English
In “For seven days…etc…should be taken,” it is written, “The meaning is that one cannot reside by setting aside the task of knowing, thinking, ‘I will reside for only seven days, what is the need of knowing the suitability of a monk?’” “If one knows the suitability of a monk, one cannot make the dawn rise, thinking, ‘I will go tomorrow, what is the need for me to announce my reliance?’” If, while one is sleeping with the intention of “I will get up and go before dawn,” the dawn rises, it is permissible. The description of the story of reliance for travelers, etc. 121. “It is said that ‘a monk who is on a journey, not obtaining reliance, should not reside without reliance’ because going on a journey during the rainy season is forbidden in the Pāli itself, only in the non-rainy season.” This is immeasurable, as going on a journey is possible due to a break in the rains for seven days, etc., and going during the rainy season is possible for one who is already traveling. On the way…etc…no offense, only in the absence of a reliance-giver. “Relying on him” is said in accordance with the text, which means “relying on that.” “When a suitable reliance-giver comes…” "Past" by this word, this rule is established to be only in the non-rainy season. "But during the rainy season, there is no coming of anyone," it is said. If he, dwelling in a water-town or a land-town, wishing to go when the rainy season retreat is near, hears, "Such-and-such a great elder will come," and if he expects him, it is permissible. If the day of the rainy season retreat arrives while he is still expecting him, let it be so; he should go there where he can obtain a supporter. If it is permissible to go due to the absence of a Patimokkha reciter, how much more so due to the absence of a supporter. If, while going, he sees a danger to life or a danger to the holy life, he should dwell there, say some. 122. "I am not able to take the elder's name," he says, indicating "the venerable so-and-so of such-and-such a name." "By the clan name also," by this saying, it is established that it is permissible by whatever usage they are called; therefore, when asked, "What is your preceptor's name?" it is established that one should speak using the clan name as the name; therefore, they say that the announcement should be made with any one of the four kinds of names. One person has many names; it is not permissible to use one name for the motion and another for the announcement, but the announcements must be identical in meaning and in wording. If in one place he says, "of the venerable Elder Buddharakkhita," and in another place he announces merely, "of Buddharakkhita," it is not said that "the announcement is abandoned" because the name is not abandoned, say some. If in one place he says, "of the venerable Buddharakkhita," and in another place he announces, "of Buddharakkhita the venerable," it is as if it has entered the field of the text itself, due to conformity with the reading, say some. Due to the possibility of a difference in wording, it is not permissible in the announcement, say some. But if he speaks in the same way in all places, it is permissible, due to conformity with the characteristic given by the Blessed One. If it is asked, "Is it not permissible otherwise due to contradiction of the characteristic?" No, due to conformity with usage. If it is asked, "Is it used one way there, and another way here?" No, due to the contradiction of the characteristics of failure. No. All in all, the announcement and its cancellation indeed appear in the Pāli for clarifying its meaning. Therefore, in other places of announcement, a waiver is not possible due to contradiction with established practice. If it is asked, "What is its authority?" The authority is that the teacher's acceptance is the authority. 123. Regarding "Two single announcements," in the commentary here, it is written thus: "in an announcement proceeding as one." This refers to an announcement action with one teacher and multiple preceptors. And that announcement action is allowed by one preceptor and multiple teachers. This is the meaning. It is not allowed by multiple preceptors and one teacher. This is the meaning. In the ancient commentary too, having said the same, it is stated: "More than three, in no way, can proceed as one." That is correct, for the Sangha does not perform an act for the Sangha, says the teacher. This should be considered here. How? Four or more candidates for ordination do not obtain the designation of Sangha, because they have not attained the state of a bhikkhu. Merely because the Blessed One delimited it by saying "three," it is not our reasoning that more than that is not allowed, says the teacher. In the sub-commentary too, this very meaning is discussed and stated in many ways. Likewise in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. There is no disagreement everywhere in this interpretation of the meaning. But this accompanying story: "Both are full twenty years old, for both there is one preceptor, one teacher, one kammavācā, one ordained, one not ordained." Having shown that, some say: "If one teacher announces one kammavācā for two or three ordination candidates with one preceptor, it is valid." That is incorrect. For it is not possible to present a kammavācā complete with characteristics of loose and firm consonants, etc., at that moment, due to falling into errors like omissions. To clarify that this was said with reference to performing it separately for each, it was not stated: "Three are full twenty years old, for three there is one preceptor, one teacher, one kammavācā, two ordained, one not ordained." For if it were stated thus, it would be possible to remove the one in the sky among the three... To show the appropriate formal act for both, to prevent the undesirable consequence, "both" is said. "There, by the phrase 'fully twenty years old,' the completeness of the object is shown; by the phrase 'of the assembly,' due to the prominence of the assembly, the completeness of the assembly; by the phrase 'of the formal act,' the completeness of the announcement is shown. The completeness of the boundary was not shown as a single one. From this, a defect arose because the formal acts are of different moments. If they were of a single moment, there would be completeness or defect for both, but it is not possible for one to have completeness and the other defect, due to the arising of faults like 'freed' (vimutta) and other expressions." This statement, it is said, proves that if both are within the boundary, and the completeness of the act for both is shown together, then the announcement for two together is permissible with one preceptor and one teacher. The simultaneous announcement for two or three is also shown in the Pāli itself, and this is in accordance with it. "It was not approved by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, nor was it rejected; it should be considered and accepted," says the teacher. That contradicts the norm. For this is the norm of the Buddhas: wherever there is a difference in wording, there, in important places, they speak what is proper to be said. The ordination by messenger, etc., is an example here. Since there is no difference in the previously allowed formal act here, it was not said, "I allow, bhikkhus, to make two or three announcements at once," and then, "And thus, bhikkhus, it should be done." If there is a difference, is it unsaid because it should be understood according to the formal acts stated here and there for two or many? "No, it is not the norm," says the teacher, "to speak in minor places and not speak in major ones." However, in a certain commentary, it is elaborated thus: "two announcements at once" means two announcements together. The reading is "by one," meaning "by one teacher." "In the former way" means "in the way stated as 'by one or two teachers'." Therefore, two or three should be announced by one teacher. "Or by two..." The reading is "or by this". If it is said that "it is not permissible" here, in "by various teachers, by various preceptors", because it was said, "and that, indeed, by one preceptor, but not by various preceptors," is it permissible? It is permissible. How? Because the analysis "anussāvana by one, one anussāvana" is evident, to show what is implied, the analysis "anussāvana together" was stated. Therefore, referring to the straightforward meaning, "and that, indeed, an anussāvana by one is one anussāvana; I allow it by one preceptor, but not by various preceptors"—this is the meaning. Referring to this, there are two ways of analysis. Therefore, some say otherwise, "it is indeed established that various teachers and various preceptors are not permissible." The meaning is: "and that, indeed, the anussāvana that should be spoken by one preceptor, or for one preceptor, I do not allow it by various preceptors." What is said? "One teacher, and two or three candidates for ordination for two or three preceptors, I do not allow it"—so it is said. But in another commentary, it is written: "Because the analysis 'anussāvana by one' is evident, to make that clear, 'by one' was stated. When this is said, the wise necessarily understand. If they understand because it is evident, then what is the purpose of 'by one'? Even if they understand, there is a dispute due to not having obtained a clear understanding, and it is not possible to understand. But when 'by one' is stated, all that does not occur"—so it is said. Thus, here, many teachers and logicians expound in many ways. Having thoroughly examined all that, and having attended the guru's lineage, the meaning that is in accordance with the tradition should be taken. "It has been said that there is no difference of opinion in this interpretation of the meaning everywhere." Explanation of the Procedure for Ordination 125. Here, in "leprosy, boils", by the taking of leprosy and so on,