English
Indeed, the rule of not wandering uninvited is prescribed only for one who accepts an invitation, and similarly for group meals. There is no rule of not accepting for one who has not determined the three robes, because one who has too many robes can obtain a fourth or more robes as needed. Even for the other, it is obtained by way of not determining. The production of robes is only for one who does not use rags from a dust heap. "Within the boundary of the kathina's purpose" is said with reference to the upacāra boundary. Since the upacāra boundary is where dead robes and the like are shared, and there is no production in a fixed boundary, it should be understood that the upacāra boundary is intended here. Who obtains the kathina spreading? Who accomplishes it? Five people accomplish it. Indeed, the donors of the kathina cloth are four at the extreme end. One is the recipient. "If, monks, that four-fold community of monks, excluding three acts: ordination, invitation, and rehabilitation" (Mahāvagga 388), as stated in the Campeyya Chapter, it should be understood that "it is not an act for a five-fold community." They say, "To whom the Sangha gives the kathina cloth, it is permissible to give it even if he is outside the boundary, without having him within arm's reach." That should be given only by having him within arm's reach. Why? It is said, "Because he is subject to that act." "When clothes are bought with the produce from that, such as rice, those clothes belong only to those for whom the kathina has been spread. But when rice and the like are bought with clothes, they belong to all." is said. Those who have made the first Pavāraṇā receive it, this is said as the highest limit. If it is asked, how is it understood that even those who have not made Pavāraṇā due to an obstacle, but have completed the Rains, can spread the Kathina, by making others the 'gaṇapūraka' (completers of the group)? Because in the Parivāra it says, "The Kathina is spread for two persons: for the spreader and for the approver" (Pari. 403), using the singular form; and in the same place it says, "The Kathina is spread for the Sangha, the Kathina is spread for a group, for an individual" (Pari. 414). It is said that even those who have completed the Rains in another monastery do not receive it. Is this within the same boundary or in different boundaries? And what about this? If it is within the same boundary, it contradicts the Aṭṭhakathā statement further on: "If there are many monasteries within one boundary, all the bhikkhus should gather and spread the Kathina in one place; it is not proper to spread it separately." This statement indeed indicates that there is only one Kathina spreading for all. If it is in different boundaries, it contradicts Upānanda's permission for a single intention donation. For it is said, "Give, O bhikkhus, to the foolish man a single intention" (Mahāva. 364). This statement indeed indicates the success of his Kathina spreading in both residences. Non-contradiction should be desired because it is not prohibited. Therefore, the meaning should be understood that whether in the same boundary or in different boundaries, in another monastery not within the same precinct, even those who have completed the Rains do not receive it. "One who has been ordained in the latter part is able to make the first Pavāraṇā, and is a Rains-resident, and receives the benefit." Thus, the Rains-residence of novices is permitted, and novices receive the Kathina benefit, they say. "Sufficient for any one of the three robes" this seems to contradict the Pāli text: "The Kathina is not spread without the outer robe, the upper robe, or the inner robe." This Pāli text indeed means that it is not spread even with the absence of one of the three robes. Does it show the Kathina is laid? No, because of knowing its meaning. For the Blessed One, wishing to show that the Kathina is not laid due to the absence of any one of the three robes, spoke that Pāli text. If so, should it not be said: "except for the outer robe, the upper robe, the inner robe"? No, because of knowing the intention. For one who wishes to lay it with the outer robe, it is not laid except with the outer robe. This is the method in other cases too; this is the intention here. Therefore, in the bright fortnight, only one robe is mentioned in the manner of "it is laid with the outer robe," and so on. This being the case, it should be understood that "the Kathina is not laid in twenty-four ways, the Kathina is laid in seventeen ways" is stated as the highest limit, as appropriate. Therefore, in the dark fortnight, even by the complete absence of all twenty-four possible conditions such as 'ullikhita' ... 'nissīmaṭṭhānumodanānaṃ', or by the absence of any one of the impossible conditions such as 'nimittakata', the Kathina is not laid; this is the intention to be understood. And in the bright fortnight, even by the presence of any one of the seventeen possible conditions such as 'ahatāhatakappa' ... 'sīmaṭṭhānumodanānaṃ', or by the complete absence of the others, the Kathina is laid; this is the intention to be understood. Otherwise, there would be mutual contradiction; it should be understood by connecting them as far as possible. Here is a mere illustrative example: In the dark fortnight, according to the statement: "if the Kathina is laid with the upper robe, it is not laid except with the outer robe, nor except with the inner robe," that Kathina would be unlaid. And in the bright fortnight, according to the statement: "the Kathina is laid by that which is not marked," if the Kathina is laid by that which is not marked, and if it is spoken about, even so, the Kathina is laid. This is a twofold contradiction. It should be understood that if the intention is grasped in the manner stated, the contradiction is resolved. He who gives much benefit, by this, as if greed for requisites... It illuminates, and yet, by the Blessed One, through the declaration of seeking robes as needed, a door was given, thus it is for the benefit of the Sangha. "It is not to be done," it is written, "for one who does not do it out of disrespect, there is an offense of wrong-doing." "We rejoice" – here, it is said in this way, inclusively for all the Sangha. "I rejoice" should be said by one person; otherwise, "it is not valid," it is said in the Great Commentary. Having resolved the Kathina robe, by the words "With this outer robe, I spread the Kathina," it is spread for the individual. "The formal act (kammavācā) is valid only as one; thus, the formal act is only for the Kathina cloth, and for the giving of other robes, it is merely an announcement," it is written. "In one boundary" means "in one precinct boundary," which is appropriate. Some, however, say: "A consecrated boundary is intended. When it is spread in one place within one boundary, it is considered spread everywhere, because it is said 'all bhikkhus having assembled.' Even by those who rejoice, it is considered spread. In a precinct boundary, what is received here and there must be received by those individuals." "Even by those who have entered there, it must be received, because it is spread for all. This is the distinction." "It is said in the Great Commentary as well," they say. It should be investigated. 308. Because of having twenty-four aspects, it is a great foundation. "Long-stitched" means "stitching done afterwards, or stitching by turning over," it is written. "Kaṇḍusa" is a preliminary binding. The first patch is attached and placed. This means that seeing the Kathina cloth is weak, those who wish to sew it, having strengthened it by attaching it to their own regular cloth, making it double-layered, first make it by attaching it to the binding strips according to its size, and binding it with cords, due to the larger size of the regular cloth compared to the Kathina cloth. When the Kathina robe is small, the first bound cloth becomes a belly-patch. This is an example of what is said in the Mahāpaccari and Kurundi. It should be understood that this is done to show that there is only a difference in expression, but not in meaning. "If it is asked, 'What does this illuminate?' It is not to be seen that the Tathāgata's double-layered robe, due to the largeness of the ordinary robe, goes by the count of an ordinary robe, not by the count of a kathina robe, as someone might think. Even a kathina robe, though it be like a small stomach-cloth, and even a large ordinary robe, is indeed his own kathina robe. Since the lowest limit of five is desired, one who wishes to cut the kathina cloth into many pieces and sew them, takes a strip from the kathina robe and attaches the strip to another non-kathina robe." Thus it is written. Or, many kathina cloths, rag-robes, small and tiny ones, for one robe, and large ones, given for a deficiency, are present. "From the kathina robe" means a bhikkhu takes a strip from some kathina robe and attaches it to another. Here it is asked: Should rag-robes, kathina cloths, be given as those that are no longer subject to determination, or even small ones? Here, since they are not counted as robes, it is not proper to give small ones. Some say the kammavācā does not apply there. However, from the statement in the Pāli, "It is covered with a rag-robe," and from the explanation in the commentary, which, by way of allowing the kathina robe status, even to a kathina cloth that is like a small stomach-cloth, which by its nature is not subject to determination, but is worthy of determination as an old robe, it is proper to give even small ones. Some say it is permissible because the kathina layer will make it into a kathina robe by joining them together. The more reasonable view should be taken. Accumulation and storage are dependent on the Saṅgha, made by the Saṅgha. Because it must be relinquished if it exceeds the night, it is called "nissaggiya" (to be relinquished). "Pañcakaṃ" (fivefold) means