English
is three cubits in length. In width, two cubits and six finger-breadths. The fringes, one cubit and a span. Now, by the ordinary cubit of humans, it is four cubits and a span in length. In width, three cubits and nine finger-breadths. The fringes, two cubits and six finger-breadths. Less than that is permissible, not more. Because it is said: "For one who exceeds it, there is a pācittiya of cutting" (Pāci. 533). Regarding the measure for a scab-covering cloth: It is suitable with the measure thus stated, because it is said: "In length, four spans of the Sugata span; across, two spans" (Pāci. 538). But that, by the carpenter's cubit, is six cubits in length, and three cubits in width. Now, by the ordinary cubit, it should be understood as nine cubits in length, and four cubits and a span across. Regarding the measure of the last robe suitable for vikappa, which is a requisites-rag: Here, the measure of the last robe suitable for vikappa is eight finger-breadths in length by the Sugata finger-breadth, and four finger-breadths across. By the carpenter's cubit, it is one cubit in length, and a span in width. Now, by the ordinary cubit, it is one cubit and a span in length, and a span and six finger-breadths across. Therefore, it says "its measure," and so on. In phrases like "for medicine," and so on: It refers to something set aside, freed from one's ownership, concerning which it is said: "Even if not determined, there is no offense." The meaning is that for one who sets it aside, having divided it saying: "this is for medicine, this is for my mother," and freeing it from one's ownership, there is no need for determination. "With this, I will procure medicine; this, I will give to my mother." But they say it must be determined by the one who places it. Regarding the "covering given for dwelling requisites," they say that a covering not worn as an undergarment, nor as an outer garment, but merely spread on couches and chairs and used, even if one's own, does not need to be determined. However, below, because it is stated without distinction that even a covering must be determined, it is our view that one's own must be determined. It should be taken after investigation. Regarding "it must be determined while it is on the loom," a part that has passed is already determined; there is no need for a further act of determination. But if, having shown a division, it has passed in sections, they say it must be determined again. "This is the method" means that when a measure suitable for determination or estimation has passed on the loom, it must be determined while it is on the loom. 46. "By reverting to a lower state" is stated in all three knot-points as "by becoming a layperson without renouncing the training." That is appropriate, as the robe is abandoned by being free from attachment, just like giving to another. However, some, taking the meaning "by reverting to a lower state" as "by a bhikkhunī becoming a layperson," say that "even if a bhikkhu goes astray, as long as he does not renounce the training, he is still a bhikkhu, and the determination is not lost." That should not be accepted, because it is not stated specifically "by a bhikkhunī reverting to a lower state." Indeed, for a bhikkhunī, there is no need to state separately that the determination is lost by her becoming a layperson, because by her going astray, she ceases to be a nun. But "by renouncing the training" is stated to show that if one renounces the training while still in the bhikkhu's guise, even the robe attached to his body loses its determination. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.469). However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469), it is said: "By reverting to a lower state" refers to one who has committed the last offense, one who remains with the bhikkhu's declaration, one who has gone over to another sect, and a bhikkhunī, in the state of a bhikkhunī, without... It is said with reference to the taking of the lay-state or the sectarian-state in one instance. Some say it is said with reference to entering the lay-state without renouncing the training. That is not proper, because it is said that even then, since he is fully ordained and the robe belongs to him, it is abandoned. Thus, these two statements are seen to be mutually contradictory. But in the Commentary, since it is stated separately "by reverting to a lower state, by renouncing the training" (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469), the intention is seen that when one reverts to a lower state, even without renouncing the training, the robe's designation is abandoned; and when one renounces the training, even without reverting to a lower state. Therefore, for one who merely enters the lay-state without renouncing the training, although he still has the state of a bhikkhu, and the robe, being his, is abandoned, nevertheless, because it is said "by reverting to a lower state," the designation of the robe might be abandoned solely by entering the lay-state, just as by changing one's status. And for one who merely renounces the training without entering the lay-state, although he still has the bhikkhu's status, and the robe, being his, is abandoned, nevertheless, because it is said "by renouncing the training," the designation of the robe might be abandoned solely by renouncing the training, just as in the case of withdrawal. Therefore, whether it be a bhikkhu or a bhikkhunī, by taking the lay-state with the thought "I will revert to a lower state," the robe's designation is abandoned. However, by renouncing the training, only a bhikkhu's robe (is abandoned), because there is no renunciation of training for a bhikkhunī – this is our view. But regarding the abandonment of the robe's designation for those who have committed the last offense and those who have gone over to other sects, since it is not mentioned in the Commentary, and since there is no term "reverting to a lower state" for them, it should be investigated. "By means of the nail of the little finger" indicates the lower limit. And regarding "from this side, from that side," it is said: "from this side, the hole breaks the designation, from that side, it does not break it." How is the distinction of "this side and that side" to be understood? Just as in a place divided by a river... In the direction where people live, the bank is called 'this side'. In the other direction, the bank is called 'that side'. Similarly, the middle part of a robe, which is the place for monks to wear and cover, a region of the size of a span as mentioned, is called 'this side'. The edge of the robe is called 'that side'. Thus, from the worldly perspective, or as it is said, "one should place the robe by making the 'this side' the fold and the 'that side' the end," the part facing the monk is called 'this side', the other part is called 'that side'. Thus, the place for monks to wear and cover is called 'this side', the other is called 'that side'. Thus, from the teaching, the 'this side' and 'that side' distinction should be understood. Therefore, if one first puts a bolt in a weak spot, and then cuts and removes the weak spot, the determination is not broken. Even in the case of turning a circle, this is the method. Thus, the state of the determination being broken or not broken in the entire robe is shown. Therefore, it is said in the Vimativinodanīya (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469): "This method" means that the determination is abandoned in any hole within the prescribed measure, and so on, this meaning is gathered. A 'small robe' is indeed a small robe, not less than the measure of five fists and so on. Regarding "making a large one small," in the three robes, on the four sides, in whichever part the determination is not abandoned due to a hole, the intention is that by cutting all around that part and making it small, the determination is not abandoned. However, in the Vimativinodanīya it is said: "Regarding 'making a large one small' or 'making a small one small'," even by cutting all around an excessively large robe, making it conform to the minimum measure of five fists and so on, the part being cut at the time of cutting does not become a hole, the determination is not abandoned, thus it is established. And it agrees with the saying, "If one cuts after joining, it is not broken." However, if a rag for requisites is made smaller than the minimum measure suitable for determination, the determination is abandoned due to the determination having no support. Those again... that which has been determined must be determined again. Some say, 'Even if a rain-cloak robe is cut in two, and each piece is of the minimum size, the determination stands on only one piece, not on the other; and since two are not permissible,' they say that the same rule applies to sitting cloths and scab-covering cloths." 47. "Sammukhā" is a nominative singular word referring to what is present before one, and it is a qualifier for "vikappanā" (determination). Therefore, some interpret the meaning by taking "sammukhe" as a locative case, meaning "in front," or "facing." Or, "sammukhāvikappanā" is a determination made by one's own speech, directly. "Parammukhāvikappanā" is a determination made indirectly, by another's speech; this meaning should be understood in the instrumental case. This aligns with the Pāli. "Sannihitāsannihitabhāvaṃ" means the state of being near or far. "Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭatīti" means that since the act of determination is completed with just this much, it does not become an extra robe, and therefore, it does not generate a forfeiture (nissaggiya) upon the lapse of ten days. This is the intention. "Paribhuñjituṃ…pe… na vaṭṭatīti" refers to the offense of pācittiya for using it without revoking the determination oneself, and dukkaṭa for determining it or giving it to others. "Paribhogādayopi vaṭṭantīti" means that use, giving, and determination are permissible. The word "api" also implies that it is permissible to store it.