English
what should be said to resolve the doubt. Some bhikkhus say thus: A bhikkhu on probation, even if he is senior, stands in the position of a junior when the observances are undertaken. Thus it is said, “Where they are made to sit and given probation, there one should sit as the senior of the novices and as the junior of the bhikkhus.” Therefore, at the time of announcement and so on, one should say, “I, venerable sir,” and not, “I, friend.” In this regard, the following consideration should be made: Bhikkhus on probation and so on stand in the position of a junior by virtue of their place at the end of the sleeping area and at the end of the sitting area, not because they are absolutely junior. Thus it is said by the Blessed One, “I allow, bhikkhus, for bhikkhus on probation five things according to seniority: Uposatha, Pavāraṇā, the rain-cloth, invitation, and food.” In the commentary… And (Cūḷavagga Commentary, p. 81) in the commentary on the Pāli text, “Having seen a normal monk, one should rise from the seat; a normal monk should be invited to a seat,” it is stated, “One should rise, one should invite: even having seen one ordained on that very day, one should rise. And having risen, one should not go away with one’s back turned, thinking, ‘I have been made to rise by this one who was seated comfortably.’ One should invite, saying, ‘This, venerable sir, is a seat, please sit here.’ ” Here alone is the special address “venerable sir” mentioned, not elsewhere. If even an elder were to be addressed as “bhante” (reverend sir), then here too it should have been said, “This, bhante, is a seat,” but it is not said. Therefore, their statement should not be accepted as essential. However, in this Vinaya-Saṅgaha treatise (Vinaya-Saṅgaha Commentary, p. 237) it is stated, “When announcing, if he is younger, one should say ‘āvuso’ (friend). If he is older, one should say ‘bhante’ (reverend sir).” And this, because it was stated earlier “with one monk,” should be understood as referring to that normal monk who is the recipient. Many monks, however, having made a probationer monk sit in the midst of the Saṅgha, having made him request the observance, having made him undertake it at the end of the kammavācā (formal act), having made him announce it, having made him leave the midst of the Saṅgha, having made him sit at the edge of the assembly, and having made him announce it while seated there, make him lay down the observance. And the intention of those who do this is this: “This monk, when the observance is not yet undertaken, is in the position of an elder. Therefore, at the time of requesting, and at the time of listening to the kammavācā, and at the time of undertaking the observance, he is worthy of sitting in the midst of the Saṅgha. But when the observance is undertaken, he is in the position of a junior. Therefore, he is not worthy of sitting in the midst of the Saṅgha, but is worthy of sitting only at the edge of the assembly, being part of the seat-edge.” This should be considered thus: This monk, when sitting in the midst of the Saṅgha, does not take a seat and sit according to seniority. Rather, by virtue of being worthy of the act, without taking a seat, with joined palms, having taken it up, he sits only in the squatting posture. And one who is worthy of the duty should be placed right in the midst of the Saṅgha, not outside. Therefore, at that time, it is not possible to say "he is not worthy to sit in the midst of the Saṅgha." And if he is made to go out, because the announcement of the duty and the laying down of the duty are not completed, and because it would be impossible to attend to the Saṅgha of monks who are well-seated, having touched one another, and because he would be hindered by the corner of the robe, the feet, the back, and so on, it appears like an act of disrespect. And the act of announcing and the laying down of the duty must be done in the midst of the Saṅgha. If one does it sitting at the end, it is contrary to the commentaries. For it is said in the commentaries "having undertaken the duty, it should be announced to the Saṅgha right there... ...having announced it, if he wishes to lay it down, it should be laid down in the midst of the Saṅgha in the manner stated." Why? Because making him announce it at the place of undertaking, and making him lay it down right there, and then making him go out only after all tasks are completed, and making him sit in his own seat, is in accordance with the rule. This is our acceptance. Similarly, at the time of announcing the duty in the evening, among many probationers, they first make the elder one undertake it and announce it, and then in order, they make the younger one, last of all, undertake it and announce it. But at the time of laying it down in the morning, they first make the younger one announce it and lay it down, then in order, they make the elder one, last of all, announce it and lay it down. Their intention might be this: when there are ten regular monks and ten probationer monks, when the elder one first undertakes it and announces it, the remaining nineteen monks listen to his announcement. For the second, eighteen, for the third, seventeen, and so on, decreasing, the ten regular monks listen to the announcement of the very youngest, because the others are not regular. Then, at the time of laying it down, the very youngest announces it to the ten monks to whom he himself announced it before, and lays it down. Then, in reverse order, the second to eleven, the third to twelve, and so on, increasing. The most senior one, having informed the nineteen monks whom he had previously informed, lays it down. Thus, the laying down occurs in due order. However, when the most senior one has laid it down first, it is not laid down with the nine monks whom he had previously informed, because they are not present at that time, and similarly for the rest. For some of them, it is less, for some, it is more. Therefore, it should be laid down in due order, starting from the very newest, in the manner described. However, for those venerable ones who speak thus, the monks to be informed must be those who are present, not those who are absent. The duty must be laid down with those who have been previously informed, not with those who have not been informed. However, it is not only the present monks who should be informed, but also the absent ones, because it is stated in the commentary: "If two probationer monks see each other in the place they have gone to, both should inform each other." It should be laid down after informing both those previously informed and those not informed, because it is stated: "If that monk has departed for some reason, he should inform and lay it down with whomever he sees first." Therefore, even if they do not do so, there is no fault, as all have been informed. Some monks, thinking "this informing is only for the present," take up the duty in the evening according to seniority, and after informing, enter their own sleeping quarters, and while performing duties like guarding the door, and cleaning the sleeping place, they do not hear the informing of others. Some, after informing and laying it down in the morning or evening, do not wait for the informing or laying down of others, and go for alms-round and so on. For those who act in this way, their informing is doubtful, because it is possible that some have not heard it, and because the mutual informing of probationers is mentioned in the texts. Not only in the Sāratthadīpanī, but also in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, it is stated: "If If two probationers see each other in the place they went to, both must inform each other without distinction, because it is said, 'the newcomer must be informed, the newcomer must inform.' Likewise, some ordinary monks, when the probationer monks, having left the ordinary monks' hall for the evening observance, have gone to their own sleeping places, being busy with arranging their beds, putting away their requisites, conversing with each other, and so on, do not hear or pay attention to the probationers' announcement of the observance. Some, in the morning at the time of laying down the observance, even when the probationer monks are announcing and laying down the observance, being overcome by sleep, do not hear. Even for some of those who do this, because of the possibility of not hearing, the announcement of the observance becomes doubtful. Let it be doubtful, even if there's a possibility of the hearers not hearing, if the observance is complete due to the proper announcement by the announcers, what is the fault? Because of the proper announcement by the announcers, even if the observance is complete, one might be freed from the dukkata of breaking the observance, but not from the night's interruption. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 76): "If, even striving, one cannot reach or make it heard, there is only an interruption of the night, not a dukkata of breaking the observance." Then other monks, having undertaken the observance and lying down at night, due to lack of sleep, hear human sounds, hear sounds of drums and so on, hear sounds of carts, boats, and other vehicles, they doubt because of those sounds, "Are these monks?" For that reason, they consider it an interruption of the night. Why? "And if one hears the sound of their umbrellas, or coughing, or spitting, and knows they are newcomers, one must go and inform them. Even if one knows when they have gone, one must follow and inform them. If one cannot reach them, there is only an interruption of the night, not a dukkata of breaking the observance," (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 76) it is said. They should be made to understand thus: "Venerables, do not think thus, this is not a Pāṭ..." not spoken in terms of the boundary of the dwelling, but spoken in terms of the boundary of the vicinity. For it is said there, “Even those who do not enter the monastery