English
concealed for one day… …many offenses concealed for a fortnight,” how would one know that the offenses concealed by me are in this very sequence? And if one does not know, then this would apply: “And that offense, friends, which is concealed unknowingly, the granting of probation for that offense is unlawful; being unlawful, it does not take effect.” It does not apply. For there, one conceals an offense while not knowing that it is an offense. Therefore, due to the absence of the state of being aware of an offense, as stated in “it is an offense and one is aware of it as an offense,” it is unconcealed. Therefore, the granting of probation for an unconcealed offense is unlawful. Here, however, one does not know the exact period of concealment, “for so many nights I have concealed it.” Even if one does not know that, the granting of probation takes effect. For that reason, And for this reason, regarding the pure *parivāsa* (Cūḷava. 156-157), it is said: "He does not know the extent of the offense, He does not know the extent of the nights, He does not remember the extent of the offense, He does not remember the extent of the nights, He is doubtful about the extent of the offense, He is doubtful about the extent of the nights." Even when there is not knowing, not remembering, or being doubtful about the extent of the nights, the giving of *parivāsa* is stated. Therefore, even if one does not truly know the period of concealment, when it is said, "Many offenses concealed for one day... and so on... many offenses concealed for half a month," it should be understood that there is no omission here, and it is indeed accomplished. Or perhaps they might say this: When it is said, "Many offenses concealed for one day... and so on... many offenses concealed for half a month," among those days, there are offenses that are concealed, there are those not concealed, there are those long concealed, there are those not long concealed, there is one, there are many. Are all those offenses included by this very term? They are indeed included. No doubt should be made here. For this is stated in the commentary (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 102): "But in another case of emergence from an offense, this is the characteristic: He who performs a disciplinary act for an unconcealed offense as 'concealed', his offense is emerged. He who performs a disciplinary act for a concealed offense as 'unconcealed', his offense is not emerged. Even if one performs for a not-long-concealed offense as 'long-concealed', it is emerged. If one performs for a long-concealed offense as 'not-long-concealed', it is not emerged. Even if one commits one offense and performs as 'many', it is emerged, because without one, there are no many. But if one commits many and performs as 'I committed one', it is not emerged." Therefore, since all concealed offenses are included by these terms, it should be understood that emergence from those offenses is possible. But then, being asked by the expert in discipline: "Venerable sir, I committed many Saṅghādisesa offenses, one emission of semen..." Sixty (offenses), one bodily contact, one rude speech, one self-indulgence, one acting as a go-between, one hut-making, one monastery-making, one malicious intent, one siding with another, one schism in the Saṅgha, one following a schism, one difficult to admonish, one corrupting families"— when this is said, knowing "this bhikkhu is worthy of mixed-combination probation," probation should be given according to the method found in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Commentary 102). Here it is asked: What is the difference, what is the distinction, between value-combination and mixed-combination? It is said: Value-combination probation is given by combining recently concealed offenses with a long-concealed offense, and then given according to the value of that long-concealed offense. Mixed-combination probation is given by combining offenses of various kinds, and then given according to their mixed nature. This is the difference between them. Or else, value-combination is by way of combining offenses of the same kind, the other (mixed-combination) is of different kinds, say the teachers. Therefore, the Elder Acariya Vajirabuddhi said (Vajira. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 102): "Value-combination, is when many offenses of the same kind, committed by one who has fallen, are placed into an offense concealed for many nights, and then given. The other (mixed-combination) is by way of various kinds. This is the difference between them." Now, it might be asked: "When one commits offenses that are both long-concealed and recently-concealed, and of various kinds, what probation should be given? Value-combination or mixed-combination, or both?" And here, what (is the implication)? If one were to give value-combination, he would be absolved from offenses that are both long-concealed and recently-concealed, and of the same kind, but not from those that are both long-concealed and recently-concealed, and of different kinds. And if one were to give mixed-combination, he would be absolved from offenses of different kinds concealed for the same period, but not from those of the same kind concealed for different periods, or both. would give, “In one offense, two periods of probation should be given” is not stated in the Pāli, nor in the commentaries? It is said: Indeed, all this probation and so forth, this Vinaya act, may be done by way of the basis, or by way of the category, or by way of the name, or by way of the offense. There, “emission of semen” is both the basis and the category. “Saṅghādisesa” is both the name and the offense. There, by the statement “emission of semen, bodily contact,” and so on, and by the statement “of various bases,” both the basis and the category are understood. By the statement “Saṅghādisesa” and by the statement “offenses,” both the name and the offense are understood. Therefore, when probation is given by way of the combined value, by the statement “Venerable Sir, I have committed many Saṅghādisesa offenses,” and so on, since the basis, the category, the name, and the offense are all understood, one is reinstated from all offenses, those long-concealed and those not long-concealed, those of similar basis and those of dissimilar basis. This should be understood. This is stated in the Samantapāsādikā: “And here, ‘I have committed Saṅghādisesa offenses of various bases,’ or ‘I have committed Saṅghādisesa offenses,’ thus, in the manner stated before, it is permissible to perform the kammavācā by combining by way of the basis, by way of the category, by way of the name, and by way of the offense. This is the mixed combination.” And in this Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 245), having stated the same, it says: “Therefore, we will not show a separate kammavācā here. Since reinstatement from offenses of various bases is possible with the kammavācā that was shown before, made common to all offenses, that kammavācā alone is sufficient here.” If so, the Elder Acariya Vajirabuddhi should not have stated a distinction between the two. Then why was it stated? Among the three combined probations, the “odhāna-samodhāna” (probation by inclusion) must be given only at the time of the removal of the root offense. However, the “aggha-samodhāna” (probation by combined value) and the “missaka-samodhāna” (probation by mixed combination) must be given separately. . "What is the distinction among these, when given thus?" This was said to show the possibility of a distinction, when one considers it. However, in the Commentary, to show the characteristic of the act of probation and so forth, it says, "or by way of the basis," and so on. Therefore, by way of the characteristic alone, emergence from offenses is possible even with offenses that have a similar basis. And for that very reason, it should be understood that no distinction is stated in the Vinaya Commentary called Sāratthadīpanī and in the Vinaya Commentary called Vimativinodanī. If that is so, then even with the mixed combination act-recitation, emergence from offenses, whether long-concealed or not long-concealed, would be possible. For there too, one would have to say: "Venerable Sir, I incurred many Saṅghādisesa offenses, of various bases," or "one emission of semen... ...one defiling of families." If this is the case, since it is possible to mention "many" and "Saṅghādisesa offenses" by way of the basis, group, and name of the offenses, emergence from offenses, whether long-concealed or not long-concealed, would be possible, would it not? But it should not be understood thus. For the mention of the basis and so forth is for the purpose of including all offenses. Even when including them thus, since the period of concealment is not stated, it is not known "for such and such a period probation must be observed." When that is not known, probation does not occur by that measure. When that is absent, emergence from the offense is not possible. Therefore, it should be understood that with the mixed combination act-recitation, emergence from offenses, whether long-concealed or not long-concealed, is not possible. The discourse on the determination of probation is concluded. The discourse on the determination of Mānattā In the discourse on Mānattā too, Mānattā is of four kinds: unconcealed Mānattā, concealed Mānattā, partial Mānattā, and combined Mānattā. Among these, the bhikkhu who incurs a Saṅghādisesa offense and declares it on that very day, not concealing it even for one night, for him, the Mānattā given without giving probation is called unconcealed Mānattā. He who, having incurred an offense, by ten modes He does not declare that day without reasons, he conceals it for one night or more, having given him probation for the days thus concealed, the penance given to one who has completed probation is called concealed penance. Having committed an offense, the penance given to a nun, whether she concealed it or not,