English
in all those actions, there is a dukkaṭa for the bhikkhu. It is said that for each action of that weaver, there is a dukkaṭa for the bhikkhu. In the absence of a loom and so on, for making them, in all actions like seeking axes and adzes, sharpening them, and cutting trees, the same rule applies. Since the threads belong to oneself, the place where it is wound is already obtained, thus it says, "by obtaining it, it is nissaggiya." It is said that when it is woven to the size of the last robe, which is subject to vikappana, it becomes nissaggiya. Therefore, it will be said, "when woven a span in length, and a cubit in width, it is nissaggiya pācittiya." And here, the method of relinquishing should be understood in this way: "Venerable Sir, this robe of mine, having had the thread spun by myself, and woven by weavers, is nissaggiya." "Teneva" means by that very weaver who was instructed. "Evaṃ idha dukkaṭaṃ" means here too, when woven by the weaver a span in length and a cubit in width, it is a dukkaṭa. "Akappiyasuttamaye" means made of thread that was instructed. "Itarasmiṃ" means in the section of uninstructed thread. "Tato ce ūnatara" means if it is less than the stated measure, the intention is even as small as an eye-pupil. Just as previously it was nissaggiya for one who has thread that was instructed woven by a permissible weaver, so here it is a dukkaṭa. Therefore, for one who has both permissible and impermissible thread woven, if there are sections of impermissible thread that are the size of the last robe or smaller, there is a dukkaṭa for each count of those sections. There is no offense for sections of permissible thread. Now, if it is woven with alternating threads, or if it is permissible in length and impermissible in width, there is a dukkaṭa for each section that meets the measure. But if (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.636-638) there are two weavers, one allowable, one unallowable, and the thread is unallowable, if they weave in turns, when woven by the unallowable weaver, for each section of the proper measure, it is a pācittiya; for less, a dukkaṭa. When woven by the other, in both cases, it is a dukkaṭa. If both take the shuttle and weave together, for each section of the proper measure, it is a pācittiya. Now if the thread is allowable, and the robe has sections like those of a rice field, when woven by the unallowable weaver, for each section, it is a dukkaṭa; when woven by the other, there is no offense. If both weave together, for each section of the proper measure, it is a dukkaṭa. Now if the thread is both allowable and unallowable, if they weave in turns, when woven by the unallowable weaver, for sections made of unallowable thread, of the measure of the last robe, it is a pācittiya according to the count of sections; for less, and for sections made of allowable thread, it is a dukkaṭa. When woven by the allowable weaver, for sections made of unallowable thread, whether of proper measure or less, it is a dukkaṭa; for sections made of allowable thread, there is no offense. Now, if they weave with alternating threads, or making the length unallowable and the width unallowable, or if both take the shuttle and weave together, for a robe without sections, for each section of proper measure, it is a dukkaṭa; for a robe with sections, it is dukkaṭas according to the sections. Therefore it is said, "by this method," and so on. Here, a weaver obtained by solicitation from an unknown, uninvited person is unallowable; the rest are allowable. Thread also, if solicited by oneself, is unallowable; the rest, and that which arises through relatives etc., should be understood as allowable. "Three pācittiyas" means three pācittiyas based on the perception of having caused to weave, doubt about having caused to weave, and not having caused to weave, when it has been caused to weave. "Thread solicited for a robe" means thread solicited by oneself or by another for a robe. Although in the Pāli it is said, "having solicited thread oneself," yet here "thread solicited by oneself for a robe" is not And not only "thread requested for a robe" because it is stated in the sections, but also other thread requested for a robe should be understood to be included. By an improper request: "Friend, weave a robe for me," by such an improper request. The explanation of the training rule on requesting thread is finished. 7. The explanation of the training rule on the great weaver "Having not been invited beforehand by the robe-owners" means: "What kind of robe do you need, venerable sir? What kind of robe should I have woven for you? Speak, venerable sir, what you wish." having not been spoken to beforehand by the robe-owners. And here, by the three (methods) such as 'lengthening', together with the manner of increasing the thread, it shows the manner of weaving; by the four (methods) such as 'well-woven', it shows only the manner of weaving. "We would give some amount" and so on, is merely a showing of the way it should be done, and not a showing of the parts, because it is to be incurred only by way of increasing the thread. Therefore it says, "not merely by giving almsfood to the bhikkhu" and so on. And here, by this method, the procedure for relinquishment should be understood, as in "Venerable sir, this robe of mine, having not been invited beforehand, having approached an unknown householder's weaver, has incurred a doubt regarding the robe, it is to be relinquished." (Pārā. 643) "Three Pācittiyas" means: in the case of an unknown person, by way of the perception of an unknown person, doubt, and the perception of a known person, there are three Pācittiyas. The explanation of the training rule on the great weaver is finished. 8. The explanation of the training rule on the urgent robe "Of the first word" means: of the word "not yet ten days". "By the former method" means: only by way of absolute connection. "Those days" means: in those days. "Absolutely" means: continuously, it is said to be on any day whatsoever within those ten days. "Of the Pavāraṇā month" means: of the former Katthika month. For it here, due to the connection with the first Pavāraṇā, is called "Pavāraṇā month". "Starting from the fifth of the bright fortnight" means: making the fifth of the bright fortnight the beginning. Or "the fifth of the bright fortnight of the Pavāraṇā month" from the announcement of the Pavāraṇā month, means starting from the fifth of the bright fortnight of the preceding (month). But here, a reading is seen (which says): "Although it is established by this (rule): 'An extra robe should be kept for a maximum of ten days,' the training rule was laid down by showing a meaning as if it were new, by way of its origin story." That is a careless reading; it should be understood as being in conflict with "not having passed ten days." Moreover, since it is stated: "starting from the fifth day of the bright fortnight," there might even be an internal contradiction in the commentary itself. An emergency robe is called an urgent robe. And to show that this urgency is due to the giver's state as a traveler, and so on, it is said: "of persons who are travelers, sick, pregnant, or newly arisen in faith," and so on. There, a traveler is said to be one "who desires to go with an army, or desires to go on a journey." "Given by one of them, having announced: 'I will give a rain-residence robe,'" means a robe given by one who desires to give due to reasons such as travel by one of the travelers, etc., having sent a messenger or having come oneself, and announced: "I will give a rain-residence robe." And here, the procedure for relinquishment should be understood according to this method: "This emergency robe of mine, venerable sir, has exceeded the robe-period; it is to be relinquished." The rest (refers to) "general promulgation," and so on. But this is the distinction: there, in the case of an extra robe, it is the passing of ten days for one who perceives it as an extra robe, and so on; here, in the case of an emergency robe, it is the passing of the robe-period for one who perceives it as an emergency robe, and so on. Similarly, for one who perceives an un-emergency robe as an emergency robe, and for one who is in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa. The distinction here is the four-fold condition: the emergency robe being complete in kind and measure, its arising before the ten days of the Katthika three-month full moon, its not being determined or dedicated, and the passing of the robe-period. The explanation of the training rule concerning the emergency robe is finished. 9. Explanation of the training rule concerning doubt. As in "Upasampajja" and so on. In the analysis of: "he dwells having entered the first jhana," (Vibhanga 508), "upasampajja..." 'is to be removed. "Upasampajja" is removed. This is given here as an example. By the word 'ādi' (etc.), the collection of "or he may go without asking," etc., should be understood. "Upagantvā" explains the meaning of the prefix "upa." "Vasitvā" means having stayed without interruption. By the rule, "With whom there is a connection, even if far away, that belongs to him," it is said, "This... is connected with this." Therein, "imassa" refers to the word "upavassa." The definition of a forest according to the Vinaya is found in the Adinnādāna Pārājika. There, "from a village or from a forest," to show both without distinction, by encompassing all places of theft, and to distinguish them, it is said, "except for a village," etc. For in the world, the precincts of a village are considered to be the village itself. Here, however, according to the Suttanta, it refers to a forest-dwelling bhikkhu where it is said, "five hundred bows as the limit." For he, living in a forest according to the Vinaya, is not called "a forest-dweller, one whose bed and seat are in the wilderness" in the Sutta. Therefore, showing that the definition found there should be taken,