English
Among these, the six acts of boundary appointment, boundary removal, giving of the Kathina robe, removal of the Kathina robe, designation of a hut site, and designation of a monastery site are weighty acts that are not permissible to do by announcing; they must be done by having the two-part motion recited. The remaining thirteen appointments, such as appointments for receiving lodgings and giving robes to the deceased, are light acts that are permissible to do by announcing; but they should not be done as a motion act or a four-part motion act. Some say, "What is done as a four-part motion act becomes stronger, therefore it should be done." But if this were the case, there would be a confusion of acts, therefore it is forbidden. Yes. But if it is deficient in letters, or deficient in words, or is a badly spoken word, it is proper to say it again and again for its correction. This becomes the strengthening of an unshakeable act, and in a shaky act, it stands as an act. A ñatti-fourth act must be done only after the ñatti and the three kammavācās have been recited; it should not be done by way of an apalokana act, and so on. "An act that should be done in the presence is done in the absence; it is an act with a flawed basis, an unrighteous act." Here, there is an act that should be done in the presence, and there is an act that should be done in the absence. Among these, what is called "to be done in the absence" is of eight kinds: ordination by messenger, overturning the bowl, righting the bowl, the declaration of sanity for an insane bhikkhu, the declaration of a trainee for trainee families, the brahmadaṇḍa for the bhikkhu Channa, the act of proclamation for Devadatta, and the act of not bowing to be done by the bhikkhunī Saṅgha for a bhikkhu who shows disrespect. Even if these eight kinds of acts are done in the absence, they are well done, unshakeable. All other acts must be done only in the presence. They must be done by bringing them to this fourfold presence-vinaya: presence of the Saṅgha, presence of the Dhamma, presence of the Vinaya, presence of the individual. For acts done in this way are well done. But acts not done in this way are called "acts with a flawed basis" because they are done without this basis called "presence-vinaya." Therefore it is said: "An act that should be done in the presence is done in the absence; it is an act with a flawed basis, an unrighteous act." In the case of acts requiring questioning, and so on, the questioning, and so on, itself is the basis. Their flaw in basis should be understood because they are done without that basis. Furthermore, it is an act with a flawed basis, an unrighteous act, when one ordains someone under nineteen years of age, or someone who has previously committed a grave offense, or one of the eleven unfit individuals. This is the decision on the flaw in an act due to its basis. But regarding the flaw due to the ñatti, it does not refer to the basis. Thus, the ordination, etc., of whom... He performs the act, he does not refer to it, he does not take its name. Instead of saying: “May the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me, this Dhammarakkhita is the ordination candidate of the venerable Buddharakkhita,” he says: “May the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me, the ordination candidate of the venerable Buddharakkhita.” Thus he does not refer to the matter. He does not refer to the Sangha, meaning he does not take the name of the Sangha. Instead of saying: “May the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me, this Dhammarakkhita,” he says: “May, venerable sirs, hear me, this Dhammarakkhita.” Thus he does not refer to the Sangha. He does not refer to the person, meaning he does not refer to the preceptor of the ordination candidate, he does not take his name. Instead of saying: “May the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me, this Dhammarakkhita is the ordination candidate of the venerable Buddharakkhita,” he says: “May the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me, this Dhammarakkhita is the ordination candidate.” Thus he does not refer to the person. He does not refer to the motion, meaning he does not refer to the motion at all. In a motion-second act, having omitted the motion, he performs the announcement act only with the kammavācā twice. Even in a motion-fourth act, having omitted the motion, he performs the announcement act only with the kammavācā four times. Thus he does not refer to the motion. Or he places the motion afterwards, meaning having first performed the announcement act with the kammavācā, he says: “This is the motion,” and then says: “The Sangha agrees, therefore it is silent, thus I hold this to be.” Thus he places the motion afterwards. Thus by these five ways, the acts fail due to the motion. In the case of failure due to the announcement, the matter and so on should be understood in the manner already stated. Their non-reference is as follows: in the first announcement, “May the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me,” or in the second and third announcements, “I speak this matter a second time… …I speak this matter a third time. May the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me,” this Dhammarakkhi When it should be said: "This Venerable Buddharakkhita is an ordination candidate," if one says: "May the Sangha, Venerables, hear me, of Venerable Buddharakkhita," one does not refer to the subject. When it should be said: "May the Sangha, Venerables, hear me, this Dhammarakkhita," if one says: "May the Venerables hear me, this Dhammarakkhita," one does not refer to the Sangha. When it should be said: "May the Sangha, Venerables, hear me, this Dhammarakkhita, of Venerable Buddharakkhita," if one says: "May the Sangha, Venerables, hear me, this Dhammarakkhita, an ordination candidate," one does not refer to the person. "He omits the announcement" means he does not make the announcement with the formal motion at all. In a motion-second act, he only states the motion twice. In a motion-fourth act, he only states the motion four times. Thus he omits the announcement. Even if, in a motion-second act, having stated one motion, when announcing one formal motion, he omits a letter or mispronounces a word, he also omits the announcement. But in a motion-fourth act, having stated one motion, even if he announces the formal motion once or twice, and even if he omits a letter or a word, or mispronounces it, it should be understood that he omits the announcement. 252. Here, concerning "he mispronounces," this is the determination. Indeed, whoever says something else when another letter should be said, he is said to mispronounce. Therefore, by the bhikkhu making the formal motion, this (which is) – Loose and firm, long and short, Heavy and light, and the nasal sound; Connected, distinct, and released, These are the ten kinds of phonetic distinctions – (As) stated, this should be well observed. Here, "loose" means the first and third (letters) in the five classes. "Firm" means the second and fourth (letters) in those same (classes). "Long" means the 'a' sound, etc., to be pronounced with a long duration. "Short" means the 'a' sound, etc., to be pronounced with half that duration. "Heavy" is indeed long, or that which "of Venerable Buddhar..." "To the Elder Akkhita, to whom it is not agreeable," thus it is said, making it connected. "Lahuka" means short, or what is said by making it unconnected, like "To the venerable Buddharakkhita Thera, to whom it is not agreeable." "Niggahita" is what should be said by suppressing the organs of speech, not releasing them, with a closed mouth, making it nasal. "Sambandha" is what is said by connecting with the following word, like "tuṇhissā" or "tuṇhassā." "Vavatthita" is what is said by not connecting with the following word, by separating it, like "tuṇhī assā" or "tuṇha assā." "Vimutta" is what is said by not suppressing the organs of speech, by releasing them, with an open mouth, without making it nasal. There, when "suṇātu me" should be said, saying "suṇāthu me" by making the 'ta' into 'tha' is called making a soft sound hard. Likewise, when "pattakallaṃ esā ñattī" should be said, saying "patthakallaṃ esā ñatthī" and so on. When "Bhante saṅgho" should be said, saying "bante saṃgo" by making 'bha' and 'gha' into 'ba' and 'ga' is called making a hard sound soft. But when "suṇātu me" should be said with an open mouth, saying "suṇaṃtu me," or when "esā ñattī" should be said, saying "esaṃ ñattī" with a closed mouth, without making it nasal, is called making a released sound suppressed. When "Pattakallaṃ" should be said with a closed mouth and made nasal, saying "pattakallā" with an open mouth, without making it nasal, is called making a suppressed sound released. Thus, making a soft sound hard when it should be soft, making a hard sound soft when it should be hard, making a released sound suppressed when it should be released, and making a suppressed sound released when it should be suppressed— these four pronunciations spoil the act within the formal declaration. For one who speaks thus, when one letter should be said, another is said; it is called making a mispronunciation. But regarding the other six pronunciations, such as long and short, a long sound should be long where it should be long, and a short sound should be short where it should be short, and so on. Speaking that very letter in its proper place, without destroying the tradition that has come down in due order, the kammavācā should be performed. If, however, not doing thus, when a long vowel should be spoken, one speaks a short vowel, or when a short vowel should be spoken, one speaks a long vowel; likewise, when a heavy syllable should be spoken, one speaks a light syllable, or when a light syllable should be spoken, one speaks a heavy syllable; or when a connected form should be spoken, one speaks a disconnected form, or when a disconnected form should be spoken, one speaks a connected form; even if spoken thus, the kammavācā is not invalidated.