English
by going to the forest suitable for meditation in the evening, and returning at that very time, the dawn would be raised and the ascetic practice purified. But this is not proper, as the raising of the dawn is stated to be at the time of dawn’s rising. For it is said: “One should go out early and raise the dawn in a place suitable for meditation. If at the time of dawn’s rising their illness increases, their task should be done, and one should not be one who purifies the ascetic practice.” Similarly, for those undergoing probation, etc., who lay down their practice without raising the dawn, a break in the night is stated. For it is said: “It should be laid down when the dawn has risen.” And in the co-sleeping rule, to be free from having dwelt with those not fully ordained, it is said: “having gone out before dawn,” etc. Thus, in cases like being separated from the robe, and in all other instances, the raising of the dawn at the end of the night is shown to be by means of the coming dawn, not by means of the past dawn. Therefore, the raising of the dawn here should be understood in the manner stated, otherwise, it would be a break in the rains. As for the statement that one who has gone to the rains may depart on that very day without raising the dawn for a task to be done, that is proper because departure is permitted whenever there is a sign, starting from the time of going to the rains. But it is not that one who has gone for seven days departs on that very day without raising the dawn, because it is stated: “the dawn must be raised.” Or just as “for one who has not arrived for seven days…” for a necessary task, that bhikkhu, monks, may go, or may not come to that dwelling.” Even though it is permitted not to return in the last week (mahāva. 207), it is not allowed in other weeks. Similarly, even though it is permitted to go without letting the dawn rise in the first week, it is not allowed to go without letting the dawn rise for one who has arrived in the subsequent weeks. This is the conclusion to be drawn here. When it is said, “If they give the Vassāvāsika at the time of Pavāraṇā,” it is understood that the Vassāvāsika robe, like the Kathina robe, is connected to the monastery where one has resided during the rains. However, because it is said, “If they have let the dawn rise by the week’s turn, it should be taken,” those who go for a weekly task and return within the week receive it. But they do not receive the Kathina merit robe without asking the Saṅgha. For it will be said, “Even those who have gone for a weekly task should not receive the shareable goods, nor should such an unrighteous practice be done” (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 182). Here, “brought” means brought to a place outside the monastery. In “they are afflicted by wild animals, they seize and they scatter,” “they seize” means they take and eat. “They scatter” means they chase away, they pursue, is the meaning. In these cases, such as “they are afflicted by fierce animals,” which are situations leading to a schism in the Saṅgha, there is merely no offense, but it should be understood that one is not allowed to perform Pavāraṇā. In “If, however,” and so on, since for one who undertakes the rains residence in two dwellings in different boundaries, the first acceptance of a lodging is revoked as soon as he steps out of the precinct with the intention, “I will reside in the second,” therefore, in the Pāli (mahāva. 207), “for that bhikkhu, monks, the former is not reckoned,” is said with reference to the first acceptance of a lodging. However, in the case of the second acceptance of a lodging, the former is indeed reckoned; residing there for three months, he is indeed one who has resided for the former rains. But if, on the second day or subsequent days, he transgresses the precinct with the intention, “I will reside in the first lodging,” the former is not reckoned. it should be understood. The reason for the breach of a promise is a dukkaṭa offense, and it occurs only when there is a promise, thus it is said: "a dukkaṭa for the breach of that promise." Therefore, it is said: "and that…pe… due to the breach of a promise." In the Pāli (Mahāvagga 207), it is stated: "he departs with a duty to perform, with seven days remaining until the Pavāraṇā," so it should be understood that one is not allowed to go without performing a seven-day duty even on the day of Pavāraṇā. In this place, the Aṭṭhakathā statement "it is permissible to go from the ninth day onwards" raises the question: should the ninth day be reckoned from the Uposatha day, or according to the worldly tithi (lunar day)? This should be decided as follows: it should be reckoned from the Uposatha day of the dark half of the first Bhaddapada month, not according to the worldly tithi. For, if the Uposatha day of the dark half of the Bhaddapada month is taken as the boundary, and one counts from the following first day, then it means "from the day that is the ninth." However, when referring to tithi, the feminine gender is used, so from the ninth day onwards, the Pavāraṇā occurs in the coming seven days. "With seven days remaining" means "seven days remaining." What is that? The Pavāraṇā. A bhikkhu who departs having undertaken a seven-day duty on the ninth day of the bright half of the Assayuja month, since only seven days remain in the Vassavāsa, becomes one who has completed the Vassavāsa as soon as the seventh dawn rises. On the tenth day, six days remain; on the eleventh, five days; on the twelfth, four days; on the thirteenth, three days; on the fourteenth, two days; on the fifteenth, one day remains. Therefore, he becomes one who has completed the Vassavāsa when the dawn, which is the end of the Pavāraṇā day, rises. Therefore, to relieve the remorse of those bhikkhus, the Lord, the Master of Dhamma, said: "He departs with a duty to perform, with seven days remaining until the Pavāraṇā. Whether that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, returns to that dwelling or not, for that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, the former is reckoned, and in the promise and there is no offense.” (Mahāva. 207) it says. The same method applies to “seven days before the Komudī full moon of the four months.” There, “Komudī full moon of the four months” means the full moon of the last Katthika month. It is called Komudī because of the presence of water lilies, and Cātumāsinī because it is the end of the four rainy season months. At that time, water lilies are in full bloom, so it is called Komudī because water lilies bloom there, meaning it is endowed with water lilies. 182. “Except for the regular observance in the discourse on the rainy season observance” means having made a vow to do what is continuously to be done, such as recitation and mental attention. “Kasāvaparibhaṇḍa” means preparing the ground with kasāva (a kind of plant). “Vatta” means a vow. “Such an unrighteous observance should not be made” means that monks from various regions gather, and some of them are weak and lack strength and cannot uphold such an observance. Therefore, regarding what is mentioned here and what is mentioned in the description of the fourth Pārājika (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.227): if a dwelling, or a pavilion, or a boundary, or any place is marked off, and a vow is made, “Whoever first departs from this dwelling, we shall know him as an Arahant,” then whoever first departs from that place, thinking, “Let them know me as an Arahant,” commits a Pārājika offense. But if one goes beyond that place for the business of teachers or preceptors, or for some necessary matter of parents, or for the observance of alms-round, or for the purpose of recitation and questioning, or for some other similar necessary matter, there is no offense. Even if, having gone thus, later a desire arises, “Now I will not go there, thinking they will consider me an Arahant,” still there is no offense. And if one, having arrived at that place for some necessary matter, or being otherwise engaged in recitation, mental attention, etc., or being pursued by thieves, etc., or seeing a cloud arisen and wishing to enter a shelter from the rain, goes beyond that place, there is no offense. Even if one goes by vehicle or by psychic power, one does not commit a Pārājika offense. By foot, he incurs it. But if he goes with those with whom an agreement was made, not before or after them, he does not incur it. For going thus, all protect each other. Even if they mark off some place at a pavilion, a tree root, etc., saying, "Whoever sits or walks here, him we shall know as an Arahant," or having placed flowers, "Whoever takes these and makes an offering, him we shall know as an Arahant," or an agreement is made in such a way, even there, for one who acts thus out of desire, it is a pārājika. Even if a lay follower has built a monastery on the way, or robes, etc., are placed, saying, "May the Arahants dwell in this monastery, or take the robes, etc.," even there, for one who dwells or takes them out of desire, it is a pārājika. But this is an unrighteous agreement-practice, therefore it should not be done. Or any such thing as, "Within these three months, may all be forest dwellers, or holders of the alms-round dhutaṅga or other remaining dhutaṅgas, or may all be Arahants," and so on. For bhikkhus from various regions assemble. There, some are weak, lacking strength, and cannot observe such a practice. Therefore, such a practice should not be done. "For these three months, no one should teach, no one should question, no one should ordain, the vow of silence should be taken, the Sangha's gain should be given even to one outside the boundary," and so on, should also not be done. "Of three kinds" means of three kinds by way of study, practice, and penetration. "Having purified, ordain" means having examined worthy young men of good family, ordain them. "Knowing the measure of speech" means knowing the limit of words. The ten topics of discourse are: discourse on fewness of wishes,