English
The robe produced by the merit-power of monks, produced on a wish-fulfilling tree, or given by devas, or one of those like silk, these are all in accordance. Referring to the ordinary human span of a vidatthi, it is said, "two vidatthi," and so on. By this, it shows that what is the measure of a carpenter's cubit in length, and half that in width, is not subject to determination. Thus, it is said in the commentary on the Kuṭikāra training rule: "A Sugata-vidatthi is now three vidatthi of a medium-sized man, it is one and a half cubits by a carpenter's cubit." Therefore, it is established that a Sugata-vidatthi is twelve Sugata-fingers, and one and a half cubits by a carpenter's cubit. And having done so, it also agrees with passages where it is stated, "eight Sugata-fingers is the measure of a carpenter's cubit." Here, "exceeds that" refers to the robe, or it refers to the time. "Its dawn" means the dawn that has passed on the day the robe was produced. "Together with the day of the robe's production" means together with the passed dawn which is the beginning of the day of the robe's production. And this, though understood from the word as "together with the day of the robe's production" for the purpose of connecting the former and the latter, is said by the Blessed One, having first said "ten days at most," and then "on the eleventh dawn." For only when it is said "on the tenth dawn" does it agree with "ten days at most." For a day is said to be exceeded by the future dawn which is the limit of the day's end, but not by the dawn which is the beginning of the day, since it is not so taken in cases like parivāsa. Here, however, the Blessed One said "on the eleventh dawn" to show the beginning and end limits of the day. Therefore, in the commentary, taking the dawn that is the beginning of the day and belonging to that day, it is said, "on the eleventh dawn, it becomes nissaggiya." And here, "dawn" should be understood as the special, increasing, dense, red light that precedes the sunrise. "To be spoken to" means dependent on the Sangha. The meaning is that "In the motion, two offenses are remembered," and so on, should be said. 468. "Here, perception does not protect" - this was said with reference to one who is doubtful and one whose perception is not overcome. "Even for one who has such a perception" - the meaning is, for one whose perception is not overcome, or who is doubtful, even for him. Regarding "not lost, not destroyed," it states the distinction as "by way of forcible removal." Even that which is taken by way of theft is considered lost here. "No offense, having received what was made by another," and so on, was said with reference to a sitting mat. For indeed, if one has made a new sitting mat without taking a Sugata-span from the old mat's edge, even though it is nissaggiya for him, by receiving it from another and using it, it becomes non-offending. Therefore, this meaning applies to all nissaggiyas. 469. "To determine the three robes" means to determine them by names such as 'outer robe'. "Not to make a choice" means not to make a choice by this name. By this, one who has chosen the three robes is not a "three-robed monk." This shows that the required procedure, such as not being absent, should not be done for him as it would be for a determined three-robe. It does not mean there is fault in making a choice. "Beyond that" - some say it is permitted to make a choice and use it beyond four months. Others say, "It is only proper to make a choice and keep it until the next rainy season." Still others say, "There is no fault in making a choice; such a chosen item should be determined by names like 'requisite' and then used." "Five fists" means five marked by a fist. The meaning is that one should measure four hands and then measure the fifth hand as a fist. Some, however, say, "Five fist-hands is 'five fists,' therefore all five hands should be measured with a clenched fist." In "three fists" also, the same method applies. He says that it is possible to cover the three circles with an undergarment of two hands, by "covering," and so on. "Excessive" means more than the measure of a Sugata's robe. "Deficient" means a fist-p less than five cubits, and that the establishment of the triple robe does not arise for them. "I take back this outer robe" means "I lift up, I abandon the establishment of this outer robe." "By making a bodily action" means by touching the robe with the hand, or by moving it. "To be established by speech": here it should be understood that by moving it with the body and also breaking the speech, the establishment by both body and speech is included, because it is said, "without touching with the body." "Two kinds": two kinds according to outside arm's reach and within arm's reach. Here, arm's reach is called two and a half cubits. Some say twelve cubits, but that does not fit here. "In a nearby monastery": this is said referring to what is placed in a location suitable for observation. Even if placed far away from there, it must be established by observing the place where it is placed. Even there, the observation of the robe's placement is the measure. For it is not possible to observe the location in every way. It is not permissible to establish it by placing it in one monastery and then in another. Some, however, say, "Even if established thus, there is no fault," but that does not agree with the commentaries; it should be investigated. "With clothes established and placed": with clothes established and placed under the name of "requisite cloth." Therefore, it shows the taking back of the requisite cloth by "I take back this." And by this, it shows that one who is observing the ascetic practice of the triple robe, if unable to make and dye a cloth received as a rag or the like and wear it within ten days, must let the ten days pass by establishing it as a requisite cloth; otherwise, it becomes subject to forfeiture. Therefore, it is said in the Visuddhimagga, "However, from the time it is dyed, it is not permissible to put it away; one is called a 'thief of the ascetic practice'." "To be established again": this is said for one who wishes to use it after establishing it under the name of the triple robe, such as the outer robe. For others, the previous establishment is sufficient, it should be understood. again. “It should be determined again,” by this it shows that even a kappabindu should be given. Since the declaration of a non-separation boundary is possible in a bound boundary, it is not difficult to manage there. Therefore, it says, “it is difficult to manage in an unbound boundary.” “It is a pācittiya for cutting if it exceeds the prescribed measure,” by this it says, “if it does not exceed the prescribed measure.” After that, it should be revoked and offered. That is, after the rainy season months, the determination should be revoked and offered. By this, it is understood that the determination remains beyond the four rainy season months, due to the impossibility of revoking it then. And what is said in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā: “The rain-cloak loses its determination even after the rainy season months have passed, and the itch-covering loses its determination even after the illness has subsided,” that is not in the Samantapāsādikā. And in the Parivāraṭṭhakathā, regarding “there is an offense in winter, but not in summer,” this is said: “One who wears a rain-cloak that was offered after being revoked on the day of the first lunar quarter after the Katthika full moon, commits an offense in winter. But in the Kurundī, it is said, ‘one commits an offense in winter without revoking it on the Katthika full moon day.’ That too is well said, for it is said, ‘it should be determined for four months, and after that, it should be offered.’” There, in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, a dukkaṭa is said for wearing it. But in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā, it is for not revoking it. Therefore, even according to what is said in the Kurundī, the rain-cloak does not lose its determination even after the rainy season months have passed. And among the instances of losing determination, the loss due to the passing of the rainy season months or illness is not mentioned even in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā. Therefore, it should be understood that, according to what is stated in the Samantapāsādikā, the determination remains until it is revoked. Since it is permitted for bathing, it is said, “even if it is merely of a different color, it is permissible.” “But two are not permissible,” by this, it means that, as in the case of the saṅghāṭi and so on, a second determination does not take effect, and it becomes an extra robe. shows. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said that there is no offense referring to the absence of the act of use in terms of robes, like in the case of a mat given for a dwelling-requisite. But what is said, “a mat should also be determined,” that is not restricted to being for a dwelling only, since it is included among the nine robes. Therefore, it should be understood that it is to be determined by one’s own name, and put away, and used however one wishes, like a requisite cloth. A cloak, a rug— these too are taken separately from a mat given for a dwelling-requisite, because they are commonly used in the world like mats and so on. “By turning to a lower state”— this refers to the last case, concerning a bhikkhu who has fallen into it and stands by his bhikkhu-vow, and a bhikkhu who has gone over to the sectarians, and a bhikkhuni who, being indifferent to her bhikkhuni-state, takes up the lay-state or the sectarian-state. Some say it refers to taking up the lay-state without renouncing the training, but that is not appropriate, because at that time too he is fully ordained, and his robe does not cease to belong to him. “Of a robe of standard size”— this refers to the minimum standard. “One who wears two robes”— this refers to wearing the outer robes doubled when entering a village.