RAINS-RESIDENCE

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Rains-residence

Well before the Buddha’s time there was a custom in India that wanderers would stay in place for the rainy season, both to avoid having to negotiate muddy roads and to avoid trampling plants. Bhikkhus in the early years of the Buddha’s teaching career were criticized by the Jains for not observing this custom, so the Buddha gave his permission for them to stop their wandering for three months of the Rains. Later he imposed a penalty for not observing this custom.

Periods of residence

Because the rainy season in South Asia is roughly four months, bhikkhus are allowed to choose between two periods of Rains-residence: the first, starting the day after the full moon of the month of Asāḷhi (roughly July); and the second, starting the day after the following full moon. At present, the first Rains-residence starts on the full moon in July, or the second if there are two. Why the Buddha formulated two periods of Rains-residence, the Canon does not say. From the Commentary’s discussion of Mv.II.21.4, it would appear that if one enters the first Rains and then, for one reason or another, “breaks” the Rains (see below) within the first month, one would still be eligible to enter the second Rains so as to receive the privileges contingent on its successful completion.

In the Buddha’s time, the determination of the lunar calendar was one of the responsibilities of the government in each kingdom or republic. Thus, to avoid controversy, the Buddha allowed that the wishes of kings be respected in this matter: If a king wanted to postpone the designation of the Asāḷhi full moon another month, bhikkhus were allowed to comply. (The rule coming from this origin story is stated in more general terms—“I allow that kings be complied with”—showing the general principle that we noted under Chapter 7, that the Buddha was not so foolish as to try to legislate for kings. The Commentary notes, however, that this principle applies only in matters in which the king’s wish is in line with the Dhamma. No one, it says, should be complied with in matters where their wishes are not in line with the Dhamma.) At present, the governments of only a few countries concern themselves with calculating the lunar calendar for the sake of the general population. In other countries this point is not an issue, and the bhikkhus are free to calculate the lunar calendar without regard to the government’s calculations.

Entering for the Rains

The first day of the Rains-residence is when lodgings in a monastery are assigned for the duration of the Rains, so the Commentary recommends that a bhikkhu planning to spend the Rains in another monastery should start heading there a month before the start of the Rains so as not to inconvenience the assigner of lodgings and other bhikkhus there. As for bhikkhus planning to stay on in the monastery where they are already residing, they should spend the month before the beginning of the Rains preparing any worn-down buildings so that those who come for the Rains will study and/or practice meditation in comfort. The assigner of lodgings should assign lodgings for the Rains at dawn of the day the Rains begins. If other bhikkhus come later in the day and there are no extra spaces for them, they should be told that the lodgings have been assigned and that they should go to other lodgings, such as the foot of a tree. (What this means, apparently, is that they should enter the second Rains somewhere else, as the Canon contains a rule against entering the Rains in anything less than a proper dwelling. See below.)

Mv.III.4.2 states that on a day for beginning the Rains one should not intentionally pass by a residence/monastery not desiring to enter for the Rains. How this applies to the beginning of the second Rains period is obvious: A bhikkhu must stop for the Rains on that day. As for the beginning of the first Rains period, the Commentary notes simply that if there are obstacles (see below), one may choose to enter the second Rains period instead. One obstacle not mentioned in the list below, however, is discussed in Mv.II.21.4. This is the case of a monastery where many (i.e., four or more) bhikkhus—“inexperienced and incompetent”—are staying for the Rains and none of them knows the uposatha or the uposatha transaction, the Pāṭimokkha or the recital of the Pāṭimokkha. One of them should be sent to a neighboring monastery immediately to master the Pāṭimokkha in brief or in its full extent. If he can manage it immediately, well and good. If not, one of them should be sent to a neighboring monastery for a period of seven days to master the Pāṭimokkha in brief or in its full extent. If he can manage it within seven days, well and good. If not, then all the bhikkhus should go stay for the Rains in the neighboring monastery. If they stay where they are, they all incur a dukkaṭa. None of the texts discuss the point, but apparently “going to stay for the Rains” in the neighboring monastery means entering the second Rains there.

The Commentary adds here that if a monastery has only one bhikkhu who knows the Pāṭimokkha and he dies, leaves, or disrobes in the first month of the first Rains, the remainder should go where there is someone who knows the Pāṭimokkha and stay there for the second Rains. If the knowledgeable bhikkhu dies, leaves, or disrobes in the latter two months of the first Rains, the remainder may stay there for the remainder of the Rains without offense.

However, one does not have to spend the Rains in a monastery. One may also live alone or in a small, ad hoc group as long as one stays in a proper lodging and knows the uposatha transaction appropriate for one’s number (see Chapter 15). In general, the Commentary says that a proper lodging is one with a door that can be opened and closed. Improper lodging arrangements listed in the Canon include living in the hollow of a tree (“like goblins”), in the fork of a tree (“like hunters”), in the open air, in a non-lodging (according to the Commentary, this means a place covered with the five kinds of allowable facing/roofing but lacking a door that can be opened and closed), in a charnel house (a place for keeping corpses, says the Commentary, adding that other proper lodgings within a charnel ground are all right), under a canopy, or in a large storage vessel (the Commentary interprets this as a shield). The Commentary notes that if one fixes up a hut in the hollow of a tree or the fork of a tree with a platform, a proper roof, walls, and a door, it is all right to stay there. The same holds true with a canopy or a shield if it is fitted with walls nailed to four posts and provided with a door that can be opened and closed. Yurts would thus be allowable.

The Canon also gives permission to stay in a cowherd camp, with a caravan, or in a boat. If, during the Rains, any of these picks up and moves, one is allowed to go along. The Commentary adds that if one is planning to stay with a caravan, one should inform the caravan people that one needs a small hut on one of the carts. If they provide that, one may take that hut as one’s residence for the Rains. If not, one may take as one’s residence the space under a tall cart. If that is not possible, one should not enter the Rains with that caravan. If one is joining the caravan in hopes of arriving at a particular destination, then if the caravan reaches that destination one is allowed to remain there even if the caravan continues on its way. If the caravan breaks up, one should remain at the spot where it breaks up until the end of the Rains. If one has entered the Rains in a boat, then if the boat ends its trip, one should stay at that spot. If the boat is following the river bank or sea coast and arrives at one’s destination, one may stay there even if the boat continues its journey.

At present, these allowances would extend to caravan/trailers, mobile homes, and other similar vehicles.

Breaking one’s promise

If a bhikkhu has accepted an invitation to stay at a certain place for the Rains but then does not fulfill his promise by not staying at the place, he incurs a dukkaṭa for the broken promise and becomes ineligible for the privileges contingent on having completed that Rains-residence. (Literally, the rule says that his first Rains “isn’t discerned,” which means that it doesn’t count.) The Sub-commentary misses the point of this rule, which has led to its general misinterpretation. In the origin story, Ven. Upananda accepts an invitation to spend the Rains at one spot and then decides to spend the Rains at two other locations. The Sub-commentary maintains that his Rains was invalidated by the fact that he determined two locations for his Rains; however, Mv.VIII.25.4 shows that spending the Rains in two locations, spending half of one’s time at one and half at the other, is perfectly legitimate. Thus the only possible reason for Ven. Upananda’s first Rains not to count is because he broke his promise.

The Canon also states that one also incurs the dukkaṭa for breaking one’s promise in this situation if one goes to the agreed location and then “breaks” one’s Rains (see below). The Commentary notes in either case that if one originally made the promise with the intention of breaking it, one incurs both the dukkaṭa for the broken promise and a pācittiya for lying. From the way these rules are phrased in the Canon—“one’s first (Rains) isn’t discerned”—it would appear that if one promised to stay for the first Rains but then broke the promise, one would still be eligible to stay at the promised place, or elsewhere, for the second Rains and be eligible for the lesser privileges contingent on having completed the second Rains, but none of the commentaries mention this point.

Determination

The only formality mentioned in the Canon for starting a Rains-residence is that one prepares one’s lodging, sets out drinking-water and washing-water, and sweeps the area. The Commentary, however, recommends making a formal determination: After paying respects to the cetiya, etc., one should say one or two times:

If staying in a place that does not qualify as a vihāra—as in a hut on a cart in a caravan—one should say three times:

Different Communities have developed the Commentary’s recommendations in different ways. In some, the phrase “paying respects to the cetiya, etc.,” has been expanded to a tradition where the bhikkhus formally ask forgiveness of the Triple Gem and of one another in line with seniority. Because the word vihāra can be translated either as “dwelling” or as “monastery,” some Communities have avoided ambiguity first by formally announcing the boundaries of the area of one’s residence for the three months—usually covering the entire territory of the monastery—and by changing the determination to:

A common practice is to say this three times, instead of the one or two times recommended in the Commentary.

If, however, a bhikkhu prefers to limit his boundaries to the area around his hut, he is free to make that determination on his own.

Duration

Once a bhikkhu has entered the Rains, he must not go wandering off for the next three months. According to the Commentary, this means that he must greet the rising of dawn each day during those three months within the area he has determined for his residence. If he greets even one dawn outside of his determined area, his residence is broken. In breaking his residence, he both incurs a dukkaṭa and becomes ineligible for the privileges contingent on having completed the Rains.

There are, however, two exceptions to this rule: going on legitimate seven-day business and breaking the residence because of valid obstacles.

Seven-day business

The first exception to the rule concerning duration is that if one has legitimate business, one is allowed to go away for up to seven days. In the Commentary’s terms, this means that one may be away from one’s residence for up to six dawns and must return to greet the rising of the seventh dawn within the area that one has determined for one’s residence.

The legitimacy of the business is determined by the nature of the business, the person who needs one’s help, and whether that person sends for one to come.

If any one of seven classes of people asks for one’s help—a fellow bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a female trainee, a male novice, a female novice, a male lay follower, a female lay follower—one may go if sent for, but not if not sent for, if the business concerns that person’s desire to make merit, to hear the Dhamma, or to see the bhikkhus. The Canon gives a long list of situations in which a person—lay or ordained—might want a bhikkhu to come for these purposes. The list is not meant to be exhaustive, but it provides an interesting glimpse of the merit-making occasions of the time: The donor has arranged the construction of a building, either for the Community, for a group of bhikkhus, or a single bhikkhu; he/she has arranged the construction of a building for his/her own use. Other occasions, given only in the case of a lay follower, include the following: His/her son or daughter is getting married; he/she has fallen ill; or he/she has memorized an important discourse and wants to pass it on so that it does not disappear with his/her death (which, in the days before written transmission, could easily have happened). In all these cases, the Sub-commentary says that if one goes without being sent for, one has broken one’s Rains-residence and incurred an offense.

There are other cases in which one may go, even if not sent for—all the more if sent for—if any of the following situations arises concerning a fellow bhikkhu, a bhikkhunī, a female trainee, a novice, or a female novice, and one plans to be of help:

Furthermore, in the case of a bhikkhu or bhikkhunī, one may go if he/she has committed a saṅghādisesa offense and needs help in the steps leading to rehabilitation, is about to become the object of a Community disciplinary transaction (such as censure), or has had a Community disciplinary transaction imposed on him/her. In the case of a female trainee, one may go if she has broken her training rules and interrupted her training, and one wants to help her undertake her training again. In the case of a male novice or female trainee, one may also go if he/she wants to determine his/her eligibility for ordination or wants to be ordained. In the case of a female novice, one may go if she wants to determine her eligibility to become a female trainee or to take on the female trainee’s training.

If either of one’s parents falls ill, one may go even if not sent for, all the more if sent for. If any of one’s other relatives fall ill, or if a person who lives in dependence on the bhikkhus falls ill, one may go only if sent for, not if not sent for.

In all of the cases where one may go if not sent for, the Canon depicts the person in question as sending a messenger with a general invitation for bhikkhus to come. The Commentary notes, though, that the invitation is not a prerequisite for being allowed to go. Even if no message or messenger is sent, one may still go on seven-day business as long as one goes with the purpose of being of help.

One may also go on Community business. The example given in the Canon: A Community dwelling has fallen into disrepair and a lay follower has taken the goods from the dwelling and stashed them away in the wilderness. He asks for bhikkhus to come and take them to put them into safe keeping. Examples given in the Commentary: One may go to help with construction work on a cetiya, a hall, or even the hut of an individual bhikkhu. However, this last example—because it is for individual rather than Community business—seems to go beyond the Canon’s intent.

Finally, as noted above, if one has started spending the Rains in a residence with four or more bhikkhus, none of whom knows the Pāṭimokkha in full or in brief, one of the bhikkhus may go to a neighboring residence for up to seven days to learn the Pāṭimokkha.

Under the heading of seven-day business, the Commentary gives some extra allowances that it admits do not come from the Canon. If, before the Rains, a group of bhikkhus set a date for a meeting during the Rains—the context of the Commentary’s allowance suggests that the meeting would be to listen to a Dhamma talk—one may treat it as seven-day business, but not if one’s intention in going is simply to wash one’s belongings. However, if one’s mentor sends one there for whatever purpose (even for washing one’s robes, says the Sub-commentary) one may go for seven days. If one goes to a monastery that is not far away, intending to return that day, but for some reason cannot return in time, one may treat it as seven-day business. One may not use the seven-day allowance for recitation and interrogation—i.e., memorizing and studying the meaning of the Dhamma—yet if one goes with the purpose of visiting one’s mentor and returning that day, but the mentor tells one to stay on, it is all right to stay. The Sub-commentary adds here that one may even stay on for more than seven days without incurring an offense, although one’s Rains will be broken. Because these allowances have no basis in the Canon, many Communities do not recognize them as valid.

The Commentary notes, citing a passage in Mv.III.14.6, that one may leave for seven-day business even on the first day of the Rains, and there is apparently no limit to the number of times one may go for seven-day business during the following three months. This opens the possibility of taking up Rains-residence in more than one place, alternating short periods in one residence and then the other. We will deal with the implications of this possibility below. Mv.III.14.7 indicates that if one leaves on seven-day business less than seven days before the end of the Rains-residence, one need not return.

None of the texts make exemption for the case where a bhikkhu, going on legitimate seven-day business and planning to return in time, ends up spending more than seven days, either through forgetfulness or through circumstances beyond his control. In other words, whether he intends to or not, if he overstays his seven-day limit, his Rains-residence is broken and he incurs an offense.

Obstacles

The second exception to the rule concerning duration is that a bhikkhu may break his Rains-residence at any time if there are valid obstacles for doing so. He does not incur an offense, but does relinquish his right to the privileges that come with having completed the Rains.

Mv.III.9.1–Mv.III.11.13 gives a long list of valid obstacles, which Pv.VI.4 divides into four sorts: dangers to life, dangers to the holy life, a threatened split in the Community, and an actual split in the Community.

Dangers to life

Bhikkhus may break the Rains without offense if they are

With regard to the beasts, the Commentary notes that “seize and attack” also includes cases where the beasts, having surrounded one, chase one away, frighten one, or kill someone else in the vicinity.

Also, if the village where the bhikkhus have entered for the Rains is burned or carried away by a flood, and the bhikkhus suffer in terms of alms; or if their own lodgings are burned or carried away by a flood and they suffer in terms of lodgings, they may leave without offense.

If the village on which they depend moves to a new location, the bhikkhus may follow along. If the village splits, they are to go to the location where the majority of villagers have gone or to the location where the faithful supporters have gone. However, the Commentary recommends that if the village moves only a short distance away and is still within range for alms-going, one should stay in place. If it goes farther than that, one may follow the village to its new location but should try to return to one’s original place every seven dawns to keep the Rains. If that isn’t possible, one should stay with congenial bhikkhus in the village’s new location.

If the bhikkhus do not get enough food for their needs; or if the food is plentiful but uncongenial to them; or if the food is plentiful and congenial, but they don’t receive congenial medicine; of it they don’t get a suitable attendant, they may leave without offense. The Vinaya-mukha interprets the allowance in these instances as valid only if one’s health is in serious jeopardy.

Dangers to the holy life

If anyone tries to tempt a bhikkhu, offering him wealth or a wife (or to be his wife), or if he sees abandoned treasure, and in any of these cases he reflects, “The Blessed One says that the mind is easily changed. This could be an obstacle to my holy life,” he may break the Rains without offense.

A threatened split in the Community

If many bhikkhus are striving for a schism in the Community where one is living and one doesn’t want the Community to be split in one’s presence, one may leave. However, if bhikkhus in another residence are striving for a schism in their Community and one feels that one might be able to talk them out of it, one may go to their residence. The same holds true if bhikkhunīs are striving for a split in the Community. The Commentary—assuming that Community here means the Bhikkhu Saṅgha—objects to this allowance on the grounds that bhikkhunīs cannot split the Bhikkhu Saṅgha. However, the original meaning of the Pali may have been that the bhikkhunīs were striving for a schism in their own Community. In this case, one may break the Rains without offense in order to try to prevent the split.

A split in the Community

If bhikkhus or bhikkhunīs in another residence have split their Community, one may break the Rains to go there. The Commentary raises another objection here, on the grounds that once the Community has split nothing can be done; and that the Pali should thus read, “the bhikkhus are about to split the Community.” This, however, ignores the very real possibility that both sides of the split have been acting in good faith, and that one may bring them to a reconciliation. (See Chapter 21, especially Mv.X.5.14 & Mv.X.6.1.)

If any of these four kinds of obstacles arises and one can handle the situation by going away for no more than seven days, the Commentary recommends returning within seven days so as not to break the Rains. In other words, the situation is to be treated as legitimate seven-day business. If this cannot be managed, one commits no offense, but one becomes ineligible for the privileges that come with having completed the Rains.

In addition to these four categories, there is also the rule mentioned above that if many bhikkhus have begun the Rains in a residence where none of them knows the Pāṭimokkha and they cannot arrange for one of their number to memorize the Pāṭimokkha in a nearby residence within seven days, they are to leave their original to residence to spend the Rains in the neighboring residence.

Non-dhamma agreements

Traditionally, the Rains-residence is a time for becoming more stringent in one’s practice. Often, bhikkhus staying together will make group vows as a way of offering encouragement to one another. However, there is a rule against making agreements that are not in accord with the Dhamma. In the origin story for this rule, a group of bhikkhus agreed not to ordain any new bhikkhus during the Rains. A relative of Lady Visākhā wanted to ordain during that period but the bhikkhus refused, telling him to wait to the end of the Rains. Yet when the Rains had ended, he had abandoned his desire to ordain. So the Buddha made a ruling that “This sort of agreement should not be made: ‘During the Rains, the Going-forth is not to be given.’”

The Commentary to Mv.III.13.2 cites two other agreements that are of this sort: taking a vow of silence and agreeing that those who go away for seven-day business should not get a share of the Community’s gains distributed while they are away. The rule against taking a vow of silence comes in Mv.IV.1.13. In the origin story to that rule, the Buddha learns that a group of bhikkhus have observed a vow of silence for the duration of the Rains and his response is this: “These worthless men, having spent the Rains uncomfortably, claim to have spent the Rains comfortably. Having spent the Rains in cattle (-like) affiliation, they claim to have spent the Rains comfortably. Having spent the Rains in sheep (-like) affiliation, they claim to have spent the Rains comfortably. Having spent the Rains in heedless-affiliation, they claim to have spent the Rains comfortably. How can these worthless men undertake a vow of dumb silence, the undertaking of sectarians?”

More generally, the Commentary says that agreements “of this sort” are the non-dhamma agreements that the Buddha criticized in the Sutta Vibhaṅga. Apparently, this is a reference to the origin story to NP 15, in which the Buddha, criticizing a group of bhikkhus for inventing their own pācittiya rule, says, “What has not been formulated (as a rule) should not be formulated, and what has been formulated should not be rescinded, but one should dwell in conformity and in accordance with the rules that have been formulated.”

The Commentary to Pārājika 4 expands on this point with a long list of agreements that should not be made for the Rains: refusing to give the Going-forth, prohibiting the study or teaching of the Dhamma, deciding to share in-season gifts to the Community with bhikkhus staying outside the monastery precincts, or compelling the observance of the dhutaṅga (ascetic) practices. The Commentary to Cv.VI.11.3 adds other agreements to this list: refusing to give Acceptance, refusing to give dependence, refusing to give the opportunity to listen to the Dhamma, and not sharing Community gains with those who go away on seven-day business. It then adds a list of agreements that would accord with the Dhamma, such as encouraging one another to know moderation in speech, to converse on the ten proper subjects of conversation (AN 10:69), to show consideration to meditators when one is reciting the Dhamma, to willingly undertake any of the dhutaṅga practices in line with one’s abilities, and to be heedful at all times.

Gifts of cloth

Mv.VIII.32 lists eight ways in which a donor may designate gifts of cloth, and one of them is that a gift of cloth may be for the bhikkhus who are residing or have resided in a particular residence for the Rains. We will discuss this arrangement in more detail in Chapter 18, but here we will simply note the Commentary’s observation that, during the Rains-residence, this arrangement applies only to bhikkhus who have kept the residence up to that point without break; for one month after the Rains, it applies only to the bhikkhus who have successfully kept the entire Rains-residence. According to the Canon, if the kaṭhina has been spread, this arrangement extends until the end of the kaṭhina privileges.

The Canon also adds that, if a donor has designated a gift of cloth for the bhikkhus who are residing/have resided for the Rains, a bhikkhu who is not residing/has not resided for the Rains in that residence should not accept a portion. To do so is to incur a dukkaṭa. The Commentary adds that if he does accept such a portion, he should return it. If it gets worn out or lost before he returns it, he should make compensation. If, when the Community asks for its return, he doesn’t return it, the offense is to be determined by the value of the cloth, which could well amount to a pārājika. In saying this, the Commentary is following the theory of bhaṇḍadeyya, which—as we stated in the discussion of Pr 2—has no basis in the Canon. Here in particular it seems excessive punishment for what the Canon explicitly says is an act incurring only a dukkaṭa. If we follow the Canon, the bhikkhu who has accepted such a portion need not return it. Once it has been given to him, it is his—even though he incurs an offense in accepting it.

As mentioned above, under the topic of seven-day business, there is the technical possibility that a bhikkhu may enter the Rains in two residences. If donors at both places designate gifts of Rains-residence cloth, then if the bhikkhu spends half the time at one residence and half the time at the other, he should be given half a portion here and half a portion there. Or if he spends more time at one than the other, he should be given a full portion at his main residence and nothing at the other.

Privileges

The Commentary, in scattered places, explicitly mentions five privileges to which a bhikkhu who completes the first period of Rains-residence without break is entitled. The first four are:

In each of these cases, the Commentary is basing its judgment on the fact that the Canon’s permission for these activities is given for “bhikkhus who have lived for (i.e., completed) the Rains-residence.”

The fifth privilege is based on three passages in Mv.VIII.24 (sections 2, 56). In each of the three, donors present gifts of cloth “to the Community” and in each case the bhikkhus who have spent the Rains in that residence have sole rights to these gifts until their kaṭhina privileges are ended (see Chapter 17). If the bhikkhus do not spread a kaṭhina, the Commentary states that they hold this right for the month after the end of the Rains-residence.

A bhikkhu who completes the second period of Rains-residence without break is entitled to one privilege: He may participate in the Invitation transaction marking the end of his period of Rains-residence. If the bhikkhus in his residence have delayed their Invitation to that date, he may join in their Invitation. If not, he may participate in an Invitation with any fellow bhikkhus who have completed the second period of Rains-residence along with him. Because Pv.XIV.4 limits the period for receiving a kaṭhina to last month of the rainy season, and because a bhikkhu can participate in the spreading of a kaṭhina only after having completed his Rains-residence, this means that a bhikkhu who has completed the second period of Rains-residence is not entitled to this privilege.

The Vinaya-mukha follows an old tradition that NP 1, 2, & 3; and Pc 32, 33, & 46 are also rescinded for one month for a bhikkhu who has completed the first period of Rains-residence. I have tried to trace the source of this tradition in the Canon and commentaries, but without success. The Vibhaṅgas to NP 3, Pc 32, 33, & 46 make clear that the fourth month of the rainy season—the month after the first period of Rains-residence, and the last month of the second period of Rains-residence—is the cīvara-kāla, the robe season (also called the cīvara-dāna-samaya, the occasion for giving robe-cloth), during which those rules, along with NP 1, are rescinded. However, neither the Canon nor the commentaries to these rules make these privileges contingent on having completed the Rains.

As for rescinding NP 2, the texts mention this only as one of the privileges for participating in the spreading of a kaṭhina. It might seem reasonable to regard NP 2 as rescinded during the cīvara-kāla, as all of the other privileges for participating in the kaṭhina are simply extensions of other cīvara-kāla privileges, but neither the Canon nor the commentaries support this idea. For instance, Mv.VIII.23.3 allows a bhikkhu to enter a village without his full set of robes if he has spread a kaṭhina, but does not extend the same privilege to a bhikkhu who has simply completed the Rains. Furthermore, the Commentary to Mv.VII indicates that the Buddha’s purpose in instituting the kaṭhina was to give the bhikkhus the privilege of traveling without their full set of robes during the last month of the rains, when roads were still wet. If this privilege came automatically with the completion of the Rains-residence, there would be no need to institute the kaṭhina for this purpose.

Thus the only privileges contingent on completing the Rains-residence without break are:

Rules