On an observance hall

^Kd.2.8.1 Now at that time monks recited the Pātimokkha in successive cells ^Vin.1.107 without (making) a rendezvous.^[1] In-coming monks did not know or they thought, “Where will the Observance be carried out today?” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in successive cells without (making) a rendezvous. Whoever should (so) recite it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, to carry out the Observance having agreed upon an Observance-hall that the Order desires: a dwelling-place or a curved house or a long house or a mansion or a cave.^[2] And thus, monks, should it be agreed upon:

^Kd.2.8.2 “The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. If it seems right to the Order, the Order should agree upon such and such a dwelling-place as an Observance-hall. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The Order is agreeing upon such and such a dwelling-place as an Observance-hall. If the agreement upon such and such a dwelling-place as an Observance-hall is pleasing to the venerable ones, let them be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. Such and such a dwelling-place as an Observance-hall is agreed upon by the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent; thus do I understand this’.”

---

^Kd.2.8.3 Now at that time in a certain residence two Observance-halls came to be agreed upon. Monks assembled together in ^BD.4.140 both thinking: “Observance will be carried out here,” “Observance will be carried out here.” They told this matter to the Lord. He said:

“Monks, two Observance-halls in one residence should not be agreed upon. Whoever should (so) agree, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow you, monks, having abolished^[3] one, to carry out the Observance in one place (only).

^Kd.2.8.4 “And thus, monks, should it be abolished: The Order should be informed by an experienced, competent monk, saying: ‘Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. If it seems right to the Order, the Order may abolish such and such an Observance-hall. This is the motion. Honoured sirs, let the Order listen to me. The Order is abolishing such and such an Observance-hall. If the abolition of such and such an Observance-hall is pleasing to the venerable ones, they should be silent; he to whom it is not pleasing should speak. Such and such an Observance-hall is abolished by the Order. It is pleasing to the Order, therefore it is silent; thus do I understand this’.”

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

On saṃketa see BD.1.74, BD.1.88, BD.1.128, BD.1.135, BD.2.164, BD.2.239 (and n.3), BD.2.291, BD.2.294.

[2]:

Cf. above, Kd.1.30.4 (and notes) and Vin.1.284.

[3]:

Vin-a.1039 explains this to mean “having abolished one of the proclamations”, i.e. having rescinded one of the agreements so that one of the places already agreed upon as an Observance-hall is no longer regarded in this light.