Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa

Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīpurāṇa-ṭīkā

Introduction to the Text

The excellent commentary, beginning with "Buddhaṃ dhammañca saṅghanti,"
Was spoken by Bhadanta Buddhaghosa;
This is an endeavor to elucidate its hidden meanings.

Explanation of the Introduction to the Text

Vippasannena: By one who is exceedingly serene. How so? "Indeed, the Buddha…(elaboration)…is the Blessed One; the Dhamma is well-proclaimed…(elaboration)…by the wise; the Sangha is practicing well…(elaboration)…of the world" (A.N. 5.10) and so forth. Because "cetasā" (with the mind) is stated, mental veneration (cetovandanā) is intended in the three acts of veneration. Vandanā (veneration) is the act of paying homage with body, etc., due to reverence; mānaṃ (respect) is similarly doing so with the mind due to the qualities (of the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha); pūjā (worship) is the act of honoring through offerings, etc., sakkāro (reverence) is respectfully preparing the requisites, etc. Bhājana (receptacle) for them means the basis or the location.

Therā: The elders, such as Mahākassapa, and their lineage is theravaṃso (the lineage of elders); theravaṃsappadīpā (the lamp of the lineage of elders) means one who is like a lamp for that lineage through accomplishment in scripture and realization. Theravaṃsappadīpānaṃ: of those lamps of the lineage of elders. Thirānaṃ: of the steadfast ones, because they are uncorrupted. Vinayakkame: in the Vinaya Piṭaka; this is a statement appropriate to the beginning. They are indeed steadfast in the Sutta and Abhidhamma as well. If one asks, why is it stated separately instead of saying "Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, and the lions of former teachers?" It is to show the distinct purpose. The purpose of paying homage to the three objects (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha) is to prevent obstacles; paying homage to the teachers who are one's support shows gratitude. Therefore, the construction is: having venerated the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, and with the word "ca" (and), having paid namo (homage) also to the lions of former teachers. Alternatively, "vanditvā" (having venerated) can be shown as mental veneration, then "namo katvā" (having paid homage) as verbal veneration, and "katañjalī" (having raised hands in añjali) can also be shown as bodily veneration.

He said, beginning with "pāmokkha" (chief). Therein, pāmokkha means chief. For sīla (virtue) is the chief of all wholesome qualities because it is the beginning. And just as the four kinds of nutriment for beings—namely, chewable food, edible food, lickable food, and drinkable food—enter through the mouth and pervade every part of the body, so too, for the yogi, wholesome virtue (kusala) of the four planes enters through the mouth of virtue and accomplishes the attainment of the goal. Therefore, it is said "mukha" (mouth), etc. Or rather, mukha means means; therefore, mokkhappavesāya (for the entrance to liberation), it is a means for the realization of Nibbāna. The connection is, the Pātimokkha that was proclaimed by the great sage. Mahesi (great sage) means one who seeks great aggregates such as virtue, etc.

Sūratena nivātenā: Sūratena (with gentleness) because of "what is gentleness? It is non-transgression in bodily action," etc. (Dhs. 1349); nivātena (with humility), not raising oneself up due to pride and arrogance, with lowliness in conduct. If one asks, why is "sūratena" (with gentleness) etc., said instead of "requested by Soṇa Thera?" Is it that it is not fitting to make a commentary when requested by an immoral, wicked, or shameless person? No, it is not that it is not fitting. It is not possible to reject the elder's word; it is to show that the elder is of such qualities and should be obeyed respectfully due to the request.

Nāmena: By his own name of quality. Subhaṃ (auspiciousness) is auspicious in the characteristic of sound, auspicious in discernment, and auspicious in what is to be known.

Explanation of the Introduction to the Text is finished.

Explanation of the Nidāna

It was said in the manner of "It is convenient for him to make an opening; I will ask the venerable ones about it…(elaboration)…silence; thus I will remember this," and beginning with "uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānaṃ" (the Nidāna has been recited, venerable ones) and so on. Here, up to the end of the third announcement, at the time of the recital, it comes in the manner of "it is convenient for him to make an opening," after saying "uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānaṃ. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmī" (the Nidāna has been recited, venerable ones. I will ask the venerable ones about it) and so on. It comes in the same way in the Uposatha Khandhaka. There, what was said earlier contradicts the sutta that came later. Therefore, it should be taken after examining how it does not contradict. Some say it does not contradict in this way. How? Because "it is convenient for him to make an opening," after saying "uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānaṃ. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmī" (the Nidāna has been recited, venerable ones. I will ask the venerable ones about it) and so on, it is very well recited, this characteristic of the recital is stated here in the Khandhaka as well. Therefore, after saying "phāsu hotī" (it is convenient), in the place where "tatthāyasmante pucchāmī" (I will ask the venerable ones about it) is said, even what is unsaid should be brought and taken. Why? Because the Nidāna is not shown here; the recital is because the characteristic of what is to be recited is stated there at the time of recital. Moreover, after extracting the term "nidānuddeso" (recital of the Nidāna), even if one wishes to show the recital of the Nidāna, after completing the Nidāna that came in the wording of "suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho…(elaboration)…āvikatā hissa phāsu hotī" (may the Sangha hear me, venerable one…(elaboration)…it is convenient for him to make an opening), after connecting the Pāḷi that should be connected according to the commentary above, after making the Nidāna Pāḷi complete by saying "tatthāyasmante pucchāmi…(elaboration)…dhārayāmī" (I will ask the venerable ones about it…(elaboration)…I will remember this), then again, to show the characteristic of the recital of the Nidāna concisely by way of extracted terms, after saying "evametaṃ dhārayāmī" (thus I will remember this), "uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānaṃ" (the Nidāna has been recited, venerable ones) and so on, was said. Therefore, in this way, both above and in the Khandhaka, and also at the time of the recital, after saying "āvikatā hissa phāsu hotī" (it is convenient for him to make an opening), "uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānaṃ. Tatthāyasmante pucchāmī" (the Nidāna has been recited, venerable ones. I will ask the venerable ones about it) and so on, only the recital of the Nidāna was shown, not the Nidāna.

If it is said that "savanāṇattivacananti" (the statement of command for the recitation) is not proper to be spoken by one who is new to the Sangha, it is indeed proper. Because it was said by the Blessed One that "the one who recites the Pātimokkha should speak thus," it is the Blessed One's command, not the reciter's. Here, it is said in terms of one who is new. To show that even an elder is allowed to recite, "therādhikaṃ pātimokkha" (the Pātimokkha with an elder) is said. If one asks, does the new one not get it with this sutta? To show that, "yo tattha bhikkhū" (whatever bhikkhu there) etc., is said.

"catuvaggādinā" (with a group of four), etc. Indeed, that is established by them. How? With a group of four, the granting of higher ordination, invitation…(elaboration)…with a group of twenty, it is not proper to do any Sangha action. Here, by saying "except for the act of restoration with a group of ten," it is permitted to do with a group of ten even what should be done with a group of four or five. Therefore, it is indicated that it is proper with an excess, and it is indeed indicated that it is not proper with less by the word "ṭhapetvā" (except). Therefore, should it not be said that it is an excess of twenty? It should indeed be said. It is indicated that what should be done with a group of four or five can be done with a group of six, seven, eight, or nine, and what should be done with a group of ten can be done with a group of eleven, twelve…(elaboration)…nineteen. It is indicated explicitly that it is not proper with less. Vajirabuddhi Thera wrote that it is indicated even if it is said about a group of twenty with excess or without excess in every way. From here on, when "likhita" (written) is said, it should be taken as written by Vajirabuddhi Thera.

"uposathaṃ kareyyā" (one should perform the Uposatha) is said. The determination "only on the full-moon day of the last Kattika" is made because there is no day for invitation, etc., after that. Idampi (this too) along with the natural conduct stated in the regular Uposatha.

If one asks, should it not be said "nimittena nimittaṃ sambandhitvā" (connecting one sign with another), because it is said "tividhasampattiyuttā" (endowed with three kinds of accomplishment)? It should indeed be said. Why? Because after saying that the three kinds of accomplishment are accomplishment of signs, accomplishment of assembly, and accomplishment of the Kammavācā, etc., it is said "accomplishment of signs means a mountain sign, a stone sign," etc., but the connection of one sign with another is not said. Moreover, after showing "tividhasampattiyuttā" (endowed with three kinds of accomplishment) among the aspects of association, to show that same thing again among the aspects of abandonment, "nimittena nimittaṃ sambandhitvā" (connecting one sign with another) is said. If one asks why "vipattisīmāyo nāmā" (the boundaries of failure) is said because the actions do not fail from a boundary established in a river, sea, or natural lake up to the water-scattering boundary? It is because after completing the remaining characteristics, if a boundary is set in a river by making the limit of the water, and then after enclosing that river, if a pond is made, if it is proper to perform actions within that boundary, the actions would not fail from the boundary. Since it is not proper to do so, therefore "udakukkhepasīmattā" (up to the water-scattering boundary) is said without cause.

"ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ na sakkontī" (twenty-one bhikkhus are not able to sit) is said; the intention is to sit comfortably. It is said in the commentary, "to sit in a circular fashion." Tiyojanaṃ atikkamitvā (having gone beyond three yojanas) means, having stood in the middle and made it one and a half, three yojanas. Indeed, from corner to corner, he goes beyond three yojanas, incurs an offense, and the boundary becomes unbounded. Kittetvā (reciting) means reciting even the accomplished signs with a change in each other's names, and with the names of non-signs.

suddhapaṃsupabbato (a pure heap of dust) it is. Guḷapiṇḍaparimāṇo (the size of a lump of treacle) in thickness, not in measure of weight. Bhūmiyaṃ patiṭṭhito (established on the ground)—with this, it rejects planting in huts, pots, etc.; however, having removed it from there, it is proper to plant it on the ground even for a moment. However, the emergence of new roots and branches is without cause. It is fitting if planted after cutting the trunk. Sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇo (the size of a needle shaft) is only the size of the little finger. "Aṭṭhaṅgulubbedho" (eight fingers in height)—with this, the height is defined; "govisāṇamatto" (the size of a cow's horn)—with this, the circumference. "Even so, there is no limit in circumference of a cow's horn, therefore, they say that even a small or large one is proper.

Baddhasīmaṃ vā nadisamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvā (without encroaching upon an established boundary or a river, sea, or natural lake)—here too, it is not taken in "nadiyā vā, bhikkhave, samudde vā jātassare vā" (whether in a river, monks, or in a sea, or in a natural lake) (Mahāva. 147) Therefore, is the saline (loṇī) not an unestablished boundary? It is indeed an unestablished boundary. Because it is said that "whatever ditch is made by water breaking through a river or sea and flowing out, this characteristic is attained, this too is indeed a natural lake" (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā), it is taken by the inclusion of a natural lake, even if it is not said there. Because it is said "yāvatikā tasmiṃ gāmakhette" (as far as that village field extends), it is proper even if bhikkhus come or do not come to that village at the time of convening a boundary with shared residence after enclosing another village. It must indeed be come to at the time of convening a boundary without separation.

Agamanapathesū (in places where there is no access)—here, they say it means places where one cannot go and return in one day, meaning rejecting the absence of an established boundary.

If one asks, since "samantā udakukkhepā" (water-scattering all around) is said, should it be taken in all directions? It should be taken from where it is obtained, because it is said "from which region the natural waves overflow and remain, from there it is suitable ground; standing there, it is proper to perform Uposatha, etc." Anvaḍḍhamāso (one and a half months) is a supplement, half a month, or according to half a month. Yo pana kenaci (whoever by anyone), the intention is antamaso tiracchānenapi khaṇitvā akatoti (even by an animal, if it is dug and made).

Because it is said "aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopetī" (even if another stands without exceeding that same limit, it invalidates the action), it is indeed indicated that one who stands exceeding it does not invalidate it, according to Upatissa Thera; however, that contradicts the statement "another water-scattering should be placed between two water-scatterings for the sake of proximity." Indeed, in Samantapāsādikā there is no term "aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva" (another that same). Therefore, its intention should be sought. The meaning should be taken as: without exceeding the limit of the water-scattering placed for the sake of proximity to the boundary of the inner water-scattering. The Thera wrote elaborating it differently.

"A minor offense due to having a co-offender"—if it is said thus, does it mean that confessing a saṅghādisesa offense with a co-offender is permissible? It is not permissible, because here it is stated in reference to confession (desanāgāminiṃ). Therefore, in the Samuccayakkhandhaka, it is said, "It is not permissible for one who has committed a saṅghādisesa offense with a co-offender to reveal it to someone nearby. If he reveals it, there is an offense of disclosure, but he is not freed from the dukkaṭa offense." (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102) Just as the Sangha can perform the uposatha after saying, "May the Sangha hear me, venerable sirs…pe… I will make amends," so too, having seen another pure one or two others, it is permissible to perform the uposatha after saying, "We will make amends." Even with just one, it is permissible to perform the uposatha after making the determination, "Having obtained purity, I will make amends." In the Commentary too, it is said, "When a nearby bhikkhu is to be told thus, only the co-offender should be told. For if a non-co-offender is told, there will be disputes, quarrels, and divisions in the Sangha; therefore, without telling him, having risen from here, the uposatha should be performed after making the determination," as stated in the Andhaka Commentary, and since it has not been refuted, it is indeed shown to be permissible. "When he sees another bhikkhu who is pure and free from offense, then to him..." because only a minor offense is allowed, and because it is stated in the Samuccayakkhandhaka, it is not permissible to announce a saṅghādisesa offense with a co-offender by means of a motion (ñatti) and perform the uposatha.

"Whose ordination is rejected" is said.

"By one who has not attended, or by one who has cut short the rains residence"—only this much is said. But one who has completed the rains residence is considered "one who has not attended" because he did not attend at that time. It is not possible to assemble everyone who has completed the rains residence after all have risen and left; some say it is permissible to assemble some and announce their purity. Why? Because there is no Sangha act to be done after the motion (ñatti) has been made, it is not a group. The same method applies to pavāraṇā. Here is the distinction: if those who attend the later pavāraṇā are fewer or the same in number as those who attended the earlier one, and they complete the quorum for the Sangha pavāraṇā, a motion should be made in connection with the Sangha pavāraṇā. "If there is only one bhikkhu…pe…knowing that the others are absent," it is said that it is not possible to enter the boundary and perform the uposatha by determination.

"What is the preliminary duty of the Sangha?"—this should not be said by establishing a motion (ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā). For that is done even before the motion. Therefore, it should be said, "May the Sangha hear me, venerable sirs, what is the preliminary duty of the Sangha? If it is the right time for the Sangha." Even so, it should not be said. For it is not done within the motion. In that case, it is objected, does it not involve an offense because there is no purpose in saying this? No, it is said, because it should be said in the place where it has come, because it is dependent on another word. The Sangha or an individual, while performing the uposatha act without doing this preliminary duty, incurs an offense of transgressing the boundary marker (ṭhapanakkhettātikkame āpajjati). For in that boundary that has been transgressed, there is no release from the offense in doing sweeping and so on, because that offense is conditioned by the non-performance of the duty to be done before the uposatha act. That offense is not dependent on the completion of the act, like the offense of intentional lying that has come here, so the bhikkhu who is the Pātimokkha reciter first reminds about the preliminary duty, which is the condition for purity or impurity, wishing to say, "May the venerable ones announce their purity." For that which is done is a condition for purity, and that which is not done is a condition for impurity. Therefore, with the intention of both possibilities, without saying "done, not done," he simply says, "What is the preliminary duty of the Sangha?" There, in the case of non-performance, in order to show the order of announcing purity, he will say later, "If anyone has an offense, let him reveal it," and in the case of performance, "If there is no offense, one should remain silent."

It is bound like a cat chained because it is only used inside the house; the idea is that just as that cat does not go anywhere, so too she does not go anywhere. Otherwise, the specification would be meaningless, according to the teacher.

"This is indeed both..." etc., is said. "He salutes the feet of the venerable ones" is said in terms of a group, but not in terms of an individual, because there is no other person to be informed.

"It is declared to the Sangha" means it is declared by the Sangha. "For a Sangha in concord"—if it is said that there is no fault here because the state of concord is the cause of bodily unity? That is not so, because a state of concord is desired both in the declaration and in the hearing. For by "May the Sangha hear me, venerable sirs," he shows concord of mind, because in the hearing, all are in a state of unity.

"Intentionally commits an offense"—here, only one who commits an offense due to disrespect is shameless, not the other. "Conceals an offense"—here, one who conceals it out of shame is not shameless, but one who conceals it due to disrespect, thinking, "What is the point of this?" is shameless, it is written.

"Of the seven groups of offenses" should not be said; "of the six" should be said? It should be said, "of the seven" indeed. For if one who has committed a Pārājika offense declares his state of having committed an offense, and the Sangha's uposatha is accomplished, there is purification for him through becoming a layperson or a novice.

Some teachers: it seems that the teacher is the one who carries the burden of the Dhamma. Why is it said thus? "Up to the third proclamation" means saying it three times. Since that is not in the text, having seen only the phrase "Up to the third proclamation," "If anyone has an offense, let him reveal it," this indicates the meaning of "If you have committed an offense, reveal it." "If there is no offense, one should remain silent," this also indicates the same meaning. "Through the silence, I will know that the venerable ones are pure," this also is the same, so it seems that it was said having taken it in this sense.

Others: it seems that the Elder was the one who showed the meaning. "Referring to this"—here, it seems that by the statement "Once proclaimed," it is only shown that the proclamation should be made three times.

"Said referring to this meaning"—how is it known? "This is the determination from the lineage of teachers here," it is said.

"By one who is mindful"—by this, he shows the intentionality of the offense of lying with full awareness (sampajānamusāvāda). "Or in the midst of the Sangha" etc., it seems, is a descriptive statement. If he is sitting in the midst of the Sangha for the purpose of the Sangha's uposatha, it should be revealed in that midst of the Sangha. If he is sitting in the midst of a group for the purpose of the group's uposatha, it should be revealed in that midst of the group. If he wishes to perform the purity uposatha with just one person, it should be revealed to that one person. By this, it seems to be a descriptive statement, because not only in the midst of the Sangha does this lying occur, but also, even when it is not in the Sangha, with the characteristic stated here, if one who wishes to perform the uposatha having committed an offense, in the procedure beginning with "May the venerable ones announce their purity," remains silent without revealing it in the group uposatha, he incurs the offense of lying with full awareness. This is what the logicians say, because it reveals the meaning of this. Otherwise, they think that "or in the midst of the group" should not be said. The teacher's thought is that it is said in terms of the intention of revealing. For one who reveals, revealing with the intention of "I am revealing to the Sangha," is said to reveal in the midst of the Sangha; revealing to those sitting on both sides is said to reveal in the midst of the group; revealing with the intention of "I will reveal to just one person" is said to reveal to one person. Even if he is doubtful…pe… I will make amends," having done thus, as long as he is doubtful, he is able to receive the co-offense, and he is considered pure for other acts. Whether it should be confessed again after becoming free from doubt or not is not found in the Pali or in the Commentary, but there is no fault in confessing. Similarly, "Having risen from here, I will make amends for that offense"—here, it is written that it applies to one who has committed a co-offense in the entire Sangha, and to one who is doubtful (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 169-170).

The Nidāna Vaṇṇanā is finished.

Pārājika Section

1. Paṭhama Pārājika Vaṇṇanā

Order of Exposition: However, having extracted from the Khandhaka of the Ubhatovibhaṅga, at that time the Parivāra was made into a separate text. Referring to this very statement, it is said in the Commentary, "In this way, they also imposed the Khandhaka on the Parivāra," etc. (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgaītikathā). Moreover, in the Pali, only this much is said: "In this way, he asked in the Ubhatovibhaṅga. Being asked, venerable Upāli answered." (cūḷava. 439) Therefore, the Elder asked only in the Ubhatovibhaṅga. However, when answering, venerable Upāli, showing everything without exception, included the Khandhaka and Parivāra and expounded it. But during the group recitation, at that time the Khandhaka and Parivāra were made into separate texts. This is the Order of Exposition here.

Here, the Order of Abandonment is possible, from the statement, "Immediately, four things that should not be done should be declared." Similarly, from the statement, "Undertaking, he trains in the precepts" (ma. ni. 3.75; vibha. 508), the Order of Practice is also possible by training in declaring as it really is. The order of practice is also in the sense of the teachings to be learned according to the order of recitation (uddesakkamaṃ). Thus, the Order of Origin is possible as appropriate for these precepts to be taught by these three orders. For example, whatever is common, that was prescribed for bhikkhunīs in the same way as "Whatever bhikkhunī intentionally engages in sexual intercourse," etc., on the very occasion of an event arising in connection with a bhikkhu. Since that unarisen prescription would not occur for bhikkhunīs, therefore the Parivāra statement that there is no unarisen prescription in that (pari. 201-202) is not contradictory. Thus, because the methunadhamma pārājika arises first in the pārājika recitation, venerable Upālitthero, wishing to teach first whatever should be taught first by the first three orders, brought it to Vesāli and established it, saying "At one time the Blessed One was dwelling in Vesāli." (pārā. 23)

Statement with Recitation (sauddesapaññatti) There are two kinds of statements with recitation based on specifying a person and not specifying a person. Of them, the one in which the person with or without the offence is shown is called Statement specifying person. The other is called Statement not specifying person.

The eight pārājika rules should be known as not showing the offence (adassitāpattikā). For there, only the person is shown as "He is defeated, he is no longer in communion" (pārā. 39, 44, 89, 91, 167, 171, 195, 197). The seventeen saṅghādisesa rules appearing in the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha are called showing the offence (dassitāpattikā). For there, the offence is shown together with the person: "This bhikkhunī has committed the first offence, a saṅghādisesa requiring expulsion" (pāci. 683, 687).

The Sekhiya rules are called not showing the offence. The remaining rules should be known as showing the offence.

The rules that are not specifically determined (aniddiṭṭhakārakā) are of fifteen kinds by way of ejaculation of semen, lying, malicious speech, tale-bearing, harming plant life, changing the subject, scolding, group meals, continuous meals, liquor, making gestures, laughing, disrespect for the Dhamma, swinging the arms, and the precepts concerning lac and wax. Here, the distinction between mixed and unmixed should be known in the rules that are specifically determined—of them, the instrumental case and the locative case are certainly mixed (missā). The rest are mixed and unmixed (missā ca amissāca). That is to say—as for each individually (paccattaṃ), in the two Aniyata rules, it is mixed by the instrumental case; in the twelve Pāṭidesanīya rules, it is mixed by the instrumental case; in the precepts on bowls with less than five ties it is mixed by the possessive case; in the case of one under twenty years, it is mixed by the locative case, and in the case of bewildering, it is mixed by the instrumental, possessive and locative cases. Since "critic" is the meaning intended, not the doer, the vivaṇṇaka precept is thus mixed in five ways when it is not possible, it is mixed in five ways. In the remaining ones, excluding the first Aniyata, the term "whatever bhikkhu" that has come thus in the beginning; or excluding the second Aniyata, the term "whatever bhikkhu" that has come thus in the middle in the precepts on fine foods, samaṇuddesa, and the third and fourth Pāṭidesanīya rules; or the term "bhikkhu" only that has come thus in the beginning in the precepts on corrupting families and associating; or the term "whatever bhikkhu" that has come thus in the middle in the precept on following a faction is unmixed because of a different case. Here, it should be known that in the Saṃsaṭṭha precept and the two precepts on instigating dissension and assisting in dissension, it is plural, and everywhere else, it is singular.

Upayoga (application) is mixed in three ways: individually in the two vikappanā training rules and the weaving training rule; through the action (karaṇa) in the assaulting training rule; and through both the action and the possessive (sāmipacca) in the royal (property) training rule. Karaṇa is mixed in two ways: individually in six training rules—making a hut, large, second kathina, two-portion sitting cloth, sitting cloth made of various materials, and using faded robes; and through the owner (sāminā) in eight training rules—first and third kathina, eight-finger footed sitting cloth, bowl cover, robe-receiving robe, rain-bathing cloth, water-bathing cloth, two robes, and expecting a donation. In the remaining seven training rules—six-year rain-bathing cloth, two covers, dwelling place, alms food, Mahānāma, heavy light outer cloth—the instrumental case of karaṇa is unmixed with other cases, but in the goat-hair training rule, the possessive case is mixed with the instrumental case of karaṇa. In the training rules regarding extra bowls and medicine, the possessive case is unmixed, being taken with aggahaṇa (non-acceptance). Thus it should be understood in the training rules with specified cases. Thus, –

Fivefold, threefold, twofold,
And even thus, singlefold:
Diverse are fivefold the cases,
Altogether, elevenfold they become.

Thus, in the training rules enumerated as sauddesa-paññatti, out of the three hundred and ninety-nine sutras, excluding the ones without specified cases (aniddiṭṭhakāraka), there are two hundred and sixty-odd (atireka-saṭṭhi-dvisatāni) with specified cases (niddiṭṭhakāraka). Among these, there are two hundred and thirty paccatta-karaṇa. Among these, two hundred and twelve are unmixed paccatta-karaṇa, and eighteen are mixed paccatta-karaṇa. In the remaining thirty training rules, five have mixed upayoga-karaṇa, fourteen have mixed karaṇa, seven are unmixed, two have mixed-unmixed karaṇa, and two are unmixed. In all the training rules with specified cases, in the thirty-five rules regarding instigating schism, corrupting families, speaking badly, first, second, and third kathina, assault, making a hut, large, vikappanā of two kinds, two-portion, six-year, sitting cloth, goat hair, extra bowl, medicine, rain-bathing cloth, weaving, goat hair at the end of six nights and five, the phrase "yo pana bhikkhū" (whoever monk) is missing. It is present in the dutiyāniyata, refined food, novice, third and fourth pāṭidesanīya in the middle.

Thus far, the pair of sauddesa and anuddesa, the pair of designation of persons and non-persons, the two pairs of individually shown offenses, the pair of unspecified cases, and, within that, the pair of individually grounded, the pair of associated with application and without application, the pair of application in the middle, and the pair of singular and plural, thus nine pairs have been shown. Special reasons will become apparent when they arise in the respective training rules. Having understood the sauddesa-paññatti in this way, any enactment in the rest of the Vinaya Pitaka should be understood as anuddesa-paññatti. It is sixfold, in the manner of word analysis (padabhājana), intervening offense (antarāpatti), concluded matter (vinītavatthu), prohibition (paṭikkhepa), enactment (paññatti), and accomplishment without being stated (avuttasiddhi).

Padabhājanasikkhāpadaṃ (Word-analysis training rule): "Monks, a hut should not be made entirely of clay. Whoever should make (one), there is an offense of wrong-doing." (pārā. 85) Antarāpattisikkhāpadaṃ (Intervening-offense training rule): "I allow, monks, that one who is meditating during the day may meditate with the door closed." (pārā. 77) Vinītavatthusikkhāpadaṃ (Concluded-matter training rule): "Monks, one who is causing a schism in the Sangha, if he is not ordained, should not be ordained." (mahāva. 115) Paṭikkhepasikkhāpadaṃ (Prohibition training rule):

paṭikkhepasikkhāpada (Prohibition training rule) is the name.

Paññattisikkhāpadaṃ (Enactment training rule): It was said, "Then, Sāriputta, declare a thullaccaya for the instigator of schism." (cūḷava. 345) The thullaccaya also goes to resolution there. Some say that, although this was not enacted at the time of division, it exists even at the time of purity through the Buddha’s word. It should be understood that, from the statement "Declare it to the instigator of schism," the training rule "Whoever monk, knowing, should follow those causing schism, there is an offense of thullaccaya” is enacted for the other instigators of schism. Likewise, all the duties of the khandhaka and the disciplinary procedures go to resolution there. As it was said: “I have enacted this, Upāli, the duties for visiting monks for visiting monks… Thus, Upāli, the training rule is well-enacted by me." "Whatever bhikkhuni should go to see dancing, singing, or instrumental music, there is an offense of pācittiya." (pāci. 834) Whatever offense or disciplinary procedure appearing in the commentary, such as that a bhikkhuni should not dance, sing, or play instruments, there is an offense of pācittiya, this is called avuttasiddhisikkhāpadaṃ (accomplishment-without-being-stated training rule). This sixfold rule does not deserve to be recited in six ways, therefore it is called anuddesasikkhāpadaṃ (unstated training rule). That is, because they are incongruous in relation to the five recitations, as appropriate; and because the thullaccaya and dubbhāsita, having similar objects, are offenses of dissimilar nature; and because the antarāpatti-paññatti training rules have dissimilar objects, and the paṭikkhepa training rules have dissimilar objects, and some vinītavatthu-paññatti training rules have not shown offenses; and because the bhedānuvattaka-thullaccaya has not shown an object; and because the avuttasiddhi training rules have not shown an object or offense. Thus far, what was said, "The enactment of the training rule is twofold, through the distinction of sauddesa and anuddesa," has been briefly explained.

In the enactment, thus -

“Here the agent is specified,
Due to the absence of dependence;
And due to the absence of a previously stated rule,
From the beginning, with yopana.” –

Here, in the enactment of the pārājika, the agent is specified due to the absence of dependence. As with "when the robe is finished, when the monk lifts it," etc. (pārā. 462, 472, 475), the agent is specified in the individual way, not specifying it by way of instrumental, etc., due to the absence of a previously stated rule. In this case, as with the sesa-dutiyāniyata, refined food, novice, third and fourth pāṭidesanīya in the middle, without specifying it in the middle, it is specified at the beginning itself, as with "but certainly not... cause to shine," etc. (pārā. 453), due to the absence of a previously stated rule. Even when specifying at the beginning, it is specified from the very beginning with the word yopana, together with yo pana, as with the thirty-five training rules, such as instigating schism, among those previously mentioned, without specifying it, due to the absence of a previously stated rule. Even when specifying it in this way, since one does not incur an offense arising from another, as with the offense, "Whatever bhikkhuni should lie down, two to a bed," etc. (pāci. 933), it is specified in the singular with "yo pana bhikkhū." If it is said that the offense of sexual intercourse arises from another, due to the statement "union of two and two" (pārā. 39)? That is not so, due to knowing the intention. There is a rule there that the offense is for many bhikkhunis, not for one, but there is no such rule here, thus the intention is unrestricted. Where is the offense of sexual intercourse for those lying on their backs, from the statement "union of two and two" (pārā. 55)? This meaning should be established in the Parivāra with the statement "severance would result from the cause of sexual intercourse" (pari. 481), referring to the eight objects, the four causes of sexual intercourse.

In the Sattasatika Khandhaka, "The Sangha should appoint four eastern monks, four Pāveyyaka monks... appointed," etc. (cūḷava. 456) A motion with one announcement is stated, that is a procedure to be done by them, because it was said, "let this matter be settled by Ubbāhika." Or, it is fitting to do a third act of appointing. They do not become qualified for the act, having done the act, by that act. The characteristic is that one for whom the Sangha does an act is qualified for the act. But at that time, the Sangha did not do an act for those eight monks. Being shared, they partake in the state of being entitled to the act. Indeed, they are entitled to the act, because they are proper recipients of the act of settling the dispute, having been done by the Sangha. "Those monks should be formally accused by the monks up to three times for its relinquishment," (pārā. 418) it is a procedure to be done by them. If it is said that the act of appointment itself is the act? That is not so, due to knowing the intention; those monks must be made qualified for the act for its relinquishment, not by way of bias or partiality, this is the intention here. The success of settling the dispute does not happen with their act of formal accusation, as it does with the appointment of the easterners, etc.; this appointment is done only after first taking approval and requesting; the act is not like that. But in doing the act, the purpose is indeed achieved. It should be understood that many more must be appointed by the agreement of others.

Whatever one engages in, in the manner of "methunadhamma" thus, having gained a name through common usage, whether by one's own agency or by another's agency, in the insertion, entering, staying, and withdrawing of one's own organ in one's own or another's passage, or of another's organ in one's own passage, in any of these as an act of enjoyment, that person is defeated and not in contact. Some say, "If one engages in four, three, two, or one of the insertion, etc., that person is defeated. For it was said, 'If one enjoys insertion, enjoys entering, enjoys staying, enjoys withdrawal, there is an offense of defeat," etc. (pārā. 58) According to their view, one incurs four pārājika offenses in the four (instances). They themselves say thus: "Let the offense of methunadhamma-pārājika be incurred; one is a partner to it due to the methunadhamma-pārājika offense." Having incurred pārājika offenses and saṅghādisesa offenses due to one's own transgression, and having disavowed the training and becoming a householder, and incurring a pārājika such as sexual intercourse, and then going forth again and being ordained, and expiating one or many saṅghādisesa offenses, because that person becomes free from offense, therefore that person is with offense as a householder. There is indeed an offense even for one who has committed the last object. But it was not said "at each effort, there is an offense of pārājika," because of not purifying by way of rising and confession. Although it was not said because of the absence of the purpose of calculation, this meaning is established by the statement "there is an offense of pārājika" in the word analysis (pārā. 58); they also state a justification.

If so, it should be said even in the matrix list (mātikā), "whoever monk should engage in sexual intercourse, is defeated," and the statement of complete description of the pārājika would not be fitting. Since all the aggregates of offenses and the enumeration of monks remain without remainder, by making that the statement of without remainder, the offense is only at insertion, not at entering, etc. Knowing that one thing, the statement of origin and recitation should be understood as including even the pārājika offense, with "whoever would have an offense" (mahāva. 134). Therefore, in the mātikā, without saying "pārājika," the statement "is defeated" (pārā. 42, 44) is a designation of a person, for the purpose of indicating the unsuitability for ordination due to that physical bond. The statement in the word analysis, "there is an offense of pārājika," is for the purpose of indicating that even one who has committed the last object is a thief-communicant, since the pārājika person is not in contact. Even though enjoying communion, that person is a thief-communicant; therefore, the ordained one is called "monk." Therefore, it was said, "A person is impure, having committed any pārājika thing; and if, being of pure view, he speaks with the intention of scolding, causing a lack of opportunity, there is an offense of wrong-doing by way of reviling" (pārā. 389); since that is absent for one not ordained, it is established that the ordained one is called "monk," therefore, it begets disregard for the Dhamma, lying down together, and begets reporting a monk, etc. (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 39).

The difference is the origin in the matrix list, the analysis is its regulator;
Then the difference is in the offense, the non-offense is otherwise. (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 43-44) –

This is called nidāna. From that nidāna, the classification of the mātikā arose with "Whatever bhikkhu should engage in...with a bhikkhu...or non-intercourse" (pārā. 44). Here, someone could attempt to distort the meaning, like the monkey-pārājika case, by arguing, "Indeed, venerable sir, the Blessed One has established the training rule concerning a female, not a male, not an intersex person, nor one with both sets of genitals," based on the feminine gender in "even with a female animal" (pārā. 44). Therefore, this is stated to show that there is no room for such misinterpretations. The nidāna, in the form of the monkey, caused a variation in the wording of the mātikā as "even with a female animal," not merely because sexual intercourse is possible with a female. Therefore, the vibhaṅga is its determiner, the vibhaṅga is the determiner of the intended meaning of that mātikā. In the vibhaṅga, a restriction is made by closing all avenues for misinterpretation with the method such as, "three females, three intersex individuals, three eunuchs, three males. For a human female, there are three paths; for a male animal, there are two paths," (pārā. 56). Here one might say: if that is so, regarding the shared training rules or changes in gender, it should be stated in the vibhaṅga that not only bhikkhus, but also bhikkhunīs are "one who has undertaken the training and livelihood." For if it is not stated, a bhikkhunī who remains in the state of a bhikkhu due to the manifestation of male characteristics might say, "At the time of ordination, I did not undertake the training and livelihood of bhikkhus; therefore, even without disavowing the training, I am not subject to the pārājika due to sexual intercourse." It is said: What has been said should not be said, due to the undesirable consequence. If that is said, it follows that bhikkhunīs also have the disavowal of training. And that is undesirable. Another undesirable consequence is that "all training rules are shared, and none are unshared." Moreover, to show that this one has undertaken the training and livelihood of bhikkhus, it was said, "I allow, bhikkhus, to associate with that same preceptor, that same ordination, those same years" (pārā. 69). From that comes the classification of the offense, from that vibhaṅga, the classification of the offense arises, such as, "pārājika if the body is unspent, thullaccaya if mostly spent" (pārā. 73, pari. 157). Non-offense is the opposite of that, from that very vibhaṅga, a non-offense arises in a manner different from how the offense was described. For without the vibhaṅga, it would not be clear that "if one consents, there is an offense of pārājika; if one does not consent, there is no offense." Thus far, the meaning of the verse "from the nidāna comes the classification of the mātikā" has been stated in brief. However, the specific reasons will become apparent in each training rule.

The first enactment, having been enacted after surpassing the first enlightenment and having been enacted during the eighth year of Āyasmā Sudinna, was enacted when he had reached the state of seniority. The second enactment was at the time he had attained great learning. For just as a female animal is not intended in the training rules related to women, Āyasmā Makkaṭipārājiko thought, "Indeed, venerable sirs... but that is with a human female, not an animal" (pārā. 41). The third enactment arose when he had attained the state of great gain, from the statement "having eaten as much as needed," (pārā. 43) and great abundance is also obtained here. Thus, it should be understood that this first pārājika training rule was enacted after reaching all three instances, as well as reaching that fourfold time.

yo pana means the term of non-omission. Bhikkhu means the term for regulating excessive application. Bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno means its qualifying term. For not every one is called a bhikkhu, but only one who has undertaken both the training prescribed by the Blessed One, through whatever ordination, as the minimum requirement for bhikkhus to be trained in, and the livelihood that is spoken of as "living together in this." But when has one undertaken it? Immediately upon being ordained through whatever ordination, whether knowing or not knowing it, he is called one who has undertaken it, because he has committed himself to it. Saha jīvantī means until one does not disavow the training or attain the state of pārājika. But what was said in the Andhaka Aṭṭhakathā that "one who fulfills the training has undertaken the training, one who does not transgress the livelihood has undertaken the livelihood" is said according to the highest standard. For one who does not fulfill the training, who is full of thoughts of sensual pleasure, or who transgresses a certain portion of the livelihood with some remaining, is not called one who has undertaken the training and livelihood.

But a tetrad is obtained by the highest standard: "There is a bhikkhu who has undertaken the training, contemplating the precepts, but has not undertaken the livelihood, transgressing a non-serious training rule. There is one who has not undertaken the training, full of thoughts of sensual pleasure, but has undertaken the livelihood and is without offense. There is one who has not undertaken the training and has not undertaken the livelihood, incurring all the offenses. There is one who has undertaken both, fulfilling the training and not transgressing the livelihood." Here, this fourth bhikkhu, who is of the highest standard, may be intended here. If one asks, is it not fitting for the Blessed One to speak of one who is not of the highest standard? No, because it contradicts the statement that "therein, this higher training in morality is the training intended in this meaning," and if the intention were to include only the highest standard, it would be sufficient to say only "training means the three trainings." For one who has undertaken the three trainings is the most excellent. If one says that only the higher training in morality is mentioned, depending on the statement "should engage in sexual intercourse" later on? No, because that is also impossible. For one who fulfills the higher training in morality and does not transgress the livelihood is not capable of engaging in sexual intercourse. For he would engage in it only by not fulfilling that training and by transgressing the livelihood. Therefore, the meaning should be understood in this way here. Because the livelihood, which is counted as a training rule, includes only the higher training in morality, not the other two trainings, therefore it is said, "Therein, this higher training in morality is the training intended in this meaning." Therefore, the livelihood, which is included in the higher training in morality, is called sikkhāsājīva. Thus, the inclusion of "training" is done for the purpose of qualifying "livelihood". In the Vibhaṅga, without referring to the training, it is stated "he trains in that, therefore he is called one who has undertaken the livelihood" (pārā. 45) only for the purpose of illuminating that meaning. By that, it is shown that this is a single meaning. And since the authority to train begins immediately after undertaking ordination, he is called both "one who trains" and "one who has undertaken". It is suitable that this meaning: relying on such a condition, a person counted as "one who has undertaken the training and livelihood" should engage in sexual intercourse without disavowing the training that is counted as the livelihood in the latter part, and without revealing weakness in that very thing.

However, the method of the Aṭṭhakathā is rejected, but that is not worthy of rejection; an intention should be sought here. In all the training rules, this very characteristic of a bhikkhu is common, namely, "one who has undertaken the training and livelihood of bhikkhus." Even a khīṇāsava disciple incurs a non-serious offense, as does a sekkha; however, an ordinary person incurs even a serious offense. Therefore, making this characteristic of a bhikkhu common to those who are sekkha, asekha, and puthujjana, and combining them into "one who has undertaken the training and livelihood" by the method of sarūpekadesaekasesanaya, based only on the term, only on the declaration, the Aṭṭhakathā speaks only of the highest standard, since the inclusion of the non-highest is accomplished by the inclusion of the highest. To accomplish that very thing, a way around is stated by not mentioning the word "training" in "he trains in that, therefore he is called one who has undertaken the livelihood," and it should be known in meaning that because he has also undertaken the training, he is also one who has undertaken the training, and it is said that "he disavows the training he has undertaken, and without revealing weakness in the livelihood he has undertaken." This is how the Aṭṭhakathā's intention should be understood. In this intention, the inclusion of only the higher training in morality should be understood as being all-encompassing, and because morality is the subject matter, it pertains to the Vinaya. Just as one undertaking a training rule is said to be undertaking morality, so it is fitting to say that one disavowing a training rule is disavowing morality; therefore, it is stated there, "he disavows the training he has undertaken" (pārā. aṭṭha. sikkhāpaccakkhānavibhaṅgavaṇṇanā). Thus far, the discussion on what should be said in "one who has undertaken the training and livelihood" has been concluded in brief.

What is the purpose of this qualifying term? Surely, it would be sufficient to say "Whatever bhikkhu, without disavowing the training, without revealing weakness...is not in communion," but it should not be said, due to the undesirable consequence. If one argues: "Whatever bhikkhu has undertaken the training and livelihood, such as one involved in theft-communion, even if he is a bhikkhu merely by convention or merely by declaration, he also has the disavowal of training, and one who engages in sexual intercourse without disavowing the training incurs a pārājika offense. And he who subsequently incurs a pārājika offense and has not undertaken the training and livelihood, and he who is a pakkhapaṇḍaka, due to becoming a paṇḍaka, has not undertaken the training and livelihood," then it follows that both of those things exist for him. And it is said that "a paṇḍaka is not an object for ordination in the case of a paṇḍaka." Therefore, it is established that he is an object in the other case. In that case, one who is ordained, due to being a paṇḍaka in the case of a paṇḍaka, has not undertaken the training and livelihood. Since there is no training to be abandoned, if he engages in sexual intercourse by the method of grasping another's genitals with his mouth without disavowing the training, why would he incur a pārājika offense? This is the intention. This method is suitable only for one who does not obtain the apaṇḍaka case. But for one who does obtain it, just as there is no death for formless beings even when there is cessation of the subconscious in the moment of attainment of skillful states, so too, in the paṇḍaka case, there is the state of being a bhikkhu. And one who approves of association does not have the state of being a theft-communionist, like one who has committed the final matter. And he does not generate coitus etc.. But one who completes the quorum is not like one who has committed the final matter. He has not undertaken the training and livelihood. But he has it in the other case; this is his distinction from that. Is this with a cause, or without a cause? It is not without a cause. Because ordination is permitted for him in the apaṇḍaka case, due to having a conditioned rebirth. If one asks, why is it not permitted even in the paṇḍaka case? Because of being a paṇḍakabhūta, like an opakkamikapaṇḍaka.

Moreover, by "sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno," his undertaking of the training is shown, and it is fitting to say that he does not disavow that undertaken training and does not reveal weakness in that. For this reason, due to the aforementioned undesirable consequences, it is said, "Whatever bhikkhu should engage in...the training and livelihood of bhikkhus, without disavowing the training." Just as here, so too, "Whatever bhikkhu should engage in...the training and livelihood of bhikkhus, without disavowing the training, without revealing weakness, should take what is not given from a village or a forest...whatever bhikkhu should engage in...the training and livelihood of bhikkhus, without disavowing the training, without revealing weakness, should have a robe made exceeding the Sugata's robe measurement" should be connected everywhere.

"Even with a female animal" is stated including a human female. Surely, it is not fitting to say beforehand, "much less a paṇḍaka, a male." The rest is in the manner stated there. This, for now, is the determination of the mātikā, which should be connected and explained elsewhere as appropriate.

Sāriputta, Belaṭṭhasīsa, Ānanda and others also came about because of the reason for the enactment of the training rule and because of incurring offenses, why did they come about only through ñatticatuttha ordination in the Mahāvibhaṅga? Because of the fear of the undesired allowance of the rejected going-for-refuge ordination. Venerable Upatissa said: even when that is said with regard to the suitability for offenses, the bhikkhus' misunderstanding or doubt arises that even though previously rejected, it was allowed again by the Blessed One, therefore it was not said.

It is said, "by an unshakeable". Since even some unshakeable deeds are not worthy of remaining, by which it is said that the one who was ejected, was ejected well, therefore it is said, "by a worthy of remaining". If so, if only "by a worthy of remaining" should be said, would that establish "unshakeable"? No, because one ordained by an unworthy-of-remaining, unshakeable, is not intended in this meaning, due to the undesired consequence. But when these two are said together, this meaning is known: one ordained merely by that unshakeable is also a bhikkhu intended in this meaning, and one ordained by a worthy-of-remaining and an unshakeable is also a bhikkhu intended in this meaning, but one ordained by a shakeable is not intended.

"From conception until not fully twenty years old": Because it is said thus, those nuns who are sixteen years old by designation, being of spontaneous birth, say, "Not fully twenty years old from conception." Because it is said, "They are sixteen years old by designation," four more years should be desired. Some say, "This 'from conception' is stated in relation to those dwelling in the womb." Wherever "Some say" is written, one should investigate and carefully discern the meaning. In the case of one who becomes a eunuch due to effort (opakkamika), the condition of being a eunuch should be understood by the method of prevalence (āruḷhanaya). It is written: "Having expelled a half-eunuch (pakkhapaṇḍaka) to the side of the non-eunuchs (apaṇḍakapakkha), he should be destroyed on the side of the eunuchs" (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 109).

"He is not a thief-communicant": They say, it should be investigated. "According to the sign": The intention is that the communication of a novice's secret has been tasted.

Even if there is a deceptive thought in those whose signs are concealed due to fear of the king, etc., that "Let the laypeople know me as a 'monk'," no offense arises because of the absence of an intention to deceive the monks and an intention to associate with them. One does not know, "He who ordains thus is called a thief-communicant," or "It is not permissible to do this," or "A novice ordained thus is not a sāmaṇera," it is allowable. And it is written, "He knows, it is not allowable." One who, for the sake of fear of the king or famine, etc., puts on robes and approves of association is a thief-communicant. Why? Because of impure intention. Again, as long as he does not consent to association with a pure mind, thinking, "I will lead the pure spiritual life; what is the use of this?" due to remorse or the easy availability of requisites, etc., he is not a thief-communicant. If he consents to association from the arising of such a pure thought, then he is considered a thief-communicant. Otherwise, everything contradicts, so say some.

"He is a parricide," they say.

"A defiler of a bhikkhuni": Because of the statement "of the three paths." However, having defiled a bhikkhuni who is fully ordained on both sides, he is also a defiler of a bhikkhuni; that too is a pārājika, this is the judgment. But a bhikkhuni can be a thief-communicant, a matricide, a parricide, one who causes the shedding of blood of an arahant, or one who has gone over to the side of the heretics; the Vinaya masters accept this as not yet arrived in the commentaries.

Precept (sikkhāpada): An unnatural state is only a convention; here, a regulation (paññatti) is intended. In the Samantapāsādikā it is said, "This is a designation for the restraint from sexual intercourse"; it is written that this refers to that meaning. Training (sikkhā): That particular training rule (sikkhāpada), the state of mind proceeding by way of training. Living (sājīva): Regulation (paññatti). To show that meaning, it was previously said, "This is a designation for the restraint from sexual intercourse." Since, due to the absence of the quality esteemed by training, the merit esteemed by training, and the basis for the lineage (tanti), the weakness of the world, the transgression, is not possible there. For that is desirable; therefore, "And having undertaken a living (sājīva), without revealing weakness in that," is said. For weakness is possible by command (āṇā), says Upatissa. The term "weakness transgression" should be understood either by the congruence of the expressions with the term "rejection of the training" or by the nature of being an auxiliary (parivāra). Or, since a certain weakness transgression of the rejection of the training is not done, therefore, clarifying the meaning of the phrase "without rejecting the training," he said "without revealing weakness." Here, it might be asked, since not all weakness transgression is the rejection of the training, why, having first said "without revealing weakness," must he say "without rejecting the training" for the purpose of fixing its meaning? That is not so. Why? Because of the absence of order of meaning. For because it is said "having undertaken training and a living," it means that if it is said, "without rejecting the training that has been undertaken, and without revealing weakness in the living that has been undertaken," the meaning is stated in order, not otherwise. Therefore, this alone is stated first. "Of those very ones": Of the fourteen.

"This is a sub-regulation here," is said.

Insertion (pavesana) means the touching of the organ of generation by the organ of generation of one who is inserting. Entered (paviṭṭha) means the time of disturbance or the time of exertion (vāyāma) of one who is inserting as far as the base. At the time of semen emission, the organ of generation is said to be still (ṭhita). Withdrawal (uddharaṇa) means the time of removing. However, in the Vinayagaṇṭhipada it is said, "Having subsided from exertion, the state of being still is called still (ṭhita)"; that is said to show the absence of confusion. Semen emission can occur even at the times of insertion, entry, and withdrawal. Consenting (sādiyana) means the arising of a mind of enjoyment, a mind of acceptance.

"For this is the source of all the training rules (sikkhāpada)," is said. Because it is said, "Ordination by a group with five Vinaya-holders" (Mahāva. 259), here the third is stated with instrumental force. Therefore, even if twenty monks are seated, only the fifth who is a Vinaya-holder should be desired. If that is so, if the Vinaya-holder is a pārājika, does he invalidate the ordination procedure? No, because in the Kammavagga (pari. 482 ff.) at the end of the Parivāra, the characteristic of procedural failure that is stated is not present in him. So much is stated: "Whether in terms of the substance, or in terms of the announcement, or in terms of the proclamation, or in terms of the boundary, or in terms of the assembly." But is this not included by the statement "or in terms of the assembly"? No, because in the analysis of the sutta "procedures fail in twelve ways due to the assembly" (pari. 487), it is not touched upon. Since this meaning can be known from the texts stated in their own form in various places, it is written having shown a method, briefly. Having extracted the term "factor (aṅga)," it is said, "In all the training rules, the factors and non-factors of the offenses should be understood." However, here "factor (aṅga)" is stated, why? Because the origin (samuṭṭhāna), etc., have come briefly in the Parivāra, etc.; because of the absence of a determination of the non-factors that have not been specified here, having taken them there; and because when non-factors are stated everywhere both briefly and extensively, there would be excessive elaboration, and because it is necessary to state without deficiency in that particular training rule, this should be understood as being by way of including all offenses.

Those training rules that are called "actions (kiriya)" should be understood in terms of body and speech together with intimation (viññatti); those that are non-actions (akiriya) should be understood without intimation. Here, the mind is immeasurable because the arising from making known a truth (bhūtārocanasamuṭṭhāna) is action (kiriya), and because it is non-mental (acittaka). There, action (kiriya) should be understood as arising from an offense, a non-factor mind. A certain thing that does not generate intimation (aviññatti) is also called "action (kiriya)" in the manner of preponderance, just like the first pārājika. Even in the absence of intimation, it is said, "If he consents, there is an offense of pārājika; if he does not consent, there is no offense," for an action called intimation does not occur without a mind of enjoyment, because it is born of the mind that has been stated, because it is a transformed form, and because it is transformative of the mind. Therefore, this form of intimation called action (kiriya), like the other form born of mind, does not stand without the generating mind; the other, the sound base, stands. Therefore, because when there is action, there is certainly a generating mind of enjoyment, it is not fitting that "he does not consent, there is no offense." Since even the same generating mind of enjoyment does not always generate intimation, therefore, thinking that it arises by itself even without intimation, it is said, "If he consents, there is an offense of pārājika." If it does not arise, it is not called consenting; for him there is no offense. Therefore, the Blessed One determines the offense by the mind alone, asking "With what mind, monk?" (pārā. 135), not by the action; this should be understood.

The taking up of origin (samuṭṭhāna) has the purpose of showing that one incurs an offense only by depending on the distinction of body, etc., whether something is to be done or not to be done, not otherwise. Among these, the taking up of action (kiriya) has the purpose of showing the distinction of body, etc., as having and not having intimation. The taking up of perception (saññā) has the purpose of showing the distinction of the mind that is a factor and a non-factor of the offense. Therefore, the mind that is present in a characteristic of action or in a characteristic of non-action, or from which action or non-action occurs, that is not without distinction a factor or a non-factor of the offense. But it is shown that the mind associated with the perception that is called "release from perception (saññāvimokkha)" is a factor, the other is a non-factor. Now, the training rule is intentional (sacittaka) by the mind with which it is [undertaken], and unintentional (acittaka) due to the absence of that; therefore, because of its indiscriminately being blameworthy, it is said "blameworthy in the world (lokavajja) only." But the taking up of mind-world-blameworthy (cittalokavajja) has the purpose of showing that although blameworthy, a certain thing is blameworthy in the world, a certain thing is blameworthy by regulation (paṇṇattivajja). Since the mind alone is called "blameworthy in the world," there might be an undesired consequence that mental action would also be an offense; the taking up of action (kamma) [in the phrase manokamma] has the purpose of preventing that.

The taking up of wholesome triad (kusalattika). Here, the indeterminate offense (abyākata), a certain one who is attaining cessation also incurs it; the feeling triad (vedanāttika) is not obtained here, the taking up of feeling triad (vedanāttika) has the purpose of preventing the undesired consequence. For a training rule is spoken of as "three minds, three feelings" in terms of an intentional person, even when one who is unintentionally offending is also called "three minds, three feelings." There, this is a probative sutta: "There is an offense; an unintentional one incurs it; an unintentional one emerges from it (pari. 324); there is an offense; one with a wholesome mind incurs it; one with a wholesome mind emerges from it," and so forth (pari. 470). It is written: "The intentional reveals the offense; the release from perception reveals the non-offense; the unintentional is not knowing the object; the non-release from perception is not knowing the transgression. This is the distinction of these" (Vajira. ṭī. pārājika 61-66 pakiṇṇakakathāvaṇṇanā).

Here, in the intentional side (sacittakapakkha), this is the method of the Gaṇṭhipada: "the intentional side (sacittakapakkha)" is said referring to unintentional things like drinking alcohol. But among intentional things, that which arises entirely from the unwholesome is called both blameworthy in the world (lokavajja). For in drinking alcohol, it is entirely unwholesome to drink knowing "alcohol" or "it is not allowable to drink." There, the stated statement "knowing that it is not allowable" does not fit because of the consequence that the blameworthy by regulation (paṇṇattivajja) would also be blameworthy in the world (lokavajja). Desiring to avoid this undesired consequence, Vajirabuddhi Thera wrote: "Here, the consideration of 'intentional' and 'unintentional' occurs only in knowing the object, not in knowing the regulation. If it were in knowing the regulation, all the training rules would be blameworthy in the world only, and not all the training rules are blameworthy in the world. Therefore, it is fitting that it occurs only in knowing the object. Why? Because in the sekhiya rules, knowing the regulation alone is the measure, not just knowing the object." Here, the meaning is this: Having taken the offense by way of the training rule, that training rule whose intentional mind is entirely unwholesome, that is blameworthy in the world, and the mind on the intentional side of that which is called intentional and unintentional, and of the unintentional, is entirely unwholesome; that too is the blameworthy in the world like drinking alcohol; referring to this meaning "That whose mind on the intentional side is entirely unwholesome, that is called blameworthy in the world" is said. For this statement "on the intentional side (sacittakapakkhe)" refers to the unintentional. For there is no purpose in a specification such as "on the intentional side" for that which is entirely intentional. Even so, it means that what is stated indefinitely should be taken specifically.

But for animals (tiracchāna): The pana-particle (saddena) excludes the serious offense (thullaccaya), etc. Action (kiriya): Here, if it is said, "how is it said 'he consents to standing' (pārā. 58)?", it is action (kiriya) indeed because "he consents" is said. If it is so, should it be said, "bodily action, mental action"? No, because "bodily action" is said in the manner of prevalent usage. It is obtained by the raised knee-circle, it is written. It should be taken having compared it with the previously stated method. By saying, "For the meaning of a poorly placed word, bhikkhus, is poorly conveyed" (a. ni. 2.20), the well-placed nature of the word is desired only for easy grasp of the meaning, not for the sake of the letters; therefore he said, "For the meaning, the protector (nātha) declared the refuge."

The Commentary on the First Pārājika is Finished.

2. Commentary on the Second Pārājika

Gāmā vā araññā vā (Whether a village or a forest): This was mentioned at the beginning because it serves as a marker and guide. In the entire Vinaya Piṭaka, one should understand the fivefold distinction of gāma (village): gāma, gāmūpacāra (village vicinity), gāmakkhetta (village field), gāmasīmā (village boundary), and gāmasīmūpacāra (village boundary vicinity). Similarly, one should understand the fivefold distinction of arañña (forest): an arañña without a village within the āraññakasīmā (forest boundary), one for the saṃvidhānasikkhāpada (rules regarding pre-arrangement) (beginning with pāci. 180), one with a village, one within the avippavāsasīmā (non-separation boundary), and one for those who are excluded from the gaṇa (group) (pāci. 691). Among these, there is a gāma that never obtains the benefits of a village anywhere, and there is a gāma that does not perform village duties. Similarly, there is an arañña that never obtains the benefits of a forest anywhere, and there is an arañña that does not perform forest duties. This distinction, too, should be understood.

Gāmo (Village): If it is enclosed, it should be understood as the area within the enclosure; if it is unenclosed, it should be understood as the area within the range of the vicinity. This appears as "antogāmo (inner village)" in the udositasikkhāpada (rule about dwelling) (pārā. 478). In the sāsaṅkasikkhāpada (rule about suspicion), "antaraghara (inner house)" appears (pārā. 654) without suspicion. As it is said, "One should deposit it in the antaraghara, that is, one should deposit it in the gocaragāma (pasture village) all around" (pārā. 654). Likewise, this same delineation should be understood for the sekhiya rules connected with antaraghara. Here also, in "Yā pana bhikkhunī ekā gāmantaraṃ gaccheyyā (Whatever bhikkhuni should go alone to another village)" (pāci. 687), this same delineation is intended, because it is said, "for one who goes beyond the enclosure of an enclosed village, for one who goes beyond the vicinity of an unenclosed village."

purāṇapotthakesu (In ancient books), "upacāraṃ okkamantiyā (transgressing the vicinity)" is written; that is written by mistake, taking the practice customary in the rules about entering a village at the wrong time, and it is not authoritative. And in the potthakesu (books) in which it is written in the vibhaṅga (analysis) (pāci. 513) of the rule about entering a village at the wrong time, "gāmaṃ paviseyyāti (enters a village), that is, for one who goes beyond the enclosure of an enclosed village, for one who goes beyond the vicinity of an unenclosed village," that is a mistaken writing. The reading there is "Upacāraṃ okkamantassa (transgressing the vicinity)." For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā, "The vicinity of an unenclosed village should be understood in the same way as stated in the case of taking what is not given" (pāci. aṭṭha. 512). Here in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī it is also said, "Without asking a bhikkhu who is present...pe... for one who transgresses the vicinity," etc. (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. vikālagāmappavesanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā).

katthaci potthake (In some books), "In the context of a bhikkhuni going to another village, if with one foot she goes beyond the enclosure of the other village, or transgresses the vicinity, there is a thullaccaya offense; as soon as she goes beyond with the second, or as soon as she transgresses, there is a saṅghādisesa offense," such a reading is seen. There, "okkante, okkantamatte (transgresses, as soon as she transgresses)," these words are additional, written only by those who have written differently. katthaci potthake (In some books), the word "okkantamatte cā (and as soon as she transgresses)" is not seen, but the other is seen. Those two words contradict the Pali. For the Pali is "Aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāraṃ atikkāmentiyā (for one who goes beyond the vicinity of an unenclosed village)" (pāci. 692). Similarly, they contradict the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 692). "She transgresses a place suitable for an enclosure with one foot, there is a thullaccaya offense; she transgresses with the second, there is a saṅghādisesa offense. Moreover, here, from her own village...pe... if with one foot she goes beyond the enclosure or vicinity of the other village, there is a thullaccaya offense; as soon as she goes beyond with the second, there is a saṅghādisesa offense" (pāci. aṭṭha. 692) is what is said.

In the Gaṇṭhipada, after saying "parikkhepaṃ atikkāmentiyā (for one who goes beyond the enclosure)," it is said, "the same method applies to the vicinity." And in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said, "In some books, 'okkamantiyā (transgressing)' is seen for the vicinity of an unenclosed village; that should not be accepted." And it is also said, "Even with the statement 'atikkāmentiyā (going beyond)' for the vicinity of an unenclosed village, it should be understood thus: in the case of entering a village at the wrong time, the vicinity should be defined based on two stone's throws; otherwise, just as here, having treated a place suitable for an enclosure as an enclosure, it is said 'atikkāmentiyā (going beyond)', so too there, one would say 'atikkāmentassa (going beyond)' for the vicinity of an unenclosed village. But since there, one stone's throw beyond a place suitable for an enclosure is intended as the vicinity. Therefore, to illuminate that meaning, 'upacāraṃ okkamantassā (transgressing the vicinity)' is said."

In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, having considered a place suitable for an enclosure as the vicinity itself, it is said, "To indicate the non-difference between the enclosure and a place suitable for an enclosure, 'upacāraṃ okkamantassā (transgressing the vicinity)' is said," without considering the specific wording of the Pali. "For one who goes beyond the vicinity of an unenclosed village, here, if the vicinity were to be like an enclosure, for one who goes beyond that vicinity with the first foot, there is an offense of dukkata; for one who goes beyond with the second foot, there is an offense of pācittiya," is what is said; that should not be accepted, precisely because there is a special possibility in the Pali. In the Porāṇagaṇṭhipada, "For a bhikkhuni who goes beyond the vicinity, there is an offense of going to another village," is said. Therefore, here in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, "ekena pādena itarassa…pe… atikkantamatte saṅghādiseso (as soon as she goes beyond with one foot...pe... there is a saṅghādisesa offense)," this same reading should be understood. To this extent, in these places as stated, the village should be understood only as the delineation as stated. To illuminate this meaning, "gāmo nāma ekakuṭikopī (a village is even a single hut)," etc. (pārā. 92) is said. Based on this, even if there is no transgression of an enclosure or transgression of a vicinity, because of going back from within an ārāma (monastery), or from a bhikkhuni's residence, or from a titthiya's (sectarian) dwelling, or from a retreat, offenses due to a village should be understood because of the transgression of the enclosure or vicinity of the inner ārāma.

Gāmūpacāro (Village Vicinity), however, is the enclosure of an enclosed village, or the range of vicinity of an unenclosed village, as in "ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcā (excepting the village and village vicinity)" (mahāva. 144). For this was said in the commentary, "gāmūpacāroti (village vicinity): the enclosure of an enclosed village, the range of vicinity of an unenclosed village. A bhikkhu dwelling in dependence on the three robes does not obtain exemption in those places" (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144). What is the reason here, whereby this village and village vicinity are different here, and the same elsewhere? Because of the arising of the incident, "tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū ‘bhagavatā ticīvarena avippavāsasammuti anuññātā’ti antaraghare cīvarāni nikkhipantī (at that time, bhikkhus, thinking 'the Blessed One has allowed the agreement of non-separation with the three robes', were depositing their robes in the inner house)" (mahāva. 143). Because of this arising of the incident, "ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcā (excepting the village and village vicinity)" (mahāva. 144) was said. Therefore, where there is the perception of an inner house, the avippavāsasīmā (non-separation boundary) does not extend; this should be understood. And because of that, in the udositasikkhāpada (rule about dwelling) it is said, "antogāme cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā antogāme vatthabbaṃ (having deposited the robe in the inner village, one should dwell in the inner village)" (pārā. 478) and "sabhāye vā dvāramūle vā, hatthapāsā vā na vijahitabba (whether in the assembly hall or at the foot of a doorway, or within arm's reach, it should not be left behind)." For one who dwells on allowable ground protects a robe deposited on allowable ground. In the sāsaṅkasikkhāpada (rule about suspicion), however, it is said, "Since one who separates from the robe by separating from the village in which the robe is deposited is said to be separating from the robe, therefore, having re-entered the village boundary, dwelling, and departing…". In that rule, gāmasīmā (village boundary) is intended as the village. There, in the vibhaṅga (analysis) of the rule about entering a village at the wrong time, "parikkhittassa gāmassa parikkhepaṃ atikkamantassa āpatti pācittiyassa (for one who goes beyond the enclosure of an enclosed village, there is an offense of pācittiya)" (pāci. 513) is said; therefore, the enclosure is not the village. But it is shown indirectly as the village vicinity. However, in the sikkhāpadavibhaṅga (analysis of the rule), beginning with "gāmūpacāro nāmā (village vicinity is)", "aparikkhittassa gāmassa gharūpacāre ṭhitassa majjhimassa purisassa leḍḍupāto (for an unenclosed village, a stone's throw by an average man standing in the house vicinity)" establishes the range of vicinity as the village vicinity of an unenclosed village. Because of the possibility of that meaning, in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā and Mahāpaccariya, it is said that a stone's throw by one standing in that house vicinity is the village vicinity. For the vicinity is the doorway in "gāmo ekūpacāro nānūpacāro (a village is of one vicinity, not of various vicinities)," etc.; here, in "ajjhokāso ekūpacāro (open space is of one vicinity)," the extent is counted as seven spans all around. Therefore, it should be understood that in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā it is said, "gāmūpacāroti parikkhittassa gāmassa parikkhepo, aparikkhittassa gāmassa parikkhepokāso (village vicinity is the enclosure of an enclosed village, the range of vicinity of an unenclosed village)." Similarly in the Kurundiyaṃ and Mahāpaccariyañca. Similarly, in the Pali also, "ajjhārāmo nāma parikkhittassa ārāmassa anto ārāmo, aparikkhittassa upacāro. Ajjhāvasatho nāma parikkhittassa āvasathassa anto āvasatho, aparikkhittassa upacāro (an inner ārāma is the ārāma inside the enclosure of an enclosed ārāma, the vicinity of an unenclosed one. An inner dwelling is the dwelling inside the enclosure of an enclosed dwelling, the vicinity of an unenclosed one)," etc., is seen. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, however, "gāmūpacāro (village vicinity)," etc., is seen. Therefore, the second stone's throw is intended as the vicinity.

Because of the specific possibility of the Pali, "Aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāraṃ okkamantassa āpatti pācittiyassa (for one who transgresses the vicinity of an unenclosed village, there is an offense of pācittiya)," the first stone's throw is the village itself, and the second is said to be the village vicinity. But there is no difference here in saying that for an enclosed village, a stone's throw by an average man standing at the indakhīla (town pillar) is the village vicinity. To this extent, all that is possible and not possible, where there are two types of vicinity for an enclosed village, and four types of vicinity for an unenclosed village, is shown.

The definitions of gāmakhetta (village field) and gāmasīmā (village boundary) are stated in the commentary itself. Both are, in meaning, the same. There, the state of being a village of the gāmasīmā should be understood in terms of the sāsaṅkasikkhāpada (rule about suspicion).

Gāmasīmūpacāro (Village Boundary Vicinity) is the place of resort for people and forest dwellers who desire wood, grass, flowers, fruits, etc. The state of being a village boundary vicinity of this should be understood in the udositasikkhāpada (rule about dwelling), and in the khandhaka (section) (mahāva. 147) in the place where "agāmake araññe samantā sattabbhantarā (in a forest without a village, seven spans all around)" (pārā. 494) appears. Here, showing the boundary to the bhikkhus dwelling near a village, the Blessed One says, "yaṃ gāmaṃ vā nigamaṃ vā upanissāya viharati (who dwells in dependence on a village or market town)" (mahāva. 147), and shows it. Immediately after that, he shows the seven-span boundary with "agāmake (without a village)," etc. Therefore, it should be understood that a bhikkhu who does not dwell in dependence on a village or market town, but is only following the path on a journey, whether by boat or by land, obtains a seven-span boundary there and there. For it is said, "ekakulassa sattho hoti, satthe cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā purato vā pacchato vā sattabbhantarā na vijahitabba (there is a caravan of one family; having deposited the robe in the caravan, it should not be left behind within seven spans, whether in front or behind)," etc. (pārā. 489). This same forest is said as "āraññakasīmāya ekaṃ agāmakaṃ arañña (a forest without a village within the forest boundary)."

saṃvidhānasikkhāpadānaṃ ekaṃ agāmakaṃ araññaṃ (A forest without a village for the rules regarding pre-arrangement).

Idaṃ āraññakasenāsanaṃ (This forest dwelling), outside the enclosure of an enclosed area, but outside the range of vicinity of an unenclosed area, is called a forest, whether wooded or unwooded, even if the vihāra (monastery) is crowded with bushes and the like. Similarly, "gaṇamhā ohīyanakassa eka (one for those who are excluded from the gaṇa (group))" is said. This is just like a forest. However, having initially been of the nature of without a village in the place where it appeared earlier, having the characteristics stated, once one goes out and leaves behind the indakhīla (town pillar), the area within sight, or the vicinity, it causes only one offense; above that, there is no offense. However, "saṃvidhānasikkhāpadānaṃ eka (one for the rules regarding pre-arrangement)" causes one offense for every half yojana (league), not less than that. The other three do not accomplish the stated procedure in those places within the delineation as stated; beyond that, they do accomplish it. Thus, the distinct differences among these should be understood.

sagāmakaṃ (With a village) exists.

Avippavāsasīmāya ekaṃ (One within the non-separation boundary): "na, bhikkhave, bhikkhuniyā araññe vatthabbaṃ, yā vaseyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā (bhikkhus, a bhikkhuni should not dwell in the forest; whoever should dwell, there is an offense of dukkata)" (cūḷava. 431). From that statement, it is established that there is no dwelling in the forest for bhikkhunis. For her, if there is a bhikkhus' residence in the forest, there is an offense for a second one leaving behind the area within sight and sound, even within an inner dwelling. Therefore, in the context of the avippavāsasīmā (non-separation boundary), the place that is excepted in "ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcā (excepting the village and village vicinity)" (mahāva. 144) is where a bhikkhuni's residence is also allowable, not beyond that.

And in their avippavāsasīmākammavācāyaṃ (declaration of non-separation boundary act), having made the statement "ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcā (excepting the village and village vicinity)" not exist, it extends in those same villages and village vicinities. Beyond that, in the second stone's throw, etc., because those places are not allowable ground for them, the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā (boundary of common dwelling) does not extend in the forest like the village and village vicinity for bhikkhus. Therefore, it is said, "bhikkhuniyā ṭhapetvā gāmantarāpatti (for a bhikkhuni, except for the offense of going to another village)."

The distinction beginning with "‘atthi gāmo na gāmaparihāraṃ katthaci labhatī’" should be understood. Therein, that village which is stated in the Commentary as "amanusso nāma yo sabbaso vā manussānaṃ abhāvena yakkhapariggahabhūto" (unmanned because it is entirely devoid of humans and possessed by Yakkhas), does not obtain any exemption of a village anywhere in the training rule. Indeed, it is with reference to this that it is stated in the Commentary, "taṃ panetaṃ buddhakāle, cakkavattikāle ca nagaraṃ hoti, sesakāle suññaṃ hoti yakkhapariggahita"nti (during the time of the Buddhas and Universal Monarchs, it is a city, but at other times it is empty and possessed by Yakkhas). But that which, being plundered by insurgent kings or thieves, or abandoned purely out of fear, is a village with houses, but is virtually a disappeared village, that generates the Pācittiya, stated as "gāmantare gāmantare āpatti pācittiyassā" (pāci. 183), and entering a village at the wrong time, it should be understood that it generates the four Sekhiyas. But that village from which humans have departed because they wish to come again for some reason or another, that "amanusso" is just like a natural village.

Herein, in Atthi araññaṃ na araññaparihāraṃ katthaci labhatī "ajjhokāso ekūpacāro nāma agāmake araññe samantā sattabbhantarā ekūpacāro, tato paraṃ nānūpacāro"ti (ajjhokāso ekūpacāro is the area within seven abbbhantaras all around in a non-village forest, ekūpacāro, beyond that nānūpacāro) (pārā. 494). That which is mentioned as nānūpacāro there, that should be understood. But that village which is within a boundary, defined as one clod-throw distance, called gāmūpacāra, or that which is a caravan not settled for more than four months, that atthi gāmo na gāmakiccaṃ karoti (is a village, but does not perform village functions). Indeed, one who steps into that place does not incur an offense for entering a village. But that forest which is included within the village boundary, and is a place of resort for humans, that is called atthi araññaṃ na araññakiccaṃ karoti (a forest, but does not perform forest functions). Indeed, the boundary of a forest dwelling is not available there. Thus, the characteristic and definition of this supplementary rule, "gāmā vā araññā vā" is shown.

Herein, in "Gonisādiniviṭṭhopi gāmo" (even a village settled by Gonisādins), if that village has a defined village field, all of it is one village. If not, it should be defined by proximity or boundary. If, in the presence of a village field, some of those houses are made far apart, going beyond a place sufficient for mutual proximity, then in entering the village at the wrong time, proximity is the measure. In the Sekhiyas connected with intervening houses, and in the Bhikkhunī's offenses for (going to) another village, the space worthy of enclosure of the houses is the measure, the village field is the measure for Uposatha, etc., acts, and from the second clod-throw of the house nearest to the forest dwelling, up to a distance of five hundred bow-lengths is the measure—thus the teachers do not consider it so.

From the statement in the Commentary, "Yampi ekasmiṃyeva gāmakhette ekaṃ padesaṃ ‘ayampi visuṃgāmo hotū’ti paricchinditvā rājā kassaci deti, sopi visuṃgāmasīmā hotiyevā"ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) (Even when in one village field, the king demarcates one area, saying, ‘Let this also be a separate village,’ that also is indeed a separate village boundary), a Bhikkhunī entering that village incurs an offense for (going to) another village. If there is no monastery there, or a temple, or a hall, or a house, but there is only the land itself, all Vinaya acts are allowable there, for it is stated, "Amanusso gāmo" (an unmanned village). And if that place is within the boundary or proximity of the other village, one should go (there) at the wrong time only after asking permission. If not, one should go as one pleases, as in a forest. And if there is a park there, or any one of the Titthiya's lodgings, it is allowable. If there is a Bhikkhunī's residence, a Bhikkhunī entering the village for alms should avoid the offense of (going to) another village. Herein, in "Araññaṃ nāma ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca avasesaṃ araññaṃ nāmā"ti (pārā. 92) (The forest is named, leaving out the village and the village proximity, the remainder is named forest), if there is a boundary, the remainder, leaving out the village itself according to the aforementioned definition, is its proximity, and beyond that is named forest, and if there is no boundary, the intention is that the remainder beyond the village proximity itself, leaving it out according to the aforementioned definition, is named forest. Thus, the Vinaya rule such as the offense of being excluded from the group in a non-village forest with the characteristic stated as "nikkhamitvā bahi indakhīlā sabbametaṃ arañña"nti (vibha. 529) (having gone out beyond the Indakhīla, all this is forest), the covering of the non-departure boundary there, and non-offense for entering the village at the wrong time, is consistent; otherwise it is not consistent.

If, when it is stated, "Ṭhapetvā gāmūpacāraṃ avasesaṃ araññaṃ nāmā"ti (mahāva. 144) (leaving out the village proximity, the remainder is named forest), it is established that beyond the village proximity is the forest, the special meaning of "ṭhapetvā gāma" (leaving out the village) is not seen; if it is said that it is stated for fear of the village becoming a forest? No, because of the possibility of the absence of village proximity. For, if there is a village, there is village proximity, and that, according to your opinion, has become a forest. Where now is the village proximity? And if the village proximity also goes to the reckoning of forest, it is not proper to make "beyond is the village," and because of the possibility of the village becoming a forest. Therefore, herein, in "gāmā vā araññā vā" (village or forest), the village proximity is also included as "gāmo" (village). Therefore, the possibility of the village becoming a forest is not consistent. If so, if it should be stated so much as "ṭhapetvā gāmaṃ avasesaṃ araññaṃ nāmā"ti (leaving out the village, the remainder is named forest)? No, because of the possibility of not knowing the definition of the forest. For it is stated, "the definition of the forest is not evident." Here, the limit of the village proximity is called the village. If so, if it should be stated in the Commentary, "for the purpose of showing the definition of the village and the forest," why is it stated, "for the purpose of showing the definition of the forest?" It is said—the Commentary teacher stated "for the purpose of showing the definition of the forest," referring to the first village proximity alone. For in all the training rules, the village proximity beginning from the outer Indakhīla is called the forest. Herein, there is no purpose in the statement of the definition of the village, because it is very evident by the boundary. The second village proximity alone is stated for the purpose of showing the definition of the village because of its non-evidence due to being a boundary. If the first village proximity is stated for the purpose of showing the definition of the forest, it should not be stated there. "Nikkhamitvā indakhīlā sabbametaṃ arañña"nti (having gone out beyond the Indakhīla, all this is forest) should be stated. Thus, the definition of the forest is shown very clearly, and there is no wrong grasp.

It is stated, the determination of that which is stated in mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ. If it is asked how it is evident? Because of having made the extraction of "gāmūpacāro nāmā"ti (village proximity is named) without extracting the phrase "Araññaṃ nāmā"ti (the forest is named). Therein, extracting a phrase not existing in the matrix "gāmūpacāro nāmā"ti (village proximity is named), he shows three meanings. That is to say—showing the definition of the forest is one meaning, showing the definition of the un-bounded village together with the proximity is one, not only should the proximity of the un-bounded be shown as useful in the Vinaya authority, the proximity of the bounded, even without purpose, is obtained by this method, that should also be understood as one purpose of inference.

Bhagavā spoke this, "Aparikkhittassa gāmassa gharūpacāre ṭhitassa majjhimassa purisassa leḍḍupāto" (the throw of a clod by an average man standing in the house proximity of an un-bounded village), with regard to three meanings. That is to say—showing the definition of the un-bounded village is one, in the non-departure boundary authority, this very village proximity (gāmūpacāro) is what it is, showing that is one, the second clod-throw standing there is the proximity with its functions in all the training rules connected with the village, showing that is one—thus, it should be understood that the Blessed One shows three meanings by the extraction of each phrase through the attainment of his skill in expounding.

It is stated in gaṇṭhipade. "Since in the Sekhiyas connected with intervening houses, an intervening park is impossible, an intervening park does not go to the reckoning of a village, therefore, even there, the non-departure boundary grows"—some (say). Those monks, showing the non-existence of the second avippavāsakammavācā for them because of the non-being of the second village proximity as a village, should be rejected. But an intervening park, being both a village and allowable ground like a Titthiya's lodging, etc., should be understood.

In the exposition of the training rules relating to the village,For showing the definition of the offense, and also of the non-offense,Two villages and village proximities were shown here by the wise one.But boundaries and boundary proximities, being indefinite, are removed.And proximities are twofold, outer and inner.If there are divisions into bounded and un-bounded, there would be four.

The word upacāra (proximity) is seen in the Vinaya Piṭaka in the outer proximity in instances such as, "anujānāmi, bhikkhave, agilānenapi ārāme ārāmūpacāre chattaṃ dhāretu"nti (cūḷava. 270) (I allow, monks, even for one who is not ill, to carry an umbrella in a park or in the proximity of a park). The outer proximity is one clod-throw from the boundary, or from the space worthy of a boundary. But in instances such as "Ajjhārāmo nāma parikkhittassa ārāmassa antoārāmo, aparikkhittassa upacāro. Ajjhāvasatho nāma parikkhittassa āvasathassa antoāvasatho, aparikkhittassa upacāro"tiādīsu (pāci. 506) (Ajjhārāmo is the inner park of a bounded park, the proximity of an un-bounded one. Ajjhāvasatho is the inner dwelling of a bounded dwelling, the proximity of an un-bounded one), the word upacāra is seen in the inner proximity. And the inner proximity is the boundary, and is the space worthy of a boundary. Here, however, the boundary is not called "ajjhārāmo, ajjhāvasatho" (inner park, inner dwelling), but only "anto eva ārāmo, āvasatho" (inner park or dwelling). In those two proximities divided into outer and inner, here in the non-departure boundary authority, "ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcā"ti (mahāva. 144) (leaving out the village and the village proximity), the village proximity is intended as the inner proximity, not the outer. Because of the Bhikkhunī’s designation of forest, that outer (proximity) is the place for that Bhikkhunī’s offense of (going to) another village, and because of the inner proximity—these two reasons should be understood here. Therein, here in the Adinnādāna Pārājika Vibhaṅga alone, the first village proximity is shown; that should be understood as outer, the second as inner. And it should be understood that by the first, the outer proximity, defined as the second clod-throw of the un-bounded village, and by the second, the inner proximity, defined as the outer boundary of the bounded village, are shown slightly. Thus, these four proximities are shown here by the Blessed One through the style of exposition attained by his skill in expounding; this method should be well observed and connected there as appropriate by the teachers. Otherwise—

One who is ignorant of the Vinaya, not understandingThe Buddha’s great power,And the profundity of the Dhamma’s guidance,That hard-to-see one is the cause of the destruction of the Dispensation.

He who destroys the Pāḷi and its meaning, not understandingThe principles of the Commentary,And, deciding against their will, the village to others,They alone are honored by him as the village.

Here, "Pubbappayogeti," regarding the clearing of the path at the time of traveling, there is a dukkaṭa offense in a non-āpatti area, and only a pācittiya for cutting creepers, etc. However, if one goes and cuts creepers, etc., growing on top of a pot, there is a dukkaṭa offense because of the simultaneous effort. "If a load is heavy on one item like this, and having agreed, 'You take one side, and I will take one side,' if it is moved from its place by the effort of both, it arises from body, speech, and mind. Otherwise, either the self-handed act or the command is not a part of the instructed act, or the instructed act is not a part of the self-handed act, which contradicts the stated characteristic," is written in the Vinayagaṇṭhipada. The word "Pi" is written there in the same place.

The arising from body and speech, of whichever offense there may be;
There, the verbal element, like the mental, is destroyed as a deed.

And whatever is inactivity or activity, or whatever threefold action may be;
That is not fitting because of contradiction; only a single action is fitting. (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 131 pakiṇṇakakathāvaṇṇanā);

The Commentary on the Second Pārājika is Concluded.

3. Commentary on the Third Pārājika

It was said, "jīvitā voropeyyāti" (should deprive of life). Because it was said, "Manussaviggahanti" (human being), to show from the very subtle state of existence in the womb, he says "kalalato paṭṭhāyāti" (beginning from the embryonic stage). Here, one who deprives of life separates from the present moment. There, it is not possible to deprive the momentary present, but it is possible to deprive the continuous present or the enduring present. How? When that attempt is made, the life-decade that has received the attempt, while ceasing, becomes a condition for the weak one of diminished force. The continuous present ceases after running two or three turns of javana, and the enduring present ceases after doing correspondingly, thus it becomes a condition. Then the continuous present or the enduring present ceases before reaching the determined time. Thus, it is possible to deprive both of them. Therefore, one separates from the present.

To reveal the meaning in terms of the ultimate sense of the matter stated in terms of common usage, it was said "Imassa panatthassāti," "pāṇo veditabbotiādi" (life should be understood) etc. Because it is applied by volition together with bodily intimation, it is "payogo," (application) what is that? The going of swords etc. into the body is striking; the throwing of a sword into another's body by volition together with bodily and verbal intimation. "Dūre ṭhitanti" (standing at a distance); whether it stands at a distance or nearby. A blow released from the hand is "nissaggiyo" (relinquishment). "Tatthāti" (there), in the relinquishment application. "Yo koci maratūti" (may anyone die); this is not possible in a large crowd. It is possible to cause death only to the one upon whom the arrow falls, not the death of just anyone. "Āṇāpananti" (commanding) is the accomplishing of the intended meaning by volition together with verbal intimation. Therefore it was said, "sāvetukāmo na sāvetīti" (pārā. 54) (desiring to announce, he does not announce). "Āṇattiniyāmakāti" (conditions for an instructed act) are the accomplishments of the instructed application. For indeed, the instructed application occurs only when these are not violated, not otherwise.

Here, regarding Rūpūpahāroti (Appearance of form) –

"May this woman die by my gain," thus the one nearby,
With a hateful mind, if he goes, he is a killer of the woman.

If he goes for alms, even knowing, he is not a killer;
For he is not seeking the ill of that one, indifferent to death.

By separation, my wife and mother do not live;
Knowing this, separating them, seeking that aim, he is a killer.

If he goes knowing of ordination etc., he is not a killer;
For he is not seeking the ill of that one, indifferent to death.

It was said "satthañca taṃ hārakañcātiādi" (and that sword is the carrier) etc. With this, he shows the fixed application in the applications of self-handedness etc. ‘‘Iti cittamano’’ti (thus the mind) even after extracting it, the meaning of the word iti has not yet been stated. Although it has not been stated, however, connecting the word iti that has come by way of authority, "iti cittasaṅkappoti" (thus the intention of the mind) here, because it was said, "maraṇasaññī maraṇacetano maraṇādhippāyo"ti (intending death, thinking of death, purposed for death), it should be understood that death itself will be spoken of. Vuttanayenāti (In the manner said), by way of the six applications. In the self-handed and relinquished applications, self-handedness should be understood by the bodily intimation that arises together with the seventh volition that establishes the intention. However, in the instructed act, because of the possibility of verbal intimation together with all seven volitions, the instructed act should be understood by the verbal intimation born together with the seventh volition, which is the instigator of the final syllable, after seven sevens of sounds become one and go to the state of a single syllable, and by as many syllables as they make known their intention.

The Commentary on the Third Pārājika is Concluded.

4. Commentary on the Fourth Pārājika

Idheva saṅgahanti (Here itself is the inclusion) “iti jānāmi, iti passāmī”ti (I know thus, I see thus) in which phrase, he says, ‘‘iti jānāmī’’tiādi (I know thus, etc.). Merely, because of the statement “pāpicchatāyā”ti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. catutthapārājikavaṇṇanā) (out of evil desire), it is shown that there is no offense for one who behaves out of dullness or delusion. One who says, “In the past, I was a sotāpanna,” speaks indirectly, just as in “yo te vihāre vasati, so bhikkhu arahā”tiādīsu (pari. 165) (the monk who lives in your monastery is an arahat), in the training rule as well, “iti jānāmī”ti (pārā. 195, 197) (I know thus), only the present is spoken of.

The Commentary on the Fourth Pārājika is Concluded.

Here, "Na labhati bhikkhūhīti" (he does not associate with the monks), only this much was said, "uposathādibhedaṃ saṃvāsa"nti (association involving the uposatha etc.). In the Vinaya commentary it was said, "uposathappavāraṇāpātimokkhuddesasaṅghakammappabheda"nti (uposatha, pavāraṇā, recitation of the pātimokkha, different kinds of saṅghakamma). In the Pali, it was said, "saṃvāso nāma ekakammaṃ ekuddeso samasikkhatā"ti (pārā. 55, 92, 172, 198) (association is one communal act, one recitation, equal training). It is prohibited to do saṅghakamma in three ways. "Na, bhikkhave, gahaṭṭhena nisinnaparisāya pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba"ntiādi (mahāva. 154) (Monks, the pātimokkha should not be recited to an assembly of seated laypeople) etc., comes only in the pātimokkha and pavāraṇā, and in other such places there is no prohibition against doing the remaining acts. The teachers also say, "It is permissible to do the remaining acts; there is no offense." "One who has fallen into an ultimate matter, if he accuses with a groundless pārājika, there is a saṅghādisesa offense; if he accuses with a saṅghādisesa offense, there is a pācittiya offense," is said as for a monk, not a dukkaṭa as for one not fully ordained. Therefore, the teachers say, "Sleeping in the same dwelling with him and receiving from him is permissible for a monk," is written. "Yathā pure tathā pacchāti (as before, so after), they say, "is said with reference to the mere unsuitability of the association that was said thus, ‘one communal act, one recitation, equal training.’" It should be examined.

Now, a general miscellany common to all four: One who indulges in sexual intercourse—is there anyone who is pārājika and without association, and is there anyone who is not pārājika and without association, and is there anyone who is not pārājika and has association while indulging in a matter of dukkaṭa or in a matter of thullaccaya, and is there anyone who is not pārājika? A hermaphrodite who has been ordained in the non-hermaphrodite group, indulging in sexual intercourse in the hermaphrodite group. He does not incur an offense, so he is not pārājika. For indeed, there is no offense for a non-monk. Since he is without offense, having come into the non-hermaphrodite group, is he without association, or is he not? He is. For it was said, "Abhabbo tena sarīrabandhanenā"ti (mahāva. 129) (He is incapable because of that bodily bond). Because it was said, "Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno…pe… asaṃvāso"ti (pārā. 44) (But a monk who has entered into the training and livelihood of the monks…is without association), only he who indulges in sex in the state of a monk is incapable. If it is said, "This is not a pārājika offense," no, just as in the place where it was said, "byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo"ti (mahāva. 126) (the saṅgha should be informed by an intelligent and capable monk), even if the act is announced by a non-monk by means of the formal act, the act does not take root because of the impossibility of the failure of the act, so this should be seen as similar. Herein, this is the distinction: If one ordained formerly announces the formal act in this way, and if the saṅgha also recognizes him as ordained, the act takes root, not otherwise, so the teacher does not approve.

A layperson or a sectarian or a hermaphrodite announces the formal act; the formal act has not been spoken by the saṅgha. For because of the statement, "Saṅgho upasampādeyya saṅgho upasampādeti, upasampanno saṅghenā"ti (mahāva. 127) (The saṅgha should confer ordination, the saṅgha confers ordination, he is ordained by the saṅgha), it should be understood that because the formal act should be spoken by the saṅgha, it is spoken by the saṅgha when spoken by one included in the saṅgha, or by one recognized as included in the saṅgha, not by any other such as a layperson, sectarian, or hermaphrodite. This same reasoning should be seen in all formal acts.

Similarly, is there anyone who, indulging in sexual intercourse, should be destroyed? Because it was said, "yo bhikkhunidūsako, ayaṃ nāsetabbo"ti (mahāva. 114-115 atthato samānaṃ) (he who defiles a nun should be destroyed), he alone, being not fully ordained, incurs an offense of sleeping in the same dwelling or other such offense, and there is a dukkaṭa offense for touching her. One who indulges in sexual intercourse with a non-nun should not be destroyed because of the absence of the Pali statement, "antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpanno, bhikkhave, anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo"ti (monks, one who has fallen into an ultimate matter, if not fully ordained, should not be ordained), by that alone he goes to the count of the ordained, he does not incur an offense of sleeping in the same dwelling etc., but is merely not one with association, so he is not a complete member of the group. For association is said to be one communal act and one recitation; since equality of training is also association, he is not with him. But there appears to be a trace of a cause that he incurs a padasodhammāpatti offense. Just as because of the absence of association of the saṅgha of monks with a nun in one communal act etc., a nun is without association for a monk, so a monk is without association for a nun, but does not incur a padasodhammāpatti offense. Similarly, one who has fallen into an ultimate matter is overlooked with a trace of a cause by this indication that "he who is said to be destroyed," so he does not go to reckoning. Moreover, because of the statement, "ubho nāsetabbā, dūsako nāsetabbo"ti (pārā. 66) (both should be destroyed, the defiler should be destroyed), and because of the statement, "mettiyaṃ bhikkhuniṃ nāsethā"ti (pārā. 384) (destroy the nun Mettiya), he also, having entered into the midst of the saṅgha and being defeated while being investigated by an investigator, is not fully ordained, so he should be understood as not incurring a omasavādapācittiya offense.

Moreover, here, the tetrad of those who have renounced the training should be understood. For indeed, there is a person who has renounced the training but has not entered into the training and livelihood, there is a person who has not renounced the training but has entered into the training and livelihood, there is a person who both has renounced the training and has entered into the training and livelihood, and there is a person who neither has renounced the training nor has entered into the training and livelihood. Therein, the third should be understood as a nun who has renounced the training. For as long as she does not give up the sign, even if she is eager in the brown robes, desiring to fall away from monkhood, even while renouncing the training, she is still a nun and still has entered into the training and livelihood. For it was said by the Blessed One, "natthi, bhikkhave, bhikkhuniyā sikkhāpaccakkhāna"nti (monks, there is no renunciation of training for a nun). When, however, does she become a non-nun? When she goes to the count of being distraught. For it was said by the Blessed One, "yadeva sā vibbhantā, tadeva sā abhikkhunī"ti (cūḷava. 434) (as soon as she is distraught, just then she is a non-nun). How much is she distraught? Desiring to fall away from monkhood, without attachment to the brown robes, she either removes the brown robe, or goes naked, or covers herself with grass leaves etc. and goes, or she wears the brown robe in the manner of a householder's garment, or she wears a white cloth, or having entered into the sectarians with her genitals, she undertakes a vow of plucking the hair etc., or she undertakes the sectarian symbol, then she is said to be distraught. Therein, she who, standing with the sign, undertakes the sectarian vow, just like a monk who has departed to the sectarians, afterwards does not obtain ordination. The remaining ones obtain ordination, but not full ordination. Although in the Pali, because of the statement, "yā, bhikkhave, bhikkhunī sakāvāsā titthāyatanaṃ saṅkantā, sā āgatā na upasampādetabbā"ti (cūḷava. 434) (monks, a nun who has gone from her own dwelling to a sectarian establishment, she, having come back, should not be fully ordained), it appears as if it is permitted that she who, having first become distraught and afterwards gone to a sectarian establishment, having come back, should be fully ordained. However, because it was said by the teachers of the recitation, "catuvīsati pārājikānī"ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.233) (twenty-four pārājika offenses), she should not be fully ordained again. Therefore, renunciation of the training is not permitted by the Blessed One. However, a nun who has fallen into an ultimate matter is such. A hermaphrodite nun is also such. This method should be connected with all four and should be spoken of as appropriate.

The Commentary on the Pārājika is Concluded.

The Section on Saṅghādisesa

1. Commentary on the Training Rule on the Emission of Semen

Aññatra supinantā: Because in this state the object is weak, the consciousness is unable to draw a rebirth. Indeed, the nimitta arising in a dream is weak. However, in the active state, supported by other wholesome and unwholesome deeds, it gives rise to result. Although it gives rise to result, because it arises outside the realm of convention, dream-consciousness is not conventionally used (in legal contexts). Here, the statement "indeed, the nimitta arising in a dream is weak" is not absolute. The arising of consciousness is not weak due to the weakness of the object, because it is not weak when the object is past, future, or a concept. Therefore, "dubbalavatthukattā" means "because the heart-base is weak," which is not correct reasoning, according to the teacher (Vajira. ṭī. pārājika 236-237). If it is asked whether weakness is appropriate due to the absence of a physical base, the answer is no, because that which arises from cultivation (bhāvanā) has exceedingly great power. Indeed, a mind endowed with the power of cultivation, even if formless, can take hold of the heavy physical body and transport it to the Brahma realm in a single moment of consciousness. Similarly, even a non-endowed sense-sphere consciousness can make the physical body capable of leaping in the air. What is the inference here that would make it clear that this is the power of the mind? It is clear from the observation of the accomplishment of the specific actions of establishing and leaping through the power of the mind. Like physical forms arising from natural consciousness, the teachers postulate the head of the penis, the waist, and the body as the three locations of semen because they are unmingled and separate. It should be seen like a poison serpent; there is no fixed location in poison. It occurs to one who is looking out of anger. Thus, there is no fixed location for him, it occurs to one who is attempting out of lust, which is not correct reasoning, according to the teacher.

‘‘Dakasotaṃ anotiṇṇepī’’: If it is asked whether this contradicts "otiṇṇamatte," in order to demonstrate that, he said "ṭhānato pana cuta" and so on. Its meaning is that, having made an attempt on the nimitta, after causing the semen to move from its place, it is not possible to prevent it from descending into the stream of water due to remorse. Nevertheless, with the intention of acceptance (adhivāsa), because of the inability to prevent it from rising up from the stream of water, it is said "bahi nikkhante vā". Therefore, the meaning of the commentary is that what has fallen from its place will certainly descend into the stream of water. Therefore, both should be taken as consistent.

Here it is said: Why is the agent not specified in this training rule with "yo pana bhikkhū" and so on? It is said: Because of the consideration of intention, the agent is not specified, in order to show its conditional nature. How so? Even with the emission of semen, there is no saṅghādisesa for one who intends with the intention-consciousness of scratching, etc., for one who attempts with the attempt of scratching, etc., or for one who attempts out of lust on the thighs, etc., in the objects of dukkaṭa, or on wounds, etc., in the objects of thullaccaya, because of the statement "there is no offense for a bhikkhu who does not intend to emit" (pārā. 263). Therefore, the agent is not specified here to show that meaning. Otherwise, if the agent were specified as "yo pana bhikkhu sañcetanikaṃ sukkavisaṭṭhiṃ āpajjeyya, saṅghādiseso," there would be a contradiction with the statement "he intends but does not attempt, he is released, there is no offense" (pārā. 262). Similarly, even if it is specified on the ground as "sañcetanikāya sukkavisaṭṭhiyā aññatra supinantā saṅghādiseso," that same contradiction would arise, since the meaning of the cause is established as fixed. Therefore, without stating both of those word orders, it is said "sañcetanikā sukkavisaṭṭhi aññatra supinantā saṅghādiseso." There, since there is no statement on the ground in the sense of a cause, the fixed meaning of the cause is not made. When that is not made, the meaning is revealed that "sañcetanikā sukkavisaṭṭhi aññatra supinantā saṅghādiseso," there is no offense when there is no attempt, and this should be understood.

In this training rule, there are two thousand offenses. How so? One offense for releasing blue dye for the purpose of health from the body part in the internal form which is the difference of one's own hand, etc., approached in the manner of lustful support to the limbs. Ten offenses for releasing yellow, etc., in the same way in the internal form with lustful support. Thus, a hundred offenses by way of the nine for "for the sake of pleasure" and so on, with lustful support in the internal form. In the same way, making a hundred each for feces, urine, wind, excrement, penis, nail and teeth support, all together five hundred. Just as there are five hundred in the internal form, so there are two thousand offenses, whether in the external form, in the internal and external form, or in the sky, by shaking the waist.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Semen Emission is Concluded.

2. Commentary on the Training Rule on Bodily Contact

‘‘Otiṇṇo’’: By this, his intention of indulgence is shown. Therefore, it is said that "kāyasaṃsaggarāgasamaṅgissetaṃ adhivacanaṃ." By "Vipariṇatena…pe… saddhi," his effort is shown. The word "Saddhi" indicates connection, and that connection is a union. With what mind? With a transformed mind, not with the intention of receiving a bowl, etc., is the intention. By "Kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjeyyā," the realization of contact resulting from his effort is shown. For one who, having made an effort, realizes contact, truly undertakes the action. Thus, the accomplishment of its three factors is shown. Or, "otiṇṇo vipariṇatena cittena" like one possessed by a yakkha, etc. Or this instrumental case is in the sense of use; "otiṇṇo" possessed of a transformed mind like a well, etc. Or, even if one has undertaken the bhikkhu life thinking "I will be free from lust," then a bhikkhu who, with the transformed mind as the cause, has fallen into that very lust from the intention of being free from it, by a woman who has come near him, or by himself approaching her. By this, whether the woman is attached or detached is not a consideration here.

Hatthaggāhaṃ vā: Here, with the hand, the entire body that is clung to is included, not a separate continuum that is connected to it, such as clothing or ornaments. Veṇiggahaṇena: By the taking of the braid, it should be understood that what is not clung to, the inseparable continuum consisting of hair, body hair, nails, teeth, etc., arises from kamma-cause and seasonal origination. Therefore, he said "antamaso lomena lomaṃ phusantassāpī." Therefore, in "aññatarassa vā…pe… parāmasana," the part of the body that is not clung to, such as the remaining hair and body hair, should be understood. If this is so, if it is asked whether this contradicts "phassaṃ paṭijānantassa saṅghādiseso," the answer is no, because of the knowledge of that meaning. Even while realizing the state of being touched, he realizes contact, not just by the arising of body-consciousness. Here, body-consciousness is uncertain. Therefore, here the realization of contact is not stated as a necessary factor. For if that were stated, this situation would exist: "and body-consciousness did not arise for me by the touching of the hairs, in that case he would be under the impression that 'I do not realize contact,' and there would be no offense." "Veṇī" is associated with kahāpaṇa garlands, etc.; there, thinking, 'I will take the braid,' he only takes the kahāpaṇa garlands, etc., not the hair, there is no saṅghādisesa," some say. This should be investigated.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Bodily Contact is Concluded.

3. Commentary on the Training Rule on Lewd Speech

duṭṭhullavācāya sikhāpattalakkhaṇadassanatthaṃvuttaṃ, na methunupasaṃhiteyeva duṭṭhullavācāti dassanatthaṃ. However, the statement "Ubhatobyañjanakāsī" is a mixed statement with a male sexual organ that is not a saṅghādisesa object. For a male hermaphrodite, the female sexual organ is concealed, and the other is obvious. If that too generates it, how do the words 'animittāsī' etc., not generate a saṅghādisesa?" some ask. That is not correct because even a man is a designation for the sexual organ. And because the characteristic is stated in the matrix that "Methunupasaṃhitāhi saṅghādiseso" (pārā. 248), saṅghādisesa arises for one who recognizes the lewd talk associated with sexual intercourse, and thullaccaya for one who does not recognize it; for lewd talk that is other than that, thullaccaya arises for one who recognizes it, and dukkaṭa for one who does not recognize it, some say, which should be considered and taken. Here it is said: When one abuses with "sikharaṇī" etc., a consciousness of repulsion arises; why is it said "dvivedana" instead of saying "tivedana"? This offense is due to lust, not due to repulsion. Therefore, abuse that arises from lust is intended here. Therefore, the word "dvivedana" is well said.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Lewd Speech is Concluded.

4. Commentary on the Training Rule on Self-Desire

Duṭṭhullobhāsane vuttappakārāyā: To one capable of knowing lewd and non-lewd speech, as described in the lewd speech. It is a dukkaṭa to praise the qualities of attendance for one's own sake to another bhikkhu; it is also a dukkaṭa in the indirect statement, "Give the best offering, the sexual act, to him who lives in your monastery," because it is stated that "he speaks in praise of attendance for one's own sake, [saying] like me, he is virtuous," according to some. According to others, it is a saṅghādisesa when all five factors are present, which should be considered and taken. In these two training rules, in the lewd and self-desire speech for yakkhī and petī, there is a thullaccaya, as in the bodily contact. However, it is written that it does not appear in the commentaries (Vajira. ṭī. pārājika 295). However, a hermaphrodite is always of the neuter gender.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Self-Desire is Concluded.

5. Commentary on the Training Rule on Go-Between

Alaṃvacanīyā: Not to be spoken to, "alaṃ" is a word of prevention, "nālaṃvacanīyā." Because it is stated that "he accepts, investigates, brings back, there is an offense of saṅghādisesa" (pārā. 305), those dukkaṭa and thullaccaya that involve accepting and investigating do not apply to one for whom there is absolutely a saṅghādisesa, some say, and this is written. Although here there is no passage that says, "a woman is a human woman, not a yakkhī, not a petī, not an animal. A man is a human man, not a yakkha, not a peta, not an animal," nevertheless, because in bodily contact etc., the specification of a woman as "mātugāmo nāma manussitthī" (pārā. 285) has been made, it is understood that here too it is only a human woman. By the similarity to what precedes sexual intercourse, the specification of a man has already been made. Therefore, he said, "those with whom he engages in acting as a go-between are of human birth" (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. sañcarittasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). And in bodily contact etc., paṇḍaka, yakkhī and petī are stated as objects of thullaccaya, so too here, and because of the nature of being a paṇḍaka, a human hermaphrodite is also only an object of thullaccaya. The remaining human men, non-human paṇḍaka hermaphrodites, animal men, etc., are only objects of dukkaṭa, by nature of showing wrong conduct, and this should be understood.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Go-Between is Concluded.

6. Commentary on the Training Rule on Hut-Building

Kiṃ bhante: Even if only this much is said. Asked what he entered for, he is allowed to tell it, because of the prescribed rule of mendicant conduct, it is written. If he asks for manual labor, whether it is allowable if he asks "will you give equipment or materials," or is it not allowable? It is allowable because of the attainment of illumination and conversation in lodging, some say. Tihatthā vā: Here, three hattha by the carpenter's hattha. ‘‘Pamāṇayutto mañco: A bed measured by nine vidatthi by the natural vidatthi, it does not move from there, therefore it is not four hattha in width," and so on, it is written. However, in a non-hut, there is no business of giving cloth-instruction, because it has been said to do plastering and coating. "The state of plastering…pe… 'said only with reference to the roof' is appropriate. Why so? Because there is an offense for one who raises a wall made of clay and does plastering or coating or both on the wall that has been built, even without plastering the wall," it is written. Thus here, posts, beams, platforms, and tie-beams would be pointless. Therefore, it should be considered and taken. "It will also be an uposatha hall, and I will also live there," or "I will live together with bhikkhus or sāmaṇeras," is certainly allowable. Why so? Because it is stated "for one's own sake," it is written.

This training rule, however, is like the fourth pārājika, dependent on a nidāna (cause or origin). It wasn't that the monks of Vaggumudā riverbank themselves falsely claimed to possess superior human qualities which they did not have, thus committing an act of false speech. Rather, they spoke to each other about possessing superior human qualities. That alone does not constitute a pārājika offense, but taking that little pretext as the nidāna, the Blessed One established the pārājika. Similarly here, it isn't stated in the nidāna that “a body of unpermitted grounds, with undertaking, without relinquishment” but because it is stated "immeasurable," a saṅghādisesa offense dependent on the nidāna applies to one who exceeds the measure. There, the vibhaṅga does not prevent what appears to be the possibility of a saṅghādisesa for undertaking and non-relinquishment because it is stated that "the vibhaṅga is the regulator of that." Similarly in the case of a large dwelling.

Here someone might say: Why is a dukkata offense stated in the mātikā (summary), shouldn't it be stated in the vibhaṅga itself? It is indeed so. But what kind of grounds should monks be instructed on? What grounds should the monks declare? What kind? Non-undertaking, with relinquishment. For the other, "if a monk, with undertaking, does not relinquish the grounds," is stated because it arises in the course of events. Since grounds, namely, exist as with undertaking and without relinquishment, exist as without undertaking and with relinquishment, exist as with undertaking and with relinquishment, exist as without undertaking and without relinquishment—being of many kinds—therefore, because of the many kinds, it is stated that grounds should be declared as without undertaking and with relinquishment, and not the other. What is the purpose of declaring the grounds here? Because it is a means of avoiding the cause for the establishment of a grave offense. Declaring the grounds is the cause for the establishment of a grave offense. The establishment of a grave offense causes the generation of harassment to uninstructed laypeople and is the cause of one's own suffering and the suffering of others due to the state of undertaking. Thus, these are avoided by means of declaring the grounds. For monks do not declare grounds for the purpose of causing harassment to laypeople to build an unlawful dwelling, or for the purpose of building a dwelling with grounds for undertaking. There are these verses here –

"The declaration in the mātikā,
Of grounds for dukkata;
For the causes of grave offenses,
Thus it is declared.

"By the means of declaring the grounds,
The causes for grave offenses,
Are avoided, therefore,
Undertaking, etc., are abandoned."

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Dwelling Construction is Concluded.

7. Commentary on the Training Rule on Vihāra (Monastery) Construction

Here, in Bhikkhū vā anabhineyyā, the word vā should be understood as having the meaning of determination. And because it occurs in "The venerable Channa had a caitya tree cut down," (pārā. 365) this should also be understood as dependent on a nidāna.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Vihāra Construction is Concluded.

8. Commentary on the Training Rule on Ascribing a False Defeat

"Why do you not do acts of reverence for me…etc…", because it is said "the head will break at the very touch," it is said that it is not proper to revere one who is subject to the final ground, that should not be accepted. Because it is not stated in the passage spoken in the Upāli-pañcaka at the end of the Parivāra, "How many, venerable sir, are un-reverendable?" (pari. 467) and because it is said "one who is ordained later should revere one who is ordained earlier" (pari. 468), therefore, in this very Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī it is stated that "ordained means an undertaking of counting". However, the intention of the Sutta should be understood thus: it is stated to show that one who does not revere, censures by means of censure which is counted as rejection of proper conduct. Therefore it is stated, "To this extent, it is called censure." Here, to show the manner of incurring the offense which is intended, it is written that "'Why do you not do acts of reverence for me,' etc., is said."

Katūpasampadaṃ: One whose upasampadā (higher ordination) thrives, that is, paṇḍakas (hermaphrodites), etc. Ṭhapanakkhettaṃ: Here, there are two kinds of pavāraṇā ṭhapanaṃ (formal suspension): all-inclusive and individual. Among them, in the all-inclusive, from the su-syllable to the re-syllable in “suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho…pe… tevācikaṃ pavāre” (May the Sangha hear me, venerable sirs…etc…I invite the Sangha with three utterances), in the individual ṭhapanaṃ (suspension), from the saṃ-syllable to this very last ṭi-syllable in “saṅghaṃ, bhante, pavāremi…pe… passanto paṭī” (I invite the Sangha, venerable sirs…etc… I will reply seeing), in this interval, by one who suspends even a single word, it is suspended. But in the Uposatha, a distinction should be understood according to this method, not exceeding the re-syllable in “kareyya” (should do).

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Ascribing a False Defeat is Concluded.

9. Commentary on the Training Rule on an Additional Factor

Aññabhāgo vā assa atthi: Just as in "this is gold," it is said "golden," or "gold" is said of it by gold. The body of an image, and the body of a stone doll are examples of that. The name "Dabbo" given to a young goat is called "Deso". Why? To not harass the elder, because it must also be attributed to the elder. Aññampi vatthuṃ: Not only the elder. Lissati silissati vohāramatteneva: It is only in name, not in reality. Īsakaṃ allīyatīti leso: Lesa is the intended meaning. Lisaselachakolaallībhāve: in the state of sticking, clinging, smearing, adhering. Therefore it is said, "īsakaṃ allīyatīti leso": "lesa" means slightly clinging. Since desalesā (name-sake) does not mean different in reality, therefore, after extracting the passage "kiñcidesaṃ lesamattaṃ upādāya" (taking only a small part of the name-sake), it is stated in the word analysis "dasa lesā jātileso" etc. (pārā. 394).

Aṭṭhuppattivaseneva āvibhūtaṃ: Here, because of some excess, it is not fixed. It is not like the Mettiya-Bhūmajaka monks; for all others as well, "only a young goat here is an aññabhāgiyaṃ cause, other cows, buffaloes, etc., are also causes, and they do not all take only the mere name-sake like the Mettiya-Bhūmajaka monks, they also take other jātilesa etc., therefore, because it is unfixed, it is not distinguished. Furthermore, if it were said thus, aññabhāgiyaṃ would be possible only for a young goat, not for another, by which it alone is shown. And leso is only leso, not jāti etc., by which it alone is shown," thus it should be understood as avoiding the possibility of wrong grasping. Idha ca…pe… saññinopī: Here, in this training rule and in the groundless training rule, is the meaning.

One who does not rightly learn,
The aññabhāgiya training rule;
May go to the aññabhāgiya state,
In the eyes of the Vinaya-wise. (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 408);

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Additional Factor is Concluded.

11. Commentary on the Training Rule on Following Those Who Cause Dissension

Tiṇṇaṃ uddhaṃ kammārahā…pe… karotī: Here, it is written that it is not proper to do it after saying "these four" or "this one and this one".

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Following Those Who Cause Dissension is Concluded.

12. Commentary on the Training Rule on Being Difficult to Admonish

dubbaco. Vuccamāno na sahati: difficult to admonish; does not tolerate being spoken to.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Being Difficult to Admonish is Concluded.

Concluding Commentary

‘‘Nāmamattavasenā’’ti is the reading. ‘‘Nāmagottavasenā’’ti is written. This is said: knowing that "this action is not proper for monks to do," if he conceals it, it is indeed concealed, is the meaning. Sabhāgamattamevā: Only the non-transgressing sharing is intended.

Vatthu ceva gottañcā: Here, vatthū means transgression, the abandoning of impurity. Gottanti: gottaṃ means that which protects the village, from gaṃ tāyati. The meaning is that it protects gaṃ, the intellect, and speech, without giving it to go elsewhere from its own kind. Vatthu goes to its own kind only. Sajāti: Here, sajāti means actions that are distinguished and undistinguished from others, not physical contact, etc. Nāmañceva āpatti cā: Here, āpattī means the name of the offense incurred through transgression.

Puna āgatāgatānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ ārocentena: Here, the procedure for informing should be understood thus: to two, informing with "āyasmantā dhārentu" (may the venerable ones remember); to three or more, informing with "āyasmanto dhārentu" (may the venerable ones remember). Vattabhedañca ratticchedañca akatvā: Here, having set aside a new pārivāsika monk, in regard to the remaining, even those worthy of root-expulsion etc., there is a difference in duties such as receiving with greeting etc., sitting in order, advising, rebuking those who perform actions. Not informing in matters of seeing and hearing, and monks dwelling under the same roof, and monks coming and going to the monastery without knowing, etc., there is a break in the nights. Because there is no vinaya-action by those in separate communities, there is no break in the nights in not informing them. Because of the saying "having passed two clod throws," it is not proper within. By one behaving as having relinquished the duty, even to one near whom he undertook it before and informed, when relinquishing later, it must be relinquished only after informing. Therefore, even at the time of undertaking again, if he goes from there, without going that day, even having informed during the day, if it happens that the day has passed, it is said that "having risen at dawn, having informed him and relinquished the duty, he should go to the monastery; he should relinquish the duty after informing him." Moreover, it is said that "having gone to the monastery, he should relinquish it after informing the very first monk he sees." If there is a break in the nights, it would be necessary to inform all those included within the monastery boundary. However, "having informed him," this is said referring to one not informed before, for the sake of maintaining the difference in duties. Therefore, in the Samantapāsādikā(cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97) it is said thus: "one who has left from another monastery or a newcomer."

However, in Suddhantaparivāsa, if he takes it as "I am impure for about a month," while undergoing parivāsa, he again makes a determination for less or more, to that extent also it must be undergone, there is no need for giving parivāsa. For this suddhantaparivāsa, namely, ascends upwards and descends downwards. This is its characteristic.

Samodahitvā: Having established it in the place of the root offense, having inserted it, is the meaning. If it is an unconcealed intervening offense, it must be undergone with the parivāsa previously taken, without doing root-expulsion. But whoever, having committed an offense, having become confused, is ordained again and conceals it, and whoever, having concealed it before, does not conceal it later, and whoever conceals it in both cases, parivāsa should be given to all according to the days concealed. Because it is stated in the Pāḷi "in the former aggregate of offenses or in the latter aggregate of offenses" (cūḷava. 166 ādayo), two monks are subject to purification, they are those who have the view of purification. One conceals, one does not conceal. The one who conceals should be made to confess a dukkata. Because it is said, "both should be made to act according to the Dhamma" (cūḷava. 181), it should be understood that whoever conceals any offense incurs a dukkata.

Tesu gatesu vā agatesu vā purimanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ: Here, when the quorum is deficient, wandering, non-withdrawal, even one night's separation from the quorum; if the Sangha dwells for a moment of the night, if he has gone earlier than dawn due to some business, thus it is even in mānatta when this occurs. "And since he dwelt informing the quorum and considering the existence of the monks, therefore, there is no fault of wandering with a deficient quorum or separation," it is said in the Samantapāsādikā(cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97). Therefore, even if he sits for a moment after being informed and leaves, there is no separation. Because dwelling in that is prevented by the fall of water for a pārivāsika and an ukkhittaka, therefore, it is not proper under the same roof even in a non-border area.

"Nine are the first offenses, four are those lasting until the third time": This is a statement of the nature of the rule. Therefore, it shows that emergence is not fixed. For some offenses, emergence ( vuṭṭhāna ) occurs both with and without an act ( kamma ); thus, it is said that one does not incur it in that way. "Either one or the other": This statement indicates that there is no difference in the order of emergence even if they are divided into two categories. "As much here, so much there": Here, the delimitation of "here" is based on dawn. "Knowing": With this, it shows that for one who knows, transformation should be unintentional. "Then, transformation should be unintentional by that bhikkhu": It is said to show that transformation should be unintentional by that bhikkhu residing there, not in the future tense of "will transform." "Having lived in probation": In the beginning, only having lived in probation, after probation, six nights from the beginning, just by the bhikkhu; even after having removed the liṅga , one should undertake mānatta for the bhikkhu, not like in probation, where mānatta is not performed due to that condition. Only one who has performed mānatta should be reinstated, not the other. Not like in probation is one worthy of mānatta, and when a bhikkhuni practicing pakkhānatta has transgressed the transformation of the liṅga, the bhikkhu has completed the mānatta, again, only a bhikkhu who has completed mānatta after undertaking bhikkhu mānatta should be reinstated, it shows.

"Where there might be": In whatever shared-residence boundary there is a bhikkhu sangha of twenty. "Even if the gaṇa of twenty is deficient by one": It is not proper if it is deficient. Indeed, it is not a gaṇa of twenty, and the sangha is deficient. Therefore, if it were only said, "even if the sangha is deficient by one?" No, because of the purpose of preventing instances of four, five, or ten vaggas. Therefore, if a bhikkhu sangha of twenty vaggas is deficient by one, it should be seen as lost. However, some who are ignorant of what is established in the Vinaya might think, "Just as an excess catuvagga sangha is called 'catuvagga' in a kamma requiring four, similarly, an excess pañcavagga or dasavagga is called 'pañcavagga' or 'dasavagga' in a kamma requiring five or ten. Therefore, even if deficient, it is a catuvagga, pañcavagga, dasavagga, or vīsativagga." To prevent their thinking, "even if deficient by one," etc., is said. Or, if there is a sangha of twenty bhikkhus, setting aside one who is deficient in the appakatatta, setting aside even one, this is how the meaning should be understood. "This is proper there": The statement "he gives parivāsa for that offense, draws back to the root, gives mānatta, reinstates" which has been said everywhere, should be understood as being said for the purpose of making that clear. Therefore, this aforementioned propriety in those is definite and should be desired, not indefinite like in the training rules for kings, etc. For there, it is shown that there is no offense even if one does not perform that propriety due to some impediment.

The description of Saṅghādisesa is finished.

The Section on the Undetermined

1. Description of the First Undetermined Training Rule

In the Undetermined ( Aniyata ), from the beginning, this is miscellaneous. If it is said, "This Section on the Undetermined is useless because there is no unprecedentedness there?" No, because of the purpose of illuminating the characteristics of the application and non-application of offenses that differ in terms of serious and light. For here, with "If she should say, 'Venerable, by me…pe…and he acknowledges that, he should be made to do it for the offense,'" etc. (pārā. 446), the characteristic of applying a serious or light offense and with "he should not be made to do it," the characteristic of not applying it is shown. If it should be defined at the beginning or end, from the illumination of the characteristic? No, because it is impossible. How is it not possible at the beginning? Because the training rules of those for whom this is a characteristic have not been shown. Not at the end, because of being mixed with serious ones. Therefore, it is proper to define it in the middle of the serious and light, because it is mixed with both. The light offense that is shown there, which is reckoned as pācittiya, is also said to be serious. Therefore, he says, "with the secret flavor connected with the defilement associated with sexual intercourse," etc. Therefore, some say that it should be defined immediately after the serious ones. If it is so, the first Undetermined is sufficient since the illumination of the characteristic is accomplished by that much; what is the point of the second? No, because of the purpose of preventing seizing upon desire due to the rule of location and condition. For if there is a rule of location, "in a concealed seat fit for performing kamma," it is a false grasp if this characteristic is not discriminated in a location that is the opposite of that. The intention is that the second Undetermined is also purposeful due to the prevention of that. Why? Due to the difference in location, due to the illumination of the difference in secrecy, due to the illumination of the difference in the flavor of secret sitting. If there is no rule of location, a difference in the flavor of secret sitting arises. There might also be knowledge of the distinction between two training rules on secret sitting, as well as the illumination of the difference in bodily contact. For even in a location that is not fit for performing kamma, bodily contact can be obtained by grasping hair coming out of a window or a crack, etc., even in a concealed one, when one is sitting, so these and other methods should be understood in detail.

Due to the difference in location: Due to the difference between fit and unfit for performing kamma. For even a concealed one is sometimes unfit for performing kamma because it is obstructed by a window, etc., and even when both are concealed, some are unfit for performing kamma because it is open air for those who know. Due to the illumination of the difference in secrecy: Here, the intention is that even in the similarity of secrecy, there are two kinds of secrecy: concealed and unconcealed. Due to the illumination of the difference in the flavor of secret sitting: Sitting with the flavor of sexual pleasure, sitting with the flavor of coarse talk; the meaning is the illumination of such a difference. "This section should be understood as missing in the bhikkhunī pātimokkha because of the method that has come here," some say. "Because it did not arise there with eight origins," some say; that is improper because it is showing a non-definitive state. For in the time of all Buddhas, there are five recitations for bhikkhus and four for bhikkhunis. Some say that the saṅghādisesa and pācittiya that are specified there are because of the non-exclusivity of the establishment of the pātimokkha recitation. For the bodily contact of those bhikkhunis, such as "a thigh-and-knee-rubbing woman" (pāci. 658) and "eight grounds" (pāci. 675), is a pārājika matter. Because of the statement "she might approve of hand-holding, or offer her body for that purpose" (pāci. 675), even approving is, because of the statement "she might stand" (pāci. 675), even standing is, because of the statement "she might go to an assignation" (pāci. 675), even going is, because of the statement "she might enter a covered place" (pāci. 675), even entering a covered place is. Likewise, because of the statement "in the dark of night without a lamp, in a concealed location or in the open air, they might stand or converse one-on-one" (pāci. 839), coarse speech is also a pācittiya matter; therefore, their intention is that the Section on the Undetermined is not said because of the unsuitability of its occurrence otherwise. Miscellaneous.

Secrecy of the ear: Here, it is said due to the general meaning of the word "secrecy." Like the pārājika statement in the training rules on proclaiming and concealing coarse [speech] due to the general meaning of coarse [speech]. Therefore, "but here 'secrecy' is intended as just the eye" is said. How is it known? Because it is said, "A woman is…pe…even a girl born that day" (pārā. 445), it is shown that coarse speaking is not intended here. "Even within twelve hands": With the word "pi" (api), it means even sitting at the door of a closed, hidden room. In the Acelaka section, in the training rule on a secret, covered seat (pāci. 288), in accordance with "any sensible man is the second," "but even a hundred women do not cause an offense" is said. Because of the statement in the Vibhanga, "In a place fit for performing kamma, it is possible to engage in sexual activity" (pārā. 445), the flavor of secret sitting here is the defilement associated with sexual intercourse, not the defilement that is the flavor of coarse speech, as in the second [training rule]. Therefore, it is known that secrecy of the ear is not intended.

He should speak with one of three things: It is said to show the difference of the offense as pācittiya, saṅghādisesa, or even pārājika, in accordance with the secret sitting training rule for one sitting and in accordance with that. Why is acknowledgment of the thing ( vatthu ) said instead of saying acknowledgement of the offense? It is said: When questioned about the offense, the Vinaya-holder, "in what thing ( vatthu )?", when the accused says "in this thing", when the Vinaya-holder asks, "Did you do such-and-such?", it is said "a bhikkhu acknowledging the sitting" to show that he should be made to do it only if he acknowledges the thing ( vatthu ). If so, even if he acknowledges the sitting, should he only be made to do it for the offense? It is appropriate. However, it should be taken like this: Without grasping the things ( vatthūni ) of even the three offenses, only the sitting in accordance with the training rule is said here. For even when that is grasped, the offense is indeed grasped. "Or by whom that": Here, the word "vā" (or) should be connected to "then should that bhikkhu be made to do it". And that is in the sense of an alternative. Therefore, the meaning is "either he should be made to do it if he acknowledges, or he should not be made to do it if he does not acknowledge". Therefore, it is said "one who acknowledges" etc. Because of the offense being said due to the sitting condition of the secret sitting training rule, offenses should be grasped in accordance with the remaining training rules. Because it is said "The origin etc. are similar to the first pārājika", it should be understood that coarse speech is not intended here.

The description of the First Undetermined Training Rule is finished.

2. Description of the Second Undetermined Training Rule

Saṅghādisesaor: By bodily contact and coarse speech. Therefore, in this way, the case of bodily contact is also said in the text. "Not blind, not deaf": Not blind, he sees the bodily contact; not deaf, he hears the coarse [speech]; therefore, it is said that these are similar to not-giving and taking. Here, how is the origin from body, speech, and mind? For one engaging in bodily contact speaks coarse [speech], or one speaking coarse [speech] sits; it is possible, or it is said with coarse [speech] in mind. For that is the origin of not-giving and taking.

He whose teaching is like that of the all-knowing one;
With various methods, modes, diverse distinctions;
A mindful one with awareness of the means to know;
He does not make merit for the sake of gain.

The description of the Second Undetermined Training Rule is finished.

The description of the Undetermined is finished.

The Section on Confiscation

1. The Chapter on Robes

1. Description of the Kathina Training Rule

In the Section on Confiscation ( Nissaggiya ), the kathina training rules, the rain-season cloth ( vassikasāṭika ), the single robe ( accekacīvara ), and the apprehensive robes ( sāsaṅka ) training rules should be understood as similar to a mass of accumulated offenses in one explanation:

Whose Kathina is four, co-arising, two times;
And also the six training rules, a partial determination.

Kathina: From the statement, "The kathina is authorized for the Sangha for the sake of approval, for the gaṇa for the sake of approval, is laid down for the individual for the sake of the Sangha," (pari. 414) the collection of those very approving and other qualities is called "kathina." As it is said, "One should know the kathina; the collection and combination of those very qualities is the name, the naming-action," etc. (pari. 412). Therefore, "kathina" is merely a name among many qualities, not ultimately a single quality. What, then, is its laying-down? Just a part of that, like a stream of milk. As it is said, "Laying down is collected by one quality in terms of the distinction of speech." Co-arising is the eight matrices, the two hindrances, the five advantages; these fifteen qualities. Two times are the kathina-laying-down time and the robe time. There, the kathina-laying-down time is the last month of the rains. The robe time is the kattika month when the kathina is not laid down, and the four months of winter when it is laid down, thus five months.

The eight mātikās are those beginning with pakkamanantika. All of them arise together, in summary. Due to the presence of that atthāra, a withdrawal (uddhāra) is possible. Among them, with the kathina atthāra, antarubbhāra and sahubbhāra have one arising and one ceasing, being 'antarubbhāra' and 'sahubbhāra'; the remaining kathina withdrawals have one arising, and various ceasing. Here, "ekanirodhā" means ceasing together with the atthāra, meaning that the absence of withdrawal for antarubbhāra and sahubbhāra occurs in one moment. The rest cease variously. Indeed, even when they have reached the state of withdrawal, the atthāra still remains, according to the meaning explained in the commentary. If, when the kathina is spread, a monk, being dependent, departs from that monastery, the Sangha makes an antarubbhāraṃ. Even if that monk does not have the encumbrance (palibodha) of a robe completed in the original dwelling place, the encumbrance is severed with the antarubbhāra, even though dependence exists, because of being free from concern. By this method, the pakkamanantiko kathinuddhāro has one arising with the atthāra and various ceasing. Similarly, when there is antarubbhāra, as long as one hears it, since the completion of the robe does not occur and allowance is possible, it is niṭṭhānantiko. As long as one does not decide it, since allowance is possible, it is sanniṭṭhānantiko. As long as it is not destroyed, since allowance is possible, it is nāsanantiko. As long as one does not hear, since allowance is possible, it is savanantiko. As long as the hope for a robe is not cut off, since allowance is possible, it is āsāvacchediko. As long as one does not cross the boundary, since allowance is possible, it is sīmātikkantiko. It should be understood as having one arising with the atthāra and various ceasing.

Here, antarubbhāra and sahubbhāra are possible only within the boundary (sīma), not outside the boundary. Pakkamana, savana, and sīmātikkantika are possible only outside the boundary, not inside the boundary. Niṭṭhāna, sanniṭṭhāna, nāsana, and āsāvacchedika are both inside and outside the boundary. Antarubbhāra depends on the Sangha, pakkamana, niṭṭhāna, sanniṭṭhāna, and sīmātikkantika depend on the individual, the rest are the opposite of both.

By "niṭṭhitacīvarasmi," it indicates only the absence of robe encumbrance. It does not indicate the absence of dwelling encumbrance. By "ubbhatasmiṃ kathine," it indicates the absence of both encumbrances. Therefore, if it should be said that the same should be stated to indicate the absence of both encumbrances? No, because of the distinction. How so? Although it may be that, therefore, "ubbhatasmiṃ kathine" is because the kathina withdrawals of some have various ceasing, and because they depend or do not depend on the Sangha or an individual, and because of being fixed or not fixed in boundaries inside and outside, when the kathina is withdrawn, it is withdrawn for the Sangha, not for the individual, even so, "ubbhatasmiṃ kathine" is a general statement. Therefore, it specifies with "niṭṭhitacīvarasmi."

āvāsapalibodho means dwelling in that monastery or departing from it with dependence. Cīvarapalibodho means the robe is unmade or unfinished, the hope for a robe is not cut off; the opposite of that should be understood as non-encumbrance. Here, for those without the kathina spread, four benefits are obtained invariably at the time of robe-making, and unrestricted wandering without having undertaken (asamādānacāro) is unrestricted. Therefore, a Sa-asanka training rule was stated. How are the four fixed? Because of the statement, "The time for robe-making is the last month of the rainy season when the kathina is not spread" (pārā. 649), for those without the kathina spread, to the extent that a robe is needed is obtained in that month; similarly, in the third kathina training rule (pārā. 497 ff.), an untimely robe, from the end of the rains onwards, if it is to be received, it must be obtained from the Sangha, and having kept it until the time for robe-making, it must be divided and taken. If it is personal, from the fifth day of the sixth fortnight of the rainy season onwards, what is not determined and not allocated is allowable, because it is permitted by the training rule on an emergency robe (accekacīvara), but not after that. Because the arising of a robe at that time is prohibited by the first kathina. There, the method stated in the commentary is with reference to the Sangha, and so it should be understood in the porāṇagaṇṭhipade.

In the first kathina (pārā. 459 ff.), by the first enactment, an offense occurs without distinction on the eleventh day. Indeed, for the prevention of entering the rains, it is stated in the commentary, "When the kathina is withdrawn by a monk with a completed robe" (pārā. 462 ff.). The same method applies to the second and third. Therefore, a robe arising before or during the robe season does not obtain allowance for even one day after the robe season. If it were to obtain it, there would be a contradiction of the accekacīvara training rule. For there it is stated, "It should be kept until the time for robe-making, and if he keeps it longer than that, it is to be forfeited" (pārā. 648). Because of being a resident during the rains, an emergency robe obtained from the Sangha, having completed the rains, becoming one's own property, is an offense as soon as the time for robe-making passes, and there is no offense as long as the emergency robe time has not passed. Because of the statement, "When the kathina is not spread, it arises in the eleventh month" (pārā. 500), and whatever robe production there is, that will be for them, it is established. In the training rule on wandering uninvited and group meals, because it is stated "except for a time" (pāci. 222 ff.), the remaining two are already established. Therefore, because of the statement, "Given after consideration even at the time, this is an untimely robe" (pārā. 500), a robe given after consideration does not obtain allowance.

ādissa dinnaṃ cīvaraṃ is stated with reference to a Sangha robe to be distributed, not a personal one. "Saññāṇaṃ katvā nikkhipitabba" is stated with reference to a robe for residents during the rains. Because it should be given later by one who has not completed the rains, a designation should be made, not with reference to a personal robe obtained from relatives or invitees. Therefore, it is established that the emergency robe is of two kinds, pertaining to the Sangha and pertaining to the individual. There, an emergency robe transformed to the Sangha, from the day of invitation to enter the rains or from the end of the rains onwards, it is indeed allowable to keep until the pavāraṇā because it pertains to the Sangha, and also personal, because it is given, "Take it when the rains are completed." Indeed, as long as the rains have not been completed, it belongs to that giver. This is the reason for the distinction.

In the Porāṇagaṇṭhipade, that method is stated based on the Sangha, therefore it is not contradictory, and therefore it is not rejected. Just as a non-emergency robe, arising from the sixth month onwards, should be received even without the ten-day period having arrived, and even if the robe-making time passes after receiving it, there is no offense, this method should also be accepted. Then there is a contradiction with the first kathina. If it is said that it should be received only when the ten-day period has arrived, and even if the robe-making time passes after receiving it, there is no offense, this is the reason for the distinction, that it obtains two ten-day periods.

If it is said that, having entered the non-offense field, the robe time, like that which has been determined and withdrawn, is again obtained in ten days? No. If it is said that entering the time is like determination? No, having made a contradiction to the statement, "The rain-cloth should be determined for the four months of the rains, after that it should be allocated," even for one not allocating after that ten-day period, there would be no offense. Moreover, if what is stated in the commentary, "A rain-cloth obtained and completed during the rains should be determined within ten days, if the ten days pass, it is completed, it should be determined on that very day, if the ten days are not sufficient, the robe season should not be exceeded" (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.630). By that he would not be freed from the offense. Indeed, entering the time is not born as a synonym for determination. To this extent, the meaning variation as stated is established by the Pali method itself.

Moreover, here, what is stated in the commentary, "If the ten days are not sufficient, the robe season should not be exceeded," even there, if it arises in the robe season, and there is no making of it when the ten days are not sufficient, it is established that that emergency robe should not exceed the robe season, like an untimely robe. And from the Pali, if it arises within the time, it arises even when the ten days are not sufficient, thus, an emergency robe that has arisen is not an emergency robe. Indeed, that does not go to the designation of an emergency robe due to the time distinction. For this has been stated, "An emergency robe is when he wants to go to the army, or wants to go on a journey, or is sick, or is pregnant, or faith has arisen in one who lacks faith…pe… ‘I will give a residence during the rains,’ thus it is announced, this is called an emergency robe" (pārā. 649). Therefore, just as that robe should not be exceeded, so too should a non-emergency robe, it is established. Therefore, it is stated in the commentary, "If the ten days are not sufficient, the robe season should not be exceeded." Moreover, if it is so, that emergency robe training rule itself was enacted by the Buddha for the purpose of showing this special meaning, that an emergency robe should not exceed the robe season.

In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, however, it is stated thus - although this is established by "an extra robe should be kept for a maximum of ten days," the training rule was established after showing a meaning as if it were new, by way of eight conditions of arising, therefore, from the purpose of illuminating the special meaning. Therefore, it is established that it was stated for the purpose of showing that special meaning. Therefore, it should be understood that whatever robe, the robe-making time should not be exceeded. Moreover, what is stated in the commentary, "A non-emergency robe arising from the sixth month onwards and a robe withdrawn and kept, this obtains allowance" (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.646-649). By this, "One who thinks of a non-emergency robe as a non-emergency robe, and exceeds the robe-making time, there is no offense" (pārā. 650), it indicates the obtaining of the emergency robe allowance even for a non-emergency robe.

To this extent, the second meaning variation as stated is established by the Pali method and the commentary method. Thus, so far, the additional discussion on the miscellaneous is spread out from the subsequent text, thus it is non-miscellaneous.

It is stated, "niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine." Therefore, thus, "atthatakathinassa hi bhikkhuno" etc. is stated. In "Kathinatthārārahassā," "A person endowed with eight factors is capable of spreading the kathina - he knows the preliminary act, he knows the withdrawal, he knows the determination, he knows the spreading, he knows the mātikā, he knows the encumbrance, he knows the withdrawal, he knows the benefit" (pari. 409), therefore, a person endowed with these eight factors is called capable of spreading the kathina. Pubbakaraṇaṃ means the making of washing, considering, cutting, sewing, dyeing, and preparing.

Having shown the type and measure by the Pali statement "Cīvaraṃ nāma khoma" etc., now, to show the extra robe, "yaṃ pana vuttaṃ adhiṭṭhitavikappitesū" etc. is stated. Even when "Ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā" is stated, in whatever place it is kept, even if it is there later or not, the determination is indeed suitable. The place of keeping before or after is not the measure.

hīnāyāvattanaṃ.

Ekādasame aruṇuggamane should be understood as keeping the last one, and before that. There, antimaṃ means the first sunrise of the later Kattika. Indeed, that does not cause forfeiture because it is the time. Here, "niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā" is a causal word independent of the cause, because there is no cause in the cause. Therefore, thus it is stated that "dasāhaparama" is an additional rule here. And from the statement, "I allow, monks, to determine the three robes, not to allocate" etc. (mahāva. 358), here, the statement "vikappetī" stated without distinction seems contradictory, but the Tathāgatas do not speak contradictorily, therefore, its meaning should be understood thus - I only allow to determine the three robes as a collection of three robes for allowance, not to allocate. But the rain-cloth should only be allocated after four months, not determined. And thus, when one wants to be separated from the three robes with one robe, the opportunity is given to withdraw the determination of the three robes and allocate for the sake of the happiness of separation, and there is no offense when the ten days pass. By this method, it is written that the non-prohibition of allocation should be understood everywhere.

"‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’’ntiādi vuttaṃ."** That is, "when the robe is finished" etc., has been said. Here it says, "Even when having it washed by launderers and making it white, the determination is still a determination," (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.465) so even when un-dyed, the determination is valid. Therefore, should a rule be made that after doing needlework, dyeing, applying a kappabindu, it should be determined, or should it not be made? It definitely should be made. Just as a bowl, once determined, does not lose its determination even if it becomes white or copper-colored again, and there is no such thing that the determination undergoes change, so should this be understood. If a robe is acquired but not determined today, thinking "Tomorrow I will withdraw the kathina," it becomes nissaggiya at the dawn. Why? Because the training rule is stated with "‘‘Niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’’ntiādi" (pārā. 462-463;). Within the kathina period, even an upper robe that is ten spans [long] is allowed as a privilege, but after the kathina, not even for one day. Like what? Like the Sangha who have spread the kathina, obtain the benefit of the three robes from the day it is spread until its withdrawal, but not after that. Similarly, [the privilege] is obtained from the day it is spread until its withdrawal, but once the kathina is withdrawn, not even for one day. Here, [someone] says - from the day of the withdrawal onwards, is ten days obtained again? No, why? Because of the statement, "I allow, monks, to keep an extra robe for a maximum of ten days." Within the kathina period also, it becomes nissaggiya at the eleventh dawn. To prevent that extreme consequence, "‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’’ntiādi" is stated, not to clarify which are kathina days and which are not. This meaning will become clear here and there. Alternatively, a vassikasāṭikā of appropriate size should be determined in the manner stated, taking its name, for the four months of the rainy season, and after that, it should be withdrawn and विकप्पेtabbā, it is said. Here, with the word "paccuddharitvā," on the Uposatha day itself, it has been withdrawn, विकप्पेtabbā, and put away; after that, from the first day of Hemanta onwards, there is no possibility of withdrawal. Similarly, a robe that arises within the kathina period should also be understood, it is written.

Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

2. Udositasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

"For one who has spread the kathina, there is no offense in a designated boundary, for five months, if one departs after leaving a robe wherever," it is said in the commentary. "It is valid even in an undesignated boundary," it is written, this establishes both the kathina spread in an undesignated boundary and the araññaka training rule. Now –

"Chinnaṃ dhutaṅgaṃ sāsaṅka-sammato santaruttaraṃ;
Acīvarassānāpatti, paccuddhārādisiddhito"ti. (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 479) –

This should be understood as miscellaneous.

chinnakameva is valid, because it has unique characteristics; and because there is no statement that "Chinnakaṃ does not allow [one] to double [robes]," this conclusion should be reached here.

Dhutaṅganti Because there is no tecīvarika dhutaṅga for those who are not fully ordained, is tecīvarika only with three robes, and because they do not have determination, should it be said that "adhiṭṭhitenevā"? No, because of the possibility of contradiction with the difference in dhutaṅga. The difference in dhutaṅga is indeed by taking up a fourth robe, not by separation from the three robes, nor by taking up an extra robe, nor by keeping an extra robe. Since only bhikkhus are allowed nine robes by the Blessed One in terms of determination, and they are stated by birth, and not so for those who are not fully ordained, therefore, because there is no rule regarding robes for them, that dhutaṅga is not allowed for them, like for householders. Therefore, this conclusion should be reached here, because of the absence of stating the method of undertaking it.

Sāsaṅkasammatoti In the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. sāsaṅkasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), the individual factors are not stated in the sāsaṅka training rule, it is said, "The rest here should be understood in the same way as stated in the second training rule of the Cīvara Vagga," but this is not stated. There, spending the night away is the fourth factor, here spending six nights away; this is the difference here. Therefore, because of the similarity of the factors and the similarity of the agreement, this is the sāsaṅka training rule itself; this is without a specific location, that is with a specific location and a limit of a month. There, there is no offense for one who dwells having gone into the boundary of the village, even outside the village and departs, here it is not so. Here, it becomes nissaggiya at each and every following dawn, there it is the seventh; this is the difference between these two. The factors, however, are not stated because they are established by reversal of the attainment of the factor of leaving the robe, and here, by the method stated. Those, if desired, are not stated, nevertheless, the fourth factor should be specified, but it is not specified. What is the reason? Here, it is to state the expiation of the offense after relinquishing in the order stated, there it is to illuminate the release from the offense incurred. Spending the year away is the same as spending the night away, but spending six nights away is different. Even so, there, with the attainment of the factors as stated, it should be relinquished in the manner stated there. If one relinquishes in Hemanta or Gimha? It is valid to relinquish even in the manner stated here, to indicate this, the fourth factor is not specified, so I do not think, says the teacher. A robe that has exceeded a month, or exceeded ten days, is relinquished by saying "exceeded ten days," not after it has been less than a month and saying "exceeded ten days," [then] saying "exceeded a month," according to some. Even so, if it is a paccāsācīvara, it is nissaggiya. The mūlacīvara, after saying "exceeded ten days," should be relinquished by saying "exceeded a month."

‘‘Santaruttara’’nti or "saṅghāṭi" or "cīvara," what is [meant], the three robes, or something else? What is the point here - if only the three robes are prohibited, there is contradiction with acchinnacīvara, achandanadhovāpana, viññatti, etc., due to being included in the category. Or, if it is something else, there is contradiction with "‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’’nti" etc.? It is said - it should not be understood as fixed, because it should be taken as appropriate. Thus, in "‘‘cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā santaruttarena janapadacārikaṃ pakkamantī’’ti" (pārā. 471) etc., it is only the three robes, in "na, bhikkhave, santaruttarena gāmo pavisitabbo (mahāva. 362), santaruttaraparamaṃ tato cīvaraṃ sāditabba’’nti (pārā. 523-524) etc., it is anything, similarly, in "saguṇaṃ katvā saṅghāṭiyo dātabbā, nivāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ, saṅghāṭi dātabbā, handa te, āvuso, saṅghāṭi, dehi me paṭa’’nti" etc. Indeed, it has been said, "all robes are called ‘saṅghāṭī’ because of the meaning of being assembled together" (pāci. aṭṭha. 898). Similarly, in "‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’’nti" also, according to some. Within the period, whatever robe is allowed for a purpose, when all that is being done, when will it reach completion, therefore, it is only the three robes, according to some.

Acīvarassānāpattipaccuddhārādisiddhitoti What is said here - because of the possibility of the udositasikkhāpada becoming useless, there is an offense for separation from the three robes when [one is] tecīvarassa, according to some. There, it is said, there is no offense because of the accomplishment of withdrawal etc. Indeed, it is said, "There is no offense if one withdraws or relinquishes before dawn" (pārā. 496). Otherwise, for one who is withdrawing or relinquishing before dawn, as long as another is not determined, one incurs an offense in the manner stated. Otherwise, the separation is within seven [days], so from the separation, as has been heard, in the presence of separation, from the separation, in the absence of separation, in the absence of separation.

Udositasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

3. Akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

‘‘apica bhikkhūna’’ntiādi vuttaṃ. That is, "moreover, for the monks," etc., has been said. It should be taken as from the place of a permanent gathering fixed at the boundary of the monastery, or from the dining hall located at the boundary, or from a regularly used dwelling. If the monks gathered in the monastery sit together in a single group, even completing a hundred yojanas, even a hundred yojanas is the boundary of the vicinity, that is the meaning. When "in the boundary of those in communion" is said, it does not reach those dwelling in khaṇḍasīmā etc., because those have a separate boundary of those in communion, and this is the difference between the boundaries of those in communion and the boundaries of non-separation. However, what is given saying "I give in the boundary of non-separation" does not reach those dwelling in the village. Why? Because of the statement, "Except for the village and the vicinity of the village" (mahāva. 144). However, what is given saying "in the boundary of those in communion," reaches even those dwelling in a place where there is a boundary of non-separation. And, "It reaches those dwelling there," and, "Having stood in the khaṇḍasīmā and having said, 'May the Sangha dwelling in the boundary receive,' it should be given having delimited only the boundary of the vicinity," and, "It reaches even those dwelling outside the boundary, that is, until the withdrawal of the kathina," and, "But if the kathina is not spread, if one enters the monastery in the last part of Hemanta and says, 'I give to the Sangha who have spent the rains,' it reaches even those dwelling outside the boundary, those who have spent the last rains without breaking the rains-residence there," thus the Vinayadharas decide, but in the commentary, it is in the future. Therefore, in the Samantapāsādikā, it is said that "those knowing the characteristics say" (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379), and, "Having said, 'From the robe-month until the last day of Hemanta, let us give to the rains-residents,' whether the kathina is spread or not, whatever the Samantapāsādikā statement (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379) is, here also, if it is spread, the former rains-residents receive for five months. If it is not spread, the latter rains-residents receive for four months," thus the decision is written.

‘‘Yehi mayhaṃ yāgu pītāti The intention is, those who had yāgu drunk, having been invited by whom. Therefore, it is said that it reaches only those who had yāgu drunk, having been invited by whom. Otherwise, if it is said, "Those who had yāgu drunk by me," whether they are invited or uninvited, it should reach those who had drunk it," thus they say. Here, saying, "When the kathina is withdrawn for a monk in ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ’," it makes known that there is no possibility of the arising of the three akālacīvaras within this period. But why are they explained in detail in the padabhājana? It is said - however, this training rule is not stated in relation to determination, but in the first training rule, having allowed a maximum of ten days, and if that is not sufficient, if there is expectation, while allowing a month by increasing that itself, this also reveals a special meaning. Akālacīvara, namely, should be distributed in the presence [of the Sangha]. That, however, is stated by increasing it with this training rule that "a monk should accept, if he wishes." Therefore, all three are explained in detail in the padabhājana.

‘‘Khippameva kāretabbanti sīghaṃ antodasāheyeva kāretabba’’nti This, however, is said to reveal that in the state of being sufficient, it is by the characteristic of the previous training rule. Therefore, even without saying "sīghaṃ" or "lahuṃ" etc., it is said "dasāhā" Thus, let it be so for one who has spread the kathina, but what about one who has not spread the kathina? In response, he shows the rejection of one who has not spread [the kathina], and one who does not see [the robe], incurs destruction (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 499-500) it is written.

Akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

4. Purāṇacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

‘‘Sākiyāniyo viya suddhabhikkhusaṅghe vā’’ti This, "a bhikkhunī is ordained in both Sanghas" (pārā. 505) Does it contradict this? No, because of not knowing the intention. It should be understood that it is said thus because ordination in the presence of monks is rejected, fearing that un-conducive thing.

Ekena vatthunāti By any first [robe]. Avuttā vā dhovatīti Or she washes without being told, that is, she washes, dyes, or beats [the robe]. "Because of the word 'Avuttā,' there is no offense in washing etc., without requesting," it is written. Here, cīvara means only what is used for wearing and covering. If so, should it be said that "only what is used for wearing and covering"? That should not be said, because it is already established by "purāṇacīvara." Indeed, it has been said, "purāṇacīvara means even what has been worn once or covered once" (pārā. 505).

Purāṇacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

5. Cīvarappaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Training Rule on Receiving Robes)

Upacāro (the boundary) is twelve cubits. If one asks, "How does it apply to discarded rags (paṃsukūla) that are not intentionally given?" Because those rags are not given to that bhikkhu, and because the bhikkhu does not take them from that bhikkhu.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Receiving Robes is finished.

6. Aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Training Rule on Asking an Unrelated Person)

Ñātakappavārite vā viññāpentassāti (When one asks, having been forbidden by relatives), here, in cases of being forbidden by the Sangha, the limit (pamāṇa) itself applies. It is written that one may ask for whatever one is forbidden by individual forbidding.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Asking an Unrelated Person is finished.

7. Tatuttarisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Training Rule on Asking for More)

In the Samantapāsādikā, because it is said, "Those with robes that are not torn are not allowed to break branches and leaves for their own sake, but they are allowed for the sake of those with torn robes," if one asks, "Is it allowed to ask for the limit (pamāṇa) for the sake of another?" No, why? Because asking an unrelated person is already forbidden by the establishment of the training rule on asking an unrelated person. There is no offense for that training rule. And in the Pali (pārā. 521), because it is said, in this passage on no offense "for the sake of another," that one who asks for the sake of another asks only of a relative who has given permission, not of another, it is forbidden. Therefore, the Blessed One, after criticizing, "You ask for too many robes" (pārā. 522), when establishing the training rule, allowed taking according to the limit only in the manner stated, "if they invite you urgently," not asking beyond the limit for the sake of another. However, because this training rule is established only on the matter of asking for the sake of another, therefore "for the sake of another" is not stated here, not because it is not obtainable.

In the Commentaries, it is said, "In a place where one is forbidden by unrelated persons, even much is allowed naturally, but because of torn robes, only the limit is allowed." Because that does not agree with the passage on no offense, "there is no offense to relatives who have given permission" (pārā. 526), it is written here that, as stated in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.526), there is no offense when one who has been forbidden by relatives asks and takes with his own wealth. "For the sake of another" is not stated because of conflict with the origin story, nevertheless, they say that it is obtainable in the manner stated immediately before.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Asking for More is finished.

8. Upakkhaṭasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Training Rule on Cloth Ordered)

Because of the saying "pubbe appavārito"ti (pārā. 528) (not previously invited), it should be understood that even if invited at that moment, he is still "not previously invited."

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Cloth Ordered is finished.

9. Dutiyaupakkhaṭasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Cloth Ordered)

"kevalaṃ tattha ekassa pīḷā katā, idha dvinnaṃ, ayamettha viseso"ti (only there, distress was done to one person; here, to two; this is the difference here). With this specific meaning, what other additional meaning is shown? In the Porāṇagaṇṭhipada, it is said, "The additional meaning shown is that it is not allowed to cause distress to two people in even one instance." By that, this is indicated: "The reckoning of offenses is not only by the number of robes received, but also by the reckoning of the instances of people distressed."

Here are some verses:

"Even by reckoning the instances, there may be multiple offenses;
Thus, to show this meaning, the second cloth-ordered is here."

"Like the division in the training rule on bodily contact, what is that?
Even for one woman, there are multiple offenses due to effort." (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 532);

Moreover, this training rule should be understood as having the purpose of showing a determination to be made in all training rules of that kind. And it is said:

"Due to the multitude of unrelated people, and due to mixture;
And also, due to the multitude of offenses and due to mixture;
Thus, to show the possibility of these various methods;
The Teacher spoke this second cloth-ordered." (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 532);

bahutāya (multitude): the method.

Vimissatāya (mixture): if a relative and an unrelated person have one thing washed, one Pācittiya for finishing together. Then, if the relative first washes a little and stops, and then the unrelated person makes it well-washed, a Nissaggiya Pācittiya. Then, if the unrelated person washes first, and afterward the relative makes it well-washed, there is only a Dukkaṭa for the bhikkhu due to the effort of the unrelated person. If he has it washed by a relative and an unrelated person, perceiving it as unrelated, being doubtful, or perceiving it as related, the reckoning of the different types of offenses, such as Nissaggiya Dukkaṭa, should be understood according to the method stated. Similarly, if he receives a robe belonging to a relative and an unrelated person, being given together by both, it is simply a Nissaggiya. Then, if he receives it from the hand of only the unrelated person, it is simply a Nissaggiya. Then, if he receives it from the hand of the relative, there is no offense. Then, if in both cases he perceives it as unrelated, etc., the reckoning of the different types of offenses, such as Nissaggiya Dukkaṭa, should be understood according to the method stated. Similarly, in the case of asking an unrelated person, etc., the method should be applied as appropriate. This is the method for mixture.

By the word ādi (etc.), if many unrelated people are asked, there is a Dukkaṭa for each person asked. One gives, one does not give, a Nissaggiya. Then, if one not asked gives, there is no Nissaggiya. Then, if of those asked and not asked, one who has been asked gives, a Nissaggiya. Both give, simply a Nissaggiya. One not asked gives, no offense with a Nissaggiya. If one not asked gives at the word of one asked, there is simply no offense. Similarly, in the case of cloth ordered, etc., the method should be applied as appropriate.

To this extent, in brief, the intention stated in the verse on unrelated persons, etc., is stated. It is said that the example of the training rule on private sitting for bhikkhunis, which is without purpose, will become apparent in that very place. Just so, in other places as well, the specific purpose should be known in the training rules by means of statements, specific origin stories, etc.

The Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Cloth Ordered is finished.

10. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Training Rule on a Royal)

Because it is said "Ṭhānaṃ bhañjati, āgatakāraṇaṃ vināsetī"ti (he ruins the opportunity, he spoils the reason for coming), some say that further urging is not obtainable. Some say that the coming is not fruitful; he will not obtain a robe, because hospitality has been done. Some say that it is said because there is no characteristic of urging. Upatissatthera says, "Hospitality should not be done with the intention of teaching the Dhamma, etc.; 'he spoils the reason for coming' destroys the grounds for urging; one who wishes to urge does what should not be done; because of that cause, there is a Dukkaṭa in the variation of conduct." But Dhammasiritthera says, "If he sits on a seat, with one sitting he ruins two opportunities. If he receives alms-food, with one receiving he ruins two opportunities. If he speaks the Dhamma, with one utterance, according to the limit stated in the training rule on teaching the Dhamma, he ruins two opportunities. With that in mind, it is said, 'he spoils the reason for coming.'" As for the four designated by the bhikkhu, "This one is known," is the first; "this one does service…pe… it is allowed to urge even if not said," is the second; if, however, the messenger says while going, "I will give it into his hands," etc., this is the third; "or having sent another, he announces it," is the fourth; just so, there are four designated by the messenger. It is written that in these cases—Mukhavevaṭikakappiyakārako, parammukhakappiyakārako ca (one who makes it allowable by speaking to the face, and one who makes it allowable behind the back)—one should proceed as in the cases of unrelated, uninvited people.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on a Royal is finished.

The First Chapter on Robes.

2. Eḷakalomavaggo (The Chapter on Goat’s Wool)

1. Kosiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Training Rule on Silk)

Kārāpeyyāti (should have it made): this is said taking into account the silk of oneself, another, and both together; it should be understood in meaning that both do it together. There, if it is made by oneself, it should be said, "At the time of relinquishment, 'made by oneself' is a Nissaggiya." If it is made by both, then just as in the Pali.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Silk is finished.

2. Suddhakāḷakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Training Rule on Pure Black Wool)

Just as in the first, it is said "ekenapi kosiyaṃsunā"ti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kosiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) (even with one silk thread), so here, because there is no statement "ekenapi aññena amissitāna"nti (unmixed with even one other), if it is of a form not apparent even with mixture with another, it is still called "pure black," so they say.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Pure Black Wool is finished.

3. Dvebhāgasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Training Rule on Two Parts)

"Ekassāpi kāḷakalomassa atirekabhāve nissaggiya"nti (If even one black wool is in excess, it is a Nissaggiya): although the statement does not agree with holding on a scale, the teacher says, "Although it is not intentionally given, if even one wool falls there among those previously held and placed on the scale for the sake of the training rule, it is a Nissaggiya; this is the meaning, not a supposition." Not taking according to the limit stated is akiriyā (non-action); making a mat is kiriyā (action).

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Two Parts is finished.

4. Chabbassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Training Rule on Six Years)

Because it is said "Orena ce channaṃ vassāna"nti (If less than six years), it is allowed to make it complete when six years are complete; the limit of six years should be known starting from the day of completion. Here, it is allowed to use all those made by way of excess six years or by way of consent together. And for the sick, even many are allowed because one is not enough. Some say that from when the sickness abates and he is able to take the mat and go, from then on neither consent nor sickness protects. Moreover, the training rule of six years is difficult to discern because it is profound. Therefore, the action should be done in six years.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Six Years is finished.

5. Nisīdanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Training Rule on a Sitting-Cloth)

Why here was the training rule established as "nisīdanasanthata"nti (a sitting-cloth), instead of establishing the training rule as "santhataṃ pana bhikkhunā"ti (but a cloth by a bhikkhu)? Surely, there must be a reason here? There is a reason: it is said that the Blessed One established it thus to show that they are not robes, because cloths considered as robes were rejected. Therefore, those bhikkhus, fearing the distinction of being possessors of three robes with extra practices (dhutaṅga), having rejected the cloths with the consideration of a fourth robe, undertook thirteen extra practices (dhutaṅga), and the Blessed One allowed them the cloth. Then it occurred to those bhikkhus, "This sitting-cloth, which is in the shape of a sitting-robe, is not allowed by the Blessed One as a fourth robe, let alone a previously made cloth." Then, the intention is that the Blessed One established it as "nisīdanasanthata"nti (a sitting-cloth) instead of "santhata"nti (a cloth), so that they would not consider cloths as robes. But of these five cloths, the first three are not allowed to be used even after having been obtained by doing an act of Vinaya, because they are not allowable; the last two are allowed, so it is written (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 566-567). If one asks, "How is it apparent?" it should be understood from the saying "There is no offense if one uses what has been made by another and obtained" (pārā. 570).

The Explanation of the Training Rule on a Sitting-Cloth is finished.

6. Eḷakalomasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā (Explanation of the Training Rule on Goat’s Wool)

"Addhānamaggappaṭipannassā"ti (For one who has set out on a journey), by this, it shows that even if they arise for one who has set out on a long journey naturally, only up to three yojanas may be carried, let alone for one who has not set out. And for one who has set out, addhāna (journey) is like the practice of the path by a bhikkhuni who is unwillingly rained in. The connection is either "nissaggiyaṃ" (it is to be forfeited) for one who has set out on a journey. By that, it is established that there is no offense for one who has gone to the state of being "appaṭipanno" (one who has not set out) due to the suppression of the intention of dwelling. In this alternative interpretation, the construction should be understood as "bhikkhuno paneva eḷakalomāni uppajjeyyuṃ…pe… asantepi hārake addhānamaggappaṭipannassa nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya"nti (if, indeed, goat's wool should arise for a bhikkhu…pe… even in the absence of a carrier, for one who has set out on a journey, it is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya). Or, because it is intended that the limit of three yojanas is from the place of arising of the goat's wool, and there is no limit of three yojanas for one who has not set out on a journey, therefore "addhānamaggappaṭipannassa uppajjeyyu"nti (if they should arise for one who has set out on a journey) is said. By that, it is established that there is no offense for one who obtains what has not been cut and carries it. For obtaining is called their arising.

"A bhikkhu who desires should accept"—this shows that the offense occurs only when the three-yojana limit is exceeded with items accepted by oneself. Thus, it is established that there is no offense for one who, without desiring, carries away another's belongings.

In the Old Commentary, it is said, "If another bhikkhu is made to carry it, there is no offense for either." Therefore, it is established that if two bhikkhus, having reached the three-yojana limit, exchange their goods and carry them, there is no offense.

"To be carried by oneself up to three yojanas" means that they should be carried by oneself only up to three yojanas. What is the purpose of this? It is for the boundary to be no more than that. For it was said, "I allow, O bhikkhus, a boundary to be designated up to three yojanas." (mahāva. 140). It is also so that one who goes with the intention of dwelling, or with the intention of returning, does not exceed this limit. For it was said, "The Group-of-Six bhikkhus designate extremely large boundaries... Bhikkhus coming to the Uposatha arrive even while the Pātimokkha is being recited, they arrive as soon as it is recited, they dwell in between" (mahāva. 140).

"In the absence of a carrier" means when there is no carrier by appointment. It is written that if one sits on a blanket while traveling, if even a single hair sticks to the robe, there is an offense if the three-yojana limit is exceeded, because it has become detached from the blanket. This is fitting, since the blanket has been accepted, and thus it is accepted for one's own purpose.

The Explanation of the Sheep's Wool Training Rule is Finished.

8. The Gold and Silver Training Rule

It is written, "Even the shade of a newly grown tree does not exceed the boundary of the tree."

The Explanation of the Gold and Silver Training Rule is Finished.

9. The Exchanging of Money Training Rule

Exchange of gold and silver is stated in terms of the highest standard.

The Explanation of the Exchanging of Money Training Rule is Finished.

10. The Buying and Selling Training Rule

In the absence (of confession), a pācittiya should certainly be confessed—here, is it a pure pācittiya or a nissaggiya? It is a nissaggiya pācittiya itself.

The Explanation of the Buying and Selling Training Rule is Finished.

Miscellaneous Details Herein

The eighth training rule prohibits the receiving, causing to receive, or consenting to money, either given for one's own sake, given as an exchange, or as paṃsukūla.

The ninth prohibits the exchange of money for oneself or for another.

The tenth (prohibits) the exchange of non-money. And the statement "If, in the case of non-money, he perceives it as non-money, there is no offense with five people together" (pārā. 591; vi. vi. ṭī. 1.591; vajira. ṭī. pārājika 587) indicates that there is an offense with others. And non-money is an object of wrong-doing (dukkata). Therefore, it is stated definitively that if an exchange of it occurs, it is nissaggiya. If there is no offense in exchanging objects of wrong-doing with five people together, would there be no offense at all? No, because only allowable (kappiya) objects are included there. If an allowable object is nissaggiya, what to say of an object of wrong-doing? No, because there is no fixed rule about objects being heavy or light in terms of the gravity or lightness of the offense.

For even pearls, gems, beryl, etc., which are greatly valuable and suitable, are considered objects of wrong-doing compared to a nissaggiya object, thus pearls etc. are lighter than a nissaggiya object. Even in the case of a light object, just as there is a dukkata for receiving an object of wrong-doing, so too is it proper that there is a dukkata for pricing it with that object or for that object, according to the teachers of the Commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.589).

Or, regarding what was said, "because only allowable objects are included there," although objects of wrong-doing are also intended, they are not mentioned in the Pāḷi for fear of giving rise to instances of no offense. Even if pearls, etc., are mentioned, one should declare to the allowable-maker regarding the absence of offense, saying, "We have these pearls, etc., and we need this and this beryl, etc.," and thus he incurs (an offense) by the tenth, that would be the intention. And since this declaring to the allowable-maker, etc., is an exchange, therefore it should be understood that it is spoken of by the ninth. Although buying and selling is only allowed with allowable objects, by this method, although an object of wrong-doing is intended in the tenth, it is not intended, because it contradicts the Commentary, and that is how it should be taken.

What is the underlying reason here that there is no offense when five people are together? No, because it is not included there. If it is said that it is stated for a reason that is not included, no, because there is no special reason for obtaining an instance of no offense for an object that causes offense when five people are together; because it is unallowable, there will certainly be an offense even with five people together, thus the Commentary's statement is established.

In the Andhaka Commentary, however, it is said, "If he engages in buying and selling, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya," but that is poorly spoken. Why? Because there is no buying and selling other than giving and receiving" (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.589), and because, according to one's own opinion, it contradicts the approval of a nissaggiya in the instance of no offense in the tenth, in the manner stated, which is in accordance with the characteristics of buying and selling. Or let this reason be refuted by oneself; these buying and selling (activities) must certainly be known in the tenth, and thus they have attained the state of being nissaggiya—even in this way the Commentary's statement is established.

Here the Elders say: "He intends to transfer money belonging to himself into the hands of another, (it is) a dukkata. He transfers money belonging to another into his own hands, (it is) a nissaggiya by the eighth. How does an exchange of received objects occur? It becomes unusable. Then, he transfers money belonging to another into his own hands first; because the receipt of money has been done, it is a nissaggiya by the eighth. He transfers money belonging to himself into the hands of another afterwards, it is nissaggiya by exchange." For there it is said, "There is an offense by the eighth merely upon receiving money, and afterwards by the ninth upon exchanging," but that is fitting. "He intends, (it is) a dukkata" is poorly spoken. Because there is a risk of no fixed rule for a dukkata, it has already been shown in the methods of relinquishment. What is being said is this: if there are to be two nissaggiyas, in the method of relinquishment, it should be said, "Venerable Sir, I received money and engaged in various kinds of monetary exchanges," because the receipt of money is stated everywhere in the Pāḷi when it says "he has it priced with money."

It is said in the Old Commentary: "While avoiding buying and selling with an object of wrong-doing, if one takes any one of the four nissaggiya objects, it is a nissaggiya by the eighth. An object of wrong-doing (exchanged) for an object of wrong-doing—when he takes (something) saying, 'Give me this for this,' it is a nissaggiya by that very (act). 'Having taken out even the buying and selling, it is a dukkata; with the receiving of money for pricing, by the eighth; with the exchanging, by the ninth, etc.'—it is allowable to exchange with five co-religionists after taking it out according to allowable means, without helping oneself," that has been clarified. Furthermore, it is said there, "How is there a pācittiya when there is no relinquishment? Even if the un-relinquished money is said not to be discarded, if a lay follower, having discarded it, takes it and gives it to another bhikkhu, it is allowable," but that is poorly spoken. For because it has been taken, it does not become another object from that. And again it is said there, "For one who says, 'Take this,' there is a dukkata of loss of faith-giving; for one who says, 'Give this,' there is a dukkata of solicitation," but that is also poorly spoken. For there, a dukkata of effort seems proper.

The Miscellaneous Details are Finished.

The Second Chapter on Sheep's Wool is Finished.

3. The Bowl Chapter

1. The Bowl Training Rule

Two are not subject to offense, therefore these should be used by using them as vessels, not being subject to determination, not being subject to disassociation, that is the meaning. Cooked according to monastic standards means an iron bowl is cooked with five bakings, and a clay bowl with two. It is written that "because the making of a reserve of bowls is prohibited for a bhikkhuni (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 602), it is said, 'having retrieved the old bowl,' considering that it is unsuitable even for a bhikkhu," but that is not fitting, because in the Pāḷi it is said, "he should make a reserve, not being undetermined, not being un-disassociated" (pāci. 735). For that, like the storing up of reserves in the Kathina section (mahāva. 306 ff.), even a single (bowl) is called "a reserve" again on another day. However, in the immediately following training rule, "the second is prohibited" means that the determination is fixed. Therefore, one is not allowed to determine two bowls. If he determines one, both are undetermined. If he determines them separately, the second is undetermined. But he is allowed to disassociate many. Even the value of a kākaṇika—here, the pi-particle combines the baking so that "it produces even one baking." Or, if it is suitable with just one baking, the measure of baking is not stated, it should be taken that way. Because it is not subject to offense, it is not subject to determination. He should disassociate without retrieving—it is written that he should disassociate that old bowl without retrieving it, that is the meaning.

The Explanation of the Bowl Training Rule is Finished.

2. The Less Than Five Bindings Training Rule

When invited—here, it is written that in a place where one is invited by the Sangha, it is only allowable with five bindings; in a place where one is invited individually, it is allowable even with less than five bindings.

He who does this for the sake of less than five bindings,
And the statement too, he who makes that;
For the sake of less than five bindings,
Having arrived at (their) vicinity.

The Explanation of the Less Than Five Bindings Training Rule is Finished.

3. The Medicine Training Rule

It is written that "having accepted allowable requisites" indicates that it is allowable to accept and keep (them) for the purpose of applying to the feet, etc. "Whose meat is allowable"—those who say that ghee, etc., is not allowable for those whose meat is not allowable, are speaking without knowing. For the statement whose meat is allowable is stated for the purpose of showing the limitation of nissaggiya objects allowable for seven days. Similarly, in the training rule on exquisite food, it is stated to show that for those whose meat is allowable, milk, etc., is exquisite food, and not for others. The name honey—like the exudate in the dwellings of honey-makers, bumblebees, and bees, it is great honey, and that is allowable for life, it is also written.

The Explanation of the Medicine Training Rule is Finished.

The Third Chapter on Bowls is Finished.

The Explanation of the Nissaggiya Pācittiyas is Finished.

The Pācittiya Section

4. The Food Chapter

2. The Group Meal Training Rule

In the Andhaka Commentary, however, even soliciting by way of invitation is stated in terms of the object. Why? Because in the Parivāra itself it is said, "A group meal arises in two ways, either from solicitation or from invitation" (pari. 322). Therefore, it should be understood that it is not stated in the word analysis because it is obvious in the eight instances of arising. It is also written that "'they take together' means that even if the food has been taken, as long as others are taking, if they remain there, it is indeed called taking together," and that "whoever is a renunciate" means among co-religionists or even among non-Buddhists, and that "absence of occasion" means the absence of the seven instances of no offense, and that "there are four with the one who obtained the occasion," and that "the one who obtained the occasion is freed himself, (but) for the rest, because he completes the group, he is the cause of offense."

Here someone says, "The receiving itself is the measure here," if so, why is it said in the Pāḷi, "A group meal is where four... eat together" (pāci. 218)? It is said: there, "they eat" is a statement of the rule of receiving. For bhikkhus do not eat something that has not been received.

The Explanation of the Group Meal Training Rule is Finished.

3. The Successive Meal Training Rule

Aññatra-samayā means, according to some, that accepting an invitation, an offering, or expecting a meal incurs a pācittiya. If a bhikkhu is wandering for alms and receives food, and another lay follower invites him and seats him in their house, but the food is not yet ready, if that bhikkhu then wanders for alms and eats the food he obtains, there is an offense. Why? Because it is said, " 'Successive meal' (paramparabhojana) is when one, being invited with one of the five foods, sets that aside and eats another of the five foods; this is called successive meal" (pāci. 227). The readings are "similar to the first Kathina, but this is action and non-action."

The Explanation of the Successive Meal Training Rule is complete.

4. The Kāṇamātā Training Rule

Dvattipattapūrā paṭiggahetabbā means that, when needing such brought cakes, one should take an amount up to the full measure of the best bowl. He is not freed from the offense of taking more than needed (atirekappaṭiggahaṇa) by announcing that he is preparing for a journey or other purposes, or by not sharing, due to the absence of intention regarding the training rule. Even if he takes what was set aside, he is still not freed. However, there is no offense in not sharing because it is not allowable (akappiya). Some say that the absence of intention is due to not knowing the regulation, not due to not knowing the item. Because "not knowing that one is preparing for a journey or other purpose" is not mentioned among the factors, the elders say that if one does not intentionally say so, there is a pācittiya. Atirekappaṭiggahaṇa (taking more than needed): since only the fifth factor is mentioned there, there is no pācittiya because it was not taken; however, there is a dukkata due to not doing what should be done. Otherwise, this becomes a case of action and non-action. Not preventing or not announcing could be stated as the sixth factor.

The Explanation of the Kāṇamātā Training Rule is complete.

5. The First Invitation Training Rule

Bhuttāvī pavāraṇaṃ (invitation after eating) has five factors. Among these, because "food is made known" fulfills the meaning of "having eaten," a separate fulfillment of meaning is not seen. If it is seen, it is written that it shows the factors six times (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 238-239). "Bhojanaṃ paññāyatī" (food is made known) is said in reference to what has been brought forward.

Koṭṭetvā-katacuṇṇampī: the pi implies ground-up grain husks (kuṇḍaka). Because it is only said, "grain husks or any rice that is evenly cooked and fried or sun-dried," one may invite with flour of evenly cooked and fried rice grains (vīhi) or rice husks. Similarly, one may invite with ground husks that are coarsely cooked and fried. It is written that one may also invite with fried flour that has been formed into a lump, which is an uncooked flour-cake (sattu-modaka). If there is nothing remaining, one may not invite. Why? Because there is no processed food (vippakatabhojana) that is classified as food (asana).

It is also said that "maṃsarasa" (meat broth) is not the intended meaning in this explanation. If one brings gruel mixed with rice and says, "Take the gruel," one does not invite. If one says, "Take the rice," one invites. Why? Because the one who was asked has rice. However, if one says, "Take the mixed gruel," and the gruel is more or equal in amount, and the rice is little, one does not invite. If the gruel is little and the rice is more, one invites. Since this is said in all the commentaries, it cannot be rejected. The reason here is difficult to see. If one says, "Take the mixed rice," and the rice is more, equal, or less, one invites. If one does not touch either the rice or the gruel and says, "Take the mixture," and the rice is more or equal, one invites. If it is less, one does not invite. All of that should be investigated.

Phalaṃ vā kandamūlādi vā pañcahi samaṇakappehi kappiyaṃ akata (fruit, root or tuber which are made allowable with the five samaṇakappas): here, it is allowable to have extra prepared along with allowable (kappiya) unripe bananas (kadaliphala), and setting aside those unripe bananas, one can eat the remainder. Because they are unmixed, they are allowable. Again, it is allowable to have those made allowable (kappiya), placing them in another container, and then have them prepared and eat them. Why? Because the Vinaya act has not previously been applied to them, so they say.

Alametaṃ sabbaṃ means, "This is enough for you; you will not get anything else from this."

Āhāratthāyā: some say that it is only at the wrong time (vikāle). The readings are "similar to the first Kathina, but this is action and non-action." Kāyakammaṃ (bodily action) is the act of swallowing. Vacīkammaṃ (verbal action) should be understood as not requesting with the words "Make it more, Bhante."

The Explanation of the First Invitation Training Rule is complete.

6. The Second Invitation Training Rule

"Bhojanapariyosāne pācittiya" is said, not for each mouthful (ajjhohāre).

The Explanation of the Second Invitation Training Rule is complete.

7. The Untimely Meal Training Rule

It seems that Jambudīpa is limited by time.

The Explanation of the Untimely Meal Training Rule is complete.

8. The Storing Up Training Rule

Because it is said here in the manner of "Duddhoto hotī," "having washed the bowl with dishwater, then again

Sayaṃ paṭiggahetvā apariccattameva (having accepted it oneself and without relinquishing it): here, apariccattaṃ means not relinquishing it without expectation towards non-ordained persons, not abandoning it. "Paṭiggahaṇa" (acceptance): the Venerable Dhammasiri says that "the state of having accepted it without abandoning it itself generates storing up." That contradicts the Pali passage "he accepts it, there is an offense of dukkata" (pāci. 255). However, it should be investigated, since there is no need for him to accept it again.

The Explanation of the Storing Up Training Rule is complete.

9. The Choice Food Training Rule

"Tesaṃ maṃsañca khīradadhīni ca idha adhippetānī" (Meat, milk and curds are intended here): this is the defining of the Pācittiya item, not the defining of allowable (kappiya) milk, etc.; therefore, milk, etc., are allowable for anyone. Also, "it should be made allowable with the Mahānāma training rule": if, when inviting with regard to the Sangha, one requests the five medicines, such as ghee, for the purpose of medicine, it falls under the category of "he does not request medicine with what is to be done with medicine" here; therefore, it is written that "there is a pācittiya for that" (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 261).

The Explanation of the Choice Food Training Rule is complete.

10. The Tooth Stick Training Rule

Because it is said "Sarīrāvayavena" (with a part of the body), acceptance with the mouth is allowed. Also, "it is not allowable to throw it on the ground among tamarind leaves, but it is allowable in a weed field," and "sāmaṃ gahetvā" (having taken it oneself) distinguishes not only what has been bitten by a snake, but also other things that have been bitten. It is written that "it is allowable to take and use it oneself."

The Explanation of the Tooth Stick Training Rule is complete.

The fourth chapter, Bhojanavagga, is complete.

5. The Acelakavagga

1. The Acelaka Training Rule

Because the Acelakas, etc., are here,
Considered to be sectarians;

Therefore, with the name of sectarians,
The division is made in three places from that.

For a bhikkhu who is not a sectarian who is naked,
As well as for one with sectarian marks;

And even for a householder, it is proper,
This is the decision.

For one who is not a sectarian, with the mind,
And for one with sectarian marks;

It is not our opinion here that it is proper
To give to a Stream-enterer, etc.

The Explanation of the Acelaka Training Rule is complete.

3. The Shared Meal Training Rule

sacittakatā (intentionally) should be understood.

The Explanation of the Shared Meal Training Rule is complete.

4-5. The Hidden Seating in a Private Place Training Rule

The fourth is in the first fixed rule; the fifth is in the second fixed rule, in the manner stated. Here, the fifth is for Upananda, the fourth is for others.

The Explanation of the Hidden Seating in a Private Place Training Rule is complete.

6. The Conduct Training Rule

Sabhatto samāno (being of the same meal) means an invitation meal, according to the elders. There are four kinds of subsequent rulings here: (1) when there is a bhikkhu present, (2) without asking, (3) before the meal, (4) after the meal, (5) except at the proper time. Among these, samayā (times) are two times. Bhattiyaghara (house of a meal) is the house of the one who invited or the house of those who give a lottery meal, etc. The readings are "The origination, etc., are similar to the first Kathina, but this is action and non-action." Some say that "here, the invitation is an unallowable invitation."

Having wandered for alms,
If one eats before the meal;

There could be an offense of successive meals,
That would not be the case after the meal.

And after the meal, if a traveler
Goes to the former house;

Some say that there is an offense indeed,
Some say that there is no offense.

Those who think there is an offense
Are because of going to another family;

Others here say that it is in the expectation
Of the same meal.

They agree on the meal of a prostitute
Being an invitation;

Some say that dismissing is the same,
Others say it is being face-to-face.

The wise should know that this training rule
Called conduct is to be considered

With regard to the various meanings
Of those who have firm understanding. (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 294);

The Explanation of the Conduct Training Rule is complete.

7. The Mahānāma Training Rule

"Apariyantappavāraṇāya pavārite" (invited for an unlimited invitation) means that the donors invite with regard to the Sangha and with regard to individuals. Therefore, it is said that "there is an invitation with regard to the Sangha," but it is not said that "there is an invitation with regard to individuals." Also, "pariyantātikkamo" (exceeding the limit) takes in the sick, therefore it is not said that "being sick and not being sick." Even so, it is written that "the reading is 'there is an invitation with regard to the Sangha'," which should be investigated.

The Explanation of the Mahānāma Training Rule is complete.

8. The Arrayed Army Training Rule

Hatthiādīsu ekamekaṃ (each one among elephants, etc.) means even an elephant with at least one man riding on it, and even one man with a weapon in his hand. The reading is "The origination, etc., are similar to goat's hair, but this is a worldly fault, an unwholesome mind, and threefold sensation."

The Explanation of the Arrayed Army Training Rule is complete.

9. The Encampment Training Rule

Kenaci palibuddhassa (obstructed by someone) means obstructed by a rival or a lord or someone. It should be marked out by the boundary of the army, or by a place suitable for a boundary, or by the limit of a place of movement.

The Explanation of the Encampment Training Rule is complete.

The fifth chapter, Acelakavagga, is complete.

6. The Surāpānavagga

If this is freedom from perception, how is it a Pacittiya offense?;
Like playing at not playing, it would be due to wrong grasping.

To this extent, how is it playing? Thus, it is indeed in playing;
Here, one has the perception of not playing, one should undertake the meaning of the Vinaya.

Since one is entirely unskillful, with a mind delighting in play;
Therefore, an unskillful mind, only one, is obtained here. (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 336);

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Jesting is Finished.

4. Commentary on the Training Rule on Disrespect

Tassa vacanaṃ: "He will disrespect his words, thinking, 'This one is suspended, or defeated, or blamed, his words will not be done.'" Dhammaṃ: Lest the Dhamma in the talk be lost, destroyed, or disappear, or being unwilling to learn it, he shows disrespect. It is written, "It is not proper for one who, having transgressed worldly fault, says, 'This is our teacher's burden'." (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 344)

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Disrespect is Finished.

6. Commentary on the Training Rule on Fire

Since it is said "Visibbanāpekkho" (expecting it to be extinguished), it is allowable for another, and for others.

The sages kindle a light, one or many, together;
One extinguishes, not many, due to a distinction in intention.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Fire is Finished.

8. Commentary on the Training Rule on Discoloring

Morakkhimaṇḍalamaṅgulapiṭṭhīnaṃ: They say, "Not entirely, more, or less." Even a single corner is allowable, thus even a single dot is allowable, wherever it may be.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Discoloring is Finished.

9. Commentary on the Training Rule on Assigning

"Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriya" is the reading. Here, by use, it is bodily action. By non-withdrawal, it is verbal action.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Assigning is Finished.

10. Commentary on the Training Rule on Hiding Away

Sasūcike: The ancients say, "An offense is incurred by counting needles in a needle case."

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Hiding Away is Finished.

The Sixth Chapter, the Surāpāna Chapter, is Finished.

7. The Sappāṇaka Chapter

1. Commentary on the Training Rule on Deliberately

By counting the object, by counting the link of action, by intention of killing; not by counting the link of action, by intention of killing. Here, this distinction should be understood, that many living beings die by one intention.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Deliberately is Finished.

2. Commentary on the Training Rule on With Living Beings

Sappāṇakaṃ: A Pacittiya offense due to the death of living beings, not a Pacittiya offense due to using water with living beings, therefore, it is said, "evaṃ paṇṇattivajja." A Pacittiya offense due to an impure mind, no offense with a pure mind. It is written that the state of being an offense by designation is spoken of like lighting a lamp.

Putting into water is earlier, entering into water is this;
Thus, the difference between the two should always be known by the wise. (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 387)

The Commentary on the Training Rule on With Living Beings is Finished.

5. Commentary on the Training Rule on Under Twenty Years Old

Aññaṃ upasampādeti: (ordains another) –

If the preceptor himself recites the Kammavāca;
Some think the Kamma succeeds, but not the Vinaya experts.

Since a Dukkata offense is done by the teacher and the group;
Therefore, the teacher and preceptor are distinct here.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Under Twenty Years Old is Finished.

7. Commentary on the Training Rule on Conspiring

Here, these three, one fully ordained, a female trainee, and a female novice, come under the scope of the rule, but the agreement of these three must be kept. This is the distinction between these and the women.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Conspiring is Finished.

9. Commentary on the Training Rule on Association with a Suspended Monk

It is written, "Taṃ diṭṭhiṃ appaṭinissaṭṭhena" (without abandoning that view), referring to one who does not associate due to differing views. Ticittaṃ: Here, it should be understood that he would share the same lodging with a result-indeterminate mind. Otherwise, because of the mind being connected with action, it is not fitting in reference to the training rule being indeterminate in action.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Association with a Suspended Monk is Finished.

10. Commentary on the Training Rule on an Obstacle

What is said in the porāṇagaṇṭhipade (ancient commentary) is not fitting. Expulsion with a stick is intended here. If he is a Pārājika, it would be called expulsion from the Order. The view, "Te paṭisevato nālaṃ antarāyāya" (they are not enough to be an obstacle by associating), is not a view like disbelief in the Teacher. If that arises in someone, he becomes a Pārājika, even in that case it should be dealt with in the same way, if he does not stand in restraint, he should be destroyed by expulsion from the Order (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 428), this is the teacher's reasoning.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on an Obstacle is Finished.

The Seventh Chapter, the Sappāṇaka Chapter, is Finished.

8. The Sahadhammika Chapter

4. Commentary on the Training Rule on Striking

If it should be said that, like the intention of liberation from the limbs, the intention of non-death should be spoken of? It should not be spoken of. Why? Because the bhikkhu who desires to strike himself, since there is an absence of application in his death by intention, and because of the authority of non-death, only the intention of non-death is there, therefore, these were not spoken of like those. But there is no anger in the intention of liberation, therefore it is said that there is no offense.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Striking is Finished.

5. Commentary on the Training Rule on Talasattika

talasattikaṃ. Some say, "sattika in the sense of being able to strike." Since, for one striking with the desire to strike, there is a Pacittiya offense for the former action, but a Pacittiya offense for this action is incurred only when merely uttering with the intention of uttering. But by being separated from this, a blow is given, therefore, because it is given without the intention of striking, there is a Dukkata offense. Is this Dukkata offense due to the condition of striking, or due to the condition of uttering? The Dukkata offense is indeed due to the condition of striking, and the former Pacittiya offense is due to the condition of uttering, so a Pacittiya offense with a Dukkata offense is fitting. Indeed, the uttering is earlier, and the striking is later. And the former uttering cannot be based on the latter striking as a basis for non-offense, therefore, this is not the reasoning (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 456), according to the teacher.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Talasattika is Finished.

7. Commentary on the Training Rule on Deliberately

"Kukkuccupādana" (arousing remorse), the third factor, should be understood as spoken according to his intention.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Deliberately is Finished.

8. Commentary on the Training Rule on Listening in Secret

Upassuti: Just as upakujjhaṃ is called "samīpakujjha" (near the overturned), so upassuti should be understood as "samīpassutī" (near listening). Ṭhānaṃ (place) means the place where one stands and listens. Sutī: Here, it also means the sound of others' words. For that is heard, hence the name suti (hearing). Or upassuti (listening in secret) is where it is listened to. For the opportunity is called suti (hearing). Imesaṃ sutvā: (Having heard these) Here, the remainder of the reading is "vacana" (word).

It originates from the object of theft. Siyā kiriyaṃ (it may be with action), going to the hearing. Siyā akiriyaṃ (it may be without action), from the place where one is standing, from the origin due to not making it known to those who are speaking. It is written, "Saññāvimokkhaṃ, sacittakaṃ, lokavajjaṃ, kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, akusalacittaṃ, dukkhavedanaṃ." (freedom from perception, with intention, a worldy offense, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome intention, painful feeling)

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Listening in Secret is Finished.

9. Commentary on the Training Rule on Rejecting a Kamma

But for one making a robe appamattakavissajjanakena (with small expendable items), the needles and so on, of the types mentioned in the chapter on dwelling places (cūḷava. 328), should be given even without asking permission. For one giving more than that, an act of asking permission should be done. However, the intention is that such an asking of permission is itself a mark of a Kamma. Thus, the kammalakkhaṇaṃ (mark of the Kamma) should be known everywhere. In village boundary monasteries, only removing and so on are not allowable as Saṅgha Kammas. However, the Vissajjiyavebhaṅgiyas are allowable. Instead of saying in general "belonging to the Sangha," one should ask permission, saying "belonging to the Sangha in this monastery," and it is written that "samuṭṭhānādīni adinnādānasadisāni, idaṃ pana dukkhavedana" (the origin etc., are similar to taking what is not given, but this is painful feeling).

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Rejecting a Kamma is Finished.

10. Commentary on the Training Rule on Going Without Giving Consent

Some say that if one does not give consent without attending the meeting, there is no offense. Some say a Dukkata offense, due to the intention of obstructing a Dhamma Kamma.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Going Without Giving Consent is Finished.

11. Commentary on the Training Rule on Weak

Akappiyena vā: (or with what is unallowable) with a couch made of gold or silver. Kappiyamañco sampaṭicchitabbo: (An allowable couch should be accepted) is said referring to what is given saying, "we give it to the Sangha," but if they say, "we give it to the monastery," even an unallowable couch made of gold or silver should be accepted, and "arañjaro bahuudakagaṇhanako" (a forest cistern, holding much water), and "saṅghikapaabhogena vā" (or by communal use of the Saṅgha), if the ārāmikas and others return it after use, it is allowable to use it, and "a vessel made of bronze or iron, even if given to the Saṅgha, is not allowable as a parihāriya" (article for exchange or distribution) (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321), since it is said in the Samantapāsādikā, it is not permissible to take it back with one's own hand, and "they say, 'a string for a waistband'," and the reading is, "hiṅgu hiṅguliharitālamanosilā añjanānī" (asafoetida, cinnabar, orpiment, realgar, collyrium), and the reading is, "a box made of wood…pe…without feet," and "dārumayo tumbo" (a wooden gourd) means "a water gourd made of wood," and it is written, "on pillars, beams, steps, planks, and so on."

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Weak is Finished.

12. Commentary on the Training Rule on Diverting

One bhikkhu wants to give to a suspended monk, having prevented the giving to him, he causes it to be given to another, there is no offense. Likewise, he causes it to be given to one who is destroying faithful gifts, his female dependents want to give a bowl to so-and-so, and ask permission, he says, "This is an unsuitable share, give it to one with a suitable share." There is no offense, because it is his responsibility. But if he causes it to be given to another when he wants to give it to him, there is an offense. Everywhere, having asked permission, he is allowed to investigate as he pleases one who wants to give.

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Diverting is Finished.

The Eighth Chapter, the Sahadhammika Chapter, is Finished.

9. The Ratana Chapter

1. Commentary on the Training Rule on the Inner Apartments

Asayanighare: (not in a sleeping room) in the roots of trees and so on, outside what is enclosed. The teacher said, "If he is only a noble, not consecrated, or consecrated, not a noble, he protects," because being a noble and being consecrated are mentioned as factors of the offense. The reading is, "Samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamakathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriya" (the origin etc., are similar to the first Kathina, but this is action and inaction).

The Commentary on the Training Rule on the Inner Apartments is Finished.

2. Commentary on the Training Rule on Treasure

Nikkhipanaṃ, gopanañca paṭikkhipitvā pavatto: He proceeds having rejected the depositing and guarding with bhaṇḍāgārikasīsena (the head treasurer).

The Commentary on the Training Rule on Treasure is Finished.

3. Commentary on the Training Rule on Entering a Village at the Wrong Time

"‘Santaṃ bhikkhu’ and ‘anāpucchā’ and ‘tathārūpā accāyikā’—these are the three here" is the reading."The origins, etc., are similar to the Kathina, but this is a kiriyākiriya" is the reading.

The explanation of the training rule on entering a village at an unseasonable time is finished.

4. Sūcigharasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

Taṃ assā means that breaking (bhedanakaṃ) is a feature of that Pācittiya, because the breaking must be done first, and then confessed. This method applies to the others as well. Vāsijaṭe means a handle fashioned with a chisel (vāsidaṇḍake).

The explanation of the training rule on needle cases is finished.

5. Mañcapīṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

Aṭṭhaṅgulapādaka is neuter in gender (bhāvanapuṃsakaṃ). Setting (it) down in a balanced manner is what makes it eight (aṭṭakaraṇaṃ).

The explanation of the training rule on couches and chairs is finished.

6. Tūlonaddhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

Although a Pācittiya seems to apply upon receiving it, the offense should be seen as occurring upon using it. The statement, "If one receives something made by another and uses it, the offense is a Dukkaṭa" (pāci. 529), supports this.

The explanation of the training rule on sitting cloths stuffed with cotton is finished.

7. Nisīdanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

Although the type (jāti) of sitting cloth is not evident here, nevertheless, since it is allowed within the category of cloth scraps (cīvarakkhandhake), and since it is included in the statement, "nine cloths should be determined," it should be understood that its type is that of cloth. Some say, "If one obtains a suitable one, it is acceptable; if not, even an unsuitable one is acceptable," but that is not right, since the regulation of its form is, "What is called a sitting cloth is considered suitable" (pāci. 531-532).

The explanation of the training rule on sitting cloths is finished.

The ninth Ratanavagga is finished.

The explanation of the Suddhapācittiya is finished.

Pāṭidesanīyakaṇḍaṃ

1. Paṭhamapāṭidesanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

Yāmakālikādīsu: A Dukkaṭa (offense) arises only for the purpose of nourishment. Even that (Dukkaṭa) is for flavors unmixed with meat; if mixed into a single flavor, then it is only Pāṭidesanīya.

The explanation of the first Pāṭidesanīya training rule is finished.

2. Dutiyapāṭidesanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

"The origins, etc., are similar to the Kathina, but this is a kiriyākiriya" is the reading.

The explanation of the second Pāṭidesanīya training rule is finished.

4. Catutthapāṭidesanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

Ārāme vā ārāmūpacāre vā paṭiggahetvā ajjhoharantassa: The meaning is, "having received (it) in a monastery or in the vicinity of a monastery, and then consuming (it) in a monastery or in the vicinity of a monastery."

"The origins, etc., are similar to the Kathina, but this is a kiriyākiriya" is the reading.

The explanation of the fourth Pāṭidesanīya training rule is finished.

The explanation of the Pāṭidesanīya is finished.

Sekhiyakaṇḍaṃ

Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ is said. Ārāme vā: At the time of attending to the Buddha, etc. Pārupitabbanti is said with reference to the function of the upper robe (uttarāsaṅga).

Ṭhatvā: Here, it is written that even while going, one can look to see if there is any danger (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 582). Just as one who has entered a dwelling is allowed to sit in an inner room with their body uncovered, so too, one intending to go to that person is allowed to go as they please without tying their body covering or removing their Saṅghāṭi, or announcing their entry into the village. Therefore, if one bhikkhu, while traveling on a long road, fulfills the practice of entering a village, enters the village, reaches a lodging that is already prepared, puts down their equipment, and enters a dwelling, it is allowable for the others to go to that person as they please. What then to say of going to bhikkhus who have lived there after determining a residence for four or five days, and of going to those who have entered a dwelling? It is allowable to go as one pleases even to worship the Buddha. And this was said in the commentary: "There is no offense, having regard to a reason, looking here and there." There, kāraṇaṃ should be understood as meaning material offerings, it is written.

The explanation of the twenty-six Sāruppas is finished.

Asañcicca bhuñjati means one eats unintentionally. Assatiyā bhuñjati means one takes and eats something that has been requested and not requested, located in one place, suddenly and without considering it carefully.

chattapāṇino.

"The training rule on requesting soup and rice is of theft origin, kiriya, without perception, of one's own volition, a worldling's fault, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome thought, painful feeling" is the reading.

The explanation of the Sekhiya is finished.

The explanation of the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha is finished.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa

Bhikkhunīpātimokkhavaṇṇanā

Pārājikakaṇḍaṃ

Abhilāpamattameva: Here, there are two kinds of address, "bhante" for those who are younger, and "āvuso" for those who are older, but here, for both old and young, it is only "ayyā."

Kāyasaṃsagge vuttanayena: Here, kiriyasamuṭṭhānatā is said in accordance with the rule of frequency. However, because it says "should consent to" (sādiyeyyā) instead of saying "should engage in bodily contact" (kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjeyyā), it should be understood that it arises even from non-action. Just as here, after saying kiriyasamuṭhānatā in the manner of "for a human female, one who enjoys sexual intercourse by three paths" (pārā. 56), then immediately after that, by the method of "a prostitute brings a human female to a bhikkhu, and they cause the organ to be inserted into the vagina, and if he consents to the entry" (pārā. 58), akiriyasamuṭṭhāna is stated, so kiriyasamuṭhānatā should be understood as applying to the first Pārājika in accordance with the rule of frequency. Indeed, kiriyasamuṭhānatā is not seen in consenting to entry and so on.

The movement of the organ should not be regarded as essential here, since in the passage, "if he does not consent to the entry, does not consent to what has entered, does not consent to it staying, (but) consents to the withdrawal, there is an offense of Pārājika," (pārā. 58) even in not consenting to it staying, there is naturally complete movement. The movement involved in the enjoyment does not even appear due to the condition of consenting, so kiriyasamuṭhānatā should be taken in accordance with the rule of frequency.

In the Khandhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, "In the case of intoxicants, a bhikkhu incurs a Pācittiya (offense) even if he drinks alcohol unknowingly, from the start of the brewing process. A novice, if knowingly, commits a breach of morality, but not unknowingly" (mahāva. aṭṭha. 108). It is not said, "Even if there is a arising of unwholesome thought similar to the production of an unwholesome thought that completes the action in offenses such as killing a living being, in cases where the thing is not known, the novice does not commit a breach of morality." The word abhinivesa (insistence) shows that the drinking of alcohol by novices has the same outcome as killing a living being and so on. There is no impossibility of unwholesomeness for one who transgresses by way of drinking and so on, knowing the thing "these are intoxicants." Therefore, it is said, "for whom in the case of his own volition" and so on.

Pavesanaṃ sādiyatī: Here, pavesanasādiyanaṃ means generating a thought of enjoyment, desiring the path (maggena) or even that which is on the verge of the path (maggappaṭipannampi). There is definitely some physical movement in that as well. Even so, they say that it should be taken after investigation, it is written.

The explanation of the Pārājika is finished.

Saṅghādisesakaṇḍaṃ

1. Ussayavādikāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

"This bhikkhunī…pe… has offended": By specifying the individual, it is intended as more serious than a Pārājika, and the name of the offense, "Saṅghādisesa requiring expulsion," is also stated. "The origins, etc., are similar to the first Kathina, but this is only a kiriya" is the reading.

The explanation of the Ussayavādikā training rule is finished.

2. Corivuṭṭhāpikāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

Vācācittato: From speech and thought; kāyavācācittato: From body, speech, and thought, (when) located at a boundary marker, etc.

The explanation of the Corivuṭṭhāpikā training rule is finished.

3. Ekagāmantaragamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

Because it says "without invitation" (Ābhogaṃ vinā), there is no offense if there is an invitation. However, in this training rule, in the Samantapāsādikā, an offense is stated for transgressing the vicinity; here, (the offense is stated) upon stepping over (the boundary). Although (these) two say the same thing in meaning, the Saṅghādisesa for going to another village is stated with reference to the vicinity. Opposition to becoming separate from the group. This saying "in the wilderness" is said in terms of meaning; it can also happen in another village.

Sikkhāpadā buddhavarena vaṇṇitā: By way of a verse. In the commentary too, the far shore of a river is said to be included in another village.

The explanation of the Ekagāmantaragamana training rule is finished.

"Because of concealment, one incurs a Dukkaṭa" – this –

These questions are considered by the skilled." (pari. 481) –

It is said, "two clod throws from the boundary of the village and from the boundary of the monastery for bhikkhus." There, it is allowable for bhikkhus to do that deed even in the village, having transgressed the area mentioned. But for bhikkhunīs, it is not allowable in the village. Therefore, it is said in this way by some. Others, however, say that it is not allowable even for bhikkhus in the village. The bhikkhu's monastery is situated having already transgressed the village boundary, so the monastery boundary is stated below without mentioning the village. The bhikkhunī's monastery is located within the village, not outside, so both the village boundary and the monastery boundary are shown here. Therefore, in both cases, there is no difference in meaning, they say. Whatever is reasonable should be taken.

The explanation of the Saṅghādisesa is finished.

Nissaggiyakaṇḍaṃ

In the second (training rule), a robe obtained after being caused to be apportioned here becomes Nissaggiya; it cannot be obtained by oneself even after performing the act of Vinaya.

"The origins, etc., are similar to taking what is not given, but this is painful feeling" is the reading.

In the fourth (training rule), if after first requesting it, one obtains something else that is less than that, it is Nissaggiya solely due to the accomplishment of its factors.

The explanation of the Nissaggiya is finished.

Pācittiyakaṇḍaṃ

1. Paṭhamavaggavaṇṇanā

Haritako. Cāpalasuṇaṃ is amiñjako. It only has the size of a sprout. Palaṇḍukā and the others are naturally round. It is written that it is allowable to put Sūpasampākādī even into rice gruel, at the very least, without (other additions). The Abhayagiris hold that "garlic is suitable for a sick bhikkhunī even before the meal, but not for one who is not sick."

In the second (training rule), due to a reason of illness, it is allowable to ask the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and have (it) gathered. A bhikkhu incurs a Dukkaṭa in this and in the case of garlic.

"The origins, etc., are similar to the training rule on the long journey" is the reading.

Kuṭṭo means a house wall. Pākāro means an enclosure wall.

Chaḍḍitakhetta means an old field. For a bhikkhu, it is permissible to abandon a field belonging to the Sangha, because it is included in the property of the Sangha. For bhikkhunīs also, in the case of property belonging to the Sangha or to the bhikkhu-Sangha, it is permissible in the manner stated above. Even so, it is written that it should be done according to what is suitable.

The passage "sayaṃ tāni vatthūni karontiyā" (herself doing those things) etc., is not found in this sikkhāpada. Why? Because its origin (samuṭṭhāna) is not due to loose wool. If so, why is it mentioned? Because of the great authority (mahāpadesa) conforming to the Sutta. If it is not allowed to see or hear dancing etc., it is even less allowed to do it oneself; it is stated because it is understood by implication (naya). Otherwise, the great authorities would be meaningless. "Thus, the naya should be applied elsewhere as well. The origin (samuṭṭhāna) here is also stated; it should be taken as sixfold, not as unoriginated," say the teachers. The origin stated here is the offense stated in between that is the root, therefore it is of loose wool origin only, according to others. Ārāme ṭhatvā (Having stayed in the monastery): not only by staying, but also by going from there, it is obtained in all postures (iriyāpatha). Ārāme ṭhitā (Staying in the monastery) means included in the monastery. Otherwise, even sitting would not be allowed.

The Commentary on the First Vagga is Finished.

2. Commentary on the Second Vagga

upacāro (boundary) is twelve hatthas. "Samuṭṭhāna, etc., are similar to kathina, but this is a case of action and inaction (kiriyākiriya*)," is the reading.

dhuvapaññatte (permanently assigned) is for the sake of the bhikkhunīs. Kulānī means family houses.

The Commentary on the Second Vagga is Finished.

3. Commentary on the Third Vagga

saṅghāṭicāraṃ (wandering in the saṅghāṭi).

"Idaṃ pana kiriyākiriya" (But this is a matter of action and inaction) is the reading.

aññasmiṃ parikkhāre dukkaṭaṃ (a dukkaṭa for another requisite) means for any one of dishes etc., or sesame oil etc.

The Commentary on the Third Vagga is Finished.

4. Commentary on the Fourth Vagga

"sesamettha paṭhamaariṭṭhasikkhāpade vuttavinicchayasadisamevā" (The rest here is similar to the judgment stated in the first ariṭṭha sikkhāpada) is the reading.

The Commentary on the Fourth Vagga is Finished.

5. Commentary on the Fifth Vagga

Because in the Pali, "Cittāgāraṃ nāma yattha katthaci manussānaṃ kīḷituṃ ramituṃ kataṃ hotī"tiādinā (pāci. 979) (A pleasure hall is a place made anywhere for people to play and enjoy themselves) etc., is stated, pleasure halls etc., are made for the sake of all, not for the king alone.

"Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriya" (The origin, etc., are similar to the kathina, but this is a matter of action and inaction) is the reading. This same reading is also in the eighth.

The Commentary on the Fifth Vagga is Finished.

6. Commentary on the Sixth Vagga

"Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriya" (The origin, etc., are similar to the kathina, but this is a matter of action and inaction) is the reading.

The Commentary on the Sixth Vagga is Finished.

8. Commentary on the Eighth Vagga

"gihigatā"ti vā "kumāribhūtā"ti vā na товаровā. (One should not say, "Gone to a householder," or "Having become a maiden"). If they say it, the act is nullified.

chandaṃ avissajjetvā (without relinquishing consent) means without saying "as you please." Here, however, this is the judgment: "pārivāsikachandadānenā"ti idaṃ uddharitvā "vuṭṭhitāya parisāyā"ti (pāci. 1168) (with the giving of consent for one on probation) having extracted this, the division of words, "for the assembly that has risen," is stated. However, in this, in the Samantapāsādikā: "vuṭṭhitāya parisāyāti chandaṃ vissajjetvā kāyena vā vācāya vā chandavissajjanamattena vā vuṭṭhitāyā"ti (pāci. aṭṭha. 1167) (for the assembly that has risen means, having relinquished consent, either by body or by speech, or merely by the relinquishment of consent, for the assembly that has risen) is stated. Here, however, because the consent is un-relinquished, it is stated that it is permissible to do the act. Therefore, it is written that it is permissible to perform the act only after staying within twelve hatthas without relinquishing consent, and also to hold the assembly again.

The Commentary on the Eighth Vagga is Finished.

9. Commentary on the Ninth Vagga

"sesaṃ vuttanayena veditabbaṃ, idaṃ pana akusalacitta" (the remainder should be understood in the manner stated, but this is an unwholesome thought) is the reading.

vuttanayenā (in the manner stated) means in the manner stated in the third.

"Samuṭṭhānādīni kathinasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriya" (The origin, etc., are similar to the kathina, but this is a matter of action and inaction) is the reading.

"Samuṭṭhānādīni padasodhammasadisāni, idaṃ pana kiriyākiriya" (The origin, etc., are similar to the padasodhamma, but this is a matter of action and inaction) is the reading.

"adhakkhakaubbhanābhisaṅkhātassa sarīrassa paṭicchādanattha" (for the purpose of covering the body, which is described as unsightly and disgusting) is the reading. It is written that the determination of the offense in the absence of enclosure should be taken in the manner stated here, not according to the Samantapāsādikā.

The Commentary on the Ninth Vagga is Finished.

The Commentary on the Suddhapācittiya is Finished.

Commentary on the Determination of Origin (Samuṭṭhāna)

acittakāni (unintentional). Because of the unwholesomeness of seeing or applying unguents while knowing "it is dancing" or "it is fragrance," they are indeed lokavajjāni (faults against the world). Corivuṭṭhāpanādīni (Inciting thieves etc.,) "corī" (a thief) etc., are sacittakāni (intentional), because one incurs the offense only by doing after knowing the object. Because ordinations etc., should not be done with purely unwholesome thoughts, they are paṇṇattivajjāni (faults against ordinance). "Here, intention and non-intention should be taken as knowing and not knowing the object, not as knowing and not knowing the ordinance," it is written. Because it is intended, due to the absence of a concise explanation –

Unintentionality is considered twofold, ignorance of object and ordinance;
Knowledge is said to be twofold here, known by its own name.

And knowing by another name, one with force for the object;
One in equal conduct, in that, there is dependence on that.

Knowing by another name, one of two, the first being loose; One is considered wool etc., this distinction should be understood.

The rest here is straightforward; because judgments stated in matters not straightforward are not extracted;

The Commentary on the Determination of Origin is Finished.

The Bhikkhunīpātimokkha Commentary is Finished.

The Old Ṭīkā on the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī is Finished.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa (Homage to the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Fully Enlightened One)

Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī-abhinavaṭīkā (New subcommentary to the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī)

Introductory Talk on the Composition

I venerate the Buddha, the crest jewel of the three worlds, the mine of pure virtues;
Whose heart is cooled by compassion, whose arising is magnificent.

That Dhamma, which was revered by that King of the Dhamma, the unique teacher of the world;
I venerate that profound and excellent Saddhamma.

That Sangha, which is enlightened by the pure rays of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the moon;
I always venerate that Sangha, the lily pond.

In the Vinaya, profound in naya, seeing to the end in every way;
By the speaker in the ocean of all doctrines, difficult to cross due to attachment and so on.

By the Elder Buddhaghosa, of steadfast mind;
The beautiful Mātikā commentary named Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī.

By the Elder Sumedha, firm with a multitude of virtues, skilled in the Vinaya;
Endowed with good conduct, wise, the son of the Sage;
He was requested.

I will describe it, very pure and unconfused;
O virtuous ones, listen to my speech respectfully.

Commentary on the Introductory Talk on the Composition

By making obeisance to the Triple Gem with "buddhaṃ dhamma," etc., one purifies one's own mind-continuum. Indeed, with the purified mind-continuum as the basis, wisdom, having attained sharpness and clarity, is capable of reaching the end in describing as one intends. Moreover, the Teacher's veneration of the Triple Gem is also because even karmas accumulated in previous existences, in the mind-continuum cleared of all defilements by the obeisance to the Triple Gem, are not capable of causing obstacles to the description of the meaning as intended due to the lack of supporting conditions.

The meaning of even the word Buddha should be understood by the method of exposition beginning with "bujjhitā saccānīti buddho, bodhetā pajāyāti buddho"tiādinā (mahāni. 192; cūḷani. pārāyanatthutigāthāniddesa 97; paṭi. ma. 1.162) (The Buddha, because he understands the truths; the Buddha, because he enlightens beings). Or else, buddho is from buddhava, due to the complete disappearance of the sleep of ignorance with its latent tendencies, or due to the developed state of intelligence, in the sense of awakening and development. Or else, since there is no knowable thing that is not understood by anyone, and since there is no acceptance of a special knowable thing as the object of action due to the absence of the intention of the passive voice, the designation of the agent is obtained only in the sense of understanding, therefore buddho is from buddhava, just as in "dikkhito na dadātī"ti (the initiated one does not give). In meaning, however, the khandha-continuum that is the basis of a collection of immeasurable qualities such as great compassion, omniscience, and knowledge, with all defilements completely destroyed, eradicated with their latent tendencies, by self-originated knowledge cultivated by pāramitās, is the Buddha. As it was said –

"The Blessed One is called Buddha because he is self-originated, without a teacher, he himself fully awakened to the truths in matters previously unheard of, and he attained omniscience therein, and mastery in the powers" (mahāni. 192; cūḷani. pārāyanatthutigāthāniddesa 97; paṭi. ma. 1.161),

That Buddha.

dhammo (Dhamma). For, as one practices according to the instruction, it sustains one from falling into the suffering of the lower realms and the suffering of saṃsāra, and here sustaining is the destruction of the defilements that cause that. Having done so, the noble path and nibbāna both sustain in the ultimate sense, because they are the cause of the accomplishment of that purpose. And the noble fruition sustains by way of the subsiding of defilements eradicated by it and by way of being in accordance with that, and the Dhamma of learning sustains by way of being the cause of its attainment; thus, both should be understood as sustaining in a descriptive sense, that Dhamma. The word "ca" is in the sense of conjunction. Therefore, having venerated the Buddha as stated, and this Dhamma, it conjoins the Dhamma-jewel with the act of veneration together with the Buddha-jewel.

"saṅghañcā" (and the Sangha). Because it is united and bound together by the noble commonality of view and virtue, it is saṅgho, the group of eight noble persons. Because the pains of defilements have been killed well by those various paths and fruits by way of eradication and subsidence, it is saṅgho, the inclusion in the giving should be seen here in the same way as the preceding intention, since even the Sangha of worldlings also stands in the preliminary practice, leading to deliverance. Even though that is not united by the noble commonality of view and virtue, it is still saṅgho, worthy of offerings and salutations, because it is united by the mundane aspect tending towards deliverance, that Sangha. The meaning of the word ca should be understood here in the same way as stated above.

"vandanāmānapūjāsakkārabhājana" (worthy of veneration, honor, offerings, and respect). And this adjective should be connected to each individually, "vandanāmānapūjāsakkārabhājanaṃ. Buddhaṃ…pe… vandanāmānapūjāsakkārabhājanaṃ saṅghañcā"ti (worthy of veneration, honor, offerings, and respect. The Buddha...worthy of veneration, honor, offerings, and respect. And the Sangha). Therein, the salutation done by the world with its gods, due to superiority by virtue of qualities such as being worthy (arahatādi), is vandanā (veneration), honor is māno (respect), an offering with flowers and incense, etc., is pūjā (offering), giving of conditioned requisites is sakkāro (respect), veneration, respect, offering, and respect are vandanāmānapūjāsakkārā, because of being a vessel, a basis, for making great results from them, it is vandanāmānapūjāsakkārabhājanaṃ (worthy of veneration, honor, offerings, and respect). By this, it shows the incomparable nature of the Triple Gem due to qualities such as being worthy. And that showing is for the purpose of revealing the capability of producing the description of the meaning as intended, in accordance with the power of one who has seen the truth, who is humble, and has the purification of one's own continuum, etc.; this should be understood.

Vippasannena cetasā vanditvā (Having venerated with a very serene mind) means having saluted with body and speech, which are the instruments, together with a mind that is very serene or especially serene, by way of recollecting the various special qualities such as being worthy, etc.; it is said to have paid homage through the three doors. And this veneration is threefold, in terms of veneration by body, speech, and mind. Therein, the consciousness of any of the wholesome actions in the desire realm, with the qualities of the Buddha etc., as the object, having aroused the bodily and verbal expressions, arising by way of the bodily and verbal doors, is called kāyavacīvandanā (veneration by body and speech), the one arising by way of the mind door without arousing both expressions is manovandanā (veneration by mind). This phrase is related to "vaṇṇanaṃ vaṇṇayissāmī"ti (I will describe the description).

"Theravaṃsappadīpāna": Thus begins the explanation. Here, the connection is "katañjalī pubbācariyasīhānaṃ namo katvā," meaning having paid homage to the elder teachers, who are like lions, with hands folded in reverence. Katañjalī means one who has made añjali, the hand gesture of reverence. The lengthening of the vowel here is for metrical reasons, implying having become katañjalī. Pubbācariyā are the ancient commentators, the great elders of Tambapaṇṇi (Sri Lanka); they, due to their endurance of hardships, their resistance to opposing defilements, and their invulnerability to being overthrown by proponents of other doctrines, are like lions, hence pubbācariyasīhā, to those pubbācariyasīhas. What kind of elder teachers are they, to whom you pay homage? He says, "theravaṃsappadīpāna" etc. Here, theravaṃsappadīpāna means therā, those endowed with stable aggregates of virtue (sīlakkhandha) etc., such as Mahākassapa; their lineage, their succession is the theravaṃsa. With this, he rejects the lineages of the Mahāsaṅghikas and the other seventeen sects with different views. However, being included within the Theravamsa, and being accomplished in both scriptural learning (āgama) and realization (adhigama), they illuminate that Theravamsa with the light of wisdom (paññā), hence theravaṃsappadīpā, the elder teachers like lions; to those theravaṃsappadīpas. Because they are unshakeable, thirānaṃ (of the steadfast). Vinayakkame: This is a statement conforming to the beginning; however, they are steadfast in the Sutta and Abhidhamma as well.

"Pāmokkha": Thus begins the explanation. Here, the connection is "mahesinā yaṃ pātimokkhaṃ pakāsitaṃ," meaning that pātimokkha proclaimed by the great sage. There, mahesinā means one who seeks (esī) great (mahante) aggregates of the five qualities, beginning with virtue (sīla), hence mahesi. Or, because he is sought after by the great ones, whether ordinary people, trainees, or those fully trained, or because he is a great (mahanto) seer (isī), hence mahesi, the Sammāsambuddho, by that mahesi. Pātimokkha is the precept of training (sikkhāpadasīla), which is the restraint (saṃvara) on the seven groups of offenses, or it is the very collection of texts called the Ubhatovibhaṅgasutta, which illuminates that. What kind of thing? He says "pāmokkha" etc. That which is good at the forefront (pamukhe) is pamokkhaṃ, that very pamokkha is pāmokkhaṃ, because it is the opponent of faults (vajja), it is the beginning, the foundation of wholesome (kusala) qualities, such as concentration (samādhi) and wisdom (paññā), which are faultless (anavajjānaṃ), and which are limited, great, or supramundane. For it is said, "Established in virtue, a wise man develops concentration and wisdom" (SN 1.23, 192; Petako. 22; MI. pa. 2.1.9). Like a mouth (mukhaṃ) it is mukhaṃ, a gateway. Just as the four kinds of nutriment for beings, namely, what is chewed, eaten, licked and drunk, enter through the mouth and pervade the limbs, so too, for a yogi, the wholesome, fourfold virtue enters through the mouth of virtue and accomplishes the attainment of the goal. Therefore, it is said, "like a mouth, it is mukhaṃ". Or, mukhaṃ is the gateway mokkhappavesāya, for the realization of Nibbāna, is the meaning. For it was said –

"Wholesome virtues, Ānanda, are for the sake of freedom from remorse" (AN 11.1).

Thus –

"Freedom from remorse is for the sake of joy; joy is for the sake of rapture; rapture is for the sake of tranquility; tranquility is for the sake of happiness; happiness is for the sake of concentration; concentration is for the sake of knowledge and vision of things as they really are; knowledge and vision of things as they really are is for the sake of disenchantment; disenchantment is for the sake of dispassion; dispassion is for the sake of liberation; liberation is for the sake of knowledge and vision of liberation; knowledge and vision of liberation is for the sake of final Nibbāna without clinging" (Pari. 366).

"Sūratenā": Thus, he speaks the fourth verse. There, sūratenā means one who delights (rato) in what is beautiful (sobhane) is sūrato; having lengthened the u-sound, by that sūrata, meaning one who delights in beautiful bodily and verbal actions, that is, by one who is disciplined. Nivātenā means by one of humble conduct. Sucisallekhavuttinā means one whose conduct (vutti) is pure (suci) and capable of eradicating (sallekhana) defilements, by that sucisallekhavutti, meaning one endowed with a purified, desireless way of life. Vinayācārayuttenā means one who is accomplished in the morality of restraint (vāritta) and prescribed conduct (cāritta). Or, here vinayo means the Vinaya, the Saṃvara Vinaya, which has the Pātimokkha Saṃvara etc., as its divisions. Ācāro means the proper conduct (ācāra) befitting a monk, which is mentioned in the context of instructions on conduct and customary practices (ācāragocaraniddese). Soṇattherenā: Here Soṇo is his name. Because he is endowed with stable aggregates of virtue (sīlakkhandha) etc., he is a thero. Yācito means requested. For the Elder, knowing the depth of the Pātimokkha and the difficulty of fathoming it, and knowing the ability of the teacher to explain it, made a request with reverence and concern for the benefit, "The meaning of the Pātimokkha should be explained by you. For in this way, the Sāsana will endure for a long time." Showing that his request was the cause for his explanation, he says "yācito".

And here, with "sūratenā", his gentleness (soraccaṃ) is mentioned. With "nivātenā," his humility (nīcamanatā), his humble conduct (nivātavuttitā) is mentioned, by which humble conduct the person is of subdued pride, subdued arrogance, like a rag for wiping feet, like an ox with broken horns, like a snake with extracted fangs, and is gentle, friendly, and easy to converse with. With "sucisallekhavuttinā," purity of virtue regarding livelihood that relies on sense restraint and the requisites (indriyasaṃvarapaccayasannissitaājīvapārisuddhisīlaṃ) is indicated. With "vinayācārayuttenā," the virtue of Pātimokkha Saṃvara is said. Thus, the praise of him with numerous virtues is to show that the request of a co-religionist endowed with the qualities mentioned above cannot be rejected, and therefore, he undertakes the explanation of the meaning of even the most profound Pātimokkha. Moreover - the explanation of meaning made in reliance on the request of such a person will, by the authority of his request, and by the attainment of my own enthusiasm, reach completion without delay.

"Tattha": Thus begins the explanation of the two verses. There, tattha means in that Pātimokkha which was "proclaimed by the great sage." Sañjātakaṅkhānaṃ: For those who have doubts (kaṅkhānaṃ) that have arisen (sañjāta), in terms of distinguishing the meaning of words and phrases, meaning for those whose uncertainties have arisen. Kaṅkhāvitaraṇatthāya: For the sake of overcoming the aforementioned doubt. Tassā: Of that Pātimokkha. Vaṇṇanā means the meaning is described, spoken about, which is vaṇṇanā, the commentary (aṭṭhakathā), that vaṇṇanā. And this is connected with "vaṇṇayissāmī." What kind? He says "paripuṇṇavinicchaya" etc. Paripuṇṇavinicchaya: Because of the revelation of the complete (sampunna) determination (vinicchaya), in terms of the Khandhaka, Parivāra, Padabhājana etc., and the uncommon determination, and the determination of the seventeen types beginning with the Nidāna, and the common determination of all the training precepts.

Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ: The monastery (vihāro) established in the grounds of the Mahāmeghavana garden is Mahāvihāro, which is adorned by the Great Bodhi Tree of the Teacher, those who dwell there virtuously are Mahāvihāravāsino, of those Mahāvihāravāsins. Vācanāmagganissitaṃ: Dependent on the path of recitation (kathāmagga), meaning dependent on the commentary (aṭṭhakathā), it means that the way of the Sinhalese commentary of the Mahāvihāravāsins is relied on here. Vaṇṇayissāmī: I will set forth, I will explain. Nāmenā: By the name of my qualities. That by which doubt is dispelled is kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, that Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī. Subhaṃ: Because it is endowed with meaningful and expressive language (atthabyañjanasampannattā), beautiful (sundaraṃ), auspicious in terms of words (saddalakkhaṇasubhato), auspicious in terms of judgements (vinicchayasubhato), and auspicious in terms of intelligibility (viññeyyasubhato), it is beautiful (subhaṃ), pure (parisuddhaṃ). And here, "kaṅkhāvitaraṇatthāyā" indicates the purpose, "puripuṇṇavinicchaya" indicates the manner of explanation, "mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ vācanāmagganissitaṃ" indicates the purity of reliance for the explanation, avoiding the faults of sectarian admixture, "vaṇṇayissāmī" indicates his intention, this should be seen. "Vattayissāmī" is also a reading.

The Explanation of the Introductory Account of the Text is Finished.

Explanation of the Nidāna

"Tattha pātimokkha": Thus, it begins.

Tattha: In that verse. Pātimokkha: That which is foremost (mukhabhūtaṃ) among virtues (sīlesu) due to its excellence (pakārato ativiya). Atipamokkha: He speaks of that same word with a distinction of prefixes (upasaggabyattayena). Or, pa ati mokkha is the word separation, he gives the meaning to that with a distinction of prefixes "atipamokkha". Having made a word explanation in this way, he speaks of it in terms of meaning "atiseṭṭhaṃ atiuttamanti attho": "it is most excellent, most supreme" is the meaning. And here, the virtue Pātimokkha is excellent because it is the root of all good qualities, but the textual Pātimokkha is considered excellent because it accompanies excellent qualities. Uttama: Here also, the same method. Itī: Thus. With this, he indicates the meaning of the statement mentioned above. For this word iti is indicative, like in "Everything exists, Kaccāna, this is one extreme; everything does not exist, Kaccāna, this is the second extreme" (SN 2.15; 3.90). Iminā: This is a demonstrative word referring to what is immediately present, because of the statement of the meaning of the words demonstrated immediately before by the word iti, and grasped by the recipients through the path of ear-consciousness etc. Or, iminā is a demonstrative word making what has been said present, because it makes the meaning of the statement mentioned above face towards. Vacanatthenā: By the meaning of the word "atiseṭṭha" etc. Ekavidhampi: Even a single part. Sīlaganthabhedato duvidhaṃ hotī: Again, by the division of virtue and text, it becomes twofold, meaning it becomes twofold, namely, virtue Pātimokkha and textual Pātimokkha.

"Tathā hī": Thus it is stated. There, pāti rakkhatīti pāti: That protects (rakkhati) is pāti, that liberates (mokkheti) and frees (moceti) from suffering such as the woeful planes, hence pātimokkhaṃ, restraint (saṃvaraṇaṃ) is saṃvaro, non-transgression of body and speech, that very Pātimokkha is restraint pātimokkhasaṃvaro, one who dwells (vi harati) endowed with Pātimokkha Saṃvara is pātimokkhasaṃvarasaṃvuto.

Ādimetaṃ: This precept of training is the beginning (ādi) in the sense of its prior origination. And this was said –

"Therefore, Uttiya, first purify the beginning in wholesome qualities. And what is the beginning of wholesome qualities? Virtue that is well purified, and a straight view" (SN 5.382).

"Ādī" is said. "Mukhameta": These were already said in the statement of their meaning. The word ādi includes the passage beginning with "and restraint in the Pātimokkha" (DN 2.90; Dhp. 185).

Sīla: Virtue is twofold in terms of prescribed conduct (cāritta) and restraint (vāritta), the precept of training included in the Vinaya Piṭaka, but in terms of Dhamma, sīla should be understood as the mental states (cetanādayo dhammā) of one who abstains from killing etc., or who fulfills the duties and practices. This was said in Paṭisambhidāmagga, "What is virtue? Intention is virtue, mental properties are virtue, restraint is virtue, non-transgression is virtue" (Paṭi. Ma. 1.39). "Ubhayāni kho panassa pātimokkhānī": Both the Pātimokkhas in terms of the Bhikkhu and Bhikkhunī Pātimokkhas, meaning the two matrices. Assā: For the one who advises the monks. Vitthārena: Together with the Ubhatovibhaṅga. Svāgatānī: Well arrived. The word ādi includes the passage beginning with "he should recite the Pātimokkha" (Mahāva. 134). Tattha: Among those virtue and text Pātimokkhas. Yo: This is an indefinite designation, whichever person. Na: The virtue included in the Vinaya. Rakkhatī: Protects (pāleti), without violating it, by undertaking it well. Taṃ: Standing in the virtue Pātimokkha, which has the name "pātī". Mocetī: Frees, because of the state of being a cooperative cause. Apāye jātaṃ is āpāyikaṃ, suffering (dukkhaṃ), those of which that is the beginning are āpāyikādīni. The word ādi includes all other suffering of Saṃsāra. Attānuvādādīhi: Criticism of oneself (attānaṃ anuvādo) is attānuvādo, those of which that is the beginning are attānuvādādīni, by those attānuvādādīni. The word ādi includes criticism by others, punishment, woeful states, and fear. Tassa pātimokkhassa jotakattā: Because it illuminates that virtue Pātimokkha. Ādimhi pana vutto vacanattho: The meaning of the word spoken at the beginning, starting with "atiseṭṭha" etc. Ubhinnampi sādhāraṇo hoti: Virtue Pātimokkha is excellent because it is the root of all good qualities; textual Pātimokkha is excellent because it accompanies excellent qualities.

Tatthāti, among those Sīla-pāṭimokkha and Ganthapāṭimokkha. ‘‘Ayaṃ vaṇṇanā’’ti, refers to the commentary that will be spoken. Let it be fitting for the Ganthapāṭimokkha, but how does it fit for the Sīla-pāṭimokkha? He says, ‘‘ganthe hī’’tiādi. Hīti, is a particle in the sense of reason. Tassāti, of that gantha. Atthoti, the sīla. Vaṇṇitova hotīti, because the meaning is explained through the explanation of the gantha. This is what is said: Because when the gantha is explained, its meaning is explained due to their inseparability, therefore, it also applies to the Sīla-pāṭimokkha.

‘‘taṃ paneta’’ntiādimāha.Tatthāti, among those two, Bhikkhu-pāṭimokkha and Bhikkhunī-pāṭimokkha. Those sections of the text that demarcate the contents through the statements that are to be made are called uddesaparicchedā, by those. Vavatthita**nti, standing without confusion.

‘‘tatthā’’tiādimāha.Uddisīyati sarūpena kathīyati ettha, etenāti vāuddeso, the enunciation, nidānassa uddesotinidānuddeso, the enunciation of the Nidāna. Similarly in the remaining cases. Vitthārova uddesovitthāruddeso, the detailed enunciation.

‘‘tattha nidānuddeso’’tiādi āraddhaṃ.Tatthatatthāti, among those five enumerations. Nidānuddeso uddiṭṭho hotīti, the enunciation of the Nidāna is enumerated, is the connection. However, in this context, the passage of the Nidāna, showing the demarcation of the enunciation of the Nidāna, demonstrating the Nidāna text that has come here: ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho…pe… āvikatā hissa phāsu hotī’’ and after that, without applying the passage that should be said at the time of enumeration, ‘‘uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidāna’’ and only applying and showing the anusāvana etc. with ‘‘tatthāyasmante pucchāmī’’tiādi, that is for showing the demarcation of the enunciation of the Nidāna that is preceded by the showing of the incomplete Nidāna text, or it should be understood that its application was not done due to its obviousness in terms of Khuddaka-peyyāla, but it should be said by applying it at the time of enumeration. For he will say, "But this is seen at the end of the Pārājikas etc., not at the end of the Nidāna. Although it is not seen, nevertheless at the time of enumeration, after saying ‘āvikatā hissa phāsu hotī’, it should be said in the manner of ‘uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānaṃ, tatthāyasmante pucchāmī’tiādi." Avasese sutena sāviteti, the remaining four, the enunciation of the Pārājika etc. is caused to be heard in the manner of the hearing, ‘‘sutā kho panāyasmantehi cattāro pārājikā dhammā…pe… avivadamānehi sikkhitabba’’.

‘‘pārājikuddesādīna’’ntiādimāha.The connection is that the demarcations of the enunciation of the Pārājika etc., should be connected. Nidānassa ādito paṭṭhāya pārājikādīni osāpetvāti, after enumerating in order the Nidāna, the Pārājika, and both of them, the Saṅghādisesa, the Tantika and the Aniyata, and finishing with the Pārājika etc. Yojetabbāti, they should be connected with ‘‘avasese sutena sāvite uddiṭṭho hoti pārājikuddeso’’tiādi. Avasesaṃ sutena sāvetabbanti vacanatoti, because of the statement in the Uposatha Khandhaka –

‘‘These five, monks, are the enumerations of the Pāṭimokkha: after enumerating the Nidāna, the remainder should be caused to be heard through recitation; this is the first enumeration of the Pāṭimokkha. After enumerating the Nidāna and enumerating the four Pārājikas, the remainder should be caused to be heard through recitation; this is the second enumeration of the Pāṭimokkha’’tiādi (mahāva. 150) –

Yasmiṃ vippakateti, in whichever enumeration is not completed. Antarāyo uppajjatīti, any of the ten dangers arises. The ten dangers are: danger from the king, danger from thieves, danger from fire, danger from water, danger from humans, danger from non-humans, danger from wild animals, danger from reptiles, danger to life, danger to the holy life. There, if when the monks are seated thinking, ‘‘we will perform the Uposatha’’ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 150), the king arrives, this is rājantarāyo, danger from the king. Thieves arrive, this is corantarāyo, danger from thieves. A forest fire arrives, or a fire arises in the dwelling, this is agyantarāyo, danger from fire. A cloud arises, or a flood arrives, this is udakantarāyo, danger from water. Many humans arrive, this is manussantarāyo, danger from humans. A Yaksha seizes a monk, this is amanussantarāyo, danger from non-humans. Tigers and other fierce animals arrive, this is vāḷantarāyo, danger from wild animals. Snakes and other reptiles bite a monk, this is sarīsapantarāyo, danger from reptiles. A monk is sick, or dies, or enemies seize him wanting to kill him, this is jīvitantarāyo, danger to life. Humans seize ekaṃ or many monks, wanting to make them fall from the holy life, this is brahmacariyantarāyo, danger to the holy life. Thus, what was said, "antarāyo uppajjatīti dasasu antarāyesu yo koci antarāyo uppajjatī"ti, the meaning of that is made clear.

Tena saddhinti, together with the incomplete enumeration. Avasesaṃ sutena sāvetabbaṃ, because the remaining statement depends on the enumerated enunciation. As he said, ‘‘nidānaṃ uddisitvā’’tiādi (mahāva. 150). Therefore he said, ‘‘nidānuddese panā’’tiādi. Sutena sāvetabbaṃ nāma natthi, the intention is that there is only interruption of the Uposatha. Aniyatuddeso parihāyatīti, the enunciation of the Aniyata is omitted because of the absence of the declaration of Aniyata training rules for nuns. And it should be understood that the absence of that is because of making ‘‘idameva lakkhaṇaṃ tatthāpi anugata’’nti. Sesanti, the showing of the remaining enumeration demarcations. Etesaṃ dvinnaṃ pātimokkhānanti, is the connection. Tāvāti, firstly. Idanti, now to be said, showing in general what revolves in the mind, this statement, composed of words and fixed letters, vuccati, is said, is the meaning. What is that? He says, ‘‘suṇātu metiādīna’’ntiādi.

suṇātu metiādīnanti, of the Sutta words that have come in the Bhikkhu-pāṭimokkha beginning with ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho ajjuposatho’’tiādi. Atthanicchayanti, the ascertainment of the denotative meaning and the intended meaning, that is, the determination. For by this commentary, their denotative meaning and intended meaning are determined in various ways. Or nicchinnotinicchayo, what is decided is the decision. The talk that cuts off doubt, occurring in places of knots like rubbing a peg, and the meaning and the decision, atthanicchayo, that atthanicchaya, it is said that I am speaking the meaning and the decision. Sīlasampannāti, complete, having attained completely, fully, is sampannaṃ, those who are complete in sīla are sīlasampannā, those with perfected sīla, is the meaning. Or, those who have rightly gone, approached, are sampannā, those who are complete in sīla are sīlasampannā, those who are endowed with the restraint of the Pāṭimokkha, is the meaning. The three trainings, namely, adhisīla, adhicitta, adhipaññā, are sikkhā, because of the nature of being trained in, those who desire that, are sikkhākāmā. Suṇantu me**ti, all those monks should listen from my presence. By this, he enjoins diligent listening in order to praise himself. For all the attainments of the Teaching are bound up with diligent listening. And here, the acceptance is only of those monks who are complete in sīla and desire training, because others are not recipients of this praise. For they will not regard the Vinaya as something to be heard and practiced.

Etthāti, in this gāthā verse, or among the words beginning with "suṇātu me" etc., that are included in this gāthā. The word of command to listen is savanāṇattivacanaṃ. Although it is a word of command to listen, it is the command of the Buddha because the Blessed One said that the one enumerating the Pāṭimokkha should speak thus, not of the enumerator, therefore, even a newcomer should say this, because it is accompanied by respect for the Saṅgha and esteem for the Saṅgha, sagāravasappatissavacanaṃ. For the Saṅgha is the supreme basis for respect and obedience because it is endowed with special qualities such as being of good practice. And who said all this, where, when? He says, ‘‘sabbameva ceta’’ntiādi.Pātimokkhuddesaṃ anujānantenā**ti –

‘‘I allow, monks, the enumeration of the Pāṭimokkha. And thus, monks, it should be enumerated: a monk who is competent and capable should inform the Saṅgha, ‘suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho’’’ti (mahāva. 133-134) –

Rājagaheti, in a city of such a name. For that is called ‘‘rājagaha’’ because it was taken by Mandhātu, Mahāgovinda, and others. However, that was a city in the time of the Buddhas and in the time of the wheel-turning kings, and in the remaining time it is empty, taken over by Yakkhas, standing as their dwelling place. Tasmāti, because this is the statement to be said by the one enumerating the Pāṭimokkha, therefore. Do both of them enumerate the Pāṭimokkha, so that they should say thus? He says, ‘‘saṅghatthero vā hī’’tiādi.Therādhikanti, depending on the Thera, being subject to the Thera, is the meaning. ‘‘Therādheyya’’nti vā, or the reading is ‘‘Therādheyya’’, the meaning is the same. Tatthāti, in the three assemblies. Byattoti, endowed with clarity of wisdom, meaning, skilled in the matrix. Paṭibalo**ti, capable of speaking, meaning fearless. And here, although the Pāṭimokkha is allowed even to a young monk who is clear, nevertheless, here the intention is this: if the Thera does not know five, or four, or three enumerations of the Pāṭimokkha, but has two that are unbroken, very clear, and committed to memory, the Pāṭimokkha depends on the Thera. But if he is not able to make even this much clear, it depends on the monk who is clear.

‘‘saṅghoti iminā pana padenā’’tiādimāhakiñcāpīti, is a particle in the sense of concession, it should be understood to mean "if indeed." Dakkhanti etāya sattā yathādhippetāhi sampattīhi vaḍḍhantītidakkhiṇā, the gift to be given believing in the next world, that is worthy of the dakkhiṇā, or beneficial to the dakkhiṇā, because it purifies it by being the cause of great fruit, dakkhiṇeyyo, united by the mass of views and sīla, saṅgho, that is both worthy of offerings and a group, dakkhiṇeyyasaṅgho. The group established by the convention of the Vinaya proclamation of a group of four etc., sammutisaṅgho. Avisesenāti, without distinguishing "Ariyas" or "worldlings," in general. Soti, that conventional Saṅgha. Idhāti, in this announcement of the Uposatha. Adhippeto, is intended, because the announcement of the Uposatha is not specific. But indeed, that too is fivefold, so which one is intended here? With reference to this inquiry, he says, ‘‘so panesā’’tiādi.Kammavasenāti, according to the Vinaya action. A sammuti Saṅgha has five kinds of modes, pañcavidho. For thus they describe the words vidha, yutta, gata, pakāra as synonymous. A group of four is catuvaggo, or a group endowed with a measure of four is catuvaggo. Similarly, pañcavaggādi.

‘‘tatthā’’tiādimāha.Tatthatatthāti, in the five kinds of Saṅgha. Because the performance of the upasampadā act requires a group of ten in the middle countries, it is said, ‘‘ṭhapetvā…pe… upasampadañcā’’. ‘‘Tathā’’ti, by this he extends the meaning of "it is not proper to do any Saṅgha act." If so, why is a group of more than twenty mentioned? He says, ‘‘so panā’’tiādi.Atirekatarenāti, by a more than necessary number, for what should be done by a group of four etc. with a group of five etc., and what should be done by a group of ten with a group of eleven etc. Dassanatthanti, for the purpose of informing. And this is the very act that should be done by him, therefore it is said "kammavasena pañcavidho." It should be seen that there is no room for such a criticism that how would this be fitting if the act were unrestricted. Imasmiṃ panatthe**ti, in this Uposatha.

However, this word Uposatha applies to the enumeration of the Pāṭimokkha, sīla, fast, designation, and day. Thus, it occurs in the enumeration of the Pāṭimokkha in ‘‘āyāmāvuso kappina, uposathaṃ gamissāmā’’tiādi (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.150; ma. ni. aṭṭha. 3.85), in the sīla in ‘‘evaṃ aṭṭhaṅgasamannāgato kho, visākhe, uposatho upavuttho’’tiādi (a. ni. 8.43), in the fast in ‘‘suddhassa ve sadā phaggu, suddhassuposatho sadā’’tiādi (ma. ni. 1.79), in the designation in ‘‘uposatho nāma nāgarājā’’tiādi (dī. ni. 2.246), in the day in ‘‘na, bhikkhave, tadahuposathe sabhikkhukā āvāsā’’tiādi (mahāva. 181), here too it is intended as referring to the day, so he says, ‘‘ajja uposathadivaso’’tiādi.Upavasanti etthātiuposatho. Upavasantīti, they dwell having approached with sīla, or entirely by abstaining from food, which is called fasting, or by a limited amount of milk, drinks, honey drinks, etc., is the meaning.

Because it contains the meaning of eva (indeed), it says, "The meaning of 'Uposatha' is 'it is indeed Uposatha'," thus "by this, it rejects non-Uposatha days." With this determination, it shows what is rejected, or because a word speaks its meaning by excluding the meaning of another word, it says, "The meaning of 'Uposatha' is 'it is not a non-Uposatha day'," thus "by this, it rejects non-Uposatha days." With "This method [applies to] the fifteenth," here too, it rejects another Uposatha day. By "By this," [is meant] by the word "Uposatha." In accordance with the completion of the fifteen lunar days, [it is] the fifteenth. "By the fifteenth, it rejects another Uposatha day." To show in detail the meaning stated succinctly, it said, starting with "Indeed, by way of days...". One who is appointed on the fourteenth is cātuddasiko (observing the fourteenth). Likewise, pannarasiko (observing the fifteenth). Sāmaggiuposatho means the Uposatha to be performed on the day of the Saṅgha's unity. In "The three seasons of Hemanta, Gimha, and Vassa," Hemanta season means the four months starting from the first day of the dark half of Aparakattika up to the full moon of Phagguna; Gimha season means the four months starting from the first day of the dark half of Phagguna up to the full moon of Āsāḷha; Vassa season means the four months starting from the first day of the dark half of Āsāḷha up to the full moon of Aparakattika. Having made two each in the third and seventh fortnights, there are six cātuddasika means in the third and seventh fortnights of the Hemanta season, there are two cātuddasika, likewise for the other seasons, thus there are six cātuddasika. The remaining [are] pannarasika means the remaining eighteen are pannarasika. There are these verses here:

"From the dark [new moon] of Kattika, until the full moon of Phagguna;
'Hemanta season' is to be known; there are eight Uposatha days.

"From the dark [new moon] of Phagguna, until the full moon of Āsāḷha;
'Gimha season' is to be known; there are eight Uposatha days.

"From the dark [new moon] of Āsāḷha, until the full moon of Kattika;
'Vassa season' is to be known; there are eight Uposatha days.

"In the third and seventh fortnights of the three seasons,
The wise in the method recite the Pātimokkha on 'the fourteenth'."

Normal practice. However, when there is a reason such as many residing [monks], it is proper to perform [the Uposatha] on another fourteenth as well. Therefore, he said, starting with "Once". To be followed by the residents means when the resident monks are doing their prior duties, saying "Today is the fourteenth Uposatha," it should be followed, not refused. By the word ādi (etc.), it includes the statement "The resident monks should comply with the visiting monks" (mahāva. 178), and the statement "I allow, monks, those monks to perform two or three fourteenth Uposatha days; how should we invite those monks to the Pavāraṇā ceremony earlier?" (mahāva. 240). Here, it should be understood that the suttas beginning with "by the visiting monks" are shown because there is a possibility of meaning even by way of normal practice, that once in the fourteenth of the third or seventh fortnight of each season, or in the remaining fifteenth, the Pātimokkha should be recited. When there is such a reason means when there is a suitable reason for performing the Uposatha on another fourteenth as well, such as "the resident monks are more numerous." On another fourteenth means on a fourteenth other than the fourteenth of the third and seventh fortnights of the three seasons.

Starting with "However, for those who have entered Vassa earlier...". Mā (moon) is said to be the moon, because the day is measured by its course; here, it is puṇṇamā (full moon) because it is complete in all its phases, pubbakattikapuṇṇamā (full moon of Pubbakattika), assayujapuṇṇamā (full moon of Assayuja). Indeed, it is said thus to turn back the latter Kattika. Only for them means only for those who have entered Vassa earlier. By those who cause quarrels means by those who cause disputes. Paccukkaḍḍhanti means they extend. It means that by abandoning Assayujapuṇṇamā, etc., due to the accusation by those who cause quarrels, they extend the Pavāraṇā towards the dark half or the bright half. It is said that they extend the Pavāraṇā with a motion such as "Let the venerable resident monks listen to me; when it is convenient for the venerable ones, now we should do the Uposatha, we should recite the Pātimokkha, we should perform the Pavāraṇā at a later time" (mahāva. 240), "Let the venerable resident monks listen to me; when it is convenient for the venerable ones, now we should do the Uposatha, we should recite the Pātimokkha, we should perform the Pavāraṇā at a later bright time."

Atha (then) is a particle in the sense of immediately following. Cātuddaso is the completion of the fourteenth, [meaning] day. However, on that later bright [day] to which they had made the motion "we should perform the Pavāraṇā at a later bright time," the Komudi Cātumāsini Pavāraṇā must be performed. Indeed, it is not permissible to perform the Pavāraṇā having passed that. For this was said:

"If, monks, those monks are quarrelsome, disputatious, argumentative, verbose, causing disputes in the Sangha, even if they remain until that bright [day], monks, those monks, all of them, must unwillingly perform the Pavāraṇā on the later bright Komudi Cātumāsini" (mahāva. 240).

"And for those who have entered Vassa later, it is indeed the full moon of Pacchimakattika." For if they were to perform the Pavāraṇā having passed that, they would incur an offense of dukkata. For this was said, "And, monks, the Pavāraṇā should not be performed without the Sangha's unity" (mahāva. 233). Pavāraṇādivasā (Pavāraṇā days) due to the connection with the Visuddhi Pavāraṇā. By the word pi (also), it shows that not only are there Pavāraṇā days, but also there are Uposatha days. Now, showing that Sāmaggipavāraṇā day in connection with that, as well as that Sāmaggiuposatha day that was mentioned, he said, starting with "When, however...". Osārite tasmiṃ bhikkhusmiṃ means when the expelled monk is brought back, having taken him, having gone to the boundary, having made him confess his offense, and having entered him by way of retraction of the action through a Kammavācā. Tassa vatthussa means of that issue. The connection is that, having set that aside…pe… it is called an Uposatha day. What is the reason? He says, starting with "Only at that time...". Here, tāvadeva (only at that time) means only on that day. Vacanato (from the statement), because it is stated in the Kosambakakkhandhaka (mahāva. 475). However, where those who dispute over a minor reason for the sake of requisites such as bowls and robes set aside the Uposatha or Pavāraṇā, there, when that issue is resolved, they cannot perform the Sāmaggiuposatha in the interim, [saying] "we have become united." For those who do so, the Uposatha is performed as if it were a non-Uposatha. Within Kattikamāsa (Kattika month), here Kattikamāsa means from the first day of the dark half of Pubbakattika month until the full moon of Aparakattika, [that is] twenty-nine nights and days; within that, it is not proper either after that or before that. Ayameva (this very one) is just any day. Here too, in the Kosambakakkhandhaka, unity should be understood as similar to unity. However, those who, having set aside the Pavāraṇā on some minor matter, become united, by them the Pavāraṇā should be performed only on the Pavāraṇā day, not only at that time. By those who do so, the Pavāraṇā is performed as if it were a non-Pavāraṇā. Na kātabboyeva (should not be done) means he shows that if one does it by rule, it is a dukkata. Here, indeed, there is a dukkata in performing the Uposatha. For this was said, "Monks, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day except by the Sangha's unity" (mahāva. 183).

"Pattakālameva (the proper time itself)...pattakallaṃ (suitable time)" By this, he shows that it is a Bhāva-affix in its own sense. Nāsatī (does not exist) means he strengthens what was said by way of connection through contrast.

Anurūpā (suitable) means worthy, he means [they are] the owners. Sabbantimena (by the last) means the last four; without them, that Uposatha action is not done, neither their consent nor their purity comes. However, even if the remaining [monks] are about a thousand, if they are of shared residence, all of them are indeed eligible for consent; whether they give consent and purity and come or not, the action does not fail. Pakatattā (because they are normal) means they are not expelled, and they have not committed a Pārājika offense. Hatthapāso (arm's reach) means a measure of two and a half hattha.

Starting with "This is called a boundary...". Sambhindantenā (by one who mixes) means by one who mingles. Ajjhottharantenā (by one who overwhelms) means by one who subdues, he means by one who encloses. The connection is that these are called boundaries with defects. Why are they called boundaries with defects? He says, starting with "By eleven...". Ākārehī (by ways) means by reasons. Vacanato (from the statement) means because it is stated in the Kammavagga (pari. 482 onwards). The Saṅghakamma is to be done with a minimum of twenty monks, he says, "Where twenty-one monks cannot sit down." The meaning is that this is called atikhuddakā (too small), where in that boundary, with the lower limit, twenty-one monks together with the qualified [monks] cannot sit down in a circular manner. And such a boundary, even if designated, is not designated, it is just like a village field; the action done there fails. This method [applies] to the remaining boundaries as well.

Sammatā (designated) means established, by recited Kammavācā, that is the meaning. Indeed, the recitation by Kammavācā is called establishment. Does not approach a nimitta (sign), [that is] animittupago (not approaching a sign); that which is animittupaga, he means unworthy of a sign. Tacasārarukkho (tree with bark and sapwood) means trees like palm and coconut. Paṃsupuñjavālukāpuñjānanti (of heaps of dust or heaps of sand) in the midst of heaps of dust and heaps of sand. This is a word of ownership in determination. However, in books, the reading "either a heap of dust or a heap of sand" is seen somewhere, but that is an incorrect reading. Indeed, it does not fit with "either". Antarā (between) means between a nimittupaga (approaching a sign) and a non-nimitta (non-sign). Here, indeed, that which, being established with three signs, makes one of the animittupaga such as trees with bark and sapwood in between as a sign, that is called khaṇḍanimittā (having broken signs). However, that which, being established with four or five signs etc., makes one of these trees with bark and sapwood in between as a sign, that is not called khaṇḍanimittā, because of the presence of all three nimittupaga signs. However, in the commentaries, it is said without distinction, therefore it should be taken after examination. Sabbena sabbaṃ (in every way) means in every manner. Nimittānaṃ bahi ṭhitena sammatā (designated by being situated outside the signs) means by the recited Kammavācā being situated outside of those. However, the signs are fit to be counted while standing inside and outside.

Evaṃ sammatāpī (even if designated thus) means even if designated by Kammavācā having counted the signs. This is connected to "it is indeed not designated". Sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmā (all rivers, monks, are not boundaries) means whatever river that has attained the characteristic of a river, even if it is made having counted the signs, [saying] "we will make this an established boundary," it is not a boundary, it is not an established boundary, that is the meaning. However, by its own nature, it is similar to an established boundary. It is proper to perform Saṅghakamma everywhere. The same method [applies] to Samuddajātassaresu (lakes born of the sea). By "Saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapā" (entangled branches), it indicates the proximity of each other. Baddhā hoti (it is established) means it is said in reference to the boundary in the western direction. Tassā padesaṃ (a part of that) means a portion of that. It means a portion such that it is possible for the monks to perform the action while standing there. It should be taken that those who establish [a boundary] enclosing a place such that it is not possible to perform the action while standing there are indeed sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindanti (mixing a boundary with a boundary), not ajjhottharanti (overwhelming a boundary). However, in Gaṇṭhipadesu (in the Gaṇṭhipada texts), it is said that "Sambhindanaṃ is the establishment of [a boundary] by counting one or two signs in the boundary of others, taking only a line and establishing [it]. Ajjhottharaṇaṃ means by counting the signs in the boundary of others, and by one who encloses all of that or a part of it, counting the signs in one or two directions outside of that and establishing [it]."

nimittasampatti: pabbatanimittaṃ means a mountain is the nimitta, like a mountain. Similarly, in the remaining instances as well. Evaṃ vuttesū ti: refers to what was stated in the Uposathakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 138 ff.) regarding the agreement of the boundary. With these eight nimittas, whether unmixed or mixed with each other, it is permissible to establish a boundary. Therefore, it is said: ‘‘tasmiṃ tasmiṃ disābhāge yathāladdhāni nimittupagāni nimittānī’’—"in each respective direction, the nimittas that are obtained and suitable as nimittas." However, it is not permissible to establish [a boundary] with one or two nimittas; but starting with three, it is permissible even with a hundred of the nimittas mentioned in the manner described. The Vinaya-holder should ask, "What is the nimitta in the eastern direction?" When it is said, "A mountain, Bhante," then the Vinaya-holder should declare, "This mountain is the nimitta." However, it is not permissible to declare thus: "Let us make this mountain the nimitta, we will make [it] the nimitta, it is made the nimitta, let it be the nimitta, it is, it will be the nimitta." This same method applies to pāsāṇā etc. Therefore, it is said: ‘‘puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta’’ etc. However, it is permissible whether an ordained monk declares, "A mountain, Bhante," or "Water, Bhante," or whether an unordained person declares it. The term ādi includes, "What is the nimitta in the northeast direction? A rock, Bhante, this rock is the nimitta. What is the nimitta in the south direction, in the southeast direction, in the west direction, in the northwest direction, in the north direction, in the northeast direction? Water, Bhante, this water is the nimitta." Here, having established the eight, one should then declare and establish the first declared nimitta again, saying, "What is the nimitta in the eastern direction? A mountain, Bhante, this mountain is the nimitta." In this way, the nimitta is connected with the nimitta. Sammā kittetvā means having declared [it] in the manner described, without declaring [it] with a reversal of each other's names or with the names of non-nimittas. Sammatā means bound by a pure ñattidutiyakammavācā (motion with one proclamation) stated in the manner beginning with "Suṇātu me, Bhante" in the Uposathakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 139 ff.). There, the nimittas, even if declared once, are indeed declared. However, in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, "The nimitta should be declared three times, connecting the boundary circle" (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138).

Tatrāti: Among those eight nimittas. Nimittupagatāti: Suitability as a nimitta. ‘‘Hatthippamāṇato paṭṭhāyā’’ti vacanato: Because of the statement "starting from the size of an elephant," even the size of an elephant is suitable as a nimitta. However, an elephant is either seven cubits or seven and a half cubits (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138). Tato omakataroti: Smaller than that elephant size. If there are four mountains in the four directions, or three mountains in three directions, it is permissible to establish [a boundary] with four or three mountain nimittas alone, but it is not permissible to establish [it] with two nimittas or with one. The same method applies to the remaining instances of rock nimittas and so on. Therefore, one making a mountain nimitta should ask, "Is it connected or not connected?" If it is connected, it should not be made [a nimitta], for even if one declares [it] in the four or eight directions, only one nimitta is declared. Therefore, a mountain that stands surrounding a monastery in a circular shape should be declared in one direction, and in other directions, having excluded it, other nimittas should be declared inside. If they wish to make a third or half of the mountain inside the boundary, without declaring the mountain, one of the trees, termite mounds, etc., that have grown on that very mountain beyond the area they wish to make inside should be declared as a nimitta. If they wish to make the entire mountain, measuring two yojanas, inside, the trees, termite mounds, etc., that have grown on the ground beyond the mountain should be declared as nimittas (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138; Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 158).

Saṅkhaṃ gacchatī ti: It goes to reckoning, to usage, is the meaning. Dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍaparimāṇo: In thickness, not by weighing. There, they say, ‘‘ekapalaṃnāma dasakalañja’’nti—"one pala is ten kalañjas." Even large bricks are not permissible. Similarly, a heap of non-nimitta-suitable rocks, like a heap of dirt, sand, or gravel. A flat rock level with the ground, like a threshing floor, or a rock protruding from the ground like a stump, is permissible if it is of a suitable size. He says, "However, even a very large flat rock goes into the category of a rock" ‘‘piṭṭhipāsāṇopanā’’tiādi—"however, a flat rock…" Therefore, if they wish to make one area of a large flat rock inside the boundary, without declaring it, another rock on top of it should be declared. If they build a monastery on top of a flat rock, and the flat rock penetrates through the middle of the monastery, such a flat rock is not permissible. For if they declare it, the monastery would be on top of the nimitta, and the nimitta would be outside the boundary, and the monastery would also fall outside the boundary. However, a flat rock that stands surrounding the monastery should be declared in one place, but not declared in another place.

Regarding the vananimitte, he says, "Not a grass forest or a tree forest with heartwood or sapwood" ‘‘antosārehī’’tiādi—"Those without heartwood." Antosārānāma: Antosārā means ambajambupanasādayo—mangoes, rose apples, jackfruits, etc. Antosāramissakehīti: Those with heartwood are antosārā, mixed with them are antosāramissakā, by them. Catupañcarukkhamattampīti: This states the lower limit. But at the upper limit, even a forest of a hundred yojanas is permissible. Here, if it is four trees, three should be heartwood and one sapwood; if it is five trees, three should be heartwood and two sapwood, is what should be understood. However, if they build a monastery in the middle of a forest, that forest should not be declared. Even for those wishing to make one part inside the boundary, without declaring the forest, the trees, rocks, etc., there should be declared; a forest that stands surrounding the monastery should be declared in one place, but not declared in another place (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138).

Regarding the rukkhanimitte, he says, "Not a heartwood tree" ‘‘antosāro’’ti—"With heartwood." With ‘‘bhūmiyaṃ patiṭṭhito’’, he rejects [a tree] standing in huts, baskets, etc. However, having removed [it] from there, even if one plants [it] in the ground for a moment, makes a enclosure, pours water, it is permissible to declare [it]; the emergence of new roots and branches is not a requirement. But this is appropriate for one planted after cutting the trunk. Sūicidaṇḍakappamāṇoti: They say, "The size of a writing stylus in Sri Lanka" (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138), and that should be seen as the size of the smallest finger joint. However, when declaring this tree nimitta, it is permissible to say "a tree" or "a teak tree, a sal tree." However, a connected tree like a well-established banyan tree should be declared in one place, but it is not permissible to declare it in another place.

Regarding the magganimitte, he says, "Not forest paths, field paths, river paths, pond paths" ‘‘jaṅghamaggo vā hotū’’tiādi—"Let it be a foot path…" However, a foot path that deviates from a cart path and then rejoins the same cart path, or foot paths and cart paths that are winding, are not permissible. Therefore, he says, ‘‘jaṅghasatthasakaṭasatthehī’’tiādi—"By foot caravans and cart caravans…" Here, if they make the edge of the cart track the nimitta, the path is outside the boundary. If they make the outer wheel track the nimitta, only the outer wheel track is outside the boundary, and the rest should be understood as belonging inside the boundary. Even if two paths diverge and then reunite like a cart axle, they should be declared once at the point of division or at the point of connection, but should not be declared again. This is a connected nimitta.

If four paths go in four directions surrounding the monastery, having declared one in the middle, it is not permissible to declare another. This is a connected nimitta. However, it is permissible to declare [a path] penetrating the corner in the far part. However, a path penetrating through the middle of the monastery should not be declared. When it is declared, the monastery is on top of the nimitta. When declaring this path, it is permissible to declare [it] with any of the ten names stated in "maggo pajjo patho" etc. (Cūḷani. Pārāyanatthutigāthāniddesa 101). A path going around the monastery in the shape of a ditch should be declared in one place, but not declared in another place.

Yaṃ pana abaddhasīmālakkhaṇe nadiṃ vakkhāmāti: Because it will be said about the river in the unestablished boundary characteristic, beginning with "yassā dhammikānaṃ rājūnaṃ kāle" (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā) in the water-tossing boundary. However, a river that surrounds the monastery like a path in the shape of a cart axle or in the shape of a ditch should be declared in one place, but should not be declared in another place. The same method applies to the four rivers penetrating each other in the four directions of the monastery. However, it is permissible to declare even four unconnected rivers. If they block the river flow with vines and straw after digging [a channel] at the base of a tree, as if making a dam, even if the water floods and continues over the barrier, it is permissible to make [it] a nimitta. Just as the water does not flow, a river that does not flow when a dam is made is not permissible to make [it] a nimitta. At the flowing place, it is permissible to make the river a nimitta; at the non-flowing place, it is permissible to make the water a nimitta.

A river that does not flow due to lack of water during the dry season or in the summer is permissible. They draw a water channel from a great river; resembling a small river, it constantly flows, producing three crops. Even though it flows, it is not permissible to make [it] a nimitta. However, a river that, even though originating from a great river at its source, after some time, breaks away from the river along the same course from which it originated and flows on its own, and in its course becomes a river teeming with crocodiles and other [creatures] and navigable by boats and other [vessels], is permissible to make [it] a nimitta.

Asandamānanti: Non-flowing. Sandamānaṃnāma: Flowing means water in flood rivers, water-carrying channels, and canals. Vuttaparicchedakālaṃ atiṭṭhantanti: Not remaining for the specified time mentioned in "yāva kammavācāpariyosānā saṇṭhamānaka" - remaining steady until the end of the kammavācā. Bhājanagatanti: Contained in vessels such as boats, dishes, etc. However, what is stated in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā that "water that is scooped up in deep pits etc. should not be made a nimitta" (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138; Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 158) is poorly stated, it is merely one's own opinion. However, if standing water, even in a pig's trough or in a pond where village children play, remains until the end of the kammavācā, whether it is little or much, it is indeed permissible. In that place, a pile of rocks, sand, gravel, etc., or a stone pillar or a wooden pillar should be made for the purpose of marking the nimitta.

He says, beginning with ‘‘parisāsampattiyā yuttā nāmā’’tiādi—"It is called endowed with the accomplishment of an assembly." Because this action is to be done by a group of four, it is said ‘‘catūhi bhikkhūhī’’ti—"By four monks." Those wishing to establish this boundary, having asked the monks in the neighboring monasteries about the boundaries of each of those monasteries, should establish a boundary limit at the boundary of the monasteries with established boundaries, and a vicinity limit at the boundary of the monasteries with unestablished boundaries. If they wish to establish a boundary in one village field during the wandering time of monks going in different directions, they should send [a message] to the monks in those monasteries with established boundaries, saying, "Today we will establish a boundary; you should not leave the boundary limits of your respective boundaries." The monks in the monasteries with unestablished boundaries should be gathered together, and the consent of those eligible to give consent should be obtained. Therefore, it is said ‘‘yāvatikā tasmiṃ gāmakhette’’tiādi—"As many as [there are] in that village field…" Tasmiṃ gāmakhetteti: In that village field in which they stand and recite the kammavācā. Mahāsumatthero says, "If they wish to include other village fields, the monks who live in those villages should also come; the consent of those who do not come should be obtained." Mahāpadumatthero, however, says, "Different village fields are like separately established boundaries; consent and purity do not come from there. However, monks who are within the boundary markers should come," and then he says again, "During the agreement of a boundary for those in a common residence, coming or not coming is permissible; however, during the agreement of a boundary for those not in separate residence, those who are within the boundary markers should come. The consent of those who do not come should be obtained" (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138).

He began with "kammavācāsampattiyā yuttā nāmātiādi". With the word "ādi" he includes the rest of the Pāḷi passage: "If it seems fit to the Sangha, let the Sangha define the boundary with these markers, having a common residence and a single Uposatha. This is the announcement. Venerable Sirs, may the Sangha hear me. In so far as the markers have been declared all around, the Sangha defines the boundary with these markers, having a common residence and a single Uposatha. Whoever of the venerable ones approves of the defining of the boundary with these markers for a common residence and a single Uposatha, let him be silent. Whoever does not approve, let him speak. The Sangha has defined the boundary with these markers for a common residence and a single Uposatha. It is approved by the Sangha, therefore it is silent. Thus, I understand it." (mahāva. 139). Vuttāyā: which is mentioned in the Uposatha section. Parisuddhāya: because it is free from faults in the ñatti and faults in the announcement.

Khaṇḍasīmā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138; sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138; vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) means a small boundary. Samānasaṃvāsakasīmā is a boundary defined for the purpose of common dwelling. Avippavāsasīmā is a boundary defined for the purpose of non-separation. Among these three, those defining a boundary should first establish a khaṇḍasīmā for the easy performance of Sangha acts such as ordination and higher ordination. And in establishing that, the proper procedure should be known. If they establish it in a vihāra that has already been built, after establishing all the objects such as the Bodhi tree, the cetiya, and the refectory, it should be established in a secluded place at the edge of the vihāra, not in the middle of the vihāra where many people gather. When establishing it in an unbuilt vihāra, having considered the location of all the objects such as the Bodhi tree and the cetiya, it should be established in a secluded place at the edge of the vihāra where the objects will be located. If it accommodates twenty-one bhikkhus with the lower limit, it is acceptable. It is not acceptable if it is less than that. It is also acceptable if it accommodates up to a thousand bhikkhus. Those establishing it should place boundary markers made of stones around the sīmāmāḷaka. A great boundary should not be established while standing within a khaṇḍasīmā, nor should a khaṇḍasīmā be established while standing within a great boundary. However, a khaṇḍasīmā should be established while standing within a khaṇḍasīmā, and a great boundary should be established while standing within a great boundary.

Here is the method of establishment: after declaring the markers all around, saying "this stone is a marker," the boundary should be defined by a kammavācā. Then, for the purpose of strengthening it, an avippavāsakammavācā should be performed. In this way, they will not be able to remove it, as it says, "sīmaṃ samūhanissāmā". After defining the boundary, boundary stones should be placed outside. A boundary interval of about four finger-breadths at the western edge is also acceptable (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 163). But if the vihāra is large, two, three, or even more khaṇḍasīmās should be established.

avippavāsasīmā exists. Therefore, he said, "tassāyeva pabhedo". Tassāyeva: from the established boundary itself.

Here, however, is the distinction: because it says, "having excluded the village and the vicinity of the village" (mahāva. 144), an avippavāsasīmā does not overlap the village and the vicinity of the village, but a samānasaṃvāsakasīmā does overlap there as well. Here, a samānasaṃvāsakasīmā goes according to its own nature, but an avippavāsasīmā goes wherever the samānasaṃvāsakasīmā is. For there is no separate declaration of markers for it. There, if a village exists at the time of the avippavāsa agreement, it does not overlap it. But if a village is established later within the agreed boundary, that also goes to the sīmā. And just as the one established later, so also the area that was first established but later expanded also goes to the sīmā. Even if houses are built at the time of the sīmā agreement and there is an intention to enter, but people have not yet entered, or they have abandoned an ancient village along with its houses and gone elsewhere, this is not a village, and the sīmā overlaps it. But if even one family has entered or is about to come, it is a village, and the sīmā does not overlap it.

He began with "abaddhasīmā panātiādi". A village itself is a boundary: gāmasīmā. By the word "village" here, the inclusion of towns and cities should also be understood. In whatever area the village headmen receive tribute for that village, whether that area is small or large, it is called one village area. Even if in one village area, the king demarcates one area, saying, "let this be a separate village," and gives it to someone, that also is a visuṃgāmasīmā. Therefore, that and the other natural village boundary are like established boundaries. Only they do not obtain the exception from being separated from the three robes (ticīvara) (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147).

Agāmake araññe: in a forest like the Viñjhāṭavi. Therefore, he said, "agāmakaṃ nāmā"tiādi. However, this boundary also obtains the exception from being separated from the three robes. Macchabandhānaṃ: for fishermen. Agamanapathesū: in paths that cannot be traveled. It means in such places where it is not possible to go and return on the same day. However, from the edge of their travel limit, it goes to the village boundary. There, it is not acceptable to perform the act without purifying the village boundary. Majjhe ṭhitānaṃ sabbadisāsu sattabbhantarā: seven abbhantaras in all directions from the place where the bhikkhus standing in the middle are standing. Tatthā: in those abbhantaras. Tasmā: because it increases according to the assembly, therefore. Upacāratthāyā: for the sake of the boundary's vicinity. Sīmābhāvaṃ paṭikkhipitvā: having rejected the state of being an established boundary. Samānasaṃvāsā: where there is a common dwelling. Ekūposathā: where there is one Uposatha. And here, because the Uposatha is taken separately, common dwelling should be understood in terms of the remaining acts. Vuttā: mentioned in the Uposathakkhandhaka(mahāva. 149) to show the limits of an unestablished boundary. Anvaḍḍhamāsaṃ: every half month, meaning half a month in half a month. Thus, also in "anudasāha"tiādi. Deve: in the clouds. Valāhakesu vigatamattesū: a locative with the sense of imminence. Sotaṃ: is called a stream of water. A passage is supplied: having crossed over with or without a ford. Timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādetvā: having wrapped it in such a way that it covers the timaṇḍala. Uttarantiyā: crossing over wherever. Bhikkhunīvibhaṅge (pāci. 692): the word "bhikkhuniyā" is mentioned because the description of a river is given in the Pāḷi in terms of a bhikkhunī, not because of any special condition.

Kenaci khaṇitvā akato: not made by digging, even by an animal. Nadiṃ vā samuddaṃ vā bhinditvā: having broken through the bank of a river or the shore of the sea. Etaṃ lakkhaṇaṃ: this characteristic is the characteristic stated as, "where water remains in the river during the rainy season as described" (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā). Even salty soil goes to the same category as a natural lake. But where there is no water to drink or wash hands and feet during the rainy season as described, and it dries up as soon as the rain stops, this natural lake goes to the same category as a village area.

Udakukkhepā: he said, "nissakkavacana" (a word used without doubt) in the sense of an instrument, "udakukkhepena". But how should the water be thrown? He said, "tatthā"tiādi. Majjhimena purisenā: by a man of average strength. Ayaṃ udakukkhepo nāmā: this means that the boundary defined by the throwing of water is called a boundary. As long as the assembly increases, so long does this boundary increase, and the throwing of water is the measure to the extent of the assembly. But if the river is not too long, and the Sangha sits everywhere from its source to its mouth, there is no act of defining the boundary by throwing water. The entire river is sufficient for these bhikkhus.

Pakativassakāle: during the natural rainy season as previously mentioned. Catūsu māsesu: during the four months of the rainy season. A place covered by floodwaters during a time of excessive rain should not be taken into account. For that goes to the same category as a village boundary. The same ruling should be understood for natural lakes, natural embankments, stone islands, and artificial islands within a river. But if the river is full and has level banks, the act should be performed within the river itself, even after wearing a bathing cloth. If they cannot, it should be performed while standing in a boat. But it is not acceptable to perform it in a moving boat. Why? Because the boundary is only the extent of the water thrown, and the boat quickly passes beyond that. In that case, the announcement is for one boundary and the anussāvana is for another, therefore the act should be performed by stopping the boat with an oar, or by hanging it on a stone, or by tying it to a tree growing in the river. It is acceptable to perform the act while standing on a dam built in the river or on a tree growing in the river.

But if a branch of a tree or an offshoot extending from it is situated outside the riverbank, in a vihāra boundary or a village boundary, the act should be performed after purifying the boundary or cutting off the branch. It is not acceptable to tie a boat to a branch or offshoot of a tree growing outside the riverbank that has entered the river and perform the act. Those performing the act should either purify the boundary or destroy the part of the branch that is situated outside. However, it is definitely not acceptable to drive a post into the riverbank and tie the boat there.

When building a bridge in a river, if the bridge or the bridge supports are within the river itself, it is acceptable to perform the act while standing on the bridge. But if the bridge or the bridge supports are situated outside the riverbank, it is not acceptable to perform the act; the act should be performed after purifying the boundary. But if the bridge supports are inside and the bridge stands above the river, in the air above both banks, it is acceptable. The same method applies to a natural lake.

With "Yasmiṃ padese pakativīciyo ottharitvā saṇṭhahantīti," he shows that it is not acceptable to perform the act in a place that is flooded by rising water or by natural waves coming with force (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147). If the force of the waves is disturbing, it should be performed while standing in a boat or on a raft. The ruling on these should be understood in the same way as stated for a river. But if the sea floods a village boundary or a town boundary and remains, it becomes the sea. There, it is acceptable to perform the act. Tato paṭṭhāya kappiyabhūmī: from the edge of the water that has flooded and remained, the natural lake, or the sea inside is called kappiyabhūmī. Dubbuṭṭhikāle: this is said in reference to the rainy and winter seasons. Sukkhesupī: even when dry. Just as with the digging of a well, it should be seen that the digging of ponds, pools, etc., also becomes a village area. Vappaṃ vā karontī: or they make a garden for gourds, cucumbers, etc. Taṃ ṭhānaṃ: that place where the well, etc., has been made. The rest is suitable land. But if they fill up a natural lake and make it land, or if they build a dike on one side and make it all a large pond, it all becomes an unnatural lake. It goes to the same category as a village boundary.

Tasmā: because it goes inside, therefore. Samantā udakukkhepaparicchedo kātabbo: this is said in reference to a place where it is sufficient. But where it is not sufficient in small rivers, etc., the boundary should be defined by throwing water from a sufficient place. Upacāratthāyā: for the sake of the boundary's vicinity.

"Ayaṃ hī"tiādi: This means (Sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.147): Because this boundary of seven abbbhantaras and the boundary of water throwing are obtained based on the standing place of the bhikkhus, and those bhikkhus are not always the same; sometimes they increase, sometimes they decrease. And when they increase, there is confusion of boundaries. Therefore, another seven abbhantaras and another water-throwing boundary should be established for the sake of proximity. However, what is said in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā that "more than that is indeed allowable, but less is not allowable" (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147), that too is for this purpose, but it should not be taken that the action done there is invalid. Paricchedato bahi aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopīti: Even if standing outside the limit, without exceeding another limit that is just that much. That is, by one's own seven abbbhantaras or water-throwing, whatever the limit of those seven abbbhantaras or water-throwing, even if standing outside of that, without exceeding another limit that is just that much. How is this to be understood? He says, "Idaṃ sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu sanniṭṭhāna": This is the established view in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā etc. that "it invalidates the action." "Iti ima"ntiādi: This is the conclusion of what has been said. Herein, there are these:

"Through the force of being bound and unbound, a boundary is twofold;
Endowed with three kinds of success, rejecting eleven kinds of failure;
A bound boundary is threefold: broken from the beginning, from the village, and beyond."

Sabhāgāpattica: This is of two kinds: vatthusabhāgā and āpattisabhāgā. Here, vatthusabhāgā is intended, not the other, to show that, he said, "yaṃ sabbo saṅgho vikālabhojanādinā"tiādi. Lahukāpattinti: Because it is purified by a light Vinaya action, lahukā means the five āpattis called thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, and dubbhāsita. Even with a vatthusabhāgā saṅghādisesa āpatti present, the Uposatha action is not fit. As he said, "It is not proper to reveal (an āpatti) to one who has incurred a sabhāga saṅghādisesa. If he reveals it, the āpatti is revealed, but he is not released from the dukkaṭa" (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102). However, because of the undesanāgāminī, it was said like this. Vatthusabhāgāti: Having an equal share in terms of the object, meaning a single section. Because it was said, "Monks, a sabhāga āpatti should not be confessed; whoever confesses it incurs an āpatti of dukkaṭa" (mahāva. 169), therefore, this same vatthusabhāga should not be confessed, but not the āpattisabhāga. Therefore, he said, "vikālabhojanapaccayā āpannaṃ panā"tiādi. Āpattisabhāganti: Having an equal share in the āpatti.

Sāmantā āvāsāti: Sāmantaāvāsaṃ means a nearby monastery. Sajjukanti: For the purpose of coming on that very day. Pāhetabboti: Should be sent. Iccetaṃ kusalanti: This is beautiful, auspicious, meaning obtainable. No ce labhethāti: If he cannot obtain it, due to the distance of the monasteries or due to obstacles on the road etc. It is indicated by the words, "He will deal with it in his presence," that even revealing a sabhāgāpatti is not allowed. If he could obtain it, he could perform the Uposatha even after revealing it. If, however, the entire Saṅgha has incurred a sabhāga saṅghādisesa, it is not proper to perform the Uposatha after establishing the ñatti, because it is an obstacle to the Uposatha. Both incur a dukkaṭa, because it was said, "Monks, a sabhāga āpatti should not be confessed; whoever confesses it incurs an āpatti of dukkaṭa. Monks, a sabhāga āpatti should not be received; whoever receives it incurs an āpatti of dukkaṭa" (mahāva. 169). Vimati: Doubt, one appointed there is vematiko. "Puna nibbematiko hutvā desetabbamevā"ti: This does not exist in either the Pāḷi or the Aṭṭhakathā, but there is no fault in confessing it. Vuttanayenevāti: In the manner stated, by the manner of "Āyasmanto ārocethā pārisuddhiṃ," those who have āpattis incur a dukkaṭa, in the manner stated, when performing the Uposatha. Why was only a sabhāgāpatti spoken of? He said, "etāsu hī"tiādi. Visabhāgāpattīsu vijjamānāsupi pattakallaṃ hotiyevāti: However, even when visabhāgāpattis are present, the āpatti belongs to those individuals themselves, not to the Saṅgha, therefore, it is fit for the Saṅgha.

Antimavatthuajjhāpannakonāma: One who has incurred any of the four pārājikas. The determination regarding paṇḍakas etc. will become clear later in the pārājika section. Tiracchānagatoti: Including Sakka, the king of the gods, any non-human species should be understood, not horses, cattle etc. Therefore, he said, "ettha cā"tiādi. Tattha etthāti: In this discussion of persons to be avoided. Yassa upasampadā paṭikkhittāti: "A non-ordained animal, monks, should not be ordained" (mahāva. 111). The upasampadā of an animal such as nāgas, supaṇṇas, etc. is rejected; here too, he is called an animal. Here, including the god Sakka, any non-human species is meant by "animal." For it was said in the Samantapāsādikā: "Here, in ‘an animal, monks,’ whether it be a nāga or any of the supaṇṇa-māṇavakas, including Sakka, the king of the gods, any non-human species, all of them should be understood as ‘animal’ in this context" (mahāva. aṭṭha. 111). Titthaṃ is said to be a doctrine, those who have that are titthikā, titthikā eva titthiyā, meaning those of another doctrine.

suttuddeso: Pārisuddhi is the Uposatha, pārisuddhiuposatho. The same method applies to adhiṭṭhānuposathoti also. Soti: That pātimokkhuddeso. Ovāda is pātimokkha, the uddeso of that, the saying in its own form, ovādapātimokkhuddeso. "In this transgression, this is the āpatti," thus, the command and declaration in terms of āpatti is āṇā, the rest is similar to what has just been said.

Khantī paramaṃ tapo titikkhā…pe… vuttā tisso gāthāyonāma –

"Patience, forbearance is the highest austerity;
The Buddhas declare that Nibbāna is supreme;
Not he a recluse who strikes another,
Not he a monk who harasses another.

"Non-doing of all evil, perfecting of merit,
Purifying one's own mind: this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

"Not reviling, not harming, restraint according to the Pātimokkha,
Knowing moderation in food, secluded dwelling and seat,
And devotion to the heightened mind: this is the teaching of the Buddhas." (dī. ni. 2.90; dha. pa. 183-185) –

These are the three verses.

khantī paramaṃ tapoti (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 2.90; dha. pa. aṭṭha. 2.185): Enduring patience is the highest austerity. Titikkhāti: A synonym for patience, enduring patience is the supreme austerity. Nibbānaṃ paramaṃ vadantīti: In every way, the Buddhas say that Nibbāna is "supreme." Na hi pabbajito parūpaghātīti: He who, being devoid of enduring patience, strikes, harms, or injures another, is not called a pabbajito. The fourth line, however, is a synonym for the same. "Na hi pabbajito": the synonym for this is "nasamaṇo hotī". "Parūpaghātī" the synonym for this is "paraṃ viheṭhayanto". Alternatively, parūpaghātīti means one who harms sīla. For sīla is called "para" in the sense of being supreme. And the samaṇa who, harassing any being, is parūpaghātī, destroying his own sīla, is not called a pabbajito. Or, he who, due to the absence of enduring patience, is parūpaghātī, deliberately takes the life of another, even a gnat or mosquito, is not a pabbajito. Why? Because he has not expelled his defilements. "He expels his own defilements, therefore he is called ‘pabbajito’" (dha. pa. 388); this is the characteristic of a pabbajito. And even he who does not strike or kill, but harasses with sticks etc., that samaṇa who harasses another is not a samaṇa. Why? Because he has not calmed his harm. "Because he has calmed his evil, he is called ‘samaṇa’" (dha. pa. 265); this is the characteristic of a samaṇa.

sabbapāpassāti: Of all unwholesome things. Akaraṇanti: Non-production. Kusalassāti: Of four-level wholesome things. Upasampadāti: Upasampādanaṃ is attainment. Sacittapariyodapananti: Purifying one's own mind, making it bright, completely purifying it, that happens with arahatship. Thus, having abandoned all evil through sīlasaṃvara, having attained wholesome things through mundane and supramundane samatha and vipassanā, having purified the mind with the fruit of arahatship: this is the teaching of the Buddhas, the instruction, the admonition.

anūpavādoti: Not reviling anyone with speech. Anūpaghātoti: Not doing any harm to anyone with the body. Pātimokkheti: That which is the pātimokkha, the paatimokkha, the atipamokkha, the supreme sīla, or which protects against evil destinies, or which frees (mokkheti) from the fear of bad destinations. That which protects (pāti), that frees (mokkheti), is called "pātimokkha," in that pātimokkha. Saṃvaroti: The characteristic of non-transgression of the seven groups of āpattis. Mattaññutāti: Knowing the measure in terms of acceptance and use. Pantañca sayanāsananti: A secluded dwelling and seat, devoid of the hustle and bustle of people, solitary and isolated. Here, it should be understood that contentment with the four requisites is indicated by just two conditions, because the other two are also illuminated by the method of implying characteristics by the generality of contentment with requisites. Adhicitte ca āyogoti: The eight samāpatti cittas that lead to vipassanā, or even more so, the path and fruit cittas are the adhicitta. In that adhicitta, as has been said, there is āyogo and anuyogo. Etaṃ buddhāna sāsananti: This non-reviling of others, non-harming, restraint in the Pātimokkha, moderation in acceptance and use, and the practice of secluded dwelling for the mastery of the eight samāpattis, is the teaching of the Buddhas, the instruction, the admonition. These three verses, however, should be known as the pātimokkhuddesagāthās of all the Buddhas. The Buddhas themselves recite them, not the disciples.

āṇāpātimokkhaṃnāma: This is recited only by the disciples, not by the Buddhas, and they do not perform Saṅghakamma, nor is it included there, he said "taṃ sāvakā eva uddisanti, na buddhā". Imasmiṃ attheti: In this meaning, "he should recite the Pātimokkha."

Anupagatonāma: One who is ordained there, or not arrived if there is no earlier one. Cātumāsiniyanti: In the cātumāsiya. Because that is the fulfillment of four months, it is called cātumāsī, that itself is called "cātumāsinī," in that cātumāsinī. Meaning the last Kattika full moon day. Kāyasāmagginti: Unity in body, meaning coming within hatthapāsa.

Herein is the judgment: If five bhikkhus have entered upon the rains in the former (residence), and five also in the latter, after the former have concluded the pavāraṇā by establishing the motion (ñatti), the pārisuddhi and uposatha should be performed by the latter in their presence. Two motions should not be established in one uposatha site. Even if four, three, two, or one reside in the latter, the procedure is the same. Further, if four reside in the former, and four, three, two, or one in the latter, the procedure is the same. Further, if three reside in the former, and three or two in the latter, the procedure is the same. Here is the characteristic in this case: if those who have entered the rains in the latter are fewer or the same in number as those who have entered the rains in the former, and they complete the quorum for the Sangha’s pavāraṇā, the former should perform the pavāraṇā after establishing the motion concerning the Sangha’s pavāraṇā. But if three reside in the former, and one resides in the latter, the four of them together cannot establish a Sangha ñatti and perform the pavāraṇā. However, that one completes the quorum for a gaṇa ñatti, therefore, after establishing the motion based on the gaṇa, the former should perform the pavāraṇā, and the other should perform the pārisuddhi and uposatha in their presence. If two reside in the former, and two or one in the latter, the procedure is the same here as well. If one resides in the former, and one also in the latter, one should perform the pavāraṇā in the presence of the other, and one should perform the pārisuddhi and uposatha. If those who have entered the rains in the latter are even one more than those who have entered the rains in the former, after reciting the Pātimokkha first, then the fewer should perform the pavāraṇā in the presence of the others. However, for the Kattika four-month pavāraṇā, if those who entered the rains first, having performed the Mahāpavāraṇā, are fewer or the same in number as those who entered later, the pavāraṇā should be performed after establishing the pavāraṇā ñatti. After they have performed the pavāraṇā, the others should perform the pārisuddhi and uposatha. If many have performed the Mahāpavāraṇā, and those who entered the rains later are few or one, after the Pātimokkha has been recited, he should perform the pavāraṇā in their presence.

Ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā means having properly arranged the upper robe over one shoulder. Añjaliṃ paggahetvā means having raised the añjali, radiant with the joining of the ten fingertips. If there is a probationer (pārivāsika) there, having sat down in the Sangha-newcomer's seat, he should perform his pārisuddhi and uposatha in his own language while sitting there. But when the Pātimokkha is being recited, without sitting in his own language, he should sit without releasing his arm's length, abandoning his language. The same procedure applies for the pavāraṇā.

Sabbaṃ pubbakaraṇīyanti all the preliminary duties, the ninefold preliminary work, beginning with sweeping. Just as the entire Sangha, having committed a shared offense, can perform the uposatha by establishing the motion "May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs…pe… will rectify" (mahāva. 171), so here too, with three (bhikkhus), having established the gaṇa ñatti, "May the venerable ones listen to me, these bhikkhus have committed a shared offense; when they see another bhikkhu who is pure and without offense, they will rectify that offense in his presence," and with two (bhikkhus), having said, "Having seen another who is pure, we will rectify," it is permissible to perform the uposatha. Even with one, having made an intention, "Having obtained purity, I will rectify," it is permissible to perform (the uposatha). Tadahū means in that, it was; it means on that day. Nānāsaṃvāsakehīti with those whose association is different due to (different) views. Anāvāso is any place whatsoever, such as a new construction hall. Aññatra saṅghenāti apart from bhikkhus who are capable by the Sangha. Aññatra antarāyāti apart from the ten kinds of hindrances previously mentioned. However, with the very last restriction, it is permissible to go, even if there is an impediment for one in a group of four. Just as residences and so on should not be gone to, so too, if they are performing the uposatha in a monastery, the boundary or river for the purpose of determining the uposatha should not be gone to. If there is some bhikkhu there, it is permissible to go to his presence. Even from a Vissaṭṭhauposatha, it is permissible to go to a residence. Having gone in this way, it is also permissible to determine (the uposatha). Even a forest-dwelling bhikkhu should, on the uposatha day, wander for alms in the village and return to his own monastery. If he goes to another monastery, he should perform the uposatha there and then return; it is not permissible to return without doing so. But a residence of the sort, "I will be able to go there today" (mahāva. aṭṭha. 181) should be gone to. For one performing the uposatha there with the bhikkhus, by this, no uposatha hindrance will have been done.

Udakaṃ āsanena cāti means both drinking water and water for use, along with the seat. Pubbakaraṇaṃ is what should be done before the Sangha's assembly. Pubbakiccaṃ is what should be done after the preliminary work, but before the uposatha act. He said, "evaṃ dvīhi nāmehi navavidhaṃ pubbakiccaṃ dassita" because both of these should be done before the uposatha act, therefore, here, it is only said "preliminary duty". He asks, "na hī" and so on, questioning what that that was done. Taṃ akatvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati because of the saying "Bhikkhus, it is not to be swept at the command of an elder by one who is not ill; whoever would not sweep, there is an offense of wrong-doing" (mahāva. 159) Therefore he said, "tasmā therena āṇattenā" and so on.

Pānīyaṃ paribhojanīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetabbanti means drinking water and water for use should be provided for the sake of newcomers. Āsanaṃ paññāpetabbanti means a seat such as a stool or plank should be arranged. If there are no seats in the uposatha hall, they should be brought from the Sangha's residence, arranged, and then taken back. If there are no seats, it is permissible to arrange even a rush mat or a mat of split bamboo. If there are no mats either, branches should be made allowable and arranged. If one does not obtain someone to make it allowable, it is considered allowable. Padīpo kātabboti means it should be lit; it is said that the lamp lighting should be done. But one ordering it should say, "In such and such a place there is oil or a wick or a potsherd; having taken that, do it." If there is no oil, etc., it should be searched for. If one does not obtain (it) after searching, it is considered allowable. Moreover, fire should also be lit in a potsherd. And one ordering (it) should not order just anyone who is doing some work or one who is always (busy), or one who is unloading a burden, or one among those who are reciters of the texts, speakers of Dhamma, etc., but the remaining ones should be ordered in turn. Therefore he said, "therenāpi patirūpaṃ ñatvā āṇāpetabba"nti.

Bahi uposathaṃ katvā āgatenāti by one who has come having performed the uposatha outside, either at a river or at a boundary, or wherever, the intention is that consent should be given; it is not permissible to stand aloof saying, "I have done the uposatha." Kiccappasuto vāti or one who is intent on duties such as attending to the sick. If a sick person is not able to give consent and purity, he should be brought into the middle of the Sangha on a bed or seat, and the uposatha should be performed. If the bhikkhus attending to the sick have this (thought), "If we move this sick person from his place, either his illness will increase, or he will die," then that sick person should not be moved from his place; the Sangha should go there and perform the uposatha; the Sangha should certainly not perform the uposatha in a divided group. If it does, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If there are many such sick people, the Sangha should stand in order and do (it) within arm's reach of all. If they are far apart, and the Sangha cannot manage, the uposatha should not be performed that day; the uposatha should certainly not be performed by a divided Sangha. Because it was said, "I allow, bhikkhus, for one giving purity on the day of the uposatha to also give consent; there are duties of the Sangha" (mahāva. 165), saying "chandaṃ dammī" by one doing the Buddha’s command. From the saying, "If a consent-carrier, bhikkhus, departs right there after giving consent, consent should be given to another," (mahāva. 165) "chandaṃ me harā" is said again for the purpose of dispelling the weariness of his own giving of consent. Because it was said, "If a consent-carrier, bhikkhus, having given consent and having reached the Sangha, intentionally does not announce it, the consent has been brought, there is an offense of wrong-doing for the consent-carrier," (mahāva. 165) "chandaṃ me ārocehī" is said to free him from that offense of wrong-doing.

Kāyena vā vācāya vā ubhayena vā viññāpetabboti By one who, thinking in his mind, makes a bodily exertion, should make it known by any limb or part of the body, or by speech itself if he is able to utter speech, or by both body and speech if he is able in both ways; it means it should be made known, made understood. However, from the saying ‘‘Ayaṃ attho’’, it is permissible to make it known in whatever bodily language, and in the giving of purity the judgment is similar to what was said in the giving of consent. However, one giving that should first declare if there is an offense. Indeed, one who is offensive is not allowed to say, “I give purity, carry my purity, announce my purity,” (mahāva. 164). With a reversal of the wording that should be said ‘‘santi saṅghassa karaṇīyānī’’, ‘‘santi saṅghassa karaṇīya’’ is said. Tesañca attano ca chandapārisuddhiṃ detīti here, consent and consent-purity is chandapārisuddhi, that he gives, the meaning should be seen with the sarūpekasesa method. Itarāti the consent-purity of others. Biḷālasaṅkhalikā chandapārisuddhīti here, biḷālasaṅkhalikā means a cat bond. There, indeed, the first loop of the chain reaches only the second loop, not the third; in the same way, this consent-purity does not go elsewhere from the giver to whom it was given (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.164; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.164). Therefore, because it is similar to a cat chain, it is called "biḷālasaṅkhalikā". And the taking of biḷālasaṅkhalikā here should be seen as merely indicative of any kind of chains.

Utukkhānanti taṃ taṃ kiriyaṃ arati vattetīti utu, tassa akkhānaṃ utukkhānaṃ, utuācikkhananti attho. Utuācikkhananti means the telling of the season, it means the telling of the season. To show that telling in its own form, ‘‘hemantādīna’’ntiādi, "of the cold season and so on" was said. Gaṇanāti kalanā, means reckoning. Bhikkhunovādo, advising the bhikkhunīs with the eight Garudhamma conditions. Sve uposathoti āgantvāti When it is said, "Tomorrow is the uposatha," it is said that having come today, on the fourteenth day of the fortnight for the fifteenth uposatha, and on the thirteenth for the fourteenth. However, in Mahāpaccariyaṃ, it was said, "Having come on the thirteenth day of the fortnight itself, it should be asked, 'Is this uposatha the fourteenth or the fifteenth?'" (pāci. aṭṭha. 149). And by the bhikkhu having asked in this way, if they are doing the uposatha on the fourteenth day, it should be said, "Sister, it is the fourteenth." If they are doing it on the fifteenth, it should be said, "Sister, it is the fifteenth." Because it was said, "I allow, bhikkhus, having excluded a fool, having excluded a sick person, having excluded a traveler, for the remaining ones to take the advice," (cūḷava. 414) ‘‘taṃ ṭhapetvā’’tiādi, "having excluded that," and so on, was said. There, one who does not know the procedure for announcing is bālo, a fool. One who wants to go on the fourteenth-day or fifteenth-day uposatha, or on the first day of the (lunar) month is gamiyo, a traveler, but one going from the second day of the lunar month onward is not called a traveler here. Araññe nivāso assāti, araññiko, one whose dwelling is in the forest. Even he cannot refuse, saying, "I am a forest-dweller, tomorrow is the uposatha, I do not dwell in the monastery." If he would not accept, he would incur an offense of wrong-doing. This was said, "Bhikkhus, the advice is not to be refused; whoever would not accept it, there is an offense of wrong-doing" (cūḷava. 414). By him, however, a sign should be made for returning. This was said, "I allow, bhikkhus, for a forest-dwelling bhikkhu to take the advice, and to make a sign, ‘I will return here’" (cūḷava. 415). Therefore, if a forest-dwelling bhikkhu obtains alms in a village where bhikkhunīs dwell, having wandered there, having seen the bhikkhunīs, having announced (the uposatha), he should go. If alms are not easily obtained there for him, having wandered in a border village, having come to the bhikkhunīs' village, it should be done in the same way. If it is necessary to go far, a sign should be made, "I will approach such and such a public hall or pavilion or tree root at your village gate; you should come there." The bhikkhunīs should go there; it is not allowed not to go. This was said, "Bhikkhus, a bhikkhunī should not fail to go to the sign; whoever would not go, there is an offense of wrong-doing" (cūḷava. 415).Uposathaggeti at the place of doing the uposatha. Aṭṭhahi aṅgehīti – with the eight factors:

"She is virtuous, dwells restrained by the Pātimokkha, endowed with good conduct and proper sphere of activity, sees danger in slight faults, and trains herself by undertaking the precepts. She is very learned, a preserver of the teaching, a storehouse of the teaching; those teachings that are good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, which, with meaning and expression, proclaim the perfectly complete and pure holy life—teachings of such a kind are much learned by her, retained in mind, familiar in speech, examined in thought, and well-penetrated by view. Moreover, both Pātimokkhas are thoroughly well-learned by her, well-analyzed, well-practiced, and well-defined, both by the letter and in detail. She is of good speech, of good verbal expression. She is generally liked and agreeable to the bhikkhunīs. She is capable of admonishing the bhikkhunīs. She has never, since ordaining under the Blessed One, wearing the saffron robe, been previously subject to a weighty offense. She is twenty years old or more than twenty years old" (pāci. 147) –

Pāsādikena means with inspiring confidence, blameless in bodily, verbal, and mental actions. Sampādetu means to accomplish the threefold training. But when the bhikkhunīs, having seen only the one who recites the Pātimokkha, request the instruction, then when the Sangha of bhikkhus has assembled in the Uposatha hall, as a preliminary duty, when asked, "Are there any bhikkhunīs requesting instruction?", having someone else speak the words to be spoken by himself, saying, "Speak thus," and having himself said, "Is there any bhikkhu recognized as an instructor of bhikkhunīs?" etc., then he should himself go again and announce it to the bhikkhunīs. Or, on that day, another bhikkhu should have the Pātimokkha recited. Idaṃ means "by those," which is plural. Ekato means together.

Ñattiṭṭhapakena vā means where there is no recitation of the Pātimokkha in a dwelling place of three (bhikkhus), or by one who establishes the ñatti. Itarena vā means where two bhikkhus dwell, or one, then by the other bhikkhu, if he is himself recognized, he should say, "I." Tathevā means just like what was said in the Uposatha hall. ‘‘Ārocetvāvā’’ with this, he rejects not announcing. "Monks, the instruction should not be unannounced; whoever does not announce it, there is an offense of wrong-doing" (cūḷava. 415), it is not proper to take the instruction and not announce it in the Uposatha hall.

Parisuddhabhāvaṃ means purity from offense. Ārocetha means make known. Ettha siyā means in this phrase "I will recite the Pātimokkha," this application would be. What is it that could be? He says, ‘‘saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyyā’’ etc. Pubbenāparaṃ sandhiyatī means the later statement goes with the earlier statement. Sāmaggiyā means with togetherness of body and mind. Gaṇassa means, except for the one establishing the recitation, for the remaining bhikkhus in a group of four. Saṅghassa uddiṭṭhaṃ hotī means it is recited by the Sangha. This is a possessive case in the sense of the instrument. Etthā means in the recitation of the Pātimokkha. Lakkhaṇaṃ means characteristic, nature.

Therā ca navā ca majjhimā ca means, here, those with ten years or more are therā (elders). Those with less than five years are navā (new). Those with five years or more are majjhimā (middle). Aṭṭhiṃ katvā means having made oneself desirous of that Pātimokkha, or having made that Pātimokkha "this is my Pātimokkha" in one’s desire. Manasi karitvā means having established it in the mind. Sotadvāravasenā means by way of the javana-consciousness through the ear-door. Sabbacetasā samannāharāmā means not allowing even a little of the mind to go outside, we attend with the whole mind, we take note, is the meaning. Manasi karomā means we attend, we pay attention, is the meaning. And that attention is not here characterized by introducing an object, but rather he says, ‘‘ekaggacittā hutvā citte ṭhapeyyāmā’’ characterized by establishing it in the mind with attention preceding the way of consciousness and the occurrence of javana. Na sametī means it does not come together. Why does it not come together? He says, ‘‘samaggassa hī’’ etc. And what more? He says, ‘‘pātimokkhuddesako cā’’ etc. Saṅghapariyāpanno means included, immersed, in the Sangha.

Āyasmanto is an address with affectionate words to those assembled.

Alajjitā means shamelessness, by way of lack of shame, is the meaning. Here, this individual case is in the sense of the third case. ‘‘Aññāṇatā’’ etc., the same method applies in these also. Kukkuccappakatatā means by being overcome by scruples. Satisammosā means from loss of mindfulness. Vītikkamaṃ means transgression of a training rule.

Sañciccā means intentionally, having directed the mind towards transgression knowing its unsuitability, is the meaning. Parigūhatī means conceals, does not declare, does not emerge. Showing that one who conceals out of shame is not shameless, but one who conceals out of disrespect, thinking "what is this?", is shameless. Agatigamanañca gacchatī means also goes to improper courses, with such distinctions as partiality due to desire etc. in places for distributing goods. Alajjipuggalo means a person devoid of shame arising internally. And here, he shows that one is shameless when one incurs an offense intentionally, out of disrespect, and when one conceals an offense that has been incurred, and when one goes to improper courses in places for distributing goods, and not otherwise.

Mando means dull-witted, this is a name for one without wisdom. Momūho means extremely deluded. Virādhetī means does not accomplish, does not fulfill. Kukkucce means in doubt about the Vinaya. Kappiyaṃ ce kattabbaṃ siyā means having asked a Vinaya-holder, and if it should be proper to do something after he has examined the matter, having looked at the matrix, the word-analysis, the intermediate offense, and the non-offense, and having said, "It is proper, friend, do not doubt here."

Sahaseyyacīvaravippavāsādīnī means here, sahaseyyā is the offense of sleeping together with one not yet fully ordained for more than two or three nights, vippavāso is separation by way of one night or up to four nights. By the word Ādi he includes offenses such as exceeding seven days. Sattannaṃ āpattikkhandhānaṃ means of the seven aggregates of offenses, reckoned as pārājika, saṅghādisesa, thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkata, and dubbhāsita.

Desetu vā pakāsetu vā means let him declare or reveal it in the midst of the Sangha, or in the midst of a group, or to one individual. And here, pārājikāpattidesanā is the abandonment of the state of a bhikkhu. But emergence should be regarded as "declaration" due to its being a special kind of declaration. Pakāsetu vā means let him announce or reveal.

Evaṃ anāpannā vā means or not having incurred in one of these six ways. Vuṭṭhitā vā means or having emerged by way of parivāsa etc. Ārocitā vā means or having been made manifest. And in announcing, let him say, "I reveal an offense to you," or "I declare," or "I announce," or "Know that I have incurred an offense," or let him say in this way, beginning with "I reveal a grave offense," it is announced in all ways. But if, in revealing a grave offense, he speaks in this way, beginning with "I reveal a light offense," the offense is not made manifest. He announces the matter, he announces the offense, he announces both; it is announced in all three ways. Asantiyā āpattiyā means with regard to an offense that does not exist, it is a locative case in the sense of basis on the non-existence of a condition. Tuṇhībhāvenāpi hī means here, the meaning of the word api should be understood that it is not only when it is said, "Yes, we are pure," but also by silence.

‘‘yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ hotīti etthā’’ etc., has been said. There, the connection is that which is announced three times. Atthabyañjanabhedato means attho is what is known or understood, the meaning; byañjanaṃ is what makes the meaning clear, the letter; meaning and expression are atthabyañjanāni; the difference of them is atthabyañjanabhedo; from that, the meaning is the difference in meaning and expression.

He said, ‘‘anusāvanañhi nāmā’’ etc. Hī is a particle in the sense of reason. But its connection should be understood with ‘‘abhinna’’nti. Tenā means because of being different. Assā means of the three statements beginning with "yassa siyā." To show that this must necessarily be accepted in this way, otherwise there would be an extreme consequence, he said, ‘‘yadi ceta’’nti etc. Etaṃ means the three statements beginning with "yassa siyā." Others imagined that the word "anusāvita" does not indicate the past tense, but rather the future tense. A suffix, though applied in a different tense, is valid in a different tense if there is a connection with the meaning of the root. Therefore, he said, ‘‘apare ‘anusāvita’nti padassā’’ etc. Upari uddesāvasāne means at the end of the pārājika recitation. Atthayuttīnaṃ abhāvato means because of the absence of the meaning and the reason. Now, to explain that very thing, he said, ‘‘idaṃ hī’’ etc. How is this to be understood? He says, ‘‘yadi cassā’’ etc. Ayaṃ means the future tense. Anusāvitaṃ hessatīti vadeyyā means the Buddha would speak having made "anusāvitaṃ" the future tense of application. The intention here is this: if here the suffix ta were connected to the meaning of the root, then in that case the connection to the meaning of the root is called the relation of qualifier and qualified, and that arises when there is sameness of meaning in the application, not when it is non-existent, so he would say the application "hessatī," but it was not said. Therefore, it does not indicate the future, it only indicates the past tense. Anusāviyamāneti vacanato from the statement "anusāviyamāne," which is a present tense word. If so, what is "yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ hotī?" He says, ‘‘yāvatatiya’’nti etc. What is indicated by that, by which it would be merely a statement of characteristic? He says, ‘‘tenā’’ti etc. Tenā means by the reason of merely a statement of characteristic.

Tadetaṃ means that Pātimokkha. Taṃ panetaṃ means that threefold announcement beginning with "tatthāyasmante pucchāmī." Na dissatī means is not found. Imameva ca atthaṃ means this very meaning spoken by us. If, indeed, the three statements beginning with "yassa siyā āpattī" were the threefold announcement, he would say that very thing in the uposathakkhandhaka (mahāva. 132 ff.), but he does not say anything beginning with "sakimpi anusāvitaṃ hotī," is the intention. Now, this determination has not come in the commentaries, so from where was it obtained? He says, ‘‘ayametthā’’ti etc. The tradition that makes known that meaning to the teachers who are familiar with the places in the Vinaya is ācariyaparamparā, brought by that is ācariyaparamparābhato.

‘‘sā ca kho na musāvādalakkhaṇenā’’ti etc. Sampajānamusāvāde kiṃ hotī means of that which has been said, "there would be intentional false speech," what happens from that offense, which offense occurs, is the meaning. Dukkaṭaṃ hotī means there is an offense of wrong-doing. Vacīdvāre akiriyasamuṭṭhānāpatti hotī means for that bhikkhu who remains silent when the unlawful declaration has been made, there is no offense through the mind-door. But because he does not reveal what should be revealed, this offense arises in him through the inactivity of the speech-door. Now, to prove that very meaning that has been said by the Pāḷi, he said, ‘‘vuttampi ceta’’nti etc. This was also said by Upāli Thera in the Sedamocana verses in the Parivāra (pari. 479), is the meaning.

Anālapanto manujena kenaci vācā means not conversing with any human being by speech. Giraṃ no ca pare bhaṇeyyā means he should not utter even a sound with reference to another person, thinking "these will hear." Āpajjeyya vācasikaṃ means he would incur an offense arising from speech. Pañhāmesā kusalehi cintitā here, pañhāmesā is said with a change of gender, the meaning is, "this question is considered by the skilled." This question was spoken with reference to this very false speech.

Antarāyiko: Antarāyo means having the nature of immediate disadvantage (diṭṭhadhammikādi), being connected to that disadvantage due to transgression, or being worthy of the result of disadvantage, or being of a nature to cause disadvantage. Therefore, he said, "vippaṭisāravatthutāyā" etc. Here, vippaṭisāravatthutāyā means vippaṭisāro is mental remorse in the sense of regret later on; the meaning is, due to being the cause of that. It is said to be the cause of remorse (vippaṭisāra), which is contrary to the absence of remorse (appaṭisāra), the condition for the first jhāna and so on. Pāmojjādisambhava means weak and fresh joy and gladness (pīti pāmojja); those that have that as the beginning are pāmojjādayo, their arising or attainment is pāmojjādisambhavo, that. The word ādi includes joy, tranquility (pītippassaddhi), and so on. In Paṭhamajjhānādīna, the word ādi should be understood to include the second jhāna and so on, as stated: "is an obstacle to the attainment of the second jhāna, is an obstacle to the attainment of the third jhāna, is an obstacle to the attainment of the fourth jhāna, is an obstacle to jhānas, vimokshas, samādhis, samāpattis, renunciation (nekkhammas), detachment (nissaraṇas), seclusion (pavivekas), and the attainment of wholesome states" (mahāva. 135). Having said "Tasmā," because of the infallible connection of the words yaṃ taṃ, the meaning "yasmā" is already established, therefore he says "tasmāti yasmā" etc. Jānantenā means knowing. With this, he shows the intentionality of his lying with awareness (sampajānamusāvāda). Visuddhiṃ apekkhatīti visuddhāpekkho, therefore, by one who seeks purification (visuddhāpekkhena). And that purification here is emergence (vuṭṭhāna) and so on, therefore he says "vuṭṭhātukāmena visujjhitukāmena". Meaning, by one who desires to emerge from an offense entailing suspension from the Sangha (saṅghādisesa), by one who desires to be purified from an offense entailing confession (desanāgāminī). Saṅghamajjhe vā gaṇamajjhe vā ekapuggale vā means it should be declared in the midst of the Sangha by announcing to the Sangha in the Uposatha hall, or in the midst of a group by announcing to those sitting together there, or to an individual by announcing to the one nearby. Ito vuṭṭhahitvā means having left this Uposatha hall. But here, only a co-offender (sabhāga) should be spoken to. For if a non-co-offender (visabhāga) is spoken to, there can be quarrels, disputes, schisms in the Sangha, and so on. Therefore, without speaking to him, "having risen from here, I will make amends" (ito vuṭṭhahitvā paṭikarissāmī) – having made this intention, the Uposatha should be observed, as stated in the Andhaka Aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 170).

Karaṇatthe means in the sense of the instrumental case. Here, it is a singular noun in the agentive sense, in relation to the word phāsu. Paccattavacananti means singular. Paṭhamajjhānādīnaṃ adhigamāya phāsu hotī means the attainment of that bhikkhu is comfortable, is pleasant, because the restraint (saṃvara) is a cause for non-remorse (avippaṭisāra). Therefore, he said, "avippaṭisāramūlakāna" etc. The absence of mental remorse (cittavippaṭisāra) due to what has been done or not done regarding bad and good deeds is avippaṭisāro, that is the root or cause of those things, therefore, those that have non-remorse as their root are avippaṭisāramūlakā, of those that have non-remorse as their root (avippaṭisāramūlakānaṃ). Sukhappaṭipadā sampajjatī means the pleasant path succeeds; the idea is that the attainment of the first jhāna and so on comes about easily. In this regard, there is this:

"The basis is the announcement and establishment;
The questioning about preliminary duties;
The method is in the recitation of the basis and the hearing,
And in the declaration of purity;
An offense occurs if there is no declaration;
These five aspects of the summary are to be known."

Thus ends the Nidāna Commentary in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī,

In the Līnatthappakāsaniyā, the Vinayatthamañjūsā.

The Nidāna Commentary is finished.

Pārājika Section

"Idānī" etc. is begun. Nidānānantara means a neuter noun indicating sequence, meaning having done the Nidāna immediately after. Tattha means in the Pārājika Section. Pātimokkhe means in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha. Cattāro means a numerical determination, for the purpose of excluding deficiency or excess. Pārājikā is a name of the same kind. Āpattiyo is a name common to all. Uddisīyatīti uddeso. This is a designation with emphasis on the state. Therefore, he says "uddisitabbata".

1. Commentary on the First Pārājika

Yo panā (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45 bhikkhupadabhājanīyavaṇṇanā): Here, since panā is merely a particle, yo is a term of meaning, and that indicates a person indefinitely. Therefore, showing its meaning, he says "yo kocī". Since whoever is called "yo yokoci," is necessarily known in some way by means of gender, association, name, clan, conduct, dwelling, sphere of activity, or age, therefore, to make it known in that way, he says "rassadīghādinā" etc. The word ādi includes new work (navakamma) and so on. Liṅgādibhedenā means that by which it is indicated is liṅga, that which has that as the beginning is liṅgādayo, the difference of those is liṅgādibhedo, by that difference of gender and so on. Here, the word ādi includes being connected and so on. This is said: liṅgavasena whether he is such or such in terms of gender, whether he is tall or short, black or white or of reddish complexion, thin or stout. Yogavasena whether he is connected to this or that, whether he is engaged in new work, or engaged in recitation, or engaged in bearing responsibilities for residence. Jātivasena whether he is of this caste or that caste, whether he is a Khattiya, a Brāhmaṇa, a Vessa, or a Sudda. Nāmavasena whether he has such a name or such a name, whether he is Buddharakkhita, Dhammarakkhita, or Saṅgharakkhita. Gottavasena whether he is of such a clan or such a clan, whether he is Kaccāyana, Vāsiṭṭha, or Kosiya. Sīlesu whether he is of such conduct or such conduct, whether he has the conduct of doing new work, or the conduct of reciting, or the conduct of bearing responsibilities for residence. Vihāresu pi whether he dwells in such a dwelling or such a dwelling, whether he dwells doing new work, or dwells reciting, or dwells bearing responsibilities for residence. Gocaresu pi whether his sphere of activity is such or such, whether his sphere of activity is doing new work, or his sphere of activity is reciting, or his sphere of activity is bearing responsibilities for residence. Vayesu pi whether he is this or that, whether he is a Thera, a new one, or a middle one, but rather, all are called "yo" in this meaning.

To explain the word "bhikkhū," he says "ehibhikkhūpasampadā" etc. There, the state of being a bhikkhu by merely the word of the Blessed One, "Ehi bhikkhu" is ehibhikkhūpasampadā. Initiation (upasampadā) by the three refuges, having broken the utterance three times in the manner of "Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi" etc. (mahāva. 105), is saraṇagamanūpasampadā. Ovādappaṭiggahaṇūpasampadā (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) is:

"Therefore, Kassapa, you should train yourself thus: 'Intense shame and fear of wrongdoing will be present in me towards the elders, the new ones, and the middle ones.' Thus, Kassapa, you should train yourself. Therefore, Kassapa, you should train yourself thus: 'Whatever Dhamma I hear that is conducive to the wholesome, I will listen to the Dhamma with respect, giving ear, applying all my mind, having made it into bone.' Thus, Kassapa, you should train yourself. Therefore, Kassapa, you should train yourself thus: 'Mindfulness of the body accompanied by pleasure will not leave me.' Thus, Kassapa, you should train yourself" (saṃ. ni. 2.154) –

Initiation permitted to Mahākassapa Thera by this acceptance of the instruction (ovāda).

Pañhābyākaraṇūpasampadā is the initiation permitted to Sopāka. It is said that the Blessed One, while walking back and forth in Pubbārāma, asked the novice Sopāka, "'Is the perception of a bloated corpse (uddhumātakasaññā) or the perception of form (rūpasaññā)'—are these things different in meaning and different in expression, or are they of one meaning, with only the expression different?" (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45), ten questions based on repulsiveness (asubha). He explained them. The Blessed One, having given approval to him, asked, "How old are you, Sopāka?" "I am seven years old, Blessed One." "Sopāka, you have explained the questions having compared them with my knowledge of omniscience (sabbaññutaññāṇa)," having his mind aroused, he permitted initiation; this is initiation by answering questions (pañhābyākaraṇūpasampadā).

Aṭṭhagarudhammapaṭiggahaṇūpasampadā is the initiation permitted to Mahāpajāpati by acceptance of the eight Garudhamma conditions.

Dūtenūpasampadā is the initiation permitted to the courtesan of Aḍḍhakāsī.

Aṭṭhavācikūpasampadā is the initiation with eight pronouncements (vācika), that is, initiation by the Bhikkhunī Sangha with a ñatti with four formal acts (ñatticatuttha), and by the Bhikkhu Sangha with a ñatti with four formal acts, these two procedures.

Ñatticatutthakammūpasampadā is the initiation of bhikkhus at the present time. Ñatticatutthenā means with three announcements (anussāvana) and one motion (ñatti), thus with a ñatti with four formal acts. Although the motion (ñatti) is said first of all, since there is no difference in meaning and expression (atthabyañjana) of the three announcements, the ñatti, which is different in meaning and expression from those, is considered the fourth of those, and therefore it is called "ñatticatuttha." Akuppenā means one who has undertaken what is unshakeable and what is unrejectable. Ṭhānārahenā means suitable in reason, suitable for the Teacher's dispensation. Upasampanno means one who has attained a superior state, meaning attained. For the state of being a bhikkhu is a superior state, and since he has attained that by means of the procedure stated above, he is called "upasampanno." Why, in this case, is one who is initiated by this alone included here, and not by the others? It is said – the ehibhikkhūpasampadā is only for those who are in their last existence, the saraṇagamanūpasampadā is for those who are completely pure, the ovādappaṭiggahaṇa and pañhābyākaraṇūpasampadā are for Mahākassapa and Sopāka, and they are not capable of committing offenses involving worldly blame such as the pārājikas; and the aṭṭhagarudhammappaṭiggahaṇa and so on are only permitted for bhikkhunīs. And this is a bhikkhu, therefore one who is initiated by the procedure of initiation with a ñatti with four formal acts is included here, and not by the others, it should be understood. But in the training rules (sikkhāpadesu) that involve proscriptions (paṇṇattivajja), others initiated by ehibhikkhūpasampadā and so on are also included (sārattha. ṭī. 2.45 bhikkhupadabhājanīyavaṇṇanā). For he will say, "But in the prohibitions by way of enactment (paṇṇattivajjesu), others are also included." Now, in order to explain in detail what has been said concisely as "akuppena ṭhānārahena upasampanno," he says "tassa panā" etc.

Tattha means among those five. Vasati etthāti vatthu, a basis, a foundation. Therefore, he says "upasampadāpekkho puggalo". Ūnāni aparipuṇṇāni vīsati vassāni assāti ūnavīsativasso. Here, what should be said, that we will describe above in the Sappāṇaka Vagga in the training rule about one who is less than twenty years old (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. ūnavīsativassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Tesū means among those eleven incapable persons, such as paṇḍakas. Paṇḍako (mahāva. aṭṭha. 109) here is of five kinds: āsittapaṇḍako, usūyapaṇḍako, opakkamikapaṇḍako, napuṃsakapaṇḍako, pakkhapaṇḍako. Among those, the going forth of the āsittapaṇḍaka and the usūyapaṇḍako is not prohibited, but the other three are prohibited. Among those too, for the pakkhapaṇḍaka, the going forth is prohibited only in the phase in which he is a paṇḍaka. These three are unsuitable as objects of going forth and initiation. Therefore, he says "āsittapaṇḍakañcā" etc. There, for whom the burning sensation subsides when the organ of another is taken into the mouth and sprinkled with impurity, this is an āsittapaṇḍako. For whom the burning sensation subsides when jealousy arises upon seeing the misconduct of another, this is an usūyapaṇḍako. For whom the seminal fluid has been removed by artifice, this is an opakkamikapaṇḍako (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 135; vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.109). But one who is born without potency at conception is a napuṃsakapaṇḍako. But one, due to the influence of unwholesome results, becomes a paṇḍaka in the dark phase of the moon (kāḷapakkhā), but in the bright phase (juṇhapakkha) his burning sensation subsides, this should be understood as a pakkhapaṇḍako.

theyyasaṃvāsako. Here, the deceiver is not just one who steals association, but also one who steals the appearance (liṅga), or both. Thus, he says, "A theyyasaṃvāsaka, however, is of three kinds," etc. "He does not count the bhikkhu years" (mahāva. aṭṭha. 110): He does not count the bhikkhu years, falsely saying, "I am a ten-year-old or a twenty-year-old." "He does not welcome the salutation of bhikkhus or sāmaṇeras according to seniority": Having lied about his years of ordination, he does not accept salutations according to seniority. "He does not push back with the seat": He does not push back with the seat, saying, "Go away, this belongs to me." "He does not appear at the Uposatha, etc.": He does not appear at the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, etc. "Only the appearance": The word "only" excludes association. "Being": Existing. "Association appropriate to the appearance": Association as a sāmaṇera, appropriate to the appearance of a sāmaṇera. However, if, having discarded the burden of the robes and being naked or dressed in white cloth, he becomes non-ascetic by engaging in sexual intercourse, etc., and then puts on the robes, he is a "thief of appearance (liṅga)". If, desiring the state of a householder, he makes the robe into a bundle or wears it in some other way like a householder, thinking, "Does the appearance of a householder suit me, or does it not suit me?" He keeps it for consideration, and having decided, "It suits me," he then enjoys the appearance (liṅga) again, he is a "thief of appearance (liṅga)". The same method applies to considering and accepting white clothing. Even if, having put on the robe, he puts white clothing over it and considers or accepts it, he is still keeping it.