English
” In the Vimativinodanī, it is said, “The connection is: ‘it is permissible as a drink.’ Some say that because it is stated thus, loṇasovīraka is a yāmakālika. But some say, ‘for the sick, it is normal, but for those not sick, it is mixed with water,’ so it is a sattāhakālika (seven-day medicine) like jaggery.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, it is said, “It is stated without distinction that it is dependent on mindfulness…” A. In this section, it is said: “I allow, monks, molasses for the sick, molasses-water for the not-sick, salt-sour gruel for the sick, water-mixed for the not-sick” (Mahāva. 284). Therefore, it is established that “the condition of mindfulness is twofold, depending on whether one is sick or not sick.” Discourse on What is Cooked Inside, etc. In the Discourse on What is Cooked Inside, etc., “Now at that time the Blessed One had an abdominal wind ailment. Then Venerable Ānanda, [thinking] ‘Previously, the Blessed One’s abdominal wind ailment was relieved by a three-ingredient gruel,’ himself obtained sesame, rice, and mung beans, cooked them inside [the monastery], himself cooked them inside, and offered them to the Blessed One, [saying] ‘May the Blessed One drink the three-ingredient gruel.’ Even though they know, Tathāgatas ask; even though they know, they do not ask. Knowing the time, they ask; knowing the time, they do not ask. Tathāgatas ask what is connected with benefit, not what is not connected with benefit. For Tathāgatas, what is not connected with benefit is a barrier. In two ways do the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, question the monks: ‘Either we will teach the Dhamma, or we will lay down a training rule for the disciples.’ Then the Blessed One addressed Venerable Ānanda, ‘Whence, Ānanda, is this gruel?’ Then Venerable Ānanda reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha, the Blessed One, reproved him: ‘This is not suitable, Ānanda, not appropriate, unbecoming, unmonastic, unallowable, not to be done. How can you, Ānanda, intend such an excess? Whatever, Ānanda, is cooked inside [the monastery], that is unallowable. Whatever is cooked inside, that is unallowable. Whatever is cooked by oneself, that is unallowable. This, Ānanda, is not for the conversion of the unconverted…pe… Having reproved him and given a Dhamma talk, he addressed the monks: ‘Monks, what is cooked inside, cooked inside, cooked by oneself, should not be consumed. Whoever consumes it, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If, monks, what is cooked inside, cooked inside, cooked by oneself, if one consumes that, there is an offense of three wrong-doings. If, monks, Monks, if one has dwelt inside, and it was cooked inside, cooked by others, and one consumes it, there is an offense of two wrongdoings. Monks, if one has dwelt inside, and it was cooked outside, cooked by oneself, and one consumes it, there is an offense of two wrongdoings. Monks, if one has dwelt outside, and it was cooked inside, cooked by oneself, and one consumes it, there is an offense of two wrongdoings. Monks, if one has dwelt inside, and it was cooked outside, cooked by others, and one consumes it, there is an offense of wrongdoing. Monks, if one has dwelt outside, and it was cooked inside, cooked by others, and one consumes it, there is an offense of wrongdoing. Monks, if one has dwelt outside, and it was cooked outside, cooked by oneself, and one consumes it, there is an offense of wrongdoing. Monks, if one has dwelt outside, and it was cooked outside, cooked by others, there is no offense. (Mahāva. 274) According to this saying, dwelling in a place suitable for sleeping together, cooking there, and cooking by oneself as an ordained monk— when these three factors are present, there are three offenses. When two are present, two offenses. When one factor is present, one offense. This should be understood. "Dwelling inside" means dwelling in an unsuitable hut. "Cooked by oneself" means here that it is not allowable for a monk to cook any kind of food. Even if basil leaves, or ginger, or salt are put into hot gruel, it is not allowable to stir it. However, it is allowable to stir it with the intention, "I will cool the gruel." Even having received hot rice, it is not allowable to cover it. But if people give it already covered, it is allowable. It is allowable to cover it with the intention, "May the rice not cool down." "Monks, I allow you to cook again." (Mahāva. 274) According to this, it is allowable to cook again what was previously cooked by unordained people. For it is said in the commentary (Mahāva. aṭṭha. 274): "However, in the case of milk, buttermilk, etc., once they have been boiled, it is allowable to apply fire again, because re-cooking is permitted." "Monks, I allow you to dwell inside." (Mahāva. During a famine, it is permissible to store rice and the like inside. "I allow, monks, to cook inside," (Mahāva. 274) Consequently, during a famine, it is permissible to cook inside. "I allow, monks, to cook by oneself," (Mahāva. 274) Consequently, during a famine, it is permissible to cook by oneself. "I allow, monks, what is stored inside, cooked inside, cooked by oneself," (Mahāva. 274) Consequently, during a famine, all three are permissible. Story of what is picked up and received. In the story of what is picked up and received: "I allow, monks, where one sees fruits and edibles, and there is no suitable attendant, to take it oneself, carry it, see a suitable attendant, place it on the ground, have it received, and consume it. I allow, monks, what is picked up to be received," (Mahāva. 275) Consequently, it is permissible to do so and consume it. There is no offense. Story of what is brought out from there. In the story of what is brought out from there: "Receive, monks, consume. I allow, monks, what is brought out from there, to be consumed by one who has eaten and made the declaration, if it is not a surplus," (Mahāva. 276) Consequently, food brought out from that offering where monks are invited and eat, should be eaten by a monk who has made the declaration. There is no offense according to the training rule of declaration. Indeed, it is said in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 276): " 'Brought out from there' means what is brought out from where they are invited and eat." Story of what is received before the meal. In the story of what is received before the meal: "Receive, monks, consume. I allow, monks, what is received before the meal, to be consumed by one who has eaten and made the declaration, without making it a surplus," (Mahāva. 277) Consequently, what is received and put aside before the meal is permissible for a monk who has made the declaration to eat, without making it a surplus. There is no offense according to the training rule of declaration. Story of those in the forest and the lotus. In the discourse on the country, “At that time, the Venerable Sāriputta had a fever. Then the Venerable Mahāmoggallāna approached the Venerable Sāriputta, and having approached, he said to the Venerable Sāriputta: ‘Previously, friend Sāriputta, by what was your fever relieved?’ ‘By lotus stalks, friend, and by water-lily roots,’ he said. …Then, after the Venerable Sāriputta had consumed the lotus stalks and water-lily roots, his fever subsided. …Receive, monks, consume. I allow, monks, that which grows in the forest and that which grows in the water, to be consumed by one who has eaten and has been invited, even if it is not leftover.” According to this, it is permissible for a monk who has been invited to consume that which grows in the forest and that which grows in the water. There is no offense under the rule of invitation. Here, “that which grows in the forest and that which grows in the water” means that which grows in the forest and in lotus thickets. Discourse on Unprepared Food In the discourse on unprepared food, “I allow, monks, fruit that is seedless, or has had its seeds removed, to be consumed as unprepared food.” According to this, it is permissible to consume fruit that is seedless and fruit that has had its seeds removed, even without making it allowable with fire, knife, or fingernail. Here, “seedless” means young fruit whose seeds do not germinate. “Having had its seeds removed” means fruit like mango and jackfruit that should be consumed after removing the seeds. These fruits, even in the absence of a preparer, may be consumed without making them allowable. Discourse on Porridge In the discourse on porridge, “There are these ten benefits, brahmin, of porridge. What are the ten? One who gives porridge gives life, gives beauty, gives happiness, gives strength, gives intelligence. Porridge, when drunk, allays hunger, quenches thirst, regulates wind, cleanses the bladder, digests undigested food. These, brahmin, are the ten benefits of porridge. He who to the self-restrained, who live on others' alms, gives porridge at the proper time with care, bestows upon him ten things: life and beauty, happiness and strength, and. ‘Then his quick wit arises; It removes hunger and thirst and wind; It cleanses the bladder and digests food; This medicine is praised by the Fortunate One. ‘Therefore, it is indeed fitting to give gruel; Always by a person who desires happiness; Or who aspires to divine happiness; Or who wishes for human good fortune.’ Then the Blessed One, having approved that brahmin with these verses, rose from his seat and departed. Then the Blessed One, on this occasion, in this connection, having given a discourse on Dhamma, addressed the bhikkhus: “I allow, bhikkhus, gruel and honey-balls.” (Mahāva. 282) Therefore, it is permissible to accept gruel and honey-balls. In the verse of approval, the words “who aspire, who wish” are connected with “it is indeed fitting to give.” If, however, the reading is “by one who aspires, by one who wishes,” that should be adopted.