English
Kathina-sikkhapada-vannana), if there is no designation after the rainy season, what would one withdraw? Thus, the word “having withdrawn” would not be appropriate. Some, however, say (Saratth. Ti. 2.469), “Just as a robe acquired within the Kathina month becomes subject to forfeiture after the Kathina month, so too this rain-cloak becomes subject to forfeiture after the rainy season. Therefore, the meaning should be taken that it should be withdrawn on the full moon day of Kattika, and then offered on the first day of winter. The word arrangement ‘having withdrawn, then offered’ should be understood.” This is not appropriate. For a robe acquired in the Kathina month, being in the position of an extra robe, if not designated on the last day, becomes subject to forfeiture after the Kathina month. But this rain-cloak, having been designated and set aside, is not like that. How can it be subject to forfeiture after the rainy season? Only that which is undesignated and unoffered becomes subject to forfeiture after the time limit. Therefore, even in winter, the rain-cloak receives a ten-day allowance. Similarly, a scab-covering receives a ten-day allowance after losing its designation. But it must be offered without exceeding ten days. Since it is permitted for bathing, it is said that it is allowable even if it is only a different color. It is said, “Two are not allowable,” because of the absence of designation for the two. They say, “If another rain-cloak is acquired during the rainy season, the former rain-cloak should be withdrawn, offered, and then designated.” Regarding the proper measure: “In length, two Sugata spans, A span, a cubit and a half in width, ten spans. Of standard measure, that is, four spans in length and two spans in width by the Sugata-span. To be taken back and determined, what is to be said here has already been said below. Since for bhikkhus, when the three robes are complete and there is a need, the determination of accessory cloths for many pouch-strainers and so on was allowed by the permission, "I allow, bhikkhus, accessory cloths," for strainers and so on, therefore it was said, "There is no counting of accessory cloths," and so on. For whatever bhikkhus receive, the Blessed One out of compassion allowed them to determine it by this method and then to take it, making whatever strainer and so on is needed. Therefore it is said, "Even a pouch," and so on. The word "and so on" includes the determination not in the presence, "I determine these robes as accessory cloths." "And in coverings given for the purpose of lodging accessories," by this, one rejects one's own property. Some, however, say that a covering which is used without being worn or draped, but merely spread out on five seats, is permissible even if it is one's own and not determined. That is incorrect, because the covering is specified as "given for the purpose of lodging accessories." It should be understood that even for cushions, pillows, and blankets, there is no need for determination as lodging accessories. And how does this determined robe, when being used, lose its determination? He says, "And all of this," and so on. There, by taking by snatching, means by taking by snatching by thieves and so on. By turning to a lower state, means by turning to the state of a layperson, that is, by falling away, it is said, by wearing white clothes, "We will become laypeople while remaining virtuous." "Having transgressed the last matter..." Some say: "For one who has fallen, wearing white clothes, or abandoning the saffron robe, or reverting to a lower state." Others say: "By 'reverting to a lower state' is meant the nun's abandonment of her determination. For when she strays, then she is no longer a recluse. But a monk, even when straying, as long as he does not renounce the training, remains a monk, and does not abandon his determination." By renouncing the training means renouncing the training while still in the monastic state. For if one, while still in the monastic state, renounces the training, even the robe attached to his body loses its determination. By passing away means by death. By change of gender means by the change of male gender or female gender, by the appearance of female gender in a male, or by the appearance of male gender in a female, so it is said. By the measure of the back of the little finger's nail, it shows the lower limit. From within means from the inside. But if one first puts a patch on a weak spot, and then cuts away and removes the weak spot, the determination is not broken. The same method applies to turning a circle. But for a double-layered robe, if a hole appears in one layer, or it wears out, the determination is not broken. If one makes a small robe large, or a large one small, the determination is not broken. But if, making both ends meet in the middle, one first cuts and then joins, the determination is broken. If one joins and then cuts, it is not broken. Even if one has it washed white by washermen, the determination remains a determination. In "even by the passing of the rainy season months," the word 'pi' (even) has a collective meaning. Therefore, it is not only for the eight reasons mentioned before, such as giving, that the rain-robe loses its determination, but also by the passing of the rainy season months; this is the meaning to be understood here. The same method applies to "even by the cessation of illness" here. In the rule of 'vikappana' (pāci. 372 onwards), in the ninth rule of the 'surāpāna' (liquor drinking) section of the Pācittiya. Transgress that. "That" here means "that" robe, or it refers to time, thus it says "that of the aforementioned kind and measure," and so on. "Assa" means "of the bhikkhu." "Tassa yo aruṇo" means "the dawn of that" - it is the dawn that has passed of the day of the robe's arising. "Cīvaruppādadivasena saddhiṃ" means "together with the day of the robe's arising" - it is together with the dawn of the day of the robe's arising. And here, by the word "day," the dawn associated with that day is meant. Now, to show to whom it should be relinquished, and how it should be relinquished, "taking that," and so on, is said. In that, this is the method - in that relinquishing, this is the procedure. "Aññathāpi" means "also in another language," or "in any language whatsoever," is the meaning. "Paṭibalena" means "by one who is capable of speaking." "Āyatiṃ saṃvareyyāsi" means "you should practice restraint in the future," or "you should become one whose doors of body and speech are restrained," is the meaning. And these, "Do you see?" and so on, are the words to be spoken respectively by the recipient and the declarer. Thus, "Do you see?" is the word to be spoken by the recipient. "Yes, I see" is the word to be spoken by the one declaring it. "You should practice restraint in the future" is the word to be spoken by the subsequent recipient. "Good, I will restrain myself well" is the word to be spoken by the one declaring it. And by this, one shows one's established state of restraint in the future. However, in two or many offenses, the variation in wording should be made according to the previous method. In the formal announcement, where it says "remembers and reveals an offense," the variation in wording should be made as "two offenses" or "many offenses." In two or many, the variation in wording should be made as "the Sangha these robes," varying according to the object. Having thus shown the method of relinquishing to the Sangha, to show the method of relinquishing to a group, it says "however, by one relinquishing to a group," and so on. There, the rest is just like the former - meaning, in the relinquishing, receiving of the offense, and giving of the relinquished robe, except for the variation in wording stated as "of the venerable ones," and so on, the remainder is just like what was stated for the relinquishing to the Sangha, and so on. Now, to show the method of individual relinquishment, "But for the individual," etc., was said. There, "in two or three" means in two or three offenses, and in robes to be given. And just as in the relinquishment for a group, so too in the relinquishment for two, the Pāli text should be understood. If indeed there were a distinction, just as, having spoken of the purification Uposatha for three in the manner of "I allow, monks, to perform the purification Uposatha for three, and thus, monks, it should be done – by a competent, capable monk, those monks should be informed," etc. (Mahavagga 168), a separate purification Uposatha for two was stated in the manner of "I allow, monks, to perform the purification Uposatha for two, and thus, monks, it should be done – by an elder monk, with the upper robe over one shoulder," etc., so here too, a separate Pāli text would be stated. But since there is none, therefore, having not spoken, it is understood that the Pāli text stated for a group is the Pāli text here. But in the acceptance of an offense, this is the distinction – just as when an offense is confessed after relinquishment for a group, the monk who accepts the offense establishes a motion, so, without establishing it, by one of the two, just as a single individual accepts, so the offense should be accepted. For two, there is no such thing as establishing a motion. If there were, the purification Uposatha for two would not be stated separately. Even in the giving of a relinquished robe, just as one says, "I give this robe to the venerable one," so it is permissible to say, "We give this robe to the venerable one." Indeed, there are even more serious acts requiring a motion that are said to be done by merely announcing, and this is in accordance with them. Therefore, it says, "But for two," etc. But the relinquished robe must be given; it is not allowed not to give it. This is merely an act of Vinaya. It is not thereby given to the Sangha, or to a group, or to an individual.