English
Therein, the meaning of "orimantena" (lower end) should be taken as "heṭṭhimantena" (bottom end). And here, in the commentary on the Pavāraṇā training rule (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 238-239), since it is shown that if a bhikkhu is seated, the measurement is from the hindmost part of the nearest limb of the recipients, it should be understood that here too, for a recipient standing in the air, the arm's reach should be measured from the bottom surface of the heel, which is the hindmost part of the sole of the foot, the nearest limb, and for the giver, from the bottom end of the toe, which is the foremost part. In the same way, even for one lying on the ground and receiving from the hand of one seated at the head, the arm's reach should be measured from the neck, which is the hindmost part of the nearest limb (the head), not from the sole of the foot. Similarly, when giving while lying down, it should be understood accordingly. For it is said: "whichever limb is nearer" (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 238-239). "Akalla" means a sick person, unable to consume with their own hand, receives with their mouth. But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.265), only this much is said: "Akalla means a sick person, or to take." By this, "akalla" means a sick person, or unable to take. The meaning of "who is unable" is shown. Therefore it is said: "Even if snuff is given, and he is unable with his nostril, he receives it with his mouth." 105. "Even by a part" means by merely touching with a finger. If he receives that, all is indeed received, because it is tied and placed at the end of a bamboo stick. If a pot standing on the ground is given by the donor, standing within reach, saying "I will give the pot," and he receives it by taking hold of the end of a bamboo stick, then all that is tied to both ends is indeed received. Not squeezing it in the monk's hand, but referring to sugarcane juice naturally being squeezed, because it was said "take it," it was said "no offering is evident." However, for a monk standing within reach, it is permissible to take the juice flowing from the sugarcane being squeezed. Sugarcane juice flowing by itself into a trough, even if it is collected in the middle and released, it is permissible to take. "By the perception of receiving" means by the perception arisen, "I will receive with a bed, etc." By this, it shows that the act of saying "I receive" with words is not necessary. Wherever in the commentaries, or in passages. "On an immovable plank" means immovable by an average strong person. "By the statement 'on tamarind leaves etc.', it should be understood that receiving on branches is permissible," it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Pācittiya 3.265). The same is stated in the ancient commentary, but this should be investigated. For in the commentary, "on fine tamarind leaves etc. spread on the ground, it is said that receiving is not permissible." That is because the tamarind leaves etc. are fine, and the offering placed there does not settle firmly, being like something placed on the ground, it is said "not permissible." Even if placed on tamarind branches etc., it would be the same, therefore the statement "receiving on branches is permissible" seems inappropriate. In the commentary, for the verb "is not permissible," when seeking the reason "why," no other reason should be sought, but "on fine ones"... This qualifying word, it is said, becomes a qualifying word for the reason. Therefore, in tamarind leaves and the like, acceptance is not suitable. Why? Because of their fineness. But in other lotus leaves and the like, it is suitable. Why? Because of their coarseness. Thus, the cause-and-effect relationship is desired, it appears. Therefore, it is said, "This should be investigated." Indeed, it is said in the commentary, "For they are not capable of holding. But in large lotus leaves and the like, it is suitable." 106. "Having wiped and received" – this is said for the purpose of receiving even if there is a suspicion of dust, not if there is none. "That" refers to the alms-food taken from above, without receiving the fallen dust. "No offense" means there is no fault of ill-practice and so on. In accordance with the prior intention, it is said, "Having given to an unordained person... it is permissible." However, since it does not become another's property merely by the thought, "I will give it to another," therefore, it is permissible to receive and consume it even without giving it to him. "I will give it to an unordained person" and so on is also said to avoid a minor offense against the discipline. Even if it is taken without doing so, there is no offense for one who receives and consumes it. "Gives to a bhikkhu" means gives to another bhikkhu. "Gruel" refers to any liquid such as milk-juice and so on. "Having released from the hand and taken again, it becomes re-received" – therefore it is said, "without releasing from the hand." "Stirring" means "mixing," or this is the reading. Since it has been brought and placed on the ground, there is no bringing forth, so it is said, "The bowl should be received." 107. "When drops first fall from the ladle into the bowl" – concerning this, they say, "Just as there is no fault in drops that fall first, so too there is no fault in drops that fall later when scattering and removing, because they have been brought forth." "With a small spoon" means with a small vessel. "Because they have been brought forth" refers to the moment of giving. But at the time of giving and removing, if ashes or drops fall, it should be received again, due to the cessation of bringing forth... "It's hot!" they say. So that it does not fall, when they ward it off, saying, "I will remove it," it is fitting. When removing it with the perception of its natural state, the offering is not cut off, it has fallen well. For it is indeed received. It is fitting to take it by the mouth-rim, so it is fitting to extend the hand and touch the upper part of the mouth-rim of the bowl being offered. "By kicking with the foot," means by stepping on it with the perception, "I will receive it." "Some," refers to the residents of Abhayagiri. "It is merely a word," means that "bound, bound, bound" is merely a sound, not something else; it is bound to the body. Therefore, their statement should not be taken, is the intention. "This is the method," means this method: "even 'bound, bound' is bound to the body." And in that case, a grave offense is stated for what is bound to the body and what is bound to it. "Causing it to be brought by him," means that it is fitting for the other monk to cause it to be brought by the monk to whom it went, by ordering him, "Bring it here." "Therefore," means because only the original owner's use is permitted, therefore. "Having taken it with the hand on that day, and having received it on the second day and consumed it, it becomes 'taken up and received'," so he says, "without touching." Because it was not received, it is said, "no offense due to storage." "For one who consumes it without receiving it, an offense of 'not given through the mouth-door' occurs," so he says, "but it should be consumed after receiving it." "Not beyond that," is said with reference to what was not received by oneself on that very day. "But what was received on that very day, it is fitting to consume even on subsequent days without receiving it again," they say. 108. "They are worn away," means they go to decay. The intention is that there are no offenses of grave misconduct or non-receipt due to their powder. "With a knife," means with a received knife. "Newly arisen," this shows that in the case of sugarcane and so on, because it is newly attached, it is not considered unmarketable. "This is the method," he speaks with reference to the fault of storage and so on. Therefore, he says, "For not..." and so on. Why here? "Because it was taken up, or because it was stored, there should be no fault," he said, "for they do not carry it for consumption." By this, it is shown that it is permissible to carry it for external use, either having taken it oneself or having received it from an unordained person. Therefore, if one wishes to consume oil, etc., carried for the purpose of anointing bowls, etc., having taken it oneself, there is no offense for one who consumes it after receiving it. However, for internal consumption, if one consumes what was taken by oneself, after receiving it, it is a "taken-up-and-received" act. If one consumes it without receiving it, there is an offense of "not-given-through-the-mouth-door." If one carries what was given by an unordained person for internal consumption, there is an offense due to storage, like the case of the horn-salt. Some, however, say, "Since the act of receiving is established by the five conditions mentioned, such as 'it is merely for the excretion of a man of medium strength,' if one takes what is given by unordained persons even for external use, it is considered as received." If this is so, then here, for one who carries what was given by an unordained person for external use, an offense due to storage should be stated. And "they do not carry it for consumption" should not be said. Therefore, it should be understood that what is taken for external use is not considered as received. If so, should the qualification "for consumption" be stated among the five conditions of receiving? It should not be stated. For receiving is indeed for consumption, so without separately saying "for consumption," only this much was said: "If a bhikkhu receives it with his body or with what is connected to his body." Others, however, say, "Even if there is receiving, 'they do not carry it for consumption' means that here, carrying for non-consumption is stated as blameless.