English
and for "until hearing" and so on in the third tetrad. It should be understood that this twelve-day period, although obtained by not hoping, is not shown as implicitly understood by this. Thus, two twelve-day periods are mentioned here. In the twelve-day period of what is to be done, two twelve-day periods should also be mentioned: the twelve-day period of not hoping as shown, and the implicitly understood twelve-day period of hoping. Now comes the nine-day period of going to a direction. There, since "He does not go back" is implicitly understood by the statement "One who goes to a direction departs," that is not stated. By this much, the absence of an abode impediment is shown. "Not abandoning the robe portion"— by this, it shows his possession of a robe impediment. "Robe portion" means his share of the robe to be obtained. "Not abandoning" means desiring. When he obtains the robe, in the abode where he has spent the rains, one triad by way of completion, determination, and until destruction; one in the middle of the path by way of these same; and one in the place he has gone to— thus, one nine-day period should be understood by way of three triads. Beyond that, the five-day period of comfortable living is stated by way of completion, determination, until destruction, crossing the boundary, and removal. In both cases, the impossibility of removing the remaining kathina is obvious. This is the distinction in the five-day period here: the 'taking up' period is not possible because of the intention of returning, "He goes back." "These, bhikkhus, are the two impediments to the kathina"— meaning, the conditions for not continuing the kathina spreading. The commentary on the Kathina Section is finished. 8. Commentary on the Robe Section Commentary on the Story of Jīvaka "Resident of Rājagaha" means one who lives in Rājagaha. Because of his non-deluded nature, he attained understanding quickly. I O father, for what reason? Because you were supported by me. 329. The reading is "just released in Sakka", just released in the eighth training rule. Description of the story of King Pajjota 334. Regarding "when he was seated to eat", it is said, "in the Dhammapada, it is stated 'having seen outside the city', therefore it is appropriate that what was given on two days, he took one of them, and it is stated in the two commentaries." Description of the story of the thirty-two purges 336. Regarding "mouthful by mouthful", although it was mixed with jaggery, etc., the Blessed One himself consumed it, therefore there is no fault. Description of the story of the request for a boon 337. The "Mahāpiṭṭhiyakojava" is said to be a flower more than four finger-breadths long. Description of the story of the permission for blankets, etc. 340. "Upacāreti" means in the vicinity of the cemetery. Some say it is permissible even outside. After showing the agreement, they speak of the method for common requisites, saying, "it is permissible if one says 'what belongs to me is yours and mine,' and the other also says so." 342. It is said, "since it is stated that it is permissible to consecrate even in a fragmented boundary, it is permissible to perform other acts by sitting there." It is said that the islanders say, "if that is the case, it becomes like something done by theft, therefore it is not permissible." They also say, "the Sutta that appears in the chapter on dwellings, stating that it is not obtained because it was taken by theft, is also a proof," therefore, according to their opinion, this should be understood as a unique characteristic. Description of the story of the appointment of a storehouse, etc. 343. It is said, "this, however, is a unique characteristic for a storehouse." Description of the story of dyeing robes 344. There is no offense in cow dung, it is prevented by its unseemliness. They say, "saffron flower is not permissible." There is also the reading "Allikāyā". Description of the story of the permission for sitting cloths, etc. 353. Regarding "this is not the place", in the section on form, since it is stated "arising from four causes", it should be considered and taken, either that the karma-originated (form) is not released due to the absence of a mind of passion, or that the karma-originated (form) arises when there is a condition of passion, and also by the story. 362. Agga The meaning is that it is proper to place it in the Aggaḷagutti Vihāra itself, by establishing it with these four reasons for placing it, namely, that the bolt-guard itself is the measure. The Elucidation of the Story of the Arising of Saṅgha Robes 363. If the kathina is not spread, it should not be said, “One robe month.” Why? Because there is no statement, “I allow, monks, those robes to be for him until the robe month.” Therefore, if it is said that it is not allowed for one who has not spread the kathina? No, because it was allowed earlier, and because it was said thus here to clarify a subtle meaning. For earlier, by the statement, “An untimely robe is one that arises in the eleven months when the kathina is not spread, or in the seven months when the kathina is spread, or one given by designation even in the proper time; this is called an untimely robe” (Pārā. 500), it is established that what arises in the one robe month for those who have not spread the kathina belongs to them. Therefore, without saying that here, it was said, “until the kathina is lifted,” to reveal this subtle meaning that even one person can obtain three quorum members and spread the kathina. Otherwise, this meaning would not be known. It was said, “And it should be known by the Vinaya experts, so it was said thus by others.” The kathina is spread, the connection is that for five months everything belongs to that monk. The genitive case is used in the sense of constant connection. Because it is specified, “to the Saṅgha that has resided here for the rains,” and because “here” is the authority in “we give the rains-residence robe,” one obtains it when that is said. In a certain gloss, it is written, “It was said thus because it arose in the latter period, and because the robe season was near, and because it is a place allowed even for those who have not spread the kathina and for those who have resided for the rains.” Some, however, say, “As for this passage, ‘to the Saṅgha that has resided here for the rains,’ etc., up to the word ‘in the coming year,’ after questioning, ‘Why? Because it arose in the latter period,’ this should be written later at the end of ‘it accrues to all who are present there,’ as ‘Why? Because it arose in the latter period.’ Why? Because later, ‘starting from the robe month’…” because it is said, "until winter," there is no distinction, therefore some say, "they call it wise." But here, it is specified by the word "here," it is not there, so it should be understood that there is no mutual contradiction. The statement "these robes belong to me" is the declaration, this is said here in the highest sense. It is said, "even when it is said 'these robes are mine,' it is still declared." It is said, "when it is said 'these are mine,' he has no robes, therefore it must be said 'the robes accrue to me.'" "Wrongly acquired" means they belong to the Sangha. It is written, "although it is not known that 'this is the bowl of this one called acquired,' yet those shares have actually accrued to them, this is the intention." It is said, "if one is not obtained, those who come again receive it." Commentary on the Story of Upananda the Sakyan Son 364. "Not, monks, by one who has not spent the rains," a prohibition was made with reference to the robe season. In one monastery, it was given, saying, "let those who have stayed here or in various cells, like in a royal monastery, receive it." It is also written, "the statement 'he causes the sun to rise in seven days' is merely a statement, as there is no seven-day task in one monastery." Commentary on the Story of the Deceased's Property 369. "Of a monk" means when a monk has passed away. There, "bowl and robes" should be understood as indicating all requisites by way of showing the principal requisites. If it was acquired unlawfully, some say it is proper for the Sangha, being dead property. No, this reasoning contradicts the rule that a bowl in the four-bowl category is always improper. There is no offense for one who dwells in a dwelling acquired unlawfully. In a certain dwelling, two monks live; if one of them dies, and the other removes his requisites and takes them with a thieving mind, it is considered taking Sangha property, and he should be made to pay the value of the goods. If he takes it in a non-dwelling, he should not be made to pay, because it was taken from one without an owner. If he is unable to speak at the time of death but gives it with his mind, merit he gives birth, the Sangha is its owner. If another, untrustworthy, takes it himself, the taking is not approved. If with a thieving mind, he should be made to pay the value of the goods. And who is the owner of one who has come to the dwelling? Some say, "The Sangha is the owner," meaning the Sangha should forcibly restrain him. Others say, "The Sangha is not the owner," because it was taken while he was alive. Still others say, "If the owner himself sees and can seize it, the Sangha can also, being in the position of owner." It should be taken after consideration. If the deceased has gold and other improper goods. If it has been acquired, one should proceed as stated for acquired things. If it arose by Dhamma, the one who makes it proper should be informed. If a slave has been taken, the Sangha is not the owner. If an attendant, the Sangha is the owner. If there are cows, buffaloes, etc., for those in the dwelling, the Sangha is the owner. For those not in the dwelling, the Sangha is not the owner. If the Sangha brings it to the dwelling,