English
are to be determined, not to be put aside” (Pari. 331). By these repeated statements, it is strongly affirmed that “all robes are to be determined, not to be put aside.” Therefore, both of these appear to be contradictory. And in the Khandhaka, it is said, “The rain-cloth is to be determined for the four months of the rainy season, and after that, to be put aside” (Mahāva. 358). In its commentary, it is said, “A rain-cloth of not excessive size should be determined for the four months of the rainy season by taking its name, in the manner stated. After that, it should be revoked and put aside.” This also appears to be contradictory to each other, due to the possibility of revocation in winter, and the impossibility of putting aside in the rainy season. Similarly, here, “There is no offense if one determines or puts aside within ten days” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469). From the measure of this statement, it should be understood that putting aside is not prohibited everywhere. This commentary statement appears to be contradictory to the Parivāra statement. For the Tathāgatas do not speak contradictorily. Therefore, the commentary's method is the refuge here, by which all of it becomes of one flavor. And in the Parivāra commentary, it is said, “'Are not to be put aside' means are not to be put aside from the time of determination” (Pari. Aṭṭha. 329). The meaning is: From the time the triple robes are determined, and the rain-cloths, etc., within their respective areas of determination, are not to be put aside against one's will. The remaining Pāli text and its meaning are stated here in the commentary. Therefore, all of this is of one flavor. Here it is said: If so, then it should also be said, “Nine robes are not to be determined.” For from the time they are put aside, they are not to be determined. What are those? Here it is said: “To determine the three robes, not to designate… …to determine the accessory cloth, not to designate.” Here, since prohibition is not seen in all determinations, and designation is not seen, and since “beyond that” is seen in only two divisions, it should be understood that “nine robes are to be determined, and not to be designated” is said. Another method: “I allow, monks, to determine the three robes unwillingly.” Why? Because for one who does not determine what arises in time, there is the possibility of an offense when the time passes. And for one who does not determine what arises out of time, there is the possibility of an offense when ten days pass. There, that which, even if it is not enough, causes an offense when ten days pass for what arises in time, that should be relinquished at the time of relinquishing, saying: “This extra robe, venerable sirs, has been kept by me, it is to be relinquished; this I give to the Sangha,” and so on. The other is just as in the Pāli. There, the first method is said according to the first rule: “Whatever monk keeps an extra robe, it is to be relinquished.” The second is said according to the supplementary rule. And just as when there is no object to be relinquished, one does not say as in the Pāli, but merely confesses the offense; and just as in relinquishing the rain-cloak, one does not say as in the Pāli merely when it is sought, but relinquishes as is possible; so too should this be understood. Just as an extra robe that has passed a year is called “passed ten days.” The three robes that have been absent for a year, and what has passed a month, are called “absent for a night” and “absent for six nights.” So too, some say, this is called “passed ten days.” Therefore, this is established: “I allow, monks, to determine the three robes unwillingly.” Similarly, the meaning is to designate unwillingly. For when there is a wish, “having withdrawn, for the sake of comfort in absence, an opportunity for designation is given, and there is no offense when ten days pass,” by this saying, it is said: “I allow to designate.” it is. So too, a rain-cloak, if not determined, after ten days, an offense arises. How long a time? The four months of the rains. But if there is a wish, it should be re-determined upwards. For it is said, "The non-prohibition of re-determining everywhere should be understood." And it is said, "An offense arises in winter, not in summer, not in the rains." Therefore, it is said in the Commentary, "After that, it should be re-determined and re-assigned." Herein, this is the consideration: When should it be re-determined? When should it be re-assigned? And what is meant by "after that"? As soon as winter arrives, that determination ceases. Therefore, it should not be said, "re-determined," since the determination is absent. Nor should it be said, "re-assigned within the four months." For it is said, "re-assign after that." Here, some say, "This should be said." Just as one who has completed his probation, and performed his penance, even after the days of probation and penance are finished, it is still considered determined by some, even after the days of determination are finished. The conclusion of the Commentary masters is: "On the full moon day of Kattika, it should be re-determined, and on the first day of the waning moon, it should be re-assigned." For it is said in the Parivāra Commentary: "One who wears a rain-cloak that was re-assigned and kept on the first day of the waning moon after the full moon of Kattika, commits an offense in winter. But in the Kurundi, it is said, 'If one does not re-determine on the full moon day of Kattika, one commits an offense in winter.' That too is well said. For it is said, 'To determine for four months, after that, to re-assign.'" Therein, the Kurundi method, being stated later, should be regarded as essential, not the former. For one who wears it, even in summer, within half a month, an offense certainly arises. And here, "An offense arises in winter, not in summer," is said. This meaning of the Kurundi statement appears. "Not re-determining on the full moon day of Kattika, and not re-assigning on that very day, the latter..." "On the first day of the fortnight, due to not revoking, a dukkaṭa offense arises, not due to not making a determination, because of the possibility of a ten-day allowance," some state this reason. If this is so, when winter has just arrived, the determination ceases, this arises, and that is improper. For the determination, "by giving to another... ...by being torn," by these nine reasons it ceases," (Parajika Commentary 2.469) it is said, not "by transgressing the area of determination." If it is said, "Because it is uncommon, it is not stated"? No, because "by being torn" would not be said, but by being torn, the ceasing of determination for the three robes is stated in all commentaries. Therefore, on the first day of winter, due to not revoking, a dukkaṭa offense arises, not due to not making a determination after revoking. From the saying, "Let him determine," it is understood that from that, the determination does not cease. For it is not the meaning that on the first day of the fortnight after the full moon of Kattika, by not determining, it arises in winter, because that dukkaṭa offense, due to not revoking, arises at the very first dawn moment of winter, therefore it is said, "on the day of the full moon of Kattika, without revoking." But what is revoked obtains the ten-day allowance in winter. For it is said, "If ten days are not enough, the robe season should not be transgressed" (Parajika Commentary 2.630), and that, if it arises at the proper time, not at the improper time. And thus, an unrevoked robe, though established, is not nissaggiya, nor is it worn. Therefore, it is established that on the day of the full moon of Kattika itself, both revoking and determining should be done. And here, just as by one who determines an extra robe on the tenth day, it is kept for a maximum of ten days, and it is determined within ten days, so too by one who determines on the full moon of Kattika, the four months of the rainy season are determined, and after that, the determination is only in the area of no offense. This should be understood. By this much, it is shown that there is determination in the area of determining, and determining in the area of determination. is. Otherwise, "There is an offense, one incurs it by determination, one incurs it by non-determination. There is an offense, one incurs it by stipulation, one incurs it by non-stipulation." Two pairs of offenses should be stated in the dukas. Therein, in the first pair, the first term is possible. For in the field of stipulation, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense of exceeding the Vinaya by the determination of rain-cloaks and so on. By this very fact, the second term of the second dukkaṭa is stated. "One incurs it by non-determination" does not exist. Because it is not incurred within ten days, and because stipulation and so on are possible, "one incurs it by stipulation" does not exist everywhere because stipulation is not prohibited. Therefore, those dukas are not stated as "not obtainable." Here it is said: That dukkaṭa offense which was established by the authority of the statement, "There is an offense, one incurs it in winter," is applicable to one who intentionally does not revoke. If it is due to inadvertence, there is no offense at all. For one who intentionally does not stipulate a garment revoked on the Katthika full moon, there is a nissaggiya offense on the next day along with a dukkaṭa. If one does not stipulate due to inadvertence, it is only a nissaggiya here according to the first enactment. But what is said in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā: "A rain-cloak loses its determination even after the rainy season months have passed, and a scab-covering even after the illness has subsided; therefore, it should be stipulated after that," this contradicts it. Not only this, but also the Aṭṭhakathā statement, "After that, it should be revoked and stipulated," is contradicted.