English
being stated in all commentaries, cannot be rejected. The reason for it is hard to see. If he says "take the rice-mixture," whether the rice is more, equal, or less, he always declines. If, without specifying rice or gruel, he says "take the mixture," and if the rice is more or equal, he declines. If less, he does not decline. And this should not be equated with karambaka (mixture). For karambaka can be a meat-mixture or a non-meat-mixture. Therefore, when "karambaka" is said, there is no declining. But this is only a rice-mixture. Declining occurs in the manner stated here. If, in rice with much gravy, he gives gravy separately, or in much milk, milk, or in rice-porridge with much ghee, ghee, saying "take it," for one who rejects that, there is no declining. But if one declines while going, he may eat while still going. If he reaches mud or water and stops, he must make it extra (i.e., dispose of excess). If in between there is a full river, by going around a bush on the riverbank, he may eat. should be eaten. If there is a boat or a bridge, having ascended it, it should be eaten while walking, the journey should not be interrupted. In a vehicle, or on the back of an elephant, or in the moon's orb, or in the sun's orb, having sat down and declared one's satisfaction, until midday, even if they are moving, it should be eaten while seated. One who declares satisfaction while standing, should eat while standing. One who declares satisfaction while sitting, should eat while sitting. By changing that posture, it is made extra. One who declares satisfaction while squatting, should eat while squatting. For him, a straw mat or something to sit on should be given below. One who declares satisfaction while sitting on a stool, is allowed to eat by turning in the four directions without moving the seat. One who declares satisfaction while sitting on a couch, is not allowed to move hither and thither. But if they lift him with the couch and take him elsewhere, it is permissible. One who declares satisfaction while lying down, should eat while lying down. When turning over, the place where one was lying should not be exceeded. 121. What should be done by one who has declared satisfaction? If one changes the posture in which one declared satisfaction and eats in another posture, one should eat after having made it extra. But if one eats or consumes any food or edibles included in the 'until-time' category that is not extra, for each mouthful, there is an offense of expiation. Here, 'not extra' means 'not extra,' meaning 'not additional.' Since it is not made by the seven disciplinary procedures such as 'made permissible,' or it is not additional for a sick person, therefore, in the word analysis, it is said: "Not extra" means: it is not made permissible, it is not made received, it is not made declared, it is not made within arm's reach, it is not made by one who has not eaten, it is made by one who has eaten and declared satisfaction and risen from the seat, it is not said 'this is enough for all,' it is not extra for a sick person. This is 'not extra.'" Yes. Therein, "made not allowable" means that fruit or root-and-tuber, etc., which was not made allowable by the five monastic allowances, and also unallowable meat or unallowable food. This is called "not allowable." Even if such not allowable food is made surplus by saying "This is enough for all," it should be understood as "made not allowable." "Made not received" means that which was made surplus by a bhikkhu in the aforementioned manner, but not received. "Made not declared" means that which was not lifted up or moved even slightly by the bhikkhu who came to make it allowable. "Made outside arm's reach" means that which was made by one standing outside the arm's reach of the bhikkhu who came to make it allowable. "Made by one who has not eaten" means that which was made by one who has not eaten food sufficient for an invitation, by the one who makes it surplus saying "This is enough for all." "Made by one who has eaten, invited, and risen from the seat" is clear. "Not said 'This is enough for all'" means that it was not said thus, by breaking the speech. Thus, that surplus which was not made allowable by these seven ways of monastic action, and which is not surplus for the sick, both of these should be understood as "not surplus." 122. Surplus, however, should be understood by the opposite method. Therefore, it is said in the word-analysis: "Surplus means that which is made allowable, that which is made received, that which is made declared, that which is made within arm's reach, that which is made by one who has eaten, that which is made by one who has eaten, invited, and not risen from the seat, that which is said 'This is enough for all,' that which is surplus for the sick. This is called surplus." Moreover, here, "made by one who has eaten" means that even if one grain of rice or a piece of meat is eaten from the bowl of a fellow bhikkhu sitting next to one, it should be understood as "made by one who has eaten." As for "not risen from the seat," for the sake of clarity, this is the determination: If two bhikkhus eat in the morning and are invited, one should remain seated there, and the other should... Bringing that or a ticket-meal, pouring half into that monk's bowl, washing the hand, the rest should be made allowable by that monk and eaten. Why? For what sticks to his hand is not allowable. But if the monk who first sat down himself takes it from that bowl with his hand, there is no need for hand-washing. But if, when one is eating after having made it allowable, someone says, 'Pour some more curry or food into the bowl,' the one who first made it allowable cannot do so again. By whom it was not done, by him it should be done; and what was not done, that should be done. 'By whom it was not done' means by another monk who did not do it first, by him it should be done. And 'what was not done' means even by the one who first made it allowable, what was not done, that should be done. But it is not allowed to do so in the first dish. For if it is done there, it is done together with what was done first. Therefore, the intention is that it is proper to do it in another dish. But what is done in this way, it is proper for that monk to eat together with what was done first. And when making it allowable, not only in the bowl, but also in a pot, or a basket, or wherever, it should be placed in front and done in a tilted dish. If a hundred monks have finished eating, it is proper for all to eat it; it is proper even for those who have not finished eating. But for the one who made it allowable, it is not proper. Even if, after having finished eating, they make a monk who has entered for alms sit down with his bowl at an unavoidable eating-feast or auspicious invitation, it must be eaten only after having had it made 'extra'. If there is no other monk there, the bowl should be sent to the assembly hall or the monastery and had it done. But when making it allowable, it should not be done if it is in the hand of an unordained person. If there is an unskilled monk in the assembly hall, one should go oneself, have it made allowable, bring it, and eat it. Here, by 'extra for the sick', it is not only what is the leftover food of a sick person. that which is left over from the sick. However, whatever is brought for a sick person, with the thought, "Today or whenever he wishes, he will eat it," all of that is to be known as left over from the sick. But for one who consumes any un-left-over food —be it for one day, for seven days, or for life— for the purpose of eating, there is a dukkata at each mouthful. If, however, the one-day, etc., foods are mixed with meat, for one who receives and consumes them, whether for food or not for food, there is a pacittiya. But if they are not mixed, and there is a reason, there is no offense for one who eats them. Thus, in the Collection of Vinaya Decisions Outside the Pali Canon, The discourse on the decision regarding Pavāraṇā is concluded. 22. The Discourse on the Decision Regarding Ordination 123. Here, concerning ordination, when ordaining a young man who desires ordination, those individuals who are prohibited in the Pali Canon by statements such as, "Monks, one afflicted with five diseases should not be ordained" (Mahavagga 89), should be avoided, and an individual free from the faults of ordination should be ordained. Here is the decision (Mahavagga Commentary 88): One afflicted with these five diseases —leprosy, boils, eczema, consumption, epilepsy— should not be ordained. One who ordains such a person incurs a dukkata, as it is stated, "Whoever ordains, there is an offense of dukkata." Here, leprosy, whether it be red leprosy or black leprosy, whatever kind, including varieties like ringworm, scabies, and itch, all are called leprosy. If it is even the size of a fingernail, and is in a progressive state, he should not be ordained. If, however, it is the size of a fingernail in a place normally covered by clothing, and is in a non-progressive state, it is permissible. "But on the face, or on the backs of the hands and feet, even if it is in a non-progressive state, and smaller than a fingernail, it is not permissible," it is stated in the Kurundi. Even when ordaining after treatment, he should be ordained only when the natural skin color has returned. One whose body is covered with powder resembling a monitor lizard's back is also not permissible to ordain. Boils, whether fatty tumors or or another, any tumor, even the size of a kolaṭṭhi seed, that is growing, should not be ordained. However, if it is in a covered place, the size of a kolaṭṭhi seed, and not growing, it is permissible. But if it is in an uncovered place, like the face, even if not growing, it is not permissible. If one ordains after treatment, the body should be made smooth-skinned before ordination. There are tumors called uṇṇigaṇḍā,