English
Some say 'twelve cubits,' but that does not fit here." Now, to show the two kinds of dedication distinguished as in front and not in front, it is said, "sace hatthapāse" (if within reach), etc. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī, it is stated, "And this 'hatthapāse' is said with reference to twelve cubits. Therefore, some say that within twelve cubits, one should dedicate by saying 'imaṃ' (this), and beyond that, one should dedicate by saying 'etaṃ' (that). But in the Gaṇṭhipada texts, nothing is said about this. In the Pāḷi and in the commentaries, 'hatthapāsa' (reach) is always said to be two and a half cubits. Therefore, here, a special kind "The reason for suitability should be sought," it is said. Thus, even in the Pāli commentaries, the arm's reach is stated as exactly two and a half cubits. And the commentary teachers have accepted that very same. Therefore, a robe located within two and a half cubits should be designated as "this." And one outside of that should be designated as "that." "In an adjacent monastery" - this is said with reference to what is placed in a location suitable for recognizing the place where it was put. Even if it is placed far from there, it must be designated by one who recognizes the place where it was put. Even there, the recognition of the robe's placement is the standard. For it is not possible to recognize a permanent location. It is not proper to designate it as placed in one monastery and then in another. "But some say, 'Even if designated thus, there is no fault.' That does not agree with the commentary; it should be investigated," it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469). But in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.469) it is said: "An adjacent monastery is where one can go and return on the same day. 'Adjacent monastery' is merely the head of the teaching. Therefore, they say that even if it is placed far away, it should be designated by recognizing the place where it was put. And 'by recognizing the place where it was put' is said by considering that the recognition of the place where it was put is appropriate. The recognition of the robe itself is the standard here." And in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 469) it is said: "The names 'outer robe,' 'upper robe,' and 'inner robe' are the same for both designated and undesignated robes. In phrases like 'This is an outer robe,' undesignated robes are spoken of. In 'He should dwell apart from the triple robe,' designated robes are spoken of. 'Adjacent monastery' means a monastery from the alms-round village, says Dhammasiri Thera. 'Even if it is further away, it is permissible,' say the teachers. And in the Anugaṇṭhipada it is said: "'Adjacent monastery' is merely the head of the teaching; therefore, even if it is placed far away, it should be designated by recognizing the place where it was put." An adjacent monastery is where one can go and return on the same day. By one who observes the rule of not being separated overnight... It is not proper to determine something that is far away. Thus it is said in the Great Commentary. Some say: “If a robe placed on a robe-pole is moved by another and placed on an elephant’s tusk, and one determines it without knowing this, it is still valid, because the robe is recognized.” Therefore, the differing opinions of the teachers should be reconciled and understood. "With robes determined and placed" means with robes determined and placed under the name of "requisite cloth." Therefore, it shows the revocation of the requisite cloth with "I revoke this." And by this, it shows that one who observes the ascetic practice of the three robes, if unable to make and dye a cloth obtained from a dust-heap or the like and wear it within ten days, must determine it as a requisite cloth and let the ten days pass; otherwise, it becomes subject to forfeiture. Therefore, it is said in the Visuddhimagga (Visuddhi. 1.25): "From the time it is dyed, it is not proper to put it away; one becomes a 'robe-thief' of the ascetic practice." "Must be determined again" is said for one who wishes to use the three robes, such as the outer robe, after determining them by name. For others, the previous determination is sufficient, this should be understood. "Must be determined again" also shows that a mark of suitability should be given. "There is no need for determination" also shows that there is no need to give a mark of suitability. "It is much greater," and so on, are characteristics common to all determinations. There, "must be determined again" refers to the characteristic that: if it is undetermined, being a part of an undetermined robe, it is undetermined; if it is determined, being a part of a determined robe due to its small amount, it goes by the designation of determined; similarly, if it is determined, being a part of an undetermined robe, it goes by the designation of undetermined. And not only a second patch here, but also a third patch and so on. As it is said: "I allow, O monks... a fourfold outer robe of cloths taken from the season... as much as needed for dust-heap robes." (Mahāva. 348). Suitable for the measure of the three robes, such as five fistfuls. Referring to "but the triple robe" and so on, it was said. "To determine a supplementary cloth" means, having made a supplementary cloth, to determine it. "The remaining bhikkhus" means the bhikkhus seated at the time of speaking. "Therefore it is permissible" means, just as it was said, "I allow, bhikkhus, to determine the triple robe, not to make it optional" (Mahāvagga 358), so also a supplementary cloth was mentioned. And its maximum limit was not stated, nor its numerical limit. Therefore, having revoked all three robes, having determined these robes as supplementary cloths, it is permissible to use them, this is the meaning. "This is a means of depositing" means this determination of a supplementary cloth is a means of depositing, a means of placing; it is a reason for placing extra robes, this is the meaning. If it is asked, "How is this known?" for at that time the bhikkhus had a complete set of triple robes, and there was a need for strainers and bags. In this matter, because it was allowed, "I allow, bhikkhus, a supplementary cloth," and for bhikkhus, only one strainer or bag is permissible, because there is no prohibition of two or three, the maximum limits for making optional, or extra limits for strainers and other requisites are established as permissible. First, it should be determined as the triple robe. Then, by one unable to carry it, it should be revoked and determined as a supplementary cloth. But this was not said from the very beginning. In a consecrated boundary, because of the possibility of a non-separation boundary agreement, there is no fault in being separated from the robe, so there is no difficulty in managing it there. Therefore it is said, "It is difficult to manage in an unconsecrated boundary." 45. "For cutting beyond the limit, there is a pācittiya" means it is said, "not beyond the limit." "After that, having revoked, it should be made optional" means after the rainy season months, the determination should be revoked and made optional. By this, it is understood that the determination remains for more than four rainy season months, because there is no revocation of what does not exist. And what is in the Mātika Commentary (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. Kathina Sikkhāpada (A criticism) It is said, “A rain-cloak, even after the rainy season has passed, covers itching; even after an illness has subsided, it abandons its determination.” That is not in the Samantapāsādikā. And in the Parivāraṭṭhakathā, where it says, “An offense is incurred in winter, not in summer,” that is not mentioned. One who wears a rain-cloak that was determined and set aside on the day of the first quarter moon after the full moon of Kattika, incurs an offense in winter. But in the Kurundi it is said, “One incurs an offense in winter if one does not revoke the determination on the full moon day of Kattika.” That too is well said. For it is said, “It should be determined for four months, and after that, it should be offered.” There, in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, a dukkaṭa offense is mentioned due to wearing it. But in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā, it is due to not revoking the determination. Therefore, it is understood that even according to the Kurundi, a rain-cloak does not abandon its determination even after the rainy season has passed. And the abandonment of determination due to the passing of the rainy season or the cessation of illness is not mentioned in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā either. Therefore, it should be taken that according to the Samantapāsādikā, the determination remains until it is revoked. Since it is permitted for bathing, it is said, “Even if it is only slightly discolored, it is permissible.” But two are not permissible. This indicates that a second determination is not acceptable for the outer robe and so on; it becomes an extra robe. In the Mahāpaccari, referring to the absence of use as a robe, it is said, “No offense,” just like a mat given for use as a dwelling. But what is said, “A mat should also be determined,” is not restricted to being only for a dwelling, since it is included among the nine robes. Therefore, it should be taken that it is determined in one's own name, put away, and used in any way, like a piece of cloth for requisites. Because even cloaks and blankets are referred to in the world as mats and so on, a distinction is made from a mat given for use as a dwelling requisite. If finally If a later rain-cloak has arisen, having withdrawn the former rain-cloak, it should be determined after making it subject to vikappa, they say. Regarding the proper measure for a sitting cloth: It is suitable with this measure: in length, two spans of the Sugata span; in width, one and a half; the fringes, one span. But that, by the carpenter's cubit, reckoned as the arm of a middle-sized man,