English
is not the act of ordination. The four-motion formal act alone is the act of ordination. Nevertheless, because it is close to the act of ordination, the four-motion formal act is taught together with making one accept a preceptor and so on. Similarly here, the formal act of giving the Kathina robe is not the act of spreading. Nevertheless, because it is a proximate cause for the act of spreading, the Kathina spreading act is taught together with the two-motion formal act of giving the Kathina. Therefore, it should be understood that the formal act of giving the Kathina does not enter into the act of spreading. Or else, the two-motion formal act and the spreading— these two things have dissimilar actions, dissimilar agents, dissimilar objects, and dissimilar times. By this, it is understood: "The two-motion formal act, called 'ñatti' in other languages, does not enter into the act of spreading." Therein, how are their actions dissimilar? The formal act is an act of giving. The spreading is an act of spreading, being the cause of the fifteen qualities. Thus, their actions are dissimilar. How are their agents dissimilar? The agent of the formal act is the Saṅgha. The agent of the spreading is an individual. Thus, their agents are dissimilar. How are their objects dissimilar? The object of the formal act is the Kathina cloth. The object of the spreading is the collective concept called Kathina. Thus, their objects are dissimilar. How are their times dissimilar? The formal act of giving the Kathina occurs before the preliminary actions, the taking back, and the determination. The spreading occurs after them. Thus, their times are dissimilar. Or else, the spreading is comprised of a single act in the form of a verbal declaration, such as "With this outer robe, I spread the Kathina." It is not by a ñatti or anussāvanā... is included in many meanings. This is stated in the Parivāra (Pari. 408): “The spreading is included in one meaning, by a difference in wording.” For this reason, it should be known that “the motion is not included in the spreading.” Other teachers, however, say this: “Who obtains the kathina spreading, and who does not obtain it?” Since it is stated in the Commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 306) that “by way of counting, at the lowest limit, five persons obtain it, and upwards of a hundred thousand, but below five, they do not obtain it,” it is understood that “at the lowest limit, five bhikkhus obtain the kathina spreading, and fewer than that do not obtain it.” Since it is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī-ṭīkā (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) that “it is suitable for five persons, meaning, at the lowest limit, four are givers of the kathina cloth, and one is the recipient, so it is suitable for five persons,” in that sentence, the agent of the verb “is suitable” is said to be “that kathina spreading.” Therefore, by “spreading,” the act of spreading stated as “I spread the kathina with this robe” is not intended; rather, the giving by motion of the bhikkhu who spreads, by four bhikkhus, is intended, so it is understood. It is stated in the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā that “‘Who obtains the kathina spreading? ...etc... upwards of a hundred thousand’ —this is said with reference to the act of the bhikkhu who spreads, giving the kathina cloth to the Saṅgha.” In that passage too, the teachers of the Commentary said this statement, “five persons obtain the spreading,” referring only to that which is given by motion, and not referring to the individual’s spreading such as “I spread the kathina with this robe,” is the intention of the ṭīkā teacher. Thus, since the teachers who composed the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī-ṭīkā and the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā have determined that “the spreading is a motion-second act,” it is understood that the utterance of the kathina-giving motion-act within the boundary of convention is appropriate, so they say. There, such a consideration should be made: “A motion-second act..." "The spreading itself is the name," commentators should not say. If they were to say so, it would contradict the commentary. If you ask, "How would it contradict?" "Those whose rains retreat is broken, or who have entered the later retreat, do not obtain it; nor do those who have completed the rains retreat in another monastery, as stated in the Mahāpaccari," because it is found in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 306), it is understood that "those whose rains retreat is broken, etc., do not obtain the spreading of the kathina." If the ñatti-dutiya kamma were called the spreading, in that case, those monks would not be included in the ñatti-dutiya kamma as fulfilling the quorum. But then, because it is stated in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) that "all those who entered the earlier retreat become quorum-fulfillers," they are indeed included in the ñatti-dutiya kamma. Therefore, the commentator calls "the spreading" only the verbal declaration, such as "I spread the kathina with this robe," which is the cause of the five benefits, not the ñatti-dutiya kamma. Therefore, those whose rains retreat is broken, etc., do not obtain the spreading of the kathina which is the cause of the five benefits, but it is understood that they do obtain the status of fulfilling the quorum for the four-member Sangha in the ñatti-dutiya kamma. Again, it is stated in the commentary: "If those who entered the earlier retreat are four, or three, or two, or one, then the kathina should be spread by making the others quorum-fulfillers." Thus, by making those whose rains retreat is broken, etc., quorum-fulfillers, even though they do not obtain the spreading of the kathina, and having the kathina cloth given through the declaration of the ñatti-dutiya kamma, because the kathina is to be spread by those who entered the earlier retreat, we said that "the commentators should not say that the ñatti-dutiya kamma itself is the spreading." But sir, in this very commentary statement, by the statement "making the others quorum-fulfillers, the kathina should be spread," isn't it said that the ñatti-dutiya kamma, to be performed by a four-member Sangha, is "the spreading"? No, because of contradiction between earlier and later statements. Indeed, earlier it was stated that those whose rains retreat is broken, etc., do not obtain the spreading of the kathina, here, "the ñatti-dutiya kamma is the spreading..." If it were said, the existence of those too would be stated. The Aṭṭhakathā teachers would not speak contradictory statements. Therefore, the word "having done" should be connected with the word "should be spread out" not as a simultaneous qualifier, but as a prior-time qualifier. When this is so, the earlier statement and the later statement are consistent, like the water of the Ganges with the water of the Yamunā. Later too, it is said: "Having had the kammavācā recited, having had the kathina spread out, and having eaten the alms, they will go." Here, the recitation of the kammavācā and the spreading of the kathina are mentioned separately, in a prior-to-later sequence. Therefore, a ñattidutiya kamma is not called "spreading out." It is merely a cause for the spreading out, a mere figure of speech. This should be understood. Furthermore, by the statement in the Parivāra: "The Saṅgha does not spread out the kathina, the gaṇa does not spread out the kathina, an individual spreads out the kathina" (Pari. 414), this meaning should be known. If so, how should the meaning of the passages found in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī-ṭīkā and the Vinayavinicchaya-ṭīkā be explained? Is it not the case that in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī-ṭīkā, the agent of the verb "is suitable" is stated as "that kathina-spreading"? And in the Vinayavinicchaya-ṭīkā, the phrase "the act of giving the kathina cloth" is the object of the verb "referring to," and "the kathina-spreading...etc." is the object of the verb "stated." When there are such passages in the ṭīkās with a definite meaning, should it not be said: "The ṭīkā teachers would not say that a ñattidutiya kamma is itself the spreading out"? The meaning of the ṭīkā passages should be taken in such a way that the statement of the Aṭṭhakathā and the statement of the ṭīkā, and the earlier and later statements of the Aṭṭhakathā, are not contradictory. How? In the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī-Aṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is stated: "That is suitable for five persons by the very last division." In that Aṭṭhakathā statement, because there is something to be challenged by the challenger, to resolve that, "it is suitable for five persons..." "Thus, at the minimum, four are givers of the Kathina robe, and one is the receiver, so it is valid for five people." This passage was stated by the commentator. How is there a point for objection? O Commentator, it was stated, "That is valid for five people by the final determination." If this is so, then that Kathina spreading is valid only for five Kathina spreaders, and not for one, two, or four individuals, this meaning arises. If this is so, then because it contradicts the Pāli passage which states, "The Sangha does not spread the Kathina, the group does not spread the Kathina, an individual spreads the Kathina," a contradiction with the scriptures arises. Avoiding that objection, the commentator stated the passage: "It is valid for five people; at the minimum, four are givers of the Kathina robe, and one is the receiver, so it is valid for five people." Here is the meaning – O objector-teacher, the commentator did not state the passage "That is valid for five people by the final determination" in reference to five monks who are spreaders of the Kathina at the time of spreading. Rather, at the time of the Sangha giving the Kathina robe to the spreader, because there are at least four givers of the Kathina robe and one receiver, making five individuals who are givers and receivers, that spreading which is to be done afterwards is valid.