English
If it were said to show the robe that may be kept for ten days at most, he would keep what is lost and so on. And keeping here means placing. or for use. Both of these are suitable whether it is made or not, therefore it should not be said "or it is made." For it is not only when it is made that it becomes subject to forfeiture when transgressed. Therefore, the meaning that the robe concerning which it was said "this is a finished robe" should be kept for a maximum of ten days when the kathina is lifted, should not be taken. For if that robe exists, when the kathina is lifted, not even one day's allowance is obtained. Moreover, it was said "a robe is the last thing that is suitable for determination." And there, it is something made. Therefore, it should be understood that it was not said with that in mind that it should be kept, due to its impossibility. However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada it was said: "Here it might be: If that bhikkhu's robe were lost or destroyed, which robe should he keep for a maximum of ten days? Since there is no robe to be kept, the words 'lost' and so on were stated to show the impediment of making, by way of extracting the meaning. This meaning should be taken when there is no robe among those mentioned by 'lost' and so on. If there is one, transgressing it for more than ten days makes it subject to forfeiture. This is the method everywhere. 'Or it is made' refers to the robe that is made. Why, if it is asked, was it not stated that a made robe is intended in this meaning? Because it is obvious. How? Since lost or destroyed robes cannot be kept, it is obvious that only a made robe is intended here. Like what? Just as in the first niyata, since only sexual intercourse, physical contact, and sitting in private are mentioned, it is obvious that 'in private' is stated by way of extracting the meaning of the hearing. Therefore, it was not stated 'in private for the eye' is intended in the other meaning. This should be understood to be similar. 'Or it is made' should not be said. Why? Because even transgressing an unmade one makes it subject to forfeiture. Although it becomes subject to forfeiture, here, the determination of the triple robe is intended. In that determination of the triple robe, an unmade, undyed, and improperly made one, 'I determine this outer robe...' It is not proper to determine in the manner of 'I stand'. To clarify its meaning, 'or it is made' is said. Otherwise, it would say, 'when the robe is finished and received'. If so, how is it understood that for one who keeps the triple robe beyond ten days, it is subject to relinquishment? From the authority of the statement. Because it is said, 'I allow, monks, to determine the triple robe, not to make it a provisional one'. Here too, it should only be said, 'an extra robe is that which is not determined'. Because by the statement 'or it is made', allowing that the rest, along with the robe intended here, cannot be kept beyond ten days, he said, 'an extra robe is that which is not determined, not provisional'. There might be (a question) – just as 'not provisional' is said by way of extracting the meaning, so also 'the last one, not suitable for provisional use'. Why? Because only the triple robe should be kept for a maximum of ten days, by way of the supplementary rule beginning 'when the robe is finished'. Otherwise, even if one day is exceeded, it would be subject to relinquishment, by the statement 'whatever monk keeps an extra robe, it is subject to relinquishment and expiation'. No other robe besides the triple robe should be kept for a maximum of ten days. Beyond that it is subject to relinquishment, because 'within ten days' is said. As it says, 'no offense if one determines or makes provisional within ten days'. Otherwise, it would just be the statement 'determines within ten days'. Therefore, the meaning should be taken in the way stated in the commentary. All this, others say. Here, if a robe arisen within the Kathina period is already made, and the statement made to prove that it should be kept for a maximum of ten days, and the reasoning stated later in this very discussion, contradict each other, so it should not be accepted. The discussion stated here is – a robe arisen today, thinking "tomorrow will be the Kathina withdrawal", for one who does not determine it on that very day, it is subject to relinquishment at dawn. Why? Because the rule is stated beginning with "when the robe is finished". Within the Kathina period, exceeding... Even eleven days it obtains privilege, but after the kathina not even one day does it obtain. Like what? Just as the Sangha that has performed the kathina, starting from the day of performance until its removal, even if one day remains for the kathina's removal, obtains its benefit, but on the next day does not obtain it. If by forgetfulness the distributable robe is not distributed, on the next day it becomes common even for those who have not performed the kathina. If days remain, it accrues to the Sangha that has performed the kathina. Just so, starting from the day of performance until its removal, it is permissible without formal determination or designation, because it is within the allowed days. The kathina day is included in the count. Starting from the day of removal, for a maximum period of ten days, a robe that arises obtains privilege; after that, it does not obtain it. Why? By the saying: "Monks, I allow you to keep an extra robe for a maximum of ten days." Even within the kathina period, at the dawn of the eleventh day, the occasion for forfeiture is prevented by this supplementary rule: "when the robe is finished, when the kathina is removed." And it did not make those days non-days. Similarly, in the third kathina, it was considered: "When the robe is finished by the bhikkhu, and the kathina is removed, if an untimely robe should arise for the bhikkhu," by the Blessed One saying this, that which I allowed below in the first training rule: "an extra robe should be kept for a maximum of ten days," that too is shown to have arisen outside the kathina month, not within it. By the saying: "Even if given at the right time, this is an untimely robe," it is shown that after the kathina removal, it does not obtain the ten-day privilege. And the possibility that it obtains five days after the kathina removal, along with those (ten days), is prevented by the statement that fixes the time of arising for an untimely robe, "when the robe is finished, when the kathina is removed, if an untimely robe arises for the bhikkhu, it should be made quickly." By both of these, it is established that a robe that arises within the kathina period, after the kathina removal, does not obtain privilege even for one day. and it is. Therefore, concerning this two-fold investigation, it should be understood that it was said by us, "It should not be taken that it contradicts the investigation stated here and the reasoning mentioned." Here it is said – "When the robe is finished, when the kathina is withdrawn" – this locative case, does it regulate the arising of the robe, or its wearing, or both? And in this case, if it regulates the arising, then a robe arisen in the last Katthika month, when the kathina is withdrawn, would have to be worn for ten days from then, even if that month is not finished. This would follow. If it regulates the wearing, then a robe arisen within the kathina period, would have to be worn for a maximum of ten days even after the kathina is withdrawn. This would follow. If it regulates both, should it be stated with a distinction, like in the third kathina? It is said – Indeed, it regulates both, but there is no purpose in making a distinction. That which refers to a robe arisen within the kathina period, when it is said, "when the robe is finished," it is not said with reference to "it should be worn." This has been established. From the statement "or it is made" and so on, that meaning is established. Therefore, there is no purpose in making a further distinction, for it is not only a made robe that makes it subject to forfeiture, nor can a lost robe, etc., be worn. And by whatever intention the Blessed One laid down this training rule, that intention should be understood as revealed in the third kathina. If it is asked, "Why is it revealed there?" Because of the intention to show a special regulation. For the special regulation is "if it is not complete," and so on. Even there, without saying "a robe might arise," by the distinction "an untimely robe might arise," it indicates that a timely robe exists even when the kathina is withdrawn. And what is this? A robe arisen in the last Katthika month. Therefore, it is said there, "arisen in the eleven months when the kathina is not spread." Thus, the absence of the fault mentioned in the regulation of arising is established. And what is said there, "Even if given in due time, if it is designated, this is called an untimely robe," it has two interpretations of meaning. By way of designation, it is called "untimely robe" and is obtained. Even if it arises at the proper time, it obtains the time-exemption, much less if it is not designated. This first alternative supports the absence of the fault mentioned in the rule of arising. Similarly, that which has become an untimely robe by designation, because it arose at the robe-time, does not obtain the ten-day exemption after the robe-time, much less if it is not designated. This second supports the absence of the fault mentioned in the rule of wearing. If so, what is the purpose of an untimely robe being an untimely robe by designation? It should be understood that for that which is designated for the Sangha, even if it is not for the Kathina, it is for the common use of the community of bhikkhus. Moreover, the Kathina days for an individual are also days. Thus, because it is not included in the count, by the power of not obtaining