English
saying "enough for me." He does not refuse. Why? Because of the elder's distance and the messenger's not bringing it near. But if the monk who brought it says "take this food," for one who rejects that, there is a refusal. For serving, one person, holding a rice-basket with one hand, a ladle with the other, serves the monks. If another person comes there, and says "I will hold the basket, you give the rice," and only does what is taken, but the server himself holds it, therefore, it is considered brought near. Then, for one who rejects it when it is taken with the intention to give, there is a refusal. But if it is merely touched by the server, and the other person holds it, then, for one who rejects it when it is taken with the intention to give, there is no refusal. But for food lifted with a ladle, there is (a refusal). For that, the bringing near by the ladle itself is the bringing near. Even if two are equally involved, one who rejects still refuses, so it is said in the Mahāpaccariya. When food is being given to a nearby monk, the other covers his bowl with his hands. There is no refusal. Why? When brought near for another, rejecting... because it was struck. "Rejection is discerned" means: For one who rejects what is brought by speech, there is no invitation. But for one who rejects what is brought by body, either by body or by speech, there is an invitation, so it should be understood. Therein, rejection by body means: He moves a finger or a hand, or a fly-whisk, or the edge of a robe, or makes a gesture with his eyebrows, or looks angrily. Rejection by speech means: He says, "Enough!" or "I do not take it!" or "Do not pour it!" or "Go away!" Thus, by any such gesture, whether by body or by speech, if it is rejected, there is an invitation. One, fearing the invitation when food is brought, removes his hand, and to one repeatedly pouring rice into his bowl, he says, "Pour, pour, fill it up by pounding!" What about this? Elder Mahāsumma said, "Because it was said for the purpose of not pouring, there is an invitation." But Elder Mahāpaduma said, "For one who says, 'Pour, fill it up,' saying, 'Is there an invitation for anyone?' he said, 'He does not invite.'" Another, observing a monk bringing food, said, "Friend, will you take anything else from here? I will give you something." There too, Elder Mahāsumma said, "Because it was said, 'It will not come this way,' there is an invitation." But Elder Mahāpaduma said, "For one who says, 'Will you take it?' saying, 'Is there an invitation for anyone?' he said, 'He does not invite.'" One brings a broth with meat and says, "Take the broth." Hearing that, for one who rejects it, there is no invitation. When "fish broth, meat broth" is said, for one who rejects it, there is. Even when "take this" is said, there is. Having separated the meat, he says, "Take the meat broth." If there is even a mustard-seed-sized piece of meat there, for one who rejects it, there is an invitation. But if it has been strained, Elder Abhaya said, "It is permissible." To one asking about meat broth, the Great Elder said, "Wait a moment," and then, "Friend, bring a bowl." Ha. How is it here? The Elder Mahāsumma said first: "The going of the offering is cut off, therefore he accepts." But the Elder Mahāpaduma, saying: "Where does this go? What kind of going is this? Is there an acceptance even for one who takes?" said: "He does not accept." They cook meat mixed with Kaḷīrapanasa and so on. Taking that, they say: "Take the Kaḷīra soup, take the Panasa relish." Even so, he does not accept. Why? Because it is spoken by a name unfit for acceptance. But if they say: "Fish soup, meat soup," or "Take this," he accepts. There is something called meat karambaka. Even one who wants to give it says: "Take the karambaka." It is permissible; he does not accept. But if "meat karambaka" or "this" is said, then he accepts. This is the same method for all mixtures of fish and meat. But in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said that a monk eating at an invitation, who rejects meat brought to him, thinking it was "prepared specifically for him," has already accepted. The discussion on mixtures, however, is well stated in the Kurundi. Thus it is said there: A bhikkhu on alms round brings a gruel mixed with rice and says: "Take the gruel." He does not accept. If "Take the rice" is said, he accepts. Why? Because it exists for the one who was asked. This is the intention here: If he says: "Take the gruel mixture," and if the gruel is more or equal, he does not accept. If the gruel is little, and the rice is more, he accepts. And this cannot be rejected because it is stated in all commentaries, but the reason here is difficult to see. If he says: "Take the rice mixture," and the rice is much or equal or less, he accepts. If, without naming rice or gruel, he says: "Take the mixture," and if the rice is more or equal, he accepts. If it is less, he does not accept. And this should not be equated with karambaka. Karam A mixed food, can be with meat, or without meat. Therefore, when "karambaka" is said, there is no invitation. But this (food) is only mixed with rice. Here, invitation occurs in the way stated. If one gives separately, saying: "Take the essence in food with much essence, milk in food with much milk, and ghee in rice porridge with much ghee," for one who rejects that, there is no invitation. But one who accepts while walking, may eat while walking. If one stops having reached mud or water, it must be made surplus. If a river is full in between, one should eat by circling a bush on the riverbank. If there is a boat or a bridge, one should eat even while walking on it, the journey should not be interrupted. One who has accepted while seated in a vehicle, or on an elephant's back, or on the moon's disc, or on the sun's disc, should eat while seated, even if they are moving, until midday. One who accepts standing, should eat standing. One who accepts sitting, should eat sitting. By changing that posture, it must be made surplus. One who accepts while squatting, should eat while squatting. But for him, a straw mat or something to sit on should be given below. One who accepts while seated on a stool, may eat by turning in the four directions, without moving the seat. One who accepts while seated on a couch, may not move hither and thither. But if they lift him together with the couch and take him elsewhere, it is permissible. One who accepts while lying down, should eat while lying down. By turning, the place where one is lying should not be exceeded. "Not surplus" means "not surplus"; the meaning is "not extra". But because it is not done by the seven Vinaya procedures such as making it allowable, or it is not extra for a sick person, therefore in the word analysis, "not allowable" and so on is stated. There, "not allowable" means that which is fruit or root, etc., which by five... The permissible not made permissible; and what is unallowable meat or unallowable food, this is called unallowable. That unallowable, even if made surplus with "This is enough for all," should be understood as unallowably made. "Made unreceived" is what a bhikkhu has not received and made surplus in the same previous manner. "Made unannounced" is what a bhikkhu, having come to make it permissible, has not lifted up even a little, nor moved away. "Made out of reach" is what, for one who has come to make it permissible, is made by one standing outside his arm's reach. "Made by one who has not eaten" is what, by him who makes it surplus with "This is enough for all," is food sufficient for the invitation, made by one who has not eaten. "Made by one who has eaten, has been invited, and has risen from his seat"—this is quite clear. "Not saying 'This is enough for all'" means it is not said in this way, making a break in speech. Thus, by these seven ways of vinaya action, what is surplus, permissible, but not made so, and what is not a surplus for the sick, both of these should be understood as not surplus. Surplus, however, should be understood by the opposite method. Moreover, here, "made by one who has eaten" means from the bowl of a bhikkhu of the same group sitting nearby, even having eaten one grain of rice or a piece of meat and then made it, it should be understood as made by one who has eaten. Regarding "by one who has not risen from his seat," here, for clarity, this is the decision – two bhikkhus, having eaten in the morning, are invited – one should sit right there, the other, having brought regular food or ticket food, should put half into that bhikkhu's bowl, wash his hands, and have the remaining made permissible by that bhikkhu, and then eat it. Why? Because what sticks to his hand is unallowable. If, however, the bhikkhu who sat first himself takes from that bowl with his hand, there is no need for hand-washing. If, however, while one is eating after having thus made it permissible, again some curry or snack is put into the bowl, by whom That which was made allowable first, he may not make again. By whom it was not made, by him it should be made. And that which was not made, that should be made. "By whom it was not made," means by another bhikkhu, by whom it was not made first, by him it should be made. "And that which was not made," means even by him who made it allowable first, that which was not made, that should be made. But in the first portion, it is not allowed to make it. For if made there, it would be made together with what was made first. Therefore, it is proper to make it in another portion, this is the intention. Having made it thus, it is proper for that bhikkhu to eat it together with what was made first. And by one making it allowable, not only in the bowl, but also in a basket, or in a bag, wherever it is placed in front and in a tilted vessel, it should be made. Even if a hundred bhikkhus have been invited, it is proper for all of them to eat it.