English
But if the original invitation is below, and the later ones are on top, for one who eats starting from the top, there is an offense. But if one puts the hand inside... Having set aside even one mouthful from the first invitation, from the time of eating onwards, eating in any way whatsoever, there is no offense. Even if milk or juice is poured into it, whereby the food is covered and becomes of one taste, eating from the edge onwards, there is no offense, so it is said in the Mahāpaccariya. But in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā it is said: "Having received milk-rice or juice-rice and sat down, if others pour more milk-rice or juice-rice into it, drinking the milk or juice, there is no offense. But for one eating, having put the first received piece of meat or lump of rice into the mouth, it is permissible to eat from the edge onwards. The same rule applies to ghee-porridge." A great lay follower invites a bhikkhu. When he goes to that family, the lay follower himself, and his sons, wives, brothers, sisters, and so on, bring their own portions and put them into his bowl. Eating what was received later, without eating what was first given by the lay follower, "there is no offense," so it is said in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. But in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā, it is said to be permissible. In the Mahāpaccariya: "If they cook separately, and bring from their own cooked food to give, there, eating what was brought later first, is an offense of pācittiya. But if there is only one cooking for all, it is not successive eating," so it is said. A great lay follower invites and seats (the bhikkhu). Another person takes the bowl. It should not be given. "Why, Venerable Sir, do you not give it?" "Lay follower, were we not invited by you?" "Let it be, Venerable Sir, eat whatever you receive," he says. It is permissible to eat. If food is given by another after being brought, it is permissible to eat even after asking, so it is said in the Kurundi. Having given thanks, wishing to hear the Dhamma from one who is departing, all invite, "Venerable Sir, please come tomorrow too." Coming on the next day, it is permissible to eat whatever is received. Why? Because all have invited. A certain bhikkhu, wandering for alms, food l He goes, and another lay follower invites him and seats him at home, but the meal is not yet ready. If that bhikkhu, having wandered for alms, eats the food he received, there is an offense. If, seated without eating, when asked, "Why, Venerable Sir, do you not eat?" he says, "Because I was invited by you," and is then told, "Please eat, Venerable Sir, whatever you have received," and he eats, it is permissible. "By the whole village" means: If invited by the whole village acting as one, eating anywhere, there is no offense. The same rule applies to a group. "Being invited, he says, 'I will take alms food'": When invited with "Please take the meal," he says, "I have no need of your meal, I will take alms food." Here, however, Mahāpadumatthera said: "Saying this, he can make it not an invitation in this training rule. But an opportunity for eating has been made, so he is not freed from a group meal nor from the custom." Mahāsumatthera said: "To the extent that he can make it not an invitation, to that extent it is neither a group meal nor a custom." The rest is clear. Origin of the Kathina (robe-making): It arises from body and speech, and from body, speech, and mind. It is both action and non-action; here, eating is action, not determining is non-action. It is not released by perception, it is without thought, it is an offense by designation, it is bodily action, it is verbal action, it is of three thoughts, it is of three feelings. The training rule concerning successive meals, the third. 4. Explanation of the Kāṇamātā training rule. 230. In the fourth training rule: "Kāṇamātā" means the mother of Kāṇā. Indeed, her daughter was beautiful. Whoever saw her, they became "blind" with passion, meaning, they became blinded by passion. Therefore, because she caused others to be "blind," she became known as "Kāṇā." Because of her, her mother also became known as "Kāṇamātā." "Āgata" means coming. "Like what?" means "like what kind of thing?" The meaning is, "it is like something shameful." "To go empty-handed" means: "Empty hands" in this going, that is "empty-handed." To go that empty-handed going is like something shameful. is said. "It came to an end" means that the female lay follower, a noble disciple, seeing the bhikkhus, could not but give what she had, so she kept giving until everything came to an end. In "by a discourse on Dhamma," even the blind mother, listening to the Dhamma being taught for her benefit, became a stream-enterer at the end of the teaching. "Having risen from her seat, he departed" means he got up from his seat and left. That man, too, hearing "the Teacher, it is said, went to the blind mother's house," brought the blind woman and placed her in her usual spot. 231. In this story, as soon as the offense was committed, even before the rule was laid down, the matter of provisions arose. Therefore, to show this immediately, "At that time," etc., was said. And that lay follower, being a noble disciple, gave away everything. Therefore, it is said, "it came to an end." 233. "Whatever for the purpose of a present" means whatever is prepared as a gift, such as sweet cakes, rice cakes, or sugar candy, all of this is counted here as "pūva" (cakes). "Whatever for the purpose of provisions" means whatever is prepared for those traveling on a journey, for their needs along the way, such as parched grain, unparched grain, sesame, or rice, all of this is counted here as "mantha" (gruel/flour). "If more than that" means if he takes even a third bowl piled high, it is an offense of pācittiya by the count of cakes. "Having received two or three bowlfuls" means having taken bowls filled up to the line below the rim. In "here by me two or three bowlfuls," if two were taken, it should be said, "Here by me two bowlfuls were received, you should take one." He, too, seeing another, should say, "The one who came first took two bowlfuls, I took one, do not you take any." For the one who first took one, the same method applies in informing others. But if someone himself took three, seeing another, he should just say, "Do not receive anything here." "Having carried it back" means having carried it to the assembly hall, and one going to the assembly hall should discard The dining hall should not be gone to. Where the great assembly of monks sits, there one should go. But in the Mahāpaccariya it is said: "The dining hall that is near the place where one has received food, there one should go. It is not allowed to go elsewhere thinking, 'I will give it to my acquaintances, or to those with whom I share food, or to those of the same sect.' But if one has a regular sitting place, it is permissible to go even far." "Should be shared" means if three bowlfuls are taken, one should be kept for oneself and two given to the assembly of monks. If two are taken, one should be kept for oneself and one given to the assembly. But it is not allowed to give as one pleases to friends. If one has taken only one, nothing should be given unwillingly; it should be done as one wishes. 235. "When the going is abandoned" means when, having seen danger on the way or due to lack of interest, one says, "We will not send now, we will not go," and thus the going is abandoned, cut off. "To relatives who have invited" means there is no offense for one who accepts much from them. But in the Commentaries it is said: "Even for them, only a suitable amount is allowed for provisions and gifts." The rest is clear. Six origins – action, not release by perception, non-mental, offense by designation, bodily action, verbal action, three thoughts, three feelings. The Kāṇamātā training rule, fourth. 5. Description of the First Invitation Training Rule 236. In the fifth training rule – "monks having eaten, invited" means invited by a brahmin with "Take, sirs, as much as you wish," thus an invitation for as much as one wants, and by oneself with "Enough, friend, give a little, a little," thus an invitation of refusal. "Neighbors" means those living in adjacent houses. 237. "The sound of crows cawing" means the sound of crows cawing; the sound of them gathering and crying out. "This is all enough" – here, without saying the "ti" particle, it is permissible to say just "this is all enough." 238-9. "Having eaten" means one who has eaten. And there, because by whom even one grain whether eaten or not eaten, it is consumed, he is reckoned as "one who has eaten," therefore in its word-division, "one who has eaten means of the five kinds of food," and so on, is stated. "One who has refused" means one who has made a refusal, one who has made a rejection. And since this is not merely by rejection, but by way of five factors, therefore in its word-division, "one who has refused means food is evident," and so on, is stated. There, since by "food is evident" one whose meal is incomplete is called "one who has refused." And one whose meal is incomplete, by him something has been eaten, something not eaten, and what has been eaten; referring to that, he is also reckoned as "one who has eaten," therefore we see no separate purpose served by the word "one who has eaten." But in "two or three nights, with five or six words," and so on (Pāci. 61-62), just as the word "two nights," and so on, this should be understood as stated due to its being a surrounding factor and its alliteration with the word "one who has refused." "Food is evident," and so on, means an incomplete meal is seen, and this person is one who is eating, this is the meaning. "Meal is evident" means a meal suitable for refusal is seen. And it means that one of the rice, and so on, is the food to be rejected. "Standing within arm's reach" means the donor, having taken food suitable for refusal,