English
, they do not accomplish the function of food. Some, however, say, “This is said to show that what accomplishes the function of food in one country is not proper in the wrong time even in other countries.” “By way of natural food” means by its own nature, not combined with other occasional foods, by way of performing the function of food. “It is only confusion” means that because there are names for many things and things that are not well-known, there would only be confusion. Therefore, we too have made no display here by showing alternative terms for mūlakamūla, etc., because it is to be taken only from instruction. What is proper undamaged. "Muḷāla" means the thick, tender root itself. "Rukkhavalliādīnaṃ matthakoti" (the top of trees and vines, etc.) is said by summarizing what was stated below. To show that the unripe fruits of "acchi" and the like are for life, it is said "aparipakkāni" (unripe). In "harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīni" (the stones of harītaka and the like), some say the kernel is for a limited time, but this is not appropriate as it is not mentioned in the commentary. The exudate flowing from the hiṅgu tree is called hiṅgu. Hiṅgujatu and the like are also varieties of hiṅgu. Among these, hiṅgujatu is the exudate made by cooking the stems and leaves of the hiṅgu tree. Hiṅgusipāṭikā is the exudate made by cooking hiṅgu leaves. Some say it is made by mixing with something else. "Taka" is the sticky substance that comes out from the very tip. "Takapatti" is the sticky substance that comes out from the leaf. "Takapaṇṇi" is the sticky substance made by roasting it on a leaf. Some say it is the sticky substance that comes out from the stem. "Vikālatā" (wrong time), "yāvakālikatā" (for a limited time), and "ajjhoharaṇa" (eating) – these are the three factors here. The description of the training rule concerning eating at the wrong time is finished. 8. Description of the Training Rule Concerning Storing Up 252-3. In the eighth, "tādisaṃ" (such) means sauces and condiments. In "yāvakālikaṃ vā yāmakālikaṃ vā…pe… pācittiyaṃ" (food for a limited time or food for a watch…pe… an offense of expiation), although in the Pāḷi, the terms "khādanīya" (chewable food) and "bhojanīya" (eatable food) only include food for a limited time, not food for a watch. Nevertheless, it should be understood that because it is stated here, "anāpatti yāmakālikaṃ yāme nidahitvā bhuñjati" (there is no offense if one stores food for a watch and eats it within the watch), and elsewhere, "Monks, food for a watch, food for seven days…pe… food for life, if received on that day, is permissible within the watch; it is not permissible after the watch has passed" (Mahāvagga 305) – and by the power of the word "yāmakālikaṃ" (food for a watch), the commentary teachers, who understood the Buddha's intention, stated that food for a watch, when stored up, is indeed an offense of expiation. "Yaṃ" (which) refers to the bowl; this is a term of usage in relation to the act of rubbing. "Aṅgulilekhā paññāyati" (a finger-mark is discernible) means it is discernible due to the clean surface of the bowl, even in the absence of grease. "Yaṃ" (which) means food for a limited time and food for a watch. "Aparicattaṃyeva" (not given up) means not having given up due to indifference. The unoffered of another, refers only to a temporary item like a bowl, not to its acceptance. For it is not possible to abandon the acceptance of that without abandoning the item itself, nor is there such a statement. If there were, the statement, "If the bowl is not washed... ...there is an offense for one who eats," would be contradicted. For one who tries to remove the food by washing has no desire for acceptance. Which would cause an offense for one eating on the next day. But the desire present in the bowl also extends to the food in it, so a lack of desire for the food is not taken here. Therefore, it is said that the acceptance of food not abandoned causes an offense on the next day. Now, if it is thought, "If a lack of desire for food is not taken here, then a lack of desire for acceptance is also not taken." In that case, it follows that where there is a desire for food, there is also no cessation of desire for acceptance. And thus, the abandonment of acceptance without desire would not need to be stated separately. If this were considered by the Commentary as a reason for abandoning acceptance, it should be stated more clearly and separately, like the abandonment of determination by revocation even when there is a desire for the robe. And if this method were present, there would be no non-validity for bowls with knots, as this meaning has been stated. Therefore, what is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī, "If what is given up by another, even if unoffered, becomes an abandoned acceptance through a release without desire for acceptance, that too is permissible on the second day," and so on, should not be essentially believed. "Ordinary food" means rice and other permissible temporary items. "Two" means one offense due to proximity for one who eats a temporary item accepted before noon with a mouth containing food before noon; and one offense due to being not surplus by becoming a temporary item through being mixed with a temporary item, thus two offenses. In the two alternatives, in the two factions, with and without attachment. A grave offense and a minor offense: a grave offense for human flesh, a minor offense for other things. Temporariness and lifelongness, the state of storage, and its consumption— these are the three factors here. The explanation of the rule concerning storing is finished. 9. Explanation of the rule concerning choice foods 259. In the ninth, "choice foods are foods mixed with choice ingredients"— in the Pāli, "foods" are not shown because they were mentioned before and are clear. They are called choice foods because they are mixed with such choice ingredients. To show their varieties, "such as ghee, fresh butter," and so on, is said. In "ghee-rice," although it means rice mixed with ghee, and "ghee and rice" can also be understood, in the commentary, it is said, "there is no such thing as ghee-rice like rice-rice," so no other meaning is possible. Indeed, the commentators are the authority in such places. "Root" refers to permissible requisites. Therefore, in "no offense," even if there is no offense of expiation due to misunderstanding, they say one is not exempt from the minor offense of soup and rice. "With permissible ghee, with impermissible ghee"— this is said in terms of permissible and impermissible meat and beings. 261. The Mahānāma rule is the rule concerning the invitation for the four-month supply (Pācittiya 303 onwards). For an uninvited sick person who makes a request in an uninvited place, even if he specifies a time period or a medicine period, he is equal to one who makes a request beyond that from an invited place by the Sangha, or one who requests medicine within the specified period for an illness that does not require medicine. Thus, it is said, "he should be dealt with by the Mahānāma rule." Choice food, not being sick, receiving without making a request, and consuming— these are the four factors here. The explanation of the rule concerning choice foods is finished. 10. Explanation of the rule concerning tooth-cleaning sticks 263. In the tenth, "thickly bound" means bound with thick flesh, meaning having a hard, compact body. 264. Mouth-door The opening of the mouth below the face is the mouth-door, meaning the gullet. Thus, even if it enters the nose, it is considered to have entered the mouth-door. But if it is merely placed in the mouth, it is not considered to have entered. "Food" here refers to that which is to be consumed, that which is timely, not water. For even if it is included as medicine, it is untimely, as only that which is received is timely. For water, the act of receiving does not apply. Therefore, if a monk eats meat with water that has been heated, or that has been received a long time ago, or with one who dwells in an improper hut, the fault of "same cooking" does not arise. For it will be said: "A monk heats water for gruel... etc. it is permissible" (Pac. Atth. 265). But the monks at that time did not understand this intention. Therefore it is said: "without properly discerning the meaning," etc. 265. "Even a chariot-dust particle" means a dust particle like the dust that rises when a chariot is moving. This shows that even a finer particle seen floating in the air is not considered as such. "Akallako" means sick. "To take... etc. from its lower end" shows that even if one stands upright in the air and takes something thrown up by another, the hand-reach should be measured from the sole of the foot, which is the nearest part of the body, not from the top of the head. Here, "orimantena" should be understood as "from the lower end." And here, in the commentary on the Pavāraṇā training rule, it is shown that for those receiving, the measurement is from the outer end of the nearest body part, as in "if a monk is seated, from the back end of the seat" (Pac. Atth. 238-239). So here too, for a receiver standing in the air, it should be understood that the hand-reach is measured from the lower surface of the heel, which is the outer end of the toe, the nearest body part. And for the giver, it is measured from the lower surface of the toe, which is the lower end. By this same method, even if one lies on the ground and takes something from the hand of one sitting with a raised head, it is measured from the outer end of the nearest body part, the head. From the elbow the arm's length should be measured, not from the sole of the foot. Thus, even when lying down, it should be understood accordingly. For it is said, "whichever limb is nearer." By the perception of receiving: meaning, by the perception arisen "I will receive it with a bed, etc." This shows that there is no need to say