English
Since it was given by the elders themselves, it is said, "because he was in the state of having his robes taken away." If one adopts the doctrine, one is called a sectarian apostate, therefore it is said, "without adopting the doctrine." By "If there is no monastery robe of the Sangha... (etc.)... an offense of dukkaṭa," a dukkaṭa is stated for one who, having entered a monastery on the way, leaves it and goes elsewhere to a place of his liking. And by this, "whatever dwelling he first approaches," it should be understood that if he goes naked even to a monastery located on the way, it is a dukkaṭa. If so, why was it not stated there? Because there was no occasion. For there, by the connection "I allow, monks, for one whose robes have been taken away... (etc.)... to ask for a robe," allowing even a Sangha robe to be worn and put on, he said, "whatever dwelling he first... (etc.)... having taken, to put on." Therefore, because there was no occasion there, dukkaṭa was not stated. "Vihāracīvara" means a robe for the dwelling. Rags means cloth scraps. Above it means above the mat. By one gone abroad means by one gone abroad without obtaining another robe. In "should place in one...etc." here, they say: "Because it was brought by a trick and placed, and because it was placed for the Sangha's use, it is permissible to place it elsewhere even if it was designated for another lodging." By using it means by using it without obtaining another robe. 519-521.Worn out by use means worn out in such a way that the body cannot be covered with that robe. By proper usage means said for release from the offense of buying and selling. "For one who makes known" clarifies this very meaning as "for one who causes to be bought, for one who causes to be exchanged." Indeed, making known with one's own wealth means exchanging, this is the intention. It shows the rule for making known for those who have been invited by the Sangha: "Only the measure is permissible." Indeed, when invited by the Sangha, because it is common to all, it is not permissible to make known more. "Whatever he invites" means whatever robe, etc., he invites, saying "I will give." There is no need for making known means, since it is given without a request, what will he do by making it known? This is the intention. In "for another's sake," here too, "for invited relatives" is understood to follow, so it says "for one's own invited relatives," etc. The robe not subject to determination, the absence of an agreement, the request from a non-relative, and the obtaining through that—these are the four factors here. The explanation of the training rule concerning requesting from a non-relative is finished. 7. The explanation of the training rule concerning "beyond that." 522. In the seventh Pāli text, "paggāhikasāla" means a shop of cloth merchants. They also read "paggāhitasāla." 523-524.The prefix "abhī" shows the absence of a special meaning for it. Therefore, it says, "the meaning is to carry." Because the word "vara" is used in the sense of desire, it says "should desire." In "to see safety," here, the elision of the nasal sound should be understood according to the poetic meter. "With an inner garment" means together with an inner garment. "Upper" means an upper robe. "Of his robe" means "of the robe to be taken." "By one whose all robes are not lost" means: "All three robes are not lost for him," Thus he is "one whose all robes are not lost," That is the meaning. For whom, at the time of not losing, Three robes are present, All of them are not lost, He is called "one whose all robes are not lost." Therefore, it is said: "By one whose all robes are not lost, Possessing three robes." Indeed, "possessing three robes" Is said with reference to The presence of three robes At the time of not losing; Not with reference to The state of having three robes by Vinaya, Or the state of having three robes by ascetic practice. "Thus it should be practiced" means: "That monk should take a robe from there, With an inner and an outer robe as the maximum," It should be practiced by the method stated. "By another" means: "By one whose not all robes are not lost." For whom, of the three robes, One or two robes are not lost, That is the meaning. "Also otherwise" means: Otherwise than the stated rule Of "an inner and an outer robe as the maximum." For whom, indeed, of the three, Two robes are not lost, One should be taken. When only one is not lost, (The taking of only two robes) is not to be done, For him, the taking of an inner and an outer robe as the maximum is not possible. And this very meaning Is clarified by the word-division. Therefore he said: "To show that distinction." Some, however, say: "Because it is said 'by one possessing three robes,' For one who, having consecrated the three robes As accessory cloths, uses them, When they are lost, One may take many." That should not be accepted. Indeed, by one showing the meaning Of the word-division, Since it is said: "By one whose all robes are not lost... (etc.)... To show that distinction," And such a meaning Is not found in the word-division, Therefore, that should not be accepted at all. And what is said In the Mātika Commentary: "For whom three consecrated robes are lost," Even there, the mention of "consecrated" Should be taken as merely stating the nature (of the robes), But not that the meaning is: "Only for one whose robes are consecrated By the consecration of three robes." And because the meaning is not possible in that way. For it cannot be understood that this training rule was laid down only for a robe that has been determined by the determination of the three robes. For by the previous training rule, since an undestroyed robe was allowed to be requested from a stranger, this training rule was laid down by the Blessed One, allowing the acceptance of what is beyond the measure in a case of requesting without knowing the measure. Therefore, the meaning that "it is permissible to accept much even of a supplementary cloth" neither accords with the Pāli text nor with the intention of the Blessed One. Where it says, "If three are lost, two should be accepted," it should be understood that if one has more than three robes stored elsewhere, then, since that robe cannot be obtained, it is permissible for him to accept. He goes about naturally with an inner and outer robe, either by way of the rule of doubt or by way of the permission to be away, or he goes about due to the non-obtainment of a third. It is said, "two should be accepted," because "two are lost" is the context. "He will be equal by accepting one" means that if two of the three robes are lost, he will be equal by accepting one, because both remain in the state of an inner and outer robe as the maximum. "If he has only one" is said with reference to a remaining robe that has been destroyed by some other cause. 526. Because it is said, "They say, 'Let the remainder be yours,'" even at the time of taking and going, after saying, "We will take what is of the right measure, we will bring back the remainder," they say, "Let the remainder also be yours." This is properly obtained. "Of those who have invited" means of those who have invited before the time of destruction. "It does not accord with the Pāli text" means it does not accord, because it is said, "There is no offense for relatives who have invited," in order to show that there is no offense in accepting beyond the maximum of an inner and outer robe. For one who accepts the maximum of an inner and outer robe, there is no possibility of an offense. And if there is a possibility of an offense by the training rule, it is proper to show no offense. This is the intention. Some, however, say, "This, that only the measure is permissible, is to show austerity." they say, "it was said." But as to why this… (etc.)… was not said, the intention here is: if it were said "for the sake of another," it would imply that it is permissible to take more than the limit for the sake of others, and this does not accord with the object, as it was laid down in the context of making known for the sake of another. For it is not proper to state non-offence in the very object on account of which the training rule was laid down. However, in all three Ganthipada texts, it is stated: "Since this training rule operates based on one's own desire, there is no occasion to say 'for the sake of another,' therefore it was not said." If it is asked, "Since 'for the sake of another' was not said here, is there an offence for one who makes known more than the relatives and those who have offered for the sake of others?" No, for non-offence is already established by the previous training rule. Here, there are four factors: exceeding that, the condition of being unsevered, etc., making known to an unknown person, and obtaining it thereby. The commentary on the training rule concerning exceeding that is finished. 8. Commentary on the First Training Rule Concerning Prepared Robes 527. In the eighth, even with the reading "api mayya" (also to me), the meaning is the same. But with "ayya" (sirs), an address is made in the plural. 528-529. "Apadissa" means "having designated thus," for example, "I will give it to such and such a bhikkhu." "Paccayaṃ katvā" means "having made a reason." Here, "uddissā" refers to "who is the agent" – the agent of the act of designating mentioned by "uddissā." "Cīvaraṃ cetāpenti parivattenti etenāti cīvaracetāpannaṃ" means "they cause a robe to be acquired or exchanged by this, hence 'cīvaracetāpanna'." "Cīvaracetāpannaṃ" is said by adding the "na" sound; some also read "cīvaracetāpanaṃ." "Pacuravohāravasena" means "according to common usage." For it is by common usage that people go to the house of the householder when they wish to see him, and so that is the prevalent usage. "Byañjanamattamevāti" means "it is merely an expression," the intention is that no meaning needs to be taken. 531.