English
is not stated. "Having released it from one's own possession and set it aside, non-offence is stated in the Mahāpaccariya," they say. The meaning is: one who sets aside medicine, thinking, "I will acquire this medicine, I will give this to my mother," must determine it. But when it is released from one's own possession by saying, "This is for medicine, this is for my mother," there is no need for determination. Regarding the 'covering given for a dwelling-requisite', they say, "A covering that is not worn or wrapped, but merely spread on beds and chairs and used, even if it is one's own, may be used without determination." However, below, since it is stated without distinction that "a covering must also be determined," our view is that one's own must be determined. It should be taken after investigation. "By turning to a lower state" means "by becoming a layperson without renouncing the training." This is stated in all three Gaṇṭhipadas, and it is appropriate, as the robe is relinquished by detachment, just like giving to another. Some, however, interpret "by turning to a lower state" as "by a bhikkhunī becoming a layperson," and say, "A bhikkhu, even if he strays, as long as he does not renounce the training, remains a bhikkhu, and thus the determination does not cease." This should not be accepted, because it is not specifically stated "by a bhikkhunī turning to a lower state." For a bhikkhunī, there is no need to state separately that the determination ceases upon her becoming a layperson, since she is no longer a samaṇī by merely straying. The phrase "by renouncing the training" is stated to show that if one renounces the training while still in the bhikkhu's guise, even the robe attached to his body loses its determination. "By means of the nail of the smallest finger" is the lower limit. It shows this break. "Regarding the robe of measure" is said with reference to the ultimate measure. "For one wearing two robes" means for one wearing the outer robe and the upper robe together, in the manner stated in the training rule on being well-covered, for the purpose of entering the inner dwelling. "In the folded place" means in the folded place at both ends. "This is the method" means this meaning is shown: that in those with the measure, the designation is lost wherever there is a hole, but in large ones beyond that, the designation is not lost by a hole. "In all" means in all robes, such as the three robes and so on. The meaning is that there is no other ultimate measure mentioned in the Sutta. Now, to explain that very point, "for indeed" and so on was said. Because it was said, "for transgressing that, there is an offense of cutting," it is said, "because it is forbidden beyond that." "That does not fit" means, taking the ultimate measure of a supplementary cloth as the ultimate measure not subject to designation, and referring to the ultimate measure of other robes like the three robes, such as those of the size of five fists, the statement "this is the method" and so on does not fit, because such an ultimate measure is not found in the Sutta. "The statement in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā does not fit" means, by this very rejection, the method that within the ultimate measure not subject to designation, the designation is lost wherever there is a hole, should also be understood as rejected. Indeed, apart from the three robes, there is no loss of designation by a hole in other robes. Therefore, even if other robes, having been designated and set aside, are made insufficient for the ultimate measure not subject to designation, and are cut into pieces, there is no loss of designation. But if it is like that even before designation, there is no act of designation because it is not a robe. "A small robe" is indeed a small robe that is not less than the measure of five fists and so on. "Makes it large or small" - here, in the three robes, in which part of the four sides a hole does not cause the designation to be lost, therefore... in whatever region, having cut it all around, making it small, the intention does not cease, this is the meaning. In "direct designation, indirect designation," the meaning should be taken as: designation directly, designation indirectly. "Nearness and farness" means proximity and distance. Proximity and distance should be understood in the way stated for designation. In "use and so on are permissible," since it is included in designation, if one wishes to use it having designated it by the name of a double robe and so on, designation should be made. If not, it should not be made; designation is the measure, therefore it is not called an extra robe. "Friend" means a close friend. "Acquaintance" means a seen friend, not a very close friend. "This designated designation is permissible" means it is like a designated designation. "Words spoken without distinction" means it designates the three robes and so on, and designates the rain-cloth and the anti-itch cloth, without saying this, it means words spoken designating all robes without distinction. "By way of the three robes" means by way of the removal of the three robes, it is said to be by way of the designation of the double robe and so on. In "I give to you" and so on, they say: "At that time, even if one does not wish to take it, if one does not refuse, it is permissible to take it later if there is a desire to take it." "To such and such a person" refers to one who is indirectly present. When "Take it for yourself" is said, one says "I take it for myself." In "well given, well taken," they say: "Just as when 'Make it your own' is said by another, even if it is badly given, by the words 'Good, venerable sir, I take it for myself,' it is said to be 'well taken,' similarly here, when 'Take it for yourself' is said, because it is well given, even if 'I take it for myself' is not said, it is 'well given indeed.'" And they say: "Since the taking is dependent on the command 'Take it,' and occurs by way of making it dependent, if at that time the thought 'I take it' is not produced, it is not permissible to take it later." That is not appropriate, because it is given having been taken by way of performing a monastic act. it. But if another takes it as truly trustworthy, again for some reason it is not that what was given by him is not suitable for him. But a Nissaggiya robe, whether knowing or not knowing, if one takes it, it is said to prevent, "Do not take it." Because the acts of determination and designation, to be done by body and speech, are not done, it happens, he says, "It arises from body and speech." The robe's being one's own, its suitability in kind and measure, the state of having cut off obstacles, the state of being an extra robe, and the passing of ten days— these are the five factors here. The explanation of the first Kathina training rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the Udosita training rule 471-473. In the second (rule), how did Venerable Ānanda obtain an opportunity, and doing what did he wander about? He says, "The elder, it is said," and so on. In "avippavāse," the locative case is for the purpose. The meaning is "for the purpose of not departing." It is said to be for the non-existence of the offense that arises due to departing. 475-476. Thus, "having cut off obstacles" means thus, by these completion of robes and Kathina removal, one has cut off obstacles. In "adhiṭṭhitesu," it means determined in the manner of determining the three robes. "He is departed from the three robes" means just as in "the tree is cut," "the cloth is burnt," and so on, the collective designation is obtained even for a part, it is said. 477-478. "Encircled by a moat" or "enclosed" means by this, it shows that even if it is surrounded by water like rivers and ponds, it is still considered enclosed. "By this much" means by this word "enclosed." "Causes the dawn to rise in the sky" means causes the dawn to rise in the sky above the house, exceeding the measure of two and a half cubits. A house is merely characterized by being settled, udosita, and so on, but there is no such thing as an individual house, he says, "and here," and so on. 479. In the Pāli, in the manner stated, not saying "sabhāye" but "sabhāyaṃ," the accusative case is said to demonstrate the neuter gender of the word "sabhāya." For indeed, the word "sabhāya," a synonym of "sabhā," is used here with the neuter gender, showing this meaning, "sabhā is stated by gender distinction." Thus he said. "It is not necessary to dwell within arm's reach of the robe" means it is not necessary to dwell only within arm's reach of the robe. Where it says "that... should not be abandoned," by taking the doors of the assembly hall in front of that street, all the houses there and that inner street are indeed taken. "Having carried it over, he places it in the house" means he places it in another house situated apart from that street. "In front or behind, within arm's reach" refers to the arm's reach of the house. Showing that "unity of precinct due to enclosure in dwellings etc., and diversity of precinct due to non-enclosure should be understood," he said "by this very method" and so on. It should be understood that dwellings etc. situated outside the village are taken. For those situated within the village, being taken by the term "village," it is indeed the village precinct. "In all places" means in the fifteen, such as villages and open-air limits. "By way of enclosure etc." here, by the word "etc." the taking of non-enclosure should be understood, not also of single families etc. 480-487. They say that "ovaraka" is another chamber inside a chamber. "Muṇḍacchadanapāsāda" is a palace with an open courtyard. 489. "Satthā" means a caravan of people or a caravan of carts. "Having surrounded" means having penetrated. He explains the very meaning stated: "by having entered... he stands." There, "by having entered" means by having entered the village or the river.