English
Now, to show the characteristic of non-separation of the three robes, as stated in "should not remain without the three robes for more than one night," the exemption mentioned in the udosita training rule (Pārā. 471 onwards) is given, beginning with "in a village." There, the connection is: "having laid down the three robes in a village or... in a monastery." There, just as in "the cloth is burnt" and so on, even one of the three robes is called "the three robes" by way of the collective term for a part. "Except by the permission of bhikkhus" means without the permission for separation from the robe given by the Sangha to a sick bhikkhu. "To be separated" means to reside outside the single precinct or multiple precincts of a village, etc., or beyond the reach of the hand of the dwelling, etc., and the inner rooms within it, or the robe itself, thus being separated from the robe. Here, the single precinct and multiple precincts of villages, etc., should be understood in terms of the enclosure of a village, etc., belonging to one family or many families, and the space of the enclosure, and in terms of the inner and outer spaces of caravans. There, one inner space is twenty-eight cubits. Here, dwellings, etc., should be understood as situated outside the village, since the village is taken separately, and a dwelling different from udosita, etc. There, udosita means a hall for goods like vehicles. A pāsāda is a long mansion. A hammiya is a mansion with a flat roof. A boat, a tower, a turret, an park - a boat... a park, in that. Aṭṭa (tower) means a special kind of dwelling made of bricks, with thick walls, four or five stories high, for repelling rebel kings, etc. Māḷa (turret) is a square mansion with a single peak. Ārāma (park) is a flower garden or a fruit garden. Sattho (caravan) and khetta (field) and khala (threshing floor) is a dvanda compound. Sattho means a foot caravan or a cart caravan. Khala is called a place for threshing grain. Dumo (tree) means the space covered by the shade of the tree root, by way of a precinct. Abbhokāsa (open air) is in the forest, without a village, and... (hippeto.) 49. Now, by "this...and so on...the outer robe," the revocation of nine items has been stated, but not their time limit. To show that, "diseases," and so on, was begun. There, "Devadatta" means "given," and even by a part of the name, due to the usage of names, the rain-cloth is called "cloth" because its meaning is understood by context. And the itch-covering is for the duration of diseases and rains. "Diseases and rains" are "rogavassānā" (diseases-rains), meaning they are the limits by which they must be revoked upon their passing. What is meant? The rain-cloth must be revoked only at the full moon of Kattika, after the passing of the rain months. Similarly, the itch-covering when the ailments have subsided. For it is said in the Commentary: "Having revoked, it should be offered for sharing" (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469). Here, however, some teachers said: "Having revoked means having removed it from being a rain-cloth." That is not appropriate. Because the word "revocation" is seen only in the context of the act of revocation and discipline, and from the Pāli statement: "To determine for four months, and after that, to offer for sharing" (Mahāva. 358). And "to determine for four months" shows an absolute connection with the determination for four months, so no breaking of the determination is understood by that. Therefore, even in the Kurundi Commentary, it is said: "To determine for the four months of the rains, and after that, to offer for sharing" (Mahāva. 358), meaning that it should be revoked at the full moon of Kattika and offered for sharing in the winter. Therefore, it is said: "The rain-cloth, even after the passing of the rain months, and the itch-covering, even after the subsidence of ailments, abandon their determination" (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Even in the Mātika Commentary, the meaning should be taken as: "even by way of revocation, it abandons its determination." If this is so, all commentaries agree, and the reasoning is not contradictory. "After that" means after the revocation. "Should offer for sharing" means having revoked the itch-covering, he should offer it for sharing. having taken back the rain-cloth on the Kattika full moon day, he should determine it on the first day of winter. If not, it is a dukkaṭa, this is the intention. "The rest" means the other seven robes are the rest. "Without limit" means there is no end, no time limit like what was said, for these. 50. Now, to show that the four robes beginning with the covering cloth, such as with fringes, are allowable, but not others, he says "covering cloth" and so on. There, "parikkhāra and mukhapuñchana" is a dvanda compound. "Parikkhāra-mukhapuñchana-coḷaka" is a kammadhāraya compound. However, because the word "coḷaka" is heard at the end of the dvanda compound, it should be seen after the word "parikkhāra", as "parikkhāra-coḷaka". But that, being established in a special sense for general indication, apart from the five robes designated by the name "parikkhāra-coḷaka", the rest should be understood. "The covering cloth, and the parikkhāra-mukhapuñchana-coḷaka, and the covering cloth... and the coḷaka, and the sitting cloth" – this set of four robes is allowable even with fringes, even uncolored, even without a determined kappiya mark, this is the connection. "With fringes" means with whatever fringes it may have. "Even with fringes" means when it is allowable with fringes, it is also allowable without fringes, and also with flower fringes, this is the meaning here. The word "pi" (even) is for collecting what is said and unsaid. "Uncolored" means not dyed with blue, yellow, etc. By the word "pi", it also means dyed blue, yellow, etc., and "without a determined kappiya mark". "Without a determined kappiya mark" means that which does not have a determined kappiya mark. By the word "pi", it also means with a determined kappiya mark. But, "Monks, all blue robes are not to be worn," and so on (Mahāva. 372), all blue, all yellow, all red robes are generally prohibited, so how are these four robes allowable with fringes and so on? And how are they allowable even without a determined kappiya mark? It is said – "At that time, a certain bhikkhu wearing a grass-robe," and so on, in the arisen cases (Mahāva. 371), "Monks, a grass-robe... the banner of sectarians is not to be worn. Whoever wears it, there is an offense." And because wearing, which is called covering and wrapping, was prohibited in the context of the arisen matter, starting with "of a grave offense" (Mahavagga 371). And because in the commentary there (Mahavagga Commentary 372), it is stated regarding wearing and using, in the context of covering and wrapping: "All blue, etc., dyes should be washed and dyed again before being worn. If they cannot be washed, they should be made into coverings, or placed in the middle of a double robe. Long fringes that are not cut should have their fringes cut before being worn. If one obtains a jacket, it is permissible to tear it, dye it, and use it. The same method applies to a turban." And because in the rule of training concerning making a robe dull-colored (Pacittiya Commentary 368), it is stated: "That which can be worn or wrapped is to be known as a robe," and because the five robes are allowed to have a mark (kappabindu). The five robes, namely the three robes, the undergarment, the covering, and the rain-cloak, are only those worn on the body, without fringes, not entirely blue, etc., dyed with permissible dye, and are considered permissible if acquired. The other four robes, not necessarily renounced, even with fringes, etc., are permissible even if not acquired as permissible. 51. The remaining five robes, only without fringes, only dyed, are permissible only if acquired as permissible – this is the connection. "Dyed" means dyed with permissible dye. To prohibit the meaning of "without fringes" everywhere for the sitting cloth, in the sense stated, it is said: "The sitting cloth must have fringes." Indeed, when there is possibility and deviation, a qualification is meaningful. 52. Now, what is the practice regarding what is not designated and not relinquished? To show that, it begins with "not designated." Here, "not designated" means not designated as the three robes, etc. "Not relinquished" means not given to anyone by way of a gift. "He should use it after making a determination" means he should observe the state of being one or many, and the state of being near or not near, according to the method to be stated, and then make a determination, revoke it, and use it. However, since it is understood by the method to be stated, "having revoked" is not mentioned. Now, what is meant by "having determined"? What kind of determination is it that is determined by the lower end? It says, "by hand," and so on. There, "hand-long" is that which is long by a hand. "From that" means from that hand. "Half-width" is that which has a width of the second part of a hand, which is called a span. 53. Now, the aforementioned rule is only for one who observes the three robes. But another person practices differently. To show this, it says, "of the three robes," and so on. There, "one with three robes" means one for whom the three robes are designated by name. This means one who observes the three robes according to the Vinaya, not one whose robes are designated by the name of "requisite cloth." However, for one who observes the three robes according to the Vinaya, there is no loss as stated in the Udositā Sikkhāpada. "Requisite cloth wearer" means one who has requisite cloth, with the suffix -ṇika and the letter -ya. "All" means all nine kinds of robes. "Having said thus" means having known the state of being one or many, and the state of being near or not near, and having said, "I determine this as requisite cloth," and so on.