English
"Thinking it is specifically prepared (uddissakataṃ), here, because the substance is allowable, it is said 'he is indeed refused'." If it is indeed specifically prepared, there is no prohibition. "This is the intention here," it speaks referring to the meaning stated with "by whom he was asked" and so on. "The reason here is difficult to see": the reason for the possibility of refusal when the rice is abundant is difficult to see. Otherwise, even in a mixture, if fish etc. are abundant, there would be a refusal, so is the intention. Just as the reason here is difficult to see, so too later, with "take the mixed (food)," the reason is also to be seen as difficult to see. And the reason stated, such as "this is indeed mixed rice," also does not agree with the statement "one is not refused for a lesser amount"; only this much is said. "He gives separately" means "he takes the juice etc. that is on top of the rice separately and gives it," so it is stated in all three glossaries. But by some, it is said: "He presses it firmly with his hand so that no rice grains fall, and strains it, then gives it." There too, the reason is not seen. For just as, having brought gruel mixed with rice, and saying "take gruel," if one refuses when gruel-mixed rice is given, there is no refusal, so too here, with rice abundant in milk, juice, etc., whether one gives milk etc. after saying "take milk," or gives rice mixed with milk etc., in both cases, there is a re There should be no invitation. Therefore, it is said with reference to giving in the manner of "giving separately," and not with the intention of showing that an invitation occurs when one refuses what is given mixed with rice. If, however, it is said in the commentary "gives separately" with the intention that an invitation occurs when it is given mixed with rice, then in that case, the commentary itself should be taken as the authority here, and no other reason should be sought. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.238-239), however, it is said: "By 'gives separately' the meaning should be taken as 'gives separately by speech' such as 'take the juice,' and not by separating the juice etc. with the body, because an invitation is impossible for one who refuses even when not so separated, and because it is mentioned by the name of that which is capable of not being an invitation, as in cases where rice-mixed gruel is brought and it is said 'take the gruel,' otherwise, the intention here should be taken so that it does not contradict the preceding and succeeding context." In "a boat or a bridge," etc., even if one stands for a while at the moment of boarding a boat, etc., and even if boarding, etc., must be done, it is not called "standing" with the intention of going. But it is not proper to stand due to a crowd or lack of space. "Without moving" means moving to another place on the seat or upwards. But it is allowed to turn around in that very place. Therefore, it is said "by which side," etc. If one sits squatting and sits on the ground without releasing one's feet, it is called disturbing the posture. So, in order to sit comfortably without disturbing the squatting posture, it is said, "a sitting cloth should be given under it...etc." "Without moving the seat" means without detaching the buttocks from the place touched on the seat, without standing up. It should not be taken as moving from the place as in the case of taking what is not given. This is stated in all three commentaries. 121. "Made unallowable" here, because only what is made unallowable is not surplus, it is put into the bowl without making it allowable. which is not surplus, such as roots and fruits, or food that is not allowable, obtained through defiling families, and so on. The rest, however, that is included in the bowl, is surplus and may be consumed. But if one wishes to consume roots and fruits, one should take them out, have them made allowable, place them in another container, have them made surplus, and then consume them. 122. "He cannot do it again" means that if it is done in the same container, it is considered done together with what was done first, so he himself cannot do it again, but another can. However, it is permissible for him or another to do it in another container. Therefore, it is said, "What is not done, should be done by him, and what is not done, that should be done." The word "api" here in "tenāpi" indicates that it is not only by another. "Evaṃ kataṃ" means done in another container. "Pesetvā" means sending it by the hand of an unordained person. Because this is a disciplinary act, it is said, "What is in the hand of an unordained person should not be done." If, however, "sace pana āmisasaṃsaṭṭhānīti" means that if they are mixed with food that is not surplus, even if it has entered the mouth, it is to be understood as a pācittiya offense. Therefore, even one who has made a declaration and is eating food that has been made surplus should eat it after purifying the mouth and hands, so that it does not mix with what is not done. Although there is no offense for an undeclared person who consumes early-morning food, such as yāmakālika, for nourishment, for a declared person, there is always a dukkata offense rooted in the declaration, as stated in the Pāli (Pāci. 240): "yāmakālikaṃ…pe… in every mouthful, in every mouthful, there is an offense of dukkata." Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha, The chapter on the determination of rejection and declaration, Called the twenty-first chapter. 22. The Chapter on the Determination of Ordination 123. Having thus explained the determination of rejection and declaration, now, to explain the determination of ordination, it begins with "pabbajjāti ettha panā" (here, regarding ordination). There, "pabbajjā" means to be abandoned first, and "upasampadā" means "O" means it should be approached first. The root is "vaja" preceded by "pa", meaning "to go". "Kulaputta" (son of good family) refers to a son of good family in terms of conduct. The connection is: avoiding those individuals who are rejected. "Free from the faults of ordination" means free from the five obstacles and other faults that are hindrances to ordination. "The measure of a fingernail" here refers to the back of the nail of the little finger. "If it is even the size of a fingernail and is in the growing stage, one should not ordain him," by this, the general characteristic is shown. Therefore, it is established that if in any part of the body, something of the size of a fingernail is in the growing stage, it is not permissible. And if this is the case, it would follow that if something of the size of a fingernail is in the non-growing stage, it is permissible everywhere. But that is not generally intended. Therefore, showing it as restricted to specific places, he says, "But if..." and so on. For if, without distinction, something of the size of a fingernail in the non-growing stage were permissible, he would not have made the restriction to "places normally covered by robes and outer garments." Therefore, it is established that outside of places normally covered by robes and outer garments, even something of the size of a fingernail in the non-growing stage is not permissible. However, something smaller than the size of a fingernail, whether it is in the non-growing stage or the growing stage, is permissible. because something smaller than the size of a fingernail, whether in the growing or non-growing stage, is only prohibited on the face and so on. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.88). However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 88-89), it is said that "if something of the size of a fingernail is in a covered place and is in the non-growing stage, it is permissible." Therefore, in an uncovered place, even such a thing is not permissible. And in a covered place, if it is in the growing stage, it is certainly not permissible. But if anyone were to take it that in an exposed place, something smaller than the size of a fingernail and in the non-growing stage is permissible... , to prevent their taking of it, it was said, ‘in the mouth,’ and so forth. A monitor lizard…and so forth… ‘is not allowable’— by this it is shown that such a disease is included in leprosy. In the case of a boil, the decision should be known by this method. However, there, it was not separately shown that even a boil smaller than a jujube seed in the mouth and so forth is not allowable. For there it was only said, ‘‘Even if it is in a non-growing state in an uncovered place, it is not allowable.’’ Nevertheless, by the method stated for leprosy, it is understood that even a boil smaller than a jujube seed in the mouth and so forth is not allowable. Therefore, in ‘even if it is in a non-growing state,’ the word ‘even’ is for including what is unsaid. By this, the meaning that ‘even if it is smaller than a jujube seed, it is not allowable’ is shown— this is our understanding. ‘Born with its natural color’— this is said with reference to the absence of a discolored appearance caused by disease. ‘The size of a jujube seed’ means the size of a jujube seed. The reading is ‘‘having made it with skin,’’ the meaning is ‘having made it with existing skin.’ In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said, ‘‘‘Having made it with skin’ means ‘having made it with existing skin,’ or the reading is ‘sañchaviṃ,’ meaning ‘having acquired skin.’ Even when boils and so forth have subsided, that place may be discolored; that is allowable.’’ ‘The color of a lotus or white water lily petal’ means the color of the petals of a red lotus or a white lotus. ‘By the method stated for leprosy’ shows the method stated as: ‘‘What is non-growing in a covered place is allowable; nothing else is allowable anywhere else.’’ ‘Consumption disease’ is a wasting disease. ‘Yakkha madness’ is a disease where a yakkha