English
"Then why did the Buddha teach reflection in the present tense?" "It was taught in the sense of 'near present' or in a general sense." "This being the case, following the Buddha, even now, reflection on requisites used in the past should be done in the present tense." But those who say, "Reflection in the past tense should be done only for things used yesterday, not for things used today; for those, only present tense reflection," they should be told thus: "Sirs, is there such a thing in the Pāli as you say?" "There is not." "Is there in the commentaries?" "There is not." This being the case, what is not found in the Buddha's words, the Tipiṭaka with its commentaries, your How is this saying to be understood? By way of the tradition of teachers. Let your statement be according to the tradition of teachers. Time is threefold: past, future, present. Therein, completed action is called past, impending action is called future, begun but uncompleted action is called present. Therefore, the ancients said: “A state begun but uncompleted, is present, well-completed; The arising of past and future, is action not yet attained, but impending.” Therein, whether today, or yesterday, or before that, the consumed requisites, due to the action of eating being well-completed, are called past. Therein, the requisites consumed yesterday or before that, due to the rising of dawn having passed, are not fit for reflection; even if reflected upon, it is as if not reflected upon, it stands in the place of a debt-consumption. For it is said in the commentary: “If dawn rises for him without his reflecting, it stands in the place of a debt-consumption.” But today, reflecting upon the robe and lodging as they are consumed, upon the almsfood as it is taken mouthful by mouthful, and upon the medicine at its reception and consumption, due to the action of eating not being completed, is called reflection on present-consumed requisites. Reflecting upon what was consumed before, and then afterwards in the four divisions, due to the action of eating being well-completed, is called reflection on past-consumed requisites. This much is the field for reflection, not before or after that. As it is said in the commentary: “The unreflected consumption of a virtuous person is called debt-consumption. Therefore, as one consumes the robe… …and at the reception and consumption of medicine, mindfulness of the requisite is proper.” Therefore, since what was consumed yesterday is debt-consumption, without touching upon that, in the requisites consumed today, both past and present, by following the word of the Blessed One, with the verb in the present tense, “I use,” reflection is well-established, so it should be understood. It is with reference to such reflection that in the Vimativinodanī and other texts (Vi. (vi. ṭī. 1.585) "Because of purification through the retrospection of the past in the virtue dependent on requisites." Thus, having shown the purity of the virtue dependent on requisites, now, in the same context, to show all purities, it is said, "Purity is indeed fourfold," and so on. Therein, that by which one is purified is purity. The teaching according to the Dhamma is purity, teaching-purity. Here, even the rising up (from an offense) should be understood as included in teaching. For offenses with severed roots, the declaration of non-bhikkhuhood is the teaching. The restraint distinguished by resolution is purity, restraint-purity. The seeking of requisites righteously and fairly is purity, seeking-purity. The retrospection in the four requisites according to the method stated is purity, retrospection-purity. This is the concise method regarding purities. However, in the case of virtues that are pure, that for which teaching is purity is teaching-purity. The same method applies to the rest. "I will not do it again" – here, "it" refers to the type of restraint. "Having abandoned" means having avoided, having not done. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said: "That which is purified by teaching, etc., or that which is cleansed, is purity, the fourfold virtue. Therefore, it is said, 'because of purification by teaching,' etc. Here, by the mention of teaching, rising up (from an offense) and the declaration of non-bhikkhuhood for those with severed roots are also included. For even in the case of offenses with severed roots, the bhikkhu-virtue, which was protected below, becomes pure through rising up from a pārājika offense. Thereby, the attainment of the path also becomes possible for them." Therein, that which is taught, that which is uttered, is teaching (desanā), from the root "disī uccāraṇe" (to utter). Or, that by which one is taught, that by which one is made to know, is teaching (desanā), from the root "disa pekkhaṇe" (to see, to look at). In both ways, it is a word-sound of teaching, arising from a wholesome mind predominant in abstention. Restraining is restraint (saṃvaro), from the root "vara saṃvaraṇe" preceded by "saṃ-", a mind-state predominant in mindfulness. Seeking is seeking (pariyeṭṭhi), from the root "isa pariyesane" preceded by "pari-", a mind-state predominant in energy. Repeatedly entering into and looking is retrospection (paccavekkhaṇā), from the root "ikkha dassanaṅkesu" preceded by "paṭi-" and "ava-". an element, a mind-state led by wisdom. Among these, for one unable to make a verbal distinction due to the nature of the teaching's verbal distinctions, and not obtaining a second (person or opportunity), it does not succeed. But the others, being merely mind-states, succeed even for one unable to make a verbal distinction and not obtaining a second. Therefore, in times of sickness and so on, even if one cannot recite the reflection text, one should reflect with the mind, having considered the meaning. That which is to be given is a gift. Those who take it are heirs. Since there is no enjoyment at all in what is not permitted, and enjoyment exists only in what is permitted, the requisites to be enjoyed by bhikkhus belong to the Blessed One. And the Dhammadāyāda Sutta here is a proof, "Be my heirs in Dhamma, bhikkhus, not heirs in material things. I have compassion for you, thinking: 'How may my disciples be heirs in Dhamma, not heirs in material things?'" Thus, the Dhammadāyāda Sutta (MN 1.29), which proceeds in this way, is a proof for this meaning here. For those not free from passion, due to being enslaved by craving, there is no mastery in the enjoyment of requisites. In the absence of that (enslavement), for those free from passion, there is mastery in that (enjoyment) due to the existence of enjoyment as they wish. Indeed, they enjoy requisites, even what is repulsive as if not repulsive, and even what is not repulsive as if repulsive, or avoiding both, with equanimity. And they fulfill the donors' wishes. Therefore it is said: "For they, having transcended the slavery of craving, enjoy as masters." But this reflected enjoyment of a virtuous ordinary person, is called "debt-free enjoyment" because it is the opposite of debt-like enjoyment. Just as a debtor cannot go to a desired place according to his own wish, so one engaged in debt-like enjoyment cannot escape from the world. Because it is the opposite of that, the reflected enjoyment of a virtuous person is called "debt-free enjoyment." Therefore, this enjoyment, distinct from the four kinds of enjoyment, should be understood as a separate kind of enjoyment in the ultimate sense. Here, it is not separate... It is said, or it is included in the enjoyment of an inheritance. For even a virtuous person, being endowed with this training, is called a trainee. For all, for noble ones and for ordinary people. How are these enjoyments possible for ordinary people? By way of approximation. For indeed, the enjoyment of an ordinary person, who stands in the practice of effacement, having abandoned greed for requisites, and with a mind unattached there, is like the enjoyment of an owner. But the considered enjoyment of a virtuous person is like the enjoyment of an inheritance, because it does not disappoint the wishes of the donors. Therefore it is said: "or it is included in the enjoyment of an inheritance." Regarding the enjoyment of a good ordinary person, there is nothing to say, as it is included among the trainees. The Sekkha Sutta (AN 3.86) is a proof of this meaning. But in the Vimativinodani (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.585) it is said: "That which is to be given is 'dāya' (inheritance), those who take it are 'dāyādā' (heirs)." Here, in "the seven trainees," good ordinary people are also included, it should be understood, because their debt-free enjoyment is included in the enjoyment of an inheritance. The Dhammadāyāda Sutta (MN 1.29) is the sutta that begins with: "Be my heirs of Dhamma, monks, not heirs of material things." There, the meaning should be understood by bringing in the word "me" (my) as in "Do not be my heirs of material things." For thus it becomes a proof of the meaning stated above, it is said. There, "my heirs of material things" refers to those who consume the four requisites, the requisites related to the Blessed One, who is related (to them). Therefore, even requisites given by donors, being permitted by the Blessed One, become the Blessed One's requisites. It is said that the Dhammadāyāda Sutta is a proof of this meaning. Enjoyment with a conscientious person means enjoyment by taking what belongs to the conscientious person. The same method applies here regarding "with an unconscientious person." For it shows that from the very beginning there is no such thing as an unconscientious person, and therefore one should not harbor doubts about those who are seen (to be unconscientious). Those who are a burden to oneself, such as co-residents. They too... "He who sees that it should be prevented, by him it should be prevented" is the reading. In the Commentary, however, the reading