English
If it is made by both, it should be said just as in the text. The fourfold case, such as "begun by oneself and others, completed by oneself," though possible, is not shown. For this is the nature of the Vinaya, that when one triad or tetrad is shown, the other possibilities are not mentioned. The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Kosiyas is finished. 2. Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Pure Black 547. Regarding "suddhakāḷakānaṃ" (of pure black), it should be understood that just as in the first case it was said "even with one kosiya thread," so here, due to the absence of the phrase "without mixing with even one other (thread)," even if mixed with others, if its appearance is not discernible, it is still called "suddhakāḷaka" (pure black). The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Pure Black is finished. 3. Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Two Parts 552. According to the saying, "Having weighed, two parts should be taken," just as the black ones should not be in excess for the weighing, so two parts of the black ones should be taken as the maximum limit. How is this understood? By the reason of prohibiting pure black. The third part for white, the fourth for those collected by alms-round, this is the minimum limit. However, in the Mātikā Commentary, it is said: "If even one black hair is in excess, it is to be relinquished." (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Dvebhāgasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) Although this does not align with weighing, our reasoning is that, since the training rule is without intention, if even one hair falls into those placed on the scale beforehand, it is to be relinquished. Otherwise, two parts should not be taken; fewer parts should be taken. For weighing is not done by counting hairs. But it should be done by counting. Some ask: "What is the purpose of weighing?" "To take only one of the alms-round or white ones, doubled... they say, "it is proper," but as it is not discussed in the commentaries, it should be investigated. The explanation of the Two-Part Training Rule is finished. 4. Explanation of the Six-Year Training Rule 562. "New" means "from the making onwards"—this indicates the counting of years from the initial making. The phrase "having made" indicates "from the day of completion onwards." The phrase "should be kept" indicates "from the time of use onwards." Since for one who has received the permission, many blankets made within six years are found in every place, therefore, what is "other new"? Is it "other than what was made," or "other than what was kept"? And here, if it is "other than what was made," then it is proper to make again any one of them that is damaged or worn out from use, and that too, without the Sugata's span of the old blanket, as it is not included in what is prohibited. For what is prohibited is "other than what was made," and this is "previously made," so there would be a contradiction with the immediately preceding training rule. If it means "other than what was kept," then the permission becomes meaningless. If the first one made is unused, does it mean that even with permission, another new one is not proper? Here is the decisive explanation: the limit of six years should be understood from the day of completion onwards. And there, when the seventh year is reached, six years are completed. And that too, by way of months, not by way of years. The seventh year, whether complete or incomplete, is meant. Therefore, if six years are completed for an unfinished one, they obtain six years again from the day of completion. And that too, whether used or unused, is called "kept." Since it is said, " 'new' is said with reference to the making," therefore, after six years, one may undo that same previously made blanket, due to its damaged state or worn-out condition from use, and make it again. It should be kept for a maximum of six years from the day of completion, or more. If one makes it within that period, that itself is called "another new one." Taking the making, therefore it is to be relinquished. Otherwise, with "taking the making, which is new," there is no distinction. If this is so, what happens? The origin story. For there it is said, "They dwell much given to asking, much given to requesting," and that indicates the making by another. If so, does it become indistinguishable? It does not. But this is its distinction, because the meaning stated, "having received what was made by another, one uses it, there is no offense," is the distinction. What is said? When it is said, "It is called new, taking the making," its arising by receiving becomes new, like the arising of an extra robe. From the day of its receipt, it should be kept for a maximum of six years. If within six years... he causes it to be made, it incurs relinquishment, therefore it is called new taking the making itself, not the receiving. Within six years, because it has not arisen for oneself, it is considered "new"; if he causes what has not been received to be made, it is not "as the gain, so he should do or cause to be done." Why? Because the distinction is: having received what was made by another, one uses it, there is no offense. The explanation of the training rule concerning six years is finished. 5. The explanation of the training rule concerning the sitting-mat. Here, in "Nāssudha koci" (no one indeed), "assudha" is a particle in the sense of emphasis. Although there the plural "Thus, venerable sir, those monks" is stated, nevertheless, having assented to the Blessed One, the meaning to be taken here is that among those monks, no one indeed approached the Blessed One except one. That is easily understood, as in "Venerable sir, they request the Blessed One for one day" (Mahāva. 337), and "I allow... let them approach me for seeing as they wish," meaning, let them approach for the purpose of seeing. "We, Venerable Upasena" was said because he was the leader of the group. All were stated in terms of forest-dweller, alms-gatherer, and rag-robe wearer. Therefore, it is said in the commentary, "and in the mat..." "It is called a rag-robe." Do they all not understand what a robe is? Let it be so. What is meant by a robe? It is one of the six, subject to determination, the last one. And is this woven or unwoven? It is woven. By which thread? Indeed, he does not see the thread itself, making a Siveyyaka pair of cloths, and a miraculous Devadattiya one, not a robe. If so, I say it is also unwoven. In that case, it is established that a rug is called a robe, from the common understanding of a woollen blanket. Did they determine the rug? They determined it badly, because it was not a robe, and because the rug is not subject to determination. If they did not determine it, and previously they considered it not a robe, then calling it a robe in both cases is not fitting. Is there nothing that is subject to determination? It is mentioned there itself. Moreover, if it is not subject to determination, it is not a robe. Otherwise, "a robe is one of the six robes" would be sufficient, and it would not need to be said, "subject to determination, the last one." If even what is not subject to determination is established as a robe, then what is not subject to determination and not subject to determination are both counted as "a robe." Therefore, it is said, "For one with three robes, the fourth robe, if present, is only the shoulder-cloth." Moreover, the designation of a rug as a robe is not only for them, but also follows for others, as in the saying, "An old rug is that which has been worn once or covered once." The Aṭṭhakathā teacher, however, explains its non-robe status by illuminating the meaning of the statement. "Worn and covered" means both when sitting and when lying down. And even so, the designation of a rug as a robe still follows. For in the Khandhaka (Mahāvagga 358) it says, "A sitting-cloth is to be determined, not to be put aside," and in the Parivāra (Parivāra 329), "Nine robes are to be determined," and in the rule for the sitting-cloth, "ten spans," and here, "a sitting-cloth is ten spans." it is said, and in the commentary, “Having spread it out like a mat, at one end, in a space of a Sugata-span, in two places, it is split, and three fringes are made; by these fringes, it is called ‘sadasa’ (with fringes),” and also, “The sitting cloth must be consecrated as stated, and it should be only one of the proper size, two are not allowed,” it is said. Therefore, a sitting cloth is one of the nine robes that must be consecrated, and it is established that it is a special kind of mat made of sheep’s wool, similar to a mat. Thus, the sitting cloth itself and the sitting mat are established. In the ancient glossaries, it is said, “only one.” When that is established, it means that mats are designated as robes. Why? Because of the general nature of mats. Here it is asked: How is it that a mat without fringes does not count as a robe? Many, unconsecrated, and large ones are allowed, since only a mat with fringes counts as a robe, then consecration also applies. Because it is included in the category of mats, and within six years, even without a formal declaration, and indeed, only after discarding the old one, not without discarding it, because of the statement, “and it should be only one of the proper size, two are not allowed.” Even if it were that a mat is made only for sleeping, and a sitting cloth is not a mat. That is not a fixed rule, because it is said, “an old mat is one that has been worn once, or covered once.” Here it is said, no reason should be sought here, as it is not within the scope of the Vinaya regulations. However, regarding a mat not being a robe, this is the reasoning: Initially, from the commentary’s statement, “three mats, having performed the Vinaya act, and having obtained them, are not allowed to be used,” it is established that they are improper. And by the Blessed One, six kinds of materials, such as cotton, were permitted,