English
Thus, having purified these factors, If there is a complete fulfillment of factors, It should be said: "It is a Sanghādisesa." If not, Having said: "This is not a Sanghādisesa, It is one of the offenses like Thullaccaya, etc." And having said: "This is not an offense requiring rehabilitation, This is an offense requiring confession, Therefore, confess it In the presence of a suitable monk," He should be made to confess. But if the shadow of no offense appears, Having said: "No offense," He should be dismissed. But if the shadow of a Sanghādisesa appears, Having asked: "Did you commit this offense and conceal it, Or not conceal it?" If he says: "I did not conceal it," It should be said: "Then you are not worthy of probation, You are only worthy of penance." But if he says: "I concealed it," Having asked: "Did you conceal it for one of the ten reasons, Or for another reason?" If he says: "For one of the ten reasons," It should be said: "Even so, he is worthy of penance, Not worthy of probation." Then, if he says, "for another reason," even so, having asked, "Did you conceal the fact of having committed an offense knowingly, or unknowingly?" and when he says, "I concealed it unknowingly," and having asked, "Did you conceal the fact of having committed an offense remembering, or forgetting?" and when he says, "I concealed it forgetting," and having asked, "Did you conceal it being doubtful about having committed an offense, or being undoubting?" and when he says, "I concealed it being doubtful," it should be said, "You are not worthy of 'parivāsa', but only worthy of 'mānatta'." But if he says, "I concealed it knowingly," and if he says, "I concealed it remembering," and if he says, "I concealed it being undoubting," it should be said, "You are worthy of 'parivāsa'." For it is said in the Samuccayakkhandhaka (Cūḷavagga 144): "That offense, friends, which was concealed knowingly, the giving of 'parivāsa' for that offense is lawful, it is approved as lawful. But that offense, friends, which was concealed unknowingly, the giving of 'parivāsa' for that offense is unlawful, it is not approved as unlawful. For one offense, friends, a bhikkhu is worthy of 'mānatta'." And, "That offense, friends, which was concealed remembering, the giving of 'parivāsa' for that offense is lawful, it is approved as lawful. But that offense, friends, which was concealed forgetting, the giving of 'parivāsa' for that offense is unlawful, it is not approved as unlawful. For one offense, friends, a bhikkhu is worthy of 'mānatta'." And, "That offense, friends, which was concealed being undoubting, the giving of 'parivāsa' for that offense is lawful, it is approved as lawful. But that offense, friends, which was concealed being doubtful, the giving of 'parivāsa' for that offense is unlawful, it is not approved as unlawful. For one offense, friends, a bhikkhu is worthy of 'mānatta'." Having thus declared his worthiness for 'parivāsa', it is asked, "This bhikkhu is worthy of 'parivāsa', but of which of the three 'parivāsas' is he worthy?" having considered, “How many offenses do you conceal, monk?” and having asked, when it is said, “I conceal one offense,” or “I conceal two, three, or more offenses,” then having asked, “For how many days did you conceal the offense?” when it is said, “I concealed it for one day,” or “I concealed it for two, three, or more days,” it should be said, “For as many days as you concealed it, for that many days you shall undergo probation.” For it was said by the Blessed One: “For as many days as one knowingly conceals, for that many days that monk must unwillingly undergo probation.” Then, knowing, “This monk knows the extent of the offense, therefore he is worthy of concealed probation” (Pārā. 442), the appropriate formal act should be performed. Here, the questioning about the extent of the offense is for the purpose of performing the formal act; but the questioning about the extent of the nights is for that purpose and also to show the unsuitability of pure probation. For it was said in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102): “It is of two kinds: minor pure and major pure. Both of these should be given to one who does not know or does not remember the number of nights, or is doubtful about it. But whether one knows ‘I have incurred so many offenses’ or not, that is not the reason.” Then, the sitting place of that monk should be known. For there are two kinds of sitting places: a place to sit without abandoning the duties, and a place to sit having abandoned the duties. There, in a monastery with few monks, in the dwelling place of compatible monks, the inner monastery, circumscribed by the precinct boundary, is the place to sit without abandoning the duties. Having gone beyond the precinct boundary, having turned off from the main road, a place covered with bushes and trees is the place to sit having abandoned the duties. For it was said in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102): “If it is a monastery with few monks, and compatible monks dwell there, the counting of nights should be done within the monastery itself, without abandoning the duties. But if if it cannot be purified, having laid aside the practice in the manner stated, at dawn, with one bhikkhu, in the manner stated in the description of Mānattā, having crossed the boundary of the precinct, having turned off the main road, having sat down in a hidden place, having undertaken the practice in the manner stated, before dawn, the Parivāsa should be announced to that bhikkhu. And "in the manner stated in the description of Mānattā" refers to this statement: "if the monastery has few bhikkhus, and congenial bhikkhus dwell there, the nights should be counted within the monastery itself, without laying aside the practice. But if it cannot be purified, having laid aside the practice in the manner stated, at dawn, with four or five bhikkhus, from the boundary of a circumscribed monastery, or from a place suitable for circumscription for an uncircumscribed one, having gone beyond two clod-throws, having turned off the main road, one should sit in a place hidden by a bush or a fence." This statement (Vinaya Saṅgaha Aṭṭhakathā 238) is referred to. Here, "if the monastery has few bhikkhus" is said because in a monastery with many bhikkhus, some bhikkhus go, others come, therefore, the reasons for breaking the nights and breaking the practice are difficult to purify. For it will be said, "But if it cannot be purified." "Congenial bhikkhus dwell there" is said because in the presence of uncongenial, hostile bhikkhus, one who announces the practice might wish to make it public, therefore it is said. For it is said in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 102; Vinaya Saṅgaha Aṭṭhakathā 236): "Therefore, it should be announced in the presence of one who is not hostile and is congenial. But if one is uncongenial and, having heard, wishes to make it public, it should not be announced even in the presence of such an Upajjhāya." Therefore, in a place where uncongenial ones dwell, it should be understood that it is permissible to perform the practice outside, without undertaking it (within the monastery). "Within the monastery itself" means within the boundary of the precinct itself. For it will be said, "But if it cannot... (etc.)... having crossed the boundary of the precinct." "The counting of nights should be done" means the counting of nights should be done. For it is said in the description of Mānattā, "The nights should be counted." Then it is not possible to purify, because there are many bhikkhus, or because the monastery is a dwelling place for unsuitable people, it is not possible to purify the causes of the night-break and the vow-break. Having laid down the vow, means having laid down the vow of probation. At dawn, means in the last watch of the night, even before sunrise. For it will be said: "The probation of that bhikkhu must be announced, having undertaken the vow in the manner stated, even before sunrise." With one bhikkhu, is said for the purpose of being freed from the night-break of separation, and for the purpose of being freed from the vow-break, which is going from a monastery with bhikkhus to a monastery without bhikkhus, or from an uninhabited place to an inhabited place, without a normal bhikkhu. For it is said: "Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu on probation should not go from a monastery with bhikkhus to an uninhabited place without bhikkhus, except with a normal bhikkhu, except in case of danger." In the description of the Mānatta, in the manner stated, means in the manner stated: "Having gone beyond two clod-throws from the enclosure of an enclosed monastery, or from the place worthy of enclosure for an unenclosed monastery." If so, this presentation of the method is inconsistent. For the upacāra boundary is indeed at the enclosure or the place worthy of enclosure. Why is it said there that one goes beyond two clod-throws from the upacāra boundary, but here it is just going beyond the upacāra boundary? It is true, nevertheless, because there is the possibility of hearing the sounds of chanting, etc., by bhikkhus in the monastery, a very distant going beyond is stated. But here, even merely going beyond the upacāra boundary is considered going beyond, and so it is stated. For the Aṭṭhakathā teachers are knowers of the Buddha's opinion. For it is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā: "Although 'from the enclosure of an enclosed monastery', etc., is not in the Pāḷi, it is said that one should practice in that way according to the words of the Aṭṭhakathā teachers." In the description of the Mānatta, "with four or five bhikkhus," this is said for the purpose of being freed from the night-break of going to a place with fewer bhikkhus. "Having gone beyond two clod-throws," etc., for the hearing and seeing proximity of other bhikkhus. It was said for avoiding the vicinity. Therefore the ṭīkā teacher said: “Having passed two clod-throws, this was said