English
the exemption in the udosita training rule would be meaningless." When this was said, it is said that the other monks said: "The Lord himself said that even a 'requisite cloth' should be resolved, therefore it is permissible." It is also said in the Mahāpaccari: "A 'requisite cloth' is a special way of storing; therefore, it is permissible to resolve the three robes as a 'requisite cloth' and use them. But in the udosita training rule, the exemption is stated for one who carries the three robes having resolved them." It is said that Mahātissatthera, the reciter of the Ubhatovibhaṅga, who resided in Puṇṇavālika, also said: "We heard from the great elders before, that forest-dwelling monks, having placed their robes in tree hollows, etc., or they go to exert effort. And for those who have gone to listen to Dhamma in a nearby monastery, when the sun has risen, the novices or young bhikkhus take their bowls and robes and go. Therefore, for easy use, it is proper to designate the three robes as 'accessory cloth'. It is also said in the Mahāpaccari: "Formerly, forest-dwelling bhikkhus, finding it difficult to manage in an unbound sīmā, designated their three robes as 'accessory cloth' and used them." The 'rain-bath robe', if not exceeding the measure, should be designated for the four rainy months in the manner stated by taking its name. After that, it should be revoked and offered for sharing. Even if it is merely dyed a different color, it is permissible. But two are not permissible. The 'sitting cloth' should be designated in the manner stated. And that, indeed, is only one of the proper measure; two are not permissible. The 'covering cloth' should also be designated. But that, even if large, is permissible; one is permissible; many are also permissible. Blue, yellow, patterned, flower-patterned— all kinds are permissible. Once designated, it remains designated. The 'scab-covering cloth', as long as there is an ailment, should be designated according to measure. When the ailment subsides, it should be revoked and offered for sharing. Only one is permissible. The 'mouth-wiping cloth' should be designated. As long as one is being washed, another is desired for use, so two are permissible. Other elders, however, say: "This is a storage item; many are permissible." There is no limit to 'accessory cloth'. As many as one desires, so many should be designated. A bag, a water-strainer, a 'small accessory cloth' of the measure of a last robe, which is not subject to sharing, should also be designated. It is also permissible to gather many together and designate them, saying: "These robes I designate as 'accessory cloth'." Even when keeping for medicine, new construction, parents, etc., it should be designated. However, in the Mahāpaccari, it is said: "No offense." A bed-cloth For the mat, the cushion, the pillow, the blanket, the rug— among these, given as requisites for a dwelling, there is no act of determination. But for one using a determined robe, how does the determination cease? By giving it to another, by taking it by force, by taking it presumptuously, by turning to a lower state, by renouncing the training, by dying, by changing gender, by revoking the determination, by being torn— by these nine reasons it ceases. Among these, by the first eight, all robes lose their determination. But by being torn, only for the three robes, in all commentaries, is the ceasing of determination stated, and that is by a tear the size of a fingernail. Here, the size of a fingernail should be understood as the fingernail of the little finger. And the tear must be a complete perforation. For if even one thread within the tear is not cut, it retains (its determination). Here, for the outer robe and the upper robe, a tear within an area one span from the long edge and eight finger-breadths from the crosswise edge breaks the determination. Beyond that, it does not break it. But for the inner robe, a tear within an area one span from the long edge and four finger-breadths from the crosswise edge breaks the determination. Beyond that, it does not break it. Therefore, when a tear occurs, that robe stands as an extra robe. Having mended it, it must be determined again. But the Elder Mahāsumana said: "For a standard-sized robe, a tear anywhere breaks the determination. But for a large one, a tear outside the standard size does not break the determination. One that occurs inside breaks it." The Elder Karavīkatissa said: "Small or large is not the measure. For one wearing two robes, in the place gathered and held by the left hand, a tear does not break the determination. In the lower part, it breaks it. And for the inner robe, in the place gathered when making a fold, a tear does not break it. Below that, it breaks it." In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, however, regarding the triple robe, making Mahāsumatthera's view the standard, this was further said: "The minimum size protects the determination." In a utility cloth, eight finger-breadths long by the Sugata-finger, and four finger-breadths wide, a hole anywhere invalidates the determination. In a large cloth, a hole beyond that does not invalidate the determination. This is the method for all robes to be determined. There, since for all robes to be determined, there is no other minimum size than the minimum size suitable for 'vikappana', for indeed, the size stated for the sitting cloth, the scab-covering cloth, and the rain-robe is the maximum, because anything beyond that is prohibited, it is not the minimum, because anything below that is not prohibited. Even for the triple robe, being less than the Sugata-robe size is only the maximum size. However, the minimum is not stated separately in the suttas. For face-wiping cloths, covering cloths, and utility cloths, there is no maximum limit at all. But the minimum limit is stated by the minimum suitable for 'vikappana'. Therefore, what was said in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, "The minimum size protects the determination," and then, showing the minimum size of eight by four Sugata-finger-breadths for the utility cloth alone, and referring to the minimum size of the triple robe and others, such as the five-fist-breadth type, saying, "This is the method for all robes to be determined," that does not fit. Even in the view of Karavīkatissa Thera, a hole was shown only from the length-end, not from the width-end, therefore that is undefined. In Mahāsumatthera's view, it was said: "For a standard-sized robe, a hole anywhere breaks the determination, but for a large one, a hole outside the standard size does not break the determination." But this was not said: "This particular robe is the standard size, and beyond this is a large robe." Moreover, here, the minimum size of the triple robe and others, such as the five-fist-breadth type, is intended. That If a hole outside the maximum measure does not break the determination, then for even the best robe or the middle robe, a hole outside the minimum measure should not break the determination. But it does break it. Therefore, this view is not well-defined. But this very first commentary view, this alone is the standard here. Why? Because it is well-defined. For the three robes, the maximum measure, the measure of a hole, and the measure of the place where a hole appears, are all defined and stated in all commentaries. Therefore, that view alone is the standard. Indeed, it was stated following the Buddha's intention. In other views, however, there is no definition, nor does the earlier agree with the later. But if one first puts a patch on a weak spot, and then cuts and removes the weak spot, the determination is not broken. The same rule applies to changing the border. If a hole appears or wears out in one layer of a double-layered robe, the determination is not broken. If one makes a small robe large, or makes a large robe small, the determination is not broken. If, while making both ends meet in the middle, one first cuts and then joins, the determination is broken. But if one joins and then cuts, it is not broken. Even for one who has it washed by launderers and made white, the determination remains a determination. This, then, is the decision regarding determination in the phrase "determines or designates within ten days." Regarding designation, however, there are two designations: designation in one's presence, and designation in one's absence. How does designation in one's presence occur? Knowing whether the robes are one or many, and whether they are present or not present, one should say, "This robe," or "These robes," or "This robe," or "These robes," "I designate for you." This is one designation in one's presence. By this much, it is permissible to put it aside. But it is not permissible to use it, or to give it away, or to determine it. "It is mine, they are mine, use them..." dispose of it, or do with it as you deem fit." When this is said, it is called a return. From then on, use and so forth are permissible. Another method: Likewise, knowing whether the robes are one or many, present or not present, in the presence of that very bhikkhu, saying: "this robe" or "these robes" or "that robe" or "those robes," and taking the name of any one of the five co-religionists whom one prefers, one should say: "I determine for the bhikkhu Tissa" or "for the bhikkhuni Tissa, for the female trainee, for the novice Tissa, for the female novice Tissa." This is another face-to-face determination. By this much, it is permissible to store it, but not even one of the uses and so forth is permissible. However, by that bhikkhu, when it is said: "use or dispose of or do with as you deem fit the property of the bhikkhu Tissa... or the property of the female novice Tissa," it is called a return. From then on, use and so forth are permissible. How is an indirect determination made? Likewise, knowing whether the robes are one or many, present or not present, saying: "this robe" or "these robes" or "that robe"