English
there is no need to perform the seven preliminary tasks; only the revocation and so on should be done. But if anything is not completed, even just a marking dot, that must be completed before the revocation and so on are done. But the knot-bands and loop-bands are included in the sewing; those too must be completed. If one does not complete them, the sewing task remains incomplete. For it is said in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.462-463): "Therein, 'done' means done by the completion of needlework. The completion of needlework means whatever needs to be done with a needle. Having completed the loop-bands and knot-bands, one puts away the needle..." Indeed, this Kathina observance is praised by the Buddha, as praised by "Monks, for those who have spread the Kathina, five (benefits) will accrue," and so on. Having taken the Kathina that has been completed and finished – "Washing and examining, cutting and binding; Sewing, dyeing, and shaping, are called preliminary duties." (Vinaya, Vol. 6, 2707) – Having performed the seven kinds of preliminary tasks thus stated, and having taken the completed Kathina robe. By the monk who spreads (the Kathina), the declaration must be revoked, established, and broken – this is the connection. A monk wishing to spread the Kathina with a double robe, the old double robe, which was previously established by the establishment of the triple robe, saying "I revoke this double robe," must revoke it. Then, saying "I establish this double robe," he must establish the new, unestablished double robe. Then, at the time of spreading, saying "With this double robe, I spread the Kathina," he must break the declaration with that very established double robe – this is the meaning. This method applies to the others (robes) as well. By this, it is shown that the spreading of the Kathina is merely an act of breaking a declaration, and not any physical alteration. Thus it is said in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): "To spread means to perform the spreading, and indeed, that should be understood as merely an act of breaking a declaration." There, revocation is of three kinds: revocation of the double robe, saying "I revoke this double robe"; revocation of the upper robe, saying "I revoke this upper robe"; revocation of the inner robe, saying "I revoke this inner robe." This is stated in the Parivāra (Parivāra 408): "Revocation is comprised of three things: the double robe, the upper robe, and the inner robe." Establishment is of three kinds: establishment of the double robe, saying "I establish this double robe"; establishment of the upper robe, saying "I establish this upper robe"; establishment of the inner robe... "I determine this" is the determination of the inner robe. This is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 408): "Determination is comprised of three things: the outer robe, the upper robe, and the inner robe." Or, determination is of two kinds: determination by body, and determination by speech. Therein, having revoked the old outer robe, saying "I revoke this outer robe," and taking the new outer robe in hand, one should determine it by body by making a mental intention and performing a bodily action, saying "I determine this outer robe," or one should determine it by speech by uttering words. For it is stated in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): "Therein, since it is said that there are two determinations for a robe: one determines by body, or one determines by speech, therefore... (etc.)... it should be determined." Or, determination is of two kinds: determination in presence, and determination in absence. Therein, if the robe is within reach, it should be determined by uttering words, saying "I determine this outer robe." But if it is inside the dwelling or in a nearby monastery, one should determine it by uttering words, having noted its location, saying "I determine that outer robe." For it is stated in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469; Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): "Therein, determination is of two kinds if it is within reach," and so on. And in the Vinayatthamañjūsā (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): "Of two kinds means of two kinds by way of presence and absence." How many kinds of spreading? Spreading is of one kind. For spreading is accomplished only by uttering words, not by performing bodily actions. This meaning is understood from the aforementioned Parivāra Pāli text and from the statement in the Vinayatthamañjūsā: "To spread means an act of spreading should be done, and indeed, that should be understood as only uttering words." Or, spreading is of three kinds according to the distinction of material. Therein... Indeed, if one wishes to spread the Kathina with the outer robe, the old outer robe must be revoked, the new outer robe must be determined, the declaration "I spread the Kathina with this outer robe" must be made. Then, if one wishes to spread the Kathina with the upper robe, the old upper robe must be revoked, the new upper robe must be determined, the declaration "I spread the Kathina with this upper robe" must be made. Then, if one wishes to spread the Kathina with the inner robe, the old inner robe must be revoked, the new inner robe must be determined, the declaration "I spread the Kathina with this inner robe" must be made. This has been stated in the Parivāra (pari. 413) beginning with "If with the outer robe," etc. Here, it might be asked: Should one revoke specifically, saying "I revoke this outer robe," or can one revoke generally, saying "I revoke this"? A robe determined as a "requisite cloth" should be revoked generally, saying "I revoke this," not specifically, saying "I revoke this outer robe." Why? Because it had not previously received a specific name. However, a robe determined by the "three robes determination" must be revoked specifically, not generally. Why? Because it has received a specific name. But here, in the context of Kathina, since it was previously determined by the "three robes determination," it should be understood that it must be revoked specifically. This has been stated in the Parivāra (pari. 408) in the Kathina section: "Revocation is comprised of three things: with the outer robe, with the upper robe, and with the inner robe." Does only one who is always a "three-robed monk" obtain the Kathina spreading, or also one who is a "three-robed monk" by circumstance? A "three-robed monk" is of two kinds: by way of the ascetic practice of three robes, and by way of the Vinaya of three robes. Among these, the "three-robed monk" by ascetic practice, having determined "I reject extra robes, I undertake the limb of three robes," wears them at all times. But when a monk wishes to wear the three robes having consecrated them as the three robes, then he wears them having so consecrated them. But when he wishes to wear them having consecrated them as accessory cloths, then he wears them having so consecrated them. Therefore, because the consecration as three robes is difficult to maintain, and being unable to wear them always, even if he wears them as accessory cloths, having revoked that consecration, and in a nearby time, even if he consecrates them as the three robes, it should be understood that he can still spread the Kathina. Is it, sirs, that the Kathina should be spread only within the boundary where the formal act of giving the Kathina is recited, or in another boundary? If the fixed boundary for reciting the formal act of giving the Kathina is situated within the precinct boundary of the land for the rains-residence, then in that case, the spreading should be done within that very boundary circle. If it is asked, "How is this understood?" It is understood because it is stated in the Vajirabuddhi Tika: "If the donor gives to the Sangha that which has its preliminary duties completed, it should be received and given by formal act. And by that monk, having consecrated and spread it within that very boundary circle, the Sangha should be made to rejoice." If so, since it is stated in the Tika "within that very boundary circle," should it not be said: "Having recited the formal act in any boundary circle whatsoever, it should be spread in that very boundary circle," and not be said with a distinction: "If the fixed boundary for reciting the formal act of giving the Kathina is situated within the precinct boundary of the land for the rains-residence"? No, it should not be said so. For the boundary for reciting the formal act is a fixed boundary, but the boundary for spreading the Kathina is a precinct boundary. And a precinct boundary, even without encompassing a fixed boundary, can extend. Therefore, that boundary is both a fixed boundary and a precinct boundary. Having recited the formal act of giving the Kathina within that very boundary circle, the spreading should be done right there, not that having recited the formal act in any boundary circle whatsoever, the spreading should be done right there. it should be understood. Similarly, it should be said "within the upacāra boundary," not "within the upacāra boundary that is the field for the rains-residence." That too should be said. Those monks are allowed to spread the kathina only within the upacāra boundary that is the field for the rains-residence, not within any other upacāra boundary. For it is said in the commentary: "It is stated in the Mahāpaccariya that even those who have resided for the rains in another monastery are not allowed." Let it be as you wish, but you said "the boundary for reciting the kammavācā is a bound boundary, the boundary for spreading the kathina is an upacāra boundary." How is this state of affairs to be known? It is said: The state of the kathina-spreading boundary being an upacāra boundary is understood from the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, which, in order to explain the meaning of this commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306)