English
Even Yāvakālika (food) accepted today, if mixed with a drink that has passed the Yāma (time limit) and stored... what does. Among non-permissible meats, for human flesh, a grave offense arises; for other meats, a minor offense. 255.Some say that even for a seven-day medicine, or a lifelong medicine, if it is for food, a minor offense arises if it is not stored. If it is received on that day, and consumed before noon on that day, is it permissible? No, because there is no distinction in the Pāli or in the commentaries. If it is said that in the medicine training rule, one may consume before noon as one wishes? Food includes ghee and so on; therefore, it is said in that context, not in the context of medicine, says Upatissa. The commentary on the training rule concerning storage is finished. 9. Commentary on the training rule concerning choice food 259.Non-permissible ghee means ghee from animals whose flesh is not permissible. It is written: "Except for fat-oil, there is no such thing as non-permissible ghee." Here, regarding "making a request," it is said: "there should be no request for soup or rice." Bodily means to be committed by the body. 261.If, by the Mahānāma training rule, one is to act, and if, when the Sangha has invited, one requests the five kinds of medicine like ghee, then it falls under "medicine not to be done with medicine." Therefore, it is said: "there is an offense of expiation for that." In the non-Pāli texts, it is written: "for bhikkhunīs too, a minor offense." The commentary on the training rule concerning choice food is finished. 10. Commentary on the training rule concerning tooth-cleaning sticks 264-5.The mouth-door means the throat-passage. Merely raising means merely to lift up. Having discarded the refuse means according to proper conduct; it is said that "it is permissible" even if not discarded. Beyond the reach of the hand means of the donor. Gives to a bhikkhu means to another bhikkhu. Gruel means any liquid. The bowl should be received because if placed on the ground, there is no offering. It is written: "Just as there is no fault if it falls as it did the first time, so too, even if it falls for those who scatter and remove it, there is no fault because it has been offered." With a small lump means with a small piece. Even for one who is awake means "by the word 'even,' for one who is asleep too," it is written. aṃ. Some, meaning the residents of Abhayagiri. By them, regarding bodily contact, even with that which is attached to the body, or that which is attached to that which is attached to the body, a grave offense was shown, this is the meaning. The phrase "attached to that which is attached to the body" is merely a statement. "With a knife, meaning that which has been received," is written, that is poorly written, for even if there is a stain, there is no need to receive it again. For the sake of some, meaning for the sake of unordained persons. "The mere touching of the novice's hand is considered as given," is written. A burden fit for receiving is that which should be lifted by a middle-aged man. Only the original receiving is permissible, in this regard, because it is said "for warding off fish," those who say, "even for not eating, it is permissible to receive and hold it," they should be asked, "if one receives oil for anointing the head, and without intending 'this is for anointing the head,' one lets seven days pass, what would be a forfeiture?" and so on. The intention of the Sutta, however, should be understood thus: "for warding off fish, when sowing, if dust or the like adheres to the leaf, it is said that it should be received beforehand with the thought that 'it can be easily consumed'." In the discourse on exchange, it is said, "if the bhikkhus have the thought, 'when our rice is exhausted, we can establish ourselves with these, even those belonging to the novice, which are in our hands,' then Elder Upatissa says, 'the exchange is meaningful'." If so, it is indeed concluded that for those with pure minds, it is meaningless. Similarly, it is concluded that, "if there is the thought, 'this novice is clever, he will exchange the bowl and give it, and we ourselves will eat it either through familiarity with him or by asking him,' then it is not permissible to eat, even if the exchange is made." Why say more? The teacher said that it was stated to show that it should be taken without attachment, not with attachment. This very meaning is already established by the statement, "but if he is able to purify his thought, then it is permissible to eat what is received." The bowl is placed in a stand so that there is no attachment to the state of having received it. Samu with a ladle, not received. The milk of a ram is permissible as milk. It is said, "It is said to show that there is no offense for one who drinks his own milk directly from the mouth." It is written, "Here, the great elements inherent in the body are intended," but both of these contradict the statement, "or permissible meat or milk," and so on. Furthermore, if one places his own alms food in an unreceived bowl belonging to another monk, and says, "That is little," or for any other reason, that is not permissible for anyone. Why? Because it is a dukkaṭa offense in the Vinaya. The meaning is that it is a dukkaṭa for not performing the Vinaya rule of receiving it oneself before placing it. So why should such a thing not be eaten? Because it is stated in the Commentary that "it becomes 'taken up' (uggahitaka)." Thus, it is stated in the sub-commentary that if one unknowingly touches any fruit or any kind of food, even for a lifetime, that has not been received, whether on the ground or in a bowl, it is not permissible; it becomes 'taken up'. Therefore, according to this view, if a monk places alms food in another monk's bowl that has not been received, it is proven to be impermissible and 'taken up'. This very meaning should be explained by correlating it with the statement: "If in one's own or the monks' porridge-serving bowl... ...it should be consumed after making it non-flesh." "Or permissible meat or milk" was stated incidentally. Some say that if curds are obtained, they are also intended. The explanation of the Tooth-Stick training rule is finished. The fourth section, the Food Section, is completed in the order of explanation. 5. The Naked Ascetic Section 1. Explanation of the Naked Ascetic training rule 269. While eating leftovers, a certain female wanderer entered and stood there with a gain of cakes. "Causes to be given" means by an unordained person. The explanation of the Naked Ascetic training rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the Dismissal training rule 276. "Of one who dismisses" is the genitive case in the sense of disrespect. The meaning is also that there is an offense of dukkaṭa for one who dismisses the dismisser. Here, "unordained person" is intended to mean a novice. The Dismissal training rule The explanation of the dispraise is finished. 3. Explanation of the Sabhojana Training Rule 280. Here, in "Sabhojana," the first alternative, "woman and man," connects with the third word. The second alternative connects with the first two. "Kula" means house. "Anupavisitvā" means with the intention to sit down, with one's own mind. The explanation of the Sabhojana training rule is finished. 4. Explanation of the Rahopaṭicchanna Training Rule 284. Here, the fifth is Upānanda's fourth. Therefore, in the tenth commentary of the Bhikkhunī Vagga, it should be understood that "by the fourth training rule" is the reading for Upānanda above, not "by the third training rule." The explanation of the Rahopaṭicchanna training rule is finished. 5. Explanation of the Rahonisajja Training Rule 289. The Rahonisajja training rule is straightforward in meaning. 6. Explanation of the Cāritta Training Rule 294. "Sabhatto" means invited meal, say the ancients. If one eats after having gone for alms before the mealtime, there might be a sequential offense; after the mealtime, that would not be. If a traveler, after the mealtime, were to go to a former house, some say it is an offense, others say it is not an offense. For them, in entering another family's house, there are different opinions about offense; "They expect a similar meal," say others here. They agree that "by a courtesan's meal" means by invitation; "The dismissal is the same," say some, others say "in their presence." Because it must be investigated by those who seek a conclusion, the wise know this training rule as "conduct itself." The explanation of the Cāritta training rule is finished. 7. Explanation of the Mahānāma Training Rule 310. "Kāla" means that. Since this rule applies only to the Saṅgha's invitation, it is said, "for invited relatives." Only a sick person may truthfully explain and make known, "We have been invited by you for this, and we have a need for this and this." As for what was said in the Paṇītabhojana training rule, "he should be made to act according to the Mahānāma training rule," that refers to an invitation by the Saṅgha. If he asks for ghee and other five kinds of medicine for medicinal purposes, "not medicine with medicine to be done "by the word 'iññāpeti', the meaning is 'pācittiya'" (pāci. 309) is written. The commentary on the Mahānāma training rule is finished. 8. Commentary on the Uyyuttasenā training rule "Maṃ diṭṭhena" means "seen by me," or "by my seeing." Even one man with a weapon is included in the category. The commentary on the Uyyuttasenā training rule is finished. 9. Commentary on the Senāvāsa training rule In the ninth, it should be delimited by the enclosure of the army, or by a place suitable for enclosure, or by the boundary of the place of movement. The commentary on the Senāvāsa training rule is finished. 10. Commentary on the Uyyodhika training rule In the tenth, if one goes to see each one, there is an offense of wrong-doing.