English
He says that it is not proper to perform the Uposatha having omitted, "except for the month of Kattika." But if for those who have separately performed the Great Pavāraṇā in different sīmās, there is harmony within the month of Kattika, then only the Uposatha of harmony should be performed by them, not the Pavāraṇā, because a second Pavāraṇā is not prescribed for those who have performed Pavāraṇā in one year. "It is a day of harmony" is said with reference to making harmony on a non-Uposatha day. But if the Saṅgha makes harmony on the fourteenth or fifteenth day, then it is not a day of Uposatha of harmony, but it is an Uposatha of the fourteenth or fifteenth day. The same rule applies to Pavāraṇā above. And the day postponed and set aside, or troubled by quarrelsome persons, or the fourteenth day of the dark half set aside after performing the Pavāraṇā-collection for some reason. And the two full moon days, meaning the first Kattika full moon and the last Kattika full moon, these are the two full moon days. "This fourfold" is said by combining the two full moon days with the Pavāraṇā of harmony and the Pavāraṇā of the fourteenth day, and this is said according to the usual custom. "But if there is such a condition, the two preceding fourteenth days of the two full moon days, and the fifteenth day immediately following the fourteenth day of the dark half, these three days are also Pavāraṇā days. Having set aside these seven kinds of Pavāraṇā days, it is not proper to perform Pavāraṇā on any other day." This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Parivāra 2.483). Having thus shown the determination of the failure of the object, now showing the determination of the failure of the motion and the determination of the failure of the announcement, he says, beginning with "But in the failure of the motion..." There, in the explanation of "or he sets aside the motion afterwards" in the fifth failure of the motion, having performed the act of announcement, first having recited the announcement, and immediately after the announcement saying "this is the motion," and having recited the entire motion, the meaning is that one says "this is the motion" at the end. 252. In the explanation of the fourth failure of announcement. Here, "byañjanappabheda" is intended to mean a division of consonants. In "the division of consonant-knowledge is tenfold," it should be understood as "the division of consonants is tenfold, in ten ways." "By what is this division?" it asks, and answers, "by consonant-knowledge." The knowledge that generates letters, called consonants, because they manifest the intended meaning, is consonant-knowledge. By that consonant-knowledge, it means by the difference in the mind that produces letters. Or, what is said by making a conjunction follow, this too is heavy, is the explanation in the Vimativinodanī. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Parivāra 3.485), however, it is said: "A letter to be pronounced by making the places and efforts loose is a loose letter. The same letter, to be pronounced by making them firm and not loose, is a firm letter. Two-mora duration is long, one-mora duration is short. 'The division of consonant-knowledge is tenfold' means the mind that produces letters, by consonant-knowledge, is of ten kinds, in terms of loose, etc. For all letters originate from the mind, and are consonants because they manifest the intended meaning. 'Saṃyogaparo' means that which has a conjunction following it. 'Asaṃyogaparo' (not having a conjunction following it) is in 'āyasmato buddharakkhitatherassa yassa na khamatī' (to the venerable Buddharakkhita Thera, to whom it is not agreeable), where the 'ta' and 'na' with the 'ra' are 'asaṃyogaparo'. 'Karaṇāni' means the throat, etc." So much is said there. Again, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Parivāra 2.485), it is said: "There, in 'āyasmato' and so on, the consonants 'sa', 'ma', etc., that are not separated by a vowel, are called 'saṃyogo' (conjunction). That conjunction which follows an 'a', etc., is called 'saṃyogaparo'. 'Rassaṃ' (short) is a word without 'a', etc., consonants. 'Asaṃyogaparaṃ' (not having a conjunction following it) is said with reference to a word containing 'sa', 'na', etc., consonants, as in 'yassa na khamatī' and so on. Even one who says 'suṇāṭu me' and so on, making the 'ṭa' loose in another class, without changing 'ta' to 'tha' and without saying 'suṇātu me' and so on, still commits a mispronunciation, unless an appropriate substitution is made. For when 'saccikatthaparamatthenā' should be said, if one says 'sac' And where 'ikaṭṭhaparamaṭṭhena' and 'atthakathā' should be said, 'aṭṭhakathā' is said here and there. It is proper to say such, as seen in the Pāli commentaries and the like, and in accordance with that. Anything else is not proper. Therefore, it is said, "without destroying the tradition that has come down in succession," and so on. In cases like "a short vowel where a long vowel should be," it is proper to change 'bhikkhūnaṃ' to 'bhikkhunaṃ', or 'bahūsū' to 'bahusū', or 'nakkhamatī' to 'na khamatī', or 'upasampadāpekkho' to 'upasampadāpekho', thus, in appropriate places, to interchange long and short vowels, and short and long vowels. But it is not proper to say 'nago' where 'nāgo' should be said, or 'sagho' where 'saṅgho' should be said, or 'tiso' where 'tisso' should be said, or 'yācantī' where 'yācatī' should be said, thus, in inappropriate places. However, connection and arrangement are always proper, so it should be understood. This is what has come down. The rest should be carefully noted in the manner stated in the commentary. 253. However, the determination of boundary transgressions has been fully explained below in the discourse on boundaries. Therefore, it should be understood in the manner stated there. In the discourse on assembly transgressions, "making it by a group of four" means it should be done by a Sangha of four. "Not expelled" means not excluded by suspension of Uposatha, etc., or by being of different views and not co-resident. For in the commentary, it is said, "An 'apakatatta' (one whose case is not settled) is one who is suspended, or one whose Uposatha and Pavāraṇā have been suspended." (Pari. Attha. 425) Therefore, a bhikkhu whose Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are suspended should be understood as an 'apakatatta'. "Of pure conduct" refers to those who have not committed a pārājika offense. However, in acts like parivāsa (probation), even those who have committed a grave offense should be understood as 'apakatatta'. "The rest... (etc.)... are worthy of consent" is said with reference to those standing outside arm's reach. But those standing within arm's reach are not worthy of consent. Even if they are more than four, they are worthy of consent only if they stand outside arm's reach. Therefore, from the Sangha, having gone outside arm's reach... Consent or purity must be given by one who is present. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Parivāra 3.488) it is stated: ‘‘‘Not expelled, not fallen into a pārājika, and in a normal state’ means ‘in a normal state, not expelled,’ etc. There, ‘not expelled’ is a synonym for the preceding word. ‘Of pure conduct’ means not fallen into a pārājika. The meaning is that ‘no consent or purity comes from them’; if consent or purity is brought from one or two when three or two are present, it is considered not brought.’’ Thus, in the Pāli and in the commentaries, the success and failure of all four acts are stated, and they are determined by the Ṭīkā teachers. Therefore, the four acts should be performed only in the manner stated in the commentaries, not in a manner not stated. Indeed, it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1. Ganthārambhakathā; 2.431): By the Buddha, Dhamma and Vinaya were taught; Which was likewise known by his sons; Those who, having profound understanding, For they made the commentaries of old. Therefore, indeed, what is said in the commentaries, Excepting a careless writing, All of it, for those respectful of the trainings, For it is the standard here for the wise. Indeed, in this section on acts, the place for performing the four acts, beginning with `apalokana` (declaration), is stated to be only within a consecrated boundary, free from the eleven boundary failures, not in an unconsecrated, adjacent boundary, according to the statement ‘‘acts fail due to the boundary in eleven ways’’ (Pari. 486). For indeed, the eleven failures are not present there. Also in the commentary (Pari. Aṭṭha. 482) it is stated that ‘‘the act of `apalokana` is an act to be performed by purifying the Sangha within the boundary, bringing the consent of those worthy of consent, and announcing it three times with the permission of the harmonious Sangha.’’ Thus, the performance of even the `apalokana` act is stated to be only within a consecrated boundary, not in an adjacent boundary. For indeed, there is no purification of the Sangha within the boundary nor bringing of consent of those worthy of consent there; for those who have entered within the boundary, the acquisition of the Sangha is simply to be given. Therefore, ‘‘the motion... The view of teachers who hold that "the act of Uposatha-Pavāraṇā, being an act of great importance, should be performed even in a monastery without a fixed boundary" and the view of teachers who hold that "the act of Kathina-donation, being an act requiring a motion, should be performed only within the Upacāra boundary" are to be understood as contrary to the Pāḷi and contrary to the commentaries. What needs to be said about this has been stated in the commentary on Uposatha-Pavāraṇā and in the commentary on Kathina. Those who are interested should examine it carefully there and resolve their doubts. Now, all bhikkhus, due to familiarity with scribes, recite with great enthusiasm the Mahānamakkāra text written at the beginning of all books, at the time of taking refuge