Dear Ajahn @Brahmali ,
At pli-tv-bi-vb-pc48:2.1.7 it seems that previous translators have understood atikkāmentiyā to mean leaving the dwelling that should have been relinquished. This doesn’t really seem tenable to me, however, as anissajjitvā is an aorist, suggesting the nun is supposed to relinquish her dwelling while still standing inside it?
My reading of the Pāli here is that atikkāmentiyā is instead referring to entering a new dwelling. Under this reading, the meaning is that the offense is incurred at the moment that the nun accepts and enters a new dwelling without having previously relinquished her old dwelling.
This reading makes more sense as it gives a sensible definition for cārikaṁ: a journey long enough to lodge elsewhere. Under Horner’s reading, a nun must relinquish her dwelling every time she leaves it, even just to go on alms round. Which defeats the purpose of even assigning lodgings.
To make it clear, your current translation:
if she crosses the boundary of an enclosed lodging without first relinquishing [it] to a nun, a trainee nun, or a novice nun, she commits an offense entailing confession.
I would instead translate as:
if she crosses the boundary of an enclosed lodging without first relinquishing [her old lodging] to a nun, a trainee nun, or a novice nun, she commits an offense entailing confession.
Is this reading tenable / reasonable in your opinion? 
Or is there something I’ve missed?
1 Like
I can’t see the difference? ‘it’ being her old lodging.
You know, I had never read this definition section before for this rule!
This would technically mean I would need to drag another monastic to my kuti to relinquish it, rather than just handing over my keys or verbally relinquishing it in the main Saṇgha area to another monastic.
1 Like
Hi Venerable,
My take is that cārika implies going for a long time, and that it includes staying elsewhere overnight. For instance, in the Vassupanāyika-kkhandaka (Kd 3), a monk is not supposed to go cārika during the rainy-season residence. This is understood to mean that you have to greet each dawn of the vassa within the same monastery. In other words, you cannot stay elsewhere overnight. If we understand cārika in this way, then there is no ambiguity in Bi Pc 48.
The problem with your suggested interpretation is that you will have to relinquish the dwelling to someone who is not part of the original monastery you were staying in. The nuns at your original monastery may not find put that you have actually relinquished the dwelling. Presumably the purpose of the rule is to ensure the dwelling becomes available for someone else, and so the relinquishment should be done in the presence of someone staying in the original monastery.
Still, you are right that the word commentary’s idea of going beyond the boundary of the lodging is strange. It would make better sense if this was the boundary of the monastery, so that the bhikkhunī would be given a proper chance of telling someone else. To my mind, it is reasonable to set aside the Vibhaṅga definition in this case. Otherwise this rule becomes impossible to keep.
2 Likes
Thank you for your quick reply, Bhante!
Thanks! That’s a great reference and I’m glad our interpretations here are so closely aligned 
Right. I’m glad to hear you agree this is impossible as stated.
I guess (?) where I depart is that I prefer translating or interpreting the Vibhaṅga in a more reasonable way if it’s at all possible grammatically. To me, setting aside the Vibhaṅga should be a last resort only where a more charitable reading is not possible.
Ah that’s not what I was intending to suggest. Obviously a kuti needs to be relinquished to its community.
I was suggesting that the offense is incurred when the new kuti is accepted.
For example, if a nun leaves the monastery intending to go on a journey without relinquishing her kuti but then remembers this rule while on the road and so goes back to the temple to relinquish it, would that break the rule or not? I’d think it should not, but in your interpretation (“the boundary of the monastery”) it would?
3 Likes
As further evidence for my interpretation, I’ll point out that in pli-tv-bu-vb-pc83 atikkāmeyya is clearly used to mean entering a dwelling (not leaving one)
1 Like
Interesting! I think you may be onto something. 
I’ll consider it further before I make a final decision.
1 Like
