English
that from the robe brought, only this much robe should be taken, not more than this. However, since a monk who has lost all his robes and is without his three robes must act in this way, while others may act differently, to show that distinction, the word analysis is given in the manner beginning with "If three are lost." Here is the decision: If three are lost, he should accept two. Wearing one and covering with one, he will seek another from a suitable place. If two are lost, he should accept one. If he normally wears an inner and an outer robe, he should accept two. should be accepted, then it will be equal to accepting one. If one of the three is lost, it should not be accepted. If one of the two is lost, one should be accepted. If there is only one, and that is lost, two should be accepted. For a bhikkhunī, if all five are lost, two should be accepted. If four are lost, one should be accepted. If three are lost, nothing should be accepted, what then of two or one? For one must stand by the maximum of inner and outer, more than that is not obtained; this is the characteristic here. "I will bring the remainder" means making two robes and then bringing the rest. "Not for a reason of being cut off" means they give due to qualities like extensive learning. In "for relatives" and so on, it means there is no offense for one who accepts from relatives who give, for one who accepts from those who have invited who give, for one who accepts with one's own wealth. However, in the Commentaries, it is said: "In the case of relatives and those invited, even a large amount is normally permissible; for a reason of being cut off, only the measure is permissible." That does not accord with the Pāli. Since this training rule was laid down only in the context of requesting for another, therefore "for another" is not stated here. The rest is clear in meaning. Among the origins and so on, this too has six origins, is an action, not a perception-release, unconscious, a transgression by enactment, a bodily action and a verbal action, threefold in thought, threefold in feeling. In the seventh, in the Pāli, "paggāhikasāla" means a shop for cloth merchants; some also read "paggāhitasāla". "Abhī" is a prefix, showing that it has no special meaning. Therefore it says, "it means 'to carry'". Since the word "vara" is used in the sense of wishing, it says, "it means 'wishing'". In "daṭṭhu khemato", the elision of the nasal should be understood according to the verse meter. "Saantaraṃ" means together with an inner robe. "Uttaraṃ" means an upper robe. "Assa cīvarassa" means of the robe to be accepted. "Acchinnasabbacīvarena" means "Acchinnasabbacīvaro" is one whose all three robes are not cut off; "tena" means by him. Whose Indeed, at the time of cutting, three robes are present. All of them being uncut, he is called "one whose robes are all uncut." Therefore, it is said, "by one whose robes are all uncut, possessing three robes." "Possessing three robes" is said with reference to the presence of three robes at the time of cutting, not with reference to the state of possessing three robes in the Vinaya, or the ascetic practice of possessing three robes. Thus should one practice: "That monk should accept a robe from there, at most one inner and one outer," should be practiced according to the method stated. "By another" means by one whose robes are not all uncut. The meaning is: by one of whom, among the three robes, one or two robes are uncut. "Otherwise" means otherwise than the rule stated as "at most one inner and one outer." Indeed, if two of his three robes are uncut, one should be accepted. If one is uncut, none should be accepted; thus, for him, the acceptance of "at most one inner and one outer" is not possible. And this very meaning is clarified by the word-division. Therefore, it says, "to show that distinction." However, some say, "Because it is said 'possessing three robes,' if one uses three robes having determined them as accessory cloths, when they are lost, one may take many." That should not be accepted. Indeed, because the word-division, in showing its intention, states, "by one whose robes are all uncut... (and so on)... to show that distinction," and such a meaning is not found in the word-division, therefore that should not be accepted at all. And what is said in the Mātika-Aṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Tatuttarisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā): "for whom, having determined three robes, three are lost," there too, the mention of "determined" should be taken as merely a description of the form, and not that the meaning "only for robes determined by the determination of three robes" should be taken, as such a meaning is not possible in the Pāḷi and the Aṭṭhakathā. For it cannot be understood that this training rule was laid down only for robes determined by the determination of three robes. The previous rule. Indeed, because it was permitted for one whose robe was not cut, through a request from an unknown person, and the Blessed One laid down this rule, allowing acceptance beyond the measure in the matter of requesting without knowing the measure; therefore, this meaning— that it is permissible to accept much even for a piece of accessory cloth— neither accords with the Pāli nor is it in line with the Buddha's intention. Here, regarding "If three are lost, two should be accepted": It should be understood that if one has more robes than the three robes, kept elsewhere, then because that robe is unobtainable, it is permissible for him to accept (two). He normally goes about with the inner and outer robes, either by way of the rule concerning doubt, or by way of the permission not to be absent, or due to not obtaining the third (robe). Because "two are lost" is the context, it is said "two should be accepted." "By accepting one, it will be equal" means: When two of the three robes are lost, by accepting one, it will be equal, because both (the remaining one and the accepted one) will be in the state of being the maximum inner and outer robes. "If one has only one" is said with reference to a remaining robe that was lost due to some other reason. Because it is said, "They give, saying, 'Let the remainder be yours'": Even at the time of taking and going, after saying, "We will take what is appropriate to the measure, we will bring back the remainder," they say, "Let the remainder also be yours," and it is properly obtained. "Of those who have invited" means those who have invited even before the time of cutting. "It does not accord with the Pāli" means it does not accord because it is said "no offense for relatives who have invited" to show no offense in accepting beyond the maximum inner and outer robes. Indeed, for one who accepts the maximum inner and outer robes, there is no occasion for an offense; and if there is an occasion for an offense by the rule, it is proper to show no offense—this is the intention. But some say, "This, 'only the measure is permissible,' is said to show austerity." But since this... (omitted text)... is not said, here, this is the intention: when "for another's sake" is said, to accept even exceeding the measure for the sake of others... is fitting, it is incurred. And that, when compared with the basis, does not fit, because it is laid down in the context of making known for the sake of another. For it is not fitting to say "no offense" in the very basis on account of which the training rule was laid down. However, in all three commentaries, it is said: "There is no occasion to say 'for the sake of another' for this training rule, because it operates on account of one's own desire to accept. Therefore, it is not said." Here, if it is said: "Since 'for the sake of another' is not stated, there is an offense for one who makes known more for the sake of others, relatives, or invited ones?" No, because no offense is already established by the previous training rule. The excess, the condition of being uninterrupted, etc., making known to strangers, and obtaining by that— these are the four factors here. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said: "In the Pāli, 'paggāhikasālā' is a display hall for robes. It is called 'paggāhikasālā' because merchants display robes there by holding them up. 'Of this robe' means of the robe to be accepted. 'By one with three robes' shows the absence of another robe deposited in monasteries, etc., apart from the uninterrupted three robes. If there were, it would not be fitting to make it known. One's own robe should be taken after temporarily wearing it. For one who cannot even obtain a temporary one, making known is fitting, just like covering with grass and leaves after disturbing the plant kingdom. 'By another' means by an uninterrupted, unsoiled robe. 'Two to be accepted' is said due to the context of 'two lost.' 'It does not fit the Pāli' means it does not fit with this Pāli text: 'no offense for relatives, invited ones' (Pārā. 526), because it is stated only in the context of the offense of making known in excess. 'It is not said for the sake of another' indicates this meaning: that making known in excess for the sake of another is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya. And that Pācittiya would be either for those for whose sake one makes known, or for the one who makes known. It is not for them, because they did not make it known. Nor is it for the one who makes known, because one did not make it known for oneself." self. Therefore, for one who makes known for another, a Nissaggiya Pācittiya is not seen. But in the Pāli, because this training rule arises from one's own desire, they say that 'for another' is not stated in the non-offence clause, and that seems appropriate, it should be understood after investigation. Here, the four factors are: the state of having more robes, the reason of being without robes, making known to an unknown person, and obtaining them thereby. This decision on the 'more robes' training rule, though not stated by the teacher, is taken by us