English
for the bhikkhus in the monastery to avoid the vicinity of sounds like chanting. ‘Having gone down from the main road,’ this is for the bhikkhus who are on the road to avoid the vicinity of sounds. ‘By a thicket,’ etc., is for avoiding the vicinity of sight.” Therefore, the two kinds of places mentioned are the places where the bhikkhus undergoing the mānatta penance should sit and reside. And if they reside sitting within the monastery itself, they must inform all the bhikkhus who are within the boundary of the vicinity. If outside the boundary of the vicinity, they must inform those who are seen and whose voices are heard. Even those not seen or heard, but within twelve cubits, must be informed. For it is said in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā: “For one residing having laid down the observance, there is no need to inform all those within the boundary of the vicinity; those who are seen and whose voices are heard must be informed. Even those not seen or heard, but within twelve cubits, must be informed. This is said to be the characteristic of one residing having laid down the observance.” And this was said because it is stated in the commentary that for one residing without laying down the observance, the night's residence is within the monastery itself, and for one residing having laid down the observance, the undertaking of the observance is beyond the boundary of the vicinity. The vicinity, however, for those standing within the boundary, is the entire boundary of the vicinity; for those standing outside the boundary of the vicinity, it is twelve cubits. For this reason, if a gain for the Saṅgha, such as an invitation meal, arises within the boundary, it belongs to the Saṅgha within the boundary. If outside the boundary, it belongs to the bhikkhus who have arrived within twelve cubits. Therefore, this meaning is also understood by way of vicinity. Thus it is said in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā: “Having ascertained the existence” means having ascertained within the twelve-cubit vicinity, and having ascertained the arrival of those who have not laid down the observance within the boundary of the vicinity, co-residence, etc., should be known. Thus, having become one who has not laid down the observance, then For those undergoing parivāsa, dwelling only within the monastery; and for those undergoing parivāsa, having laid aside their observances, dwelling outside the monastery, beyond two clod-throws; because this is found in the commentaries and other treatises, this is the way of the Tathāgata, the way found in the treatises. Now, however, the teachers, because it is very difficult to avoid the fault of breaking the night-cut observance for one who has not laid aside observances; and for one who has laid aside observances, because it is difficult to go outside the boundary every day at dawn; and because of the possibility of danger from wild animals and reptiles; considering only the fulfillment of the characteristics in order to avoid the fault of breaking the night-cut observance, even though they have laid aside their observances, they undertake the dwelling of parivāsa and the practice of mānatta within the monastery itself. Some teachers, in a suitable place outside the precinct boundary, have a dwelling hall built for the ordinary bhikkhus; and have a sleeping couch made for the bhikkhus undergoing parivāsa, completely covered and enclosed, with a door-fastening, well-guarded; and have that area surrounded by a fence. In the evening, going there, they send back the attending novices and others. In the first watch or the middle watch, when sounds are completely cut off, they have the ordinary bhikkhus lie down in the hall. They have the bhikkhus undergoing parivāsa undertake the observance, announce it, and lie down on their respective couches. In the last watch, they have them get up, and when dawn has risen, they have them announce it and lay aside the observance. This method, because it is not found in the treatises and is done according to the opinion of the teachers, is called the "teachers' method." Even though this method, literally, is not found in the treatises, yet in conformity with the treatises, by avoiding the fault of breaking the night-cut observance, when considered by those who are conscientious, scrupulous, learned, desirous of training, and skilled in the Vinaya, it is indeed beautiful and praiseworthy. Therefore, it is also proper to call it the "conforming method." Was it not said in the commentary that only those who have not laid aside their observances should dwell within the monastery? Why then do those who have laid aside their observances also dwell there? True, but there, because of the scarcity of bhikkhus, Because it is a dwelling place for bhikkhus of the same group, and because it is possible to avoid the faults of breaking the night, breaking the observance, it is said one should dwell without abandoning the observance for the entire day and night. But here, because it is not possible to do so, abandoning the observance by day and undertaking it at night, because it is a time when visitors do not come, and because it is a time when noise is cut off, it is possible to avoid the faults of breaking the night, etc. Thinking that this is in accordance with the rule, it should be understood that the teachers act in this way. So be it. For those dwelling outside the boundary, only sitting in a secluded place is stated in the commentary, not the making of a normal hall, making of beds, and so forth. So why do they do these things? True, nevertheless, the making of a normal hall for bhikkhus undergoing probation, from bhikkhus who are normal, is for avoiding the faults of separation, breaking the night, breaking the observance. This accords with the passage stated: "Indeed, Upāli, there are three breaks of the night for a bhikkhu undergoing probation: co-residence, separation, and not informing." (Cūḷavagga 83). The making of beds is for avoiding the faults of co-residence, breaking the night, breaking the observance. This accords with the passage stated: "Monks, a bhikkhu undergoing probation should not dwell with a normal bhikkhu in a dwelling with a single roof, nor in a non-dwelling with a single roof, nor in a dwelling or non-dwelling with a single roof." (Cūḷavagga 81) and the aforementioned passage. By the word "etc.", going in the evening time, etc., are included. Among these, even though in the commentary only going at dawn is mentioned, going in the evening is because night travel has many dangers, for the removal of dangers. This accords with the commentary passage stated: "One should certainly go in order to be freed from danger." (Cūḷavagga Commentary 76). The sending back of attendants, novices, etc., is for avoiding the suspicion of co-sleeping with an unordained person. This accords with the Mātika passage stated: "Whatever bhikkhu should co-sleep with an unordained person, it is a pācittiya." (Pā ci. 49) It is in accordance. In the first watch or in the middle watch, at the time when sounds cease all around, having made the ordinary monks lie down in the hall, the undertaking of the duties by the monks on probation is for the purpose of preventing other monks from hearing the sound, and for the purpose of avoiding the fault of cutting off the night without announcing it. This is in accordance with the aforementioned cutting off of the night. But is it not said in the commentary that the undertaking of duties should be done only before dawn? Then why is it said, "in the first and middle watches"? This is no fault. For, from the rising of dawn yesterday until the rising of dawn today, one day and night is called "within today's dawn." From today's dawn onwards, the later time is called "outside the dawn." Therefore, even if the undertaking of duties is done in the first and middle watches, since it is done before the rising of dawn, it is considered as done "within the dawn." And if one lies down without undertaking the duties, due to sleep, not knowing the time of dawn, the undertaking of duties might be missed. Therefore, it is reasonable to undertake the duties earlier and then lie down. This is also in accordance with the commentary passage which states, "having undertaken the duties in the manner stated, only within the dawn." Let it be so. Even so, why is it said, "having caused to announce"? Was not the duty announced at the time of undertaking it within the boundary of the chapter house? It is true it was announced. But this monk had laid aside his duty during the day and was sitting. Now he has undertaken it. Therefore, even if it was announced in the chapter house boundary, it must be announced again. This is also in accordance with the passage which states, "having undertaken the duty in the manner stated, only within the dawn, the probation of that monk should be announced." Then why is it said, "having made them lie down on their own beds"? Are they not free from the fault of cutting off the night with co-residence, even if they lie down on each other's beds, as long as they lie down outside the place where water drips from the ordinary monks' hall? But it should not be seen thus. For a monk on probation, lying down in the same covered area with ordinary monks, There is a cutting off of the day and night, then there is also mutual (interaction). And this is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga Commentary, 81): ‘‘If indeed two probationers were to dwell together, they, knowing each other’s transgression, becoming disrespectful or remorseful, might commit a worse offense or become confused, therefore, their sleeping together is forbidden in every way.’’ ‘‘Having been made to rise in the last watch of the night, having announced when dawn has risen, they make them lay down the practice.’’ Here, if the practice is laid down before dawn has risen, there is a cutting off of the night. That night is not counted.