English
Otherwise, since it was previously forbidden, there is no need for a prohibition now. For it was said before, "Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited daily." Or, since it was said before, "Monks, I allow the recitation of the Pātimokkha on the Uposatha," and later it was said, "once a fortnight, on the fourteenth or fifteenth," and "These two, monks, are the Uposathas," it follows in meaning that the Uposatha should not be performed on any other day. It should be understood that this teaching was given to prevent the undesirable implication that any other day, even a non-Uposatha day, becomes an Uposatha day by custom when there is unity of the Sangha. The commentary on the Uposatha Khandhaka is finished. 3. Commentary on the Vassūpanāyika Khandhaka Commentary on the story of allowing the Rains-retreat 184. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā too, the reading is "saṅkāsayissanti" (they will make known); the island dwellers, it is said, read "saṅkāpayissanti" (they will cause to be made known). To the thought, "How many Rains-retreats are there?" when it was asked, "What is the sign?" The entering upon the Rains-retreat, which was spoken of as "Monks, I allow you to enter upon the Rains-retreat," should be entered upon by saying, "I enter upon these three months of the Rains." And the months of the Rains are four. There are two kinds of three-month periods: the first three months and the last three months. Therefore, this thought arose in those monks. Commentary on the story of rejecting wandering during the Rains, etc. 185. By going without consideration, or by causing the dawn to rise elsewhere. Regarding "an offense should be known," first, he departs with a duty for a pavāraṇā not yet arrived, for seven days. It should be understood that this statement, "Whether, O bhikkhus, that bhikkhu comes to that dwelling or does not come, for that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, the former [residence] is known, and there is no offense in the promise," refers to this side (i.e., within the seven days). For thus it is said (Mahāva. 207): "If he departs without a duty on that very day, or departs with a duty, for that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, the former [residence] is not known, and there is an offense of wrong-doing in the promise." Explanation of the allowance for a seven-day duty 187-8. Secondly, however, by the statement, "If he spends that seven days outside, for that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, the former [residence] is not known, and there is an offense of wrong-doing in the promise," it should be understood as beyond the seven days. For thus it is said (Mahāva. 207): "If he makes that seven days a return within, for that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, the former [residence] is known, and there is no offense in the promise." Even if there are two reasons, if there is no reason for breaking the Rains, an offense should be known. Therefore, all three of these statements, when applied as appropriate, become distinctions. "Three are lost" means due to their non-existence. Explanation of the allowance for one who has been sent 199. By the statement, "I allow, O bhikkhus, to go for a duty of the Saṅgha; a return within seven days must be made," it is permissible to go during the Rains as one who brings back. There, even if one comes out of a desire for Dhamma, the Saṅgha's source of income is destroyed. Therefore, it is also said, "having made dwellings." "Āgata" means coming. Here, this is a *ta*-suffix in the sense of a state. Regarding "to go for a duty of the Saṅgha," it is said that Elder Dhammasiri states, "only for Saṅgha duties connected with dwellings, not for others." Even in the Commentary, having quoted that word, it is shown as "dwelling" by "whatever dwellings such as uposatha halls, etc.," therefore, it should be examined. To go without being invited, not (allowed). It is permissible, for him there is a break of night, and an offense of wrong-doing. That they also call "breaking the rains-residence." It is indeed called 'invited'. Here, even if an agreement is made by lay followers, saying, "On this day, we will perform offerings and so forth, let all assemble," it is permissible to go. From the ninth day after Pavāraṇā, to seek a rag-robe, like in Kāvirapaṭṭana, it is permissible for all to go. Because regularly every year, it is prepared and kept by lay followers. This is also said in the Andhaka Commentary: "Or an agreement is made by the community of bhikkhus, 'Let bhikkhus go all around,' or an announcement is made by lay followers. For one going there, there is no break of night. Similarly, even if invited once, saying 'come every year,' it is permissible." And, "From the time of the robe-season, having made a rule, for those who come from all around, by preparing and giving, the manner of doing it by announcing in Kāvirapaṭṭana is understood," say others. But the teachers do not say so. Explanation of the story of breaking the rains-residence without offense due to an obstacle. 201. "If one has gone far, the dawn should be made to rise within seven days." From this saying, "When there is an obstacle, it is permissible to break the rains-residence. In that very obstacle, without breaking the rains-residence, it is permissible to pass the time with the seven-day allowance," say others, it is shown. But the Vinaya-holders do not wish it. Therefore, "the dawn should be made to rise within seven days," this should be understood as said for the purpose of arising there, and so forth. Referring to that, it was said, "But the teachers do not say so." "Or a cow" means or an ox. "For those standing outside the boundary" means even for those standing in a broken boundary, says Upatissa Thera. "In breaking the rains-residence" means of that breaking the rains-residence. By those who cause the monastery to arise elsewhere, having assembled right there, they should announce: "For this and that reason, in this named place, having taken this monastery, we will cause it to arise." It should be done only after announcing. Explanation of the story of entering the rains-residence in Vajji and so forth. 203. For one who has gone with Vajji, in breaking the rains-residence, no (offense). There is no break of rains-residence if one incurs an offense— this is the intention, it seems. Since there is no monastery in the caravan, instead of saying, "in this monastery," it is enough to say, "here I enter the rains-residence." It is written: "But in a caravan, it is not proper to enter the rains-residence by saying, 'in this monastery, this three-month period,' or 'here I enter the rains-residence'; it is proper only by making it a dwelling-place." But this contradicts the commentary. For it is said: "One should say, 'here I enter the rains-residence,' three times." If it is asked whether the commentary's statement also contradicts itself, no, it is due to not understanding the intention. A caravan is of two kinds: stationary and moving. In a stationary caravan, one should reside in a hut, saying, "here I enter the rains-residence." It is with reference to this that it is said: "I allow, monks, to enter the rains-residence in a caravan." But in a moving caravan, since there is no hut, it is not proper to enter the rains-residence. If there is a palanquin or a cart-hut, it is proper, and similarly in a journey. In these three situations, a monk does not incur an offense for a break in the rains-residence. Regarding "he is allowed to invite," this is the inquiry: "I allow, monks, to go wherever the journey leads"— was this said for the protection of the rains-residence, or for the protection from the offense of breaking the rains-residence? And in this, if it was for the protection of the rains-residence, "monks, one should not enter the rains-residence without a dwelling-place"—this contradicts it. If it is established that it was said for the protection from the offense of breaking the rains-residence, that he is not allowed to invite, what is the reason here? Because only this threefold person is allowed to invite, not others. For one harassed by wild animals, etc., is allowed if he does not abandon the place where he entered the rains-residence. If he abandons it, he is not allowed—this is the reason here. Even if he goes to the village, he is allowed to invite—so says one teacher. For he who previously did not enter the rains-residence by saying, "here I enter the rains-residence," but entered by saying, "in this monastery," and that was abandoned. Otherwise, it is proper to enter the rains-residence by saying, "here I enter the rains-residence," referring only to a village, without a monastery. Let him incur an offense. e? No, because there is no statement "to enter the Rains in a village" like the statement "I allow, monks, to enter the Rains in a caravan, in a boat." Since the statement "for a monk, there is no offense in cutting the Rains in three situations" indicates that entering the Rains is there, for without it there is no cutting, therefore it is established that "it is not proper to enter the Rains in a caravan" was said referring to a time when there is no hut. "For a monk, there is no offense in cutting the Rains in three situations" it is written: "there is no offense only for one going with them, there is an offense if one goes in opposition, and one cannot make the pavāraṇā." Therefore, what is said in the commentary: "Then the caravan, while still within the Rains, reaches the desired place by the monk and passes beyond... ...or stops or disperses in a village in between," this is to show that even for those who went in opposition, it is not considered going in opposition, and therefore they should make the pavāraṇā. There, by the statement "having made a hut with a leaf-roof, one should enter the Rains," it is established that it is proper to climb a tree for a lodging, and not due to contradiction with the Pāli, you might say? No, because it is established by its rejection, and by its rejection again here.