English
not to make it optional. To determine the accessory cloth, not to make it optional." According to this statement, one who wishes to use the three robes and so on, after determining them in the prescribed manner, should determine them by stating their name, such as "I determine this outer robe." However, one who makes them optional should do so without taking the name, by saying, "I make this robe optional for you." Therein, one who determines the three robes, having dyed them and given the kappabindu, Indeed, it should be determined with the proper measure. Its measure, by the highest standard, is suitable if less than the Sugata's robe. By the lowest standard, for the outer robe and upper robe, five fist-lengths in length, and three fist-lengths across, is suitable. The inner robe is five fist-lengths in length, and two cubits across is also suitable. For indeed, it is possible to cover the navel by wearing it. However, what is more or less than the stated measure should be determined as "utility cloth". Therein, since it is said: "There are two ways of determining a robe: one determines it by body, or one determines it by speech." (Pari. 322) Therefore, having revoked an old outer robe, saying: "I revoke this outer robe," and having taken a new outer robe in hand, and having made an intention in mind, saying: "I determine this outer robe," one should determine it by body, making a bodily gesture. This is determination by body; it is not valid for one who does not touch it with any part of the body. However, in determination by speech, one should determine it by speech, making a verbal utterance. Therein, there are two kinds of determination: if it is within reach, the utterance "I determine this outer robe" should be made. But if it is inside a chamber, or in an upper storey, or in an adjacent monastery, one should identify its location and make the utterance "I determine that outer robe." This method applies to the upper robe and the inner robe as well. Indeed, the difference is only in the name; therefore, all of them— the outer robe, the upper robe, the inner robe— should be determined by their own names in this way. If one makes outer robes, etc., from cloths that have been determined and set aside, when the dyeing and tailoring are finished, one should revoke them, saying "I revoke this," and then determine them again. However, if one sews a second piece or a patch that is larger than the determined one, it must be determined again. If it is the same size or smaller, there is no need for determination. However, it is not suitable to determine the triple robe as utility cloth. What then? It is said that the Elder Mahāpaduma said: "The three robes should be designated as the three robes. If a designation as 'extra cloth' were to be obtained, the exemption in the rule concerning 'having spent the rainy season' would be meaningless." It is said that when this was said, the remaining monks said: "Even 'extra cloth' was said by the Blessed One to be 'to be designated'. Therefore, it is permissible." It is also said in the Mahāpaccari: "'Extra cloth' is a special storage item. It is permissible to designate the three robes as 'extra cloth' and use them. However, in the rule concerning 'having spent the rainy season', an exemption is stated for one who carries the three robes after designating them." It is said that the Elder Mahātissa, reciter of the Ubhatovibhaṅga, residing in Puṇṇavālika, also said: "We heard from the great elders before: 'Monks dwelling in the forest, leaving their robes in tree hollows and such, go to strive in meditation. And for those who have gone to listen to the Dhamma in nearby monasteries, when the sun rises, novices or young monks take their bowls and robes and go. Therefore, for ease of use, it is permissible to designate the three robes as 'extra cloth'." It is also said in the Mahāpaccari: "Formerly, forest-dwelling monks, finding it difficult to manage in an unestablished boundary, designated the three robes as 'extra cloth' and used them." 45. A rain-cloak, not exceeding the measure, should be designated by name in the manner stated, for the four months of the rainy season. After that, it should be revoked and offered for sharing. Even if it is merely of a different color, it is permissible. But two are not permissible. A sitting cloth should be designated in the manner stated. And that, indeed, should be one of the proper measure; two are not permissible. A covering cloth should also be designated. That, however, even if large, is permissible. Even one is permissible. Even many are permissible. Even blue, even yellow, even plain, even flowered – all kinds are permissible. A scab-covering cloth, as long as there is an ailment, should be designated of the proper measure. When the ailment subsides, it should be revoked. should be made subject to a choice, only one is allowed. A face-wiping cloth must be determined, and while one is being washed, another may be desired for use, so two are allowed. But other elders say, "This is a storehouse opening, many are allowed." There is no count for accessory cloths; as many as one desires, so many must be determined. A bag and a water-strainer of the size of the last robe subject to choice must also be determined as an "accessory cloth." Its size is two spans in length and one span in width; but that is the length of a carpenter's cubit and half that in width. Regarding this, the Pāli states: "I allow, monks, a last robe eight finger-breadths in length by the Sugata's finger-breadth and four finger-breadths in width to be made subject to choice." It is also permissible to gather many together and determine them, saying, "I determine these robes as accessory cloths." There is no offense if one keeps medicine, new construction materials, or things for parents and so forth, even if not determined. But for a couch-cushion, a chair-cushion, a pillow, a coverlet, a rug, and other coverings given for lodging accessories, there is no need for determination. If, however, having received yarn from a relative's invited place, one has a robe woven by that relative weaver or by another, giving payment, there is no offense due to the weaving. But to avoid an offense due to the ten-day transgression, it must be determined while it is still on the loom, at the size subject to choice. For if it is finished after the ten-day transgression, it would become subject to relinquishment. The same rule applies when relatives have the yarn put on the loom and then present it, saying, "Venerable sir, this robe is yours, please accept it." If the weaver, being thus engaged or wishing to give it himself, says, "Venerable sir, I will weave your robe and set it aside on such-and-such a day," and the monk, by that specified day, From that point onwards, if he exceeds ten days, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation. But if the weaver, saying, "I, having woven your robe, will send a message," does so, but the bhikkhu sent by him does not inform that bhikkhu, and another, having seen or heard, informs him, "Venerable sir, your robe is finished," this information is not valid. But when the one sent by him himself informs, from the day of hearing his word onwards, for one who exceeds ten days, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation. If the weaver, saying, "I, having woven your robe, will send it into someone's hand," does so, but the bhikkhu who took the robe, having placed it in his own dwelling, does not inform him, and another says, "Venerable sir, is the recently brought robe beautiful?" "Where, friend, is the robe?" "It was sent into so-and-so's hand." This word also is not valid. But when that bhikkhu gives the robe, from the day of receiving it onwards, for one who exceeds ten days, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation. But if the weaving cost is not given, even if a kākaṇika amount remains, he protects it. 46. For one who uses a determined robe (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469), how does the determination cease? By giving to another, by taking it away by force, by taking it by familiarity, by reverting to a lower state, by renouncing the training, by death, by changing gender, by revoking the determination, by being torn— by these nine reasons, it ceases. Among these, by the first eight, all robes lose their determination. But by being torn, only the triple robe, in all commentaries, is said to lose its determination, and that by a tear the size of a fingernail. There, the size of a fingernail should be understood as the fingernail of the little finger, and the tear must be a penetrating tear. For if within the tear even a single thread is not cut, it (the determination) holds. There, for the outer robe and the upper robe, the length... From the hem, a span's measure, from the side, a place of eight finger-breadths, below that, a hole breaks the determination. But for the inner robe, from the length, a span's measure, from the side, a place of four finger-breadths, below that, a hole breaks the determination. Beyond that, it does not break. Therefore, when a hole occurs, the triple robe stands as an extra robe. Having done needlework, it must be determined again. But whoever, in a weak spot, first gives a patch, then cuts and removes the weak spot, the determination is not broken. Even in changing the circular patch, this is the same rule. In one layer of a double-layered robe, if a hole occurs or it becomes worn, the determination is not broken. One makes a small robe large, or makes a large one small, the determination is not broken. If, making both ends meet in the middle, one first cuts and then joins, the determination is broken. But if one joins and then cuts, it is not broken. Even when having it washed by washermen, and having it made white, the determination remains the determination. This, then, is the decision regarding determination. 47.But regarding assignment, there are two assignments: