[reload all]
[simple read]

Mv II 35
PTS: Mv II 34.10 | CS: vin.mv.02.35
Nānāsaṃvāsakādīhi uposathakaraṇaṃ
Performing the Uposatha with (Monks) of a Separate Affiliation, etc.[1]
by
Ven. Khematto Bhikkhu
Alternate translations/layout: 'line by line' Pāḷi - English

(Mv.II.34.10) [199] “There is the case where incoming monks see resident monks of a separate affiliation.

“They get the idea that they are of the same affiliation. Having gotten the idea that they are of the same affiliation, they don’t ask. Not having asked, they perform the Uposatha together: no offense.

“They ask. Having asked, they don’t resolve their differences. Not having resolved their differences, they perform the Uposatha together: an offense of wrong doing.[2]

“They ask. Having asked, they don’t resolve their differences. Not having resolved their differences, they perform the Uposatha separately: no offense[3].

(Mv.II.34.11) “There is the case where incoming monks see resident monks of the same affiliation.

“They get the idea that they are of a separate affiliation. Having gotten the idea that they are of a separate affiliation, they don’t ask. Not having asked, they perform the Uposatha together: an offense of wrong doing.

“They ask. Having asked, they resolve the misunderstanding[4]. Having resolved the misunderstanding, they perform the Uposatha separately: an offense of wrong doing.

“They ask. Having asked, they resolve the misunderstanding. Having resolved the misunderstanding, they perform the Uposatha together: no offense.

(Mv.II.34.12) “There is the case where resident monks see incoming monks of a separate affiliation.

“They get the idea that they are of the same affiliation. Having gotten the idea that they are of the same affiliation, they don’t ask. Not having asked, they perform the Uposatha together: no offense.

“They ask. Having asked, they don’t resolve their differences. Not having resolved their differences, they perform the Uposatha together: an offense of wrong doing.

“They ask. Having asked, they don’t resolve their differences. Not having resolved their differences, they perform the Uposatha separately: no offense.

(Mv.II.34.13) “There is the case where resident monks see incoming monks of the same affiliation.

“They get the idea that they are of a separate affiliation. Having gotten the idea that they are of a separate affiliation, they don’t ask. Not having asked, they perform the Uposatha together: an offense of wrong doing.

“They ask. Having asked, they resolve the misunderstanding. Having resolved the misunderstanding, they perform the Uposatha separately: an offense of wrong doing.

“They ask. Having asked, they resolve the misunderstanding. Having resolved the misunderstanding, they perform the Uposatha together: no offense.

Notes

1.
See also: BMCII Chap. 12: Unqualified bhikkhus, BMCII Chap. 15: Special cases: unity, BMCII Chap. 15: Excluded individuals, BMCII Appendix 5: Saṁvāsa: Separate & Common Affiliation, and 136. Nānāsaṁvāsakādīhi pavāraṇā (Mv.IV.13.1).
2.
Commentary: “They don’t resolve their differences”: They are unable to crush or overcome (or: conquer, vanquish) the state of being of a separate affiliation. The meaning is that they can’t get them to relinquish that view.
Sub-commentary: “The state of being of a separate affiliation”: a (This is the kind of separate affitiation that can be overcome by discussion. [BMC].) state of being of a separate affiliation based on theory (or: belief, doctrine, view). It is said of the overcoming of their state of being of a separate affiliation based on theory, “They can’t get them to relinquish that view.”
3.
The case where they do resolve their differences is not presented, perhaps because it is clear that once they were all of the same affiliation, there would be no offense for performing the Uposatha together. There are other cases missing that one might expect. For example, in the first instance, the monks are of a separate affiliation, but the incoming monks assume that they are of the same affiliation and perform the Uposatha together, with no offense, presumably showing that because they acted properly, but based on a mistaken assumption, they incur no offense. But if they had assumed the same and then performed the Uposatha separately, acting improperly based on their assumption, would it have been a dukkaṭa? Below, the opposite case occurs: the monks are of the same affiliation but they assume that they are of a different affiliation. Here, the case where they don’t ask and then perform the Uposatha together — i.e., acting improperly based on a mistaken assumption — is presented, and they incur a dukkaṭa. If they had performed it separately, would it be no offense, as they would have been acting properly, but based on a mistaken assumption, as in the first case? If that is so, then that means one doesn’t have to ask about affiliation: As long as one acts properly, according to one’s assumption, there is no offense.
Also, neither the case where the monks are of the same affiliation and assume correctly that they are of the same affiliation and perform the Uposatha together, nor the case where they are of different affiliation, assume that correctly, and perform the Uposatha separately, are mentioned. The reason in these cases seems to be that it’s clear enough there would be no offense.
4.
Here, the monks are already of the same affiliation, so abhivitarati has a slightly different meaning: that they clear up the misunderstanding.
[previous page][next page]