English
By one who observes the rule of not spending the night apart, it is not allowable to determine that which is placed further away; thus, it is indeed said in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. Some say: "If that which is placed on a robe-pole is moved by another and placed on a peg, even if one determines it not knowing that, it is valid because the robe is recognized." "Having determined" means in the manner of an accessory cloth and so on. "It is indeed larger" and so on is a characteristic common to all determinations. There again, it must indeed be determined, because it is a part of the determined robe. And if it is undetermined, being a part, due to the smallness of the determined one, it goes into the category of the determined. Similarly, if it is determined, being a part of the undetermined one, it goes into the category of the undetermined – this is indeed the characteristic. And not only the second patch here, but also the third patch and so on. As it is said: "I allow... (abbreviation)... for cloths taken out of season, a fourfold outer robe... (abbreviation)... for rag-robes, as much as needed" (Mahavagga 348). "The remaining bhikkhus" means the bhikkhus seated at the time of speaking. Tas It is not permissible. Just as it was said: "Monks, I allow you to determine the three robes, not to make them optional." So too, accessory cloths were mentioned. But no maximum limit was stated for them. Nor a numerical limit. Therefore, having revoked even the three robes, and having determined: "These robes I determine as accessory cloths," it is permissible to use them. This is the meaning. If it is asked: "How is this known to be 'a means of storing'?" In this context: "At that time, the monks had their three robes complete, and there was a need for strainers and bags," because "Monks, I allow accessory cloths" (Mahāvagga 358) was permitted. And because there is no prohibition that only one strainer or bag is permissible for monks, not two or three, it is established that strainers and other accessories, whether they are the maximum amount not subject to determination, or amounts in excess, are permissible. If so, is there a contradiction with the statement: "What if I were to set a boundary for the monks' robes, establish a limit?" (Mahāvagga 346)? No. Because of not understanding the context. And because of the contradiction. What is meant? In the Robe Chapter (Mahāvagga 326 onwards), first, householder's robes were permitted. Then cloaks, silk, wool, blankets, etc. Then, in this context: "At that time, various robes had arisen for the Sangha. Then it occurred to the monks: 'What kind of robe has the Blessed One permitted, and what has he not permitted?'" — "Monks, I allow six kinds of robes: linen," etc. (Mahāvagga 339) — the permissible kinds of robes were allowed, but not a numerical limit. Then the Blessed One saw... (and so on)... many monks burdened with robes, having made a bundle of robes on their heads, having made a bundle of robes on their shoulders, having made a bundle of robes on their waists, coming along. Having seen them, it occurred to the Blessed One... (and so on)... "Those young men of good family who are sensitive to cold, fearful of cold, in this Dhamma and Discipline..." Ah, they are able to get by with three robes. What if I were to set a boundary for monks regarding robes, establish a limit, and allow three robes? (Mahāva. 346) A robe was permitted, but only one. But the group of six, misunderstanding, carried many. These were for them in the category of excess. Then, "Monks, I permit you to keep an excess robe for a maximum of ten days." (Mahāva. 347) This was permitted, and by this it is understood. They carried many excess robes. By saying, "I permit you to keep these for a maximum of ten days, not just one," even though a boundary was previously set for robes, called the designation of three robes, and a limit established, the method of carrying many robes was shown by way of a time limit. After that, by permitting, "Monks, I permit you to dispose of an excess robe," (Mahāva. 347) the method of carrying an excess robe was shown even without a time limit. Thus, it is established that both of these are ways of storing. Similarly, the designation of a requisites-cloth might be. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction with the permission for other robe designations, due to the contradiction with setting boundaries and limits. The rule for designating three robes is itself the limit for three robes. Therefore it was said, "This is a separate way of storing." "First, the three robes should be designated as three robes. Then, if one is unable to carry them, one should revoke the designation and designate them as a requisites-cloth. It was not said that this should be done from the very beginning." Thus it was said. "Just as for a sick person unable to carry the three robes, permission for absence was granted. And for one who is not sick, in the rule concerning doubt (Pārā. 652), the depositing of it inside the dwelling, and even then, if there is a reason, absence for six nights, and even then, if one is unable, the revocation of designation, and even what is revoked, to designate it within ten days, and if one is unable, the disposal of it, these were permitted. Similarly, for both kinds of disposal, in one's presence or absence, being another's property... If there were no condition for determination, it would be allowed by the Blessed One to use it after determining it as ‘a requisite cloth’, because those who know his intention say so,” it is also stated in the Mahāpaccariya. “Before,” etc., is said to show the usage of what is called “a separate deposit.” In an unbounded boundary, it is difficult to manage, because it is possible to go beyond the boundary for the purpose of determination, etc. “The rain-cloth is not beyond the measure” is said because its maximum limit is stated. “A mat should also be determined” means that what is given with “Venerable sir, this is to be spread over our dwelling” should not be determined, but what is given with “This is yours” should be determined as one wishes. It is written: “What is determined once remains determined; it is not revoked again because there is no time limit.” “Others say that a single word is sufficient.” “For the purpose of medicine, new work, parents, etc.” Here, one should determine it by setting it aside, saying, “With this, I will buy medicine; this I will give to my mother.” “Others say that there is no act of determination when one divides it, saying, ‘This is for medicine, this is for my mother.’” It is written: “This refers to setting it aside after releasing one’s ownership.” “To be determined again” — this is the commentary tradition that has come down from the Saṅgīti. Beyond that are the teachers’ reasonings in various places. “Of a robe of measure” means of the maximum measure. “Two robes” means together with the upper robe. “This method” is the same method as “wherever it is suitable for the measure,” etc. “One who exceeds it is liable to cutting” (Pāci. 533) means that anything beyond is forbidden; what is below that is not forbidden, so it is permissible. Here, it might be said: “There is no separate Sutta for the maximum measure of the three robes.” It should not be said, because it is established by the training rules. What is meant? “‘I will wear the lower robe properly, I will wear the upper robe, I will go well-covered within the monastery…” According to the saying "mī" (Pācittiya 576-579), it should be stated that roundness and good covering are accomplished by whatever measure, in the manner mentioned in the commentary. By means of these, the final measure is established, and indeed, it is said to be just as stated, like five fists and so on. Therefore, having set aside the trace, it is said, "It is not in a separate Sutta." Moreover, what is intended here, even so, it does not fit, is the meaning; therefore, the connection beginning with "if" is certainly stated. Because it is defined and it fits. But in some other teachers' views, there is no definition. In some, the former and latter do not fit, is the connection. The determination is just determination, but at the time of use, undyed is not permissible. All this is only for the three robes. But this is the brief decision for this training rule – referring to a robe that arises from the first day of winter when the kathina is not spread, and from the first day of summer when the kathina is spread, it is said, "when the robe is finished," and so on. Here it is said – "Even for one who has it washed by dyers and made white, the determination is still determination," by this saying, determination is valid even for an undyed one; therefore, is it not necessary to make a rule that one must perform needlework, dye it, apply a mark, and then determine it? It is said, it must be done, like a determined bowl. Just as a bowl, whether it becomes white or red, does not abandon its determination, but such a one does not undergo determination, so this should be understood. They say, "From when usage and so on are permissible, from then it should be determined within ten days." The statement made without distinction, that what is to be determined is determined, what is to be put aside is put aside, thus making a distinction and not speaking, seems to contradict "one should not put aside" (Mahāvagga 358). Now, this section related to the method of determination and putting aside, mixing the Khandhaka and the Parivāra, is called 'Miscellaneous' – in the Khandhaka, it is said, "I allow, Monks, the triple robe is to be determined, not to be put aside. The rain-cloth is to be determined for the four months of the rainy season, and after that, to be put aside. And so on, it is said. In the Parivāra, “Nine robes are not to be determined, nine robes are not to be put aside” (Pari. 329), “Ten robes in a group of ten, eleven robes in a group of eleven,