English
again in any of the places where one has eaten before. 208. "Some say that 'going or coming' should be taken in terms of half a yojana." "In a place gone to on the way" is said referring to one's own possession. Explaining the meaning briefly stated as "the same method applies to coming," he says, "having gone and come back," and so on. "It should be said that there is no offense for one who eats again in the place of offense" shows only repeated eating: in going and coming, without eating the first meal, and in a place gone to on the way for one day, and for one day. However, on the day of going and on the day of coming, it is certainly permissible to eat, thinking, "I will go, I will come." Even for one who eats repeatedly with a pure mind, No offense in food not taken again. Having designated it for another's purpose, it is not proper for a bhikkhu to take it, therefore it is said, "only for the bhikkhus' purpose." The rest here is clear. Dwelling-food, not being sick, and eating without having stayed overnight – these are the three factors here. The explanation of the training rule concerning dwelling-food is finished. 2. The explanation of the training rule concerning group-eating. 209. In the second, "he caused to be killed" refers to the archers appointed to go and kill the Blessed One. "Hidden and concealed" means not manifest. "He shot" means he released. Is it not proven by the saying "he even caused kings to be killed" that this training rule was laid down in the time of Ajātasattu? If so, then later in the supplementary rule – "Now at that time, a blood-relative of King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha had gone forth among the Ājīvakas. Then that Ājīvaka approached King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha, and having approached, he said this to King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha... ...being scrupulous, they did not accept." – Why was this said? It is understood that this Ājīvaka, giving that offering, gave it from the time of Bimbisāra onwards, and later, from the time the training rule was laid down in Ajātasattu's time, the bhikkhus, being scrupulous, did not accept that offering. Therefore, that incident is shown from the very beginning. And this, "Then that Ājīvaka sent a messenger to the bhikkhus," refers to the fact that from then on, that Ājīvaka, inviting the bhikkhus from time to time and giving offerings, sent a messenger to the bhikkhus when the training rule was laid down in Ajātasattu's time, that is what is referred to. 215. Because of their mutual distinctiveness, a dissimilar kingdom is *virajjaṃ*; those who come from there, or are born there, or exist there, are *verajjā*, and these are *verajjakā*. But since they are of various kinds by division of clan, conduct, etc., it is said "from various foreign lands." In the commentary, however, the variety is stated in terms of the kingdoms themselves, meaning "those who came from various other kingdoms." Because this training rule was laid down concerning the act of eating after making a request, it is clear that a group meal arises from a request by way of the act itself. But without stating that, in the word-division, a group meal is defined by way of invitation only, as "a group meal is where... (etc.)... those invited eat." "But perhaps some training rule might not correspond to the act, so a group meal arises only by way of invitation, as stated in the word-division" — lest some might have this doubt, to dispel that, it was said: "This group meal, however, arises in two ways." Regarding "taking the name of the five foods," some say: "Even if it is said, 'Take food,' it is still a group meal." "Below, in the case of journeying and in the case of boarding a boat, when it was said, 'Venerables, eat right here,' because they, feeling scruples, did not accept, therefore, even if 'Eat' is said, it is not a group meal." This is stated in all three commentaries. However, because it is said, "invites by taking the name of the five foods," only when it is said, "Eat rice," or "Eat a meal," taking the name of a food, does it become a group meal, not otherwise. Even in "Venerables, eat right here," it should be understood that they invited them thus only by saying "rice" or "meal." Or, because they were invited as a group, those bhikkhus, out of their lack of understanding of the rule, feeling scruples, did not accept. This is our view. One should investigate and accept what is more appropriate. Regarding "they receive together," it should be understood that those standing without letting go of each other's twelve-cubit space are said to receive together. From the statement, "They might request, 'Give food for all four of us'," and from the statement below, "Having requested thus: 'You give food for one bhikkhu, you for two'," it should be understood that even if a request is made by others for one's own benefit, it is still a group meal. Regarding "thus it arises from a request," the request... When there is need, for one who accepts, if accepted together, there is an offense by this training rule. If accepted separately, an offense should be understood by requests for choice food, curry, or rice. "He considers" means he arranges according to the five parts, and so on. "He rubs" means having cut the thread, he rubs with his hand or with a stick. "He makes thread" means he twists the thread. "He winds" means he winds it onto a stick or his hand. They say, "Making a brand new robe is called 'robe-work' here. It is not called 'needle-work' on an old robe." They say, "From the saying, 'When the fourth one comes, they do not pass the time,' if no one else is coming, and the four sitting there cannot pass the time, it is not allowable." 220. Because it is an invitation that causes an offense of group eating, it is called "unallowable invitation." "Having seated them" means having made them sit. "The group is broken" means the group does not incur an offense. From the concordance with the Pāli text, "Where four monks... eat," it is said, "for the others, he is a group-completer." "Without distinction" means without distinguishing "sick or robe-maker," but with a general statement. "Therefore" means because it is not distinguished. In "when they have eaten and gone," even if they have not gone, it is allowable to accept when the meal is finished. "And those were not accepted together by them" means those foods for which there is no doubt, those foods were not accepted together by those monks because one accepted them later. "Great elder" is said referring to the monks. Fearing that the messenger would come back along the path and say, "Take the food," it is said, "having stood at the village gate." "Having gone here and there" means having gone to those standing here and there in the middle of the street, and so on. Even when placed at the house door for the sake of the monks and given, the same rule applies. "Turn back" means it is allowable to turn back at the mentioned word, because "Turn back" is separated and "Take the food" is said afterwards, so it is allowable. The rest here is clear. Group eating, complete. Non-asking, eating— these are the three factors here. The explanation of the training rule concerning group meals is finished. 3. The explanation of the training rule concerning successive meals 221. In the third, because it is given continuously, having made it unbroken by family succession, it is said in the Pāli, "the meal succession is not stopped," meaning it proceeds continuously, not stopping in between. "By way of metaphor" means by way of common speech. Indeed, he does not give only a jujube fruit, but by way of metaphor, he speaks thus. That which is prepared with jujube powder, sugar, etc., is called "jujube syrup." 226. Only by way of designation is that meal said to be non-existent; having set aside the designation by way of supplementary enactment, only the training rule as originally laid down is established. But in the Parivāra, even the permission for designation, having considered it similar to a supplementary enactment, it is said, "there are four supplementary enactments." The method stated in the Mahāpaccari and others, speaking later, by comparison with the Pāli, established only the designation in absence. But some say, "At that time, having kept it with himself, because there was no one else for the Blessed One, the elder did not make a designation in presence, and a separate designation in presence was not stated by the Blessed One, nevertheless, a designation in presence is also permissible." Therefore, even in the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, commentary, explanation of the Paramparabhojana training rule) it is said: "If a bhikkhu, to one of the five fellow Dhamma-farers, 'I give my meal expectation to you' or 'I designate it' thus in presence, or 'I give it to so-and-so' or 'I designate it' thus in absence, without designating the first invitation, from the alms received in a later invited family, eats even one mouthful, it is a pācittiya offense." 229. For one invited for five meals, by whichever one he was first invited, from that meal, or without designating in reverse order, the meal of each successive one is called a successive meal, he says, "But if the original invitation is below, the last (is last)..." For one eating from this above, from that starting from the top, there is an offense. Having put the hand inside, for one taking the very bottom, even what is in the middle comes into the hand, so it is said: "But if the hand... (etc.)... for one eating in any way, there is no offense." Because milk and juice, not mixed with rice, remain on top, it is said: "For one drinking milk or juice, there is no offense." Mahāupāsaka means the householder. "In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, the word 'offense' and in the Kurundi, the word 'is permissible' seem contradictory. The meaning of both is clarified in the Mahāpaccari," so it is said in the Mahāgaṇṭhipada. When all invite,