English
by merely taking up residence elsewhere, without a boat or the like. For it is only in the case of boats, caravans, and encampments that entering the rains retreat with or without a dwelling is specifically permitted, as in "Monks, I permit you to enter the rains retreat in a boat" (Mahāvagga 203). Thus, the prohibition, "Monks, one who has no dwelling should not enter the rains retreat" (Mahāvagga 204), is understood. There, "does not obtain" means that in the absence of a dwelling, entering the rains retreat in boats and the like is permitted even by way of mere residence. For among the four kinds of dwellings, the monastery dwelling is intended here, not the other three. Regarding the hut, which has divisions like a 'ṭaṅkita mañca' and so on, a 'ṭaṅkita mañca' is a bed made by piercing the long bed legs in the middle and inserting crossbars. For this, there is no 'this is the top' or 'this is the bottom'. Even when turned over and used, it is the same. They place it in cemeteries and shrines. A house made by laying a stone on top of four stones. also called a "carved bed." "I enter the rains here" should be said three times. Since the caravan is not a dwelling, it should not be said "in this dwelling," but only "I enter the rains here." However, it is not proper to enter the rains in a caravan. Since there are no huts or the like, it is not proper to enter by making a verbal distinction "I enter the rains here." The intention is that it is proper merely by making an abode. "Vippakirati" means to go separately. There is no offense in breaking the rains in three places. There is no offense for one who goes with them. But if one goes separated from them, there is an offense. And one cannot invite. "Having joined the entrance door" means having joined it with its bolt. "By the former... and so on... should not depart." This means that having entered the former rains on the day of the first quarter moon immediately after the full moon of Āsāḷha, one should dwell for the first three months, excluding the very last month of the four months of the rainy season. Having entered the latter rains on the day of the first quarter moon immediately after the full moon of Sāvaṇa, one should dwell for the latter three months, excluding the very first month. If a bhikkhu who has entered the former rains without having thus dwelt, and without having allowed the dawn to rise within the great invitation, or one who has entered the latter rains without having allowed the dawn to rise within the four-month invitation, should depart on a journey in between, merely by transgressing the boundary of the precincts, that bhikkhu incurs an offense of wrong-doing. This is what it shows. To support this meaning with the Pāli, it is said, "Not, O bhikkhus... and so on... by the saying." If so, then an offense would always occur for one who departs after entering the rains when there is something to be done. Referring to this objection, he says, "But having entered the rains..." and so on. If this is the case, then only one who departs for a seven-day task on that very day would be blameless, not one who departs after dwelling for two or three days. So he says, "What then is the talk..." and so on. 180. Now, to show the characteristic of the seven-day task in detail, he says, "I allow, O bhikkhus..." and so on. There, "I allow, O bhikkhus..." Indeed, for seven days' business, to go when sent, but not when unsent, for a bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, sikkhamānā, sāmaṇera, sāmaṇerī, upāsaka, upāsikā. (one) I allow, monks, for seven days' business, to go even when unsent, much more when sent, for a bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, sikkhamānā, sāmaṇera, sāmaṇerī, and for one's mother and father. (one) If, however, a bhikkhu's brother or other relative is ill. (one) One who lives with bhikkhus in a monastery, supported by bhikkhus. (one) If a bhikkhu... discontent or remorse or a wrong view has arisen. (one) If some bhikkhu has incurred a grave offense, deserving of probation. (one) And for a bhikkhuni deserving of penance. (one) A sāmaṇera wishing to be ordained... or a sikkhamānā... or a sāmaṇerī. (one) If the Saṅgha wishes to perform an act for a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni, or an act of rebuke. (one) Even if the act has already been performed. (one) I allow, monks, to go for Saṅgha business. (one) Thus, there are eleven instances. In these, according to the first, third, and fourth, in three instances, one should go only when sent, not when unsent. In the remaining eight, one may go even when unsent, much more when sent. For it is said in the Vimativinodanīya: "One should go even when unsent for Saṅgha business." And here, it should be understood that it is permissible to go for seven days' business even when sent by non-upāsakas who wish to know the nature of the teaching, and even when their faith has increased. "Bhikkhubhattika" means one dependent on bhikkhus. But since he lives with bhikkhus, it is said, "one who lives with bhikkhus." 181. "Apicetthāti" is the division "apica ettha". Here, in this determination of seven days' business, there is also another such extra-Pāli method. The meaning should be understood as released from the chapter on the invitation to the meal. However, in the Samantapāsādikā, it is seen as “the determination of the cutting off of the night, released from the Pāli.” Thus, in the Vimativinodanī, “the determination of the cutting off of the night means the determination of the cutting off of the night, which is the rising of the sun outside, having gone for a seven-day task.” And in the Sāratthadīpanī, “the rising of the sun outside, having gone for a seven-day task, is the cutting off of the night.” It should be understood that if one goes uninvited, it is not permissible. Even if one goes, having resolved upon a seven-day task, because of being uninvited, there is a cutting off of the rains retreat and an offense of wrong-doing. For they say that the rains retreat is cut off for one who goes, saying, “I will stay in a monastery outside the village and come back,” without the aforementioned reason for cutting off the night. It is permissible to go, having observed the sign for a seven-day task while staying within the boundary of the monastic precinct, and having made the intention, “I will come back within seven days,” to go with this sign. Even if one makes the intention at the previous moment and forgets it at the moment of going, there is no fault, because it is said, “he departs with a task.” They say that the rains retreat is cut off for one who goes without any intention whatsoever. But for one who, even in the absence of a sign for a seven-day task, makes the intention, “I will come back within seven days,” and goes and comes back within seven days, there is an offense, but no cutting off of the rains retreat, because the seven days have returned, they say. This should be examined and taken. “Goods” means robe-goods. “They send” means they send for washing robes and so on. “Cannot reach, it is permissible.” Here, they say that if one goes to a nearby monastery, saying, “I will come today,” and then comes back, if the sun rises on the way, there is no cutting off of the rains retreat, and no offense of wrong-doing for cutting off the night. They say that because of the eagerness to return on the same day, there is no cutting off of the rains retreat or an offense. is the meaning. If he is sick, he may go. If he is not sick, he may go to see his teacher or preceptor for a seven-day purpose, to see his teacher of dependence or Dhamma teacher, how much more so his ordination teacher or preceptor. If his teacher says to him, "Do not go today," it is permissible. Thus, for those who have come for a seven-day purpose, if the teacher or preceptor says, "Do not go today," when they are returning within seven days, it is permissible, and there is no offense even if the seven days are exceeded. However, the rains retreat is certainly cut short, because the seven days have been spent outside. If he has gone far, the dawn must be made to rise within seven days. This indicates that it is permissible to go for a seven-day purpose even if there is a reason for the rains retreat to be cut short. Here, the meaning is that after spending six days outside, on the seventh day, one should enter the inner precinct before dawn, make the dawn rise, and then on the next day, resolve for seven days and go. Some, however, say, "It is permissible to come on the seventh day and go on that very day, even without making the dawn rise." That should not be accepted, because it is said, "the dawn must be made to rise." Indeed, the Pāli text (Mahāvagga 199) says, "a seven-day stay must be made," referring to the making of the dawn rise there on the seventh day. One who goes without making the dawn rise, and one who spends seven days outside without entering, will certainly have his rains retreat cut short, because the dawn rose outside. Otherwise, the phrase "the dawn must be made to rise" would be meaningless. It should have been said, "one should enter the monastery within seven days, and go without making the dawn rise." And in other places, only the making of the dawn rise is mentioned. For it will be said in the Robe Section (Mahāvagga Commentary 364), "One dwelling in one monastery makes the dawn rise in the other within seven days." Or if they should say to you, "One who has entered on the seventh day at any time, that..." that “the past dawn, dependent on the day, is called ‘raised’,” this statement, referring to this meaning, is said in the commentary, but it does not agree even with the proper course. For when the dawn has risen, what entered afterwards cannot be its cause, its raiser. If it were so, then the statement “having gone to the rains, but without raising the dawn, departing on that very day for a seven-day task” would be contradictory. By that, even for a forest monk, if the dawn dependent on that day were raised,