, when one designates the site and builds beyond the standard measure, it arises from action; when one builds without designating, it arises from both action and non-action. The rest here is as stated in the section on wandering.

It was promulgated in Āḷavī concerning the monks of Āḷavī, regarding the incident of making a hut with consent, a non-general regulation, with authorization. From the beginning of going to the forest for materials, intending, “I will have a hut made exceeding the measure on a site not designated,” there is a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing) for all efforts. When giving the first lump of the two lumps thinking, “Now it will be completed with two lumps of clay,” there is a thullaccaya (grave offense). If, with the giving of the second, the plaster is set, and if it is indeed on an undesignated site or exceeds the measure, there is one saṅghādisesa (offense requiring a formal meeting of the Order) and two dukkaṭas. If both are violated, there are two saṅghādisesas and two dukkaṭas. However, if one applies the clay without setting the door frame or window, and the plaster does not set when that is placed, it protects him for that time. But if one applies it again, a saṅghādisesa occurs as soon as it sets. If that which is being placed remains continuously connected with the plaster applied on the first day, the saṅghādisesa is only for the first instance. Merely for the initial undertaking, there is a dukkaṭa, and likewise for not completing it. There is no offense for one who gives an unfinished hut to another, for one who levels the ground and breaks it, for one who builds a cave, a grass hut, or a leaf-roofed dwelling, for one who even builds a hut for another’s dwelling, for one who builds, aside from a dwelling place, for some other purpose like a uposatha hall, and for the insane and the like. Here, there are six or seven factors: transgression of morality, being one of those things such as being plastered, the possibility of the lower measurement, being on an undesignated site, exceeding the measure, being for one’s own use, being a dwelling place, and the setting of the plaster. It arises from six sources, and is both an action and a non-action. This matter arises from action for one who either has it designated and then makes it exceeding the measure, or arises from action and non-action for one who makes it without having it designated. The rest here is similar to what is said in the Sañcaritta (rule on go-betweens).

In Āḷavī, regarding the Āḷavaka bhikkhus, a rule was established concerning the construction of a hut by request, a non-common rule, with a penalty. From the time of going to the forest for requisites, in all efforts, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one thinks, “Now it will be completed with two portions,” at the first portion offering, it is a thullaccaya offense. At the second offering, when the plaster is applied, if it is without a declared site or exceeds the measure, it is one saṅghādisesa and two dukkaṭa offenses. If both are faulty, it is two saṅghādisesa and two dukkaṭa offenses. If, however, after fixing the door or window, one plasters with clay, and the plaster does not stick when fixed, it is still safe. But if one plasters again and it sticks, it is a saṅghādisesa. If it remains continuously from the first day’s plastering, it is a saṅghādisesa from the first. Merely starting is a dukkaṭa, and so is not inspecting. Giving a faulty hut to another, leveling the ground, breaking it, constructing a cave, grass hut, leaf hut, or any other type of dwelling for another, or constructing a hut for another’s residence, except for a residence hall, meeting hall, etc., or for the purpose of an Uposatha hall, etc., or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Moral failure, any of the plastering types, the lower measure, undeclared site, exceeding the measure, self-designation, residence hall, plaster sticking—these are six or seven factors here. Six origins, action, and non-action. Here, declaring the site and exceeding the measure arises from action; not declaring and doing arises from non-action. The rest here is similar to what is stated in the wandering.

7. Vihārakārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Building a Monastery

7. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Dwelling-Making

7. Explanation of the Residence Construction Training Rule

Sattame mahallakanti sasāmikabhāvena saññācitakuṭito mahantabhāvo etassa atthīti mahallako, yasmā vā vatthuṃ desāpetvā pamāṇātikkamenāpi kātuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā pamāṇamahantatāyapi mahallako, taṃ mahallakaṃ. Yasmā panassa taṃ pamāṇamahantattaṃ sasāmikattāva labbhati, tasmā tadatthadassanatthaṃ “mahallako nāma vihāro sasāmiko vuccatī”ti evamassa padabhājane (pārā. 367) vuttaṃ. Sesaṃ sabbaṃ kuṭikārasikkhāpade vuttasadisaṃ, sasāmikabhāvamattameva hi viseso.

In the seventh, mahallaka means “large,” signifying its greatness due to having an owner, as distinct from a hut with a designated sponsor; or because it is permissible to build it after designating the site even if it exceeds the standard measure, it is “large” due to its size, hence mahallaka. And because its largeness in measure is obtained only through having an owner, to indicate this meaning, it is stated in its word-by-word analysis (pārā. 367), “A mahallaka monastery is said to be one with an owner.” The rest is entirely similar to what was said in the training rule on building a hut; the only distinction is the fact of having an owner.

In the seventh, mahallaka means that it has the quality of being large compared to a hut made with consent, owing to its ownership; or, because it is permissible to build it even exceeding the measure after having the site designated, it is also “mahallaka” due to the greatness of the measure; that is a mahallaka. But since that greatness of its measure is obtained from its ownership, to show that meaning, it is said in its word-explanation (Pārā. 367), “A mahallaka dwelling is said to be with an owner.” All the rest is similar to what is said in the training rule on hut-making; indeed, only the aspect of ownership is the difference.

In the seventh, “mahallaka”nti means due to having an owner, a requested hut is considered large, hence “mahallaka”, or because it is permissible to exceed the measure after declaring the site, hence it is large due to the measure, thus “mahallaka”. Since its largeness by measure is obtained only by having an owner, therefore, to show this meaning, it is stated in the Pārājika (367), “A large residence is called one with an owner.” The rest is similar to the hut construction training rule, the only difference being the presence of an owner.

Kosambiyaṃ channattheraṃ ārabbha cetiyarukkhaṃ chedāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattabhāvo, akiriyamattato samuṭṭhānabhāvo, ekasaṅghādisesatā ca ettha viseso.

At Kosambī, concerning the elder Channa, this was laid down regarding the matter of having a cetiya tree cut down, with the distinction of arising from non-action, and constituting a single saṅghādisesa.

Here, the difference is that it was promulgated in Kosambī concerning the venerable Channa, regarding the incident of having a shrine tree cut down, that it arises from mere non-action, and that it is a single saṅghādisesa.

In Kosambī, regarding the elder Channa, a rule was established concerning the felling of a shrine tree, arising from non-action, with one saṅghādisesa, and here is the difference.

8. Duṭṭhadosasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on Corrupt Ill-Will

8. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Corrupted with Malice

8. Explanation of the False Accusation Training Rule

Aṭṭhame duṭṭho dosoti dūsito ceva dūsako ca. Uppanne hi dose puggalo tena dosena dūsito hoti, pakatibhāvaṃ jahāpito, tasmā “duṭṭho”ti vuccati. Parañca dūseti vināseti, tasmā “doso”ti vuccati. Iti “duṭṭho doso”ti ekassevetaṃ puggalassa ākāranānattena nidassanaṃ. Appatītoti nappatīto, pītisukhādīhi vivajjito, na abhisaṭoti attho. Amūlakenāti yaṃ codakena cuditakamhi puggale adiṭṭhaṃ assutaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ, idaṃ etesaṃ dassanasavanaparisaṅkāsaṅkhātānaṃ mūlānaṃ abhāvato amūlakaṃ nāma. Taṃ pana so āpanno vā hotu, anāpanno vā, etaṃ idha appamāṇaṃ. Ettha ca adiṭṭhaṃ nāma attano pasādacakkhunā vā dibbacakkhunā vā adiṭṭhaṃ, assutaṃ nāma tatheva kenaci vuccamānaṃ na sutaṃ, aparisaṅkitaṃ nāma attano vā parassa vā diṭṭhasutamutavasena cetasā aparisaṅkitaṃ, iti evarūpena amūlakena. Pārājikenāti bhikkhuno anurūpesu ekūnavīsatiyā aññatarena, padabhājane (pārā. 386) pana pārājikuddese āgatāneva gahetvā “catunnaṃ aññatarenā”ti vuttaṃ. Anuddhaṃseyyāti dhaṃseyya viddhaṃseyya padhaṃseyya abhibhaveyya. Taṃ pana anuddhaṃsanaṃ yasmā attanā codentopi parena codāpentopi karoti, tasmāssa padabhājane “codeti vā codāpeti vā”ti vuttaṃ. Tattha vatthusandassanā āpattisandassanā saṃvāsappaṭikkhepo sāmīcippaṭikkhepoti saṅkhepato catasso codanā. Tāsu vatthusandassanā nāma “tvaṃ methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevī”tiādinā nayena pavattā. Āpattisandassanā nāma “tvaṃ methunadhammāpattiṃ āpanno”tiādinā nayena pavattā. Saṃvāsappaṭikkhepo nāma “natthi tayā saddhiṃ uposatho vā pavāraṇā vā saṅghakammaṃ vā”ti evaṃ pavatto. Ettāvatā pana sīsaṃ na eti, “assamaṇosī”tiādīhi vacanehi saddhiṃ ghaṭiteyeva sīsaṃ eti. Sāmīcippaṭikkhepo nāma abhivādanapaccuṭṭhānaañjalikammasāmīcikammabījanikammādīnaṃ akaraṇaṃ, taṃ paṭipātiyā vandanādīni karoto ekassa akatvā sesānaṃ karaṇakāle veditabbaṃ. Ettāvatā ca codanā nāma hoti, āpatti pana sīsaṃ na eti. “Kasmā mama vandanādīni na karosī”ti pucchite pana “assamaṇosī”tiādivacanehi saddhiṃ ghaṭiteyeva sīsaṃ eti, tasmā yo bhikkhu bhikkhuṃ samīpe ṭhatvā “tvaṃ methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevī”ti vā “assamaṇosī”ti vā ādīhi vacanehi hatthamuddāya eva vā etamatthaṃ dīpento sayaṃ vā codeti, gahaṭṭhapabbajitesu vā aññatarena codāpeti, ayaṃ anuddhaṃseti nāma. Appeva nāma naṃ imamhā brahmacariyā cāveyyanti api eva nāma naṃ puggalaṃ imamhā seṭṭhacariyā apaneyyaṃ. “Sādhu vatassa sacāhaṃ imaṃ puggalaṃ imamhā brahmacariyā cāveyya”nti iminā adhippāyena anuddhaṃseyyāti vuttaṃ hoti. Etena ekaṃ cāvanādhippāyaṃ gahetvā avasesā akkosādhippāyo kammādhippāyo vuṭṭhānādhippāyo uposathaṭṭhapanādhippāyo pavāraṇaṭṭhapanādhippāyo anuvijjanādhippāyo dhammakathādhippāyoti satta adhippāyā paṭikkhittā honti. Tato aparena samayenāti yasmiṃ samaye anuddhaṃsito hoti, tato aññasmiṃ samaye. Samanuggāhīyamāno vāti anuvijjakena kiṃ te diṭṭhantiādinā nayena anuvijjiyamāno upaparikkhiyamāno. Asamanuggāhīyamāno vāti diṭṭhādīsu kenaci vatthunāvā anuvijjakādīsu yena kenaci puggalena vā avuccamāno. Imesaṃ pana padānaṃ parato “bhikkhu ca dosaṃ patiṭṭhātī”ti iminā sambandho. Idañhi vuttaṃ hoti – evaṃ samanuggāhīyamāno vā asamanuggāhīyamāno vā bhikkhu ca dosaṃ patiṭṭhāti paṭicca tiṭṭhati paṭijānāti, saṅghādisesoti. Idañca amūlakabhāvassa pākaṭakāladassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Āpattiṃ pana anuddhaṃsitakkhaṇeyeva āpajjati. Amūlakañceva taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ hotīti ettha pana diṭṭhamūlādīnaṃ abhāvena amūlakaṃ, samathehi adhikaraṇīyabhāvena adhikaraṇaṃ. Yañhi adhikicca ārabbha paṭicca sandhāya samathā pavattanti, taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ. Idha pana pārājikasaṅkhātaṃ āpattādhikaraṇameva adhippetaṃ. Yadi hi taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ diṭṭhādīhi mūlehi amūlakañceva hoti, ayaṃ codetuṃ āgato bhikkhu ca dosaṃ patiṭṭhāti paṭicca tiṭṭhati, “tucchakaṃ mayā bhaṇita”ntiādīni (pārā. 386) vadanto paṭijānāti, tassa bhikkhuno anuddhaṃsitakkhaṇeyeva saṅghādisesoti, ayaṃ sikkhāpadassa padānukkamena attho.

In the eighth, duṭṭho doso means both corrupted and corrupting. When ill-will arises, a person is corrupted by that ill-will, having abandoned their natural state, and thus is called “corrupted” (duṭṭho). It also corrupts and destroys another, hence it is called “ill-will” (doso). Thus, “corrupt ill-will” (duṭṭho doso) is a designation for a single person’s state shown through different aspects. Appatīto means “dissatisfied,” devoid of joy and happiness, not content, that is the meaning. Amūlakenā means “groundless,” referring to something unseen, unheard, or unsuspected by the accuser regarding the accused person, so called due to the absence of the roots of seeing, hearing, or suspecting. Whether that person has committed it or not is irrelevant here. And here, adiṭṭhaṃ means not seen with one’s own clear eye or divine eye; assutaṃ means not heard as spoken by anyone; aparisaṅkitaṃ means not suspected by oneself or another through what was seen, heard, or perceived mentally—thus, groundless in this way. Pārājikenā refers to one of the nineteen offenses appropriate for a monk, though in the word-by-word analysis (pārā. 386), it is specified as “any one of the four” mentioned in the pārājika recitation. Anuddhaṃseyyā means he would ruin, destroy, overcome, or overpower. This ruining is done either by accusing oneself or having another accuse, hence in the word-by-word analysis it is said, “he accuses or causes to accuse.” Therein, briefly, there are four types of accusation: showing the basis, showing the offense, denying communal living, and denying respectful duties. Among these, vatthusandassanā is expressed as, “You engaged in sexual intercourse,” and so forth. Āpattisandassanā is expressed as, “You have fallen into the offense of sexual intercourse,” and so forth. Saṃvāsappaṭikkhepo is expressed as, “There is no uposatha, pavāraṇā, or saṅgha act with you,” and so forth. But this alone does not complete the matter; it does so only when combined with statements like “You are not a monk.” Sāmīcippaṭikkhepo is the non-performance of duties such as salutation, standing up, raising hands in respect, or fanning, understood when one does not perform these for a single person while doing so for others in turn. This much constitutes an accusation, but the offense does not yet complete. When asked, “Why do you not perform salutation and so forth for me?” and it is combined with statements like “You are not a monk,” then it completes. Therefore, a monk who, standing nearby, accuses another monk with words like “You engaged in sexual intercourse” or “You are not a monk,” or indicates this meaning with a hand gesture, either accuses himself or causes another—lay or ordained—to accuse, this is called “he ruins.” Appeva nāma naṃ imamhā brahmacariyā cāveyya means “Would that I might remove this person from this holy life.” It is said, “Well indeed if I were to remove this person from this holy life,” with this intention he would ruin. This implies one intention of removal, excluding seven other intentions: insult, formal acts, expulsion, stopping the uposatha, stopping the pavāraṇā, investigation, and teaching the Dhamma. Tato aparena samayenā means at a time subsequent to when he was ruined. Samanuggāhīyamāno vā means being examined or investigated by an investigator with questions like “What did you see?” and so forth. Asamanuggāhīyamāno vā means not being questioned by anyone regarding the basis or by any person like an investigator. These phrases connect with “the monk acknowledges the ill-will” later on. This means: whether examined or not, if the monk acknowledges the ill-will, stands by it, or admits it, it is a saṅghādisesa. This is stated to show the time when the groundlessness becomes evident. However, he incurs the offense at the very moment of ruining. Amūlakañceva taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ hotī means that matter is groundless due to the absence of roots like seeing, and it is a legal matter to be settled by arbitration. What is undertaken, relied upon, or intended and settled by arbitration is a legal matter. Here, only an offense-related legal matter called pārājika is intended. If that matter is indeed groundless due to the absence of roots like seeing, and the monk who came to accuse acknowledges the ill-will, stands by it, or admits it with words like “What I said was empty” (pārā. 386), then for that monk, at the very moment of ruining, it is a saṅghādisesa. This is the meaning of the training rule in the order of its phrases.

In the eighth, duṭṭho doso means both corrupted and corrupting. For when anger arises, the person is corrupted by that anger, made to abandon their natural state; therefore, it is called “duṭṭho” (corrupted). And it corrupts and destroys another; therefore, it is called “doso” (malice). Thus, “duṭṭho doso” is a designation of this same person due to the variety of conditions. Appatīto means not pleased, devoid of joy and happiness, meaning not satisfied. Amūlakena means that which is unseen, unheard, and unsuspected in the person accused by the accuser; this is called amūlaka (baseless) due to the absence of those roots known as seeing, hearing, and suspecting. But whether he has committed that offense or not is irrelevant here. And here, adiṭṭhaṃ (unseen) means unseen by one’s own eye of faith or by the divine eye; assutaṃ (unheard) means not heard being spoken by anyone in that way; aparisaṅkitaṃ (unsuspected) means unsuspected by the mind, either by oneself or another, through the basis of seeing, hearing, or touching; thus, with such a baseless thing. Pārājikena means by one of the nineteen offenses appropriate for a monk; but in the word-explanation (Pārā. 386), taking only those that have come in the recitation of the pārājika, it is said, “by one of the four.” Anuddhaṃseyyā means he would accuse, he would destroy, he would overwhelm, he would overpower. But since that accusation is done either by accusing by oneself or by having others accuse, in its word-explanation, it is said, “he accuses or has others accuse.” There, in brief, there are four accusations: pointing out the object, pointing out the offense, forbidding association, and forbidding courtesies. Among them, vatthusandassanā (pointing out the object) is that which proceeds with the method, “You engaged in sexual intercourse,” and so on. Āpattisandassanā (pointing out the offense) is that which proceeds with the method, “You have committed the offense of sexual intercourse,” and so on. Saṃvāsappaṭikkhepo (forbidding association) proceeds thus: “There is no uposatha, pavāraṇā, or saṅghakamma with you.” But with this much, it does not reach the head; it reaches the head only when combined with words like, “You are not a recluse,” and so on. Sāmīcippaṭikkhepo (forbidding courtesies) means not performing salutations, rising, respectful gestures, acts of courtesy, acts of seeding, and so on; it should be understood when, for one who is performing salutations and so on in order, one is not done while doing it for the rest. And with this much, it is called an accusation, but the offense does not reach the head. However, when asked, “Why do you not perform salutations and so on for me?”, it reaches the head only when combined with words like, “You are not a recluse,” and so on. Therefore, a monk who, standing near a monk, either himself accuses, expressing this meaning by gesture or with words like, “You engaged in sexual intercourse,” or “You are not a recluse,” and so on, or has others accuse, by one of the householders or renunciants, this one is called an accuser. Appeva nāma naṃ imamhā brahmacariyā cāveyya means “perhaps I might remove this person from this excellent conduct.” It is said, “anuddhaṃseyyā,” with this intention: “It would be good indeed if I could remove this person from this celibate life.” By this, taking one intention of removal, the remaining seven intentions are rejected: the intention to revile, the intention to perform an act, the intention to rise, the intention to stop the uposatha, the intention to stop the pavāraṇā, the intention to investigate, and the intention to give a Dhamma talk. Tato aparena samayenā means at another time than the time when he is accused. Samanuggāhīyamāno vā means being investigated, being examined by the investigator with the method, “What did you see?” and so on. Asamanuggāhīyamāno vā means not being spoken to by anyone regarding seeing and so on, or by any person regarding investigation and so on. But these words are connected with the following: “bhikkhu ca dosaṃ patiṭṭhātī” (and the monk stands by his anger). This is what is said: Thus, whether being investigated or not being investigated, and the monk stands by his anger, stands relying on it, admits it, there is a saṅghādisesa. And this is said to show the time when the baselessness becomes evident. But he commits the offense at the very moment of the accusation. Amūlakañceva taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ hotī here, it is baseless due to the absence of a basis of seeing and so on, and it is a case due to being something to be settled by legal processes. For that which, having arisen concerning, relying on, depending on, legal processes proceed, that is a case. But here, only the case of offense known as pārājika is intended. For if that case is baseless due to the absence of bases of seeing and so on, and this monk who has come to accuse stands by his anger, stands relying on it, saying, “I spoke falsely,” and so on (Pārā. 386), admits it, for that monk, at the very moment of accusation, there is a saṅghādisesa; this is the meaning of the training rule according to the order of the words.

In the eighth, “duṭṭho doso”ti means both defiled and defiling. When a fault arises, a person is defiled by that fault, abandoning their natural state, hence called “duṭṭho”. And they defile and destroy others, hence called “doso”. Thus, “duṭṭho doso” is a description of one person due to the variety of reasons. “Appatīto”ti means not pleased, devoid of joy and happiness, not delighted, meaning not satisfied. “Amūlakenā”ti means what is not seen, heard, or suspected by the accuser regarding the accused person, hence called “amūlaka”. Whether the accused is guilty or not, this is unlimited here. “Adiṭṭha” means not seen with one’s own eye of faith or divine eye. “Assuta” means not heard even when spoken by someone. “Aparisaṅkita” means not suspected by oneself or others based on what is seen, heard, or inferred. Thus, with such a baseless accusation. “Pārājikenā”ti means any one of the nineteen offenses suitable for a bhikkhu. In the Pārājika section (386), it is stated, “any one of the four.” “Anuddhaṃseyyā”ti means to accuse, to blame, to overpower. This accusation is done either by oneself accusing or by having another accuse, hence in the Pārājika it is stated, “accuses or has accused.” There are briefly four types of accusation: showing the matter, showing the offense, breaking communion, and breaking courtesy. Among these, “vatthusandassanā” means saying, “You have engaged in sexual intercourse,” etc. “Āpattisandassanā” means saying, “You have committed an offense of sexual intercourse,” etc. “Saṃvāsappaṭikkhepo” means saying, “There is no Uposatha, Pavāraṇā, or Sangha act with you,” etc. Up to this point, it does not reach the head, but when combined with words like, “You are not a monk,” it reaches the head. “Sāmīcippaṭikkhepo” means not doing respectful acts such as bowing, rising, saluting, respectful acts, offering seats, etc., which should be understood as not doing for one while doing for others. Up to this point, it is called accusation, but it does not reach an offense. When asked, “Why do you not bow to me?” and combined with words like, “You are not a monk,” it reaches the head. Therefore, a bhikkhu who stands near another bhikkhu and says, “You have engaged in sexual intercourse,” or “You are not a monk,” etc., or explains the matter with gestures, or accuses himself, or has a layperson or renunciant accuse, this is called “anuddhaṃseti”. “Appeva nāma naṃ imamhā brahmacariyā cāveyya”nti means perhaps I may remove this person from this excellent practice. “It would be good if I could remove this person from this monastic life,” thus with this intention, it is said to accuse. Here, one intention of expulsion is taken, and the remaining intentions of abuse, action, removal, Uposatha suspension, Pavāraṇā suspension, investigation, and Dhamma teaching are rejected. “Tato aparena samayenā”ti means at a time after being accused. “Samanuggāhīyamāno vā”ti means being investigated by an investigator asking, “What have you seen?” etc. “Asamanuggāhīyamāno vā”ti means not being investigated by any person regarding what is seen, etc., or not being spoken to by any investigator, etc. The connection of these words is with the following, “and the bhikkhu persists in the fault.” This means that whether being investigated or not, the bhikkhu persists in the fault, acknowledges it, and thus commits a saṅghādisesa. This is stated to show the time when the baselessness becomes evident. The offense, however, is committed at the moment of accusation. “Amūlakañceva taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ hotī”ti means here, due to the absence of seen, etc., bases, it is baseless, and due to being a matter for settlement, it is a dispute. What is settled by the settlements is called a dispute. Here, it refers to an offense classified as a pārājika. If the dispute is baseless due to the absence of seen, etc., bases, and the accusing bhikkhu persists in the fault, acknowledges it, saying, “I spoke falsely,” etc., then at the moment of accusation, it is a saṅghādisesa for that bhikkhu. This is the meaning of the rule in order.

Rājagahe mettiyabhūmajake bhikkhū ārabbha amūlakena pārājikena anuddhaṃsanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, katūpasampadaṃ suddhaṃ vā asuddhaṃ vā puggalaṃ yena pārājikena codeti, taṃ “ayaṃ anajjhāpanno”ti ñatvā cāvanādhippāyena “karotu me āyasmā okāsaṃ, ahaṃ taṃ vattukāmo”ti evaṃ okāsaṃ akāretvā codentassa sace so taṅkhaṇeyeva jānāti “maṃ codetī”ti, vācāya vācāya saṅghādiseso ceva dukkaṭañca. Okāsaṃ kāretvā codentassa saṅghādisesoyeva. Hatthamuddāya sammukhā codentassāpi eseva nayo. Parammukhā codentassa pana sīsaṃ na eti . Attanā samīpe ṭhatvā aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ āṇāpeti , so tassa vacanena taṃ codeti, codāpakasseva vuttanayena āpattiyo. Atha sopi “mayā diṭṭhaṃ sutaṃ atthī”ti codeti, dvinnampi jānānaṃ tatheva āpattiyo. Akkosādhippāyena pana okāsaṃ akāretvā vadantassa vuttanayeneva pācittiyañceva dukkaṭañca. Okāsaṃ kāretvā vadantassa pācittiyameva. Kammādhippāyena asammukhā sattavidhampi kammaṃ karontassa dukkaṭameva. Vuṭṭhānādhippāyena “tvaṃ itthannāmaṃ āpattiṃ āpanno, taṃ paṭikarohī”ti vadantassa, uposathaṃ vā pavāraṇaṃ vā ṭhapentassa ca okāsakammaṃ natthi, ṭhapanakkhettaṃ pana jānitabbaṃ, anuvijjakassāpi osaṭe vatthusmiṃ “atthetaṃ tavā”ti anuvijjanādhippāyena vadantassa okāsakammaṃ natthi, dhammakathikassāpi “yo idañca idañca karoti, ayaṃ assamaṇo”tiādinā nayena anodisakaṃ dhammaṃ kathentassa okāsakammaṃ natthi. Sace pana odissa niyametvā “asuko ca asuko ca assamaṇo anupāsako”ti katheti, āsanato oruyha āpattiṃ desetvā gantabbaṃ. Ummattakādīnañca anāpatti, sīlavipatti, yaṃ codeti vā codāpeti vā, tassa “upasampanno”ti saṅkhyupagamanaṃ, tasmiṃ suddhasaññitā, yena pārājikena codeti, tassa diṭṭhādivasena amūlakatā, cāvanādhippāyena sammukhācodanā, tassa taṅkhaṇavijānananti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni. Vedanā panettha dukkhāyevāti.

At Rājagaha, concerning the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka, this was laid down regarding the matter of ruining with a groundless pārājika, a general rule, requiring announcement. When accusing a person—whether ordained, pure, or impure—with a pārājika, knowing “This one has not committed it,” with the intention of removal, saying, “Venerable, grant me the opportunity, I wish to speak to you,” without seeking permission and accusing, if that person immediately knows “He is accusing me,” there is a saṅghādisesa and a dukkaṭa for each word spoken. If accusing after seeking permission, there is only a saṅghādisesa. The same applies to accusing with a hand gesture in the presence. But accusing in absence does not complete the matter. If one stands nearby and instructs another monk, who then accuses based on that instruction, the instigator incurs the offenses as described. If that one also accuses, saying, “I saw or heard it,” and both know it, the offenses are the same. With the intention of insult, speaking without seeking permission incurs a pācittiya and a dukkaṭa as described; speaking after seeking permission incurs only a pācittiya. With the intention of a formal act, performing any of the seven acts not in the presence incurs only a dukkaṭa. With the intention of expulsion, saying, “You have fallen into such-and-such an offense, make amends for it,” or stopping the uposatha or pavāraṇā, there is no need for permission, but the scope of stopping must be understood. For an investigator saying with the intention of investigation, “This pertains to you,” regarding a settled matter, there is no need for permission. For a Dhamma teacher saying generally, “Whoever does this or that is not a monk,” without specifying, there is no need for permission. But if specifying, saying, “So-and-so is not a monk or lay follower,” one must confess the offense and leave the seat. There is no offense for the deranged and similar cases, moral failure, assuming the accused is “ordained,” considering them pure, the groundlessness of the pārājika accusation based on seeing and so forth, accusing in the presence with the intention of removal, and the accused knowing it at that moment—these are the five factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of taking what is not given. The feeling here is solely painful.

It was promulgated in Rājagaha concerning the Mettiyabhūmajaka monks, regarding the incident of accusation with a baseless pārājika, a general regulation, with authorization. If, knowing that the fully ordained person whom he accuses or has accused with a pārājika has not committed that offense, and with the intention of removing him, without making an opportunity, saying, “May the venerable one grant me an opportunity, I wish to speak to you,” he accuses, and if that one knows at that very moment, “He is accusing me,” for each word, there is a saṅghādisesa and a dukkaṭa. For one who accuses after making an opportunity, there is only a saṅghādisesa. The same method applies to one who accuses face-to-face with a gesture. But for one who accuses behind his back, it does not reach the head. If he, standing nearby, commands another monk, and he, by his word, accuses that one, the offenses for the one who commands are as stated in the method. But if he also accuses, saying, “I have seen and heard,” the offenses for both, knowing, are the same. However, for one who speaks with the intention to revile, without making an opportunity, there is, as stated in the method, a pācittiya (offense requiring expiation) and a dukkaṭa. For one who speaks after making an opportunity, there is only a pācittiya. For one who performs even the sevenfold act behind his back with the intention of performing an act, there is only a dukkaṭa. For one who says, with the intention of rising, “You have committed such and such an offense, rectify it,” or for one who stops the uposatha or pavāraṇā, there is no act of making an opportunity; but the field of stopping should be known. Even for the investigator, in the matter of falling, saying, “Is this yours?” with the intention of investigating, there is no act of making an opportunity. Even for the Dhamma speaker, saying in the method, “Whoever does this and this, this one is not a recluse,” and so on, speaking the Dhamma not specifically, there is no act of making an opportunity. But if, specifying and determining, he says, “So-and-so and so-and-so are not recluses, not followers,” having descended from the seat and confessed the offense, one should go. There is no offense for the insane and the like. Here, there are five factors: transgression of morality, that which he accuses or has accused, approaching the number “fully ordained,” the thought of purity in that one, the baselessness of that pārājika with which he accuses, due to seeing and so on, and face-to-face accusation with the intention of removing, and his knowing at that moment. The arising and so on are similar to that of taking what is not given. Here, the feeling is only painful.

In Rājagaha, regarding the bhikkhus Mettiya and Bhūmajaka, a rule was established concerning baseless accusation of a pārājika, a common rule, with a penalty. Accusing a person, whether pure or impure, of a pārājika offense, knowing, “This person is not guilty,” with the intention of expulsion, saying, “Venerable sir, please give me the opportunity, I wish to speak to you,” thus not making an opportunity, if at that moment the accused knows, “He is accusing me,” it is a saṅghādisesa and a dukkaṭa for each statement. Making an opportunity and accusing is only a saṅghādisesa. Accusing face to face with gestures is the same. Accusing indirectly does not reach the head. Standing near and ordering another bhikkhu, who accuses on his command, the accuser incurs the offenses as stated. If he also says, “I have seen, heard, there is,” both knowing, the offenses are the same. With the intention of abuse, not making an opportunity and speaking is a pācittiya and a dukkaṭa. Making an opportunity and speaking is only a pācittiya. With the intention of action, performing any of the seven types of action indirectly is only a dukkaṭa. With the intention of removal, saying, “You have committed such and such an offense, make amends,” or suspending Uposatha or Pavāraṇā, there is no opportunity-making, but the suspension field should be known. For an investigator, when the matter is withdrawn, saying, “This is yours,” with the intention of investigation, there is no opportunity-making. For a Dhamma speaker, speaking Dhamma without specifying, saying, “Whoever does this and that is not a monk,” etc., there is no opportunity-making. If, however, specifying, “Such and such are not monks, not lay followers,” etc., one should rise from the seat, confess the offense, and leave. For the insane, etc., there is no offense. Moral failure, what is accused or has accused, considering the accused as ordained, perceiving them as pure, the baselessness of the pārājika accusation based on seen, etc., the intention of expulsion, face-to-face accusation, knowing at that moment—these are the five factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing. The feeling here is only painful.

9. Aññabhāgiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Training Rule on a Different Matter

9. The Explanation of the Training Rule on a Different Section

9. Explanation of the Other Category Training Rule

Navame aññabhāgiyassātiādīsu aññabhāgassa idaṃ, aññabhāgo vā assa atthīti aññabhāgiyaṃ. Adhikaraṇanti ādhāro veditabbo, vatthu adhiṭṭhānanti vuttaṃ hoti. Yo hi so aṭṭhuppattiyaṃ “dabbo mallaputto nāmā”ti chagalako vutto. So yvāyaṃ āyasmato dabbassa mallaputtassa bhāgo koṭṭhāso pakkho manussajāti ceva bhikkhubhāvo ca, tato aññassa bhāgassa koṭṭhāsassa pakkhassa hoti tiracchānajātiyā ceva chagalakabhāvassa ca, so vā aññabhāgo assa atthi, tasmā aññabhāgiyasaṅkhyaṃ labhati. Yasmā ca tesaṃ “imaṃ mayaṃ dabbaṃ mallaputtaṃ nāma karomā”ti vadantānaṃ tassa nāmakaraṇasaññāya ādhāro vatthu adhiṭṭhānaṃ, tasmā “adhikaraṇa”nti veditabbo. Tañhi sandhāya “saccaṃ kira tumhe, bhikkhave, dabbaṃ mallaputtaṃ aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassā”tiādi (pārā. 391) vuttaṃ. Na vivādādhikaraṇādīsu aññataraṃ, kasmā? Asambhavato. Na hi mettiyabhūmajakā catunnaṃ adhikaraṇānaṃ kassaci aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassa kiñcidesaṃ lesamattaṃ uppādiyiṃsu, na ca catunnaṃ adhikaraṇānaṃ leso nāma atthi. Jātilesādayo hi puggalānaṃyeva lesā vuttā, na vivādādhikaraṇādīnaṃ. Tañca “dabbo mallaputto”ti nāmaṃ tassa aññabhāgiyādhikaraṇabhāve ṭhitassa chagalakassa koci deso hoti theraṃ pārājikena dhammena anuddhaṃsetuṃ lesamatto, ettha ca dissati apadissati “assa aya”nti voharīyatīti deso, jātiādīsu aññatarakoṭṭhāsassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Aññampi vatthuṃ lissati silissati vohāramatteneva īsakaṃ allīyatīti leso, jātiādīnaṃyeva aññatarakoṭṭhāsassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Padabhājane (pārā. 393) pana yassa aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassa kiñcidesaṃ lesamattaṃ upādāya pārājikena dhammena anuddhaṃseyya, taṃ yasmā aṭṭhuppattivaseneva āvibhūtaṃ, tasmā taṃ avibhajitvā yāni “adhikaraṇa”nti vacanasāmaññato atthuddhāravasena pavattāni cattāri adhikaraṇāni, tesaṃ aññabhāgiyatā ca tabbhāgiyatā ca yasmā apākaṭā, jānitabbā ca vinayadharehi, tasmā tañca avasāne āpattaññabhāgiyena codanañca āvikātuṃ “aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassāti āpattaññabhāgiyaṃ vā hoti adhikaraṇaññabhāgiyaṃ vā”tiādi vuttaṃ, sesā vinicchayakathā aṭṭhame vuttasadisāyeva. Ayaṃ pana viseso – idaṃ aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassa kiñcidesaṃ lesamattaṃ upādāya pārājikena dhammena anuddhaṃsanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, idha ca āpattaññabhāgiyacodanāya tathāsaññinopi anāpatti. Aṅgesu ca aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassa kiñcidesaṃ lesamattaṃ upādiyanatā adhikāti.

In the ninth, in phrases like aññabhāgiyassā, it means “pertaining to a different matter” or “having a different matter.” Adhikaraṇa should be understood as a basis, meaning the ground or foundation. For in the origin story, one called Chagalaka said, “Dabba Mallaputta by name.” That which is the share, portion, or side of the Venerable Dabba Mallaputta—namely, human birth and monkhood—is distinct from another share, portion, or side, namely animal birth and being a goat; or he has a different matter, hence it is termed aññabhāgiya. Since, for those saying, “We will make this Dabba Mallaputta so-called,” the basis, ground, or foundation is the perception of naming him, it should be understood as adhikaraṇa. Thus, it is said, “Is it true, monks, that you [accused] Dabba Mallaputta of a different matter?” (pārā. 391) and so forth. It is not one of the legal matters like dispute, for why? Because it is impossible. The monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka did not give rise to even a trace of a different matter among the four legal matters, nor is there a trace of the four legal matters. For ascetics with matted hair and others are said to be traces of persons, not of dispute and similar legal matters. That name “Dabba Mallaputta” is a part of that goat standing as a different matter, a mere trace to ruin the elder with a pārājika offense; here it is seen or not seen, used as “this is his” in speech, hence deso, a term for a portion of birth and so forth. Also, it slightly clings to or adheres to another basis through mere speech, hence leso, a term for a portion of birth and so forth. In the word-by-word analysis (pārā. 393), however, regarding one who, based on a trace of a different matter, would ruin with a pārājika offense—since this became evident only through the origin story—it is not analyzed separately. The four legal matters proceeding from the general term “adhikaraṇa” by way of meaning-extraction, their being a different matter or pertaining to it, are not evident and must be understood by Vinaya experts. Thus, to clarify both that and the accusation of a different offense at the end, it is said, “Of a different matter means either a different offense or a different legal matter,” and so forth; the remaining discussion is as stated in the eighth. The distinction here is that this was laid down regarding ruining with a pārājika offense based on a trace of a different matter, and there is no offense even for one accusing of a different offense with such a perception. Among the factors, taking up a trace of a different matter is primary.

In the ninth, aññabhāgiyassātiādīsu, belonging to another part, or another part belongs to it, is aññabhāgiyaṃ. Adhikaraṇanti should be understood as basis, meaning object, foundation. For he who, in the origin story, is said to be “Dabba Mallaputta by name,” a jackal. That which is the part, portion, faction, human birth, and monkhood of the venerable Dabba Mallaputta, that which belongs to another part, portion, faction, of the animal birth and jackalhood, or that other part belongs to him, therefore he receives the designation aññabhāgiya. And since, for those saying, “We will make this one Dabba Mallaputta by name,” the basis, object, foundation of the naming convention for him, therefore it should be understood as “adhikaraṇa.” Concerning that, it is said, “Is it true, monks, that you accused Dabba Mallaputta of a part of a case belonging to another section?” and so on (Pārā. 391). It is not one of the dispute cases and so on. Why? Due to impossibility. For the Mettiyabhūmajakas did not produce even a trace, a small part of a case belonging to another section, of any of the four cases, and there is no trace of the four cases. Indeed, traces of birth and so on are said to be traces of persons, not of dispute cases and so on. And that name “Dabba Mallaputta” is a certain part of that jackal, standing in the state of a case belonging to another section, a trace to accuse the elder with a pārājika offense; and here, it is seen, it is pointed out, it is spoken of as “this belongs to him,” thus deso, this is a term for a portion of birth and so on. Another object is touched, adhered to, merely by convention, slightly attached, thus leso, this is a term for a portion of birth and so on. But in the word-explanation (Pārā. 393), that which, taking up a trace, a small part of a case belonging to another section, he would accuse with a pārājika offense, since that is evident from the origin story, therefore, not dividing that, the four cases that proceed by way of extracting the meaning from the generality of the word “case,” since their belonging to another section and their belonging to that section are not evident, and should be known by the upholders of the discipline, therefore, to make clear that and, at the end, the accusation with a part belonging to the offense, it is said, “aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassāti āpattaññabhāgiyaṃ vā hoti adhikaraṇaññabhāgiyaṃ vā” and so on; the remaining discussion of determination is similar to what is said in the eighth. But this is the difference: this was promulgated regarding the incident of accusation with a pārājika offense, taking up a trace, a small part of a case belonging to another section; and here, there is no offense even for one who perceives thus in the accusation with a part belonging to the offense. And among the factors, the taking up of a trace, a small part of a case belonging to another section, is additional.

In the ninth section, aññabhāgiyassāti, etc., means that this belongs to another category, or it has a portion of another category. Adhikaraṇa should be understood as the basis or the foundation, meaning the subject matter. For instance, in the case of the incident where it is said, “a clever young man named Dabba the Mallian,” the portion or share of the Venerable Dabba the Mallian, which includes his human birth and monkhood, is one part, while the other part belongs to another category, such as animal birth and the state of being a goat. Therefore, it is said to be of another category. Since those who said, “We shall call this Dabba the Mallian,” had the perception of naming him, the basis or foundation is the subject matter. Hence, it is to be understood as adhikaraṇa. This is why it is said, “Is it true, monks, that you, monks, have made Dabba the Mallian the subject of an adhikaraṇa of another category?” (Pārā. 391). It is not one of the four types of adhikaraṇas like disputes, etc. Why? Because it is impossible. For Mettiyā and Bhūmajakā did not cause even the slightest trace of any of the four adhikaraṇas to arise in anyone’s adhikaraṇa of another category, nor is there any trace of the four adhikaraṇas. Traces such as birth traces, etc., are said to apply only to individuals, not to adhikaraṇas like disputes, etc. And the name “Dabba the Mallian” refers to the goat, which is established as the subject of an adhikaraṇa of another category. Here, a trace is seen or not seen, and it is called a deso (portion), which is a term for a part of birth, etc. Another subject slightly adheres or clings, and it is called a leso (trace), which is a term for a part of birth, etc. In the analysis of words (Pārā. 393), if someone, based on even a slight trace of an adhikaraṇa of another category, accuses another of a pārājika offense, since this is clearly evident from the incident itself, without distinguishing it, the four adhikaraṇas, which are commonly referred to as adhikaraṇa, are understood according to their meaning. The fact that they are of another category or of the same category is not evident, and this should be known by those who are well-versed in the Vinaya. Therefore, at the end, it is said, “Is it an offense of another category or an adhikaraṇa of another category?” etc. The rest of the discussion is similar to what was said in the eighth section. The difference here is that this rule is laid down regarding the act of accusing someone of a pārājika offense based on a slight trace of an adhikaraṇa of another category, and here, even if one is under the impression that it is an offense of another category, there is no offense. And in the factors, the act of taking up even a slight trace of an adhikaraṇa of another category is predominant.

10. Saṅghabhedasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Schism in the Saṅgha

10. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Schism in the Saṅgha

10. Explanation of the Saṅghabheda Training Rule

Dasame samaggassa saṅghassāti sahitassa bhikkhusaṅghassa, cittena ca sarīrena ca aviyuttassāti attho. Tenevassa padabhājane (pārā. 412) “samaggo nāma saṅgho samānasaṃvāsako samānasīmāyaṃ ṭhito”ti vuttaṃ. Samānasaṃvāsako hi samacittatāya cittena aviyutto hoti, samānasīmāyaṃ ṭhito kāyasāmaggidānato sarīrena aviyutto. Bhedāya parakkameyyāti “kathaṃ nāmāyaṃ bhijjeyyā”ti bhedanatthāya vāyāmeyya. Bhedanasaṃvattanikaṃ vā adhikaraṇanti bhedanassa saṅghabhedassa atthāya saṃvattanikaṃ kāraṇaṃ. Imasmiñhi okāse “kāmahetu kāmanidānaṃ kāmādhikaraṇa”nti ādīsu (ma. ni. 1.168, 178) viya kāraṇaṃ “adhikaraṇa”nti adhippetaṃ. Taṃ bhedakaravatthuvasena aṭṭhārasavidhaṃ. Samādāyāti gahetvā. Paggayha tiṭṭheyyāti taṃ saṅghabhedassa atthāya saṃvattanikaṃ saṅghabhedanibbattisamatthaṃ kāraṇaṃ gahetvā dīpeyya ceva nappaṭinissajjeyya ca. Bhikkhūhi evamassa vacanīyoti ye taṃ paggayha tiṭṭhantaṃ sammukhā passanti, ye vā “asukasmiṃ nāma vihāre”ti suṇanti, tehi sabbantimena paricchedena aḍḍhayojanamattaṃ gantvāpi yvāyaṃ anantare “māyasmā”tiādivacanakkamo vutto, evamassa vacanīyo. Disvā vā sutvā vā avadantānaṃ dukkaṭaṃ. Ettha ca māiti padaṃ “parakkamī”tipadena “aṭṭhāsī”tipadena ca saddhiṃ “mā parakkami, mā aṭṭhāsī”ti yojetabbaṃ. Sametāyasmā saṅghenāti āyasmā saṅghena saddhiṃ sametu samāgacchatu, ekaladdhiko hotūti attho. Kiṃ kāraṇā? Samaggo hi saṅgho…pe… viharatīti. Tattha sammodamānoti aññamaññasampattiyā suṭṭhu modamāno. Avivadamānoti “ayaṃ dhammo, nāyaṃ dhammo”ti evaṃ na vivadamāno. Eko uddeso assāti ekuddeso, ekato pavattapātimokkhuddesoti attho. Phāsu viharatīti sukhaṃ viharati. Evaṃ visumpi saṅghamajjhepi tikkhattuṃ vuccamānassa appaṭinissajjato dukkaṭaṃ. Evañca sotiādimhi samanubhāsitabboti samanubhāsanakammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Iccetaṃ kusalanti iti etaṃ paṭinissajjanaṃ kusalaṃ khemaṃ sotthibhāvo tassa bhikkhuno. No ce paṭinissajjeyya, saṅghādisesoti ettha samanubhāsanakammapariyosāne appaṭinissajjantassa saṅghādiseso. Sesaṃ uttānapadatthameva.

In the tenth, samaggassa saṅghassā means of a united saṅgha of monks, not separated in mind or body, that is the meaning. Hence, in its word-by-word analysis (pārā. 412), it is said, “A united saṅgha is one living together, standing within the same boundary.” For one living together is not separated in mind due to harmony of thought, and one standing within the same boundary is not separated in body due to physical unity. Bhedāya parakkameyyā means he would strive for schism, thinking, “How might this break apart?” Bhedanasaṃvattanikaṃ vā adhikaraṇa means a legal matter conducive to schism, a cause leading to saṅgha schism. Here, as in “due to desire, originating from desire, regarding desire” (ma. ni. 1.168, 178), a cause is meant by adhikaraṇa. It is of eighteen types based on matters causing schism. Samādāyā means taking up. Paggayha tiṭṭheyyā means taking up that cause conducive to saṅgha schism, capable of producing schism, he would proclaim it and not relinquish it. Bhikkhūhi evamassa vacanīyo means those who see him taking it up and standing firm in their presence, or hear, “In such-and-such a monastery,” should say to him as stated next, “Venerable, do not…” and so forth, even going a minimum distance of half a yojana. For those who see or hear and do not speak, there is a dukkaṭa. Here, the word mā should be connected with “parakkamī” and “aṭṭhāsī” as “Do not strive, do not stand firm.” Sametāyasmā saṅghenā means may the Venerable unite with the saṅgha, come together, be of one accord, that is the meaning. Why? Because a united saṅgha… dwells at ease. Therein, sammodamāno means rejoicing well due to mutual success. Avivadamāno means not disputing, “This is Dhamma, this is not Dhamma.” Having a single recitation means ekuddeso, a unified recitation of the Pātimokkha, that is the meaning. Phāsu viharatī means he dwells at ease. For one told this even three times, alone or in the saṅgha’s midst, and not relinquishing, there is a dukkaṭa. In evañca so and so forth, samanubhāsitabbo means a formal admonition should be performed. Iccetaṃ kusala means this relinquishing is wholesome, secure, and safe for that monk. No ce paṭinissajjeyya, saṅghādiseso means if he does not relinquish at the conclusion of the formal admonition, it is a saṅghādisesa. The rest is clear in its wording.

In the tenth, samaggassa saṅghassāti of the united monastic Saṅgha, meaning not separated in mind and body. Therefore, in its word-explanation (Pārā. 412), it is said, “The united Saṅgha is said to be of the same communion, standing in the same boundary.” For one of the same communion is not separated in mind due to the sameness of mind; standing in the same boundary, he is not separated in body due to the giving of bodily harmony. Bhedāya parakkameyyāti he would strive for division, meaning he would exert himself for the purpose of division, “How might this one be divided?” Bhedanasaṃvattanikaṃ vā adhikaraṇanti a cause conducive to division, to schism in the Saṅgha. In this context, as in “due to desire, on account of desire, because of desire” and so on (M. N. 1.168, 178), cause is intended by “adhikaraṇa.” That is eighteenfold due to the matter causing division. Samādāyāti taking up. Paggayha tiṭṭheyyāti taking up that cause conducive to schism in the Saṅgha, capable of bringing about schism in the Saṅgha, he would explain it and not relinquish it. Bhikkhūhi evamassa vacanīyoti those who see him face-to-face taking that up, or those who hear, “In such and such a monastery,” even going up to half a yojana at the farthest limit, they should speak to him thus, with this sequence of words, “Do not, venerable sir,” and so on, which is next. There is a dukkaṭa for those who, having seen or heard, do not speak. And here, the word mā (do not) should be connected with the words “parakkamī” (strive) and “aṭṭhāsī” (stand), as “mā parakkami, mā aṭṭhāsī” (do not strive, do not stand). Sametāyasmā saṅghenāti may the venerable one come together with the Saṅgha, be of the same persuasion, meaning. For what reason? For the united Saṅgha…pe… dwells. There, sammodamānoti rejoicing well in mutual prosperity. Avivadamānoti not disputing thus, “This is Dhamma, this is not Dhamma.” One recitation belongs to him, thus ekuddeso, meaning the recitation of the pātimokkha proceeding together. Phāsu viharatīti he dwells comfortably. Thus, even separately, even in the midst of the Saṅgha, for one who is spoken to three times and does not relinquish, there is a dukkaṭa. Evañca sotiādimhi samanubhāsitabboti the act of admonition should be performed. Iccetaṃ kusalanti thus, this relinquishment is skillful, safe, well-being for that monk. No ce paṭinissajjeyya, saṅghādisesoti here, at the end of the act of admonition, for one who does not relinquish, there is a saṅghādisesa. The rest has the meaning of the words evident.

In the tenth section, samaggassa saṅghassāti means the united community of monks, united in mind and body. Therefore, in the analysis of words (Pārā. 412), it is said, “A united Saṅgha is one that shares the same residence and lives within the same boundary.” One who shares the same residence is united in mind, and one who lives within the same boundary is united in body. Bhedāya parakkameyyāti means striving for the purpose of causing a schism. Bhedanasaṃvattanikaṃ vā adhikaraṇanti means a cause leading to schism, the division of the Saṅgha. In this context, as in the phrases “kāmahetu, kāmanidānaṃ, kāmādhikaraṇa” (M. Ni. 1.168, 178), the term adhikaraṇa is intended to mean a cause. This cause, based on the subject matter of causing schism, is of eighteen types. Samādāyāti means taking up. Paggayha tiṭṭheyyāti means taking up that cause leading to schism, capable of producing schism, and persisting in it without giving it up. Bhikkhūhi evamassa vacanīyoti means that those who see him persisting in it, or hear about it, saying, “In such and such a monastery,” should, within a distance of half a yojana, speak to him as follows: “Venerable, do not…” etc. Those who see or hear but do not speak commit a dukkaṭa offense. Here, the word mā should be connected with the words parakkamī and aṭṭhāsī, meaning “do not strive, do not persist.” Sametāyasmā saṅghenāti means, “Venerable, reconcile with the Saṅgha, come to unity,” meaning, “Become one with the Saṅgha.” Why? Because a united Saṅgha… (pe)… dwells in harmony. There, sammodamānoti means rejoicing well in each other’s success. Avivadamānoti means not disputing, saying, “This is the Dhamma, this is not the Dhamma.” Ekuddeso means one recitation, meaning the recitation of the Pātimokkha conducted together. Phāsu viharatīti means dwelling happily. Even if, after being addressed three times in the midst of the Saṅgha, one does not desist, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Evañca soti, etc., means samanubhāsitabboti, the act of formal censure should be performed. Iccetaṃ kusalanti means that this desisting is wholesome, safe, and beneficial for that monk. No ce paṭinissajjeyya, saṅghādisesoti means that if one does not desist after the formal censure, it is a saṅghādisesa offense. The rest is clear in meaning.

Rājagahe devadattaṃ ārabbha saṅghabhedāya parakkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, samanubhāsanakamme kariyamāne appaṭinissajjantassa ñattipariyosāne dukkaṭaṃ, dvīhi kammavācāhi dve thullaccayā, “yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyyā”ti evaṃ yya-kārapattāya tatiyakammavācāya tañca dukkaṭaṃ te ca thullaccayā paṭippassambhanti, saṅghādisesoyeva tiṭṭhati. Asamanubhāsiyamānassa ca paṭinissajjantassa ca ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Sīlavipatti, bhedāya parakkamanaṃ, dhammakammena samanubhāsanaṃ, kammavācāpariyosānaṃ, appaṭinissajjananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samanubhāsanasamuṭṭhānaṃ, akiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, dukkhavedananti.

At Rājagaha, concerning Devadatta, this was laid down regarding the matter of striving for saṅgha schism, a general rule, not requiring announcement. For one not relinquishing during the formal admonition, there is a dukkaṭa at the conclusion of the motion, two thullaccayas with two formal statements, and with the third formal statement reaching “Whoever disapproves should speak,” that dukkaṭa and those thullaccayas subside, leaving only a saṅghādisesa. There is no offense for one not formally admonished, one who relinquishes, or the deranged and similar cases. Moral failure, striving for schism, formal admonition by a lawful act, conclusion of the formal statements, and not relinquishing—these are the four factors here. It arises from formal admonition, is non-action, perception-released, with consciousness, a worldly fault, bodily and verbal action, unwholesome mind, and painful feeling.

It was promulgated in Rājagaha concerning Devadatta, regarding the incident of striving for schism in the Saṅgha, a general regulation, without authorization. When the act of admonition is being performed, for one who does not relinquish, at the end of the formal announcement, there is a dukkaṭa; with the two formal motions, two thullaccayas; with the third formal motion, reaching the yya-form, “Whoever does not approve, let him speak,” both that dukkaṭa and those thullaccayas are suppressed; only the saṅghādisesa remains. And for one who is not being admonished, and for one who relinquishes, and for the insane and the like, there is no offense. Here, there are four factors: transgression of morality, striving for division, admonition by a formal act, the end of the formal motions, and not relinquishing. It arises from admonition, is non-action, is release from perception, is with thought, is blameworthy by the world, is bodily action, is verbal action, is unwholesome thought, and is painful feeling.

This rule was laid down in Rājagaha concerning Devadatta’s striving to cause a schism in the Saṅgha. It is a common rule, not requiring an announcement. If one does not desist during the formal censure, it is a dukkaṭa offense at the conclusion of the motion. With two announcements, there are two thullaccaya offenses. At the third announcement, with the phrase “whoever does not agree, let him speak,” it is a dukkaṭa offense, and the thullaccaya offenses cease. Only the saṅghādisesa remains. For one who is not formally censured, or who desists, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are: moral failure, striving for schism, formal censure by the Dhamma, and not desisting. The origin is formal censure, inaction, release by perception, intentional action, worldly blame, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome mind, and painful feeling.

11. Bhedānuvattakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

11. Explanation of the Training Rule on Followers of Schism

11. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Followers of Schismatics

11. Explanation of the Bhedānuvattaka Training Rule

Ekādasame tasseva kho panāti yo saṅghabhedāya parakkamati, tasseva. Anuvattakāti tassa diṭṭhiṃ khantiṃ ruciṃ gahaṇena anupaṭipajjanakā. Vaggaṃ asāmaggipakkhiyavacanaṃ vadantīti vaggavādakā. Yasmā pana tiṇṇaṃ uddhaṃ kammārahā na honti. Na hi saṅgho saṅghassa kammaṃ karoti, tasmā “eko vā dve vā tayo vā”ti vuttaṃ. Jānāti noti amhākaṃ chandādīni jānāti. Bhāsatīti “evaṃ karomā”ti amhehi saddhiṃ bhāsati. Amhākampetaṃ khamatīti yaṃ so karoti, etaṃ amhākampi ruccati. Sametāyasmantānaṃ saṅghenāti āyasmantānaṃ cittaṃ saṅghena saddhiṃ sametu samāgacchatu, ekībhāvaṃ gacchatūti vuttaṃ hoti. Sesaṃ padatthato uttānameva. Vinicchayakathāpettha dasame vuttasadisāyeva.

In the eleventh, tasseva kho panā means “indeed, of that very one,” referring to the one who strives for schism in the Sangha, of that very one. Anuvattakā means “followers,” those who conform to his view, inclination, and preference through acceptance. Those who speak words of division, siding with disunity, are vaggavādakā, ” speakers of divisive words.” Since, however, three or more are not eligible for a formal act, for the Sangha does not perform a formal act against the Sangha, it is said, “one, or two, or three.” Jānāti no means “he knows our inclinations and so forth.” Bhāsatī means “he speaks with us, saying, ‘Let us do it this way.’” Amhākampetaṃ khamatī means “what he does is agreeable to us as well.” Sametāyasmantānaṃ saṅghenā means “May the minds of the venerables be in harmony with the Sangha, come together, and reach unity,” it is said. The rest is clear from the meaning of the words themselves. The discussion of the analysis here is indeed similar to what was said in the tenth.

In the eleventh, tasseva kho panāti means ‘of that very person’ who strives to create a schism in the Saṅgha. Anuvattakāti means those who follow him by accepting his views, preferences, inclinations, and beliefs. Those who speak in favor of a faction or of disunity are called vaggavādakā. Because more than three are not eligible for the (formal) act, (for) indeed, a Saṅgha does not perform a (formal) act upon the Saṅgha. Therefore, it is said, “one, two, or three”. Jānāti noti means ‘he knows our preferences and so on’. Bhāsatīti means ‘he speaks with us, saying, “Let us do thus”.’ Amhākampetaṃ khamatīti means ‘whatever he does, that is also pleasing to us’. Sametāyasmantānaṃ saṅghenāti means ‘let the minds of the venerable ones be united with the Saṅgha, let them come together, let them come to a state of oneness’. The rest is clear in terms of the meaning of the words. The explanation of the decision here is similar to what was said in the tenth.

In the eleventh section, tasseva kho panāti refers to the one who strives to cause a schism in the Saṅgha. Anuvattakāti means those who follow his view, acceptance, or preference, acting accordingly. Vaggavādakāti means those who speak divisive words, opposing the united faction. Since more than three are not fit for the act, the Saṅgha does not perform an act for the Saṅgha. Therefore, it is said, “one, two, or three.” Jānāti noti means he knows our consent, etc. Bhāsatīti means he speaks with us, saying, “We shall do thus.” Amhākampetaṃ khamatīti means what he does is agreeable to us as well. Sametāyasmantānaṃ saṅghenāti means, “Venerables, reconcile with the Saṅgha, come to unity,” meaning, “Become one with the Saṅgha.” The rest is clear in meaning. The discussion is similar to what was said in the tenth section.

Ayaṃ pana viseso – idaṃ rājagahe sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha devadattassa saṅghabhedāya parakkamantassa anuvattanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, aṅgesu ca yathā tattha parakkamanaṃ, evaṃ idha anuvattanaṃ daṭṭhabbanti.

This, however, is the distinction: this was laid down in Rājagaha concerning several monks, with reference to Devadatta striving for schism in the Sangha, regarding the matter of their following. And in the factors, just as striving is seen there, so here following should be understood.

But this is the distinction – this was promulgated in Rājagaha concerning many bhikkhus, in the case of Devadatta’s striving to create a schism in the Saṅgha and of those who followed him. And as for the factors, just as there is striving there, so here adherence should be seen.

The difference here is that this rule was laid down in Rājagaha concerning several monks who followed Devadatta in his attempt to cause a schism in the Saṅgha. In the factors, just as striving is seen there, here following should be seen.

The explanation of the training rule on those who follow a schismatic is finished.

12. Dubbacasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

12. Commentary on the Dubbaca Training Rule

12. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Hard-to-Speak-To

12. Explanation of the Dubbacasikkhāpada

Dvādasame dubbacajātikoti dubbacasabhāvo, vattuṃ asakkuṇeyyoti attho. Uddesapariyāpannesūti uddese pariyāpannesu antogadhesu, “yassa siyā āpatti, so āvikareyyā”ti evaṃ saṅgahitattā anto pātimokkhassa vattamānesūti attho. Sahadhammikaṃ vuccamānoti sahadhammikena vuccamāno, kāraṇatthe cetaṃ upayogavacanaṃ. Pañcahi sahadhammikehi sikkhitabbattā, tesaṃ vā santakattā “sahadhammika”nti laddhanāmena buddhapaññattena sikkhāpadena vuccamānoti attho. Viramathāyasmanto mama vacanāyāti yena vacanena maṃ vadatha, tato mama vacanato viramatha, mā maṃ taṃ vacanaṃ vadathāti vuttaṃ hoti. Vadatu saha dhammenāti sahadhammikena sikkhāpadena, sahadhammena vā aññenapi pāsādikabhāvasaṃvattanikena vacanena vadetu. Yadidanti vuddhikāraṇadassanatthe nipāto, tena yaṃ idaṃ aññamaññassa hitavacanaṃ, āpattito ca vuṭṭhāpanaṃ, tena aññamaññavacanena aññamaññavuṭṭhāpanena. Evaṃ saṃvaddhāhi tassa bhagavato parisāti evaṃ parisāya vuddhikāraṇaṃ dassitaṃ hoti. Sesaṃ uttānatthameva. Vinicchayakathāpi dasame vuttasadisāyeva.

In the twelfth, dubbacasabhāvo means “of a difficult-to-speak nature,” meaning one unable to be spoken to. Uddesapariyāpannesū means “in matters included in the recitation,” included within it, meaning within the Pātimokkha as it is being recited, since it is encompassed by, “Whoever has an offense should declare it.” Sahadhammikaṃ vuccamāno means “being spoken to by one with the same Dhamma,” and this is an instrumental case implying reason. Because one should train with the five who share the same Dhamma, or because they belong to them, it means “being spoken to by the training rule established by the Buddha, called ‘sahadhammika’ (one with the same Dhamma).” Viramathāyasmanto mama vacanāyā means “Venerables, desist from speaking to me with that speech; do not speak that speech to me,” it is said. Vadatu saha dhammenā means “Let him speak with the training rule that shares the same Dhamma, or with another speech that is conducive to harmony and leads to a pleasant state.” Yadida is a particle indicating the reason for growth, meaning thereby the mutual speech beneficial to one another and the raising up from an offense; thus, aññamaññavacanena aññamaññavuṭṭhāpanena, “by mutual speech and mutual raising up.” Evaṃ saṃvaddhāhi tassa bhagavato parisā means “thus the assembly of that Blessed One grows,” indicating the reason for the assembly’s growth. The rest is of clear meaning. The discussion of the analysis is indeed similar to what was said in the tenth.

In the twelfth, dubbacajātikoti means having the nature of being hard to speak to, meaning being impossible to instruct. Uddesapariyāpannesūti means in those included in the recitation, being contained within, meaning in those matters occurring within the Pātimokkha, because it is summarized thus: “Whoever has an offence should reveal it.” Sahadhammikaṃ vuccamānoti means being spoken to by a co-religionist; this is the instrumental case in the sense of cause. Because one should train with the five co-religionists, or because they possess those, it is said to be spoken by a training rule promulgated by the Buddha, named “sahadhammika” (co-religionist), meaning that it is being spoken by one named thus. Viramathāyasmanto mama vacanāyāti means ‘refrain from that speech by which you address me, refrain from my speech’, meaning ‘do not speak that speech to me’. Vadatu saha dhammenāti means ‘let him speak with the co-religionist training rule, or with any other speech that is conducive to a state of confidence’. Yadidanti is a particle indicating the cause of increase, thereby showing that which is mutual beneficial speech and rising up from offence, by that aññamaññavacanena aññamaññavuṭṭhāpanena. Evaṃ saṃvaddhāhi tassa bhagavato parisāti thus, the cause of increase of the assembly is shown. The rest is indeed clear in meaning. The explanation of the decision is also similar to what was said in the tenth.

In the twelfth section, dubbacajātikoti means one who is difficult to speak to, who cannot be spoken to. Uddesapariyāpannesūti means during the recitation of the Pātimokkha, within the boundaries, when it is said, “Whoever has an offense, let him reveal it.” Sahadhammikaṃ vuccamānoti means being spoken to by one who shares the Dhamma, meaning for the purpose of the matter. Since one should train in the five ways of the Dhamma, or because they are peaceful, they are called sahadhammika, and they are spoken to by the training rule laid down by the Buddha. Viramathāyasmanto mama vacanāyāti means, “Venerables, refrain from speaking to me,” meaning, “Do not speak to me with that speech.” Vadatu saha dhammenāti means, “Let him speak with the Dhamma,” meaning with the training rule or with any other speech that leads to a commendable state. Yadidanti is a particle used to show the reason for growth, meaning, “that is, the mutual speech and mutual lifting up from offenses.” Evaṃ saṃvaddhāhi tassa bhagavato parisāti means, “Thus, the assembly of the Blessed One grows.” The rest is clear in meaning. The discussion is similar to what was said in the tenth section.

Ayaṃ pana viseso – idaṃ kosambiyaṃ channattheraṃ ārabbha attānaṃ avacanīyakaraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, aṅgesu ca yathā tattha parakkamanaṃ, evaṃ idha avacanīyakaraṇatā daṭṭhabbāti.

This, however, is the distinction: this was laid down in Kosambī concerning the Elder Channa, regarding the matter of making himself unadmonishable, and in the factors, just as striving is seen there, so here the state of being unadmonishable should be understood.

But this is the distinction – this was promulgated in Kosambī concerning the venerable Channa, in the case of making himself unadmonishable, and as for the factors, just as there is striving there, so here the state of being unadmonishable should be seen.

The difference here is that this rule was laid down in Kosambī concerning the Venerable Channa, who made himself unapproachable. In the factors, just as striving is seen there, here making oneself unapproachable should be seen.

13. Kuladūsakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

13. Commentary on the Kuladūsaka Training Rule

13. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Corrupting Families

13. Explanation of the Kuladūsakasikkhāpada

Terasame gāmaṃ vā nigamaṃvāti ettha nagarampi gāme antogadhameva. Upanissāya viharatītitattha paṭibaddhacīvarādipaccayatāya taṃ nissāya vasati. Pupphadānādīhi manussānaṃ saddhaṃ vināsento kulāni dūsetīti kuladūsako. Mālāvaccharopanādayo pāpakā samācārā assāti pāpasamācāro. So bhikkhūti so kuladūsako bhikkhu. Āyasmā kho kuladūsako…pe… alaṃ te idha vāsenāti imināssa pabbājanīyakammārahataṃ dasseti. Pabbājanīyakammakato panesa yasmiṃ gāme vā nigame vā kuladūsakakammaṃ kataṃ, yasmiñca vihāre vasati, neva tasmiṃ gāme vā nigame vā carituṃ labhati, na vihāre vasituṃ. Evañca so bhikkhūtiettha soti pabbājanīyakammakato adhippeto. Chandena gacchantīti chandagāmino, esa nayo sesesu. So bhikkhūti so “chandagāmino”tiādīni vadamāno. Tassa vacanassa paṭinissaggāya evaṃ vacanīyo, na kuladūsananivāraṇatthāya. Kuladūsanakammena hi so āpajjitabbā āpattiyo pubbeva āpanno, evaṃ panassa visumpi saṅghamajjhepi vuccamānassa appaṭinissajjato aparaṃ dukkaṭaṃ. Evañca sotiādi ito pubbe vuttañca avuttañca sabbaṃ uttānatthameva. Vinicchayakathāpi dasame vuttasadisāyeva.

In the thirteenth, gāmaṃ vā nigamaṃ vā means “a village or a market town,” and here a city is also included within the village. Upanissāya viharatī means “he dwells dependent on it,” living there reliant on it for the sake of robe-material and other requisites. Destroying the faith of people through offering flowers and such, he corrupts families, hence kuladūsako, “corrupter of families.” He has evil practices such as garlanding and planting shrubs, hence pāpasamācāro, “one of evil conduct.” So bhikkhū means “that monk,” the corrupter of families. Āyasmā kho kuladūsako…pe… alaṃ te idha vāsenā means “Venerable, you are a corrupter of families… enough of your dwelling here,” indicating his eligibility for the act of banishment. But one on whom the act of banishment has been performed may neither wander in the village or market town where the act concerning the corrupter of families was done, nor dwell in the monastery where he was residing. Evañca so bhikkhū means “and that monk,” referring to the one on whom the act of banishment has been performed. Those who go by desire are chandagāmino, “desire-goers,” and the same applies to the rest. So bhikkhū means “that monk,” the one saying “desire-goers” and so forth. He should be spoken to thus for the sake of relinquishing his speech, not for preventing the corruption of families. For through the act concerning the corrupter of families, he has already committed the offenses he was liable to commit; yet when spoken to separately or in the midst of the Sangha, if he does not relinquish it, he incurs another dukkaṭa offense. Evañca so and so forth, all that was said before and what was not said, is of clear meaning. The discussion of the analysis is indeed similar to what was said in the tenth.

In the thirteenth, gāmaṃ vā nigamaṃvāti here, even a city is included in ‘village’. Upanissāya viharatīti means he dwells in dependence on that, due to his reliance on robes and other requisites. One who corrupts families, destroying the faith of people by giving flowers and so on, is called kuladūsako. One who has evil practices such as making garlands and planting trees is called pāpasamācāro. So bhikkhūti means that bhikkhu who corrupts families. Āyasmā kho kuladūsako…pe… alaṃ te idha vāsenāti by this, his eligibility for the act of banishment is shown. But one on whom the act of banishment has been performed is not allowed to wander in the village or town where the act of corrupting families was committed, nor in the monastery where he dwells. Evañca so bhikkhūtiettha soti refers to the one on whom the act of banishment has been performed. Those who go by desire are called chandagāmino, this method applies to the rest. So bhikkhūti means that bhikkhu who says “chandagāmino” and so on. He should be addressed thus for the abandoning of that statement, not for the prevention of corrupting families. For he has already incurred the offences to be incurred by the act of corrupting families. But thus, even if he is addressed separately or in the midst of the Saṅgha, if he does not abandon it, there is another dukkata offence. Evañca soti and so on; everything here, whether previously stated or unstated, is indeed clear in meaning. The explanation of the decision is also similar to what was said in the tenth.

In the thirteenth section, gāmaṃ vā nigamaṃvāti means a village or a town, including a city within the village. Upanissāya viharatīti means dwelling dependent on it, relying on it for robes, etc. Kuladūsako means one who destroys the faith of people by giving flowers, etc., thus corrupting families. Pāpasamācāro means having evil conduct such as wearing garlands, etc. So bhikkhūti means that monk who corrupts families. Āyasmā kho kuladūsako…pe… alaṃ te idha vāsenāti means, “Venerable, you are a corrupter of families… enough of your staying here,” indicating that he is worthy of banishment. Once the act of banishment has been performed, he cannot stay in that village or town where the act was performed, nor can he stay in that monastery. Evañca so bhikkhūtiettha soti refers to the one who has been subjected to the act of banishment. Chandena gacchantīti chandagāmino, this is the method in the rest. So bhikkhūti means that monk who says, “I go willingly,” etc. He should be spoken to for the purpose of making him desist from his speech, not for the purpose of preventing the corruption of families. For he has already committed the offenses of corrupting families. Even if, after being addressed in the midst of the Saṅgha, he does not desist, it is another dukkaṭa offense. Evañca sotiādi, etc., means what was said before and what was not said is all clear in meaning. The discussion is similar to what was said in the tenth section.

Ayaṃ pana viseso – idaṃ sāvatthiyaṃ assajipunabbasuke bhikkhū ārabbha chandagāmitādīhi pāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, aṅgesu ca yathā tattha parakkamanaṃ, evaṃ idha chandādīhi pāpanaṃ daṭṭhabbanti.

This, however, is the distinction: this was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the monks Assaji and Punabbasu, regarding the matter of evil conduct such as going by desire, and in the factors, just as striving is seen there, so here evil conduct through desire and so forth should be understood.

But this is the distinction – this was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the bhikkhus Assaji and Punabbasu, in the case of the evil of going by desire and so on. And as for the factors, just as there is striving there, so here corrupting by desire and so on should be seen.

The difference here is that this rule was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the monks Assaji and Punabbasuka, who acted wickedly by going willingly, etc. In the factors, just as striving is seen there, here acting wickedly by consent, etc., should be seen.

Nigamanavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Conclusion

The Explanation of the Conclusion

Conclusion

Uddiṭṭhā kho…pe… evametaṃ dhārayāmītiettha paṭhamaṃ āpatti etesanti paṭhamāpattikā, paṭhamaṃ vītikkamanakkhaṇeyeva āpajjitabbāti attho. Itare pana yathā tatiye ca catutthe ca divase hotīti ettha “tatiyako, catutthako”ti vuccati, evaṃ yāvatatiye samanubhāsanakamme hontīti yāvatatiyakāti veditabbā. Yāvatīhanti yattakāni ahāni. Jānaṃ paṭicchādetīti jānanto paṭicchādeti. Tatthāyaṃ paṭicchādanalakkhaṇassa mātikā – āpatti ca hoti, āpattisaññī ca, pakatatto ca hoti, pakatattasaññī ca, anantarāyiko ca hoti, anantarāyikasaññī ca, pahu ca hoti, pahusaññī ca, chādetukāmo ca hoti, chādeti cāti. Tattha āpatti ca hoti, āpattisaññī cāti yaṃ āpattiṃ āpanno, sā terasannaṃ aññatarā hoti, sopi ca tattha vatthuvasena vā “idaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ na vaṭṭatī”ti nāmamattavasena vā “ayaṃ itthannāmā āpattī”ti āpattisaññīyeva hutvā “na dāni naṃ kassaci ārocessāmī”ti evaṃ chādetukāmova dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpeti, channā hoti āpatti. Sace panettha anāpattisaññī vā hoti, aññāpattikkhandhasaññī vā, vematiko vā, acchannāva hoti. Pakatattoti anukkhitto samānasaṃvāsako. So ce pakatattasaññī hutvā vuttanayeneva chādeti, channā hoti. Anantarāyikoti yassa dasasu rājacoraaggiudakamanussaamanussavāḷasarīsapajīvitabrahmacariyantarāyesu ekopi natthi, so ce anantarāyikasaññī chādeti, channā hoti. Pahūti yo sakkoti bhikkhuno santikaṃ gantuñceva ārocetuñca, so ce pahusaññī hutvā chādeti, channā hoti. Chādetukāmo ca hoti, chādeti cātiidaṃ uttānameva. Sacepi hi so sabhāgaṃ disvā “ayaṃ me upajjhāyo vā ācariyo vā”ti lajjāya nāroceti, channāva hoti. Upajjhāyādibhāvo hi idha appamāṇaṃ, sabhāgamattameva pamāṇaṃ. Ayaṃ “jānaṃ paṭicchādetī”tipadassa saṅkhepato atthavinicchayo.

Uddiṭṭhā kho…pe… evametaṃ dhārayāmī means “they have been recited… thus I hold it.” Here, paṭhamāpattikā means “those with the first offense,” meaning those offenses committed at the very moment of the first transgression. The others, however, are as in the third and fourth days, where they are called “tatiyaka” (third) and “catutthaka” (fourth); similarly, those that occur up to the third admonition are to be understood as yāvatatiyakā, “up to the third.” Yāvatīha means “for as many days.” Jānaṃ paṭicchādetī means “knowingly conceals.” Here is the framework for the characteristic of concealment: there is an offense, and he perceives it as an offense; he is a normal monk, and he perceives himself as a normal monk; he is free from impediments, and he perceives himself as free from impediments; he is capable, and he perceives himself as capable; he desires to conceal, and he conceals. In this regard, āpatti ca hoti, āpattisaññī cā means the offense he has committed is one of the thirteen, and he, either by the basis of the object or merely by the name, thinking, “This is not allowed for monks,” or “This is an offense called such-and-such,” being fully aware of the offense and thinking, “I will not declare it to anyone,” with that desire to conceal, lays aside his duty and lets the sun rise—thus the offense is concealed. But if he does not perceive it as an offense, or perceives it as belonging to another class of offenses, or is uncertain, it remains unconcealed. Pakatatto means “a normal monk,” one not suspended and in communion. If he, perceiving himself as a normal monk, conceals it in the manner described, it is concealed. Anantarāyiko means “free from impediments,” one who has none of the ten impediments—kings, thieves, fire, water, humans, non-humans, wild animals, serpents, life, or the holy life—and if he, perceiving himself as free from impediments, conceals it, it is concealed. Pahū means “capable,” one who is able to go to a monk and declare it; if he, perceiving himself as capable, conceals it, it is concealed. Chādetukāmo ca hoti, chādeti cā means “he desires to conceal and conceals,” which is self-evident. For even if, seeing a monk of the same faction and thinking, “This is my preceptor or teacher,” he does not declare it out of shame, it is still concealed. The status of preceptor or teacher is not the measure here; only the fact of being of the same faction is the measure. This is a concise determination of the meaning of the phrase “knowingly conceals.”

Uddiṭṭhā kho…pe… evametaṃ dhārayāmītiettha those which incur an offence at first are called paṭhamāpattikā, meaning that they are to be incurred at the very moment of the first transgression. But the others, just as in the case of the third and fourth days it is said “tatiyako, catutthako”, so they should be understood as yāvatatiyakā because they occur up to the third formal meeting for admonishment. Yāvatīhanti means for however many days. Jānaṃ paṭicchādetīti means he conceals knowingly. Here, the matrix of the characteristic of concealment is: there is an offence, and he is aware of the offence, and he is a member in regular standing, and he is aware of being a member in regular standing, and he is without impediment, and he is aware of being without impediment, and he is capable, and he is aware of being capable, and he desires to conceal, and he conceals. Therein, āpatti ca hoti, āpattisaññī cāti means whatever offence he has incurred, it is one of the thirteen, and he, either by way of the case, “This is not proper for bhikkhus”, or by way of mere name, “This is an offence called thus-and-thus”, being aware of the offence, and desiring to conceal it, thinking, “Now I will not reveal it to anyone”, sets aside the responsibility and makes the dawn rise, the offence is concealed. But if here he is unaware of the offence, or aware of a different class of offence, or doubtful, it is not concealed. Pakatattoti means one who is not suspended, one who is in full communion. If he, being aware of being a member in regular standing, conceals in the manner stated, it is concealed. Anantarāyikoti means one who has none of the ten impediments of king, thief, fire, water, humans, non-humans, wild animals, reptiles, life, or the holy life. If he, being aware of being without impediment, conceals, it is concealed. Pahūti means one who is able to go to a bhikkhu and inform him. If he, being aware of being capable, conceals, it is concealed. Chādetukāmo ca hoti, chādeti cāti this is indeed clear in meaning. For even if he, seeing a fellow member, does not inform him out of shame, thinking, “This is my preceptor or teacher,” it is concealed. For the state of being a preceptor and so on is not the measure here; only the state of being a fellow member is the measure. This is the concise explanation of the meaning of the phrase “jānaṃ paṭicchādetī”.

Uddiṭṭhā kho…pe… evametaṃ dhārayāmītiettha, first, paṭhamāpattikā means the first offenses, meaning those that are to be committed at the moment of transgression. The others are called tatiyako, catutthako, etc., according to the third and fourth days, etc., up to the third formal censure, hence yāvatatiyakāti should be understood. Yāvatīhanti means as many days. Jānaṃ paṭicchādetīti means knowing and concealing. Here, the characteristics of concealment are: there is an offense, one is aware of the offense, one is in good standing, one is aware of being in good standing, there is no obstacle, one is aware of there being no obstacle, one is capable, one is aware of being capable, one wishes to conceal, and one conceals. Among these, āpatti ca hoti, āpattisaññī cāti means that the offense committed is one of the thirteen, and one is aware of it, thinking, “I will not report this to anyone,” and thus, having laid down the burden, one conceals the offense. If, however, one is unaware of the offense, or perceives it as belonging to another class of offenses, or is doubtful, the offense is not concealed. Pakatattoti means one who is in good standing, sharing the same residence. If, being aware of being in good standing, one conceals as described, the offense is concealed. Anantarāyikoti means one who has no obstacle among the ten obstacles: kings, thieves, fire, water, humans, non-humans, beasts, snakes, loss of life, or loss of celibacy. If, being aware of there being no obstacle, one conceals, the offense is concealed. Pahūti means one who is capable of going to a monk and reporting. If, being aware of being capable, one conceals, the offense is concealed. Chādetukāmo ca hoti, chādeti cāti is clear. Even if one sees a fellow monk and, out of shame, does not report, thinking, “This is my preceptor or teacher,” the offense is concealed. The status of preceptor, etc., is unlimited here; only the status of being a fellow monk is the measure. This is the brief analysis of the meaning of the phrase “knowing and concealing.”

Tāvatīhanti tattakāni ahāni, paṭicchāditadivasato paṭṭhāya yāva ārocitadivaso, tāva divasapakkhamāsasaṃvaccharavasena yattako kālo atikkanto, tattakaṃ kālanti attho. Akāmā parivatthabbanti na kāmena na vasena, atha kho akāmena avasena parivāsaṃ samādāya vatthabbaṃ. Tattha paṭicchannaparivāso suddhantaparivāso samodhānaparivāso cāti tividho parivāso. Tattha paṭicchannaparivāso tāva yathāpaṭicchannāya āpattiyā dātabbo. Kassaci hi ekāhappaṭicchannā āpatti hoti, kassaci dvīhādippaṭicchannā. Kassaci ekā āpatti hoti, kassaci dve vā tisso vā taduttari vā. Tasmā paṭicchannaparivāsaṃ dentena paṭhamameva vuttanayena paṭicchannabhāvaṃ ñatvā tato paṭicchannadivase ca āpattiyo ca sallakkhetvā sace ekā ekāhappaṭicchannā hoti, “ahaṃ, bhante, ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjiṃ sañcetanikaṃ sukkavissaṭṭhiṃ ekāhappaṭicchanna”nti evaṃ parivāsaṃ yācāpetvā khandhake (cūḷava. 98) āgatanayena kammavācaṃ vatvā parivāso dātabbo. Atha dvīhatīhādippaṭicchannā hoti , dvīhappaṭicchannaṃ tīhappaṭicchannaṃ catūhappaṭicchannaṃ pañcāhappaṭicchannaṃ…pe… cuddasāhappaṭicchannantievaṃ yāva cuddasadivasāni divasavasena yojanā kātabbā, pañcadasadivasappaṭicchannāyaṃ “pakkhappaṭicchanna”nti yojanā kātabbā. Tato yāva ekūnatiṃsatimo divaso, tāva “atirekapakkhappaṭicchanna”nti, tato māsappaṭicchannaṃ atirekamāsappaṭicchannaṃ dvemāsappaṭicchannaṃ atirekadvemāsappaṭicchannaṃ temāsappaṭicchannaṃ…pe… atirekaekādasamāsappaṭicchannanti evaṃ yojanā kātabbā. Saṃvacchare puṇṇe “ekasaṃvaccharappaṭicchanna”nti, tato paraṃ atirekasaṃvaccharaṃ dvesaṃvaccharaṃ evaṃ yāva saṭṭhisaṃvaccharaatirekasaṭṭhisaṃvaccharappaṭicchannanti, tato vā bhiyyopi vatvā yojanā kātabbā.

Tāvatīha means “for that many days,” meaning the duration from the day of concealment up to the day of declaration, reckoned as that amount of time in terms of days, fortnights, months, or years—however much time has passed, that is the duration. Akāmā parivatthabba means “it must be observed unwillingly,” not by desire or choice, but rather unwillingly, by necessity, having undertaken the observance. Therein, the observance is threefold: the observance for a concealed offense, the observance for purification, and the observance by combination. Among these, paṭicchannaparivāso, the observance for a concealed offense, is to be given according to the concealed offense. For some have an offense concealed for one day, others for two days or more. Some have one offense, others two, three, or more. Therefore, in giving the observance for a concealed offense, having first determined the state of concealment in the manner described, and then noting the days of concealment and the offenses, if it is one offense concealed for one day, he should be made to request the observance thus: “Venerable Sirs, I have committed one offense, intentional emission of semen, concealed for one day,” and having recited the formal act as stated in the Khandhaka (Cūḷavagga 98), the observance should be given. If it is concealed for two days, three days, or more, it should be arranged thus: “concealed for two days,” “concealed for three days,” “concealed for four days,” “concealed for five days,” up to “concealed for fourteen days,” reckoned by days. For one concealed for fifteen days, it should be arranged as “concealed for a fortnight.” Then, up to the twenty-ninth day, it is “concealed for more than a fortnight”; then “concealed for a month,” “concealed for more than a month,” “concealed for two months,” “concealed for more than two months,” “concealed for three months,” and so on, up to “concealed for more than eleven months.” When a year is complete, it is “concealed for one year,” and thereafter “concealed for more than one year,” “concealed for two years,” up to “concealed for sixty years” or “concealed for more than sixty years,” and beyond that, it may be stated and arranged accordingly.

Tāvatīhanti means for that many days; from the day of concealment up to the day of informing, whatever time has elapsed in terms of days, half-months, months, and years, that much time. Akāmā parivatthabbanti means it should be dwelt not by desire, not by choice, but rather unwillingly, not by choice, having undertaken the Parivāsa. Therein, the Parivāsa is threefold: Paṭicchannaparivāsa, Suddhantaparivāsa, and Samodhānaparivāsa. Of these, Paṭicchannaparivāsa should be given for an offence that has been concealed as it was concealed. For someone, an offence is concealed for one day, for someone, it is concealed for two or more days. Someone has one offence, someone has two, three, or more. Therefore, one who gives the Paṭicchannaparivāsa, having first understood the state of concealment in the manner stated, then having considered the days of concealment and the offences, if there is one offence concealed for one day, should have him ask for the Parivāsa thus: “I, venerable sir, have incurred one Sañcetanika (intentional) emission of semen offence, concealed for one day.” Then, having recited the formal act according to the method that has come in the Khandhaka (Cūḷava. 98), the Parivāsa should be given. If it is concealed for two days, three days, and so on, the combination should be made according to the days up to fourteen days, thus: “concealed for two days, concealed for three days, concealed for four days, concealed for five days… concealed for fourteen days.” For concealment for fifteen days, the combination should be made as “concealed for a half-month.” Then, up to the twenty-ninth day, it should be “concealed for more than a half-month.” Then, concealed for a month, concealed for more than a month, concealed for two months, concealed for more than two months, concealed for three months… concealed for more than eleven months. Thus, the combination should be made. When a year is complete, it should be “concealed for one year.” After that, concealed for more than a year, concealed for two years, thus up to concealed for sixty years, concealed for more than sixty years, or even more than that, the combination should be made.

Tāvatīha means for that many days, starting from the day of concealment until the day of confession, for as long as the time has passed, whether it be days, half-months, months, or years. Akāmā parivatthabba means not by desire or force, but rather by accepting probation without desire or force. Herein, probation is of three kinds: concealed probation, pure probation, and combined probation. Herein, paṭicchannaparivāso is to be given according to the concealment of the offense. For some, an offense may be concealed for one day, for others, two days, and so on. For some, there may be one offense, for others, two, three, or more. Therefore, when giving concealed probation, one must first determine the nature of the concealment and the offenses committed during the concealed period. If there is one offense concealed for one day, one should request probation by saying, “Venerable sir, I have committed one intentional offense of emission of semen, concealed for one day.” Then, following the procedure outlined in the Khandhaka (Cūḷavagga 98), the formal act should be recited, and probation should be given. If the concealment is for two, three, or more days, up to fourteen days, the period should be calculated accordingly. For concealment of fifteen days, it is called “half-month concealment.” Beyond that, up to the twenty-ninth day, it is called “exceeding half-month concealment.” Then, for one month, exceeding one month, two months, exceeding two months, three months, and so on, up to exceeding eleven months, the calculation should be made accordingly. For a full year, it is called “one-year concealment.” Beyond that, for two years, and so on, up to exceeding sixty years, or even more, the calculation should be made accordingly.

Sace pana dve tisso taduttari vā āpattiyo honti, yathā “ekaṃ āpatti”nti vuttaṃ, evaṃ “dve āpattiyo, tisso āpattiyo”ti vattabbaṃ. Tato paraṃ pana sataṃ vā hotu, sahassaṃ vā, “sambahulā”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Nānāvatthukāsupi “ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekaṃ sukkavissaṭṭhiṃ ekaṃ kāyasaṃsaggaṃ ekaṃ duṭṭhullavācaṃ ekaṃ attakāmaṃ ekaṃ sañcarittaṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo”ti evaṃ gaṇanavasena vā, “ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ nānāvatthukāyo ekāhappaṭicchannāyo”ti evaṃ vatthukittanavasena vā, “ahaṃ, bhante, sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo”ti evaṃ nāmamattavasena vā yojanā kātabbā. Tattha nāmaṃ duvidhaṃ sajātisādhāraṇaṃ sabbasādhāraṇañca, tattha saṅghādisesoti sajātisādhāraṇaṃ, āpattīti sabbasādhāraṇaṃ, tasmā “sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjiṃ ekāhappaṭicchannāyo”ti evaṃ sabbasādhāraṇanāmavasenāpi vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Idañhi parivāsādivinayakammaṃ vatthuvasena gottavasena nāmavasena āpattivasena ca kātuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Tattha sukkavissaṭṭhīti vatthu ceva gottañca, saṅghādisesoti nāmañceva āpatti ca, tattha “sukkavissaṭṭhiṃ kāyasaṃsagga”ntiādivacanenāpi “nānāvatthukāyo”tivacanenāpi vatthu ceva gottañca gahitaṃ hoti, “saṅghādiseso”tivacanenāpi “āpattiyo”tivacanenāpi nāmañceva āpatti ca gahitā hoti, tasmā etesu yassa kassaci vasena kammavācā kātabbā.

If, however, there are two, three, or more offenses, just as it is said “one offense,” so it should be said “two offenses” or “three offenses.” Beyond that, whether it be a hundred or a thousand, it is permissible to say “many.” Even for offenses with different bases, it should be arranged thus: “Venerable Sirs, I have committed many saṅghādisesa offenses: one emission of semen, one physical contact, one lewd speech, one self-gratification, one acting as a go-between, concealed for one day,” reckoned by enumeration; or “Venerable Sirs, I have committed many saṅghādisesa offenses with different bases, concealed for one day,” stated by indicating the bases; or “Venerable Sirs, I have committed many saṅghādisesa offenses, concealed for one day,” stated merely by name. Therein, nāma, “name,” is of two kinds: specific to the class and common to all. In this case, “saṅghādisesa” is specific to the class, while “offense” is common to all. Therefore, it is also permissible to say, “I have committed many offenses, concealed for one day,” using the name common to all. For this disciplinary action, such as observance, may indeed be performed by reference to the object, clan, name, or offense. Therein, “emission of semen” is both the object and the clan, while “saṅghādisesa” is both the name and the offense. By saying “emission of semen, physical contact,” etc., or “with different bases,” both the object and the clan are encompassed; by saying “saṅghādisesa” or “offenses,” both the name and the offense are encompassed. Therefore, the formal act should be performed by reference to any of these.

But if there are two, three, or more offences, just as it was said “one offence”, so it should be said “two offences, three offences”. Beyond that, however, whether there are a hundred or a thousand, it is proper to say “many”. Even in cases of different origins, the combination should be made either by way of enumeration, thus: “I, venerable sir, have incurred many Saṅghādisesa offences, one emission of semen, one physical contact, one offensive speech, one self-praise, one acting as a go-between, concealed for one day,” or by way of mentioning the cases, thus: “I, venerable sir, have incurred many Saṅghādisesa offences of different origins, concealed for one day,” or by way of mere name, thus: “I, venerable sir, have incurred many Saṅghādisesa offences, concealed for one day.” Therein, nāma (name) is twofold: common to the class and common to all. Therein, ‘Saṅghādisesa’ is sajātisādhāraṇaṃ (common to the class), ‘offence’ is sabbasādhāraṇaṃ (common to all). Therefore, it is proper to speak even by way of the name common to all, thus: “I have incurred many offences, concealed for one day.” For this Vinaya act of Parivāsa and so on is indeed proper to be done by way of the case, by way of the lineage, by way of the name, and by way of the offence. Therein, ‘emission of semen’ is both vatthu (case) and gotta (lineage), ‘Saṅghādisesa’ is both nāma (name) and āpatti (offence). Therein, both the case and the lineage are grasped by the statement “emission of semen, physical contact” and so on, or by the statement “of different origins.” Both the name and the offence are grasped by the statement “Saṅghādisesa” or by the statement “offences.” Therefore, the formal act should be done by way of any one of these.

If there are two, three, or more offenses, as mentioned for one offense, it should be stated as “two offenses,” “three offenses,” and so on. Beyond that, even if there are a hundred or a thousand offenses, it is appropriate to say “numerous offenses.” Even if the offenses are of different kinds, one should say, “Venerable sir, I have committed numerous Saṅghādisesa offenses: one emission of semen, one bodily contact, one lewd speech, one self-gratification, one matchmaking, all concealed for one day.” Alternatively, one may state the offenses by their nature, saying, “Venerable sir, I have committed numerous Saṅghādisesa offenses of various kinds, all concealed for one day.” Or, one may simply state, “Venerable sir, I have committed numerous Saṅghādisesa offenses, all concealed for one day.” Herein, nāma is of two kinds: common to its kind and common to all. Herein, Saṅghādisesa is common to its kind, and offense is common to all. Therefore, it is appropriate to say, “I have committed numerous offenses, all concealed for one day,” using the common name. This probation and other disciplinary actions can be performed based on the nature, category, name, or offense. Herein, emission of semen refers to both the nature and the category, while Saṅghādisesa refers to both the name and the offense. Thus, in the phrases “emission of semen, bodily contact,” etc., and “of various kinds,” both the nature and category are included. In the phrases “Saṅghādisesa” and “offenses,” both the name and the offense are included. Therefore, the formal act can be performed based on any of these aspects.

Kammavācāpariyosāne ca sace appabhikkhuko āvāso hoti, sakkā ratticchedaṃ anāpajjantena vasituṃ, tattheva “parivāsaṃ samādiyāmi, vattaṃ samādiyāmī”ti tikkhattuṃ vattaṃ samādātabbaṃ, samādiyitvā tattheva saṅghassa ārocetvā puna āgatāgatānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ ārocentena vattabhedañca ratticchedañca akatvā parivasitabbaṃ. Sace na sakkā hoti parivāsaṃ sodhetuṃ, nikkhittavattena vasitukāmo hoti, tattheva saṅghamajjhe, ekapuggalassa vā santike “parivāsaṃ nikkhipāmi, vattaṃ nikkhipāmī”ti parivāso nikkhipitabbo, ekapadenāpi cettha nikkhitto hoti parivāso, dvīhi pana sunikkhittoyeva, samādānepi eseva nayo. Nikkhittakālato paṭṭhāya pakatattaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati, athānena paccūsasamaye ekena bhikkhunā saddhiṃ parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepato, aparikkhittassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānato dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā mahāmaggato okkamma gumbena vā vatiyā vā paṭicchannaṭṭhāne nisīditvā antoaruṇeyeva vattaṃ samādiyitvā ārocetabbaṃ. Yampi aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ passati, tassāpi ārocetabbameva. Aruṇe uṭṭhite tassa santike vattaṃ nikkhipitvā vihāraṃ gantabbaṃ. Sace so pure aruṇeyeva kenaci karaṇīyena gato, vihāraṃ gantvā yaṃ sabbapaṭhamaṃ bhikkhuṃ passati, tassa ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ. Evaṃ sallakkhetvā yāva rattiyo pūrenti, tāva parivatthabbaṃ, ayaṃ saṅkhepato paṭicchannaparivāsavinicchayo, vitthāro pana samantapāsādikāya vinayasaṃvaṇṇanāya (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97) vuttanayeneva veditabbo.

At the conclusion of the formal act, if it is a monastery with few monks where it is possible to dwell without breaking the continuity of nights, he should undertake the observance there, saying three times, “I undertake the observance, I undertake the duties,” and having undertaken it, he should inform the Sangha there. Then, by informing monks who come and go, he should observe it without breaking the duties or the continuity of nights. If he is unable to purify the observance and wishes to dwell having laid aside the duties, he should lay aside the observance there, either in the midst of the Sangha or in the presence of one person, saying, “I lay aside the observance, I lay aside the duties.” The observance is laid aside even with one phrase, though with two it is well laid aside; the same applies to undertaking it. From the time it is laid aside, he stands as a normal monk. Then, at dawn, together with one monk, having gone beyond two stone-throws from the boundary of an enclosed monastery or from a place deserving a boundary in an unenclosed one, stepping off the main road and sitting in a concealed place such as a thicket or enclosure, he should undertake the duties before sunrise and inform others. He must also inform any other monk he sees. When the sun rises, he should lay aside the duties in that monk’s presence and return to the monastery. If that monk departs before sunrise for some task, he should go to the monastery and inform the first monk he sees, laying it aside. Observing carefully in this way, he should complete the observance for as many nights as required. This is a concise determination of the observance for a concealed offense; its elaboration should be understood as stated in the Vinaya commentary Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga commentary 97).

And at the conclusion of the formal act, if it is a monastery with few bhikkhus, and it is possible to dwell without incurring a break in the night, there itself, one should undertake the practice, saying three times, “I undertake the Parivāsa, I undertake the practice.” Having undertaken it, having informed the Saṅgha there, then informing the bhikkhus who come again and again, without creating a break in the practice or a break in the night, one should dwell in Parivāsa. If it is not possible to purify the Parivāsa, and one desires to dwell with the practice set aside, there itself, in the midst of the Saṅgha, or in the presence of a single individual, the Parivāsa should be set aside, saying, “I set aside the Parivāsa, I set aside the practice.” Even by one phrase, the Parivāsa is set aside here, but by two, it is indeed well set aside. The same method applies to undertaking. From the time of setting aside, he stands in the position of a member in regular standing. Then, at dawn, with one bhikkhu, having gone beyond two stone-throws from the boundary of the enclosed monastery, or from the place suitable for a boundary if it is not enclosed, having gone off the main road, having sat down in a place concealed by a thicket or a fence, before dawn, having undertaken the practice, it should be informed. Whatever other bhikkhu he sees, it should be informed to him as well. When dawn has risen, having set aside the practice in his presence, he should go to the monastery. If he has gone before dawn due to some business, having gone to the monastery, whatever bhikkhu he sees first, having informed him, it should be set aside. Thus, having considered, for as many nights as are complete, one should dwell in Parivāsa. This is the concise explanation of the decision on Paṭicchannaparivāsa. But the detailed explanation should be understood according to the method stated in the Vinayasaṃvaṇṇanā of the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 97).

At the conclusion of the formal act, if the residence has few monks, it is possible to stay without breaking the night. Right there, one should undertake the probation and the duties three times, saying, “I undertake probation, I undertake the duties.” After undertaking them, one should inform the Saṅgha and continue to inform any incoming monks. One should not cause a breach of duties or break the night. If it is not possible to complete the probation, and one wishes to stay having relinquished the duties, one should relinquish the probation and duties in the midst of the Saṅgha or in the presence of a single monk, saying, “I relinquish probation, I relinquish the duties.” Herein, the probation is relinquished even with one statement, but with two statements, it is fully relinquished. The same method applies to undertaking. From the time of relinquishment, one remains in the original state. Then, at dawn, together with one monk, one should go beyond two stone-throws from the boundary of a bounded monastery or from the boundary of an unbounded monastery, and sit in a secluded place. One should undertake the duties before sunrise and inform the monk. If one sees another monk, one should inform him as well. After sunrise, one should relinquish the duties in the presence of that monk and return to the monastery. If that monk has already left for some reason before sunrise, one should go to the monastery and inform the first monk one sees, then relinquish the duties. In this way, one should observe until the nights are completed. This is the brief determination of concealed probation. The detailed explanation should be understood as stated in the Samantapāsādikā Vinaya commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 97).

Itaresu pana dvīsu “āpattipariyantaṃ na jānāti, rattipariyantaṃ na jānātī”ti (cūḷava. 157) imasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ khandhake anuññāto suddhantaparivāso nāma, so duvidho cūḷasuddhanto mahāsuddhantoti, duvidhopi cesa rattiparicchedaṃ sakalaṃ vā ekaccaṃ vā ajānantassa ca assarantassa ca tattha vematikassa ca dātabbo. Āpattipariyantaṃ pana “ettikā ahaṃ āpattiyo āpanno”ti jānātu vā, mā vā, akāraṇametaṃ. Tassa dānavidhi khandhake āgato, vinicchayakathā pana vitthārato samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) vuttā. Itaro pana samodhānaparivāso nāma, so tividho hoti odhānasamodhāno agghasamodhāno missakasamodhānoti. Tattha odhānasamodhāno nāma antarāpattiṃ āpajjitvā paṭicchādentassa parivutthadivase odhunitvā makkhetvā purimāya āpattiyā mūladivasaparicchede pacchā āpannaṃ āpattiṃ samodahitvā dātabbaparivāso vuccati. Agghasamodhāno nāma sambahulāsu āpattīsu yā ekā vā dve vā tisso vā sambahulā vā āpattiyo sabbacirappaṭicchannāyo, tāsaṃ agghena samodhāya tāsaṃ rattiparicchedavasena avasesānaṃ ūnatarappaṭicchannānaṃ āpattīnaṃ dātabbaparivāso vuccati. Missakasamodhāno nāma nānāvatthukāyo āpattiyo ekato katvā dātabbaparivāso vuccati, ayaṃ tividhepi samodhānaparivāse saṅkhepakathā, vitthāro pana samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) vutto, idaṃ “parivatthabba”nti padassa vinicchayakathāmukhaṃ.

In the other two, however, the suddhantaparivāso, “observance for purification,” is permitted in the Khandhaka (Cūḷavagga 157) concerning the matter, “He does not know the extent of the offense, he does not know the extent of the nights.” It is of two kinds: cūḷasuddhanto, “lesser purification,” and mahāsuddhanto, “greater purification.” Both are to be given to one who does not know or recall the full or partial extent of the nights, or who is uncertain about it. Whether he knows the extent of the offenses, saying, “I have committed this many offenses,” or not, is irrelevant. Its method of giving is stated in the Khandhaka, while the discussion of its analysis is elaborately stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga commentary 102). The other, samodhānaparivāso, “observance by combination,” is threefold: odhānasamodhāno, “limited combination,” agghasamodhāno, “value combination,” and missakasamodhāno, “mixed combination.” Among these, odhānasamodhāno refers to an observance given by combining an offense committed and concealed in the interim, limiting and covering it within the days already observed, combining the later offense with the original offense’s starting day. Agghasamodhāno refers to an observance given for many offenses based on the value of those—one, two, three, or many—that have been concealed the longest, combining them by their extent of nights for the remaining less-concealed offenses. Missakasamodhāno refers to an observance given by combining offenses with different bases into one. This is a summary of the threefold observance by combination; its elaboration is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga commentary 102). This is the introduction to the discussion of the analysis of the term “must be observed.”

But in the other two, the Suddhantaparivāsa is allowed in the Khandhaka in the case of “he does not know the limit of the offences, he does not know the limit of the nights” (Cūḷava. 157). It is twofold: Cūḷasuddhanta and Mahāsuddhanta. Both of these should be given to one who does not know the limit of the nights, either entirely or partially, and to one who does not remember it, and to one who is doubtful about it. But whether he knows the limit of the offences, “I have incurred so many offences,” or not, is not a reason. The method of giving it has come in the Khandhaka. But the explanation of the decision is stated in detail in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102). But the other, called Samodhānaparivāsa, is threefold: Odhānasamodhāna, Agghasamodhāna, and Missakasamodhāna. Of these, Odhānasamodhāna is the Parivāsa to be given after having incurred an intervening offence and concealing it, having wiped out and smeared the days dwelt in Parivāsa, having combined the subsequently incurred offence with the original offence’s root number of days. Agghasamodhāna is the Parivāsa to be given for the remaining offences that are concealed for a shorter time, by combining them with the value of those one, two, three, or many offences that are concealed for the longest time among many offences, according to the limit of their nights. Missakasamodhāna is the Parivāsa to be given having combined offences of different origins into one. This is the concise explanation in the threefold Samodhānaparivāsa. But the detailed explanation is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102). This is the method of explanation of the decision of the word “parivatthabba”.

Among the other two, suddhantaparivāso is prescribed in this context for one who does not know the extent of the offenses or the extent of the nights, as mentioned in the Khandhaka (Cūḷavagga 157). It is of two kinds: cūḷasuddhanto and mahāsuddhanto. Both are to be given to one who does not know the full or partial extent of the nights, or who is doubtful or forgetful. Whether one knows the extent of the offenses or not is irrelevant. The method of giving is found in the Khandhaka, and the detailed discussion is in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 102). The other, samodhānaparivāso, is of three kinds: odhānasamodhāno, agghasamodhāno, and missakasamodhāno. Herein, odhānasamodhāno refers to probation given after concealing an intermediate offense, having shaken off and wiped away the concealment, and combining it with the original offense. Agghasamodhāno refers to probation given by combining numerous offenses, some of which are fully concealed, with the remaining offenses being partially concealed. Missakasamodhāno refers to probation given by combining offenses of different kinds. This is the brief explanation of the three kinds of combined probation. The detailed explanation is found in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 102). This is the introductory discussion on the determination of “should undergo probation.”

Uttari chārattanti parivāsato uttari cha rattiyo. Bhikkhumānattāyāti bhikkhūnaṃ mānabhāvāya, ārādhanatthāyāti vuttaṃ hoti. Paṭipajjitabbanti vattitabbaṃ. Bhikkhumānattañca panetaṃ paṭicchannāpaṭicchannavasena duvidhaṃ. Tattha yassa appaṭicchannāpatti hoti, tassa parivāsaṃ adatvā mānattameva dātabbaṃ, idaṃ appaṭicchannamānattaṃ. Yassa paṭicchannā hoti, tassa parivāsapariyosāne dātabbaṃ mānattaṃ paṭicchannamānattanti vuccati, idaṃ idha adhippetaṃ. Ubhinnampi panetesaṃ dānavidhi vinicchayakathā ca samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) vuttanayena veditabbā, ayaṃ panettha saṅkhepo. Sace ayaṃ vattaṃ nikkhipitvā paccūsasamaye samādātuṃ gacchati, sabbantimena paricchedena catūhi bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ parivāse vuttappakāraṃ padesaṃ gantvā “mānattaṃ samādiyāmi, vattaṃ samādiyāmī”ti samādiyitvā nesaṃ ārocetvā tato tesu gatesu vā agatesu vā purimanayena paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Yattha siyā vīsatigaṇoti ettha vīsatisaṅgho gaṇo assāti vīsatigaṇo. Tatrāti yatra sabbantimena paricchedena vīsatigaṇo bhikkhusaṅgho atthi, tattha. Abbhetabboti abhietabbo, sampaṭicchitabbo, abbhānakammavasena osāretabboti vuttaṃ hoti. Avhātabboti vā attho. Abbhānakammaṃ pana pāḷivasena khandhake (cūḷava. 100 ādayo) vinicchayavasena samantapāsādikāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Anabbhitoti na abbhito asampaṭicchito, akatabbhānakammoti vuttaṃ hoti. Anavhātoti vā attho. Te ca bhikkhū gārayhāti ye ūnabhāvaṃ ñatvā abbhenti, te bhikkhū ca garahitabbā, sātisārā sadosā dukkaṭaṃ āpajjantīti attho. Ayaṃ tattha sāmīcīti ayaṃ tattha anudhammatā lokuttaradhammaṃ anugatā ovādānusāsanī sāmīci dhammatā. Sesamettha vuttanayamevāti.

Uttari chāratta means “beyond, for six nights,” beyond the observance. Bhikkhumānattāyā means “for the respect of the monks,” meaning for their satisfaction, it is said. Paṭipajjitabba means “it must be practiced.” The monks’ respect is twofold, based on whether the offense is concealed or not. For one whose offense is unconcealed, respect is to be given without observance; this is appaṭicchannamānatta, “respect for an unconcealed offense.” For one whose offense is concealed, respect is to be given after completing the observance; this is called paṭicchannamānatta, “respect for a concealed offense,” and this is intended here. The method of giving both, and the discussion of their analysis, should be understood as stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga commentary 102). This is the summary here: If he goes to undertake it at dawn after laying aside the duties, with at least four monks, he should go to a place as described for the observance, undertake it saying, “I undertake the respect, I undertake the duties,” inform them, and then proceed as before, whether they depart or not. Yattha siyā vīsatigaṇo means “where there might be a group of twenty,” meaning a Sangha of twenty monks. Tatrā means “there,” where there is a Sangha of at least twenty monks. Abbhetabbo means “he must be rehabilitated,” accepted, or concluded by the act of rehabilitation, it is said; or it means “he must be summoned.” The act of rehabilitation is stated in the Pāli text in the Khandhaka (Cūḷavagga 100 onward) and in terms of analysis in the Samantapāsādikā. Anabbhito means “not rehabilitated,” not accepted, meaning the act of rehabilitation has not been performed; or it means “not summoned.” Te ca bhikkhū gārayhā means “those monks are blameworthy,” meaning those who rehabilitate knowing the deficiency are to be blamed, liable to a fault, committing a dukkaṭa offense. Ayaṃ tattha sāmīcī means “this is the propriety there,” meaning the conformity to the Dhamma, following the transcendent Dhamma, the instruction and admonition, the propriety of Dhamma. The rest here is as stated.

Uttari chārattanti means six nights in addition to the Parivāsa. Bhikkhumānattāyāti means for the state of being honored by the bhikkhus, meaning for the sake of pleasing. Paṭipajjitabbanti means it should be practiced. And this state of being honored by the bhikkhus is twofold, according to whether the offence is concealed or unconcealed. Therein, for one whose offence is unconcealed, Mānatta itself should be given without giving the Parivāsa. This is appaṭicchannamānatta. For one whose offence is concealed, the Mānatta to be given at the conclusion of the Parivāsa is called paṭicchannamānatta. This is what is intended here. But the method of giving and the explanation of the decision of both of these should be understood according to the method stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102). This is the summary here. If he goes to undertake the practice at dawn, having set aside the practice, in the last resort, with four bhikkhus, having gone to the place stated in the Parivāsa, having undertaken it, saying, “I undertake the Mānatta, I undertake the practice,” having informed them, then, whether they have gone or not, one should proceed according to the previous method. Yattha siyā vīsatigaṇoti here, ‘vīsatigaṇo’ means a group where there is a Saṅgha of twenty. Tatrāti means where there is a Saṅgha of at least twenty bhikkhus. Abbhetabboti means he should be rehabilitated, he should be accepted, meaning he should be restored by the act of rehabilitation. Or the meaning is ‘he should be called’. But the act of rehabilitation is stated in the Khandhaka (Cūḷava. 100 and following) according to the Pāḷi, and in the Samantapāsādikā according to the decision. Anabbhitoti means not rehabilitated, not accepted, meaning the act of rehabilitation has not been performed. Or the meaning is ‘not called’. Te ca bhikkhū gārayhāti means those bhikkhus who rehabilitate him, knowing the deficiency, are to be blamed, they are with fault, with দোষ (dosa), incurring a Dukkaṭa offence. Ayaṃ tattha sāmīcīti means this is the proper conduct there, the propriety, the admonition and instruction that accords with the supramundane Dhamma, the proper conduct according to Dhamma. The rest here is indeed according to the method stated.

Uttari chāratta means six nights beyond the probation period. Bhikkhumānattāya means for the sake of the monks’ honor, that is, for the sake of satisfaction. Paṭipajjitabba means should be practiced. The monks’ honor is of two kinds: concealed and unconcealed. Herein, for one whose offense is unconcealed, only the penance should be given without probation. This is called appaṭicchannamānatta. For one whose offense is concealed, the penance should be given at the end of the probation. This is called paṭicchannamānatta, which is intended here. The method of giving and the detailed discussion for both are to be understood as stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 102). This is the brief explanation here. If one relinquishes the duties and goes to undertake them at dawn, one should go to a place with four monks, as described for probation, and undertake the penance and duties, saying, “I undertake penance, I undertake the duties.” After informing them, whether they have left or not, one should proceed as before. Yattha siyā vīsatigaṇo means where there is a group of twenty monks. Tatrā means where, within the final boundary, there is a group of twenty monks. Abbhetabbo means should be reinstated, accepted, or brought back through the abbhānakamma. It means should be called. The abbhānakamma is described in the Khandhaka (Cūḷavagga 100 ff.) and in the Samantapāsādikā. Anabbhito means not reinstated, not accepted, or not having undergone the abbhānakamma. It means not called. Te ca bhikkhū gārayhā means those monks who, knowing the deficiency, reinstate him are blameworthy, being at fault and committing a wrong. Ayaṃ tattha sāmīcī means this is the proper conduct there, following the supramundane Dhamma, the instruction and guidance. The rest here should be understood as previously stated.

Aniyatakaṇḍo

Section on the Aniyata

The Aniyata Section

1. Paṭhamāniyatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the First Aniyata Training Rule

1. The Explanation of the First Aniyata Training Rule

1. Explanation of the First Aniyata Training Rule

Aniyatuddese ime kho panātiādi vuttanayameva. Mātugāmenāti tadahujātāyapi jīvamānakamanussitthiyā. Eko ekāyāti eko bhikkhu mātugāmasaṅkhātāya ekāya itthiyā saddhiṃ. Rahoti cakkhussa raho. Kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ (pārā. 445) sotassa raho āgato, cakkhusseva pana raho “raho”ti idha adhippeto. Sacepi hi pihitakavāṭassa gabbhassa dvāre nisinno viññū puriso hoti, neva anāpattiṃ karoti. Yattha pana sakkā daṭṭhuṃ, tādise antodvādasahatthepi okāse nisinno sacakkhuko vikkhittacittopi niddāyantopi anāpattiṃ karoti, samīpe ṭhitopi andho na karoti, cakkhumāpi nipajjitvā niddāyantopi na karoti, itthīnaṃ pana satampi na karotiyeva, tena vuttaṃ “rahoti cakkhussa raho”ti. Paṭicchanne āsaneti kuṭṭādīhi paṭicchannokāse. Alaṃkammaniyeti kammakkhamaṃ kammayogganti kammaniyaṃ, alaṃ pariyattaṃ kammaniyabhāvāyāti alaṃkammaniyaṃ, tasmiṃ alaṃkammaniye. Yattha ajjhācāraṃ karontā sakkonti taṃ kammaṃ kātuṃ, tādiseti attho. Nisajjaṃ kappeyyāti nisajjaṃ kareyya, nisīdeyyāti attho. Ettha ca sayanampi nisajjāya eva saṅgahitaṃ. Saddheyyavacasāti saddhātabbavacanā, ariyasāvikāti attho. Nisajjaṃ bhikkhu paṭijānamānoti kiñcāpi evarūpā upāsikā disvā vadati, atha kho bhikkhu nisajjaṃ paṭijānamānova tiṇṇaṃ dhammānaṃ aññatarena kāretabbo, na appaṭijānamānoti attho. Yena vā sāti nisajjādīsu ākāresu yena vā ākārena saddhiṃ methunādīni āropetvā sā upāsikā vadeyya, paṭijānamānova tena so bhikkhu kāretabbo, evarūpāyapi hi upāsikāya vacanamattena ākārena na kāretabboti attho. Kasmā? Yasmā diṭṭhaṃ nāma tathāpi hoti, aññathāpīti. Ayaṃ dhammo aniyatoti tiṇṇaṃ āpattīnaṃ yaṃ āpattiṃ vā vatthuṃ vā paṭijānāti, tassa vasena kāretabbatāya aniyato.

In the section on undetermined rules, “Now these” and so forth follows the method already stated. “With a woman” refers to any living human female, even one born that very day. “A monk alone with a single woman” means one monk together with a single female classified as a woman. “In private” refers to privacy from sight. Although in the text (pārā. 445) privacy from hearing is mentioned, here “in private” is intended specifically as privacy from sight. For even if a discerning man is seated at the door of an inner room with a closed door, he does not commit an offense. However, in a place where one can be seen, even within a space of twelve handspans, a monk with sight, though distracted or drowsy, commits no offense; a blind person standing nearby does not commit an offense; nor does a sighted person lying down and sleeping; nor do a hundred women. Thus it is said, “in private means privacy from sight.” “On a concealed seat” refers to a place screened by walls or similar means. “Suitable for action” means fit for action, capable of action, suitable for action; that is, fully adequate for such a state of suitability. It refers to a place where those engaging in misconduct could perform that act—this is the meaning. “Should arrange to sit” means he would sit down, implying he takes a seat. Here, lying down is also included within sitting. “With a woman of credible speech” refers to a woman whose words are to be believed, meaning a noble female disciple. “A monk acknowledging sitting” means that, although such a laywoman may see and speak of it, the monk who acknowledges sitting is to be dealt with under one of the three offenses, not one who does not acknowledge it—this is the meaning. “Or by whatever manner she” refers to whichever manner among sitting and the like, by which the laywoman accuses him of sexual misconduct or similar acts; only the monk who acknowledges it is to be dealt with accordingly. The point is that such a laywoman’s mere statement about the manner is not sufficient grounds for action. Why? Because what is seen may be one way or another. “This matter is undetermined” means it is undetermined because he must be dealt with based on whichever offense or basis he acknowledges among the three offenses.

In the section on undetermined offenses, the phrase “ime kho panā” and so forth, should be understood as stated earlier. “Mātugāmenāti” refers to even a woman born that very day, any living human female. “Eko ekāyāti” means a single bhikkhu with a single woman, who is considered a ‘mātugāma’ (woman). “Rahoti” means a visually secluded place. Although in the Pāḷi (Pārā. 445) a secluded place for the ear is mentioned, here, “secluded” specifically refers to what is secluded for the eye. Even if a wise man is sitting at the door of a closed room, it does not constitute a non-offense. However, in a place where one can see, even within a twelve-handspan area, a person with sight, even if distracted or sleeping, does not incur an offense. A blind person nearby does not cause an offense, nor does a sighted person who is lying down and sleeping. But even a hundred women do not [negate the offense], therefore it is said, “rahoti cakkhussa raho” (secluded means visually secluded). “Paṭicchanne āsaneti” refers to a place concealed by walls or other structures. “Alaṃkammaniyeti” means fit for action, suitable for action, thus ‘kammaniyaṃ’. ‘Alaṃ’ means sufficient, adequate for being ‘kammaniyaṃ’, thus ‘alaṃkammaniyaṃ’, in that ‘alaṃkammaniyaṃ’. It means a place where those engaging in misconduct can perform that action, that is the meaning. “Nisajjaṃ kappeyyāti” means he would be making sitting; he would sit, that is the meaning. Here, even lying down is included in the act of sitting. “Saddheyyavacasāti” means a woman with trustworthy speech, meaning a noble female disciple. “Nisajjaṃ bhikkhu paṭijānamānoti” although such an upāsikā (female lay follower) sees and speaks, yet the bhikkhu, while admitting to sitting, should be dealt with according to one of the three offenses, not as if he did not admit it, that is the meaning. “Yena vā sāti” among the conditions such as sitting, etc., whatever condition that upāsikā alleges, associating it with sexual intercourse, etc., the bhikkhu should be dealt with accordingly, only if he admits to it. Even with the mere statement of such an upāsikā, he should not be dealt with based on the circumstance, that is the meaning. Why? Because what is seen can be one way or another. “Ayaṃ dhammo aniyatoti” among the three offenses, whichever offense or object he admits to, because he should be dealt with according to that, it is undetermined.

In the Aniyata section, ime kho panā and so on, the method is as previously stated. Mātugāmenā means a woman, even one just born, as long as she is alive. Eko ekāyā means one monk with one woman. Raho means secluded from the eye. Although in the Pāḷi (Pārā. 445) seclusion from the ear is mentioned, here seclusion from the eye is intended. For even if a wise man is sitting at the door of a closed room, he does not commit an offense. However, in a place where one can be seen, even within a space of twelve hands, a sighted person with a distracted mind or one who is asleep does not commit an offense. A blind person standing nearby does not commit an offense, nor does a sighted person lying down and sleeping. But women, even if they are aware, do not commit an offense. Therefore, it is said, “secluded from the eye.” Paṭicchanne āsane means in a secluded place, such as behind a wall. Alaṃkammaniye means suitable for the act, capable of performing the act. It means a place where one can perform the act. Nisajjaṃ kappeyyā means should sit, should take a seat. Herein, even lying down is included in sitting. Saddheyyavacasā means trustworthy words, a noble female disciple. Nisajjaṃ bhikkhu paṭijānamāno means even if such a female disciple sees and speaks, the monk, admitting to sitting, should be dealt with according to one of the three methods, not if he does not admit. Yena vā sā means in whatever manner the female disciple accuses him of sexual misconduct, the monk, admitting to it, should be dealt with accordingly. For even in such a case, the mere word of such a female disciple is not enough to deal with him. Why? Because what is seen may be so or otherwise. Ayaṃ dhammo aniyato means this matter is undetermined because it is to be dealt with according to whichever offense or basis he admits to.

Sāvatthiyaṃ udāyittheraṃ ārabbha mātugāmena saddhiṃ vuttappakāre āsane nisajjakappanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, methunadhammasannissitakilesasaṅkhātena rahassādena mātugāmassa santikaṃ gantukāmatāya akkhiañjanādito paṭṭhāya sabbapayogesu dukkaṭaṃ. Gantvā tasmiṃ vā nisinne itthī nisīdatu, tassā vā nisinnāya so nisīdatu, apacchā apurimaṃyeva ubho vā nisīdantu, ubhinnaṃ nisajjāya pācittiyaṃ. Sace pana kāyasaṃsaggaṃ vā methunaṃ vā samāpajjati, tesaṃ vasena kāretabbo. Nipajjanepi eseva nayo. Vuttappakāre purise nipajjitvā aniddāyante anandhe viññupurise upacāragate sati, ṭhitassa, arahopekkhassa, aññavihitassa ca nisajjanapaccayā anāpatti. Ummattakādīnaṃ pana tīhipi āpattīhi anāpatti. Siyā sīlavipatti, siyā ācāravipatti. Yaṃ pana āpattiṃ paṭijānāti, tassā vasena aṅgabhedo ñātabbo. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisānevāti.

This was established in Sāvatthi concerning the Elder Udāyin, regarding the matter of arranging to sit with a woman on a seat as described. It is a specific ruling, not a general command, and involves a wrongdoing in all efforts starting from applying eye ointment due to the desire to approach a woman privately, driven by defilements associated with sexual conduct. If he goes there and sits while the woman sits, or if she is seated and he sits, or if both sit together without one following the other, both incur a pācittiya offense for sitting. However, if he engages in physical contact or sexual intercourse, he is to be dealt with according to those offenses. The same applies to lying down. There is no offense if a discerning, sighted, non-deaf man who is not drowsy is present nearby, or for one standing, one indifferent to privacy, or one distracted, due to the condition of sitting. For those who are deranged and the like, there is no offense under any of the three offenses. There may be a lapse in virtue or a lapse in conduct. The distinction of factors should be understood based on the offense he acknowledges. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the first pārājika rule.

It was established in Sāvatthi concerning the elder Udāyi, regarding sitting with a woman on the type of seat described, it is a non-exclusive regulation, not commanding, with regard to the desire to go to a woman with the secret delight of lust, associated with the defilement of sexual intercourse, starting from eye ointment, etc., there is a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing) in all endeavors. After going, if the woman sits when he sits there, or if he sits when she is sitting, or if both sit without precedence, or simultaneously, there is a pācittiya (offense requiring expiation) for the sitting of both. But if he engages in physical contact or sexual intercourse, he should be dealt with accordingly. The same principle applies to lying down. With regard to the described type of man, if he is lying down, not sleeping, not blind, and is a wise man within the range of interaction, there is no offense for the one standing, looking at a non-secluded place, or otherwise engaged, due to the act of sitting. For the insane, etc., there is no offense for all three offenses. There may be a breach of morality, or there may be a breach of conduct. Whichever offense he admits to, the differentiation of factors should be understood accordingly. The origins, etc., are similar to the first pārājika (offense entailing defeat).

In Sāvatthī, regarding the elder Udāyi, a training rule was laid down concerning sitting in a secluded place with a woman. It is a non-common rule, not an offense requiring confession. It is related to the defilement of sexual misconduct, arising from the desire to approach a woman in private, starting from applying eye ointment, etc. In all such efforts, it is a wrong-doing. If one goes and sits there, and the woman sits, or if she sits and he sits, or if both sit facing each other, it is a pācittiya offense. If there is bodily contact or sexual intercourse, one should be dealt with accordingly. The same applies to lying down. In the case of a man lying down, if he is not asleep, not blind, and a wise man approaches, or if he is standing, looking away, or engaged in something else, there is no offense. For the insane, etc., there is no offense in all three cases. There may be a breach of virtue or conduct. The offense one admits to should be understood by its component. The origin, etc., are the same as in the first pārājika.

2. Dutiyāniyatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Second Undetermined Training Rule

2. Explanation of the Second Undetermined Training Rule

2. Explanation of the Second Aniyata Training Rule

Dutiye itthīpi purisopi yo koci viññū anandho abadhiro antodvādasahatthe okāse ṭhito vā nisinno vā vikkhittopi niddāyantopi anāpattiṃ karoti. Badhiro pana cakkhumāpi, andho vā abadhiropi na karoti. Pārājikāpattiñca parihāpetvā duṭṭhullavācāpatti vuttāti ayaṃ viseso. Sesaṃ purimanayeneva veditabbaṃ. Samuṭṭhānādīni panettha adinnādānasadisānevāti.

In the second rule, whether it is a woman or a man, any discerning person who is neither blind nor deaf, standing or seated within a space of twelve handspans, even if distracted or drowsy, prevents an offense. However, a deaf person with sight, or a blind person who is not deaf, does not prevent it. The distinction here is that the offense of grave speech is mentioned, excluding the pārājika offense. The rest should be understood according to the method of the first rule. The origin and so forth here are similar to those of the rule on taking what is not given.

In the second, whether it be a woman or a man, any wise person who is not blind or deaf, whether standing or sitting within a twelve-handspan area, even if distracted or sleeping, does not cause a non-offense. But a deaf person, even if sighted, or a blind person, even if not deaf, does not cause it. Excluding the pārājika offense, the offense of using lewd speech is stated; this is the difference. The rest should be understood as in the previous case. Here, the origins, etc., are similar to those of taking what is not given.

In the second rule, a woman or a man, any wise person who is not blind or deaf, standing or sitting within a space of twelve hands, even if distracted or asleep, does not commit an offense. A deaf person, even if sighted, or a blind person who is not deaf, does not commit an offense. Apart from the pārājika offense, the offense of lewd speech is mentioned. The rest should be understood as before. The origin, etc., are the same as in the offense of stealing.

“These have been recited” and so forth should be understood everywhere according to the method already stated.

“Uddiṭṭhā kho” and so on, everything should be understood as stated earlier, in all instances.

Nissaggiyakaṇḍo

Section on Relinquishment

Section on Things to be Forfeited

The Nissaggiya Section

From here onward, “Now these” and so forth should be understood everywhere according to the method already stated.

From here on, “ime kho panā” and so on, everything should be understood as stated earlier, in all instances.

From here onwards, ime kho panā and so on should be understood as previously stated.

1. Cīvaravaggo

1. Section on Robes

1. The Chapter on Robes

1. The Robe Chapter

1. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Kathina Training Rule

1. Explanation of the Kathina Training Rule

Nissaggiyesu pana cīvaravaggassa tāva paṭhamasikkhāpade niṭṭhitacīvarasminti sūcikammapariyosānena vā, “naṭṭhaṃ vā vinaṭṭhaṃ vā daḍḍhaṃ vā cīvarāsā vā upacchinnā”ti (pārā. 463) imesu vā yena kenaci ākārena niṭṭhite cīvarasmiṃ, cīvarassa karaṇapalibodhe upacchinneti attho. Atthatakathinassa hi bhikkhuno yāva imehākārehi cīvarapalibodho na chijjati, tāva kathinānisaṃsaṃ labhati. Ubbhatasmiṃ kathineti yaṃ saṅghassa kathinaṃ atthataṃ, tasmiñca ubbhate. Tatrevaṃ saṅkhepato kathinatthāro ca ubbhāro ca veditabbo. Ayañhi kathinatthāro nāma bhagavatā purimavassaṃvuṭṭhānaṃ anuññāto, so sabbantimena paricchedena pañcannaṃ janānaṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā yattha cattāro vā tayo vā dve vā eko vā purimavassaṃ upagato, tattha pacchimavassūpagate gaṇapūrake katvā attharitabbaṃ, te ca gaṇapūrakāva honti, ānisaṃse na labhanti, tasmā sace purimavassaṃvuṭṭhānaṃ gahaṭṭhapabbajitesu yo koci dhammena samena cīvaraṃ deti “iminā kathinaṃ attharathā”ti (mahāva. 306-309), taṃ khandhake vuttāya ñattidutiyakammavācāya kathinatthārārahassa bhikkhuno dātabbaṃ. Tena tadaheva pañca vā atirekāni vā khaṇḍāni chinditvā saṅghāṭi vā uttarāsaṅgo vā antaravāsako vā kātabbo, sesabhikkhūhipi tassa sahāyehi bhavitabbaṃ, sace katacīvarameva uppajjati, sundarameva. Acchinnāsibbitaṃ pana na vaṭṭati. Tena bhikkhunā sace saṅghāṭiyā attharitukāmo hoti, porāṇikaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharitvā navaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā “imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī”ti attharitabbaṃ. Uttarāsaṅgaantaravāsakesupi eseva nayo. Tato tena purimavassaṃvuṭṭhe antosīmāgate bhikkhū upasaṅkamitvā “atthataṃ, bhante, saṅghassa kathinaṃ, dhammiko kathinatthāro, anumodathā”ti (pari. 413) vattabbaṃ, therānañca navānañca bahūnañca ekassa ca anurūpaṃ sallakkhetvā vattabbaṃ. Tehipi “atthataṃ, bhante, saṅghassa kathina”nti vā “atthataṃ, āvuso, saṅghassa kathina”nti vā vatvā “dhammiko kathinatthāro, anumodāmā”ti vā “anumodāmī”ti vā vattabbaṃ. Purimavassaṃvuṭṭhesupi ye anumodanti, tesaṃyeva atthataṃ hoti kathinaṃ. Te tato paṭṭhāya yāva kathinassubbhārā anāmantacāro, asamādānacāro, yāvadatthacīvaraṃ, gaṇabhojanaṃ, yo ca tattha cīvaruppādo, tasmiṃ āvāse saṅghassa uppannacīvarañcāti ime pañcānisaṃse labhanti, ayaṃ tāva kathinatthāro. Taṃ panetaṃ kathinaṃ “aṭṭhimā, bhikkhave, mātikā kathinassubbhārāya pakkamanantikā niṭṭhānantikā sanniṭṭhānantikā nāsanantikā savanantikā āsāvacchedikā sīmātikkamanantikā sahubbhārā”ti (mahāva. 310) evaṃ vuttāsu aṭṭhasu mātikāsu aññataravasena uddharīyati, tattha vitthāravinicchayo samantapāsādikāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 310) vuttanayena veditabbo. Iti “ubbhatasmiṃ kathine”tiiminā sesapalibodhābhāvaṃ dasseti.

In the rules of relinquishment, starting with the first training rule in the section on robes, “When the robe is completed” means when the robe is finished either by the completion of sewing or by any of the following: “lost, destroyed, burnt, or the expectation of a robe is cut off” (pārā. 463)—in any such manner the robe is completed, meaning the impediment to making the robe is removed. For a monk who has spread the kathina, as long as the impediment to the robe is not removed by these means, he continues to receive the benefits of the kathina. “When the kathina is dismantled” refers to the kathina that has been spread by the Sangha and is then dismantled. Here, the spreading and dismantling of the kathina should be understood briefly as follows. This spreading of the kathina was permitted by the Blessed One for those who have completed the earlier rains retreat. It applies to a minimum of five persons as the smallest limit. Therefore, where four, three, two, or one person has entered the earlier rains retreat, it should be spread by completing the group with those who entered the later rains retreat. Those completing the group merely fulfill the quorum and do not receive the benefits. Thus, if any layperson or monastic who has completed the earlier rains retreat gives a robe lawfully and rightfully, saying, “Spread the kathina with this” (mahāva. 306-309), it should be given to a monk worthy of spreading the kathina by the procedure of a motion and second announcement as stated in the Khandhaka. That day, he must cut five or more pieces and make a saṅghāṭi, an upper robe, or an inner robe. The other monks must assist him. If a finished robe is obtained, that is excellent. However, an unsewn robe is not permissible. If that monk wishes to spread it with a saṅghāṭi, he should relinquish the old saṅghāṭi, determine the new saṅghāṭi, and spread it saying, “I spread the kathina with this saṅghāṭi.” The same applies to the upper robe and inner robe. Then, approaching monks who have completed the earlier rains retreat within the boundary, he should say, “Venerables, the Sangha’s kathina has been spread; the spreading of the kathina is lawful; rejoice in it” (pari. 413), speaking appropriately considering the seniority, juniority, number, or singularity of the monks. They should respond, “Venerables, the Sangha’s kathina has been spread” or “Friends, the Sangha’s kathina has been spread,” and say, “The spreading of the kathina is lawful; we rejoice” or “I rejoice.” Only those who rejoice among those who have completed the earlier rains retreat have the kathina spread for them. From then until the dismantling of the kathina, they receive five benefits: going without informing, going without taking all robes, keeping robes as desired, group meals, and any robe that arises in that monastery belongs to the Sangha. This is the spreading of the kathina. However, this kathina is dismantled by one of the eight conditions stated as follows: “Monks, there are eight grounds for dismantling the kathina: departure, completion, resolve to complete, loss, hearing, cutting off expectation, crossing the boundary, and collective dismantling” (mahāva. 310). The detailed determination of these should be understood according to the method stated in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 310). Thus, “when the kathina is dismantled” indicates the absence of remaining impediments.

In the rules regarding forfeiture, first, in the first training rule of the robe chapter, “niṭṭhitacīvarasminti” means when the robe is completed, either by the completion of the needlework, or when it is “lost, destroyed, burnt, or the hope for a robe is cut off” (Pārā. 463), in any of these ways, when the robe is finished, it means that the impediment to making the robe is cut off. For a bhikkhu whose kathina has been spread, until the robe impediment is cut off by these means, he receives the benefits of the kathina. “Ubbhatasmiṃ kathineti” means when the kathina that was spread for the Saṅgha has been withdrawn. Here, in brief, the spreading and withdrawing of the kathina should be understood. The spreading of the kathina was permitted by the Blessed One for those who have completed the first rains retreat. It is valid, at the very least, for five people. Therefore, where there are four, three, two, or one who has entered the first rains retreat, it should be spread by making up the number with those who entered the later rains retreat. They only make up the number; they do not receive the benefits. Therefore, if among those who have completed the first rains retreat, any householder or renunciant gives a robe according to Dhamma, saying, “Spread the kathina with this” (Mahāva. 306-309), it should be given to a bhikkhu who is eligible to spread the kathina, according to the ñattidutiyakammavācā (formal act of the Saṅgha consisting of a motion and one proclamation) stated in the Khandhaka. He should then cut five or more pieces and make either a saṅghāṭi (outer robe), an uttarāsaṅga (upper robe), or an antaravāsaka (lower robe). The other bhikkhus should also assist him. If a completed robe is offered, that is very good. But one that is not cut and sewn is not valid. If that bhikkhu wishes to spread the kathina with the saṅghāṭi, he should withdraw the old saṅghāṭi, formally determine the new saṅghāṭi, and spread it, saying, “I spread the kathina with this saṅghāṭi.” The same procedure applies to the uttarāsaṅga and antaravāsaka. Then he should approach the bhikkhus who have completed the first rains retreat and are within the boundary, and say, “Venerable sirs, the Saṅgha’s kathina has been spread, it is a rightful spreading of the kathina, please acknowledge it” (Pari. 413). It should be said in a way appropriate for elders, juniors, many, and one, after careful consideration. They should say, “Venerable sir, the Saṅgha’s kathina has been spread,” or “Friend, the Saṅgha’s kathina has been spread,” and then say, “It is a rightful spreading of the kathina, we acknowledge it,” or “I acknowledge it.” Among those who have completed the first rains retreat, only those who acknowledge it have the kathina spread for them. From then on, until the withdrawal of the kathina, they receive these five benefits: going without invitation, going without taking [all three robes], robe as long as needed, eating in a group, and whatever robes arise there, and the robes that have arisen for the Saṅgha in that dwelling. This is the spreading of the kathina. This kathina is withdrawn according to one of these eight bases, as stated: “Bhikkhus, there are these eight bases for the withdrawal of the kathina: departure, completion, determination, destruction, hearing, cutting off of hope, going beyond the boundary, and withdrawal together” (Mahāva. 310). The detailed explanation of these should be understood as stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 310). Thus, “ubbhatasmiṃ kathine” (when the kathina has been withdrawn) indicates the absence of other impediments.

Regarding the Nissaggiya offenses, in the first training rule of the Robe Chapter, niṭṭhitacīvarasmi means either at the completion of the needlework or when the robe-material is lost, destroyed, burnt, or the robe-season is interrupted, as stated (pārā. 463). In these cases, by any means, when the robe-material is completed, the obstacle to making the robe is removed. For a bhikkhu whose kathina is completed, as long as the robe-obstacle is not removed by these means, he continues to receive the benefits of the kathina. Ubbhatasmiṃ kathine means when the kathina that was spread by the Sangha has been taken down. Here, briefly, the spreading and taking down of the kathina should be understood. This spreading of the kathina was allowed by the Blessed One for those who had completed the first vassa. It applies to five kinds of people. Therefore, wherever four, three, two, or one who has completed the first vassa is present, the kathina should be spread after the arrival of those who have completed the later vassa, forming a complete group. They alone are entitled to the benefits. Therefore, if a layperson or a monastic who has completed the first vassa rightfully and properly gives robe-material, saying, “Use this to spread the kathina,” it should be given to the bhikkhu who is worthy of spreading the kathina, according to the motion and proclamation procedure stated in the Khandhaka (mahāva. 306-309). On that very day, five or more pieces should be cut and made into a saṅghāṭi, an upper robe, or an under robe. The other bhikkhus should also assist him. If a completed robe is already available, that is excellent. However, an unstitched robe is not suitable. If that bhikkhu wishes to spread the kathina with a saṅghāṭi, he should take off the old saṅghāṭi, determine a new one, and spread it, saying, “I spread the kathina with this saṅghāṭi.” The same method applies to the upper robe and under robe. Then, when the bhikkhus who have completed the first vassa have arrived within the boundary, he should approach them and say, “Venerable sirs, the kathina has been spread by the Sangha. The spreading of the kathina is lawful. Please rejoice.” He should address the elders and the newly ordained appropriately. They should reply, “Venerable sir, the kathina has been spread by the Sangha,” or “Friend, the kathina has been spread by the Sangha,” and say, “The spreading of the kathina is lawful. We rejoice,” or “I rejoice.” For those who have completed the first vassa and rejoice, the kathina is considered spread for them. From then on, until the kathina is taken down, they are entitled to the five benefits: not having to inform others when leaving, not having to take all three robes, using robe-material as needed, group meals, and any robe-material that arises in that monastery. This is the spreading of the kathina. The kathina is taken down by one of the eight methods stated: “Monks, there are eight methods for taking down the kathina: by leaving, by finishing, by deciding, by destroying, by hearing, by interrupting the robe-season, by crossing the boundary, or by taking it down together” (mahāva. 310). The detailed explanation should be understood according to the method stated in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 310). Thus, “ubbhatasmiṃ kathine” indicates the absence of remaining obstacles.

Dasāhaparamanti dasa ahāni paramo paricchedo assāti dasāhaparamo, taṃ dasāhaparamaṃ kālaṃ dhāretabbanti attho. Adhiṭṭhitavikappitesu apariyāpannattā atirekaṃ cīvaranti atirekacīvaraṃ, cīvaraṃ nāma khomaṃ kappāsikaṃ koseyyaṃ kambalaṃ sāṇaṃ bhaṅganti etesaṃ vā tadanulomānaṃ vā aññataraṃ ayamassa jāti, pamāṇato pana taṃ vikappanupagaṃ pacchimaṃ idha adhippetaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, āyāmato aṭṭhaṅgulaṃ sugataṅgulena caturaṅgulavitthataṃ pacchimaṃ cīvaraṃ vikappetu”nti (mahāva. 358). Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ “adhiṭṭhitavikappitesu apariyāpannattā”ti, ettha “anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, vassikasāṭikaṃ vassānaṃ catumāsaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ tato paraṃ vikappetuṃ, nisīdanaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ paccattharaṇaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, kaṇḍuppaṭicchādiṃ yāva ābādhā adhiṭṭhātuṃ tato paraṃ vikappetuṃ, mukhapuñchanacoḷakaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetu”nti (mahāva. 358) iminā nayena adhiṭṭhātabbavikappetabbatā jānitabbā. Tattha ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhahantena rajitvā kappabinduṃ datvā pamāṇayuttameva adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, tassa pamāṇaṃ ukkaṭṭhaparicchedena sugatacīvarato ūnakaṃ vaṭṭati, lāmakaparicchedena saṅghāṭiyā tāva uttarāsaṅgassa ca dīghato muṭṭhipañcakaṃ, tiriyaṃ muṭṭhittikaṃ, antaravāsako dīghato muṭṭhipañcako , tiriyaṃ dvihatthopi vaṭṭati. Vuttappamāṇato pana atirekañca ūnakañca “parikkhāracoḷa”nti adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Tattha yasmā “dve cīvarassa adhiṭṭhānāni kāyena vā adhiṭṭheti, vācāya vā adhiṭṭhetī”ti vuttaṃ, tasmā purāṇasaṅghāṭiṃ “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmī”ti paccuddharitvā navaṃ hatthena gahetvā “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti cittena ābhogaṃ katvā kāyavikāraṃ karontena kāyena vā adhiṭṭhātabbā, vacībhedaṃ katvā vācāya vā adhiṭṭhātabbā. Tatra duvidhaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ – sace hatthapāse hoti, “imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā. Atha antogabbhādīsu sāmantavihāre vā hoti, ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā “etaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī”ti vācā bhinditabbā. Esa nayo uttarāsaṅge ca antaravāsake ca. Nāmamattameva hi viseso. Tasmā sabbāni saṅghāṭiṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ antaravāsakanti evaṃ attano attano nāmeneva adhiṭṭhātabbāni. Sace adhiṭṭhahitvā ṭhapitavatthehi saṅghāṭiādīni karoti, niṭṭhite rajane ca kappe ca “imaṃ paccuddharāmī”ti paccuddharitvā puna adhiṭṭhātabbāni. Idañca pana ticīvaraṃ sukhaparibhogatthaṃ parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātumpi vaṭṭati.

“For a maximum of ten days” means having a maximum limit of ten days; it should be kept for that maximum period of ten days—this is the meaning. “Extra robe” refers to a robe not included among those determined or assigned, meaning an additional robe. A robe is one made of linen, cotton, silk, wool, hemp, or mixed fabric, or something similar—one of these types. In terms of size, the smallest permissible robe is intended here. It is said, “I allow, monks, a smallest robe eight fingerbreadths long by the Sugata’s fingerbreadth and four fingerbreadths wide to be assigned” (mahāva. 358). As for “not included among those determined or assigned,” it is said, “I allow, monks, the three robes to be determined but not assigned; the rains robe to be determined for the four months of the rains and assigned thereafter; the sitting cloth to be determined but not assigned; the coverlet to be determined but not assigned; the itch-cover to be determined as long as the ailment lasts and assigned thereafter; the face-wiping cloth to be determined but not assigned; the requisite cloth to be determined but not assigned” (mahāva. 358). By this method, what should be determined or assigned is to be understood. Here, when determining the three robes, they must be dyed, marked with a binding dot, and of the proper size. The maximum size is less than the Sugata’s robe; the minimum size for the saṅghāṭi and upper robe is five fist-lengths long and three fist-lengths wide, while the inner robe may be five fist-lengths long and two handspans wide. Anything larger or smaller than this size should be determined as “requisite cloth.” Since it is said, “There are two ways of determining a robe: by body or by speech,” one should relinquish the old saṅghāṭi saying, “I relinquish this saṅghāṭi,” take the new one in hand, and determine it saying, “I determine this saṅghāṭi,” making a mental resolve and either determining it by bodily action or by breaking into speech. There are two types of determination: if it is within reach, one should say, “I determine this saṅghāṭi,” breaking into speech. If it is in an inner room or a nearby monastery, considering the place where it is kept, one should say, “I determine that saṅghāṭi,” breaking into speech. The same applies to the upper robe and inner robe; only the name differs. Thus, all—the saṅghāṭi, upper robe, and inner robe—should be determined by their respective names. If, after determining them, one makes a saṅghāṭi or the like from the cloths kept, upon completing the dyeing and binding, one should relinquish them saying, “I relinquish this,” and determine them again. Moreover, these three robes may also be determined as requisite cloth for comfortable use.

“Dasāhaparamanti” means ten days is the maximum limit, thus dasāhaparamo. The meaning is that he may keep it for that period of ten days. Because it is not included among the formally determined and dispensed robes, it is an extra robe, thus “atirekacīvaraṃ”. A robe, by kind, is one of these: linen, cotton, silk, wool, hemp, or a mixture, or any other similar material. In terms of size, the minimum that is not subject to dispensation is meant here. It is stated, “Bhikkhus, I allow a minimum robe of eight fingerbreadths in length by the Sugata fingerbreadth, and four fingerbreadths in width, to be dispensed” (Mahāva. 358). As for what was said, “because it is not included among the formally determined and dispensed robes,” here, “Bhikkhus, I allow the triple robe to be formally determined, not to be dispensed; the rains cloth to be formally determined for four months of the rainy season, and thereafter to be dispensed; the sitting cloth to be formally determined, not to be dispensed; the covering cloth to be formally determined, not to be dispensed; the cloth for wiping away scabs to be formally determined as long as there is an illness, and thereafter to be dispensed; the face-wiping cloth to be formally determined, not to be dispensed; the requisite cloth to be formally determined, not to be dispensed” (Mahāva. 358) - according to this method, the ability to be formally determined and dispensed should be understood. Here, the triple robe, when being formally determined, should be dyed, a marking dot should be applied, and it should be formally determined only if it is of the correct size. Its maximum size is less than the Sugata robe. The minimum size for the saṅghāṭi and uttarāsaṅga is five handspans in length and three handspans in width. The antaravāsaka may be five handspans in length and two hands in width. Robes larger or smaller than the stated size should be formally determined as “requisite cloths.” Here, since it is said, “There are two formal determinations of a robe: one formally determines it by body, or one formally determines it by speech,” therefore, having withdrawn the old saṅghāṭi, saying, “I withdraw this saṅghāṭi,” one should take the new one in hand, focus the mind, saying, “I formally determine this saṅghāṭi,” and formally determine it by body, making a bodily gesture, or formally determine it by speech, making a verbal statement. There are two kinds of formal determination. If it is within hand’s reach, one should speak the words, “I formally determine this saṅghāṭi.” If it is in an inner room, etc., or in a neighboring dwelling, one should note the place where it is placed and speak the words, “I formally determine this saṅghāṭi.” This same method applies to the uttarāsaṅga and the antaravāsaka. Only the name differs. Therefore, all of them, the saṅghāṭi, uttarāsaṅga, and antaravāsaka, should be formally determined by their own respective names. If, after formally determining them, one makes a saṅghāṭi, etc., from cloths that have been set aside, after finishing, dyeing, and marking, one should withdraw them, saying, “I withdraw this,” and formally determine them again. This triple robe may also be formally determined as a requisite cloth for comfortable use.

Dasāhaparama means the maximum period of ten days. One should keep the robe-material for this period. Atirekacīvara refers to robe-material that is extra because it has not been determined or assigned. Robe-material includes linen, cotton, silk, wool, hemp, or any other suitable material. In terms of measurement, it should be suitable for assignment, as stated: “I allow, monks, the last robe to be assigned as eight inches long and four inches wide, according to the Sugata’s inch” (mahāva. 358). Regarding what is said, “because it has not been determined or assigned,” it should be understood as follows: “I allow, monks, to determine the three robes but not to assign them, to determine the rainy-season robe for four months of the rains but to assign it afterward, to determine the sitting cloth but not to assign it, to determine the bed sheet but not to assign it, to determine the itching cloth as long as the illness persists but to assign it afterward, to determine the face-wiping cloth but not to assign it, to determine the accessory cloth but not to assign it” (mahāva. 358). Here, the method of determining and assigning should be understood. When determining the ticīvara, one should dye it, mark it with a boundary, and determine it according to the proper measurement. Its measurement should be less than the Sugata’s robe in the higher standard, but in the lower standard, it should be five fist-lengths long and three fist-lengths wide for the saṅghāṭi and the upper robe, and five fist-lengths long and two hand-lengths wide for the under robe. According to the stated measurement, anything extra or less should be determined as an accessory cloth. Since it is said, “There are two ways to determine robe-material: by body or by speech,” one should remove the old saṅghāṭi, saying, “I remove this saṅghāṭi,” take the new one in hand, and determine it, saying, “I determine this saṅghāṭi,” with mental attention and bodily action or verbal declaration. There are two ways of determination: if it is within arm’s reach, one should declare, “I determine this saṅghāṭi.” If it is in a storeroom or a neighboring monastery, one should note its location and declare, “I determine that saṅghāṭi.” The same method applies to the upper robe and under robe. The only difference is in the name. Therefore, all should be determined by their respective names: saṅghāṭi, upper robe, and under robe. If one makes a saṅghāṭi, etc., after determining and setting aside the cloth, one should remove it, saying, “I remove this,” and determine it again. This threefold robe is also allowed to be determined for comfortable use, as is the accessory cloth.

Vassikasāṭikā anatirittapamāṇā nāmaṃ gahetvā vuttanayeneva cattāro vassike māse adhiṭṭhātabbā, tato paraṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbā, vaṇṇabhedamattarattāpi cesā vaṭṭati, dve pana na vaṭṭanti. Nisīdanaṃ vuttanayena adhiṭṭhātabbameva, tañca kho pamāṇayuttaṃ ekameva, dve na vaṭṭanti. Paccattharaṇampi adhiṭṭhātabbameva, taṃ pana mahantampi ekampi bahūnipi vaṭṭanti, nīlampi pītakampi sadasampi pupphadasampīti sabbappakārampi vaṭṭati. Kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi yāva ābādho atthi, tāva pamāṇikā adhiṭṭhātabbā, ābādhe vūpasante paccuddharitvā vikappetabbā, sā ekāva vaṭṭati. Mukhapuñchanacoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbameva, taṃ pana ekampi bahūnipi mahantampi vaṭṭatiyeva. Parikkhāracoḷe gaṇanā natthi, yattakaṃ icchati, tattakaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbameva. Thavikāpi parissāvanampi vikappanupagaṃ pacchimapamāṇaṃ “parikkhāracoḷa”nti adhiṭṭhātabbameva, bahūnipi ekato katvā “imāni cīvarāni parikkhāracoḷāni adhiṭṭhāmī”tiādinā nayena adhiṭṭhātuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Mañcabhisi pīṭhabhisi bibbohanaṃ pāvāro kojavoti etesu pana senāsanaparikkhāratthāya dinnapaccattharaṇe ca adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthiyeva. Sabbañca panetaṃ vuttappakārena adhiṭṭhitacīvaraṃ aññassa dānena, acchinditvā gahaṇena, vissāsaggāhena, hīnāyāvattanena, sikkhāpaccakkhānena, kālaṅkiriyāya, liṅgaparivattanena, paccuddharaṇenāti imehi aṭṭhahi kāraṇehi adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati. Ticīvaraṃ pana kaniṭṭhaṅgulinakhapiṭṭhippamāṇena chiddenāpi vijahati, tañca kho vinibbedheneva. Sace hi chiddassa abbhantare ekatantupi acchinno hoti, rakkhatiyeva. Tattha saṅghāṭiyā ca uttarāsaṅgassa ca dīghantato vidatthippamāṇassa tiriyantato aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇassa padesassa orato chiddaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ bhindati, antaravāsakepi dīghantato etadeva pamāṇaṃ, tiriyantena pana caturaṅgulatā veditabbā. Tiṇṇannampi vuttokāsassa parato na bhindati, tasmā chidde jāte ticīvaraṃ atirekacīvaraṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati, sūcikammaṃ katvā puna adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Vassikasāṭikā vassānamāsātikkamenāpi, kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi ābādhavūpasamenāpi adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati. Tasmā sā tato paraṃ vikappetabbā. Vikappanalakkhaṇaṃ pana sabbacīvarānaṃ vikappanasikkhāpadeyeva vaṇṇayissāma. Kevalañhi imasmiṃ okāse yaṃ evaṃ anadhiṭṭhitaṃ avikappitañca, taṃ “atirekacīvara”nti veditabbaṃ.

The rains robe, not exceeding the specified size, should be determined by the stated method for the four months of the rains retreat, and thereafter relinquished and assigned. Even if it differs only in color, it is permissible, but two are not allowed. The sitting cloth should indeed be determined by the stated method, and it must be of the proper size and only one; two are not allowed. The coverlet too should be determined, and it may be large, one, or many; it may be blue, yellow, white, or flower-patterned—all types are permissible. The itch-cover should be determined according to the proper size as long as the ailment persists; when the ailment subsides, it should be relinquished and assigned, and only one is permissible. The face-wiping cloth should indeed be determined, and it may be one, many, or large. For the requisite cloth, there is no limit to the number; as many as desired may be determined. The pouch and filter cloth, being of the smallest permissible size, should be determined as “requisite cloth.” Even many together may be determined by saying, “I determine these robes as requisite cloths” or similar phrasing. However, for a bed mat, seat mat, pillow, cloak, or rug given for the purpose of furnishings, there is no need for determination. All these robes determined as described lose their determination due to eight reasons: giving to another, taking without cutting, taking on trust, reverting to a lower state, abandoning the training, death, changing gender, or relinquishment. The three robes also lose their determination if torn to the size of the tip of the little fingernail, but only if fully pierced. If even a single thread remains uncut within the tear, it retains its status. For the saṅghāṭi and upper robe, a tear within a lengthwise span of one handspan and a width of eight fingerbreadths breaks the determination; for the inner robe, the same lengthwise span applies, but the width is understood as four fingerbreadths. Beyond this specified area, a tear does not break it for any of the three. Thus, when a tear occurs, the three robes stand as extra robes and must be sewn and determined again. The rains robe loses its determination by exceeding the rains months, and the itch-cover by the subsidence of the ailment; thereafter, they must be assigned. The characteristic of assignment will be explained in the training rule on assigning all robes. Here, however, whatever is neither determined nor assigned should be understood as an “extra robe.”

The rains cloth, having taken the name of the non-excessive size, should be formally determined for the four months of the rainy season, as stated above. Thereafter, it should be withdrawn and dispensed. Even if it is only slightly discolored, it is valid; but two are not valid. The sitting cloth should only be formally determined, as stated above. It should be of the proper size, and only one; two are not valid. The covering cloth should also only be formally determined. But even a large one, or one, or many are valid. Even blue, yellow, with a border, or with a flower border, all types are valid. The cloth for wiping away scabs should be formally determined, of a suitable size, as long as there is an illness. When the illness is pacified, it should be withdrawn and dispensed. Only one is valid. The face-wiping cloth should only be formally determined. But one, or many, or even a large one is valid. There is no limit on requisite cloths. One should formally determine as many as one wishes. Even a bag and a filter-cloth, of the minimum size not subject to dispensation, should be formally determined as “requisite cloths.” Many can be put together and formally determined, saying, “I formally determine these robes as requisite cloths,” and so on. But for a mattress, cushion, pillow, blanket, rug, or cover given for the purpose of furnishing a dwelling, there is no need for formal determination. All robes formally determined in the manner described above cease to be formally determined by these eight causes: giving to another, taking without permission, taking with trust, returning to the lower life, renouncing the training, death, change of gender, and withdrawal. The triple robe also ceases to be formally determined even by a hole the size of the nail of the little finger, but only through penetration. If even one thread remains unbroken within the hole, it still protects. For the saṅghāṭi and uttarāsaṅga, a hole below an area a handspan in length and eight fingerbreadths in width from the long edge breaks the formal determination. For the antaravāsaka, the same length applies, but the width should be understood as four fingerbreadths. For all three, a hole beyond the stated area does not break it. Therefore, when a hole occurs, the triple robe stands in the place of an extra robe. Needlework should be done, and it should be formally determined again. The rains cloth also ceases to be formally determined by exceeding the months of the rainy season, and the cloth for wiping away scabs by the pacification of the illness. Therefore, it should be dispensed thereafter. The characteristic of dispensation will be explained in the training rule on dispensing all robes. However, in this context, whatever is thus not formally determined and not dispensed should be understood as an “extra robe.”

Vassikasāṭikā should be determined for the four months of the rains according to the stated method, and afterward, it should be removed and assigned. Even if there is a difference in color, it is allowed, but two are not. Nisīdana should be determined according to the stated method, and it should be of proper measurement, only one, not two. Paccattharaṇa should also be determined, and it can be large, one, or many, and of any color, including blue, yellow, red, or flower-patterned. Kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi should be determined as long as the illness persists, and when the illness subsides, it should be removed and assigned. Only one is allowed. Mukhapuñchanacoḷa should be determined, and it can be one or many, large or small. Parikkhāracoḷa has no limit; one can determine as much as one wishes. Thavikā and parissāvana should also be determined according to the last measurement as an accessory cloth. Many can be determined together, saying, “I determine these robe-materials as accessory cloths.” For beds, chairs, mattresses, pillows, and mosquito nets, given for the purpose of lodging, there is no need to determine them. All determined robe-material is relinquished by eight means: giving it to another, seizing it, taking it on trust, reverting to a lower state, renouncing the training, death, changing gender, or removing it. The threefold robe is also relinquished if it is cut to the size of a young finger’s nail, but only if it is completely severed. If even one thread remains uncut, it is still retained. For the saṅghāṭi and upper robe, a hole the size of a sesame seed in length and eight inches in width breaks the determination. For the under robe, the length is the same, but the width is four inches. For all three, a hole beyond the stated area does not break the determination. Therefore, if a hole appears, the threefold robe remains in the category of extra robe-material, and it should be determined again after sewing. The rainy-season robe is relinquished after the four months of the rains, and the itching cloth is relinquished when the illness subsides. Therefore, they should be assigned afterward. The characteristics of assignment will be explained in the training rule on assigning robe-material. In this context, whatever is not determined or assigned is considered atirekacīvara.

Taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyanti taṃ yathāvuttajātippamāṇaṃ cīvaraṃdasāhaparamaṃ kālaṃ atikkāmayato etthantare yathā atirekacīvaraṃ na hoti, tathā akrubbato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ, tañca cīvaraṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti, pācittiyaṃ āpatti cassa hotīti attho. Atha vā nissajjanaṃ nissaggiyaṃ, pubbabhāge kattabbassa vinayakammassetaṃ nāmaṃ, nissaggiyamassa atthīti nissaggiyamicceva. Kiṃ taṃ? Pācittiyaṃ. Taṃ atikkāmayato saha nissaggiyena nissaggiyavinayakammaṃ pācittiyaṃ hotīti ayamettha attho. Tañca panetaṃ cīvaraṃ yaṃ divasaṃ uppannaṃ, tassa yo aruṇo, so uppannadivasanissito, tasmā cīvaruppādadivasena saddhiṃ ekādase aruṇuggamane dasāhātikkamitaṃ hoti, taṃ gahetvā saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā puggalassa vā nissajjitabbaṃ, tatrāyaṃ nayo – saṅghassa tāva evaṃ nissajjitabbaṃ “idaṃ me, bhante, cīvaraṃ dasahātikkantaṃ nissaggiyaṃ, imāhaṃ saṅghassa nissajjāmī”ti nissajjitvā “ahaṃ, bhante, ekaṃ nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ āpanno, taṃ paṭidesemī”ti evaṃ āpatti desetabbā. Sace dve honti, “dve”ti vattabbaṃ, sace taduttari, “sambahulā”ti vattabbaṃ. Nissajjanepi sace dve vā bahūni vā honti, “imāni me, bhante, cīvarāni dasāhātikkantāni nissaggiyāni, imānāhaṃ saṅghassa nissajjāmī”ti vattabbaṃ, pāḷiṃ vattuṃ asakkontena aññathāpi vattabbaṃ. Byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu āpattiṃ sarati vivarati uttāniṃ karoti deseti, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, ahaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno āpattiṃ paṭiggaṇheyya”nti (cūḷava. 239), iminā lakkhaṇena āpattiṃ paṭiggaṇhitvā vattabbo “passasī”ti, “āma passāmī”ti, “āyatiṃ saṃvareyyāsī”ti, “sādhu suṭṭhu saṃvarissāmī”ti. Dvīsu pana sambahulāsu vā purimanayeneva vacanabhedo kātabbo. Desitāya āpattiyā “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, idaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno nissaggiyaṃ saṅghassa nissaṭṭhaṃ, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ , saṅgho imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dadeyyā”ti (pārā. 464) evaṃ nissaṭṭhacīvaraṃ dātabbaṃ, dvīsu bahūsu vā vacanabhedo kātabbo.

“Exceeding that incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya” means that for one who exceeds that period of ten days for a robe of the type and size described, without acting so that it does not become an extra robe, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya. The robe becomes subject to relinquishment, and he incurs a pācittiya offense—this is the meaning. Alternatively, “nissaggiya” means relinquishment, the name of a disciplinary act to be performed beforehand; it is called nissaggiya because it involves relinquishment. What is it? A pācittiya. For one who exceeds it, there is a pācittiya offense along with the disciplinary act of relinquishment—this is the meaning here. That robe, from the day it arises, is tied to the dawn of that day as the day of arising. Thus, when eleven dawns pass including the day the robe arises, the ten-day limit is exceeded. Taking it, it must be relinquished to the Sangha, a group, or an individual. The method is as follows: To the Sangha, it should be relinquished thus: “Venerables, this robe of mine, exceeding ten days, is subject to relinquishment; I relinquish it to the Sangha.” After relinquishing it, he should say, “Venerables, I have incurred one nissaggiya pācittiya offense; I confess it.” If there are two, he should say “two”; if more, “several.” In relinquishing, if there are two or many, he should say, “Venerables, these robes of mine, exceeding ten days, are subject to relinquishment; I relinquish them to the Sangha.” If unable to recite the text, he may say it otherwise. A competent and capable monk should inform the Sangha: “May the Sangha listen to me, Venerables. This monk named so-and-so recalls, discloses, reveals, and confesses an offense. If it is suitable for the Sangha, I would accept this monk’s offense on his behalf” (cūḷava. 239). Having accepted the offense with this procedure, he should say, “Do you see it?” “Yes, I see it.” “Restrain yourself in the future.” “Good, I will restrain myself well.” For two or several offenses, the wording should be adjusted according to the prior method. After confessing the offense, it should be said, “May the Sangha listen to me, Venerables. This robe, subject to relinquishment by the monk named so-and-so, has been relinquished to the Sangha. If it is suitable for the Sangha, may the Sangha give this robe to the monk named so-and-so” (pārā. 464). Thus, the relinquished robe should be given back, with adjustments in wording for two or more.

“Taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyanti” means that if he allows that robe, of the stated kind and size, to exceed the maximum period of ten days, and within that time does not act in such a way that it is not an extra robe, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya (offense requiring expiation with forfeiture). That robe becomes subject to forfeiture, and he incurs the offense of pācittiya, that is the meaning. Or, ‘nissaggiya’ means forfeiture. This is the name of the Vinaya act to be done beforehand. ‘Nissaggiya’ means that which has forfeiture. What is that? Pācittiya. For exceeding that, along with the forfeiture, the Vinaya act of forfeiture, there is a pācittiya; this is the meaning here. That robe, on whichever day it arose, the dawn of that day is connected to the day of its arising. Therefore, together with the day of the robe’s arising, on the rising of the eleventh dawn, it has exceeded ten days. Taking it, it should be forfeited to the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual. The procedure is as follows: it should be forfeited to the Saṅgha, saying, “Venerable sir, this robe of mine has exceeded ten days, it is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to the Saṅgha.” Having forfeited it, “Venerable sir, I have incurred one nissaggiya pācittiya offense. I confess it.” This is how the offense should be confessed. If there are two, one should say “two.” If there are more, one should say “several.” In forfeiting also, if there are two or many, one should say, “Venerable sir, these robes of mine have exceeded ten days, they are to be forfeited. I forfeit them to the Saṅgha.” One who is unable to recite the Pāḷi should say it in another way. A competent bhikkhu should inform the Saṅgha, “Let the Saṅgha, venerable sir, listen to me. This bhikkhu named so-and-so remembers his offense, reveals it, makes it known, and confesses it. If it is convenient for the Saṅgha, I would receive the confession of the offense of the bhikkhu named so-and-so” (Cūḷava. 239). According to this characteristic, having received the confession of the offense, he should say, “Do you see it?” “Yes, I see it.” “Would you restrain yourself in the future?” “Well and properly I will restrain myself.” For two or several, the wording should be changed as in the previous case. After the offense has been confessed, “Let the Saṅgha, venerable sir, listen to me. This robe of the bhikkhu named so-and-so is to be forfeited, it has been forfeited to the Saṅgha. If it is convenient for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha would give this robe to the bhikkhu named so-and-so” (Pārā. 464). Thus, the forfeited robe should be given. For two or many, the wording should be changed.

Taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya means that if one exceeds the ten-day period for robe-material of the stated kind and measurement, and during that time, it does not become extra robe-material, then by not doing so, one incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. The robe-material becomes forfeited, and one incurs a pācittiya offense. Alternatively, forfeiture is called nissaggiya because it is a disciplinary action to be performed beforehand. It is called nissaggiya because it involves forfeiture. What is it? A pācittiya offense. By exceeding the period, along with the forfeiture, one incurs a nissaggiya disciplinary action and a pācittiya offense. This is the meaning here. The robe-material that arises on a particular day is reckoned from the dawn of that day. Therefore, when eleven dawns have passed since the day the robe-material arose, the ten-day period has been exceeded. It should be forfeited to the Sangha, a group, or an individual. The method is as follows: First, to the Sangha, one should forfeit it, saying, “Venerable sirs, this robe-material has exceeded the ten-day period and is to be forfeited. I forfeit it to the Sangha.” After forfeiting, one should confess the offense, saying, “Venerable sirs, I have committed one nissaggiya pācittiya offense. I confess it.” If there are two, one should say, “two,” and if more, “several.” When forfeiting, if there are two or more, one should say, “Venerable sirs, these robe-materials have exceeded the ten-day period and are to be forfeited. I forfeit them to the Sangha.” If one cannot recite the Pali, one may say it in another way. A competent bhikkhu should inform the Sangha, “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha listen. This bhikkhu named so-and-so remembers, reveals, and confesses his offense. If it is acceptable to the Sangha, I will receive his offense” (cūḷava. 239). Having received the offense in this manner, one should say, “Do you see it?” “Yes, I see it.” “Will you restrain yourself in the future?” “Yes, I will restrain myself well.” For two or several offenses, the same method applies. After confessing the offense, one should say, “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha listen. This robe-material has been forfeited by the bhikkhu named so-and-so to the Sangha. If it is acceptable to the Sangha, the Sangha should give this robe-material to the bhikkhu named so-and-so” (pārā. 464). The forfeited robe-material should be given in this way. For two or more, the same method applies.

Gaṇassa pana nissajjantena “imāha”nti vā “imāni aha”nti vā vatvā “āyasmantānaṃ nissajjāmī”ti vattabbaṃ, āpattippaṭiggāhakenāpi “suṇantu me āyasmantā, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu āpattiṃ sarati…pe… deseti, yadāyasmantānaṃ pattakalla”nti vattabbaṃ, cīvaradānepi “suṇantu me āyasmantā, idaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno nissaggiyaṃ āyasmantānaṃ nissaṭṭhaṃ, yadāyasmantānaṃ pattakallaṃ, āyasmantā imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dadeyyu”nti (pārā. 466) vattabbaṃ, sesaṃ purimasadisameva. Puggalassa pana nissajjantena “imāha”nti vā “imāni aha”nti vā vatvā “āyasmato nissajjāmī”ti vattabbaṃ, nissajjitvā “ahaṃ, bhante, ekaṃ nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ āpanno, taṃ paṭidesemī”ti evaṃ āpatti desetabbā. Sace pana navakataro hoti, “āvuso”ti vattabbaṃ, tenāpi “passasī”ti vā “passathā”ti vā vutte “āma, bhante”ti vā “āma āvuso”ti vā vatvā “passāmī”ti vattabbaṃ, tato “āyatiṃ saṃvareyyāsī”ti vā “saṃvareyyāthā”ti vā vutte “sādhu suṭṭhu saṃvarissāmī”ti vattabbaṃ. Evaṃ desitāya āpattiyā “imaṃ cīvaraṃ āyasmato dammī”ti dātabbaṃ, dvīsu tīsu vā pubbe vuttānusāreneva nayo veditabbo. Dvinnaṃ pana yathā gaṇassa, evaṃ nissajjitabbaṃ, tato āpattippaṭiggahaṇañca nissaṭṭhacīvaradānañca tesaṃ aññatarena yathā ekena puggalena, tathā kātabbaṃ, idaṃ pana sabbanissaggiyesu vidhānaṃ. Cīvaraṃ patto nisīdananti vatthumattameva hi nānaṃ, parammukhaṃ pana vatthu “eta”nti nissajjitabbaṃ. Sace bahūni honti, “etānī”ti vattabbaṃ. Nissaṭṭhadānepi eseva nayo. Nissaṭṭhavatthuṃ “dinnamidaṃ iminā mayha”nti saññāya na paṭidentassa dukkaṭaṃ, tassa santakabhāvaṃ ñatvā lesena acchindanto sāmikassa dhuranikkhepena bhaṇḍaṃ agghāpetvā kāretabboti.

When relinquishing to a group, one should say, “These are mine” or “These are mine,” and then say, “I relinquish them to the venerable ones.” The one receiving the confession of an offense should say, “May the venerable ones listen to me: this monk named so-and-so recalls an offense… he confesses it… when it is convenient for the venerable ones.” In the case of giving a robe, it should be said, “May the venerable ones listen to me: this robe, subject to relinquishment by the monk named so-and-so, has been relinquished to the venerable ones; when it is convenient for the venerable ones, may the venerable ones give this robe to the monk named so-and-so” (pārā. 466). The rest is the same as before. When relinquishing to an individual, one should say, “These are mine” or “These are mine,” and then say, “I relinquish them to the venerable one.” After relinquishing, the offense should be confessed thus: “Venerable sir, I have committed one offense subject to relinquishment, a pācittiya, which I confess.” If the other is junior, “Friend” should be said. When asked, “Do you see?” or “Do you all see?” one should reply, “Yes, venerable sir” or “Yes, friend,” and say, “I see.” Then, when told, “Restrain yourself in the future” or “Restrain yourselves in the future,” one should say, “Good, well, I will restrain myself.” Once the offense is confessed in this way, it should be said, “I give this robe to the venerable one.” For two or three persons, the method should be understood as previously stated. For two persons, it should be relinquished as to a group, and then the acceptance of the offense and the giving of the relinquished robe should be done by one of them, as it would be by a single individual. This is the procedure for all items subject to relinquishment. The difference between a robe, a sitting cloth, and so forth is merely the object; an object not present should be relinquished by saying “this.” If there are many, it should be said, “these.” The same method applies to giving what has been relinquished. For one who does not confess, thinking, “This was given to me by him,” there is a dukkaṭa. Knowing it belongs to him, one who deceitfully takes it should, by the owner’s relinquishment of responsibility, have the item appraised and managed.

When giving it to the Order, one should say, “This,” or “These I,” and then, “I give to the venerable ones.” The receiver of the offense should also say, “Venerable sirs, let the venerable ones listen to me. This bhikkhu, named so-and-so, remembers his offense… he declares it. When it is convenient for the venerable ones.” In giving the robe, one should say, “Venerable sirs, let the venerable ones listen to me. This robe, relinquished by the bhikkhu named so-and-so, has been given to the venerable ones. When it is convenient for the venerable ones, may the venerable ones give this robe to the bhikkhu named so-and-so” (pārā. 466). The rest is the same as before. When relinquishing to an individual, one should say, “This,” or “These I,” and then, “I relinquish to the venerable one.” After relinquishing, the offense should be declared thus: “I, venerable sir, have committed a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. I confess it.” If, however, the receiver is junior, one should say, “Friend.” When he says, “Do you see?” or “Do you all see?”, one should respond, “Yes, venerable sir,” or “Yes, friend,” and then, “I see.” Then, when he says, “You should restrain yourself in the future,” or “You all should restrain yourselves,” one should respond, “Good, I will restrain myself very well.” Having declared the offense thus, one should say, “I give this robe to the venerable one.” If there are two or three receivers, the procedure is to be understood as previously stated. For two, the relinquishment is as to the Order. Then, the acceptance of the offense and the giving of the relinquished robe should be done by one of them, as with a single individual. This is the procedure for all relinquishments. Robe, bowl, and sitting cloth are merely different items; but facing an individual, the item “this” should be relinquished. If there are many, one should say, “these.” The same procedure applies to the giving of the relinquished item. One who does not return the relinquished item, with the thought, “This has been given by him to me,” commits a dukkaṭa. Knowing it is his property, one should not forcibly take it by a trick; rather, the owner should be made to appraise the goods and settle it by abandoning his claim.

When forfeiting to a group, one should say, “I forfeit this” or “I forfeit these” and say, “I forfeit it to the venerables.” The receiver of the offense should also say, “Venerable sirs, let the venerables listen. This bhikkhu named so-and-so remembers… confesses his offense. If it is acceptable to the venerables…” When giving the robe-material, one should say, “Venerable sirs, let the venerables listen. This robe-material has been forfeited by the bhikkhu named so-and-so to the venerables. If it is acceptable to the venerables, the venerables should give this robe-material to the bhikkhu named so-and-so” (pārā. 466). The rest is the same as before. When forfeiting to an individual, one should say, “I forfeit this” or “I forfeit these” and say, “I forfeit it to the venerable.” After forfeiting, one should confess the offense, saying, “Venerable sir, I have committed one nissaggiya pācittiya offense. I confess it.” If the other is junior, one should say, “Friend,” and when asked, “Do you see it?” or “Do you see?” one should reply, “Yes, venerable sir” or “Yes, friend,” and say, “I see it.” Then, when told, “Will you restrain yourself in the future?” or “Will you restrain?” one should reply, “Yes, I will restrain myself well.” After confessing the offense, one should say, “I give this robe-material to the venerable.” For two or three, the method is the same as before. For two, the forfeiture should be done as for a group, and the receiving of the offense and the giving of the forfeited robe-material should be done by one of them as for an individual. This is the procedure for all nissaggiya offenses. The robe, bowl, and sitting cloth are just examples; other items should be forfeited by saying, “This.” If there are many, one should say, “These.” The same method applies when giving the forfeited items. One should not be stingy in giving the forfeited item, thinking, “This has been given by me to him.” Knowing it is his property, one should not secretly take it back but should return it to the owner after assessing its value.

Vesāliyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha atirekacīvaradhāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “dasāhaparama”nti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, anissajjitvā paribhuñjantassa dukkaṭaṃ, yathā ca idha, evaṃ sabbattha, tasmā naṃ parato na vakkhāma. Dasāhaṃ anatikkantepi atikkantasaññino vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Atikkante anatikkantasaññinopi vematikassapi nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyameva, tathā anadhiṭṭhitāvikappitaaassajjitaanaṭṭhāvinaṭṭhaadaḍḍhāviluttesu adhiṭṭhitādisaññino. Antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭhite vikappite vissajjite naṭṭhe vinaṭṭhe daḍḍhe acchinne vissāsena gāhite ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Ācāravipatti, yathā ca idaṃ, evaṃ ito parānipi, ubhatopātimokkhesupi hi pārājikāni ca saṅghādisesā ca sīlavipatti, sesāpattiyo ācāravipatti, ājīvavipatti vā diṭṭhivipatti vā kāci āpatti nāma natthi. Ājīvavipattipaccayā pana ṭhapetvā dubbhāsitaṃ cha āpattikkhandhā paññattā, diṭṭhivipattipaccayā pācittiyadukkaṭavasena dve āpattikkhandhā paññattāti, idamettha lakkhaṇaṃ, iti vipattikathā idheva niṭṭhitāti, na naṃ ito paraṃ vicārayissāma. Jātippamāṇasampannassa cīvarassa attano santakatā, gaṇanupagatā, chinnapalibodhabhāvo, atirekacīvaratā, dasāhātikkamoti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Kathinasamuṭṭhānaṃ, akiriyaṃ, nosaññāvimokkhaṃ, acittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was laid down at Vesālī concerning the six monks regarding the matter of wearing an extra robe, with the rule “for a maximum of ten days” as its supplementary ruling, a general ruling, without command. Using it without relinquishing incurs a dukkaṭa, as here, so everywhere; therefore, we will not discuss it further. Even within ten days, one who perceives it as exceeded or is uncertain incurs a dukkaṭa. When exceeded, one who perceives it as not exceeded, or is uncertain, incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya, as do those who perceive as determined, assigned, relinquished, lost, destroyed, burned, or stolen what is undetermined, unassigned, unrelinquished, not lost, not destroyed, not burned, or not stolen. Within ten days, there is no offense for one whose robe is determined, assigned, relinquished, lost, destroyed, burned, or stolen, or taken with trust, or for the deranged and so forth. This is a breach of conduct, as here and in subsequent rules. In both Pātimokkhas, the pārājika and saṅghādisesa offenses are breaches of virtue; the remaining offenses are breaches of conduct. There is no offense classified as a breach of livelihood or a breach of view. Due to a breach of livelihood, excluding wrong speech, six offense categories were laid down; due to a breach of view, two offense categories were laid down as pācittiya and dukkaṭa. This is its characteristic here. Thus, the discussion of breaches ends here, and we will not consider it further. The five factors here are: the robe being fully made and suitable, belonging to oneself, countable, free from impediment, being an extra robe, and exceeding ten days. It arises from determination, is not an action, is not perception-dependent, is without mind, is a fault of precept, involves bodily and verbal action, three mental states, and three feelings.

It was established at Vesāli regarding the Chabbaggiya monks, in the context of possessing an extra robe. “For a maximum of ten days” is the supplementary regulation here, a general regulation, not a command. One who uses it without relinquishing commits a dukkaṭa. As it is here, so it is everywhere else; therefore, we will not discuss it further. Even if the ten days have not passed, one who thinks they have, and one who is uncertain, commits a dukkaṭa. If the ten days have passed, one who thinks they have not, and one who is uncertain, still commits a nissaggiya pācittiya. Similarly, for one who thinks he has authorized, determined, or relinquished what has not been authorized, determined, relinquished, lost, destroyed, burnt, or taken by thieves. Within the ten days, if it has been authorized, determined, relinquished, lost, destroyed, burnt, taken by thieves, or taken with trust, there is no offense for one who is insane, etc. As this is a transgression of conduct, so are the subsequent ones. In both Pātimokkhas, the pārājikas and saṅghādisesas are transgressions of morality; the remaining offenses are transgressions of conduct. There are no offenses that are transgressions of livelihood or transgressions of view. However, setting aside wrong speech, six classes of offenses are established due to transgressions of livelihood; and two classes of offenses, pācittiya and dukkaṭa, are established due to transgressions of view. This is the characteristic here; thus, the discussion of transgressions is concluded here, and we will not analyze it further. The five factors here are: the robe being complete in terms of origin and size, being one’s own property, not included in the count, being an extra robe, and the ten days having passed. It originates with the kathina, is a non-action, does not release from thought, is without thought, is a fault in the pronouncement, is a bodily action, a verbal action, has three mental states, and has three feelings.

In Vesālī, regarding the six-group monks, a rule was established concerning the matter of possessing excess robes, with the stipulation, “for a maximum of ten days.” This is the supplementary rule here, a common rule, non-announcement, and for one who uses it without relinquishing, it is an offense of wrong-doing. As it is here, so it is everywhere; therefore, we will not elaborate on it elsewhere. Even if the ten days have not passed, for one who perceives them as passed or is in doubt, it is an offense of wrong-doing. If the ten days have passed but one perceives them as not passed or is in doubt, it is an offense requiring relinquishment and confession. Similarly, for one who perceives as determined, assigned, given, lost, destroyed, burned, or stolen what has not been determined, assigned, given, lost, destroyed, burned, or stolen, it is an offense requiring relinquishment and confession. Within the ten days, if the robe has been determined, assigned, given, lost, destroyed, burned, or taken by force, or if it has been confidently taken, or in the case of the insane, etc., there is no offense. Failure in conduct, as here, so elsewhere; for in both Pātimokkhas, the offenses of defeat and those requiring suspension are failures in virtue, the remaining offenses are failures in conduct, and there is no offense called failure in livelihood or wrong view. However, due to failure in livelihood, except for wrong speech, six classes of offenses have been established; due to wrong view, two classes of offenses, namely, offenses requiring confession and wrong-doing, have been established. This is the characteristic here. Thus, the discussion on failure is concluded here; we will not investigate it further. The five factors here are: the robe being of suitable size, being one’s own, being counted, being free from obstacles, being an excess robe, and exceeding the ten days. The origin of the kathina, non-action, no release through perception, non-mindfulness, exception by rule, bodily action, verbal action, threefold consciousness, and threefold feeling.

2. Udositasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Udosita Training Rule

Dutiye niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunātiettha purimasikkhāpade viya atthaṃ aggahetvā niṭṭhite cīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunoti evaṃ sāmivasena karaṇavacanassa attho veditabbo. Karaṇavasena hi bhikkhunā idaṃ nāma kammaṃ kātabbaṃ, taṃ natthi, sāmivasena pana bhikkhuno cīvarasmiṃ niṭṭhite kathine ca ubbhate evaṃ imehi cīvaraniṭṭhānakathinubbhārehi chinnapalibodho ekarattampi ce bhikkhu ticīvarena vippavaseyyāti evaṃ attho yujjati. Tattha ticīvarenāti ticīvarādhiṭṭhānanayena adhiṭṭhitesu saṅghāṭiādīsu yenakenaci. Vippavaseyyāti viyutto vaseyya, “gāmo ekūpacāro nānūpacāro”tiādinā (pārā. 477) nayena pāḷiyaṃ vuttānaṃ gāmanigamananivesanaudositaaṭṭamāḷapāsādahammiyanāvāsatthakhettadhaññakaraṇaārāmavihārarukkhamūlaajjhokāsappabhedānaṃ pannarasānaṃ nikkhepaṭṭhānānaṃ yatthakatthaci nikkhipitvā tesaṃ gāmādīnaṃ bahi hatthapāsātikkamena aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpeyyāti ayamettha saṅkhepo, vitthāro pana samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.473-477-8) vutto. Aññatra bhikkhusammutiyāti yaṃ saṅgho gilānassa bhikkhuno ticīvarena avippavāsasammutiṃ deti, taṃ ṭhapetvā aladdhasammutikassa bhikkhuno ekarattampi vippavāsato vuttanayeneva nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyanti veditabbaṃ, kevalaṃ idha “idaṃ me, bhante, cīvaraṃ rattivippavutthaṃ aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā nissaggiya”ntiādinā nayena vacanabhedo hoti, ayaṃ pana viseso.

In the second rule, “When a monk’s robe is completed” should not be understood as in the previous training rule by taking the meaning literally, but rather as “When a monk’s robe is completed” in the sense of possession, with the instrumental case understood accordingly. For it is not that a monk must perform some specific action with the instrumental case; rather, in the sense of possession, when a monk’s robe is completed and the Kathina privilege is withdrawn, if a monk were to stay separated from his triple robe even for one night due to the robe being completed and the Kathina privilege withdrawn, this is the intended meaning. Here, “with the triple robe” refers to any one of the robes—such as the outer robe—determined by the method of determination. “Were to stay separated” means to dwell apart, and by the method stated in the text (pārā. 477), such as “A village has one boundary or different boundaries,” it means placing it in any of the fifteen deposit places—village, town, settlement, lodging, tower, palace, monastery, ship, field, threshing floor, garden, monastic dwelling, tree root, or open space—and letting the dawn arise beyond the reach of hand from those villages and so forth. This is the summary here; the details are explained in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.473-477-8). “Except with the monks’ agreement” refers to the agreement the Sangha gives to a sick monk to stay separated from his triple robe; except for that, a monk without such agreement staying separated even for one night incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya by the method stated. The only difference here is the wording, such as “Venerable sir, this robe of mine, separated for a night except with the monks’ agreement, is subject to relinquishment.”

In the second, niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā, the meaning of the instrumental case should be understood in a general sense, as in the previous training rule, like this: “when the robe is completed, by the bhikkhu”. For in the instrumental case, this action should be done by the bhikkhu, that does not exist. But in the general sense, when the bhikkhu’s robe is completed and the kathina has been withdrawn, with the completion of the robe and the withdrawal of the kathina, thus being free from impediment, if the bhikkhu lives apart from the three robes even for one night, this meaning is appropriate. Here, ticīvarenā means with any of the upper robe, etc., that have been authorized by the method of authorizing the three robes. Vippavaseyyā means to live separated. “A village has one boundary, or various boundaries,” etc. (pārā. 477), according to the method in the Pāli, having deposited them in any of the fifteen places of deposit, namely: village, market town, settlement, udosita, courtyard, mansion, palace, attic, dwelling, caravan, field, place where grain is processed, hermitage, monastery, root of a tree, open space, and being outside of these villages, etc., beyond arm’s reach, if he causes the dawn to rise, this is the summary here. The detailed explanation is given in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.473-477-8). Aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā means, except for the permission that the Order gives to a sick bhikkhu to live without the three robes. It should be understood that a bhikkhu who has not received permission, living apart even for one night, commits a nissaggiya pācittiya, as stated in the above method. Only here, the wording differs, in the manner of “This, venerable sir, is my robe, having been separated from for a night, without the permission of the bhikkhus, it is to be relinquished,” and so on. This is the difference.

In the second rule, “when a monk has finished making the robe,” here, as in the previous training rule, the meaning should be understood by taking the sense of “when the robe is finished by the monk” as the meaning of the instrumental case. For by the instrumental case, it is meant that the monk has no action to perform; but by the possessive case, when the robe is finished by the monk and the kathina is lifted, then, by these means of finishing the robe and lifting the kathina, the obstacle is removed, and even if a monk stays apart from the three robes for a single night, the meaning applies. Here, “three robes” means those determined as the three robes, such as the outer robe, etc., determined in the manner of the three robes. “Stays apart” means stays separated, as explained in the Pāli text (Pārā. 477) regarding “a village with one approach, not with many approaches,” etc., in the case of the fifteen places for depositing, such as villages, towns, residences, halls, palaces, ships, fields, grain stores, parks, monasteries, tree roots, open spaces, etc., wherever they are deposited, beyond the reach of the hand, until dawn rises. This is the summary here; the detailed explanation is found in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.473-477-8). “Except with the permission of the monks” means that if the Sangha grants permission to a sick monk not to stay apart from the three robes, except for that, if a monk without such permission stays apart even for a single night, it is an offense requiring relinquishment and confession. Here, the difference is only in the manner of speaking, such as “Venerable, this robe of mine has been kept apart for a night without the permission of the monks, it is to be relinquished,” etc.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha santaruttarena janapadacārikaṃ pakkamanavatthusmiṃ

This was laid down at Sāvatthi concerning several monks regarding the matter of setting out on a journey through the countryside with an inner and outer robe.

It was established at Sāvatthi regarding several bhikkhus, in the context of setting out on a journey in the countryside with an inner and outer robe.

In Sāvatthī, regarding several monks, a rule was established concerning the matter of going on a journey to a distant country,

Paññattaṃ, “aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, avippavutthe vippavutthasaññino ceva vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Vippavutthe vippavutthasaññinopi avippavutthasaññinopi vematikassāpi nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ, tathā apaccuddhaṭaavissajjitādīsu ca paccuddhaṭavissajjitādisaññino. Antoaruṇe paccuddhaṭe pana paṭhamakathine vuttavissajjitādibhede ca anāpatti, tathā laddhasammutikassa vippavāse. Ābādhe pana vūpasante paccāgantabbaṃ, tattheva vā ṭhitena paccuddharitabbaṃ, athāpissa puna so vā añño vā ābādho kuppati, laddhakappiyameva. Adhiṭṭhitacīvaratā , anatthatakathinatā, aladdhasammutikatā, rattivippavāsoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathine vuttappakārāneva. Kevalañhi tattha anadhiṭṭhānaṃ avikappanañca akiriyā, idha appaccuddharaṇaṃ, ayaṃ visesoti.

It was laid down with the supplementary ruling “except with the monks’ agreement,” a general ruling, without command. One who perceives a non-separated robe as separated, or is uncertain, incurs a dukkaṭa. One who perceives a separated robe as separated, or as not separated, or is uncertain, incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya, as do those who perceive as withdrawn or relinquished what is not withdrawn or relinquished. Before dawn, with the first Kathina withdrawn, in the cases of relinquishment and so forth as stated, and for one with agreement, there is no offense in separation. When an ailment subsides, one must return, or while staying there, withdraw it; if the same or another ailment arises again, it remains permissible. The four factors here are: the robe being determined, the Kathina not being spread, lack of agreement, and separation for a night. The origin and so forth are as stated in the first Kathina rule. The only difference is that there it is non-determination and non-assignment as non-action, while here it is non-withdrawal; this is the distinction.

“Except with the permission of the bhikkhus,” is the supplementary regulation here, a general regulation, not a command. One who thinks that what has not been separated from has been separated from, and one who is uncertain, commits a dukkaṭa. One who thinks that what has been separated from has not been separated from, or that it has, and one who is uncertain, all commit a nissaggiya pācittiya. Similarly, for one who thinks that what has not been retrieved, relinquished, etc., has been retrieved, relinquished, etc. But if it has been retrieved before dawn, and in the case of relinquishment, etc., mentioned in the first kathina, there is no offense, and also for one who has received permission to live apart. If there is an illness, one should return when it subsides, or, remaining there, retrieve it. If that illness or another flares up again, what has been made allowable remains so. The four factors here are: having an authorized robe, the kathina not having been spread, not having received permission, and separation for a night. The origination, etc., are as described in the first kathina. The only difference is that there, non-authorization and non-determination are non-actions; here, it is non-retrieval.

with the stipulation, “except with the permission of the monks.” This is the supplementary rule here, a common rule, non-announcement, and for one who perceives as kept apart what is not kept apart or is in doubt, it is an offense of wrong-doing. If it is kept apart, whether one perceives it as kept apart or not, or is in doubt, it is an offense requiring relinquishment and confession. Similarly, for one who perceives as taken back, given, etc., what has not been taken back, given, etc., it is an offense requiring relinquishment and confession. Within dawn, if it is taken back, or in the case of the first kathina, as explained in the section on giving, etc., there is no offense. Also, for one who has obtained permission, there is no offense in staying apart. When the illness has subsided, one should return; or staying there, one should take it back; or if that illness or another arises again, the permission obtained remains valid. The four factors here are: determination of the robe, non-completion of the kathina, not obtaining permission, and staying apart for a night. The origins, etc., are as explained in the first kathina. Here, the difference is only in not taking back, non-assignment, and non-action.

3. Akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Akālacīvara Training Rule

Tatiye niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunāti sāmivaseneva karaṇattho veditabbo. Akālacīvaraṃ nāma yvāyaṃ “anatthate kathine vassānassa pacchimo māso, atthate kathine pañcamāsā”ti (pārā. 649) cīvarakālo vutto, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññadā uppannaṃ, yañca kālepi saṅghassa vā “idaṃ akālacīvara”nti, puggalassa vā “idaṃ tuyhaṃ dammī”tiādinā nayena dinnaṃ, etaṃ akālacīvaraṃ nāma. Uppajjeyyāti evarūpaṃ cīvaraṃ attano bhāgapaṭilābhavasena saṅghato vā suttantikādigaṇato vā ñātito vā mittato vā paṃsukūlaṃ vā attano vā dhanena (pārā. 500), atha vā pana “aṭṭhimā, bhikkhave, mātikā cīvarassa uppādāya sīmāya deti, katikāya deti, bhikkhāpaññattikāya deti, saṅghassa deti, ubhatosaṅghassa deti, vassaṃvuṭṭhasaṅghassa deti, ādissa deti, puggalassa detī”ti (mahāva. 379) imāsaṃ aṭṭhannaṃ mātikānaṃ aññatarato uppajjeyya. Ettha ca “sīmāya dammī”ti evaṃ sīmaṃ parāmasitvā dento sīmāya deti nāma, esa nayo sabbattha. Ettha ca sīmāti khaṇḍasīmā upacārasīmā samānasaṃvāsasīmā avippavāsasīmā lābhasīmā gāmasīmā nigamasīmā nagarasīmā abbhantarasīmā udakukkhepasīmā janapadasīmā raṭṭhasīmā rajjasīmā dīpasīmā cakkavāḷasīmāti pannarasavidhā. Tattha upacārasīmā nāma parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepena, aparikkhittassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānena paricchinnā. Api ca bhikkhūnaṃ dhuvasannipātaṭṭhānato vā pariyante ṭhitabhojanasālato vā nibaddhavasanakaāvāsato vā thāmamajjhimassa purisassa dvinnaṃ leḍḍupātānaṃ anto “upacārasīmā”ti veditabbā. Sā pana āvāse vaḍḍhante vaḍḍhati, hāyante hāyati , yojanasatampi upacārasīmāva hoti. Tattha dinnalābho sabbesaṃ antosīmagatānaṃ pāpuṇāti, bhikkhunīnaṃ ārāmapavesanasenāsanāpucchanāni parivāsamānattārocanaṃ vassacchedanissayasenāsanaggāhādividhānanti idampi sabbaṃ imissāva sīmāya vasena veditabbaṃ. Lābhasīmāti yaṃ rājarājamahāmattādayo vihāraṃ kārāpetvā gāvutaṃ vā addhayojanaṃ vā yojanaṃ vā samantā paricchinditvā “ayaṃ amhākaṃ vihārassa lābhasīmā, yaṃ etthantare uppajjati, taṃ sabbaṃ amhākaṃ vihārassa demā”ti ṭhapenti, ayaṃ lābhasīmā nāma. Kāsikosalādīnaṃ pana raṭṭhānaṃ anto bahū janapadā honti, tattha eko janapadaparicchedo janapadasīmā, kāsikosalādiraṭṭhaparicchedo raṭṭhasīmā, ekassa rañño āṇāpavattiṭṭhānaṃ rajjasīmā, samuddantena paricchinno mahādīpo vā antaradīpo vā dīpasīmā, ekacakkavāḷapabbataparikkhepabbhantaraṃ cakkavāḷasīmā, sesā nidānakathāyaṃ vuttanayā eva. Tattha “khaṇḍasīmāya demā”ti dinnaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṭṭhānaṃyeva pāpuṇāti, tato bahisīmāya sīmantarikaṭṭhānampi na pāpuṇāti. “Upacārasīmāya demā”ti dinnaṃ pana antoparicchede khaṇḍasīmāsīmantarikāsu ṭhitānampi pāpuṇāti, samānasaṃvāsasīmāya dinnaṃ khaṇḍasīmāsīmantarikaṭṭhānaṃ na pāpuṇāti, avippavāsasīmālābhasīmāsu dinnaṃ tāsaṃ antogadhānaṃyeva pāpuṇāti, gāmasīmādīsu dinnaṃ tāsaṃ sīmānaṃ abbhantare baddhasīmaṭṭhānampi pāpuṇāti, abbhantarasīmāudakukkhepasīmāsu dinnaṃ tattha antogadhānaṃyeva pāpuṇāti, janapadasīmādīsu dinnampi tāsaṃ abbhantare baddhasīmaṭṭhānampi pāpuṇāti, tasmā yaṃ jambudīpe ṭhatvā “tambapaṇṇidīpe saṅghassa demā”ti dīyati, taṃ tambapaṇṇidīpato ekopi gantvā sabbesaṃ saṅgaṇhituṃ labhati. Sacepi tattheva eko sabhāgo bhikkhu sabhāgānaṃ bhāgaṃ gaṇhāti, na vāretabbo. Yo pana vihāraṃ pavisitvā “asukasīmāyā”ti avatvāva kevalaṃ “sīmāya dammī”ti vadati, so pucchitabbo “sīmā nāma bahuvidhā, kataraṃ sandhāya vadasī”ti, sace vadati “ahametaṃ bhedaṃ na jānāmi, sīmaṭṭhakasaṅgho gaṇhatū”ti, upacārasīmaṭṭhehi bhājetabbaṃ.

In the third rule, “When a monk’s robe is completed” should be understood in the sense of possession with the instrumental case. “Akālacīvara” refers to what arises outside the robe season, which is stated as “the last month of the rains when the Kathina is not spread, or five months when it is spread” (pārā. 649), or what is given even during the season to the Sangha with the words “This is an out-of-season robe,” or to an individual with words like “I give this to you.” This is called an out-of-season robe. “Were to arise” means such a robe might come into one’s possession from the Sangha, a group of reciters or others, relatives, friends, as a rag robe, or through one’s own wealth (pārā. 500), or else from one of the eight sources for the arising of a robe: “Monks, there are eight sources for the arising of a robe: one gives to a boundary, one gives by agreement, one gives by designation of alms, one gives to the Sangha, one gives to both Sanghas, one gives to the Sangha that has completed the rains, one gives by designation, one gives to an individual” (mahāva. 379). Here, “one gives to a boundary” means giving while referring to a boundary, saying “I give to the boundary,” and the same applies throughout. The “boundary” is of fifteen kinds: a sectional boundary, a vicinity boundary, a common-residence boundary, a non-separation boundary, a gain boundary, a village boundary, a town boundary, a city boundary, an inner boundary, a water-splash boundary, a countryside boundary, a kingdom boundary, a royal domain boundary, an island boundary, and a world-system boundary. Among these, the “vicinity boundary” is defined by the enclosure of a fenced monastery or the area suitable for enclosure of an unfenced one. Furthermore, it is understood as the area within two stone-throws of a strong average man from the place of regular gathering of monks, or from a permanent dining hall, or from a fixed dwelling place. It expands as the dwelling grows and contracts as it diminishes; even a hundred yojanas can be a vicinity boundary. Gains given there reach all within the boundary. The questioning of nuns about entering a monastery or lodgings, the announcing of probation or dependence, the interruption of rains retreat, and the allocation of lodgings and so forth are all to be understood by this boundary. The “gain boundary” is what kings or royal officials establish around a monastery they have built, marking out a quarter yojana, half yojana, or a yojana, saying, “This is the gain boundary of our monastery; whatever arises within it, we give entirely to our monastery.” This is called a gain boundary. Within kingdoms like Kāsi or Kosala, there are many regions; one regional division is a “countryside boundary,” the division of kingdoms like Kāsi or Kosala is a “kingdom boundary,” the area under one king’s command is a “royal domain boundary,” a great island or an inner island enclosed by the sea is an “island boundary,” and the area within the encircling mountains of one world-system is a “world-system boundary.” The rest follow the method stated in the introductory narrative. What is given with “to the sectional boundary” reaches only those within the sectional boundary, not even those in an intermediate boundary outside it. What is given with “to the vicinity boundary” reaches those within its enclosure, including those in sectional boundaries or intermediate boundaries. What is given to a common-residence boundary does not reach those in sectional or intermediate boundaries. What is given to a non-separation boundary or a gain boundary reaches only those included within them. What is given to a village boundary and so forth reaches even those in fixed boundaries within those boundaries. What is given to an inner boundary or a water-splash boundary reaches only those included within them. What is given to a countryside boundary and so forth reaches even those in fixed boundaries within them. Thus, what is given while standing in Jambudīpa with “to the Sangha in Tambapaṇṇidīpa” can be received by one going there and collecting for all. Even if one monk there takes a share for those of like mind, he should not be prevented. But one who enters a monastery and says merely “I give to the boundary” without specifying which boundary should be asked, “Boundaries are of many kinds; which one do you mean?” If he says, “I don’t know this distinction; let the Sangha within the boundary take it,” it should be divided among those within the vicinity boundary.

In the third, niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā, the instrumental case should be understood in a general sense. Akālacīvaraṃ (untimely robe) is that which arises at a time other than that stated as the robe-season, “the last month of the rains when the kathina has not been spread, and the five months when the kathina has been spread” (pārā. 649), and also that which, even during the robe-season, is given by the Order with the words, “This is an untimely robe,” or by an individual with the words, “I give this to you,” and so on. This is called an untimely robe. Uppajjeyyā means such a robe might arise, due to one’s share, from the Order, from a group of sutta reciters, etc., from relatives, from friends, from a rag-heap, or from one’s own wealth (pārā. 500). Or else, “There are, monks, these eight grounds for the arising of a robe: giving to the boundary, giving by agreement, giving by the declaration of alms, giving to the Order, giving to both Orders, giving to the Order that has completed the rains, giving by specifying, giving to an individual” (mahāva. 379). It might arise from any of these eight grounds. Here, giving while touching the boundary, saying, “I give to the boundary,” is called giving to the boundary. This method applies to all cases. Here, sīmā (boundary) is of fifteen kinds: partial boundary, boundary of the surrounding area, boundary of those living together, boundary of non-separation, boundary of gain, village boundary, market-town boundary, city boundary, inner boundary, water-toss boundary, district boundary, province boundary, kingdom boundary, island boundary, and world-system boundary. Here, upacārasīmā (boundary of the surrounding area) is defined by the perimeter of a fenced monastery, or by the area suitable for fencing in an unfenced monastery. Also, from the place where the monks regularly assemble, or from the dining hall situated at the edge, or from the dwelling place where they reside permanently, the area within two stone-throws of a man of average strength is to be understood as the “boundary of the surrounding area.” It increases as the dwelling place increases, and decreases as it decreases; even a hundred yojanas can be the boundary of the surrounding area. The gain given there belongs to all within the boundary. The entry of nuns into the hermitage, the asking about lodgings, the announcement of residence and undergoing probation, the breaking of the rains residence, the taking of lodgings, etc., all this should be understood in terms of this boundary. Lābhasīmā (boundary of gain) is when kings, great ministers, etc., having built a monastery, define an area around it, a gāvuta, half a yojana, or a yojana, saying, “This is the boundary of gain for our monastery; whatever arises within this, we give it all to our monastery.” This is called the boundary of gain. Within the kingdoms of Kāsi, Kosala, etc., there are many districts; the area of one district is the janapadasīmā (district boundary); the area of a kingdom, like Kāsi or Kosala, is the raṭṭhasīmā (province boundary); the area where the commands of one king are effective is the rajjasīmā (kingdom boundary); a large island or an inner island, bounded by the ocean, is the dīpasīmā (island boundary); the area within the perimeter of a single world-system mountain is the cakkavāḷasīmā (world-system boundary). The rest are as stated in the Nidānakathā. There, what is given saying, “We give to the partial boundary,” belongs only to those in the partial boundary; it does not belong to those outside the boundary, even in the area between boundaries. But what is given saying, “We give to the boundary of the surrounding area,” belongs even to those situated within the perimeter, in partial boundaries and areas between boundaries. What is given to the boundary of those living together does not belong to those in partial boundaries and areas between boundaries. What is given to the boundaries of non-separation and gain belongs only to those included within them. What is given to village boundaries, etc., belongs even to those in established boundaries within those boundaries. What is given to inner boundaries and water-toss boundaries belongs only to those included within them. What is given to district boundaries, etc., also belongs even to those in established boundaries within them. Therefore, what is given by someone standing in Jambudīpa, saying, “We give to the Order in Tambapaṇṇi Island,” even one person going from Tambapaṇṇi Island can collect it for all. Even if one member of the same group collects the share for members of the same group there, he should not be prevented. But one who enters a monastery and says, “I give to the boundary,” without specifying “to such-and-such boundary,” should be asked, “There are many kinds of boundaries; which one are you referring to?” If he says, “I do not know this distinction; let the Order situated in the boundary take it,” it should be distributed by those situated in the boundary of the surrounding area.

In the third rule, “when a monk has finished making the robe,” the meaning of the instrumental case should be understood in the same way. “Out-of-season robe” refers to what is obtained outside the robe season, which is stated as “the last month of the rains for one who has not undertaken the kathina, five months for one who has undertaken the kathina” (Pārā. 649). Also, what is given to the Sangha or an individual with the words, “this is an out-of-season robe,” or “this is for you,” etc., is called an out-of-season robe. “Should arise” means such a robe obtained by oneself through one’s share from the Sangha, the Suttanta group, relatives, friends, rags, or one’s own wealth (Pārā. 500), or through one of the eight sources for robe acquisition: “the boundary gives, the katikā gives, the alms-giving gives, the Sangha gives, both Sanghas give, the Sangha that has completed the rains gives, one gives after specifying, one gives to an individual” (Mahāva. 379). Here, “the boundary gives” means giving after touching the boundary with the words, “I give to the boundary,” and this is the method everywhere. Here, “boundary” refers to fifteen types: fragment boundary, proximity boundary, common residence boundary, non-separation boundary, gain boundary, village boundary, town boundary, city boundary, inner boundary, water-throwing boundary, country boundary, state boundary, kingdom boundary, island boundary, and world-sphere boundary. Among these, “proximity boundary” means the area defined by the enclosure of an enclosed monastery or by a suitable place for enclosure around an unenclosed monastery. Also, from the place of constant assembly of monks or from the boundary of the dining hall or from the place of permanent residence, within the distance of two stone throws by a man of medium strength is the “proximity boundary.” This boundary expands when the monastery expands and contracts when it contracts, and it can extend up to a hundred yojanas. Here, the gain given reaches all within the boundary, and for nuns, entering the monastery, asking for lodgings, probation, informing, cutting off the rains, dependence, taking lodgings, etc., are all to be understood through this boundary. “Gain boundary” refers to when kings, ministers, etc., build a monastery and define an area of a gāvuta, half a yojana, or a yojana around it, saying, “this is the gain boundary of our monastery; whatever arises within this, we give it all to our monastery,” this is called the gain boundary. Among the countries of Kāsi, Kosala, etc., there are many regions; here, the boundary of one region is the “country boundary,” the boundary of the countries of Kāsi, Kosala, etc., is the “state boundary,” the area under the command of one king is the “kingdom boundary,” a large island or an island within the ocean is the “island boundary,” the area within one world-sphere mountain is the “world-sphere boundary,” and the rest are as explained in the origin story. Here, if one says, “I give to the fragment boundary,” the gift reaches only the fragment boundary area and not beyond it to the boundary area. If one says, “I give to the proximity boundary,” the gift reaches within the defined area, including the fragment boundary and the boundary area, but not the common residence boundary. If one gives to the non-separation boundary or the gain boundary, the gift reaches only those within those boundaries. If one gives to the village boundary, etc., the gift reaches even those within the inner boundary area. If one gives to the inner boundary or the water-throwing boundary, the gift reaches only those within those boundaries. If one gives to the country boundary, etc., the gift reaches even those within the inner boundary area. Therefore, if one stands in Jambudīpa and says, “I give to the Sangha in Tambapaṇṇidīpa,” the gift reaches even one who goes to Tambapaṇṇidīpa and can be shared by all. Even if one monk there takes the share of all, he should not be prevented. If one enters the monastery and says, “I give to the boundary,” without specifying, he should be asked, “the boundary is of many kinds; which one do you mean?” If he says, “I do not know the difference; let the boundary-holding Sangha take it,” it should be divided by those who hold the proximity boundary.

Katikāyātiettha katikā nāma samānalābhakatikā. Sā pana evaṃ kātabbā, ekasmiṃ vihāre sannipatitehi bhikkhūhi yaṃ vihāraṃ saṅgaṇhitukāmā samānalābhaṃ kātuṃ icchanti, tassa nāmaṃ gahetvā “asuko nāma vihāro porāṇako appalābho”ti yaṃ kiñci kāraṇaṃ vatvā “taṃ vihāraṃ iminā vihārena saddhiṃ ekalābhaṃ kātuṃ saṅghassa ruccatī”ti tikkhattuṃ sāvetabbaṃ, ettāvatā tasmiṃ vihāre nisinnopi idha nisinnova hoti, tasmiṃ vihārepi evameva kātabbaṃ, ettāvatā idha nisinnopi tasmiṃ nisinnova hoti. Ekasmiṃ vihāre lābhe bhājiyamāne itarasmiṃ ṭhitassa bhāgaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.

“By agreement” here refers to an agreement for equal gains. This is how it is done: Monks gathered in one monastery, wishing to share gains equally with another monastery, take its name and say, for some reason like “That monastery named so-and-so is ancient and has little gain,” “Does it please the Sangha to make that monastery equal in gains with this monastery?” This should be announced three times. By this, one sitting in that monastery is as if sitting here, and the same should be done in that monastery. By this, one sitting here is as if sitting there. When gains are divided in one monastery, it is proper to take a share for one standing in the other.

Katikāyā (by agreement): here, katikā means an agreement for equal gain. It should be done thus: when the monks have gathered in one monastery, wanting to include a monastery and make an agreement for equal gain, they should take its name and say, “Such-and-such monastery is old and has little gain,” giving some reason, and then, “Does the Order agree to make that monastery have equal gain with this monastery?” This should be announced three times. By this much, even one sitting in that monastery is as if sitting here. In that monastery, it should be done in the same way. By this much, even one sitting here is as if sitting there. When gain is being distributed in one monastery, it is proper to take a share for one situated in the other.

“By the katikā” here refers to the katikā of equal gain. This should be done as follows: when monks assemble in one monastery and wish to make equal gain with another monastery, they should take its name and say, “this monastery, named so-and-so, is ancient and gains little,” stating some reason, and then announce three times, “the Sangha agrees to make equal gain between this monastery and that monastery.” By this, even if one is seated in that monastery, it is as if seated here, and in that monastery, the same should be done; by this, even if one is seated here, it is as if seated there. When gain is being divided in one monastery, it is proper for one standing in the other monastery to take a share.

Bhikkhāpaññattiyāti ettha bhikkhāpaññatti nāma dāyakassa pariccāgapaññattiṭṭhānaṃ, tasmā “yattha mayhaṃ dhuvakārā karīyanti, tattha dammī”ti vā “tattha dethā”ti vā vutte yattha tassa pākavattaṃ vā vattati, yato vā bhikkhū niccaṃ bhojeti, yattha vā tena kiñci senāsanaṃ kataṃ, sabbattha dinnameva hoti. Sace pana ekasmiṃ dhuvakāraṭṭhāne thokatarā bhikkhū honti, ekameva vā vatthaṃ hoti, mātikaṃ āropetvā yathā so vadati, tathā gahetabbaṃ.

“By designation of alms” here refers to the donor’s designation of relinquishment. Thus, when one says, “I give where my regular support is provided” or “Give it there,” it is given wherever his cooked food is prepared, or where he constantly feeds monks, or where he has made some lodging—all these are considered given. If there are fewer monks or just one robe in a place of regular support, it should be taken as he specifies after establishing the source.

Bhikkhāpaññattiyā (by the declaration of alms): here, bhikkhāpaññatti is the place where the donor’s declaration of relinquishment is made. Therefore, when it is said, “I give where my regular offerings are made,” or “Give there,” it is given wherever his meal is regularly served, or wherever he regularly feeds the monks, or wherever he has built some lodging. But if there are fewer monks in one place of regular offering, or if there is only one cloth, setting up a ground, it should be taken as he says.

“By the alms-giving” here refers to the donor’s place of relinquishment. Therefore, if one says, “where my regular duties are performed, there I give,” or “there give,” wherever his regular duties are performed, or where monks are regularly fed, or where he has provided some lodging, the gift is given there. If in one place of regular duties there are fewer monks or only one robe, the donor’s words should be followed after considering the situation.

Saṅghassa detīti ettha vihāraṃ pavisitvā “saṅghassa dammī”ti dinnaṃ upacārasīmāgatānañca tato bahiddhāpi tehi saddhiṃ ekābaddhānañca pāpuṇāti, tasmā tesaṃ gāhake sati asampattānampi bhāgo dātabbo. Yaṃ pana bahi upacārasīmāya bhikkhū disvā “saṅghassā”ti dīyati, taṃ ekābaddhaparisāya pāpuṇāti. Ye pana dvādasahi hatthehi parisaṃ asampattā, tesaṃ na pāpuṇāti.

“One gives to the Sangha” here means that what is given by entering a monastery and saying “I give to the Sangha” reaches those within the vicinity boundary and those outside it who are connected with them. Thus, when there are recipients, a share should be given even to those who have not arrived. What is given outside the vicinity boundary upon seeing monks with “to the Sangha” reaches the connected assembly. But it does not reach those beyond twelve hands from the assembly.

Saṅghassa detī (he gives to the Order): here, what is given entering a monastery, saying, “I give to the Order,” belongs to those within the boundary of the surrounding area, and also to those connected with them outside of it. Therefore, when they have a receiver, a share should be given even to those who have not arrived. But what is given outside the boundary of the surrounding area, seeing monks and saying, “To the Order,” belongs to the assembly that is connected. But it does not belong to those who have not reached the assembly within twelve hands’ breadths.

“To the Sangha” here means that if one enters the monastery and says, “I give to the Sangha,” the gift reaches those within the proximity boundary and also those outside who are connected with them. Therefore, even if the recipients are not present, their share should be given. If one sees monks outside the proximity boundary and says, “I give to the Sangha,” the gift reaches the connected assembly. However, those who are not within twelve hands’ distance do not receive it.

Ubhatosaṅghassāti ettha pana yaṃ ubhatosaṅghassa dinnaṃ, tato upaḍḍhaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ, upaḍḍhaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ dātabbaṃ. Sacepi eko bhikkhu hoti, ekā vā bhikkhunī, antamaso anupasampannassāpi upaḍḍhameva dātabbaṃ. “Ubhatosaṅghassa ca tuyhañcā”ti vutte pana sace dasa bhikkhū ca dasa bhikkhuniyo ca honti, ekavīsati paṭivīse katvā eko puggalassa dātabbo, dasa bhikkhusaṅghassa, dasa bhikkhunisaṅghassa ca, yena puggaliko laddho, so saṅghatopi attano vassaggena gahetuṃ labhati, kasmā? Ubhatosaṅghaggahaṇena gahitattā, “ubhatosaṅghassa ca cetiyassa cā”ti vuttepi eseva nayo. Idha pana cetiyassa saṅghato pāpuṇakoṭṭhāso nāma natthi, ekapuggalassa pattakoṭṭhāsasamo eko koṭṭhāso hoti. “Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca bhikkhunīnañcā”ti vutte pana na majjhe bhinditvā dātabbaṃ, bhikkhū ca bhikkhuniyo ca gaṇetvā dātabbaṃ. “Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca bhikkhunīnañca tuyhañcā”ti vutte puggalo visuṃ na labhati, pāpuṇakoṭṭhāsato ekameva labhati . “Cetiyassa cā”ti vutte pana cetiyassa eko puggalapaṭivīso labbhati. “Bhikkhūnañca bhikkhunīnañcā”ti vuttepi na majjhe bhinditvā dātabbaṃ, puggalagaṇanāya eva vibhajitabbaṃ, tehi saddhiṃ puggalacetiyaparāmasanaṃ anantaranayasadisameva, yathā ca bhikkhusaṅghaṃ ādiṃ katvā nayo nīto, evaṃ bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ ādiṃ katvāpi netabbo. “Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca tuyhañcā”ti vuttepi puggalassa visuṃ na labbhati , cetiyassa pana labbhati. “Bhikkhūnañca tuyhañcā”ti vuttepi visuṃ na labbhati, cetiyassa pana labbhatiyeva.

“To both Sanghas” here means that what is given to both Sanghas should be divided half to the monks and half to the nuns. Even if there is one monk or one nun, or even an unordained person, only half is to be given. If it is said, “To both Sanghas and to you,” and there are ten monks and ten nuns, it should be divided into twenty-one parts: one for the individual, ten for the monks’ Sangha, and ten for the nuns’ Sangha. The one who receives an individual share can also take from the Sangha by seniority, because he is included in the reference to both Sanghas. The same applies if it is said, “To both Sanghas and to the shrine.” Here, however, the shrine has no share receivable from the Sangha; it gets a portion equal to one individual share. If it is said, “To the monks’ Sangha and to the nuns,” it should not be split in the middle but divided by counting the monks and nuns. If it is said, “To the monks’ Sangha and to the nuns and to you,” the individual does not receive separately but gets only one share from the receivable portion. If it is said, “And to the shrine,” the shrine receives one individual share. If it is said, “To the monks and to the nuns,” it should not be split in the middle but divided by counting individuals. The reference to individuals and the shrine alongside them follows the same method as the previous case. Just as the method was laid out starting with the monks’ Sangha, it can also be laid out starting with the nuns’ Sangha. If it is said, “To the monks’ Sangha and to you,” the individual does not receive separately, but the shrine does. If it is said, “To the monks and to you,” the individual does not receive separately, but the shrine does.

Ubhatosaṅghassā (to both Orders): here, what is given to both Orders, half should be given to the monks, and half to the nuns. Even if there is one monk, or one nun, even for an unordained person, half should be given. When it is said, “To both Orders and to you,” if there are ten monks and ten nuns, making twenty-one shares, one should be given to the individual, ten to the Order of monks, and ten to the Order of nuns. The one who received the individual share can also take his share from the Order according to his seniority. Why? Because it has been taken by the taking of both Orders. When it is said, “To both Orders and to the Cetiya,” the same method applies. But here, there is no share belonging to the Cetiya from the Order; one share is equal to the share received by one individual. When it is said, “To the Order of monks and to the nuns,” it should not be divided in the middle and given; it should be given counting the monks and nuns. When it is said, “To the Order of monks, to the nuns, and to you,” the individual does not receive separately; he receives only one from the share belonging to him. When it is said, “And to the Cetiya,” the Cetiya receives one individual share. When it is said, “To the monks and to the nuns,” it should not be divided in the middle and given; it should be divided according to the number of individuals. The mention of an individual and a Cetiya with them is the same as in the previous method. Just as the method was presented starting with the Order of monks, so it should also be presented starting with the Order of nuns. When it is said, “To the Order of monks and to you,” the individual does not receive separately, but the Cetiya does. When it is said, “To the monks and to you,” he does not receive separately, but the Cetiya does receive.

“To both Sanghas” here means that what is given to both Sanghas should be divided equally between the monks and the nuns. Even if there is one monk or one nun, or even an unordained person, half should be given. If one says, “to both Sanghas and to you,” and there are ten monks and ten nuns, one share should be given to the individual, ten to the monks’ Sangha, and ten to the nuns’ Sangha. The individual’s share can be taken by the senior monk from the Sangha’s share. Why? Because it was taken by the term “both Sanghas.” If one says, “to both Sanghas and to the shrine,” the same method applies. Here, the shrine’s share from the Sangha is not a fixed portion; it is equal to one individual’s share. If one says, “to the monks’ Sangha and to the nuns,” it should not be divided in the middle, but the monks and nuns should be counted and given accordingly. If one says, “to the monks’ Sangha and to the nuns and to you,” the individual does not receive separately, but only one share from the portion. If one says, “to the shrine,” the shrine receives one individual’s share. If one says, “to the monks and to the nuns,” it should not be divided in the middle, but should be divided by counting the individuals, and the touching of the shrine is similar to the immediate method. As the method was explained starting with the monks’ Sangha, so it should be explained starting with the nuns’ Sangha. If one says, “to the monks’ Sangha and to you,” the individual does not receive separately, but the shrine does. If one says, “to the monks and to you,” the individual does not receive separately, but the shrine does.

Vassaṃvuṭṭhasaṅghassāti ettha sace vihāraṃ pavisitvā “vassaṃvuṭṭhasaṅghassa dammī”ti vadati, ye tattha vassacchedaṃ akatvā purimavassaṃvuṭṭhā, tesaṃ bahi sīmaṭṭhānampi pāpuṇāti, na aññesaṃ. Sace pana bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhito “vassaṃvuṭṭhasaṅghassā”ti vadati, yatthakatthaci vuṭṭhavassānaṃ sabbesaṃ sampattānaṃ pāpuṇāti. Atha “asukavihāre vassaṃvuṭṭhassā”ti vadati, tattha vassaṃvuṭṭhānaṃyeva yāva kathinassubbhārā pāpuṇāti. Gimhānaṃ paṭhamadivasato paṭṭhāya evaṃ vadati, tatra sammukhībhūtānaṃ sabbesaṃ pāpuṇāti, na aññesaṃ.

“To the Sangha that has completed the rains” here means that if one enters a monastery and says, “I give to the Sangha that has completed the rains,” it reaches those who have completed the previous rains retreat there without interruption, even those outside the boundary, but not others. If one stands outside the vicinity boundary and says, “To the Sangha that has completed the rains,” it reaches all who have completed the rains retreat anywhere and are present. If one says, “To those who have completed the rains in such-and-such a monastery,” it reaches only those who completed the rains there until the Kathina is withdrawn. If one says this from the first day of summer, it reaches all present there, but not others.

Vassaṃvuṭṭhasaṅghassā (to the Order that has completed the rains): here, if one enters a monastery and says, “I give to the Order that has completed the rains,” it belongs to those who have completed the first rains residence there without breaking the rains, even those situated outside the boundary, but not to others. But if, standing outside the boundary of the surrounding area, he says, “To the Order that has completed the rains,” it belongs to all those who have completed the rains residence, wherever they may be, who have arrived. But if he says, “To those who have completed the rains in such-and-such monastery,” it belongs only to those who have completed the rains there, until the withdrawal of the kathina. If he says this from the first day of the hot season, it belongs to all those who are present, but not to others.

“To the Sangha that has completed the rains” here means that if one enters the monastery and says, “I give to the Sangha that has completed the rains,” the gift reaches those who have not cut off the rains and have completed the previous rains, even outside the boundary area, but not others. If one stands outside the proximity boundary and says, “I give to the Sangha that has completed the rains,” the gift reaches all who have completed the rains wherever they are. If one says, “I give to the Sangha that has completed the rains in such-and-such monastery,” the gift reaches only those who have completed the rains there until the kathina is lifted. If one says this from the first day of summer, the gift reaches all who are present, but not others.

Ādissa detīti ādisitvā paricchinditvā deti, kathaṃ? Bhikkhū ajjatanāya vā svātanāya vā yāguyā nimantetvā te ghare yāguṃ pāyetvā “imāni cīvarāni yehi mayhaṃ yāgu pītā, tesaṃ dammī”ti vadati, yehi nimantitehi yāgu pītā, tesaṃyeva pāpuṇāti, bhattakhajjakādīhi nimantitesupi eseva nayo.

“One gives by designation” means giving by specifying and delimiting. How? Inviting monks for porridge today or tomorrow, giving them porridge at home, and saying, “I give these robes to those who drank my porridge,” it reaches only those invited who drank the porridge. The same applies to those invited with meals or snacks.

Ādissa detī (he gives by specifying): he gives by specifying and defining. How? Having invited monks for gruel for today or tomorrow, having given them gruel in the house, he says, “These robes I give to those who have drunk my gruel.” It belongs only to those who, having been invited, drank the gruel. The same method applies to those invited with solid food, snacks, etc.

“Gives after specifying” means giving after specifying and defining. How? One invites monks for today’s or tomorrow’s gruel, feeds them gruel at home, and says, “these robes I give to those who have drunk my gruel,” and the gift reaches only those who were invited and drank the gruel. The same applies if invited for meals, snacks, etc.

Puggalassa detīti “idaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa dammī”ti evaṃ parammukhā vā, pādamūle ṭhapetvā “idaṃ tumhāka”nti evaṃ sammukhā vā detīti ayamettha saṅkhepakathā, vitthāro pana samantapāsādikāyaṃ vutto. Iti imāsaṃ aṭṭhannaṃ mātikāpadānaṃ vasena yaṃ akālacīvaralakkhaṇena paṭiladdhaṃ, taṃ sandhāya “akālacīvaraṃ uppajjeyyā”ti vuttaṃ.

“One gives to an individual” means saying, “I give this robe to so-and-so” in his absence, or placing it at his feet and saying, “This is yours” in his presence. This is the summary here; the details are explained in the Samantapāsādikā. Thus, with reference to these eight sources, what is obtained with the characteristic of an out-of-season robe is meant by “an out-of-season robe were to arise.”

Puggalassa detī (he gives to an individual): “I give this robe to so-and-so,” thus facing away, or, placing it at the feet, “This is yours,” thus facing him. This is the summary here; the detailed explanation is given in the Samantapāsādikā. Thus, what has been obtained according to the characteristics of an untimely robe, by way of the giving of these eight grounds, that is what is meant by “an untimely robe might arise.”

“Gives to an individual” means giving to an individual by saying, “this robe I give to so-and-so,” either in his presence or by placing it at his feet and saying, “this is for you.” This is the summary here; the detailed explanation is found in the Samantapāsādikā. Thus, what is obtained through these eight sources of robe acquisition is referred to as “an out-of-season robe should arise.”

Ākaṅkhamānenāti icchamānena. Khippameva kāretabbanti sīghaṃ antodasāheyeva kāretabbaṃ. No cassa pāripūrīti no ce pāripūrī bhaveyya, yattakena kariyamānaṃ adhiṭṭhānacīvaraṃ pahoti, taṃ cīvaraṃ tattakaṃ na bhaveyya, ūnakaṃ bhaveyyāti attho. Satiyā paccāsāyāti “asukadivasaṃ nāma saṅgho cīvarāni labhissati, tato me cīvaraṃ uppajjissatī”tiiminā nayena saṅghagaṇañātimittesu vā aññataraṭṭhānato, “paṃsukūlaṃ vā lacchāmī”ti, “iminā vā kappiyabhaṇḍena cīvaraṃ gaṇhissāmī”ti evaṃ vijjamānāya cīvarāsāya. Tato ce uttarīti māsaparamato ce uttari nikkhipeyya, nissaggiyanti attho. Yadi panassa mūlacīvaraṃ saṇhaṃ hoti, paccāsācīvaraṃ thūlaṃ hoti, na sakkā yojetuṃ, rattiyo ca sesā honti, na tāva māso pūrati, na akāmā cīvaraṃ kāretabbaṃ, aññaṃ paccāsācīvaraṃ labhitvā eva kālabbhantare kāretabbaṃ. Sace na labhati, paccāsācīvarampi parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Atha mūlacīvaraṃ thūlaṃ hoti, paccāsācīvaraṃ saṇhaṃ, mūlacīvaraṃ parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā paccāsācīvarameva mūlacīvaraṃ katvā ṭhapetabbaṃ, taṃ puna māsaparihāraṃ labhati, etenupāyena yāva na lacchati, tāva aññaṃ mūlacīvaraṃ katvā ṭhapetuṃ labbhati. Imassa “idaṃ me, bhante, akālacīvaraṃ māsātikkantaṃ nissaggiya”nti (pārā. 500) iminā nayena nissajjanavidhānaṃ veditabbaṃ.

“Desiring” means wishing. “It should be made quickly” means it should be made swiftly, within ten days. “If it is not complete” means if it were not complete, the meaning is that whatever amount is being made, if the robe designated (adhiṭṭhāna-cīvara) is sufficient, that robe would not be of that amount but would be deficient. “With the expectation present” means with the expectation of a robe existing in this way: “On such-and-such a day, the Saṅgha will receive robes, and from that, a robe will arise for me,” or from some place such as the Saṅgha, a group, relatives, or friends, or “I will obtain a rag-robe (paṃsukūla),” or “With this allowable item, I will take a robe.” “If beyond that” means if one keeps it beyond the maximum of a month, it is to be relinquished (nissaggiya). However, if one’s original robe (mūla-cīvara) is fine and the expected robe (paccāsā-cīvara) is coarse, and they cannot be combined, and nights still remain without the month being complete, the robe should not be made unwillingly; it should be made only after obtaining another expected robe within the proper time. If one does not obtain it, even the expected robe should be designated as a requisite cloth (parikkhāra-coḷa). Alternatively, if the original robe is coarse and the expected robe is fine, the original robe should be designated as a requisite cloth, and the expected robe should be made the original robe and kept; it then gains an exemption for a month. By this method, as long as one does not obtain it, one may keep making another original robe and storing it. The procedure for relinquishment should be understood in this way: “This out-of-season robe of mine, venerable sir, kept beyond a month, is to be relinquished (nissaggiya)” (pārā. 500).

Ākaṅkhamānenāti means desiring. Khippameva kāretabbanti means it should be made quickly, within ten days. No cassa pāripūrīti means if it is not complete; if the amount of cloth is not enough to make a robe for determination, meaning the cloth is insufficient. Satiyā paccāsāyāti means when there is an expectation, in this way: “On such and such a day, the Sangha will receive robes; from that, a robe will arise for me,” or from the Sangha, a group, relatives, friends, or another place, or “I will obtain a rag-robe,” or “With this allowable item, I will obtain a robe”—thus, when there is a real expectation of a robe. Tato ce uttarīti means if he keeps it beyond the maximum of one month, it is to be forfeited. If, however, his original robe is fine, and the expected robe is coarse, and he cannot join them, and there are remaining nights, and the month is not yet full, he should not make the robe unwillingly; he should obtain another expected robe and make it within the proper time. If he does not obtain one, even the expected robe should be determined as extra cloth. If the original robe is coarse and the expected robe is fine, he should determine the original robe as extra cloth and make the expected robe the original robe, and keep it; that one receives the month’s grace. In this way, until he obtains one, he is allowed to make another the original robe and keep it. For this one, the method of forfeiture should be understood in this way: “Venerable sir, this is my out-of-season robe, kept beyond a month, to be forfeited” (pārā. 500).

Ākaṅkhamānenāti means by one who desires. Khippameva kāretabbanti means it should be made quickly within ten days. No cassa pāripūrīti means if it is not completed, that is, if the robe being made as an adhiṭṭhānacīvara is not sufficient, then that robe would be incomplete, meaning it would be deficient. Satiyā paccāsāyāti means with the hope that “on such and such a day, the Sangha will receive robes, and from that, I will obtain a robe,” or with the hope of obtaining rag-robes from the Sangha, relatives, friends, or from some other place, or with the hope of obtaining a robe through allowable means. Tato ce uttarīti means if it is kept beyond a month, it becomes nissaggiya (to be forfeited). However, if the original robe is soft and the hoped-for robe is coarse, and it cannot be used, and if there are remaining nights and the month is not yet complete, then the robe should not be made unwillingly. Another hoped-for robe should be obtained within the time limit and made. If it is not obtained, the hoped-for robe should also be determined as a parikkhāracoḷa (accessory cloth). Then, if the original robe is coarse and the hoped-for robe is soft, the original robe should be determined as a parikkhāracoḷa, and the hoped-for robe should be made the original robe and kept. This robe then gains the allowance of a month. By this method, until another original robe is obtained, another original robe can be made and kept. For this, the procedure of forfeiture should be understood as follows: “Venerable sir, this out-of-season robe has been kept beyond a month and is to be forfeited” (pārā. 500).

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha akālacīvaraṃ paṭiggahetvā māsaṃ atikkamanavatthusmiṃ

At Sāvatthī, concerning several monks, regarding the matter of accepting an out-of-season robe (akāla-cīvara) and keeping it beyond a month,

At Sāvatthī, concerning many monks, in the case of accepting an out-of-season robe and exceeding a month,

In Sāvatthī, regarding several monks who had received out-of-season robes and kept them beyond a month,

Paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, ito paraṃ sabbaṃ paṭhamakathine vuttasadisameva. Kevalañhi tattha dasāhātikkamo, idha māsātikkamoti ayaṃ viseso. Sesaṃ tādisamevāti.

It was laid down, a general rule, without command. From here onward, everything is the same as stated in the first kathina rule. The only difference is that there it is an excess of ten days, while here it is an excess of a month. The rest is the same.

it was established, a general regulation, not an order. Everything after this is similar to what was said in the first kathina. The only difference is that there it is exceeding ten days, here it is exceeding a month. The rest is the same.

a rule was established. It is a common rule, non-announcement-based, and from here onwards, everything is similar to what was stated in the first kathina. The only difference is that there, the allowance is for ten days, whereas here, it is for a month. The rest is the same.

4. Purāṇacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Old Robe Training Rule

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Old Robes

4. Explanation of the Purāṇacīvarasikkhāpada

Catutthe aññātikāyāti na ñātikāya, mātito vā pitito vā yāva sattamaṃ yugaṃ, tāva kenaci ākārena asambaddhāyāti attho. Bhikkhuniyāti sākiyāniyo viya suddhabhikkhusaṅghe vā ubhatosaṅghe vā upasampannāya. Purāṇacīvaranti rajitvā kappaṃ katvā ekavārampi nivatthaṃ vā pārutaṃ vā, yaṃ antamaso paribhogasīsena aṃse vā matthake vā katvā maggaṃ gato hoti, ussīsakaṃ vā katvā nipanno, etampi purāṇacīvarameva. Dhovāpeyya vāti sace “dhovā”tivācāya vadati, kāyavikāraṃ vā karoti, hatthena vā hatthe deti, pādamūle vā ṭhapeti, antodvādasahatthe okāse ṭhatvā upari vā khipati, aññassa vā hatthe peseti, tāya dhotaṃ, dhovāpitameva hoti, rajāpanākoṭāpanesupi eseva nayo. Sikkhamānāya vā sāmaṇeriyā vā upāsikāya vā hatthe dhovanatthāya deti, sā sace upasampajjitvā dhovati, evampi nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Upāsakassa vā sāmaṇerassa vā hatthe dinnaṃ hoti, so ce liṅge parivatte upasampajjitvā dhovati, daharassa bhikkhussa vā dinnaṃ hoti, sopi liṅge parivatte dhovati, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyameva, rajāpanākoṭāpanesupi eseva nayo. “Idaṃ me, bhante, purāṇacīvaraṃ aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā dhovāpitaṃ nissaggiya”nti (pārā. 505) iminā panettha nayena nissajjanavidhānaṃ veditabbaṃ.

In the fourth, “From an unrelated (female)” means not related, not connected by any means through the maternal or paternal line up to seven generations. “Nun” means one ordained in the pure monks’ Saṅgha or the dual Saṅgha, like the Sākiyānī. “Old robe” means one that has been dyed and made proper, worn or covered even once, or at least used for personal use on the shoulder or head while traveling a path, or lain upon after being made a headcloth; this too is an old robe (purāṇa-cīvara). “Or have it washed” means if she says “wash it” with words, or makes a gesture with the body, or hands it over hand-to-hand, or places it at the foot, or stands within twelve hands’ distance and throws it upward, or sends it through another’s hand, it is washed or caused to be washed. The same method applies to dyeing or beating. If she gives it to a female trainee (sikkhamānā), a female novice (sāmaṇerī), or a laywoman to wash, and that person washes it after being ordained, it is still to be relinquished (nissaggiya) and entails an offense requiring confession (pācittiya). If it is given to a layman or a novice and he washes it after a change of gender and ordination, or if it is given to a young monk who washes it after a change of gender, it is still to be relinquished (nissaggiya) and entails an offense requiring confession. The same method applies to dyeing or beating. The procedure for relinquishment should be understood in this way: “This old robe of mine, venerable sir, caused to be washed by an unrelated nun, is to be relinquished (nissaggiya)” (pārā. 505).

In the fourth, aññātikāyāti means by one not a relative; not related in any way through the mother’s or father’s line up to the seventh generation. Bhikkhuniyāti means by a bhikkhuni fully ordained in a pure Bhikkhu Sangha or in a dual Sangha, like the Sakyan women. Purāṇacīvaranti means an old robe; having been dyed, made allowable, and even once worn or wrapped, or which has been taken on a journey by being placed on the shoulder or head, even for the purpose of carrying, or has been slept on as a pillow; even this is an old robe. Dhovāpeyya vāti means if he says, “Wash it,” or makes a bodily gesture, or gives it hand to hand, or places it at her feet, or stands within twelve hands and throws it over, or sends it by another’s hand, what is washed by her is considered caused to be washed; the same principle applies to causing to be dyed and causing to be beaten. If he gives it to a female probationer, a female novice, or a female lay follower to be washed, and if she, after being fully ordained, washes it, even then it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. If it is given to a male lay follower or a male novice, and he, after changing his status and being fully ordained, washes it, or if it is given to a young bhikkhu, and he also washes it after changing his status, it is still a nissaggiya pācittiya; the same principle applies to causing to be dyed and causing to be beaten. The method of forfeiture here should be understood in this way: “Venerable sir, this is my old robe, caused to be washed by a non-relative bhikkhuni, to be forfeited” (pārā. 505).

In the fourth, aññātikāyāti means not related, not connected by any means to one’s relatives up to the seventh generation on the mother’s or father’s side. Bhikkhuniyāti means one who is fully ordained in the Bhikkhunī Sangha, like the Sākiyanīs, or in the dual Sangha. Purāṇacīvaranti means a robe that has been dyed, marked, and worn even once, or even if it has been used as a covering for the shoulders or head while walking, or as a pillow while lying down, this too is considered an old robe. Dhovāpeyya vāti means if one says, “Wash it,” or makes a bodily gesture, or gives it with one’s own hand, or places it at the foot, or stands within twelve handbreadths and throws it above, or sends it to another’s hand, and it is washed by that person, it is considered washed. The same applies to dyeing and marking. If given to a trainee nun, a novice nun, or a laywoman for washing, and if she washes it after being fully ordained, it is also a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If given to a layman or a novice monk, and if he washes it after changing his status to a fully ordained monk, it is also a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. The same applies to dyeing and marking. “Venerable sir, this old robe has been washed by an unrelated bhikkhunī and is to be forfeited” (pārā. 505). The procedure of forfeiture should be understood in this way.

Sāvatthiyaṃ udāyittheraṃ ārabbha purāṇacīvaradhovāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ “dhovā”tiādikāya āṇattiyā, evaṃ āṇattāya ca bhikkhuniyā uddhanasajjanādīsu sabbappayogesu bhikkhuno dukkaṭaṃ. Dhovitvā ukkhittamattaṃ pana rattamattaṃ ākoṭitamattañca nissaggiyaṃ hoti, dhovanādīni tīṇipi dve vā kārāpentassa ekena vatthunā nissaggiyaṃ, itarehi dukkaṭaṃ. Sace pana “dhovā”ti vuttā sabbānipi karoti, dhovanapaccayāva āpatti. “Imasmiṃ cīvare yaṃ kattabbaṃ, taṃ karohī”ti vadato pana ekavācāya pācittiyena saddhiṃ dve dukkaṭāni, bhikkhunisaṅghavasena ekatoupasampannāya dhovāpentassa anissajjitvā paribhuñjantassa, aññassa vā santakaṃ nisīdanapaccattharaṇaṃ vā dhovāpentassa, ñātikāya aññātikasaññino ceva, vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ, aññātikāya ñātikasaññinopi vematikassāpi nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyameva. Ito paraṃ pana evarūpesu ṭhānesu “tikapācittiya”nti vakkhāma, sace ñātikāya sahāyā aññātikā “dhovā”ti avuttā vā dhovati, aparibhuttaṃ vā aññaṃ vā parikkhāraṃ dhovati, sikkhamānasāmaṇeriyo vā dhovanti, anāpatti, ummattakādīnaṃ anāpattiyeva. Purāṇacīvaratā, upacāre ṭhatvā aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā āṇāpanaṃ, tassā dhovanādīni cāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Sañcarittasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ, nosaññāvimokkhaṃ, acittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the elder Udāyin, regarding the matter of having an old robe washed, it was laid down, a specific rule, with command through words such as “wash it,” and by such a command, in all efforts like preparing ovens, a monk incurs an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). However, merely washing, lifting, dyeing, or beating it entails a relinquishment offense (nissaggiya). For one who has two or three of these done with one item, there is one relinquishment offense (nissaggiya) and wrongdoing (dukkaṭa) for the others. If she is told “wash it” and does everything, the offense arises from the washing condition. However, if one says, “Do whatever needs to be done with this robe,” with one statement there is an offense requiring confession (pācittiya) along with two wrongdoing offenses (dukkaṭa). For having it washed by one ordained only in the nuns’ Saṅgha, or using it without relinquishing, or having another’s belonging like a sitting cloth or mat washed, or perceiving a relative as unrelated, or being uncertain, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). For perceiving an unrelated one as related or being uncertain, it is still to be relinquished (nissaggiya) and entails an offense requiring confession (pācittiya). From here onward, in such cases, we will say “triple pācittiya.” If a friendly unrelated nun washes it without being told “wash it,” or washes an unused item or another requisite, or if female trainees or novices wash it, there is no offense. For those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The state of being an old robe, commanding an unrelated nun while standing nearby, and her washing, dyeing, or beating are the three factors here. It arises from interaction, is an action, not released by perception, mindless, a fault by stipulation, bodily action, verbal action, with three kinds of mind, and three kinds of feeling.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the venerable Udāyī, in the case of causing an old robe to be washed, it was established, a non-general regulation, with an order, such as “Wash,” etc. Thus, with such an order, for the bhikkhu, there is a dukkaṭa for all actions of the bhikkhuni, such as setting up the pot, etc. But as soon as it is washed and lifted, as soon as it is dyed, and as soon as it is beaten, it becomes subject to forfeiture. For causing two or three of the actions of washing, etc., there is forfeiture with one item, and a dukkaṭa for the others. But if, being told “Wash,” she does all of them, the offense is only for the washing. For one who says, “Do whatever needs to be done with this robe,” there are two dukkaṭas along with one pācittiya. For one who causes a robe to be washed by a bhikkhuni who is ordained by one sangha, without forfeiting it, and uses it, or causes a sitting cloth or a coverlet belonging to another to be washed, and for one who thinks a relative is a non-relative, and for one who is uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who thinks a non-relative is a relative, or is uncertain, there is still a nissaggiya pācittiya. From here on, in such cases, we will say “tikapācittiya.” If relatives and companions who are non-relatives wash it without being told “Wash,” or if they wash an unused or other requisites, or if female probationers or female novices wash it, there is no offense; for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Here, there are three factors: the state of being an old robe, causing a non-relative bhikkhuni to do something while standing within the boundary, and her washing, etc. It originates from social interaction, it is an action, it is not exempt from consciousness, it is not without thought, it is a fault in the precept, it is a bodily act, it is a verbal act, it has three mental states, and it has three feelings.

In Sāvatthī, regarding the Elder Udāyi, a rule was established concerning the washing of old robes. It is a non-common rule, announcement-based, with the announcement “Wash it,” etc. For a bhikkhu, it is a dukkaṭa offense in all actions such as scrubbing, stitching, etc., when done for a bhikkhunī. If the robe is merely washed, thrown, or beaten, it becomes nissaggiya. If one causes two or three actions to be done by one person, it is nissaggiya; for others, it is dukkaṭa. If, however, one says, “Wash it,” and all actions are done, the offense is incurred due to the washing. If one says, “Do whatever needs to be done with this robe,” it is one pācittiya offense along with two dukkaṭa offenses. If a bhikkhu causes a robe to be washed by a bhikkhunī who is fully ordained alone, and he uses it without forfeiting it, or causes another’s sitting cloth or sheet to be washed, it is a dukkaṭa offense for one who perceives a relative as unrelated or is in doubt. For one who perceives an unrelated person as a relative or is in doubt, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. From here onwards, in such cases, we will say “tikapācittiya.” If a friend of a relative washes it without being asked, or washes an unused or other accessory, or if trainee nuns or novice nuns wash it, there is no offense. There is no offense for the insane, etc. The old robe, standing near and giving an order to an unrelated bhikkhunī, and her washing, etc., are the three factors here. It originates from the body and speech, is an action, not a release through perception, is mindless, is a rule offense, is bodily and verbal action, arises from three types of consciousness, and has three types of feeling.

5. Cīvarappaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Robe Acceptance Training Rule

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Accepting a Robe

5. Explanation of the Cīvarappaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpada

Pañcame aññātikāyātiidaṃ vuttanayameva, tasmā ito paraṃ katthaci na vicārayissāma. Cīvaranti channaṃ aññataraṃ vikappanupagaṃ, esa nayo sabbesu cīvarappaṭisaṃyuttasikkhāpadesu. Yattha pana viseso bhavissati, tattha vakkhāma. Paṭiggaṇheyyātiettha hatthena vā hatthe detu, pādamūle vā ṭhapetu, dhammakathaṃ kathentassa vatthesu khipiyamānesu upacāraṃ muñcitvāpi upari vā khipatu, sace sādiyati, paṭiggahitameva hoti. Yassa kassaci pana anupasampannassa hatthe pesitaṃ gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati, “paṃsukūlaṃ gaṇhissatī”ti saṅkārakūṭādīsu ṭhapitampi paṃsukūlaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā gahetuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Aññatra pārivattakāti yaṃ “antamaso harīṭakakkhaṇḍampi datvā vā dassāmī”ti ābhogaṃ katvā vā pārivattakaṃ gaṇhāti, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ antamaso vikappanupagaṃ paṭaparissāvanampi gaṇhantassa nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Tatra “idaṃ me, bhante, cīvaraṃ aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā hatthato paṭiggahitaṃ aññatra pārivattakā nissaggiya”nti (pārā. 512) iminā nayena nissajjanavidhānaṃ veditabbaṃ.

In the fifth, “From an unrelated (female)” is as explained above; therefore, we will not analyze it further here. “Robe” means one of the six allowable types not subject to designation; this method applies to all training rules related to robes. Where there is a distinction, we will state it. “Were to accept” means whether she gives it hand-to-hand, places it at the foot, or throws it upward while discussing Dhamma and the monk releases the boundary, if he accepts it, it is accepted. However, it is allowable to take it from the hand of any unordained person or to take a rag-robe (paṃsukūla) designated as such from a refuse heap or similar place, thinking, “He will take a rag-robe.” “Except by exchange” means except for an exchange where one gives something, even a piece of turmeric, with intent, “I will give this”; apart from that, accepting anything, even a strainer cloth subject to designation, entails relinquishment (nissaggiya). The procedure for relinquishment should be understood in this way: “This robe of mine, venerable sir, accepted from the hand of an unrelated nun except by exchange, is to be relinquished (nissaggiya)” (pārā. 512).

In the fifth, aññātikāyāti, this is the same as previously stated; therefore, from here on, we will not analyze it anywhere. Cīvaranti means one of the six kinds of robes that are not suitable for determination; this principle applies to all training rules related to robes. But where there is a difference, we will state it. Paṭiggaṇheyyāti: whether she gives it hand to hand, or places it at his feet, or throws it onto his clothes while he is teaching Dhamma, even if he moves out of range, or throws it over him, if he approves, it is considered accepted. But it is proper to accept it if it is sent by the hand of any non-ordained person. If it is placed on a rubbish heap, etc., with the thought, “He will take a rag-robe,” it is proper to take it after determining it as a rag-robe. Aññatra pārivattakāti means except for an exchange; if he accepts an exchange after having made a mental commitment, saying, “Having given even a piece of turmeric, I will give,” or intends to, then accepting anything else, even a filter cloth that is not suitable for determination, is a nissaggiya. There, the method of forfeiture should be understood in this way: “Venerable sir, this is my robe, accepted from the hand of a non-relative bhikkhuni, except for an exchange, to be forfeited” (pārā. 512).

In the fifth, aññātikāyāti means as explained before, so from here onwards, we will not discuss it further. Cīvaranti means any of the six kinds of robes that are subject to alteration. This is the method in all robe-related training rules. Where there is a difference, we will mention it. Paṭiggaṇheyyāti here means receiving it with one’s own hand, or placing it at the foot, or while giving a Dhamma talk, if robes are being thrown, one may release one’s proximity and throw it above. If one accepts it, it is considered received. However, if it is sent to the hand of any unordained person, it is allowable to take it, thinking, “I will take rag-robes,” even if it is placed in a rubbish heap, etc., after determining it as rag-robes. Aññatra pārivattakāti means except for an exchange, even if one takes a piece of harītaka fruit after making an effort, or takes a robe subject to alteration, even a wiping cloth, it is nissaggiya. “Venerable sir, this robe has been received from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī, except for an exchange, and is to be forfeited” (pārā. 512). The procedure of forfeiture should be understood in this way.

Rājagahe udāyittheraṃ ārabbha cīvarappaṭiggahaṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra pārivattakā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, gahaṇatthāya hatthappasāraṇādippayoge dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti, nissajjitabbaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ekatoupasampannāya ñātikāya ca aññātikasaññissa vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Vissāsaggāhe, tāvakālike, pattatthavikādimhi ca anadhiṭṭhātabbaparikkhāre, sikkhamānasāmaṇerīnaṃ hatthato gahaṇe, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Vikappanupagacīvaratā, pārivattakābhāvo, aññātikāya hatthato gahaṇanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Sañcarittasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyākiriyaṃ, sesaṃ catutthasadisamevāti.

At Rājagaha, concerning the elder Udāyin, regarding the matter of accepting a robe, it was laid down; “except by exchange” is an additional rule here, a specific rule, without command. In efforts like reaching out the hand to take it, there is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa); by receiving it, it is to be relinquished (nissaggiya), requiring triple confession (tikapācittiya). For one ordained only in the nuns’ Saṅgha, or perceiving a relative as unrelated or being uncertain, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). In cases of trustful taking, temporary use, or items like bowl-bags not to be designated, acceptance from the hands of female trainees or novices, or for the insane and the like, there is no offense. The state of being a robe subject to designation, the absence of exchange, and acceptance from the hand of an unrelated nun are the three factors here. It arises from interaction, is an action and non-action, the rest is as in the fourth.

At Rājagaha, concerning the venerable Udāyī, in the case of accepting a robe, it was established. “Except for an exchange” is here a supplementary regulation, a non-general regulation, not an order. For the action of extending the hand, etc., to receive it, there is a dukkaṭa; with the acquisition, it becomes subject to forfeiture, it should be forfeited, tikapācittiya. For one who thinks a relative is a non-relative, or is uncertain, when the bhikkhuni is ordained by one sangha, there is a dukkaṭa. For accepting on trust, for temporary use, for things like bowl stands that are requisites not to be determined, for accepting from the hands of female probationers and female novices, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Here, there are three factors: the state of being a robe not suitable for determination, the absence of an exchange, and accepting from the hand of a non-relative. It originates from social interaction, it is an action and a non-action; the rest is the same as the fourth.

In Rājagaha, regarding the Elder Udāyi, a rule was established concerning the receiving of robes. “Except for an exchange” is an additional rule here. It is a non-common rule, non-announcement-based. It is a dukkaṭa offense in actions such as stretching out the hand to receive, and it becomes nissaggiya upon receipt. It should be forfeited. It is a tikapācittiya offense. For one who is fully ordained alone, or for one who perceives a relative as unrelated or is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense in cases of trust, temporary use, or when receiving from trainee nuns, novice nuns, or the insane. The robe being subject to alteration, the absence of an exchange, and receiving from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī are the three factors here. It originates from the body and speech, is an action or non-action, and the rest is similar to the fourth.

6. Aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Request from an Unrelated Person Training Rule

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Requesting from a Non-Relative

6. Explanation of the Aññātakaviññattisikkhāpada

Chaṭṭhe gahapatinti bhikkhūsu apabbajitamanussaṃ. Gahapatāninti bhikkhunīsu apabbajititthiṃ, esa nayo sabbesu gahapatippaṭisaṃyuttesu sikkhāpadesu. Viññāpeyyāti yāceyya vā yācāpeyya vā. Aññatra samayāti yo acchinnacīvaro vā hoti naṭṭhacīvaro vā, tassa taṃ samayaṃ ṭhapetvā aññasmiṃ viññāpanappayoge dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Tattha “idaṃ me, bhante, cīvaraṃ aññātakaṃ gahapatikaṃ aññatra samayā viññāpitaṃ nissaggiya”nti (pārā. 524) iminā nayena nissajjanavidhānaṃ veditabbaṃ.

In the sixth, “Householder” means a human not ordained among monks. “Householder’s wife” means a woman not ordained among nuns; this method applies to all training rules related to householders. “Were to request” means he would ask or cause to be asked. “Except at the proper time” means except at the time when one’s robe is torn or lost; apart from that, in any other request effort, there is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa), and by receiving it, it is to be relinquished (nissaggiya). The procedure for relinquishment should be understood in this way: “This robe of mine, venerable sir, requested from an unrelated householder except at the proper time, is to be relinquished (nissaggiya)” (pārā. 524).

In the sixth, gahapatinti means a non-ordained man among bhikkhus. Gahapatāninti means a non-ordained woman among bhikkhunis; this principle applies to all training rules related to householders. Viññāpeyyāti means he should request or cause to request. Aññatra samayāti means except for the right occasion; if he is one whose robe has been stolen or lost, except for that occasion, for the action of requesting on another occasion, there is a dukkaṭa; with the acquisition, it becomes subject to forfeiture. There, the method of forfeiture should be understood in this way: “Venerable sir, this is my robe, requested from a non-relative householder, except for the right occasion, to be forfeited” (pārā. 524).

In the sixth, gahapatinti means a layperson who is not ordained among the bhikkhus. Gahapatāninti means a laywoman who is not ordained among the bhikkhunīs. This is the method in all training rules related to laypeople. Viññāpeyyāti means requesting or having someone else request. Aññatra samayāti means except for the time when one’s robe is torn or lost. Outside of that time, it is a dukkaṭa offense to make a request, and it becomes nissaggiya upon receipt. “Venerable sir, this robe has been requested from an unrelated layperson outside the proper time and is to be forfeited” (pārā. 524). The procedure of forfeiture should be understood in this way.

Sāvatthiyaṃ upanandaṃ ārabbha cīvaraviññāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. “Aññatra samayā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ñātake aññātakasaññino vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Samaye vā ñātakappavārite vā viññāpentassa, aññassa vā ñātakappavārite tassevatthāya viññāpentassa, attano dhanena gaṇhantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Vikappanupagacīvaratā, samayābhāvo, aññātakaviññatti, tāya ca paṭilābhoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni catutthasadisānevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Upananda, regarding the matter of requesting a robe, it was laid down. “Except at the proper time” is an additional rule here, a general rule, without command, triple confession (tikapācittiya). For perceiving a relative as unrelated or being uncertain, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). At the proper time, or requesting from relatives or those invited, or requesting for another from their relatives or those invited, or taking with one’s own wealth, or for the insane and the like, there is no offense. The state of being a robe subject to designation, the absence of the proper time, the request from an unrelated person, and receiving it thereby are the four factors here. The origin and the rest are as in the fourth.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Upananda, in the case of requesting a robe, it was established. “Except for the right occasion” is here a supplementary regulation, a general regulation, not an order, tikapācittiya. For one who thinks a relative is a non-relative, or is uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For requesting on the right occasion, or from a relative or one who has given permission, or for requesting for the sake of another relative or one who has given permission, or for obtaining with one’s own funds, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Here, there are four factors: the state of being a robe not suitable for determination, the absence of the right occasion, requesting from a non-relative, and acquisition through that. The origination, etc., are the same as in the fourth.

In Sāvatthī, regarding Upananda, a rule was established concerning the requesting of robes. “Except for the proper time” is an additional rule here. It is a common rule, non-announcement-based. It is a tikapācittiya offense. For one who perceives a relative as unrelated or is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense when requesting during the proper time, or when requesting for a relative, or when requesting for another’s relative, or when taking it with one’s own wealth, or for the insane, etc. The robe being subject to alteration, the absence of the proper time, the request from an unrelated person, and the receipt are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the fourth.

The commentary on the request from an unrelated person training rule is concluded.

The explanation of the training rule on requesting from a non-relative is finished.

7. Tatuttarisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Beyond That Training Rule

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Exceeding That

7. Explanation of the Tatuttarisikkhāpada

Sattame tañceti taṃ acchinnacīvaraṃ vā naṭṭhacīvaraṃ vā. Abhihaṭṭhunti abhīti upasaggo, haritunti attho, gaṇhitunti vuttaṃ hoti. Pavāreyyāti icchāpeyya, icchaṃ ruciṃ uppādeyya, “yāvattakaṃ icchasi, tāvattakaṃ gaṇhāhī”ti evaṃ nimanteyyāti attho, yathā vā “nekkhammaṃ daṭṭhu khemato”ti (su. ni. 426, 1104; cūḷani. jatukaṇṇīmāṇavapucchāniddesa 67) ettha disvāti attho, evamidhāpi “abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyā”ti upanetvā purato ṭhapento kāyena vā, “amhākaṃ dussakoṭṭhāgārato yattakaṃ icchatha, tattakaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadanto vācāya vā abhiharitvā nimanteyyāti attho. Santaruttaraparamanti saantaraṃ uttaraṃ paramaṃ assa cīvarassāti santaruttaraparamaṃ, nivāsanena saddhiṃ pārupanaṃ ukkaṭṭhaparicchedo assāti vuttaṃ hoti. Tato cīvaraṃ sāditabbanti tato abhihaṭacīvarato ettakaṃ cīvaraṃ gahetabbaṃ, na tato paraṃ.

In the seventh, “If that” means that torn or lost robe. “Were to offer” means the prefix “abhi” implies bringing, meaning to take; it is said to mean taking. “Would invite” means would cause to wish, would generate desire, meaning “Take as much as you wish.” Or, just as “Having seen renunciation as safety” (su. ni. 426, 1104; cūḷani. jatukaṇṇīmāṇavapucchāniddesa 67) means seeing, so here too “were to offer and invite” means bringing it forward and placing it before him, either by body or by saying with speech, “Take as much as you wish from our cloth storehouse.” “Up to the inner and outer maximum” means a robe with an inner and outer maximum (santaruttara-parama), meaning the utmost limit includes a lower garment and an upper robe. “From that a robe should be accepted” means that much robe should be taken from the offered robe, not beyond that.

In the seventh, tañceti means that one whose robe has been stolen or lost. Abhihaṭṭhunti, abhīti is a prefix, meaning to bring, meaning to take. Pavāreyyāti means he should invite, he should create a desire, a liking, meaning he should invite, saying, “Take as much as you wish,” or just as in “Seeing Nibbāna as safety” (su. ni. 426, 1104; cūḷani. jatukaṇṇīmāṇavapucchāniddesa 67), where it means seeing, so too here, “abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyā”ti means having brought it and placed it in front, inviting with the body, or saying, “Take as much as you wish from our cloth storehouse,” inviting with speech after having brought it. Santaruttaraparamanti means having an inner and outer garment as the maximum; a set of inner and outer robes is the highest limit for his robe. Tato cīvaraṃ sāditabbanti means this much robe should be accepted from that brought robe, not beyond that.

In the seventh, tañceti means that robe which is torn or lost. Abhihaṭṭhunti means abhīti is a prefix, meaning to take. Pavāreyyāti means to invite, to express a desire, to say, “Take as much as you wish,” or to invite in this way, as in “seeing renunciation as peaceful” (su. ni. 426, 1104; cūḷani. jatukaṇṇīmāṇavapucchāniddesa 67), where “seeing” means understanding. Here too, “abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyā” means bringing forward and placing it in front with the body, or saying, “Take as much as you wish from our cloth storeroom,” with speech, and inviting after bringing it forward. Santaruttaraparamanti means the maximum allowable robe, including the lower and upper robes, is the limit. Tato cīvaraṃ sāditabbanti means that much robe should be taken from the offered robe, not more.

Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – yassa adhiṭṭhitacīvarassa tīṇi naṭṭhāni, tena dve sāditabbāni, ekaṃ nivāsetvā ekaṃ pārupitvā aññaṃ sabhāgaṭṭhānato pariyesitabbaṃ. Yassa dve naṭṭhāni, tena ekaṃ sāditabbaṃ. Sace pana pakatiyāva santaruttarena carati, dve sāditabbāni, evaṃ ekaṃ sādiyanteneva samo bhavissati. Yassa tīsu ekaṃ naṭṭhaṃ, kiñci na sāditabbaṃ. Yassa pana dvīsu ekaṃ naṭṭhaṃ, ekaṃ sāditabbaṃ. Yassa ekaṃyeva hoti, tañca naṭṭhaṃ, dve sāditabbāni. Bhikkhuniyā pana pañcasu naṭṭhesu dve sāditabbāni, catūsu naṭṭhesu ekaṃ sāditabbaṃ, tīsu naṭṭhesu na kiñci sāditabbaṃ, ko pana vādo dvīsu vā ekasmiṃ vā. Yena kenaci hi santaruttaraparamatāya ṭhātabbaṃ, tato uttari viññāpanappayoge dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Tattha “idaṃ me, bhante, cīvaraṃ aññātakaṃ gahapatikaṃ tatuttari viññāpitaṃ nissaggiya”nti (pārā. 524) iminā nayena nissajjanavidhānaṃ veditabbaṃ.

Here is the determination: For one whose designated robe has all three lost, two should be accepted; wearing one and covering with one, another should be sought from a fellow monk. For one with two lost, one should be accepted. If one naturally uses an inner-and-outer maximum robe and two are accepted, by accepting one he becomes equal. For one with one lost out of three, nothing should be accepted. For one with one lost out of two, one should be accepted. For one who has only one and it is lost, two should be accepted. For a nun with all five lost, two should be accepted; with four lost, one should be accepted; with three lost, nothing should be accepted, let alone with two or one. Indeed, one must stand by the inner-and-outer maximum by any means. Beyond that, in the effort of requesting, there is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa), and by receiving it, it is to be relinquished (nissaggiya). The procedure for relinquishment should be understood in this way: “This robe of mine, venerable sir, requested from an unrelated householder beyond that, is to be relinquished (nissaggiya)” (pārā. 524).

Here is the decision: If three of someone’s determined robes are lost, he should accept two; having worn one and wrapped with one, he should seek another from a suitable place. If two are lost, he should accept one. But if he normally goes about with an inner and outer garment, he should accept two; thus, he will be equal by accepting one. If one of three is lost, he should not accept anything. But if one of two is lost, he should accept one. If he has only one, and that is lost, he should accept two. But a bhikkhuni, if five are lost, should accept two; if four are lost, she should accept one; if three are lost, she should not accept anything; what need to speak of two or one. For one should remain with an inner and outer garment as the maximum; for the action of requesting beyond that, there is a dukkaṭa; with the acquisition, it becomes subject to forfeiture. There, the method of forfeiture should be understood in this way: “Venerable sir, this is my robe, requested from a non-relative householder, exceeding that, to be forfeited” (pārā. 524).

Here is the decision: If one’s determined robe has three parts lost, two should be taken, one to wear and one to use as an upper robe, and another should be sought from a similar place. If two parts are lost, one should be taken. If one naturally uses two robes, two should be taken. In this way, taking one will suffice. If one part is lost out of three, nothing should be taken. If one part is lost out of two, one should be taken. If only one exists and it is lost, two should be taken. For a bhikkhunī, if five parts are lost, two should be taken; if four are lost, one should be taken; if three are lost, nothing should be taken, let alone two or one. In any case, one should stand within the limit of the maximum allowable robe. Beyond that, it is a dukkaṭa offense to make a request, and it becomes nissaggiya upon receipt. “Venerable sir, this robe has been requested beyond the limit from an unrelated layperson and is to be forfeited” (pārā. 524). The procedure of forfeiture should be understood in this way.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha bahucīvaraviññāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ñātake aññātakasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Dve cīvarāni katvā “sesakaṃ āharissāmī”ti vatvā gaṇhantassa, “sesakaṃ tuyhaṃyeva hotū”ti vuttassa, na acchinnanaṭṭhakāraṇā dinnaṃ gaṇhantassa, vuttanayena ñātakappavārite viññāpentassa, attano dhanena gaṇhantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Tatuttaritā , acchinnādikāraṇatā , aññātakaviññatti, tāya ca paṭilābhoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni catutthasadisānevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of requesting many robes, it was laid down, a general rule, without command, triple confession (tikapācittiya). For perceiving a relative as unrelated or being uncertain, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). For one who, after making two robes, says, “I will bring the rest,” and takes it, or is told, “Let the rest be yours,” or takes what is given not due to being torn or lost, or requests from relatives or those invited as stated, or takes with one’s own wealth, or for the insane and the like, there is no offense. Exceeding that, the condition of being torn or lost, the request from an unrelated person, and receiving it thereby are the four factors here. The origin and the rest are as in the fourth.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six bhikkhus, in the case of requesting many robes, it was established, a general regulation, not an order, tikapācittiya. For one who thinks a relative is a non-relative, or is uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For accepting after saying, “I will bring the remainder,” having made two robes, or for one who is told, “Let the remainder be yours,” or for accepting what was not given because of theft or loss, or for requesting from a relative or one who has given permission in the stated way, or for obtaining with one’s own funds, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Here, there are four factors: exceeding that, the state of being due to theft, etc., requesting from a non-relative, and acquisition through that. The origination, etc., are the same as in the fourth.

In Sāvatthī, regarding the group of six monks, a rule was established concerning the requesting of many robes. It is a common rule, non-announcement-based. It is a tikapācittiya offense. For one who perceives a relative as unrelated or is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense when making two robes and saying, “I will bring the rest,” or when told, “The rest is yours,” or when taking it without the robe being torn or lost, or when requesting for a relative, or when taking it with one’s own wealth, or for the insane, etc. The robe being beyond the limit, the reason for it being torn or lost, the request from an unrelated person, and the receipt are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the fourth.

8. Upakkhaṭasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Prepared Training Rule

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on Being Prepared

8. Explanation of the Upakkhaṭasikkhāpada

Aṭṭhame bhikkhuṃ paneva uddissāti “itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dassāmī”ti evaṃ apadisitvā. Cīvaracetāpannanti hiraññādikaṃ cīvaramūlaṃ. Upakkhaṭaṃ hotīti sajjitaṃ hoti, saṃharitvā ṭhapitaṃ. Cetāpetvāti parivattetvā, kāretvā vā kiṇitvā vāti attho. Cīvarena acchādessāmīti vohāravacanametaṃ, itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dassāmīti ayaṃ panettha attho. Tatra ce soti yatra so gahapati vā gahapatānī vā, tatra so bhikkhu pubbe appavārito upasaṅkamitvā cīvare vikappaṃ āpajjeyya ceti ayamettha padasambandho. Vikappaṃ āpajjeyyāti visiṭṭhakappaṃ adhikavidhānaṃ āpajjeyya. Yathā pana tamāpajjati, taṃ dassetuṃ sādhu vatātiādimāha. Tattha sādhūti āyācane nipāto. Vatāti parivitakke. Manti attānaṃ niddisati. Āyasmāti paraṃ ālapati. Evarūpaṃ vā evarūpaṃ vāti āyatādīsu aññataraṃ. Kalyāṇakamyataṃ upādāyāti sundarakāmataṃ visiṭṭhakāmataṃ cittena gahetvā, tassa “āpajjeyya ce”tiiminā sambandho, sace pana evarūpaṃ āpajjantassa tassa vacanena yo paṭhamaṃ adhippetato mūlaṃ vaḍḍhetvā sundarataraṃ cetāpeti, tassa payoge bhikkhuno dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Tattha “idaṃ me, bhante, cīvaraṃ pubbe appavāritaṃ aññātakaṃ gahapatikaṃ upasaṅkamitvā vikappaṃ āpannaṃ nissaggiya”nti (pārā. 529) iminā nayena nissajjanavidhānaṃ veditabbaṃ.

In the eighth, “For a monk indeed designated” means “I will give it to the monk named so-and-so,” without specifying explicitly. “Robe-fund” means gold or similar robe material. “Has been prepared” means it has been arranged, gathered, and set aside. “Having exchanged” means having traded or bought or made. “I will clothe him with a robe” is a conventional expression; the meaning here is “I will give it to the monk named so-and-so.” “If there that” means where that householder or householder’s wife is, that monk, uninvited beforehand, approaches and suggests a designation regarding the robe; this is the connection of the words here. “Suggest a designation” means he would enter into a superior specification. To show how he enters into it, it says “Well indeed” and so forth. Therein, “Well” is a particle of requesting. “Indeed” is for consideration. “Me” refers to himself. “Venerable” addresses the other. “Such or such” means one of the types like long. “Out of desire for excellence” means taking with the mind a desire for beauty or superiority; this connects with “he would suggest.” If he suggests such and the donor, due to his words, increases the original intended material and exchanges it for something finer, in that effort the monk incurs an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa), and by receiving it, it is to be relinquished (nissaggiya). The procedure for relinquishment should be understood in this way: “This robe of mine, venerable sir, for which I, uninvited beforehand, approached an unrelated householder and suggested a designation, is to be relinquished (nissaggiya)” (pārā. 529).

In the eighth, bhikkhuṃ paneva uddissāti means without specifying, “I will give to a bhikkhu named so-and-so.” Cīvaracetāpannanti means gold, etc., the price of a robe. Upakkhaṭaṃ hotīti means it is prepared, it is collected and kept. Cetāpetvāti means having exchanged, or having made, or having bought. Cīvarena acchādessāmīti, this is a conventional expression; the meaning here is, “I will give to a bhikkhu named so-and-so.” Tatra ce soti means where that householder or householders are, there that bhikkhu, being uninvited beforehand, having approached, should make a suggestion regarding the robe; this is the connection of the words here. Vikappaṃ āpajjeyyāti means he should make a specific suggestion, a superior arrangement. To show how he makes that, he says sādhu vatāti, etc. There, sādhūti is a particle of entreaty. Vatāti is in reflection. Manti refers to himself. Āyasmāti addresses the other. Evarūpaṃ vā evarūpaṃ vāti means one or another of the long, etc. Kalyāṇakamyataṃ upādāyāti means taking with the mind the desire for beauty, the desire for superiority; its connection is with “āpajjeyya ce”ti; but if, while he is making such a suggestion, the one who, according to his word, increases the price from what was first intended and buys something more beautiful, for that action, there is a dukkaṭa for the bhikkhu; with the acquisition, it becomes subject to forfeiture. There, the method of forfeiture should be understood in this way: “Venerable sir, this is my robe, having approached a non-relative householder uninvited beforehand and made a suggestion, to be forfeited” (pārā. 529).

In the eighth, bhikkhuṃ paneva uddissāti means “I will give it to such and such a bhikkhu,” specifying in this way. Cīvaracetāpannanti means the funds for the robe, such as gold, etc. Upakkhaṭaṃ hotīti means it is prepared, collected, and set aside. Cetāpetvāti means exchanging, having it made, or buying it. Cīvarena acchādessāmīti is a conventional expression, meaning “I will give it to such and such a bhikkhu.” Tatra ce soti means where that layperson or laywoman is, there the bhikkhu, without being invited beforehand, approaches and makes a specification regarding the robe. Vikappaṃ āpajjeyyāti means making a special specification or additional instruction. To explain how this happens, sādhu vatātiādimāha is said. Here, sādhūti is a particle of request. Vatāti is a particle of consideration. Mati refers to oneself. Āyasmāti addresses another. Evarūpaṃ vā evarūpaṃ vāti means any one of the long, etc. Kalyāṇakamyataṃ upādāyāti means with the intention of desiring something beautiful or special. If one makes such a specification, and due to his words, the original amount is increased and something more beautiful is prepared, it is a dukkaṭa offense for the bhikkhu involved, and it becomes nissaggiya upon receipt. “Venerable sir, this robe has been specified by me, uninvited, to an unrelated layperson, and is to be forfeited” (pārā. 529). The procedure of forfeiture should be understood in this way.

Sāvatthiyaṃ upanandaṃ ārabbha cīvare vikappaṃ āpajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ñātake aññātakasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Mahagghaṃ cetāpetukāmaṃ appagghaṃ vā, eteneva mūlena “aññaṃ evarūpaṃ vā dehī”ti vadantassa, vuttanayena ñātakappavārite viññāpentassa, attano dhanena gaṇhantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Cīvare bhiyyokamyatā, aññātakaviññatti, tāya ca paṭilābhoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni catutthasadisānevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Upananda, regarding the matter of suggesting a designation for a robe, it was laid down, a general rule, without command, triple confession (tikapācittiya). For perceiving a relative as unrelated or being uncertain, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). For one desiring an expensive exchange but a cheap one, or saying with this same material, “Give me another like this,” or requesting from relatives or those invited as stated, or taking with one’s own wealth, or for the insane and the like, there is no offense. Desire for more regarding the robe, the request from an unrelated person, and receiving it thereby are the three factors here. The origin and the rest are as in the fourth.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Upananda, in the case of making a suggestion regarding a robe, it was established, a general regulation, not an order, tikapācittiya. For one who thinks a relative is a non-relative, or is uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who desires to buy something expensive or cheap, or for one who says, “With this same price, give another one like this,” or for requesting from a relative or one who has given permission in the stated way, or for obtaining with one’s own funds, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Here, there are three factors: the desire for more in the robe, requesting from a non-relative, and acquisition through that. The origination, etc., are the same as in the fourth.

In Sāvatthī, regarding Upananda, a rule was established concerning making a specification regarding a robe. It is a common rule, non-announcement-based. It is a tikapācittiya offense. For one who perceives a relative as unrelated or is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense when desiring to prepare something expensive or inexpensive, or when saying, “Give me another like this,” or when requesting for a relative, or when taking it with one’s own wealth, or for the insane, etc. The desire for more robes, the request from an unrelated person, and the receipt are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the fourth.

9. Dutiyaupakkhaṭasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Second Prepared Training Rule

9. Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Being Prepared

9. Explanation of the Dutiyaupakkhaṭasikkhāpada

Navame imināva nayena attho veditabbo. Idañhi purimassa anupaññattisadisaṃ, kevalaṃ tattha ekassa pīḷā katā, idha dvinnaṃ, ayamettha viseso, sesaṃ sabbaṃ purimasadisameva. Yathā ca dvinnaṃ, evaṃ bahūnaṃ pīḷaṃ katvā gaṇhatopi āpatti veditabbā. Nissajjanavidhāne ca “idaṃ me, bhante , cīvaraṃ pubbe appavārite aññātake gahapatike upasaṅkamitvā vikappaṃ āpannaṃ nissaggiya”nti (pārā. 534) iminā nayena vacanabhedo ñātabboti.

In the ninth, the meaning should be understood in this same way. This is like an additional rule to the previous one; the only difference is that there the burden was on one, while here it is on two; the rest is entirely as in the previous one. Just as with two, so too if one takes it causing burden to many, an offense should be understood. In the procedure for relinquishment, the difference in wording should be known thus: “This robe of mine, venerable sir, for which I, uninvited beforehand, approached unrelated householders and suggested a designation, is to be relinquished (nissaggiya)” (pārā. 534).

In the ninth, the meaning should be understood in the same way. This is like a supplementary regulation to the previous one; the only difference is that there, the trouble was caused to one, here to two; this is the difference here; everything else is the same as the previous one. And just as for two, so too the offense should be understood for causing trouble to many and accepting. And in the method of forfeiture, the difference in wording should be known in this way: “Venerable sir, this is my robe, having approached non-relative householders uninvited beforehand and made a suggestion, to be forfeited” (pārā. 534).

In the ninth, the meaning should be understood in the same way. For this is similar to the previous non-offense, except that there, harm was done to one person, whereas here it is done to two. This is the difference here; the rest is entirely similar to the previous case. Just as harm is done to two, so too if harm is done to many, an offense should be understood. And in the procedure for relinquishment, the statement should be known to vary as follows: “Venerable, this robe, having been previously obtained without permission from unrelated householders, has become subject to relinquishment” (Pārā. 534).

10. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the King Training Rule

10. Explanation of the Training Rule on the King

10. Explanation of the Royal Requisites Training Rule

Dasame rājabhoggoti rājato bhoggaṃ bhuñjitabbaṃ assa atthīti rājabhoggo, “rājabhogo”tipi pāṭho, rājato bhogo assa atthīti attho. Cīvaracetāpannanti hiraññādikaṃ akappiyaṃ. Pahiṇeyyāti peseyya. Iminātiādi āgamanasuddhiṃ dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Sace hi “idaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dehī”ti peseyya, āgamanassa asuddhattā akappiyavatthuṃ ārabbha bhikkhunā kappiyakārakopi niddisitabbo na bhaveyya. Ābhatanti ānītaṃ. Na kho mayantiādi idaṃ kappiyavasena ābhatampi cīvaramūlaṃ īdisena dūtavacanena akappiyaṃ hoti, tasmā taṃ paṭikkhipitabbanti dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Suvaṇṇaṃ rajataṃ kahāpaṇo māsakoti imāni hi cattāri nissaggiyavatthūni, muttā maṇi veḷuriyo saṅkho silā pavāḷaṃ lohitaṅko masāragallaṃ satta dhaññāni dāsidāsakhettavatthupupphārāmaphalārāmādayoti imāni dukkaṭavatthūni ca attano vā cetiyasaṅghagaṇapuggalānaṃ vā atthāya sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭanti, tasmā taṃ sādituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ “na kho maya”ntiādi vuttaṃ.

In the tenth, “Royal servant” means one who should enjoy what is enjoyable from the king; this is a royal servant (rāja-bhogga). There is also the reading “rāja-bhoga,” meaning one who has wealth from the king. “Robe-fund” means gold or similar unallowable items. “Would send” means he would send it. “With this” and so forth is said to show the purity of arrival. For if he sent it saying, “Give this to the monk named so-and-so,” due to the impurity of arrival, even an allowable agent could not be designated by a monk regarding an unallowable item. “Brought” means delivered. “We indeed do not” and so forth is said to show that even if robe material brought allowably becomes unallowable due to such messenger’s words, it must be refused. Gold, silver, coins, and small coins—these four are items to be relinquished (nissaggiya). Pearls, gems, beryl, conch, coral, red coral, crystal, seven grains, slaves, fields, lands, flower gardens, fruit gardens, and the like—these are items of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). It is not allowable to accept them for oneself, a shrine, the Saṅgha, a group, or individuals; thus, it is not allowable to accept them, and this is why “We indeed do not” and so forth is said.

In the tenth, rājabhoggoti means one who should enjoy royal enjoyment, because he has it, is rājabhoggo; the reading “rājabhogo” is also found, meaning he has enjoyment from the king. Cīvaracetāpannanti means gold, etc., unallowable. Pahiṇeyyāti means he should send. Imināti, etc., is said to show the purity of the arrival. For if he should send, saying, “Give this to a bhikkhu named so-and-so,” because of the impurity of the arrival, even a maker of allowable things should not be specified by the bhikkhu concerning the unallowable item. Ābhatanti means brought. Na kho mayanti, etc., this is said to show that even the price of a robe brought in an allowable way becomes unallowable by such words of a messenger; therefore, it should be rejected. Gold, silver, kahāpaṇa, and māsaka, these four are items subject to forfeiture; pearls, gems, beryl, conch, crystal, coral, ruby, and cat’s eye, the seven grains, female and male slaves, fields, grounds, flower gardens, and fruit gardens, etc., these are items of dukkaṭa, and they are not proper to accept for oneself or for a cetiya, the Sangha, a group, or individuals; therefore, it is said “na kho maya”nti, etc., to show that it is not proper to accept them.

In the tenth, rājabhoggo means that which is to be enjoyed by the king, or it means that which is obtained from the king. Cīvaracetāpanna refers to gold, etc., which is unallowable. Pahiṇeyyā means to send. Iminātiādi is said to show the purity of the arrival. For if one were to send it saying, “Give this to such-and-such a monk,” due to the impurity of the arrival, even if the monk were to make it allowable, he should not be designated as the one who makes it allowable. Ābhata means brought. Na kho mayantiādi is said to show that even if the robe material is brought through an allowable means, it becomes unallowable due to such a messenger’s words, and thus it should be rejected. Gold, silver, coins, and māsaka are the four grounds for relinquishment. Pearls, gems, beryl, conch shells, crystal, coral, rubies, cat’s-eye gems, the seven grains, male and female slaves, fields, flower gardens, fruit orchards, etc., are grounds for a wrong-doing offense and are not allowable to accept for oneself or for the benefit of the Sangha, a group, or an individual. Therefore, it is not allowable to accept them, and thus it is said, “Na kho maya”ntiādi.

Cīvarañca kho mayaṃ paṭiggaṇhāmāti idaṃ pana attānaṃ uddissa ābhatattā vattuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā vuttaṃ. Kālenāti yuttapattakālena, yadā no attho hoti, tadā kappiyaṃ cīvaraṃ paṭiggaṇhāmāti attho. Veyyāvaccakaroti kappiyakārako. Niddisitabbotiidaṃ “atthi panāyasmato koci veyyāvaccakaro”ti kappiyavacanena vuttattā anuññātaṃ. Sace pana dūto “ko imaṃ gaṇhātī”ti vā “kassa demī”ti vā vadati, na niddisitabbo. Ārāmiko vā upāsako vātiidaṃ sāruppatāya vuttaṃ, ṭhapetvā pana pañca sahadhammike yo koci kappiyakārako vaṭṭati. Eso kho, āvusotiidaṃ bhikkhussa kappiyavacanadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, evameva hi vattabbaṃ, “etassa dehī”tiādi na vattabbaṃ. Saññatto so mayāti āṇatto so mayā, yathā tumhākaṃ cīvarena atthe sati cīvaraṃ dassati, evaṃ vuttoti attho. Dūtena hi evaṃ ārociteyeva taṃ codetuṃ vaṭṭati, neva tassa hatthe datvā gatamattakāraṇena. Sace pana “ayaṃ veyyāvaccakaro”ti sammukhā niddiṭṭho hoti, dūto ca sammukhā eva tassa hatthe cetāpannaṃ datvā “therassa cīvaraṃ kiṇitvā dehī”ti gacchati, evaṃ “saññatto so mayā”ti avuttepi codetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pana dūto gacchantova “ahaṃ tassa hatthe dassāmi, tumhe cīvaraṃ gaṇheyyāthā”ti bhikkhuno vatvā vā gacchati, aññaṃ vā pesetvā ārocāpeti, evaṃ sati itarampi codetuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Desanāmattameva cetaṃ “dūtenā”ti. Yopi attanā āharitvā evaṃ paṭipajjati, tasmimpi idameva lakkhaṇaṃ. Attho me, āvuso, cīvarenāti codanālakkhaṇanidassanametaṃ. Sace hi vācāya codeti, idaṃ vā vacanaṃ yāya kāyaci bhāsāya etassa attho vā vattabbo, “dehi me, āhara me”tiādinā nayena pana vattuṃ na vaṭṭati. Abhinipphādeyyāti evaṃ vacībhedaṃ katvā tikkhattuṃ codayamāno paṭilābhavasena sādheyya. Iccetaṃ kusalanti etaṃ sundaraṃ.

“But we accept a robe” means this is allowable to say since it was brought with oneself in mind; thus, it is stated. “At the proper time” means at a suitable and appropriate time; when we have need, then we accept an allowable robe—this is the meaning. “Agent” means an allowable agent (veyyāvaccakara). “Should be designated” means this is permitted because it was said with allowable speech: “Is there any agent for the venerable?” If, however, the messenger says, “Who will take this?” or “To whom shall I give it?” he should not be designated. “A monastery attendant or a lay follower” is said for suitability; apart from the five co-religionists, anyone can be an allowable agent. “This, friend” is said to show the monk’s allowable speech; indeed, it should be said thus, and “Give it to him” or similar should not be said. “He has been instructed by me” means he has been directed by me; it means I have told him so that he will give a robe when you have need of it. Only when the messenger reports it thus is it allowable to prompt him, not merely because he gave it into his hand and left. However, if “This is the agent” is designated face-to-face, and the messenger gives the fund into his hand face-to-face and says, “Buy a robe for the elder and give it,” and then leaves, even without saying “He has been instructed by me,” it is allowable to prompt him. If the messenger, while leaving, says to the monk, “I will give it into his hand; you should take the robe,” or sends another to report it, in such a case it is still allowable to prompt him. This is merely an explanation with “by the messenger.” For one who brings it himself and acts thus, this same characteristic applies. “I have need of a robe, friend” is an example of the characteristic of prompting. If he prompts with words, this or a similar meaning should be spoken in any language, but it is not allowable to say it in ways like “Give me, bring me.” “Would bring it about” means, having varied the words, prompting three times, he should obtain it by receiving. “This is good” means this is excellent.

“And we may accept robes”—this should be said because it was brought for one’s own sake, therefore it is said. “In due season”—means at the right and appropriate time; the meaning is, when we are in need, then we may accept an allowable robe. “Steward”—means one who makes things allowable. “Should be designated”—this is permitted because it was said with allowable words, “Is there any steward for the venerable sir?” But if the messenger says, “Who will take this?” or “To whom shall I give it?”, one should not designate. “Either a monastery attendant or a lay follower”—this is said because it is appropriate; but apart from the five fellow monks, anyone who is a maker of what is allowable is suitable. “Friend, this one”—this is said to show the allowable speech of a monk; one should speak only in this way, one should not say, “Give it to him,” and so on. “He has been instructed by me”—means he has been commanded by me; the meaning is that he has been told to give a robe when you are in need of one. For when informed by the messenger in this way, it is proper to prompt him, not merely because he went after giving it into his hand. But if he is designated in one’s presence as “this is the steward,” and the messenger goes in one’s presence and gives the price into his hand, saying, “Buy a robe for the elder and give it,” even without saying “he has been instructed by me,” it is proper to prompt him. But if the messenger, while going, says to the monk, “I will give it into his hand, you may take the robe,” or sends another to inform him, in such a case it is proper to prompt the other as well. It is merely an example of speech, “by the messenger.” Whoever brings it himself and acts in this way, this is the characteristic in his case as well. “Friend, I am in need of a robe”—this is a demonstration of the characteristic of prompting. For if he prompts verbally, either this statement or the meaning of it in any language should be spoken; but it is not proper to speak in the manner of, “Give it to me, bring it to me,” and so on. “He should procure it”—having made this verbal distinction, being prompted three times, he should accomplish it by way of obtaining it. “That is good”—this is excellent.

Cīvarañca kho mayaṃ paṭiggaṇhāmāti is said because it is brought for oneself, and thus it is allowable. Kālenā means at the appropriate time, when there is a need, and thus it is allowable to accept the robe. Veyyāvaccakaro means the one who makes it allowable. Niddisitabboti means that it is allowable to designate someone by saying, “Does the venerable have someone to make it allowable?” If, however, the messenger asks, “Who will take this?” or “To whom should I give it?” one should not designate anyone. Ārāmiko vā upāsako vāti is said to indicate suitability, but apart from the five companions in the Dhamma, anyone who makes it allowable is suitable. Eso kho, āvusoti is said to show the monk’s allowable speech. One should say, “Give it to this person,” but not, “Give it to me,” etc. Saññatto so mayāti means that he has been instructed by me, saying, “When you need a robe, give it to him.” This is the meaning. For it is only when the messenger has reported this that it is allowable to instruct him, not merely by giving it into his hands. If, however, the one who makes it allowable has been designated in person, and the messenger gives the requisites into his hands in person, saying, “Buy a robe for the elder and give it to him,” then even if it is not said, “He has been instructed by me,” it is allowable to instruct him. If, however, the messenger goes saying, “I will give it into his hands, and you should take the robe,” or sends another to inform him, then it is also allowable to instruct him. This is merely the instruction, “By the messenger.” Even if one brings it oneself and acts in this way, the same characteristic applies. Attho me, āvuso, cīvarenāti is said to show the characteristic of instruction. If one instructs verbally, this speech or any speech that conveys the meaning should be said, but it is not allowable to say, “Give it to me,” “Bring it to me,” etc. Abhinipphādeyyāti means that after making such a verbal distinction, instructing three times, one may succeed in obtaining it. Iccetaṃ kusalanti means that this is good.

Chakkhattuparamanti bhāvanapuṃsakavacanametaṃ. Chakkhattuparamañhi tena cīvaraṃ uddissa tuṇhībhūtena ṭhātabbaṃ, na nisīditabbaṃ, na āmisaṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ, na dhammo bhāsitabbo. “Kiṃkāraṇā āgatosī”ti vutte pana “jānāhi, āvuso”ti ettakameva vattabbaṃ. Sace nisajjādīni karoti, ṭhānaṃ bhañjati, āgatakāraṇaṃ vināseti, idaṃ kāyena codanāya lakkhaṇadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Ettha ca ukkaṭṭhaparicchedena tissannaṃ codanānaṃ channañca ṭhānānaṃ anuññātattā codanāya diguṇaṃ ṭhānaṃ anuññātaṃ hoti, tasmā sace codetiyeva, na tiṭṭhati, cha codanāyo labbhanti. Sace tiṭṭhatiyeva, na codeti, dvādasa ṭhānāni labbhanti. Sace ubhayaṃ karoti, ekāya codanāya dve ṭhānāni hāpetabbāni. Tattha yo ekadivasameva punappunaṃ gantvā chakkhattuṃ codeti, sakiṃyeva vā gantvā “attho me, āvuso, cīvarenā”ti chakkhattuṃ vadati, tathā ekadivasameva punappunaṃ gantvā dvādasakkhattuṃ tiṭṭhati, sakiṃyeva vā gantvā tatra tatra ṭhāne tiṭṭhati, sopi sabbacodanāyo sabbaṭṭhānāni ca bhañjati, ko pana vādo nānādivasesu evaṃ karontassāti ayamettha vinicchayo. Ye pana kappiyakārake dāyako sayameva gantvā nisīdati te satakkhattumpi codetuṃ vaṭṭati. Yo pana ubhohi pi aniddiṭṭho mukhavevaṭikakappiyakārako ca parammukhakappiyakārako ca, so na kiñci vattabbo, evaṃ idha dasapi kappiyakārakā dassitā honti.

“Up to six times maximum” is a neuter expression. Indeed, up to six times maximum, he should stand silently regarding that robe, not sit, not accept material goods, nor speak Dhamma. If asked, “Why have you come?” he should only say, “Know it, friend.” If he sits or the like, he breaks the standing, ruining the purpose of coming; this is said to show the characteristic of prompting with the body. Here, with the utmost limit of three promptings and six standings permitted, twice the standing is allowed for prompting. Thus, if he only prompts and does not stand, six promptings are obtained. If he only stands and does not prompt, twelve standings are obtained. If he does both, for one prompting, two standings are lost. Herein, one who goes repeatedly in one day and prompts six times, or goes once and says “I have need of a robe, friend” six times, or goes repeatedly in one day and stands twelve times, or goes once and stands in various places, he too exhausts all promptings and standings. How much more so for one who does this on different days? This is the determination here. For donors who go to the allowable agent themselves and sit, it is allowable to prompt even a hundred times. But for one neither designated by both, whether a face-to-face allowable agent or a distant allowable agent, nothing should be said. Thus, ten types of allowable agents are shown here.

“A maximum of six times”—this is a neuter noun. For a maximum of six times, one should stand silently for the sake of that robe; one should not sit down, nor accept material offerings, nor speak the Dhamma. But if asked, “Why have you come?”, one should only say, “Know, friend.” If one sits down and so on, one breaks the standing, one destroys the reason for coming; this is said to show the characteristic of prompting by body. And here, because prompting three times and standing six times are permitted in the highest limit, standing is permitted twice as much as prompting; therefore, if he prompts and does not stand, six promptings are allowed. If he stands and does not prompt, twelve standings are allowed. If he does both, for each prompting, two standings should be omitted. There, he who goes repeatedly on the same day and prompts six times, or goes only once and says, “Friend, I am in need of a robe,” six times, likewise he who goes repeatedly on the same day and stands twelve times, or goes only once and stands in various places there, he breaks all the promptings and all the standings; what need is there to mention one who does so on different days? This is the determination here. But those donors who themselves go to the allowable-makers and sit down, it is proper to prompt them even a hundred times. But he who is neither designated by both, a mere mouth-piece allowable-maker and a face-to-face allowable-maker, he should not be spoken to at all; thus, ten allowable-makers are shown here.

Chakkhattuparamanti is a term referring to the maximum of six times. For one should stand silently up to six times for the sake of the robe, not sit down, not accept food, and not teach the Dhamma. If asked, “Why have you come?” one should only say, “You know, friend.” If one sits down, etc., one breaks the standing, destroys the reason for coming, and this is said to show the characteristic of bodily instruction. Here, due to the allowance of three instructions and six standings, the instruction is doubled, and thus if one instructs, one does not stand, and six instructions are obtained. If one stands without instructing, twelve standings are obtained. If one does both, two standings are lost for one instruction. In this case, if one goes repeatedly in one day and instructs six times, or goes once and says, “I need a robe, friend,” six times, or if one goes repeatedly in one day and stands twelve times, or goes once and stands in various places, one breaks all instructions and all standings. What need is there to say about doing so over multiple days? Those who go themselves to the donors who make it allowable and sit down can instruct up to a hundred times. But if one is not designated by either, whether the one who makes it allowable is present or absent, nothing should be said. Thus, ten types of those who make it allowable are shown here.

Tato ce uttarīti vuttacodanāṭhānaparimāṇato uttari. Nissaggiyanti uttari vāyāmamānassa sabbappayogesu dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Ettha ca “idaṃ me, bhante, cīvaraṃ atirekatikkhattuṃ codanāya atirekachakkhattuṃ ṭhānena abhinipphāditaṃ nissaggiya”nti (pārā. 539) iminā nayena nissajjanavidhānaṃ veditabbaṃ. Yatassa cīvaracetāpannaṃ ābhatanti yato rājato vā rājabhoggato vā assa bhikkhuno cīvaracetāpannaṃ ānītaṃ, “yatvassā”tipi pāṭho, ayameva attho. Tatthāti tassa rañño vā rājabhoggassa vā santikaṃ, samīpatthe hi idaṃ bhummavacanaṃ. Na taṃ tassa bhikkhuno kiñci atthaṃ anubhotīti taṃ cetāpannaṃ tassa bhikkhuno appamattakampi kammaṃ na nipphādeti. Yuñjantāyasmanto sakanti āyasmanto attano santakaṃ dhanaṃ pāpuṇantu. Mā vo sakaṃ vinassāti tumhākaṃ santakaṃ mā vinassatu. Ayaṃ tattha sāmīcīti ayaṃ tattha anudhammatā lokuttaradhammaṃ anugatā, vattadhammatāti attho, tasmā evaṃ akaronto vattabhede dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati.

“If beyond that” means beyond the measure of promptings and standings stated; “to be relinquished” means for one exerting beyond this, in all efforts there is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa), and by receiving it, it is to be relinquished (nissaggiya). Here, the procedure for relinquishment should be understood thus: “This robe of mine, venerable sir, brought about by prompting more than three times and standing more than six times, is to be relinquished (nissaggiya)” (pārā. 539). “From whom that robe-fund was brought” means from that king or royal servant from whom the robe-fund was brought for that monk; there is also the reading “yatvassa,” with the same meaning. “There” means to that king or royal servant’s presence; this is a locative denoting nearness. “That does not serve any purpose for that monk” means that fund does not accomplish even a slight task for that monk. “Let the venerables procure their own” means let the venerables obtain their own wealth. “Let not your own be lost” means let not your own property be destroyed. “This is the proper conduct there” means this is the propriety there, following the supramundane Dhamma, meaning the duty to be performed; thus, one who does not act accordingly incurs an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa) by breaking the duty.

“If beyond that”—beyond the stated measure of prompting and standing. “It becomes subject to relinquishment”—for striving beyond, there is an offense of wrong-doing for each effort; upon obtaining it, it becomes subject to relinquishment. And here, the procedure for relinquishment should be understood in this way: “Bhante, this robe of mine, procured by prompting more than three times, by standing more than six times, is to be relinquished” (pārā. 539). “From whom that robe-fund was brought for him”—from the king or royal favorite from whom the robe-fund was brought for that monk; “yatvassā” is also a reading, this is the same meaning. “There”—to the presence of that king or royal favorite; for this is a locative word in the sense of proximity. “That robe-fund does not accomplish any purpose for that monk”—that fund does not accomplish even a small deed for that monk. “May the venerable sirs take what is theirs”—may the venerable sirs attain their own wealth. “Let not what is yours be lost”—let not what belongs to you be lost. “This is the proper conduct there”—this is the conformity to the Dhamma, following the supramundane Dhamma, the meaning is that it is the customary duty; therefore, one who does not do so incurs an offense of wrong-doing in breaking the custom.

Tato ce uttarīti means beyond the stated number of instructions and standings. Nissaggiyanti means that if one strives beyond, one commits a wrong-doing in all efforts, and upon obtaining it, it becomes subject to relinquishment. Here, the procedure for relinquishment should be understood as follows: “Venerable, this robe, having been obtained beyond three instructions and six standings, is subject to relinquishment” (Pārā. 539). Yatassa cīvaracetāpannaṃ ābhatanti means that the robe requisites have been brought from the king or the royal treasury for the monk. Tatthāti means in the presence of that king or royal treasurer, for this is a term of proximity. Na taṃ tassa bhikkhuno kiñci atthaṃ anubhotīti means that those requisites do not bring even the slightest benefit to that monk. Yuñjantāyasmanto sakanti means that the venerables should obtain their own wealth. Mā vo sakaṃ vinassāti means that your wealth should not be destroyed. Ayaṃ tattha sāmīcīti means that this is the proper conduct there, in accordance with the Dhamma, following the transcendent Dhamma, and thus one who does not act thus commits a wrong-doing offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ upanandaṃ ārabbha “ajjuṇho, bhante, āgamehī”ti (pārā. 537) vuccamāno nāgamesi, tasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ūnakesu codanāṭhānesu atirekasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Acodanāya laddhe, sāmikehi codetvā dinne, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Kappiyakārakassa bhikkhuno niddiṭṭhabhāvo, dūtena appitatā, tatuttarivāyāmo, tena vāyāmena paṭilābhoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni catutthasadisānevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Upananda, when told, “Come in June, venerable sir” (pārā. 537), he did not come; regarding that matter, it was laid down, a general rule, without command, triple confession (tikapācittiya). For one perceiving excess in fewer promptings or standings, or being uncertain, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). For what is received without prompting, given by the owners after prompting, or for the insane and the like, there is no offense. The designation of an allowable agent for the monk, the messenger not being sent, exertion beyond that, and receiving by that exertion are the four factors here. The origin and the rest are as in the fourth.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Upananda, while being told, “It is hot today, Bhante, wait” (pārā. 537), he did not wait; in that situation, it was promulgated. It is a general rule, without specific command, a triple pācittiya offense. For one who has a perception of excess in less than the prompting and standing, or for one who is in doubt, there is an offense of wrong-doing. When obtained without prompting, when given by the owners after prompting, and for madmen and so on, there is no offense. The state of being designated by the monk for the allowable-maker, the giving by the messenger, striving beyond that, obtaining it by that striving—these are the four factors here. The arising and so on are similar to the fourth.

In Sāvatthī, when Upananda was told, “Venerable, please accept this,” he did not accept it. In that case, the rule was laid down. It is a common rule, non-announced, and entails expiation with three factors. For those who perceive excess in fewer instructions and standings, or are in doubt, it is a wrong-doing. If obtained without instruction, given by the owners after being instructed, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are: the monk’s designation as the one who makes it allowable, the messenger’s lack of urgency, striving beyond, and obtaining through that striving. The origin, etc., is similar to the fourth case.

2. Eḷakalomavaggo

2. Section on Goat Wool

2. The Chapter on Goat’s Hair

2. The Wool Chapter

1. Kosiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Silk Training Rule

1. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Silk

1. Explanation of the Silk Training Rule

Eḷakalomavaggassa paṭhame kosiyamissakanti ekenāpi kosiyaṃsunā antamaso tassa karaṇaṭṭhāne vātavegena nipātitenāpi missīkataṃ. Santhatanti same bhūmibhāge kosiyaṃsūni uparūpari santharitvā kañjiyādīhi siñcitvā kattabbatālakkhaṇaṃ. Kārāpeyya nissaggiyanti karaṇakārāpanappayogesu dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Ettha ca “idaṃ me, bhante, kosiyamissakaṃ santhataṃ kārāpitaṃ nissaggiya”nti (pārā. 544) iminā nayena nissajjanavidhānaṃ veditabbaṃ, imasseva vacanassa anusārena ito paraṃ sabbasanthataṃ veditabbaṃ. Sakkā hi ettāvatā jānitunti na taṃ ito paraṃ dassayissāma.

In the first of the goat wool section, “Mixed with silk” means mixed even with a single silk thread, even one fallen by the wind at the place of making. “Spread” means a mat made by spreading silk threads one over another on a level surface, moistened with starch or the like, with the characteristic of being made. “Were to have it made, to be relinquished” means in the efforts of making or causing it to be made, there is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa), and by receiving it, it is to be relinquished (nissaggiya). Here, the procedure for relinquishment should be understood thus: “This silk-mixed mat of mine, venerable sir, caused to be made, is to be relinquished (nissaggiya)” (pārā. 544). According to this very statement, all mats henceforth should be understood. Since it can be known by this much, we will not show it further.

In the first of the chapter on goat’s hair, “mixed with silk”—mixed with even one silk thread, even if it is dropped by the force of the wind in the place where it is made. “A rug”—the characteristic of what should be done by spreading silk threads one upon another on an even ground and sprinkling them with rice-water and so on. “Should have it made, it is to be relinquished”—there is an offense of wrong-doing for the efforts of making and having it made; upon obtaining it, it is to be relinquished. And here, the procedure for relinquishment should be understood in this way: “Bhante, this rug mixed with silk, made by me, is to be relinquished” (pārā. 544). Following this statement, all rugs hereafter should be understood. For it is possible to know by this much, therefore we will not show it hereafter.

In the first of the Wool Chapter, kosiyamissakanti means mixed with even a single silk thread, even if it is blown by the wind into the place where it is made. Santhatanti means spreading silk threads evenly on a flat surface, sprinkling them with rice water, etc., and pressing them to make a blanket. Kārāpeyya nissaggiyanti means that in the effort to make or have it made, one commits a wrong-doing, and upon obtaining it, it becomes subject to relinquishment. Here, the procedure for relinquishment should be understood as follows: “Venerable, this silk-mixed blanket, having been made, is subject to relinquishment” (Pārā. 544). From this point onward, all blankets should be understood in the same way. For it is possible to know this much, and thus we will not explain further.

Āḷaviyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha kosiyamissakaṃ santhataṃ kārāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, attano atthāya kārāpanavasena sāṇattikaṃ, attanā vippakatapaayosāpananayena catukkapācittiyaṃ, aññassatthāya karaṇakārāpanesu aññena kataṃ paṭilabhitvā paribhuñjane ca dukkaṭaṃ. Vitānādikaraṇe, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Kosiyamissakabhāvo, attano atthāya santhatassa karaṇakārāpanaṃ, paṭilābho cāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni dhovāpanasikkhāpade vuttanayenevāti.

At Āḷavī, concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of having a silk-mixed mat made, it was laid down, a specific rule, with command by having it made for oneself, quadruple confession (catukkapācittiya) by making oneself or causing an incomplete one to be finished. For making or causing it to be made for another, or using one made by another after receiving it, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). For making canopies or the like, or for the insane and the like, there is no offense. The state of being mixed with silk, making or causing a mat to be made for oneself, and receiving it are the three factors here. The origin and the rest are as stated in the washing training rule.

At Āḷavī, concerning the group of six monks, in the situation of having a rug mixed with silk made, it was promulgated. It is a non-general rule, with a command because of having it made for one’s own sake, a quadruple pācittiya offense in the manner of causing the unfinished to be finished by oneself. For making and having it made for the sake of another, and for using it after obtaining it made by another, there is an offense of wrong-doing. For making a canopy and so on, and for madmen and so on, there is no offense. The state of being mixed with silk, the making and having made of a rug for one’s own sake, and the obtaining—these are the three factors here. The arising and so on are in the manner stated in the training rule on washing.

In Āḷavī, the rule was laid down regarding the six monks who had a silk-mixed blanket made. It is a non-common rule, entails expiation with four factors when made for oneself, and a wrong-doing when made for another or when using one made by another. There is no offense in making a canopy, etc., or for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: the blanket being mixed with silk, making or having it made for oneself, and obtaining it. The origin, etc., is similar to the rule on washing wool.

2. Suddhakāḷakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Pure Black Training Rule

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Pure Black

2. Explanation of the Pure Black Training Rule

Dutiye suddhakāḷakānanti suddhānaṃ kāḷakānaṃ aññehi amissīkatānaṃ. Vesāliyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha tādisaṃ santhataṃ karaṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesaṃ paṭhamasadisamevāti.

In the second, “Pure black” means pure black wool not mixed with others. At Vesālī, concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of making such a mat, it was laid down; the rest is as in the first.

In the second, “of pure black”—of pure black, unmixed with others. At Vesālī, concerning the group of six monks, in the situation of making such a rug, it was promulgated; the rest is similar to the first.

In the second, suddhakāḷakānanti means pure black, not mixed with any other color. In Vesālī, the rule was laid down regarding the six monks who made such a blanket. The rest is similar to the first.

3. Dvebhāgasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Two Parts Training Rule

3. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Two Parts

3. Explanation of the Two Parts Training Rule

Tatiye dve bhāgāti dve koṭṭhāsā. Ādātabbāti gahetabbā. Gocariyānanti kapilavaṇṇānaṃ. Ayaṃ panettha vinicchayo – yattakehi kattukāmo hoti, tesu tulayitvā dve koṭṭhāsā kāḷakānaṃ gahetabbā, eko odātānaṃ, eko gocariyānaṃ. Ekassāpi kāḷakalomassa atirekabhāve nissaggiyaṃ hoti, ūnakaṃ vaṭṭati.

In the third, “Two parts” means two portions. “Should be taken” means should be obtained. “Brown” means of a tawny color. Here is the determination: Of the amount he wishes to make, weighing them, two portions of black should be taken, one of white, and one of brown. If even one black wool exceeds, it is to be relinquished (nissaggiya); less is allowable.

In the third, “two parts”—two portions. “Should be taken”—should be accepted. “Of those suitable for going”—of brown color. This is the determination here: in however many one wishes to make, having weighed them, two portions of black should be taken, one of white, one of those suitable for going. If there is even one extra black hair, it is to be relinquished; less is allowable.

In the third, dve bhāgāti means two parts. Ādātabbāti means to be taken. Gocariyānanti means of a reddish-brown color. Here, the decision is that one should take two parts of black wool, one part of white, and one part of reddish-brown, according to the amount one wishes to make. If there is even a single excess black wool thread, it becomes subject to relinquishment; if less, it is allowable.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha tādisaṃ santhataṃ karaṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, kiriyākiriyaṃ, sesaṃ paṭhamasadisamevāti. Imāni pana tīṇi nissajjitvā paṭiladdhānipi paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭanti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of making such a mat, it was laid down, an action and non-action; the rest is as in the first. Even after relinquishing these three, they may not be used after being received.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks, in the situation of making such a rug, it was promulgated; it is an act and non-act; the rest is similar to the first. But these three, even if obtained after being relinquished, are not to be used.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was laid down regarding the six monks who made such a blanket. The action and non-action are similar to the first. These three, even if relinquished and re-obtained, are not allowable to use.

4. Chabbassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Six Years Training Rule

4. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Six Years

4. Explanation of the Six Years Training Rule

Catutthe orena ce channaṃ vassānanti channaṃ vassānaṃ orimabhāge, antoti attho. Aññatra bhikkhusammutiyāti yaṃ saṅgho gilānassa bhikkhuno santhatasammutiṃ deti, taṃ ṭhapetvā aladdhasammutikassa chabbassabbhantare aññaṃ santhataṃ karontassa nissaggiyaṃ hoti.

In the fourth, “Within less than six years” means on the near side of six years, within that time. “Except with the monks’ agreement” means except for the agreement given by the Saṅgha to a sick monk for a mat; without obtaining such agreement, making another mat within six years entails relinquishment (nissaggiya).

In the fourth, “if less than six years”—in the earlier part of six years, the meaning is within. “Except with the consent of the monks”—apart from the rug-consent that the Saṅgha gives to a sick monk, for one who has not obtained consent, making another rug within six years, it is to be relinquished.

In the fourth, orena ce channaṃ vassānanti means within six years, on this side, i.e., within the limit. Aññatra bhikkhusammutiyāti means except with the permission of the Sangha for a sick monk. If one does not obtain permission, making another blanket within six years becomes subject to relinquishment.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha anuvassaṃ santhataṃ kārāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sā yena laddhā hoti, tassa yāva rogo na vūpasammati, vūpasanto vā puna kuppati, tāva gatagataṭṭhāne anuvassampi kātuṃ vaṭṭati, aññassatthāya kāretuṃ, katañca paṭilabhitvā paribhuñjitumpi vaṭṭati, sesaṃ paṭhamasadisamevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning several monks, regarding the matter of having a mat made every year, it was laid down; “except with the monks’ agreement” is an additional rule here. For one who has obtained it, as long as the illness does not subside, or if subsided it recurs, it is allowable to make it every year wherever he goes. It is also allowable to have it made for another or to use one made after receiving it; the rest is as in the first.

At Sāvatthī, concerning many monks, in the situation of having a rug made every year, it was promulgated; “except with the consent of the monks” is a supplementary rule here; for him by whom it is obtained, as long as the illness is not appeased, or if it recurs after being appeased, it is allowable to make one every year in any place he goes, to have it made for another, and to use it after obtaining it made; the rest is similar to the first.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was laid down regarding several monks who had a blanket made every year. The additional rule here is, “except with the permission of the Sangha.” Once permission is obtained, as long as the illness does not subside, or if it subsides and recurs, it is allowable to make a blanket every year in various places. It is also allowable to have it made for another or to use one made by another. The rest is similar to the first.

5. Nisīdanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Sitting Mat Training Rule

5. The Explanation of the Training Rule on a Sitting Cloth

5. Explanation of the Sitting Cloth Training Rule

Pañcame purāṇasanthataṃ nāma yattha sakimpi nisinno vā hoti nipanno vā. Samantāti ekapassato vaṭṭaṃ vā caturassaṃ vā chinditvā gahitaṭṭhānaṃ yathā vidatthimattaṃ hoti, evaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Santharantena pana ekadese vā santharitabbaṃ, vijaṭetvā vā missakaṃ katvā santharitabbaṃ, evaṃ thirataraṃ hoti. Anādā ceti sati purāṇasanthate aggahetvā. Asati pana aggahetvāpi vaṭṭati, aññassatthāya kāretuṃ, katañca paṭilabhitvā paribhuñjitumpi vaṭṭati.

In the fifth, “Old mat” means one on which one has sat or lain even once. “Around” means a round or square piece taken by cutting from one side, so that it is about a handspan; it should be taken thus. When spreading, it should be spread on one part, or mixed after unraveling and spread, making it firmer. “If he does not take” means if, when an old mat is available, he does not take it. If none is available, it is allowable not to take it, and it is allowable to have it made for another or to use one made after receiving it.

In the fifth, “old rug”—means where one has even once sat or lain down. “Around”—having cut around on one side, either round or square, the place taken should be the size of a span; thus it should be taken. But by one spreading it, it should be spread on one part, or having untangled it, it should be made mixed and spread; thus it becomes more firm. “If not taking”—if there is an old rug, not taking it. But if there is not, it is allowable even without taking it; to have it made for another, and to use it after obtaining it made, is also allowable.

In the fifth, purāṇasanthataṃ nāma means where one has sat or lain even once. Samantāti means cutting a circle or square from one side, taking a piece the size of a span, and thus it should be taken. When spreading it, one should spread it in one part or mix it and spread it, making it firmer. Anādā ceti means if one does not take the old sitting cloth. If there is none, it is allowable to take it, have it made for another, or use one made by another.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha santhatavissajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesaṃ tatiyasadisamevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning several monks, regarding the matter of distributing a mat, it was laid down; the rest is as in the third.

At Sāvatthī, concerning many monks, in the situation of discarding rugs, it was promulgated; the rest is similar to the third.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was laid down regarding several monks who discarded their sitting cloths. The rest is similar to the third.

6. Eḷakalomasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Goat Wool Training Rule

6. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Goat’s Hair

6. Explanation of the Wool Training Rule

Chaṭṭhe addhānamaggappaṭipannassāti addhānasaṅkhātaṃ dīghamaggaṃ paṭipannassa, sabbañcetaṃ vatthumattadīpanameva, yattha katthaci pana dhammena labhitvā gaṇhato doso natthi. Tiyojanaparamanti gahitaṭṭhānato tiyojanappamāṇaṃ desaṃ. Sahatthāti sahatthena, attanā haritabbānīti attho. Asante hāraketi asanteyeva aññasmimpi hārake. Sace pana atthi, taṃ gāhetuṃ vaṭṭati. Attanā pana antamaso vātābādhappaṭikāratthaṃ suttakena abandhitvā kaṇṇacchidde pakkhittānipi ādāya tiyojanaṃ ekaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmentassa dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyapādātikkame nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

In the sixth, “Traveling a long road” means one traveling a road considered long; all this merely illustrates the matter itself, but there is no fault in taking it anywhere if obtained lawfully. “Up to three yojanas maximum” means a region up to three yojanas from the place of taking. “By his own hand” means to be carried by oneself with one’s own hand. “When there is no carrier” means when there is no other carrier present. If there is one, it is allowable to have it carried by him. However, even for protection against wind, if one carries it oneself beyond three yojanas without tying it with a thread and placing it in the ear, with the first step beyond there is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa), and with the second step beyond, it is to be relinquished (nissaggiya) and entails an offense requiring confession (pācittiya).

In the sixth, “one who has entered upon a long journey”—one who has entered upon a long road considered a journey; all this is merely a demonstration of the situation; but wherever it is obtained rightfully, there is no fault in taking it. “A maximum of three yojanas”—a distance of three yojanas from the place where it was taken. “By oneself”—by one’s own hand; the meaning is that they should be carried by oneself. “If there is no carrier”—if there is indeed no other carrier. But if there is, it is proper to have him take it. But for oneself, even for the sake of treating a wind ailment, having tied them with a thread and put them in the ear-holes, taking them, for crossing one foot beyond three yojanas, there is an offense of wrong-doing; for crossing the second foot, there is a pācittiya offense involving relinquishment.

In the sixth, addhānamaggappaṭipannassāti means one who is traveling a long distance. All this is merely an explanation of the subject matter, but there is no fault in taking it lawfully wherever obtained. Tiyojanaparamanti means a distance of three yojanas from the place where it is taken. Sahatthāti means with one’s own hand, i.e., one should carry it oneself. Asante hāraketi means even if there is no other carrier. If there is, it is allowable to take it. But if one carries it oneself, even if tied with a thread to prevent it from being blown by the wind, and throws it into a hole in the ear, carrying it beyond one step is a wrong-doing, and beyond two steps is an offense of expiation with relinquishment.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha tiyojanātikkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ūnakatiyojane atirekasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Tiyojanaṃ haraṇapaccāharaṇe, vāsādhippāyena gantvā tato paraṃ haraṇe, acchinnaṃ vā nissaṭṭhaṃ vā paṭilabhitvā haraṇe, aññaṃ harāpane, antamaso suttakenapi baddhakatabhaṇḍaharaṇe, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Eḷakalomānaṃ akatabhaṇḍatā, paṭhamappaṭilābho, attanā ādāya vā aññassa ajānantassa yāne pakkhipitvā vā tiyojanātikkamanaṃ, āharaṇapaccāharaṇaṃ, avāsādhippāyatāti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Eḷakalomasamuṭṭhānaṃ , kiriyaṃ, nosaññāvimokkhaṃ, acittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning a certain monk, regarding the matter of exceeding three yojanas, it was laid down, a specific rule, without command, triple confession (tikapācittiya). For one perceiving excess in less than three yojanas or being uncertain, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). In carrying or returning within three yojanas, or going with the intent to stay and then carrying beyond, or carrying what is torn or relinquished after receiving it, or having another carry it, or even carrying goods tied with a thread, or for the insane and the like, there is no offense. The state of goat wool not made into goods, the first receiving, carrying it oneself or placing it in a vehicle of one unaware beyond three yojanas, carrying and returning, and lack of intent to stay are the five factors here. It arises from goat wool, is an action, not released by perception, mindless, a fault by stipulation, bodily action, with three kinds of mind, and three kinds of feeling.

At Sāvatthī, concerning a certain monk, in the situation of crossing three yojanas, it was promulgated; it is a non-general rule, without specific command, a triple pācittiya offense. For one who has a perception of excess in less than three yojanas, or for one who is in doubt, there is an offense of wrong-doing. For carrying three yojanas and bringing them back, for going with the intention of staying and carrying them beyond that, for carrying them after obtaining what has been seized or discarded, for having another carry them, for carrying even a bundle tied with a thread, and for madmen and so on, there is no offense. The state of the goat’s hair being an unfinished bundle, the first obtaining, crossing three yojanas by taking it oneself or putting it in the vehicle of another who is unaware, carrying and bringing back, and not intending to stay—these are the five factors here. The arising of goat’s hair, it is an act, not free from perception, without thought, an offense against the promulgation, a bodily act, with three kinds of thought, with three feelings.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was laid down regarding a certain monk who carried wool beyond three yojanas. It is a non-common rule, non-announced, and entails expiation with three factors. For those who perceive excess in less than three yojanas, or are in doubt, it is a wrong-doing. Carrying and bringing back within three yojanas, going for the purpose of residence and carrying beyond, obtaining it after it has been cut off or dropped, having another carry it, even carrying goods tied with a thread, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The five factors here are: the wool not being made into goods, the first obtaining, carrying it oneself or placing it on a vehicle without the knowledge of another, carrying beyond three yojanas, and not going for the purpose of residence. The origin of wool, the action, no release by perception, unconsciousness, the offense by rule, bodily action, three consciousnesses, and three feelings.

7. Eḷakalomadhovāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Goat Wool Washing Training Rule

7. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Washing Goat’s Hair

7. Explanation of the Wool Washing Training Rule

Sattame sakkesu chabbaggiye ārabbha eḷakalomadhovāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Tattha purāṇacīvaradhovāpane vuttanayeneva sabbopi vinicchayo veditabbo.

In the seventh, at Saketa, concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of having goat wool washed, it was laid down. Here, all determinations should be understood as stated in the old robe washing rule.

In the seventh, at the Sakyans, concerning the group of six monks, in the situation of having goat’s hair washed, it was promulgated. There, all the determination should be understood in the manner stated for washing old robes.

In the seventh, among the Sakyans, the rule was laid down regarding the six monks who had wool washed. Here, the entire decision should be understood in the same way as in the rule on washing old robes.

8. Jātarūpasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Gold and Silver Training Rule

8. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Gold

8. Explanation of the Gold Training Rule

Aṭṭhame jātarūparajatanti suvaṇṇañceva rūpiyañca, apica kahāpaṇo lohamāsakadārumāsakajatumāsakādayopi ye vohāraṃ gacchanti, sabbe te idha rajatantveva vuttā. Uggaṇheyya vāti attano atthāya diyyamānaṃ vā yatthakatthaci ṭhitaṃ vā nippariggahitaṃ disvā sayaṃ gaṇheyya vā. Uggaṇhāpeyya vāti tadeva aññena gāhāpeyya vā. Upanikkhittaṃ vā sādiyeyyāti “idaṃ ayyassa hotū”ti evaṃ sammukhā vā, “asukasmiṃ nāma ṭhāne mama hiraññasuvaṇṇaṃ, taṃ tuyhaṃ hotū”ti evaṃ parammukhā ṭhitaṃ vā kevalaṃ vācāya vā hatthamuddāya vā “tuyha”nti vatvā pariccattaṃ yo kāyavācāhi appaṭikkhipitvā cittena adhivāseyya, ayaṃ “sādiyeyyā”ti vuccati. Sace pana cittena sādiyati, gaṇhitukāmo hoti, kāyena vā vācāya vā “nayidaṃ kappatī”ti paṭikkhipati, kāyavācāhi appaṭikkhipitvā suddhacitto hutvā “nayidaṃ amhākaṃ kappatī”ti na sādiyati, vaṭṭati. Nissaggiyanti uggahaṇādīsu yaṃkiñci karontassa aghanabaddhesu vatthūsu vatthugaṇanāya nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Taṃ nissajjantena “ahaṃ, bhante, rūpiyaṃ paṭiggahesiṃ, idaṃ me, bhante, nissaggiyaṃ, imāhaṃ saṅghassa nissajjāmī”ti (pārā. 584) evaṃ saṅghamajjheyeva nissajjitabbaṃ. Sace tattha koci gahaṭṭho āgacchati , “idaṃ jānāhī”ti vattabbo. “Iminā kiṃ āhariyyatū”ti bhaṇante pana “idaṃ nāmā”ti avatvā “sappiādīni bhikkhūnaṃ kappantī”ti evaṃ kappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. Sace so āharati, rūpiyappaṭiggāhakaṃ ṭhapetvā sabbehi bhājetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Rūpiyappaṭiggāhakassa pana yaṃ tappaccayā uppannaṃ, taṃ aññena labhitvā diyyamānampi antamaso tato nibbattarukkhacchāyāpi paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace pana so kiñci āharituṃ na icchati, “imaṃ chaṭṭehī”ti vattabbo. Sace yattha katthaci nikkhipati, gahetvā vā gacchati, na vāretabbo. No ce chaṭṭeti, pañcaṅgasamannāgato bhikkhu rūpiyachaṭṭako sammannitabbo. Tena animittaṃ katvāva gūthaṃ viya chaṭṭetabbaṃ. Sace nimittaṃ karoti, dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati.

In the eighth, “Gold and silver” means both gold and silver; moreover, coins, copper coins, wooden coins, lac coins, and the like that are used in transactions are all called silver (rajata) here. “Were to take” means he would take it himself, whether given for his own sake or seeing it lying anywhere unclaimed. “Or cause to be taken” means he would have that very thing taken by another. “Or accept what is deposited” means if someone says face-to-face, “Let this be for the venerable,” or from a distance, “My gold and silver at such-and-such a place is yours,” or simply with words or a hand gesture says “It’s yours” and relinquishes it, and he does not refuse it with body or speech but consents with the mind, this is called “would accept.” However, if he consents with the mind and intends to take it but refuses with body or speech, saying, “This is not allowable,” or does not refuse with body or speech but with a pure mind does not accept it, saying, “This is not allowable for us,” it is allowable. “To be relinquished” means in taking or the like, for anything done with solid or tied items, by the count of items it is to be relinquished (nissaggiya) and entails an offense requiring confession (pācittiya). In relinquishing it, he should say in the midst of the Saṅgha, “I, venerable sir, accepted silver; this of mine, venerable sir, is to be relinquished (nissaggiya); I relinquish it to the Saṅgha” (pārā. 584). If a layperson comes there, he should be told, “Know this.” If he says, “What should be brought with this?” without saying “This or that,” he should indicate what is allowable, saying, “Ghee and the like are allowable for monks.” If he brings it, all except the one who accepted the silver should share and use it. However, what arises from that for the one who accepted the silver, even the shade of a tree grown from it, may not be used even if obtained through another and offered. If he does not wish to bring anything, he should be told, “Discard it.” If he places it anywhere or takes it away, he should not be stopped. If he does not discard it, a monk endowed with five qualities should be appointed as a silver-discarder. He should discard it like excrement without making a mark. If he makes a mark, he incurs an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa).

In the eighth, “gold and silver”—gold and silver; but also kahāpaṇa, lohamāsaka, dārumāsaka, jatumāsaka, and so on, whatever goes into circulation, all these are called silver here. “Should pick it up”—should pick it up himself, either what is given for his own sake, or seeing what is lying anywhere unclaimed. “Or should have it picked up”—should have the same picked up by another. “Or should consent to its being deposited”—“Let this be for the venerable sir,” thus in one’s presence, or “In such and such a place is my gold and silver, let that be yours,” thus placed face-to-face, or merely saying “yours” by word or hand gesture, whoever consents with the mind without rejecting it by body or speech, this is called “should consent.” But if he consents with the mind, wishing to take it, or rejects it by body or speech, “This is not allowable,” or without rejecting it by body or speech, being of pure mind, he does not consent, “This is not allowable for us,” it is allowable. “It is to be relinquished”—for doing any of picking up and so on, in unprohibited objects, according to the object count, there is a pācittiya offense involving relinquishment. Relinquishing it, one should relinquish it in the midst of the Saṅgha in this way: “Bhante, I accepted silver, this is to be relinquished by me, Bhante, I relinquish this to the Saṅgha” (pārā. 584). If any householder comes there, he should be told, “Know this.” But when he says, “What should be brought with this?”, without saying, “This thing,” one should mention what is allowable, “Ghee and so on are allowable for monks.” If he brings it, apart from the one who accepted the silver, all should share and use it. But for the one who accepted the silver, whatever has arisen on account of that, even if given after being obtained by another, even the shade of the tree that resulted from it is not to be used. But if he does not wish to bring anything, he should be told, “Discard this.” If he deposits it anywhere, or goes taking it, he should not be prevented. But if he does not discard it, a monk endowed with five factors should be appointed as a silver-discarder. He should discard it without making a mark, like excrement. If he makes a mark, he incurs an offense of wrong-doing.

In the eighth, jātarūparajata means gold and silver, and also kahāpaṇa coins, copper coins, wooden coins, lac coins, and others that are used in transactions—all these are here referred to as silver. Uggaṇheyya vā means that one may take for oneself what is being given for one’s benefit or what is seen lying somewhere unclaimed. Uggaṇhāpeyya vā means having another take it. Upanikkhittaṃ vā sādiyeyyā means accepting what is placed before one with the words, “This is for you,” or what is placed elsewhere with the words, “In such and such a place, there is my gold or silver; it is yours.” Alternatively, it may be verbally or by gesture that one says, “This is yours,” and if one does not reject it with body or speech but mentally accepts it, this is called “accepting.” However, if one mentally accepts it, desiring to take it, but rejects it with body or speech, saying, “This is not proper,” and does not accept it with a pure mind, thinking, “This is not proper for us,” it is still an offense. Nissaggiya means that for any action involving taking, etc., in relation to objects tied to a price, a nissaggiya pācittiya offense is incurred. When relinquishing it, one should say in the midst of the Sangha, “Venerable sir, I have received silver. This, venerable sir, is to be relinquished. I relinquish it to the Sangha” (Pārā. 584). If a layperson arrives there, they should be told, “Know this.” If they ask, “What should be brought with this?” one should not say, “This and that,” but should explain what is allowable for monks, such as ghee, etc. If they bring it, it should be divided among all except the one who received the silver and then used. However, even if something arises from that silver, even if it is given by another, even the shade of a tree grown from it should not be used. If they do not wish to bring anything, they should be told, “Discard this.” If it is placed anywhere or taken away, one should not prevent it. If it is not discarded, a monk endowed with five qualities should be appointed as a silver discarder. He should discard it without leaving any trace, like excrement. If he leaves a trace, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

Rājagahe upanandaṃ ārabbha rūpiyappaṭiggahaṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, arūpiye rūpiyasaññino vematikassa vā, saṅghacetiyādīnaṃ atthāya gaṇhantassa, muttāmaṇiādippaṭiggahaṇe ca dukkaṭaṃ. Ratanasikkhāpadanayena nikkhipantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Jātarūparajatabhāvo, attuddesikatā, gahaṇādīsu aññatarabhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīsu siyā kiriyaṃ gahaṇena āpajjanato, siyā akiriyaṃ paṭikkhepassa akaraṇato, sesaṃ sañcaritte vuttanayamevāti.

At Rājagaha, concerning Upananda, regarding the matter of accepting silver, it was laid down, a general rule, with command, triple confession (tikapācittiya). For perceiving non-silver as silver or being uncertain, or taking for the sake of the Saṅgha, a shrine, or the like, or accepting pearls, gems, or the like, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). For depositing it as in the jewel training rule, or for the insane and the like, there is no offense. The state of being gold or silver, being designated for oneself, and any one of taking or the like are the three factors here. In origin and the rest, it may be an action due to committing by taking, or a non-action due to not refusing; the rest is as stated in the interaction rule.

At Rājagaha, concerning Upananda, in the situation of accepting silver, it was promulgated; it is a general rule, with specific command, a triple pācittiya offense. For one who has a perception of silver in what is not silver, or for one who is in doubt, for accepting it for the sake of the Saṅgha, a shrine, and so on, and for accepting pearls, gems, and so on, there is an offense of wrong-doing. For one who deposits it in the manner of the training rule on jewels, and for madmen and so on, there is no offense. The state of being gold and silver, the state of being for one’s own sake, the state of one of picking up and so on—these are the three factors here. As for the arising and so on, it may be an act from accepting by picking up, it may be a non-act from not doing the rejection; the rest is in the manner stated in the training rule on go-betweens.

This rule was established in Rājagaha concerning Upananda, regarding the receipt of silver. It is a common rule, a saṅghādisesa, a tikapācittiya. For one who perceives non-silver as silver or is in doubt, for one who takes it for the sake of the Sangha or a shrine, and for receiving pearls or gems, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who deposits it according to the method of the ratana rule, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: the nature of gold and silver, the intention for oneself, and the act of taking, etc. In the origins, etc., it may be a kiriya offense due to taking, or it may be non-action due to not rejecting. The rest is as explained in the sañcaritta.

9. Rūpiyasaṃvohārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Silver Transaction Training Rule

9. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Dealing in Silver

9. Explanation of the Rūpiyasaṃvohāra Training Rule

Navame nānappakārakanti katādivasena anekavidhaṃ. Rūpiyasaṃvohāranti jātarūparajataparivattanaṃ. Purimasikkhāpadena hi nissaggiyavatthudukkaṭavatthūnaṃ paṭiggahaṇaṃ vāritaṃ, iminā parivattanaṃ. Tasmā dukkaṭavatthunā dukkaṭavatthukappiyavatthūni, kappiyavatthunā ca dukkaṭavatthuṃ parivattentassa dukkaṭaṃ. Nissaggiyavatthunā pana nissaggiyavatthuṃ vā dukkaṭavatthuṃ vā kappiyavatthuṃ vā, dukkaṭavatthukappiyavatthūhi ca nissaggiyavatthuṃ parivattentassa nissaggiyaṃ hoti, taṃ purimanayānusāreneva saṅghamajjhe nissajjitabbaṃ, nissaṭṭhavatthusmiñca tattha vuttanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ.

In the ninth, “Various kinds” means manifold by way of making or the like. “Silver transaction” means exchanging gold and silver. By the previous training rule, accepting items to be relinquished (nissaggiya) and items of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa) was prohibited; by this, exchanging them. Thus, for exchanging an item of wrongdoing with another item of wrongdoing or an allowable item, or an allowable item with an item of wrongdoing, it is an offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). However, for exchanging an item to be relinquished with another item to be relinquished, an item of wrongdoing, or an allowable item, or an item of wrongdoing or allowable item with an item to be relinquished, it is to be relinquished (nissaggiya). It should be relinquished in the midst of the Saṅgha as per the previous method, and with the relinquished item, one should act as stated there.

In the ninth, “various kinds”—of many kinds, in the manner of made and so on. “Dealing in silver”—exchange of gold and silver. For by the former training rule, the acceptance of objects subject to relinquishment and objects of wrong-doing is prohibited; by this, the exchange. Therefore, for exchanging an object of wrong-doing with an object of wrong-doing or an allowable object, and for exchanging an allowable object with an object of wrong-doing, there is an offense of wrong-doing. But for exchanging an object subject to relinquishment with an object subject to relinquishment, or an object of wrong-doing, or an allowable object, and for exchanging an object subject to relinquishment with objects of wrong-doing and allowable objects, it is to be relinquished; that should be relinquished in the midst of the Saṅgha following the former manner; and one should act concerning the relinquished object in the manner stated there.

In the ninth, nānappakāraka means of various kinds, such as by date, etc. Rūpiyasaṃvohāra means the exchange of gold and silver. The previous rule prohibited the receipt of objects subject to nissaggiya and dukkaṭa offenses; this rule prohibits exchange. Therefore, exchanging dukkaṭa objects for dukkaṭa or allowable objects, or allowable objects for dukkaṭa objects, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Exchanging nissaggiya objects for nissaggiya, dukkaṭa, or allowable objects, or dukkaṭa or allowable objects for nissaggiya objects, incurs a nissaggiya offense. It should be relinquished in the midst of the Sangha as explained in the previous rule, and one should proceed as explained there for the relinquished object.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha rūpiyasaṃvohāravatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, yaṃ attano dhanena parivatteti, tassa vā dhanassa vā rūpiyabhāvo ceva, parivattanañcāti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Kiriyaṃ, sesaṃ anantarasikkhāpade vuttanayamevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of silver transactions, it was laid down, a general rule, without command. That which one exchanges with one’s own wealth, and that wealth’s state of being silver and the act of exchanging are the two factors here. It is an action; the rest is as in the previous training rule.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks, in the situation of dealing in silver, it was promulgated; it is a general rule, without specific command; that which he exchanges with his own wealth, or the state of that wealth being silver, and the exchange—these are the two factors here. It is an act; the rest is in the manner stated in the immediately preceding training rule.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the six monks, regarding the transaction of silver. It is a common rule, an anāṇattika. The two factors here are: the nature of the silver and the act of exchange. The action is as explained in the previous rule; the rest is as explained in the anantarasikkhāpada.

10. Kayavikkayasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Buying and Selling Training Rule

10. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Buying and Selling

10. Explanation of the Kayavikkaya Training Rule

Dasame nānappakārakanti cīvarādīnaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍānaṃ vasena anekavidhaṃ. Kayavikkayanti kayañceva vikkayañca. “Iminā imaṃ dehi, imaṃ āhara, parivattehi, cetāpehī”ti iminā hi nayena parassa kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ gaṇhanto kayaṃ samāpajjati, attano kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ dento vikkayaṃ samāpajjati. Tasmā ṭhapetvā pañca sahadhammike yaṃ evaṃ attano kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ datvā mātu santakampi kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ gaṇhāti, taṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Vuttalakkhaṇavasena saṅghagaṇapuggalesu yassa kassaci nissajjitabbaṃ, “imaṃ bhuñjitvā vā gahetvā vā idaṃ nāma āhara vā karohi vā”ti rajanādiṃ āharāpetvā vā dhamakaraṇādiparikkhāraṃ bhūmisodhanādiñca navakammaṃ kāretvā vā santaṃ vatthu nissajjitabbaṃ, asante pācittiyaṃ desetabbameva.

In the tenth, nānappakāraka means manifold in various ways by means of permissible goods such as robes and so forth. Kayavikkaya means both buying and selling. Indeed, by this method—“Give this for that, bring this, exchange it, barter it”—one who takes permissible goods from another engages in buying, and one who gives his own permissible goods engages in selling. Therefore, except for the five co-dhammikas, whatever permissible goods one gives of one’s own and takes even from what belongs to one’s mother, that becomes nissaggiya. According to the characteristics stated, it must be relinquished to the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual. Having said, “After consuming this or taking this, bring or do such and such,” or having had dye and so forth brought, or having had requisites like bellows or land-clearing and new work done, if the item exists, it must be relinquished; if it does not exist, a pācittiya must indeed be confessed (pāci. 239).

In the tenth, nānappakāraka means various kinds, in terms of allowable requisites such as robes and so forth. Kayavikkaya means buying and selling. When someone, intending to obtain another person’s allowable requisites, says, “Give this for that, bring this, exchange, get it,” he is engaging in buying; when giving his own allowable requisites, he is engaging in selling. Therefore, apart from the five fellow practitioners in the Dhamma, when one gives one’s allowable requisites and receives even allowable requisites belonging to one’s mother, it becomes subject to relinquishment. It should be relinquished to the Sangha, a group, or any individual in accordance with the aforementioned characteristics, or having got dye and so on, saying “Having eaten this or taken this, bring this or do this,” or having new work done, such as preparing the ground for a water filter cloth, etc., the existing item should be relinquished; if it does not exist, the offense requiring expiation should be confessed.

In the tenth, nānappakāraka means of various kinds, such as robes, etc., and allowable goods. Kayavikkaya means both buying and selling. By saying, “Give this for that,” “Bring this,” “Exchange this,” “Barter this,” one engages in buying when taking another’s allowable goods and in selling when giving one’s own allowable goods. Therefore, except for the five sahadhammikas, if one gives one’s own allowable goods and takes even one’s mother’s allowable goods, it is a nissaggiya offense. According to the characteristics explained, it should be relinquished to the Sangha, a group, or an individual. If one says, “After using this, bring such and such,” or has dye, etc., brought, or has a floor swept, etc., or new construction done, and there is an object, it should be relinquished. If there is no object, only a pācittiya should be confessed.

Sāvatthiyaṃ upanandaṃ ārabbha kayavikkayavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “idaṃ kiṃ agghatī”ti evaṃ agghaṃ pucchantassa, yassa hatthato bhaṇḍaṃ gaṇhitukāmo hoti, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ antamaso tasseva puttabhātukampi kappiyakārakaṃ katvā “iminā idaṃ nāma gahetvā dehī”ti ācikkhantassa, “idaṃ amhākaṃ atthi, amhākañca iminā ca iminā ca attho”ti evaṃ vatvā attano dhanena laddhaṃ gaṇhantassa, sahadhammikehi saddhiṃ kayavikkayaṃ karontassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Yaṃ attano dhanena parivatteti, yena ca parivatteti, tesaṃ kappiyavatthutā, asahadhammikatā, kayavikkayāpajjanañcāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Sesaṃ rūpiyasaṃvohāre vuttanayamevāti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda regarding the matter of buying and selling. For one who asks about the value, saying, “How much is this worth?”—except for the one from whose hand he wishes to take the goods—making even that person’s son or brother a permissible agent and saying, “Take this and give me such and such,” or saying, “We have this, and we need this and that,” and taking what is obtained with one’s own wealth, or engaging in buying and selling with co-dhammikas, or in the case of the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are threefold: the permissibility of the goods one exchanges and those with which one exchanges, their non-co-dhammika nature, and the engagement in buying and selling. The rest is as explained in the manner stated in the case of dealings with silver.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthi, concerning Upananda, in the case of buying and selling, that when someone asks the price, saying, “What is the price of this?”, one should make even another person, except for the one from whom one wishes to receive the article, even his son or brother, a facilitator, and say, “Having taken this, give that.” When one says, “We have this, and we need this and that,” and obtains what was acquired with one’s own wealth, or when one engages in buying and selling with fellow practitioners in the Dhamma, or in the case of the insane, and so forth, there is no offense. That which one exchanges with one’s own wealth, and that with which one exchanges it, their allowability, not being fellow practitioners, and engaging in buying and selling—these are the three factors here. The rest is as stated in the case of dealing with money.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda, regarding buying and selling. For one who asks the price, saying, “How much is this?” and desires to take the goods from another’s hand, except for one’s own son or brother, even if one makes them an allowable agent and says, “Take this for that,” or says, “We have this, and we need this and that,” and takes what is obtained with one’s own wealth, or engages in buying and selling with sahadhammikas, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: the nature of the allowable object, the non-sahadhammika, and the act of buying and selling. The rest is as explained in the rūpiyasaṃvohāra.

3. Pattavaggo

3. Pattavagga

3. The Chapter on Bowls

3. Pattavagga

1. Pattasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the Training Rule on Bowls

1. Explanation of the Pattasikkhāpada

Pattavaggassa paṭhame atirekapattoti anadhiṭṭhito ca avikappito ca, so ca kho ukkaṭṭhamajjhimomakānaṃ aññataro pamāṇayuttova, tassa pamāṇaṃ “aḍḍhāḷhakodanaṃ gaṇhātī”tiādinā (pārā 602) nayena pāḷiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – anupahatapurāṇasālitaṇḍulānaṃ sukoṭṭitaparisuddhānaṃ dve magadhanāḷiyo gahetvā tehi taṇḍulehi anuttaṇḍulamakilinnamapiṇḍikaṃ suvisadaṃ kundamakuḷarāsisadisaṃ avassāvitodanaṃ pacitvā niravasesaṃ patte pakkhipitvā tassa odanassa catutthabhāgappamāṇo nātighano nātitanuko hatthahāriyo sabbasambhārasaṅkhato muggasūpo pakkhipitabbo, tato ālopassa anurūpaṃ yāvacarimālopappahonakaṃ macchamaṃsādibyañjanaṃ pakkhipitabbaṃ, sappitelatakkarasakañjiyādīni pana gaṇanūpagāni na honti. Tāni hi odanagatikāneva, neva hāpetuṃ, na vaḍḍhetuṃ sakkonti, evametaṃ sabbampi pakkhittaṃ sace pattassa mukhavaṭṭiyā heṭṭhimarājisamaṃ tiṭṭhati, suttena vā hīrena vā chindantassa suttassa vā hīrassa vā heṭṭhimantaṃ phusati, ayaṃ ukkaṭṭho nāma patto. Sace taṃ rājiṃ atikkamma thūpīkataṃ tiṭṭhati, ayaṃ ukkaṭṭhomako nāma patto. Sace taṃ rājiṃ na sampāpuṇāti, antogadhameva hoti, ayaṃ ukkaṭṭhukkaṭṭho nāma patto. Ukkaṭṭhato upaḍḍhappamāṇo majjhimo. Majjhimapattato upaḍḍhappamāṇo omako. Tesampi vuttanayeneva bhedo veditabbo. Iccetesu navasu ukkaṭṭhukkaṭṭho ca omakomako cāti dve apattā, sesā satta pattā pamāṇayuttā nāma, ayametthasaṅkhepo, vitthāro pana samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.598 ādayo) vutto, tasmā evaṃ pamāṇayuttaṃ samaṇasāruppena pakkaṃ ayopattaṃ vā mattikāpattaṃ vā labhitvā purāṇapattaṃ paccuddharitvā antodasāhe adhiṭṭhātabbo. Sace panassa mūlato kākaṇikamattampi dātabbaṃ avasiṭṭhaṃ hoti, adhiṭṭhānupago na hoti, appaccuddharantena vikappetabbo. Tattha paccuddharaṇādhiṭṭhānalakkhaṇaṃ cīvaravagge vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ, vikappanalakkhaṇaṃ parato vakkhāma. Sace pana koci apattako bhikkhu dasa patte labhitvā sabbe attanāva paribhuñjitukāmo hoti, ekaṃ pattaṃ adhiṭṭhāya puna divase taṃ paccuddharitvā añño adhiṭṭhātabbo, etenupāyena vassasatampi pariharituṃ sakkā. Yo panassa patto mukhavaṭṭito heṭṭhā dvaṅgulamattokāsato paṭṭhāya yatthakatthaci kaṅgusitthanikkhamanamattena chiddena chiddo hoti, so adhiṭṭhānupago na hoti. Puna chidde pākatike kate adhiṭṭhātabbo, sesaṃ adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ ticīvare vuttanayameva.

In the first of the Pattavagga, atirekapatta means an extra bowl that is neither determined nor assigned, and it must be one of the superior, medium, or inferior types, conforming to the proper measure. Its measure is stated in the text as “it holds half an āḷhaka of rice” and so forth (pārā 602). Here is the determination: Taking two Magadha nāḷis of unspoiled, old, well-husked, pure sāḷi rice, cook unblemished rice free from husks, clear and resembling a heap of jasmine buds, and place it entirely in the bowl. Then, a quarter portion of that rice, neither too thick nor too thin, a mung bean soup prepared with all ingredients and suitable for eating by hand, should be added. After that, an appropriate amount of curry—fish, meat, or the like—sufficient for the last morsel should be added. Ghee, oil, buttermilk, sour gruel, and the like are not countable, for they follow the nature of the rice and can neither diminish nor increase it. If all this, when placed in the bowl, stands level with the lower edge of the bowl’s rim, or if a thread or wire cutting it touches the lower end of the thread or wire, that bowl is called ukkaṭṭha. If it exceeds that edge and stands heaped up, it is called ukkaṭṭhomaka. If it does not reach that edge and remains contained within, it is called ukkaṭṭhukkaṭṭha. Half the measure of the ukkaṭṭha is majjhima. Half the measure of the majjhima is omaka. Their distinctions should be understood in the manner stated. Thus, among these nine, the ukkaṭṭhukkaṭṭha and omakomaka—two—are not bowls; the remaining seven are bowls of proper measure. This is the summary here; the details are stated in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.598 onwards). Therefore, having obtained an iron bowl or clay bowl of such proper measure, suitable for a renunciate, it should be determined within ten days after relinquishing the old bowl. If even a mere kākṇī’s worth remains to be given away, it cannot be determined. Without relinquishing it, it should be assigned. The characteristics of relinquishing and determining are to be understood as stated in the robe section; the characteristics of assigning will be explained later. If a monk who has no bowl obtains ten bowls and wishes to use them all himself, he may determine one bowl and, the next day, relinquish it and determine another. By this method, he can maintain them even for a hundred years. However, if his bowl has a hole anywhere from the rim downward, starting from a space of two finger-widths, caused by even the slightest crack like a sesame seed or a thorn’s exit, it cannot be determined. Once the hole is repaired naturally, it may be determined. The rest—abandoning determination—is as stated in the manner of the three robes.

In the first of the chapter on bowls, atirekapatto means not determined and not designated, and it should be of a suitable size, being either superior, medium, or inferior. Its size is stated in the Text in the passage beginning with “it holds half an āḷhaka of rice” (Pārā. 602). Here is the determination: Taking two Magadhan nāḷi measures of undamaged, ancient, well-husked, and cleaned rice grains, and having cooked them without leaving out any rice, uncrushed, unbroken, well-separated, resembling a heap of jasmine buds, without letting out any liquid, it should be put into the bowl without leaving any residue. A quantity of thick, not thin, hand-manageable mung bean soup mixed with all the ingredients, equal to a fourth part of that rice, should be added. Then, appropriate for a mouthful, sufficient for the last mouthful, dishes of meat, fish, and so on should be added. However, ghee, honey-sweet, and curdled milk, and so on, which are included in the count, are not considered. They are indeed included in the rice; they can neither decrease nor increase it. If all this, when put in, reaches the level of the lower line of the rim of the bowl, or touches the lower edge of a thread or a strip when cutting with a thread or a strip, this is called a superior bowl. If it exceeds that line and stands heaped up, this is called a superior-inferior bowl. If it does not reach that line and remains within, this is called a superior-superior bowl. Half the size of the superior is the medium. Half the size of the medium bowl is the inferior. Their distinctions should be understood in the same way as stated. Among these nine, the superior-superior and the inferior-inferior are not bowls. The remaining seven are bowls of suitable size. This is the summary here; the detailed explanation is given in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.598 ff.). Therefore, having obtained an iron bowl or a clay bowl, cooked in a way suitable for an ascetic, and of such a suitable size, the old bowl should be discarded, and within ten days, the new bowl should be determined. If, however, even a kākaṇika-worth of value remains to be given from the original, it does not qualify for determination; it should be designated by one who does not discard. The characteristics of discarding and determining should be understood as stated in the chapter on robes; the characteristics of designating will be explained later. If, however, a monk without a bowl obtains ten bowls and wishes to use all of them himself, he should determine one bowl, and on the next day, having discarded it, he should determine another. In this way, it is possible to manage even for a hundred years. If a bowl has a hole anywhere from the rim down to the space of two fingerbreadths, even with a hole the size of a millet seed, it does not qualify for determination. When the hole is made normal again, it should be determined. The rest, the relinquishment of determination, is as stated in the case of the three robes.

In the first of the Pattavagga, atirekapatto means an extra bowl that is neither determined nor assigned, and it is of a size suitable for the superior, medium, or inferior type. Its size is explained in the Pāli as “it holds half an āḷhaka of rice,” etc. (Pārā. 602). Here, the determination is as follows: taking two Magadhan measures of unhulled, old, well-pounded, and thoroughly cleaned rice, cooking it into a lump-free, clear, and smooth rice resembling a heap of kunda flowers or a kuḷa mound, filling the bowl completely, and adding a fourth part of the rice’s volume of mung bean soup, not too thick or thin, that can be carried by hand, along with all the condiments. Then, a suitable portion of curry, such as fish or meat, should be added up to the amount of a single mouthful. However, ghee, oil, honey, and fermented drink are not counted, as they follow the rice and cannot be increased or decreased. When all this is placed in the bowl, if it reaches the lower rim of the bowl’s mouth, and if, when cutting it with a thread or a hair, the thread or hair touches the lower edge, this is called the ukkaṭṭha bowl. If it exceeds that line and forms a mound, it is called the ukkaṭṭhomaka bowl. If it does not reach that line and remains within, it is called the ukkaṭṭhukkaṭṭha bowl. Half the size of the ukkaṭṭha is the majjhima. Half the size of the majjhima is the omaka. The distinctions among these should be understood in the same way. Thus, among these nine, the ukkaṭṭhukkaṭṭha and the omakomaka are not offenses. The remaining seven bowls are of suitable size. This is the summary here; the details are explained in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.598, etc.). Therefore, having obtained a suitable iron or clay bowl, one should put aside the old bowl and determine the new one within ten days. If even a small piece remains at the base, it is not suitable for determination, and one should assign it. The characteristics of putting aside and determination should be understood as explained in the Cīvaravagga. The characteristics of assignment will be explained later. If a monk without an offense obtains ten bowls and wishes to use them all himself, he should determine one bowl and, the next day, put it aside and determine another. In this way, he can keep them for a hundred years. However, if a bowl is broken from the rim downward by two fingerbreadths, or if it has a hole the size of a sesame seed, it is not suitable for determination. If the hole is repaired, it can be determined again. The rest, such as abandoning the determination, is as explained in the three robes.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha atirekapattadhāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, sesavaṇṇanākkamo cīvaravaggassa paṭhamasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabboti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks regarding the matter of retaining an extra bowl, an exclusive rule. The remaining explanation is to be understood as stated in the manner of the first training rule of the robe section.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthi, concerning the group of six, in the case of keeping an extra bowl. It is a non-exclusive regulation. The rest of the explanation is to be understood as stated in the first training rule of the chapter on robes.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the six monks, regarding the possession of an extra bowl. It is a non-common rule. The rest of the explanation should be understood as explained in the first training rule of the Cīvaravagga.

2. Ūnapañcabandhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Less Than Five Bindings

2. Explanation of the Ūnapañcabandhana Sikkhāpada

Dutiye ūnāni pañca bandhanāni assāti ūnapañcabandhano, nāssa pañca bandhanāni pūrentīti attho, tena ūnapañcabandhanena, itthambhūtassa lakkhaṇe karaṇavacanaṃ. Tattha yasmā abandhanassāpi pañca bandhanāni na pūrenti sabbaso natthitāya, tenassa padabhājane “ūnapañcabandhano nāma patto abandhano vā ekabandhano vā”tiādi (pārā. 613) vuttaṃ. “Ūnapañcabandhanenā”ti ca vuttattā yassa pañcabandhano patto hoti pañcabandhanokāso vā, tassa so apatto, tasmā aññaṃ viññāpetuṃ vaṭṭati. Yasmiṃ pana patte mukhavaṭṭito heṭṭhā bhaṭṭhā dvaṅgulappamāṇā ekāpi rāji hoti, taṃ tassā rājiyā heṭṭhimapariyante pattavedhakena vijjhitvā pacitvā suttarajjukamakacirajjukādīhi vā tipusuttakena vā bandhitvā taṃ bandhanaṃ āmisassa alagganatthaṃ tipupaṭṭakena vā kenaci baddhasilesādinā vā paṭicchādetabbaṃ, so ca patto adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitabbo, sukhumaṃ vā chiddaṃ katvā bandhitabbo, phāṇitaṃ jhāpetvā pāsāṇacuṇṇena bandhitumpi vaṭṭati. Yassa pana dve rājiyo vā ekāyeva vā caturaṅgulā, tassa dve bandhanāni dātabbāni. Yassa tisso vā ekāyeva vā chaḷaṅgulā, tassa tīṇi. Yassa catasso vā ekāyeva vā aṭṭhaṅgulā, tassa cattāri. Yassa pañca vā ekāyeva vā dasaṅgulā, so baddhopi abaddhopi apattoyeva, añño viññāpetabbo, esa tāva mattikāpatte vinicchayo.

In the second, ūnapañcabandhana means having fewer than five bindings, that is, it does not fulfill five bindings—this is the meaning. Thus, with fewer than five bindings, the instrumental case indicates its characteristic nature. Since even a bowl with no bindings does not fulfill five bindings due to their complete absence, it is said in its analysis, “A bowl with fewer than five bindings is one with no bindings, or one binding,” and so forth (pārā. 613). Because it says “with fewer than five bindings,” a bowl with five bindings or space for five bindings is not such a bowl, and thus it is permissible to request another. However, for a bowl where, from the rim downward, there is even one line of two finger-widths fallen away, it should be pierced at the lower edge of that line with a bowl-piercer, repaired, and bound with thread, rope, hemp rope, or tin thread. To prevent food from sticking, that binding should be covered with a tin patch or something firmly affixed. Such a bowl should be determined and used. Alternatively, a fine hole may be made and bound, or it may be permissible to seal it with molasses and stone powder. For a bowl with two lines or a single four-finger-width line, two bindings should be given. For one with three lines or a single six-finger-width line, three bindings. For one with four lines or a single eight-finger-width line, four bindings. For one with five lines or a single ten-finger-width line, whether bound or unbound, it is not a bowl, and another should be requested. This is the determination for a clay bowl.

In the second, ūnapañcabandhano means having less than five bindings; meaning that its five bindings are not complete. “By one with less than five bindings” is an instrumental case indicating the characteristic of such a person. Because even one without bindings does not have five bindings complete due to their complete absence, in its grammatical analysis, it is stated, “A bowl with less than five bindings means one without bindings or with one binding,” and so on (Pārā. 613). And because it is stated “by one with less than five bindings,” for one who has a bowl with five bindings or the space for five bindings, that is not a bowl; therefore, it is permissible to request another. But on a bowl, below the rim, at a distance of two fingerbreadths, if there is even one line, having pierced that line at its lower end with a bowl-piercer, and having cooked it, it should be bound with thread, string, hemp cord, and so on, or with a leaden thread. That binding, to prevent food from sticking, should be covered with a leaden strip or with some binding glue or the like. That bowl should be determined and used. Or a fine hole should be made and bound; it is also permissible to bind it with melted jaggery and stone powder. For one who has two lines or only one four fingerbreadths wide, two bindings should be given. For one who has three or only one six fingerbreadths wide, three. For one who has four or only one eight fingerbreadths wide, four. For one who has five or only one ten fingerbreadths wide, whether bound or unbound, it is not a bowl; another should be requested. This is the determination for a clay bowl.

In the second, ūnapañcabandhano means a bowl with less than five bindings, or one whose five bindings are not complete. Thus, it is called “ūnapañcabandhano,” and the term “karaṇavacana” is used to indicate its characteristic. Since a bowl without any bindings also does not have five bindings, in the word analysis, it is said, “A bowl with less than five bindings is either without bindings or with one binding,” etc. (Pārā. 613). Because it is said, “With less than five bindings,” a bowl with five bindings or a space for five bindings is not suitable, and another should be requested. However, if a bowl has one binding from the rim downward, two fingerbreadths in length, it should be pierced at the lower edge of the binding with a bowl drill, cooked, and bound with thread, cord, or triple thread, or covered with a triple patch or any binding material like stone powder. The bowl should be determined and then used. A small hole should be made and bound, or it can be bound with molasses and stone powder. If a bowl has two bindings or one binding four fingerbreadths long, two bindings should be added. If it has three bindings or one binding six fingerbreadths long, three bindings should be added. If it has four bindings or one binding eight fingerbreadths long, four bindings should be added. If it has five bindings or one binding ten fingerbreadths long, it is not suitable, whether bound or not, and another should be requested. This is the determination for a clay bowl.

Ayopatte pana sacepi pañca vā atirekāni vā chiddāni honti, tāni ce ayacuṇṇena vā āṇiyā vā lohamaṇḍalena vā baddhāni maṭṭhāni honti, sveva paribhuñjitabbo, añño na viññāpetabbo. Atha pana ekampi chiddaṃ mahantaṃ hoti, lohamaṇḍalena baddhampi maṭṭhaṃ na hoti, patte āmisaṃ laggati, akappiyo hoti ayaṃ patto, añño viññāpetabbo. Yo pana evaṃ pattasaṅkhepagate vā ayopatte, ūnapañcabandhane vā mattikāpatte sati aññaṃ viññāpeti, payoge dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyo hoti, nissajjitabbo. Nissajjantena saṅghamajjhe eva nissajjitabbo, tena vuttaṃ “bhikkhuparisāya nissajjitabbo”ti. Yo ca tassā bhikkhuparisāyātiettha tehi bhikkhūhi pakatiyā eva attano attano adhiṭṭhitaṃ pattaṃ gahetvā sannipatitabbaṃ, tato sammatena pattaggāhāpakena pattassa vijjamānaguṇaṃ vatvā “bhante, imaṃ gaṇhathā”ti thero vattabbo. Sace therassa so patto na ruccati, appicchatāya vā na gaṇhāti, vaṭṭati. Tasmiṃ pana anukampāya agaṇhantassa dukkaṭaṃ. Sace pana gaṇhāti, therassa pattaṃ dutiyattheraṃ gāhāpetvā eteneva upāyena yāva saṅghanavakā gāhāpetabbo, tena pariccattapatto pana pattapariyanto nāma, so tassa bhikkhuno padātabbo. Tenāpi so yathā viññāpetvā gahitapatto, evameva sakkaccaṃ paribhuñjitabbo. Sace pana taṃ jigucchanto adese vā nikkhipati, aparibhogena vā paribhuñjati, vissajjeti vā, dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati.

For an iron bowl, even if it has five or more holes, if they are sealed and smoothed with iron powder, a rivet, or a metal patch, it may be used as is, and another should not be requested. However, if even one hole is large and, despite being sealed with a metal patch, it is not smooth and food sticks to the bowl, it becomes impermissible, and another should be requested. If one requests another bowl while having such a summarized bowl—an iron bowl—or a clay bowl with fewer than five bindings, there is an offense of wrong-doing in the effort, and it becomes nissaggiya upon receipt; it must be relinquished. It should be relinquished in the midst of the Saṅgha, as it is said, “It should be relinquished to the assembly of monks.” And to that assembly of monks—here, those monks should naturally gather, each taking their own determined bowl. Then, the appointed bowl-receiver, having stated the existing qualities of the bowl, should say to the elder, “Venerable sir, take this.” If the elder does not like that bowl or does not take it out of contentment, it is permissible. However, if he does not take it out of compassion, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If he takes it, the elder’s bowl should be given to the second elder, and by this method, it should be given up to the Saṅgha’s most junior monk. The bowl thus relinquished is called pattapariyanta, and it should be given to that monk. He, too, should respectfully use it as he would a bowl obtained by requesting. If he discards it out of disgust, leaves it in an improper place, uses it without care, or gives it away, he incurs an offense of wrong-doing.

In the case of an iron bowl, however, even if there are five or more holes, if they are bound with iron powder or with nails or with an iron plate and are smooth, it should be used; another should not be requested. But if even one hole is large, even if bound with an iron plate, it is not smooth, and food sticks to the bowl, this bowl is not allowable; another should be requested. One who, having such an iron bowl that is considered a bowl, or a clay bowl with less than five bindings, requests another, incurs a minor offense in the attempt; by obtaining it, it becomes subject to relinquishment; it should be relinquished. When relinquishing, it should be relinquished in the midst of the Sangha. Therefore, it is said, “It should be relinquished to the community of monks.” Yo ca tassā bhikkhuparisāyā means that those monks should gather, taking their own determined bowls as usual. Then, the appointed bowl-receiver, having stated the existing qualities of the bowl, should say to the elder, “Venerable Sir, take this.” If the elder does not like that bowl, or does not take it due to his few wants, it is permissible. But if he does not take it out of compassion, he incurs a minor offense. If he takes it, the elder’s bowl should be given to the second elder, and in this way, it should be given down to the newest member of the Sangha. The bowl that has been given up is called pattapariyanto, so tassa bhikkhuno padātabbo. He should use it respectfully, just as he used the bowl he obtained by requesting. But if he despises it, or puts it in an unsuitable place, or uses it without using it, or gives it away, he incurs a minor offense.

For an iron bowl, even if it has five or more holes, if they are bound with iron powder, lead, or an iron ring and are smooth, it can be used, and another should not be requested. However, if even one hole is large and, even if bound with an iron ring, is not smooth, and food sticks to the bowl, it is not suitable, and another should be requested. If, in such a case, one requests another bowl when an iron bowl is in the count or a clay bowl has less than five bindings, it is a dukkaṭa offense in the action and a nissaggiya offense upon receipt. It should be relinquished. When relinquishing, it should be relinquished in the midst of the Sangha, as said, “It should be relinquished to the community of monks.” Yo ca tassā bhikkhuparisāyā means that the monks should gather, each bringing their own determined bowl, and a bowl examiner should be appointed. He should state the bowl’s existing qualities and say, “Venerable sir, take this.” If the elder does not like the bowl, he may not take it out of humility, and that is acceptable. However, if he does not take it out of compassion, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If he takes it, the elder’s bowl should be given to the second elder, and so on up to the ninth monk. The bowl thus given is called pattapariyanto, so tassa bhikkhuno padātabbo. He should use it carefully as he requested. If he discards it, places it aside, uses it without care, or gives it away, he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

Sakkesu chabbaggiye ārabbha bahū patte viññāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ , abandhanena abandhanaṃ, ekabandhanaṃ, dubandhanaṃ, tibandhanaṃ, catubbandhanaṃ, abandhanokāsaṃ, ekadviticatubbandhanokāsaṃ cetāpeti, evaṃ ekekena pattena dasadhā dasavidhaṃ pattaṃ. Cetāpanavasena pana ekaṃ nissaggiyapācittiyasataṃ hoti. Naṭṭhapattassa, bhinnapattassa, attano ñātakappavārite, aññassa ca ñātakappavārite, tassevatthāya viññāpentassa, attano dhanena gaṇhato, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Adhiṭṭhānupagapattassa ūnapañcabandhanatā, attuddesikatā, akataviññatti , tāya ca paṭilābhoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni dhovāpanasikkhāpade vuttanayānevāti.

It was laid down in Sakkā concerning the group of six monks regarding the matter of requesting many bowls, a common rule, without instruction. Binding an unbound bowl with no bindings, one binding, two bindings, three bindings, four bindings, a space for no bindings, or a space for one, two, three, or four bindings—thus, each single bowl becomes tenfold in ten ways. By the act of bartering, it amounts to a hundred nissaggiya pācittiya offenses. For a lost bowl, a broken bowl, one requested from one’s own relatives or those invited by them, one requested for another’s sake, one taken with one’s own wealth, or in the case of the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are four: the bowl’s inability to be determined, its designation for oneself, the absence of a request, and its receipt through that. The origin and so forth are as stated in the manner of the washing training rule.

It was promulgated among the Sakyans, concerning the group of six, in the case of requesting many bowls. It is a non-exclusive regulation, not requiring an order, a triple offense requiring expiation. For one who thinks there is more than a month and a half when there is less, or for one who is doubtful, there is a minor offense; likewise, for one who lets his body get wet in the rain when naked while having a rain cloth. But when bathing in a pond and so on, or for one whose robe is not torn, or for one whose robe is lost, or in emergencies such as when saying, “Thieves are taking the robe that is not worn,” or for the insane, and so on, there is no offense. Here, the factors for the offense of requesting are: the rain cloth being for oneself, requesting at the wrong time, and obtaining it. The factors for the offense of wearing are: having a robe, the absence of an emergency, the rain cloth being one’s own, and wearing it at the wrong time. The origination and so on are as stated in the training rule on washing.

This rule was established among the Sakyans concerning the six monks, regarding the request for many bowls. It is a common rule, an anāṇattika. For one who requests without bindings, with one binding, two bindings, three bindings, four bindings, a space for bindings, or one, two, three, or four bindings, it is tenfold for each bowl. Thus, there are a hundred nissaggiya pācittiya offenses. There is no offense for a lost bowl, a broken bowl, one’s own relative’s bowl, another’s relative’s bowl, requesting for another’s benefit, taking with one’s own wealth, or for the insane, etc. The four factors here are: the bowl being suitable for determination, the intention for oneself, not having made an assignment, and obtaining it through that. The origins, etc., are as explained in the dhovāpana sikkhāpada.

3. Bhesajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Medicines

3. Explanation of the Bhesajja Sikkhāpada

Tatiye paṭisāyanīyānīti paṭisāyitabbāni, paribhuñjitabbānīti attho. Etena sayaṃ uggahetvā nikkhittānaṃ sattāhātikkamepi anāpattiṃ dasseti, tāni hi paṭisāyituṃ na vaṭṭanti. Bhesajjānīti bhesajjakiccaṃ karontu vā, mā vā, evaṃ laddhavohārāni. Sappi nāma gavādīnaṃ sappi, yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappati, tesaṃ sappi. Tathā navanītaṃ. Telaṃ nāma tilasāsapamadhūkaeraṇḍakavasādīhi nibbattitaṃ. Madhu nāma makkhikāmadhumeva. Phāṇitaṃ nāma ucchurasaṃ upādāya pana apakkā vā avatthukapakkā vā sabbāpi ucchuvikati “phāṇita”nti veditabbaṃ. Tāni paṭiggahetvāti tāni bhesajjāni paṭiggahetvā, na tesaṃ vatthūni. Etena ṭhapetvā vasātelaṃ yānettha yāvakālikavatthukāni, tesaṃ vatthūni paṭiggahetvā katāni sappiādīni sattāhaṃ atikkāmayatopi anāpattiṃ dasseti. Vasātelaṃ pana kāle paṭiggahitaṃ kāle nipakkaṃ kāle saṃsaṭṭhaṃ telaparibhogena paribhuñjituṃ anuññātaṃ, tasmā ṭhapetvā manussavasaṃ aññaṃ yaṃkañci vasaṃ purebhattaṃ paṭiggahetvā sāmaṃ pacitvā nibbattitatelampi sattāhaṃ nirāmisaparibhogena vaṭṭati. Anupasampannena pacitvā dinnaṃ pana tadahupurebhattaṃ sāmisampi vaṭṭati, aññesaṃ yāvakālikavatthūnaṃ vatthuṃ pacituṃ na vaṭṭatiyeva. Nibbattitasappi vā navanītaṃ vā pacituṃ vaṭṭati, taṃ pana tadahupurebhattampi sāmisaṃ paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati. Purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitakhīrādito anupasampannena pacitvā katasappiādīni pana tadahupurebhattaṃ sāmisānipi vaṭṭanti, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya anajjhoharaṇīyāni, sattāhātikkamepi anāpatti. Sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbānīti sannidhiṃ katvā nidahitvā purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitāni tadahupurebhattaṃ sāmisaparibhogenāpi vaṭṭanti, pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya pana tāni ca, pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitāni ca sattāhaṃ nirāmisaparibhogena paribhuñjitabbānīti attho. “Paribhuñjitabbānī”ti ca vacanato antosattāhe abbhañjanādīnaṃ atthāya adhiṭṭhahitvā ṭhapitesu anāpatti, yāvajīvikāni sāsapamadhūkaeraṇḍakaaṭṭhīni telakaraṇatthaṃ paṭiggahetvā tadaheva katatelaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ, dutiyadivase kataṃ chāhaṃ vaṭṭati, tatiyadivase kataṃ pañcāhaṃ, catutthapañcamachaṭṭhasattamadivase kataṃ tadaheva vaṭṭati. Sace yāva aruṇassa uggamanā tiṭṭhati, nissaggiyaṃ hoti, aṭṭhamadivase kataṃ anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ, anissaggiyattā pana bāhiraparibhogena vaṭṭati. Sacepi na karoti, telatthāya paṭiggahitasāsapādīnaṃ pana pāḷiyaṃ anāgatasappiādīnañca sattāhātikkame dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Sītudakena katamadhūkapupphaphāṇitaṃ pana phāṇitagatikameva, ambaphāṇitādīni yāvakālikāni. Yaṃ panettha sattāhakālikaṃ, taṃ nissaṭṭhaṃ paṭilabhitvāpi aruādīni vā makkhetuṃ, ajjhoharituṃ vā na vaṭṭati. Padīpe kāḷavaṇṇe vā upanetabbaṃ, aññassa bhikkhuno kāyikaparibhogaṃ vaṭṭati. Yaṃ pana nirapekkho pariccajitvā puna labhati, taṃ ajjhoharitumpi vaṭṭati. Visuṃ ṭhapitasappiādīsu, ekabhājane vā amissitesu vatthugaṇanāya āpattiyo.

In the third, paṭisāyanīya means to be used up, that is, to be consumed—this is the meaning. This indicates that there is no offense even if seven days pass for medicines taken up and set aside by oneself, for they are not permissible to be used up. Bhesajja means those known as such, whether they serve a medicinal purpose or not. Sappi means ghee from cows and the like, from those whose flesh is permissible. Likewise, navanīta is fresh butter. Tela means oil produced from sesame, mustard, madhūka, castor, and so forth. Madhu means only bee honey. Phāṇita means all sugarcane derivatives, whether unripe or ripened without a base, starting from sugarcane juice, to be understood as “phāṇita.” Having received them means having received those medicines, not their bases. This indicates that, except for fat oil, there is no offense for letting ghee and the like made from bases that are time-limited pass beyond seven days. However, fat oil, if received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, and mixed at the proper time, is permitted to be used with oil consumption. Thus, except for human fat, any fat received before noon, cooked by oneself, and turned into oil is permissible for seven days with non-meat consumption. If cooked and given by an unordained person, it is permissible even with meat on that day before noon. However, the bases of other time-limited items must not be cooked. Ghee or fresh butter produced may be cooked, but it must not be consumed with meat even on that day before noon. Ghee and the like made by an unordained person from milk and so forth received before noon are permissible with meat on that day before noon, but from after noon onward, they are not to be consumed internally, and there is no offense if seven days pass. To be consumed while keeping in store means that those received before noon and kept in store are permissible with meat consumption on that day before noon; from after noon onward, both those and ones received after noon are to be consumed with non-meat consumption for seven days—this is the meaning. Because it says “to be consumed,” there is no offense if they are determined and kept for purposes like anointing within seven days. Seeds of mustard, madhūka, and castor received for oil-making on that day, if made into oil on that day, are time-limited for seven days; if made on the second day, six days; on the third day, five days; on the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh day, only that day. If it remains until the rising of dawn, it becomes nissaggiya. If made on the eighth day, it is not to be consumed internally, but since it is not nissaggiya, it is permissible for external use. If one does not make it, there is an offense of wrong-doing for letting mustard seeds and the like received for oil, or ghee and so forth not mentioned in the text, pass beyond seven days. Madhūka flower phāṇita made with cold water follows the nature of phāṇita; mango phāṇita and the like are time-limited. What is time-limited for seven days here, even if relinquished and received back, must not be used to smear wounds or consumed internally. It should be used in a lamp or for blackening; it is permissible for another monk’s physical use. What one relinquishes without attachment and later receives back may be consumed internally. For ghee and the like kept separately or unmixed in one container, offenses arise by the count of bases.

In the third, paṭisāyanīyānī means what should be enjoyed, meaning what should be consumed. By this, it shows that there is no offense even if what has been received and stored by oneself exceeds seven days, for those are not suitable to be enjoyed. Bhesajjānī means those that are called medicines, whether they perform the function of medicine or not. Sappi means ghee from cows and so on; ghee from those whose meat is allowable. Likewise, navanītaṃ. Telaṃ means oil extracted from sesame, mustard, madhūka, castor, and fat, and so on. Madhu means only bee’s honey. Phāṇitaṃ means, taking the juice of sugarcane, all sugarcane products, whether uncooked or cooked without solids, should be understood as “phāṇita.” Tāni paṭiggahetvā means having received those medicines, not their ingredients. By this, excluding oil from fat, it shows that there is no offense even if ghee and so on, made by receiving the ingredients of those that are here lifetime requisites, exceed seven days. But oil from fat, received in time, cooked in time, mixed in time, is allowed to be consumed with oil consumption. Therefore, excluding human fat, having received any other fat before noon, and having cooked it oneself, even the resulting oil is allowable for seven days with non-food consumption. But what is cooked and given by a non-ordained person is allowable even with food before noon on that day; it is not permissible to cook the ingredients of other lifetime requisites. It is permissible to cook the resulting ghee or butter, but it is not permissible to consume it with food even before noon on that day. Ghee and so on, made by a non-ordained person from milk and so on received before noon, are allowable even with food before noon on that day; from after noon, they are not to be ingested, even if seven days have not passed, there is no offense. Sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbānī means having made a deposit, having stored them, those received before noon are allowable even with food consumption before noon on that day; but from after noon, those, and those received after noon, should be consumed for seven days with non-food consumption. Because it is said “should be consumed,” there is no offense for those determined and kept for the purpose of anointing and so on within seven days. Having received lifetime requisites, sesame, madhūka, castor seeds for making oil, the oil made on that day is a seven-day requisite; what is made on the second day is allowable for six days; what is made on the third day, for five days; what is made on the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh days is allowable only on that day. If it remains until the rising of the dawn, it becomes subject to relinquishment; what is made on the eighth day is not to be ingested; but because it is not subject to relinquishment, it is allowable for external use. Even if one does not make it, one incurs a minor offense for exceeding seven days for sesame and so on received for oil, and for ghee and so on not mentioned in the Text. But jaggery made with cold water from madhūka flowers is included in jaggery; mango jaggery and so on are lifetime requisites. What is here a seven-day requisite, even having obtained it discarded, it is not permissible to smear on wounds and so on, or to ingest it. It should be used in lamps or for black color; it is allowable for bodily use by another monk. But what one obtains again after having given it up without attachment, it is permissible even to ingest it. In the case of ghee and so on kept separately, or mixed in one vessel, the offenses are according to the number of items.

In the third, paṭisāyanīyānī means what should be accepted, that is, what should be used. This indicates that there is no offense even if the seven-day period is exceeded for items that one has taken and set aside oneself, as they are not suitable to be accepted again. Bhesajjānī refers to items that are used for medicinal purposes or not, as they are commonly understood. Sappi means the butter of cows, etc., whose meat is permissible; their butter is also permissible. Similarly, navanītaṃ (fresh butter). Telaṃ refers to oil produced from sesame, mustard, madhūka, eranda, etc. Madhu means only honey produced by bees. Phāṇitaṃ refers to molasses derived from sugarcane juice, but all types of sugarcane products, whether unrefined or partially refined, should be understood as “phāṇita.” Tāni paṭiggahetvā means having accepted those medicinal items, but not their containers. This indicates that except for vasātela (stored oil), which is permissible for use with oil-based items, other items like butter, etc., if accepted and prepared, even if the seven-day period is exceeded, there is no offense. Vasātela, however, if accepted at the proper time, properly prepared, and properly mixed, is permitted to be used with oil-based items. Therefore, except for human fat, any other fat accepted before the meal, cooked by oneself, and turned into oil is permissible for seven days when used without meat-based items. If prepared by a non-ordained person and given on the same day before the meal, it is permissible even with meat-based items. For other temporary items, it is not permissible to cook their containers. However, it is permissible to cook butter or fresh butter that has been produced, but it is not permissible to consume it with meat-based items on the same day before the meal. Butter, etc., prepared from milk accepted before the meal and cooked by a non-ordained person is permissible with meat-based items on the same day before the meal, but after the meal, they are not to be consumed, and there is no offense even if the seven-day period is exceeded. Sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbānī means items accepted before the meal and stored for later use are permissible to be consumed with meat-based items on the same day before the meal, but after the meal, they are to be consumed without meat-based items for seven days. The phrase “paribhuñjitabbānī” indicates that there is no offense if items like ointments, etc., are set aside for use within seven days. Items like sesame, madhūka, eranda, and bones accepted for the purpose of making oil, if turned into oil on the same day, are permissible for seven days; if prepared on the second day, they are permissible for six days; if prepared on the third day, for five days; if prepared on the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh day, they are permissible only on that day. If they remain until sunrise, they become forfeited; if prepared on the eighth day, they are not to be consumed, but since they are not forfeited, they are permissible for external use. If one does not prepare them, there is a dukkaṭa offense for exceeding the seven-day period for the sesame, etc., accepted for oil, as well as for the butter, etc., not yet produced. Molasses made from madhūka flowers with cold water follows the same rules as phāṇita. Molasses from mango, etc., are temporary items. What is permissible for seven days here, even if recovered after being discarded, is not permissible to be used for anointing or consuming. It should be offered for lamps or for black dye, or it is permissible for another monk’s bodily use. However, what one has relinquished without concern and later regains is permissible to consume. For separately stored butter, etc., or for items mixed in one vessel, offenses are counted based on the number of items.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha sattāhaṃ atikkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesaṃ cīvaravaggassa paṭhamasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several monks regarding the matter of exceeding seven days, the rest is to be understood as stated in the manner of the first training rule of the robe section.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthi, concerning many monks, in the case of exceeding seven days. The rest should be understood as stated in the first training rule of the chapter on robes.

In Sāvatthī, regarding several monks, the rule was established for the case of exceeding the seven-day period. The rest should be understood in the same way as the first training rule in the Cīvaravagga.

4. Vassikasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Rains Cloths

4. Explanation of the Vassikasāṭikasikkhāpada

Catutthe māso seso gimhānanti catunnaṃ gimhamāsānaṃ eko pacchimamāso seso. Pariyesitabbanti gimhānaṃ pacchimamāsassa paṭhamadivasato paṭṭhāya yāva kattikamāsassa pacchimadivaso, tāva “kālo vassikasāṭikāyā”tiādinā satuppādakaraṇena, saṅghassa pavāritaṭṭhānato, attano ñātakappavāritaṭṭhānato pana “detha me vassikasāṭikacīvara”ntiādikāya viññattiyāpi pariyesitabbaṃ. Aññātakaappavāritaṭṭhāne satuppādaṃ karontassa vattabhede dukkaṭaṃ, yathā vā tathā vā “detha me”tiādivacanena viññāpentassa aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadena nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Katvā nivāsetabbanti gimhānaṃ pacchimaddhamāsassa paṭhamadivasato paṭṭhāya yāva kattikamāsassa pacchimadivaso, tāva sūcikammaniṭṭhānena sakimpi vaṇṇabhedamattarajanena kappabindukaraṇena ca katvā paridahitabbā. Ettāvatā gimhānaṃ pacchimo māso pariyesanakkhettaṃ , pacchimo addhamāso karaṇanivāsanakkhettampi, vassānassa catūsu māsesu sabbampi taṃ vaṭṭatīti ayamattho dassito hoti. Yo cāyaṃ gimhānaṃ pacchimo māso anuññāto, ettha katapariyesitampi vassikasāṭikaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace tasmiṃ māse atikkante vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhiyati, puna māsaparihāraṃ labhati, dhovitvā pana nikkhipitvā vassūpanāyikadivase adhiṭṭhātabbā. Sace satisammosena vā appahonakabhāvena vā akatā hoti. Te ca dve māse vassānassa catumāsanti cha māse parihāraṃ labhati. Sace pana kattikamāse kathinaṃ atthariyati, aparepi cattāro māse labhati, evaṃ dasa māsā honti. Tato parampi satiyā paccāsāya taṃ mūlacīvaraṃ katvā ṭhapentassa ekamāsanti evaṃ ekādasa māse parihāraṃ labhati, ito paraṃ ekāhampi na labhati.

In the fourth, a month remains of the summer means one final month remains of the four summer months. It should be sought means from the first day of the last month of summer until the last day of the Kattika month, it should be sought with a prompting statement like “It is time for the rains robe,” or even with a request like “Give me a rains robe cloth” from the Saṅgha’s invited place or one’s own relatives’ invited place. Prompting at an uninvited layperson’s place incurs an offense of wrong-doing for violating propriety; requesting with words like “Give me” in any way incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya under the training rule against requesting from unrelated persons. Having made it, it should be worn means from the first day of the last half-month of summer until the last day of the Kattika month, it should be made with completed needlework or even with dyeing of various colors or marking with a permissible dot and worn. Thus, the last month of summer is the field for seeking, the last half-month is the field for making and wearing, and during the four months of the rains, all this is permissible—this meaning is shown. This last month of summer that is allowed—here, even a rains robe sought and made cannot be determined. If the rains are extended beyond that month, it gains another month’s allowance; after washing and storing it, it should be determined on the day of entering the rains retreat. If it is not made due to confusion or insufficiency, it gains an allowance for six months—the two months plus the four months of the rains. If the kathina is spread in the Kattika month, it gains another four months, making ten months. Beyond that, if there is expectation, keeping that original cloth after making it gains one more month, thus an allowance for eleven months; beyond this, not even a single day is gained.

In the fourth, māso seso gimhāna means one last month of the four summer months remains. Pariyesitabba means from the first day of the last month of summer until the last day of the month of Kattika, it is “the time for the rains cloth” by producing an opportunity, and from a place authorized by the Sangha, or from a place authorized by one’s own relatives, it should be sought even by requesting, saying, “Give me a rains cloth robe,” and so on. For one who produces an opportunity at a place not authorized by relatives, there is a minor offense in violating the procedure; for one who requests with words such as “Give me,” and so on, in any way whatsoever, there is an offense requiring expiation with relinquishment according to the training rule on requesting from non-relatives. Katvā nivāsetabba means from the first day of the last half-month of summer until the last day of the month of Kattika, having completed it with needlework, even once, or with dye for color change, or with making a marking dot, it should be worn. Thus, the last month of summer is the field for seeking, and the last half-month is also the field for making and wearing; all of it is permissible during the four months of the rainy season. This is the meaning shown. During this last month of summer that is allowed, even a rains cloth that has been made and sought is not to be determined. If, after that month has passed, the rainy season is extended, one receives an extension of a month; having washed and put it away, it should be determined on the day of entering the rainy season. If it is not made due to forgetfulness or insufficiency, and those two months are the four months of the rainy season, one receives an extension of six months. If, however, the kathina is spread in the month of Kattika, one receives another four months; thus, it becomes ten months. Even beyond that, if there is expectation, keeping that original robe made and stored, one month—thus, one receives an extension of eleven months; beyond this, one does not receive even one day.

In the fourth, māso seso gimhāna means the last month of the four hot months. Pariyesitabba means that from the first day of the last month of the hot season until the last day of Kattika month, it is the time for seeking the rainy-season robe, as indicated by the phrase “kālo vassikasāṭikāyā.” It should be sought by making a request to the Saṅgha or one’s relatives, saying, “Give me a rainy-season robe.” If one makes a request in an inappropriate place, there is a dukkaṭa offense. If one verbally requests, saying, “Give me,” etc., it falls under the nissaggiya pācittiya offense for making a request to a non-relative. Katvā nivāsetabba means that from the first day of the last half-month of the hot season until the last day of Kattika month, it should be sewn and worn after completing the stitching, even if only a small amount of dye or a single stitch is applied. This shows that the last month of the hot season is the time for seeking, and the last half-month is the time for making and wearing. During the four months of the rainy season, all of this is permissible. The last month of the hot season is permitted for seeking, but even if the robe is sought during this time, it cannot be determined as a rainy-season robe. If the robe is not made within this month and the rainy season is delayed, one gets an additional month. If the robe is washed and stored, it should be determined on the day of entering the rains. If it is not made due to forgetfulness or negligence, one gets an additional two months, making six months in total. If the Kathina is spread in Kattika month, one gets an additional four months, making ten months in total. Beyond that, if one keeps the robe with the hope of making it into a basic robe, one gets an additional month, making eleven months in total. After that, not even a single day is allowed.

Orena ce māso seso gimhānanti gimhānaṃ pacchimamāsassa orimabhāge yāva hemantassa paṭhamadivaso, tāvāti attho. Pariyeseyyāti etesu sattasu piṭṭhisamayamāsesu aññātakaappavāritaṭṭhānato satuppādakaraṇena pariyesantassa nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ, viññāpentassa aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadena nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ, ñātakappavārite viññāpentassa tena sikkhāpadena anāpatti, satuppādaṃ karontassa iminā sikkhāpadena āpatti. Orenaddhamāso seso gimhānanti gimhānassa pacchimaddhamāsato orimabhāge ekasmiṃ addhamāse. Katvā nivāseyyāti etthantare dhammena uppannampi katvā nivāsentassa nissaggiyaṃ hoti.

If less than a month remains of the summer means in the earlier part of the last month of summer until the first day of winter—this is the meaning. He might seek means seeking with a prompting statement from an uninvited layperson’s place during these seven shoulder-season months incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya; requesting incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya under the training rule against requesting from unrelated persons; requesting from invited relatives incurs no offense under that rule, but prompting incurs an offense under this rule. If less than half a month remains of the summer means in the earlier part of one half-month from the last half-month of summer. Having made it, he might wear it means wearing it, even if lawfully obtained during that interval, incurs a nissaggiya.

Orena ce māso seso gimhāna means before the last month of summer, until the first day of winter. Pariyeseyyā means during these seven shoulder-covering months, for one who seeks by producing an opportunity from a place not authorized by relatives, there is an offense requiring expiation with relinquishment; for one who requests, there is an offense requiring expiation with relinquishment according to the training rule on requesting from non-relatives. For one who requests from authorized relatives, there is no offense according to that training rule; for one who produces an opportunity, there is an offense according to this training rule. Orenaddhamāso seso gimhāna means in one half-month before the last half-month of summer. Katvā nivāseyyā means for one who makes and wears even what has arisen legitimately within this period, there is an offense requiring relinquishment.

Orena ce māso seso gimhāna means the first half of the last month of the hot season until the first day of winter. Pariyeseyyā means that during these seven months, if one seeks from a non-relative in an inappropriate place, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. If one verbally requests, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense under the rule for making a request to a non-relative. If one requests from a relative, there is no offense under that rule. If one makes a request, it is an offense under this rule. Orenaddhamāso seso gimhāna means the first half of the last half-month of the hot season. Katvā nivāseyyā means that if one makes and wears it during this period, even if it is properly obtained, it is a nissaggiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha vassikasāṭikapariyesanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ūnakamāsaddhamāsesu atirekasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ, tathā satiyā vassikasāṭikāya naggassa kāyaṃ ovassāpayato. Pokkharaṇiyādīsu pana nhāyantassa vā acchinnacīvarassa vā naṭṭhacīvarassa vā “anivatthaṃ corā harantī”ti evaṃ āpadāsu vā nivāsayato ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Ettha ca vassikasāṭikāya attuddesikatā, asamaye pariyesanatā, tāya ca paṭilābhoti imāni tāva pariyesanāpattiyā tīṇi aṅgāni . Sacīvaratā, āpadābhāvo, vassikasāṭikāya sakabhāvo, asamaye nivāsananti imāni nivāsanāpattiyā cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni dhovāpanasikkhāpade vuttanayānevāti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks regarding the matter of seeking a rains robe, an exclusive rule, without instruction, a triple pācittiya. For one who perceives it as more or is uncertain in the deficient month or half-month, there is an offense of wrong-doing; likewise for one who, knowingly, bathes naked with a rains robe due to confusion. However, for one bathing in ponds and the like, or one whose robe is not torn or lost, or in emergencies like “Thieves are taking the unworn cloth,” or for wearing it, or in the case of the insane and so forth, there is no offense. Here, the factors for the seeking offense are three: designation of the rains robe for oneself, seeking it out of season, and its receipt through that. The factors for the wearing offense are four: having a robe, absence of emergency, the rains robe’s own nature, and wearing it out of season. The origin and so forth are as stated in the manner of the washing training rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthi, concerning the group of six monks, in the case of seeking a rains cloth. It is a non-exclusive regulation, not requiring an order, a triple offense requiring expiation. For one who thinks there is more than a month and a half when there is less, or for one who is doubtful, there is a minor offense; likewise, for one who lets his body get wet in the rain when naked while having a rains cloth. But when bathing in a pond and so on, or for one whose robe is not torn, or for one whose robe is lost, or in emergencies such as when saying, “Thieves are taking the robe that is not worn,” or for the insane, and so on, there is no offense. Here, the factors for the offense of seeking are: the rains cloth being for oneself, seeking at the wrong time, and obtaining it. The factors for the offense of wearing are: having a robe, the absence of an emergency, the rains cloth being one’s own, and wearing it at the wrong time. The origination and so on are as stated in the training rule on washing.

In Sāvatthī, regarding the Chabbaggiya monks, the rule was established for the case of seeking a rainy-season robe. It is a unique rule, non-announcement, and a tikapācittiya offense. For those who perceive more than the remaining month or half-month, or are in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Similarly, for one who, due to forgetfulness, wears the rainy-season robe while naked, there is no offense for bathing in a pond, etc., or for wearing it in emergencies, such as when thieves are taking away the robe, or for the insane, etc. Here, the three factors for the offense of seeking are: the robe is for oneself, seeking at an improper time, and obtaining the robe. The four factors for the offense of wearing are: having the robe, absence of an emergency, the robe being one’s own, and wearing it at an improper time. The origins, etc., should be understood in the same way as in the rule for washing.

5. Cīvaraacchindanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Taking Away a Robe

5. Explanation of the Cīvaraacchindanasikkhāpada

Pañcame sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ datvāti veyyāvaccādīni paccāsisamāno sayameva datvā. Acchindeyyāti veyyāvaccādīni akarontaṃ disvā sakasaññāya acchindantassa vatthugaṇanāya āpattiyo. Acchindāpeyyātiettha pana “acchindā”ti āṇattiyā dukkaṭaṃ, acchindesu yattakāni āṇattāni, tesaṃ gaṇanāya āpattiyo.

In the fifth, having personally given a robe means having given it oneself, expecting services and so forth in return. He might take it away means seeing that services and so forth are not performed, taking it away with the perception of ownership—offenses arise according to the count of items. He might cause it to be taken away—here, with the instruction “Take it away,” there is an offense of wrong-doing; for as many instructions as are given, offenses arise according to their count.

In the fifth, sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ datvā means giving the robe oneself, expecting services in return. Acchindeyyāti, if someone, seeing that a person is not performing services, takes away [a robe] with the thought that it is his own, incurs offenses according to the number of items. In the case of acchindāpeyyā, however, there is a dukkaṭa for ordering, “Take it away!”, and the offenses are according to the number of orders given to those who take it away.

In the fifth, sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ datvā means giving the robe oneself while expecting services in return. Acchindeyyā means seizing it upon seeing that the services are not being performed, with the intention of taking it for oneself. Offenses are counted based on the number of items. Acchindāpeyyā means ordering someone to seize it. Here, for each order, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Offenses are counted based on the number of orders given.

Sāvatthiyaṃ upanandaṃ ārabbha cīvaraacchindanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ. Anupasampanne upasampannasaññino, vematikassa, anupasampannasaññino vā, upasampannassāpi vikappanupagapacchimacīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ parikkhāraṃ, anupasampannassa ca yaṃkiñci acchindato vā dukkaṭaṃ. Tena tuṭṭhena vā kupitena vā dinnaṃ pana tassa vissāsaṃ vā gaṇhantassa ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Vikappanupagapacchimacīvaratā, sāmaṃ dinnatā, sakasaññitā, upasampannatā, kodhavasena acchindanaṃ vā acchindāpanaṃ vāti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni aññatra vedanāya. Vedanā pana idha dukkhavedanāyevāti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda regarding the matter of taking away a robe, a common rule, with instruction, a triple pācittiya. For one who perceives an unordained person as ordained, or is uncertain, or perceives them as unordained, or takes any requisite other than the last robe unfit for assignment from an ordained person, or anything from an unordained person, there is an offense of wrong-doing. However, if it is given by that person out of satisfaction or anger, or taken in trust by him, or in the case of the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are five: the last robe unfit for assignment, having been personally given, perception of ownership, the other’s ordained status, and taking it away or causing it to be taken away out of anger. The origin and so forth are similar to taking what is not given, except for feeling; here, the feeling is only displeasure.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda in the case of taking away a robe, it is a general rule, with instigation, a tikapācittiya. If a robe or anything else, except for the last robe that is not subject to determination, is taken away from one who is not fully ordained while thinking he is fully ordained, or while in doubt, or while knowing that he is not fully ordained, or even if he is fully ordained, or whatever is taken from a not fully ordained, there is a dukkaṭa. But if it is given by one who is pleased or angered, there is no offense for one who takes it because of trust, or for one who is insane, etc. That the last robe is not subject to determination, that it was given by oneself, the thought that it is one’s own, full ordination, taking away or causing to take away out of anger, these are the five factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of taking what is not given, except for the feeling. The feeling here, however, is only painful feeling.

In Sāvatthī, regarding Upananda, the rule was established for the case of seizing a robe. It is a common rule, announcement, and a tikapācittiya offense. For a non-ordained person, if one perceives them as ordained, is in doubt, or perceives them as non-ordained, or for an ordained person except for the last robe set aside for alteration, seizing any other accessory from a non-ordained person incurs a dukkaṭa offense. If given by someone who is pleased or angry, or if one takes it on trust, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The five factors here are: the robe is set aside for alteration, given by oneself, with the intention of taking it for oneself, the person is ordained, and the seizing or ordering to seize is done out of anger. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing, except for the feeling. Here, the feeling is only painful.

6. Suttaviññattisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Suttaviññattisikkhāpada

Chaṭṭhe suttanti chabbidhaṃ khomasuttādiṃ vā tesaṃ anulomaṃ vā. Viññāpetvāti cīvaratthāya yācitvā. Vāyāpeyyāti “cīvaraṃ me, āvuso, vāyathā”ti akappiyāya viññattiyā vāyāpeyya. Nissaggiyanti evaṃ vāyāpentassa yo tantavāyo cīvaravāyanatthaṃ turivemasajjanādike payoge karoti, tassa sabbappayogesu dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti.

In the sixth, sutta means the six kinds of thread, such as hemp, or anything in conformity with them. Having requested means having asked for it for the sake of a robe. He might have it woven means he might have it woven with an impermissible request, saying, “Friend, weave a robe for me.” Nissaggiya—for one who has it woven thus, when the weaver makes any effort for weaving the robe—such as preparing the loom—there is an offense of wrong-doing in all efforts; upon receipt, it becomes nissaggiya.

In the sixth, sutta means the six kinds of cloth made from cotton, etc., or anything similar to them. Viññāpetvāti means requesting for the purpose of a robe. Vāyāpeyyāti means, “Friend, weave a robe for me,” causing it to be woven by means of an improper request. Nissaggiyanti for one who causes it to be woven in this way, for every action of the weaver who prepares the loom, etc. for the purpose of weaving the robe, there is a dukkaṭa, and upon receiving it, it becomes to be forfeited.

In the sixth, sutta means six kinds of thread, such as hemp thread, or what is suitable for them. Viññāpetvā means having requested for the purpose of a robe. Vāyāpeyyā means saying, “Friend, weave a robe for me,” and having it woven through an improper request. Nissaggiya means that for one who has it woven in this way, the weaver who performs the work of weaving the robe, including preparing the loom, etc., incurs a dukkaṭa offense for each action, and upon obtaining the robe, it becomes nissaggiya.

Rājagahe chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha cīvaravāyāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, viññāpitasuttaṃ viññāpitatantavāyena vāyāpentassa dīghato vidatthimatte tiriyañca hatthamatte vīte nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Iti yāva cīvaraṃ vaḍḍhati, tāva iminā pamāṇena āpattiyo vaḍḍhanti. Teneva pana aviññattiyā laddhasuttaṃ vāyāpentassa yathā pubbe nissaggiyaṃ , evaṃ idha dukkaṭaṃ. Teneva viññattañca aviññattañca vāyāpentassa sace vuttappamāṇena kedārabaddhaṃ viya cīvaraṃ hoti, akappiyasuttamaye paricchede pācittiyaṃ, itarasmiṃ tatheva dukkaṭaṃ. Tato ce ūnatarā paricchedā, sabbaparicchedesu dukkaṭāneva. Atha ekantarikena vā suttena dīghato vā kappiyaṃ tiriyaṃ akappiyaṃ katvā vītaṃ hoti, pubbe vuttappamāṇagaṇanāya dukkaṭāni. Eteneva upāyena kappiyatantavāyena akappiyasutte, kappiyākappiyehi tantavāyehi suttepi kappiye akappiye kappiyākappiye ca āpattibhedo veditabbo. Tikapācittiyaṃ, avāyāpite vāyāpitasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Cīvarasibbanaāyogakāyabandhanaaṃsabaddhakapattatthavikaparissāvanānaṃ atthāya suttaṃ viññāpentassa, ñātakappavāritehi kappiyasuttaṃ vāyāpentassa, aññassatthāya, attano dhanena, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti, cīvaratthāya viññāpitasuttaṃ, attuddesikatā, akappiyatantavāyena akappiyaviññattiyā vāyāpananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni dhovāpanasikkhāpade vuttanayānevāti.

It was laid down in Rājagaha concerning the group of six monks regarding the matter of having a robe woven, a common rule, without instruction. For one who has requested thread woven by a weaver he requested, when woven one span in length and one handbreadth in width, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. Thus, as the robe grows, offenses increase by this measure. Therefore, for one having unrequested thread woven, as it was nissaggiya before, here it is an offense of wrong-doing. Thus, for one having both requested and unrequested thread woven, if the robe is made like a field’s boundary with the stated measure, there is a pācittiya for the portion made of impermissible thread, and an offense of wrong-doing for the other portion as before. If the portions are smaller, there are only offenses of wrong-doing for all portions. If it is woven alternately with permissible thread lengthwise and impermissible thread widthwise, there are offenses of wrong-doing by the count of the stated measure. By this method, the distinction of offenses should be understood for impermissible thread with a permissible weaver, and for permissible and impermissible thread with both permissible and impermissible weavers. A triple pācittiya; for one who perceives it as woven when not woven, or is uncertain, there is an offense of wrong-doing. For one requesting thread for sewing a robe, a strap, a shoulder strap, a bowl bag, or a filter, or having permissible thread woven by invited relatives, or for another’s sake, or with one’s own wealth, or in the case of the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are three: thread requested for a robe, designation for oneself, and having it woven by an impermissible weaver with an impermissible request. The origin and so forth are as stated in the manner of the washing training rule.

It was laid down in Rājagaha concerning the group of six monks in the case of causing a robe to be woven, it is a general rule, without instigation, if a robe, made of requested thread, is woven by a requested weaver, to the length of a span and to the width of a hand’s breadth, it becomes to be forfeited, a pācittiya. Thus, as long as the robe grows, the offenses increase according to this measure. But for one who causes thread obtained without request to be woven, just as there was a nissaggiya before, so here there is a dukkaṭa. If one causes both requested and unrequested thread to be woven, if the robe becomes like a bounded field according to the stated measure, there is a pācittiya in the section made of improper thread, and a dukkaṭa in the other, as before. If the sections are less than that, there are only dukkaṭas in all sections. If it is woven with alternate threads, lengthwise with proper thread and crosswise with improper thread, there are dukkaṭas according to the previously stated measure. In the same way, the difference in offenses should be understood in the case of improper thread with a proper weaver, and in the case of proper and improper weavers and threads, both proper and improper. It is a tikapācittiya, there is a dukkaṭa for one who thinks it was woven when it was not, or for one who is in doubt. There is no offense for one who requests thread for the purpose of sewing a robe, knitting a waist-band, a shoulder-strap, a bag, a filter-cloth, or for one who causes proper thread to be woven by weavers who are relatives or have given permission, or for the sake of another, or with one’s own wealth, or for one who is insane, etc., that the thread was requested for the purpose of a robe, that it was for one’s own use, that it was caused to be woven by an improper weaver with an improper request, these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are the same as stated in the training rule about causing to wash.

In Rājagaha, regarding the Chabbaggiya monks, the rule was established for the case of having a robe woven. It is a common rule, non-announcement, and for one who has the thread requested and has it woven by the requested weaver, if the robe exceeds the length of a span and a half and the width of a span, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. Thus, as long as the robe increases, the offenses increase according to this measure. Similarly, for one who has the thread obtained without a request and has it woven, the nissaggiya offense is the same as before, but here it is a dukkaṭa offense. Similarly, for one who has both requested and unrequested thread woven, if the robe is like a field bound by the stated measure, there is a pācittiya offense for the portion made of improper thread, and a dukkaṭa offense for the rest. If it is less than that measure, there are only dukkaṭa offenses for all portions. If, by adding a single thread, the length becomes proper but the width improper, or vice versa, the offenses are counted as previously stated. In this way, the distinctions of offenses should be understood for proper weavers with improper thread, proper and improper weavers with proper and improper thread, etc. It is a tikapācittiya offense. For one who has it woven without a request, or perceives it as requested, or is in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who requests thread for the purpose of sewing a robe, binding the body, tying the shoulder, making a bowl cover, or a sitting cloth, or for one who has proper thread woven by relatives, or for another’s purpose, or with one’s own wealth, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: the thread is requested for the purpose of a robe, it is for oneself, and it is woven by an improper weaver through an improper request. The origins, etc., should be understood in the same way as in the rule for washing.

7. Mahāpesakārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Mahāpesakārasikkhāpada

Sattame tatra ce so bhikkhūti yatra gāme vā nigame vā tantavāyā, tatra. Pubbe appavāritoti cīvarasāmikehi appavārito hutvā . Vikappaṃ āpajjeyyāti visiṭṭhakappaṃ adhikavidhānaṃ āpajjeyya. Idāni yenākārena vikappaṃ āpanno hoti, taṃ dassetuṃ idaṃ kho, āvusotiādi vuttaṃ. Tattha āyatanti dīghaṃ. Vitthatanti puthulaṃ. Appitanti ghanaṃ. Suvītanti suṭṭhu vītaṃ, sabbaṭṭhānesu samaṃ katvā vītaṃ. Suppavāyitanti suṭṭhu pavāyitaṃ, sabbaṭṭhānesu samaṃ katvā tante pasāritaṃ. Suvilekhitanti lekhaniyā suṭṭhu vilekhitaṃ. Suvitacchitanti kocchena suṭṭhu vitacchitaṃ, suṭṭhu niddhotanti attho. Piṇḍapātamattampīti ettha ca na bhikkhuno piṇḍapātadānamattena taṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti, sace pana te tassa vacanena cīvarasāmikānaṃ hatthato suttaṃ gahetvā īsakampi āyataṃ vā vitthataṃ vā appitaṃ vā karonti, atha tesaṃ payoge bhikkhuno dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti.

In the seventh, if that monk there means in the village or town where the weavers are. Not previously invited means not having been invited by the robe’s owners. Might enter into an assignment means he might enter into a specific assignment or additional specification. Now, to show how he enters into an assignment, it says this, friend and so forth. Here, āyata means long. Vitthata means wide. Appita means thick. Suvīta means well-woven, evenly woven in all parts. Suppavāyita means well-stretched, evenly spread on the loom in all parts. Suvilekhita means well-scraped with a shuttle. Suvitacchita means well-cleaned with a comb, well-purified—this is the meaning. Even a mere alms bowl—here, it does not become nissaggiya for the monk merely by giving an alms bowl; however, if they, at his word, take thread from the hands of the robe’s owners and make it even slightly long, wide, or thick, then there is an offense of wrong-doing for the monk in their effort, and it becomes nissaggiya upon receipt.

In the seventh, tatra ce so bhikkhūti means in the village or town where the weavers are. Pubbe appavāritoti means not having been previously authorized by the owners of the robe. Vikappaṃ āpajjeyyāti means he should make a special arrangement, an additional specification. Now, to show the way in which he has made a special arrangement, it is said, idaṃ kho, āvuso, etc. Therein, āyatanti means long. Vitthatanti means wide. Appitanti means dense. Suvītanti means well woven, woven evenly in all places. Suppavāyitanti means well stretched, the threads stretched evenly in all places. Suvilekhitanti means well smoothed with a smoother. Suvitacchitanti means well carded with a comb, meaning well cleaned. Piṇḍapātamattampīti here, it does not become to be forfeited merely by the monk giving almsfood, but if, because of his words, they take thread from the hands of the owners of the robe and make it even a little longer, wider, or denser, then for those actions of theirs, there is a dukkaṭa for the monk, and upon receiving it, it becomes to be forfeited.

In the seventh, tatra ce so bhikkhū means wherever in a village or town there are weavers. Pubbe appavārito means not having been invited beforehand by the owners of the robe. Vikappaṃ āpajjeyyā means making a special arrangement or excessive instructions. To explain the manner in which the arrangement is made, idaṃ kho, āvuso is said. Here, āyata means long. Vitthata means wide. Appita means thick. Suvīta means well-woven, evenly woven in all places. Suppavāyita means well-spread, evenly spread in all places on the loom. Suvilekhita means well-marked with a marking tool. Suvitacchita means well-scraped with a scraper, well-washed, meaning thoroughly cleaned. Piṇḍapātamattampī means that even if the monk gives alms food, it does not become nissaggiya. However, if the owners of the robe, following his words, take the thread from their hands and make it even slightly long, wide, or thick, then for their actions, the monk incurs a dukkaṭa offense, and upon obtaining it, it becomes nissaggiya.

Sāvatthiyaṃ upanandaṃ ārabbha cīvare vikappaṃ āpajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ñātake aññātakasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Ñātakappavāritānaṃ tantavāyehi, aññassa vā atthāya, attano vā dhanena, mahagghaṃ vāyāpetukāmaṃ appagghaṃ vāyāpentassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Aññātakaappavāritānaṃ tantavāye upasaṅkamitvā vikappamāpajjanatā, cīvarassa attuddesikatā, tassa vacanena suttavaḍḍhanaṃ, cīvarappaṭilābhoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni dhovāpanasikkhāpade vuttanayānevāti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda regarding the matter of entering into an assignment for a robe, a common rule, without instruction, a triple pācittiya. For one who perceives relatives as unrelated, or is uncertain, there is an offense of wrong-doing. For weavers invited by relatives, or for another’s sake, or with one’s own wealth, or having an inexpensive robe woven when intending an expensive one, or in the case of the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are four: approaching uninvited weavers and entering into an assignment, designation of the robe for oneself, their increasing the thread at his word, and receipt of the robe. The origin and so forth are as stated in the manner of the washing training rule.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda in the case of making a special arrangement for a robe, it is a general rule, without instigation, a tikapācittiya, there is a dukkaṭa for one who thinks they are not relatives when they are, or for one who is in doubt. There is no offense for one who causes [a robe] to be woven by weavers who are relatives or have given permission, or for the sake of another, or with one’s own wealth, or for one who wishes to have an expensive robe woven cheaply, or for one who is insane, etc. That he goes to weavers who are not relatives and have not given permission and makes a special arrangement, that the robe is for his own use, that the thread is increased because of his words, that he receives the robe, these are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are the same as stated in the training rule about causing to wash.

In Sāvatthī, regarding Upananda, the rule was established for the case of making an arrangement regarding a robe. It is a common rule, non-announcement, and a tikapācittiya offense. For relatives, if one perceives them as non-relatives, or is in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For weavers invited by relatives, or for another’s purpose, or with one’s own wealth, or for one who wants to have an expensive robe woven cheaply, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are: approaching weavers not invited by non-relatives, making an arrangement, the robe being for oneself, and obtaining the robe through one’s words. The origins, etc., should be understood in the same way as in the rule for washing.

8. Accekacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Accekacīvarasikkhāpada

Aṭṭhame dasāhānāgatanti dasa ahāni dasāhaṃ, tena dasāhena anāgatā dasāhānāgatā, dasāhena asampattāti attho, taṃ dasāhānāgataṃ, accantasaṃyogavasena bhummatthe upayogavacanaṃ. Kattikatemāsikapuṇṇamanti paṭhamakattikapuṇṇamaṃ, idhāpi paṭhamapadassa anupayogatā purimanayeneva bhummatthe upayogavacanaṃ. Idaṃ vuttaṃ hoti – yato paṭṭhāya paṭhamappavāraṇā “dasāhānāgatā”ti vuccati, sacepi tāni divasāni accantameva bhikkhuno accekacīvaraṃ uppajjeyya, “accekaṃ ida”nti jānamānena bhikkhunā sabbampi paṭiggahetabbanti. Tena pavāraṇāmāsassa juṇhapakkhapañcamito paṭṭhāya uppannassa cīvarassa nidhānakālo dassito hoti. Kāmañcesa “dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretabba”ntiimināva siddho, aṭṭhuppattivasena pana apubbaṃ viya atthaṃ dassetvā sikkhāpadaṃ ṭhapitaṃ. Accekacīvaranti gamikagilānagabbhiniabhinavuppannasaddhānaṃ puggalānaṃ aññatarena “vassāvāsikaṃ dassāmī”ti evaṃ ārocetvā dinnaṃ. Sace taṃ pure pavāraṇāya vibhajitaṃ, yena gahitaṃ, tena vassacchedo na kātabbo, karoti ce, taṃ cīvaraṃ saṅghikaṃ hoti. Yāva cīvarakālasamayanti anatthate kathine yāva vassānassa pacchimo māso, atthate kathine yāva pañca māsā, tāva nikkhipitabbaṃ.

In the eighth, ten days not yet come means ten days; with ten days not yet arrived, it is dasāhānāgata—not reached by ten days—this is the meaning. That which is ten days not yet come, the accusative case is used in the sense of continuous connection to denote the locative. The full moon of the Kattika three-month period means the first Kattika full moon; here too, the accusative case for the first word is used in the locative sense as before due to its non-application. This is said: From the time when the first invitation is called “ten days not yet come,” even if those days entirely pass and an acceka robe arises for the monk, knowing “This is acceka,” all of it should be received by the monk. Thus, the time for storing a robe arising from the fifth day of the bright half of the invitation month is indicated. Although this is established by “An extra robe may be kept for a maximum of ten days,” due to the origin story, the training rule is laid down as if showing a new meaning. Accekacīvara means a robe given by an individual—such as a traveler, a sick person, a pregnant woman, or a newly faithful person—after declaring, “I will give it for the rains residence.” If it is divided before the invitation, the one who takes it must not interrupt the rains; if he does, that robe becomes Saṅgha property. Until the time of the robe season means it may be kept until the last month of the rains if the kathina is not spread, or for five months if the kathina is spread.

In the eighth, dasāhānāgatanti ten days is dasāhaṃ, not yet arrived by those ten days is dasāhānāgatā, meaning not yet reached by those ten days, that is dasāhānāgataṃ, the locative case is used in the sense of an absolute construction. Kattikatemāsikapuṇṇamanti the full moon of the first Kattika month, here too, the non-use of the first word is as before, the locative case is used in the sense of an absolute construction. This is what is said – starting from when the first invitation is called “dasāhānāgatā”, even if those days are completely past, a monk should accept all urgent robes, knowing, “This is urgent”. Thus, the time for keeping a robe that arises from the fifth day of the bright half of the month of invitation onwards is shown. Although this is established by “A robe that is extra may be kept for ten days at most”, it is presented as a new matter, showing the meaning, and the training rule is established based on the occurrence. Accekacīvaranti a robe given to one of the following persons: a traveler, a sick person, a pregnant woman, or one who has newly gained faith, having announced, “I will give a rains-residence robe”. If it is distributed before the invitation, it should not be taken by the one who received it as breaking the rains-residence, if he does, that robe becomes the property of the Saṅgha. Yāva cīvarakālasamayanti if the kaṭhina has not been spread, until the last month of the rains-residence, if the kaṭhina has been spread, until the five months, it should be kept.

In the eighth, dasāhānāgata means ten days, ten days in total, meaning not yet arrived within ten days, not reached within ten days. This is an absolute connection, used in the locative sense. Kattikatemāsikapuṇṇama means the first full moon of Kattika. Here, the first word is not used, and the locative sense is used as before. This means that from the first Pavāraṇā, it is called “dasāhānāgatā.” Even if an extra robe arises for a monk during this time, knowing it is extra, the monk should accept it all. This shows the time for storing robes that arise from the fifth day of the bright half of the Pavāraṇā month. Even if it is established that “an extra robe should be kept for a maximum of ten days,” the rule is established to show a new meaning through the eightfold arising. Accekacīvara means a robe given to a traveler, a sick person, a pregnant woman, or a newly faithful person, with the announcement, “I will give this for the rainy season.” If it is divided before the Pavāraṇā, the rainy season should not be cut off by the method by which it was obtained. If it is cut off, the robe becomes Saṅgha property. Yāva cīvarakālasamaya means that if the Kathina is not spread, it should be stored until the last month of the rainy season; if the Kathina is spread, it should be stored for five months.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha accekacīvarassa cīvarakālasamayaṃ atikkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesamettha cīvaravaggassa paṭhamasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several monks regarding the matter of exceeding the robe season time for an acceka robe, the rest here is to be understood as stated in the manner of the first training rule of the robe section.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning many monks in the case of exceeding the robe-season time for an urgent robe, the rest here should be understood as stated in the first training rule of the robe section.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding several monks who had allowed the time for making robes during the special robe season to pass. The rest should be understood in the same way as explained in the first training rule of the Robe Chapter.

9. Sāsaṅkasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Training Rule on Suspicion

Navame upavassaṃ kho panāti ettha upavassanti upavassa, upavasitvāti vuttaṃ hoti, upasampajjantiādīsu (vibha. 570) viya hettha anunāsiko daṭṭhabbo, vassaṃ upagantvā vasitvā cāti attho. Imassa ca padassa “tathārūpesu bhikkhu senāsanesu viharanto”tiiminā sambandho, idaṃ vuttaṃ hoti – vassaṃ upagantvā vasitvā ca tato paraṃ pacchimakattikapuṇṇamapariyosānakālaṃ yāni kho pana tāni āraññakāni…pe… antaraghare nikkhipeyyāti. Tattha āraññakānīti sabbapacchimāni āropitena ācariyadhanunā gāmassa indakhīlato paṭṭhāya pañcadhanusatappamāṇe padese katasenāsanāni. Sace pana aparikkhitto gāmo hoti, parikkhepārahaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya minetabbaṃ. Sace vihārassa parikkhepo vā aparikkhittassa yaṃ gāmato sabbapaṭhamaṃ senāsanaṃ vā cetiyaṃ vā bodhi vā dhuvasannipātaṭṭhānaṃ vā yāva , taṃ tāva pakatimaggena minetabbaṃ, aññaṃ maggaṃ kātuṃ, amaggena vā minetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sāsaṅkasammatānīti corādīnaṃ niviṭṭhokāsādidassanena “sāsaṅkānī”ti sammatāni, evaṃ saññātānīti attho. Saha paṭibhayena sappaṭibhayāni, corehi manussānaṃ hataviluttākoṭitabhāvadassanato sannihitabalavabhayānīti attho.

In the ninth, having entered the rains—here, upavassa means having entered the rains, that is, having undertaken and dwelt in the rains—this is said. As in “they undertake ordination” and so forth (vibha. 570), a nasal sound should be noted here; it means having entered and dwelt in the rains. This phrase connects with “a monk dwelling in such lodgings,” meaning: Having entered and dwelt in the rains, and thereafter until the end of the last Kattika full moon, those forest dwellings… might be stored in a house. Here, āraññaka means the furthest dwellings made in a place five hundred bow-lengths from the village boundary pillar, measured with a teacher’s bow fully drawn. If the village has no boundary, it should be measured from where a boundary ought to be. If the monastery has a boundary, or for one without a boundary, from the first lodging, shrine, bodhi tree, or regular meeting place nearest the village, it should be measured by the natural path; making another path or measuring without a path is not permissible. Sāsaṅkasammata means agreed upon as “dangerous” due to seeing thieves and the like stationed there, thus recognized as such—this is the meaning. Together with peril, sappaṭibhaya, means places with evident strong danger due to seeing people killed or plundered by thieves—this is the meaning.

In the ninth, upavassaṃ kho panāti here upavassanti means upavassa, meaning having dwelled near, like in upasampajjanti, etc. (vibha. 570), the nasal should be seen here, meaning having approached and dwelled during the rains. And this word is connected with “bhikkhu viharanto tathārūpesu senāsanesu”, this is what is said – having approached and dwelled during the rains, and afterwards, until the time ending with the last full moon of Kattika, whatever those forest… up to… antaraghare nikkhipeyyāti. Therein, āraññakānīti means all dwellings at the very edge, made in a place measuring five hundred bow-lengths from the boundary post of the village, with a drawn teacher’s bow. But if the village is unenclosed, it should be measured from the place suitable for enclosure. If the boundary of the monastery, or the first dwelling, or cetiya, or Bodhi tree, or permanent meeting place from the village of an unenclosed [monastery], as far as that, it should be measured by the usual path, it is not allowed to make another path, or to measure by a non-path. Sāsaṅkasammatānīti means considered “dangerous” because of seeing places where thieves, etc., have settled, meaning known in this way. Together with danger, sappaṭibhayāni, meaning having imminent strong dangers because of seeing people killed, robbed, and beaten by thieves.

In the ninth rule, “upavassaṃ kho panā” means “having entered the rains residence” or “having observed the rains residence.” Here, the nasal consonant should be understood as in examples like “upasampajjanti” (Vibhaṅga 570). The meaning is: having entered and stayed during the rains residence. This phrase is connected to the following: “dwelling in such lodgings.” This means: having entered and stayed during the rains residence, and then, until the end of the last day of Kattika, in those remote lodgings… or storing them within a village. Here, “āraññakānī” refers to all lodgings located at a distance of five hundred bow-lengths from the village boundary, starting from the village post. If the village is not enclosed, the measurement should start from the boundary of the area suitable for enclosure. If the monastery is enclosed, or if the village is not enclosed, the measurement should start from the first lodging, shrine, Bodhi tree, or regular meeting place within the village, and proceed along the regular path. It is not permissible to create another path or measure by a different route. “Sāsaṅkasammatānī” means lodgings regarded as suspicious due to the presence of thieves or other dangers, thus perceived as such. “Sappaṭibhayāni” means lodgings associated with fear due to the presence of thieves who rob and harm people, thus being places of imminent danger.

Antaraghare nikkhipeyyāti āraññakassa senāsanassa samantā sabbadisābhāgesu attanā abhirucite gocaragāme nikkhipeyya. Tañca kho satiyā aṅgasampattiyā, tatrāyaṃ aṅgasampatti – purimikāya upagantvā mahāpavāraṇāya pavārito hoti, idamekaṃ aṅgaṃ. Kattikamāsoyeva hoti, idaṃ dutiyaṃ aṅgaṃ. Pañcadhanusatikapacchimappamāṇayuttaṃ senāsanaṃ hoti, idaṃ tatiyaṃ aṅgaṃ. Ūnappamāṇe vā gāvutato atirekappamāṇe vā na labhati, yatra hi piṇḍāya caritvā bhuttavelāyameva puna vihāraṃ sakkā āgantuṃ, tadeva idhādhippetaṃ. Sāsaṅkasappaṭibhayameva hoti, idaṃ catutthaṃ aṅgaṃ hotīti. Kocideva paccayoti kiñcideva kāraṇaṃ. Tena cīvarenāti tena antaraghare nikkhittacīvarena. Vippavāsāyāti viyogavāsāya. Tato ce uttari vippavaseyyāti chārattato uttari tasmiṃ senāsane sattamaṃ aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpeyyāti attho, tathā asakkontena pana gāmasīmaṃ okkamitvā sabhāyaṃ vā yattha katthaci vā vasitvā cīvarappavattiṃ ñatvā pakkamituṃ vaṭṭati. Aññatra bhikkhusammutiyāti yaṃ saṅgho gilānassa bhikkhuno cīvarena vippavāsasammutiṃ deti, taṃ ṭhapetvā aladdhasammutikassa atirekachārattaṃ vippavasato nissaggiyaṃ hoti.

He might store it in a house means he might store it in a village near the forest dwelling, in any direction he prefers, provided the conditions are met. Here are the conditions: He has entered with the earlier retreat and been invited at the great invitation—this is one condition. It is the Kattika month—this is the second condition. The lodging is exactly five hundred bow-lengths in measure—this is the third condition. He does not get it if it is less than that measure or more than a gāvuta; where he can go for alms and return to the monastery after eating, that is intended here. It is indeed dangerous and perilous—this is the fourth condition. Some reason means any cause. With that robe means with the robe stored in the house. For staying apart means for living separately. If he stays apart beyond that means if he lets the seventh dawn arise in that lodging beyond six nights—this is the meaning. If unable to do so, it is permissible to enter the village boundary, stay in a hall or anywhere, ascertain the robe’s status, and depart. Except with the monks’ agreement means except for the agreement given by the Saṅgha for a sick monk to stay apart with a robe; without such agreement, staying apart beyond six nights incurs a nissaggiya.

Antaraghare nikkhipeyyāti means he should deposit it in a favored alms-resort village in all directions around the forest dwelling. And that should be with the presence of the factors, here is the presence of the factors – having entered the first [day of the rains-residence] and having been invited with the great invitation, this is one factor. It is the month of Kattika, this is the second factor. The dwelling is at least five hundred bow-lengths away, this is the third factor. He cannot do it in a place that is less than that measure or more than a gāvuta, only a place from which he can go for alms and return to the monastery at the time of the meal is intended here. It is truly dangerous and risky, this is the fourth factor. Kocideva paccayoti means any reason. Tena cīvarenāti means with that robe deposited in the inner house. Vippavāsāyāti means for dwelling apart. Tato ce uttari vippavaseyyāti means if he causes the seventh dawn to rise in that dwelling, beyond six nights, that is the meaning, but if he is unable to do so, he should enter the village boundary and, having stayed in the hall or anywhere else, having learned about the robe situation, he should depart. Aññatra bhikkhusammutiyāti except for the permission for dwelling apart from a robe that the Saṅgha gives to a sick monk, if one who has not received permission dwells apart for more than six nights, it becomes to be forfeited.

“Antaraghare nikkhipeyyā” means storing the robe within a village in a place suitable for almsround, in all directions around the remote lodging. This must be done with mindfulness and the fulfillment of certain conditions. These conditions are: having entered the rains residence before, having been invited at the Mahāpavāraṇā, this is the first condition. It must be the month of Kattika, this is the second condition. The lodging must be within five hundred bow-lengths, this is the third condition. If it is less than this distance or more than a gāvuta, it is not permissible, as one should be able to return to the monastery after finishing the almsround. The lodging must be regarded as suspicious and dangerous, this is the fourth condition. “Kocideva paccayo” means some reason. “Tena cīvarenā” means with the robe stored within the village. “Vippavāsāyā” means for the purpose of separation. “Tato ce uttari vippavaseyyā” means staying beyond six nights, i.e., until the seventh dawn. If one is unable to do so, one may enter the village boundary and stay in a hall or elsewhere, and after knowing the availability of the robe, one may depart. “Aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā” means except with the permission of the Sangha for a sick monk to separate from his robe. Without such permission, staying beyond the allowed time incurs a nissaggiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha cīvaravippavāsavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesamettha cīvaravaggassa dutiyasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several monks regarding the matter of staying apart with a robe, the rest here is to be understood as stated in the manner of the second training rule of the robe section.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning many monks in the case of dwelling apart from a robe, the rest here should be understood as stated in the second training rule of the robe section.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding several monks who had separated from their robes. The rest should be understood in the same way as explained in the second training rule of the Robe Chapter.

10. Pariṇatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Designation

Dasame saṅghikanti saṅghassa santakaṃ. So hi saṅghassa pariṇatattā hatthe anāruḷhopi ekena pariyāyena saṅghasantako hoti. Lābhanti labhitabbaṃ cīvarādivatthuṃ. Pariṇatanti “dassāma karissāmā”ti vacībhedena vā hatthamuddāya vā saṅghassa ninnaṃ hutvā ṭhitaṃ. Attano pariṇāmeyyāti “idaṃ mayhaṃ dethā”tiādīni vadanto attaninnaṃ kareyya. Sace pana saṅghassa dinnaṃ hoti, taṃ gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati, saṅghasseva dātabbaṃ. Pariṇataṃ pana sahadhammikānaṃ vā gihīnaṃ vā antamaso mātusantakampi attano pariṇāmentassa payoge dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti.

In the tenth, saṅghika means belonging to the Saṅgha. Though not yet handed over, it is in one sense the Saṅgha’s property because it has been directed to the Saṅgha. Gain means an item to be gained, such as a robe or the like. Directed means having been inclined toward the Saṅgha with words like “We will give, we will do,” or with a hand gesture, and standing as such. He might direct it to himself means saying, “Give this to me,” and so forth, making it inclined toward himself. If it has been given to the Saṅgha, it must not be taken; it should be given to the Saṅgha. However, for one directing what has been directed—even to co-dhammikas, laypeople, or even what belongs to his mother—to himself, there is an offense of wrong-doing in the effort, and it becomes nissaggiya upon receipt.

In the tenth, saṅghikanti means belonging to the Saṅgha. Because it has been dedicated to the Saṅgha, even though it has not been placed in the hand, it belongs to the Saṅgha in one way. Lābhanti means an obtainable object, such as a robe. Pariṇatanti means having been directed towards the Saṅgha by a verbal statement such as “we will give, we will do,” or by a hand gesture. Attano pariṇāmeyyāti means he should make it directed towards himself, saying, “Give this to me,” etc. But if it has been given to the Saṅgha, it is not allowed to take it, it should be given to the Saṅgha. But if one directs towards oneself what has been dedicated, even if it belongs to fellow monks, or householders, or even to one’s mother, there is a dukkaṭa for the action, and upon receiving it, it becomes to be forfeited.

In the tenth rule, “saṅghika” means belonging to the Sangha. Even if it is not formally handed over, it is considered Sangha property in one sense. “Lābha” means the obtainable item such as a robe. “Pariṇata” means designated by verbal declaration or by gesture, having been offered to the Sangha. “Attano pariṇāmeyyā” means designating it for oneself by saying, “Give this to me.” If it has been given to the Sangha, it cannot be taken; it must be given to the Sangha. However, if one designates it for oneself, even if it belongs to one’s mother, it incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Upon acquisition, it becomes nissaggiya.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha pariṇāmanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, pariṇate vematikassa, apariṇate pariṇatasaññino ceva vematikassa ca, saṅghacetiyapuggalesu yassa kassaci pariṇataṃ aññasaṅghādīnaṃ pariṇāmentassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Apariṇatasaññino, “kattha demā”ti pucchite “yattha tumhākaṃ cittaṃ pasīdati, tattha detha, tumhākaṃ deyyadhammo paribhogaṃ vā labheyyā”tiādīni vadantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Saṅghe pariṇatabhāvo, taṃ ñatvā attano pariṇāmanaṃ, paṭilābhoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisānīti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks regarding the matter of redirecting, a common rule, without instruction. For one uncertain about what is directed, or perceiving what is not directed as directed, or uncertain, or redirecting to another Saṅgha or the like what is directed to the Saṅgha, a shrine, or any individual, there is an offense of wrong-doing. For one perceiving it as not directed, or when asked, “Where should we give it?” saying, “Give it where your mind is pleased; your gift may be used,” and so forth, or in the case of the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are three: its being directed to the Saṅgha, knowing that and redirecting it to oneself, and its receipt. The origin and so forth are similar to taking what is not given.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks in the case of diverting, it is a general rule, without instigation, there is a dukkaṭa for one who is in doubt about what has been dedicated, or for one who thinks what has not been dedicated has been dedicated, and for one who is in doubt, and for one who diverts to other Saṅghas, etc. what has been dedicated to any of the Saṅgha, cetiya, or individuals. There is no offense for one who thinks it has not been dedicated, or for one who, when asked, “Where should we give it?”, says, “Give it where your mind is pleased, may your gift be used,” etc., or for one who is insane, etc. That it has been dedicated to the Saṅgha, knowing that, diverting it to oneself, receiving it, these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of taking what is not given.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the six monks who had designated Sangha property for themselves. This is a common rule, non-confessional, and applies to those in doubt about whether something has been designated or not. It also applies to those who designate Sangha property for another Sangha or individual. There is no offense for one who is unaware, or for one who asks, “Where should we give it?” and replies, “Give it where your mind is pleased, or where it will be of use to you,” or for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: the property being designated to the Sangha, knowing this, and designating it for oneself, and acquisition. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing.

Pācittiyakaṇḍo

Pācittiyakaṇḍa

Pācittiyakaṇḍo

Pācittiya Chapter

1. Musāvādavaggo

1. Musāvādavagga

1. Musāvādavaggo

1. The Chapter on False Speech

1. Musāvādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the Training Rule on False Speech

Pācittiyesu musāvādavaggassa paṭhame sampajānamusāvādeti pubbepi jānitvā vacanakkhaṇepi jānantasseva musāvādabhaṇane. Bhaṇanañca nāma idha abhūtassa vā bhūtataṃ, bhūtassa vā abhūtataṃ katvā kāyena vā vācāya vā viññāpanappayogo, nimittatthe cetaṃ bhummavacanaṃ. Tasmā yo sampajānamusāvādaṃ vadati, tassa taṃnimittaṃ taṃhetu tappaccayā pācittiyaṃ hotīti evamettha aññesu ca īdisesu attho veditabbo.

Among the pācittiyas, in the first of the Musāvādavagga, sampajānamusāvāda means speaking a deliberate falsehood, knowing it beforehand and at the moment of speaking. Speaking here means an effort to communicate by body or speech, making what is untrue appear true or what is true appear untrue; this accusative case is used in the sense of a cause. Therefore, for one who speaks a deliberate falsehood, a pācittiya arises due to that, because of that, on account of that—this is how the meaning should be understood here and in other similar cases.

In the Pācittiyas, in the false speech section, in the first, sampajānamusāvādeti means in speaking falsely while knowing even before and also knowing at the moment of speaking. And speaking here is the action of declaring, either by body or by speech, what is not true as true, or what is true as not true, this is the locative case in the sense of an instrument. Therefore, for one who speaks a deliberate lie, because of that, on account of that, due to that, there is a pācittiya, thus the meaning should be understood here and in other such cases.

In the Pācittiya rules, in the first rule of the False Speech Chapter, “sampajānamusāvāde” means knowingly speaking falsehood, both before and at the moment of speaking. Speaking here refers to the effort to communicate, either verbally or physically, something untrue as true or true as untrue. This is a worldly expression. Therefore, whoever knowingly speaks falsehood incurs a pācittiya offense due to that cause, reason, or condition. This meaning should be understood similarly in other such cases.

Sāvatthiyaṃ hatthakaṃ sakyaputtaṃ ārabbha avajānitvā paṭijānanādivatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, uttarimanussadhammārocanatthaṃ musā bhaṇantassa pārājikaṃ, amūlakena pārājikena anuddhaṃsanatthaṃ saṅghādiseso, saṅghādisesena anuddhaṃsanatthaṃ pācittiyaṃ, ācāravipattiyā anuddhaṃsanatthaṃ dukkaṭaṃ, “yo te vihāre vasī”tiādinā (pārā. 220) pariyāyena uttarimanussadhammārocanatthaṃ paṭivijānantassa musā bhaṇite thullaccayaṃ, appaṭivijānantassa dukkaṭaṃ, kevalaṃ musā bhaṇantassa idha pācittiyaṃ. Anupadhāretvā sahasā bhaṇantassa, “aññaṃ bhaṇissāmī”ti aññaṃ bhaṇantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Visaṃvādanapurekkhāratā, visaṃvādanacittena yamatthaṃ vattukāmo, tassa puggalassa viññāpanapayogo cāti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisānīti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Hatthaka the Sakyan regarding the matter of denying and then admitting without knowing, a common rule, without instruction. For one speaking falsely to claim a superhuman state, it is a pārājika; to accuse with a baseless pārājika, a saṅghādisesa; to accuse with a saṅghādisesa, a pācittiya; to accuse with a breach of conduct, an offense of wrong-doing; for one admitting falsely to claim a superhuman state with expressions like “Who lived in your monastery?” and so forth (pārā. 220), if knowing, a grave offense; if not knowing, an offense of wrong-doing; for one merely speaking falsely, a pācittiya here. For one speaking hastily without reflection, or saying one thing intending to say another, or in the case of the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are two: the intention to deceive, and the effort to communicate that meaning to that person with a deceitful mind. The origin and so forth are similar to taking what is not given.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Hatthaka, son of the Sakyans, in the case of claiming without having known, etc., it is a general rule, without instigation, there is a pārājika for one who falsely speaks for the purpose of declaring a superhuman state, a saṅghādisesa for groundlessly accusing of a pārājika, a pācittiya for accusing of a saṅghādisesa, a dukkaṭa for accusing of a breach of conduct, a thullaccaya for one who falsely speaks while acknowledging indirectly, by saying, “Who lived in your dwelling?”, etc. (pārā. 220), for the purpose of declaring a superhuman state, a dukkaṭa for one who does not acknowledge, a pācittiya here for one who merely speaks falsely. There is no offense for one who speaks hastily without having considered, or for one who speaks something else while intending to say something else, or for one who is insane, etc. The intention to deceive, the intention to speak falsely about something, and the action of declaring it to that person, these are the two factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of taking what is not given.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding Hatthaka the Sakyaputta, who spoke falsely out of contempt. This is a common rule, non-confessional. Speaking falsely to claim superhuman qualities incurs a pārājika offense. Falsely accusing someone of a pārājika offense without basis incurs a saṅghādisesa offense. Falsely accusing someone of a saṅghādisesa offense incurs a pācittiya offense. Falsely accusing someone of a minor offense incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Speaking falsely to deceive, as in “Whoever stayed in your monastery,” incurs a thullaccaya offense if one understands the superhuman claim, and a dukkaṭa offense if one does not. Simply speaking falsely incurs a pācittiya offense here. There is no offense for one who speaks hastily without consideration, or for one who intends to say something else but says something different, or for the insane, etc. The two factors here are: the intention to deceive and the effort to communicate to that person. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing.

2. Omasavādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Insulting Speech

Dutiye omasavādeti ovijjhanavacane, jātināmagottakammasippaābādhaliṅgakilesaāpattiakkosesu bhūtena vā abhūtena vā yena kenaci pārājikaṃ āpannaṃ vā anāpannaṃ vā yaṃkiñci bhikkhuṃ yāya kāyaci vācāya vā hatthamuddāya vā anaññāpadesena akkosanavacane pācittiyanti attho.

In the second, omasavāda means abusive speech—abusing any monk, whether he has committed a pārājika or not, with any speech, whether true or false, concerning birth, name, clan, work, craft, illness, physical traits, defilements, or offenses, by body, speech, or hand gesture, without indirect reference; this is a pācittiya—this is the meaning.

In the second, omasavādeti means in insulting speech, by birth, name, clan, work, craft, disease, sign, defilement, offense, or reproach, whether true or untrue, by whatever means, having committed a pārājika or not, whatever monk, by whatever bodily or verbal means, or by a hand gesture, speaks reproachfully in an indirect way, there is a pācittiya, that is the meaning.

In the second rule, “omasavāde” means speech intended to humiliate. Whether true or false, using caste, name, clan, profession, physical defects, or moral faults to insult a monk who has or has not committed a pārājika offense, in any way, verbally or physically, without referring to others, incurs a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha omasanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tehiyeva dasahi akkosavatthūhi “santi idhekacce caṇḍālā”tiādinā (pāci. 26) nayena aññāpadesaṃ katvā akkosantassa, “corosi gaṇṭhibhedakosī”tiādīhi pāḷimuttakapadehi akkosantassa, yathā tathā vā anupasampannaṃ akkosantassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Idha bhikkhunīpi anupasampannasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Anakkositukāmassa kevalaṃ davakamyatāya vadato sabbattha dubbhāsitaṃ. Atthadhammaanusāsanipurekkhārānaṃ, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Yaṃ akkosati, tassa upasampannatā, anaññāpadesena jātiādīhi akkosanaṃ, “maṃ akkosatī”ti jānanā, atthapurekkhāratādīnaṃ abhāvoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, vedanā pana idha dukkhāti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks regarding the matter of abuse, a common rule, without instruction. For one abusing with those same ten abusive topics, making an indirect reference like “Some here are outcasts” and so forth (pāci. 26), or abusing with terms outside the text like “You are a thief, a knot-breaker,” and so forth, or abusing an unordained person in any way, there is an offense of wrong-doing. Here, a nun also counts as unordained. For one speaking merely for fun without intent to abuse, it is improperly spoken everywhere. For those intent on meaning, doctrine, and instruction, or in the case of the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are four: the ordained status of the one abused, abuse by birth and so forth without indirect reference, his knowledge that “He is abusing me,” and the absence of intent for meaning and so forth. The origin and so forth are similar to taking what is not given; the feeling here, however, is displeasure.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks in the case of insulting, it is a general rule, without instigation, there is a dukkaṭa for one who insults indirectly with those same ten bases of reproach, by saying, “There are some here who are outcastes,” etc. (pāci. 26), or for one who insults with words not found in the Pāḷi, such as “You are a thief, a cutpurse,” etc., or for one who insults a not fully ordained person in any way. Here, a bhikkhunī is also included in the category of not fully ordained. There is a wrong speech everywhere for one who speaks merely out of playfulness, without intending to insult. There is no offense for those who are intent on teaching the meaning and the Dhamma, or for those who are insane, etc. That he insults one who is fully ordained, insulting indirectly by birth, etc., knowing, “He is insulting me”, the absence of intention on teaching, etc., these are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of taking what is not given, but the feeling here is painful.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the six monks who insulted others. This is a common rule, non-confessional. Insulting someone by referring to them as “outcastes” or using terms like “thief” or “fool” incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Insulting an unordained person in any way also incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Here, a bhikkhunī also counts as an unordained person. There is no offense for one who speaks out of a desire to teach, or for the insane, etc. The four factors here are: the person being insulted is ordained, the insult is about caste, etc., without referring to others, knowing that one is being insulted, and the absence of a desire to teach, etc. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing, but the feeling here is painful.

3. Pesuññasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Divisive Speech

Tatiye bhikkhupesuññeti bhikkhussa pesuññe, jātiādīhi akkosavatthūhi bhikkhū akkosantassa bhikkhuno sutvā vacanaṃ bhikkhuno piyakamyatāya vā bhedādhippāyena vā yo akkuddho, tassa bhikkhussa kāyena vā vācāya vā upasaṃhaṭe tasmiṃ pesuññakaraṇavacane pācittiyanti attho.

In the third, bhikkhupesuñña means a monk’s slander—having heard a monk abusing another monk with abusive topics like birth and so forth, conveying that speech to another monk who is not angry, whether with body or speech, out of desire for affection or intent to cause division; this is a pācittiya—this is the meaning.

In the third, bhikkhupesuññeti means in slandering a monk, having heard the words of a monk who is insulting another monk with bases of reproach such as birth, etc., conveying those words to the monk who was not angry, either by body or by speech, out of a desire to be dear or with the intention of causing division, in that act of slandering, there is a pācittiya, that is the meaning.

In the third rule, “bhikkhupesuññe” means creating division among monks. Hearing one monk insult another using caste, etc., and then, out of affection for the first monk or a desire to cause division, communicating that insult to the second monk, either verbally or physically, incurs a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha pesuññaupasaṃharaṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, vuttanayeneva aññāpadesena akkosantassa vacanūpasaṃhāre vā pāḷimuttakaakkosūpasaṃhāre vā anupasampannassa ca upasaṃhāre dukkaṭaṃ. Idhāpi bhikkhunī anupasampannaṭṭhāne ṭhitā. Na piyakamyatāya, na bhedādhippāyena kevalaṃ pāpagarahitāya vadantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Jātiādīhi anaññāpadesena akkosantassa bhikkhuno sutvā vacanaṃ bhikkhussa upasaṃharaṇaṃ, piyakamyatābhedādhippāyesu aññataratā , tassa vijānanāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisānevāti.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks regarding the matter of conveying slander, a common rule, without instruction. In the manner stated, for conveying speech with an indirect reference, or conveying abuse with terms outside the text, or conveying to an unordained person, there is an offense of wrong-doing. Here too, a nun stands as unordained. For one speaking not for affection or division but merely to reprove evil, or in the case of the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are three: conveying to a monk the speech heard from a monk abusing with birth and so forth without indirect reference, the presence of either affection or intent to divide, and his awareness of it. The origin and so forth are similar to taking what is not given.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks in the case of conveying slander, it is a general rule, without instigation, there is a dukkaṭa for conveying the words of one who insults indirectly in the stated way, or for conveying reproaches not found in the Pāḷi, or for conveying to a not fully ordained person. Here too, a bhikkhunī is in the place of a not fully ordained person. There is no offense for one who speaks not out of a desire to be dear, nor with the intention of causing division, but merely out of evil reproach, or for one who is insane, etc. Hearing the words of a monk who is insulting indirectly by birth, etc., conveying the words to the monk, being one of the two, a desire to be dear or an intention of causing division, his knowing, these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of taking what is not given.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the six monks who engaged in divisive speech. This is a common rule, non-confessional. Communicating insults without referring to others, or communicating insults from the Pāli texts, or communicating insults to an unordained person, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Here, a bhikkhunī also counts as an unordained person. There is no offense for one who speaks without affection or a desire to cause division, or for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: hearing a monk insult another using caste, etc., without referring to others, communicating that insult to another monk, and doing so out of affection or a desire to cause division. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing.

4. Padasodhammasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Teaching Dhamma Word by Word

Catutthe padaso dhammaṃ vāceyyāti saṅgītittayaṃ anāruḷhampi rājovādatikkhindriyacatuparivattananandopanandakulumpasuttamaggakathādidhammañca saṅgītittayamāruḷhaṃ tipiṭakadhammañca padaṃ padaṃ vāceyya, padānupadaanvakkharaanubyañjanesu ekekaṃ koṭṭhāsanti attho. Pācittiyanti etesu padādīsu bhikkhuñca bhikkhuniñca ṭhapetvā yaṃkañci koṭṭhāsaṃ avasesapuggalehi saddhiṃ ekato bhaṇantassa padādigaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the fourth, padaso dhammaṃ vāceyya means he might recite the Dhamma word by word—both the Dhamma not included in the three councils, such as the King’s Advice, Sense Restraint, Four Turnings, Nandopananda, Kulumpa Sutta, and Path Discourse, and the Dhamma included in the three councils, the Tipiṭaka Dhamma—word by word, in segments of words, syllables, and letters; this is the meaning. Pācittiya—for reciting any of these segments together with any persons except monks and nuns, a pācittiya arises according to the count of segments.

In the fourth, padaso dhammaṃ vāceyyāti means he should recite the Dhamma word by word, even that which is not included in the three collections, such as advice to kings, the sense-spheres, the four transformations, the stories of Nanda, Upananda, and the Kulumpa, the path, etc., and the Dhamma of the three Piṭakas, which is included in the three collections, word by word, meaning each part in the words, non-words, syllables, and consonants. Pācittiyanti in these words, etc., except for a monk and a bhikkhunī, reciting any part together with the remaining persons, there is a pācittiya according to the number of words, etc.

In the fourth rule, “padaso dhammaṃ vāceyyā” means teaching the Dhamma word by word, including the three Piṭakas, the Rājovāda, Tikkhindriya, Catuparivattana, Nandopananda, Kulumpa, Sutta, and Magga discourses, whether included in the three Piṭakas or not. “Pācittiya” means that for each word, phrase, or syllable taught together with an unordained person, except for a bhikkhu or bhikkhunī, a pācittiya offense is incurred.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha padaso dhammavācanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ. Upasampanne anupasampannasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Anupasampannena saddhiṃ ekato uddesaggahaṇe, sajjhāyakaraṇe, tassa santike uddesaggahaṇe, yebhuyyena paguṇaganthaṃ bhaṇantassa, osārentassa ca khalitaṭṭhāne “evaṃ bhaṇāhī”ti vacane ca ekato bhaṇantassāpi, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Anupasampannatā, vuttalakkhaṇaṃ dhammaṃ padaso vācanatā, ekato osāpanañcāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Padasodhammasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ, nosaññāvimokkhaṃ, acittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks, this was laid down in the matter of reciting the Dhamma word by word. It is a common rule, not requiring instruction, and incurs a pācittiya offense three times. For one who perceives an unordained person as ordained or is uncertain, or for one who is doubtful, there is a dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense in reciting together with an unordained person, studying together, reciting in their presence, reciting a mostly mastered text, finishing it, saying “Recite it like this” at a point of stumbling, reciting together, or for those who are insane and the like. The three factors here are: the state of being unordained, the recitation of the Dhamma with the described characteristics word by word, and finishing it together. It arises from the reciting of the Dhamma word by word, it is an action, not freed by perception, without thought, a fault of the rule, verbal action, with three kinds of mind, and three kinds of feeling.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks in the case of reciting the Dhamma word by word, it is a general regulation, not a command, and a pācittiya offense with three conditions. If one has doubt, or thinks that a fully ordained person is unordained, it is a dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense in receiving instruction together with an unordained person, reciting together, receiving instruction in his presence, speaking the text that is mostly mastered, causing to repeat when stumbling saying, “say it like this” while reciting together, and for one who is insane, etc. The factors here are three: the state of being unordained, reciting the Dhamma which has the mentioned characteristics word by word, and causing to repeat together. It originates from reciting the Dhamma word by word, it is a kriya (action), it is not liberation through perception, it is without thought, it is a fault in the Vinaya, it is verbal action, with three types of thought, and with three types of feeling.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the six monks who taught the Dhamma word by word. This is a common rule, non-confessional, and incurs a pācittiya offense in three ways. Teaching together with an unordained person, thinking they are unordained or being in doubt, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense for teaching together with an unordained person, for reciting together, for teaching in their presence, for reciting a well-known text, for correcting mistakes, or for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: the person being unordained, teaching the Dhamma word by word, and teaching together. The origins, etc., are: the teaching of Dhamma word by word, the action, not the release of perception, unintentional, the precept, verbal action, three consciousnesses, and three feelings.

The explanation of the training rule about reciting the Dhamma word by word is finished.

The explanation of the training rule on teaching Dhamma word by word is concluded.

5. Paṭhamasahaseyyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the First Sahaseyya Training Rule

5. Explanation of the First Training Rule on Co-sleeping

5. Explanation of the First Training Rule on Sharing a Lodging

Pañcame anupasampannenāti bhikkhuṃ ṭhapetvā antamaso pārājikavatthubhūtena tiracchānagatenāpi. Uttaridirattatirattanti dvinnaṃ vā tiṇṇaṃ vā rattīnaṃ upari. Sahaseyyanti sabbacchannaparicchanne yebhuyyena channaparicchanne vā senāsane pubbāpariyena vā ekakkhaṇena vā ekato nipajjanaṃ. Kappeyyāti vidaheyya sampādeyya. Tattha chadanaṃ anāhacca diyaḍḍhahatthubbedhena pākārādinā paricchinnampi sabbaparicchannamicceva veditabbaṃ, tasmā iminā lakkhaṇena samannāgato sacepi sattabhūmiko pāsādo ekūpacāro hoti, satagabbhaṃ vā catusālaṃ, yo tattha vā aññattha vā tādise tena vā aññena vā anupasampannena saha tisso rattiyo sayitvā catutthadivase atthaṅgate sūriye anupasampanne nipanne gabbhadvāraṃ pidhāya vā apidhāya vā nipajjati, paṭhamanipanno vā tasmiṃ nipajjante na vuṭṭhāti, tassa ubhinnaṃ uṭṭhahitvā nipajjanappayogagaṇanāya anupasampannagaṇanāya ca pācittiyaṃ. Ayamettha saṅkhepo, vitthāro pana samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 51) sabbappakārato vutto.

In the fifth, anupasampannena means anyone except a monk, even including an animal that has committed an offense warranting defeat. Uttaridirattatiratta means beyond two or three nights. Sahaseyya means lying down together in a dwelling entirely enclosed or mostly enclosed, either sequentially or at the same moment. Kappeyya means one might arrange or manage it. Therein, even a space enclosed by a wall or the like, without touching the roof and with a height of one and a half hands, should be understood as entirely enclosed. Thus, if a seven-story palace with a single entrance or a hundred-roomed four-halled building possesses these characteristics, and one lies down there or elsewhere with an unordained person for three nights, then on the fourth day after the sun has set, if the unordained person is lying down and one closes or does not close the door of the room and lies down, or if the first to lie down does not get up when the other lies down, both incur a pācittiya offense based on the count of lying down efforts and the count of unordained persons. This is the summary here; the details are fully explained in the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 51).

In the fifth, with an unordained person means anyone other than a monk, even an animal who has committed an offense leading to defeat (pārājika). Beyond two or three nights means more than two or three nights. Co-sleeping means sleeping together in a dwelling that is fully covered or mostly covered, either one after the other or at the same moment. Should do means should perform, should accomplish. Here, even if it is enclosed by a wall etc., one and a half cubits high without touching the roof, it should be understood as completely enclosed, therefore, if a seven-storied palace endowed with this characteristic is of one single approach, or a four-halled house with a hundred rooms, whoever sleeps there or elsewhere in such a place with that or any other unordained person for three nights and on the fourth day at sunset, whether the unordained person is asleep, closes or does not close the door of the room and sleeps, or, if the first one to sleep does not get up when the other one is sleeping, there is a pācittiya offense for both, counting the actions of getting up and lying down, and counting the unordained person. This is the summary here, but the detailed explanation is given in the Samantapāsādikā (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 51) in all its aspects.

In the fifth rule, “anupasampannenā” means anyone except a bhikkhu, even an animal that has committed a pārājika offense. “Uttaridirattatiratta” means more than two or three nights. “Sahaseyya” means lying down together in a fully enclosed or mostly enclosed lodging, either continuously or at the same time. “Kappeyyā” means arranging or preparing. Here, even if a seven-story building with a single entrance, or a hundred-room building, or a four-halled building is enclosed by a wall one and a half times the height of a man, it is considered fully enclosed. Therefore, if one lies down with an unordained person in such a place for three nights, and on the fourth day after sunrise, whether the door is closed or not, if one lies down or does not get up when the other lies down, a pācittiya offense is incurred for both the act of lying down and the counting of the unordained person. This is the summary; the details are explained in the Samantapāsādikā (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 51) in all aspects.

Āḷaviyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha anupasampannena sahaseyyavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “uttaridirattatiratta”nti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, upasampanne anupasampannasaññino vematikassa vā upaddhacchannaparicchannādīsu ca dukkaṭaṃ. Ūnakadirattatirattaṃ vasantassa, tatiyāya rattiyā purāruṇā nikkhamitvā puna vasantassa, sabbacchannasabbāparicchannādīsu vasantassa, itarasmiṃ nisinne nipajjantassa, nipanne vā nisīdantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Pācittiyavatthukasenāsanaṃ, tattha anupasampannena saha nipajjanaṃ, catutthadivase sūriyatthaṅgamananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānevāti.

At Āḷavī, concerning several monks, this was laid down in the matter of lying down with an unordained person. “Beyond two or three nights” is the additional specification here, a common rule, not requiring instruction, incurring a pācittiya offense three times, and a dukkaṭa offense for one who perceives an ordained person as unordained, is uncertain, or in cases of half-enclosed or unenclosed dwellings and the like. There is no offense for one staying less than two or three nights, leaving before dawn on the third night and staying again, staying in fully enclosed or entirely unenclosed dwellings and the like, lying down while the other is seated, sitting while the other is lying down, or for those who are insane and the like. The three factors here are: a dwelling subject to a pācittiya offense, lying down there with an unordained person, and the setting of the sun on the fourth day. Its origin and the rest are similar to the case of the eḷakaloma.

It was promulgated in Āḷavī concerning many monks in the case of co-sleeping with an unordained person, “beyond two or three nights” is a sub-regulation here, it is a general regulation, not a command, a pācittiya offense with three conditions, if one has doubt, or thinks that a fully ordained person is unordained, it is a dukkaṭa offense in places that are half-covered, etc. There is no offense for one who dwells for less than two or three nights, for one who goes out before dawn on the third night and dwells again, for one who dwells in places that are fully covered and not fully enclosed, etc., for one who lies down while the other is sitting, or for one who sits while the other is lying down, and for one who is insane, etc. The factors here are three: a dwelling that is the object of a pācittiya offense, sleeping there with an unordained person, and the setting of the sun on the fourth day. The origin, etc. are similar to the case of the goat’s hair.

In Āḷavī, a rule was established regarding several monks who shared a lodging with an unordained person. “Uttaridirattatiratta” is an additional rule here. This is a common rule, non-confessional, and incurs a pācittiya offense in three ways. Staying for less than two or three nights, leaving before dawn on the third night and returning, staying in a fully enclosed or unenclosed place, sitting while the other lies down, or lying down while the other sits, incurs no offense. The three factors here are: the lodging suitable for a pācittiya offense, lying down there with an unordained person, and the fourth day after sunrise. The origins, etc., are similar to those of pulling out eyelashes.

6. Dutiyasahaseyyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Second Sahaseyya Training Rule

6. Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Co-sleeping

6. Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Sharing a Lodging

Chaṭṭhe mātugāmenāti antamaso tadahujātāyapi manussitthiyā. Dissamānarūpā pana yakkhipetiyo paṇḍako methunavatthubhūtā ca tiracchānitthiyo idha dukkaṭavatthukā honti.

In the sixth, mātugāmena means even with a human female born that very day. However, visible entities such as female yakkhas, petas, paṇḍakas, and female animals that are objects of sexual intercourse are here subject to a dukkaṭa offense.

In the sixth, with a woman means even a human female born that very day. However, visible female yakkhas and petas, hermaphrodites, and female animals who are objects of sexual intercourse are objects of a dukkaṭa offense here.

In the sixth rule, “mātugāmenā” means any human female, even one born that day. Visible female spirits, female demons, eunuchs, and female animals that engage in sexual intercourse are grounds for a dukkaṭa offense here.

Sāvatthiyaṃ āyasmantaṃ anuruddhattheraṃ ārabbha mātugāmena sahaseyyavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesaṃ anantarasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ aññatra rattiparicchedā, tatra hi catutthadivase āpatti, idha pana paṭhamadivasepīti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the venerable Elder Anuruddha, this was laid down in the matter of lying down with a woman. The rest should be understood as explained in the previous training rule, except for the limit of nights; there, the offense occurs on the fourth day, but here it occurs even on the first day.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the venerable Anuruddha in the case of co-sleeping with a woman, the rest should be understood as in the immediately preceding training rule, except for the limit of nights, for there the offense occurs on the fourth day, but here it occurs even on the first day.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding Venerable Anuruddha, who shared a lodging with a woman. The rest should be understood in the same way as explained in the previous rule, except for the division of nights. There, the offense is incurred on the fourth day, but here it is incurred on the first day.

7. Dhammadesanāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Dhammadesanā Training Rule

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Teaching the Dhamma

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Teaching Dhamma

Sattame uttarichappañcavācāhītiettha eko gāthāpādo ekā vācāti evaṃ sabbattha vācāpamāṇaṃ veditabbaṃ. Dhammaṃ deseyyāti padasodhammasikkhāpade vuttalakkhaṇaṃ dhammaṃ vā aṭṭhakathādhammaṃ vā bhāseyya. Aññatra viññunā purisaviggahenāti vinā viññunā purisena. Manussaviggahaṃ gahetvā ṭhitena pana yakkhena vā petena vā tiracchānena vā saddhiṃ ṭhitāyapi dhammaṃ desetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Pācittiyanti dutiyāniyate vuttalakkhaṇena manussena vinā viññumanussitthiyā channaṃ vācānaṃ upari padādivasena dhammaṃ desentassa padādigaṇanāya, bahūnaṃ desayato mātugāmagaṇanāya ca pācittiyaṃ.

In the seventh, uttarichappañcavācāhi means here that one verse foot is one utterance, and thus the measure of utterances should be understood everywhere. Dhammaṃ deseyya means he might teach the Dhamma with the characteristics described in the Padasodhamma training rule or the Dhamma of the commentaries. Aññatra viññunā purisaviggahena means except with a wise man. Even with a woman standing alongside a yakkha, peta, or animal that has taken a human form, it is not permissible to teach the Dhamma. Pācittiya means a pācittiya offense for one teaching the Dhamma to a wise human woman beyond six utterances, without a man as described in the second indefinite rule, based on the count of words and the like or the count of women when teaching many.

In the seventh, beyond six or five utterances, here, one verse-foot is one utterance, thus the measure of utterance should be understood in all cases. Should teach the Dhamma means should speak the Dhamma which has the characteristics mentioned in the training rule on reciting the Dhamma word by word, or the commentary Dhamma. Except with a knowledgeable man present means without a knowledgeable man. But it is not proper to teach the Dhamma even when standing with a yakkha, or a peta, or an animal, having taken a human form. A pācittiya offense means that for one who teaches the Dhamma to a knowledgeable human female beyond six utterances, without a man having the characteristics mentioned in the second niyata (offense requiring a meeting), word by word, etc., there is a pācittiya offense counting the words, etc., and for teaching to many, counting the women.

In the seventh, uttarichappañcavācāhī, here, one line of a verse is considered one utterance, and thus the measure of utterances should be understood everywhere. Dhammaṃ deseyya means one should teach the Dhamma as described in the Padasodhammasikkhāpada, whether it is the Dhamma or the commentary Dhamma. Aññatra viññunā purisaviggahenā means without a wise man. However, it is not permissible to teach the Dhamma while standing with a yakkha, a ghost, or an animal. Pācittiya means, according to the second niyata, when teaching the Dhamma beyond six utterances to a woman without a wise man present, counting from the first word, or when teaching many women, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ udāyittheraṃ ārabbha mātugāmassa dhammadesanāvatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra viññunā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, amātugāme mātugāmasaññino vematikassa vā yakkhipetipaṇḍakamanussaviggahatiracchānitthīnaṃ desentassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Chahi vācāhi, tato vā oraṃ desentassa, vuttalakkhaṇe vā purise sati, sayaṃ vā uṭṭhāya, puna nisīditvā mātugāmassa vā uṭṭhahitvā puna nisinnassa, aññassa vā mātugāmassa desayato, “dīghanikāyo nāma bhante kimatthiyo”ti evaṃ pana puṭṭhe sabbampi dīghanikāyaṃ desentassa, aññassatthāya vuccamānaṃ mātugāme suṇante, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Vuttalakkhaṇassa dhammassa channaṃ vācānaṃ upari desanā, vuttalakkhaṇo mātugāmo, iriyāpathaparivattābhāvo, kappiyakārakassābhāvo, apañhāvissajjanāti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni padasodhammasadisāneva, kevalaṃ idha kiriyākiriyaṃ hotīti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the Elder Udāyi, this was laid down in the matter of teaching the Dhamma to women. “Except with a wise man” is the additional specification here, a common rule, not requiring instruction, incurring a pācittiya offense three times, and a dukkaṭa offense for one who perceives a non-woman as a woman, is uncertain, or teaches to female yakkhas, petas, paṇḍakas, or animals in human form. There is no offense for teaching with six utterances or fewer, teaching in the presence of a man as described, standing up oneself or sitting again, teaching after a woman stands up and sits again or to another woman, teaching the entire Dīghanikāya when asked, “Venerable sir, what is the purpose of the Dīghanikāya?” or when a woman hears what is said for another’s benefit, or for those who are insane and the like. The five factors here are: teaching the Dhamma as described beyond six utterances, a woman as described, absence of change in posture, absence of a permissible assistant, and absence of answering a question. Its origin and the rest are similar to the Padasodhamma, except that here it is both action and non-action.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the venerable Udāyī in the case of teaching the Dhamma to a woman, “except with a knowledgeable person” is a sub-regulation here, it is a general regulation, not a command, a pācittiya offense with three conditions, if one has doubt, or thinks that a non-woman is a woman, it is a dukkaṭa offense, and also for teaching to female yakkhas, petas, hermaphrodites, and female animals in human form. There is no offense for teaching six utterances, or less than that, or in the presence of a man with the mentioned characteristics, or for oneself getting up and sitting down again and teaching a woman, or for a woman getting up and sitting down again, or for teaching another woman, or when asked, “Venerable sir, what is the meaning of the Dīghanikāya?”, teaching the entire Dīghanikāya, or when a woman is listening while it is being taught for the sake of another, and for one who is insane, etc. The factors here are five: teaching the Dhamma having the mentioned characteristics beyond six utterances, a woman with the mentioned characteristics, no change of posture, the absence of a suitable attendant, and not answering a question. The origin, etc. are similar to reciting the Dhamma word by word, but here it is both kiriya (action) and akiriya (non-action).

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the elder Udāyi, regarding the matter of teaching Dhamma to women. The phrase aññatra viññunā here is an additional rule, a general rule, non-āṇattika, and falls under the tikapācittiya. If one teaches a non-woman while perceiving her as a woman or is in doubt, or teaches a yakkha, ghost, eunuch, or animal, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Teaching within six utterances, or teaching in the presence of a man as described, or if one stands up and sits down again, or if a woman stands up and sits down again, or if teaching another woman, or if asked, “What is the purpose of the Dīghanikāya, venerable sir?” and one teaches the entire Dīghanikāya, or if the Dhamma is spoken for another purpose while women are listening, or in the case of the insane, etc., there is no offense. Teaching beyond six utterances of the described Dhamma, the described woman, the absence of change in posture, the absence of a kappiyakāraka, and the absence of answering a question—these are the five factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the Padasodhammasikkhāpada, except here it is about action and inaction.

8. Bhūtārocanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Bhūtārocana Training Rule

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on Reporting What is True

8. Explanation of the Bhūtārocanasikkhāpada

Aṭṭhame uttarimanussadhammanti catutthapārājike vuttalakkhaṇaṃ uttarimanussānaṃ jhāyīnañceva ariyānañca dhammaṃ. Bhūtasmiṃ pācittiyanti attani jhānādidhamme sati taṃ bhikkhuñca bhikkhuniñca ṭhapetvā aññassa ārocayato pācittiyaṃ.

In the eighth, uttarimanussadhamma means the Dhamma of those beyond ordinary humans, as described in the fourth pārājika, belonging to both meditators and noble ones. Bhūtasmiṃ pācittiya means a pācittiya offense for one who, possessing the Dhamma of jhāna and the like, declares it to anyone except a monk or nun.

In the eighth, superhuman state means the Dhamma of those who practice jhāna and of the Noble Ones, having the characteristics mentioned in the fourth pārājika. If it is true, it is a pācittiya offense means that if one reports to another, except a monk or a nun, a jhāna state, etc. that exists in oneself, it is a pācittiya offense.

In the eighth, uttarimanussadhamma refers to the qualities of those beyond ordinary humans, such as jhāna attainers and noble ones, as described in the fourth pārājika. Bhūtasmiṃ pācittiya means if a monk, while possessing jhāna or other qualities, reveals this to another monk or nun, it is a pācittiya offense.

Vesāliyaṃ vaggumudātīriye bhikkhū ārabbha tesaṃ bhūtārocanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti , anāṇattikaṃ, nippariyāyena attani vijjamānaṃ jhānādidhammaṃ ārocentassa sace yassa āroceti, so anantarameva “ayaṃ jhānalābhī”ti vā “ariyo”ti vā yena kenaci ākārena tamatthaṃ jānāti, pācittiyaṃ. No ce jānāti, dukkaṭaṃ. Pariyāyena ārocitaṃ pana jānātu vā, mā vā, dukkaṭameva. Tathārūpe kāraṇe sati upasampannassa ārocayato, ādikammikassa ca anāpatti. Yasmā pana ariyānaṃ ummattakādibhāvo natthi, jhānalābhino pana tasmiṃ sati jhānā parihāyanti, tasmā te idha na gahitā. Uttarimanussadhammassa bhūtatā, anupasampannassa ārocanaṃ, taṅkhaṇavijānanā, anaññāpadesoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Bhūtārocanasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ, nosaññāvimokkhaṃ, acittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, kusalābyākatacittehi dvicittaṃ, sukhamajjhattavedanāhi dvivedananti.

At Vesālī, concerning the monks of the Vaggumudā River, this was laid down in the matter of declaring what is true. It is a common rule, not requiring instruction, and if one declares a jhāna or similar Dhamma existing in oneself directly and the hearer immediately understands by some means that “this one has attained jhāna” or “is a noble one,” it is a pācittiya offense. If they do not understand, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If declared indirectly, whether understood or not, it is only a dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense in declaring it to an ordained person for such a reason or for a beginner. Since noble ones do not have states like insanity, but meditators lose jhāna in such cases, they are not included here. The four factors here are: the truth of the Dhamma beyond ordinary humans, declaring it to an unordained person, immediate understanding, and absence of another designation. It arises from declaring what is true, it is an action, not freed by perception, without thought, a fault of the rule, physical and verbal action, with two kinds of mind—skillful and neutral—and two kinds of feeling—pleasant and neutral.

It was promulgated in Vesālī concerning the monks on the bank of the Vaggumudā river in the case of their reporting what is true, it is a general regulation, not a command, if one reports a jhāna state, etc. that actually exists in oneself without qualification, if the one to whom he reports immediately understands that matter in any way, such as, “This one is a jhāna-attainer,” or, “He is a Noble One,” it is a pācittiya. If he does not understand, it is a dukkaṭa. But if it is reported with qualification, whether he understands or not, it is only a dukkaṭa. There is no offense for reporting to a fully ordained person when there is such a reason, and for the first offender. But since the Noble Ones do not have the state of being insane, etc., but when those who have attained jhāna are in that state, the jhānas decline, therefore they are not included here. The factors here are four: the truth of the superhuman state, reporting to an unordained person, immediate understanding, and not using another designation. It originates from reporting what is true, it is a kiriya (action), it is not liberation through perception, it is without thought, it is a fault in the Vinaya, it is bodily action and verbal action, with two types of thought, wholesome and indeterminate, with two types of feeling, pleasant and neutral.

This rule was established in Vesālī concerning the monks of the Vaggumudā River, regarding the matter of revealing one’s attainments. It is a general rule, non-āṇattika, and if one directly reveals one’s jhāna or other attainments to another, and the other immediately understands, “This one has attained jhāna” or “This one is a noble one,” it is a pācittiya offense. If the other does not understand, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If revealed indirectly, whether understood or not, it is still a dukkaṭa offense. In such cases, if a fully ordained monk reveals it, or if a newly ordained monk does so, there is no offense. However, since noble ones cannot be insane, etc., and jhāna attainers lose their jhāna if they reveal it, they are not included here. The four factors here are: the reality of the supramundane quality, revealing it to an unordained person, immediate recognition, and not being prompted by another. The origins, etc., are similar to the Padasodhammasikkhāpada, except here it is a verbal action, not a release from perception, mindless, a rule offense, bodily action, verbal action, arising from two types of consciousness—wholesome and indeterminate—and accompanied by two types of feeling—pleasant and neutral.

9. Duṭṭhullārocanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Duṭṭhullārocana Training Rule

9. Explanation of the Training Rule on Reporting a Grave Offense

9. Explanation of the Duṭṭhullārocanasikkhāpada

Navame bhikkhussāti pārājikaṃ anajjhāpannassa. Duṭṭhullanti kiñcāpi dvinnaṃ āpattikkhandhānametaṃ adhivacanaṃ, idha pana saṅghādisesameva adhippetaṃ. Aññatra bhikkhusammutiyāti yaṃ saṅgho abhiṇhāpattikassa bhikkhuno āyatiṃ saṃvaratthāya āpattīnañca kulānañca pariyantaṃ katvā vā akatvā vā tikkhattuṃ apaloketvā katikaṃ karoti, taṃ ṭhapetvā, ayathākatikāya “ayaṃ asuciṃ mocetvā saṅghādisesaṃ āpanno”tiādinā nayena vatthunā saddhiṃ āpattiṃ ghaṭetvā ārocentassa pācittiyaṃ.

In the ninth, bhikkhussa means a monk who has not committed a pārājika offense. Duṭṭhulla—although this is a term for two groups of offenses, here it specifically means only a saṅghādisesa offense. Aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā means except by the agreement of the monks, which the Sangha establishes for a monk who repeatedly offends, setting or not setting a limit to offenses and their types, consulting three times for future restraint; apart from this, one who declares an offense like “This one, having released impurity, has committed a saṅghādisesa” along with its basis incurs a pācittiya offense.

In the ninth, of a monk means of one who has not committed a pārājika. Grave although this is a designation for two groups of offenses, here only a saṅghādisesa is intended. Except with the consent of the monks means, that which the Sangha does for a monk who frequently commits offenses, to establish restraint in the future, determining or not determining the limit of the offenses and the families, declaring three times, and making an agreement, except that, if one reports connecting the offense with the object, saying in a way such as, “This one, having emitted semen, has committed a saṅghādisesa,” without a properly made agreement, it is a pācittiya.

In the ninth, bhikkhussā refers to a monk who has not committed a pārājika offense. Duṭṭhulla is a term for the two classes of offenses, but here it specifically refers to a saṅghādisesa offense. Aññatra bhikkhusammutiyā means except with the permission of the Sangha. If the Sangha, for the sake of restraint, sets a boundary for a monk who frequently commits offenses, whether with or without a boundary, and after informing the Sangha three times, makes a formal act, except in such a case, if one reveals an offense along with the matter, saying, “This one has committed a saṅghādisesa offense after emitting semen,” etc., it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha duṭṭhullāpattiārocanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ , aduṭṭhullāya duṭṭhullasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ, avasese cha āpattikkhandhe, anupasampannassa purimapañcasikkhāpadavītikkamasaṅkhātaṃ duṭṭhullaṃ vā itaraṃ aduṭṭhullaṃ vā ajjhācāraṃ ārocentassāpi dukkaṭameva. Vatthumattaṃ vā āpattimattaṃ vā ārocentassa, bhikkhusammutiparicchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ārocentassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Vuttalakkhaṇassa bhikkhuno savatthuko saṅghādiseso, anupasampannassa ārocanaṃ, bhikkhusammutiyā abhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, vedanā pana idha dukkhāyevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks, this was laid down in the matter of declaring a grave offense. It is a common rule, not requiring instruction, incurring a pācittiya offense three times, a dukkaṭa offense for one who perceives a non-grave offense as grave or is uncertain, and also a dukkaṭa offense for declaring the remaining six groups of offenses, or a grave or non-grave misconduct reckoned as a breach of the first five training rules to an unordained person. There is no offense in declaring only the basis or the offense, declaring within the limits of the monks’ agreement, or for those who are insane and the like. The three factors here are: a saṅghādisesa offense with a basis for a monk as described, declaring it to an unordained person, and the absence of the monks’ agreement. Its origin and the rest are similar to taking what is not given, but the feeling here is only painful.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks in the case of reporting a grave offense, it is a general regulation, not a command, a pācittiya offense with three conditions, if one has doubt, or thinks that a non-grave offense is a grave offense, it is a dukkaṭa, and in the remaining six groups of offenses, and also for reporting to an unordained person a grave offense consisting of transgression of the first five training rules, or any other non-grave misdeed. There is no offense for reporting only the object or only the offense, for reporting without exceeding the limit of the consent of the monks, and for one who is insane, etc. The factors here are three: a saṅghādisesa with its object of a monk having the mentioned characteristics, reporting to an unordained person, and the absence of the consent of the monks. The origin, etc. are similar to theft, but here the feeling is only painful.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the Chabbaggiya monks, regarding the matter of revealing grave offenses. It is a general rule, non-āṇattika, and falls under the tikapācittiya. If one perceives a non-grave offense as grave or is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Revealing any of the six classes of offenses to an unordained person, or revealing a grave or non-grave offense to an unordained person, is also a dukkaṭa offense. Revealing the matter or the offense without exceeding the Sangha’s permission, or in the case of the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: the described monk with a saṅghādisesa offense, revealing it to an unordained person, and the absence of Sangha permission. The origins, etc., are similar to the Adinnādānasikkhāpada, but the feeling here is solely painful.

10. Pathavīkhaṇanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Pathavīkhaṇana Training Rule

10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Digging the Earth

10. Explanation of the Pathavīkhaṇanasikkhāpada

Dasame pathavinti duvidhā pathavī jātapathavī ajātapathavīti. Tattha jātapathavī suddhamissapuñjavasena tividhā, tattha suddhapathavī nāma pakatiyā suddhapaṃsu vā suddhamattikā vā. Missapathavī nāma yattha paṃsuto vā mattikāto vā pāsāṇasakkharakathalamarumbavālukāsu aññatarassa tatiyabhāgo hoti. Puñjapathavī nāma “atirekacātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭho paṃsupuñjo vā mattikāpuñjo vā”ti (pāci. 86) vuttaṃ, vuttalakkhaṇena pana missakapuñjopi piṭṭhipāsāṇe ṭhitasukhumarajampi ca deve phusāyante sakiṃ tintaṃ catumāsaccayena tintokāso puñjapathavisaṅkhameva gacchati. Tividhāpi cesā pathavī uddhanapattapacanādivasena vā yathā tathā vā adaḍḍhā ’jātapathavī’ti vuccati, daḍḍhā pana vuttappamāṇato adhikatarapāsāṇādimissā vā ajātapathavī nāma hoti, ko pana vādo suddhapāsāṇādibhedāya. Tattha yā ’jātapathavī’ti vuttā, ayaṃ akappiyapathavī. Yo bhikkhu taṃ evarūpaṃ pathaviṃ sayaṃ khaṇati, khaṇanabhedanavilekhanapacanādīhi vikopeti, tassa payogagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ. Yo pana khaṇāpeti, vuttanayeneva vikopāpeti, tassa “imaṃ padesa”nti vā “imaṃ pathavi”nti vā evaṃ niyametvā “khaṇa, bhindā”tiādinā nayena āṇāpentassa āṇattiyā dukkaṭaṃ, sakiṃ āṇatte divasampi khaṇante āṇāpakassa ekameva pācittiyaṃ, sace itaro punappunaṃ āṇāpeti, vācāya vācāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the tenth, pathavi means earth, which is twofold: mature earth (jātapathavī) and immature earth (ajātapathavī). Therein, jātapathavī is threefold by way of pure, mixed, and heaped earth. Suddhapathavī means naturally pure dust or pure clay. Missapathavī means that in which a third part consists of stones, gravel, potsherds, grass, or sand mixed with dust or clay. Puñjapathavī means “a heap of dust or clay rained on for more than four months” as stated (pāci. 86); even a mixed heap with the described characteristics or fine dust on a stone slab, once wetted by rain and dried after four months, is reckoned as heaped earth. All three kinds of this earth, whether used for ovens, cooking pots, or otherwise, if unburnt, are called jātapathavī. But if burnt or mixed with more stones and the like beyond the stated measure, it is called ajātapathavī, and even more so pure stone and the like. Therein, what is called jātapathavī is impermissible earth. A monk who himself digs such earth or damages it by digging, breaking, scratching, cooking, or the like incurs a pācittiya offense based on the count of efforts. One who causes it to be dug or damaged in the manner described, by specifying “this place” or “this earth” and commanding “dig” or “break” or the like, incurs a dukkaṭa offense by the command; if commanded once and they dig all day, the commander incurs only one pācittiya offense, but if the other commands repeatedly, there is a pācittiya offense for each command.

In the tenth, earth is of two kinds, developed earth and undeveloped earth. Of these, developed earth is of three kinds according to being pure, mixed, and heaped. Of these, pure earth is pure dust or pure clay by nature. Mixed earth is that where one-third is of either dust or clay, and the other two-thirds are of stones, gravel, potsherds, broken bricks, sand, or any other. Heaped earth is as stated, “A heap of dust or a heap of clay that has been rained on for more than four months” (Pāci. 86), but a mixed heap having the mentioned characteristics, and also fine dust lying on the surface of a rock, when it is sprinkled by the rain, once wetted, after four months the wetted place goes under the designation of heaped earth. And all three kinds of this earth, whether by lifting, winnowing, baking, etc., or in any way, if it is not burnt, it is called ‘developed earth’, but if it is burnt, or mixed with more stones, etc. than the mentioned amount, it is called undeveloped earth, what need be said of the division of pure stones, etc. Of these, that which is called ‘developed earth’, this is unsuitable earth. If a monk himself digs that kind of earth, disturbs it by digging, breaking, scratching, baking, etc., there is a pācittiya offense counting the actions. But if he causes to dig, causes to disturb in the mentioned way, if he commands saying, “Dig, break” etc. specifying “this place” or “this earth”, there is a dukkaṭa offense for the command, if he commands once and the other digs the whole day, there is only one pācittiya for the one who commanded, if the other commands again and again, there is a pācittiya for each utterance.

In the tenth, pathavi refers to two types of earth: born earth and unborn earth. Jātapathavī is of three kinds: pure earth, mixed earth, and heaped earth. Suddhapathavī means naturally pure dust or clay. Missapathavī means where dust or clay constitutes less than a third of the mixture with stones, gravel, pebbles, or sand. Puñjapathavī refers to a heap of dust or clay that has been piled up for more than four months, as described (pāci. 86). According to the description, even a heap of mixed earth, if it has been rained on once during the four months, is considered puñjapathavī. These three types of earth, if not burned, are called jātapathavī. If burned, or if mixed with more than the described amount of stones, etc., it is called ajātapathavī. Pure stones, etc., are also included. Jātapathavī is considered unsuitable earth. If a monk digs such earth himself, or breaks, splits, or burns it, it is a pācittiya offense. If he causes another to dig it, and it is disturbed in the described manner, it is a dukkaṭa offense for giving the order. If he orders, “Dig here,” or “Dig this earth,” and the other digs all day, the one who gave the order incurs one pācittiya offense. If the other repeatedly asks for orders, each utterance incurs a pācittiya offense.

Āḷaviyaṃ āḷavake bhikkhū ārabbha pathavikhaṇanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, pathaviyā vematikassa, apathaviyā pathavisaññino ceva vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Okāsaṃ aniyametvā “pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇa, āvāṭaṃ khaṇa, kandaṃ khaṇā”tiādīni bhaṇantassa, ātapena sussitvā phalitakaddamaṃ vā gokaṇṭakaṃ vā heṭṭhā pathaviyā asambaddhaṃ bhijjitvā patitanaditaṭaṃ vā mahantampi naṅgalacchinnamattikāpiṇḍantievamādīni sabbañca ajātapathaviṃ vikopentassa, “imassa thambhassa āvāṭaṃ jāna , mattikaṃ dehi, mattikaṃ āhara, paṃsunā me attho, mattikaṃ kappiyaṃ karohī”ti bhaṇantassa, asañcicca rukkhādipavaṭṭanena bhindantassa, asatiyā pādaṅguṭṭhakādīhi vilekhantassa, jātapathavibhāvaṃ vā, “khaṇāmi vā aha”nti ajānantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Jātapathavī, pathavisaññitā, khaṇanakhaṇāpanānaṃ aññataranti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana paṇṇattivajjaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

At Āḷavī, concerning the Āḷavaka monks, this was laid down in the matter of digging the earth. It is a common rule, requiring instruction, and a dukkaṭa offense for one uncertain about the earth, or who perceives non-earth as earth or is uncertain about it. There is no offense for one who says without specifying a place, “Dig a pond, dig a pit, dig a bulb,” and the like, or for one who damages dry mud cracked by the sun, a cow’s hoofprint, a riverbank fallen without connection to the earth below, or a large clod of clay split by a plow—all these and all immature earth—or for one who says, “Know the pit for this post, give clay, bring clay, I need dust, make the clay permissible,” or for one who unintentionally breaks it by rolling trees or the like, scratches it with the toe or the like due to carelessness, or does not know it is mature earth or that “I am digging,” or for those who are insane and the like. The three factors here are: mature earth, perception of it as earth, and either digging or causing it to be dug. Its origin and the rest are similar to taking what is not given, but this is a fault of the rule, with three kinds of mind and three kinds of feeling.

It was promulgated in Āḷavī concerning the monks of Āḷavī in the case of digging the earth, it is a general regulation, with command, if one has doubt about the earth, and if one thinks that non-earth is earth, and if one has doubt, it is a dukkaṭa. There is no offense for speaking without specifying the place, saying, “Dig a pond, dig a pit, dig a trench,” etc., or for disturbing dried and cracked mud, or gokaṇṭaka (a kind of thorny plant), or a river bank that has fallen down not connected to the earth below, or even a large lump of clay cut by a plough, etc., and all undeveloped earth, or for saying, “Find out the pit for this post, give clay, bring clay, I need dust, make the clay suitable,” or for breaking unintentionally by felling a tree, etc., or for scratching without mindfulness with the toe, thumb, etc., or for not knowing the state of developed earth, or, “I am digging,” and for one who is insane, etc. The factors here are three: developed earth, the perception of earth, and either digging or causing to dig. The origin, etc. are similar to theft, but this is a fault in the Vinaya, with three types of thought, and with three types of feeling.

This rule was established in Āḷavī concerning the Āḷavaka monks, regarding the matter of digging the earth. It is a general rule, sāṇattika. If one is in doubt about the earth, or perceives non-earth as earth, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one says, “Dig a pond,” “Dig a pit,” “Dig a root,” etc., without specifying the place, or if one disturbs earth that has dried and cracked in the sun, or mud that has broken off and fallen, or a large clod of earth cut by a plow, or any unborn earth, or if one says, “Dig a hole for this post,” “Give me clay,” “Bring me clay,” “I need dust,” “Make this clay suitable,” or if one accidentally breaks a tree, etc., or scratches with a toenail, etc., without mindfulness, or if one does not know the nature of the earth or that one is digging, or in the case of the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: jātapathavī, perceiving it as earth, and digging or causing to dig. The origins, etc., are similar to the Adinnādānasikkhāpada, but this is a rule offense, arising from three types of consciousness, and accompanied by three types of feeling.

2. Bhūtagāmavaggo

2. Bhūtagāma Chapter

2. The Chapter on Plant Life

2. Bhūtagāmavaggo

1. Bhūtagāmasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Bhūtagāma Training Rule

1. Explanation of the Training Rule on Plant Life

1. Explanation of the Bhūtagāmasikkhāpada

Bhūtagāmavaggassa paṭhame bhūtagāmapātabyatāyāti ettha bhavanti ahesuñcāti bhūtā, jāyanti vaḍḍhanti jātā vaḍḍhitā cāti attho. Gāmoti rāsi, bhūtānaṃ gāmo, bhūtā eva vā gāmoti bhūtagāmo, patiṭṭhitaharitatiṇarukkhādīnametaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Pātabyassa bhāvo pātabyatā, chedanabhedanādīhi yathāruci paribhuñjitabbatāti attho, tassaṃ bhūtagāmapātabyatāya, nimittatthe cetaṃ bhummavacanaṃ, bhūtagāmapātabyatāhetu bhūtagāmassa chedanādipaccayā pācittiyanti attho. Tasmā yo bhikkhu pathaviudakapākārādīsu yatthakatthaci jātaṃ asukkhaṃ antamaso atisukhumatiṇampi sāsapabījakasevālampi uddharaṇacchedanavijjhanādīhi vikopeti vā pathavikhaṇane vuttanayena vikopāpeti vā pācittiyaṃ āpajjati.

In the first of the Bhūtagāma chapter, bhūtagāmapātabyatāya means: “they exist and have existed,” thus bhūta; “they are born and grow, born and grown,” this is the meaning. Gāma means a group; the group of bhūta, or bhūta themselves as a group, is bhūtagāma, a term for established green grass, trees, and the like. The state of being subject to destruction is pātabyatā, meaning it can be freely used by cutting, breaking, or the like; in that bhūtagāmapātabyatā, this is a locative case indicating cause, meaning a pācittiya offense due to cutting and the like of bhūtagāma for the sake of bhūtagāmapātabyatā. Thus, a monk who damages anything born anywhere—on earth, water, walls, or the like—whether still moist, even the finest grass or mustard-seed algae, by uprooting, cutting, piercing, or the like, or causes it to be damaged in the manner described in the Pathavīkhaṇana, incurs a pācittiya offense.

In the first of the chapter on plant life, in the case of injuring plant life, here, they exist (bhū) because they exist, they are born, they grow, they are born and grown, that is the meaning. Life (gāma) means a collection, the life of existents, or existents themselves are life, this is a designation for established grass, trees, etc. The state of being to be injured is pātabyatā, it means to be enjoyed at will by cutting, breaking, etc., in that state of being to be injured, this is a locative case with the sense of cause, because of the state of being to be injured, on account of cutting, etc. of plant life, there is a pācittiya, that is the meaning. Therefore, if a monk disturbs, by pulling out, cutting, piercing, etc., any non-dry, even the most minute grass, or even mustard seeds and moss, grown anywhere on earth, water, walls, etc., or causes to disturb in the way mentioned in the case of digging the earth, he commits a pācittiya offense.

In the first rule of the Bhūtagāmavagga, bhūtagāmapātabyatāya refers to living plants. Bhūtā means those that have come into existence, grow, and increase. Gāmo means a collection; thus, bhūtagāmo means a collection of living plants, or the plants themselves. This term refers to established green grass, trees, etc. Pātabyatā means the state of being fit to be used, i.e., the ability to be cut, broken, etc., as one wishes. Bhūtagāmapātabyatāya refers to the condition of being fit for use due to cutting, etc., of living plants. Therefore, if a monk cuts, breaks, or uproots any living plant, even the most delicate grass or a mustard seed, it is a pācittiya offense.

Āḷaviyaṃ āḷavake bhikkhū ārabbha rukkhachindanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, bhūtagāmato viyojitamūlabījakhandhabījaphalubījaaggabījabījabījānaṃ aññataraṃ bhājanagataṃ vā rāsikataṃ vā bhūmiyaṃ ropitampi nikkhantamūlamattaṃ vā nikkhantaaṅkuramattaṃ vā sacepissa vidatthimattā pattavaṭṭi niggacchati, anikkhante vā mūle nikkhante vā mūle yāva aṅkuro harito na hoti, tāva taṃ vikopentassa dukkaṭaṃ, tathā bhūtagāmabījagāme vematikassa, abhūtagāmabījagāme bhūtagāmabījagāmasaññino ceva vematikassa ca. Ubhayattha pana atathāsaññissa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti, asañcicca asatiyā ajānitvā vā vikopentassa, ’imaṃ rukkha’nti evaṃ aniyametvā “rukkhaṃ chinda, valliṃ chindā”tiādīni bhaṇantassa, “imaṃ pupphaṃ vā phalaṃ vā jāna, imaṃ dehi, imaṃ āhara, iminā me attho, imaṃ kappiyaṃ karohī”ti bhaṇantassa ca anāpatti. Evaṃ kappiyavacanena bhūtagāmato viyojitaṃ pana bījajātaṃ puna pi “kappiyaṃ karohī”ti kāretvāva paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Evañhissa bījagāmaparimocanampi kataṃ hoti.

At Āḷavī, concerning the Āḷavaka monks, this was laid down in the matter of cutting trees. It is a common rule, requiring instruction, and a dukkaṭa offense for one who damages a root-seed, stem-seed, joint-seed, fruit-seed, or tip-seed type of bhūtagāma seed placed in a vessel or heaped, or planted in the ground with only a root emerged or a sprout emerged, if a leaf-stalk an inch long emerges, or if the root has not emerged or has emerged but the sprout is not yet green—until then, damaging it incurs a dukkaṭa offense; likewise for one uncertain about bhūtagāma seeds, or who perceives non-bhūtagāma seeds as bhūtagāma seeds or is uncertain about them. But there is no offense for one with a different perception in both cases, or for those who are insane and the like, or for one who damages unintentionally, carelessly, or unknowingly, or for one who says without specifying, “Cut a tree, cut a vine,” and the like, or “Know this flower or fruit, give this, bring this, I need this, make this permissible.” But what has been separated from bhūtagāma by permissible speech must again be made permissible by saying “Make it permissible” before use. Thus, its liberation from the seed group is also accomplished.

It was promulgated in Āḷavī concerning the monks of Āḷavī in the case of cutting down a tree, it is a general regulation, with command, if any one of root-seed, stem-seed, fruit-seed, top-seed, or seed-seed, separated from plant life, is placed in a vessel, or heaped up, or even planted in the ground, or just with the root emerged, or just with the sprout emerged, even if a leaf-bud of the size of a finger-joint emerges, or if the root has not emerged, or if the root has emerged, as long as the sprout is not green, disturbing it is a dukkaṭa, and likewise, if one has doubt about plant life and seed life, and if one thinks that non-plant life and non-seed life are plant life and seed life, and if one has doubt. But if one has a wrong perception in both cases, and for one who is insane, etc., there is no offense, and for disturbing unintentionally, without mindfulness, or not knowing, or for saying without specifying, “Cut the tree, cut the creeper,” etc., saying, “Find out this flower or fruit, give this, bring this, I need this, make this suitable.” But seed-life that has been separated from plant life by such a suitable utterance should be enjoyed only after making it “suitable” again. Thus, the release from seed-life is also done for him.

This rule was established in Āḷavī concerning the Āḷavaka monks, regarding the matter of cutting trees. It is a general rule, sāṇattika. If a seed, root, stem, fruit, or shoot has been separated from the living plant and placed in a container or piled up, or planted in the ground, and if it has sprouted roots or shoots, or if the roots have not yet sprouted but the shoot has not turned green, disturbing it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one is in doubt about the seed of a living plant, or perceives a non-living plant seed as a living plant seed, it is also a dukkaṭa offense. In both cases, if one does not perceive it as such, or in the case of the insane, etc., there is no offense. If one accidentally disturbs it, or does so without mindfulness or knowledge, or if one says, “Cut this tree,” “Cut this vine,” etc., without specifying, or if one says, “Pick this flower or fruit,” “Give me this,” “Bring me this,” “I need this,” “Make this suitable,” there is no offense. However, if a seed separated from a living plant is made suitable again by saying, “Make this suitable,” it can be used. In this way, the seed is also released from the living plant.

Kappiyaṃ karontena pana agginā vā nakhena vā satthena vā kattabbaṃ, agginā karontena ca yena kenaci agginā ekadese phusantena ’kappiya’nti vatvāva kātabbaṃ. Satthena karontena yassa kassaci tikhiṇasatthassa antamaso sūcinakhacchedanādīnampi tuṇḍena vā dhārāya vā vedhaṃ vā chedaṃ vā dassentena tatheva kātabbaṃ. Nakhena karontena ṭhapetvā gomahiṃsādīnaṃ khure yena kenaci apūtinā manussānaṃ vā tiracchānānaṃ vā nakhena antamaso chinditvā āhaṭenāpi satthe vuttanayeneva kātabbaṃ. Tattha sacepi bījānaṃ pabbatamatto rāsi, rukkhasahassaṃ vā chinditvā ekābaddhaṃ, ucchūnaṃ vā mahābhāro bandhitvā ṭhapito hoti, ekasmiṃ bīje vā rukkhasākhāya vā ucchumhi vā kappiye kate sabbaṃ kataṃ hoti. Ucchuṃ “kappiyaṃ karissāmī”ti tehi saddhiṃ baddhaṃ dārukaṃ vijjhati, vaṭṭatiyeva. Sace pana yāya valliyā bhāro baddho, taṃ vijjhati, na vaṭṭati. Maricapakkādīhi missetvā bhattaṃ āharanti, “kappiyaṃ karohī”ti vutte sacepi bhattasitthe vijjhati, vaṭṭatiyeva, tilataṇḍulesupi eseva nayo. Yāguyā pakkhittāni pana ekābaddhāni hutvā na santiṭṭhanti, tattha ekekaṃ vijjhitvāva kātabbaṃ. Kapiṭṭhaphalādīnaṃ anto miñjaṃ kaṭāhaṃ muñcitvā sañcarati, bhindāpetvā kappiyaṃ kāretabbaṃ. Ekābaddhā ce, kaṭāhepi kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Yaṃ pana phalaṃ taruṇaṃ hoti abījaṃ yañca nibbattabījaṃ bījaṃ apanetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ, tattha kappiyakaraṇakiccaṃ natthi. Bhūtagāmo, bhūtagāmasaññitā, vikopanaṃ vā vikopāpanaṃ vāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni pathavikhaṇanasadisānevāti.

One making it permissible should do so with fire, a nail, or a blade. When doing so with fire, it should be done with any fire touching one part, saying “permissible.” When doing so with a blade, it should be done with any sharp blade—even the tip of a needle or nail-clipper—showing a piercing or cutting, and done in the same way. When doing so with a nail, except for the hooves of cows, buffaloes, and the like, it should be done with any non-putrid nail of a human or animal, even one brought after cutting, in the manner described for a blade. Therein, even if there is a mountain-like heap of seeds, a thousand trees cut and tied together, or a large load of sugarcane bound, once one seed, tree branch, or sugarcane is made permissible, all are made permissible. If one pierces a piece of wood bound with sugarcane saying “I will make it permissible,” it is still valid. But if one pierces the vine with which the load is bound, it is not valid. If rice is brought mixed with pepper and the like and one says “Make it permissible,” even piercing the cooked rice is valid; the same applies to sesame and rice grains. But grains put in gruel, not being bound together, must each be pierced individually. For fruits like kapiṭṭha, where the pith moves within the shell, it must be broken and made permissible. If bound together, it can be done even in the shell. But for a fruit that is unripe and seedless or one whose seeds are to be removed before use, there is no need for making it permissible. The three factors here are: bhūtagāma, perception of it as bhūtagāma, and damaging or causing it to be damaged. Its origin and the rest are similar to the Pathavīkhaṇana.

But when making it suitable, it should be done with fire, or with a nail, or with a knife, and when doing it with fire, touching any part with any fire, one should do it saying, ‘It is suitable.’ When doing it with a knife, touching any sharp knife, even the point or edge of a needle, nail-cutter, etc., showing a piercing or a cut, one should do it in the same way. When doing it with a nail, except for the hooves of cows, buffaloes, etc., with any non-putrid nail of humans or animals, even with one that has been brought after being cut, one should do it in the same way as mentioned for the knife. Here, even if there is a heap of seeds as big as a mountain, or a thousand trees cut and tied together, or a large load of sugarcanes tied and placed, if one seed, or one tree branch, or one sugarcane is made suitable, all are made suitable. If one pierces a piece of wood tied together with sugarcanes saying, “I will make it suitable,” it is allowable. But if one pierces the creeper with which the load is tied, it is not allowable. When rice is brought mixed with chili powder, etc., when told, “Make it suitable,” even if one pierces a grain of rice, it is allowable, the same applies to sesame and rice. But those that are put in gruel do not remain tied together, there one should pierce each one and do it. The inner pulp of jackfruit, etc. moves after releasing the shell, it should be made suitable after breaking it open. If they are tied together, it is allowable to do it even on the shell. But as for the fruit that is tender and seedless, and the fruit that has developed seeds but should be enjoyed after removing the seeds, there is no need to make it suitable. Plant life, the perception of plant life, disturbing or causing to disturb, these are the three factors here. The origin, etc. are similar to digging the earth.

When making something suitable, one should use fire, a nail, or a knife. If using fire, one should touch a part of it with any flame and say, “It is suitable,” before doing so. If using a knife, one should make a cut or a hole with any sharp knife, even a needle or a razor, or with the tip or edge of the blade. If using a nail, except for the hooves of cows, buffaloes, etc., one should use any clean nail of a human or animal, even if it has been cut and brought. Even if there is a heap of seeds as large as a mountain, or if a thousand trees are cut and tied together, or if a large bundle of sugarcane is tied up, making one seed, one tree branch, or one sugarcane suitable makes everything suitable. If one says, “I will make the sugarcane suitable,” and pierces the tied bundle with a stick, it is permissible. However, if one pierces the vine with which the bundle is tied, it is not permissible. If rice is mixed with pepper, etc., and one says, “Make it suitable,” even if the rice is pierced, it is permissible. The same applies to sesame and rice. If something is mixed with porridge and tied together, it does not stand firm; one must pierce each piece individually. For fruits like kapiṭṭha, the inner pulp must be removed and the shell broken to make it suitable. If tied together, it can also be done in the shell. For young, seedless fruits, or fruits whose seeds have been removed, they can be used without making them suitable. The three factors here are: a living plant, perceiving it as a living plant, and disturbing it or causing it to be disturbed. The origins, etc., are similar to the Pathavīkhaṇanasikkhāpada.

2. Aññavādakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Aññavādaka Training Rule

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Evasive Speech

2. Explanation of the Aññavādakasikkhāpada

Dutiye yamatthaṃ saṅghamajjhe vinayadharo pucchati, tato aññaṃ vadatīti aññavādako, aññenaññaṃ paṭicaraṇassetaṃ nāmaṃ. Vihesatīti vihesako, tuṇhībhāvassetaṃ nāmaṃ, tasmiṃ aññavādake vihesake. Pācittiyanti vatthudvaye pācittiyadvayaṃ vuttaṃ. Tasmā yo bhikkhu sāvasesaṃ āpattiṃ āpanno saṅghamajjhe anuyuñjiyamāno taṃ na kathetukāmo aññena vacanena aññaṃ chādento tathā tathā vikkhipati, yo ca tuṇhībhāvena viheseti, tesaṃ yaṃ bhagavatā aññavādakakammañceva vihesakakammañca anuññātaṃ, tasmiṃ saṅghena kate puna tathā karontānaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

In the second, one who says something other than what the vinaya expert asks in the midst of the Sangha is aññavādaka, a term for evading with something different. He annoys, thus vihesaka, a term for remaining silent; in that aññavādaka and vihesaka. Pācittiya means two pācittiya offenses are stated for the two bases. Thus, a monk who has committed a residual offense and, being questioned in the midst of the Sangha, not wishing to speak of it, evades here and there with other words to conceal it, and one who annoys by silence—when the Blessed One has permitted the actions of aññavādaka and vihesaka, and the Sangha has performed them—if they do so again, they incur a pācittiya offense.

In the second, he speaks something else than what the Vinaya expert is asking in the midst of the Sangha, therefore he is an evasive speaker, this is a name for shifting from one thing to another. He is silent, this is one who vexes, this is a name for being silent, in that evasive speaker, in one who vexes. A pācittiya offense means that two pācittiya offenses are stated for two objects. Therefore, if a monk who has committed an offense with a remainder is being questioned in the midst of the Sangha, not wishing to confess it, covers up one thing with another utterance, and disperses in various ways, and if he vexes by being silent, for those who do so again after the Sangha has performed the act of dealing with evasive speech and the act of dealing with vexing which have been allowed by the Blessed One, there is a pācittiya offense.

In the second rule, when a Vinaya expert is questioned in the midst of the Sangha, and he answers evasively, he is called aññavādako (one who speaks evasively). If he remains silent to harass, he is called vihesako (one who harasses). In both cases, it is a pācittiya offense. Therefore, if a monk, having committed an offense with remainder, is questioned in the midst of the Sangha and, not wishing to speak about it, evades the question by speaking evasively or harasses by remaining silent, and if the Sangha has already performed the aññavādakakamma or vihesakakamma authorized by the Buddha, and he does it again, it is a pācittiya offense.

Kosambiyaṃ channattheraṃ ārabbha aññenaññaṃ paṭicaraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, dhammakamme tikapācittiyaṃ, adhammakamme tikadukkaṭaṃ, anāropite pana aññavādake vā vihesake vā tathā karontassa dukkaṭameva. Āpattiṃ āpannabhāvaṃ vā ajānantassa “kiṃ tumhe bhaṇathā”ti pucchato, gelaññena vā, “saṅghassa bhaṇḍanādīni vā bhavissanti, adhammena vā vaggena vā nakammārahassa vā kammaṃ karissantī”ti iminā adhippāyena na kathentassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Dhammakammena āropitatā, āpattiyā vā vatthunā vā anuyuñjiyamānatā, chādetukāmatāya aññenaññaṃ paṭicaraṇaṃ vā tuṇhībhāvo vāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana siyā kiriyaṃ, siyā akiriyaṃ, dukkhavedanañca hotīti.

This was prescribed in Kosambī concerning the Elder Channa, regarding the matter of mutual concealment, a general prescription, not requiring authorization. In a lawful act, there are three pācittiya offenses; in an unlawful act, three dukkaṭa offenses. However, for one who does so without raising a charge against another speaker or a troublemaker, it is merely a dukkaṭa offense. For one who, not knowing of an offense or its occurrence, asks, “What are you saying?” or does so due to illness, or with the intention, “There will be disputes and so forth in the Saṅgha, or they will perform an act unlawfully, in discord, or for one unfit for the act,” and thus does not speak, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The three factors here are: being charged by a lawful act, being questioned regarding an offense or its basis, and concealing it with the desire to hide or remaining silent. The origin and so forth are similar to those of taking what is not given, but this may be an action or inaction and involves painful feeling.

It was promulgated in Kosambi concerning the venerable Channa in a case of shifting blame, a general regulation, not issued upon command, in a legal action of the community (saṅgha), a triple pācittiya; in an illegal action, a triple dukkhaṭa; but if one does so when not accused, either as a slanderer or a harasser, it is merely a dukkhaṭa. There is no offense for one who is unaware of having committed a fault and asks, “What are you saying?”; or for reasons of illness; or thinking, “There will be quarrels and other such issues in the Saṅgha, or they will perform an act against one who is not deserving of an act, either unlawfully or factionally,” and does not relate it; or for the insane and so forth. Herein, there are three factors: being accused through a legal action of the community, being questioned about the substance of the offense, and either shifting blame through another or remaining silent due to a desire to conceal. The origins and other aspects are similar to those in the case of taking what is not given, but this may be either an action or a non-action, and it is also of painful feeling.

This rule was established in Kosambī concerning the elder Channa, regarding the matter of evasive behavior. It is a general rule, non-āṇattika. In a lawful act, it is a tikapācittiya; in an unlawful act, it is a tikadukkaṭa. If the aññavādakakamma or vihesakakamma has not been imposed, and one acts in such a way, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one does not know that one has committed an offense, or if one asks, “What are you saying?” due to illness, or if one does not speak out of concern that the Sangha will quarrel, or that an unlawful faction will perform an unlawful act against one who does not deserve it, or in the case of the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: the act being lawful, being questioned about an offense or matter, and evading or remaining silent out of a desire to conceal. The origins, etc., are similar to the Adinnādānasikkhāpada, but here it may involve action or inaction, and the feeling is painful.

3. Ujjhāpanakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Grumbling

3. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Disparaging

3. Explanation of the Ujjhāpanakasikkhāpada

Tatiye yena vacanena ujjhāpenti “chandāya itthannāmo idaṃ nāma karotī”tiādīni vadantā upasampannaṃ saṅghena sammataṃ senāsanapaññāpakādibhedaṃ tassa ayasakāmā hutvā bhikkhūhi avajānāpenti, avaññāya olokāpenti, lāmakato vā cintāpenti, taṃ vacanaṃ ujjhāpanakaṃ. Yena ca tatheva vadantā khiyyanti, sabbattha tassa avaṇṇaṃ pakāsenti, taṃ khiyyanakaṃ, tasmiṃ ujjhāpanake khiyyanake. Pācittiyanti vatthudvaye pācittiyadvayaṃ vuttaṃ. Tasmā yo sammatassa bhikkhuno ayasakāmatāya upasampannassa vadanto ujjhāpeti vā khiyyati vā, tassa pācittiyaṃ hoti.

In the third, the words by which they grumble, such as “So-and-so does this because of partiality,” spoken by those ordained, disparage a monastic duly appointed by the Saṅgha—such as one who assigns lodgings and similar roles—out of desire for their disrepute, causing them to be looked down upon by other monks, regarded with contempt, or thought of as base; such speech is ujjhāpanaka. And that by which they similarly speak and criticize, proclaiming that person’s faults everywhere, is khiyyanaka. In this context of grumbling and criticizing, pācittiya refers to two pācittiya offenses stated for the two bases. Therefore, for one who, out of desire for the disrepute of an appointed monastic, speaks as an ordained person and either grumbles or criticizes, there is a pācittiya offense.

In the third, the speech with which they disparage is called disparaging (ujjhāpanaka), such as saying, “So-and-so does this because of desire,” and so on, causing the monks, out of a desire to bring disrepute upon a fully ordained (upasampanna) person appointed by the Saṅgha to the role of apportioning lodgings and other such duties, to disrespect, look down upon, or think of him as inferior. And the speech with which they are discontented, extensively proclaiming his dispraise in all places, is called discontenting (khiyyanaka), in that disparaging and discontenting. Pācittiya means that in these two instances, two pācittiyas are stated. Therefore, whoever, desiring to bring disrepute upon an appointed monk, speaks disparagingly or discontentedly about a fully ordained person, incurs a pācittiya.

In the third rule, the words by which one complains, saying, “Out of favoritism, so-and-so does this,” etc., and thereby causes the Sangha to disrespect a duly appointed monk, such as a senāsanapaññāpaka, out of a desire to disgrace him, are called ujjhāpanaka (complaint). Similarly, words by which one criticizes, disparages, or thinks poorly of him are called khiyyanaka (criticism). In both cases, it is a pācittiya offense. Therefore, if one complains or criticizes a duly appointed monk out of a desire to disgrace him, it is a pācittiya offense.

Rājagahe mettiyabhūmajake bhikkhū ārabbha ujjhāpanakhiyyanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, yaṃ tassa upasampannassa sammutikammaṃ kataṃ, tasmiṃ dhammakamme tikapācittiyaṃ, adhammakamme tikadukkaṭaṃ, anupasampannassa pana santike tathā bhaṇantassa, asammatassa ca avaṇṇaṃ yassa kassaci santike bhaṇantassa, anupasampannassa pana sammatassa vā asammatassa vā avaṇṇaṃ yassa kassacideva santike bhaṇantassa ca dukkaṭameva. Pakatiyāva chandādivasena karontaṃ ujjhāpentassa vā khiyyantassa vā, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Dhammakammena sammatatā, upasampannatā, agatigamanābhāvo, tassa avaṇṇakāmatā, yassa santike vadati, tassa upasampannatā, ujjhāpanaṃ vā khiyyanaṃ vāti imānettha cha aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedanamevāti.

This was prescribed in Rājagaha concerning the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka, regarding the matter of grumbling and criticizing, a general prescription, not requiring authorization. For that lawful act performed as an ordained person’s appointed duty, there are three pācittiya offenses; in an unlawful act, three dukkaṭa offenses. However, for one who speaks thus in the presence of an unordained person, or speaks ill of an unappointed person in anyone’s presence, or speaks ill of an unordained person—whether appointed or not—in anyone’s presence, it is merely a dukkaṭa offense. For one who naturally grumbles or criticizes someone acting out of partiality and so forth, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The six factors here are: being duly appointed by a lawful act, being ordained, absence of wrong conduct, desire for that person’s disrepute, the ordained status of the one in whose presence it is said, and grumbling or criticizing. The origin and so forth are similar to those of taking what is not given, but this involves only painful feeling.

It was promulgated in Rājagaha concerning the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka in a case of disparaging and discontenting, a general regulation, not issued upon command; in a legal action of the community regarding the duty that was performed for that fully ordained one, a triple pācittiya; in an illegal action, a triple dukkhaṭa; but if one speaks in such a way in the presence of a non-fully ordained person, or speaks dispraise of an unappointed one in the presence of anyone, or speaks dispraise of a non-fully ordained person, whether appointed or unappointed, in the presence of anyone at all, it is merely a dukkhaṭa. There is no offense for one who disparages or is discontented with one who is acting out of desire and other such factors by nature, or for the insane and so forth. Herein, there are six factors: being appointed through a legal action of the community, being fully ordained, not resorting to partiality, desiring to speak dispraise of him, the presence of a fully ordained person before whom one speaks, and either disparaging or discontenting. The origins and other aspects are similar to those in the case of taking what is not given, but this is only of painful feeling.

In Rājagaha, regarding the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka, a rule was established in the case of making complaints and accusations. It is a common rule, non-offensive by nature. If a formal act is performed against one who is fully ordained, in that legal procedure, there are three Pācittiya offenses, and in an improper procedure, there are three Dukkaṭa offenses. However, if an unordained person speaks in the presence of another unordained person, or if one speaks disparagingly of someone who has not been appointed, or if one speaks disparagingly of an unordained person, whether appointed or not, in the presence of anyone, it is only a Dukkaṭa offense. If one complains or accuses someone who is acting out of consent or other reasons, or if it is done by one who is insane, etc., there is no offense. The six factors here are: the legal procedure, the appointment, the absence of improper conduct, the intention to speak disparagingly, the presence of the person being spoken to, and the complaint or accusation. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing. However, this results only in mental suffering.

4. Paṭhamasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the First Training Rule Concerning Lodgings

4. The Explanation of the First Training Rule on Lodgings

4. Explanation of the First Training Rule on Lodgings

Catutthe saṅghikanti saṅghassa santakaṃ. Mañcādīsu yokoci mañcasaṅkhepena kato sabbopi mañcoyeva, pīṭhepi eseva nayo. Yena kenaci pana coḷena vā kappiyacammena vā chaviṃ katvā ṭhapetvā manussalomaṃ tālīsapattañca yehi kehici lomapaṇṇatiṇavākacoḷehi pūretvā katasenāsanaṃ bhisīti vuccati. Tattha nisīditumpi nipajjitumpi vaṭṭati, pamāṇaparicchedopi cettha natthi. Kocchaṃ pana vākausīramuñjapabbajādīnaṃ aññataramayaṃ anto saṃvellitvā baddhaṃ heṭṭhā ca upari ca vitthataṃ paṇavasaṇṭhānaṃ majjhe sīhacammādiparikkhittaṃ hoti, akappiyacammaṃ nāmettha natthi. Senāsanañhi sovaṇṇamayampi vaṭṭati. Ajjhokāseti ettha ye avassikasaṅketā vassānamāsāti evaṃ asaññitā aṭṭha māsā, te ṭhapetvā itaresu catūsu māsesu sacepi devo na vassati. Tathāpi pakatiajjhokāse ca ovassakamaṇḍape ca santharituṃ na vaṭṭati. Yattha pana hemante vassati, tattha aparepi cattāro māse na vaṭṭati. Gimhe pana sabbattha vigatavalāhakaṃ visuddhaṃ nabhaṃ hoti, tasmā tadā kenacideva karaṇīyena gacchati, vaṭṭati. Kākādīnaṃ nibaddhavāsarukkhamūle pana kadācipi na vaṭṭati. Iti yattha ca yadā ca santharituṃ na vaṭṭati, taṃ sabbamidha ajjhokāsasaṅkhameva gatanti veditabbaṃ.

In the fourth, saṅghika means belonging to the Saṅgha. Among beds and so forth, anything fashioned as a bed, even if abbreviated, is still a mañca; the same applies to a pīṭha. A lodging made with any cloth or permissible hide, filled with human hair, palm leaves, or any hair, leaves, grass, bark, or cloth, is called a bhisī. It is permissible to sit or lie on it, and there is no restriction on its size here. A koccha, however, is made of bark, usīra grass, muñja grass, or pabbaja grass, woven inside and bound, spread out below and above, shaped like a drum, and surrounded in the middle with lion hide or similar; there is no impermissible hide here. Even a lodging made of gold is permissible. Ajjhokāse refers to the open air; here, excluding the four months agreed upon as the rainy season—those eight months not so designated—if it does not rain even during the other four months, it is still not permissible to spread bedding in the natural open air or in a rain-sheltered pavilion. Where it rains in winter, it is not permissible in the other four months either. In summer, however, when the sky is clear of clouds and pure, it is permissible to go somewhere for some purpose. But under a tree that is a regular haunt of crows and the like, it is never permissible. Thus, all places and times where spreading bedding is not allowed are to be understood as falling under the term ajjhokāsa.

In the fourth, belonging to the Saṅgha (saṅghika) means belonging to the Saṅgha. Among beds and other items, whatever is made by way of a bed is all considered a bed (mañca); the same principle applies to seats (pīṭha). But a lodging made by covering the skin with any cloth or suitable leather, and filling it with human hair, tālīsa leaves, and any kind of hair, leaves, grass, bark, or cloth, is called a bolster (bhisī). It is permissible to sit or lie down on it, and there is no prescribed measurement for it. Koccha, however, is made of one of the following: bark, usīra grass, muñja grass, pabbaja grass, etc., bound together and spread out below and above, shaped like a paṇava drum, and covered in the middle with lion skin or other materials; there is no such thing as unsuitable leather here. Indeed, even a lodging made of gold is permissible. In the open air (ajjhokāse), excluding the eight months that are designated as the rainy season (vassāna), even if it does not rain during the other four months, still, one should not spread it out in an ordinary open-air space or in a pavilion where rain falls. But where it rains during the winter, one should not do so for the other four months either. During the hot season, however, the sky is completely clear and free of clouds everywhere, so one may go for any necessary reason; it is permissible. But one should never spread it out at the base of a tree where crows and other birds habitually roost. Thus, wherever and whenever it is not permissible to spread it out, all that is to be understood here as included in the term ‘open air’.

In the fourth rule, saṅghika means belonging to the Saṅgha. Among beds, etc., whatever is made by anyone, even if it is a small bed, it is still called a bed. The same applies to a stool. However, whatever is made by covering with cloth or permissible leather, excluding human hair and palm leaves, and filled with any kind of hair, leaves, grass, or cloth, is called a mattress. It is suitable for sitting or lying on, and there is no fixed size for it. A cushion is made by tightly binding the inside with bark, muñja grass, or other materials, spread out above and below, shaped like a drum, and covered with lion skin or similar. There is no impermissible leather here. Even a golden lodging is permissible. In the open air refers to the eight months outside the rainy season, even if it does not rain. However, it is not permissible to spread bedding in the open air or under a rain shelter during this time. In places where it rains in winter, it is also not permissible during those four months. In summer, when the sky is clear and free of clouds, it is permissible to go for some necessary business. However, it is never permissible at the base of a tree where crows, etc., habitually reside. Thus, wherever and whenever it is not permissible to spread bedding, it should be understood as falling under the category of the open air.

Santharitvāti tathārūpe ṭhāne attano vā parassa vā atthāya santharitvā. Aññassatthāya santhatampi hi yāva so tattha na nisīdati, ’gaccha tva’nti vā na bhaṇati, tāva santhārakasseva bhāro. Santharāpetvāti anupasampannena santharāpetvā. Etadeva hi tassa palibodho hoti, upasampannena santhataṃ santhārakasseva bhāro, tañca kho yāva āṇāpako tattha na nisīdati, ’gaccha tva’nti vā na bhaṇati. Yasmiñhi attanā santharāpite vā pakatisanthate vā upasampanno nisīdati, sabbaṃ taṃ nisinnasseva bhāro, tasmā santharāpitantveva saṅkhaṃ gacchati. Taṃ pakkamanto neva uddhareyya, na uddharāpeyyāti attanā vā uddharitvā patirūpe ṭhāne na ṭhapeyya, parena vā tathā na kārāpeyya. Anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyyāti yo bhikkhu vā sāmaṇero vā ārāmiko vā lajjī hoti, attano palibodhaṃ viya maññati, tathārūpaṃ anāpucchitvā taṃ senāsanaṃ tassa aniyyātetvā nirapekkho gacchati, thāmamajjhimassa purisassa leḍḍupātaṃ atikkameyya, tassa ekena pādena leḍḍupātātikkame dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyapādātikkame pācittiyaṃ. Bhojanasālāya ṭhito pana “asukasmiṃ nāma divāvihāraṭṭhāne paññapetvā gacchāhī”ti pesetvā tato nikkhamitvā aññattha gacchanto pāduddhārena kāretabbo.

Santharitvā means having spread it in such a place for oneself or another. Even if spread for another, until that person sits there or says, “Go,” the responsibility remains with the one who spread it. Santharāpetvā means having it spread by an unordained person. This alone becomes an impediment for him, but if spread by an ordained person, the responsibility remains with the one who spread it, and only until the one who ordered it sits there or says, “Go.” For when an ordained person sits on what was spread by oneself or naturally spread, the responsibility falls entirely on the sitter; thus, it is reckoned as “having it spread.” Taṃ pakkamanto neva uddhareyya, na uddharāpeyyā means he neither removes it himself nor has it removed by another and placed in a suitable spot. Anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyyā means he departs without informing a shy monk, novice, or monastery attendant who regards it as his own responsibility, without handing over that lodging to him, and goes heedlessly beyond the range of a stone’s throw for a person of average strength— incurring a dukkaṭa offense with the first step beyond and a pācittiya offense with the second. But one standing in the dining hall who sends someone, saying, “Spread it in such-and-such a daytime resting place and go,” and then departs elsewhere, incurs it with each step.

Having spread it out (santharitvā) means having spread it out in such a place for one’s own or another’s benefit. For even what is spread out for another’s benefit is the responsibility of the one who spread it out until that person sits there or says, “You may go.” Having caused it to be spread out (santharāpetvā) means having caused a non-fully ordained person to spread it out. For this is precisely his encumbrance; what is spread out by a fully ordained person is the responsibility of the one who spread it out, and that is only until the one who ordered it sits there or says, “You may go.” Indeed, whatever a fully ordained person sits on, whether spread out by oneself or naturally spread out, all that is the responsibility of the one who is sitting, therefore, only what is caused to be spread out is taken into account. Departing from there, one should neither remove it nor cause it to be removed (taṃ pakkamanto neva uddhareyya, na uddharāpeyyā) means one should neither remove it oneself and place it in a suitable place, nor cause another to do so. Or should depart without asking permission (anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyyā) means if a monk, novice, or monastery attendant is conscientious, considering it as one’s own encumbrance, and departs without asking permission, without entrusting that lodging to him, and without concern, if he exceeds a clod’s throw of a man of medium strength, with one foot exceeding the clod’s throw, there is a dukkhaṭa; with the exceeding of the second foot, there is a pācittiya. But if one is standing in the dining hall and sends someone saying, “Go and spread it out in such-and-such a daytime resting place,” and then leaves and goes elsewhere, it should be done with each step.

Having spread means having spread it in such a place for one’s own use or for another’s use. Even if it is spread for another’s use, as long as that person has not sat on it or said, “You go,” the responsibility remains with the one who spread it. Having had it spread means having it spread by an unordained person. This is the obstruction for him. If an ordained person spreads it, the responsibility remains with the one who spread it until the one who gave the order sits on it or says, “You go.” If an ordained person sits on a bedding spread by himself or naturally spread, the responsibility falls entirely on the one who sits. Therefore, it is considered as having been spread by him. When departing, he should neither remove it nor have it removed means he should not remove it himself and place it in a suitable place, nor should he have another do so. He should not depart without informing means if a monk, novice, or monastery worker is conscientious and considers it his own obstruction, he should not leave the lodging without informing and without handing it over to someone else. For a person of average strength, if he crosses the distance of a stone’s throw, it is a Dukkaṭa offense for the first step and a Pācittiya offense for the second step. If he is standing in the meal hall and sends someone saying, “Prepare such and such a day quarters and go,” and then leaves for another place, he should be made to return by foot.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha santhataṃ anuddharitvā anāpucchaṃ pakkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, puggalike tikadukkaṭaṃ, cimilikaṃ vā uttarattharaṇaṃ vā bhūmattharaṇaṃ vā taṭṭikaṃ vā cammakkhaṇḍaṃ vā pādapuñchanaṃ vā phalakapīṭhaṃ vā yaṃ vā panaññaṃ kañci dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍaṃ antamaso pattādhārakampi vuttalakkhaṇe ajjhokāse ṭhapetvā gacchantassa dukkaṭameva. Āraññakena pana asati anovassake sabbaṃ rukkhe laggetvāpi yathā vā upacikāhi na khajjati, evaṃ katvāpi gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Abbhokāsikena pana cīvarakuṭikaṃ katvāpi rakkhitabbaṃ. Attano santake, vissāsikapuggalike, uddharaṇādīni katvā gamane, otāpentassa, “āgantvā uddharissāmī”ti gacchato, vuḍḍhatarā uṭṭhāpenti, amanusso tattha nisīdati, koci issaro gaṇhāti, sīhādayo taṃ ṭhānaṃ āgantvā tiṭṭhanti, evaṃ senāsanaṃ palibuddhaṃ hoti, tathā palibuddhe vā senāsane, jīvitabrahmacariyantarāyakarāsu āpadāsu vā gacchantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Mañcādīnaṃ saṅghikatā, vuttalakkhaṇe dese santharaṇaṃ vā santharāpanaṃ vā, apalibuddhatā, āpadāya abhāvo, nirapekkhatā, leḍḍupātātikkamoti imānettha cha aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathinasadisāneva, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning several monks who departed without removing what was spread or informing anyone, regarding that matter, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For personal property, three dukkaṭa offenses apply. For leaving a pillow, upper cloth, floor cloth, mat, piece of hide, foot-wiper, wooden stool, or any wooden or clay item—even a bowl stand—in the described open air, it is merely a dukkaṭa offense. A forest-dweller, when there is no rainproof shelter, may hang everything on a tree or arrange it so termites do not eat it and depart permissibly. An open-air dweller must protect it even by making a robe-hut. For one’s own property, trusted personal property, departing after removing it, exposing it to the sun, departing with the thought, “I’ll return and remove it,” or when senior monks remove it, a spirit sits there, someone in authority takes it, or lions and the like come and stay there—when the lodging is thus obstructed, or in emergencies threatening life or the holy life, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The six factors here are: the Saṅgha’s ownership of the bed and so forth, spreading or having it spread in the described place, absence of obstruction, absence of emergency, heedlessness, and crossing beyond a stone’s throw. The origin and so forth are exactly like those of the first kathina rule, but this involves action and inaction.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning a group of monks in a case of departing without removing what had been spread out and without asking permission, a general regulation, not issued upon command, a triple pācittiya; in the case of personal property, a triple dukkhaṭa; but if one leaves behind in the open air, as described, a cimilikā (a floor covering), an upper cloth, a ground cloth, a mat, a piece of leather, a foot-wiping cloth, a wooden seat, or any other wooden or clay item, even a stand for a bowl, it is merely a dukkhaṭa. But a forest-dweller, when there is no rain, may even hang everything on a tree or arrange it so that it is not eaten by termites; he may depart having done so. An open-air dweller, however, should make a cloth hut and protect it. There is no offense in the case of one’s own possessions, trusted individuals, doing the removing and other actions and departing; for one who is sunning it; for one who departs thinking, “I will come back and remove it”; if elders remove it; if a non-human sits there; if some lord takes it; if lions or other animals come to that place and stay, thus the lodging becomes encumbered; or in the case of an encumbered lodging; or for one departing due to dangers to life or the holy life; or for the insane and so forth. Herein, there are six factors: the item being a bed or other such item belonging to the Saṅgha, spreading it out or causing it to be spread out in a place as described, the absence of encumbrance, the absence of danger, the lack of concern, and exceeding a clod’s throw. The origins and other aspects are similar to those in the first kathina rule, but this is both action and non-action.

In Sāvatthī, regarding several monks, a rule was established in the case of not removing the spread bedding and departing without informing. It is a common rule, non-offensive by nature, with three Pācittiya offenses and three Dukkaṭa offenses for individuals. Whether it is a mat, an upper cover, a ground cover, a reed mat, a piece of leather, a foot wiper, a wooden stool, or any other wooden or clay item, even a bowl stand, if one leaves it in the open air without removing it, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. However, a forest-dwelling monk, when there is no rain shelter, may tie everything to a tree or arrange it so that it is not eaten by termites, and then depart. A monk who lives in the open air should also protect his robe hut. If it is his own property, or if he has a trusted person, and he removes it, etc., and departs, or if he leaves it saying, “I will remove it when I return,” and elders remove it, or if a non-human sits there, or if someone takes possession, or if lions, etc., come and stay there, then the lodging is obstructed. In such an obstructed lodging, or in cases of danger to life or the holy life, or if one is insane, etc., there is no offense. The six factors here are: the Saṅgha’s ownership of the bed, etc., spreading or having it spread in the designated place, the absence of obstruction, the absence of danger, indifference, and crossing the distance of a stone’s throw. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the first Kathina rule. However, this is a matter of action and inaction.

5. Dutiyasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Second Training Rule Concerning Lodgings

5. The Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Lodgings

5. Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Lodgings

Pañcame vihāreti gabbhe vā aññatarasmiṃ vā sabbaparicchanne vuttasenāsane. Seyyanti seyyā nāma bhisī cimilikā uttarattharaṇaṃ bhūmattharaṇaṃ taṭṭikā cammakkhaṇḍo nisīdanaṃ paccattharaṇaṃ tiṇasanthāro paṇṇasanthāroti vuttaṃ. Tattha cimilikā nāma parikammakatāya bhūmiyā vaṇṇānurakkhaṇatthaṃ katā. Uttarattharaṇaṃ nāma mañcapīṭhādīnaṃ upari attharitabbayuttakaṃ paccattharaṇaṃ. Bhūmattharaṇaṃ nāma cimilikāya sati tassā upari, asati suddhabhūmiyaṃ attharitabbā kaṭasārakādi vikati. Taṭṭikā nāma tālapaṇṇādīhi katataṭṭikā. Cammakkhaṇḍo nāma yaṃkiñci cammaṃ, sīhacammādīnañhi pariharaṇeyeva parikkhepo, senāsanaparibhoge pana akappiyacammaṃ nāma natthi. Paccattharaṇaṃ nāma pāvāro kojavoti ettakameva, sesaṃ pākaṭameva. Iti imāsu dasasu seyyāsu ekampi seyyaṃ attano vassaggena gahetvā vuttalakkhaṇe vihāre santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā yo bhikkhu disaṃgamiko yathā ṭhapitaṃ upacikāhi na khajjati, tathā ṭhapanavasena neva uddhareyya, na uddharāpeyya, purimasikkhāpade vuttanayena anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyya, tassa parikkhittassa ārāmassa parikkhepaṃ, aparikkhittassa upacāraṃ atikkamantassa paṭhamapāde dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyapāde pācittiyaṃ. Yattha pana upacikāsaṅkā natthi, tato anāpucchāpi gantuṃ vaṭṭati, āpucchanaṃ pana vattaṃ.

In the fifth, vihāre means in a dwelling, whether an inner chamber or any fully enclosed lodging as described. Seyya refers to bedding, namely a bhisī, pillow, upper cloth, floor cloth, mat, piece of hide, seat, blanket, grass mat, or leaf mat, as stated. Here, cimilikā is made for preserving the color of a treated floor. Uttarattharaṇaṃ is suitable for spreading over a bed or stool as a blanket. Bhūmattharaṇaṃ is a rug or similar item spread over a pillow if present, or on the bare floor if not. Taṭṭikā is a mat made of palm leaves or the like. Cammakkhaṇḍo is any piece of hide; even lion hide and so forth are merely for adornment, and there is no impermissible hide in lodging use. Paccattharaṇaṃ refers only to a cloak or rug; the rest is obvious. Thus, among these ten types of bedding, if a monk, intending to travel afar, spreads or has spread even one in the described dwelling under his own control and does not remove it or have it removed, ensuring it is placed so termites do not eat it, and departs without informing as per the method in the previous training rule, he incurs a dukkaṭa offense with the first step beyond the boundary of a enclosed monastery or the vicinity of an unenclosed one, and a pācittiya offense with the second. But where there is no danger of termites, it is permissible to depart without informing, though informing is proper conduct.

In the fifth, in a dwelling (vihāre) means in a cell or any other fully enclosed lodging as described. Bedding (seyya) means a bolster, cimilikā, upper cloth, ground cloth, mat, piece of leather, sitting cloth, coverlet, grass spread, or leaf spread, as stated. Therein, cimilikā (cimilikā) is made for the purpose of protecting the color of the floor due to its preparation. Upper cloth (uttarattharaṇaṃ) means a coverlet suitable to be spread over a bed, seat, and other such items. Ground cloth (bhūmattharaṇaṃ) means a variety of kaṭasāraka and other materials to be spread on the floor if there is a cimilikā, or on the bare ground if there is not. Mat (taṭṭikā) means a mat made of palm leaves and other materials. Piece of leather (cammakkhaṇḍo) means any kind of leather; indeed, the boundary for lion skins and other such items is simply their handling; but in the use of lodgings, there is no such thing as unsuitable leather. Coverlet (paccattharaṇaṃ) means only a cloak or a rug; the rest is evident. Thus, having taken even one of these ten beddings with his own rains-residence count, and having spread it out or caused it to be spread out in a dwelling as described, if a monk who is traveling should neither remove it nor cause it to be removed, by arranging it so that it is not eaten by termites as it was placed, or should depart without asking permission as described in the previous training rule, when he crosses the boundary of a fenced monastery, or the boundary of use of an unfenced one, with the first foot there is a dukkhaṭa; with the second foot, there is a pācittiya. But where there is no concern about termites, it is permissible to depart even without asking permission; asking permission, however, is the practice.

In the fifth rule, vihāra means a cell or any enclosed lodging as described. Bedding refers to a mattress, a mat, an upper cover, a ground cover, a reed mat, a piece of leather, a sitting mat, a spread, a grass spread, or a leaf spread. Among these, a mat is made by preparing the ground to preserve its appearance. An upper cover is what is spread over a bed or stool. A ground cover is spread over a mat or directly on the ground, such as a straw mat. A reed mat is made with palm leaves, etc. A piece of leather refers to any leather, as even lion skin is permissible for use, and there is no impermissible leather for lodging use. A spread refers to a woolen blanket or a quilt, and the rest are obvious. Among these ten types of bedding, if a monk takes even one for his own use during the rainy season, spreads it or has it spread in the designated lodging, and does not remove it or have it removed when departing, or departs without informing as stated in the previous rule, it is a Dukkaṭa offense for the first step beyond the boundary of the enclosed monastery or the vicinity of an unenclosed one, and a Pācittiya offense for the second step. Where there is no fear of termites, one may depart without informing, but informing is the proper practice.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sattarasavaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha saṅghike vihāre seyyaṃ santharitvā anuddharitvā anāpucchā pakkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, puggalike tikadukkaṭaṃ, vuttalakkhaṇassa pana vihārassa upacāre bahi āsanne upaṭṭhānasālāya vā aparicchannamaṇḍape vā paricchanne vāpi bahūnaṃ sannipātabhūte rukkhamūle vā santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā, mañcapīṭhañca vihāre vā vuttappakāre vihārūpacāre vā santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā uddharaṇādīni akatvā gacchantassa dukkaṭameva. Attano santake, vissāsikapuggalike, uddharaṇādīni katvā, purimanayeneva palibuddhaṃ chaḍḍetvā gamane, yo ca “ajjeva āgantvā paṭijaggissāmī”ti evaṃ sāpekkho nadipāraṃ vā gāmantaraṃ vā gantvā yatthassa gamanacittaṃ uppannaṃ, tattheva ṭhito kañci pesetvā vā āpucchati, nadipūrarājacorādīsu vā kenaci palibuddho na sakkoti paccāgantuṃ, tassa ca, āpadāsu ca, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Vuttalakkhaṇaseyyā , tassā saṅghikatā, vuttalakkhaṇe vihāre santharaṇaṃ vā santharāpanaṃ vā, apalibuddhatā, āpadāya abhāvo, anapekkhassa disāpakkamanaṃ , upacārasīmātikkamoti imānettha satta aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni anantarasikkhāpade vuttanayānevāti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Seventeen monks who spread bedding in a Saṅgha dwelling and departed without removing it or informing anyone, regarding that matter, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For personal property, three dukkaṭa offenses apply. For spreading or having spread bedding in the vicinity outside the described dwelling, such as in an open or enclosed assembly hall or under a tree where many gather, or spreading or having spread a bed or stool in the dwelling or its described vicinity and departing without removing it, it is merely a dukkaṭa offense. For one’s own property, trusted personal property, departing after removing it, or abandoning obstructed property as in the previous method, or one who, expecting, “I’ll return today and care for it,” goes to another village or across a river with that intention and, standing there, informs someone or sends a message, or is prevented from returning by a flooded river, king, thieves, or the like, and in emergencies, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The seven factors here are: the described bedding, its ownership by the Saṅgha, spreading or having it spread in the described dwelling, absence of obstruction, absence of emergency, heedless departure afar, and crossing beyond the vicinity or boundary. The origin and so forth are exactly as stated in the previous training rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of seventeen monks in a case of spreading out bedding in a dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha and departing without removing it and without asking permission, a general regulation, not issued upon command, a triple pācittiya; in the case of personal property, a triple dukkhaṭa; but having spread out or caused to be spread out outside, near the boundary of use of a dwelling as described, in a hall for attendance, an unenclosed pavilion, or even an enclosed place where many gather, or at the base of a tree, or having spread out or caused to be spread out a bed or seat either in a dwelling or in the boundary of use of a dwelling as described, and departing without doing the removing and other actions, it is merely a dukkhaṭa. There is no offense in the case of one’s own possessions, trusted individuals, doing the removing and other actions; in the case of discarding what is encumbered as in the previous case; and for one who, with the expectation, “I will come back today and attend to it,” goes to the far shore of a river or to another village, and while staying in the very place where his intention to go arose, either sends someone or asks permission; or if he is prevented by some flood, royal decree, robbers, or other such factors and is unable to return; and for him, and in cases of danger, and for the insane and so forth. Herein, there are seven factors: the item being bedding as described, its belonging to the Saṅgha, spreading it out or causing it to be spread out in a dwelling as described, the absence of encumbrance, the absence of danger, departing on a journey without concern, and crossing the boundary of use. The origins and other aspects are the same as described in the immediately preceding training rule.

In Sāvatthī, regarding the monks of the group of seventeen, a rule was established in the case of spreading bedding in a Saṅgha lodging and departing without removing it or informing. It is a common rule, non-offensive by nature, with three Pācittiya offenses and three Dukkaṭa offenses for individuals. If one spreads or has it spread in the vicinity of the designated lodging, outside near the attendance hall, in an unenclosed pavilion, or in an enclosed one where many gather, or at the base of a tree, and departs without removing it, etc., it is a Dukkaṭa offense. If it is his own property, or if he has a trusted person, and he removes it, etc., and departs as before, or if he leaves it saying, “I will take care of it when I return,” and goes to the other side of a river or to another village, and if his intention to depart arises there, he should inform someone or send a message. If he is obstructed by a river, a king, a thief, etc., or if there is danger, or if one is insane, etc., there is no offense. The seven factors here are: the designated bedding, its ownership by the Saṅgha, spreading or having it spread in the designated lodging, the absence of obstruction, the absence of danger, the indifferent departure, and crossing the boundary of the vicinity. The origins, etc., are as stated in the previous rule.

6. Anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Intrusion

6. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Intrusion

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Encroaching

Chaṭṭhe jānanti “anuṭṭhāpanīyo aya”nti jānanto, tenevassa padabhājane “vuḍḍho’ti jānāti, ’gilāno’ti jānāti, ’saṅghena dinno’ti jānātī”ti (pāci. 121) vuttaṃ. Vuḍḍho hi attano vuḍḍhatāya anuṭṭhāpanīyo, gilāno gilānatāya, saṅgho pana bhaṇḍāgārikassa vā dhammakathikavinayadharagaṇavācakācariyānaṃ vā bahūpakārataṃ guṇavisiṭṭhatañca sallakkhetvā dhuvavāsatthāya vihāraṃ sallakkhetvā sammannitvā deti, tasmā yassa saṅghena dinno, sopi anuṭṭhāpanīyo. Pubbupagatanti pubbaṃ upagataṃ. Anupakhajjāti mañcapīṭhānaṃ vā tassa vā bhikkhuno pavisantassa vā nikkhamantassa vā upacāraṃ anupavisitvā. Tattha mañcapīṭhānaṃ tāva mahallake vihāre samantā diyaḍḍho hattho upacāro, khuddake yato pahoti, tato diyaḍḍho hattho , tassa pana pavisantassa pādadhovanapāsāṇato yāva mañcapīṭhaṃ, nikkhamantassa mañcapīṭhato yāva passāvaṭṭhānaṃ, tāva upacāro. Seyyaṃ kappeyyāti tassa sambādhaṃ kattukāmatāya tasmiṃ upacāre dasasu seyyāsu ekampi santharantassa vā santharāpentassa vā dukkaṭaṃ, tattha nisīdantassa vā nipajjantassa vā pācittiyaṃ, dvepi karontassa dve pācittiyāni, punappunaṃ karontassa payogagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the sixth, jāna means knowing, “This one should not be displaced,” as stated in its analysis: “He knows, ‘He is senior,’ he knows, ‘He is ill,’ he knows, ‘It was given by the Saṅgha’” (pāci. 121). A senior monk is not to be displaced due to his seniority, an ill monk due to his illness, and the Saṅgha, considering the great benefit or exceptional qualities of a storekeeper, Dhamma teacher, Vinaya expert, group reciter, or instructor, designates and gives a dwelling for permanent residence; thus, one to whom it is given by the Saṅgha is also not to be displaced. Pubbupagata means previously occupied. Anupakhajjā means not intruding into the vicinity of the bed or stool, or of that monk entering or leaving. For a bed or stool in a large dwelling, the vicinity is one and a half handspans all around; in a small one, one and a half handspans from wherever feasible. For the monk entering, it is from the foot-washing stone to the bed or stool; for leaving, from the bed or stool to the latrine. Seyyaṃ kappeyyā means if, out of desire to inconvenience him, one spreads or has spread even one of the ten types of bedding in that vicinity, it is a dukkaṭa offense; sitting or lying there incurs a pācittiya offense. Doing both incurs two pācittiya offenses, and repeating it incurs pācittiya offenses counted by the actions.

In the sixth, knowing (jāna) means knowing, “This one should not be made to get up,” and therefore in its padabhājana it is said, “‘He is old,’ he knows; ‘He is ill,’ he knows; ‘It was given by the Saṅgha,’ he knows” (pāci. 121). For an old person should not be made to get up because of his old age; an ill person because of his illness; but the Saṅgha, considering the great usefulness and superior qualities of a storekeeper, a reciter of Dhamma, a Vinaya expert, a teacher of groups, or a preceptor, designates and approves a dwelling for his permanent residence; therefore, one to whom it has been given by the Saṅgha should also not be made to get up. Previously arrived (pubbupagata) means previously arrived. Without intruding (anupakhajjā) means without entering the boundary of use of the beds and seats, or of that monk entering or leaving. Therein, the boundary of use of beds and seats in a large dwelling is one and a half cubits all around; in a small one, one and a half cubits from wherever it is possible; but for him entering, the boundary of use is from the stone for washing the feet to the bed and seat; for him leaving, it is from the bed and seat to the place for urination. Should arrange bedding (seyyaṃ kappeyyā) means, desiring to cause him difficulty, spreading out or causing to be spread out even one of the ten beddings in that boundary of use incurs a dukkhaṭa; sitting or lying down there incurs a pācittiya; doing both incurs two pācittiyas; doing it repeatedly incurs a pācittiya for each instance.

In the sixth rule, knowing means knowing that it is to be relinquished. Thus, in the word analysis, it is said, “He knows that he is senior, he knows that he is sick, he knows that it has been given by the Saṅgha” (Pācittiya 121). A senior is to be relinquished due to his seniority, a sick person due to his sickness, and the Saṅgha, having considered the great service and special qualities of the storekeeper, the Dhamma teacher, the Vinaya holder, the group reciter, or the teacher, gives it for permanent residence. Therefore, whoever has been given by the Saṅgha is also to be relinquished. Previously occupied means occupied earlier. Encroaching means entering the vicinity of the bed or stool or that monk’s entering or exiting. In this case, the vicinity of the bed or stool is one and a half cubits on all sides in a large lodging, and in a small one, from where it is possible, one and a half cubits. For the one entering, the vicinity extends from the foot-washing stone to the bed or stool, and for the one exiting, from the bed or stool to the urinal. Making a bed means, with the intention of causing obstruction, spreading any one of the ten types of bedding in that vicinity. Spreading or having it spread is a Dukkaṭa offense, sitting or lying on it is a Pācittiya offense, doing both incurs two Pācittiya offenses, and repeating the action incurs a Pācittiya for each effort.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha anupakhajja seyyakappanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, puggalike tikadukkaṭaṃ, vuttūpacārato vā bahi, upaṭṭhānasālādike vā, vihārassa upacāre vā, santharaṇasantharāpanesupi nisajjasayanesupi dukkaṭameva. Attano vā, vissāsikassa vā santake pana vihāre santharantassa, yo ca gilāno vā sītuṇhapīḷito vā pavisati, tassa ca, āpadāsu ca, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Saṅghikavihāratā, anuṭṭhāpanīyabhāvajānanaṃ, sambādhetukāmatā, upacāre nisīdanaṃ vā nipajjanaṃ vāti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisāneva, idaṃ pana dukkhavedanamevāti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Six monks who arranged bedding intrusively, regarding that matter, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For personal property, three dukkaṭa offenses apply. For spreading or having spread, sitting or lying beyond the described vicinity, in an assembly hall or similar place, or in the dwelling’s vicinity, it is merely a dukkaṭa offense. For spreading in one’s own or trusted property’s dwelling, or if an ill monk or one afflicted by heat or cold enters, and in emergencies, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The four factors here are: the dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha, knowing the person should not be displaced, desire to inconvenience, and sitting or lying in the vicinity. The origin and so forth are exactly like those of the first pārājika rule, but this involves only painful feeling.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks in a case of arranging bedding without intruding, a general regulation, not issued upon command, a triple pācittiya; in the case of personal property, a triple dukkhaṭa; outside the described boundary of use, or in a hall for attendance and other such places, or in the boundary of use of a dwelling, even in the spreading out or causing to be spread out of bedding, or in sitting or lying down, it is merely a dukkhaṭa. But there is no offense for one spreading it out in a dwelling belonging to oneself or a trusted individual; and for one who enters because he is ill or afflicted by cold or heat; and for him, and in cases of danger, and for the insane and so forth. Herein, there are four factors: the dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha, knowing that the person should not be made to get up, desiring to cause difficulty, and sitting or lying down in the boundary of use. The origins and other aspects are similar to those in the first pārājika, but this is only of painful feeling.

In Sāvatthī, regarding the monks of the group of six, a rule was established in the case of making a bed by encroaching. It is a common rule, non-offensive by nature, with three Pācittiya offenses and three Dukkaṭa offenses for individuals. If one spreads or has it spread outside the designated vicinity, in the attendance hall, etc., or in the vicinity of the lodging, or if one sits or lies on it, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. If it is his own property or that of a trusted person, or if a sick person or one afflicted by cold enters, or in cases of danger, or if one is insane, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are: the lodging’s ownership by the Saṅgha, knowing that it is to be relinquished, the intention to cause obstruction, and sitting or lying in the vicinity. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the first Pārājika rule. However, this results only in mental suffering.

7. Nikkaḍḍhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Expulsion

7. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Expulsion

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Ejecting

Sattame kupitoti kuddho. Anattamanoti atuṭṭhacitto. Nikkaḍḍheyya vā nikkaḍḍhāpeyya vā pācittiyanti ettha ye anekabhūmakā pāsādā, anekakoṭṭhakāni vā catussālāni, tādisesu senāsanesu gahetvā antarā aṭṭhapetvā ekeneva payogena atikkāmentassa ekaṃ pācittiyaṃ, ṭhapetvā ṭhapetvā nānāpayogehi atikkāmentassa dvāragaṇanāya pācittiyāni, hatthena anāmasitvā ’nikkhamā’ti vatvā vācāya nikkaḍḍhantassāpi eseva nayo. Nikkaḍḍhāpentassa pana ’nikkaḍḍhā’ti āṇattamatte dukkaṭaṃ, sakiṃ āṇatte pana tasmiṃ bahukepi dvāre nikkhamante itarassa ekameva pācittiyaṃ. Sace pana “ettakāni dvārāni nikkaḍḍhāhī”ti vā, “yāva mahādvāraṃ, tāva nikkaḍḍhāhī”ti vā evaṃ niyametvā āṇatto hoti, dvāragaṇanāya pācittiyāni.

In the seventh, kupito means angry. Anattamano means displeased in mind. Nikkaḍḍheyya vā nikkaḍḍhāpeyya vā pācittiya means expelling or having someone expelled incurs a pācittiya offense. Here, in multi-storied buildings, multi-roomed structures, or four-halled dwellings, if one takes and drags someone out, passing through with a single action, it is one pācittiya offense; if dragging out separately with multiple actions, it is pācittiya offenses counted by the doors. Even expelling verbally by saying, “Get out,” without touching, follows the same method. For having someone expelled, merely ordering, “Expel him,” incurs a dukkaṭa offense; if ordered once, even if the other passes through multiple doors, it is one pācittiya offense for the expelled. But if specified, “Expel him through this many doors,” or “Expel him as far as the main gate,” it is pācittiya offenses counted by the doors.

In the seventh, angry (kupito) means enraged. Displeased (anattamano) means having a dissatisfied mind. Should expel or cause to be expelled, there is a pācittiya (nikkaḍḍheyya vā nikkaḍḍhāpeyya vā pācittiya) means here, in the case of multi-storied mansions, or four-sided buildings with many rooms, taking hold in such lodgings and causing to pass through in a single effort, there is one pācittiya; causing to pass through with multiple efforts, placing and placing again, there are pācittiyas according to the number of doors; even for one who expels with speech, saying, “Get out,” without touching with the hand, the same principle applies. But for one causing to be expelled, merely commanding, “Expel,” there is a dukkhaṭa; but if, having commanded once, that person goes out through many doors, for the other there is only one pācittiya. But if one is commanded with a specification, such as, “Expel through this many doors,” or, “Expel as far as the main door,” there are pācittiyas according to the number of doors.

In the seventh rule, angry means enraged. Displeased means having a dissatisfied mind. Ejecting or having ejected incurs a Pācittiya offense means that in multi-storied buildings or four-sided halls with many rooms, if one takes possession of such lodgings and passes through them in one effort, it is one Pācittiya offense. If one passes through in multiple efforts, it incurs a Pācittiya for each door. Even if one ejects by word without touching with the hand, saying, “Get out,” the same applies. For one who has another eject, it is a Dukkaṭa offense at the moment of giving the order, but if the order is given once and the other passes through many doors, it is only one Pācittiya offense for the one who gave the order. However, if one says, “Eject through so many doors,” or “Eject up to the main door,” and gives the order, it incurs a Pācittiya for each door.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha bhikkhuṃ saṅghikā vihārā nikkaḍḍhanavatthusmiṃ

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Six monks who expelled a monk from a Saṅgha dwelling,

In Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks, in a case of expelling a monk from a dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha,

In Sāvatthī, regarding the monks of the group of six, a rule was established in the case of ejecting a monk from a Saṅgha lodging.

Paññattaṃ , sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, puggalike tikadukkaṭaṃ, tassa parikkhāranikkaḍḍhane, upaṭṭhānasālādikā vihārūpacārā tassa vā tassa parikkhārassa vā nikkaḍḍhane, anupasampannassa pana anupasampannaparikkhārassa vā vihārā vā vihārūpacārā vā nikkaḍḍhane nikkaḍḍhāpane ca dukkaṭameva. Tañca kho asambaddhesu parikkhāresu parikkhāragaṇanāya veditabbaṃ. Attano vā, vissāsikassa vā santakā vihārā nikkaḍḍhane, sakalasaṅghārāmatopi bhaṇḍanakārakassa vā tassa parikkhārassa vā nikkaḍḍhane nikkaḍḍhāpane vā, attano vasanaṭṭhānato alajjissa, ummattakassa, na sammāvattantānaṃ antevāsikasaavihārikānaṃ, tesaṃ parikkhārassa vā nikkaḍḍhane ca, sayaṃ ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Saṅghikavihāro , upasampannassa bhaṇḍanakārakabhāvādivinimuttatā, kopena nikkaḍḍhanaṃ vā nikkaḍḍhāpanaṃ vāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

regarding that matter, a general prescription, requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For personal property, three dukkaṭa offenses apply. For expelling that monk’s belongings, or expelling him or his belongings from an assembly hall or similar dwelling vicinity, or expelling an unordained person or an unordained person’s belongings from a dwelling or its vicinity, it is merely a dukkaṭa offense. This is to be understood as counted by the belongings if they are unconnected. For expelling from one’s own or trusted property’s dwelling, or expelling a quarrelsome monk or his belongings from the entire monastery, or from one’s own residence an impudent monk, an insane monk, or disciples or co-residents who do not conduct themselves properly, and their belongings, and for those who are insane and the like themselves, there is no offense. The three factors here are: the dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha, the ordained person being free from being a quarreler or the like, and expelling or having expelled out of anger. The origin and so forth are similar to those of taking what is not given, but this involves painful feeling.

It was promulgated, a general regulation, issued upon command, a triple pācittiya; in the case of personal property, a triple dukkhaṭa; in the expulsion of his belongings; in a hall for attendance and other such places, the boundary of use of a dwelling, in the expulsion of him or his belongings; but in the expulsion or causing to be expelled of a non-fully ordained person or the belongings of a non-fully ordained person from a dwelling or the boundary of use of a dwelling, it is merely a dukkhaṭa. And that is to be understood according to the number of belongings in the case of unconnected belongings. There is no offense in expelling from a dwelling belonging to oneself or a trusted individual; or in expelling or causing to be expelled from the entire monastery a quarrelsome person or his belongings; or from one’s own dwelling place, a shameless person, an insane person, or students and co-residents who are not behaving properly, or their belongings; and for oneself being insane and so forth. Herein, there are three factors: the dwelling belonging to the Saṅgha, the fully ordained person being free from quarrelsomeness and other such factors, and expelling or causing to be expelled through anger. The origins and other aspects are similar to those in the case of taking what is not given, but this is of painful feeling.

It is a common rule, non-offensive by nature, with three Pācittiya offenses and three Dukkaṭa offenses for individuals. Ejecting his belongings, ejecting from the attendance hall, etc., or from the vicinity of the lodging, or ejecting an unordained person or his belongings from the lodging or its vicinity, is a Dukkaṭa offense. However, this applies only to unrelated belongings. Ejecting from one’s own property or that of a trusted person, or ejecting a quarrelsome person or his belongings from the entire monastery, or ejecting an unordained person who is shameless, insane, or not behaving properly, or ejecting their belongings, or if one is insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: the lodging’s ownership by the Saṅgha, the absence of being a quarrelsome person, etc., and ejecting or having ejected out of anger. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing. However, this results only in mental suffering.

8. Vehāsakuṭisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning the Upper Chamber

8. The Explanation of the Training Rule on the Upper Story

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on Upper Terraces

Aṭṭhame uparivehāsakuṭiyāti upari acchannatalāya dvibhūmikakuṭiyā vā tibhūmikakuṭiyā vā, padabhājane pana idha adhippetaṃ kuṭiṃ dassetuṃ “majjhimassa purisassa asīsaghaṭṭā”ti (pāci. 131) vuttaṃ. Āhaccapādakanti aṅge vijjhitvā pavesitapādakaṃ. Abhinisīdeyyāti abhibhavitvā ajjhottharitvā nisīdeyya, bhummatthe vā etaṃ upayogavacanaṃ, mañce vā pīṭhe vā nisīdeyya vā nipajjeyya vāti attho. Abhīti idaṃ pana padasobhaṇatthe upasaggamattameva, tasmā yo bhikkhu vuttalakkhaṇāya vehāsakuṭiyā sabbantimena paricchedena yāva pamāṇamajjhimassa purisassa sabbaso heṭṭhimāhi tulāhi sīsaṃ na ghaṭṭeti, ettakaṃ uccāya tulānaṃ upari ṭhapite āhaccapādake mañce vā pīṭhe vā nisīdati vā nipajjati vā, tassa anupakhajjasikkhāpade vuttanayena payogagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the eighth, uparivehāsakuṭiyā means in an upper chamber with a covered roof, a two-storied or three-storied hut. In its analysis, to indicate the intended hut here, it is said, “Touching the head of a person of average height” (pāci. 131). Āhaccapādaka means with legs inserted into the structure. Abhinisīdeyyā means sitting so as to dominate or overwhelm, or this is a locative case meaning on the floor, i.e., sitting or lying on a bed or stool. Abhī is merely a prefix for stylistic enhancement. Thus, if a monk, in a chamber of the described type, at the lowest level where the beams below do not touch the head of a person of average height at all, sits or lies on a bed or stool with inserted legs placed above those beams, it incurs a pācittiya offense counted by the actions, as stated in the training rule on intrusion.

In the eighth, in an upper story (uparivehāsakuṭiyā) means in a two-storied or three-storied dwelling with an upper, unroofed level; but in the padabhājana, to show the dwelling meant here, it is said, “Of a man of medium height, not touching the head” (pāci. 131). With inserted legs (āhaccapādaka) means with legs inserted by piercing the frame. Should sit down upon (abhinisīdeyyā) means sitting down upon, overpowering, spreading over; or this is a locative expression in the sense of the ground; meaning, should sit down or lie down on a bed or seat. Abhi is merely a prefix for the embellishment of the word; therefore, if a monk, in an upper story as described, with the lowest limit being such that the head of a man of medium height does not touch the lowest beams at all, sits or lies down on a bed or seat with inserted legs placed above beams of such height, for him, according to the number of instances as described in the training rule on intrusion, there is a pācittiya.

In the eighth rule, upper terrace means a two-storied or three-storied building with an uncovered upper floor. In the word analysis, it is said, “The head of an average man does not touch” (Pācittiya 131). With detachable legs means legs that are inserted through holes. Sitting down means sitting down firmly, covering it. This applies to sitting or lying on the ground, a bed, or a stool. Abhi is merely a prefix for emphasis. Therefore, if a monk sits or lies on a bed or stool with detachable legs placed on the upper terrace of such a building, within the entire boundary, up to the height where the head of an average man does not touch the lowest beams, it incurs a Pācittiya offense for each effort, as stated in the training rule on encroaching.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha uparivehāsakuṭiyā āhaccapādakaṃ mañcaṃ pīṭhaṃ sahasā abhinisīdanaabhinipajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, puggalike tikadukkaṭaṃ, attano vā, vissāsikassa vā santake vihāre, avehāsakuṭiyā, sīsaghaṭṭāya, yassa vā heṭṭhā dabbasambhārādīnaṃ nikkhittattā aparibhogaṃ hoti, uparitalaṃ vā padarasañcitaṃ sudhādiparikammakataṃ vā, tattha āhaccapādake nisīdantassa, yo ce tasmiṃ vehāsaṭṭhepi āhaccapādake ṭhito kiñci gaṇhāti vā laggati vā, yassa ca paṭāṇī dinnā hoti, pādasīsānaṃ upari āṇī pavesitā, tattha nisīdantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Saṅghiko vihāro, asīsaghaṭṭā vehāsakuṭi, heṭṭhā saparibhogaṃ , apaṭāṇidinne āhaccapādake nisīdanaṃ vā nipajjanaṃ vāti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk, regarding the matter of sitting or lying down abruptly on a bed or stool with removable legs in an upper chamber of a dwelling. It is a general rule, not requiring instruction, entailing three instances of pācittiya, and for an individual, three instances of dukkaṭa—whether in one’s own dwelling or in a dwelling belonging to someone trusted, within an upper chamber without headroom; or where, due to materials or goods stored below, it is unfit for use; or where the upper floor is covered with planks or finished with plaster or similar substances. For one sitting on a bed with removable legs there, or even for one standing in that upper chamber on a bed with removable legs who takes something or clings to something; or where a crossbeam has been provided and a peg inserted above the ends of the feet, for one sitting there; there is no offence for those who are deranged or similar. A monastic dwelling, an upper chamber without headroom, usable space below, and sitting or lying on a bed with removable legs without a crossbeam being provided—these are the four factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the eḷakaloma rule.

It was enacted in Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk, in the case of suddenly sitting or lying down on a bed or stool with removable legs, in an upper-story veranda kuṭi. It is a general regulation, not requiring a specific command, a triple pācittiya offense. For a personal [dwelling], it is a triple dukkaṭa offense. [No offense] in one’s own dwelling or that of a trusted person, in a monastery, in a non-veranda kuṭi, [where the bed or stool] touches the head, or where the lower part is unusable due to the storage of materials and other items, or where the upper surface is covered with plaster or other materials; for one sitting on a bed with removable legs there; or if one, even while standing on that veranda-like structure with removable legs, takes or touches something; or for one to whom a prop has been given, with a nail inserted above the feet and head, sitting there; and for the insane and others, there is no offense. The four factors here are: a monastery belonging to the Saṅgha, a veranda kuṭi not touching the head, the lower part being usable, and sitting or lying down on a bed with removable legs without a given prop. The arising and other aspects are similar to the eḷakaloma [rule].

In Sāvatthī, regarding a certain monk, a rule was established concerning the act of suddenly sitting down or lying down on a bed or bench with detachable legs in an upper-story room. This is a general rule, non-offensive in nature, involving three Pācittiya offenses, and individually, three Dukkaṭa offenses. It applies to one’s own dwelling or a trusted person’s dwelling, in an upper-story room, where the head may strike the ceiling, or where materials like grass are stored below, making the area unusable, or where the upper floor is covered with plaster or other finishes. Sitting on such a bed with detachable legs, or if someone standing on such a bed takes or touches something, or if the bed has been secured with bolts inserted into the legs, sitting on it—there is no offense for the insane, etc. A communal dwelling, an upper-story room without head-striking, a usable area below, or a bed without bolts—these are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the case of wool.

9. Mahallakavihārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Mahallakavihāra Training Rule

9. The Explanation of the Mahallakavihāra Training Rule

9. Explanation of the Mahallaka Vihāra Training Rule

Navame mahallakanti sassāmikaṃ. Vihāranti ullittāvallittaṃ. Yāva dvārakosātiettha dvārakoso nāma ukkaṭṭhaparicchedena piṭṭhasaṅghāṭassa sāmantā aḍḍhateyyahattho padeso. Aggaḷaṭṭhapanāyāti sakavāṭakassa dvārabandhassa niccalabhāvatthāya. Kavāṭañhi lahuparivattakaṃ vivaraṇakāle bhittiṃ āhanati, pidahanakāle dvārabandhaṃ. Tena āhanena bhitti kampati, tato mattikā calati, calitvā sithilā vā hoti patati vā, tenāha bhagavā “yāva dvārakosā aggaḷaṭṭhapanāyā”ti. Tattha kiñcāpi “idaṃ nāma kattabba”nti neva mātikāyaṃ, na padabhājane vuttaṃ, aṭṭhuppattiyaṃ pana “punappunaṃ chādāpesi, punappunaṃ lepāpesī”ti (pāci. 134) adhikārato yāva dvārakosā aggaḷaṭṭhapanāya punappunaṃ limpitabbo vā lepāpetabbo vāti evamattho daṭṭhabbo. Ālokasandhiparikammāyātiettha ālokasandhīti vātapānakavāṭakā vuccanti. Te vivaraṇakāle vidatthimattampi atirekampi bhittippadesaṃ paharanti, upacāro panettha sabbadisāsu labbhati, tasmā sabbadisāsu kavāṭavitthārappamāṇo okāso ālokasandhiparikammatthāya limpitabbo vā lepāpetabbo vāti ayamettha adhippāyo.

In the ninth, mahallaka means “with an owner.” Vihāra means a dwelling plastered inside and out. Up to the door-frame—here, the door-frame refers to an area, by the broadest definition, of two and a half handspans around the back of the door-jamb. For securing the latch means for the stability of the door fastened with its own panel. For a door-panel, being light and quick to swing, strikes the wall when opened and the door-frame when closed. That striking causes the wall to tremble, which in turn causes the clay to shift; the clay then either becomes loose or falls. Therefore, the Blessed One said, “up to the door-frame for securing the latch.” Although neither the outline nor the word-by-word analysis specifies “this must be done,” in the origin story it is said, “he had it repeatedly thatched, repeatedly plastered” (pāci. 134), indicating from the context that, up to the door-frame for securing the latch, it should be repeatedly smeared or caused to be smeared—this is the meaning to be understood. For preparing the light-opening—here, ālokasandhi refers to window shutters. When opened, they strike a portion of the wall, whether a handspan or more, and this applies in all directions. Thus, in all directions, an area equal to the width of the shutter should be smeared or caused to be smeared for preparing the light-opening—this is the intent here.

In the ninth, mahallaka means “having an owner.” Vihāra means “plastered and well-plastered.” Regarding yāva dvārakosā, dvārakosa (doorjamb) here means, by the highest reckoning, the area a hand and a half around the threshold. Aggaḷaṭṭhapanāyā means “for the stabilization of the door-bolt” of one’s own enclosure, to make the door-fastening steady. For a door that is easily turned strikes the wall when opening and the door-fastening when closing. With that striking, the wall shakes, and then the clay loosens; having loosened, it either becomes unstable or falls. Therefore, the Blessed One said, “as far as the doorjamb, for the stabilization of the door-bolt.” Although in that regard, neither in the mātikā nor in the padabhājana is it stated “this should be done,” in the account of the origin (pāci. 134), because of the statement “he had it roofed again and again, he had it plastered again and again,” it should be understood that as far as the doorjamb, for the stabilization of the door-bolt, it should be repeatedly plastered or coated. Regarding ālokasandhiparikammāyā, ālokasandhī (light-openings) refers to windows and doors. When opening, they strike a part of the wall, even just a finger-width or more; the surrounding area is found in all directions. Therefore, the space the width of the door in all directions should be plastered or coated for the purpose of the light-opening work. This is the meaning here.

In the ninth rule, mahallaka means owned by a layperson. Vihāra refers to a plastered and polished dwelling. Yāva dvārakosā here means the area around the doorframe, measured as half a cubit by the highest standard. Aggaḷaṭṭhapanāya means for the purpose of fixing a bolt to prevent the door from moving. For a door that swings open quickly, it may hit the wall when opened or the doorframe when closed. This impact causes the wall to shake, loosening the plaster, which may then crack or fall. Therefore, the Blessed One said, “up to the doorframe for fixing a bolt.” Although it is not explicitly stated in the mātikā or the word analysis, in the context of the origin story, it is understood that the area up to the doorframe should be repeatedly plastered or coated. Ālokasandhiparikammāya here refers to windows or ventilation openings. When opened, they may strike the wall slightly or excessively. However, this applies to all directions, so the space around the window frame, equal to the width of the door, should be plastered or coated for the purpose of window maintenance. This is the meaning here.

Evaṃ lepakamme yaṃ kattabbaṃ, taṃ dassetvā idāni chadane kattabbaṃ dassetuṃ dvatticchadanassātiādimāha. Tattha dvatticchadanassa pariyāyanti chadanassa dvattipariyāyaṃ, pariyāyaṃ vuccati parikkhepo, parikkhepadvayaṃ vā parikkhepattayaṃ vā adhiṭṭhātabbanti attho. Appaharite ṭhitenāti aharite ṭhitena. Haritanti cettha sattadhaññādibhedaṃ pubbaṇṇaṃ, muggamāsatilakulatthaalābukumbhaṇḍādibhedañca aparaṇṇaṃ adhippetaṃ. Yaṃ tasmiṃ khette vuttaṃ na tāva sampajjati, vasse pana patite sampajjissati, tampi haritasaṅkhameva gacchati. Tasmā tasmiṃ ṭhatvā adhiṭṭhahanto dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Appaharite ṭhatvā adhiṭṭhahantassāpi ayaṃ paricchedo, piṭṭhivaṃsassa vā kūṭāgārathūpikāya vā passe nisinno puriso chadanamukhavaṭṭiantena olokento yasmiṃ bhūmibhāge ṭhitaṃ bhikkhuṃ passati, yasmiñca ṭhito taṃ upari nisinnakaṃ tatheva ullokento passati, tasmiṃ ṭhātabbaṃ, tassa anto aharitepi ṭhātuṃ na labhati. Tato ce uttarīti maggena chādiyamāne tiṇṇaṃ maggānaṃ, pariyāyena chādiyamāne tiṇṇaṃ pariyāyānaṃ upari iṭṭhakasilāsudhāhi chādiyamāne iṭṭhakasilāsudhāpiṇḍagaṇanāya, tiṇapaṇṇehi chādiyamāne paṇṇagaṇanāya ceva tiṇamuṭṭhigaṇanāya ca pācittiyaṃ.

Having thus shown what should be done in plastering work, now to show what should be done in thatching, it begins with for two or three coverings and so forth. Here, for the range of two or three coverings means two or three extents of thatching; range refers to a boundary, meaning that a boundary of two or three extents should be determined. By one standing on ungreen ground means by one standing on non-green ground. Green here refers to early crops such as the seven types of grain, and later crops such as mung beans, black gram, sesame, horse gram, gourds, and so forth. Whatever is sown in that field and has not yet ripened, but will ripen when the rains come, is also reckoned as green. Thus, one who stands there and determines it incurs dukkaṭa. For one determining it while standing on ungreen ground, this is the boundary: a person sitting on the side of a ridgepole or a peaked roof or stupa, looking through the edge of the thatching’s opening, sees a monk standing on a certain piece of ground; and from where that person stands, looking up in the same way, sees the one sitting above—there one may stand. Even within that, one may not stand on green ground. If beyond that—if it is thatched by way of a path, beyond three paths; if thatched by way of a range, beyond three ranges; if thatched with bricks, stones, or plaster, beyond the count of those masses; if thatched with grass or leaves, beyond the count of leaves or handfuls of grass—it is a pācittiya.

Having thus shown what should be done in the plastering work, now, to show what should be done in the roofing, he said dvatticchadanassā and so on. There, dvatticchadanassa pariyāya means “two or three layers of roofing.” Pariyāya means “circumference”; the meaning is that two or three circumferences should be established. Appaharite ṭhitenā means “standing on a non-green area.” Harita (green) here refers to the earlier grains, divided into seven types of paddy and others, and the later grains, divided into mugga, māsa, sesame, kulattha, bottle gourd, wax gourd, and others. Whatever is sown in that field has not yet matured; when the rain falls, it will mature, and that also goes under the name of “green.” Therefore, standing on that and establishing [the roofing], one incurs a dukkaṭa. Even for one establishing [the roofing] while standing on a non-green area, this is the limit: a man sitting on the side of the ridgepole or the peak of a kūṭāgāra (peaked house), looking along the edge of the roof, in whatever ground area he sees a monk standing, and in whatever [area] he, standing, sees that one sitting above looking up in the same way, there he should stand; within that, he is not allowed to stand even on a non-green area. Tato ce uttarī means that if roofing with grass by the path-method, beyond three paths, if roofing layer by layer, beyond three layers, if roofing with bricks, stones, or plaster, by counting the lumps of bricks, stones, or plaster, if roofing with grass or leaves, by counting the leaves and handfuls of grass, there is a pācittiya.

Having explained the plastering work, now the act of thatching is explained. Dvatticchadanassa pariyāya means the method of thatching in two or three layers. Pariyāya refers to the covering, meaning either two or three layers should be determined. Appaharite ṭhitenā means standing on unharvested land. Harita here refers to seven types of grains, etc., as early crops, and beans, sesame, millet, gourds, etc., as later crops. If the field has not yet yielded, but after the rains it will, it is still considered as if it has been harvested. Therefore, standing there and determining the thatching incurs a Dukkaṭa offense. Even if one stands on unharvested land and determines the thatching, this is the boundary. A person sitting on the ridge of a roof or the pinnacle of a stūpa, observing the thatching, sees a monk standing below and another sitting above—this is where one should stand. One cannot stand within the harvested area. Tato ce uttarī means if the path is being thatched, three paths; if the thatching is being done in layers, three layers; if tiles, stones, or plaster are being used, counting the tiles, stones, or plaster; if grass or leaves are being used, counting the leaves or handfuls of grass—this incurs a Pācittiya offense.

Kosambiyaṃ channattheraṃ ārabbha punappunaṃ chādāpanalepāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ūnadvattipariyāye atirekasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Setavaṇṇādikaraṇe, dvattipariyāye vā ūnakadvattipariyāye vā, leṇaguhātiṇakuṭikādīsu, aññassatthāya, attano dhanena kārentassa, vāsāgāraṃ ṭhapetvā sesāni adhiṭṭhahantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Mahallakavihāratā, attano vāsāgāratā, uttari adhiṭṭhānanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni sañcaritte vuttanayānevāti.

This was laid down at Kosambī concerning the elder Channa, regarding the matter of repeatedly causing thatching or plastering. It is a general rule, not requiring instruction, entailing three instances of pācittiya; for one who perceives it as excessive with less than two or three ranges, or is doubtful, it is dukkaṭa. In cases of applying whitewash or similar, with two or three ranges or fewer than two or three ranges, in caves, grass huts, or similar; for another’s sake; for one causing it to be done with one’s own wealth; for one determining anything other than a residence; and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. The state of being a large dwelling, its being one’s own residence, and determining beyond that—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are as stated in the Sañcaritta rule.

It was enacted in Kosambī concerning the venerable Channa, in the case of repeatedly having [the dwelling] roofed and plastered. It is a general regulation, not requiring a specific command, a triple pācittiya offense. For one who has the idea of excessiveness or is doubtful about less than two or three layers, there is a dukkaṭa. For making it white and other colors, or for two or three layers, or less than two or three layers, in caves, grottoes, grass huts, and other dwellings, for the sake of another, for one making [a dwelling] with his own wealth, for one establishing the remaining [dwellings] except for the dwelling place, and for the insane and others, there is no offense. The three factors here are: being a mahallakavihāra, being one’s own dwelling place, and establishing more [than the limit]. The arising and other aspects are similar to those mentioned in the sañcaritta [rule].

In Kosambī, regarding the elder Channa, a rule was established concerning repeatedly having the thatching or plastering done. This is a general rule, non-offensive in nature, involving three Pācittiya offenses. If one perceives more than two layers or is in doubt, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. In the case of whitewashing, etc., whether two layers or less than two, in caves, grass huts, etc., for another’s benefit, if done with one’s own wealth, or determining the thatching for a dwelling other than a residence, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The factors here are: the dwelling being old, one’s own residence, and determining beyond the thatching. The origins, etc., are as explained in the Sañcaritta.

10. Sappāṇakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Sappāṇaka Training Rule

10. The Explanation of the Sappāṇaka Training Rule

10. Explanation of the Sappāṇaka Training Rule

Dasame jānaṃ sappāṇakanti “sappāṇakaṃ eta”nti disvā vā sutvā vā yena kenaci ākārena jānanto. Siñceyya vā siñcāpeyya vāti tena udakena sayaṃ vā siñceyya, aññaṃ vā āṇāpetvā siñcāpeyya. Tattha dhāraṃ avicchinditvā siñcantassa ekasmiṃ ghaṭe ekāva āpatti, vicchindantassa payogagaṇanāya āpattiyo. Mātikaṃ pamukhaṃ karoti, divasampi sandatu, ekāva āpatti. Tattha tattha bandhitvā aññato nentassa payogagaṇanāya āpattiyo. Bahukampi tiṇapaṇṇasākhādiṃ ekappayogena udake pakkhipantassa ekāva āpatti, ekekaṃ pakkhipantassa payogagaṇanāya āpattiyo. Idañca yaṃ evaṃ pakkhipiyamāne pariyādānaṃ gacchati, āvilaṃ vā hoti, yathā pāṇakā maranti, tādisaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na mahāudakaṃ. Siñcāpane āṇattiyā dukkaṭaṃ, ekāṇattiyā bahukampi siñcatu, āṇāpakassa ekameva pācittiyaṃ.

In the tenth, knowing it has living creatures means knowing, by seeing or hearing or in any way, “this contains living creatures.” He sprinkles or has it sprinkled means he either sprinkles it himself with that water or instructs another to sprinkle it. There, for one sprinkling without interrupting the stream, with one vessel, there is only one offence; for one interrupting it, offences are reckoned by the number of actions. If he makes it a spout and lets it flow all day, there is only one offence. For one binding it here and there and bringing it from elsewhere, offences are reckoned by the number of actions. Even if he places a large amount of grass, leaves, branches, or such into the water in one action, there is only one offence; for placing them one by one, offences are reckoned by the number of actions. This is said with reference to what, when so placed, is exhausted or becomes turbid, such that the creatures die—not regarding a large body of water. In instructing to sprinkle, there is dukkaṭa upon the instruction; even if much is sprinkled with one instruction, for the one instructing, there is only one pācittiya.

In the tenth, jānaṃ sappāṇaka means “knowing it to be with living beings,” either by seeing, hearing, or knowing in any way that “this is with living beings.” Siñceyya vā siñcāpeyya vā means “either sprinkling it himself or causing another to sprinkle it” with that water. There, for one sprinkling without breaking the stream, there is one offense for one pot; for one breaking the stream, there are offenses according to the number of actions. If he makes the mātika (irrigation channel) the main thing, even if it flows for a whole day, there is only one offense. For one diverting it from place to place after tying it, there are offenses according to the number of actions. For one throwing a large amount of grass, leaves, branches, and so on into the water with one action, there is only one offense; for one throwing them one by one, there are offenses according to the number of actions. And this is said concerning that which, when thus thrown in, is used up or becomes turbid, such that the living beings die, not concerning a large body of water. In causing to sprinkle, there is a dukkaṭa for the command; even if he sprinkles a large amount with one command, there is only one pācittiya for the one who gave the command.

In the tenth rule, jānaṃ sappāṇaka means knowing that it contains living beings, having seen or heard it by any means. Siñceyya vā siñcāpeyya vā means either pouring water oneself or having another pour it. If one pours without interruption, there is one offense per pot. If interrupted, the offenses are counted by the act. Even if the water flows continuously throughout the day, there is only one offense. If one ties it in one place and moves it elsewhere, the offenses are counted by the act. If one throws a large amount of grass, leaves, or branches into the water at once, there is one offense. If thrown one by one, the offenses are counted by the act. This refers to cases where the water becomes turbid or the living beings die, not to large bodies of water. In the case of having another pour, there is a Dukkaṭa offense for the instruction. If one instructs once, even if much is poured, the instructor incurs only one Pācittiya offense.

Āḷaviyaṃ āḷavake bhikkhū ārabbha siñcanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ , appāṇake sappāṇakasaññino, ubhosu vematikassa dukkaṭaṃ. Appāṇakasaññino, asañcicca assatiyā vā siñcantassa, ajānantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Udakassa sappāṇakatā, “siñcanena pāṇakā marissantī”ti jānanaṃ, tañca udakaṃ tādisameva, vinā vadhakacetanāya yena kenaci karaṇīyena tiṇādīnaṃ siñcananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana paṇṇattivajjaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was laid down at Āḷavī concerning the Āḷavaka monks, regarding the matter of sprinkling. It is a general rule, requiring instruction; for one perceiving a creature-free water as having creatures, and for one doubtful in both cases, it is dukkaṭa. For one perceiving it as creature-free, or sprinkling unintentionally or unwittingly, or not knowing, or for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. The water containing living creatures, knowing “by sprinkling, the creatures will die,” that water being of such a nature, and sprinkling grass or such for any purpose without intent to kill—these are the four factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Adinnādāna rule, but this is a fault of precept, arising from three mental states and three feelings.

It was enacted in Āḷavī concerning the Āḷavaka monks, in the case of sprinkling. It is a general regulation, requiring a specific command. For one who has the perception of “with living beings” in what is without living beings, and for one who is doubtful in both cases, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who has the perception of “without living beings,” for one sprinkling unintentionally or without remembering, for one not knowing, and for the insane and others, there is no offense. The four factors here are: the water being with living beings, knowing that “by sprinkling, the living beings will die,” and that water being such, and sprinkling grass and other things with any action without the intention to kill. The arising and other aspects are similar to those of taking what is not given; but this is an offense of transgression of a regulation, with three mental states, and three feelings.

In Āḷavī, regarding the monks of Āḷavī, a rule was established concerning the act of pouring water. This is a general rule, involving an offense with instruction. If one perceives non-living beings as containing living beings, or is in doubt, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. If one perceives non-living beings correctly, or pours unintentionally or unknowingly, or if insane, etc., there is no offense. The factors here are: the water containing living beings, knowing that pouring will kill the living beings, and the water being of such a nature. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing, but this is a rule-based offense, involving three types of intention and three types of feeling.

3. Ovādavaggo

3. Ovāda Section

3. The Ovāda Section

3. Ovāda Section

1. Ovādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Ovāda Training Rule

1. The Explanation of the Ovāda Training Rule

1. Explanation of the Ovāda Training Rule

Ovādavaggassa paṭhame asammatoti yā aṭṭhaṅgasamannāgatassa bhikkhuno bhagavatā ñatticatutthena kammena (pāci. 146) bhikkhunovādakasammuti anuññātā, tāya asammato. Ovadeyyāti bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ vā sambahulā vā ekaṃ bhikkhuniṃ vā “vassasatūpasampannāya bhikkhuniyā tadahupasampannassa bhikkhuno abhivādanaṃ paccuṭṭhānaṃ añjalikammaṃ sāmīcikammaṃ kātabba”nti ādike (cūḷava. 403) aṭṭha garudhamme ovādavasena osārento ovadeyya. Pācittiyanti ovādapariyosāne pācittiyaṃ.

In the first of the Ovāda section, without being appointed means not appointed by the consent granted through a formal act with a motion and three announcements by the Blessed One (pāci. 146) to a monk endowed with eight qualities as an adviser of nuns. He admonishes means he admonishes the community of nuns, or several, or a single nun, by way of admonition based on the eight heavy rules, such as “a nun fully ordained for a hundred years must pay respects, rise up, salute with joined hands, and perform duties of courtesy to a monk ordained that very day” and so forth (cūḷava. 403). Pācittiya means a pācittiya offence at the conclusion of the admonition.

In the first of the Ovāda section, asammato means “not authorized” by the Blessed One’s authorization of a monk possessing eight qualities through a ñatticatuttha-kamma (formal act of the Order consisting of a motion and three announcements) (pāci. 146) to be a giver of instruction to nuns. Ovadeyyā means “instructing” the community of nuns, or several nuns, or a single nun, by laying down the eight garudhammas (weighty rules) such as, “A nun who has been fully ordained for a hundred years must bow down to, rise up for, perform the gesture of respectful salutation for, and perform proper duties for a monk ordained that very day” (cūḷava. 403), and so on, by way of instruction. Pācittiya means that at the end of the instruction, there is a pācittiya.

In the first rule of the Ovāda section, asammato refers to a monk who has not been appointed by the Sangha through a formal act consisting of four parts, including the announcement (pāci. 146). Ovadeyyā means advising a community of nuns, several nuns, or a single nun, instructing them on the eight grave rules, such as “a nun who has been ordained for a hundred years should pay respect to a monk ordained that very day” (cūḷava. 403). Pācittiya means a Pācittiya offense is incurred at the conclusion of the advice.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha ovadanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, aññena vā dhammena bhikkhunīsu upasampannamattaṃ vā ovadato dukkaṭaṃ. Sammatassāpi tañce sammutikammaṃ adhammakammaṃ hoti, tasmiṃ adhammakamme adhammakammasaññino vagge bhikkhunisaṅghe ovadato tikapācittiyaṃ, tathā vematikassa dhammakammasaññino cāti nava pācittiyāni, samaggepi bhikkhunisaṅghena vāti adhammakammavasena aṭṭhārasa. Sace pana taṃ dhammakammaṃ hoti, “dhammakamme dhammakammasaññī samaggaṃ bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ samaggasaññī ovadatī”ti (pāci. 151) idaṃ avasānapadaṃ ṭhapetvā teneva nayena sattarasa dukkaṭāni, “samaggamhāyyā”ti ca vutte aññaṃ dhammaṃ, “vaggamhāyyā”ti ca vutte aṭṭha garudhamme bhaṇantassa, ovādañca aniyyātetvā aññaṃ dhammaṃ bhaṇantassa dukkaṭameva. Yo pana dhammakamme dhammakammasaññī samaggaṃ bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ samaggasaññī ovadati, garudhammapāḷiṃ uddesaṃ deti, paripucchaṃ deti, “osārehi ayyā”ti vuccamāno osāreti, pañhaṃ puṭṭho katheti, bhikkhunīnaṃ suṇamānānaṃ aññassatthāya bhaṇati, sikkhamānāya vā sāmaṇeriyā vā bhaṇati, tassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Asammatatā, bhikkhuniyā paripuṇṇūpasampannatā, ovādavasena aṭṭhagarudhammabhaṇananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni padasodhammasadisānevāti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of admonishing. It is a specific rule, not requiring instruction; for one admonishing nuns who are merely fully ordained with another teaching, it is dukkaṭa. Even for one appointed, if that appointment is an improper act, for one perceiving it as an improper act and admonishing a divided community of nuns, there are three instances of pācittiya; likewise for one doubtful or perceiving it as a proper act—thus nine pācittiyas. Even in a united community of nuns, by way of an improper act, there are eighteen. But if it is a proper act, “perceiving a proper act as proper, he admonishes a united community of nuns, perceiving it as united” (pāci. 151)—excluding this final clause, by the same method there are seventeen instances of dukkaṭa. If he says “from a united one” and teaches another doctrine, or says “from a divided one” and recites the eight heavy rules, or teaches another doctrine without concluding the admonition, it is only dukkaṭa. But for one who, perceiving a proper act as proper, admonishes a united community of nuns, perceiving it as united, recites the text of the heavy rules, gives an exposition, explains when asked “please elaborate, venerable,” answers questions when asked, speaks for the sake of another while nuns listen, or speaks to a female trainee or novice—for him, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Not being appointed, the nun’s full ordination, and reciting the eight heavy rules by way of admonition—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Padasodhamma rule.

It was enacted in Sāvatthī concerning the group-of-six monks, in the case of giving instruction. It is a non-general regulation, not requiring a specific command. For instructing nuns in any other doctrine or in their full ordination, there is a dukkaṭa. Even for one who is authorized, if that authorization kamma is an unlawful kamma, for one instructing a divided community of nuns while having the perception of it being an unlawful kamma, there is a triple pācittiya; likewise for one who is doubtful, and for one who has the perception of it being a lawful kamma, there are nine pācittiyas; and even with a harmonious community of nuns, thus there are eighteen [offenses] due to unlawful kamma. But if that is a lawful kamma, setting aside the final statement, “one who has the perception of a lawful kamma in a lawful kamma instructs a harmonious community of nuns with the perception of harmony” (pāci. 151), in the same way, there are seventeen dukkaṭas. And when it is said, “We are harmonious, venerable lady,” and he speaks another doctrine, and when it is said, “We are divided, venerable lady,” and he speaks the eight garudhammas, and without delivering the instruction, he speaks another doctrine, there is only a dukkaṭa. But for one who has the perception of a lawful kamma in a lawful kamma, instructs a harmonious community of nuns with the perception of harmony, gives the recitation of the garudhamma text, gives the questioning, when asked “Instruct, venerable lady,” he instructs, when asked a question, he answers, speaks for the sake of another while the nuns are listening, or speaks to a trainee or a female novice, for him, and for the insane and others, there is no offense. The three factors here are: not being authorized, the nun being fully ordained, and speaking the eight garudhammas by way of instruction. The arising and other aspects are similar to those of the padasodhamma [rule].

In Sāvatthī, regarding the group of six monks, a rule was established concerning the act of advising. This is a non-general rule, non-offensive in nature. If one advises using another Dhamma, or advises a newly ordained nun, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. Even if appointed, if the appointment was improper, advising a divided Sangha of nuns incurs three Pācittiya offenses, or if in doubt, nine Pācittiya offenses. If the Sangha is united, eighteen offenses may arise due to improper appointment. If the appointment was proper, “perceiving the act as proper, advising a united Sangha of nuns while perceiving it as united” (pāci. 151), except for this final clause, seventeen Dukkaṭa offenses arise in the same way. If one says, “the Sangha is united,” and teaches another Dhamma, or says, “the Sangha is divided,” and teaches the eight grave rules, or teaches without concluding the advice, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. However, if one perceives the act as proper, advises a united Sangha of nuns while perceiving it as united, recites the grave rules, gives a discourse, answers questions, or advises when told, “Venerable, instruct,” or speaks for the benefit of others while nuns are listening, or speaks to a trainee or novice, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The factors here are: not being appointed, the nun being fully ordained, and advising by teaching the eight grave rules. The origins, etc., are similar to the Padasodhamma.

2. Atthaṅgatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Atthaṅgata Training Rule

2. The Explanation of the Atthaṅgata Training Rule

2. Explanation of the Atthaṅgata Training Rule

Dutiye ovadeyyāti aṭṭhagarudhammehi vā aññena vā dhammena ovadantassa sammatassāpi pācittiyameva.

In the second, he admonishes—for one admonishing with the eight heavy rules or another teaching, even if appointed, it is only pācittiya.

In the second, ovadeyyā means that even for one who is authorized, instructing with the eight garudhammas or any other doctrine, there is still a pācittiya.

In the second rule, ovadeyyā means advising with the eight grave rules or another Dhamma. Even if appointed, it is a Pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ āyasmantaṃ cūḷapanthakaṃ ārabbha atthaṅgate sūriye ovadanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, sūriye atthaṅgate atthaṅgatasaññino vematikassa vā, ekatoupasampannaṃ ovadantassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Purimasikkhāpade viya uddesādinayena anāpatti. Atthaṅgatasūriyatā, paripuṇṇūpasampannatā, ovadananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni padasodhammasadisānevāti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the venerable Cūḷapanthaka, regarding the matter of admonishing after sunset. It is a specific rule, not requiring instruction, entailing three instances of pācittiya; for one perceiving the sun as set when it has set, or one doubtful, or admonishing one ordained on one side, it is dukkaṭa. As in the previous training rule, there is no offence by way of exposition and so forth. The sun having set, her full ordination, and admonishing—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Padasodhamma rule.

It was enacted in Sāvatthī concerning the venerable Cūḷapanthaka, in the case of giving instruction after sunset. It is a non-general regulation, not requiring a specific command, a triple pācittiya offense. For one who has the perception of the sun having set when it has set, or is doubtful, and for one instructing one who is only partially ordained, there is a dukkaṭa. As in the previous training rule, there is no offense by way of recitation and so on. The three factors here are: the sun having set, full ordination, and giving instruction. The arising and other aspects are similar to those of the padasodhamma [rule].

In Sāvatthī, regarding Venerable Cūḷapanthaka, a rule was established concerning advising after sunset. This is a non-general rule, non-offensive in nature, involving three Pācittiya offenses. If one perceives the sun as set or is in doubt, or advises a single nun, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. As in the previous rule, there is no offense for giving a discourse, etc. The factors here are: the sun being set, the nun being fully ordained, and advising. The origins, etc., are similar to the Padasodhamma.

3. Bhikkhunupassayasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Bhikkhunupassaya Training Rule

3. The Explanation of the Bhikkhunupassaya Training Rule

3. Explanation of the Bhikkhunupassaya Training Rule

Tatiye bhikkhunupassayanti bhikkhuniyā ekarattaṃ vasanaṭṭhānampi. Ovadeyyāti idha garudhammehi ovadantasseva pācittiyaṃ. Sace pana asammato hoti, dve pācittiyāni. Sace pana sūriyepi atthaṅgate ovadati, tīṇi honti. Sammatassa pana rattiṃ ovadantassapi dve eva honti. Sammatattā hi bhikkhussa garudhammovādamūlakaṃ pācittiyaṃ natthi. Gilānāti na sakkoti ovādāya vā saṃvāsāya vā gantuṃ.

In the third, nuns’ quarters means even a place where a nun stays for one night. He admonishes—here, it is pācittiya only for one admonishing with the heavy rules. If he is not appointed, there are two pācittiyas. If he admonishes after sunset as well, there are three. But for one appointed, even admonishing at night, there are only two. For due to being appointed, a monk has no pācittiya rooted in admonition with the heavy rules. Sick means unable to go for admonition or association.

In the third, bhikkhunupassaya means even a place where a nun stays for one night. Ovadeyyā here means that only for one instructing with the garudhammas is there a pācittiya. But if he is unauthorized, there are two pācittiyas. And if he instructs after sunset, there are three. But for one who is authorized, even instructing at night, there are only two. For due to being authorized, there is no pācittiya for a monk based on instructing in the garudhammas. Gilānā means “she is not able to go for instruction or co-residence.”

In the third rule, bhikkhunupassaya means even a single night’s lodging for a nun. Ovadeyyā means advising with the grave rules incurs a Pācittiya offense. If unappointed, two Pācittiya offenses arise. If advising after sunset, three offenses arise. For an appointed monk, even advising at night incurs two offenses, as the root offense of advising on the grave rules does not apply to him. Gilānā means one who is unable to go for advice or companionship.

Sakkesu chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha bhikkhunupassayaṃ upasaṅkamitvā ovadanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra samayā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampannāya upasampannasaññino vematikassa vā, ekatoupasampannaṃ yena kenaci, itaraṃ aññena dhammena ovadantassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Samaye, anupasampannāya, purimasikkhāpade viya uddesādinayena ca anāpatti. Upassayūpagamanaṃ, paripuṇṇūpasampannatā, samayābhāvo, garudhammehi ovadananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyaṃ hotīti.

This was laid down among the Sakyans concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of approaching the nuns’ quarters and admonishing. “Except at the proper time” is an additional specification here. It is a specific rule, not requiring instruction, entailing three instances of pācittiya; for one perceiving a non-ordained woman as ordained, or doubtful, or admonishing one ordained on one side with anything, or another with another teaching, it is dukkaṭa. At the proper time, with a non-ordained woman, or by exposition and so forth as in the previous training rule, there is no offence. Approaching the quarters, her full ordination, absence of the proper time, and admonishing with the heavy rules—these are the four factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the first Kathina rule, but this is an action.

It was enacted in the Sakyan territory concerning the group-of-six monks, in the case of going to a nuns’ residence and giving instruction. “Except at the right time” is a supplementary regulation here. It is a non-general regulation, not requiring a specific command, a triple pācittiya offense. For one who has the perception of a non-fully ordained woman as fully ordained, or is doubtful, and for one instructing a partially ordained woman with anything, and for one instructing the other [a fully ordained woman] with any other doctrine, there is a dukkaṭa. At the right time, for a non-fully ordained woman, and as in the previous training rule, by way of recitation and so on, there is no offense. The four factors here are: going to the residence, full ordination, the absence of the right time, and instructing with the garudhammas. The arising and other aspects are similar to those of the first kathina [rule]; but this is an action.

In the Sakyan country, regarding the group of six monks, a rule was established concerning going to a nun’s lodging and advising. “Except on an appropriate occasion” is an additional rule here. This is a non-general rule, non-offensive in nature, involving three Pācittiya offenses. If one perceives an unordained nun as ordained or is in doubt, or advises a single nun in any way, or advises using another Dhamma, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. On an appropriate occasion, or if the nun is unordained, or as in the previous rule for giving a discourse, etc., there is no offense. The factors here are: going to the lodging, the nun being fully ordained, the absence of an appropriate occasion, and advising with the grave rules. The origins, etc., are similar to the first Kathina.

4. Āmisasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Āmisa Training Rule

4. The Explanation of the Āmisa Training Rule

4. Explanation of the Āmisa Training Rule

Catutthe āmisahetūti cīvarādīnaṃ aññatarahetu. Bhikkhūti sammatā bhikkhū idhādhippetā. Pācittiyanti evarūpe bhikkhū avaṇṇakāmatāya evaṃ bhaṇantassa pācittiyaṃ.

In the fourth, for the sake of material gain means for the sake of robes or some other thing. Monks—here, appointed monks are intended. Pācittiya—for one speaking thus with the desire to disparage such monks, it is pācittiya.

In the fourth, āmisahetū means “because of any of robes and other things.” Bhikkhū here means “authorized monks.” Pācittiya means that for one speaking thus, only out of the desire to disparage such monks, there is a pācittiya.

In the fourth rule, āmisahetū means for the sake of robes, etc. Bhikkhū here refers to appointed monks. Pācittiya means a Pācittiya offense is incurred for speaking thus out of a desire to disparage.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha “āmisahetu ovadantī”ti bhaṇanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, dhammakamme tikapācittiyaṃ, adhammakamme tikadukkaṭaṃ, asammataṃ upasampannañca, anupasampannañca sammataṃ vā asammataṃ vā evaṃ bhaṇantassa dukkaṭameva. Tattha yo bhikkhu kāle sammutiṃ labhitvā sāmaṇerabhūmiyaṃ saṇṭhito, ayaṃ sammato nāma anupasampanno. Pakatiyā cīvarādihetu ovadantaṃ pana evaṃ bhaṇantassa , ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannatā, dhammena laddhasammutitā, anāmisantaratā, avaṇṇakāmatāya evaṃ bhaṇananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedanamevāti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of saying “they admonish for material gain.” It is a specific rule, not requiring instruction; in a proper act, three instances of pācittiya; in an improper act, three instances of dukkaṭa; for one saying so about an unappointed fully ordained monk, or an unordained monk whether appointed or not, it is only dukkaṭa. Here, a monk who received appointment at the proper time but stands on the level of a novice is called an appointed unordained one. For one saying so about a monk naturally admonishing for robes or similar, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Full ordination, having received appointment lawfully, absence of other motives, and saying so with intent to disparage—these are the four factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Adinnādāna rule, but this involves only painful feeling.

It was enacted in Sāvatthī concerning the group-of-six monks, in the case of saying, “They instruct because of material gain.” It is a non-general regulation, not requiring a specific command. In a lawful kamma, there is a triple pācittiya; in an unlawful kamma, there is a triple dukkaṭa. For one speaking thus about an unauthorized monk, whether fully ordained or not fully ordained, or about an authorized or unauthorized monk, there is only a dukkaṭa. There, a monk who, having obtained authorization at the right time, remains in the state of a novice, this is called an authorized non-fully ordained monk. But for one speaking thus about one instructing because of robes and other things by nature, and for the insane and others, there is no offense. The four factors here are: full ordination, having obtained authorization through a lawful act, absence of ulterior motives, and speaking thus out of the desire to disparage. The arising and other aspects are similar to those of taking what is not given; but this is only painful feeling.

In Sāvatthī, regarding the group of six monks, a rule was established concerning saying, “They advise for the sake of material gain.” This is a non-general rule, non-offensive in nature. In a proper act, it involves three Pācittiya offenses; in an improper act, three Dukkaṭa offenses. If one says this to an unappointed or appointed monk, or to an unordained or ordained nun, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. If a monk, having received appointment at the proper time, stands in the position of a novice, he is considered appointed though unordained. If one speaks thus to one who advises for the sake of robes, etc., out of a desire to disparage, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The factors here are: being ordained, having received proper appointment, not being motivated by material gain, and speaking thus out of a desire to disparage. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing, but this is a mental suffering.

5. Cīvaradānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Cīvaradāna Training Rule

5. The Explanation of the Cīvaradāna Training Rule

5. Explanation of the Cīvara Dāna Training Rule

Pañcame sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha cīvaradānavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesakathāmaggo panettha cīvarappaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbo. Tatra hi bhikkhu paṭiggāhako, idha bhikkhunī, ayaṃ viseso, sesaṃ tādisamevāti.

In the fifth, this was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk, regarding the matter of giving a robe. The rest of the discussion here should be understood as stated in the Cīvarappaṭiggahaṇa training rule. There, the monk is the recipient; here, it is a nun—this is the distinction; the rest is the same.

In the fifth, it was enacted in Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk, in the case of giving a robe. The rest of the narrative here should be understood in the same way as in the training rule on accepting a robe. There, the monk is the receiver; here, it is the nun; this is the difference; the rest is the same.

In the fifth rule, in Sāvatthī, regarding a certain monk, a rule was established concerning giving robes. The remaining details should be understood as in the rule on receiving robes. There, the monk is the receiver; here, the nun is the giver. This is the difference; the rest is the same.

6. Cīvarasibbanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Cīvarasibbana Training Rule

6. The Explanation of the Cīvarasibbana Training Rule

6. Explanation of the Cīvara Sibbanā Training Rule

Chaṭṭhe cīvaranti nivāsanapārupanupagaṃ. Sibbeyya vā sibbāpeyyā vāti ettha sayaṃ sibbantassa sūciṃ pavesetvā pavesetvā nīharaṇe pācittiyaṃ, satakkhattumpi vijjhitvā sakiṃ nīharantassa ekameva pācittiyaṃ. ’Sibbā’ti vutto pana sacepi sabbaṃ sūcikammaṃ niṭṭhāpeti, āṇāpakassa ekameva pācittiyaṃ. Atha “yaṃ ettha cīvare kattabbaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ tava bhāro”ti vutto niṭṭhāpeti, tassa ārāpathe ārāpathe pācittiyaṃ. Āṇāpakassa ekavācāya sambahulānipi, punappunaṃ āṇattiyaṃ pana vattabbameva natthi.

In the sixth, robe means suitable for wearing or covering. He sews or has it sewn—here, for one sewing himself, with each insertion and withdrawal of the needle, it is pācittiya; even piercing a hundred times but withdrawing once, it is only one pācittiya. But for one instructed to “sew,” even if he completes all the needlework, for the one instructing, it is only one pācittiya. If he is told, “whatever needs to be done with this robe, it’s all your responsibility,” and completes it, for him, at each stage of instructing, it is pācittiya. For the one instructing with one command, even if many do it, and with repeated instructions, there is nothing more to say.

In the sixth, cīvara means “suitable for wearing as a lower or upper robe.” Regarding sibbeyya vā sibbāpeyyā vā, for one sewing himself, there is a pācittiya for each insertion and withdrawal of the needle; for one piercing many times and withdrawing once, there is only one pācittiya. But if one who is told, “Sew,” completes all the needlework, there is only one pācittiya for the one who gave the command. But if he is told, “All that should be done to this robe is your responsibility,” and he completes it, there is a pācittiya for each and every stitch. For the one who gave the command, even for many [robes] with one utterance, there is [only one offense]; as for repeated commands, there is no need to speak.

In the sixth rule, cīvara means a robe suitable for wearing. Sibbeyya vā sibbāpeyyā vā means sewing oneself or having another sew. If one sews oneself, inserting and removing the needle each time incurs a Pācittiya offense. Even if one pierces a hundred times but removes the needle once, there is only one offense. If one says, “Sew,” and completes the entire sewing, the instructor incurs one Pācittiya offense. If one says, “Whatever needs to be done on this robe is your responsibility,” and completes it, there is a Pācittiya offense for each section. For the instructor, even if many sections are done with one instruction, repeated instructions are not necessary.

Sāvatthiyaṃ udāyittheraṃ ārabbha cīvarasibbanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ñātikāya aññātikasaññino vā vematikassa vā, ekatoupasampannāya sibbantassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Aññaṃ thavikādiparikkhāraṃ sibbantassa, ñātikāya, sikkhamānasāmaṇerīnañca cīvarampi sibbantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā santakatā , nivāsanapārupanupagatā, vuttalakkhaṇaṃ sibbanaṃ vā sibbāpanaṃ vāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni sañcarittasadisānevāti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the elder Udāyi, regarding the matter of sewing a robe. It is a specific rule, requiring instruction, entailing three instances of pācittiya; for one perceiving a non-relative as a relative, or doubtful, or sewing for one ordained on one side, it is dukkaṭa. For sewing another item like a bag or equipment, or for a relative, or sewing a robe for a female trainee or novice, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. It belonging to an unrelated nun, being suitable for wearing or covering, and sewing or causing to be sewn as specified—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Sañcaritta rule.

It was enacted in Sāvatthī concerning the venerable Udāyī, in the case of sewing a robe. It is a non-general regulation, requiring a specific command, a triple pācittiya offense. For one who has the perception of a non-relative as a relative, or is doubtful, and for one sewing for a partially ordained woman, there is a dukkaṭa. For one sewing another robe-cloth or other requisites, for a relative, and even for one sewing a robe for trainees and female novices, and for the insane and others, there is no offense. The three factors here are: belonging to a non-relative nun, being suitable for wearing as a lower or upper robe, and sewing or causing to sew in the manner described. The arising and other aspects are similar to those of the sañcaritta [rule].

In Sāvatthī, regarding Venerable Udāyī, a rule was established concerning sewing robes. This is a non-general rule, involving an offense with instruction, and three Pācittiya offenses. If one perceives a relative as a non-relative or is in doubt, or sews for a single nun, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. Sewing another item like a bag, sewing for a relative, or sewing robes for a trainee or novice nun, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The factors here are: the nun being a non-relative, the robe being suitable for wearing, and sewing or having it sewn as described. The origins, etc., are similar to the Sañcaritta.

7. Saṃvidhānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Saṃvidhāna Training Rule

7. The Explanation of the Saṃvidhāna Training Rule

7. Explanation of the Saṃvidhāna Training Rule

Sattame saṃvidhāyāti saṃvidahitvā, gamanakāle saṅketaṃ katvāti attho. Ekaddhānamagganti ekaṃ addhānasaṅkhātaṃ maggaṃ, ekato vā addhānamaggaṃ. Satthagamanīyoti satthena saddhiṃ gantabbo, sesaṃ uttānapadatthameva. Ayaṃ panettha vinicchayo – akappiyabhūmiyaṃ saṃvidahantassa saṃvidahanapaccayā tāva dukkaṭaṃ. Tattha ṭhapetvā bhikkhunupassayaṃ antarārāmaṃ āsanasālaṃ titthiyaseyyañca sesā akappiyabhūmi, tattha ṭhatvā saṃvidahantassāti attho. Saṃvidahitvā pana “ajja vā sve vā”ti niyamitaṃ kālaṃ visaṅketaṃ akatvā, dvāravisaṅketaṃ pana maggavisaṅketaṃ vā katvāpi bhikkhuniyā saddhiṃ gacchantassa yāva āsannassāpi aññassa gāmassa “ayaṃ imassa upacāro”ti manussehi ṭhapitaṃ upacāraṃ na okkamati, tāva anāpatti. Taṃ okkamantassa pana paṭhamapāde dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyapāde pācittiyaṃ, iti gāmūpacārokkamanagaṇanāya pācittiyāni. Addhayojanātikkame pana gāme asati addhayojanagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the seventh, having arranged means having made an arrangement, agreeing on a sign at the time of departure. One journey-path means a single path reckoned as a journey, or a journey-path together. To be traveled with a caravan means to be gone with a caravan; the rest is clear in its wording. But here is the judgment: for one arranging while on improper ground, there is dukkaṭa due to the act of arranging. Excluding the nuns’ quarters, an inner monastery, a meeting hall, and a heretic’s lodging, the rest is improper ground; it means arranging while standing there. Having arranged, without fixing a time like “today or tomorrow,” without making a sign at the door but making a sign on the path, and going with a nun, as long as he does not enter the vicinity of even a nearby village marked by people as “this is its vicinity,” there is no offence. But upon entering it, with the first step, it is dukkaṭa; with the second step, pācittiya—thus pācittiyas are reckoned by entering the village vicinity. If there is no village, beyond half a yojana, pācittiya is reckoned by half-yojana measures.

In the seventh, saṃvidhāyā means “having arranged,” meaning “having made an agreement at the time of going.” Ekaddhānamagga means “one road counted as a journey,” or “a road of one journey.” Satthagamanīyo means “to be traveled with a caravan”; the rest is clear in meaning. Here is the decision in this regard: for one arranging in an unsuitable place, there is a dukkaṭa due to the arrangement. Setting aside a nuns’ residence, an inner monastery, a resting hall, and a heretical lodging, the rest are unsuitable places; the meaning is, for one arranging while standing there. But having arranged, without making a disagreement about the time, specifying “today or tomorrow,” even having made a disagreement about the entrance or a disagreement about the road, for one traveling with a nun, as long as he does not enter the boundary established by people as “this is the surrounding area of this [village],” even of another nearby village, there is no offense. But for one entering that, there is a dukkaṭa for the first step, and a pācittiya for the second step; thus, there are pācittiyas according to the number of entries into the surrounding area of a village. But if there is no village beyond half a yojana, there is a pācittiya according to the number of half-yojanas.

In the seventh, saṃvidhāyā means having made an arrangement, having made a signal at the time of going. Ekaddhānamagga means a path reckoned as one interval, or a path of one interval. Satthagamanīyo means to be gone with a group; the rest is clear in meaning. Here is the determination: For one who makes an arrangement in an improper place, there is a dukkaṭa offense due to the condition of making the arrangement. Excluding the bhikkhunī’s dwelling, the area between monasteries, the assembly hall, and the sectarians’ sleeping place, the rest are improper places. Standing there, one who makes an arrangement—this is the meaning. Having made an arrangement, if one does not fix the time as “today or tomorrow,” but makes a signal at the door or on the path, and goes with a bhikkhunī, as long as one does not enter the vicinity of another village established by people as “this is the vicinity of that,” there is no offense. If one enters, there is a dukkaṭa offense on the first step and a pācittiya offense on the second step. Thus, in the counting of entering the village vicinity, there are pācittiya offenses. For exceeding half a yojana, there is a pācittiya offense in the absence of a village, counted by half a yojana.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha ekaddhānamaggappaṭipajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra samayā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, asaṃvidahite saṃvidahitasaññino vematikassa vā, yo ca bhikkhuniyā asaṃvidahantiyā kevalaṃ attanāva saṃvidahati, tassa dukkaṭaṃ. Samaye saṃvidahitvāpi gacchantassa, attanā asaṃvidahantassa, visaṅketena vā, āpadāsu gacchantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Dvinnampi saṃvidahitvā maggappaṭipatti, avisaṅketatā, samayābhāvo, anāpadā, gāmantarokkamanaṃ vā addhayojanātikkamo vāti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Ekatoupasampannādīhi pana saddhiṃ mātugāmasikkhāpadena āpatti, addhānasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ, nosaññāvimokkhaṃ, acittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of setting out on one journey-path. “Except at the proper time” is an additional specification here. It is a specific rule, not requiring instruction, entailing three instances of pācittiya; for one perceiving an unarranged journey as arranged, or doubtful, or for one who arranges alone without the nun arranging, it is dukkaṭa. For one going at the proper time even after arranging, or not arranging himself, or with a different sign, or going in emergencies, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Both arranging and setting out on the path, absence of a different sign, absence of the proper time, absence of emergency, and entering another village or exceeding half a yojana—these are the five factors here. With one ordained on one side or others, there is an offence under the Mātugāma training rule. It originates from a journey, is an action, not exempt by perception, mindless, a fault of precept, bodily action, verbal action, with three mental states and three feelings.

It was enacted in Sāvatthī concerning the group-of-six monks, in the case of undertaking a journey on the same road. “Except at the right time” is a supplementary regulation here. It is a non-general regulation, not requiring a specific command, a triple pācittiya offense. For one who has the perception of “having arranged” when it is not arranged, or is doubtful, and for one who arranges only by himself, without the nun arranging, there is a dukkaṭa. For one traveling after arranging at the right time, for one not arranging by himself, or with a disagreement, for one traveling in times of danger, and for the insane and others, there is no offense. The five factors here are: both undertaking the journey after arranging, the absence of a disagreement, the absence of the right time, the absence of danger, and entering another village or exceeding half a yojana. But with those partially ordained and others, there is an offense according to the training rule concerning women. It has a road-arising, it is an action, it is not free from perception, it is without thought, it is an offense of transgression of a regulation, it is a bodily action, it is a verbal action, it has three mental states, and three feelings.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning the group of six bhikkhus in a case of traveling a single path. “Except on an occasion” is an additional rule here, a non-common rule, non-announcement, a tri-pācittiya offense. For one who makes an arrangement without having made one, perceiving it as made, or in doubt, or for one who makes an arrangement without a bhikkhunī, merely by oneself, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who goes after making an arrangement on an occasion, without making an arrangement oneself, or with a signal, or in emergencies, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. For both, the practice of traveling the path after making an arrangement, the absence of a signal, the absence of an occasion, the absence of an emergency, entering another village, or exceeding half a yojana—these are the five factors here. For one who is fully ordained, etc., there is an offense under the rule concerning women. Arising from traveling, action, no release by perception, unconscious, a rule offense, bodily action, verbal action, three consciousnesses, three feelings.

8. Nāvābhiruhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Nāvābhiruhana Training Rule

8. The Explanation of the Nāvābhiruhana Training Rule

8. Explanation of the Nāvābhiruhana Training Rule

Aṭṭhame saṃvidhāyāti kīḷāpurekkhāro saṃvidahitvā, abhiruhanakāle saṅketaṃ katvāti attho. Uddhaṃgāmininti kīḷāvasena uddhaṃ nadiyā paṭisotaṃ gacchantiṃ. Adhogāmininti tatheva adho anusotaṃ gacchantiṃ. Yaṃ pana titthappaṭipādanatthaṃ uddhaṃ vā adho vā haranti, ettha anāpatti. Aññatra tiriyaṃ taraṇāyāti upayogatthe nissakkavacanaṃ, yā tiriyaṃ taraṇā, taṃ ṭhapetvāti attho. Pācittiyanti sagāmakatīrapassena gamanakāle gāmantaragaṇanāya, agāmakatīrapassena vā yojanavitthatāya nadiyā majjhena vā gamanakāle addhayojanagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ, samudde pana yathāsukhaṃ gantuṃ vaṭṭati.

In the eighth, saṃvidhāya means having arranged with a playful intent, or having made an agreement at the time of embarking, that is the meaning. Uddhaṃgāminī means going upstream of a river for the sake of play. Adhogāminī means going downstream in the same manner. However, if it is carried upstream or downstream to reach a landing place, there is no offense here. Aññatra tiriyaṃ taraṇāya is in the dative case with an instrumental sense, meaning “except for crossing transversely.” Pācittiya refers to an offense of expiation when traveling along a riverbank with villages by counting the villages, or along a riverbank without villages or through the middle of a river that is a yojana wide by counting half a yojana, but in the sea, one may travel freely as one pleases.

In the eighth, having arranged (saṃvidhāya) means having arranged with a playful intention, having made an agreement at the time of boarding. Going upstream (uddhaṃgāmini) means going upstream, against the current of the river, for the sake of playing. Going downstream (adhogāmini) means likewise going downstream, with the current. But if they are carrying (the boat) upstream or downstream for the purpose of crossing at a ford, there is no offense. Except for crossing sideways (aññatra tiriyaṃ taraṇāyā) is an ablative of reference, meaning except for crossing sideways. Is a pācittiya (pācittiya)—when going along the bank of a village’s shore, it is counted as a different village; when going along the bank of a non-village shore, or through the middle of a river a yojana wide, it is counted as half a yojana, a pācittiya (offense). But in the ocean, it is permissible to go as one pleases.

In the eighth, saṃvidhāyā means having made an arrangement for the sake of play, having made a signal at the time of boarding. Uddhaṃgāmini means going upstream in a river for play. Adhogāmini means similarly going downstream. However, there is no offense if one is carried upstream or downstream for the purpose of crossing. Aññatra tiriyaṃ taraṇāyā is a term of application, meaning excluding crossing sideways. Pācittiya means, when going along a riverbank with a village, counted by entering another village; or when going along a riverbank without a village, counted by half a yojana in the middle of the river; but in the ocean, one may go as one pleases.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha nāvābhiruhanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra tiriyaṃ taraṇāyā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sesaṃ anantarasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning the six monks regarding the matter of embarking on a boat, with “except for crossing transversely” being the additional rule here, and the rest should be understood as explained in the method stated in the preceding training rule.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning the bhikkhus of the group of six, in the case of boarding a boat. “Except for crossing sideways” is a supplementary regulation (anupaññatti) in this case. The rest should be understood as stated in the immediately preceding training rule.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning the group of six bhikkhus in a case of boarding a boat. “Except for crossing sideways” is an additional rule here; the rest should be understood in the same way as in the preceding training rule.

9. Paripācitasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Paripācita Training Rule

9. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Food Prepared on Request

9. Explanation of the Paripācita Training Rule

Navame bhikkhuniparipācitanti bhikkhuniyā paripācitaṃ, neva tassa nāttano ñātakappavāritānaṃ gihīnaṃ santike bhikkhussa guṇaṃ pakāsetvā “detha ayyassa, karotha ayyassā”ti evaṃ nipphāditaṃ laddhabbaṃ katanti attho. Pubbe gihisamārambhāti ettha samārambhoti samāraddhaṃ, paṭiyāditassetaṃ nāmaṃ. Gihīnaṃ samārambho gihisamārambho, bhikkhuniyā paripācanato pubbe paṭhamataraṃyeva yaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya gihīnaṃ paṭiyāditabhattaṃ, ñātakappavāritānaṃ vā santakaṃ, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ jānaṃ bhuñjantassa pācittiyanti attho. Tañca kho ajjhoharaṇagaṇanāya, paṭiggahaṇe panassa dukkaṭaṃ.

In the ninth, bhikkhuniparipācita means prepared by a bhikkhunī, not by declaring the virtues of a monk in the presence of laypeople who are her relatives or those invited by her, saying, “Give to the venerable, do for the venerable,” and thus obtaining something produced in this way, that is the meaning. Pubbe gihisamārambhā here means samārambho, something undertaken, a term for what has been prepared. The undertaking of laypeople is gihisamārambho, meaning food prepared by laypeople for monks prior to the bhikkhunī’s preparation, or belonging to relatives or those invited, excepting that, knowingly eating anything else incurs a pācittiya, that is the meaning. And that is by counting the act of consumption; however, in receiving it, there is a dukkaṭa offense.

In the ninth, food prepared on a bhikkhunī’s request (bhikkhuniparipācita) means food prepared by a bhikkhunī, not obtained by making known the good qualities of the bhikkhu to laypeople who are not his relatives or have not offered to provide, and saying, “Give to the worthy one, do for the worthy one.” Unless the laypeople had already begun the preparation (pubbe gihisamārambhā). Here, preparation (samārambha) means what has been prepared, this is a name for what has been prepared. The preparation of laypeople is gihisamārambha; except for the food prepared by laypeople for the sake of bhikkhus, or what belongs to relatives or those who have offered to provide, before the bhikkhunī’s preparing, one who knowingly eats other food commits a pācittiya. And that is for each mouthful swallowed; but upon receiving it, there is a dukkata (offense) for him.

In the ninth, bhikkhuniparipācita means instigated by a bhikkhunī, not by oneself or one’s relatives, having praised the qualities of a bhikkhu in the presence of householders, saying, “Give to the venerable, do for the venerable,” and thus obtaining something. Pubbe gihisamārambhā means here samārambho is what is prepared; this is the term for what is prepared. The preparation by householders is gihisamārambha; what is prepared by householders for the sake of bhikkhus, excluding what is prepared by relatives, etc., if one eats knowing it, there is a pācittiya offense. This is counted by swallowing; in receiving, there is a dukkaṭa offense.

Rājagahe devadattaṃ ārabbha bhikkhuniparipācitapiṇḍapātabhuñjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra pubbe gihisamārambhā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, ekatoupasampannāya paripācitaṃ bhuñjantassa , aparipācite paripācitasaññino, ubhayattha vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Ubhayattha aparipācitasaññino, gihisamārambhe, sikkhamānasāmaṇerādīhi paripācite, pañca bhojanāni ṭhapetvā avasese, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Bhikkhuniyā paripācitatā, paripācitabhāvajānanaṃ, gihisamārambhābhāvo, odanādīnaṃ aññataratā, tassa ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasaasāni, idaṃ pana paṇṇattivajjaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was established at Rājagaha concerning Devadatta regarding the matter of eating almsfood prepared by a bhikkhunī, with “except from the prior undertaking of laypeople” being the additional rule here, a specific rule, without command, and for one eating what was prepared by a bhikkhunī ordained on one side, or one perceiving it as prepared when it was not, or one uncertain in both cases, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one perceiving it as unprepared in both cases, or in the case of a layperson’s undertaking, or when prepared by a novice nun or similar, or excepting the five foods, or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are: being prepared by a bhikkhunī, knowing it was prepared, the absence of a layperson’s undertaking, it being one of rice or similar, and its consumption—these are the five factors. The origin and so forth are like the first pārājika, but this is an offense by establishment, with three mental states and three feelings.

It was promulgated at Rājagaha concerning Devadatta, in the case of eating a meal prepared on a bhikkhunī’s request. “Unless the laypeople had already begun the preparation” is a supplementary regulation in this case, a non-general regulation, not involving a command. One who eats food prepared by one ordained on one side , or one who thinks it is prepared when it is not, or one who is doubtful about both, incurs a dukkata. One who thinks it is unprepared when it is unprepared in both cases, when laypeople had already begun, when prepared by probationers, female novices, etc., all except the five staple foods, for those who are insane, etc., there is no offense. The fact of having been prepared by a bhikkhunī, knowing the fact of it being prepared, the absence of the laypeople’s prior preparation, being one of the items such as boiled rice, etc., swallowing it—these are the five factors here. The origins, etc., are like the first pārājika. But this is an offense of transgression of a rule, it is three-minded, and it is three-felt.

In Rājagaha, this rule was established concerning Devadatta in a case of eating almsfood instigated by a bhikkhunī. “Except when previously prepared by householders” is an additional rule here, a non-common rule, non-announcement. For one who eats what is instigated by a bhikkhunī, perceiving it as instigated, or in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not perceive it as instigated, or when prepared by householders, or instigated by a trainee nun, novice, etc., or when eating the five kinds of food, there is no offense. The instigation by a bhikkhunī, the knowledge of the instigation, the absence of preparation by householders, the nature of rice, etc., and the swallowing—these are the five factors here. The origin, etc., are as in the first pārājika; this is a rule offense, three consciousnesses, three feelings.

The explanation of the training rule concerning food prepared on request is finished.

10. Rahonisajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Rahonisajja Training Rule

10. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Sitting in a Secluded Place

10. Explanation of the Rahonisajja Training Rule

Dasame sabbopi kathāmaggo dutiyaaniyate vuttanayeneva veditabbo. Idañhi sikkhāpadaṃ dutiyaaniyatena ca upari upanandassa catutthasikkhāpadena ca ekaparicchedaṃ, aṭṭhuppattivasena pana visuṃ paññattanti.

In the tenth, the entire discussion should be understood as explained in the method stated in the second indefinite rule. For this training rule forms a single section with the second indefinite rule and the fourth training rule of Upananda above, but it was established separately due to its origin.

In the tenth, the entire course of the discussion should be understood as stated in the second undetermined (rule). This training rule, along with the second undetermined (rule) and the fourth training rule of Upananda below, constitutes one section. But they were promulgated separately due to eight origins.

In the tenth, the entire discussion should be understood in the same way as in the second aniyata. This training rule is included in the second aniyata and the fourth training rule of Upananda, but it is separately established due to eight origins.

The explanation of the training rule concerning sitting in a secluded place is finished.

4. Bhojanavaggo

4. Chapter on Food

4. The Chapter on Meals

4. Bhojanavaggo

1. Āvasathasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Āvasatha Training Rule

1. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Almsfood in a Residence

1. Explanation of the Āvasatha Training Rule

Bhojanavaggassa paṭhame agilānenāti addhayojanampi gantuṃ samatthena. Ekoti ekadivasiko. Āvasathapiṇḍoti “imesaṃ vā ettakānaṃ vā”ti ekaṃ pāsaṇḍaṃ vā, “ettakamevā”ti evaṃ bhattaṃ vā anodissa sālādīsu yattha katthaci puññakāmehi paññattaṃ bhojanaṃ. Bhuñjitabboti ekakulena vā nānākulehi vā ekato hutvā ekasmiṃ vā ṭhāne, nānāṭhānesu vā “ajja ekasmiṃ, sve ekasmi”nti evaṃ aniyataṭṭhāne vā paññatto ekasmiṃ ṭhāne ekadivasameva bhuñjitabbo. Tato ce uttarīti dutiyadivasato paṭṭhāya tasmiṃ vā ṭhāne aññasmiṃ vā ṭhāne tesaṃ santakassa paṭiggahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pācittiyaṃ.

In the first of the food chapter, agilānena means by one capable of traveling even half a yojana. Eko means for one day. Āvasathapiṇḍo means almsfood designated by meritorious people for a group or a certain number, or a specific amount of food, without specification, in halls or elsewhere. Bhuñjitabbo means it should be eaten on one day, whether by one family or various families together, in one place or different places, designated as “today here, tomorrow there” or in an unspecified place, in one designated place. Tato ce uttari means from the second day onward, in that place or another, receiving what belongs to them incurs a dukkaṭa, and with each act of consumption, a pācittiya.

In the first of the chapter on meals, not being ill (agilānenā) means being able to walk even half a yojana. One (eko) means for one day. Almsfood in a residence (āvasathapiṇḍo) means a meal designated by those wishing to make merit, somewhere in a hall, etc., without specifying either “for these” or “for so many,” or a certain sect, or “only this much” food. Should be eaten (bhuñjitabbo)—it should be eaten only for one day in one place, whether designated in one place or in various places by one family or various families joining together, or designated in a non-fixed place, such as “today in one place, tomorrow in another.” If he partakes beyond that (tato ce uttarī)—from the second day onwards, upon receiving what belongs to them in that place or in another place, there is a dukkata; for each mouthful swallowed, there is a pācittiya.

In the first of the Bhojanavagga, agilānenā means even capable of traveling half a yojana. Eko means for one day. Āvasathapiṇḍo means food prepared without specifying, “for these or so many,” or a single meal prepared in a hall, etc., by those wishing to make merit. Bhuñjitabbo means to be eaten by one family or many families together in one place or different places, “today in one place, tomorrow in one place,” or in an unspecified place, but in one place only for one day. Tato ce uttarī means from the second day onward, receiving from them in that place or another place, there is a dukkaṭa offense; for each mouthful, a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha anuvasitvā āvasathapiṇḍabhuñjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “agilānenā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, gilānassa agilānasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Gilānassa gilānasaññino, yo ca sakiṃ bhuñjati, gacchanto vā antarāmagge ekadivasaṃ , gataṭṭhāne ekadivasaṃ, paccāgantopi antarāmagge ekadivasaṃ, āgataṭṭhāne ekadivasaṃ, gamissāmī’ti ca bhuñjitvā nikkhanto kenaci upaddavena nivattitvā khemabhāvaṃ ñatvā gacchanto puna ekadivasaṃ bhuñjati, yassa vā sāmikā nimantetvā denti, yo vā bhikkhūnaṃyeva uddissa paññattaṃ, na yāvadatthaṃ paññattaṃ, ṭhapetvā vā pañca bhojanāni aññaṃ bhuñjati, tassa ca, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Āvasathapiṇḍatā, agilānatā, anuvasitvā paribhojananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasikkhāpadasadisānīti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning the six monks regarding the matter of repeatedly eating āvasatha almsfood, with “by one not sick” being the additional rule here, a common rule, without command, a threefold pācittiya, and for one sick perceiving themselves as not sick or uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For one sick perceiving themselves as sick, or one who eats once, or one traveling who eats for one day on the way, one day at the destination, one day on the return journey, one day at the starting point, or one who eats thinking “I will go” and departs but returns due to some trouble and, knowing safety, eats again for one day while going, or one whose donors invite and give, or what is designated only for monks, not as much as desired, or excepting the five foods eating something else, and for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are: it being āvasatha almsfood, not being sick, and eating repeatedly—these are the three factors. The origin and so forth are similar to the eḷakaloma training rule.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning the bhikkhus of the group of six, in the case of repeatedly eating almsfood in a residence. “Not being ill” is a supplementary regulation in this case, a general regulation, not involving a command, a three-fold pācittiya. For one who is ill but thinks he is not ill, or is doubtful, there is a dukkata. For one who is ill and thinks he is ill; and one who eats only once; or going, for one day on the road in between; in the place arrived at, for one day; returning, also for one day on the road in between; in the place arrived at, for one day; and having eaten thinking “I will go,” one who sets out but turns back due to some trouble, and knowing it is safe, going, eats again for one day; or for whom the owners invite and give; or what is designated only for bhikkhus, not designated as much as desired; or one who eats other than the five staple foods; and for those who are insane, etc., there is no offense. Being almsfood in a residence, not being ill, and eating repeatedly—these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are like the training rule concerning sheep’s wool.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning the group of six bhikkhus in a case of eating monastery food after staying. “When not sick” is an additional rule here, a common rule, non-announcement, a tri-pācittiya offense. For one who is sick, perceiving oneself as not sick, or in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who is sick, perceiving oneself as sick, or who eats once, or who is going and eats one day on the way, one day at the destination, or who returns and eats one day on the way, one day at the destination, or who eats once and then leaves, but due to some danger turns back and, knowing it is safe, goes again and eats one day, or whose owners invite and give, or what is prepared specifically for bhikkhus, not prepared in abundance, or when eating other than the five kinds of food, there is no offense. The nature of monastery food, not being sick, and eating after staying—these are the three factors here. The origin, etc., are as in the Eḷakaloma training rule.

The explanation of the training rule concerning almsfood in a residence is finished.

2. Gaṇabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Gaṇabhojana Training Rule

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Group Meals

2. Explanation of the Gaṇabhojana Training Rule

Dutiye gaṇabhojaneti gaṇassa bhojane. Idha ca gaṇoti cattāro vā tatuttari vā bhikkhū , tesaṃ nimantanato vā viññattito vā laddhe odanādīnaṃ pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññatarabhojaneti attho. Tatthāyaṃ vinicchayo – sace hi koci cattāro bhikkhū upasaṅkamitvā yena kenaci vevacanena vā bhāsantarena vā pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā “odanena nimantemi, odanaṃ me gaṇhathā”tiādinā nayena nimanteti, te ce evaṃ ekato vā nānāto vā nimantitā ekato vā nānāto vā gantvā ekato gaṇhanti, pacchā ekato vā nānāto vā bhuñjanti, gaṇabhojanaṃ hoti. Paṭiggahaṇameva hettha pamāṇaṃ. Sace odanādīnaṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā ekato vā nānāto vā viññāpetvā ca gantvā ca ekato gaṇhanti, evampi gaṇabhojanameva. Tassa duvidhassāpi evaṃ paṭiggahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pācittiyaṃ. Gilānasamayādīsu yadā pādānampi phalitattā na sakkā piṇḍāya carituṃ, ayaṃ gilānasamayo. Atthatakathinānaṃ pañca māsā, itaresaṃ kattikamāsoti ayaṃ cīvaradānasamayo. Yadā yo cīvare kariyamāne kiñcideva cīvare kattabbaṃ kammaṃ karoti, ayaṃ cīvarakārasamayo. Yadā addhayojanampi gantukāmo vā hoti gacchati vā gato vā, ayaṃ addhānagamanasamayo. Nāvābhiruhanasamayepi eseva nayo. Yadā gocaragāme cattāro bhikkhū piṇḍāya caritvā na yāpenti, ayaṃ mahāsamayo. Yadā yokoci pabbajito bhattena nimanteti, ayaṃ samaṇabhattasamayo, etesu samayesu bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati.

In the second, gaṇabhojane means food for a group. Here, gaṇo means four or more monks, and it refers to any of the five foods—rice or similar—obtained through their invitation or request, that is the meaning. The decision here is as follows: If someone approaches four monks and invites them with any term or expression, naming one of the five foods, saying, “I invite you with rice, take my rice,” and so on, and if they, thus invited together or separately, go together or separately and receive it together, and afterward eat together or separately, it is group eating. The act of receiving is the criterion here. If they request it, naming rice or similar, together or separately, and go and receive it together, this too is group eating. For both types, receiving incurs a dukkaṭa, and with each act of consumption, a pācittiya. In times of sickness and so forth—when even a quarter of the feet are afflicted and alms cannot be sought, this is gilānasamayo (time of sickness). For those receiving robes after the kathina, five months, and for others, the month of Kattika, this is cīvaradānasamayo (time of robe-giving). When one does some work on a robe being made, this is cīvarakārasamayo (time of robe-making). When one wishes to travel, is traveling, or has traveled even half a yojana, this is addhānagamanasamayo (time of traveling). The same applies to the nāvābhiruhanasamayo (time of embarking on a boat). When four monks seeking alms in a village cannot sustain themselves, this is mahāsamayo (great occasion). When any ordained person invites with food, this is samaṇabhattasamayo (time of a monk’s meal)—in these times, it is permissible to eat.

In the second, in a group meal (gaṇabhojane) means in a meal for a group. And here, group (gaṇa) means four or more bhikkhus. It means one of the five staple foods, such as boiled rice, etc., obtained by their invitation or request. The determination here is this: if someone approaches four bhikkhus and, using any synonym or different expression, taking the name of the five staple foods, invites them, saying, “I invite you with boiled rice, accept boiled rice from me,” etc., and if they, thus invited together or separately, go together or separately and take together, and afterwards eat together or separately, it is a group meal. Taking together is the measure here. If, taking the name of boiled rice, etc., and having requested together or separately, and having gone and taken together, even so, it is a group meal. For both of these, upon taking thus, there is a dukkata; for each mouthful swallowed, there is a pācittiya. When it is impossible to go for alms due to the feet being cracked, etc., this is the time of illness. Five months for those who have spread the cloth, one month of Kattika for the others—this is the time of giving robes. When someone doing robe-making does any work to be done on a robe, this is the time of robe-making. When one either wishes to go even half a yojana, or is going, or has gone, this is the time of going on a journey. The same applies to the time of boarding a boat. When four bhikkhus cannot sustain themselves by going for alms in the alms-resort village, this is the great occasion. When any recluse invites with a meal, this is the recluse-meal occasion. It is permissible to eat on these occasions.

In the second, gaṇabhojane means the meal of a group. Here, gaṇo means four or more bhikkhus, and the meal is one of the five kinds of food: rice, etc., obtained by invitation or request. Here is the determination: If any four bhikkhus approach and, by any term or expression, mention the name of one of the five kinds of food and invite, saying, “I invite you with rice, take rice from me,” etc., and they, whether invited together or separately, go together or separately and take together, or later eat together or separately, it is a group meal. The act of receiving is the measure here. If, after mentioning the name of rice, etc., they request together or separately, go and take together, this is also a group meal. In both cases, there is a dukkaṭa offense in receiving; for each mouthful, a pācittiya offense. When, due to illness, etc., one cannot walk for alms, this is the illness occasion. For those who have completed the kathina, five months; for others, the month of Kattika—this is the robe-giving occasion. When one is doing some work on a robe being made, this is the robe-making occasion. When one wishes to travel or is traveling or has traveled half a yojana, this is the traveling occasion. The boat-embarking occasion is similar. When, in a village for alms, four bhikkhus walking for alms do not get enough, this is the great occasion. When any ascetic invites with a meal, this is the ascetic meal occasion; on these occasions, it is allowable to eat.

Rājagahe devadattaṃ ārabbha viññāpetvā bhuñjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra samayā”ti ayamettha sattavidhā anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, nagaṇabhojane gaṇabhojanasaññissa vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Nagaṇabhojanasaññissa pana, ye ca dve tayo ekato gaṇhanti, bahūnaṃ piṇḍāya caritvā ekato bhuñjantānaṃ, niccabhattikādīsu, pañca bhojanāni ṭhapetvā sabbattha, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Gaṇabhojanatā, samayābhāvo, ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānevāti.

This was established at Rājagaha concerning Devadatta regarding the matter of eating after requesting, with “except at the proper time” being the sevenfold additional rule here, a common rule, without command, a threefold pācittiya, and for one perceiving it as group eating when it is not or uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For one not perceiving it as group eating, or two or three receiving together, or many seeking alms and eating together, or in regular meals and so forth, or excepting the five foods everywhere, and for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are: it being group eating, the absence of a proper time, and consumption—these are the three factors. The origin and so forth are similar to the eḷakaloma training rule.

It was promulgated at Rājagaha concerning Devadatta, in the case of requesting and eating. “Except on an occasion” is a sevenfold supplementary regulation in this case, a general regulation, not involving a command, a three-fold pācittiya. For one who thinks it is a group meal when it is not, or is doubtful, there is a dukkata. But for one who thinks it is not a group meal; and those who take together as two or three; for those who go for alms to many and eat together; in regular meals, etc.; all except the five staple foods; and for those who are insane, etc., there is no offense. Being a group meal, the absence of an occasion, swallowing—these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are like those of the sheep’s wool (rule).

In Rājagaha, this rule was established concerning Devadatta in a case of eating after requesting. “Except on an occasion” is an additional rule here, sevenfold, a common rule, non-announcement, a tri-pācittiya offense. For one who does not eat a group meal, perceiving it as a group meal, or in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not perceive it as a group meal, or when two or three eat together, or many eat together after walking for alms, or in regular meals, etc., or when eating other than the five kinds of food, there is no offense. The nature of a group meal, the absence of an occasion, and the act of eating—these are the three factors here. The origin, etc., are as in the Eḷakaloma rule.

3. Paramparabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Paramparabhojana Training Rule

3. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Successive Meals

3. Explanation of the Paramparabhojana Training Rule

Tatiye paramparabhojaneti gaṇabhojane vuttanayeneva pañcahi bhojanehi nimantitassa yena yena paṭhamaṃ nimantito, tassa tassa bhojanato uppaṭipāṭiyā vā avikappetvā vā parassa parassa bhojane. Tasmā yo bhikkhu pañcasu sahadhammikesu aññatarassa “mayhaṃ bhattapaccāsaṃ tuyhaṃ dammī”ti vā “vikappemī”ti vā evaṃ sammukhā vā “itthannāmassa dammī”ti (pāci. 226) vā “vikappemī”ti vā evaṃ parammukhāvā paṭhamanimantanaṃ avikappetvā pacchā nimantitakule laddhabhikkhato ekasitthampi ajjhoharati, pācittiyaṃ. Samayā vuttanayā eva.

In the third, paramparabhojane means, as explained in the group eating rule, eating at one house after another, either out of order or without assigning, when invited with the five foods by someone first and then invited by another. Therefore, if a monk, among five co-religionists, says to one, “I give my meal expectation to you” or “I assign it,” either in person, or says, “I give it to so-and-so” or “I assign it” (pāci. 226) indirectly, and without assigning the first invitation eats even a spoonful from the alms obtained from a later invited family, it is a pācittiya. The times are as explained earlier.

In the third, in a successive meal (paramparabhojane) means, having been invited with the five staple foods as mentioned in the group meal (rule), the meal of the one by whom one was first invited, or in reverse order, or without having made a determination, the meal of another and another. Therefore, a bhikkhu who, among the five fellow-farers, without making a determination regarding the first invitation, either by saying to one of them, “I give my expectation of a meal to you” or “I determine it for you,” thus face-to-face, or by saying “I give it to so-and-so” (pāci. 226) or “I determine it for him,” thus not face-to-face, swallows even a single grain of rice from the almsfood obtained at the subsequently invited place, commits a pācittiya. The occasions are as stated before.

In the third, paramparabhojane means, as explained in the group meal, the meal of one who is invited with the five kinds of food, in the order of invitation or without changing, from one to another. Therefore, if a bhikkhu, among five fellow Dhamma practitioners, says to one, “I will give my meal to you,” or “I will exchange,” or directly, “I will give to so-and-so,” or “I will exchange,” or indirectly, without changing the first invitation, and later eats even a single mouthful from the family invited later, there is a pācittiya offense. The occasions are as explained.

Vesāliyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha aññatra nimantitabhojanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra samayā”ti ayamettha tividhā anupaññatti, parivāre pana vikappanampi gahetvā “catasso anupaññattiyo”ti (pari. 86) vuttaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, naparamparabhojane paramparabhojanasaññino vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Naparamparabhojanasaññissa pana, yo ca samaye vā vikappetvā vā ekasaṃsaṭṭhāni vā dve tīṇi nimantanāni ekato vā katvā bhuñjati, nimantanappaṭipāṭiyā bhuñjati, sakalena gāmena vā pūgena vā nimantito tesu yatthakatthaci bhuñjati, nimantiyamāno vā “bhikkhaṃ gahessāmī”ti vadati, tassa, niccabhattikādīsu, pañca bhojanāni ṭhapetvā sabbattha, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Paramparabhojanatā, samayābhāvo, ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathinasadisāneva, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

This was established at Vesālī concerning several monks regarding the matter of eating food other than what was invited, with “except at the proper time” being the threefold additional rule here, though in the Parivāra it is said, including assignment, “there are four additional rules” (pari. 86), a specific rule, without command, a threefold pācittiya, and for one perceiving it as sequential eating when it is not or uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For one not perceiving it as sequential eating, or one who eats at the proper time or after assigning, or two or three invitations combined or eaten together, or eats in the order of invitation, or when invited by an entire village or group eats anywhere among them, or when invited says, “I will take alms,” and for that one, or in regular meals and so forth, or excepting the five foods everywhere, and for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are: it being sequential eating, the absence of a proper time, and consumption—these are the three factors. The origin and so forth are similar to the first kathina rule, but this is an act-and-non-act offense.

It was promulgated at Vesālī concerning a large number of bhikkhus, in the case of a meal other than an invited meal. “Except on an occasion” is a threefold supplementary regulation in this case. But in the Parivāra, taking even determination into account, it is said, “There are four supplementary regulations” (pari. 86). It is a non-general regulation, not involving a command, a three-fold pācittiya. For one who thinks it is a successive meal when it is not, or is doubtful, there is a dukkata. But for one who thinks it is not a successive meal; and one who eats on an occasion, or having made a determination, or having made two or three invitations mixed together into one; one who eats in the order of the invitations; one who is invited by the whole village or by a guild, eats anywhere among them; or one who, being invited, says, “I will accept almsfood;” for him, in regular meals, etc.; all except the five staple foods; and for those who are insane, etc., there is no offense. Being a successive meal, the absence of an occasion, swallowing—these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are like those of the first spreading of cloth (rule). But this is action and non-action.

In Vesālī, this rule was established concerning several bhikkhus in a case of eating without being invited. “Except on an occasion” is an additional rule here, threefold; in the community, even changing is included, thus “four additional rules” (parivāra 86), a non-common rule, non-announcement, a tri-pācittiya offense. For one who does not eat a successive meal, perceiving it as successive, or in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not perceive it as successive, or who eats on an occasion or after exchanging, or who eats two or three invitations together, or who eats in the order of invitation, or who is invited by the whole village or a group and eats anywhere, or who, while being invited, says, “I will take alms,” or in regular meals, etc., or when eating other than the five kinds of food, there is no offense. The nature of a successive meal, the absence of an occasion, and the act of eating—these are the three factors here. The origin, etc., are as in the first kathina rule; this is action and non-action.

4. Kāṇamātāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Kāṇamātā Training Rule

4. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Kāṇamātā

4. Explanation of the Kāṇamātā Training Rule

Catutthe pūvehīti paheṇakatthāya paṭiyattehi atirasakamodakasakkhalikādīhi yehi kehici khajjakehi. Manthehīti pātheyyatthāya paṭiyattehi yehi kehici sattutilataṇḍulādīhi. Dvattipattapūrāti mukhavaṭṭiyā heṭṭhimalekhaṃ anatikkantā dve vā tayo vā pattapūrā. Tato ce uttarīti sacepi tatiyaṃ pattaṃ thūpīkataṃ gaṇhāti, mukhavaṭṭiyā heṭṭhimalekhato upariṭṭhitapūvagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ. Dvattipattapūre paṭiggahetvāti ettha yena dve gahitā honti, tena bahi bhikkhuṃ disvā “ettha mayā dve pattapūrā gahitā, tvaṃ ekaṃ gaṇheyyāsī”ti vattabbaṃ, tenāpi aññaṃ passitvā “paṭhamaṃ āgatena dve pattapūrā gahitā, mayā eko gahito, tvaṃ mā gaṇhī”ti vattabbaṃ. Yena paṭhamaṃ eko gahito , tassāpi paramparārocane eseva nayo. Yena pana sayameva tayo gahitā, tena aññaṃ disvā “mā kho tvaṃ ettha paṭiggaṇhīti vattabbaṃ, avadantassa dukkaṭaṃ, taṃ sutvā gaṇhantassāpi dukkaṭameva. Tato nīharitvā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ saṃvibhajitabbanti laddhaṭṭhānato sabbāsannaṃ āsanasālaṃ vā vihāraṃ vā yattha vā pana nibaddhaṃ paṭikkamati, tattha gantvā ekaṃ pattapūraṃ attano ṭhapetvā sesaṃ bhikkhusaṅghassa dātabbaṃ. Yathāmittaṃ pana dātuṃ na labbhati. Yena eko gahito, na tena kiñci akāmā dātabbaṃ, yathāruci kātabbaṃ.

In the fourth, pūvehi means cakes prepared for sending, such as over-sweet cakes, pastries, or any hard sweets. Manthehi means items prepared as provisions, such as those made from barley flour, rice flour, or anything similar. Dvattipattapūrā means two or three bowlfuls not exceeding the lower rim of the mouth. Tato ce uttari means if one takes even a third bowl heaped up, it is a pācittiya by counting the cakes above the lower rim. Dvattipattapūre paṭiggahetvā here means that one who has taken two should, upon seeing another monk outside, say, “I have taken two bowlfuls here; you take one,” and that one, seeing another, should say, “The first to arrive took two bowlfuls, I took one; you should not take.” For one who took one first, the same method of sequential informing applies. But one who has taken three himself should say to another, “Do not receive here,” and not saying so incurs a dukkaṭa, and for one who receives after hearing it, there is also a dukkaṭa. Tato nīharitvā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ saṃvibhajitabba means it should be taken from the place received to the nearest dining hall or monastery, or wherever one regularly retires, and there, keeping one bowlful for oneself, the rest should be given to the community of monks. It cannot be given according to friendship. One who took one should not give anything unwillingly but may do as he pleases.

In the fourth, with cakes (pūvehi) means with any kind of sweetmeats, such as overly sweet cakes, modaka cakes, and sakkhalika cakes, prepared for sending as a gift. With gruel (manthehi) means with any kind of barley, sesame, rice, etc., prepared as provisions for a journey. Two or three bowlfuls (dvattipattapūrā) means two or three bowlfuls not exceeding the bottom line at the rim. If he accepts more than that (tato ce uttarī)—even if he accepts the third bowl heaped up, it is counted by the amount above the bottom line at the rim, a pācittiya. Having accepted two or three bowlfuls (dvattipattapūre paṭiggahetvā)—here, one who has taken two should, upon seeing a bhikkhu outside, say, “I have taken two bowlfuls here, you may take one.” He also, upon seeing another, should say, “The one who came first has taken two bowlfuls, I have taken one, you should not take.” The same principle applies to informing in succession for one who has first taken one. But one who has himself taken three should, upon seeing another, say, “You should not accept here.” For one who does not warn, there is a dukkata; for one who accepts after hearing it, there is also a dukkata. It should be taken out from there and shared with the bhikkhus (tato nīharitvā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ saṃvibhajitabba)—having gone to the nearest sitting hall or monastery from the place where it was obtained, or wherever he regularly goes, having kept one bowlful for himself, the rest should be given to the community of bhikkhus. But it is not permitted to give according to friendship. One who has taken one should not be forced to give anything; it should be done as he wishes.

In the fourth, pūvehī means cakes prepared for sending, such as atirasaka, modaka, sakkhalikā, etc. Manthehī means drinks prepared for drinking, such as sattutila, taṇḍula, etc. Dvattipattapūrā means two or three bowlfuls not exceeding the lower line of the mouth. Tato ce uttarī means if one takes even a third bowlful heaped up, counted by the cakes above the lower line of the mouth, there is a pācittiya offense. Dvattipattapūre paṭiggahetvā means here, if one has taken two, seeing another bhikkhu, one should say, “I have taken two bowlfuls here, you take one,” and seeing another, one should say, “The first comer has taken two bowlfuls, I have taken one, you should not take.” If one has taken one first, the same applies in informing in succession. If one has taken three oneself, seeing another, one should say, “Do not take here,” and if one speaks, there is a dukkaṭa offense; if one takes after hearing, there is also a dukkaṭa offense. Tato nīharitvā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ saṃvibhajitabba means taking it from the place obtained, going to the nearest assembly hall or monastery or where one usually returns, and after keeping one bowlful for oneself, giving the rest to the Saṅgha of bhikkhus. However, one cannot give according to friendship. If one has taken one, one should not give anything unwillingly; one should act as one wishes.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha na mattaṃ jānitvā paṭiggahaṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ūnakadvattipattapūre atirekasaññissa vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Ūnakasaññissa pana, na paheṇakatthāya na pātheyyatthāya vā paṭiyattaṃ, tadatthāya paṭiyattasesakaṃ vā, gamane vā paṭippassaddhe, ñātakappavāritānaṃ vā dentānaṃ, attano dhanena gaṇhantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Vuttalakkhaṇapūvamanthatā, asesakatā, appaṭippassaddhagamanatā, anaññātakāditā, atirekappaṭiggahaṇanti imānettha pañca aṅgāni, samuṭṭhānādīni sañcarittasadisānevāti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning several monks regarding the matter of receiving without knowing the limit, a common rule, without command, a threefold pācittiya, and for one perceiving it as more than two or three bowlfuls when it is less or uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For one perceiving it as less, or what is not prepared for sending or as provisions, or the remainder prepared for that purpose, or when travel is abandoned, or when given by relatives or invited ones, or taken with one’s own money, and for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are: it being cakes or provisions as described, being complete, travel not being abandoned, not being from relatives or similar, and receiving more—these are the five factors. The origin and so forth are similar to the sañcaritta rule.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning a large number of bhikkhus, in the case of accepting without knowing the limit. It is a general regulation, not involving a command, a three-fold pācittiya. For one who thinks it is more than two or three bowlfuls when it is less, or is doubtful, there is a dukkata. But for one who thinks it is less; what is not prepared for sending as a gift or as provisions for a journey; or what remains from what was prepared for that purpose; or when the journey is cancelled; or when relatives or those who have offered to provide are giving; one who accepts with his own money; and for those who are insane, etc., there is no offense. Being cakes and gruel of the stated description, not taking all of it, the journey not being cancelled, not being from relatives, etc., accepting more—these are the five factors here. The origins, etc., are like those of the acquiring of a new robe (rule).

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning several bhikkhus in a case of receiving without knowing the measure. It is a common rule, non-announcement, a tri-pācittiya offense. For one who receives less than two bowlfuls, perceiving it as more, or in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not perceive it as more, or when it is not prepared for sending or drinking, or when it is prepared for that purpose, or when one is going or has stopped, or when relatives, etc., give, or when one takes with one’s own wealth, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The nature of cakes and drinks as described, the absence of remainder, not having stopped going, not being known, and receiving in excess—these are the five factors here. The origin, etc., are as in the Sañcaritta rule.

5. Paṭhamapavāraṇāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the First Pavāraṇā Training Rule

5. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning the First Refusal

5. Explanation of the First Pavāraṇā Training Rule

Pañcame bhuttāvīti bhuttavā, yena pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ sāsapamattampi ajjhoharitaṃ, so evaṃ vuccati. Pavāritoti “asanaṃ paññāyati, bhojanaṃ paññāyati, hatthapāse ṭhito abhiharati, paṭikkhepo paññāyatī”ti (pāci. 239) evaṃ pāḷiyaṃ vuttapañcaṅgavasena katappavāraṇo, katappaṭikkhepoti attho. Tattha yasmā “asanaṃ paññāyatī”ti iminā vippakatabhojano ’pavārito’ti vutto. Yo ca vippakatabhojano, tena kiñci bhuttaṃ, kiñci abhuttaṃ, yañca bhuttaṃ, taṃ sandhāya ’bhuttāvī’tipi saṅkhaṃ gacchati. Tasmā ’bhuttāvī’tivacanena visuṃ kiñci atthasiddhiṃ na passāma, “dirattatiratta”ntiādīsu (pāci. 52) pana dirattādivacanaṃ viya pavāritapadassa parivārabhāvena byañjanasiliṭṭhatāya cetaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

In the fifth, bhuttāvī means one who has eaten, referring to one who has consumed even a mustard seed’s worth of the five foods. Pavārito means one who has been invited and has refused, with the invitation completed according to the five factors stated in the text: “the seat is evident, the food is evident, one stands within hand’s reach and offers, refusal is evident” (pāci. 239), that is the meaning. Here, since “the seat is evident” indicates one whose meal is interrupted is called “pavārito,” and one whose meal is interrupted has eaten some and not eaten some, and what has been eaten qualifies him as “bhuttāvī,” therefore we see no distinct meaning achieved by the term “bhuttāvī.” But like “two nights or three nights” (pāci. 52), it is said for the sake of completeness with the term “pavārito” and for the smoothness of expression.

In the fifth, having eaten (bhuttāvī) means having eaten, one who has swallowed even a mustard seed’s worth of the five staple foods, he is called thus. Having refused (pavārito) means having made a refusal, having made a rejection, according to the five factors stated in the Pāḷi, “food is visible, the staple food is visible, he stands within hand’s reach, he offers, the refusal is evident” (pāci. 239). Here, since by “food is visible” one who has unfinished food is said to be ‘one who has refused’. And one who has unfinished food, some of it has been eaten, some of it has not been eaten, and what has been eaten, with reference to that, he also comes under the term ‘having eaten’. Therefore, by the word ‘having eaten’, we do not see any separate accomplishment of meaning. But this should be understood as being said like the word ‘two nights, three nights’ etc. (pāci. 52), as a complement to the word ‘having refused’ and for the sake of euphony.

In the fifth, bhuttāvī means one who has eaten; whoever has consumed even a mustard seed’s worth of the five kinds of food is called thus. Pavārito means one who has made the refusal according to the five factors mentioned in the Pāli text: “Seating is evident, food is evident, the donor stands within arm’s reach, offering is evident, and refusal is evident” (pāci. 239). Thus, one who has made the refusal and the refusal is done. Herein, since “seating is evident” refers to one who has not yet finished eating, such a person is called “pavārito.” And one who has not finished eating has consumed some and left some; what has been consumed is referred to by the term “bhuttāvī.” Therefore, we do not see any distinct meaning achieved by the term “bhuttāvī.” However, in contexts like “dirattatiratta” (pāci. 52), the term “diratta” is used similarly to “pavārita” due to its surrounding context and the subtlety of expression.

Pavāraṇaṅgesu pana asanaṃ paññāyatīti vippakatabhojanaṃ dissati, taṃ bhuñjamāno cesa puggalo hotīti attho. Bhojanaṃ paññāyatīti pavāraṇappahonakaṃ bhojanaṃ dissati, odanādīnaṃ ce aññataraṃ paṭikkhipitabbaṃ bhojanaṃ hotīti attho. Hatthapāse ṭhitoti pavāraṇappahonakaṃ ce bhojanaṃ gaṇhitvā dāyako aḍḍhateyyahatthappamāṇe okāse ṭhito hotīti attho . Abhiharatīti so ce dāyako tassa taṃ bhojanaṃ kāyena abhisaṃharatīti attho. Paṭikkhepo paññāyatīti paṭikkhepo dissati, taṃ ce abhihaṭaṃ so bhikkhu kāyena vā vācāya vā paṭikkhipatīti attho. Evaṃ pañcannaṃ aṅgānaṃ vasena pavārito hoti.

Among the factors of invitation, asanaṃ paññāyati means an interrupted meal is evident, meaning this person is one who is eating it. Bhojanaṃ paññāyati means food sufficient for invitation is evident, meaning it is one of rice or similar that should be refused. Hatthapāse ṭhito means the donor, holding food sufficient for invitation, stands within a space of two and a half hands, that is the meaning. Abhiharati means that donor offers that food with the body, that is the meaning. Paṭikkhepo paññāyati means refusal is evident, meaning that monk refuses what is offered with body or speech, that is the meaning. Thus, one is “pavārito” by these five factors.

But among the factors of refusal, food is visible (asanaṃ paññāyati) means unfinished food is seen, and this person is eating it. The staple food is visible (bhojanaṃ paññāyati) means the staple food sufficient for refusal is seen, and it is one of the items to be refused, such as boiled rice, etc. He stands within hand’s reach (hatthapāse ṭhito) means the giver, having taken the staple food sufficient for refusal, stands within a space of two and a half cubits. He offers (abhiharati) means that giver offers that food to him with his body. The refusal is evident (paṭikkhepo paññāyati) means the refusal is seen, and that bhikkhu refuses that offered food with his body or with his speech. Thus, according to the five factors, one is one who has refused.

Among the factors of refusal, asanaṃ paññāyatī means that unfinished food is seen, and the person eating it is present. Bhojanaṃ paññāyatī means that food suitable for refusal is seen, and one of the foods like rice should be refused. Hatthapāse ṭhito means the donor stands within arm’s reach, holding food suitable for refusal. Abhiharatī means the donor brings the food to the monk. Paṭikkhepo paññāyatī means refusal is evident, and if the monk refuses the offered food by body or speech, the refusal is made. Thus, one becomes “pavārito” by these five factors.

Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – ’asana’ntiādīsu tāva yañca asnāti, yañca bhojanaṃ hatthapāse ṭhitena abhihaṭaṃ paṭikkhipati, taṃ odano kummāso sattu maccho maṃsanti imesaṃ aññatarameva veditabbaṃ. Tattha odano nāma sāli vīhi yavo godhumo kaṅgu varako kudrūsakoti imesaṃ sattannaṃ dhaññānaṃ taṇḍule gahetvā “bhattaṃ pacāmā”ti vā “yāguṃ pacāmā”ti vā yaṃkiñci sandhāya pacantu, sace uṇhaṃ vā sītalaṃ vā bhuñjantānaṃ bhojanakāle gahitagahitaṭṭhāne odhi paññāyati, odano hoti, pavāraṇaṃ janeti. Yo pana pāyāso vā ambilayāgu vā uddhanato otāritamattā abbhuṇhā sakkā hoti āvijjhitvā pivituṃ, sā yassa hatthena gahitokāsepi odhi na paññāyati, pavāraṇaṃ na janeti. Sace pana usumāya vigatāya ghanabhāvaṃ gacchati, odhiṃ dasseti, puna pavāraṇaṃ janeti, pubbe tanukabhāvo na rakkhati. Sacepi bahū paṇṇaphalakaḷīre pakkhipitvā muṭṭhimattāpi taṇḍulā pakkhittā honti, bhojanakāle ce odhi paññāyati, pavāraṇaṃ janeti. Ayāguke nimantane “yāguṃ dassāmā”ti bhatte udakakañjikakhīrādīni ākiritvā “yāguṃ gaṇhathā”ti denti, kiñcāpi tanukā hoti, pavāraṇaṃ janetiyeva. Sace pana pakkuthitesu udakādīsu pakkhipitvā pacitvā denti, yāgusaṅgahameva gacchati. Sace yāguyāpi sāsapamattampi macchamaṃsakkhaṇḍaṃ vā nhāru vā pakkhittaṃ hoti, pavāraṇaṃ janeti. Ṭhapetvā sānulomānaṃ vuttadhaññānaṃ taṇḍule aññehi veḷutaṇḍulādīhi vā kandamūlaphalehi vā yehi kehici katabhattaṃ pavāraṇaṃ na janeti. Kummāso nāma yavehi kato. Aññehi pana muggādīhi katakummāso pavāraṇaṃ na janeti. Sattu nāma satta dhaññāni bhajjitvā kato. Antamaso kharapākabhajjitānaṃ vīhīnaṃ taṇḍule koṭṭetvā katacuṇṇampi kuṇḍakampi sattusaṅgahameva gacchati. Samapākabhajjitānaṃ pana ātapasukkhānaṃ kuṇḍakaṃ vā, ye keci taṇḍulā vā lājā vā, lājehi katabhattasattuādīni vā na pavārenti. Macchamaṃsesu sace yāguṃ pivantassa yāgusitthamattāneva dve macchakkhaṇḍāni vā maṃsakkhaṇḍāni vā ekabhājane vā nānābhājane vā denti, tāni ce akhādanto aññaṃ pavāraṇappahonakaṃ yaṃkiñci paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Tato ekaṃ khāditaṃ, ekaṃ hatthe vā patte vā hoti, sace aññaṃ paṭikkhipati pavāreti. Dvepi khāditāni honti, mukhe sāsapamattampi avasiṭṭhaṃ natthi, sacepi aññaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Yo pana akappiyamaṃsaṃ kuladūsanavejjakammauttarimanussadhammārocanasāditarūpiyādīhi nibbattaṃ akappiyabhojanañca aññaṃ kappiyaṃ vā akappiyaṃ vā khādanto paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti.

Here is the decision: Regarding “seat” and so forth, what he eats and what food offered by one standing within hand’s reach he refuses should be understood as one of these: rice, kummāsa, sattu, fish, or meat. Here, odano means rice, whether sāḷi, vīhi, yava, godhūma, kaṅgu, varaka, or kudrūsaka—taking the grains of these seven and cooking them, whether intending “we cook rice” or “we cook gruel,” if at the time of eating, whether hot or cold, a limit is evident at the place of taking, it is odano and generates an invitation. But if it is a milk-rice or sour gruel just removed from the fire, still steaming and thin enough to pour and drink, and no limit is evident even at the place held, it does not generate an invitation. If the steam subsides and it thickens, showing a limit, it generates an invitation again, and its prior thinness does not persist. If many leaves, fruits, or shoots are added with just a handful of grains, and a limit is evident at the time of eating, it generates an invitation. If invited with gruel and they mix water, rice-water, milk, or similar into the rice, saying “take gruel,” even if thin, it generates an invitation. If cooked with water or similar added afterward, it falls under gruel. If even a mustard seed’s worth of fish or meat pieces or sinew is added to gruel, it generates an invitation. Except for the grains mentioned that conform, food made with bamboo grains, roots, fruits, or anything else does not generate an invitation. Kummāso means made from barley. Kummāsa made from mung beans or similar does not generate an invitation. Sattu means made by roasting the seven grains. Even flour or coarse powder made by pounding the grains of vīhi roasted hard falls under sattu. But coarse powder from grains dried in the sun, or any grains or roasted grains, or food or sattu made from roasted grains do not generate an invitation. In fish and meat, if while drinking gruel only two pieces of fish or meat remain with the gruel, given in one vessel or separate ones, and he does not eat them but refuses something else sufficient for invitation, he is not invited. If one is eaten and one remains in hand or bowl, and he refuses another, he is invited. If both are eaten and not even a mustard seed’s worth remains in the mouth, even if he refuses another, he is not invited. If one eating improper meat—produced by corruption, medical practice, superhuman claims, accepting money, or similar—or proper or improper food refuses, he is not invited.

Here is the determination: In ‘food’ etc., what one eats, and what staple food offered by one standing within hand’s reach one refuses, that should be understood as one of boiled rice, gruel, flour, fish, and meat. Here, boiled rice (odano) means taking the grains of these seven grains—rice, paddy, barley, wheat, millet, panic seed, and wild rice—and cooking them with the intention of “we will cook a meal” or “we will cook porridge,” or whatever. If, whether hot or cold, at mealtime, a heap is visible in the place where it is taken, it is boiled rice; it generates a refusal. But if thin porridge or sour gruel, just taken off the fire, is not hot and can be drunk after stirring, and a heap is not visible even in the place touched by his hand, it does not generate a refusal. But if, after the heat has subsided, it becomes thick, and shows a heap, it again generates a refusal; the prior thin state does not protect. Even if many leaves, fruits, and shoots are added, and only a handful of rice grains are added, if a heap is visible at mealtime, it generates a refusal. In an invitation for porridge, they add water, sour gruel, milk, etc., to the cooked rice, saying, “We will give porridge,” and give it, saying, “Accept porridge.” Even though it is thin, it generates a refusal. But if they add it to boiling water, etc., and cook and give it, it comes under the category of porridge. Even if in porridge, a mustard seed’s worth of fish or meat pieces, or sinews, are added, it generates a refusal. Except for the grains of the stated grains, food made with any other grains, such as bamboo grains, etc., or with roots, bulbs, and fruits, does not generate a refusal. Gruel (kummāso) means made with barley. But gruel made with other beans, etc., does not generate a refusal. Flour (sattu) means made by roasting the seven grains. Even flour made by pounding the grains of paddy roasted in a harsh fire, or even the husk, comes under the category of flour. But the husk of those roasted to an even degree, or sun-dried, or any rice grains, or parched grains, or food, flour, etc., made with parched grains, do not cause refusal. Among fish and meat, if, to one drinking porridge, only two pieces of fish or two pieces of meat, the size of porridge grains, are given in one vessel or in different vessels, and if he, without eating them, refuses anything else sufficient for refusal, it does not cause refusal. One of them has been eaten, one is in the hand or in the bowl, if he refuses something else, it causes refusal. Both have been eaten, not even a mustard seed’s worth remains in the mouth, even if he refuses something else, it does not cause refusal. But one who refuses while eating improper meat, or improper food produced by such things as deceiving the clan, performing medical treatments, or claiming super-human attainments, or acquiring material gain, or any other proper or improper food, does not cause refusal.

Herein, the determination is as follows: Regarding “asana,” etc., what is eaten and what food is offered within arm’s reach and refused should be understood as one of the following: rice, porridge, flour, fish, or meat. Odano refers to rice made from seven kinds of grains: sāli, vīhi, yava, godhuma, kaṅgu, varaka, and kudrūsaka. If, while eating, the rice is seen in the place where it is taken, it generates refusal. However, if it is gruel or thin porridge that can be drunk without showing the rice, it does not generate refusal. If it thickens upon cooling, it generates refusal again. Even if a handful of grains is mixed with many leaves or fruits, if rice is seen during the meal, it generates refusal. In invitations for gruel, if thin gruel is offered with water, rice water, or milk, it generates refusal. If cooked with water, etc., it is considered gruel. If even a mustard seed’s worth of fish or meat is added to the gruel, it generates refusal. Except for the grains mentioned, other grains like veḷu or roots and fruits do not generate refusal when cooked. Kummāso refers to porridge made from barley. Porridge made from other grains like mung beans does not generate refusal. Sattu refers to flour made from seven kinds of grains. Even if coarse grains are ground into powder or made into lumps, it is considered sattu. However, flour made from well-cooked grains or roasted grains does not generate refusal. Regarding fish and meat, if two pieces of fish or meat are offered in one dish or separate dishes while drinking gruel, and the monk refuses another suitable food, he does not make refusal. If one piece is eaten and the other remains in hand or bowl, and another is refused, refusal is made. If both are eaten and nothing remains in the mouth, even if another is refused, refusal is not made. If one eats unseasoned meat or food unsuitable for monks, refusal is not made.

Evaṃ yañca asnāti, yañca bhojanaṃ hatthapāse ṭhitena abhihaṭaṃ paṭikkhipanto pavāraṇaṃ janeti, taṃ ñatvā idāni yathā āpajjati, tassa jānanatthaṃ ayaṃ vinicchayo veditabbo – “asanaṃ bhojana”nti ettha tāva yena ekasitthampi ajjhohaṭaṃ hoti, so sace pattamukhahatthesu yatthakatthaci bhojane sati sāpekkhova aññaṃ vuttalakkhaṇaṃ bhojanaṃ paṭikkhipati, pavāreti. Sace pana nirapekkho hoti, yaṃ pattādīsu avasiṭṭhaṃ, taṃ na ca ajjhoharitukāmo, aññassa vā dātukāmo, aññatra vā gantvā bhuñjitukāmo, so paṭikkhipantopi na pavāreti. “Hatthapāse ṭhito”ti ettha pana sace bhikkhu nisinno hoti, ānisadassa pacchimantato paṭṭhāya, sace ṭhito, paṇhīnaṃ antato paṭṭhāya, sace nipanno, yena passena nipanno, tassa pārimantato paṭṭhāya dāyakassa nisinnassa vā ṭhitassa vā nipannassa vā ṭhapetvā pasāritahatthaṃ yaṃ āsannataraṃ aṅgaṃ, tassa orimantena paricchinditvā aḍḍhateyyahattho ’hatthapāso’ti veditabbo. Tasmiṃ ṭhatvā abhihaṭaṃ paṭikkhipantasseva pavāraṇā hoti, na tato paraṃ. ’Abhiharatī’ti hatthapāsabbhantare ṭhito gahaṇatthaṃ upanāmeti. Sace pana anantaranisinnopi bhikkhu hatthe vā ādhārake vā ṭhitaṃ pattaṃ anabhiharitvāva “bhattaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, taṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā natthi. Bhattapacchiṃ ānetvā purato bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapetvā evaṃ vuttepi eseva nayo. Īsakaṃ pana uddharitvā vā apanāmetvā vā ’gaṇhathā’ti vutte taṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hoti. Bhattapacchiṃ gahetvā parivisantassa añño “ahaṃ dhāressāmī”ti gahitamattameva karoti, parivesakoyeva pana taṃ dhāreti, tasmā sā abhihaṭāva hoti, tato dātukāmatāya gaṇhantaṃ paṭikkhipantassa pavāraṇā hoti. Sace pana parivesakena phuṭṭhamattāva hoti, itarova naṃ dhāreti, tato dātukāmatāya gaṇhantaṃ paṭikkhipantassa pavāraṇā na hoti. Kaṭacchunā uddhaṭe pana hoti, dvinnaṃ samabhārepi paṭikkhipanto pavāretiyeva. Anantarassa diyyamāne itaro pattaṃ pidahati, aññassa abhihaṭaṃ nāma paṭikkhittaṃ hoti, tasmā pavāraṇā natthi. ’Paṭikkhepo’ti ettha vācāya abhihaṭe paṭikkhepo na ruhati, kāyena abhihaṭaṃ pana aṅgulicalanādinā kāyavikārena vā “alaṃ, mā dehī”tiādinā vacīvikārena vā paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hoti.

Thus, having understood what he eats and what food, when offered by one standing within reach, he refuses and thereby generates a pavāraṇā, this determination should now be known for the purpose of understanding how it comes about: Regarding “eating food,” if someone has consumed even a single morsel and, while there is still food in the bowl, at the rim, or in his hands—anywhere at all—refuses other food with the specified characteristics out of expectation, he performs pavāraṇā. However, if he is without expectation, neither wishing to consume what remains in the bowl or elsewhere, nor intending to give it to another, nor desiring to go elsewhere to eat, even if he refuses it, he does not perform pavāraṇā. As for “standing within reach,” if the monk is seated, it begins from the back edge of his seat; if standing, from the inner edge of his heels; if lying down, from the outer edge of the side on which he lies. Excluding the outstretched hand of the donor—whether seated, standing, or lying—it is reckoned as one and a half hand-lengths from the nearest limb of the body, demarcated by its inner boundary; this is to be understood as hatthapāsa (within reach). Only when refusing what is offered while standing within this does pavāraṇā occur, not beyond it. “Offers” means one standing within reach extends it for taking. However, if even a monk seated nearby says, “Take the rice,” without offering the bowl held in his hand or on a stand, refusing it does not constitute pavāraṇā. The same applies if a rice basket is brought, placed on the ground in front, and the same is said. But if it is slightly lifted or moved aside and he says, “Take it,” refusing it does constitute pavāraṇā. If, while one is serving from a rice basket, another says, “I will hold it,” and merely takes it, but the server continues to hold it, it is still considered offered; thus, refusing it when one wishes to take it out of a desire to give constitutes pavāraṇā. However, if it is merely touched by the server and the other holds it, refusing it when one wishes to take it out of a desire to give does not constitute pavāraṇā. Yet if it is scooped with a ladle, even between two equal portions, refusing it does constitute pavāraṇā. If, while it is being given to one nearby, another covers his bowl, it is considered a refusal of what was offered to someone else, so there is no pavāraṇā. Regarding “refusal,” a verbal refusal of what is offered does not hold, but refusing what is offered physically—by a bodily gesture such as moving a finger or by a verbal expression like “Enough, don’t give”—does constitute pavāraṇā.

Thus, what one eats, and the refusal generating an invitation while holding food offered within arm’s reach, knowing that, now, to know how one falls into an offense, this determination should be understood: Regarding “what one eats, food,” by which even a single mouthful is swallowed, if, while there is food in the bowl, on the hands, or anywhere, one, still desiring, refuses other food with the mentioned characteristics, one invites. If, however, one has no desire, and doesn’t wish to swallow what remains in the bowl, etc., or to give it to another, or to go elsewhere to eat, even refusing, one does not invite. Regarding “within arm’s reach,” if a monk is seated, starting from the furthest edge of the seat; if standing, starting from the end of the heels; if lying down, starting from the furthest edge of the side on which he is lying, and the giver is sitting, standing, or lying down, measured from the nearest limb, excluding the extended hand, two and a half cubits is to be understood as ‘arm’s reach.’ Refusing what is offered within that, one invites, but not beyond that. ‘Offers’ means presents within arm’s reach for acceptance. If, however, even a monk sitting nearby, without offering the bowl placed on his hands or a stand, says, “Take the almsfood,” there is no invitation for the one refusing it. The same applies if the alms-bowl is brought and placed on the ground in front before saying this. But if, after slightly lifting or moving it, one says, “Take it,” the one refusing it invites. If, while one is serving, holding the alms-bowl, another says, “I will hold it,” and merely takes it, but the server is still holding it, therefore it is considered offered, so one invites by refusing the one taking it out of the desire to give. If, however, it is only touched by the server, and the other holds it, then one does not invite by refusing the one taking it out of the desire to give. But if it is lifted with a spoon, even if both hold equal weight, the one refusing invites. When something is given to someone nearby, another covers his bowl, refusing what was offered to another, therefore there is no invitation. Regarding ‘refusal,’ a verbal refusal of what is offered verbally is not valid, but one invites by refusing with a bodily action like moving a finger, or a verbal expression like, “Enough, don’t give it,” what is offered physically.

Thus, knowing what is eaten and what food offered within arm’s reach is refused, this determination should be understood to know how the offense occurs. Regarding “asanaṃ bhojana,” if even a single morsel is consumed, and the monk refuses another food with the characteristics mentioned, he makes refusal. If he is indifferent to what remains in the bowl and does not wish to consume it or give it to another, even if he refuses, he does not make refusal. Regarding “hatthapāse ṭhito,” if the monk is seated, the arm’s reach is measured from the edge of the seat; if standing, from the heels; if lying down, from the side he is lying on. The donor’s arm’s reach is measured from the nearest limb. Standing within this range and refusing the offered food constitutes refusal. “Abhiharatī” means the donor brings the food within arm’s reach. If the monk does not bring the bowl or container but says, “Take the food,” refusal is not made. If the food is brought and placed on the ground, the same applies. If the food is slightly lifted or moved and the monk is told to take it, refusal is made. If another takes the food from the server, it is considered offered, and refusal is made. If the server touches it and another takes it, refusal is not made. If taken with a ladle, refusal is made even if the portions are equal. If another closes the bowl while food is being offered, refusal is not made. Regarding “paṭikkhepo,” refusal by speech does not count; refusal by body, such as moving a finger or saying, “Enough, do not give,” constitutes refusal.

Eko samaṃsakaṃ rasaṃ abhiharati, “rasaṃ paṭiggaṇhathā”ti vadati, taṃ sutvā paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā natthi. ’Maṃsarasa’nti vutte pana paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hoti. “Imaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vuttepi hotiyeva. Maṃsaṃ visuṃ katvā ’maṃsarasa’nti vuttepi sace sāsapamattampi khaṇḍaṃ atthi, paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hoti. Sace natthi, vaṭṭati. Kaḷīrapanasādīhi missetvā macchamaṃsaṃ pacanti, taṃ gahetvā “kaḷīrasūpaṃ gaṇhatha, panasabyañjanaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vadati, evampi na pavāreti. Kasmā? Apavāraṇārahassa nāmena vuttattā. “Macchamaṃsaṃ byañjana”nti vā “imaṃ gaṇhathā”ti vā vutte pana pavāreti, ayamettha saṅkhepo, vitthāro pana samantapāsādikāyaṃ vutto. Gamanādīsu pana yasmiṃ iriyāpathe pavāreti, taṃ avikopenteneva bhuñjitabbaṃ.

One person offers a broth with meat and says, “Accept the broth”; hearing this, refusing it does not constitute pavāraṇā. But if he says, “Meat broth,” and it is refused, pavāraṇā occurs. Likewise, if he says, “Take this,” it occurs. Even if the meat is separated and he says, “Meat broth,” if there is even a mustard-seed-sized piece, refusing it constitutes pavāraṇā. If there is none, it is permissible. If fish or meat is cooked mixed with vegetables like kaḷīra or panasa and he says, “Take kaḷīra soup” or “Take panasa curry,” this too does not constitute pavāraṇā. Why? Because it is named something that does not warrant pavāraṇā. But if he says, “Fish or meat curry” or “Take this,” it constitutes pavāraṇā. This is the summary here; the detailed explanation is stated in the Samantapāsādikā. Regarding walking and so forth, whatever posture one is in when performing pavāraṇā, that posture must be maintained without alteration while eating.

One offers broth with meat, saying, “Accept the broth,” and hearing that, one who refuses does not invite. But if one says, “Meat broth,” one who refuses invites. Even if one says, “Take this,” it is the same. Even if meat is separated and one says, “Meat broth,” if there is even a mustard seed-sized piece, one who refuses invites. If there is none, it is allowable. They cook fish and meat mixed with radish, jackfruit, etc., and taking it, one says, “Take the radish soup, jackfruit curry,” even then one does not invite. Why? Because it was named with a non-invitable name. But if one says, “Fish and meat curry” or “Take this,” then one invites. This is the summary here, but the details are stated in the Samantapāsādikā. Regarding walking, etc., one should eat without altering the posture in which one invites.

If one brings a meat broth and says, “Take the broth,” refusal is not made. If “meat broth” is mentioned, refusal is made. If told, “Take this,” refusal is made. If meat is separated and “meat broth” is mentioned, refusal is made if even a mustard seed’s worth of meat is present. If not, it is allowed. If fish or meat is cooked with sugarcane or other ingredients and one is told, “Take the sugarcane soup” or “Take the fruit sauce,” refusal is not made. Why? Because it is not suitable for refusal. If told, “Take the fish or meat sauce” or “Take this,” refusal is made. This is the summary; the details are in the Samantapāsādikā. Regarding movements, one should eat without disrupting the posture in which refusal was made.

Anatirittanti na atirittaṃ, na adhikanti attho. Taṃ pana kappiyakatādīhi sattahi vinayakammākārehi akataṃ vā gilānassa anadhikaṃ vā hoti. Tasmā padabhājane (pāci. 239) ’akappiyakata’ntiādi vuttaṃ, tattha yaṃ phalaṃ vā kandamūlādi vā pañcahi samaṇakappiyehi kappiyaṃ akataṃ, yañca akappiyamaṃsaṃ vā akappiyabhojanaṃ vā, etaṃ akappiyaṃ nāma, taṃ akappiyaṃ “alametaṃ sabba”nti evaṃ atirittaṃ kataṃ akappiyakatanti veditabbaṃ. Appaṭiggahitakatanti bhikkhunā appaṭiggahitaṃyeva purimanayena atirittaṃ kataṃ. Anuccāritakatanti kappiyaṃ kāretuṃ āgatena bhikkhunā īsakampi anukkhittaṃ vā anapanāmitaṃ vā kataṃ. Ahatthapāse katanti kappiyaṃ kāretuṃ āgatassa hatthapāsato bahi ṭhitena kataṃ. Abhuttāvinā katanti yo atirittaṃ karoti, tena pavāraṇappahonakaṃ bhojanaṃ abhuttena kataṃ. Bhuttāvinā pavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena katanti idaṃ uttānameva. “Alametaṃ sabba”nti avuttanti vacībhedaṃ katvā evaṃ avuttaṃ hoti. Iti imehi sattahi vinayakammākārehi yaṃ atirittaṃ kappiyaṃ akataṃ, yañca pana na gilānātirittaṃ, tadubhayampi anatirittaṃ. Atirittaṃ pana tasseva paṭipakkhanayena veditabbaṃ.

Anatiritta means “not leftover,” that is, not excessive. It is either not made permissible by the seven disciplinary procedures or not additional for the sick. Therefore, in the Padabhājana (pāci. 239), it states “akappiyakata” and so forth. Therein, fruit or root vegetables not made permissible by the five monastic methods, or unallowable meat or unallowable food, are called akappiya (unallowable). Such unallowable items, made leftover by saying “Enough, all this,” are to be understood as akappiyakata (made unallowable). Appaṭiggahitakata means made leftover in the same way without being received by a monk. Anuccāritakata means made by a monk who came to make it permissible without even slightly lifting or moving it. Ahatthapāse kata means made by one standing outside the reach of a monk who came to make it permissible. Abhuttāvinā kata means made by one who makes it leftover without having eaten food sufficient for pavāraṇā. Bhuttāvinā pavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena kata is self-evident as stated above. “Alametaṃ sabba”nti avutta means not said by altering the phrasing thus. Thus, by these seven disciplinary procedures, what is leftover and not made permissible, and what is not leftover for the sick, both are anatiritta (not leftover). Atiritta (leftover), however, is to be understood by its opposite reasoning.

Anatiritta means not extra, not additional. That is either not prepared by the seven methods of making it allowable, such as making it allowable, or not extra for a sick person. Therefore, in the Pācittiya rule (pāci. 239), it is said ‘not made allowable,’ etc. There, whatever fruit, root, etc., is not made allowable by the five ways of making it allowable for a monastic, and whatever is unallowable meat or unallowable food, this is called unallowable. That unallowable, made extra by saying “This is all enough,” should be understood as akappiyakata (not made allowable). Appaṭiggahitakata means made extra in the previous manner, not having been accepted by a monk. Anuccāritakata means made without being slightly lifted or moved by a monk who came to make it allowable. Ahatthapāse kata means made outside the arm’s reach of the one who came to make it allowable. Abhuttāvinā kata means made by one who makes it extra, without having eaten food sufficient for invitation. Bhuttāvinā pavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena kata this is self-explanatory. “Alametaṃ sabba”ti avutta means not said thus after changing the words. Thus, whatever is made extra, not made allowable by these seven methods of making it allowable, and whatever is not extra for the sick, both are not extra. But extra should be understood in the opposite way of that.

Anatiritta means not excessive, not beyond what is allowed. It refers to what is not made allowable by the seven vinaya procedures or is not extra for the sick. Thus, in the phrase (pāci. 239), “akappiyakata” refers to what is made unallowable, such as fruits or roots not made allowable by the five ascetic practices, or unseasoned meat or unallowable food. Appaṭiggahitakata refers to what is not accepted by the monk but is made excessive. Anuccāritakata refers to what is made allowable by a monk who has come to make it allowable but has not moved or removed it slightly. Ahatthapāse kata refers to what is made allowable by one standing outside arm’s reach. Abhuttāvinā kata refers to what is made excessive by one who has not eaten. Bhuttāvinā pavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena kata refers to what is made by one who has eaten and made refusal and then risen from the seat. “Alametaṃ sabba”nti avutta means it is said without verbal expression. Thus, what is made excessive by these seven vinaya procedures and what is not extra for the sick are both “anatiritta.” What is excessive should be understood accordingly.

Apicettha bhuttāvinā kataṃ hotīti (pāci. 239) antamaso anantaranisinnassa pattato ekampi sitthaṃ vā maṃsahīraṃ vā khāditvā katampi bhuttāvinā kataṃ hoti, yo pātova evaṃ bhuttāvī pavārito nisīdatiyeva, so upakaṭṭhepi kāle abhihaṭaṃ piṇḍaṃ bhikkhunā upanītaṃ kappiyaṃ kātuṃ labhati. Sace pana tasmiṃ kappiye kate bhuñjantassa aññaṃ āmisaṃ ākiranti, taṃ so puna kātuṃ na labhati. Yañhi akataṃ, taṃ kātabbaṃ. Yena ca akataṃ, tena ca kātabbanti (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-9) vuttaṃ, tasmā tasmiṃ bhājane kariyamāne paṭhamakatena saddhiṃ kataṃ hotīti taṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Aññasmiṃ pana bhājane tena vā aññena vā kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ kataṃ paṭhamakatena missetvāpi bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, na kevalañca tassa yena pana kataṃ, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññesaṃ pavāritānampi bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Yathā pana akatena missaṃ na hoti, evaṃ mukhañca hatthañca suddhaṃ katvā bhuñjitabbaṃ. Gilānātirittaṃ pana na kevalaṃ gilānassa bhuttāvasesameva, atha kho yaṃkiñci gilānaṃ uddissa “ajja vā sve vā yadā vā icchati, tadā khādissatī”ti āhaṭaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ ’gilānātiritta’nti veditabbaṃ. Khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vāti yaṃkiñci yāvakālikaṃ. Khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā pācittiyanti ettha vuttanayena pavāritassa anatirittaṃ yaṃkiñci āmisaṃ ajjhoharaṇatthāya paṭiggaṇhato gahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pācittiyaṃ.

Moreover, here bhuttāvinā kataṃ hoti (pāci. 239) means even eating a single morsel or piece of meat from the bowl of one seated nearby and making it leftover is considered bhuttāvinā kata (done by one who has eaten). One who, having eaten thus in the morning and performed pavāraṇā, sits down, may, even at the appointed time, make permissible a lump of food offered and brought by a monk. However, if while eating that permissible food another edible item is added, he cannot make it permissible again. For what is not permissible should be made so, and it is stated (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-9) that it must be made permissible by the one for whom it was not made. Thus, when it is being prepared in that vessel, it is considered made together with the first, so it is not allowable to make it permissible. But in another vessel, it is allowable to make it permissible by him or another. Even mixing it with what was made first and eating it is allowable—not only for him, but excluding the one who made it, it is allowable for other monks who have performed pavāraṇā to eat it too. However, so that it is not mixed with what is unmade, one should purify the mouth and hands before eating. Gilānātiritta (leftover for the sick) is not merely what remains after a sick person has eaten, but rather anything brought for a sick person with the intention “Today or tomorrow or whenever he wishes, he will eat it”; all this is to be understood as gilānātiritta. Khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā means any food allowable for the daytime. Khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā pācittiya means, as explained, for one who has performed pavāraṇā, accepting any edible anatiritta (not leftover) item for consumption incurs a dukkata at the moment of acceptance, and a pācittiya for each act of consumption.

And here, bhuttāvinā kataṃ hotī (pāci. 239) means even if one has eaten even a single grain of rice or piece of meat from the bowl of someone sitting nearby, it is considered made without having eaten. One who sits down invited after having eaten thus in the morning, can make allowable an offered alms even at a later time, brought by a monk. If, however, while he is eating after that has been made allowable, other food is mixed in, he cannot make it allowable again. For it is said, “What is not made, should be made. And by whom it was not made, by him it should be made” (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-9), therefore, when it is being done in that vessel, it is considered done together with the one who did it first, so it is not allowable to do it. But it is allowable to do it in another vessel, either by him or by another. What is made thus, it is allowable to eat even mixed with what was made first, and not only that, but also, after setting aside what was made by him, it is allowable for others who have been invited to eat. But just as it is not mixed with what was not made, so one should eat after cleaning the mouth and hands. Gilānātiritta, however, is not only the remainder of what a sick person has eaten, but whatever is brought for a sick person, saying, “Today or tomorrow, or whenever he wishes, he will eat,” all that should be understood as ‘extra for the sick.’ Khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā means any food allowable for that time. Khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā pācittiya means here, as stated, for one who is invited, accepting any food that is not extra for the purpose of swallowing, there is a dukkaṭa for accepting. For each swallowing, there is a pācittiya.

Moreover, bhuttāvinā kataṃ hoti (pāci. 239) means even if one who has eaten and made refusal sits down immediately after eating a single morsel or a piece of meat, he can still make allowable food if offered. However, if while eating, another food is offered, he cannot make it allowable again. What is not made allowable must be made so, and by whom it is not made allowable, it must be made so by them (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-9). Therefore, if it is made in the same container as the first, it cannot be made allowable again. However, it can be made allowable in another container by the same or another person. Thus, what is made can be eaten mixed with the first, and not only by the one who made it but also by others who have made refusal. As what is not made cannot be mixed, one should eat with a clean mouth and hands. Gilānātirittaṃ refers not only to the leftovers of the sick but also to anything brought for the sick with the intention, “Today or tomorrow, whenever he wishes, he will eat it.” Khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā refers to any temporary food. Khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā pācittiya means that for one who has made refusal, consuming any unallowable food incurs a dukkaṭa offense for receiving it and a pācittiya for each consumption.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha aññatra bhuñjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “anatiritta”nti ayamettha anupaññatti, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, yāmakālikādīni āhāratthāya gaṇhato, nirāmisāni ajjhoharato ca dukkaṭaṃ, tathā atiritte anatirittasaññino ceva vematikassa ca. Atirittasaññino pana, “atirittaṃ kārāpetvā bhuñjissāmī”ti gaṇhantassa, aññassatthāya gaṇhantassa, yāmakālikādīni tesaṃ anuññātaparibhogavasena nirāmisāni paribhuñjantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Pavāritabhāvo, āmisassa anatirittatā, kālena ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathinasadisāneva, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning several monks in a matter of eating elsewhere, it was laid down with “anatiritta” as its secondary injunction, an individual-specific injunction, without command, a triple pācittiya. Taking yāmakālika (food allowable until evening) and so forth for nourishment or consuming non-edible items incurs a dukkata, as does one who perceives leftover as not leftover or is uncertain. However, for one who perceives it as leftover, takes it thinking “I will have it made leftover and eat it,” takes it for another’s sake, consumes yāmakālika and the like as permitted non-edible items, or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The state of having performed pavāraṇā, the anatiritta nature of the edible item, and consuming it at the proper time are the three factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the first kathina rule, but this is both action and non-action.

In Sāvatthi, it was established concerning a group of monks in the case of eating elsewhere, “not extra” is the supplementary regulation here, a non-general regulation, not commanding, a three-fold pācittiya. For accepting foods allowable for a specific time, etc., for the purpose of eating, and for swallowing those without food, there is a dukkaṭa, and likewise for one who thinks what is extra is not extra, and for one who is uncertain. But for one who thinks what is extra is extra, accepting, thinking, “I will eat after making it extra,” accepting for the sake of another, eating foods allowable for a specific time, etc., without food according to the allowance for them, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Being invited, the food not being extra, swallowing at the right time, these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the first kaṭhina. But this is action and non-action.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī regarding several monks, apart from the eating incident. “Anatiritta” is an additional rule, a specific rule, non-announcement, and a three-part pācittiya. Taking for the purpose of food, consuming non-material food, or being in doubt incurs a dukkaṭa offense. For one who perceives it as excessive, takes it intending to make it excessive, or takes it for another, or consumes it as allowed for temporary use, there is no offense. The three factors here are: the state of refusal, the unallowable nature of the food, and consuming it at the proper time. The origins, etc., are similar to the first kathina rule. This is a matter of action and non-action.

6. Dutiyapavāraṇāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Second Refusal Training Rule

Chaṭṭhe abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyāti abhiharitvā “handa, bhikkhu khāda vā bhuñja vā”ti evaṃ pavāreyya. Jānanti sutvā vā disvā vā tassa pavāritabhāvaṃ jānanto. Āsādanāpekkhoti āsādanaṃ codanaṃ maṅkukaraṇabhāvaṃ apekkhamāno. Bhuttasmiṃ pācittiyanti ettha abhihāre tāva dukkaṭaṃ, sace so taṃ gaṇhāti, puna abhihārakassa dukkaṭaṃ, tasmiṃ pana bhuñjante abhihārakassa tassa ajjhohāre ajjhohāre dukkaṭaṃ, bhojanapariyosāne pācittiyaṃ.

In the sixth, abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya means offering it and saying, “Here, monk, eat or consume,” thus performing pavāraṇā. Jāna means knowing his state of having performed pavāraṇā by hearing or seeing. Āsādanāpekkho means expecting criticism, rebuke, or embarrassment. Bhuttasmiṃ pācittiya means there is a dukkata at the offering; if he takes it, another dukkata for the offerer; while he eats, a dukkata for the offerer at each act of consumption, and a pācittiya at the end of the meal.

In the sixth, abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyā means offering and inviting, saying, “Come, monk, eat or consume.” Jāna means knowing, by hearing or seeing, that he is invited. Āsādanāpekkho means expecting reproach, accusation, making one feel ashamed. Bhuttasmiṃ pācittiya means here, for offering, there is a dukkaṭa. If he accepts it, there is another dukkaṭa for the offerer. But while he is eating, for each swallowing of the offerer, there is a dukkaṭa, and at the end of the meal, there is a pācittiya.

In the sixth, abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya means offering and saying, “Here, monk, eat or consume.” Jāna means knowing the state of refusal by hearing or seeing. Āsādanāpekkho means seeking to accuse or find fault. Bhuttasmiṃ pācittiya means that in offering, there is a dukkaṭa offense; if the monk takes it, another dukkaṭa for the offerer; and for each consumption by the monk, a dukkaṭa for the offerer, culminating in a pācittiya at the end of the meal.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha anatirittena bhojanena abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāraṇāvatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, pavārite pavāritasaññino pācittiyaṃ. Vematikassa, yāmakālikādīni āhāratthāya abhiharantassa, tesañca paṭiggahaṇaajjhohāresu, appavārite ca pavāritasaññino, vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Appavāritasaññissa pana, yo ca atirittaṃ kārāpetvā deti, “kārāpetvā vā bhuñjāhī”ti deti, yo vā “aññassatthāya haranto gacchāhī”ti deti, yo ca yāmakālikādīni “sati paccaye paribhuñjāhī”ti deti, tassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Pavāritatā, pavāritasaññitā, āsādanāpekkhatā, anatirittena abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāraṇatā, bhojanapariyosānanti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning a certain monk in a matter of offering anatiritta food for pavāraṇā, it was laid down as an individual-specific injunction, without command. For one who has performed pavāraṇā and perceives it as such, there is a pācittiya. For one uncertain, offering yāmakālika and the like for nourishment, and in their acceptance and consumption, or for one who has not performed pavāraṇā but perceives it as such, or is uncertain, there is a dukkata. However, for one who perceives it as not having performed pavāraṇā, or who gives it after having it made leftover, saying “Have it made leftover and eat,” or “Take it for another’s sake,” or gives yāmakālika and the like saying “Consume it when there is a reason,” or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. Having performed pavāraṇā, perceiving it as such, expecting criticism, offering anatiritta food for pavāraṇā, and the end of the meal are the five factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the rule on taking what is not given, but this pertains to painful feeling.

In Sāvatthi, it was established concerning a certain monk in the case of inviting to offer food that was not extra, a non-general regulation, not commanding. For one who is invited, thinking he is invited, there is a pācittiya. For one who is uncertain, offering foods allowable for a specific time, etc., for the purpose of eating, and for their acceptance and swallowing, and for one who is not invited but thinks he is invited, and for one who is uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. But for one who thinks he is not invited, and one who gives after making it extra, gives saying, “Eat after making it extra,” or one who gives saying, “Go carrying it for another,” and one who gives foods allowable for a specific time, etc., saying, “Consume it when there is a reason,” for him, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Being invited, knowing one is invited, expecting reproach, inviting to offer with what is not extra, the end of the meal, these are the five factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to taking what is not given. But this is a painful feeling.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī regarding a certain monk, concerning the incident of offering unallowable food for refusal. It is a specific rule, non-announcement, and a pācittiya for one who perceives it as refusal. For one in doubt, offering temporary food, or receiving and consuming it, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not perceive it as refusal, or offers excessive food, or offers for another, or offers temporary food for use when needed, there is no offense. The five factors here are: the state of refusal, perceiving it as refusal, seeking to accuse, offering unallowable food for refusal, and the end of the meal. The origins, etc., are similar to the rule on stealing. This is a matter of suffering.

7. Vikālabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Rule on Eating at the Wrong Time

Sattame vikāleti vigate kāle, majjhanhikātikkamanato yāva aruṇuggamanāti adhippāyo. Tasmā yo bhikkhu etasmiṃ antare yaṃkiñci vanamūlaphalaṃ upādāya āmaṃ vā pakkaṃ vā āmisasaṅkhepagataṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā ajjhoharaṇatthāya paṭiggaṇhāti, tassa paṭiggahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pācittiyaṃ.

In the seventh, vikāle means at an improper time, intended as from the passing of midday until sunrise. Thus, a monk who, during this interval, accepts for consumption any edible or food item—raw or cooked, including forest roots or fruits, classified as edible—incurs a dukkata at acceptance and a pācittiya for each act of consumption.

In the seventh, vikāle means at the wrong time, meaning from the passing of noon until the rising of the dawn. Therefore, whatever monk, during this period, accepts any forest root or fruit, raw or cooked, considered as food, or any solid or soft food for the purpose of swallowing, there is a dukkaṭa for accepting. For each swallowing, there is a pācittiya.

In the seventh, vikāle means after the proper time, from midday until dawn. Thus, if a monk consumes any raw or cooked food, whether solid or soft, during this period, there is a dukkaṭa offense for receiving it and a pācittiya for each consumption.

Rājagahe sattarasavaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha vikāle bhojanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, yāmakālikādīni āhāratthāya paṭiggahaṇaajjhohāresu, kāle vikālasaññissa, vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ, kāle kālasaññissa yāmakālikādīni sati paccaye paribhuñjantassa ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. “Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, romaṭṭhakassa romaṭṭhaṃ, na ca bhikkhave bahimukhadvārā nīharitvā ajjhoharitabba”nti (cūḷava. 273) anuññātanayena romaṭṭhakassāpi anāpatti. Vikālatā, yāvakālikatā, ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

At Rājagaha, concerning the group of seventeen monks in a matter of eating at an improper time, it was laid down as a general injunction, without command, a triple pācittiya. For yāmakālika and the like taken or consumed for nourishment at the proper time, or for one who perceives the proper time as improper or is uncertain, there is a dukkata. For one who perceives the proper time as proper, consuming yāmakālika and the like when there is a reason, or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. As permitted with “I allow, monks, the parched grain of parched grain, but it must not be taken out through the outer mouth-door and consumed” (cūḷava. 273), there is no offense for parched grain either. Improper time, being yāvakālika (daytime food), and consumption are the three factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the eḷakaloma rule.

In Rājagaha, it was established concerning the seventeen group of monks in the case of eating at the wrong time, a general regulation, not commanding, a three-fold pācittiya. For accepting and swallowing foods allowable for a specific time, etc., for the purpose of eating, for one who thinks it is the wrong time when it is the right time, and for one who is uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who thinks it is the right time when it is the right time, consuming foods allowable for a specific time, etc., when there is a reason, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. “I allow, monks, what is chewed for one who chews, but, monks, it should not be swallowed after being taken out through the outer opening” (cūḷava. 273), according to the allowance, there is also no offense for what is chewed. Being the wrong time, being food allowable only for that time, swallowing, these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the wool of a sheep.

This rule was established in Rājagaha regarding the group of seventeen monks, concerning the incident of eating at the wrong time. It is a general rule, non-announcement, and a three-part pācittiya. Receiving or consuming temporary food, perceiving it as the wrong time, or being in doubt incurs a dukkaṭa offense. For one who perceives it as the proper time, consuming temporary food when needed, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. “I allow, monks, for one with a skin disease to consume skin, but monks should not consume it after bringing it outside the door” (cūḷava. 273). Thus, even for one with a skin disease, there is no offense. The three factors here are: the wrong time, the temporary nature of the food, and consuming it. The origins, etc., are similar to the rule on wool.

8. Sannidhikārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on Storing Food

Aṭṭhame sannidhikārakanti kāro karaṇaṃ kiriyāti atthato ekaṃ, sannidhi kāro assāti sannidhikāraṃ , sannidhikārameva sannidhikārakaṃ, paṭiggahetvā ekarattiṃ vītināmitassetaṃ nāmaṃ. Tasmā evaṃ sannidhikataṃ yaṃkiñci yāvakālikaṃ vā yāmakālikaṃ vā ’ajjhoharissāmī’ti gaṇhantassa paṭiggahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pācittiyaṃ. Sacepi patto duddhoto hoti, yaṃ aṅguliyā ghaṃsantassa lekhā paññāyati, gaṇṭhikapattassa vā gaṇṭhikantare sneho paviṭṭho hoti, yo uṇhe otāpentassa paggharati, uṇhayāguyā vā gahitāya sandissati, tādise pattepi punadivase bhuñjantassa pācittiyaṃ. Yaṃ pana bhikkhu nirapekkho sāmaṇerānaṃ pariccajitvā tehi nihitaṃ labhitvā bhuñjati, taṃ vaṭṭati . Sayaṃ paṭiggahetvā apariccattameva hi dutiyadivase kappiyabhojanaṃ bhuñjantassa pācittiyaṃ. Akappiyesu pana manussamaṃse thullaccayena saddhiṃ pācittiyaṃ, sesesu pana dukkaṭena saddhiṃ. Yāmakālikaṃ sati paccaye ajjhoharato pācittiyaṃ, āhāratthāya ajjhoharato dukkaṭena saddhiṃ. Yo pana pavārito hutvā anatirittakataṃ ajjhoharati, tassa sabbavikappesu aparampi pācittiyaṃ vaḍḍhati. Sace vikāle ajjhoharati, anatirittapaccayā sabbavikappesu anāpatti, sati paccaye vikālapaccayā yāmakālikādīsu ca anāpatti. Avasesesu vikālapaccayā pācittiyaṃ vaḍḍhatiyeva. Bhikkhussa pana sannidhi bhikkhuniyā vaṭṭati, bhikkhuniyā ca sannidhi bhikkhussa vaṭṭati, bhikkhunikkhandhake (cūḷava. 421-422) anuññātattā vaṭṭatīti.

In the eighth, sannidhikāraka means “action” (kāra) is doing or activity, synonymous in meaning; having storage as its action is sannidhikāra, and sannidhikāra itself is sannidhikāraka, the name for what is accepted and kept overnight. Thus, accepting any yāvakālika or yāmakālika food kept in storage with the thought “I will consume it” incurs a dukkata at acceptance and a pācittiya for each act of consumption. Even if the bowl is washed but scraping it with a finger reveals a mark, or oil has entered the crevices of a knotted bowl and oozes out when heated, or traces remain from hot gruel taken earlier, eating from such a bowl the next day incurs a pācittiya. However, if a monk, without attachment, gives it to novices who store it and he later obtains and eats it, that is allowable. For it is only when one personally accepts and eats permissible food the next day without relinquishing it that a pācittiya occurs. With unallowable items like human flesh, a pācittiya accompanies a thullaccaya; with others, it accompanies a dukkata. Consuming yāmakālika when there is a reason incurs a pācittiya; consuming it for nourishment incurs it with a dukkata. For one who has performed pavāraṇā and consumes anatiritta food, an additional pācittiya applies in all cases. If consumed at an improper time, there is no offense due to the anatiritta condition in all cases; with a reason, there is no offense for yāmakālika and the like at an improper time. In other cases, a pācittiya increases due to the improper time condition. However, a monk’s stored food is allowable for a nun, and a nun’s stored food is allowable for a monk, as permitted in the Bhikkhunikkhandhaka (cūḷava. 421-422).

In the eighth, sannidhikāraka means kāra, doing, action are essentially the same. Sannidhi kāro assāti sannidhikāraṃ, sannidhikārameva sannidhikārakaṃ, having accepted and kept it overnight, this is its name. Therefore, whatever food allowable only for that time or food allowable for a specific time, kept thus, accepting, thinking, ‘I will swallow it,’ there is a dukkaṭa for accepting. For each swallowing, there is a pācittiya. Even if the bowl is washed, if traces are visible when rubbing with a finger, or if oil has penetrated between the joints of a jointed bowl, which oozes out when heated, or is visible when hot gruel is taken, even in such a bowl, there is a pācittiya for eating on the following day. But whatever a monk, without desire, having given to novices, and they, having put it away, he obtains and eats, that is allowable. For there is a pācittiya for eating allowable food on the second day, having accepted it oneself and not given it away. But regarding unallowable things, in the case of human flesh, there is a thullaccaya along with a pācittiya, but in the case of others, there is a dukkaṭa along with it. For swallowing food allowable for a specific time when there is a reason, there is a pācittiya, for swallowing for the purpose of eating, there is a dukkaṭa along with it. But one who, having been invited, swallows what is made not extra, for all variations, another pācittiya increases. If one swallows at the wrong time, due to it not being extra, for all variations, there is no offense. When there is a reason, due to it being the wrong time, there is no offense regarding foods allowable for a specific time, etc. In the remaining cases, due to it being the wrong time, a pācittiya increases. But a monk’s store is allowable for a nun, and a nun’s store is allowable for a monk, because it is allowed in the Bhikkhunikkhandhaka (cūḷava. 421-422), it is allowable.

In the eighth rule, sannidhikāraka means an action, deed, or activity. The term refers to something that has been stored. What is stored is called sannidhikāra, and the act of storing it is called sannidhikāraka. After receiving food, if one keeps it overnight, this is called sannidhikāraka. Therefore, if one takes any food, whether for a day or for a specific period, with the intention of consuming it, there is a wrongdoing in receiving it, and for each act of consuming it, there is a pācittiya offense. Even if the bowl is dirty, and a mark is visible when touched with a finger, or if oil has entered the crevices of a folded bowl, or if liquid drips when heated, or if it is visible in a heated pot, consuming such food the next day incurs a pācittiya offense. If a monk, without concern, abandons food to novices and then receives it back from them to eat, it is permissible. However, if he receives it himself and consumes it the next day without it being relinquished, it is a pācittiya offense. For improper items like human flesh, there is a thullaccaya offense along with pācittiya, while for other items, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Consuming food stored for a specific period when there is a reason incurs a pācittiya offense, but consuming it for the purpose of nourishment incurs a dukkaṭa offense. If one consumes food that has not been relinquished after being invited, the pācittiya offense increases in all cases. If consumed at the wrong time, there is no offense due to the absence of relinquishment, but if there is a reason, there is no offense for consuming food stored for a specific period or other similar cases. In other cases, the pācittiya offense increases. A monk’s storage is permissible for a nun, and a nun’s storage is permissible for a monk, as allowed in the Bhikkhunikkhandhaka (Cūḷavagga 421-422).

Sāvatthiyaṃ āyasmantaṃ belaṭṭhasīsaṃ ārabbha sannidhikārakabhojanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ , sattāhakālika yāvajīvikānaṃ pana āhāratthāya paṭiggahaṇe ajjhohāre ca dukkaṭaṃ. Yathā cetāni āhāratthāya na kappanti, evaṃ yāvakālikādīhi saṃsaṭṭhānipi, vuttañhetaṃ “yāvakālikena, bhikkhave, yāmakālikaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ kāle kappati, vikāle na kappatī”tiādi (mahāva. 305). Tasmā sacepi taṃ taṃ tena tena saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ labhati, sace asambhinnarasaṃ vā hoti sudhotaṃ vā, yathā itarena saṃsaggo na paññāyati, attano kālānurūpena paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Venerable Belaṭṭhasīsa in a matter of eating stored food, it was laid down as a general injunction, without command, a triple pācittiya. For sattāhakālika (seven-day allowable) and yāvajīvika (lifetime allowable) items, acceptance and consumption for nourishment incur a dukkata. Just as these are not suitable for nourishment, so too are items mixed with yāvakālika and the like, as stated: “Monks, yāmakālika accepted with yāvakālika on that day is allowable at the proper time, not at an improper time,” and so forth (mahāva. 305). Thus, if one obtains it mixed with another, if it is unmixed in flavor or well-washed so that no contact with the other is evident, it is allowable to consume according to one’s own time restriction.

In Sāvatthi, it was established concerning venerable Belaṭṭhasīsa in the case of eating food kept overnight, a general regulation, not commanding, a three-fold pācittiya. But for accepting and swallowing foods allowable for seven days or for life, for the purpose of eating, there is a dukkaṭa. Just as these are not allowable for the purpose of eating, so also are those mixed with foods allowable only for that time, etc. It is said, “Monks, food allowable for a specific time mixed with food allowable only for that time, accepted on that day, is allowable at the right time, not allowable at the wrong time,” etc. (mahāva. 305). Therefore, even if one obtains that mixed with that, if the flavors are not mixed, or if it is well washed, so that the mixture with the other is not evident, it is allowable to consume according to one’s own time.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning Venerable Belaṭṭhasīsa regarding the matter of storing food. It is a common rule, non-announcement-based, and falls under the three pācittiya categories. For seven-day or lifetime stored items, receiving and consuming them for nourishment incurs a dukkaṭa offense. As these are not suitable for nourishment, even when mixed with day-stored or period-stored items, it is said, “Day-stored and period-stored items received on the same day are allowable at the right time but not at the wrong time” (Mahāvagga 305). Therefore, even if such items are mixed, if the taste is not altered or they are clean, and no association with the other items is evident, they can be consumed according to their proper time.

Sace pana sambhinnarasaṃ vā hoti duddhotaṃ vā, na vaṭṭati. Yāvakālikañhi attanā saddhiṃ sambhinnarasāni tīṇipi yāmakālikādīni attano sabhāvaṃ upaneti, yāmakālikaṃ dvepi sattāhakālikādīni attano sabhāvaṃ upaneti, sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikameva attano sabhāvaṃ upaneti. Tasmā tena tadahupaṭiggahitena saddhiṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā pure paṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ sattāhaṃ kappati, dvīhappaṭiggahitena chāhaṃ, tīhappaṭiggahitena pañcāhaṃ…pe… sattāhappaṭiggahitena tadaheva kappatīti veditabbaṃ. Tasmāyeva hi “sattāhakālikena, bhikkhave , yāvajīvikaṃ tadahupaṭiggahita”nti avatvā “paṭiggahitaṃ sattāhaṃ kappatī”ti vuttaṃ. Kālayāmasattāhātikkamesu cettha vikālabhojana sannidhibhesajjasikkhāpadānaṃ vasena āpattiyo veditabbā, imesu pana catūsu kālikesu yāvakālikaṃ yāmakālikanti imameva dvayaṃ antovuṭṭhañceva sannidhikārakañca, sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikañca akappiyakuṭiyaṃ nikkhipitumpi vaṭṭati, sannidhimpi na janeti. Akappiyakuṭiyaṃ antovuṭṭhena pana tena saddhiṃ itaradvayaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitampi na vaṭṭati, mukhasannidhi nāma hoti, mahāpaccariyaṃ pana antovuṭṭhaṃ hotīti vuttaṃ. Tattha nāmamattameva nānākaraṇaṃ, āpatti pana dukkaṭameva. Tattha akappiyakuṭi nāma saṅghassa vā upasampannapuggalassa vā santakaṃ vasanatthāya katagehaṃ, tattha sahaseyyappahonake padese vuṭṭhaṃ yāvakālikañca yāmakālikañca saṅghikaṃ vā upasampannapuggalassa vā santakaṃ antovuṭṭhaṃ nāma hoti, tattha pakkaṃ antopakkaṃ nāma, yattha katthaci pana sayaṃ pakkaṃ sāmaṃ pakkaṃ nāma, taṃ sabbaṃ anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ. Tena tena saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhampi taṃgatikameva, sabbaṃ ajjhoharantassa dukkaṭaṃ. Tasmā antovuṭṭhaantopakkamocanatthaṃ bhagavatā catasso kappiyabhūmiyo (mahāva. 295) anuññātā, tāsaṃ vinicchayo samantapāsādikāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 295) vutto. Yattha panetā na santi, tattha anupasampannassa santakaṃ katvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Sāmaṃ pākampi punapākaṃ vaṭṭati, asannidhikārake sannidhikārakasaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Asannidhikārakasaññino, yāvakālikādīni tīṇi nidahitvā sakaṃ sakaṃ kālaṃ anatikkamitvā, yāvajīvikaṃ sadāpi sati paccaye paribhuñjantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Āmisaṃ, sannidhibhāvo, tassa ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānevāti.

However, if it is mixed in flavor or unwashed, it is not allowable. For yāvakālika, when mixed in flavor with itself, brings the three—yāmakālika and the rest—to its own nature; yāmakālika brings the two—sattāhakālika and the rest—to its own nature; sattāhakālika brings only yāvajīvika to its own nature. Thus, with yāvajīvika accepted on that day or previously with what was accepted on that day, it is allowable for seven days; with two days’ acceptance, six days; with three days’ acceptance, five days; and so forth, up to seven days’ acceptance, it is allowable only on that day. Hence it is said, “With sattāhakālika, monks, yāvajīvika accepted is allowable for seven days,” rather than “accepted on that day” (mahāva. 305). Offenses due to exceeding time, evening, or seven days should be understood per the vikālabhojana and sannidhibhesajja training rules. Among these four time-restricted items, only yāvakālika and yāmakālika are both stored indoors and sannidhikāraka, while sattāhakālika and yāvajīvika may be placed in an unallowable dwelling without generating storage. However, with what is stored indoors in an unallowable dwelling, the other two, even if accepted on that day, are not allowable; this is called mukhasannidhi (mouth storage). In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said to be stored indoors, but the difference is merely nominal, and the offense is only a dukkata. Herein, akappiyakuṭi means a dwelling belonging to the Sangha or an ordained person, made for residence; yāvakālika and yāmakālika kept there in a place suitable for co-sleeping, belonging to the Sangha or an ordained person, are called antovuṭṭha (stored indoors). What is cooked there is antopakka (cooked indoors); what is cooked by oneself anywhere is sāmaṃ pakka (self-cooked). All this is not to be consumed. Even what is mixed with it follows the same rule, and consuming it all incurs a dukkata. Therefore, to resolve antovuṭṭha and antopakka, the Blessed One permitted four permissible grounds (mahāva. 295), the determination of which is explained in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 295). Where these are absent, it is allowable to make it belong to an unordained person and consume it. Even self-cooking again is allowable. For one who perceives non-stored as stored, or is uncertain, there is a dukkata. For one who perceives it as non-stored, storing the three—yāvakālika and the like—without exceeding their respective times, or consuming yāvajīvika at any time with a reason, or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. An edible item, the state of storage, and its consumption are the three factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the eḷakaloma rule.

But if the flavors are mixed, or if it is poorly washed, it is not allowable. For food allowable only for that time, mixed with the other three, foods allowable for a specific time, etc., with which the flavors are mixed, takes on its own nature. Food allowable for a specific time takes on the nature of the two, foods allowable for seven days, etc. Food allowable for seven days takes on the nature of only food allowable for life. Therefore, with that accepted on that day, food allowable for life, accepted on that day or previously, is allowable for seven days. Accepted on the second day, it is allowable for six days; accepted on the third day, it is allowable for five days…and so on…accepted on the seventh day, it is allowable only on that day, it should be understood. Therefore, it is said, “Monks, with food allowable for seven days, food allowable for life accepted,” not saying “accepted on that day,” but “accepted, it is allowable for seven days.” Regarding exceeding the time, the watch, and the seven days, here, offenses should be understood according to the training rules on eating at the wrong time, keeping medicine overnight. But among these four kinds of food, only these two, food allowable only for that time and food allowable for a specific time, are both what is cooked inside and what is kept overnight. Food allowable for seven days and food allowable for life are allowable even to be placed in an unallowable dwelling, and it does not create storage. But with that cooked inside in an unallowable dwelling, even the other two accepted on that day are not allowable, it is called face-to-face storage. But in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said that it is what is cooked inside. There, only the name is different, but the offense is only a dukkaṭa. There, akappiyakuṭi means a dwelling made for the residence of the Saṅgha or an ordained individual. What is cooked inside in a place suitable for sleeping together, food allowable only for that time and food allowable for a specific time, belonging to the Saṅgha or an ordained individual, is called antovuṭṭha. What is cooked there is called antopakka. But what is cooked by oneself anywhere is called sāmaṃ pakka. All that is not to be swallowed. Even what is mixed with that is of the same nature. For swallowing all, there is a dukkaṭa. Therefore, for the removal of what is cooked inside and what is cooked there, the Blessed One allowed four allowable grounds (mahāva. 295). Their determination is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 295). Where these are not present, it is allowable to make it the property of a non-ordained person and consume it. Even self-cooking is allowable to be cooked again. For one who thinks what is not kept overnight is kept overnight, or for one who is uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who thinks what is not kept overnight is not kept overnight, having stored the three, foods allowable only for that time, etc., not exceeding their respective times, and consuming food allowable for life always when there is a reason, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Food, the state of being stored, swallowing that, these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the wool of a sheep.

However, if the taste is altered or they are dirty, it is not permissible. Day-stored items mixed with period-stored items take on the nature of the period-stored items, and seven-day stored items take on the nature of lifetime stored items. Therefore, items received on the same day with day-stored items are allowable for a lifetime, those received over two days are allowable for six days, those received over three days are allowable for five days, and so on, up to seven days. Thus, it is said, “Seven-day stored items are allowable for a lifetime if received on the same day.” In cases of exceeding the time limits for day-stored, period-stored, or seven-day stored items, offenses should be understood according to the rules on wrong-time eating and storing medicine. Among these four categories, day-stored and period-stored items fall under the sannidhikāraka rule, while seven-day stored and lifetime stored items can be placed in an improper storeroom without generating storage. However, if placed in an improper storeroom with day-stored items, even if received on the same day, it is not permissible, as it is considered mouth storage. The Mahāpaccarīya, however, is considered proper storage. Here, the distinction is only in name, but the offense is a dukkaṭa. Improper storeroom refers to a building belonging to the Sangha or an individual monk for the purpose of residence. In such places, day-stored and period-stored items belonging to the Sangha or an individual monk are called antovuṭṭha (stored inside). Cooked food stored inside is called antopakka, and food cooked by oneself is called sāmaṃ pakka. All such food is not to be consumed. Even when mixed with other items, the same rule applies, and consuming it incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Therefore, the Buddha allowed four types of allowable areas for storing food (Mahāvagga 295), and their explanation is given in the Samantapāsādikā (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 295). Where these are not available, one may consume food stored by a non-ordained person. Food cooked by oneself may be recooked. For those who perceive non-stored items as stored, or are in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For those who perceive stored items as non-stored, the three categories of day-stored, period-stored, and lifetime stored items are to be consumed without exceeding their respective time limits. For the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are the food, the act of storing, and its consumption. The origins, etc., are as fine as a hair.

9. Paṇītabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Training Rule on Fine Food

Navame paṇītabhojanānīti paṇītasaṃsaṭṭhāni sattadhaññanibbattāni bhojanāni. Yathā hi ājaññayutto ratho ’ājaññaratho’ti vuccati, evamidhāpi paṇītasaṃsaṭṭhāni bhojanāni paṇītabhojanānīti. Yehi pana paṇītehi saṃsaṭṭhāni, tāni ’paṇītabhojanānī’ti vuccanti, tesaṃ pabhedadassanatthaṃ seyyathidaṃ sappi navanītantiādimāha, tattha sappiādīni bhesajjasikkhāpade (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. bhesajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) vuttalakkhaṇeneva veditabbāni. Macchādīsu pana sabbopi ’odako’ti (pāci. 260) vuttalakkhaṇo maccho macchoyeva. Yesaṃ pana maṃsaṃ kappati, tesaṃ maṃsañca khīradadhīni ca idhādhippetāni. Evarūpāni paṇītabhojanānīti yāni etehi sappiādīhi saṃsaṭṭhattā ’paṇītabhojanānī’ti vuccanti, tathārūpāni paṇītabhojanāni. Agilānoti yassa tehi vināpi phāsu hoti. Attano atthāya viññāpetvāti ettha pana yo agilāno suddhāni sappiādīni bhesajjatthāya viññāpeti, so mahānāmasikkhāpadena (pāci. 303) kāretabbo, macchādīni cattāri viññāpento sūpodanaviññattiyā (pāci. 612-613) kāretabbo, sappiādīhi saṃsaṭṭhabhojanāni viññāpento iminā kāretabbo. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – “sappinā bhattaṃ dehi, sappiṃ ākiritvā dehi, sappimissakaṃ katvā dehi, saha sappinā dehi, sappiñca bhattañca dehī”ti evaṃ viññāpentassa tāva viññattiyā dukkaṭaṃ, paṭiggahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhoharaṇe ajjhoharaṇe pācittiyaṃ. “Sappibhattaṃ dehī”ti vutte pana yasmā sālibhattaṃ viya sappibhattaṃ nāma natthi, tasmā sūpodanaviññattiyā dukkaṭameva hoti. Sace pana “sappinā bhattaṃ dehī”ti vutte bhattaṃ datvā “sappiṃ katvā bhuñjāhī”ti navanītakhīrādīni vā kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ vā deti “iminā sappiṃ gahetvā bhuñjāhī”ti, yathāvatthukameva. “Gosappinā bhattaṃ dehī”ti vutte pana gosappiṃ vā detu, tasmiṃ asati purimanayena navanītādīni vā, gāviṃyeva vā detu “ito sappinā bhuñjāhī”ti, yathāvatthukameva. Sace pana “gosappinā dehī”ti yācito ajikāsappiādīhi deti, visaṅketaṃ. Evañhi sati aññaṃ yācitena aññaṃ dinnaṃ nāma hoti, tasmā anāpatti, esa nayo “ajikāsappinā dehī”tiādīsupi. “Kappiyasappinā dehī”ti vutte akappiyasappinā deti, visaṅketameva. “Akappiyasappinā dehī”ti vutte akappiyasappināva deti, paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi dukkaṭameva. Iminā nayena sabbapadesu vinicchayo veditabbo. Sace pana sabbehipi sappiādīhi ekaṭṭhāne vā nānāṭṭhāne vā viññāpetvā paṭiladdhaṃ ekato sambhinnarasaṃ katvā tato kusaggena ekabindumpi ajjhoharati, nava pācittiyāni.

In the ninth, paṇītabhojanāni means foods mixed with refined ingredients, derived from the seven grains. Just as a chariot yoked with thoroughbred horses is called an “ājaññaratho,” so too here, foods mixed with refined ingredients are called paṇītabhojanāni. Those ingredients with which they are mixed are referred to as paṇītabhojanāni, and to show their classification, it says seyyathidaṃ sappi navanīta and so forth. Therein, sappi and the like should be understood with the characteristics as stated in the training rule on medicines (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. Bhesajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Regarding fish and the like, every fish classified as “aquatic” (pāci. 260) with the stated characteristics is simply maccha. For those whose meat is permissible, maṃsa as well as khīradadhīni are intended here. Evarūpāni paṇītabhojanāni means such foods that are called paṇītabhojanāni because they are mixed with these—sappi and so forth—those kinds of refined foods. Agilāno means one who is comfortable even without them. Attano atthāya viññāpetvā—here, one who, being not ill, requests pure sappi and the like for medicinal purposes should be dealt with under the Mahānāma training rule (pāci. 303); one who requests the four—fish and the like—should be dealt with under the Sūpodanaviññatti (pāci. 612-613); one who requests foods mixed with sappi and the like should be dealt with under this rule. The judgment here is as follows: For one who requests, “Give me rice with ghee, pour ghee over it, make it mixed with ghee, give it with ghee, give me ghee and rice,” there is a dukkaṭa offense at the request, a dukkaṭa offense at acceptance, and a pācittiya offense for each act of consumption. But when one says, “Give me ghee-rice,” since there is no such thing as “ghee-rice” like there is “sāli-rice,” it is only a dukkaṭa offense under the Sūpodanaviññatti. However, if one says, “Give me rice with ghee,” and they give rice and say, “Eat it with ghee,” or give butter, milk, or permissible goods saying, “Take ghee with this and eat,” it follows the basis accordingly. If one says, “Give me rice with cow’s ghee,” and they give cow’s ghee, or, if it’s unavailable, butter or the like as before, or even a cow saying, “Eat with ghee from this,” it follows the basis accordingly. But if one requests “with cow’s ghee” and they give goat’s ghee or the like, it is mismatched. In such a case, something different from what was requested is given, so there is no offense. The same applies to “with goat’s ghee” and so forth. If one says, “Give me with permissible ghee,” and they give impermissible ghee, it is mismatched. If one says, “Give me with impermissible ghee,” and they give impermissible ghee, there is only a dukkaṭa offense at acceptance and use. This method of judgment should be understood for all cases. However, if one requests all—sappi and the like—whether in one place or different places, and, having obtained them, mixes them into a single flavor and consumes even a single drop with the tip of a blade of grass, there are nine pācittiya offenses.

In the ninth, paṇītabhojanānīti (refined foods) means meals produced from seven kinds of grains mixed with delicacies. Just as a chariot yoked with thoroughbreds is called ‘a thoroughbred chariot,’ so too here, meals mixed with delicacies are called ‘refined foods.’ Those delicacies with which they are mixed are called ‘refined foods.’ To show their variety, he says, seyyathidaṃ sappi navanītantiādi (that is, ghee, fresh butter, etc.). Here, sappi (ghee) and the others should be understood according to the definitions given in the section on medicine rules (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Bhesajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Among fish and the others, all fish defined as ‘odako’ (pāci. 260) is simply maccho (fish). Maṃsa (meat) of those animals whose meat is allowable, and also khīradadhīni (milk and curds) are intended here. Evarūpāni paṇītabhojanānīti (such refined foods) means those refined foods that are called ‘refined foods’ because they are mixed with these ghee and other ingredients, and similar refined foods. Agilānoti (not sick) means one who is well even without them. Attano atthāya viññāpetvāti (having requested for one’s own benefit): here, one who, not being sick, requests plain ghee and the others for medicinal purposes, should be dealt with according to the Mahānāma rule (pāci. 303). One who requests the four, fish and others, should be dealt with according to the soup and rice request rule (pāci. 612-613). One who requests meals mixed with ghee and the others should be dealt with according to this rule. Here is the determination – If one requests, saying, “Give me rice with ghee,” “Sprinkle ghee and give it,” “Make it mixed with ghee,” “Give it together with ghee,” or “Give ghee and rice,” then there is a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing) for the request, a dukkaṭa for receiving, and a pācittiya (offense requiring expiation) for each swallow. But if one says, “Give me ghee-rice,” since there is no such thing as ghee-rice like there is rice with broth, therefore, it is only a dukkaṭa according to the soup and rice request rule. But if, when asked, “Give me rice with ghee,” one gives rice and says, “Add ghee and eat,” or gives fresh butter, milk, and the others, or allowable goods, saying, “Take ghee with this and eat,” it is according to the request. If one says, “Give me rice with cow’s ghee,” whether one gives cow’s ghee, or in its absence, fresh butter and the others according to the previous method, or even gives a cow, saying, “Eat with ghee from this,” it is according to the request. But if, when asked for “cow’s ghee,” one gives goat’s ghee or the others, it is a deception. In this case, it is as if something else was given when something else was requested, therefore there is no offense. This method applies also to cases like, “Give me with goat’s ghee,” and so on. If, when asked for “allowable ghee,” one gives unallowable ghee, it is a deception. If, when asked for “unallowable ghee,” one gives unallowable ghee, there is only a dukkaṭa for both receiving and consuming. The determination in all cases should be understood by this method. But if one requests all of these, ghee and the others, either together or separately, and having received them, mixes them into one flavor, and then swallows even a single drop with the tip of a kusa grass blade, there are nine pācittiya offenses.

In the ninth rule, paṇītabhojanāni refers to food mixed with fine items, such as those produced from seven kinds of grains. Just as a chariot yoked with thoroughbreds is called a thoroughbred chariot, so too food mixed with fine items is called fine food. Those foods mixed with fine items are called paṇītabhojanāni. To illustrate their varieties, it is said, “such as ghee, fresh butter”, etc. Here, ghee and the like should be understood according to the characteristics explained in the training rule on medicine (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, Bhesajjasikkhāpada). As for fish, etc., all are called “odaka” (Pācittiya 260), and the characteristics of fish are as explained there. For those whose meat is allowable, meat, milk, and curd are intended here. Such fine foods are those mixed with ghee, etc., and are called fine foods. Agilāna refers to one who is comfortable without these. Attano atthāya viññāpetvā means that if a healthy person requests pure ghee, etc., for medicinal purposes, he should be dealt with according to the Mahānāma rule (Pācittiya 303). If he requests fish, etc., he should be dealt with according to the Sūpodana rule (Pācittiya 612-613). If he requests food mixed with ghee, etc., he should be dealt with according to this rule. Here is the determination: If one requests, “Give me rice with ghee, sprinkle ghee on it, mix it with ghee, give it with ghee, or give both ghee and rice,” there is a dukkaṭa offense in the request, a dukkaṭa in receiving, and a pācittiya for each act of consumption. If one says, “Give me ghee-rice,” since there is no such thing as ghee-rice like rice, there is only a dukkaṭa offense according to the Sūpodana rule. However, if one says, “Give me rice with ghee,” and after giving the rice, says, “Mix it with ghee and eat it,” or gives fresh butter, milk, etc., or allowable items, saying, “Take this ghee and eat it,” it is according to the case. If one says, “Give me rice with cow ghee,” and gives cow ghee, or if it is not available, gives fresh butter, etc., or a cow, saying, “Take this ghee and eat it,” it is according to the case. If one is asked for cow ghee and gives goat ghee, etc., it is questionable. For if one asks for one thing and is given another, it is not an offense. This is the method in cases like “Give me goat ghee,” etc. If one is asked for allowable ghee and gives unallowable ghee, it is questionable. If one is asked for unallowable ghee and gives unallowable ghee, there is a dukkaṭa offense in both receiving and consuming. In this way, the determination should be understood in all cases. If one requests all ghee, etc., in one place or different places, and after receiving, mixes them into one taste and consumes even a drop with a blade of grass, there are nine pācittiya offenses.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha paṇītabhojanaviññattivatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “agilāno”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, gilānassa agilānasaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Gilānasaññissa, gilānakāle viññāpetvā agilānassa bhuñjato, gilānassa sesake, ñātakappavāritaṭṭhānato, aññassatthāya viññatte, attano dhanena gahite, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Paṇītabhojanatā, agilānatā, kataviññattiyā paṭilābho, ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Addhānasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ , nosaññāvimokkhaṃ, acittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks, this was laid down in the matter of requesting refined foods. “Not ill” is the additional specification here, an uncommon rule, not requiring instruction, incurring a pācittiya offense three times, and a dukkaṭa offense for one who perceives an ill person as not ill or is uncertain. There is no offense for one who perceives themselves as ill, who requests while ill and eats when not ill, for an ill person’s leftovers, from a place of invitation by relatives, when requested for another’s sake, when taken with one’s own wealth, or for those who are insane and the like. The four factors here are: the nature of refined food, the state of not being ill, obtaining it after requesting, and consumption. It arises over time, it is an action, not freed by perception, without thought, a fault of the rule, physical and verbal action, with three kinds of mind, and three kinds of feeling.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks in the case of requesting refined foods. “Agilāno” (not sick) is a supplementary regulation here, a non-general rule, not a command, a tikapācittiya (a pācittiya with three factors). For a sick person who thinks he is not sick, or who is doubtful, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who thinks he is sick, for one who requests while sick and eats when not sick, for what is left over by a sick person, from the place of relatives or those who have invited, for what is requested for another’s benefit, for what is obtained with one’s own wealth, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offense. Being a refined food, not being sick, obtaining by having requested, and swallowing: these are the four factors here. The arising, action, non-release from perception, non-mindfulness, transgression of the rule, bodily action, verbal action, three kinds of thought, and three kinds of feeling are similar to those of the eḷakaloma (goat’s hair).

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning the Chabbaggiya monks regarding the matter of requesting fine food. “Agilāna” is an additional rule here. It is a non-common rule, non-announcement-based, and falls under the three pācittiya categories. For a healthy person who perceives himself as sick, or is in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who perceives himself as sick, if he requests food when sick and consumes it when healthy, or if he consumes leftovers, or if it is from a relative’s invitation, or if it is requested for another’s benefit, or if it is obtained with his own wealth, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are the nature of fine food, being healthy, obtaining through a request, and consuming it. The origin, action, no release of perception, mindlessness, precept violation, bodily action, verbal action, three types of consciousness, and three types of feeling are involved.

10. Dantaponasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Dantapona Training Rule

10. Dantaponasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Tooth Cleaners

Dasame adinnanti kāyena vā kāyappaṭibaddhena vā gaṇhantassa hatthapāse ṭhatvā kāyakāyappaṭibaddhanissaggiyānaṃ aññatarena na dinnaṃ, appaṭiggahitakassetaṃ nāmaṃ. Appaṭiggahitakañhi bhikkhuno attano santakampi ajjhoharituṃ na vaṭṭati. Paṭiggahitaṃ antamaso vissāsikasantakampi vaṭṭati, tassa lakkhaṇaṃ vuttavipallāsena veditabbaṃ. Sace hi yo koci anupasampanno antamaso tiracchānopi bhikkhussa vā bhikkhuniyā vā hatthapāse ṭhito kāyādīnaṃ aññatarena deti, tañce bhikkhunā yena kenaci sarīrāvayavena vā, tappaṭibaddhena vā, saṃhārimena ca antamaso mañcenāpi, dhāretuṃ samatthena ca antamaso atatthajātakarukkhapaṇṇenāpi, sūciyā parāmaṭṭhamattenāpi paṭiggahitaṃ, paṭiggahitameva hoti. Paṭibaddhappaṭibaddhaṃ nāma idha natthi, yampi natthukaraṇiyā diyyamānaṃ nāsikāya, akallako vā mukhena paṭiggaṇhāti, sabbaṃ vaṭṭati, ābhogamattameva hettha pamāṇaṃ. Pubbābhoge ca sati pacchā niddāyantassa patte dinnampi hatthapāse sati paṭiggahitameva hoti. Yampi “pattena paṭiggaṇhissāmī”ti nisinnasseva hatthe patati, taṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Abhihaṭabhājanato patitarajampi vaṭṭati, tattha ṭhitanisinnanipannānaṃ pavāraṇāsikkhāpade vuttanayeneva hatthapāso veditabbo.

In the tenth, adinna means not given by one standing within arm’s reach, taking with the body or something connected to the body, using any of the body or body-connected means that are not relinquished. This is a term for something not accepted. Indeed, a monk may not consume even his own property if it is not accepted. What is accepted, even something taken in trust, is permissible, and its characteristics should be understood as the opposite of what was stated. For if any unordained person, even an animal, standing within arm’s reach of a monk or nun, gives with any part of the body or the like, and the monk accepts it with any part of the body, something connected to it, or a tool—even a bed—or something capable of holding it—even a leaf from a non-fruit-bearing tree or the mere touch of a needle—it is accepted indeed. There is no such thing here as connected-to-connected; even what is given for disposal and accepted with the nose, or by an unwell person with the mouth, all is permissible. The mere intent is the measure here. With prior intent, even what is given into the bowl of one sleeping afterward, if within arm’s reach, is accepted. Even what falls into the hand of one sitting, thinking “I will accept it with the bowl,” is permissible. Even dust falling from a carried vessel is permissible. Arm’s reach for those standing, sitting, or lying should be understood as explained in the Pavāraṇā training rule.

In the tenth, adinnanti (not given) means not given by hand, or by something connected to the hand, while standing within hand’s reach, by one who is taking with the hand or something connected to the hand, and not received. This is the designation for something not received. Even what belongs to a monk is not suitable to swallow if it has not been received. What has been received, even what belongs to a confidant, is suitable. Its characteristic should be understood as the opposite of what has been stated. If anyone who is not fully ordained, even an animal, gives something with their hand or something connected to it, while standing within hand’s reach of a monk or nun, and if the monk receives it with any part of his body, or with something connected to it, or with something movable, even with a bed, or with something capable of holding, even with a leaf of a tree that has not grown on that spot, or even with the mere touch of a needle, it is considered received. There is no such thing here as connected to something connected. Even what is given for nasal medication and is received by the nose, or what an invalid receives with the mouth, is all allowable; only intention is the measure here. Even if something is given into the bowl of one who is sleeping after having previously intended, it is considered received if it is within hand’s reach. Even what falls into the hand of one who is sitting intending to receive with a bowl, is allowable. Even dust that falls from a container that has been brought is allowable. The hand’s reach for those standing, sitting, and lying there should be understood as stated in the rule on refusing food.

In the tenth rule, adinna refers to what is not given, i.e., taking something by body or by something connected to the body within the reach of the hand. For a monk, even his own belongings cannot be consumed if not received. However, what is received, even if it is from a trusted person, is allowable. The characteristics of this should be understood by reversing the explanation given earlier. If any non-ordained person, even an animal, standing within the reach of a monk’s or nun’s hand, gives something by body or something connected to the body, and the monk receives it by any part of his body, or by something connected to it, or by something movable, even a bed, or by something capable of holding, even a leaf of a tree, or even by touching it with a needle, it is considered received. There is no distinction here between directly connected or indirectly connected. Even if something is given for the purpose of destruction, like blowing it with the nose or receiving it with the mouth without harm, it is allowable. The mere intention is the measure here. If, after initial intention, one falls asleep and a bowl is given within the reach of the hand, it is considered received. If one sits thinking, “I will receive it with the bowl,” and the bowl falls into the hand, it is allowable. Even dust falling into the bowl is allowable. For those standing, sitting, or lying down, the reach of the hand should be understood as explained in the Pavāraṇāsikkhāpada.

Sace pana dāyakappaṭiggāhakesu eko ākāse hoti, eko bhūmiyaṃ, bhūmaṭṭhassa sīsena ākāsaṭṭhassa ca ṭhapetvā dātuṃ vā gahetuṃ vā pasāritahatthaṃ yaṃ āsannataraṃ aṅgaṃ, tassa orimantena hatthapāsappamāṇaṃ paricchinditabbaṃ. Sacepi eko kūpe hoti, eko kūpataṭe, eko vā rukkhe, eko pathaviyaṃ, vuttanayeneva hatthapāsappamāṇaṃ paricchinditabbaṃ. Tasmiṃ ṭhatvā sacepi dve tayo vā sāmaṇerā yaṃ majjhimo puriso ukkhipituṃ sakkoti, evarūpaṃ bhāraṃ pavaṭṭentā bhikkhuno bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapitahatthaṃ āropenti, ukkhipitvā vā bhikkhuno pasāritahatthe ekadesenāpi ṭhapenti, taṃ paṭiggahitameva hoti. Yaṃ pana piṇḍāya carantassa patte rajaṃ patati, taṃ appaṭiggahitameva hoti, tasmā paṭiggahetvāva bhikkhā gaṇhitabbā. Appaṭiggahetvā gaṇhantassa vinayadukkaṭaṃ, taṃ pana puna paṭiggahetvā bhuñjantassa anāpatti. Sace “paṭiggahetvā dethā”ti vutte vacanaṃ assutvā vā anādiyitvā vā bhikkhaṃ dentiyeva, vinayadukkaṭā muccati, puna paṭiggahetvā aññā bhikkhā paṭiggahetabbā. Sace mahāvāto tato tato rajaṃ pāteti, na sakkā hoti bhikkhaṃ gahetuṃ, “anupasampannassa dassāmī”ti suddhacittena ābhogaṃ katvā gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati. Taṃ anupasampannassa datvā puna tena dinnaṃ vā tassa vissāsena vā paṭiggahetvā bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Assukheḷasiṅghāṇikādīsu yaṃ ṭhānato cavitvā hatthe vā patte vā patati, taṃ paṭiggahetabbaṃ, aṅgalaggaṃ paṭiggahitameva. Patantampi vocchinnañce antarā na gahetabbaṃ, uggahitakaṃ nāma hoti, taṃ pacchā paṭiggahitampi na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ pana bhesajjaṃ vā mūlaphalaṃ vā mātādīnaṃ atthāya gahetvā chāyatthāya vā phalinisākhaṃ ukkhipitvā gacchati, tato yaṃ icchati, taṃ puna paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Yo pana tattha jātakaphalinisākhāya vā valliyā vā gahetvā cāleti. Tassa tato laddhaṃ phalaṃ na vaṭṭati, durupaciṇṇadukkaṭañca āpajjati, aññassa taṃ vaṭṭati, phalirukkhaṃ pana apassayituṃ vā ālambituṃ vā vaṭṭati, paṭiggahetvā ṭhapite yaṃ aññaṃ aṅkurādi uppajjati, paṭiggahitameva taṃ. Yāva hi hatthato mutte nirapekkho na hoti, nirapekkhatāya vā hatthato na muccati, tāva na paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahati, ayamettha saṅkhepo, vitthāro pana samantapāsādikāyaṃ vutto.

However, if one of the giver or receiver is in the air and the other on the ground, the measure of arm’s reach should be determined by the nearest limb extended to give or take, below the head of the one on the ground or excluding the extended arm of the one in the air. Even if one is in a well and the other on the well’s edge, or one in a tree and the other on the ground, the measure of arm’s reach should be determined as stated. Standing there, if two or three novices roll a load that a middle person could lift and place it on the monk’s hand on the ground, or lift it and place it even partially on the monk’s extended hand, it is accepted indeed. But dust falling into the bowl of one going for alms is not accepted, so alms must be accepted before being taken. Taking without accepting incurs a disciplinary dukkaṭa offense, but consuming it after accepting again incurs no offense. If one says, “Accept and give,” and they give alms without hearing or heeding the words, they are free from the disciplinary dukkaṭa, and other alms must be accepted again. If a strong wind scatters dust from here and there, making it impossible to take alms, it is permissible to take it with a pure mind, thinking “I will give it to an unordained person.” Giving it to an unordained person and then accepting it back from them or consuming it in trust is permissible. For saliva, mucus, or the like falling from its place onto the hand or bowl, it must be accepted; what reaches the fingertip is accepted indeed. What falls and is cut off in midair must not be taken; it becomes “taken up,” and even if accepted later, it is not permissible. But medicine or roots and fruits taken for the sake of a mother or the like, or a fruit-bearing branch lifted for shade, whatever one desires from that may be accepted again and used. However, one who takes and moves it with a fruit-bearing branch or vine growing there incurs a dukkaṭa offense for misuse, and the fruit obtained from it is not permissible for him, though it is for another. Leaning on or resting against a fruit tree is permissible, and whatever sprouts or the like arise from what was accepted and set aside is accepted indeed. As long as one is not indifferent after releasing it from the hand, or it is not released from the hand due to indifference, the acceptance does not lapse. This is the summary here; the details are stated in the Samantapāsādikā.

But if one of the giver, the helper, and the receiver is in the air, and one is on the ground, the measure of hand’s reach should be determined by the lower limit of the closest limb of the one standing on the ground with his head, and of the one in the air with his hand extended to give or receive. Even if one is in a well, and one is at the edge of the well, or one is in a tree, and one is on the ground, the measure of hand’s reach should be determined as stated. While standing there, if two or three novices roll a load that a middle-aged man can lift, and place it on the hand of a monk placed on the ground, or if they lift it and place even a part of it on the extended hand of the monk, it is considered received. But the dust that falls into the bowl of one who is going for alms is not considered received. Therefore, alms should be received after having it properly offered. For one who takes without having it properly offered, there is a dukkaṭa of discipline. But if one eats after having it properly offered again, there is no offense. If, when told, “Offer it after having it properly offered,” one gives alms without hearing or disregarding the words, one is freed from the dukkaṭa of discipline. Other alms should be received after having it properly offered again. If a strong wind blows dust from here and there, and it is not possible to take alms, it is allowable to take it with a pure mind, intending, “I will give it to a non-ordained person.” Having given it to a non-ordained person, it is allowable to eat what is given back by him, or what is received with his trust. As for tears, mucus, snot, and the others, what falls from its place onto the hand or bowl should be received. What is attached to the finger is considered received. Even if something falling is interrupted in between, it should not be taken; it is called uggahitaka (something lifted up), and even if it is received later, it is not allowable. But if one takes medicine or root-fruit for the benefit of one’s mother and the others, and lifts a branch with fruit for shade, whatever one desires from it is allowable to be consumed after having it properly offered again. But if one takes and shakes a branch with fruit or a creeper that has grown there, the fruit obtained from it is not allowable, and one incurs a dukkaṭa for wrong conduct. It is allowable for another. It is allowable to look at or lean on a fruit-bearing tree. Whatever sprout or the other grows on something that has been received and placed, is considered received. As long as one is not detached from what has been released from the hand, or as long as it is not released from the hand due to detachment, it does not cease to be received. This is the summary here; the details are stated in the Samantapāsādikā.

If the donor and receiver are in different positions, one in the air and the other on the ground, the reach of the hand is measured by the closer limb. If one is in a well and the other on the well’s edge, or one in a tree and the other on the ground, the reach of the hand is measured as explained. If two or three novices carry a load that a middle-aged man can lift and place it in the monk’s hand on the ground, or lift it and place it in the monk’s outstretched hand, it is considered received. However, if dust falls into the bowl while walking for alms, it is not considered received. Therefore, one should receive alms after accepting them. Taking alms without receiving them incurs a vinaya dukkaṭa offense, but there is no offense if one receives them later and consumes them. If one says, “Give after receiving,” and the donor does not hear or heed the instruction and gives the alms, the vinaya dukkaṭa is absolved, and one should receive other alms. If a strong wind blows dust from here and there, making it impossible to receive alms, one may, with a pure mind, intend to give it to a non-ordained person and then take it. After giving it to the non-ordained person, one may receive it back from them or with their trust and consume it. In the case of horse dung, nasal mucus, etc., if something falls from its place into the hand or bowl, it should be received. The tip of a limb is considered received. If something falls and is cut off before being received, it is called uggahitaka and cannot be received later. If one takes medicine, roots, or fruits for the sake of one’s mother, etc., or lifts a fruit-bearing branch for shade, and then takes what one wishes, it is allowable to receive it again and consume it. If one shakes a fruit-bearing branch or vine and obtains fruit from it, it is not allowable, and one incurs a dukkaṭa offense for improper behavior. The fruit belongs to someone else, but one may lean on or support oneself with the tree. If something sprouts from what has been received and placed, it is considered received. As long as one is not indifferent to what has been released from the hand, or as long as it has not been released from the hand, it is not abandoned. This is the summary here; the details are explained in the Samantapāsādikā.

Mukhadvāranti galanāḷikaṃ. Mukhena vā hi paviṭṭhaṃ hotu, nāsikāya vā, galena ajjhoharaṇīyatāya sabbampi taṃ mukhadvāraṃ pavesitameva hoti. Āhāranti yaṃkiñci yāvakālikaṃ vā yāmakālikaṃ vā sattāhakālikaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ vā. Sabbañhetaṃ ajjhoharaṇīyattā ’āhāro’ti vuccati, tattha sabbampi dhaññaṃ vā dhaññānulomaṃ vā tālanāḷikerapanasalabujaalābukumbhaṇḍapussaphalatipusaphalaeḷālukasaṅkhātaṃ navavidhaṃ mahāphalañceva aparaṇṇañca, yañcaññaṃ vanamūlapattapupphaphalādi āhāratthaṃ pharati, taṃ sabbaṃ yāva majjhanhikakālo, tāva paribhuñjitabbato yāvakālikaṃ nāma. Ambapānaṃ jambupānaṃ cocapānaṃ mocapānaṃ madhukapānaṃ muddikapānaṃ sālūkapānaṃ phārusakapānanti imāni aṭṭha pānāni, yāni ca tesaṃ anulomāni vettatintiṇikamātuluṅgakapiṭṭhakosambakaramandādikhuddakaphalapānāni, etāni sabbāni anupasampannehi sītodakena madditvā katāni ādiccapākāni vā yāva rattiyā pacchimayāmaṃ nidahitvā paribhuñjitabbato yāmakālikāni nāma. Avasesesu anuññātaphalapattapuppharasesupi eseva nayo. Sappiādīni pañca bhesajjāni sattāhaṃ nidahitvā paribhuñjitabbato sattāhakālikāni nāma. Idaṃ pana yāvakālikādittayaṃ kālavimuttañca udakaṃ ṭhapetvā avasesamūlaphalāphalādi yaṃ neva khādanīyatthaṃ na bhojanīyatthaṃ pharati , taṃ yāvajīvaṃ nidahitvā sati paccaye paribhuñjitabbato yāvajīvikaṃ nāma. Āhareyyāti paveseyya. Aññatra udakadantaponāti idaṃ anāhārepi udake āhārasaññāya, dantapone ca “mukhadvāraṃ āhaṭaṃ ida”nti saññāya kukkuccāyantānaṃ kukkuccavinodanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Udakañhi yathāsukhaṃ pātuṃ, dantakaṭṭhañca dantaponaparibhogena paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Ṭhapetvā pana idaṃ dvayaṃ avasesaṃ ajjhoharaṇatthāya gaṇhato gahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pācittiyaṃ, sacepi dantakaṭṭharaso ajānantassa anto pavisati, pācittiyameva.

Mukhadvāra means the throat passage. Whether it enters through the mouth or nose, all that can be consumed via the throat is considered to have entered the mukhadvāra. Āhāra means anything that is to be used by noon, by evening, within seven days, or for life. All this is called āhāra because it is consumable. Therein, all grains or grain-like substances, and the nine great fruits—namely palm, coconut, jackfruit, breadfruit, bottle gourd, snake gourd, wax gourd, cucumber, and marking nut—as well as other grains, and whatever roots, leaves, flowers, or fruits from the forest serve as food, all these are to be used by noon and are called yāvakālika. The eight drinks—mango drink, rose-apple drink, banana drink, plantain drink, honey drink, grape drink, lotus-root drink, and phārusaka drink—and their equivalents, such as drinks from small fruits like bamboo, citron, orange, kapiṭṭha, kosamba, or karamanda, all these, when mashed with cold water by unordained persons or cooked by the sun, are to be used by the last watch of the night and are called yāmakālika. The same applies to the remaining permitted fruit, leaf, and flower juices. The five medicines—sappi and the like—are to be used within seven days and are called sattāhakālika. Apart from these three—yāvakālika and the like—and water, which is free of time restriction, the remaining roots, fruits, and the like that serve neither as chewables nor edibles are to be used for life when there is a reason and are called yāvajīvika. Āhareyya means he might bring it in. Aññatra udakadantaponā is said to dispel the scruple of those who, even regarding non-food water, perceive it as food, and regarding tooth-wood, think “This was brought to the mouth,” thus feeling remorse. Indeed, water may be drunk freely, and tooth-wood may be used as tooth-wood. Apart from these two, taking anything else for consumption incurs a dukkaṭa offense at the taking, and a pācittiya offense for each act of consumption. Even if the juice of tooth-wood enters unknowingly, it is a pācittiya offense.

Mukhadvāranti (the entrance of the mouth) means the gullet. Whether it has entered through the mouth or the nose, since it is to be swallowed through the throat, all of it is considered to have entered the entrance of the mouth. Āhāranti (food) means anything that is yāvakālika (allowed until noon), yāmakālika (allowed for a watch), sattāhakālika (allowed for seven days), or yāvajīvika (allowed for life). All of this is called ‘food’ because it is to be swallowed. There, all grains, or what conforms to grains, the nine kinds of large fruits known as tālanāḷikerapanasalabujaalābukumbhaṇḍapussaphalatipusaphalaeḷāluka, and other non-specified grains, and whatever other forest roots, leaves, flowers, fruits, and the others that serve as food, are called yāvakālika because they are to be consumed until noon. The eight drinks: mango drink, rose-apple drink, coca drink, banana drink, madhuka drink, grape drink, water-lily drink, and phārusaka drink, and those that conform to them, drinks of small fruits such as vettatintiṇikamātuluṅgakapiṭṭhakosambakaramanda, all of these, prepared by non-ordained persons by crushing with cold water, or cooked by the sun, are called yāmakālikāni because they are to be stored and consumed until the last watch of the night. The same method applies to the remaining permitted fruits, leaves, flowers, and juices. The five medicines, ghee and the others, are called sattāhakālikāni because they are to be stored and consumed for seven days. Excluding this threefold division of yāvakālika and the others, and water which is free from time restrictions, whatever remaining root, fruit, non-fruit, and the other that serves neither as khādanīya (hard food) nor bhojanīya (soft food), is called yāvajīvikaṃ because it is to be stored and consumed for life when there is a reason. Āhareyyāti (should bring in) means should cause to enter. Aññatra udakadantaponāti (except for water and tooth-cleaning stick): this is said to dispel the doubt of those who, even in the case of water, which is not food, have the perception of food, and in the case of the tooth-cleaning stick, have the perception that “this has been brought into the entrance of the mouth.” Water can be drunk as one pleases, and the tooth-stick can be used for cleaning the teeth. But, excluding these two, for taking anything else to swallow, there is a dukkaṭa for taking, and a pācittiya for each swallow. Even if the juice of the tooth-stick enters unknowingly, it is still a pācittiya.

Mukhadvāra means the throat passage. Whatever enters through the mouth or the nose, since it is all swallowed through the throat, it is all considered to have entered through the mukhadvāra (mouth-door). Āhāra refers to anything consumed, whether it is for a limited time (yāvakālika), for a watch period (yāmakālika), for seven days (sattāhakālika), or for a lifetime (yāvajīvika). All of this is called ‘āhāra’ because it is swallowed. This includes all grains or grain-based foods, as well as nine kinds of large fruits such as tāla, nāḷikera, panasa, labuja, alābuka, kumbhaṇḍa, pussaphala, tipusaphala, and eḷāluka, as well as other small fruits. Also included are forest roots, leaves, flowers, and fruits that are consumed as food. All of these, up until the midday meal, are called yāvakālika. Drinks such as ambapāna, jambupāna, cocapāna, mocapāna, madhukapāna, muddikapāna, sālūkapāna, and phārusakapāna, as well as similar drinks made from vetta, tiṇika, mātuluṅga, kaṇḍa, kosambaka, and karanda fruits, are all prepared by non-ordained persons by crushing them with cold water or cooking them in the sun. These can be consumed up until the last watch of the night and are called yāmakālikāni. The same applies to other permitted fruit juices, leaves, and flowers. The five medicinal substances, such as ghee, can be stored for seven days and are called sattāhakālikāni. The three types of yāvakālika, along with water, are exempt from time restrictions. Other roots, fruits, and similar items that are not intended for chewing or eating can be stored for a lifetime and are called yāvajīvika. Āhareyyā means to consume. Aññatra udakadantaponā refers to water, which is not considered food, and tooth-cleaning sticks, which are not considered to have entered the mouth. This is stated to dispel the scruples of those who worry about these things. Water can be drunk as desired, and tooth-cleaning sticks can be used for cleaning teeth. However, taking anything else for the purpose of swallowing incurs a dukkaṭa offense, and swallowing it incurs a pācittiya offense. Even if the juice of a tooth-cleaning stick is unknowingly swallowed, it is still a pācittiya offense.

Vesāliyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha adinnaṃ āhāraṃ āharaṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra udakadantaponā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti , anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, paṭiggahitake appaṭiggahitasaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Paṭiggahitasaññissa, udakadantapone, cattāri mahāvikaṭāni sati paccaye asati kappiyakārake sāmaṃ gahetvā paribhuñjantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Ettha dubbacopi asamatthopi kappiyakārako asantapakkheyeva tiṭṭhati, chārikāya asati sukkhadāruṃ jhāpetvā, tasmiñca asati alladāruṃ rukkhato chinditvāpi kātuṃ, mattikatthāya ca pathaviṃ khaṇitumpi vaṭṭati, idaṃ pana catubbidhampi mahāvikaṭaṃ kālodissaṃ nāma sappadaṭṭhakkhaṇeyeva sāmaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati, aññadā paṭiggāhāpetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Appaṭiggahitakatā, ananuññātatā, dhūmādiabbohārikābhāvo, ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

At Vesālī, concerning a certain monk, this was laid down in the matter of consuming unoffered food. “Except water and tooth-wood” is the additional specification here, a common rule, not requiring instruction, incurring a pācittiya offense three times, and a dukkaṭa offense for one who perceives offered food as unoffered or is uncertain. There is no offense for one who perceives it as offered, for water and tooth-wood, for the four great improper items when there is a reason and no permissible assistant, taking them oneself and using them, or for those who are insane and the like. Here, even one who is obstinate or incapable counts as a permissible assistant only when absent. If there is no charcoal, dry wood may be burned; if that is unavailable, wet wood may be cut from a tree; and digging the earth for clay is also permissible. These four great improper items may be taken oneself only at the moment of a snakebite within the proper time; otherwise, they must be accepted through another and used. The four factors here are: being unoffered, being unpermitted, absence of smoke or other inedible quality, and consumption. Its origin and the rest are similar to the eḷakaloma.

This was established in Vesāli concerning a certain monk in the case of bringing in food that was not given. “Aññatra udakadantaponā” (except for water and tooth-cleaning stick) is a supplementary regulation here, a general rule, not a command, a tikapācittiya. For one who has the perception of something received as not received, or who is doubtful, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who has the perception of something received, for water and tooth-cleaning stick, for the four great non-staples, when there is a reason, if there is no one to make it allowable, for taking and consuming them oneself, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offense. Even if one is badly spoken or incapable, the one who makes it allowable remains only in the absence of one. One may even burn dry wood in the absence of ashes, and in its absence, cut fresh wood from a tree, and even dig the earth for clay. But these four kinds of great non-staples, called at the designated time, are allowable to be taken oneself only at the moment of being bitten by a snake. At other times, they should be consumed after having them properly offered. Not being properly offered, not being permitted, not being smoke or other non-edibles, and swallowing: these are the four factors here. The arising and the others are similar to those of the eḷakaloma.

This rule was established in Vesālī concerning a certain monk who took food that was not given. The phrase aññatra udakadantaponā is an additional rule, a common rule, non-confession-based, and falls under the category of tikapācittiya. For one who receives it without perceiving it as received, or for one in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who perceives it as received, or for water and tooth-cleaning sticks, there is no offense. In cases of the four great emergencies, if there is no opportunity to make something allowable, one may take it oneself and consume it. There is also no offense for the insane, etc. Here, even if one is difficult to correct or incapable, the one who makes something allowable remains blameless. If there is no charcoal, one may burn dry wood, and if there is no dry wood, one may cut fresh wood from a tree. It is also permissible to dig the ground for clay. However, these four great emergencies are only to be taken at the time of need, such as when bitten by a snake. At other times, one should have it received by another before consuming it. The four factors here are: not receiving, not being permitted, not being smoke or raw, and swallowing. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the offense of pulling out eyelashes.

5. Acelakavaggo

5. Acelaka Chapter

5. Acelakavaggo

5. Acelakavagga

1. Acelakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Acelaka Training Rule

1. Acelakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the Acelaka Training Rule

Acelakavaggassa paṭhame etesaṃ acelakādīnaṃ aññatitthiyānaṃ yaṃkiñci āmisaṃ ekappayogena dentassa ekaṃ pācittiyaṃ, avacchinditvā avacchinditvā dentassa payoge payoge pācittiyaṃ.

In the first of the Acelaka chapter, giving any material thing to these naked ascetics or other sectarians with a single effort incurs one pācittiya offense; giving repeatedly by separating it incurs a pācittiya offense for each effort.

In the first of the Acelaka chapter, for giving any kind of material gift to any of these acelaka (naked ascetics) and other sectarians in one single act, there is one pācittiya. For giving repeatedly, there is a pācittiya for each act.

In the first rule of the Acelakavagga, giving any material thing to ascetics of other sects in one act incurs one pācittiya offense. If given repeatedly, each act incurs a pācittiya offense.

Vesāliyaṃ āyasmantaṃ ānandaṃ ārabbha paribbājikāya dve pūve dānavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, udakadantaponaṃ dentassa, atitthiye titthiyasaññissa, vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Atitthiye atitthiyasaññissa, anupasampannena dāpentassa, tesaṃ santike bhājanaṃ nikkhipitvā “idaṃ gaṇhathā”ti bhaṇantassa, tesaṃ vā nikkhittabhājane dentassa, bāhiralepaṃ dentassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Aññatitthiyatā, ananuññātatā, ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ ajjhoharaṇatthāya sahatthā anikkhittabhājane dānanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

At Vesālī, concerning the venerable Ānanda, this was laid down in the matter of giving two cakes to a female wanderer. It is an uncommon rule, not requiring instruction, incurring a pācittiya offense three times, and a dukkaṭa offense for giving water and tooth-wood, for one who perceives a non-sectarian as a sectarian, or is uncertain. There is no offense for one who perceives a sectarian as a non-sectarian, for causing an unordained person to give, for placing a vessel near them and saying “Take this,” for giving to a vessel placed by them, for giving an external coating, or for those who are insane and the like. The three factors here are: being a sectarian, being unpermitted, and giving edible material with one’s own hand into a vessel not set aside for consumption. Its origin and the rest are similar to the eḷakaloma.

This was established in Vesāli concerning venerable Ānanda in the case of giving two cakes to a female wanderer. It is a non-general rule, not a command, a tikapācittiya. For giving water and a tooth-cleaning stick, for one who has the perception of a sectarian in a non-sectarian, or who is doubtful, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who has the perception of a non-sectarian in a non-sectarian, for causing a non-ordained person to give, for placing a container in their presence and saying, “Take this,” or for giving into a container placed by them, for giving external leftovers, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offense. Being a sectarian, not being permitted, giving something to be swallowed by one’s own hand into a container that has not been placed, for the purpose of swallowing: these are the three factors here. The arising and the others are similar to those of the eḷakaloma.

This rule was established in Vesālī concerning Venerable Ānanda and a female wanderer who offered two cakes. It is a non-common rule, non-confession-based, and falls under the category of tikapācittiya. Giving water or a tooth-cleaning stick to a non-Buddhist, perceiving them as a non-Buddhist, or being in doubt incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Giving to a non-Buddhist while perceiving them as a non-Buddhist, or having an unordained person give it, or placing a vessel in their presence and saying, “Take this,” or giving it in a vessel placed by them, or giving an external coating, incurs no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: being a non-Buddhist, not being permitted, and giving by hand without placing a vessel. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the offense of pulling out eyelashes.

2. Uyyojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Uyyojana Training Rule

2. Uyyojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Uyyojana Training Rule

Dutiye dāpetvā vā adāpetvā vāti yaṃkiñci āmisaṃ dāpetvā vā na dāpetvā vā. Uyyojeyyāti mātugāmena saddhiṃ hasanakīḷanarahonisajjādīni kattukāmo ’gacchā’tiādīni vatvā uyyojeyya. Etadevāti etaṃ anācārameva paccayaṃ karitvā, na aññaṃ patirūpaṃ kāraṇaṃ. Pācittiyanti uyyojanamatte tāva dukkaṭaṃ, yadā panassa so dassanūpacāraṃ vā savanūpacāraṃ vā ekena pādena vijahati, aparaṃ dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyena vijahite pācittiyaṃ. Ettha ca dassanūpacārassa ajjhokāse ṭhatvā dvādasahatthappamāṇaṃ, tathā savanūpacārassa. Sace pana antarā kuṭṭadvārapākārādayo honti, tehi antaritabhāvoyeva upacārātikkamo.

In the second, dāpetvā vā adāpetvā vā means having caused any material thing to be given or not. Uyyojeyya means, desiring to laugh, play, or converse privately with a woman, one might say “Go” or the like to dismiss her. Etadevā means taking only this misconduct as the reason, not any other proper cause. Pācittiya—there is a dukkaṭa offense at the mere dismissal; when she leaves the range of sight or hearing with one foot, there is another dukkaṭa offense; when she leaves with the second foot, it is a pācittiya offense. Here, the range of sight, when standing in an open space, is twelve handspans, and the same for the range of hearing. If there are intervening walls, doors, or fences, the crossing of the range occurs by their separation.

In the second, dāpetvā vā adāpetvā vāti (whether having caused to give or not having caused to give) means whether having caused any kind of material gift to be given or not having caused it to be given. Uyyojeyyāti (should dismiss) means should dismiss, wishing to engage in laughter, play, secret meetings, and the others with a woman, saying, ‘Go,’ and so on. Etadevāti (only this) means only for this improper reason, not for any other proper reason. Pācittiyanti (an offense requiring expiation): for the mere dismissal, there is a dukkaṭa. But when he abandons either the range of sight or the range of hearing by one foot, there is another dukkaṭa. When he abandons it with the second foot, there is a pācittiya. Here, the range of sight is twelve hands while standing in the open, and so is the range of hearing. But if there are walls, doors, enclosures, and the others in between, the transgression of the range is due to being obstructed by them.

In the second rule, dāpetvā vā adāpetvā vā means giving any material thing, whether having it given or not. Uyyojeyyā means wishing to engage in laughing, playing, or sitting with a woman, saying, “Go,” etc. Etadevā means doing this improper act without any other suitable reason. Pācittiya means that merely dismissing incurs a dukkaṭa offense. When one foot crosses the boundary of seeing or hearing, another dukkaṭa offense is incurred. When the second foot crosses, it becomes a pācittiya offense. Here, the boundary for seeing is twelve hands’ breadth in the open, and the same for hearing. If there are walls, doors, or fences in between, the boundary is considered crossed.

Sāvatthiyaṃ upanandaṃ ārabbha uyyojanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, uyyojanāṇattikāya sāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ, ubhinnampi kalisāsanāropane dukkaṭameva, “ubho ekato na yāpessāmā”ti evamādīhi patirūpakāraṇehi uyyojentassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Anācāraṃ ācaritukāmatā, tadatthameva upasampannassa uyyojanaṃ, evaṃ uyyojitassa upacārātikkamoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisānīti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Upananda, this was laid down in the matter of dismissal. It is a common rule, requiring instruction for the dismissal command, incurring a pācittiya offense three times, a triple dukkaṭa offense for an unordained person, and only a dukkaṭa offense for both in the case of placing a mat. There is no offense for dismissing with proper reasons such as “We two cannot stay together,” or for those who are insane and the like. The three factors here are: the desire to engage in misconduct, dismissing an ordained person solely for that purpose, and the dismissed person crossing the range. Its origin and the rest are similar to taking what is not given.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda in the case of dismissal. It is a general rule, with a command for dismissal, it is a sāṇattika (with a command), a tikapācittiya. For non-ordained persons, it is a triple dukkaṭa. For both, in the case of imposing a disciplinary action, it is only a dukkaṭa. For dismissing with proper reasons such as, “We will not both live together,” and so on, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offense. The desire to engage in improper conduct, dismissing an ordained person for that very purpose, and the transgression of the range by the one thus dismissed: these are the three factors here. The arising and the others are similar to those of taking what is not given.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda. It is a common rule, confession-based, and falls under the category of tikapācittiya. For an unordained person, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. For both, placing a false accusation incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Dismissing with a suitable reason, such as “We both cannot stay here,” incurs no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: wishing to engage in improper conduct, dismissing for that purpose, and crossing the boundary after dismissal. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the offense of stealing.

3. Sabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Sabhojana Training Rule

3. Sabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Sabhojana Training Rule

Tatiye saha ubhohi janehīti sabhojanaṃ, tasmiṃ sabhojane. Atha vā sabhojaneti sabhoge, rāgapariyuṭṭhitapurisassa hi itthī bhogo, itthiyā ca puriso, tenevassa padabhājane “itthī ceva hoti, puriso cā”tiādi (pāci. 281) vuttaṃ. Anupakhajja nisajjaṃ kappeyyāti anupavisitvā nisīdeyya, yaṃ tasmiṃ kule sayanigharaṃ, tassa mahācatussālādīsu katassa mahallakassa piṭṭhasaṅghāṭato hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā antosayanassa āsanne ṭhāne, khuddakassa vā vemajjhaṃ atikkamitvā nisīdeyyāti attho, evaṃ nisinnassa pācittiyaṃ.

In the third, sabhojanaṃ means together with both people; in that sabhojana. Alternatively, sabhojane means in mutual enjoyment, for to a man consumed by passion a woman is an object of enjoyment, and to a woman a man; hence in its analysis it says “There is both a woman and a man” and so forth (pāci. 281). Anupakhajja nisajjaṃ kappeyyā means he might sit without intruding, meaning sitting in that family’s sleeping quarters—whether a large four-halled building or the like—beyond arm’s reach from the rear wall, near the inner sleeping area, or in a small one, beyond the middle. Sitting thus incurs a pācittiya offense.

In the third, saha ubhohi janehīti (with two people together) means sabhojanaṃ (eating together), in that sabhojana. Or sabhojaneti (in sabhoga, shared enjoyment), for a man filled with lust, a woman is enjoyment, and for a woman, a man. Therefore, in the explanation of its factors, it is said, “There is a woman and a man,” and so on (pāci. 281). Anupakhajja nisajjaṃ kappeyyāti (should sit down without entering) means should sit down without entering. In that household, what is the sleeping quarters, in the case of a large one built in the great four-sided hall and the others, leaving the hand’s reach from the threshold of the back, in a place near the inner sleeping quarters, or in the case of a small one, going beyond the middle, that is the meaning. For one who sits thus, there is a pācittiya.

In the third rule, saha ubhohi janehīti means sabhojanaṃ, being together with both. Alternatively, sabhojane means being together with a lustful man and woman. Therefore, in the analysis of the word, it is said, “A woman and a man,” etc. (pāci. 281). Anupakhajja nisajjaṃ kappeyyā means sitting down after entering. In a household, whether in a large hall or a small room, sitting near the bed, within arm’s reach of the elder’s seat, or in the middle of a small room, incurs a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ upanandaṃ ārabbha anupakhajja nisajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, asayanighare sayanigharasaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Nasayanigharasaññissa, vuttalakkhaṇaṃ padesaṃ anatikkamitvā nisinnassa, bhikkhusmiṃ dutiyake sati, ubhosu nikkhantesu vā, vītarāgesu vā nisīdantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Avītarāgajāyampatikānaṃ sannihitatā, sayanigharatā, dutiyassa bhikkhuno abhāvo, anupakhajja nisīdananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisānīti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Upananda, this was laid down in the matter of sitting without intruding. It is a common rule, not requiring instruction, incurring a pācittiya offense three times, and a dukkaṭa offense for one who perceives a non-sleeping quarters as sleeping quarters or is uncertain. There is no offense for one who perceives it as not sleeping quarters, sitting without exceeding the described area, when there is a second monk, when both have left, when sitting free of passion, or for those who are insane and the like. The four factors here are: the presence of a passionate husband and wife, the nature of a sleeping quarters, the absence of a second monk, and sitting without intruding. Its origin and the rest are similar to the first pārājika.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda in the case of sitting down without entering. It is a general rule, not a command, a tikapācittiya. For one who has the perception of sleeping quarters in what is not sleeping quarters, or who is doubtful, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who does not have the perception of sleeping quarters, for one who sits without transgressing the place with the stated characteristics, when there is a monk as a second, or when both have gone out, or when those who are free from lust sit down, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offense. The presence of a husband and wife who are not free from lust, being sleeping quarters, the absence of a second monk, and sitting down without entering: these are the four factors here. The arising and the others are similar to those of the first pārājika (offense entailing defeat).

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda. It is a common rule, non-confession-based, and falls under the category of tikapācittiya. For one who perceives a non-bedroom as a bedroom, or is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not perceive it as a bedroom, sitting without crossing the described boundary, with a second monk present, or after both have left, or sitting with those free from lust, incurs no offense for the insane, etc. The four factors here are: the presence of a lustful couple, being in a bedroom, the absence of a second monk, and sitting down after entering. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the first pārājika offense.

Catutthapañcamāni sāvatthiyaṃ upanandaṃ ārabbha paṭicchannāsane ca, raho ca nisajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattāni, sādhāraṇapaññattiyo, etesampi samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisāneva. Seso kathānayo aniyatadvaye vuttanayeneva veditabbo.

The fourth and fifth were laid down at Sāvatthī, concerning Upananda, in the matter of sitting in a concealed place and sitting alone. They are common rules, and their origin and the rest are similar to the first pārājika. The rest of the explanation should be understood as stated in the two indefinite rules.

The fourth and fifth were established in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda in the case of sitting down in a concealed place and in private. They are general rules. The arising and the others of these are also similar to those of the first pārājika. The rest of the explanation should be understood as stated in the two aniyata (undetermined) rules.

The fourth and fifth rules were established in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda, regarding concealed seats and sitting in private. They are common rules, and their origins, etc., are similar to those of the first pārājika offense. The rest of the explanation should be understood in the same way as in the Aniyata section.

The commentary on the Rahopaṭicchanna and Rahonisajja training rules is completed.

The explanation of the secluded, concealed, and private sitting training rules is finished.

The explanation of the Rahopaṭicchanna and Rahonisajja training rules is concluded.

6. Cārittasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Cāritta Training Rule

6. Cārittasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Cāritta Training Rule

Chaṭṭhe nimantitoti pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññatarena nimantito. Sabhatto samānoti teneva nimantanabhattena sabhatto samāno. Santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchāti antoupacārasīmāya dassanūpacāre bhikkhuṃ disvā yaṃ sakkā hoti pakativacanena āpucchituṃ, tādisaṃ “ahaṃ itthannāmassa gharaṃ gacchāmī”ti vā “cārittaṃ āpajjāmī”ti vā īdisena vacanena anāpucchitvā. Purebhattaṃ vā pacchābhattaṃ vāti yena bhattena nimantito, tasmiṃ bhutte vā abhutte vā. Kulesu cārittaṃ āpajjeyyāti yasmiṃ kule nimantito, tato aññāni kulāni paviseyya. Aññatra samayā pācittiyanti sace so bhikkhu vuttalakkhaṇaṃ duvidhampi samayaṃ ṭhapetvā avītivatte majjhanhike aññaṃ kulaṃ pavisati, athassa gharūpacārokkamane dukkaṭaṃ, paṭhamapādena ummāraṃ atikkamantassa aparampi dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyapādena atikkame pācittiyaṃ.

In the sixth, nimantito means invited with one of the five types of food. Sabhatto samāno means being fully provided with that very meal of invitation. Santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā means not informing a monk who is present within the boundary of the vicinity, visible and within reach, whom it is possible to inform with natural speech, such as saying, “I am going to so-and-so’s house,” or “I am engaging in customary visiting,” or similar words, without doing so. Purebhattaṃ vā pacchābhattaṃ vā means either before or after consuming the meal with which he was invited. Kulesu cārittaṃ āpajjeyyā means he enters families other than the one that invited him. Aññatra samayā pācittiya means if that monk, excepting the two specified occasions, enters another family before midday has passed, then upon entering the vicinity of the house there is a dukkaṭa offense, upon crossing the threshold with the first step there is another dukkaṭa offense, and with the second step’s crossing, a pācittiya offense.

In the sixth, invited (nimantito) means invited with one of the five kinds of meals. Having a meal (sabhatto samāno) means having that very meal to which one was invited. Without asking a present bhikkhu (santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā) means, having seen a bhikkhu within the boundary of the immediate vicinity, of a kind whom it is possible to ask with a natural expression, without asking with words such as, “I am going to the house of so-and-so,” or “I am undertaking a journey.” Whether before or after the meal (purebhattaṃ vā pacchābhattaṃ vā) means whether the meal to which one was invited has been eaten or not. Should undertake a visit to families (kulesu cārittaṃ āpajjeyyā) means should enter families other than the one to which one was invited. Except at the right time, there is an offence of expiation (aññatra samayā pācittiyaṃ) means if that bhikkhu, setting aside the two kinds of right time as described, enters another family during midday that has not passed, then for him there is a misdeed (dukkaṭa) on entering the house’s vicinity; there is another misdeed when crossing the threshold with the first foot, and an offence of expiation (pācittiya) when crossing with the second foot.

In the sixth rule, nimantito means invited for any of the five kinds of meals. Sabhatto samāno means being satisfied with that very invitation meal. Santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā means not informing a monk within the boundary of seeing or hearing, when it is possible to inform them with a simple statement, such as “I am going to such-and-such a house” or “I am engaging in cāritta.” Purebhattaṃ vā pacchābhattaṃ vā means before or after the meal for which one is invited. Kulesu cārittaṃ āpajjeyyā means entering other households besides the one to which one is invited. Aññatra samayā pācittiya means that if one enters another household after midday, except during the two specified times, it incurs a dukkaṭa offense when crossing the threshold, another dukkaṭa offense when crossing the lintel, and a pācittiya offense when the second foot crosses.

Rājagahe upanandaṃ ārabbha cārittāpajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “santaṃ bhikkhuṃ, anāpucchā, purebhattaṃ pacchābhattaṃ, aññatra samayā”ti ayamettha catubbidhā anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, animantite nimantitasaññissa, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ animantitasaññissa, samaye santaṃ bhikkhuṃ āpucchitvā, asantaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchitvā pavisato, aññassa gharena vā gharūpacārena vā maggo hoti, tena gacchato, antarārāmabhikkhunupassayatitthiyaseyyapaṭikkamanabhattiyagharāni gacchato, āpadāsu, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññatarena nimantanasādiyanaṃ, santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchanā, bhattiyagharato aññagharappavisanaṃ, majjhanhikānatikkamo, samayassa vā āpadānaṃ vā abhāvoti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathinasadisāneva, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

This was prescribed in Rājagaha concerning Upananda, regarding the matter of engaging in customary visiting. “A monk who is present, without informing, before or after the meal, except on specific occasions”—this is the fourfold non-prescription here, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For one not invited but perceiving himself as invited, or one uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one perceiving himself as not invited, entering after informing a present monk, or entering without informing an absent monk, or going by a path through another’s house or its vicinity, or going to an inner monastery, a nuns’ quarters, a heretics’ resting place, or a meal-giving house, or in emergencies, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The five factors here are: accepting an invitation with one of the five types of food, not informing a present monk, entering a house other than the meal-giving one, not passing midday, and the absence of specific occasions or emergencies. The origin and so forth are exactly like those of the first kathina rule, but this involves action and inaction.

It was promulgated in Rājagaha concerning Upananda in the case of undertaking a visit, with the fourfold subsequent promulgation of “a present bhikkhu, without asking, before the meal or after the meal, except at the right time.” It is a general promulgation, not requiring a command, a triple offence of expiation. For one who, when not invited, thinks he is invited, or who is doubtful, there is a misdeed. For one who thinks he is not invited, or when it is the right time, after asking a present bhikkhu, or without asking a bhikkhu who is not present, or if the way is by another’s house or the vicinity of a house, or when going to the houses of those providing continuous alms, bhikkhus in the inner monastery, uposatha-houses, places of the sectarians, or when returning, or in times of danger, or for the insane, and so on, there is no offence. The acceptance of an invitation for one of the five kinds of meals, not asking a present bhikkhu, entering a house other than the one providing the meal, not passing midday, and the absence of the right time or danger are the five factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to the first spread-out cloth (kathina). But this is an action/non-action.

This rule was established in Rājagaha concerning Upananda. The four additional rules here are: “when a monk is present,” “not informing,” “before or after the meal,” and “except during the specified times.” It is a common rule, non-confession-based, and falls under the category of tikapācittiya. For one who perceives an uninvited household as invited, or is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not perceive it as invited, entering after informing a present monk or without informing an absent monk, or entering another household for a path or road, or passing through a monastery, nun’s quarters, or a household of a female disciple, incurs no offense for the insane, etc. The five factors here are: accepting an invitation for any of the five kinds of meals, not informing a present monk, entering another household, not crossing midday, and the absence of a specified time or emergency. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the first kathina offense. This, however, is a matter of action and inaction.

7. Mahānāmasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Mahānāma Training Rule

7. The Explanation of the Mahānāma Training Rule

7. Explanation of the Mahānāma Training Rule

Sattame catumāsappaccayapavāraṇāti cattāro māse gilānappaccayapavāraṇā, sabbañcetaṃ vatthuvasena vuttaṃ. Ayaṃ panettha attho – catumāsapavāraṇā vā hotu, punapavāraṇā vā, niccapavāraṇā vā, sabbāpi sāditabbā, “idāni mama rogo natthī”ti na paṭikkhipitabbā, “roge pana sati viññāpessāmī”ti adhivāsetabbāti. Tato ce uttari sādiyeyyāti ettha sace tattha rattīhi vā bhesajjehi vā paricchedo kato hoti “ettakāyeva rattiyo, ettakāni vā bhesajjāni viññāpetabbānī”ti, atha tato rattipariyantato vā bhesajjapariyantato vā uttari, na bhesajjakaraṇīyena vā bhesajjaṃ, aññabhesajjakaraṇīyena vā aññaṃ bhesajjaṃ viññāpentassa pācittiyaṃ.

In the seventh, catumāsappaccayapavāraṇā means an invitation for requisites for the sick for four months, and all this is stated in terms of its basis. The meaning here is this: whether it is an invitation for four months, a renewed invitation, or a perpetual invitation, all should be accepted; it should not be refused with, “I have no illness now,” but should be agreed to with, “When there is illness, I will request it.” Tato ce uttari sādiyeyyā means if there is a limit set there by nights or medicines—“only this many nights, or this many medicines may be requested”—then requesting beyond that limit of nights or medicines, or requesting medicine without a medicinal need, or requesting another medicine for a different medicinal need, incurs a pācittiya offense.

In the seventh, an invitation for requisites for four months (catumāsappaccayapavāraṇā) means an invitation for requisites for the sick for four months; all this is said with reference to the case. The meaning here is this: whether it is an invitation for four months, a repeated invitation, or a permanent invitation, all should be accepted. It should not be rejected, thinking, “Now I have no illness.” One should consent, thinking, “But when there is illness, I will request.” If he should accept beyond that (tato ce uttari sādiyeyyā), here, if a limit has been set there in terms of nights or medicines, “Only so many nights, or so many medicines are to be requested,” then beyond that limit of nights or limit of medicines, requesting a medicine not for the purpose of medicine, or requesting another medicine for the purpose of another medicine, there is an offence of expiation.

In the seventh rule, catumāsappaccayapavāraṇā means the four-month allowance for the sick. All of this is stated in relation to the subject matter. The meaning here is that whether it is a four-month allowance, a renewed allowance, or a permanent allowance, all should be accepted. One should not refuse it, thinking, “I am not sick now,” but should accept it, thinking, “If I become sick, I will inform them.” Tato ce uttari sādiyeyyā means that if a limit has been set there, such as a certain number of nights or medicines, then exceeding that limit, whether in nights or medicines, incurs a pācittiya offense.

Sakkesu chabbaggiye ārabbha bhesajjaviññāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, natatuttari tatuttarisaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Natatuttari natatuttarisaññissa, yehi bhesajjehi pavārito, tato aññehi vā adhikatarehi vā atthe sati, yāsu ca rattīsu pavārito, tā atikkamitvāpi atthe sati yathābhūtaṃ ācikkhitvā viññāpentassa, ye ca ñātake vā puggalikappavāraṇāya pavārite vā apariyantapavāraṇāya vā pavārite, aññassa vā atthāya, attano vā dhanena viññāpenti, tesaṃ, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Saṅghapavāraṇatā, tato bhesajjaviññatti, agilānatā, pariyantātikkamoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni sañcarittasadisānīti.

This was prescribed among the Sakyans concerning the Group of Six, regarding the matter of requesting medicine, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For one perceiving more than what is there when there is not more, or one uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one perceiving not more than what is there, requesting other or additional medicines beyond those invited when there is a need, or requesting beyond the nights invited when there is a need after stating the facts as they are, or those requesting from relatives, or from an individual invitation, or an unlimited invitation, or for another’s sake, or with their own wealth, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The four factors here are: the invitation by the Saṅgha, requesting medicine beyond it, absence of illness, and exceeding the limit. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the rule on wandering.

It was promulgated in Sakkesu concerning the group of six in the case of requesting medicine, a general promulgation, not requiring a command, a triple offence of expiation. For one who does not exceed that limit but thinks that he does, or who is doubtful, there is a misdeed. For one who thinks he does not exceed that limit, when there is a need for other medicines than those for which he was invited, or more, and even when he has exceeded the nights for which he was invited, when there is a need, having explained the actual situation, requesting, and for those who request for relatives, or for those invited with a personal invitation, or for those invited with an unlimited invitation, or for the sake of another, or with their own wealth, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offence. The invitation by the Saṅgha, the request for medicine beyond that, the absence of illness, and exceeding the limit are the four factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to that of social intercourse.

This rule was established among the Sakyans concerning the Chabbaggiya monks, regarding the request for medicine. It is a common rule, non-confession-based, and falls under the category of tikapācittiya. For one who perceives an excess as not excessive, or is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not perceive it as excessive, requesting other or additional medicines beyond what was allowed, or informing truthfully after the allowed nights have passed, or for relatives or those with personal allowances or unlimited allowances, or for the sake of another or one’s own wealth, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The four factors here are: the allowance by the Sangha, the request for medicine, not being sick, and exceeding the limit. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the offense of frequenting.

8. Uyyuttasenāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning a Deployed Army

8. The Explanation of the Training Rule on an Army on the March

8. Explanation of the Uyyuttasena Training Rule

Aṭṭhame uyyuttanti katauyyogaṃ, gāmato nikkhantanti attho. Senanti caturaṅginiṃ. Aññatra tathārūpappaccayāti tathārūpe kāraṇe asati kevalaṃ senaṃ dassanatthāya gacchato pade pade dukkaṭaṃ, dassanūpacāre ṭhatvā passato pācittiyaṃ. Dassanūpacāro nāma yattha ṭhito passati, taṃ pana vijahitvā punappunaṃ passato payoge payoge pācittiyaṃ.

In the eighth, uyyutta means deployed, having set out, meaning departed from the village. Sena means an army with four divisions. Aññatra tathārūpappaccayā means without such a reason, going merely to see the army incurs a dukkaṭa offense with each step; standing within sight and watching incurs a pācittiya offense. Dassanūpacāro means the range of sight where one stands and sees, but watching repeatedly after leaving that range incurs a pācittiya offense for each action.

In the eighth, on the march (uyyutta) means having made the march, meaning having departed from the village. Army (senā) means one with four divisions. Except for a similar reason (aññatra tathārūpappaccayā) means, going merely for the sake of seeing the army when there is no such reason, there is a misdeed for each step; for one who stands in the vicinity of observation and watches, there is an offence of expiation. The vicinity of observation (dassanūpacāro) is where one stands and watches, but abandoning that and watching again and again, there is an offence of expiation for each effort.

In the eighth rule, uyyutta means prepared for battle, having left the village. Sena means the fourfold army. Aññatra tathārūpappaccayā means that without such a reason, merely going to see the army incurs a dukkaṭa offense at each step, and a pācittiya offense when standing within the range of sight. Dassanūpacāro means the range within which one can see while standing. If one moves away and looks again, each act incurs a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha senādassanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra tathārūpappaccayā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, hatthiādīsu ekamekaṃ dassanāya gamane vuttanayeneva dukkaṭaṃ, tathā anuyyutte uyyuttasaññino, vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Anuyyuttasaññino pana, ārāme ṭhatvā attano ṭhitokāsaṃ āgataṃ, paṭipathaṃ āgacchantañca passato, tathārūpappaccaye, āpadāsu, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Uyyuttasenaṃ dassanatthāya gamanaṃ, anuññātokāsato aññatra dassanaṃ, tathārūpappaccayassa āpadāya vā abhāvoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisāni, idaṃ pana lokavajjaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Six, regarding the matter of viewing an army. “Except for such a reason”—this is the non-prescription here, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. Going to see an elephant and so forth individually incurs a dukkaṭa offense as stated, and for one perceiving a deployed army when it is not deployed, or one uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one perceiving it as not deployed, watching from the monastery what comes to his standing place or approaches on the path, or with such a reason, or in emergencies, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The four factors here are: going to see a deployed army, watching from a place other than an authorized one, and the absence of such a reason or emergency. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the eḷakaloma rule, but this is a worldly fault, with unwholesome consciousness and threefold feeling.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six in the case of watching the army, with the subsequent promulgation of “except for a similar reason.” It is a general promulgation, not requiring a command, a triple offence of expiation. For going to see each one of the elephants, etc., there is a misdeed as stated. Likewise, for one who thinks an army not on the march is on the march, and for one who is doubtful, there is a misdeed. But for one who thinks it is not on the march, for one who stands in the monastery and watches it coming to the place where he is standing, or coming along the road, and for a similar reason, in times of danger, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offence. Going for the sake of seeing an army on the march, watching from a place other than the permitted place, and the absence of a similar reason or danger are the four factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to the sheep’s wool; but this is blameworthy in the world, unwholesome thought, and a threefold feeling.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the Chabbaggiya monks, regarding seeing the army. The additional rule here is: “except for such a reason.” It is a common rule, non-confession-based, and falls under the category of tikapācittiya. For going to see elephants, etc., one by one, the offense is as stated. Similarly, for one who perceives a non-battle as a battle, or is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not perceive it as a battle, seeing from within the monastery, or seeing on the path, or in such a case, or in an emergency, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The four factors here are: going to see a battle-ready army, seeing beyond the permitted area, the absence of such a reason, or an emergency. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the offense of pulling out eyelashes. This, however, is a worldly matter, an unwholesome mind, and threefold feeling.

9. Senāvāsasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Lodging with an Army

9. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Residence with an Army

9. Explanation of the Senāvāsa Training Rule

Navame tato ce uttarīti tirattato uttari catutthadivase atthaṅgate sūriye senāya tiṭṭhatu vā nisīdatu vā sayatu vā, sacepi ākāse iddhiyā kañci iriyāpathaṃ kappeti, pācittiyameva.

In the ninth, tato ce uttarī means if, beyond three nights, on the fourth day after sunset, one stays, sits, or lies with the army, or even performs any posture in the air with psychic power, it is a pācittiya offense.

In the ninth, if beyond that (tato ce uttarī) means beyond three nights, on the fourth day at sunset, whether the army is standing, sitting, or lying down, even if one adopts any posture in the sky by psychic power, it is still an offence of expiation.

In the ninth rule, tato ce uttarī means beyond three nights, on the fourth day after sunset, staying, sitting, or lying down with the army, or even performing any posture in the sky by psychic power, incurs a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha atirekatirattaṃ senāya vasanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ūnakatiratte atirekasaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Ūnakasaññissa, tatiyāya rattiyā purāruṇā nikkhamitvā puna vasato, gilānassa vā gilānakaraṇīyena vā vasato, paṭisenāruddhāya senāya, kenaci palibuddhassa, āpadāsu, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Tirattātikkamo, senāya sūriyassa atthaṅgamo, gilānatādīnaṃ abhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānevāti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Six, regarding the matter of staying with an army beyond three nights, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For one perceiving more than three nights when it is less, or one uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one perceiving less, departing before dawn on the third night and staying again, or staying when ill or for an ill person’s need, or with an army held back by opposition, or obstructed by something, or in emergencies, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The three factors here are: exceeding three nights, the army’s presence after sunset, and the absence of illness and so forth. The origin and so forth are exactly like those of the eḷakaloma rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six in the case of residing with an army for more than three nights, a general promulgation, not requiring a command, a triple offence of expiation. For one who thinks it is more than three nights when it is less, or who is doubtful, there is a misdeed. For one who thinks it is less, having left before dawn on the third night and residing again, or for one who is ill or residing for the sake of the sick, or for an army surrounded by an opposing army, or for one obstructed by something, in times of danger, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offence. Exceeding three nights, the setting of the sun with the army, and the absence of illness, etc. are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to the sheep’s wool.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the Chabbaggiya monks, regarding staying with the army beyond three nights. It is a common rule, non-confession-based, and falls under the category of tikapācittiya. For one who perceives less than three nights as more, or is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not perceive it as more, leaving before dawn on the third night and returning, or staying due to illness or for the sake of the sick, or being detained by the army, or in an emergency, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: exceeding three nights, the setting of the sun while with the army, and the absence of illness, etc. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the offense of pulling out eyelashes.

The commentary on the training rule concerning lodging with an army is concluded.

10. Uyyodhikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Military Activity

10. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Battle Array

10. Explanation of the Uyyodhika Training Rule

Dasame uggantvā uggantvā ettha yujjhantīti uyyodhikaṃ, sampahāraṭṭhānassetaṃ nāmaṃ. Balassa aggaṃ jānanti etthāti balaggaṃ, balagaṇanaṭṭhānanti attho. Senāya viyūhaṃ senābyūhaṃ, senānivesassetaṃ nāmaṃ. Anīkassa dassanaṃ anīkadassanaṃ. Anīkaṃ nāma “dvādasapuriso hatthī, tipuriso asso, catuppuriso ratho”tiiminā (pāci. 314) lakkhaṇena tayo hatthī pacchimakaṃ hatthānīkaṃ, assānīkarathānīkesupi eseva nayo. Cattāro pana āvudhahatthā purisā pacchimakaṃ pattānīkaṃ. Etesu yaṃkiñci dassanāya gacchato pade pade dukkaṭaṃ, dassanūpacāre ṭhatvā passato pācittiyaṃ, upacāraṃ pana vijahitvā punappunaṃ passato payoge payoge pācittiyaṃ. Sesaṃ uyyuttasenāsikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ, āpattibhedo panettha natthevāti.

In the tenth, rising and rising again they fight here—thus uyyodhikaṃ, a term for the place of combat. They know the strength’s peak here—thus balaggaṃ, meaning the place for counting strength. The army’s formation—senābyūhaṃ, a term for the army’s encampment. Seeing a military unit—anīkadassanaṃ. Anīkaṃ means a unit defined by (pāci. 314) “an elephant with twelve men, a horse with three men, a chariot with four men”—three elephants make the smallest elephant unit, and the same applies to horse and chariot units; four armed men make the smallest infantry unit. Going to see any of these incurs a dukkaṭa offense with each step; standing within sight and watching incurs a pācittiya offense; watching repeatedly after leaving the range incurs a pācittiya offense for each action. The rest should be understood as stated in the training rule on a deployed army, but there is no distinction in offenses here.

In the tenth, where they fight repeatedly, that is battle array (uyyodhikaṃ); this is the name for the place of fighting. Where they know the front of the force, that is vanguard (balaggaṃ), meaning the place of counting the force. The deployment of the army is army deployment (senābyūhaṃ); this is the name for the army camp. The sight of a division is division sight (anīkadassanaṃ). Division (anīkaṃ) means “a twelve-man elephant, a three-man horse, a four-man chariot”; by this (pāci. 314) definition, three elephants are the minimum elephant division; the same applies to horse divisions and chariot divisions. But four men with weapons in their hands are the minimum infantry division. For going to see any of these, there is a misdeed for each step; for one who stands in the vicinity of observation and watches, there is an offence of expiation; but abandoning the vicinity and watching again and again, there is an offence of expiation for each effort. The rest should be understood as stated in the training rule on an army on the march; there is no difference in offences here.

In the tenth, repeatedly going and fighting there is called uyyodhikaṃ, this is the name for a place of combat. They know the highest point of strength there, thus it is called balaggaṃ, meaning a place for counting strength. The arrangement of the army is called senābyūhaṃ, this is the name for a military encampment. Seeing the army is called anīkadassanaṃ. Anīkaṃ is defined as “twelve men for an elephant, three men for a horse, four men for a chariot” (pāci. 314). By this definition, three elephants form the rear elephant unit, and the same applies to horse and chariot units. Four armed men form the rear infantry unit. For one who goes to see any of these, at each step it is a minor offense (dukkaṭaṃ); standing within sight to observe is a serious offense (pācittiyaṃ); if one repeatedly observes after leaving the vicinity, each attempt is a serious offense. The rest should be understood in the same way as explained in the training rule on the active army. However, there is no distinction in offenses here.

6. Surāpānavaggo

6. Section on Drinking Alcohol

6. The Chapter on Drinking Intoxicants

6. The Surāpāna Vagga

1. Surāpānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Drinking Alcohol

1. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Drinking Intoxicants

1. Explanation of the Training Rule on Drinking Alcohol

Surāpānavaggassa paṭhame surāmerayapāneti ettha piṭṭhādīhi kataṃ majjaṃ surā, pupphādīhi kato āsavo merayaṃ, tadubhayampi bījato paṭṭhāya kusaggenāpi pivato payoge payoge pācittiyaṃ.

In the first of the section on drinking alcohol, surāmerayapāne means liquor made from flour and the like is surā, a fermented drink made from flowers and the like is meraya; drinking either, even with the tip of a blade of grass from the seed onward, incurs a pācittiya offense for each action.

In the first of the chapter on drinking intoxicants, in drinking liquor and fermented brews (surāmerayapāne), liquor (surā) is alcohol made from flour, etc., fermented brew (meraya) is a brew made from flowers, etc.; for drinking even a blade of kusa grass from the seed of either of these, there is an offence of expiation for each effort.

In the first rule of the Surāpāna Vagga, surāmerayapāne refers to intoxicants made from flour, etc., called surā, and fermented drinks made from flowers, etc., called merayaṃ. Both of these, from the seed stage onwards, if consumed even with a blade of grass, each attempt is a serious offense.

Kosambiyaṃ sāgatattheraṃ ārabbha majjapivanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, amajje majjasaññissa, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Amajjasaññissa, amajjaṃ majjavaṇṇagandharasaṃ loṇasovīrakaṃ vā suttaṃ vā pivato, vāsaggāhāpanatthaṃ īsakaṃ majjaṃ pakkhipitvā sūpādīni pacanti, tesu sūpasampākādīsu , āmalakarasādīhi amajjaṃ majjasadisaṃ ariṭṭhaṃ karonti, taṃ pivato, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Majjabhāvo, tassa pānañcāti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisāni, idaṃ pana lokavajjaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was prescribed in Kosambī concerning the Elder Sāgata, regarding the matter of drinking liquor, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For one perceiving it as liquor when it is not, or one uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one perceiving it as not liquor, drinking something non-alcoholic with the color, smell, or taste of liquor, such as salty sauce or fermented broth, or something cooked with a little liquor added for flavor like soups, or non-alcoholic ariṭṭha made with sour fruit juice resembling liquor, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The two factors here are: its status as liquor and drinking it. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the eḷakaloma rule, but this is a worldly fault, with unwholesome consciousness and threefold feeling.

It was promulgated in Kosambī concerning the venerable Sāgata in the case of drinking alcohol, a general promulgation, not requiring a command, a triple offence of expiation. For one who thinks it is not alcohol when it is, or who is doubtful, there is a misdeed. For one who thinks it is not alcohol, drinking salt-sour gruel or sutta that has the color, smell, and taste of alcohol, or when they cook soups, etc., adding a little alcohol for flavoring, in those soups, etc. , or when they make a non-alcoholic ariṭṭha similar to alcohol with āmalaka juice, etc., and drink it, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offence. Being alcohol, and drinking it are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to the sheep’s wool; but this is blameworthy in the world, unwholesome thought, and a threefold feeling.

This rule was established in Kosambī concerning the elder Sāgata, who drank alcohol. It is a general rule, non-announced, and falls under the category of serious offenses. For one who perceives alcohol as non-alcohol, or is in doubt, it is a minor offense. For one who perceives non-alcohol as alcohol, or drinks non-alcoholic substances resembling alcohol in color, smell, or taste, such as salty or bitter liquids, or drinks prepared with a small amount of alcohol for medicinal purposes, or drinks made to resemble alcohol with ingredients like āmalaka juice, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The two factors here are the nature of alcohol and the act of drinking. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing. This is a worldly offense, arising from an unwholesome mind, and results in three types of feelings.

2. Aṅgulipatodakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Tickling with Fingers

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Tickling with the Fingers

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Tickling

Dutiye aṅgulipatodaketi aṅgulīhi upakacchakādighaṭṭanaṃ vuccati, apica yena kenaci sarīrāvayavena hasādhippāyassa upasampannaṃ phusato pācittiyaṃ.

In the second, aṅgulipatodake means tickling with the fingers, such as rubbing against the armpit or the like; moreover, touching an ordained person with any part of the body with the intent to amuse incurs a pācittiya offense.

In the second, tickling with the fingers (aṅgulipatodake) means rubbing with the fingers under the armpits, etc.; but touching a fully ordained person with any part of the body with the intention of play, there is an offence of expiation.

In the second rule, aṅgulipatodake refers to tickling with fingers in the armpits, etc. Moreover, touching any part of the body of an ordained person with the intention of causing laughter is a serious offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha aṅgulipatodakena hasanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ, idha pana bhikkhunīpi bhikkhussa, bhikkhu ca bhikkhuniyā anupasampanno eva, kāyappaṭibaddhādīsu sabbattha dukkaṭameva. Na hasanādhippāyassa, sati karaṇīye āmasato, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Hasādhippāyatā, upasampannassa kāyena kāyāmasananti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisānevāti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Six, regarding the matter of tickling with fingers to amuse, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. With an unordained person, there are three dukkaṭa offenses. Here, a nun is considered unordained to a monk, and a monk to a nun; in all cases involving bodily contact and the like, it is merely a dukkaṭa offense. For one without intent to amuse, touching when there is a task to do, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The two factors here are: intent to amuse and touching an ordained person’s body with the body. The origin and so forth are exactly like those of the first pārājika rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six in the case of playing by tickling with the fingers, a general promulgation, not requiring a command, a triple offence of expiation. For a non-fully ordained person, there is a triple misdeed; but here, even a bhikkhunī for a bhikkhu, and a bhikkhu for a bhikkhunī are considered not fully ordained; in all cases of things connected to the body, etc., there is only a misdeed. For one who does not intend play, touching when there is something to be done, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offence. The intention to play, and touching the body of a fully ordained person with the body are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to the first grave offence.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks, who tickled others to make them laugh. It is a general rule, non-announced, and falls under the category of serious offenses. For an unordained person, it is a minor offense. Here, a nun tickling a monk, or a monk tickling an unordained nun, is always a minor offense. If there is no intention to cause laughter, but one touches for a necessary purpose, or if the person is insane, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are the intention to cause laughter and touching the body of an ordained person. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the first pārājika offense.

The commentary on the training rule concerning tickling with fingers is concluded.

3. Hasadhammasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Amusement in Water

3. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Playful Behavior

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Playing in Water

Tatiye udake hasadhammeti udakakīḷā vuccati. Tasmā yo bhikkhu uparigopphake udakeyeva gacchanto hasādhippāyo nimujjati vā ummujjati vā, tassa nimujjanādīnaṃ atthāya otarantassa hatthavāre padavāre dukkaṭaṃ, nimujjanummujjanesu payoge payoge pācittiyaṃ, nimujjitvā antoudakeyeva gacchantassa hatthavārapadavāresu, tarantassa vā yena yena aṅgena tarati, tassa tassa payoge payoge pācittiyaṃ.

In the third, udake hasadhamme means playing in water. Thus, if a monk, going only into ankle-deep water with the intent to amuse, dives or emerges, there is a dukkaṭa offense for each hand or foot movement when descending for diving or emerging; for diving or emerging, a pācittiya offense for each action; while moving underwater after diving, a pācittiya offense for each hand or foot movement; or while crossing with whatever limb he uses, a pācittiya offense for each action of that limb.

In the third, playful behavior in the water (udake hasadhamme) means playing in the water. Therefore, a bhikkhu who, going only in water above the ankles, with the intention of play, dives or surfaces, for him, in the act of descending for the sake of diving, etc., there is a misdeed on the occasion of using the hands or feet; in diving and surfacing, there is an offence of expiation for each effort; for one who dives and goes within the water, on the occasions of using the hands or feet, or for one who swims, with whichever limb he swims, there is an offence of expiation for each effort of that limb.

In the third rule, udake hasadhamme refers to playing in water. Therefore, if a monk, intending to cause laughter, dives or surfaces in water above the knees, for each attempt to dive or surface, it is a serious offense. If he swims across, for each limb used to swim, it is a serious offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sattarasavaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha udake kīḷanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, udake ahasadhamme hasadhammasaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ, tathā nāvāya kīḷato hatthena vā pādena vā kaṭṭhena vā kathalāya vā udakaṃ paharato, bhājanagataṃ udakaṃ vā kañjikādīni vā cikkhallaṃ vā khipanakīḷāya kīḷato dukkaṭaṃ. Atthajotakaṃ pana akkharaṃ chindituṃ vaṭṭati. Na hasādhippāyassa, sati karaṇīye otaritvā nimujjanādīni karontassa, pāraṃ gacchato, āpadāsu, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Uparigopphakatā, hasādhippāyena kīḷananti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisānīti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Seventeen monks, regarding the matter of playing in water, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For one perceiving amusement in water when there is none, or one uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa offense; likewise, for playing on a boat, striking water with hand, foot, stick, or potsherd, or playing by splashing water, buttermilk, or mud from a vessel, there is a dukkaṭa offense. However, it is permissible to break a letter to reveal meaning. For one without intent to amuse, diving or emerging when there is a task, crossing to the other side, and in emergencies, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The two factors here are: being above the ankles and playing with intent to amuse. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the first pārājika rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of seventeen bhikkhus in the case of playing in the water, a general promulgation, not requiring a command, a triple offence of expiation. For one who thinks there is playful behavior in the water when there is not, or who is doubtful, there is a misdeed; likewise, for one who plays with a boat, or strikes the water with his hand, foot, a piece of wood, or a potsherd, or for one who plays by throwing water contained in a vessel, or sour gruel, etc., or mud, there is a misdeed. But it is permissible to break a written character that illuminates a meaning. For one who does not intend play, descending and diving, etc. when there is something to be done, going to the far shore, in times of danger, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offence. Being above the ankles, and playing with the intention of play are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to the first grave offence.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning a group of seventeen monks who played in water. It is a general rule, non-announced, and falls under the category of serious offenses. For one who perceives non-playful water as playful, or is in doubt, it is a minor offense. Similarly, playing in a boat by striking the water with hands, feet, sticks, or poles, or throwing water, rice gruel, mud, etc., for fun, is a minor offense. However, it is permissible to cut a letter for clarification. If there is no intention to cause laughter, but one enters the water for a necessary purpose, or if the person is insane, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are water above the knees and playing with the intention to cause laughter. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the first pārājika offense.

4. Anādariyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Disrespect

4. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Disrespect

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Disrespect

Catutthe anādariyeti puggalassa vā dhammassa vā anādarakaraṇe. Tasmā yo bhikkhu upasampannena paññattena vuccamāno tassa vā vacanaṃ akattukāmatāya, taṃ vā dhammaṃ asikkhitukāmatāya anādariyaṃ karoti, tassa tasmiṃ anādariye pācittiyaṃ.

In the fourth, anādariye means showing disrespect toward a person or the Dhamma. Thus, if a monk, when spoken to by an ordained person with a prescribed statement, shows disrespect out of unwillingness to follow that statement or to learn that Dhamma, there is a pācittiya offense for that disrespect.

In the fourth, in disrespect (anādariye) means showing disrespect to a person or to the Dhamma. Therefore, a bhikkhu who, being spoken to by a fully ordained person with a regulation, shows disrespect through unwillingness to do his word, or through unwillingness to learn that Dhamma, for him, in that disrespect, there is an offence of expiation.

In the fourth rule, anādariye refers to showing disrespect towards a person or the Dhamma. Therefore, if a monk, being addressed by an ordained person regarding a rule, shows disrespect by not wishing to comply with the instruction or not wishing to learn the Dhamma, it is a serious offense.

Kosambiyaṃ channattheraṃ ārabbha anādariyakaraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ, upasampannena vā anupasampannena vā “idaṃ na sallekhāya saṃvattatī”tiādinā nayena apaññattena vuccamānassa anādariyepi dukkaṭameva. Paveṇiāgataṃ pana uggahaṃ gahetvā “evaṃ amhākaṃ ācariyānaṃ uggaho paripucchā”ti (pāci. 344) bhaṇantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannassa paññattena vacanaṃ, anādariyakaraṇanti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

This was prescribed in Kosambī concerning the Elder Channa, regarding the matter of showing disrespect, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. With an unordained person, there are three dukkaṭa offenses. For one spoken to by an ordained or unordained person with an unprescribed statement like, “This does not lead to effacement,” and showing disrespect, it is merely a dukkaṭa offense. However, for one taking up a traditional recitation and saying, “This is the recitation and inquiry of our teachers” (pāci. 344), and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The two factors here are: a statement prescribed by an ordained person and showing disrespect. The origin and so forth are similar to those of taking what is not given, but this involves painful feeling.

It was promulgated in Kosambī concerning the venerable Channa in the case of showing disrespect, a general promulgation, not requiring a command, a triple offence of expiation. For a non-fully ordained person, there is a triple misdeed; even for one who is spoken to by a fully ordained or non-fully ordained person with something not a regulation, saying, “This does not conduce to scrupulousness,” etc., in disrespect, there is only a misdeed. But for one who, having taken up a traditional learning, says, “Thus is the learning and questioning of our teachers” (pāci. 344), and for the insane, and so on, there is no offence. The speaking by a fully ordained person with a regulation, and showing disrespect are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to taking what is not given; but this is a painful feeling.

This rule was established in Kosambī concerning the elder Channa, who showed disrespect. It is a general rule, non-announced, and falls under the category of serious offenses. For an unordained person, it is a minor offense. If an ordained or unordained person addresses someone with a non-established rule, saying, “This does not lead to purification,” etc., showing disrespect is a minor offense. However, if one follows the tradition and says, “This is how our teachers learned and inquired,” (pāci. 344), there is no offense for the insane, etc. The two factors here are being addressed by an ordained person regarding a rule and showing disrespect. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing. This results in painful feelings.

5. Bhiṃsāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Frightening

5. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Frightening

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Frightening

Pañcame bhiṃsāpeyyāti bhiṃsāpanatthaṃ rūpādīni upasaṃhareyya, bhayānakakathaṃ vā katheyya. So pana bhāyatu vā, mā vā, itarassa pācittiyaṃ.

In the fifth, bhiṃsāpeyyā means presenting forms and so forth to frighten, or telling a terrifying story. Whether the other is frightened or not, it is a pācittiya offense for the one doing it.

In the fifth, should frighten (bhiṃsāpeyya) means should present forms, etc. for the sake of frightening, or should tell a frightening story. But whether he is frightened or not, for the other, there is an offence of expiation.

In the fifth rule, bhiṃsāpeyyā means one who gathers forms, etc., to frighten another, or tells frightening stories. Whether the other is frightened or not, it is a serious offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha bhiṃsāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ. Anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ, na bhiṃsāpetukāmassa tathā karoto, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannatā, tassa dassanasavanavisaye bhiṃsāpetukāmatāya vāyāmananti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni anantarasikkhāpadasadisānevāti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Six monks, regarding the matter of frightening, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. With an unordained person, there are three dukkaṭa offenses. For one doing so without intent to frighten, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The two factors here are: the ordained status and effort with intent to frighten within the other’s sight or hearing range. The origin and so forth are exactly like those of the previous training rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six bhikkhus in the case of frightening, a general promulgation, not requiring a command, a triple offence of expiation. For a non-fully ordained person, there is a triple misdeed; for one who does so without the intention to frighten, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offence. Being fully ordained, and striving with the intention to frighten within the range of his sight and hearing are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to the previous training rule.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks, who frightened others. It is a general rule, non-announced, and falls under the category of serious offenses. For an unordained person, it is a minor offense. If one does not intend to frighten but acts in such a way, or if the person is insane, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are being ordained and the effort to frighten through sight or sound. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the immediately preceding training rule.

6. Jotisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Fire

6. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Fire

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Fire

Chaṭṭhe visibbanāpekkhoti tappitukāmo. Samādaheyyāti jāleyya, aññatra tathārūpappaccayāti padīpujjālanaṃ vā pattapacanādīsu jotikaraṇaṃ vāti evarūpaṃ paccayaṃ vinā. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – sayaṃ samādahantassa araṇisaṇṭhāpanato paṭṭhāya yāva jālā na uṭṭhahati, tāva sabbappayogesu dukkaṭaṃ, jāluṭṭhāne pācittiyaṃ. Samādahāpentassa āṇattiyā dukkaṭaṃ, sakiṃ āṇattena bahumpi samādahite ekameva pācittiyaṃ.

In the sixth, visibbanāpekkho means desiring to warm oneself. Samādaheyyā means kindling, aññatra tathārūpappaccayā means without such a reason as lighting a lamp or making a fire for cooking a bowl and the like. The judgment here is this: for one kindling it himself, from placing the fire-stick onward until the flame arises, there is a dukkaṭa offense for all actions; when the flame arises, a pācittiya offense. For one having it kindled, there is a dukkaṭa offense upon ordering; with a single order, even if kindled multiple times, it is one pācittiya offense.

In the sixth, not wishing to warm oneself (visibbanāpekkho) means wishing to get warm. Should light (samādaheyyā) means should kindle; except for a similar reason (aññatra tathārūpappaccayā) means without a reason such as kindling a lamp, or making a fire for cooking pots, etc. Here is the decision: for one who lights it himself, from placing the fire-sticks up to the time the flame arises, there is a misdeed in all efforts; when the flame arises, there is an offence of expiation. For one who causes it to be lit, there is a misdeed for the command; if much is lit with a single command, there is only one offence of expiation.

In the sixth rule, visibbanāpekkho means one who desires to warm oneself. Samādaheyyā means to light a fire, aññatra tathārūpappaccayā means without a proper reason such as lighting a lamp or cooking. Here, the determination is as follows: for one who lights a fire oneself, from placing the kindling until the flame arises, all attempts are minor offenses; when the flame arises, it is a serious offense. For one who orders another to light a fire, it is a minor offense; if many fires are lit with a single order, it is one serious offense.

Bhaggesu sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha jotiṃ samādahitvā visibbanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “agilāno, aññatra tathārūpappaccayā”ti imānettha dve anupaññattiyo, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, gilānassa agilānasaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ, tathā paṭilātaṃ ukkhipantassa, tañca avijjhātaṃ ukkhipitvā yathāṭhāne ṭhapentassa. Vijjhātaṃ pana jālayato pācittiyameva. Gilānassa gilānasaññissa , aññena kataṃ vā vītaccitaṅgāraṃ vā visibbentassa, padīpajotikajantāgharādike tathārūpappaccaye, āpadāsu, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Agilānatā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvo, visibbetukāmatā, samādahananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni sañcaritte vuttanayeneva veditabbānīti.

This was prescribed among the Bhaggas concerning several monks who kindled a fire to warm themselves, regarding that matter. “Not ill, except for such a reason”—these are the two non-prescriptions here, a general prescription, requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For an ill person perceiving himself as not ill, or one uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa offense; likewise, for lifting an unlit firebrand and placing it back where it was after lifting it unlit. But kindling one that is lit incurs a pācittiya offense. For an ill person perceiving himself as ill, warming with a fire made by another or extinguished embers, or with such a reason as a lamp, fire, or bathhouse, and in emergencies, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The four factors here are: not being ill, absence of an authorized reason, desire to warm oneself, and kindling. The origin and so forth should be understood as stated in the rule on wandering.

It was promulgated among many bhikkhus in Bhagga in the case of lighting a fire and warming themselves, with the two subsequent promulgations of “not being ill, except for a similar reason.” It is a general promulgation, requiring a command, a triple offence of expiation. For an ill person who thinks he is not ill, or who is doubtful, there is a misdeed; likewise, for one who lifts up a burning torch, and for one who lifts it up while it is not extinguished and places it in its place. But for one who kindles it when it is extinguished, there is an offence of expiation. For an ill person who thinks he is ill, or for one who warms himself with a fire made by another or with glowing embers, and in the case of a lamp, a fire for light, a bathhouse, etc., for a similar reason, in times of danger, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offence. Not being ill, the absence of a permitted reason, the desire to warm oneself, and lighting are the four factors here. The origins and so forth should be understood as stated in social intercourse.

This rule was established in the Bhagga country concerning several monks who lit a fire to warm themselves. The two exceptions here are “not being ill” and “without a proper reason.” It is a general rule, announced, and falls under the category of serious offenses. For one who perceives a healthy person as ill, or is in doubt, it is a minor offense. Similarly, for one who lifts a hot object, or lifts it without extinguishing it and places it back, it is a minor offense. If it is extinguished and then lit, it is a serious offense. For an ill person who perceives oneself as ill, or scatters embers made by another, or in cases of necessity, such as lighting a lamp or in a sauna, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The four factors here are being healthy, the absence of permission, the desire to warm oneself, and lighting a fire. The origins, etc., should be understood as explained in the section on communal fire.

7. Nahānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Bathing

7. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Bathing

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Bathing

Sattame nahāyeyyāti yo bhikkhu majjhimadese nahānadivasato paṭṭhāya addhamāse apuṇṇe aññatra samayā “nahāyissāmī”ti cuṇṇaṃ vā mattikaṃ vā abhisaṅkharoti, tassa tato paṭṭhāya sabbappayogesu dukkaṭaṃ, nahānapariyosāne pācittiyaṃ. Samayesu pariveṇasammajjanamattampi kammasamayo, addhayojanaṃ gantukāmassa, gacchato, gatassa vā addhānagamanasamayo, sarajena vātena okiṇṇassa dvīsu vā tīsu vā udakaphusitesu kāye patitesu vātavuṭṭhisamayoti veditabbo. Sesaṃ uttānameva.

In the seventh, nahāyeyyā means if a monk in the middle country, before half a month has passed since the bathing day, except on specific occasions, prepares powder or clay with, “I will bathe,” there is a dukkaṭa offense for all actions from then on, and a pācittiya offense upon completing the bath. Among the occasions, even sweeping the monastery grounds is a kammasamayo; for one wishing to go half a yojana, going, or having gone, it is an addhānagamanasamayo; when covered with dust by a dusty wind or when two or three drops of water fall on the body, it is a vātavuṭṭhisamayo. The rest is as explained above.

In the seventh, should bathe (nahāyeyyā) means, a bhikkhu who, from the bathing day in the middle region, when half a month is not complete, except at the right time, prepares powder or clay, thinking, “I will bathe,” for him, from then on, there is a misdeed in all efforts; at the completion of bathing, there is an offence of expiation. As for the times, even just sweeping the courtyard is the time for work (kammasamayo); for one who wishes to go half a yojana, for one who is going, or for one who has gone, the time for going on a journey (addhānagamanasamayo); for one sprinkled by wind with dust, or when two or three drops of water have fallen on the body, the time of wind and rain (vātavuṭṭhisamayo) should be understood. The rest is clear.

In the seventh rule, nahāyeyyā means if a monk in the middle region, from the bathing day onwards, prepares bath powder or clay for more than half a month without a proper reason, intending to bathe, it is a minor offense for each attempt; at the end of bathing, it is a serious offense. The proper times are: kammasamayo, the time for sweeping the dwelling; addhānagamanasamayo, the time for traveling half a yojana; and vātavuṭṭhisamayo, the time for wind and rain when dust or two or three drops of water fall on the body. The rest is straightforward.

Rājagahe sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha na mattaṃ jānitvā nahāyanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra samayā”ti ayamettha chabbidhā anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, atirekaddhamāse ūnakasaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Atirekasaññissa, samaye vā nahāyantassa, yo vā nadīpāraṃ gacchanto vālukaṃ ukkiritvā kataāvāṭesupi nahāyati, tassa, paccantime janapade sabbesaṃ, āpadāsu, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Majjhimadeso, ūnakaddhamāse nahānaṃ, samayānaṃ vā nadīpāragamanassa vā āpadānaṃ vā abhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānevāti.

This was prescribed in Rājagaha concerning several monks who bathed without knowing moderation, regarding that matter. “Except on specific occasions”—this is the sixfold non-prescription here, a general prescription, not requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For one perceiving more than half a month when it is less, or one uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one perceiving more, bathing on an occasion, or one bathing in pits dug in sand while crossing to the other side of a river, and for all in border regions, and in emergencies, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The three factors here are: the middle country, bathing before half a month, and the absence of occasions, crossing a river, or emergencies. The origin and so forth are exactly like those of the eḷakaloma rule.

It was promulgated in Rājagaha concerning many bhikkhus in the case of bathing without knowing the measure, with the sixfold subsequent promulgation of “except at the right time.” It is a general promulgation, not requiring a command, a triple offence of expiation. For one who thinks it is less than half a month when it is more, or who is doubtful, there is a misdeed. For one who thinks it is more, or for one who bathes at the right time, or for one who, going to the far shore of a river, bathes even in pits made by scraping up sand, and for all in the border regions, in times of danger, and for the insane, and so on, there is no offence. The middle region, bathing in less than half a month, and the absence of the right times, or of going to the far shore of a river, or of danger are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to the sheep’s wool.

This rule was established in Rājagaha concerning several monks who bathed without moderation. The six exceptions here are “except during proper times.” It is a general rule, non-announced, and falls under the category of serious offenses. For one who perceives more than half a month as less, or is in doubt, it is a minor offense. For one who perceives less as more, or bathes during proper times, or crosses a river and bathes in a prepared pit after digging sand, or in border regions, or in cases of necessity, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are being in the middle region, bathing within half a month, and the absence of proper times, crossing a river, or necessity. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the rule on fire.

8. Dubbaṇṇakaraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Discoloration

8. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Discoloring

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on Spoiling Robes

Aṭṭhame alabhīti labho, labho eva lābho, kiṃ alabhi? Cīvaraṃ, kīdisaṃ? Navaṃ, iti “navacīvaralābhenā”ti vattabbe anunāsikalopaṃ akatvā navaṃcīvaralābhenāti vuttaṃ, paṭiladdhanavacīvarenāti attho. Majjhe ṭhitapadadvaye panāti nipātamattaṃ. Bhikkhunāti yena laddhaṃ, tassa nidassanaṃ, sesaṃ padatthato uttānameva. Ayaṃ panettha vinicchayo – nivāsanapārupanupagaṃ cīvaraṃ labhitvā tassa niṭṭhitarajanassa yasmiṃ vā tasmiṃ vā padese kaṃsanīlena vā pattanīlena vā kaddamena vā yena kenaci kāḷakena vā morakkhimaṇḍalamaṅgulapiṭṭhīnaṃ aññatarappamāṇaṃ kappabinduṃ ādiyitvā taṃ cīvaraṃ paribhuñjitabbaṃ, anādiyitvā paribhuñjantassa pācittiyaṃ.

In the eighth, “not obtaining” means obtaining, and obtaining is simply gain. What did he obtain? A robe. What kind? A new one. Thus, instead of saying navacīvaralābhenā, with the nasal elision omitted, it is said navaṃcīvaralābhenā, meaning “with a newly obtained robe.” The two middle words, panā, are merely particles. Bhikkhunā indicates the one who obtained it; the rest is clear from the word’s meaning. The judgment here is this: having obtained a robe suitable for wearing or covering, after its dyeing is completed, it must be used after applying a binding mark of the size of a bronze coin, a bowl’s rim, mud, or any black mark, or the size of a peacock’s eye or a finger’s back, in any part of it; using it without applying it incurs a pācittiya offense.

In the eighth, alabhi means gain, gain itself is a gain; what did he gain? A robe; what kind? New; thus, when it should be said “with the gain of a new robe” (navacīvaralābhenā), without making the nasal elision, it is said with the gain of a new robe (navaṃcīvaralābhenā), meaning with a newly obtained robe. In the two words placed in the middle, but (panā) is just a particle. By a bhikkhu (bhikkhunā) shows by whom it was gained; the rest is clear from the meaning of the words. Here is the decision: having obtained a robe suitable for wearing and covering, when the dyeing is finished, in any place of it, having taken a spot-mark with a lump of blue, or a lump of leaf-green, or with mud, or with any black, the size of one of the circle of a peacock’s feather, the back of a finger, or something else, that robe should be used; for one who uses it without taking it, there is an offence of expiation.

In the eighth rule, alabhī means not obtaining, lābho means obtaining, thus navacīvaralābhenā means obtaining a new robe. The word panā is a particle. Bhikkhunā refers to the one who obtained it. The rest is straightforward. Here, the determination is as follows: having obtained a robe suitable for wearing, if one uses it without applying a mark of measurement, such as a dot of soot, metal, or clay, it is a serious offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha attano cīvaraajānanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ādinne anādinnasaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Ādinnasaññissa , kappe naṭṭhe, kappakatokāse jiṇṇe, kappakatena akappakate saṃsibbite, pacchā āropitesu aggaḷaanuvātaparibhaṇḍesu taṃ paribhuñjantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Vuttappakārassa cīvarassa akatakappakatā, na naṭṭhacīvarāditā, nivāsanaṃ vā pārupanaṃ vāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning several monks, regarding the matter of not knowing their own robes. It is a general rule, not requiring instruction, entailing three instances of pācittiya; for one perceiving something taken as not taken, or one who is doubtful, it is dukkaṭa. For one perceiving it as taken, when the preparation is lost, when the opportunity for preparation has worn out, when something prepared is sewn with something unprepared, when using it after adding latches, wind-breaks, or surrounds, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. The robe of the specified type not being prepared, it not being a lost robe or similar, and wearing or covering oneself with it—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the eḷakaloma rule, but this involves both action and non-action.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning a large number of bhikkhus, in the case of not knowing one’s own robe. It is a general precept, not requiring a specific command, and entails a pācittiya with three factors. If one has received it but thinks one has not, or if one is uncertain, it is a dukkaṭa. For one who thinks they have received it, if the agreement is lost, if there is an agreed-upon occasion where it wears out, if unsuitable material is sewn together with suitable material, if it is later added to with border decorations or linings, if one uses that, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: the robe, of the type described, being without formal designation, not being a lost robe, etc., and being worn or used as an upper robe. The arising, etc., are similar to the case of sheep’s wool. However, this is a matter of action and non-action.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning several monks who did not recognize their own robes. It is a general rule, non-announced, and falls under the category of serious offenses. For one who perceives a marked robe as unmarked, or is in doubt, it is a minor offense. For one who perceives an unmarked robe as marked, or uses a robe with a lost mark, or a robe with a mark in a worn-out place, or a robe with a mark applied to an unmarked place, or a robe with a mark applied later, or in cases of necessity, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are the robe not being marked, the robe not being lost, and the robe being suitable for wearing. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the rule on fire. This is an action with or without result.

The explanation of the training precept concerning making a robe discolored is concluded.

9. Vikappanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Vikappana Training Rule

9. The Explanation of the Training Precept Concerning Giving Away

9. Explanation of the Training Rule on Allocation

Navame vikappetvāti ettha dve vikappanā sammukhāvikappanā parammukhāvikappanā ca. Kathaṃ sammukhāvikappanā hoti? Cīvarānaṃ ekabahubhāvaṃ sannihitāsannihitabhāvañca ñatvā ’imaṃ cīvara’nti vā ’imāni cīvarānī’ti vā ’etaṃ cīvara’nti vā ’etāni cīvarānī’ti vā vatvā ’tuyhaṃ vikappemī’ti vattabbaṃ, ayamekā sammukhāvikappanā. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭati, paribhuñjituṃ pana vissajjetuṃ vā adhiṭṭhātuṃ vā na vaṭṭati. “Mayhaṃ santakaṃ, mayhaṃ santakāni paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathāpaccayaṃ karohī”ti (pāci. 374) evaṃ pana vutte paccuddhāro nāma hoti, tato pabhuti paribhogādayopi vaṭṭanti. Aparo nayo, tatheva cīvarānaṃ ekabahubhāvaṃ sannihitāsannihitabhāvañca ñatvā tasseva bhikkhuno santike ’imaṃ cīvara’nti vā ’imāni cīvarānī’ti vā ’etaṃ cīvara’nti vā ’etāni cīvarānī’ti vā vatvā pañcasu sahadhammikesu aññatarassa attanā abhirucitassa yassa kassaci nāmaṃ gahetvā “tissassa bhikkhuno vikappemī”ti vā “tissāya bhikkhuniyā, sikkhamānāya, sāmaṇerassa, tissāya sāmaṇeriyā vikappemī”ti vā vattabbaṃ, ayaṃ aparāpi sammukhāvikappanā. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭati, paribhogādīsu ekampi na vaṭṭati. Tena pana bhikkhunā “tissassa bhikkhuno santakaṃ…pe… tissāya sāmaṇeriyā santakaṃ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathāpaccayaṃ karohī”ti vutte paccuddhāro nāma hoti, tato pabhuti paribhogādayopi vaṭṭanti.

In the ninth, having assigned—here there are two types of assignment: assignment in person and assignment in absence. How does assignment in person occur? Having recognized the singularity or plurality of the robes and whether they are present or not, one should say, “this robe” or “these robes” or “that robe” or “those robes,” followed by “I assign it to you”—this is one form of assignment in person. With this much, it is permissible to store it, but it is not permissible to use, give it away, or determine it. However, if it is said, “It belongs to me, they belong to me; use them or give them away as needed” (pāci. 374), this is called a release; from then on, use and so forth are permissible. Another method: having recognized the singularity or plurality of the robes and whether they are present or not, in the presence of that same monk, one says, “this robe” or “these robes” or “that robe” or “those robes,” and then, taking the name of any one of the five co-religionists whom one prefers, says, “I assign it to the monk Tissa” or “to the nun Tissā, to the female trainee, to the novice, or to the female novice Tissā”—this is another form of assignment in person. With this much, it is permissible to store it, but none of the actions like use are permissible. When that monk says, “It belongs to the monk Tissa… or to the female novice Tissā; use it or give it away as needed,” it is called a release; from then on, use and so forth are permissible.

In the ninth, “vikappetvā” (having given away), there are two kinds of giving away: giving away in the presence of, and giving away in the absence of. How is giving away in the presence of done? Knowing the singular or plural number of robes, and whether they are present or not, one should say, “this robe” or “these robes,” or “that robe” or “those robes,” and then say, “I give this to you for giving away.” This is one kind of giving away in the presence of. With this, it is allowable to deposit it, but it is not allowable to use it, to give it away, or to formally determine it. However, if one says, “It is mine; use what is mine, give it away, or do as appropriate,” (pāci. 374) this is called a retraction. From that point on, use, etc., are also allowable. Another method: in the same way, knowing the singular or plural number of robes and whether they are present or not, in the presence of that same bhikkhu, one should say, “this robe” or “these robes,” or “that robe” or “those robes,” and then, taking the name of any one of the five co-religionists that one prefers, one should say, “I give it to the bhikkhu Tissa for giving away,” or “to the bhikkhunī Tissā, to the female probationer, to the male novice, to the female novice Tissā for giving away.” This is another kind of giving away in the presence of. With this, it is allowable to deposit it, but none of the uses, etc., are allowable. However, if that bhikkhu says, “It is the property of the bhikkhu Tissa… [etc.]… It is the property of the female novice Tissā; use it, give it away, or do as appropriate,” this is called a retraction. From that point on, use, etc., are also allowable.

In the ninth rule, vikappetvā refers to two types of allocation: face-to-face allocation and indirect allocation. How is sammukhāvikappanā done? Knowing the quantity and location of the robes, one should say, “This robe” or “These robes,” and then say, “I allocate this to you.” This is one type of face-to-face allocation. Up to this point, it is permissible to store, but not to use, give away, or determine. If one says, “My belongings, use them, give them away, or do as you see fit” (pāci. 374), this is called withdrawal, and from then on, use, etc., is permissible. Another method is, knowing the quantity and location of the robes, one should say to the monk, “This robe” or “These robes,” and then, in the presence of five fellow monks, allocate it to one of them by name, saying, “I allocate this to monk Tissa,” or “to nun Tissā,” or “to female novice Tissā.” This is another type of face-to-face allocation. Up to this point, it is permissible to store, but not to use, etc. If the monk then says, “The belongings of monk Tissa, use them, give them away, or do as you see fit,” this is called withdrawal, and from then on, use, etc., is permissible.

Kathaṃ parammukhāvikappanā hoti? Cīvarānaṃ tatheva ekabahubhāvaṃ sannihitāsannihitabhāvañca ñatvā ’imaṃ cīvara’nti vā ’imāni cīvarānī’ti vā ’etaṃ cīvara’nti vā ’etāni cīvarānī’ti vā vatvā “tuyhaṃ vikappanatthāya dammī”ti vattabbaṃ. Tena vattabbo “ko te mitto vā sandiṭṭho vā”ti. Tato itarena purimanayeneva ’tisso bhikkhū’ti vā…pe… ’tissā sāmaṇerī’ti vā vattabbaṃ. Puna tena bhikkhunā “ahaṃ tissassa bhikkhuno dammī”ti vā…pe… “tissāya sāmaṇeriyā dammī”ti vā vattabbaṃ , ayaṃ parammukhāvikappanā. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭati, paribhogādīsu ekampi na vaṭṭati. Tena pana bhikkhunā dutiyasammukhāvikappanāyaṃ vuttanayeneva “itthannāmassa santakaṃ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathāpaccayaṃ karohī”ti vutte paccuddhāro nāma hoti, tato pabhuti paribhogādayopi vaṭṭantīti. Pattavikappanāyampi eseva nayo. Iti imāsu dvīsu vikappanāsu yāya kāyaci vikappanāya pañcasu sahadhammikesu yassa kassaci cīvaraṃ vikappetvā vuttanayena akatappaccuddhāraṃ vā yena vinayakammaṃ kataṃ, tassa vā vissāsena aggahetvā paribhuñjantassa pācittiyaṃ.

How does assignment in absence occur? Having recognized the singularity or plurality of the robes and whether they are present or not, one says, “this robe” or “these robes” or “that robe” or “those robes,” followed by “I give it to you for assignment.” He should be asked, “Who is your friend or acquaintance?” Then, the other should say, as in the previous method, “the monk Tissa” or up to “the female novice Tissā.” Then that monk should say, “I give it to the monk Tissa” or up to “I give it to the female novice Tissā”—this is assignment in absence. With this much, it is permissible to store it, but none of the actions like use are permissible. When that monk says, as stated in the second method of assignment in person, “It belongs to so-and-so; use it or give it away as needed,” it is called a release; from then on, use and so forth are permissible. The same method applies to the assignment of a bowl. Thus, in these two forms of assignment, whichever method is used to assign a robe to any of the five co-religionists without the release as described, or if one uses it without taking it on trust from one for whom a disciplinary act has been performed, it is a pācittiya.

How is giving away in the absence of done? Knowing, in the same way, the singular or plural number of robes, and whether they are present or not, one should say, “this robe” or “these robes,” or “that robe” or “those robes,” and then say, “I give this to you for the purpose of giving away.” He should be asked, “Who is your friend or intimate?” Then, the other should say, as in the previous method, “The bhikkhu Tissa” or… [etc.]… “the female novice Tissā.” Again, that bhikkhu should say, “I give it to the bhikkhu Tissa” or… [etc.]… “I give it to the female novice Tissā.” This is giving away in the absence of. With this, it is allowable to deposit it, but none of the uses, etc., are allowable. However, if that bhikkhu, in the same way as described in the second method of giving away in the presence of, says, “It is the property of so-and-so; use it, give it away, or do as appropriate,” this is called a retraction. From that point on, use, etc., are also allowable. The same method applies to giving away a bowl. Thus, having given away a robe to any of the five co-religionists by any of these two methods of giving away, if one uses it without having made the retraction as described, or if one has accepted it without trust from the one who performed the formal act, one commits a pācittiya.

How is parammukhāvikappanā done? Knowing the quantity and location of the robes, one should say, “This robe” or “These robes,” and then say, “I give this to you for allocation.” The other should ask, “Who is your friend or acquaintance?” Then, as before, one should say, “Monk Tissa,” etc. Then the monk should say, “I give this to monk Tissa,” etc. This is indirect allocation. Up to this point, it is permissible to store, but not to use, etc. If the monk then, as in the second type of face-to-face allocation, says, “The belongings of so-and-so, use them, give them away, or do as you see fit,” this is called withdrawal, and from then on, use, etc., is permissible. The same applies to bowl allocation. In these two types of allocation, if one allocates robes to any of the five fellow monks and uses them without proper withdrawal or without trusting the one who performed the disciplinary action, it is a serious offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ upanandaṃ ārabbha appaccuddhāraṇaṃ paribhuñjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, taṃ pana adhiṭṭhahantassa vā vissajjentassa vā dukkaṭaṃ, tathā paccuddhāraṇe appaccuddhāraṇasaññissa vematikassa vā. Paccuddhāraṇasaññissa pana vissāsena paribhuñjantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Sāmaṃ vikappitassa appaccuddhāro, vikappanupagacīvaratā, paribhogoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathinasadisāneva, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Upananda, regarding the matter of using something without release. It is a general rule, not requiring instruction, entailing three instances of pācittiya; for one determining or giving it away, it is dukkaṭa, as well as for one perceiving it as not released when it has been released, or one who is doubtful. For one perceiving it as released and using it on trust, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. The absence of release for something personally assigned, it being a robe suitable for assignment, and its use—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the first Kathina rule, but this involves both action and non-action.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda, in the case of using without retracting. It is a general precept, not requiring a specific command, and entails a pācittiya with three factors. However, if one formally determines it or gives it away, it is a dukkaṭa, and so too if one thinks it is retracted when it is not, or if one is uncertain. However, if one uses it with trust, thinking it is retracted, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: having given it away oneself, the robe being eligible for giving away, and using it. The arising, etc., are similar to the first case of kathina. However, this is a matter of action and non-action.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the case of Upananda using requisites without formally relinquishing them. This is a general rule, non-confessional, and falls under the category of three Pācittiya offenses. For one who determines or distributes them, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. Similarly, for one who perceives it as not relinquished or is in doubt. However, for one who perceives it as relinquished and uses it with confidence, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Self-assigned relinquishment, the state of being assigned a robe, and usage—these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the first Kathina rule. This is a matter of action and inaction.

10. Apanidhānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Apanidhāna Training Rule

10. The Explanation of the Training Precept Concerning Concealing

10. Explanation of the Apanidhāna Training Rule

Dasame pattanti adhiṭṭhānupagaṃ. Cīvaranti vikappanupagaṃ. Nisīdanaṃ nāma sadasaṃ vuccati. Sūcigharaṃ nāma sasūcikaṃ vā asūcikaṃ vā. Kāyabandhanaṃ nāma paṭṭikā vā sūkarantakaṃ vā. Apanidheyyāti apanetvā nidaheyya. Hasāpekkhoti hasādhippāyo. Pācittiyanti sayaṃ apanidhentassa pācittiyaṃ, aññaṃ āṇāpentassa āṇattiyā dukkaṭaṃ, tena apanihite itarassa pācittiyaṃ.

In the tenth, bowl means suitable for determination. Robe means suitable for assignment. Seat is called one with an edge. Needle-case means with or without a needle. Waistband means a strip or a pig’s gut. He hides means he removes and conceals it. With intent to amuse means with the intention of amusement. Pācittiya—for one hiding it himself, it is pācittiya; for one instructing another, there is dukkaṭa upon instruction, and when it is hidden by the other, it is pācittiya for the instructor.

In the tenth, “patta” (bowl) means that which is eligible for formal determination. “Cīvara” (robe) means that which is eligible for giving away. “Nisīdanaṃ” (sitting cloth) means that which has a border. “Sūcigharaṃ” (needle case) means with or without a needle. “Kāyabandhanaṃ” (girdle) means a strip of cloth or a piece of cloth. “Apanidheyyā” means one should put it away after removing it. “Hasāpekkho” means with the intention of joking. “Pācittiya” means if one conceals it oneself, it is a pācittiya; if one commands another, it is a dukkaṭa for the command; if it is concealed by the other, it is a pācittiya for the other.

In the tenth rule, patta refers to what is determined. Cīvara refers to what is assigned. Nisīdana means a sitting cloth. Sūcighara means a needle case, with or without a needle. Kāyabandhana means a waistband or a belt. Apanidheyyā means to remove and place elsewhere. Hasāpekkho means with the intention of laughter. Pācittiya means a Pācittiya offense for one who removes it oneself, a Dukkaṭa offense for ordering another, and a Pācittiya offense for another who removes it upon being ordered.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha apanidhānavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ, vuttappakārāni pana pattādīni ṭhapetvā aññaṃ parikkhāraṃ upasampannassa vā anupasampannassa vā santakaṃ apanidhentassa dukkaṭameva. Dunnikkhittaṃ paṭisāmentassa, “dhammakathaṃ katvā dassāmī”ti paṭisāmentassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannassa santakānaṃ pattādīnaṃ apanidhānaṃ, vihesetukāmatā vā hasādhippāyatā vāti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisānīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, regarding the matter of hiding. It is a general rule, requiring instruction, entailing three instances of pācittiya; for a non-ordained person, three instances of dukkaṭa; for hiding anything other than the specified bowl and so forth belonging to an ordained or non-ordained person, it is only dukkaṭa. For one straightening something misplaced, or straightening it with the intent “I will give it after discussing the teaching,” and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Hiding a bowl or similar belonging to an ordained person, and the desire to annoy or intent to amuse—these are the two factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Adinnādāna rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the case of concealing. It is a general precept, requiring a specific command, and entails a pācittiya with three factors. For a non-ordained person, it is a triple dukkaṭa. However, if one conceals any other requisite besides the aforementioned bowl, etc., belonging to an ordained or non-ordained person, it is only a dukkaṭa. If one puts away something that was improperly placed, if one puts it away saying, “I will give it after teaching the Dhamma,” and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are: concealing the bowl, etc., belonging to an ordained person, and either the intention to annoy or the intention to joke. The arising, etc., are similar to the case of taking what is not given.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the case of the Chabbaggiya monks concealing requisites. This is a general rule, confessional, and falls under the category of three Pācittiya offenses. For a non-ordained person, it is a threefold Dukkaṭa offense. However, for other requisites besides the bowl, etc., belonging to an ordained or non-ordained person, removing them incurs only a Dukkaṭa offense. For one who retrieves improperly placed items, or who retrieves them with the intention of giving a Dhamma talk, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are the removal of requisites belonging to an ordained person and the intention to harass or cause laughter. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing.

7. Sappāṇakavaggo

7. Sappāṇaka Section

7. The Chapter on Living Beings

7. The Sappāṇaka Chapter

1. Sañciccasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Sañcicca Training Rule

1. The Explanation of the Training Precept Concerning Intentionally

1. Explanation of the Sañcicca Training Rule

Sappāṇakavaggassa paṭhame pāṇoti tiracchānagatapāṇo adhippeto. Taṃ khuddakampi mahantampi mārentassa pācittiyameva, mahante pana upakkamamahantatāya akusalaṃ mahantaṃ hoti.

In the first of the Sappāṇaka section, creature refers to an animal-born creature. For one killing it, whether small or large, it is only pācittiya; but with a large one, due to the greater effort, the unwholesome act is greater.

In the first of the Chapter on Living Beings, “pāṇo” (living being) means an animal. Killing it, whether small or large, is a pācittiya. However, in the case of a large one, the unwholesome is greater due to the greater effort.

In the first rule of the Sappāṇaka chapter, pāṇo refers to a living being in the animal realm. Killing a small or large being incurs a Pācittiya offense. However, killing a large being involves greater unwholesomeness due to the greater effort involved.

Sāvatthiyaṃ udāyittheraṃ ārabbha pāṇaṃ jīvitā voropanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, pāṇe vematikassa, apāṇe pāṇasaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ . Apāṇasaññissa, asañcicca, ajānantassa, namaraṇādhippāyassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Sesaṃ manussaviggahe vuttanayamevāti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the elder Udāyi, regarding the matter of depriving a creature of life. It is a general rule, requiring instruction; for one doubtful about a creature, or perceiving a non-creature as a creature, or doubtful, it is dukkaṭa. For one perceiving it as a non-creature, or acting unintentionally, unknowingly, without intent to kill, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. The rest is as stated in the Manussaviggaha rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the elder Udāyī, in the case of depriving a living being of life. It is a general precept, requiring a specific command. If one is uncertain about a living being, or if one thinks a non-living being is a living being, or if one is uncertain, it is a dukkaṭa. If one thinks it is not a living being, if it is unintentional, if one does not know, if one does not have the intention to kill, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The rest is as stated in the case of the human form.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the case of the elder Udayin depriving a living being of life. This is a general rule, confessional, and falls under the category of Pācittiya offenses. For one in doubt about a living being, or perceiving a non-living being as living, or in doubt, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. For one who perceives it as non-living, or acts unintentionally, unknowingly, or without the intention to kill, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The rest is similar to the case of harming a human being.

2. Sappāṇakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Sappāṇaka Training Rule

2. The Explanation of the Training Precept Concerning Water with Living Beings

2. Explanation of the Sappāṇaka Training Rule

Dutiye sappāṇakanti ye pāṇakā paribhogena maranti, tehi sappāṇakaṃ, tādisañhi jānaṃ paribhuñjantassa payoge payoge pācittiyaṃ.

In the second, with living creatures refers to water with creatures that die through use; for one knowingly using such water, it is pācittiya with each act of use.

In the second, “sappāṇaka” (with living beings) means with living beings that die through use. Knowingly using such is a pācittiya for each effort.

In the second rule, sappāṇaka refers to creatures that die due to usage. Using water knowingly containing such creatures incurs a Pācittiya offense for each act.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha jānaṃ sappāṇakaṃ udakaṃ paribhuñjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesamettha siñcanasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, regarding the matter of knowingly using water with living creatures. The rest here should be understood as stated in the Siñcana training rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the case of knowingly using water with living beings. The rest here should be understood as stated in the training precept concerning sprinkling.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the case of the Chabbaggiya monks knowingly using water containing living beings. The rest should be understood in the same way as in the rule on sprinkling water.

The explanation of the training precept concerning water with living beings is concluded.

3. Ukkoṭanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Ukkoṭana Training Rule

3. The Explanation of the Training Precept Concerning Stirring Up

3. Explanation of the Ukkoṭana Training Rule

Tatiye yathādhammanti yo yassa adhikaraṇassa vūpasamāya dhammo vutto, teneva dhammena. Nihatādhikaraṇanti nihataṃ adhikaraṇaṃ, samathakkhandhake (cūḷava. 185 ādayo) satthārā vuttadhammeneva vūpasamitanti attho, vūpasamananayaṃ panassa adhikaraṇasamathesu dassayissāma. Punakammāya ukkoṭeyyāti tassa tassa bhikkhuno santikaṃ gantvā “akataṃ kamma”ntiādīni (pāci. 394) vadanto punakaraṇatthāya uccāleyya. Yathāṭhitabhāvena patiṭṭhātuṃ na dadeyya, tassevaṃ karontassa pācittiyaṃ. Yaṃ pana dhammena adhikaraṇaṃ nihataṃ , taṃ sunihatameva. Sace vippakate kamme paṭikkosati, taṃ saññāpetvā kātabbaṃ. Itarathā kammañca kuppati, kārakānañca āpatti.

In the third, according to the rule means according to the rule specified for the settlement of that issue. Settled issue means an issue settled by the method of the Teacher as stated in the Samatha chapter (cūḷava. 185 onwards)—this is the meaning; we will show its method of settlement in the Adhikaraṇasamatha section. He reopens it for action means going to this or that monk and saying things like “the act was not done” (pāci. 394) and raising it again for redoing. He does not allow it to stand as it is; for one doing so, it is pācittiya. But an issue settled according to the rule is well settled. If he objects during an incomplete act, it should be done after convincing him. Otherwise, the act is invalid, and the doers incur an offence.

In the third, “yathādhamma” (according to the Dhamma) means according to the Dhamma that has been stated for the calming of that particular legal case. “Nihatādhikaraṇa” (a settled legal case) means a legal case that has been settled, meaning that it has been calmed by the very Dhamma stated by the Teacher in the chapter on legal cases (Cūḷava. 185 ff.). The method of calming it, however, will be shown in the section on the settling of legal cases. “Punakammāya ukkoṭeyyā” (one should stir it up for renewed action) means going to that bhikkhu and saying, “The action was not done,” etc., (pāci. 394) one should stir it up for the purpose of redoing it. One should not allow it to remain as it was established. For one doing thus, it is a pācittiya. However, a legal case that has been settled according to the Dhamma is well settled. If one protests while the action is in progress, one should be informed and it should be done. Otherwise, the action is invalid, and the doers incur an offense.

In the third rule, yathādhamma means according to the Dhamma prescribed for the resolution of a legal issue. Nihatādhikaraṇa means a legal issue resolved, as explained in the Samathakkhandhaka (Cūḷavagga 185, etc.). Punakammāya ukkoṭeyyā means going to a monk and saying, “The act was not done,” etc., to cause it to be repeated. Doing so incurs a Pācittiya offense. If a legal issue resolved according to the Dhamma is disputed, it should be resolved again. Otherwise, the act becomes invalid, and the performers incur offenses.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha ukkoṭanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, dhammakamme vematikassa, adhammakamme dhammakammasaññino, vematikassa vā dukkaṭaṃ. Ubhayesu adhammakammasaññissa, “adhammena vā vaggena vā akammārahassa vā kammaṃ kata”nti jānantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Yathādhammaṃ nihatabhāvo, jānanā, ukkoṭanāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of reopening. It is a general rule, not requiring instruction; for one doubtful in a lawful act, or perceiving an unlawful act as lawful, or doubtful, it is dukkaṭa. For one perceiving both as unlawful, or knowing “it was done unlawfully or by a divided group or one unworthy of the act,” and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Its being settled according to the rule, knowing it, and reopening it—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Adinnādāna rule, but this involves painful feeling.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six bhikkhus, in the case of stirring up. It is a general precept, not requiring a specific command. If one is uncertain about a legal action according to the Dhamma, or if one thinks a non-legal action is a legal action, or if one is uncertain, it is a dukkaṭa. If one thinks it is a non-legal action in both cases, if one knows that “the action was done unlawfully, or partially, or for one not deserving action,” and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: the fact of having been settled according to the Dhamma, knowing, and stirring up. The arising, etc., are similar to the case of taking what is not given. However, this is a matter of painful feeling.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the case of the Chabbaggiya monks reopening legal issues. This is a general rule, non-confessional, and falls under the category of Dukkaṭa offenses for one in doubt about a Dhamma act, or perceiving a non-Dhamma act as Dhamma, or in doubt. For one who perceives both as non-Dhamma acts, or knows that an act was done improperly, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are the resolution according to the Dhamma, knowledge, and reopening. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing. This is a matter of painful feeling.

4. Duṭṭhullasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Duṭṭhulla Training Rule

4. The Explanation of the Training Precept Concerning Concealing a Serious Offense

4. Explanation of the Duṭṭhulla Training Rule

Catutthe duṭṭhullanti saṅghādisesaṃ adhippetaṃ, taṃ yena kenaci upāyena ñatvā paṭicchādentassa pācittiyaṃ. Sacepi “na dāni naṃ kassaci bhikkhuno ārocessāmī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā pacchā āroceti, pācittiyaṃ, āpajjitvāva ārocessati. Sace pana evaṃ dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā paṭicchādanatthameva aññassa āroceti, sopi aññassāti etenupāyena samaṇasatampi āpajjatiyeva tāva, yāva koṭi na chijjati. Kathaṃ pana koṭi chijjati? Sace hi āpanno ekassa āroceti, sopi aññassa āroceti, so nivattitvā yenassa ārocitaṃ, tasseva āroceti, evaṃ tatiyena puggalena dutiyassa ārocite koṭi chinnā hoti.

In the fourth, grave refers to a saṅghādisesa offence; for one concealing it by any means after knowing it, it is pācittiya. Even if he resolves, “I won’t tell any monk about it now,” and later informs someone after abandoning that resolve, it is pācittiya—he informs only after committing it. But if, after abandoning that resolve, he informs another solely to conceal it, and that one informs another, by this means even a hundred recluses may incur it until the chain is broken. How is the chain broken? If the offender informs one, and that one informs another, and that one returns and informs the one who told him, when the third person informs the second, the chain is broken.

In the fourth, “duṭṭhulla” (serious offense) means a saṅghādisesa. Knowing it by any means, concealing it is a pācittiya. Even if one sets aside the duty, thinking, “I will not inform any bhikkhu now,” and later informs, it is a pācittiya. One should inform after having committed it. However, if one sets aside the duty in this way and informs another solely for the purpose of concealing it, and he also informs another, in this way, even a hundred monks commit the offense, until the chain is broken. How is the chain broken? If the one who committed the offense informs one, and he also informs another, and he turns back and informs the one who informed him, in this way, when the third person informs the second, the chain is broken.

In the fourth rule, duṭṭhulla refers to a Saṅghādisesa offense. Concealing it knowingly incurs a Pācittiya offense. Even if one decides not to report it but later does, it is a Pācittiya offense. If one conceals it with the intention of not reporting it, one incurs offenses repeatedly until the chain is broken. The chain is broken when the third person reports it back to the second.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha duṭṭhullāpattipaṭicchādanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, duṭṭhullāya āpattiyā ādipade pācittiyaṃ, itaresu dvīsu dukkaṭaṃ, aduṭṭhullāya tikadukkaṭaṃ, anupasampannassa duṭṭhulle vā aduṭṭhulle vā ajjhācāre dukkaṭameva. “Saṅghassa bhaṇḍanādīni bhavissantī”ti (pāci. 401) vā “ayaṃ kakkhaḷo pharuso jīvitantarāyaṃ vā brahmacariyantarāyaṃ vā karissatī”ti vā anārocentassa, patirūpaṃ bhikkhuṃ apassato , na chādetukāmassa, “paññāyissati sakena kammenā”ti anārocentassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannassa duṭṭhullāpattijānanaṃ, “paṭicchādetukāmatāya nārocessāmī”ti dhuranikkhepoti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni samanubhāsanasaasānevāti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk, regarding the matter of concealing a grave offence. It is a specific rule, not requiring instruction; for a grave offence, pācittiya at the first step, dukkaṭa for the other two; for a non-grave offence, three instances of dukkaṭa; for concealing a grave or non-grave misconduct of a non-ordained person, it is only dukkaṭa. For one not informing due to thinking, “there will be quarrels in the Sangha” (pāci. 401) or “he is harsh and rough; he may cause danger to life or the holy life,” or not seeing a suitable monk, or not wishing to conceal, or thinking “it will be known by his own action” and not informing, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Knowing a grave offence of an ordained person, and resolving “I won’t inform due to a desire to conceal”—these are the two factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Samanubhāsana rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhu, in the case of concealing a serious offense. It is a non-general precept, not requiring a specific command. In the first instance of a serious offense, it is a pācittiya; in the other two, it is a dukkaṭa. In a non-serious offense, it is a triple dukkaṭa. In the case of a non-ordained person, whether in a serious or non-serious offense, it is only a dukkaṭa. If one does not inform, thinking, “There will be quarreling, etc., for the Sangha,” (pāci. 401) or “This harsh, rough person will cause danger to life or danger to the holy life,” or if one does not see a suitable bhikkhu, or if one does not wish to conceal it, or if one does not inform, thinking, “It will become known through his own actions,” and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are: knowing the serious offense of an ordained person, and setting aside the duty, thinking, “I will not inform due to the desire to conceal it.” The arising, etc., are similar to the case of samanubhāsana.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the case of a monk concealing a grave offense. This is a non-general rule, non-confessional, and falls under the category of Pācittiya offenses for a grave offense, Dukkaṭa offenses for lesser offenses, and a Dukkaṭa offense for a non-ordained person committing a grave or minor offense. For one who does not report it due to fear of causing division in the Sangha, or seeing a suitable monk, or not wishing to conceal it, or thinking it will be known by his own actions, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are knowing a grave offense and deciding not to report it. The origins, etc., are similar to the act of pressing.

The explanation of the training precept concerning concealing a serious offense is concluded.

5. Ūnavīsativassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Ūnavīsativassa Training Rule

5. The Explanation of the Training Precept Concerning One Less Than Twenty Years Old

5. Explanation of the Ūnavīsativassa Training Rule

Pañcame ūnavīsativassanti paṭisandhiggahaṇato paṭṭhāya aparipuṇṇavīsativassaṃ. Upasampādeyyāti upajjhāyo hutvā upasampādeyya. So ca puggalo anupasampannoti jānantenāpi ajānantenāpi upasampādito anupasampannova. Sace pana so dasavassaccayena aññaṃ upasampādeti, tañce muñcitvā gaṇo pūrati, sūpasampanno. Sopi yāva na jānāti, tāva tassa neva saggantarāyo na mokkhantarāyo, ñatvā pana puna upasampajjitabbaṃ. Te ca bhikkhū gārayhāti ṭhapetvā upajjhāyaṃ avasesā gārayhā honti, sabbe dukkaṭaṃ āpajjanti. Idaṃ tasmiṃ pācittiyanti yo pana upajjhāyo hutvā upasampādeti, tasmiṃyeva puggale idaṃ pācittiyaṃ veditabbaṃ. Tasmā yo “evaṃ upasampādessāmī”ti gaṇaṃ vā ācariyaṃ vā pattaṃ vā cīvaraṃ vā pariyesati, sīmaṃ vā sammannati (pāci. 404), udakukkhepaṃ vā paricchindati, so etesu sabbakiccesu ñattiyā, dvīsu ca kammavācāsu dukkaṭāni āpajjitvā kammavācāpariyosāne pācittiyaṃ āpajjati.

In the fifth, less than twenty years means less than fully twenty years since conception. He ordains means he acts as preceptor and ordains. That person is unordained—whether knowingly or unknowingly ordained, he remains unordained. But if, after ten years, he ordains another, and if the quorum is complete without him, that one is properly ordained. As long as he does not know, there is neither hindrance to heaven nor liberation; but upon knowing, he must be re-ordained. Those monks are blameworthy—except for the preceptor, the rest are blameworthy; all incur dukkaṭa. This is a pācittiya for him—it should be understood that the pācittiya applies only to the one who acts as preceptor and ordains that person. Thus, for one who searches for a quorum, a teacher, a bowl, or a robe, or designates a boundary (pāci. 404), or marks out a water-sprinkling area intending “I will ordain thus,” he incurs dukkaṭa with the motion and two announcements in all these tasks, and pācittiya at the conclusion of the announcement.

In the fifth, “ūnavīsativassa” (less than twenty years old) means less than twenty full years from the time of conception. “Upasampādeyyā” (one should ordain) means one should ordain acting as a preceptor. “So ca puggalo anupasampanno” (and that person is not ordained) means even if ordained by one knowing or not knowing, he is not ordained. However, if he ordains another after ten years have passed, and the group is complete apart from him, he is well ordained. Even so, as long as he does not know, there is no obstacle to heaven or obstacle to liberation for him. However, after knowing, he should be ordained again. “Te ca bhikkhū gārayhā” (and those bhikkhus are blameworthy) means apart from the preceptor, the rest are blameworthy; all incur a dukkaṭa. “Idaṃ tasmiṃ pācittiya” (this is a pācittiya in that) means this should be understood as a pācittiya only in that person who ordains acting as a preceptor. Therefore, if one thinks, “I will ordain in this way,” and seeks a group, or a teacher, or a bowl, or a robe, or delimits a boundary, (pāci. 404) or delimits the water-scooping area, in all these actions, he incurs dukkaṭas for the formal announcement and the two recitations of the formal act, and at the conclusion of the recitation of the formal act, he incurs a pācittiya.

In the fifth rule, ūnavīsativassa means less than twenty years from conception. Upasampādeyyā means ordaining as an upajjhāya. So ca puggalo anupasampanno means the person remains unordained whether the upajjhāya knows or not. If the upajjhāya ordains another after ten years, the group is complete, and the ordination is valid. Until the person knows, there is no danger to heaven or liberation, but upon knowing, they must be reordained. Te ca bhikkhū gārayhā means all except the upajjhāya are blameworthy and incur Dukkaṭa offenses. Idaṃ tasmiṃ pācittiya means the upajjhāya incurs a Pācittiya offense. Therefore, one who seeks a group, teacher, bowl, robe, or boundary, or marks the water boundary, incurs Dukkaṭa offenses for the motion and two announcements, and a Pācittiya offense at the end of the announcement.

Rājagahe sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha ūnavīsativassaṃ upasampādanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, ūnavīsativasse vematikassa, paripuṇṇavīsativasse ūnakasaññino, vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Ubhayattha paripuṇṇasaññissa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Ūnavīsativassatā, ūnakasaññitā, upasampādananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana paṇṇattivajjaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was laid down at Rājagaha concerning several monks, regarding the matter of ordaining one less than twenty years old. It is a specific rule, not requiring instruction; for one doubtful about one less than twenty years, or perceiving one fully twenty years as less, or doubtful, it is dukkaṭa. For one perceiving both as fully twenty, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Being less than twenty years, perceiving as less, and ordaining—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Adinnādāna rule, but this is a fault of precept, with three mental states and three feelings.

It was promulgated in Rājagaha concerning a large number of bhikkhus, in the case of ordaining one less than twenty years old. It is a non-general precept, not requiring a specific command. If one is uncertain about one less than twenty years old, or if one thinks one who is fully twenty years old is less, or if one is uncertain, it is a dukkaṭa. If one thinks one is fully twenty years old in both cases, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: being less than twenty years old, thinking one is less, and ordaining. The arising, etc., are similar to the case of taking what is not given. However, this is a conventional wrong, with three kinds of consciousness, and with three kinds of feeling.

In Rājagaha, a rule was established regarding the case of several monks ordaining someone less than twenty years old. This is a non-general rule, non-confessional, and falls under the category of Dukkaṭa offenses for one in doubt about the age, or perceiving a full twenty-year-old as less, or in doubt. For one who perceives both as full, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are being less than twenty years old, perceiving as less, and ordaining. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing. This is a matter of rule-breaking, threefold intention, and threefold feeling.

The explanation of the training precept concerning one less than twenty years old is concluded.

6. Theyyasatthasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Theyyasattha Training Rule

6. The Explanation of the Training Precept Concerning a Band of Thieves

6. Explanation of the Theyyasattha Training Rule

Chaṭṭhe ye rājānaṃ vā vañcetvā suṅkaṃ vā pariharitukāmā corā katakammā ceva akatakammā ca maggappaṭipannā, tesu idha theyyasatthasaññino tassa theyyasatthabhāvaṃ ñatvā tena saddhiṃ saṃvidhāya gacchantassa saṃvidhāne ca gamane ca ovādavagge vuttanayena āpattivinicchayo veditabbo.

In the sixth, those who deceive a king or wish to evade taxes, thieves both experienced and inexperienced traveling on the road—among them, for one perceiving it as a thieves’ caravan, knowing its nature as a thieves’ caravan, and going with it after arranging, the judgment of offences in arranging and going should be understood as stated in the Ovāda section.

In the sixth, those who deceive the king or wish to avoid taxes, thieves who have committed or not committed actions, who have set out on the road: here, thinking of them as a band of thieves, knowing their status as a band of thieves, if one makes an arrangement with them and goes, the determination of the offense in the arrangement and in the going should be understood as stated in the chapter on advice.

In the sixth rule, theyyasattha refers to those who deceive kings or evade taxes, whether they have committed crimes or not. Knowing their nature as thieves and traveling with them incurs offenses as explained in the Ovāda section.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha theyyasatthena saddhiṃ saṃvidhāya ekaddhānamaggaṃ paṭipajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, manussesu asaṃvidahantesu sayameva saṃvidahitvā gacchantassa, theyyasatthe vematikassa, atheyyasatthe theyyasatthasaññino, vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Atheyyasatthasaññissa, asaṃvidahitvā vā kālavisaṅketena vā, āpadāsu vā, gacchantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Theyyasatthabhāvo, jānanaṃ, saṃvidhānaṃ, avisaṅketena gamananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Theyyasatthasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk, regarding the matter of arranging and setting out on one journey-path with a thieves’ caravan. It is a general rule, not requiring instruction; for one going after arranging alone when people do not arrange, or doubtful about a thieves’ caravan, or perceiving a non-thieves’ caravan as a thieves’ caravan, or doubtful, it is dukkaṭa. For one perceiving it as a non-thieves’ caravan, or going without arranging or with a different sign, or in emergencies, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Its being a thieves’ caravan, knowing it, arranging, and going without a different sign—these are the four factors here. It originates from a thieves’ caravan, is an action, exempt by perception, with mind, a fault of precept, bodily action, verbal action, with three mental states and three feelings.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhu, in the case of making an arrangement with a band of thieves and setting out on the same road. It is a general precept, not requiring a specific command. If one makes an arrangement oneself without arranging with humans, or if one is uncertain about a band of thieves, or if one thinks a non-band of thieves is a band of thieves, or if one is uncertain, it is a dukkaṭa. If one thinks it is not a band of thieves, or if one does not make an arrangement, or if one makes a time agreement, or if one goes in times of danger, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are: the status of being a band of thieves, knowing, making an arrangement, and going without an agreement. Arising from a band of thieves, action, release from perception, intentional, conventional wrong, bodily action, verbal action, with three kinds of consciousness, and with three kinds of feeling.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the case of a monk traveling with a thief. This is a general rule, non-confessional, and falls under the category of Dukkaṭa offenses for one who travels with a thief knowingly, or perceives a non-thief as a thief, or is in doubt. For one who perceives both as non-thieves, or travels without prior arrangement, or in emergencies, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are the nature of the thief, knowledge, arrangement, and traveling without prior agreement. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing. This is a matter of rule-breaking, bodily action, verbal action, threefold intention, and threefold feeling.

The explanation of the training precept concerning a band of thieves is concluded.

7. Saṃvidhānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Saṃvidhāna Training Rule

7. The Explanation of the Training Precept Concerning Making an Arrangement

7. Explanation of the Saṃvidhāna Training Rule

Sattame sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha mātugāmena saddhiṃ ekaddhānamaggaṃ paṭipajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesamettha bhikkhuniyā saddhiṃ saṃvidhānasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

In the seventh, this was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk, regarding the matter of setting out on one journey-path with a woman. The rest here should be understood as stated in the Saṃvidhāna training rule with a nun.

In the seventh, it was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhu, in the case of setting out on the same road with a woman after making an arrangement. The rest here should be understood as stated in the training precept concerning making an arrangement with a bhikkhunī.

In the seventh rule, in Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the case of a monk traveling with a woman. The rest should be understood in the same way as in the rule on traveling with a bhikkhunī.

The explanation of the training precept concerning making an arrangement is concluded.

8. Ariṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Ariṭṭha Training Rule

8. The Explanation of the Training Precept Concerning Ariṭṭha

8. Explanation of the Ariṭṭha Training Rule

Aṭṭhame saggamokkhānaṃ antarāyaṃ karontīti antarāyikā, te kammakilesavipākaupavādapaññattivītikkamanavasena pañcavidhā. Tesu mudukānaṃ attharaṇādīnaṃ phasso viya itthisamphassopi vaṭṭatīti methunavītikkamane dosaṃ adisvā paññattivītikkamantarāyike sandhāya “yeme antarāyikā dhammā vuttā bhagavatā, te paṭisevato nālaṃ antarāyāyā”ti vuttaṃ. Anekapariyāyenāti “aṭṭhikaṅkalūpamā kāmā”tiādīhi (ma. ni. 2.42; pāci. 417; cūḷani. khaggavisāṇasuttaniddesa 147) nekehi kāraṇehi. So bhikkhu bhikkhūhīti ye passanti vā suṇanti vā, tehi tikkhattuṃ evaṃ vattabbo “mā āyasmā evaṃ avaca…pe… alañca pana te paṭisevato antarāyāyā”ti. Evaṃ vutte appaṭinissajjantassa dukkaṭaṃ, sutvā avadantānampi dukkaṭaṃ. Puna saṅghamajjhampi ākaḍḍhitvā tatheva vattabbo, tatrāpi tassa appaṭinissajjane, itaresañca avacane dukkaṭameva. Evampi appaṭinissajjanto puna ñatticatutthena kammena yāvatatiyaṃ samanubhāsitabbo, athassa appaṭinissajjato puna ñattiyā ca dvīhi ca kammavācāhi dukkaṭaṃ, kammavācāpariyosāne pācittiyaṃ.

In the eighth, they cause hindrance to heaven and liberation, thus hindrances; they are fivefold: through action, defilement, result, reproach, and transgression of a precept. Among them, considering that even the contact with soft things like coverings is permissible, as is contact with women, not seeing fault in the transgression of sexual conduct, and referring to the hindrance of precept transgression, it was said, “These states called hindrances by the Blessed One are not sufficient to be a hindrance for one practicing them.” In many ways—by various reasons such as “sensual pleasures are like a skeleton” (ma. ni. 2.42; pāci. 417; cūḷani. khaggavisāṇasuttaniddesa 147). That monk by the monks—those who see or hear should say to him three times, “Do not say so, venerable… indeed, they are sufficient to be a hindrance for you practicing them.” If he does not relinquish it after being so told, it is dukkaṭa; for those who hear and do not speak, it is also dukkaṭa. Again, he should be brought before the Sangha and told the same; there too, if he does not relinquish it, and the others do not speak, it is only dukkaṭa. Even then, if he does not relinquish it, he should be admonished up to three times with a formal act of motion and announcements; if he still does not relinquish it, there is dukkaṭa with the motion and two announcements, and pācittiya at the conclusion of the announcement.

In the eighth, those that cause obstruction to heaven and liberation are called antarāyikā (obstructive). They are of five kinds, due to action, defilement, result, blame, and transgression of a precept. Among them, just as the touch of soft bedding, etc., is allowable, so too is the touch of a woman. Not seeing the fault in sexual transgression, referring to the obstructive transgression of a precept, it was said, “Those obstructive dhammas stated by the Blessed One, for one practicing them, are not capable of obstruction.” “Anekapariyāyenā” (in many ways) means by many reasons, such as “sensual pleasures are like a skeleton,” etc. (ma. ni. 2.42; pāci. 417; cūḷani. khaggavisāṇasuttaniddesa 147). “So bhikkhu bhikkhūhī” (that bhikkhu by the bhikkhus) means those who see or hear should say thus three times, “Do not, venerable sir, say thus… [etc.]… but they are capable of obstruction for one practicing them.” If, when this is said, he does not relinquish it, it is a dukkaṭa. If, after hearing, they do not advise, it is also a dukkaṭa. Again, he should be brought into the midst of the Sangha and told the same. There also, if he does not relinquish it, and if the others do not speak, it is only a dukkaṭa. Even if he does not relinquish it, again, he should be formally admonished up to the third time with a formal act with a motion and three announcements. Then, if he does not relinquish it, again, it is a dukkaṭa for the formal announcement and the two recitations of the formal act, and at the conclusion of the recitation of the formal act, it is a pācittiya.

In the eighth rule, antarāyikā refers to actions that obstruct heaven and liberation, of five kinds. Anekapariyāyenā means in many ways, such as “sensual pleasures are like a skeleton,” etc. So bhikkhu bhikkhūhī means those who see or hear should admonish him three times. If he does not desist, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. If he still does not desist, he should be formally admonished by the Sangha. If he does not desist, it is a Dukkaṭa offense for the motion and two announcements, and a Pācittiya offense at the end of the announcement.

Sāvatthiyaṃ ariṭṭhaṃ ārabbha pāpikāya diṭṭhiyā appaṭinissajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, adhammakamme tikadukkaṭaṃ. Asamanubhāsiyamānassa , paṭinissajjantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Dhammakammatā, samanubhāsanā, appaṭinissajjananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni samanubhāsanasadisānevāti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Ariṭṭha, regarding the matter of not relinquishing an evil view. It is a general rule, not requiring instruction, entailing three instances of pācittiya; in an unlawful act, three instances of dukkaṭa. For one not being admonished, or relinquishing it, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. It being a lawful act, admonition, and not relinquishing—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Samanubhāsana rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning Ariṭṭha, in the case of not relinquishing a wrong view. It is a general precept, not requiring a specific command, and entails a pācittiya with three factors. In a non-legal action, it is a triple dukkaṭa. If one is not being formally admonished, if one relinquishes it, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: the fact of being a legal action, formal admonishment, and not relinquishing. The arising, etc., are similar to the case of samanubhāsana.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the case of Ariṭṭha not abandoning a wrong view. This is a general rule, non-confessional, and falls under the category of three Pācittiya offenses. For one not formally admonished, or who desists, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are the nature of the Dhamma act, formal admonishment, and not desisting. The origins, etc., are similar to the act of pressing.

9. Ukkhittasambhogasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Ukkhittasambhoga Training Rule

9. The Explanation of the Training Precept Concerning Associating with an Excommunicated Person

9. Explanation of the Ukkhittasambhoga Training Rule

Navame tathāvādināti “tathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhamma”ntiādivādinā. Akatānudhammenāti anudhammo vuccati āpattiyā adassane vā appaṭikamme vā pāpikāya diṭṭhiyā appaṭinissagge vā dhammena vinayena ukkhittakassa anulomavattaṃ disvā kataosāraṇā, so osāraṇasaṅkhāto anudhammo yassa na kato, ayaṃ akatānudhammo nāma, tādisena saddhinti attho. Sambhuñjeyya vāti āmisasambhogaṃ vā dhammasambhogaṃ vā kareyya. Saṃvaseyya vāti uposathādikaṃ saṅghakammaṃ kareyya . Saha vā seyyaṃ kappeyyāti nānūpacārepi ekacchanne nipajjeyya. Tattha āmisaparibhoge ekappayogena bahūpi dadato vā gaṇhato vā ekaṃ pācittiyaṃ, vicchindane sati payoge payoge pācittiyaṃ. Dhammasambhoge padādīhi uddisantassa vā uddisāpentassa vā padasodhamme vuttanayena, saṃvāse kammapariyosānavasena, sahaseyyāya ekasmiṃ nipanne itarassa nipajjanappayogavasena āpattiparicchedo veditabbo.

In the ninth, one who speaks thus means one who says, “Thus I was taught the Dhamma by the Blessed One,” and so forth. Without restoration—restoration refers to the compliant conduct seen in one suspended by a lawful disciplinary act for not seeing an offence, not making amends, or not relinquishing an evil view; one for whom this restoration, called compliance, has not been done is termed “without restoration”—this is the meaning, referring to associating with such a one. He associates means he engages in material association or Dhamma association. He performs communal acts means he performs Sangha acts like the Uposatha. Or lies down together means he lies down under one roof, even if not in close proximity. There, in material association, giving or taking much in one action is one pācittiya; if interrupted, it is pācittiya with each action. In Dhamma association, reciting or causing recitation by lines and so forth is as stated in the Padasodhamma rule; in communal acts, it is by the conclusion of the act; in lying down together, the offence is reckoned by the action of the second lying down after the first has lain down.

In the ninth, “tathāvādinā” (one who speaks thus) means one who speaks thus: “Thus I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One,” etc. “Akatānudhammenā” (one without the appropriate procedure having been done) means anudhammo (appropriate procedure) refers to restoration done after seeing conformity of conduct for one who has been excommunicated according to the Dhamma and the Vinaya, due to not seeing an offense, or not making amends, or not relinquishing a wrong view. He for whom that appropriate procedure, known as restoration, has not been done, is called akatānudhammo. It means with such a one. “Sambhuñjeyya vā” (one should associate) means one should engage in material association or Dhamma association. “Saṃvaseyya vā” (one should live together) means one should perform Sangha actions such as the uposatha. “Saha vā seyyaṃ kappeyyā” (or one should share the same sleeping quarters) means one should lie down under the same roof, even if it is not a shared dwelling. Here, in material use, even if one gives or receives many with one effort, it is one pācittiya. If there is a break, it is a pācittiya for each effort. In Dhamma association, for one reciting or causing to recite by word, etc., as stated in the case of padasodhamma. In living together, the determination of the offense should be understood based on the conclusion of the formal act, and in sharing the same sleeping quarters, based on the effort of lying down for the other when one is lying down.

In the ninth rule, tathāvādinā means one who says, “Thus I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One.” Akatānudhammenā means one who has not acted in accordance with the Dhamma. Sambhuñjeyya vā means sharing material or Dhamma resources. Saṃvaseyya vā means participating in Sangha acts like Uposatha. Saha vā seyyaṃ kappeyyā means lying down together even without physical contact. For material sharing, one incurs a Pācittiya offense for each act. For Dhamma sharing, it is as explained in the rule on teaching. For Sangha acts, it is at the end of the act. For lying down together, it is at the time of lying down.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha ariṭṭhena bhikkhunā saddhiṃ sambhuñjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, ukkhittake vematikassa, anukkhittake ukkhittakasaññino ceva vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Ubhosu anukkhittakasaññissa, “osārito”ti vā “taṃ diṭṭhiṃ paṭinissaṭṭho”ti vā jānantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Akatānudhammatā, jānanā, sambhogādikaraṇanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana paṇṇattivajjaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks in a matter of eating together with the monk Ariṭṭha, it was laid down as a general injunction, without command. For one who is uncertain about an expelled person, or perceives an unexpelled person as expelled, or is uncertain, there is a dukkata. For one who perceives both as unexpelled, or knows “He has been reinstated” or “He has abandoned that view,” or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. Not fulfilling the prescribed duties, knowing, and engaging in eating together or similar acts are the three factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the rule on taking what is not given, but this is a fault due to the injunction, involves three mental states, and three feelings.

It was established at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the case of eating together with the bhikkhu Ariṭṭha. It is a general regulation, not a command. For one uncertain about an expelled person, and for one who, while not expelled, considers himself expelled, or is uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For both, if one considers the person unexpelled, or knows that he has been “reinstated” or has “renounced that view,” and for an insane person, etc., there is no offense. The factors here are three: not having performed the proper act, knowing, and engaging in communal activities. The arising and other aspects are similar to taking what is not given, but this is a fault in the regulations, with three kinds of consciousness, and three kinds of feeling.

In Sāvatthī, a rule was established regarding the case of the Chabbaggiya monks sharing with Ariṭṭha. This is a general rule, non-confessional, and falls under the category of Dukkaṭa offenses for one in doubt about an expelled monk, or perceiving a non-expelled monk as expelled, or in doubt. For one who perceives both as non-expelled, or knows he has been reinstated or has abandoned the wrong view, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are not acting in accordance with the Dhamma, knowledge, and sharing. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing. This is a matter of rule-breaking, threefold intention, and threefold feeling.

The explanation of the training rule regarding communal relations with an expelled person is finished.

10. Kaṇṭakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. The Explanation of the Kaṇṭaka Training Rule

10. Explanation of the Kaṇṭaka Training Rule

Dasame samaṇuddesoti sāmaṇero. Carāti gaccha. Pireti para amāmaka. Vinassāti nassa , yattha taṃ na passāma, tattha gacchāti vuttaṃ hoti. Tathānāsitantiettha saṃvāsanāsanā liṅganāsanā daṇḍakammanāsanāti tisso nāsanā. Tattha āpattiyā adassanādīsu ukkhepanā saṃvāsanāsanā nāma. Dūsako nāsetabbo (pārā. 66), mettiyaṃ bhikkhuniṃ nāsethāti (cūḷava. 193; pārā. 384) ayaṃ liṅganāsanā nāma. “Ajjatagge te, āvuso samaṇuddesa, na ceva so bhagavā satthā apadisitabbo”ti (pāci. 429) ayaṃ daṇḍakammanāsanā nāma, ayaṃ idhādhippetā. Tena vuttaṃ “tathānāsita”nti. Upalāpeyyāti “pattaṃ vā cīvaraṃ vā uddesaṃ vā paripucchaṃ vā dassāmī”ti saṅgaṇheyya. Upaṭṭhāpeyyāti cuṇṇamattikādīni sādiyanto tena attano upaṭṭhānaṃ kārāpeyya. Sambhogasahaseyyā anantarasikkhāpade vuttanayā eva, tasmā āpattiparicchedopettha tasmiṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbo.

In the tenth, samaṇuddeso means a novice. Carā means “go.” Pire means “to another, not a relative.” Vinassā means “be lost,” implying “Go where we cannot see you,” it is said. Tathānāsita—here, there are three types of expulsion: saṃvāsanāsanā (expulsion from association), liṅganāsanā (expulsion by mark), and daṇḍakammanāsanā (expulsion by disciplinary act). Among them, expulsion due to not seeing an offense and so forth is called saṃvāsanāsanā. “A corrupter should be expelled” (pārā. 66), “Expel the nun Mettiyā” (cūḷava. 193; pārā. 384)—this is called liṅganāsanā. “From now on, friend novice, you may not refer to that Blessed One as your teacher” (pāci. 429)—this is called daṇḍakammanāsanā, and this is intended here. Hence it is said, tathānāsita. Upalāpeyyā means he might entice with, “I will give you a bowl, a robe, recitation, or questioning.” Upaṭṭhāpeyyā means, accepting powdered clay and so forth, he might have himself served by him. Eating together and sharing a sleeping place are as explained in the previous training rule, so the determination of the offense here should be understood in the same way as stated there.

In the tenth, samaṇuddeso means a novice. Carā means go. Pire means go away, you are not mine. Vinassā means be gone, it means go where I do not see you. Tathānāsita here means expelled, there are three expulsions: expulsion from communion, expulsion from the (monastic) marks, expulsion by punishment. Of those, expulsion for not seeing offenses, etc., is called expulsion from communion. ‘The corrupter should be expelled’ (pārā. 66), ‘Expel the nun Mettiyā’ (cūḷava. 193; pārā. 384) this is called expulsion from the marks. ‘From today, friend novice, you should not mention the Blessed One as your teacher’ (pāci. 429) this is called expulsion by punishment, this is what is meant here. Therefore, it is said “tathānāsita” (thus expelled). Upalāpeyyā means to encourage by saying, “I will give you a bowl, a robe, a recitation, or an inquiry.” Upaṭṭhāpeyyā means to cause him to do one’s own service by accepting powder, clay, etc. Communal living and sleeping together are as described in the immediately preceding training rule, therefore the classification of the offense here should also be understood as stated in that rule.

In the tenth, samaṇuddeso means a novice monk. Carā means go. Pire means beyond, without attachment. Vinassā means perish, “go where we do not see you,” is what is said. Tathānāsita here refers to three types of expulsion: saṃvāsanāsanā, liṅganāsanā, and daṇḍakammanāsanā. Among these, expulsion due to not seeing an offense, etc., is called saṃvāsanāsanā. A corrupt person should be expelled (pārā. 66), “expel the bhikkhunī Mettiya” (cūḷava. 193; pārā. 384), this is called liṅganāsanā. “From today, friend samaṇuddesa, you should not refer to the Blessed One as your teacher” (pāci. 429), this is called daṇḍakammanāsanā, and this is what is intended here. Therefore, it is said tathānāsita. Upalāpeyyā means “I will give you a bowl, robe, instruction, or questioning,” thus enticing. Upaṭṭhāpeyyā means accepting things like chalk or clay and having them serve him. The method is the same as in the anantarasikkhāpada, so the offense should be determined accordingly.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye bhikkhū ārabbha kaṇṭakasamaṇuddesaupalāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesaṃ ariṭṭhasikkhāpade vuttasadisamevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks in a matter of enticing the troublesome novice Kaṇṭaka, it was laid down; the rest is the same as stated in the Ariṭṭha training rule.

It was established at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six bhikkhus, in the case of encouraging the novice Kaṇṭaka. The rest is similar to what was said in the Ariṭṭha training rule.

This was established in Sāvatthī regarding the six bhikkhus, concerning the case of enticing a thorny novice. The rest is similar to what was said in the Ariṭṭha sikkhāpada.

8. Sahadhammikavaggo

8. The Sahadhammika Section

8. Sahadhammika Vagga

1. Sahadhammikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. The Explanation of the Sahadhammika Training Rule

1. Explanation of the Sahadhammika Sikkhāpada

Sahadhammikavaggassa paṭhame sahadhammikaṃ vuccamānoti imassattho dubbacasikkhāpade vutto. Etasmiṃ sikkhāpadeti etasmiṃ sikkhāpade yaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ na tāva sikkhissāmīti attho. Pācittiyanti ettha pana anādariyabhayā lesena evaṃ vadantassa vācāya vācāya pācittiyaṃ veditabbaṃ. Sikkhamānenāti ovādaṃ sirasā sampaṭicchitvā sikkhitukāmeneva hutvā. Aññātabbanti ājānitabbaṃ. Paripucchitabbanti “imassa ko attho”ti paripucchitabbaṃ. Paripañhitabbanti cintetabbaṃ tulayitabbaṃ.

In the first of the Sahadhammikavagga, sahadhammikaṃ vuccamāno—its meaning is explained in the dubbaca training rule. Etasmiṃ sikkhāpade means “In this training rule, what is stated, I will not train in it yet.” Pācittiya—here, for one speaking thus out of disrespect or fear, with a slight pretext, a pācittiya is to be understood for each utterance. Sikkhamānena means one desiring to train, having accepted the instruction with reverence. Aññātabba means it should be understood. Paripucchitabba means it should be questioned, “What is the meaning of this?” Paripañhitabba means it should be reflected upon and weighed.

The meaning of sahadhammikaṃ vuccamāno in the first of the Sahadhammika section was stated in the Dubbaca training rule. Etasmiṃ sikkhāpade means in this training rule, whatever has been said, I will not train in that for now. Pācittiya here, however, when saying this with a hint of disrespect due to disregard, a pācittiya offense should be understood for each word. Sikkhamānenā means accepting the advice with one’s head, becoming one who desires to train. Aññātabba means it should be learned. Paripucchitabba means it should be inquired about, “What is the meaning of this?” Paripañhitabba means it should be pondered, weighed.

In the first of the Sahadhammika Vagga, sahadhammikaṃ vuccamāno means the meaning as stated in the Dubbaca sikkhāpada. Etasmiṃ sikkhāpade means in this sikkhāpada, what is said is not to be practiced yet. Pācittiya here means that due to fear of disrespect, even if one speaks lightly, for each word spoken, a pācittiya offense is incurred. Sikkhamānenā means one who desires to train after accepting advice with respect. Aññātabba means it should be understood. Paripucchitabba means “what is the meaning of this?” should be inquired. Paripañhitabba means it should be reflected upon and weighed.

Kosambiyaṃ channattheraṃ ārabbha evaṃ bhaṇanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ , tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ, ubhohipi “idaṃ na sallekhāyā”tiādinā (pāci. 436) nayeneva appaññattena vuccamānassāpi evaṃ vadato dukkaṭameva. “Jānissāmi sikkhissāmī”ti bhaṇantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannassa paññattena vacanaṃ, asikkhitukāmatāya evaṃ vacananti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

At Kosambī, concerning the elder Channa in a matter of speaking thus, it was laid down as a general injunction, without command, a triple pācittiya. For an unordained person, a triple dukkata. For both, when spoken to with an unestablished rule such as “This does not conduce to austerity” (pāci. 436) and they speak thus, it is only a dukkata. For one who says, “I will know, I will train,” or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. Speech established for an ordained person and speaking thus out of unwillingness to train are the two factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the rule on taking what is not given, but this pertains to painful feeling.

It was established at Kosambī concerning the venerable Channa, in the case of speaking in this way. It is a general regulation, not a command, a triple pācittiya; for an unordained person, a triple dukkaṭa. For both, even when being spoken to in a way not conducive to refinement, etc. (pāci. 436), if one speaks thus due to ignorance, it is only a dukkaṭa. For one who says, “I will know, I will train,” and for an insane person, etc., there is no offense. The factors here are two: speaking to an ordained person with a regulation, and speaking thus due to a lack of desire to train. The arising and other aspects are similar to taking what is not given, but this gives rise to painful feeling.

This was established in Kosambī regarding the elder Channa, concerning the case of speaking thus. It is a common rule, non-announcement, a tikapācittiya offense. For the unordained, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. For both, if one says, “This is not for purification,” etc., even if not announced, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one says, “I will know, I will train,” there is no offense for the insane, etc. For the ordained, it is an announcement; for one who does not desire to train, it is such a statement. These are the two factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing. This, however, is painful.

2. Vilekhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. The Vilekhana Training Rule

2. Explanation of the Vilekhana Sikkhāpada

Dutiye uddissamāneti ācariyena antevāsikassa vuccamāne vā sajjhāyavasena parivattiyamāne vā. Khuddānukhuddakehīti khuddakehi ca anukhuddakehi ca. Yāvadevāti tesaṃ saṃvattanamariyādaparicchedavacanaṃ. Idaṃ vuttaṃ hoti – etāni hi ye uddisanti vā uddisāpenti vā sajjhāyanti vā, tesaṃ tāva saṃvattanti, yāva “kappati nu kho, na kappati nu kho”ti kukkuccavippaṭisāro, vihesā, vicikicchā manovilekhā ca uppajjantiyeva. Atha vā yāvadevāti atisayavavatthāpanaṃ. Tassa ’saṃvattantī’tiiminā sambandho, kukkuccāya vihesāya vilekhāya ativiya saṃvattantiyevāti vuttaṃ hoti. Sikkhāpadavivaṇṇaketi evaṃ sikkhāpadānaṃ vivaṇṇake garahaṇe pācittiyaṃ hotīti attho.

In the second, uddissamāne means when it is being recited by a teacher to a pupil or repeated as a study text. Khuddānukhuddakehi means with minor and lesser offenses. Yāvadevā is a term defining the limit of their conduciveness. This is meant: These, when recited, taught, or studied by people, conduce for them only so far as doubt, remorse, annoyance, uncertainty, and mental disturbance arise regarding “Is this allowable or not?” Alternatively, yāvadevā indicates an extreme determination, connected with “conduce,” meaning they conduce exceedingly to doubt, annoyance, and disturbance. Sikkhāpadavivaṇṇake means a pācittiya occurs in censuring by disparaging the training rules.

In the second, uddissamāne means when being recited by a teacher to a student or when being recited as a recitation. Khuddānukhuddakehī means with the minor and lesser rules. Yāvadevā is a statement limiting the extent of their application. This is what is said: These rules apply to those who recite them, have them recited, or chant them, to the extent that doubt, remorse, annoyance, uncertainty, and mental defilements arise, such as “Is it allowable or not allowable?” Or yāvadevā means establishing an extreme. Its connection is with ‘saṃvattantī’, meaning they exceedingly lead to doubt, annoyance, and defilement. Sikkhāpadavivaṇṇake means in thus disparaging the training rules, in speaking disparagingly, there is a pācittiya offense.

In the second, uddissamāne means when a teacher is instructing a pupil or when reciting by rotation. Khuddānukhuddakehī means both minor and lesser. Yāvadevā is a term indicating the limit of their benefit. It is said that these, when recited or taught, benefit them until doubt, remorse, harassment, and mental vexation arise. Alternatively, yāvadevā means an excessive determination. The connection is that they greatly benefit in causing doubt, harassment, and vexation. Sikkhāpadavivaṇṇake means that in such criticism of the sikkhāpadas, a pācittiya offense is incurred.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha vinayavivaṇṇanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampannassa vivaṇṇane tikadukkaṭaṃ, ubhinnampi aññadhammavivaṇṇane dukkaṭameva. Na vivaṇṇetukāmassa, “iṅgha tāva suttante vā gāthāyo vā abhidhammaṃ vā pariyāpuṇassu, pacchāpi vinayaṃ pariyāpuṇissasī”ti bhaṇato, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Garahitukāmatā ca, upasampannassa santike sikkhāpadavivaṇṇanañcāti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks in a matter of disparaging the Vinaya, it was laid down as a general injunction, without command, a triple pācittiya. For an unordained person disparaging, a triple dukkata. For both, disparaging another teaching is only a dukkata. For one not desiring to disparage, saying, “Come, first master the discourses, verses, or Abhidhamma, and later you can master the Vinaya,” or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The desire to censure and disparaging the training rules in the presence of an ordained person are the two factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the rule on taking what is not given, but this pertains to painful feeling.

It was established at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the case of disparaging the Vinaya. It is a general regulation, not a command, a triple pācittiya; for disparaging by an unordained person, a triple dukkaṭa; for both, when disparaging other doctrines, it is only a dukkaṭa. For one who does not intend to disparage, who says, “First, learn the suttas, the verses, or the Abhidhamma, later you will learn the Vinaya,” and for an insane person, etc., there is no offense. The factors here are two: the desire to disparage and disparaging the training rules in the presence of an ordained person. The arising and other aspects are similar to taking what is not given, but this gives rise to painful feeling.

This was established in Sāvatthī regarding the six bhikkhus, concerning the case of criticizing the Vinaya. It is a common rule, non-announcement, a tikapācittiya offense. For the unordained, criticizing is a tikadukkaṭa offense. For both, criticizing other teachings is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not desire to criticize, saying, “First learn the suttas, gāthās, or Abhidhamma, then later learn the Vinaya,” there is no offense for the insane, etc. The desire to criticize and criticizing the sikkhāpadas in the presence of the ordained are the two factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing. This, however, is painful.

3. Mohanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Mohana Training Rule

3. Explanation of the Mohana Sikkhāpada

Tatiye anvaḍḍhamāsanti anupaṭipāṭiyā addhamāse addhamāse. Uddissamāneti uposathavasena uddisiyamāne. Yañca tattha āpattiṃ āpannoti yaṃ so anācāraṃ ācaritvā aññāṇakena āpannabhāvaṃ jānāpetukāmo evamāha, tasmiṃ anācāre yaṃ āpattiṃ āpanno. Tañca yathādhammo kāretabboti aññāṇakena āpannattā mokkho natthi, yathā pana dhammo ca vinayo ca ṭhito, tathā taṃ āpattiṃ kāretabbo, desanāgāminiyā desāpetabbo, vuṭṭhānagāminiyā vuṭṭhāpetabboti attho. Uttari cassa moho āropetabboti yathādhammakaraṇato ca uttari “tassa te, āvuso”tiādivacanehi ninditvā tassa puggalassa ñattidutiyakammena moho āropetabbo. Idaṃ tasmiṃ mohanake pācittiyanti yo evaṃ āropite mohe puna moheti, tasmiṃ mohanake puggale idaṃ pācittiyaṃ veditabbaṃ, na anāropite moheti attho.

In the third, anvaḍḍhamāsa means every half-month in sequence. Uddissamāne means when recited for the uposatha. Yañca tattha āpattiṃ āpanno means the offense he has fallen into by that misconduct, which he wishes to make known as one ignorant, saying so. Tañca yathādhammo kāretabbo means there is no release due to ignorance of the offense; rather, that offense should be dealt with as the Dhamma and Vinaya prescribe—confessable offenses should be confessed, and those requiring rehabilitation should be rehabilitated. Uttari cassa moho āropetabbo means beyond dealing with it lawfully, by reprimanding him with words like “Friend, this is yours” and so forth, moha (delusion) should be imposed on that person by a ñattidutiyakamma (motion-second disciplinary act). Idaṃ tasmiṃ mohanake pācittiya means for one who, after moha has been imposed, deludes again, a pācittiya is to be understood for that deluding person, not for deluding one on whom it has not been imposed.

In the third, anvaḍḍhamāsa means every half-month in regular succession. Uddissamāne means being recited as the Uposatha. Yañca tattha āpattiṃ āpanno means whatever offense he has committed in that misconduct, wanting to make known his state of having fallen due to ignorance, he speaks thus, in that misconduct, whatever offense he has committed. Tañca yathādhammo kāretabbo means there is no release due to having fallen through ignorance, but as the Dhamma and Vinaya are established, so that offense should be dealt with, if it is to be confessed, it should be confessed, if it requires leaving (the order), he should leave. This is the meaning. Uttari cassa moho āropetabbo means and further, after dealing with it according to the Dhamma, blaming him with words such as “Friend, for you…” etc., delusion should be imposed on that person by a formal act with a motion and second. Idaṃ tasmiṃ mohanake pācittiya means whoever causes delusion again after delusion has been thus imposed, in that deluding person, this pācittiya should be understood, not when he causes delusion without delusion having been imposed.

In the third, anvaḍḍhamāsa means every half-month in sequence. Uddissamāne means when reciting for the Uposatha. Yañca tattha āpattiṃ āpanno means the offense he committed by misconduct, wishing to inform others of his offense. Tañca yathādhammo kāretabbo means since there is no release for one who has committed an offense unknowingly, the offense should be dealt with according to the Dhamma and Vinaya, leading to confession or rehabilitation. Uttari cassa moho āropetabbo means beyond proper action, the person should be reproached with words like “Friend, this is yours,” and confusion should be imposed through a ñattidutiyakamma. Idaṃ tasmiṃ mohanake pācittiya means for one who imposes confusion again on someone already confused, a pācittiya offense is incurred, but not for one who is not already confused.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha mohanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, adhammakamme tikadukkaṭaṃ, anāropite mohe dukkaṭameva. Yena na vitthārena sutaṃ, ūnakadvattikkhattuṃ vā vitthārena sutaṃ, ye ca na mohetukāmā tesaṃ, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Mohāropanaṃ, mohetukāmatā, vuttanayena sutabhāvo, mohananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks in a matter of delusion, it was laid down as a general injunction, without command, a triple pācittiya. For an unlawful act, a triple dukkata. For deluding when moha has not been imposed, only a dukkata. For one who has not heard it in detail, or has heard it in detail less than two or three times, or for those not desiring to delude, or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The imposition of moha, the desire to delude, having heard as stated, and deluding are the four factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the rule on taking what is not given, but this pertains to painful feeling.

It was established at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the case of causing delusion. It is a general regulation, not a command, a triple pācittiya; for an unlawful act, a triple dukkaṭa; for causing delusion without it having been imposed, it is only a dukkaṭa. For one who has not heard it in detail, or who has heard it in detail only two or three times, and for those who do not intend to delude, and for an insane person, etc., there is no offense. The factors here are four: the imposition of delusion, the desire to delude, having heard as described, and deluding. The arising and other aspects are similar to taking what is not given, but this gives rise to painful feeling.

This was established in Sāvatthī regarding the six bhikkhus, concerning the case of causing confusion. It is a common rule, non-announcement, a tikapācittiya offense. For an unlawful act, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. For one not previously confused, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who has not heard in detail, or heard less than two or three times, and for those who do not desire to confuse, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Imposing confusion, the desire to confuse, hearing in the prescribed manner, and confusion are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing. This, however, is painful.

4. Pahārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. The Pahāra Training Rule

4. Explanation of the Pahāra Sikkhāpada

Catutthe pahāraṃ dadeyyāti ettha paharitukāmatāya pahāre dinne sacepi marati, pācittiyameva.

In the fourth, pahāraṃ dadeyyā—here, if a blow is given with the intent to strike, even if it causes death, it is only a pācittiya.

In the fourth, pahāraṃ dadeyyā means here, if a blow is given with the intention to strike, even if he dies, it is only a pācittiya.

In the fourth, pahāraṃ dadeyyā means if one strikes with the intent to strike, even if death occurs, it is only a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha pahāradānavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ, virūpakaraṇādhippāyena pana upasampannassapi kaṇṇādicchedane dukkaṭameva. Kenaci viheṭhiyamānassa pana mokkhādhippāyassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Kupitatā, na mokkhādhippāyatā, upasampannassa pahāradānanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks in a matter of giving a blow, it was laid down as a general injunction, without command, a triple pācittiya. For an unordained person, a triple dukkata. Even with the intent to disfigure, cutting off an ordained person’s ear or the like is only a dukkata. For one being harmed by someone, with the intent to escape, or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. Anger, not the intent to escape, and giving a blow to an ordained person are the three factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the first pārājika rule, but this pertains to painful feeling.

It was established at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the case of giving a blow. It is a general regulation, not a command, a triple pācittiya; for an unordained person, a triple dukkaṭa; but for cutting off the ear, etc., of even an ordained person with the intention of disfiguring, it is only a dukkaṭa. For one who is being harassed by someone, but with the intention of releasing him, and for an insane person, etc., there is no offense. The factors here are three: being angry, not intending release, and giving a blow to an ordained person. The arising and other aspects are similar to the first pārājika, but this gives rise to painful feeling.

This was established in Sāvatthī regarding the six bhikkhus, concerning the case of giving a blow. It is a common rule, non-announcement, a tikapācittiya offense. For the unordained, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. For the ordained, if one intends to disfigure, cutting an ear, etc., it is a dukkaṭa offense. For one being harassed by anyone, if the intent is to escape, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Anger, lack of intent to escape, and striking an ordained person are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the first pārājika. This, however, is painful.

5. Talasattikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The Talasattika Training Rule

5. Explanation of the Talasattika Sikkhāpada

Pañcame talasattikaṃ uggireyyāti pahāradānākāraṃ dassento kāyaṃ vā kāyappaṭibaddhaṃ vā uccāreyya. Ettha ca uggiraṇapaccayā pācittiyaṃ. Sace pana uggiritvā viraddho pahāraṃ deti, na paharitukāmatāya dinnattā dukkaṭameva, tena pahārena hatthādīsu yaṃkiñci bhijjati, dukkaṭameva. Sesamettha sabbaṃ purimasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

In the fifth, talasattikaṃ uggireyyā means raising the body or something attached to the body as a gesture of giving a blow. Here, a pācittiya arises due to the raising. If, after raising and missing, he gives a blow, it is only a dukkata since it was not given with the intent to strike. Even if that blow breaks a hand or anything else, it is only a dukkata. The rest here should be understood entirely as stated in the previous training rule.

In the fifth, talasattikaṃ uggireyyā means showing the manner of giving a blow, raising the body or what is attached to the body. And here, due to the raising, there is a pācittiya. But if, having raised it, he misses and gives a blow, it is only a dukkaṭa because it was not given with the intention to strike. If anything, such as the hand, is broken by that blow, it is only a dukkaṭa. Everything else here should be understood as stated in the previous training rule.

In the fifth, talasattikaṃ uggireyyā means making a gesture of striking by raising the body or something attached to the body. Here, due to the act of raising, a pācittiya offense is incurred. If one raises but misses the strike, since there is no intent to strike, it is only a dukkaṭa offense. If anything like a hand is broken by that strike, it is also a dukkaṭa offense. The rest should be understood as in the previous sikkhāpada.

6. Amūlakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. The Amūlaka Training Rule

6. Explanation of the Amūlaka Sikkhāpada

Chaṭṭhe amūlakenāti diṭṭhādimūlavirahitena. Anuddhaṃseyyāti codeyya vā codāpeyya vā. Pācittiyanti sace cuditako taṅkhaṇaññeva “codeti ma”nti jānāti, codakassa pācittiyaṃ.

In the sixth, amūlakena means without basis in what was seen or otherwise. Anuddhaṃseyyā means he might accuse or cause to be accused. Pācittiya—if the accused realizes at that moment, “He is accusing me,” the accuser incurs a pācittiya.

In the sixth, amūlakenā means without a basis in seeing, etc. Anuddhaṃseyyā means to accuse or cause to accuse. Pācittiya means if the accused one immediately knows, “He is accusing me,” for the accuser, there is a pācittiya.

In the sixth, amūlakenā means without basis in what is seen, heard, or suspected. Anuddhaṃseyyā means accusing or causing to accuse. Pācittiya means if the accused knows at that moment, “He is accusing me,” the accuser incurs a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha amūlakena saṅghādisesena anuddhaṃsanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ācāravipattiyā vā diṭṭhivipattiyā vā anuddhaṃsane dukkaṭaṃ, anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ. Tathāsaññissa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannatā, saṅghādisesassa amūlakatā, anuddhaṃsanā, taṅkhaṇavijānanāti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks in a matter of baselessly accusing with a saṅghādisesa offense, it was laid down as a general injunction, with command, a triple pācittiya. For accusing due to a breach of conduct or view, a dukkata. For an unordained person, a triple dukkata. For one with that perception, or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. Being an ordained person, the baseless nature of the saṅghādisesa, accusing, and immediate realization are the four factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the rule on taking what is not given, but this pertains to painful feeling.

It was established at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the case of accusing with a baseless saṅghādisesa. It is a general regulation, with a command, a triple pācittiya; for accusing with a transgression of conduct or a transgression of view, a dukkaṭa; for an unordained person, a triple dukkaṭa. For one who has such a perception, and for an insane person, etc., there is no offense. The factors here are four: being ordained, the baselessness of the saṅghādisesa, the accusation, and immediate knowledge. The arising and other aspects are similar to taking what is not given, but this gives rise to painful feeling.

This was established in Sāvatthī regarding the six bhikkhus, concerning the case of groundless accusation with a saṅghādisesa offense. It is a common rule, announcement, a tikapācittiya offense. For accusation due to failure in conduct or wrong view, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For the unordained, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. For one who is mistaken, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Being ordained, the groundlessness of the saṅghādisesa, the accusation, and knowing at that moment are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing. This, however, is painful.

7. Sañciccasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. The Sañcicca Training Rule

7. Explanation of the Sañcicca Sikkhāpada

Sattame kukkuccaṃ upadaheyyāti “ūnavīsativasso tvaṃ maññe”tiādīni (pāci. 466) bhaṇanto uppādeyya. Evaṃ aññasmiṃ uppādanapaccaye asati sañcicca uppādentassa vācāya vācāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the seventh, kukkuccaṃ upadaheyyā means he might stir up worry by saying things like, “Perhaps you are under twenty years old” (pāci. 466). For one who intentionally stirs it up when there is no other cause for it, a pācittiya arises for each utterance.

In the seventh, kukkuccaṃ upadaheyyā means causing doubt by saying things like, “I think you are less than twenty years old,” etc. (pāci. 466). Thus, in the absence of another cause for causing it, for one who intentionally causes it, there is a pācittiya for each word.

In the seventh, kukkuccaṃ upadaheyyā means causing anxiety by saying, “You seem to be under twenty years of age,” etc. (pāci. 466). For each word spoken with the intent to cause anxiety without a proper cause, a pācittiya offense is incurred.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha kukkuccauppādanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ. Nauppādetukāmassa, kevalaṃ hitesitāya tathā vadantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannatā, aphāsukāmatā , kukkuccuppādananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni anantarasadisānevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks in a matter of stirring up worry, it was laid down as a general injunction, without command, a triple pācittiya. For an unordained person, a triple dukkata. For one not desiring to stir it up, speaking thus only out of goodwill, or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. Being an ordained person, intent to cause unease, and stirring up worry are the three factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the previous rule.

It was established at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the case of causing doubt. It is a general regulation, not a command, a triple pācittiya; for an unordained person, a triple dukkaṭa. For one who does not intend to cause it, who only speaks thus out of goodwill, and for an insane person, etc., there is no offense. The factors here are three: being ordained, desiring to cause discomfort, and causing doubt. The arising and other aspects are similar to the immediately preceding ones.

This was established in Sāvatthī regarding the six bhikkhus, concerning the case of causing anxiety. It is a common rule, non-announcement, a tikapācittiya offense. For the unordained, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. For one who does not desire to cause anxiety, speaking out of mere goodwill, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Being ordained, the desire to cause discomfort, and causing anxiety are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the anantara offenses.

8. Upassutisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. The Upassuti Training Rule

8. Explanation of the Upassuti Sikkhāpada

Aṭṭhame vivādāpannānanti bhaṇḍanakalahehi vivaḍḍhitaṃ vivādādhikaraṇaṃ āpannānaṃ. Upassutinti sutisamīpaṃ, yattha ṭhatvā sakkā hoti tesaṃ vacanaṃ sotuṃ, tattha tiṭṭheyyāti attho. “Tattha sossāmī”ti codetukāmatāya gacchato pade pade dukkaṭaṃ, turitagamanepi ohīyamānepi eseva nayo. Yattha pana ṭhito suṇāti, tattha ṭhitassa pācittiyaṃ, attano ṭhitokāsaṃ āgantvā tesu mantayamānesupi ukkāsitvā, “ahaṃ etthā”ti vā vatvā jānāpetabbaṃ, evaṃ akarontassāpi savane pācittiyameva.

In the eighth, vivādāpannāna means those engaged in a dispute, having fallen into a matter of contention due to quarrels and strife. Upassuti means near enough to hear, where standing one can hear their words; it means he might stand there. Going with the intent to accuse, thinking “I will hear it there,” incurs a dukkata for each step; the same applies whether hastening or lingering. Standing where he hears incurs a pācittiya. Even if they come to his standing place and deliberate, he must cough or say, “I am here,” to make it known; failing to do so, hearing incurs a pācittiya.

In the eighth, vivādāpannāna means of those who have fallen into a dispute that has escalated into quarrels and arguments. Upassuti means near hearing, meaning standing where it is possible to hear their words. If one goes with the intention of accusing, “I will hear there,” there is a dukkaṭa for each step; even when walking quickly or lagging behind, the same rule applies. But where one stands and hears, for one standing there, there is a pācittiya. Even if they come to the place where he is standing and converse, he should cough or say, “I am here,” or make it known. Even if he does not do so, upon hearing, there is a pācittiya.

In the eighth, vivādāpannāna means those involved in a dispute or quarrel. Upassuti means near the hearing, where one can stand to listen to their words. “I will listen there,” for one who goes with the intent to accuse, for each step, a dukkaṭa offense is incurred. Even if one hurries or slows down, the same applies. If one stands and listens, a pācittiya offense is incurred. Even if one returns to one’s own place and they are discussing, one should clear one’s throat or say, “I am here,” to inform them. If one does not do so, listening incurs a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha upassutiṭṭhānavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ, “imesaṃ sutvā oramissāmi viramissāmi vūpasamissāmi attānaṃ parimocessāmī”ti (pāci. 473) gacchato, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannatā, codanādhippāyo, savananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Theyyasatthasamuṭṭhānaṃ idaṃ pana siyā kiriyaṃ, siyā akiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, dukkhavedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks in a matter of standing near to overhear, it was laid down as a general injunction, without command, a triple pācittiya. For an unordained person, a triple dukkata. For one going thinking, “Having heard this, I will desist, refrain, calm myself, or free myself” (pāci. 473), or for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. Being an ordained person, intent to accuse, and hearing are the three factors here. This arises like a caravan thief, may be action or inaction, is perception-released, involves a mind, is a worldly fault, involves bodily and verbal action, an unwholesome mind, and painful feeling.

It was established at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the case of standing in earshot. It is a general regulation, not a command, a triple pācittiya; for an unordained person, a triple dukkaṭa. For one who goes thinking, “Having heard these, I will calm them, stop them, pacify them, release myself” (pāci. 473), and for an insane person, etc., there is no offense. The factors here are three: being ordained, intending to accuse, and hearing. The arising is like that of the secret theft, but this may be an action or a non-action, free from perception, intentional, a worldly fault, a bodily action, a verbal action, an unwholesome mind, and painful feeling.

This was established in Sāvatthī regarding the six bhikkhus, concerning the case of eavesdropping. It is a common rule, non-announcement, a tikapācittiya offense. For the unordained, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. For one who goes thinking, “Having heard this, I will refrain, desist, calm down, or free myself,” and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Being ordained, the intent to accuse, and listening are the three factors here. The origin is similar to the thief’s tools. This, however, may be an action, a non-action, a release through perception, a mental action, a worldly blame, a bodily action, a verbal action, an unwholesome mind, and painful.

9. Kammappaṭibāhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. The Kammappaṭibāhana Training Rule

9. Explanation of the Kammappaṭibāhana Sikkhāpada

Navame dhammikānaṃ kammānanti dhammena vinayena satthusāsanena katānaṃ apalokanakammaṃ ñattikammaṃ ñattidutiyakammaṃ ñatticatutthakammanti imesaṃ catunnaṃ kammānaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ saṅkhepato kammavinicchayo – tatra apalokanakammaṃ nāma samaggassa saṅghassa anumatiyā taṃ taṃ vatthuṃ kittetvā “ruccati saṅghassā”ti tikkhattuṃ sāvetvā kattabbaṃ kammaṃ vuccati. Samaggasseva pana saṅghassa anumatiyā ekāya ñattiyā kattabbaṃ kammaṃ ñattikammaṃ nāma. Ekāya ñattiyā ceva anussāvanāya ca kattabbaṃ kammaṃ ñattidutiyakammaṃ nāma. Ekāya pana ñattiyā tīhi ca anussāvanāhi kattabbaṃ kammaṃ ñatticatutthakammaṃ nāma.

In the ninth, dhammikānaṃ kammāna means lawful acts performed according to the Dhamma, Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction: apalokanakamma (act by consent), ñattikamma (act by motion), ñattidutiyakamma (motion-second act), and ñatticatutthakamma (motion-fourth act)—these four acts. Here is a brief determination of these acts: Among them, apalokanakamma is an act performed by announcing a matter with the consent of a united Sangha, asking three times, “Does this please the Sangha?” and is so called. An act performed with a single motion with the consent of a united Sangha is called ñattikamma. An act performed with one motion and one announcement is called ñattidutiyakamma. An act performed with one motion and three announcements is called ñatticatutthakamma.

In the ninth, dhammikānaṃ kammāna means of the four formal acts done according to the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the teaching of the Teacher: the apalokanakamma, the ñattikamma, the ñattidutiyakamma, and the ñatticatutthakamma. Here is a brief determination of the formal acts: Here, apalokanakamma is a formal act that is to be done after announcing the matter to a harmonious Saṅgha and saying three times, “Does it please the Saṅgha?” Ñattikamma is a formal act to be done with a single motion with the consent of a harmonious Saṅgha. Ñattidutiyakamma is a formal act to be done with a single motion and a single announcement. Ñatticatutthakamma is a formal act to be done with a single motion and three announcements.

In the ninth, dhammikānaṃ kammāna means lawful acts done according to the Dhamma, Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction, such as the act of informing, the act of motion, the act of motion and second announcement, and the act of motion and fourth announcement. Here is a brief determination of acts: apalokanakamma means announcing a matter to the Saṅgha three times with the consent of the united Saṅgha, saying, “Is the Saṅgha agreeable?” Ñattikamma means an act done with one motion and the consent of the united Saṅgha. Ñattidutiyakamma means an act done with one motion and one announcement. Ñatticatutthakamma means an act done with one motion and three announcements.

Tesu apalokanakammaṃ (pari. 496; pari. aṭṭha. 495-496) pañca ṭhānāni gacchati osāraṇaṃ nissāraṇaṃ bhaṇḍukammaṃ brahmadaṇḍaṃ kammalakkhaṇanti. Tattha kaṇṭakasāmaṇerassa nāsanā viya nissāraṇā, tādisaṃyeva sammāvattantaṃ disvā pavesanā ‘osāraṇā’ti veditabbā. Pabbajjāpekkhassa kesacchedanāpucchanaṃ bhaṇḍukammaṃ (mahāva. 98) nāma. Mukharassa bhikkhuno bhikkhū duruttavacanehi ghaṭṭentassa “itthannāmo bhikkhu mukharo bhikkhū duruttavacanehi ghaṭṭento viharati, so bhikkhu yaṃ iccheyya, taṃ vadeyya, bhikkhūhi itthannāmo bhikkhu neva vattabbo, na ovādānusāsaniṃ kattabbo, na ovaditabbo”ti “saṅghaṃ, bhante , pucchāmi ’itthannāmassa bhikkhuno brahmadaṇḍassa dānaṃ ruccati saṅghassā’ti, dutiyampi pucchāmi, tatiyampi pucchāmi ’itthannāmassa, bhante, bhikkhuno brahmadaṇḍassa dānaṃ ruccati saṅghassā”’ti evaṃ kattabbaṃ kammaṃ brahmadaṇḍaṃ (cūḷava. 445) nāma. Yaṃ pana bhagavatā bhikkhunīnaṃ ūruṃ vivaritvā dassanādivatthūsu “avandiyo so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu bhikkhunisaṅghena kātabbo”ti (cūḷava. 411) evaṃ avandiyakammaṃ anuññātaṃ, yaṃ bhikkhunīhi “ayye, asuko nāma ayyo bhikkhunīnaṃ appasādanīyaṃ dasseti, etassa ayyassa avandiyakaraṇaṃ ’ruccati bhikkhunisaṅghassā”’ti evaṃ upassaye nisinnāheva bhikkhunīhi kattabbaṃ, evarūpaṃ kammaṃ yasmā tassa kammaṃyeva lakkhaṇaṃ na osāraṇādīni, tasmā kammalakkhaṇanti vuccati. Idañca kammalakkhaṇaṃ nāma bhikkhunimūlakaṃ paññattaṃ, apica bhikkhūnampi labbhati, tasmā bhikkhūhipi acchinnacīvarakādīnaṃ cīvarādīni vā dentehi, paribhuñjitabbāni apanetabbānipi vatthūni paribhuñjantehi vā, apanentehi vā, tathārūpaṃ vā dhammikaṃ katikaṃ karontehi tikkhattuṃ sāvetvā apalokanakammaṃ kātabbaṃ, sabbañhetaṃ kammalakkhaṇameva pavisati, iti apalokanakammaṃ pañca ṭhānāni gacchati.

Among these, apalokanakamma (pari. 496; pari. aṭṭha. 495-496) extends to five domains: reinstatement, expulsion, head-shaving act, Brahma penalty, and act-characteristic. Herein, the expulsion of a troublesome novice is like nissāraṇā (expulsion); seeing such a one behaving properly and allowing re-entry is to be understood as osāraṇā (reinstatement). Asking about cutting the hair of one seeking ordination is called bhaṇḍukamma (mahāva. 98). For a talkative monk who annoys monks with harsh words, “This monk so-and-so is talkative and annoys monks with harsh words; let that monk say what he wishes, the monks should neither speak to him, give him advice or instruction, nor admonish him,” asking the Sangha, “Venerables, I ask the Sangha, ‘Does giving the Brahma penalty to monk so-and-so please the Sangha?’ I ask a second time, I ask a third time, ‘Venerables, does giving the Brahma penalty to monk so-and-so please the Sangha?’”—an act performed thus is called brahmadaṇḍa (cūḷava. 445). As for the act permitted by the Blessed One for nuns in cases like showing their thighs, “That monk, monks, should be made non-venerable by the nuns’ Sangha” (cūḷava. 411), which the nuns perform sitting in the monastery saying, “Nobles, this venerable so-and-so shows something displeasing to the nuns; does making this venerable non-venerable please the nuns’ Sangha?”—such an act, since its characteristic is the act itself and not reinstatement or the like, is called kammalakkhaṇa. This kammalakkhaṇa was laid down due to nuns, but it is also available to monks. Thus, monks too, when giving robes or the like to those with torn robes, or when using or removing items to be used or removed, or making such a lawful agreement, should perform an apalokanakamma by announcing it three times. All this falls under kammalakkhaṇa. Thus, apalokanakamma extends to five domains.

Of these, apalokanakamma (pari. 496; pari. aṭṭha. 495-496) extends to five occasions: reinstatement, expulsion, shaving the head, brahmadaṇḍa, and the characteristic of a formal act. Of those, expulsion like that of the novice Kaṇṭaka is expulsion; seeing such a one behaving properly, admitting him is to be understood as ‘reinstatement’. Asking a candidate for ordination to shave his hair is called bhaṇḍukamma (mahāva. 98). For a talkative bhikkhu, when the bhikkhus are provoking him with abusive words, saying, “The bhikkhu so-and-so is talkative, he lives provoking the bhikkhus with abusive words, that bhikkhu should say whatever he wishes, the bhikkhu so-and-so should not be spoken to by the bhikkhus, he should not be given advice or instruction, he should not be advised,” “Venerable Sirs, I ask the Saṅgha, ‘Does the giving of brahmadaṇḍa to the bhikkhu so-and-so please the Saṅgha?’ I ask a second time, I ask a third time, ‘Venerable Sirs, does the giving of brahmadaṇḍa to the bhikkhu so-and-so please the Saṅgha?’” a formal act done thus is called brahmadaṇḍa (cūḷava. 445). But when the Blessed One, in the case of nuns showing their thighs, etc., allowed the avandiyakamma, saying, “That bhikkhu, monks, should be made un-worshipable by the nuns’ Saṅgha” (cūḷava. 411), when the nuns, sitting in their residence, are to do it, saying, “Venerable ladies, the venerable so-and-so shows something displeasing to the nuns, ‘Does making this venerable one un-worshipable please the nuns’ Saṅgha?’” a formal act of this kind, because the characteristic of it is only the formal act, not reinstatement, etc., therefore it is called kammalakkhaṇa (characteristic of a formal act). And this kammalakkhaṇa was established based on nuns, but it is also available to bhikkhus, therefore, even for bhikkhus, when giving robes, etc., to those with torn robes, etc., or when using or removing things that should be used or removed, or when making such a proper agreement, after announcing it three times, apalokanakamma should be done, all this enters into kammalakkhaṇa itself, thus apalokanakamma extends to five occasions.

Among these, the apalokanakamma (pari. 496; pari. aṭṭha. 495-496) applies to five situations: osāraṇa, nissāraṇa, bhaṇḍukamma, brahmadaṇḍa, and kammalakkhaṇa. Among these, the expulsion of the Kaṇṭaka novice is an example of nissāraṇa, and the readmission of one who behaves properly is osāraṇa. The questioning of one seeking ordination about hair-cutting is called bhaṇḍukamma (mahāva. 98). For a bhikkhu who is harsh and harasses other bhikkhus with harsh words, “The bhikkhu named so-and-so is harsh and harasses other bhikkhus with harsh words. That bhikkhu may say whatever he wishes. The bhikkhus should not speak to him, advise him, or instruct him.” “Venerable sirs, I ask the Saṅgha, ‘Is the Saṅgha agreeable to imposing the brahmadaṇḍa on the bhikkhu named so-and-so?’ I ask a second time, I ask a third time.” This is how the brahmadaṇḍa (cūḷava. 445) is performed. The act of not saluting, as allowed by the Blessed One for bhikkhunīs who expose their thighs, etc., “That bhikkhu, bhikkhus, should not be saluted by the bhikkhunī Saṅgha” (cūḷava. 411), is called kammalakkhaṇa. This kammalakkhaṇa is established for bhikkhunīs, but it also applies to bhikkhus. Therefore, when bhikkhus give robes, etc., to those who have not cut their robes, or when they use or take away such items, or when they perform such lawful acts, they should announce it three times and perform the apalokanakamma. All this falls under kammalakkhaṇa. Thus, the apalokanakamma applies to five situations.

Ñattikammaṃ pana nava ṭhānāni gacchati osāraṇaṃ nissāraṇaṃ uposathaṃ pavāraṇaṃ sammutiṃ dānaṃ paṭiggahaṃ paccukkaḍḍhanaṃ kammalakkhaṇanti. Tattha “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, itthannāmo itthannāmassa āyasmato upasampadāpekkho, anusiṭṭho so mayā, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, itthannāmo āgaccheyya , ’āgacchāhī’ti vattabbo”ti (mahāva. 126) evaṃ upasampadāpekkhassa osāraṇā osāraṇā nāma. “Suṇantu me āyasmantā, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu dhammakathiko, imassa neva suttaṃ āgacchati, no suttavibhaṅgo, so atthaṃ asallakkhetvā byañjanacchāyāya atthaṃ paṭibāhati, yadāyasmantānaṃ pattakallaṃ, itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ vuṭṭhāpetvā avasesā imaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasameyyāmā”ti evaṃ ubbhāhikavinicchaye (cūḷava. 233) dhammakathikassa bhikkhuno nissāraṇā nissāraṇā nāma. “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ajjuposatho…pe… uposathaṃ kareyyā”ti evaṃ uposathakammavasena ṭhapitā ñatti uposatho nāma. “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ajja pavāraṇā pannarasī, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho pavāreyyā”ti (mahāva. 210) evaṃ pavāraṇākammavasena ṭhapitā ñatti pavāraṇā nāma. “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, itthannāmo itthannāmassa upasampadāpekkho, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, ahaṃ itthannāmaṃ anusāseyya”nti, “yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, itthannāmo itthannāmaṃ anusāseyyā”ti (mahāva. 126) evaṃ attānaṃ vā paraṃ vā sammannituṃ ṭhapitā ñatti sammuti nāma. “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno nissaggiyaṃ saṅghassa nissaṭṭhaṃ, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho imaṃ cīvaraṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dadeyyā”ti (pārā. 464) evaṃ nissaṭṭhacīvarapattādīnaṃ dānaṃ dānaṃ nāma. “Suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmo bhikkhu āpattiṃ sarati vivarati uttāniṃ karoti deseti, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, ahaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno āpattiṃ paṭiggaṇheyya”nti, tena vattabbo ’passasī’ti, ’āma, passāmī’ti, “āyatiṃ saṃvareyyāsī”ti (cūḷava. 239) evaṃ āpattippaṭiggaho paṭiggaho nāma. “Suṇantu me āyasmantā āvāsikā, yadāyasmantānaṃ pattakallaṃ, idāni uposathaṃ kareyyāma, pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyāma, āgame kāle pavāreyyāmā”ti (mahāva. 240) evaṃ katappavāraṇappaccukkaḍḍhanā paccukkaḍḍhanā nāma. Tiṇavattārakasamathe (cūḷava. 212) sabbasaṅgāhikañatti, ekekasmiṃ pakkhe ekekā ñatti cāti tissopi ñattiyo kammalakkhaṇaṃ nāma. Iti ñattikammaṃ nava ṭhānāni gacchati.

The ñattikamma (motion-only act) extends to nine domains: osāraṇā (announcement), nissāraṇā (expulsion), uposatha (Uposatha observance), pavāraṇā (Pavāraṇā ceremony), sammuti (authorization), dāna (giving), paṭiggaha (acceptance), paccukkaḍḍhana (withdrawal), and kammalakkhaṇa (characteristic of the act). Among these, “Listen to me, venerable ones, may the Saṅgha hear me: So-and-so is seeking ordination under the venerable So-and-so, he has been instructed by me; if it is suitable for the Saṅgha, let So-and-so come, he should be told, ‘Come’” (mahāva. 126)—this announcement concerning one seeking ordination is called osāraṇā. “Listen to me, venerables, this monk So-and-so is a speaker of Dhamma, but neither the Sutta nor the Suttavibhaṅga comes to him, and without considering the meaning, he obstructs it with the shadow of the letter; when it is suitable for the venerables, having removed this monk So-and-so, let the rest of us settle this matter” (cūḷava. 233)—this expulsion of a Dhamma-speaker monk in a judicial decision is called nissāraṇā. “Listen to me, venerable ones, may the Saṅgha hear me: today is the Uposatha… let the Saṅgha perform the Uposatha” (mahāva. 210)—this motion established for the Uposatha act is called uposatha. “Listen to me, venerable ones, may the Saṅgha hear me: today is the Pavāraṇā on the fifteenth, if it is suitable for the Saṅgha, let the Saṅgha perform the Pavāraṇā” (mahāva. 210)—this motion established for the Pavāraṇā act is called pavāraṇā. “Listen to me, venerable ones, may the Saṅgha hear me: So-and-so is seeking ordination under So-and-so, if it is suitable for the Saṅgha, I would instruct So-and-so,” or “if it is suitable for the Saṅgha, let So-and-so instruct So-and-so” (mahāva. 126)—this motion established to authorize oneself or another is called sammuti. “Listen to me, venerable ones, may the Saṅgha hear me: this robe, forfeited by the monk So-and-so, has been relinquished to the Saṅgha; if it is suitable for the Saṅgha, let the Saṅgha give this robe to the monk So-and-so” (pārā. 464)—this giving of relinquished robes, bowls, or similar items is called dāna. “Listen to me, venerable ones, may the Saṅgha hear me: this monk So-and-so remembers, reveals, clarifies, and confesses an offense; if it is suitable for the Saṅgha, I would accept the offense of the monk So-and-so,” and he should be asked, “Do you see it?” “Yes, I see it.” “Restrain yourself in the future” (cūḷava. 239)—this acceptance of an offense is called paṭiggaho. “Listen to me, resident venerables: when it is suitable for the venerables, let us now perform the Uposatha, recite the Pātimokkha, and perform the Pavāraṇā at the appropriate time” (mahāva. 240)—this withdrawal of a completed Pavāraṇā is called paccukkaḍḍhana. In the tiṇavattāraka resolution (cūḷava. 212), there is an all-inclusive motion, and one motion for each side, making three motions in total—this is called kammalakkhaṇa. Thus, the ñattikamma extends to nine domains.

However, a formal act of the sangha (ñattikamma) has nine occasions: reinstatement, expulsion, uposatha, invitation, granting permission, giving, receiving, postponing, and the characteristic of the act. Among these, “Venerable sir, let the Sangha hear me. This one named so-and-so is a candidate for higher ordination under the venerable so-and-so. He has been instructed by me. If it is agreeable to the Sangha, let so-and-so come forward, and he should be told, ‘Come forward’” (Mahāvagga 126) – such reinstatement of a candidate for higher ordination is called reinstatement (osāraṇā). “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. This monk named so-and-so is a Dhamma-reciter. He has not learned the suttas, nor the analysis of the suttas. He obstructs the meaning with the mere shadow of the words, without discerning the meaning. If it is agreeable to the venerable ones, having expelled the monk named so-and-so, the remaining monks may settle this case” – such expulsion of a Dhamma-reciting monk in a decision by arbitration (ubbhāhikavinicchaya)(Cūḷavagga 233) is called expulsion (nissāraṇā). “Venerable sir, let the Sangha hear me. Today is the uposatha… (as before)… let them perform the uposatha” – a motion established for the purpose of the uposatha ceremony is called uposatha. “Venerable sir, let the Sangha hear me. Today is the fifteenth day of invitation (pavāraṇā). If it is agreeable to the Sangha, let the Sangha hold the invitation” (Mahāvagga 210) – a motion established for the purpose of the invitation ceremony is called invitation (pavāraṇā). “Venerable sir, let the Sangha hear me. This one named so-and-so is a candidate for higher ordination under so-and-so. If it is agreeable to the Sangha, I may instruct so-and-so,” or “If it is agreeable to the Sangha, let so-and-so instruct so-and-so” (Mahāvagga 126) – a motion established to give permission to oneself or another is called permission (sammuti). “Venerable sir, let the Sangha hear me. This robe, which was to be forfeited by the monk named so-and-so, has been forfeited to the Sangha. If it is agreeable to the Sangha, the Sangha may give this robe to the monk named so-and-so” (Pārājika 464) – the giving of such forfeited robes, bowls, etc., is called giving (dānaṃ). “Venerable sir, let the Sangha hear me. This monk named so-and-so remembers an offense, reveals it, makes it known, and confesses it. If it is agreeable to the Sangha, I may receive the offense of the monk named so-and-so,” and he should be asked, ‘Do you see it?’ ‘Yes, I see it.’ ‘You should restrain yourself in the future’” (Cūḷavagga 239) – such acceptance of an offense is called receiving (paṭiggaho). “Venerable sirs, let the resident monks hear me. If it is agreeable to the venerable ones, we may now perform the uposatha, recite the Pātimokkha, and hold the invitation at the next occasion” (Mahāvagga 240) – such postponement of the invitation already made is called postponing (paccukkaḍḍhanā). In the case of the grass-spreading pacifier (tiṇavattārakasamatha)(Cūḷavagga 212), the motion that includes the whole Sangha, and one motion for each side, these three motions are called the characteristic of the act (kammalakkhaṇaṃ). Thus, a formal act of sangha (ñattikamma) has nine occasions.

The motion (ñatti) procedure applies to nine situations: summoning (osāraṇa), expulsion (nissāraṇa), the Uposatha, the Pavāraṇā, agreement (sammuti), giving (dāna), acceptance (paṭiggaha), postponement (paccukkaḍḍhana), and the characteristics of a formal act (kammalakkhaṇa). Herein, the summoning (osāraṇa) is as follows: “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. This Venerable so-and-so seeks higher ordination. He has been instructed by me. If the Sangha is ready, let so-and-so come. He should be told, ‘Come.’” (Mahāvagga 126) This is called summoning (osāraṇa) for one seeking higher ordination. The expulsion (nissāraṇa) is as follows: “Venerable sirs, let the venerable ones hear me. This monk so-and-so is a Dhamma expounder. Neither the Sutta nor the Sutta analysis comes to him. Without discerning the meaning, he obstructs the meaning by the shadow of the letter. If the venerable ones are ready, having removed the monk so-and-so, let us settle this remaining dispute.” (Cūḷavagga 233) This is called expulsion (nissāraṇa) for a monk who is a Dhamma expounder in a judicial process. The Uposatha is as follows: “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. Today is the Uposatha… Let us perform the Uposatha.” This motion (ñatti) established by the Uposatha procedure is called the Uposatha. The Pavāraṇā is as follows: “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. Today is the Pavāraṇā, the fifteenth day. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha perform the Pavāraṇā.” (Mahāvagga 210) This motion (ñatti) established by the Pavāraṇā procedure is called the Pavāraṇā. The agreement (sammuti) is as follows: “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. This Venerable so-and-so seeks higher ordination. If the Sangha is ready, I will instruct so-and-so.” Or, “If the Sangha is ready, let so-and-so instruct so-and-so.” (Mahāvagga 126) This motion (ñatti) established for appointing oneself or another is called agreement (sammuti). The giving (dāna) is as follows: “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. This robe, relinquished by the monk so-and-so, has been relinquished to the Sangha. If the Sangha is ready, let the Sangha give this robe to the monk so-and-so.” (Pārājika 464) This giving of relinquished robes and bowls is called giving (dāna). The acceptance (paṭiggaha) is as follows: “Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me. This monk so-and-so remembers, reveals, makes clear, and confesses an offense. If the Sangha is ready, I will accept the offense of the monk so-and-so.” He should be told, “Do you see it?” “Yes, I see it.” “You should restrain yourself in the future.” (Cūḷavagga 239) This acceptance of an offense is called acceptance (paṭiggaha). The postponement (paccukkaḍḍhana) is as follows: “Venerable resident monks, let the venerable ones hear me. If the venerable ones are ready, let us now perform the Uposatha, recite the Pātimokkha, and perform the Pavāraṇā at the proper time.” (Mahāvagga 240) This is called postponement (paccukkaḍḍhana) after the Pavāraṇā has been performed. In the settlement of the grass-roof case (Cūḷavagga 212), a motion (ñatti) that includes the entire Sangha, and one motion for each side, making three motions in total, is called the characteristics of a formal act (kammalakkhaṇa). Thus, the motion (ñatti) procedure applies to nine situations.

Ñattidutiyakammaṃ satta ṭhānāni gacchati osāraṇaṃ nissāraṇaṃ sammutiṃ dānaṃ uddhāraṃ desanaṃ kammalakkhaṇanti. Tattha bhikkhūnaṃ alābhāya parisakkanādikehi aṭṭhahi aṅgehi samannāgatassa upāsakassa saṅghena asambhogakaraṇatthaṃ pattanikkujjanavasena nissāraṇā nissāraṇā nāma. Tasseva sammāvattantassa pattukkujjanavasena osāraṇā ca veditabbā, sā khuddakakkhandhake vaḍḍhalicchavivatthusmiṃ (cūḷava. 265-266) vuttā. Sīmāsammuti ticīvarena avippavāsasammutisanthatasammutibhattuddesakasenāsanaggāhāpakabhaṇḍāgārikacīvarappaṭiggāhakayāgubhājakaphalabhājakakhajjabhājakaappamattakavissajjakasāṭiyaggāhapakapattaggāhāpakaārāmikapesakasāmaṇerapesakasammutīti etāsaṃ sammutīnaṃ vasena sammuti veditabbā. Kathinacīvaramatakacīvaradānavasena dānaṃ veditabbaṃ. Kathinuddhāravasena uddhāro veditabbo. Kuṭivatthuvihāravatthudesanāvasena desanā veditabbā. Yā pana tiṇavatthārakasamathe (cūḷava. 212 ādayo) ekasmiṃ pakkhe ekā, ekasmiṃ pakkhe ekāti dve ñattidutiyakammavācā vuttā, yā ca mohāropanādīsu kammavācā (pāci. 446) vuttā, tāsaṃ vasena kammalakkhaṇaṃ veditabbaṃ, iti ñattidutiyakammaṃ satta ṭhānāni gacchati.

The ñattidutiyakamma (motion-second act) extends to seven domains: osāraṇā (reinstatement), nissāraṇā (expulsion), sammuti (authorization), dāna (giving), uddhāra (withdrawal), desanā (declaration), and kammalakkhaṇa (characteristic of the act). Among these, the Saṅgha’s act of making a layperson with eight factors—such as seeking profit for monks—unsociable by overturning his bowl is called nissāraṇā. The reinstatement of that same person who behaves properly by uprighting his bowl is called osāraṇā, as explained in the case of Vaḍḍha the Licchavi in the Khuddaka section (cūḷava. 265-266). The authorizations such as boundary designation, authorization for not being separated from the three robes, mat designation, meal designator, lodging assigner, storekeeper, robe receiver, gruel distributor, fruit distributor, snack distributor, minor item distributor, cloth assigner, bowl assigner, monastery worker dispatcher, and novice dispatcher are understood as sammuti. The giving of kathina robes or robes of the deceased is understood as dāna. The withdrawal of the kathina is understood as uddhāra. The declaration of hut sites or monastery sites is understood as desanā. In the tiṇavatthāraka resolution (cūḷava. 212 onwards), one motion-second act for one side and one for the other—two in total—are stated, and the act of speech in cases like imputing delusion (pāci. 446) is understood as kammalakkhaṇa. Thus, the ñattidutiyakamma extends to seven domains.

A formal act with a motion as second (ñattidutiyakamma) has seven occasions: reinstatement, expulsion, granting permission, giving, annulment, declaration, and the characteristic of the act. Among these, the expulsion of a lay follower who is endowed with eight qualities, such as striving for the disadvantage of the monks, by means of turning down his bowl in order to disassociate the Sangha from him, is called expulsion (nissāraṇā). The reinstatement (osāraṇā) of that same person, when he behaves properly, by means of turning up his bowl, should also be understood; that is mentioned in the Khuddakakkhandhaka, in the story of Vaḍḍha the Licchavi (Cūḷavagga 265-266). Permission (sammuti) should be understood as in the cases of granting permission for boundary, permission for not being away from the three robes, permission for mat, permission for appointing a reciter of meals, permission for appointing a distributor of lodgings, permission for appointing a storekeeper, permission for appointing a receiver of robes, permission for appointing a distributor of gruel, permission for appointing a distributor of fruit, permission for appointing a distributor of solid food, permission for appointing a distributor of non-essential items, permission for appointing a receiver of cloaks, permission for appointing a receiver of bowls, permission for appointing a park-keeper, permission for appointing a messenger, and permission for appointing a novice attendant. Giving (dānaṃ) should be understood as in the cases of giving a Kathina robe and giving a robe for a deceased monk. Annulment (uddhāro) should be understood as in the case of the annulment of the Kathina. Declaration (desanā) should be understood as in the case of the declaration of the site for a hut and the declaration of the site for a dwelling. And, in the case of the grass-spreading pacifier (Cūḷavagga 212, etc.), the two statements of formal acts with a motion as second, one for each side, and the statement of the formal act in the cases of inducing delusion, etc. (Pācittiya 446), are stated; in accordance with those, the characteristic of the act (kammalakkhaṇaṃ) should be understood. Thus, a formal act with a motion as second has seven occasions.

The motion-and-one-proclamation (ñattidutiyakamma) procedure applies to seven situations: summoning (osāraṇa), expulsion (nissāraṇa), agreement (sammuti), giving (dāna), withdrawal (uddhāra), declaration (desanā), and the characteristics of a formal act (kammalakkhaṇa). Herein, the expulsion (nissāraṇa) is for the purpose of preventing the Sangha from associating with a lay follower who is endowed with eight qualities, such as striving for the monks’ loss, by overturning his bowl. The summoning (osāraṇa) should be understood as the righting of the bowl for one who behaves properly. This is mentioned in the Khuddakakkhandhaka in the Vaḍḍhalicchāvivādavatthu (Cūḷavagga 265-266). The agreement (sammuti) should be understood as the agreement on boundaries, the three robes, non-separation, the settlement of boundaries, the appointment of a meal distributor, the appointment of a seat assigner, the appointment of a storeroom keeper, the appointment of a robe receiver, the appointment of a distributor of offerings, the appointment of a fruit distributor, the appointment of a distributor of sweets, the appointment of a distributor of minor items, the appointment of a robe-cloth receiver, the appointment of a bowl receiver, the appointment of a monastery worker, and the appointment of a novice. The giving (dāna) should be understood as the giving of the Kathina robe or a deceased monk’s robe. The withdrawal (uddhāra) should be understood as the withdrawal of the Kathina. The declaration (desanā) should be understood as the declaration of a hut site or a monastery site. The characteristics of a formal act (kammalakkhaṇa) should be understood as the two proclamations (kammavācā) in the grass-roof settlement (Cūḷavagga 212), one for each side, and the proclamations mentioned in the cases of delusion, etc. (Pācittiya 446). Thus, the motion-and-one-proclamation (ñattidutiyakamma) procedure applies to seven situations.

Ñatticatutthakammampi satteva ṭhānāni gacchati osāraṇaṃ nissāraṇaṃ sammutiṃ dānaṃ niggahaṃ samanubhāsanaṃ kammalakkhaṇanti. Tattha tajjanīyakammādīnaṃ (cūḷava. 1 ādayo) sattannaṃ kammānaṃ vasena nissāraṇā, tesaṃyeva kammānaṃ paṭippassambhanavasena osāraṇā ca veditabbā, bhikkhunovādakasammutivasena (pāci. 146-147) sammuti, parivāsadāna(caūḷava. 102) mānattadānavasena (cūḷava. 105) dānaṃ, mūlāyapaṭikassanavasena (cūḷava. 110) niggaho, ukkhittānuvattikā , aṭṭha yāvatatiyakā, ariṭṭho (pāci. 417), caṇḍakāḷī (pāci. 709) cāti ime te yāvatatiyakāti imāsaṃ ekādasannaṃ samanubhāsanānaṃ vasena samanubhāsanā, upasampadākammaabbhānakammavasena kammalakkhaṇaṃ veditabbaṃ. Iti ñatticatutthakammaṃ satta ṭhānāni gacchati.

The ñatticatutthakamma (motion-fourth act) also extends to seven domains: osāraṇā (reinstatement), nissāraṇā (expulsion), sammuti (authorization), dāna (giving), niggaha (censure), samanubhāsanā (admonition), and kammalakkhaṇa (characteristic of the act). Among these, the seven acts such as tajjanīyakamma (censure act, cūḷava. 1 onwards) are understood as nissāraṇā, and the revocation of those same acts is understood as osāraṇā. Authorization as an exhorter of bhikkhunīs (pāci. 146-147) is sammuti. The giving of parivāsa (probation, cūḷava. 102) and mānatta (penance, cūḷava. 105) is dāna. The act of reverting to the root (cūḷava. 110) is niggaho. The admonitions of the suspended follower, the eight yāvatatiyakā cases, Ariṭṭha (pāci. 417), Caṇḍakāḷī (pāci. 709)—these eleven admonitions—are understood as samanubhāsanā. The acts of ordination and reinstatement are understood as kammalakkhaṇa. Thus, the ñatticatutthakamma extends to seven domains.

A formal act with a motion as fourth (ñatticatutthakamma) also has only seven occasions: reinstatement, expulsion, granting permission, giving, censure, formal inquiry, and the characteristic of the act. Among these, expulsion (nissāraṇā) is through the seven acts such as the act of censure (tajjanīyakamma, etc.)(Cūḷavagga 1, etc.); and reinstatement (osāraṇā) is through the remission of those same acts. Permission (sammuti) is through the granting of permission for a monk to advise nuns (Pācittiya 146-147). Giving (dānaṃ) is through the giving of probation (parivāsadāna)(Cūḷavagga 102) and the giving of mānatta (Cūḷavagga 105). Censure (niggaho) is through the restoration to the original offense (mūlāyapaṭikassanavasena)(Cūḷavagga 110). Formal inquiry (samanubhāsanā) is through these eleven formal inquiries: one who follows an expelled monk, eight cases of three-times questioning, Ariṭṭha (Pācittiya 417), and Caṇḍakāḷī (Pācittiya 709) – these are called the three-times questioning. The characteristic of the act (kammalakkhaṇaṃ) should be understood as in the cases of the act of higher ordination and the act of rehabilitation. Thus, a formal act with a motion as fourth has seven occasions.

The motion-and-three-proclamations (ñatticatutthakamma) procedure also applies to seven situations: summoning (osāraṇa), expulsion (nissāraṇa), agreement (sammuti), giving (dāna), restraint (niggaha), admonition (samanubhāsana), and the characteristics of a formal act (kammalakkhaṇa). Herein, the expulsion (nissāraṇa) should be understood as the expulsion in the seven formal acts, starting with the act of censure (tajjanīyakamma) (Cūḷavagga 1). The summoning (osāraṇa) should be understood as the pacification of those same acts. The agreement (sammuti) should be understood as the agreement on the appointment of a nun’s instructor (Pācittiya 146-147). The giving (dāna) should be understood as the giving of probation (parivāsa) or the giving of penance (mānatta) (Cūḷavagga 102, 105). The restraint (niggaha) should be understood as the sending back to the beginning (mūlāyapaṭikassana) (Cūḷavagga 110). The admonition (samanubhāsana) should be understood as the admonition in the eleven cases, starting with the followers of one who has been suspended, the eight cases up to the third announcement, Ariṭṭha (Pācittiya 417), and Caṇḍakāḷī (Pācittiya 709). The characteristics of a formal act (kammalakkhaṇa) should be understood as the characteristics in the higher ordination procedure and the rehabilitation procedure. Thus, the motion-and-three-proclamations (ñatticatutthakamma) procedure applies to seven situations.

Imesu pana catūsu kammesu apalokanakammaṃ apaloketvāva kātabbaṃ, ñattikammādivasena na kātabbaṃ. Ñattikammampi ekaṃ ñattiṃ ṭhapetvāva kātabbaṃ, apalokanakammādivasena na kātabbaṃ. Ñattidutiyakammaṃ pana apaloketvā kātabbampi atthi akātabbampi, tattha sīmāsammuti sīmāsamūhananaṃ (mahāva. 139-140, 144 ādayo) kathinacīvaradānaṃ kathinuddhāro kuṭivatthudesanā vihāravatthudesanāti imāni cha kammāni garukāni apaloketvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭanti, ñattidutiyakammavācaṃ sāvetvāva kātabbāni. Avasesā terasa sammutiyo senāsanaggāhāpakamatakacīvaradānasammutiyo cāti etāni lahukammāni apaloketvāpi kātuṃ vaṭṭanti, ñattikammādivasena pana na kātabbāneva. Ñatticatutthakammampi sakalakkhaṇeneva kātabbaṃ, na sesakammavasena. Evaṃ attano attano lakkhaṇeneva vatthuñattianussāvanāsīmāparisāsampattiyā katāni etāni kammāni dhammena vinayena satthusāsanena katattā dhammo etesu atthīti dhammikāni nāma honti, iti etesaṃ dhammikānaṃ kammānaṃ chandaṃ datvā pacchā khīyanadhammaṃ āpajjantassa vācāya vācāya pācittiyaṃ.

Among these four acts, the apalokanakamma (consultative act) must be performed only by consultation, not by the method of ñattikamma or others. The ñattikamma must be performed by establishing a single motion, not by the method of apalokanakamma or others. The ñattidutiyakamma, however, includes acts that may or may not be performed by consultation: among them, the six significant acts—boundary designation, boundary annulment (mahāva. 139-140, 144 onwards), kathina robe giving, kathina withdrawal, hut site declaration, and monastery site declaration—must not be performed by consultation but only by reciting the ñattidutiyakamma speech. The remaining thirteen authorizations, such as lodging assigner and giving of a deceased monk’s robes, are minor acts that may be performed by consultation but not by the method of ñattikamma or others. The ñatticatutthakamma must be performed with its full characteristics, not by the method of other acts. Acts performed according to their respective characteristics—with object, motion, proclamation, boundary, and assembly completed—are called dhammikāni (lawful) because they are done in accordance with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction, and there is Dhamma in them. Thus, for one who, having given consent to these lawful acts, later falls into the fault of criticizing them, there is a pācittiya for each utterance.

Among these four acts, a simple-statement act (apalokanakamma) should be done only after making a simple statement; it should not be done as a formal act with a motion, etc. A formal act with a motion (ñattikamma) should also be done only after establishing a single motion; it should not be done as a simple-statement act, etc. However, in the case of a formal act with a motion as second (ñattidutiyakamma), there are cases where it should be done after making a simple statement, and cases where it should not be done. Among these, the granting of permission for a boundary, the removal of a boundary (Mahāvagga 139-140, 144, etc.), the giving of a Kathina robe, the annulment of the Kathina, the declaration of the site for a hut, and the declaration of the site for a dwelling – these six acts are weighty and should not be done after making a simple statement; they should be done only after reciting the statement of the formal act with a motion as second. The remaining thirteen permissions and the permissions for appointing a distributor of lodgings and for giving a robe for a deceased monk – these are light acts and may be done even after making a simple statement; however, they should not be done as a formal act with a motion, etc. A formal act with a motion as fourth (ñatticatutthakamma) should also be done only according to its own characteristic, not according to the other types of acts. Thus, these acts, done according to their own respective characteristics, with the subject matter, the motion, the announcement, the boundary, and the assembly being complete, are called lawful (dhammikāni) because they are done in accordance with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction. Therefore, for one who, having given consent to these lawful acts, later commits an act of criticism, there is a pācittiya offense for each word spoken.

Among these four procedures, the informal act (apalokanakamma) should be done by informing alone and not by the motion (ñatti) procedure. The motion (ñatti) procedure should also be done by establishing one motion and not by the informal act (apalokanakamma) procedure. However, the motion-and-one-proclamation (ñattidutiyakamma) procedure may or may not be done by informing. Herein, the six serious acts—the agreement on boundaries, the removal of boundaries (Mahāvagga 139-140, 144), the giving of the Kathina robe, the withdrawal of the Kathina, the declaration of a hut site, and the declaration of a monastery site—should not be done by informing but should be done by proclaiming the motion-and-one-proclamation (ñattidutiyakamma). The remaining thirteen agreements—the appointment of a seat assigner, the giving of a deceased monk’s robe, etc.—are minor acts and may be done by informing, but they should not be done by the motion (ñatti) procedure. The motion-and-three-proclamations (ñatticatutthakamma) procedure should be done entirely according to its own characteristics and not by the remaining procedures. Thus, these acts, performed according to their own characteristics, with the proper motion, announcement, boundary, and assembly, are called lawful (dhammika) because they are done in accordance with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the Teacher’s instruction. Therefore, for one who, after giving consent to these lawful acts, later criticizes them, there is a pācittiya offense for each statement.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha khīyanadhammāpajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, dhammakamme vematikassa, adhammakamme dhammakammasaññino, vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Adhammakammasaññissa , “adhammena vā vaggena vā nakammārahassa vā kammaṃ karontī”ti ñatvā khīyantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Dhammakammatā, dhammakammasaññitā, chandaṃ datvā khīyananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāneva, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning the six monks regarding the matter of falling into the fault of criticizing, a common rule, without command. For one uncertain about a lawful act, or one perceiving an unlawful act as lawful, or uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For one perceiving it as unlawful, or one who criticizes knowing that “it is done unlawfully, by a faction, or for one not deserving the act,” and for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are: it being a lawful act, perceiving it as a lawful act, and criticizing after giving consent—these are the three factors. The origin and so forth are similar to the adinnādāna rule, but this is with painful feeling.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks in the case of committing an act of criticism. It is a general prescription, not commanding. For one who is doubtful about a lawful act, and for one who perceives an unlawful act as a lawful act, and for one who is doubtful, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who perceives it as an unlawful act, and who criticizes, knowing that “they are performing the act unlawfully, or incompletely, or for one who is not eligible for the act,” and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Lawfulness of the act, perception of it as a lawful act, and having given consent and then criticizing – these are the three factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to those in the case of taking what is not given. However, this is painful feeling.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks, in connection with the case of criticizing after giving consent. It is a common rule, non-annulled, and for one who is doubtful about a lawful act, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who perceives it as an unlawful act, there is no offense. For one who knows, “They are performing an act unlawfully, or by an incomplete assembly, or for one who does not deserve it,” and criticizes it, there is no offense for the insane, etc. Lawfulness of the act, perception of it as lawful, and criticizing after giving consent—these are the three factors here. The origin, etc., are the same as in stealing. However, this is painful.

10. Chandaṃadatvāgamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Chandaṃadatvāgamana Training Rule

10. The Training Rule on Leaving Without Giving Consent

10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Leaving Without Giving Consent

Dasame vinicchayakathāyāti yāva ārocitaṃ vatthu avinicchikaṃ, ñattiṃ vā ṭhapetvā kammavācā aniṭṭhāpitā, tāva vinicchayakathā vattamānā nāma hoti. Yo bhikkhu etasmiṃ antare kammaṃ kopetukāmatāya parisāya hatthapāsaṃ vijahati, tassa vijahane dukkaṭaṃ, vijahite pācittiyaṃ.

In the tenth, vinicchayakathāya means as long as the matter being reported remains undecided or the motion has been established but the act of speech is not completed, the discussion of the decision is called vattamānā (ongoing). A monk who, during this time, abandons the reach of the assembly’s hands out of a desire to disrupt the act incurs a dukkaṭa upon abandoning, and a pācittiya once abandoned.

In the tenth, in the course of a deliberation (vinicchayakathāyā) means as long as the announced matter has not been decided, or the motion has been established but the statement of the formal act has not been completed, so long is the deliberation in progress (vattamānā). If a monk, during this interval, leaves the hand-span of the assembly with the intention of disrupting the act, there is a dukkaṭa offense for leaving, and a pācittiya offense when it has been left.

In the tenth, “during the discussion” means until the matter is announced and not yet decided, or the motion is established and the proclamation is not yet completed. During this time, the discussion is said to be ongoing. If a monk, desiring to disrupt the act, leaves the vicinity of the assembly during this time, there is a dukkaṭa offense at the moment of leaving, and a pācittiya offense when he has left.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha chandaṃ adatvā pakkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, dhammakamme vematikassa, adhammakamme dhammakammasaññino, vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Adhammakammasaññissa pana, yo ca “saṅghassa bhaṇḍanādīni vā bhavissanti, adhammena vā vaggena vā nakammārahassa vā kammaṃ karissantī”ti (pāci. 483) ñatvā, gilāno vā hutvā, gilānassa vā karaṇīyena, uccārādīhi vā pīḷito, na ca kammaṃ kopetukāmo “puna paccāgamissāmī”ti gacchati, tassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Vinicchayakathāya vattamānatā, dhammakammatā, dhammakammasaññitā, samānasīmāyaṃ ṭhitatā, samānasaṃvāsakatā, kopetukāmatāya hatthapāsavijahananti imānettha cha aṅgāni. Samanubhāsanasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyākiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, dukkhavedananti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning a certain monk regarding the matter of departing without giving consent, a common rule, without command. For one uncertain about a lawful act, or one perceiving an unlawful act as lawful, or uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa. For one perceiving it as unlawful, or one who knows, “There will be quarrels or such in the Saṅgha, or they will perform the act unlawfully, by a faction, or for one not deserving it” (pāci. 483), or one who departs due to sickness, or for the sake of a sick person, or oppressed by the need to relieve himself, and does not wish to disrupt the act but departs thinking, “I will return,” and for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are: the discussion of the decision being ongoing, it being a lawful act, perceiving it as a lawful act, standing within the same boundary, being of the same communion, and abandoning the hand’s reach with intent to disrupt—these are the six factors. It originates like samanubhāsana, is an act-and-non-act, perception-released, with mind, a worldly fault, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome mind, and painful feeling.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk in the case of leaving without giving consent. It is a general prescription, not commanding. For one who is doubtful about a lawful act, and for one who perceives an unlawful act as a lawful act, and for one who is doubtful, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who perceives it as an unlawful act, and who leaves, knowing that “there will be quarreling, etc., in the Sangha, or they will perform the act unlawfully, or incompletely, or for one who is not eligible for the act” (Pācittiya 483), or being sick, or having something to do for a sick person, or being afflicted by the need to defecate, etc., and not intending to disrupt the act, thinking, “I will come back later,” for him, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The deliberation being in progress, the lawfulness of the act, the perception of it as a lawful act, being situated within the same boundary, being of the same communion, and leaving the hand-span with the intention of disrupting – these are the six factors here. It has the same arising as formal inquiry, it is both action and non-action, it is free from perception, it is intentional, it is a worldly fault, it is a bodily act, it is a verbal act, it is unwholesome consciousness, and it is painful feeling.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk, in connection with the case of leaving without giving consent. It is a common rule, non-annulled, and for one who is doubtful about a lawful act, there is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who perceives it as an unlawful act, there is no offense. For one who knows, “There will be quarrels in the Sangha, or they will perform an act unlawfully, or by an incomplete assembly, or for one who does not deserve it,” and leaves, or who is ill, or has duties for the sick, or is oppressed by calls of nature, and does not desire to disrupt the act, thinking, “I will return later,” there is no offense for him, nor for the insane, etc. The discussion being ongoing, the lawfulness of the act, the perception of it as lawful, being within the same boundary, being of the same community, desiring to disrupt the act, and leaving the vicinity—these are the six factors here. The origin, etc., are the same as in the act of censure. It is an action offense, a matter of perception and release, intentional, worldly, a bodily action, a verbal action, an unwholesome thought, and painful.

The explanation of the training rule on leaving without giving consent is finished.

The explanation of the training rule on leaving without giving consent is concluded.

11. Dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

11. Commentary on the Dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

11. The Training Rule on Censure

11. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Weak

Ekādasame samaggena saṅghenāti samānasaṃvāsakena samānasīmāyaṃ ṭhitena saṅghena saddhiṃ cīvaraṃ datvā. Yathāsanthutanti yo yo mittasandiṭṭhasambhattavasena santhuto, tassa tassāti attho. Pācittiyanti evaṃ saṅghena saddhiṃ sayameva senāsanapaññāpanādivasena sammatassa bhikkhuno cīvaraṃ datvā pacchā khīyantassa vācāya vācāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the eleventh, samaggena saṅghena means with a united Saṅgha of the same communion standing within the same boundary, having given a robe together. Yathāsanthuta means to whoever is acquainted through friendship or association, that is the meaning. Pācittiya means for a monk who, having been authorized by the Saṅgha itself for duties like arranging lodgings, gives a robe together with the Saṅgha and later criticizes, there is a pācittiya for each utterance.

In the eleventh, by a harmonious Sangha (samaggena saṅghenā) means having given a robe together with the Sangha that is situated within the same boundary and is of the same communion. As has been agreed upon (yathāsanthutaṃ) means whoever has been acquainted as a friend, intimate, or close associate, to that one, is the meaning. Pācittiya (pācittiyaṃ) means that for a monk who, having himself been appointed by the Sangha for arranging lodgings, etc., and having given a robe, later criticizes, there is a pācittiya offense for each word spoken.

In the eleventh, “with a united Sangha” means with a Sangha of the same community, residing within the same boundary. “As agreed” means according to the friendship, acquaintance, and association with each one. “Pācittiya” means that for a monk who, after giving a robe to the Sangha himself, later criticizes it, there is a pācittiya offense for each statement.

Rājagahe chabbaggiye ārabbha cīvaraṃ datvā pacchā khīyanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, dhammakamme tikapācittiyaṃ, cīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ vissajjiyavebhaṅgiyaṃ parikkhāraṃ datvā pacchākhīyantassa dukkaṭaṃ, vissajjiyavebhaṅgiyo nāma ṭhapetvā pañca garubhaṇḍāni avaseso. Rāsivasena hi pañca garubhaṇḍāni vuttāni, tattha ārāmo ārāmavatthūti ekaṃ, vihāro vihāravatthūti dutiyaṃ, mañco pīṭhaṃ bhisi bimbohananti tatiyaṃ, lohakumbhī lohabhāṇakaṃ lohavārako lohakaṭāhaṃ vāsi parasu kuṭhārī kudālo nikhādananti catutthaṃ, valli veḷu muñjaṃ pabbajaṃ tiṇaṃ mattikā dārubhaṇḍaṃ mattikābhaṇḍanti pañcamaṃ. Etāni hi pañca saṅghasantakāni neva saṅghassa, na gaṇapuggalānaṃ vissajjetuṃ vā vibhajituṃ vā vaṭṭanti, vissajjitavibhattānipi saṅghikāneva honti. Thāvarena pana thāvaraṃ, itarena ca akappiyena mahagghakappiyena vā itaraṃ saṅghassa upakāraṃ sallakkhetvā kappiyaparivattanena parivattetuṃ vaṭṭati, varasenāsanādīnaṃ saṃrakkhaṇatthaṃ lāmakāni vissajjetuṃ vissajjetvā paribhuñjituñca vaṭṭati. Ettha ca purimesu tīsu rāsīsu agarubhaṇḍaṃ nāma kiñci natthi, catutthe lohakumbhī arañjarasaṇṭhānaṃ lohabhāṇakaṃ lohakaṭāhanti imāni tīṇi antamaso pasatamattaudakaggaṇhanakānipi garubhaṇḍāni. Lohavārako pana kāḷalohatambalohakaṃsalohavaṭṭalohānaṃ yena kenaci kato sīhaḷadīpe pādaggaṇhanako bhājetabbo, pādo ca nāma magadhanāḷiyā pañcanāḷimattaṃ gaṇhāti, tato atirekaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ, imāni tāva pāḷiyaṃ āgatāni lohabhājanāni.

This was established at Rājagaha concerning the six monks regarding the matter of giving a robe and later criticizing, a common rule, without command. In a lawful act, it is a threefold pācittiya; for one who, having given something other than a robe—such as distributable or divisible requisites—and later criticizes, there is a dukkaṭa. Vissajjiyavebhaṅgiyo means the remainder excepting the five substantial items. By category, five substantial items are stated: first, a monastery or monastery site; second, a dwelling or dwelling site; third, a bed, a chair, a mat, or a pillow; fourth, a metal pot, metal vessel, metal bowl, metal cauldron, axe, hatchet, adze, or hoe; fifth, creepers, bamboo, muñja grass, pabbaja grass, grass, clay, wooden items, or clay items. These five, being Saṅgha property, may neither be distributed nor divided by the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual; even if distributed or divided, they remain Saṅgha property. However, a fixed item may be exchanged for another fixed item, or an improper or valuable proper item for another, considering the Saṅgha’s benefit, through a proper exchange; for the sake of protecting excellent lodgings or similar, inferior items may be distributed and used after distribution. In the first three categories, there are no insubstantial items; in the fourth, the metal pot—even one shaped like a churn or vessel—or metal cauldron, even if capable of holding just a handful of water, are substantial items. A metal bowl, however, made of black iron, copper, bronze, or round iron, capable of holding a foot in Ceylon, is distributable; a pādo is about five Magadha nāḷis, and anything beyond that is a substantial item. These metal vessels are mentioned in the text.

This was prescribed in Rājagaha concerning the group of six monks in the case of criticizing after giving a robe. It is a general prescription, not commanding. There is a triple pācittiya offense in a lawful act. Having given any other distributable requisites except for a robe, and then criticizing, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Distributable (vissajjiyavebhaṅgiya) means, excluding the five major items, the remainder. For the five major items are stated in terms of categories. Among them, a monastery and the site of a monastery are one; a dwelling and the site of a dwelling are the second; a couch, a chair, a bolster, and a pillow are the third; a metal pot, a metal basin, a metal water pot, a metal cauldron, an axe, a hatchet, a large hoe, a small hoe, and a digging tool are the fourth; creepers, bamboo, muñja grass, pabbaja grass, straw, clay, wooden articles, and clay articles are the fifth. These five, belonging to the Sangha, should not be distributed or divided by the Sangha, nor by a group or individuals; even if they are distributed or divided, they still belong to the Sangha. However, it is permissible to exchange an immovable property for another immovable property, or a non-allowable expensive item for another allowable item, having determined the benefit to the Sangha. It is permissible to distribute inferior items for the maintenance of superior lodgings, etc., and to distribute them and use them. And here, in the first three categories, there is nothing that is not a major item. In the fourth, a metal pot with the shape of a reservoir, a metal basin, and a metal cauldron – these three, even those that can hold as little as a pasata measure of water, are major items. However, a metal water pot made of black iron, copper, brass, or round metal, in Sri Lanka, a foot-washing vessel, should be distributed. Foot (pādo) means it holds five nāḷi measures according to the Magadha measure; anything more than that is a major item. These are the metal vessels that have come down in the Pāḷi.

This was established in Rājagaha concerning the group of six monks, in connection with the case of criticizing after giving a robe. It is a common rule, non-annulled, and for one who is doubtful about a lawful act, there is a pācittiya offense. For one who, after setting aside a robe, gives another distributable or divisible item and later criticizes it, there is a dukkaṭa offense. “Distributable or divisible” means, excluding the five heavy items, the remainder. For in the heap, the five heavy items are mentioned: the monastery and the monastery site as one, the dwelling and the dwelling site as the second, the bed, the chair, the mattress, and the pillow as the third, the metal pot, the metal vessel, the metal ladle, the metal pan, the axe, the hatchet, the adze, the spade, and the chisel as the fourth, the creeper, the bamboo, the muñja grass, the pabbaja grass, the straw, the clay, and the wooden items as the fifth. These five are Sangha property and should not be distributed or divided to the Sangha or to groups or individuals. Even if distributed or divided, they remain Sangha property. However, it is permissible to exchange them for other immovable or movable items of greater or lesser value, considering the benefit to the Sangha. It is also permissible to distribute inferior items for the protection of superior lodgings, etc., and to use them after distribution. In the first three heaps, there is no non-heavy item. In the fourth, the metal pot, the metal vessel, and the metal pan, even if only capable of holding a small amount of water, are heavy items. The metal ladle, however, made of any kind of iron, such as black iron, copper, bronze, or bell metal, in Sri Lanka, should be divided as a foot-measure. The foot is five nāḷis according to the Magadhan measure. Anything beyond that is a heavy item. These are the metal vessels mentioned in the Pāḷi.

Pāḷiyaṃ pana anāgatānipi bhiṅgārapaṭiggahauḷuṅkadabbikaṭacchupāti taṭṭakasarakasamuggaaṅgārakapalladhūmakaṭacchuādīni khuddakānipi garubhaṇḍāneva, ayapatto ayathālakaṃ tambalohathālakanti imāni pana bhājanīyāni, kaṃsalohavaṭṭalohabhājanavikati saṅghikaparibhogena vā gihivikaṭā vā vaṭṭati, puggalikaparibhogena na vaṭṭati. Ṭhapetvā pana taṃ bhājanavikatiṃ aññasmimpi kappiyalohabhaṇḍe añjanī añjanisalākā natthudānaṃ kaṇṇamalaharaṇī sūci khuddako pipphaliko khuddakaṃ ārakaṇṭakaṃ kuñcikā tāḷaṃ kattarayaṭṭhi vedhako bhindivālako yathātathāghanakatalohaṃvippakatalohabhaṇḍañca sabbaṃ bhājanīyaṃ. Dhūmanettaphāladīparukkhadīpakapallikaolambakadīpaitthipurisatiracchānarūpakāni pana aññāni vā bhitticchadanakavāṭādīsu upanetabbāni, antamaso lohakhilakaṃ upādāya sabbānipi lohabhaṇḍāni garubhaṇḍāniyeva, attanā laddhāni pariharitvāpi puggalikaparibhogena na paribhuñjitabbāni, saṅghikaparibhogena vā gihivikaṭāni vā vaṭṭanti, tipubhaṇḍepi eseva nayo. Khīrapāsāṇamayāni taṭṭakasarakādīni garubhaṇḍāniyeva.

Even items not mentioned in the text—like pitchers, receptacles, ladles, spoons, trays, cups, boxes, braziers, or incense spoons—if small, are still substantial items. Iron bowls or copper basins are vessels; bronze or round iron vessel variants are permissible for Saṅgha use or as lay-modified items but not for individual use. Except for these vessel variants, other proper metal items—like an ointment box, ointment stick, nose cleaner, earwax remover, needle, small bellows, small thorn, key, lock, staff, awl, splitter, or any roughly or partially worked metal item—are all vessels. Smokepipes, fruit lamps, tree lamps, hanging lamps, female, male, or animal-shaped lamps, or other items used for walls, roofs, doors, or even a metal peg—are all substantial metal items; even if acquired by oneself and maintained, they must not be used individually but are permissible for Saṅgha use or as lay-modified items. The same applies to tin items. Items made of milk-stone, such as trays or cups, are also substantial items.

However, even those that have not come down in the Pāḷi, such as water pitchers, bowls, ladles, spoons, plates, saucers, caskets, braziers, and smoke-removers, even small ones, are major items. An iron bowl, an iron plate, and a copper plate are distributable. The various forms of brass and round metal vessels, whether used by the Sangha or turned into non-monastic use, are permissible; they are not permissible for individual use. However, excluding those various forms of vessels, in the case of other allowable metal articles, an eye-salve container, an eye-salve stick, a nose-medicine container, an ear-wax remover, a needle, a small nail, a small awl, a key, a lock, a knife handle, a drill, a battle-axe, any kind of heavy, solid iron, and molten metal articles are all distributable. However, smoke-pipe covers, lamp-stands, hanging lamps, images of men, women, and animals, and any other metal articles to be used on walls, ceilings, doors, etc., even including metal nails, are all major items; even if one has received them personally, they should not be used for individual use; they are permissible for Sangha use or when turned into non-monastic use. The same principle applies to articles made of tin. Vessels made of milk-stone, such as plates and saucers, are major items.

In the Pāḷi, the following are also heavy items, though not mentioned: the bhiṅgāra, the paṭiggaha, the uḷuṅka, the dabbika, the kaṭacchu, the pāti, the taṭṭaka, the saraka, the samugga, the aṅgāraka, the pallaka, the dhūmakaṭacchu, etc., even if small. The following are also vessels: the iron bowl, the iron cup, the copper cup. Vessels made of bronze or bell metal may be used by the Sangha or by lay people, but not by individuals. Excluding those vessel types, other permissible metal items include the ointment box, the ointment stick, the ear-pick, the needle, the small fruit knife, the small thorn extractor, the key, the palm-leaf, the scissors, the razor, the knife, the chisel, the drill, the awl, the hammer, the file, the metal in general, and all other metal items. The following should be used for other purposes, such as wall coverings, doors, etc.: the smoke-hole cover, the lamp, the lamp stand, the lamp holder, the hanging lamp, the male figure, the animal figure, etc. Even a metal peg is a heavy item. All metal items, even if obtained and carried personally, should not be used by individuals but may be used by the Sangha or by lay people. The same applies to the threefold items. Items made of milk-stone, such as the taṭṭaka and saraka, are also heavy items.

Ghaṭako pana telabhājanaṃ vā pādaggaṇhanakato atirekameva garubhaṇḍaṃ, suvaṇṇarajataārakūṭajātiphalikabhājanāni gihivikaṭānipi na vaṭṭanti. Senāsanaparibhoge pana āmāsampi anāmāsampi sabbaṃ vaṭṭati.

A jar, whether an oil vessel or one holding more than a foot, is a substantial item. Gold, silver, brass, or crystal vessels, even if lay-modified, are not permissible. In lodging use, however, both touched and untouched items are all permissible.

However, a pot, whether it is a vessel for oil or exceeds the size of a foot-washing vessel, is a major item. Vessels made of gold, silver, brass, and natural gems are not permissible even when turned into non-monastic use. However, in the case of lodging use, everything, whether touched or untouched, is permissible.

The potter’s oil vessel or a foot-measure is also a heavy item. Vessels made of gold, silver, or glass are not permissible even for lay people. However, all items, whether edible or not, are permissible for use in lodgings.

Vāsiyādīsu pana yāya vāsiyā dantakaṭṭhacchedanaucchutacchanamattato aññaṃ mahākammaṃ kātuṃ na sakkā, ayaṃ bhājanīyā. Sesā yena kenaci ākārena katā garubhaṇḍaṃ, parasu pana antamaso vejjānaṃ sirāvedhakopi garubhaṇḍameva, tathā kuṭhārī. Yā pana āvudhasaṅkhepena katā, ayaṃ anāmāsā, kudālo daṇḍabandhanikhādanaṃ vā agarubhaṇḍaṃ nāma natthi. Sammuñjanidaṇḍakhaṇanakaṃ pana adaṇḍakaṃ phalamattakameva, yaṃ sakkā sipāṭikāya pakkhipitvā pariharituṃ, taṃ bhājanīyaṃ. Sikharampi nikhādaneneva saṅgahitaṃ, yehi manussehi vihāre vāsiādīni dinnāni honti, te ce ghare daḍḍhe vā vilutte vā “detha no, bhante, upakkhare, puna āharissāmā”ti vadanti, dātabbā. Sace haranti, na vāretabbā, anāharantāpi na codetabbā.

Among axes and similar items, an axe incapable of major work beyond cutting tooth-sticks or sugarcanes is a vessel item; the rest, made in any form, are substantial items. Even an axe for surgeons to pierce veins is a substantial item, as is a hatchet. One made as a weapon is untouched. There is no insubstantial hoe; one with a handle for digging is not an insubstantial item. A sweeping stick or digging tool without a handle, merely the size of a fruit and portable in a bag, is a vessel item. A ridgepole is included under hoeing implements. If people who gave axes or similar items to the monastery say, after their house burns or is plundered, “Venerables, give us requisites; we will bring them back,” they should be given. If they take them, they should not be stopped; if they do not return them, they should not be urged.

Among axes, etc., the axe with which it is not possible to do any major work other than cutting tooth-sticks and splitting sugarcane, this is distributable. The rest, made in any way, are major items. However, an axe, even one used by doctors for cutting veins, is a major item; so is a hatchet. However, that which is made as a weapon is untouchable. There is nothing that is not a major item, such as a hoe with a handle or a digging tool. However, a digging tool without a handle, only the blade, which can be carried in a bag, is distributable. The spike is also included in the digging tool. If the people by whom the axes, etc., were given to the monastery, say, “Give us, venerable sirs, the tools, we will bring them back later,” when their house is burnt down or plundered, they should be given. If they take them, they should not be prevented; even if they do not bring them back, they should not be urged.

Among the axes, etc., an axe that can only cut tooth-sticks or perform minor tasks is permissible. Others, made in any way, are heavy items. The hatchet, even if used by doctors for bloodletting, is a heavy item, as is the adze. Weapons, in brief, are non-edible. The spade has no non-heavy item, even if used for digging or binding sticks. The broomstick and the digging stick are non-stick items, only the handle is permissible, as it can be carried in a basket. The chisel is also included in digging. If people who have given axes, etc., to the monastery have their house burned or robbed and say, “Venerable sirs, give us the tools, we will bring them back,” they should be given. If they take them, they should not be prevented. If they do not bring them back, they should not be blamed.

Kammārataṭṭakāracundakāranaḷakāramaṇikārapattabandhakānaṃ adhikaraṇimuṭṭhisaṇḍāsatulādīni sabbāni lohamayāni upakaraṇāni saṅghe dinnakālato paṭṭhāya garubhaṇḍāni. Tipukoṭṭakasuvaṇṇakāracammakāraupakaraṇesupi eseva nayo. Ayaṃ pana viseso, tipukoṭṭakaupakaraṇesu tipucchedanakasatthakaṃ, suvaṇṇakāraupakaraṇesu suvaṇṇacchedanakasatthakaṃ, cammakāraupakaraṇesu kataparikammacammacchedanakhuddakasatthanti imāni bhājanīyāni. Nhāpitatunnakāraupakaraṇesupi ṭhapetvā mahākattariṃ mahāsaṇḍāsaṃ mahāpipphalikañca sabbaṃ vaṭṭati, itarāni garubhaṇḍāni.

All metal tools of blacksmiths, potters, carpenters, reed-workers, jewelers, or bowl-binders—such as tongs, pliers, or scales—become substantial items from the time they are given to the Saṅgha. The same applies to tools of tin-workers, goldsmiths, or leather-workers. The distinction is: among tin-workers’ tools, a tin-cutting knife; among goldsmiths’ tools, a gold-cutting knife; among leather-workers’ tools, a small knife for cutting prepared leather—these are vessel items. Among barbers’ or weavers’ tools, except for large scissors, large tongs, or large bellows, all are permissible; the rest are substantial items.

All the metal tools of blacksmiths, carpenters, turners, reed-workers, jewelers, and leather-strap makers, such as anvils, hammers, tongs, and scales, are major items from the time they are given to the Sangha. The same principle applies to the tools of tin-workers, goldsmiths, and leather-workers. However, there is this difference: among the tools of tin-workers, the tin-cutting knife; among the tools of goldsmiths, the gold-cutting knife; and among the tools of leather-workers, the small knife for cutting prepared leather – these are distributable. Among the tools of barbers and tailors, everything is permissible except for large scissors, large tongs, and large nails; the others are major items.

The tools of the blacksmith, the potter, the reed-worker, the jeweler, the leaf-binder, the adze-maker, the chisel-maker, the hammer-maker, the file-maker, the scale-maker, etc., all made of metal, are heavy items from the time they are given to the Sangha. The same applies to the tools of the goldsmith, the silversmith, and the leatherworker. However, there is a distinction: among the goldsmith’s tools, the gold-cutting knife; among the silversmith’s tools, the silver-cutting knife; and among the leatherworker’s tools, the small knife for cutting prepared leather are permissible. Among the tools of the weaver, excluding the large scissors, the large box, and the large fruit knife, all are permissible; the rest are heavy items.

Valliādīsu vettavalliādikā yā kāci aḍḍhabāhuppamāṇā valli saṅghassa dinnā vā tatthajātakā vā rakkhitagopitāva garubhaṇḍaṃ, sā saṅghakamme ca cetiyakamme ca kate sace atirekā hoti, puggalikakammepi upanetuṃ vaṭṭati, suttamakacivākanāḷikerahīracammamayā rajjukā vā yottāni vā vāke ca nāḷikerahīre ca vaṭṭetvā katā ekavaṭṭā vā dvivaṭṭā vā saṅghassa santakā garubhaṇḍaṃ. Suttaṃ pana avaṭṭetvā dinnaṃ makacivākanāḷikerahīrā ca bhājanīyā . Yehi panetāni rajjukādīni dinnāni honti, te attano karaṇīyena harantā na vāretabbā.

Among creepers and similar items, any creeper like vetavalli, half an arm’s length, given to the Saṅgha or grown there and protected, is a substantial item. If, after use in Saṅgha or cetiya work, there is excess, it may be used in individual work. Ropes or cords made of thread, spider silk, coconut fiber, or leather, or woven from coconut fiber with one or two twists, belonging to the Saṅgha, are substantial items. Unwoven thread, spider silk, or coconut fiber are vessel items. Those who gave these ropes or cords should not be stopped if they take them for their own needs.

Among creepers, etc., any creeper, such as vetta creeper, that is half an arm’s length, given to the Sangha, or grown there, and kept protected, is a major item. If there is an excess after it has been used for Sangha work and for stupa work, it is permissible to use it for individual work. Ropes and cords made of string, hemp, coconut fiber, or leather, and those made of twisted hemp or coconut fiber, whether single-twisted or double-twisted, belonging to the Sangha, are major items. However, string that has been given without being twisted, and hemp and coconut fiber are distributable. Those who have given these ropes, etc., should not be prevented from taking them for their own needs.

In the case of vines and the like, any vine or creeper that is half a fathom in length, given to the Saṅgha or naturally occurring there, and protected and guarded as heavy property, if it remains after a Saṅgha act or a cetiya act has been performed, it may be used for an individual act. Ropes or cords made from sutta, makaci, vāka, nāḷikera, or hīra, whether single or double-stranded, are considered heavy property of the Saṅgha. However, sutta given without being twisted, makaci, vāka, nāḷikera, or hīra are considered usable. Those who give these ropes or cords should not be prevented from taking them for their own use.

Yo koci aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍakamattopi veḷu saṅghassa dinno vā tatthajātako vā rakkhitagopito garubhaṇḍaṃ, sopi saṅghassa kamme ca cetiyakamme ca kate atireko puggalikakamme dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Pādaggaṇhanakatelanāḷi pana kattarayaṭṭhi upāhanadaṇḍako chattadaṇḍo chattasalākāti idamettha bhājanīyabhaṇḍaṃ, daḍḍhagehamanussā gaṇhitvā gacchantā na vāretabbā.

Any bamboo, even eight fingerbreadths with a stick, given to the Saṅgha or grown and protected there, is a substantial item; if excess remains after Saṅgha or cetiya work, it may be given for individual work. An oil tube holding a foot, a staff, a sandal stick, an umbrella stick, or umbrella ribs are vessel items here. People from a burnt house taking them should not be stopped.

Any bamboo, even as small as an eight-finger-jointed flute, given to the Sangha, or grown there, and kept protected, is a major item. Even that, if there is an excess after it has been used for Sangha work and for stupa work, it is permissible to give it for individual work. However, a foot-washing vessel, an oil container, a knife handle, a shoe-stretcher, an umbrella handle, and an umbrella rib are distributable items here. People from a burnt-down house should not be prevented from taking them away.

Any bamboo that is at least eight fingers in length, given to the Saṅgha or naturally occurring there, and protected and guarded as heavy property, may also be given for an individual act after a Saṅgha act or a cetiya act has been performed. Items such as footrests, walking sticks, sandal sticks, umbrella sticks, umbrella ribs, etc., are considered usable. People fleeing from a burning house should not be prevented from taking these items.

Muñjañca pabbajañca avasesañca chadanatiṇaṃ muṭṭhippamāṇampi chadanatiṇasaṅkhepagatesu tālapaṇṇādīsu yaṃkiñci ekapaṇṇampi saṅghassa dinnaṃ vā tatthajātakaṃ vā bahiārāme saṅghike tiṇavatthusmiṃ jātakaṃ vā rakkhitagopitaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ, tampi saṅghakamme ca cetiyakamme ca kate atirekaṃ puggalikakamme dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Daḍḍhagehamanussā gahetvā gacchantā na vāretabbā, aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇopi rittakapotthako garubhaṇḍameva.

Of muñja, pabbaja, or other roofing grass, even a handful or a single leaf among roofing materials like palm leaves, given to the Saṅgha or grown there or in an external Saṅgha grass site and protected, is a substantial item; if excess remains after Saṅgha or cetiya work, it may be given for individual work. People from a burnt house taking it should not be stopped. Even an eight-fingerbreadth empty potsherd is a substantial item.

Even a handful of muñja grass, pabbaja grass, and other thatching grass, and among the things used for thatching, such as palm leaves, even a single leaf, given to the Sangha, or grown there, or grown in a Sangha-owned grass field outside the monastery, and kept protected, is a major item. Even that, if there is an excess after it has been used for Sangha work and for stupa work, it is permissible to give it for individual work. People from a burnt-down house should not be prevented from taking them away. Even an empty book-cover as small as eight finger-joints is a major item.

Muñja grass, pabbaja grass, and other thatching materials, even if only a handful, are considered heavy property if given to the Saṅgha or naturally occurring in a Saṅgha-owned area or in a place where grass and thatch are stored. After a Saṅgha act or a cetiya act, any excess may be given for an individual act. People fleeing from a burning house should not be prevented from taking these items. Even an empty pouch measuring eight fingers is considered heavy property.

Mattikā pakatimattikā vā hotu pañcavaṇṇā vā sudhā vā sajjurasakaṅguṭṭhasilesādīsu vā yaṃkiñci dullabhaṭṭhāne ānetvā vā dinnaṃ tatthajātakaṃ vā rakkhitagopitaṃ tālapakkamattaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ hoti, tampi saṅghakamme ca cetiyakamme ca kate atirekaṃ puggalikakamme dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Hiṅguhiṅgulakaharitālamanosilañjanādīni pana bhājanīyāni.

Clay, whether natural, five-colored, plaster, or mixed with lime, resin, or stone powder, brought from a rare place or given or grown there and protected, even the size of a palm fruit, is a substantial item; if excess remains after Saṅgha or cetiya work, it may be given for individual work. Asafoetida, red arsenic, orpiment, realgar, or collyrium are vessel items.

Whether it is ordinary clay or five-colored clay, or lime, or among things like gum, asafoetida, and slate, anything brought from a place where it is scarce or given, or grown there, and kept protected, as much as a palmful, is a major item. Even that, if there is an excess after it has been used for Sangha work and for stupa work, it is permissible to give it for individual work. However, asafoetida, red arsenic, yellow orpiment, and realgar are distributable.

Clay, whether ordinary or of five colors, or lime, or any other material brought from a difficult-to-access place, given to the Saṅgha or naturally occurring there, and protected and guarded, is considered heavy property if it is the size of a tāla leaf. After a Saṅgha act or a cetiya act, any excess may be given for an individual act. Items such as red arsenic, yellow orpiment, tāla, manosilā, and añjana are considered usable.

Dārubhaṇḍe yo koci veḷumhi vuttappamāṇo dārubhaṇḍako saṅghassa dinno vā tatthajātako vā rakkhitagopito garubhaṇḍaṃ, api ca sabbāpi dāruveḷucammapāsāṇādivikati dārubhaṇḍena saṅgahitā, tattha mañcapīṭhehi asaṅgahitāni āsandikādīni antamaso coḷena vā palālehi vā paṇṇehi vā katapīṭhaṃ upādāya sabbāni āsanāni.

Regarding wooden articles, any wooden item of the size mentioned for bamboo, whether given to the Sangha or grown there, protected and guarded, is considered a heavy article. Moreover, all items made of wood, bamboo, leather, stone, or similar materials are included under wooden articles. Among these, items not covered by beds and seats—such as small couches and the like, including even a seat made of cloth, straw, or leaves—are all seats.

Regarding wooden articles, whatever is made of wood, of the size specified in the rule regarding bamboo, whether given to the Sangha, naturally grown there, or guarded and protected, is a heavy article. Moreover, all variations of wood, bamboo, leather, stone, etc., are included under wooden articles. Among these, excluding beds and chairs, all seats, such as small stools, etc., up to a seat made of cloth, straw, or leaves, are included.

In the case of wooden items, any wooden item of the size mentioned for bamboo, given to the Saṅgha or naturally occurring there, and protected and guarded, is considered heavy property. All wooden, bamboo, leather, and stone items are included under wooden property, except for beds and benches. All seats, even those made of cloth, straw, or leaves, are included.

Vaṅkaphalakaṃ dīghaphalakaṃ cīvaradhovanaphalakaṃ ghaṭṭanaphalakaṃ ghaṭṭanamuggaro dantakaṭṭhacchedanagaṇṭhikā daṇḍamuggaro nāvā ambaṇaṃ rajanadoṇi udakapaṭicchako dārumayo vā dantamayo vā veḷumayo vā sapādakopi apādakopi samuggo mañjūsā pādaggaṇhanakato atirekappamāṇo karaṇḍo udakadoṇi udakakaṭāhaṃ uḷuṅko kaṭacchupānīyasarāvaṃ pānīyasaṅkhoti etesu yaṃkiñci saṅghe dinnaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ. Saṅkhathālakaṃ pana bhājanīyaṃ, tathā dārumayo udakatumbo.

A curved plank, a long plank, a cloth-washing plank, a rubbing plank, a rubbing mallet, a tooth-stick-cutting knot, a stick mallet, a boat, a rudder, a dye vat, a water container—whether made of wood, ivory, or bamboo, with or without feet—a box, a chest, a foot-wiper exceeding the standard size, a small basket, a water vat, a water pot, a ladle, a spoon, a drinking vessel, a drinking shell: any of these given to the Sangha is a heavy article. However, a shell bowl is a light article, as is a wooden water gourd.

A curved board, a long board, a cloth-washing board, a rubbing board, a rubbing pestle, a tooth-cleaning stick cutting block, a club-pestle, a boat, a measuring vessel, a dyeing trough, a water receptacle, whether made of wood, ivory, or bamboo, with or without legs, a coffer, a chest, a foot scraper exceeding the allowed size, a small box, a water trough, a water basin, a ladle, a drinking cup, a drinking shell – whatever of these is given to the Sangha is a heavy article. However, a conch shell plate is to be shared, as is a wooden water gourd.

A curved plank, a long plank, a robe-washing plank, a rubbing plank, a rubbing pestle, a toothpick, a stick for breaking toothpicks, a pestle, a boat, a rudder, a dyeing tub, a water strainer, whether made of wood, ivory, or bamboo, with or without feet, a box, a water tub, a water pot, a ladle, a drinking cup, a water filter, etc., are all considered heavy property if given to the Saṅgha. A conch shell or a bowl, however, is considered usable. Similarly, a wooden water vessel is also considered usable.

Pādakathalikamaṇḍalaṃ dārumayaṃ vā hotu coḷapaṇṇādimayaṃ vā sabbaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ. Ādhārako pattapidhānaṃ tālavaṇṭaṃ bījanī caṅkoṭakaṃ pacchi yaṭṭhisammuñjanī muṭṭhisammuñjanīti etesupi yaṃkiñci khuddakaṃ vā mahantaṃ vā dāruveḷupaṇṇacammādīsu yena kenaci kataṃ garubhaṇḍameva.

A footed circular stand or mat, whether made of wood or of cloth, leaves, or the like, is all heavy articles. A stand, a bowl lid, a palm fan, a fan, a small basket, a hamper, a broom with a handle, a hand-held broom: any of these, whether small or large, made of wood, bamboo, leaves, leather, or anything else, is a heavy article.

A footrest stand, whether made of wood or of cloth, leaves, etc., is all a heavy article. A support, a lid for a bowl, a palm-leaf fan, a winnowing fan, a basket, a long broom, a short broom – whatever of these, small or large, made of wood, bamboo, leaves, leather, etc., is a heavy article.

A footstool, whether made of wood, cloth, or leaves, is all considered heavy property. A stand, a lid, a palm leaf, a seed container, a pestle, a stick for releasing a fist, a stick for releasing a fistful, etc., are all considered heavy property, whether small or large, made of wood, bamboo, leaves, or leather.

Thambhatulāsopānaphalakādīsu yaṃkiñci dārumayaṃ vā pāsāṇamayaṃ vā gehasambhārūpagaṃ yo koci kaṭasārako yaṃkiñci bhūmattharaṇaṃ yaṃkiñci akappiyacammaṃ, sabbaṃ saṅghikaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ, bhūmattharaṇaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Eḷakacammaṃ pana paccattharaṇagatikaṃ hoti, tampi garubhaṇḍameva, kappiyacammāni bhājanīyāni, kurundiyaṃ pana sabbaṃ mañcappamāṇaṃ cammaṃ garubhaṇḍanti vuttaṃ.

Among pillars, beams, ladders, planks, and the like, anything made of wood or stone that is a component of a dwelling, any bier frame, any floor covering, any impermissible leather—all these, when belonging to the Sangha, are heavy articles; making a floor covering is permissible. Goat leather, however, is used as a spread and is also a heavy article. Permissible leathers are light articles, but in the Kurundiya, it is said that any leather the size of a bed is a heavy article.

Whatever is made of wood or stone, such as pillars, crossbeams, stair boards, etc., any kind of house furnishing, any kind of mat, any kind of unallowable leather, all belong to the Sangha and are heavy articles. It is permissible to use them as mats. However, a goatskin is considered a spread, and it is also a heavy article. Allowable leathers are to be shared. But in the Kurundi, it is said that all leather the size of a bed is a heavy article.

In the case of pillars, stairs, planks, etc., whether made of wood or stone, any household item, any mat, any unsuitable leather, all are considered Saṅgha property and heavy property. A mat may be made. Goat leather is considered suitable for a covering and is also heavy property. Suitable leather items are considered usable. In Kurundiya, all leather of the size of a bed is considered heavy property.

Udukkhalaṃ musalaṃ suppaṃ nisadaṃ nisadapoto pāsāṇadoṇi pāsāṇakaṭāhaṃ sabbaṃ kasibhaṇḍampi garubhaṇḍaṃ, sabbaṃ cakkayuttayānaṃ garubhaṇḍameva. Mañcapīṭhānaṃ pādā ca aṭaniyo ca vāsiparasuādīnaṃ daṇḍā cāti etesu yaṃkiñci aniṭṭhitaṃ bhājanīyaṃ, tacchitamaṭṭhaṃ pana garubhaṇḍaṃ hoti, anuññātavāsiyā daṇḍo chattaṃ muṭṭhipaṇṇaṃ kattarayaṭṭhi upāhanā araṇisahitaṃ dhammakaraṇo pādaggaṇhanakato anatirittaṃ āmalakatumbaṃ āmalakaghaṭo lābukatumbaṃ lābukaghaṭo visāṇatumbanti sabbametaṃ bhājanīyaṃ, tato paraṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ.

A mortar, a pestle, a winnowing basket, a grinding stone, a grinding stone bag, a stone vat, a stone pot, all farming tools—these are all heavy articles. All vehicles with wheels are also heavy articles. The legs of beds and seats, the frames, and the handles of axes, adzes, and the like: anything unfinished among these is a light article, but once carved and finished, it becomes a heavy article. The handle of a permissible axe, an umbrella, a handful of leaves, a staff, shoes, a fire-stick set, a water strainer not exceeding the standard size, a wood-apple gourd, a wood-apple pot, a bottle gourd, a bottle-gourd pot, a horn vessel—all these are light articles; beyond that, they are heavy articles.

A mortar, a pestle, a winnowing basket, a seat, a small seat, a stone trough, a stone basin, all agricultural implements are also heavy articles. All vehicles with wheels are heavy articles. The legs and frames of beds and chairs, and the handles of axes, hatchets, etc. – whatever of these is unfinished is to be shared. But once it is finished and polished, it becomes a heavy article. The handle of an allowable knife, an umbrella, a leaf for holding, a walking stick, shoes, a Dhamma-filter with a strainer, an oversized foot scraper, a jujube gourd, a jujube pot, a bottle gourd, a bottle gourd pot, a horn gourd – all these are to be shared. Beyond that, it is a heavy article.

A mortar, a pestle, a winnowing basket, a seat, a small seat, a stone tub, a stone pot, all farming tools, all vehicles with wheels, are all heavy property. The legs of beds and benches, the handles of axes, etc., are all considered usable if not finished. A finished carpenter’s adze is heavy property. An authorized axe handle, an umbrella, a fistful of leaves, a walking stick, sandals, a fire drill, a Dharma wheel, a footrest, an amalaka vessel, an amalaka pot, a bottle gourd vessel, a bottle gourd pot, a horn vessel, etc., are all considered usable. Beyond that, they are heavy property.

Hatthidanto vā yaṃkiñci visāṇaṃ vā atacchitaṃ yathāgatameva bhājanīyaṃ, tehi katamañcapīṭhapādādīsu purimasadisova vinicchayo. Tacchitaniṭṭhitopi hiṅgukaraṇḍako añjanikaraṇḍako gaṇṭhikā vidho añjanī añjanisalākā udakapuñchanīti idaṃ sabbaṃ bhājanīyameva.

An elephant tusk or any horn, uncarved and in its natural state, is a light article; the judgment for beds, seats, legs, and the like made from them is the same as before. Even when carved and finished, a box for asafoetida, a box for collyrium, a knot, a holder, a collyrium container, a collyrium stick, a water-wiper—these are all light articles.

An elephant tusk or any kind of horn that is uncut, just as it came, is to be shared. Regarding things made from them, such as bed legs and chair legs, the determination is the same as before. Even if finished and polished, an incense box, an ointment box, a knot, a tube, an ointment stick, a collyrium stick, a water wiper – all these are to be shared.

An elephant tusk or any horn, if not carved, is considered usable as it is. The same rule applies to the legs of beds and benches as before. A finished carpenter’s box, an ointment box, a knot, a drill, an ointment stick, a water wiper, etc., are all considered usable.

Mattikābhaṇḍe sabbaṃ manussānaṃ upabhogaparibhogaṃ ghaṭapiṭharādikulālabhājanaṃ, pattakaṭāhaṃ aṅgārakaṭāhaṃ dhūmadānakaṃ dīparukkhako dīpakapallikā cayaniṭṭhakā chadaniṭṭhakā thupikāti sabbaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ, etesu pana vuttanayesu garubhaṇḍesu yaṃkiñci veḷuādiṃ attano atthāya gaṇhantena samakaṃ vā atirekaṃ vā phātikammaṃ katvā gahetabbaṃ. Pādaggaṇhanakato anatirittappamāṇo pana ghaṭako patto thālakaṃ kañcanako kuṇḍikāti idamettha bhājanīyaṃ, yathā ca mattikābhaṇḍe evaṃ lohabhaṇḍepi kuṇḍikā bhājanīyakoṭṭhāsameva bhajati. Iti yaṃ bhājanīyaṃ vissajjanīyampi taṃ evaṃ vissajjiyavebhaṅgiyasaṅkhātaṃ aññaṃ parikkhāraṃ datvā khīyantassa dukkaṭaṃ, itaraṃ pana dātumeva na vaṭṭati. Issaravatāya dento thullaccayaṃ āpajjati, theyyacittena gaṇhanto bhaṇḍaṃ agghāpetvā kāretabbo. Yathā ca aññaṃ parikkhāraṃ datvā khīyantassa dukkaṭaṃ, tathā saṅghena asammatassa cīvaraṃ vā aññaṃ vā parikkhāraṃ datvā khīyantassa dukkaṭameva, anupasampanne sabbattha tikadukkaṭaṃ. Pakatiyā pana chandādivasena (pāci. 488) karontaṃ disvā “ko attho tassa dinnena, laddhāpi vinipātessati, na sammā upanessatī”ti khīyantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannatā, dhammena laddhasammutitā, saṅghena saddhiṃ vikappanupagacīvaradānaṃ, pacchā khīyitukāmatāya khīyanāti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

Regarding clay articles, all vessels used by people—such as pots, jars, and potter’s vessels—or a bowl-pot, a charcoal pot, a smoke-giver, a lamp stand, a lamp bowl, stack bricks, roof tiles, a stupa base: all these are heavy articles. Among these heavy articles as described, when taking any bamboo or similar material for oneself, it must be split evenly or more and taken. However, a pot, bowl, plate, tray, or water jug not exceeding the standard size from the foot-wiper is a light article here. Just as with clay articles, so too with metal articles: a water jug falls into the category of light articles. Thus, giving away a light article that is also disposable incurs a dukkaṭa offense for one who grumbles after giving another requisite in its place; other items, however, must not be given at all. One who gives with a sense of authority incurs a thullaccaya offense; one who takes with a theftful mind must be dealt with after appraising the item. Just as grumbling after giving another requisite incurs a dukkaṭa offense, so too grumbling after giving a robe or another requisite to someone not authorized by the Sangha incurs a dukkaṭa offense; for an unordained person, it is a triple dukkaṭa offense in all cases. However, there is no offense for one who, seeing someone acting out of desire or the like (pāci. 488), grumbles, thinking, “What use is it to give to him? Even if he gets it, he will ruin it and not use it properly,” or for those who are insane and the like. The four factors here are: being ordained, being duly authorized, giving a robe shared with the Sangha, and grumbling afterward out of a desire to grumble. Its origin and the rest are similar to taking what is not given, but this involves painful feeling.

Regarding earthenware, all that is used and enjoyed by humans, such as pots, pitchers, and other potter’s vessels, bowls, basins, charcoal braziers, smoke vents, lampstands, lamp shades, built bricks, roofing tiles, and stupa components, are all heavy articles. Among these heavy articles, as mentioned, whatever bamboo, etc., one takes for one’s own use, one should give an equal or greater amount in return. However, a small pot of the allowable size for a foot scraper, a bowl, a plate, a small cup, a water pot – these are to be shared. Just as with earthenware, so too with metalware, a small pot falls into the category of things to be shared. Thus, whatever is to be shared is also to be given away. Giving away other requisites, known as divisible and distributable, to one who complains, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. But the other (heavy articles) should not be given at all. Giving out of authority incurs a thullaccaya offense. One who takes with a thieving mind should be made to pay the value of the article. Just as giving away other requisites to one who complains incurs a dukkaṭa offense, so too giving a robe or other requisite to one not approved by the Sangha incurs a dukkaṭa offense. For an unordained person, in all cases, it is a triple dukkaṭa. However, seeing someone acting out of desire, etc. (pāci. 488), and thinking, “What is the use of giving to him? Even if he receives it, he will waste it; he will not use it properly,” and thus complaining, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Full ordination, lawful approval, giving of a robe not subject to joint decision with the Sangha, and complaining due to a later desire to complain – these are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of taking what is not given, but this is a painful feeling.

In the case of clay items, all items for human use, such as pots, jars, etc., a small bowl, a charcoal bowl, a smoke bowl, a lamp stand, a lamp holder, a brick, a tile, a pinnacle, etc., are all heavy property. In these cases, any bamboo or similar item taken for one’s own use should be taken after making it suitable, whether equal or excess. A pot, a bowl, a plate, a golden bowl, a water jar, etc., are considered usable. Similarly, in the case of metal items, a water jar is considered usable. Thus, any usable item that is to be returned should be returned in this way. Giving another accessory instead of the original incurs a dukkaṭa offense. It is not permissible to give anything else. Giving out of authority incurs a thullaccaya offense. Taking with a thieving mind requires paying for the item. Just as giving another accessory instead of the original incurs a dukkaṭa offense, so too giving a robe or any other accessory not authorized by the Saṅgha incurs a dukkaṭa offense. For a non-ordained person, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. However, if one sees someone acting out of desire, etc., and thinks, “What is the use of giving to him? Even if he gets it, he will misuse it, he will not use it properly,” and criticizes him, there is no offense for the criticizer, nor for the insane, etc. For the ordained, it is an offense if the item is obtained lawfully and authorized by the Saṅgha, but later one wishes to criticize. These are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing. This, however, is painful.

12. Pariṇāmanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

12. Commentary on the Pariṇāmana Training Rule

12. Explanation of the Training Rule on Diversion

12. Explanation of the Transference Training Rule

Dvādasame sabbaṃ tiṃsakakaṇḍe pariṇāmanasikkhāpade vuttanayameva. Ayameva hi viseso, tattha attano pariṇāmitattā nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ, idha puggalassa pariṇāmitattā suddhikapācittiyanti.

In the twelfth, everything is as explained in the Pariṇāmana training rule in the section on the thirty rules. The only difference is this: there, because it is redirected for oneself, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense; here, because it is redirected for an individual, it is a pure pācittiya offense.

In the twelfth, everything is the same as stated in the training rule on diversion in the section on the thirty. The only difference is that there, because it was diverted for oneself, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya; here, because it was diverted for a person, it is a suddhika pācittiya.

In the twelfth, all is as explained in the thirtyfold section on the transference training rule. The only difference here is that transferring for oneself incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya offense, while transferring for another incurs a suddhika pācittiya offense.

9. Ratanavaggo

9. Ratana Chapter

9. Ratana Section

9. The Ratanavagga

1. Antepurasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Antepura Training Rule

1. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Inner Palace

1. Explanation of the Antepura Training Rule

Ratanavaggassa paṭhame khattiyassāti khattiyajātikassa, muddhābhisittassāti khattiyābhisekena muddhani abhisittassa. Anikkhanto rājā itoti anikkhantarājakaṃ, tasmiṃ anikkhantarājake, sayanighareti attho. Ratanaṃ vuccati mahesī, niggatanti nikkhantaṃ, aniggataṃ ratanaṃ itoti aniggataratanakaṃ, tasmiṃ aniggataratanake, sayanighareti attho. Indakhīlaṃ atikkameyyāti ettha attano āgatabhāvaṃ ajānāpetvā sayanigharassa ummāraṃ paṭhamaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmentassa dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

In the first of the Ratana chapter, khattiyassa means of the warrior caste; muddhābhisittassa means anointed on the head with the warrior consecration. A king who has not departed is anikkhantarājaka, meaning in that king’s sleeping quarters. Ratana refers to the queen; niggata means departed; an undeclared treasure is aniggataratanaka, meaning in that queen’s sleeping quarters. Indakhīlaṃ atikkameyya—here, for one who crosses the threshold of the sleeping quarters with the first foot without making their presence known, there is a dukkaṭa offense; with the second foot, a pācittiya offense.

In the first of the Ratana section, khattiyassā means of a Khattiya by birth, muddhābhisittassā means consecrated on the head with the Khattiya consecration. Anikkhanto rājā (the king has not gone out) means anikkhantarājaka; in that anikkhantarājake, it means in the sleeping quarters. Ratanaṃ refers to the chief queen; niggata means gone out; aniggataṃ ratanaṃ (the jewel has not gone out) means aniggataratanaka; in that aniggataratanake, it means in the sleeping quarters. Indakhīlaṃ atikkameyyā (should cross the threshold): here, without making known one’s arrival, crossing the threshold of the sleeping quarters with the first foot incurs a dukkaṭa; with the second, a pācittiya.

In the first of the Ratanavagga, khattiyassāti refers to one of the khattiya caste, muddhābhisittassāti refers to one anointed on the head with the khattiya consecration. Anikkhanto rājā itoti means a kingdom without a king, in which anikkhantarājake, sayanighareti means a sleeping house. Ratana refers to the chief queen, niggatanti means departed, aniggataṃ ratanaṃ itoti means a sleeping house without the chief queen, in which aniggataratanake, sayanighareti means a sleeping house. Indakhīlaṃ atikkameyyāti here, stepping over the threshold of the sleeping house without informing one’s arrival incurs a dukkaṭa offense for the first step and a pācittiya offense for the second step.

Sāvatthiyaṃ āyasmantaṃ ānandaṃ ārabbha rañño antepurappavisanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, paṭisaṃvidite appaṭisaṃviditasaññino, vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Paṭisaṃviditasaññissa, na khattiyassa vā, na khattiyābhisekena abhisittassa vā, ubhosu vā, ubhinnaṃ vā aññatarasmiṃ nikkhante sayanigharaṃ pavisantassa, asayanighare, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Khattiyatā, abhisittatā, ubhinnampi sayanigharato anikkhantatā, appaṭisaṃviditatā, indakhīlātikkamoti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the venerable Ānanda, this was laid down in the matter of entering the king’s inner quarters. It is an uncommon rule, not requiring instruction, incurring a pācittiya offense three times, and a dukkaṭa offense for one who perceives it as unannounced when it was announced or is uncertain. There is no offense for one who perceives it as announced, or for entering the sleeping quarters when it does not belong to a warrior, or one not anointed with warrior consecration, or when either or both have departed, or when it is not a sleeping quarters, or for those who are insane and the like. The five factors here are: being of the warrior caste, being anointed, both not having departed from the sleeping quarters, being unannounced, and crossing the threshold. Its origin and the rest are similar to the first Kathina rule, but this is both action and non-action.

It was established in Sāvatthī concerning the venerable Ānanda, in the incident of entering the king’s inner palace. It is a non-general precept, without command, a triple pācittiya. For one who is aware, thinking he is unaware, and for one who is doubtful, it is a dukkaṭa. For one who thinks he is aware, or for one who is not a Khattiya, or not consecrated with the Khattiya consecration, or in either case, or when either of the two has gone out of the sleeping quarters, entering the sleeping quarters, or in a place that is not sleeping quarters, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Being a Khattiya, being consecrated, neither of the two having gone out of the sleeping quarters, unawareness, and crossing the threshold – these are the five factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the first kaṭhina, but this is action and non-action.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning Venerable Ānanda entering the king’s palace. It is a unique rule, non-announcement, a tikapācittiya offense, for one who is informed, for one who is uninformed, and for one who is doubtful, a dukkaṭa offense. For one who is informed, if it is not a khattiya or one anointed with the khattiya consecration, or if both have left the sleeping house, entering the sleeping house incurs no offense. For the insane, etc., there is no offense. Khattiya status, consecration, both not having left the sleeping house, not being informed, and stepping over the threshold are the five factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the first kathina rule. This, however, is action and non-action.

2. Ratanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Ratana Training Rule

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Jewels

2. Explanation of the Ratana Training Rule

Dutiye ratananti muttādidasavidhaṃ. Ratanasammatanti yaṃkiñci manussānaṃ upabhogaparibhogaṃ. Ajjhārāme vāti parikkhittassa antopaṭikkhepe aparikkhittassa dvinnaṃ leḍḍupātānaṃ anto. Ajjhāvasatheti parikkhittassa antopaṭikkhepe, aparikkhittassa musalapātabbhantare. Ayaṃ panettha vinicchayo – jātarūparajataṃ attano atthāya uggaṇhantassa vā uggaṇhāpentassa vā nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ . Saṅghagaṇapuggalacetiyanavakammānaṃ atthāya dukkaṭaṃ, avasese muttādiratane sabbesampi atthāya dukkaṭameva. Kappiyavatthuṃ vā akappiyavatthuṃ vā antamaso mātusantakampi bhaṇḍāgārikasīsena paṭisāmentassa pācittiyaṃ, tādisaṃ pana attano santakaṃ katvā paṭisāmetuṃ vaṭṭati. “Idaṃ paṭisāmethā”ti vutte pana “na vaṭṭatī”ti paṭikkhipitabbaṃ. Sace kupitā pātetvā gacchanti, palibodho nāma hoti, paṭisāmetabbaṃ. Vihāre kammaṃ karontā vaḍḍhakīādayo vā rājavallabhā vā “yaṃkiñci upakaraṇaṃ vā sayanabhaṇḍaṃ vā paṭisāmetvā dethā”ti vadanti, chandenapi bhayenapi na kātabbameva, guttaṭṭhānaṃ pana dassetuṃ vaṭṭati.

In the second, ratana means pearls and the ten kinds of treasures; ratanasammata means anything used or enjoyed by people. Ajjhārāme vā means within the enclosure of a bounded monastery or within two stone-throws of an unbounded one; ajjhāvasathe means within the enclosure of a bounded residence or within a pestle-throw of an unbounded one. The judgment here is this: Taking or causing to be taken gold or silver for oneself is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. For the sake of the Sangha, a group, an individual, a shrine, or new work, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For all other treasures like pearls, it is a dukkaṭa offense for any purpose. Adjusting permissible or impermissible goods, even those belonging to one’s mother, under the supervision of a storekeeper incurs a pācittiya offense, but adjusting one’s own property in this way is permissible. When told, “Adjust this,” one should refuse, saying, “It is not allowed.” If they angrily discard it and leave, it becomes an impediment, and it must be adjusted. When carpenters or royal favorites working in the monastery say, “Adjust and give us any tool or bedding,” it must not be done, even out of desire or fear, though showing a safe place is permissible.

In the second, ratana means the ten kinds, such as pearls, etc. Ratanasammata means whatever is used and enjoyed by humans. Ajjhārāme vā means within the enclosed area, or within two stone-throws of an unenclosed area. Ajjhāvasathe means within the enclosed area, or within a pestle-throw of an unenclosed area. The determination here is this: picking up or causing to pick up gold and silver for one’s own benefit incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya. For the benefit of the Sangha, a group, an individual, a shrine, or new work, it is a dukkaṭa. Regarding other jewels, such as pearls, for anyone’s benefit, it is only a dukkaṭa. Returning allowable or unallowable things, even those belonging to one’s mother, under the guise of a storekeeper, incurs a pācittiya. However, it is permissible to return such things after making them one’s own. If one is told, “Return this,” one should refuse, saying, “It is not permissible.” If they get angry and leave it behind, it becomes a burden, and it should be returned. When workers, etc., or royal favorites are doing work in the monastery, they say, “Return whatever equipment or bedding there is.” One should not do it, either out of desire or fear. However, it is permissible to show them a safe place.

In the second, ratana refers to pearls and the like. Ratanasammata refers to any item for human use. Ajjhārāme vāti within the boundary of a monastery, within two stone throws for an unbounded area. Ajjhāvasatheti within the boundary of a residence, within a pestle throw for an unbounded area. Here, the determination is that taking gold or silver for oneself incurs a nissaggiya pācittiya offense. Taking for the Saṅgha, a group, an individual, or a cetiya incurs a dukkaṭa offense. For other items like pearls, etc., taking for any purpose incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Moving even a mother’s property with the head of the storeroom incurs a pācittiya offense. However, one may move one’s own property. If told, “Move this,” one should refuse, saying, “It is not allowed.” If they get angry and leave, it is an obstruction and should be moved. If carpenters or royal favorites say, “Move any tool or bedding,” it should not be done out of desire or fear, but one may show the guarded place.

Ajjhārāmaajjhāvasathesupi yādise ṭhāne “bhikkhūhi vā sāmaṇerehi vā gahitaṃ bhavissatī”ti āsaṅkā uppajjati, tādiseyeva ṭhāne uggahetvā vā uggahāpetvā vā saññāṇaṃ katvā nikkhipitabbaṃ, “yassa bhaṇḍaṃ naṭṭhaṃ, so āgacchatū”ti ca ācikkhitabbaṃ. Atha yo āgacchati, so “kīdisaṃ te bhaṇḍaṃ naṭṭha”nti pucchitabbo, sace saññāṇena sampādeti, dātabbaṃ. No ce, ’vicināhī’ti vattabbo. Tamhā āvāsā pakkamantena patirūpānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ hatthe, tesu asati patirūpānaṃ gahapatikānaṃ hatthe nikkhipitvā pakkamitabbaṃ. Yo pana neva pakkamati, na sāmikaṃ passati, tena thāvaraṃ senāsanaṃ vā cetiyaṃ vā pokkharaṇiṃ vā kāretabbo. Sace dīghassa addhuno accayena sāmiko āgacchati, taṃ dassetvā ’anumodāhī’ti vattabbo. Sace nānumodati, “dehi me dhana”nti codeti, samādapetvā dātabbaṃ.

In both a monastery or residence, in any place where suspicion arises that “monks or novices might have taken it,” it should be taken or caused to be taken, marked, and set aside in such a place, with the instruction, “Let the owner of the lost item come.” When someone comes, they should be asked, “What kind of item did you lose?” If they match it with the mark, it should be given. If not, they should be told, “Search for it.” When leaving that residence, it should be entrusted to suitable monks, or if none are present, to suitable laypeople, before departing. One who neither leaves nor finds the owner should use it to make a permanent dwelling, a shrine, or a pond. If the owner comes after a long time, it should be shown to them with the words, “Rejoice in it.” If they do not rejoice and demand, “Give me my wealth,” it should be given after persuasion.

Even in monasteries and dwellings, in places where the suspicion arises, “It might have been taken by monks or novices,” one should pick it up or cause it to be picked up, make a mark, and put it down, and announce, “Whoever has lost something, let him come.” Then, whoever comes should be asked, “What kind of thing did you lose?” If he matches it with the mark, it should be given. If not, he should be told, “Search.” One leaving that dwelling should leave it in the hands of suitable monks, or, in their absence, in the hands of suitable householders. One who neither leaves nor sees the owner should build a permanent dwelling, a shrine, or a pond. If the owner comes after a long time, he should be shown it and told, “Rejoice.” If he does not rejoice and demands, “Give me my money,” he should be appeased and given it.

In the monastery or residence, if one suspects that monks or novices might take an item, one should take it or have it taken, mark it, and set it aside, saying, “Whoever lost the item, let them come.” When someone comes, ask, “What kind of item did you lose?” If it matches the mark, give it. If not, tell them to search. When leaving the residence, leave it in the hands of suitable monks. If there are no suitable monks, leave it in the hands of suitable householders and depart. If one does not leave or see the owner, one should build a permanent structure, a cetiya, or a pond. If the owner returns after a long time, show it to them and say, “Rejoice.” If they do not rejoice, they may demand, “Give me the money,” and one should persuade them to give it.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha ratanauggaṇhanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “aññatra ajjhārāmā vā, ajjhāvasathā vā”ti ayamettha duvidhā anupaññatti, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, anuññātaṭṭhāne anādariyena uggahetvā anikkhipantassa dukkaṭaṃ. Anuññātaṭṭhāne gahetvā nikkhipantassa, yaṃ hoti āmāsaṃ ratanasammataṃ, taṃ vissāsaṃ vā tāvakālikaṃ vā uggaṇhantassa, paṃsukūlasaññāya gaṇhato, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Ananuññātakaraṇaṃ, parasantakatā, vissāsaggāhapaṃsukūlasaññānaṃ abhāvo, uggahaṇaṃ vā uggahāpanaṃ vāti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni sañcarittasadisānīti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning a certain monk, this was laid down in the matter of taking treasures. “Except within a monastery or residence” is the twofold additional specification here, a common rule, requiring instruction, and a dukkaṭa offense for taking it without care and not setting it aside in a permitted place. There is no offense for taking and setting it aside in a permitted place, for taking something reckoned as a treasure that is handled, either in trust or temporarily, with the perception of it as discarded, or for those who are insane and the like. The four factors here are: an unpermitted act, belonging to another, absence of trust or perception as discarded, and taking or causing to be taken. Its origin and the rest are similar to the Sañcaritta rule.

It was established in Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk, in the incident of picking up a jewel. “Except in a monastery or dwelling” is the double supplementary precept here. It is a general precept, with command. Picking it up carelessly and not putting it down in an allowed place incurs a dukkaṭa. Picking it up and putting it down in an allowed place, or picking up what is considered a jewel by touch, either out of familiarity or temporarily, or taking it thinking it is dust, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Doing what is not allowed, it belonging to another, the absence of familiarity and the thought of it being dust, picking it up or causing it to be picked up – these are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of sañcaritta.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning a monk taking a jewel. “Except within a monastery or residence” is a twofold supplementary rule, a common rule, announcement, taking without permission in a permitted place incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Taking in a permitted place and setting it aside, taking for trust or temporary use, taking with the perception of a rag robe, for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Unauthorized action, belonging to another, lack of trust or rag robe perception, taking or having taken are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the sañcaritta rules.

3. Vikālagāmappavesanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Vikālagāmappavesana Training Rule

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Entering a Village at the Wrong Time

3. Explanation of the Vikālagāmappavesana Training Rule

Tatiye santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchāti idaṃ cāritte vuttanayameva. Vikāleti majjhanhikātikkamato paṭṭhāya antoaruṇe, etasmiṃ antare “vikāle gāmappavesanaṃ āpucchāmī”ti vā, “gāmaṃ pavisissāmī”ti vā anāpucchitvā asati tathārūpe accāyike karaṇīye parikkhittassa gāmassa parikkhepaṃ atikkamantassa, aparikkhittassa upacāraṃ okkamantassa paṭhamapāde dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyapāde pācittiyaṃ. Sacepi sambahulā kenaci kammena gāmaṃ pavisanti, sabbehi aññamaññaṃ āpucchitabbaṃ. “Tasmiṃ gāme taṃ kammaṃ na sampajjatī”ti aññaṃ gāmaṃ gacchantānaṃ puna āpucchanakiccaṃ natthi. Sace pana ussāhaṃ paṭippassambhetvā vihāraṃ gacchantā antarā aññaṃ gāmaṃ pavisitukāmā honti, āpucchitabbameva. Kulaghare vā āsanasālāyaṃ vā bhattakiccaṃ katvā telabhikkhāya vā sappibhikkhāya vā caritukāmena sace passe bhikkhu atthi, āpucchitabbo, asante ’natthī’ti gantabbaṃ. Vīthiṃ otaritvā pana bhikkhuṃ disvāpi āpucchanakiccaṃ natthi. Yo pana gāmamajjhena maggo hoti, sace tena gacchantassa “telādīnaṃ atthāya carissāmī”ti cittaṃ uppajjati, passe bhikkhuṃ disvā āpucchitabbaṃ. Maggā anokkamma carantassa pana āpucchanakiccaṃ natthi, okkamantassa vuttanayeneva pācittiyaṃ.

In the third, santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā is as explained in the Cāritta rule. Vikāle means from after noon until before dawn; during this period, entering a village without asking, “I ask to enter the village at an improper time” or “I will enter the village,” and without an urgent task of that kind, crossing the enclosure of a bounded village or entering the vicinity of an unbounded one incurs a dukkaṭa offense with the first foot and a pācittiya offense with the second. Even if many enter a village for some task, they must all ask each other. If they go to another village because “that task cannot be accomplished in this village,” there is no need to ask again. But if, after abandoning the effort and heading to the monastery, they wish to enter another village on the way, they must ask. When going to a family home or assembly hall to eat and wishing to go for oil or ghee alms, if a monk is nearby, he must be asked; if none is present, one may go, thinking “There is none.” After descending into the street, even if a monk is seen, there is no need to ask. If the path goes through the middle of a village and the thought arises, “I will go for oil or the like,” a monk seen nearby must be asked. But for one going along the path without deviating, there is no need to ask; entering incurs a pācittiya offense as described.

In the third, santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā (without asking a present monk) – this is the same as stated in the conduct. Vikāle (at the wrong time) means from after midday until dawn. During this time, without asking, “I ask permission to enter the village at the wrong time,” or “I will enter the village,” and without a compelling urgent reason, crossing the boundary of an enclosed village, or entering the vicinity of an unenclosed village, incurs a dukkaṭa with the first foot, and a pācittiya with the second foot. Even if many are entering the village for some work, they should all ask each other. If that work is not accomplished in that village, and they are going to another village, there is no need to ask again. However, if they calm their eagerness and are going to the monastery, and in between they wish to enter another village, they should ask. If one has performed the meal duty in a family house or in a sitting hall, and wishes to go for oil alms or ghee alms, if there are monks present, one should ask. If there are none, one should go, thinking, “There are none.” Having descended into the street, even seeing a monk, there is no need to ask. If there is a path through the middle of the village, and while going along it, the thought arises, “I will go for oil, etc.,” seeing a monk in one’s view, one should ask. However, for one going without leaving the path, there is no need to ask. For one leaving the path, the pācittiya is as stated.

In the third, santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchāti is as explained in the cāritta. Vikāleti from midday until dawn, during this period, “I will enter the village at an improper time” or “I will enter the village” without informing, if there is no urgent matter, crossing the boundary of a bounded village or entering the vicinity of an unbounded village incurs a dukkaṭa offense for the first step and a pācittiya offense for the second step. Even if many monks enter the village for some work, they should inform each other. “That work cannot be done in that village,” if going to another village, there is no need to inform again. However, if one calms down and returns to the monastery but wishes to enter another village on the way, one must inform. If one has finished eating in a house or dining hall and wishes to go for oil or ghee, if there is a monk present, one should inform him; if not, one may go thinking, “There is none.” If one sees a monk while on the road, there is no need to inform. If the road passes through the village, if one thinks, “I will go for oil, etc.,” and sees a monk, one should inform. If one walks without leaving the road, there is no need to inform; if one leaves the road, it is a pācittiya offense as explained.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha vikāle gāmappavesanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “santaṃ bhikkhu”nti ca “anāpucchā”ti ca “aññatra tathārūpā accāyikā karaṇīyā”ti ca imā panettha tisso anupaññattiyo, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, kāle vikālasaññino, vematikassa ca dukkaṭaṃ. Kālasaññino pana, yo ca accāyike vā karaṇīye, santaṃ vā āpucchitvā, asantaṃ vā anāpucchitvā pavisati, antarārāmabhikkhunupassayatitthiyaseyyapaṭikkamanesu vā aññataraṃ gacchati, tassa, gāmena maggo hoti, tena gacchato, āpadāsu, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchatā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvo, vikāle gāmappavisananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisāneva, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six, this was laid down in the matter of entering a village at an improper time. “A monk being present,” “without asking,” and “except for such an urgent task” are the three additional specifications here, an uncommon rule, not requiring instruction, incurring a pācittiya offense three times, and a dukkaṭa offense for one who perceives a proper time as improper or is uncertain. There is no offense for one who perceives it as a proper time, who has an urgent task, who asks a present monk or enters without asking when none is present, who goes to a monastery, a nuns’ quarters, a sectarian lodging, or a retreat, or when the path goes through a village and one travels it, in emergencies, or for those who are insane and the like. The three factors here are: not asking a present monk, absence of a permitted reason, and entering a village at an improper time. Its origin and the rest are similar to the Kathina rule, but this is both action and non-action.

It was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the incident of entering the village at the wrong time. “Without asking a present monk,” “without asking,” and “except for a compelling urgent reason” – these are the three supplementary precepts here. It is a non-general precept, without command, a triple pācittiya. For one who thinks it is the wrong time when it is the right time, and for one who is doubtful, it is a dukkaṭa. For one who thinks it is the right time, or for one who enters with an urgent reason, or having asked a present monk, or without asking when there is none, or goes to one of the places of retreat for monks, lodging for ascetics, or for heretics, or goes along a path through the village, or in emergencies, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Not asking a present monk, the absence of an allowed reason, entering the village at the wrong time – these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are the same as those of the kaṭhina, but this is action and non-action.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning the six monks entering the village at an improper time. “A monk is present,” “without informing,” and “except in an urgent matter” are three supplementary rules here, a unique rule, non-announcement, a tikapācittiya offense, for one who perceives it as an improper time, for one who is doubtful, a dukkaṭa offense. For one who perceives it as the proper time, or in an urgent matter, or informing a present monk, or not informing an absent monk, entering, or going to another monastery, nun’s quarters, or a heretic’s dwelling, or if the road passes through the village, or in emergencies, for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Not informing a present monk, lack of permission, entering the village at an improper time are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the kathina rules. This, however, is action and non-action.

The explanation of the training rule on entering a village at the wrong time is finished.

4. Sūcigharasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Sūcighara Training Rule

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Needle Cases

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Needle Case

Catutthe bhedanameva bhedanakaṃ, taṃ assa atthīti bhedanakaṃ. Tasmā evarūpe sūcighare karaṇakārāpanesu dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena pana taṃ bhinditvā pācittiyaṃ desetabbaṃ.

In the fourth, piercing itself is bhedanaka, and it has that quality, thus bhedanaka. Therefore, making or causing to be made such a needle-case incurs a dukkaṭa offense; upon receiving it and breaking it, a pācittiya offense must be confessed.

In the fourth, bhedanaka means something that has breaking as its characteristic. Therefore, making or causing to make such needle cases incurs a dukkaṭa. Upon obtaining it, one should break it and confess a pācittiya.

In the fourth, bhedanakaṃ means something that is breakable, and it is said to have bones. Therefore, in making or having such a needle case made, there is a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). However, upon acquiring it, if one breaks it, a pācittiya offense should be confessed.

Sakkesu sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha bahusūcigharaviññāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sāṇattikaṃ, attanā vippakataṃ attanā vā, parehi vā, parehi vippakatampi attanā vā, parehi vā pariyosāpetvā labhantassa catukkapācittiyaṃ. Aññassatthāya karaṇakārāpanesu, aññena kataṃ paṭilabhitvā paribhuñjane dukkaṭaṃ. Gaṇṭhike araṇike vidhe añjaniyā añjanisalākāya vāsijaṭe udakapuñchaniyāti etesu yaṃkiñci aṭṭhiādīhi karontassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Sūcigharatā, aṭṭhimayāditā, attano atthāya karaṇaṃ vā kārāpetvā vā paṭilābhoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni sañcarittasadisānīti.

Among the Sakyans, concerning several monks, this was laid down in the matter of requesting many needle-cases. It is a common rule, requiring instruction, and for one who completes it oneself or through others, or receives it completed by others, whether by oneself or others, there are four pācittiya offenses. Making or causing it to be made for another, or receiving and using one made by another, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense for making anything from bone or the like—such as a knot, a fire-stick, a holder, a collyrium container, a collyrium stick, an axe tangle, or a water-wiper—or for those who are insane and the like. The three factors here are: being a needle-case, being made of bone or the like, and making or causing it to be made for oneself and receiving it. Its origin and the rest are similar to the Sañcaritta rule.

It was established in the Sakyan country concerning many monks, in the incident of requesting many needle cases. It is a general precept, with command. Obtaining one that is unfinished by oneself, or by oneself or others, or even one that is unfinished by others, but finished by oneself or others, incurs a quadruple pācittiya. Making or causing to make one for another’s benefit, or obtaining and using one made by another, incurs a dukkaṭa. Making anything out of bone, etc., such as a knot, a tube, a collyrium tube, a collyrium stick, a knife sheath, or a water wiper, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Being a needle case, being made of bone, etc., making or causing to make and obtaining it for one’s own benefit – these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of sañcaritta.

This rule was established concerning several monks in the Sakyan territory, regarding the matter of requesting many needle cases. It is a common rule. If one uses a needle case made of bone, whether it was made by oneself or others, or even if it was made by others but completed by oneself, upon acquiring it, one incurs a pācittiya offense. If one makes or has it made for another’s use, or uses one made by another, there is a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). There is no offense for one who is insane, etc. The three factors here are: the nature of being a needle case, being made of bone, etc., and making or having it made for one’s own use. The origins, etc., are similar to those in the previous rule.

5. Mañcapīṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Mañcapīṭha Training Rule

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Beds and Chairs

Pañcame mañcanti masārakādīsu aññataraṃ. Pīṭhampi tādisameva, taṃ pana mañco viya atidīghaṃ, āsandiko viya ca samaṃ caturassaṃ na hoti. Chedanakaṃ bhedanakasadisameva.

In the fifth, mañca means one made of wood like masāraka or similar; pīṭha is the same, though unlike a bed it is not overly long, nor square like a small couch. Chedanaka is similar to piercing.

In the fifth, mañca means one of the types, such as masāraka, etc. Pīṭha is also of the same kind, but it is not excessively long like a bed, nor is it equally square like a small stool. Chedanakaṃ is similar to bhedanaka.

In the fifth, mañca refers to any of the beds made of masāraka, etc. Pīṭha is similar, but it is not as long as a bed or as square as a stool. Chedanakaṃ is similar to bhedanakaṃ.

Sāvatthiyaṃ upanandaṃ ārabbha ucce mañce sayanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, pamāṇikaṃ karontassa, pamāṇātikkantaṃ labhitvā chinditvā yathā pamāṇameva upari dissati, evaṃ nikhaṇitvā vā, uttānaṃ vā katvā, aṭṭakaṃ vā bandhitvā paribhuñjantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Pamāṇātikkantamañcapīṭhatā, attano atthāya karaṇaṃ vā kārāpetvā vā paṭilābhoti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Sesaṃ sabbaṃ sūcigharasikkhāpadasadisamevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Upananda, this was laid down in the matter of lying on a high bed. There is no offense for one who makes it to measure, or who, receiving one exceeding the measure, cuts it so that only the measure is visible above, whether by burying it, laying it flat, or tying it with a frame and using it, or for those who are insane and the like. The two factors here are: a bed or seat exceeding the measure, and making or causing it to be made for oneself and receiving it. The rest is all similar to the Sūcighara training rule.

It was established in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda, in the incident of sleeping on a high bed. Making one of the correct size, or obtaining one exceeding the size and cutting it so that it appears to be of the correct size, or burying it, or turning it upside down, or binding a frame to it and using it, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Being a bed or chair exceeding the size, making or causing to make and obtaining it for one’s own benefit – these are the two factors here. The rest is all similar to the training rule on needle cases.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning Upananda, regarding the matter of using a high bed. If one makes it to the proper size, but upon acquiring it, it exceeds the size, and one cuts it down so that it appears to be the proper size, or digs it into the ground, or turns it upside down, or ties it to a frame, there is no offense for one who is insane, etc. The two factors here are: the bed or chair exceeding the proper size, and making or having it made for one’s own use. The rest is similar to the needle case rule.

6. Tūlonaddhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Tūlonaddha Training Rule

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Stuffed Furniture

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Cotton-Stuffed Mattress

Chaṭṭhe tūlaṃ onaddhametthāti tūlonaddhaṃ, cimilikaṃ pattharitvā tūlaṃ pakkhipitvā upari cimilikāya onaddhanti vuttaṃ hoti. Uddālanakaṃ bhedanakasadisameva.

In the sixth, cotton is fastened here, thus tūlonaddha; it means spreading a cloth, placing cotton inside, and fastening it with a cloth above. Uddālanaka is similar to piercing.

In the sixth, tūlonaddhaṃ means stuffed with cotton. It means spreading a cloth, inserting cotton, and stuffing it with cloth on top. Uddālanakaṃ is similar to bhedanaka.

In the sixth, tūlonaddhaṃ refers to a mattress stuffed with cotton, spread with a cimilika cloth, filled with cotton, and covered with another cimilika cloth. Uddālanakaṃ is similar to bhedanakaṃ.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha tūlonaddhakārāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, āyoge kāyabandhane aṃsabaddhake pattatthavikāya parissāvane bimbohane, aññena kataṃ tūlonaddhaṃ paṭilabhitvā uddāletvā paribhuñjantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Bimbohanañcettha sīsappamāṇameva vaṭṭati, sīsappamāṇaṃ nāma yassa vitthārato tīsu koṇesu dvinnaṃ antaraṃ vidatthicaturaṅgulaṃ hoti, majjhe muṭṭhiratanaṃ, dīghato diyaḍḍharatanaṃ vā dviratanaṃ vā. Tūlonaddhamañcapīṭhatā, attano atthāya karaṇaṃ vā kārāpetvā vā paṭilābhoti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Sesaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six, this was laid down in the matter of causing a cotton-fastened item to be made. There is no offense for using it in a strap, a body belt, a shoulder strap, a bowl bag, a filter, a cushion, or for receiving and tearing apart one made by another and using it, or for those who are insane and the like. Here, bimbohana is permissible only the size of a head, meaning a width where the distance between two of three corners is four finger-breadths, a fist-sized center, and a length of one and a half or two cubits. The two factors here are: a cotton-fastened bed or seat, and making or causing it to be made for oneself and receiving it. The rest should be understood as explained.

It was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the incident of causing stuffed furniture to be made. Making a belt for the body, a shoulder strap, a bag for a bowl, a filter cloth, or a cushion, or obtaining and using stuffed furniture made by another after removing the stuffing, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Bimbohana (cushion) here is only permissible up to the size of the head. The size of the head means that the distance between two of the three corners is four fingerbreadths in width, a fist-sized ratana in the middle, and one and a half or two ratanas in length. Being a stuffed bed or chair, making or causing to make and obtaining it for one’s own benefit – these are the two factors here. The rest should be understood as stated.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of having a cotton-stuffed mattress made. If one uses a cotton-stuffed mattress made by another, tears it apart, and uses it, there is no offense for one who is insane, etc. Bimbohana here refers to a head-sized pillow. The two factors here are: the nature of the cotton-stuffed mattress, and making or having it made for one’s own use. The rest should be understood in the same way as previously stated.

The explanation of the training rule on the cotton-stuffed mattress is concluded.

7. Nisīdanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Nisīdana Training Rule

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Sitting Cloths

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Sitting Mat

Sattame nisīdananti santhatasadisaṃ santharitvā ekasmiṃ ante sugatavidatthippamāṇaṃ dvīsu ṭhānesu phāletvā katāhi tīhi dasāhi yuttassa parikkhārassetaṃ nāmaṃ.

In the seventh, nisīdana means a spread-like item, a requisite with edges made by splitting it at one end to the measure of a sugata span at two places and fitted with three borders.

In the seventh, nisīdana means similar to a mat. It is the name of a requisite made by spreading it out, splitting it in two places at one end, and attaching three fringes made of the split parts, measuring a sugata span.

In the seventh, nisīdana refers to a spread similar to a covering, spread out with one end folded to the size of the Sugata’s span, and with two places cut out, made with three layers, suitable for a covering. This is its name.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha appamāṇikāni nisīdanāni dhāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “dasā vidatthī”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, asādhāraṇapaññatti, pamāṇikaṃ vā ūnakaṃ vā karontassa, aññena kataṃ pamāṇātikkantaṃ paṭilabhitvā chinditvā paribhuñjantassa, vitānādīsu yaṃkiñci karontassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Nisīdanassa pamāṇātikkantatā, attano atthāya karaṇaṃ vā kārāpetvā vā paṭilābhoti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Sesaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six, this was laid down in the matter of wearing oversized spreads. “The border is a span” is the additional specification here, an uncommon rule. There is no offense for making it to measure or less, or for receiving, cutting, and using one made by another that exceeds the measure, or for making anything like a canopy, or for those who are insane and the like. The two factors here are: a spread exceeding the measure, and making or causing it to be made for oneself and receiving it. The rest should be understood as explained.

It was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six, in the incident of carrying sitting cloths that were not of the proper size. “Fringes of a span” is the supplementary precept here. It is a non-general precept. Making one of the correct size or smaller, or obtaining one exceeding the size made by another and cutting it and using it, or making anything such as a canopy, etc., or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The sitting cloth exceeding the size, making or causing to make and obtaining it for one’s own benefit – these are the two factors here. The rest should be understood as stated.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of using sitting mats of improper size. The additional rule here is: “ten spans.” If one makes it to the proper size or smaller, or uses one made by another that exceeds the size, cuts it down, and uses it, there is no offense for one who is insane, etc. The two factors here are: the sitting mat exceeding the proper size, and making or having it made for one’s own use. The rest should be understood in the same way as previously stated.

8. Kaṇḍuppaṭicchādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi Training Rule

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on Itch-Covering Cloths

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Skin Eruption Covering

Aṭṭhame kaṇḍuppaṭicchādinti adhonābhiubbhajāṇumaṇḍalaṃ kaṇḍupīḷakaassāvathullakacchābādhānaṃ paṭicchādanatthaṃ anuññātaṃ cīvaraṃ.

In the eighth, kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi refers to a robe permitted for covering the area from below the navel to above the knee circle, for the purpose of concealing itching, sores, oozing sores, or coarse skin afflictions.

In the eighth, kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi means the cloth authorized to cover the area below the navel and above the knee, for the purpose of covering sores, boils, or large scabs.

In the eighth, kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi refers to a robe allowed for covering skin eruptions, boils, abscesses, or large wounds from below the navel to the knee.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha appamāṇikāyo kaṇḍuppaṭicchādikāyo dhāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sesaṃ nisīdane vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Six, regarding the matter of wearing an oversized kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi, a general prescription. The rest should be understood as explained in the method stated for the sitting cloth.

It was established in Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six [monks], in the case of wearing immodest kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi cloths. It is a general regulation. The rest should be understood in the same way as stated for the sitting cloth.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of using skin eruption coverings of improper size. It is a common rule. The rest should be understood in the same way as the sitting mat rule.

The commentary on the training rule concerning the kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi is concluded.

The explanation of the training rule on the kaṇḍuppaṭicchādi is finished.

The explanation of the training rule on the skin eruption covering is concluded.

9. Vassikasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning the Rains Robe

9. The Training Rule on the Rains Cloth (Vassikasāṭikā)

9. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Rainy Season Robe

Navame sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha appamāṇikāyo vassikasāṭikāyo dhāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesamettha yaṃ vattabbaṃ, taṃ nisīdane vuttanayamevāti.

In the ninth, this was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Six, regarding the matter of wearing an oversized rains robe (vassikasāṭika), a general prescription. What needs to be said here is exactly as explained in the method stated for the sitting cloth.

In the ninth, it was established in Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six [monks], in the case of wearing immodest rains cloths. Whatever else should be said here is the same as the method described for the sitting cloth.

In the ninth, this rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of using rainy season robes of improper size. The rest here should be understood in the same way as the sitting mat rule.

10. Nandasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Nanda Training Rule

10. The Training Rule on Nanda

10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Nanda

Dasame sāvatthiyaṃ āyasmantaṃ nandaṃ ārabbha sugatacīvarappamāṇaṃ cīvaraṃ dhāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sādhāraṇapaññatti, sesaṃ nisīdane vuttanayamevāti.

In the tenth, this was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Venerable Nanda, regarding the matter of wearing a robe exceeding the Buddha’s standard robe measurement (sugatacīvarappamāṇa), a general prescription. The rest is exactly as explained in the method stated for the sitting cloth.

In the tenth, it was established in Sāvatthī, concerning the venerable Nanda, in the case of wearing a robe of the Sugata’s robe size. It is a general regulation. The rest is the same as the method described for the sitting cloth.

In the tenth, this rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning Venerable Nanda, regarding the matter of using a robe of the Sugata’s size. It is a common rule. The rest should be understood in the same way as the sitting mat rule.

Pāṭidesanīyakaṇḍo

Section on Confessable Offenses

The Section on Confession (Pāṭidesanīya)

The Pāṭidesanīya Section

1. Paṭhamapāṭidesanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the First Confessable Training Rule

1. The Explanation of the First Training Rule on Confession

1. Explanation of the First Pāṭidesanīya Training Rule

Pāṭidesanīyesu paṭhame antaragharaṃ paviṭṭhāyāti vacanato sace tassā antarārāmādīsu ṭhatvāpi dadamānāya hatthato sayaṃ rathiyābyūhasiṅghāṭakagharānaṃ aññatarasmiṃ ṭhitopi gaṇhāti, doso natthi. Tassā pana rathiyādīsu ṭhatvā dadamānāya, rathiyādīsu vā, antarārāmādīsu vā ṭhatvāpi yaṃkiñci āmisaṃ ajjhoharaṇatthāya gaṇhato paṭiggahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pāṭidesanīyaṃ. Tassa desetabbākāro gārayhaṃ āvusotiādinā nayena sikkhāpade dassitoyeva.

Among the confessable offenses, in the first, antaragharaṃ paviṭṭhāyā indicates that if she, even while standing in an inner monastery or similar place, gives something and he, standing in a street, formation, intersection, or house, takes it from her hand, there is no fault. However, if she stands in a street or similar place and gives, and he, standing in a street or an inner monastery or similar place, takes any alms for consumption, there is a dukkaṭa offense in receiving it and a pāṭidesanīya offense for each act of consumption. The manner of confessing it is as shown in the training rule with the phrase gārayhaṃ āvuso and so forth.

In the Confession section, in the first, because of the phrase antaragharaṃ paviṭṭhāyā, if she [a bhikkhuni], even while standing in the inner monastery or other such places, gives [food], and he [a bhikkhu] receives it with his own hand from her hand, even if he is standing in a street, a crossroad, an intersection, or any other house, there is no fault. But if she gives [food] while standing in a street or other such places, and he receives any kind of almsfood for consuming, even if he is standing in a street or other such places, or in the inner monastery or other such places, there is a dukkaṭa for receiving. For each mouthful consumed, there is a confession (pāṭidesanīya). The manner in which it should be confessed is shown in the training rule by the method beginning with gārayhaṃ āvuso.

In the first Pāṭidesanīya, antaragharaṃ paviṭṭhāyā means that if one stands in the monastery, etc., and receives something from the hand of a woman who is giving, even if one is standing in the street, etc., there is no fault. However, if one stands in the street, etc., and receives something from her hand, or stands in the monastery, etc., and takes anything for consumption, there is a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa) in receiving, and a pāṭidesanīya offense for each act of consumption. The manner of confession is shown in the rule: “Reverend, I confess a blameworthy act,” etc.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā antaragharaṃ paviṭṭhāya hatthato āmisaṃ paṭiggahaṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, asādhāraṇapaññatti, anāṇattikaṃ, yathā cetaṃ, tathā sesānipi, tikapāṭidesanīyaṃ, yāmakālikādīsu paṭiggahaṇepi ajjhoharaṇepi dukkaṭaṃ, ekatoupasampannāya yāvakālikepi tatheva, ñātikāya aññātikasaññivematikānampi eseva nayo. Ñātikasaññino pana, ñātikāya vā dāpentiyā, upanikkhipitvā vā dadamānāya, yā ca antarārāmabhikkhunupassayatitthiyaseyyapaṭikkamanesu ṭhatvā gāmato bahi nīharitvā, yāmakālikādīni vā “sati paccaye paribhuñjā”ti deti, tassa, sikkhamānasāmaṇerīnañca hatthato gahetvā paribhuñjantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Paripuṇṇūpasampannatā, aññātikatā, antaraghare ṭhitāya hatthato sahatthā paṭiggahaṇaṃ, yāvakālikatā, ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk, regarding the matter of receiving alms from the hand of an unrelated nun who had entered a house, an individual prescription, not requiring authorization. As it is here, so it is with the others, with three pāṭidesanīya offenses. In receiving or consuming time-limited food and the like, there is a dukkaṭa offense; with a nun ordained on one side only, even with lifelong food, it is the same. For those perceiving her as unrelated when she is related, or uncertain, the same applies. However, for one perceiving her as related, or when a related nun gives or has it given, or places it down and gives, or when she stands in an inner monastery, nuns’ quarters, heretics’ resting place, or retreat and brings it out from the village, or gives time-limited food and the like with, “Use it when there is a reason,” and for one consuming it after receiving it from the hands of a female trainee or novice, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The five factors here are: full ordination, being unrelated, receiving from her hand while she stands in a house, it being lifelong food, and consuming it. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the eḷakaloma rule.

It was established in Sāvatthī, concerning a certain monk, in the case of receiving almsfood from the hand of a non-related bhikkhuni who had entered a house. It is a non-general regulation, not by command, and just as this one, so are the rest. It is a triple confession (tikapāṭidesanīya). Even for receiving or consuming things allowable at certain times (yāmakālikādī), there is a dukkaṭa. It is the same even for things allowable at any time (yāvakālikā) from a woman ordained on one side. The same principle applies to those who are doubtful, thinking that a related [bhikkhuni] is unrelated. For one who thinks [a bhikkhuni] is related, or when a related [bhikkhuni] causes [food] to be given, or gives [food] after setting it down, or when she, after standing in the inner monastery, the bhikkhuni’s residence, the place of heretics, or the sleeping quarters, takes [food] out of the village, or gives things allowable at certain times (yāmakālikādīni) saying, “Consume it when you have need,” or for one who receives from the hand of a training nun (sikkhamānā) or a female novice (sāmaṇerī) and consumes it, or for those who are insane (ummattaka) and so on, there is no offense. Full ordination, being unrelated, receiving from the hand of one standing in a house, the food being allowable at any time (yāvakālika), and consuming – these are the five factors here. The origination and other [factors] are similar to [those of] the training rule on sheep’s wool.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning a certain monk, regarding the matter of receiving food from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī who had entered the house. It is a non-common rule, not subject to a formal meeting. The same applies to the other three Pāṭidesanīya rules. There is a wrongdoing in receiving or consuming food given temporarily, etc., and the same applies to a fully ordained bhikkhunī. The same applies to one who perceives an unrelated woman as related, or is in doubt. However, there is no offense for one who perceives a related woman as related, or for one who receives food from a related woman who is giving, or who gives after setting it aside, or who receives food brought out of the village after standing in the monastery, etc., or who receives food temporarily, etc., with the thought, “I will use it when there is a need,” or who receives food from a trainee nun or novice nun, or for one who is insane, etc. The five factors here are: full ordination, unrelatedness, standing in the house, receiving directly from her hand, and consumption. The origins, etc., are similar to those in the rule on wool.

2. Dutiyapāṭidesanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Second Confessable Training Rule

2. The Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Confession

2. Explanation of the Second Pāṭidesanīya Training Rule

Dutiye idha sūpantiādi vosāsanākāradassanaṃ. Apasakka tāva bhaginītiādi apasādetabbākāradassanaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – ekenāpi bhikkhunā anapasādite ajjhoharaṇatthāya āmisaṃ gaṇhantānaṃ paṭiggahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pāṭidesanīyanti.

In the second, idha sūpa and so forth indicate the manner of refusal. Apasakka tāva bhaginī and so forth indicate the manner of dissuasion. The judgment here is this: even if not dissuaded by a single monk, for those taking alms for consumption, there is a dukkaṭa offense in receiving it and a pāṭidesanīya offense for each act of consumption.

In the second, idha sūpa and so on is a demonstration of the manner of prompting. Apasakka tāva bhaginī and so on is a demonstration of the manner of dismissing. Here is the decision: if even one monk has not dismissed [her], for those who receive almsfood for consuming, there is a dukkaṭa for receiving. For each mouthful consumed, there is a confession (pāṭidesanīya).

In the second, idha sūpa etc., shows the manner of persuasion. Apasakka tāva bhaginī etc., shows the manner of rejection. Here is the determination: even if one monk does not reject it, there is a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa) in receiving food for consumption, and a pāṭidesanīya offense for each act of consumption.

Rājagahe chabbaggiye ārabbha bhikkhuniyā vosāsantiyā nanivāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapāṭidesanīyaṃ, ekatoupasampannāya vosāsantiyā nanivārentassa dukkaṭaṃ, tathā anupasampannāya upasampannasaññino vematikassa ca. Anupasampannasaññino, pana yo ca attano vā bhattaṃ dāpentiyā, aññesaṃ vā bhattaṃ dentiyā, yaṃ vā na dinnaṃ, taṃ dāpentiyā, yattha vā na dinnaṃ, tattha, sabbesaṃ vā samakaṃ dāpentiyā, sikkhamānāya vā sāmaṇeriyā vā vosāsantiyā paṭiggahetvā bhuñjati, tassa, pañca bhojanāni ṭhapetvā sabbattha, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Paripuṇṇūpasampannatā, pañcabhojanatā, antaraghare anuññātapakārato aññathā vosāsanā, anivāraṇā, ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisānīti.

This was prescribed in Rājagaha concerning the Group of Six, regarding the matter of not preventing a nun who was refusing, with three pāṭidesanīya offenses. For not preventing a nun ordained on one side only who is refusing, there is a dukkaṭa offense, and the same for one perceiving an unordained person as ordained or one uncertain. For one perceiving her as unordained, or one consuming after receiving his own meal being given by her, or another’s meal being given by her, or what was not given being given by her, or where it was not given, or an equal share being given to all, or given by a female trainee or novice who is refusing, and except for the five types of food, everywhere else, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The five factors here are: full ordination, it being one of the five foods, refusal in a house in a manner other than permitted, not preventing it, and consuming it. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the kathina rule.

It was established in Rājagaha, concerning the group of six [monks], in the case of not dismissing a bhikkhuni who was prompting. It is a triple confession (tikapāṭidesanīya). For one who does not dismiss a bhikkhuni ordained on one side who is prompting, there is a dukkaṭa; likewise for one who is ordained and has the perception of an ordained person, or who is doubtful about an unordained person. For one who has the perception of an unordained person, or for one who receives from and eats food from a bhikkhuni who is causing one’s own alms to be given, or who is causing alms to be given to others, or who is causing something that was not given to be given, or in a place where it was not given, or who is causing [food] to be given equally to all, or who is prompting a training nun (sikkhamānā) or a female novice (sāmaṇerī), or for anywhere except for the five staple foods, or for those who are insane (ummattaka) and so on, there is no offense. Full ordination, the food being one of the five staple foods, prompting in a way other than the permitted manner in a house, not being dismissed, and consuming – these are the five factors here. The origination and other [factors] are similar to [those of] the training rule on the kathina cloth.

This rule was established in Rājagaha concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of a bhikkhunī persuading without being prevented. It is a threefold Pāṭidesanīya rule. There is a wrongdoing for one who does not prevent a fully ordained bhikkhunī from persuading, and the same applies to one who perceives an unordained woman as ordained, or is in doubt. However, there is no offense for one who perceives an unordained woman as unordained, or for one who gives his own meal, or gives meals to others, or gives what was not given, or gives in a place where it was not given, or gives equally to all, or who receives food from a trainee nun or novice nun who is persuading, or for one who is insane, etc. The five factors here are: full ordination, the nature of the five foods, persuasion in the house in an unallowed manner, not being prevented, and consumption. The origins, etc., are similar to those in the rule on the robe season.

3. Tatiyapāṭidesanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Third Confessable Training Rule

3. The Explanation of the Third Training Rule on Confession

3. Explanation of the Third Pāṭidesanīya Training Rule

Tatiye sekkhasammatānīti laddhasekkhasammutikāni. Pubbe animantitoti gharūpacārokkamanato paṭhamataraṃ upacāraṃ anokkamanteyeva pubbe animantito. Agilāno nāma yo sakkoti piṇḍāya carituṃ. Pāṭidesanīyanti gharūpacāraṃ okkamitvā āmisaṃ gaṇhantassa paṭiggahaṇe tāva dukkaṭaṃ, taṃ gahetvā yatthakatthaci bhuñjantassa ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pāṭidesanīyanti.

In the third, sekkhasammatānī means those designated as training households. Pubbe animantito means not invited beforehand, before entering the house’s vicinity, without even entering the vicinity. Agilāno means one capable of going for alms. Pāṭidesanīya means upon entering the house’s vicinity and taking alms, there is a dukkaṭa offense in receiving it, and for consuming it anywhere, a pāṭidesanīya offense for each act of consumption.

In the third, sekkhasammatānī means those [households] that have received the designation of being in training (sekkha). Pubbe animantito means not having been previously invited, before stepping over the threshold of the house’s boundary, even before stepping over the boundary. Agilāno means one who is able to go for alms. Pāṭidesanīya means that for one who steps over the threshold of a house and receives almsfood, there is a dukkaṭa for receiving. For one who eats it anywhere after receiving it, for each mouthful consumed, there is a confession (pāṭidesanīya).

In the third, sekkhasammatānī refers to those who have attained the status of a trainee. Pubbe animantito means not having been invited before entering the house. Agilāno refers to one who is capable of going for alms. Pāṭidesanīya means that upon entering the house and receiving food, there is a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa) in receiving, and a pāṭidesanīya offense for each act of consumption.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha na mattaṃ jānitvā paṭiggahaṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “pubbe animantito, agilāno”ti imā panettha dve anupaññattiyo, tikapāṭidesanīyaṃ, yāmakālikādīsu paṭiggahaṇepi ajjhohārepi dukkaṭaṃ, tathā asekkhasammate sekkhasammatasaññino vematikassa ca. Asekkhasammatasaññino, pana yo ca pubbe nimantito vā gilāno vā aññassa vā tesaṃ ghare paññattaṃ bhikkhaṃ gaṇhāti, yassa ca gharato nīharitvā, āsanasālādīsu vā bhikkhuṃ adisvā paṭhamaṃyeva nīharitvā, dvāramūle vā ṭhapitaṃ denti, tassa taṃ bhuñjantassa, niccabhattake, salākabhatte, pakkhike , uposathike, pāṭipadike, yāmakālikādiṃ “sati paccaye paribhuñjā”ti dinnaṃ paribhuñjantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Sekkhasammatatā, pubbe animantitatā, agilānatā, gharūpacārokkamanaṃ, ṭhapetvā niccabhattakādīni aññaṃ āmisaṃ gahetvā bhuñjananti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning several monks, regarding the matter of receiving without knowing moderation, with “not invited beforehand, not ill” as the two non-prescriptions here, with three pāṭidesanīya offenses. For receiving or consuming time-limited food and the like, there is a dukkaṭa offense, and the same for one perceiving a non-training household as a training one or one uncertain. For one perceiving it as a non-training household, or one invited beforehand, or ill, or taking alms designated for another in their house, or consuming what was brought out from the house, or given at the door without first seeing a monk in an assembly hall or similar place, or from a regular meal, ticket meal, fortnightly meal, Uposatha meal, first-day meal, or time-limited food and the like given with, “Use it when there is a reason,” and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The five factors here are: being a training household, not invited beforehand, not being ill, entering the house’s vicinity, and consuming alms other than regular meals and the like after taking it. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the eḷakaloma rule.

It was established in Sāvatthī, concerning many monks, in the case of receiving [food] without knowing the amount. “Not having been previously invited, not being ill” – these are the two supplementary regulations here. It is a triple confession (tikapāṭidesanīya). Even for receiving or consuming things allowable at certain times (yāmakālikādī), there is a dukkaṭa; likewise for one who has the perception of a sekkha-designated [household] when it is not sekkha-designated, or who is doubtful. For one who has the perception of a non-sekkha-designated [household], or for one who was previously invited, or is ill, or who receives alms that have been designated in those households for another, or for one who receives alms that have been brought out of the house, or when, without seeing a monk in the seating hall or other such places, [food] is brought out first and placed at the door, or for one who eats that, or for regular meals, ticket meals, fortnightly meals, uposatha-day meals, first-day-of-the-fortnight meals, or for one who consumes things allowable at certain times (yāmakālikādi) that have been given saying, “Consume it when you have need,” or for those who are insane (ummattaka) and so on, there is no offense. Being designated as a sekkha [household], not having been previously invited, not being ill, stepping over the threshold of the house, and receiving and eating alms other than regular meals and so on – these are the five factors here. The origination and other [factors] are similar to [those of] the training rule on sheep’s wool.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning several monks, regarding the matter of receiving without knowing the measure. The two additional rules here are: “not having been invited before” and “not being ill.” It is a threefold Pāṭidesanīya rule. There is a wrongdoing in receiving or consuming food temporarily, etc., and the same applies to one who perceives a non-trainee as a trainee, or is in doubt. However, there is no offense for one who perceives a non-trainee as a non-trainee, or for one who was invited before, or is ill, or receives food from another’s house, or who receives food brought out of the house, or placed at the door, etc., or who consumes food given temporarily, etc., with the thought, “I will use it when there is a need,” or for one who is insane, etc. The five factors here are: being a trainee, not having been invited before, not being ill, entering the house, and consuming food other than the regular meal, etc. The origins, etc., are similar to those in the rule on wool.

4. Catutthapāṭidesanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Fourth Confessable Training Rule

4. The Explanation of the Fourth Training Rule on Confession

4. Explanation of the Fourth Pāṭidesanīya Training Rule

Catutthe yāni kho pana tāni āraññakānītiādi cīvaravippavāsasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ. Pubbe appaṭisaṃviditanti ettha yaṃ itthiyā vā purisena vā gahaṭṭhena vā pabbajitena vā ārāmaṃ vā ārāmūpacāraṃ vā pavisitvā “itthannāmassa, bhante, kulassa khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā āhariyissatī”ti (pāci. 573) ārocitaṃ, taṃ pacchā yathāārocitameva vā āhariyatu, tassa parivāraṃ katvā aññaṃ vā tena saddhiṃ bahukampi, “itthannāmaṃ kulaṃ paṭisaṃviditaṃ katvā khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā gahetvā gacchatī”ti sutvā aññāni vā kulāni tehi saddhiṃ āharantu, taṃ sabbaṃ paṭisaṃviditaṃ nāma. Yaṃ pana evaṃ anārocitaṃ anāhaṭañca, taṃ appaṭisaṃviditaṃ nāma. Agilāno nāma yo sakkoti piṇḍāya gantuṃ. Pāṭidesanīyanti evarūpaṃ antamaso ārāmamajjhena gacchantehi addhikehi dinnampi ārāme vā ārāmūpacāre vā paṭiggahetvā ajjhoharantassa paṭiggahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pāṭidesanīyanti.

In the fourth, yāni kho pana tāni āraññakānī and so forth should be understood as explained in the training rule on separation from robes. Pubbe appaṭisaṃvidita means that which was announced by a woman, man, householder, or renunciant entering the monastery or its vicinity with, “Venerable sir, food or edibles will be brought from such-and-such a family” (pāci. 573), and later brought as announced, or with additional items or much along with it, or hearing, “Such-and-such a family, having been acknowledged, takes food or edibles,” or other families bring it along with them—all this is called paṭisaṃvidita. But that which is neither announced nor brought in this way is called appaṭisaṃvidita. Agilāno means one capable of going for alms. Pāṭidesanīya means even what is given by travelers passing through the monastery, if received and consumed in the monastery or its vicinity, incurs a dukkaṭa offense in receiving it and a pāṭidesanīya offense for each act of consumption.

In the fourth, yāni kho pana tāni āraññakānī and so on should be understood in the same way as stated in the training rule on being away from one’s robes. Pubbe appaṭisaṃvidita – here, whatever has been announced by a woman, a man, a householder, or a renunciate, after entering the monastery or the monastery grounds, saying, “Almsfood or staple food will be brought for such-and-such a family, venerable sir,” (pāci. 573) whether that [food] is later brought exactly as announced, or other [food] is brought as its supplement, along with much else, or after hearing, “Such-and-such a family, having made an arrangement, is going with almsfood or staple food,” other families bring [food] along with them – all that is called paṭisaṃvidita (prearranged). But whatever is not announced or brought in this way is called appaṭisaṃvidita (not prearranged). Agilāno means one who is able to go for alms. Pāṭidesanīya means that for one who receives and consumes even [food] given by travelers going even through the middle of the monastery, in the monastery or on the monastery grounds, there is a dukkaṭa for receiving. For each mouthful consumed, there is a confession (pāṭidesanīya).

In the fourth, yāni kho pana tāni āraññakānī etc., should be understood in the same way as the rule on the robe season. Pubbe appaṭisaṃvidita refers to when a woman, man, householder, or monastic informs the monastery or its precincts, saying, “Venerable, such-and-such a family will bring food or drink,” and later it is brought as informed, or with its entourage, or much more is brought along with it. This is called paṭisaṃvidita. What is not informed or brought is called appaṭisaṃvidita. Agilāno refers to one who is capable of going for alms. Pāṭidesanīya means that even if such food is given by travelers passing through the monastery, receiving and consuming it in the monastery or its precincts incurs a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa) in receiving, and a pāṭidesanīya offense for each act of consumption.

Sakkesu sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha ārāme core paṭivasante anārocanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “agilāno”ti ayamettha ekā anupaññatti, tikapāṭidesanīyaṃ , yāmakālikādīsu āhāratthāya paṭiggahaṇepi ajjhohārepi dukkaṭameva, tathā paṭisaṃvidite appaṭisaṃviditasaññino vematikassa ca, paṭisaṃviditasaññino, pana gilānassa, yo ca paṭisaṃviditaṃ katvā āhaṭaṃ vā gilānāvasesakaṃ vā bahārāme vā paṭiggahitaṃ, tatthajātakameva vā mūlaphalādiṃ, yāmakālikādīsu vā yaṃkiñci “sati paccaye paribhuñjā”ti laddhaṃ paribhuñjantassa, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti. Yathāvuttaāraññakasenāsanatā, yāvakālikassa atatthajātakatā, agilānatā, agilānāvasesakatā, appaṭisaṃviditatā, ajjhārāme paṭiggahaṇaṃ, ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha satta aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisāneva, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

This was prescribed among the Sakyans concerning several monks, regarding the matter of not reporting thieves residing in the monastery, with “not ill” as the single non-prescription here, with three pāṭidesanīya offenses. For receiving or consuming time-limited food and the like for sustenance, it is merely a dukkaṭa offense, and the same for one perceiving an acknowledged family as unacknowledged or one uncertain. For one perceiving it as acknowledged, or an ill person, or one consuming what was brought after being acknowledged, or leftovers from an ill person, or received outside the monastery, or what grows there like roots and fruits, or anything time-limited and the like received with, “Use it when there is a reason,” and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The seven factors here are: being a forest dwelling as described, it being lifelong food not produced there, not being ill, not being leftovers from an ill person, being unacknowledged, receiving it in the monastery, and consuming it. The origin and so forth are exactly like those of the kathina rule, but this involves action and inaction.

It was established among many monks in the Sakyan country, in the case of not announcing that robbers were residing in the monastery. “Not being ill” – this is one supplementary regulation here. It is a triple confession (tikapāṭidesanīya). Even for receiving or consuming, for the purpose of nourishment, things allowable at certain times (yāmakālikādī), there is only a dukkaṭa; likewise for one who has the perception of not prearranged (appaṭisaṃvidita) when it is prearranged (paṭisaṃvidita), or who is doubtful. For one who has the perception of prearranged (paṭisaṃvidita), or for one who is ill, or for one who consumes what has been brought after making an arrangement, or what is left over from an ill person, or what has been received outside the monastery, or root fruits and so on that have grown there, or anything among things allowable at certain times (yāmakālikādī) that has been received saying, “Consume it when you have need,” or for those who are insane (ummattaka) and so on, there is no offense. The stated wilderness dwelling, the food allowable at any time (yāvakālika) not having grown there, not being ill, it not being what is left over from an ill person, it not being prearranged, receiving within the monastery, and consuming – these are the seven factors here. The origination and other [factors] are similar to [those of] the training rule on the kathina cloth, but this [training rule] concerns action and non-action.

This rule was established in the Sakyan territory concerning several monks, regarding the matter of not informing while thieves were staying in the monastery. The additional rule here is: “not being ill.” It is a threefold Pāṭidesanīya rule. There is a wrongdoing in receiving or consuming food temporarily, etc., and the same applies to one who perceives informed food as uninformed, or is in doubt. However, there is no offense for one who perceives informed food as informed, or for one who is ill, or who receives food brought after informing, or leftover food, or food received in a large monastery, or roots and fruits grown there, or who consumes food given temporarily, etc., with the thought, “I will use it when there is a need,” or for one who is insane, etc. The seven factors here are: staying in a forest dwelling, the nature of being temporary and not grown there, not being ill, not being leftover, not being informed, receiving in the monastery, and consumption. The origins, etc., are similar to those in the rule on the robe season. This, however, is a matter of action and inaction.

Sekhiyakaṇḍo

Section on Training Rules

The Section on Training (Sekhiyā)

The Sekhiya Section

1. Parimaṇḍalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Circular Arrangement

1. The Training Rule on Even Robe Arrangement

1. Explanation of the Training Rule on Wearing the Robe Evenly

Sekhiyesu paṭhame parimaṇḍalanti samantato maṇḍalaṃ. Sikkhā karaṇīyāti “evaṃ nivāsessāmī”ti ārāmepi antaragharepi sabbattha sikkhā kātabbā, ettha ca yasmā vattakkhandhake vuttavattānipi sikkhitabbattā sekhiyāneva honti, tasmā pārājikādīsu viya paricchedo na kato. Cārittavinayadassanatthañca “yo pana bhikkhu olambento nivāseyya, dukkaṭa”nti evaṃ āpattināmena avatvā “sikkhā karaṇīyā”ti evaṃ sabbasikkhāpadesu pāḷi āropitā, padabhājane (pāci. 576) pana “āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti vuttattā sabbattha anādariyakaraṇe dukkaṭaṃ veditabbaṃ.

Among the training rules, in the first, parimaṇḍala means circular all around. Sikkhā karaṇīyā means “I will dress this way,” and training should be undertaken everywhere, in the monastery and in houses, and since the duties stated in the Vatta-khandhaka are also to be trained in and thus are training rules, no distinction is made here as in the pārājika rules and the like. To show the discipline of conduct, instead of saying, “If a monk wears it hanging down, it is a dukkaṭa offense,” as an offense name, the text in all training rules is presented as sikkhā karaṇīyā, but since it is stated in the analysis (pāci. 576) that “there is a dukkaṭa offense,” it should be understood that showing disrespect incurs a dukkaṭa offense everywhere.

In the Training section, in the first, parimaṇḍala means even all around. Sikkhā karaṇīyā means that training should be done, “I will dress in this way,” both in the monastery and inside a house, everywhere. And here, because the practices stated in the chapter on duties are also trainings (sekhiyā) since they are to be trained in, a division is not made as in the pārājika and other [sections]. And to show the conduct and discipline, instead of saying, “Whatever monk should dress with [the robe] hanging down, there is a dukkaṭa,” by using the name of the offense, the Pāḷi is laid down in all the training rules as, “Training should be done.” But because in the verse explanation (pāci. 576) it is said, “There is an offense of dukkaṭa,” in all cases, a dukkaṭa should be understood for doing [something] disrespectfully.

In the first Sekhiya, parimaṇḍala means a circle all around. Sikkhā karaṇīyā means that one should train thus: “I will wear the robe evenly,” in the monastery, in the house, and everywhere. Here, because the practices mentioned in the chapter on duties are also to be trained, they are included in the Sekhiya rules. Therefore, there is no separate classification as in the Pārājika, etc. To show the nature of proper conduct, instead of saying, “A monk who wears the robe hanging down incurs a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa),” the Pāli is phrased as “one should train” in all the training rules. However, in the word analysis (pāci. 576), it is said, “There is an offense of wrongdoing,” so it should be understood that there is a wrongdoing in all cases of disrespect.

Idāni parimaṇḍalanti ettha nābhimaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādetvā jāṇumaṇḍalassa heṭṭhā jaṅghaṭṭhikato paṭṭhāya aṭṭhaṅgulamattaṃ nivāsanaṃ otāretvā nivāsentena parimaṇḍalaṃ nivatthaṃ nāma hoti, evaṃ anivāsetvā anādariyena purato vā pacchato vā olambetvā nivāsentassa dukkaṭaṃ. Na kevalañca tasseva, ye caññe “tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā gihinivatthaṃ nivāsenti, hatthisoṇḍakaṃ macchavālakaṃ catukkaṇṇakaṃ tālavaṇṭakaṃ satavalikaṃ nivāsenti, saṃvalliyaṃ nivāsentī”ti khandhake (cūḷava. 280) nivāsanadosā vuttā, tathā nivāsentassapi dukkaṭameva.

Now, regarding parimaṇḍala, covering the navel circle and lowering the robe about eight fingerbreadths from the shinbone below the knee circle is called wearing it circularly. Wearing it otherwise with disrespect, letting it hang down in front or behind, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Not only for that, but also for those faults of wearing stated in the Khandhaka (Cūḷava. 280): “At that time, the Group of Six wore laymen’s clothing, wearing it like an elephant’s trunk, a fish’s tail, with four corners, like a palm fan, with a hundred folds, or tightly bound,” incurs a dukkaṭa offense when worn that way.

Now, regarding parimaṇḍala, dressing with the lower robe lowered eight fingerbreadths from the shin bone below the knee, after covering the navel area, is called dressing with the lower robe evenly. Not dressing in this way, and disrespectfully letting [the robe] hang down in front or behind, there is a dukkaṭa. And not only for him, but also for those others who, “At that time, the group of six monks dressed like householders, [in the styles of] elephant trunk, fish tail, four-cornered, palm-leaf fan, hundred pleats, and like wrestlers,” (Cūḷava. 280) as stated in the Khandhaka regarding faults in dressing, dressing in such a way, there is also a dukkaṭa.

Now, regarding parimaṇḍala: Here, covering the navel circle and lowering the lower robe to about eight fingerbreadths below the knee circle, starting from the shin bone, is called properly wearing the robe in a circular manner. If one does not wear it in this way but carelessly lets it hang in front or behind, it is an offense of wrong conduct. Not only for this, but also for those who wear the robe like laypeople, as described in the Khandhaka (Cūḷavagga 280): “At that time, the six-group monks wore lay robes, such as the elephant trunk style, fish tail style, four-cornered style, palm leaf style, hundred-fold style, and the wrapped style.” Those who wear the robe in such ways also commit an offense of wrong conduct.

Tattha hatthisoṇḍakaṃ nāma nābhimūlato hatthisoṇḍasaṇṭhānaṃ olambakaṃ katvā nivatthaṃ coḷikaitthīnaṃ nivāsanaṃ viya. Macchavālakaṃ nāma ekatodasantaṃ ekato pāsantaṃ olambetvā nivatthaṃ. Catukkaṇṇakaṃ nāma upari dve, heṭṭhato dveti evaṃ cattāro kaṇṇe dassetvā nivatthaṃ. Tālavaṇṭakaṃ nāma tālavaṇṭākārena sāṭakaṃ olambetvā nivatthaṃ. Satavalikaṃ nāma dīghasāṭakaṃ anekakkhattuṃ obhujitvā ovaṭṭikaṃ karontena nivatthaṃ, vāmadakkhiṇapassesu vā nirantaraṃ valiyo dassetvā nivatthaṃ. Sace pana jāṇuto paṭṭhāya ekā vā dve vā valiyo paññāyanti, vaṭṭati. Saṃvalliyanti mallakammakārādīhi viya kacchaṃ bandhitvā nivatthaṃ. Evaṃ nivāsetuṃ gilānassāpi maggappaṭipannassāpi na vaṭṭati. Yampi maggaṃ gacchantā ekaṃ vā dve vā kaṇṇe ukkhipitvā antaravāsakassa upari lagganti, anto vā ekaṃ kāsāvaṃ tathā nivāsetvā bahi aparaṃ nivāsenti, sabbaṃ na vaṭṭati.

Therein, hatthisoṇḍakaṃ means worn like the cloth of laywomen, hanging down from the navel root shaped like an elephant’s trunk. Macchavālakaṃ means worn hanging down with one side pointed and one side looped. Catukkaṇṇakaṃ means worn showing four corners—two above and two below. Tālavaṇṭakaṃ means worn with the robe hanging like a palm fan. Satavalikaṃ means worn with a long robe folded many times into a roll, or showing continuous folds on the left and right sides; however, if one or two folds appear from the knee, it is permissible. Saṃvalliyaṃ means worn tied at the waist like wrestlers or workers. Even an ill person or one traveling on a road may not wear it this way. Also, when traveling, lifting one or two corners and tucking them over the inner robe, or wearing one ochre robe inside this way and another outside, is all impermissible.

There, hatthisoṇḍakaṃ (elephant trunk) means dressing with a hanging part in the shape of an elephant’s trunk from the base of the navel, like the lower robe dressing of dancing girls. Macchavālakaṃ (fish tail) means dressing with the ends hanging down on one side and on one thigh. Catukkaṇṇakaṃ (four-cornered) means dressing showing four corners, two above and two below. Tālavaṇṭakaṃ (palm-leaf fan) means dressing with the robe hanging down in the shape of a palm-leaf fan. Satavalikaṃ (hundred pleats) means dressing with a long robe folded many times, making a roll, or dressing showing continuous pleats on the left and right sides. But if one or two pleats are visible from the knee down, it is permissible. Saṃvalliya (like wrestlers) means dressing with the waist-cloth tied like wrestlers and other performers. Even an ill person or one traveling on a path is not allowed to dress in this way. Even when going on a path, gathering one or two corners and attaching them above the inner robe, or dressing with one kāsāva cloth in such a way inside and another outside, is all not allowed.

Here, hatthisoṇḍakaṃ refers to a robe shaped like an elephant trunk, hanging from the navel, similar to the robes worn by female ascetics. Macchavālakaṃ refers to a robe with one end hanging and the other end tied. Catukkaṇṇakaṃ refers to a robe with four corners, two above and two below. Tālavaṇṭakaṃ refers to a robe hanging like a palm leaf. Satavalikaṃ refers to a long robe folded many times to create a coiled appearance, or a robe with continuous folds on both sides. If one or two folds are visible below the knee, it is acceptable. Saṃvalliyaṃ refers to a robe tied like a belt, as done by wrestlers or workers. Wearing the robe in such ways is not permissible even for the sick or those on a journey. Even if one lifts one or two corners of the inner robe while walking and places them over the outer robe, or wears one robe inside and another outside, all such practices are not permissible.

Gilāno pana antokāsāvassa ovaṭṭikaṃ dassetvā aparaṃ upari nivāsetuṃ labhati, agilānena dve nivāsentena saguṇaṃ katvā nivāsetabbāni. Iti imaṃ khandhake paṭikkhittañca olambakañca sabbaṃ vivajjetvā vuttalakkhaṇasampannaṃ nibbikāraṃ parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetabbaṃ, tathā anivāsetvā yaṃkiñci vikāraṃ karontassa dukkaṭaṃ.

An ill person may show a roll of the inner ochre robe and wear another over it, but a healthy person wearing two must fold them together. Thus, avoiding all that is prohibited in the Khandhaka and the hanging-down style, one should wear it circularly, plain and as described; making any alteration with disrespect incurs a dukkaṭa offense.

But an ill person is allowed to show the roll of the inner kāsāva cloth and dress with another over it. A non-ill person, when dressing with two [robes], should make them equal. Thus, avoiding all this that is prohibited in the Khandhaka and also the hanging down, one should dress evenly, without fault, fulfilling the stated characteristics. Doing any fault without dressing in such a way, there is a dukkaṭa.

However, a sick person may show the inner robe folded and wear another robe over it. A healthy person should wear two robes, folded three times. Thus, in this Khandhaka, all improper and hanging styles are to be avoided, and one should wear a properly circular robe without alteration. Anyone who alters the robe in any way commits an offense of wrong conduct.

“Nidānaṃ puggalaṃ vatthu”ntiādike (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā ) pana vinicchaye surusurukārakaṃ kosambiyaṃ paññattaṃ, sāmisena hatthena pānīyathālakasasitthakapattadhovanapaṭisaṃyuttadvayaṃ bhaggesu sambahule bhikkhū ārabbha, sesāni sabbāneva sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiye ārabbha olambetvā nivāsanādivatthusmiṃ paññattāni. Sūpodanaviññattiyaṃ dhammadesanādīsu ca gilānavasena ekā anupaññatti, sabbāni sādhāraṇapaññattiyo, anāṇattikāni, sabbesu dukkaṭameva, añño āpattibhedo natthi, vipattivicāraṇā vuttāyeva, samuṭṭhānādīni sabbesaṃ avasāne dassayissāma. Anāpattimattaṃ pana aṅgañca sabbattha vattabbaṃ, tayidaṃ vuccati. Imasmiṃ tāva sikkhāpade asañcicca, assatiyā, ajānantassa, gilānassa, āpadāsu, ummattakādīnañca anāpatti.

In the judgment regarding “origin, person, and matter” (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā), the rustling sound was prescribed in Kosambī; the two matters connected with drinking vessels, bowls, and washing with a fleshy hand were prescribed among the Bhaggas concerning several monks; all the rest were prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Six, regarding the matter of wearing it hanging down and so forth. In the rule on requesting soup and rice, teaching Dhamma, and so forth, there is one non-prescription due to illness; all are general prescriptions, not requiring authorization, all incur only a dukkaṭa offense with no other distinction in offenses, and the consideration of failures has already been stated. We will show the origin and so forth for all at the end. But the absence of offense and factors must be stated everywhere, and this is said here. In this training rule, there is no offense for doing so unintentionally, without mindfulness, unknowingly, when ill, in emergencies, or for those who are insane and the like.

Regarding the decision “Origin, person, object,” and so on (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā), the [training rule] on making a surusuru sound was established in Kosambī. The two [training rules] concerning using a hand with food on it, and washing a water pot, a food bowl, and a rice pot, were established concerning many monks in the country of the Bhaggas. All the rest were established in Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six [monks], in the case of letting the lower robe hang down, and so on. In [the training rules on] requesting soup and cooked rice, and on teaching the Dhamma and so on, there is one supplementary regulation due to illness. All are general regulations, not by command. In all of them, there is only a dukkaṭa; there is no other distinction of offense. The examination of the transgression has been stated. The origination and other [factors] of all of them will be shown at the end. But the mere absence of offense and the factors should be stated everywhere, which is being said here. In this training rule, there is no offense for one who acts unintentionally, unmindfully, unknowingly, who is ill, in times of danger, or who is insane, and so on.

In the section beginning with “Nidānaṃ puggalaṃ vatthu” (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, First Pārājika Commentary), the determination of the Kosambī rule is explained. It pertains to several monks involved in washing water pots, bowls, and ladles with impure hands. The remaining rules were established in Sāvatthī concerning the six-group monks, relating to hanging robes and other matters. In the Sūpodanaviññatti, there is one additional rule for the sick regarding teaching Dhamma, etc. All these are common rules, non-offense rules, and involve only the offense of wrong conduct. There is no other type of offense. The causes of offenses, etc., will be explained at the end. However, the non-offense conditions and the factors should be applied everywhere. It is said that in this training rule, there is no offense for one who acts unintentionally, forgetfully, unknowingly, or who is sick, in emergencies, or insane.

Tattha asañciccāti “aparimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsessāmī”ti evaṃ asañcicca, atha kho “parimaṇḍalaṃyeva nivāsessāmī”ti virajjhitvā aparimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsentassa anāpatti. Assatiyāti aññāvihitassāpi tathā nivāsentassa anāpatti. Ajānantassāti parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsetuṃ ajānantassa anāpatti, apica nivāsanavattaṃ uggahetabbaṃ. Yo pana sukkhajaṅgho vā hoti mahāpiṇḍikamaṃso vā, tassa sāruppatthāya aṭṭhaṅgulādhikampi otāretvā nivāsetuṃ vaṭṭati. Gilānassāti yassa jaṅghāya vā pāde vā vaṇo hoti, tassa ukkhipitvā vā otāretvā vā nivāsetuṃ vaṭṭati. Āpadāsūti vāḷā vā corā vā anubandhanti, evarūpāsu āpadāsu anāpatti . Ummattakādayo vuttanayā eva. Anādariyaṃ, anāpattikāraṇābhāvo, aparimaṇḍalanivāsananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Yathā cettha, evaṃ sabbattha purimāni dve tattha tattha vuttappaṭipakkhakaraṇañcāti tīṇiyeva honti, tasmā ito paraṃ tānipi avatvā anāpattimattameva vakkhāmāti.

Therein, asañcicca means not intentionally thinking, “I will wear it non-circularly,” but rather, intending “I will wear it circularly” yet wearing it non-circularly due to distraction—there is no offense. Assatiyā means even wearing it that way while distracted by something else—there is no offense. Ajānantassa means for one who does not know how to wear it circularly—there is no offense, but the duty of wearing must be learned. For one with thin shins or large calf muscles, lowering it more than eight fingerbreadths for suitability is permissible. Gilānassa means for one with a sore on the shin or foot, lifting or lowering it to wear is permissible. Āpadāsu means in emergencies such as being pursued by wild animals or thieves—there is no offense. Ummattakādayo are as explained before. The three factors here are: disrespect, absence of reasons for no offense, and wearing it non-circularly. As here, so everywhere, the first two and the opposite action stated in each case make three factors; thus, from here on, we will state only the absence of offense without mentioning those.

Here, asañciccā means not intending, “I will dress unevenly,” but rather, missing the mark while intending, “I will dress evenly,” and dressing unevenly, there is no offense. Assatiyā means that for one who is absent-minded and dresses in such a way, there is no offense. Ajānantassā means that for one who does not know how to dress evenly, there is no offense, but the practice of dressing should be learned. But for one who has thin shins or large calf muscles, it is permissible to lower [the robe] more than eight fingerbreadths for suitability. Gilānassā – for one who has a wound on his shin or foot, it is permissible to raise or lower [the robe]. Āpadāsū – when wild animals or robbers are pursuing, in such dangers, there is no offense. Ummattakā and so on are as stated before. Disrespect, the absence of a reason for no offense, and dressing unevenly – these are the three factors here. Just as here, so everywhere, the first two and doing the opposite of what is stated there are the three. Therefore, from here on, without stating even those, only the absence of offense will be stated.

Here, asañciccā means not intentionally thinking, “I will wear the robe improperly,” but rather intending to wear it properly but failing to do so. Assatiyā means no offense for one who wears it improperly due to forgetfulness. Ajānantassa means no offense for one who does not know how to wear the robe properly, but one should learn the proper way of wearing the robe. However, for one with thin shanks or large calf muscles, it is permissible to lower the robe more than eight fingerbreadths for a proper fit. Gilānassa means no offense for one who has a wound on the shank or foot and needs to lift or lower the robe. Āpadāsu means no offense in emergencies, such as being pursued by wild animals or thieves. Ummattakā and others are as previously explained. Disrespect, absence of offense conditions, and improper wearing of the robe are the three factors here. As in this case, so in all cases, the first two factors and the opposing actions mentioned elsewhere are the three factors. Therefore, hereafter, we will only mention the non-offense conditions without repeating these factors.

2. Dutiyaparimaṇḍalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Second Training Rule Concerning Circular Arrangement

2. The Second Training Rule on Even Robe Arrangement

2. Explanation of the Second Parimaṇḍala Training Rule

Dutiye “na, bhikkhave, gihipārutaṃ pārupitabba”nti (cūḷava. 280) evaṃ paṭikkhittaṃ gihipārutaṃ apārupitvā ubho kaṇṇe samaṃ katvā pārupanaṃ parimaṇḍalapārupanaṃ nāma, tattha yaṃkiñci setapaṭapārutaṃ paribbājakapārutaṃ ekasāṭakapārutaṃ surāsoṇḍapārutaṃ antepurikapārutaṃ mahājeṭṭhapārutaṃ kuṭippavesakapārutaṃ brāhmaṇapārutaṃ pāḷikārakapārutanti evamādi parimaṇḍalalakkhaṇato aññathā pārutaṃ, sabbametaṃ gihipārutaṃ nāma. Tasmā yathā setapaṭā aḍḍhapālakanigaṇṭhā pārupanti, yathā ca ekacce paribbājakā uraṃ vivaritvā dvīsu aṃsakūṭesu pāvuraṇaṃ ṭhapenti, yathā ca ekasāṭakā manussā nivatthasāṭakassa ekena antena piṭṭhiṃ pārupitvā ubho kaṇṇe ubhosu aṃsakūṭesu ṭhapenti, yathā ca surāsoṇḍādayo sāṭakena gīvaṃ parikkhipitvā ubho ante ure vā olambenti, piṭṭhiyaṃ vā khipanti, yathā ca antepurikāyo akkhitārakamattaṃ dassetvā oguṇṭhitaṃ pārupanti, yathā ca mahājeṭṭhā dīghasāṭakaṃ nivāsetvā tasseva ekenantena sakalasarīraṃ pārupanti, yathā ca kassakā khettakuṭiṃ pavisantā sāṭakaṃ paliveṭhetvā upakacchake pakkhipitvā tasseva ekenantena sarīraṃ pārupanti, yathā ca brāhmaṇā ubhinnaṃ upakacchakānaṃ antare sāṭakaṃ pavesetvā aṃsakūṭesu pakkhipanti, yathā ca pāḷikārako bhikkhu ekaṃsapārupanena pārutaṃ vāmabāhuṃ vivaritvā cīvaraṃ aṃsakūṭe āropeti, evaṃ apārupitvā sabbepi ete, aññe ca evarūpe pārupanadose vajjetvā nibbikāraṃ parimaṇḍalaṃ pārupitabbaṃ. Tathā apārupitvā ārāme vā antaraghare vā anādarena yaṃkiñci vikāraṃ karontassa dukkaṭaṃ, anāpatti purimasadisāyeva, yathā cettha, evaṃ sabbattha. Yattha pana viseso bhavissati, tattha vakkhāmāti.

In the second, “Monks, one should not wear it like laypeople” (Cūḷava. 280)—thus, the lay style of wearing is prohibited. Wearing it with both corners even, without any alteration, is called parimaṇḍalapārupanaṃ. Therein, any wearing such as with a white cloth, a wanderer’s style, a single cloth, a drunkard’s style, a harem woman’s style, a great elder’s style, a hut-enterer’s style, a brahmin’s style, or a text-reciter’s style—anything differing from the circular characteristic—is all called gihipārutaṃ. Thus, as those with white cloths wear it like wealthy merchants, or as some wanderers wear it exposing the chest and placing the shawl on both shoulder peaks, or as people with a single cloth cover the back with one end of the worn cloth and place both corners on both shoulder peaks, or as drunkards and the like wrap the neck with a cloth and let both ends hang on the chest or throw them over the back, or as harem women wear it veiled, showing only the eyes like a star, or as great elders wear a long cloth and cover the whole body with one end, or as farmers entering a field hut wrap a cloth and tuck it under the armpit and cover the body with one end, or as brahmins pass a cloth between both armpits and tuck it at the shoulder peaks, or as a text-reciting monk wears it over one shoulder, exposing the left arm and placing the robe on the shoulder peak—all these and others should avoid such faults in wearing and wear it plain and circularly. Not wearing it this way, making any alteration with disrespect in the monastery or a house, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. The absence of offense is as in the previous case, and so it is everywhere. Where there is a distinction, we will state it.

In the second, “Monks, one should not wrap oneself like a householder,” (Cūḷava. 280) as prohibited. Wrapping oneself with both edges even, without wrapping like a householder, is called parimaṇḍalapārupanaṃ (even wrapping). Here, any wrapping like white-cloth wearers, wanderers, single-cloth wearers, drunkards, inner-palace residents, senior elders, hut enterers, brahmins, or Pāḷi reciters, different from the characteristic of evenness, all this is called gihipārutaṃ (householder wrapping). Therefore, as white-cloth-wearing half-naked nigaṇṭhas wrap themselves, and as some wanderers place their covering on their two shoulders, exposing their chest, and as single-cloth-wearing people wrap their backs with one end of their lower robe and place both edges on their two shoulders, and as drunkards and others wrap their necks with their robes and either hang both ends on their chest or throw them on their backs, and as inner-palace residents cover themselves, showing only the pupils of their eyes, and as senior elders dress in a long robe and wrap their entire body with one end of it, and as farmers, entering a field hut, wrap their robes, put them in their armpits, and wrap their bodies with one end of it, and as brahmins insert their robes between both armpits and place them on their shoulders, and as a Pāḷi-reciting monk, wrapping himself with a single-shoulder wrap, exposes his left arm and places the robe on his shoulder, without wrapping in such ways, avoiding all these and other such faults of wrapping, one should wrap oneself evenly, without fault. Dressing in such a way without wrapping oneself evenly, in the monastery or inside a house, disrespectfully doing any fault, there is a dukkaṭa. The absence of offense is the same as the previous one. Just as here, so everywhere. But where there will be a difference, there it will be stated.

In the second rule, “Monks, one should not wear lay clothing” (Cūḷavagga 280), lay clothing is prohibited. Wearing both ends evenly is called parimaṇḍalapārupana. Here, any clothing such as white cloth, ascetic cloth, single cloth, drunkard’s cloth, harem cloth, elder’s cloth, hut-entering cloth, Brahmin cloth, or messenger cloth, etc., that deviates from the circular characteristic, is called gihipārutaṃ. Therefore, just as the white-clad Ājīvikas wear their cloth halfway, some ascetics leave their chest open and place the cloth on both shoulders, some single-cloth wearers wrap one end around their back and place both ends on the shoulders, drunkards wrap the cloth around their neck and let both ends hang in front or behind, harem women show only a glimpse of their eyes and cover the rest, elders wear a long cloth and wrap the entire body with one end, farmers entering a field hut wrap the cloth around their waist and tuck one end into the waistband, Brahmins insert the cloth between both waistbands and place it on the shoulders, and the messenger monk wears the cloth on one shoulder, leaving the left arm open and placing the robe on the shoulder—all these ways of wearing are improper. One should avoid all such improper ways and wear the robe in a proper circular manner. Anyone who wears it improperly in the monastery or village, showing disrespect, commits an offense of wrong conduct. The non-offense conditions are the same as before. Where there is a difference, it will be explained.

Tatiye suppaṭicchannoti suṭṭhu paṭicchanno, gaṇṭhikaṃ paṭimuñcitvā anuvātantena gīvaṃ paṭicchādetvā ubho kaṇṇe samaṃ katvā paṭisaṅgharitvā yāva maṇibandhaṃ paṭicchādetvā antaraghare gamissāmīti attho, tathā akatvā pana jāṇuṃ vā uraṃ vā vivaritvā gacchantassa dukkaṭaṃ.

In the third, suppaṭicchanno means well-covered—releasing the knot, covering the neck with the trailing edge, making both corners even, folding it back, and covering up to the wrist, intending to go into a house. Not doing so, but going with the knee or chest exposed, incurs a dukkaṭa offense.

In the third, suppaṭicchanno means well-covered, loosening the knot, covering the neck with the hem, making both edges even, gathering it together, and covering up to the wrist, meaning, “I will go inside the house.” But not doing so, and going with the knee or chest exposed, there is a dukkaṭa.

In the third rule, suppaṭicchanno means well-covered. One should unfasten the knot, cover the neck evenly, gather both ends, and cover up to the wrist, intending to enter the village. Not doing so, but leaving the knee or chest exposed while walking, is an offense of wrong conduct.

Catutthe galavāṭakato paṭṭhāya sīsaṃ, maṇibandhato paṭṭhāya hatthe, piṇḍikamaṃsato paṭṭhāya pāde vivaritvā sesaṃ chādetvā nisinno suppaṭicchanno nāma hoti, ettha pana vāsūpagatassa anāpatti.

In the fourth, one who sits with the head exposed from the neck up, the hands from the wrists up, and the feet from the calf muscles up, while covering the rest, is called well-covered. Here, however, there is no offence for one who has entered a dwelling.

In the fourth, one who sits covering the rest of the body, exposing the head from the base of the neck, the hands from the wrists, and the feet from the calf muscles, is called suppaṭicchanno (well-covered). But here, there is no offense for one who has gone for bathing (vāsūpagatassa).

In the fourth rule, starting from the neck opening, covering the head, and starting from the wrist, covering the hands, and starting from the calf, covering the feet, while sitting, is called suppaṭicchanno. However, there is no offense for one who is in a dwelling.

Pañcame susaṃvutoti hatthaṃ vā pādaṃ vā akīḷāpento suvinītoti attho. Chaṭṭhepi eseva nayo.

In the fifth, well-restrained means behaving with discipline, not playing with hands or feet. The same applies to the sixth.

In the fifth, susaṃvuto (well-restrained) means well-disciplined, not playing with the hands or feet. The same principle applies to the sixth.

In the fifth rule, susaṃvuto means well-restrained, not playing with hands or feet. The sixth rule is similar.

Sattame okkhittacakkhūti heṭṭhā khittacakkhu hutvā purato yugamattaṃ bhūmibhāgaṃ pekkhamāno, ekasmiṃ pana ṭhāne ṭhatvā hatthiassādiparissayābhāvaṃ oloketuṃ vaṭṭati. Aṭṭhamepi eseva nayo.

In the seventh, with eyes lowered means keeping the eyes cast down, looking at the ground a yoke’s length ahead; however, while standing in one place, it is permissible to look around for the absence of dangers like elephants or horses. The same applies to the eighth.

In the seventh, okkhittacakkhū (with downcast eyes) means having the eyes cast downward, looking at the area of ground a yoke’s length in front. However, it is permissible to look around while standing in one place to check for the absence of dangers from elephants, horses, etc. The same principle applies to the eighth.

In the seventh rule, okkhittacakkhū means keeping the eyes lowered, looking only a yoke’s length ahead. However, it is permissible to look around in one place to avoid dangers like elephants or horses. The eighth rule is similar.

Navame ukkhittakāyāti ukkhepena, itthambhūtalakkhaṇe karaṇavacanaṃ, ekato vā ubhato vā ukkhittacīvaro hutvāti attho, anto indakhīlato paṭṭhāya evaṃ na gantabbaṃ.

In the ninth, with robe lifted—the term is in the instrumental case indicating a characteristic, meaning with the robe lifted on one or both sides; one should not walk thus starting from the threshold inward.

In the ninth, ukkhittakāyā (with lifted robe) means with a lifting up; it is an instrumental expression indicating the characteristic of being so. It means having the robe lifted up either on one side or both. From the inner boundary post (indakhīla), one should not go like this.

In the ninth rule, ukkhittakāyā means with the body raised, either on one side or both sides, with the robe lifted. One should not walk in such a manner starting from the central pillar.

Dasame nisinnakāle dhamakaraṇaṃ nīharantenāpi cīvaraṃ anukkhipitvāva nīharitabbaṃ, vāsūpagatassa pana anāpatti.

In the tenth, even when sitting and releasing a fart, it should be done without lifting the robe; however, there is no offence for one who has entered a dwelling.

In the tenth, when sitting, even while taking out the water dipper (dhamakaraṇa), one should take it out without lifting the robe. But there is no offense for one who has gone for bathing (vāsūpagatassa).

In the tenth rule, while sitting, one should not pull the robe without lifting it. However, there is no offense for one who is in a dwelling.

Ekādasame ujjagghikāyāti mahāhasitaṃ hasantoti attho. Idhāpi hi itthambhūtalakkhaṇeyeva karaṇavacanaṃ.

In the eleventh, laughing loudly means laughing with a great laugh—this too is in the instrumental case indicating a characteristic.

In the eleventh, ujjagghikāyā (with loud laughter) means laughing with a great, boisterous laugh. Here too, the instrumental expression indicates the characteristic of being so.

In the eleventh rule, ujjagghikāyā means laughing loudly. Here too, the characteristic is the same.

Dvādasamepi eseva nayo. Ubhayattha hasanīyasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ mihitamattaṃ karontassa anāpatti.

The same applies to the twelfth. In both cases, there is no offence for one who merely smiles at a humorous matter.

In the twelfth, the same principle applies. In both cases, when there is a matter that causes laughter, there is no offense for one who merely smiles.

The twelfth rule is similar. In both cases, there is no offense for smiling slightly in a humorous situation.

Terasame appasaddoti na uccāsaddamahāsaddo hutvā. Cuddasamepi eseva nayo. Ayaṃ panettha appasaddatāparicchedo – sace dvādasahatthe gehe ādimhi saṅghatthero, majjhe dutiyatthero , ante tatiyattheroti evaṃ nisinnesu yaṃ saṅghatthero dutiyattherena saddhiṃ manteti, dutiyatthero ca tassa saddaṃ suṇāti, kathañca vavatthapeti. Tatiyatthero pana saddameva suṇāti, kathaṃ na vavatthapeti, ettāvatā appasaddo hoti. Sace pana tatiyatthero kathañca vavatthapeti, mahāsaddo nāma hoti.

In the thirteenth, soft-spoken means not making loud or great noise. The same applies to the fourteenth. Here is the definition of being soft-spoken: if, in a house twelve handspans long, the senior monk sits at the beginning, the second elder in the middle, and the third elder at the end, and the senior monk speaks with the second elder, the second elder hears the sound and discerns the words, but the third elder hears only the sound and cannot discern the words—this is soft-spoken. If, however, the third elder can discern the words, it is called loud.

In the thirteenth, appasaddo (soft-spoken) means not being loud-voiced or boisterous-voiced. The same principle applies to the fourteenth. This is the extent of soft speech in this context: If in a twelve-cubit house, the senior elder (saṅghatthero) is at the beginning, the second elder in the middle, and the third elder at the end, and if, while they are sitting thus, the senior elder converses with the second elder, and the second elder hears his voice and understands the conversation, but the third elder only hears the sound and does not understand the conversation, to this extent, it is appasaddo (soft-spoken). But if the third elder also understands the conversation, it is called mahāsaddo (loud-voiced).

In the thirteenth rule, appasaddo means not making loud or excessive noise. The fourteenth rule is similar. Here, the definition of low noise is: if in a twelve-cubit house, the senior monk sits at the front, the second senior in the middle, and the third senior at the back, and the senior monk speaks with the second senior, who hears and understands, but the third senior only hears without understanding, this is considered low noise. If the third senior also understands, it is considered loud noise.

Ito paresu chasu kāyappacālakanti kāyaṃ cāletvā cāletvā, esa nayo sabbattha. Tasmā kāyādīni paggahetvā niccalāni ujukāni ṭhapetvā gantabbañceva nisīditabbañca, nisīdanappaṭisaṃyuttesu tīsu vāsūpagatassa anāpatti.

In the six following rules, swaying the body means moving the body repeatedly—the same method applies throughout. Thus, one should walk and sit keeping the body and so forth steady, straight, and still; in the three rules related to sitting, there is no offence for one who has entered a dwelling.

In the six following rules, kāyappacālaka (moving the body) means moving the body repeatedly. This principle applies to all of them. Therefore, one should go and sit keeping the body, etc., steady, motionless, and straight. In the three rules concerning sitting, there is no offense for one who has gone for bathing (vāsūpagatassa).

In the following six rules, kāyappacālaka means swaying the body repeatedly. Therefore, one should walk and sit with the body, etc., held straight and still. There is no offense for one who is in a dwelling in the three cases related to sitting.

Ekavīsadvāvīsesu khambhakatoti kaṭiyaṃ hatthaṃ ṭhapetvā katakhambho.

In the twenty-first and twenty-second, with hands on hips means placing the hand on the waist, making a support.

In the twenty-first and twenty-second, khambhakato (with hand on hip) means placing the hand on the waist, making a support (khambha).

In the twenty-first and twenty-second rules, khambhakato means placing the hand on the hip, making the body stiff.

In the twenty-third and twenty-fourth, covered up means fully covered including the head.

In the twenty-third and twenty-fourth, oguṇṭhito (covered) means covered including the head.

In the twenty-third and twenty-fourth rules, oguṇṭhito means covered, including the head.

25. Ukkuṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

25. Commentary on the Ukkuṭika Training Rule

25. Explanation of the Ukkuṭika Training Rule

Pañcavīse ukkuṭikā vuccati paṇhiyo ukkhipitvā aggapādeheva, aggapāde vā ukkhipitvā paṇhīhiyeva bhūmiyaṃ phusantassa gamanaṃ, karaṇavacanaṃ panettha vuttalakkhaṇameva.

In the twenty-fifth, squatting refers to walking by lifting the heels and using only the forefeet, or lifting the forefeet and using only the heels to touch the ground—this instrumental case refers to the specified characteristic.

In the twenty-fifth, ukkuṭikā refers to walking by lifting the heels and using only the front of the feet, or lifting the front of the feet and touching the ground only with the heels. The instrumental expression here has the meaning already stated.

In the twenty-fifth rule, ukkuṭikā refers to walking with the heels raised and only the toes touching the ground, or with the toes raised and only the heels touching the ground. The characteristic is as previously explained.

26. Pallatthikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

26. Commentary on the Pallatthika Training Rule

26. Explanation of the Pallatthika Training Rule

Chabbīse na pallatthikāyāti hatthapallatthikāya vā dussapallatthikāya vā na nisīditabbaṃ. Anādarena nisīdantassa dukkaṭaṃ, vāsūpagatassa pana idhāpi purimesu ca dvāvīsacatuvīsesu anāpatti.

In the twenty-sixth, not with legs crossed means one should not sit with hands or cloth crossed. For one sitting carelessly, it is dukkaṭa; however, here and in the previous twenty-third and twenty-fourth rules, there is no offence for one who has entered a dwelling.

In the twenty-sixth, na pallatthikāyā (not with crossed legs) means one should not sit with the legs crossed either with the hands (hatthapallatthikāya) or with a cloth (dussapallatthikāya). There is a dukkaṭa offense for one who sits disrespectfully. But here, and in the twenty-second and twenty-fourth previous rules, there is no offense for one who has gone for bathing (vāsūpagatassa).

In the twenty-sixth rule, na pallatthikāyā means one should not sit on a hand mat or cloth mat. Sitting carelessly is an offense of wrong conduct, but there is no offense for one who is in a dwelling, as in the previous twenty-second and twenty-fourth rules.

The Explanation of the Twenty-Six Training Rules on Proper Conduct is concluded.

27. Sakkaccapaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

27. Commentary on the Sakkaccapaṭiggahaṇa Training Rule

27. Explanation of the Training Rule on Receiving with Respect

27. Explanation of the Sakkaccapaṭiggahaṇa Training Rule

Bhojanappaṭisaṃyuttesu paṭhame sakkaccanti satiṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā.

In the first of the rules related to food, with respect means receiving with mindfulness established.

In the first of the rules concerning food, sakkacca (respectfully) means having established mindfulness.

In the first rule related to food, sakkacca means receiving with mindfulness.

28. Pattasaññīpaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

28. Commentary on the Pattasaññīpaṭiggahaṇa Training Rule

28. Explanation of the Training Rule on Receiving with Attention to the Bowl

28. Explanation of the Pattasaññīpaṭiggahaṇa Training Rule

Dutiye patte saññā pattasaññā, sā assa atthīti pattasaññī, attano bhājane upanibaddhasaññī hutvāti attho.

In the second, perception of the bowl is bowl-perception; with bowl-perception means being mindful of one’s own vessel.

In the second, bowl-consciousness (pattasaññā) is consciousness in the bowl; one who has that is pattasaññī (mindful of the bowl), meaning being mindful of one’s own bowl.

In the second rule, pattasaññī means one who has the perception of the bowl, i.e., one who is aware of his own bowl.

29. Samasūpakapaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

29. Commentary on the Samasūpakapaṭiggahaṇa Training Rule

29. Explanation of the Training Rule on Receiving with Equal Soup

29. Explanation of the Samasūpaka Training Rule

Tatiye samasūpako nāma yattha muggamāsehi vā kulatthādīhi vā kato hatthahāriyo sūpo bhattassa catutthabhāgappamāṇo hoti, tato hi adhikaṃ gaṇhantassa dukkaṭaṃ. Ṭhapetvā pana sūpaṃ avasesā sabbāpi sūpeyyabyañjanavikati rasaraso nāma hoti, tasmiṃ rasarase, ñātakānaṃ vā pavāritānaṃ vā aññassatthāya vā attano dhanena vā idha anāpatti.

In the third, with equal curry refers to a curry made with mung beans, horse gram, or similar, carried by hand, amounting to a quarter of the rice; taking more than this is dukkaṭa. Except for curry, all other side dishes and cooked items are called juice-flavored; in such juice-flavored items, there is no offence from relatives, those who have invited, for another’s sake, or with one’s own wealth.

In the third, samasūpako (with equal soup) refers to a case where the soup, made from green gram, horse gram, or other pulses, is easily carried by hand and amounts to one-fourth of the rice. There is a dukkaṭa offense for one who takes more than that. Except for the soup, all other variations of soup and curry are called rasaraso (various flavors). Regarding these various flavors, there is no offense here for relatives, those who have been invited, for the sake of others, or with one’s own wealth.

In the third rule, samasūpako refers to a curry made with mung beans, lentils, etc., served with rice, amounting to one-fourth of the rice. Taking more than this is an offense of wrong conduct. However, other curries and side dishes are called rasaraso. There is no offense in taking these for relatives, invited guests, or for oneself with one’s own money.

Catutthe samatittikanti samapuṇṇaṃ samabharitaṃ adhiṭṭhānupagapattassa antomukhavaṭṭilekhaṃ anatikkamitvā racitaṃ. Piṇḍapātanti yaṃkiñci yāvakālikaṃ. Anadhiṭṭhānupage pana yāvakālikaṃ yāmakālikādīni ca yatthakatthaci thūpīkatānipi vaṭṭanti, yaṃ pana dvīsu pattesu gahetvā ekaṃ pūretvā vihāraṃ harati, yaṃ vā pakkhipiyamānaṃ pūvaucchukkhaṇḍaphalāphalādi heṭṭhā orohati , takkolavaṭaṃsakādayo vā upari ṭhapetvā diyyanti, yañca paṇṇe vā thālake vā pakkhipitvā pattamatthake ṭhapitaṃ hoti, na taṃ thūpīkataṃ nāma, tasmā taṃ sabbaṃ vaṭṭati. Idha pana gilānassāpi anāpatti natthi, tasmā tenapi samatittikoyeva gahetabbo. Sabbattha pana paṭiggahetumeva na vaṭṭati, paṭiggahitaṃ pana suppaṭiggahitaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Pañcamachaṭṭhāni vuttanayāneva.

In the fourth, evenly filled means fully and evenly filled, arranged in a bowl suitable for determination without exceeding the inner rim-line. Almsfood means any food allowable for the morning. In a vessel not suitable for determination, morning food, evening food, and so forth can be heaped anywhere, and it is permissible; but if one takes it in two bowls, fills one, and carries it to the monastery, or if while adding items like cakes, puffed rice, fruits, or non-fruits they fall below, or if items like ginger or garlands are placed on top, or if it is placed on leaves or a tray atop the bowl, it is not called heaped—thus all of that is permissible. Here, even for a sick person, there is no exemption; thus, even he must take only an evenly filled amount. In all cases, it is not permissible to merely receive; but what is well-received can be used. The fifth and sixth follow the same method.

In the fourth, samatittika (completely full) means completely full, completely filled, not exceeding the inner rim line of the bowl that is subject to determination (adhiṭṭhāna). Piṇḍapāta (almsfood) means any kind of food allowed for that time of day (yāvakālikaṃ). For food not subject to determination, yāvakālika food and food allowed at other times (yāmakālikādīni), even if piled up anywhere, are permissible. But that which is taken in two bowls and one is filled and carried to the monastery, or that which, when being put in, falls below, such as pieces of pūva, ucchukkhaṇḍa, and fruits, or that which is given placed on top, such as takkola and vaṭaṃsaka, or that which is placed on a leaf or plate and put on top of the bowl, is not called piled up (thūpīkataṃ). Therefore, all that is permissible. Here, however, there is no exemption even for the sick; therefore, even he should take only what is completely full (samatittika). Everywhere, it is only permissible to receive; but once received, it is permissible to consume what has been properly received. The fifth and sixth are as already stated.

In the fourth rule, samatittika means a full, even measure, not exceeding the inner circle line of the container. Piṇḍapāta refers to any food received for a specific time. For non-container items, such as food received for a day or night, etc., it is permissible. However, if one takes food from two bowls and fills one to carry to the monastery, or if food falls while being served, or if food is placed on leaves or in a bowl, it is not considered a full measure. Therefore, all such cases are permissible. Here, there is no offense for the sick, so they should also take an even measure. In all cases, one should not receive food, but if received, it should be properly received and consumed. The fifth and sixth rules are as previously explained.

Sattame sapadānanti tattha tattha odhiṃ akatvā anupaṭipāṭiyā. Yo pana aññesaṃ vā dento, aññabhājane vā ākiranto tato tato omasati, tassa, uttaribhaṅgañca uppaṭipāṭiyā gaṇhantassāpi idha anāpatti. Aṭṭhamaṃ vuttanayameva.

In the seventh, in sequence means without setting limits here and there, in proper order. For one giving to others or pouring into another vessel and taking from various places, and for one taking extra portions out of order, there is no offence here. The eighth follows the same method.

In the seventh, sapadāna (in order) means without making a division here and there, in consecutive order. But for one who, while giving to others or pouring into another vessel, scoops from here and there, and for one who takes out of order, breaking the sequence, there is no offense here. The eighth is as already stated.

In the seventh rule, sapadāna means receiving in order without skipping. There is no offense for one who gives to others or serves from another dish, or for one who takes in reverse order. The eighth rule is as previously explained.

35. Thūpakatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

35. Commentary on the Thūpakata Training Rule

35. Explanation of the Thūpakata Training Rule

Navame thūpakatoti matthakato vemajjhatoti attho. Yo pana parittake sese ekato saṅkaḍḍhitvā omadditvā bhuñjati, tassāpi anāpatti.

In the ninth, heaped means from the top or middle; but for one who gathers a small remainder to one side, presses it, and eats, there is no offence.

In the ninth, thūpakato (piled up) means made into a peak, to the very center. But for one who, when a small amount remains, gathers it together, presses it down, and eats it, there is no offense.

In the ninth rule, thūpakato means from the top to the middle. There is no offense for one who gathers small leftovers and eats them together.

36. Odanappaṭicchādanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

36. Commentary on the Odanappaṭicchādana Training Rule

36. Explanation of the Odanappaṭicchādana Training Rule

Dasame yassa bhattasāmikā māghātasamayādīsu byañjanaṃ paṭicchādetvā denti, yo ca na bhiyyokamyatāya paṭicchādeti, tesaṃ anāpatti, gilānassa pana anāgatattā āpattiyeva.

In the tenth, for one whose rice owners cover it with side dishes during festivals or similar times, and for one who covers it not out of greed, there is no offence; but for a sick person, since it is not mentioned, there is an offence.

In the tenth, for those whose food providers cover the curry at times of slaughter, etc., and for those who do not cover it out of desire for more, there is no offense. But since the sick are not included, there is an offense.

In the tenth rule, there is no offense for those who cover the rice with side dishes during the Māghāta festival, etc., or for those who do not cover it out of greed. However, for the sick, since they are not included, it is an offense.

37. Sūpodanaviññattisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

37. Commentary on the Sūpodanaviññatti Training Rule

37. Explanation of the Sūpodanaviññatti Training Rule

Ekādasame ñātakānaṃ vā pavāritānaṃ vā aññassatthāya attano dhanenāti idaṃ anāpattiyaṃ adhikaṃ.

In the eleventh, additional exemptions are from relatives, those who have invited, for another’s sake, or with one’s own wealth.

In the eleventh, “for relatives, those who have been invited, for the sake of others, or with one’s own wealth” is added in the case of no offense.

In the eleventh rule, there is no offense for relatives, invited guests, or for oneself with one’s own money.

38. Ujjhānasaññīsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

38. Commentary on the Ujjhānasaññī Training Rule

38. Explanation of the Ujjhānasaññī Training Rule

Dvādasame ujjhāne saññā ujjhānasaññā, sā assa atthīti ujjhānasaññī. Idhāpi gilāno na muccati, “dassāmī”ti vā, “dāpessāmī”ti vā olokentassa pana, na ujjhānasaññissa ca anāpatti.

In the twelfth, perception of fault-finding is fault-finding perception; with fault-finding perception—here too, a sick person is not exempt; but for one looking with the thought “he will give” or “he will have it given,” and for one without fault-finding perception, there is no offence.

In the twelfth, fault-finding consciousness (ujjhānasaññā) is consciousness in fault-finding; one who has that is ujjhānasaññī (fault-finding). Here too, the sick are not exempt. But for one who looks intending to give or to cause to give, and for one who is not fault-finding, there is no offense.

In the twelfth rule, ujjhānasaññī means one who has the perception of complaint. Here, the sick are not exempt. However, there is no offense for one who looks with the intention to give or to have someone give, or for one who does not have the perception of complaint.

39. Kabaḷasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

39. Commentary on the Kabaḷa Training Rule

39. Explanation of the Kabaḷa Training Rule

Terasame nātimahantanti mayūraṇḍaṃ atimahantaṃ, kukkuṭaṇḍaṃ atikhuddakaṃ, tesaṃ vemajjhappamāṇaṃ. Mūlakhādanīyādibhede pana sabbakhajjake phalāphale ca anāpatti.

In the thirteenth, not too large—a peacock’s egg is too large, a hen’s egg is too small; it should be the size between them. For root foods and other edibles, and for fruits and non-fruits, there is no offence.

In the thirteenth, nātimahanta (not too large) means a peacock’s egg is too large, a chicken’s egg is too small; the size between them. But there is no offense regarding all chewable foods, fruits and non-fruits, in the case of roots, chewables, etc.

In the thirteenth rule, nātimahanta means not too large, such as a peacock egg, or too small, such as a chicken egg, but of medium size. There is no offense for root vegetables, fruits, etc.

40. Ālopasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

40. Commentary on the Ālopa Training Rule

40. Explanation of the Ālopa Training Rule

Cuddasame parimaṇḍalanti adīghaṃ. Idha pana khajjakaphalāphalehi saddhiṃ uttaribhaṅgepi anāpatti.

In the fourteenth, round means not elongated. Here, with edibles, fruits, and extra portions, there is no offence.

In the fourteenth, parimaṇḍala (round) means not elongated. Here, there is no offense with chewable foods, fruits, and non-fruits, along with breaking the sequence.

In the fourteenth rule, parimaṇḍala means not too long. Here, there is no offense for side dishes, fruits, etc., even in the remaining portions.

Pannarasame anāhaṭeti anāharite, mukhadvāraṃ asampatteti attho. Soḷasame sabbahatthanti sakalaṃ hatthaṃ.

In the fifteenth, not brought means not brought to the mouth, not reaching the mouth opening. In the sixteenth, whole hand means the entire hand.

In the fifteenth, anāhaṭe (not brought) means not brought, meaning not having reached the opening of the mouth. In the sixteenth, sabbahattha (whole hand) means the entire hand.

In the fifteenth [rule], anāhaṭe means not brought, i.e., not reaching the mouth. In the sixteenth [rule], sabbahattha means the entire hand.

43. Sakabaḷasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

43. Commentary on the Sakabaḷa Training Rule

43. Explanation of the Sakabaḷa Training Rule

43. Explanation of the Training Rule on Eating with a Ball of Food

Sattarasame sakabaḷenāti ettha yattakena vacanaṃ aparipuṇṇaṃ hoti, tattake sati kathentassa āpatti. Yo pana dhammaṃ kathento hariṭakādīni mukhe pakkhipitvā katheti, yattakena vacanaṃ aparipuṇṇaṃ na hoti, tattake mukhamhi sati vaṭṭati.

In the seventeenth, with a morsel—if speech is incomplete due to the amount, speaking with that much in the mouth is an offence. But for one teaching the Dhamma who puts myrobalan or similar in the mouth and speaks, it is permissible if the speech is not incomplete with that amount in the mouth.

In the seventeenth, sakabaḷenā (with a mouthful) – here, there is an offense for one who speaks when there is as much food in the mouth as makes the speech incomplete. But for one who, while teaching Dhamma, puts things like myrobalans into his mouth and speaks, there is no offense as long as there is not so much in the mouth that the speech is incomplete.

In the seventeenth [rule], sakabaḷenā means that if one speaks while the mouth is not full, there is an offense for the speaker. However, if one is teaching the Dhamma and places myrobalan or other items in the mouth while speaking, and the mouth is not full, it is permissible as long as the mouth is not full.

44. Piṇḍukkhepakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

44. Commentary on the Piṇḍukkhepaka Training Rule

44. Explanation of the Piṇḍukkhepaka Training Rule

44. Explanation of the Training Rule on Lifting Food

Aṭṭhārasame piṇḍukkhepakanti piṇḍaṃ ukkhipitvā ukkhipitvā, idhāpi khajjakaphalāphalesu anāpatti.

In the eighteenth, tossing morsels means repeatedly tossing morsels; here too, with edibles and fruits, there is no offence.

In the eighteenth, piṇḍukkhepaka (tossing the almsfood) means tossing the almsfood up repeatedly. Here too, there is no offense regarding chewable foods, fruits, and non-fruits.

In the eighteenth [rule], piṇḍukkhepaka means lifting food repeatedly. Here, there is no offense concerning edible fruits and nuts.

45. Kabaḷāvacchedakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

45. Commentary on the Kabaḷāvacchedaka Training Rule

45. Explanation of the Kabaḷāvacchedaka Training Rule

45. Explanation of the Training Rule on Cutting Food

Ekūnavīsatime kabaḷāvacchedakanti kabaḷaṃ avacchinditvā avacchinditvā, idha khajjakaphalāphalehi saddhiṃ uttaribhaṅgepi anāpatti.

In the nineteenth, breaking off morsels means repeatedly breaking off morsels; here, with edibles, fruits, and extra portions, there is no offence.

In the nineteenth, kabaḷāvacchedaka (breaking off pieces) means breaking off pieces of the mouthful repeatedly. Here too, there is no offense regarding chewable foods, fruits, and non-fruits, along with breaking the sequence.

In the nineteenth [rule], kabaḷāvacchedaka means cutting food repeatedly. Here, there is no offense concerning edible fruits and nuts, even in subsequent sections.

46. Avagaṇḍakārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

46. Commentary on the Avagaṇḍakāraka Training Rule

46. Explanation of the Avagaṇḍakāraka Training Rule

46. Explanation of the Training Rule on Making a Lump

Vīsatime avagaṇḍakārakanti makkaṭo viya gaṇḍe katvā katvā, idha phalāphalamattake anāpatti.

In the twentieth, puffing cheeks means making the cheeks puff like a monkey; with mere fruits and non-fruits, there is no offence.

In the twentieth, avagaṇḍakāraka (making cheek-pouches) means making cheek-pouches like a monkey. Here, there is no offense regarding only fruits and non-fruits.

In the twentieth [rule], avagaṇḍakāraka means making a lump like a monkey. Here, there is no offense concerning fruits and nuts.

47. Hatthaniddhunakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

47. Commentary on the Hatthaniddhunaka Training Rule

47. Explanation of the Hatthaniddhunaka Training Rule

47. Explanation of the Training Rule on Shaking the Hand

Ekavīsatime hatthaniddhunakanti hatthaṃ niddhunitvā niddhunitvā, anāpattiyaṃ panettha “kacavaraṃ chaḍḍento hatthaṃ niddhunātī”ti (pāci. 623) idaṃ adhikaṃ.

In the twenty-first, shaking the hand means repeatedly shaking the hand; an additional exemption here is “he shakes the hand while discarding refuse” (pāci. 623).

In the twenty-first, hatthaniddhunaka (shaking the hand) means shaking the hand repeatedly. Here, in the case of no offense, “shaking the hand while discarding refuse” (pāci. 623) is added.

In the twenty-first [rule], hatthaniddhunaka means shaking the hand repeatedly. However, there is no offense if one shakes the hand while discarding refuse (pāci. 623). This is an additional allowance.

48. Sitthāvakārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

48. Commentary on the Sitthāvakāraka Training Rule

48. Explanation of the Sitthāvakāraka Training Rule

48. Explanation of the Training Rule on Scattering Rice

Dvāvīsatime sitthāvakārakanti sitthāni avakiritvā avakiritvā, idhāpi “kacavaraṃ chaḍḍento sitthaṃ chaḍḍayatī”ti (pāci. 623) idaṃ anāpattiyaṃ adhikaṃ.

In the twenty-second, scattering remnants means repeatedly scattering remnants; here too, an additional exemption is “he discards remnants while discarding refuse” (pāci. 623).

In the twenty-second, sitthāvakāraka (scattering rice grains) means scattering rice grains repeatedly. Here too, “discarding rice grains while discarding refuse” (pāci. 623) is added in the case of no offense.

In the twenty-second [rule], sitthāvakāraka means scattering rice repeatedly. Here, there is no offense if one scatters rice while discarding refuse (pāci. 623). This is an additional allowance.

49. Jivhānicchārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

49. Commentary on the Jivhānicchāraka Training Rule

49. Explanation of the Jivhānicchāraka Training Rule

49. Explanation of the Training Rule on Sticking Out the Tongue

In the twenty-third, sticking out the tongue means repeatedly sticking out the tongue.

In the twenty-third, jivhānicchāraka (sticking out the tongue) means sticking out the tongue repeatedly.

In the twenty-third [rule], jivhānicchāraka means sticking out the tongue repeatedly.

Catuvīsatime capucapukārakanti capu capūti evaṃ saddaṃ katvā katvā. Pañcavīsatimepi eseva nayo.

In the twenty-fourth, making a smacking sound means repeatedly making a “capu capu” sound. The same applies to the twenty-fifth.

In the twenty-fourth, capucapukāraka (making a ‘chapu chapu’ sound) means making a sound like ‘chapu chapu’ repeatedly. The same principle applies to the twenty-fifth.

In the twenty-fourth [rule], capucapukāraka means making a smacking sound repeatedly. The same applies to the twenty-fifth [rule].

Chabbīsatime hatthanillehakanti hatthaṃ nillehitvā nillehitvā. Bhuñjantena hi aṅgulimattampi nillehituṃ na vaṭṭati. Ghanayāguphāṇitapāyāsādike pana aṅgulīhi gahetvā aṅguliyo mukhe pavesetvā bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, sattavīsatimaaṭṭhavīsatimesupi eseva nayo. Tasmā ekaṅguliyāpi patto na nillehitabbo, ekaoṭṭhopi ca jivhāya na nillehitabbo, oṭṭhamaṃsehi eva pana gahetvā anto pavesetuṃ vaṭṭati.

In the twenty-sixth, licking the hand means repeatedly licking the hand. One eating must not lick even a finger; however, with thick gruel, molasses, or porridge, it is permissible to take it with fingers and put them in the mouth to eat. The same applies to the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth. Thus, a bowl must not be licked with even one finger, nor an upper lip with the tongue; it is permissible only to take it inside with the lip flesh.

In the twenty-sixth, hatthanillehaka (licking the hand) means licking the hand repeatedly. While eating, it is not permissible to lick even a finger. But it is permissible to take thick gruel, molasses, pāyāsa, etc. with the fingers and put the fingers into the mouth and eat. The same principle applies to the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth. Therefore, the bowl should not be licked even with one finger, and even one lip should not be licked with the tongue. But it is permissible to take it with the flesh of the lips and put it inside.

In the twenty-sixth [rule], hatthanillehaka means licking the hand repeatedly. While eating, it is not permissible to lick even a finger. However, it is permissible to take thick gruel, honey, or rice porridge with the fingers and put them into the mouth. The same applies to the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth [rules]. Therefore, one should not lick even a single finger or the lips with the tongue. However, it is permissible to take food with the lips and put it inside the mouth.

55. Sāmisasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

55. Commentary on the Sāmisa Training Rule

55. Explanation of the Sāmisa Training Rule

55. Explanation of the Training Rule on [Eating] with Something Containing Meat

Ekūnatiṃsatime na sāmisenāti etaṃ paṭikūlavasena paṭikkhittaṃ, tasmā saṅghikampi puggalikampi gihisantakampi attano santakampi saṅkhopi sarāvakampi thālakampi na gahetabbameva, gaṇhantassa dukkaṭaṃ. Sace pana hatthassa ekadeso āmisamakkhito na hoti, tena padesena gahetuṃ vaṭṭati, idha “dhovissāmīti vā, dhovāpessāmīti vā paṭiggaṇhātī”ti (pāci. 631) idaṃ anāpattiyaṃ adhikaṃ.

In the twenty-ninth, not with a soiled hand—this is forbidden due to its repulsiveness; thus, one must not take a communal bowl, a personal bowl, a layperson’s bowl, one’s own bowl, a cup, a saucer, or a tray. Taking it is dukkaṭa. If, however, part of the hand is not soiled with food, it is permissible to take it with that part; an additional exemption here is “he receives it thinking ‘I will wash it’ or ‘I will have it washed’” (pāci. 631).

In the twenty-ninth, na sāmisenā (not with a soiled hand) – this is prohibited as being disgusting. Therefore, whether belonging to the Sangha, to an individual, to a layperson, or to oneself, neither a conch, a ladle, nor a plate should be taken. There is a dukkaṭa offense for one who takes it. But if one part of the hand is not smeared with food, it is permissible to take it with that part. Here, “receiving thinking, ‘I will wash it,’ or ‘I will have it washed’” (pāci. 631) is added in the case of no offense.

In the twenty-ninth [rule], na sāmisenā means that this is prohibited due to its repulsiveness. Therefore, one should not take even communal, personal, or householder’s belongings, or even a bowl or plate. Taking them incurs a wrongdoing. However, if a part of the hand is not smeared with meat, it is permissible to take [food] with that part. Here, there is no offense if one accepts [food] with the intention of washing it or having it washed (pāci. 631). This is an additional allowance.

56. Sasitthakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

56. Commentary on the Sasitthaka Training Rule

56. Explanation of the Sasitthaka Training Rule

56. Explanation of the Training Rule on [Eating] with Rice

Tiṃsatime “uddharitvā vā bhinditvā vā paṭiggahe vā nīharitvā vā chaḍḍetī”ti idaṃ anāpattiyaṃ adhikaṃ. Tattha uddharitvā vāti sitthāni udakato uddharitvā, ekasmiṃ ṭhāne rāsiṃ katvā udakaṃ chaḍḍeti. Bhinditvā vāti sitthāni bhinditvā udakagatikāni katvā chaḍḍeti. Paṭiggahe vāti paṭiggahena paṭicchantānaṃ paṭiggahe chaḍḍeti. Nīharitvāti bahi nīharitvā chaḍḍeti, evaṃ chaḍḍentassa anāpatti.

In the thirtieth, an additional exemption is “he discards it after lifting, breaking, receiving, or removing it” (pāci. 623). Here, lifting means lifting the remnants from the water; he makes a pile in one place and discards the water. Breaking means breaking the remnants and discarding them as water flows. Receiving means discarding it into the receiver of those receiving. Removing means taking it outside and discarding it—there is no offence for one discarding it thus.

In the thirtieth, “removing, breaking, discarding in a receptacle, or carrying outside and discarding” is added in the case of no offense. Uddharitvā vā (removing) means removing the rice grains from the water and making a pile in one place and discarding the water. Bhinditvā vā (breaking) means breaking the rice grains and making them flow with the water and discarding them. Paṭiggahe vā (in a receptacle) means discarding them in the receptacle of those who are receiving with a receptacle. Nīharitvā (carrying outside) means carrying them outside and discarding them. There is no offense for one who discards them in this way.

In the thirtieth [rule], “lifting, breaking, receiving, or removing and discarding” is an additional allowance. Here, uddharitvā vā means lifting rice from water and discarding the water after making a pile in one place. Bhinditvā vā means breaking rice and making it flow with water before discarding. Paṭiggahe vā means discarding rice by giving it to those who receive it. Nīharitvā means discarding after removing it outside. There is no offense for one who discards in this way.

57. Chattapāṇisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

57. Commentary on the Chattapāṇi Training Rule

57. Explanation of the Chattapāṇi Training Rule

57. Explanation of the Training Rule on Holding an Umbrella

Dhammadesanāpaṭisaṃyuttesu paṭhame yaṃkiñci chattaṃ pāṇimhi assāti chattapāṇi. So taṃ chattaṃ yatthakatthaci sarīrāvayave ṭhapetvāpi yāva hatthena na muñcati, tāvassa dhammaṃ desetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace panassa añño chattaṃ dhāreti, passe vā ṭhitaṃ hoti, hatthato apagatamatte chattapāṇi nāma na hoti, tassa desetuṃ vaṭṭati. Dhammaparicchedo cettha padasodhamme vuttanayeneva veditabbo.

In the first of the rules related to teaching the Dhamma, with an umbrella in hand means having any umbrella in hand. Even if he places that umbrella on any part of the body, as long as he does not release it with his hand, he must not teach the Dhamma. If another holds the umbrella for him, or it stands to the side, once it is out of his hand, he is not with an umbrella in hand, and he may teach. The scope of the Dhamma here should be understood as stated in the Padasodhamma rule.

In the first of the rules concerning teaching Dhamma, chattapāṇi (with an umbrella in hand) means having any kind of umbrella in the hand. Even if he places that umbrella anywhere on his body, as long as he does not release it with his hand, it is not permissible to teach Dhamma to him. But if another person holds the umbrella for him, or if it is placed to the side, as soon as it is removed from the hand, he is not called chattapāṇi (with an umbrella in hand), and it is permissible to teach him. The extent of Dhamma here should be understood as stated in the Padasodhamma.

In the first [rule] related to teaching the Dhamma, chattapāṇi means holding any umbrella in the hand. As long as one does not let go of the umbrella, even if it is placed on any part of the body, it is not permissible to teach the Dhamma. However, if another umbrella is held or seen standing nearby, as soon as the umbrella is removed from the hand, one is no longer considered “chattapāṇi,” and it is permissible to teach. The division of the Dhamma here should be understood in the same way as in the explanation of the word purification.

Dutiye daṇḍo nāma majjhimassa purisassa catuhatthappamāṇo, daṇḍapāṇibhāvo panassa chattapāṇimhi vuttanayeneva veditabbo. Tatiyepi eseva nayo. Asiṃ sannahitvā ṭhitopi hi satthapāṇisaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati.

In the second, staff means one four handspans long for an average man; the state of being with a staff in hand should be understood as stated in the Chattapāṇi rule. The same applies to the third. Even one standing with a sword equipped does not count as with a weapon in hand.

In the second, daṇḍo (staff) means a staff four cubits long for an average man. But the state of being daṇḍapāṇi (with a staff in hand) should be understood as stated in the rule on chattapāṇi. The same principle applies to the third. Even one who stands with a sword girded on is not considered to be satthapāṇi (with a weapon in hand).

In the second [rule], daṇḍo refers to a staff measuring four cubits for a medium-sized person. The state of being “daṇḍapāṇi” should be understood in the same way as in the case of holding an umbrella. The same applies to the third [rule]. Even if one stands with a sheathed sword, it does not count as holding a weapon.

60. Āvudhapāṇisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

60. Commentary on the Āvudhapāṇi Training Rule

60. Explanation of the Āvudhapāṇi Training Rule

60. Explanation of the Training Rule on Holding a Weapon

Catutthe sabbāpi dhanuvikati saddhiṃ saravikatiyā āvudhanti veditabbā, tasmā saddhiṃ vā sarena dhanuṃ gahetvā, suddhadhanuṃ vā suddhasaraṃ vā sajiyadhanuṃ vā nijjiyadhanuṃ vā gahetvā ṭhitassa vā nisinnassa vā dhammaṃ desetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sace panassa dhanu khandhepi paṭimukkaṃ hoti, yāva na gaṇhāti, tāva vaṭṭati.

In the fourth, all types of bows along with arrows are to be understood as weapons; thus, one standing or sitting holding a bow with an arrow, a plain bow, a plain arrow, a strung bow, or an unstrung bow must not teach the Dhamma. If, however, the bow is slung over his shoulder, as long as he does not hold it, it is permissible.

In the fourth, all variations of bows, along with variations of arrows, should be understood as āvudha (weapon). Therefore, it is not permissible to teach Dhamma to one who stands or sits holding a bow along with an arrow, a plain bow, a plain arrow, a strung bow, or an unstrung bow. But if the bow is attached to his shoulder, as long as he does not take it, it is permissible.

In the fourth [rule], all types of bows, along with arrows, are considered āvudha. Therefore, it is not permissible to teach the Dhamma while holding a bow with or without arrows, a strung or unstrung bow, whether standing or sitting. However, if the bow is placed on the shoulder and not held, it is permissible.

Pañcame pādukāruḷhassāti chattadaṇḍake aṅgulantarikaṃ appavesetvā kevalaṃ akkantassa vā, pavesetvā ṭhānavasena paṭimukkassa vā. Chaṭṭhepi eseva nayo. Idha pana yvāyaṃ paṇhikabandhaṃ omuñcitvā ṭhānavasena “omukko”ti vuccati, tassāpi na vaṭṭati.

In the fifth, wearing sandals means stepping on them without inserting toes between the straps, or having them fastened by standing; the same applies to the sixth. Here, even one who removes the heel strap and stands, called “unfastened,” must not do so.

In the fifth, pādukāruḷhassā (wearing sandals) means either merely stepping on sandals without inserting the toes into the space between the thongs, or having them attached by way of being placed and worn. The same principle applies to the sixth. Here, even that which is called “removed” by way of being placed after removing the heel strap is not permissible.

In the fifth [rule], pādukāruḷhassa refers to one who has stepped on sandals without inserting the foot fully or has removed them partially. The same applies to the sixth [rule]. Here, it is also not permissible for one who has removed the foot strap and is considered “removed.”

63. Yānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

63. Commentary on the Yāna Training Rule

63. Explanation of the Yāna Training Rule

63. Explanation of the Training Rule on Riding in a Vehicle

Sattame sacepi dvīhi janehi hatthasaṅghāṭena gahito, sāṭake vā ṭhapetvā vaṃsena vayhati, ayutte vā vayhādike yāne visaṅkharitvā vā ṭhapite cakkamattepi nisinno hoti, yānagatotveva saṅkhaṃ gacchati. Sace pana dvepi ekayāne nisinnā honti, vaṭṭati. Visuṃ nisinnesupi ucce yāne nisinnena nīce nisinnassa desetuṃ vaṭṭati, samappamāṇepi vaṭṭati, tathā purime nisinnena pacchime nisinnassa. Pacchime pana uccatarepi nisinnena desetuṃ na vaṭṭati.

In the seventh, even if held by two people with a cloth frame, or placed in a cloth and carried with a pole, or seated in an unyoked vehicle or similar with only a wheel without modification, he is reckoned as in a vehicle. If, however, two are seated in one vehicle, it is permissible. Even if seated separately, one on a high vehicle may teach one on a low one, and equal ones are permissible, as is one seated in front teaching one behind. But one behind, even on a higher one, must not teach.

In the seventh, even if he is carried by two people with their hands joined, or if he is carried on a palanquin placed on a cloth and carried by a pole, or if he is sitting on just the wheels of an unyoked or dismantled vehicle, he is considered to be yānagato (in a vehicle). But if both are sitting in one vehicle, it is permissible. Even if they are sitting separately, it is permissible for one sitting on a higher vehicle to teach one sitting on a lower vehicle. It is also permissible if they are of equal height, and likewise for one sitting in front to teach one sitting behind. But it is not permissible for one sitting behind, even on a higher level, to teach.

In the seventh [rule], even if two people are holding a vehicle with their hands, or if it is pulled by a bamboo pole or yoke, or if one is sitting on a vehicle with a wheel, it is considered yānagato. However, if two people are sitting on the same vehicle, it is permissible. If they are sitting separately, it is permissible for one sitting on a higher vehicle to teach one sitting on a lower vehicle, and the same applies if they are sitting at the same level. However, it is not permissible for one sitting behind to teach one sitting in front if the former is higher.

64. Sayanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

64. Commentary on the Sayana Training Rule

64. Explanation of the Sayana Training Rule

64. Explanation of the Training Rule on Lying Down

Aṭṭhame sayanagatassāti antamaso kaṭasārakepi pakatibhūmiyampi nipannassa uccepi mañce vā pīṭhe vā bhūmippadese vā ṭhitena nisinnena vā desetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sayanagatena pana sayanagatassa uccatare vā samappamāṇe vā nipannena desetuṃ vaṭṭati. Nipannena pana ṭhitassa vā nisinnassa vā nipannassa vā, nisinnena ca ṭhitassa vā nisinnassa vā, ṭhitena ṭhitasseva vaṭṭati.

In the eighth, lying down—even on a mat frame or bare ground, one standing or sitting on a high bed, stool, or ground area must not teach one lying down. But one lying down may teach another lying down on a higher or equal level. However, one lying down must not teach one standing or sitting, nor one sitting teach one standing or sitting; only one standing may teach one standing.

In the eighth, sayanagatassā (lying down) – it is not permissible for one standing or sitting on even a high bed or seat, or on a raised area of ground, to teach one who is lying down, even on a mat made of rushes (kaṭasāraka) or on the natural ground. But it is permissible for one lying down to teach one who is lying down on a higher or equal level. And it is permissible for one lying down to teach one who is standing, sitting, or lying down; for one sitting to teach one who is standing or sitting; and for one standing to teach one who is standing.

In the eighth [rule], sayanagatassa means that even if one is lying on a mat or on the bare ground, it is not permissible for one standing or sitting on a higher seat, chair, or ground to teach. However, it is permissible for one lying down to teach another lying down, whether on a higher or equal level. It is permissible for one lying down to teach one standing or sitting, and for one sitting to teach one standing or sitting, but it is only permissible for one standing to teach another standing.

65. Pallatthikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

65. Commentary on the Pallatthika Training Rule

65. Explanation of the Pallatthika Training Rule

65. Explanation of the Training Rule on Sitting with a Cloth Wrap

Navame hatthapallatthikādīsu yāya kāyaci nisinnassa desetuṃ na vaṭṭati.

In the ninth, it is not permissible to teach one who is sitting in any way with the legs crossed, such as with the hands crossed, etc.

In the ninth [rule], it is not permissible to teach while sitting with a cloth wrap around the hand or any other part of the body.

66. Veṭhitasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

66. Commentary on the Veṭhita Training Rule

66. Explanation of the Veṭhita Training Rule

66. Explanation of the Training Rule on Having the Head Covered

Dasame veṭhitasīsassāti dussaveṭhena vā moḷiādīhi vā yathā kesanto na dissati, evaṃ veṭhitasīsassa, tenevassa anāpattiyaṃ “kesantaṃ vivarāpetvā desetī”ti (pāci. 643) vuttaṃ.

In the tenth, with head wrapped means wrapped with cloth or a turban so the hairline is not visible; thus, in the exemption, it is said, “he teaches after exposing the hairline” (pāci. 643).

In the tenth, veṭhitasīsassā (with the head wrapped) means one whose head is wrapped with a cloth or turban, etc., in such a way that the hairline is not visible. Therefore, it is said in the case of no offense, “teaching after having uncovered the hairline” (pāci. 643).

In the tenth [rule], veṭhitasīsassa means having the head covered with a cloth or turban so that the hairline is not visible. Therefore, there is no offense if one teaches after uncovering the hairline (pāci. 643).

67. Oguṇṭhitasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

67. Commentary on the Oguṇṭhita Training Rule

67. Explanation of the Oguṇṭhita Training Rule

67. Explanation of the Training Rule on Having the Head Fully Covered

Ekādasame oguṇṭhitasīsassāti sasīsaṃ pārutassa, anāpattiyaṃ panettha “sīsaṃ vivarāpetvā desetī”ti (pāci. 644) adhikaṃ.

In the eleventh, with head covered means fully covered including the head; an additional exemption here is “he teaches after exposing the head” (pāci. 644).

In the eleventh, oguṇṭhitasīsassā (with the head covered) means one who is covered including the head. Here, in the case of no offense, “teaching after having uncovered the head” (pāci. 644) is added.

In the eleventh [rule], oguṇṭhitasīsassa means having the head fully covered. However, there is no offense if one teaches after uncovering the head (pāci. 644). This is an additional allowance.

68. Chamāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

68. Commentary on the Chamā Training Rule

68. Explanation of the Chamā Training Rule

68. Explanation of the Training Rule on Sitting on the Ground

Dvādasame chamāyaṃ nisīditvāti bhūmiyaṃ nisīditvā. Āsaneti antamaso vatthampi tiṇānipi santharitvā nisinnassa.

In the twelfth, sitting on the ground means sitting on the earth; on a seat means sitting even on a cloth or spread grass.

In the twelfth, chamāyaṃ nisīditvā (sitting on the ground) means sitting on the ground. Āsane (on a seat) means sitting after having spread even a cloth or grass.

In the twelfth [rule], chamāyaṃ nisīditvā means sitting on the ground. Āsane means sitting on a seat, even if it is spread with cloth or grass.

69. Nīcāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

69. Commentary on the Nīcāsana Training Rule

69. Explanation of the Nīcāsana Training Rule

69. Explanation of the Training Rule on Sitting on a Low Seat

In the thirteenth, on a high seat means sitting even on a raised ground area.

In the thirteenth, ucce āsane (on a high seat) means sitting on even a raised area of ground.

In the thirteenth [rule], ucce āsane means sitting on a high seat, even if it is a raised spot on the ground.

70. Ṭhitasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

70. Commentary on the Ṭhita Training Rule

70. Explanation of the Ṭhita Training Rule

70. Explanation of the Training Rule on Standing

Cuddasame na ṭhito nisinnassāti sace therassa upaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā ṭhitaṃ daharaṃ āsane nisinno mahāthero pañhaṃ pucchati, na kathetabbaṃ. Gāravena pana theraṃ “uṭṭhahitvā pucchā”ti vattuṃ na sakkā, tasmā “passe ṭhitassa bhikkhuno kathessāmī”ti kathetuṃ vaṭṭati.

In the fourteenth, not standing to one seated—if a great elder seated on a seat asks a question of a junior standing after attending him, it must not be answered. Out of respect, one cannot say to the elder, “stand up and ask”; thus, it is permissible to say, “I will speak to a monk standing to the side.”

In the fourteenth, na ṭhito nisinnassā (not standing to one sitting) – if a junior monk (dahara), having gone to attend to the elder (thera), is standing, and the senior elder (mahāthero), sitting on a seat, asks him a question, it should not be answered. But out of respect, it is not possible to say to the elder, “Stand up and ask.” Therefore, it is permissible to answer saying, “I will tell the bhikkhu standing to the side.”

In the fourteenth [rule], na ṭhito nisinnassa means that if a senior monk asks a question while standing, and a junior monk is sitting on a low seat, the junior should not answer. Out of respect, it is not possible to tell the senior monk to stand up and ask. Therefore, it is permissible to say, “I will answer the standing monk.”

71. Pacchatogamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

71. Commentary on the Pacchatogamana Training Rule

71. Explanation of the Pacchatogamana Training Rule

71. Explanation of the Training Rule on Walking Behind

Pannarasame sace purato gacchanto pañhaṃ pucchati, tassa taṃ akathetvā “pacchimassa bhikkhuno kathessāmī”ti kathetabbaṃ. Saddhiṃ uggahitadhammaṃ pana sajjhāyituṃ, samadhurena vā gacchantassa kathetuṃ vaṭṭati.

In the fifteenth, if one walking ahead asks a question, without answering him, one should say, “I will speak to the monk behind.” However, it is permissible to recite learned Dhamma together or speak to one walking alongside evenly.

In the fifteenth, if one walking in front asks a question, without answering him, one should answer saying, “I will tell the bhikkhu behind.” But it is permissible to chant together the Dhamma that has been learned together, or to teach one walking at the same pace.

In the fifteenth [rule], if someone walking in front asks a question, one should not answer but say, “I will answer the monk behind.” However, it is permissible to recite the Dhamma together or to teach while walking at the same pace.

72. Uppathenagamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

72. Commentary on the Uppathena Training Rule

72. Explanation of the Uppathena Training Rule

72. Explanation of the Training Rule on Walking on a Path

Soḷasame na uppathenāti ettha sace dvepi sakaṭamaggasmiṃ ekekacakkapathena vā uppathena vā samadhuraṃ gacchanti, vaṭṭati.

In the sixteenth, not off the path—if both walk evenly on a cart road, each on one wheel track or off the path, it is permissible.

In the sixteenth, na uppathenā (not on a side path) – here, if both are walking at the same pace on a cart track, a single-wheel path, or a side path, it is permissible.

In the sixteenth [rule], na uppathenā means that if two people are walking on a cart path or a single-wheel path at the same pace, it is permissible.

73. Ṭhitouccārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

73. Commentary on the Ṭhitouccāra Training Rule

73. Explanation of the Ṭhita Training Rule

73. Explanation of the Training Rule on Defecating While Standing

Sattarasame “asañciccā”ti anāpattiyaṃ sace paṭicchannaṭṭhānaṃ gacchantassa sahasā uccāro vā passāvo vā nikkhamati, asañcicca kato nāma hoti.

In the seventeenth, “unintentionally” in the exemption—if excrement or urine suddenly emerges while going to a secluded place, it is considered unintentional.

In the seventeenth, “unintentionally” in the case of no offense – if, while one is going to a secluded place, excrement or urine suddenly comes out, it is called unintentional.

In the seventeenth [rule], “unintentionally” means there is no offense if, while going to a concealed place, feces or urine suddenly comes out unintentionally.

74. Hariteuccārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

74. Commentary on the Hariteuccāra Training Rule

74. Explanation of the Harita Training Rule

74. Explanation of the Training Rule on Defecating on Greenery

Aṭṭhārasame yampi jīvamānarukkhassa mūlaṃ pathaviyaṃ dissamānaṃ gacchati, sākhā vā bhūmilaggā gacchati, sabbaṃ haritasaṅkhātameva. Khandhe nisīditvā pana appaharitaṭṭhāne pātetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace appaharitaṭṭhānaṃ olokentasseva sahasā nikkhamati, gilānaṭṭhāne ṭhito hoti, “appaharite kato haritaṃ ottharatī”ti (pāci. 652) idamettha anāpattiyaṃ adhikaṃ. Tattha sacepi appaharitaṃ alabhantena tiṇaṇḍupakaṃ vā palalaṇḍupakaṃ vā ṭhapetvā kato pacchā haritaṃ ottharati, vaṭṭatiyeva. Kheḷena cettha siṅghāṇikāpi saṅgahitā.

In the eighteenth, even roots of living trees visible on the ground or branches overhanging the ground are reckoned as green. Sitting on a trunk and dropping it on a non-green place is permissible. If it suddenly emerges while looking for a non-green place, or if sick, “doing it on a non-green place and it spreads to green” (pāci. 652) is an additional exemption here. Even if, unable to find a non-green place, one places a grass bundle or leaf bundle and it spreads to green afterward, it is still permissible. Saliva and nasal mucus are included here too.

In the eighteenth, whatever root of a living tree is visible going into the earth, or whatever branch is touching the ground, is all considered green (harita). But it is permissible to let it fall on a non-green place while sitting on the trunk. If it comes out suddenly while one is looking for a non-green place, he is in the position of a sick person. “Having done it on a non-green place, it spreads onto the green” (pāci. 652) is added here in the case of no offense. Here, even if, not finding a non-green place, one places a bundle of grass or a bundle of straw and does it, and it later spreads onto the green, it is permissible. Here, mucus is also included along with saliva.

In the eighteenth [rule], even if one walks on the root of a living tree visible on the ground or on a branch touching the ground, it is all considered greenery. However, it is permissible to defecate on a non-green spot while sitting on the trunk. If it suddenly comes out while looking for a non-green spot, and one is in a sick state, there is no offense if one covers the greenery after defecating (pāci. 652). Here, even if one cannot find a non-green spot and uses grass or straw to cover the greenery afterward, it is permissible. Spittle and mucus are also included here.

75. Udakeuccārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

75. Commentary on the Udakeuccāra Training Rule

75. Explanation of the Udake Training Rule

75. Explanation of the Training Rule on Defecating in Water

Ekūnavīsatime na udaketi etaṃ paribhogaudakameva sandhāya vuttaṃ, vaccakuṭisamuddādiudakesu pana aparibhogesu anāpatti. Deve vassante samantato udakoghe jāte anudakaṭṭhānaṃ alabhantena udake kātuṃ vaṭṭati, idhāpi “thale kato udakaṃ ottharatī”ti (pāci. 654) idaṃ anāpattiyaṃ adhikaṃ, sesaṃ sabbasikkhāpadesu uttānameva.

In the nineteenth rule, “not in water” refers only to water meant for use, whereas there is no offense in cases of unusable water such as that in a latrine hut or the sea. When rain falls and a flood of water arises all around, if one cannot find a place without water, it is permissible to perform the act in water. Here too, the statement “done on dry land, water spreads over it” (pāci. 654) indicates an additional case of no offense; the rest is as already detailed in all the training rules.

In the nineteenth, “na udaketi” (not in water), this is said referring only to water that is used, but there is no offense in unused water, such as in latrines and puddles. When it is raining and there is a flood of water all around, it is permissible to do it in the water if one cannot find a place without water. Here also, “if done on land, it overflows with water” (pāci. 654), this is more in the case of no offense; the rest is clear in all the training rules.

In the nineteenth [rule], na udake refers specifically to water used for consumption. However, there is no offense concerning water in a latrine or the ocean, which is not for consumption. If it is raining and water is everywhere, and one cannot find a dry spot, it is permissible to defecate in water. Here, there is no offense if one covers the water after defecating on dry land (pāci. 654). The rest is clear in all training rules.

Samuṭṭhānādidīpanatthāya panettha idaṃ pakiṇṇakaṃ – ujjagghikauccāsaddappaṭisaṃyuttāni cattāri, sakabaḷena mukhena byāharaṇaṃ ekaṃ, chamānīcāsananisinnaṭhitapacchatogamanauppathagamanappaṭisaṃyuttāni pañcāti imāni dasa sikkhāpadāni samanubhāsanasamuṭṭhānāni, ekekamettha kiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, dukkhavedanaṃ. Sūpodanaviññattisikkhāpadaṃ theyyasatthasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, dukkhavedanaṃ. Chattapāṇidaṇḍapāṇisatthapāṇiāvudhapāṇipādukāupāhanayānasayanapallatthikaveṭhitaoguṇṭhitanāmakāni ekādasa dhammadesanāsamuṭṭhānāni, kiriyākiriyāni, saññāvimokkhāni, sacittakāni, lokavajjāni, vacīkammāni, akusalacittāni, dukkhavedanāni. Sesāni tepaṇṇāsa paṭhamapārājikasamauṭṭhānādibhedānīti.

For the purpose of explaining the origin and so forth, here is some miscellaneous information: Four rules are connected with loud laughter and high-pitched sounds; one involves speaking with a mouthful of food; five are related to sitting or standing on the ground, walking behind, or straying off the path—these ten training rules arise from admonishment. Each is an action, perception-released, with consciousness, a worldly fault, involving bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome consciousness, and painful feeling. The rule about requesting a ladle of porridge arises from theft-like intent, an action, perception-released, with consciousness, a worldly fault, involving bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome consciousness, and painful feeling. Eleven rules—those concerning holding an umbrella, a staff, a knife, a weapon, wearing sandals, shoes, using a vehicle, lying on a couch, sitting on a cushioned seat, wearing a turban, or covering the head—arise from teaching the Dhamma, involving action and non-action, perception-released, with consciousness, worldly faults, verbal actions, unwholesome consciousness, and painful feelings. The remaining fifty-three vary, starting with the origin of the first pārājika and so forth.

For the purpose of showing the arising and other aspects, here is the miscellaneous: four are connected with loud laughter and noise, one with speaking with a full mouth, five are connected with walking on the ground, lower seat, sitting, standing, walking behind, walking on a wrong path – these ten training rules arise from collective discussion; each one involves action, is free from perception, is intentional, is a worldly fault, is a bodily action, is a verbal action, is an unwholesome thought, is a painful feeling. The training rule about requesting soup and rice arises from theft, is an action, is free from perception, is intentional, is a worldly fault, is a bodily action, is a verbal action, is an unwholesome thought, is a painful feeling. The eleven, named holding an umbrella, holding a staff, holding a weapon, holding a weapon, wearing sandals, wearing shoes, on a vehicle, on a bed, on a mattress, veiled, covered, arise from teaching Dhamma, are action and non-action, are free from perception, are intentional, are worldly faults, are verbal actions, are unwholesome thoughts, are painful feelings. The remaining fifty-three are differentiated as arising from the first pārājika, and so on.

For the purpose of clarifying the origin, etc., here are the miscellaneous rules: four related to laughing loudly, one related to speaking with food in the mouth, five related to sitting on the ground, low seats, standing, walking behind, and walking on a path—these ten training rules originate from admonition. Each involves action, perception, intention, worldly blame, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome mind, and painful feeling. The training rule on rice gruel offering originates from theft, involving action, perception, intention, worldly blame, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome mind, and painful feeling. The eleven rules related to teaching the Dhamma, such as holding an umbrella, staff, weapon, sandals, vehicle, lying down, cloth wrap, covered head, and fully covered head, involve action or inaction, perception, intention, worldly blame, verbal action, unwholesome mind, and painful feeling. The remaining fifty-three rules are classified according to the first pārājika, etc.

Ekūnavīsatidhammadesanāpaṭisaṃyuttasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the nineteen training rules connected with teaching the Dhamma is completed.

The explanation of the nineteen training rules connected with teaching Dhamma is finished.

The explanation of the training rules related to the nineteen teachings is concluded.

Adhikaraṇasamathesu sattāti tesaṃ gaṇanaparicchedo. Adhikaraṇāni samenti vūpasamentīti adhikaraṇasamathā. Uddesaṃ āgacchantīti āpattādhikaraṇasaṅkhātāsu ca avasesādhikaraṇattayapaccayāsu ca āpattīsu parisuddhabhāvaṃ pucchanatthaṃ uddisitabbataṃ āgacchanti. Uppannuppannānanti uppannānaṃ uppannānaṃ. Adhikaraṇānanti vivādādhikaraṇaṃ anuvādādhikaraṇaṃ āpattādhikaraṇaṃ kiccādhikaraṇanti imesaṃ catunnaṃ. Samathāya vūpasamāyāti samanatthañceva vūpasamanatthañca sammukhāvinayo dātabbo…pe… tiṇavatthārakoti ime satta samathā dātabbā. Tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo – adhikaraṇesu tāva “dhammo”ti vā, “adhammo”ti vā aṭṭhārasahi vatthūhi vivadantānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ yo vivādo, idaṃ vivādādhikaraṇaṃ nāma. Sīlavipattiyā vā ācāradiṭṭhiājīvavipattiyā vā anuvadantānaṃ yo anuvādo upavadanā ceva codanā ca, idaṃ anuvādādhikaraṇaṃ nāma. Mātikāya āgatā pañca, vibhaṅge dveti sattapi āpattikkhandhā āpattādhikaraṇaṃ , nāma. Yaṃ saṅghassa apalokanādīnaṃ catunnaṃ kammānaṃ karaṇaṃ, idaṃ kiccādhikaraṇaṃ nāma.

In the Adhikaraṇasamatha rules, “seven” denotes their numerical limit. They are called adhikaraṇasamathā because they settle and pacify disputes. “They come up for recitation” means they come to be recited for the purpose of questioning the state of purity regarding offenses classified as āpattādhikaraṇa and the remaining three types of disputes as their causes. “Arising one after another” refers to disputes that have arisen successively. “Of disputes” refers to the four types: vivādādhikaraṇa (dispute), anuvādādhikaraṇa (accusation), āpattādhikaraṇa (offense), and kiccādhikaraṇa (duty). “For settling, for pacifying” means that for the purpose of settling and pacifying, the seven methods of resolution—such as sammukhāvinaya (resolution in the presence) up to tiṇavatthāraka (covering with grass)—are to be applied. Here is the determination: Among disputes, when monks argue over eighteen matters, saying “this is Dhamma” or “this is not Dhamma,” that argument is called vivādādhikaraṇa. When there is an accusation or reproof regarding a lapse in virtue, conduct, view, or livelihood, that is called anuvādādhikaraṇa. The five offenses listed in the summary and the two in the analysis, making seven offense categories, are called āpattādhikaraṇa. The performance of the four formal acts of the Sangha, such as giving consent, is called kiccādhikaraṇa.

In the settlements of disputes, “sattāti” (seven) is their enumeration. Adhikaraṇasamathā are those that settle and pacify disputes. Uddesaṃ āgacchantīti (they come to the recitation), they come to be recited for the purpose of asking about purity in offenses included among the offenses of dispute, and also due to the remaining three kinds of disputes. Uppannuppannānanti (of those that have arisen), of those that have arisen. Adhikaraṇānanti (of disputes), of these four: dispute regarding issues, dispute regarding accusations, dispute regarding offenses, dispute regarding duties. Samathāya vūpasamāyāti (for the settlement, for the pacification), for both settlement and pacification, a decision in the presence of all should be given… up to… covering with grass – these seven settlements should be given. Here is the decision – in disputes, the dispute of monks arguing about eighteen issues as “Dhamma” or “not Dhamma,” this is called vivādādhikaraṇaṃ (dispute regarding issues). The accusation, the speaking against, and the charging of those accusing of a transgression of morality or a transgression of conduct, view, or livelihood, this is called anuvādādhikaraṇaṃ (dispute regarding accusations). The five that come in the Mātikā and the two in the Vibhaṅga, all seven sections of offenses, are called āpattādhikaraṇaṃ (dispute regarding offenses). The performance of the four acts of the Saṅgha, such as formal announcement, etc., this is called kiccādhikaraṇaṃ (dispute regarding duties).

In the settlement of disputes, sattā refers to their enumeration. Disputes are settled or pacified, hence adhikaraṇasamathā. Uddesaṃ āgacchantī refers to the offenses and the remaining three types of disputes that arise from offenses, for which purity is questioned. Uppannuppannāna means arisen and arising. Adhikaraṇāni refers to four types: disputes, accusations, offenses, and legal procedures. Samathāya vūpasamāyā means for the purpose of settling and pacifying. The seven methods of settlement should be applied: face-to-face resolution, majority decision, etc., up to covering with grass. Here is the analysis: Among disputes, first, the dispute over “Dhamma” or “non-Dhamma” among monks disputing over eighteen matters is called vivādādhikaraṇa. The accusation of moral failure, wrong view, or wrong livelihood is called anuvādādhikaraṇa. The five offenses in the Mātikā and two in the Vibhaṅga constitute āpattādhikaraṇa. The performance of four types of legal procedures by the Saṅgha is called kiccādhikaraṇa.

Tattha vivādādhikaraṇaṃ (cūḷava. 228) dvīhi samathehi sammati sammukhāvinayena ca yebhuyyasikāya ca, sammukhāvinayeneva sammamānaṃ yasmiṃ vihāre uppannaṃ, tasmiṃyeva vā, aññattha vūpasametuṃ gacchantānaṃ antarāmagge vā, yattha gantvā saṅghassa niyyātitaṃ, tattha saṅghena vā vūpasametuṃ asakkonte tattheva ubbāhikāya sammatapuggalehi vā vinicchitaṃ sammati, evaṃ sammamāne ca pana tasmiṃ yā saṅghasammukhatā dhammasammukhatā vinayasammukhatā puggalasammukhatā ayaṃ sammukhāvinayo nāma. Tattha ca kārakasaṅghassa saṅghasāmaggivasena sammukhībhāvo saṅghasammukhatā, sametabbassa vatthuno bhūtatā dhammasammukhatā, yathā taṃ sametabbaṃ, tathevassa samanaṃ vinayasammukhatā, yo ca vivadati, yena ca vivadati, tesaṃ ubhinnaṃ atthapaccatthikānaṃ sammukhībhāvo puggalasammukhatā. Ubbāhikāya vūpasamane panettha saṅghasammukhatā parihāyati, evaṃ tāva sammukhāvinayeneva sammati.

Therein, vivādādhikaraṇa (cūḷava. 228) is settled by two methods of resolution: sammukhāvinaya and yebhuyyasikā (majority decision). When settled by sammukhāvinaya alone, it may be resolved in the monastery where it arose, or elsewhere if the monks go to settle it, or on the way, or where it was handed over to the Sangha, or by the Sangha itself if unable to resolve it, or by individuals appointed through arbitration if resolved there. When so settled, the presence of the Sangha, the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the persons involved is called sammukhāvinaya. Herein, the Sangha’s presence as a harmonious community is saṅghasammukhatā, the reality of the matter to be settled is dhammasammukhatā, settling it as it should be settled is vinayasammukhatā, and the presence of both the one who disputes and the one with whom he disputes, as opposing parties, is puggalasammukhatā. However, in resolution by arbitration, saṅghasammukhatā is absent. Thus, it is settled by sammukhāvinaya alone.

Of these, vivādādhikaraṇaṃ (cūḷava. 228) is settled by two settlements: by a decision in the presence of all and by a majority decision. If it is being settled only by a decision in the presence of all, it is settled in the monastery where it arose, or on the way while going to pacify it elsewhere, or where it was handed over to the Saṅgha after going there, if the Saṅgha is unable to pacify it, it is settled there by individuals appointed through the ubbāhikā procedure. When it is being settled in this way, the presence of the Saṅgha, the presence of the Dhamma, the presence of the Vinaya, the presence of the individuals, this is called sammukhāvinayo (decision in the presence of all). And here, the presence of the Saṅgha of the acting Saṅgha due to the concord of the Saṅgha is saṅghasammukhatā (presence of the Saṅgha), the reality of the matter to be settled is dhammasammukhatā (presence of the Dhamma), the settling of it as it should be settled is vinayasammukhatā (presence of the Vinaya), and the presence of both the disputants and their opponents is puggalasammukhatā (presence of the individuals). Here, in the pacification by the ubbāhikā, the presence of the Saṅgha is lacking. Thus, it is settled only by a decision in the presence of all.

Here, vivādādhikaraṇaṃ (Cūḷava. 228) is settled by two means of settlement: by face-to-face settlement (sammukhāvinaya) and by majority decision (yebhuyyasikā). When it is settled by face-to-face settlement alone, the dispute that has arisen in a certain monastery is settled either in that same monastery or elsewhere, or while the monks are on their way to settle it elsewhere, or wherever it is presented to the Sangha. If the Sangha is unable to settle it there, it is settled by a committee of appointed individuals through a formal inquiry (ubbāhikā). When it is settled in this way, the four factors of face-to-face settlement are present: the presence of the Sangha (saṅghasammukhatā), the presence of the Dhamma (dhammasammukhatā), the presence of the Vinaya (vinayasammukhatā), and the presence of the individuals (puggalasammukhatā). This is called sammukhāvinaya. Here, the presence of the Sangha refers to the assembly of the acting Sangha being face-to-face. The presence of the Dhamma refers to the truth of the matter to be settled. The presence of the Vinaya refers to the accordance with the Vinaya. The presence of the individuals refers to the face-to-face confrontation between the disputing parties. However, when it is settled by a committee, the presence of the Sangha is lacking. Thus, it is settled by face-to-face settlement alone.

Sace panevampi na sammati, atha naṃ ubbāhikāya sammatā bhikkhū “na mayaṃ sakkoma vūpasametu”nti saṅghasseva niyyātenti, tato saṅgho pañcaṅgasamannāgataṃ bhikkhuṃ salākaggāhāpakaṃ sammannitvā tena guḷhakavivaṭṭakasakaṇṇajappakesu tīsu salākaggāhesu aññataravasena salākaṃ gāhetvā sannipatitaparisāya dhammavādīnaṃ yebhuyyatāya yathā te dhammavādino vadanti, evaṃ vūpasantaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ sammukhāvinayena ca yebhuyyasikāya ca vūpasantaṃ hoti. Tattha sammukhāvinayo vuttanayo eva, yaṃ pana yebhuyyasikakammassa karaṇaṃ. Ayaṃ yebhuyyasikā nāma, evaṃ vivādādhikaraṇaṃ dvīhi samathehi sammati.

If it is not settled even so, then the monks appointed by arbitration say, “We cannot settle this,” and hand it back to the Sangha. Then the Sangha appoints a monk endowed with five qualities as a vote-taker, who takes votes by one of three methods—secret, open, or whispered—among the gathered assembly. According to the majority of the Dhamma-speakers, as they state it, the dispute is settled by both sammukhāvinaya and yebhuyyasikā. Herein, sammukhāvinaya is as explained, and the act of performing the majority decision is called yebhuyyasikā. Thus, vivādādhikaraṇa is settled by two methods.

But if it is not settled even in this way, then the monks appointed by the ubbāhikā say, “We are unable to pacify it,” and hand it over to the Saṅgha. Then the Saṅgha appoints a monk endowed with five qualities as a taker of voting tickets, and by having him take tickets in one of three ways – secretly, openly, or whispering in the ear – and by the majority of the assembled assembly who uphold the Dhamma, the dispute is settled as those who uphold the Dhamma say. It is settled by a decision in the presence of all and by a majority decision. There, the decision in the presence of all is as previously stated, but the performance of the act of majority decision, this is called yebhuyyasikā (majority decision). Thus, a dispute regarding issues is settled by two settlements.

If it is still not settled, the monks appointed to the committee declare, “We are unable to settle it,” and refer it back to the Sangha. Then the Sangha appoints a monk endowed with five qualities as the ballot distributor. He distributes the ballots among the three groups: the secret group, the open group, and the mixed group. After the assembly has gathered, the majority of the Dhamma-speakers decide according to what the Dhamma-speakers say. The dispute is then settled by face-to-face settlement and by majority decision. Here, the method of face-to-face settlement is as previously described. The performance of the majority decision is called yebhuyyasikā. Thus, the dispute is settled by these two means of settlement.

Anuvādādhikaraṇaṃ (cūḷava. 236) catūhi samathehi sammati sammukhāvinayena ca sativinayena ca amūḷhavinayena ca tassapāpiyasikāya ca. Sammukhāvinayeneva sammamānaṃ yo ca anuvadati, yañca anuvadati, tesaṃ vacanaṃ sutvā sace kāci āpatti natthi, ubho khamāpetvā, sace atthi, “ayaṃ nāmettha āpattī”ti evaṃ vinicchitaṃ vūpasammati, tattha sammukhāvinayalakkhaṇaṃ vuttanayameva. Yadā pana khīṇāsavassa bhikkhuno amūlikāya sīlavipattiyā anuddhaṃsitassa sativinayaṃ yācamānassa saṅgho ñatticatutthena kammena sativinayaṃ deti, tadā sammukhāvinayena ca sativinayena ca vūpasantaṃ hoti, dinne pana sativinaye puna tasmiṃ puggale kassaci anuvādo na ruhati. Yadā ummattako bhikkhu ummādavasena gate assāmaṇake ajjhācāre “saratāyasmā evarūpiṃ āpatti”nti bhikkhūhi codiyamāno “ummattakena me, āvuso, etaṃ kataṃ, nāhaṃ taṃ sarāmī”ti bhaṇantopi bhikkhūhi codiyamānova puna acodanatthāya amūḷhavinayaṃ yācati, saṅgho cassa ñatticatutthena kammena amūḷhavinayaṃ deti. Tadā sammukhāvinayena ca amūḷhavinayena ca vūpasantaṃ hoti, dinne pana amūḷhavinaye puna tasmiṃ puggale kassaci tappaccayā anuvādo na ruhati.

Anuvādādhikaraṇa (cūḷava. 236) is settled by four methods: sammukhāvinaya, sativinaya (recollection of virtue), amūḷhavinaya (restoration from delusion), and tassapāpiyasikā (declaration of worse fault). When settled by sammukhāvinaya alone, after hearing the words of both the accuser and the accused, if there is no offense, both are reconciled; if there is, it is determined as “this is the offense here,” and it is settled. The characteristics of sammukhāvinaya are as already stated. When a Sangha grants sativinaya by a formal act with a motion and three announcements to an arahant monk who requests it after being baselessly accused of a lapse in virtue, it is settled by both sammukhāvinaya and sativinaya. Once sativinaya is given, no further accusation against that person holds. When an insane monk, due to madness, commits unmonastic conduct and, when questioned by monks saying, “Venerable, do you recall such an offense?” replies, “Friends, I did this while insane; I do not recall it,” yet is still questioned, he requests amūḷhavinaya to avoid further accusation. The Sangha grants it by a formal act with a motion and three announcements, and it is settled by both sammukhāvinaya and amūḷhavinaya. Once amūḷhavinaya is given, no further accusation based on that holds.

Anuvādādhikaraṇaṃ (cūḷava. 236) is settled by four settlements: by a decision in the presence of all, by a verdict of innocence due to mindfulness, by a verdict of past insanity, and by a decision on his acknowledgment of guilt. If it is being settled only by a decision in the presence of all, after hearing the words of those who are accusing and those who are being accused, if there is no offense, having both ask for forgiveness, if there is, determining, “This is the offense here,” it is pacified. There, the characteristic of a decision in the presence of all is as previously stated. When the Saṅgha gives a verdict of innocence due to mindfulness by a formal act with a motion and three repetitions to a monk who is an arahant, who has been groundlessly accused of a transgression of morality, and who is requesting a verdict of innocence due to mindfulness, then it is pacified by a decision in the presence of all and by a verdict of innocence due to mindfulness. But once a verdict of innocence due to mindfulness has been given, no accusation against that individual is valid. When a monk who is insane, due to insanity, commits improper actions, and when he is being charged by the monks, “Venerable sir, do you remember such an offense?”, even though he says, “Friends, this was done by me when I was insane, I do not remember it,” he is still being charged by the monks and requests a verdict of past insanity for the sake of not being charged again, and the Saṅgha gives him a verdict of past insanity by a formal act with a motion and three repetitions. Then it is pacified by a decision in the presence of all and by a verdict of past insanity. But once a verdict of past insanity has been given, no accusation against that individual due to that is valid.

Anuvādādhikaraṇaṃ (Cūḷava. 236) is settled by four means of settlement: by face-to-face settlement, by recollection (sativinaya), by past insanity (amūḷhavinaya), and by covering over as with grass (tassapāpiyasikā). When it is settled by face-to-face settlement alone, the accuser and the accused are heard. If no offense is found, both parties are reconciled. If an offense is found, it is declared, “This is the offense here,” and the matter is settled accordingly. Here, the characteristics of face-to-face settlement are as previously described. When a monk who has destroyed the defilements is accused of a groundless moral failure and requests a settlement by recollection, the Sangha grants it by a formal act consisting of one motion and three announcements. Then the matter is settled by face-to-face settlement and by recollection. Once the settlement by recollection is granted, no further accusation can be made against that individual. When a mad monk, due to his madness, engages in unmonastic behavior and is accused by the monks, “Do you, venerable, remember committing such an offense?” he replies, “Friends, I was mad when I did that. I do not remember it.” Even though he is accused, he requests a settlement by past insanity, and the Sangha grants it by a formal act consisting of one motion and three announcements. Then the matter is settled by face-to-face settlement and by past insanity. Once the settlement by past insanity is granted, no further accusation can be made against that individual.

Yadā pana pārājikena vā pārājikasāmantena vā codiyamānassa aññenaññaṃ paṭicarato pāpussannatāya pāpiyassa puggalassa “sacāyaṃ acchinnamūlo bhavissati, sammā vattitvā osāraṇaṃ labhissati, sace chinnamūlo, sayamevassa nāsanā bhavissatī”ti maññamāno saṅgho ñatticatutthena kammena tassapāpiyasikaṃ kammaṃ karoti, tadā sammukhāvinayena ca tassapāpiyasikāya ca vūpasantaṃ hoti, evaṃ anuvādādhikaraṇaṃ catūhi samathehi sammati.

When a monk accused of a pārājika or a near-pārājika offense evades by shifting blame and, due to his greater wickedness, the Sangha, thinking, “If he is not uprooted, he may behave properly and gain reinstatement; if uprooted, it will be his own ruin,” performs the tassapāpiyasikā act by a formal act with a motion and three announcements, it is settled by both sammukhāvinaya and tassapāpiyasikā. Thus, anuvādādhikaraṇa is settled by four methods.

When, however, a monk is charged with a pārājika offense or an offense bordering on a pārājika, and he prevaricates, the Saṅgha, thinking, “If he is not uprooted, he will behave properly and receive restoration; if he is uprooted, his destruction will be by himself,” performs the act of acknowledgment of his guilt by a formal act with a motion and three repetitions for the guilty individual due to his being inclined to evil. Then it is pacified by a decision in the presence of all and by the act of acknowledgment of his guilt. Thus, a dispute regarding accusations is settled by four settlements.

When a monk accused of a pārājika or a pārājika-related offense engages in evasive tactics due to his wickedness, and the Sangha, thinking, “If this person is not rooted out, he will continue to misbehave and will eventually be expelled. If he is rooted out, he will destroy himself,” performs the act of covering over as with grass (tassapāpiyasikā) by a formal act consisting of one motion and three announcements, then the matter is settled by face-to-face settlement and by covering over as with grass. Thus, the accusation is settled by these four means of settlement.

Āpattādhikaraṇaṃ (cūḷava. 239) tīhi samathehi sammati sammukhāvinayena ca paṭiññātakaraṇena ca tiṇavatthārakena ca. Tassa sammukhāvinayeneva vūpasamo natthi, yadā pana ekassa vā bhikkhuno, nissaggiyavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayena saṅghagaṇamajjhesu vā bhikkhu lahukaṃ āpattiṃ deseti, tadā āpattādhikaraṇaṃ sammukhāvinayena ca paṭiññātakaraṇena ca vūpasammati. Tattha sammukhāvinaye tāva yo ca deseti, yassa ca deseti, tesaṃ sammukhībhāvo puggalasammukhatā, sesaṃ vuttanayameva. Puggalassa ca gaṇassa ca desanākāle saṅghasammukhatā parihāyati.

Āpattādhikaraṇa (cūḷava. 239) is settled by three methods: sammukhāvinaya, paṭiññātakaraṇa (acknowledgment), and tiṇavatthāraka. There is no settling by sammukhāvinaya alone, but when a monk confesses a minor offense in the midst of the Sangha or a group, as explained in the nissaggiya commentary, it is settled by both sammukhāvinaya and paṭiññātakaraṇa. Herein, in sammukhāvinaya, the presence of the one confessing and the one to whom he confesses is puggalasammukhatā; the rest is as stated. The saṅghasammukhatā is absent at the time of confession to an individual or group.

Āpattādhikaraṇaṃ (cūḷava. 239) is settled by three settlements: by a decision in the presence of all, by confession, and by covering with grass. Its pacification is not by a decision in the presence of all alone. But when one monk, or in the midst of the Saṅgha or a group, as stated in the explanation of Nissaggiya, confesses a light offense, then the dispute regarding offenses is pacified by a decision in the presence of all and by confession. There, in the decision in the presence of all, the presence of both the one who confesses and the one to whom he confesses is the presence of the individuals; the rest is as previously stated. The presence of the Saṅgha is lacking at the time of confession by an individual or a group.

Āpattādhikaraṇaṃ (Cūḷava. 239) is settled by three means of settlement: by face-to-face settlement, by confession (paṭiññātakaraṇa), and by covering over as with grass (tiṇavatthāraka). When it cannot be settled by face-to-face settlement alone, but a monk confesses a light offense in the midst of the Sangha or a group, or when a monk confesses a light offense in the manner described in the Nissaggiya section, then the matter is settled by face-to-face settlement and by confession. Here, the face-to-face settlement involves the presence of the confessor and the one to whom the confession is made. The rest is as previously described. The presence of the Sangha is lacking during the confession by an individual or a group.

Yā panettha “ahaṃ, bhante, itthannāmaṃ āpattiṃ āpanno”ti ca, “passasī”ti, “āma passāmī”ti ca paṭiññā, tāya “āyatiṃ saṃvareyyāsī”ti karaṇaṃ paṭiññātakaraṇaṃ nāma. Saṅghādisese parivāsādiyācanā paṭiññā, parivāsādīnaṃ dānaṃ paṭiññātakaraṇaṃ nāma. Dvepakkhajātā pana bhaṇḍanakārakā bhikkhū bahuṃ assāmaṇakaṃ ajjhācāraṃ caritvā puna lajjidhamme uppanne “sace mayaṃ imāhi āpattīhi aññamaññaṃ karissāma, siyāpi taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ kakkhaḷatthāya vāḷatthāya saṃvatteyyā”ti aññamaññaṃ āpattiyā kārāpane dosaṃ disvā yadā tiṇavatthārakakammaṃ karonti, tadā āpattādhikaraṇaṃ sammukhāvinayena ca tiṇavatthārakena ca sammati. Tatra hi yattakā hatthapāsūpagatā “na metaṃ khamatī”ti evaṃ diṭṭhāvikammaṃ akatvā niddampi okkamantā honti, sabbesaṃ ṭhapetvā thullavajjañca gihippaṭisaṃyuttañca sabbāpattiyo vuṭṭhahanti, evaṃ āpattādhikaraṇaṃ tīhi samathehi sammati.

Herein, the acknowledgment—“Venerable Sir, I have committed such-and-such an offense,” “Do you see it?” “Yes, I see it”—and the act of saying, “May you restrain yourself in the future,” is called paṭiññātakaraṇa. In the case of saṅghādisesa, the request for probation and so forth is the acknowledgment, and the granting of probation and so forth is paṭiññātakaraṇa. When monks from two factions, having engaged in much unmonastic conduct due to quarrelsomeness, later, upon the arising of shame, see the fault in accusing each other of offenses, thinking, “If we proceed with these offenses against one another, the dispute might lead to harshness or violence,” and perform the tiṇavatthāraka act, the āpattādhikaraṇa is settled by both sammukhāvinaya and tiṇavatthāraka. There, all offenses—except grave faults and those related to laypeople—committed by those within reach who do not express dissent by saying, “This does not please me” and refrain from declaring their view, are resolved. Thus, āpattādhikaraṇa is settled by three methods.

Here, the confession, “I, venerable sir, have committed such and such an offense,” and, “Do you see it?” and, “Yes, I see it,” and the undertaking, “You should restrain yourself in the future,” is called confession. In a Saṅghādisesa, the requesting of probation, etc., is the confession; the giving of probation, etc., is called confession. But monks who are quarrelsome, who are of two factions, having committed many improper actions, when they become possessed of shame, thinking, “If we deal with each other with these offenses, that dispute may lead to harshness or violence,” seeing the fault in causing each other to perform the penalty for the offense, when they perform the act of covering with grass, then the dispute regarding offenses is settled by a decision in the presence of all and by covering with grass. There, all those who are within reach, who have not committed a wrong view, saying, “This is not acceptable to me,” and who descend even into unconsciousness, all offenses are abandoned, except for grave offenses and those connected with laypeople. Thus, a dispute regarding offenses is settled by three settlements.

When a monk says, “Venerable, I have committed such and such an offense,” and is asked, “Do you see it?” and replies, “Yes, I see it,” and is then told, “Restrain yourself in the future,” this is called paṭiññātakaraṇa. The request for probation or other penance in the Saṅghādisesa offenses is also called paṭiññātakaraṇa. When two factions of monks, after engaging in much unmonastic behavior, feel ashamed and think, “If we accuse each other of these offenses, it might lead to a harsh or violent dispute,” and seeing the danger in accusing each other, they perform the act of covering over as with grass (tiṇavatthāraka), then the matter is settled by face-to-face settlement and by covering over as with grass. Here, all offenses except the grave ones and those connected with laypeople are cleared as soon as the monks, without making any visible gesture of dissent, enter even sleep. Thus, the matter is settled by these three means of settlement.

Kiccādhikaraṇaṃ (cūḷava. 242) ekena samathena sammati sammukhāvinayeneva. Iti imāni cattāri adhikaraṇāni yathānurūpaṃ imehi sattahi samathehi sammanti, tena vuttaṃ “uppannuppannānaṃ adhikaraṇānaṃ samathāya vūpasamāya sammukhāvinayo dātabbo…pe… tiṇavatthārako”ti. Ayamettha vinicchayanayo, vitthāro pana samathakkhandhake āgatoyeva, vinicchayopissa samantapāsādikāyaṃ vutto.

Kiccādhikaraṇa (cūḷava. 242) is settled by one method: sammukhāvinaya alone. Thus, these four types of disputes are settled by these seven methods as appropriate. Hence it is said, “For the settling and pacifying of disputes that have arisen one after another, sammukhāvinaya is to be given… up to tiṇavatthāraka.” This is the method of determination here; the details are as given in the Samathakkhandhaka, and the determination is explained in the Samantapāsādikā.

Kiccādhikaraṇaṃ (cūḷava. 242) is settled by one settlement: by a decision in the presence of all. Thus, these four disputes are settled by these seven settlements as appropriate. Therefore, it is said, “For the settlement, for the pacification of disputes that have arisen, a decision in the presence of all should be given… up to… covering with grass.” This is the method of decision here; the details, however, have come in the Samathakkhandhaka, and its decision is stated in the Samantapāsādikā.

Kiccādhikaraṇaṃ (Cūḷava. 242) is settled by one means of settlement: by face-to-face settlement alone. Thus, these four types of disputes are settled by these seven means of settlement, as appropriate. Therefore, it is said, “For the settlement and pacification of disputes as they arise, face-to-face settlement should be given… up to covering over as with grass.” This is the method of settlement here. The detailed explanation is found in the Samathakkhandhaka. The method of settlement is also explained in the Samantapāsādikā.

Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhāti tesu sattasu adhikaraṇasamathesu kaccittha parisuddhā, natthi vo kiñci samathehi vūpasametabbanti pucchāmi, etena sabbāpattīhi parisuddhabhāvo pucchito hoti.

“I ask the venerables, are you pure in this?” means: In these seven methods of dispute resolution, are you pure? I ask whether there is anything to be settled by these methods, thereby questioning their complete purity from all offenses.

Tatthāyasmante pucchāmi, kaccittha parisuddhāti (There I ask you, venerable sirs, are you pure in this?), among those seven settlements of disputes, are you pure in this? Do you have anything to be pacified by settlements? I ask. By this, purity from all offenses is asked.

Here, venerables, I ask you: Are you pure in these seven means of settling disputes? Is there anything for you to settle by these means? By this, the purity from all offenses is asked.

Uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānantiādi nigamanavacanaṃ. Tattha ettakanti ettakaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ. Suttāgatanti sutte pātimokkhe āgataṃ. Suttapariyāpannanti tattheva antogadhaṃ. Anvaddhamāsaṃ uddesaṃ āgacchatīti addhamāse addhamāse uposathavasena uddisitabbataṃ āgacchati. Samaggehīti kāyasāmaggivasena samaggehi. Sammodamānehīti cittasāmaggivasena ekajjhāsayatāya suṭṭhu modamānehi. Avivadamānehīti aṭṭhārasasu vivādavatthūsu aññataravasenāpi avivadamānehi. Sikkhitabbanti taṃ taṃ sikkhāpadaṃ avītikkamantehi adhisīlasikkhā sampādetabbā. Antarantarā pana yaṃ na vuttaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ purime purime sikkhāpade vuttattā ceva uttānatthattā cāti.

“The introduction has been recited, venerables” and so forth is the concluding statement. Therein, “this much” refers to this number of training rules. “Found in the Sutta” means found in the Pātimokkha of the Sutta. “Included in the Sutta” means encompassed within it. “It comes up for recitation every half-month” means it comes to be recited every half-month on the Uposatha day. “By those in harmony” means by those harmonious in bodily unity. “By those rejoicing” means by those thoroughly rejoicing due to unity of mind and purpose. “By those not disputing” means by those not disputing over any of the eighteen matters of dispute. “It is to be trained in” means the training in higher virtue is to be fulfilled by not transgressing each training rule. Whatever is not stated intermittently is so because it was stated in previous training rules and is self-evident.

Uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānantiādi (Venerable sirs, the introduction has been recited) is the concluding statement. There, ettakanti (this much) means this many training rules. Suttāgatanti (come in the Sutta), come in the Pātimokkha in the Sutta. Suttapariyāpannanti (included in the Sutta), included therein. Anvaddhamāsaṃ uddesaṃ āgacchatīti (comes to recitation every half-month), comes to be recited due to the uposatha every half-month. Samaggehīti (in concord), in concord due to concord of body. Sammodamānehīti (harmoniously), harmoniously rejoicing well due to having the same intention due to concord of mind. Avivadamānehīti (without dispute), without dispute even due to any of the eighteen issues of dispute. Sikkhitabbanti (should be trained), the training in higher morality should be fulfilled by not transgressing those training rules. But whatever has not been said in between, all that is because it has been said in the previous training rules and because it is clear.

Venerables, the introduction has been recited. Here, ettaka means this many training rules. Suttāgata means what has come down in the Sutta, in the Pātimokkha. Suttapariyāpanna means included therein. Anvaddhamāsaṃ uddesaṃ āgacchatī means it comes up for recitation every half-month on the Uposatha day. Samaggehī means united in bodily harmony. Sammodamānehī means rejoicing together in mental harmony. Avivadamānehī means not disputing in any of the eighteen grounds for disputes. Sikkhitabba means the higher moral training should be fulfilled by not transgressing the training rules. What is not mentioned here should be understood as previously explained in the earlier training rules, due to their clarity and explicitness.

Bhikkhunīpātimokkhavaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha

Bhikkhunīpātimokkhavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha

Pārājikakaṇḍo

Section on Pārājika

Pārājikakaṇḍo

Pārājika Chapter

Bhikkhunīnaṃ hitatthāya, pātimokkhaṃ pakāsayi;
Yaṃ nātho, tassa dāneso, sampatto vaṇṇanākkamo.

For the welfare of nuns, the Pātimokkha was proclaimed; by the protector, now its explanation has been undertaken.

For the benefit of bhikkhunis, the Lord expounded the Pātimokkha; now, the sequence of its explanation has arrived.

For the benefit of the bhikkhunīs, the Protector expounded the Pātimokkha;
To those who seek it, he gives it, having reached the stage of commentary.

Sādhāraṇapārājikaṃ

Common Pārājika Offenses

Sādhāraṇapārājikaṃ

Common Pārājika

1…Pe…4. methunadhammasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1…Up to…4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Sexual Intercourse

1…Pe…4. methunadhammasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1…Pe…4. Explanation of the training rule on sexual intercourse

Tattha suṇātu metiādīnaṃ bhikkhupātimokkhavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayeneva attho veditabbo. Kevalañhi, bhante, ayyetiādivasena tasmiñca idha ca abhilāpamattameva liṅgabhedamattañca viseso . Yasmā ca bhikkhuniyā sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ nāma natthi, tasmā bhikkhunīnaṃ “sikkhāsājīvasamāpannā sikkhaṃ apaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā”ti avatvā yā pana bhikkhunī chandaso methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyyāti vuttaṃ. Tattha chandasoti methunarāgappaṭisaṃyuttena chandena ceva ruciyā ca. Chande pana asati balakkārena padhaṃsitāya anāpatti, tasmā yā paripuṇṇūpasampadā bhikkhunī manussāmanussatiracchānajātīsu purisaubhatobyañjanakapaṇḍakānaṃ yassa kassaci sajīvassa vā nijjīvassa vā santhatassa vā asanthatassa vā akkhāyitassa vā yebhuyyena akkhāyitassa vā aṅgajātassa attano vaccamaggapassāvamaggamukhesu tīsu yatthakatthaci santhate vā asanthate vā pakativātena asaṃphuṭṭhe allokāse antamaso tilaphalamattampi padesaṃ chandaso paveseti, parena vā pavesiyamānā pavesanapaviṭṭhaṭṭhitauddharaṇesu yaṃkiñci sādiyati, ayaṃ pārājikā hoti. Sesamettha ito paresu ca sādhāraṇasikkhāpadesu vuttanayānusāreneva veditabbaṃ.

Therein, the meaning of “let him listen to me” and so forth is to be understood as explained in the commentary on the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha. The only difference is the use of “Bhante” (Venerable Sir) and “Ayye” (Venerable Lady) and the distinction in gender terms. Since there is no such thing as a bhikkhunī renouncing the training, instead of saying “a bhikkhunī endowed with the training and livelihood, without renouncing the training or declaring weakness,” it is said, “whatever bhikkhunī should indulge in sexual intercourse by desire”. Therein, “by desire” means with a desire connected to lust for intercourse and with inclination. However, if there is no desire and she is forcibly violated, there is no offense. Thus, a fully ordained bhikkhunī who, with desire, inserts into her genital passage, urinary passage, or mouth—any of these three places, whether covered or uncovered—the sexual organ of any living or lifeless being, whether human, non-human, animal, hermaphrodite, or eunuch, whether covered or uncovered, animate or inanimate, fully formed or mostly so, even the size of a sesame seed in an uncovered space not touched by natural wind, or consents to its insertion, presence, or removal by another, becomes a pārājikā. The rest here and in the subsequent common training rules is to be understood as per the method already explained.

There, the meaning of suṇātu metiādīnaṃ (listen to me, etc.) should be understood as stated in the explanation of the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha. However, the difference is only in the mere expression and the mere gender difference, such as “bhante” (venerable sir) there and “ayye” (venerable lady) here. And since there is no disrobing for a nun, therefore, for nuns, it is not said, “having given up the training, not having declared weakness,” but it is said, yā pana bhikkhunī chandaso methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyyāti (whatever nun should indulge in sexual intercourse out of desire). There, chandasoti (out of desire) means with desire and liking connected with sexual lust. But if there is no desire, there is no offense for one who is forcibly violated. Therefore, whatever fully ordained nun, with any living or lifeless, well-formed or not well-formed, uninjured or mostly uninjured male, neuter, or hermaphrodite among humans, non-humans, and animals, inserts her own vaginal passage, anal passage, or mouth into any of the three passages of the penis, well-formed or not well-formed, in an uncovered place not touched by natural wind, even the space of a sesame seed, out of desire, or enjoys whatever is being inserted, entered, kept in, or withdrawn by another, she is defeated. The rest here and in the following common training rules should be understood according to the method stated.

Here, the meaning of suṇātu me and so on should be understood as explained in the commentary on the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha. The only difference here is the use of the address bhante and ayye, and the change in gender. Since there is no renunciation of the training for bhikkhunīs, it is said, “If a bhikkhunī engages in sexual intercourse with consent.” Here, with consent means with the intention and desire connected with sexual lust. If there is no consent, but it is done by force, there is no offense. Therefore, a fully ordained bhikkhunī who, with consent, inserts even a sesame seed-sized part of her body into the living or dead body of a human, non-human, male, female, hermaphrodite, or eunuch, whether covered or uncovered, in any of the three orifices—the anus, the vagina, or the mouth—or who allows another to insert it, or who consents to the insertion, extraction, or remaining inserted, commits a pārājika offense. The rest should be understood as explained in the common training rules.

Asādhāraṇapārājikaṃ

Non-Common Pārājika Offenses

Asādhāraṇapārājikaṃ

Uncommon Pārājika

5. Ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalikāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalikā Training Rule

5. Ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalikāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the training rule on touching above the knee

Asādhāraṇesu pana catunnaṃ tāva pārājikānaṃ paṭhame avassutāti kāyasaṃsaggarāgena tintā, kilinnāti attho. Dutiyapadepi eseva nayo. Purisapuggalassāti kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjituṃ viññussa manussajātikassa purisasaṅkhātassa puggalassa. Adhakkhakanti attano akkhakānaṃ adho. Ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalanti jāṇumaṇḍalānaṃ upari, ettha ca ubbhakapparampi ubbhajāṇumaṇḍaleneva saṅgahitaṃ. Āmasananti āmajjanaṃ phuṭṭhokāsaṃ anatikkamitvā tattheva saṅghaṭṭanaṃ. Parāmasananti ito cito ca sañcaraṇaṃ. Gahaṇanti gahitamattaṃ. Chupananti asaṅghaṭṭetvā phuṭṭhamattaṃ. Paṭipīḷananti aṅge gahetvā nippīḷanaṃ. Sādiyeyyāti yā bhikkhunī attano yathāparicchinne kāye purisassa etaṃ āmasanādiṃ sādiyati, sayaṃ vā pana tena kāyena purisassa yaṃkiñci kāyappadesaṃ sādayamānā chupati, ayaṃ ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalikā nāma pārājikāti ayamettha saṅkhepo.

Among the non-common rules, in the first of the four pārājika offenses, “lustful” means tainted or defiled with the passion of physical contact. The same applies to the second term. “With a male person” means with a male individual of the human species capable of engaging in physical contact. “Below the collarbone” means below her collarbones. “Above the knee-circle” means above her knee-circles, and here the upper waist is also included under ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalikā. “Touching” means rubbing, contacting without exceeding that spot. “Handling” means moving back and forth. “Grasping” means merely holding. “Contacting” means touching without rubbing. “Pressing” means grasping and pressing a limb. “She consents” means a bhikkhunī who consents to this touching and so forth by a man on her defined body, or who herself contacts any part of a man’s body with her defined body, becomes an ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalikā pārājikā. This is the summary here.

In the uncommon, first of the four pārājikas, avassutāti (lustful) means moistened, wet with the lust for bodily contact. The same method applies to the second word. Purisapuggalassāti (of a male individual), of a male individual of the human species who is capable of engaging in bodily contact. Adhakkhakanti (below the collarbones), below her own collarbones. Ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalanti (above the knees), above the knees, and here, even the ubbhaka posture is included in “above the knees.” Āmasananti (touching), rubbing without going beyond the touched area, rubbing there. Parāmasananti (stroking), moving here and there. Gahaṇanti (grasping), merely grasping. Chupananti (contact), merely touching without rubbing. Paṭipīḷananti (pressing), grasping and pressing on the body. Sādiyeyyāti (should enjoy), whatever nun enjoys this touching, etc., of a male on her own defined body, or herself touches any part of the male’s body with that body, enjoying it, she is defeated, called ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalikā. This is the summary here.

Among the uncommon pārājika rules, the first is avassutā, meaning overwhelmed by lust for physical contact, stained by it. The second is the same. Purisapuggalassā refers to a human male capable of engaging in physical contact. Adhakkhaka means below the collar bone. Ubbhajāṇumaṇḍala means above the knee joint. Here, even the upper thigh is included in the term “above the knee.” Āmasana means touching without moving away from the point of contact. Parāmasana means moving around from place to place. Gahaṇa means grasping. Chupana means touching without pressing. Paṭipīḷana means pressing after grasping. Sādiyeyyā means if a bhikkhunī consents to such touching by a man on her body as defined, or if she touches any part of a man’s body with her own body, she is called ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalikā and commits a pārājika offense. This is the summary here.

“Nidānaṃ puggalaṃ vatthu”ntiādike (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā) tena vitthāravinicchaye yasmā sabbāneva asādhāraṇapaññattiyo honti, tasmā ito paṭṭhāya santiṃ anupaññattiṃ vatvā sādhāraṇapaññattīti vā asādhāraṇapaññattīti vā na vakkhāma, āṇattiyaṃ yattha āṇatti natthi, tattha kiñci avatvā yattha atthi, tattheva vakkhāma, vipattivicāraṇā vuttāyeva.

In the detailed determination beginning with “the introduction, the person, the object” (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā), since all are non-common prescriptions from here onward, we will not say “common prescription” or “non-common prescription” after stating the existing or non-existing supplementary rule. Where there is no directive, we will say nothing; where there is, we will state it. The examination of lapses has already been explained.

Because all the uncommon precepts are in the detailed decision “Introduction, individual, object,” etc. (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā), therefore, from here on, we will state the existing supplementary precepts and we will not say “common precept” or “uncommon precept.” Where there is no precept in the precept, we will not say anything, but where there is, we will state it there. The examination of transgressions has been stated.

In the detailed explanation, since all the uncommon rules are unique, from here on, without stating whether they are common or uncommon, we will only mention what is relevant. The examination of the offense is as previously explained.

Avasesaṃ pana sabbattha vattabbaṃ, tayidaṃ vuccati, idaṃ tāva sikkhāpadaṃ sāvatthiyaṃ sundarīnandaṃ ārabbha kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, ekatoavassute yathāparicchinnena kāyena purisassa kāyaṃ, ubhatoavassutepi kāyena kāyappaṭibaddhaṃ, yathāparicchinnakāyappaṭibaddhena vā avasesakāyena vā tassa kāyaṃ āmasantiyā thullaccayaṃ, yakkhapetapaṇḍakatiracchānagatamanussaviggahānaṃ ubhatoavassute yathāparicchinnena kāyena kāyaṃ āmasantiyāpi thullaccayaṃ, sace pana purisassa kāyasaṃsaggarāgo natthi, pārājikakkhettepi thullaccayameva. Avasese pana kāyappaṭibaddhena kāyappaṭibaddhādibhede, methunarāgagehasitapemesu ca sabbattha dukkaṭaṃ. Asañcicca, assatiyā, ajānantiyā, asādiyantiyā , ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Aṅgāni samuṭṭhānādīni ca bhikkhupātimokkhe kāyasaṃsagge vuttanayeneva veditabbānīti.

The rest that applies everywhere is as follows: This training rule was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Sundarīnanda engaging in physical contact. For a lustful bhikkhunī touching a man’s body with her defined body, or in mutual lust touching a body-related part with her body, or any remaining body part with his body, it is a thullaccaya. Touching the body of a lustful yakkha, peta, eunuch, or animal in human form with her defined body is also a thullaccaya. If the man has no lust for physical contact, even in the pārājika zone, it is only a thullaccaya. In all other cases—body-related to body-related distinctions, lust-based attachment to dwelling—it is a dukkaṭa. There is no offense if done unintentionally, without mindfulness, unknowingly, without consent, or by one who is insane and so forth. The factors such as origin are to be understood as explained in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha under physical contact.

But the rest should be stated everywhere, this is what is said: This training rule was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Sundarīnanda in the case of engaging in bodily contact. For one lustful, touching the body of a male with the defined body, for both lustful, touching the body with the body-bound, or touching his body with the defined body-bound or the remaining body, there is a grave offense. For both lustful, touching the body of a yaksha, a ghost, a neuter, an animal, or a human corpse with the defined body, there is also a grave offense. But if the male does not have lust for bodily contact, even in the area of defeat, there is only a grave offense. But in the remaining cases of body-bound with body-bound, etc., and in all cases of lust for sexual intercourse and affection, there is a dukkaṭa. There is no offense for unintentional, unmindful, unknowing, not enjoying, insane, and primary offenders. The limbs, the arising, etc., should be understood as stated in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha in the case of bodily contact.

The rest should be understood as follows: This training rule was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Sundarīnandā, on the topic of engaging in physical contact. If a bhikkhunī, overwhelmed by lust, touches a man’s body with her own body as defined, or if both are overwhelmed by lust and she touches his body with her body or with something connected to her body, it is a grave offense. If she touches the body of a yakkha, ghost, hermaphrodite, animal, or human form with her body as defined, it is also a grave offense. If there is no lust for physical contact with a man, it is only a grave offense even in the pārājika category. In other cases, such as touching something connected to the body with something connected to the body, or in cases of lustful thoughts, it is a wrong-doing. There is no offense if it is done unintentionally, without mindfulness, unknowingly, or without consent, or if the person is insane, etc. The factors of the offense, etc., should be understood as explained in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha regarding physical contact.

6. Vajjappaṭicchādikāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Vajjappaṭicchādikā Training Rule

6. Vajjappaṭicchādikāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the training rule on concealing an offense

Dutiye gaṇassāti aññāsaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ. Ṭhitāti saliṅge ṭhitā. Cutāti kālaṅkatā. Nāsitāti liṅganāsanāya sayaṃ vā naṭṭhā, aññehi vā nāsitā. Avassaṭāti titthāyatanaṃ saṅkantā. Pubbevāhaṃ ayye aññāsinti idaṃ tassā vacanakāladassanaṃ, saliṅge ṭhitāya pana pārājikabhāvaṃ ñatvā “na dāni naṃ kassaci ārocessāmī”ti dhure nikkhittamatteyeva ayaṃ vajjappaṭicchādikā nāma pārājikā hotīti.

In the second, “of the group” means of other bhikkhunīs. “Living” means still in the order. “Deceased” means having passed away. “Expelled” means having fallen away from the order herself or been expelled by others. “Fallen away” means having gone over to a sectarian group. “Previously I knew, Venerable Ladies” indicates the time of her statement. However, knowing the pārājika state while still in the order and deciding, “I will not report this to anyone,” the moment she sets that burden aside, she becomes a vajjappaṭicchādikā pārājikā.

In the second, gaṇassāti (of the group), of other nuns. Ṭhitāti (standing), standing in the lineage. Cutāti (passed away), died. Nāsitāti (destroyed), either destroyed herself by destroying the lineage, or destroyed by others. Avassaṭāti (gone over), gone over to a heretical sect. Pubbevāhaṃ ayye aññāsinti (I knew before, venerable lady), this is a showing of the time of her statement. But knowing that she is defeated while standing in the lineage, merely deciding, “I will not inform anyone now,” she is defeated, called vajjappaṭicchādikā.

In the second rule, gaṇassā refers to other bhikkhunīs. Ṭhitā means alive. Cutā means dead. Nāsitā means the disappearance of the sexual characteristics, either by herself or by others. Avassaṭā means having gone to another sect. Pubbevāhaṃ ayye aññāsi means this is her statement at the time of seeing, while the person was alive. Knowing that the person is now a pārājika, she thinks, “I will not report this to anyone,” and by merely deciding not to report it, she becomes a vajjappaṭicchādikā and commits a pārājika offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha nevaattanāpaṭicodanā nagaṇassa ārocanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesamettha sappāṇakavaggamhi duṭṭhullāpattippaṭicchādanasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ. Tatra hi pācittiyaṃ, idha pārājikanti ayameva viseso, sesaṃ tādisamevāti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullananda, who neither reproved herself nor reported it to the group. The rest here is to be understood as explained in the training rule on concealing a grave offense in the sappāṇaka section. There it is a pācittiya, here a pārājika—that is the only difference; the rest is the same.

It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in the case of not charging herself and not informing the group. The rest here should be understood as stated in the training rule of concealing a grave offense in the chapter on animate beings. There, it is a pācittiya, here it is a pārājika; this is the only difference, the rest is the same.

This rule was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, on the topic of not accusing oneself or reporting to the group. The rest should be understood as explained in the Sappāṇaka Vagga regarding the concealment of a grave offense. There, it is a pācittiya offense; here, it is a pārājika offense. This is the only difference; the rest is the same.

7. Ukkhittānuvattikāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Ukkhittānuvattikā Training Rule

7. Ukkhittānuvattikāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the training rule on following one who has been expelled

Tatiye ukkhittanti āpattiyā adassanādīsu ukkhittaṃ. Dhammenāti bhūtena vatthunā. Vinayenāti codetvā sāretvā. Satthusāsanenāti idhāpi codetvā sāretvā karaṇameva satthusāsanaṃ nāma. Anādaranti yena saṅghena ukkhepaniyakammaṃ kataṃ, tasmiṃ vā, tattha pariyāpannagaṇe vā ekapuggale vā tasmiṃ vā kamme ādaravirahitaṃ, sammāvattanāya avattamānanti attho. Appaṭikāranti paṭikārarahitaṃ, anosāritanti attho. Akatasahāyanti ekakammādike saṃvāse saha ayanabhāvena samānasaṃvāsakā bhikkhū sahāyā nāma, yassa pana so saṃvāso tehi saddhiṃ natthi na tena te sahāyā katā honti , iti so akatasahāyo nāma, taṃ akatasahāyaṃ, samānasaṃvāsakabhāvaṃ anupagatanti attho. Tamanuvatteyyāti taṃ ukkhittakaṃ ukkhittakabhāveyeva ṭhitaṃ bhikkhuṃ yā bhikkhunī yaṃdiṭṭhiko so hoti, tāya diṭṭhiyā gahaṇabhāvena anuvatteyya. Sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi saṅghabhedasikkhāpadādīsu vuttanayena visuṃ saṅghamajjhe ca vuccamānā taṃ vatthuṃ appaṭinissajjantī samanubhāsanakammapariyosāne ukkhittānuvattikā nāma pārājikā hotīti.

In the third, ukkhitta means one suspended due to an offense such as not seeing it. Dhammena means with a true basis. Vinayena means by accusing and reminding. Satthusāsanena means here too, accusing and reminding is itself the Teacher’s instruction. Anādara means without respect toward the Saṅgha that performed the suspension act, or toward the group included therein, or an individual therein, or toward that act itself, not behaving properly, that is the meaning. Appaṭikāra means without amends, not reinstated, that is the meaning. Akatasahāya means those monks who are companions in the same communion due to sharing the same observance in a single act or similar, but one who does not share that communion with them has not made them companions; thus, he is called akatasahāya, meaning not entering the state of same communion, that is the meaning. Tamanuvatteyya means a bhikkhunī should follow that suspended monk, remaining in his suspended state, adopting his view by holding to that view. When that bhikkhunī, spoken to separately or in the midst of the Saṅgha by other bhikkhunīs as explained in the saṅghabheda training rule and so forth, does not relinquish that matter, at the conclusion of the admonition act, she becomes an ukkhittānuvattikā, meaning one who incurs a pārājika offense.

In the third, ukkhitta means suspended due to not seeing an offense, and so on. Dhammena means with a true case. Vinayena means after having charged and reminded. Satthusāsanena here, too, charging, reminding, and acting are called the teaching of the Teacher. Anādara means without respect for the Saṅgha that performed the act of suspension, or for the group included therein, or for a single individual, or for that act, meaning not properly conducting oneself. Appaṭikāra means without making amends, meaning not reinstated. Akatasahāya means that those bhikkhus who are in communion through a single act, etc., are called companions by sharing; but one whose communion is not with them, by him those are not made companions, thus he is called akatasahāya, meaning not having attained the state of being in the same communion. Tamanuvatteyyā means that whichever bhikkhunī follows that suspended bhikkhu, who remains in the state of being suspended, in the sense of holding the same view as he holds. That bhikkhunī, when addressed by the bhikkhunīs separately and in the midst of the Saṅgha in the manner stated in the Saṅghabheda rule, etc., and not relinquishing that matter, at the end of the formal act of inquiry, is called a follower of a suspended one, and is subject to defeat.

In the third rule, ukkhitta means expelled for not seeing an offense, etc. Dhammenā means with a true fact. Vinayenā means after accusing and questioning. Satthusāsanenā means here also after accusing and questioning, the act itself is called the Teacher’s instruction. Anādara means lacking respect for the Sangha that performed the act of expulsion, or for the group or individual included in that act, or for the act itself, and not behaving properly. Appaṭikāra means without making amends, not having been reproached. Akatasahāya means without having formed a companionship with the monks who share the same residence, etc. Tamanuvatteyyā means if a bhikkhunī follows a monk who has been expelled and remains in the state of being expelled, adopting his view, and when questioned by the bhikkhunīs in the midst of the Sangha, she does not abandon that matter, then at the conclusion of the act of pressing, she becomes an ukkhittānuvattikā and commits a pārājika offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha ukkhittānuvattanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, ñattiyā dukkaṭaṃ, dvīhi kammavācāhi dve thullaccayā, “yassā nakkhamati, sā bhāseyyā”ti evaṃ yya-kārappattāya tatiyakammavācāya pārājikaṃ, adhammakamme tikadukkaṭaṃ, sesaṃ saṅghabhedasikkhāpadādīsu vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning Thullanandā regarding the matter of following a suspended one. With the motion, there is a dukkaṭa; with the two act-declarations, there are two thullaccaya offenses; with the third act-declaration reaching the phrase “yassā nakkhamati, sā bhāseyyā” (let her who disapproves speak), there is a pārājika. In an unlawful act, there is a threefold dukkaṭa. The rest should be understood as explained in the saṅghabheda training rule and so forth.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in the case of following a suspended one; a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing) for the announcement, two thullaccayas (grave offenses) for the two formal declarations of the act, a pārājika (offense entailing defeat) for the third formal declaration of the act which is indicated by the word ending in yya, as in “yassā nakkhamati, sā bhāseyyā” (whoever does not approve, let her speak); in the case of an unlawful act, three dukkaṭas; the rest should be understood in the same way as stated in the Saṅghabheda rule, etc.

This rule was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, on the topic of following one who has been expelled. There is a wrong-doing at the motion, two grave offenses at the two announcements, and a pārājika at the third announcement, which is reached by the yya-formula. In an unlawful act, there are three wrong-doings. The rest should be understood as explained in the training rule on schism.

The explanation of the training rule on following one who has been expelled is concluded.

8. Aṭṭhavatthukāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Aṭṭhavatthukā Training Rule

8. The Explanation of the Rule with Eight Factors

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Eight Grounds

Catutthe avassutāti lokassādamittasanthavavasena kāyasaṃsaggarāgena tintā. Ayameva hi attho sīhaḷamātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutto, samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 675) panassa vicāraṇā katā, dutiyapadepi eseva nayo. Purisapuggalassa hatthaggahaṇaṃ vātiādīsu pana yaṃ purisapuggalena hatthe gahaṇaṃ kataṃ, taṃ “purisapuggalassa hatthaggahaṇa”nti vuttaṃ, eseva nayo saṅghāṭikaṇṇaggahaṇepi. Hatthaggahaṇanti ettha ca yassa kassaci apārājikakkhettabhūtassa aṅgassa gahaṇaṃ hatthaggahaṇaṃ, yassa kassaci nivatthassa vā pārutassa vā gahaṇaṃ saṅghāṭikaṇṇaggahaṇaṃ. Santiṭṭheyya vātiādīsu kāyasaṃsaggasaṅkhātassa asaddhammassa paṭisevanatthāya purisassa hatthapāse santiṭṭheyya vā, tattha ṭhitā sallapeyya vā, purisena vā “itthannāmaṃ ṭhānaṃ āgacchā”ti vuttā taṃ saṅketaṃ gaccheyya, tassa vā purisassa abbhāgamanaṃ sādiyeyya, yena kenaci vā paṭicchannaṃ okāsaṃ paviseyya, purisassa hatthapāse ṭhatvā kāyaṃ upasaṃhareyyāti evamattho daṭṭhabbo. Ayampi pārājikāti yathā purimāyo, evaṃ ayampi bhikkhunī etassa kāyasaṃsaggasaṅkhātassa asaddhammassa paṭisevanatthāya etāni aṭṭha vatthūni paṭipāṭiyā vā uppaṭipāṭiyā vā pūretvā aṭṭhavatthukā nāma pārājikā hotīti.

In the fourth, avassutā means tainted with lustful bodily contact due to worldly indulgence or familiarity with friends. This meaning is stated in the Sinhala sub-commentary, while in the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 675), it is further analyzed; the same applies to the second term. In purisapuggalassa hatthaggahaṇaṃ vā and so forth, what is grasped by a male person with the hand is called “purisapuggalassa hatthaggahaṇa,” and the same applies to saṅghāṭikaṇṇaggahaṇa (grasping the corner of the outer robe). Hatthaggahaṇa here means grasping any limb that is not within the pārājika domain, while saṅghāṭikaṇṇaggahaṇa means grasping anything worn or covered. In santiṭṭheyya vā and so forth, it means standing within a man’s hand’s reach for the sake of engaging in unrighteous conduct involving bodily contact, or conversing while standing there, or going to a meeting place when told by a man, “Come to such-and-such a place,” or accepting a man’s approach, or entering any concealed place, or drawing the body near while standing within a man’s hand’s reach—this is how the meaning should be understood. Ayampi pārājikā means just as with the previous ones, so too this bhikkhunī, by fulfilling these eight matters—whether in order or out of order—for the sake of engaging in unrighteous conduct involving bodily contact, becomes an aṭṭhavatthukā, meaning one who incurs a pārājika offense.

In the fourth, avassutā means moistened by sensual desire through association with the pleasures of the world and bodily contact. This very meaning is stated in the Sīhaḷa Mātikā Commentary; but in the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 675), its analysis is made. The same method applies to the second word. In purisapuggalassa hatthaggahaṇaṃ vā, etc., that grasping of the hand which is done by the person, that is stated as “purisapuggalassa hatthaggahaṇaṃ” (the grasping of the hand of a person); the same method applies to the grasping of the edge of the outer robe. Hatthaggahaṇa (grasping of the hand) here is the grasping of any limb that is not a region of defeat; saṅghāṭikaṇṇaggahaṇaṃ (grasping the corner of the outer robe) is the grasping of any worn or spread out cloth. In santiṭṭheyya vā, etc., the meaning should be understood as: she might stand within reach of the man for the sake of indulging in unwholesome behavior known as bodily contact, or she might converse while standing there, or, being told by the man, “Come to such and such a place,” she might go to that rendezvous, or she might approve of that man’s coming near, or she might enter any concealed place, or she might stand within reach of the man and offer her body. Ayampi pārājikā: just like the previous ones, this bhikkhunī, too, for the sake of indulging in this unwholesome behavior known as bodily contact, having fulfilled these eight factors in order or out of order, is called a follower of eight factors, subject to defeat.

In the fourth case, avassutā means being consumed by lust due to worldly pleasures, companionship, and physical contact. This is the meaning explained in the Sinhala commentary, while the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 675) provides a detailed analysis. The same method applies to the second case. Purisapuggalassa hatthaggahaṇaṃ vātiādīsu refers to the act of a male individual taking hold of the hand, which is called “purisapuggalassa hatthaggahaṇa.” The same applies to taking hold of the robe’s edge. Hatthaggahaṇa here means taking hold of any limb that falls within the scope of the pārājika offense, while saṅghāṭikaṇṇaggahaṇa refers to taking hold of a clothed or covered part. Santiṭṭheyya vātiādīsu means standing or sitting within arm’s reach of a man for the purpose of engaging in improper conduct, speaking to him, going to a place indicated by him, consenting to his approach, or entering a concealed place. Standing within arm’s reach of a man and moving closer to him should be understood in this way. Ayampi pārājikāti means that just like the previous cases, this bhikkhunī, having fulfilled these eight grounds either in sequence or out of sequence for the purpose of engaging in improper conduct, commits the pārājika offense known as the eight-grounds pārājika.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha aṭṭhamaṃ vatthuṃ paripūraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, saṅketagamane pade pade dukkaṭaṃ, purisassa hatthapāsaṃ okkantamatte thullaccayaṃ, purisassa abbhāgamanasādayamānepi dukkaṭaṃ. Hatthapāsokkamane thullaccayaṃ, sesesu ekekasmiṃ thullaccayameva, aṭṭhame paripuṇṇe pārājikaṃ. Ekekasmiṃ pana vatthusmiṃ satakkhattumpi vītikkante tā āpattiyo desetvā muccati, apicettha gaṇanūpikā āpatti veditabbā, “idāni nāpajjissāmī”ti hi dhuranikkhepaṃ katvā desitā gaṇanūpikā, desitagaṇanaṃ upeti, pārājikassa aṅgaṃ na hoti. Tasmā yā ekaṃ āpannā dhuranikkhepaṃ katvā desetvā puna kilesavasena āpajjati, punapi deseti, evaṃ aṭṭhamaṃ paripūrentīpi pārājikā na hoti. Yā pana āpajjitvā “punapi aññaṃ vatthuṃ āpajjissāmī”ti saussāhāva deseti, tassā sā āpatti agaṇanūpikā, desitāpi adesitā hoti, pārājikassa aṅgaṃ hoti. Asañcicca, assatiyā, ajānantiyā asādiyantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Kāyasaṃsaggarāgo, saussāhatā, aṭṭhamassa vatthussa pūraṇanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samanubhāsanasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyākiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, dvivedananti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning the six bhikkhunīs regarding the matter of fulfilling the eighth matter. With each step toward a meeting place, there is a dukkaṭa; upon merely entering a man’s hand’s reach, there is a thullaccaya; when accepting a man’s approach, there is a dukkaṭa; upon entering the hand’s reach, a thullaccaya; in each of the other cases, there is only a thullaccaya; and with the eighth fulfilled, a pārājika. However, even if one transgresses a single matter a hundred times, by confessing those offenses, she is released; here, the offense should be understood as gaṇanūpikā (countable). Having made a resolve, “I will not commit this again,” and confessed, it is countable and aligns with the confessed count, not becoming a factor of a pārājika. Thus, one who commits one offense, resolves, confesses, and then commits again due to defilements and confesses again, even if fulfilling the eighth, does not incur a pārājika. But one who commits it and confesses with eagerness, thinking, “I will commit another matter again,” her offense is agaṇanūpikā (uncountable); even if confessed, it is as if unconfessed and becomes a factor of a pārājika. There is no offense if done unintentionally, unmindfully, unknowingly, without acceptance, or for the deranged and so forth. The factors here are: lust for bodily contact, eagerness, and fulfillment of the eighth matter—these are the three factors. It originates like samanubhāsana, is an act-and-non-act, perception-released, with mind, a worldly fault, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome mind, and twofold feeling.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six bhikkhunīs in the case of fulfilling the eighth factor; a dukkaṭa for each step in going to the rendezvous; a thullaccaya at the moment of stepping within reach of the man; a dukkaṭa even when approving of the man’s coming near. A thullaccaya upon stepping within reach; in each of the remaining factors, a thullaccaya; a pārājika when the eighth is fulfilled. But if one transgresses even a hundred times in each factor, one is freed after confessing those offenses; however, here the offense should be understood as gaṇanūpikā (countable); for one who has confessed after setting aside the burden with “Now I will not commit it,” is countable, it comes under the count of confessed offenses, it does not become a factor of defeat. Therefore, she who, having committed one and confessed after setting aside the burden, commits it again due to the influence of defilements, and confesses again, even fulfilling the eighth in this way, does not become subject to defeat. But she who, having committed it, confesses with the intention, “I will commit another factor again,” that offense of hers is not countable, even though confessed, it is as if not confessed, it becomes a factor of defeat. There is no offense for one who acts unintentionally, unknowingly, unmindfully, not approving, or for one who is insane, etc. Sensual desire, intention, and the fulfillment of the eighth factor – these are the three factors here. It originates from inquiry, it is action and non-action, it is free from perception, it is with thought, it is a worldly fault, it is bodily action, it is verbal action, it is unwholesome thought, it is with two feelings.

In Sāvatthī, the eighth ground was established concerning the six bhikkhunīs. For each step taken toward a meeting place, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Merely entering the arm’s reach of a man incurs a thullaccaya offense. Consenting to a man’s approach also incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Entering his arm’s reach incurs a thullaccaya offense, and in the remaining cases, each incurs a thullaccaya offense. When the eighth ground is fully completed, it becomes a pārājika offense. However, if one commits these offenses up to a hundred times and confesses them, one is freed from the offenses. Here, the offense is considered gaṇanūpikā (countable). If one resolves, “I will not commit this offense again,” and confesses, it is considered gaṇanūpikā, and the confession counts. It does not become a factor of the pārājika offense. Therefore, if one commits an offense, confesses it, and then commits it again due to defilements, even if the eighth ground is completed, it does not become a pārājika offense. However, if one commits an offense and resolves, “I will commit another offense,” and confesses with determination, that offense is considered agaṇanūpikā (uncountable), and even if confessed, it is not considered confessed, and it becomes a factor of the pārājika offense. There is no offense if done unintentionally, without mindfulness, unknowingly, or without consent, or if one is insane, etc. The three factors here are lust for physical contact, determination, and the completion of the eighth ground. The origin, action, perception, consciousness, worldly blame, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome mind, and twofold feeling are also to be understood.

Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo aṭṭha pārājikā dhammāti bhikkhū ārabbha paññattā sādhāraṇā cattāro, ime cattāroti evaṃ pātimokkhuddesamaggena aṭṭha pārājikā dhammā uddiṭṭhāti evamettha attho veditabbo, sesaṃ bhikkhupātimokkhavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayamevāti.

Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo aṭṭha pārājikā dhammā means the eight pārājika offenses have been recited. Those established concerning monks are the four common ones, and these four make eight pārājika offenses recited in the course of the Pātimokkha recitation—this is how the meaning should be understood here. The rest is as explained in the commentary on the monks’ Pātimokkha.

Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo aṭṭha pārājikā dhammā: The four common ones promulgated concerning bhikkhus, and these four – in this way, by way of the recital in the Pātimokkha, eight pārājika dhammas have been recited – this meaning should be understood here; the rest is just as stated in the explanation of the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha.

Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo aṭṭha pārājikā dhammāti refers to the eight pārājika dhammas, four of which are common to both bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs. Thus, in the manner of the pātimokkha recitation, the eight pārājika dhammas have been recited. The rest should be understood as explained in the bhikkhu pātimokkha commentary.

Saṅghādisesakaṇḍo

Saṅghādisesa Section

The Section on Saṅghādisesa

Chapter on Saṅghādisesa

1. Ussayavādikāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Ussayavādikā Training Rule

1. The Explanation of the Rule on Contentiousness

1. Explanation of the Training Rule on Making Accusations

Saṅghādisesesu paṭhame ussayavādikāti mānussayavasena kodhussayavasena aḍḍakaraṇatthāya vinicchayamahāmattānaṃ santike vivadamānā. Gahapatinā vātiādīhi ṭhapetvā pañca sahadhammike avasesā gahaṭṭhapabbajitā saṅgahitā. Ayaṃ bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattikanti ādimhi paṭhamaṃ āpatti etassāti paṭhamāpattiko, vītikkamakkhaṇeyeva āpajjitabboti attho, taṃ paṭhamāpattikaṃ. Āpannāti aḍḍapariyosāne āpannā. Bhikkhuniṃ saṅghato nissāretīti nissāraṇīyo, taṃ nissāraṇīyaṃ. Saṅghādisesanti evaṃnāmakaṃ.

In the first of the saṅghādisesa rules, ussayavādikā means one who, due to pride or anger, disputes for the sake of litigation in the presence of judicial ministers. Gahapatinā vā and so forth includes all laypeople and monastics except the five co-religionists. Ayaṃ bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattika means at the beginning, “the first offense is hers,” thus paṭhamāpattiko, meaning it must be committed at the moment of transgression, that is the meaning; this is the paṭhamāpattika. Āpannā means committed at the conclusion of the litigation. Nissāraṇīyo means she is to be expelled from the Saṅgha; this is the nissāraṇīya. Saṅghādisesa means bearing that name.

In the Saṅghādisesas, in the first, ussayavādikā means disputing before the chief ministers of justice for the sake of creating a legal case due to the instigation of conceit or the instigation of anger. With gahapatinā vā, etc., all householders and renunciants are included, except for the five co-religionists. Ayaṃ bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattika: the one who commits the first offense in the beginning is paṭhamāpattiko, meaning one who is to be fallen at the moment of transgression; that is paṭhamāpattika. Āpannā means fallen at the end of the legal case. That which expels a bhikkhunī from the Saṅgha is nissāraṇīyo; that is called Saṅghādisesa.

In the first Saṅghādisesa, ussayavādikā refers to one who, due to pride or anger, disputes with judicial officers for the sake of gaining property. Gahapatinā vātiādīhi excludes five types of laypeople and includes the rest, both lay and ordained. Ayaṃ bhikkhunī paṭhamāpattika means that this bhikkhunī commits the first offense at the moment of transgression. Āpannā means having committed the offense at the conclusion of the dispute. Nissāraṇīyo means that the bhikkhunī should be expelled from the Saṅgha. Saṅghādisesa is the name of this offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha ussayavādikavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sāṇattikaṃ, “aḍḍaṃ karissāmī”ti yaṃkiñci dutiyikaṃ vā sakkhiṃ vā sahāyaṃ vā pariyesantiyā pariyesane dukkaṭaṃ, yattha ṭhitāya “aḍḍaṃ kātuṃ gacchāmī”ti cittaṃ uppajjati, tato paṭṭhāya gacchantiyā pade pade dukkaṭaṃ, yatthakatthaci antamaso bhikkhunupassayaṃ āgatepi vohārike disvā attano kathaṃ ārocentiyā dukkaṭaṃ. Itarena attano kathāya ārocitāya bhikkhuniyā thullaccayaṃ, paṭhamaṃ itarena pacchā bhikkhuniyā ārocanepi eseva nayo. Sace pana bhikkhunī taṃ vadati “mama ca tava ca kathaṃ tvaṃyeva ārocehī”ti, so attano vā kathaṃ paṭhamaṃ ārocetu, tassā vā, paṭhamārocane bhikkhuniyā dukkaṭaṃ, dutiye thullaccayaṃ, tena evaṃ vuttāya bhikkhuniyā ārocanepi eseva nayo. Sace pana bhikkhunī aññena kathāpeti, tatrāpi eseva nayo. Yathā vā tathā vā hi ārociyamāne paṭhamārocane bhikkhuniyā dukkaṭaṃ, dutiye thullaccayaṃ. Ubhinnaṃ pana kathaṃ sutvā vohārikehi vinicchaye kate aḍḍapariyosānaṃ nāma hoti, tasmiṃ aḍḍapariyosāne bhikkhuniyā jayepi parājayepi saṅghādiseso.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning Thullanandā regarding the matter of contentious litigation, with command. When seeking a second person, witness, or companion for “I will litigate,” there is a dukkaṭa with each search; from the moment the thought arises, “I will go to litigate,” while standing there, there is a dukkaṭa with each step as she goes; upon seeing a judge anywhere, even at the bhikkhunī residence, and reporting her own case, there is a dukkaṭa. When the other party reports her case, there is a thullaccaya for the bhikkhunī; the same applies if the other party reports first and the bhikkhunī afterward. If the bhikkhunī says to him, “You report both my case and yours,” and he reports either his own first or hers, there is a dukkaṭa for the bhikkhunī at the first report and a thullaccaya at the second; the same applies if the bhikkhunī reports as instructed by him. If the bhikkhunī has another report it, the same applies. In any way it is reported, there is a dukkaṭa for the bhikkhunī at the first report and a thullaccaya at the second. When the judges, having heard both cases, make a decision, it is called the conclusion of litigation; at that conclusion, whether the bhikkhunī wins or loses, there is a saṅghādisesa.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in the case of contentiousness; it is with an announcement; a dukkaṭa in searching for whatever second party or witness or helper with the thought, “I will create a legal case;” a dukkaṭa for each step when going from where she is when the thought arises, “I will go to create a legal case;” a dukkaṭa when, having come anywhere, even as far as the bhikkhunīs’ residence, upon seeing a legal expert, she reports her case. A thullaccaya for the bhikkhunī when the case is reported by the other party; the same method applies when the case is first reported by the other party and later by the bhikkhunī. But if the bhikkhunī tells her, “Report both my case and yours yourself,” whether he reports his own case first or hers, a dukkaṭa for the bhikkhunī in the first reporting, a thullaccaya in the second; the same method applies when the bhikkhunī, being told thus by him, reports. But if the bhikkhunī has it reported by another, the same method applies there too. For in whatever way it is reported, in the first reporting, a dukkaṭa for the bhikkhunī, a thullaccaya in the second. But when a decision is made by the legal experts after hearing the case of both, that is called the end of the legal case; at that end of the legal case, whether the bhikkhunī wins or loses, there is a saṅghādisesa.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning Thullanandā. Seeking a second party, a witness, or a companion with the intention, “I will win the dispute,” incurs a dukkaṭa offense. For each step taken with the intention to go and win the dispute, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Even if one reaches the bhikkhunī’s residence and informs the judicial officers, there is a dukkaṭa offense. If another bhikkhunī informs the judicial officers, there is a thullaccaya offense. The same applies if the bhikkhunī informs first and another bhikkhunī informs later. If the bhikkhunī says, “You inform them about my case,” and the other bhikkhunī informs first, there is a dukkaṭa offense, and a thullaccaya offense for the second. If the bhikkhunī instructs another to inform, the same applies. In any case, when informing, the first informer incurs a dukkaṭa offense, and the second incurs a thullaccaya offense. When the judicial officers hear both sides and conclude the dispute, it is called the conclusion of the dispute. At that point, whether the bhikkhunī wins or loses, she incurs a Saṅghādisesa offense.

Yā pana paccatthikamanussehi dūtaṃ vā pahiṇitvā, sayaṃ vā āgantvā “ehi, ayye”ti ākaḍḍhiyamānā gacchati, yā vā upassaye aññehi kataṃ anācāraṃ anodissa ācikkhantī rakkhaṃ yācati, yāya ca kiñci avuttā vohārikā aññato sutvā sayameva aḍḍaṃ pariyosāpenti, tassā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Aññehi anākaḍḍhitāya aḍḍakaraṇaṃ, aḍḍapariyosānanti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyamevāti.

However, one who is dragged by adversaries sending a messenger or coming themselves saying, “Come, lady,” or one who, without specifying, reports misconduct done by others at the residence and seeks protection, or one about whom the judges, hearing from elsewhere without her saying anything, conclude the litigation themselves—for her, and for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are: litigation not dragged by others and the conclusion of litigation—these are the two factors. The origin and so forth are similar to the first kathina rule, but this is solely an act.

But she who, being summoned by hostile people by sending a messenger or coming themselves, saying, “Come, noble lady,” goes, or she who, not pointing out the misconduct committed by others in the residence, asks for protection by relating it, or she by whom, without being told anything, the legal experts, having heard from elsewhere, themselves bring the legal case to an end, and for one who is insane, etc., there is no offense. Creating a legal case without being summoned by others, and the end of the legal case – these are the two factors here. The origination, etc., are similar to the first Kathina; but this is only action.

If a bhikkhunī is sent by hostile people or goes herself, being dragged by them, or if she seeks protection by reporting misconduct done by others in the residence, or if she herself concludes the dispute after hearing from others, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The two factors here are the act of disputing and the conclusion of the dispute. The origin, etc., are similar to the first kathina rule, but this is an action offense.

2. Corivuṭṭhāpikāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Corivuṭṭhāpikā Training Rule

2. The Explanation of the Rule on Ordaining a Thief

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Reinstating a Thief

Dutiye yāya pañcamāsagghanakato paṭṭhāya yaṃkiñci parasantakaṃ avaharitaṃ, ayaṃ corī nāma, taṃ coriṃ. Vajjhaṃ viditanti tena kammena “vadhārahā aya”nti evaṃ viditaṃ. Anapaloketvāti anāpucchā. Gaṇanti mallagaṇabhaṭiputtagaṇādikaṃ. Pūganti dhammagaṇaṃ. Seṇinti gandhikaseṇidussikaseṇiādikaṃ. Yattha yattha hi rājāno gaṇādīnaṃ gāmanigame niyyātenti “tumheva ettha anusāsathā”ti, tattha tattha teyeva issarā honti, tasmā te sandhāya idaṃ vuttaṃ. Ettha ca rājānaṃ vā gaṇādike vā apaloketvāpi bhikkhunisaṅgho apaloketabbova. Aññatra kappāti titthiyesu vā aññabhikkhunīsu vā pabbajitapubbā kappā nāma, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ upasampādentiyā gaṇaācarinī pattacīvarapariyesanesu sīmāsammutiyā ñattiyā ca dukkaṭaṃ, dvīhi kammavācāhi thullaccayaṃ, kammavācāpariyosāne saṅghādiseso.

In the second, corī means one who has stolen anything belonging to another worth five māsakas or more; this is the corī. Vajjhaṃ vidita means known as “this one deserves punishment” due to that act. Anapaloketvā means without consulting. Gaṇa means groups like the Malla or Bhaṭiputta groups. Pūga means a Dhamma group. Seṇi means guilds like perfumers or clothiers. Wherever kings delegate villages or towns to such groups saying, “You govern here,” they are the authorities there; thus, this is said with reference to them. Here, even without consulting the king or such groups, the bhikkhunī Saṅgha must be consulted. Aññatra kappā means except for one previously ordained among sectarians or other bhikkhunīs, who is permissible; ordaining anyone else incurs a dukkaṭa in seeking a group, boundary designation, and the motion, a thullaccaya with the two act-declarations, and a saṅghādisesa at the conclusion of the act-declaration.

In the second, she who has stolen anything belonging to another, starting from that which is worth five māsakas, she is called corī (a thief); that thief. Vajjhaṃ vidita means known as “she is deserving of punishment” by that act. Anapaloketvā means without asking. Gaṇa means a group of wrestlers, a group of soldiers’ sons, etc. Pūga means a group of the Dhamma. Seṇi means a guild of perfumers, a guild of clothiers, etc. For wherever kings appoint groups, etc., in villages and towns, saying, “You yourselves govern here,” there they themselves are the authorities; therefore, this is said with reference to them. And here, without informing the king or the groups, etc., the bhikkhunī Saṅgha should certainly be informed. Aññatra kappā means those who were previously ordained among sectarians or other bhikkhunīs are called kappa; excluding that, one who ordains another, a dukkaṭa for a group leader in searching for robe and bowl, in the boundary agreement, and in the announcement; two thullaccayas for the two formal declarations of the act; a saṅghādisesa at the end of the formal declaration of the act.

In the second case, corī refers to one who steals anything worth more than five māsakas from others. Vajjhaṃ vidita means it is known that she deserves punishment for that act. Anapaloketvā means without permission. Gaṇa refers to groups such as the mallagaṇa, bhaṭiputtagaṇa, etc. Pūga refers to the Dhamma group. Seṇi refers to groups such as perfumers, cloth merchants, etc. Wherever kings appoint these groups to oversee villages and towns, they have authority there. Therefore, this is stated with reference to them. Here, even if one informs the king or such groups, one must still inform the bhikkhunī Saṅgha. Aññatra kappā means except in the case of those who have previously ordained among heretics or other bhikkhunīs. Excluding that, when giving ordination to another, seeking bowls and robes, or determining boundaries, there is a dukkaṭa offense. With two formal acts, there is a thullaccaya offense, and at the conclusion of the formal act, there is a Saṅghādisesa offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha coriṃ vuṭṭhāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, coriyā vematikāya dukkaṭaṃ, tathā acoriyā corisaññāya ceva vematikāya ca. Acorisaññāya, ajānantiyā, apaloketvā vuṭṭhāpentiyā, kappaṃ vuṭṭhāpentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Coritā, corisaññitā, aññatra anuññātakāraṇā vuṭṭhāpananti, imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Corivuṭṭhāpanasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyākiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning Thullanandā regarding the matter of ordaining a thief. For one uncertain about her being a thief, there is a dukkaṭa; likewise for one perceiving a non-thief as a thief or uncertain. For one perceiving her as a non-thief, or unknowing, or ordaining after consulting, or ordaining a permissible one, and for the deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The factors here are: being a thief, perceiving her as a thief, and ordaining except for a permitted reason—these are the three factors. It originates from ordaining a thief, is an act-and-non-act, perception-released, with mind, an offense by establishment, bodily action, verbal action, threefold mind, and threefold feeling.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in the case of ordaining a thief; a dukkaṭa for one doubtful about her being a thief, likewise for one who perceives a non-thief as a thief and for one who is doubtful. There is no offense for one who perceives her as a non-thief, for one who ordains unknowingly, without informing, for one who ordains a kappa, or for one who is insane, etc. Being a thief, perceiving her as a thief, ordaining without the reason of permission – these are the three factors here. It originates from ordaining a thief, it is action and non-action, it is free from perception, it is with thought, it is a conventional fault, it is bodily action, it is verbal action, it is with three thoughts, it is with three feelings.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning Thullanandā. If there is doubt about whether one is a thief, there is a dukkaṭa offense. The same applies if one is not a thief but is perceived as one or if there is doubt. There is no offense if one is not a thief, if one does not know, if one reinstates after informing, if one reinstates according to the rule, or if one is insane, etc. The three factors here are being a thief, perceiving one as a thief, and reinstating without permission. The origin, etc., are similar to the first pārājika rule, but this is a rule offense.

3. Ekagāmantaragamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Ekagāmantaragamana Training Rule

3. The Explanation of the Rule on Going to Another Village Alone

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Going Alone to Another Village

Tatiye gāmantarantiādīsu sakagāmato tāva nikkhamantiyā anāpatti, nikkhamitvā pana aññaṃ gāmaṃ gacchantiyā pade pade dukkaṭaṃ, ekena pādena itarassa gāmassa parikkhepe vā upacāre vā atikkante thullaccayaṃ, dutiyena atikkantamatte saṅghādiseso, tato nikkhamitvā puna sakagāmaṃ pavisantiyāpi eseva nayo. Sace pana khaṇḍapākārena vā vaticchiddena vā bhikkhunivihārabhūmiṃyeva sakkā hoti pavisituṃ, evaṃ pavisamānāya kappiyabhūmiyā paviṭṭhā nāma hoti, tasmā vaṭṭati. Bahigāme ṭhatvā yaṃkiñci sakagāmaṃ vā paragāmaṃ vā akappiyabhūmiṃ padasā pavisantiyā āpattīti ayamettha saṅkhepo.

In the third, in gāmantara and so forth, there is no offense for leaving one’s own village; but after leaving, while going to another village, there is a dukkaṭa with each step; upon crossing the boundary or vicinity of the other village with one foot, there is a thullaccaya; upon crossing with the second foot, there is a saṅghādisesa. The same applies when leaving there and re-entering one’s own village. If, however, it is possible to enter only the bhikkhunī monastery grounds through a broken wall or a fence gap, entering thus is considered entering permissible grounds, so it is allowable. Entering any improper ground—whether one’s own village or another—by foot from outside the village incurs an offense; this is the summary here.

In the third, in gāmantara, etc., there is no offense when leaving one’s own village; but when going to another village after leaving, a dukkaṭa for each step; a thullaccaya when one foot crosses the boundary or the vicinity of the other village; a saṅghādisesa at the moment of crossing with the second foot; the same method applies when leaving that and entering one’s own village again. But if it is possible to enter the bhikkhunī monastery grounds through a broken fence or a gap in the hedge, one who enters in this way is called one who has entered the allowable grounds; therefore, it is permissible. This is the summary here: having stood outside the village, when entering one’s own village or another village by foot on unallowable ground, there is an offense.

In the third case, gāmantara refers to leaving one’s own village. There is no offense when leaving, but for each step taken toward another village, there is a dukkaṭa offense. When one foot crosses the boundary or vicinity of the other village, there is a thullaccaya offense. When the second foot crosses, there is a Saṅghādisesa offense. The same applies when returning to one’s own village. However, if one can enter the bhikkhunī’s residence through a broken wall or a gap, it is considered entering a permissible area, and thus it is allowable. Standing outside the village and entering any part of one’s own village or another village on foot into an impermissible area incurs an offense. This is the summary here.

Nadipāragamane vuttalakkhaṇāya nadiyā dutiyikaṃ vinā paratīraṃ gacchantiyā vā antarānadiyaṃ dutiyikāya saddhiṃ bhaṇḍitvā puna orimatīrameva paccuttarantiyā vā paṭhamapādaṃ uddharitvā tīre ṭhapitakkhaṇe thullaccayaṃ, dutiyapāduddhāre saṅghādiseso. Iddhisetuyānanāvāhi pana paratīraṃ otarituṃ, nahānādikāraṇena ca otiṇṇāya orimatīraṃ padasāpi paccuttarituṃ vaṭṭati.

In crossing a river, for one going to the far shore alone without a companion across a river with the characteristics stated, or quarreling with a companion mid-river and returning to the near shore, there is a thullaccaya the moment the first foot is lifted and placed on the shore, and a saṅghādisesa upon lifting the second foot. However, descending to the far shore by psychic power, bridge, or boat, and returning to the near shore by foot for bathing or other reasons, is permissible.

In crossing a river, when going to the other shore without a companion on a river with the stated characteristics, or when, having quarreled with a companion in the middle of the river, returning to the near shore itself, a thullaccaya at the moment of lifting the first foot and placing it on the bank, a saṅghādisesa upon lifting the second foot. But it is permissible to cross to the other shore by means of an elevated path, a bridge, a vehicle, or a boat, and for one who has descended for the sake of bathing, etc., it is permissible to return to the near shore even by foot.

When crossing a river, if one crosses to the other side without a companion, or if one converses with a companion in the middle of the river and returns to the near shore, there is a thullaccaya offense when lifting the first foot and placing it on the shore. When lifting the second foot, there is a Saṅghādisesa offense. However, it is allowable to cross to the other shore by means of a bridge, a boat, or for the purpose of bathing, and to return on foot to the near shore.

Rattivippavāse “purearuṇeyeva dutiyikāya hatthapāsaṃ okkamissāmī”ti ābhogaṃ vinā ekagabbhepi dutiyikāya hatthapāsātikkame ṭhatvā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpentiyā āpatti.

In staying overnight, without the intention “I will enter the hand’s reach of a companion before dawn,” standing beyond the hand’s reach of a companion even in the same room and letting the dawn arise incurs an offense.

In spending the night away, if one stands beyond the reach of a companion even in a single room without intending, “I will step within reach of a companion before dawn,” and lets the dawn break, there is an offense.

If one spends the night away and, without prior arrangement, stands within arm’s reach of a companion at dawn, there is an offense.

Ekā vā gaṇamhāti ettha pana ekā bhikkhunīpi gaṇoyeva. Ohīyeyyāti avahīyeyya, dassanūpacāraṃ vā savanūpacāraṃ vā vijaheyyāti attho. Tasmā indakhīlātikkamato paṭṭhāya bahigāme rukkhathambhasāṇipākārādiantaritabhāvenāpi dutiyikāya dassanūpacāre vijahite sacepi savanūpacāro atthi, āpattiyeva. Ajjhokāse pana dūrepi dassanūpacāro hoti, tattha maggamūḷhasaddena viya dhammassavanārocanasaddena viya ca ’ayye’ti saddāyantiyā saddassavanātikkame āpattiyeva. Sace pana maggaṃ gacchantī ohīyitvā “idāni pāpuṇissāmī”ti saussāhā anubandhati, vaṭṭati.

Ekā vā gaṇamhā means even a single bhikkhunī is a group. Ohīyeyyā means being left behind, abandoning the range of sight or hearing, that is the meaning. Thus, from crossing the threshold, if the range of sight of a companion is abandoned outside the village even by being separated by a tree, pillar, stone, or wall, even if the range of hearing remains, there is an offense. In an open space, the range of sight extends far; if the sound of calling “lady” is not heard—like a call when lost on the road or announcing a Dhamma talk—there is an offense when the range of hearing is exceeded. However, if while traveling she falls behind but eagerly follows thinking, “I will catch up now,” it is permissible.

In ekā vā gaṇamhā, here, even a single bhikkhunī is a group. Ohīyeyyā means should be left behind, meaning should abandon the range of sight or the range of hearing. Therefore, starting from crossing the boundary post, even if there is an obstruction such as a tree, a pillar, a screen, or a fence outside the village, if the range of sight of a companion is abandoned, even if the range of hearing is present, there is an offense. But in the open, the range of sight is present even at a distance; there, as with the sound of one lost on the road, or with the sound of inviting to listen to the Dhamma, when calling out ‘Noble lady,’ upon exceeding the range of hearing that sound, there is an offense. But if, while going on the road, one is left behind and follows with the intention, “Now I will catch up,” it is permissible.

Ekā vā gaṇamhā means even a single bhikkhunī is considered a group. Ohīyeyyā means to fall behind, to abandon visual or auditory contact. Therefore, from the point of crossing the boundary marker, even if visual contact with the companion is lost due to trees, pillars, walls, etc., if auditory contact remains, there is still an offense. In the open, even if visual contact is distant, if one calls out, “Ayye,” and the sound is heard beyond the limit, there is an offense. However, if one falls behind while walking and follows with determination, thinking, “I will catch up,” it is allowable.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha gāmantaragamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “ekā vā nadipāra”ntiādikā ettha tividhā anupaññatti, pure aruṇe sakagāmato nikkhamitvā aruṇuggamanakāle gāmantarapariyāpannaṃ nadipāraṃ okkamanantiyā pana catassopi āpattiyo ekakkhaṇeyeva honti. Vuttampi cetaṃ –

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning a certain bhikkhunī regarding the matter of going to another village, with the threefold additional rule “alone or across a river” and so forth. Leaving one’s own village before dawn and entering another village or crossing a river at dawn incurs all four offenses at once. This is stated:

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhunī in the case of going to another village; ekā vā nadipāra, etc., here are three subsequent promulgations; but when leaving one’s own village before dawn and stepping on the other shore of a river included within another village at the time of sunrise, all four offenses occur at the same moment. And this has been stated:

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning a certain bhikkhunī. The threefold supplementary rule here is “ekā vā nadipāra” etc. If one leaves one’s own village before dawn and crosses a river included in the village boundary at dawn, all four offenses occur simultaneously. It is also stated:

“Sikkhāpadā buddhavarena vaṇṇitā;
Saṅghādisesā caturo bhaveyyuṃ;
Āpajjeyya ekapayogena sabbā;
Pañhā mesā kusalehi cintitā”ti. (pari. 479);

“The training rules praised by the Buddha’s voice; may become four saṅghādisesa offenses; one might commit them all with a single effort, this question was considered by the skilled” (pari. 479).

“The training rules declared by the Blessed Buddha; there would be four Saṅghādisesa [offenses]; one would incur all of them by a single effort; this question has been considered by the wise” (pari. 479);

“The training rules praised by the Buddha;
The four Saṅghādisesa offenses;
One may commit all at once;
This question was considered by the wise.” (pari. 479);

Etenupāyena tiṇṇaṃ, dvinnañca ekatobhāvo veditabbo. Dutiyikāya pana pakkantāya vā vibbhantāya vā kālaṅkatāya vā pakkhasaṅkantāya vā āpadāsu vā gāmantaragamanādīni karontiyā ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Antarāyena ekatobhāvo, gāmantaragamanādīsu aññataratāpajjanaṃ, āpadāya abhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisāni, idaṃ pana paṇṇattivajjaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

By this method, the combination of three or two should be understood. If a companion departs, disrobes, dies, changes faction, or in emergencies, there is no offense for going to another village and so forth, nor for the deranged and so forth. The factors here are: combination in one act, committing one of going to another village and so forth, and absence of an emergency—these are the three factors. The origin and so forth are similar to the first pārājika, but this is an offense by establishment, with threefold mind and threefold feeling.

By this method, the simultaneous occurrence of three or two should be understood. But when a companion has departed, or become deranged, or died, or changed her affiliation, or in times of danger, when doing things like going to another village, etc., and for one who is insane, etc., there is no offense. The simultaneous occurrence due to danger, incurring one of going to another village, etc., and the absence of danger – these are the three factors here. The origination, etc., are similar to the first Pārājika; but this is a conventional fault, with three thoughts, with three feelings.

In this way, the unity of the three and the two should be understood. If the companion departs, gets lost, dies, changes affiliation, or in emergencies, there is no offense for going to another village, etc., or for the insane, etc. The three factors here are the absence of an obstacle, the commission of one of the offenses related to going to another village, etc., and the absence of an emergency. The origin, etc., are similar to the first pārājika rule, but this is a rule offense, with three types of consciousness and three types of feeling.

The explanation of the training rule on going alone to another village is concluded.

4. Ukkhittakaosāraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Ukkhittakaosāraṇa Training Rule

4. The Explanation of the Rule on Reinstating a Suspended One

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Reinstating One Who Has Been Expelled

Catutthe ukkhittanti āpattiyā adassanādīsu ukkhittaṃ. Anaññāya gaṇassa chandanti tasseva kārakasaṅghassa chandaṃ ajānitvā. Osāreyyāti osāraṇakammaṃ kareyya. Tassā evaṃ karontiyā, gaṇapariyesane sīmāsammutiyā ñattiyā ca dukkaṭaṃ, dvīhi kammavācāhi thullaccayaṃ, kammavācāpariyosāne saṅghādiseso.

In the fourth, ukkhitta means one suspended due to an offense such as not seeing it. Anaññāya gaṇassa chanda means without knowing the consent of that performing Saṅgha. Osāreyyā means she would perform the reinstatement act. For one doing so, there is a dukkaṭa in seeking a group, boundary designation, and the motion; a thullaccaya with the two act-declarations; and a saṅghādisesa at the conclusion of the act-declaration.

In the fourth, ukkhitta means suspended due to not seeing an offense, etc. Anaññāya gaṇassa chanda means without knowing the consent of that same acting Saṅgha. Osāreyyā means should perform the act of reinstatement. For her who does so, a dukkaṭa in searching for the group, in the boundary agreement, and in the announcement; two thullaccayas for the two formal declarations of the act; a saṅghādisesa at the end of the formal declaration of the act.

In the fourth case, ukkhitta means one who has been expelled for not acknowledging an offense, etc. Anaññāya gaṇassa chanda means not knowing the consent of the group that performed the act. Osāreyyā means to perform the reinstatement act. When doing so, seeking the group, determining the boundary, and making the motion incur a dukkaṭa offense. With two formal acts, there is a thullaccaya offense, and at the conclusion of the formal act, there is a Saṅghādisesa offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha evaṃ osāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikasaṅghādisesaṃ, adhammakamme tikadukkaṭaṃ, kārakasaṅghaṃ vā āpucchitvā, gaṇassa vā chandaṃ jānitvā, vatte vā vattantiṃ, asante kārakasaṅghe osārentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Dhammakammena ukkhittatā, aññatra anuññātakāraṇā osāraṇanti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni saṅghabhedasikkhāpade vuttanayāneva, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning Thullanandā regarding the matter of such reinstatement, a threefold saṅghādisesa. In an unlawful act, there is a threefold dukkaṭa. There is no offense if consulting the performing Saṅgha, knowing the group’s consent, reinstating one who behaves properly, reinstating when the performing Saṅgha is absent, or for the deranged and so forth. The factors here are: being suspended by a lawful act and reinstatement except for a permitted reason—these are the two factors. The origin and so forth are as explained in the saṅghabheda training rule, but this is an act-and-non-act.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in the case of reinstating thus; a triple Saṅghādisesa; in an unlawful act, three dukkaṭas; there is no offense for one who reinstates after asking the acting Saṅgha, or after knowing the consent of the group, or while she is conducting herself properly, or in the absence of the acting Saṅgha, or for one who is insane, etc. Being suspended by a lawful act, and reinstatement without the reason of permission – these are the two factors here. The origination, etc., are the same as stated in the rule on causing division in the Saṅgha; but this is action and non-action.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning Thullanandā. There are three Saṅghādisesa offenses, three dukkaṭa offenses for an unlawful act, and no offense if one informs the acting Saṅgha, knows the consent of the group, or reinstates one who is behaving properly, or if there is no acting Saṅgha, or if one is insane, etc. The two factors here are being expelled by a lawful act and reinstating without permission. The origin, etc., are as explained in the Saṅghabheda rule, but this is an action offense.

The explanation of the training rule on reinstating one who has been expelled is concluded.

5. Bhojanappaṭiggahaṇapaṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the First Bhojanappaṭiggahaṇa Training Rule

5. The Explanation of the First Rule on Accepting Food

5. Explanation of the First Training Rule on Receiving Food

Pañcame avassutāti chandarāgena tintā. Avassutassāti tādisasseva. Khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vāti ettha paṭiggahaṇe thullaccayaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre saṅghādiseso.

In the fifth, avassutā means tainted with desire. Avassutassa means of one similarly tainted. Khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā means here, there is a thullaccaya in receiving, and a saṅghādisesa with each act of consumption.

In the fifth, avassutā means moistened by desire. Avassutassā means of one who is likewise. In khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, a thullaccaya in accepting; a saṅghādisesa for each swallowing.

In the fifth case, avassutā means being consumed by lust. Avassutassā means the same. Khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā means that receiving incurs a thullaccaya offense, and each mouthful incurs a Saṅghādisesa offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sundarīnandaṃ ārabbha avassutāya avassutassa hatthato āmisappaṭiggahaṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, ekatoavassute paṭiggahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre thullaccayaṃ, yakkhapetapaṇḍakatiracchānagatamanussaviggahānaṃ hatthato ubhatoavassutepi sati eseva nayo. Tattha pana ekatoavassute sati dukkaṭaṃ, sabbattha udakadantaponaggahaṇepi paribhogepi dukkaṭameva. Ubhosu anavassutesu, “anavassuto”ti vā ñatvā gaṇhantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Udakadantaponato aññaṃ ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ, ubhatoavassutatā, sahatthā gahaṇaṃ, ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisānīti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning Sundarīnandā regarding the matter of a tainted one receiving food from the hand of a tainted one. In receiving from one tainted on one side, there is a dukkaṭa; with each consumption, a thullaccaya. The same applies when receiving from the hand of a yakkha, ghost, neuter, animal, or human form, even if both are tainted. If one side is tainted, there is a dukkaṭa; in all cases, receiving or using water or tooth-sticks incurs only a dukkaṭa. There is no offense if both are untainted, or if taking knowing “he is untainted,” or for the deranged and so forth. The factors here are: something consumable other than water or tooth-sticks, both being tainted, taking by hand, and consumption—these are the four factors. The origin and so forth are similar to the first pārājika.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning Sundarīnandā in the case of accepting food from the hand of one who is lustful with one who is lustful; a dukkaṭa in accepting when one party is lustful, a thullaccaya for each swallowing; the same method applies even when both parties are lustful in the case of the hands of yakkhas, petas, paṇḍakas, animals, and human effigies. But there, when one party is lustful, a dukkaṭa; everywhere, even in accepting water and toothpicks, and even in using them, only a dukkaṭa. When both are not lustful, and when accepting knowing, “He is not lustful,” and for one who is insane, etc., there is no offense. Something edible other than water and toothpicks, both parties being lustful, accepting with one’s own hand, and swallowing – these are the four factors here. The origination, etc., are similar to the first Pārājika.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning Sundarīnandā. Receiving from one who is lustful incurs a dukkaṭa offense, and each mouthful incurs a thullaccaya offense. The same applies if both are lustful, or if receiving from a yakkha, petā, paṇḍaka, animal, or human form. If only one is lustful, there is a dukkaṭa offense. In all cases, receiving water, toothwood, or a fan incurs a dukkaṭa offense. If both are not lustful, or if one knows, “He is not lustful,” and receives, or if one is insane, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are receiving something other than water, toothwood, or a fan, both being lustful, receiving directly, and consuming. The origin, etc., are similar to the first pārājika rule.

6. Bhojanappaṭiggahaṇadutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Second Bhojanappaṭiggahaṇa Training Rule

6. The Explanation of the Second Rule on Accepting Food

6. Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Receiving Food

Chaṭṭhe yato tvanti yasmā tvaṃ. Iṅghāti uyyojanatthe nipāto. Ayampīti yā evaṃ uyyojeti, sā evaṃ uyyojanena ca tena vacanena itarissā paṭiggahaṇena ca dukkaṭāni, ajjhohāragaṇanāya thullaccayāni ca āpajjitvā bhojanapariyosāne saṅghādisesaṃ āpajjati.

In the sixth, yato tvaṃ means “since you.” Iṅgha is a particle meaning urging. Ayampi means she who urges thus, by that urging and that statement, and by the other’s receiving, incurs dukkaṭa offenses and, by counting consumption, thullaccaya offenses, and at the conclusion of eating, a saṅghādisesa.

In the sixth, yato tva means since you. Iṅghā is a particle in the sense of urging. Ayampī means she who urges thus, by urging thus, and by that statement, and by the other’s accepting, incurs dukkaṭas, and by the count of swallowings, incurs thullaccayas, and at the end of the meal, incurs a saṅghādisesa.

In the sixth case, yato tva means since you. Iṅghā is a particle meaning dismissal. Ayampī means that the one who dismisses in this way incurs dukkaṭa offenses for the dismissal and the words, and thullaccaya offenses for each mouthful, and at the conclusion of the meal, a Saṅghādisesa offense is incurred.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha evaṃ uyyojanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sāṇattikameva, purisassa vā yakkhādīnaṃ vā hatthato udakadantaponappaṭiggahaṇuyyojane ca tesaṃ paribhoge ca dukkaṭaṃ, esa nayo yakkhādīnaṃ hatthato avasesaggahaṇatthaṃ uyyojane, tesaṃ gahaṇe, ajjhohāre ca. Bhojanapariyosāne pana thullaccayaṃ. “Anavassuto”ti ñatvā vā, “kupitā na paṭiggaṇhatī”ti vā, “kulānuddayatāya na paṭiggaṇhatī”ti vā uyyojentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Manussapurisatā, aññatra anuññātakāraṇā, “khādanīyaṃ bhojanīyaṃ gahetvā bhuñjā”ti uyyojanā, tena vacanena gahetvā itarissā bhojanapariyosānanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisānīti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning a certain bhikkhunī regarding the matter of such urging, with command. Urging a man, yakkha, or similar not to receive water or tooth-sticks from their hand, and their use, incurs a dukkaṭa; the same applies to urging them to receive anything else from the hand of a yakkha or similar, their receiving, and consumption. At the conclusion of eating, there is a thullaccaya. There is no offense if urging knowing “he is untainted,” or “she refuses out of anger,” or “she refuses out of compassion for the family,” or for the deranged and so forth. The factors here are: being a human man, except for a permitted reason, urging “take and eat consumables or edibles,” and the other’s completion of eating due to that statement—these are the three factors. The origin and so forth are similar to the adinnādāna rule.

It was promulgated in Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhunī in the case of urging thus; it is with an announcement; a dukkaṭa in urging to accept water and toothpicks from the hand of a man or yakkhas, etc., and in their using them; the same method applies in urging to accept the remaining things from the hand of yakkhas, etc., in their accepting, and in swallowing. But at the end of the meal, a thullaccaya. There is no offense for one who urges knowing, “He is not lustful,” or, “She does not accept out of anger,” or, “She does not accept out of compassion for the family,” or for one who is insane, etc. Being a human male, without the reason of permission, urging with, “Accept and eat edible food,” and by that statement, the other’s accepting and finishing the meal – these are the three factors here. The origination, etc., are similar to taking what is not given.

In Sāvatthī, regarding a certain bhikkhunī, this rule was laid down in a case of expulsion. It is only for the use of hemp cloth, whether received from a man, a yakkha, or others, and for the acceptance of water, toothwood, and other requisites from their hands, as well as for their use, it is a dukkaṭa offense. This is the method for expulsion in cases of receiving other items from the hands of yakkhas and others, for their acceptance, and for consuming them. However, at the end of the meal, it is a thullaccaya offense. If she knows, “He is not lustful,” or “She does not accept out of anger,” or “She does not accept out of compassion for the family,” then there is no offense for the one expelling. For the insane, etc., there is no offense. For a human man, except for an authorized reason, if she says, “Take and eat this edible or inedible food,” and the other bhikkhunī consumes it at the end of the meal, these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing.

The commentary on the Second Bhojanappaṭiggahaṇa training rule is completed.

The explanation of the second training rule, concerning the acceptance of food, is finished.

The exposition of the second training rule on the acceptance of food is concluded.

7-8-9. Sañcarittādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7-8-9. Commentary on the Sañcaritta and Related Training Rules

7-8-9. The Explanation of the Training Rules on Acting as a Go-Between, etc.

7-8-9. Exposition of the Training Rules on Association, etc.

Sattamaaṭṭhamanavamasikkhāpadānaṃ sañcarittādittaye vuttanayeneva vinicchayo veditabbo.

The judgment for the seventh, eighth, and ninth training rules should be understood as explained in the trio beginning with Sañcaritta.

The determination of the seventh, eighth, and ninth training rules, in the group beginning with acting as a go-between, should be understood in the same way as already stated.

The determination of the seventh, eighth, and ninth training rules on association, etc., should be understood in the same way as previously explained.

The explanation of the training rules on acting as a go-between, etc., is finished.

10. Sikkhaṃpaccācikkhaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Sikkhaṃpaccācikkhaṇa Training Rule

10. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Disavowing the Training

10. Exposition of the Training Rule on Renouncing the Training

Dasame kiṃnumāva samaṇiyoti kiṃnu imā eva samaṇiyo. Tāsāhanti tāsaṃ ahaṃ. Yāvatatiyakapadattho bhikkhupātimokkhavaṇṇanāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nigamanavaṇṇanā), avasesavinicchayo ca tattheva saṅghabhedasikkhāpadavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbo, idaṃ pana sāvatthiyaṃ caṇḍakāḷibhikkhuniṃ (pāci. 709) ārabbha “buddhaṃ paccācikkhāmī”tiādivacanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, evaṃ vacanameva cettha catūsu aṅgesu paṭhamaṃ aṅganti ayaṃ viseso, sesaṃ tādisamevāti.

In the tenth, kiṃnumāva samaṇiyo means “What, are these the only nuns?” Tāsāhaṃ means “I, to them.” The meaning of “up to the third time” and the remaining judgment should be understood as explained in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha commentary (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. Nigamanavaṇṇanā) and in the Saṅghabheda training rule commentary there. This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the nun Caṇḍakāḷī (pāci. 709) in the matter of statements like “I reject the Buddha.” The distinction here is that such a statement is the first of the four factors; the rest is similar.

In the tenth, kiṃnumāva samaṇiyo means, “what indeed are these samaṇīs (female ascetics)?”. Tāsāhanti means “I, of them”. The meaning of the phrase yāvatatiyaka should be understood as in the explanation of the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nigamanavaṇṇanā), and the determination of the rest should be understood in the same way as stated there, in the explanation of the training rule on schism. But this was formulated in Sāvatthī concerning the case of the bhikkhunī Caṇḍakāḷī (Pāci. 709), in the case of the statement beginning, “I disavow the Buddha”. Thus, just this statement is the first factor among the four factors here; this is the difference, the rest is the same.

In the tenth rule, “What are these female ascetics?” means, “What are these female ascetics?” “I am one of them” means, “I am one of them.” The meaning of the term “up to the third time” is explained in the exposition of the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, Nigamanavaṇṇanā). The remaining determination should be understood in the same way as explained in the exposition of the Saṅghabheda training rule. This rule was laid down in Sāvatthī regarding the bhikkhunī Caṇḍakāḷī (Pācittiya 709) in a case where she said, “I renounce the Buddha,” etc. Here, the statement itself is the first factor among the four factors. The rest is the same as before.

11. Adhikaraṇakupitasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

11. Commentary on the Adhikaraṇakupita Training Rule

11. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Being Angry in a Legal Case

11. Exposition of the Training Rule on Being Angry in a Dispute

Ekādasame kismiñcideva adhikaraṇeti catunnaṃ aññatarasmiṃ. Paccākatāti parājitā. Idampi sāvatthiyaṃ caṇḍakāḷiṃ ārabbha “chandagāminiyo ca bhikkhuniyo”tiādivacanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesaṃ dasame vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

In the eleventh, kismiñcideva adhikaraṇe means in any one of the four legal issues. Paccākatā means defeated. This too was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Caṇḍakāḷī in the matter of statements like “The nuns follow their desires,” and the rest should be understood as explained in the tenth.

In the eleventh, kismiñcideva adhikaraṇe means “in any one of the four [types of legal cases]”. Paccākatāti means “defeated”. This too was formulated in Sāvatthī concerning Caṇḍakāḷī, in the case of the statement beginning, “The bhikkhunīs are taking sides”. The rest should be understood in the same way as stated in the tenth.

In the eleventh rule, “in some dispute” refers to any one of the four kinds of disputes. “Defeated” means being overcome. This rule was also laid down in Sāvatthī regarding Caṇḍakāḷī in a case where she said, “The bhikkhunīs who follow their desires,” etc. The rest should be understood in the same way as explained in the tenth rule.

The explanation of the training rule on being angry in a legal case is finished.

12. Pāpasamācārapaṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

12. Commentary on the First Pāpasamācāra Training Rule

12. The Explanation of the First Training Rule on Evil Conduct

12. Exposition of the First Training Rule on Misconduct

Dvādasame saṃsaṭṭhāti pabbajitānaṃ ananulomena gihīnaṃ koṭṭanapacanasāsanaharaṇādinā kāyikavācasikena missībhūtā. Pāpo kāyikavācasiko ācāro etāsanti pāpācārā. Pāpo kittisaddo etāsanti pāpasaddā. Pāpo ājīvasaṅkhāto siloko etāsanti pāpasilokā . Bhikkhunisaṅghassa vihesikāti aññamaññissā kamme kariyamāne paṭikkosanena vihesikā. Vajjappaṭicchādikāti khuddānukhuddakassa vajjassa paṭicchādikā.

In the twelfth, saṃsaṭṭhā means mixed with laypeople in a way unsuitable for renunciants, through physical and verbal actions like grinding, cooking, delivering messages, and carrying things. They have evil physical and verbal conduct, thus pāpācārā. They have an evil reputation, thus pāpasaddā. They have an evil livelihood reckoned as fame, thus pāpasilokā. Bhikkhunisaṅghassa vihesikā means they harass the nuns’ Sangha by objecting when actions are being performed mutually. Vajjappaṭicchādikā means they conceal minor and lesser faults.

In the twelfth, saṃsaṭṭhāti means “mingled,” through physical and verbal association with householders in ways inappropriate for renunciants, such as pounding [grain], cooking, and carrying messages. Those whose physical and verbal conduct is evil are pāpācārā. Those whose reputation is evil are pāpasaddā. Those whose verse, referring to livelihood, is evil are pāpasilokā. Bhikkhunisaṅghassa vihesikāti means “troublesome,” by protesting when something is being done for another. Vajjappaṭicchādikāti means “covering up minor offenses”.

In the twelfth rule, “associated” means being mixed with laypeople in ways inappropriate for renunciants, such as cooking, serving, or carrying messages, through bodily or verbal actions. “Misconduct” refers to improper bodily or verbal behavior. “Evil reputation” means having a bad reputation. “Evil livelihood” refers to earning a living in a wrong way. “Troubling the bhikkhunī Saṅgha” means causing trouble by opposing each other’s actions. “Concealing faults” means hiding minor faults.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha saṃsaṭṭhavihāravatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesametthāpi dasame vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ, samanubhāsanakammakāle pana dvetisso ekato samanubhāsitabbāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning several nuns, this was laid down in the matter of living mixed together. The rest here too should be understood as explained in the tenth. However, at the time of formal admonition, two or three nuns may be admonished together.

This was formulated in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs, in the case of living in association. The rest here too should be understood in the same way as stated in the tenth. But at the time of the formal act of inquiry, two or three should be questioned together.

This rule was laid down in Sāvatthī regarding several bhikkhunīs in a case of living in association. The rest should be understood in the same way as explained in the tenth rule. However, during the act of formal censure, two or three should be censured together.

13. Pāpasamācāradutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

13. Commentary on the Second Pāpasamācāra Training Rule

13. The Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Evil Conduct

13. Exposition of the Second Training Rule on Misconduct

Terasame evaṃ vadeyyāti tā samanubhaṭṭhā bhikkhuniyo evaṃ vadeyya. Evācārāti evaṃācārā, yādiso tumhākaṃ ācāro, tādiso ācāroti attho, esa nayo sabbattha. Uññāyāti avaññāya nīcaṃ katvā jānanāya. Paribhavenāti “kiṃ imā karissantī”ti evaṃ paribhavitvā jānanena. Akkhantiyāti asahanatāya, kodhenāti attho. Vebhassiyāti balavantassa bhāvena, attano balappakāsanena samutrāsenāti attho. Dubbalyāti tumhākaṃ dubbalabhāvena, sabbattha uññāya ca paribhavena cāti evaṃ samuccayattho daṭṭhabbo. Viviccathāti nānā hotha, ananulomikaṃ kāyikavācasikasaṃsaggaṃ pajahathāti attho.

In the thirteenth, evaṃ vadeyya means those admonished nuns might say thus. Evācārā means “having such conduct,” meaning “Your conduct is like ours”; this applies throughout. Uññāya means with contempt, belittling, knowingly. Paribhavenā means with disdain, knowingly saying, “What will they do?” Akkhantiyā means with intolerance, meaning with anger. Vebhassiyā means with a forceful demeanor, meaning intimidating by displaying one’s own strength. Dubbalyā means due to your weakness. In all cases, the combined meaning of contempt and disdain should be noted. Viviccatha means “Be separate,” meaning abandon unsuitable physical and verbal association.

In the thirteenth, evaṃ vadeyyāti means “those questioned bhikkhunīs might say thus”. Evācārāti means “of such conduct” – meaning, “The same conduct as your conduct.” This method [of interpretation] applies everywhere. Uññāyāti means “with disdain,” knowing with belittlement. Paribhavenāti means “with contempt,” knowing with contempt, thinking, “What can these do?”. Akkhantiyāti means “with intolerance,” meaning “with anger.” Vebhassiyāti means “with the nature of the strong,” meaning “with intimidation by displaying one’s own strength.” Dubbalyāti means “with your weakness”; everywhere the meaning of the combination should be understood as “with disdain and with contempt”. Viviccathāti means “become separate,” meaning “abandon inappropriate physical and verbal association.”

In the thirteenth rule, “she would say thus” means those bhikkhunīs who have been formally censured would say thus. “Such behavior” means behavior like theirs, i.e., similar to your behavior. This is the method everywhere. “Disrespect” means looking down on them. “Contempt” means thinking, “What can they do?” “Intolerance” means inability to endure, i.e., anger. “Hostility” means showing one’s strength to intimidate. “Weakness” means your weakness. Everywhere, the meaning of disrespect and contempt should be understood as combined. “Separate” means be apart, i.e., give up inappropriate bodily and verbal association.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha “saṃsaṭṭhāva, ayye, tumhe viharatha, mā tumhe nānā viharitthā”ti uyyojanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesametthāpi dasame vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, this was laid down in the matter of urging, “Live mixed together, noble ladies, do not live separately.” The rest here too should be understood as explained in the tenth.

This was formulated in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of encouraging [others], saying, “Venerables, live in association, do not live separately.” The rest here too should be understood in the same way as stated in the tenth.

This rule was laid down in Sāvatthī regarding Thullanandā in a case where she said, “Stay associated, venerables, do not live separately.” The rest should be understood in the same way as explained in the tenth rule.

14. Saṅghabhedakādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

14. Commentary on the Saṅghabheda and Related Training Rules

14. The Explanation of the Training Rules on Schism, etc.

14. Exposition of the Training Rules on Schism, etc.

Saṅghabhedādīsu catūsu vuttanayeneva vinicchayo veditabbo. Kevalañhi bhikkhunī saṅghaṃ na bhindati, bhedāya pana parakkamati ceva anuvattati ca. Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo sattarasa saṅghādisesā dhammāti bhikkhū ārabbha paññattā sādhāraṇā satta, asādhāraṇā dasāti evaṃ sattarasa. Ubhatosaṅghe pakkhamānattaṃ caritabbanti bhikkhuniyā hi āpattiṃ chādentiyāpi parivāso nāma natthi, chādanapaccayāpi na dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, tasmā chādetvāpi achādetvāpi ekaṃ pakkhamānattameva caritabbaṃ. Taṃ bhikkhunīhi attano sīmaṃ sodhetvā vihārasīmāya vā, sodhetuṃ asakkontīhi khaṇḍasīmāya vā sabbantimena paricchedena catuvaggaṃ gaṇaṃ sannipātāpetvā dātabbaṃ. Sace ekā āpatti hoti, ekissā vasena, sace dve vā tisso vā sambahulā vā ekavatthukā vā nānāvatthukā vā, tāsaṃ tāsaṃ vasena bhikkhupātimokkhavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttavatthugottanāmaāpattibhedesu yaṃ yaṃ icchati, taṃ taṃ ādāya yojanā kātabbā.

The judgment for the four rules beginning with Saṅghabheda should be understood as previously explained. However, a nun does not split the Sangha but strives for and follows a split. Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo sattarasa saṅghādisesā dhammā—seventeen saṅghādisesa rules were laid down concerning monks: seven common and ten uncommon. Ubhatosaṅghe pakkhamānattaṃ caritabba—for a nun, even if she conceals an offense, there is no parivāsa; she does not incur a dukkaṭa offense for concealing either. Thus, whether concealing or not, she must observe only a half-month mānatta. This should be granted by the nuns after purifying their own boundary, either in the monastery boundary or, if unable to purify it, in a partial boundary, assembling a group of at least four as the minimum limit. If there is one offense, it is according to that one; if there are two, three, or many, whether of the same basis or different bases, she may take up and apply whichever she wishes from the offenses, bases, clans, and distinctions as explained in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha commentary.

In the four [rules] beginning with schism, the determination should be understood in the same way as already stated. However, a bhikkhunī does not [actually] split the Saṅgha, but she strives for a schism and supports it. Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo sattarasa saṅghādisesā dhammāti means “Seventeen saṅghādisesa principles have been recited, venerables” – seven formulated concerning bhikkhus, which are common [to both], and ten which are not common. Ubhatosaṅghe pakkhamānattaṃ caritabbanti means, “For a bhikkhunī, even if she conceals an offense, there is no parivāsa (probation). Even because of concealing, she does not incur a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing). Therefore, whether concealing or not concealing, only the pakkhamānatta (period of penance) is to be observed. This should be given by the bhikkhunīs after purifying their own boundary, or within the monastery boundary; if they are unable to purify it, within a limited boundary, with a group of at least four, as the smallest limit, having been assembled. If there is one offense, [it is done] on account of that one; if there are two, three, or many, whether of the same case or of different cases, taking whichever of the distinctions of case, origin, name, and offense mentioned in the explanation of the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha one wishes, the application should be made on account of each of them.

In the four cases of schism, etc., the determination should be understood in the same way as previously explained. For a bhikkhunī does not cause schism in the Saṅgha, but she may strive for schism and follow it. “Venerables, these seventeen Saṅghādisesa rules have been recited” refers to the rules laid down for bhikkhus, seven of which are common, and ten are specific. “Both Saṅghas should be treated with partiality” means that even if a bhikkhunī conceals her offense, there is no probation for her, nor does she commit a dukkaṭa offense for concealing. Therefore, whether she conceals or not, she should only undergo partiality. The bhikkhunīs should purify their own boundary or the monastery boundary, or if they cannot purify it, they should gather a group of four in a fragmented boundary and give it. If one offense is committed, it is for one; if two, three, or many offenses are committed, whether of the same kind or different kinds, the determination should be made according to the method explained in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha exposition, selecting whichever is appropriate.

Tatridaṃ paṭhamāpattivasena mukhamattanidassanaṃ – tāya āpannāya bhikkhuniyā bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ upasaṅkamitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā vuḍḍhānaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ pāde vanditvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassavacanīyo “ahaṃ, ayye, ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjiṃ ussayavādaṃ, sāhaṃ, ayye, saṅghaṃ ekissā āpattiyā ussayavādāya pakkhamānattaṃ yācāmī”ti, evaṃ tikkhattuṃ yācāpetvā byattāya bhikkhuniyā paṭibalāya saṅgho ñāpetabbo –

Here is a brief example based on the first offense: The nun who has committed the offense should approach the nuns’ Sangha, arrange her upper robe over one shoulder, pay homage at the feet of the senior nuns, sit in a squatting position, raise her hands in salutation, and say, “I, noble ladies, have committed one offense of contentious speech. I, noble ladies, request the Sangha for a half-month mānatta for this one offense of contentious speech.” She should be made to request this three times, and a competent and capable nun should inform the Sangha:

Here is an example of the procedure for the first offense: That bhikkhunī who has committed the offense, having approached the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, having arranged her upper robe over one shoulder, having paid homage to the feet of the senior bhikkhunīs, having sat down on her heels, having raised her joined hands, should be addressed thus: “I, venerable, have committed one offense, ussayavāda (speaking incitement). I, venerable, request from the Saṅgha the pakkhamānatta for one offense, ussayavāda.” Having been made to request thus three times, the Saṅgha should be informed by a wise and competent bhikkhunī:

Here, the preliminary declaration for the first offense is as follows: The bhikkhunī who has committed the offense should approach the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, arrange her upper robe over one shoulder, pay respect to the feet of the senior bhikkhunīs, sit on her heels, raise her joined palms, and say: “Venerables, I have committed one offense of slander. I ask the Saṅgha for partiality for one offense of slander.” After requesting three times, a competent bhikkhunī should announce to the Saṅgha:

“Suṇātu me, ayye, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmā bhikkhunī ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjiṃ ussayavādaṃ, sā saṅghaṃ ekissā āpattiyā ussayavādāya pakkhamānattaṃ yācati, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho itthannāmāya bhikkhuniyā ekissā āpattiyā ussayavādāya pakkhamānattaṃ dadeyya, esā ñatti.

“Listen to me, noble ladies, the Sangha. This nun named so-and-so has committed one offense of contentious speech. She requests the Sangha for a half-month mānatta for this one offense of contentious speech. If it is suitable for the Sangha, let the Sangha grant this nun named so-and-so a half-month mānatta for this one offense of contentious speech. This is the motion.

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable, hear me. This bhikkhunī named so-and-so has committed one offense, ussayavāda. She requests from the Saṅgha the pakkhamānatta for one offense, ussayavāda. If it is convenient for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha may give the pakkhamānatta for one offense, ussayavāda, to the bhikkhunī named so-and-so. This is the announcement.

“Venerables, may the Saṅgha listen. This bhikkhunī named so-and-so has committed one offense of slander. She asks the Saṅgha for partiality for one offense of slander. If it seems appropriate to the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha may grant partiality to the bhikkhunī named so-and-so for one offense of slander. This is the motion.

“Suṇātu me, ayye, saṅgho, ayaṃ itthannāmā bhikkhunī…pe… dutiyampi…pe… tatiyampi etamatthaṃ vadāmi, suṇātu me, ayye, saṅgho…pe… sā bhāseyya. Dinnaṃ saṅghena itthannāmāya bhikkhuniyā ekissā āpattiyā ussayavādāya pakkhamānattaṃ. Khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī, evametaṃ dhārayāmī”ti.

“Listen to me, noble ladies, the Sangha. This nun named so-and-so… [repeat as above] … I say this for the second time… for the third time… Listen to me, noble ladies, the Sangha… She should say: The Sangha has granted this nun named so-and-so a half-month mānatta for this one offense of contentious speech. It is acceptable to the Sangha, therefore it is silent, and I hold it as such.”

“Let the Saṅgha, venerable, hear me. This bhikkhunī named so-and-so… (repeat)… For the second time… (repeat)… For the third time, I say this matter. Let the Saṅgha, venerable, hear me… (repeat)… She should speak. The pakkhamānatta for one offense, ussayavāda, has been given by the Saṅgha to the bhikkhunī named so-and-so. It is pleasing to the Saṅgha; therefore it is silent. Thus I understand this.”

“Venerables, may the Saṅgha listen. This bhikkhunī named so-and-so… (as above)… For the second time… For the third time, I speak on this matter. Venerables, may the Saṅgha listen… (as above)… She may speak. The Saṅgha has granted partiality to the bhikkhunī named so-and-so for one offense of slander. The Saṅgha approves, therefore it is silent. Thus, I declare it.”

Kammavācāpariyosāne “vattaṃ samādiyāmi, mānattaṃ samādiyāmī”ti samādiyitvā saṅghassa ārocetvā nikkhittavattena tāva vasitukāmāya tattheva saṅghamajjhe vā pakkantāsu bhikkhunīsu ekabhikkhuniyā vā dutiyikāya vā santike “vattaṃ nikkhipāmi, mānattaṃ nikkhipāmī”ti nikkhipitabbaṃ. Aññissā pana āgantukāya santike ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ, nikkhittakālato paṭṭhāya pakatattaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati, tato purearuṇeyeva catūhi bhikkhunīhi taṃ bhikkhuniṃ gahetvā gāmūpacārato ca bhikkhūnaṃ vihārūpacārato ca dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā mahāmaggā okkamma gumbavatiādīhi paṭicchanne okāse nisīditabbaṃ. Catūhi bhikkhūhipi tattha gantabbaṃ, gantvā bhikkhunīnaṃ avidūre visuṃ nisīditabbaṃ. Atha tāya bhikkhuniyā vuttanayeneva vattaṃ samādiyitvā bhikkhunisaṅghassa tāva evaṃ ārocetabbaṃ –

At the conclusion of the formal act, she should undertake, “I undertake the duties, I undertake the mānatta,” inform the Sangha, and if she wishes to dwell with the duties set aside for now, she should set them aside either in the midst of the Sangha, or after the nuns have departed, in the presence of one nun or a second companion, saying, “I set aside the duties, I set aside the mānatta.” Alternatively, it should be announced and set aside in the presence of another visiting nun. From the time it is set aside, she stands in the status of a regular nun. Then, before dawn, four nuns should take her beyond two stone-throws from the village vicinity and the monks’ monastery vicinity, off the main road, and sit in a secluded spot hidden by bushes or the like. Four monks should also go there and sit separately, not far from the nuns. Then, having undertaken the duties as described, she should first inform the nuns’ Sangha thus:

At the conclusion of the formal act, having undertaken [the practice], saying, “I undertake the practice, I undertake the mānatta,” if she wishes to remain for the time being with the practice suspended, either in the midst of the Saṅgha there, or, if the bhikkhunīs have departed, in the presence of one or two bhikkhunīs, she should suspend [it], saying, “I suspend the practice, I suspend the mānatta.” But in the presence of another newcomer, she should announce it and suspend it. From the time of suspension, she stands in the position of a pakatatta (one of regular status). Then, before dawn, four bhikkhunīs should take that bhikkhunī, and going beyond two stone-throws from the village boundary and the monastery boundary of the bhikkhus, should sit down in a secluded place with thickets and such. Four bhikkhus should also go there, and having gone, should sit down separately, not far from the bhikkhunīs. Then, that bhikkhunī, having undertaken the practice in the same way as stated, should first announce to the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha thus:

At the end of the formal act, she should undertake the observance and partiality, inform the Saṅgha, and then, if she wishes to stay, she should stay right there in the midst of the Saṅgha or after the bhikkhunīs have left, in the presence of one bhikkhunī or a companion, she should relinquish the observance and partiality. If another bhikkhunī arrives, she should inform her and relinquish it. From the time of relinquishment, she stands in the state of purity. Before dawn, she should take four bhikkhunīs and go beyond two stone-throws from the village and the monastery, and sit in a secluded place. Four bhikkhus should also go there and sit separately, not far from the bhikkhunīs. Then, that bhikkhunī should undertake the observance as before and inform the bhikkhunī Saṅgha:

“Ahaṃ, ayye, ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjiṃ ussayavādaṃ, sāhaṃ saṅghaṃ ekissā āpattiyā ussayavādāya pakkhamānattaṃ yāciṃ, tassā me saṅgho ekissā āpattiyā ussayavādāya pakkhamānattaṃ adāsi, sāhaṃ mānattaṃ carāmi, vedayāmahaṃ, ayye, ’vedayatī’ti maṃ saṅgho dhāretū”ti.

“I, noble ladies, have committed one offense of contentious speech. I requested the Sangha for a half-month mānatta for this one offense of contentious speech, and the Sangha granted me a half-month mānatta for this one offense of contentious speech. I am observing the mānatta. I declare, noble ladies, and may the Sangha hold me as ‘declaring.’”

“I, venerable, have committed one offense, ussayavāda. I requested from the Saṅgha the pakkhamānatta for one offense, ussayavāda. The Saṅgha gave me the pakkhamānatta for one offense, ussayavāda. I am observing the mānatta. I inform you, venerable. May the Saṅgha consider me as ‘informing’.”

“Venerables, I have committed one offense of slander. I asked the Saṅgha for partiality for one offense of slander. The Saṅgha granted me partiality for one offense of slander. I am undergoing partiality. Venerables, I declare that I am undergoing partiality. May the Saṅgha remember me.”

Tato bhikkhusaṅghassa santikaṃ gantvā evaṃ ārocetabbaṃ “ahaṃ, ayyā, ekaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjiṃ…pe… vedayāmahaṃ, ayyā, ’vedayatī’ti maṃ saṅgho dhāretū”ti. Ārocetvā bhikkhunisaṅghasseva santike nisīditabbaṃ, tato paṭṭhāya bhikkhūsu vā, dutiyikaṃ ṭhapetvā bhikkhunīsu vā pakkantāsupi ubhatosaṅghe mānattaṃ ciṇṇameva hoti. Yāva aruṇaṃ na uṭṭhahati, tāva yaṃ paṭhamaṃ passati bhikkhuṃ vā bhikkhuniṃ vā, tassā ārocetabbaṃ. Uṭṭhite aruṇe vattaṃ nikkhipitvā upassayaṃ gantabbaṃ, evaṃ pañcadasa aruṇā gahetabbā.

Then, going to the monks’ Sangha, she should inform them, “I, venerable sirs, have committed one offense… [as above] … I declare, venerable sirs, and may the Sangha hold me as ‘declaring.’” After informing them, she should sit in the presence of the nuns’ Sangha. From then on, whether the monks depart or, aside from a second companion, the nuns depart, the mānatta is considered fulfilled in both Sanghas. Until dawn rises, she should inform the first monk or nun she sees. When dawn rises, she should set aside the duties and go to the nunnery. Thus, fifteen dawns should be observed.

Then, having gone to the presence of the Bhikkhu Saṅgha, she should announce thus: “I, venerables, have committed one offense… (repeat)… I inform you, venerables. May the Saṅgha consider me as ‘informing’.” Having announced, she should sit down in the presence of the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha. From then on, whether among the bhikkhus, or among the bhikkhunīs after leaving a companion, the mānatta has been observed in both Saṅghas. As long as dawn does not rise, whichever bhikkhu or bhikkhunī she sees first, she should announce it to them. When dawn has risen, she should suspend the practice and go to the residence. Thus, fifteen dawns should be taken.

Then, she should go to the bhikkhu Saṅgha and declare: “Venerables, I have committed one offense… (as above)… I declare that I am undergoing partiality. May the Saṅgha remember me.” After declaring, she should sit in the presence of the bhikkhunī Saṅgha. From then on, whether the bhikkhus or the bhikkhunīs leave, partiality is considered completed in both Saṅghas. Until dawn, she should inform the first bhikkhu or bhikkhunī she sees. After dawn, she should relinquish the observance and go to her dwelling. Thus, fifteen dawns should be observed.

Anikkhittavattāya pana āgantukesu asati catunnaṃ bhikkhūnañca bhikkhunīnañca devasikaṃ ārocetvā, āgantukesu sati sabbesampi āgantukānaṃ ārocentiyā pañcadasa divasāni pārivāsikakkhandhake (cūḷava. 75 ādayo) vuttanayeneva sammā vattitabbanti ayamettha saṅkhepo, vitthāro pana samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75 ādayo) vutto, ciṇṇamānattāya bhikkhuniyāti yadā evaṃ ciṇṇamānattā bhikkhunī hoti, athassā yattha siyā vīsatigaṇo bhikkhunisaṅghoti vuttanayeneva abbhānakammaṃ kātabbaṃ, sesaṃ uttānamevāti.

If the duties are not set aside and there are no visitors, she should inform the four monks and nuns daily; if there are visitors, she should inform all the visitors as well, observing the fifteen days properly as explained in the Pārivāsikakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 75 and following). This is the summary here; the details are stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75 and following). Ciṇṇamānattāya bhikkhuniyā—when a nun has thus fulfilled the mānatta, then yattha siyā vīsatigaṇo bhikkhunisaṅgho—the rehabilitation should be performed as explained, and the rest is as above.

But for one who has not suspended the practice, in the absence of newcomers, she should announce it daily to four bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs. In the presence of newcomers, she should announce it to all the newcomers, observing the practice properly for fifteen days, in the same way as stated in the Pārivāsikakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 75 ff.). This is the summary here; but the detailed explanation is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 75 ff.). Ciṇṇamānattāya bhikkhuniyāti means “When a bhikkhunī has thus observed the mānatta”, then for her, yattha siyā vīsatigaṇo bhikkhunisaṅghoti means “where there is a Bhikkhunī Saṅgha of twenty,” the act of rehabilitation should be performed in the same way as stated. The rest is clear.

If she has not relinquished the observance and there are no newcomers, she should inform four bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs daily. If there are newcomers, she should inform all of them. The fifteen days should be observed correctly as explained in the Pārivāsika Khandhaka (Cūḷavagga 75, etc.). This is the summary here. The detailed explanation is given in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 75, etc.). “For a bhikkhunī who has completed partiality” means when a bhikkhunī has completed partiality in this way, then “where there is a bhikkhunī Saṅgha of twenty”, the rehabilitation should be performed according to the method explained. The rest is clear.

Nissaggiyakaṇḍo

Nissaggiya Section

The Nissaggiya Section

Nissaggiya Kaṇḍa

1. Pattasannicayasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Pattasannicaya Training Rule

1. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Accumulating Bowls

1. Exposition of the Training Rule on Accumulating Bowls

Nissaggiyesu ādivaggassa tāva paṭhame pattasannicayaṃ kareyyāti pattasannidhiṃ kareyya, ekāhaṃ anadhiṭṭhahitvā vā avikappetvā vā adhiṭṭhānupagaṃ pattaṃ ṭhapeyyāti attho.

Among the nissaggiya rules, in the first of the initial group, pattasannicayaṃ kareyya means she might hoard bowls, meaning she might keep a bowl unfit for determination without determining or assigning it for a single day.

In the nissaggiyas (offenses requiring forfeiture), first, in the first group, pattasannicayaṃ kareyyāti means “should make an accumulation of bowls,” meaning, “should keep a bowl beyond the period for determining, without having determined it or having had it formally assigned.”

In the first rule of the Nissaggiya section, “she should accumulate bowls” means she should store bowls, keeping a bowl for more than a day without determining it or without making it allowable. The meaning is that she should keep a bowl that is ready for determination.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha pattasannicayavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesakathāmaggo bhikkhupātimokkhavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbo, tatra hi dasāhātikkame āpatti, idha ekāhātikkameti ettakameva tassa ca imassa ca nānākaraṇaṃ, sesaṃ tādisamevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six nuns, this was laid down in the matter of hoarding bowls. The rest of the explanation should be understood as explained in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha commentary. There, the offense occurs after ten days; here, it occurs after one day. This is the only difference between the two; the rest is similar.

This was formulated in Sāvatthī concerning the group-of-six bhikkhunīs, in the case of accumulating bowls. The course of the explanation should be understood in the same way as stated in the explanation of the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha. There, the offense [occurs] upon exceeding ten days; here, upon exceeding one day – this alone is the difference between that and this. The rest is the same.

This rule was laid down in Sāvatthī regarding the six bhikkhunīs in a case of accumulating bowls. The rest of the discussion should be understood in the same way as explained in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha exposition. There, the offense is for exceeding ten days, but here it is for exceeding one day. This is the only difference between that rule and this one. The rest is the same.

2. Akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Akālacīvara Training Rule

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Out-of-Season Robes

2. Exposition of the Training Rule on Out-of-Season Robes

Dutiye akālacīvaranti atthate kathine kathinamāsehi, anatthate cīvaramāsato aññasmiṃ kāle uppannaṃ, yaṃ vā pana kālepi ādissa dinnaṃ. Ādissa dinnaṃ nāma “sampattā bhājentū”ti vatvā vā, “idaṃ gaṇassa, idaṃ tumhākaṃ dammī”ti vatvā vā, dātukāmatāya pādamūle ṭhapetvā vā dinnaṃ. Iccetaṃ akālacīvaraṃ “kālacīvara”nti adhiṭṭhahitvā bhājāpentiyā payoge dukkaṭaṃ, yaṃ attanā laddhaṃ, taṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Nissaṭṭhaṃ paṭilabhitvāpi yathādāneyeva upanetabbaṃ, aññasmimpi evarūpe sikkhāpade eseva nayo.

In the second, akālacīvara means a robe arising at a time other than when the Kathina is spread—outside the Kathina months—or, when the Kathina is not spread, outside the robe month, or even one given with a designation at the proper time. Ādissa dinnaṃ means given by saying, “Let those present divide it,” or “I give this to the group, I give this to you,” or placed at the feet out of a desire to give. Determining such an akālacīvara as “kālacīvara” and causing it to be divided incurs a dukkaṭa offense for the effort; what she herself obtains is nissaggiya. Even after relinquishing and regaining it, it must be offered back as it was received. This method applies to other similar training rules as well.

In the second, akālacīvaranti means “out-of-season robe” – when the kaṭhina has been spread, during the kaṭhina months; when it has not been spread, at a time other than the robe month; or, even during the [proper] time, what has been given with a specification. Ādissa dinnaṃ nāma, “Given with a specification,” means given saying, “Let them divide it when it has arrived,” or saying, “This is for the group, I give this to you,” or placing it at the feet with the intention of giving. This out-of-season robe, determining it as “an in-season robe,” incurs a dukkaṭa in the effort for the one causing it to be divided; whatever is obtained by oneself becomes nissaggiya. Having forfeited it and received it back, it should be brought up in the same way as the original giving. In other training rules of this kind, this same method [applies].

In the second rule, “out-of-season robe” refers to a robe obtained outside the robe season, i.e., after the robe season or outside the robe month. “Given after being asked” means given after being asked, “When you obtain it, share it,” or “This is for the group, this is for you,” or given with the intention to give, placed at the feet. This is called an out-of-season robe. If she determines it as an in-season robe and shares it, it is a dukkaṭa offense. What she has obtained herself becomes nissaggiya. After relinquishing it, even if she receives it back, she should use it as before. The same method applies in other similar rules.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha akālacīvaraṃ “kālacīvara”nti adhiṭṭhahitvā bhājanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, akālacīvare vematikāya, kālacīvare akālacīvarasaññāya ceva vematikāya ca dukkaṭaṃ. Ubhosu kālacīvarasaññāya, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Akālacīvaratā, tathāsaññitā, “kālacīvara”nti adhiṭṭhāya lesena bhājāpanaṃ, paṭilābhoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisānīti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, this was laid down in the matter of determining an akālacīvara as “kālacīvara” and dividing it. For one uncertain about an akālacīvara, or who perceives a kālacīvara as an akālacīvara or is uncertain, there is a dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense for one who perceives both as kālacīvara, or for those who are insane and the like. The four factors here are: being an akālacīvara, perceiving it as such, determining it as “kālacīvara” with a pretext and causing it to be divided, and obtaining it. Its origin and the rest are similar to taking what is not given.

This was formulated in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of determining an out-of-season robe as “an in-season robe” and causing it to be divided. With doubt about an out-of-season robe, and with the perception of an out-of-season robe as in-season, and with doubt about an in-season robe, there is a dukkaṭa. With the perception of in-season for both, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The state of being out-of-season, the perception of it as such, causing it to be divided by a trick, determining it as “an in-season robe,” and the obtaining – these are the four factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to [the rule on] taking what is not given.

This rule was laid down in Sāvatthī regarding Thullanandā in a case where she determined an out-of-season robe as an in-season robe and shared it. For doubt about an out-of-season robe, or for perceiving an in-season robe as out-of-season, or for doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For both, if she perceives it as an in-season robe, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are: the robe being out-of-season, her perception of it as such, determining it as an in-season robe, and sharing it. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing.

3. Cīvaraparivattanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Cīvaraparivattana Training Rule

3. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Exchanging Robes

3. Exposition of the Training Rule on Exchanging Robes

Tatiye handāti gaṇha. Acchindeyyāti sayaṃ acchindantiyā bandhitvā ṭhapitesu bahūsupi ekāpatti, itaresu vatthugaṇanāya āpattiyo. Acchindāpane pana ekāya āṇattiyā bahūsu acchinnesupi ekāvāpatti.

In the third, handā means “take.” Acchindeyya means if she herself takes it, even if many are bound and set aside, there is one offense; in other cases, offenses are reckoned by the number of items. Causing it to be taken, however, incurs only one offense even if many are taken with a single command.

In the third, handāti means “take”. Acchindeyyāti means “should take by force.” For the one taking by force herself, even if there are many [robes] tied and kept, there is one offense; for the others, offenses according to the number of cloths. But in causing [another] to take by force, even if many are taken by force with one command, there is only one offense.

In the third rule, “here” means take. “She should take by force” means if she herself takes by force, even if many are tied up, it is one offense. For others, the offenses are counted according to the number of items. If she orders others to take by force, even if many are taken, it is one offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha cīvaraṃ parivattetvā acchindanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, aññasmiṃ parikkhāre tikadukkaṭaṃ, anupasampannāya cīvarepi tikadukkaṭameva. Yā pana tāya vā diyyamānaṃ, tassā vā vissāsaṃ gaṇhāti, tassā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannatā, parivattitacīvarassa vikappanupagatā, sakasaññāya acchindanaṃ vā acchindāpanaṃ vāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, this was laid down in the matter of exchanging and taking a robe. It requires instruction, incurs a pācittiya offense three times, and a triple dukkaṭa offense for another requisite; for an unordained person’s robe, it is also only a triple dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense for what is being given by her or taken in trust by her, or for those who are insane and the like. The three factors here are: being ordained, the exchanged robe being unfit for assignment, and taking or causing it to be taken with the perception of ownership. Its origin and the rest are similar to taking what is not given, but this involves painful feeling.

This was formulated in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of exchanging a robe and taking it by force. It is with intention, a pācittiya with three [factors]; for another requisite, a dukkaṭa with three [factors]; even for a robe of one not fully ordained, it is a dukkaṭa with three [factors]. But for one who receives what is given by her, or who accepts trust from her, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Full ordination, the state of not being formally assigned for the exchanged robe, and taking it by force or causing it to be taken by force with the perception of it as one’s own – these are the three factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to [the rule on] taking what is not given. But this is of painful feeling.

This rule was laid down in Sāvatthī regarding Thullanandā in a case where she exchanged a robe and took it by force. For hemp cloth, it is a tikapācittiya offense. For other requisites, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. For a robe of an unordained person, it is also a tikadukkaṭa offense. However, if she gives it to her or gains her trust, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: being ordained, the exchanged robe being allowable, and her perception of it as her own, and taking it by force or ordering others to take it by force. The origins, etc., are similar to those of stealing, but this is painful.

4. Aññaviññāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Aññaviññāpana Training Rule

4. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Requesting Something Else

4. Exposition of the Training Rule on Asking for Something Different

Catutthe viññāpetvāti jānāpetvā, “idaṃ nāma āharā”ti yācitvā vā. Aññaṃ viññāpeyyāti yaṃ pubbe “kinte, ayye, aphāsu, kiṃ āhariyatū”ti vuttāya viññāpitaṃ, taṃ paṭikkhipitvā tañceva aññañca gahetukāmā tato aññaṃ viññāpeyya, tassā viññattiyā dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti.

In the fourth, viññāpetvā means making known, requesting, “Bring this.” Aññaṃ viññāpeyya means if, when asked, “What ails you, noble lady? What should be brought?” she requests something, then rejects it and, desiring to take that and something else, requests something different, there is a dukkaṭa offense for that request, and what is obtained is nissaggiya.

In the fourth, viññāpetvāti means “having made known,” or “having requested, saying, ‘Bring such-and-such’”. Aññaṃ viññāpeyyāti means “should request something else.” Having rejected what was previously requested when she was asked, “What is wrong, venerable? What should be brought?”, wishing to take that very thing and something else, she should request something else besides that. For her request, there is a dukkaṭa; with the obtaining, it becomes nissaggiya.

In the fourth rule, “having asked” means having informed, “Bring this.” “She should ask for something different” means if she previously asked, “What is inconvenient for you, venerable? What should be brought?” and then rejects what was asked for and asks for something else, wanting to take both, then for her asking, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Upon receiving it, it becomes nissaggiya.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha aññaṃ viññāpetvā aññaṃ viññāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anaññe dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Anaññe anaññasaññāya pana, tasmiṃ appahonte puna taññeva, aññenapi atthe sati tena saddhiṃ aññañca, yañca viññattaṃ, tato ce aññaṃ samagghataraṃ hoti, imaṃ ānisaṃsaṃ dassetvā suddhaṃ aññameva ca viññāpentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Lesena gahetukāmatā, aññassa viññāpanaṃ, paṭilābhoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni sañcarittasadisānīti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, this was laid down in the matter of requesting one thing and then requesting another. It incurs a pācittiya offense three times, and a double dukkaṭa offense for something not different. There is no offense for one who perceives it as not different, or who requests the same thing again when it is insufficient, or requests something else along with it when there is a need, or if what is requested turns out to be more complete than what was asked for, or who, showing this advantage, requests something entirely different purely, or for those who are insane and the like. The three factors here are: desiring to take it with a pretext, requesting something different, and obtaining it. Its origin and the rest are similar to the Sañcaritta rule.

This was formulated in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of requesting something else after having requested something. It is a pācittiya with three [factors]; for something not different, a dukkaṭa with two [factors]. But with the perception of something not different as not different, for one bringing up what is left over, for one requesting again only that very thing when it is insufficient, and for one requesting something else along with that when there is a need for something else, and for one requesting purely something else, showing this advantage, if what was requested is of greater value than something else – for these, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The desire to obtain by a trick, the requesting of something else, and the obtaining – these are the three factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to [the rule on] acting as a go-between.

This rule was laid down in Sāvatthī regarding Thullanandā in a case where she asked for something different after having asked for something else. For asking for something different, it is a tikapācittiya offense. For not asking for something different, it is a dvikadukkaṭa offense. For not asking for something different but perceiving it as different, or if the other does not agree, then asking for the same thing again, or if there is a need for something else along with what was asked for, and if something else is more beneficial, then after showing this benefit, she may ask for something else purely. For the insane, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: the intention to take lightly, asking for something different, and receiving it. The origins, etc., are similar to those of association.

The exposition of the training rule on asking for something different is concluded.

5. Aññacetāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Aññacetāpana Training Rule

5. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Exchanging for Something Else

5. Exposition of the Training Rule on Diverting Something Else

Pañcame aññaṃ cetāpetvāti attano kappiyabhaṇḍena “idaṃ nāma āharā”ti aññaṃ parivattāpetvā. Aññaṃ cetāpeyyāti “evaṃ me idaṃ datvā aññampi āharissatī”ti maññamānā “na me iminā attho, idaṃ nāma me āharā”ti tato aññaṃ cetāpeyya. Tassā cetāpanappayoge dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena tena vā aññena vā mūlena āhaṭaṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti, sesaṃ catutthasadisamevāti.

In the fifth, aññaṃ cetāpetvā means exchanging something permissible of her own, saying, “Bring this.” Aññaṃ cetāpeyya means thinking, “If she gives me this, she will bring something else too,” and saying, “I don’t need this, bring me that instead,” thus exchanging for something different. There is a dukkaṭa offense for that effort of exchange, and what is obtained—whether with that or another value—is nissaggiya. The rest is similar to the fourth.

In the fifth, aññaṃ cetāpetvāti means “having exchanged for something else,” saying, “Bring such-and-such,” with one’s own allowable goods. Aññaṃ cetāpeyyāti means “should exchange for something else.” Thinking, “Having given me this, she will also bring something else,” she might say, “I have no need of this, bring me such-and-such,” and exchange for something else besides that. For her effort of exchanging, there is a dukkaṭa; with the obtaining, what has been brought, either with that or with another price, becomes nissaggiya. The rest is similar to the fourth.

In the fifth, aññaṃ cetāpetvā means exchanging something else after having it replaced by one’s own allowable goods, saying, “Bring this instead.” Aññaṃ cetāpeyyā means thinking, “After giving this to me, they will bring something else,” and then, believing, “I have no need for this; bring me this instead,” one requests something else. For her, the act of requesting entails a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). Upon acquisition, whether by that means or another, it becomes subject to forfeiture (nissaggiya). The rest is similar to the fourth case.

The explanation of the training rule on exchanging for something else is finished.

6. Paṭhamasaṅghikacetāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the First Saṅghikacetāpana Training Rule

6. The Explanation of the First Training Rule on Exchanging with Saṅgha Property

6. Explanation of the First Training Rule on Community-Designated Exchange

Chaṭṭhe aññadatthikenāti aññassatthāya dinnena. Aññuddisikenāti aññaṃ uddisitvā dinnena. Saṅghikenāti saṅghassa pariccattena. Parikkhārenāti kappiyabhaṇḍena. Aññaṃ cetāpeyyāti “idaṃ nāma paribhuñjeyyāthā”ti yaṃ uddisitvā niyametvā yo parikkhāro dinno, tato aññaṃ parivattāpeyya, tassā payoge dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ.

In the sixth, aññadatthikena means given for another’s purpose. Aññuddisikena means given with another designated. Saṅghikena means relinquished to the Sangha. Parikkhārena means with a permissible item. Aññaṃ cetāpeyya means she might exchange for something different from the item given with the designation and specification, “Use this,” incurring a dukkaṭa offense for the effort and a nissaggiya offense upon obtaining it.

In the sixth, aññadatthikenāti means “with what has been given for the sake of another”. Aññuddisikenāti means “with what has been given designating another”. Saṅghikenāti means “with what has been relinquished to the Saṅgha”. Parikkhārenāti means “with allowable goods”. Aññaṃ cetāpeyyāti means “should exchange for something else.” Whatever requisite has been given, designated and specified, saying, “You should use such-and-such,” she should exchange for something else besides that. For her effort, there is a dukkaṭa; with the obtaining, it becomes nissaggiya.

In the sixth, aññadatthikenā means given for the sake of another. Aññuddisikenā means given after designating it for another. Saṅghikenā means belonging to the Saṅgha. Parikkhārenā means allowable goods. Aññaṃ cetāpeyyā means exchanging something else after designating and specifying, “Use this for such and such purpose.” For her, the act entails a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa), and upon acquisition, it becomes subject to forfeiture (nissaggiya).

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha tādisena parikkhārena aññaṃ cetāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anaññadatthike dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ pana anaññadatthikasaññāya, sesakaṃ upanentiyā, “tumhehi etadatthāya dinno, amhākañca iminā nāma attho”ti sāmike apaloketvā upanentiyā, yadā bhikkhuniyo vihārampi chaḍḍetvā pakkamanti, evarūpāsu āpadāsu upanentīnaṃ, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sesaṃ catutthasadisamevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning several nuns, this was laid down in the matter of exchanging such an item for something different. It incurs a pācittiya offense three times, and a double dukkaṭa offense for something not intended for another. There is no offense for one who perceives it as not intended for another, or who offers the remainder, or who, after consulting the owners, saying, “It was given by you for this purpose, and we need this,” offers it, or when the nuns abandon the monastery and depart, or in such emergencies when offering it, or for those who are insane and the like. The rest is similar to the fourth.

This was formulated in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs, in the case of exchanging for something else with such a requisite. It is a pācittiya with three [factors]; for something not given for the sake of another, a dukkaṭa with two [factors]. But with the perception of it as not given for the sake of another, for one bringing up what is left over, for one bringing it up without informing the donors, saying, “This was given by you for that purpose, and we have need of such-and-such,” and when bhikkhunīs depart, even abandoning the monastery, for those bringing it up in such emergencies, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The rest is similar to the fourth.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning several bhikkhunīs who exchanged something else using such allowable goods. It entails three pācittiya offenses, two dukkaṭa offenses if not for the sake of another. However, if one perceives it as not for the sake of another, or if one brings it after informing the owner, saying, “This was given for your purpose, but we have a need for this,” or if bhikkhunīs abandon the monastery and leave, or in cases of insanity, etc., there is no offense. The rest is similar to the fourth case.

The explanation of the first training rule on exchanging with Saṅgha property is finished.

The explanation of the First Training Rule on Community-Designated Exchange is concluded.

7. Dutiyasaṅghikacetāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Second Saṅghikacetāpana Training Rule

7. The Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Exchanging with Saṅgha Property

7. Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Community-Designated Exchange

Sattame saññācikenāti sayaṃ yācitakenāpi. Etadevettha nānākaraṇaṃ, sesaṃ chaṭṭhasadisamevāti.

In the seventh, saññācikena means even requested by oneself. This is the only difference here; the rest is similar to the sixth.

In the seventh, saññācikenāti means “even with what has been requested by oneself”. This alone is the difference here; the rest is similar to the sixth.

In the seventh, saññācikenā means even if requested by oneself. Here, the distinction is only this; the rest is similar to the sixth case.

The explanation of the second training rule on exchanging with Saṅgha property is finished.

The explanation of the Second Training Rule on Community-Designated Exchange is concluded.

8. Paṭhamagaṇikacetāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the First Gaṇikacetāpana Training Rule

8. The Explanation of the First Training Rule on Exchanging with Group Property

8. Explanation of the First Training Rule on Group-Designated Exchange

Aṭṭhame mahājanikenāti gaṇassa pariccattena, idamettha chaṭṭhato nānākaraṇaṃ.

In the eighth, mahājanikena means relinquished to a group. This is the difference from the sixth here.

In the eighth, mahājanikenāti means “with what has been relinquished to the group.” This is the difference here from the sixth.

In the eighth, mahājanikenā means belonging to a group. Here, the distinction is only this; the rest is similar to the sixth case.

The explanation of the first training rule on exchanging with group property is finished.

The explanation of the First Training Rule on Group-Designated Exchange is concluded.

9. Dutiyagaṇikacetāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Second Gaṇikacetāpana Training Rule

9. The Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Exchanging with Group Property

9. Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Group-Designated Exchange

Navame saññācikenāti idaṃ aṭṭhamato atirittaṃ, sesaṃ dvīsupi chaṭṭhasikkhāpadasadisamevāti.

In the ninth, saññācikena is additional to the eighth; the rest in both is similar to the sixth training rule.

In the ninth, saññācikenāti – this is additional to the eighth. The rest in both is similar to the sixth training rule.

In the ninth, saññācikenā means this is an addition from the eighth case; the rest is similar to the sixth and seventh training rules.

The explanation of the second training rule on exchanging with group property is finished.

The explanation of the Second Training Rule on Group-Designated Exchange is concluded.

10. Puggalikacetāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Puggalikacetāpana Training Rule

10. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Exchanging with Individual Property

10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Individual-Designated Exchange

Dasame puggalikenāti ekabhikkhuniyā pariccattena. Saññācikenāti sayaṃ yācitakena ca. Aññaṃ cetāpeyyāti yaṃ uddisitvā dinnaṃ, tato aññaṃ cetāpentiyā payoge dukkaṭaṃ, paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ hoti.

In the tenth, puggalikena means relinquished to a single nun. Saññācikena means requested by oneself too. Aññaṃ cetāpeyya means exchanging for something different from what was designated and given incurs a dukkaṭa offense for the effort and a nissaggiya offense upon obtaining it.

In the tenth, puggalikenāti means “with what has been relinquished to a single bhikkhunī”. Saññācikenāti means “and with what has been requested by oneself”. Aññaṃ cetāpeyyāti means “should exchange for something else.” For one exchanging for something else besides what was given designating [it], there is a dukkaṭa in the effort; with the obtaining, it becomes nissaggiya.

In the tenth, puggalikenā means belonging to an individual bhikkhunī. Saññācikenā means requested by oneself. Aññaṃ cetāpeyyā means requesting something else after designating what was given. For her, the act entails a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa), and upon acquisition, it becomes subject to forfeiture (nissaggiya).

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha tādisena parikkhārena aññaṃ cetāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesaṃ chaṭṭhasadisamevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, this was laid down in the matter of exchanging such an item for something different. The rest is similar to the sixth.

This was formulated in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of exchanging for something else with such a requisite. The rest is similar to the sixth.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning Thullanandā, who exchanged something else using such allowable goods. The rest is similar to the sixth case.

The explanation of the training rule on exchanging with individual property is finished.

The explanation of the Training Rule on Individual-Designated Exchange is concluded.

11. Garupāvuraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

11. Commentary on the Garupāvuraṇa Training Rule

11. The Explanation of the Training Rule on a Large Outer Robe

11. Explanation of the Training Rule on Heavy Robes

Dutiyassa paṭhame garupāvuraṇanti sītakāle pāvuraṇaṃ. Catukkaṃsaparamanti kaṃso nāma catukkahāpaṇiko hoti, tasmā soḷasakahāpaṇagghanakaṃ. Cetāpetabbanti ṭhapetvā sahadhammike ca ñātakappavārite ca aññena kismiñcideva guṇe parituṭṭhena “vadethāyye, yenattho”ti vuttāya viññāpetabbaṃ. Tato ce uttarīti tatuttari viññāpentiyā dukkaṭaṃ, paṭiladdhaṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti.

In the first of the second section, garupāvuraṇa refers to a heavy shawl for the cold season. Catukkaṃsaparama means the maximum is four kaṃsas, where a kaṃsa is worth four kahāpaṇas, thus valued at sixteen kahāpaṇas. Cetāpetabba means it should be requested from someone other than co-practitioners or invited relatives, who, pleased with some virtue, says, “Tell me, venerable, what you need,” and it should be requested accordingly. Tato ce uttarī means if she requests beyond that, there is a dukkaṭa offense, and what is obtained is subject to forfeiture.

In the first of the second, garupāvuraṇa (heavy cloak) means a cloak for the cold season. Catukkaṃsaparama (a maximum of four kaṃsas)—a kaṃsa is worth four kahāpaṇas; therefore, it is worth sixteen kahāpaṇas. Cetāpetabba (should be purchased)—having set aside, and when requested by co-religionists, relatives, or those who have given permission, being very pleased with some other good quality, one should ask for it, saying, “Speak, ladies, what is needed.” Tato ce uttarī (if she asks for more than that)—if she asks for more than that, it is a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing); what is obtained becomes nissaggiya (requiring relinquishment).

In the first of the second, garupāvuraṇa means a robe for the cold season. Catukkaṃsaparama means a maximum of four kaṃsas, which is worth sixteen kahāpaṇas. Cetāpetabba means it should be requested, except from relatives or those who share the Dhamma, and only if one is satisfied with some quality, saying, “Venerable, please speak on my behalf.” Tato ce uttarī means if one requests more than that, it entails a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa), and upon acquisition, it becomes subject to forfeiture (nissaggiya).

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha rājānaṃ kambalaṃ viññāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ūnakacatukkaṃse dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ pana ūnakasaññāya, catukkaṃsaparamaṃ cetāpentiyā, ñātakappavārite vā, aññassa vā atthāya, attano vā dhanena, mahagghaṃ cetāpentaṃ appagghaṃ cetāpentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Garupāvuraṇatā, atirekacatukkaṃsatā, ananuññātaṭṭhāne viññatti, paṭilābhoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni sañcarittasadisānīti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of requesting a blanket from a king, with three pācittiya offenses. For less than four kaṃsas, there are two dukkaṭa offenses. However, for one perceiving it as less, requesting up to four kaṃsas, or from invited relatives, or for another’s sake, or with her own wealth, or requesting something expensive while intending something cheap, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The four factors here are: it being a heavy shawl, exceeding four kaṃsas, requesting from an unauthorized source, and obtaining it. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the rule on wandering.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in the case of asking a king for a blanket; it is a pācittiya with three factors, if it is less than four kaṃsas, it is a dukkaṭa with two factors. However, in that case, there is no offense for one who perceives it as less, for one who buys a maximum of four kaṃsas, for one who buys from relatives or those who have given permission, or for someone else’s sake, or with her own money, or for one who buys something of great value or little value, or for the insane, and so on. Here, the four factors are: its being a heavy cloak, exceeding four kaṃsas, asking in an unpermitted place, and obtaining it. The origins and so forth are similar to the sañcaritta (messenger) rule.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning Thullanandā, who requested a blanket from the king. It entails three pācittiya offenses, two dukkaṭa offenses if less than four kaṃsas. However, if one perceives it as less, requests up to four kaṃsas, or if it is for relatives, for the sake of another, or using one’s own wealth, or if one exchanges something expensive for something cheap, or in cases of insanity, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are: the nature of the heavy robe, exceeding four kaṃsas, requesting without permission, and acquisition. The origins, etc., are similar to the previous cases.

12. Lahupāvuraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

12. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning the Light Shawl

12. Explanation of the Light Cloak Training Rule

12. Explanation of the Training Rule on Light Robes

Dutiye lahupāvuraṇanti uṇhakāle pāvuraṇaṃ. Aḍḍhateyyakaṃsaparamanti dasakahāpaṇagghanakaṃ, sesaṃ paṭhamasadisamevāti.

In the second, lahupāvuraṇa refers to a light shawl for the warm season. Aḍḍhateyyakaṃsaparama means the maximum is two and a half kaṃsas, valued at ten kahāpaṇas. The rest is exactly like the first.

In the second, lahupāvuraṇa (light cloak) means a cloak for the hot season. Aḍḍhateyyakaṃsaparama (a maximum of three and a half kaṃsas)—worth ten kahāpaṇas; the rest is the same as the first.

In the second, lahupāvuraṇa means a robe for the hot season. Aḍḍhateyyakaṃsaparama means a maximum of two and a half kaṃsas, worth ten kahāpaṇas. The rest is similar to the first case.

Ito parāni imasmiṃ vagge aṭṭha, tatiyavagge dasāti imāni aṭṭhārasa sikkhāpadāni bhikkhupātimokkhavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbānīti.

From here on, the eight in this section and the ten in the third section—these eighteen training rules—should be understood as explained in the commentary on the monks’ Pātimokkha.

Beyond this, the eight training rules in this section and the ten in the third section—these eighteen training rules—should be understood in the same way as stated in the explanation of the bhikkhus’ pātimokkha.

From here onward, in this section, there are eight rules; in the third section, ten. Thus, these eighteen training rules should be understood in the same way as explained in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha commentary.

Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo tiṃsa nissaggiyā pācittiyā dhammāti bhikkhū ārabbha paññattā sādhāraṇā aṭṭhārasa, asādhāraṇā dvādasāti evaṃ tiṃsa. Sesaṃ sabbattha uttānamevāti.

Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo tiṃsa nissaggiyā pācittiyā dhammā means thirty forfeiture pācittiya rules have been prescribed for monks: eighteen general and twelve individual. The rest is as explained everywhere.

Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo tiṃsa nissaggiyā pācittiyā dhammā (Recited, ladies, are the thirty nissaggiya pācittiya rules)—thus, thirty rules promulgated concerning bhikkhus: eighteen that are common, and twelve that are not common. The rest is evident everywhere.

Venerables, the thirty Nissaggiya Pācittiya rules have been recited. These were established concerning bhikkhus: eighteen are common, and twelve are uncommon. Thus, thirty. The rest is clear throughout.

In the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, in the explanation of the pātimokkha, in the bhikkhunīs’ pātimokkha,

Pācittiyakaṇḍo

Section on Pācittiya Offenses

The Pācittiya Section

Pācittiya Section

1. Lasuṇavaggo

1. Section on Garlic

1. The Garlic Section

1. Garlic Chapter

1. Lasuṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Garlic

1. Explanation of the Garlic Training Rule

1. Explanation of the Training Rule on Garlic

Pācittiyesu lasuṇavaggassa tāva paṭhame lasuṇanti magadharaṭṭhe jātaṃ āmakaṃ bhaṇḍikalasuṇameva, na ekadvitimiñjakaṃ. Tañhi “khādissāmī”ti paṭiggaṇhantiyā dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pācittiyaṃ.

Among the pācittiya offenses, in the first of the garlic section, lasuṇa refers only to raw garlic grown in the Magadha region, classified as a bulbous garlic, not one or two-layered garlic. For one taking it with, “I will eat it,” there is a dukkaṭa offense in receiving it, and a pācittiya offense for each act of consumption.

Now, in the pācittiya rules, in the first of the garlic section, lasuṇa (garlic) means only the raw, bundled garlic that grows in the Magadha country, not the one with one or two cloves. For one who accepts it, thinking, “I will eat it,” there is a dukkaṭa; with each swallowing, there is a pācittiya.

In the Pācittiya rules, first in the Garlic Chapter, lasuṇa refers to raw garlic grown in the Magadha region, specifically the bulb garlic, not the single or double clove variety. For her, accepting it with the intention, “I will eat it,” entails a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa), and each ingestion entails a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha lasuṇaṃ harāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, alasuṇe dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ pana alasuṇasaññāya, palaṇḍuke, bhañjanake, haritake, cāpalasuṇe, sūpasampāke, maṃsasampāke, telasampāke, sāḷave, uttaribhaṅge, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Āmakalasuṇañceva, ajjhoharaṇañcāti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of having garlic brought, with three pācittiya offenses. For something not garlic, there are two dukkaṭa offenses. However, for one perceiving it as not garlic, or with onions, tender shoots, myrobalan, wild garlic, in soup preparation, meat preparation, oil preparation, rice gruel, or condiments, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The two factors here are: it being raw garlic and consuming it. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the eḷakaloma rule.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in the case of having garlic brought; it is a pācittiya with three factors; for non-garlic, there are two dukkaṭas. However, in that case, there is no offense for one who perceives it as non-garlic, for palaṇḍu (onion), bhañjanaka (a type of vegetable), haritaka (green vegetable), cāpalasuṇa (a type of garlic), for flavoring soup, flavoring meat, flavoring with oil, in sāḷava (a type of dish), for uttaribhaṅga (extra food), or for the insane, and so on. Here, the two factors are: its being raw garlic and swallowing it. The origins and so forth are similar to the eḷakaloma (goat hair) rule.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning Thullanandā, who had garlic brought to her. It entails three pācittiya offenses, two dukkaṭa offenses if it is not garlic. However, if one perceives it as not garlic, or if it is a radish, turnip, myrobalan, green garlic, soup ingredient, meat ingredient, oil ingredient, or in cases of insanity, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are: raw garlic and ingestion. The origins, etc., are similar to the case of goat hair.

2. Sambādhalomasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Hair in Private Areas

2. Explanation of the Hair in a Confined Place Training Rule

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Hair Removal in Private

Dutiye sambādheti paṭicchannokāse, upakacchakesu ca muttakaraṇe cāti attho. Saṃharāpeyyāti ettha khurasaṇḍāsakattariādīsu yena kenaci saṃharāpentiyā payogagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ, na lomagaṇanāya.

In the second, sambādhe means in a concealed place, specifically under the armpits or at the genitals. Saṃharāpeyyā means having hair removed with any tool like a razor, tweezers, or scissors, incurring a pācittiya offense counted by actions, not by hairs.

In the second, sambādhe (in a confined place) means in a concealed place, and in the armpits and the pubic region. Saṃharāpeyyā (should have it removed)—here, for one who has it removed with any of these: razor, tweezers, scissors, and so on, there is a pācittiya for each effort, not for each hair.

In the second, sambādhe means in a private place, such as under the armpits or in the pubic area. Saṃharāpeyyā means having it removed by any means, such as a razor, scissors, etc. Here, the offense is counted by the act, not by the number of hairs removed.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha sambādhe lomaṃ saṃharāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, attano atthāya aññaṃ āṇāpentiyā sāṇattikaṃ, āpattibhedonatthi. Ābādhapaccayā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Ābādhābhāvo, sambādhe lomasaṃharaṇanti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni bhikkhuniyā saddhiṃ ekaddhānamaggagamanasikkhāpadasadisānīti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the Group of Six nuns, regarding the matter of having hair removed in a private area, requiring authorization for one’s own sake, with no distinction in offenses. For a medical reason, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The two factors here are: absence of a medical reason and removing hair in a private area. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the rule on nuns traveling the same road with monks.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six bhikkhunīs in the case of having hair removed in a confined place; for ordering another for her own sake, it is with agency; there is no difference in the offense. For the sake of an illness, or for the insane, and so on, there is no offense. Here, the two factors are: the absence of illness and the removal of hair in a confined place. The origins and so forth are similar to the training rule about traveling together with a bhikkhunī on the same road.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning the Chabbaggiya bhikkhunīs, who had hair removed in private. If one orders another for one’s own benefit, it entails a sāṇattika offense. There is no distinction in the type of offense. In cases of illness, or insanity, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are: the absence of illness and hair removal in private. The origins, etc., are similar to the training rule on walking alone with a bhikkhunī on a path.

The commentary on the training rule concerning hair in private areas is concluded.

3. Talaghātakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Striking the Genitals

3. Explanation of the Striking the Genitals Training Rule

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Slapping

Tatiye talaghātaketi antamaso uppalakesarenāpi muttakaraṇassa talaghātane muttakaraṇamhi pahāradāne pācittiyanti attho.

In the third, talaghātake means striking the genitals, even with a lotus filament, incurring a pācittiya offense for giving a blow to the genitals.

In the third, talaghātake (striking the genitals)—even with a lotus stamen, striking the pubic region means giving a blow to the pubic region; there is a pācittiya.

In the third, talaghātake means even slapping with a lotus fiber during a massage. The meaning is that slapping during a massage entails a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ dve bhikkhuniyo ārabbha talaghātakaraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, purimanayeneva sāṇattikaṃ, āpattibhedo natthi. Ito paraṃ pana yattha natthi, tattha avatvāva gamissāma. Ābādhapaccayā gaṇḍaṃ vā vaṇaṃ vā paharantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Ābādhābhāvo, muttakaraṇe pahāradānaṃ, phassasādiyananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisānīti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning two nuns, regarding the matter of striking the genitals, requiring authorization as in the previous method, with no distinction in offenses. From here on, where there is none, we will proceed without stating it. For a medical reason striking a boil or sore, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The three factors here are: absence of a medical reason, striking the genitals, and intent for contact. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the first pārājika rule.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning two bhikkhunīs in the case of striking the genitals; it is with agency, just as in the previous case; there is no difference in the offense. From here on, where there is none, we will proceed without stating it. There is no offense for striking a boil or a wound due to illness, or for the insane, and so on. Here, the three factors are: the absence of illness, giving a blow to the pubic region, and enjoyment of the sensation. The origins and so forth are similar to the first pārājika (defeat) rule.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning two bhikkhunīs who engaged in slapping. The explanation is similar to the previous case. From here onward, where there is no distinction, we will not mention it. In cases of illness, or if one strikes a boil or wound, or in cases of insanity, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: the absence of illness, slapping during a massage, and enjoying the contact. The origins, etc., are similar to the first pārājika offense.

The commentary on the training rule concerning striking the genitals is concluded.

4. Jatumaṭṭhakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning a Lac Stick

4. Explanation of the Wax-Polished Stick Training Rule

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Use of a Lac Dildo

Catutthe jatumaṭṭhaketi jatunā kate maṭṭhadaṇḍake. Vatthuvasenetaṃ vuttaṃ, kāmarāgena pana uppalakesarampi pavesentiyā āpatti.

In the fourth, jatumaṭṭhake refers to a smooth stick made of lac, stated in terms of its basis, but even inserting a lotus filament out of sensual desire incurs an offense.

In the fourth, jatumaṭṭhake (wax-polished stick) means a polished stick made with wax. This is stated in terms of the object; however, due to sexual desire, even if she inserts a lotus stamen, there is an offense.

In the fourth, jatumaṭṭhake means a dildo made of lac. This is stated in terms of the object, but if one inserts even a lotus fiber out of lust, it entails an offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha jatumaṭṭhakasādiyanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesaṃ tatiyasadisamevāti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun, regarding the matter of enjoying a lac stick, with the rest exactly like the third.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhunī in the case of enjoying a wax-polished stick; the rest is the same as the third.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning a certain bhikkhunī who used a lac dildo. The rest is similar to the third case.

5. Udakasuddhikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Water Cleansing

5. Explanation of the Water Cleansing Training Rule

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Water for Cleansing

Pañcame udakasuddhikanti muttakaraṇassa dhovanaṃ. Ādiyamānāyāti karontiyā. Dvaṅgulapabbaparamaṃ ādātabbanti dvīsu aṅgulīsu ekekaṃ katvā dvaṅgulapabbaparamaṃ ādātabbaṃ. Taṃ atikkāmentiyāti sace dhovanakāle rāgavasena vitthārato tatiyāya aṅguliyā aggapabbaṃ, gambhīrato ekissāva aṅguliyā tatiyapabbaṃ paveseti pācittiyaṃ.

In the fifth, udakasuddhika means cleansing the genitals with water. Ādiyamānāyā means while doing it. Dvaṅgulapabbaparamaṃ ādātabba means it should be done up to two finger-joints, one joint per finger. Taṃ atikkāmentiyā means if, during washing, out of desire, she exceeds this by inserting up to the tip-joint of a third finger widthwise or the third joint of one finger depthwise, there is a pācittiya offense.

In the fifth, udakasuddhika (water cleansing) means washing the pubic region. Ādiyamānāyā (while doing it). Dvaṅgulapabbaparamaṃ ādātabba (a maximum of two finger-joints should be taken)—taking one joint on each of two fingers, a maximum of two finger-joints should be taken. Taṃ atikkāmentiyā (if she exceeds that)—if, at the time of washing, due to passion, she inserts the tip of the third finger in breadth, or the third joint of one finger in depth, there is a pācittiya.

In the fifth, udakasuddhika means washing the private parts. Ādiyamānāyā means while doing so. Dvaṅgulapabbaparamaṃ ādātabba means taking up to two finger-widths of water, one finger-width on each side. Taṃ atikkāmentiyā means if, while washing out of lust, one inserts the tip of the third finger or the third joint of one finger deeply, it entails a pācittiya offense.

Sakkesu aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha atigambhīraṃ udakasuddhikaṃ ādiyanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, ūnakadvaṅgulapabbe dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ pana ūnakasaññāya, dvaṅgulapabbaparamaṃ ādiyantiyā, ābādhapaccayā atirekampi, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti, sesaṃ tatiyasadisamevāti.

This was prescribed among the Sakyans concerning a certain nun, regarding the matter of excessively deep water cleansing, with three pācittiya offenses. For less than two finger-joints, there are two dukkaṭa offenses. However, for one perceiving it as less, doing up to two finger-joints, or exceeding it for a medical reason, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense; the rest is like the third.

It was promulgated in the Sakyan country concerning a certain bhikkhunī in the case of doing water cleansing too deeply; it is a pācittiya with three factors; for less than two finger-joints, there are two dukkaṭas. However, in that case, there is no offense for one who perceives it as less, for one who takes a maximum of two finger-joints, for exceeding it due to illness, or for the insane, and so on; the rest is the same as the third.

In the Sakyan country, this rule was established concerning a certain bhikkhunī who used excessively deep water for cleansing. It entails three pācittiya offenses, two dukkaṭa offenses if less than two finger-widths. However, if one perceives it as less, takes up to two finger-widths, or in cases of illness, takes more, or in cases of insanity, etc., there is no offense. The rest is similar to the third case.

6. Upatiṭṭhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Attending

6. Explanation of the Standing Near Training Rule

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Attending to One Who is Eating

Chaṭṭhe bhuñjantassāti pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññataraṃ bhuñjato. Pānīyenāti suddhena vā udakena, takkādīsu vā aññatarena. Vidhūpanenāti yāya kāyaci bījaniyā. Upatiṭṭheyyāti yā etesu dvīsu aññataraṃ gahetvā hatthapāse tiṭṭhati, tassā pācittiyaṃ.

In the sixth, bhuñjantassa means while one is eating one of the five types of food. Pānīyena means with plain water or something like buttermilk. Vidhūpanena means with any kind of fan. Upatiṭṭheyyā means if she stands within arm’s reach holding either of these two, there is a pācittiya offense.

In the sixth, bhuñjantassā (while he is eating) means while he is eating any of the five kinds of food. Pānīyenā (with water) means either with plain water or with any of these: buttermilk, and so on. Vidhūpanenā (with a fan) means with any kind of fan. Upatiṭṭheyyā (should stand near)—if she stands within arm’s reach holding any of these two, there is a pācittiya.

In the sixth, bhuñjantassā means one who is eating any of the five kinds of food. Pānīyenā means pure water or any of the drinks like buttermilk, etc. Vidhūpanenā means any kind of fan. Upatiṭṭheyyā means standing within arm’s reach while holding any of these two, which entails a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha bhuñjantassa evaṃ tiṭṭhanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā khādanīyaṃ khādantassa upatiṭṭhantiyā dukkaṭaṃ, anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ. “Imaṃ pivatha, iminā bījathā”ti evaṃ dentiyā vā, dāpentiyā vā, anupasampannaṃ vā upatiṭṭhāpanatthaṃ āṇāpentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Bhuñjantassa bhikkhuno hatthapāse ṭhānaṃ, pānīyassa vā vidhūpanassa vā gahaṇanti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun, regarding the matter of standing thus while one eats, with three pācittiya offenses. Standing beyond arm’s reach while one eats chewable food incurs a dukkaṭa offense; with an unordained person, there are three dukkaṭa offenses. For one giving or having it given with, “Drink this,” or “Fan with this,” or ordering an unordained person to attend, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The two factors here are: standing within arm’s reach of a monk eating and holding water or a fan. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the eḷakaloma rule.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhunī in the case of standing thus while he was eating; it is a pācittiya with three factors; for standing outside of arm’s reach while he is eating soft food, there is a dukkaṭa; for a non-ordained person, there are three dukkaṭas. There is no offense for giving it, saying, “Drink this, fan with this,” or for having it given, or for ordering a non-ordained person to stand near, or for the insane, and so on. Here, the two factors are: standing within arm’s reach of a bhikkhu who is eating, and holding either water or a fan. The origins and so forth are similar to the eḷakaloma rule.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning a certain bhikkhunī who stood near someone eating. It entails three pācittiya offenses, a dukkaṭa offense if one stands beyond arm’s reach while eating solid food, and three dukkaṭa offenses if one does so for an unordained person. If one says, “Drink this, fan with this,” or if one orders an unordained person to attend, or in cases of insanity, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are: standing within arm’s reach of an eating bhikkhu and holding water or a fan. The origins, etc., are similar to the case of goat hair.

The explanation of the Training Rule on Attending to One Who is Eating is concluded.

7. Āmakadhaññasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Raw Grain

7. Explanation of the Raw Grain Training Rule

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Raw Grain

Sattame viññatvāti antamaso mātarampi yācitvā. Bhuñjeyyāti ajjhohareyya. Ettha ca viññatti ceva bhojanañca pamāṇaṃ, tasmā sayaṃ viññatvā aññāya bhajjanādīni kārāpetvā vā , aññāya viññāpetvā sayaṃ bhajjanādīni katvā vā paṭiggahaṇato paṭṭhāya yāva dantehi saṃkhādanaṃ, tāva pubbappayogesu dukkaṭāni, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pācittiyaṃ.

In the seventh, viññatvā means having requested, even from one’s own mother. Bhuñjeyyā means consuming it. Here, both the request and the eating are the measure; thus, requesting it herself and having another cook or prepare it, or having another request it and cooking or preparing it herself, incurs dukkaṭa offenses for preliminary actions from receiving it up to chewing with the teeth, and a pācittiya offense for each act of consumption.

In the seventh, viññatvā (having asked for it) means having begged even from her mother. Bhuñjeyyā (should eat) means should swallow. Here, both the asking and the eating are the measure; therefore, having asked for it herself and having had another do the roasting, and so on, or having had another ask for it and having done the roasting, and so on, herself, from the time of accepting until chewing with the teeth, there are dukkaṭas in the preliminary actions; with each swallowing, there is a pācittiya.

In the seventh, viññatvā means even after requesting from one’s mother. Bhuñjeyyā means ingesting it. Here, both the request and the food are measured. Therefore, if one requests it oneself or has another request it, or if one prepares the food oneself or has another prepare it, from the moment of acceptance until chewing, there are dukkaṭa offenses in the preliminary actions, and each ingestion entails a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha āmakadhaññaṃ viññāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sayaṃ vā aññāya vā aviññattiyā laddhaṃ bhajjanādīni katvā vā kāretvā vā bhuñjantiyā dukkaṭaṃ, aññāya viññattiyā laddhaṃ pana sayaṃ bhajjanādīni katvāpi kāretvāpi bhuñjantiyā dukkaṭameva. Ābādhe sati sedakammādīnaṃ atthāya viññāpentiyā, aviññattiyā labbhamānaṃ navakammatthāya sampaṭicchantiyā, ñātakappavāritaṭṭhāne muggamāsādiaparaṇṇaṃ viññāpentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sattannaṃ dhaññānaṃ aññatarassa viññāpanaṃ vā viññāpāpanaṃ vā, paṭilābho, bhajjanādīni katvā vā kāretvā vā ajjhoharaṇanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni addhānamaggasikkhāpadasadisānīti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns, regarding the matter of requesting raw grain. Cooking or having cooked what is obtained without requesting, either by herself or another, and consuming it incurs a dukkaṭa offense; what is obtained by another’s request and cooked or had cooked by herself or another and consumed incurs only a dukkaṭa offense. For requesting it for steaming and the like due to illness, accepting what is obtained without requesting for new work, requesting mung beans, black gram, or other side dishes from invited relatives, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The three factors here are: requesting or having requested one of the seven grains, obtaining it, and consuming it after cooking or having it cooked. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the rule on traveling a road.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs in the case of asking for raw grain; for eating what was obtained without asking, either by herself or by another, having done the roasting, and so on, or having had it done, there is a dukkaṭa; however, for eating what was obtained by another’s asking, even if she herself did the roasting, and so on, or had it done, there is still only a dukkaṭa. If there is an illness, there is no offense for asking for the purpose of sweating treatment, and so on, for accepting what is obtained without asking for the purpose of new work, for asking for other grains such as green gram, black gram, and so on, in a place where relatives or those who have given permission, or for the insane, and so on. Here, the three factors are: asking for or having asked for any of the seven grains, obtaining it, and swallowing it having done the roasting, and so on, or having had it done. The origins and so forth are similar to the training rule about the journey.

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning several bhikkhunīs who requested raw grain. If one eats after preparing the food oneself or having another prepare it, without a request, it entails a dukkaṭa offense. If one eats after requesting it oneself or having another request it, even if one prepares the food oneself or has another prepare it, it still entails a dukkaṭa offense. However, if one requests it for the sake of illness, such as for sweating, or if one accepts what is obtained without a request for the sake of new construction, or if one requests it in a place where relatives are excluded, such as for mung beans, etc., or in cases of insanity, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: requesting or having another request any of the seven kinds of grain, acquisition, and preparing or having another prepare the food for ingestion. The origins, etc., are similar to the training rule on traveling.

8. Paṭhamauccārachaḍḍanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the First Training Rule Concerning Throwing Out Excrement

8. Explanation of the First Discarding of Excrement Training Rule

8. Explanation of the First Training Rule on Disposing of Waste

Aṭṭhame saṅkāranti kacavaraṃ. Vighāsanti yaṃkiñci paribhuttāvasesaṃ ucchiṭṭhodakampi dantakaṭṭhampi, aṭṭhikacalakesu pana vattabbameva natthi. Tirokuṭṭe vā tiropākāre vāti yassakassaci kuṭṭassa vā pākārassa vā parato. Chaḍḍeyya vā chaḍḍāpeyya vāti sabbānipetāni ekato chaḍḍentiyā ekappayoge ekāpatti, sakiṃ āṇattiyā bahukepi chaḍḍite ekāva.

In the eighth, saṅkāra means refuse. Vighāsa means any leftover food, including used water or a tooth-stick, but there is nothing to say about bones or husks. Tirokuṭṭe vā tiropākāre vā means beyond any wall or fence. Chaḍḍeyya vā chaḍḍāpeyya vā means throwing all these together incurs one offense for one action; with one order, even if much is thrown, it is one offense.

In the eighth, saṅkāra (rubbish) means refuse. Vighāsa (leftovers) means anything left over from eating, even leftover rinsing water or a tooth-cleaning stick; there is no need to speak of bone scraps. Tirokuṭṭe vā tiropākāre vā (beyond a wall or beyond a fence) means beyond anyone’s wall or fence. Chaḍḍeyya vā chaḍḍāpeyya vā (should discard or have discarded)—all of these together, if she discards them in one effort, there is one offense; even if many are discarded with a single order, there is only one.

In the eighth, saṅkāra means rubbish. Vighāsa means any leftover food, even rinse water or tooth cleaners, but there is no offense for bones or fruit pits. Tirokuṭṭe vā tiropākāre vā means beyond any wall or fence. Chaḍḍeyya vā chaḍḍāpeyya vā means if one disposes of all these at once, it entails one offense per act, or if one orders it once, even if much is disposed of, it entails only one offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha uccāraṃ tirokuṭṭe chaḍḍanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sāṇattikaṃ, bhikkhussa dukkaṭaṃ , oloketvā vā avalañje vā chaḍḍentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Uccārādibhāvo, anolokanaṃ, valañjanaṭṭhānaṃ, tirokuṭṭatiropākāratā, chaḍḍanaṃ vā chaḍḍāpanaṃ vāti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni sañcarittasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun, regarding the matter of throwing excrement beyond a wall, requiring authorization. For a monk, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For one throwing after looking or in a cesspit, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The five factors here are: it being excrement or the like, not looking, a cesspit area, beyond a wall or fence, and throwing or having it thrown. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the rule on wandering, but this involves action and inaction.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhunī in the case of discarding excrement beyond a wall; it is with agency; for a bhikkhu, there is a dukkaṭa; there is no offense for discarding it after looking or in a place for refuse, or for the insane, and so on. Here, the five factors are: its being excrement and so on, not looking, a place for refuse, its being beyond a wall or beyond a fence, and discarding or having it discarded. The origins and so forth are similar to the sañcaritta rule, but this is kiriyākiriya (action and non-action).

In Sāvatthī, this rule was established concerning a certain bhikkhunī who disposed of excrement beyond a wall. It entails a sāṇattika offense, a dukkaṭa offense for a bhikkhu, and no offense if one disposes of it after looking or placing it in a pit, or in cases of insanity, etc. The five factors here are: the nature of excrement, etc., not looking, the place for disposal, being beyond a wall or fence, and disposing or having another dispose of it. The origins, etc., are similar to the previous cases, but this is an action that may or may not be an offense.

The commentary on the first training rule concerning throwing out excrement is concluded.

9. Dutiyauccārachaḍḍanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Second Training Rule Concerning Throwing Out Excrement

9. Explanation of the Second Discarding of Excrement Training Rule

9. Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Disposing of Waste

Navame hariteti khette vā nāḷikerādiārāme vā yatthakatthaci ropimaharitaṭṭhāne. Tāni vatthūni chaḍḍentiyā vā chaḍḍāpentiyā vā purimanayeneva āpatti, tādise ṭhāne nisīditvā antamaso udakaṃ pivitvā matthakacchinnaṃ nāḷikerampi chaḍḍentiyā āpattiyeva.

In the ninth, harite means in a field, a coconut grove, or any planted green area. Throwing or having thrown these items there incurs an offense as in the previous method; even sitting in such a place, drinking water, and throwing a topped coconut incurs an offense.

In the ninth, harite (on greenery) means in a field, or in a coconut grove, and so on, or in any place where greenery has been planted. For discarding or having those things discarded, there is an offense just as in the previous case; for sitting in such a place and discarding even a coconut shell broken from the top after drinking water, there is still an offense.

In the ninth, harite means in a field or any place where crops or plants are grown, such as a coconut grove. Disposing of such things there entails an offense as in the previous case. Even sitting in such a place and disposing of something, such as drinking water and then throwing away a coconut shell, entails an offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha uccārādīni harite chaḍḍanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sāṇattikaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, bhikkhuno dukkaṭaṃ, bhikkhuniyāpi nikkhittabīje khette yāva aṅkuro na uṭṭhahati, tāva dukkaṭaṃ, aharite dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ pana aharitasaññāya chaḍḍitakhette vā, sāmike apaloketvā vā chaḍḍentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sesaṃ aṭṭhamasadisamevāti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns, regarding the matter of throwing excrement and the like in a green area, requiring authorization, with three pācittiya offenses. For a monk, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For a nun, in a field with planted seeds until the sprout emerges, it is a dukkaṭa offense; in a non-green area, there are two dukkaṭa offenses. For one perceiving it as non-green, or throwing in a used field, or without consulting the owner, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The rest is like the eighth.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs in the case of discarding excrement and so on on greenery; it is with agency; it is a pācittiya with three factors; for a bhikkhu, there is a dukkaṭa; for a bhikkhunī also, in a field where seeds have been sown, until the sprout arises, there is a dukkaṭa; on non-greenery, there are two dukkaṭas. However, in that case, there is no offense for discarding in a field perceived as non-green, or for discarding without informing the owners, or for the insane, and so on. The rest is the same as the eighth.

In Sāvatthī, regarding several bhikkhunīs, a rule was established concerning the disposal of excrement and other waste on cultivated land. For a bhikkhu, it is a dukkaṭa offense; for a bhikkhunī, until the sprout does not arise in a field where seeds have been sown, it is a dukkaṭa offense. On uncultivated land, it is a double dukkaṭa offense. However, if it is disposed of on a field perceived as uncultivated or with the permission of the owner, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The rest is similar to the eighth offense.

The commentary on the second training rule concerning throwing out excrement is concluded.

The explanation of the second discarding of excrement training rule is finished.

10. Naccagītasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Dance, Song, and Music

10. Explanation of the Dancing and Singing Training Rule

10. Explanation of the Rule on Dancing and Singing

Dasame naccanti antamaso moranaccampi. Gītanti antamaso dhammabhāṇakagītampi. Vāditanti antamaso udakabherivāditampi. Dassanāyāti etesu yaṃkiñci dassanāya gacchantiyā pade pade dukkaṭaṃ, yattha ṭhitā passati vā suṇāti vā, ekappayoge ekāpatti, taṃ taṃ disaṃ olokentiyā payoge payoge āpatti.

In the tenth, nacca means dance, even a peacock’s dance. Gīta means song, even a Dhamma reciter’s song. Vādita means music, even the sound of a water drum. Dassanāyā means going to see any of these incurs a dukkaṭa offense with each step; standing where she sees or hears incurs one offense per action; looking in each direction incurs an offense per action.

In the tenth, nacca (dancing) means even peacock dancing. Gīta (singing) means even the singing of a Dhamma reciter. Vādita (instrumental music) means even the playing of a water drum. Dassanāyā (for seeing)—for going to see any of these, there is a dukkaṭa for each step; where she stands and sees or hears, there is one offense for one effort; for looking in that direction, there is an offense for each effort.

In the tenth rule, dancing includes even the dance of a peacock. Singing includes even the chanting of Dhamma reciters. Musical instruments include even the playing of a water drum. For the purpose of seeing: For going to see any of these, at every step, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one stands and sees or hears, it is one offense per occasion. While looking in each direction, it is an offense per occasion.

Rājagahe chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha naccādīni dassanāya gamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sayaṃ tāni vatthūni karontiyā, aññaṃ vā āṇāpentiyā, “cetiyassa upahāraṃ dethā”ti īdisena pariyāyena vā bhaṇantiyā, “cetiyassa upahāraṃ karomā”ti vā vutte “sādhū”ti sampaṭicchantiyā ca pācittiyamevāti sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu (pāci. aṭṭha. 835-837) vuttaṃ, bhikkhuno sabbattha dukkaṭaṃ. “Tumhākaṃ cetiyassa upaṭṭhānaṃ karomā”ti vutte pana “upaṭṭhānakaraṇaṃ nāma sundara”nti īdisaṃ pariyāyaṃ bhaṇantiyā, ārāme ṭhatvā passantiyā vā suṇantiyā vā, tathā attano ṭhitokāsaṃ āgantvā payojitaṃ paṭipathaṃ gacchantiyā sammukhībhūtaṃ salākabhattādike sati karaṇīye gantvā, āpadāsu vā samajjaṭṭhānaṃ pavisitvāpi passantiyā vā suṇantiyā vā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Naccādīnaṃ aññataratā, aññatra anuññātakāraṇā gamanaṃ, dassanaṃ vā savanaṃ vāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisāni, idaṃ pana lokavajjaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was prescribed in Rājagaha concerning the Group of Six nuns, regarding the matter of going to see dance and the like. For one performing these herself, ordering another, saying indirectly, “Give an offering to the shrine,” or agreeing with “Good” when told, “We are making an offering to the shrine,” it is a pācittiya offense, as stated in all commentaries (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 835-837). For a monk, it is a dukkaṭa offense everywhere. However, when told, “We are attending your shrine,” saying indirectly, “Attending is lovely,” or standing in the monastery seeing or hearing, or seeing or hearing what is performed at her standing place or approaches on the path, or going for a purpose like a ticket meal, or entering a festival site in emergencies and seeing or hearing, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The three factors here are: it being one of dance, song, or music; going other than for an authorized reason; and seeing or hearing. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the eḷakaloma rule, but this is a worldly fault, with unwholesome consciousness and threefold feeling.

It was promulgated at Rājagaha concerning the group of six bhikkhunīs in the case of going to see dancing and so on; for doing those things herself, or for ordering another, or for saying with such an intention, “Give an offering to the cetiya,” or for agreeing, saying, “It is good,” when it is said, “We are making an offering to the cetiya,” there is a pācittiya, as stated in all the commentaries (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 835-837); for a bhikkhu, there is a dukkaṭa in all cases. However, when it is said, “We are doing service for your cetiya,” there is no offense for saying such an intention, “Doing service is good,” or for standing in the monastery and seeing or hearing, or for a performance coming to the place where she is standing and going along the path, or when having to do something at a sālāka distribution or similar event that has come before her, or in times of danger, even entering a place of festivities and seeing or hearing, or for the insane, and so on. Here, the three factors are: its being any of dancing and so on, going without a permitted reason, and seeing or hearing. The origins and so forth are similar to the eḷakaloma rule, but this is blameworthy by the world, unwholesome thought, and with three feelings.

In Rājagaha, regarding the six bhikkhunīs, a rule was established concerning going to see dancing, etc. If one performs these actions oneself or orders another, or says, “Give an offering to the shrine,” or when it is said, “We are making an offering to the shrine,” and one agrees by saying, “Good,” it is a pācittiya offense. In all commentaries (pāci. aṭṭha. 835-837), it is stated that for a bhikkhu, it is a dukkaṭa offense in all cases. However, if it is said, “We will attend to your shrine,” and one says, “Attending to the shrine is beautiful,” or if one sees or hears while standing in the monastery, or if one returns to one’s own place and goes on an errand, or if one goes to perform a duty in the presence of a meal distribution, etc., or if one enters a festival ground in an emergency and sees or hears, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: going to see or hear dancing, etc., except for an authorized reason. The origins, etc., are similar to the case of the woolen blanket. This, however, is a worldly blame, an unwholesome mind, and a threefold feeling.

The commentary on the training rule concerning dance, song, and music is concluded.

2. Rattandhakāravaggo

2. Section on Darkness at Night

2. The Dark Night Section

2. The Darkness Chapter

1. Rattandhakārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Darkness at Night

1. Explanation of the Dark Night Training Rule

1. Explanation of the Rule on Darkness

Andhakāravaggassa paṭhame rattandhakāreti rattiandhakāre. Appadīpeti pajjotacandasūriyaaggīsu ekekenāpi anobhāsite. Purisenāti santiṭṭhituṃ sallapituñca viññunā manussapurisena saddhiṃ. Santiṭṭheyya vāti hatthapāse ṭhitamattāya pācittiyaṃ. Sallapeyyāti tattha ṭhatvā gehasitakathaṃ kathentiyāpi pācittiyameva.

In the first of the darkness section, rattandhakāre means at night in darkness. Appadīpe means without illumination from a lamp, moon, sun, or fire. Purisenā means with a rational human man capable of standing and conversing. Santiṭṭheyya vā means merely standing within arm’s reach incurs a pācittiya offense. Sallapeyyā means conversing there about household matters also incurs a pācittiya offense.

In the first of the dark night section, rattandhakāre (in the dark of night) means in the darkness of night. Appadīpe (without a light) means without the illumination of any of these: lamp, moon, sun, or fire. Purisenā (with a man) means with a discerning human male capable of standing and conversing. Santiṭṭheyya vā (should stand)—just standing within arm’s reach is a pācittiya. Sallapeyyā (should converse)—even standing there and telling a household story is a pācittiya.

In the first rule of the Darkness Chapter, in the darkness of night means in the darkness of night. Without a light means without the light of a lamp, moon, sun, or fire. With a man means to stand or converse with a knowledgeable human male. To stand means to stand within arm’s reach, which is a pācittiya offense. To converse means to engage in household talk while standing there, which is also a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha evaṃ santiṭṭhanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, purisassa hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā, yakkhādīnaṃ hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvāpi santiṭṭhantiyā, sallapentiyā vā dukkaṭaṃ, yaṃkiñci viññuṃ dutiyaṃ gahetvā evaṃ karontiyā, arahopekkhāya, aññavihitāya, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Rattandhakāratā, purisassa hatthapāse ṭhānaṃ vā sallapanaṃ vā, sahāyābhāvo, rahopekkhatāti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Theyyasatthasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun, regarding the matter of standing thus. Standing beyond a man’s arm’s reach, or standing or conversing within arm’s reach of a yakkha or the like without leaving it, incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Doing so with any rational companion, with intent for solitude, while distracted, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The four factors here are: darkness at night, standing or conversing within a man’s arm’s reach, absence of a companion, and intent for solitude. It arises like a thief’s caravan, is an action, perception-released, conscious, a worldly fault, a bodily and verbal act, with unwholesome consciousness and threefold feeling.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhunī in the case of standing thus; for standing outside of arm’s reach of a man, or for standing or conversing outside of arm’s reach of yakkhas and so on, there is a dukkaṭa; for doing thus having taken any discerning person as a second, for expecting privacy, for being preoccupied, or for the insane, and so on, there is no offense. Here, the four factors are: its being the dark of night, standing within arm’s reach of a man or conversing, the absence of a companion, and expecting privacy. The origin is theyyasattha (thieving group), it is an action, release from perception, with thought, blameworthy by the world, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome thought, and with three feelings.

In Sāvatthī, regarding a certain bhikkhunī, a rule was established concerning standing in such a situation. If one stands or converses beyond arm’s reach of a man but within arm’s reach of a yakkha, etc., it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one does so with any knowledgeable companion, or if one is indifferent, or if one is insane, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are: the darkness of night, standing or conversing within arm’s reach of a man, the absence of a companion, and being alone. The origins, etc., are similar to the case of theft. This is a bodily action, a verbal action, an unwholesome mind, and a threefold feeling.

2. Paṭicchannokāsasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning a Concealed Place

2. Explanation of the Concealed Place Training Rule

2. Explanation of the Rule on a Secluded Place

Dutiye paṭicchanne okāseti kuṭṭādīsu yena kenaci paṭicchanne, idamevettha nānattaṃ.

In the second, paṭicchanne okāse means in any concealed place like a wall, and this is the only difference here.

In the second, paṭicchanne okāse (in a concealed place) means concealed by any of these: a wall and so on; this is the only difference here.

In the second rule, a secluded place means any place concealed by walls, etc. This is the diversity here.

3. Ajjhokāsasallapanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Conversing in the Open

3. Explanation of the Conversing in the Open Training Rule

3. Explanation of the Rule on Conversing in an Open Place

In the third, ajjhokāse means in the open, with the rest exactly like the first in both cases.

In the third, ajjhokāse (in the open) is the difference; the rest, in both cases, is the same as the first.

In the third rule, in an open place means in a non-concealed place. The rest is similar to the first rule.

The commentary on the training rule concerning conversing in the open is concluded.

4. Dutiyikauyyojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Sending Away a Companion

4. Explanation of the Sending Away a Second Training Rule

4. Explanation of the Rule on Dismissing a Companion

Catutthe rathikāyāti racchāyaṃ. Byūheti anividdharacchāyaṃ . Siṅghāṭaketi caccare. Nikaṇṇikaṃ vā jappeyyāti kaṇṇamūle kiñci jappeyya. Uyyojeyyāti anācāraṃ caritukāmatāya “gaccha tva”nti dutiyikaṃ uyyojeyya. Pācittiyanti purimanayeneva tāva santiṭṭhanādīsu tīṇi pācittiyāni, uyyojentiyā pana uyyojane ca hatthapāsavijahane ca dukkaṭaṃ, vijahite pācittiyaṃ.

In the fourth, rathikāyā means in a street. Byūhe means in an open street. Siṅghāṭake means at a crossroads. Nikaṇṇikaṃ vā jappeyyā means whispering something in the ear. Uyyojeyyā means sending away a companion with, “Go away,” out of desire to act improperly. Pācittiya means, as in the previous method, there are three pācittiya offenses for standing and so forth; for sending away, there is a dukkaṭa offense in ordering and leaving arm’s reach, and a pācittiya offense when left.

In the fourth, rathikāyā (on a street) means on a road. Byūhe (in an open street) means on an unpaved road. Siṅghāṭake (at a crossroads) means at a square. Nikaṇṇikaṃ vā jappeyyā (should whisper in the ear) means should whisper something in the ear. Uyyojeyyā (should send away)—with the desire to engage in misconduct, she should send away a second, saying, “Go.” Pācittiya (an offense requiring expiation)—just as in the previous case, there are three pācittiyas for standing and so on; however, for one who sends away, there is a dukkaṭa for sending away and for leaving arm’s reach; when she has left, there is a pācittiya.

In the fourth rule, on a road means on a street. In a thicket means in an unopened street. At a crossroads means at an intersection. Whispering in the ear means whispering something in the ear. To dismiss means to dismiss a companion with the intention of misbehaving, saying, “You go.” It is a pācittiya offense. As before, there are three pācittiya offenses for standing, etc. While dismissing, it is a dukkaṭa offense for dismissing and for moving beyond arm’s reach. If one moves beyond arm’s reach, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha evaṃ santiṭṭhanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesaṃ purimattayasadisameva. Anāpattiyaṃ pana “na anācāraṃ ācaritukāmā, sati karaṇīye dutiyikaṃ bhikkhuniṃ uyyojetī”ti (pāci. 852) ettakaṃ adhikanti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of standing thus, with the rest like the previous three. However, in the absence of offense, it adds, “Not desiring to act improperly, she sends away a companion nun when there is a task” (Pāci. 852).

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in the case of standing thus; the rest is the same as the previous three. However, in the case of no offense, it is added, “She does not desire to engage in misconduct, and she sends away a second bhikkhunī when there is something to be done” (Pāci. 852).

In Sāvatthī, regarding Thullanandā, a rule was established concerning standing in such a situation. The rest is similar to the first three rules. However, there is no offense if one does not intend to misbehave and dismisses a companion bhikkhunī for a necessary reason (pāci. 852). This much is additional.

The commentary on the training rule concerning sending away a companion is concluded.

5. Anāpucchāpakkamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Departing Without Asking

5. Explanation of the Leaving Without Asking Training Rule

5. Explanation of the Rule on Departing Without Informing

Pañcame purebhattanti aruṇuggamanaṃ upādāya yāva majjhanhikaṃ. Āsaneti pallaṅkassokāsabhūte. Sāmike anāpucchāti tasmiṃ kule yaṃkiñci viññuṃ manussaṃ anāpucchā. Pakkameyyāti ettha channassa anto nisīditvā anovassakaṃ ajjhokāse upacāraṃ atikkāmentiyā paṭhamapāde dukkaṭaṃ, dutiye pācittiyaṃ.

In the fifth, purebhatta means from dawn until midday. Āsane means on a seat suitable for a couch. Sāmike anāpucchā means without asking any rational person in that household. Pakkameyyā means here, sitting inside a covered place and departing beyond the vicinity in the open air incurs a dukkaṭa offense with the first step and a pācittiya offense with the second.

In the fifth, purebhatta (before noon) means from the rising of the sun until midday. Āsane (on a seat) means in a place suitable for a couch. Sāmike anāpucchā (without asking the owners) means without asking any discerning person in that family. Pakkameyyā (should depart)—here, having sat inside a covered place, for crossing the boundary into the open air where it is not raining, there is a dukkaṭa for the first foot, and a pācittiya for the second.

In the fifth rule, before the meal means from dawn until midday. Seat means a seat suitable for sitting cross-legged. Without informing the owner means without informing any knowledgeable person in that household. To depart: Here, if one sits inside a covered area and goes beyond the reach of rain in an open area, it is a dukkaṭa offense on the first step and a pācittiya offense on the second.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha anāpucchā pakkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, pallaṅkassa anokāse dukkaṭaṃ, tathā āpucchite anāpucchitasaññāya ceva vematikāya ca. Āpucchitasaññāya pana, asaṃhārime, gilānāya, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Purebhattatā, antaraghare nisajjā, āsanassa pallaṅkokāsatā, aññatra anuññātakāraṇā anāpucchanaṃ, vuttaparicchedātikkamoti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun, regarding the matter of departing without asking, with three pācittiya offenses. On a seat not suitable for a couch, it is a dukkaṭa offense, and the same for one perceiving it as unasked when asked, or one uncertain. For one perceiving it as asked, or in an unroofed place, or when ill, or in emergencies, and for those who are insane and the like, there is no offense. The five factors here are: before midday, sitting in a house, the seat being suitable for a couch, not asking except for an authorized reason, and exceeding the stated limit. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the kathina rule, but this involves action and inaction.

It was promulgated at Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhunī in the case of departing without asking; it is a pācittiya with three factors; for a place not suitable for a couch, there is a dukkaṭa; likewise, for perceiving it as not asked when it has been asked, and for doubt. However, there is no offense for perceiving it as asked, for things that cannot be moved, for the sick, in times of danger, or for the insane, and so on. Here, the five factors are: its being before noon, sitting inside a house, the seat being a place suitable for a couch, not asking without a permitted reason, and crossing the stated boundary. The origins and so forth are similar to the kaṭhina (robe-making ceremony) rule, but this is kiriyākiriya.

In Sāvatthī, regarding a certain bhikkhunī, a rule was established concerning departing without informing. It is a triple pācittiya offense. If the seat is not suitable for sitting cross-legged, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Similarly, if one perceives that one has not informed when one has, or if one is in doubt. However, if one perceives that one has informed, or if the seat is not movable, or if one is sick, or in an emergency, or if one is insane, etc., there is no offense. The five factors here are: before the meal, sitting inside a house, the seat being suitable for sitting cross-legged, not informing except for an authorized reason, and exceeding the stated limit. The origins, etc., are similar to the case of the Kathina. This, however, is an action and a non-action.

The commentary on the training rule concerning departing without asking is concluded.

6. Anāpucchāabhinisīdanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Sitting Without Asking

6. Explanation of the Sitting Down Without Asking Training Rule

6. Explanation of the Rule on Sitting Without Informing

Chaṭṭhe pacchābhattanti majjhanhike vītivatte yāva sūriyassa atthaṅgamā. Abhinisīdeyya vāti ādimhi nisīditvā gacchantiyā ekā āpatti, anisīditvā nipajjitvāva gacchantiyāpi ekā, nisīditvā nipajjantiyā dve.

In the sixth, after the meal means from the passing of noon until sunset. She sits down—if she sits at first and then goes, it is one offence; if she lies down without sitting and then goes, it is also one offence; if she sits and then lies down, it is two offences.

In the sixth, pacchābhatta means after midday, from when that time has passed until the setting of the sun. Abhinisīdeyya vāti, and so on: if, having first sat down, she then lies down while departing, there is one offence; if, without sitting, she lies down and departs, there is one offence; if she sits and then lies down, there are two offences.

In the sixth rule, after the meal means after midday until sunset. To sit down: If one sits down at the beginning and then leaves, it is one offense. If one does not sit down but lies down and then leaves, it is one offense. If one sits down and then lies down, it is two offenses.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha āsane abhinisīdanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ , sesaṃ pañcamasadisameva. Yathā pana tattha asaṃhārime, evamidha dhuvapaññatte anāpattīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of sitting on a seat. The rest is the same as the fifth. Just as there it is permissible on a removable seat, so here there is no offence on a fixed seat.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of her lying down on a seat; the rest is the same as the fifth. But just as there, no offence is assigned if the mat is not permanent, so here there is no offence if it is permanently spread.

In Sāvatthī, regarding Thullanandā, a rule was established concerning sitting down on a seat. The rest is similar to the fifth rule. However, here, if the seat is permanently assigned, there is no offense.

The explanation of the training rule on lying down without asking permission is finished.

7. Anāpucchāsantharaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Anāpucchāsantharaṇa Training Rule

7. Anāpucchāsantharaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Rule on Spreading a Bed Without Informing

Sattame vikāleti atthaṅgate sūriye. Seyyanti antamaso paṇṇasanthārampi, sesaṃ chaṭṭhasadisameva.

In the seventh, at an improper time means after sunset. Bedding means even a spread of leaves; the rest is the same as the sixth.

In the seventh, vikāle means after the sun has set. Seyya means even a leaf-mat; the rest is the same as the sixth.

In the seventh rule, at an improper time means after sunset. A bed includes even a mat of leaves. The rest is similar to the sixth rule.

Idaṃ pana sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha vikāle kulāni upasaṅkamitvā sāmike anāpucchitvā seyyaṃ santharitvā abhinisīdanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, anāpattiyañcettha dhuvapaññattaṃ nāma natthīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning several nuns, regarding the matter of entering families at an improper time, spreading bedding without asking the owners, and sitting on it. Here, there is no exemption called a fixed seat.

But this was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a group of bhikkhunīs, in the case of their going to families in the late afternoon and lying down on a spread without asking the owners’ permission. And here, there is no permanent non-offence.

In Sāvatthī, regarding several bhikkhunīs, a rule was established concerning approaching families at an improper time, spreading a bed without informing the owner, and sitting down. Here, there is no such thing as a permanently assigned bed.

The explanation of the training rule on spreading a mat without asking permission is finished.

8. Paraujjhāpanakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Paraujjhāpanaka Training Rule

8. Paraujjhāpanakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Rule on Reproving Another

Aṭṭhame duggahitena dūpadhāritenāti yaṃ vuttaṃ, tato aññathā gahitena ca upadhāritena ca. Paranti “ahaṃ kirayye ayyaṃ na sakkaccaṃ upaṭṭhahāmī”tiādinā (pāci. 869) nayena upasampannaṃ ujjhāpentiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the eighth, with a wrongly grasped and wrongly held view means grasped and held differently from what was said. Another—if she causes an ordained person to be faulted by saying things like, “It seems I don’t attend to the venerable one with respect” (pāci. 869), it is a pācittiya.

In the eighth, duggahitena dūpadhāritenāti means having understood and retained differently from what was said. Paranti, causing a fully ordained nun to complain in such a way as, “It seems that I am not respectfully attending to the noble lady,” and so on (pāci. 869), incurs a pācittiya.

In the eighth rule, with what is poorly grasped and poorly understood means what is grasped and understood differently from what was said. Another: If one reproves an ordained person, saying, “I do not attend to the venerable one properly,” etc. (pāci. 869), it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha evaṃ paraṃ ujjhāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampannāya tikadukkaṭaṃ, ummattikādīnaṃyeva anāpatti. Duggahitatā, ujjhāpanaṃ, yaṃ ujjhāpeti, tassā upasampannatāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun, regarding the matter of faulting another in this way. It entails three instances of pācittiya; for a non-ordained person, three instances of dukkaṭa; there is no offence only for those who are deranged or similar. The wrong grasp, the act of faulting, and the ordained status of the one faulted—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Adinnādāna rule, but this involves painful feeling.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhunī, in the case of her thus causing another to complain. It is a triple pācittiya; for one not fully ordained, a triple dukkaṭa; and there is no offence for one who is insane, and so forth. Misunderstanding, causing to complain, and the fully ordained status of the one she causes to complain—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of taking what is not given, but this is painful feeling.

In Sāvatthī, regarding a certain bhikkhunī, a rule was established concerning reproving another. It is a triple pācittiya offense. For an unordained person, it is a triple dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: poorly grasped, reproving, and the one being reproved being ordained. The origins, etc., are similar to the case of stealing. This, however, is a painful feeling.

The explanation of the training rule on causing another to complain is finished.

9. Paraabhisapanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Paraabhisapana Training Rule

9. Paraabhisapanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Rule on Cursing Another

Navame abhisapeyyāti sapathaṃ kareyya. Tattha “niraye upapajjāmi, niraye upapajjatū”tievamādīni vadamānā nirayena abhisapati nāma, akkosatīti attho. “Gihinī homi, gihinī hotū”tievamādīni vadamānā brahmacariyena. Tassā vācāya vācāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the ninth, she curses means she makes an oath. Here, if she says things like, “May I be reborn in hell,” or “May she be reborn in hell,” she is said to curse with hell, meaning she reviles. If she says things like, “May I become a laywoman,” or “May she become a laywoman,” it is with the holy life. For each such utterance, it is a pācittiya.

In the ninth, abhisapeyyāti means to make a curse. In this context, saying such things as, “May I be reborn in hell, may she be reborn in hell,” is called abhisapati with hell, meaning to curse. Saying such things as, “May I become a laywoman, may she become a laywoman,” is with the brahmacariyā. For each such utterance, there is a pācittiya.

In the ninth rule, to curse means to make a curse. Here, saying, “May I be reborn in hell, may you be reborn in hell,” etc., is called cursing with hell. It means to abuse. Saying, “May I become a laywoman, may you become a laywoman,” etc., is called cursing with the holy life. For each statement, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ caṇḍakāḷiṃ ārabbha evaṃ abhisapanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampannāya tikadukkaṭaṃ, tiracchānayoniyā vā pettivisayena vā manussadobhaggena vā abhisapane dukkaṭaṃ. Atthadhammānusāsanipurekkhārānaṃ ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Nirayena vā brahmacariyena vā abhisapanaṃ , upasampannatā, atthadhammapurekkhārādīnaṃ abhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni aṭṭhamasadisānevāti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Caṇḍakāḷī, regarding the matter of cursing in this way. It entails three instances of pācittiya; for a non-ordained person, three instances of dukkaṭa; for cursing with the animal realm, the realm of the departed, or human misfortune, it is dukkaṭa. For those intent on teaching meaning and Dhamma, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Cursing with hell or the holy life, the ordained status, and the absence of intent for teaching meaning or Dhamma—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the eighth.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Caṇḍakāḷī, in the case of her thus cursing. It is a triple pācittiya; for one not fully ordained, a triple dukkaṭa; and a dukkaṭa for cursing with the animal realm, or the realm of hungry ghosts, or human misfortune. There is no offence for those whose priority is instruction in the true Dhamma, for those who are insane, and so on. Cursing with hell or the brahmacariyā, the fully ordained status [of the other], and the absence of instruction in the true Dhamma as a priority—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the eighth.

In Sāvatthī, regarding Caṇḍakālī, a rule was established concerning cursing. It is a triple pācittiya offense. For an unordained person, it is a triple dukkaṭa offense. If one curses an animal, a ghost, or a human of inferior birth, it is a dukkaṭa offense. There is no offense for those who are insane, etc., or who are teaching the Dhamma for the sake of meaning. The three factors here are: cursing with hell or the holy life, the one being cursed being ordained, and the absence of teaching the Dhamma for the sake of meaning. The origins, etc., are similar to the eighth rule.

10. Rodanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Rodana Training Rule

10. Rodanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Rule on Weeping

Dasame vadhitvāti hatthādīhi paharitvā, ubhayaṃ karontiyāva pācittiyaṃ.

In the tenth, having struck means striking with hands or similar; it is a pācittiya only if she does both.

In the tenth, vadhitvāti means striking with the hands and so on. If she does both, there is a pācittiya.

In the tenth rule, having struck means having struck with the hand, etc. If one does both, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ caṇḍakāḷiṃ ārabbha attānaṃ vadhitvā rodanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, kevalaṃ vadhantiyā vā rodantiyā vā dukkaṭameva. Ñātirogabhogabyasanehi phuṭṭhāya kevalaṃ rodantiyā eva na vadhantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Attānaṃ vadhanañceva, rodanañcāti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni samanubhāsanasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyamevāti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Caṇḍakāḷī, regarding the matter of striking herself and weeping. For one merely striking or merely weeping, it is only dukkaṭa. For one affected by the illness or misfortune of relatives or possessions who merely weeps without striking, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Striking oneself and weeping—these are the two factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Samanubhāsana rule, but this is purely an action.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Caṇḍakāḷī, in the case of her striking herself and weeping. If she only strikes or only weeps, there is only a dukkaṭa. There is no offence if, afflicted by the loss of relatives, health, or wealth, she only weeps and does not strike herself, or for those who are insane, and so forth. Striking oneself and weeping—these are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the full-probation precept, but this is only an action.

In Sāvatthī, regarding Caṇḍakālī, a rule was established concerning striking oneself and weeping. If one only strikes or only weeps, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one is affected by the loss of relatives, wealth, or health and only weeps without striking, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The two factors here are: striking oneself and weeping. The origins, etc., are similar to the case of formal censure. This, however, is merely an action.

3. Naggavaggo

3. The Naked Chapter

1. Naggasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Nagga Training Rule

1. Naggasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the Rule on Nakedness

Naggavaggassa paṭhame naggāti anivatthā vā apārutā vā. Evañhi nahāyantiyā sabbappayogesu dukkaṭaṃ, nahānapariyosāne pācittiyaṃ.

In the first of the Naggavagga section, naked means either unclothed or uncovered. For one bathing thus, it is dukkaṭa in all actions, and a pācittiya upon completion of bathing.

In the first of the Naked Chapter, naggāti means unclothed or uncovered. Thus bathing, there is a dukkaṭa for every effort, and a pācittiya at the completion of bathing.

In the first rule of the Naked Chapter, naked means not wearing any clothing or not properly covered. Thus, while bathing, it is a dukkaṭa offense for every action. At the end of bathing, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha evaṃ nahānavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, udakasāṭikacīvare acchinne vā naṭṭhe vā, “mahagghaṃ idaṃ disvā corāpi hareyyu”nti evarūpāsu āpadāsu vā nahāyantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Naggatā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvo, nahānapariyosānanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning several nuns, regarding the matter of bathing in this way. When the water robe or garment is torn or lost, or in emergencies such as thinking, “Seeing this costly item, even thieves might take it,” and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Nakedness, the absence of a permitted reason, and the completion of bathing—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Eḷakaloma rule.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a group of bhikkhunīs, in the case of their thus bathing. There is no offence if the bathing cloth is lost or destroyed, or if bathing in such circumstances as, “Seeing that this is valuable, even thieves might steal it,” or for those who are insane, and so forth. Nakedness, the absence of a permitted reason, and the completion of bathing—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the sheep’s wool precept.

In Sāvatthī, regarding several bhikkhunīs, a rule was established concerning bathing. If one’s bathing cloth or robe is torn or lost, or if one thinks, “This is valuable, and seeing it, thieves might take it,” or in an emergency, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: nakedness, the absence of an authorized reason, and the end of bathing. The origins, etc., are similar to the case of the woolen blanket.

2. Udakasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Udakasāṭika Training Rule

2. Udakasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Rule on the Bathing Cloth

Dutiye sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha appamāṇikāyo udakasāṭikāyo dhāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesamettha sabbaṃ ratanavagge nisīdanasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

In the second, this was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six nuns, regarding the matter of wearing an oversized water robe. The rest here should be understood entirely as stated in the Nisīdana training rule of the Ratana section.

In the second, this was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the bhikkhunīs of the group of six, in the case of their wearing improperly sized bathing cloths. All the rest here should be understood as stated in the training rule on sitting cloths in the Jewel Chapter.

In the second rule, in Sāvatthī, regarding the six bhikkhunīs, a rule was established concerning wearing excessive bathing cloths. The rest here should be understood in the same way as in the rule on sitting in the Jewel Chapter.

3. Cīvarasibbanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Cīvarasibbana Training Rule

3. Cīvarasibbanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Rule on Unstitching a Robe

Tatiye visibbetvāti dussibbitaṃ punasibbanatthāya visibbetvā. Anantarāyikinīti dasasu antarāyesu ekekasmimpi asati. Aññatra catūhapañcāhāti visibbitadivasato pañca divase atikkāmetvā “neva sibbissāmi , na sibbāpanāya ussukkaṃ karissāmī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhittamatte pācittiyaṃ.

In the third, having unsewn means unsewing a sewn cloth for the purpose of resewing. Without hindrance means in the absence of any one of the ten hindrances. Except for four or five days—if, after the day of unsewing, she exceeds five days and resolves, “I will neither sew nor make an effort to have it sewn,” it is a pācittiya upon abandoning that resolve.

In the third, visibbetvāti means having unstitched [a robe] to re-sew it because it was poorly sewn. Anantarāyikinīti means without any of the ten obstacles. Aññatra catūhapañcāhāti means, exceeding five days from the day of un-stitching, if she abandons the task thinking, “I will neither sew it nor make an effort to have it sewn,” there is a pācittiya.

In the third rule, unstitched means unstitched for the purpose of re-stitching. Without an obstacle means the absence of any one of the ten obstacles. Except for four or five days: If one exceeds five days from the day of unstitching and decides, “I will not stitch, nor will I make an effort to have it stitched,” it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha cīvaraṃ visibbetvā na sibbanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampannāya tikadukkaṭaṃ, tathā ubhinnampi aññasmiṃ parikkhāre. Yā pana antarāyikinī vā hoti, pariyesitvā vā kiñci na labhati, karontī vā pañcāhaṃ atikkāmeti, tassā ca, gilānāya ca, āpadāsu ca, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Nivāsanapārupanupagacīvaratā, upasampannāya santakatā, sibbanatthāya visibbanaṃ vā visibbāpanaṃ vā, aññatra anuññātakāraṇā pañcāhātikkamo, dhuranikkhepoti imānettha pañca aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni samanubhāsanasadisānīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of unsewing a robe and not sewing it. It entails three instances of pācittiya; for a non-ordained person, three instances of dukkaṭa; likewise for both with other equipment. For one who is hindered, or who searches and finds nothing, or who exceeds five days while working on it, and for a sick person, in emergencies, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. The robe being suitable for wearing or covering, belonging to an ordained person, unsewing or causing it to be unsewn for sewing, exceeding five days without a permitted reason, and abandoning resolve—these are the five factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Samanubhāsana rule.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of her un-stitching a robe and not sewing it. It is a triple pācittiya; for one not fully ordained, a triple dukkaṭa; and likewise for both [parties] in the case of another requisite. But if she is obstructed, or searches but does not obtain anything, or exceeds five days while working on it, or if she is sick, or in times of danger, or insane, and so forth, there is no offence. Being a robe suitable for wearing or covering, being owned by a fully ordained nun, un-stitching or causing to un-stitch it for the purpose of sewing, exceeding five days except for a permitted reason, and abandoning the task—these are the five factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the full-probation precept.

In Sāvatthī, regarding Thullanandā, a rule was established concerning unstitching a robe and not stitching it. It is a triple pācittiya offense. For an unordained person, it is a triple dukkaṭa offense. Similarly, for both, regarding other requisites. However, if there is an obstacle, or if one searches but does not find anything, or if one exceeds five days, or if one is sick, or in an emergency, or if one is insane, etc., there is no offense. The five factors here are: the robe being suitable for wearing, being owned by an ordained person, unstitching or having it unstitched for the purpose of stitching, exceeding five days without an authorized reason, and abandoning the duty. The origins, etc., are similar to the case of formal censure.

4. Saṅghāṭicārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Saṅghāṭicāra Training Rule

4. Saṅghāṭicārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Rule on the Use of the Triple Robe

Catutthe pañca ahāni pañcāhaṃ, pañcāhameva pañcāhikaṃ. Saṅghāṭīnaṃ cāro saṅghāṭicāro, paribhogavasena vā otāpanavasena vā saṅghaṭitaṭṭhena ’saṅghāṭī’ti laddhanāmaṃ ticīvaraṃ, udakasāṭikā, saṃkaccikāti imesaṃ pañcannaṃ cīvarānaṃ parivattananti attho. Atikkāmeyya pācittiyanti chaṭṭhe aruṇuggamane ekasmiṃ cīvare vuttanayena aparivattite ekā āpatti, pañcasu pañca.

In the fourth, five days is five-day period. The movement of outer robes is saṅghāṭicāra—this refers to the rotation of the five robes named ‘saṅghāṭi’ due to their use or airing together: the triple robe, the water robe, and the undercloth. She exceeds, it is a pācittiya—at the sixth dawn, if one robe is not rotated as described, it is one offence; for five robes, five offences.

In the fourth, five days is five days, only five days is pañcāhikaṃ. The use of outer robes is saṅghāṭicāro, meaning the exchanging of the three robes—called ‘saṅghāṭī’ because they are put together, either for use or for warming—the bathing cloth, and the sitting cloth: these five robes. Atikkāmeyya pācittiyanti: at the rising of the dawn on the sixth day, if one robe is not exchanged as stated, there is one offence; for five, there are five offences.

In the fourth rule, five days are five days. The use of the triple robe is the use of the triple robe, meaning the exchange of the five robes: the upper robe, the lower robe, the bathing cloth, the waistcloth, and the rain cloak. To exceed is a pācittiya offense: In the sixth rule, at dawn, if one does not exchange one robe, it is one offense; if one does not exchange all five, it is five offenses.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā santaruttarena janapadacārikaṃ pakkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, pañcāhānatikkante dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ pana anatikkantasaññāya, pañcamaṃ divasaṃ pañca cīvarāni nivāsentiyā vā pārupantiyā vā otāpentiyā vā, gilānāya, “idaṃ me cīvaraṃ mahagghaṃ īdise corabhaye na sakkā dhāretu”nti evarūpāsu āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Pañcannaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññataratā, pañcāhātikkamo, anuññātakāraṇābhāvo, aparivattananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisānīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning several nuns, regarding the matter of leaving a robe behind and wandering the countryside within and beyond borders. It entails three instances of pācittiya; if it does not exceed five days, it is two instances of dukkaṭa. For one perceiving it as not exceeding, or on the fifth day wearing, covering with, or airing all five robes, and for a sick person, or in emergencies like, “This robe of mine is costly; it cannot be worn in such a danger of thieves,” and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Being one of the five robes, exceeding five days, the absence of a permitted reason, and non-rotation—these are the four factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Kathina rule.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a group of bhikkhunīs, in the case of their setting out on a journey in the countryside, leaving their robes behind, with only inner and outer robes. It is a triple pācittiya; after exceeding five days, a double dukkaṭa. But if she is mindful that it has not been exceeded, or on the fifth day she wears, covers herself with, or warms the five robes, or if she is sick, or in such times of danger as, “This robe of mine is valuable; in such a danger of thieves, it cannot be kept,” or for those who are insane, and so forth, there is no offence. Being one of the five robes, exceeding five days, the absence of a permitted reason, and not exchanging—these are the four factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the [extra] kathina [cloth].

In Sāvatthī, regarding several bhikkhunīs, a rule was established concerning storing a robe and setting out on a journey to another region. It is a triple pācittiya offense. If one exceeds five days, it is a double dukkaṭa offense. However, if one perceives that one has not exceeded, or if one wears, covers, or uses the five robes on the fifth day, or if one is sick, or if one thinks, “This robe is valuable, and in such a danger of thieves, it cannot be worn,” or in an emergency, or if one is insane, etc., there is no offense. The four factors here are: having one of the five robes, exceeding five days, the absence of an authorized reason, and not exchanging. The origins, etc., are similar to the case of the Kathina.

5. Cīvarasaṅkamanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Cīvarasaṅkamanīya Training Rule

5. Cīvarasaṅkamanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Rule on the Transfer of Robes

Pañcame cīvarasaṅkamanīyanti saṅkametabbaṃ cīvaraṃ, aññissā santakaṃ anāpucchā gahitaṃ puna paṭidātabbaṃ pañcannaṃ aññataraṃ cīvaranti attho. Dhāreyyāti sace taṃ nivāseti vā pārupati vā pācittiyaṃ.

In the fifth, robe to be returned means a robe that should be returned—one taken without permission from another’s possession that must be given back, being one of the five robes. She wears—if she wears or covers herself with it, it is a pācittiya.

In the fifth, cīvarasaṅkamanīyanti means a robe that should be returned: a robe belonging to another that was taken without asking and should be returned, meaning one of the five robes. Dhāreyyāti: if she wears it or covers herself with it, there is a pācittiya.

In the fifth, cīvarasaṅkamanīya means a robe that should be transferred, a robe belonging to another taken without permission must be returned, one of the five kinds of robes is intended. Dhāreyyāti: if she wears it or uses it, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha bhikkhuniyā cīvaraṃ ādāya anāpucchā pārupanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampannāya tikadukkaṭaṃ. Yā pana tāya vā dinnaṃ, taṃ vā āpucchā, acchinnanaṭṭhacīvarikā vā hutvā, “idaṃ me cīvaraṃ mahagghaṃ īdise corabhaye na sakkā dhāretu”nti evarūpāsu āpadāsu vā dhāreti, tassā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Cīvarasaṅkamanīyatā, upasampannāya santakatā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvo, dhāraṇanti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun, regarding the matter of taking a nun’s robe and wearing it without permission. It entails three instances of pācittiya; for a non-ordained person, three instances of dukkaṭa. For one wearing it when it was given by her, or with permission, or when her robe is torn or lost, or in emergencies like, “This robe of mine is costly; it cannot be worn in such a danger of thieves,” and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Being a robe to be returned, belonging to an ordained person, the absence of a permitted reason, and wearing it—these are the four factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the first Kathina rule, but this involves both action and non-action.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhunī, in the case of her taking a bhikkhunī’s robe and covering herself with it without asking. It is a triple pācittiya; for one not fully ordained, a triple dukkaṭa. But if it was given by her, or if she asked her, or if she is without a robe because it was stolen or lost, or if she wears it in such times of danger as, “This robe of mine is valuable; in such a danger of thieves, it cannot be kept,” or for those who are insane, and so forth, there is no offence. Being a robe that should be returned, being owned by a fully ordained nun, the absence of a permitted reason, and wearing—these are the four factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the first [extra] kathina [cloth], but this is action and non-action.

In Sāvatthī, a certain bhikkhunī took a robe belonging to another bhikkhunī without permission and used it. This is the origin story for the rule, which is a tikapācittiya offense. For an unordained person, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. If the robe was given to her, or she asked for permission, or she was not a thief, or she thought, “This robe is valuable, I cannot wear it in such a dangerous situation,” and wore it under such circumstances, there is no offense for her or for those who are insane, etc. The four factors here are: the robe being transferable, it belonging to an ordained person, the absence of permission, and wearing it. The origins, etc., are similar to the first kathina rule. This is a matter of action and non-action.

The explanation of the training rule on robes that should be returned is finished.

6. Gaṇacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Gaṇacīvara Training Rule

6. Gaṇacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Gaṇacīvara Training Rule

Chaṭṭhe gaṇassāti bhikkhunisaṅghassa. Cīvaralābhanti vikappanupagampi pacchimaṃ labhitabbaṃ cīvaraṃ. Antarāyaṃ kareyyāti yathā te dātukāmā na denti, evaṃ parakkameyya. Pācittiyanti sace tassā vacanena te na denti, bhikkhuniyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the sixth, of the community means of the nuns’ Sangha. Robe gain means even a robe suitable for assignment, the last one to be received. She obstructs means she exerts herself so that those willing to give do not give. Pācittiya—if they do not give due to her words, it is a pācittiya for the nun.

In the sixth, gaṇassāti means of the bhikkhunī community. Cīvaralābhanti means even the last robe to be received, including one not suitable for allocation. Antarāyaṃ kareyyāti means to obstruct in such a way that those who are willing to give do not give. Pācittiyanti: if, because of her words, they do not give, there is a pācittiya for the bhikkhunī.

In the sixth, gaṇassāti refers to the community of bhikkhunīs. Cīvaralābha means even a robe that has been designated as shared, if it is the last one obtained. Antarāyaṃ kareyyāti: if she makes an effort so that those who wish to give do not give, it is a pācittiya offense. If, due to her words, they do not give, the bhikkhunī commits a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha gaṇassa cīvaralābhantarāyakaraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, aññasmiṃ parikkhāre dukkaṭaṃ, sambahulānaṃ pana ekabhikkhuniyā vā cīvaralābhepi dukkaṭameva. “Samagghakāle dassathā”ti evaṃ ānisaṃsaṃ dassetvā nivārentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Vikappanupagapacchimatā, saṅghassa pariṇatabhāvo, vinā ānisaṃsadassanena antarāyakaraṇanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisānīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of obstructing the robe gain of the community. For other equipment, it is dukkaṭa; for the robe gain of several nuns or one nun, it is also only dukkaṭa. For one preventing it by showing the benefit, saying, “Give it when the Sangha is united,” and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Being the last robe suitable for assignment, being designated for the Sangha, and obstructing without showing a benefit—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Adinnādāna rule.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of her obstructing the gain of robes for the community. For another requisite, there is a dukkaṭa; and for the gain of robes for a group or for a single bhikkhunī, there is only a dukkaṭa. There is no offence if she prevents it by showing the advantages, saying, “Give it at a time when prices are low,” or for those who are insane, and so forth. Being the last [robe] not suitable for allocation, being designated for the community, and obstructing without showing the advantages—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of taking what is not given.

In Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, the origin story for creating an obstacle to the community’s robe acquisition is established. For other requisites, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If many bhikkhunīs are involved in acquiring a robe, it is also a dukkaṭa offense. If she says, “Give at the appropriate time,” and shows the benefits, there is no offense for her or for those who are insane, etc. The three factors here are: the robe being designated as shared, the community’s involvement, and creating an obstacle without showing the benefits. The origins, etc., are similar to the offense of stealing.

The explanation of the training rule on the gain of robes for the community is finished.

7. Paṭibāhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Paṭibāhana Training Rule

7. Paṭibāhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Paṭibāhana Training Rule

Sattame dhammikaṃ cīvaravibhaṅganti samaggena saṅghena sannipatitvā karīyamānaṃ cīvaravibhaṅga. Paṭibāheyyāti paṭisedheyya, evaṃ paṭisedhentiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the seventh, lawful robe distribution means the robe distribution being conducted by the Sangha gathered in unity. She obstructs means she prevents it; for one preventing it thus, it is a pācittiya.

In the seventh, dhammikaṃ cīvaravibhaṅganti means the distribution of robes done by the harmonious community after assembling. Paṭibāheyyāti means to forbid it. Forbidding it in this way, there is a pācittiya.

In the seventh, dhammikaṃ cīvaravibhaṅga means the distribution of robes done by the community gathered in harmony. Paṭibāheyyāti: if she obstructs it, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha dhammikaṃ cīvaravibhaṅgaṃ paṭibāhanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, dhammike vematikāya, adhammike dhammikasaññāya ceva vematikāya ca dukkaṭaṃ. Ubhayattha adhammikasaññāya, ānisaṃsaṃ dassetvā paṭibāhantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Cīvaravibhaṅgassa dhammikatā, dhammikasaññitā, vinā ānisaṃsena paṭibāhananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisānevāti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of obstructing a lawful robe distribution. For one doubtful about its lawfulness, or perceiving an unlawful one as lawful, or doubtful, it is dukkaṭa. For one perceiving both as unlawful, or obstructing it while showing a benefit, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. The lawfulness of the robe distribution, perceiving it as lawful, and obstructing it without showing a benefit—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Adinnādāna rule.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of her forbidding a lawful distribution of robes. If there is doubt about its lawfulness, or if she thinks what is unlawful is lawful, or if she has doubt about what is unlawful, there is a dukkaṭa. If she thinks it is unlawful in both cases, or if she forbids it while showing the advantages, or for those who are insane, and so forth, there is no offence. The lawfulness of the distribution of robes, thinking it is lawful, and forbidding without showing the advantages—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of taking what is not given.

In Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, the origin story for obstructing a legitimate robe distribution is established. If she is in doubt about its legitimacy, or perceives it as legitimate when it is not, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If she obstructs after showing the benefits, there is no offense for her or for those who are insane, etc. The three factors here are: the distribution being legitimate, perceiving it as legitimate, and obstructing without showing the benefits. The origins, etc., are similar to the offense of stealing.

8. Cīvaradānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Cīvaradāna Training Rule

8. Cīvaradānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Cīvaradāna Training Rule

Aṭṭhame samaṇacīvaranti kappakataṃ nivāsanapārupanupagaṃ, evarūpaṃ ṭhapetvā pañca sahadhammike mātāpitaro ca yassa kassaci gahaṭṭhassa vā pabbajitassa vā pariccajitvā dentiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the eighth, monastic robe means one prepared, suitable for wearing or covering; giving such a robe, except to the five co-religionists and parents, to any layperson or ordained person is a pācittiya.

In the eighth, samaṇacīvaranti means a properly made robe suitable for wearing or covering. Discarding and giving such a robe to any householder or renunciant, except for the five co-religionists and one’s parents, incurs a pācittiya.

In the eighth, samaṇacīvara means a robe made according to the rules, suitable for wearing. Excluding these, if she gives a robe to any layperson or renunciant after relinquishing it, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha agārikassa samaṇacīvaradānavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, bhikkhuno dukkaṭaṃ. Mātāpitūnaṃ pariccajitvāpi, aññesaṃ tāvakālikameva dentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Samaṇacīvaratā, ṭhapetvā sahadhammike ca mātāpitaro ca aññesaṃ dānaṃ, atāvakālikatāti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni sañcarittasadisānīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of giving a monastic robe to a layperson. For a monk, it is dukkaṭa. Even when giving to parents, or giving only temporarily to others, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Being a monastic robe, giving it to anyone except co-religionists and parents, and it not being temporary—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Sañcaritta rule.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of her giving a monastic robe to a householder. For a bhikkhu, there is a dukkaṭa. There is no offence if she discards and gives it to her parents, or if she gives it to others only temporarily, or for those who are insane, and so forth. Being a monastic robe, giving it to others besides co-religionists and parents, and it not being temporary—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the inter-messenger precept.

In Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, the origin story for giving a monastic robe to a layperson is established. For a bhikkhu, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Even if she relinquishes it to her parents, or gives it temporarily to others, there is no offense for her or for those who are insane, etc. The three factors here are: the robe being a monastic robe, excluding parents and those who share the Dhamma, and giving it temporarily. The origins, etc., are similar to the offense of wrong livelihood.

9. Kālaatikkamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Kālaatikkamana Training Rule

9. Kālaatikkamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Kālaatikkamana Training Rule

Navame dubbalacīvarapaccāsāyāti dubbalāya cīvarapaccāsāya, “sace sakkoma dassāmā”ti ettakamattaṃ sutvā uppāditāya āsāyāti attho . Cīvarakālasamayaṃ atikkāmeyyāti vassaṃvuṭṭhabhikkhunīhi kālacīvare bhājiyamāne “āgameyyātha, ayye, atthi saṅghassa cīvarapaccāsā”ti vatvā taṃ cīvaravibhaṅgaṃ cīvarakālaṃ atikkāmeyya, tassā anatthate kathine vassānassa pacchimamāsaṃ, atthate kathine kathinubbhāradivasaṃ atikkāmentiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the ninth, with feeble hope for a robe means with a feeble expectation of a robe, arising from hearing merely, “If we can, we will give.” She exceeds the robe-season period—when nuns who have completed the rains retreat are distributing seasonal robes and say, “Wait, venerables, there is a robe expectation for the Sangha,” if she exceeds the robe season and the robe distribution—until the last month of the rains if the Kathina is not spread, or the day of removing the Kathina if it is spread—it is a pācittiya.

In the ninth, dubbalacīvarapaccāsāyāti means with a weak expectation of a robe, meaning having aroused hope by hearing only this much: “If we are able, we will give.” Cīvarakālasamayaṃ atikkāmeyyāti: when robes for the rainy season are being distributed by the bhikkhunīs who have completed the rains residence, having said, “Wait, noble ladies, there is an expectation of robes for the community,” she should cause that distribution of robes to exceed the robe season. If she causes the last month of the rainy season to pass when the kathina has not been spread, or the day of the removal of the kathina when the kathina has been spread, rendering it ineffective, there is a pācittiya.

In the ninth, dubbalacīvarapaccāsāyāti means having a weak expectation for a robe, thinking, “If we can, we will give.” Cīvarakālasamayaṃ atikkāmeyyāti: when robes are being distributed to bhikkhunīs after the rains retreat, if she says, “Wait, venerables, the community has an expectation for robes,” and delays the distribution beyond the robe season, it is a pācittiya offense. If the kathina is not established, the last month of the rains retreat is intended; if the kathina is established, the day of kathina removal is intended.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha dubbalacīvarapaccāsāya cīvarakālasamayaṃ atikkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, dubbalacīvare vematikāya, adubbalacīvare dubbalacīvarasaññāya ceva vematikāya ca dukkaṭaṃ. Ubhayattha adubbalacīvarasaññāya, kiñcāpi ’na sakkomā’ti vadanti, “idāni pana tesaṃ kappāso vā uppajjissati, saddho vā puriso āgamissati, tasmiṃ āgate addhā dassantī”ti evaṃ ānisaṃsaṃ dassetvā nivārentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Dubbalacīvaratā, dubbalasaññitā, vinā ānisaṃsena nivāraṇanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisānīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of exceeding the robe-season period with feeble hope for a robe. For one doubtful about the feeble robe, or perceiving a non-feeble robe as feeble, or doubtful, it is dukkaṭa. For one perceiving both as non-feeble, or even if they say, “We cannot,” thinking, “Now their cotton will grow, or a faithful man will come; when he arrives, they will surely give,” and preventing it while showing a benefit, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Being a feeble robe, perceiving it as feeble, and preventing it without showing a benefit—these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Adinnādāna rule.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of her exceeding the robe season with a weak expectation of a robe. If there is doubt about the weak robe, or if she thinks a strong robe is a weak robe, or if she has doubt about it, there is a dukkaṭa. If she thinks it is a strong robe in both cases, or even if they say, ‘We are not able,’ if she prevents it by showing the advantages, saying, “But now they will get cotton, or a faithful man will come, and when he comes, they will surely give,” or for those who are insane, and so forth, there is no offence. Being a weak robe, thinking it is weak, and preventing without showing the advantages—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of taking what is not given.

In Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, the origin story for delaying the robe season due to a weak expectation for robes is established. If she is in doubt about the weakness of the robe, or perceives it as weak when it is not, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If she says, “We cannot now, but later cotton may become available, or a generous person may come, and then we will give,” and shows the benefits, there is no offense for her or for those who are insane, etc. The three factors here are: the robe being weak, perceiving it as weak, and delaying without showing the benefits. The origins, etc., are similar to the offense of stealing.

10. Kathinuddhārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Kathinuddhāra Training Rule

10. Kathinuddhārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Kathinuddhāra Training Rule

Dasame dhammikaṃ kathinuddhāranti sabbāsaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ akālacīvaraṃ dātukāmena upāsakena yattako atthāramūliko ānisaṃso, tato adhikaṃ vā samakaṃ vā datvā yācitena samaggena bhikkhunisaṅghena yaṃ kathinaṃ ñattidutiyakammena antarā uddharīyati, tassa so uddhāro ’dhammiko’ti vuccati, evarūpaṃ kathinuddhāranti attho. Paṭibāheyyāti nivāreyya, tassa evarūpaṃ kathinuddhāraṃ nivārentiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the tenth, lawful Kathina removal—when a layperson, desiring to give unseasonal robes to all nuns, gives more or an equal amount beyond the basic benefit and requests it, and the nuns’ Sangha in unity removes the Kathina with a motion and second announcement, that removal is called ‘lawful’; this refers to such a Kathina removal. She obstructs means she prevents it; for one preventing such a Kathina removal, it is a pācittiya.

In the tenth, dhammikaṃ kathinuddhāranti: a lay supporter, wishing to give robes out of season to all the bhikkhunīs, gives more than or equal to the benefit of spreading [the kathina], or having requested it, the harmonious bhikkhunī community removes the kathina in the midst of a formal act consisting of a motion and second proclamation. That removal is called ‘lawful.’ Paṭibāheyyāti means to prevent it. Preventing such a lawful removal of the kathina, there is a pācittiya.

In the tenth, dhammikaṃ kathinuddhāra means the legitimate removal of the kathina, done by the community of bhikkhunīs in harmony, after being requested by a layperson who wishes to give out-of-season robes, having given a suitable or equal amount of compensation. Paṭibāheyyāti: if she obstructs such a legitimate kathinuddhāra, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha kathinuddhāraṃ paṭibāhanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesaṃ sattame vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of obstructing the Kathina removal. The rest should be understood as stated in the seventh rule.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of her preventing the removal of the kathina. The rest should be understood as stated in the seventh.

In Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, the origin story for obstructing the kathinuddhāra is established. The rest should be understood in the same way as explained in the seventh rule.

4. Tuvaṭṭavaggo

1. Ekamañcatuvaṭṭanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Ekamañcatuvaṭṭana Training Rule

1. Ekamañcatuvaṭṭanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the Ekamañcatuvaṭṭana Training Rule

Tuvaṭṭavaggassa paṭhame tuvaṭṭeyyunti nipajjeyyuṃ. Tāsu pana ekāya vā nipannāya aparā nipajjatu, dvepi vā saheva nipajjantu, dvinnampi pācittiyaṃ.

In the first of the Tuvaṭṭavagga section, they lie down means they lie down. If one lies down and another joins her, or both lie down together, it is a pācittiya for both.

In the first of the Lying Down Chapter, tuvaṭṭeyyunti means they should lie down. But if one of them lies down and the other lies down, or if both lie down together, there is a pācittiya for both.

In the first of the Tuvaṭṭavagga, tuvaṭṭeyyunti means they should lie down. If one lies down and another lies down separately, or both lie down together, it is a pācittiya offense for both.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha dvinnaṃ ekamañce tuvaṭṭanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sace pana ekāya nipannāya ekā nisīdati, ubho vā nisīdanti, tāsaṃ, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Ekamañcatā, dvinnaṃ tuvaṭṭananti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning several nuns, regarding the matter of two lying down on one bed. If one lies down and another sits, or both sit, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Being one bed, and two lying down—these are the two factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Eḷakaloma rule.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a group of bhikkhunīs, in the case of two of them lying down on one bed. But if, when one has lain down, one sits, or if both sit, there is no offence for them, or for those who are insane, and so forth. Being one bed, and two lying down—these are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the sheep’s wool precept.

In Sāvatthī, concerning several bhikkhunīs, the origin story for two lying on one bed is established. If one lies down and the other sits, or both sit, there is no offense for them or for those who are insane, etc. The two factors here are: the bed being one, and two lying on it. The origins, etc., are similar to the offense of pulling out eyelashes.

2. Ekattharaṇatuvaṭṭanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Ekattharaṇatuvaṭṭana Training Rule

2. Ekattharaṇatuvaṭṭanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Ekattharaṇatuvaṭṭana Training Rule

Dutiye ekaṃ attharaṇañceva pāvuraṇañca etāsanti ekattharaṇapāvuraṇā, saṃhārimānaṃ pāvārattharaṇakaṭasārakādīnaṃ ekaṃ antaṃ attharitvā ekaṃ pārupitvā tuvaṭṭentīnametaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Pācittiyanti taṃyeva attharitvā taṃ pārupitvā nipajjantīnaṃ pācittiyaṃ.

In the second, having one mat and one cover means with one mat and cover—this is a term for those lying down with one end of a removable mat, cover, or frame spread and the other worn. Pācittiya—for those spreading it and wearing it to lie down, it is a pācittiya.

In the second, those who have one covering and one blanket are ekattharaṇapāvuraṇā, This is a designation for those who lie down after spreading one end of a portable cloak, blanket, reed mat, and so on, and covering themselves with one end. Pācittiyanti: lying down after spreading that and covering themselves with that, there is a pācittiya.

In the second, ekattharaṇapāvuraṇā means one sheet and one covering. If they lie down after spreading one end and covering themselves with the other, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha evaṃ tuvaṭṭanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, attharaṇe vā pāvuraṇe vā ekasmiṃ dukkaṭaṃ, nānattharaṇapāvuraṇe dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ pana nānattharaṇapāvuraṇasaññāya, vavatthānaṃ dassetvā nipajjantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sesaṃ paṭhamasadisamevāti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning several nuns, regarding the matter of lying down in this way. It entails three instances of pācittiya; for one mat or one cover alone, it is dukkaṭa; for different mats and covers, it is two instances of dukkaṭa. For one perceiving it as different mats and covers, or lying down after clarifying it, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. The rest is the same as the first.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning a group of bhikkhunīs, in the case of their thus lying down. It is a triple pācittiya; for one covering or blanket, a dukkaṭa; for different coverings and blankets, a double dukkaṭa. But if she thinks they are different coverings and blankets, or if she lies down after showing the separation, or for those who are insane, and so forth, there is no offence. The rest is the same as the first.

In Sāvatthī, concerning several bhikkhunīs, the origin story for lying down in this way is established. It is a tikapācittiya offense. If one sheet or covering is used, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If different sheets and coverings are used, it is a dvikadukkaṭa offense. If she perceives them as different, and lies down after clarifying, there is no offense for her or for those who are insane, etc. The rest is similar to the first rule.

The explanation of the training rule on lying down with one covering is finished.

3. Aphāsukaraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Aphāsukaraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Aphāsukaraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Aphāsukaraṇa Training Rule

Tatiye aphāsunti “iminā imissā aphāsu bhavissatī”ti anāpucchā purato caṅkamanaṭṭhānanissajjādayo vā uddisauddisāpanaparipucchanasajjhāyaṃ vā karontiyā caṅkamane nivattanagaṇanāya, ṭhānādīsu payogagaṇanāya, uddesādīsu padagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the third, discomfort—if, without asking, thinking, “This will cause her discomfort,” she walks in front of another’s walking space, or takes her seat, or recites, has recited, asks questions, or rehearses, it is a pācittiya reckoned by the number of steps in walking, actions in standing or similar, or lines in recitation and so forth.

In the third, aphāsunti: doing walking, standing, sitting places, and so on, or individual instruction, questioning, and recitation in front of another without asking, thinking, “By this, it will be uncomfortable for her,” incurs a pācittiya according to the number of turns in walking, the number of efforts in standing, and so on, and the number of words in instruction, and so on.

In the third, aphāsu means causing discomfort. If she does not ask permission before walking, sitting, or reciting, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha sañcicca aphāsukaraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampannāya tikadukkaṭaṃ, na aphāsukāmatāya, āpucchā purato caṅkamanādīni karontiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannatā, aphāsukāmatā, aphāsukaraṇaṃ, anāpucchananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyaṃ, dukkhavedananti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of intentionally causing discomfort. It entails three instances of pācittiya; for a non-ordained person, three instances of dukkaṭa; for one not intending discomfort, or walking in front or similar after asking, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. The ordained status, intent to cause discomfort, causing discomfort, and not asking—these are the four factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Adinnādāna rule, but this involves both action and non-action, with painful feeling.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of her intentionally causing discomfort. It is a triple pācittiya; for one not fully ordained, a triple dukkaṭa; and there is no offence if it is not with the intention of causing discomfort, or if she does walking and so on in front of another after asking, or for those who are insane, and so forth. Being fully ordained, the intention to cause discomfort, causing discomfort, and not asking—these are the four factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of taking what is not given, but this is action and non-action, and painful feeling.

In Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, the origin story for intentionally causing discomfort is established. It is a tikapācittiya offense. For an unordained person, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. If she does not intend to cause discomfort, or asks permission before walking, etc., there is no offense for her or for those who are insane, etc. The four factors here are: being ordained, intending to cause discomfort, causing discomfort, and not asking permission. The origins, etc., are similar to the offense of stealing. This is a matter of action and non-action, and suffering.

4. Naupaṭṭhāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Naupaṭṭhāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Naupaṭṭhāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Naupaṭṭhāpana Training Rule

Catutthe dukkhitanti gilānaṃ. Sahajīvininti saddhivihāriniṃ. Neva upaṭṭhaheyyāti tassā upaṭṭhānaṃ sayaṃ vā akarontiyā, parehi vā akārentiyā dhuraṃ nikkhittamatte pācittiyaṃ.

In the fourth, afflicted means sick. Co-dweller means one living together. She neither attends—if she neither attends herself nor has others attend, it is a pācittiya upon abandoning that duty.

In the fourth, dukkhitanti means sick. Sahajīvininti means a co-resident. Neva upaṭṭhaheyyāti: if she neither attends to her herself, nor has others attend to her, abandoning the task, there is a pācittiya.

In the fourth, dukkhita means sick. Sahajīvini means a fellow resident. Neva upaṭṭhaheyyāti: if she does not attend to her or have others attend to her, it is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha dukkhitaṃ sahajīviniṃ anupaṭṭhānavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, antevāsiniyā vā anupasampannāya vā dukkaṭaṃ, dasasu aññatarantarāye sati pariyesitvā alabhantiyā, gilānāya, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Gilānatā, saddhivihāritā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvo, upaṭṭhāne dhuranikkhepoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni samanubhāsanasadisānīti.

This was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of not attending an afflicted co-dweller. For a pupil or non-ordained person, it is dukkaṭa; in the presence of any one of the ten hindrances, or for one who searches and finds no one, or a sick person, in emergencies, and for those who are deranged or similar, there is no offence. Sickness, living together, the absence of a permitted reason, and abandoning the duty of attendance—these are the four factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to those of the Samanubhāsana rule.

This was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of her not attending to a sick co-resident. For a novice or one not fully ordained, there is a dukkaṭa; and there is no offence if, when one of the ten obstacles exists, she searches but does not find [help], or if she is sick, or in times of danger, or for those who are insane, and so forth. Being sick, being a co-resident, the absence of a permitted reason, and abandoning the task of attending—these are the four factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the full-probation precept.

In Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, the origin story for not attending to a sick fellow resident is established. For a pupil or an unordained person, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If she searches but cannot find a companion, or if the sick person is in distress, there is no offense for her or for those who are insane, etc. The four factors here are: the person being sick, being a fellow resident, the absence of permission, and not attending to her. The origins, etc., are similar to the offense of wrong livelihood.

5. Nikkaḍḍhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Nikkaḍḍhana Training Rule

5. Nikkaḍḍhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Nikkaḍḍhana Training Rule

Pañcame upassayaṃ datvāti sakavāṭabaddhaṃ attano puggalikavihāraṃ datvā. Nikkaḍḍheyyāti bahūnipi dvārāni ekappayogena nikkaḍḍhentiyā ekā āpatti, nānāpayogehi payogagaṇanāya āpattiyo, āṇattiyampi eseva nayo. Sace pana “imañcimañca dvāraṃ atikkāmehī”ti āṇāpeti, ekāya āṇattiyā eva dvāragaṇanāya āpattiyo.

In the fifth rule, “having given a lodging” means having given her own personal dwelling enclosed with a door. “Should evict” means if she evicts someone through a single effort even from multiple doors, it is one offense; if through separate efforts, the offenses are counted by the number of efforts, and the same applies in the case of an order. However, if she orders, “Pass through this door and that door,” with a single order, the offenses are counted by the number of doors.

In the fifth, upassayaṃ datvā means having given one’s own private dwelling that is enclosed by a fence. Nikkaḍḍheyyā means, if she drags [a bhikkhuni] out through many doors in a single effort, it is one offense; if [she drags her out] with multiple efforts, the offenses are according to the number of efforts. The same principle applies to ordering [someone to do it]. But if she orders, “Make her cross this door and this door,” the offenses are according to the number of doors with just one order.

In the fifth, upassayaṃ datvā means giving her own private residence with a locked door. Nikkaḍḍheyyāti: if she pulls out many doors at once, it is one offense. If she pulls them out separately, it is multiple offenses. The same applies to orders. If she orders, “Pass through this and that door,” it is one order, but multiple offenses for each door.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha etādise vatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, akavāṭabaddhato dukkaṭaṃ, anupasampannāya tikadukkaṭaṃ, sakavāṭabaddhato vā akavāṭabaddhato vā ubhinnampi parikkhāranikkaḍḍhane dukkaṭameva, sesaṃ saṅghikavihāranikkaḍḍhanasikkhāpade vuttanayamevāti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullananda in such a case. It is a triple pācittiya; from an unenclosed place, it is a dukkaṭa; for a non-ordained person, it is a triple dukkaṭa; evicting belongings from either an enclosed or unenclosed place incurs only a dukkaṭa. The rest is as explained in the training rule on evicting from a Sangha dwelling.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in a similar situation. It is a pācittiya with three parts; from an unenclosed [dwelling], it is a dukkaṭa; for a non-ordained person, it is a dukkaṭa with three parts. Whether from an enclosed or unenclosed [dwelling], dragging out possessions of either [a bhikkhuni or a non-ordained person] is only a dukkaṭa. The rest is the same as stated in the training rule regarding dragging out of a dwelling belonging to the Sangha.

In Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, the origin story for this is established. It is a tikapācittiya offense. If the door is not locked, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For an unordained person, it is a tikadukkaṭa offense. If she pulls out requisites from a locked or unlocked door, it is a dukkaṭa offense. The rest is similar to the rule on pulling out from a communal residence.

6. Saṃsaṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Saṃsaṭṭha Training Rule

6. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Living in Association

6. Explanation of the Saṃsaṭṭha Training Rule

Chaṭṭhaṃ uttānapadatthameva. Sāvatthiyaṃ caṇḍakāḷiṃ ārabbha saṃsaṭṭhavihāravatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesamettha paṭhamaariṭṭhasikkhāpade vuttavinicchayasadisamevāti.

The sixth rule has terms that are self-evident. It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Caṇḍakāḷī in the case of living intermixed. The rest here is exactly as determined in the first Ariṭṭha training rule.

The sixth is clear in meaning. It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Caṇḍakāḷi in a situation of living in association. The rest here is similar to the determination stated in the first Ariṭṭha training rule.

The sixth is clear in meaning. In Sāvatthī, concerning Caṇḍakāḷī, the origin story for living in association is established. The rest should be understood in the same way as explained in the first Ariṭṭha rule.

7. Antoraṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Antoraṭṭha Training Rule

7. The Explanation of the Training Rule on [Traveling] Within the Kingdom

7. Explanation of the Antoraṭṭha Training Rule

Sattame antoraṭṭheti yassa vijite viharati, tassa raṭṭhe. Asatthikā cārikanti vinā satthena gacchantiyā, gāmantaragaṇanāya, agāmake araññe addhayojanagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the seventh rule, “within the kingdom” means within the realm of the ruler in whose domain she resides. “Traveling without a caravan” means traveling without a caravan; it is a pācittiya counted by the number of villages in inhabited areas or by half-yojana distances in uninhabited wilderness.

In the seventh, antoraṭṭhe means within the kingdom of the ruler in whose realm she dwells. Asatthikā cārika means, when going without a caravan, it is a pācittiya according to the distance between villages, or in a non-village forest, according to half a yojana.

In the seventh, antoraṭṭhe means within the territory of the ruler under whom she resides. Asatthikā cārika means traveling without a weapon. If she travels beyond a village, it is a pācittiya offense. In a wilderness area, it is a pācittiya offense for every half yojana.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha vuttanayeneva desacārikaṃ pakkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Satthena saha gacchantiyā, kheme appaṭibhaye, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Antoraṭṭhatā, akhematā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvo, cārikaṃ pakkamananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs in the case of traveling deceitfully, as explained. There is no offense if traveling with a caravan, in a safe and fearless place, in emergencies, or for the insane and so forth. The factors here are being within the kingdom, unsafety, absence of an approved reason, and traveling. Its origin and so forth are like those of the eḷakaloma rule.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunis in a situation of setting out on a journey to ten places, as stated. There is no offense for one going with a caravan, in a safe and secure [place], in times of danger, or for one who is insane, and so on. Being within the kingdom, being unsafe, the absence of a permitted reason, and setting out on a journey are the four factors here. The arising and so forth are similar to [the case of] a sheep’s wool.

In Sāvatthī, concerning several bhikkhunīs, the origin story for traveling without a weapon is established. If she travels with a weapon, in a safe and unthreatened area, or in an emergency, there is no offense for her or for those who are insane, etc. The four factors here are: being within the territory, the area being unsafe, the absence of permission, and traveling. The origins, etc., are similar to the offense of pulling out eyelashes.

The explanation of the training rule on [traveling] within the kingdom is finished.

8. Tiroraṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Tiroraṭṭha Training Rule

8. The Explanation of the Training Rule on [Traveling] Beyond the Kingdom

8. Explanation of the Tiroraṭṭha Training Rule

Aṭṭhame tiroraṭṭheti yassa vijite viharati, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññassa raṭṭhe. Sesaṃ sattame vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ, nagaraṃ panettha rājagahanti.

In the eighth rule, “outside the kingdom” means in a realm other than that of the ruler in whose domain she resides. The rest is to be understood as explained in the seventh rule, except that the city here is Rājagaha.

In the eighth, tiroraṭṭhe means in the kingdom of another, excluding the one in whose realm she dwells. The rest should be understood as stated in the seventh, but here the city is Rājagaha.

In the eighth, tiroraṭṭhe means outside the territory of the ruler under whom she resides. The rest should be understood in the same way as explained in the seventh rule. Here, the city is Rājagaha.

The explanation of the training rule on [traveling] beyond the kingdom is finished.

9. Antovassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Antovassa Training Rule

9. The Explanation of the Training Rule on [Traveling] During the Rains

9. Explanation of the Antovassa Training Rule

Navame antovassanti purimaṃ vā temāsaṃ, pacchimaṃ vā temāsaṃ avasitvā tassa vassassa antoyeva. Idha sattāhakaraṇīyena vā kenaci ubbaḷhāya vā āpadāsu vā gacchantiyā ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sesaṃ aṭṭhamasadisamevāti.

In the ninth rule, “during the rains” means within the rains period, whether the first three months or the last three months, having completed it. There is no offense if going for a seven-day task, if pressured by something, in emergencies, or for the insane and so forth. The rest is the same as in the eighth rule.

In the ninth, antovassa means before having completed either the first three months or the last three months, within that very rains. Here, there is no offense for one going on account of a seven-day business, or due to some overwhelming [circumstance], or in times of danger, or for one who is insane, and so on. The rest is similar to the eighth.

In the ninth, antovassa means within the rains retreat, either the first three months or the last three months. If she travels due to urgent business, a serious matter, or an emergency, there is no offense for her or for those who are insane, etc. The rest is similar to the eighth rule.

The explanation of the training rule on [traveling] during the rains is finished.

10. Cārikanapakkamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Cārikanapakkamana Training Rule

10. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Setting Out on a Journey

10. Explanation of the Cārikanapakkamana Training Rule

Dasame vassaṃvuṭṭhāti purimaṃ vā temāsaṃ, pacchimaṃ vā temāsaṃ vuṭṭhā. Chappañcayojanānīti ettha pavāretvā pañca yojanāni gantumpi vaṭṭati, chasu vattabbameva natthi. Sace pana tīṇi gantvā teneva maggena paccāgacchati, na vaṭṭati, aññena āgantuṃ vaṭṭati. “Vuttappamāṇaṃ addhānaṃ na gacchissāmī”ti dhure nikkhittamatte pācittiyaṃ.

In the tenth rule, “having observed the rains” means having completed either the first three months or the last three months. “Five or six yojanas” means after the invitation, it is permissible to go up to five yojanas; for six, there is nothing to be said. However, if she goes three yojanas and returns by the same path, it is not permitido; returning by another path is permissible. The moment she resolves, “I will not travel the prescribed distance,” and sets that burden aside, it is a pācittiya.

In the tenth, vassaṃvuṭṭhā means having completed either the first three months or the last three months. Chappañcayojanānī means here it is permissible to go even five yojanas after having made the invitation, not to mention six. But if she goes three [yojanas] and returns by the same route, it is not permissible; it is permissible to return by another [route]. As soon as the commitment is made, with the thought “I will not go the stated distance,” it is a pācittiya.

In the tenth, vassaṃvuṭṭhā means having completed the rains retreat, either the first three months or the last three months. Chappañcayojanānīti: here, after the pavāraṇā, it is permissible to travel up to five yojanas, but not six. If she travels three yojanas and returns by the same path, it is not permissible; she must return by a different path. If she resolves, “I will not travel the prescribed distance,” it is a pācittiya offense.

Rājagahe sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha vassaṃ vasitvā cārikaṃ apakkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Antarāye sati, pariyesitvā dutiyikaṃ bhikkhuniṃ alabhantiyā, gilānāya, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Vassaṃvuṭṭhatā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvo, pañcayojanānatikkamoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisāni, idaṃ pana akiriyaṃ, dukkhavedananti.

It was prescribed in Rājagaha concerning several bhikkhunīs in the case of not traveling after observing the rains. There is no offense in case of an obstacle, if she cannot find a companion bhikkhunī after searching, if she is ill, in emergencies, or for the insane and so forth. The factors here are having observed the rains, absence of an approved reason, and not exceeding five yojanas. Its origin and so forth are like those of the first pārājika, but this is a non-action with painful feeling.

This was laid down in Rājagaha concerning several bhikkhunis in a situation of not setting out on a journey after having resided for the rains. There is no offense if there is an obstacle, if after searching, a second bhikkhuni is not found, if [she is] ill, in times of danger, or for one who is insane, and so on. Having completed the rains, the absence of a permitted reason, and exceeding five yojanas are the three factors here. The arising and so forth are similar to the first pārājika, but this is non-action and painful feeling.

In Rājagaha, concerning several bhikkhunīs, the origin story for not traveling after completing the rains retreat is established. If there is an obstacle, or she searches but cannot find a companion, or she is sick, or in an emergency, there is no offense for her or for those who are insane, etc. The three factors here are: having completed the rains retreat, the absence of permission, and not traveling beyond five yojanas. The origins, etc., are similar to the first pārājika offense. This is a matter of non-action and suffering.

5. Cittāgāravaggo

5. Cittāgāra Section

5. The Cittāgāra Vagga

5. Cittāgāravaggo

1. Rājāgārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the Rājāgāra Training Rule

1. The Explanation of the Training Rule on the King’s Pleasure House

1. Explanation of the Rājāgāra Training Rule

Cittāgāravaggassa paṭhame rājāgāranti rañño kīḷanagharaṃ. Cittāgāranti kīḷanacittasālaṃ. Ārāmanti kīḷanaupavanaṃ. Uyyānanti kīḷanuyyānaṃ. Pokkharaṇinti kīḷanapokkharaṇiṃ. Dassanāyāti “etesu yaṃkiñci passissāmī”ti gacchantiyā pade pade dukkaṭaṃ, yattha ṭhatvā passati, tattha padaṃ anuddharitvā pañcāpi passantiyā ekāva āpatti. Sace pana taṃ taṃ viloketvā passati, gīvaṃ parivattanappayogagaṇanāya āpattiyo, na ummīlanagaṇanāya.

In the first rule of the Cittāgāra section, “royal palace” means the king’s pleasure house. “Painted hall” means a hall painted for pleasure. “Garden” means a pleasure grove. “Park” means a pleasure park. “Lake” means a pleasure lake. “For sightseeing” means going with the intent, “I will see any of these,” incurs a dukkaṭa with each step; if standing in one place and looking at all five, without lifting a foot, it is one offense. However, if she looks at each separately, turning her neck, the offenses are counted by the number of efforts, not by the number of blinks.

In the first of the Cittāgāra Vagga, rājāgāra means the king’s pleasure house. Cittāgāra means a hall with paintings for pleasure. Ārāma means a pleasure grove. Uyyāna means a pleasure park. Pokkharaṇi means a pleasure pond. Dassanāyā means, if going with the thought “I will see any of these,” it is a dukkaṭa for each step; where she stands and looks, without lifting her foot, there is only one offense for looking at all five. But if she looks after examining each one, the offenses are according to the number of turning movements of the neck, not according to the number of times the eyes are opened.

In the first section of the Cittāgāra chapter, rājāgāra means the king’s pleasure house. Cittāgāra means a hall decorated for pleasure. Ārāma means a pleasure grove. Uyyāna means a pleasure garden. Pokkharaṇi means a pleasure pond. Dassanāyāti: If she goes thinking, “I will see whatever is there,” she commits a minor offense at each step. If she stands and sees, without lifting her foot, even if she sees five things, it is only one offense. However, if she looks around and sees, the offenses are counted by the effort of turning the neck, not by the act of seeing.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha cittāgāraṃ dassanāya gamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, bhikkhussa sabbattha dukkaṭaṃ, avaseso vinicchayo naccadassanasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabboti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six bhikkhunīs in the case of going to see a painted hall. For a bhikkhu, it is a dukkaṭa everywhere. The remaining determination is to be understood as explained in the training rule on watching dances.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group-of-six bhikkhunis in a situation of going to see a pleasure house. For a bhikkhu, it is a dukkaṭa in all cases. The rest of the determination should be understood as stated in the training rule on watching dances.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding the six-group nuns who went to see the Cittāgāra. For a monk, it is a minor offense everywhere. The rest of the determination should be understood in the same way as stated in the rule on watching dancing.

The explanation of the training rule on the king’s pleasure house is finished.

2. Āsandiparibhuñjanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Āsandiparibhuñjana Training Rule

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Using a High Seat

2. Explanation of the Āsandiparibhuñjana Training Rule

Dutiye āsandī nāma atikkantappamāṇā vuccati. Pallaṅko nāma saṃhārimena vāḷena katoti vutto. Paribhuñjeyyāti ettha pana nisīdananipajjanappayogagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ veditabbaṃ.

In the second rule, “high couch” refers to one exceeding the prescribed size. “Couch” is said to be one made with removable animal hair. “Should use” means using it for sitting or lying down; the pācittiya is to be understood as counted by the number of efforts.

In the second, āsandī is said to mean exceeding the proper size. Pallaṅko is said to mean made with movable legs. Paribhuñjeyyā means here, the pācittiya should be understood according to the number of sitting and lying down efforts.

In the second rule, āsandī refers to one that exceeds the prescribed measurement. Pallaṅka refers to one made with removable legs. Paribhuñjeyyāti: Here, the offense is counted by the act of sitting or lying down.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha āsandipallaṅkaparibhogavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, āsandiyā pāde chinditvā, pallaṅkassa vāḷe bhinditvā paribhuñjantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Āsandipallaṅkatā, nisīdanaṃ nipajjanaṃ vāti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs in the case of using a high couch or couch. There is no offense if using it after cutting the legs of the high couch or breaking the animal hair of the couch, or for the insane and so forth. The factors here are it being a high couch or couch, and sitting or lying on it. Its origin and so forth are like those of the eḷakaloma rule.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunis in a situation of using a high seat and a couch. There is no offense for one who breaks off the legs of the high seat, or breaks the legs of the couch and uses it, or for one who is insane, and so on. Being a high seat or couch, and sitting or lying down are the two factors here. The arising and so forth are similar to [the case of] a sheep’s wool.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding several nuns who used an āsandī and pallaṅka after cutting the legs of the āsandī and breaking the legs of the pallaṅka. There is no offense for the insane, etc. The two factors here are the use of the āsandī or pallaṅka, and sitting or lying down. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the woolen blanket rule.

3. Suttakantanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Suttakantana Training Rule

3. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Spinning Thread

3. Explanation of the Suttakantana Training Rule

Tatiye suttanti channaṃ aññataraṃ. Kanteyyāti ettha yattakaṃ hatthena añchitaṃ hoti, tasmiṃ takkamhi veṭhite ekā āpatti. Idañhi sandhāya padabhājanīye (pāci. 988) “ujjavujjave”ti vuttaṃ.

In the third rule, “thread” refers to any of the six types. “Should spin” means for however much thread is pulled by hand, when that amount is twisted, it is one offense. This is why it is said in the Padabhājanīya (pāci. 988), “back and forth.”

In the third, sutta means any of the six. Kanteyyā means here, for as much as is drawn out by hand, when that much is wound on the spindle, it is one offense. It is with reference to this that in the word-by-word explanation (pāci. 988) it is said, “straight and straight.”

In the third rule, sutta refers to any of the six kinds of thread. Kanteyyāti: Here, for each length drawn by hand, one offense is committed when it is wound. This is referred to in the phrase “ujjavujjave” in the section on dividing the text (pāci. 988).

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha suttaṃ kantanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, kantanato pubbe kappāsavicinanaṃ ādiṃ katvā sabbappayogesu hatthavāragaṇanāya dukkaṭaṃ. Kantitasuttaṃ kantantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Akantitatā, kantananti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six bhikkhunīs in the case of spinning thread. From picking cotton before spinning and in all efforts, a dukkaṭa is incurred by the number of hand movements. There is no offense for spinning already spun thread, or for the insane and so forth. The factors here are it being unspun and spinning. Its origin and so forth are like those of the eḷakaloma rule.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group-of-six bhikkhunis in a situation of spinning thread. Before spinning, doing the initial cleaning of the cotton and so on, in all efforts, it is a dukkaṭa according to the number of hand movements. There is no offense for one spinning spun thread, or for one who is insane, and so on. Being unspun, and spinning are the two factors here. The arising and so forth are similar to [the case of] a sheep’s wool.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding the six-group nuns who spun thread. Before spinning, preparing the cotton, etc., is a minor offense for each action. Spinning already spun thread, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are the unspun state and the act of spinning. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the woolen blanket rule.

4. Gihiveyyāvaccasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Gihiveyyāvacca Training Rule

4. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Doing Household Chores

4. Explanation of the Gihiveyyāvacca Training Rule

Catutthe gihiveyyāvaccanti gihīnaṃ veyyāvaccaṃ. Sacepi hi mātāpitaro attano kiñci kammaṃ akārāpetvā tesaṃ yāgupacanādīni karonti, pubbappayogesu payogagaṇanāya dukkaṭāni āpajjitvā yāguādīsu bhājanagaṇanāya, khādanīyādīsu pūvagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ āpajjati.

In the fourth rule, “householder’s service” means service for householders. Even if parents do not make her do any work, and she cooks porridge or similar for them, she incurs dukkaṭas counted by the preliminary efforts, pācittiyas counted by the number of vessels for porridge and so forth, and by the number of cakes for edibles.

In the fourth, gihiveyyāvacca means service to householders. Even if her parents do not have her do any work for them, if she does things like cooking gruel for them, she commits dukkaṭas according to the number of efforts in the initial preparations, and she commits a pācittiya according to the number of bowls for gruel and so on, and according to the number of cakes for savories and so on.

In the fourth rule, gihiveyyāvacca means service to laypeople. Even if parents do not ask for any work, but one prepares rice gruel, etc., for them, one commits minor offenses for each preparatory action, and a serious offense for each vessel of gruel, etc., or each cake of food, etc.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha gihīnaṃ veyyāvaccakaraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, manussehi saṅghassa yāgupāne vā bhatte vā cetiyapūjāya vā karīyamānāya tesaṃ sahāyabhāvena yāgupacanādīni, attano veyyāvaccakarassa ca tāniyeva karontiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Gihiveyyāvaccakaraṇaṃ, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānevāti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs in the case of performing services for householders. There is no offense if cooking porridge and so forth as assistance when householders prepare it for the Sangha’s porridge-drinking, meal, or shrine offering, or doing the same for her own attendant, or for the insane and so forth. The factors here are performing service for householders and absence of an approved reason. Its origin and so forth are like those of the eḷakaloma rule.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunis in a situation of doing service for householders. When people are making gruel, drinks, or meals for the Sangha, or for a shrine offering, if [a bhikkhuni] does things like cooking gruel as their helper, or if she does the same for her own attendant, there is no offense, or for one who is insane, and so on. Doing household chores, and the absence of a permitted reason are the two factors here. The arising and so forth are similar to [the case of] sheep’s wool.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding several nuns who performed services for laypeople. When laypeople prepare rice gruel, food, or offerings for the Sangha, and one assists them by preparing rice gruel, etc., or performs the same services for one’s own attendant, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The two factors here are performing services for laypeople and the absence of permission. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the woolen blanket rule.

5. Adhikaraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Adhikaraṇa Training Rule

5. The Explanation of the Training Rule on a Legal Question

5. Explanation of the Adhikaraṇa Training Rule

Pañcame adhikaraṇanti catunnaṃ aññataraṃ. Pācittiyanti idha cīvarasibbane viya dhuraṃ nikkhittamatte pācittiyaṃ, ekāhampi parihāro natthi.

In the fifth rule, “dispute” refers to any of the four types. “Pācittiya” means here, as in the robe-sewing rule, a pācittiya is incurred the moment the burden is set aside, with no deferral even for a single day.

In the fifth, adhikaraṇa means any of the four. Pācittiya means here, as in sewing robes, as soon as the commitment is made, it is a pācittiya; there is no allowance for even one day.

In the fifth rule, adhikaraṇa refers to any of the four kinds of disputes. Pācittiyati: Here, as in the case of robe-making threads, the offense is committed as soon as the burden is laid down, and there is no allowance even for a single day.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha adhikaraṇaṃ navūpasamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesamettha cīvarasibbanasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullananda in the case of not settling a dispute. The rest is to be understood as explained in the robe-sewing training rule.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in a situation of not settling a legal question. The rest here should be understood as stated in the training rule on sewing robes.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding Thullanandā, who did not settle a dispute. The rest should be understood in the same way as stated in the rule on robe-making threads.

6. Bhojanadānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Bhojanadāna Training Rule

6. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Giving Food

6. Explanation of the Bhojanadāna Training Rule

Chaṭṭhe sahatthāti kāyena vā kāyappaṭibaddhena vā nissaggiyena vā ṭhapetvā pañcasahadhammike avasesānaṃ aññatra udakadantaponā yaṃkiñci ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ dadantiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the sixth rule, “with her own hand” means giving with her body, something body-related, or something to be relinquished—anything edible except water and tooth-wood to anyone other than the five rightful recipients incurs a pācittiya.

In the sixth, sahatthā means, with the body or with what is attached to the body, or with what is released, excluding the five co-religionists, giving anything edible to the rest, except for water and tooth-cleaning sticks, it is a pācittiya.

In the sixth rule, sahatthā means with the body or something connected to the body, excluding the five allowable items, except for water and tooth cleaners. Giving anything edible to anyone else results in a serious offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha agārikassa khādanīyabhojanīyadānavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, udakadantapone dukkaṭaṃ. Yā pana dāpeti na deti, upanikkhipitvā deti, bāhiralepaṃ deti, tassā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Aññatra udakadantaponā ajjhoharaṇiyaṃ, ṭhapetvā pañca sahadhammike aññassa sahatthā dānanti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullananda in the case of giving edibles or food to a layperson. Giving water or tooth-wood is a dukkaṭa. There is no offense for one who causes it to be given but does not give, gives after placing it down, gives an external application, or for the insane and so forth. The factors here are giving anything edible except water and tooth-wood with her own hand to someone other than the five rightful recipients. Its origin and so forth are like those of the eḷakaloma rule.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in a situation of giving savories and staple food to a householder. It is a dukkaṭa for water and tooth-cleaning sticks. But for the one who causes [food] to be given but does not give it, who gives after setting it down, who gives an external coating, for her, and for one who is insane, and so on, there is no offense. Anything edible except for water and tooth-cleaning sticks, and giving with one’s own hand to someone other than the five co-religionists are the two factors here. The arising and so forth are similar to [the case of] a sheep’s wool.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding Thullanandā, who gave food to a layperson. Giving water or tooth cleaners is a minor offense. If one causes another to give but does not give oneself, or gives after placing it down, or gives external leftovers, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The two factors here are giving something edible other than water or tooth cleaners, and giving it directly to someone other than the five allowable persons. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the woolen blanket rule.

7. Āvasathacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Āvasathacīvara Training Rule

7. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Dwelling-Robe

7. Explanation of the Āvasathacīvara Training Rule

Sattame āvasathacīvaranti “utuniyo bhikkhuniyo paribhuñjantū”ti dinnacīvaraṃ. Anissajjitvāti catutthe divase dhovitvā aññissā antamaso sāmaṇeriyāpi utuniyā adatvā. Pācittiyanti evaṃ anissajjitvā paribhuñjantiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the seventh rule, “lodging robe” means a robe given with the intent, “Let menstruating bhikkhunīs use it.” “Without relinquishing” means not giving it, even to a novice nun who is menstruating, after washing it on the fourth day. “Pācittiya” means using it without relinquishing it in this way incurs a pācittiya.

In the seventh, āvasathacīvara means a robe given with the words, “Let the bhikkhunis in season use it.” Anissajjitvā means without giving it on the fourth day after washing it, to another, at least to a female novice who is in season. Pācittiya means, using it without thus giving it away, it is a pācittiya.

In the seventh rule, āvasathacīvara refers to robes given for the use of menstruating nuns. Anissajjitvāti: Not having given them to another, even to a novice nun, after washing them on the fourth day. Pācittiyati: Using them without having given them away results in a serious offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha āvasathacīvaraṃ anissajjitvā paribhuñjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, nissajjite dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ pana nissajjitasaññāya, puna pariyāyena vā, aññāsaṃ utunīnaṃ abhāvena vā, acchinnanaṭṭhacīvarikāya vā, āpadāsu vā paribhuñjantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Āvasathacīvaratā, catutthadivasatā, dhovitvā anissajjanaṃ, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullananda in the case of using a lodging robe without relinquishing it. It is a triple pācittiya; after relinquishing, it is a double dukkaṭa. There is no offense if using it with the perception that it has been relinquished, or again in turn, or due to the absence of other menstruating bhikkhunīs, or by one whose robe is torn or lost, or in emergencies, or for the insane and so forth. The factors here are it being a lodging robe, the fourth day, washing and not relinquishing, and absence of an approved reason. Its origin and so forth are like those of the kathina rule, but this involves action and non-action.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in a situation of using a dwelling-robe without giving it away. It is a pācittiya with three parts; if it is given away, it is a dukkaṭa with two parts. But if with the perception that it has been given away, or again in turn, or if there are no other [bhikkhunis] in season, or for one whose robe has been destroyed or lost, or in times of danger, she uses it, or for one who is insane, and so on, there is no offense. Being a dwelling-robe, being the fourth day, washing it and not giving it away, and the absence of a permitted reason are the four factors here. The arising and so forth are similar to [the case of] the spread, but this is action and non-action.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding Thullanandā, who used the āvasatha robes without giving them away. There are three serious offenses, and two minor offenses if they are given away. If one thinks they have been given away, or if one uses them again, or if there are no other menstruating nuns, or if the robes are not cut, or in emergencies, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The four factors here are the āvasatha robes, the fourth day, washing them, and not giving them away. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the Kathina rule.

8. Āvasathavihārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Āvasathavihāra Training Rule

8. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Dwelling-Residence

8. Explanation of the Āvasathavihāra Training Rule

Aṭṭhame āvasathanti kavāṭabaddhavihāraṃ. Anissajjitvāti rakkhaṇatthāya adatvā, “idaṃ jaggeyyāsī”ti evaṃ anāpucchitvāti attho. Cārikaṃ pakkameyya pācittiyanti ettha sakagāmato aññaṃ gāmaṃ ekarattivāsatthāyapi pakkamantiyā parikkhittassa āvasathassa parikkhepaṃ, aparikkhittassa upacāraṃ paṭhamapādena atikkantamatte dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyena pācittiyaṃ.

In the eighth rule, “lodging” means a dwelling enclosed with a door. “Without relinquishing” means not giving it for safekeeping, meaning without asking, “Will you look after this?” “Traveling incurs a pācittiya” means if she travels even for a single night’s stay from her own village to another, crossing the boundary of an enclosed lodging or the vicinity of an unenclosed one, it is a dukkaṭa with the first step and a pācittiya with the second.

In the eighth, āvasatha means a dwelling enclosed by a gate. Anissajjitvā means without giving it for protection, meaning without asking with the words, “You should look after this.” Cārikaṃ pakkameyya pācittiya means here, going from one’s own village to another village even for the purpose of staying one night, as soon as the first foot crosses the boundary of a fenced dwelling, or the surrounding area of an unfenced one, it is a dukkaṭa; with the second foot, it is a pācittiya.

In the eighth rule, āvasatha refers to a dwelling with a door. Anissajjitvāti: Not having given it for safekeeping, or not having informed, “This is for the watchman.” Cārikaṃ pakkameyya pācittiyati: Here, if one leaves one’s own village to stay overnight in another village, crossing the boundary of a enclosed dwelling with the first step is a minor offense, and with the second step, a serious offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha āvasathaṃ anissajjitvā cārikaṃ pakkamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, akavāṭabaddhe dukkaṭaṃ, nissajjite dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ pana nissajjitasaññāya, sati antarāye, paṭijaggikaṃ pariyesitvā alabhantiyā, gilānāya, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sakavāṭabaddhatā, vuttanayena pakkamanaṃ, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisānīti, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullananda in the case of traveling without relinquishing a lodging. It is a triple pācittiya; for an unenclosed lodging, it is a dukkaṭa; after relinquishing, it is a double dukkaṭa. There is no offense if traveling with the perception that it has been relinquished, in case of an obstacle, if she cannot find a caretaker after searching, if she is ill, in emergencies, or for the insane and so forth. The factors here are it being enclosed with a door, traveling as described, and absence of an approved reason. Its origin and so forth are like those of the kathina rule, but this involves action and non-action.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in a situation of setting out on a journey without giving away the dwelling. It is a pācittiya with three parts; in an unenclosed [dwelling], it is a dukkaṭa; if it is given away, it is a dukkaṭa with two parts. But if with the perception that it has been given away, if there is an obstacle, if after searching, someone to look after it is not found, if [she is] ill, in times of danger, or for one who is insane, and so on, there is no offense. Being an enclosed dwelling, setting out in the stated manner, and the absence of a permitted reason are the three factors here. The arising and so forth are similar to [the case of] the spread, but this is action and non-action.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding Thullanandā, who left without giving away the āvasatha. There are three serious offenses, and two minor offenses if it is given away. If one thinks it has been given away, or if there is an obstacle, or if one seeks a caretaker but does not find one, or if one is sick, or in emergencies, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are the dwelling with a door, leaving in the stated manner, and the absence of permission. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the Kathina rule.

9. Tiracchānavijjāpariyāpuṇanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Tiracchānavijjāpariyāpuṇana Training Rule

9. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Learning Worldly Knowledge

9. Explanation of the Tiracchānavijjāpariyāpuṇana Training Rule

Navame tiracchānavijjanti yaṃkiñci bāhirakaṃ anatthasaṃhitaṃ hatthiassarathadhanutharusippaāthabbaṇakhilanavasīkaraṇasosāpanamantāgadappayogādibhedaṃ parūpaghātakaraṃ vijjaṃ. Pariyāpuṇeyyāti ettha yassa kassaci santike taṃ padādivasena pariyāpuṇantiyā padagaṇanāya ceva akkharagaṇanāya ca pācittiyanti.

In the ninth rule, “worldly knowledge” means any external, unbeneficial knowledge harmful to others, such as training in elephants, horses, chariots, archery, swordsmanship, Vedic spells, subjugation, exorcism, incantations, or poison application. “Should learn” means learning it from anyone by words or syllables incurs a pācittiya counted by the number of words and syllables.

In the ninth, tiracchānavijja means any external, unprofitable [knowledge] that is harmful to others, such as the various kinds of elephant, horse, chariot, bow, sword skills, Atharva Veda, destructive spells, love potions, necromancy, incantations, and medicine. Pariyāpuṇeyyā means here, learning it from anyone, word by word and so on, it is a pācittiya according to the number of words and the number of syllables.

In the ninth rule, tiracchānavijja refers to any external, useless knowledge, such as elephant lore, horse lore, chariot lore, archery, swordsmanship, charms, divination, spells, etc., which causes harm to others. Pariyāpuṇeyyāti: Here, learning such knowledge from anyone, whether by word or letter, results in a serious offense for each word or letter.

The explanation of the Tiracchānavijjāpariyāpuṇana training rule is completed.

The explanation of the Tiracchānavijjāpariyāpuṇana training rule is concluded.

10. Tiracchānavijjāvācanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Tiracchānavijjāvācana Training Rule

10. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Reciting Worldly Knowledge

10. Explanation of the Tiracchānavijjāvācana Training Rule

Dasame vāceyyāti padaṃ viseso. Ubhayampi sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiyā ceva sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ca ārabbha tiracchānavijjaṃ pariyāpuṇanavācanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Lekhe, dhāraṇāya ca, guttatthāya ca yakkhaparittanāgamaṇḍalādike sabbaparitte, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Tiracchānavijjatā, pariyāpuṇanavācanā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha dvīsupi tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni padasodhammasadisānīti.

In the tenth rule, “should recite” is the distinction. Both were prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six and several bhikkhunīs in the case of learning and reciting worldly knowledge. There is no offense in writing, memorizing, or for protection in all protective chants such as the yakkha paritta or nāga maṇḍala, or for the insane and so forth. The factors in both are it being worldly knowledge, learning or reciting, and absence of an approved reason. Its origin and so forth are like those of the padasodhamma rule.

In the tenth, vāceyyā is the specific word. Both were laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group-of-six and several bhikkhunis in a situation of learning and reciting worldly knowledge. There is no offense for writing, for memorizing, and for protective purposes, [reciting] all protective chants like the Yakkha Paritta, Nāga Maṇḍala, and so on, or for one who is insane, and so on. Being worldly knowledge, learning and reciting, and the absence of a permitted reason are the three factors in both of these. The arising and so forth are similar to [the case of] the Dhammapada.

In the tenth rule, vāceyyāti: The word is specific. Both rules were established in Sāvatthī regarding the six-group nuns and several other nuns who learned and taught worldly knowledge. There is no offense for writing, memorizing, protective charms, yakkha incantations, nāga diagrams, etc., or for the insane, etc. The three factors here are worldly knowledge, learning or teaching it, and the absence of permission. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the rule on teaching the Dhamma.

6. Ārāmavaggo

6. Ārāma Section

6. The Ārāma Vagga

6. Ārāma Chapter

1. Ārāmapavisanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the Ārāmapavisana Training Rule

1. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Entering a Monastery

1. Explanation of the Ārāmapavisana Training Rule

Ārāmavaggassa paṭhame sabhikkhukaṃ ārāmanti yattha bhikkhū rukkhamūlepi vasanti, taṃ padesaṃ. Anāpucchāti ettha bhikkhusāmaṇeraārāmikesu yaṃkiñci anāpucchā, parikkhittassa ārāmassa parikkhepaṃ atikkamantiyā, aparikkhittassa upacāraṃ okkamantiyā paṭhamapāde dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyapāde pācittiyaṃ.

In the first rule of the Ārāma section, “monastery with monks” means a place where monks reside, even at the foot of a tree. “Without asking” means without asking any monk, novice, or monastery attendant; entering by crossing the boundary of an enclosed monastery or the vicinity of an unenclosed one incurs a dukkaṭa with the first step and a pācittiya with the second.

In the first of the Ārāma Vagga, sabhikkhukaṃ ārāma means a place where bhikkhus are dwelling, even under a tree. Anāpucchā means here, without asking any of the bhikkhus, novices, or monastery attendants, crossing the boundary of a fenced monastery, or entering the surrounding area of an unfenced one, with the first foot it is a dukkaṭa; with the second foot, it is a pācittiya.

In the first rule of the Ārāma chapter, sabhikkhukaṃ ārāma refers to a place where monks reside, even at the foot of a tree. Anāpucchāti: Here, entering without informing any monk, novice, or monastery worker, crossing the boundary of an enclosed monastery with the first step is a minor offense, and with the second step, a serious offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha anāpucchā ārāmaṃ pavisanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā”ti ca “jānaṃ sabhikkhuka”nti ca imānettha dve anupaññattiyo, sabhikkhuke vematikāya, abhikkhuke sabhikkhukasaññāya ceva vematikāya ca dukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ pana duvidhepi abhikkhukasaññāya, santaṃ bhikkhuṃ āpucchā pavisantiyā, paṭhamappaviṭṭhānaṃ vā bhikkhunīnaṃ sīsaṃnulokikāya, yattha vā bhikkhuniyo sannipatitā, tattha “tāsaṃ santikaṃ gacchāmī”ti saññāya, ārāmena vā maggo hoti, tena gacchantiyā, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sabhikkhukārāmatā , sabhikkhukasaññitā, vuttaparicchedātikkamo, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samanubhāsanasamauṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyākiriyaṃ, saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs in the case of entering a monastery without asking. The two supplementary rules are “without asking a present monk” and “knowing it has monks.” A dukkaṭa applies if uncertain about monks being present, or with the perception or uncertainty that it has monks when it does not. There is no offense if entering with the perception that it has no monks, after asking a present monk, following the lead of bhikkhunīs who entered first, going to where bhikkhunīs are gathered with the perception, “I am going to them,” or if the path goes through the monastery, or in emergencies, or for the insane and so forth. The factors here are it being a monastery with monks, the perception of monks being present, exceeding the prescribed limit, and absence of an approved reason. It arises from admonishment, involves action and non-action, is perception-released, with consciousness, a disciplinary fault, bodily action, verbal action, three types of consciousness, and three feelings.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunis in a situation of entering a monastery without asking. “Without asking an existing bhikkhu” and “knowingly [entering] a monastery with bhikkhus” are the two supplementary regulations here. If there is doubt about [the presence of] bhikkhus, if with the perception of [the presence of] bhikkhus in a place without bhikkhus, and if there is doubt, it is a dukkaṭa. But in both of these, if with the perception of [a place] without bhikkhus, entering after asking an existing bhikkhu, or the first entry, or for looking at the heads of the bhikkhunis, or where the bhikkhunis are gathered, going with the perception “I am going to them,” or if there is a path through the monastery, going by that, in times of danger, or for one who is insane, and so on, there is no offense. Being a monastery with bhikkhus, the perception of [the presence of] bhikkhus, crossing the stated boundary, and the absence of a permitted reason are the four factors here. It has the same arising as [the case of] admonishing; it is action and non-action; it is free from perception; it is with thought; it is an offense against the regulation; it is bodily action; it is verbal action; it is with three kinds of thought; it is with three kinds of feeling.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding several nuns who entered a monastery without informing. The two additional rules here are “not informing a resident monk” and “knowing it is a monastery with monks.” If one is in doubt about whether there are monks, or if one thinks there are monks when there are none, it is a minor offense. If one thinks there are no monks and informs a resident monk before entering, or if one enters where nuns have gathered, thinking, “I am going to their presence,” or if the path goes through the monastery, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The four factors here are a monastery with monks, knowing it has monks, crossing the boundary, and the absence of permission. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the rule on communal recitation.

2. Bhikkhuakkosanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Bhikkhuakkosana Training Rule

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Abusing a Bhikkhu

2. Explanation of the Bhikkhuakkosana Training Rule

Dutiye akkoseyyāti dasannaṃ akkosavatthūnaṃ aññatarena sammukhā vā parammukhā vā akkoseyya. Paribhāseyyāti bhayamassa upadaṃseyya. Pācittiyanti tassā evaṃ karontiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the second rule, “should abuse” means abusing face-to-face or indirectly with any of the ten grounds for abuse. “Should revile” means causing him fear. “Pācittiya” means doing so incurs a pācittiya.

In the second, akkoseyyā means abusing with any of the ten grounds for abuse, either face to face or behind his back. Paribhāseyyā means showing him fear. Pācittiya means, for her doing thus, it is a pācittiya.

In the second rule, akkoseyyāti: Insulting with any of the ten grounds for insult, whether directly or indirectly. Paribhāseyyāti: Threatening them. Pācittiyati: Doing so results in a serious offense.

Vesāliyaṃ chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha āyasmantaṃ upāliṃ akkosanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, anupasampanne tikadukkaṭaṃ, atthadhammaanusāsanipurekkhārāya, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Upasampannatā, akkosanaparibhāsanaṃ, atthapurekkhāratādīnaṃ abhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

It was prescribed in Vesālī concerning the group of six bhikkhunīs in the case of abusing Venerable Upāli. It is a triple pācittiya; for a non-ordained person, it is a triple dukkaṭa. There is no offense if done with the intent of teaching Dhamma or instruction, or for the insane and so forth. The factors here are the person being ordained, abusing or reviling, and absence of intent to teach and so forth. Its origin and so forth are like those of the adinnādāna rule, but this has painful feeling.

This was laid down in Vesāli concerning the group-of-six bhikkhunis in a situation of abusing the venerable Upāli. It is a pācittiya with three parts; for a non-ordained person, it is a dukkaṭa with three parts. There is no offense if [it is done] with the intention of instructing in the meaning and the Dhamma, or for one who is insane, and so on. Being an ordained person, abusing and threatening, and the absence of the intention [of instructing] in the meaning and so on are the three factors here. The arising and so forth are similar to [the case of] taking what is not given, but this is painful feeling.

In Vesālī, the rule was established regarding the six-group nuns who insulted Venerable Upāli. There are three serious offenses, and three minor offenses if done to a non-ordained person. There is no offense if done for the sake of teaching the Dhamma, or for the insane, etc. The three factors here are the ordained status, insulting or threatening, and the absence of a purpose related to the Dhamma. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the rule on stealing.

3. Gaṇaparibhāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Gaṇaparibhāsana Training Rule

3. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Threatening the Community

3. Explanation of the Gaṇaparibhāsana Training Rule

Tatiye caṇḍikatāti kuddhā. Gaṇanti bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ. Paribhāseyyāti ettha “bālā etā abyattā etā, netā jānanti kammaṃ vā kammadosaṃ vā kammasampattiṃ vā kammavipattiṃ vā”ti evaṃ yattha katthaci paribhāsantiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the third rule, “anger” means being furious. “Group” means the bhikkhunī Sangha. “Should revile” means reviling anywhere with words like, “These are fools, these are incompetent, they do not know a formal act, its fault, its success, or its failure,” incurs a pācittiya.

In the third, caṇḍikatā means being angry. Gaṇa means the community of bhikkhunis. Paribhāseyyā means here, threatening anywhere with such words as, “These [bhikkhunis] are foolish, these are inarticulate, these do not know action, or the fault of action, or the success of action, or the failure of action,” it is a pācittiya.

In the third rule, caṇḍikatāti: Being angry. Gaṇa refers to the community of nuns. Paribhāseyyāti: Here, saying, “These are foolish, these are incompetent, these do not know the action, the fault of the action, the success of the action, or the failure of the action,” results in a serious offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha gaṇaṃ paribhāsanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sambahulā vā ekaṃ vā anupasampannaṃ vā paribhāsantiyā dukkaṭaṃ. Sesaṃ dutiyasadisamevāti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning Thullananda in the case of reviling a group. Reviling several or one non-ordained person incurs a dukkaṭa. The rest is the same as in the second rule.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā in a situation of threatening the community. Threatening several or one non-ordained person is a dukkaṭa. The rest is similar to the second.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding Thullanandā, who reviled the community. Reviling one or several non-ordained persons is a minor offense. The rest is similar to the second rule.

4. Pavāritasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Pavārita Training Rule

4. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Being Invited

4. Explanation of the Pavārita Training Rule

Catutthe gaṇabhojane vuttanayena nimantitā, pavāraṇāsikkhāpade vuttanayena pavāritā veditabbā. Pācittiyanti tassā purebhattaṃ ṭhapetvā yāguñceva sesāni ca tīṇi kālikāni aññaṃ yaṃkiñci āmisaṃ ajjhoharaṇatthāya paṭiggaṇhantiyā gahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pācittiyaṃ.

In the fourth rule, “invited” is to be understood as explained in the group meal rule, and “having been offered” as explained in the pavāraṇā training rule. “Pācittiya” means accepting anything material for consumption—except before the meal, including porridge and the three other timely items—incurs a dukkaṭa upon acceptance and a pācittiya with each swallowing.

In the fourth, nimantitā should be understood as stated in [the rule on] communal meals; pavāritā should be understood as stated in the training rule on invitation. Pācittiya means, for her, excluding the time before the meal, receiving anything edible, except for gruel and the remaining three period-allowables, for the purpose of consuming, it is a dukkaṭa at the time of receiving; for each swallowing, it is a pācittiya.

In the fourth rule, nimantitā refers to being invited, as explained in the rule on communal meals. Pavāritā refers to being invited, as explained in the rule on the Pavāraṇā. Pācittiyati: Here, except for the morning meal, accepting rice gruel or any other edible food results in a minor offense at the time of acceptance, and a serious offense for each consumption.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha aññatra bhuñjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tīṇi kālikāni āhāratthāya paṭiggaṇhantiyāpi ajjhoharantiyāpi dukkaṭaṃ. Yā pana nimantitā appavāritā yāguṃ pivati, sāmike apaloketvā bhuñjati, tīṇi kālikāni sati paccaye paribhuñjati, tassā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Nimantitā vā pavāritā vā taṃ ubhayaṃ vā, purebhattaṃ vuttalakkhaṇassa āmisassa ajjhohāro, sāmikānaṃ anāpucchananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Addhānasamuṭṭhānaṃ, nimantitāya anāpucchā bhuñjantiyā āpattisambhavato siyā kiriyākiriyaṃ, pavāritāya kappiyaṃ kāretvāpi akāretvāpi paribhuñjantiyā āpattisambhavato siyā kiriyaṃ, nosaññāvimokkhaṃ, acittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs in the case of eating elsewhere. Accepting or consuming the three timely items for nourishment incurs a dukkaṭa. There is no offense if an invited but not offered bhikkhunī drinks porridge, eats without consulting the owners, consumes the three timely items for a reason, or for the insane and so forth. The factors here are being invited or offered or both, consuming material of the described nature before the meal, and not asking the owners. It arises from travel; an invited bhikkhunī eating without asking incurs an offense, so it may involve action and non-action; an offered bhikkhunī consuming whether made allowable or not incurs an offense, so it may be an action, not perception-released, without consciousness, a disciplinary fault, bodily action, verbal action, three types of consciousness, and three feelings.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunis in a situation of eating elsewhere. Receiving the three period-allowables for the purpose of eating, and also consuming them, is a dukkaṭa. But for the one who, being invited but not invited [again], drinks gruel, who eats without informing the donors, who consumes the three period-allowables when there is a reason, for her, and for one who is insane, and so on, there is no offense. Being invited or invited [again], or both, consuming the stated kind of food before the meal, and not asking the donors are the three factors here. It has the arising of [traveling] on a long journey; since there is the possibility of an offense for an invited one eating without asking, it may be action and non-action; since there is the possibility of an offense for an invited [again] one consuming after making it allowable or without making it allowable, it may be action; it is not free from perception; it is without thought; it is an offense against the regulation; it is bodily action; it is verbal action; it is with three kinds of thought; it is with three kinds of feeling.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding several nuns who ate outside the allowed time. Accepting or consuming food for the purpose of eating during the three periods is a minor offense. If one is invited but not formally invited, drinks rice gruel, eats after informing the owner, or consumes the three periods when there is a reason, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are being invited or formally invited, consuming food with the characteristics stated, and not informing the owners. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the rule on traveling.

5. Kulamaccharinīsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Kulamaccharinī Training Rule

5. The Explanation of the Training Rule on a Miserly Family

5. Explanation of the Kulamaccharinī Training Rule

Pañcame kule maccharo kulamaccharo, kulamaccharo etissā atthi, kulaṃ vā maccharāyatīti kulamaccharinī. Assāti yā īdisī bhaveyya. Pācittiyanti tassā “yaṃ kulaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ paccaye dātukāmaṃ, kathaṃ nāma tattha bhikkhuniyo na gaccheyyu”nti bhikkhunīnaṃ vā santike kulassa, “kathaṃ nāma ime tāsaṃ kiñci na dajjeyyu”nti kulassa vā santike bhikkhunīnaṃ avaṇṇaṃ bhāsantiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the fifth, a family is stingy, possessive of the family; she has stinginess toward the family, or she is possessive of the family—thus, kulamaccharinī, “one stingy with families.” Assā means “of her,” referring to one who would be such. Pācittiya means a pācittiya offense is incurred by her when she speaks ill of nuns in the presence of a family, saying, “How could nuns not go to a family that wishes to give requisites to them?” or when she speaks ill of a family in the presence of nuns, saying, “How could these people not give anything to them?”

In the fifth, one who is possessive of families is kulamaccharinī, either because she is possessive of a family, or because she possesses family possessiveness. Assāti means if there should be such a one. Pācittiya means that for her, saying either to the bhikkhunīs about the family, “How could the bhikkhunīs not go to that family which is willing to give requisites to bhikkhunīs?”, or to the family about the bhikkhunīs, “How could these people not give anything to them?”, an offense of Pācittiya is incurred.

In the fifth rule, kulamaccharinī refers to one who is stingy with families. Assāti: Such a one exists. Pācittiyati: Here, if a family wishes to give requisites to nuns, and one says, “Why should nuns not go there?” or, in the presence of nuns, says, “Why should they not give anything to them?” it is a serious offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha kulamaccharāyanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Amaccharāyitvā santaṃyeva ādīnavaṃ ācikkhantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Bhikkhunīnaṃ alābhakāmatā, kulassa vā santike bhikkhunīnaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ vā santike kulassa avaṇṇabhaṇananti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun regarding the matter of being stingy with families. There is no offense if she, without being stingy, merely points out an existing fault, or for one who is deranged and similar cases. The two factors here are: desiring the nuns’ lack of gain, and speaking ill of nuns in the presence of a family or of a family in the presence of nuns. The origin and so forth are similar to those of taking what is not given, but this involves painful feeling.

It was established in Sāvatthī regarding a certain bhikkhunī in a situation of being possessive of families. There is no offense for one who, without being possessive, explains the actual danger, or for one who is insane, and so on. The desire for bhikkhunīs not to receive, and speaking ill of the bhikkhunīs in the presence of the family or speaking ill of the family in the presence of the bhikkhunīs, are the two factors here. The origins and so on are similar to those of taking what is not given, but this [offense] is painful feeling.

In Sāvatthī, the rule was established regarding a certain nun who was stingy with families. If one points out the disadvantages without being stingy, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The two factors here are the desire for nuns not to gain and speaking disparagingly of nuns in the presence of families or of families in the presence of nuns. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the rule on stealing.

The explanation of the training rule regarding one who is possessive of families is finished.

6. Abhikkhukāvāsasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Abhikkhukāvāsa Training Rule

6. The Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding a Residence Without Bhikkhus

6. Abhikkhukāvāsa Training Rule

Chaṭṭhe sace bhikkhunupassayato addhayojanabbhantare ovādadāyakā bhikkhū na vasanti, maggo vā akhemo hoti na sakkā anantarāyena gantuṃ , ayaṃ abhikkhuko nāma āvāso. Tattha “vassaṃ vasissāmī”ti senāsanapaññāpanapānīyaupaṭṭhāpanādīni karontiyā dukkaṭaṃ , saha aruṇuggamanā pācittiyaṃ. Ayamettha saṅkhepo, vitthāro pana samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 144 ādayo) vutto.

In the sixth, if within half a yojana of a nunnery there are no monks who give exhortation residing, or if the path is unsafe and it is not possible to go without impediment, such a residence is called abhikkhuko, “without monks.” There, if she prepares a dwelling, sets out water, and so forth, saying, “I will reside here for the rains,” it is a dukkaṭa offense; with the rising of the sun, it becomes a pācittiya offense. This is the summary here; the elaboration is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Pācittiya commentary 144 onward).

In the sixth, if bhikkhus who can give instruction do not reside within half a yojana from a bhikkhunī residence, or the road is unsafe and it is not possible to go without danger, this is called a residence without bhikkhus (abhikkhuko āvāso). There, for one who makes arrangements for lodging, providing water, and so on, thinking, “I will spend the rains here,” there is a dukkaṭa; with the rising of the sun, there is a pācittiya. This is the summary here; the detail, however, is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 144 ff.).

In the sixth case, if there are no monks residing within half a yojana from the nuns’ quarters to give advice, or if the path is impassable and one cannot go without danger, this is called an abhikkhuka (monkless) residence. There, if a nun prepares lodging, arranges drinking water, etc., with the intention, “I will spend the rains here,” she commits a dukkaṭa offense. At the break of dawn, she commits a pācittiya offense. This is the summary here; the details are explained in the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 144, etc.).

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha abhikkhuke āvāse vassaṃ vasanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, yattha pana vassūpagatā bhikkhū pakkantā vā honti vibbhantā vā kālaṅkatā vā pakkhasaṅkantā vā tattha vasantiyā, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Abhikkhukāvāsatā, vassūpagamanaṃ, aruṇuggamananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānevāti.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns regarding the matter of residing for the rains in a residence without monks. However, there is no offense if the monks who entered the rains retreat have departed, disrobed, passed away, or changed faction, or if she resides there in emergencies, or for one who is deranged and similar cases. The three factors here are: the residence being without monks, entering the rains retreat, and the rising of the sun. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the eḷakaloma rule.

It was established in Sāvatthī regarding several bhikkhunīs in a situation of spending the rains in a residence without bhikkhus. But where the bhikkhus who had entered the rains residence have departed, or have disrobed, or have died, or have joined another sect, there is no offense for one residing there, or in times of danger, or for one who is insane, and so on. The state of being a residence without bhikkhus, entering the rains, and the rising of the sun are the three factors here. The origins and so on are similar to those of the eḷakaloma [training rule].

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns who spent the rains in a monkless residence. However, if the monks who had entered the rains retreat have departed, disrobed, passed away, or moved to another faction, and a nun remains there, there is no offense in cases of emergency, insanity, etc. The three factors here are: the residence being monkless, entering the rains retreat, and the break of dawn. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the offense of cutting wool.

The explanation of the training rule regarding a residence without bhikkhus is finished.

7. Apavāraṇāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Apavāraṇā Training Rule

7. The Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding Not Inviting

7. Explanation of the Apavāraṇā Sikkhāpada

Sattame vassaṃvuṭṭhāti purimaṃ vā pacchimaṃ vā temāsaṃ vuṭṭhā. Ubhatosaṅgheti bhikkhunisaṅghe ceva bhikkhusaṅghe ca. Ayaṃ panettha vinicchayakathā – bhikkhunīhi cātuddaseyeva sannipatitvā “suṇātu me, ayye, saṅgho, ajja pavāraṇā cātuddasī, yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho pavāreyyā”ti evaṃ sabbasaṅgāhikañattiṃ vā, “tevācikaṃ pavāreyyā”ti evaṃ tevācikañattiṃ vā, sati antarāye “dvevācikaṃ, ekavācikaṃ, samānavassikaṃ pavāreyyā”ti evaṃ dvevācikādiñattiṃ vā ṭhapetvā sabbasaṅgāhikañatti ce ṭhapitā, “saṅghaṃ, ayye, pavāremi diṭṭhena vā sutena vā parisaṅkāya vā, vadantu maṃ ayyāyo anukampaṃ upādāya, passantī paṭikarissāmī”ti (cūḷava. 427) evaṃ sakiṃ vā, “dutiyampi, ayye, saṅghaṃ…pe… tatiyampi, ayye, saṅghaṃ…pe… paṭikarissāmī”ti evaṃ dvattikkhattuṃ vā vatvā paṭipāṭiyā pavāretabbaṃ. Tevācikāya ñattiyā vacanaṃ na hāpetabbaṃ, dvevācikādīsu vaḍḍhetuṃ vaṭṭati, hāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Evaṃ bhikkhunisaṅghe pavāretvā tattheva ekā bhikkhunī bhikkhunikkhandhake (cūḷava. 427) vuttena ñattidutiyakammena bhikkhunisaṅghassatthāya bhikkhusaṅghaṃ pavāretuṃ sammannitabbā. Tāya sammatāya bhikkhuniyā pannarase bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ ādāya bhikkhusaṅghaṃ upasaṅkamitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassa vacanīyo “bhikkhunisaṅgho ayya bhikkhusaṅghaṃ pavāreti diṭṭhena vā sutena vā parisaṅkāya vā, vadatāyya bhikkhusaṅgho bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ anukampaṃ upādāya, passanto paṭikarissati, dutiyampi ayya…pe… tatiyampi ayya…pe… passanto paṭikarissatī”ti evaṃ pavāretabbaṃ.

In the seventh, vassaṃvuṭṭhā means “having completed the rains,” either the earlier or later three months. Ubhatosaṅghe means “in both Sanghas,” the Sangha of nuns and the Sangha of monks. Here is the discussion of the analysis: The nuns, having assembled on the fourteenth day, should say, “May the Sangha listen to me, venerables. Today is the fourteenth day of the pavāraṇā. If it is suitable for the Sangha, let the Sangha perform the pavāraṇā,” thus setting forth a comprehensive motion; or “Let it perform the three-statement pavāraṇā,” thus a three-statement motion; or, if there is an impediment, “Let it perform the two-statement, one-statement, or same-rains pavāraṇā,” thus setting forth a two-statement or similar motion. If a comprehensive motion is set forth, she should say, “I invite the Sangha, venerables, with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerables speak to me out of compassion; seeing it, I will make amends” (Cūḷavagga 427), either once, or “For the second time, venerables, I invite the Sangha… for the third time, venerables, I invite the Sangha… I will make amends,” saying it two or three times in sequence. In the case of a three-statement motion, the statement must not be omitted; in the two-statement and similar cases, it may be increased but not reduced. Having thus performed the pavāraṇā in the nuns’ Sangha, one nun should be appointed there by a motion and second formal act as stated in the Bhikkhunikkhandhaka (Cūḷavagga 427) to invite the monks’ Sangha on behalf of the nuns’ Sangha. That appointed nun, on the fifteenth day, leading the nuns’ Sangha, should approach the monks’ Sangha, arrange her upper robe over one shoulder, raise her hands in añjali, and say, “The nuns’ Sangha, venerables, invites the monks’ Sangha with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. May the monks’ Sangha speak to the nuns’ Sangha out of compassion; seeing it, they will make amends. For the second time, venerables… for the third time, venerables… they will make amends,” thus performing the pavāraṇā.

In the seventh, having spent the rains (vassaṃvuṭṭhā) means having spent the three months of the earlier or later [rains]. In both communities (ubhatosaṅghe) means in both the community of bhikkhunīs and the community of bhikkhus. This is the discussion of determination here: The bhikkhunīs, having assembled on the fourteenth day, should establish a full-community motion, saying, “May the Saṅgha listen to me, venerable ladies. Today is the fourteenth day of invitation. If it is convenient for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should invite,” or a three-worded motion, saying, “It should invite with three words.” If there is an obstacle, they should establish a two-worded and so on motion, saying, “It should invite with two words, one word, or those of equal years.” If a full-community motion is established, each should invite in turn, saying once, “Venerable ladies, I invite the Saṅgha regarding what has been seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerable ladies speak to me out of compassion. Seeing it, I will correct it” (Cūḷava. 427), or two or three times, saying, “For the second time, venerable ladies, the Saṅgha… [as before]… For the third time, venerable ladies, the Saṅgha… [as before]… I will correct it.” The wording of the three-worded motion should not be omitted; in the two-worded and so on [motions], it is permissible to add, but it is not permissible to omit. Having invited in the bhikkhunī Saṅgha in this way, one bhikkhunī right there should be appointed by a motion-and-second-proclamation stated in the Bhikkhunikkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 427) to invite the bhikkhu Saṅgha on behalf of the bhikkhunī Saṅgha. That appointed bhikkhunī, on the fifteenth, taking the bhikkhunī Saṅgha, should approach the bhikkhu Saṅgha, arrange her upper robe over one shoulder, raise her joined hands, and say, “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sirs, invites the bhikkhu Saṅgha regarding what has been seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerable bhikkhu Saṅgha speak to the bhikkhunī Saṅgha out of compassion. Seeing it, they will correct it. For the second time, venerable sirs… [as before]… For the third time, venerable sirs… [as before]… Seeing it, they will correct it.” In this way, it should be invited.

In the seventh case, vassaṃvuṭṭhā means one who has completed the first or the last three months of the rains retreat. Ubhatosaṅghe refers to both the community of nuns and the community of monks. Here is the determination: the nuns should gather on the fourteenth day and say, “Venerables, let the community listen. Today is the fourteenth day, the day of Pavāraṇā. If the community is ready, let the community perform Pavāraṇā,” thus proposing a motion for the entire community, or “Let the community perform Pavāraṇā with three announcements,” thus proposing a motion with three announcements. If there is an obstacle, they may propose a motion with two announcements, one announcement, or for those with the same number of years. If a motion for the entire community is proposed, they should say, “Venerables, I invite the community to reflect on what has been seen, heard, or suspected. Please correct me, venerables, out of compassion. If I see, I will make amends,” (Cūḷavagga 427) once, or “For the second time, venerables, I invite the community…” or “For the third time, venerables, I invite the community…” thus speaking two or three times in sequence. The announcement with three announcements should not be omitted; in the case of two or one announcement, it may be increased but not omitted. After performing Pavāraṇā in the community of nuns, one nun should be appointed by the nuns’ community through a motion and one announcement (as stated in the Cūḷavagga 427) to invite the monks’ community on behalf of the nuns’ community. The appointed nun, taking fifteen nuns, should approach the monks’ community, arrange her upper robe over one shoulder, raise her hands in añjali, and say, “The nuns’ community invites the monks’ community to reflect on what has been seen, heard, or suspected. Please correct the nuns’ community, venerables, out of compassion. If we see, we will make amends. For the second time, venerables… For the third time, venerables… If we see, we will make amends.” Thus, Pavāraṇā should be performed.

Sace pañcavaggo bhikkhunisaṅgho na pūrati, catūhi vā tīhi vā gaṇañattiṃ ṭhapetvā, dvīhi vinā ñattiyā aññamaññaṃ pavāretabbaṃ. Ekāya “ajja me pavāraṇā”ti adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ.

If the nuns’ Sangha does not reach a group of five, with four or three, having set forth a group motion, or with two, without a motion, they should invite each other. For one alone, she should determine, “Today is my pavāraṇā.”

If the five-member bhikkhunī Saṅgha is not complete, having established a community motion with four or three, or with two without a motion, they should invite each other. One should determine, “Today is my invitation.”

If the group of five nuns is incomplete, a motion should be proposed with four or three, and they should invite each other without a motion for two. One should determine, “Today is my Pavāraṇā.”

Vihāraṃ pana gantvā “bhikkhuniyo, ayya, bhikkhusaṅghaṃ pavārenti diṭṭhena vā sutena vā parisaṅkāya vā, vadatāyya bhikkhusaṅgho bhikkhuniyo anukampaṃ upādāya, passantiyo paṭikarissantī”ti ca, “ahaṃ, ayya, bhikkhusaṅghaṃ pavāremi diṭṭhena vā sutena vā parisaṅkāya vā, vadatu maṃ, ayya, bhikkhusaṅgho anukampaṃ upādāya, passantī paṭikarissāmī”ti ca evaṃ tikkhattuṃ vattabbaṃ.

Having gone to the monastery, she should say three times, “The nuns, venerables, invite the monks’ Sangha with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. May the monks’ Sangha speak to the nuns out of compassion; seeing it, they will make amends,” and “I, venerables, invite the monks’ Sangha with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. May the monks’ Sangha speak to me out of compassion; seeing it, I will make amends.”

Having gone to the monastery, it should be said three times, “The bhikkhunīs, venerable sirs, invite the bhikkhu Saṅgha regarding what has been seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerable bhikkhu Saṅgha speak to the bhikkhunīs out of compassion. Seeing it, they will correct it,” and, “I, venerable sirs, invite the bhikkhu Saṅgha regarding what has been seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerable bhikkhu Saṅgha speak to me out of compassion. Seeing it, I will correct it.”

After going to the monastery, they should say, “Venerables, the nuns invite the monks’ community to reflect on what has been seen, heard, or suspected. Please correct the nuns, venerables, out of compassion. If we see, we will make amends,” and “I, venerables, invite the monks’ community to reflect on what has been seen, heard, or suspected. Please correct me, venerables, out of compassion. If I see, I will make amends,” thus speaking three times.

Sace bhikkhusaṅgho na pūrati, “bhikkhunisaṅgho, ayya, ayye pavāreti diṭṭhena vā sutena vā parisaṅkāya vā, vadantu ayyā bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ anukampaṃ upādāya, passanto paṭikarissatī”ti ca, “bhikkhunisaṅgho, ayya, ayyaṃ pavāreti diṭṭhena vā sutena vā parisaṅkāya vā, vadatāyyo bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ anukampaṃ upādāya, passanto paṭikarissatī”ti ca evaṃ tikkhattuṃ vattabbaṃ.

If the monks’ Sangha is not complete, she should say three times, “The nuns’ Sangha, venerables, invites the venerables with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerables speak to the nuns’ Sangha out of compassion; seeing it, they will make amends,” and “The nuns’ Sangha, venerables, invites the venerable with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerables speak to the nuns’ Sangha out of compassion; seeing it, they will make amends.”

If the bhikkhu Saṅgha is not complete, it should be said three times, “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sirs, invites the venerable sirs regarding what has been seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerable sirs speak to the bhikkhunī Saṅgha out of compassion. Seeing it, they will correct it,” and, “The bhikkhunī Saṅgha, venerable sirs, invites the venerable sir regarding what has been seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerable ladies speak to the bhikkhunī Saṅgha out of compassion. Seeing it, they will correct it.”

If the monks’ community is incomplete, they should say, “Venerables, the nuns’ community invites the monks’ community to reflect on what has been seen, heard, or suspected. Please correct the nuns’ community, venerables, out of compassion. If we see, we will make amends,” and “Venerables, the nuns’ community invites the monks’ community to reflect on what has been seen, heard, or suspected. Please correct the nuns’ community, venerables, out of compassion. If we see, we will make amends,” thus speaking three times.

Ubhinnaṃ aparipūriyā “bhikkhuniyo, ayyā, ayye pavārenti diṭṭhena vā sutena vā parisaṅkāya vā, vadantāyyā bhikkhuniyo anukampaṃ upādāya, passantiyo paṭikarissantī”ti ca, “bhikkhuniyo, ayya, ayyaṃ pavārenti diṭṭhena vā sutena vā parisaṅkāya vā, vadatāyyo bhikkhuniyo anukampaṃ upādāya, passantiyo paṭikarissantī”ti ca, “ahaṃ, ayyā, ayye pavāremi diṭṭhena vā sutena vā…pe… vadantu maṃ, ayyā, anukampaṃ upādāya, passantī paṭikarissāmī”ti ca, “ahaṃ, ayya, ayyaṃ pavāremi diṭṭhena vā sutena vā…pe… vadatu maṃ, ayyo, anukampaṃ upādāya, passantī paṭikarissāmī”ti ca evaṃ tikkhattuṃ vattabbaṃ. Sabbāheva hi iminā nayena ubhatosaṅghe pavāritā hoti, yā pana vassaṃvuṭṭhā “ubhatosaṅghe evaṃ na pavāressāmī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhipati, tassā saha dhuranikkhepena pācittiyaṃ.

If both are incomplete, she should say three times, “The nuns, venerables, invite the venerables with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerables speak to the nuns out of compassion; seeing it, they will make amends,” and “The nuns, venerables, invite the venerable with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerables speak to the nuns out of compassion; seeing it, they will make amends,” and “I, venerables, invite the venerables with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected… may the venerables speak to me out of compassion; seeing it, I will make amends,” and “I, venerables, invite the venerable with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected… may the venerable speak to me out of compassion; seeing it, I will make amends.” Indeed, by this method, all have performed the pavāraṇā in both Sanghas. But for one who, having completed the rains, lays aside her duty, saying, “I will not perform the pavāraṇā in both Sanghas thus,” a pācittiya offense is incurred with the laying aside of the duty.

If both are incomplete, it should be said three times, “The bhikkhunīs, venerable ladies, invite the venerable sirs regarding what has been seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerable sirs speak to the bhikkhunīs out of compassion. Seeing it, they will correct it,” and, “The bhikkhunīs, venerable ladies, invite the venerable sir regarding what has been seen, heard, or suspected. May the venerable ladies speak to the bhikkhunīs out of compassion. Seeing it, they will correct it,” and, “I, venerable ladies, invite the venerable sirs regarding what has been seen, heard, or suspected… [as before]… May the venerable sirs speak to me out of compassion. Seeing it, I will correct it,” and, “I, venerable sir, invite the venerable sir regarding what has been seen, heard, or suspected… [as before]… May the venerable sir speak to me out of compassion. Seeing it, I will correct it.” Indeed, by all of them, in this way, the invitation is made in both Saṅghas. But for the one who has spent the rains and who makes a firm resolution, “I will not invite in both Saṅghas in this way,” there is a pācittiya as soon as the firm resolution is made.

If both communities are incomplete, they should say, “Venerables, the nuns invite the monks’ community to reflect on what has been seen, heard, or suspected. Please correct the nuns, venerables, out of compassion. If we see, we will make amends,” and “Venerables, the nuns invite the monks’ community to reflect on what has been seen, heard, or suspected. Please correct the nuns, venerables, out of compassion. If we see, we will make amends,” and “I, venerables, invite the monks’ community to reflect on what has been seen, heard, or suspected. Please correct me, venerables, out of compassion. If I see, I will make amends,” thus speaking three times. In this way, both communities are invited. However, if one who has completed the rains retreat thinks, “I will not invite the community in this way,” and abandons the duty, she commits a pācittiya offense at the moment of abandoning the duty.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha vassaṃ vasitvā na pavāraṇāvatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Antarāye pana sati, pariyesitvā bhikkhū alabhantiyā, gilānāya, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Vassaṃvuṭṭhatā, na ubhatosaṅghe pavāraṇā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni samanubhāsanasadisānīti.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns regarding the matter of not performing the pavāraṇā after residing for the rains. However, there is no offense in case of an impediment, if she searches for monks and does not find them, if she is ill, in emergencies, or for one who is deranged and similar cases. The three factors here are: having completed the rains, not performing the pavāraṇā in both Sanghas, and the absence of an authorized reason. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the samanubhāsana rule.

It was established in Sāvatthī regarding several bhikkhunīs in a situation of not inviting after having spent the rains. But if there is an obstacle, for one who has sought for bhikkhus and not found them, for one who is ill, in times of danger, and for one who is insane, there is no offense. Having spent the rains, not inviting in both Saṅghas, and the absence of a permitted reason are the three factors here. The origins and so on are similar to those of the [offense requiring] expounding.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns who, after spending the rains, did not perform Pavāraṇā. However, if there is an obstacle, such as being unable to find monks after searching, being ill, or in cases of emergency, insanity, etc., there is no offense. The three factors here are: having completed the rains retreat, not performing Pavāraṇā in both communities, and the absence of permission. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the offense of formal censure.

8. Ovādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Ovāda Training Rule

8. The Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding Instruction

8. Explanation of the Ovāda Sikkhāpada

Aṭṭhame ovādāyāti garudhammassavanatthāya. Saṃvāsāyāti uposathapucchanatthāya ceva pavāraṇatthāya ca. Pācittiyanti “etesaṃ atthāya na gacchāmī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhittamatte pācittiyaṃ.

In the eighth, ovādāyā means “for exhortation,” for the sake of hearing the weighty rules. Saṃvāsāyā means “for communion,” for the sake of asking about the Uposatha and performing the pavāraṇā. Pācittiya means a pācittiya offense is incurred the moment she lays aside her duty, saying, “I will not go for these purposes.”

In the eighth, for instruction (ovādāya) means for the sake of listening to the weighty dhammas. For communion (saṃvāsāya) means for the sake of asking about the uposatha and also for the invitation. Pācittiya means that as soon as one makes a firm resolution, “I will not go for the sake of these,” there is a pācittiya.

In the eighth case, ovādāya means for the purpose of hearing the garudhammas. Saṃvāsāya means for the purpose of asking about the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā. Pācittiya means that if one abandons the duty by thinking, “I will not go for these purposes,” one commits a pācittiya offense at the moment of abandoning the duty.

Sakkesu chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha ovādāya agamanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Antarāye pana sati, pariyesitvā dutiyikaṃ alabhantiyā, gilānāya, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Ovādasaṃvāsānaṃ atthāya agamanaṃ, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisāni, idaṃ pana akiriyaṃ, dukkhavedananti.

This was laid down among the Sakyans concerning the group of six nuns regarding the matter of not going for exhortation. However, there is no offense in case of an impediment, if she searches for a companion and does not find one, if she is ill, in emergencies, or for one who is deranged and similar cases. The two factors here are: not going for the sake of exhortation and communion, and the absence of an authorized reason. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the first pārājika rule, but this is a non-action and involves painful feeling.

It was established in the Sakyan territories regarding the six group of bhikkhunīs in a situation of not going for instruction. But if there is an obstacle, for one who has sought for a companion and not found one, for one who is ill, in times of danger, and for one who is insane, there is no offense. Not going for the sake of instruction and communion, and the absence of a permitted reason are the two factors here. The origins and so on are similar to those of the first pārājika, but this [offense] is non-action and painful feeling.

This rule was established in the Sakyan country concerning the six-group nuns who did not go for instruction. However, if there is an obstacle, such as being unable to find a companion after searching, being ill, or in cases of emergency, insanity, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are: going for the purpose of instruction and living together, and the absence of permission. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the first pārājika offense, but this is non-action and results in painful feeling.

9. Ovādūpasaṅkamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Ovādūpasaṅkamana Training Rule

9. The Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding Approaching for Instruction

9. Explanation of the Ovādūpasaṅkamana Sikkhāpada

Navame anvaddhamāsanti addhamāse addhamāse. Uposathapucchakanti uposathapucchanaṃ. Ovādūpasaṅkamananti ovādatthāya upasaṅkamanaṃ. Taṃ atikkāmentiyāti ettha bhikkhunīhi terase vā cātuddase vā ārāmaṃ gantvā “ayaṃ uposatho cātuddaso pannaraso”ti pucchitabbaṃ, uposathadivase nidānavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayena ovādūpasaṅkamanaṃ yācitabbaṃ. Yā bhikkhunī vuttappakāre kāle tadubhayaṃ na karoti, sā taṃ atikkāmeti nāma, tassā “uposathampi na pucchissāmi, ovādampi na yācissāmī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhittamatte pācittiyaṃ.

In the ninth, anvaddhamāsa means “every half-month.” Uposathapucchaka means “asking about the Uposatha.” Ovādūpasaṅkamana means “approaching for exhortation.” Taṃ atikkāmentiyā means “for one who exceeds this.” Here, nuns should go to the monastery on the thirteenth or fourteenth day and ask, “Is this Uposatha the fourteenth or fifteenth?” On the Uposatha day, they should request the approaching for exhortation in the manner stated in the introduction commentary. A nun who does not do both at the prescribed time exceeds this; for her, a pācittiya offense is incurred the moment she lays aside her duty, saying, “I will neither ask about the Uposatha nor request exhortation.”

In the ninth, every half-month (anvaddhamāsa) means every half-month. Asking about the uposatha (uposathapucchaka) means the asking about the uposatha. Approaching for instruction (ovādūpasaṅkamana) means approaching for the sake of instruction. For one who transgresses that (taṃ atikkāmentiyā): here, the bhikkhunīs should go to the monastery on the thirteenth or fourteenth and ask, “Is this uposatha the fourteenth or the fifteenth?” On the uposatha day, approaching for instruction should be requested in the manner stated in the explanation of the origin. The bhikkhunī who does not do both of these at the stated time transgresses that. For her, as soon as she makes a firm resolution, “I will not ask about the uposatha, nor will I request instruction,” there is a pācittiya.

In the ninth case, anvaddhamāsa means every half-month. Uposathapucchaka means asking about the Uposatha. Ovādūpasaṅkamana means going for the purpose of receiving instruction. Taṃ atikkāmentiyā means that if a nun does not do both of these at the proper time, she transgresses. If she thinks, “I will not ask about the Uposatha, nor will I request instruction,” and abandons the duty, she commits a pācittiya offense at the moment of abandoning the duty.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha uposathaovādānaṃ apucchanaayācanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ , anāpatti aṭṭhamasadisāyeva. Uposathovādānaṃ apucchanaayācanāyaṃ dhuranikkhepo, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni samanubhāsanasadisānīti.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns regarding the matter of neither asking about nor requesting the Uposatha and exhortation. There is no offense as in the eighth rule. The two factors here are: laying aside the duty of not asking about or requesting the Uposatha and exhortation, and the absence of an authorized reason. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the samanubhāsana rule.

It was established in Sāvatthī regarding several bhikkhunīs in a situation of not asking and requesting the uposatha and instruction. The non-offenses are similar to those of the eighth. Making a firm resolution in not asking and requesting the uposatha and instruction, and the absence of a permitted reason are the two factors here. The origins and so on are similar to those of the [offense requiring] expounding.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns who did not ask about the Uposatha or request instruction. The two factors here are: abandoning the duty of asking about the Uposatha and requesting instruction, and the absence of permission. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the offense of formal censure.

The explanation of the training rule regarding approaching for instruction is finished.

10. Pasākhejātasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Pasākhejāta Training Rule

10. The Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding a Growth on the Thigh

10. Explanation of the Pasākhejāta Sikkhāpada

Dasame pasākheti nābhiyā heṭṭhā jāṇumaṇḍalānaṃ uparipadese. Tato hi yasmā rukkhassa sākhā viya ubho ūrū pabhijjitvā gatā, tasmā so “pasākho”ti vuccati, tasmiṃ pasākhe. Gaṇḍanti yaṃkiñci gaṇḍaṃ. Rudhitanti vaṇaṃ. Bhedāpeyya vātiādīsu sace “bhinda phālehī”ti sabbāni āṇāpeti, so ca tatheva karoti, cha dukkaṭāni cha ca pācittiyāni. Athāpi “yaṃkiñci ettha kattabbaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ karohī”ti evaṃ āṇāpeti, so ca sabbānipi bhedanādīni karoti, ekavācāya cha dukkaṭāni cha ca pācittiyāni. Sace pana bhedanādīsu ekaṃyeva “idaṃ nāma karohī”ti āṇāpeti, so ca sabbāni karoti. Yaṃ āṇattaṃ, tasseva karaṇe pācittiyaṃ.

In the tenth, pasākhe means “below the navel,” at the upper part of the region above the knee-joints. Since the two thighs branch out from there like the branches of a tree, it is called pasākha, “the branch,” and refers to that region. Gaṇḍa means “any sore.” Rudhita means “wound.” In bhedāpeyya vā and so forth, if she orders, “Break it, burst it,” commanding all actions, and he does so accordingly, there are six dukkaṭa offenses and six pācittiya offenses. Or if she orders, “Do whatever needs to be done here,” and he performs all actions like breaking and so forth, with one statement there are six dukkaṭa offenses and six pācittiya offenses. But if she orders only one specific action among breaking and so forth, saying, “Do this,” and he does all, a pācittiya offense is incurred only for the action ordered and performed.

In the tenth, on the thigh (pasākhe) means on the area below the navel and above the kneecaps. For since from there, like the branch of a tree, the two thighs split and go, therefore it is called “pasākha.” On that thigh. Growth (gaṇḍa) means any kind of growth. Inflamed (rudhita) means a wound. Should have it cut or… (bhedāpeyya vā…): here, if she commands all, “Cut, split!”, and he does just that, there are six dukkaṭas and six pācittiyas. But if she commands, “Do whatever needs to be done here,” and he does all of the cutting and so on, with one utterance there are six dukkaṭas and six pācittiyas. But if she commands only one of cutting and so on, “Do this,” and he does all, there is a pācittiya for doing what was commanded.

In the tenth case, pasākhe refers to the area below the navel and above the knees. Gaṇḍa means any kind of boil. Rudhita means a wound. Bhedāpeyya vā means that if one orders, “Cut, split,” etc., and the other does so, there are six dukkaṭa offenses and six pācittiya offenses. If one orders, “Do whatever needs to be done here,” and the other does all the cutting, etc., there is one announcement with six dukkaṭa offenses and six pācittiya offenses. If one orders, “Do this specific thing,” and the other does everything, there is a pācittiya offense for what was ordered.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha pasākhe jātaṃ gaṇḍaṃ purisena bhedāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, apaloketvā vā viññuṃ vā yaṃkañci dutiyikaṃ gahetvā evaṃ karontiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Pasākhe jātatā, anapalokanaṃ, dutiyikābhāvo, purisena bhedādīnaṃ kārāpananti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun regarding the matter of having a man open a sore that arose below the navel. There is no offense if she does so without consulting, or taking any companion or wise person, or for one who is deranged and similar cases. The four factors here are: the sore arising below the navel, not consulting, absence of a companion, and having a man perform the breaking and so forth. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the kathina rule, but this involves both action and non-action.

It was established in Sāvatthī regarding a certain bhikkhunī in a situation of having a man cut a growth that had arisen on her thigh. There is no offense for one who does this after informing or taking any knowledgeable companion, or for one who is insane, and so on. The arising on the thigh, not informing, the absence of a companion, and having a man do the cutting and so on are the four factors here. The origins and so on are similar to those of the [offense regarding] the robe-making, but this [offense] is action-non-action.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning a nun who had a boil in the groin area and had it lanced by a man without consulting or taking a companion. There is no offense for the insane, etc. The four factors here are: having a boil in the groin area, not consulting, the absence of a companion, and having a man perform the lancing, etc. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the kathina offense, but this is a matter of action and non-action.

The explanation of the training rule regarding a growth on the thigh is finished.

7. Gabbhinīvaggo

7. Gabbhinī Section

7. The Pregnant Woman Chapter

7. Gabbhinīvaggo

1. Gabbhinīsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Gabbhinī Training Rule

1. The Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding a Pregnant Woman

1. Explanation of the Gabbhinī Sikkhāpada

Gabbhinivaggassa paṭhame “gabbhinī”ti jānitvā upajjhāyāya vuṭṭhāpentiyā gaṇapariyesanādīsu ca ñattikammavācādvaye ca dukkaṭaṃ, kammavācāpariyosāne pācittiyaṃ.

In the first of the Gabbhinī section, gabbhinī means “pregnant.” For one who knowingly ordains a pregnant woman as a preceptor, there is a dukkaṭa offense in seeking a group and in the two stages of the motion and formal act, and a pācittiya offense at the conclusion of the formal act.

In the first of the Pregnant Woman Chapter, knowing that she is pregnant (gabbhinī), for one who ordains her as a preceptor, there is a dukkaṭa in seeking the group and so on, and in the two motion and proclamation utterances; at the conclusion of the proclamation utterance, there is a pācittiya.

In the first case of the Gabbhinī chapter, gabbhinī means knowing that she is pregnant. If the preceptor expels her, there is a dukkaṭa offense in searching for a group, etc., and in the two announcements of the motion and the formal act. At the conclusion of the formal act, there is a pācittiya offense.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha gabbhiniṃ vuṭṭhāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, gabbhiniyā vematikāya agabbhiniyā gabbhinisaññāya ceva vematikāya ca dukkaṭaṃ. Ubhosu agabbhinisaññāya, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Gabbhinitā, ’gabbhinī’ti jānanaṃ, vuṭṭhāpananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana paṇṇattivajjaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns regarding the matter of ordaining a pregnant woman. There is a dukkaṭa offense if she is uncertain about the pregnancy, or if she perceives a non-pregnant woman as pregnant or is uncertain. There is no offense if she perceives both as non-pregnant, or for one who is deranged and similar cases. The three factors here are: being pregnant, knowing “she is pregnant,” and ordaining. The origin and so forth are similar to those of taking what is not given, but this is a fault due to the rule, involves three mental states, and three feelings.

It was established in Sāvatthī regarding several bhikkhunīs in a situation of ordaining a pregnant woman. There is a dukkaṭa for one who is doubtful about a pregnant woman, for one who thinks a non-pregnant woman is pregnant, and for one who is doubtful [about a non-pregnant woman]. For one who thinks both are not pregnant, and for one who is insane, and so on, there is no offense. Being pregnant, knowing that she is pregnant, and ordaining are the three factors here. The origins and so on are similar to those of taking what is not given, but this [offense] is a natural fault, three-minded, and three-feeling.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns who expelled a pregnant nun. If a nun is uncertain whether she is pregnant or not, and she is expelled under the perception of being pregnant or under uncertainty, there is a dukkaṭa offense. If she is expelled under the perception of not being pregnant, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: being pregnant, knowing that she is pregnant, and expulsion. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the offense of stealing, but this is a matter of rule-making, with three mind-moments and three feelings.

2. Pāyantīsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Pāyantī Training Rule

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding a Nursing Mother

2. Explanation of the Pāyantī Sikkhāpada

Dutiye pāyantinti thaññaṃ pāyamānaṃ, yaṃ pāyeti, tassa mātā vā, dhāti vā. Idaṃ vatthumattamevettha viseso, sesaṃ paṭhamasikkhāpadasadisamevāti.

In the second, pāyantī means “nursing,” giving milk from the breast, whether as the mother or wet-nurse of the one she nurses. This is the only distinction here in terms of the object; the rest is the same as in the first training rule.

In the second, nursing (pāyanti) means one who is giving milk, either the mother or the wet nurse of the one who is nursing. This is the only difference in circumstance here; the rest is similar to the first training rule.

In the second case, pāyantī means one who is nursing, whether it is the mother or a wet nurse. This is the only difference in the case; the rest is similar to the first sikkhāpada.

3. Paṭhamasikkhamānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the First Sikkhamānā Training Rule

3. The First Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding a Probationer

3. Explanation of the Paṭhamasikkhamāna Sikkhāpada

Tatiye dve vassānīti pavāraṇāvasena dve saṃvaccharāni. Chasu dhammesūti pāṇātipātāveramaṇiādīsu vikālabhojanāveramaṇipariyosānesu chasu sikkhāpadesu. Asikkhitasikkhanti padabhājane (pāci. 1077) vuttanayeneva adinnasikkhaṃ vā kupitasikkhaṃ vā. Sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyyāti tesu chasu dhammesu sikkhanato, te vā sikkhāsaṅkhāte dhamme mānanato evaṃladdhanāmaṃ anupasampannaṃ upasampādeyya. Pācittiyanti paṭhamasikkhāpade vuttanayeneva kammavācāpariyosāne pācittiyaṃ.

In the third, dve vassānī means “two years,” reckoned as two years by the pavāraṇā. Chasu dhammesū means “in the six rules,” from refraining from killing living beings up to refraining from eating at the wrong time, ending with these six training rules. Asikkhitasikkha means “untrained in training,” as explained in the word analysis (Pācittiya 1077), either not having received the training or having received it improperly. Sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyyā means “she ordains a sikkhamānā,” one not fully ordained, so called because she trains in these six rules or reveres the Dhamma known as training. Pācittiya means a pācittiya offense is incurred at the conclusion of the formal act, as explained in the first training rule.

In the third, two years (dve vassāni) means two full years by way of invitation. In six dhammas (chasu dhammesu) means in the six training rules beginning with abstaining from killing living beings and ending with abstaining from eating at the wrong time. Not trained in the training (asikkhitasikkha) means, as stated in the analysis of the verse (pāci. 1077), either not trained in what was given or trained when angry. Should ordain a probationer (sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyyā) means should fully ordain one who is not fully ordained, who is so-called because of training in those six dhammas, or because of honoring those dhammas known as training. Pācittiya means that, as stated in the first training rule, at the conclusion of the proclamation utterance, there is a pācittiya.

In the third case, dve vassānī means two years counted from the Pavāraṇā. Chasu dhammesū refers to the six training rules, from abstaining from killing to abstaining from eating at the wrong time. Asikkhitasikkha means one who has not trained in these six rules. Sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyyā means giving full ordination to one who has trained in these six rules or who respects these training rules. Pācittiya means that at the conclusion of the formal act, there is a pācittiya offense, as stated in the first sikkhāpada.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha evarūpaṃ sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, dhammakamme tikapācittiyaṃ, adhammakamme tikadukkaṭaṃ. Dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhaṃ sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Vuttanayena asikkhitasikkhatā, dhammakammatā, kammavācāpariyosānanti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhame vuttanayānevāti.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns regarding the matter of ordaining such a sikkhamānā. In a lawful act, there are three pācittiya offenses; in an unlawful act, three dukkaṭa offenses. There is no offense if she ordains a sikkhamānā who has trained in the six rules for two years, or for one who is deranged and similar cases. The three factors here are: being untrained in training as stated, a lawful act, and the conclusion of the formal act. The origin and so forth are as stated in the first.

It was established in Sāvatthī regarding several bhikkhunīs in a situation of ordaining such a probationer. In a dhamma act, there is a triple pācittiya; in a non-dhamma act, there is a triple dukkaṭa. There is no offense for one who ordains a probationer who has trained in the six dhammas for two years, or for one who is insane, and so on. The state of being untrained in the training in the stated way, the state of being a dhamma act, and the conclusion of the proclamation utterance are the three factors here. The origins and so on are as stated in the first.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns who gave full ordination to such a trainee. In a lawful formal act, there are three pācittiya offenses; in an unlawful formal act, there are three dukkaṭa offenses. If one gives full ordination to a trainee who has trained in the six rules for two years, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The three factors here are: not having trained in the six rules, the lawfulness of the formal act, and the conclusion of the formal act. The origins, etc., are as stated in the first case.

4. Dutiyasikkhamānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Second Sikkhamānā Training Rule

4. The Second Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding a Probationer

4. Explanation of the Dutiyasikkhamāna Sikkhāpada

Catutthe saṅghena asammatanti yassā saṅghena antamaso upasampadāmāḷakepi padabhājane (pāci. 1086) vuttā upasampadāsammuti na dinnā hoti, taṃ imā dvepi mahāsikkhamānā nāma. Idha saṅghena sammataṃ vuṭṭhāpentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sesaṃ tatiye vuttasadisameva, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyaṃ hotīti.

In the fourth, saṅghena asammata means “not appointed by the Sangha,” referring to one who has not been given the appointment for ordination by the Sangha, even at the ordination hall, as stated in the word analysis (Pācittiya 1086); these two are called mahāsikkhamānā, “great trainees.” There is no offense if she ordains one appointed by the Sangha, or for one who is deranged and similar cases. The rest is the same as in the third, but this involves both action and non-action.

In the fourth, not appointed by the Saṅgha (saṅghena asammata) means these two are called great probationers (mahāsikkhamānā): even on the ordination platform, for whom the Saṅgha has not given the ordination appointment stated in the analysis of the verse (pāci. 1086). Here, there is no offense for one who ordains one who has been appointed by the Saṅgha, or for one who is insane, and so on. The rest is similar to what is stated in the third, but this [offense] is action-non-action.

In the fourth case, saṅghena asammata means one who has not been approved by the community, even for the purpose of full ordination, as stated in the word analysis (pāci. 1086). These two are called mahāsikkhamānā. Here, if one gives full ordination to one approved by the community, there is no offense for the insane, etc. The rest is similar to the third case, but this is a matter of action and non-action.

The second explanation of the training rule regarding a probationer is finished.

5. Paṭhamagihigatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the First Gihigata Training Rule

5. The First Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding One Who Has Gone to a Householder

5. Explanation of the Paṭhamagihigata Sikkhāpada

Pañcame gihigatanti purisantaragataṃ, idhāpi idaṃ vatthumattameva viseso. Ūnadvādasavassañca paripuṇṇasaññāya vuṭṭhāpentiyā kiñcāpi anāpatti, sā pana anupasampannāva hoti. Sesaṃ paṭhamasikkhāpadasadisamevāti.

In the fifth, gihigata means “gone to a householder,” one who has been with a man; here too, this is the only distinction in terms of the object. If she ordains one under twelve years old, perceiving her as fully aged, though there is no offense, that person remains unordained. The rest is the same as in the first training rule.

In the fifth, gone to a householder (gihigata) means one who has gone to another man. Here too, this is the only difference in circumstance. Even if there is no offense for one who ordains one who is under twelve years old, thinking she is of full age, she is still not fully ordained. The rest is similar to the first training rule.

In the fifth case, gihigata means one who has gone to the household life. Here, this is the only difference in the case. If one gives full ordination to one who is less than twelve years old under the perception of being fully twelve, there is no offense, but she remains unordained. The rest is similar to the first sikkhāpada.

The first explanation of the training rule regarding one who has gone to a householder is finished.

6-7. The Second and Third Explanations of the Training Rule Regarding One Who Has Gone to a Householder

Chaṭṭhe sabbaṃ tatiye vuttanayena. Sattamepi sabbaṃ catutthe vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

In the sixth, everything is to be understood as stated in the third. In the seventh, everything is to be understood as stated in the fourth.

In the sixth, everything is as stated in the third. In the seventh too, everything should be understood as stated in the fourth.

In the sixth case, everything is as stated in the third case. In the seventh case, everything is as stated in the fourth case.

The second and third explanations of the training rule regarding one who has gone to a householder are finished.

8. Paṭhamasahajīvinisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the First Sahajīvinī Training Rule

8. The First Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding a Female Companion

8. Explanation of the Paṭhamasahajīvini Sikkhāpada

Aṭṭhame sahajīvininti saddhivihāriniṃ. Neva anuggaṇheyyāti sayaṃ uddesādīhi nānuggaṇheyya. Na anuggaṇhāpeyyāti “imissā, ayye, uddesādīni dehī”ti evaṃ na aññāya anuggaṇhāpeyya. Pācittiyanti dhure nikkhittamatte pācittiyaṃ.

In the eighth, sahajīvini means “co-resident,” one living together. Neva anuggaṇheyyā means “she does not support her,” not personally instructing her with recitation and so forth. Na anuggaṇhāpeyyā means “she does not have her supported,” not saying to another, “Venerable, give her recitation and so forth.” Pācittiya means a pācittiya offense is incurred the moment she lays aside her duty.

In the eighth, female companion (sahajīvini) means a co-resident. Should neither support (neva anuggaṇheyyā) means should not support her herself with teaching and so on. Nor have her supported (na anuggaṇhāpeyyā) means should not have another support her, saying, “Venerable lady, give teaching and so on to this one.” Pācittiya means that as soon as the firm resolution is made, there is a pācittiya.

In the eighth case, sahajīvini means a fellow nun. Neva anuggaṇheyyā means she should not instruct her herself. Na anuggaṇhāpeyyā means she should not have another instruct her by saying, “Venerable, give her the recitation, etc.” Pācittiya means that if she abandons the duty by thinking, “I will not instruct her,” she commits a pācittiya offense at the moment of abandoning the duty.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha evarūpe vatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, sesamettha tuvaṭṭavagge dukkhitasahajīvinisikkhāpade vuttasadisamevāti.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā regarding such a matter. The rest here is the same as in the Dukkita-sahajīvinī training rule in the Tuvaṭṭa section.

It was established in Sāvatthī regarding Thullanandā in such a situation. The rest here is similar to what is stated in the training rule regarding an afflicted female companion in the Tuvaṭṭa Vagga.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā. The rest is similar to the Dukkhitasahajīvini Sikkhāpada in the Tuvaṭṭavagga.

The first explanation of the training rule regarding a female companion is finished.

9. Nānubandhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Nānubandhana Training Rule

9. The Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding Not Attending

9. Explanation of the Nānubandhana Sikkhāpada

Navame vuṭṭhāpitaṃ pavattininti vuṭṭhāpitaṃ pavattiniṃ yāya upasampāditā, taṃ upajjhāyininti attho. Nānubandheyyāti cuṇṇena mattikāya dantakaṭṭhena mukhodakenāti evaṃ tena tena karaṇīyena na upaṭṭhaheyya. Pācittiyanti nānubandhissanti dhure nikkhittamatte pācittiyaṃ.

In the ninth, vuṭṭhāpitaṃ pavattini means “the preceptor who ordained her,” the one by whom she was ordained as a preceptor. Nānubandheyyā means “she does not follow,” not attending to her with powder, clay, tooth-stick, or mouthwash, or any such service. Pācittiya means a pācittiya offense is incurred the moment she lays aside her duty, saying, “I will not follow.”

In the ninth, ordained preceptor (vuṭṭhāpitaṃ pavattini) means the preceptor by whom she was ordained, that is, her preceptor. Should not attend (nānubandheyyā) means should not assist with powder, clay, toothbrush, face-washing water, and so on, with such things that need to be done. Pācittiya means that as soon as the firm resolution not to attend is made, there is a pācittiya.

In the ninth case, vuṭṭhāpitaṃ pavattini means the preceptor who ordained her. Nānubandheyyā means she should not attend to her with powder, clay, toothwood, or mouthwash. Pācittiya means that if she abandons the duty by thinking, “I will not attend to her,” she commits a pācittiya offense at the moment of abandoning the duty.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha nānubandhanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Bālaṃ pana alajjiniṃ vā ananubandhantiyā, gilānāya, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Vuṭṭhāpitappavattinitā, dve vassāni ananubandhane dhuranikkhepo, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisāni, idaṃ pana akiriyaṃ, dukkhavedananti.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns regarding the matter of not following. There is no offense if she does not follow a foolish or shameless one, if she is ill, in emergencies, or for one who is deranged and similar cases. The three factors here are: being the preceptor who ordained her, laying aside the duty of not following for two years, and the absence of an authorized reason. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the first pārājika rule, but this is a non-action and involves painful feeling.

It was established in Sāvatthī regarding several bhikkhunīs in a situation of not attending. But there is no offense for one who does not attend a foolish one or a shameless one, or for one who is ill, in times of danger, and for one who is insane. The state of being an ordained preceptor, making a firm resolution not to attend for two years, and the absence of a permitted reason are the three factors here. The origins and so on are similar to those of the first pārājika, but this [offense] is non-action and painful feeling.

In Sāvatthī, a training rule was laid down concerning several bhikkhunīs for a case of not following up. However, there is no offense for one who is foolish, shameless, or does not follow up; for one who is sick; in emergencies; or for one who is insane, etc. The three factors here are: being one who has been ordained and is acting as such, abandoning the duty of not following up for two years, and the absence of an allowable reason. The origins, etc., are similar to the first pārājika, but this is non-action and involves painful feeling.

10. Dutiyasahajīvinisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Second Sahajīvinī Training Rule

10. The Second Explanation of the Training Rule Regarding a Female Companion

10. Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Living Together

Dasame neva vūpakāseyyāti na gahetvā gaccheyya. Na vūpakāsāpeyyāti “imaṃ, ayye, gahetvā gacchāhī”ti aññaṃ na āṇāpeyya. Pācittiyanti dhure nikkhittamatte pācittiyaṃ.

In the tenth, neva vūpakāseyyā means “she does not separate,” not taking her away. Na vūpakāsāpeyyā means “she does not have her separated,” not ordering another, “Venerable, take her away.” Pācittiya means a pācittiya offense is incurred the moment she lays aside her duty.

In the tenth, should neither take away (neva vūpakāseyyā) means should not take her away. Nor have her taken away (na vūpakāsāpeyyā) means should not command another, “Venerable lady, take this one away.” Pācittiya means that as soon as the firm resolution is made, there is a pācittiya.

In the tenth, neva vūpakāseyyā means she should not go after taking it. Na vūpakāsāpeyyā means she should not order another, saying, “Venerable, take this and go.” Pācittiya means it becomes a pācittiya offense as soon as the duty is abandoned.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha sahajīviniyā avūpakāsanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Sati pana antarāye, pariyesitvā dutiyikaṃ alabhantiyā, gilānāya , āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sahajīvinitā, vūpakāsavūpakāsāpane dhuranikkhepo, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni samanubhāsanasadisānīti.

This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā regarding the matter of not separating a co-resident. However, there is no offense in case of an impediment, if she searches for a companion and does not find one, if she is ill, in emergencies, or for one who is deranged and similar cases. The three factors here are: being a co-resident, laying aside the duty of separating or having her separated, and the absence of an authorized reason. The origin and so forth are similar to those of the samanubhāsana rule.

It was established in Sāvatthī regarding Thullanandā in a situation of not taking away a female companion. But if there is an obstacle, for one who has sought for a companion and not found one, for one who is ill, in times of danger, and for one who is insane, there is no offense. The state of being a female companion, making a firm resolution in taking away and having taken away, and the absence of a permitted reason are the three factors here. The origins and so on are similar to those of the [offense requiring] expounding.

In Sāvatthī, a training rule was laid down concerning Thullanandā for a case of not living apart. However, there is no offense if there is an obstacle; if, after searching, she does not find a companion; if she is sick; in emergencies; or for one who is insane, etc. The three factors here are: being one who lives together, abandoning the duty of living apart or ordering another to live apart, and the absence of an allowable reason. The origins, etc., are similar to the act of pressing.

The second explanation of the training rule regarding a female companion is finished.

8. Kumāribhūtavaggo

8. Kumāribhūta Section

8. The Young Girl Chapter

8. The Chapter on the Maiden

1-2-3. The First and so on Explanations of the Training Rule Regarding a Young Girl

**1-2-3. Explanation of the First, Second, and Third Training Rules on the Maiden

Kumāribhūtavaggassa paṭhamadutiyatatiyāni tīhi gihigatasikkhāpadehi sadisāneva. Yā pana tā sabbapaṭhamā dve mahāsikkhamānā, tā atikkantavīsativassāti veditabbā. Tā hi gihigatā vā hontu, agihigatā vā, sammutikammādīsu “sikkhamānā”icceva vattabbā, “gihigatā”ti vā “kumāribhūtā”ti vā na vattabbā. Gihigatāya dasavassakāle sikkhāsammutiṃ datvā dvādasavassakāle upasampadā kātabbā, ekādasavassakāle datvā terasavassakāle kātabbā, dvādasaterasacuddasapannarasasoḷasasattarasaaṭṭhārasavassakāle sikkhāsammutiṃ datvā vīsativassakāle upasampadā kātabbā. Aṭṭhārasavassakālato paṭṭhāya ca panāyaṃ “gihigatā”tipi “kumāribhūtā”tipi vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Yā panāyaṃ “kumāribhūtā”ti vuttā sāmaṇerī , sā “gihigatā”ti na vattabbā, “kumāribhūtā”icceva vattabbā. Sikkhāsammutidānavasena pana sabbāpi “sikkhamānā”ti vattuṃ vaṭṭatīti.

The first, second, and third [rules] of the Kumāribhūta section are identical to the three training rules concerning householders. However, the two great novices mentioned at the very beginning should be understood as having exceeded twenty years of age. Whether they are householders or not, in matters such as the agreement for training, they should simply be referred to as “novices” (sikkhamānā), not as “householders” (gihigatā) or “maidens” (kumāribhūtā). For a householder, the agreement for training may be given at ten years of age, with full ordination performed at twelve years; if given at eleven years, ordination should be at thirteen years; if given at twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen years, ordination should be at twenty years. From eighteen years onward, it is permissible to call her either “householder” or “maiden.” However, a novice (sāmaṇerī) referred to as “maiden” should not be called “householder”; she should only be called “maiden.” Nevertheless, due to the granting of the training agreement, it is permissible to refer to all of them as “novices.”

The first, second, and third [precepts] of the Kumāribhūta section are similar to the three precepts for those who have entered the household life. But those very first two, the senior trainees, should be understood as having passed twenty years of age. Whether they have entered the household life or not, in matters of consent, etc., they should simply be called “trainees,” and should not be called “those who have entered the household life” or “those who are maidens.” For one who has entered the household life, consent for training should be given at the age of ten, and ordination should be performed at the age of twelve; or consent for training should be given at the age of eleven, and ordination should be performed at the age of thirteen; or consent for training should be given at the age of twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen, and ordination should be performed at the age of twenty. From the age of eighteen onwards, it is permissible to call her both “one who has entered the household life” and “a maiden.” But a novice who is called “a maiden” should not be called “one who has entered the household life,” but should only be called “a maiden.” However, on account of giving consent for training, all are permitted to be called “trainees.”

The first, second, and third training rules in the chapter on the maiden are similar to the three training rules concerning those who have entered the household life. However, the first two great female trainees should be understood as having passed twenty years. Whether they have entered the household life or not, in matters of consent, etc., they should be referred to as “trainees” and not as “those who have entered the household life” or “maidens.” For one who has entered the household life, consent to train should be given at ten years, and full ordination should be performed at twelve years. If consent is given at eleven years, full ordination should be performed at thirteen years. If consent is given at twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years, full ordination should be performed at twenty years. From eighteen years onwards, she may be referred to as “one who has entered the household life” or as a “maiden.” However, the female novice referred to as a “maiden” should not be called “one who has entered the household life” but only as a “maiden.” By the act of giving consent to train, all may be referred to as “trainees.”

The explanation of the first training rule concerning maidens and others is concluded.

The explanation of the first, second, and third training rules on the maiden is concluded.

4. Ūnadvādasavassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Less Than Twelve Years

4. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning One Under Twelve Years

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Less Than Twelve Years

Catutthe ūnadvādasavassāti upasampadāvasena aparipuṇṇadvādasavassā. Pācittiyanti upajjhāyā hutvā vuṭṭhāpentiyā vuttanayeneva dukkaṭāni antarā, kammavācāpariyosāne pācittiyanti.

In the fourth, ūnadvādasavassā means less than twelve years with respect to full ordination. Pācittiya means that for a preceptor who ordains her, there are dukkaṭas in between as previously described, and a pācittiya at the conclusion of the formal statement.

In the fourth, under twelve years means not having completed twelve years in terms of ordination. Atonement means that, having become a preceptor and ordained [a candidate], there are offenses of wrong-doing in the interim, as stated, and an atonement at the conclusion of the formal act of the Sangha.

In the fourth, ūnadvādasavassā means one who is less than twelve years old in terms of full ordination. Pācittiya means it is a dukkaṭa offense for the preceptor who performs the ordination, and it becomes a pācittiya offense at the end of the motion.

5. Paripuṇṇadvādasavassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Fully Twelve Years

5. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning One of Twelve Full Years

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Twelve Years

Pañcame saṅghena asammatāti yassā saṅghena padabhājane (pāci. 1132) vuttā vuṭṭhāpanasammuti na dinnā. Sesaṃ ubhayatthāpi mahāsikkhamānāsikkhāpadadvayasadisamevāti.

In the fifth, saṅghena asammatā means one for whom the saṅgha has not given the agreement for ordination as stated in the word-by-word analysis (pāci. 1132). The rest is entirely similar to the two training rules concerning great novices in both cases.

In the fifth, not consented to by the Sangha means one to whom the Sangha has not given the consent for ordination as stated in the section on dividing portions (pāci. 1132). The rest, in both cases, is similar to the two precepts for senior trainees.

In the fifth, saṅghena asammatā means one for whom the Sangha has not given consent for ordination in the division of words (pāci. 1132). The rest is similar to the two training rules on the great female trainee.

The explanation of the precept concerning one of twelve full years is concluded.

6. Khīyanadhammasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Fault-Finding

6. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning Fault-Finding

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Degrading Act

Chaṭṭhe alaṃ tāva te ayye vuṭṭhāpitenāti vuccamānāti vuṭṭhāpanasammutiyā yācitāya saṅghena upaparikkhipitvā “yasmā bālā abyattā ca alajjinī ca hoti, tasmā alaṃ tāva tuyhaṃ upasampāditenā”ti evaṃ nivārīyamānā. Pacchā khīyanadhammanti pacchā aññāsaṃ byattānaṃ lajjinīnaṃ vuṭṭhāpanasammutiṃ diyyamānaṃ disvā “ahameva nūna bālā”tiādīni bhaṇamānā yattha katthaci khīyeyya. Pācittiyanti evaṃ khīyanadhammaṃ āpajjantiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the sixth, alaṃ tāva te ayye vuṭṭhāpitenāti vuccamānā means when, having requested the agreement for ordination, she is examined by the saṅgha and told, “Since she is foolish, incompetent, and shameless, it is enough for now with your ordaining,” thus being restrained. Pacchā khīyanadhamma means later, seeing the agreement for ordination given to other competent and modest women, she might say, “Surely I alone am foolish,” and so forth, fault-finding anywhere. Pācittiya means for one who falls into such fault-finding, there is a pācittiya.

In the sixth, being told, “Enough, venerable sister, with your ordination” means being prevented by the Sangha, after having requested consent for ordination and being investigated, with [the words], “Because she is foolish, inarticulate, and shameless, therefore enough with your ordination.” Later finding fault means that, later, seeing consent for ordination being given to others who are articulate and modest, she might find fault anywhere, saying such things as, “Surely, I alone am foolish.” Atonement means that for one falling into such fault-finding, there is an atonement.

In the sixth, alaṃ tāva te ayye vuṭṭhāpitenāti vuccamānā means when a trainee requests consent for ordination, the bhikkhunī, after investigating, says, “Because you are foolish, incompetent, and shameless, it is enough for you to be ordained.” Pacchā khīyanadhamma means later, when she sees other competent and conscientious trainees being given consent for ordination, she says, “I must be foolish,” etc., and degrades herself somewhere. Pācittiya means it is a pācittiya offense for one who commits such a degrading act.

Sāvatthiyaṃ caṇḍakāḷiṃ ārabbha evaṃ khīyanadhammaṃ āpajjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, pakatiyā chandādīnaṃ vasena karontīnaṃ khīyantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Vuṭṭhāpanasammutiyā yācanaṃ, upaparikkhitvā na chandādivasena paṭikkhittāya “sādhū”ti paṭissavo, pacchākhīyananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Caṇḍakāḷī, this was laid down regarding the matter of falling into such fault-finding. There is no offense for one who finds fault naturally due to desire and so forth, or for the deranged and similar cases. Requesting the agreement for ordination, receiving consent with “Well done” after examination and not being refused due to desire and so forth, and later fault-finding—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of taking what is not given, but this has painful feeling.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning Caṇḍakāḷī, in the case of one falling into such fault-finding. For those who do so out of desire, etc., by nature, and for one who is finding fault, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Requesting consent for ordination, investigation and refusal not based on desire, etc., agreement with “it is well,” and later fault-finding – these are the three factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to taking what is not given, but this is a painful feeling.

In Sāvatthī, a training rule was laid down concerning Caṇḍakālī for a case of committing such a degrading act. There is no offense if she does it naturally out of desire, etc., or if she is insane, etc. The three factors here are: requesting consent for ordination, being investigated and not rejected out of desire, etc., and later degrading herself. The origins, etc., are similar to stealing, but this involves painful feeling.

7-8. Explanation of the First and Second Training Rules on Not Ordaining a Novice

7-8. Explanation of the First and Second Precepts Concerning Not Ordaining a Trainee

**7-8. Explanation of the First and Second Training Rules on Not Ordaining a Trainee

Sattame sā pacchāti sikkhamānāya upasampadāya yāciyamānāya sā bhikkhunī evaṃ vatvā laddhe cīvare pacchā asati antarāye “neva vuṭṭhāpessāmi , na vuṭṭhāpanāya ussukkaṃ karissāmī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhipeyya, tassā saha dhuranikkhepena pācittiyanti. Aṭṭhamepi eseva nayo.

In the seventh, sā pacchā means that bhikkhunī, having said so when the novice requested full ordination and having obtained the robe, later, without impediment, abandons responsibility, saying, “I will neither ordain her nor make effort for her ordination.” For her, there is a pācittiya as soon as she abandons responsibility. The same applies in the eighth.

In the seventh, she later, after having said this to a trainee who is requesting ordination, and having obtained a robe, later, in the absence of any obstacle, she might abandon the responsibility, [thinking], “I will neither ordain her, nor will I make any effort to ordain her.” For her, along with abandoning the responsibility, there is an atonement. In the eighth, the same principle applies.

In the seventh, sā pacchā means when a bhikkhunī, after requesting ordination for a trainee and having received robes, later, in the absence of an obstacle, says, “I will not ordain her, nor will I make an effort to ordain her,” and abandons the duty. For her, it is a pācittiya offense at the same time as abandoning the duty. The eighth is similar.

Ubhayampi sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha etesu vatthūsu paññattaṃ, dvīsupi sati antarāye, pariyesitvā alabhantiyā, gilānāya, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Ubhayattha “evāhaṃ taṃ vuṭṭhāpessāmī”ti paṭiññā, ākaṅkhitanipphatti, pacchā dhuranikkhepo, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni samanubhāsanasadisānīti.

Both were laid down at Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā regarding these matters. In both cases, there is no offense if there is an impediment, if she searches but cannot find [the robe], if she is ill, in times of danger, or for the deranged and similar cases. In both, the promise “Thus I will ordain her,” fulfillment of the expectation, later abandonment of responsibility, and absence of an authorized reason—these are the four factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of formal admonition.

Both were established in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in these cases. In both, if there is an obstacle, if she searches and does not find [a robe], if she is ill, in times of danger, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. In both cases, the promise “I will ordain you,” the fulfillment of the expectation, later abandoning the responsibility, and the absence of a permissible reason – these are the four factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to the admonition.

Both were laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā for these cases. In both, there is no offense if there is an obstacle; if, after searching, she does not find a companion; if she is sick; in emergencies; or for one who is insane, etc. In both, the four factors are: saying, “I will ordain her,” expecting the result, later abandoning the duty, and the absence of an allowable reason. The origins, etc., are similar to the act of pressing.

Sikkhamānanavuṭṭhāpanapaṭhamadutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the first and second training rules on not ordaining a novice is concluded.

The explanation of the first and second precepts concerning not ordaining a trainee is concluded.

The explanation of the first and second training rules on not ordaining a trainee is concluded.

9. Sokāvāsasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Training Rule on a Sorrowful Dwelling

9. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning a Place of Sorrow

9. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Sorrowful Residence

Navame sokāvāsanti saṅketaṃ katvā āgacchamānā purisānaṃ antosokaṃ pavesetīti sokāvāsā, taṃ sokāvāsaṃ. Atha vā gharaṃ viya gharasāmikā ayampi purisasamāgamaṃ alabhamānā sokaṃ āvisati, iti yaṃ āvisati, svāssā āvāso hotīti sokāvāsā. Tenevassa padabhājane (pāci. 1160) “sokāvāsā nāma paresaṃ dukkhaṃ uppādeti, sokaṃ āvisatī”ti dvidhā attho vutto. Pācittiyanti evarūpaṃ vuṭṭhāpentiyā vuttanayeneva kammavācāpariyosāne upajjhāyāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the ninth, sokāvāsa means one who, having made an arrangement and come, causes sorrow to enter men’s homes, hence a “sorrowful dwelling” (sokāvāsā). Alternatively, like a house with its owner, she too, not obtaining the company of men, enters into sorrow; thus, what she enters is her dwelling, hence sokāvāsā. Therefore, in its word-by-word analysis (pāci. 1160), the meaning is given in two ways: “A sorrowful dwelling causes suffering to others and enters into sorrow.” Pācittiya means for one ordaining such a person, there is a pācittiya for the preceptor at the conclusion of the formal statement, as previously described.

In the ninth, place of sorrow means causing men who are approaching after making an appointment to enter into inner sorrow; therefore, it is a place of sorrow. Or, just as householders, this one also enters into sorrow when she does not obtain the company of a man. Thus, what she enters into, that becomes her dwelling; therefore, it is a place of sorrow. Therefore, in the section on dividing portions (pāci. 1160), its meaning is given in two ways: “A place of sorrow is that which produces suffering for others, and that which one enters into sorrow.” Atonement means that for a preceptor who ordains [a candidate] in such a way, there is an atonement at the conclusion of the formal act of the Sangha, as stated.

In the ninth, sokāvāsa means a residence where, by arrangement, men come and enter the inner sorrowful area. Alternatively, like a house, the house owner, being unable to obtain a meeting with a man, becomes sorrowful. Thus, what she enters becomes her residence. Therefore, in the division of words (pāci. 1160), it is said, “A sorrowful residence is one that causes suffering to others and enters sorrow.” Pācittiya means it is a pācittiya offense for the preceptor who performs the ordination in this way at the end of the motion.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha evarūpaṃ sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Ajānantiyā , ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sokāvāsatā, jānanaṃ, vuṭṭhāpananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni gabbhinivuṭṭhāpanasadisānevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, this was laid down regarding the matter of ordaining such a novice. There is no offense for one who does not know, or for the deranged and similar cases. Being a sorrowful dwelling, knowing, and ordaining—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are entirely like those of ordaining a pregnant woman.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of ordaining such a trainee. For one who does not know, for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The state of being a place of sorrow, knowing, and ordaining – these are the three factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to ordaining a pregnant woman.

In Sāvatthī, a training rule was laid down concerning Thullanandā for a case of ordaining a trainee in this way. There is no offense if she does not know, or if she is insane, etc. The three factors here are: being a sorrowful residence, knowing, and ordaining. The origins, etc., are similar to ordaining a pregnant woman.

10. Ananuññātasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Not Permitted

10. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning One Not Permitted

10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Not Being Permitted

Dasame mātāpitūhīti vijātamātarā ca janakapitarā ca. Sāmikenāti yena pariggahitā, tena. Ananuññātanti upasampadatthāya ananuññātaṃ. Dvikkhattuñhi bhikkhunīhi āpucchitabbaṃ, pabbajjākāle ca upasampadākāle ca, bhikkhūnaṃ pana sakiṃ āpucchitepi vaṭṭati . Tasmā yā upasampadākāle anāpucchā upasampādeti, tassā vuttanayeneva pācittiyaṃ.

In the tenth, mātāpitūhī means by the birth mother and the father who begot her. Sāmikenā means by the one who has taken her as wife. Ananuññāta means not permitted for the purpose of full ordination. For bhikkhunīs must ask twice—once at the time of going forth and once at ordination—while for monks, asking once is sufficient. Thus, for one who ordains without asking at the time of ordination, there is a pācittiya as previously described.

In the tenth, by her mother and father means by the mother who gave birth and the father who begot her. By her husband means by the one who has taken her as his own. Not permitted means not permitted for the purpose of ordination. For nuns should ask permission twice, both at the time of going forth and at the time of ordination, but for monks, it is permissible even if they ask permission only once. Therefore, for one who ordains [a candidate] at the time of ordination without asking permission, there is an atonement, as stated.

In the tenth, mātāpitūhī means by the birth mother and father. Sāmikenā means by the one who has authority over her. Ananuññāta means not being permitted for ordination. For bhikkhunīs, permission must be asked twice: at the time of going forth and at the time of full ordination. For bhikkhus, it is allowable even if asked once. Therefore, for one who ordains without asking permission at the time of full ordination, it is a pācittiya offense as explained.

Sāvatthiyaṃ thullanandaṃ ārabbha ananuññātavuṭṭhāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Apaloketvā vuṭṭhāpentiyā, tesaṃ atthibhāvaṃ ajānantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Anapalokanaṃ, atthibhāvajānanaṃ, vuṭṭhāpananti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Ananuññātasamuṭṭhānaṃ, kiriyākiriyaṃ, nosaññāvimokkhaṃ, acittakaṃ, paṇṇattivajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, ticittaṃ, tivedananti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, this was laid down regarding the matter of ordaining without permission. There is no offense for one ordaining without consulting, not knowing of their existence, or for the deranged and similar cases. Not consulting, knowing of their existence, and ordaining—these are the three factors here. It has the origin of not being permitted, is action and non-action, not perception-released, without consciousness, a fault by convention, bodily and verbal action, three types of mind, and three feelings.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, in the case of ordaining one who was not permitted. For one who ordains without investigating, for one who does not know of their existence, for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Not investigating, knowing of their existence, and ordaining – these are the three factors here. The arising from not being permitted, action and inaction, not free from perception, unintentional, an offense of transgression of what is laid down, bodily action, verbal action, three kinds of thought, three kinds of feeling.

In Sāvatthī, a training rule was laid down concerning Thullanandā for a case of ordaining without permission. There is no offense if she ordains after informing, if she does not know of their existence, or if she is insane, etc. The three factors here are: not informing, knowing of their existence, and ordaining. The origins, etc., are: arising without permission, action and non-action, not release through perception, unintentional, violating a rule, bodily action, verbal action, threefold consciousness, and threefold feeling.

11. Pārivāsikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

11. Explanation of the Training Rule on Consent During Probation

11. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning Probation

11. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Temporary Resident

Ekādasame pārivāsikachandadānenāti pārivāsiyena chandadānena. Tattha catubbidhaṃ pārivāsiyaṃ parisapārivāsiyaṃ rattipārivāsiyaṃ chandapārivāsiyaṃ ajjhāsayapārivāsiyanti.

In the eleventh, pārivāsikachandadānenā means with the giving of consent during probation. Therein, probation is of four kinds: assembly probation, night probation, consent probation, and intention probation.

In the eleventh, by giving consent to a probationer means by the giving of consent by one on probation. Here, there are four kinds of probation: assembly probation, night probation, consent probation, and intention probation.

In the eleventh, pārivāsikachandadānenā means by the consent of a temporary resident. Here, there are four kinds of temporary residence: assembly temporary residence, night temporary residence, consent temporary residence, and intention temporary residence.

Tattha parisapārivāsiyaṃ nāma bhikkhū kenacideva karaṇīyena sannipatitā honti, atha megho vā uṭṭhahati, ussāraṇā vā karīyati, manussā vā ajjhottharantā āgacchanti, bhikkhū “anokāsā mayaṃ, aññatra gacchāmā”ti chandaṃ avissajjitvāva uṭṭhahanti, idaṃ parisapārivāsiyaṃ nāma, kiñcāpi parisapārivāsiyaṃ, chandassa pana avissaṭṭhattā kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati.

Therein, parisapārivāsiyaṃ means when monks have gathered for some purpose, then a cloud arises, or an expulsion is made, or people come rushing in, and the monks, saying, “We have no opportunity, let us go elsewhere,” rise without giving consent. This is called assembly probation. Although it is assembly probation, since consent has not been given, it is permissible to perform the act.

Here, assembly probation is when monks have gathered for some business, and then a cloud arises, or an announcement is made, or people come crowding in, and the monks, [thinking], “We have no space, we will go elsewhere,” arise without giving consent. This is called assembly probation. Although it is assembly probation, because consent has not been given, it is permissible to perform the formal act.

Here, assembly temporary residence means when bhikkhus have gathered for some business, and then a cloud arises, or they are asked to leave, or people come crowding in, and the bhikkhus, without having given consent, say, “We are not free, we will go elsewhere,” and leave. This is called assembly temporary residence. Even though it is assembly temporary residence, because consent has not been given, it is allowable to perform the act.

Puna bhikkhū “uposathādīni karissāmā”ti rattiṃ sannipatitvā “yāva sabbe sannipatanti, tāva dhammaṃ suṇissāmā”ti ekaṃ ajjhesanti, tasmiṃ dhammakathaṃ kathenteyeva aruṇo uggacchati. Sace “cātuddasikaṃ uposathaṃ karissāmā”ti nisinnā, “pannaraso”ti kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Sace pannarasikaṃ kātuṃ nisinnā, pāṭipade anuposathe uposathaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Aññaṃ pana saṅghakiccaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, idaṃ rattipārivāsiyaṃ nāma.

Again, when monks gather at night, saying, “We will perform the uposatha and so forth,” and decide, “Until all have gathered, we will listen to the Dhamma,” and request one to speak, and while he is teaching the Dhamma, dawn arises—if they sat intending to perform the fourteenth-day uposatha, it is permissible to perform it as the fifteenth; if they sat for the fifteenth, it is not permissible to perform the uposatha on the first day without an uposatha. However, it is permissible to perform other saṅgha duties. This is called rattipārivāsiyaṃ.

Again, monks, having gathered at night, [thinking], “We will perform the Uposatha, etc.,” [say], “While all are gathering, we will listen to the Dhamma,” and request one [to speak]. While he is speaking on the Dhamma, dawn breaks. If they were sitting, [thinking], “We will perform the fourteenth-day Uposatha,” it is permissible to perform it on the fifteenth. If they were sitting to perform it on the fifteenth, it is not permissible to perform the Uposatha on the first day after the full moon, when there is no Uposatha. But it is permissible to perform other Sangha business. This is called night probation.

Again, bhikkhus gather at night, thinking, “We will perform the uposatha,” and while waiting for all to gather, they listen to the Dhamma. While the Dhamma talk is being given, dawn breaks. If they sat down thinking, “We will perform the fourteenth-day uposatha,” it is allowable to perform the fifteenth-day uposatha. If they sat down thinking to perform the fifteenth-day uposatha, it is not allowable to perform the uposatha on the following day. However, it is allowable to perform other Sangha business. This is called night temporary residence.

Puna bhikkhū “kiñcideva abbhānādisaṅghakammaṃ karissāmā”ti sannisinnā honti, tatreko nakkhattapāṭhako bhikkhu evaṃ vadati “ajja nakkhattaṃ dāruṇaṃ, mā idaṃ kammaṃ karothā”ti. Te tassa vacanena chandaṃ vissajjetvā tattheva nisinnā honti, athañño āgantvā “nakkhattaṃ patimānentaṃ, attho bālaṃ upajjhagā (jā. 1.1.49), kiṃ nakkhattena karothā”ti vadati, idaṃ chandapārivāsiyañceva ajjhāsayapārivāsiyañca. Etasmiṃ pārivāsiye puna chandapārisuddhiṃ anāharitvā kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, idaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ “pārivāsikachandadānenā”ti. Pācittiyanti evaṃ vuṭṭhāpentiyā vuttanayeneva kammavācāpariyosāne pācittiyaṃ.

Again, when monks are seated, saying, “We will perform some saṅgha act like reinstatement,” and one monk who reads the stars says, “Today the constellation is harsh, do not perform this act,” and they, following his words, give consent and remain seated there, then another comes and says, “Waiting for the constellation, the fool met with ruin (jā. 1.1.49), what do you do with the constellation?” This is both chandapārivāsiyaṃ and ajjhāsayapārivāsiyaṃ. In this probation, it is not permissible to perform the act without again bringing purity of consent. This is what is meant by “with the giving of consent during probation.” Pācittiya means for one ordaining in this way, there is a pācittiya at the conclusion of the formal statement, as previously described.

Again, monks have gathered, [thinking], “We will perform some Sangha act, such as rehabilitation, etc.” There, a monk who is an astrologer speaks thus: “Today the constellation is unfavorable, do not perform this act.” They, on account of his words, give consent and remain seated there. Then another comes and says, “The fool has missed the opportunity, waiting for a constellation (jā. 1.1.49). What will you do with a constellation?” This is both consent probation and intention probation. In this probation, it is not permissible to perform the act without again bringing consent and purity. With reference to this, it is said, “by giving consent to a probationer.” Atonement means that for one who ordains [a candidate] in this way, there is an atonement at the conclusion of the formal act of the Sangha, as stated.

Again, bhikkhus sit down thinking, “We will perform some Sangha business, such as rehabilitation,” and then one bhikkhu who knows the constellations says, “Today the constellation is harsh, do not perform this act.” They, having given consent based on his words, remain seated. Then another comes and says, “Constellations are for fools who follow them (Jā. 1.1.49), what will you do with a constellation?” This is called consent temporary residence and intention temporary residence. In this temporary residence, without having brought the purity of consent, it is not allowable to perform the act. This is what is meant by “by the consent of a temporary resident.” Pācittiya means it is a pācittiya offense for the preceptor who performs the ordination in this way at the end of the motion.

Rājagahe thullanandaṃ ārabbha evaṃ vuṭṭhāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Chandaṃ avissajjetvāva avuṭṭhitāya parisāya vuṭṭhāpentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Pārivāsikachandadānatā, vuṭṭhāpananti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni gambhinisikkhāpadasadisānevāti.

At Rājagaha, concerning Thullanandā, this was laid down regarding the matter of such ordination. There is no offense for one ordaining when the assembly has not yet risen without giving consent, or for the deranged and similar cases. Giving consent during probation and ordaining—these are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are entirely like those of the training rule on a pregnant woman.

This was established in Rājagaha concerning Thullanandā, in the case of ordaining in this way. For one who ordains when the assembly has not arisen without giving consent, for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The state of giving consent to a probationer, and ordaining – these are the two factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to the precept concerning deep water.

In Rājagaha, a training rule was laid down concerning Thullanandā for a case of ordaining in this way. There is no offense if she ordains without having given consent while the assembly has not risen, or if she is insane, etc. The two factors here are: being a temporary resident giving consent and ordaining. The origins, etc., are similar to the training rule on deep offenses.

12. Anuvassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

12. Explanation of the Training Rule on Every Year

12. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning Every Year

12. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Annual

Dvādasame anuvassanti anusaṃvaccharaṃ. Evaṃ vuṭṭhāpentiyāpi vuttanayeneva pācittiyaṃ.

In the twelfth, anuvassa means every year. For one ordaining in this way, there is a pācittiya as previously described.

In the twelfth, every year means every year. For one who ordains in this way, there is also an atonement, as stated.

In the twelfth, anuvassa means year after year. Even when ordaining in this way, it is a pācittiya offense as explained.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha anuvassaṃ vuṭṭhāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Ekantarikaṃ vuṭṭhāpentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Anuvassatā, vuṭṭhāpananti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni ekādasame vuttanayānevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning several bhikkhunīs, this was laid down regarding the matter of ordaining every year. There is no offense for one ordaining every other year, or for the deranged and similar cases. Being every year and ordaining—these are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are as described in the eleventh.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning a group of nuns, in the case of ordaining every year. For one who ordains every other year, for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The state of being every year, and ordaining – these are the two factors here. The arising, etc., are as stated in the eleventh.

In Sāvatthī, a training rule was laid down concerning several bhikkhunīs for a case of ordaining annually. There is no offense if she ordains with an interval, or if she is insane, etc. The two factors here are: being annual and ordaining. The origins, etc., are as explained in the eleventh.

13. Ekavassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

13. Explanation of the Training Rule on One Year

13. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning One Year

13. Explanation of the Training Rule on One Year

Terasame ekantarikaṃ ekaṃ vuṭṭhāpentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sesaṃ dvādasamena sadisamevāti.

In the thirteenth, there is no offense for one ordaining every other year, or for the deranged and similar cases. The rest is identical to the twelfth.

In the thirteenth, for one who ordains one every other year, for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The rest is similar to the twelfth.

In the thirteenth, there is no offense if she ordains with an interval of one year. The rest is similar to the twelfth.

9. Chattupāhanavaggo

9. Chattupāhana Section

9. The Section on Umbrellas and Shoes

9. The Chapter on the Umbrella and Sandals

1. Chattupāhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the Training Rule on Umbrella and Sandals

1. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning Umbrellas and Shoes

1. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Umbrella and Sandals

Chattavaggassa paṭhame chattupāhananti padabhājane (pāci. 1178-1182) vuttalakkhaṇaṃ chattañca upāhanāyo ca. Dhāreyyāti paribhogavasena maggagamane ekappayogeneva divasampi dhārentiyā ekā āpatti. Sace pana tādisaṃ ṭhānaṃ patvā chattampi apanāmetvā upāhanāpi omuñcitvā punappunaṃ dhāreti, payogagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the first of the umbrella section, chattupāhana means an umbrella and sandals with the characteristics stated in the word-by-word analysis (pāci. 1178-1182). Dhāreyyā means wearing them for use; even wearing them for a whole day on a journey with a single effort incurs one offense. But if, reaching such a place, she removes the umbrella and takes off the sandals and then wears them again repeatedly, there is a pācittiya according to the number of efforts.

In the first of the Umbrella section, umbrella and shoes means an umbrella and shoes as defined in the section on dividing portions (pāci. 1178-1182). Should wear means that for one who wears them on the road, even for a day, with a single effort, by way of use, there is one offense. But if, having reached such a place, she puts aside the umbrella and removes the shoes, and wears them again and again, there is an atonement according to the number of efforts.

In the first of the chapter on the umbrella, chattupāhana means the umbrella and sandals as described in the division of words (pāci. 1178-1182). Dhāreyyā means if she wears them for use while walking on a path, even for the whole day, it is one offense. However, if she reaches such a place, puts down the umbrella, removes the sandals, and then wears them again and again, it is a pācittiya offense for each effort.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha chattupāhanadhāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “agilānā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti , chattasseva upāhanānaṃyeva vā dhāraṇe dukkaṭaṃ, agilānāya tikapācittiyaṃ, gilānāya dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Gilānasaññāya pana, ārāme ārāmūpacāre dhārentiyā, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Ubhinnaṃ dhāraṇaṃ, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six bhikkhunīs, this was laid down regarding the matter of wearing an umbrella and sandals. “Not ill” is an additional specification here; wearing only an umbrella or only sandals incurs a dukkaṭa; for one not ill, there are three pācittiyas; for one ill, two dukkaṭas. There is no offense for one perceiving herself as ill, wearing them in a monastery or its vicinity, in times of danger, or for the deranged and similar cases. Wearing both and absence of an authorized reason—these are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the eḷakaloma rule.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six nuns, in the case of wearing umbrellas and shoes. “Not being ill” is the subsequent regulation here. For wearing only the umbrella or only the shoes, there is an offense of wrong-doing. For one who is not ill, there is a triple atonement. For one who is ill, there is a double offense of wrong-doing. But for one who has the perception of being ill, for one who wears them in the monastery or on the monastery grounds, in times of danger, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Wearing both, and the absence of a permissible reason – these are the two factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to sheep’s wool.

In Sāvatthī, a training rule was laid down concerning the six bhikkhunīs for a case of wearing an umbrella and sandals. The additional rule here is “not sick.” Wearing only the umbrella or only the sandals is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who is not sick, it is a tikapācittiya offense. For one who is sick, it is a dvikadukkaṭa offense. However, if she wears them with the perception of being sick, in the monastery or monastery precincts, in emergencies, or if she is insane, etc., there is no offense. The two factors here are: wearing both and the absence of an allowable reason. The origins, etc., are similar to the training rule on wool.

2. Yānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on a Vehicle

2. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning a Vehicle

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Vehicle

Dutiye yānenāti vayhādinā. Etthāpi orohitvā punappunaṃ abhiruhantiyā payogagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ. Anāpattiyaṃ “ārāme ārāmūpacāre”ti natthi, sesaṃ paṭhame vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

In the second, yānenā means with a vehicle such as a cart. Here too, for one getting off and repeatedly getting on, there is a pācittiya according to the number of efforts. In the exemptions, “in a monastery or its vicinity” is not included; the rest should be understood as described in the first.

In the second, by a vehicle means by a palanquin, etc. Here also, for one who gets down and mounts again and again, there is an atonement according to the number of efforts. In the case of no offense, “in the monastery or on the monastery grounds” is not [mentioned]. The rest should be understood as stated in the first.

In the second, yānenā means by a vehicle such as a cart. Here too, if she gets off and gets on again and again, it is a pācittiya offense for each effort. In the non-offense clause, “in the monastery or monastery precincts” does not apply. The rest should be understood as explained in the first.

3. Saṅghāṇisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on a Waistband

3. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning a Waistband

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Girdle

Tatiye saṅghāṇinti yaṃkiñci kaṭūpagaṃ. Dhāreyyāti kaṭiyaṃ paṭimuñceyya. Etthāpi omuñcitvā omuñcitvā dhārentiyā payogagaṇanāya pācittiyaṃ.

In the third, saṅghāṇi means anything worn around the waist. Dhāreyyā means she ties it around her waist. Here too, for one repeatedly tying it after removing it, there is a pācittiya according to the number of efforts.

In the third, waistband means anything worn on the waist. Should wear means should put it on the waist. Here also, for one who removes it and removes it and wears it, there is an atonement according to the number of efforts.

In the third, saṅghāṇi means anything that is tied around the waist. Dhāreyyā means if she ties it around her waist. Here too, if she removes it and ties it again and again, it is a pācittiya offense for each effort.

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha saṅghāṇiṃ dhāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Ābādhapaccayā kaṭisuttaṃ dhārentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sesaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ, idaṃ pana akusalacittanti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning a certain bhikkhunī, this was laid down regarding the matter of wearing a waistband. There is no offense for one wearing a waist-thread due to an ailment, or for the deranged and similar cases. The rest should be understood as previously described, but this has an unwholesome mind.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun, in the case of wearing a waistband. For one who wears a waist-string due to illness, for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The rest should be understood as stated. But this is unwholesome thought.

In Sāvatthī, a training rule was laid down concerning a certain bhikkhunī for a case of wearing a girdle. There is no offense if she wears a waistband due to illness, or if she is insane, etc. The rest should be understood as explained. However, this is with an unwholesome mind.

4. Itthālaṅkārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Women’s Ornaments

4. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning Women’s Ornaments

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Women’s Adornments

Catutthe itthālaṅkāranti sīsūpagādīsu aññataraṃ yaṃkiñci piḷandhanaṃ. Idha tassa tassa vasena vatthugaṇanāya āpatti veditabbā.

In the fourth, itthālaṅkāra means any ornament worn on the head or elsewhere. Here, the offense should be understood according to the number of items worn.

In the fourth, women’s ornaments means any adornment, such as head ornaments, etc. Here, the offense should be understood according to the number of items, on account of each of them.

In the fourth, itthālaṅkāra means any kind of ornament worn on the head, etc. Here, the offense should be understood as being counted according to the number of items.

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha itthālaṅkāraṃ dhāraṇavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, ābādhapaccayā kiñcideva dhārentiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sesaṃ vuttasadisamevāti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six bhikkhunīs, this was laid down regarding the matter of wearing women’s ornaments. There is no offense for one wearing something due to an ailment, or for the deranged and similar cases. The rest is entirely as described.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six nuns, in the case of wearing women’s ornaments. For one who wears something due to illness, for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The rest is similar to what has been stated.

In Sāvatthī, a training rule was laid down concerning the six bhikkhunīs for a case of wearing women’s adornments. There is no offense if she wears something due to illness, or if she is insane, etc. The rest is similar to what has been explained.

5. Gandhavaṇṇakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Scent and Color

5. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning Perfume and Cosmetics

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Perfumes and Colours

Pañcame gandhavaṇṇakenāti yenakenaci gandhena ca vaṇṇakena ca. Idha gandhādiyojanato paṭṭhāya pubbapayoge dukkaṭaṃ, nahānapariyosāne pācittiyaṃ. Ābādhapaccayā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Sesaṃ catutthasadisamevāti.

In the fifth, gandhavaṇṇakenā means with any scent or color. Here, from applying the scent onward, there is a dukkaṭa for the initial effort, and a pācittiya at the conclusion of bathing. There is no offense due to an ailment, or for the deranged and similar cases. The rest is entirely like the fourth.

In the fifth, with perfume and cosmetics means with any kind of perfume and cosmetic. Here, from the application of perfume, etc., there is an offense of wrong-doing in the preliminary effort, and an atonement at the conclusion of bathing. Due to illness, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The rest is similar to the fourth.

In the fifth rule, “with perfumes and colours” means with any kind of perfume or colour. Here, from the application of perfume or colour onwards, there is a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa) in the preliminary action, and at the conclusion of bathing, it becomes an offense requiring confession (pācittiya). There is no offense if there is a reason of illness, or for those who are insane, etc. The rest is similar to the fourth rule.

6. Vāsitakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Perfumed Oil

6. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning Scented Powder

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Scented Substances

Chaṭṭhe vāsitakenāti gandhavāsitakena. Piññākenāti tilapiṭṭhena. Sesaṃ pañcamasadisamevāti.

In the sixth, vāsitakenā means with perfumed oil. Piññākenā means with sesame paste. The rest is entirely like the fifth.

In the sixth, with scented powder means with scented powder. With sesame paste means with sesame flour. The rest is similar to the fifth.

In the sixth rule, “with a scented substance” means with a perfumed substance. “With sesame powder” means with ground sesame. The rest is similar to the fifth rule.

7. Bhikkhuniummaddāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Rubbing by a Bhikkhunī

7. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning Having a Nun Massage

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Massaging Bhikkhunīs

Sattame ummaddāpeyyāti ubbaṭṭāpeyya. Parimaddāpeyyāti sambāhāpeyya. Ettha ca hatthaṃ amuñcitvā ubbaṭṭane ekāva āpatti, mocetvā mocetvā ubbaṭṭane payogagaṇanāya āpattiyo. Sambāhanepi eseva nayo.

In the seventh, ummaddāpeyyā means she would have [her] rubbed. Parimaddāpeyyā means she would have [her] massaged. Here, rubbing without releasing the hand incurs only one offense; rubbing by releasing and releasing incurs offenses according to the number of efforts. The same applies to massaging.

In the seventh, should have [her] massaged means should have [her] rubbed. Should have [her] thoroughly massaged means should have [her] rubbed all over. And here, for rubbing without removing the hand, there is only one offense. For rubbing after removing and removing the hand, there are offenses according to the number of efforts. The same principle applies to thorough massaging.

In the seventh rule, “should massage” means should rub. “Should knead” means should press. Here, without releasing the hand, there is one offense for each rubbing action. Releasing and rubbing again counts as separate offenses. The same method applies to pressing.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha bhikkhuniyā ummaddāpanaparimaddāpanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, gilānāya, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Idha maggagamanaparissamopi gelaññaṃ, corabhayādīhi sarīrakampanādayopi āpadā. Sesaṃ catutthe vuttanayeneva veditabbanti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning several bhikkhunīs, this was laid down regarding the matter of having a bhikkhunī rub or massage. There is no offense for one who is ill, in times of danger, or for the deranged and similar cases. Here, fatigue from traveling is also an illness, and trembling from fear of thieves and so forth is also a danger. The rest should be understood as described in the fourth.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning a group of nuns, in the case of having a nun massage and thoroughly massage. For one who is ill, in times of danger, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Here, even fatigue from traveling is illness, and even trembling of the body, etc., due to fear of thieves, etc., are dangers. The rest should be understood as stated in the fourth.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs, regarding the matter of massaging and kneading bhikkhunīs. There is no offense for one who is ill, in emergencies, or for those who are insane, etc. Here, the exertion of walking the path is also considered an illness, and trembling of the body due to fear of thieves, etc., is considered an emergency. The rest should be understood in the same way as explained in the fourth rule.

8-9-10. The Explanation of the Precepts Concerning Having a Trainee Massage, etc.

Aṭṭhamanavamadasamesupi sikkhamānāya sāmaṇeriyā gihiniyāti ettakameva nānaṃ. Sesaṃ sattamasadisamevāti.

In the eighth, ninth, and tenth, the only difference is regarding a novice, a female novice, or a householder woman. The rest is entirely like the seventh.

In the eighth, ninth, and tenth, the only difference is “a trainee,” “a female novice,” and “a laywoman.” The rest is similar to the seventh.

In the eighth, ninth, and tenth rules, the only difference is the designation of a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇerī, or a laywoman. The rest is similar to the seventh rule.

The explanation of the training rules on rubbing a novice and others is concluded.

The explanation of the precepts concerning having a trainee massage, etc., is concluded.

The Explanation of the Training Rules on Massaging Sikkhamānās, etc., is completed.

11. Anāpucchāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

11. Explanation of the Training Rule on Without Asking

11. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning Not Asking Permission

11. Explanation of the Training Rule on Sitting Without Permission

Ekādasame bhikkhussa puratoti na abhimukhamevāti attho, idaṃ pana upacāraṃ sandhāya kathitanti veditabbaṃ. Tasmā bhikkhussa upacāre antamaso chamāyapi “nisīdāmi, ayyā”ti anāpucchitvā nisīdantiyā pācittiyaṃ.

In the eleventh, bhikkhussa purato does not mean directly in front, but should be understood as referring to the vicinity. Thus, for one sitting in a monk’s vicinity, even on the ground, saying, “I sit, venerable,” without asking, there is a pācittiya.

In the eleventh, in front of a monk does not mean only directly facing; this should be understood as referring to the vicinity. Therefore, for a nun who sits down even on the ground in the vicinity of a monk without asking permission, saying, “Venerable sir, I will sit,” there is an atonement.

In the eleventh rule, “in front of a bhikkhu” does not necessarily mean directly facing him; this is said with reference to proximity. Therefore, if a bhikkhunī sits down in the vicinity of a bhikkhu, even on the ground, without asking permission, saying, “May I sit, Venerable Sir?”, she commits an offense requiring confession (pācittiya).

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha anāpucchā nisīdanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, tikapācittiyaṃ, āpucchite dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Tasmiṃ āpucchitasaññāya, gilānāya, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Bhikkhussa anāpucchā, upacāre nisajjā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning several bhikkhunīs, this was laid down regarding the matter of sitting without asking. There are three pācittiyas; asking incurs two dukkaṭas. There is no offense for one perceiving she has asked, for one who is ill, in times of danger, or for the deranged and similar cases. Not asking a monk, sitting in the vicinity, and absence of an authorized reason—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the kathina rule, but this is action and non-action.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning a group of nuns, in the case of sitting down without asking permission. It is a triple atonement. For one who has asked permission, there is a double offense of wrong-doing. For one who has the perception of having asked permission, for one who is ill, in times of danger, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Not asking permission of a monk, sitting in the vicinity, and the absence of a permissible reason – these are the three factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to the kathina, but this is action and inaction.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs, regarding the matter of sitting without permission. There are three offenses requiring confession (pācittiya), and two or one wrongdoing (dukkaṭa) if permission is asked. There is no offense if she perceives that she has asked permission, if she is ill, in emergencies, or for those who are insane, etc. Here, the three factors are: not asking permission from a bhikkhu, sitting in his vicinity, and the absence of a reason for permission. The origins, etc., are similar to those in the Kathina rule. This is a matter of action and inaction.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Sitting Without Permission is completed.

12. Pañhāpucchanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

12. Explanation of the Training Rule on Asking a Question

12. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning Asking a Question

12. Explanation of the Training Rule on Asking Questions

Dvādasame anokāsakatanti “asukasmiṃ nāma ṭhāne pucchāmī”ti evaṃ akataokāsaṃ, tasmā suttante okāsaṃ kārāpetvā vinayaṃ vā abhidhammaṃ vā pucchantiyā pācittiyaṃ. Sesesupi eseva nayo, sabbaso akārite pana vattabbameva natthi.

In the twelfth, anokāsakata means without making an opportunity, such as saying, “I will ask at such-and-such a place.” Thus, for one who, after making an opportunity for the Suttanta, asks about the Vinaya or Abhidhamma, there is a pācittiya. The same applies in other cases; if no opportunity is made at all, there is nothing to say.

In the twelfth, without having made an opportunity means without having made an opportunity, [saying], “I will ask in such and such a place.” Therefore, for one who asks about the Vinaya or the Abhidhamma after having had an opportunity made in the Suttas, there is an atonement. The same principle applies to the rest. But if no opportunity has been made at all, there is nothing to be said.

In the twelfth rule, “without making an opportunity” means not having arranged, “I will ask in such and such a place.” Therefore, if a bhikkhunī asks about the Vinaya or the Abhidhamma without first arranging an opportunity, she commits an offense requiring confession (pācittiya). The same method applies in other cases. If no opportunity is arranged at all, there is nothing further to be said.

Sāvatthiyaṃ sambahulā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha anokāsakataṃ bhikkhuṃ pañhaṃ pucchanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Tattha tattha okāsaṃ kārāpetvā pucchantiyā, anodissa okāsaṃ kārāpetvā yattha katthaci pucchantiyā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Bhikkhussa anokāsakārāpanaṃ, pañhaṃ pucchananti imānettha dve aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni padasodhammasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriyanti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning several bhikkhunīs, this was laid down regarding the matter of asking a question of a monk without making an opportunity. There is no offense for one asking after making an opportunity for each specific case, or asking anywhere after making a general opportunity, or for the deranged and similar cases. Not making an opportunity with a monk and asking a question—these are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the padasodhamma rule, but this is action and non-action.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning a group of nuns, in the case of asking a monk a question without having made an opportunity. For one who asks after having had an opportunity made in various places, for one who asks anywhere after having had an opportunity made without specifying, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Not having had an opportunity made by the monk, and asking a question – these are the two factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to the Dhamma on the soles of the feet, but this is action and inaction.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning several bhikkhunīs, regarding the matter of asking a bhikkhu a question without arranging an opportunity. If she arranges an opportunity and then asks a question, or arranges an opportunity without specifying a place and asks anywhere, there is no offense for those who are insane, etc. Here, the two factors are: not arranging an opportunity with a bhikkhu and asking a question. The origins, etc., are similar to those in the Padasodhamma rule. This is a matter of action and inaction.

13. Asaṃkaccikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

13. Explanation of the Training Rule on Without a Waistband

13. The Explanation of the Precept Concerning Not Wearing a Bodice

13. Explanation of the Training Rule on Not Wearing an Undergarment

Terasame asaṃkaccikāti adhakkhakaubbhanābhimaṇḍalasaṅkhātassa sarīrassa paṭicchādanatthaṃ anuññātasaṃkaccikavirahitā. Gāmaṃ paviseyyāti ettha parikkhittassa gāmassa parikkhepaṃ, aparikkhittassa upacāraṃ atikkamantiyā vā okkamantiyā vā paṭhamapāde dukkaṭaṃ, dutiye pācittiyaṃ.

In the thirteenth, asaṃkaccikā means without the permitted waistband for covering the body, defined as below the navel and above the knees. Gāmaṃ paviseyyā means entering a village; for one crossing the boundary of a walled village or the vicinity of an unwalled one, or stepping in, there is a dukkaṭa with the first step and a pācittiya with the second.

In the thirteenth, without a bodice means without the bodice that is permitted for the purpose of covering the body, known as the lower-chest-covering-upper-body-circle. Should enter a village means that, for one who crosses the boundary of a village that is enclosed, or for one who enters or steps upon the vicinity of a village that is not enclosed, there is an offense of wrong-doing with the first step, and an atonement with the second.

In the thirteenth rule, “without an undergarment” means without the undergarment that has been allowed for covering the lower part of the body, which is round like a half-moon. “Should enter a village” means here, for a village with a boundary, crossing the boundary; for a village without a boundary, entering the vicinity. If she crosses or steps into it with the first foot, there is a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa); with the second foot, an offense requiring confession (pācittiya).

Sāvatthiyaṃ aññataraṃ bhikkhuniṃ ārabbha asaṃkaccikāya gāmaṃ pavisanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ. Yassā pana saṃkaccikacīvaraṃ acchinnaṃ vā naṭṭhaṃ vā, tassā, gilānāya, āpadāsu, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Asaṃkaccikatā, vuttaparicchedātikkamo, anuññātakāraṇābhāvoti imānettha tīṇi aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni eḷakalomasadisānīti.

At Sāvatthī, concerning a certain bhikkhunī, this was laid down regarding the matter of entering a village without a waistband. There is no offense for one whose waistband robe is torn or lost, for one who is ill, in times of danger, or for the deranged and similar cases. Being without a waistband, exceeding the defined boundary, and absence of an authorized reason—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of the eḷakaloma rule.

This was established in Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun, in the case of entering a village without a bodice. But for one whose bodice-cloth has been torn or lost, for one who is ill, in times of danger, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The state of not having a bodice, crossing the stated boundary, and the absence of a permissible reason – these are the three factors here. The arising, etc., are similar to sheep’s wool.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhunī, regarding the matter of entering a village without an undergarment. If her undergarment robe is torn or lost, or if she is ill, in emergencies, or for those who are insane, etc., there is no offense. Here, the three factors are: not wearing an undergarment, exceeding the stated boundary, and the absence of a reason for permission. The origins, etc., are similar to those in the Eḷakaloma rule.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Not Wearing an Undergarment is completed.

10…Pe…16. musāvādādivaggo

10…Pe…16. Musāvāda and Other Sections

10…Pe…16. The Section on False Speech, etc.

10…Pe…16. The Chapter on False Speech, etc.

Musāvādādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Training Rules on False Speech and Others

The Explanation of the Precepts Concerning False Speech, etc.

Explanation of the Training Rules on False Speech, etc.

Ito paresu musāvādavaggādīsu sattasu vaggesu bhikkhupātimokkhavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayeneva vinicchayo veditabboti.

From here onward, in the seven sections beginning with the section on false speech and so forth, the determination should be understood in the manner explained in the commentary on the monks’ Pātimokkha.

In the following seven sections, beginning with the section on false speech, the determination should be understood in the same way as described in the explanation of the monks’ Pātimokkha.

In the following seven chapters, including the Chapter on False Speech, the determination should be understood in the same way as explained in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha Commentary.

Uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo chasaṭṭhisatā pācittiyā dhammāti bhikkhū ārabbha paññattā sādhāraṇā sattati, asādhāraṇā channavutīti evaṃ chasaṭṭhisatā. Sesaṃ sabbattha uttānamevāti.

“Venerables, the six hundred and sixty Pācittiya rules have been recited”—this refers to the rules established concerning the monks: seventy are common, ninety-six are uncommon, thus making six hundred and sixty in total. The rest is as explained everywhere above.

“Venerable ladies, the one hundred and sixty-six pācittiya rules have been recited,” thus: seventy common rules prescribed concerning monks, and ninety-six uncommon ones, making one hundred and sixty-six. The rest is, in all cases, evident.

“Venerable Sirs, these ninety-two rules requiring confession have been recited.” These rules, established concerning bhikkhus, are seventy in common and twenty-six not in common, making ninety-two in total. The rest is clear throughout.

Tatrāyaṃ saṅkhepato asādhāraṇasikkhāpadesu samuṭṭhānavinicchayo – giraggasamajjā cittāgārasikkhāpadaṃ saṅghāṇī itthālaṅkāro gandhavaṇṇako vāsitakapiññāko bhikkhuniādīhi ummaddanaparimaddanāti imāni dasa sikkhāpadāni acittakāni lokavajjāni akusalacittāni. Ayaṃ panettha adhippāyo, vināpi cittena āpajjitabbattā acittakāni, citte pana sati akusaleneva āpajjitabbattā lokavajjāni ceva akusalacittāni cāti. Avasesāni sacittakāni paṇṇattivajjāneva. Corivuṭṭhāpanaṃ gāmantaraṃ ārāmasikkhāpadaṃ gabbhinivagge ādito paṭṭhāya satta, kumāribhūtavagge ādito paṭṭhāya pañca purisādisaṃsaṭṭhaṃ pārivāsikachandadānaṃ anuvassavuṭṭhāpanaṃ ekantarikavuṭṭhāpananti imāni ekūnavīsati sikkhāpadāni sacittakāni paṇṇattivajjāni. Avasesāni sacittakāni lokavajjānevāti.

Here is a concise determination regarding the origins of the uncommon training rules: the training rules concerning the hill festival, the mind dwelling, the adornment of women, scented cosmetics, perfumed ointments, and the ten rules involving rubbing and massaging by nuns and others are without consciousness, pertain to worldly faults, and involve unwholesome states of mind. The intent here is this: they are without consciousness because they can be transgressed even without intent; however, when consciousness is present, they are transgressed only with unwholesome intent, thus they pertain to worldly faults and involve unwholesome states of mind. The remaining rules involve consciousness and pertain only to disciplinary faults. The rules concerning ordaining a thief, going to another village, the monastery rule, the seven rules starting from the section on pregnant women, the five rules starting from the section on girls, association with men, giving the probationary consent, annual ordination, and alternate ordination—these nineteen rules involve consciousness and pertain to disciplinary faults. The remaining rules involve consciousness and pertain only to worldly faults.

Herein, in brief, is the determination of the origins in the training rules that are not shared [with monks]: the ten training rules—‘gathering at the top of a mountain,’ ‘the decorated chamber,’ ‘the bracelet,’ ‘the ornaments,’ ‘perfumes and dyes,’ ‘scented powder,’ ‘massaging by bhikkhunīs,’ and ‘rubbing’—these are acittaka (not requiring a specific state of mind), are world-reproached (lokavajjā) and require an unwholesome state of mind (akusalacitta). The meaning here is this: they are acittaka because they can be transgressed even without [a specific] intention; but when there is an intention, they are to be transgressed only with an unwholesome [state of mind], therefore they are world-reproached (lokavajjā) and require unwholesome state of mind (akusalacitta). The remaining ones are sacittaka (requiring a specific state of mind) and are only convention-reproached (paṇṇattivajjā). ‘Ordaining a thief,’ ‘a village boundary,’ ‘the training rule concerning the monastery,’ seven [rules] beginning from the section on pregnant women, five [rules] beginning from the section on young girls, ‘consorting with men and others,’ ‘giving consent to a probationer,’ ‘ordaining every year,’ ‘ordaining every other year’—these nineteen training rules are sacittaka (requiring a specific state of mind) and are only convention-reproached (paṇṇattivajjā). The remaining ones are sacittaka (requiring a specific state of mind) and are world-reproached (lokavajjā).

Here, in brief, is the determination of the origins in the non-common training rules: The rules on the giragga assembly, the cittāgāra, the saṅghāṇī, the adornments, the perfumes and colours, the scented substances and sesame powder, and the massaging and kneading of bhikkhunīs, etc., are ten rules that are unintentional, worldly, and unwholesome in mind. The meaning here is that since they can be committed without intention, they are unintentional; but when there is intention, they are both worldly and unwholesome in mind. The remaining rules are intentional and pertain to monastic regulations. The rules on expulsion for theft, crossing to another village, the monastery, the pregnant woman, etc., from the beginning of the chapter on pregnant women, seven rules; from the beginning of the chapter on young women, five rules; associating with men, giving consent for probation, reinstatement after a year, and immediate reinstatement—these nineteen rules are intentional and pertain to monastic regulations. The remaining rules are intentional and worldly.

Pāṭidesanīyakaṇḍo

Section on Rules Requiring Confession

The Section on Confession (Pāṭidesanīya)

The Chapter on Pāṭidesanīya Rules

1. Sappiviññāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Requesting Ghee

1. Explanation of the Training Rule on Requesting Ghee

Pāṭidesanīyesu paṭhame sappinti pubbe vuttavinicchayaṃ pāḷiāgataṃ (pāci. 1230) gosappiādimeva. Viññāpetvā bhuñjeyyāti ettha “viññattiyā paṭiladdhaṃ bhuñjissāmī”ti gahaṇe dukkaṭaṃ, gahitassa ajjhohāre ajjhohāre pāṭidesanīyaṃ.

In the first of the rules requiring confession, “ghee” refers to the determination previously explained, as found in the text (pāci. 1230), meaning cow’s ghee and the like. “Having requested it, she eats it”—here, there is an offense of wrong conduct (dukkata) in the intention of taking it with the thought, “I will eat what is obtained through this request,” and a Pāṭidesanīya offense for each act of consuming what was taken.

In the first of the pāṭidesanīya rules, ghee means the ghee of cows and other [animals], as previously determined and mentioned in the Pāḷi (pāci. 1230). Regarding “requests and consumes,” if one takes it with the thought, “I will consume what has been obtained through requesting,” it is a dukkaṭa. For each mouthful of what has been taken, it is a pāṭidesanīya.

In the first Pāṭidesanīya rule, “ghee” refers to cow ghee, etc., as previously explained in the Pāli (pāci. 1230). “Having requested, should eat” means here, if she takes it with the thought, “I will eat what is obtained through a request,” there is a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). For each mouthful eaten, there is an offense requiring acknowledgment (pāṭidesanīya).

Sāvatthiyaṃ chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo ārabbha sappiṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjanavatthusmiṃ paññattaṃ, “agilānā”ti ayamettha anupaññatti, tikapāṭidesanīyaṃ, gilānāya dvikadukkaṭaṃ. Yā pana gilānā gilānasaññā, gilānakāle vā viññāpetvā pacchā agilānā hutvā bhuñjati, gilānāya vā sesakaṃ, ñātakappavāritaṭṭhānato vā viññattaṃ, aññassa vā atthāya, attano vā dhanena gahitaṃ bhuñjati, tassā, ummattikādīnañca anāpatti. Vuttalakkhaṇasappitā, anuññātakāraṇābhāvo, viññatti, ajjhohāroti imānettha cattāri aṅgāni. Samuṭṭhānādīni addhānasadisānīti.

This was established at Sāvatthi concerning the group of six nuns who requested ghee and ate it; “not sick” is the additional condition here, making it a triple Pāṭidesanīya offense, while for a sick nun it is a double offense of wrong conduct. However, a nun who is sick and perceives herself as sick, or who requests it while sick and eats it later when not sick, or eats the remainder when sick, or requests it from relatives or an invited place, or for the sake of another, or eats what was obtained with her own wealth—for her, and for those who are deranged and so forth, there is no offense. The characteristics of ghee as described, the absence of a permitted reason, the request, and the consumption—these are the four factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to those of the rule on time.

It was prescribed in Sāvatthī in the case of the six-group bhikkhunīs who requested and consumed ghee. “Not being ill” is the subsequent addition here. It is a threefold pāṭidesanīya; for one who is ill, it is a twofold dukkaṭa. If one who is ill, thinking she is ill, or having requested it while ill, later becomes well and consumes it; or if, while ill, she consumes what is left over, or what has been requested from a place where she is a relative, or has been properly offered, or requested for someone else, or purchased with her own funds; for her, and for the insane and others, there is no offense. The characteristics of ghee as mentioned, the absence of a permitted reason, the request, and the consumption—these are the four factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to those [described] in the section on journeys.

This rule was established in Sāvatthī concerning the bhikkhunīs of the six groups, regarding the matter of requesting ghee and eating it. The additional rule here is, “if not ill.” There are three offenses requiring acknowledgment (pāṭidesanīya), and two or one wrongdoing (dukkaṭa) if she is ill. If a bhikkhunī who is ill or perceives herself as ill requests it during the time of illness but eats it later when she is not ill, or if she eats the remainder after being ill, or if it is requested from a relative or a designated place, or for the sake of another, or if she eats what is obtained with her own wealth, there is no offense for her, or for those who are insane, etc. Here, the four factors are: the characteristic of ghee as stated, the absence of a reason for permission, the request, and the consumption. The origins, etc., are similar to those in the Addhāna rule.

2. Telaviññāpanādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Requesting Oil and So Forth

2. Explanation of the Training Rules on Requesting Oil, etc.

Dutiyādīsupi telādīni pubbe vuttavinicchayāni pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 1236) āgatāneva, pāḷiyaṃ anāgatesu pana aṭṭhasupi dukkaṭameva. Sesaṃ sabbattha paṭhame vuttasadisamevāti.

In the second and subsequent rules, “oil” and so forth refer to the determinations previously explained, as found in the text (pāci. 1236); for those not found in the text, however, among the eight, it is only an offense of wrong conduct. The rest is entirely similar to what was said in the first rule.

In the second and subsequent [rules], oil, etc., are as previously determined and mentioned in the Pāḷi (pāci. 1236). However, for the eight [items] not mentioned in the Pāḷi, it is only a dukkaṭa. The rest, in all cases, is similar to what was said in the first [rule].

In the second and following rules, “oil,” etc., are as previously explained in the Pāli (pāci. 1236). For those not mentioned in the Pāli, there is only a wrongdoing (dukkaṭa). The rest is similar to the first rule.

The commentary on the training rule concerning requesting oil and so forth is concluded.

1. Parimaṇḍalādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Proper Posture and So Forth

1. Explanation of the Training Rules on [Dressing] Round, etc.

1. Explanation of the Training Rules on Wearing Robes Evenly, etc.

Ito paraṃ pana sekhiyāni ceva adhikaraṇasamathā ca sabbapakārato bhikkhupātimokkhavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbāti.

From here onward, the training rules and the settlement of disputes should be understood in all respects in the manner explained in the commentary on the monks’ Pātimokkha.

From here on, the sekhiya rules and the rules for settling disputes (adhikaraṇasamatha) should be understood in all respects in the same way as described in the explanation of the monks’ Pātimokkha.

From here onwards, the Sekhiya rules and the methods for settling disputes should be understood in the same way as explained in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha Commentary.

Nigamanakathā

Concluding Discourse

Concluding Verses

Concluding Statement

Vaṇṇanaṃ pātimokkhassa, soṇattherena yācito;
Vinaye jātakaṅkhānaṃ, kaṅkhāvitaraṇatthiko.

The explanation of the Pātimokkha, requested by Elder Soṇa; for those with doubts in the Vinaya, desiring to dispel doubts.

Being requested by the Elder Soṇa, the explanation of the Pātimokkha; being desirous of dispelling the doubts of those who have doubts in the Vinaya.

The Commentary on the Pātimokkha, requested by the Elder Soṇa;
For the resolution of doubts in the Vinaya, with the purpose of dispelling uncertainty.

Ārabhiṃ yamahaṃ sabbaṃ, sīhaḷaṭṭhakathānayaṃ;
Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ, vācanāmagganissitaṃ.

I began this entire work, following the Sinhala commentaries; based on the recitation method of the Mahāvihāra residents.

All that I have begun, according to the method of the Sinhalese commentary; relying on the textual tradition of the dwellers of the Mahāvihāra.

I undertook this entire work, following the method of the Sinhala Commentary;
Based on the teaching tradition of the residents of the Mahāvihāra.

Nissāya sā ayaṃ niṭṭhaṃ, gatā ādāya sabbaso;
Sabbaṃ aṭṭhakathāsāraṃ, pāḷiyatthañca kevalaṃ.

Relying on this, it has reached completion, fully incorporating; the essence of all commentaries and the meaning of the Pali alone.

Relying on that, this has come to completion, taking entirely; all the essence of the commentary, and only the meaning of the Pāḷi.

Relying on that, this work has been completed, taking everything;
The essence of the Commentaries and the meaning of the Pāli texts alone.

Na hettha taṃ padaṃ atthi, yaṃ virujjheyya pāḷiyā;
Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ, porāṇaṭṭhakathāhi vā.

There is no word here that contradicts the Pali; or the ancient commentaries of the Mahāvihāra residents.

There is not a single word here that would contradict the Pāḷi; or the ancient commentaries of the dwellers of the Mahāvihāra.

There is no word here that contradicts the Pāli;
The ancient Commentaries of the residents of the Mahāvihāra.

Yasmā tasmā akatvāva, ettha kaṅkhaṃ hitesinā;
Sikkhitabbāva sakkaccaṃ, kaṅkhāvitaraṇī ayaṃ.

Therefore, without any doubt here, for one seeking welfare; this Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī should be diligently studied.

Since that is so, without having any doubt about it, those desiring benefit; this Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī should indeed be studied with respect.

Therefore, without creating any doubt here, for the benefit of seekers;
This Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī should be studied carefully.

Yathā ca niṭṭhaṃ sampattā, kaṅkhāvitaraṇī ayaṃ;
Dvāvīsati bhāṇavārapaamāṇāya pāḷiyā.

And as this Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī has reached completion; with the measure of twenty-two recitation sections of the Pali.

Just as this Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī has reached completion; with a Pāḷi text measuring twenty-two bhāṇavāras.

Just as this Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī has reached completion;
The twenty-two recitation sections of the Pāli texts.

Evaṃ anantarāyena, niṭṭhaṃ kalyāṇanissitā;
Aciraṃ sabbasattānaṃ, yantu sabbe manorathāti.

Thus, without hindrance, relying on the good; may all beings’ wishes soon be fulfilled.

Thus, without hindrance, based on what is wholesome, it has reached completion; may all the wishes of all beings quickly be fulfilled.

Thus, without hindrance, completed with reliance on the good;
May all the aspirations of all beings be fulfilled soon.

Paramavisuddhasaddhābuddhivīriyappaṭimaṇḍitena sīlācārajjavamaddavādiguṇasamudayasamuditena sakasamayasamayantaragahanajjhogāhaṇasamatthena paññāveyyattiyasamannāgatena tipiṭakapariyattippabhede sāṭṭhakathe satthusāsane appaṭihatañāṇappabhāvena mahāveyyākaraṇena karaṇasampattijanitasuviniggatamadhaurodāravacanalāvaṇṇayuttena yuttamuttavādinā vādīvarena mahākavinā pabhinnapaṭisambhidāparivāre chaḷabhiññādippabhedaguṇappaṭimaṇḍite uttarimanussadhamme suppatiṭṭhitabuddhīnaṃ theravaṃsappadīpānaṃ therānaṃ mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ vaṃsālaṅkārabhūtena vipulavisuddhabuddhinā buddhaghosoti garūhi gahitanāmadheyyena therena katā ayaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇī nāma pātimokkhavaṇṇanā –

Composed by the elder named Buddhaghosa, adorned with supreme faith, wisdom, and effort, endowed with a wealth of virtues such as morality, conduct, gentleness, and kindness, capable of delving into and mastering both his own and other traditions, possessed of discernment and grammatical skill, unobstructed in the Teacher’s dispensation by the power of knowledge in the threefold Piṭaka and its commentaries, a great grammarian with eloquent, sweet, and noble speech born of perfect expression, a supreme debater speaking justly and freely, a great poet, accompanied by the distinctions of analytical knowledge, adorned with qualities such as the six higher knowledges in the supermundane Dhamma, firmly established in wisdom among the elders of the lineage of the Theravaṃsa, an ornament of the lineage of the Mahāvihāra residents, with vast and pure intelligence—this commentary on the Pātimokkha named Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī –

This explanation of the Pātimokkha, called Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, was composed by the Thera whose name was taken by his elders as Buddhaghosa, who is adorned with supremely pure faith, wisdom, and energy; who is endowed with an abundance of virtues such as good conduct, gentleness, and mildness; who is capable of penetrating the depths of his own doctrine and other doctrines; who is possessed of intellectual proficiency; who has unimpeded knowledge and influence in the teaching of the Teacher, including the commentaries, regarding the division of the Tipiṭaka; who is a great speaker; who is endowed with the sweetness of well-pronounced, clear, and elevated speech arising from the perfection of his faculties; who speaks what is true and beneficial; who is a foremost debater; who is a great poet; who is surrounded by the retinue of the distinct analytical knowledges; who is adorned with the various kinds of virtues such as the six supernormal knowledges; who is a Thera whose wisdom is firmly established in the supramundane states; who is a lamp of the lineage of the Theras; who is an ornament of the lineage of the residents of the Mahāvihāra; and who possesses abundant and pure wisdom –

Adorned with supreme purity of faith, wisdom, and energy;
Endowed with virtues such as good conduct, honesty, and gentleness;
Possessing the ability to grasp the essence of his own and other traditions;
Equipped with the discernment of wisdom, skilled in the three Piṭakas;
With the sixfold knowledge and the unimpeded radiance of knowledge in the Teacher’s Dispensation;
With the great analytical knowledge, producing excellent and profound speech;
Endowed with the qualities of the sixfold higher knowledge and other superhuman states;
The elder, known as Buddhaghosa by the revered ones, a lamp of the Theravāda lineage;
Residing in the Mahāvihāra, with a mind firmly established in the Dhamma;
With vast and pure wisdom, composed this Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, the Commentary on the Pātimokkha—

Tāva tiṭṭhatu lokasmiṃ, lokanittharaṇesinaṃ;
Dassentī kulaputtānaṃ, nayaṃ sīlavisuddhiyā.

May it remain in the world as long as; it shows the path to liberation for sons of good families, the way to purity of virtue.

May it remain for a long time in the world, for those who seek liberation from the world; showing the method of purification of virtue to the sons of good families.

May it remain in the world for those seeking to cross over;
Showing the path of purity of virtue to noble beings.

Yāva “buddho”ti nāmampi, suddhacittassa tādino;
Lokamhi lokajeṭṭhassa, pavattati mahesinoti.

As long as the name “Buddha” endures, for one of pure mind; of the world’s eldest, the great sage, it resounds in the world.

As long as even the name ‘Buddha’, of the pure-minded, worthy one; the World-Honored One, the Great Sage, prevails in the world.

As long as the name “Buddha” exists in the world;
For the pure-hearted, the great sage, the foremost in the world.