English
There, regarding "Who is this called dawn?", here this dawn is a special kind of light of the sun. For this is stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā: The ray that rises before the sun's rising is called dawn. And in its commentary: "The ray that rises before the sun's rising is called dawn." And in the Vinaya commentary called Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.463), it is said: "Here, 'dawn' should be understood as a special kind of light, increasing, dense, and reddish, preceding the sunrise." Therefore, it should be understood that only the light of the sun is called dawn, not anything else. Regarding "By what is it dawn?", here, it is dawn because it has a reddish color, a little... It means endowed with one's own color. Or, it goes to delight, it proceeds with a red color, thus it is *aruṇa*. This has been said in the *Abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkā*: “It goes to delight by its *aruṇa* color, thus it is *aruṇa*.” What kind of color is its color? Here, its color should be an indistinct red color. For it has been said in the *Abhidhānappadīpikā*: “*Aruṇa* is somewhat red.” And in its commentary: “Somewhat red, an indistinct red color, is called *aruṇa*, like the eye of a fish.” And in the *Vimativinodanī* (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.463): “A special radiance, intensely deep red.” Therefore, it should be understood that the red radiance of the sun is called *aruṇa*, not a white radiance and so on. If so, how can what is said in the *Vimativinodanī* (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.383) in the commentary on the Khandhaka for the suspension of the Pātimokkha, “But in the Pāḷi, ‘*nandimukhī*’ means ‘having a joyful face’ due to the white direction-face,” be consistent? No, it is not inconsistent. For there, the state of the direction-face being white at the time of the *aruṇa*’s rising is stated due to the *aruṇa*’s light, not the whiteness of the *aruṇa*’s light. This has been said in the *Udānaṭṭhakathā* (Udā. Aṭṭha. 23): “*Nandimukhī* means, because the *aruṇa* has risen, by the light of the *aruṇa*, making beings who depend on the sunlight joyful-faced, the night having arisen and shining forth, this is the meaning.” And in the *Jātakaṭṭhakathā*: “When the last part of the night is gone, the *aruṇa* has risen; She who is seen, possessing a supreme form and color; Like her, O deity, you appeared to me; Tell me, which *accharā* are you?” (Jā. Aṭṭha. 5.21.254); In the explanation of the meaning of this verse: “There, ‘*jighaññarattiṃ*’ means the last part of the night, the end of the night, this is the meaning. ‘*Uhateti*’ means when the *aruṇa* has risen. ‘*Yā*’ means that eastern direction which, having a red color, appears possessing a supreme form.” Thus, at the time of the *aruṇa*’s rising, the redness of the eastern direction is stated. Therefore, at that time, due to the *aruṇa* having risen, the red part of the eastern direction, and due to the sunlight being spread, the whiteness of the other directions is understood. What kind of shape? Here, for the dawn, there is no specific form, being merely a ray of light. As much as the area it pervades, that much is its form, so it should be understood. Or it is the form of the eastern direction. For it is said in the Jātaka Commentary: "The eastern direction, being red in color, appears as possessing a supreme form." As for when and where the dawn arises, this dawn arises in the eastern direction at a time before the rising of the sun. This is said in the Udāna Commentary: "When the dawn has risen" means "when the dawn has appeared." "Dawn" is indeed a light that has arisen in the eastern direction even before the sunrise. And in the Abhidhānappadīpikā: "A ray of light that has arisen before the sunrise." Is this known by direct perception, or by inference? Here, this dawn is indeed known by direct perception, not by inference. If asked, "Why is it known?" Because it is a color-object perceptible by eye-consciousness. "Paccakkha" means "before the eye." Eye-consciousness arises because eye and forms are directly present, having come into range. This was said by the Blessed One: "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises." Therefore, this color of dawn, being known by seeing with the eye, is indeed known by direct perception, and not by inference, by repeatedly thinking, "If this is so, then that would be so." Having well considered this answer to the question, the wise should accept and discern that the red light itself is the dawn. But why is the discourse on dawn mentioned in this place? Because this discourse on dawn has a great scope. How so? Laymen and laywomen observing the Uposatha, not truly knowing the rising of the dawn, when the dawn has not yet risen, perceiving it as risen, eat food, or consume edibles, or wear garlands, perfumes, and so on. Then their precepts are broken. Novices, likewise, eating food at the wrong time, incur the destruction of their precepts. Monks under dependence, without their teachers and preceptors, wandering outside the boundary, incur the relaxation of dependence. Monks during the Rains Retreat, going outside the precinct boundary, incur the cutting off of the Rains Retreat. Monks with the three robes, in an unestablished boundary, dwelling apart from their robes, incur an offense of relinquishment and expiation. Likewise, within the seven-day boundary. In a place sufficient for sleeping together, sleeping with unordained women, incur an expiation offense. Likewise, monks eating food for a limited time. Those undergoing probation and others, abandoning their duties, incur the cutting off of nights. And so on, from the arising of many such dangers, for conscientious and scrupulous monks, for the sake of knowing the true rising of dawn, it should be understood that this was said. Some monks, however, due to the absence of water clocks at midnight, having passed the midnight time, it becomes another day. Therefore, thinking that dawn has risen at that time, having passed midnight, they eat solid and soft foods and so on. But they, not knowing the Buddha's time reckoning, considering only the Vedic time reckoning, do so. Therefore, their action is not authoritative. Many monks, however, not knowing the direct perception of dawn, and unable to think by inference, believing the words of others by way of hearsay, say: "Our teachers, rising and going at the time of dawn, at the time of sunrise, reach a place of two thousand cubits, and reach a place of three thousand cubits." "From this monastery, to such and such a monastery, to such and such a shrine, and to such and such a village they reach," and so on, they say such hearsay. That too is not authoritative. Why? A journey, indeed, for the strong and swift, is short. For the weak and tired, is long. For it was said by the Blessed One – Long is the night for one awake, long is a league for one weary; Long is transmigration for fools, who do not know the true Dhamma. Therefore, the duration is not the same for everyone, thus it cannot be a characteristic of dawn. Nor do those venerable ones bring forth any corroborating statement from the Tipiṭaka. They speak merely according to their own inclination, as if making a claim without witnesses, so it is not authoritative. Others, however, (say) – The watch of the past night; Or its latter half; The first stroke of the coming (day); Or its half, is today. Having recited the verse from the Kaccāyanasāra treatise, they say, "The last watch of the past night has ended today, therefore, from the beginning of the last watch, dawn rises." This assertion is stronger than the previous ones because it indicates a reason, but even so, it is inappropriate. Why? For this verse, in the manner stated in the Jaṅgadāsa treatise on external grammar, was spoken to show the time of the occurrence of the word "today" (ajjatanī) as "that which is today," not to show the time of dawn's rising mentioned in the Tipiṭaka. Therefore, since one thing is proven by a proof for another thing, it is inappropriate. Others, however, might say that because it is stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā that "a stroke is called a watch," and because the words "stroke" and "watch" have the same meaning, and because it is stated there that "the night should have three watches," and because the night has three watches, and because it is stated in the Pāli (Ud. 45; Cv. 383): "The night, venerable sir, is far spent, the last watch is gone, the dawn has broken," therefore, now, among the four strokes of the night, dawn has risen at the end of the third stroke, and thus the remaining one stroke's worth of time belongs to the day. This assertion is stronger than the third assertion. Why? Because the indicator and the indicated are in conformity. Thus, this indicator "a stroke is called a watch" is in conformity with the words "stroke" and "watch" having the same meaning, and this "the night has three watches" is in conformity with the night having three watches, and "in the Pāli," etc., is in conformity with the rising of dawn at the end of the third stroke. Nevertheless, it is still inappropriate. Why? "The remaining one stroke's worth... because the statement "that time is a part of the day" is contradictory. For in the Middle Country, a period of ten *ghaṭikās* is considered one watch, so the entire night is always three watches, not four watches. But now, in border regions, a period of seven or eight *ghaṭikās* is considered one watch, so it becomes four watches. Therefore, taking the usage of the Middle Country, it is said in the *Abhidhānappadīpikā*: "The night is three watches," and in the Pāli (Ud. 45; Cūḷava. 383): "The last watch has passed, the dawn has broken." Therefore, it should be understood that dawn rises only at the end of the night. Thus it is said in the *Vimativinodanī*: "Similarly, for those who are on probation (pārivāsika) and others, who conclude their observance without the dawn having risen, the cutting off of the night is stated. For it is said