English
and swallow it, there is an offense. But if it goes down the throat of its own accord, it is permissible. The explanation of the training rule on eating at the wrong time is finished. 8. The explanation of the training rule on storing up "Kāra is doing, action, activity, which is one in meaning" shows the abstract noun meaning of the word "kāra." "Sannidhi" is proper storing, placing. "This is for what has been received and kept for one night" shows the difficulty of washing this when it has been received and kept for one night. Although it may not be food or solid food for the watch-period, yet, according to the saying, "there is no offense if one stores food for the watch-period and eats it during the watch-period," etc., even there, if the watch-period is exceeded, there should be an offense of pācittiya due to storing. Therefore, it is said, "whatever is for the lifetime or for the watch-period." Now, to explain the difficulty of washing, it is said, "whatever, with the finger," etc. There, "whatever, when rubbed with the finger, a line is seen" means whatever bowl, when washed, and when rubbed with the finger, a finger-line is seen on the bowl, that bowl is difficult to wash. This is the meaning. But on a plate stained with oil, a finger-mark is seen, that is not to be used. "Grease" means oil. "Is seen" means is seen on top of gruel. "Even on such a plate" means even on a plate not properly washed, after taking out food oneself or by another, without having relinquished the reception. "For one eating on the next day, there is a pācittiya" means because the clinging to the plate is an un-relinquished reception, for one eating on the second day, there is a pācittiya. But if the plate is relinquished, for one eating on the next day, there is no offense. "Whatever, moreover" means whatever food, moreover. "Indeed, not relinquished" means not relinquished by careless relinquishment or by giving without concern to an unordained person. "Permissible food" means even a single grain of rice is permissible food. "Among impermissible things" means among impermissible meats. "Among the rest" means among the remaining meats apart from human flesh: elephant, horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, hyena meats, and also meat not examined (for being killed for a bhikkhu) or meat killed specifically for a bhikkhu. In the Pāḷi, it is said, "If one receives a seven-day medicine or a life-long medicine for the purpose of food, there is an offense of dukkaṭa" (Pāci. 255). Since dukkaṭa is stated even for consuming seven-day or life-long medicines for food before noon, it should also be a separate dukkaṭa for consuming a yāmakālika (medicine) for food. Therefore, it says, "For one consuming for the purpose of food, there is a pācittiya together with a dukkaṭa." "In all variations" means in all variations mentioned, such as "for one eating permissible food," another pācittiya increases. This is what is said (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 253): In permissible food, two pācittiyas. In human flesh, two pācittiyas together with a thullaccaya. But in the remaining impermissible meats, two pācittiyas together with a dukkaṭa. For one consuming yāmakālika (medicine) with a cause, with a mouth containing food, two pācittiyas; with an empty mouth, only one. For one consuming for the purpose of food, in both variations, together with a dukkaṭa. "Among the rest" means among those remaining from yāmakālika (medicine) and so forth. A pācittiya increases. Thus, another offense of expiation increases. This is said: if one consumes at the wrong time, in ordinary food, due to the condition of storage and the condition of wrong-time eating, there are two offenses of expiation; in unsuitable meats, in human flesh, together with a grave offense, there are two offenses of expiation; in the remaining ones, together with a minor offense, there are two. Belaṭṭhasīsa was a great elder among a thousand ascetics. "Three offenses of expiation" means in the case of one who stores, due to the perception of storing, doubt, and the perception of not storing, there are three offenses of expiation. "Mixed" means mixed in taste. Indeed, it is with reference to mixed taste that "what is received on that day is allowable at the proper time," etc., is said. Therefore, it says "thus," etc. And here, "unmixed taste" means unmixed taste. This is said with reference to a lump of ghee, etc., received with cold milk-rice, etc. But "or well-washed" is said with reference to takkola-type fruits, etc., received with alms-food, and ginger, etc., given after being put into gruel, etc. "By that" means by that which is allowable for seven days. "Let it be received on that day" means received on that day; by that received on that day. This is the method also in "by that received for two days," etc. "Therefore" means because what is received before noon is also allowable, therefore. "What is received is allowable for seven days" is said in the chapter on medicines (Mahāvagga 305): "Monks, what is received as a lifelong medicine is allowable for seven days; after seven days, it is not allowable." Although "one night" is not mentioned in the mouth, nevertheless, since what is put into the mouth is called storage, therefore "mouth-storage" is said. "Four allowable grounds" means the four allowable huts: ussāvanantikā, gonisādikā, gahapati, and sammutī. There, ussāvanantikā (Mahāvagga Commentary 295) is that which is established by those standing around while a house is being built, saying "We make an allowable hut, we make an allowable hut," or "Allowable hut, allowable hut." A hut, without a first pillar or beam, etc., belonging to the Saṅgha or to a single bhikkhu. But an arama (monastery park) which is mostly unenclosed, or entirely so, is called "gonisādī" (cow-sitting place). "Gahapati" (householder) means that which, excluding bhikkhus, is given by others saying, "We give a permissible hut," or is their property. "Sammuti" (authorization) is that which is made after proclaiming by a formal act (kammavācā). "How then should the determination of these be known?" He says, "The determination of these is stated in the Samantapāsādikā." The explanation of the training rule on making a store is finished. 9. The explanation of the training rule on choice food. "Choice foods" (paṇītabhojanāni) is stated by omitting a word in the middle, he says, "mixed with choice ingredients," etc. All fish described as "aquatic" (odako), meaning "fish is called aquatic" (Pāci. 260), as described in the Vibhaṅga, is indeed all fish. It is said that whatever is born in water is called fish. By the Mahānāma training rule – "By a non-sick bhikkhu, the invitation for requisites for four months should be accepted, except for a renewed invitation, except for a continuous invitation. If he accepts beyond that, it is an offense of expiation." By this training rule (Pāci. 306). Here, indeed, in a place where an invitation for requisites for the sick has been made by the Saṅgha, if a limit has been set there by nights or by medicines, saying, "Only so many nights, or so many medicines are to be requested," then, beyond the limit of nights or the limit of medicines, requesting medicine for which there is no need for medicine, or requesting a different medicine for which there is need for a different medicine, an offense of expiation is stated for the one requesting. Therefore, a non-sick person, even perceiving himself as sick, requesting the five medicines, is considered as requesting medicine for which there is no need for medicine. Thus, it is said, "He should be dealt with by the Mahānāma training rule." But one who requests not for the purpose of medicine, but merely for the purpose of his own eating, he should be dealt with by the rule for requesting broth and rice. This is stated in the Samantapāsādikā: "pure having made known ghee and so on, if he eats, he does not incur a pācittiya. In the sekhiya rules, he incurs a dukkata for making known soup and rice. He should be made to act by the rule concerning making known soup and rice, as in "not soup or rice, if not ill" and so on. It is said that he should be made to act by a dukkata. By this, it means by this rule concerning choice foods. When "Give ghee-rice" is said, what happens? He says, "When 'Give ghee-rice' is said, then..." and so on. The connection is that it is only a dukkata for making known soup and rice. Why? He says, "Because..." and so on. Now, if it is asked why "ghee-rice" is not understood in the same way as "choice foods"? Because it is not exclusive. For when "choice foods" is said, the meaning "foods mixed with choice ingredients are choice foods" is understood exclusively. But when "ghee-rice" is said, since it can also be understood as "rice made of ghee is ghee-rice," the meaning "rice mixed with ghee is ghee-rice" is not understood exclusively. This is the same method for "Give fresh butter-rice" and so on. By the former method, it means by the former method of "having given rice, make it ghee and eat." If, however, when "with ghee" is said, he gives only one of the other fresh butter and so on, it is indeed misunderstood. No offense, because it is misunderstood, there is no offense from any offenses. They say, "Although there is no offense, since it was produced by one's own effort, it should not be eaten." With allowable ghee, it means with allowable meat-ghee. This is the same method for "with unallowable ghee" here too. For allowability and unallowability belong to meats only, not to ghee and so on. Except for one human fat-oil, among all milk, curds, ghee, fresh butter, fat, and oils, there is nothing called unallowable. Even in consumption, it is only a dukkata, as this is not intended here, is the meaning. If, in the absence of unallowable ghee, he gives unallowable fresh butter and so on by the former method, saying "make it ghee and eat," with unallowable ghee... it is not given.