English
saying, "Venerable sirs, such and such a family has invited monks; come, let us go there." However, it is permissible to speak indirectly, saying, "Venerable sirs, in such and such a village, people wish for the arrival of monks; it would be good if you would show them favor." "Not the forest-dweller's practice" means that one should not undertake the ascetic practice of a forest-dweller being ashamed to announce it to those who come and go. Even if one has naturally undertaken it, one should take a second monk. In the forest, one should rise at dawn, and not dwell alone. Likewise, one should not undertake the ascetic practice of a reclusive alms-gatherer, being ashamed to sit at the end of the seating row in dining halls and the like. However, for one who is naturally an alms-gatherer, there is no prohibition. And not for that reason, thinking: "I will count the nights by staying in the monastery and eating after the meal has been brought out. If I see a monk going out and do not inform him, my night-counting would be interrupted," for this reason, alms food should not be brought out. "Lest they know me," thinking: "Lest even one monk knows me," with this intention, one is not allowed to have food cooked by novices in the monastery and eat it. One must enter the village for alms. However, for a sick person, or one engaged in new construction work, or duties for a preceptor or teacher, it is permissible to stay in the monastery. Even if many hundreds of monks are wandering in the village, and it is not possible to inform them, it is permissible to go to a village dwelling and stay in a suitable place. As for an arrival, one who has gone to any monastery should inform the monks there. If one sees all of them standing in one place, one should inform them while standing in that one place. If they are standing separately at the foot of trees and so on, one should go to each place and inform them. For one who intentionally does not inform, there is an interruption of the night-counting, and a dukkaṭa offense for breaking the rule. If, while searching, one does not see some, there is only an interruption of the night-counting, not a dukkaṭa offense for breaking the rule. As for a visitor, one who has come to one's own dwelling monastery, whether one or many, should be informed in the manner stated. The interruption of night-counting and the breaking of the rule should also be understood here in the manner stated. If visitors pass through the middle of the monastery, either after resting for a moment or without resting, they too should be informed. If they pass without his knowing, and he then knows at the time of their departure, he should go and inform them. If he is unable to reach them, there is only an interruption of the night-counting, not a dukkaṭa offense for breaking the rule. Even those who do not enter the monastery but cross the boundary of the precinct and pass by, they And if, hearing their umbrella sound, or coughing sound, or spitting sound, one knows them to be newcomers, one should go and inform them. Even if one knows them after they have gone, one should follow and inform them. For one unable to reach them, there is only a break in the night, not an offense of breaking the rule. Even one who comes at night and leaves at night, for him too there is a break in the night, but due to not being known, there is no offense of breaking the rule. If one performs the rehabilitation without knowing, it is as if not done, so it is said in the Kurundi. Therefore, it should be done by taking additional nights; this is the infallible practice. Seeing a bhikkhu going by boat in rivers etc., or standing on the opposite bank, or going through the air, or standing far away in mountain valleys, forests etc., if there is a determination "this is a bhikkhu," one should go by boat etc., or make a loud sound, or follow quickly and inform them. For one who does not inform, there is a break in the night and an offense of breaking the rule. If, even trying, one cannot reach or make them hear, there is only a break in the night, not an offense of breaking the rule. But Thera Saṅghasenābhaya speaks in terms of within and beyond reach: "Indeed, for one who does not inform within reach, there is a break in the night and an offense of breaking the rule, but beyond reach, neither exists." Thera Karavīkatissa said: "The determination 'this is an ascetic' is the measure; even if it is beyond reach, there is no offense of breaking the rule, but a break in the night certainly occurs." Regarding Uposatha: "We will reach the Uposatha," so say the visiting bhikkhus who come. Even those going by psychic power, knowing it is Uposatha, descend and perform the Uposatha. Therefore, for the purification of visitors, one should inform on the Uposatha day. The same method applies to Pavāraṇā. "Sick" means unable to go. Regarding "by messenger": here it is not proper to send an unordained person; a bhikkhu should be sent to inform. "A residence without bhikkhus" means an empty monastery; where there is not even one bhikkhu, one should not go there to reside. For indeed, There, the nights spent are counted. But with a normal monk, it is permissible. However, in the ten kinds of obstacles, even if the nights are not counted, one must go to be freed from the obstacle. Therefore it was said: "Except for an obstacle." It is not permissible to perform a Vinaya act with those of different communion. Even without informing them, there is no break in the nights, it is just like a dwelling without monks. Therefore it was said: "Where monks are of different communion." The rest is as stated in the Uposatha Khandhaka. 81. In "dwells in one covered place" and so on, a dwelling (āvāsa) is a lodging made for residing. A non-dwelling (anāvāsa) is a cetiya-house, a bodhi-house, a sweeping-shed, a wood-shed, a water-pavilion, a latrine, a gatehouse, and so on. By the third term, both are included. In any of these, in a single covered place, in a space defined by the falling of water from the roof, an expelled monk is not allowed to dwell. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said: "A parivāsa monk, however, is not allowed only within a dwelling." In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is said: "It is prohibited specifically by the falling of water." In the Kurundi, it is said: "In these five kinds of roofed and enclosed places, it is prohibited for both a parivāsa monk and an expelled monk, together with a normal monk, by the falling of water." Therefore, even in different precincts, it is not permissible in a single covered place. If, in this case, even a newly ordained monk, being a normal monk, enters first and lies down, and a parivāsa monk, even sixty years old, enters later and lies down knowingly, there is a break in the nights and an offense of breaking the practice. For one who does not know, there is only a break in the nights, not an offense of breaking the practice. If, however, the parivāsa monk lies down first, and a normal monk enters later and lies down, and the parivāsa monk knows, there is a break in the nights and an offense of breaking the practice. If he does not know, there is only a break in the nights, not an offense of breaking the practice. "One should rise, one should invite" means that even seeing a newly ordained monk, one should rise. And having risen, (one should say) "I, having sat comfortably, was made to rise by this (monk)..." not to go with the back turned, but to be invited thus: “This is the teacher’s seat, please sit here.” However, a junior monk should not go to a probationary elder thinking, “I will make the great elder dependent on me.” “On the same seat” means on a seat, couch, or chair of a monk of equal seniority. “Not sitting on the ground” means when the senior monk is sitting on the ground, the other should not sit even on a grass mat, or on a higher sand-covered spot, but it is permissible to sit after leaving a twelve-cubit distance. “On the same walking path” means walking together like a companion on the same walking path. “Walking on the ground” means walking on the ground, or this is the reading. The meaning here is: when walking on un-demarcated ground, one should not walk even on a low walking path that has been demarcated, with sand strewn, and an object for meditation arranged. How much less so on one adorned with brickwork and surrounded by a railing! However, if it is surrounded by a wall, with a gatehouse, or well-concealed among mountains, forests, or thickets, it is permissible to walk on such a path. Even if it is unconcealed, it is permissible after leaving a distance. Regarding “by senior monks”: If a senior probationary monk sits down first, and the other, knowing this, sits down afterwards, his night is cut off, and there is a dukkata offense for breaking the rule. For the senior monk, only the night is cut off, not a dukkata for breaking the rule. If he sits down unknowingly, there is no breaking of the rule for either, but the night is cut off. Now, if a junior probationary monk sits down first, and the senior monk sits down afterwards, and the junior monk knows it, his night is cut off, and there is a dukkata offense for breaking the rule. For the senior monk, only the night is cut off, not a breaking of the rule. If he does not know, there is no breaking of the rule for either, but the night is cut off. If both sit down not one after the other, for the senior monk, only the night is cut off, but for the other, there is also a breaking of the rule— this is stated in the Kurundi. If two probationary monks are of equal seniority, one sits down first no, one who knows lies down later, and the night is cut, and there is a dukkaṭa for breaking the rule. For one who lies down first, there is only a cutting of the night, not a breaking of the rule. If one who lies down later also does not know, there is no breaking of the rule for both, but there is a cutting of the night. If both lie down