English
"Wait, sirs, today, the provisions prepared have been given to you. I will prepare provisions." "It is not possible to wait, sir, the caravan has departed," and they went. Then, as that lay follower was preparing provisions and going after them, robbers robbed him. People complained, grumbled, and criticized: "How can these Sakyan recluses not know the measure and accept! This man, having given to them, going after them, was robbed by robbers." The monks heard those people complaining, grumbling, and criticizing. Then those monks reported this matter to the Blessed One. Then the Blessed One, on account of this incident, on account of this matter, having given a Dhamma talk, addressed the monks: "Therefore, monks, I will lay down a rule of training for the monks, based on ten advantages— for the excellence of the Saṅgha, for the comfort of the Saṅgha… …for the support of the Discipline. And thus Now, bhikkhus, you should recite this training rule – A bhikkhu, having gone to a family, if invited to take cakes or flour-meal, if he desires, the bhikkhu should accept two or three bowlfuls. If he accepts more than that, it is an offense of pācittiya. Having accepted two or three bowlfuls, he should take them out and share them with the bhikkhus. This is the proper course of conduct there. "A bhikkhu, having gone to a family" means: "family" means four kinds of families – a warrior family, a brahmin family, a merchant family, a worker family. "Having gone" means gone there. "Cakes" means anything prepared as a gift. "Flour-meal" means anything prepared as provisions for a journey. "If invited to take" means "Take as much as you wish." "If he desires" means if he wishes. "Should accept two or three bowlfuls" means two or three bowlfuls should be accepted. "If he accepts more than that" means if he accepts more than that, there is an offense of pācittiya. Having accepted two or three bowlfuls, when leaving, if he sees a bhikkhu, he should inform him: "I have accepted two or three bowlfuls there; do not accept anything there." If, having seen, he does not inform, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. If, having been informed, he accepts, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. "Should take them out and share them with the bhikkhus" means should take them out from the dwelling and share them. "This is the proper course of conduct there" means this is the suitable practice there. If he accepts more than two or three bowlfuls, perceiving it as more, there is an offense of pācittiya. If he accepts more than two or three bowlfuls, being in doubt, there is an offense of pācittiya. If he accepts more than two or three bowlfuls, perceiving it as less, there is an offense of pācittiya. If he accepts less than two or three bowlfuls, perceiving it as more, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. If he accepts less than two or three bowlfuls, being in doubt, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. If he accepts less than two or three bowlfuls, perceiving it as less, there is no offense. No offense if he accepts two or three bowlfuls. takes, takes less than two or three bowlfuls, they give what is not prepared for a present or for provisions, they give the remainder of what was prepared for a present or for provisions, they give when the journey is abandoned, to relatives who have been invited, for the sake of another, with one's own wealth, to a mad person, to the first offender. The training rule concerning Kāṇamātā, the fourth, is finished. 5. The training rule concerning the first invitation. 236. At that time, the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Sāvatthī, in Jeta's Grove, in Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. Now at that time, a certain brahmin invited the bhikkhus and fed them. The bhikkhus, having eaten and been invited to decline further food, went to the homes of relatives; some ate, some took almsfood and went away. Then that brahmin said to his neighbors: "The venerable bhikkhus have been satisfied by me. Come, I will satisfy you too." They said this: "Why, good sir, would you satisfy us? Even those whom you invited came to our homes; some ate, some took almsfood and went away!" Then that brahmin complained, grumbled, and criticized: "How can it be that the venerable ones, having eaten at our house, eat elsewhere! And I am not able to give as much as they wish!" The bhikkhus heard that brahmin complaining, grumbling, and criticizing. Those bhikkhus who were of few desires... they complained, grumbled, and criticized: "How can it be that bhikkhus, having eaten and been invited to decline further food, eat elsewhere!"... "Is it true, bhikkhus, that bhikkhus, having eaten and been invited to decline further food, eat elsewhere?" "It is true, Blessed One." The Buddha, the Blessed One, rebuked them... "How can it be, bhikkhus, that these foolish men, having eaten and been invited to decline further food, eat elsewhere! This, bhikkhus, is not for the conviction of the unconvicted... And thus, bhikkhus, you should recite this training rule: "Whatever bhikkhu... A monk, having eaten, having refused (food), should eat or consume either hard food or soft food, there is an offense of expiation. Thus indeed by the Blessed One for the monks this training rule was laid down. Now at that time, monks were bringing choice alms-food for sick monks. The sick ones did not eat as much as they wished. The monks were throwing it away. The Blessed One heard a loud noise, a great noise, a cawing noise. Having heard, he addressed Venerable Ānanda: "What, Ānanda, is that loud noise, that great noise, that cawing noise?" Then Venerable Ānanda reported this matter to the Blessed One. "Should monks, Ānanda, eat the leftovers of the sick?" "They should not, Blessed One." Then the Blessed One, on this occasion, in this connection, having given a Dhamma talk, addressed the monks: "Monks, I allow the sick and the not-sick to eat leftovers. And thus, monks, the leftover should be made: 'This is enough for all.' And thus, monks, you should recite this training rule: "Whatever monk, having eaten, having refused (food), should eat or consume either hard food or soft food that is not leftover, there is an offense of expiation." "Whatever" means whoever, of whatever kind... "Monk" means... in this context, "monk" is intended as this. "Having eaten" means one of the five kinds of food has been eaten, even if only a blade of kusa grass. "Having refused (food)" means food is evident, provisions are evident, one standing within arm's reach offers it, and a refusal is evident. "Not leftover" means it is not made allowable, it is not received, it is not declared, it is not made within arm's reach, it is made by one who has not eaten, it is made by one who has eaten, refused, and risen from his seat, "This is enough for all" is not said, it is not leftover from the sick – this is called "not leftover." "Leftover" means it is made allowable, it is received, It is offered, it is within arm's reach, it is done by one who has eaten, it is done by one who has eaten, has refused, and has not risen from the seat, it is said, "Enough of all this," it is left over from a sick person – this is called 'leftover'. 'Edibles' are the five kinds of food – excluding those for a specific time, for seven days, and for life, the rest are called 'edibles'. 'Staple foods' are the five kinds of food – cooked rice, porridge, flour, fish, meat. If one receives with the thought, "I will eat, I will consume," there is an offense of wrong-doing. With each mouthful, with each mouthful, there is an offense of expiation. 240. If, when it is not leftover, one perceives it as not leftover, and eats or consumes edibles or staple foods, there is an offense of expiation. If, when it is not leftover, one is in doubt, and eats or consumes edibles or staple foods, there is an offense of expiation. If, when it is not leftover, one perceives it as leftover, and eats or consumes edibles or staple foods, there is an offense of expiation. If one receives food for a specific time, for seven days, or for life for the purpose of eating, there is an offense of wrong-doing. With each mouthful, with each mouthful, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If, when it is leftover, one perceives it as not leftover, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If, when it is leftover, one is in doubt, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If, when it is leftover, one perceives it as leftover, there is no offense. 241. There is no offense if one has it made leftover and consumes it, if one receives it with the thought, "I will have it made leftover and consume it," if one carries it for another's sake, if one consumes the remainder of a sick person, if one consumes food for a specific time, for seven days, or for life when there is a reason, for a mad person, for the first offender. The first rule of refusal is finished, the fifth. 6. The second rule of refusal 242. At that time, the Buddha, the Blessed One, was staying in Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time, two bhikkhus were traveling on the road to Savatthi in the Kosala country. One bhikkhu behaved improperly. The second bhikkhu said to that bhikkhu: a – "Friend, do not do such a thing, that is not proper." So he bore a grudge against him. Then those monks went to Sāvatthī. Now at that time there was a communal meal for a certain group in Sāvatthī. The second monk had eaten and was invited to stop. The monk who bore a grudge went to a relative's house, took alms food, and approached that monk; having approached that monk, he said to him – "Eat, friend!" "Enough, friend, I am full." "The alms food is good, friend, eat!" Then that monk, being pressed by that monk, ate that alms food. The monk who bore a grudge said to that monk – "You too, friend, think it proper to admonish me, when you, having eaten and been invited to stop, eat food that is not left over!" "Should it not be pointed out, friend?" "Should it not be asked, friend?