English
By comparing it with the ancient Gaṇṭhipadas and the commentary, and by comparing it with the Pāli text "not yet ten days," the Gaṇṭhipada doctrine here also agrees with the Pāli text. How? Because on the day of Pavāraṇā, at sunrise, the bhikkhu has completed the Rains Retreat. Therefore, with this tenth day, from the sixth day onwards, nine days are ten days, so "ten days" (dasāhaṃ), by those ten days (dasāhena), the instrumental case is used in the sense of "with." The full moon of the Kattika three-month period is called "not yet arrived" (anāgatā) because it has not yet reached the robe season. Just as when one takes back a Rains-robe and determines it on another Kattika full moon, it is said, "one should determine it for four months, and after that, one should determine it," this is similar to that. Is it said here? No, because it would lead to its being useless. Is it said that the time for receiving an emergency robe is fixed? No, because it is stated in the ancient commentary and Gaṇṭhipadas that "a robe that arises from the sixth day onwards is not an emergency robe. Because it is established by the first Kathina," therefore, above that, it is called "emergency robe," and there is also the collection of offenses for the one who receives it. And that offense does not arise from the Pāli text, the commentary, or reasoning. Only the origin story. If it is said by way of power? No, in the origin story of the ten-day extra allowance, it is not seen. "Monks, having received an emergency robe, exceeded the robe-time period" – this much indeed is the origin story here. Thus, in the Parivāra (pari. 47-53), starting with "in what matter," only this much is said, it should be understood. If it is said that this was laid down to show that an emergency robe should not exceed the robe-time, but other robes may exceed it? No, because only the offense regarding the emergency robe is seen, due to the absence of a special reason, and due to the contradiction with the statement "even if one may wear an extra robe for a maximum of ten days, it is accomplished by this [rule]," and due to the impossibility of the statement as said. How? For if it is said that the Katthika full moon "is not yet come" together with the ten days, then it implies that that full moon is other than the ten days. If it is not other, the word "together with" is not possible, for one's own connection with oneself is not possible, and the word "not yet come" is not possible. For that full moon has indeed arrived, it is present. If it is said that because it is immediately after the robe-time, it is one with it, and because it has not yet come, it is "not yet come"? No, even so, because the word "not yet come" is possible, for the word "not yet come" is possible only when there is a possibility of coming, for Nibbāna or a concept is not called "not yet come." Like Nibbāna, the three moments, and that full moon never attains the state of being a time, so it is indeed inappropriate. But the statement "after that, one may determine" is possible because it stands taking the "back-time." Moreover, at the Pavāraṇā, when dawn has risen, that full moon indeed becomes "not yet come" by one day to the robe-time, having previously attained a connection. This being so, even having become one, that [full moon] is indeed "not yet come" to the robe-time, it should be understood that this is always indicated by some statement, not for the purpose of making such an analysis. For what purpose is "a month with ten extra days" etc. said here? That is due to the possibility of completion. For an emergency robe that arose before dawn on the fifth day, only a month with ten extra days is complete. having done so, it was thus said. Moreover, even when the night of the fifth day has arrived, it is called "yesterday," how much more so before dawn. Therefore, it is said, "Yesterday, friends, for us," and so on. "If this is the case, then according to the first reading, 'from the sixth day onwards,' even a non-emergency robe, or the triple robe put away after being taken out, receives this allowance," and "a month plus ten days," and so on, which was written. That is not the case, because when the reading "from the fifth day onwards" is prepared, the aforementioned meaning arises through this method. Those passages are not prepared again. "They should be disregarded as they are," is our teacher's opinion. "This training rule is for non-relinquishment on the full moon day," says Elder Upatissa. When the reading "from the fifth day of the bright half of the Pavāraṇā month onwards" is prepared, the time for depositing a robe that has arisen is shown by this method as stated. "Emergency robe means an urgent robe," and so on, is the reading. "From the sixth day onwards," and "even if it is for more than ten days," and so on, which was written, that is not the reading. Therefore, considering that it receives an allowance for eleven days, the teacher had "from the fifth day onwards" written. "However, a non-emergency robe that has arisen from the sixth day of the bright half of the Pavāraṇā month onwards, or the triple robe put away after being taken out, receives this allowance," is the reading. And "for an emergency robe, when the kathina is not spread, a month plus eleven days; when the kathina is spread, five months plus eleven days," is the reading. Here they elaborate. Therefore, one should speak after careful consideration, or remain silent. The explanation of the training rule concerning the emergency robe is finished. 9. Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Doubt 652. "One of the three robes" - this rule applies only to the triple robe, for others, it is as one wishes - they say this was stated to show that. "Residing apart for more than six nights" it is said, having made it so that there is no absence from that very dwelling. Why? Because of knowing the origin of the robe. Here, although it is said, "a forest dwelling is one that is five hundred bows distant at the least," it is also said to be more than that. But it is a forest dwelling, and it maintains the ascetic practice, due to the possibility of an obstacle arising from knowing the origin of the robe. 653. As for what is said, "he obtains it at a measure exceeding a gāvuta," how is that understood? From the saying, "and if there should be some reason for that bhikkhu to be absent from that robe." If it is said, "could it be at the measure of a yojana?" No, because it is permitted in the section on non-offenses, "he enters the village boundary again, stays, and then departs." If so, what about "he does not obtain it at the measure of a yojana"? This is said only with reference to a permanent dwelling. Does the ascetic practice break there? It does not break, but there is no application of the ascetic practice here. Then why is it said, "this one should be known as a thief of the ascetic practice"? Because it is impossible. How is it understood? Because of its absence in the factors. The ascetic practice of one who holds the ascetic practice is established by the description of a suitable dwelling. If it is said, "by the measure of the statement"? No, by the measure of the statement, the Pāli itself is the authority. For it is said, "there is no offense if he enters the village boundary again, stays, and then departs." If it is asked, "how long should he stay after leaving the village boundary before departing?" On the very next day. Therefore, some say the eighth dawn should rise in the permanent dwelling or in the place to be gone to. Some say within three days. Some say as long as he does not make it a permanent dwelling. Some say as long as the fatigue of the journey is relieved. If there is an obstacle, he stays within three days, there is no offense. If he makes it a permanent dwelling, there is an offense at dawn. If it is the seventh day, he should take the robe then, or retrieve it, say some. If there is an obstacle, by the appearance of a new path or a new village settlement, that dwelling falls short of the required factors. Then he should take the robe or... or it should be taken out. If it is lost while he is away for six nights, there is no offense, as the allowed days have passed, say some. There is an offense, as the conditions are not met, say others. What is more suitable should be considered and taken here. If he is an ascetic practicing the dhutaṅga vows, he should not stay within the village boundary, but stay in a place suitable for the last measure, and then depart. If the village is the first boundary where he is not to be away, there is no offense even if he stays within the boundary in another month. In the ancient commentaries, it is said: "Even if one stays in the aforementioned dwelling, the robe should be left in the village for only six nights; with this intention, even if one stays for another period within the six nights, or for any other period, there is an offense." The description of the Doubtful Training Rule is finished. 10. Description of the Transferred Training Rule 657. "Give it to us, friends," Is this an unannounced request or not? It is. If so, what is the difference between the training rule of unannounced requests and this one? That one is for one who requests from an unknown person who has not been invited. This one is even from a known person who has been invited. That one is only for one whose robe is not cut. This one is even for him. That one is for one who requests only a robe. This one is even for something other than a robe. If that is the case, this one encompasses that one. Therefore, when the conditions for both are met, by which one should it be? It should be by this one, as this one is without exception, say some. It should be by both, as the conditions for both are met, say others. The conditions for that one are: the robe is not subject to distribution, there is no agreement, an unknown request, and obtaining it through that.