English
If it is asked, "How is this known?" Because it is stated in the commentary itself: "Do not cause an obstacle to our Uposatha and Pavāraṇā," which is the essence. And in the Tthadīpanī (Sārattha.ṭī. 2.85) it is said: "Shameless royal attendants who cause obstacles to Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are called (such)." Therefore, only a boundary that serves as the field for Uposatha and other Vinaya acts is intended here. If so, are village boundaries, seven-cubit boundaries, and water-throwing boundaries also considered such fields, and therefore should they also be included? It should not be said, because those are not consecrated boundaries, and they are not the owners of those. Only consecrated boundaries are suitable for the bhikkhus' actions, and they are the owners of those. Therefore it is said: "As for the bhikkhus who are owners of the boundary..." As for what they say, "the approach boundary is also such a field," that should not be accepted. We will explain its non-field status later in the Sīmāvinicchayakathā and so on (Vinaya Saṅgaha Aṭṭhakathā 156 ff.). Moreover, since it is not proper to prohibit others from making dwellings in a village boundary, and since seven-cubit and water-throwing boundaries do not always exist, it is understood that only a consecrated boundary is intended. "He may have it cut or broken, he is not blameworthy" - this is said with reference to something like a completely earthen hut, which is entirely unsuitable for use. However, regarding an umbrella bound with five-colored threads, etc., only the unsuitable part should be cut, not the rest, because that part is suitable. One who cuts it is blameworthy. Therefore it is said: "Even a small pot or a snake-figure should be cut and kept," and so on. Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha, The Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of Requisites, The Second Chapter. 3. Discourse on the Determination of Making Medicines, etc. 15. Having thus explained the determination of requisites, now, to explain the determination of making medicines, protective chants, and greetings, he says "Bhesajjā" and so on. Therein, the work of a physician is medicine (bhesajja). What is that? Healing. "Karaṇa" means "making." The making of medicine is "bhesajjakaraṇa." It means the act of a doctor. "Paritta" means that which protects and guards on all sides; protection. This is the meaning. Hospitality is welcome, meaning establishing connection with others. In that, the determination stated by me in the matrix, "making medicine is also a protection, hospitality," (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. Ganthārambhakathā) in that well-established determination of making medicine. Those who share the Dhamma are co-religionists, for them, meaning those who train together in the teaching of one Teacher. Or, those engaged in the Dhamma are co-religionists, for them, meaning those engaged in the training of the Dhamma, the precepts. Being endowed with virtue, etc., leaning towards liberation, they are equal in virtue, faith, and wisdom. By this, it shows that it is permissible not to do it for the immoral and those of different views. From a place where relatives are invited, or from a place where one's own or their relatives are invited. Not done means undone, an unmade request, not done before, in an improper way, is an unmade request. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 186) it is said: "By 'unmade request' means not by a request. For it, even if made, is like not made due to not being permitted, thus an unmade request. 'Please speak, venerable sir, what is needed' - a request in such an unmade place is an unmade request." In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.185): "For the sake of a sick person, a request from an uninvited place, even if made, is like not made due to being permitted, thus an unmade request. 'Speak, venerable sir, for the sake of the requisites' - a request in such an uninvited place is also an unmade request." 16. "Prepares" means accomplishes. Here, regarding "it is not proper not to do it," they say it is a dukkaṭa, but here the prohibition of not doing it is stated in terms of impropriety, not in terms of an offense, so it should be understood. "Without touching all preparations" is said because of not touching the bodies of women, etc. "Until relatives do not see" means until his relatives do not see. "It is not proper to give with one's own hand to parents who have become heretics" - in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 1 86) It is said: 17. Father's sister is paternal aunt. Mother's brother is maternal uncle. "They are unable to do it" means "they are unable to make it," as stated in the commentaries. It is said, "Having taken their own medicine, it should simply be prepared and given." But since it is said, "If they are unable and ask, 'Please give it to us, venerable sir, we will return it to you'," it appears to be the intention of the commentaries that they ask for the medicine because their own medicine is insufficient. This should be investigated. "They do not ask" means they do not ask out of shame, or out of respect. Since it is said, "having made a resolve," there is an offense if one gives otherwise. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.18), it is stated, " 'Having made a resolve' is said to show what should be done; but it is written in three glossaries that it is permissible to give even without making a resolve." The ancient commentary also adopted and wrote the same. But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.185), that statement is rejected. For it is said there, "Some say that it is permissible to give even without making a resolve, but that is not proper for the making of medicine, because in the Pāli, it is generally rejected by showing an intermediate offense, 'There is no offense of pārājika for the bhikkhu, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.' It should be understood that an offense is established by the Sutta itself for one who acts in a way not stated in the commentary. For this reason, it is also said in the commentary, 'their own property,' etc." "Except these ten relatives" means that their sons, grandsons, etc., are also relatives because they are connected to them, and so they are included here. Therefore, "others" means the inclusion of non-relatives. For this reason, it is said, "of their lineage of sons," etc. "Lineages of families" means a succession of families, a lineage of families. "One who makes medicine" means one who makes it according to the method described. But for one who gives without making a resolve, thinking, "I will give it for a while," there is no wrong livelihood or defilement of family, apart from an intermediate offense of dukkaṭa. For this reason, it is said, "medical practice or defilement of family." or is not. For it is proper to take what belongs to relatives even by asking, therefore there would be no family-corrupting offense there. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.185) it is also said: “They say that for one who acts with the expectation ‘they will give to me, they will do for me,’ since it is a situation where one can ask and take, there is no medical practice or family-corrupting offense among relatives.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 186), however, only this much is said: “They say that because of the phrase ‘there is no medical practice or family-corrupting offense,’ it is proper to make medicine up to the seventh generation of the family.” The decision should be known in all passages, so in all passages like “to the maternal aunt,” the decision should be known by connecting it as “the husband of the maternal aunt,” and in the manner stated below. “I will bring it for the preceptor”— this is said to show the method to be followed by those commanded by the preceptor: “Bring medicine for my relatives.” And by this, it shows that it is not proper for novices and others to make medicine for others even without expectation. “Having sought in the manner stated”— by this, it refers to the meaning stated by “by the alms-round practice” and so on, and by “by relatives or novices” and so on. “Without expecting” (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.185)— the intention is that by acting for incoming thieves and so on, people are indeed benefactors, so one should not desire gain from them for oneself; but for one who acts with expectation, there is fault such as medical practice or family-corrupting. For when such help is rendered, they become pleased knowing the virtue of the Dispensation, or they become benefactors of the Saṅgha, and in such a case, there is no fault. Some, however, say: “It is proper to give even to incoming persons and prohibited individuals without expecting.” That is not suitable, because it would lead to the meaninglessness of the distinction between what should and should not be done, since it would only need to be said that “it is proper to give and do for everyone” without expecting. And not expecting is said only to prohibit faults such as wrong livelihood and family-corrupting. That is not for release from this intermediate offense called 'making medicine'. It should be understood that release from that offense is only by giving to permitted guests, thieves, and so on. 18. Therefore, to show the place where it should not be done even by one who does not expect (anything in return), "a faithful family" and so on was said. Even when it is said, "Tell the medicine," "but conversation should be made with each other" - this is permissible by way of circumlocution. Thus, by the method stated below, taking this and that, they do it, and even for one who speaks in this circumlocutory way, there is no fault, say the teachers. By "they ask," it shows that it is improper to wander about speaking even by way of circumlocution to those who are seen to be sick. But for one who is asked and expects (something in return), they say even circumlocutory speech is not permissible. By "he conversed,"