English
what is the difference between requisite-dependent virtue and Pātimokkha-restraint virtue? It is said: In the first three requisites, the distinction is… This is obvious. But just as, when a sick person's requisites are kept hidden at the root of a tree, having made a fence, its fruits are also protected, even so, when the virtue of dependence on requisites is protected through reflection, the Patimokkha restraint virtue connected with it is also accomplished. For one who consumes sick person's requisites without reflecting, the virtue that is broken is the Patimokkha restraint virtue itself. But the virtue of dependence on requisites is broken for one who does not reflect on it from the first watch after the meal and so on, until dawn. Indeed, for one who consumes sick person's requisites even without reflecting before the meal, there is no offense. This is the distinction between them, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.585). But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.585), "theyyaparibhoga" (consumption as a thief) is said because it is not permitted by the Lord, the owner of the requisites. "Iṇaparibhoga" (consumption as a debtor) is said because one consumes without doing what should be done, even though permitted by the Lord. And thereby it shows that the virtue of dependence on requisites is ruined. "In consumption, consumption" means consumption by removing from the body again and again. The interpretation is that one should reflect in the last watches. In "stands in the place of debtor's consumption," they say that past reflection is also permissible, such as "yesterday, the robe I used..." "In consumption, consumption" means in entering inside from the place of water falling, and in sitting and lying down. "Mindfulness as a requisite is permissible" means it is permissible to obtain the state of a requisite through mindfulness of reflection. It shows that mindfulness of reflection must necessarily be obtained both in receiving and in consuming. Therefore, it says "having made mindfulness," etc. Some, however, say the meaning thus: "mindfulness as a requisite, when there is a requisite, when there is a reason for consuming medicine." For them too, "when there is a requisite" should be understood as "when there is a discernment of the existence of the requisite," because virtue is not purified merely by the existence of the requisite. By "an offense for one who does not consume," the breaking of the Patimokkha restraint virtue is shown, not the virtue of dependence on requisites... For him whose virtue is not dependent, by reviewing the past, it is purified. But in this and in the remaining requisites, by the saying "use as a debt," etc., it is a distinction of virtue dependent on requisites. Thus, this distinction should be understood, it is said. In these two treatises, where it stands in the place of "use as a debt," it is said, "Yesterday, the robe I used..." and so on, they say. But relying on this method, some scholars now say, "What was used this morning, when reviewing in the evening, should be reviewed as past, saying 'Today, the robe I used...' and so on." Some say, "Only what was used yesterday should be reviewed as past, not what was used today; that should be reviewed as present." In that case, such an investigation should be made into the root statement. How? Is this statement "yesterday," etc., a Sutta, or in conformity with a Sutta, or a teacher's tradition, or one's own opinion? First, it is not a Sutta, because it is said that "Sutta means the Pāḷi in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka," and this statement is not Pāḷi. Nor is it in conformity with a Sutta, because it is said that "Sutta-conformity means the four Great Authorities," and this lacks the nature of a Great Authority. Nor is it a teacher's tradition, because it is said that "Teacher's tradition means the commentary tradition established by five hundred Arahants at the Dhamma Council, which is outside the Pāḷi and proceeds with clear decisions," and this lacks the nature of a commentary text. Nor is it one's own opinion, because it is said that "One's own opinion means a statement presented by inference, by one's own intellect, by grasping a method, apart from Sutta, Sutta-conformity, and teacher's tradition; moreover, all the Theravāda found in the Suttanta, Abhidhamma, and Vinaya commentaries is called one's own opinion," and this lacks the nature of the Theravāda found in the commentaries. Thus – For the fourfold Vinaya, the great elders, mighty and powerful, having extracted it, proclaimed it, the Dhamma reciters of old. 5) – Since this statement does not fully enter into the fourfold disciplines mentioned, it should be investigated. Therefore, it is said by the commentator in the Sāratthadīpanī, “That should be examined.” Or else, “the statement of the manner in which the grasp of the method is presented” – by this characteristic, the statement made according to the presented manner of those various teachers might be one’s own opinion; even so, it should be investigated. “One’s own opinion should be brought into the teachers’ doctrine. If it enters there and accords with it, it should be accepted. If it neither enters nor accords, it should not be accepted. For this so-called ‘one’s own opinion’ is the weakest of all,” — by this saying, and because this statement does not enter and does not penetrate into the commentary’s statement. For it is said in the commentary, “If dawn breaks for him without his having reflected, he stands in the position of one who has consumed a debt.” Another method – Is this statement a Pāli statement, or a commentary statement, or a sub-commentary statement, or a statement from another text? Therein, it is not a Pāli statement, nor a commentary statement, nor a statement from another text, but rather a sub-commentary statement. Let it be a sub-commentary statement, is it one’s own statement, or another’s statement, or an intended statement, or an unintended statement? Therein, it is not one’s own statement, but rather another’s statement. Therefore, it says, “they say.” It is not an intended statement by the sub-commentator, but rather an unintended statement. Therefore, it says, “That should be examined.” But by those teachers, “reflection on past consumption” – this might have been made by conceiving it as “reflection on past consumption” meaning reflection in terms of past consumption, and combining it with a word indicating the past. Consumption in the past is past consumption; reflection on past consumption is reflection on past consumption. But if it is made thus, it becomes a statement using a word indicating the present, due to the proximity of past consumption to the present, just as when a man who has come from a city and is seated, is asked, “From where do you come?” and replies, “the city "I am coming" is said with a present tense word. And in the Vinaya, Suttantas, Visuddhimagga, etc., the reading is only in the present tense, "reflecting wisely, he uses the robe," not in the past tense. And as for past use, on this very day, taking the time after meals, etc., the use before meals, etc., is desired, not the use of yesterday. If it is asked, "How is this understood?" By the authority of the commentaries. For it is said in the commentary: "The almsfood, morsel by morsel, and if one cannot do so, in the times before meals, after meals, the first watch, the last watch. If dawn breaks while he has not reflected, he stands in the position of one who uses a debt." By this, reflecting on the almsfood morsel by morsel, because the act of eating is not yet finished, it is primarily a present reflection. Reflecting in the four divisions like before meals, etc., because the act of eating is finished, it shows that it is a past reflection. But that reflection, being close to the present, is prescribed with a present tense word. If indeed things used yesterday were to be reflected upon with a past reflection, then things used two days ago, three days ago, months, years, etc., would also have to be reflected upon. And if that were the case, the commentary statement as described would be meaningless. Therefore, only the commentary statement should be taken as authority. As it is said: By the Buddha, the Dhamma and Vinaya were spoken; Which by his sons was likewise known; By whom their intention was not transgressed; Because before, they made the commentaries. Therefore indeed, what is said in the commentaries; Excluding that which is a careless writing; All of it, for those respectful of the trainings; Because it is an authority here for the wise. And because in the Sabbāsava Sutta, etc., at the time taught by the Blessed One, the monk is the agent, because of the noun connection, in the present third person form, "reflecting wisely..." "He uses the robe," it was taught. Following that, at the time of reflection by monks, due to being the agent, due to being in the first person, in the present tense, first person plural, "Reflecting wisely, I use the robe," it should be reflected. And the purpose-giving phrases, such as "for warding off cold," should be connected to this very act of using, "he uses, I use." And these verb forms are in the present tense, or in the past tense near the present. Therefore, at the time of reflecting on requisites used in the present or used in the past, the phrase "I use" is appropriate, as it follows the Buddha's words. Even in recitation, such consideration should be made: Those who say, "One who reflects in the evening on what was used this morning should reflect in the past tense, saying, 'The robe that I used today,' and so on," they should be asked thus: "Sirs, was reflection in the past tense on things used in the past taught by the Buddha?" "It was not taught." "How was it taught?" "It was taught in the present tense, 'he reflects.'" "Sirs, was there no reflection on things used in the past in the Buddha's time?" "There was."