English
For co-residence or separation is not spoken of by a pillar or a hall, but by a normal bhikkhu. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 83): "Therein, co-residence means residing together, as stated by the method 'this one with a normal bhikkhu under one roof,' and so forth. Separation means residing alone." For the placing of a bhikkhu's neck at a place twelve cubits from there or a hip-placement, that too is immeasurable. For a bhikkhu dwelling outside the boundary of the precinct, his entire body must be placed within twelve cubits of the precinct of the ordinary bhikkhus, not just a part. But this might be their intention: if the entire body is placed within the twelve-cubit area, there would be co-residence; if placed outside, separation. Therefore, let half be inside and half outside. That is due to wrong knowledge. For the fault of co-residence is not stated by twelve cubits, but by sleeping under one roof. For it was said by the Blessed One in the Khandhaka on probationers: "Monks, a bhikkhu on probation should not dwell with an ordinary bhikkhu in a dwelling under one roof, nor in a non-dwelling under one roof, nor in a dwelling or non-dwelling under one roof." And in the Commentary it is said: Regarding "in a dwelling under one roof," etc., a dwelling is a sleeping place made for residence. A non-dwelling is a cetiya-house, a bodhi-house, a broom-shed, a wood-shed, a water-pavilion, a latrine, a gateway, and so on. By the third phrase, both are included. "In any of these places, under one roof, in a space defined by the place where water falls from the roof, an expelled bhikkhu is not allowed to dwell, but a probationer is not allowed only within a dwelling." This is stated in the Mahāpaccariya. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, however, it is said: "It is prohibited indiscriminately by the falling of water." In the Kurundi, it is said: "In these places, in these bound places with a five-colored roof, it is prohibited for a probationer and an expelled bhikkhu to be with an ordinary bhikkhu, by the falling of water." Therefore, even in different precincts, it is not allowed under one roof. If, in this case, even a bhikkhu ordained on that very day, an ordinary bhikkhu, enters first and lies down, and a probationer of sixty years, knowing, enters later and lies down, there is a break of the night and a dukkata for breaking the rule. For one who does not know, there is only a break of the night, not a break of the rule. a dukkaṭa. But if, after he has first lain down, a normal monk enters and lies down later, and the parivāsika knows it, there is both a cutting of the night and a dukkaṭa for breaking the observance. If he does not know it, there is only a cutting of the night, not a dukkaṭa for breaking the observance. Therefore, it should be understood that in a hall or in a monastery, as soon as one is beyond the place where water falls from the roof, there is no fault of cohabitation. Some, however, draw a circle with a stick twelve cubits long from the central pillar, and make a line all around outside. When this is done, that outer line is seventy-two cubits from the circumference. Then, when that area is measured with a twelve-cubit stick and divided, it becomes six parts. Then, when a bed is arranged on the boundary of each of these six parts, there are only six bed-places. Therefore, they say that only six monks can reside in one circular area, not more than that. Why do they do this? Because they have taken "everywhere the measure is only twelve cubits" in the manner stated before. Their intention is this: a parivāsika lying down within twelve cubits of a normal monk would be cohabitation, lying down outside would be separation, and similarly for each other. But for those who do this, their own intention is not fulfilled, how much less the Buddha's intention. How so? Their intention is that a parivāsika monk and normal monks and each other should be within a twelve-cubit area. But when the outer line is measured making the central pillar the mark, it is twelve cubits from the pillar itself, not from the normal monks. For they stand at a distance of one or two or three cubits outside the pillar, and the line itself is twelve cubits from the pillar, not the monk lying on it. For he, even by a distance of two or three cubits, is sometimes inside the line and sometimes outside. And for each other, only the boundary of the six parts The bed is about twelve cubits, no bed arranged above it, nor a monk lying there. Indeed, the bed stands exceeding the boundary by one cubit or two cubits. And monks, when lying down, do not lie directly over the boundary. They lie exceeding the boundary or not reaching it by a span or a cubit. Therefore, those monks on probation are not considered to be within twelve cubits of ordinary monks or of each other. They are indeed less than that. Therefore, their own intention is not fulfilled. But the Blessed One's intention is this: If, due to the monastery's being endowed with few monks and other factors, one resides on probation within the monastery without abandoning its duties, then in such a case, an ordinary monk should not reside in a single-roofed dwelling. If one lies down in such a dwelling or in a non-dwelling, within the area where water falls from the roof, that is called co-residence, and there is a break of night. This meaning should be explained by the aforementioned Pāli text and commentary. Two should not reside in a single-roofed dwelling. If they do reside, for the elder, it is only a break of night. For the junior, it is a break of night and an offense of wrong-doing for breaking the rule. If they are of equal seniority, for the one who does not know, it is only a break of night. For the one who knows, it is both. This meaning is to be explained by these Pāli and commentary passages: "Indeed, Upāli, there are three breaks of night for a monk on probation: co-residence, separation, and not reporting." and: "Monks, a monk on probation should not reside with an elder monk on probation in a single-roofed dwelling" (Cūḷava. 82). and: "Here, regarding 'elder' ... (etc.) ... If two monks on probation were to reside together, knowing each other's misconduct, they might become disrespectful or remorseful, or they might commit a worse offense, or they might become confused. Therefore, their sleeping together is forbidden in every way" (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 81). This meaning is to be explained by these Pāli and commentary passages. Even in separation, a monk on probation should not reside in a dwelling without monks, by an ordinary monk, even... A dwelling without monks should not be entered. The Lord's intention is this: one should sit within the twelve-cubit precinct, from the monks' dwelling place outside the boundary. This meaning should be explained by the Pāli, commentaries, and Vajirabuddhi Tika texts, which state: "Monks, a monk on probation should not go from a dwelling with monks to a dwelling without monks, except in a normal state or in case of danger." (Cūḷava. 76) And: "Upāli, there are three... ...non-announcement." And: "Upāli, there are four breaks of night for a monk undergoing penance: cohabitation, separation, non-announcement, going about with an incomplete group." (Cūḷava. 92) And: "Separation means dwelling alone." And: "And since he dwelt after announcing to the group and observing the presence of monks, therefore there is no fault for him of going about with an incomplete group or of separation." And: "Observing the presence means observing within a twelve-cubit precinct, observing the arrival of monks who have not abandoned their duties within the boundary; cohabitation and so forth should be understood." Therefore, for one dwelling on probation within a monastery, dwelling anywhere within the precinct boundary, there is no separation. And for one dwelling on probation outside the precinct boundary, dwelling within twelve cubits from the sitting place of the monks, there is no separation. And during the probation period, by the saying "with one monk" (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102), even with one monk, and during the penance period, by the saying "with four or five monks" (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102), it is permissible to dwell within twelve cubits, within arm's reach of four or five monks. There is no separation; this should be understood. But from the time of undertaking the duty and announcing to those monks, even if those monks have gone away for some reason, there is no separation according to the aforementioned commentary text. For thus it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.97): "Even he, by what..." “By what action did he go to the eastern quarter in this manner?” When this announcement is made, even if all the bhikkhus have gone outside the monastery, there is no fault of having a deficient group or a fault of separation, because it has been announced that they are living together. Thus it shows. Therefore it is said, ‘And this’ and so on.” Other teachers, however, say, “The enclosure of the boundary at the place for undertaking the observances outside the boundary should also be made by ordinary bhikkhus, not by bhikkhus who are subject to a penalty. Just as in the world, prisons and the like should be made by those who inflict punishment, not by those who deserve punishment, so it is here.” But this is not seen in the commentaries and so on. For the enclosure of the boundary is not made for the purpose of punishment, but rather for the purpose of avoiding the proximity of sight. Thus it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī, “‘In a place concealed by a thicket or a fence’ means for the purpose of avoiding the proximity of sight.” And in the Vimativinodanī, “‘By a thicket’ and so on means for the purpose of avoiding the proximity of sight.” From here on, the giving of probation and the giving of mānatta should be understood in the manner stated in the commentary. But where there is doubt, we will speak