BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Saṅghādisesa Chapter 5not constitute a disturbance and adequate space, and requires that they be chosenby a formal motion with one announcement. The Commentary says that they mayalso be chosen by a simple declaration (apalokana), but this opinion violates theprinciple set forth in Mv.IX.3.3 that if a shorter form is used for a transactionrequiring a longer form, the transaction is invalid. Thus the Commentary's opinionhere cannot stand.The inspectors then visit the site. If they find any disturbances or see that the sitehas inadequate space, they should tell the bhikkhu not to build there. If the sitepasses inspection, though, they should return and inform the Community that thesite is free of disturbances and has adequate space.— Getting the site approved. The bhikkhu returns to the Community and formallyasks it to approve the site. The transaction statement involves a motion and oneannouncement. Once this has passed, the bhikkhu may start construction.Offenses. The Vibhaṅga allots the penalties related to the factor of object — a hutwithout a sponsor, for one's own use, built without regard for the stipulations in thisrule — as follows:an oversized hut — a saṅghādisesa;a hut on an unapproved site — a saṅghādisesa;a hut on a site without adequate space — a dukkaṭa;a hut on a site without adequate space — a dukkaṭa;a hut on a site with disturbances — a dukkaṭa.These penalties are additive. Thus, for example, an oversized hut on an unapprovedsite would entail a double saṅghādisesa.The wording of the training rule, though, suggests that building a hut without asponsor, for one's own use, on a site with disturbances and without adequatespace would entail a saṅghādisesa; but the Sub-commentary says — withoutoffering explanation — that to read the rule in this way is to misinterpret it. Becausethe penalty for a multiple saṅghādisesa is the same as that for a single one, there isonly one case where this would make an appreciable difference: a hut of the propersize, built on an approved site that has disturbances or does not have adequatespace. This is a case of a Community transaction improperly performed: Either thebhikkhus inspecting the site were incompetent, or the disturbances were notimmediately apparent. Because the usual penalty for improperly performing aCommunity transaction is a dukkaṭa (Mv.II.16.4), this may be why the Vibhaṅgaallots penalties as it does. As we noted in the Introduction, in cases where theVibhaṅga is explaining the training rules that deal with Community transactions, itsometimes has to deviate from the wording of the rules to bring them in line with thegeneral pattern for such transactions, a pattern that was apparently formulated afterthe rules and came to take precedence over them.107