English
they invite with an improper invitation. Because it is said: "Successive eating means being invited for one of the five kinds of food, and setting that aside, eating another of the five kinds of food; this is called successive eating." Even if food was first obtained by alms-round, it is said: "If one eats food obtained by going for alms, there is an offense." Without specifying, "verbal action" is said. The rest here is clear. Successive eating, absence of a fixed time, and swallowing— these are the three factors here. The explanation of the training rule on successive eating is finished. 4. Explanation of the Kāṇamātā training rule 230-231. In the fourth, Kāṇamātā means the mother of the girl named Kāṇā. Why was she born named Kāṇā? It is said: "She, indeed..." (etc.). When she was young, her parents affectionately called her "Mother Kāṇī, Mother Kāṇī." She, due to that, became known as Kāṇā. And her mother became famous as Kāṇamātā. Thus, they state the reason here. Paṭiyāloka means the western direction. It is said to be "facing the sun." 233. An offense by counting cakes means an offense by counting cakes placed above the lower line of the rim. Because it is said: "Two or three bowlfuls should be received," below the rim... If not transgressing the limit, it is allowable to take two or three bowlfuls. 235. But in the commentaries… …it is said, this is said only to show that it came to be so in the commentaries, not to establish that view. What is said in the commentaries does not agree with the Pāli text. For showing non-offence in taking more than that, it is said, “for relatives, for those invited.” Otherwise, since non-offence in taking a suitable amount would be established by this alone: “non-offence if he receives two or three bowlfuls,” it would not be necessary to say separately, “for relatives, for those invited.” If so, why was it not said, “that does not agree with the Pāli text”? Because it can be understood in the same way as said in the higher training rule below, it was not said. For it is said there (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.526): “But in the commentaries, in the case of relatives and invited ones, even much is allowable naturally; in the case of an unbroken reason, only a suitable amount is allowable, it is said, that does not agree with the Pāli text.” Even for one who takes with the perception “prepared for provisions, etc.,” there is an offence, because the training rule is not about intention. Since one incurs an offence even by the statement “give it into his hand” for one’s own taking, it is said to be a “verbal action.” The rest is clear. The five factors here are: the described cakes and gruel, not having finished, not having gone away and settled down, not being a relative, etc., and receiving in excess. The explanation of the Kāṇamātā training rule is finished. 5. Explanation of the First Invitation Training Rule 236. In the fifth, “having eaten” means those who have eaten, it is said to mean those who have completed their meal. Here, in “invited,” among the four kinds of invitation, the invitation for as much as one wants and the invitation of refusal are found, so it says, “by the brahmin… …invited by the invitation of refusal.” For there are four kinds of invitation: the invitation after the rains retreat, the invitation for requisites, the invitation of refusal, and the invitation for as much as one wants. There, “I allow, monks, monks who have completed the rains retreat to invite in three ways” (Mahāva. 209) The Pavāraṇā is that which is observed at the end of the Rains Retreat. It is called Pavāraṇā because it prevents (vāreti) by various means, such as seeing, etc., it causes one to partake of the Sangha and others, it makes one into a partaker of food (bhatte karoti) by this (etāyā), it is the giving of an opportunity for self-surrender for the purification of offenses. Since it is stated that it should mostly be done by those who have observed the Rains Retreat, therefore it is called "Pavāraṇā at the end of the Rains Retreat." "I wish, Venerable Sir, to invite the Sangha with medicine for four months" (Pāci. 303), and "except for a subsequent invitation, except for a constant invitation" (Pāci. 306) – this is the invitation for requisites (paccayapavāraṇā), so called because it invites (pavāreti) and causes one to wish for (icchāpeti) requisites by this, it is a term for inviting with robes and so forth. "One who is invited (pavārito) means that food is available, a meal is available, one standing within arm's reach offers it, a refusal is evident – this is called one who is invited" (Pāci. 239) – this is the invitation of refusal (paṭikkhepapavāraṇā). Here, the refusal of food itself, accompanied by five factors such as having eaten, is the prevention (vāraṇā) associated with various kinds (pakārayuttā), hence Pavāraṇā. "He satisfied and invited them with excellent hard food and soft food by his own hand" (Ma. Ni. 1.363) – this is the invitation for as much as one desires (yāvadatthapavāraṇā). The invitation for food as much as one desires is yāvadatthapavāraṇā. 237. Without saying the word "ti"… (etc.)… "it is proper to say" – this is stated to show the manner of speaking. "But even if the word 'ti' is said, it is not considered undone" – this is stated in all three knot-points. 238-239. Pavārito means refused. For one who, while eating, refuses the food offered by the server because he does not want it, is called pavārito, refused, by him. But to show only the meaning, disregarding the specific expression, it is said "katapavāraṇo katapaṭikkhepo" (one who has made an invitation, one who has made a refusal). Since the meaning of "bhuttāvī" (one who has eaten) is expressed by the word "asana" (eating) alone, therefore no separate purpose for it is found. If it were found, the Pavāraṇā would become endowed with six factors, and bearing this in mind, to show that it is endowed with only five, the Pāli text is cited with "vuttampi ceta" (and this is also said) and so on. Some, however, (say) "ha standing in the place of establishment, he offers it," making it one factor, they also say, "the invitation is endowed with four factors." In "sour gruel, etc.," the word "etc." includes milk gruel, etc. There, by the mention of sour gruel, thick gruel mixed with sour things like buttermilk is meant. By the mention of milk gruel, gruel mixed with milk is included. "It does not generate an invitation" means it does not fulfill the prohibition based on the offense of eating beyond the allowed time. Even if a prohibition is made, it is not based on the offense of eating beyond the allowed time, so it remains as if not done. Thus he says, "it does not generate an invitation." "Because the word 'gruel' is common even to gruel that generates an invitation, it is said that even if 'take gruel' is said, an invitation occurs, so it does generate an invitation." This is stated in all three glosses, but it does not agree with the reason stated later in "having brought gruel mixed with rice." For it is said there: "Below, in an invitation without gruel, because 'take gruel' is said, referring to rice mixed with water, conjee, milk, etc., an invitation occurs. But in 'having brought gruel mixed with rice,' because gruel exists separately, an invitation does not occur." Therefore, according to the method stated there, because "take gruel" is said, referring only to rice mixed with milk, etc., and because gruel is absent there, an invitation occurs. This is the reason that should be stated here. If this is the case, it also agrees with the reason stated in the commentary later in "for him who was asked." Otherwise, there would be a contradiction between earlier and later statements in the glosses themselves. And it would not agree with the commentary's statement. "If... etc. ... is known" by this, it shows merely the existence of a piece of fish or meat of the stated size, or a sinew. "By these" means by the flattened rice. "Sattu made from rice, paddy, and barley" is said mostly, but sattu is also made by roasting seven kinds of grain. Therefore he says, "millet, foxtail millet... etc. ... it goes into the category of sattu." "Sattu flour" means A sattu-ball, made by kneading flour, uncooked. Because the state of being prepared food, in one of the five kinds of food, is cut off, it is said: "Even a mustard seed's worth in the mouth... he does not refuse." From the saying: "He rejects unallowable meat, he does not refuse." If, knowing or not knowing, he rejects a communal gain that does not belong to him, he does not refuse, because what should be rejected is indeed rejected. Even one who rejects what belongs to a shameless person does not refuse. "Because of being without a basis" means because of being without a basis for a refusal that leads to a non-excess offense. By this, it shows that what should be rejected is indeed rejected. For indeed, what should be rejected, its rejection is not an offense factor. Therefore, it is called "without a basis for refusal." By "he brings near," it shows a physical offering. For one standing outside arm's reach, even with an offering made with the intention to give, if he rejects it, there is no refusal due to the distance itself. Showing the absence of refusal by taking only the elder's distance, he says: "Because of the elder's distance," but not because of the elder's actual offering. Even if he has taken it and gone, and is standing within arm's reach, but has said nothing, and is standing in the place of support, it is not called an offering. Therefore, it is said: "And because the messenger does not offer." "When one who has taken it and gone says 'Take the food,' it is called an offering." Thus, "If a bhikkhu has taken it and come... there is refusal," is said in all three commentaries. But some say: "It should be understood as 'having brought near some bowl, he says, "Take this food."'" That seems appropriate,