English
"Trees, vines, and so on" is said by summarizing what was stated earlier. "Gone into the earth" is said with reference to the trunk of a Sāla tree. "All allowable" means all allowable in terms of roots, bark, leaves, etc., and the connection is that it is not possible to show the limit of these by name either. "Unripe" is said to show that the unripe fruits of the Acchi and so on are lifelong. Regarding "the stones of Harītakas and so on," the teachers say that the shells covering the kernel are lifelong. Some say that the kernel itself is also lifelong. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.248-249), it says, "Regarding 'the stones of Harītakas and so on,' here 'the kernel is temporary'..." Some say, "That is not proper, because it is not stated in the commentary." Hiṅgu is the exudate that flows from the hiṅgu tree. Hiṅgujatu and so on are also varieties of hiṅgu. Therein, hiṅgujatu is the exudate made by cooking the stems and leaves of the hiṅgu tree. Hiṅgusipāṭikaṃ is the exudate made by cooking the hiṅgu leaves. Some also say, "It is made by mixing with something else." Taka is the sticky substance that comes out from the top tip. Takapattī is the sticky substance that comes out from the leaf. Takapaṇṇī is the sticky substance made by roasting on a leaf. Some also say, "It is the sticky substance that comes out from the stem." 91. Regarding "among the yāmakālika items," although in the Pāli text, only yāvakālika items are included by the terms "khādanīya" (chewable) and "bhojanīya" (eatable), nevertheless, because it is stated here, "There is no offense if one eats yāmakālika items having stored them during the proper time," and elsewhere (Mahāva. 305), "Monks, yāmakālika items, sattāhakālika items, ... yāvajīvika items, if received on that day, are permissible during the proper time; they are not permissible after the proper time has passed," and by the power of the word "yāmakālika," it should be understood that the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, who understood the Buddha's intention, spoke only of yāmakālika items as the basis for the sannidhikāraka pācittiya offense. Regarding "except for grain, fruit, and juice," some say, "Rice-washing water is also a juice of grain and fruit." 92. The five medicines for seven-day items: whether they perform a medicinal function or not, these five are so called. By showing what is well-known in the world with "gosappī" (cow's ghee) and so on, and with "whose flesh is permissible," it shows the ghee of other animals like rohita deer and so on. For those that have milk, they also have ghee; but whether it is easily available or difficult to obtain, it is stated to prevent confusion. The same applies to fresh butter. And "whose flesh is permissible" is stated to show the nissaggiya items, not to show that for those whose flesh is not permissible, their ghee and so on are not permissible. For human milk and so on are also not permissible for us. 93. As long as the time has not passed, so long Where it is permissible to consume, here 'time' means the mealtime for bhikkhus, which is intended. And that is the fixed midday, as the ultimate limit. Even the fixed midday falls within the category of time. But from then on, to eat or to consume is not possible. To drink quickly might be possible, but it should not be done with scruple. And to know the time limit, a time-post should be set up. Or the meal should be done within the time. By 'receiving', mere taking is meant. For it is already received, and what is stored is not permissible, so there is no need for a second receiving. Therefore it is said: 'when one takes with the intention to consume, at the receiving'. But in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kankha. Attha. Sannidhikārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) it is simply said: 'when one takes with the thought "I will consume," at the taking'. 'Which' means that which is in the bowl. 'Appears' means appears on top of the gruel. Even if the bowl has an oily color, but is without oil, when one rubs it with a finger, a line appears only due to the color. Therefore, to show that there is no offense there, it is said: 'that is not to be reckoned'. Where it is said that what one has received oneself and not relinquished is not permissible on the second day, here, 'not relinquished' means that the receiving is not abandoned either by indifferent relinquishing at the time of receiving, or by indifferent giving to an unordained person. Thus, by 'not relinquished', in both ways, the receiving not abandoned is meant. Therefore, it should be understood that even if something is given to another and not given back, if the receiving is abandoned by indifferent relinquishing at the time of receiving, that too is permissible on the second day. If so, why is an offense stated in cases like 'the bowl is badly washed'? In all three knot-points (commentaries), it is said: 'Even what adheres to the bowl after it has been emptied by oneself or another, and not properly washed and finished, is still a receiving not abandoned, and therefore there is an offense there'. Some, however, (say) 'when they relinquish to novices' in this matter... having stood in the act, because it was said 'not relinquished,' for one not fully ordained, only what is relinquished is allowable, what is not relinquished is not allowable— this is the implication. Therefore, they say, "even if the acceptance is abandoned with a detached mind, what is not relinquished is not allowable for one not fully ordained." That does not seem right. For to the extent that one abandons acceptance, to that extent one also does not make a store, because what is abandoned in acceptance is like what is not accepted. And the offense is stated due to storing only after accepting and putting away. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.252-253) it says: "The phrase 'not relinquished' refers to the food, etc., which is not given and not relinquished by one not fully ordained, due to his non-attachment, and not to the acceptance of that food. For it is not possible to relinquish the acceptance of food without relinquishing the food itself, nor is there such a statement. If there were, the statement 'if the bowl is unwashed... ...one who eats incurs an offense' would be contradicted. For one who attempts to remove the food by washing does not have attachment to the acceptance. By which, eating on the next day would generate an offense. But the attachment present in the bowl is also present in the food contained therein. Thus, non-attachment to the food is not taken here. Therefore, it is said that 'the unabandoned acceptance of food generates an offense on the next day.' Now, if it is thought, 'to the extent that non-attachment to food is not taken here, to that extent non-attachment to acceptance is also not taken.' If so, it would follow that where there is attachment to food, there is also no cessation of attachment to acceptance. And in that case, the abandoning of acceptance due to non-attachment should not be stated separately, even if the abandonment of acceptance were considered a cause in the commentaries. This should be stated more clearly and separately, like the abandonment of determination by re-designation, even when attachment to the robe is present. And if this method is adopted, the non-applicability to bowls struck by a knot..." This means, "it should not be so." Therefore, what is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.252-253) 'Even if something not given by another, after being renounced, becomes something whose acceptance is abandoned by an indifferent relinquishment, that too is permissible on the second day,' and so on, "should not be essentially believed." In the Pāli (Pāci. 255), it is said, "If one accepts a seven-day medicine or a lifelong medicine for the purpose of food, there is an offense of dukkata." Since dukkata is stated even for consuming seven-day and lifelong medicines for food before noon, it should also be a separate dukkata for consuming them during the watch-period. Therefore, it says, "For one who consumes for the purpose of food, there is a pācittiya together with a dukkata." "Pakatiāmise" means permissible foods like rice. "Two" means: one pācittiya due to the condition of accumulation for one who eats a watch-period medicine accepted before noon with a mouth that has food, and one pācittiya due to the condition of not being surplus, by becoming mixed with the watch-period medicine and thus becoming a watch-period medicine. Thus, two pācittiyas. "Vikappadvaye" means in both categories, with and without meat. "Thullaccaya and dukkata increase" means thullaccaya in human flesh, and dukkata increases in other impermissible flesh. "First, due to the condition of acceptance, there is a dukkata" – here, because it is accumulated, even before noon, it is a dukkata. However, if there is a condition, for one who accepts and consumes even accumulated seven-day medicine and lifelong medicine for the purpose of medicine, there is no offense. 94. "Having taken and put aside" means something not accepted, taken by oneself and put aside. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.622), it is said, "Uggahitaka means taken by oneself for consumption." "Does it oneself" means cooks and does it. "Before noon" means it is permissible only for that day before noon, because it was accepted with a basis. "Made by oneself" means made by cooking fresh butter. "Only without meat" is said with reference to that day before noon. 95. Why is there no "self-cooking" for one who eats today what was made by oneself, only without meat? He said, "When heating fresh butter," and so on. "By those who received it after mealtime" refers to milk and curds. The meaning is that what was made by those who took it up should be applied for anointing and so on. "For both" means for what was made by those who received milk and curds after mealtime and by those who took it up before mealtime.