English
in the case of human flesh, it is a pācittiya along with a thullaccaya. In other cases, it is along with a dukkaṭa. If one consumes yāmakālika when there is a reason (to store it), it is a pācittiya. If one consumes it for the purpose of food, it is along with a dukkaṭa. But if one, having been invited, consumes what has not been made surplus, for him, in all cases, another pācittiya increases. If one consumes at the wrong time, due to the condition of not being made surplus, in all cases, there is no offense. When there is a reason, due to the condition of wrong time, in the case of yāmakālika etc., there is no offense. In remaining cases, due to the condition of wrong time, a pācittiya certainly increases. But for a bhikkhu, storage by a bhikkhunī is permissible, and for a bhikkhunī, storage by a bhikkhu is permissible, because it is allowed in the Bhikkhunī Khandhaka (Cūḷavagga 421-422), it is permissible. This was laid down in Sāvatthī, concerning the venerable Belaṭṭhasīsa, regarding the matter of stored food. It is a general rule, without specific injunction, a triple pācittiya. But for sattāhakālika and yāvajīvika, in the act of receiving and consuming for the purpose of food, it is a dukkaṭa. Just as these are not permissible for the purpose of food, so too are those mixed with yāvakālika etc. For it has been said: "Monks, yāmakālika (food) received on that very day, when mixed with yāvakālika (food), is permissible at the proper time, but not at the wrong time," and so on (Mahāvagga 305). Therefore, even if one receives that (item) mixed with that (other item), if not... or if it is of mixed flavor, or if it is well-washed, so that no mixing with the other is evident, it is permissible to consume it according to its proper time. But if it is of mixed flavor, or if it is poorly washed, it is not permissible. For that which is for a lifetime, when mixed with oneself, brings the three, such as that for a watch, to its own nature. That which is for a watch brings the two, such as that for seven days, to its own nature. That which is for seven days brings only that for a lifetime to its own nature. Therefore, that which is for a lifetime, or for seven days, is permissible for that day when accepted on that day, or when accepted previously. For that accepted for two days, six days. For that accepted for three days, five days… It should be understood that for that accepted for seven days, only that day is permissible. Therefore, it is said, “That accepted for seven days is permissible,” and not, “O monks, that for a lifetime, accepted on that day, is for seven days.” Here, in the transgressions of time, watch, and seven days, offenses are to be understood in terms of the training rules for untimely food, stored food, and medicines. Among these four kinds of time, only that for a lifetime and that for a watch are both included and constitute stored food. That for seven days and that for a lifetime may even be placed in an unsuitable hut, and do not constitute stored food. However, if the other two are accepted on that day, they are not permissible if they are kept inside an unsuitable hut, for that is called mouth-storage. But in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said to be kept inside. There, the difference is only in name, but the offense is a dukkaṭa. Here, an unsuitable hut is a dwelling built for residence, belonging to the Saṅgha or to an ordained person. In a place large enough for cohabitation, that which is for a lifetime and that which is for a watch, belonging to the Saṅgha or to an ordained person, when kept inside, is called “kept inside.” Food cooked there is called “cooked inside.” But food cooked by oneself, wherever it may be, is called “cooked by oneself.” All of that is not to be consumed. Even that which is mixed with it, goes to the same destination. For one who consumes it all, there is a dukkaṭa. Therefore, for the purpose of removing what has fallen inside and ripened inside, the Blessed One permitted four suitable places (Mahāva. 295). The determination of these is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 295). But where these are not present, it is permissible to consume it after making it the property of an unordained person. Even cooking it oneself, or recooking, is permissible. For one who perceives it as stored when it is not stored, or for one who is in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who perceives it as not stored, having set aside the three (medicines) such as yāvakālika, without exceeding their respective times, and for one who consumes yāvajīvika always when there is a condition, and for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. Material gain, the state of being stored, and the consumption of it – these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like those of sheep's wool. The explanation of the training rule concerning storing is concluded. 9. The explanation of the training rule concerning choice foods. In the ninth, "choice foods" means foods mixed with choice ingredients, produced from the seven grains. Just as a chariot yoked with thoroughbreds is called a 'thoroughbred chariot', so here too, foods mixed with choice ingredients are called 'choice foods'. But those with which choice ingredients are mixed are called 'choice foods'. To show their varieties, it states "such as ghee, fresh butter," and so on. There, ghee and so forth are to be understood by the characteristics stated in the training rule on medicines (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Explanation of the training rule on medicines). But among fish and so forth, all fish characterized as 'aquatic' (Pāci. 260) are simply fish. But the meat of those for whom meat is permissible, and milk and curds, are intended here. "Such choice foods" means those foods that, by being mixed with these ghee and so forth, are called 'choice foods' – such choice foods. "Not sick" means one for whom it is comfortable even without them. "Having requested for oneself" – here, however, one who is not sick, pure ghee and so forth for medicine... If he makes a request, he should be dealt with according to the Mahānāma training rule (Pāci. 303). If he requests fish and the like, four items, he should be dealt with according to the request for sauces and rice (Pāci. 612-613). If he requests food mixed with ghee and the like, he should be dealt with according to this rule. Herein, this is the determination: If he requests, "Give rice with ghee, pour ghee and give, mix with ghee and give, give with ghee, give ghee and rice," then for the request there is a dukkaṭa, for the acceptance there is a dukkaṭa, for the consumption there is a pācittiya. But if "Give ghee-rice" is said, since there is no such thing as ghee-rice like there is rice, therefore there is only a dukkaṭa for the request for sauces and rice. If, however, when "Give rice with ghee" is said, he gives rice and says, "Eat it with ghee," and gives fresh butter, milk, or other permissible items, saying, "Take ghee from this and eat," it is as per the actual situation. If, when "Give cow-ghee with rice" is said, he gives cow-ghee, or if that is not available, fresh butter and the like in the former manner, or even gives a cow, saying, "Eat with ghee from this," it is as per the actual situation. If, however, when requested "Give with cow-ghee," he gives with goat-ghee and the like, it is a misunderstanding. For in such a case, something else has been given than what was requested, therefore there is no offense. This is the same rule for "Give with goat-ghee" and so on. If, when "Give with permissible ghee" is said, he gives with impermissible ghee, it is a misunderstanding. If, when "Give with impermissible ghee" is said, he gives with impermissible ghee, there is a dukkaṭa for acceptance and for consumption. In this manner, the determination should be understood in all cases. If, however, having requested all these, ghee and the like, in one place or in different places, and having obtained them, he mixes them together to make a blended flavor, and then consumes even one drop with a blade of grass, there are nine pācittiyas. This rule was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six bhikkhus regarding the request for choice food. "Not sick" is an additional rule here, not common. A minor offense, not by instruction, a triple pācittiya. For a sick person who thinks he is not sick, or for one in doubt, a dukkaṭa. For one who thinks he is sick, having made a request when sick, and then eats when not sick, or for the sick person remaining, from a place where relatives have invited, having requested for another's sake, having taken with one's own money, and for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. Being choice food, not being sick, receiving what was requested, and eating it— these are the four factors here. Originating from a journey, an action, not released by perception, without intention, an offense by precept, bodily action, verbal action, with three intentions, with three feelings. The explanation of the precept concerning choice food is finished. 10. The explanation of the precept concerning tooth-sticks. In the tenth, "not given" means: while standing within arm's reach of one who takes with the body or what is connected to the body, it is not given by one of the bodily or body-connected relinquishments. This is the name for what is not accepted. Indeed, it is not proper for a bhikkhu to eat even his own property if it is not accepted. What is accepted is proper, even if it is the property of a close friend. Its characteristic should be understood as the opposite of what has been stated. For if anyone, not fully ordained, even an animal, standing within arm's reach of a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni, gives something by means of the body or other means, and if it is accepted by the bhikkhu with any part of the body, or what is connected to it, or by something movable, even a bed, and by something capable of holding,