English
It arises from communication, it is an action, it is not released by perception, it is unintentional, it is an offense by designation, it is a bodily action, it is a verbal action, it has three mental states, it has three feelings. The description of the training rule concerning robes by appointment is finished. 5. The description of the training rule concerning the acceptance of robes In the fifth, “by an unrelated woman” is said in the same way as before, therefore from now on we will not consider it anywhere. “Robe” means any one of the six that is not subject to designation; this is the rule in all training rules connected with robes. Where there will be a special case, we will explain it there. In “should accept,” if one puts it in the hand, or gives it into the hand, or places it at the foot, or even throws it on the clothes of one who is speaking the Dhamma, going beyond the boundary, or throws it on top, if one approves, it is accepted. It is permissible to receive what has been sent into the hand of any unordained person. It is permissible to acquire even a rag-robe placed in a rubbish heap, etc., with the thought, “I will take a rag-robe,” after designating it. “Except for an exchange” means that if one accepts an exchange with the intention, “I will give or I will give at least a piece of haritaki,” then, apart from that, if one accepts anything else, even a cloth strainer not subject to designation, it is an offense entailing relinquishment. In that case, the method of relinquishment should be understood according to the statement, “Venerable sir, this robe of mine, accepted from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhuni, except for an exchange, is an offense entailing relinquishment.” This was laid down in Rājagaha concerning the Elder Udāyi, in the story of accepting a robe. “Except for an exchange” is a supplementary rule here, a special rule, not by appointment. There is a dukkaṭa offense for the act of stretching out the hand to receive, etc. It becomes an offense entailing relinquishment upon acquisition; it must be relinquished. It is a pācittiya offense with three factors. For one who is ordained on one side, or for one who is a relative, there is a dukkaṭa offense if one perceives her as unrelated or is in doubt. There is no offense in the case of accepting by trust, temporarily, for undesignated requisites such as a bowl-bag, accepting from the hand of a female trainee or a female novice, or in the case of mad persons, etc. The factors here are: being a robe not subject to designation, the absence of an exchange, and accepting from the hand of an unrelated woman. These are the three factors. Arising from moving about, Action or non-action, The rest is just like the fourth. The explanation of the training rule concerning the acceptance of robes is finished. 6. The explanation of the training rule concerning soliciting from an unknown person. In the sixth (rule), 'gahapati' (householder) means a lay person among bhikkhus. 'Gahapatāni' (householder woman) means a lay woman among bhikkhunis. This method applies to all training rules connected with householders. 'Should solicit' means should beg or should cause to beg. 'Except at the proper time' means if one's robe has been stolen or lost, apart from that time, in any other act of soliciting, there is a dukkata (offence of wrong-doing), and by obtaining it, it becomes nissaggiya (entailing forfeiture). In this regard, the procedure for forfeiture should be understood by this method: "Venerable Sir, this robe of mine, solicited from an unknown householder at an improper time, is to be forfeited." (Pārā. 524) It was laid down concerning Upananda in Sāvatthī, regarding the incident of soliciting a robe. 'Except at the proper time'— this is a supplementary enactment here, a general enactment, without instruction, a triple pācittiya (offence entailing confession), and for one who perceives a known person as unknown, or is in doubt, there is a dukkata. There is no offence: at the proper time, or soliciting from a known person who has invited, or soliciting for that same purpose from another known person who has invited, or taking with one's own money, and for the insane and so forth. The robe not being subject to determination, the absence of the proper time, soliciting from an unknown person, and obtaining it thereby— these are the four factors here. The arising and so forth are just like the fourth. The explanation of the training rule concerning soliciting from an unknown person is finished. 7. The explanation of the training rule concerning exceeding that. In the seventh (rule), 'that' refers to that robe which was stolen or lost. 'Abhihaṭṭhuṃ' (to bring forth)— 'abhi' is a prefix, the meaning is 'to carry', it is said to mean 'to take'. 'Should invite' means should make one wish, should generate desire or inclination, the meaning is to invite thus: "Take as much as you wish," just as in "seeing renunciation as safety" (Sutta Nipāta 426, 1104; Cūḷaniddesa, Jatukaṇṇīmāṇavapucchāniddesa 67), here 'disvā' (having seen) means 'att' (having attained)... Oh, so here too, by bringing and offering, placing it in front with the body, or by saying with speech, "Take as much as you wish from our storehouse of cloth," the meaning is to bring and invite. "Santaruttaraparamam" means that the inner, outer, and uppermost garment is "santaruttaraparamaṃ," meaning the lower garment with the upper robe is its highest limit. From that, a robe should be accepted. From that offered robe, so much should be taken, not more than that. Here is the determination: For one whose three robes, once determined, are lost, two should be accepted. One should be worn as a lower garment, one as an upper robe, and another should be sought from a suitable place. For one whose two are lost, one should be accepted. If, however, one normally goes about with an inner and outer robe, two should be accepted. Thus, by accepting one, it will be equal. For one whose one of three is lost, nothing should be accepted. But for one whose one of two is lost, one should be accepted. For one who has only one, and that is lost, two should be accepted. For a bhikkhunī, if five are lost, two should be accepted. If four are lost, one should be accepted. If three are lost, nothing should be accepted. What then to say of two or one? By whatever means, one should maintain the state of having an inner and outer robe as the maximum. If one requests more than that, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Upon receiving it, it becomes nissaggiya. In that regard, the method of relinquishment should be understood according to the statement: "This robe of mine, venerable sirs, was requested from an unknown householder beyond the limit, it is nissaggiya." (Pārā. 524) This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six bhikkhus, regarding the matter of requesting many robes. It is a general rule, without specific instruction, a triple pācittiya offense. For one who perceives a known person as unknown, or is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Having made two robes, for one who takes, saying, "I will bring the rest," and to whom it is said, "Let the rest be yours," it is not cut off. For one who takes what was given due to loss, for one who informs relatives (who were not invited) in the manner stated, for one who takes with one's own wealth, and for mad persons, etc., there is no offense. The exceeding of that (limit), the reason for not being cut off, informing an unknown person, and the obtaining by that— these are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the fourth (rule). The commentary on the rule concerning exceeding that (limit) is finished. 8. Commentary on the Upakkhaṭa training rule In the eighth (rule), "designating a monk" means having designated thus: "I will give to a monk named so-and-so." "Money for robes" means gold, etc., the price of robes. "Is prepared" means it is made ready, collected and set aside. "Having caused to be bought" means having exchanged, or having caused to be made or having bought—this is the meaning. "I will cover (him) with a robe" is a conventional expression; "I will give to a monk named so-and-so"—this is the meaning here. "If there he" (the donor) means where that householder or householder's wife is; "if there that monk, not having been invited previously, approaches and makes a suggestion regarding the robe"—this is the connection of the words here. "Should make a suggestion" means should make a special suggestion, an additional arrangement. To show how he makes that (suggestion), he says "It is good, indeed!" and so on. There, "sādhu" (good) is a particle of request. "Vata" (indeed) is for deliberation. "Maṃ" (me) refers to oneself. "Āyasmā" (Venerable sir) addresses another. "Such a one or such a one" is one of those like "long", etc. "Taking up the desire for what is good" means having taken into mind the desire for beauty, the desire for excellence; this is connected with "if he makes a suggestion". If, however, by the words of one making such a suggestion, someone increases the initial intended value and causes a more beautiful one to be bought, for the monk, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkata) in the attempt; by obtaining it, it becomes subject to relinquishment (nissaggiya). There, the procedure for relinquishment should be understood by this method: "Venerable sir, this robe of mine, regarding which I, uninvited, approached an unknown householder and made a suggestion, is subject to relinquishment." (Pārā. 529) In Sāvatthī, concerning Upānanda, a robe... In the case of falling into a choice, it is a general rule, not an order, a Tika Pācittiya. For one who knows a relative as a stranger, or is in doubt, it is a Dukkata. One who intends to have it valued highly or lowly, saying, "Give me another of this kind" for the same price,