English
Therefore, having looked at the determination of the dawn-story mentioned in the first chapter, the state of dawn’s rising should be thoroughly known. ‘‘Having announced, the practice should be laid down,’’ it is said. Why announce? Was it not announced at the time of undertaking? True, yet among the bhikkhus announced at the time of undertaking the probationer’s practice, some depart at the time of laying down, others arrive. Thus, there might be a change in the assembly. And if so, because of the presence of newcomers, it must be announced. But if there are no newly arrived bhikkhus, there is no need for announcement. Even so, since there is no fault in announcing, a re-announcement is appropriate. But at the time of undertaking the Mānattā practice, even if announced at the undertaking, it must be announced at the laying down. Why? Because of the intervening day. For it is said: ‘‘It must be announced daily’’ (Cūḷavagga Commentary, 90). Even so, if one announces at the time of undertaking in the evening, then is there no need for announcement at the laying down? No. At the time of undertaking in the evening, these bhikkhus may or may not come. How can one announce to those who have not come? And if there is no announcement, there might be a cutting off of the night. Therefore, our opinion is that on that day, before the laying down of the practice when dawn has risen, it must be announced. It should be understood after careful consideration. Thus, either by the method presented in the text, or by the method of the teachers in accordance with the text. Indeed, by one establishing the command of the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, by one skilled in Vinaya, by one learned, by one who is conscientious and of good conduct, by one who upholds the Vinaya, having thoroughly considered for the purification of the morality of monks who desire purity and are of good conduct, the observances of probation, the observances of penance, and the observances of practice should be taught. In this place, for the proficiency of conscientious monks in the discourse on probation and so forth, various doctrines are stated – Some monks say and do: "When making a normal hall, having made a pillar in the middle of that hall as a mark, having marked out a space of twelve cubits from there, it should be prescribed so that the neck of a monk lying on a bed prescribed for those on probation is above that space. When done thus, it is well done." Some others say and do: "The waist of a monk lying on a bed is above that space, so it should be prescribed. When done thus, it is well done." That statement is not in the Pāli (canon), nor is it found in commentaries, sub-commentaries, and so forth. It is merely their own conjecture. But this might be their intention – having seen incorrectly the meaning from the statement said in the commentary: "It is permissible to sit having left the twelve-cubit precinct," and from the statement in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 97): "Now, if one enters the twelve-cubit precinct unknowingly, the night is indeed broken, but there is no breach of observance," and from the statement said in the sub-commentary (Sārattha. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.97): "It should be announced even to those unseen and unheard who are within the twelve-cubit area," and from the statement said in the Vajirabuddhi sub-commentary (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 97): "It should be announced even to those unseen and unheard who are within the twelve-cubit area, as it is said, 'This is the characteristic of one residing having laid aside the observance'," and from the statement said in the Vajirabuddhi sub-commentary: "'Having discerned the existence' means having discerned the twelve-cubit precinct, having discerned the arrival of those who have not laid aside the observance at the boundary of the precinct, co-residence and so forth should be understood." Taking everywhere twelve cubits as the measure, less than that or more than that is not proper. Therefore, in the manner stated, from the central pillar, in a place of twelve cubits, let the neck or waist of the reclining monk be. Thus, if it is so, within the twelve-cubit area is the parivāsa monk. Then, whether by cohabitation or by separation, faults of night-cutting or rule-breaking do not occur. Here, thus, a consideration of what is proper and improper should be made. Among the texts mentioned, the meaning of the first text is this: If a normal monk is seated on the ground, and a parivāsa monk wishes to sit on a seat, it is proper to sit only after leaving a twelve-cubit area from the normal monk's sitting place, not within twelve cubits. By this, when both are seated on the ground, it is proper even within twelve cubits. It shows that if one sits outside the twelve-cubit area, it is proper to sit even on a seat. Therefore, it is said: "Not seated on the ground" means when the normal monk is seated on the ground, the other should not sit even on a grass mat or on a higher sand surface. But it is proper to sit after leaving a twelve-cubit area. (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 81) Thus, this text indicates the place where the parivāsa monk should sit when the normal monk is seated on the ground, not the place for arranging beds or for sleeping. They grasp the meaning improperly, by conjecture, seeing only a part, without looking at the complete text with its context. But the meaning of the second text is this: When a monk is seated, having undertaken the practice, in a covered place outside the boundary of the twelve-cubit area, and another monk enters the twelve-cubit area from his sitting place, without his knowledge, for that parivāsa monk, there is a cutting of the night, but no breaking of the rule. Why is there a cutting of the night? Because the area was entered. Why is there no breaking of the rule? Because of not knowing. By this, the area outside the boundary... It is twelve cubits in measure, shows it to be the area for informing. Therefore it is said: “One should sit in a place covered by a bush or a fence, having undertaken the practice in the manner stated before dawn, one should inform. If some other bhikkhu comes to that place for some reason, if he sees him, or hears his sound, he should inform. For one who does not inform, there is a break in the night and a breach of practice. But if, having entered the twelve-cubit vicinity, he goes without knowing, there is indeed a break in the night, but no breach of practice.” (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97). Thus, this passage also clarifies the area for informing, and should be understood as not clarifying the laying out of beds, etc. But the meaning of the third passage is this – when there is a question, "Should one inform only those bhikkhus who have come to the place of undertaking the practice outside the boundary of the vicinity, who are seen or whose sounds are heard?" the answer should be, "One should inform even those unseen and unheard, who are within the twelve-cubit area." By this, it is shown that one should inform only those unseen and unheard, who are within the twelve-cubit area, not those outside the twelve-cubit area, but for those seen and heard, one should inform them whether they are within the twelve-cubit area, or outside the twelve-cubit area, or even in the sky, etc. Therefore it is said: "Herein, this is the Elder's intention – for one who dwells having laid down the practice, there is no duty to inform everyone who has entered the vicinity; one should inform those who are seen or whose sounds are heard, and one should inform even those unseen and unheard, who are within the twelve-cubit area. This is the characteristic of one dwelling having laid down the practice." (Sārattha. ṭī. Cūḷavagga 3.97). Thus, this passage also clarifies the characteristics of those to be informed, and not the laying out of beds, etc. The meaning of the fourth passage is also similar to the meaning of the third passage. But the meaning of the fifth passage is this – in this commentary statement, "having discerned their presence," for bhikkhus who have laid down the practice, their own sitting place Therefore, having observed the presence of other bhikkhus within a twelve-cubit radius, and having observed the arrival of other bhikkhus within the boundary of the vicinity for those who have not laid down their observances, co-residence and so forth should be understood. By the word "and so forth" are included non-announcement of separation, and walking with an incomplete group. And since this one resided after announcing to the group and observing the presence of bhikkhus, therefore, for those who have laid down their observances, having observed the presence of other bhikkhus within a twelve-cubit radius from one's own sitting place, because it was undertaken outside the vicinity boundary; and for those who have not laid down their observances, having observed the arrival of other bhikkhus within the vicinity boundary, because it was undertaken inside the monastery, the causes for cutting off observances, namely co-residence, separation, non-announcement, and walking with an incomplete group, should be understood. For it is said in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 97): "And since this one resided only after announcing to the group and observing the presence of bhikkhus, therefore, there is no fault of walking with an incomplete group or separation for him." Thus, this passage also shows the absence of fault, because even when the normal bhikkhus had gone, he resided after announcing the observance and observing the presence of bhikkhus, not the setting up of couches and so forth. Thus, taking the wrong meaning of these passages, they thought, "Everywhere, twelve cubits is the measure," and they deliberated; and their pupils and grand-pupils, following their view, do the same. That is not the measure. How so? That they measured twelve cubits by making a pillar in the middle of the normal hall as a mark, that is not the measure.