English
"I allow to determine the triple robe, by way of managing it as a triple robe, not to make it optional." But the rain-robe, after four months, is only to be made optional, not to be determined. And this being so, whoever wishes to dwell apart from one robe of the triple robe, having revoked his determination of the triple robe, for the sake of ease in dwelling apart, an opportunity for making it optional is given, and there is no offense in exceeding ten days. It is written that by this means, the state of not being forbidden for making optional should be understood everywhere. But of this training rule, this is the brief determination: when the Kathina is not spread, starting from the first day of winter; when the Kathina is spread, starting from the first day of summer; referring to a robe that has arisen, the phrase "when the robe is finished" and so on is said. Here it is said: by the statement "even for one who has it washed by washermen and made white, the determination is indeed a determination" (Parajika Commentary 2.465), that determination applies even to un-dyed (robes). Therefore, having done needlework, having dyed, having given the mark of suitability, should it be determined? Should a rule be made? Or should it not be made? It should indeed be done. Like a bowl, determined. Just as when it becomes white or red, it does not abandon its determination, nor is it such that it approaches that determination; so should this be understood. If one who has received a robe does not determine it today, thinking, "He will remove the Kathina tomorrow," it becomes subject to forfeiture at the rising of the sun. Why? Because the training rule is stated with "When the robe is finished," and so on. Within the Kathina period, one receives the exemption for more than ten days. But after the Kathina, one does not receive it even for one day. Like what? Just as a Sangha that has spread the Kathina receives the advantage of the triple robe from the day it was spread until its removal, but not beyond that; so too, one receives it from the day it was spread until its removal. But when the Kathina is removed, one does not receive it even for one day. Here it is asked: Does one receive it for another ten days from the day it is removed? No. Why? Because of the saying: "I allow, monks, to keep an extra robe for a maximum of ten days." Even within the Kathina period, it would become subject to forfeiture at the rising of the sun on the eleventh day. But to prevent that over-extension, "When the robe is finished," and so on, was stated, not to show that the Kathina days are not days. This meaning will become clear in various places. Alternatively, a rain-robe of not excessive size, having taken its name, should be determined in the manner stated for the four months of the rainy season. After that, it should be revoked and offered for choice, it is said. Here, by the phrase "having revoked," it is revoked and offered for choice and kept on the Uposatha day itself. After that, there is no revocation from the first day of winter. Thus, it is written that a robe arising within the Kathina period should also be understood in this way. The commentary on the Kathina training rule is finished. 2. Commentary on the Udosita training rule "For one who has spread the Kathina, there is no offense in leaving after placing a robe anywhere within a designated boundary for five months," it is stated in the commentary. "Even in an undesignated boundary, is established.” It is written that this establishes the Kathina spreading and the wilderness precept in an unbound boundary. Now – “The cut ascetic practice, doubtful, approved, with inner and outer; For one without a robe, no offense, from the establishment of the removal, etc.” This should be understood as miscellaneous. Herein is the preliminary inquiry of the accusation: Some, by the saying “a double robe” (Mahāva. 348), say, “A single robe should not be determined. If it is determined, it does not grow.” And giving even a double robe to those seeking ordination, they ordain them. These should be made to understand by this fragment of a Sutta. For the Blessed One first allowed “a cut robe, a cut upper robe, a cut inner robe.” Then, in this matter, “when a triple robe is being made for a certain bhikkhu, all cut pieces are not enough. Two cut pieces and one uncut piece are not enough; two uncut pieces and one cut piece are not enough,” it was allowed, “I allow, O bhikkhus, to add even an extra piece” (Mahāva. 360). Therefore, it is established that even a single robe is permissible. How can that which is not enough even when cut be double? It is also said in the Commentary on this, “to add even an extra piece means to give even an incoming piece of cloth. But this should be added when there is not enough. If there is enough, an incoming piece of cloth is not permissible; it must be cut” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 360). However, for Kathina, only a cut piece is permissible, because it is a special characteristic, and because there is no saying “a cut double piece is not enough.” This conclusion should be reached here. Regarding the ascetic practice: Since the ascetic practice of the triple robe does not exist for the unordained, and one is called a triple-robed one by the triple robe itself, should it be said, “only by what is determined,” since there is no determination for them? No, because of the possibility of contradiction with the division of ascetic practices. For the division of ascetic practices is by accepting a fourth robe, not by staying away from the triple robe, nor by accepting an extra robe, nor by wearing an extra robe. But since nine robes are allowed for monks by the Blessed One by way of determination, and are mentioned by way of origin, but not for the unordained, therefore, as there is no robe rule for them, that ascetic practice is not allowed for them, just as for householders. Therefore, it must be concluded here from the absence of mention in the method of undertaking it. Regarding "sāsaṅkasammata" (with doubt and agreement), in the "sāsaṅka" training rule (Kankha. Atth. Sāsaṅka Sikkhāpada Vaṇṇanā), which is for overcoming doubt, the specific factors are not mentioned, but it is said: "The rest here should be understood in the same way as stated in the second training rule of the robe chapter," but this is not stated. There, staying away for a night is the fourth factor; here, staying away for six nights. This is the difference here. Therefore, due to the similarity of factors and the similarity of agreement, this "sāsaṅka" training rule is without specific location, while that one is with specific location, being limited to a month. There, even if one stays outside the village, enters the village boundary, stays, and departs, there is no offense; here, it is not so. Here, at each successive dawn, it is to be relinquished; there, it is on the seventh day. This is the difference between these two. The factors, however, are not mentioned because they are established by the fulfillment of the robe-depositing factor in reverse, and by the method stated here. Even if they are not mentioned, the fourth factor should be specified, but it is not specified. What is the reason? Because here, the offense is confessed after relinquishing it in the order of relinquishment stated, to show the release from the offense incurred there. Even staying away for a year is considered staying away for a night, much less staying away for six nights. Even so, if there is fulfillment of the factors as stated there, it should be relinquished in the way stated there. If one relinquishes it in winter or summer? The teacher's reasoning is: "The fourth factor is not specified to make it known that it is permissible to relinquish it even in the way stated here." A robe that has exceeded a month, or has exceeded ten days, is relinquished by saying "it has exceeded ten days," not by being less than a month and saying "it has exceeded ten days." saying "it is due," and some say, saying "a month has passed." Even so, if it is a robe of expectation, it is to be relinquished. But a root robe, saying "ten days have passed," is to be relinquished, saying "a month has passed." Is "inner and outer," or "outer robe," or "robe," the three robes, or something else? What is the case here? If only the three robes are forbidden, there is a contradiction with not cutting, not wearing, not washing, and not requesting a robe, due to being included. If something else, there is a contradiction with "when the robe is finished," and so on. It is said: It should not be understood as fixed, but taken as possible. For example, in "having laid aside the robe, he departs on a journey through the country with the inner and outer robes," it is the three robes. In "Monks, a village should not be entered with the inner and outer robes," and "from that, a robe up to the inner and outer robes may be accepted," it is any robe. Similarly, in "the outer robes should be given after being made good," "the lower robe should be given," "the outer robe should be given," "here, friend, is your outer robe," "give me a cloth." For it is said: "All robes are called 'outer robes' because they are put together." Similarly, some say, in "when the robe is finished," it is also so. During the period, as many robes as desired are allowed. When will all of that, being made, come to an end? Therefore, some say, it is only the three robes. What is meant by "the non-offence is established by the withdrawal, etc., of the unrobed one"? Some say that due to the possibility of the rule becoming useless, there is an offence for the three robes in the separation from the three robes. In that case, it is said that there is no offence, because it is established by withdrawal, etc. For it is said: "There is no offence if he withdraws or relinquishes before dawn." Otherwise, one who withdraws, and one who relinquishes before dawn, commits an offence