English
it is permissible to let ten days pass without determining it until it is finished." For the unfinished one, even the days that have passed, similar to the non-field for determination, become counted for the finished one after ten days have passed. So it should be determined on the day it is finished. Similarly here, it is said to show that even the days before the rains, which are not the field for determination, are counted starting from the day it was received. If so, since it is said "within those ten days" without distinction, does it follow that if the rain-retreat is ten days away and it is received on the sixth day, it should be determined on the full moon day? It does not follow, because it is rejected by the very statement "to determine for four months." If that is the case, what is the purpose of "when it is ten days away"? It is said to show that if it is finished on the day of the rain-retreat, after ten days have passed even before the rains, it should be determined on that very day. This is the purpose here. Therefore, it is said: "If finished after ten days have passed, it should be determined on that very day." If ten days are insufficient, the robe-period should not be exceeded. This means that if, within the three months, ten days are insufficient, and it is received and finished, the robe-period should not be exceeded. This is what is said: "If the rain-robe is received and finished starting from the seventh day before the full moon of the first Kattika three-month period, without exceeding ten days..." because it is the time for robes, it is permissible to keep it there even without formally determining it.” And by this, it clarifies this: if the rain-cloth is not made, it receives a dispensation for the four months of the rainy season simply because it is not made. But if it is made, the dispensation should be stated without violating the ten-day rule. The intention is that it is permissible to determine it whenever, and there is no fault even if the ten days have passed within the four months. “When should it be determined? … If he is unable, he receives a dispensation until the full moon of Kattika.” By this Kurundi statement too, the meaning that an unmade rain-cloth has a four-month dispensation, and a made one has only a ten-day dispensation, is already clarified. Thus it says, “Moreover,” and so on. In the Pāli, is the non-offence stated for one whose robe is torn or lost by way of the Nissaggiya rule, or is the non-offence stated for one bathing naked by way of a Dukkata? What needs to be asked here? Indeed, in all training rules, wherever there is a possibility of an offence by the root training rule, there a section on non-offence is begun to show non-offence. So here too, it is appropriate to say it is for showing non-offence by the Nissaggiya rule. For a section on non-offence is not begun to show non-offence for an offence stated in between, without showing non-offence for the root offence. Therefore, in all three Gaṇṭhipadas, this is stated: “Here, in ‘for one whose robe is torn, for one whose robe is lost,’ it is a non-offence for one whose remaining robe is torn, or whose remaining robe is lost, who wears it at an improper time, or who searches for it. Here, in ‘in emergencies,’ it is a non-offence for one who wears it at an improper time because thieves are taking away an unworn robe.” In the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Vassikasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) too, it is stated: “It is a non-offence for one whose robe is torn or lost, or who wears it in such emergencies as thieves taking away an unworn robe, and for the insane and so on.” However, the Aṭṭhakathā, referring to the non-offence for one bathing naked by way of a Dukkata, says: “‘For one whose robe is torn’ refers only to the rain-cloth itself.” It has been said: For those who are naked, there is no offense in washing the body. And what was said here, that "there is danger from thieves, a calamity, for one who bathes wearing an expensive rain-cloak," the reason for that should be sought. Now, if the intention were to show no offense in both cases, by starting with "for one whose robe has been taken," even so, it should not be said by specifying, "this 'for one whose robe has been taken' was said referring only to the rain-cloak." For then it would have to be said: "For one whose remaining robe has been taken, or whose remaining robe has been lost, who wears it at the wrong time, or seeks it, there is no offense with a Nissaggiya. For one whose rain-cloak has been taken, or whose rain-cloak has been lost, who bathes naked, there is an offense of Dukkata. If thieves take it when it is not worn in times of danger, there is an offense of Nissaggiya for wearing it at the wrong time. If thieves take it from one who bathes wearing an expensive rain-cloak, there is no offense of Dukkata for bathing naked." The rest here is clear. As for the factors: the rain-cloak being for oneself, seeking it at the wrong time, and obtaining it thereby— these are the three factors of the offense of seeking. Having a robe, absence of danger, the rain-cloak being one's own, wearing it at the wrong time— these are the four factors of the offense of wearing. The explanation of the training rule concerning the rain-cloak is finished. 5. Explanation of the training rule concerning taking back a robe 631. In the fifth, "yampi tyāhanti" (that which I gave you), here "yaṃ" (that which) is a causal word. Therefore, the connection here should be understood thus: "Because of the reason that you would go on a journey with me, I gave you, friend, that robe; you are not doing that," thus, angered and displeased, he took it back. Or "yaṃ" refers to the robe. There, it should be connected thus: "That robe which I gave you, because you would go on a journey with me, 'I will take that robe,' thus, angered and displeased, he took it back." 633. He is commanded, he takes many, one Pacittiya. "Take the robe!"— this command... since it concerns one robe, there is only one pācittiya. "By word, by word, a dukkaṭa" - here, for the number of robes snatched, there are pācittiyas. "By one word, many offenses" - this is said with reference to the pācittiya offense to be incurred for the number of robes snatched. But the dukkaṭa to be incurred by command is only one. 634. "Thus" by this, it refers to "dukkata offenses for the number of robes." "This is the method" - it shows the multiplicity and singularity of offenses when loosely or tightly thrown. 635. In phrases like "Friend, we...", even if said with the intention to take, since it was given by him, there is no offense. "Our preceptor will take it" - this indicates a gift even to a novice. Therefore, although in the Pāli it is said, "having given a robe to a bhikkhu himself," it should be understood that even if given when not fully ordained, if snatched when fully ordained, it is still a pācittiya. Being fully ordained at the time of snatching is the measure here. "Gives" means gives whether pleased or angry. "Prevent" means restrain. "But it is not proper to give thus" - here, it should be understood that what is given thus is not yet his property, and should be used without formal appropriation. "But it is proper to have it brought" - what is given thus, being like a wage, is proper to have brought. "Given by relinquishing" means given to him, having not given in the stated manner, and having become unconcerned. "He should be made to pay the price of the goods" - one who takes without his own perception, having had the goods valued, should be made to incur an offense. These are the five factors here: being a last robe not subject to formal appropriation, being given by oneself, being perceived as one's own, being fully ordained, and snatching or causing to snatch out of anger. The commentary on the training rule concerning snatching robes is concluded. 6. Commentary on the training rule concerning asking for thread. 636. In the sixth Pāli text, "the time for making robes" by this, the robe month is stated as the time for robe-making work for bhikkhus who have completed the Rains Retreat, but it is also proper to say that any other time for robe-making work is "the time for making robes." 638. By five "Mixed" means mixed with five things like thread. "Woven place" is the name for the loom, where they gather and place it. "Having inserted the thread," that by which they beat it to make it dense is called the "weaver's shuttle." "Whatever goes," whatever application. Since the threads belong to oneself, the woven place is already obtained, so it says, "From length... up to... a woven [cloth] is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya." Indeed, in the Pāli, with this very intention, it is said, "By obtaining, it is Nissaggiya." Therefore, as long as the robe grows, so do the offenses by this measure. "The rest is allowable" here means by way of requesting handiwork. As stated before, it is Nissaggiya: a woven cloth that is a cubit in length and a handspan in width is Nissaggiya. "By that very means" means by an unallowable weaver. "Just so, a Dukkata" means a Dukkata at each section. "By those bound to a field, etc." The word "etc." includes those bound to an eye-circle, etc. "It should be determined while it is still on the loom." Here, they say, "Afterwards, the woven place is considered as already determined; there is no need for a further determination. But if, having shown a section, it is unwoven in between, it must be determined again." "This is the same method" means that when the thread is woven to the measure that is subject to the rule of vikappana, it should be determined while it is still on the loom. The thread requested for a robe, self-dedication, and having it woven by an unallowable weaver—these are the three factors here. In the Mātika Commentary (Kankha. Attha.