English
However, in all three Gaṇṭhipadas, without noticing the missing passage here, the meaning was stated as: "'But it is not permissible to consume it' refers to consumption within seven days, meaning it is not permissible to consume it due to the absence of a sense of trust." That meaning should not be accepted. "Friend, consume this oil for seven days." By this, it shows that what was received by him was released to another within seven days. Whose offense is it? First, then... Since it was said that there is no offense due to being common to both, now, because it has been released by one to the other, there is no commonality to both. Thus, it stands as if divided. Therefore, thinking that after seven days, an offense would arise for one who received it, he asks: "Is the offense for the receiver due to the act of receiving, or for the one whose property it has become?" And because of the state of being released, here, instead of stating the reason "due to being undivided," it is said, "because it was released by the one who received it." This is said to show that even though it becomes the property of one, abandoning the commonality to both due to being released, it becomes the property of someone other than the one who received it. Therefore, just as in receiving another's property, there is no offense for the receiver due to the act of receiving. It is not said to show that "if it is not released, even if undivided, there is an offense after seven days" by the statement "because it was released by the one who received it," because in the case of not being released, there is no offense due to the very state of being undivided. If, however, the other person, within seven days, releases his own share to the one who received it, then after seven days, an offense would arise for the one who received it, because it has become his sole property, and the other person has not received it. By this, it is shown that even if it is his property, just as in the case of one's own property received by another, there is no offense for him due to his not having received it. However, not understanding this intention, the commentators and others have elaborated on this differently, but that should not be accepted as essential. "It is not for use" means it is not fit for use, because it has fallen to someone unpleasant. "With which intention" means with the intention of wishing to give it up. Because "within seven days" is the context, referring to the connection "within seven days, without attachment, he gives, receives, and uses," Mahāsumatthera said, "Thus, having given within seven days," and so on. Mahāpadumatthera, however, if so, that is accomplished by "releases" alone. However, if it has passed seven days, it is not proper to receive and consume it. Therefore, to show the way of its consumption, it is said: "This should not be begged for," and so on. By another bhikkhu: here, since it was given with a pure mind, it is proper to have it brought by oneself and consume it. The fact of having received ghee, etc., its being one's own property, and the passing of seven days— these are the three factors here. The explanation of the medicinal training rule is finished. 4. Explanation of the Rain-cloak Training Rule 627. In the fourth, "having finished with sewing, dyeing, and making the kappabindu," means having finished with the needlework, and having finished with making the kappabindu with a dye that is merely a different color, even once. "At the proper time" means at the time of the rains. 628. "Inner time" means the internal period. The reading found in books, "This one fortnight is the period for seeking and the period for making. For within this interval, it is proper to seek a rain-cloak if not obtained, and to make it if obtained, but it is not proper to wear it or determine it," is an incorrect reading. Thus, the reading here should be: "This one fortnight is the period for seeking. For within this interval, it is proper to seek a rain-cloak if not obtained, but it is not proper to make it, wear it, or determine it if obtained." For the first fortnight of the last month of summer is not the period for making. However, according to the saying, "considering that a fortnight of summer remains, it should be worn," the last fortnight of the last month of summer is both the period for making and the period for wearing. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. vahisakasāṭikasikkhāpa-davaṇṇanā), it is said, "the last month of summer is the period for seeking, and the last fortnight is also the period for making and wearing." Therefore, one who desires no contradiction with the Pāḷi and the Mātikāṭṭhakathā should adopt the reading in the manner stated. By one who says, "For one who completes it by making a request, there is no offense under the training rule of requesting from an unknown person," it is meant "the back-time." they are declared to have an offense by this training rule. For it cannot be said that an offense that arises merely by making a recollection at the time of the back-season from a place invited by relatives does not arise by a more serious request. Therefore, it was said by the Venerable Buddhadata Acariya: “Having made a recollection, for a monk who obtains a rain-cloth robe at the time agreed upon for the back-season, “There is an offense of relinquishment, whether from relatives or non-relatives; and likewise by making a request to them for its obtainment.” With what does he have an offense? This asks with what training rule he has an offense when asking his mother for a robe. It shows that there is no accusation of “an offense by the training rule of turning over for one who turns over what is matured,” but it is not matured in the Sangha. If it is by the training rule of requesting from non-relatives, he says “this also is not” with “there is no offense with relatives.” The rest of the text is “for one who requests from relatives.” Referring to this meaning, it refers to an offense by making a recollection at a place invited by relatives for a rain-cloth at the back-season, and no offense by the training rule of requesting from non-relatives. From a place of non-relatives not invited…etc…a dukkaṭa. This is said referring to a rain-cloth not given before. Therefore, a dukkaṭa is mentioned here in the case of a breach of conduct, but there is no breach of conduct in the case of those given before. Therefore, he says: “those people…etc…there is no breach of conduct.” This is the Nissaggiya Pācittiya as stated. For one who obtains by making a request: for one who obtains by making a request from a place of non-relatives not invited. Those who normally give rain-cloths are those who give rain-cloths annually, having invited either the Sangha or individuals. In “no offense by the training rule of requesting from non-relatives,” it should be understood that there is no offense by this training rule either. For at the time of the belly-season, there is no offense even for one who requests from his own relatives’ invited place with “give me a rain-cloth,” etc. Therefore, he says: “it should not be said ‘give me’ this For it was said with reference to those unknown and uninvited at the time of seeking. Indeed, in the Commentary on the Mātikā (Kankhā. Attha. Vassikasāṭika-sikkhāpada-vaṇṇanā), it was said: "But from one's own relatives or invited places, it should be sought even by a request like 'give me a rain-cloth robe'." 629. "By water fallen from the sky" — by this, it is said in all three knot-texts that there is no offense for one bathing with water fallen from the edge of the roof. 630. "He obtains six months' exemption." By this, it is shown that even within the Rains, until the last day of the Rains, if not made, he obtains exemption. Since the main robe should be made by the last Uposatha day of the cold season, therefore, he obtains exemption for twenty-nine days from the hot season. Even so, considering that a small amount, less or more, is not counted, it was said: "and beyond that... (etc.)... one month." By "received and completed" in terms of one day, two days, etc. (etc.), the meaning shown is: received and completed one day before the Rains-entry, or two days before... (etc.)... or ten days before the Rains-entry, received and completed, or received and completed within the Rains. There, a rain-cloth received and completed on the full moon day of the bright half of the month of Āsāḷha is called "received and completed one day before the Rains-entry." By the same method, one received and completed on the sixth day of the bright half is called "received and completed ten days before the Rains-entry." Until the full moon of the first Kattika three-month period, one received and completed within the three-month period is called "received and completed within the Rains." For after the full moon of the first Kattika three-month period, if it is received and completed as long as the robe-period has not passed, it is permissible to keep it without determining it, so this consideration does not arise there. Even though it was said without distinction that it should be determined in that very last ten days... Before the rains, if received when the rain-retreat is approaching by one or two days, etc., it should be determined only when it reaches the field of determination, starting from the day of the rain-retreat, not exceeding ten days including those days. Not before that, for it is not the field for determination. But if received during the rains, in that very rain-retreat period, it should be determined without exceeding ten days, starting from the day it was received. Is it not permissible to let ten days pass before the rains, without determining it? Therefore, why is it said: "It should be determined within ten days," even including days that are not the field for determination? Just as, "even if received during the rains,