English
“This is the method”— by this, it includes the meaning that wherever there is a hole in standard-sized robes, the determination does not cease, and so on. The meaning is that there is no other minimum standard mentioned in the Suttas. Now, to elaborate on that, what is said, “For indeed,” and so on, is not consistent, the meaning being that the lower standard of a five-fist-length, and so on, for outer robes and so on, is not mentioned in the Suttas. In “makes a large one small,” it is established that even by cutting all around a very large robe, making it into one with the minimum standard of a five-fist-length, and so on, the place being cut at the time of cutting does not go to the count of a hole, and the determination does not cease. This is also consistent with the saying, “He joins and cuts, it does not break.” A rag-robe, however, if cut smaller than the minimum size for being subject to designation, loses its designation, because the designation has no support. When they are again bound and joined, it should be understood that they must be designated. Some, however, say: "If a rain-robe is cut in two, even if each piece reaches the minimum size, the designation remains on only one piece, not on the others, because it is said 'two are not permissible.' The same rule applies to sitting cloths and shoulder covers." "Sammukhā" (in front) is a nominative word for "occurring in front," and it is an adjective for designation. Therefore, some explain "sammukhe" (in front) as a locative word, meaning "facing." Or else, designation by one's own speech "in front" (sammukhena) is "sammukhā-vikappanā" (front designation). Designation by another's speech "behind" (parammukhena) is "parammukhā-vikappanā" (back designation). This meaning should be understood in the instrumental sense. This aligns with the Pāli. "Sannihitāsannihitabhāva" means the state of being near or far. "It is permissible to store up to this extent" means that since the act of designation is completed by this much, it does not become an excess robe, and therefore, it does not incur a forfeiture offense after ten days have passed. This is the intention. "To use... etc. ... is not permissible" refers to the Pācittiya offense for using it without having revoked the designation oneself, and the Dukkata offense for giving it to others while it is designated. "Using and so on are also permissible" means using, giving away, and designating. By the word "api" (also), it means it is permissible to store it. And by this, even if the designation is revoked, the robe remains a designated robe, not an excess robe. However, if one wishes to designate it by the name of the triple robe, it should be designated. Otherwise, it shows that it should be used simply as a designated robe. Some, however, say: "A designated robe should be stored without revoking its designation until the time of use. When the time for use arrives, it should be used after revoking the designation and then designating it. For if one were to revoke it even before that, by the revocation..." Thus, by being free from designation, it is called an extra robe. And if ten days are exceeded, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation. Therefore, that which is to be kept without being used, that alone should be designated. And when the revocation is made, it should be determined within ten days. And what is said in the commentary, 'from then on, use and so forth are also permissible,' they say that it contradicts the Pāli. That is merely their opinion. For in the Pāli, "within ten days he determines, he designates" (Pārā. 469) and "if he uses a robe designated by himself without revoking it, it is an offense of expiation" (Pāci. 373) and "no offense if he gives it, or if he uses it trusting him" (Pāci. 374) are stated generally. And in the commentary, without showing revocation with "I revoke this robe or this designation" and so on, but by stating revocation in terms of use and so on, "use or dispose of what belongs to me," without releasing one's ownership, and by stating that "from then on, use and so forth are also permissible," separate use and keeping are allowed even without determination. It appears that to use or keep a robe eligible for designation, which is without the three robes, immediately after designation and revocation, without determining it, is a distinct monastic act. Moreover, since it is stated to designate and revoke many bowls, their being extra bowls is shown by the revocation. Thus it is established that only one of them needs to be determined. Therefore, it should be understood according to the method given in the commentary. He is not skilled in the ordinances. Thus, when designated, he does not know the monastic act of "it should be revoked immediately like this." Therefore, it is said, "he does not know how to revoke." And by this, it should be understood that "revocation should be done immediately after designation." "A statement made without distinction" means a statement made by a general term for the three robes and so on. What appears here "as if contradictory..." Having said "thus", to remove the suspicion of contradiction, it was said, "by abbreviating the three robes... ...an opportunity for designation is given." Even if it is said generally, "he determines, he designates," the meaning that the three robes are also designated does not hold, because it is specifically stated, "the three robes are to be determined, not designated" (Mahāva. 358). What is to be determined, that he determines. What is without the three robes, that is to be designated, that he designates. Thus, this meaning holds. Therefore, no contradiction between earlier and later statements is seen here, as the general statement remains only in the unstated part. What is said here, "the three robes by abbreviating the three robes," etc., to show the method of designating even the three robes. Among those carried by abbreviating the three robes, it is not proper to revoke even one and designate it. However, for one who wishes to remove one or all of the three robes and carry another set of three robes by abbreviating them, or for one who wishes to use all robes merely as requisites, having abandoned the determination of the three robes, it is proper to revoke the previously determined robes and designate them. It might have been said with this intention, "if he wishes to be absent from the three robes with one robe," etc. This accords with the Pāli. Then again, if it were said with the intention that he revokes and designates for the ease of absence, wishing to determine them again with the determination of the three robes, that does not accord with the statement, "the three robes are to be determined, not designated" (Mahāva. 358). For if the three robes were to be revoked and designated like the other robes, this statement, "the three robes are to be determined, not designated," would be meaningless, as there would be no distinction of the three robes from the other robes. Therefore, "he designates" refers only to what is without the three robes. It is understood that the three robes are not to be designated. For this reason, of the second Kathina training rule, In the section on non-offense, the word "designates" is not mentioned. Having examined it, the meaning here should be taken in such a way that it does not contradict the Pāli. In phrases like "I give to you," etc., because it has been relinquished, even if not mentally accepted, it belongs to the recipient. He may take it at the desired moment. "To so-and-so" refers to someone who is absent. "Whoever likes it," etc., refers to something ownerless, because it has been relinquished by both parties. "That is not proper" is said because the section on non-offense refers to taking by trust within ten days, and here it is taken by implication to make the nissaggiya robe allowable. However, some say: "If it is not taken by others as their share, and if it is taken by trust and then received again, no fault is seen." "By non-designation" means by not doing what should be done by body and speech. The robe belonging to oneself, being suitable in kind and measure, being free from impediment, being an extra robe, and the passing of ten days— these are the five factors here. The explanation of the first Kathina training rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the Udosita training rule. 473. In the second (rule), "does not depart" means that the designation should be made when it is to be completed without departure, when it is to be accomplished without the fault of departure. 475. "Included in what is forbidden" means being included among the three robes forbidden for departure, and it shows the collective designation by one part. 478-9. "By this much" means by "enclosed." Having said, "Sabhā is referred to by 'sabhāya' through gender variation," and then using "sabhāya" oneself again, it shows that there is a synonym for the word "sabhā" which is "sabhāya," having a neuter gender. Or the reading is: "Sabhā is referred to by 'sabhāya' through gender variation." And "sabhā by gender variation" means that "sabhāya" is a synonym for "sabhā" with a different gender. "Goes to the assembly" means goes to the assembly. "There is no dwelling" means there is no dwelling within arm's reach of the robe. T is a street. And where it is said that the hand-reach of the assembly hall and the gate should not be abandoned, the street and houses between the assembly hall and the gate are also included, as the beginning and end are included. And here, one dwelling in the gate, street, or houses should avoid the fault of entering the village and sleeping together, and should be well-covered, etc. But if the assembly hall is made like a hall for everyone to dwell in, it should be understood that it is permissible to dwell there as one pleases, like within a monastery.