English
But there is this distinction – it is stated in the Mahāpaccariya that even after having boarded and gone to the desired place, one should eat until one disembarks. "The fourth has arrived" refers to this final limit; when the fourth has arrived, where they do not sustain themselves; that is a great assembly. But where a hundred or a thousand gather, there is no need to speak. Therefore, at such a time, one should eat, having determined it to be a "great assembly." "Any wanderer who has entered" means one of the co-religionists or heretics; for them, when food is prepared by anyone, it should be eaten as "the time for ascetics' food." 220. "No offense at the time" means no offense at any of the seven times. "Two, three, one" means even those who accept an improper invitation and eat, taking two or three together, for them too there is no offense. Here, the determination should be understood in terms of five types of "fourths": the uninvited fourth, the alms-round fourth, the unordained fourth, the bowl fourth, and the sick fourth. How? Here, someone invites four bhikkhus, saying, "Please take food." Three of them went, one did not go. The lay follower asks, "Venerable sir, where is the one elder?" "He has not come, lay follower." So he invites some other person who has arrived at that moment, saying, "Come, venerable sir," and gives food to all four; for all, there is no offense. Why? Because the one who completes the group was uninvited. Only three were invited there and took it; the group is not completed by them, and the one who completes the group is uninvited, so the group is broken – this is the uninvited fourth. In the alms-round fourth – at the time of invitation, one is on alms-round; he does not accept. But at the time of going, when told, "Come, venerable sir," even though he has not accepted, they take him, saying, "Come, you will receive alms," and go; he breaks that group. Therefore, for all, there is no offense. In the unordained fourth – they are invited with a novice. And he also breaks the group. In the case of the fourth by bowl – one, not coming himself, sends his bowl; even so, the group is broken. Therefore, for all, there is no offense. In the case of the fourth being sick – they are invited with a sick monk; there, only for the sick monk there is no offense, but for the others, he is a filler of the group. For indeed, the group is not broken by a sick monk. Therefore, for them, there is an offense. But in the Mahāpaccari, it is stated without distinction. One who obtains at the right time is himself freed; because he completes the group for the others, he causes an offense. Therefore, the fours should be understood also in terms of those who obtain at the time of robe-giving, etc. But if, among the four people who have accepted and gone, one wise monk, saying, "I will break your group, accept the invitation," at the end of the gruel and snacks, not giving to those taking bowls for food, sits down saying, "First, feed and dismiss these monks, I will go after making the anumodanā." When they have eaten and gone, the lay follower, taking the bowl, [says] "Give the bowl, venerable sir," when food is given, he eats, makes the anumodanā, and goes; for all, there is no offense. For indeed, in a group meal, there is no doubt only in terms of the five kinds of food. Even those invited for rice, if they take gruel, incur an offense. And those were not taken together by them. But in gruel, etc., there is doubt, because those were taken together by them. Thus, one wise monk causes no offense for others as well. Therefore, if someone, wishing to make a meal for the Sangha, sent for the purpose of invitation, having come to the monastery, not saying, "Venerable sirs, please accept alms at our house tomorrow," but says, "Please accept food," or "Please accept a meal for the Sangha," or "May the Sangha accept food," the food-distributor should be wise; the invited ones from the group meal and the alms-round practitioners from the breaking of the ascetic practice should be freed. How? Thus it should be said first: "Tomorrow is not possible, lay follower." "The day after tomorrow, venerable sir?" "The day after tomorrow is also not possible." . Thus, even for half a month, having taken him, he should be asked again: "What did you say?" If he says again, "Take the Sangha meal," then, "Lay follower, make this flower permissible, this grass," thus distracting him, he should be asked again, "What did you say?" If he says the same again, he should be told, "Friend, you will not get alms-round monks or great elders, you will get novices." And when he says, "But, Venerable Sir, in such and such a village, they fed the Venerable Ones, why do I not get them?" "They know how to invite, you do not know." "How did they invite, Venerable Sir?" "They said, 'Venerable Sir, take our almsfood.'" If he also says the same, it is permissible. Then again, if he says, "Take the meal," then he should be told, "Now, friend, you will not get many monks, you will get only three." "But, Venerable Sir, in such and such a village, they fed the entire Sangha, why do I not get them?" "You do not know how to invite." "How did they invite?" "They said, 'Take almsfood.'" If he also says, "Take almsfood," it is permissible. Then again, if he says, "Only the meal," then he should be told, "Go, we have no need of your meal, this is our regular alms-round village, we will go for alms here." Having said, "Go for alms, Venerable Sirs," they ask the one who came: "Well, did you get monks?" "What is there much to say about this? The elders said, 'We will go for alms tomorrow.' Do not be negligent now." On the second day, the monks, having performed the Cetiya duties and stood, should be told by the Sangha elder: "Friends, an ignorant person went to the main village for a Sangha meal, let us go to the main village for alms." The monks should obey the elder's words, they should not be disobedient, at the village gate It is proper to go for alms without stopping. When they take the bowls, make them sit, and feed them, it is proper to eat. If, having placed food in the alms-hall, they wander in the streets announcing, "Venerable sirs, take food in the alms-hall," it is not proper. But if, taking food, they go here and there saying, "Take food," or if they bring it to the monastery beforehand, place it in a suitable spot, and give it to those who come and go, this is called "brought-food-alms" and is proper. But if, having prepared a donation in the food-hall, they send to each precinct saying, "Take food in the food-hall," it is not proper. But those people who, seeing alms-round monks, sweep the alms-hall, make them sit there, and feed them, should not be refused. But those who, seeing monks leaving the village having not received alms in the village, say, "Venerable sirs, take food," should be refused, or one should not turn back. If they say, "Turn back, Venerable sirs, take food," it is proper to turn back at the word "turn back." If they say, "Turn back, Venerable sirs, food is made at home, food is made in the village," since food at home and in the village belongs to anyone, it is proper to turn back. If they say, "Turn back, take food," connecting the phrases, it is not proper to turn back. The same rule applies if, seeing them leaving the alms-hall to go for alms, they say, "Sit down, Venerable sirs, take food." "Constant food" is called "fixed food." If they say, "Take constant food," it is proper for many to take it together. The same rule applies to ticket-food and so on. The rest here is clear. Originating from sheep's wool – it is an action, not a release by perception, without intention, an offense by designation, a bodily action, with three thoughts, with three feelings. The rule on group eating is the second. 3. Explanation of the rule on successive eating. 221. In the third rule – this is not indeed... will be inferior, just as these people carefully prepare food. By the method by which these people carefully prepare food, by that it is known: "This teaching, or this gift to the Sangha with the Buddha at its head, will not be inferior; it will certainly not be little or contemptible." Here, "Kirapatika" means "Kira" is the name of that young man of good family. But in the sense of lordship, he is called "Kirapatika." He, as a lord and master, having given wages according to the rule of months, seasons, and years, makes the workers do work. "Badarā paṭiyattā" (jujubes prepared) is said metaphorically. "Badaramissena" (mixed with jujubes) means with jujube sauce. 222. "Ussūre āhariyittha" (brought after sunrise) means brought too late in the day. 226. "I give my portion of food to so-and-so" – this 'designation of food' is permissible both in person and in absence. Seeing in person, one should say "I designate it for you" and then eat. Not seeing, among five fellow Dhamma-practitioners, one should say "I designate it for so-and-so" and then eat. But in the Mahāpaccari and other texts, only designation in absence is mentioned. And since this is included in a Vinaya act, therefore, it is not permissible to designate for the Blessed One. For even if the Blessed One is seated in the Perfumed Chamber or seated in the midst of the Sangha, when the Sangha takes a sufficient number of bhikkhus and performs that act, it is well-done. The Blessed One neither invalidates the act nor completes it. He does not invalidate it because he is the Lord of Dhamma. He does not complete it because he is not a filler of the quorum. 229. "Eating two or three invitations together" means putting two or three invitations into one bowl, mixing them, making them one, and then eating. Having invited two or three families, having seated them in one place, they bring food from here and there, they scatter rice and curries, it becomes one mixture; in this case, there is no offense, it is said in the Mahāpaccari.