NOTES
Note A
This appears in “Mahā-Vibhaṅga of the Vinaya-Piṭaka from the Pāli Canon,” primarily using the Myanmar Sixth Council edition of the Tipiṭaka. The text uses the phrase “Pārājika dhamma” – that is, a phenomenon that is Pārājika. For the sake of brevity, this phrase has been rendered simply as “Pārājika,” rather than as “Pārājika phenomenon.”
Note B
Pondering on the word ‘striking,’ I thought to give a more inclusive definition. As Tsong Khapa (c. 1357-1419) explained in his “Commentary on the Rules for Novice Monks,” this originally referred to ‘striking’ as strikings. Geshe Jampa Gyatso (July 1998), in “Commentary of Novice Vows,” gives two examples that demonstrate th meaning of ‘striking.’ In greater depth: 1. If a Getsul irrigates a field with water where there are fish and when the water is absorbed, the fish die. 2. Watering flowers that have insects on them and the insects die.
Note C
Using something containing an animal for self or other. Rule #47 (Cultivating, 180) does not explicitly say ‘for other,’ but I have not found a separate training rule ‘for other.’ However, it seems implicit that drinking water containing insects, or gathering such water for someone else, would be the same activity to renounce.
Note D
Horner, I.B., trans., in The Book of Discipline, proposes (1982, xxi), “Stealing is ranked as the gravest kind of offense not because civilization agrees, but it is wrong to take something not given. It was particularly reprehensible for a monastic to steal, since at the time of the ordination, he or she has renounced all claims to personal possessions.
Note E
There are differences between training rules 8, Baseless Defamation, indicating the accuser links the act with the performer, and 9, Implying a Wrongdoing. According to Geshe Tashi Tsering (The Novice Precepts, trans. Ven Lozang Zopa (2003), the slight difference is imagining there is a link between the performance of an act with the performer. This is demonstrated in the incident prompting the rule.
Note F
Even since I was ordained, I never understood the meaning of a ‘remainder.’ Therefore, perhaps other Getsulmas/Getsuls (novices) also may need some explanation. Mogchok, Rinpoche, in Vinaya Teaching (March-June 1997), and Thānissaro, Code I, list a number of remainders:
Groundless accusation
Implies a wrongdoing
Causes a schism in the sangha
A follower of a schism
Disturbing householders
Intentional emission (masturbation)
Contacting by touching
Sexual language
Recommending services
Being a go-between of a house (a large religious house)
Insinuation
Not heeding instructions.
An accusation of a remainder can be explicit or implied. Geshe Tsering Tashi (2003) emphasizes that only a Gelong/fully ordained monk can incur a remainder.
Note G
Within the five resources, this incident is the closest that I found to Renouciation Rule 17.
Note H
Singing/dancing/music’ is classified under a Khandhaka in the Cullavagga (see Glossary), which adds the rule about ‘not seeing or hearing’ as misbehaving, expanding the impact of the training rule.
Note I
Thānissaro (BMC1, 503-505) comments that the high seat is armless, large enough to sit on but not lie on, and lower than a bed. In addition, the expensive bed or seat stuffing is down from plant life: kapok, flax fibers, jute, and cotton. Not only are bhikkus/bhikkunis forbidden to make expensive beds or seats; they are forbidden to sit or lie on this type of furnishing in a lay person’s home.