English
There is no offense for one without a robe, as established by revocation and so forth." This is a miscellaneous matter, and here is the decision preceded by a question: Some, by the saying "a double outer robe" (Mahāvagga 348), say, "Even a single outer robe should not be determined. If one determines it, it is not valid," and giving even a double outer robe to those seeking ordination, they ordain them. These should be admonished by this fragment of a Sutta. For the Blessed One first permitted "a cut outer robe, a cut upper robe, a cut inner robe." Then, in the case where "when a triple robe was being made for a certain bhikkhu, all cut pieces were not enough. Two cut pieces and one uncut piece were not enough. Two uncut pieces and one cut piece were not enough," it was permitted, "I allow, bhikkhus, to add even an extra piece" (Mahāvagga 360). Therefore, it is established that even a single outer robe is permissible. How can there be a double piece for that which is not enough when cut? In the commentary, it is also said, "To add even an extra piece means to give even an incoming piece of cloth. This, however, should be added when there is not enough. If there is enough, an incoming piece of cloth is not permissible; it must be cut" (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 360). However, a Kathina robe is permissible only when cut, because it is a special characteristic, and because there is no saying "a cut double piece is not enough," this conclusion should be reached here. Ascetic practice means that since the unordained do not have the ascetic practice of the triple robe, one who has the triple robe is one with the triple robe. If it is asked, "Since they do not have determination, should it be said 'only with what is determined'?" No, because of the possibility of contradiction with the breaking of the ascetic practice. For the ascetic practice is broken by accepting a fourth robe, not by staying away from the triple robe, nor by accepting an extra robe, nor by wearing an extra robe. Since for bhikkhus alone by the Blessed One, by way of determination, nine robes were allowed, and by way of origin, spoken of, not so for the unordained. Therefore, due to their lack of robe regulations, that ascetic practice is not allowed for them, just like for householders. Therefore, from the non-mention of its method of undertaking, this conclusion should be reached here. "Sāsaṅkasammata" (with doubt, agreed upon) means in the Sāsaṅka training rule of the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, the distinct factors are not stated. It is said, "The rest here should be understood in the manner stated in the second training rule of the Robe Chapter" (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Sāsaṅkasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), but this is not stated. There, a night's absence is the fourth factor; here, a six-night absence. This is the distinction here. Therefore, due to the commonality of factors, and the commonality of agreement, they speak of it as the Sāsaṅka training rule itself. This is without specific locality; that is with specific locality, due to being limited to a month. There, even outside the village, having entered the village boundary, stayed, and departed, there is no offense. Here, it is not so. Here, at each successive dawn, it is subject to relinquishment. There, on the seventh day. This is the distinction between these two. But the factors, by the reversal of the conditions for laying aside a robe, and by being established in the manner stated here, are not stated. Even though they are not stated, the fourth factor should be specified, but it is not specified. For what reason? Here, by relinquishing in the stated order of relinquishment, and by declaring the offense, it is for the purpose of showing the release from the offense incurred there. Even having been absent for a year is like having been absent for a night, how much more so having been absent for six nights. Even so, when the conditions for the factors as stated there are met, it should be relinquished in the manner stated there. If one relinquishes in winter or in summer? "To make known that it is permissible to relinquish even in the manner stated here, the fourth factor is not specified"— this is not our reasoning, says the teacher. Even a robe that has exceeded a month, saying "it has exceeded ten days," is relinquished. Having become a month minus two [days], saying "it has exceeded ten days," it is considered to have exceeded a month, one [case]. e. Even so, if it is a robe of expectation, it should be relinquished, saying 'ten days have passed'. But a basic robe should be relinquished, saying 'a month has passed'. Is 'inner and outer robe', or 'outer robe', or 'robe' the three robes, or something else? What is it here? If only the three robes are forbidden, there is a contradiction with cutting, washing, requesting uncut robes, and so on, by way of inclusion. But if it is something else, there is a contradiction with 'I am finished with the robe' and so on? It is said: It should not be understood as fixed, because it should be taken as appropriate. Thus, in phrases like 'having laid aside the robe, they set out on a journey through the country with the inner and outer robe' (Pārā. 471), it is only the three robes. In phrases like 'Monks, a village should not be entered with the inner and outer robe; from there, a robe up to the inner and outer robe should be acquired', it is any robe. Similarly, 'outer robes should be given, having made them good', 'an undergarment should be given', 'an outer robe should be given', 'Here, friend, is your outer robe; give me a cloth' and so on. For it has been said: All robes are called 'saṅghāṭī' (outer robe) because they are 'joined together'. Similarly, in 'I am finished with the robe' here too, say some. For during the robe-making period, robes as much as needed are allowed. If all of that were being made, when would it be finished? Therefore, it is only the three robes, say some. What is meant by 'no offense for one without a robe' due to the establishment of relinquishment and so on? Because of the possibility of the 'residing' training rule becoming useless, there is an offense for the three robes when separated from the three robes, say some. Here it is said: There is no offense due to the establishment of relinquishment and so on. For it has been said: 'No offense if one relinquishes or gives up before dawn'. Otherwise, one who relinquishes or gives up before dawn, would incur an offense in the manner stated, until another does not determine it. Otherwise, for separation within seven days, it is separation as literally stated. If there is separation, it is due to separation. If there is no separation, it is due to no separation. Explanation of the 'residing' training rule. not finished. 3. The Explanation of the Third Kathina Training Rule 497. "Nappahotīti" means it does not reach a bad division. Therefore, only the bad division of the three robes, such as five handfuls, is mentioned. "Cīvarapaccāsā" is the hope for a robe. By this, it is shown: "Whether that robe is obtained later or not, as long as that hope is cut off, I allow this root robe to be kept." "Cīvarapaccāsā" is a ablative word in the sense of limit, or a nominative word in the sense of location. 499-500. When the robe is finished... and the hope for a robe is cut off, etc., if one of the three robes is made, the others exist, and one keeps them. If the impediment of the robe is cut off, and at the time when the kathina is lifted, or at the time of winter, an out-of-season robe arises, it should be made quickly. If there is hope for completion, one does not keep it. If there is no hope, one does not keep it. By the saying, "arisen in the eleven months when the kathina is not spread," the time is either the later Kattika, whether spread or not spread. Winter may be the time when it is spread, or it may be not the time when it is not spread. Beyond that, it is certainly not the time. "Given by designation" is said here by way of extracting the meaning, even though it is not obtained here, like the rest of the out-of-season robe in the second nissaggiya of the bhikkhunis (Pāci. 738 onwards). There, for the bhikkhuni sangha, it is a nissaggiya for one who divides it, having designated it as "this is an out-of-season robe, this is an in-season robe," when it was given by designation, saying, "may those who have arrived divide it." Just as there, "an out-of-season robe is one that arises in the eleven months when the kathina is not spread, and one that arises in the seven months when the kathina is spread" is said by way of extracting the meaning, so is this passage. If so, "given to one person, saying, 'this is yours, we give it'" -- why is this said, if it is not to be divided? It is said because it is not to be divided in general. Just as a robe given to the sangha by designation, because it is not to be divided by bhikkhus even with a spread kathina, is an out-of-season robe. It is indeed born, meaning, it is personal even to others. Even so, it might occur to someone, “Even that which is given by declaration obtains the ten-day allowance.” That is to be expected for him. In the first Kathina, “When the robe is finished, and the Kathina is uplifted by the bhikkhu,” this is indeed meaningless. For even when the Kathina is not uplifted, it is understood that it should be worn for a maximum of ten days. So, could it be said that this refers to what is given without declaration? Even so, even what is given without declaration, for those Kathinas not spread, in the latter Kattika, obtains the ten-day allowance, because it is said, “When the robe is finished, and the Kathina is uplifted by the bhikkhu.” If you say, “Yes,” it contradicts the statement, “arisen in the eleven months when the Kathina is not spread.” Therefore, the conclusion here should be reached according to the method stated. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said: “In the first training rule, for all robes,