四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.90

2.90

"If a bhikṣu is sick and keeps remaining medicine—ghee, oil, butter, honey, or rock sugar—he may take it up to seven days; if he takes it beyond seven days, it is a niḥsargika-prāyaścittika." This complete precept text contains five clauses: first, the person committing the offense; second, being sick, which is the condition for keeping medicine; third, from "remaining medicine" onward, the substance of the medicine kept; fourth, the permission [to keep it] up to seven days; fifth, the determination of the offense when exceeding the time limit. In the explanation below, the first clause is self-evident. As for the second clause, "is sick": the Vinaya states that in the autumn months, wind diseases flare up, causing the body to wither and become emaciated, and also causing severe sores to develop, etc.; these are the conditions for keeping medicine. As for the third clause, "remaining medicine—ghee, oil, butter, honey, or rock sugar": this is the substance of the medicine kept. As for the fourth clause, "he may take it up to seven days": this is its permitted limit; the meanings of the eight categories of clauses are as explained under the precept on extra robes. As for the fifth clause, "if he takes it beyond seven days, it is a niḥsargika-prāyaścittika": this is the determination of the offense for exceeding the time limit. The Vinaya states that if medicine obtained on the first day through medicine obtained on the seventh day reaches the eighth day, the medicine of the first day exceeds [the limit] and contaminates the medicine of the following six days; whether the medicine is little or much, all [are involved] and together incur the offense. Therefore it is said: all [are incur] niḥsargika-prāyaścittika. Question: When the medicine of the following six days is contaminated and incurs an offense, does it lose its formal acceptance? There are two kinds of explanations for this not being resolved. For now, one explanation is: the offense of not declaring it to render permissible. The following six days likewise have not been declared to render permissible, and because they are equally in the status of being extra, this [first-day medicine] only contaminates the oral acceptance method; it serves to obstruct the overnight resolution, but does not obstruct its being extra. Since what they obstruct differs, and because the day limit has not yet expired, the medicine of the first day cannot contaminate the subsequent [days'] medicines and cause them all to lose formal acceptance. For this reason, the Vinaya states: on reaching the seventh day, give the medicine to the bhikṣus to eat. If it were to lose its formal acceptance, an overnight resolution would arise; why then would they be permitted to eat it? Therefore we know it is not lost. If so, the remaining five days' [medicine] should be returned to the owner to eat; why instead is it ordered to be used to rub the feet or light lamps? Answer: In truth, it does not lose formal acceptance, and both [aspects] are light. Keeping and storing it carries the emotional fault of that [greed]; the utility of medicine is narrow, so as a penalty they are not permitted to consume it, in order to quell emotional faults, not because the medicine is impure. This differs from robes, whose utility in sustaining the body is broad, so they may be returned to the original owner to be used as robes again. The remaining clauses can be understood by analogy. The Vinaya states: this medicine should be forfeited to the Saṃgha; after performing personal repentance, return that medicine. The medicine of the seventh day is forfeited to the bhikṣus, and they should consume it. For medicine exceeding seven days, the ghee is used to smear doors, and the rock sugar is given to the grove-keeper. For that which is less than seven days, it is returned through a jñaptidvitīyā-karman; the bhikṣus should take it to rub their feet and light lamps. The non-offenses are as above.