[reload all]
[simple read]

Deutsch បកប្រែខ្មែរ English/Pali
Mv IX 06
PTS: Mv IX 4.9 | CS: vin.mv.09.06
Dvenissāraṇādikathā
The Discussion of Two Expulsions, etc.
by
Ven. Khematto Bhikkhu
Alternate translations/layout: 'line by line' Pāḷi - English

(Mv.IX.4.9) [194] There are these two expulsions. There is the individual who has not been subjected to expulsion [has not been expelled] who, if the Saṅgha expels him, in some cases is wrongly expelled and in some cases rightly expelled.[1]

“And which is the individual who has not been subjected to expulsion who, if the Saṅgha expels him, is wrongly expelled?

“Monks, there is the case where a monk is pure and without offense. If the Saṅgha expels him, he is wrongly expelled.[2]

“This is called the individual who has not been subjected to expulsion who, if the Saṅgha expels him, is wrongly expelled.

“And which is the individual who has not been subjected to expulsion who, if the Saṅgha expels him, is rightly expelled?

“Monks, there is the case where a monk is inexperienced and incompetent, indiscriminately full of offenses, living in the company of householders, in unbecoming association with householders[3]. If the Saṅgha expels him, he is rightly expelled.

“This is called the individual who has not been subjected to expulsion who, if the Saṅgha expels him, is rightly expelled.

(Mv.IX.4.10) [195] “There are these two restorations. There is the individual who is not eligible for restoration who, if the Saṅgha restores him, in some cases is rightly restored and in some cases wrongly restored.[4]

“And which is the individual who has not been granted restoration who, if the Saṅgha restores him, is wrongly restored?

“A paṇḍaka who has not been granted restoration, if the Saṅgha restores him, is wrongly restored.

“One living in affiliation by theft …

“One who has gone over (while a monk) 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 the Saṅgha restores him, is wrongly restored.”[5]

“Monks, this is called the individual who has not been granted restoration who, if the Saṅgha restores him, is wrongly restored.

(Mv.IX.4.11) “And which is the individual who is not liable for admittance who, if the Saṅgha admits him, is rightly admitted?

“One with a hand cut off, if the Saṅgha admits him, is rightly admitted.

“One with a foot cut off …

“One with a hand and foot cut off … one with an ear cut off … one with a nose cut off … one with an ear and nose cut off… one with a finger/toe cut off … one with a thumb/big toe cut off … one with 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.”

“Monks, this is called the individual who has not been granted restoration who, if the Saṅgha restores him, is rightly restored.

The First Recitation Section, on Vāsabha Village (is finished).

Notes

1.
Commentay: “There are these two expulsions,” etc.: This is said of the reversibility or irreversibility of the transaction, based on its grounds.
In that case, “There is an individual who has not been subjected to expulsion: If the Saṅgha expels him, he is rightly expelled”: this is said in connection to the banishment transaction. One is expelled from the dwelling by a banishment transaction, thus it is called “expulsion”. Because he is not a corrupter of families, he has not fulfilled the defining characteristic (of the banishment transaction). But because it is said that if the Saṅgha wants to, it may impose a banishment transaction [See Cv.I.14 for other things that can be grounds for banishment.] on him, he is rightly expelled.
Commentay: “If the Saṅgha expels him”: If the Saṅgha expels him with a censure transaction, etc. [This includes many of the other disciplinary transactions.], then because expulsion is allowed for (one with) even one factor: “Monks, if it wants to, a Saṅgha may impose a censure transaction on (any of) three monks: one who is a maker of strife, quarrels, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Saṅgha; one who is inexperienced and incompetent, indiscriminately full of offenses; and one who lives in the company of householders, in unbecoming association with householders,” he is rightly expelled.
2.
BMCI: As 2, Pure.
3.
See Cv.I.14.
4.
Mv.I.71.1.
5.
Commentary: “Wrongly restored”: wrongly restored. Even if he is granted Acceptance a thousand times, he’s still unaccepted. The preceptor and (chanting) teachers have overstepped their bounds, as have the remainder of the Saṅgha doing (the transaction). None of them avoids an offense. Thus these eleven incapable individuals are wrongly restored. However, the 32 beginning with one with a hand cut off are rightly restored. If they are granted Acceptance then they are simply accepted. Nothing can be said to them [i.e., criticize them as not being accepted]. But the preceptor, (chanting) teachers and the Saṅgha doing (the transaction) have overstepped their bounds. None of them avoids an offense. (Mv.I.71.1)
[previous page][next page]