English
right outside the boundary of the monastery. His kathina is removed. This kathina removal, because it has transgressed the boundary, which is considered the last day for making the robe, is called 'ending by transgressing the boundary'. A bhikkhu who has received the kathina, taking a robe, departs, thinking "I will return to this monastery." That bhikkhu, having made the robe, thinking "I will return to the monastery," returns and obtains the kathina's removal in the monastery. The kathina of that bhikkhu is removed in the monastery together with the bhikkhus. This kathina removal, because it is done together with the bhikkhus in the monastery, is called 'ending together'. These eight kinds of kathina removal are called the eight topics. And this is said in the Kathinakkhandhaka Pāli (Mahāva. 310): "These eight topics, bhikkhus, for the removal of the kathina: ending by departure, ending by completion, ending by resolution, ending by destruction, ending by hearing, ending by cutting off of hope, ending by transgressing the boundary, ending together. A bhikkhu who has received the kathina, taking a made robe, departs, thinking 'I will not return', for that bhikkhu, the kathina's removal is 'ending by departure'." (and so on) And in the Vinayavinicchaya treatise – Departure and completion, and resolution and destruction; Hearing and hope and boundary, and ending together, these are eight. “Snow.” There are two kinds of impediments: the impediment of dwelling and the impediment of robes. In this regard, if one has spread the kathina in a certain dwelling and then goes elsewhere, one is still attached, thinking, “I will return to that dwelling.” This is called the impediment of dwelling. If a bhikkhu’s robe is not made or not finished, or if the hope of receiving a robe from elsewhere is not cut off, this is called the impediment of robes. This has been stated in the Kathina Khandhaka: “And what, bhikkhus, are the two impediments to the kathina? The impediment of dwelling and the impediment of robes. And how, bhikkhus, is there an impediment of dwelling? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwells in that dwelling, or departs with attachment, thinking, ‘I will return.’ Thus, bhikkhus, there is an impediment of dwelling. And how, bhikkhus, is there an impediment of robes? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu’s robe is not made or is unfinished, or the hope of a robe is not cut off. Thus, bhikkhus, there is an impediment of robes.” There are two kinds of lifting: the lifting of the eight categories and the intermediate lifting. Among these, the seven kathina liftings spoken of in relation to bhikkhus who have gone outside the boundary of the precinct, and the one kathina lifting called the co-lifting, which is done by going outside the boundary of the precinct, returning, and then performing the intermediate lifting together with the bhikkhus in the dwelling where the kathina was spread—these eight kathina liftings, because they are included in the eight categories, are called the lifting of the eight categories. The kathina lifting performed by sitting in that very dwelling without going outside the boundary, by means of a motion followed by a second proclamation, which is not included in the eight categories, and which is done in the interim without reaching the time limit, is called the intermediate lifting. The intermediate lifting and the co-lifting are both done by means of a motion followed by a second proclamation. If this is so, what is the difference between them? The intermediate lifting is done by bhikkhus remaining within the boundary without going outside the boundary. The co-lifting is done by going outside the boundary. That monk, having returned, having reached that inner withdrawal, together with those monks staying within the boundary, did it. This is the distinction among them. The seven kathina withdrawals, such as 'departure-near', were not done by formal act. They are called kathina withdrawals merely because they are freed from the two impediments by means of the five benefits. This was said by the Elder Acariya Buddhadatta in the Vinayavinicchaya – Of the eight categories, or From the inner withdrawal as well; Two withdrawals were declared, Of the kathina, by the Great Seer. And in the sub-commentary it is said: "By 'of the eight categories' is meant those who have gone outside the boundary. The seven categories such as 'departure-near' are said with reference to one who has gone outside the boundary and reached the inner withdrawal. The 'withdrawal-with' is also with reference to these eight categories. And 'from the inner withdrawal as well' means that it is obtained with reference to those kathinas withdrawn by the kathina withdrawal act, having stayed right there without going outside the boundary, therefore it is 'inner withdrawal'. Thus, the Great Seer declared two withdrawals of the kathina – this is the connection. The 'withdrawal-with' is with reference to one who has gone outside the boundary and returned, and the 'inner withdrawal' is with reference to those who have not gone outside the boundary. Thus, one withdrawal is stated in two ways." But why was the kathina withdrawn by formal act by way of inner withdrawal? Because it was requested by lay followers who wished to give a great offering, who wished to give untimely robes to the arrived Sangha. For it is said in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga Pāli (Pāci. 925): "Now at that time, a monastery had been built by a certain lay follower for the Sangha. He wished to give untimely robes to both Sanghas at the great festival of that monastery. Now at that time, the kathina had been spread for both Sanghas. Then that lay follower approached the Sangha and requested the kathina withdrawal," and so on. But how should the formal act be performed? "May the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me. If it is suitable for the Sangha, the Sangha should withdraw the kathina. This is the motion. May the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me. The Sangha withdraws the kathina. Whose Whosoever approves the taking up of the kathina, let him be silent. Whosoever does not approve, let him speak. The kathina has been taken up by the Saṅgha. The Saṅgha approves. Therefore, be silent. Thus I hold this. Thus it should be done. For it is said in the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga: "I allow, monks, to take up the kathina. And thus, monks, the kathina should be taken up. A competent and capable monk should inform the Saṅgha: 'May the venerable Saṅgha hear me... ...I hold this.'" And by this taking up of the kathina, they say that the ñatti-dutiya kammavācā for the donation of the kathina cloth, made previously, is taken up. But it should be understood that not the ñatti-dutiya kamma for the donation of the kathina cloth is taken up, but rather the act of spreading (the kathina). For if the ñatti-dutiya kamma for the donation of the kathina cloth were taken up, since the donation of the kathina cloth is accomplished by that kammavācā, by this kathina-taking-up kammavācā, that cloth given previously would have to be brought back again, not the cessation of the five advantages. But since by this kathina-taking-up kammavācā, only the cessation of the five advantages occurs, not the bringing back again of the kathina cloth given previously. Therefore it is understood: "Only the act of spreading, which is the cause for gaining the five advantages, is taken up by this kathina-taking-up kammavācā, not the ñatti-dutiya kammavācā for the donation of the kathina cloth." Therefore, after the performance of the kathina-taking-up kammavācā, any robe that arises for the Saṅgha is an out-of-season robe. The Saṅgha does not obtain the five advantages. The robe, having become common to the entire Saṅgha, is to be shared among the Saṅgha members as they arrive. Thus it should be understood. This meaning, having thoroughly discerned the purpose and intention of both the ñatti-dutiya kammavācā for the donation of the kathina cloth and the kathina-taking-up kammavācā, and having compared the former and the latter, should be accepted. Here it might be asked: "Should the taking up of the kathina be granted to all who request it, or only to some?" And what then? If indeed it should be granted to all, then due to the cessation of the five advantages by the act of taking up the kathina, the Saṅgha's gain... there might be an obstacle, then for some, it would be like looking at their faces? If the gain from the kathina-spreading is greater than the gain from the kathina-taking up, then the kathina-taking up should be given to those who ask. If it is less, it should not be given. If it is equal, it should be given for the family's satisfaction. Thus it is said in the commentary (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 927): ‘What kind of kathina-taking up should be given, what kind should not be given? That for which the benefit from the spreading is great, and the benefit from the taking up is small, such should not be given. But that for which the benefit from the spreading is small, and the benefit from the taking up is great, such should be given. Even if the benefits are equal, it should be given for the preservation of faith.’ By this it is also understood ‘that the act of spreading, which is the cause of the five benefits, is what is taken up, not the formal motion which is the giving of the kathina cloth.’ In the discourse on benefits, ‘five’ refers to the five actions now being mentioned, such as going without invitation. ‘Will be allowable’ means they will be allowable, they will be causes for non-offence, this is the meaning. ‘Going without invitation’ means going without inviting. Indeed, if a bhikkhu, having been invited by donors for a meal and having eaten, goes to families without inviting a bhikkhu present in the monastery, that bhikkhu incurs an offence of pācittiya under the rule of ‘going about’, that offence does not occur for one who has spread the kathina, this is the meaning. There, the rule of ‘going about’ is: