English
and with them, there are three species of honey-flies." Bumble-bee is a large comb-maker. "Like lac" means thickened by dryness or by cooking. "The other" means thin honey. "Honeycomb" means a mere honeycomb without honey. They say, "If they receive a comb with honey and put it aside, because the comb serves as a container, if seven days pass, it becomes subject to relinquishment on account of the honey." This is reconciled by "honey-smeared is just honey-like." 98. "Phāṇita is that which is produced from sugarcane" —since this is stated without distinction in the Pāli (Pāci. 260), and in the commentary, "taking sugarcane juice... … because of the saying, “The sugar cane product without a base is to be known as ‘phāṇita’,” the sugar cane juice, when purified, is to be known as valid for seven days. However, someone else, having said, “In honey, the four valid times should be applied as appropriate, and also in sugar cane,” and having said, “Honey with wax, or filtered honey, is valid for life. Honey without wax, mixed with water, is valid for one day. Honey not mixed with water is valid for seven days. Pure honey wax is valid for life. Similarly, sugar cane juice with its impurities is valid for life. Sugar cane juice, purified, mixed with water, is valid for one day. Not mixed with water, it is valid for seven days. Pure sugar cane impurities are valid for life,” has further elaborated in many ways. There, the statement “Honey or sugar cane juice, mixed with water, with its impurities, is valid for life; purified, mixed with water, it is valid for one day” is found neither in the Pāḷi text nor in the commentaries. As for the reason why “water, being lighter, makes a heavier substance, like grape juice, which is valid for life, become lighter, valid for one day, when mixed with it, and also makes a lighter substance, valid for seven days, become heavier, valid for one day, when mixed with it,” that person himself should be asked. Everywhere in the Pāḷi text and in the commentaries, it is shown only that even a heavier substance becomes lighter when mixed with water. Indeed, in the Pāḷi text (Mahāva. 284), by saying, “I allow, monks, jaggery for the sick, jaggery water for the not sick,” it is permitted that jaggery, which is not suitable for the not sick to consume, becomes permissible even for the not sick when mixed with water. And also, having shown the commentary statement, “If it is sugar cane, it is valid for life; if it is sugar cane juice, it is valid for one day; if it is phāṇita, it is valid for seven days; if it is the skin, it is valid for life,” someone else said, “Sugar cane juice mixed with water is valid for one day.” That too should not be accepted as authoritative, due to the absence of such a commentary statement in the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya commentary. And for that very reason, some teachers say, “Sugar cane juice, whether mixed with water or not mixed with water, is valid for seven days.” Bhesajjakkh And in the blind, regarding "I allow, monks, sugarcane juice," here, in all three knot-joints, it is said without distinction: "Sugarcane juice is for seven days." As for "what is made by oneself is allowable without meat," it should be understood that even if it was received unfiltered, at the time of preparation, it is filtered, and the dregs are removed, and it is made by oneself. This is a passage from the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.623). But the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.623), regarding sugarcane juice, shows that even juice without dregs is for seven days, because it is generally stated in the Pāli text: "produced from sugarcane." But what is said in the Suttanta Commentary: "If it is sugarcane, it is for a lifetime. If it is sugarcane juice, it is for a watch of the night. If it is molasses, it is for seven days. If it is skin, it is for a lifetime." that should be taken as said with reference to its being for a watch of the night due to being mixed with mango fruit juice, etc., because it is a non-Vinaya statement, it is not authoritative. For that reason, "with unfiltered sugarcane juice received before noon," etc., is said. "It is allowable without meat," as for what is for a lifetime and has entered there, it is not to be used. This is said to mean that even the dregs present in molasses, when made, become for a lifetime due to being dried by cooking. For if it were for a lifetime, it would not be consumable even before noon by its own cooking. "Because it is received with substance"— this is said with reference to the dregs that have become pulverized and remain in the sugarcane juice. And by that, it is shown: "what is made by the unordained, unfiltered, and unreceived, is allowable for seven days." "Burnt sugarcane molasses" means made by heating sugarcane over fire. "Pounded sugarcane molasses" means cut into small pieces, pounded, pressed, and cooked. Even the dregs present in it lose their quality of being for a lifetime at the time of cooking, it is said: "That is appropriate." "Made with cold water" means made by crushing madhuka flowers with cold water, filtering, and cooking. "Made without filtering," some say. No reason for that is seen. Milk ...having put milk into it, the honey-molasses made is for a limited time. Here, if it is asked, "Why is oil cooked with milk put into it permissible at the wrong time?" The reason for this is: milk put into oil becomes oil itself. But if other milk is put in, it takes on the nature of milk. If so, they also make lump sugar by putting milk in it. Why is that permissible? It is said, "But lump sugar..." and so on. There, "milk scum" means milk foam. 99. "But honey flowers..." and so on, is begun to show the meraya seed substance, which is not permissible, even though it stands in the form of a limited-time item. To answer the question, "Why should these, which perform the function of food, be consumed in this way?" by showing the purpose of medicine, and in that connection, to show all purposive items together, it is said in the Samantapāsādikā, "For there are seven kinds..." and so on. But in the Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa, that is not stated. They say, "From after mealtime onwards, if there is a cause, the medicines received should be consumed even before mealtime from the second day onwards, if there is a cause, because they were received for the purpose of medicine, not for the purpose of food." "In the doors, windows, and door panels" means on the door panels of the main door and the windows. "When put into astringent, they abandon their own nature." Thus it is said, "into astringent... and so on... should be smeared." The meaning is, they should be smeared to ward off woodworms and other insects. "He determines" means he generates the thought, "Now it will not be for me to consume; it will be for external use." Therefore, it is said, "ghee, and oil, and fat, and oil on the head, or anointing," and so on. The intention is that by not expecting such use, he abandons the receiving. Similarly, in other limited-time items, by not wishing to consume them, and with a pure mind, even when determining them for external use, he abandons the receiving. This should also be seen as a distinct abandonment of receiving. By another Regarding the phrase "it may be used by a bhikkhu," it is permissible to have it brought by oneself and to consume it, because it was given with a pure mind. For both, there is no offense. Just as an item belonging to another, received by one, does not become nissaggiya (requiring relinquishment) even after seven days, because it belongs to another, similarly, this item, being undivided, and common to both, does not become nissaggiya due to the absence of division. This is the intention. However, it is not permissible to consume it. Because it was received by a bhikkhu, after seven days, it is not permissible for any bhikkhu to consume it, as the consumption of received ghee, etc., is limited to seven days. For it is said: "Having received them, they should be consumed as a store for a maximum of seven days." "Friend, this oil is permissible to consume for seven days." By this, it shows that what was received by one, was relinquished to another within seven days. Whose offense is it? First, it was stated that there is no offense because it is common to both. Now, however, because it has been relinquished by one to the other, it is no longer common to both. It has become like a divided item. Therefore, here, after seven days, there must be an offense for one. Thinking this, he asks: "Is the offense due to the act of receiving, for the receiver, or for the one to whom it belongs?" And here, due to the fact of relinquishment, the reason "due to being undivided" was not stated. Instead, it was said: "because it was relinquished by the one who acquired it." And this, due to the fact of relinquishment, abandoning its commonality to both, even though it became the property of one, it became the property of someone other than the one who received it. Therefore, it was stated to show that, as in the case of receiving another's property, there is no offense for the receiver due to the act of receiving. It was not stated to show that "because it was relinquished by the one who acquired it" implies that if it is not relinquished, even if undivided, there is an offense after seven days. For if not relinquished, due to being undivided, there is no offense. is held. But if the other, to whom it was received, releases his share within seven days, after seven days, there would be an offense because it has become his property to whom it was received. "Because it was not received by the other" – by this, it indicates that even if it is his property, since it was not received by him, like his own property received by others, there is no offense. But not understanding this intention, it has been elaborated otherwise by the authors of glossaries and others;