English
by showing the purpose of medicine, and in that context, to show all the dedicated items together, "for there are seven kinds," and so on, is said. Because they are not ordinary medicines, they are "distorted," "deformed," and because they remove poison, they are "of great scope," "great," and thus "greatly distorted." "Ordination and so on," the word "and so on" includes group, courtyard, footwear, and so on. "He dedicates" means he generates the thought, "this is for external use." The intention is that by not expecting to consume it in this way, he abandons the act of receiving. Similarly, in the case of other items for the moment, if one does not intend to consume them, and with a pure mind dedicates them for external use, even then the act of receiving is abandoned. This should also be seen as a distinct reason for abandoning the act of receiving. It is not. 625. If in “If of two…pe… it is not proper,” the reading is corrupt, then the reading here should be understood as: “If what belongs to two is received by one and is undivided, after seven days have passed, there is no offense for either of them, but it is not proper to consume it.” Otherwise, even the grammatical usage would not be included. “And this very reading is shown in the Gaṇṭhipada,” it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. “No offense for either of them” is said because it is undivided. “But it is not proper to consume it” is said according to the rule “what is stored for a maximum of seven days may be consumed.” “By him who received it, it was relinquished”—by this, it shows that “relinquishes” is said with reference to the giving of an ordained monk. Even if the act of receiving is not lost in an object given by an ordained monk without expectation, his ownership is indeed lost, so it is not nissaggiya. Nissaggiya occurs due to these two reasons: having received it oneself, and it being one’s own property, not by one reason alone. In the case of a gift from an unordained person without expectation, both are abandoned, and consumption is proper here, not in a gift with expectation, due to the absence of the characteristic of giving. And in this Pāli word “relinquishes,” it should be understood that even discarding without expectation, without giving to anyone, is included. And “having given without expectation” is said only to show the method of abandoning the reception. For when the reception is abandoned, consuming it again after receiving it will naturally be proper, and that abandonment occurs by relinquishing the ownership of the object. And by this, it is established that if there is an expectation of taking possession of the object, the relinquishing of reception is not obtained separately. Otherwise, it would have to be said: “Without expectation in the reception, he relinquishes the reception and then receives it again and consumes it.” “Because it was not received”—by this, it shows that even what belongs to one person but is received by another becomes nissaggiya. Thus i Not having the expectation “I will take it again,” he reflects on the state of having renounced with a pure mind. This is to show that there is no offense for one who uses it. The intention is to show that there is no offense from the offenses of relinquishment-based pācittiya, and so on. But here, in “to show no offense in using,” the intention is to show no offense from the dukkaṭa offense that is stated for one who has received back what was relinquished, in bodily use and so on. The fact that ghee and so on were received, the fact that they are one’s own property, the passing of seven days— these are the three factors here. The explanation of the training rule concerning medicines is finished. 4. The Explanation of the Training Rule concerning the Rains-cloth 628. In the fourth, on the full moon day of Jeṭṭha… …and the period for making. The first half-month is also called the period for making. That is said, taking the meaning thus: “It should be made and worn.” This means it should be made in the first half-month or the last half-month, and worn only in the last month, because the offense is stated only for wearing. But what is said in the Mātika Commentary: “The last month of the hot season is the period for seeking, the last half-month is also the period for making and wearing” (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Vassikasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), that is said taking the meaning thus: it should be made and worn in that very half-month. If the meaning is taken in the way stated here, there is no contradiction. “A dukkaṭa in case of a breach of practice” this is said with reference to a rains-cloth not previously given. Therefore, it says, “those people,” and so on. Those who are naturally givers of rains-cloths are those who give annually without having invited the Saṅgha or themselves. 630. “He obtains a six-month exemption”— by this, it is indicated that even within the rains-residence, if it is not made until the last day of the rains, he obtains an exemption. “One month” is said counting together with the last Uposatha of the cold season. For on that Uposatha day that basic robe must be made, otherwise, it is subject to relinquishment. By one day, two days, and so on… …received and completed. Here, “not yet one day…” Received and finished for the rains-retreat, two days before... ten days before the rains-retreat, received and finished, or received and finished during the rains-retreat – this meaning should be seen. There, received on the full moon of Āsāḷha's bright half, and finished that day by the dyeing's end, the rain-cloak is called: "received and finished one day before the rains-retreat." In the same way, received and finished on the sixth day of the bright half, it is called: "received and finished ten days before the rains-retreat." Up to the full moon of the first Kattika three-month period, received and finished, it is called: "received and finished during the rains-retreat." After the full moon of the first Kattika three-month period, received and finished, it is permissible to keep it without determining, as long as the robe-period has not passed – this is the intention. Here, though it's said "it should be determined within those ten days" without distinction, if received for the rains-retreat, one or two days before the rains, and those days do not exceed ten from the rains-retreat day, it should be determined when it reaches the field of determination. But if finished more than ten days before, it should not be determined, as it's outside the field of determination. Such a one, however, must be determined on the rains-retreat day itself; if not determined, it becomes forfeited by dawn. If so, what is the purpose of "ten days before"? It is said to show that if finished more than ten days before the rains, it must be determined on the rains-retreat day itself. Therefore, it is said: "If finished more than ten days before, it must be determined on that very day." If ten days are not enough, the robe-period should not be exceeded – this means that if ten days are not enough within the three-month period, and it was received and finished starting from the seventh day before the full moon of the Kattika three-month period, the robe-period should not be exceeded. There Indeed, "When one month of summer remains, a bhikkhu should seek a rain-cloak robe," having stated the field of seeking, and because it is said (Mahāva. 358), "one should determine the rain-cloak for the four months of the rainy season," it is established that whether made or not made, for one month it should not be determined. And since an unmade one does not count as a rain-cloak, and the not making is due to some deficiency, not disrespect, therefore, because it is unmade for four months, it obtains exemption. But one that is made, within the period of determination, and one that is unmade during the robe-period, obtains exemption only by the rule of the ten-day limit. This meaning is obtained. "Why?" is a question about the reason, according to one's own opinion. "Because" it is said that the rain-cloak should be determined only in the rainy season. The Sutta "One should determine the three robes" is cited here to prove that the other robes do not have such a time limit. Indeed, there is no other purpose for it here. Even by the Kurundi statement beginning "When should it be determined?" rejecting this idea: "it is permissible to determine it whenever," it shows that it should be determined only within ten days of its making. In the Pāli, in phrases like "for one whose robe is cut off," (it means) for one whose remaining robe is cut off, for one whose remaining robe is lost. For these, indeed, an exemption from the offense of seeking or wearing at an improper time is stated. Therefore, in the Mātika Commentary, it is said: "For one whose robe is cut off or whose robe is lost, or when thieves carry away an unworn robe, in such emergencies, or for one who wears it, or for the insane, etc., there is no offense." But here in the Samantapāsādikā, without showing that this offense of relinquishment is established by the Pāli itself, it should be understood that "for one whose robe is cut off," etc., is stated to show the non-offense for one bathing naked, which is not established (by Pāli itself) but is an offense of wrong-doing. Indeed, this non-offense is not established if not stated. For the rain-cloak, these are the three factors of the offense of seeking: self-designation, seeking at an improper time, and obtaining it thereby. Wearing... But for non-offence, having a robe, absence of danger, ownership of the rain-garment, wearing it at the wrong time— these are four factors. The explanation of the training rule concerning the rain-garment is finished. 5. The explanation of the training rule concerning the snatching of a robe 631. In the fifth (rule), where it says 'even if...snatches...', here, 'The robe which I gave to you,