English
that should not be accepted as essential. This is the statement of the Sāratthadīpanī. In the Vimativinodanī, however, "if of two... (etc.)... is not proper" – the reading here is corrupted. Thus, the reading here should be understood: "if the property of two is received by one and is undivided, after seven days, there is no offense for both, but it is not proper to consume it." Otherwise, the grammatical usage would not be included. "And in the Gaṇṭhipada, this very reading is shown," it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. "No offense for both" is said because it is undivided. "But it is not proper to consume it" – this is said according to the saying: "what is kept in store for a maximum of seven days is to be consumed." "Because it was released by the one who received it" – by this, it shows that the word "releases" is said also referring to a gift by an ordained monk. Even if the act of receiving is not eliminated in an object given by an ordained monk without expectation, the state of being one's own property is indeed eliminated. Therefore, it does not become nissaggiya. Nissaggiya occurs only due to these two reasons: "being received by oneself" and "being one's own property," not by one. But in a gift by an unordained person without expectation, both of these are abandoned. Consumption is proper here, not in a gift with expectation, due to the absence of the characteristic of a gift. And in the Pāli word "vissajjati," it should be understood that even discarding it without giving it to anyone due to lack of expectation is included. "Without expec The phrase "having given up" was said just to show the method of abandoning acceptance. For when acceptance is abandoned, consumption after re-accepting will be permissible by itself. And that abandonment occurs by giving up ownership of the item. And by this, it is established that when there is an intention to consume the item, the relinquishment of acceptance is not obtained distinctly. Otherwise, it would have to be said, "without any intention regarding acceptance, one relinquishes acceptance and then re-accepts and consumes." By "because it was not accepted," it shows that even what belongs to one person, if accepted by another, becomes liable to forfeiture. Thus, it refers to the pure-hearted relinquishment without the intention "I will take it again." The meaning is to show non-offence for the consumer, that is, to show non-offence from offences like Pācittiya based on forfeiture. Here, however, "to show non-offence in consumption" means to show non-offence from the Dukkata offence mentioned for physical consumption, etc., of a relinquished acquisition. 100. Having thus shown the four kinds of requisites, now, showing their specific characteristics, he said, "Among these, however," and so on. There, what is said to be Sanghika or Puggala, belonging to a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni, whether yāvakālika or yāmakālika, if placed for even one night in an unsuitable place, in a house where co-sleeping is possible, is called "kept inside." And what is cooked there is called "cooked inside." But seven-day requisites and lifelong requisites are permissible. However, for one who takes any yāvakālika or yāmakālika, with the intention of consuming it, having accepted it and let one night pass, there is a Dukkata for the taking. But for one who consumes it, for each act of consumption, there is a Pācittiya due to the condition of accumulation. This is the meaning. Now, showing other specific characteristics, he said, "As for yāvakālika," and so on. There, "mixed flavors" means "blended flavors." Long-term items mixed with short-term items become short-term. He says that they follow the time: "But what is for a certain time... ...and the three, such as what is for a watch of the night." In the others too, this is the method. Therefore, in these cases, only on that day before noon is it permissible, not on that day after noon, not at night, not on the second day and so on. This is the meaning. If (you ask) "Why?" Because it is mixed with what was received on that day, which is for a certain time. And here, not just saying "because it is mixed with what is for a certain time," but because the qualifier "received on that day" is stated, it is understood that if it is mixed with what was received earlier, which is for a certain time, then even on that day before noon it is not permissible; it becomes not to be consumed. By "mixed in taste," it shows that even if it is mixed, the remaining three kinds of time-bound things, if their taste is not mixed, are permissible at their own respective times. In "with what is for a watch of the night," the instrumental qualifying word "received on that day" should be supplied, or it should be carried over from the previous sentence. Its result is just as stated. But in the books, it is seen as: "the other two, mixed with what is for a watch of the night, are received on that day." That is not good. Where it is not (present), that alone is good. Why? For the accusative qualifying word qualifies the other two. Then, if what is for seven days and what is for life, received on that day, are mixed with what is for a watch of the night, it would mean they are permissible until sunrise, not those received earlier. That meaning is not appropriate. Why? Because what is for seven days and what is for life do not cause proximity, and because it contradicts the characteristic: "long-term things follow short-term things." Therefore, whether received on that day or received earlier, what is for seven days and what is for life, being mixed with what is for a watch of the night received on that day, are permissible until sunrise. That meaning is appropriate. And thus, it would be consistent with the statement to be made later: "But what is for life, whether received on that day or received earlier, if mixed with what is for seven days received on that day, is permissible for seven days." Moreover, "But the other two, mixed with the yāmakālika, are permissible until dawn on that very day" —this should be the earlier reading. Seeing "received on that very day" existing in other readings, the scribes might have inserted and written "received" here, thinking it was omitted from the word "on that very day". But this "on that very day" qualifies the phrase "until dawn". Therefore, it is permissible until dawn of that very day, showing the meaning not until dawn of the second day and so on. For this very reason, in the upper reading too, the qualifying word "received on that very day" which is in apposition with the word for short-term use, "seven-day-kālika", qualifies that very thing, not the word "lifelong" which is for long-term use. Therefore it is said: "That which is lifelong, mixed with a seven-day-kālika received on that very day, whether received on that very day or received earlier, is permissible for seven days." And in cases like "received two days ago" and so on: "That which is lifelong, mixed with a seven-day-kālika received two days ago, whether received on that very day or received earlier, is permissible for six days. That which is lifelong, mixed with a seven-day-kālika received three days ago, whether received on that very day or received earlier, is permissible for five days. That which is lifelong, mixed with a seven-day-kālika received four days ago, whether received on that very day or received earlier, is permissible for four days. That which is lifelong, mixed with a seven-day-kālika received five days ago, whether received on that very day or received earlier, is permissible for three days. That which is lifelong, mixed with a seven-day-kālika received six days ago, whether received on that very day or received earlier, is permissible for two days. That which is lifelong, mixed with a seven-day-kālika received seven days ago, whether received on that very day or received earlier, is permissible for that very day." In this way, it should be applied to the seven-day-kālika itself, by subtracting the past days according to the remaining days, not to the lifelong. For there is no past to be subtracted from the lifelong. The 'for-life' item, by name, is that which, when there is a condition, is to be consumed for life. Therefore it is said: "Even the seven-day medicine, when mixed with the life-long item, brings the life-long item to its (the seven-day item's) nature." In some books, relying on the text written as: "The other two, when mixed with the one-night medicine, are received on that day," in this very text, thinking "this 'received on that day' is what is desired," they reject the reading "received beforehand." In some, they write: "or received before the meal." All that, not paying attention to the method stated above, they do thus with confused minds; this should be understood. Among these four kinds of requisites, it is said that an offense occurs for one consuming the 'for-a-meal' food after the midday time has passed, the 'for-a-night' food after the last watch has passed, and the 'for-seven-days' medicine after seven days have passed. When asked, "By which training rule does an offense occur?" it says, "By the 'time-watch' rule," and so on. Its meaning is: For one consuming the 'for-a-meal' food after the time has passed, an offense occurs by this training rule of eating at the wrong time (Pāci. 248): "Whatever monk eats or consumes food or edibles at the wrong time, it is a pācittiya." For one consuming the 'for-a-night' food after the watch has passed, an offense occurs by this training rule of stored food (Pāci. 253): "Whatever monk eats or consumes food or edibles that have been stored, it is a pācittiya." For one consuming the 'for-seven-days' medicine after seven days have passed, an offense occurs by this training rule concerning medicine (Pārā. 622): "Those medicines for sick monks, namely, ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, molasses, having received them, they are to be consumed as stored provisions