English
vast wisdom and skill, it should not be said in an unsuitable place. Therefore, at the end of the comparison of Aṭṭhakathā traditions above, it should be said after this statement: "It was said by Mahāpaduma Thera." That might have been written later by scribes, having been transposed. And this statement is said in the Pārājika section's Aṭṭhakathā. And in the Ṭīkā, it is not said in this place, it is said above. Since this Aṭṭhakathā tradition, "who is possessed by a yakkha, and who is made to lie down by being bound," is the later one, that very one should be taken as authority. And thus it will be said: "Wherever any Aṭṭhakathā tradition or Thera tradition is mentioned later, that very one should be seen as authority." Therefore, this here should be considered and taken. 4. Now, to show that it is permissible to lie down even without closing the door if there is an obstacle to closing it, he says "then of the door" and so on. "Having raised the ladder" means: having raised it to the upper level, having dismantled it, having dropped it to the ground, or having discarded it, it is permissible to lie down. This is said in connection with being bound together. Regarding "both doors should be guarded": if in one door there is no door-panel, or it cannot be closed in the manner stated below, it is permissible to lie down without closing the other door. "Of the doorkeeper" means: of the one guarding the door, standing at the main gate in the gatehouse, or at the foot of the ladder. "The burden of the last ones" is said referring to those who come in a connected group. "In the inner chamber with an unclosed door" should be understood. "Or outside" means outside the chamber. "Even at the time of lying down... etc. ... it is permissible" here, because the doorkeeper is dependent on that, at that time, his presence or absence there... they say that it is permissible to make a thought even without reflecting on it. Regarding "enclosed by anything whatsoever," the measure of the height of the enclosure is the same as what is stated in the Sahaseyyappahonaka. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 51): "Indeed, a dwelling that is completely covered above by five coverings or by anything else is called a completely covered bed... (etc.)... But a dwelling that is enclosed from the ground up to the covering by a wall or by anything else, even by a cloth, is called a completely enclosed bed. Even if it is enclosed by a wall, etc., of one and a half cubits high, without reaching the covering, it is still a completely enclosed bed, as stated in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā." It is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.51) and the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.50-51) that "the one and a half cubits high should be taken with a carpenter's cubit." Mahāpariveṇa means a large courtyard. This indicates a place where many people move about. Therefore, it says "Mahābodhī," etc. If one rises when the dawn has appeared, there is no offense, because one lay down with a pure mind during the night, which is the field of no offense. If one wakes up and then sleeps again, there is an offense. This means that if one wakes up when the dawn has appeared, and knowing or not knowing that the dawn has appeared, one does not get up but continues to sleep, an offense arises from inaction, because the act of lying down, which was done in the field of no offense, is not part of the required action of closing the door, etc., which should be done after getting up. This offense, in such a situation, is inaction, and at the moment of lying down without closing the door during the day, it is both action and inaction, and unintentional. Even for one who wakes up before dawn and sleeps until the dawn appears, there is an offense in the same way as before. Regarding "I will rise when the dawn has appeared... (etc.)... there is an offense," when does the offense occur? It is said: Not during the night, because it is said (Pari. 323), "One commits an offense during the day, not at night," so one is not freed from the offense of disrespect. The fault spoken of as "atī" is not merely a fault of daytime lying, but rather a fault of disrespect. In the Vimativinodanī it is said: "It should be understood that at dawn, one incurs an offense that is unintentional and arises without action." And in the Sāratthadīpanī it is said: "He rises at the appointed time," meaning, "he rises only when dawn breaks." "His offense" means because he lay down with an impure mind, even if sleeping when dawn breaks, it is an offense rooted in daytime seclusion. Because it is said, "One lying down thus is not freed from the fault of disrespect," one who lies down with an impure mind, whether rising before dawn or not rising, incurs the fault of disrespect at the very time of lying down. However, the fault rooted in daytime seclusion is incurred only at dawn. Therefore, it should be understood that one lying down thus incurs two faults. If one lies down, closing the door, intending to rise at dawn, and if the door is opened by others at the time of dawn, there is no offense for him, because there is no distinction between night and day regarding the closing of the door. It should be understood that a specific time is desired only for incurring an offense, not for avoiding it. Indeed, it is said: "He lies down at night, closing the door." For one who lies down having closed the door during the day, even if the door is opened by someone, there is no offense. They say that even if one does not rise oneself, and the door is opened due to a reason, there is no offense. This too is stated in the Vimativinodanī. "He rises at the appointed time," meaning, "he rises only when dawn breaks," and "it is an offense" is said with reference to the primary offense. However, the offense of disrespect exists for him even if he rises before dawn, because it is said, "he is not freed from the fault." And "he is not freed from the fault" means that even if he rises before dawn and is freed from the primary offense, he is not freed from the fault of disrespect. 5. "He lies down due to sleep" means he lies on one side overcome by sleep. It is said by way of common usage, "he lies down by way of sleep," but since his feet are not lifted from the ground, he is called "one who lies down," and for this reason, no offense is stated. For one who sleeps without support: for one who sleeps with a small part of the spine above the waist not touching the ground. But for one whose waist touches the ground, it is not called sleeping. For lying down is characterized by stretching the back, and even in salutations, etc., since the spines are stretched horizontally, it is indeed lying down, and thus the offense must be avoided. For salutation is also called lying down in phrases like "he lies down at the foot." He rises suddenly: he rises suddenly as if having stumbled and fallen. For him too, there is no offense, because at the moment of falling, it is not within his control, and because he rose suddenly when it became within his control. But for one who is unconscious, and it remains out of his control even afterwards, for him there is no offense, just as at the moment of falling. He sleeps right there, he does not rise: this shows not acting even when it is within his control, and for this reason, it is said that he incurs an offense. Now, to make a comparison with the commentaries, it states, "who is released, who is not released," and so on. There, in "Mahāpaccariya," etc., "paccari" is said to mean a raft, and since it was made while sitting on it, that name came about. There is a monastery called Kurundivallivihāra, and since it was made there, the name "Kurundi" came about. The Mahāaṭṭhakathā is the commentary on the Tipiṭaka Buddha-word that ascended to the three councils. It was brought to the island of Tambapaṇṇi by the Elder Mahā Mahinda, and later compiled in the Sinhala language by the Tambapaṇṇi elders. By a single bending: it is said that he lay down by bending his body on one side, without lifting his feet from the ground. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, however, it is connected with "said by the Elder Mahāpaduma." By this, it shows "this" in the opinion of the Elder Mahāpaduma written in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. The Elder said, "Since he fell unconscious, and it was not within his control, no offense is seen." But the teachers say, just as one possessed by a yakkha, having been bound, is made to lie down. And from this, he is dependent on others. Thus, being dependent on others, having fainted and fallen, knowing the time, he lies down. They do not say there is no offense. But if he is unconscious, there is no offense. "Two persons," and so on – this statement is in the Great Commentary itself. Since it is stated later, it is the authority. Here, even one who has become unconscious is included by the phrase "seized by a yakkha." But one who has lain down in a single posture is released from offense due to not having lain down (properly), so it should be understood. And in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.77), because the commentary statement "one who is seized by a yakkha, and one who is made to lie down by being bound" is later, that alone should be taken as the authority. And thus it will be said: "Wherever a commentary statement is said later, that alone should be taken as the authority." Because this commentary passage is brought into this place, it is not our wish that that passage should be stated in this very place in this Vinaya-saṅgaha treatise. And here, from the statement "having opened the door at night, he lies down, and rises when dawn appears, no offense," etc., a discourse on dawn should be given to dispel doubt regarding the appearance of dawn. Therein this is said: Who is this called dawn? By what is it dawn? What kind is its color? What kind is its form? At what time and place does dawn arise? Is this proven by direct perception, or by inference?