English
"After that" means winter, and if there is a revocation there, then "a rain-cloak even after the rainy season months have passed" and so on is not appropriate, because there is no revocation due to the absence of determination. And non-contradiction should be desired. Therefore, if it is said that the statement "revocation is merely a word" is also possible here? No, because it contradicts the Kurundi statement. For there, revocation on the Katthika full moon is stated. Therefore, since it is a day of the rainy season, it is revoked while still determined. So revocation is not merely a word. Therefore, "From then on" until the full moon is intended. And just as this option, so also "by the passing of the rainy season or by the cessation of illness" this too must necessarily be revoked, it is said. And this being so, here it agrees with the Samantapāsādikā's not saying it. Otherwise, it should be said here too, the method as stated is possible here, even though it is possible, it is said for the easy understanding of people who are difficult to instruct. But since it abandons its determination with the passing of the rains, and on the first dawn of winter, a dukkaṭa is incurred due to non-revocation, therefore, it should be revoked and re-determined only on the Katthika full moon, if not re-determined, it should be said "it is an offense of nissaggiya." Even with this much, not being satisfied, the decision should be sought. And here it is said – "Thus the Pāḷi of the Vinaya, its non-existence, and its meaning, broken and unbroken; by one wishing to know, a knower of its meaning, should be sought in the Vinaya for understanding." When "Take it for yourself" is said, even without saying "I take it for myself," it is well given. If the other assents, it is well taken by him. If he does not assent, it is well given by the giver. But that object belongs to no one. Similarly, if one says "I take it for myself," and the owner assents, it is well taken even without the word "Take it." If he does not assent, it belongs to the owner. For it is not a Vinaya act for him; here, if he takes it for the purpose of a Vinaya act, it is not permissible. Not only taken for oneself, but also given back to him, it is permissible. Similarly, being unconcerned, having given it to another, and then consuming what was given by him or trusting him, it is permissible. Even there, some say it is not permissible in terms of a Vinaya act. These very ones say, regarding "making a large one small," that "in the case of the three robes, one cuts it without exceeding a span in length and makes it; similarly in other cases." In such instances, the path of the ancient teachers' words... Having thoroughly understood by serving the teacher's lineage, having compared it with that, being mindful and clearly comprehending, and without confusing the minds of the listeners, it should be spoken. This is our request. The explanation of the first Kathina training rule is finished. 2. The explanation of the Udosita training rule 471. They set out on a journey through the countryside with the inner and outer robes. Why? Although it was first said: "Monks, a village should not be entered with the inner and outer robes. Whoever enters, there is an offense of wrong-doing." (Mahavagga 362) But later it was said: "Monks, there are these five reasons for laying aside the outer robe, the upper robe, and the inner robe: if one is sick, or there is a rainy season appointment, or one wants to go to the other side of a river, or there is a monastery with a locked gate, or the Kathina is established." And in the commentary it was said: "Among these five, the locked-gate monastery is the standard. Indeed, it is permissible to lay aside the robe in a guarded monastery and go outside, but not in an unguarded one." Therefore, it should be understood that even when the Kathina was not yet declared, having said "Place those monks in a locked-gate monastery," and having laid aside the robes in the hands of suitable companions, they set out on a journey through the countryside, having obtained permission to enter the village with the inner and outer robes. 473. "Permission for non-separation" means to give permission for the purpose of non-separation, or for the non-occurrence of the offense that arises from separation. From then on, it is permissible. For how long is it permissible? For a month, or more, as long as one is keen to go, it is permissible. Therefore it was said: "It should be revoked by the one who laid down the burden." And there is no need to give permission again, if after the lapse of twelve years another illness occurs, it is permissible, and like the ordination ceremony, one permission is valid for life. "Or it is done," etc., should not be said in this training rule. Why? Because even if the impediment of making is removed, an offense due to separation from an unassigned robe is not possible. Therefore, "when the robe is finished" means "the monk's robe is assigned." This much. If they say, "Do they proceed?" No, because it depends on that. For the determination depends on the completion of the impediment to action. Therefore, it is said, "Is it done?" and so on. There, "done" is just what was said before. 477-8. For the purpose of determining the characteristic of non-absence, here, from the saying, "Having deposited the robe within the village, one should dwell within the village," the characteristic of non-absence is determined. By the opposite method, the characteristic of absence should be understood. In the beginning, "A village is of one precinct," excluding a caravan, a tree root, and an open space, in the remaining cases, the state of one precinct and many precincts should be understood according to whether it is enclosed or not enclosed. Since a caravan is of two kinds: settled and unsettled, among these, an unsettled one is unenclosed, whether belonging to one family or many families. A settled one may be enclosed, or may be unenclosed. Therefore, there, without showing it by way of enclosure, etc., it is stated by way of inner space. Similarly in an open space. At the root of a tree, by way of shade. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction with the statement, "A caravan is of one precinct, or many precincts," and so on, because it is not shown in the analysis. Therefore, in front of and behind the caravan, there are seven inner spaces, and to the side, one inner space. This is one precinct. Beyond that, it is many precincts. Similarly, for a tree root, where the shade falls at midday, this is one precinct. The other is many precincts. Why? Because there, the enclosure is immeasurable. Only the shade is the measure. For an open space, it is just as stated in the Pāli text. It is written, "For a caravan, etc., the state of one precinct is by way of belonging to one family." Therefore, in a dwelling and in an abandoned place, the stated definition is summarized as "eight, etc." Beyond that, in fields, threshing floors, pleasure groves, and monasteries, the term "enclosed or unenclosed" is again brought up, because the context was interrupted by the analysis of the caravan. However, the saying "of various interiors," etc., is not brought up in fields, threshing floors, and pleasure groves due to impossibility. Even though it is possible in a monastery, it is not brought up there because the context was interrupted. "Family" is said to mean "owner." Therefore, "Of one family, of many families" by this, the common and uncommon nature of the fourteen robe-depositing places like villages, is shown. But for the open space, due to its impossibility, it is not mentioned. Because here, for one family and many families, in unenclosed villages etc., there is no special exemption. But in enclosed ones, there is. Therefore, the mention of "one and many families" and "one and many precincts" should be understood as meaningful. Even there, this is the distinction: in a caravan and at the foot of a tree, the distinction is only by family difference, not by precinct difference. In the open space, it is by precinct difference. But that is not shown in the Pāli text. "Having exceeded that measure" by this saying, "even in the air, within a measure of two and a half cubits, there is no fault," they say. 479. "Sabhā" (assembly hall) is feminine gender. "Sabhāya" (in the assembly hall) is neuter gender. Therefore it is said, "by way of gender distinction." Indeed, to show the neuter gender, "sabhāya" is specified in the locative case. Due to its non-applicability, "at the root of the door" is also mentioned. Because it is not deposited in one's own depositing place, the street-arm's-reach does not protect. In whichever house the robe is deposited, in that house one should dwell. "One should dwell in the assembly hall, or at the root of the door, or one should not abandon the arm's reach," it is indeed said. "If it is regulated that the dawn must break within arm's reach, is it not possible to know?" It is not possible inside the house, because it is said in such and such a way. Therefore, "reason is the measure" is said. This meaning is also explained in the commentary, and again, in a small village, by way of the common village gate. If that (house) has two gates, and an assembly hall in the middle of the house, wherever one wishes, there one should dwell. 480-1. Those dwellings etc. which do not count as a village, those are intended as dwellings etc. In the open space, even an un-doubted robe, if deposited beyond seven days, becomes liable to forfeiture. Here, the inner boundary does not protect, but in a caravan, it does protect. "And the river exemption is obtained." It is established that a waiver is obtained by the utterance in the boundary of water-casting. If the adjacent monastery is of one boundary, the robe is not to be relinquished. Now, "The ascetic practice is broken, when assented to with doubt, with inner and outer robes;