English
but step into the boundary of the vicinity and go.” Even there, since the arrival of a guest is known, there is a break in the night. Therefore, a break in the night does not occur merely by hearing a distant sound. Only one who knows from their sitting place, “This is the sound of monks, this is the sound of drums and gongs struck by monks, this is the sound of carts and boats driven by monks,” causes a break in the night. Therefore it is said, “Venerable Karavīkatissa Thera said, ‘The determination that “this is a recluse” is the measure.’” Even seeing people going far away during the day, some imagine a break in the night, thinking, “Are these monks?” That too is unreasonable. Why? Because there is no determination of “monks.” For it is said in the commentary, “Even seeing a monk going by boat in rivers and so forth, or standing on the opposite bank, or going in the sky, or standing far away on mountain slopes, in forests, and so forth, if there is a determination that ‘these are monks,’ then one should go by boat and so forth, or make a loud sound, or pursue quickly, and inform them.” Thus, even seeing a monk, the determination that “these are monks” is the measure. But if there is a determination that “these are monks” when they are not monks, or if there is no such determination, what is there to say? Many monks, fearing this sight and sound, thinking, “When it is dawn, that duality might occur, therefore the observance should be laid aside before the time of people’s going and making sounds,” lay aside the observance while the sun has not yet risen. That is improper, because it is a break in the night. But if, when asked by a Vinaya-holder, “How many are those offenses you concealed? For how many nights did you conceal them?” he says, “Venerable sir, I do not know the limit of the offenses, I do not know the limit of the nights, I do not remember the limit of the offenses, I do not remember the limit of the nights, I am doubtful about the limit of the offenses, I am doubtful about the limit of the nights,” "This monk is worthy of suddhanta-parivāsa," knowing this, and because it is of two kinds, namely, cūḷasuddhanta and mahāsuddhanta, in order to make known, "Among these, this monk is worthy of this one," starting from his ordination, either in forward order, or starting from the day of declaration, in reverse order, having asked, "For how long have you been pure in terms of declaration, disclosure, etc.?" and when he says, "Yes, venerable sir, I have been pure for this long," knowing, "This monk knows some part of the period of nights, therefore he is worthy of cūḷasuddhanta," having removed his period of purity, and having made the limit according to the period of impurity, cūḷasuddhanta-parivāsa should be given. This goes up and also comes down. But if, when asked in forward order or in reverse order, he says, "I do not know or remember the entire period of nights; I am in doubt," knowing, "This monk does not know the entire period of nights, therefore he is worthy of mahāsuddhanta," having made the limit for him from his ordination up to the undertaking of the practice, for that period, mahāsuddhanta-parivāsa should be given. Their nature of going up and coming down is indeed stated in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Commentary, 102). Further regulations beyond this should also be seen in the way they appear in the commentary. But now, many monks, without distinguishing "This one is worthy of cūḷasuddhanta, this one is worthy of mahāsuddhanta," considering only the undifferentiated phrases within the kammavācā: "He does not know the limit of offenses, he does not know the limit of nights; he does not remember the limit of offenses, he does not remember the limit of nights; he is in doubt about the limit of offenses, he is in doubt about the limit of nights," thinking, "Having received suddhanta-parivāsa given with this kammavācā, and having undergone parivāsa for about five days or ten days, there will be release from unlimited offenses concealed for unlimited nights," having undergone parivāsa for about five days or ten days, they request mānatta. Doing so, they Those bhikkhus, even if they undergo probation a thousand times, would not be freed from the offense. Why is that? Because it contradicts the Pāli and the commentaries. For it is said in the Pāli (Parā. 442): "For as many days as he knowingly concealed it, for that many days that bhikkhu must unwillingly undergo probation. Having completed the probation, the bhikkhu must further undertake the bhikkhu-mānatta for six nights. A bhikkhu who has completed the mānatta, where there is a bhikkhu Saṅgha of twenty, there that bhikkhu should be reinstated." Therefore, without undergoing probation for the exact number of days concealed, one is not eligible for mānatta. Giving mānatta to one not eligible for mānatta is not proper. One who has not completed mānatta is not eligible for reinstatement. Reinstatement of one not eligible for reinstatement is not proper. A bhikkhu not reinstated is not freed from the offense, nor is he restored to his normal status. This is the intention of the Blessed One here. In the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102), regarding the minor purification, it is said: "Taking that, one undergoing probation, having removed the period for which one knows one's purity, should undergo probation for the remainder, a month or two months." And regarding the major purification, it is said: "Taking that, from the day of taking until the day of ordination, one should count the nights and undergo probation." Therefore, only one who undergoes probation for the duration of the concealed nights is eligible for mānatta, not one who undergoes probation for merely five or ten nights. This is the intention of the commentary teachers. And for that very reason, it is improper to give purification probation to modest, virtuous bhikkhus who desire training, who have always purified their offenses through confession and declaration. It should be understood that it is proper to give it to those like country dwellers who have lived for a long time due to negligence, without purifying their offenses through confession and declaration. Here too, the remaining determination should be understood according to the method stated in the commentary. Then, when asked by a Vinaya master, "Friend, what offense have you committed? How many nights have you concealed it?" "Venerable sir, I committed a Saṅghādisesa offense and then..." concealed for five days, therefore I, having requested the Sangha for a fortnight's probation, and having undergone the fortnight's probation given by the Sangha, without having laid down the practice, having incurred an intermediate Sanghādisesa offense, and concealed it for five days." When this is said, knowing, "This bhikkhu is worthy of combined probation, and among the three combined probations, he is worthy of the 'odhāna' combined probation," then saying, "Therefore, bhikkhu, you are worthy of being sent back to the root," having sent him back to the root, making the days of probation as non-days, the five days concealed in between, combining them with the days concealed for the root offense, the 'odhāna' combined probation should be given. Further statements to be made regarding 'odhāna' combined probation should be understood in the manner stated in the Pāli and the commentaries. But then, when asked by a Vinaya master, "Venerable sir, I incurred many Sanghādisesa offenses, many offenses were concealed for one day... ...and so on... many offenses were concealed for ten days." When this is said, knowing, "This bhikkhu is worthy of 'aggha' combined probation," among those offenses, for those offenses that were concealed for a longer period, the 'aggha' combined probation should be given according to their value. There, they say thus: "For those offenses that were concealed for a longer period, the 'aggha' combined probation should be given according to their value." When this is said, if this is so, how about those concealed for a fortnight, a month, and so on? Even for those, should it be said, "those offenses concealed for a fortnight, those offenses concealed for a month"? If so, a contradiction with the Pāli arises. For in the Pāli, only offenses concealed up to ten days are shown, not those concealed for a fortnight, a month, and so on, is it not? True, but such a showing in the Pāli is merely an illustration of the method. For thus it is said in the commentary (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 102): "For an offense concealed for fifteen days, the application should be made by saying 'concealed for a fortnight'... ...and so on... thus up to sixty years, or by saying 'concealed for more than sixty years' or even more than that." should be made.” The Elder Mahāpaduma also said: “This accumulation section is like the time of the Buddhas. An offense, whether concealed or unconcealed, whether concealed equally, less, or more, the ability of the Vinaya-holder to make the formal act is the measure here.” Therefore, one should not feel remorse in making the formal act for those concealed for a fortnight, and so on. So be it. Even so, how would one know that there are no offenses beyond the formal act made by limiting it to those concealed for a fortnight? Now, monks who desire to train make declarations, announcements, and disclosures daily, or every one or two days, and so on. Even if they cannot do so being engaged in duties, they do not miss the Uposatha day. Even those who miss it due to illness, and so on, know that they have missed it. Therefore, if there is such a missed period, one should make the formal act by extending it to those concealed for more than a fortnight, or for a month, and so on. But if there is no such missed period, it is limited to those concealed for a fortnight. Therefore, making the formal act limited to a fortnight is to be seen as reasonable. So be it. Even so, regarding what was said: “Many offenses