May the Ven. Sirs allow my person to ask in regard of the Vinaya, here in this public section (it can be moved, if wished, to another, maybe more proper area, if that here might be an obstacle).
May space be given, may it not disturbe, Ven. Sir Thanissaro, Ven. Sir
Nyanadassana , Ven. Sir
Hasapanno , Ven. Sir Khematto, (via
Dhammatalks ), Ven. Sir. my person is not gifted able to adress personal,
while translating the generous translation of the
Mahavagga , by Bhante Khematto, on the way, in the middle of the
Uposatha Khandhaka , within the
Saṅghuposathādippabhedaṃ — Analysis of the Saṅgha-uposatha, etc. , under the
PTS § 26.10 the thought arose: "There seems to be a contadiction, if a clear 'no fractional Uposatha should be held' has general priority, like told.
The commentary, shared by Ven. Thanissaro, seemingly displaying also the practiced usual, explains for the "paradoxk here:
Borderline quorums. The Canon states that if there are four bhikkhus in the territory, the Pāṭimokkha is not to be recited by three after the purity of one has been conveyed. The Commentary to Mv.II.14.2 adds that the three should not perform a mutual purity uposatha. This leaves only one option: All four must gather — if necessary, in the dwelling of the bhikkhu who was planning to send his purity — and recite the Pāṭimokkha. Similarly, if there are two or three bhikkhus in the territory, all must attend the uposatha meeting; none of them may have their purity conveyed.
Given that unity has priority, it seems to be reasonable. Not sure if there are commentaries of older times as well in this regard.
But now, when remembering the
Ñātakādiggahaṇakathā — The Discussion of Seizure by Relatives, etc. , here the commentary to the also unclear seeming rules, seems to side the frational against no Uposatha, reading the commentary by Ven. Bhante Thanissaro:
When a bhikkhu is seized. If relatives, kings (government officials), robbers, mischief-makers, or opponents of the bhikkhus happen to seize a bhikkhu in the territory on the uposatha day, bhikkhus should ask them to release him at least long enough to participate in the uposatha. If they do, well and good. If not, the bhikkhus should ask them to release him long enough to give his purity. If they do, well and good. If not, the bhikkhus should ask them to take him outside the territory while the Community performs its uposatha. If they do, well and good. If not, the Community may not meet in that territory for the uposatha that day.
If that is the conclusion, which seems seemingly in line with the translation, here it is the case that the performans (without laypeople present) seems to be more importand then unity.
Now, what in the case if it was meant, that if letting go of him was managed, after the statement, and not to seperate?
So here the answer to the question of priority in general, unity vs. Uposatha-transaction, or simply just according the (more or lesser unclear single rules, following merely commentars) rules, seems to be reasonable to raise.
Why? Because it would not only give a better general orientation, what ever the answer might be, for many Bhikkhus and Sangha, but also for other people, in regard how to handle task vs. unity.
Following my persons perception of the situation in regard of the rules given in the Uposatha, the Uposatha should best possible be hold in unity. If there are "outwardly" conditions hindering to do so, if remembering the "Danger" issue in the Vassa section, the Uposatha might not be hold. If the obstacle is merely a single Bhikkhus "outwardly" obstacle, like when looking after the insane-case, the Sangha should prepear the ways to hold it, putting a non-intentional cause of a single person aside.
In the case of the "sick" Bhikkhu, the/a Sangha would be burdened, if performing the Uposatha next to him, was meant. On the other side it's understandable if the even stronger binding of a tiny community was objected...
Maybe the well versed Ven. Sirs can, if wishing and seeing a reason and possibility to lighten this case, out of compassion, pit upright of what was possible turned over. May the Ven. Sirs draw a leitmotif throught this cases, if such is seen to be of use and possible.
Is there a general priority in regard of unity vs. duty (for own benefit), a certain borderline, or should it be best followed case by case, like delivered by the elders, as far as seen?
If the Ven. Sirs, prefere to but it in an area, where issues of the topic could be properbly easier exchanged and discussed, please let it be known. It's lesser importand to supply with a detail discussion, than to supply with an answer in unity, by the elders, so that orientation might be easy for those with good confidence and for an increase of it general, for all those willing to follow behind.