English
but no such subsequent action is seen here in "dependent on sugarcane juice." This is inappropriate, as it is established there even without it. Just as in "the four great elements and form dependent on the four great elements" (Dha. Sa. 584), even in the absence of a subsequent action, the word "dependent on" is established, so it might be here too? No, because there it depends on the remaining part of the text. Just as that Pāli text depends on the remaining part of the text, "form is spoken of as dependent on the four great elements, or as the activating form," this commentary statement does not depend on any text. For the commentary teachers are those who speak completely. Or it is merely a designation of that form. In "there is form dependent on" and so on (Dha. Sa. 584), it is merely a designation, and it should be understood to be so here too. Here, however, "ucchurasaṃ upādāya" means "taking sugarcane juice as the origin, starting from that," therefore, it is said: "A non-ill bhikkhu who, having requested and eaten food mixed with sugarcane juice, should be made to observe the training rule of choice food, and a bhikkhunī the pāṭidesaniya rule." Some say this is inappropriate. They should be made to understand by showing the absence of a specific reason. Thus When the meaning of phrases like "taking sugarcane juice" (meaning, making sugarcane juice the beginning) is wrongly taken, if by the phrase "taking sugarcane juice" sugarcane juice were molasses, then the phrase "or uncooked" would be meaningless, because sugarcane juice is already included by "uncooked." If it is established that by the phrase "or cooked" sugarcane juice is molasses, then the answer given, that the phrase "taking sugarcane juice" is meaningless, is proven to be no answer. "Or uncooked by these" means uncooked by the bhikkhu himself. "Or cooked without a basis" means cooked by the bhikkhu himself without a basis. Therefore, it was shown that the meaning should otherwise be stated as "or cooked with a basis," but this was poorly shown. Why? Because in the Great Commentary it is said: "Burnt sugarcane molasses or pounded sugarcane molasses is allowable only before noon," and because the phrase "or cooked with a basis" is not stated due to doctrinal contradiction. And because in the Mahāpaccariya it is said: "Having asked the question, 'Is this cooked with a basis allowable or not allowable?' it was said, 'There is nothing called sugarcane molasses not allowable after noon,' that is appropriate." Thus, the meaning "or cooked with a basis" is indeed stated, therefore it is proven to be poorly shown. "For food" means for the purpose of food. And it means "the act of food for sustenance." 262. "By the use of oil" means by use for seven days. 263. "When there is a reason" here, the presence of a reason should be understood in two ways: for the sick and for the not-sick. For in the section on non-offenses of the training rule on untimely eating, the presence of a reason for all three, such as things allowable for a watch (yāmakālika), is stated without distinction. In this Khandhaka it is said: "I allow, bhikkhus, jaggery for the sick, jaggery water for the not-sick. I allow, bhikkhus, rock salt for the sick, mixed with water for the not-sick." Therefore, it is established that the presence of a reason is twofold: for the sick and for the not-sick. Otherwise, if there is no reason, one incurs an offense regarding jaggery water and so on. And from that Pāli discrepancy. "Piṭṭhehi" means with sesame oils. "Koṭṭhaphala" means the fruit of the koṭṭha tree. And it is written, "or madana fruit." "Hiṅgujatu" is that produced from the cooked stems, young shoots, and corals of the asafoetida tree. "Hiṅgusipāṭikā" is that produced from the cooked roots and branches of that tree. "Taka" is the water from the cooked bark of that tree. "Takapatti" is the water from the cooked leaves of that tree. "Takapaṇṇi" is the water from the cooked fruits of that tree. Or else, "Taka" means lac. "Takapatti" means lac with hair and dirt. "Takapaṇṇi" means ripe lac," it is written. "Ubbhida" means made of saline earth and ash. 264. "Chakaṇa" is cow dung. "Pākatikacuṇṇa" means powder of unboiled astringent substances, therefore they say, "excluding fragrant powder, all is permissible." "Cālitehi" means strained. 265. "Made with various ingredients" means with various medicines. Description of the story of permission for jaggery, etc. 274. "Self-cooked" and "equally cooked" seems to indicate two kinds, therefore in milk, etc., cooking is merely heating. By that, they become similar to boiled rice, etc. 276-8. In the place where "Buddha-headed" appears, they say "Sangha" instead of "Bhikkhu-Sangha" to include the Blessed One as well. "Nāga" means elephant. 279. "Sambādheti" (obstructs) refers to the path of feces for a bhikkhu and the path of urine for a bhikkhuni, in the natural way. Burning is permissible due to the absence of prohibition. If it is said, "Is it not permissible according to the rule of surgical operation?" No, because of the prohibition of what was prohibited, and because it indicates the ultimate purpose of what is to be prohibited. What is meant? Even surgical operation, though previously prohibited, was later prohibited twice, saying, "Monks, it is not... (etc.)... a grave offense." By this, it means that two finger-breadths around the obstruction are to be prohibited. It indicates that there is nothing beyond the rule of surgical operation. Furthermore, previously surgical operation was prohibited only at the obstruction, later two finger-breadths around the obstruction were also prohibited, therefore, the prohibition applies to that, not to other things, it is established. Here, "sattha" means a surgical instrument... or should seek it out," as in such phrases, whatever one cuts with, that is all. Therefore it is said, "with a thorn," and so on. Here, the application of caustic is known to be permitted in the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga, on the branches, by means of a plaster. Some, however, interpreting the reading "or a surgical instrument," perform enema procedures. "Vatthī," they say, is called a syringe. And they explain the meaning that cutting with it is called "vatthikamma." They should be refuted by showing the analysis of the phrase "or should seek out a surgical instrument for him." "Aṇḍavuḍḍhī" is a hydrocele. "Ādānavattī" is a constricted bowel. Explanation of the prohibition of human flesh 280. Since it is said, "Monks, human flesh is not... ...a grave offense," and since it is also said, "Monks, without reflection... ...an offense of wrong-doing," two offenses arise: an offense of wrong-doing for not reflecting, and a grave offense. Therefore, even with permissible meat, due to not reflecting, it is an offense of wrong-doing. Some say, "One incurs it only if one knows it is meat. What reflection is there for one who does not know in the case of cakes, etc.?" Some say that even one who does not know incurs it, because it is stated generally. Explanation of the prohibition of elephant flesh, etc. 281. "Of these... ...all is not permissible" — this statement is merely to indicate the impermissibility of all ten, human flesh, etc., not to show a division of offenses. "Whatever one eats, whether knowing or not knowing, an offense is incurred" — this too is an unspecific statement, as it does not say, "this is such and such an offense." Both of these statements are made with the intention that the meaning can be understood by the principles already established that grave offenses and offenses of wrong-doing arise in the case of human flesh, etc., for humans, etc. The intention here is this: Since the flesh, etc., of these humans, etc., are impermissible, a grave offense arises in the case of human flesh, etc., for humans. For the rest, an offense of wrong-doing in all cases. For in the text itself, making blood, etc., part of flesh, it is said, "Monks, human flesh is not... ...a grave offense." And there too, in the case of the flesh, etc., of elephants, etc., an offense of wrong-doing... an offense is declared. Therefore it is said in the Sinhala commentary, “In human flesh, or hair, or nails, or bones, or blood, it is always a grave offense,” it is said. By this same token— “Bones, blood, skin, hair, these are not permissible for them.” – The meaning and intention of the Khuddasikkhā verse are well understood. Regarding ‘receiving,’ an offense of neglect is stated here. They say, “Even water and human flesh are not allowed.” Even with the dangers stated by the Nāga king, taking only the aspect of complaint, it is said, “due to repulsiveness.” Description of the story of gruel, honey-balls, etc. 283. “It should be done according to the Dhamma” this is a statement of the compilers of the council. For the Blessed One did not declare that same training rule twice, “thus in such cases,” say some. It is said with reference to the first declaration, yet those bhikkhus did not incur an offense. How? By the origin story of the training rule on successive meals. It is said, “Moreover, we had already gone for alms and eaten early.” And in the Mātikāvibhaṅga (Pāci. 227) it is said, “Successive meal means: invited for one of the five kinds of food, setting that aside, one eats another of the five kinds of food; this is called a successive meal.” Therefore, “another food” means anything received from an invitation, this is established. Since it was not food received from an invitation for gruel, therefore, “there is no offense here,” and those bhikkhus consumed it. However, since it is said here, “it should be done according to the Dhamma,” an offense is incurred only by one who eats food received from another invitation, not otherwise, this is permitted. From then on, in the non-offense section for that, it is said, “at a regular meal, at a ticket meal, at a fortnightly meal, at an Uposatha meal,