English
The Explanation of the Chapter on Probationers The Explanation of the Account of the Probationer's Observance 75. In the Chapter on Probationers, when it is said, "Do not ask me about entering the village," they say, "It is permissible to enter the village even without asking." The Sangha is permitted to take it in its proper place. "Oṇojana" means release. "But that which was brought by the probationer, and accepted by oneself, for the purpose of the next day, etc., should be released. If one releases it without accepting it, it is said, 'He does not obtain it.'" 76. Here, regarding "natural dependence," it is said, "If there is attachment among the pupils, it is permissible until the day of the Rains Retreat. If it is said that 'when there is such attachment, the dependence is not relaxed?' It is not permissible. There, it is permissible by 'Now I will ask for forgiveness,' and so on." There, because it is completely released, but here, some say that the equality of both should be desired absolutely. Here, regarding "or of a capable bhikkhu," it is written, "Even if commanded by one who has received authorization, he is not permitted to advise on the weighty rules or other matters." Here, regarding "or worse than that," it is said, "This method also should be applied: 'emission of semen is worse than an offense of misconduct committed unintentionally.'" Conditions It is against the rainy season residence. He does not obtain a lodging due to being on the boundary of the bed. "He is not allowed to give instructions, etc.," they say. "If two monks undergoing probation see each other in a place they have gone to, both must inform each other without distinction, because it is said, 'The newcomer must be informed, and the newcomer must inform'," it is stated. Even if one has gone to another monastery, there is no need to inform again if one has been informed there before. "Just as there is no need to inform again in the monastery for one who has informed outside without having abandoned the observance, so too, the statement 'one must inform on the Uposatha day for the purification of the newcomer' is a proof here," they say. 81. Some say that even for one sitting under a single roof, there are offenses of wrong-doing for breaking the night. Without distinction, without making this distinction between one undergoing probation and one who is suspended. "Because of the saying 'even with one who is fully ordained and ordinary,' it is permissible to reside with those not fully ordained." "By 'equal in years' it is written that this indicates the offense of breaking the observance for both if one lies down later or earlier." The explanation of the rules for one undergoing probation is finished. The explanation of the rules for one deserving of being sent back to the beginning. 86. "Newer than oneself" means newer than one undergoing probation, etc. Having first taken probation in the midst of the Sangha, it is permissible to undertake and abandon the observance again with even one person. In the case of Mānatta (penance), however, it is permissible to abandon it. Some say that it should not be undertaken in a deficient group due to the fault of practicing. In the ancient commentaries, it is said that just as it is permissible to abandon the initial observance with one person, so too it is permissible to undertake it. The explanation of the chapter on probation is finished. 3. The explanation of the chapter on accumulation. The explanation of the story of the emission of semen. 97. It is written: "By 'I feel' is meant 'I know, having received it with my mind, I experience pleasure, and I am not suffering because of it'." To whom it has not been announced in the chapter house, it must be announced and then abandoned. To whom it has been announced, there is no need to announce again, only to abandon. It must be drunk. For one dwelling, having laid down the observance, there is no need to inform all who have come within the vicinity boundary. Those who are seen and whose voices are heard should be informed; even those unseen and unheard, but within twelve cubits, should be informed. "This is the characteristic of one dwelling, having laid down the observance," it is said. "Although 'from the enclosure of a delimited monastery' and so on is not in the Pāli text, yet it should be practiced according to the words of the commentators," it is also said. "And it is also said, 'Recognizing the existence' means recognizing within the twelve-cubit vicinity, and recognizing the arrival of those who have not laid down the observance within the vicinity boundary, one should understand co-residence and so on." "And it is said, 'One who lays down (the observance) should inform and then lay it down; there is a purpose,' but that purpose is not shown." A bhikkhu who has completed the mānatta should be reinstated, because there is no difference between one who has completed mānatta and one who is worthy of reinstatement; otherwise, it would have to be said, "One worthy of reinstatement should be reinstated." Even one who has undergone the act of suspension, if there is a bhikkhu of the same view, cannot avoid informing him according to his own understanding. Commentary on the Story of Probation 102. "But for one who conceals a non-impediment with the perception of an impediment, it is not concealed," is the reading. One who is of the same kind through non-enmity is a non-enemy of the same kind. "But it is not proper to reveal (an offense) in the presence of one who has incurred a Saṅghādisesa of the same kind," is stated here due to the context. There is no prohibition for minor offenses. There, because it is permitted to perform the Uposatha by revealing (the offense) through a motion, it is proper to reveal a minor offense of the same kind. But it is said that it is not proper to declare a Saṅghādisesa of the same kind through a motion. "Because it is said (Mahāva. 171), 'He will rectify that offense in his presence,' this is permitted only for minor offenses. For it is not possible to rectify a Saṅghādisesa in the presence of a single pure person," it is written. Even for minor offenses, it is not proper to reveal to one of the same kind; for that very reason, revelation through a motion is permitted, otherwise should be useless. It is proper for mutual declaration, and then it is not proper, so it is only for the purpose of showing this that the declaration by motion is permitted. Therefore, it is said here, "for one who has incurred a Sanghādisesa of the same kind," and so on. This meaning is already explained in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇīya by the statement, "By this much, those two are free from offense; to them, offenses of the same kind should be declared" (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. Nidāṇavaṇṇanā). However, it is proper to perform the Uposatha after declaring a Sanghādisesa by motion. The meaning of that motion is that when he sees a pure bhikkhu, he will make amends by declaring it to him. When it is thus amended, there is release from the offense mentioned in "And, bhikkhus, the Pātimokkha should not be listened to by one who has an offense; whoever listens, there is an offense of dukkaṭa" (Cūḷava. 386). Therefore, it is said, "Whether it is serious or light, it is proper to make it known by motion." The more appropriate of the two methods should be adopted. "Name and offense" means "the offense incurred by that transgression is the offense. Name is the name of that offense," it is written. "Having declared, one should lay it aside" - here, the declaration should be understood as having the purpose of removing the dukkaṭa of a verbal fault. "This is not a reason" - because of the rising up when it is said, "He incurred many Sanghādisesa offenses." "A hundred nights for a thousand" should be construed as "having concealed a thousand offenses for a hundred nights." "Aggasamodhāna" means that for one who has incurred many offenses of the same kind, it should be given by laying aside the offense concealed for many nights. The other is according to various kinds of objects; this is the distinction between them. The explanation of the Parivāsa story is finished. It is written that "since it is said 'near the village,' it is proper even in the precincts of the village," this is the intention. And it is said, "But this is the distinction." It is written, "Here, the Aṭṭhakathā teachers are the authority. It does not seem proper." But in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said, "But this is the distinction, for an arriving one... and so on... having entered, he goes, there is indeed a break of night." In the statement below, by the method beginning with "having gone out before dawn, having passed two stone-throws from the village precincts," making it weighty; and because the training rules were laid down here and there specifically for bhikkhunis to be weighty; and in a corresponding manner, by the commentator, making it weighty for bhikkhunis, to show the method of undergoing mānatta, "as many as before meal" and so on was said. To show that there is no fault even for one acting according to the statement in the Kurundi and other texts, only the characteristic was stated. Both of these are appropriate in their respective contexts. Because when a decision is reached, one must stand by the characteristic, the statement in the Kurundi and other texts was mentioned later. But the practice is the former. Just as here, so if any bhikkhuni raises the dawn without passing two stone-throws, there is no fault. Nevertheless, because it is stated in all commentaries, "the former is indeed the custom" was said. Regarding the duties of parivāsa and so on: "Because parivāsa, nissaya, paṭippassaddhi, and so on are defined by the precinct boundary, the precinct boundary of the bhikkhuni's dwelling should be taken, not the village" — thus it is written. "In that village, alms-round is accomplished" and so on was said by way of permission.