English
so silk is established as proper. If this is the case, then a pure silk robe is proper, how much more so a mat-robe mixed with silk. he incurs. Likewise, a blanket is allowed, and it is pure even by its nature of being black, how much more so a robe made of white cow-hair mixed with felt. Then there is mutual contradiction, therefore, it is not called a felt robe, but it is a sitting-mat, because its measure, shape, and definition are possible. Here some teachers say: "There are two kinds of sitting-mats: felt and unfelt. Among these, felt is just felt. Unfelt is of six kinds, such as linen, or is in accordance with that. This is the distinction between them." Here it is asked: Why was the training rule not laid down here as "a felt [robe] by a bhikkhu," but as "a felt sitting-mat"? It is said that it was laid down thus to show that felt [garments], being designated as robes, were rejected, and to show their non-robe nature. Therefore, those bhikkhus, fearing a breach of the dhutaṅgas, rejected them and undertook all thirteen dhutaṅgas. Only three were mentioned by way of showing the main ones. And the Blessed One allowed them felt [garments]. Then it occurred to them thus: "This felt sitting-mat, even if it has the shape of a sitting-mat-robe, is not allowed to us, much less a felt [garment] made as a fourth robe." Then, the intention is that the Blessed One laid down "felt sitting-mat" for that purpose, so that they would not have the perception of a robe in felt [garments]. If it is asked, "How is it known that 'the last two are valid'?" It is from the statement, "There is no offense for one who receives and uses what was made by another." The commentary on the training rule concerning the felt sitting-mat is finished. 6. Commentary on the training rule concerning sheep's wool 572-3. "For one proceeding on a journey" – by this, it is shown that even for one naturally proceeding on a long journey, what arises should be carried only up to three yojanas, much less for one not proceeding on a journey. Or the connection is, "It is nissaggiya for one proceeding on a journey." Therefore, it is established that there is no offense for one who is counted as "not proceeding," due to the relaxation of the intention to reside and the encouragement to go. In this interpretation of the meaning, for a bhikkhu, indeed, If sheep's wool arises… …and there are no carriers, for one on a journey, who has gone beyond the distance, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. This is how the application should be understood. "A bhikkhu who desires it should accept it" shows an offense when one's own property is carried beyond three yojanas. Therefore, if one does not desire it, and another's property is accepted and carried beyond three yojanas, there is no offense. This meaning is indeed revealed by "if it arises for a bhikkhu" and by "having received what was cut." And in the ancient commentaries, it is said, "If he makes another bhikkhu carry it and goes, there is no offense for both." Therefore, it is established that if two bhikkhus, having reached beyond three yojanas, exchange goods with each other and carry them, there is no offense. For this reason, in the section on no offense, it is said, "makes another carry." What does he make carry? Knowing or not knowing. And here, if knowing, it should not be said definitively that "if he places it, thinking 'another will carry it,' even if that one carries it, there is still an offense." For even one who knows sometimes carries. Then it contradicts the commentary. If not knowing, "having placed it in another's vehicle or goods, without that one knowing, and it goes beyond three yojanas, it is nissaggiya," this contradicts the Pāli. If both together make one item be carried, that too would be nissaggiya. "Not nissaggiya" contradicts the reasoning. And the Pāli states without distinction, "It should be carried by hand up to three yojanas if there are no carriers." A carrier is of two kinds: conscious or unconscious. A conscious one is also of two kinds, depending on whether he knows it is sheep's wool, or "I am carrying this," or "this one is making me carry this." Among these, an unconscious carrier is a river current, or a boat, or an ownerless vehicle. A conscious one is obvious. Among these, if he makes a human or an animal carry it, knowing only this much: "this one is making me carry this," there is no offense. This is the method of the sub-commentary. This is a consistent decision of the Pāli and the commentary, "if there are no carriers." Though this is said generally, "without the knowledge of another's vehicle or goods" from this phrase, a conscious carrier is intended there, it is understood. One who knows it is wool, and says "I will carry this," is not intended. Therefore it is said: "He places it, thinking another will carry it; even if carried by him, there is an offense," and so on. There, it is due to the absence of a causative agent. For in the Pāli, "causes another to carry" is stated as a causative verb. The other two who know are possible here. "Having placed it without his knowledge" in the Pāli means: having placed it in the vehicle or goods of one who knows, "he causes this to be carried," or "he causes this place to be passed over," and causes it to pass over three yojanas, they do not become nissaggiya. "Causes to carry" proves this to be a causative verb. Therefore, in the commentary, "without the knowledge of the owner" refers to one who does not know, "he causes me to carry this." "He moves, urges, causes to follow" refers to one who knows, "he causes me to pass over this place." Even one who does not know does not pass over the fixed place by moving, etc., nor does he follow. But if, without passing over by moving, etc., he passes over by his own will, there is an offense for the bhikkhu, as he cannot be a causative agent. Now we will explain from the established position. "Even if there is no carrier" means: due to the lack of a carrier, if one carries it oneself, it is nissaggiya; how much more so if there is a carrier – this is one meaning. Taking the word "api" for emphasis, only if there is no carrier is it nissaggiya; but if there is a carrier, it is not nissaggiya for one who causes him to carry – this is the second meaning. "From the Sangha or... or with one's own wealth" – by this, although this rule is unintentional, it indicates that an offense occurs only when the wool, received from the Sangha etc. by one who desires it, passes over three yojanas, not when it passes over, unknowingly and unreceived, attached to robes etc. from somewhere. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, however, "on top of the blanket..." If even one hair is stuck to the robe of one going while lying down, there is an offense, because it is said to be disentangled from the blanket. It is proper that it was received by one's own will, because that blanket was received. Since it is said "no offense in made-up goods," therefore, even if it is many, it is indeed in the category of made-up goods. For that was received by him, not the hair. But if the hair is also not received, the rule is that made-up goods are made-up goods with hair that is difficult to remove and separate. This being so, in unmade goods, a triple pācittiya, and in made goods, a triple dukkaṭa should be shown according to the method, otherwise, because the triple (offense) is shown. "Because of being zealous" means because of going without ceasing. And "because of being without intention" means that in accordance with the monk's zeal, from the hair exceeding three yojanas, even without the intention of using or the intention of carrying, an offense is indeed incurred. That 'no offense' does not agree with the Pāḷi. But within, by intention, because of exceeding the three-yojana limit, there is no offense. By "one carries three yojanas," it shows that even one desiring to lead (it) step by step for three yojanas does not incur a dukkaṭa at every step within the three yojanas. That is proper, because of the existence of the statement: "having gone with the intention of dwelling for three yojanas, one carries beyond that." Again it is said: "'One causes another to carry' means one causes another to carry with zeal, thinking 'I will carry this.' Otherwise, if one placed it on the head of one who was going, even if he did not know, there would be no offense." And it is said that the Elder Upatissa said: "But if, because it is said in the manner beginning with 'in a vehicle that is not going,' for elephants etc., whose zeal is generated by carrying etc., only when the thought 'we will do this' or 'we will carry this' is generated, there is no offense, not when it is not generated." "Having turned it over and placed it" means "because both were thrown outside," said the Elder Upatissa. Some say there is no offense when one places outside a bundle placed outside the boundary, which was placed inside the inner boundary. It does not seem good. 575. "Having received, one carries" means "one carries beyond the first three yojanas, not from the second (three yojanas) onwards." What is the meaning? Because there is no occasion for finished goods, there is no offense. The explanation of the sheep's wool training rule is finished. 7. The explanation of the training rule on having sheep's wool washed 581. Although in the training rule on washing old robes, it is said in the non-offense clause, "having other requisites washed" apart from robes. However, some say that from the time this training rule arose, having sheep's wool washed and so on is an offense. Others say that that non-offense is from the root offense itself, not from this one. Others say that since sheep's wool is not a requisite, it is simply not to be taken as a commodity. To clarify the meaning of this last method, this question is posed: Is the word "has washed" a word that is universally applicable, encompassing dyeing and disentangling,