English
Dry pulp, for life, so it should be understood. Why? Due to the distinction of being mixed with water. What is said? Among the four time-categories, the former is heavy, the latter is light. And among these, this mixing with water makes the heavy light, and the light heavy. Indeed, mango juice and the like, being for a lifetime, are heavy. But mixing with water makes them light, for a watch, giving them the designation of mango drink and the like. From the commentary's statement: "Phāṇita is produced from sugarcane, taking sugarcane juice as its basis," it is established that sugarcane juice is for seven days. There, having said much like "mixing with water makes it for a watch," it is applied. Moreover, here, sugarcane juice, being permitted by "Monks, I allow sugarcane juice" (Mahāvagga 300), is permissible for a non-sick person even when unmixed with water, due to its general nature as sugarcane juice, like jaggery water. Therefore, it is said in the commentary: "Sugarcane juice without pulp is permissible after a meal" (Mahā-aṭṭhakathā 300). "All this is not our reasoning," says the teacher. But some say: "From the statement 'Phāṇita is produced from sugarcane,' and from the commentary's statement 'taking sugarcane juice as its basis,' sugarcane juice is indeed phāṇita. Therefore, it should be treated like jaggery." Some say: "Being for seven days according to the stated method, and being specifically permitted by 'Monks, I allow sugarcane juice,' it is permissible for a non-sick person even when unmixed." Some say: "According to the stated method, being specifically permitted, whether mixed or unmixed, it is only for a watch. But jaggery water is only for seven days." Some say: "Like jaggery water, it is for seven days in both cases." There, in the view of the first teacher, this is the consideration: Since the permission for sugarcane juice is established by the permission for phāṇita itself, a separate "sugarcane..." having extracted the juice, the permission is useless, thus the commentary, "Sugarcane juice, unboiled, is allowable after noon," is also useless. "It is allowable for seven days," should be said, but it cannot be said so. If it is because it concerns juices allowable after noon? No, in that context, the seven-day allowable item would not be mentioned. If it is said because it entered the context of juices without regard for time difference? It is not possible to say, "Unboiled juice is allowable for seven days." If it is said that it should not be mentioned because it concerns juices allowable after noon? No, for if it were said thus, this, like other juices, would be allowable only after noon, and not beyond that. If it is said that "it is allowable after noon" because it is not to be consumed beyond that? No, for it would lead to its being a temporary allowable item. That consequence does not arise, for even the sugarcane juice that is allowable until evening can become treacle, etc., through cooking. This is the discussion in the views of the third and fourth teachers. The discussion in the second view has been stated; the detailed explanation will appear in the chapter on medicines (Mahāvagga 300). "Phāṇita" (treacle) is a specific term for a nissaggiya item's treacle derived from sugarcane, distinguishing it from superior items like honey, palm, and coconut treacle. Thus, it is understood that "the treacle here, being a nissaggiya item, is only that derived from sugarcane, not that derived from honey, etc." By this much, it is established that not everything derived from sugarcane is called "phāṇita." For this reason, in the chapter, after treacle was first permitted, sugarcane juice was permitted later, and similarly, there, jaggery and jaggery water. Regarding "ucchurasaṃupādāya apakkā vātiādimhi" (concerning sugarcane juice, whether uncooked, etc.), for those whose doctrine is that "sugarcane juice is allowable for a watch," they explain the meaning as: "apakkā vā" means "uncooked by the bhikkhu himself," and "avatthukapakkā vā" means "cooked without a basis." That is not appropriate, for it would lead to the absence of purpose for the phrase "ucchurasaṃ upādāya" (concerning sugarcane juice), and the bhikkhu's authority to cook. from non-existence. If it is intended here as "self-cooked"? And since the sugar-cane juice, not cooked by oneself, becomes treacle by their own opinion, and from the later observation of the method like "treacle made from unboiled sugar-cane juice received before noon," that is not suitable. The statement there, "that which is made by oneself from unboiled sugar-cane juice, without any mixture, is permissible," indicates that the impurities there do not create a self-cooked state, but rather make it something received with a substance. Therefore, the ancients say it is not permissible to receive it, it spoils. It is said that "treacle from crushed sugar-cane is permissible only before noon, with the perception that 'it is like a coarse, substantial cooked item, like a dye-cooked item'." The Great Commentators said, "Thus, the acceptance of treacle is not sweet, therefore it is not permissible after noon." Is it because of sweetness or non-sweetness? Venerable Upatissa Thera said that it was stated thus in the Mahāpaccariya just to show the meaning. That is appropriate, it is said because it originates from sugar-cane, therefore it is said "but sugar candy... etc. ... is permissible." It is written, "They put it in a milk pot and cook it." Jallikā means foam, etc. By speaking of medicine, others are mentioned by way of extracting the meaning. In the Khandhaka (Mahāvagga 260), it is said, "those capable of spreading for the purpose of food," because it is stated, "whatever is medicine and is considered medicine by people, and spreads for the purpose of food." The discussion here will become clear in the chapter on medicines. 624. "Dvāravātapānakavāṭāni" means the doors and the windows' shutters. For by merely adding astringent, they abandon their own nature, therefore it is said "they should be smeared." They say "Kasāva means things like kanakalamba, etc." "Adhiṭṭheti" means one generates the thought, "Now it will not be for consumption, it will be for external use." Here, the word "vikappeti" (to determine/designate) is not present. Even "adhiṭṭhāna" (determination) is said by common usage, as in "I determine this fresh butter." because it is not to be spoken. 625. As for "it is not proper to use it," it is said with reference to the absence of intimacy. If there is intimacy, it is proper, and by "use it," it is considered to have been given, therefore, there is no offense for both. If it has not been given, an offense occurs. Therefore, the robe belonging to both should be determined by one of them who is present. If it is not determined, it becomes subject to relinquishment. If even a kākaṇika's worth of the price has not been given, this is not similar to "it is not subject to determination... it does not become one's own," nor is it like something given to the Abhidhammika groups. Why? Because Abhidhammikas can be unordained, and it becomes common to those who later become Abhidhammikas. Here, both are ordained, and both have the right to do as they wish with it, and ownership, and it is not common to others in that way, nor do two or three bhikkhus say, "we will spend the Rains together," but one protects it. This is similar to "no offense due to being undivided." If the other gives the price by which it was received, or if he gives it to the other, if it is received, it is subject to relinquishment after seven days have passed. Therefore, that robe should be determined by one of the two who is present. Although the application of this is not seen, as there is no application of determination for two people with similar requisites, nevertheless, for two people with all similar belongings, if oil, etc., has been received by one, an offense can occur if the time passes, and because it is difficult to find a special reason for not determining it, it is said, "it should be determined." That is not proper due to the dissimilar rule for bowls and robes that are for seven days. Here, for a bowl and robe, an offense occurs if one does not determine it after it has become one's own property and the time passes. But for something for seven days, even if it is common property belonging to others, if it is received, it causes an offense to the receiver if the time passes. Receiving is the measure here, not one's own ownership there, and for something for seven days and it is to be renounced, it is not to be eaten by anyone. There is no offense for one who uses another's bowl and robe. And this, even if it is past the time, after renouncing it, what is received later is allowable. But as for that bowl and robe, it is an act of discipline for him, so it is allowable. Even for one who has not divided it, the giving of this is acceptable, not of the bowl and robe. For it is said in the commentary: "It belongs to two... ...even if they give it to their co-residents without dividing it, it is as if it were not given." For one to whom the giving itself is not acceptable, how can there be an act of determination? If one gives a bowl and robe to another on the tenth day, from that time on, he is allowed to keep it for ten days, not so for the seven-day allowable item. Thus, when examined in every way, it does not fit with what is similar, so it should not be regarded as essential— this is the teacher's reasoning. "But by way of an act of discipline, even if it is given away to someone without renouncing it, by suddenly opposing it, it is not allowable to use it again after receiving it back," it is said. If a robe has become renouncable because it is in another country or across the ocean, a monk staying here, having made it abandoned with a single thought, without attachment, having confessed the offense, should take it again with his trust