English
and a novice is standing, and the bhikkhu says, "I will speak to the seated one," there is no offense. If the young bhikkhu stands, and the other is seated, and the bhikkhu says, "I will speak to the standing one," there is also no offense. If there is one novice seated among many bhikkhus, and one recites the Dhamma word by word while that novice is seated, The teacher is not at fault. If the novice, having left the vicinity, is standing or sitting, he is not included among those to whom the teaching is given. It is considered that he takes the text of escape in one direction. Therefore, there is no offense. Even when reciting together, a fully ordained monk reciting with an unordained person recites with that person; there is no offense. Even when receiving a lesson from an unordained person, reciting together with that person, there is no offense. This too is considered as reciting together. When one is prompting someone reciting a text that is mostly memorized, if one line of a stanza does not come, but the rest does, this is called a text that is mostly memorized. In this way, it should be understood in the suttas as well. Prompting such a person, even saying "recite thus" and reciting together, there is no offense. Prompting someone who is faltering, who is reciting a sutta and hesitating in the midst of the assembly, even saying "speak thus" and speaking together with that person, there is no offense. However, in the Mahāpaccariya and other texts, it is said that if one is told, "Do not speak with me," and one speaks, "there is no offense." This is not in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, and its absence is appropriate. Why? Because it arises from action. Otherwise, it would be an action-inaction. The rest is clear in meaning. The origin of the offense concerning the word: It arises from speech and from speech and mind. It is an action, not a release from perception, without intention, a disciplinary offense, a verbal action, with three minds, with three feelings. The fourth training rule concerning the word. 5. Commentary on the Training Rule of Sleeping Together 49. In the fifth training rule: "Forgetful, not comprehending" is said in reference to not cultivating mindfulness and clear comprehension in the preceding stage. But when one has entered the subconscious (bhavaṅga), how can there be mindfulness and clear comprehension? "Vikūjamānā" means babbling. "Kākacchamānā" means making a meaningless sound like the caw of a crow with the nose. "Upāsakā" means lay followers who rose earlier. 50. "Etadavocuṃ" means "The Blessed One..." "Oh, friend Rāhula, a training rule has been laid down!" The bhikkhus spoke this out of reverence for the training rule. Naturally, out of reverence for the Blessed One and out of Rāhula's desire for training, when he came to the Venerable One's dwelling place, they would arrange a small couch or a backrest, whatever was available, and give him a robe or an upper garment to use as a pillow. Here is an example of his desire for training: The bhikkhus, seeing him coming from afar, would throw out a hand broom and a rubbish basket. Then, when others asked, "Friends, who threw this out?" others would say, "Venerable sir, Rāhula passed through this area, so perhaps he threw it out." But that Venerable One, without ever saying, "Venerable sirs, this is not my deed," would put it away, ask the bhikkhus for forgiveness, and then go. He made his bed in the latrine hut: Furthering that very desire for training, he did not go to the Commander of the Dhamma, the Great Moggallāna, the Elder Ānanda, and so on, but made his bed in the latrine hut used by the Blessed One. That hut, it is said, was secured with a door, perfumed with fragrant substances, and adorned with garlands of flowers, standing like a shrine, not for the use of others. 51. "More than two or three nights": The Blessed One, to show favor to the novices, allowed a period of two or three nights. For it is not proper to ordain sons of good families and then not to support them. "Sleeping together": sleeping in the same place. "Sleeping" (seyyā) is also said of the act of lying down, which is the stretching out of the body, and also of the sleeping place where one lies down. Here, to show the sleeping place, "a sleeping place that is completely covered," and so on, is said. To show the act of stretching out the body, "when an unordained person lies down, a bhikkhu lies down," and so on, is said. Therefore, the meaning here is: "Having entered a sleeping place, one should make, arrange, or accomplish the act of lying down." By "completely covered," and so on, the characteristic of that sleeping place is described. Therefore, whatever sleeping place A dwelling completely covered above with five coverings or with anything else, is called a "completely covered" dwelling. However, in the Commentaries, taking the common usage, it is said by rote, "A 'completely covered' dwelling is one covered with five coverings." Even if it is said so, it is not possible for one dwelling in a cloth hut to avoid an offense. Therefore, whatever is capable of covering, is to be understood here as a covering and as covered. For if only five kinds of coverings were taken, there would be no shared dwelling even in one covered with planks. But a dwelling which, from the ground up to the covering, is enclosed by a wall or by anything else, even by a cloth, is called a "completely enclosed" dwelling. Even if it is enclosed by a wall or the like, without reaching the covering, to the very last extent of one and a half cubits high, it is still a "completely enclosed" dwelling, as stated in the Kurundi Commentary. But a dwelling where most of the upper part is covered, and a little is uncovered, or where most of it is enclosed all around, and a little is unenclosed, is called "mostly covered" and "mostly enclosed." For a palace of seven stories, or a four-sided hall with a hundred rooms, if it is endowed with this characteristic, even if it has one approach, it is counted as a single dwelling. Referring to that, it is said, "On the fourth day, when the sun has set, if a bhikkhu lies down while an unordained person is lying down, there is an offense of pācittiya," and so on. There, the offense of pācittiya occurs merely by lying down. If there are many novices and one bhikkhu, the pācittiya offenses are counted by the number of novices. If they get up and lie down repeatedly, the bhikkhu incurs an offense for each act of theirs. But if the bhikkhu gets up and lies down repeatedly, the bhikkhu incurs an offense by his own act. If there are many bhikkhus and one novice, he causes an offense for all of them, and even if he gets up and lies down repeatedly, it is still an offense for the bhikkhus. The same rule applies if both are numerous. . And here, a group of four, even in one dwelling, should be understood. For whoever in one dwelling with one unordained person spends three nights sleeping together, for him, from the fourth day onwards, there is a daily offense. And whoever in the same dwelling with various unordained persons spends three nights sleeping together, for him too. And whoever in various dwellings with one unordained person spends three nights sleeping together, for him too. And whoever in various dwellings with various unordained persons, even having gone a hundred leagues, spends three nights sleeping together, for him too, from the fourth day onwards, there is a daily offense. And this offense of sleeping together, since it is said, “excluding a bhikkhu, the rest are called unordained,” occurs even with an animal. There, the definition for an animal should be understood in the same way as stated for the offense of sexual intercourse. Therefore, even if some creature like a monitor lizard, cat, or mongoose enters and sleeps in the bhikkhu's dwelling place or bed, in the same precinct, it is indeed sleeping together. But if, having entered through a hole in the hollow beam-end standing on the wall, of a building with walls not connected to the upper floor of a palace built on pillars, and having slept inside the beam, it goes out through that same hole, for the bhikkhu sleeping in the lower palace, there is no offense. If there is a hole in the roof, and having entered through it, it stays inside the roof and departs through that same hole, for one sleeping inside the roof on the upper floor, in a different precinct, there is an offense. For one sleeping on the lower floor, there is no offense. If they ascend through the inner palace itself and use all the floors, they are in the same precinct; for one sleeping anywhere among them, there is an offense. In a bed with a half-wall made as a small hall, if pigeons or the like enter and sleep among the wild animals' dens, it is indeed an offense. If they sleep outside the enclosure, within the outer boundary, there is no offense. Whether circular or square, a dwelling with a single roof, even if it has a hundred chambers, ...if, having entered through one common door, they enter all chambers whose inner precincts are not separated by a distinct wall, and an unordained person lies down in one chamber, there is an offense for those lying down in all chambers. If the chambers have a porch, and even if there is an uncovered high structure above the porch, one lying on the porch does not commit an offense for those lying in the chambers. But if the roof is connected with the roof of the chamber itself, one lying there commits an offense for everyone. Why? Because it is all covered, all enclosed, and its enclosure is indeed the enclosure of the chamber. Indeed, by this same method, in the commentaries, an offense is stated for the four gatehouses of the Lohapāsāda's enclosure. But what is said in the Andhaka Commentary: "No offense in an unenclosed porch" referring to a porch without a raised platform on the ground, that refers to the rows of chambers in the Andhaka country,