Dwelling not in comfort

At one time the enlightened one, the Lord was staying at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time several monks, friends and associates, entered on the rains in a certain residence in the Kosala country. Then it occurred to these monks: “Now by what means can we, all together, on friendly terms and harmonious, spend a comfortable rainy season and not go short of almsfood?”

Then it occurred to these monks: “If we should neither address one another nor converse, but whoever should return first from the village for almsfood should make ready a seat, should put out water for (washing) the feet, a footstool, a footstand, having washed a refuse-bowl should set it out, should set out drinking water and water for washing.

Whoever should return last from the village for almsfood, if there should be the remains of a meal and if he should so desire, he may eat them; but if he does not so desire, he may throw them away where there is but little green grass or he may drop them into water where there are no living creatures, he should put up the seat, he should put away the water for (washing) the feet, the footstool, the footstand, he should put away the refuse-bowl having washed it, he should put away the drinking water and the water for washing, he should sweep the refectory.

Whoever should see a vessel for drinking water or a vessel for washing water or a vessel (for water) for rinsing after evacuation, void and empty, should set out (water); if it is impossible for him (to do this) he should set out (water) by signalling with his hand, having invited a companion (to help him) by a movement of his hand; but he should not for such a reason break into speech. Thus may we, all together, on friendly terms and harmonious, spend a comfortable rainy season and not go short of almsfood.”

Then these monks neither addressed one another nor conversed. Whoever returned first from the village for almsfood made ready a seat, put out water for (washing) the feet, a foot-stool, a footstand, set out a refuse-bowl having washed it, set out drinking water and water for washing.

Whoever returned last from the village for almsfood, if there were the remains of a meal ate them if he so desired; if he did not so desire he threw them away where there was but little green grass or he dropped them into water where there were no living creatures, he put up the seat, he put away the water for (washing) the feet, the footstool, the footstand, he put away the refuse-bowl having washed it, he put away the drinking water and the water for washing, he swept the refectory.

Whoever saw a vessel for drinking water or a vessel for washing water or a vessel (for water) for rinsing after evacuation, void and empty, set out water. If it was impossible for him (to do this) he set out water by signalling with his hand, having by a movement of his hand invited a companion (to help him); but not for such a reason did he break into speech.

Now it was the custom for monks who had kept the rains to go and see the Lord. Then these monks, having kept the rains, at the end of the three months packed away their lodgings and taking their bowls and robes, set out for Sāvatthī. In due course they approached Sāvatthī, the Jeta Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery and the Lord. Having approached, having greeted the Lord, they sat down at a respectful distance. Now it is the custom for awakened ones, for Lords to exchange friendly greetings with in-coming monks.

Then the Lord spoke thus to these monks: “I hope that you were well, monks, I hope that you kept going, I hope that, all together, on friendly terms and harmonious, you passed a comfortable rainy season and did not go short of almsfood?”

“We were well, Lord, we kept going, Lord, and we, Lord, all together, on friendly terms and harmonious, passed a comfortable rainy season and did not go short of almsfood.”

Now, Truthfinders (sometimes) ask knowing, and knowing (sometimes) do not ask; they ask, knowing the right time (to ask), and they do not ask, knowing the right time (when not to ask). Truthfinders ask about what belongs to the goal, not about what does not belong to the goal; there is bridge-breaking for Truthfinders in whatever does not belong to the goal. In two ways do awakened ones, Lords question monks, either: “Shall we teach dhamma?” or “Shall we lay down a rule of training for disciples?” Then the Lord spoke thus to these monks:

“But in what way did you, monks, all together, on friendly terms and harmonious, spend a comfortable rainy season and not go short of almsfood?”

“In that connection did we, Lord, several friends and associates, enter on the rains in a certain residence in the Kosala country. Then it occurred to us, Lord: ‘Now by what means can we, all together, on friendly terms and harmonious, spend a comfortable rainy season and not go short of almsfood?’ Then it occurred to us, Lord: ‘If we should neither address one another … Thus could we, all together, on friendly terms and harmonious, spend a comfortable rainy season and not go short of almsfood.’ So we, Lord, neither addressed one another nor conversed. Whoever returned first from the village for almsfood made ready a seat … but not for such a reason did he break into speech. Thus did we, Lord, all together, on friendly terms and harmonious, spend a comfortable rainy season and not go short of almsfood.”

Then the Lord addressed the monks, saying: “Indeed, monks, these foolish men, having spent an uncomfortable time, pretend to have spent an equally comfortable time. Indeed, monks, these foolish men, having spent communion like beasts, pretend to have spent an equally comfortable time. Indeed … like sheep, pretend to have spent an equally comfortable time. Indeed … having spent communion in indolence, pretend to have spent an equally comfortable time. How, monks, can these foolish men observe an observance of members of (other) sects: the practice of silence?

“It is not, monks, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …” Having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“ Monks, an observance of members of other sects, the practice of silence, should not be observed. Whoever should observe it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, monks who have kept the rains to ‘invite’ in regard to three matters: what has been seen or heard or suspected. That will be what is suitable for you in regard to one another, a removal of offences, an aiming at (grasping) the discipline.

And thus, monks, should one invite. The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. Today is an Invitation day. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may invite.’ A monk who is an elder, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having sat down on his haunches, having saluted with joined palms, should speak to it thus: ‘Your reverences, I invite the Order in respect of what has been seen or heard or suspected. Let the venerable ones speak to me out of compassion, and seeing I will make amends. And a second time … And a third time, your reverences, I invite the Order in respect of what has been seen or heard or suspected. Let the venerable ones speak to me out of compassion, and seeing I will make amends.’ A newly ordained monk, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder … having saluted with joined palms, should speak to it thus: ‘Honoured sirs, I invite the Order in respect of what has been seen … And a second time … And a third time … and seeing I will make amends.’”

Now at that time the group of six monks remained on seats while monks who were elders, sitting down on their haunches, were themselves inviting. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying: “How can this group of six monks remain on seats while monks who are elders, sitting down on their haunches, are themselves inviting?” Then these monks told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Is it true, as is said, monks, that the group of six monks remained on seats … were themselves inviting?”

“It is true, Lord.” The awakened one, the Lord rebuked them, saying:

“How, monks, can these foolish men remain on seats … are themselves inviting? It is not, monks, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …” And having rebuked them, having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

“Monks, you should not remain on seats while monks who are elders, sitting down on their haunches, are themselves inviting. I allow you, monks, to invite while each and every one is sitting down on his haunches.”

Now at that time a certain elder, feeble with age, thinking: “Until all have invited”, while sitting down on his haunches and waiting, fell down in a faint. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, (each one) to sit down on his haunches during the period until he invites, and having invited, to sit down on a seat.”

Division of the Invitation

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

Then it occurred to monks: “Now, how many (formal) acts for the Invitation are there?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, there are these four (formal) acts for the Invitation: a (formal) act for the Invitation (carried out) not by rule and when an assembly is incomplete… = Kd.2.14.2, Kd.2.14.3; read act for the Invitation instead of act for Observance … you, monks, should train yourselves thus”.

Allowance to give invitation

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

If he thus manages this, it is good. If he does not manage it then, monks, that ill monk, having been brought to the midst of the Order on a couch or a chair, should invite. If, monks, it occurs to the monks who are tending the ill one … = Kd.2.22.2 … the ill one should not be moved from (that) place; the Order having gone there may invite, but one should not invite if an Order is incomplete. Whoever should so invite, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“If, monks, the conveyor of the Invitation goes away then and there … = Kd.2.22.3, Kd.2.22.4; read Invitation, although the Invitation, the conveyor of the Invitation instead of entire purity, although the entire purity, the conveyor of the entire purity … there is an offence of wrong-doing for the conveyer of the Invitation. I allow you, monks, on an Invitation day to give the consent also by giving the Invitation; they are the Order’s business.”

On being grabbed by relatives

Now at that time his relations got hold of a certain monk on an Invitation day … as in Kd.2.24.1–Kd.2.24.3; read Invitation day for Observance day, and gives the Invitation for declares his entire purity, and invites for carries out the Observance …

Division of invitation by Saṅgha, etc.

Now at that time five monks were staying in a certain residence on an Invitation day. Then it occurred to these monks: “It is laid down by the Lord that an Order may invite, but we are (only) five persons. Now, how can we invite?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to invite in an Order of five.”

Now at that time four monks were staying in a certain residence on an Invitation day. Then it occurred to these monks: “It is allowed by the Lord to invite in an Order of five, but we are (only) four persons. Now, how can we invite?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to invite one another when you are (only) four.

“And thus, monks, should one invite: These monks should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Let the venerable ones listen to me. Today is an Invitation day. If it seems right to the venerable ones, let us invite one another.’ These monks should be spoken to thus by a monk who is an elder, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having sat down on his haunches, having saluted with joined palms: ‘I, your reverences, invite the venerable ones in regard to what has been seen or heard or suspected. Let the venerable ones speak to me out of compassion, and seeing, I will make amends. And a second time … And a third time … and seeing, I will make amends.’ These monks should be spoken to thus by a newly ordained monk, having arranged … ‘I, honoured sirs, invite the venerable ones in regard to what has been seen or heard or suspected … And a second time … And a third time … and seeing, I will make amends.’”

Now at that time three monks were staying in a certain residence on an Invitation day. Then it occurred to these monks: “It is allowed by the Lord to invite in an Order of five persons, and to invite one another when there are four, but we are (only) three persons. Now how can we invite?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to invite one another when you are (only) three. And thus, monks, should one invite: These monks should be informed … = Kd.4.5.3 … I will make amends.’”

Now at that time two monks were staying in a certain residence on an Invitation day. Then it occurred to these monks: “It is allowed by the Lord to invite in an Order of five (persons), to invite one another when there are four, to invite one another when there are three, but we are (only) two persons. Now, how can we invite?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to invite one another when you are (only) two.

“And thus, monks, should one invite: The monk who is the elder, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having sat down on his haunches, having saluted with joined palms, should speak thus to the newly ordained monk: ‘I, your reverence, invite the venerable one in regard to what has been seen or heard or suspected. Let the venerable one speak to me out of compassion, and seeing, I will make amends. And a second time … And a third time … and seeing, I will make amends.’ The newly ordained monk, having arranged his upper robe … with joined palms, should speak thus to the monk who is the elder: ‘I, honoured sir, invite the venerable one … And a third time … and seeing, I will make amends.’”

Now at that time one monk was staying in a certain residence on an Invitation day. Then it occurred to that monk: “It is allowed by the Lord to invite in an Order of five (persons), to invite one another … when there are (only) two, but I am alone. Now, how can I invite?” They told this matter to the Lord.

He said: “This is a case, monks, where one monk is staying in a certain residence on an Invitation day. Monks, that monk, having swept the place to which monks return—an attendance hall or a pavilion or the root of a tree—having put out drinking water and water for washing, having made ready a seat, having made a light, should sit down. If other monks arrive, he may invite together with them; if they do not arrive, he should determine: ‘Today is an Invitation day for me’. If he should not (so) determine, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“Monks, there where five monks are staying, four should not invite in an Order, having conveyed the invitation for one. If they should (so) invite, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“Monks, there where four monks are staying, three should not invite one another, having conveyed the invitation for one. If they should (so) invite, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“Monks, there where three monks are staying, two should not invite one another, having conveyed the invitation for one. If they should (so) invite, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“Monks, there where two monks are staying, one should not determine, having conveyed the invitation for the other. If he should (so) determine, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”

Procedure for making amends

Now at that time a certain monk came to have fallen into an offence on an Invitation day. Then it occurred to this monk: “It is laid down by the Lord that an offender should not invite, and I have fallen into an offence. Now what line of conduct should be followed by me?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “This is a case, monks, … cf. Kd.2.27.1, Kd.2.27.2; read Invitation day for Observance day) … When he has spoken thus, he may invite, but no obstacle should be put in the way of the Invitation from such a cause.”

Procedure for no obstacle from offence

Now at that time a certain monk, as he was himself inviting, remembered an offence. Then it occurred to this monk: “It is laid down by the Lord that an offender should not invite, and I have fallen into an offence. Now what line of conduct should be followed by me?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “This is a case, monks, where a monk, as he is himself inviting, remembers an offence. Monks, this monk should speak thus to the monk next to him: ‘I, your reverence, have fallen into such and such an offence; removing from here, I will make amends for that offence.’ When he has spoken thus, he may invite, but no obstacle should be put in the way of the Invitation from such a cause.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk as he is himself inviting, becomes doubtful about an offence. Monks … cf. Kd.2.27.5 … When he has spoken thus he may invite, but no obstacle should be put in the way of the Invitation from such a cause.”

Procedure for making amends for shared offence

Note by Sujato: this section, which repeats the material from the corresponding section of the Uposathakkhandhaka, is not included in Horner’s translation. See previous footnote.

Told is the First Portion for Repeating.

Fifteen cases of no offence

Now at that time several resident monks, five or more, collected together in a certain residence on an Invitation day. They did not know that the other resident monks had not arrived. Thinking of the rule, thinking of discipline, thinking that they were complete, they invited while they were incomplete. While they were inviting, other resident monks, a larger number, arrived. They told this matter to the Lord.

He said: “This is a case, monks, where several resident monks … … as in Kd.4.7.1 above … While they are inviting, other resident monks, a larger number, arrive. Monks, those monks should invite again; there is no offence for those who have invited.

“This is a case, monks, … other resident monks, a like number … a smaller number, arrive. Those who have invited have duly invited; the remainder should invite, and there is no offence for those who have invited.

“This is a case, monks, where several resident monks, five or more, collect together in a certain residence on an Invitation day … When they have just finished inviting, other resident monks, a larger number, arrive. Monks, those monks should invite again; there is no offence for those who have invited.

“This is a case, monks, … a like number … a smaller number, arrive. Those who have invited have duly invited; they should invite in their presence, and there is no offence for those who have invited.

“This is a case, monks, … When they have just finished inviting but the assembly has not risen … = Kd.4.7.5 … no offence for those who have invited.

“This is a case … and part of the assembly has risen … = Kd.4.7.5 … no offence for those who have invited.

“This is a case, monks, where … the whole assembly has risen, and other resident monks, a larger number … a like number … a smaller number, arrive. Those who have invited have duly invited; they should invite in their presence, and there is no offence for those who have invited.”

Told are the Fifteen Cases in which there is No Offence.

Fifteen cases of perceiving it is a group or is not a group

“This is a case, monks, where in a certain residence several resident monks, five or more, collect together on an Invitation day. They know that other resident monks have not arrived. Thinking of the rule, thinking of discipline, thinking that they are incomplete they invite while they are incomplete. While they are inviting, other resident monks, a larger number, arrive. Monks, these monks should invite again, and there is an offence of wrong-doing for those who have invited.

“This is a case, monks, … … a like number … a smaller number, arrive. Those who have invited have duly invited; the remainder should invite and there is an offence of wrong-doing for those who have invited.

“This is a case, monks, … When they have just finished inviting … and the assembly has not risen … part of the assembly has risen … the whole assembly has risen, and other resident monks, a larger number … a like number … a smaller number, arrive. Those who have invited have duly invited; they should invite in their presence, and there is an offence of wrong-doing for those who have invited.

Told are the Fifteen Cases on being Aware that an Assembly is incomplete when it is incomplete.

Fifteen cases of doubt

“This is a case, monks, where several resident monks five or more, collect together on an Invitation day. They know that other resident monks have not arrived. Thinking: ‘Now, is it allowable for us to invite or is it not allowable?’ they invite (although they are in doubt). While they are inviting, other resident monks, a larger number, arrive. Monks, these monks should invite again, and there is an offence of wrong-doing for those who have invited.

“This is a case, … cf. Kd.4.8.2, Kd.4.8.3 … they should invite in their presence, and there is an offence of wrong-doing for those who have invited.”

Told are the Fifteen Cases on Being in Doubt.

Fifteen cases of acting badly

“This is a case, … as in Kd.4.9.1 … Thinking, ‘Indeed, it is allowable for us to invite, it is not unallowable for us’, they, acting badly, invited. While they are inviting … offence of wrong-doing for those who have invited.

“This is a case, … cf. Kd.4.8.2, Kd.4.8.3 … they should invite in their presence, and there is an offence of wrong-doing for those who have invited.”

Told are the Fifteen Cases on Acting Badly.

Fifteen cases of aiming at schism

“This is a case, … … They know that there are other resident monks who have not arrived. Saying: ‘These are perishing, these are being destroyed, what good are these to you?’ they invite, aiming at a schism. While they are inviting, other resident monks, a larger number, arrive. Monks, those monks should invite again, and there is a grave offence for those who have invited.

“This is a case, … cf. Kd.4.8.2, Kd.4.8.3; Read grave offence instead of offence of wrong-doing; in the case of a like number a smaller number read those who have invited have duly invited, the rest should invite. … they should invite in their presence, and there is a grave offence for those who have invited.”

Told are the Fifteen Cases on aiming at a Schism.

Told are the Seventy-five Cases.

Abbreviated repetitions on entering a boundary

“This is a case, … They know that other resident monks are entering within the boundary. They know that other resident monks have entered within the boundary. They see other resident monks entering within the boundary. They see other resident monks entered within the boundary. They hear other resident monks entering within the boundary. They hear other resident monks who have entered within the boundary.

“From a hundred and seventy-five triads referring to resident (monks) with resident (monks); to incoming (monks) with resident (monks); to resident (monks) with incoming (monks); to incoming (monks) with incoming (monks), there come to be seven hundred triads by means of (these) sets.

Various days

“This is a case, monks, where the fourteenth is (the Invitation day) for resident monks, the fifteenth for incoming monks … = Kd.2.34.1–2.35.5. Read they should invite, they invite, on an Invitation day instead of Observance should be carried out, they carry out the Observance, on an Observance day. … if he knows, ‘I am able to arrive this very day’.

Visible characteristics

Note by Sujato: this section, which repeats the material from the corresponding section of the Uposathakkhandhaka, is not included in Horner’s translation.

Invitation with those of different communion, etc.

Note by Sujato: this section, which repeats the material from the corresponding section of the Uposathakkhandhaka, is not included in Horner’s translation.

Portion on should not go

See previous note.

Portion on should go

See previous note.

Seeing a blameworthy person

“Monks, one should not invite in a seated assembly before a nun … …

“Monks, one should not invite by giving the Invitation of one on probation unless the assembly has not risen. And, monks, one should not invite on a non-Invitation day unless the Order be unanimous.”

Invitation with two statements, etc.

Now at that time in a certain residence in the Kosala country there came to be a menace from savages on an Invitation day. The monks were unable to invite by using the threefold formula. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to invite by using a two-fold formula.” The menace from the savages became even greater. The monks were unable to invite by using the two-fold formula. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to invite by using a onefold formula.” The menace from the savages became even greater. The monks were unable to invite by using the onefold formula. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to invite those who keep the rains (all) together.”

Now at that time in a certain residence people were giving gifts on an Invitation day until the night was almost ended. Then it occurred to those monks: “People are giving gifts until the night is almost ended. If the Order invites by the threefold formula, then the Order will not be invited before dawn breaks. Now what line of conduct should be followed by us?” They told this matter to the Lord.

He said: “This is a case, monks, … as in Kd.4.15.2 … before dawn breaks’. The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. People are giving gifts until the night is almost ended. If the Order invites by the threefold formula, then the Order will not be invited before dawn breaks. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may invite those who keep the rains together by a twofold formula, by a onefold formula.’

“This is a case, monks, where in a certain residence on an Invitation day monks are speaking dhamma, those versed in the discourses are chanting a discourse, the discipline experts are propounding discipline, the talkers on dhamma are discussing dhamma, monks are quarrelling until the night is almost ended. If it then occurs to these monks: ‘Monks are quarrelling until the night is almost ended. If the Order invites by the threefold formula, then the Order will not be invited before dawn breaks’, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. Monks are quarrelling … the Order will not be invited before dawn breaks. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may invite those who keep the rains together by a twofold formula, by a onefold formula.’”

Now at that time in a certain residence in the Kosala country a large Order of monks came to have collected together on an Invitation day, and (only) a small (place) was sheltered from the rain and a great cloud had come up. Then it occurred to these monks: “Now this large Order of monks has collected together, and (only) a small (place) is sheltered from the rain and a great cloud has come up. If the Order invites by the threefold formula, then the Order will not be invited before this cloud pours down rain. Now what line of conduct should be followed by us?” They told this matter to the Lord.

He said: “This is a case, monks, where in a certain residence a large Order of monks has collected together on an Invitation day, and (only) a small (place) … as in Kd.4.15.5 above … If it then occurs to these monks: ‘Now this large Order of monks … pours down rain’, the Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This large Order of monks … pours down rain. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may invite those who keep the rains together by a twofold formula, by a onefold formula.’

“This is a case, monks, where in a certain residence on an Invitation day there comes to be a danger from kings … from thieves … from fire … from water … from human beings … from non-human beings … from beasts of prey … from creeping things … to life … to the Brahma-faring. It then occurs to these monks: ‘Now this is a danger to the Brahma-faring. If the Order invites by the threefold formula, then the Order will not be invited before there is a danger to the Brahma-faring.’ The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This is a danger to the Brahma-faring. If the Order invites by the threefold formula, then the Order will not be invited before there is a danger to the Brahma-faring. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may invite those who keep the rains together by a twofold formula, by a onefold formula.’”

Setting aside the invitation

Now at that time the group of six monks invited (while they were) offenders. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, an offender should not invite. Whoever (such) should invite, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, having obtained leave from whatever offender is inviting, to reprove him for the offence.”

Now at that time the group of six monks, (although) obtaining leave, did not wish to give leave. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “I allow you, monks, to suspend the invitation of one not giving leave. And thus, monks, should it be suspended: If on an Invitation day, whether the fourteenth or the fifteenth, one should say in the presence of that individual, in the midst of the Order: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The individual so-and-so is an offender; I am suspending his invitation; one should not invite in his presence’, the invitation comes to be suspended.”

Now at that time the group of six monks, saying: “Before well behaved monks suspend our invitation”, themselves suspended beforehand, without ground, without reason, the invitation of pure monks who were not offenders, and they also suspended the invitation of those who had (already) invited. They told this matter to the Lord. He said: “Monks, one should not suspend without ground, without reason, the invitation of pure monks who are not offenders. Whoever should (so) suspend it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. Nor, monks, should one suspend the invitation of those who have invited. Whoever should (so) suspend it, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

“Monks, an invitation comes to be (duly) suspended thus, not (duly) suspended thus. And how, monks, does an invitation come to be not (duly) suspended? If, monks, one suspends an invitation when the invitation has been spoken, uttered and brought to a close by the threefold formula, the invitation comes to be not (duly) suspended. If, monks, one suspends an invitation when the invitation has been spoken, uttered and brought to a close by a twofold formula … by a onefold formula … by those keeping the rains together, an invitation comes to be not (duly) suspended. It is thus, monks, that an invitation comes to be not (duly) suspended.

“And how, monks, does an invitation come to be (duly) suspended? If, monks, one suspends an invitation when the invitation has been spoken, uttered, but not brought to a close by the threefold formula, the invitation comes to be (duly) suspended. If, monks, one suspends … but not brought to a close by the twofold formula … by the onefold formula … by those keeping the rains together, the invitation comes to be (duly) suspended. It is thus, monks, that an invitation comes to be (duly) suspended.

“This is a case, monks, when on an Invitation day a monk suspends (another) monk’s invitation. If other monks know concerning this monk: ‘This venerable one is not pure in the conduct of his body, he is not pure in the conduct of his speech, he is not pure in his mode of livelihood; he is ignorant, inexperienced; he is not competent when being himself questioned to give an explanation,’ and if having snubbed him, they say: ‘That’s enough, monk, let there be no strife, let there be no quarrel, let there be no dispute, let there be no contention’, the Order may invite.

“This is a case, monks, … as in Kd.4.16.6 above ‘… is pure in the conduct of his body, but he is not pure in the conduct of his speech, he is not pure in his mode of livelihood … to give an explanation’, … the Order may invite.

“This is a case, monks, … as in Kd.4.16.6 above ‘… is pure in the conduct of his body, he is pure in the conduct of his speech, but he is not pure in his mode of livelihood …’. the Order may invite.

“This is a case, monks … as in Kd.4.16.6 above ‘… is pure in the conduct of his body, pure in the conduct of his speech, pure in his mode of livelihood; but he is ignorant, inexperienced; he is not competent when himself being questioned …’ … the Order may invite.

“This is a case, monks, … as in Kd.4.16.6 above ‘… is pure in the conduct of his body … pure in his mode of livelihood; he is learned, experienced; he is competent when being himself questioned to give an explanation’, one should speak thus to him: ‘If you, your reverence, suspend this monk’s invitation, why do you suspend it? Do you suspend it on account of a falling away from moral habit? Do you suspend it on account of a falling away from good habits? Do you suspend it on account of a falling away from (right) view?’

“If he should speak thus: ‘I suspend it on account of a falling away from moral habit … a falling away from (right) view’, one should speak thus to him: ‘But does your reverence know what is a falling away from moral habit … a falling away from (right) view?’ If he should speak thus: ‘I know, your reverence, what is a falling away from moral habit … a falling away from (right) view’, one should speak thus to him: ‘But which, your reverence, is a falling away from moral habit, which is a falling away from good habits, which is a falling away from (right) view?’

“If he should speak thus: ‘This is a falling away from moral habit: the four offences involving defeat, the thirteen offences entailing a formal meeting of the Order. This is a falling away from good habits: a grave offence, an offence of expiation, an offence which ought to be confessed, an offence of wrong-doing, an offence of wrong speech. This is a falling away from (right) view: a wrong view, taking up an extreme view’, one should speak thus to him: ‘But if you, your reverence, suspend this monk’s invitation, do you suspend it on account of what was seen, do you suspend it on account of what was heard, do you suspend it on account of what was suspected?’

“If he should speak thus: ‘I am suspending it on account of what was seen, or, I am suspending it on account of what was heard, or, I am suspending it on account of what was suspected’, one should speak to him thus: ‘But, if you, your reverence, are suspending this monk’s invitation on account of what was seen, how have you seen, when have you seen, where have you seen? Have you seen him committing an offence involving defeat? Was he seen committing an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order? Was he seen committing a grave offence, an offence of expiation, an offence which ought to be confessed, an offence of wrong-doing, an offence of wrong speech? And where were you? And where was this monk? And what were you doing? And what was this monk doing?’

“If he should speak thus: ‘But I, your reverences, am not suspending this monk’s invitation on account of what was seen, but I am suspending the invitation on account of what was heard’, one should speak to him thus: ‘But, if you, your reverence, suspend this monk’s invitation on account of what was heard, what have you heard, how have you heard, when have you heard, where have you heard? Did you hear that he had committed an offence involving defeat? Did you hear that he had committed an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order? Did you hear that he had committed a grave offence, an offence of expiation, an offence which ought to be confessed, an offence of wrong-doing, an offence of wrong speech? Did you hear from a monk? Did you hear from a nun … a probationer … a novice … a woman novice … a lay-follower … a woman lay-follower … kings … king’s ministers … from leaders of (other) sects … from disciples of (other) sects?’

“If he should speak thus: ‘But I, your reverences, am not suspending this monk’s invitation on account of what was heard, but I am suspending the invitation on account of what was suspected one should speak to him thus: ‘But, if you, your reverence, are suspending this monk’s invitation on account of what was suspected, what did you suspect, how did you suspect, when did you suspect, where did you suspect? Did you suspect that he had committed an offence involving defeat? Did you suspect that he had committed an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order? Did you suspect that he had committed a grave offence, an offence of expiation, an offence which ought to be confessed, an offence of wrong-doing, an offence of wrong speech? Did you suspect, having heard from a monk … from disciples of (other) sects?’

“If he should speak thus: ‘But I, your reverences, am not suspending this monk’s invitation on account of what was suspected, moreover I do not know on account of what I am suspending this monk’s invitation’, and if, monks, the reproving monk does not satisfy his intelligent fellows in the Brahma-faring with his explanation, it is sufficient to say that the reproved monk is blameless. But if the reproving monk satisfies his intelligent fellows in the Brahma-faring with his explanation, it is sufficient to say that the reproved monk is blameworthy.

“If that reproving monk, monks, admits that he has defamed (another monk) with an unfounded charge of an offence involving defeat, then the Order, having charged him with an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order, may invite. If, monks, that reproving monk admits that he has defamed (another monk) with an unfounded charge of an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order, the Order, having had him dealt with according to the rule, may invite. If, monks, that reproving monk admits that he has defamed (another monk) with an unfounded charge involving a grave offence, an offence of expiation, an offence which ought to be confessed, an offence of wrong doing, an offence of wrong speech, the Order, having had him dealt with according to the rule, may invite.

“If, monks, that reproved monk admits that he has committed an offence involving defeat, the Order, having expelled him, may invite. If, monks, that reproved monk admits that he has committed an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order, the Order, having charged him with an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order, may invite. If, monks, that reproved monk admits that he has committed a grave offence … an offence of wrong speech, the Order, having had him dealt with according to the rule, may invite.

Basis for a grave offence, etc.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk comes to have committed a grave offence on an Invitation day. Some monks view it as a grave offence, other monks view it as an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order. Monks, those monks who view it as a grave offence, having led that monk to one side, having had him dealt with according to the rule, having approached the Order, should speak to it thus: ‘Your reverences, the monk who has fallen into that offence has made amends for it according to rule. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may invite.’

“This is a case, monks, where a monk comes to have committed a grave offence on an Invitation day. Some monks view it as a grave offence, other monks view it as an offence of expiation. Some monks view it as a grave offence, other monks view it as an offence which ought to be confessed. Some monks view it as a grave offence, other monks view it as an offence of wrong-doing. Some monks view it as a grave offence, other monks view it as an offence of wrong speech. Monks, those monks who view it as a grave offence … = Kd.4.16.19 ‘… the Order may invite’.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk comes to have committed an offence of expiation on an Invitation day … an offence which ought to be confessed … an offence of wrong-doing … an offence of wrong speech. Some monks view it as an offence of wrong speech, other monks view it as an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order. Monks, those monks who view it as an offence of wrong speech … = Kd.4.16.19 ‘… the Order may invite’.

“This is a case, monks, where a monk comes to have committed an offence of wrong speech on an Invitation day. Some monks view it as an offence of wrong speech, other monks view it as a grave offence; some monks … as an offence of wrong speech, other monks … of expiation; some monks … offence of wrong speech, other monks … which ought to be confessed; some monks view it as an offence of wrong speech, other monks view it as an offence of wrong-doing. Monks, those monks who view it as an offence of wrong speech … = Kd.4.16.19) ‘… the Order may invite’.

“This is a case, monks, where if on an Invitation day a monk should speak in the midst of the Order, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This matter is known but not the individual’. If it seems right to the Order, the Order, having set aside the matter, may invite’, and he should be spoken to thus: ‘Your reverence, Invitation is laid down by the Lord for those who are pure. If the matter is known but not the individual, speak about that now at once.’

“This is a case, monks, where if on an Invitation day a monk should speak in the midst of the Order, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This individual is known but not the matter. If it seems right to the Order, the Order, having set aside the individual, may invite; and he should be spoken to thus: ‘Your reverence, Invitation is laid down by the Lord for those who are complete. If the individual is known but not the matter, speak about that now at once.’

“This is a case, monks, … ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. This matter is known and the individual. If it seems right to the Order, the Order, having set aside the matter and the individual, may invite’, and he should be spoken to thus: ‘Your reverence, Invitation is laid down by the Lord for the pure and for those who are complete. If the matter is known and also the individual, speak about that now at once.’

“If, monks, the matter is known before an Invitation day, the individual afterwards, it is right to say so. If, monks, the individual is known before an Invitation day, the matter afterwards, it is right to say so. If, monks, both the matter and the individual are known before an Invitation day, and (a monk) opens up (the cases) after the Invitation is finished, there is an offence of expiation for opening up.”

The story of makers of strife

Now at that time several monks, friends and associates, entered on the rains in a certain residence in the Kosala country. In their neighbourhood other monks, makers of strife, makers of quarrels, makers of dispute, makers of contention, makers of legal questions in an Order, entered on the rains, saying: “When these monks have kept the rains we will suspend the invitation on an Invitation day.” But those monks heard: “It is said that in our neighbourhood other monks … entered on the rains, saying: ‘When these monks … on an Invitation day. ‘Now, what line of conduct should be followed by us?” They told this matter to the Lord.

He said: “This is a case, monks, where several monks, friends and associates, enter on the rains in a certain residence. In their neighbourhood … as in Kd.4.17.1 ‘… on an Invitation day’ I allow you, monks, to carry out two or three Observances with these monks on the fourteenth (day), thinking: ‘How can we invite before those monks (invite)?’ If, monks, those monks who are makers of strife … makers of legal questions in an Order, arrive at a residence, then, monks, those resident monks, having gathered together quickly, may invite; and having invited, they should say (to the others): ‘We, your reverences, have invited; let the venerable ones do what seems fitting.’

“If, monks, those monks who are makers of strife … makers of legal questions in the Order, arrive unexpectedly at that residence, those resident monks should make ready a seat, they should bring forward water for washing the feet, a footstool, a footstand, having gone to meet them they should receive their bowls and robes, they should offer them drinking water; having looked after them, (then) having gone outside the boundary, they may invite; having invited, they should say (to the others): ‘We, your reverences, have invited; let the venerable ones do what seems fitting.’

“If they should thus manage this, it is good. But if they do not manage it, the resident monks should be informed by an experienced, competent resident monk, saying: ‘Let the venerable ones who are residents listen to me. If it seems right to the venerables ones, we may now carry out the Observance, we may recite the Pātimokkha, we may invite on the next new-moon day’. If, monks, those monks who are makers of strife … makers of legal questions in the Order, should speak thus to these monks: ‘All right, your reverences, but let us invite now at once’, they should be spoken to thus: ‘But you, your reverences, are not masters of our Invitation (-day), we will not invite yet’.

“If, monks, these monks who are makers of strife … makers of legal questions in the Order, should stay on until that new-moon day, then, monks, the resident monks should be informed by an experienced, competent resident monk … ‘… let us invite on the next full-moon day’ … as in Kd.4.17.4 ‘… we will not invite yet’.

“If, monks, those monks who are makers of strife … should stay on until that full-moon day, then monks, these monks, each and every one, must invite on the next full-moon day of the komudī cātumāsinī, (even if) they are unwilling.

“If, monks, while these monks are themselves inviting, an ill one suspends the invitation of one who is not ill, he should be spoken to thus: ‘The venerable one is ill, and it is said by the Lord that one who is ill is not able to endure being questioned. Wait, your reverence, until you are well, when you are well you can reprove him if you desire to do so’. If being spoken to thus, he (nevertheless) reproves him, in disrespect there is an offence of expiation.

“If, monks, while these monks are themselves inviting, one who is not ill suspends an ill one ‘s invitation, he should be spoken to thus: ‘Your reverence, this monk is ill, and it is said by the Lord that one who is ill is not able to endure being questioned. Wait, your reverence, until this monk is well; when he is well you can reprove him if you desire to do so’. If being spoken to thus, he (nevertheless) reproves him, in disrespect there is an offence of expiation.

“If, monks, while these monks are themselves inviting, an ill one suspends an ill one’s invitation, he should be spoken to thus: ‘The venerable ones are ill … being questioned. Wait, your reverence, until you are (both) well; when he is well you can reprove him if you desire to do so’. If, being spoken to thus, he (nevertheless) reproves him, in disrespect there is an offence of expiation.

“If, monks, while these monks are themselves inviting, one who is not ill suspends the invitation of (another) who is not ill, the Order having questioned both closely and cross-questioned them, having had them dealt with according to the rule, may invite.”

Harmonious invitation

Now at that time several monks, friends and companions, entered on the rains in a certain residence in the Kosala country. While these were staying together on friendly terms and harmonious, a certain comfort was arrived at. Then it occurred to these monks: “While we are staying together … arrived at. But if we should invite now, it may be that (some) monks, having invited, may set forth on tour, and so we will come to lose this comfort. Now what line of conduct should be followed by us?” They told this matter to the Lord.

He said: “This is a case, monks, where several monks friends and companions, enter on the rains in a certain residence. While these are staying together … arrived at. If it then occurs to these monks: ‘While we are staying together so we will come to lose this comfort’. I allow you, monks, to make a protection of an Invitation day.

“And thus, monks, should it be made: Each and every one should gather together in the same place; when they have gathered together, the Order should be informed by an experienced competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. While we were staying together … so will we come to lose this comfort. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may make a protection of an Invitation day, it may carry out the Observance, it may recite the Pātimokkha now; the Order may invite on the next komudī cātumāsinī day. This is the motion.

“‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. While we were staying together … so will we come to lose this comfort. The Order is making a protection of the Invitation day; it will carry out the Observance, it will recite the Pātimokkha now; it will invite on the next komudī cātumāsinī day. If the making a protection of the Invitation day (by the Order) is pleasing to the venerable ones (so that) it will carry out the Observance, will recite the Pātimokkha now, and will invite on the next komudī cātumāsinī day, you should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. A protection of the Invitation day is made by the Order, it will carry out the Observance, it will recite the Pātimokkha now, and it will invite on the next komudī cātumāsinī day. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand this.’

“If, monks, when these monks have made a protection of an Invitation day, any monk should speak thus: ‘I want, your reverences, to set forth on a tour of the country, I have business to do in the country’, he should be spoken to thus: ‘Very well, your reverence, you can go when you have invited.’ And if, monks, that monk, while he is inviting, suspends another’s invitation, he should be spoken to thus: ‘You, your reverence, are not master of my Invitation day, I will not invite yet’. And if, monks, any monk suspends that monk’s invitation while that monk is inviting, the Order, having questioned both closely and cross-questioned them, should have them dealt with according to the rule.

“If, monks, that monk, having concluded his business in the country, returns again to that residence before the komudī cātumāsinī day and if, monks, while those monks are inviting, any monk suspends that monk’s invitation, he should be spoken to thus: ‘You, your reverence, are not master of my Invitation day, I have invited (already)’. If, monks, while those monks are inviting, that monk suspends any monk’s invitation, the Order, having questioned both closely and having cross-questioned them, and having had them dealt with according to the rule, may invite.”

The Fourth Section: that on Invitation