English
the co-resident, having warned him many times, should abandon the preceptor who does not desist, and without even formally renouncing reliance, should take reliance from another and dwell. If the preceptor's gender changes, he does not keep it even for one day. If he is a pakkhapaṇḍaka, and of the nature of reliance, then "of the preceptor's good..." "Come for a fortnight," or he himself comes, it is permissible. If the preceptor has been subjected to the act of suspension, the reliance is suspended because he is in a state of separate communion. But having seen him behave properly, he may cause the act to be suspended. If he is undergoing penance, he must be rehabilitated. If he observes a long period of probation, reliance must be taken from another, the preceptor's reconciliation is immeasurable. For one observing probation and penance, reliance should not be given. What is said in the commentary on the chapter on probation, "even for the resident pupils who consent, it is a dukkaṭa," etc., that merely proves the meaning stated above. What is said, "if the sons of good families who have gone forth with faith say, 'Venerable sirs, you only perform the disciplinary act,' and they perform the duties, and ask permission to enter the village, from the time they are forbidden, there is no offense." That is said only to indicate the absence of a dukkaṭa due to consenting to the duties, or with reference to the dependence of the resident pupils. Therefore, if they act in accordance with what the preceptor has forbidden, it is established that their reliance is suspended. He returns after having passed two clod-throws, so it is written, "by this much he is called 'gone to another direction,' therefore, even if the resident pupils have not laid down their burden, the reliance is suspended. It is permissible for the teacher and preceptor to dwell within two clod-throws, in an enclosed or unenclosed monastery, without having passed two clod-throws." The teacher says, "not only in an unenclosed one," but here the meaning is that they dwell in another monastery free from a place worthy of enclosure for an unenclosed one. And here, by "monastery," "a single hut situated at the end of such a monastery is intended," says Elder Upatissa. There, "if both the teacher and the resident pupil, by some… (etc.)… the reliance is not suspended," by this general statement, the commentary… By this, the view of Thera Dhammasiri is consistent. Or in an uncircumscribed area, within two stone-throws, it is either circumscribed or uncircumscribed. And since it is said "outside the boundary," it is established that it is permissible to dwell even beyond two stone-throws within the monastery boundary. Therefore, the view of Thera Upatissa is not consistent. For in one dwelling, whether circumscribed or uncircumscribed, even dwelling within three yojanas, the dependence does not cease. And that is defined by the *upacāra* boundary. And that *upacāra* boundary is one dwelling defined by the enclosure of a circumscribed monastery, or by a place worthy of enclosure for an uncircumscribed one. If it is said that in the Uposatha section, regarding the doubt about one dwelling, a boundary is allowed? No, because it is discussed in the Commentary on the Robe Section. As it says: "The Sangha within the boundary should divide and take it." By which boundary should it be divided? Indeed, Thera Mahāsiva said: "By the non-separation boundary." Then they said to him: "The non-separation boundary can be three yojanas. If so, those dwelling three yojanas away will receive offerings. Dwelling three yojanas away, one would have to fulfill the guest's duty and then enter the monastery. A traveler would go three yojanas to ask for a lodging. For one under dependence, if three yojanas are exceeded, the dependence would cease. One undergoing *parivāsa* would have to exceed three yojanas to let the dawn rise. A bhikkhunī, dwelling three yojanas away, would have to ask permission to enter the monastery. All this is permissible to do by way of defining the *upacāra* boundary." Therefore, it is established that for one dwelling within the *upacāra* boundary, even beyond two stone-throws, the dependence does not cease when three yojanas are exceeded. Indeed, if the *upacāra* boundary here were three yojanas or more, the aforementioned faults would arise. For it is said that it expands as dwellings expand, and it contracts as they contract. Therefore, a single hut situated at the edge of such a monastery is here intended as "the monastery." That too, of that very "It is a hut of the monastery," saying thus, it becomes a dwelling. If indeed a separate dwelling is intended, "A hut standing at the end" should not be said. But within two clod-throws, in an un-enclosed separate dwelling, the dependence is not relaxed— that which is called "no inference," that is said in the sense of the non-relaxation of the acceptance of a lodging in such a separate dwelling. For the acceptance of a lodging, having the characteristic that "by acceptance, attachment is relaxed," is relaxed elsewhere. Concerning this, the Pāli text says: "Now at that time, the venerable Upananda the Sakyan, alone, resided during the rains in two dwellings... ...give, O monks, to the foolish man, one intention." (Mahāva. 364) And in its commentary, it is thus said: "This is spoken of with various gains, various approaches, and monasteries within one boundary. But in a monastery with various boundaries, the acceptance of a lodging is relaxed." (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 364) Un-enclosed separate dwellings go to the count of one approach. And an enclosed single approach goes to the count of un-enclosed. Thus, within two clod-throws, for one residing in another monastery that is un-enclosed, the dependence is not relaxed. But in an enclosed one, it is indeed relaxed. This meaning is established. Here it is said: Even having gone beyond two clod-throws, the dependence is not relaxed. For it is said in the Nissaggiya Commentary: "If, while they are still going, and the young ones have not arrived, the dawn breaks, the robe becomes nissaggiya, but the dependence is not relaxed." (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.495) It is said: That is spoken with enthusiasm in meeting the preceptor. Here, it refers to permanent residence. Therefore, they do not contradict each other. But some say: "Having gone beyond two clod-throws"— this is said in the sense of residing after daily informing. That is merely their opinion, so is my inference. For "residing after daily informing" is seen neither in the Pāli text nor in the commentary. And that, moreover, by those who do not know what is done... should be understood as practiced. The commentary on the story of the appeasement of dependence is finished. The commentary on the story of the five to be ordained 84. "Not with the aggregate of virtue of one in training," and so on, was said in accordance with the saying, "First one should establish oneself in what is proper" (Dhp. 158), not in terms of the factors of an offense. Just as blue is said because of its association with blue, so it was said, "with the aggregate of liberation-knowledge-and-vision of one not in training." One who has failed in virtue regarding higher virtue is one who has committed an offense and not risen from it. The commentary on the story of the five to be ordained is finished. The commentary on the story of the former adherents of other sects 86. In "whoever is a former adherent of another sect," there are two interpretations of the meaning: "a former adherent of another sect" refers to that animal in the sense of his being a bhikkhu, and that bhikkhu went over to that very sectarian establishment—this is one meaning. Thus, one who has gone over to a sect and then returned in lay attire is a former adherent of another sect, and he, having returned, should not be ordained—this is one meaning. Setting aside that one who has gone over to another sect, in "whoever, bhikkhus, is a former adherent of another sect," the word "former" does not refer only to one wearing lay attire, but also to one remaining in his own adopted sectarian attire. Because he is not a sectarian in terms of view, he is a former non-sectarian; but he, having come, comes bewildered, and there is no need to give him probation. Did this former adherent of another sect, having taken on the bhikkhu's attire and gone for refuge, become a novice, or not? And in this regard, if he did become one, the saying "whoever else, bhikkhus, is a former adherent of another sect, if he desires renunciation in this Dhamma and Discipline, if he desires ordination, he should be given four months' probation" (Mahāva. 86) would be contradicted. If he did not become one, the non-mention of renunciation in the probation Kammavācā would be contradicted. In this regard, the residents of the Mahāvihāra say, "Probation should be given only to one who is a novice." Others do not say so. For they say, "Thus, bhikkhus, a former adherent of another sect who has come and is agreeable should be ordained" (Mahāva. 87) — the Sutta The word should be avoided, both before and after, if it is said that "he was formerly of another sect" and thus he has not become a novice, then it would follow that he should be ordained without being expelled. And then the first sutta mentioned would be contradicted. The reading "gone over to another sect" is also not good. If he breaks any of the precepts like taking life, it seems that even if four months are completed, they must be completed again. It is also said that "since his restraint was allowed for the purpose of making him a monk, there is nothing to be said about the precepts," this should be considered and accepted. If the refuges are broken, it is only for the novice. The commentary on the story of one formerly of another sect is finished. Commentary on the story of the five ailments 88. "Nakhapiṭṭhi" means the back of the little fingernail.