English
or is doubtful, but not for one who keeps it without using it. 469. “To determine the three robes” means to determine by stating the name. “Not to make a condition” means not to make a condition by stating the name. This method applies everywhere. Therefore, one who determines the three robes, etc., should determine them by stating the name, saying “I determine this outer robe,” etc. However, one who makes a condition should do so without taking the name of that particular robe, saying “I make this robe a condition for you,” not “this outer robe,” etc. Whether it is the three robes or something else, if one makes a condition by taking that specific name, it is not conditioned, and it becomes an extra robe. It remains in its place. After that, regarding the determination: "After four months, it is permitted to determine and use it," is stated in all three commentaries. Some, however, say: "After that, it is permitted to determine and keep it until the four months of the next year's rainy season." "I permit to determine after that" – by this, the meaning that it is permitted to determine the rain-cloak and the itch-covering by taking their respective names is not to be taken, because after that, there is no name like rain-cloak, etc. Therefore, even when determining after that, it should not be determined by taking a name. Since the use of both, after determining, is permitted, what is thus determined should be used after consecrating it with another name. This is stated in all three commentaries. "I withdraw" means "I put aside" or "I relinquish." Here, regarding "I consecrate this outer robe," it is stated in the commentaries that "it is permissible to say 'I consecrate this robe, the outer robe' in this way." That also accords with "I consecrate this robe, the accessory cloth." By making a bodily gesture means by touching the robe with the hand or by moving it. "Two kinds" means two kinds in terms of present and absent. "Within arm's reach" – this is said with reference to twelve cubits. Therefore, what is within twelve cubits should be consecrated by saying "this." Some say that beyond that, it should be consecrated by saying "that." Nothing is stated about this in the commentaries. In the Pāli and in the commentaries, "arm's reach" everywhere means two and a half cubits. Therefore, the reason for a special determination here should be sought. "Adjacent monastery" means where one can go and return on the same day. "In an adjacent monastery" – this is merely the head of the teaching. Therefore, they say that even what is placed far away should be consecrated by observing its location. "By observing its location" – this observation of the location is not... It is said, having made a choice, the mark of the robe is the measure here. By cloths laid down, having been determined, that is, by cloths laid down, having been determined by the name of accessory cloth. Because there is no designation of outer robe, etc., before the determination, it shows the method of separate revocation of the accessory cloth, saying, "I revoke this." But since it is determined by the name of accessory cloth, it is understood that there is no fault even if it is said, "I revoke this accessory cloth." This, "having revoked, they should be determined again," is said with reference to one who wishes to use them, having determined them by the name of outer robe, etc. But for one who uses them, having determined them by the name of accessory cloth, the determination made previously is the determination. By "there is no need for determination," it shows that there is also no need for the act of giving the kappabindu mark. "The three robes, however," etc., is said with reference to the measure of the three robes, such as the five fistfuls. "To determine the accessory cloth" means to determine it as an accessory cloth. Since there is the establishment of a non-separation boundary in a bounded sīmā, there is no fault even in the separation from the robe, so it is not difficult to manage there. Therefore, it says, "it is difficult to manage in an unbounded sīmā." "Of not exceeding measure" means of a measure not exceeding six spans in length and two and a half spans in width by the Sugata's span. But the rain-garment abandons its determination with the passing of the rains, and the itch-covering with the cessation of the ailment. Therefore, in the Mātikaṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is said, "the rain-garment abandons its determination even with the passing of the rainy season, and the itch-covering even with the cessation of the ailment." Therefore, why is it said, "after that, they should be revoked and offered for choice"? For, if there is a determination, revocation is proper, isn't it? Here, in all three knot-passages, this is said: " 'Having revoked' is not said with reference to this revocation, but 'having revoked' means because of its nature as a rain-garment..." "having removed" - this is the meaning to be taken. Therefore, starting from the first day of winter, within ten days, having removed it from being a rain-cloak, it should be determined. To show this meaning, it was said: 'after that, having taken it back, it should be determined.' But some say: "Just as a robe arisen within the Kathina month becomes liable to forfeiture after the Kathina month has passed, so too this rain-cloak becomes liable to forfeiture after the rainy season has passed. Therefore, having taken it back on the full moon day of Kattika, it should be determined on the first day of winter. This is the meaning to be taken. The construction of the phrase 'having taken it back, after that it should be determined' should be understood." They say this, but it is not suitable. For a robe arisen in the Kathina month, being in the position of an extra robe, if not determined on the last day, becomes liable to forfeiture after the Kathina month has passed. But this rain-cloak, having been determined and set aside, is not like that. So how can it be liable to forfeiture after the rainy season has passed? For only that which is not determined and not designated becomes liable to forfeiture after its respective time has passed. Therefore, even in winter, the rain-cloak certainly receives a ten-day allowance. Similarly, a scab-covering robe also loses its determination with the cessation of the ailment. Therefore, after that, it receives a ten-day allowance, but it should be determined without exceeding ten days. But some say: "Because it is not stated in the characteristics of the breaking of determination, the rain-cloak does not lose its determination even after the rainy season has passed, and the scab-covering robe does not lose its determination even when the ailment has ceased. Therefore, 'after that, having taken it back, it should be determined' was said." They say this, but it does not accord with the Mātika-aṭṭhakathā, though it does accord with the Samantapāsādikā. For indeed, "the rain-cloak loses its determination even after the rainy season has passed, and the scab-covering robe loses its determination even with the cessation of the ailment" - this is not in the Samantapāsādikā. And in the Parivāra-aṭṭhakathā, where it says: "an offense arises in winter, but not in summer," this was said: "on the full moon day of Kattika..." On the last day of the rainy season, wearing a rain-cloak that was set aside after being determined, one incurs an offense in winter. In the Kurundi, however, it is said: ‘If one does not revoke it on the full moon day of Kattika, one incurs an offense in winter,’ and that is well said. For it is said: ‘It should be determined for four months, and after that, it should be determined as a determined robe.’ There, in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, an offense of wrong-doing is mentioned due to wearing it; in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā, however, it is due to not revoking it. Therefore, it is understood that, according to the method stated in the Kurundi, the rain-cloak does not lose its determination even after the rainy season has passed. For in the Kurundi, it is said: “It should be determined for the four months of the rainy season, and after that, it should be determined as a determined robe.” According to this statement, if one does not revoke it on the full moon day of Kattika, the rain-cloak, with its determination not revoked, having reached winter, generates an offense of wrong-doing due to the existence of determination in the field of determined robes. Therefore, with the intention that it should be revoked on the full moon day of Kattika itself and then determined as a determined robe in winter, it is said: “If one does not revoke it on the full moon day of Kattika, one incurs an offense in winter.” Therefore, one should examine it and accept what is more appropriate. Since it is permitted for bathing, it is said: “Even if it is merely of a different color, it is permissible.” But two are not permissible, it is said due to the absence of determination for two. “If another rain-cloak arises during the rainy season, the former rain-cloak should be revoked, determined as a determined robe, and then determined,” they say. “Of appropriate size” means two spans in length by Sugata's span, one and a half spans in width, and a ten-span fringe; it is appropriate with this measure. “Of standard size” means four spans in length by Sugata's span, and two spans across, thus, of the size mentioned. What needs to be said about “It should be revoked and determined as a determined robe” has already been said below. “What is determined once remains determined; it is not revoked again due to the absence of a time limit,” they say. Others, however, say: “To show that it is permissible even with a single word, 'Once determined, it is determined' they say. In both cases, no new purpose is seen for this saying here. Therefore, in the Mātika-aṭṭhakathā, at this point, the phrase 'Once determined, it is determined'