English
by making one seed, or one tree branch, or one sugarcane permissible, all is done. If sugarcane and wood are bound together, and one pierces the wood saying, "I will make the sugarcane permissible," it is permissible. But if one pierces the rope or creeper by which they are bound, it is not permissible. If a basket full of sugarcane pieces is brought, by making one piece permissible, all is done. And if rice mixed with pepper pods, etc., is brought, when told, "Make it permissible," even if one pierces a grain of rice, it is permissible. The same rule applies to sesame, rice grains, and so on. But things put into porridge do not remain bound together; there, each one must be pierced to make it permissible. The pulp inside wood-apple fruits, etc., moves freely within the shell; it should be broken open and made permissible. Then it is bound together, and it is permissible to do it even on the shell. Thus, in the Pāḷi-Muttaka-Vinaya-Vinicchaya-Saṅgaha, The discourse on the determination of plant life is concluded. 16. The rule on sleeping together. The discourse on wishes. 79. "Two kinds of co-sleeping" refers to the two training rules on co-sleeping which state: "Whatever monk should co-sleep with an unordained person for more than two or three nights, there is an offense of expiation." (Pacittiya 49) "Whatever monk should co-sleep with a woman, there is an offense of expiation." (Pacittiya 56) This is said with reference to these. Herein, this is the determination: (Pacittiya Commentary 50-51) For one who lies down with an unordained person, on the fourth day after the sun has set, having passed three nights, in a dwelling that is completely covered and completely enclosed, or mostly covered and mostly enclosed, either successively or at the same moment, there is an offense of expiation. Here, without considering the roof, enclosed by a wall or something else one and a half cubits high, is to be understood as completely enclosed. A dwelling that is completely covered above by five coverings or by something else, this is called a completely covered dwelling. However, in the commentaries, taking the common usage, it is said orally: "Completely covered means covered by five coverings." Although it is said so, it is not possible to avoid an offense even for one sleeping in a cloth hut. Therefore, whatever is capable of covering is to be understood here as covering and enclosing. If only five kinds of coverings were to be taken, there would be no co-sleeping even in a dwelling covered with planks. Therefore, a dwelling that is enclosed from the ground up to the roof, by a wall or something else, even by a cloth, this is called a completely enclosed dwelling. Without considering the roof, enclosed by a wall or something else one and a half cubits high, in the ultimate sense, is also completely enclosed. But for that where most of the place above is covered, and little is uncovered, or most of it is enclosed all around, and little is unenclosed, this is called mostly covered and mostly enclosed. If one endowed with these characteristics, even if it is a seven-storied building, A palace is considered a single precinct, or a four-sided hall with a hundred rooms, is counted as one dwelling. In such a dwelling, with an unordained person, on the fourth day, after the sun has set, for one who lies down, an offense of expiation is declared. But if there are many novices, and one bhikkhu, the offense of expiation is according to the number of novices. If they get up and lie down repeatedly, for each act of theirs, the bhikkhu incurs an offense. But if the bhikkhu gets up and lies down repeatedly, the bhikkhu incurs an offense only by his own act. If there are many bhikkhus, and one novice, even one (novice's presence) causes an offense for all. Even by his repeatedly getting up and lying down, there is an offense for the bhikkhus. Even if both are numerous, the same rule applies. 80. Moreover, here, the fourfold case beginning with one dwelling should be understood. Indeed, whoever in one dwelling, with only one unordained person, spends three nights sharing a bed, for him, from the fourth day onwards, there is a daily offense. And whoever in the very same dwelling, with various unordained persons, spends three nights sharing a bed, for him too. And whoever in various dwellings, with only one unordained person, spends three nights sharing a bed, for him too. And whoever in various dwellings, with various unordained persons, even going a hundred leagues, spends three nights sharing a bed, for him too, from the fourth day onwards, there is a daily offense. And this offense of sharing a bed, by the saying: "apart from a bhikkhu, the rest are called unordained," occurs even with an animal, which is the basis for a pārājika offense. Therefore, even if some (creature) among lizards, cats, mongooses, etc., enters the bhikkhu's dwelling place and sleeps in the single precinct, it is considered sharing a bed. But if a palace built on pillars, with walls not connected to the upper floor, and a hollow beam-head resting on the wall, (a creature) enters through the hole, sleeps inside the beam, and exits through the same hole, for the bhikkhu sleeping in the lower palace, there is no offense. If six If there is a hole in the roof, having entered through it, and having stayed inside the roof, he departs by that same way. For one sleeping on the upper level, within the roof, in a place not usually frequented, there is an offense. For one sleeping on the lower level, there is no offense. If they ascend through the inner palace itself, and use all the levels, they are considered as one precinct. For one sleeping anywhere in them, there is an offense. In brief, for one sleeping in a half-room dwelling, where pigeons and the like sleep on rafters and crossbeams, there is an offense. For one sleeping outside the enclosure, in a place not covered, there is no offense. Whether circular or square, if a dwelling has a hundred chambers under one roof and gallery, and if one enters through one common door, and without separate walls dividing the chamber precincts, they enter all the chambers, if an unordained person sleeps in one chamber, there is an offense for those sleeping in all chambers. If the chambers have separate entrances, and the entrance is uncovered above, one sleeping in the entrance does not cause an offense for those sleeping in the chambers. But if the roof of the chamber is connected with the roof of the entrance, one sleeping there causes an offense for all. Why? Because it is all covered and all enclosed. For its enclosure is the enclosure of the chamber itself. 81. Even in great palaces with one, two, three, or four halls, where one can go everywhere after washing one's feet and entering in one place, one is not free from the offense of sleeping together. If they are made by dividing the precinct in each place, the offense occurs only in the one-precinct place. If they make a wall in the middle of a plaster-roofed pavilion with two doors, and an unordained person sleeps in one section after entering through one door, and a bhikkhu in the other, there is no offense. If there is a hole in the wall just big enough for lizards and the like to enter, and lizards sleep in one section, there is no offense. For a house with a hole is not called a single precinct. If they cut through the middle of the wall and make a door, ...it is an offense due to being within the same precinct. If they close that door with a panel and sleep, it is still an offense. For by closing the door, the house does not become a different precinct, nor does the door become a non-door. A door panel is made for convenient opening and closing, not for cutting off passage. If that door is again closed with bricks, it becomes a non-door, and remains in the state of being a different precinct as before. If there is a long-fronted shrine-house, with one door panel inside, and one outside, an unordained person sleeping between the two door panels causes an offense for one sleeping inside the shrine-house, due to being within the same precinct. Here is the summary: Whether the lodging is small or large, connected or unconnected with another, long or round or square, one-storied or multi-storied, whatever is within the same precinct, everywhere there is an offense of sleeping together. And here, with any covering: If fully covered and fully enclosed, it is a pācittiya. If mostly covered and mostly enclosed, it is a pācittiya. If fully covered and mostly enclosed, it is a pācittiya. If fully covered and half-enclosed, it is a pācittiya. If mostly covered and half-enclosed, it is a pācittiya. If fully enclosed and mostly covered, it is a pācittiya. If fully enclosed and half-covered, it is a pācittiya. If mostly enclosed and half-covered, it is a pācittiya. These are eight pācittiyas. If half-covered and half-enclosed, it is a dukkaṭa. If fully covered and slightly enclosed, it is a dukkaṭa. If mostly covered and slightly enclosed, it is a dukkaṭa. If fully enclosed and slightly covered, it is a dukkaṭa. If mostly enclosed and slightly covered, it is a dukkaṭa. These five dukkaṭas should be known. If fully covered and not at all enclosed, if fully enclosed and not at all covered, if mostly uncovered and mostly unenclosed, if half-covered and slightly enclosed, if half-enclosed and slightly covered, and if slightly enclosed, there is no offense. Even for one lying down with a woman, this is the decision. This is the distinction here: for one lying down with an unordained person, the offense is on the fourth day, with a woman, on the first day. However, for female yakkhas and petas appearing in visible form, and for female animals who are objects of sexual intercourse, it is only a dukkaṭa offense; for others, there is no offense. Thus, in the Pāḷimuttakavinayavinicchayasaṅgaha, the discourse on the decision regarding co-sleeping is concluded.