English
saying, "You may take it to the monastery and eat it." 248-249. Radish roots and the like are to be understood only through instruction. For it is not possible to understand them even if they are expressed in other ways. Even if expressed in other ways, it would only cause confusion for those who do not know their specific names. Therefore, we will not say anything about them there. "Khādanīyatthanti" means the purpose for which edibles are used. "Neva pharantīti" means they do not produce. Regarding "tesu tesu janapadesu," they say, "What is suitable for food in one region is not allowable in other regions." "Rukkhavalliādīnaṃ" is a summary of what was stated earlier. "Antopathavīgato" is said with reference to the trunk of the Sālakalyāṇī tree. "Sabbakappiyāni" means all are allowable, in terms of root, trunk, bark, leaves, etc. The connection is that it is not possible to show the limit of even these by name. "Aparipakkāni" is said to show that unripe fruits like those of the acchi tree are allowable for life. Regarding "harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīni," the teachers say that the shells that cover the kernel are allowable for life. Some say that the kernel itself is also allowable for life. "Hiṅgūti" means the resin that exudes from the asafoetida tree. it is an extract. Asafoetida-resin and so on are also varieties of asafoetida. Therein, asafoetida-resin is an extract made by cooking the stalks and leaves of the asafoetida plant. Asafoetida-sap is an extract made by cooking the leaves of asafoetida. "Made by mixing with something else," they also say. "Taka" is the exudate that comes out from the tip. "Takapatti" is the exudate that comes out from the leaf. "Takapaṇṇa" is the exudate made by roasting on a leaf. "Exudate that comes out from the stalk," they also say. The rest here is clear. Wrong time, for a limited time, and swallowing— these are the three factors here. The explanation of the training rule on eating at the wrong time is finished. 8. Explanation of the training rule on storing food 252-3. In the eighth, "such" means sauce and curry. "Whatever is for a limited time or for a watch-period" – here, by "for a watch-period," it is shown that the offense of pācittiya is not only due to storing what is for a limited time, but also what is for a watch-period. Now, what is for a watch-period is not included in either solid food or soft food. Therefore, in the word-analysis, it is said: "Solid food means the five kinds of food, excluding what is for a watch-period, what is for seven days, and what is for life. Soft food means the five kinds of food." And it is said: "Whatever monk eats or consumes solid food or soft food that has been stored, it is a pācittiya." Therefore, how is it understood that there should be a pācittiya for what is for a watch-period? It is said: In the word-analysis, "excluding what is for a watch-period" is said to show the meaning of the word "solid food," not to show non-offense due to storing. Whatever is to be eaten is intended as solid food, and there is nothing among watch-period items that is to be eaten, because they are to be drunk. Therefore, even though what is for a watch-period is not included in solid food and soft food, still, by the statement showing non-offense: "There is no offense if one stores what is for a watch-period for a watch-period and consumes it," it must be a pācittiya due to storing when the watch-period is exceeded. It is understood. "By that which is for a watch, bhikkhus, that which is for seven days, that which is for life, if received on that day, is allowable within the watch; if the watch is passed, it is not allowable" (Mahāva. 305) by this too, this meaning is established. Therefore, by the commentary teachers who understood the Buddha's intention, only a pācittiya was stated for that which is for a watch. "Receiving" is said with reference to merely taking. For it is already received; there is no need for a further act of receiving. Therefore, it is said, "when one takes with the desire to consume, at the time of receiving." However, in the Mātikā Commentary (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. sannidhikārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is said, "when one takes with the thought 'I will consume,' at the time of receiving." "That" means that which is obtained. "Is seen" means is seen on top of the gruel. Even if there is a greasy color on the bowl but no greasiness, when one rubs with a finger, a line appears merely due to the color. Therefore, to show that there is no offense there, it is said, "that is not to be reckoned." For what is received by oneself and not relinquished is not allowable on the second day. Here, by "not relinquished," it is meant that the non-relinquished receiving is stated in both ways: by relinquishing without attachment at the time of receiving, or by giving without attachment by an unordained person, the receiving is relinquished. Therefore, it should be understood that even if something is given to another and not relinquished, if there is a relinquished receiving by relinquishing without attachment at the time of receiving, that too is allowable on the second day. If so, why is an offense stated in cases like "the bowl is poorly washed" and so on? "Even if it adheres to the bowl, having been emptied by oneself or another, and not properly washed, without having relinquished the receiving, it is still a non-relinquished receiving; therefore, there is an offense there" —this is stated in all three knot-points (commentaries). Some, however, holding to the context "they relinquish to novices," say that since "it is not relinquished" is stated, only what is relinquished by an unordained person is allowable; what is not relinquished is not allowable, leading to an offense. Therefore, with detachment... "Even if the acceptance is abandoned, it is not permissible for an unordained person to not relinquish it," they say. That does not seem right. For to the extent that one abandons acceptance, to that extent one does not make a store, because one who has abandoned acceptance is like one who has not accepted. And an offense is stated due to storing only when it has been accepted and laid aside. For it is said, "This is a designation for one who has accepted and passed a night." In the Pāli, it is said, "If one accepts a seven-day medicine or a lifetime medicine for food, there is an offense of wrong-doing." Since a wrong-doing is stated for consuming even before noon, for food, when seven-day or lifetime medicines are stored, it should also be a separate wrong-doing for consuming a one-day medicine for food. Therefore, it says, "For one consuming for food, there is a pācittiya together with a wrong-doing." "Ordinary meat" means permissible meat like rice. If there is a condition, for one consuming a one-day medicine with a meaty mouth, there are two offenses. For one eating a one-day medicine accepted yesterday, today before noon, with a meaty mouth, there is one pācittiya due to the stored one-day medicine, and one due to the stored mixed meat, thus two pācittiyas. "In both alternatives" means in the two stated methods: with meat and without meat. "The wrong-doing increases" means the wrong-doing increases due to consuming for food. "A grave offense and a wrong-doing increase" means a grave offense for human flesh, and a wrong-doing for other impermissible meats increases. 255. First, due to acceptance, there is a wrong-doing. Here, because it is stored, even before noon, it is a wrong-doing. However, if there is a condition, for one accepting and consuming a stored seven-day medicine or a lifetime medicine for medicine, there is no offense. The rest here is clear. The three factors here are: being a one-day or one-meal medicine, the state of being stored, and its consumption. The explanation of the training rule concerning storing is finished. 9. The explanation of the training rule concerning choice food. 257-259. In the ninth, choice foods mixed with foods are excellent foods. Just as a chariot yoked with thoroughbreds is called a "thoroughbred chariot," so here too, foods mixed with excellent ingredients and made from the seven grains are called "excellent foods." The excellent ingredients with which they are mixed are called "excellent foods," and to show their varieties, the Pāli text states, "such as ghee, fresh butter," and so on. "For whom meat is allowable" is said here to define the object of the offense (pācittiya), not to define the allowable object. For ghee and so on are not unallowable for those for whom unallowable meat is available. Indeed, except for human fat, there is nothing unallowable in milk, ghee, fresh butter, fat, and oil for anyone. In "ghee-rice," although "ghee-rice" can be understood as rice mixed with ghee, or ghee and rice, since the commentaries state, "there is no such thing as ghee-rice like sāli-rice," giving a reason and making the dukkaṭa offense stronger, it is not possible to say otherwise. For the commentary teachers are the authority in such matters. "Root" is said with reference to allowable requisites. "No offense" means no offense from all offenses, due to the lack of intention. However, some say, "no offense is stated only for the pācittiya, but the dukkaṭa for asking for soup and rice still occurs," but that should not be accepted. "With allowable ghee, with unallowable ghee" is said with reference to allowable and unallowable meats; therefore, the meaning here should be understood as "with ghee from allowable meat, with ghee from unallowable meat." "Having various objects" is said with reference to ghee, fresh butter, and so on. 261. Here, "should be made to act according to the Mahānāma training rule"— "By a non-ill bhikkhu, the invitation for requisites for four months should be accepted, except for a renewed invitation, except for a constant invitation. If he accepts beyond that, it is a pācittiya" (Pāci. 306)— This is called the Mahānāma training rule.