English
Aṭṭha. Nidānavanṇanā), "May the Saṅgha, sirs, hear me... (etc.)... it is easy for him to declare, there I ask the venerable ones... (etc.)... therefore silent. Thus I hold this." Having said this, by the method beginning with "Venerable ones, the introduction has been recited," the rest, having been heard and recited, is considered recited, because it is said: "Thus I hold this..." “Having heard, venerable sirs,” here, “I remember” having said, “The introduction, venerable sirs, has been recited” this statement is to be taken as abbreviated, therefore it is written in the manner of a short peyyāla. Thus, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā too, “For it is beneficial for him to be revealed, there, venerable sirs,” here too, “The introduction, venerable sirs, has been recited” this statement is to be taken as abbreviated, say some. Some say, “When it is said, ‘It should be learned without dispute,’ the recitation of the introduction is finished, therefore, one who does not reveal incurs an offense,” that is not appropriate. Why? For by the concluding word “having recited the introduction,” the completion of the introduction is stated, and at the end of the introduction, the offense is stated. “Sarabhañña means chanting with a voice” is written. “Having resolved on recitation” means “I will recite” having generated the thought. “It is proper to speak as soon as ‘I ask permission’ is said,” they say. That is appropriate in silence. “Or if one, overcome by gain etc., prevents it, that is not authoritative,” they say. “This is the same method,” if one says this and then interrupts, one must ask permission again. Description of the story of rejecting unrighteous acts, etc. 154. “For their non-affliction,” the Sangha does not perform an act for the Sangha, and another affliction occurs to many, therefore it is said. Description of the story of inviting the Pātimokkha reciter, etc. 155. “The Pātimokkha with the elder in charge,” even having said this, later, without distinction, “Whoever there is skilled and capable, to him it should be given,” because it is said, it is established that the word “Bhante” also applies to an elder. “Go, friend, in brief or in detail,” by this saying, even in the absence of an obstacle, it is established that strength is the measure. Description of the story of those going to other directions, etc. 163. “If he has attendant monks who are his companions,” is the reading. “‘Utuvasseti’ means in the seasons and years, in winter and summer,” is written. Description of the story of giving purity 164. “I give purity,” means “I, being with an offense, give to the elders.” "In intentional lying, a dukkaṭa arises," thus it was written by the teacher. What then is the reason? Because the offense of dukkaṭa for intentional lying is said by the Blessed One to be merely of the nature of non-action. But here, in "I give purity," action is evident. Therefore, it seems like a pācittiya for intentional lying. It should be thoroughly examined. For great indeed are those teachers. There, "I give" is said to signify the completion of one's Uposatha act. And "take" and "report" are said to remove the dukkaṭa due to the bearer's non-reporting. The same method applies to giving consent. There, "I give" is a word displaying one's mental agreement. The rest is as stated. Thus, Thera Upatissa explains. Or, first, referring to the state of unity, second, to the state to be done afterwards, third, it is said to remove the dukkaṭa of the bearer of consent. In both cases, from the words "he departs having reached the Saṅgha," etc., it is established that the giving of consent and purity is appropriate only when the Saṅgha is united, not when it is not united. From the words "an expelled one who has reached the Saṅgha acknowledges, purity has been brought," etc., it is established that the giving of consent and purity is appropriate even for expelled ones, etc. And that is, by the perception of being a normal person, not otherwise, so is the reasoning. If given to a sāmaṇera knowingly, it does not go, and there is an offense. If given unknowingly, it goes, and there is no offense, say some. "Cat's chain" is the name of purity. Here, "chain" means it is connected to what is immediately next, and to another chain. So, merely a chain is called purity, says Thera Upatissa. If so, the epithet is meaningless. A cat's chain is always tied, being used only inside the house. Just as it does not go anywhere, so too that (purity) does not go anywhere, this is said to be the intention. Description of the Discourse on Giving Consent, etc. 165-7. A bhikkhu who, having given consent, goes to a broken boundary, or an intermediate boundary, or an outer boundary, and returns, does not invalidate the act. Therefore, having taken the consent of the traveling monks, having established a partial boundary, they say, "they do not take their consent to establish the monastery boundary again." From the saying "Be aside for a moment," etc., it is established that any act of a monk is not valid when householders etc. are within arm's reach. "Nissīma" means outside the boundary. There is no act of giving consent for it, meaning it is valid even if it exists. It means "water with a seat." The word "api" in "pannarasopi" includes the fourteenth, therefore it is said in the Great Commentary, "if not this." Some say that the resolve "Today is my fifteenth Uposatha" is always nothing, not otherwise. Description of the Discourse on the Method of Rectifying Offenses, etc. 169-170. Some say that when "I confess" is said in any language, both the confession and the acceptance occur, because it is stated that purification is by declaration. One who is in doubt should say: "Venerable Sir, I am in doubt about a certain grave offense. When I am no longer in doubt, then I will rectify that offense." When this is done, as long as one is not free from doubt, one cannot accept a similar offense, but is considered pure for other acts. Again, having become free from doubt, it should be confessed. "Na ca" is neither in the Pāli nor in the commentary, but there is no fault in confessing it. Similarly, "Having arisen from this, I will rectify that offense," applies when the entire Sangha has incurred a similar offense, and when there is doubt. And it is written: "When the entire Sangha, having incurred a similar offense, sees itself pure," "then, having said 'I will rectify that offense in his presence,' one is allowed to perform the Uposatha." Description of the Discourse on the Non-Offense of the Fifteenth, etc. 172-3. "Atthaññe" is the reading in the former recitation, "athaññe" in the latter recitation. They see those who have entered or are entering the boundary. But those who perceive the Dhamma are ignorant. The reading is "The doubtful fifteenth is indeed clear." Description of the Discourse on the Entering of the Boundary, etc. From the saying, "It should not be given unwillingly," it is established that it should be given when there is a wish. Explanation of the Discourse on Showing Signs, etc. Here, regarding "they do not go beyond," they are indeed those who dwell together with different views. For, having made one who dwells together with different actions renounce their view, the act of bringing them back should be performed. When this is done, it is proper to perform the Uposatha with them. It is said that by merely renouncing the view, it should be done. And one who is suspended for not seeing an offense or not making amends, and one who is suspended for not renouncing a view, knowing this, for one who acts with them, there is an offense of pācittiya. Therefore, some say these should be known as followers of the suspended ones. Explanation of the Discourse on the Cases of Not Going and Going What is meant by "should not go"? By the saying "except with the Sangha," in a monastery where a hundred bhikkhus dwell, all of them, for some reason, becoming ten by ten, standing separately in various water-throwing boundaries, etc., are allowed to perform the Uposatha. Various boundary points like new work halls, etc., for the purpose of establishing the Uposatha, neither a boundary nor a river should be gone to. Because a light (Uposatha) should not be done after abandoning a heavy (Patimokkha recitation), the saying "except with the Sangha" is justified. There, by the saying "in which dwelling place Uposatha performers... [etc.]... without doing it, one should not go," it is established that it is proper to go to dwellings where the Uposatha has been abandoned. It is said that "From there, for the purpose of performing the purification Uposatha, it is proper to go to dwellings where the Uposatha has been abandoned, or to enter a broken boundary," so say others. By this, it is not an obstacle to the Uposatha, but "an obstacle to one's own Uposatha" is written. Explanation of the Discourse on Indicating Persons to Be Avoided It is proper to sit down, having generated the thought, "I will not do it, for fear of quarrels, etc., in the assembly of one who has fallen into a final offense." Some say there is no offense for the assembly of one who has fallen into a final offense in other acts. By the saying, "And, bhikkhus, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day, except for the unity of the Sangha" (Mahāva. 183), the day of unity is a non-Uposatha day... It seems to be said in meaning, "These two, monks, are the Uposathas." This is said based on the words spoken, otherwise it would contradict the Parivāra Pāli, say the teachers. Our conjecture is that the teaching was given to show that if the Sangha is united on the fourteenth or fifteenth, one should not say "today is the Uposatha of unity," but should perform it in the usual manner. Otherwise, if there is unity on the two days mentioned, it would follow that the Uposatha should not be performed then, but the Uposatha of unity should be performed on a non-Uposatha day.