English
does not receive the exemption. "Or does one receive it only when the Kathina is lifted in the latter half of Kattika, because 'when the Kathina is lifted' is stated?" This should not be said. For six points are stated with reference to something else: In the two cases of corrupt faults, the fourth legal question; in the first undetermined rule, a private place for listening; in the third Kathina rule, a designated robe that is given; in the training rule concerning emergency robes, the phrase "having made a mark, it should be put aside"; in the two cases of revealing and concealing a grave offense, the legal question; and the statement about the Pārājika; and in the three Kathina training rules, the statement "from one of the eight categories." There, the designated robe that is given is stated with reference to a communal robe to be distributed, not a personal one. "Having made a mark, it should be put aside" is stated with reference to a rain-residence robe. A mark should be made because it is to be given later by one who has not yet completed the Rains, not with reference to a personal robe received from a relative or invited person. Therefore, it is established that there are two kinds of emergency robes: those dedicated to the Sangha, and those dedicated to an individual. There, an emergency robe dedicated to the Sangha may indeed be put aside from the day of entering the Rains-residence, or from the latter period, until the Pavāraṇā, because it belongs to the Sangha. And also a personal one, because it is given with the intention "take it when you have completed the Rains-residence." For such a robe, as long as the recipient has not completed the Rains-residence, it belongs to that very donor. This is the special reason. By the statement "If one, perceiving it as a non-emergency robe, allows the robe-period to pass, there is no offense," that offense belongs only to one who has an emergency robe. Therefore, one should not seek a special reason in the Vinaya to show a "contradiction." "Is it authoritative because it pertains to the Buddha's domain?" No, if so, then even an emergency robe that is one's own property, having made a mark... It should only be put away, not determined, not resolved, not given away. Then, the contradiction with the statement “No offense, he determines, resolves, gives away within the time” (Pārā. 651) would have to be endured. Likewise, the contradiction that it is subject to forfeiture according to the statement, “When the Kathina is removed in the last month of the rainy season, and the Kathina has been spread in that month, if he lets the day of Kathina removal pass, it is subject to forfeiture,” this too would have to be endured. And in that, it is said, “No offense in a non-emergency robe,” and that is undetermined and unresolved; this is the extent of the special reason. And this excess robe is an offense by the first rule, but if the other is no offense, this is the special reason of the Blessed One for this meaning. Likewise, just as an emergency robe given to the Sangha for the rainy season residence on the Kattika full moon, when there are more than ten days left, should not be accepted; it should be accepted only when there are ten days left; this is the extent of the special reason. Then, the contradiction with the commentary’s method would have to be endured. There, it is said, “An emergency robe that arises from the time of determination is not an emergency robe,” and a different method is shown. In the ancient glossaries, that method is not contradictory because it is said with reference to the Sangha’s property, and so it is not rejected. Just as a non-emergency robe that arises from the sixth day onwards, even if there are more than ten days left, should be accepted, and even if one accepts it and lets the robe-time pass, there is no offense; this method too would have to be endured. Then, the contradiction with the first Kathina. If it should be accepted only when there are ten days left, and if there is no offense for one who accepts it and lets the robe-time pass, then he obtains it for two ten-day periods; this is the extent of the special reason. If it is said that because it has entered the period of no offense and robe-time in between, it is like something that has been determined and then taken back, and so he obtains it for ten days again? No, if it is said that entry into the time is like determination? No, the statement “to determine a rain-robe for the four months of the rainy season, and after that, to resolve it” is a contradiction. Having made a restriction, after that, even for one who does not determine it for ten days, there would be no offense. Moreover, what is said in the commentary: "A rain-cloak received and finished within the rainy season, must be determined within ten days. If finished after ten days, it must be determined on that very day. If ten days are not enough, the robe-period must not be exceeded." (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.630) By that, one would not be freed from offense. For the entry into time is not a determination-period. Thus far, the aforementioned interpretation of meaning has been established by the method of the Pāli text itself. Moreover, what is said in the commentary here: "If ten days are not enough, the robe-period must not be exceeded," there too, what arises in the robe-period, and for which there is no making if ten days are not enough, it is established that such an urgent robe, like an untimely robe, must not exceed the robe-period. And from the Pāli text, if it arises within the period, or arises even if ten days are not enough, an urgent robe arising in this way is not an urgent robe at all. For it does not, by reason of a special time, go by the designation of an urgent robe. For it is said: "An urgent robe is that when one intends to go with an army, or intends to go on a journey, or is sick, or is pregnant, or faith has arisen in one who was faithless... and so on... or when it is announced thus: 'I will give a rainy season robe,' this is called an urgent robe." (Pārā. 649) Therefore, just as that robe must not be exceeded, so too, it is established that a non-urgent robe must not be exceeded. Therefore, it is said in the commentary: "If ten days are not enough, the robe-period must not be exceeded." Moreover, if so, that very urgent robe training rule, that an urgent robe must not exceed the robe-period, was, however, laid down by the Blessed One for the purpose of showing this particular meaning. But in the Great Commentary, it is said thus: Although this is established by "an extra robe must be kept for a maximum of ten days," yet, by way of its origin, the training rule was laid down as if showing an unprecedented meaning, this is the purpose of clarifying a special meaning. from the people. Therefore, it is established that this was said to show its special meaning. Therefore, it should also be understood that any robe whatsoever should not exceed the robe-time. Moreover, what was said in the commentary: "From the sixth day onwards, an unaccepted robe that has arisen, or a robe that has been put aside after being taken back, receives this exemption." By this, it is also shown that an unaccepted robe also receives the exemption of an accepted robe, as in "one who perceives an unaccepted robe as an unaccepted robe, and exceeds the robe-time, is not at fault." Thus far, the second interpretation of the meaning, as stated, has been established according to the Pāli tradition and the commentary tradition. Thus, the miscellaneous additional explanation has been expanded from the text below, so it is not miscellaneous. There are two impediments: the impediment of robes, and the impediment of dwelling. Even if there is only one of these impediments, one obtains the benefits of not inviting, etc. To show that this is not the case here, it was said: "when the robe is finished, and the kathina has been lifted by the bhikkhu." Therefore, it was said: "for a bhikkhu who has spread the kathina," and so on. Regarding "one who is worthy of spreading the kathina," according to the saying: "a person endowed with eight factors is capable of spreading the kathina: he knows the preliminary action, he knows the taking back, he knows the determination, he knows the spreading, he knows the matrix, he knows the impediment, he knows the lifting, he knows the benefits." By this, a person endowed with these eight factors is called worthy of spreading the kathina. Preliminary action means washing, examining, cutting, sewing, dyeing, and making. After showing the kind and size according to the Pāli tradition, with "a robe is linen," and so on, now, to show the extra robe, it was said: "what was said regarding determined and specified robes," and so on. Even if it is said "having noted the place where it was put," wherever something is put, whether it is there later or not, the determination takes effect. Put before or after No baselessness, no standard. For one who has committed the last offense, abandoning the state of a monk, or wearing white clothes, or becoming a layperson, is reverting to a lower state. On the eleventh at dawn, excluding the last, the meaning should be understood as what is earlier than that. There, the last is indeed the first dawn of the later Kathina. For that indeed, being timely, does not make it liable to forfeiture. Here, the phrase "by a monk when the robe is finished" (the instrumental case word) does not depend on the origin, because there is no instrumental case in the origin. Therefore, it is said that "for more than ten days" is a supplementary rule here. And by the statement "I allow, monks, to determine the triple robe, not to make it optional" and so on (Mahavagga 358), the statement "makes optional" said here without distinction appears to be contradictory. And the Tathagatas do not speak contradictorily. Therefore, its meaning should be understood thus: