English
"May the Sangha hear me, sirs," should be said. Referring to a bhikkhu, "Friend," is seen in the formal act of Mahākassapa. And in the purification Uposatha, it is seen that the elder bhikkhu says, "I am pure, friend." "If it is suitable for the Sangha," refers to the obstacles to performing the Uposatha, which are to be declared later. Since the Uposatha is of many kinds, to state its nature, he says, "May he recite the Pātimokkha." Thus, he concluded the motion. For the Uposatha act is indeed a motion-second act. "No, because a third announcement is possible," if it is said? No, because it is not like other motion-fourth acts. For here, "May it hear me" is not begun four times. "Since it is not like other motion-second acts, let it not even be a motion-second act," if it is said? No, because a motion-second act can also be done otherwise. Thus, some motion-second acts can be done by way of announcement, but other acts cannot be done otherwise. How is it understood? This very Uposatha act is the indicator. "What is the preliminary duty of the Sangha?" This should not be said after concluding the motion, for that is done even before the motion. Therefore, "May the Sangha hear me, sirs, what is the preliminary duty of the Sangha, if it is of the Sangha," should be said? Even so, it should not be said, for it is not done within the motion. "If so, it should not be said anywhere, due to lack of purpose," if it is said? No, because it should be said only in the place where it is found, meaning it is dependent on the following word. The Sangha or the individual who performs the Uposatha without doing this preliminary duty incurs an offense of transgressing the field of establishment. For when that field is transgressed, the sweeping, seating, water, lamp, in doing, there is release from an offense. Because of the non-performance of the preliminary duties before the Uposatha ceremony, for that offense, it does not await the completion of the act, like the offense of intentional falsehood that comes here. Therefore, the reciter of the Pātimokkha, desiring to say, ‘‘Venerables, declare your purity,’’ first reminds them of the preliminary duty that is a condition for purity or impurity. For if it is done, it is a condition for purity; if not done, it is a condition for impurity. Thus, with the intention of considering both, without saying, ‘‘Done or not done?’’ he simply says, ‘‘What is the Sangha’s preliminary duty?’’ In the case of not done, to show that declaring purity is not possible, he will later say, ‘‘If anyone has an offense, let him reveal it.’’ And in the case of done, ‘‘If there is no offense, one should remain silent.’’ ‘‘Venerables, declare your purity.’’ For what reason? ‘‘Because I shall recite the Pātimokkha.’’ Here, some say that by referring to the future tense, ‘‘I shall recite,’’ without referring to the present tense, ‘‘I recite,’’ it refers to the recitation of the Pātimokkha mentioned here: ‘‘Now he may permit them to recite the Pātimokkha.’’ Others say, since it is said, ‘‘Monks, there are these five recitations of the Pātimokkha,’’ therefore, regarding the Pātimokkha, which is the present recitation of the introduction, that which is at the end, ‘‘Are you pure in this?’’ and so on, up to the third announcement, since that is the field of offenses, and because the whole can be spoken of by its part, here it is said, ‘‘I shall recite the Pātimokkha,’’ referring only to the field of offenses. For if it is said thus, since the field of offenses will come later, the meaning arises: ‘‘Therefore, you who fear offenses, all of you, declare your purity first.’’ If it were said in the present tense, the statement, ‘‘Venerables, declare your purity,’’ would not be possible, as that declaration is desired first, let alone the absence of its performance, ‘‘I shall recite the Pātimokkha.’’ This is the statement. This method is used for the declaration of an existing offense, not for silence, because silence leads to the non-completion of the act. Even so, it is used in that case. For the reciter of the Pātimokkha, seeing the bhikkhus silent without mutually declaring offenses, and having become purified by that very silence, began the recitation of the Pātimokkha, saying, "May the venerable sirs listen to me." Here it is said: Since it was first stated, "The Saṅgha should observe the Uposatha, should recite the Pātimokkha," should it also be said here, "The Saṅgha will observe the Uposatha, will recite the Pātimokkha"? Or, since it is a characteristic of "recitation by an individual," should it be said as it is literally expressed? Even so, should it be said, "I will observe the Uposatha, I will recite the Pātimokkha"? It should not be said, due to contradiction with the characteristic, and due to the undesirable consequence. For the Uposatha of the Saṅgha is observed only by the recitation of an individual, not by an individual's observance of the Uposatha. And that individual will do it, not the Saṅgha, so an undesirable consequence arises. When "Listen!" is said, "We listen!" is said for fear of the consequence of a lack of mental agreement. If it is said, "We will listen!" because "I will recite!" is said? It should not be said. "We listen!" should be said without regard for the intention of seeing the field of offense, etc. For by a single word, that intention of his is surpassed. If so, why do all of them begin it? To prevent the consequence of a lack of mental agreement for one who has fallen into this uncommon statement, "I will recite!" By "remembering," it shows the intentionality of his deliberate falsehood. "An obstructive dhamma was declared by the Blessed One"— thus it shows the great danger of even such a small falsehood that arises from inaction. By "one who desires purity"— why should an offense be declared by one who desires purity, which is called the state of non-offense with respect to a remaining offense, and which is called the state of a layperson with respect to a non-remaining offense? Because it is a condition for comfortable living by not falling into an obstructive state. This Indeed, "Today is the fifteenth Uposatha" was not said, because it was not said with the intention of fixing the day later. But thus those bhikkhus recited on all days. 135. "This is the beginning" refers to the Sīla Pātimokkha itself, even though the Ganthapātimokkha is intended. "Or of five" is said in reference to those mentioned in the mātikā. "Or one who has not fallen into an offense" is a teaching based on the individual. But in the ancient commentaries, it is said: "By 'let him perform the Uposatha' alone, the motion is made. The three proclamations are of two kinds: the three statements beginning with 'If there be an offense,' and at the end, 'I ask a second time, a third time.' The first is for one who, remembering an offense, is seated; the second is for reminding one who does not remember." "Through the door of speech" is said directly, in a clear sense. Although it can also be done through bodily intimation, since there is no bodily action, it must be made manifest through verbal intimation. "Or in the midst of the Saṅgha," etc., is indeed a descriptive statement. If one is seated in the midst of the Saṅgha for the Saṅgha Uposatha, then in that midst of the Saṅgha. If one is seated in the midst of a group for the group Uposatha, then in that midst of the group. If one wishes to perform the purity Uposatha in the presence of just one person, then it must be made manifest to that one person. "By this, this falsehood does not arise merely in the midst of the Saṅgha. Rather, if, in a group Uposatha of the kind described here, even without the procedure of 'Venerables, declare your purity,' one who wishes to perform the Uposatha, having an offense, performs it without declaring it, remaining silent, then he incurs the offense of intentional falsehood. It is indeed a descriptive statement for making this meaning clear," so say the logicians. Otherwise, "or in the midst of a group" would not have been said, is their intention. "It is said with the intention of declaring, not as a logical inference," says the teacher. Indeed, one who declares, making it manifest with the intention, "I will declare to the Saṅgha," makes it manifest in the midst of the Saṅgha. One who declares to those seated on both sides of oneself, declares in the midst of a group. "I will declare to just one person, a fellow..." With this intention, announcing to one person, is called announcing. The re-division of a previously divided word should be understood as for showing the absence of a special meaning. "Monks, not daily... (etc.)... a dukkaṭa (wrongdoing)" - having said this, "Monks, I allow the recitation of the Pātimokkha on the Uposatha day." This indicates that that dukkaṭa is only on non-Uposatha days, but on Uposatha days, it is permissible even daily. Therefore, those monks, even having recited on the fourteenth day, recited again on the fifteenth day. Thus it is said: "Once a fortnight." Therein, by the former, it is shown that the day of harmony is indeed the Uposatha day. By both, rejecting the eighth day, it prevents the over-extension of the daily rejection. What is meant? If a divided Saṅgha becomes harmonious on the first day of the month, performing the harmony-Uposatha on that day, incurring both dukkaṭas, is prevented by both united. This is what is meant. Otherwise, the harmony-Uposatha is not daily. If so, it should be done day and night. And in that fortnight, the regular Uposatha is not daily. If so, it should be done day and night. And in that fortnight, if the regular Uposatha is not recited, it follows that the harmony-Uposatha should be done. If it is said: "Should it not be taken by way of exception?" No, because of undesirable consequences. What is meant? Having performed the harmony-Uposatha on the day of harmony, when the regular Uposatha day arrives again in that fortnight,