English
Miscellaneous is finished. The second chapter is on Sheep's Wool. 3. The Chapter on Bowls 1. Explanation of the Training Rule on Bowls Two are not offenses, therefore these should be used as utensils, not subject to formal declaration or designation, this is the meaning. For a suitable monk's bowl, an iron bowl is cooked with five firings, an earthenware bowl with two. And it is written: "Because the accumulation of bowls is forbidden for a bhikkhunī, for a bhikkhu too, considering it 'unsuitable,' it is said, 'having withdrawn the old bowl.'" That is not appropriate, because in the Pāli it is said: "He should make an accumulation, if it is not formally declared or designated." For in the Kathina section, even one bowl, like an accumulation of stores, is called an "accumulation" on the next day. However, in the immediately preceding training rule, "the second is forbidden" means the formal declaration is fixed. Therefore, one is not allowed to formally declare two bowls. If one formally declares them together, both are not formally declared. If one formally declares them separately, the second is not formally declared. But one is allowed to designate many. In "even a kākaṇika's worth," the particle 'pi' (even) includes "it also produces one firing." Or, if it is suitable with just one firing, it should be understood that the amount of firing is not stated as "it is allowable." Because it is not an offense, it is not subject to formal declaration. It is written: "By one not withdrawing, it should be designated" means that by one not withdrawing the old bowl, that bowl should be designated. Explanation of the Training Rule on Bowls is finished. 2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Less Than Five Bindings Here, regarding 'pavārita', it is written that in a place invited by the Sangha, it is permissible only with five bindings; in a place invited individually, it is permissible even with less than five bindings. Whoever for less than five bindings, even if it is said, does this; For the purpose of less than five bindings, having arrived near. The explanation of the training rule on less than five bindings is finished. 3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Medicines It is written that by saying "having received things to be consumed", it is indicated that it is permissible to receive and keep them for the purpose of anointing the feet, and so on. By the statement "whose meat is permissible", those who say that for whom meat is not permissible, ghee and so on is not permissible, speak without knowing. Indeed, for whom meat is permissible, for them ghee and so on is stated to show the definition of things to be relinquished after seven days. Similarly, in the training rule on choice food, it is said to show that for whom meat is permissible, for them milk and so on is choice food, not for others. Honey, it is said, is a great honey, like a resin, in the nests of honey-making bees and flies; and it is written that it is for life. The explanation of the training rule on medicines is finished. The Chapter on Bowls, the third. The explanation of the Nissaggiya Pācittiya is finished. The Pācittiya Section 4. The Chapter on Food 2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Group Meals Devadatta, having made a request at the proper time, ate. Because of that, the training rule "an offense of expiation in a group meal" (Pāci. 209) was laid down by the Blessed One. But in the word-division, taking only "invited ones eat" (Pāci. 218) as an invitation, it is divided. But in the Andhaka Commentary, it is written that even a request by way of a declaration is mentioned in terms of the story. Why? Because in the Parivāra itself it is said, "A group meal arises in two ways: by declaration or by invitation" (Pari. 322). Therefore, because it is clear in the origin story itself, it should be understood that it is not mentioned in the word-division. And "they take together" others who have received food as long as they take, if they remain, they take together, that is the name; "whoever has gone forth," among those of the same Dhamma, or among sectarians, is the meaning; "lack of occasion" means the absence of the seven occasions of non-offence; "with the one who has received an occasion, there are four;" "the one who has received an occasion is himself exempt, the others, by completing the group, incur an offence" — so it is written. Here it is said: "Acceptance itself is the measure here." Then why is it said in the Pāli: "Group meal means where four... etc. ... eat" (Pāci. 218)? It is said: There, "eat" is a word that implies acceptance. For bhikkhus do not eat what has not been accepted. The explanation of the training rule on group meals is finished. 3. Explanation of the training rule on successive meals "Except at the proper time" means, some say, that expecting a meal from an invitation or a request is an offence of expiation. A bhikkhu, wandering for alms, obtains food, and another lay follower invites him and seats him in his house, but the food is not yet ready. If that bhikkhu, having wandered for alms, eats the food he obtained, it is an offence. Why so? Because it is said: "Successive meal means, having been invited to one of the five kinds of meals, one sets that aside and eats another of the five kinds of meals; this is called a successive meal" (Pāci. 227). "Similar to the first Kathina, but this is 'action-inaction'" — is the reading. The explanation of the training rule on successive meals is finished. 4. Explanation of the training rule concerning Kāṇamātā "Two or three bowlfuls should be accepted" means that one who desires the cakes brought in that way should accept them according to the measure of a full bowl. If one announces, "Do not accept here," with the intention of preparing for a journey or similar purpose, by accepting more, and does not share, one is not exempt, because the training rule is not about intention. If one then takes what has been taken up, one is not exempt. But in the case of not sharing, there is no offence if it is not allowable. Some say that unintentionality is only by not knowing the rule, not by not knowing the object. Because "not knowing it was prepared for provisions, etc." is not stated among the factors, the ancients say it is a pācittiya if one intentionally does not speak. "Accepting more than allowed" is stated there as only the fifth factor. Therefore, because it was not accepted, it is not a pācittiya, but because of not doing what should be done, it is a dukkaṭa. Otherwise, this would lead to an act and a non-act. Not preventing, or not informing, should be stated as the sixth factor. The explanation of the Kāṇamātā training rule is finished. 5. The explanation of the first pavāraṇā training rule. Having eaten, the pavāraṇā is called five-factored. Among these, because "having eaten" is established by "food is evident," a separate meaning is not seen. If it is seen, it is written (in Vajira. ṭī. Pācittiya 238-239) that "the factors are seen as six." "Food is evident" is said with reference to what has been brought. "Even flour made by pounding" – by the particle 'pi', it includes bran. But because only this much is stated – "of those roasted to the same degree, or sun-dried, or bran, or any rice grains" – one makes pavāraṇā of the rice flour of paddy roasted to the same degree, or of paddy husks. Similarly, one makes pavāraṇā of the bran of those roasted harshly. It is written that one makes pavāraṇā even of an unbaked sweetmeat of grain flour made by rolling roasted grain flour into a ball. If there is nothing remaining, one does not make pavāraṇā. Why? Because of the absence of prepared food, which is called food. But improper meat, although it stands in the place of what should be rejected, when eaten, does not lose its nature as meat. Therefore, one makes pavāraṇā. If, while eating in the refectory, one rejects one's own share that should not be obtained, what has been brought, one does not make pavāraṇā. One may reject it, but the monastery attendants scatter it in the bowl. It is not proper to eat that. This indeed goes to the count of what has arisen for improper seeking, condemned by the Buddha. Just as if an immoral person gives alms received from the Sangha, and one rejects that, not... He invites, and says "this is suitable." If a scrupulous person gives a portion, he does not refuse it out of a desire not to consume it, and he invites. Because of falling into "equal meat-taste, equal fish-taste," but if "meat-taste" is said, he refuses. And it is said that the analysis "the taste of meat is meat-taste" is not intended. Having brought gruel mixed with rice, he says, "Take gruel." He does not invite. If "Take rice" is said, he invites. Why? Because what was asked for is present. But here, if he says, "Take gruel-mix," and if the gruel is more, or equal, (and) the rice is little, he does not invite. If the gruel is little, (and) the rice is more, he invites. And this, being stated in all commentaries, cannot be rejected. The reason for this is hard to see. He says, "Take rice-mix." There, whether the rice is more, or equal, or less, he always invites. Not specifying rice or gruel, he says, "Take the mix." There, if the rice is more, or equal, he invites. If it's less, he does not invite. All that should be investigated. Regarding fruit, or roots, etc., not made allowable by the five monastic allowances: even having had them made surplus along with un-allowable things like bananas, it is permissible to eat the remainder, setting aside those bananas, etc. Because they are of unmixed taste, it is permissible to have them made allowable again, placed in another vessel, and then eat them. Why? They say because the Vinaya action had not previously been applied to them. Dust fallen into the bowl is considered not received. Therefore, alms food should be received only after it has been formally received. Because it is stated