English
in the sense of robes as much as needed, even if ten days are exceeded within the Kathina month, there is no offense, because the allowance is given. Just as a robe given by declaration within the Kathina month, which is an out-of-season robe, obtains the allowance of an in-season robe, so too it should be understood that it obtains it in other months. Therefore, even though it is established in the training rule by statements such as, ‘When the robe is finished, and the Kathina is uplifted by the bhikkhu, if a robe arises for the bhikkhu,’ the one who permits the last Kattika month for Kathinas not spread said, ‘an out-of-season robe might arise.’ For if it were not said thus, it would not be possible to say that an out-of-season robe is ‘one that arises in the eleven months when the Kathina is not spread.’ For by this statement, for Kathinas not spread, just as for Kathinas spread, for all robes, exceeding ten days in the last Kattika month does not result in forfeiture,” and so on. Again, it is said thus: “What was permitted by me, ‘In the first Kathina, an extra robe should be worn for a maximum of ten days,’ that too refers to what arises outside the Kathina month, not inside.” This meaning is illuminated. How? Beyond the ten-day allowance for an extra robe, The offense to be incurred "when the robe-making is finished and the kathina is withdrawn by the bhikkhu" is prevented by the subsequent rule. The offense to be incurred for exceeding ten days after the kathina period is prevented by this training rule, saying "if an unseasonal robe arises," and so forth. Thereby it is shown that "even if given at the right time, if it is designated, it is called an unseasonal robe." Thus, after the withdrawal of the kathina, one does not obtain the ten-day exemption. The possibility that one obtains five days after the withdrawal of the kathina along with those (ten days) is also prevented because it is stated, "when the robe-making is finished and the kathina is withdrawn by the bhikkhu, if an unseasonal robe arises for the bhikkhu... ...it should be made quickly," thereby fixing the time of the arising of an unseasonal robe. By both of these, it is established that a robe arising within the kathina period does not obtain even one day's exemption after the withdrawal of the kathina. Thus say others. Again it is said: But the teachers would say thus: "when the robe-making is finished and the kathina is withdrawn by the bhikkhu, if an unseasonal robe arises for the bhikkhu" – here, by saying "when the robe-making is finished and the kathina is withdrawn by the bhikkhu," it is made known thus: "within this period, there is no arising of any of the three unseasonal robes." But why were they elaborated in the word analysis? It is said: This training rule was stated with reference to determination, but having first allowed ten days, if that is not enough, and if there is hope, by extending that and allowing a month, it also makes clear this special meaning: that an unseasonal robe should be divided by one who is present. That, however, was stated by extending it with this training rule: "if a bhikkhu desires, it should be accepted." Therefore, all three were elaborated in the word analysis. "It should be made quickly," meaning "it should be made within ten days" – this was stated to show that in the case of sufficiency, it is according to the characteristic of the previous training rule. Therefore, "thus" by not saying "they hasten or they are light," but by saying "ten days." Let it be so for the one who has spread it, but when it is said "how about the kathina" for the one who has not spread it, it shows the rejection of the unspread, so it is said, "not seeing it, he falls into distress." At dawn on the thirty-first day, it is nissaggiya, even if it is joined with a great robe of expectation, it does not attain that state, it is nissaggiya if there is a possibility of the last measure, if not, it is not, when joined again, it is, when joined by another, it is not. A cut object is another object. Some say that what is joined beyond the former limit obtains another limit; it should be taken after examination. In a certain knot-place, however, it is said: "There is no offense when given to the Sangha, saying 'this is an untimely robe for the Sangha,' it is said by the addition of a word as in 'secret of the ear' and so on, if it refers to its gain? Since it is established by 'or it may arise from the Sangha,' it is indeed excessive." And it is said: "There is also a reading 'the Sangha will receive robes or the group' and so on." However, I have written everything in the knot-place for the sake of skill, it should be stated after careful consideration. The description of the third Kathina training rule is finished. 4. Description of the Old Robe Training Rule 503-505. "Bhattavissagga" means the determination of the meal duty. "Bhattakiccādhiṭṭhānavibhāga" is by the ancients. "There, you" means that in the action done by you, when it should not be done, you will indeed have it washed. Or it means "that is you." "Upasampanna in both Sanghas" should be understood as said thus due to the fear of not approaching them, because ordination is forbidden in the presence of bhikkhus. In "purāṇacīvara" (old robe), "sakiṃ nivatthampi sakiṃ pārutampī" (even worn once, even put on once) is said only to indicate its oldness, therefore, some say that there is no occasion for the statement "a robe is one of the six robes, the last one not subject to determination." Because the last one not subject to determination is not intended here. Yes, it is intended to mean the lower and upper garments. That is why a dukkaṭa offense was stated for a sitting mat or rug. Therefore, some say it was not mentioned. According to the measure of birth, whatever old cloth one has washed, it is nissaggiya. That is why it was said, “There is no offense if one has any other requisites washed, except for robes.” Even a bag, if it is soiled and used, and one has it washed, it is nissaggiya, because it is gross and improper. Therefore, some say that in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, the definition of robes was not mentioned in this place. One should consider and take what is more appropriate. It was said, “Only after dyeing and making it suitable, is it proper to wear or put on a robe, not otherwise.” By this, the view of the Middle Elder is supported, not unsupported. But my conjecture is that “after dyeing,” etc., was said to show the Vinaya rule. Just as there are three tetrads in the case of a non-relative who is perceived as a non-relative, so too there are nine tetrads in the cases of relatives in doubt. Here it is asked: If, after washing once, one puts aside the washing, and then, thinking it is “poorly washed,” one washes it again, there should be no offense. Does it mean that one washes it a second time without being told? It is said: If the bhikkhu refuses, saying, “Enough with this much washing,” then if one washes it again, it is proper to say that one washes it without being told. If not, it should be understood that one was told. In the case of a bhikkhu changing his gender, the offense is like that of the Sākiyānīs, due to one who has received upasampadā. 506. “With any one thing,” means with any first thing. The reading is, “by means of three tetrads.” Because it is well-known that the Sākiyānī received upasampadā with an eight-fold declaration in the presence of bhikkhus, that was not mentioned, and only the Sākiyānī was mentioned because it is not well-known. The explanation of the training rule concerning old robes is finished. 5. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning the Acceptance of Robes 508-510. In “in training rules not yet laid down,” it is written, “in the training rule of falling away from the group.” Some say it is “not yet laid down” in the training rule prohibiting forest dwellers, but they say, “that is not good.” Due to being skilled with much effort. 512. Upacāra means twelve cubits. In the Mahāpaccari and Kurundi, it is said that when a Dharma preacher monk, at night, has many robes rejected by the people out of faith and generosity, if on the next day he takes them with a pure mind, thinking, "These are gifts of faith from the lay followers," there is no fault. But if he takes them knowing, "There are also some here given by nuns," there is fault. "By that state of not knowing" means not knowing that many of those robes were given by nuns. "Having resolved it as a rag-robe" means it is permissible for one who takes it without speculating, "Could this have been given by nuns?" but rather resolves, "I will take a rag-robe." This is also the meaning stated in the Kurundi and other texts. Others say that the phrase "by the state of not knowing" refutes the wrong path of thinking, "it is permissible to take it in any way." Dhammasiri Thera does not say this; he speaks directly, as elaborated. This is his domain, and this is his intention: just as it is said, "it is permissible to take a robe placed with the intention that 'he will take a rag-robe,' even if it belongs to a nun, by resolving it as a rag-robe without speculating," so too, a robe given by a nun, if not recognized, is permissible for a Dharma preacher monk. Therefore, what is said in the Mahāpaccari and Kurundi does not agree with the state of not knowing. The prohibition, however, applies only to taking with speculation. Otherwise, the earlier and later statements would contradict. That is not appropriate, as it is not the same as a rag-robe. A rag-robe, placed in a rubbish heap or similar by nuns, does not remain as their property. A rag-robe is ownerless and common to all; others may also take it. Even if one previously knew, "This is a nun's robe," a rag-robe wearer may take it then, as it is not her property. "Having resolved it as a rag-robe" is said to show the practice of austerity.