English
Therefore, it says, "a relinquished object," etc. For one who uses it without relinquishing, there is an offense of wrong-doing, meaning having worn it once, or having put it on once. If one walks for a day without releasing it from the body, it is one dukkaṭa. If one releases it and puts it on or covers oneself with it, it is a dukkaṭa for each attempt. There is no offense for one who adjusts a badly worn or badly covered robe. There is no offense even for another who uses it. And the statement here (Pārā. 570) "receiving and using what was made by another" is supportive. Even when ten days have not passed, for one who perceives they have passed, and for one who is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa; here too, "while using" should be brought in and connected. "For one who perceives it has not passed when it has passed" means for one who perceives "this has not passed" regarding a robe after ten days have passed, or for one who perceives "ten days have not passed" when ten days have passed. Now, gathering and showing the offenses such as "for one who perceives it is authorized when it is unauthorized, it is nissaggiya," he says "likewise" and so on. "Likewise" means: just as there is a tikapācittiya due to a change of perception when ten days have passed, likewise there is a change of perception regarding "authorized" and so on in the seven categories such as "unauthorized." Therein, "for one who perceives it is released when it is not released" means for one who perceives "it has been given, it has been relinquished by me" when it has not been given or relinquished to anyone. "For one who perceives it is lost when it is not lost" means: many robes of others are placed together with one's own robe; if thieves steal them, and one perceives one's own robe is lost when it is not lost, it is for that one who perceives it is lost. This method applies to "not destroyed" and so on. Here, "not plundered" should be understood as not plundered by breaking into the house and forcibly carrying away. "Released" (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469) means given to another. But how is it given? How is it received? If one says, "I give this to you, I give, I shall give, I offer, I relinquish, I release, I abandon," or if one says, "I give to so-and-so... ...I abandon," it is considered given whether in person or not in person. When "take it for yourself" is said, and one says "I take it for myself," it is well given and well received. "Make it your own, your property." "Let it be, you will make it yours," when this is said, he says, "I make it mine, let it be mine, I will make it mine." It is badly given, and badly taken. Neither does the giver know how to give, nor the other how to take. But if, when "make it yours" is said, he takes it saying, "Good, venerable sir, I take it for myself," it is well taken. But if one says, "Take it," and the other says, "I do not take it," again he says, "I have given it to you, take it," and the other says, "I have no need of this." Then the former passes ten days saying, "It was given by me," and the latter saying, "It was refused by me." Whose offense is it? No one's. But whoever wishes, by him it should be determined and used. But what should be done by one who is doubtful about the determination? Having declared his doubt, and saying, "If it is undetermined, then it is allowable for me," it should be relinquished in the manner stated. For indeed, one who performs a Vinaya act having thus made it known does not commit a falsehood. And just as this, so also the others from now on. Just as this rule concerning the keeping of an extra robe is a transgression of conduct, so also the other rules from now on are transgressions of conduct, this is the meaning. Therefore it is said, "In both Pātimokkhas," etc. But due to transgressions concerning livelihood, excluding wrong speech, six groups of offenses are laid down: For the sake of livelihood, for the cause of livelihood, an evil-wisher, overcome by desire, boasts of a non-existent, unreal superhuman state, offense of pārājika. For the sake of livelihood, for the cause of livelihood, he acts as a go-between, offense of saṅghādisesa. For the sake of livelihood, for the cause of livelihood, he says, "The monk who lives in your monastery is an arahant," for one who understands, offense of thullaccaya. For the sake of livelihood, for the cause of livelihood, a monk, not sick, having requested choice food for himself, eats it, offense of pācittiya. For the sake of livelihood, for the cause of livelihood, a nun, not sick, having requested choice food for herself... eats, there is an offense of acknowledgment. For the sake of livelihood, for the reason of livelihood, a bhikkhu, not sick, having requested soup or rice for himself, eats it, there is an offense of wrong-doing. Thus, excluding pārājika and so on, and wrong speech, due to failure in livelihood, six groups of offenses are laid down. Due to failure in view, two groups of offenses, namely pācittiya and dukkaṭa, are laid down. In the admonition, for not abandoning a bad view, there is a dukkaṭa for the motion, and at the conclusion of the formal act, there is a pācittiya. Thus, due to failure in view, two groups of offenses, namely pācittiya and dukkaṭa, are laid down. Here, in the discussions of failures. 'Included in the count' means the state of being included in the day-count. Even if given by others into another's hand, saying: "We give this robe to so-and-so," it is said in the chapter on hides: "it is not yet included in the count until it reaches the hand." Therefore, until it is brought and given, or until it is announced, having been sent: "Venerable sir, a robe has arisen for you," it does not enter the day-count. It is permissible without formal determination. But when it is brought and given, or heard as "it has arisen," from that point it is included in the count, and it must be formally determined within ten days. Its origination, called Kathina, means Kathina origination; that is, two originations, by way of the third and sixth originations. By not performing the formal determination and relinquishment that should be done by body and speech, it originates from body and speech. But when there is intention, it is said to originate from body, speech, and mind. Since it is incurred by way of not formally determining and not relinquishing, it is non-action. Even one who does not know incurs it, thus it is not released by perception. Since what should be done through the body door and the speech door is not done, it is a bodily action and a verbal action. The commentary on the Kathina training rule is finished. 2. Commentary on the Udosita training rule 'Bhikkhunā' means 'of a bhikkhu'; this is an instrumental case in the sense of possession. Therefore it is said: "as in the previous training rule," and so on. Now, why is the instrumental case used only in the instrumental sense... Taking that, the meaning should be understood in a general sense, thus he says, "by way of the cause, indeed," and so on. "Hi" is a particle in the sense of cause. "Chinnapalibodha" means one whose impediments of robes and dwelling are cut off. One night is "ekarattaṃ," the meaning of the compound's ending. The collection of three robes is "ticīvaraṃ." By that "ticīvaraṃ," meaning by three robes. Even if one is separated from one (robe), one is indeed called separated from the "ticīvaraṃ" because of being separated from what is included in the prohibited, or by the common usage of the whole even for a part. Therefore, he says, "by the method of establishing the three robes," and so on. Now, in order to define the characteristic of separation, he says, "a village with one approach," and so on. Therein, "nivesana" is a term for a dwelling structure not made in the manner of a "udositā," etc. "Udositā" is a hall for vehicles and goods. Which is also called "udavasita." "Aṭṭa" is a special dwelling, made of bricks with thick walls, four or five stories high, to ward off rival kings and so on. "Aṭṭa" is a thick-walled house, whose rafters are not used, but the roof is made of bricks, say others. They also say, "it is made in the form of an aṭṭa." "Māḷa" is a square palace with a single pinnacle, or a special dwelling with many corners and a single pinnacle. "Māḷa" is a circular dwelling, say others. "Pāsāda" is a long palace, or any palace of the "aḍḍhayoga" type, etc., excluding "aṭṭa," "māḷa," and "hammiya." "Hammiya" is a palace with a flat roof. "Equipped with a moon-terrace," say others. "Nāvā" (boat) is of two kinds: land-based and water-based. "Satthā" (caravan) is a walking caravan or a cart caravan. "Dhaññakaraṇa" (place for making grain) is called a threshing floor. "Ārāma" is a flower garden or a fruit garden. "Vihāra" is a complete dwelling, enclosed or unenclosed. "Even a house," say some. Here, "nivesana" and so on refer to those situated outside the village. However, those within the village are included by the term "village" itself, thus they are considered part of the village. "Nivesana and so on..." or others say, "ending with an iron mansion, situated outside the village enclosure." Here, "exceeding the arm's reach" means: arm's reach is a space of two and a half cubits. Exceeding that is "exceeding the arm's reach"; in that exceeding of the arm's reach. But within the arm's reach, it is permissible to dwell. Even if a bhikkhu with psychic power, having exceeded that measure, causes the dawn to rise in the sky, it is still an offense entailing relinquishment. Here is the decision regarding this: If (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.477-478) a village belongs to a single family, by way of a single king or chieftain, and is enclosed by a wall or the like, thus having a single precinct, in such a village, having deposited the robe, one should dwell in any desired place within that village. If it is not enclosed, one should dwell in the house where the robe is deposited, and one should not go beyond