1.

The Chapter on Defeat (Commentary on the Bhikkhunī Analysis)

1.

Commentary on the First Training Rule on Defeat

656. At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Sāvatthī... etc. "Sāḷha, the grandson of Migāra": herein, "Sāḷha" is his name; he was the grandson of Migāra's mother, therefore it is said - "the grandson of Migāra." "Building work supervisor" means one who oversees building work. "Wise" means possessed of wisdom. "Experienced" means endowed with experience. "Intelligent" means endowed with wisdom preceded by mindfulness in grasping the text, and with mindfulness preceded by wisdom in grasping the meaning. "Skilful" means adept; the meaning is one who performs what should be done quickly without failing. "Not lazy" means devoid of laziness. "Into the means for that" means being resourceful in those various tasks. "Investigation" means examination of the work to be done. "Endowed" means possessed of. "Able to do" means capable of doing each and every task. "Able to arrange" means also capable of arranging thus: "Let this be done in this way and that way." "To know what had been done and what had not been done" means to know what was done and what was not done. "They" means those two; the meaning is both Sundarīnandā and Sāḷha. "In the refectory" means in the place of serving food. "In a corner" means in a deep recess made like a corner. "There will be a cry of distress for me" means there will be an unseemly outcry about me; the meaning is there will be a sound of scandal. "Waiting" means expecting. "What shall I" means what shall I do. "Weak from old age" means weak due to old age. "Sick in the feet" means afflicted with a disease of the feet.

657-658. "Filled with desire" means filled with desire for bodily contact; the meaning is soaked, drenched. In the word-analysis, however, taking that same desire, "deeply attached" and so forth is stated. Therein, "deeply attached" means thoroughly dyed with desire for bodily contact, like a cloth with dye. "Having expectation" means endowed with expectation occurring towards that man under the influence of that very desire. "With mind bound" means as if with mind bound and fixed upon that man by that desire. The same method applies to the analysis of the second term as well. "Of a male person" means of a person reckoned as a man. "Below the collar-bone" means below the collar-bones. "Above the knee-cap" means above the knee-caps. In the word-analysis, however, following the order of the terms, it is stated as "below the collar-bone, above the knee-cap." And here, "above the elbow" too is included under "above the knee-cap." The remainder should be understood in the same manner as stated in the Mahāvibhaṅga. "Taking the former ones" means taking the four pārājikā offences that are shared in common. "One involving the area above the knee-cap" - this, however, is merely the name of this pārājikā offence, therefore it is not discussed in the word-analysis.

659. Having thus analysed the training rule as stated in the order of its terms, now, in order to show the classification of offences by the distinction of being filled with desire and so forth, he said beginning with "when both are filled with desire." Therein, "when both are filled with desire" means when both are pervaded with desire; the meaning is: when there is the state of being pervaded by lust for bodily contact on the part of both the bhikkhunī and the man. "One touches body with body" means: the bhikkhunī touches any part of the man's body with the body as defined, or the man touches the bhikkhunī's body as defined with any part of his body - in both cases it is an offence entailing defeat for the bhikkhunī. "Something connected to the body with the body" means: something connected to the man's body with one's own body in the manner already stated. "Touches" means: here, whether she herself touches or whether she consents to his touching, it is only a grave offence. "The body with something connected to the body" means: the man's body with something connected to one's own body in the manner already stated. "Touches" means: here too, whether she herself touches or whether she consents to his touching, it is only a grave offence. The determination in the remaining terms should be understood by this same method.

But if there is a bhikkhu and a bhikkhunī, and therein the bhikkhunī touches, and the bhikkhu remains motionless and consents mentally, the bhikkhu should not be made to incur an offence. If the bhikkhu touches, and the bhikkhunī remains motionless and endures it only mentally, even without moving any bodily part, she should be made to incur an offence entailing defeat in the domain of defeat, a grave offence in the domain of grave offence, and an offence of wrong-doing in the domain of wrong-doing. Why? Because it is said "should consent to bodily contact." This is the determination in the commentaries. But when this is so, origination through action is not apparent; therefore it should be understood that this was stated by the method of what is predominant therein.

660. "Above the collar-bone" means above the collar-bones. "Below the knee-cap" means below the knee-caps. And here, below the elbow is also included under "below the knee-cap."

662. Regarding "when one is filled with desire": here, although "one" is stated without distinction, it should be understood that this classification of offences is stated only when the bhikkhunī is filled with desire.

Herein, the determination from the beginning is as follows: The bhikkhunī is filled with desire through lust for bodily contact, and the man likewise. When there is consenting to bodily contact in the bodily region below the collar-bone and above the knee-cap, it is a pārājika for the bhikkhunī. When the bhikkhunī has lust for bodily contact, whether the man has lust for sexual intercourse, or affection based on the household life, or a pure mind, it is only a grave offence. When the bhikkhunī has lust for sexual intercourse, whether the man has lust for bodily contact, or lust for sexual intercourse, or affection based on the household life, or a pure mind, it is a wrong-doing. When the bhikkhunī has affection based on the household life, whether the man has any one of the four stated, it is only a wrong-doing. When the bhikkhunī has a pure mind, whether the man has any one of the four stated, there is no offence.

But if it is a bhikkhu and a bhikkhunī, and both have lust for bodily contact, it is a saṅghādisesa for the bhikkhu and a pārājika for the bhikkhunī. When the bhikkhunī has lust for bodily contact, and the bhikkhu has lust for sexual intercourse or affection based on the household life, it is a grave offence for the bhikkhunī and a wrong-doing for the bhikkhu. When both have lust for sexual intercourse or affection based on the household life, it is only a wrong-doing for both. For whomever there is a pure mind in any case, there is no offence for that one in that case. When both have a pure mind, there is no offence for both.

663. There is no offence in the case beginning with "unintentionally": when she touches having missed the mark, or when she is attending to something else, or when she does not know "this is a man or a woman," or even when touched by him, she does not consent to that contact - even when there is touching, there is no offence. The remainder is clear everywhere.

It has the origin of the first pārājika - it is action, release from perception, with consciousness, a worldly fault, bodily action, unwholesome consciousness, and with two feelings.

The First Pārājika.

2.

Commentary on the Second Training Rule on Defeat

664. Regarding the second offence involving expulsion - "Was she perhaps" means "was she indeed." "Disrepute" means lack of good qualities. "Ill fame" means blame. "Disgrace" means loss of retinue; or criticism behind one's back.

665. "A concealer of a fault" - this too is merely a name for this offence involving expulsion, therefore it was not discussed in the word-analysis. The remainder here is clear in itself.

666. "Or she informs" means the one who has committed an offence involving expulsion, she herself informs. "A certain one among the eight offences involving expulsion" means a certain one among the four shared with monks and the four not shared. And this offence involving expulsion was laid down later, therefore "eight" is stated in the analysis. But it should be understood that it was placed in this position because it forms a pair with the preceding one. "At the mere moment of laying down the responsibility" means at the mere moment of laying down the responsibility. The detailed discussion here should be understood in the same manner as stated in the training rule on gross offences in the chapter on living beings. For there it is an offence of expiation, here it is an offence involving expulsion - this alone is the difference. The remainder is exactly the same. "One who conceals an offence" - this too is merely the name and meaning of this offence involving expulsion, therefore it was not discussed in the word analysis. The remainder here is clear in itself.

It has its origin in the abandonment of responsibility - it originates from body, speech and mind; it is non-action; it is released by perception; it is with consciousness; it is a worldly fault; it is bodily action; it is verbal action; it is unwholesome consciousness; it is painful feeling.

The Second Pārājika.

3.

Commentary on the Third Training Rule on Defeat

669. In the third - "By the Teaching" means by an actual matter. "By the monastic discipline" means having charged and reminded. However, its word-analysis is stated to show just this intention: "by whatever Teaching, by whatever monastic discipline he is suspended, he is well suspended." "By the Teacher's instruction" means by the completeness of the motion and by the completeness of the proclamation. However, in its word-analysis, "by the Conqueror's instruction, by the Buddha's instruction" is stated merely as a synonym. In "the community or the group" etc., the meaning is: whichever community performed the act, that community, or the group consisting of several persons therein, or a single person - one does not accept that act, does not conform to it, does not generate respect therein. "Monks of the same communion are called companions, he does not have that with them" - herein, "one act, one recitation, the same training" - this is communion; "Those who have the same communion" are those of the same communion. Such monks are called companions of a monk by virtue of going together in that communion. Now, that communion by which they are said to be of the same communion, that communion does not exist for that suspended one with them. And with whom that communion does not exist for him, by that those monks are not made his companions. Therefore it is said: "Monks of the same communion are called companions, he does not have that with them, hence he is called 'one who is unfriendly towards.'" The remainder is clear in meaning since it is stated in the manner explained in the training rule on schism of the community, etc.

The origin of the formal admonition - it originates from body, speech and mind; it is non-action; it is released by perception; it is with consciousness; it is a worldly fault; it is bodily action; it is verbal action; it is unwholesome consciousness; it is painful feeling.

The Third Pārājika.

4.

Commentary on the Fourth Training Rule on Defeat

675. In the fourth - "Filled with desire" means filled with desire for bodily contact through the influence of friendly intimacy based on worldly pleasure. In the second term too, the same method applies. However, in the passage beginning with "should consent to holding hands with a male person," what is done as the grasping of the hand by a male person is stated as "holding hands with a male person." The same method applies to grabbing the robe hem as well. Here, regarding "holding hands," it should be understood that holding hands and also grasping in other areas that do not constitute an expulsion offence are combined together and stated as "holding hands." Therefore, in the word analysis of this, it is stated: "'Should consent to holding hands' means: 'hand' refers to from the elbow up to the tips of the nails; for the purpose of practising that misconduct, if she consents to being grasped above the armpit or below the kneecap, it is an offence of grave transgression." Here, "misconduct" should be understood as bodily contact, not as sexual intercourse. For there is no grave transgression in the vicinity of sexual intercourse. The statement "one who is capable of engaging in bodily contact" is also supportive evidence here.

If it is asked whether this contradicts the puzzle-solving verse stated in the Parivāra? No; because it is a preliminary part of sexual intercourse. For in the Parivāra itself, it is stated: "The preliminary part of sexual intercourse should be known" - thus the five training rules, namely, emission of semen and so forth, described as "of good appearance and bad appearance, bodily contact, lewd speech, self-gratification, and acting as a go-between," are stated as the preliminary part of sexual intercourse. Therefore, bodily contact is a condition because it is a preliminary part of sexual intercourse. Thus, the meaning of "there could be expulsion on account of sexual intercourse" should be understood here by this method. By this approach, the determination in all terms should be understood. Furthermore, in the word analysis of "or should go to a rendezvous," it states: "Come to such-and-such a place." The meaning is: "Come to a place of such-and-such a name."

676. "Fulfilling the eighth case, she is not a female recluse" means whether in forward order or in reverse order or with one in between, by whatever method, fulfilling the eighth case itself, she is not a female recluse. But one who fulfils one case or seven cases even a hundred times is not at all a non-recluse. Having confessed the offences committed, she is freed. Moreover, here the offence that counts towards the reckoning should be understood. For this has been said: "There is an offence confessed that counts towards the reckoning, there is an offence confessed that does not count towards the reckoning." Herein this is the determination - One confessed having made the abandonment of the burden, thinking "I shall not commit this again now," counts towards the reckoning, enters the count of those confessed, and does not become a factor of an offence entailing expulsion. Therefore, one who, having committed one offence, having made the abandonment of the burden and confessed, then commits again through the power of defilements, and confesses again - even though fulfilling eight cases in this way, she does not incur expulsion. But one who, having committed an offence, confesses with the very eagerness of thinking "I shall commit another case again," for her that offence does not count towards the reckoning; even though confessed, it is as if unconfessed; it does not enter the count of those confessed; it becomes a factor of expulsion itself. As soon as the eighth case is fulfilled, she incurs expulsion. The remainder is clear in itself.

It has its origin in the abandonment of responsibility - It originates from body, speech and mind; it is an act of commission; it has release through perception; it is with consciousness; it is a worldly fault; it is bodily action; it is verbal action; it is unwholesome consciousness; it has two feelings.

The Fourth Pārājika.

"Ladies, the eight rules entailing expulsion have been recited" means the four laid down in reference to monks that are shared, and these four - thus by way of the complete Pātimokkha recitation, "Ladies, the eight rules entailing expulsion have been recited" - thus should the meaning here be understood. The remainder is according to the method stated in the Mahāvibhaṅga.

In the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya Commentary, in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga,

The Commentary on the Pārājika Section is finished.

The chapter on expulsion is concluded.