English
, appearing below the navel and above the knee-cap, then four sugata spans in length and two in width also seems to be an excessively large measure. For every person is seven spans by their own span, and one span of the Sugata is three spans of an average person. Therefore, the itch-covering cloth would be the measure of an ordinary person in width, but twice that in length. Let it be so; that is its maximum limit. If one wishes, one may cover the entire body, or if one desires to wear it folded many times like a full-body outer robe, one may wear it so. This might be the Buddha's intention. The explanation of the training rule concerning itch-covering cloths is finished. 9. The training rule concerning rain-bathing cloths Explanation 542. The rain-cloak, too, is allowed by way of an excellent cut. This might be the Buddha's intention: that during the rainy season, some will use it just like a triple-robe. Although it is allowed by this reasoning, it is to be understood that because it is laid down in the matter of "they wear immeasurable itch-covering cloths, they wear rain-cloaks," those monks wear them in a measure exceeding the full measure, and thus their allowance is of this utmost limit. The same method applies to the tenth as well. The explanation of the rain-cloak training rule is finished. 10. Explanation of the Training Rule concerning Elder Nanda 551. Here, "makes a cushion or a bolster" is fittingly understood as making it for the common use of many monks for a long time. The explanation of the training rule concerning Elder Nanda is finished. The ninth chapter, the Jewel Section, is finished in the order of explanation. The explanation of the Pacittiya Section is finished. 6. The Patidesaniya Section 1. Explanation of the First Patidesaniya Training Rule 553-5. Since it is stated in the commentary as "showing the manner of confession," the offense should be confessed in the way it appears in the Pali, not otherwise. And by the method of "within the village, perceiving it as within the village," and "food and edibles, perceiving them as non-food and non-edibles," and "a bhikkhuni, perceiving her as a non-bhikkhuni," the other three sections of three should be combined and shown. The explanation of the first Patidesaniya training rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the Second Patidesaniya Training Rule 559. Although it is said, "invited, they eat" means "invited with one of the five kinds of food, they eat," yet being invited with an improper invitation is not an element here, because there is no hint of it in the commentary on the matrix or in the section on non-offenses here. Therefore, the meaning of the word "invited" is stated in the manner customary before. It is to be understood that the other three sections of three should be combined and shown, as stated in the word analysis. For, a bhikkhuni who does not prevent those who eat in such a way... is to be confessed. "This is called 'vosāsati', 'vosāsantī'" is a two-fold reading. By the phrase "ajjhohāre ajjhohāre" (having eaten, having eaten), the singular "gārayhaṃ āvuso dhammaṃ" (a blameworthy deed, friend) is said to be contradictory. It is said with reference to having fallen into the first act of eating, and similarly elsewhere it comes by the expression "āpajjimhā" (we have fallen). Some say that it is permissible for one to confess for many, but that is not good. My conjecture is that it is stated in the text by "tehi bhikkhūhi" (by those bhikkhus), etc. It is permissible for one to say "ahaṃ āpajji" (I have fallen) together with one, as it is to be confessed by one, two, or three, it is permissible for all to say it this way. They say "āpajjimhāti sahevā" (we have fallen, together). If it is not prevented by one, it should also be said "ahaṃ, āvuso, gārayhaṃ dhammaṃ āpajji" (I, friend, have fallen into a blameworthy deed). The explanation of the second Pāṭidesanīya training rule is finished. 562-570. The third and fourth training rules are of obvious meaning. The explanation of the Pāṭidesanīya section is finished. 7. Sekhiya Section 1. Explanation of the Parimaṇḍala Vagga 576. "By one who has learned the training, that is, by the four paths," it is said. Since what is worn by letting it down by eight finger-breadths becomes four finger-breadths when seated, therefore both these Aṭṭhakathā statements are of one definition. "Aḍḍhateyyahattha" (two and a half cubits) is subtle, or it is said with reference to a single cloth. For that remains in its proper place. Upatissa Thera said that "dvihatthappamāṇampi" (even two cubits in measure) is said with reference to a double cloth. It should be understood that "dvihatthappamāṇa" (two cubits in measure) is said as the lower limit for a single cloth or a double cloth. For it is said in the Nissaggiya Aṭṭhakathā, "even two cubits across is permissible," and that is only in the absence of gain, as it is said, "in the absence of gain, even two cubits across is permissible." All this is said with reference to what is suitable for determination. Seeing what is contradictory, it should be corrected. If one does not correct it, there is a dukkaṭa. With a conscious mind, by the mind that knows the precept, as it is said, "due to disrespect," not by the mind that knows the object, as there is no offense even for one who knows "this is done in this way." Phus The view of Thera Sadevā is also fitting in one way. Likewise, the view of Thera Upatissa. Even when a training rule is laid down, and when not laid down, what is naturally an offense, that is a worldly offense. But this is an offense only when laid down, not when not laid down; therefore, being unlike other worldly offenses, it is not a worldly offense. Being an offense from the time of its promulgation, it is a promulgation-offense. Because it is committed with a mind of disrespect, it is with intention; because that intention has three feelings, it is of three feelings. Since a mind of disrespect is purely unwholesome, and that is naturally an offense, therefore this is a worldly offense. Deliberate transgression occurs only with mental pain, thus it is a painful feeling. But in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is written: "An offense like not wearing robes properly, unlike killing, etc., is not censured by the world, thus it is a promulgation-offense," said Thera Phussadeva. 577. "Even in the monastery" means at the time of attending the Buddha and so on. Therefore, "should be covered" is said in the sense of the duty of the upper robe. In the first and second training rules, it is permissible due to reasons like heat, but not in those related to inside the village. 582. Regarding "standing in one place," it is written: "Even while walking, one can indeed look for the absence of danger. Likewise, veneration in the village." But it should be understood that this was said with reference to such an obstacle, because it was stated as "standing in one place." The commentary on the Parimaṇḍala chapter is finished. 2. Commentary on the Ujjagghika chapter 586. "At what is laughable" is the locative case in the sense of cause. The meaning is: "because of a laughable object." Indeed, there is no offense for one who makes acclamations, etc., with a loud voice inside the village. For thus, Thera Mahinda also spoke to the great multitude in places like elephant stables. 591. Some monks say: "One becomes a resident merely by placing one's requisites." That is merely their opinion. If nuns are residents, then the nunnery itself is a permissible place. According to the saying: "Where nuns reside even for one night, that is a nunnery" (Pāci. 161), one may go near them, or to the dwelling place taken by them, or "go... for one going "I am," it is proper to go as one pleases. For by that much, that house does not become counted as an inner house, so the teacher does not think. The commentary on the Ujjagghika section is finished. 3. The commentary on the Khambhakatavagga 604. Soup is of the kind stated in the commentary on the measure of the bowl. 'Oloṇī' is said to be 'kudhitaṃ,' the meaning is 'full and heaped up with milk products.' 605. Here, regarding "it goes down below," "when there is a measure of going down, even if it is heaped up in one part, there is no offense," they say. "But if the bowl is covered below and above with lotus leaves, etc., and then received by one who places it, it is proper," they also say. Here, "because the saying 'almsfood should be received evenly full' indicates that almsfood should be received evenly full, therefore, if almsfood is given into one's own bowl and it is heaped up, it is proper," it indicates. 'He receives heaped-up almsfood, there is an offense of wrong-doing' - this saying indicates that if one first heaps up the almsfood and then receives it, there is an offense. Even if it is heaped up for one receiving with a bowl, it is proper because it was received as not heaped up. "But there is no practice except in the eastern country," they say, and they also say "samatittikaṃ is a neuter noun of state." Therefore, it should be considered and understood. The commentary on the Khambhakatavagga is finished. 4. The commentary on the Sakkaccavagga 609. In the training rule concerning asking for soup and rice, it is not said "soup means two soups" by the taking of soup, for the purpose of including all foods that remain apart from choice foods. And in its non-offense section, "for relatives, for those who have invited, for the sake of another, with one's own wealth" - this is additional. In some books, only this much is stated: "no offense for one who did not intend, was unmindful, did not know, was sick, in emergencies." That is not (correct). In the non-offense section of "I will eat almsfood with equal soup," "for the sake of another" is written in some places, and that is written due to carelessness. "Having put it in the mouth, and then having regretted it,