English
not personal ones, this should be understood. That they are permissible to maintain is said in connection with dwellings. 43. "It should be sent to the owners" means a message should be sent to the owners. "Having broken" means, without touching it first, having made some slight break with a stone, etc., afterwards, having resolved it for a permissible item, it is permissible to take it with the hand. Therefore, it is said, "It is permissible to accept it, thinking, 'I will make it a permissible item.'" Here too, it should be separated and then touched. In "boards, nets, etc.," here, it should be taken by hand for protection from arrows. A small board for eye protection, made in the form of a net with iron, etc., that which is fastened on the head, etc., is called a "jālika." By the word "etc.," it includes armor, etc. "Untouchable" is said with reference to obstructing others with fishing nets, etc., not for protection from arrows, as that is not an item of weaponry. Therefore, it will be said, "For preventing obstruction by others," etc. "Of the seat" means of the furnishings made around the cetiya. "I will tie it" means I will tie it so that crows, etc., do not harm it. "Bheri-saṅghāṭa" means a drum made of joined hides. "Vīṇā-saṅghāṭa" means a lute made of joined hides. This is said in the Sāratthadīpanī. From the statement in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā: "Lutes, drums, etc., covered with hide," due to the lack of distinction, and because in the Kurundī, etc., a distinction is begun to be stated from that, the collection of instruments covered with hide, such as drums, etc., should be understood as "bheri-vīṇā-saṅghāṭa," by taking "saṅghāṭa" as "that which is joined." "Empty shell" means the shell of drums and lutes not covered with hide. "Attached hide" means having been attached previously, afterwards, having removed it from there, place it separately. it is merely the face-skin, not with the rest of the accessories. That, however, is a “saṅghāṭi”— this is the distinction. “Onahanti” means to stretch skin over drums and kettledrums, and to bind them with all accessories like skin-straps. “Onahāpetunti” means to have others bind them in the same way. Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha, The Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of Non-Touching, named The Seventh Chapter. 8. The Discourse on the Determination of Adhiṭṭhāna and Vikappanā 44. Having thus discoursed on the determination of non-touching, now, to discourse on the determination of adhiṭṭhāna and vikappanā, it is said, “Among adhiṭṭhāna and vikappanā…” and so on. Therein, “adhiṭṭhiyate” is adhiṭṭhāna, meaning grasping or marking. “Vikappiyate” is vikappanā, meaning intending or thinking. Therein, it is said, “‘One should determine the three robes’ means to determine them by stating their names. ‘One should not make a vikappanā’ means not to make a vikappanā by stating their names. This method applies everywhere. Therefore, one who determines the three robes should determine them by stating their names, such as ‘I determine this outer robe.’ However, one who makes a vikappanā should make a vikappanā without taking the name of that particular robe, saying, ‘I make a vikappanā of this robe for you.’ Whether it is the three robes or something else, if one makes a vikappanā by taking that particular name, it is not a vikappanā, and it remains in the category of an extra robe,” as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said, “‘One should determine the three robes’ means to determine them by names such as ‘outer robe.’ ‘One should not make a vikappanā’ means not to make a vikappanā by this name. This shows that one who has made a vikappanā of the three robes is not a ‘tecīvarika’ (one who always keeps the three robes), and the procedure to be done, such as not being separated from them, is not to be done for him, as it is for one who has determined the three robes; it does not mean there is a fault in vikappanā.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, however, it is said, “‘One should determine the three robes’— here, the three robes are suitable to be determined by the determination of the three robes, or that which is determined by the determination of the three robes…” I allow for it to be kept, not for it to be designated. Since there is no time limit for its designation, I allow for it to be designated always by one who wishes to do so. I do not allow for it to be designated by setting a time limit. But when there is a reason, it is proper to revoke and designate at any time. This is established by the saying: "There is no offense if one designates and designates again within ten days." So it is said. Among these three interpretations, the third interpretation seems more reasonable. Why? Because it aligns with the Pāli text and the commentary. How? In the Pāli text, it is said that only the two robes with a set limit, the rain-cloth and the anti-itch cloth, are to be designated thereafter. For others, it is not to be designated. Therefore, if there is no reason, they must always be designated, not designated again. This seems to be the intention of the Pāli text. In the other two, it is to be designated only during the allowed time. "Thereafter it is to be designated again" thus aligns with the Pāli text. In the commentary, I allow for one who carries the three robes as the aggregate of the three robes to designate them, not to designate them again. But the rain-cloth, after four months, is to be designated again, not designated. And if this is so, for one who wishes to stay apart from the three robes with one robe, an opportunity is given to revoke the designation of the robe and designate it again for the ease of staying apart. In the first interpretation, having said "not to designate," the meaning "not to designate" is stated. If this is so, in "thereafter to designate again," having said "thereafter," the meaning "to designate again" would be. And that meaning is stated with reference to designation. And when a distinction is to be made by saying "having said the name," there would be no distinction in saying "not to designate" and "thereafter to designate again," because all robes are to be designated without saying the name. And in the second interpretation, by the name "not to designate," it is said "not to designate." The remaining part of the text is "I do not allow." And in the first, "whether it be the three robes or a" or another, if one designates it by that name, it is not designated, it remains in the place of an extra robe.” And in the second, “there is no fault in designating,” and that seems to contradict each other, therefore, this should be investigated. Beyond that, “they designate,” meaning, beyond the four months, they designate and use, this is stated in the three commentary sections. Some, however, say, “beyond that, having designated, it is permitted to keep it until the four months of the rains in the coming year.” “By ‘beyond that, I permit to designate,’ this meaning should not be taken as it is permitted to designate a rain-garment and a scab-covering by taking that name. Because beyond that, there is no such name as rain-garment, etc. Why should it not be designated by taking a name even if one designates it beyond that? Since the use of both is permitted after designating beyond that, it is stated in all three commentary sections that such a designated item should be determined by another name and used,” this is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. And in the Vimativinodanī it is stated, “beyond that, some say it is permitted to designate and use beyond the four months. Others say, ‘having designated, it is proper to keep it until the rains of the coming year.’ Still others say, ‘there is no fault in designating, such a designated item should be determined by the name of a requisite, etc., and used’.” However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā it is stated, “a rain-garment is only to be designated beyond that, not to be determined. For a cloth, when it is finished, I permit it to be determined within ten days, starting from the rain-day within the four months. The meaning is, I permit to designate it for one who wishes to keep it as his own property beyond the four months.” Here too, the latter statement seems more commendable, why? Because it is easily understood, but in the former, the intention of the teachers is difficult to understand. is to be known, as it is stated in various doctrines. Regarding "muṭṭhipañcakaṃ" (five fistfuls): "muṭṭhipañcakaṃ" means five units measured by a fist. The intention is that after measuring four cubits, the fifth cubit should be measured by a fist. However, some say, "muṭṭhipañcakaṃ means five fistfuls of hands. All five cubits must be measured with the hands made into fists." Regarding "muṭṭhittikaṃ" (three fistfuls): the same method applies here. He says, "even with a covering," etc., because it is possible to cover the three circles (navel, knees, ankles) with an inner robe of two cubits. "Atirekaṃ" means more than the Sugata's robe. "Ūnakaṃ" means less than the five fistfuls, etc. And thereby it shows that the dedication of the triple robe does not apply to them. "Imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmīti" means "I lift up the dedication of this outer robe, I relinquish it." However, in the Sāratthadīpanī, it is stated, "paccuddharāmi means I put it aside, or it means I relinquish it." "Kāyavikāraṃ karontena" means by touching the robe with the hand, or by moving it. Regarding "vācāya adhiṭṭhātabbā" (to be dedicated by speech), it should be understood that dedication by both body and speech is included, by moving it with the body and also by breaking the speech (uttering words), because it is said, "without touching with the body." There are two kinds of dedication: within reach and beyond reach. Regarding this, in the Vimativinodanī, it is stated, "Hatthapāsa (reach) is said to be two and a half cubits.