English
the designation of an untimely robe, because it is not liable to forfeiture for one who expects the phrase "when the Kathina is concluded," and because it is in accordance with that, and "even for a timely robe," it should be understood that here the statement is of four kinds in all. Moreover, there is that which arises when the Kathina is concluded by a certain Kathina removal; for some bhikkhu it is a timely robe, for some it is an untimely robe. That is for one who has transgressed the boundary, not for one who has taken up the burden. That, in two ways, setting aside that which arises when concluded, it should be understood that it arises when concluded by one of the others. For indeed, for whom it is concluded, for him it is an untimely robe; for the other, a timely robe. Similarly, there is that which arises when the Kathina is concluded by a certain Kathina removal, for all of them it is an untimely robe. That should be understood as it is established. Similarly, there is that which arises, setting aside that which arises when the Kathina is concluded, that which arises in the last month of the rainy season. Similarly, there is an untimely robe that arises when the Kathina is concluded; it should be understood that it arises in winter or in summer. Thus, because of the many kinds due to differences in person and time, it should be understood that it is not said "arisen when the Kathina is concluded" for that which has arisen. Because of its manifold nature, to show this alternative meaning, it is said "when the Kathina is concluded" (meaning) "the bhikkhu's Kathina is concluded." Even though it is established by this much... 'One of the eight mātikās,' and so on, is said. "I will wear it" is said to appear in the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga. By the word "Thus," it is said that there is no difference in wording there. "The last one subject to determination" this is said because it includes all. "The last one subject to formal resolve" this does not include all. For not all outer robes are the last one subject to formal resolve. So too, inner robes and so on are not the last one subject to formal resolve. Because formal resolve is of many kinds. But there is no such difference for determination, as it is of one kind. This should be understood. "On the eleventh dawn, it becomes subject to relinquishment." The meaning should be understood as: excluding the last one, but including those before it. The last one is the first dawn of the latter Kattika month. For that, due to being in time, does not make it subject to relinquishment. Therefore, it is said in the commentary on the rule concerning emergency robes: "From the sixth day onwards, even a non-emergency robe that has arisen, or a robe that has been put away after being taken back, still obtains this allowance." (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.646-9) Referring to this very method, it is said there: "For an emergency robe, when the kathina is not spread, one month and eleven days. When the kathina is spread, five months and eleven days. After that, there is no allowance even for one day." If this method is established, it is established that a non-emergency robe does not obtain it in twelve days. Therefore, in "if one perceives a non-emergency robe as a non-emergency robe, there is no offense" (Pārā. 650), it is established that it refers to something else similar to an emergency robe, but not formally resolved. There, however, "five months" is a statement of the maximum limit. And a rain-cloth, having attained the state of a non-rain-cloth, obtains an allowance for eleven months. This should be understood. "That which has passed ten days is subject to relinquishment." Here, in the rising of an offense, there is a difference in wording, like "covered for ten days, covered for more than half a month, covered for more than a month," and so on. But here, there is no difference in wording. Therefore, even that which has passed a year is called "that which has passed ten days." Similarly, the second Even in a non-Kathina year, that which has passed a year is considered to have passed a night. In the third case, that which has passed a year is indeed known as having passed a month. "Thinking it is determined when it is not determined, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation." This is the explanation of the opening phrase for one of the three-part offenses. This method applies to "not designated" and so on. Therefore, among the eight three-part sections here, one is elaborated, and for the others, each opening phrase is elaborated, while the two parts are summarized by the Blessed One himself. Thus, among the many possible three-part sections, only one is mentioned, saying, "This is the nature of the Vinaya." In the case of minor offenses, one minor offense is elaborated, and the remaining seven are summarized in the same way. Similarly, the very last part is known as a section of no offense. "No offense within ten days" this is the brief meaning: it should be kept for a maximum of ten days. If that extra robe, according to its determination, is determined within ten days, or designated, or relinquished, or perishes by its own nature, or is destroyed, or is burned, or another takes it by force, or takes it presumptuously, then there is no offense of expiation. However, regarding a minor offense, there might be an offense, or there might be no offense, depending on the perception. Here, concerning the last two phrases: "Thinking it is cut when it is not cut, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation." "Thinking it is taken presumptuously when it is not taken presumptuously, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation." These two three-part offenses, and two minor offenses, are known to be summarized. Indeed, if one determines it within ten days, it should be known that one determines it in the daytime part of that day, having passed the dawn of the tenth day at the latest. This is the Vinaya decision so far. However, in the commentary, starting with "more serious than this," this decision, preceded by a question, is given: In the "Gaṇṭhipada" (glossary/key text), even a formal act which is more serious than the giving of a relinquished robe from this, is done by mere announcement. Similarly, this (act) which should be done with a formal motion, is permissible with an ordinary statement. If so, in the commentary to the "Kammavagga" (Section on Formal Acts) in the Parivāra, it states "ñattik..." Even the mother, having established one motion, should do it. It should not be done by way of a declaration of consent, etc. What is said (Pari. Attha. 482) would contradict this. Therefore, it is said, "This is in accordance with them." Therefore, it is said in the way of accordance. But the rule is, just as the purification Uposatha for two is without a motion, so also is the giving of relinquished robes for two, we say. Therefore, it is proper to say, "We give to the venerable one." But how is this to be known? Because it is in accordance with that. The teacher says that this single motion-act can also be done by declaration of consent, and this is to be understood as proof. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, having raised an objection here, it is said, "This is proven. A motion-act should be done having established one motion." This is said with reference to what came in the Pāḷi. But this did not come in the Pāḷi. Having brought it forth from the meaning, it is said that this can also be done by declaration of consent. 468. "Esanā" means when others' robes are eaten by termites, etc., "mine too are eaten," and so on. By the saying "done by another... etc. ... is effective," it is proven that the third Kathina, being of the same kind and having the same purpose, is just like the first. 469. Here, "to determine the three robes" means the three robes are suitable to be determined by the determination of the three robes. Or, that which I permit to determine without reservation by the determination of the three robes, because there is no time limit for its determination, I permit one who wishes to determine it for all time. I do not permit it to be reserved by making a time limit. But when there is a condition, it is proper to revoke and reserve it at any time. This is proven by the saying, "There is no offense if one determines it within ten days, or reserves it." This is what is said. A rain-cloak, after that, is only to be reserved, not determined. For a finished cloth, I permit it to be determined within ten days, starting from the day of the rains retreat, within four months. Beyond four months, I permit one who wishes to keep it as their own to reserve it. This is the meaning. From the Sugata's robe. Less than is the highest limit for all three robes. But when there is the statement, "It is allowable to determine the three robes as an accessory cloth," it is allowable in such a condition. Just as it has been established that it is allowable to make a choice when there is a condition, how much more to determine by another determination. "Within ten days he determines, he makes optional" – this is said without restriction. Thus, the outer robe, upper robe, and inner robe have the same name whether determined or undetermined. In "This is the outer robe" and so on (Mahavagga 126), indeed, the undetermined are mentioned. In "He should dwell apart with the three robes," the determined are mentioned. "Or in a nearby monastery" means a monastery from the alms-village, says Thera Dhammasiri. Even in a more distant place it is indeed obtainable, says the teacher. Even in the Anuganṭhipada it is said: "Or in a nearby monastery" is merely the head of the teaching; therefore, having noted the place where it is kept, even if it is placed far away, it should be determined. A nearby monastery is that where one can go and return on the very same day.