English
and make a determination. "And this same method applies to bowls, etc.," it is said. "And palm syrup and coconut syrup are also for seven days only." "A seven-day allowable item received by one but belonging to two, does not incur an offense if the seven days are exceeded, but it is not allowable for either of them to use it," it is said. "And the same method applies when another's property is received and kept," some say. There is no rule seen that says butter, etc., which are objects of a dukkaṭa offense, are to be renounced and then may be used again. The description of the medicine training rule is finished. 4. Description of the Rains-cloth Training Rule 627. "Having made only one" by this statement, Elder Dhammasiri says that one should take only one when making a thought of mindfulness even for relatives, with the characteristic of a rains-cloth. Four kinds of fields Here, although three kinds are seen, that should be understood thus: the field in which one may search, that is called the search-field. Thus, it is said, "also the making-field, the wearing-field, the determining-field." Here, the taking of the former by the latter should be understood, not the taking of the latter by the former, as the teacher says, "as obtained." Its meaning is: by the determining-field, the last, the three former ones are taken; similarly, by the wearing-field, the two former ones. But by the making-field, only one former one is taken. Here, although there is no difference in time between the making-field and the wearing-field, yet due to the Pāli saying, "having made a determination, it should be worn," therefore it is stated in two ways due to the absence of one, and for the accomplishment of that meaning. If it is asked, "How is it understood that there is no difference here?" From the Pāli, "When half a month remains of the hot season, it should be worn," is indeed the Pāli, and also from the Mātika-Aṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Vassikasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Thus it is said, "The last half-month is also the making-field and the wearing-field." By this method, the three kinds of fields are also established. However, in some books of the Samantapāsādikā, the reading is, "From the last day of the waning moon of Jeṭṭhamūla full moon day until the Uposatha of the dark fortnight, this one half-month is both the search-field and the making-field. Indeed, within this interval, if the rain-garment is not obtained, it is permissible to search for it, and if obtained, to make it. But it is not permissible to wear it or to determine it." That is an incorrect reading, due to contradiction with the aforementioned Pāli and Mātika-Aṭṭhakathā. Therefore, there, the reading should be understood as, "If not obtained, it is permissible to search for it, but not to make it, wear it, or determine it." Thus, the establishment of taking the former by the latter should be understood. It is not possible for the former to take the making-field and so on. Indeed, only this much is said: "When one month remains of the hot season, the rain-garment should be searched for." not, the commentary If it is said, “This one half-month is both the field of search and the field of making,” because it is stated thus? No, because that is a writing error, it has been established thus. But by the field of making, the field of dwelling is taken, because there is no difference in time; for that very reason, taking what was obtained earlier was done, and it is established thus, there is no difference, the purpose has been stated. By the field of dwelling, the field of determination is not taken at all, for the latter should not be understood by the former. If it is said, “Is it not contrary to the Pāli?” No, because the meaning of that is not known. In “A month remains of the hot season,” and “A half-month remains of the hot season,” the word ‘iti’ here means ‘from this point onwards’. From seeing the field of offense later, the non-offense status of the other is shown. Even if given previously, for one who produces it from a place where relatives have invited, it is nissaggiya due to being a back-agreement. Those who normally give rainy-season robes, without inviting the Sangha or a person, give them annually; in that case, mindfulness is sufficient. A dukkata in a breach of conduct is in other cases. Because of the saying, “If made… …it should be determined on the day of the rainy season retreat… …he obtains a six-month exemption,” it is indicated that even within the rainy season, until the last day of the rainy season, if not made, one obtains an exemption. If it is asked, “Why was it not considered?” Because it is established by the meaning of the offense. By the saying, “He obtains a six-month exemption,” it is already established that if not made, one obtains it. Although that is established, since it did not come in its own form, to show it in its own form, and to show it by reasoning due to its difficulty in being believed, this was begun by the teacher. “Just as here, so too a robe arising within the kathina period should be dealt with in the manner stated below,” is stated in the marginal note, but that is ill-stated there due to a contradiction between earlier and later parts. And the commentary statement cited here as proof does not prove that meaning. The saying, “If he is unable, he obtains an exemption until the full moon of Kattika,” means that for one who is unable, until the full moon of Kattika, he… the period of exemption. It shows that not even one day beyond that exists. Therefore, by its not being sufficient, if not determined, it obtains the exemption until the full moon of Kattika. It is established that it does not obtain it beyond that. Similarly, that same statement shows that a determined exemption is not obtained. Therefore, it must be determined on the very day of the Kattika full moon. It is written: "If it is not sufficient within ten days, the completion of the act within the rainy season is the measure." Here it is said: "It should not be said 'by one day, two days, etc.'" Why? Because the summer days are not a time for determination. Therefore, it should not be said generally "it must be determined within ten days or on that very day," because of the implication that summer days are a field for determination. Here it is said: No, because of not knowing its meaning. For the rainy season entry that has not yet arrived for ten days, the summer days are ten days. And a rain-robe obtained and completed on the first day, even if ten days have passed, because it has not reached the day of the rainy season entry, which is the field for determination, it is not yet subject to relinquishment. And this has been said: "Even if ten days pass before the rainy season entry, there is no offense." This statement "it must be determined within ten days" was not said to show the meaning that it must be determined indiscriminately even on a summer day within this period. But if it arose on a summer day, and it is within ten days of the field for determination, it was said to show that it must be determined within the ten days, in the field itself, and not that one should pass ten days by considering it not a field. Why? Because summer days are also included in the count. Therefore, counting even the non-field days, it is said "it must be determined within ten days" in the field itself. The commentary on the training rule concerning the rain-robe is finished. 5. The commentary on the training rule concerning the snatching of a robe 632. "Sāmaṃ" (by oneself) is said to specify the meaning of "one's own intention." For it is only with one's own intention that there is relinquishment in causing to snatch or snatching. Therefore, this is an indication of the root cause of relinquishment. Because "robe" is said, it is as if it were said: "For one snatching a non-robe, there is no relinquishment." "Having given" means having given or having had it given." Although the analysis of the word is fitting, it was not stated due to the fear of an undesirable consequence, namely, that one might have another bhikkhu give away something belonging to someone else, and then either take it back oneself or have it taken back by that bhikkhu. However, in terms of meaning, it should be understood as a nissaggiya offense if one has one's own property given away by another, such as a co-resident, or has someone else's property given away through their trust, and then takes it back or has it taken back. And this is when it is given without expectation. If so, what about the statement, "One who takes back what has been given away, having renounced it, should be made to pay the value of the goods"? This refers to one who takes it not with one's own intention, but with the intention of theft. That is why it is said, "Since it was taken with one's own intention, there is no pārājika offense." Moreover, it is also established by the statement, "There is no offense if he gives it, or if he takes it trusting him." Thus far, it has been established that there is no offense for one who takes back what was given for a temporary period. The statement, "He will take ordination from us," and so on, refers to a gift to a novice, which is not intended here. If it is asked whether there is a triple dukkata for an unordained person, just as there is a triple pācittiya for an ordained person in the Pāli (Pārā. 633-634)? No, because that intention is not understood. The intention here is that it is a nissaggiya offense if, having given something in the unordained state, one sees the recipient ordained by someone else and, being angry, takes it back; or if one gives something to an ordained person who says, "I will renounce the training and ordain with you," and then takes it back. 633. If, having been commanded once, one takes back many things, it is a nissaggiya offense, and because they are bound together as one, it is one pācittiya offense.