English
Even by showing that, if one designates it to an ordained monk, it remains one's own property, and the act of receiving is not abandoned. Therefore, it was shown not in terms of an ordained monk, but in terms of an unordained person. For when it is designated to him, the act of receiving is abandoned, and there is no offense. "Adhiṭṭhatoti" means there is no offense for one who determines it for anointing, etc. However, if, within seven days, being unconcerned, he gives it up to an unordained person, there is no offense because it has been given up. And for the other person, because it has not been received, physical consumption is permissible for both. But because it is not an object of relinquishment, external consumption is permissible. "Having received them, for a maximum of seven days, "things to be consumed as a store" thus having regulated, because it was allowed, it was said, "and there is no offense even if given to another." 102. "Sabbhāva" means one's own nature. Because they cause to be taken, therefore it is said, "thus it is uttered" - this is the meaning. Now, with reference to what will be said, "eva" (thus) is spoken. 103-5. "For seven days, for life" means both for seven days and for life. What is said? When one consumes the two, seven-day and lifelong, mixed with the remaining kinds of food, making their flavors blended, a pācittiya offense of storing occurs. "Received on that day" means on that very day. "The remainder" means the two, seven-day and lifelong. "The other" means lifelong. Whether received previously, or received on that day, it should be understood that lifelong (medicine) is permissible for seven days with seven-day (medicine). "Monks, with yāvakālika, yāmakālika, sattāhakālika, and yāvajīvika received on that day, it is permissible at the proper time, not at the improper time. Monks, with yāmakālika, sattāhakālika, and yāvajīvika received on that day, it is permissible during the watch, not after the watch has passed. Monks, with sattāhakālika, yāvajīvika received is permissible for seven days, not after seven days have passed." This was indeed said in the Khandhaka on Medicines. Here, however, because there is no specific mention of "received on that day," it is concluded that even what was received previously is permissible. Determination of the times. The explanation of the determination of times is finished. 9. Explanation of the determination of receiving. 106. Now, to elaborate on the word "receiving," "and the offering of one wishing to give" and so on, has been commenced. There, the offering of one wishing to give is "dātukāmābhihāro". By this, it is indicated that if, while one is stirring to put (food) into another's bowl, the particles rise up and fall into another's bowl, the receiving is not valid. "Eraṇakkhama" means by a man of moderate strength. by which it is capable of being lifted, then, a large one is not suitable for acceptance. Giving in three ways means giving in three ways according to things connected to the body and things to be relinquished. For that bhikkhu, it means taking in two ways by things connected to the body. Five-limbed, thus five-limbed. The desire to give is one, within reach of the hand is one, capability of being carried is one, giving in three ways by one of gods, humans, or animals is one, taking in two ways is one; thus there are five limbs. 107. Now, to show that by which, when connected to the body, acceptance is not suitable, it begins with "immovable." It means that it is not suitable for acceptance on an immovable object like a bed, etc., tied to a post (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 265), or on a plank, or on a stone. It is not permissible on a lotus leaf born there, or on a Butea leaf, etc., or on a fine leaf of tamarind, etc., it is not suitable, and that which a medium-sized man cannot carry, in such an unbearable load, acceptance is not suitable, so it means. 108. Now, to show the abandonment of acceptance, it begins with "by training, death, and marks." Here is the summary meaning: by renouncing training, by death, and by changing the mark (gender/status), or by relinquishing it without attachment, saying "I will not consume that now" or "I will not accept and consume it again," or by being stolen by thieves, etc., or by giving it to an unordained person, the taking, the acceptance, ceases and is abandoned. For a bhikkhuni, however, due to the absence of renouncing training, it should be understood that it is abandoned by confusion. 109-110. Now, to show what should be consumed after acceptance, it is said, "all that is unaccepted," etc. Its meaning (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Dantaponasikkhāpada) is: For one who consumes anything, even dust or dirt, that falls within the four categories of time, without having accepted it, there is an offense of pācitti. Now, to show what should be consumed without acceptance, it is said, "pure and not too thick," etc. There, "pure" means not mixed with the essence of others. In ice water, ocean water, etc., p There is no act of receiving. Salt and salt-water are salt. Here, salt means that which arises in the body. All these are allowable only if unbroken, not otherwise. 111. Now, to show what is not attached to a hook, it is said, "excrement, clay, urine," and so on. In such a case, it means at such a time, at the time of a snakebite. But for others, what is not received and not attached to a hook is not allowable. Why? Because it is said, "I allow, monks, that when one does something and receives it, that very receiving is done, it should not be received again." 112. "Ill-treated" means, for one who shakes a crystal tree creeper or similar object that is difficult to handle, or one who touches a bowl full of food not yet received, there is an offense of wrong-doing due to ill-treatment. "Covered with dust" means, for one who is on alms-round and takes alms again without receiving the dust that has fallen into his bowl, there is an offense of wrong-doing against the Vinaya. "Then, having taken and received" means, then, having taken and received, meaning, having taken it oneself. In an unallowable hut, and for one living inside, and wherever a monk cooks for himself, and what is cooked inside an unallowable hut by oneself or by another, in all these cases, there is an offense of wrong-doing—this is the intention. The decision on receiving. The explanation of the section on receiving is finished. 10. Explanation of the section on unallowable meat 113. Now, to show the proper conduct regarding meats, it is stated, "and unallowable among meats." When unallowable meat is shown, allowable meat is also shown by implication. Regarding a reptile, here, no reptile at all is allowable. 114. Having thus shown ten kinds of unallowable meat by species, now, to show the unallowable method even in allowable meats, it is said, "and meat prepared specifically, and that which is not investigated." Among the five co-religionists, whatever is prepared specifically for any one of them is called "specifically prepared." Knowing this, it is not allowable for anyone to consume it. For those who do not know, there is no offense. This same rule applies to fish. "Unexamined" means "not investigated," "unquestioned" is the meaning. "Monks, meat should not be consumed without examination. Whoever consumes it incurs an offense of wrong-doing," it is said (Mahāva. 281). However, regarding fish, there is no need for questioning, they say, because there are no unallowable fish. Now, to show the distinctions of offenses among these, it says "grave offense," etc. All of that is clear (Kankhā. Atth. Sannidhikārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). 115. Now, to show that not only the flesh of these humans, etc., is unallowable, but also bones, etc., are unallowable, it is said "bones, too," etc. There (Mahāva. Atth. 281), "even hair" means that hair, too, is among these unallowable meat substances. "With consciousness" means that among these, only that which is specifically intended (for oneself) is with consciousness; the rest are without consciousness. Determination of Unallowable Meat. The explanation of the section on unallowable meat is concluded. 11. Explanation of the section on forfeiture. 116-7. Now, to show it in terms of those who are not very particular, it begins with "not silver," etc. The reasoning should also be sought in other ways. Therein, this is the brief meaning (Pārā. 591; Pārā. Atth. 2.589; Kaṅkhā. Atth. Jātarupasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) – whoever exchanges silver for non-silver, and whoever exchanges non-silver for silver, for him it is subject to forfeiture. Now, to show what is silver and what is not silver, it begins with "here, silver," etc. Here (Pārā. 589; Kaṅkhā. Atth. Jātarupasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), "silver and gold" means silver is silver. Gold is gold. Or that which is made from copper, iron, etc., or from wood, or from leaves, or from lacquer, whether shaped or unshaped, or made of leather or seeds, which is current in the country, this is called a coin of common usage. This is what is meant here by silver. Clothes, etc., and pearls, etc., are clothes and pearls, etc. "Other" means non-silver, both allowable items and items of wrong-doing. What is said? Cloth, thread, a piece, a strip, a k... Food, various kinds of vegetables, ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, treacle, and other medicines—these are called permissible items. Pearls, gems, lapis lazuli, conch shells, stones, coral, red arsenic, cat's eye gems, seven kinds of grains, female slaves, male slaves, fields, land, flower gardens, fruit orchards, and so on—these are called items entailing a dukkaṭa offense. It is said that both of these are called non-currency. 118. Having thus shown the transaction of currency, now to show buying and selling, it begins with "taking this.