English
is within a space of about two and a half cubits, this is the meaning. "Offers" means if that donor offers that food to him with his body, this is the meaning. "Rejection is evident" means a rejection is seen; and if that bhikkhu rejects that offered food with his body or with his speech, this is the meaning. Thus, by way of these five factors, one is called "one who has refused." And this has also been said: "By five aspects, Upāli, refusal is evident: food is evident, meal is evident, standing within arm's reach, offers, rejection is evident" (Pari. 428). Here is the determination: In "food," and so on, that which one eats, and that food which is offered by one standing within arm's reach, one rejects, That is to be understood as one of these: rice, gruel, flour, fish, meat. Therein, rice means that which is made from the grains of seven kinds of cereals: sāli rice, vīhi rice, barley, wheat, millet, varaka, kudrūsaka. Therein, "sāli rice" means all types of sāli rice, down to nīvāra. "Vīhi rice" means all types of vīhi rice. In "barley and wheat" there is no distinction. "Millet" means all types of millet, white, red, or black. "Varaka" means all types of white varaka, down to varakacoraka. "Kudrūsaka" means all types of grass grains, black and liquid, and those like sāmāka. Nīvāra and varakacoraka are here called "cereal-like." Whether they are cereals or cereal-like, taking the grains of these seven kinds of cereals of the described types, if they cook them intending "we will cook rice" or "we will cook gruel" or "we will cook some sour porridge," whatever they cook, if, when eating it, hot or cold, an outline is visible at the place where it is taken, it falls into the category of rice, and generates an invitation. If an outline is not visible, it falls into the category of gruel, and does not generate an invitation. Even if porridge or sour gruel mixed with leaves, fruits, and shoots is just taken down from the stove, and is very hot, and can be drunk by tilting, and does not show an outline where it is held by hand, it does not generate an invitation. But if, when the steam has gone, it has become cold and becomes thick, it shows an outline, and again generates an invitation. Its former thinness does not protect it. Even if curds, buttermilk, etc., are added, and many leaves, fruits, and shoots are put in, and even a handful of grains are added, if an outline is visible at mealtime, it generates an invitation. In an invitation for non-gruel, they say "we will give gruel," and pour water, kanjika, milk, etc., into rice, and give it saying "take gruel." Although they are thin, they still generate an invitation. But if cooked in water and so on, and given, it goes into the category of gruel. Even if it goes into the category of gruel, in that or in another, where fish or meat is put, if even a mustard-seed-sized piece of fish or meat or a sinew is found, it causes an invitation. But pure juice, or juice-gruel, does not cause it. Apart from the grains mentioned, rice made from bamboo rice and so on, or from roots, tubers, or fruits, or from anything else, does not cause an invitation, much less thick gruel. If fish or meat is put in it, it causes it. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said: "Even rice for a flower-offering causes an invitation." Rice for a flower-offering refers to rice grains steamed after being put in boiled water for flower-cakes. If those grains are dried and eaten, it is permissible; they do not go into the category of flour nor into the category of rice. But rice made from them again certainly causes an invitation. If those grains are cooked in ghee, oil, and so on, or made into cakes, they do not cause an invitation. Flattened rice, or flour-rice and so on made from them, do not cause an invitation. Kummāsa means kummāsa made from barley. But kummāsa made from other things, like mung beans, does not cause an invitation. Flour means flour made from rice, paddy, or barley. Millet, foxtail millet, and kodo millet heads are also roasted, lightly pounded, the husks removed, then pounded firmly again to make powder. Even if it is bound together due to wetness, it goes into the category of flour. If rice grains of hard-roasted paddy are pounded and given, that powder also goes into the category of flour. But rice grains of evenly-roasted paddy, or paddy husks, or just roasted rice grains, do not cause an invitation. But the powder of those rice grains and so on causes an invitation. Even the bran of hard-roasted paddy causes an invitation. But the bran of evenly-roasted or sun-dried paddy does not cause an invitation. Puffed rice, or rice-flour and so on made from them, do not cause an invitation. Roasted Or any desired pure food, he does not make a formal refusal. But food filled with fish or meat, or flour-cake, he does make a formal refusal. Fish and meat are obvious. But this is the distinction – even if, while drinking gruel, just two pieces of fish or meat, the size of a grain of gruel, are given in one dish or in separate dishes, if, without eating them, he refuses anything else sufficient for a formal refusal, he does not make a formal refusal. Then, if one is eaten, and one is in his hand or bowl, and he refuses something else, he makes a formal refusal. If both are eaten, and not even a mustard seed's worth remains in his mouth, even if he refuses something else, he does not make a formal refusal. Eating allowable meat, if he refuses allowable meat, he makes a formal refusal. Eating allowable meat, if he refuses unallowable meat, he does not make a formal refusal. Why? Because it is not a proper object. Indeed, that which is proper for a monk to eat, only by refusing that does a formal refusal occur. But knowing this, he refuses it because it is unallowable. Even not knowing, he refuses that which stands in the place of what should be refused. Therefore, he does not make a formal refusal. But if, eating unallowable meat, he refuses allowable meat, he makes a formal refusal. Why? Because it is a proper object. Indeed, that which he refused, is the proper object for a formal refusal. But that which he eats, even though it stands in the place of what should be refused, while being eaten, it does not lose its nature as meat. Therefore, he makes a formal refusal. Eating unallowable meat, if he refuses unallowable meat, he does not make a formal refusal, by the same method as before. Eating either allowable or unallowable meat, if he refuses any allowable food from the five kinds of food, he makes a formal refusal. If he refuses unallowable food produced by disgracing families, by medical practice, by proclaiming superhuman states, by preparing money, etc., which is condemned by the Buddha, and obtained by improper means, he does not make a formal refusal. Even while consuming either allowable or unallowable food, if he refuses allowable food, he makes a formal refusal. Unallowable food refu- He rejects, does not make a formal refusal. The reason should be understood in all cases, by the method stated. Thus, in "food" and so on, that which he eats, and that food brought by one within arm's reach, rejecting what is brought, he incurs a formal refusal. Knowing that, now, how he incurs it, for the purpose of knowing that, this is the determination: "'Food, meal'" – here, first, if by whom even one mouthful has been swallowed, and if, in the bowl, mouth, or hand, wherever, even one of the five kinds of food is present, he rejects even one other of the five kinds of food, he makes a formal refusal. If there is no food anywhere, only the smell of food is perceived, he does not make a formal refusal. If there is no food in the mouth or hand, but there is in the bowl, yet he does not wish to eat at that seat, he wishes to enter the monastery and eat, or he wishes to give it to another, if in that interval he rejects food, he does not make a formal refusal. Why? Because the state of unfinished eating is cut off. Even if he wishes to go elsewhere and eat, having swallowed the food in his mouth, taking the rest and going, on the way, he rejects other food, for him too, there is no formal refusal," it is stated in the Mahāpaccariya. And as in the bowl; so too in the hand. Or even in the mouth, if there is existing food, if he does not wish to swallow it, and at that moment he rejects other food, he does not make a formal refusal. Indeed, in one instance the stated characteristic should be understood everywhere. Moreover, in the Kurundi this method is indeed shown. For it is stated there: "Food in the mouth has been swallowed, food in the hand he wishes to give to a scavenger, food in the bowl he wishes to give to a monk, if at that moment he rejects, he does not make a formal refusal." "Standing within arm's reach" – here, however, if the monk is seated, starting from the rear edge of the seat; if standing, starting from the heel; if lying down, by whichever side he is lying, starting from the far edge of that side; of the donor, whether seated, standing, or lying down, excluding the outstretched arm, that which is nearer... That part, delimited by its lower end, two and a half cubits, is to be known as "hand-reach". Standing within that, only for one who rejects what is brought near, there is a refusal, not beyond that. "Brings near" means one standing within hand-reach brings it close for taking. But if a monk sitting nearby, a bowl placed on his hands, or on his lap, or on a stand, without bringing it near, says "take food," for one who rejects that, there is no refusal. Even if a food-basket is brought, placed on the ground in front, and "take it" is said, the same rule applies. But if it is slightly lifted or moved away, and "take it" is said, for one who rejects it, there is a refusal. An elder sitting on the elder's seat sends a bowl to a young monk sitting far away, and says "take rice from here." But the one who took it and went stands silently. The young monk rejects it,