IV pavāraṇākkhandhako

At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was staying in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Monastery.

And at that time several monks—acquaintances, intimates—entered the Rains in a certain residence in the Kosalan countryside.

Then the thought occurred to them, “By what strategy could we stay for the Rains comfortably—harmonious, cordial, without dispute—and not have difficulty in going for alms?”

The thought occurred to them, “If we were to neither speak to nor converse with one another;

“and whoever returns first from going to the village for alms would lay out the seats; set out water for washing the feet, a foot-stool, and a foot-washing block; wash the refuse bucket and set it out; and set out drinking water and washing water;

“and whoever returns afterwards from going to the village for alms would eat the left-overs—if there are any and if he wants to—and if not, he would throw them out in a place where there are no crops, or dump them into water without living beings in it;

“and he would pick up the seats; put away the water for washing the feet, foot-stool, and foot-washing block; wash and put away the refuse bucket; put away the drinking water and washing water; and sweep the meal hall;

“and whoever sees that the drinking water pitcher, washing water pitcher, or bathroom pitcher is low or empty would have it refilled—if it’s too much for him, he would call another by waving, using hand signals, and he would have it refilled, thus, he wouldn’t, for that reason, break out into speech—

“in that way, we would stay for the Rains comfortably—harmonious, cordial, without dispute—and we wouldn’t have difficulty in going for alms.”

So the monks didn’t speak to or converse with one another.

Whoever returned first from going to the village for alms laid out the seats; set out water for washing the feet, a foot-stool, and a foot-washing block; washed the refuse bucket and set it out; and set out drinking water and washing water.

Whoever returned afterwards from going to the village for alms ate the left-overs—if there were any and if he wanted to—and if not, he threw them out in a place where there were no crops, or dumped them into water without living beings in it.

He picked up the seats; put away the water for washing the feet, foot-stool, and foot-washing block; washed and put away the refuse bucket; put away the drinking water and washing water; and swept the meal hall.

Whoever saw that the drinking water pitcher, washing water pitcher, or bathroom pitcher was low or empty had it refilled. If it was too much for him, calling another by waving—using hand signals—he had it refilled.

He didn’t, for that reason, break out into speech.

It was customary for monks who had completed the Rains to go to see the Blessed One.

So the monks, after the passing of three months, having completed the Rains, put their lodgings in order and—taking their robes & bowls—set out on a wandering tour toward Sāvatthī.

Wandering by stages, they arrived at Sāvatthī, went to Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Monastery, and went to the Blessed One. On arrival, they bowed and sat to one side.

It is customary for Buddhas, Blessed Ones, to exchange pleasantries with incoming monks.

Then the Blessed One said to the monks, “Is it agreeable, monks? Are you getting by? Did you spend the Rains harmoniously, cordially, without dispute, and not have difficulty in going for alms?”

“It’s agreeble, O Blessed One. We’re getting by. And we spent the Rains comfortably—harmoniously, cordial, without dispute—and we didn’t have difficulty in going for alms.”

Knowing, Tathāgatas ask. Knowing, they don’t ask.

Considering the time, they ask. Considering the time, they don’t ask.

Tathāgatas ask in a way that is connected to the goal /welfare, not in a way unconnected to the goal/welfare. Tathāgatas have cut off the bridge in reference to things that are unconnected to the goal/welfare.

Buddhas, Blessed Ones, cross-question monks for two reasons: (thinking,) “I will teach the Dhamma,” or “I will lay down a training rule.”

Then the Blessed One said to the monks, “But how, monks, did you spend the Rains comfortably, harmoniously, cordially, without dispute, and not have difficulty in going for alms?”

“Here, lord, we several monks—acquaintances, intimates—entered the Rains in a certain residence in the Kosalan countryside.

“The thought occurred to us, ‘By what strategy could we stay for the Rains comfortably—harmonious, cordial, without dispute—and not have difficulty in going for alms?’

“The thought occurred to us, ‘If we were to neither speak to or converse with one another;

“‘and whoever returns first from going to the village for alms would lay out the seats; set out water for washing the feet, a foot-stool, and a foot-washing block; wash the refuse bucket and set it out; and set out drinking water and washing water;

“‘and whoever returns afterwards from going to the village for alms would eat the left-overs—if there are any and if he wants to—and if not, he would throw them out in a place where there are no crops, or dump them into water without living beings in it;

“‘and he would pick up the seats; put away the water for washing the feet, foot-stool, and foot-washing block; wash and put away the refuse bucket; put away the drinking water and washing water; and sweep the meal hall;

“‘and whoever sees that the drinking water pitcher, washing water pitcher, or bathroom pitcher is low or empty would have it refilled—if it’s too much for him, he would call another by waving, using hand signals, and he would have it refilled,

“‘thus, he wouldn’t, for that reason, break out into speech—

“‘in that way, we would stay for the Rains comfortably—harmonious, cordial, without dispute—and we wouldn’t have difficulty in going for alms.’

“So, lord, we didn’t speak to or converse with one another.

“Whoever returned first from going to the village for alms laid out the seats; set out water for washing the feet, a foot-stool, and a foot-washing block; washed the refuse bucket and set it out; and set out drinking water and washing water.

“Whoever returned afterwards from going to the village for alms ate the left-overs—if there were any and if he wanted to—and if not, he threw them out in a place where there were no crops, or dumped them into water without living beings in it.

“He picked up the seats; put away the water for washing the feet, foot-stool, and foot-washing block; washed and put away the refuse bucket; put away the drinking water and washing water; and swept the meal hall.

“Whoever saw that the drinking water pitcher, washing water pitcher, or bathroom pitcher was low or empty had it refilled. If it was too much for him, calling another by waving—using hand signals—he had it refilled.

“He didn’t, for that reason, break out into speech.

“Lord, that’s how we spent the Rains comfortably, harmoniously, cordially, without dispute, and didn’t have difficulty in going for alms.”

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, “These worthless men, having spent the Rains uncomfortably, claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.

“Having spent the Rains in cattle-like affiliation, these worthless men claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.

“Having spent the Rains in sheep-like affiliation, these worthless men claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.

“Having spent the Rains in heedless-affiliation, these worthless men claim to have spent the Rains comfortably.

“How can these worthless men undertake a vow of dumb silence, the undertaking of sectarians?

“Monks, this neither inspires faith in the faithless …”

Having rebuked him and given a Dhamma talk, he addressed the monks:

“The vow of dumb silence, the undertaking of sectarians, is not to be undertaken. Whoever should undertake it: an offense of wrong doing1. [BMC]

1. The difference between this story and that in Mv X, referenced at the beginning of the section, is that in this case they refrained from speech because of a vow, whereas in the other case, they used their discernment in deciding when it is skillful to speak and when it is not.

“Monks, I allow that bhikkhus who have spent the Rains invite (one another) with respect to three things: what is seen, what is heard, and what is suspected.

“That will be for your mutual conformity, for your arising out of offenses, for your esteem for the Vinaya.

“And, monks, you should invite like this:

“An experienced and competent monk should inform the Saṅgha:

“‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. Today is the Invitation.

“‘If the Saṅgha is ready, it should invite.’

“The senior(-most) monk should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, sit in the kneeling position with his hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart and say,

“‘Friends, I invite the Saṅgha to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected1. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A second time, friends, I invite the Saṅgha to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A third time, friends, I invite the Saṅgha to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.’

“A junior monk, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, should sit in the kneeling position with his hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart and say,

“‘Venerable sirs, I invite the Saṅgha to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A second time, venerable sirs, I invite the Saṅgha to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A third time, venerable sirs, I invite the Saṅgha to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.’”

Now on that occasion some Group-of-six monks remained seated while the senior monks, kneeling, were inviting.

Those monks who were modest criticized and complained and spread it about: “How can the Group-of-six monks remain seated while the senior monks, kneeling, are inviting?”

Then the monks reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Is it true, monks, as they say, that the Group-of-six monks remain seated while the senior monks, kneeling, are inviting?”

“It’s true, O Blessed One.”

The Buddha, the Blessed One, rebuked them, “How can those worthless men remain seated while the senior monks, kneeling, are inviting? Monks, this neither inspires faith in the faithless …”

Having rebuked them and given a Dhamma talk, he addressed the monks:

“Monks, one should not remain seated while senior bhikkhus, kneeling, are inviting. Whoever should remain seated: an offense of wrong doing. I allow that the invitation be made while all are kneeling.”

Now on that occasion a certain senior monk, weak from old age, waiting in the kneeling position while all (of the monks) invited, fainted and fell over.

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, I allow that one remain sitting in the kneeling position until he invites and then to sit down on his seat.”

Then the thought occurred to the monks, “How many Invitations are there?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, there are these two Invitations: on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth. These are the two Invitations.”

Then the thought occurred to the monks, “How many Invitation transactions are there?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, there are these four Invitation transactions: a factional Invitation transaction not in accordance with the Dhamma, a united Invitation transaction not in accordance with the Dhamma, a factional Invitation transaction in accordance with the Dhamma, a united Invitation transaction in accordance with the Dhamma.

“With regard to that, monks—the factional Invitation transaction not in accordance with the Dhamma—this sort of Invitation transaction should not be done and has not been allowed by me.

“With regard to that, monks—the united Invitation transaction not in accordance with the Dhamma—this sort of Invitation transaction should not be done and has not been allowed by me.

“With regard to that, monks—the factional Invitation transaction in accordance with the Dhamma—this sort of Invitation transaction should not be done and has not been allowed by me.

“With regard to that, monks—the united Invitation transaction in accordance with the Dhamma—this sort of Invitation transaction may be done and has been allowed by me.

“Therefore, monks, ‘We will do this sort of Invitation transaction, namely, united and in accordance with the Dhamma’: That’s how you should train yourselves.”

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, “Gather, monks. The Saṅgha will invite.”

When that was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, “There is a sick monk, lord. He hasn’t come.”

“Monks, I allow that a sick monk give his invitation.”

“And, monks, it should be given like this:

“Having arranged his robe over one shoulder, the sick monk should approach one monk, then sit in the kneeling position with his hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart and say, ‘I give (my) invitation. Convey my invitation. Invite on my behalf.’

“If he makes this understood by physical gesture, by voice, or by both physical gesture and voice, his invitation is given.

“If he does not make this understood by physical gesture, by voice, or by both physical gesture and voice, his invitation is not given.

“If he manages it, well and good. If not, then, having carried the sick monk into the midst of the Saṅgha on a bed or bench, they should invite.

“If the thought occurs to the monks who are tending to the sick monk, ‘If we move the sick one from this spot, his disease will grow worse or he will die,’ then the sick one should not be moved from that place. The Saṅgha should go there and invite.

“Not even then should a factional Saṅgha invite. If it should invite: an offense of wrong doing.”

“Monks, if the conveyor of the invitation, on being given (another monk’s) invitation, goes away then and there (not to the Invitation), the invitation should be given to another (monk).

“Monks, if the conveyor of the invitation, on being given (another monk’s) invitation—then and there—renounces the training, if he admits: to being a novice, to having renounced the training, to having committed an extreme offense, to being insane, to being possessed, to being delirious with pain, to being suspended for not seeing an offense, to being suspended for not making amends for an offense, to being suspended for not relinquishing an evil view, to being a paṇḍaka, to being one living in affiliation by theft, to having gone over to another religion, to being an animal, a matricide, a patricide, the murderer of an arahant, the molester of a bhikkhunī, a schismatic, one who has shed a Tathāgata’s blood, or a hermaphrodite, then the invitation should be given to another (monk).

“Monks, if the conveyor of the invitation, on being given (another monk’s) invitation, goes away (somewhere else) while on the way (to the Invitation), the invitation is not conveyed.

“Monks, if the conveyor of the invitation, on being given (another monk’s) invitation—while on the way (to the Invitation)—renounces the training, dies, …

“admits to being a hermaphrodite, then the invitation is not conveyed.

“Monks, if the conveyor of the invitation, on being given (another monk’s) invitation—on arriving in the Saṅgha—goes away (somewhere else), the purity is conveyed.

“Monks, if the conveyor of the invitation, on being given (another monk’s) purity—on arriving in the Saṅgha—disrobes, dies, …

“admits to being a hermaphrodite, then the invitation is conveyed.

“Monks, if the conveyor of the invitation, on being given (another monk’s) invitation—on arriving in the Saṅgha—falling asleep, doesn’t announce it, then the invitation is conveyed. There is no offense for the conveyor of the invitation.

“Monks, if the conveyor of the invitation, on being given (another monk’s) invitation—on arriving in the Saṅgha—having entered a (meditative) attainment, doesn’t announce it, then the invitation is conveyed. There is no offense for the conveyor of the invitation.

“Monks, if the conveyor of the invitation, on being given (another monk’s) invitation—on arriving in the Saṅgha—doesn’t announce it out of carelessness, then the invitation is conveyed. There is no offense for the conveyor of the invitation.

“If the conveyor of the invitation, on being given (another monk’s) invitation—on arriving in the Saṅgha—intentionally does not announce it, the the invitation is conveyed. For the conveyor of the invitation: an offense of wrong doing.

“I allow that, on the Invitation day, when an invitation is given, that consent be given as well when the Saṅgha has something to be done.”

Now on that occasion a certain monk’s relatives seized him on the Invitation day.

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“There is the case where relatives seize a monk on an Invitation day.

“They should be addressed by the monks, ‘Please, sirs, will you release this monk for a moment while he invites?’

“If this can be managed, well and good. If not, the relatives should be addressed by the monks, ‘Please, sirs, will you move aside for a moment while this monk gives his invitation?’

“If this can be managed, well and good. If not, the relatives should be addressed by the monks, ‘Please, sirs, will you take this monk outside the territory for a moment while the Saṅgha invites?’

“If this can be managed, well and good. If not, then not even then should a factional Saṅgha invite. If it should invite: an offense of wrong doing.

“There is the case where kings seize a monk on an Invitation day … criminals seize him … mischief-makers seize him … opponents of the monks seize him.

“They should be addressed by the monks, ‘Please, sirs, will you release this monk for a moment while he invites?’

“If this can be managed, well and good. If not, the relatives should be addressed by the monks, ‘Please, sirs, will you move aside for a moment while this monk gives his invitation?’

“If this can be managed, well and good. If not, the relatives should be addressed by the monks, ‘Please, sirs, will you take this monk outside the territory for a moment while the Saṅgha invites?’

“If this can be managed, well and good. If not, then not even then should a factional Saṅgha invite. If it should invite: an offense of wrong doing.”

Now on that occasion there were five monks staying in a certain residence on the day of the Invitation.

Then the thought occurred to them, “It has been laid down by the Blessed One that the Saṅgha should invite. But we are five people—how should we invite?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“I allow the Saṅgha to invite when there are five.”

Now on that occasion there were four monks staying in a certain residence on the day of the Invitation.

Then the thought occurred to them, “It has been laid down by the Blessed One for the Saṅgha to invite when there are five. But we are four people—how should we invite?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, I allow that a mutual Invitation be performed when there are four. [BMC]

“And, monks, you should invite like this:

“An experienced and competent monk should inform the monks:

“‘May the venerable ones listen to me. Today is the Invitation.

“‘If the venerable ones are ready, we should mutually invite.’

“The senior(-most) monk, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, should sit in the kneeling position with his hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart and say to the monks,

“‘Friends, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A second time, friends, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A third time, friends, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.’

“A junior monk, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, should sit in the kneeling position with his hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart and say to the monks,

“‘Venerable sirs, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A second time, venerable sirs, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A third time, venerable sirs, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.’”

Now on that occasion there were three monks staying in a certain residence on the day of the Invitation.

Then the thought occurred to them, “It has been laid down by the Blessed One for the Saṅgha to invite when there are five, and that a mutual Invitation be performed when there are four. But we are three people—how should we invite?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, I allow that a mutual Invitation be performed when there are three.”

“And, monks, you should invite like this:

“An experienced and competent monk should inform the monks:

“‘May the venerable ones1 listen to me. Today is the Invitation.

1. The Burmese edition also has āyasmantā here. The previous section has āyasmanto, the usual plural of nouns in ‘-ant’, when the speaker is addressing three people. Is this a remnant of the Sankskrit dual form? The Sri Lankan edition has āyasmanto, and PTS has only dots. The Sanskrit dual Vocative of nouns in ‘-ant’ is ‘-antau’, so it may just be a mistake.

“‘If the venerable ones are ready, we should mutually invite.’

“The senior(-most) monk should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, sit in the kneeling position with his hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart and say to the monks,

“‘Friends, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A second time, friends, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A third time, friends, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.’

“A junior monk, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, should sit in the kneeling position with his hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart and say to the monks,

“‘Venerable sirs, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A second time, venerable sirs, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A third time, venerable sirs, I invite the venerable ones to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.’”

Now on that occasion there were two monks staying in a certain residence on the day of the Invitation.

Then the thought occurred to them, “It has been laid down by the Blessed One for the Saṅgha to invite when there are five, that a mutual Invitation be performed when there are four, and that a mutual Invitation be performed when there are three. But we are two people—how should we invite?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, I allow that a mutual Invitation be performed when there are two.”

“And, monks, you should invite like this:

“The senior(-most) monk should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, sit in the kneeling position with his hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart and say to the junior monk,

1. Cv.VI.6.5 states that ‘These ten are not to be paid homage: one accepted (ordained) later is not to be paid homage by one accepted earlier ….’ Apparently, in this case the senior monk is showing respect to the Dhamma, as all transactions are to be done ‘face-to-face with the Dhamma’.

“‘Friend, I invite the venerable one to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A second time, friend, I invite the venerable one to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A third time, friend, I invite the venerable one to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.’

“The junior monk, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, should sit in the kneeling position with his hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart and say to the senior monk,

“‘Venerable sir, I invite the venerable one to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A second time, venerable sir, I invite the venerable one to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.

“‘A third time, venerable sir, I invite the venerable one to speak to me—out of sympathy—with regard to what is seen, heard, or suspected. On seeing (the offense), I will make amends.’”

Now on that occasion there was one monk staying in a certain residence on the day of the Invitation.

Then the thought occurred to them, “It has been laid down by the Blessed One for the Saṅgha to invite when there are five, that a mutual Invitation be performed when there are four, that the mutual Invitation should be performed when there are three, and that the mutual Invitation should be performed when there are two. But I am alone—how should I invite?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, there is the case where there is one monk staying in a certain residence on the day of the Invitation.

“Having swept the place where the monks gather—an assembly hall, a pavilion, or the root of a tree—having set out drinking water and washing water, having laid out a seat, having made a light, he should sit down.

“If other monks arrive, he should invite together with them. If not, he should determine: ‘Today is my Invitation.’ If he does not determine it: an offense of wrong doing. [BMC]

“In the case that five monks are staying together, a Saṅgha of four should not invite after having brought the invitation of one. If they should invite: an offense of wrong doing.

“In the case that four monks are staying together, the mutual Invitation should not be performed by three after having brought the invitation of one. If they should invite: an offense of wrong doing.

“In the case that three monks are staying together, the mutual Invitation should not be performed by two after having brought the invitation of one. If they should invite: an offense of wrong doing.

“In the case that two monks are staying together, one should not determine, after having brought the invitation of one. If he should determine: an offense of wrong doing.” [BMC]

Now on that occasion a certain monk had fallen into an offense on the day of the Invitation1.

1. This means that as of the day of the Invitation, he hadn’t made amends, not that he necessarily committed the offense on that day.

The thought occurred to him, “It has been laid down by the Blessed One that one with an offense should not invite. But I have fallen into an offense. What should I do?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, there is the case where a monk has fallen into an offense on the day of the Invitation.

“Having approached one monks, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, the monk should sit in the kneeling position with his hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart and say, ‘Friend, I have fallen into such-and-such offense. I acknowledge it.’

“He should be asked, ‘Do you see it?’

“‘Yes, I see it.’

“‘You should restrain yourself in the future.’”

“Monks, there is the case where a monk is doubtful (about whether or not he has fallen into an offense) on the day of the Invitation.

“Having approached one monks, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, the monk should sit in the kneeling position with his hands placed palm-to-palm over the heart and say,

‘Friend, I am in doubt about such-and-such offense. When I become free from doubt, then I will make amends for the offense.’ Once that has been said, they should invite.

“Not from that cause alone should an obstruction to the Invitation be made.”

Now on that occasion, a certain monk remembered an offense as he was inviting.

The thought occurred to him, “It has been laid down by the Blessed One that one with an offense should not invite. And I have fallen into an offense. What should I do?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, there is the case where a monk remembers an offense as he is inviting.

“That monk should say to the monk next to him, ‘Friend, I have fallen into such-and-such offense. Having gotten up from here, I will make amends for the offense.’ Once that has been said, he/they should invite.

“Not from that cause alone should an obstruction to the Invitation be made.”

“Monks, there is the case where a monk becomes doubtful about an offense as he is inviting.

“That monk should say to the monk next to him, ‘Friend, I am doubtful about such-and-such offense. When I become free from doubt, then I will make amends for the offense.’ Once that has been said, he/they should invite.

“Not from that cause alone should an obstruction to the Invitation be made.”

Now on that occasion, the entire Saṅgha in a certain residence had fallen into an offense common to one another on the day of the Invitation.

Then the thought occurred to them, “It has been laid down by the Blessed One that an offense common to one another should not be confessed; (the confession of) an offense common to one another should not be received. But this entire Saṅgha has fallen into an offense common to one another. What should we do?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, there is the case where the entire Saṅgha in a certain residence has fallen into an offense common to one another on the day of the Invitation.

“Monks, one monk should be sent by the monks to a neighboring residence immediately, (saying,) ‘Go, friend. Make amends for that offense and come back. We will (then) make amends for the offense in your presence.’

“If this can be managed, well and good. If not, then an experienced and competent monk should inform the Saṅgha:

“‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. This entire Saṅgha has fallen into an offense common to one another. When it sees another monk—pure, without (that) offense—then it will make amends for that offense in his presence.’ Once that has been said, he/they should invite.

“Not from that cause alone should an obstruction to the Uposatha be made.

“Monks, there is the case where the entire Saṅgha in a certain residence is doubtful about an offense common to one another on the day of the Invitation.

“An experienced and competent monk should inform the Saṅgha:

“‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. This entire Saṅgha is doubtful about an offense common to one another. When (the Saṅgha) becomes free from doubt, then it will make amends for that offense.’ Once that has been said, he/they should invite.

“Not from that cause alone should an obstruction to the Uposatha be made.”

The first recitation section is finished.

Now on that occasion, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gathered—five or more.

They didn’t know that there were other resident monks who hadn’t come.

Perceiving it to be Dhamma, perceiving it to be Vinaya—factional, but perceiving it to be united—they invited.

As they were inviting, a greater number of other resident monks came.

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They don’t know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“Perceiving it to be Dhamma, perceiving it to be Vinaya—factional, but perceiving it to be united—they invite.

“As they are inviting, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“The monks should invite again.

“There is no offense for those who have invited.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They don’t know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“Perceiving it to be Dhamma, perceiving it to be Vinaya—factional, but perceiving it to be united—they invite.

“As they are inviting, an equal number of other resident monks comes.

“Those who have invited have invited well. The remainder should invite.

“There is no offense for those who have invited.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They don’t know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“Perceiving it to be Dhamma, perceiving it to be Vinaya—factional, but perceiving it to be united—they invite.

“As they are inviting, a smaller number of other resident monks comes.

“Those who have invited have invited well. The remainder should invite.

“There is no offense for those who have invited.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They don’t know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“Perceiving it to be Dhamma, perceiving it to be Vinaya—factional, but perceiving it to be united—they invite.

“When the Invitation has just been performed by them, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“The monks should invite again.

“There is no offense for those who have invited. …

“an equal number of other resident monks comes.

“Those who have invited have invited well. They (the arriving monks) should invite in their presence.

“There is no offense for those who have invited. …

“a smaller number of other resident monks comes.

“Those who have invited have invited well. They (the arriving monks) should invite in their presence.

“There is no offense for those who have invited.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They don’t know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“Perceiving it to be Dhamma, perceiving it to be Vinaya—factional, but perceiving it to be united—they invite.

“When the Invitation has just been performed by them and the assembly hasn’t gotten up, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“The monks should invite again.

“There is no offense for those who have invited. …

“an equal number of other resident monks comes.

“smaller.

“Those who have invited have invited well. They (the arriving monks) should invite in their presence.

“There is no offense for those who have invited.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They don’t know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“Perceiving it to be Dhamma, perceiving it to be Vinaya—factional, but perceiving it to be united—they invite.

“When the Invitation has just been performed by them and the some of the assembly has gotten up, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“The monks should invite again.

“There is no offense for those who have invited. …

“an equal number of other resident monks comes.

“smaller.

“Those who have invited have invited well. They (the arriving monks) should invite in their presence.

“There is no offense for those who have invited.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They don’t know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“Perceiving it to be Dhamma, perceiving it to be Vinaya—factional, but perceiving it to be united—they invite.

“When the Invitation has just been performed by them and all of the assembly has gotten up, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“The monks should invite again.

“There is no offense for those who have invited. …

“an equal number of other resident monks comes.

“smaller.

“Those who have invited have invited well. They (the arriving monks) should invite in their presence.

“There is no offense for those who have invited.”

The Set of Fifteen Non-offenses is finished.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“Perceiving it to be Dhamma, perceiving it to be Vinaya—factional and perceiving it to be factional1—they invite.

“As they are inviting, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“The monks should invite again.

“There is an offense of wrong doing for those who have invited. …

“an equal number of other resident monks comes. …

“smaller.

“Those who have invited have invited well. The remainder should invite.

“There is an offense of wrong doing for those who have invited.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“Perceiving it to be Dhamma, perceiving it to be Vinaya—factional and perceiving it to be factional—they invite.

“when they have just invited …

“the assembly hasn’t gotten up … some of the assembly has gotten up … all of the assembly has gotten up, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“an equal number …

“smaller …

“Those who have invited have invited well. They (the arriving monks) should invite in their presence.

“There is an offense of wrong doing for those who have invited.”

The Set of Fifteen on Factional (Invitations) Perceived as Factional is finished.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“(Thinking,) ‘Is it allowable for us to invite, or is it not allowable?’ doubtful, they invite.

“As they are inviting, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“The monks should invite again.

“There is an offense of wrong doing for those who have invited. …

“an equal number of other resident monks comes. …

“smaller.

“Those who have invited have invited well. The remainder should invite.

“There is an offense of wrong doing for those who have invited.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“(Thinking,) ‘Is it allowable for us to invite, or is it not allowable?’ doubtful, they invite.

“When they have just invited …

“the assembly hasn’t gotten up … some of the assembly has gotten up …all of the assembly has gotten up, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“an equal number …

“smaller..

“Those who have invited have invited well. They (the arriving monks) should invite in their presence.

“There is an offense of wrong doing for those who have invited.

The Set of Fifteen in the Case of Doubt is finished.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“(Thinking,) ‘It’s certainly allowable for us to invite. It’s not unallowable,’ but affected by anxiety1, they invite.

“As they are inviting, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“The monks should invite again.

“There is an offense of wrong doing for those inviting …

“an equal number of other resident monks comes. …

“smaller.

“Those who have invited have invited well. The remainder should invite.

“There is an offense of wrong doing for those who have invited.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“(Thinking,) ‘It’s certainly allowable for us to invite. It’s not unallowable,’ but affected by anxiety, they invite.

“When they have just invited …

“the assembly hasn’t gotten up … some of the assembly has gotten up … all of the assembly has gotten up, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“an equal number …

“smaller.

“Those who have invited have invited well. They (the arriving monks) should invite in their presence.

“There is an offense of wrong doing for those who have invited.”

The Set of Fifteen Done Affected by Anxiety is finished.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“(Thinking,) ‘They are lost. They are destroyed. Who needs them?’ aiming at schism, they invite.

“As they are inviting, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“The monks should invite again.

“There is a grave offense for those inviting. …

“an equal number of other resident monks comes. …

“smaller.

“Those who have invited have invited well. The remainder should invite.

“There is a grave offense for those inviting.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They know that there are other resident monks who haven’t come.

“(Thinking,) ‘They are lost. They are destroyed. Who needs them?’ aiming at schism, they invite.

“When they have just invited …

“the assembly hasn’t gotten up … some of the assembly has gotten up … all of the assembly has gotten up, a greater number of other resident monks comes.

“The monks should invite again.

“There is a grave offense for those inviting. …

“an equal number of other resident monks comes. …

“smaller.

“Those who have invited have invited well. They (the arriving monks) should invite in their presence.

“There is a grave offense for those inviting.”

The Set of Fifteen Done Aiming as Schism is finished.

“Monks, there is the case where, in a certain residence, on the day of the Invitation, several resident monks gather—five or more.

“They don’t1 know that other resident monks are entering the territory. …

1. The PTS edition gives the case where they do know, see, or hear as the example, but in Horner’s translation there is a note explaining that it means to include the case of not knowing, etc., as well.

“They don’t know that other resident monks have entered the territory. …

“They don’t see other resident monks entering the territory. …

“They don’t see other resident monks who have entered the territory. …

“They don’t hear that, ‘Other resident monks are entering the territory.’ …

“They don’t hear that, ‘Other resident monks have entered the territory.’ …

“Resident monks with resident monks: There are 1751 from this method of deriving triplets. Using this formula (with) ‘Incoming monks with resident monks, resident monks with incoming monks, and incoming monks with incoming monks,’ there are 700 triplets.

“Monks, there is the case where for the resident monks it is the fourteenth; for the incoming monks it is the fifteenth1.

1. In other words, they have calculated the date of the Invitation differently.

“If the resident monks are more numerous, then the incoming monks should go along with the resident monks.

“If they are equal in number, then the incoming monks should go along with the resident monks.

“If the incoming monks are more numerous, then the resident monks should go along with the incoming monks.

“Monks, there is the case where for the resident monks it is the fifteenth; for the incoming monks it is the fourteenth.

“If the resident monks are more numerous, then the incoming monks should go along with the resident monks.

“If they are equal in number, then the incoming monks should go along with the resident monks.

“If the incoming monks are more numerous, then the resident monks should go along with the incoming monks.

“Monks, there is the case where for the resident monks it is the first day of the (following) fortnight; for the incoming monks it is the fifteenth.

“If the resident monks are more numerous, then the resident monks—if they are not unwilling—should give their unity1 to the incoming monks. Then the incoming monks, having gone outside the territory, should invite.

1. This phrase, dātabbā sāmaggī, is not explained anywhere in the Canon or Commentaries. Perhaps it is a remnant of a procedure that was later abandoned.

“If they are equal in number, then the resident monks—if they are not unwilling—should give their unity to the incoming monks. Then the incoming monks, having gone outside the territory, should invite.

“If the incoming monks are more numerous, then the resident monks should either give their unity to the incoming monks or go outside of the territory.

“Monks, there is the case where for the resident monks it is the fifteenth; for the incoming monks it is the first day of the (following) fortnight.

“If the resident monks are more numerous, then the incoming monks should either give their unity to the resident monks or go outside of the territory.

“If they are equal in number, then the incoming monks should either give their unity to the resident monks or go outside of the territory.

“If the incoming monks are more numerous, then the incoming monks—if they are not unwilling—should give their unity to the resident monks. Then the resident monks, having gone outside the territory, should invite.”

“There is the case where incoming monks see evidence of resident monks, traces and signs of resident monks, indications that there are resident monks—a bed & bench or mattress & pillow well laid out, drinking water and washing water set out, the surrounding area [courtyard] well-swept.

On seeing this, they become doubtful: ‘Are there resident monks or not?’

“Being doubtful, they don’t search for them. Not searching, they invite: an offense of wrong doing. …

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they don’t see them. Not seeing them, they invite: no offense1.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, they invite together with them: no offense.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, they invite separately: an offense of wrong doing.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, (thinking,) ‘They are lost. They are destroyed. Who needs them?’ they invite separately, aiming at schism: a grave offense.

“There is the case where incoming monks hear evidence of resident monks, traces and signs of resident monks, indications that there are resident monks—the sound of their feet as they are walking back and forth, the sound of chanting, throat-clearing, or sneezing.

On hearing this, they become doubtful: ‘Are there resident monks or not?’

“Being doubtful, they don’t search for them. Not searching, they invite: an offense of wrong doing. …

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they don’t see them. Not seeing them, they invite: no offense.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, they invite together with them: no offense.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, they invite separately: an offense of wrong doing.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, (thinking,) ‘They are lost. They are destroyed. Who needs them?’ they invite separately, aiming at schism: a grave offense.

“There is the case where resident monks see evidence of incoming monks, traces and signs of incoming monks, indications that there are incoming monks—an unknown bowl, an unknown robe, an unknown sitting cloth, a splashing of foot-washing water.

On seeing this, they become doubtful: ‘Are there incoming monks or not?’

“Being doubtful, they don’t search for them. Not searching, they invite: an offense of wrong doing. …

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they don’t see them. Not seeing them, they invite: no offense.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, they invite together with them: no offense.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, they invite separately: an offense of wrong doing.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, (thinking,) ‘They are lost. They are destroyed. Who needs them?’ they invite separately, aiming at schism: a grave offense.

“There is the case where resident monks hear evidence of incoming monks, traces and signs of incoming monks, indications that there are incoming monks—the sound of approaching footsteps, the sound of leather footwear slapping (the ground), the sound of throat-clearing or sneezing.

On hearing this, they become doubtful: ‘Are there incoming monks or not?’

“Being doubtful, they don’t search for them. Not searching, they invite: an offense of wrong doing. …

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they don’t see them. Not seeing them, they invite: no offense.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, they invite together with them: no offense.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, they invite separately: an offense of wrong doing.

“Being doubtful, they search for them. Searching for them, they see them. Seeing them, (thinking,) ‘They are lost. They are destroyed. Who needs them?’ they invite separately, aiming at schism: a grave offense.”

“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 invite together: no offense. …

“They ask. Having asked, they don’t resolve their differences. Not having resolved their differences1, they invite together: an offense of wrong doing.

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

“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 invite together: an offense of wrong doing. …

“They ask. Having asked, they resolve the misunderstanding1. Having resolved the misunderstanding, they invite separately: an offense of wrong doing.

1. Here, the monks are already of the same affiliation, so abhivitarati has a slightly different meaning: that they clear up the misunderstanding.

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

“They ask. Having asked, they don’t resolve the misunderstanding. Having not resolved the misunderstanding, they invite separately: no offense1.

1. This last case appears only in the Thai edition, is not paralleled in Mv.II.34.11, nor below in the ‘resident monks seeing incoming monks’ section. But it could make sense if it were interpreted to mean that even though the monks discuss the matter, they still misunderstand that they are of separate affiliations.

“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 invite together: no offense. …

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

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

“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 invite together: an offense of wrong doing.

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

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

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a residence with monks to a residence without monks unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions1.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a residence with monks to a non-residence without monks unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a residence with monks to a residence or non-residence without monks unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a non-residence with monks to a residence without monks unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a non-residence with monks to a non-residence without monks unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a non-residence with monks to a residence or non-residence without monks unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a residence or non-residence with monks to a residence without monks unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a residence or non-residence with monks to a non-residence without monks unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a residence or non-residence with monks to a residence or non-residence without monks unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a residence with monks to a residence with monks, where the monks are of a separate affiliation, unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a residence with monks to a non-residence with monks, where the monks are of a separate affiliation, unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one should not go from a residence with monks to a residence or non-residence with monks, where the monks are of a separate affiliation, unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, (one should not go) from a non-residence with monks to residence with monks …

“to a non-residence with monks …

“to a residence or non-residence with monks, where the monks are of a separate affiliation, unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, (one should not go) from a residence or non-residence with monks to residence with monks …

“to a non-residence with monks …

“to a residence or non-residence with monks, where the monks are of a separate affiliation, unless going with a Saṅgha, unless there are obstructions.”

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one may go from a residence with monks to a residence with monks, …

“to a non-residence …

“to a residence or non-residence with monks, where the monks are of the same affiliation, and one knows, ‘I can arrive within the day.’

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one may go from a non-residence with monks to a residence with monks, …

“to a non-residence …

“to a residence or non-residence with monks, where the monks are of the same affiliation, and one knows, ‘I can arrive within the day.’

“Monks, on the day of the Invitation, one may go from a residence or non-residence with monks to a residence with monks, …

“to a non-residence …

“to a residence or non-residence with monks, where the monks are of the same affiliation, and one knows, ‘I can arrive within the day.’”

“Monks, you should not invite with a bhikkhunī seated in the assembly. Whoever should invite: an offense of wrong doing.

“Monks, you should not invite with a female probationer … a novice … a female novice … one who has renounced the training … one who has committed an extreme (pārājika) offense seated in the assembly. Whoever should invite: an offense of wrong doing.

“You should not invite with one who has been suspended for not seeing an offense seated in the assembly. Whoever should invite is to be dealt with in accordance with the rule (Pc 69).

“You should not invite with one who has been suspended for not making amends for an offense … one who has been suspended for not relinquishing an evil view seated in the assembly. Whoever should invite is to be dealt with in accordance with the rule (Pc 69).

“You should not invite with a paṇḍaka seated in the assembly. Whoever should invite: an offense of wrong doing.

“You should not invite with a person in affiliation through theft … a monk who has gone over to another religion … an animal … a matricide … a patricide … a murderer of an arahant … a molester of a bhikkhunī … a schismatic … one who has shed (a Tathāgata’s) blood … a hermaphrodite seated in the assembly. Whoever should invite: an offense of wrong doing.

“You should not invite with a stale giving of the invitation unless the assembly has not gotten up from its seats. [BMC]

“And, monks, you should not invite on a non-Invitation day unless for Saṅgha-unification.” [BMC]

The second recitation section is finished.

Now on that occasion, at a certain residence in the Kosalan countryside, on the day of the Invitation, there was fear about Savaras1.

1. The Savaras were an indigenous tribe. A place called Savara is mentioned in the Milindapañhā, said to be inhabited by caṇḍalas, or outcastes, which is how indigenous tribes probably would have been categorized in the Vedic caste system. The Commentary to this passage explains savara as ‘forest people’.

The monks couldn’t invite by three statements.

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, I allow that you invite by two statements.”

There was even greater fear about Savaras.

The monks couldn’t invite by two statements.

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“I allow that you invite by one statement.”

There was even greater fear about Savaras.

The monks couldn’t invite by one statement.

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“I allow you to invite by equal Rains1.”

Now on that occasion, at a certain monastery on the day of the Invitation most of the day and night1 was spent with people giving gifts.

1. ratti means either ‘night’ or one period of day and night, which in English is called a ‘day’.

Then the thought occurred to the monks, “Most of the day and night has been spent with these people giving gifts. If the Saṅgha invites by three statements, the night will end and the Saṅgha will not have (all) invited. What should we do?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, there is the case where, at a certain monastery on the day of the Invitation, most of the day and night is spent with people giving gifts.

“If the thought occurs to the monks there, ‘Most of the day and night has been spent with people giving gifts. If the Saṅgha invites by three statements, the night will end and the Saṅgha will not have (all) invited,’

“(then) an experienced and competent monk should inform the Saṅgha:

“‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. Most of the day and night has been spent with people giving gifts.

“‘If the Saṅgha invites by three statements, the night will end and the Saṅgha will not have (all) invited.

“‘If the Saṅgha is ready, it should invite by two statements … by one statement … by equal Rains.’

“Monks, there is the case where, at a certain monastery on the day of the Invitation most of the day and night is spent with the monks speaking Dhamma … with sutta-monks chanting the suttas together … with Vinaya experts analyzing the Vinaya … with Dhamma-speakers discussing the Dhamma … with the monks quarreling1.

1. kalahaṁ karoti can also mean ‘to make an uproar’. The Commentaries offer no explanation of what the monks might be quarreling about or what kind of uproar they might be making.

“If the thought occurs to the monks there, ‘Most of the day and night has been spent with the monks making an uproar. If the Saṅgha invites by three statements, the night will end and the Saṅgha will not have (all) invited,’

“(then) an experienced and competent monk should inform the Saṅgha:

“‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. Most of the day and night has been spent with the monks making an uproar.

“‘If the Saṅgha invites by three statements, the night will end and the Saṅgha will not have (all) invited.

“‘If the Saṅgha is ready, it should invite by two statements … by one statement … by equal Rains.’”

Now on that occasion, at a certain residence in the Kosalan countryside, on the day of the Invitation, a large Saṅgha of monks had gathered.

There was limited space protected from the rain, and a great cloud had risen up.

Then the thought occurred to the monks, “This large Saṅgha of monks has gathered, there is limited space protected from the rain, and a great cloud has risen up. If the Saṅgha invites by three statements, the Saṅgha will not have (all) invited before this cloud rains down. What should we do?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, there is the case where at a certain residence on the day of the Invitation a large Saṅgha of monks has gathered.

“There is limited space protected from the rain, and a great cloud has risen up.

“If the thought occurs to the monks, ‘This large Saṅgha of monks has gathered, there is limited space protected from the rain, and a great cloud has risen up. If the Saṅgha invites by three statements, the Saṅgha will not have (all) invited before this cloud rains down,’

“(then) an experienced and competent monk should inform the Saṅgha:

“‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. This large Saṅgha of monks has gathered.

“‘There is limited space protected from the rain, and a great cloud has risen up.

“‘If the Saṅgha invites by three statements, the Saṅgha will not have (all) invited before this cloud rains down.

“‘If the Saṅgha is ready, it should invite by two statements … by one statement … by equal Rains.’

“Monks, there is the case where at a certain residence on the day of the Invitation there is a king obstruction … [Mv.II.15.4]

“there is a thief obstruction …

“there is a fire obstruction …

“there is a water obstruction …

“there is a human being obstruction …

“there is a non-human being obstruction …

“there is a beast obstruction …

“there is a creeping-pest obstruction …

“there is a life obstruction …

“there is a celibacy obstruction.

“If the thought occurs to the monks, ‘There is this celibacy-obstruction. If the Saṅgha invites by three statements, the Saṅgha will not have (all) invited before this celibacy-obstruction occurs,’

“(then) an experienced and competent monk should inform the Saṅgha:

“‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. There is this celibacy-obstruction. If the Saṅgha invites by three statements, the Saṅgha will not have (all) invited before this celibacy-obstruction occurs.’

“‘If the Saṅgha is ready, it should invite by two statements … by one statement … by equal Rains.’”

Now on that occasion some Group-of-six monks, having offenses, invited.

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, one who has an offense should not invite. Whoever should invite: an offense of wrong doing.

“I allow when one with an offense is inviting that, having gotten him to give leave, one charge him with the offense.”

Now on that occasion some Group-of-six monks, being asked to give leave, didn’t want to give leave.

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“I allow, when one does not give leave, that the Invitation be canceled. [BMC]

“And, monks, it should be canceled like this:

“On the day of the Invitation—the fourteenth or the fifteenth—face-to-face with the individual, in the midst of the Saṅgha, it should be announced,

“‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. An individual named such-and-such is inviting with an offense. I cancel his Invitation. One should not invite when face-to-face with him.’

“His Invitation is canceled.”

Now on that occasion some Group-of-six monks, (thinking,) “Before, the well-behaved monks canceled our Invitations”—without grounds, without reason—canceled the Invitation of pure monks without offenses preemptively. [Mv.II.16.3]

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, one should not—without grounds, without reason—cancel the Invitation of pure monks without offenses. Whoever should cancel it: an offense of wrong doing.

“And one should not cancel the Invitation of those who have already made an Invitation. Whoever should cancel it: an offense of wrong doing.

“Monks, the Invitation is (properly) canceled like this; and not (properly) canceled like this:

“And how, monks, is the Invitation not (properly) canceled?

“Monks, if one cancels (another’s) Invitation when the Invitation by three statements has been spoken, uttered, and concluded, then the Invitation is not canceled.

“Monks, if one cancels (another’s) Invitation when the Invitation by two statements … by one statement … by equal Rains has been spoken, uttered, and concluded, then the Invitation is not canceled.

“In this way, monks, the Invitation is not (properly) canceled.

“And how, monks, is the Invitation (properly) canceled?

“Monks, if one cancels (another’s) Invitation when the Invitation by three statements is being spoken, uttered, but has not been concluded, then the Invitation is canceled.

“Monks, if one cancels (another’s) Invitation when the Invitation by two statements … by one statement … by equal Rains is being spoken, uttered, but has not been concluded, then the Invitation is canceled.

“In this way, monks, the Invitation is (properly) canceled.

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk cancels (another) monk’s Invitation. [BMC]

“If the other monks know of that monk, ‘This venerable one is impure in his bodily conduct, impure in his verbal conduct, impure in his livelihood, inexperienced and incompetent. He is unable, when being brought to account, to give an account (of what happened),’

“then, having blocked him, (saying,) ‘Enough, monk. Don’t (cause) strife; don’t (cause) an uproar; don’t (cause) a clash; don’t dispute,’ the Saṅgha should invite.

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk cancels (another) monk’s Invitation.

“If the other monks know of that monk, ‘This venerable one is pure in his bodily conduct, impure in his verbal conduct, impure in his livelihood, inexperienced and incompetent. He is unable, when being brought to account, to give an account,’

“then, having blocked him, (saying,) ‘Enough, monk. Don’t (cause) strife; don’t (cause) an uproar; don’t (cause) a clash; don’t dispute,’ the Saṅgha should invite.

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk cancels (another) monk’s Invitation.

“If the other monks know of that monk, ‘This venerable one is pure in his bodily conduct, pure in his verbal conduct, impure in his livelihood, inexperienced and incompetent. He is unable, when being brought to account, to give an account,’

“then, having blocked him, (saying,) ‘Enough, monk. Don’t (cause) strife; don’t (cause) an uproar; don’t (cause) a clash; don’t dispute,’ the Saṅgha should invite.

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk cancels (another) monk’s Invitation.

“If the other monks know of that monk, ‘This venerable one is pure in his bodily conduct, pure in his verbal conduct, pure in his livelihood, inexperienced and incompetent. He is unable, when being brought to account, to give an account,’

“then, having blocked him, (saying,) ‘Enough, monk. Don’t (cause) strife; don’t (cause) an uproar; don’t (cause) a clash; don’t dispute,’ the Saṅgha should invite.

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk cancels (another) monk’s Invitation.

“If the other monks know of that monk, ‘This venerable one is pure in his bodily conduct, pure in his verbal conduct, pure in his livelihood, wise, experienced and competent. He is able, when being brought to account, to give an account,’

“then he should be asked, ‘Friend, the invitation of this monk that you are canceling: Why are you canceling it? Are you canceling it because of a defect in virtue, are you canceling it because of a defect in conduct, (or) are you canceling it because of a defect in view?’

“If he should say, ‘I am canceling it because of a defect in virtue … because of a defect in conduct … (or) because of a defect in view,’

“then he should be asked, ‘But does the venerable one know what a defect in virtue is, what a defect in conduct is, what a defect in view is?’

“If he should say, ‘Friends, I know what a defect in virtue is, what a defect in conduct is, what a defect in view is,’

“then he should be asked, ‘Then, friend, which is a defect in virtue, which is a defect in conduct, which is a defect in view?’

“If he should say, ‘The four pārājikas and the thirteen saṅghādisesas: This is a defect in virtue. A thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, a dubbhāsita: This is a defect in conduct. Wrong view and a view holding to an extreme: This is a defect in view,’ [BMC]

“then he should be asked, ‘Friend, the invitation of this monk that you are canceling, are you canceling it on the basis of what was seen, are you canceling it on the basis of what was heard, (or) are you canceling it on the basis of what is suspected?’

“If he should say, ‘I am canceling it on the grounds of what was seen’ or ‘I am canceling it on the grounds of what was heard’ or ‘I am canceling it on the grounds of what is suspected,’

“then he should be asked, ‘Friend, the invitation of this monk that you are canceling on the grounds of what was seen: What did you see? What exactly did you see? When did you see it? Where did you see it? Was he seen committing a pārājika? Was he seen committing a saṅghādisesa? Was he seen committing a thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, (or) a dubbhāsita? And where were you? And where was this monk? And what were you doing? And what was this monk doing?’

“If he should say, ‘It’s not that I’m canceling the invitation of this monk on the grounds of what was seen. It’s actually on the grounds of what was heard that I’m canceling (his) invitation,’

“then he should be asked, ‘Friend, the invitation of this monk that you are canceling on the grounds of what was heard: What did you hear? What exactly did you hear? When did you hear it? Where did you hear it? Was he heard to have committed a pārājika? Was he heard to have committed a saṅghādisesa? Was he heard to have committed a thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, (or) a dubbhāsita?

“‘Was this heard from a monk? Was this heard from a bhikkhunī? … from one in training? … from a male novice? … from a female novice? … from a male lay follower? … from a female lay follower? … from kings? … from king’s ministers? … from the leaders of other sects? … from the disciples of other sects?’

“If he should say, ‘It’s not that I’m canceling the invitation of this monk on the grounds of what was heard. It’s actually on the grounds of what is suspected that I’m canceling (his) invitation,’

“then he should be asked, ‘Friend, the invitation of this monk that you are canceling on the grounds of what is suspected: What do you suspect? What exactly do you suspect? When do you suspect (it happened)? Where do you suspect (it happened)? Do you suspect him to have committed a pārājika? Do you suspect him to have committed a saṅghādisesa? Do you suspect him to have committed a thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, (or) a dubbhāsita?

“‘Do you suspect from having heard a monk? Do you suspect from having heard a bhikkhunī? … one in training? … a male novice? … a female novice? … a male lay follower? … a female lay follower? … kings? … king’s ministers? … the leaders of other sects? … the disciples of other sects?’

“If he should say, ‘It’s not that I’m canceling the invitation of this monk on the grounds of what is suspected. In fact, even I don’t know on what grounds I’m canceling the invitation of this monk,’

“then if the monk making the charge does not satisfy the minds of his observant fellows in the holy life with his account, it is enough to say that the monk who has been charged does not stand accused.

“But if the monk making the charge does satisfy the minds of his observant fellows in the holy life with his account, then it is enough to say that the monk who has been charged stands accused.

“If the monk making the charge charges him with an unfounded pārājika offense, then having initiated the procedure for a saṅghadisesa, the Saṅgha should invite.

“If the monk making the charge charges him with an unfounded saṅghadisesa offense, then, having dealt with him in accordance with the rule (Pc 76), the Saṅgha should invite.

“If the monk making the charge charges him with an unfounded thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, (or) dubbhāsita offense, then, having dealt with him in accordance with the rule (Pc 76), the Saṅgha should invite.

“If the monk who has been charged, having fallen into a pārājika offense, admits it, then having expelled him, the Saṅgha should invite.

“If the monk who has been charged, having fallen into a saṅghadisesa offense, admits it, then having initiated the procedure for a saṅghadisesa, the Saṅgha should invite.

“If the monk who has been charged, having fallen into a thullaccaya, pācittiya, pāṭidesanīya, dukkaṭa, (or) dubbhāsita offense, admits it, then, having dealt with him in accordance with the rule, the Saṅgha should invite.”

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk has fallen into a thullaccaya offense.

“Some monks are of the view that it is a thullaccaya offense; some are of the view that it is a saṅghadisesa offense.

“Those monks who are of the view that it is a thullaccaya offense should lead the monk off to one side and, having dealt with him in accordance with the rule, return to the Saṅgha and announce, ‘Friends, the offense that that monk fell into—he has made amends for it in accordance with the rule. If the Saṅgha is ready, it should invite.’

“He has made amends for it in accordance with the rule”: they should say just that much, then say, “May you invite.” “It’s an offense called such-and-such,” shouldn’t be said—for this is the opening for an argument.

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk has fallen into a thullaccaya offense.

“Some monks are of the view that it is a thullaccaya offense; some are of the view that it is a pācittiya offense … Some monks are of the view that it is a thullaccaya offense; some are of the view that it is a pāṭidesanīya offense … Some monks are of the view that it is a thullaccaya offense; some are of the view that it is a dukkaṭa offense … Some monks are of the view that it is a thullaccaya offense; some are of the view that it is a dubbhāsita offense.

“Those monks who are of the view that it is a thullaccaya offense should lead the monk off to one side and, having dealt with him in accordance with the rule, return to the Saṅgha and announce, ‘Friends, the offense that that monk fell into—he has made amends for it in accordance with the rule. If the Saṅgha is ready, it should invite.’

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk has fallen into a pācittiya offense … has fallen into a pāṭidesanīya offense … has fallen into a dukkaṭa offense … has fallen into a dubbhāsita offense.

“Some monks are of the view that it is a dubbhāsita offense; some are of the view that it is a saṅghadisesa offense.

“Those monks who are of the view that it is a dubbhāsita offense should lead the monk off to one side and, having dealt with him in accordance with the rule, return to the Saṅgha and announce, ‘Friends, the offense that that monk fell into—he has made amends for it in accordance with the rule. If the Saṅgha is ready, it should invite.’

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk has fallen into a dubbhāsita offense.

“Some monks are of the view that it is a dubbhāsita offense; some are of the view that it is a thullaccaya offense … Some monks are of the view that it is a dubbhāsita offense; some are of the view that it is a pācittiya offense … Some monks are of the view that it is a dubbhāsita offense; some are of the view that it is a pāṭidesanīya offense … Some monks are of the view that it is a dubbhāsita offense; some are of the view that it is a dukkaṭa offense.

“Those monks who are of the view that it is a dubbhāsita offense should lead the monk off to one side and, having dealt with him in accordance with the rule, return to the Saṅgha and announce, ‘Friends, the offense that that monk fell into—he has made amends for it in accordance with the rule. If the Saṅgha is ready, it should invite.’”

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk announces in the midst of the Saṅgha, ‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. This matter1 is known, but the individual is not. If the Saṅgha is ready, then, having shelved the matter, the Saṅgha should invite.’

1. i.e., which particular offense was committed.

“He should be told, ‘The Blessed One has laid down the Invitation for those who are pure. If the matter is known but not the individual, speak about it right now.’

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk announces in the midst of the Saṅgha, ‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. This individual is known, but the matter is not. If the Saṅgha is ready, then, having excluded1 this individual, the Saṅgha should invite.’

1. This is the same word, ṭhapetvā, that is translated as ‘shelve’ above.

“He should be told, ‘The Blessed One has laid down the Invitation for those who are united. If the individual is known but not the matter, speak about it right now.’

“Monks, there is the case where, on the day of the Invitation, a monk announces in the midst of the Saṅgha, ‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. Both the matter and the individual are known. If the Saṅgha is ready, then, having shelved this matter and excluded this individual, the Saṅgha should invite.’

“He should be told, ‘The Blessed One has laid down the Invitation for those who are pure and united. If both the matter and the individual are known, speak about it right now.’

“If the matter is known before the Invitation, but the individual afterward, it is proper to speak up1.

1. In other words, the issue can be brought up later. [BMC]

“If the individual is known before the Invitation, but the matter afterward, it is proper to speak up.

“If both the matter and the individual are known before the Invitation, and if one opens (the issue) up after the Invitation is done, then there is a pācittiya for opening up (Pc 63).”

Now on that occasion several monks, close friends, entered the Rains at a certain monastery in the Kosalan countryside.

Near to them, other monks—makers of quarrels, strife, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Saṅgha—entered the Rains, (thinking,) “When those monks have completed the Rains, at their Invitation, we will cancel their invitations.”

The monks heard that, “Those other monks near us, they say—makers of quarrels, strife, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Saṅgha—have entered the Rains (thinking,) ‘When those monks have completed the Rains, at their Invitation, we will cancel their invitations.’ What should we do?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, there is the case where several monks, close friends, enter the Rains at a certain monastery.

“Near to them, other monks—makers of quarrels, strife, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Saṅgha—enter the Rains, (thinking,) ‘When those monks have completed the Rains, at their Invitation, we will cancel their invitations.’

“Monks, I allow that those monks perform two or three Uposathas on the fourteenth, (thinking,) ‘How could we invite before those (other) monks?’

“If those monks—makers of quarrels, strife, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Saṅgha—come to the residence, the resident monks should quickly gather and invite. Having invited, they should say, ‘Friends, we have invited. May the venerable ones do what they think (is appropriate).’

“If those monks—makers of quarrels, strife, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Saṅgha—come to the residence unannounced, the resident monks should lay out seats, put out washing water for the feet, a foot stand, and a pebble foot wiper. They should go out to meet them, receive their robes & bowls, and ask them if they want drinking water.

Having diverted their attention, they should go outside the territory and invite.

“Having diverted their attention”: This means tricking them in this way: “You’re tired. Rest for a moment.”

“Having invited, they should say, ‘Friends, we have invited. May the venerable ones do what they think (is appropriate).’

“If that works, well and good. If not, an experienced and competent resident monk should inform the (other) resident monks,

“‘May the resident venerable ones listen to me. If the venerable ones are ready, we will perform the Uposatha; recite the Pāṭimokkha. On the coming dark [new] (moon) we will invite.’

“If those monks—makers of quarrels, strife, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Saṅgha—say to the monks, ‘It would be good, friends, if you were to invite right now, with us,’

“then they should be told, ‘Friends, you’re not in charge of our Invitation. We’re not going to invite yet.’

“If those monks—makers of quarrels, strife, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Saṅgha—stay1 until the coming dark [new] moon, an experienced and competent resident monk should inform the (other) resident monks,

1. Apparently this means that they delay their Invitation as well and stay in the area, at their own monastery, not that they stay with the first group of monks for the whole two weeks.

“‘May the resident venerable ones listen to me. If we are ready, we will perform the Uposatha; recite the Pāṭimokkha. On the coming bright [full] moon we will invite.’

“If those monks—makers of quarrels, strife, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Saṅgha—say to the monks, ‘It would be good, friends, if you were to invite right now, with us,’

“then they should be told, ‘Friends, you’re not in charge of our Invitation. We’re not going to invite yet.’

“If those monks—makers of quarrels, strife, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Saṅgha—stay even until the coming bright [full] moon, then all should invite on the coming bright moon, of the “water-lily” fourth month, even if they don’t want to. [BMC]

“Monks, if, as the monks are inviting, a sick monk cancels the invitation of a monk who is not sick, he should be told, ‘The venerable one is sick. It has been said by the Blessed One that one who is sick isn’t up to arguing a case. Wait, friend, until you are well. Being well, if you want to, you can charge him.’

“And if, being told that, he still makes the charge out of disrespect, a pācittiya offense (Pc 54) [BMC].

“Monks, if, as the monks are inviting, a monk who is not sick cancels the invitation of a sick monk, he should be told, ‘Friend, this monk is sick. It has been said by the Blessed One that one who is sick isn’t up to arguing a case. Wait, friend, until this monk is well. (When he is) well, if you want to, you can charge him.’

“If, being told that, he still makes the charge out of disrespect, a pācittiya offense (Pc 54).

“Monks, if, as the monks are inviting, a sick monk cancels the invitation of (another) sick monk, he should be told, ‘The venerable ones are sick. It has been said by the Blessed One that one who is sick isn’t up to debating. Wait, friend, until you are (both) well. (When you are both) well, if you want to, you can charge him.’

“If, being told that, he still makes the charge out of disrespect, a pācittiya offense (Pc 54).

“Monks, if, as the monks are inviting, a monk who is not sick cancels the invitation of (another) monk who is not sick,

“then the Saṅgha should cross-question them both and investigate, then deal with them in line with the rule. Then the Saṅgha should invite.”

Now on that occasion several monks, close friends who were often seen together and ate together, entered the Rains at a certain residence in the Kosalan countryside.

“While they were living together in unity, courteously, without dispute, a certain level of comfort was achieved.

Then the thought occurred to them, “While we have been living together in unity, courteously, without dispute, a certain level of comfort has been achieved.

“If we were to invite now, and if there are monks who, having invited, would leave to go wandering, we would be deprived of our level of comfort. What should we do?”

They reported the matter to the Blessed One.

“Monks, there is the case where several monks, close friends who are often seen together and eat together, enter the Rains at a certain residence.

While they are living together in unity, courteously, without dispute, a certain level of comfort is achieved.

“If the thought should occur to them, ‘While we have been living together in unity, courteously, without dispute, a certain level of comfort has been achieved. If we were to invite now, and if there are monks who, having invited, would leave to go wandering, we would be deprived of our level of comfort,’

“then I allow that those monks make an Invitation-delay.

“And, monks, it should be made like this:

“The entire Saṅgha should gather.

“When they have gathered, an experienced and competent monk should inform the Saṅgha:

“‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. While we have been living together in unity, courteously, without dispute, a certain level of comfort has been achieved.

“‘If we were to invite now, and if there are monks who, having invited, would leave to go wandering, we would be deprived of our level of comfort.

“‘If the Saṅgha is ready, it should make an Invitation-delay so that it might now perform the Uposatha and recite the Pāṭimokkha, and then invite (on the full moon) of the coming “water-lily” fourth month.

“‘This is the motion.

“‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha listen to me. While we have been living together in unity, courteously, without dispute, a certain level of comfort has been achieved.

“‘If we were to invite now, and if there are monks who, having invited, would leave to go wandering, we would be deprived of our level of comfort.

“‘The Saṅgha is making an Invitation-delay so that it will now perform the Uposatha and recite the Pāṭimokkha, and then invite (on the full moon) of the coming “water-lily” fourth month.

“‘He to whom the making of an Invitation-delay—so that (the Saṅgha) will now perform the Uposatha and recite the Pāṭimokkha, and then invite when the “water-lily” fourth month arrives—is agreeable should remain silent. He to whom it is not agreeable should speak.

“‘An Invitation-delay has been made by the Saṅgha so that it will now perform the Uposatha and recite the Pāṭimokkha, and then invite (on the full moon) of the coming “water-lily” fourth month.

“‘This is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent.

“‘Thus do I hold it.’

“If, when those monks have made an Invitation-delay, a certain monk should say, ‘Friends, I want to set out on a wandering tour of the countryside. I have business in the countryside,’

“then he should be told, ‘Friend, it would be good if you invited and then went.’

“Monks, if, as that monk is inviting, he cancels the Invitation of a certain monk, then he should be told, ‘Friend, you’re not in charge of my Invitation. I won’t invite yet.’

“Monks, if, as that monk is inviting, a certain monk cancels his Invitation, then the Saṅgha should cross-question them both and investigate, then deal with them in line with the rule.

“If that monk should conclude his business in the countryside and return to the residence within the “water-lily” fourth month, and if, as the monks are inviting, a certain monk cancels his Invitation, he should be told, ‘Friend, you’re not in charge of my Invitation. I’ve (already) invited.’

“If, as the monks are inviting, he cancels the Invitation of a certain monk, then the Saṅgha should cross-question them both and investigate, then deal with them in line with the rule1. Then the Saṅgha should invite.”

1. In other words, he gives up his right to suspend another monk’s invitation unless he makes it back in time. The other monks can still suspend his, but they have to do it when he invites—not when he gets back and they are inviting.

The Invitation Khandhaka, the fourth, is finished.

In this khandhaka there are 46 cases.

Having completed the Rains

among the Kosalans,

they came to see the Teacher.

An uncomfortable cattle-like affiliation,

mutual conformity.

They invited, on their seats, and two,

transactions, a sick monk, relatives,

kings, thieves, mischief-makers,

and likewise opponents of the monks.

Five, four, three, two, one,

fallen (into an offense), in doubt,

he remembered,

the entire Saṅgha, in doubt,

more, equal, fewer.

The residents on the fourteenth,

traces, common affiliation, both,

one should go, not with one sitting,

the Invitation when consent has been given.

Because of Savaras, it was spent, a cloud,

obstructions, and the Invitation.

They didn’t give (leave);

before (they canceled) ours,

not (properly) canceled, a monk’s,

why? and which?

on the basis of what is

seen, heard, suspected.

One making a charge, one charged,

a thullaccaya, a matter, a quarrel,

the delay of the Invitation,

not in charge; it should invite.