2. Observance (Uposatha) (PLI-TV-KD2)

Allowance to gather

At one time the awakened one, the Lord was staying near Rājagaha on Mount Vulture Peak. Now at that time wanderers belonging to other sects, having collected together on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the half-month. spoke dhamma, People came up to them to hear dhamma. They gained affection for the wanderers belonging to other sects, they gained faith (in them), the wanderers belonging to other sects gained adherents.

Then reasoning arose thus in the mind of King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha as he was meditating in seclusion: “At present wanderers belonging to other sects, having collected together on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the half-month, speak dhamma. These people go up to them to hear dhamma. They gain affection for the wanderers belonging to other sects, they gain faith (in them), the wanderers belonging to other sects gain adherents. Suppose the masters should also collect together on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the half-month?”

Then King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance, As he was sitting down at a respectful distance, King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha spoke thus to the Lord: “Now, Lord, as I was meditating in seclusion, a reasoning arose in my mind thus: ‘At present wanderers belonging to other sects … should collect together on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the half-month?’”

Then the Lord gladdened, rejoiced, roused, delighted King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha with talk on dhamma. Then King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha, gladdened, … delighted by the Lord with talk on dhamma, rising from his seat, Then the Lord, on this occasion, in this connection, having given reasoned talk, addressed the monks, saying:

“I allow you, monks, to assemble together on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the half-month.”

Now at that time monks, thinking: “It is allowed by the Lord to assemble together on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the half-month,” having assembled together, sat down in silence. Those people came up to hear dhamma. They looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can these recluses, sons of the Sakyans, having assembled together on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the half-month, sit in silence, like dumb pigs? Ought not dhamma to be spoken when they are assembled together?” Monks heard these people who … spread it about. Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. Then the Lord on this occasion, in this connection, having given reasoned talk, addressed the monks, saying:

“I allow you, monks, having assembled together on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the half-month, to speak dhamma.”

Allowance to recite the Pātimokkha

Then as the Lord was meditating in seclusion a reasoning arose in his mind thus: “What now if I were to allow those rules of training, laid down by me for monks, (to form) a recital of Pātimokkha for them? It would be a (formal) act of observance for them.”

Then the Lord, having emerged from his seclusion in the evening, on this occasion, in this connection having given reasoned talk, addressed the monks, saying: “Now, monks, as I was meditating in seclusion a reasoning arose in my mind thus: ‘What now if I should allow those rules of training, laid down by me for monks, (to form) a recital of Pātimokkha for them? It would be a (formal) act of observance for them’. I allow you, monks, to recite a Pātimokkha.

“And thus, monks, should it be recited: The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. Today, the fifteenth (day), is an Observance (day). If it seems right to the Order, the Order may carry out Observance, it may recite the Pātimokkha. What is the Order’s first duty? Let the venerable ones by a monk who remembers that he has fallen (into an offence) and who desires purity; for when it is revealed there comes to be comfort for him.’”

Pātimokkha means: this is the beginning, this is the head, this is the foremost of states that are good; therefore it is called Pātimokkha.

The venerable ones means: this—‘the venerable ones’—is a term of esteem, this is a term of respect, this is a deferential and honorific designation.

I will recite means: I will explain, I will teach, I will lay down, I will establish, I will make clear, I will analyse, I will make plain.

To it means: to (what) is called the Pātimokkha.

One and all of us present means: as many as there are in this assembly—elders and newly ordained and those of middle standing—these are called ‘one and all of us present’.

(We) listen properly means: having applied ourselves, having attended, we concentrate with all our mind.

(We) pay attention means: we listen, minds one-pointed, minds not distracted, minds not perturbed.

He for whom there may be an offence means: a certain offence of the five classes of offence or a certain offence of the seven classes of offence for an elder or for a newly ordained one or for one of middle standing.

He should reveal means: he should tell, he should make clear, he should open up, he should make plain in the midst of an Order or in the midst of a group or to one individual.

If there is no offence means: either one comes not to be committed or, if fallen into, it is removed.

You should become silent means: you should consent, you should not speak.

I shall know that you are quite pure means: I will know, I will understand.

For as there is an answer for each question means: as one (person) if questioned about one (thing) would answer, so it should be known to that assembly: ‘He questions me’.

An assembly like this (means): it is called an assembly of monks.

It is proclaimed up to the third time means: it is proclaimed once and it is proclaimed a second time and it is proclaimed a third time.

Remembering means: knowing, perceiving.

There is an existent offence means: either one comes to be committed or if fallen into is not removed.

Should not reveal means: should not tell, should not make clear, should not open up, should not make plain in the midst of an Order or in the midst of a group or to one individual.

There comes to be conscious lying for him means: What is conscious lying? It is an offence of wrong-doing.

A thing called a stumbling-block by the Lord means: a stumbling-block to what? It is a stumbling-block to the attainment of the first (stage in) meditation, it is a stumbling-block to the attainment of the second (stage in) meditation … the third (stage in) meditation, … the fourth (stage in) meditation, it is a stumbling-block to the attainment of the meditations, of the deliverances, of the contemplations, of the attainments, of the renunciations, of the escapes, of the aloofnesses, of states that are good.

Therefore means: for that reason.

By (a monk) who remembers means: by (one) knowing, by (one) perceiving.

By (a monk) who desires purity means: by (one) wishing to remove (an offence), by (one) wishing to be purified.

Existent offence means: either one comes to be committed, or, if fallen into, is not removed.

Should be revealed means: it should be revealed in the midst of an Order or in the midst of a group or to one individual.

For when it is revealed there comes to be comfort for him means: In what is there comfort? There comes to be comfort in the attainment of the first (stage in) meditation, there comes to be comfort in the attainment in the second (stage in) meditation … the third (stage in) meditation … the fourth (stage in) meditation; there comes to be comfort in the attainment of the meditations, of the deliverances, of the contemplations, of the attainments, of the renunciations, of the escapes, of the aloofnesses, of states that are good.

Now at that time monks, thinking: “The recital of the Pātimokkha is allowed by the Lord,” recited the Pātimokkha daily. They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“ Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited daily. Whoever should (so) recite it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, to recite the Pātimokkha on an Observance day.”

Now at that time monks, thinking: “The recital of the Pātimokkha on an Observance day is allowed by the Lord,” recited the Pātimokkha three times during the half-month—on the fourteenth, on the fifteenth and on the eighth (days) of the half-month. They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“ Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited three times in the half-month. Whoever should (so) recite it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, to recite the Pātimokkha once in the half-month: either on this fourteenth or on the fifteenth (day).”

Now at that time the group of six monks recited the Pātimokkha according to assembly, each one before his own assembly. They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“ Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited according to assembly, each one before his own assembly, Whoever should (so) recite it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, a (formal) act of Observance for all together.”

Then it occurred to the monks: “A (formal) act of Observance for all together is allowed by the Lord. Now, how far does ‘being all together’ (go)? As far as one residence, or the whole earth?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“I allow, monks, ‘being all together’ (to mean) as far as one residence.”

The story of Mahākappina

Now at that time the venerable Kappina the Great was staying near Rājagaha at Maddakucchi in the deer-park. Then as the venerable Kappina the Great was meditating in seclusion a reasoning arose in his mind thus: “Should I go to an Observance or should I not go, should I go to a (formal) act of the Order or should I not go, I, nevertheless, am purified with the highest purification.”

Then the Lord, knowing by mind the reasoning in the mind of the venerable Kappina the Great, as a strong man might stretch out his bent arm or might bend back his outstretched arm, even so did he, vanishing from Mount Vulture Peak appear in Maddakucchi in the deer-park before the venerable Kappina the Great. The Lord sat down on an appointed seat, and the venerable Kappina the Great, having greeted the Lord, sat down at a respectful distance.

As the venerable Kappina the Great was sitting down at a respectful distance the Lord spoke thus to him: “Now, Kappina, as you were meditating in seclusion did not a reasoning arise in your mind thus: ‘Should I go to an Observance or should I not go, should I go to a (formal) act of the Order or should I not go, I, nevertheless, am purified with the highest purification’?”

“Yes, Lord.”

“But if you brahmins do not reverence, revere, esteem, honour the Observance, who is there who will reverence, revere, esteem, honour the Observance? You go along, brahmin, to the Observance, do not not go; go likewise to a (formal) act of the Order, do not not go.”

“Yes, Lord,” the venerable Kappina the Great answered the Lord in assent.

Then the Lord, having gladdened, rejoiced, roused, delighted the venerable Kappina the Great with talk on dhamma, as a strong man might stretch out his bent arm or bend back his outstretched arm, even so did he, vanishing from before the venerable Kappina the Great in Maddakucchi in the deer-park appear on Mount Vulture Peak.

Allowance for a boundary

Then it occurred to the monks: “It is laid down by the Lord that ‘being all together’ (means) as far as one residence. Now, how far does one residence (go)?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“ I allow you, monks, to agree upon a boundary. And thus, monks, should it be agreed upon: First, marks should be announced, a mark consisting of a hillside, a mark consisting of a rock, a mark consisting of a grove, a mark consisting of a tree, a mark consisting of a road, a mark consisting of an anthill, a mark consisting of a river, a mark consisting of (a piece of) water. The Order, having announced the marks, should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. In as much as marks all round are announced, if it seems right to the Order the Order may agree upon a boundary in accordance with these marks for the same communion for one Observance. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. In as much as marks all round are announced, the Order is agreeing upon a boundary in accordance with these marks for the same communion, for one Observance. If the agreement upon a boundary in accordance with these marks for the same communion, for one Observance, is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. The boundary in accordance with these marks is agreed upon by the Order for the same communion, for one Observance. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent; thus do I understand this’.”

Now at that time the group of six monks, thinking: “An agreement upon a boundary is allowed by the Lord,” agreed upon very extensive boundaries, of four yojanas and five yojanas and six yojanas. Monks coming for Observance arrived while the Pātimokkha was being recited, and they arrived just after it had been recited, and they stayed (a night) on the way. They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“ Monks, a very extensive boundary should not be agreed upon, of four yojanas or five yojanas or six yojanas. Whoever should (so) agree, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, to agree upon a boundary of three yojanas at most.”

Now at that time the group of six monks agreed upon the other side of a river as a boundary. Monks coming for Observance were carried away and their bowls were carried away and their robes were carried away. They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“ Monks, the other side of a river should not be agreed upon as a boundary. Whoever should (so) agree, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, when there may be a reliable boat or a reliable bridge to agree upon the other side of such a river as a boundary.”

On an observance hall

Now at that time monks recited the Pātimokkha in successive cells without (making) a rendezvous. In-coming monks did not know or they thought, “Where will the Observance be carried out today?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“ Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in successive cells without (making) a rendezvous. Whoever should (so) recite it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, to carry out the Observance having agreed upon an Observance-hall that the Order desires: a dwelling-place or a curved house or a long house or a mansion or a cave. And thus, monks, should it be agreed upon:

“The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. If it seems right to the Order, the Order should agree upon such and such a dwelling-place as an Observance-hall. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The Order is agreeing upon such and such a dwelling-place as an Observance-hall. If the agreement upon such and such a dwelling-place as an Observance-hall is pleasing to the venerable ones, let them be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. Such and such a dwelling-place as an Observance-hall is agreed upon by the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent; thus do I understand this’.”

Now at that time in a certain residence two Observance-halls came to be agreed upon. Monks assembled together in both thinking: “Observance will be carried out here,” “Observance will be carried out here.” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“ Monks, two Observance-halls in one residence should not be agreed upon. Whoever should (so) agree, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, having abolished one, to carry out the Observance in one place (only).

“And thus, monks, should it be abolished: The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may abolish such and such an Observance-hall. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The Order is abolishing such and such an Observance-hall. If the abolition of such and such an Observance-hall is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. Such and such an Observance-hall is abolished by the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent; thus do I understand this’.”

On a maximum for observance

Now at that time in a certain residence a very small Observance-hall came to be agreed upon. A large Order of monks came to be assembled together on an Observance-day. Monks, sitting on ground that had not been agreed upon, heard the Pātimokkha. Then it occurred to these monks: “It is laid down by the Lord that the Observance is to be carried out having agreed upon an Observance-hall, but we heard the Pātimokkha while we were sitting on ground that was not agreed upon. Now was the Observance carried out for us or was it not carried out?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Monks, if one is sitting on the ground, whether it has been agreed upon or not agreed upon, and hears the Pātimokkha from there, the Observance is carried out for him.

“Well then, monks, if an Order desires a maximum for Observance of a certain size let it agree upon a maximum for Observance of that size. And thus, monks, should it be agreed upon: First, marks should be announced. The Order, having announced the marks, should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. In as much as marks all round are announced, if it seems right to the Order the Order may agree upon a maximum for Observance in accordance with these marks. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. In as much as marks all round are announced, the Order is agreeing upon the maximum for Observance in accordance with these marks. If the agreement upon a maximum for Observance in accordance with these marks is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. The maximum for Observance is agreed upon by the Order in accordance with these marks. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent; thus do I understand this’.”

Now at that time in a certain residence newly ordained monks, being the first to have assembled together on an Observance day, saying: “The elders are not coming yet,” went away. The Observance was not at a right time. They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“I allow, monks, on an Observance day monks who are elders to assemble together first.”

Now at that time in Rājagaha several residences came to have the same boundary. Monks quarrelled about this, saying: “Let the Observance be carried out in our residence,” “Let the Observance be carried out in our residence.” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“This is a case, monks, where several residences come to have the same boundary. Monks quarrel about this, saying: ‘Let the Observance be carried out in our residence’, ‘Let the Observance be carried out in our residence’. Monks those monks, one and all, having assembled together in one place, should carry out the Observance, or, having assembled together they should carry out the Observance there where a monk who is an elder is staying. But the Observance should not be carried out by an incomplete Order. Whoever should (so) carry it out, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

Allowance for a “not separated” boundary

Now at one time the venerable Kassapa the Great, going from Andhakavinda to Rājagaha for Observance and crossing a river on the way, was nearly carried away, and his robes got wet. Monks spoke thus to the venerable Kassapa the Great: “Why are your robes wet, your reverence?”

“Now I, your reverences, coming from Andhakavinda to Rājagaha for the Observance and crossing a river on the way, was nearly carried away. Because of this my robes are wet.” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Whatever boundary, monks, is agreed upon by an Order for the same communion, for one Observance, let the Order agree (to regard) that boundary (as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes.

“And thus, monks, should it be agreed upon: The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. Whatever boundary was agreed upon by the Order for the same communion, for one Observance, if it seems right to the Order the Order may agree (to regard) that boundary (as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. Whatever boundary was agreed upon by the Order for the same communion, for one Observance the Order is agreeing (to regard) that boundary (as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes. If the agreement (to regard) this boundary (as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. This boundary is agreed upon the by Order (to be regarded as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent; thus do I understand this’.”

Now at that time monks, thinking: “An agreement (for a monk to be regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes is allowed by the Lord,” laid aside robes in a house. These robes were lost and burnt and eaten by rats. The monks became badly dressed, their robes worn thin. Monks spoke thus: “Why are you, your reverences, badly dressed, your robes worn thin?”

“Now we, your reverences, thinking: ‘An agreement (for a monk to be regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes is allowed by the Lord,’ laid aside robes in a house. These robes have been lost and burnt and eaten by rats. That is why we are badly dressed, our robes worn thin.” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Whatever boundary, monks, is agreed upon by an Order for the same communion, for one Observance, let the Order agree (to regard) that boundary (as a place where a monk is) not away, separated from the three robes, except it be a village and the precincts of a village.

“And thus, monks, should it be agreed upon: … ‘… thus do I understand this’.

Abolishing a boundary

“When agreeing upon a boundary, monks, first the boundary for the same communion should be agreed upon, afterwards the (place where a monk is regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes should be agreed upon. In abolishing a boundary, monks, first the (place where a monk is regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes should be abolished, afterwards the boundary for the same communion should be abolished. And thus, monks, should the (place where the monk is regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes be abolished: The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. Whatever was agreed upon by the Order (as a place where a monk is to be regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes, if it seems right to the Order, the Order may abolish that (place where a monk is to be regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. Whatever was agreed upon by the Order (as a place where a monk is to be regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes, the Order is abolishing (that place where a monk is to be regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes. If the abolition of (the place where a monk is to be regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. That (place where a monk is to be regarded) as not away, separated from the three robes is abolished by the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent; thus do I understand this’.

“And thus, monks, should a boundary for the same communion be abolished: The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. Whatever boundary has been agreed upon by the Order for the same communion, for one Observance, if it seems right to the Order, the Order may abolish that boundary. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. Whatever boundary has been agreed upon by the Order for the same communion, for one Observance, the Order is abolishing that boundary. If the abolition of that boundary for the same communion, for one Observance is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. That boundary for the same communion, for one Observance is abolished by the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent; thus do I understand this’.

A village boundary, etc.

“Monks, when a boundary is not agreed upon, not established, whatever village or little town (a monk) lives depending on, whatever is the village boundary of that village or the little town boundary of that little town, this in that case is (the boundary) for the same communion, for one Observance. If, monks, he is in what is not a village, in a jungle, in this case the same communion, one Observance, is seven abbhantaras all round. No river, monks, is a boundary, no sea is a boundary, no natural lake is a boundary. Where there is a river, monks, or a sea or a natural lake, that which in this case is (the boundary) for the same communion, one Observance, is the distance that a man of average (height) can throw water all round.”

Now at that time the group of six monks combined boundary with boundary. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, those for whom a boundary was agreed upon first, that (formal) act of theirs is legitimate, it is irreversible, fit to stand. Monks, those for whom a boundary was agreed upon afterwards, that (formal) act of theirs is not legitimate, it is reversible, not fit to stand. Monks, boundary should not be combined with boundary. Whoever should (so) combine, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

Now at that time the group of six monks placed boundary within boundary. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, those for whom a boundary was agreed upon first, that (formal) act of theirs is legitimate, it is irreversible fit to stand. Monks, those for whom a boundary was agreed upon afterwards, that (formal) act of theirs is not legitimate it is reversible, not fit to stand. Monks, a boundary should not be placed within a boundary. Whoever should (so) place within, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, when a boundary is being agreed upon, having left an interspace between boundaries, to agree upon a boundary.”

Incomplete observance, etc.

Then it occurred to monks: “Now, how many Observance days are there?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, there are these two Observance days, the fourteenth and the fifteenth. These, monks, are the two Observance days.”

Then it occurred to monks: “Now, how many (formal) acts for Observance are there?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, there are these four (formal) acts for Observance: a (formal) act for Observance (carried out) not by rule when an Order is incomplete; a (formal) act for Observance (carried out) not by rule when an Order is complete; a (formal) act for Observance (carried out) by rule when an Order is incomplete; a (formal) act for Observance (carried out) by rule when an Order is complete. Now, monks, that which is a (formal) act for Observance carried out not by rule when an Order is incomplete, such a (formal) act for Observance, monks, should not be carried out, nor is such a (formal) act for Observance allowed by me.

“Then, monks, that which is a (formal) act for Observance (carried out) not by rule when an Order is complete, is such a (formal) act for Observance allowed by me. Then, monks, that which is a (formal) act for Observance (carried out) by rule when an Order is complete, such a (formal) act for Observance, monks, may be carried out and such a (formal) act for Observance is allowed by me. Therefore, monks, thinking: ‘We will carry out a (formal) act for Observance like this, that is to say by rule when an Order is complete’—thus you should train yourselves, monks.”

Reciting the Pātimokkha in brief, etc.

Then it occurred to monks: “Now, how many ways for the recital of the Pātimokkha are there?”. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, there are these five (ways for the) recital of the Pātimokkha: having recited the provenance, the rest may be announced as though it had been (already) heard; this is the first (way for the) recital of the Pātimokkha. Having recited the provenance, having recited the four offences involving defeat, the rest may be announced as though it had been (already) heard; this is the second (way for the) recital of the Pātimokkha. Having recited the provenance, having recited the four offences involving defeat, having recited the thirteen offences entailing a formal meeting of the Order, the rest may be announced as though it had been (already) heard; this is the third (way for the) recital of the Pātimokkha. Having recited the provenance, having recited the four offences involving defeat, having recited the thirteen offences entailing a formal meeting of the Order, having recited the two undetermined offences, the rest may be announced as though it had been (already) heard; this is the fourth (way for the) recital of the Pātimokkha. (Recital) in full is the fifth. Monks, these are the five (ways for the) recital of the Pātimokkha.”

Now, at that time, monks, thinking: “Recital of the Pātimokkha in brief is allowed by the Lord,” all the time recited the Pātimokkha in brief. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in brief. Whoever should (so) recite it, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

Now at that time in a certain residence in the Kosala country there came to be a menace from savages on an Observance day. The monks were unable to recite the Pātimokkha in full. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, if there is a danger, to recite the Pātimokkha in brief.”

Now at that time the group of six monks, although there was no danger, recited the Pātimokkha in brief. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, if there is no danger the Pātimokkha should not be recited in brief. Whoever should (so) recite it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, if there is a danger, to recite the Pātimokkha in brief. In this connection these are dangers: a danger from kings, a danger from thieves, a danger from fire, a danger from water, a danger from human beings, a danger from non-human beings, a danger from beasts of prey, a danger from creeping things, a danger to life, a danger to the Brahma-faring. I allow you, monks, when there are dangers such as these, to recite the Pātimokkha in brief; in full if there is no danger.”

On questioning regarding Vinaya

Now at that time the group of six monks, unbidden, spoke dhamma in the midst of an Order. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, dhamma should not be spoken, by one who is not bidden (to do so), in the midst of an Order. Whoever should (so) speak it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, to speak dhamma by means of a monk who is himself an elder, or (for him) to bid another (to speak it).”

Now at that time the group of six monks, (although) not agreed upon asked about discipline in the midst of an Order. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, discipline should not be asked about, by one not agreed upon, in the midst of an Order. Whoever should (so) ask, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, to ask about discipline, by means of one who is agreed upon, in the midst of an Order. And thus, monks, may he be agreed upon: either oneself may be agreed upon by oneself, or another may be agreed upon by another.

And how may oneself be agreed upon by oneself? The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. If it seems right to the Order, I could ask so and so about discipline’. Thus may oneself be agreed upon by oneself. And how may another be agreed upon by another? The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. If it seems right to the Order, so and so could ask so and so about discipline’. Thus may another be agreed upon by another.”

Now at that time well behaved monks who were agreed upon asked about discipline in the midst of the Order. The group of six monks took offence, they took umbrage, they threatened them with harm. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to ask about discipline in the midst of the Order by means of one who is agreed upon, although having (first) looked round the assembly, having assessed (each) individual.”

On answering regarding Vinaya

Now at that time the group of six monks (although) not agreed upon answered questions on discipline in the midst of the Order. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, questions on discipline should not be answered in the midst of the Order by one not agreed upon. Whoever should (so) answer, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, to answer questions in the midst of the Order by means of one who is agreed upon. And thus, monks, may he be agreed upon: either oneself may be agreed upon by oneself, or another may be agreed upon by another.

And how may oneself be agreed upon by oneself? The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. If it seems right to the Order, I, asked about discipline by so and so, could answer.’ Thus may oneself be agreed upon by oneself. And how may another be agreed upon by another? The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. If it seems right to the Order, so and so, asked about discipline by so and so, could answer.’ Thus may another be agreed upon by another.”

Now at that time well behaved monks who were agreed upon answered questions on discipline in the midst of the Order. The group of six monks took offence, they took umbrage, they threatened them with harm. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to answer questions on discipline in the midst of the Order by means of one who is agreed upon, although having (first) looked round the assembly, having assessed (each) individual.”

On reproving

Now at that time the group of six monks reproved, on account of an offence, a monk who had not given (them) leave. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, a monk who has not given leave should not be reproved on account of an offence. Whoever should (so) reprove, there is an offence of wrong-dong. I allow you, monks, having obtained leave by saying: ‘Let the venerable one give me leave, I want to speak to youto reprove him on account of an offence.”

Now at that time well-behaved monks, having obtained the leave of the group of six monks, reproved them on account of an offence. The group of six months took offence, they took umbrage, they threatened them with harm. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, even if leave is given, to reprove for an offence after you have assessed the individual.”

Now at that time the group of six monks, thinking: “Before well-behaved monks obtain our leave,” themselves obtained the pure monks’ leave beforehand, but there was no ground, no reason, since they were not offenders. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, leave should not be obtained from pure monks when there is no ground, no reason, since they are not offenders. Whoever should (so) obtain it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, to obtain leave after you have assessed the individuals.”

Protesting an act that is not the rule, etc.

Now at that time the group of six monks carried out a (formal) act that was not legally valid in the midst of an Order. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, a (formal) act that is not legally valid should not be carried out in the midst of the Order. Whoever should (so) carry one out, there is an offence of wrong-doing.” Even so, they carried out a (formal) act that was not legally valid. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to protest when a (formal) act that is not legally valid is being carried out.”

Now at that time well-behaved monks protested when a (formal) act that was not legally valid was being carried out by the group of six monks. The group of six monks took offence, they took umbrage, they threatened them with harm. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, merely to express an opinion.” They expressed an opinion to these themselves. The group of six monks took offence, they took umbrage, they threatened them with harm. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, when there are four or five, to protest, when there are two or three to express an opinion, when there is one, to determine: ‘I do not approve of this’.”

Now at that time the group of six monks, when the Pātimokkha was being recited in the midst of the Order, intentionally did not hear. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, a reciter of the Pātimokkha should not intentionally not be heard. Whoever should not hear, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

Requesting the reciting of the Pātimokkha, etc.

Now at that time the venerable Udāyin came to be reciter of the Pātimokkha for an Order, but his voice was like a crow’s. Then it occurred to the venerable Udāyin: “It is laid down by the Lord that a reciter of the Pātimokkha should be heard, but my voice is like a crow’s. Now what line of conduct should be followed by me?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow, monks, the one who is the reciter of the Pātimokkha to exert himself, thinking: ‘How can I be heard? ‘There is no offence for one who exerts himself.”

Now at that time Devadatta recited the Pātimokkha before an assembly that contained laymen. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited before an assembly that contains laymen. Whoever should (so) recite it, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

Now at that time the group of six monks, unbidden, recited the Pātimokkha in the midst of an Order. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in the midst of an Order by one who is not bidden (to do so). Whoever (such) should recite it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, that the Pātimokkha be in charge of an elder.”

Told is the Portion for Repeating on Members of Other Sects.

Allowance to learn the counting of the fortnights, etc.

Then the Lord, having stayed in Rājagaha for as long as he found suiting, set out on tour for Codanāvatthu. In due course, walking on a tour, he arrived in Codanāvatthu. Now at that time several monks were staying in a certain residence; inexperienced, he did not know the Observance or a (formal) act for Observance or the Pātimokkha or the recital of the Pātimokkha.

Then it occurred to these monks: “It is laid down by the Lord that the Pātimokkha be in charge of an elder, but this elder of ours is ignorant, inexperienced, he does not know the Observance … or the recital of the Pātimokkha. Now what line of conduct should be followed by us?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow, monks, the Pātimokkha to be discharged by whoever there is an experienced, competent monk.”

Now at that time several ignorant, inexperienced monks were staying in a certain residence on an Observance day. These did not know the Observance or a (formal) act for Observance or the Pātimokkha or the recital of the Pātimokkha. These called upon an elder, saying: “Honoured sir, let the elder recite the Pātimokkha.” He spoke thus: “Your reverences, I am not able to do so.” They called upon a second elder … He also spoke thus: … They called upon a third elder … In this way they called upon (all the monks) down to the most newly ordained in the Order, saying: “Let the venerable one recite the Pātimokkha.” He also spoke thus: “Honoured sirs, I am not able to do so.” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“This is a case, monks, where several ignorant, inexperienced monks are staying in a certain residence … … ‘Honoured sirs, I am not able to do so’. Monks, one monk should immediately be sent to a neighbouring residence by these monks, saying: ‘Do go, your reverence; having mastered the Pātimokkha in brief or in full, come back’.”

Then it occurred to monks: “Now, by whom should he be sent?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to enjoin a newly ordained monk through a monk who is an elder.” Newly ordained monks, (although) enjoined by an elder, did not go. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, should not not go when enjoined by an elder. Whoever should not go, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

Then the Lord, having stayed at Codanāvatthu for as long as he found suiting, returned again to Rājagaha. Now at that time people asked the monks as they were walking for almsfood: “Which (day) of the half-month is it, honoured sirs?” The monks spoke thus: “We, sirs, do not know.” The people … spread it about, saying: “These recluses, sons of the Sakyans, do not even know the calculation of the half-months, so how can they know anything else that is good?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow, you, monks, to learn the calculation of the half-months.”

Then it occurred to monks: “Now by whom should the calculation of the half-months be learnt?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, one and all to learn the calculation of the half-months.”

Now at that time people asked the monks as they were walking for almsfood: “How many monks are there, honoured sirs?” The monks spoke thus: “We, sirs, do not know.” The people … spread it about, saying: “These recluses, sons of the Sakyans, do not even know one another, so how can they know anything else that is good?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to count the monks.”

Then it occurred to monks: “Now, how should the monks be counted?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, on an Observance day to count by way of groups or to take (a count) by ticket.”

“I allow you, monks, to announce, ‘Today is an Observance day’.” Then it occurred to monks: “Now, by whom should it be announced?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to announce it in good time through a monk who is an elder.” Now at that time a certain elder did not remember in good time. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to announce it even at meal-time.” He did not remember even at mealtime. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to announce it at whatever time he remembers.”

Allowance for preliminary duties

Now at that time the Observance-hall in a certain residence came to be soiled. Incoming monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can these monks not sweep the Observance-hall?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to sweep the Observance-hall.”

Then it occurred to monks: “Now, by whom should an Observance-hall be swept?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to enjoin a newly ordained monk through a monk who is an elder.” Newly ordained monks, (although) enjoined by an elder, did not sweep. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, one who is not ill should not not sweep when enjoined by an elder. Whoever should not sweep, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

Now at that time a seat was not prepared in an Observance-hall. Monks sat on the ground. Their limbs and robes became covered with dust. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to prepare a seat in the Observance-hall.” Then it occurred to monks: “Now, by whom should a seat in the Observance-hall be prepared?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to enjoin a newly ordained monk through a monk who is an elder.” Newly ordained monks, (although) enjoined by an elder, did not prepare (a seat). They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, one who is not ill should not not prepare (a seat) when enjoined by an elder. Whoever should not prepare (a seat), there is an offence of wrong doing.”

Now at that time there came to be no light in an Observance-hall. Monks trod on (one another’s) bodies and robes in the dark. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to make a light in an Observance-hall.” Then it occurred to monks: “Now, by whom is the light to be made in an Observance-hall?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to enjoin a newly ordained monk through a monk who is an elder.” Newly ordained monks, (although) enjoined by an elder, did not light a lamp. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, one who is not ill should not not light a lamp when enjoined by an elder. Whoever should not light a lamp, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

At that time in a certain residence resident monks neither set out drinking water nor did they set out water for washing. Incoming monks looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying: “How can these resident monks neither set out drinking water nor set out water for washing?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to set out drinking water and water for washing.”

Then it occurred to monks: “Now, by whom should drinking water and water for washing be set out?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to enjoin a newly ordained monk through a monk who is an elder.” Newly ordained monks, (although) enjoined by an elder, did not set out (the water). They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, one who is not ill should not not set out (water) when enjoined by an elder. Whoever should not set it out, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

The story of those travelling to distant parts, etc.

permission). They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “This is a case, monks, where several ignorant inexperienced monks, travelling to distant parts, do not ask teachers and preceptors (for permission). Monks, they should be asked by these teachers and preceptors: ‘Where will you go? With whom will you go?’ If, monks, these ignorant inexperienced ones should cite other ignorant inexperienced ones, then, monks, they should not be allowed to go by the teachers and preceptors. If they should allow them (to go), there is an offence of wrong-doing. And if, monks, these ignorant inexperienced ones should go (although) not allowed by the teachers and preceptors, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“This is a case, monks, where several ignorant inexperienced monks are staying in a certain residence on an Observance day. These do not know the Observance or a (formal) act for Observance or the Pātimokkha or the recital of the Pātimokkha. A certain monk arrives there. He has heard much, he is one to whom the tradition has been handed down, he is an expert on dhamma, an expert on discipline, an expert on the summaries; he is wise, experienced, clever; he is conscientious, scrupulous, desirous of training. Monks, that monk should be furthered by those monks, he should be helped, he should be encouraged, he should be supported in regard to chunam, clay, tooth-wood, water for washing the face. If he should not be furthered, helped, encouraged, supported in regard to chunam, clay, tooth-wood, water for washing the face, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“This is a case, monks, where several ignorant, inexperienced monks are staying in a certain residence on an Observance-day. These do not know the Observance … or the recital of the Pātimokkha. Monks, one monk should immediately be sent to a neighbouring residence by these monks, saying: ‘Do go, your reverence, having mastered the Pātimokkha in brief or in full, come back’. If he thus manages this, it is good. If he does not manage it, then, monks, those monks, one and all, should go to a residence where they know the Observance … or the recital of the Pātimokkha. If they should not go, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

This is a case, monks, where several ignorant, inexperienced monks are spending the rains in a certain residence. These do not know … as above in Kd.2.21.4 … If he thus manages this, it is good. If he does not manage it, then, monks, one monk should be sent off for seven days (with the words): ‘Do go, your reverence, having mastered the Pātimokkha in brief or in full, come back’. If he thus manages this, it is good. If he does not manage it, then, monks, these monks should not spend the rains in that residence. If they should spend them (there), there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

On giving entire purity

understood by voice, if he does not make it understood by gesture and voice, the entire purity does not come to be declared.

“If he thus manages this, it is good; if he does not manage it, then, monks, that ill monk, having been brought to the midst of the Order on a couch or a chair, the Observance may be carried out. If, monks, it occurs to the monks who are tending the ill one: ‘If we move the ill one from (this) place, either the disease will grow much worse or he will die’, monks, the ill one should not be moved from (that) place; the Order, having gone there, should carry out the Observance. The Observance should not be carried out by an incomplete Order. If it should be (so) carried out, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“If, monks, the conveyer of the entire purity goes away then and there, although the entire purity was declared (to him), the entire purity should be declared to another. If, monks, the conveyor of the entire purity leaves the Order then and there although the entire purity was declared (to him), if he passes away, if he pretends to be a novice, living in communion as it were by theft, if he pretends to be one who has gone over to another sect, if he pretends to be an animal, if he pretends to be a matricide, if he pretends to be a parricide, if he pretends to be a slayer of one perfected, if he pretends to be a seducer of a nun, if he pretends to be a schismatic, if he pretends to be a shedder of (a Truth-finder’s) blood, if he pretends to be a hermaphrodite, the entire purity should be declared to another.

“If, monks, the conveyer of the entire purity goes away while he is on the road, although the entire purity was declared (to him), the entire purity comes to be not conveyed. If, monks, the conveyer of the entire purity leaves the Order while he is on the road, although the entire purity was declared (to him), if he passes away … if he pretends to be a hermaphrodite, the entire purity comes to be not conveyed. If, monks, the conveyer of the entire purity, after the entire purity was declared (to him), having arrived at the Order, then goes away, the entire purity comes to be conveyed. If, monks, the conveyer of the entire purity, after the entire purity was declared (to him), having arrived at the Order, then leaves the Order, passes away, … pretends to be a hermaphrodite, the entire purity comes to be conveyed. If, monks, the conveyer of the entire purity, after the entire purity was declared (to him), having arrived at the Order does not announce it because he has fallen asleep, does not announce it because he is indolent, does not announce it because he is attaining (what is higher), the entire purity comes to be conveyed; there is no offence for the conveyer of the entire purity. If, monks, the conveyer of the entire purity, although the entire purity was declared (to him), having arrived at the Order, intentionally does not announce it, the entire purity comes to be conveyed (but) there is an offence of wrong-doing for the conveyer of the entire purity.”

On giving consent

Then the Lord addressed the monks, saying: “Gather together, monks, the Order will carry out a (formal) act.” When he had spoken thus a certain monk spoke thus to the Lord: “Lord, there is a monk who is ill; he has not come.” He said: “I allow you, monks, to give the consent for a monk who is ill. And thus, monks, should it be given: That ill monk, having approached one monk, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having sat down on his haunches, having saluted with joined palms, should speak thus to him: ‘I will give the consent, convey the consent for me, announce the consent for me’. If he makes it understood by gesture, if he makes it understood by voice, if he makes it understood by gesture and voice, the consent comes to be given. If he does not make it understood by gesture, if he does not make it understood by voice, if he does not make it understood by gesture and voice, the consent does not come to be given.

“If he thus manages this, it is good. If he does not manage it, then, monks, having taken that ill monk to the midst of the Order on a couch or a chair, a (formal) act may be carried out. If, monks, it occurs to the monks who are tending the ill one: ‘If we move the ill one from (this) place, either the disease will grow much worse or he will die’, monks, the ill one should not be moved from (that) place; the Order, having gone there, should carry out the (formal) act. A (formal) act should not be carried out by an incomplete Order. If it should be (so) carried out, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“If, monks, the conveyer of the consent goes away then and there although the consent was given (to him), the consent should be given to another. If, monks, the conveyer of the consent leaves the Order then and there, although the consent was given (to him), if he dies … if he pretends to be a hermaphrodite, the consent should be given to another. If, monks, the conveyer of the consent goes away while he is on the road, although the consent was given to him, the consent comes to be not conveyed. If, monks, the conveyer of the consent leaves the Order while he is on the road … as in Kd.2.22.4 … there is an offence of wrong-doing for the conveyer of the consent. I allow you, monks, on an Observance day, to give the consent also, by declaring the entire purity; they are the Order’s business.”

On being grabbed by relatives

Now at that time his relations got hold of a certain monk on an Observance day. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “This is a case, monks, where his relations get hold of a monk on an Observance day. These relations should be spoken to thus by the monks: ‘Please will you, venerable ones, let go of this monk for a short time while this monk carries out the Observance?’

“If they manage this thus, it is good. If they do not manage it, these relations should be spoken to thus by the monks: ‘Please will you, venerable ones, stand at a respectful distance for a short time while this monk declares his entire purity?’ If they manage this thus, it is good. If they do not manage it, these relations should be spoken to thus by the monks: ‘Please will you, venerable ones, take this monk outside the boundary for a short time while the Order carries out the Observance?’ If they manage this thus, it is good. If they do not manage it the Observance should not be carried out by an incomplete Order. If it should be (so) carried out, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“This is a case, monks, where kings get hold of a monk on an Observance day … thieves … men of abandoned life … monks who are opponents of monks get hold of a monk on an Observance day. These monks who are opponents of monks should be spoken to thus by the monks: ‘Please will you … as in Kd.2.24.1, Kd.2.24.2 … the Observance should not be carried out by an incomplete Order. If it should be (so) carried out, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

Agreement for the mad

Then the Lord addressed the monks, saying: “Gather together, monks, there is business for the Order.” When he had spoken thus a certain monk spoke thus to the Lord: “There is, Lord, the mad monk Gagga; he has not come.” He said: “There are, monks, these two (kinds of) madmen: there is the mad monk who now remembers the Observance, now does not remember it; who now remembers a (formal) act of the Order, now does not remember it. He is one who does not remember aright. (And there is the one) who now comes for the Observance, now does not come for it, who now comes for a (formal) act of the Order, now does not come for it. He is one who does not come aright.

“In a case, monks, where this madman now remembers the Observance, now does not remember it … now comes for a (formal) act of the Order, now does not come for it, I allow you, monks, to give the agreement for a madman to such a madman.

And thus, monks, should it be given: The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The mad monk Gagga now remembers the Observance, now does not remember it, now remembers a (formal) act of the Order, now does not remember it; he now comes for the Observance, now does not come for it; now comes for a (formal) act of the Order, now does not come for it. If it seems right to the Order, the Order should give the agreement for a madman to the mad monk Gagga, so that whether the monk Gagga remembers the Observance or does not remember it, whether he remembers a (formal) act of the Order or does not remember it, whether he comes for the Observance or does not come for it, whether he comes for a (formal) act of the Order or does not come for it, the Order either with Gagga or without Gagga can carry out the Observance, can carry out a (formal) act of the Order. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The mad monk Gagga now remembers the Observance … now comes for a (formal) act of the Order, now does not come for it. The Order is giving the agreement for a madman to the mad monk Gagga so that whether the monk Gagga remembers … or does not come for it, the Order either with Gagga or without Gagga will carry out the Observance, will carry out a (formal) act of the Order. If the giving of the agreement for a madman to the mad monk Gagga so that whether he remembers … or does not come for it, the Order either with Gagga or without Gagga will carry out the Observance, will carry out a (formal) act of the Order, is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. The agreement for a madman is given by the Order to the mad monk Gagga, so that whether he remembers … or does not come for it, the Order either with Gagga or without Gagga will carry out the Observance, will carry out a (formal) act of the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent; thus do I understand this’.”