English
at a first-day-of-the-fortnight meal.” Previously, at the time of declaration in Vesālī, it was not there; if it were, there would be a contradiction with the origin story and Mātikāvibhaṅga. Therefore, since it is said in the origin story, “Moreover, we had already gone for alms and eaten early,” and in the word-division, “a having eaten one of the five kinds of food,” it was said without distinction, and so, whether invited first or later, setting aside the invited food, one who eats uninvited food incurs an offense, not otherwise. Although an offense is incurred, “Monks, one should not consume food-gruel of another unless invited,” since this was said, an invited food received later than the first invited food, and also one who eats regular meals and so on, incurs an offense. Thus, it seems to have arisen as if an offense is incurred. This prevents the occasion for a supplementary rule, and prevents the occasion for an offense in the case of uninvited food. And by interpreting the first rule of training in this sense, the Blessed One said, “He should be dealt with according to the Dhamma.” Therefore, from that time onwards, an offense is incurred only by one who eats an invited food later. Among these, regular meals and so on do not incur an offense. For this reason, Venerable Upāli Thera, in the section on non-offenses for that, inserted five terms such as “in regular meals,” and recited it. For those great Nāgas understood the intention. Therefore, what the Blessed One first said, “Except for the five kinds of food, there is no offense in all other cases,” protecting that even later, food-gruel was mentioned, not touching honey-balls as non-food. Thus says the teacher. Here it is said: Just as the elder, with the later acquired insight, made an insertion regarding regular meals and so on, why is it not said, by inserting “successive meals” in the Kathina section, “Monks, for those who have observed Kathina, six will be permissible for you”? It is said: To illustrate the aforementioned insight. Otherwise, this rule of training would have been laid down half and half in Vesālī and Andhakavinda. If not, the monks would be offenders, and they were not offenders, because they felt scruple even in what was not prohibited to them. For it was said, “Then, brahmin, give it to the monks. The monks, feeling scruple, did not accept it.” For them, the command of the Blessed One was, “Consume it.” Even for those who had already eaten, for those who had fallen into doubt, thinking, "Is this specifically for us?", to remove their doubt, it was said: "I allow, monks, gruel and honey-balls." Thus, here too, having disregarded the rule laid down regarding successive eating, how will they eat successive meals? Here some teachers said: Even knowing by the rule of successive eating that "food for another is not allowable," because "I allow, monks, gruel" was specifically permitted, they ate with the perception that "it is allowable like food offered to a guest, the great unallowable foods, and so on." Therefore, what was said, "Moreover, we have already been sustained by edible gruel early in the day," and so on, that is not proper. Because of the contradiction with the origin story, the summary, and the explanation there, because of the implication of the impossibility of regular meals, etc., in the section on non-offenses, because of the monks not transgressing the state of having committed an offense, and because of the implication that it was allowed by the Buddha due to a cause of wrong understanding. For those monks, because the Buddha sometimes, due to disciplinary reasons, rejected even what was allowable, saying, "What is sung in verse is not to be eaten by me," therefore, concerning the Buddha's intention, it was said, "Being scrupulous, they did not accept it." And concerning the rule, the Buddha himself said, "I allow, monks, gruel," precisely to make his intention clear. For the Buddha's intention is difficult to grasp. Just so, the rice-milk of Bhāradvāja was not to be eaten; he rejected it because of the implication of not having made a request. But concerning the three-ingredient gruel prepared after being requested by Elder Ānanda, without saying, "Even that, Ānanda, which was requested, is not allowable," he only said, "Even that, Ānanda, which was kept inside," and so on. By showing the intention that if it was not kept overnight, it is allowable, it supports the rules regarding requesting choice food, curries, and rice, that it is allowable even for the Buddha, how much more so for us. 284. For the sick person alone, the Buddha allowed molasses, saying, "Indeed, those things which are suitable for sick monks to consume." (Parājika 6 spoken according to the word, therefore they here felt scruples about receiving it. But here, when it is said, "Monks, I allow sugar-water for the sick," because of the context of sugar, and having stated what was previously allowed, sugar-water is allowed for the non-sick. Therefore, by the sick person, if there is a condition, sugar should be consumed. Sugar-water is permissible even if there is no condition; this distinction is shown. In this regard, they say, "Sugar-water is a seven-day medicine among the medicines, and because it was allowed by the Blessed One with a specific purpose, there is a wrong-doing if it exceeds seven days." That is not appropriate. Because it is mixed with water, it loses its seven-day characteristic. "Just as mangoes and the like, when mixed with water, become a one-watch medicine, similarly, having abandoned the seven-day characteristic, it remains among the lifelong medicines," they say. That is appropriate, and because it was allowed by the Blessed One with a specific purpose, there is no fault in the absence of reflection. Because it is called "sugar-water," they say it is "water-like." If what is mixed with water is water-like, then honey also would be, because it was allowed in that way. Let it not be so. It would be consumable without receiving it, being water-like, but that is not the case. "It should be received after examining it everywhere" is stated in some commentary. "Empty dwelling" means the fourth jhana. Explanation of the discourse on allowing suitable ground. "Orava sound" means a great sound. Here, "surrounded by many" means it is permissible even with one. "It is said that it should be with the word of even one among many," they say. Because "having touched" is stated, it is not permissible if not touched. By the word "there is no fault," the rest are also allowed. "If they fill a wall after it has subsided, it is not permissible to do it there; it is permissible to do it only on natural ground," they say. That seems to contradict the commentary above, which states, "for a heap made of bricks and so on." Here, regarding "a lump of clay," they say, "if, when it is not present and not designated, it is designated from the place where it flowed upwards, then the goods below are not permissible, only what is placed above is permissible, this is... "There is a distinction," it is said. Here, it is permissible to receive a suitable hut, meaning that in such a case, it should be done again. "We give to make a suitable hut" here means the intention is to perform the act of a suitable hut. But a dining hall is just a lodging, therefore, others say it should be done there. "Even if not done, it is permissible," it is said. "Proximity to the mouth is proximity at mealtime," it is written. Proximity to the mouth is its name. "If there is proximity, it would be an offence, but proximity to the mouth is a minor offence, therefore proximity is not intended," it is said. Since it is said "having made it his own," an unregarded relinquishment is not intended. Some say that only the permissible amount should be known, as in the case of robe-designation. Elucidation of the story of Keṇiya the Ascetic. "Having renounced what was received by oneself before noon, if a drink is made and given by novices etc., it is permissible only before noon, not after noon, because it was received with a substance," they say. But there, since there is no fault in receiving it again, since the reception before noon has been relinquished, and since it was not received by oneself, no fault is seen; it should be taken after examination. Sālūkā are roots, they are called "something from here." "Phārusaka is a tree in the Goḷa region" it is also written. Since it is specified as "juice of ripe fruit," "unripe is permissible" it is said. It is also established by the words of Kurundi. Even water used to wash rice is indeed grain juice. "Unstrained sugarcane juice is for seven days" it is written. Sāvittī is Gāyattī. Chandas is of the Veda. "Monks, a renunciant should not be made to undertake what is not permissible" it is said, meaning that for an unordained person too, not only in the ten training rules, but also in whatever is not permissible for a bhikkhu, that is the intention. Two cloths are merely by designation: Chinese cloth and Somāra cloth. Three means three with wool. The miraculous one arose for the 'Come-Bhikkhus'. The Devadatta one was obtained by Elder Anuruddha. "Let us go" in the case of a seven-day transgression due to medicine, and in the case of a seven-day transgression due to the rule of medicine." Thus it is written. The commentary on the Chapter on Medicine is finished. 7. Commentary on the Chapter on Kathina Commentary on the Story of the Permission of Kathina 306. "Kathina means firm, because it is capable of bringing about five benefits." Thus it is written. Not saying "five are suitable" but "will be suitable," the future tense, is appropriate in the possessive sense of "vo" (for them), because at that moment the kathina was not yet of benefit to them. Among these two interpretations of the meaning, the latter is more suitable, because all of those from Paveyya were observers of all ascetic practices.