English
It is stated thus: "Then, bhikkhus, that bhikkhu, having approached the Saṅgha, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having bowed at the feet of the elder bhikkhus, having squatted, having raised his joined hands, should be addressed thus: 'Venerable sir, I have fallen into such-and-such an offence; I confess it.'" Here, however, if there is one robe, it should be said: "One nissaggiya pācittiya." If two, it should be said: "Two." If many, it should be said: "Many." In relinquishing, if one, it should be said according to the Pāli itself: "Venerable sir, this is my robe." If two or many, it should be said: "Venerable sir, these robes of mine have exceeded ten days and are nissaggiya; I relinquish these to the Saṅgha." One who cannot recite the Pāli should say it otherwise. A competent and capable bhikkhu should receive the confession of the offence. It should be received in the manner stated in the Khandhaka. For it is stated there thus: "A competent and capable bhikkhu should inform the Saṅgha: 'May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me. This bhikkhu, so-and-so, remembers, reveals, makes clear, and confesses an offence. If it is suitable for the Saṅgha, I would receive the confession of this bhikkhu, so-and-so.' Then he should be asked: 'Do you see it?' 'Yes, I see it.' 'You should restrain yourself in the future.'" In the case of two or many, the difference in wording should be understood in the same way as before. In the giving of robes, too, the difference in wording, "the Saṅgha this robe, these robes," should be understood according to the object. The same method applies to relinquishing to a group and to an individual. Regarding the confession and reception of offences, this is the Pāli here: "Then, bhikkhus, that bhikkhu, having approached many bhikkhus, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having bowed at the feet of the elder bhikkhus, having bowed down, having squatted, having raised the joined hands, they should be addressed thus: ‘I, venerable sir, have fallen into such-and-such an offense, I confess it.’ A competent and able bhikkhu should inform those bhikkhus: ‘May the venerable ones listen to me. This bhikkhu of such-and-such a name remembers, reveals, makes manifest, confesses an offense. If it is suitable for the venerable ones, I would receive the offense of this bhikkhu of such-and-such a name.’ He should be asked: ‘Do you see it?’ ‘Yes, I see it.’ ‘You should restrain yourself in the future.’ That bhikkhu, having approached one bhikkhu, having arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, having squatted, having raised the joined hands, should be addressed thus: ‘I, friend, have fallen into such-and-such an offense, I confess it.’ He should be asked: ‘Do you see it?’ ‘Yes, I see it.’ ‘You should restrain yourself in the future.’ (Cūḷava. 239). There, the naming of the offense and the difference in wording should be understood in the former manner. And just as in the confession to a group, so too in the confession to two, the Pāli should be understood. For if there were a difference, just as it is said, “I allow, bhikkhus, to perform the purification Uposatha for three, and thus, bhikkhus, it should be done. A competent and able bhikkhu should inform those bhikkhus,” and so on, having said “to perform the purification Uposatha for three,” then again, “I allow, bhikkhus, to perform the purification Uposatha for two, and thus, bhikkhus, it should be done. The elder bhikkhu, with his upper robe over one shoulder,” and so on (Mahāva. 168), the purification Uposatha for two is stated separately; so here too, a separate Pāli would be stated. But since there is none, it is understood that it is not stated, and the Pāli stated for the group is the Pāli here. However, in receiving the offense, there is this difference: just as when confessing an offense to a group, the bhikkhu receiving the offense lays down a motion, so without laying down a motion, one of the two receives it, just as a single individual receives it. An offense should be accepted. For two, there is no establishment of a motion, if it were, two would not declare their purification and Uposatha separately. Even in giving a relinquished robe, just as one says, "I give this robe to the venerable one," so it is permissible to say, "We give this robe to the venerable one." Indeed, there are even more serious acts requiring a motion and a second declaration that are said to "be done by announcement," and this is in line with them. However, a relinquished robe must be given; it is not permissible not to give it. This is merely an act of Vinaya. It is not thereby given to the Sangha, or to a group, or to an individual. 468. "One who perceives it as having passed the ten days" means one who, when the robe has passed ten days, perceives "this has passed," or when the ten days have passed, perceives "the ten days have passed." Here, perception does not protect from an offense of relinquishment and expiation. Even if one perceives it thus, that robe is still subject to relinquishment, and there is an offense of expiation. Or, "an act of Vinaya with relinquishment, and expiation" —both interpretations are valid. This method applies everywhere. "One who perceives what is not relinquished as relinquished" means one who, when it has not been given or relinquished to anyone, perceives "it has been relinquished by me." "One who perceives what is not lost as lost" means that thieves carry away many robes belonging to others, placed together with one's own robe. In that case, one perceives one's own robe, which is not lost, as lost. This method applies also to "not destroyed," etc. Here, "not plundered" should be understood as not plundered by breaking into a dwelling and forcibly carrying away. "One who uses it without relinquishing incurs an offense of wrong-doing" means if one wears it once or puts it on once, and walks about for a day without removing it from the body, there is only one offense. If one removes it and puts it on again, or puts it on again, there is an offense of wrong-doing for each use. There is no offense for one who adjusts a badly worn or badly put-on robe. There is also no offense for one who uses it belonging to another; the statement "no offense for one who receives and uses what was made by another" (Parā. 570) is supporting evidence here. When not passed. For one who has forgotten, and for one who is doubtful, an offense of wrong-doing is said concerning its use. 469. "No offense if one determines or makes a condition within ten days." Here, what is subject to determination and what is subject to conditioning should be understood. Therein is this Pāli text: Then it occurred to the bhikkhus: "Those things that were permitted by the Blessed One, whether 'the three robes' or 'the rain-cloak' or 'the sitting cloth' or 'the mat' or 'the scab-covering cloth' or 'the face-wiping cloth' or 'the accessory cloth'— are all of them to be determined, or are they to be conditioned?" They reported this matter to the Blessed One: "I allow, bhikkhus, the three robes to be determined, not conditioned; the rain-cloak to be determined for the four months of the rainy season, thereafter to be conditioned; the sitting cloth to be determined, not conditioned; the mat to be determined, not conditioned; the scab-covering cloth to be determined as long as the ailment lasts, thereafter to be conditioned; the face-wiping cloth to be determined, not conditioned; the accessory cloth to be determined, not conditioned." (Mahāvagga 358). "There, by one who determines the three robes," having dyed it, having given the mark (kappabindu), it should be determined only if it is of the proper size. Its size, by the highest measure, is acceptable if it is less than the Sugata's robe. By the lowest measure, for the outer robe and the upper robe, a length of five fists and a width of three fists is acceptable. The inner robe is acceptable if it is five fists long and two cubits wide. For indeed, with a covering, it is possible to cover the navel. However, what is more or less than the stated size should be determined as an accessory cloth. There, since it is said, "There are two ways of determining a robe – one determines by body, or one determines by speech" (Parivāra 322), therefore, having revoked an old outer robe saying, "I revoke this outer robe," and having taken a new outer robe in hand, one should intend in mind, "I determine this outer robe..." by making a bodily gesture, it should be resolved with the body. This resolution by the body, is not valid for one who does not touch it with any part of the body. But for resolution by speech, having broken the speech, it should be resolved with speech. Therein, there are two kinds of resolution: if it is within reach, the speech "I resolve this outer robe" should be broken. If it is inside the chamber, or on an upper storey, or in a nearby monastery, having noted the place where it is kept, the speech "I resolve that outer robe" should be broken. This method applies to the upper robe and the inner robe as well. Only the name is different. Therefore, all of them, the outer robe, the upper robe, the inner robe, should be resolved by their own names in this way. If, having resolved them, one makes outer robes, etc., from the clothes that were kept, when the dyeing and stiffening are finished, one should revoke them by saying "I revoke this," and then resolve them again. But if one sews a second piece or a patch, which is much larger, together with the resolved one, it must be resolved again. If it is the same size or smaller, there is no need for a resolution. But regarding the three robes, is it permissible or not permissible to resolve them as a 'requisite cloth'? It is said that Mahāpadumatthera said: "The three robes should be resolved as the three robes themselves. If the resolution of a 'requisite cloth' were allowed,