Asking about non parajika expulsion

[Hanzze]

I guess it would be more kindergarden to bring it on such a level and do not simply stay on the topic. So where is the realtion of your statement without putting some personal things into it?

I would not take it on blind faith, even if one would say he has study the Vinaya and at least there are numeros contradiction.

Just form my personal experiances (which are not relevat but maybe a sample), earlier I was used to make/control and mediating many million building contracts for big public constuction projects and dealed with 100 of laws and contracts of 500 pages and more. As I had seen the patimokkha for the first time, my thought was suddenly: "Wohh, there will be less who are not confused and will understand it even a little." when we take the Vinaya as comparable with other law, which it is indeed not.

Normal laws are working in a framework that values matters and used intentions only sometimes as a buffer of extrems while the Vinaya is the total different. It works as a buffer releted to matters in a frame that is working on the value of intentions.

So at least useless and full of contradiction (or the tendecy to blind faith, what ever one remembers on text) if one does not come out of the usually frame work of matters.

But maybe it would be better to come back to the single points and work them out.

[whynotme]

Then I really do not understand why you ask for 3rd hand commentaries... So are the told things right in according to what you read?

Because those things are said in occasions and texts didn't relate to parajika, then I wonder how the sangha takes them? Then Cittasanto explained it, then I see it is compatible with what was said

Regards

[Hanzze]

So in somehow it could be that you (we, others...) give the interpretations more value as to original. I would be really interested in the old stories (you found this reflected) to have maybe the same conclusion as you. The counted points are contradictorily and at least not logical even a source of unusefull hindrences for me. It seems to be more a tradtitional interpretation which has less eveluations.

[DAWN]

Thanks you Cittasanto and Hanzze,

Actualy i was wandring this question, because there is no doubt that some peoples without reading Vinaya or knowing what Buddha is, living a very very simple life, like bikkhu. So if parajika applies on peoples hwo lives simple lives, it's seems to me not totaly fair.
I hope that, this condition, have his application only in the way when lay person pose himself like a bhikkhu, tell to others i'am full ordained bhikkhu. I think the aim of this, is to preserve the pure image of Bhikkhu Sangha.

Regards

[Cittasanto]

So in somehow it could be that you (we, others...) give the interpretations more value as to original. I would be really interested in the old stories (you found this reflected) to have maybe the same conclusion as you. The counted points are contradictorily and at least not logical even a source of unusefull hindrences for me. It seems to be more a tradtitional interpretation which has less eveluations.

The
The vinaya contains something around 10,000 rules and procedures altogether in its six volumes. it including stories of the rules (there can be several for each) provide the context for the rules, the precedents, what is included, derived offences, the evolution, exceptions, and that is just three books, the other three contain extra rules procedures, examples. The Patimokkha itself is no more than the matika or table of context and shows very little regarding the rules other than acting as a reminder of the wider context.

[Hanzze]

Dear Cittasanto,

may I ask you if you could provide some responsible texts and stories for the current questions here. Maybe they are usefull. Just if it is not to much effort and time. I guess it would be very helpfull in this case.

[Cittasanto]

The only quotable vinaya I know of is quite cumbersome to use and uses quite archaic words as it is older than the PTS translations (131years old since printing)
the stories mentioned by Whynotme earlier are in the whole of the vinaya but these are of varying length as you will see here.

60.
At that time a novice, Kandaka by name, who was a follower of the venerable Upananda Sakyaputto, had sexual intercourse with a Bhikkhunî, Kandakâ by name. The Bhikkhus were annoyed, &c.: 'How can a novice abandon himself to such conduct?'

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'I prescribe, O Bhikkhus, that you expel a novice (from the fraternity) in the following ten cases: When he destroys life; when he commits theft; when he commits impurity; when he is a liar; when he drinks strong drinks; when he speaks against the Buddha; when he speaks against the Dhamma; when he speaks against the Samgha; when he holds false doctrines; when he has sexual intercourse with Bhikkhunîs. In these ten cases I prescribe, O Bhikkhus, that you expel the novice (from the fraternity).'

61.
At that time, &c.

'Let a eunuch, O Bhikkhus, who has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'

62.
1. At that time there was a certain person of an old family, whose kinsmen had died away; he was delicately nurtured. Now this person of an old family, whose kinsmen had died away, thought: 'I am delicately nurtured; I am not able to acquire new riches or to augment the riches which I possess. What shall I do in order that I may live a life of ease and without pain?'

Then this person of an old family, whose kinsmen had died away, gave himself the following answer: 'There are the Sakyaputtiya Samanas, who keep commodious precepts and live a commodious life; they have good meals and lie down on beds protected from wind. What if I were to procure myself an alms-bowl and robes on my own account, and were to have my hair and beard cut off, to put on yellow robes, to go to the Ârâma, and to live there with the Bhikkhus.'

2. Then that person of an old family, whose kinsmen had died away, procured himself an alms-bowl and robes on his own account, had his hair and beard cut off, put on yellow robes, went to the Ârâma, and respectfully saluted the Bhikkhus. The Bhikkhus said to him: 'How many years, friend, have elapsed since your upasampadâ?'

'What does that mean, friends, "years elapsed since the upasampadâ?"'

'And who is your upagghâya, friend?'

'What does that word upagghâya mean, friends?'

The Bhikkhus said to the venerable Upâli: 'Pray, friend Upâli, examine this ascetic.'

3. Then that person of an old family, whose kinsmen had died away, when being examined by the venerable Upâli, told him the whole matter. The venerable Upâli told this thing to the Bhikkhus; the Bhikkhus told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, who has furtively attached himself to the Samgha, if he has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, who has gone over to the Titthiyas' ( &c., as in chap. 61).

63.
1. At that time there was a serpent who was aggrieved at, ashamed of, and conceived aversion for his having been born as a serpent. Now this serpent thought: 'What am I to do in order to become released from being a serpent, and quickly to obtain human nature?' Then this serpent gave himself the following answer: 'These Sakyaputtiya Samanas lead indeed a virtuous, tranquil, holy life; they speak the truth; they keep the precepts of morality, and are endowed with all virtues. If I could obtain pabbaggâ with the Sakyaputtiya Samanas, I should be released from bcing a serpent and quickly obtain human nature,'

2. Then that serpent, in the shape of a youth, went to the Bhikkhus, and asked them for the pabbaggâ ordination; the Bhikkhus conferred on him the pabbaggâ and upasampadâ ordinations.

At that time that serpent dwelt together with a certain Bhikkhu in the last Vihâra (near the boundary wall of the Getavana). Now that Bhikkhu, having arisen in the night, at dawn, was walking up and down in the open air. When that Bhikkhu had left (the Vihâra), that serpent, who thought himself safe (from discovery), fell asleep (in his natural shape). The whole Vihâra was filled with the snake's body; his windings jutted out of the window.

3. Then that Bhikkhu thought: 'I will go back to the Vihâra,' opened the door, and saw the whole Vihâra filled with the snake's body, the windings jutting out of the window. Seeing that he was terrified and cried out. The Bhikkhus ran up, and said to that Bhikkhu: 'Why did you cry out, friend?' 'This whole Vihâra, friends, is filled with a snake's body; the windings jut out of the window.'

Then that serpent awoke from that noise and sat down on his seat. The Bhikkhus said to him: 'Who are you, friend?' 'I am a serpent, reverend Sirs.' 'And why have you done such a thing, friend?' Then that Nâga told the whole matter to the Bhikkhus; the Bhikkhus told it to the Blessed One.

4. In consequence of that and on this occasion the Blessed One, having ordered the fraternity of Bhikkhus to assemble, said to that serpent: 'You serpents are not capable of (spiritual) growth in this doctrine and discipline. However, serpent, go and observe fast on the fourteenth, fifteenth, and eighth day of each half month; thus will you be released from being a serpent and quickly obtain human nature.'

Then that serpent, who thought, 'I am not capable of (spiritual) growth in this doctrine and discipline,' became sad and sorrowful, shed tears, made an outcry, and went away.

5. Then the Blessed One said to the Bhikkhus:

'There are two occasions, O Bhikkhus, on which a serpent (who has assumed human shape) manifests his true nature: when he has sexual intercourse with a female of his species, and if he thinks himself safe (from discovery) and falls asleep. These, O Bhikkhus, are the two occasions on which a serpent manifests his true nature.

'Let an animal, O Bhikkhus, that has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if it has received it, let it be expelled (from the fraternity).'

64.
1. At that time a certain young man deprived his mother of life. He was grieved, ashamed, and loathed this sinful deed. Now this young man thought: 'What am I to do to get rid of my sinful deed?' Then this young man gave himself this answer: 'These Sakyaputtiya Samanas lead indeed a virtuous, tranquil, holy life, &c. If I could obtain pabbaggâ with the Sakyaputtiya Samanas, I might get rid of my sinful deed.'

2. Then that young man went to the Bhikkhus and asked them for the pabbaggâ ordination. The Bhikkhus said to the venerable Upâli: 'Formerly , friend Upâli, a serpent in the shape of a youth received the pabbaggâ ordination with the Bhikkhus; pray, friend Upâli, examine this young man.' Then that young man, when examined by the venerable Upâli, told him the whole matter. The venerable Upâli told it to the Bhikkhus; the Bhikkhus told it to the Blessed One.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that is guilty of matricide, if he has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'

65.
At that time a certain young man deprived his father of life (&c., as in chap.64).

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that is guilty of parricide, &c.'

66.
1. At that time a number of Bhikkhus were travelling on the road from Sâketa to Sâvatthi. On the road robbers broke forth, robbed some of the Bhikkhus, and killed some of them. Then royal soldiers came from Sâvatthi and caught some of the robbers; others of them escaped. Those who had escaped, received pabbaggâ with the Bhikkhus; those who had been caught, were led to death.


2. Then those who had been ordained, saw those robbers who were being led to death; seeing them they said: 'It is well that we have escaped; had we been caught, we should also be killed thus.' The Bhikkhus said to them: 'Why, what have you done, friends?' Then those (robbers) who had been ordained, told the whole matter to the Bhikkhus. The Bhikkhus told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Those Bhikkhus, O Bhikkhus, were Arahats. Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has murdered an Arahat, if this person has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'

67.
At that time a number of Bhikkhunîs were travelling on the road from Sâketa to Sâvatthi. On the road robbers broke forth, robbed some of the Bhikkhunîs, and violated some of them. Then royal soldiers (&c., as in chap. 66).

The Bhikkhus told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has violated a Bhikkhunî (or, that has had sexual intercourse with a Bhikkhunî), (&c., as in chap. 66).

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has caused a schism among the Samgha, &c.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has shed (a Buddha's) blood,' &c.

68.
At that time a certain hermaphrodite had received pabbaggâ with the Bhikkhus; so karoti pi kârâpeti pi.

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let a hermaphrodite, O Bhikkhus,' &c.

69.
1. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred, the upasampadâ ordination on a person that had no upagghâya.

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no one, O Bhikkhus, who has no upagghâya, receive the upasampadâ ordination. He who confers the upasampadâ ordination (on such a person), commits a dukkata offence.'

2. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya.

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no one receive the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya. He who confers the upasampadâ ordination (in such a way), commits a dukkata offence.'

3. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination with a number of Bhikkhus as upagghâya (&c., as before).

4. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination with a eunuch as upagghâya, &c.; with a person that had furtively attached himself (to the Samgha) as upagghâya; with a person that was gone over to the Titthiyas as upagghâya; with an animal as upagghâya; with a person that was guilty of matricide as upagghâya; with a person that was guilty of parricide as upagghâya; with a person that had murdered an Arahat as upagghâya; with a person that had violated a Bhikkhunî as upagghâya; with a person that had caused a schism among the Samgha as upagghâya; with a person that had shed (a Buddha's) blood as upagghâya; with a hermaphrodite as upagghâya.

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no one,' &c. (as in the first clause).

70.
1. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had no alms-bowl. They received alms with their hands. People were annoyed, murmured, and became angry, saying, 'Like the Titthiyas.'

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no one, O Bhikkhus, receive the upasampadâ ordination without having an alms-bowl. He who confers the upasampadâ ordination (on a person that has not), commits a dukkata offence.'

2. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had no robes. They went out for alms naked. People were annoyed (&c., as in § 1).

3. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had neither alms-bowl nor robes. They went out for alms naked and (received alms) with their hands. People were annoyed (&c., as in § 1).

4. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had borrowed alms-bowls. After the ordination (the owners) took their alms-bowls back; (the Bhikkhus) received alms with their hands. People were annoyed (&c. . . . . down to): 'Like the Titthiyas.'

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no one, O Bhikkhus, receive the upasampadâ ordination who has borrowed the alms-bowl. He who confers,' &c. (as in the first clause).

5. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had borrowed robes. After the ordination (the owners) took their robes back; (the Bhikkhus) went out for alms naked. People were annoyed (&c., as in § 1 to the end).

6. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had borrowed alms-bowls and robes, &c.

71.
1. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the pabbaggâ ordination on a person whose hands were cut off, on a person whose feet were cut off, whose hands and feet were cut off, whose ears were cut off, whose nose was cut off, whose ears and nose were cut off, whose fingers were cut off, whose thumbs were cut off, whose tendons (of the feet) were cut, who had hands like a snake's hood1, who was a hump-back, or a dwarf, or a person that had a goitre, that had been branded, that had been scourged, on a proclaimed robber, on a person that had elephantiasis, that was afflicted with bad illness, that gave offence (by any deformity) to those who saw him, on a one-eyed person, on a person with a crooked limb, on a lame person, on a person that was paralysed on one side, on a cripple, on a person weak from age, on a blind man, on a dumb man, on a deaf man, on a blind and dumb man, on a blind and deaf man, on a deaf and dumb man, on a blind, deaf and dumb man.

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no person, O Bhikkhus, whose hands are cut off, receive the pabbaggâ ordination. Let no person whose feet are cut off, receive the pabbaggâ ordination, &c. (each of the above cases being here repeated). He who confers the pabbaggâ ordination (on such persons), is guilty of a dukkata offence.'

[Hanzze]

Thanks for the share and effort!! Let me try to share my thoughts as well when reading it.

The only quotable vinaya I know of is quite cumbersome to use and uses quite archaic words as it is older than the PTS translations (131years old since printing)
the stories mentioned by Whynotme earlier are in the whole of the vinaya but these are of varying length as you will see here.

60.
At that time a novice, Kandaka by name, who was a follower of the venerable Upananda Sakyaputto, had sexual intercourse with a Bhikkhunî, Kandakâ by name. The Bhikkhus were annoyed, &c.: 'How can a novice abandon himself to such conduct?'

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'I prescribe, O Bhikkhus, that you expel a novice (from the fraternity) in the following ten cases: When he destroys life; when he commits theft; when he commits impurity; when he is a liar; when he drinks strong drinks; when he speaks against the Buddha; when he speaks against the Dhamma; when he speaks against the Samgha; when he holds false doctrines; when he has sexual intercourse with Bhikkhunîs. In these ten cases I prescribe, O Bhikkhus, that you expel the novice (from the fraternity).'

Does not really fit to: types who should not be ordained as bhikkhus - a person who has sexually molested a bhikkhunī

This list is how every interessting, as it seems to be easier to resist as a novice then as a Bhikkhu if we look at the pārājikas in the Patimokkha

61.
At that time, &c.

'Let a eunuch, O Bhikkhus, who has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he [a eunuch who has not received the upasampadâ] has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'

Not so well formulated, maybe its a not so good translation. Also the word eunuch needs to be understood well. Neutered is not the same like eunuch. And this passage also does not really assume the case if neutering (if it is in any how related to eunuch) happens after upasampadâ ordination

62.
1. At that time there was a certain person of an old family, whose kinsmen had died away; he was delicately nurtured. Now this person of an old family, whose kinsmen had died away, thought: 'I am delicately nurtured; I am not able to acquire new riches or to augment the riches which I possess. What shall I do in order that I may live a life of ease and without pain?'

Then this person of an old family, whose kinsmen had died away, gave himself the following answer: 'There are the Sakyaputtiya Samanas, who keep commodious precepts and live a commodious life; they have good meals and lie down on beds protected from wind. What if I were to procure myself an alms-bowl and robes on my own account, and were to have my hair and beard cut off, to put on yellow robes, to go to the Ârâma, and to live there with the Bhikkhus.'

2. Then that person of an old family, whose kinsmen had died away, procured himself an alms-bowl and robes on his own account, had his hair and beard cut off, put on yellow robes, went to the Ârâma, and respectfully saluted the Bhikkhus. The Bhikkhus said to him: 'How many years, friend, have elapsed since your upasampadâ?'

'What does that mean, friends, "years elapsed since the upasampadâ?"'

'And who is your upagghâya, friend?'

'What does that word upagghâya mean, friends?'

The Bhikkhus said to the venerable Upâli: 'Pray, friend Upâli, examine this ascetic.'

3. Then that person of an old family, whose kinsmen had died away, when being examined by the venerable Upâli, told him the whole matter. The venerable Upâli told this thing to the Bhikkhus; the Bhikkhus told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, who has furtively attached himself to the Samgha, if he has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, who has gone over to the Titthiyas' ( &c., as in chap. 61).

That points out very good about intention and that it is not so about of appearing similar to a Bhikkhu. So at least furtively in this case means: with wrong intentions but not so much furtively in a meaning of not public or not offical!
It more over includes even people having public or officla ordinated but have an intention like this men, going forth to have an "easy" life (need to think on the usual of older people if they have no more people to look for them, on many places ordination is often used as old age benefits.

63.
1. At that time there was a serpent who was aggrieved at, ashamed of, and conceived aversion for his having been born as a serpent. Now this serpent thought: 'What am I to do in order to become released from being a serpent, and quickly to obtain human nature?' Then this serpent gave himself the following answer: 'These Sakyaputtiya Samanas lead indeed a virtuous, tranquil, holy life; they speak the truth; they keep the precepts of morality, and are endowed with all virtues. If I could obtain pabbaggâ with the Sakyaputtiya Samanas, I should be released from bcing a serpent and quickly obtain human nature,'

2. Then that serpent, in the shape of a youth, went to the Bhikkhus, and asked them for the pabbaggâ ordination; the Bhikkhus conferred on him the pabbaggâ and upasampadâ ordinations.

At that time that serpent dwelt together with a certain Bhikkhu in the last Vihâra (near the boundary wall of the Getavana). Now that Bhikkhu, having arisen in the night, at dawn, was walking up and down in the open air. When that Bhikkhu had left (the Vihâra), that serpent, who thought himself safe (from discovery), fell asleep (in his natural shape). The whole Vihâra was filled with the snake's body; his windings jutted out of the window.

3. Then that Bhikkhu thought: 'I will go back to the Vihâra,' opened the door, and saw the whole Vihâra filled with the snake's body, the windings jutting out of the window. Seeing that he was terrified and cried out. The Bhikkhus ran up, and said to that Bhikkhu: 'Why did you cry out, friend?' 'This whole Vihâra, friends, is filled with a snake's body; the windings jut out of the window.'

Then that serpent awoke from that noise and sat down on his seat. The Bhikkhus said to him: 'Who are you, friend?' 'I am a serpent, reverend Sirs.' 'And why have you done such a thing, friend?' Then that Nâga told the whole matter to the Bhikkhus; the Bhikkhus told it to the Blessed One.

4. In consequence of that and on this occasion the Blessed One, having ordered the fraternity of Bhikkhus to assemble, said to that serpent: 'You serpents are not capable of (spiritual) growth in this doctrine and discipline. However, serpent, go and observe fast on the fourteenth, fifteenth, and eighth day of each half month; thus will you be released from being a serpent and quickly obtain human nature.'

Then that serpent, who thought, 'I am not capable of (spiritual) growth in this doctrine and discipline,' became sad and sorrowful, shed tears, made an outcry, and went away.

5. Then the Blessed One said to the Bhikkhus:

'There are two occasions, O Bhikkhus, on which a serpent (who has assumed human shape) manifests his true nature: when he has sexual intercourse with a female of his species, and if he thinks himself safe (from discovery) and falls asleep. These, O Bhikkhus, are the two occasions on which a serpent manifests his true nature.

'Let an animal, O Bhikkhus, that has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if it has received it, let it be expelled (from the fraternity).'

This case points indirectly to human with a character like an animal or some kind of schizophrenic.

64.
1. At that time a certain young man deprived his mother of life. He was grieved, ashamed, and loathed this sinful deed. Now this young man thought: 'What am I to do to get rid of my sinful deed?' Then this young man gave himself this answer: 'These Sakyaputtiya Samanas lead indeed a virtuous, tranquil, holy life, &c. If I could obtain pabbaggâ with the Sakyaputtiya Samanas, I might get rid of my sinful deed.'

2. Then that young man went to the Bhikkhus and asked them for the pabbaggâ ordination. The Bhikkhus said to the venerable Upâli: 'Formerly , friend Upâli, a serpent in the shape of a youth received the pabbaggâ ordination with the Bhikkhus; pray, friend Upâli, examine this young man.' Then that young man, when examined by the venerable Upâli, told him the whole matter. The venerable Upâli told it to the Bhikkhus; the Bhikkhus told it to the Blessed One.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that is guilty of matricide, if he has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'

This seems to be a unnessesary addition to 63. If it was on the intent to prevent the reputation of the Sangha, its understandable, if not it seems just a rule to make it easier for the not-so-smart and .

65.
At that time a certain young man deprived his father of life (&c., as in chap.64).

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that is guilty of parricide, &c.'

like 64

66.
1. At that time a number of Bhikkhus were travelling on the road from Sâketa to Sâvatthi. On the road robbers broke forth, robbed some of the Bhikkhus, and killed some of them. Then royal soldiers came from Sâvatthi and caught some of the robbers; others of them escaped. Those who had escaped, received pabbaggâ with the Bhikkhus; those who had been caught, were led to death.


2. Then those who had been ordained, saw those robbers who were being led to death; seeing them they said: 'It is well that we have escaped; had we been caught, we should also be killed thus.' The Bhikkhus said to them: 'Why, what have you done, friends?' Then those (robbers) who had been ordained, told the whole matter to the Bhikkhus. The Bhikkhus told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Those Bhikkhus, O Bhikkhus, were Arahats. Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has murdered an Arahat, if this person has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'

If the saying of Buddha here is in realtion and not just a cause for his saying (which is btw a interesting question, as the stories seems to be less in relation with the quotes of the Buddha - a little similar like the Dhammapada stories) it was about hidding that they ordinated and would not really match the case to do not ordinate a Killer at all. Who is an Arahant?

67.
At that time a number of Bhikkhunîs were travelling on the road from Sâketa to Sâvatthi. On the road robbers broke forth, robbed some of the Bhikkhunîs, and violated some of them. Then royal soldiers (&c., as in chap. 66).

The Bhikkhus told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has violated a Bhikkhunî (or, that has had sexual intercourse with a Bhikkhunî), (&c., as in chap. 66).

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has caused a schism among the Samgha, &c.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has shed (a Buddha's) blood,' &c.

In this case it was also that they used ordiantion to hidde and the story does not give any information about the motivation. But here we have the person (unordinated) - schism problem which is somehow not solved. Also the question if this is the reason why layman traditionally abstain form Vinaya issuse and Dhamma interpretations.

68.
At that time a certain hermaphrodite had received pabbaggâ with the Bhikkhus; so karoti pi kârâpeti pi.

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let a hermaphrodite, O Bhikkhus,' &c.

69.
1. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred, the upasampadâ ordination on a person that had no upagghâya (preceptor??).

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no one, O Bhikkhus, who has no upagghâya, receive the upasampadâ ordination. He who confers the upasampadâ ordination (on such a person), commits a dukkata offence.'

2. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya.

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no one receive the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya (preceptor??). He who confers the upasampadâ ordination (in such a way), commits a dukkata offence.'

I don't uderstand the meaning of this one.

3. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination with a number of Bhikkhus as upagghâya (&c., as before).

4. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination with a eunuch as upagghâya, &c.; with a person that had furtively attached himself (to the Samgha) as upagghâya; with a person that was gone over to the Titthiyas as upagghâya; with an animal as upagghâya; with a person that was guilty of matricide as upagghâya; with a person that was guilty of parricide as upagghâya; with a person that had murdered an Arahat as upagghâya; with a person that had violated a Bhikkhunî as upagghâya; with a person that had caused a schism among the Samgha as upagghâya; with a person that had shed (a Buddha's) blood as upagghâya; with a hermaphrodite as upagghâya.

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no one,' &c. (as in the first clause).

This seems to be useless in regard of 64., 65,...

70.
1. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had no alms-bowl. They received alms with their hands. People were annoyed, murmured, and became angry, saying, 'Like the Titthiyas.'

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no one, O Bhikkhus, receive the upasampadâ ordination without having an alms-bowl. He who confers the upasampadâ ordination (on a person that has not), commits a dukkata offence.'

2. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had no robes. They went out for alms naked. People were annoyed (&c., as in § 1).

3. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had neither alms-bowl nor robes. They went out for alms naked and (received alms) with their hands. People were annoyed (&c., as in § 1).

4. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had borrowed alms-bowls. After the ordination (the owners) took their alms-bowls back; (the Bhikkhus) received alms with their hands. People were annoyed (&c. . . . . down to): 'Like the Titthiyas.'

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no one, O Bhikkhus, receive the upasampadâ ordination who has borrowed the alms-bowl. He who confers,' &c. (as in the first clause).

5. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had borrowed robes. After the ordination (the owners) took their robes back; (the Bhikkhus) went out for alms naked. People were annoyed (&c., as in § 1 to the end).

6. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the upasampadâ ordination on persons that had borrowed alms-bowls and robes, &c.

Understandable as it is very difficult to life a live with out that, but for one who has left house before he ordinates it might be difficult to gain such things like required which is not so the case if one is part of the Sangham.
If a person for expample has received of this things while having left the home before, he would appear like a Bhikkhu. Which would make the traditional giving and receiving back of the robe a little difficult (especially if this is not seens as a simply act to prove this)

71.
1. At that time the Bhikkhus conferred the pabbaggâ ordination on a person whose hands were cut off, on a person whose feet were cut off, whose hands and feet were cut off, whose ears were cut off, whose nose was cut off, whose ears and nose were cut off, whose fingers were cut off, whose thumbs were cut off, whose tendons (of the feet) were cut, who had hands like a snake's hood1, who was a hump-back, or a dwarf, or a person that had a goitre, that had been branded, that had been scourged, on a proclaimed robber, on a person that had elephantiasis, that was afflicted with bad illness, that gave offence (by any deformity) to those who saw him, on a one-eyed person, on a person with a crooked limb, on a lame person, on a person that was paralysed on one side, on a cripple, on a person weak from age, on a blind man, on a dumb man, on a deaf man, on a blind and dumb man, on a blind and deaf man, on a deaf and dumb man, on a blind, deaf and dumb man.

They told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let no person, O Bhikkhus, whose hands are cut off, receive the pabbaggâ ordination. Let no person whose feet are cut off, receive the pabbaggâ ordination, &c. (each of the above cases being here repeated). He who confers the pabbaggâ ordination (on such persons), is guilty of a dukkata offence.'

This seems to be also much to general, while it is understandable that people who strongly depend on others will not easy be able to life a Bhikkhus life it seems to be strong discriminating. Alltrought this point is on the other hand also strongly ignored. There are many cases where the holy life is used also as feed for disabled and sick.

The stories in the Vinaya do not really seem to be much useful, in somehow they more reflect the burden of a "Cakkavatti" with all its impossiblities.

How ever, I am keyed up to more and additional opinions and infomation.

[Cittasanto]

Does not really fit to: types who should not be ordained as bhikkhus - a person who has sexually molested a bhikkhunī

This list is how every interessting, as it seems to be easier to resist as a novice then as a Bhikkhu if we look at the pārājikas in the Patimokkha

is a novice not a person?

Not so well formulated, maybe its a not so good translation. Also the word eunuch needs to be understood well. Neutered is not the same like eunuch. And this passage also does not really assume the case if neutering (if it is in any how related to eunuch) happens after upasampadâ ordination

please read my opening statement on this particular translation.

That points out very good about intention and that it is not so about of appearing similar to a Bhikkhu. So at least furtively in this case means: with wrong intentions but not so much furtively in a meaning of not public or not offical!
It more over includes even people having public or officla ordinated but have an intention like this men, going forth to have an "easy" life (need to think on the usual of older people if they have no more people to look for them, on many places ordination is often used as old age benefits.

actually that is motivation, the intention is to pose as a bhikkhu.
if done the propper way they have a better idea of what the life is about.

This case points indirectly to human with a character like an animal or some kind of schizophrenic.

actually a naga. a magical serpent who can change their shape.

This seems to be a unnessesary addition to 63. If it was on the intent to prevent the reputation of the Sangha, its understandable, if not it seems just a rule to make it easier for the not-so-smart and .

it is a different rule from 63. a rule is not necessarily conected in content for it to be related to the previous.

If the saying of Buddha here is in realtion and not just a cause for his saying (which is btw a interesting question, as the stories seems to be less in relation with the quotes of the Buddha - a little similar like the Dhammapada stories) it was about hidding that they ordinated and would not really match the case to do not ordinate a Killer at all. Who is an Arahant?

yes a prominent feature of a story may not be what the rule reflects

In this case it was also that they used ordiantion to hidde and the story does not give any information about the motivation. But here we have the person (unordinated) - schism problem which is somehow not solved. Also the question if this is the reason why layman traditionally abstain form Vinaya issuse and Dhamma interpretations.

please see opening statement.
it does, as would the last one, have a conection to another story regarding those who got ordained to recieve medical care, then disrobed. and one of the stories regarding parajika on theft.

'Let no one receive the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya (preceptor??). He who confers the upasampadâ ordination (in such a way), commits a dukkata offence.'

I don't uderstand the meaning of this one.

preceptor is the person who ordains another into the community.

This seems to be useless in regard of 64., 65,...

the rules are not interconected as you seam to suppose.
they do not have to be useful in relation to each other. however it would be related to 62.

Understandable as it is very difficult to life a live with out that, but for one who has left house before he ordinates it might be difficult to gain such things like required which is not so the case if one is part of the Sangham.
If a person for expample has received of this things while having left the home before, he would appear like a Bhikkhu. Which would make the traditional giving and receiving back of the robe a little difficult (especially if this is not seens as a simply act to prove this)

if they are posing as a member of the sangha and people believe the deception there should be no more issue than the sangha has.
as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here.

This seems to be also much to general, while it is understandable that people who strongly depend on others will not easy be able to life a Bhikkhus life it seems to be strong discriminating. Alltrought this point is on the other hand also strongly ignored. There are many cases where the holy life is used also as feed for disabled and sick.

this is prohibiting criminals from taking advantage of the allowance the law had placed on them to be free from punishment. other rules have been created due to this such as the parajika on theft.

The stories in the Vinaya do not really seem to be much useful, in somehow they more reflect the burden of a "Cakkavatti" with all its impossiblities.

How ever, I am keyed up to more and additional opinions and infomation.

this is one small section of one chapter of one book out of 6. to make such an jump is not wise.
the vinaya does not function for the same purpose as the sutta basket, as Ajahn Chah once said "the Dhamma is all about letting go and the vinaya all about holding on... when you work out how these two work together you will be fine Sumedho."

[Hanzze]

Does not really fit to: types who should not be ordained as bhikkhus - a person who has sexually molested a bhikkhunī

This list is how every interessting, as it seems to be easier to resist as a novice then as a Bhikkhu if we look at the pārājikas in the Patimokkha

is a novice not a person?[/color]
Yes, but not every person is a novice. In the text yoz have provided befor, there is written person, while her it goes in regard to already Novice.

Not so well formulated, maybe its a not so good translation. Also the word eunuch needs to be understood well. Neutered is not the same like eunuch. And this passage also does not really assume the case if neutering (if it is in any how related to eunuch) happens after upasampadâ ordination

please read my opening statement on this particular translation.

That was not a critic of your supply, and your statement was read. This how ever does not make it more clear. To say and accept that things are not so clear, does not help exept in letting go, maybe. So just much palce for additional help, supply and work on possible misunderstanding. That does not limit your effort, giving and good will in any case.

That points out very good about intention and that it is not so about of appearing similar to a Bhikkhu. So at least furtively in this case means: with wrong intentions but not so much furtively in a meaning of not public or not offical!
It more over includes even people having public or officla ordinated but have an intention like this men, going forth to have an "easy" life (need to think on the usual of older people if they have no more people to look for them, on many places ordination is often used as old age benefits.

actually that is motivation, the intention is to pose as a bhikkhu.
if done the propper way they have a better idea of what the life is about.

To pose a Bhikkhu and the perception than one poses a Bhikkhu are two different thing. So to judge such things is not easy possible and it it is made amoung like it looks one would fail what the idea behind this actually is. Not to forget that this rule is very useable for people who like to keep sects seperated.

This case points indirectly to human with a character like an animal or some kind of schizophrenic.

actually a naga. a magical serpent who can change their shape.

That might be the thought... and explains why there are continues additional "rules"

This seems to be a unnessesary addition to 63. If it was on the intent to prevent the reputation of the Sangha, its understandable, if not it seems just a rule to make it easier for the not-so-smart and .

it is a different rule from 63. a rule is not necessarily conected in content for it to be related to the previous.

That might be a thought but no reverence that it is like that when you look at what was there as reverence for thought.

If the saying of Buddha here is in realtion and not just a cause for his saying (which is btw a interesting question, as the stories seems to be less in relation with the quotes of the Buddha - a little similar like the Dhammapada stories) it was about hidding that they ordinated and would not really match the case to do not ordinate a Killer at all. Who is an Arahant?

yes a prominent feature of a story may not be what the rule reflects

Than such a collection makes more difficults as they might be useful to help. So for me its, much to think about which could at least rever to something useful. The story or this cut over all to make it simple for the not-so-smart. While still it is possible that I did not get the whole message.

67.
At that time a number of Bhikkhunîs were travelling on the road from Sâketa to Sâvatthi. On the road robbers broke forth, robbed some of the Bhikkhunîs, and violated some of them. Then royal soldiers (&c., as in chap. 66).

The Bhikkhus told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has violated a Bhikkhunî (or, that has had sexual intercourse with a Bhikkhunî), (&c., as in chap. 66).

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has caused a schism among the Samgha, &c.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has shed (a Buddha's) blood,' &c.

In this case it was also that they used ordiantion to hidde and the story does not give any information about the motivation. But here we have the person (unordinated) - schism problem which is somehow not solved. Also the question if this is the reason why layman traditionally abstain form Vinaya issuse and Dhamma interpretations.

please see opening statement.
it does, as would the last one, have a conection to another story regarding those who got ordained to recieve medical care, then disrobed. and one of the stories regarding parajika on theft.

"it" ? I don't understand the coherence of your replay to this statement and have also no idea to interpretete it in different ways not only in regard of "it".

'Let no one receive the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya (preceptor??). He who confers the upasampadâ ordination (in such a way), commits a dukkata offence.'

I don't uderstand the meaning of this one.
preceptor is the person who ordains another into the community.

How can a precepetor be somebody who like to gain ordination?? Or do I misunderstand the gramma?

This seems to be useless in regard of 64., 65,...
the rules are not interconected as you seam to suppose.
they do not have to be useful in relation to each other. however it would be related to 62.

When they are even not able to ordinate, who could they be preceptor? This is useless or I misunderstand the previos point and upagghâya means something different.

Understandable as it is very difficult to life a live with out that, but for one who has left house before he ordinates it might be difficult to gain such things like required which is not so the case if one is part of the Sangham.
If a person for expample has received of this things while having left the home before, he would appear like a Bhikkhu. Which would make the traditional giving and receiving back of the robe a little difficult (especially if this is not seens as a simply act to prove this)
if they are posing as a member of the sangha and people believe the deception there should be no more issue than the sangha has.
as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here.

That is simply nonsens. Let people believe what ever they like to believe, this has no influences on the own intention. At the time of the Buddha other Askets would not look different to Bhikkhus. We need to be a little bit more carful what pose means, and what perception of people means.
"as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here" when you don't know situations and you don't think on possible situation it might be like that, but actually that could be very easy the case. So only one who needs an advice in a special case would know if it is useful to keep in mind and for one who is in charge to jugde it is neverthenless useful to keep even all in mind if he is not one able to read mind of others.

This seems to be also much to general, while it is understandable that people who strongly depend on others will not easy be able to life a Bhikkhus life it seems to be strong discriminating. Alltrought this point is on the other hand also strongly ignored. There are many cases where the holy life is used also as feed for disabled and sick.

this is prohibiting criminals from taking advantage of the allowance the law had placed on them to be free from punishment. other rules have been created due to this such as the parajika on theft.

I guess you have regarded to another point here. But to replay to your statement which might cause the idea that the Sangha is somehow responsible that people are rightly punished by the laws of a state, that is for sure nonsense. It is possible that one is not aware of that he might be guilty according the law, also there is an extinction of guiltyness according to state laws. The Sangha is not a criminal register viewer. This shortcut, makes much troubles and is not useful.

The stories in the Vinaya do not really seem to be much useful, in somehow they more reflect the burden of a "Cakkavatti" with all its impossiblities.

How ever, I am keyed up to more and additional opinions and infomation.

this is one small section of one chapter of one book out of 6. to make such an jump is not wise.
the vinaya does not function for the same purpose as the sutta basket, as Ajahn Chah once said "the Dhamma is all about letting go and the vinaya all about holding on... when you work out how these two work together you will be fine Sumedho."

"the Dhamma is all about letting go and the vinaya all about holding on..." ohh, this is very good quote, but we even may misunderstand this.

I guess we have a plenty of work here.

[Cittasanto]

I have cleaned up my earlier post to make it easier to read who is saying what.

is a novice not a person?

Yes, but not every person is a novice. In the text yoz have provided befor, there is written person, while her it goes in regard to already Novice.

This is regarding the novice repercussions it is quite obvious when you read the rest of the text (#67) as to where this belongs in what I have previously quoted.

please read my opening statement on this particular translation.

That was not a critic of your supply, and your statement was read. This how ever does not make it more clear. To say and accept that things are not so clear, does not help exept in letting go, maybe. So just much palce for additional help, supply and work on possible misunderstanding. That does not limit your effort, giving and good will in any case.

who talked about anything being limited?
In this case it is showing with the "At that time, &c." that it is abbreviating. the rule is there in full.
I pointed you back to the initial warning as it seamed necessary.

actually that is motivation, the intention is to pose as a bhikkhu.
if done the propper way they have a better idea of what the life is about.

To pose a Bhikkhu and the perception than one poses a Bhikkhu are two different thing. So to judge such things is not easy possible and it it is made amoung like it looks one would fail what the idea behind this actually is. Not to forget that this rule is very useable for people who like to keep sects seperated.

actually the posing as a bhikkhu, (making oneself out to be a bhikkhu) without being accepted into the order is one thing, and the reasons why you want to be a bhikkhu is another in regard to that rule and what I was responding to. whether people perceive you to be a bhikkhu or not has little to do with it, putting on the cloths of a bhikkhu and going off without being accepted is posing as a bhikkhu whatever the perception.
although, I really do not know where you are getting perception from here?

but just to add to my last responce - it only included those who have not been formally accepted into the sangha, their motivation for joining is not important here.

actually a naga. a magical serpent who can change their shape.

That might be the thought... and explains why there are continues additional "rules"

I do not know what you are trying to say here.

it is a different rule from 63. a rule is not necessarily conected in content for it to be related to the previous.

That might be a thought but no reverence that it is like that when you look at what was there as reverence for thought.

I do not know what you are trying to say here.

yes a prominent feature of a story may not be what the rule reflects

Than such a collection makes more difficults as they might be useful to help. So for me its, much to think about which could at least rever to something useful. The story or this cut over all to make it simple for the not-so-smart. While still it is possible that I did not get the whole message.

I do not know what you are trying to say here.

please see opening statement.
it does, as would the last one, have a conection to another story regarding those who got ordained to recieve medical care, then disrobed. and one of the stories regarding parajika on theft.

"it" ? I don't understand the coherence of your replay to this statement and have also no idea to interpretete it in different ways not only in regard of "it".

"it" refers to "does not give any information about the motivation" it shows in the text where to look "(&c., as in chap. 66)."
#67 should read with the addition from 66

67.
At that time a number of Bhikkhunîs were travelling on the road from Sâketa to Sâvatthi. On the road robbers broke forth, robbed some of the Bhikkhunîs, and violated some of them. Then royal soldiers came from Sâvatthi and caught some of the robbers; others of them escaped. Those who had escaped, received pabbaggâ with the Bhikkhus; those who had been caught, were led to death.

The Bhikkhus told this thing to the Blessed One.

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has violated a Bhikkhunî (or, that has had sexual intercourse with a Bhikkhunî), if this person has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has caused a schism among the Samgha, if this person has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'

'Let a person, O Bhikkhus, that has shed (a Buddha's) blood,' if this person has not received the upasampadâ ordination, not receive it; if he has received it, let him be expelled (from the fraternity).'

preceptor is the person who ordains another into the community.

How can a precepetor be somebody who like to gain ordination?? Or do I misunderstand the gramma?

you misunderstand the grammar.

'Let no one receive the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya.

the whole sangha in attendance is acting as the upajjhaya here.

the rules are not interconected as you seam to suppose.
they do not have to be useful in relation to each other. however it would be related to 62.

When they are even not able to ordinate, who could they be preceptor? This is useless or I misunderstand the previos point and upagghâya means something different.

this is a list of the people who should of not been given acceptance, yet were giving the acceptance into the sangha acting in a role they were not eligible to act in. and refers to the person being accepted, not the person who is acting as Upajjhaya

if they are posing as a member of the sangha and people believe the deception there should be no more issue than the sangha has.
as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here.

That is simply nonsens. Let people believe what ever they like to believe, this has no influences on the own intention. At the time of the Buddha other Askets would not look different to Bhikkhus. We need to be a little bit more carful what pose means, and what perception of people means.
"as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here" when you don't know situations and you don't think on possible situation it might be like that, but actually that could be very easy the case. So only one who needs an advice in a special case would know if it is useful to keep in mind and for one who is in charge to jugde it is neverthenless useful to keep even all in mind if he is not one able to read mind of others.

I was responding to a particular nuance of your reply there which seamed predominant, but...
I think you mean ascetics with askets? but yes they would look different. There are several ascetics mentioned in the canon and none of whom look like the Bhikkhus. there were naked, those who wore white (both Nigantha practices at least later on), bark, animal skin, those who wore robes similar to Ghandhi, it is actually an offence to dress like another ascetic. The dress of a Bhikkhu is actually detailed very precisely (down to the colour) for a reason, and they need to have the correct items. the "traditional" giving and receiving of the robes is actually making sure these things are correct.

The rules quoted actually show what posing as a Bhikkhu refers to, their motivation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Intending to put the robes on taking up the bowl, shaving the head... and then doing so without going through an ordination is posing as a Bhikkhu. if people (anyone) sees them as a Bhikkhhu when they are not actually a bhikkhu that is enough.

If someone has dis-robed they would be a lay person and would be aware of what would be required, and not look like a bhikkhu, i.e. not wearing the robes already. just because someone was a bhikkhu does not mean they look like one. what you are saying here (underlined) has no relation to what I was replying to that I can see.

this is prohibiting criminals from taking advantage of the allowance the law had placed on them to be free from punishment. other rules have been created due to this such as the parajika on theft.

I guess you have regarded to another point here. But to replay to your statement which might cause the idea that the Sangha is somehow responsible that people are rightly punished by the laws of a state, that is for sure nonsense. It is possible that one is not aware of that he might be guilty according the law, also there is an extinction of guiltyness according to state laws. The Sangha is not a criminal register viewer. This shortcut, makes much troubles and is not useful.

Sorry I confused this rule with a rule regarding people who are marked in some way as a punishment being barred from the sangha. so I will re-respond to that in a moment.
it is to protect the reputation of the sangha and stop people trying to take advantage of an allowance by the king Bimbisara that Bhikkhus were free from punishment, which as a result is related to the Parajika on theft. and this covers a loophole (as does the parajika) that the Holy life escapes worldly responsibilities & repercussions. although this does beg the Angulimala question.

This seems to be also much to general, while it is understandable that people who strongly depend on others will not easy be able to life a Bhikkhus life it seems to be strong discriminating. Alltrought this point is on the other hand also strongly ignored. There are many cases where the holy life is used also as feed for disabled and sick.

it is to curb the compassion of Bhikkhus, and thus cause too great a burden on the community.

"the Dhamma is all about letting go and the vinaya all about holding on..." ohh, this is very good quote, but we even may misunderstand this.

I guess we have a plenty of work here.

the quote has more than that in it. I only left out the Q&A aspect as this is not necessary to the main points the full quote is

Ajahn Chah - You must be very confused Sumedho, the Dhamma is all about letting go and the vinaya all about holding on?
Ajahn Sumedho - Yes, actually I am!
Ajahn Chah - When you work out how these two work together you will be fine!

when coming at the vinaya it is best not to assume you know anything about what it is doing - such as you comments here; or the non-sense remarks quoted here. The vinaya is set down with 10 things kept in mind and the practicality of living the rule can change the rule, hence non-offence clauses, and how some rules are next to defunct except in certain situations or how all the factors for the offence are needed for the full rehabilitation to be needed and not a lesser one which is the case with some rules.

[Hanzze]

I have cleaned up my earlier post to make it easier to read who is saying what.

is a novice not a person?

Yes, but not every person is a novice. In the text yoz have provided befor, there is written person, while her it goes in regard to already Novice.

This is regarding the novice repercussions it is quite obvious when you read the rest of the text (#67) as to where this belongs in what I have previously quoted.

Yes, I know, so we can say the previous message taken from BMC1 "a person who ...(in this case: has sexually molested a bhikkhunī.)" is simply not right or better misleading in many cases.

please read my opening statement on this particular translation.

That was not a critic of your supply, and your statement was read. This how ever does not make it more clear. To say and accept that things are not so clear, does not help exept in letting go, maybe. So just much palce for additional help, supply and work on possible misunderstanding. That does not limit your effort, giving and good will in any case.

who talked about anything being limited?
In this case it is showing with the "At that time, &c." that it is abbreviating. the rule is there in full.
I pointed you back to the initial warning as it seamed necessary.

Even that is no matter any more, that does not bring us further, so it was more a request if you have additional infomations.

actually that is motivation, the intention is to pose as a bhikkhu.
if done the propper way they have a better idea of what the life is about.

To pose a Bhikkhu and the perception than one poses a Bhikkhu are two different thing. So to judge such things is not easy possible and it it is made amoung like it looks one would fail what the idea behind this actually is. Not to forget that this rule is very useable for people who like to keep sects seperated.

actually the posing as a bhikkhu, (making oneself out to be a bhikkhu) without being accepted into the order is one thing, and the reasons why you want to be a bhikkhu is another in regard to that rule and what I was responding to. whether people perceive you to be a bhikkhu or not has little to do with it, putting on the cloths of a bhikkhu and going off without being accepted is posing as a bhikkhu whatever the perception.
although, I really do not know where you are getting perception from here?

but just to add to my last responce - it only included those who have not been formally accepted into the sangha, their motivation for joining is not important here.

Maybe a specific case makes it easier for you to understand what I am talking about as well it might make understandable why we need to be very carefully in what we say. According to your explainings/claim, I am posing to be a Bhikkhu and I will never be able to choin the Sangha. Even my robes are from different (unusal) colors, the faith believers and assumer often mistaken me as a formal Bhikkhu. There is never a problem with meeting wise. There is not a single intention to get some benefit out of that, more over more a run away from faith believers while still living a liveable life. So maybe its just that you need to cut of another perception. Don't hesitate I am also used to be called a useless parasite. But think about the actual dimension of such statements, there could be also good people in similar situation.
Furthermore this rule is still a pontencial Sangha disconnector and an excuxe for some who like to have it like that. As told, if the Dali Lama would like to ordinate, he would not be able to do so, because he regards him offical as Bhikkhu, so also all other tradtions would never be able to accept people from other schools.
So it is very much about perceptions in this case, or an simply an fatal error rule.
So generally take your time and try to fomulate things in such a way, that they will not be able to be taken as ultimatly. There can be many outside who consider very much if they are worthy to choin, and would even by the sightes doubt not like to damage the recutation of the Sangha or cause others in any way a problem. As you had told, it would be also an defense if somebody ordinates somebody wrongly. So please be careful, you might not know the effects.

actually a naga. a magical serpent who can change their shape.

That might be the thought... and explains why there are continues additional "rules"

I do not know what you are trying to say here.

Not all things are that literary takeable as they seem and that is not only a matter of general understanding, but also in the individual perception of words.

it is a different rule from 63. a rule is not necessarily conected in content for it to be related to the previous.

That might be a thought but no reverence that it is like that when you look at what was there as reverence for thought.

I do not know what you are trying to say here.

A framework of rules is always connected as well as the growing of rules is always connected with not understanding the simply rules. That is the way rules come in to being without end and so also there continuing misunderstaning.

yes a prominent feature of a story may not be what the rule reflects

Than such a collection makes more difficults as they might be useful to help. So for me its, much to think about which could at least rever to something useful. The story or this cut over all to make it simple for the not-so-smart. While still it is possible that I did not get the whole message.

I do not know what you are trying to say here.

I simply doubt the coherence between the stories and the actuall rules and I wonder which of it might have some originality without additions of later people who thought that they need to put into more understandability (according to my present knowledge about vinaya in relation to the suttas and the patimokkha)

please see opening statement.
it does, as would the last one, have a conection to another story regarding those who got ordained to recieve medical care, then disrobed. and one of the stories regarding parajika on theft.

"it" ? I don't understand the coherence of your replay to this statement and have also no idea to interpretete it in different ways not only in regard of "it".

"it" refers to "does not give any information about the motivation" it shows in the text where to look "(&c., as in chap. 66)."
#67 should read with the addition from 66

I am not able to reconstruct this branch as it seems to be to much confused. I guess no need to search the mistake...

'Let no one receive the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya (preceptor??). He who confers the upasampadâ ordination (in such a way), commits a dukkata offence.'

I don't uderstand the meaning of this one.
preceptor is the person who ordains another into the community.

preceptor is the person who ordains another into the community.

How can a precepetor be somebody who like to gain ordination?? Or do I misunderstand the gramma?

you misunderstand the grammar.

I don't think so, maybe you got the wrong points mixed up (look orange above).

'Let no one receive the upasampadâ ordination with the Samgha as upagghâya.

the whole sangha in attendance is acting as the upajjhaya here.

So if I translate you say: Let nobody receive the higher ordination with the Sangha as Ordinationgiver. Somehow a not very useful sentence. It would then just say that the Sangha is never resposible for any ordination at all. Well I could good live with such a message.

the rules are not interconected as you seam to suppose.
they do not have to be useful in relation to each other. however it would be related to 62.

When they are even not able to ordinate, who could they be preceptor? This is useless or I misunderstand the previos point and upagghâya means something different.

this is a list of the people who should of not been given acceptance, yet were giving the acceptance into the sangha acting in a role they were not eligible to act in. and refers to the person being accepted, not the person who is acting as Upajjhaya

Ok I see, so even 1000 lifes a monk no security to have even been one time... holly molly. So I guess its somehow secure to be not ordinated at all. I wonder if there are even a hand full of people who would pass to be ordinated "rightously" according some interpretations here.

if they are posing as a member of the sangha and people believe the deception there should be no more issue than the sangha has.
as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here.

That is simply nonsens. Let people believe what ever they like to believe, this has no influences on the own intention. At the time of the Buddha other Askets would not look different to Bhikkhus. We need to be a little bit more carful what pose means, and what perception of people means.
"as these rules do not deal with how to properly preform an ordination that is not useful to bear in mind here" when you don't know situations and you don't think on possible situation it might be like that, but actually that could be very easy the case. So only one who needs an advice in a special case would know if it is useful to keep in mind and for one who is in charge to jugde it is neverthenless useful to keep even all in mind if he is not one able to read mind of others.

I was responding to a particular nuance of your reply there which seamed predominant, but...
I think you mean ascetics with askets? but yes they would look different. There are several ascetics mentioned in the canon and none of whom look like the Bhikkhus. there were naked, those who wore white (both Nigantha practices at least later on), bark, animal skin, those who wore robes similar to Ghandhi, it is actually an offence to dress like another ascetic. The dress of a Bhikkhu is actually detailed very precisely (down to the colour) for a reason, and they need to have the correct items. the "traditional" giving and receiving of the robes is actually making sure these things are correct.

The rules quoted actually show what posing as a Bhikkhu refers to, their motivation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Intending to put the robes on taking up the bowl, shaving the head... and then doing so without going through an ordination is posing as a Bhikkhu. if people (anyone) sees them as a Bhikkhhu when they are not actually a bhikkhu that is enough.

If someone has dis-robed they would be a lay person and would be aware of what would be required, and not look like a bhikkhu, i.e. not wearing the robes already. just because someone was a bhikkhu does not mean they look like one. what you are saying here (underlined) has no relation to what I was replying to that I can see.

No...! Now I even need to run a round naked to be an exeptable ascetics. Funny how easy we come into movies of past times. You are an story-teller... I like you.. I like your effort... but I am not able to gain or to work out anything here and I better stop here, Young Oncle Cittasanto.

Lets look maybe we find another way and lets think meanwhile if it is smart to care to much about Vinaya issues for layman. I don't think that a normal Layman is able to understand what it means to live a live as a beggar or even a Bhikkhu and many will not understand such statements by Ajahn Chah & Ajahn Sumedho at all.

Don't feel offended, all just my mistake. But stay carefully in regard telling "trues".
Maybe we would have more success together if we would find a better way to get things not permanenty mixed up. I guess time will solve that.

[Cittasanto]

hanzze
as allot of this is turning into pointless meta-discussion I am only going to reply in-line to what is rule related everything else i believe needs to be said to you regarding what you have said is here at the top.
At the bottom of page one you were cautioned about assuming, this caution still stands. as does the comment to you about assuming anything about others, in another thread. You read what you want to read, not what is there, and argue straw man arguments with red herrings thrown in. you need to stop this and act with gratitude to the patience people here are trying to afford you constantly.

Yes, I know, so we can say the previous message taken from BMC1 "a person who ...(in this case: has sexually molested a bhikkhunī.)" is simply not right or better misleading in many cases.

did you read 67 or this post you replied to?

Maybe a specific case makes it easier for you to understand what I am talking about as well it might make understandable why we need to be very carefully in what we say. According to your explainings/claim, I am posing to be a Bhikkhu and I will never be able to choin the Sangha. Even my robes are from different (unusal) colors, the faith believers and assumer often mistaken me as a formal Bhikkhu. There is never a problem with meeting wise. There is not a single intention to get some benefit out of that, more over more a run away from faith believers while still living a liveable life. So maybe its just that you need to cut of another perception. Don't hesitate I am also used to be called a useless parasite. But think about the actual dimension of such statements, there could be also good people in similar situation.
Furthermore this rule is still a pontencial Sangha disconnector and an excuxe for some who like to have it like that. As told, if the Dali Lama would like to ordinate, he would not be able to do so, because he regards him offical as Bhikkhu, so also all other tradtions would never be able to accept people from other schools.
So it is very much about perceptions in this case, or an simply an fatal error rule.
So generally take your time and try to fomulate things in such a way, that they will not be able to be taken as ultimatly. There can be many outside who consider very much if they are worthy to choin, and would even by the sightes doubt not like to damage the recutation of the Sangha or cause others in any way a problem. As you had told, it would be also an defense if somebody ordinates somebody wrongly. So please be careful, you might not know the effects.

The person posing would be wearing the cloths of a Bhikkhu. why would I be referring to someone wearing robes other than those of a Bhikkhu? and again you need to understand the difference between intention and intentions/motivations... putting on the robes of a bhikkhu is one intention, anything else is either another intention or motivation.

A framework of rules is always connected as well as the growing of rules is always connected with not understanding the simply rules. That is the way rules come in to being without end and so also there continuing misunderstaning.

If this was true Parajika one and four would be on the same subject. as their connection would be more than the rule class/consequence.

I don't think so, maybe you got the wrong points mixed up (look orange above).

it is correct, your thoughts are not!

So if I translate you say: Let nobody receive the higher ordination with the Sangha as Ordinationgiver. Somehow a not very useful sentence. It would then just say that the Sangha is never resposible for any ordination at all. Well I could good live with such a message.

if you are not understanding something trying to render it then assuming it is correct is silly and arrogant.
the upajjhiya introduces the ordinand to the sangha and the sangha accept them witness the ordination... they can not do both.

Ok I see, so even 1000 lifes a monk no security to have even been one time... holly molly. So I guess its somehow secure to be not ordinated at all. I wonder if there are even a hand full of people who would pass to be ordinated "rightously" according some interpretations here.

The rules are only effective for the life of the being at most. where you got 1000 lives is not from anything said.

[Hanzze]

Don't worry my young uncle Cittasanto, just my thought and my faults, they are not lasting. Maybe I will get a little smarter with time. Thanks for your try. Be carefull.

[theY]

I confirm to Thanissaro Bhikkhu texts.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... .ch04.html << at ending.

He learned vinaya in burma theravāda system that sufficient confirm his texts.

His texts copy that from pārājika commentary name samantapāsādikā and kaṅkhāvitaraṇī. However more that that commentaries have 24 pārājika-similar-person.

And those commentary summary it from various tipitaka points.

P.S. I'm sorry that I didn't read all message at this topic.