English
For the purpose of dispelling remorse: In the days of residence corresponding to the number of concealed days, "Are there any days that might involve causes for the cutting of the night in three ways?" If so, due to the days of probation not being complete, he would not be worthy of mānattā. And if there is no worthiness of mānattā, even if mānattā is given, it would be as if not given. And if this is the case, there would be no rising up from the fallen offense. This is for the dispelling of this doubt concerning the Vinaya. Having undergone probation for days exceeding one, two, or three days, isn't he one who has completed his probation? Therefore, he should only request mānattā. Then why is it said that one should undertake the observance and then request mānattā? Bearing this objection in mind, it was said, "for this one, when the observance is undertaken," and so on. Indeed, because this bhikkhu is worthy of mānattā only when the observance is undertaken, not when it is not undertaken, therefore, the connection is that one should undertake the observance and then request mānattā. But in the formal declaration (kammavācā) it is only said, "He, having completed his probation, requests mānattā from the Saṅgha," it is not said, "having undertaken the observance." Then why is it said, "he is worthy of mānattā only when the observance is undertaken"? Referring to this objection, it is said, "because he has completed probation with the observance laid aside." Because this bhikkhu has completed probation having laid aside the observance, not without laying aside the observance, therefore, because he has completed probation having laid aside the observance, this bhikkhu is worthy of mānattā only when the observance is undertaken, not when it is not undertaken — this is the explanation. Thus it is said: "For one who has not laid aside the observance, there is no need to undertake it again. For he is worthy of mānattā simply by the passing of the days of concealment. Therefore, mānattā should indeed be given to him." "With four or five bhikkhus" is for the purpose of being freed from the fault of acting with an incomplete assembly. "The enclosure of an enclosed monastery," and so on, although it is not in the Pāli (text), yet it is said that one should act accordingly by the words of the Aṭṭhakathā teachers. "Having discerned the presence" means having discerned the twelve-cubit precinct. "Having discerned the arrival of those who have not laid aside the observance within the precinct boundary, co-residence and so on should be understood," it is said. "Nikk It is said that there is a purpose for confessing and depositing [the offense], but that purpose is not shown, as stated in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 97). It should be understood that the purpose is to be freed from the *dukkata* of breaking the observance. 239.The meaning is that even if the rehabilitation is done, it is as if it were not done, if it is not proper to do it. Because it is said, "Therefore, having undertaken the observance and confessed, rehabilitation should be requested," even at the time of undertaking the *mānatta* for the purpose of requesting rehabilitation, it must be confessed. It is understood that rehabilitation should not be requested without confessing, even if it was confessed previously during the period of observing *mānatta*. Thus, it should be seen that even at the time of requesting *mānatta*, one must undertake the *parivāsa* and confess. 240.A bhikkhu who has observed *mānatta* should be rehabilitated. This is said because there is no difference between one who has observed *mānatta* and one who is worthy of rehabilitation. Otherwise, it would be said, "One worthy of rehabilitation should be rehabilitated." Even one who has undergone the act of suspension, if there is a bhikkhu of the same view according to his own understanding, he cannot avoid confessing to him. The reading is: "But for one who conceals a non-impediment with the perception of an impediment, it is not concealed." One who is of the same view through non-enmity is a non-enemy of the same view. It is stated here in this context: "But it is not proper to reveal a *saṅghādisesa* to one who is of the same view." For minor offenses, there is no prohibition. Because it is permitted there to perform the *uposatha* by revealing it through a formal motion, it is proper to reveal a minor offense to one of the same view. But it is said that confession of a *saṅghādisesa* to one of the same view through a formal motion is not proper. Because it is said: "He will rectify that offense in his presence" (Mahāva. 171), this is permitted only for minor offenses. For it is written: "It is not possible to rectify a *saṅghādisesa* in the presence of a single pure bhikkhu." Even for minor offenses, it is not proper to reveal to one of the same view. Therefore, indeed, revelation by formal motion is permitted; otherwise, it would be meaningless. Mutual confession is proper. Revelation by formal motion is permitted only to show that from that [general allowance of mutual confession], it is not proper [to confess directly to a *sabhāga*]. Therefore, here it is said, "for one who has incurred a shared Saṅghādisesa," etc. This meaning, "by this, those two become faultless; the remaining shared offenses should be confessed to them," is also clarified in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā). However, it is proper to perform the Uposatha after declaring a Saṅghādisesa by a formal motion (ñatti). The meaning of that motion is this: when one sees a pure bhikkhu, one will make amends by mutual declaration to him. When amends are thus made, there is release from the offense stated as, "And, bhikkhus, the Pātimokkha should not be listened to by one who is at fault; whoever listens incurs an offense of wrong-doing (dukkata)" (Cūḷava. 386). Therefore, it is said, "whether it be grave or light, it is proper to make it known by a motion." The more appropriate of the two methods should be adopted. It is written: "An offense is an offense incurred by that transgression. 'Name' is the name of that offense." Here, "having declared and laid aside" means that the declaration should be understood as for the purpose of avoiding the dukkata of breaking the rule. There is also the reading: "When there is an obstacle, one who perceives it as an obstacle conceals it; it is not concealed. But for one who conceals an obstacle, whether perceiving it as an obstacle or not perceiving it as an obstacle, it is not concealed." "Averī" means benevolent. "Uddhaste aruṇe" means when the dawn has risen. "To a pure one" means to one who has not incurred a shared Saṅghādisesa. "Vatthu" means the transgression of emitting impurity, etc. "Sukkavissaṭṭhi" (emission of semen) is both the 'basis' (vatthu) and the 'lineage' (gotta). This means that "sukkavissaṭṭhi" is the basis because it reveals the transgression characterized by the emission of impurity, and it is the lineage because it reveals the nature of semen emission, which is common to its own kind and distinct from other kinds. For "gotta" (lineage) protects the kind. "Saṅghādisesa" is both the name and the offense. "Saṅghādisesa" is the name because it reveals the name of the category of offense incurred by that transgression, and it is the offense by its nature as an offense. "To a pure one" means to one who has a shared Saṅghādi... For the rest, for one who has not incurred it, or for one who has risen from it. In another, in another rising from an offense, by way of the suddhanta-parivāsa, from rising from an offense. It was concealed, that is, concealed. What is that? An offense. Dwelling, having delimited by days and so on, is parivāsa. What is that? The performance of a disciplinary act. The parivāsa for a concealed offense is concealed-parivāsa. The discourse on concealed-parivāsa is finished. The discourse on suddhanta-parivāsa 242. Purification is suddha, what is that? The cessation of an offense. It goes to a final state, so it is anta, the parivāsa of which the end is pure is suddhanta, and that parivāsa is suddhanta-parivāsa, a parivāsa made by making the pure period the limit, having delimited it by the measure of the impure period. The discourse on suddhanta-parivāsa is finished. The discourse on odhāna-samodhāna-parivāsa 243. It is brought together, samodhāna, offenses of various times and various matters are brought together, made one, by way of value and so on, this is samodhāna. The parivāsa made by bringing together is samodhāna-parivāsa, this is the analysis. In the kammavācā, ‘‘the bhikkhu named so-and-so has been pulled back by the Sangha, for many offenses incurred in between, unconcealed, a pulling back to the root; it is agreeable to the Sangha, therefore silence, thus we hold it.’’ Here, because the āya-command is stated in these four places: in the object of the root meaning ‘to go’, in the object of the root meaning ‘to lead’, in the accomplishment of that meaning, and in the transformation of the case ending; and because the root ‘sad’ with ‘paṭi’ means ‘to lead’, ‘‘mūlāya’’ is the object in ‘‘paṭikassito’’. Therefore, it should only be ‘‘paṭikassito…pe… mūlāya’’, not ‘‘mūlāyapaṭikassanā’’; thinking thus, grammarians might say or assert that ‘‘paṭikassanā’’ is superfluous, but this should not be said. This reading should be considered whether it is grammatically correct or incorrect only in new texts, not in ancient texts that have come down from the Pāli and commentaries. In those, however, how can this reading be grammatically connected? and with purposefulness, it should be construed as such. And this reading is indeed an ancient Pāli reading, therefore, "mūlāyapaṭikassanā" (relegation to the origin) should be transformed in the sense of an instrument and construed as "relegated by means of relegation to the origin." But how is its ancient reading status to be known?