English
to be stored for seven days, is therefore 'until-seven-days'. Except for water, all the rest, having been kept for life, to be consumed when there is a condition, is therefore called 'for-life'. There, 'until-the-time' food received at dawn, even if stored a hundred times, as long as the 'until-the-time' period is not exceeded, 'until-the-watch' for one day and night, 'until-seven-days' for seven nights, and the other, when there is a condition, even if consumed for life, there is no offense. The rest here is clear. However, in the commentaries, at this point, the discourse on drinks, the discourse on permitted things, the discourse starting with "Is it permissible for 'until-the-time' with 'until-the-watch'?" and the discourse on the ground of what is permissible are elaborated. We will discuss that in its proper place. Originating from sheep's wool – it arises from the body and from the body-mind, it is action, not release by perception, without mind, an offense by designation, a bodily action, with three thoughts, with three feelings. The training rule concerning storing is the eighth. 9. Explanation of the training rule concerning choice food. 257. In the ninth training rule – 'choice foods' means excellent foods. 'To whom is it not pleasing when it is well-prepared?' means 'to whom is it not dear when it is endowed with excellence?' 'Tasty' means delicious. 259. "If any bhikkhu, not being sick, should ask for such choice foods for himself and eat them" – here, if he asks for pure ghee and the like and eats it, he does not incur a pācittiya offense, but he incurs a dukkata offense for asking for broth and rice among the Sekhiya rules. However, if he asks for things mixed with rice and eats them, he incurs a pācittiya offense – this should be understood, this is indeed the intention here. And for this reason, it is said in the Sutta "choice foods" and not "choice things". When "choice" is said, it refers to ghee and so on. But when "choice foods" is said, it means foods mixed with choice ingredients, made from seven kinds of grain, these are choice foods— this meaning is understood. Now, regarding the explanation of "dukkata in the application" and so on, this is the determination: If one requests, "Give rice with ghee, sprinkle ghee and give, mix with ghee and give, give with ghee, give ghee and rice," there is a dukkata for the request, a dukkata for receiving, and a pacittiya for consuming. But if "give ghee-rice" is said, since there is no such thing as ghee-rice like there is rice-rice, it should be understood as a dukkata for requesting soup and rice. If, when "give rice with ghee" is said, one gives rice and then gives butter or milk or curds, saying, "Make ghee and eat," or gives money, saying, "Buy ghee with this and eat," it is as per the actual situation. If "give rice with cow's ghee" is said, and one gives with cow's ghee, or if there is no cow's ghee, gives cow's butter and so on, in the previous manner, or gives a cow itself, saying, "Eat with ghee from this," it is as per the actual situation. If, when asked for cow's ghee, one gives ghee and so on from a she-goat, it is a misunderstanding. For in such a case, something else is given than what was requested, therefore, there is no offense. The same method applies to "give with she-goat's ghee" and so on. If "give with permissible ghee" is said, and one gives with impermissible ghee, it is a misunderstanding. If "with impermissible ghee" is said, and one gives with impermissible ghee, there is a dukkata for receiving and a dukkata for consuming. If there is no impermissible ghee, and one gives impermissible butter and so on, in the previous manner, saying, "Make ghee and eat," it is considered given with impermissible ghee. If "with impermissible ghee" is said, and one gives with permissible ghee, it is a misunderstanding. If "with ghee" is said, and one gives with any other of the remaining butter and so on, it is a misunderstanding. The same method applies to "give with butter" and so on. For whatever is requested, if that or its value is obtained, that it is obtained. But if they give something else, whether mentioned in the Pāli or not, it is a mistake. It is a dukkaṭa for one who asks for clarified butter, etc., with clarified butter, etc., other than those mentioned in the Pāli. Just as it is said that when "give rice with clarified butter" is said, and there is no rice with clarified butter, like rice with sāli, it is a dukkaṭa for asking for soup and rice. So too in "give rice with fresh butter," etc. Even if each one were to be explained in detail in order, this same meaning should be stated, and that can be known even in brief; what is the need for elaboration there? Therefore it is said – "this is the method in 'give with fresh butter,' etc." But if, having asked for all the clarified butter, etc., in one place or in different places, and having poured it into one vessel, made it into one taste, and then, having placed a drop on the tip of the tongue with the tip of a kusa grass, he swallows it, he incurs nine pācittiyas. This is also said in the Parivāra – "Bodily, not verbal, All with different objects; He would incur them simultaneously, This problem was considered by the skilled." (Pari. 481); 261. In "sick, perceiving as sick," if, even perceiving as sick, he asks for the five medicines for the purpose of medicine, he should be dealt with according to the Mahānāma training rule. But one who asks for the nine choice foods should be dealt with according to this training rule. For bhikkhunīs, however, these are pāṭidesanīya matters; in asking for soup and rice, it is a sekha-paññatti dukkaṭa for both. The rest here is clear. Of four origins – it arises from body, from body and speech, from body and mind, and from body, speech, and mind. Action, not release by perception, non-mental, offense by regulation, bodily action, verbal action, three thoughts, three feelings. The ninth training rule on choice foods. 10. Description of the Training Rule on Tooth-sticks 263. In the tenth training rule – among the four requisites, even a tooth-stick, everything should be a rag-robe; he is a wearer of all rag-robes. He, it is said, used a vessel discarded in a charnel ground. having made a rag-robe from rags thrown there, and having taken beds and chairs thrown there, he uses them. Here, "ancestors' cast-offs" means "ancestors" are the deceased fathers and grandfathers. "Cast-offs" are the edibles and foods thrown in cemeteries and so forth for their sake. People, it is said, in dedication to their deceased relatives, whatever was dear to them in their lifetime, they make it into lumps of food in these cemeteries and so forth, and place it, saying, "May our relatives partake of it." That bhikkhu takes and eats that, and does not desire other delicious food, even if offered. Therefore it was said: "In the cemetery, at the foot of a tree, at the threshold, he takes and uses the ancestors' cast-offs himself." "Elder" means firm, tightly bound. "Stout" means thick. It is said that this bhikkhu is thick and of solid body. "Perhaps he eats human flesh," means "we perceive him as eating human flesh." This is their intention: "Those who eat human flesh are indeed like this." 264. Here, those bhikkhus, not correctly understanding the meaning of the phrase "one should take food through the mouth-door without being given," felt remorse regarding the water-tooth-stick. But the Blessed One, like a father to his children, instructing those bhikkhus in accordance with the arisen matter, established an additional rule. 265. "Not given" means that which is not given by way of the body, or something attached to the body, or by way of something to be relinquished by the body or something attached to the body, to one who takes it. Indeed, it is with reference to this that it is said in the word-division: "That which is not given is called that which is not received." However, in the second pārājika, it is said: "That which is not given is called that which is possessed by another." "Given," on the other hand, is introduced here to show the characteristic as the opposite of that very "not given." And in its explanation, it is said: "When another gives by body, or by something attached to the body, or by something to be relinquished," and "one standing within arm's reach receives by body or by something attached to the body," thus, that which is given in this way, even a chariot If even a particle, standing within the previously described arm's reach, one receives it with the body or with something connected to the body, this, thus received, is called a gift. It is not given by words like "Take this, let this be yours." Here, "with the body" means with any limb of the body, such as the hand; even if given with a toe, it is called given with the body, and the same rule applies to receiving. For whatever is received with any limb of the body is indeed received with the body. Even if something given for snuff is received with the nostril, or by a sick person with the mouth. For here, the intention alone is the measure – this method is stated in the Mahāpaccariya. "With something connected to the body" means a gift given with any implement like a spoon, is called given with something connected to the body. And the same rule applies to receiving. Whatever is received with something connected to the body, like a bowl or plate, is indeed received with something connected to the body. "By relinquishing" means even if, having released it from the body and from something connected to the body, it is dropped by the body or by something connected to the body for one standing within arm's reach, it is called given by the act of relinquishing. This is the explanation of the Pāli text. Herein is a decision outside the Pāli text – receiving is valid with five factors – it is within the reach of a moderately strong man, arm's reach is evident,