Adhikarana-Samatha
1. A verdict "in the presence of" should be given. This means that the formal act settling the issue must be carried out in the presence of the Community, in the presence of the individuals, and in the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya.
2. A verdict of mindfulness may be given. This is the verdict of innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that the accused remembers fully that she did not commit the offense in question.
3. A verdict of past insanity may be given. This is another verdict of innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that the accused was out of her mind when she committed the offense in question and so is absolved of any responsibility for it.
4. Acting in accordance with what is admitted. This refers to the ordinary confession of offenses, where no formal interrogation is involved. The confession is valid only if in accord with the facts, e.g., a bhikkhuni actually commits a pacittiya offense and then confesses it as such, and not as a stronger or lesser offense. If she were to confess it as a dukkata or a sanghadisesa, that would be invalid.
5. Acting in accordance with the majority. This refers to cases in which bhikkhunis are unable to settle a dispute unanimously, even after all the proper procedures are followed, and — in the words of the Canon — are "wounding one another with weapons of the tongue." In cases such as these, decisions can be made by majority vote.
6. Acting in accordance with the accused's further misconduct. This refers to cases where a bhikkhuni admits to having committed the offense in question only after being formally interrogated about it. She is then to be reproved for her actions, made to remember the offense and to confess it, after which the Community carries out a formal act of "further misconduct" against her as an added punishment for being so uncooperative as to require the formal interrogation in the first place.
7. Covering over as with grass. This refers to situations in which both sides of a dispute realize that, in the course of their dispute, they have done much that is unworthy of a contemplative. If they were to deal with one another for their offenses, the only result would be greater divisiveness. Thus if both sides agree, all the bhikkhunis gather in one place. (According to the Commentary, this means that all bhikkhunis in the sima must attend. No one should send her consent, and even sick bhikkhunis must go.) A motion is made to the entire group that this procedure will be followed. One member of each side then makes a formal motion to the members of her faction that she will make a confession for them. When both sides are ready, the representative of each side addresses the entire group and makes the blanket confession, using the form of a motion and one announcement (natti-dutiya-kamma).
Endnotes [go up]
1. When a Community's kathina privileges are in effect, all cloth presented to the their residence is in-season cloth, and it is to be distributed only among the residents who spent the rains retreat in that residence and participated in the spreading of the kathina (see Mv 7.1.3). Other bhikkhunis have no share in it. However, if donors wish to give cloth to those other bhikkhunis, they can declare their intention, in which the cloth — even though given "in-season" — counts as out-of-season cloth. In this case, the later arrivals have a right to a share. In the origin story to this rule, donors make such a gift. The offending bhikkhuni, not wanting to share the gift with the later arrivals for whom it was intended, declares it to be in-season cloth, and shares it only with the bhikkhunis who spent the rains retreat in that residence.
2. The origin story here shows that lay donors, of their own initiative, set the fund aside with a storekeeper for one purpose, and then the bhikkhuni asks for it to be transferred — apparently to another store — and buys something else with it. This condition also applies to NP 9 & NP10.
3. This rule was formulated after bhikkhunis went off on a journey without their outer robes, thus inconveniencing the bhikkhunis who stayed behind, who had to sun the robes to keep them from going moldy. The Word-commentary states that a bhikkhuni, at least once every five days, must put on or dry in the sun all five of her robes: this is the five-day outer robe period.
4. BD misinterprets not only the rule here, but also its explanatory material in the Bhikkhuni Vibhanga. The Pali of the rule is: Ya pana bhikkhuni gihi-veyyavaccam kareyya, pacittiyanti. BD translates it as: "Whatever nun should do household work, there is an offence of expiation." Gihi, however, means lay person or, more literally, "house-person," not household. This is confirmed by the word-commentary's definition of gihi-veyyavaccam: "She cooks conjey or a meal or a non-staple food, or washes a piece of clothing or a head-wrap for a person living in a house (agarika)."
In the non-offense clauses, BD translates attano veyyavaccakarassa as "in doing household work for herself." This omits the -kara- in the second term, thus changing veyyavaccakara (chore-doer) to veyyavacca (chore). The correct translation is, "for her own chore-doer."
Thus the non-offense clauses, as a set, read: "There is no offense in conjey-drink, in a community meal, in homage to a chedi, or if she cooks conjey or a meal or a non-staple food, or washes a piece of clothing or a head-wrap for her own chore-doer." The Commentary explains: "In conjey-drink, etc.: When people are making a community meal or a conjey-drink for the purpose of the Community, there is no offense in her doing any cooking at all in the position of being a friend of theirs. In homage to a chedi: It is all right if, being a friend, she does homage with scents, etc. For her own chore-doer: Even if (her) mother and father come and are making/doing something (such as) a fan or a broom handle and so stand in the position of a chore-doer, it is all right to cook anything (for them)."
5. In the origin story, a bhikkhuni spreads lies about the road to a particular family's house, saying that it is infested with fierce dogs and a wild bull, in order to discourage other bhikkhunis from going there and receiving a share of the family's donations.
6. The six precepts are the first six of the eight precepts.
7. In the origin story, the new bhikkhuni's husband seizes her right after her ordination.
8. "Left-over giving of consent" (parivasika-chanda-dana) means that consent has been given by the Community of bhikkhus in that territory for a particular group to conduct Community business, but then the group gets up and leaves before dealing with the issue in question (on this point, see Mv 2.36.4). In the origin story for this rule, the offending bhikkhuni dismisses the group that had received consent to carry out the Acceptance transaction and then — under the ruse of the consent given to that group — convenes another group of bhikkhus less likely to pay attention to the deficiencies in the candidate she is proposing.
9. Asking a question related to the Vinaya can be the first step in admonishment and making accusations (see Mv 2.15.6-8), which is why this rule is related to the eighth of the eight vows of respect (against a bhikkhuni admonishing a bhikkhu). As Horner notes in BD, the word-commentary to this rule is one of the few places in the Vinaya that apparently refers to the Abhidhamma as a text — thus indicating that either the rule or its word-commentary is a later formulation.
10. "An unordained person": The Pali here has the feminine form — unordained female person — but none of the commentaries explain why.
11. "An unordained person": Again, the Pali here has the feminine form — unordained female person — but none of the commentaries explain why.
Read More...!