English
Suttaviññattisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), however, regarding "should have it woven," it states the meaning as "should have it woven by an unallowable request, saying, 'Friends, weave a robe for me.'" And in the factors, it specifies, "having it woven by an unallowable weaver with an unallowable request." But such a specific statement is found neither in the Pāli nor in the Commentary. In the Pāli, only "of relatives who have invited" is mentioned in the section on non-offenses, and in the Commentary, it is only the threads and the weaving that are considered allowable or unallowable. The method has been shown in many ways, not in terms of allowable or unallowable communication. And by specifically saying, "He should make an effort with unallowable communication," it was not separately shown what is allowable communication, therefore, it should be understood after investigation. The explanation of the training rule concerning communication about thread is finished. 7. The explanation of the training rule concerning the great weaver 642. In the seventh, "should give a little" is merely a showing of how it should be done, giving is not an element here, as the offense is incurred only through the process of increasing the thread. Therefore, even in the word-division, it is said, "If by his word, they make it longer or wider or thicker, a dukkaṭa offense upon the effort, and nissaggiya upon receiving," thus stating the offense by showing only the manner of increasing the thread. In the Commentary on the Mātikā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Mahāpesakārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) it is also said: "It is not nissaggiya for the bhikkhu merely by giving almsfood. But if, by his word, they take thread from the owners of the robe and make it even slightly longer or wider or thicker, then upon their effort, the bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa, and upon receiving, it becomes nissaggiya." Among the seven modes like lengthening, the first three modes cannot be done without increasing the thread, so it says, "it shows only the manner of increasing the thread." For modes like "well-woven" can be done even without increasing the thread. The rest here is clear. Approaching an unknown and uninvited weaver and making a request, the robe being intended for oneself, the increasing of thread by his word, and the receiving of the robe – these are the four factors here. The explanation of the training rule concerning the great weaver is finished. 8. The explanation of the training rule concerning an urgent robe 646. In the eighth, "for clarity" means for clarity in the phrase "ten days not yet arrived." "Of the first word" means of the phrase "ten days not yet arrived." "Those days" means on those days. "Should arise" means it should arise from the Saṅgha or from a group or directly for oneself. "Fifth" here refers to the Saṅgha of those who have resided for the Rains. He obtains only the emergency robe allowance for an emergency robe that arose before the fifth day, but was distributed and received on the fifth day. If it arose directly for himself, he obtains the emergency robe allowance only for that which arose on the fifth day, not for that before it, so it should be understood. "Merely faith" means merely faith arisen at that moment from hearing the Dhamma, etc. "Announced robe" means a robe given after announcement. The eleventh dawn for a robe arisen on the sixth day rises in the robe-period, so it is said, "from the sixth day onwards," etc. "Even a stored robe" means all excess robes are spoken of by way of showing the principal robe. Now, if it is asked, "From where is it obtained that 'it is permissible to store an excess robe even in the robe month'?" They say, "Even though not separately permitted in this training rule, it is indeed permitted by what is said in the third Kathina training rule: 'The robe-period, when the Kathina is not spread, is the last month of the Rains; when the Kathina is spread, it is five months.' And by what is said: 'An untimely robe, when the Kathina is not spread, is one arisen in the eleventh month; when the Kathina is spread, it is one arisen in the seventh month.'" And some say, "It should be taken as authoritative based on the words of the commentaries." 650. Now, showing the allowance obtained for each respective robe, bringing it together right here from the first Kathina and other training rules, he says, "Thus, the allowance for an excess robe is ten days," and so on. "When the Kathina is not spread, a month plus eleven days; when the Kathina is spread, five months plus eleven days" - this reading alone should be adopted. Some here, having said the reading, "Although it is established by 'an excess robe should be kept for a maximum of ten days,' yet the training rule was laid down by showing the meaning as if it were new, by way of the origin of the matter," say, "It should be with the reading 'a month plus ten days, five months plus ten days.'" That should not be adopted, because it is a careless reading. For the robe (period) of the full moon of Kattika (the three-month period) which is not reached by ten days... ten days before the proper time are in excess. In this way, it should be said: "The Kattika three-month full moon, which is not yet nine days away." Even in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kankhā. aṭṭha. Accekacīvarasikkhāpada-vaṇṇanā), it is stated: "The time for depositing a robe that has arisen from the fifth day of the bright half of the Pavāraṇā month is shown." And then the passage: "Although this is established by the rule: 'An extra robe should be worn for a maximum of ten days,' the rule was laid down as if it were a new meaning, by showing its origin," is shown, but that is also a mistaken reading. And since it is said: "from the fifth day of the bright half," there might be a contradiction of earlier and later statements there; it should be said: "from the sixth day." In this way, it is possible to say: "It is established by the rule of a maximum of ten days." And taking this mistaken reading, the Venerable Buddhācariya also said: "For that urgent matter, when the kathina is not spread, the period of exemption is considered a maximum of one month, or ten days. "When the kathina is spread, five months are declared for it; the exemption by the Lord of Sages is a maximum of ten days." It is said: "similar to an urgent robe" because it arose during the time of an urgent robe. In all three commentaries, it is stated: "For one who allows an ordinary robe, which arose on the fifth day, to exceed ten days, an offense arises before the robe-period expires, not upon the expiration of the robe-period. Therefore, with reference to the absence of an offense that would be incurred again upon the expiration of the robe-period, it is said: 'No offense for one who perceives an ordinary robe as an ordinary robe.'" Here, there are four factors: the robe of urgency, which is the last measure not subject to determination, being one's own property; its arising on the Kattika three-month full moon, which is not yet ten days away; its not being determined or designated; and the expiration of the robe-period. The explanation of the rule concerning an urgent robe is finished. 9. Explanation of the Rule Concerning Doubt 652. In the ninth, "antaraghare" means "among houses," or "where there are houses," or "of this," which is the village for alms, known as "antaraghara." Therefore he said, "within the village." In Pāli, "vippavasantī" (dwelling apart) refers to those who, having deposited their robes inside a dwelling while staying in a certain monastery, then dwell elsewhere. For in that monastery, having deposited the robe inside a dwelling, to dwell there is permitted, so dwelling there is not called "dwelling apart." "Dubbalacoḷā" (poor-robed) means "duccoḷā" (bad-robed) or "virūpacoḷā" (ugly-robed), and because of being bad-robed, they are "lūkhacīvarā" (rough-robed). 653. In the analysis of "He dwells having entered the first jhāna," instead of extracting "upasampajjā" (having entered), "upasampajja" (having entered) was extracted, and "the acquisition, the attainment of the first jhāna" and so on was stated. Referring to that, he says, "as in 'upasampajjanti' and so on." By the word "and so on," "or he might depart without asking" and so on should be understood. "Upagantvā" (having gone near) explains the meaning of the prefix "upa-". "Vasitvā" (having dwelt) means having dwelt continuously. As it is said, "That which is connected to whom, even if far, belongs to him," so it is said, "this... and so on... is connected to this." There, "imassa" (of this) refers to the word "upavassa" (having dwelt). "Nikkhipeyya" (should deposit) means "ṭhapeyya" (should place). Thus, for one who has completed the rains retreat, having approached the former place and dwelt continuously, dwelling in forest dwellings, it is permitted to dwell apart from the triple robe for the entire month of Kattika. For one who has not benefited from the Kathina, dwelling apart in the robe-month is not permissible, as only for those who have benefited from the Kathina is the practice of not taking up the robe permitted. Some, however, saying "even for those who have not benefited from the Kathina, the practice of not taking up the robe is obtained in the robe-month," elaborate in many ways, but that should not be accepted. "Byañjanavicāraṇa" (analysis of expression) is the analysis of "upavassa, upavassitvā" and so on. "Tassapi" (of that also) refers to the analytical term "vutthavassāna" (of those who have completed the rains retreat). And "vutthavassāna" is a genitive case of determination. Therefore he says – "among such monks." In "senāsanesu" (in dwellings), "tathārūpesu" (in such-like) should be connected. Regarding "a place worthy of enclosure," here they say, "a place worthy of enclosure means two clod-throws," but that should not be accepted. Of the unenclosed. Now, the determination here is that from the vicinity of a house