English
it has five sections or strips as its measure. Or, it means with what is extra. "Cut on that very day" means it must be cut on that very day and made into a circle, after the Saṅgha has recited the kammavācā and given it to the kathina layer. For indeed, what is given in this way is included in the "preliminary work" of the "seven dhammas" in the entourage. It is said, not given by the donor. Therefore, if the donor gives to the Sangha that which has already completed the preliminary tasks, it should be accepted and given by a formal act. And in that same boundary, having determined and spread it, the Sangha should be made to rejoice, because there is no need to do again what has already been done. Indeed, it is with reference to the spread cloth that it is said, "not merely by scratching," and so on. If it is said, "Even that which has completed the preliminary tasks must be washed again, unstitched, and done again, according to the measure of the words"? No, because what has been cut cannot be cut again. If it is said, "It must be cut in another place"? No, because according to the measure of the words "having caused the hair and beard to be removed" in the context of ordination, there would be the absurdity of having to search for hair even from a shaven head, place it on the head, and then cause it to be removed again before ordaining. If it is said, "Not here, because it is prohibited by 'na'"? No, because if "not by 'na'" prohibits it, as in "not apart from the outer robe," then if it is spread with an upper robe, it would be considered not spread, leading to an undesirable consequence. Therefore, no insistence should be made. Since it is said, "standing outside the boundary of the precinct," the decision stated previously should be adopted. 309. "The Kathina is spread by one who is not present" – here, is both kinds of presence intended only during the Kathina spreading month, or also before that? And when should the donor give it? Is it only during the Kathina spreading month, or also before that? And even during the Kathina spreading month, is it permissible or not permissible to give it, saying, "I give this for spreading on such and such a day"? This should be considered. Both kinds of presence are only during the Kathina spreading month. And it is not permissible for the donor to give the Kathina robe specifically for the Kathina, like the Vassa residence. Why? Because it is stated in the commentary in the manner of "there is a duty for the Kathina donor," and so on. If it is said, "This is merely an excellent practice"? No, because it is said, "The Kathina is indeed very excellent." If it is said, "It is not said with reference to coming"? No, this too is said with reference to coming. what was given before is not valid. 310. Kathinassa means of the kathina-spreading. Ubbhārāyāti means for its cessation, for its non-occurrence. If it is asked, for what purpose is the indication of cessation? It is for the purpose of generating restraint in them by showing the five periods of non-offense. Otherwise, since it is stated in the Vibhaṅga, "The time for robes, when the kathina is not spread, is the last month of the rainy season; when the kathina is spread, it is five months" (Pārā. 649), there might be a misconception that even without cessation due to going away in the interim, etc., there is no offense for five months in the five. From that, one would commit that offense by perceiving a non-offense area in an offense area, and it would cause an obstruction to the gains of other bhikkhus. This should be understood. Explanation of the Story of the Seven Taken Robes 311. Here and in the Parivāraṭṭhakathā, it is stated that both impediments are cut off together at the time of completion. This aligns with this Khandhaka-pāḷi because the burden of both is laid down together. "This refers to the completion mentioned outside the boundary. As for what is stated in the Parivāra, 'There are four kathina cessations: they may be ceased within the boundary, or they may be ceased outside the boundary: completion, final completion, destruction, and cutting off of hope' (Pari. 416). There, the final completion being ceased outside the boundary is the method shown here. How is the final completion within the boundary? One who has taken an unmade robe and gone with the thought 'I will not return,' not finding a comfortable stay in the place he went to, returns to that same monastery. His robe impediment remains. And it is cut off as soon as the thought 'I will not make this robe' arises in his mind. Therefore, it is ceased within the boundary. Thus, there are two kinds of final completion." This is written in the ancient commentary, and it is correct. Otherwise, the cessation occurring within the boundary with the thought "I will not make this robe" would be superfluous if it did not combine with the others. Sīmātikkantiko means exceeding the boundary of the robe-making period. In the case of cessation, the robe impediment first... It appears as if it's being cut off, but because of attachment, there is enthusiasm in making the robe, referring to this meaning, in the context of the surrounding text, it is said, "two hindrances are cut off, not before, not after" (Mahavagga Commentary 311). Since it is said "one who has made the robe," it is not possible here. 316. One who departs without leaving any of one's requisites is called "departing having taken them." "There is no distinction in the Kathina removal. The 'samādāya' cases are mentioned merely to show the cases, due to the specific intention of individuals," is written in all commentaries. Here, however, the purpose should be investigated according to the individual's intention. Due to the absence of "departing-nearness," it is said "as far as possible." Even if it is incomplete, "departing-nearness" is possible by way of laying down the burden, so should the "departing-nearness" case also be stated? No, because of the implication of the characteristic of "completion-nearness." And for one who has not made the robe, there is no "hearing-nearness." Here is the explanation of the cases from the beginning: seven "ādāya" cases, and similarly "samādāya" cases, thus two sets of seven cases. Then, excluding "departing-nearness," for an incomplete robe, "ādāya" cases and "samādāya" cases, thus two sets of six cases. After that, three sets of three cases are shown by way of "completion-nearness," "firm completion-nearness," and "destruction-nearness." There, the first set of three, without touching the rule "one should not go forth" within the boundary, applies only outside the boundary as "one should not go forth." Therefore, the burdens of transgressing the boundary of "departing-nearness" are not appropriate there. "Even if 'cutting off hope' is possible, it is not mentioned for the reasons stated." "The second set of three applies within the boundary as 'one should not go forth.' Here, although 'departing-nearness' is possible, it is not mentioned because only those by whom the robe hindrance is cut off are intended," is said in the ancient commentaries. The inference is that in all fifteen cases, only an incomplete robe is intended. And when it is incomplete, not having reached the determination, there is no "completion-nearness." When there is a remainder of completion, there is no "destruction-nearness," say the ancients. The third Whatever proceeds, distinguished by an unestablished term, in meaning, it agrees with the first triad. Indeed, that is its purpose for showing the meaning. Since these three variations of meaning can be shown by these very three kathina extractions, therefore, these are combined in a single connection, otherwise, the first triad would be a hexad, like the hexad at the end of this fifteen-group. After the third triad, a fourth triad arising, it arises by the special phrase: "within the boundary, 'he should go forth'." And being thus combined, it is not inconsistent in sequence with the others, such as the 'hearing-near' (savanantika). Therefore, it should be understood that it became a hexad, not a fourth triad. Thus, three triads and one hexad, this is to be known as the first fifteen-group. Now, this same fifteen-group, by a special prefix, is named the second 'taking-up' fifteen-group. Again, taking the unfinished robe, is the third fifteen-group; taking up, is shown as the fourth fifteen-group. Thus, four fifteen-groups are to be known. There, in the first and second fifteen-groups, an entirely unmade robe is intended; in the other two, an unfinished one is to be understood. "In the previously designated place, it should be taken with the hope of a robe; elsewhere, it is not valid. If a robe arises when the hope of a robe has ceased, that does not create an impediment to the robe," so it is said in the ancient commentary. The expectation of a robe that came in the third kathina of the Nissaggiyas, here is the 'hope of a robe' - this is the inference. Where there is a hope of a robe, that place is called "hope of a robe" by way of locative metaphor, and thus it is said, "he attends to that hope of a robe," and so on. Therefore, the meaning "he obtains without hope" is to be taken as "he obtains in a place where there is no hope," and so on. Here, by way of completion, near-completion, destruction, and cutting off hope, there is one turn, this has become one tetrad. Therefore, the three triads mentioned before, with the addition of cutting off hope, become three tetrads, and this is to be known as one 'twelve-group without hope'. Following that, the 'twelve-group with hope'... Even if the first twelve-day period is obtained, it is made non-specific, and that one twelve-day period is made implicitly understood. To show it specifically, it is said from the beginning, "He goes back within the boundary." This is to make room for the statement "He hears it when he has gone outside the boundary" in the second tetrad,