English
This is what is meant by the statement, "If commanded, he takes many, it is one pācittiya." However, in the Commentary on the Mātikā, it is stated, "Offenses are according to the number of objects." This refers to taking when the command is plural, such as "take all of them." That is why it is stated there, "Many offenses with one utterance." If this is the case, the Pāli statement, and the Commentary And the two statements of the commentary agree with each other, even what belongs to others becomes nissaggiya, and a rag-robe, therefore it is said, "like silver tied to a piece of cloth," that was said to show the rule for that meaning, as if covered, with the intention of not taking, with intention, but a verbal act should be understood as merely taking by force, saying "give it," even if one does not intend to take it, that is not proper according to the statement, "no offense if he gives it." If it is said, "Whether pleased or displeased, he gives it, there is no offense," from the statement of the Mātika Commentary? No, because in both cases it refers to giving by one's own will, and because of the implication of no offense in taking by force. "Because of the Pāli statement 'having given a robe to a bhikkhu oneself,' and because 'full ordination' is stated in the definition of the factors in the Mātika Commentary, it implies that the state of being a bhikkhu is desired in both giving and taking," they say, "This is not proper," says the teacher, "is our reasoning." Why? Because of the implication of no offense for one who, having given a robe to an unordained person, takes it back when that person is ordained. If it is said, "Having given a robe or other requisites to an unordained person... (etc.)... there is an offense of dukkaṭa," and so there is a dukkaṭa there? Because it is not established, that full ordination at the time of giving is the standard, this is not established by commentary, Pāli, or reasoning, therefore, that is not proper, is the meaning. Having given a robe to an unordained person, if one takes back the robe from that same unordained person while still unordained, there is a dukkaṭa, or having given it when ordained, if one takes it back when unordained, there is a dukkaṭa – this alternative interpretation of that statement is also possible, therefore (Pārā. 631 onwards) because of the possibility of an alternative interpretation, it is not proper, since a separate dukkaṭa is not prescribed for one who, having given it when unordained, takes it back when ordained, therefore, just as in the training rules concerning washing old robes and so on, full ordination at a later stage is the standard here, therefore, because "full ordination" is stated among the factors, that is not proper. such is the meaning. Here, Venerable Dhammasiri says, it is said, that "a gift intended for one who is hoping for it, not a gift already given," is meant. This should be investigated. The explanation of the training rule on snatching robes is finished. 6. The explanation of the training rule on requesting thread. 637. In the sixth, although it is said, "having oneself requested thread," in the commentary on the mātikā, however, by not saying "thread oneself requested for a robe," but merely saying "thread requested for a robe" in the sections, it should be understood that thread requested by another for a robe is also included. "Oneself" here is a specification for someone. Although "having oneself requested" is said, nevertheless, "one should weave oneself" means one should weave for one's own purpose; this is the connection and the meaning to be understood. In the Pāli, however, the connection is made with the proximate word; therefore, "thread oneself requested" implies that thread requested by another is permissible, and a weaver obtained by requesting handiwork is also permissible. If it is the last measure not subject to determination, then what is woven on the loom should be determined once; there is no need for a second determination, as it becomes one with what is determined. "If, however, by showing a boundary, like a Chinese silk cloth, it is determined in parts, it should be determined again," it is said. They say that "by the word 'receipt,' 'I will have it woven and put it away,' and so on, are included in one." The explanation of the training rule on requesting thread is finished. 7. The explanation of the training rule on the great weaver. 642. A specific measure, and a specific measure made by his word, not a gift of material things. In some books, "robe" is extracted and a distinction is stated, but that is not fitting. The explanation of the training rule on the great weaver is finished. 8. The explanation of the training rule on emergency robes. 646. "I allow, monks, to receive and put away an emergency robe," and what was said, "until the invitation is made," but those monks, having wrongly understood the meaning of that statement, depositing emergency robes, they let the robe season pass. Is this divided, or undivided? It is divided, or personal. Therefore, later it is said, "Our emergency robes, friends," but undivided, being communal, does not make it subject to forfeiture for anyone. Moreover, "having received an emergency robe, to deposit it" with this general statement, from the day of entering the rains retreat, or from the back-season, until the invitation (Pavāraṇā), it is indeed permissible to deposit, being communal, and also personal, given with the instruction, "receive them at the time of having completed the rains." For such a robe, as long as one has not completed the rains, it is not one's own, it belongs to the donor. Similarly, in the third year from now, or the fourth year, what was given with instructions like, "receive them at Pavāraṇā," should be deposited and received just as it was given. This meaning is clear in the commentaries. If those robes, upon the passing of the robe season, are not subject to forfeiture? No, because they were given with a specific designation. Because this term "season" appears in "given with designation even in season," and "time" appears in the training rules for group meals, etc., therefore, here, to show their identity of meaning, it is to be understood that "robe season" is said together. In the Mātika, such a robe is spoken of referring to a personal robe that has become one's own property, therefore it says, "if an emergency robe arises for a bhikkhu." For a bhikkhu who has completed the rains in his own hut, being unable to give, one completes the act of giving within the rains retreat itself and departs, similarly for the Sangha. Therefore, this emergency robe is one that, from the time it arises, becomes the property of the Sangha or the individual, which was not given as a rains-residence robe. And there is one that, from the time it arises, does not become property, but becomes the property of the individual or the Sangha only at the time of having completed the rains, which arose as a rains-residence robe and was given at the proper time. And there is one at the time that which, even when given, does not become the property of the individual, but becomes the property of the Saṅgha or the property of the donor, referring to such a thing, it is said: "It should be put away with a mark." This can be put away for more than a year, because it has not become one's own property. Therefore, it is established that "not beyond ten days" was said referring to something else. Having received it more than ten days before, one cannot put it away until the Pavāraṇā. Therefore, only that which has become one's own property should be determined. It is to this that "not beyond ten days" refers, since it is said in the section on non-offenses: "He determines, he resolves within the time." But that which is to be put away with a mark has not become one's own property, because it is to be given to another. Indeed, it is not possible to say of that: "He determines, he resolves." Nor is it an offering in this sense, because it is not an offering to the Saṅgha. This meaning is very clear in the commentaries. If it is asked: "What is to be put away with a mark?" The robe belonging to another is indeed for the Saṅgha. Thus, "so that it will be easy to give after marking it" shows that it belongs to another. "Beyond that, there is no allowance for even one day, because it has not gone beyond the ten-day limit." It is written, "from this time onwards, because it has not gone beyond the ten days, he does not get ten days after the time." This is said to be his intention. In "He certainly gets this allowance," the reason "the eleventh dawn rises in the robe month" is written. But in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said: "The Blessed One, saying that one can put away without determining for eleven days, also allows other robes like emergency robes, through the medium of emergency robes, say others." Which of these is well-spoken? Both, say some. How? First, "for an emergency robe, when the Kathina is not spread, a month plus ten days; when the Kathina is spread, five months plus ten days." By this, agrees. For here, according to the Anugaṇṭhipada doctrine, it becomes "more than eleven days." The second agrees with "not yet ten days... ...meaning not yet reached ten days." According to this method, the reading "the time for depositing the robe that arose from the fifth day onwards is shown" is appropriate. Similarly, according to the Gaṇṭhipada doctrine, it becomes "the full moon of the Kattika three-month period is not yet nine days away," and according to that, the reading "although it is established by 'he should wear an extra robe for a maximum of ten days,' the rule was laid down to show a new meaning, as if it were not already known, based on the origin story" is appropriate. What is the essence here? What was stated later, that is the essence. Therefore, the commentator said, "from the fifth day onwards."