English
or "those robes," one should say: "I give it to you for determination." Then it should be said (by the other): "Who is your friend or acquaintance?" Then by the other, in the previous manner, "the bhikkhu Tissa..." or "the female novice Tissa" should be said. Again, by that bhikkhu, "I give it to the bhikkhu Tissa..." or "I give it to the female novice Tissa" should be said. This is an indirect 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 in the manner stated for the second face-to-face determination: "use or dispose of or do with as you deem fit the property of so-and-so," it is called a return. From then on... from that time, even things like use are permissible. What is the difference between the two kinds of designation? In direct designation, one designates oneself and has another revoke it. In indirect designation, one has another designate and has another revoke it. This is the difference here. If, however, the one for whom it is designated is not skilled in terminology, and does not know how to revoke it, one should take that robe, go to another skilled person, and have it designated again and revoked. This is called "designation of a designated item," and it is permissible. This is the explanation of the word "designates" in this passage. From the statement, "I allow, monks, the three robes to be determined, but not designated," this word "designates," spoken without distinction, seems contradictory, but the Tathāgatas do not speak contradictorily. Therefore, its meaning should be understood thus: "I allow the three robes to be determined only, for one who keeps them as a set of three robes, but not designated." However, a rain-cloak is to be designated only, not determined, after four months. And if this is the case, for one who wishes to dwell apart with one of the three robes, the determination of the three robes is revoked, and an opportunity for designation is given for the ease of dwelling apart. And there is no offense if ten days are exceeded. By this method, the non-prohibition of designation everywhere should be understood. "Gives away" means gives to another. How is it given, and how is it received? If one says, "I give this to you, I bestow, I grant, I offer, I relinquish, I abandon, I give away," or "I give to so-and-so... ...I abandon," whether directly or indirectly, it is given. If, when told, "Take it for yourself," one says, "I take it for myself," it is well-given and well-received. If, when told, "Make it yours, let it be yours, you will make it yours," one says, "I make it mine, let it be mine, I will make it mine," it is badly given and badly received. Neither the giver One knows how to give, but the other does not know how to take. But if, when it is said, "Make it your own," he takes it, saying, "Good, venerable sir, I will take it for myself," it is well-taken. But if one says, "Take one," and the other says, "I will not take it," and then the first one says, "I have given it to you, take it," and the other says, "I have no need of this," then the first one, saying, "I have given it," lets ten days pass, and the second one, saying, "I have rejected it." Whose offense is it? There is no offense for anyone. But whoever wishes, should determine it and use it. But what should one do who is doubtful about the determination? Having declared the state of doubt, if it is not determined, he should say, "May this be allowable for me," and then relinquish it in the manner stated. For one who makes a Vinaya act known in this way does not commit a falsehood. Some say, "It is allowable for one bhikkhu to take it with confidence and then give it again," but that is not proper. For that is not a Vinaya act for him, nor does it become another object by that much. "It is lost," and so on, is clear in meaning. Here, "whoever would not give, an offense of wrong-doing," means that one who does not give with the perception, "This has been given to me," commits a wrong-doing. But knowing that it belongs to him, one who subtly takes it away should have the item valued and then make him pay. Regarding its origin, etc., this training rule is called "originating from the kathina." It originates from body and speech, and from body, speech, and mind. It is an inaction because it is incurred by not determining and not assigning. One is not released even in the absence of perception, and one incurs it even unknowingly, so it is "not released by perception." It is without intention, an offense by enactment, a bodily action, a verbal action, with three intentions, with three feelings. The explanation of the first kathina training rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the Udosita Training Rule 471. At that time, the Buddha, the Blessed One—this is the udosita training rule. Here, "santaruttarena" means "antara" is called the inner garment, "uttara" is the outer robe. "Santaru" is the outer robe with the inner garment. the upper robe, with that inner upper robe, meaning, with the inner garment and the upper robe. Stained with sweat, meaning, black and white circles formed in places touched by sweat. The Venerable Ānanda, while wandering for lodgings, saw, meaning, the Elder, when the Blessed One had entered the Perfumed Chamber for midday seclusion, took that opportunity, put away carelessly placed wooden and clay utensils, swept unswept places, conversed with sick bhikkhus, and reaching the lodging place of those bhikkhus, saw. Therefore it was said: “The Venerable Ānanda, while wandering for lodgings, saw.” 473. To give the permission for non-separation, meaning, permission for non-separation, or permission for non-separation. What is the advantage here? The robe with which one separates does not become subject to forfeiture, and one does not incur an offense. For how long? Elder Mahāsumana said: “As long as the illness does not subside; but when the illness has subsided, one should quickly return to the robe’s place.” Elder Mahāpaduma said: “If one returns quickly, the illness might recur, therefore one should return slowly. From the time one seeks a vehicle, or makes the intention, ‘I will go,’ from then on it is permissible. But if one lays down the burden, saying, ‘I will not go now,’ it must be withdrawn; it will remain in the place of an extra robe.” But if his illness recurs, what should be done? Elder Phussadeva said: “If the same illness recurs, that is the same permission; there is no need to give permission again. If another illness arises, permission should be given again.” Elder Upatissa said: “Whether it is that illness or another, there is no need to give permission again.” 475-6. When the robe is finished for the bhikkhu, here, unlike in the previous training rule, without taking the meaning as such, the meaning of the instrumental case should be understood in the general sense, “when the robe is finished for the bhikkhu.” Indeed, there is no "this particular thing must be done" by a bhikkhu by way of action. But by way of dwelling, for a bhikkhu, when the robes are finished and the kathina is revoked, thus with the impediment cut off, if a bhikkhu should dwell apart from the three robes even for one night, this meaning is appropriate. Therein, "by the three robes" means from any one of the three robes that have been determined. Indeed, even if he dwells apart from one, he dwells apart from the three robes, because he dwells apart from what is included in the prohibited. Therefore, in its word-division, "or from the outer robe," etc., is said. "Should dwell apart" means should dwell separated. 477-8. "A village with one precinct," etc., is said for the purpose of defining the characteristic of non-dwelling apart. Thereafter, in due order, explaining those very fifteen main topics, he says, "A village called one precinct," etc. Therein, "a village of one family" means a village of one king or of one chieftain. "Enclosed" means enclosed by whatever wall or fence or ditch. By this much, the state of having one precinct of a village of one family is shown. "Should dwell within the village" means in such a village, having deposited the robe, it is permissible for the dawn to rise in a place of one's liking within the village. "Unenclosed" means by this, the state of having many precincts of that very village is shown. In such a village, in which house the robe is deposited, there one should dwell. "Or should not abandon the arm's reach" means, or rather, that house should not be abandoned beyond arm's reach all around; it is said that one should not abandon beyond a place measuring two and a half cubits. But within two and a half cubits, it is permissible to dwell. Having exceeded that measure, even if a bhikkhu with psychic power causes the dawn to rise in the sky, it is still an offense entailing relinquishment. And here, "in which house" means the definition of a house should be understood by the characteristic "it is the dwelling of one family," etc. (Pārā. 480). 479. "A village of many families" means a village of many kings or of many chieftains, like Vesālī, Kusinārā, etc. "Enclosed" means by this, the state of having one precinct of a village of many families is shown. Or in the assembly hall, d... "Vāramūle" here is called "sabhā" by a gender change. "Dvāramūle" means near the city gate. This is what is said: In such a village, where the robe is placed in any house, there one should dwell. If one cannot dwell there due to noise or crowds, one should dwell in the assembly hall or near the city gate. If one cannot dwell even there, one should dwell in any convenient place, and before dawn, come back and not abandon the arm's reach of those very assembly halls or city gates. But as for the arm's reach of the house or the robe, there is nothing to be said. "Having deposited the robe within arm's reach when going to the assembly hall" means: if one goes