» Library » Authors » Ven. Ṭhānissaro »

Preperation of htmls into ATI.eu currently in progress. Please visit the corresponding page at ZzE. If inspired to get involved in this merits here, one may feel invited to join best here: [ATI.eu] ATI/ZzE Content-style

The Buddhist Monastic Code, Volumes I & II: Ordination

Title: The Buddhist Monastic Code, Volumes I & II: Ordination

Summary:

by

Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu

2019

Alternate translation:

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Ordination

Like so many other aspects of the Vinaya, the procedures for ordination — the patterns to be followed in accepting applicants into the Community — were not determined all at once, but grew in response to events over time. There were three main stages in their development. In the first stage, during the very early years of the Buddha’s career, when an applicant asked to join the Community the Buddha would simply say, Ehi bhikkhu… (Come, bhikkhu.) That constituted the applicant’s acceptance into the Community. As the Community grew, the Buddha sent his bhikkhu disciples their separate ways to spread the teaching. When they inspired in others a desire to join the Community, they had to bring the applicants back to the Buddha for him to accept. Seeing the difficulties this entailed — roads were poor; the bhikkhus and their applicants had to travel great distances on foot — the Buddha allowed individual disciples to accept applicants on their own, using the formula of going for the Triple Refuge. This was the second stage. In the third stage, when the Buddha saw that the Community required a more formal organization, he rescinded the going for the Triple Refuge as a means of acceptance and replaced it with a formal Community transaction, using a motion and three proclamations.

Even then, however, the rules and procedures governing ordination continued to develop in response to events recorded in the Canon. And after the closing of the Canon, traditions continued to build up around the act of ordination, so that different sects within the Theravāda school have differing customs surrounding the basic core of instructions included in the Canon and explained in the commentaries. In this chapter, we will focus on the common core: the aspects of the ordination procedure that are absolutely necessary for it to be a valid Community transaction. After a few general remarks, our discussion will start with the validity of the object, i.e., the applicant for ordination, followed by the validity of the assembly and the validity of the transaction statements. Anyone interested in learning the complete patterns for ordination as currently practiced in the various Theravādin sects should consult the ordination guides issued by those sects.

Going-forth & Acceptance

Ordination falls into two parts: Going-forth (pabbajjā) and Acceptance (upasampadā). The first has traditionally been treated as a prerequisite for the second, but nothing in the Canon indicates that it need be so. The transaction for Acceptance was first formulated when there was no ceremony for Going-forth; and even after the Going-forth ceremony was instituted, no directives required that it form a prelude for Acceptance. However, the pattern of giving the Going-forth prior to Acceptance is ancient — the standard short description of a full ordination in Mv.I is, “x obtained the Going-forth; he obtained Acceptance” — so that is the pattern discussed here.

In the Going-forth, one leaves the home life for the homeless life, becoming a novice (sāmaṇera). After one’s head is shaved, one dons the ochre robes, takes refuge in the Triple Gem, and undertakes the ten precepts. In the Acceptance, one becomes a full-fledged bhikkhu, with full rights to live in common affiliation with the Bhikkhu Saṅgha. The Going-forth is not a Community transaction, whereas Acceptance is.

The validity of the object

An applicant for ordination must be a male who meets the age requirements, and he must not have any characteristics that would disqualify him from ordination.

Age requirements

An applicant for the Going-forth must be at least fifteen years old or, if not yet fifteen, “capable of chasing crows away.” According to the Commentary, this means that, while holding a clod of earth in one hand, he can chase crows away from food placed in front of him while he is eating it with his other hand.

An applicant for full Acceptance must be at least twenty years old, counting from the time his consciousness first arose at conception in his mother’s womb. As this is difficult — if not impossible — to date with any accuracy, the usual practice in calculating a person’s age is to add six months to the number of years since his birth, to allow for his having been born prematurely. As the Commentary notes, a baby born after seven months in the womb may survive, but one born after only six months won’t. Pc 65 states that if an applicant less than twenty years old receives full Acceptance, he does not count as a bhikkhu; the Commentary says that he remains a novice. Any bhikkhu who acts as his preceptor, knowing that he is too young to be accepted, incurs a pācittiya; any other bhikkhus in the assembly performing the ordination who also know the applicant’s age incur a dukkaṭa.

Disqualifications

The factors that would disqualify an applicant from receiving ordination are of three sorts:

those absolutely disqualifying him for life — even if he receives ordination, he does not count as properly ordained;

those marking him as an undesirable member of the Community — if he happens to be ordained, he counts as ordained, but the bhikkhus participating in the ordination incur a dukkaṭa; and

those indicating that he is formally unprepared for full Acceptance (for instance, he lacks robes and an alms-bowl or does not have a valid preceptor) — the Canon does not state whether these factors absolutely invalidate the applicant’s Acceptance, but the Commentary puts them in the same class as the undesirables, above.

Absolutely disqualified

A person may be absolutely disqualified if he:

1) has an abnormal gender;

2) has committed any of the five deeds leading to immediate retribution in hell (ānantariya/ānantarika-kamma);

3) has seriously wronged the Dhamma-Vinaya; or

4) is an animal.

The Canon states that such people may not receive full Acceptance. The Commentary adds (with one exception, noted below) that they may not receive the Going-forth. Even if they receive ordination, they do not count as ordained. Once the truth about them is discovered, they must immediately be expelled.

1) The prohibition for abnormal gender covers paṇḍakas and hermaphrodites. According to the Commentary, there are five kinds of paṇḍakas, two of whom do not come under this prohibition: voyeurs and those whose sexual fever is allayed by performing fellatio. The three who do come under this prohibition are: castrated men (eunuchs), those born neuter, and half-time paṇḍakas (those with the sexual desires of a paṇḍaka during the dark fortnight, and none during the bright fortnight (?)). In the origin story for this prohibition, a paṇḍaka who had received Acceptance unsuccessfully propositioned some bhikkhus and novices, then succeeded in propositioning some horse- and elephant-trainers, who spread it about, “These Sakyan-son monks are paṇḍakas. And those among them who are not paṇḍakas molest paṇḍakas.”

2) The five deeds of immediate retribution are:

a) killing one’s mother (matricide),

b) killing one’s father (patricide),

c) killing an arahant,

d) maliciously injuring the Tathāgata to the point of drawing blood, and

e) successfully creating a schism in the Community.

(a & b) The prohibition against ordaining a matricide or patricide, the Commentary says, applies only to a person who has intentionally killed his human birth mother or father. Limiting the prohibition to one’s birth parents is understandable, but — assuming that human/non-human matches are possible — it is hard to understand why the prohibition would not include murdering a non-human parent. The Commentary states further that the prohibition does not apply if the applicant’s act of killing his mother or father was unintentional, but that it does apply regardless of whether the act was done knowingly. In other words, it applies even to an applicant who — like Oedipus — has intentionally killed a person not knowing that the person is his true mother or father.

ⓒ Likewise, the prohibition against one who has killed an arahant does not apply to unintentional acts of homicide, but does apply regardless of whether the applicant knew at that time that his victim was an arahant.

(d) The prohibition against one who has caused the Tathāgata to shed blood applies only to those who wound the Tathāgata with hurtful intentions. It does not apply to doctors performing surgery.

(e) The prohibition against a schismatic applies to one who, knowing or suspecting that his position is contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya, has succeeded in creating a schism. This applies both to the initiator and to any of his followers. As mentioned under Sg 10, if a bhikkhu instigates or joins a schismatic faction not knowing that its position is contrary to the true Dhamma and Vinaya, he is not excluded from the Community. If, prior to a full resolution of the schism, he leaves the faction and returns to the correct side, he need only confess a thullaccaya and he is a member of the Community in full standing, as before (see Chapter 21). If it so happened that he disrobed before confessing the thullaccaya, he should still be allowed to reordain if he so desires.

3) The prohibition for having seriously wronged the Dhamma-Vinaya covers any person who has:

a) committed a pārājika while previously a bhikkhu (Pr.I.7);

b) taken affiliation by theft;

c) gone over to another religion while still a bhikkhu; or

d) molested a bhikkhunī.

(a) The Commentary to Pr 1 states that, although a person who committed a pārājika while previously a bhikkhu may not rightly receive full Acceptance again in this lifetime, this is the one case among these absolute disqualifications where the disqualification does not extend to the Going-forth. The Vinaya-mukha, however, dismisses the idea of giving the Going-forth to such a person as unwise. The Commentary itself, in its summary of the pārājika rules, classifies the other members of the list of absolute disqualifications as “equivalent pārājikas,” and it seems inconsistent to give more rights to actual pārājikas than to equivalent ones. Moreover, the Vinaya-mukha would appear to have the Canon on its side here. In the origin story leading up to the final formulation of Pr 1, some ex-bhikkhus who had committed pārājikas come to Ven. Ānanda and request the Going-forth, request full Acceptance, but the Buddha refuses to give them either. Although his remarks leading up to the final formulation of the rule explicitly mention only the fact that the ex-bhikkhus in question cannot receive full Acceptance, his actions indicate that they should be denied the Going-forth as well.

(b) The Commentary contains a long discussion on the question of what it means to take affiliation by theft. It distinguishes three kinds of theft: theft of status (putting on robes without the authorization of the Community), theft of affiliation (claiming rights of novicehood or bhikkhuhood, such as seniority, participating in Community transactions, etc.), and theft of both. The above prohibition applies to all three but not to cases where a person dresses as a bhikkhu or novice to escape danger from kings, famine, wasteland travel, disease, or hostile enemies. This allowance applies as long as he doesn’t claim rights of affiliation with the bhikkhus and has pure intent (which the Sub-commentary defines as no intention of deceiving the bhikkhus). The case of an actor who wears robes while playing the part of a bhikkhu in a movie or play would probably come under this allowance as well, as would the case — mentioned elsewhere in the Commentary — of a candidate for the Going-forth who arrives at the Community meeting already wearing the robes he plans to wear after ordained (see below). The Commentary to Pc 65 recommends that when a bhikkhu who assumes that he is properly ordained but later discovers that his ordination was invalid, he should reordain as quickly as possible. This shows that such a bhikkhu is also not guilty of theft of status or of affiliation.

However, a lay person who dresses as a bhikkhu to go for alms would come under the category of “theft of status”; the Commentary explicitly states that a novice who claims to be a bhikkhu so as to gain a bhikkhu’s privileges would come under “theft of affiliation.” When a lay person intends to attempt a theft of affiliation, the theft is committed when he assumes the status of a bhikkhu even if he has not yet deceived bhikkhus into allowing him to join in their Community.

Buddhaghosa maintains that this category does not apply to a bhikkhu who has committed a pārājika and still claims the status and rights of a bhikkhu. He quotes the Andhaka as holding the opposing opinion on this matter, but does not say why he disagrees. One possible reason for disagreement might be that the Canon often lists a bhikkhu who has committed a pārājika as a category separate from that of one who has committed theft of affiliation.

There is a peculiar passage in the Commentary in which this category is said to apply to a bhikkhu, novice, or bhikkhunī who, thinking of disrobing, tries on lay clothing (either white clothing or monastic robes worn in the style of lay clothing) beforehand to see how they will look. If he/she decides that they look good, then from that moment on he/she is in affiliation through theft. This seems baseless, for the simple act of wearing lay clothing is only a dukkaṭa (Cv.V.29.4), and the factors for disrobing are not complete.

ⓒ A bhikkhu going over to another religion is one who — while still a bhikkhu — takes on that religion’s mode of dress or, in the case of naked ascetics, goes naked and adopts with approval any of their modes of practice. At present, it could be argued that the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, with their separate canons and modes of practice at odds with the Pali Canon, are different enough from the Theravāda to count as separate religions under this prohibition, but this is a controversial point.

If one’s robes are stolen or one needs to escape danger from kings, etc., one may take on the costume of other religions without falling into this category. If one disrobes, becomes a member of another religion, and then changes one’s mind and wishes to be reordained as a bhikkhu, one would be allowed to do so after undergoing the probation period mentioned below.

According to the Commentary, a person who has gone over to another religion while only a novice is not included in this category.

(d) A molester of a bhikkhunī is one who has sexual intercourse with her. The Commentary says that even if one first forces her to put on lay clothing and then has sex with her against her will, it counts as molesting a bhikkhunī. If, however, she willingly disrobes and has sex, it doesn’t.

4) The prohibition against ordaining an animal comes from one of the more poignant origin stories in the Canon:

Now at that time a certain nāga was horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the nāga-birth. Then the thought occurred to him: “Now, by what strategy might I be freed from the nāga-birth and quickly regain the human state?” Then he thought, “These Sakyan-son monks practice the Dhamma, practice in tune (sama), practice the holy life, speak the truth, are virtuous and fine-natured. If I went forth among the Sakyan-son monks I would be freed from the nāga-birth and quickly regain the human state.”

So, in the form of a brahman youth, he went to the bhikkhus and requested the Going-forth. The bhikkhus gave him the Going-forth; they gave him full Acceptance.

Now at that time the nāga lived together with a certain bhikkhu in a dwelling on the perimeter of the (monastery) territory. Then the bhikkhu, getting up in the last watch of the night, walked back and forth in the open air. The nāga, when the bhikkhu had left, fell asleep with his guard down. The entire dwelling was filled with snake; coils were coming out through the windows. Then the bhikkhu, (thinking,) “I’ll enter the dwelling,” opened the door. He saw the entire dwelling filled with snake; coils were coming out through the windows. On seeing this, frightened, he let out a shriek. Bhikkhus, running up, said to him, “Why, friend, did you let out a shriek?”

“This entire dwelling, friends, is filled with snake; coils are coming out through the windows.” Then the nāga, having awakened at the noise, sat in his own seat. The bhikkhus said, “Who are you, friend?”

“I am a nāga, venerable sirs.”

“But why did you act in this way?”

Then the nāga told the matter to the bhikkhus. The bhikkhus told the matter to the Blessed One. Then the Blessed One, with regard to this cause, to this incident, had the Community of bhikkhus convened and addressed the nāga: “You nāgas are not liable to growth in this Dhamma and discipline. Go, nāga. Observe the uposatha on the fourteenth, fifteenth, and eighth of the fortnight. Thus you will be freed from the nāga-birth and quickly regain the human state.”

The nāga, (thinking,) “It’s said that I’m not liable to growth in this Dhamma and discipline!” sad and unhappy, shedding tears, let out a shriek and left.

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, “Bhikkhus, there are two conditions for a male nāga’s reverting to his own state: when he engages in intercourse with a female of his own species, and when he falls asleep with his guard down. These are the two conditions for a male nāga’s reverting to his own state.” — Mv.I.63

The Commentary states that the term animal covers all types of non-human beings, “even Sakka, the king of the devas.” However, its statements under the topic of matricides and patricides, quoted above, show that — in its view of mixed unions — the offspring of a human/non-human union would either be human or non-human. In the first case he would qualify for ordination; in the second case, not.

Undesirable

Applicants falling into the following categories should not be given the Going-forth. As the Going-forth is the customary first step in full Acceptance, this means that they should not receive full Acceptance, either. Any bhikkhu who gives any of these applicants the Going-forth incurs a dukkaṭa. However, the applicant does count as having properly gone forth; if fully accepted he is properly accepted and need not be expelled.

1) Those with obligations. This general category includes the following:

(a) A son whose parents have not given their permission. According to the Commentary, this requirement includes foster parents as well as birth parents. There is no need to get a parent’s permission if he/she is no longer alive or has abandoned the son. From this it can be argued that if the parents are divorced and one of them has totally abandoned responsibility for the son, there is no need to get permission from that parent. If, however, both parents continued to assume responsibility for the son, he needs to get the permission of both.

The Commentary adds that if the parents are dead, and relatives have come to depend on the applicant, it’s a wise policy to inform the relatives before giving him the Going-forth so as to prevent disagreement, but there is no offense in not doing so. If an applicant ordains with his parents’ permission, later disrobes, and then wants to reordain, he must receive his parents’ permission again. If an applicant without his parents’ permission threatens suicide or other disturbances if not given the Going-forth, the Commentary recommends giving him the Going-forth and then explaining the situation to the parents, advising them to talk to him. If an applicant — even if he is an only child — is far from home and asks for the Going-forth, it’s allowable to give him the Going-forth and then to send him, with a number of bhikkhus, to inform the parents.

(b) A person in the king’s (government) service. The Commentary states that a person in government service may go forth if he gets official permission to ordain. If he is working for the government on an unfinished contract, he may go forth if he finds someone else to take over his duties, if he returns to the government any payment he received from them, or if he finishes the job he was paid to do. This prohibition would thus cover candidates who have deserted military service or any other government service for which they are being paid. The Commentary to Mv.I.42.2 indicates that a person who is being punished not for a crime but simply for not providing corvée labor would be eligible to ordain. This allowance would thus apply to any person fleeing any government service for which he is not being paid. However, it is wise to remember that not all government officials would view his ordination with equanimity, and to keep in mind the punishments contemplated by King Bimbisāra’s chief ministers (§) in the origin story to this prohibition: “Sire, the preceptor’s head should be cut off, the announcing teacher’s tongue pulled out, and half the ribs of the group broken.”

ⓒ A debtor. Here the Commentary says that debtor includes one who has inherited debts from his parents or grandparents, as well as one who has incurred debts on his own. If others agree to take on the debts or take over their payment, he may go forth. If Bhikkhu X gives the Going-forth to Y, not knowing that Y has debts but later learning the truth, he should take Y to his creditors if he can get hold of him. If he can’t, he is not responsible for the debts. If he feels so inspired, he may undertake to pay off Y’s debts if he feels that Y is serious about the practice. But he may not give the Going-forth to Y, knowing of Y’s debts beforehand, with the intention of paying them off himself. If he does, he incurs a dukkaṭa.

(d) A slave. According to the Commentary, if the slave is freed from slavery in line with the country’s customs and law, he may go forth. The commentaries differ as to whether a child of a slave counts as a slave under this rule. The Commentary says Yes; the Sub-commentary (quoting the Three Gaṇṭhīpadas), No. Whether these differing opinions are a reflection of the authors’ own feelings on the subject or of the laws current when they wrote their texts, no one knows. The Commentary, however, tells a touching story of a bhikkhu who learns, after his Acceptance, that his mother was an escaped slave from Anurādhapura. He goes to his mother’s owners and asks their permission to stay as a bhikkhu (even though he doesn’t need to — he is already a bhikkhu and may remain so, regardless of what they say). At any rate, they give their permission, provide him with support, and he eventually becomes an arahant.

2) Those with serious, disfiguring, or communicable diseases. The Canon separates this category into three types:

(a) A person afflicted with leprosy, boils, eczema, tuberculosis, or epilepsy. Some have questioned whether this prohibition is compassionate to the diseased, but the origin story behind the rule shows that it was formulated out of compassion for the bhikkhus and lay supporters who would be burdened with the diseased person’s care.

Now at that time five diseases were widespread among the Magadhans: leprosy, boils, eczema, tuberculosis, and epilepsy. People afflicted with the five diseases went to (the doctor) Jīvaka Komārabhacca and said, “It would be good, teacher, if you would treat us.”

“Masters, I have many duties. I am very busy. I have to tend to King Bimbisāra of Magadha, as well as his harem and the Community of bhikkhus headed by the Buddha. I cannot treat you.”

“All our wealth will be yours, teacher, and we will be your slaves. It would be good, teacher, if you would treat us.”

“Masters, I have many duties. I am very busy. I have to tend to King Bimbisāra of Magadha, as well as his harem and the Community of bhikkhus headed by the Buddha. I cannot treat you.”

Then it occurred to these people, “These Sakyan-son monks are of pleasant virtue and conduct. Having eaten fine meals, they lie down in beds sheltered from the wind (see Pc 65). What if we were to go forth among the Sakyan-son monks? There the bhikkhus would tend to us and Jīvaka Komārabhacca would treat us.” So, going to the bhikkhus, they requested the Going-forth. The bhikkhus gave them the Going-forth, they gave them the full Acceptance. The bhikkhus tended to them and Jīvaka Komārabhacca treated them. Now at that time the bhikkhus — tending to many sick bhikkhus — were continually begging, continually hinting, “Give a meal for the sick. Give a meal for those tending to the sick. Give medicine for the sick.” Jīvaka Komārabhacca — tending to many sick bhikkhus — neglected one of his duties to the king.

Then a certain man afflicted with the five diseases went to Jīvaka Komārabhacca … (as above). Then it occurred to him, “ … What if I were to go forth among the Sakyan-son monks? There the bhikkhus would tend to me and Jīvaka Komārabhacca would treat me. When I am well I will disrobe.” So, going to the bhikkhus, he requested the Going-forth. The bhikkhus gave him the Going-forth; they gave him the full Acceptance. The bhikkhus tended to him and Jīvaka Komārabhacca treated him. When he was well he disrobed.

Then Jīvaka Komārabhacca saw the man disrobed. On seeing him, he addressed him, “Master, weren’t you gone forth among the bhikkhus?”

“Yes, teacher.”

“But why did you act in this way?”

Then the man told the matter to Jīvaka Komārabhacca. Jīvaka Komārabhacca criticized and complained and spread it about, “How can the revered ones give the Going-forth to a person afflicted with the five diseases?”

Mv.I.39.1-6

Four of these diseases are explained in the commentaries. Leprosy includes scabies, yaws, and psoriasis as well. Apparently, any other disease that causes ulcerating lesions on the skin would also come under this heading. If the disease occurs in small patches the size of the back of a nail in areas covered when fully robed and is in a condition that won’t spread further, the applicant may go forth. If the patches are visible on the face or the backs of hands, then even if they are small and won’t spread, he shouldn’t go forth. If he has been treated so that the patches disappear completely, he may. The Sub-commentary adds here that the “back of the nail” means the back of the nail of the small finger or toe; if the patches are small and in a covered area but still spreading, the applicant should not go forth.

Boils, according to the Commentary, also covers skin excrescencies looking like fingers or cow nipples. If the boils are not spreading, no larger than jujube pits (the same size as olive pits), and in an area covered when fully robed, the applicant may go forth; if they are in an uncovered area, he shouldn’t. Acne and warts don’t count as boils under this rule.

Eczema covers a wide variety of skin diseases, differing from those included under “leprosy” in that they are not debilitating and do not ulcerate or ooze. Thus ringworm and athlete’s foot would come under this category. As under the preceding category, small, non-spreading infestations in an area covered when fully robed would be allowable.

Epilepsy includes both grand and petit mal, as well as cases of seizures caused by hostile spirit possession (!).

(b) A person with goiter. This was apparently incurable at the time. At present, if such a person is cured, he may go forth.

ⓒ A person afflicted with an “evil” disease. This, the Commentary says, includes such things as hemorrhoids, fistulas, upsets of bile or phlegm, cough, asthma, or any disease that is “chronically afflicting (reading niccātura with the Thai edition of the Commentary), exceedingly painful, disgusting, and disagreeable.” AIDS and cancer would come under here.

3) Disturbers of the peace. This category includes three types:

(a) A criminal “wrapped in a flag.” This, the Commentary says, means a notorious criminal. None of the texts mention this point, but this prohibition would seem to hold regardless of whether the person has served time for his crimes. The Commentary does note, however, that if he later becomes well-known for having mended his ways he may be given the Going-forth. If he is the king’s son, and it pleases the king that he go forth, he may. Minor criminals who have not been caught and have abandoned their criminal activity are not prohibited under this rule. This prohibition was inspired by the public reaction to Ven. Aṅgulimāla’s ordination (see MN 86). This is one of several instances in the Canon where the Buddha acted in ways that he forbade to his disciples, on the grounds that he could foretell the consequences of his actions but couldn’t trust his disciples — even the arahants — to have the same degree of foresight.

(b) A suspect or criminal for whom a warrant has been sent out. At present this would also include people on probation or parole.

ⓒ A criminal who has broken his shackles, i.e., escaped from prison or other internment. The Commentary notes that if the escapee is not a criminal but has simply been confined by the authorities to force him to comply to their wishes, he may receive the Going-forth. If he has been falsely accused and escapes, he should not go forth in that country, but may do so elsewhere. It is interesting to compare this judgment with the Commentary’s recommendations concerning children of slaves. Here the Commentary is willing to defy unjust applications of civil law, but it never challenges civil law itself, no matter how unjust.

4) Those marked with severe punishments. The Canon mentions two sorts of applicants here:

(a) A person who has been whipped or caned as a punishment. The Commentary extends this prohibition to other forms of beating as well — such as being hit with the elbows, the knees, coconuts, or rocks. The applicant may be given the Going-forth after the wounds have healed and bruises have subsided.

(b) A person who has been branded or tattooed as a punishment. Again, the applicant may be ordained after the wounds have healed as long as they don’t show when he is fully robed with his right shoulder open. The texts mention tattooing only in the context of punishment, so it would seem reasonable to assume that applicants who have voluntarily had themselves tattooed are not prohibited. Still, if tattoos visible when fully robed contain words or designs that are blatantly contrary to a bhikkhu’s ideals, it would be wise to have them removed.

5) Those who are physically handicapped, feeble, or deformed. The following list is from the Canon, with passages from the Commentary in brackets: an applicant with a hand cut off [C: at least from the palm] … a foot cut off [C: at least from the ball of the foot].. a hand and foot cut off … an ear cut off … a nose cut off … an ear and nose cut off [C: in the case of ears and nose, if the cut-off part can be reconnected, the applicant may go forth] … a finger or toe cut off [C: so that nothing of the nail appears] … a thumb or big toe cut off .. a cut tendon … one who has webbed fingers [C: if the fingers are separated by surgery, or if a sixth finger is removed, the applicant may go forth] … a bent-over person [C: bent-over forward (a hunchback), bent-over back (a swayback), bent-over to either side; a slight crookedness is to be expected in all candidates, as only a Buddha is perfectly straight] … a dwarf … one with a club foot (or elephantiasis) [C: if the foot is operated on so as to become a normal foot, he may go forth] … one who disgraces the assembly [C: through some deformity; (the list here is very long and includes many seemingly harmless characteristics, such as connected eyebrows, a lack of a beard or moustache, etc. This is one area where the Commentary seems to have gone overboard)] … one who is blind in one eye … one who has a crooked limb [C: limb = at least a hand, foot, or finger] … one who is lame … one half-paralyzed [C: paralyzed in one hand, one foot, or down one side] … a cripple [C: one who needs a crutch or stool to move along] … one feeble from old age … one who is blind… dumb [C: unable to speak or with such a bad stutter that he cannot pronounce the Three Refuges clearly]… deaf … blind and dumb … blind and deaf (§ — not mentioned in BD) … deaf and dumb … blind and deaf and dumb.

Again, some people have questioned the compassion behind these prohibitions, but the point of the prohibitions is to keep the bhikkhus from being burdened with looking after those who are a burden or an embarrassment to their families. There is at least one case in the Canon of a dwarf who ordained and became an arahant (Ud.VII.1-2), but apparently he, like Aṅgulimāla, was accepted into the Community by the Buddha himself. If it so happens that a bhikkhu develops any of these handicaps after his ordination — e.g., he goes blind or loses a limb — he need not disrobe, and his fellow bhikkhus are duty-bound to care for him (see Chapter 5).

Formally unprepared

The Canon says that the following applicants should not be given full Acceptance. As the Vinaya-mukha points out, they should not receive the Going-forth, either. Although the Canon does not say whether — if they happen to receive Acceptance — their Acceptance stands, the Commentary affirms that it does. Because the disqualifications are formal and easy to correct, there should be no reason to overlook them. Anyone who participates in giving Acceptance to such an applicant incurs a dukkaṭa.

A person without an alms bowl or a full set of robes.

A person with a borrowed alms bowl or a borrowed set of robes.

A person without a proper preceptor. The preceptor must be an individual (a Community or a group may not fill this role) who is a true bhikkhu. His other qualifications are given in Volume One, Chapter 2.

Special cases

Previous suspension

If an applicant was previously ordained, the Community should check to see if, during his previous time as a bhikkhu, he was suspended for not seeing an offense, for not making amends for an offense, or for not relinquishing an evil view. If he was, then Mv.I.79.2 says he is to be treated as follows (taking suspension for not seeing an offense as an example):

Upon asking for Acceptance he is to be told, ‘Will you see this offense?’ If he says Yes, he may be given the Going-forth. If he says No, he is not to be given the Going-forth. Having gone forth, he is to be asked, ‘Will you see this offense?’ If he says Yes, he may be accepted. If No, he is not to be accepted. Having been accepted, he is to be asked, ‘Will you see this offense?’ If he says Yes, he may be restored. If No, he is not to be restored. Having been restored, he is to be asked, ‘Do you see this offense?’ If he says Yes, well and good. If No, then if unity can be obtained, he is to be suspended again. If unity cannot be obtained, there is no offense in communing or affiliating with him (see Pc 69).

Probation

Another special case is that of an applicant who has previously been ordained in another religion. Mv.I.38.1 states that he must first be granted four months’ probation. The Commentary maintains that this probation applies only to naked ascetics, but the Canon itself makes an exception only for those whose previous religion teaches a doctrine of kamma; therefore, the probation should apply to any religion that would deny the doctrine of kamma (saying, for instance, that one’s experiences are totally predetermined by a creator deity or an impersonal force) or would teach special dispensations from kamma (such as Buddhist religions that teach ritual ways to counteract the results of kamma).

The probation is granted as follows: The applicant takes the Going-forth (see below) and then three times requests probation. The Community, if it sees fit, may grant him probation using a motion and one proclamation. The request and transaction statement are given in Appendix II.

If, while on probation, the applicant behaves in any of the ways listed below, he fails in his probation and is not to be accepted. The Commentary adds that, if he still desires Acceptance, his probation automatically starts again at that point for another four months “even if he fails while in the ordination hall, even if he attains the eight attainments.” It adds, however, that if he attains stream-entry, he should be allowed to ordain on that very day. Given, however, that modern meditation traditions cannot agree on what constitutes stream-entry, such a claim would always be controversial, and so the wise policy would be to let the applicant complete his probation. If he has really attained stream-entry, he shouldn’t mind.

An applicant fails in his probation if:

1) He enters the village too early, returns too late in the day. According to the Commentary too early means while the bhikkhus are performing their morning duties; too late means that he stays to eat in the village, discussing worldly affairs with villagers; he doesn’t perform his duties for his mentor on his return; he just goes back to his dwelling and sleeps.

2) He associates with a prostitute, with a widowed or divorced woman, with a “fat princess” (a male transvestite? — see Chapter 11), with a paṇḍaka, or with a bhikkhunī (see Appendix V). According to the Sub-commentary, associates means treating as a friend or intimate. The Commentary adds that it is all right for him to visit these people as long as he goes with bhikkhus on bhikkhu business.

3) He is not adept at the major and minor affairs involving his fellows in the holy life, is not dexterous, not diligent, not quick-witted in the techniques involved in them, is not willing to do them or to get others to do them. The Commentary says that major affairs means such things as repair of the cetiya and other buildings for which bhikkhus are called together for work; minor affairs means the Khandhaka protocols (see Chapter 9); not diligent means, for example, knowing that there’s work to be done, he goes into town early for alms, returns to his room to sleep until late in the day; not willing to do them means making excuses based on illness or “just showing his head” — i.e., showing up briefly at the work site without actually doing any work.

4) He does not have a keen desire for recitation, interrogation (asking questions about the meaning of the Dhamma — see AN 8:2), heightened virtue, heightened mind, or heightened discernment. According to the Commentary, heightened virtue means the Pāṭimokkha; heightened mind, worldly concentration; heightened discernment, the transcendent paths.

5) He feels angered, displeased, and upset if dispraise is spoken of the teacher, the view, the persuasion, the preferences, the belief of the religion from which he has come over. He feels gratified, pleased, and elated if dispraise is spoken of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha.

If, after four months, the applicant has not “failed” in any of these ways, he may be given full Acceptance. None of the texts discuss the case where he does fail and yet is given the full Acceptance. Apparently, the Acceptance would still be valid, and yet the bhikkhus giving it would each incur a dukkaṭa.

The validity of the assembly

The quorum for full Acceptance in the middle Ganges valley is ten bhikkhus. In the outlying districts (this covers the entire world outside the middle Ganges valley), the quorum is five as long as one of the five is a Vinaya-expert. Here the Commentary defines Vinaya-expert as one competent to recite the transaction statement, but this seems overly lenient. As the Commentary itself notes when explaining Mv.I.28.3, the presence of a “competent, experienced” bhikkhu capable of reciting the transaction statement is assumed in all Community transactions. Thus there would seem to be no reason to mention it here as a special requirement. A more likely definition for Vinaya-expert in this context would be a bhikkhu well-versed in the Pāṭimokkha and knowledgeable about the rules and procedures related to Going-forth and Acceptance.

Mv.V.13.12 defines the precise borders of the middle Ganges valley: Mahāsālā on the east, the Sallavatī River on the south-east, the town of Setakaṇṇika on the south, the village of Thūna on the west, and the mountain slope of Usīraddhaja on the north. Unfortunately the identity of these place names at present is largely conjectural. Notes to BD identify Thūna with Sthānesvara, and Usīraddhaja with Usiragiri, a mountain to the north of Kaṇkhal. For the others, see B. C. Law, Geography of Early Buddhism.

The validity of the transaction statement

Ordination, as set forth in the Canon, is a complex procedure involving not only a series of transaction statements but also several preliminary and subsequent steps. As mentioned above, the commentaries and the various national traditions have added steps of their own, but here we will focus on the steps required by the Canon, together with relevant explanations from the commentaries. The transaction statements and other standard passages for recitation are given in Appendix II.

Preliminary steps

Prior to ordination, an applicant must have his head shaved and be clothed in the ochre robes. Then he receives the Going-forth, after which he takes dependence on a preceptor. His robes and bowl are pointed out to him, and he is then sent outside the assembly, where an experienced, competent bhikkhu instructs him about the thirteen obstructing factors to Acceptance. The instructing bhikkhu returns to the assembly and then the applicant is called back into the assembly, where he requests Acceptance. He is then quizzed in the assembly about the obstructing factors, and when his answers are satisfactory he may be given the full Acceptance.

Some of these steps require further explanation.

Shaving the head

If the applicant comes with his hair longer than two fingerbreadths, the Community must be informed of the shaving of his head through a formal announcement. The reason for this is suggested by the origin story to the rule:

Now at that time a certain fledgling (§) metal smith, having quarreled with his parents, went to the monastery and went forth among the bhikkhus. Then his parents, searching for him, went to the monastery and asked the bhikkhus, “Have you seen a youth who looks like this?” The bhikkhus, actually not having known him (when he fit the parents’ description), said, “We don’t know him.” Actually not having seen him, they said, “We haven’t seen him.” Then the parents, searching for the fledgling metal smith and seeing him gone forth among the bhikkhus, criticized and complained and spread it about, “They’re shameless, these Sakyan-son monks. Unvirtuous. Liars. Actually having known, they say, ‘We don’t know him.’ Actually having seen, they say, ‘We haven’t seen him.’ This youth has gone forth among the bhikkhus.” — Mv.I.48

For this announcement, the Commentary recommends gathering all the bhikkhus in the territory and announcing, “I am informing the Community of this child’s head shaving,” or “This child wants to go forth.” Alternatively, it suggests sending word out to all the bhikkhus in the monastery. Even if some are missed because they are sleeping, meditating, etc., it is all right to go ahead, shave the applicant’s head, and give him the Going-forth. There is no need to inform the Community if the applicant’s head is already shaven or if his hair is two fingerbreadths or less in length. The Commentary also recommends teaching the five meditation objects (hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, and skin) to the applicant prior to or during his head shaving.

The Going-forth

The Going-forth is not a Community transaction. The Canon’s requirements for the procedure are simple: The applicant is given the Three Refuges three times. Although the Canon mentions that bhikkhus (plural) are present at the Going-forth, it does not set a minimum for the quorum or any specific qualifications for the bhikkhu officiating. However, a bhikkhu who does not meet the qualifications of a bhikkhu’s preceptor should not have a novice attend to him (Mv.I.36-37), which suggests that even if the applicant is simply going forth without yet taking full Acceptance, the bhikkhu officiating must meet the qualifications of a bhikkhu’s preceptor.

The Commentary states further that, before giving the Three Refuges, the preceptor must bestow the ochre robes on the applicant or must tell a bhikkhu, novice, or layman to put robes on the applicant. If the applicant comes with robes already on, he must take them off and then put them on again. (The tradition in Thailand and Sri Lanka is that a novice wear only the upper and under robes. The Commentary to Mv.I.12.4 mentions the outer robe as part of a novice’s set of robes as well. However, Mv.VIII.27.3 mentions a novices “robe,” whereas a parallel passage in Mv.VIII.27.2 mentions a bhikkhu’s “triple robe,” which suggests that novices in the time of the Canon did not wear the outer robe, either.) Arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, the applicant should pay homage to the feet of the bhikkhus and sit on his haunches with his hands raised in añjali. Then he should be told: “Evaṁ vadehi (Say this),” followed by the threefold formula for going for refuge in the Triple Gem. The Commentary insists that both sides — the preceptor and the applicant — must pronounce the refuge formula properly. That constitutes the applicant’s Going-forth. It is customary to have him undertake the ten precepts immediately after going for refuge (see Chapter 24).

Taking dependence

Taking dependence follows the standard formula given at Mv.I.32.2 and discussed in BMC1, Chapter 3.

Instruction

After the applicant has been sent out of the assembly, a competent, experienced bhikkhu is authorized through a formal motion to instruct him about the thirteen obstructing factors. One bhikkhu may give the motion to authorize another, or may give it to authorize himself. The “instruction” is a rehearsal of the questions the applicant will be asked in the midst of the Community just prior to his full Acceptance. It is interesting to note that not all the possible disqualifications for full Acceptance are included in the list of thirteen. The Vinaya-mukha postulates that, in the very beginning, these were either the only disqualifications or the ones reckoned most important. The second possibility is unlikely, as only three of the thirteen are absolute.

When the instruction is complete, the instructing bhikkhu returns first to the assembly and recites a formal motion to inform the assembly that the applicant has been instructed and that the applicant should be allowed into the assembly.

After the applicant comes and requests full Acceptance, an experienced, competent bhikkhu (usually the same one who instructed the applicant) recites a formal motion to authorize himself to quiz the applicant about the thirteen obstructing factors. When he has finished the quiz, the preliminary steps are done.

Full Acceptance

The transaction statement for full Acceptance consists of a motion and three proclamations. As with all other transaction statements, it should be recited by an experienced, competent bhikkhu. At present, it is often recited by two bhikkhus together. The applicant becomes a bhikkhu when the third proclamation is finished. If two or three applicants are requesting full Acceptance at the same time, they may all be included in a single transaction statement as long as they have the same preceptor, but not if their preceptors are different. No more than three may be included in a single transaction statement. The Commentary notes that this single transaction statement can mean either one statement covering all the candidates, recited by one bhikkhu, or a separate statement for each candidate all recited at the same time by an equal number of bhikkhus. This last possibility, although it would create a cacophony, is probably intended for Communities where none of the members can put the transaction statement into the plural forms required by more than one candidate.

Subsequent steps

Immediately after full Acceptance, the Canon says, the shadow (time of day) should be measured. The length of the season should be told, the portion of the day told, along with the “rehearsal,” which, according to the Commentary, means drilling the candidate to make sure that he has memorized these three pieces of information. At present, the time is marked with a reliable clock or watch, and then recorded together with the date and the names of the preceptor and the announcing teachers.

The Canon also states that the four supports should be told immediately, and that the new bhikkhu be given a companion who will tell him of the four things never-to-be-done (i.e., the four pārājika rules). At present, the common practice is for the preceptor to tell both the four supports and the four things never-to-be-done immediately after the transaction statement. That concludes the procedure.

Rules

//Qualifications: Preceptor/Teacher//

“Bhikkhus, I allow a preceptor. The preceptor will foster the attitude he would have toward a son (‘son-mind’) with regard to the student. The student will foster the attitude he would have toward a father (‘father-mind’) with regard to the preceptor. Thus they — living with mutual respect, deference, and courtesy — will arrive at growth, increase, and maturity in this Dhamma-Vinaya.” — Mv.I.25.6

“(A candidate) should not be given Acceptance by (a bhikkhu) with less than ten rains. Whoever should (so) give Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing. I allow (a candidate) to be given Acceptance by (a bhikkhu) with ten rains or more.” — Mv.I.31.5

“(A candidate) should not be given Acceptance by an inexperienced, incompetent bhikkhu. Whoever should (so) give Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing. I allow (a candidate) to be given Acceptance by a bhikkhu with ten rains or more who is experienced and competent.” — Mv.I.31.8

“I allow a teacher. The teacher will foster the attitude he would have toward a son (‘son-mind’) with regard to the student. The student will foster the attitude he would have toward a father (‘father-mind’) with regard to the teacher. Thus they — living with mutual respect, deference, and courtesy — will arrive at growth, increase, and maturity in this Dhamma-Vinaya. I allow one to live in dependence for ten rains, and for dependence to be given by one with ten rains.” — Mv.I.32.1 (See Mv.I.53.4, below)

“Endowed with five qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him. He is not endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training … the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training … the aggregate of discernment of one beyond training … the aggregate of release of one beyond training … the aggregate of knowledge and vision of release of one beyond training. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him. He is endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training … the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training … the aggregate of discernment of one beyond training … the aggregate of release of one beyond training … the aggregate of knowledge and vision of release of one beyond training. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training, nor does he get others to undertake the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training. He himself is not endowed with the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training … the aggregate of discernment of one beyond training … the aggregate of release of one beyond training … the aggregate of knowledge and vision of release of one beyond training, nor does he get others to undertake the aggregate of knowledge and vision of release of one beyond training. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him. He himself is endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training and he gets others to undertake the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training. He himself is endowed with the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training … the aggregate of discernment of one beyond training … the aggregate of release of one beyond training … the aggregate of knowledge and vision of release of one beyond training and he gets others to undertake the aggregate of knowledge and vision of release of one beyond training. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him. He is without conviction, without a sense of shame, without compunction (in the American sense of the term, i.e., an unwillingness to do wrong for fear of its consequences), lazy, and of muddled mindfulness. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him. He has conviction, a sense of shame, compunction, his persistence is aroused, and his mindfulness established. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him. He is one who, in light of heightened virtue (§), is defective in his virtue. He is one who, in light of heightened conduct (§), is defective in his conduct. He is one who, in terms of higher views (§), is defective in his views. He is not learned. He is undiscerning. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him. He is one who, in light of heightened virtue, is not defective in his virtue. He is one who, in light of heightened conduct, is not defective in his conduct. He is one who, in terms of higher views, is not defective in his views. He is learned. He is discerning. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him. He is not competent to tend or to get someone else to tend to a sick pupil or student; to allay or to get someone else to allay dissatisfaction (with the celibate life); to dispel or to get someone else to dispel, in line with the Dhamma, anxiety that has arisen. He does not know what is an offense nor does he know the method for removing (lit: getting up out of) an offense. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him. He is competent to tend or to get someone else to tend to a sick pupil or student; to allay or to get someone else to allay dissatisfaction (with the celibate life); to dispel or to get someone else to dispel, in line with the Dhamma, anxiety that has arisen. He knows what is an offense, and he knows the method for removing an offense. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him. He is not competent to get his pupil or student to train in the training of the (bhikkhus’) customs. He is not competent to discipline him in the training that is basic to the celibate life; to discipline him in the higher Dhamma; to discipline him in the higher Vinaya; to pry away or to get someone else to pry away (following the PTS edition — the Thai and Sri Lankan editions simply say, “to pry away”), in line with the Dhamma, a (wrong) viewpoint that has arisen. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him. He is competent to get his pupil or student to train in the training of the (bhikkhus’) customs. He is competent to discipline him in the training that is basic to the celibate life; to discipline him in the higher Dhamma; to discipline him in the higher Vinaya; to pry away or to get someone else to pry away, in line with the Dhamma, a (wrong) viewpoint that has arisen. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him. He does not know what is an offense, what is not an offense, what is a light offense, what is a heavy offense. Both Pāṭimokkhas, in detail, have not been properly handed down to him, have not been properly explicated, have not been properly ‘revolved’ (§) (in terms of the ‘wheels’), have not been properly judged, clause by clause, letter by letter. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him. He knows what is an offense, what is not an offense, what is a light offense, what is a heavy offense. Both Pāṭimokkhas, in detail, have been properly handed down to him, properly explicated, properly ‘revolved,’ properly judged, clause by clause, letter by letter. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him. He does not know what is an offense, what is not an offense, what is a light offense, what is a heavy offense. He is of less than ten years’ standing. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and a novice should not be made to attend to him.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him. He knows what is an offense, what is not an offense, what is a light offense, what is a heavy offense. He is of ten years’ standing or more. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may give Acceptance, may give dependence, and a novice may be made to attend to him.” — Mv.I.36.2-17

(Mv.I.37 lists sets of six qualities that would qualify or disqualify a bhikkhu from giving Acceptance, giving dependence, or having a novice attend to him. These sets are identical to Mv.I.36.2-15, with the sentence, “He is of less than ten years standing,” added to each set of five disqualifying factors given there; and the sentence, “He is of ten years’ standing or more,” added to each set of five qualifying factors.)

Dependence

“Dependence should not be given by an inexperienced, incompetent (bhikkhu). Whoever should (so) give it: an offense of wrong doing. I allow dependence to be given by a bhikkhu with ten rains or more who is experienced and competent.” — Mv.I.35.2

“Dependence should not be given to one who is unconscientious. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing” …. “One should not live in dependence under one who is unconscientious. Whoever should (so) live (in dependence): an offense of wrong doing” …. (Bhikkhus asked, “Now, how are we to know who is conscientious and who is not?”) …. “I allow that you wait four or five days (and can decide), ‘As far as I know from his compatibility (§) with (his fellow) bhikkhus.’” — Mv.I.72

“And here is how a preceptor is to be taken. Arranging the upper robe over one shoulder, bowing down to his feet, kneeling down with hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart, one is to say this: ‘Venerable sir, be my preceptor. Venerable sir, be my preceptor. Venerable sir, be my preceptor.’ If he (the preceptor) indicates by gesture, by speech, by gesture and speech, ‘Very well’ or ‘Certainly’ or ‘All right’ or ‘It is proper’ or ‘Attain consummation in an amicable way,’ he is taken as preceptor. If he does not indicate (this) by gesture, by speech, or by gesture and speech, he is not taken as preceptor.” — Mv.I.25.7

Duties of a student to his preceptor — Mv.I.25.8-24

Duties of a preceptor to his student — Mv.I.26

“A pupil is not not to behave rightly toward his preceptor. Whoever does not behave rightly: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.27.1

“One who behaves rightly is not to be dismissed. Whoever dismisses (him): an offense of wrong doing. One who does not behave rightly is not not to be dismissed. Whoever does not dismiss (him): an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.27.5

“I allow that one who does not behave rightly be dismissed. And this is how he is to be dismissed. ‘I dismiss you,’ ‘Don’t come back here,’ ‘Take away your robes and bowl,’ or ‘I am not to be attended to by you’: If one communicates this by way of the body, by way of speech, or by way of body and speech, the pupil is dismissed. If one does not communicate this by way of the body, by way of speech, or by way of body and speech, the pupil is not dismissed.” — Mv.I.27.2

Now at that time, pupils, having been dismissed, did not ask for forgiveness…. “I allow that they ask for forgiveness.” They still didn’t ask for forgiveness …. “One who has been dismissed is not not to ask for forgiveness. Whoever does not ask for forgiveness: an offense of wrong doing.” Now at that time, preceptors, having been asked for forgiveness, did not forgive…. “I allow that forgiveness be given.” They still didn’t forgive. The pupils went away, renounced the training, and even joined other religions…. “One who has been asked to forgive should not not forgive. Whoever does not forgive: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.27.3-4

“A pupil endowed with five qualities may be dismissed. With regard to his preceptor he does not have strong affection, does not have strong confidence, does not have a strong sense of shame, does not have strong respect, does not have strong development (in the practice). A pupil endowed with these five qualities may be dismissed. A pupil endowed with five qualities should not be dismissed. With regard to his preceptor he has strong affection, has strong confidence, has a strong sense of shame, has strong respect, has strong development. A pupil endowed with these five qualities should not be dismissed.” — Mv.I.27.6

“When a pupil is endowed with five qualities he is properly dismissed (as in Mv.I.27.6).” — Mv.I.27.7

“When a pupil is endowed with five qualities, the preceptor, in not dismissing him, has transgressed; in dismissing him, he has not transgressed (as in Mv.I.27.6).” — Mv.I.27.8

Request for a teacher; a student’s duties to his teacher — Mv.I.32.2-3

Duties of a teacher to his student — Mv.I.33

Dismissing and forgiving a student — Mv.I.34 ( = Mv.I.27.1-8)

“There are these five lapses in dependence on one’s preceptor: The preceptor goes away, renounces the training, dies, joins (another) faction [according to the Commentary, this means another religion, but it could also mean another faction in a split Community], or, as the fifth, (gives) a command. These are the five lapses in dependence on one’s preceptor.

“There are these six lapses in dependence on one’s teacher: The teacher goes away, renounces the training, dies, joins (another) faction, or, as the fifth, (gives) a command. Or, one is joined with one’s preceptor. These are the six lapses in dependence on one’s teacher.” — Mv.I.36.1

“Endowed with five qualities, a bhikkhu should not live independently (of a preceptor or teacher). He is not endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training … the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training … the aggregate of discernment of one beyond training … the aggregate of release of one beyond training … the aggregate of knowledge and vision of release of one beyond training. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not live independently.

“Endowed with five qualities, a bhikkhu may live independently. He is endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training … the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training … the aggregate of discernment of one beyond training … the aggregate of release of one beyond training … the aggregate of knowledge and vision of release of one beyond training. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may live independently.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu should not live independently. He is without conviction, without a sense of shame, without compunction, lazy, and of muddled mindfulness. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not live independently.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu may live independently. He has conviction, a sense of shame, compunction, his persistence is aroused, and his mindfulness established. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may live independently.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu should not live independently. He is one who, in light of heightened virtue (§), is defective in his virtue. He is one who, in light of heightened conduct (§), is defective in his conduct. He is one who, in terms of higher views (§), is defective in his views. He is not learned. He is undiscerning. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not live independently.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu may live independently. He is one who, in light of heightened virtue, is not defective in his virtue. He is one who, in light of heightened conduct, is not defective in his conduct. He is one who, in terms of higher views, is not defective in his views. He is learned. He is discerning. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may live independently.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu should not live independently. He does not know what is an offense, what is not an offense, what is a light offense, what is a heavy offense. Both Pāṭimokkhas, in detail, have not been properly handed down to him, have not been properly explicated, have not been properly ‘revolved’ (in terms of the ‘wheels’), have not been properly judged, clause by clause, letter by letter. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not live independently.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu may live independently. He knows what is an offense, what is not an offense, what is a light offense, what is a heavy offense. Both Pāṭimokkhas, in detail, have been properly handed down to him, properly explicated, properly ‘revolved,’ properly judged, clause by clause, letter by letter. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may live independently.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu should not live independently. He does not know what is an offense, what is not an offense, what is a light offense, what is a heavy offense. He is of less than five years’ standing. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu should not live independently.

“Endowed with five further qualities, a bhikkhu may live independently. He knows what is an offense, what is not an offense, what is a light offense, what is a heavy offense. He is of five years’ standing or more. Endowed with these five qualities, a bhikkhu may live independently.” — Mv.I.53.5-9

(Mv.I.53.10-13 lists sets of six qualities that would qualify or disqualify a bhikkhu from living independently. These sets are identical to Mv.I.53.5-8, with the sentence, “He is of less than five years standing,” added to each set of five disqualifying factors; and the sentence, “He is of five years’ standing or more,” added to each set of five qualifying factors.)

“I allow an experienced, competent bhikkhu to live five years in dependence, and an inexperienced one all his life.” — Mv.I.53.4

“I allow a bhikkhu who is going on a journey and unable to get dependence, to live independently” …. “I allow a bhikkhu who is ill and unable to get dependence, to live independently” …. “I allow a bhikkhu who is tending to the ill and unable to get dependence, to live independently even if he is requested [C: by the ill bhikkhu to take dependence under him]” …. “I allow a bhikkhu living in the wilderness and contemplating (§) in comfort to live independently, (thinking,) ‘When an appropriate giver of dependence comes along, I will live in dependence on him.’” — Mv.I.73

Qualifications: Applicant

“There are these two admittances (§). There is the individual who is not liable for admittance who, if the Community admits him, in some cases is wrongly admitted and in some cases rightly admitted. And which is the individual who has not been granted admittance who, if the Community admits him, is wrongly admitted? A paṇḍaka … one living in affiliation by theft … one who has gone over (while a bhikkhu) to another religion … an animal … a matricide … a patricide … a murderer of an arahant … a molester of a bhikkhunī … a schismatic … one who has shed (a Tathāgata’s) blood … a hermaphrodite not yet granted admittance, if granted admittance, is wrongly admitted [C: No matter how many times that person may be granted Acceptance, he/she does not count as a bhikkhu].” — Mv.IX.4.10

“And which is the individual who is not liable for admittance who, if the Community admits him, is rightly admitted? One with a hand cut off … a foot cut off … a hand and foot cut off … an ear cut off … a nose cut off … an ear and nose cut off… a finger/toe cut off … a thumb or big toe cut off … a cut tendon … one who has webbed fingers … a bent-over person … a dwarf … one with a goiter … one who has been branded … one who has been whipped … one for whom a warrant has been sent out … one with a club foot/elephantiasis … one who has an evil illness … one who disgraces the assembly … one who is blind in one eye … one who has a crooked limb … one who is lame … one half-paralyzed … a cripple … one weak from old age … one who is blind … dumb … deaf … blind and dumb … blind and deaf (§) … deaf and dumb … blind and deaf and dumb not yet granted admittance, if granted admittance, is rightly admitted.” — Mv.IX.4.11

Absolutely Unqualified

“An individual less than 20 years old should not knowingly be given Acceptance. Whoever should give him Acceptance is to be dealt with in accordance with the rule (Pc 65).” — Mv.I.49.6

“When in the mother’s womb the mind first arises and consciousness first appears, in dependence on that is one’s birth. I allow that Acceptance be given to one (at least) twenty years after becoming a fetus.” — Mv.I.75

“A paṇḍaka, if unaccepted (unordained), is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled.” — Mv.I.61.2

“A person in affiliation through theft, if unaccepted, is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled. One who has gone over (while a bhikkhu) to another religion, if unaccepted, is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled.” — Mv.I.62.3

“An animal, if unaccepted, is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled.” — Mv.I.63.5

“A matricide, if unaccepted, is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled.” — Mv.I.64.2

“A patricide, if unaccepted, is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled.” — Mv.I.65

“A murderer of an arahant, if unaccepted, is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled.” — Mv.I.66.2

“A molester of a bhikkhunī, if unaccepted, is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled. A schismatic, if unaccepted, is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled. One who has shed (a Tathāgata’s) blood, if unaccepted, is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled.” — Mv.I.67

“A hermaphrodite, if unaccepted, is not to be given Acceptance. If accepted, he is to be expelled.” — Mv.I.68

Undesirable

“A son whose parents have not given their permission should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.54.6

“One who is afflicted with any of the five diseases (leprosy, boils, eczema, tuberculosis, epilepsy) should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.39.7

“One who is in the king’s (government) service should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.40.4

“A criminal who is ‘wrapped in a flag’ should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.41.1

“A criminal who has broken his shackles should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.42.2

“A criminal for whom a warrant has been sent out should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.43.1

“A man who has been whipped (or caned) as punishment should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.44.1

“A man who has been branded (or tattooed) as punishment should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.45.1

“A debtor should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.46.1

“A slave should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.47.1

“One with a hand cut off … a foot cut off … a hand and foot cut off … an ear cut off … a nose cut off … an ear and nose cut off … a finger/toe cut off … a thumb or big toe cut off … a cut tendon (§) … one who has webbed fingers … a bent-over person … a dwarf … one with a goiter … one who has been branded … one who has been whipped … one for whom a warrant has been sent out … one with a club foot/elephantisis … one who has an evil illness … one who disgraces the assembly … one who is blind in one eye … one who has a crooked limb … one who is lame … one half-paralyzed … a cripple … one weak from old age … one who is blind … dumb … deaf … blind and dumb … blind and deaf (§) … deaf and dumb … blind and deaf and dumb should not be given the Going-forth. Whoever should give it: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.71.2

Unprepared

“One without a preceptor is not to be given Acceptance. Whoever should give him Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.69.1

“One who has a Community as his preceptor is not to be given Acceptance. Whoever should give him Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.69.2

“One who has a group as his preceptor is not to be given Acceptance. Whoever should give him Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.69.3

“One who has a paṇḍaka … a person living in affiliation by theft … a bhikkhu who has gone over (while a bhikkhu) to another religion … an animal … a matricide … a patricide … a murderer of an arahant … a molester of a bhikkhunī … a schismatic … one who has shed (a Tathāgata’s) blood … a hermaphrodite as his preceptor is not to be given Acceptance. Whoever should give him Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.69.4

“One without a bowl is not to be given Acceptance. Whoever should give him Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.70.1

“One without robes is not to be given Acceptance. Whoever should give him Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.70.2

“One without a bowl and robes is not to be given Acceptance. Whoever should give him Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.70.3

“One with a borrowed bowl is not to be given Acceptance. Whoever should give him Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.70.4

“One with borrowed robes is not to be given Acceptance. Whoever should give him Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.70.5

“One with borrowed robes and bowl is not to be given Acceptance. Whoever should give him Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing.” — Mv.I.70.6

Reordination

“There is the case where a bhikkhu, suspended for not seeing an offense, renounces the training. Having later returned, he asks the bhikkhus for Acceptance. He is to be told, ‘Will you see this offense?’ If he says Yes, he may be given the Going-forth. If he says No, he is not to be given the Going-forth. Having gone forth, he is to be asked, ‘Will you see this offense?’ If he says Yes, he may be given Acceptance. If he says No, he is not to be given Acceptance. Having been given Acceptance, he is to be asked, ‘Will you see this offense?’ If he says Yes, he may be restored. If he says No, he is not to be restored. Having been restored, he is to be asked, ‘Do you see this offense?’ If he says Yes, that is good. If he says No, then if unity can be obtained, he is to be suspended again. If unity cannot be obtained, there is no offense in communing or affiliating with him.” — Mv.I.79.2

One suspended for not making amends for an offense — Mv.I.79.3

One suspended for not relinquishing an evil view — Mv.I.79.4

Convert

“Bhikkhus, one who was previously a member of another religion and who, when spoken to by his preceptor regarding a rule, refutes his preceptor and goes over to the fold of that very religion, on returning should not be given Acceptance. But whoever else was previously a member of another religion and desires the Going-forth, desires Acceptance in this Dhamma-Vinaya, is to be given probation for four months.” — Mv.I.38.1

Procedure for granting probation — Mv.I.38.1-4

“And how is one who was previously a member of another religion pleasing (to the bhikkhus), and how is one who was previously a member of another religion displeasing? There is the case where one who was previously a member of another religion enters the village too early, returns too late in the day. This is how one who was previously a member of another religion is displeasing.

“Then again one who was previously a member of another religion associates with a prostitute … with a widow/divorced woman … with a ‘fat princess’ (male transvestite?) … with a paṇḍaka … with a bhikkhunī. This, too, is how one who was previously a member of another religion is displeasing.

“Then again one who was previously a member of another religion is not adept at the major and minor affairs involving his fellows in the holy life, is not dexterous, not diligent, not quick-witted in the techniques involved in them, is not able/willing to do them or get others to do them. This, too, is how one who was previously a member of another religion is displeasing.

“Then again one who was previously a member of another religion does not have a keen desire for recitation, interrogation, heightened virtue, heightened mind, heightened discernment. This, too, is how one who was previously a member of another religion is displeasing.

“Then again one who was previously a member of another religion feels angered, displeased, and upset if dispraise is spoken of the teacher, the view, the persuasion, the preferences, the belief of the religion from which he has come over. He feels gratified, pleased, and elated if dispraise is spoken of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha …

“When there comes one previously a member of another religion who is displeasing in this way, he should not be given Acceptance.

“And how is one who was previously a member of another religion pleasing? There is the case where one who was previously a member of another religion enters the village not too early, returns not too late in the day. This is how one who was previously a member of another religion is pleasing.

“Then again one who was previously a member of another religion does not associate with a prostitute … with a widow/divorced woman … with a “fat princess” (male transvestite?) … with a paṇḍaka … with a bhikkhunī. This, too, is how one who was previously a member of another religion is pleasing.

“Then again one who was previously a member of another religion is adept at the various affairs involving his fellows in the holy life, is dexterous, diligent, quick-witted in the techniques involved in them, is able/willing to do them or to get others to do them. This, too, is how one who was previously a member of another religion is pleasing.

“Then again one who was previously a member of another religion has a keen desire for recitation, interrogation, heightened virtue, heightened mind, heightened discernment. This, too, is how one who was previously a member of another religion is pleasing.

“Then again one who was previously a member of another religion feels gratified, pleased, and elated if dispraise is spoken of the teacher, the view, the persuasion, the preferences, the belief of the religion from which he has come over. He feels angered, displeased, and upset if dispraise is spoken of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha …

“When there comes one previously a member of another religion who is pleasing in this way, he may be given Acceptance.” — Mv.I.38.5-10

“If one who was previously a member of another religion comes naked, the preceptor should be in charge of searching out a robe for him. If he comes without the hair of his head cut off, the Community should be informed for the sake of shaving it. (See Mv.I.48.2 below.) If fire-worshipping and coiled-hair ascetics come, they may be given Acceptance. They are not to be given probation. Why is that? They teach a doctrine of kamma, they teach a doctrine of action. If there comes one who was previously a member of another religion who is a Sakyan by birth, he may be given Acceptance. He is not to be given probation. I give this special privilege to my relatives.” — Mv.I.38.11

Procedure

“I allow that the Community be informed for the sake of shaving the head (of a person to be ordained).” — Mv.I.48.2

“Bhikkhus, I allow the Going-forth and the Acceptance by means of these three goings for refuge.” — Mv.I.12.4

“I rescind from this day forth the Acceptance by means of the three goings for refuge (previously) allowed by me. I allow Acceptance by means of a transaction with one motion and three proclamations.” — Mv.I.28.3

“(A candidate) should not be given Acceptance by a group of fewer than ten. Whoever should (so) give Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing. I allow that (a candidate) be given Acceptance by a group of ten or more.” — Mv.I.31.2

“I allow in all outlying districts Acceptance by a group with a Vinaya expert as the fifth.” — Mv.V.13.11

Definition of outlying districts — Mv.V.13.12

Original transaction statement — Mv.I.28.4-6

Transaction statement after the request — Mv.I.29.3-4 (See Mv.I.76.7-12 for the complete transaction statement)

Procedure for giving the Going-forth — Mv.I.54.3

Procedure for requesting dependence under a preceptor. — Mv.I.25.7

“(A candidate) should not be given Acceptance by (a Community) that has not been requested. Whoever should (so) give Acceptance: an offense of wrong doing. I allow that (a candidate) be given Acceptance by (a Community) that has been requested.” — Mv.I.29.1

Request — Mv.I.29.2

“I allow, when giving Acceptance, that the thirteen (§) obstructing factors be asked about.” — Mv.I.76.1

“I allow that, having first having instructed (the candidate), the thirteen (§) obstructing factors be asked about.” — Mv.I.76.2

“I allow that, having first having instructed (the candidate) off to one side, the thirteen (§) obstructing factors be asked about in the midst of the Community. And this is how he is to be instructed. First he is to be made to take a preceptor (see Mv.I.25.7). After he has been made to take a preceptor, he is to be told about the robes and bowl: ‘This is your bowl, this your outer robe, this your upper robe, this your lower robe. Go stand in that spot over there.’” — Mv.I.76.3

Words of instruction off to one side — Mv.I.76.7 (= Mv.I.76.1)

“(A candidate) is not to be instructed by an inexperienced, incompetent bhikkhu. Whoever should so instruct him: an offense of wrong doing. I allow that (a candidate) be instructed by an experienced, competent bhikkhu.” — Mv.I.76.4

“(A candidate) is not to be instructed by a bhikkhu who is not authorized. Whoever should so instruct him: an offense of wrong doing. I allow that (a candidate) be instructed by an authorized bhikkhu.” — Mv.I.76.5

Procedure for self-authorization — Mv.I.76.5

Procedure for authorization by another — Mv.I.76.6

(They — the instructing teacher and the candidate — returned together) “They should not return together. The Community is to be informed by the instructing teacher, who has returned first.” — Mv.I.76.8

Words for informing the Community and calling the candidate into the midst of the Community — Mv.I.76.8

Complete transaction statement — Mv.I.76.9-12

“I allow a single proclamation to be made for two or three if they have the same preceptor, but not if they have different preceptors.” — Mv.I.74.3

“The shadow (time of day) should be measured at once. The length of the season told, the portion of the day told, the rehearsal told, the four supports told.” — Mv.I.77

“I allow, when giving Acceptance, that the four supports be told.” — Mv.I.30.4

Wording of the four supports — Mv.I.30.4

“The supports should not be told beforehand. Whoever should tell (them beforehand): an offense of wrong doing. I allow the supports to be told immediately after one has been given Acceptance.” — Mv.I.31.1

“I allow that when one has been given Acceptance he be given a companion and that the four things never-to-be-done be told to him.” — Mv.I.78.2

The four things never-to-be-done — Mv.I.78.2-5

</div>

top

Provenance:

This Zugang zur Einsicht edition is 2019

Scope of this Dhamma-Gift: You may copy, reformat, reprint, republish, and redistribute this work in any medium whatsoever, provided that: (1) you only make such copies, etc. available free of charge; (2) you clearly indicate that any derivatives of this work (including translations) are derived from this source document; and (3) you include the full text of this license in any copies or derivatives of this work. Otherwise, all rights reserved. For additional information about this license, see the FAQ.

How to cite this document (one suggested style):

Help | About | Contact | Scope of the Dhamma gift | Collaboration
Anumodana puñña kusala!

User Tools

Site Tools

Sidebar