English
until another takes possession, in the manner stated. Otherwise, separation within seven days It is indeed from separation, just as understood: when there is separation, it is from separation; when there is no separation, it is from non-separation. The explanation of the Udosita training rule is finished. 3. The explanation of the Akālacīvara training rule Because the uncircumscribed place, worthy of circumscription, is difficult to know, to show that, "and moreover, O bhikkhus" and so on was said. From a fixed meeting place established at the boundary of the monastery, or from a refectory standing at the boundary, or from a permanently inhabited dwelling, thus it should be understood. If, together with the bhikkhus assembled in the monastery, having become bound together, they sit filling even a hundred yojanas, even a hundred yojanas becomes the precinct boundary, this is the meaning. When "in the boundary of common residence" is said, for those standing in fragmented boundaries and so on, it does not apply, and because those have separate boundaries of common residence, this is the difference between boundaries of common residence and boundaries of non-separation. But that which is given saying "I give in the boundary of non-separation" does not apply to those standing in the village. Why? Because of the saying: "excluding the village and the village precinct" (Mahāvagga 144). But that which is given saying "in the boundary of common residence" applies even to those standing in a place where there is a boundary of non-separation. And "it applies to those standing there", and "having stood in a fragmented boundary, when 'may the Sangha within the boundary receive' is said, it should be given having circumscribed it only within the precinct boundary", and "it applies even to those outside the boundary until the removal of the Kathina, this is the meaning", and "but if, when the Kathina is not spread, within the winter season, having entered the monastery, one says 'I give to the Sangha that has completed the rains-residence', for those who have completed the latter rains-residence there without breaking the rains-residence, it applies even to those outside the boundary" – thus the Vinaya-experts define. But in the commentary, it is not found. Therefore, and in the Samantapāsādikā, "the experts in characteristics say" (Mahāvagga Commentary 379) is said, and when "from the month of robes until the last day of winter, we give the rains-residence robe" is said, whether the Kathina is spread or not, whatever... the word of Antapāsādika (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 379), even here, if it is spread, those who resided the previous rains, five months. If it is not spread, those who resided the latter rains, four months they obtain, this is the decision, it is written. "By whom my gruel was drunk," "by whom, being invited, my gruel was drunk" is the meaning. Therefore, by whom, being invited, the gruel was drunk, to them alone it accrues, it is said. Otherwise, if "by whom my gruel was drunk" is said, whether invited or uninvited, by whom it was drunk, to them it should accrue, they say. Here, saying "when the robe is finished, by the bhikkhu, when the kathina is lifted," he makes known that in this interval there is no arising of even three untimely robes. But why are they elaborated in the word-division? It is said: This rule, however, was not spoken with reference to determination, but having allowed a maximum of ten days in the first rule, if there is hope when that is insufficient, by extending that and allowing a month, it also reveals this special meaning. An untimely robe, indeed, should be divided by one who is present. That, however, was spoken by extending it with this rule: "by a bhikkhu who desires, it should be received." Therefore, all three are elaborated in the word-division. "It should be done quickly," "it should be done quickly, within ten days" this, however, was said to show that it is by the characteristic of the previous rule, in the state of sufficiency. Therefore, even without saying "quickly" or "swiftly" or the like, "ten days" was said. For one whose kathina is spread, let it be so. But when it is said, "how about a kathina that is not spread?" it shows the rejection of the unspread, and it is written (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 499-500) that one who does not see this falls into obstruction. The explanation of the rule concerning untimely robes is finished. 4. The explanation of the rule concerning old robes. "Like the Sākiyan women, or in a pure community of bhikkhus" does this contradict "a bhikkhunī, indeed, is one who is ordained in both communities" (Pārā. 505)? No, because of not knowing the intention. It should be understood that this was said due to the fear of such an occurrence, as ordination was forbidden for them in the presence of bhikkhus. By one thing, means by any first thing. "Or washes without being told" means washes without being told, dyes, beats, is the meaning. It is written: "Because of the phrase 'without being told', there is no offense in washing, etc., without being made to speak." Here, "robe" means only that which is suitable for wearing and covering. If so, "should only be said as suitable for wearing and covering"? That should not be said, as it is already established by "old robe". For it has been said: "An old robe means one that has been worn once or covered once" (Parajika 505). The explanation of the training rule on old robes is finished. 5. Explanation of the training rule on receiving robes The precinct is twelve cubits. If it is asked how a rag-robe is permissible when it is inanimate? Because it was not given to that bhikkhu, and because it was not taken by the bhikkhu from that bhikkhuni. The explanation of the training rule on receiving robes is finished. 6. Explanation of the training rule on requesting from unknown persons "Or requesting when relatives have refused" - here, only the measure is permissible when refused by the Sangha. It is written that for individual refusal, whatever is refused, that same thing should be requested. The explanation of the training rule on requesting from unknown persons is finished. 7. Explanation of the training rule on exceeding that He walks with an inner robe by nature, or due to the impediment of the Kathina, or due to the training rule of doubt. Here it might be said - "They will not know the measure and request many robes, or trade in cloth," and so on (Parajika 522). Having heard those who complained, the Blessed One also said to the group of six bhikkhus, "How can you, foolish men, not know the measure and request many robes?" (Parajika 522), and because the training rule was laid down, and in this "Dispelling Doubt" it is said, "laid down concerning the matter of requesting many robes," and in the Samantapasadika, "for those whose robes are not cut off, for their own sake, branches and leaves..." They are allowed to break it, but for those whose robes are not cut, they are allowed for their purpose, so if it is said that it is permissible to make a request for another's purpose, is it so? No, why? Because the rule of requesting from strangers was established precisely to prohibit requesting from strangers. There is no offense in that training rule. In the Pāli (Pārā. 521), by the non-offense clause "for another's purpose," one who requests for another's purpose requests only from his relatives who have invited him, not from others, and so it is prohibited. Therefore, the Blessed One, having rebuked them, "You will request many robes" (Pārā. 522), and having laid down the training rule, permitted taking according to the measure only in the manner stated: "they should invite to bring it," not requesting according to the measure for another's purpose. But since this training rule was laid down precisely in the context of requesting for another's purpose, therefore, here "for another's purpose" is not stated, not because it is not allowed. In the Commentaries, it is said: "In the case of relatives who have invited, even much is permissible as a rule, but because of the 'not cut' reason, only the measure is permissible." That does not accord with the non-offense Pāli (Pārā. 526) which states "no offense for relatives who have invited." Therefore, in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.526), it is written that here too, in the manner stated, there is no offense for one who requests from relatives who have invited, and takes with his own money. "For another's purpose" is not stated due to a conflict with the origin story, but nevertheless, they say it is obtained in the manner stated immediately before. The explanation of the training rule concerning that is concluded. 8. Explanation of the "Prepared" training rule. Regarding the first "prepared" rule, by the statement "not invited before" (Pārā. 528), it should be understood that even one who was invited at that moment is considered not invited. The explanation of the "Prepared" training rule is concluded. 9. Explanation of the Second "Prepared" training rule. What is the purpose of the second "prepared" rule? There is no purpose. It was merely laid down due to its origin story, like the bhikkhunī's rule on sitting in private. This being the case, the Sangha... By the commentators, the recitation should not be imposed, even without it, the purpose is achieved, because of not being independent, and because it is permitted not to impose it. For it was said: "If the Sangha wishes, Ānanda... may abolish it." All this is without reason. For Buddhas do not utter useless words, much less a training rule. Therefore, it is said in the commentary: "The meaning should be understood in this way. For this is like a subsequent enactment of the former." And a subsequent enactment is never without purpose. And since it is similar to that, it is shown not to be without purpose. This being so, what is the special meaning here?