English
And "the river precinct is obtained" here, it is said in all three commentary sections that "since a separate river precinct is not mentioned, the river precinct is just the arm's reach of the robe, as in other cases like villages etc." "Vihārasīmā" refers to the non-separation boundary. "Having gone to the monastery, one should dwell" means one should dwell anywhere within the boundary. "Only near the caravan" is said in terms of the aforementioned inner boundary. In the Pāli, "there is a caravan of various families, having placed the robe in the caravan, one should not abandon the arm's reach" here, "arm's reach" should be understood as the arm's reach of the caravan. 490. A single family. The field of the herd, he says, referring to an unenclosed one. Since it is said, "Having deposited the robe in an enclosed field of various families, one should dwell at the field gate or within its reach," therefore, even when dwelling elsewhere within the field from the gate, one should dwell with the robe within reach. 491-494. "A monastery, they say, is the entire dwelling, whether enclosed or unenclosed." Here, "in which monastery" refers to a single house. The ownership by one family or various families is to be understood by the builders. "Within the area touched by shade" means that when the sun's orb reaches its zenith, going straight on the main road, it refers to the area that the shade touches. "On an impassable path" refers to a path that one cannot go and return on the same day. 495. "Descends into the river" means descends releasing it from reach. "Does not incur" means does not incur a dukkata for the requisites of use. Therefore, he says, "He, indeed," and so on. "Unfit for use" proves that a dukkata is not incurred unintentionally by one who uses a nissaggiya robe without relinquishing it. "One should go wearing one and placing one on the shoulder" is said because going without doing so is not proper in places where many people pass through. Since it is said, "Having deposited it outside the village... ...the disciplinary action should be performed," it should be understood that it is permissible to relinquish a nissaggiya robe and to give a relinquished robe even when it is placed out of sight, as in an adhiṭṭhāna. Due to the eagerness in going, it is said, "the reliance does not cease." "Having slept for a moment... ...the reliance also ceases" here, they say, "even if the eagerness is not abandoned, since the going is interrupted, even for those who rise again and go eagerly, if dawn breaks in between, the reliance ceases." The same method applies to "having stood for a moment beyond that." "Having gone without taking each other's word" here, if so, They go without effort, thinking, "We will see each other before dawn." At dawn, the relaxation of reliance should not be spoken of, because it relaxed earlier. Then, if they go with effort, thinking, "We will see each other before dawn," the relaxation of reliance should not be spoken of. If this is so, why is it said, "The reliance relaxes with the rising of dawn"? It is said: Because of the effort, the relaxation was not mentioned earlier. And even with the presence of effort, because the going together was interrupted, just as in "having stayed for a moment," the relaxation is said to occur with the rising of dawn. "A village within the boundary" refers to a village established after the non-separation boundary agreement, because there is no non-separation boundary agreement with the village included. "The robes are not subject to forfeiture" is said because there is no non-separation boundary, not because the reliance relaxes due to effort. And for them, dawn rises on the way, meaning dawn rises for those who come having heard the Dhamma. "He goes unmindfully" means he goes unmindfully, without taking back his own robe, and without having the elder take back his robe. When he has gone thus, the elder, remembering later, shows the procedure to be followed: "Having taken back his own robe, he should take the junior's robe with trust and put it away." "Having gone, it should be said" shows the procedure to be followed by one who has finished the task and gone to the monastery. Not having designated the robe, the kathina not being for a purpose, not having received the agreement, and separation for the night— these are the four factors here. The explanation of the Udositā training rule is finished. 3. Explanation of the Third Kathina Training Rule 497-499. In the third Pāli text, regarding "should lay aside the expectation of robes," the meaning should be understood as "should lay aside when there is an expectation of robes." Some also read "bhaṇḍikābaddhāni" as "bhaṇḍikabaddhānīti," meaning "tied up as bundles." When the robe is finished, a bhikkhu... Here, as in the former training rule, the meaning of the word "to do" should be understood as "to be done by the owner." 500. When the kathina is not spread, it is permissible for a bhikkhu to keep a robe that has arisen in the robe month, unassigned and unconditioned, for that month. Thus it is said: "except for one last Kattika month." However, some say: "Even if it is given by specifying it in season, this is an out-of-season robe. According to this statement, when the kathina is not spread, for a robe that has arisen in the robe month, which is called the last Kattika month, if there is no future robe, the ten-day period of allowance applies. After that, it is not permissible to keep it." This does not agree with the commentary. For in the commentary on the training rule concerning emergency robes, it is said: "For an emergency robe that has arisen on the fifth day of the bright half of the Pavāraṇā month, if the kathina is not spread, the allowance is more than eleven days, that is, one month. If the kathina is spread, the allowance is more than eleven days, that is, five months." And referring to that same allowance, it is said: "And an ordinary robe that has arisen from the sixth day onwards, or a robe that has been taken back and kept, also obtains this allowance." Therefore, even after ten days in the robe month, it is permissible to keep it, even if it is unassigned and unconditioned. If so, why is it said: "Even if it is given by specifying it in season, this is an out-of-season robe"? It is said in the sense of extracting the meaning, due to its commonality with out-of-season robes, like the secret of the ear in the first aniyata. For a robe that has arisen in the eleventh or seventh month can be divided among those who have completed the rains retreat and those who remain, and thus it becomes an out-of-season robe. However, a robe given in season, without specifying "this is an out-of-season robe for the Sangha," but simply "I give this to the Sangha," must be divided only among those who have completed the rains retreat, not among others, and thus it is called an in-season robe. But a robe given by specifying it must be divided among all those present, and thus it is an out-of-season robe. Therefore, because a robe given by specifying it, even in season, is to be divided among those who have completed the rains retreat and those who are present, Due to the general meaning of "untimely robe," it is said by way of extracting the meaning: "Even if given at the proper time, if designated, this is an untimely robe." If so, why is it said: "Or if given to one person, saying 'I give this to you'"? For what is given to a person by designation is not to be shared by anyone, is it? This is not a contradiction, because it was said thus to show the meaning obtained from the general sense of the word "designating." But without saying thus, without dividing the word "if beyond that" into "beyond the maximum of a month." The expected robe that has arisen up to that point is a personal word, because it is the agent of the action "makes its own course." For an expected robe that has arisen in the interim, without setting aside the main robe for a maximum of a month, it limits itself to its own maximum of ten days; thus it makes its own course. But here, in "beyond that, the main robe," "main robe" is a personal word. For an expected robe that has arisen beyond twenty days, without going beyond the maximum of ten days, it limits the main robe, by its own time, merely by the connection of being made with itself; thus it makes its own course. But for one who has received an expected robe and kept it separately, if ten days are not exceeded, there is no offense on that account. In the Pāli, "should be made in ten days," here "in ten days" is an ablative of instrument, meaning "by ten days." They also read "arisen on the fifth day" etc., making it short. "If it arises on the twenty-first... ...should be made in nine days" etc. is said, excluding the day the expected robe arose. "Another expected robe... ...should be made" this should be understood as said only when there is an expectation. But if the expectation "from now on I will not receive a robe" is cut off, and if the main robe has reached ten days, it should be determined on that very day. "The expected robe should also be determined as a requisites-cloth" refers to a dissimilar expected robe that arose earlier. "Aññamaññaṃ" means "another, another," or this is the reading. But the limb... It is just like what was said in the first Kathina. The only difference is that there it was an excess of ten days, here it is an excess of a month. The explanation of the third Kathina training rule is finished. 4. Explanation of the Old Robe Training Rule 503. In the fourth, the word *bhattavissagga* in the Pāli text should be understood to mean "meal duty," and some say "meal arrangement." The word *nāma tvaṃ* here should be understood as "that very one, you," and some say "by that very one, you." 505.