English
"Monks, one should not enter the Rains without a lodging," if you say that this rejection is like the rejection "Monks, one should not enter the Rains in the open air," No, because it would lead to the approval of the open air as a lodging. For the open air is established as a lodging by the statement "in the open air, on a pile of straw." Even one dwelling in the open air of a four-sided hall is called "dwelling in a four-sided hall," therefore it would follow that it is proper there. Therefore, here, "without a lodging" should be understood as one who has not obtained a lodging, either by himself or by another, for his permanent dwelling. Otherwise, there would be an excess of one of the two rejections, and it would be proper to enter the Rains even at the root of a tree, even in a hollow, and even for one without a lodging, in a womb and it is proper to sit, it is incurred. If it is asked, "How is it known that a dwelling with a door-bolt is intended here as a lodging?" From the origin. For this offense of entering the rains without a lodging was laid down in this origin: "At that time, monks entered the rains without a lodging, suffering from cold and heat." Therefore, it is established that a lodging here means precisely that which wards off cold, etc. If it is said, "Thus, the example of the former side is established?" No, because it indicates occurrence elsewhere previously. In the description of the second jhāna, the words "from the cessation of applied thought and sustained thought, without applied thought, without sustained thought" are an example. By the origin of the prohibition of open air, only the outside open air is prohibited, and it is not incurred for open air in the middle of a four-sided hall, etc. If it is said, "Therefore, the origin is not a standard?" No, due to its specific rule. For it has been established that some training rules depend on their origin. How is it known that "this is dependent, this is independent," for here there is no word-by-word analysis of the training rules, nor a section on non-offenses, as in the Vibhaṅga of both? Here too, it is known from the method of teaching. For by these two origin-statements: "When it rains, they run to the root of a tree, even to a place without a roof," all places, whether outside or inside, where rain falls, are called "open air" here. It is established that even a place where rain does not fall, but is without a roof, is intended here. Therefore, "should not enter" is not a prohibition against making a dwelling, but a prohibition against the statement, "I will enter the rains here." Having burnt a corpse for ashes, and for the sake of bones, a small hut is made – this is a statement from the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. It is written: "A 'ṭaṅkita mañca' means a farmer's hut or a stone house." It is said: "If one dwells in a lodging without a door-bolt, but in a suitable place made by oneself, with a door-bolt, it is permissible." There is also usage, "One without a lodging should not enter the rains" – both in the Pāli and the commentary, therefore, it should be examined. Unrighteous agreements, etc. Description of the Story 205. In the Mahāvibhaṅga, it is said: This is a saying from the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: A novice under fifteen years of age should not reside in this monastery, should not wander for rags, should not take alms in a bowl, should not eat in another monastery, should not eat what belongs to another monk or nun, we should not speak to each other nor converse with each other, there should be no chanting, a clay bowl is permissible, residence is not for one whose requisites are incomplete. 206. "False speech" means deception. Some say, "It is said 'having promised by way of deception'," and "It is said that householders understand 'false speech' according to the words spoken by the king." 207. "The former is not known. Why? When the thought 'I will reside in the second' arises, the taking of the first lodging ceases. Again, when the thought 'I will reside in the first' arises, the second ceases. There is no provision for both residences," it is written. But in the ancient commentary, it is said: "Having not resided in the place first taken, and having taken lodging in another monastery and resided for two or three days, then the first taking ceases, and the former is not known. The latter taking does not cease. This is called cessation by way of days. Then, if one resides in another [monastery] for the latter three months, the former is not known; this is called cessation by way of taking lodgings." Both these interpretations are not intended here. Where this promise was made, the former is not known, and in the promise, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. Where then is the former known? In the middle of the path, in two residences, where the latter taking is on that very day, for one who goes with a seven-day task to the place first taken, there is no break in the rains-residence. It is written in "karaṇīyaṃ nāma sattāhakaraṇīyaṃ" (a task is a seven-day task) and so on, that he departs without doing the task on that very day. In the Pāḷimuttakaratticchedavinicchaya, "listening to the Dhamma "Beginning" it is said. In the beginning, in the four cases, because an independent departure is intended, it is not said, "with a seven-day task," for if it were, there would be no independent departure. There, the first two cases are stated for one who has not undertaken the rains-residence; therefore, it is established that for one who has undertaken it, going with a seven-day task on that very day and returning within seven days does not break the rains-residence. The last two cases are stated for one who has undertaken it, departing independently, and it is said to show that "if one departs with a task for the Invitation that is not yet come in seven days," and spends more than seven days outside, that breaks the rains-residence. There, because it is not said, "he departs without a task," it is established that one should not go without a reason for breaking the night. However, it is permissible to go after the Invitation, as the Invitation is connected to that day. There, "or he might not return" due to an obstacle. But the teacher says, "It is not said 'without a task' to show that even if the teacher says 'I will not come back here,' he is still allowed to go with a task." It is said, "In Sri Lanka, there is a 'minor Invitation,' it seems; having performed that Invitation, they go with a task as they please, and they show the practice." And it is said, "There, six dawns are within the rains-residence, one is outside; therefore, he has resided for three months, say others." And it is said, "The teacher does not say this." "Everywhere he undertakes the monastery" means he undertakes the dwelling that has reached his rains-residence, say the ancients. But if there is no rains-residence, he does not undertake it, because it is not said, "these three months in this monastery." It is written, "Even for one who goes saying, 'I will stay outside the monastery and return' without a reason for breaking the night mentioned in the Commentary, there is a break in the rains-residence." 208. He has promised for the latter, that is, by a nun who has gone forth in the interim, or by one whose rains-residence is broken; but one should not make a promise for the latter without having undertaken the former by another. They say, concluding that a break in the night everywhere is a break in the rains-residence. But some do not agree. That they elaborate in many ways to accomplish it. What is the use of that? The commentary on the Vassūpanāyika Khandhaka is finished. 4. Commentary on the Pavāraṇā Khandhaka Commentary on the story of dwelling uncomfortably 210. Because it is said, "Friends, I invite the Saṅgha," it seems that afterwards it should also be said, "May the Saṅgha speak to me." This is the intention here: "Since I invite the Saṅgha, therefore, the elders, the middlings, or the novices included therein, all you venerable ones without distinction, may you all speak to me." Commentary on the divisions of Pavāraṇā 212. "These are the two Pavāraṇās, monks," in this regard, when there is such a duty, it is permissible to perform Pavāraṇā anywhere. For this reason, the monks in the Mahāvihāra, having performed Pavāraṇā on the fourteenth day, even now give their physical presence on the fifteenth. They also go to Cetiyagiri for the great viewing on the eighth day, and that too is for those who wish to perform Pavāraṇā on the fourteenth. It is written, "This is the custom, according to the saying, 'If one departs with a duty to perform within seven days before the Pavāraṇā, there is no offense.'" "If he does not make an adhiṭṭhāna, there is an offense of dukkata" - the dukkata mentioned for one person, and the preliminary duty mentioned for him, should also be applied to the Saṅgha and groups. Commentary on the permission to give Pavāraṇā 213. "By that monk" means by the one giving Pavāraṇā. Commentary on the no-offense fifteenth day, etc. "When that Pavāraṇā has been announced and the Saṅgha has performed Pavāraṇā, it is said that 'all have performed Pavāraṇā well.' Therefore, they say that 'merely by the Pavāraṇā, the one giving Pavāraṇā has also performed Pavāraṇā.'" 222. "When the assembly has not risen" means when they are talking to each other after performing Pavāraṇā. "When some have risen" means when some are seated as they were, and some have gone to their respective places. "One should perform Pavāraṇā again" means all should gather again and perform Pavāraṇā. "They come together, one should perform Pavāraṇā in their presence" - it is written, "One should perform Pavāraṇā only in the presence of those who are seated, without bringing back those who have gone; the same method applies to the Uposatha Khandhaka." "When the entire assembly has risen, they come together, one should perform Pavāraṇā in their presence."