English
The Tathāgata, who gave meat, ate what was permissible through austerity, and declared a robe to be Nissaggiya, who made meat kills, saying, "I will kill." If it is asked, "How is a rag-robe permissible when there is no intention?" Because it was not given to her by her, and it was not taken by the bhikkhu from that bhikkhuni. For even if one takes an ownerless rag-robe from the hand of another, it is not permissible, because the characteristic "one should receive a robe from a bhikkhuni who is not a relative" is present. Some say that if one takes a relative's property from the hand of a relative, it is permissible. Just as there is no offense for one who receives from the hand of a female trainee or female novice, so too in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī it is stated as a factor, "receiving from the hand of one who is not a relative." Similarly, some say that there is no offense for one who receives a relative's property from the hand of a female trainee, a female novice, a male lay follower, a female lay follower, a bhikkhu, or a male novice who is not a relative, because the aforementioned characteristic is not present. For this reason, it is said, "Without saying 'receives a robe from one who is ordained on both sides,' it is said, 'receives from the hand, except for an exchange, an offense of dukkata' (Pārā. 513). Therefore, even if one receives the property of one who is not a relative from the hand of one who is ordained on both sides, it is a dukkata." Both of these should not be regarded as essential; the reason should be sought. 514. What then of bowl-bags and the like? This refers to many layers that are not to be determined. For this reason, it is said in the Mātikaṭṭhakathā, "in bowl-bags and other accessories that are not to be determined." Or, since they are accessories not suitable for determination, like a lotus leaf, there is no offense. Is a cloth strainer not an accessory? It is, but it is said that it is not permissible because it resembles a lower garment or other robe. Therefore, here, a robe is that which is suitable for making a lower garment or other robe, and which is the last of those suitable for determination. In the immediately preceding context, the conclusion is that it is only that which is suitable for a lower garment or upper robe. If this is the case, the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. cīvarappaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) states that it is the last of those suitable for determination, and there is no exchange. , taking it from the hand of an unrelated woman—if it is said that only these three factors are mentioned, and the fourth factor, 'without accessories,' should also be stated? It should not be stated, because in this training rule, accessories such as a bowl-bag are not counted as robes. In the case of the first kathina and so on, they are subject to vikappana (designation) and are of a certain measure; here, they are for personal use. Since it is stated, "other accessories," and then "whatever it may be, such as a bowl-bag," it is permissible to take even a bowl-bag that is subject to vikappana. And in the place where it is said, "even a cloth strainer," by the rule that "a robe is that which is ultimately subject to vikappana," a cloth strainer is indeed a robe, not an accessory. Some say that "the concluding statement, 'what then is the dispute,' is also a proof." It is without intention due to not knowing the regulation, not the object. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is stated, "it is without intention due to not knowing that it belongs to an unrelated bhikkhuni, and due to not knowing that it is a robe." The description of the training rule on accepting robes is finished. 6. Description of the training rule on soliciting from an unrelated person 515. "Of accessories" is a genitive case in the sense of utility. "A single cloth" is neuter in the sense of a state. By the statement, "an unrelated person, you worthless man," it is implied that even one who has been invited, if unwilling to give, remains in the position of an unrelated person, even if not invited. Otherwise, it would contradict "no offense for those who have been invited." 517. "It should not be solicited yet, nor should it be broken" because of the existence of one's own uncut robes, and because of the expectation there. How long does the expectation last? Some say, "as far as another village," "as far as half a yojana." Some say, "as far as the range of sight and hearing." Some say, "as long as others do not see." Some say, "as long as the expectation is cut off." Some say, "as long as the time limit for searching for branches and leaves, breaking, and preparing." All this is applicable as far as possible. If it is asked, "how is it known?" "If, however, none of these aforementioned kinds of lay cloths and so on, down to a hide, are obtained, then covering oneself with grass or leaves and going to..." from the commentary’s statement. Not yet to be given to the elders, means not yet to be given according to one’s own wish. When the elders say, “Give, friend,” then they are to be given. “Thus, even young monks stand in the place of those whose robes are not cut, it is permissible to break branches and leaves, not otherwise. For it is said, ‘By whomever they are not cut.’” But the teacher says this: “They are allowed to give even according to their own wish.” For in the commentary it is said, “And here, in ‘worn out by use,’ it is proper to say, ‘Even a robe given by oneself, covered with grass and leaves, to teachers and preceptors whose robes are not cut, is included.’” And if it were said, “Only when the teachers and others say, ‘Bring, friend,’ not otherwise,” no, because of the implication of the second part being indistinguishable from the part mentioned in “by whomever they are not cut.” If it is asked, “Then why was it said, ‘Not yet to be given to the elders’?” As long as one breaks branches and leaves for the sake of the elders, they are not to be given. After that, those branches and leaves intended for the elders, one may wear oneself, and give them according to one’s own wish, even without the elders’ command. There is no offense of pācittiya for harming living plants, as it is permitted even by the Teacher. For it is said, “with grass or with leaves.” If it is said, “That refers only to what is allowable,” no, because it contradicts the statement, “in its absence, not at all…pe… of dukkaṭa.” Here it is said: If one must transgress a pācittiya offense out of fear of dukkaṭa, then in its absence, a thullaccaya offense, and in its absence, even a pārājika offense would have to be transgressed? No, because pārājika is a worldly offense. Moreover, not all living plants are pācittiya offenses; there are also dukkaṭa and other offenses, and there are also blameless acts depending on the time. Therefore, this should be understood as a blameless act at that time. To what extent is a monk whose robe is not cut considered to have lost his robe? Some say, “To the extent that he is naked.” By the last stage of being subject to determination, by the last stage of being subject to determination. Some say: an offense for one who requests for himself. Some say: due to the absence of a suitable lower and upper robe. Some say: due to the absence of the three robes. Some say: due to the absence of the supreme inner and outer robe. This one view is suitable, because of the saying: "one should accept a robe from that which is the supreme inner and outer robe." Therefore, when there is an inner and outer robe, it is a nissaggiya (offense entailing forfeiture) for one who requests and obtains the last (robe) not subject to determination. If so, should the training rule be "having requested, one obtains, it is a nissaggiya"? No, because the meanings of the roots are not different, achieving that meaning. What is said? Just as when it is said "he caused the sexual act to occur three times" (Pārā. 36), the meaning is "he brought it about," so here too, "he should cause a robe to occur" by requesting means "he should bring it about, he should produce it." "Clothed with that" means "clothed with it." When one does not obtain another and uses only that, it wears out, not slightly. "By oneself" is appropriate to say "by oneself," therefore, having not used it in an improper way, but using it in a proper way, it is called "worn out by use." The intention is that even giving it away when its kind is not cut off, falls under proper use. It is said that "these two are indeed fragments of commentaries, the opinions of the teachers who recite them," said Thera Dhammasiri. 521. "He does not obtain to sit or to lie down" means he does not obtain as he wishes. Here too, in "for the sake of another," "for relatives who have invited" is indeed continued. For whose sake? For the sake of that very other. Just as there is a triple pācittiya for non-relatives, so too for those who have not invited; to show this, "for relatives who have invited" is said. Otherwise, since it is established by "for relatives, perceiving them as relatives," the rest does not always apply. Moreover, here, by "non-relatives," "those who have not invited" is meant; by "those who have not invited," "non-relatives" is meant, for non-relatives are indeed those who have not invited. Similarly, by "relatives," "those who have invited" is meant, but sometimes it is not. Not by "those who have invited," "relatives" is meant... To show the special meaning of “it is taken,” it is said, “of relatives who have invited.” For indeed, for a nun who is not a relative and has not invited, there is an offense for one who accepts a robe, except for an exchange. But for a relative who has invited, one takes it with trust; there is no offense. Similarly, for a relative, an old robe is no offense; but for one who has invited, it is a triple pācittiya. And it is permissible to give an old robe to some relatives, but not to those who have invited.