English
because a verbal offering is not intended here. "At the serving" means at the place of food. "It is indeed offered" means it is offered by the server himself. Therefore, for one who rejects what is taken with the intention to give, there is refusal. Here, even for one who rejects what is not taken, there is indeed refusal. Why? Because it is offered with the intention to give. "Therefore, it is indeed offered." Thus it was said. Therefore, in all three knotty passages, it was said: “When there is an offering with the wish to give, merely taking ‘I will give’ is not an offering. Whether one takes ‘I will give’ or does not take, only an offering with the wish to give is an offering. Therefore, whether at the time of taking or not taking, for one who refuses it, there is an invitation.” Now, to show that when there is no such offering with the wish to give, even if one refuses at the time of taking, there is no invitation, it was said: “But if…” and so on. Since it was said, “Take the juice,” by taking the name of that which does not generate an invitation, it was said: “Hearing that, for one who refuses, there is no invitation.” Here, in “fish juice, meat juice,” it is not merely understood as “fish juice” for the juice of fish, but rather, fish and fish juice are understood as “fish juice” in the sense of a common name for that which generates an invitation. Therefore, for one who refuses it, there is an invitation. Later, in “fish soup,” the same method applies. Even when it is said, “Take this,” it should be understood that even without saying this, for one who refuses anything offered that is capable of an invitation, there is indeed an invitation. “Karambaka” is a term for a mixture. Whatever is made by mixing one thing with another is called “karambaka.” Even if it is made mixed with meat, since it is said, “Take karambaka,” by a name that is not worthy of an invitation, for one who refuses, there is no invitation. But when it is said, “Take meat karambaka,” it means, “Take the meat mixture.” Therefore, there is an invitation. Here, in “thinking it is ‘made on purpose’,” they say: “Since the object is allowable, even for one who refuses with the perception of unallowability, because there is no intention, there is an invitation for this training rule.” “Below, in the invitation for non-porridge, since it was said, ‘Take the porridge,’ referring to rice mashed with water, gruel, milk, and so on, there is an invitation. But here, in ‘having brought porridge mixed with rice,’ since there is porridge separately, there is an invita…” they say, "is not." This is the intention here, referring to what was said with "by whom he was asked," and so on. The reason here is hard to see. Here, some say: "Because there is no such thing as rice mixed with gruel, and milk, etc., is always there, therefore, there should be no refusal as in the case of karambaka. And if so, whether the gruel is more or equal, he does not refuse. 'If the gruel is little, and the rice is much, he refuses' — the reason here is hard to see." But some say: "Rice mixed with gruel is rice, therefore, in rejecting it, there should be a refusal. And if so, 'whether there is a refusal here or not' — the reason here is hard to see." Just as the reason here is hard to see, so too later, with "take the mixture," the reason is also hard to see, this should be understood. For the quantity, whether much or little, of what is sufficient for refusal, is not the cause for the presence or absence of refusal. What then? The naming itself of what generates the refusal is the measure here. Therefore, the reason stated, such as "this should not be equated with karambaka," when compared with what was said before, does not agree. For if "mixture" were established as only rice-mixture, then, just as when "take the rice-mixture" is said, whether the rice is much, or equal, or little, he always refuses; so too when "take the mixture" is said, even if the rice is little, there should be a refusal, because "mixture" is established as only rice-mixture. Thus, in all three glosses, it is said: "Because 'mixture' is a term established as only rice-mixture, this is therefore called 'rice-mixture'." But if "mixture" is not established as rice-mixture, but refers to mixed rice when "take the mixture" is said, even so, just as in an invitation without gruel, when "take the gruel" is said, referring to rice kneaded with milk, etc., there is a refusal; so too here, mixed rice Referring to that, when it is said "take the mixed," whether the food is little or much, it should be an invitation. Therefore, whether "mixed" is a common term for mixed food or spoken with reference, in both cases, the former and the latter do not agree. So what is the point of thinking about the reason here? But in such places, one should proceed only by the authority of the commentaries. This is our view. "Giving separately" means "taking the essence etc. that is on top of the food and giving it separately." This is stated in all three glossaries. But by some, it is said, "pressing it firmly with the hand so that no food particles fall, and straining it, then giving it." Even so, no reason is seen. Just as, having brought gruel mixed with food, and saying "take the gruel," if one rejects even the food mixed with gruel, there is no invitation. Similarly here, with foods rich in milk, essence, etc., having said "take the milk" and so on, whether one gives milk etc. or food mixed with milk etc., in both cases, there should be no invitation. Therefore, "giving separately" is said with reference to giving in that manner. And it should be understood that it is not for the purpose of showing that there is an invitation for one who rejects food given mixed. But if "giving separately" is stated in the commentary with the intention that there is an invitation when food is given mixed, then in that case, the commentary itself should be taken as the authority here, and no other reason should be sought. If one sitting in a squatting position, without releasing the feet, sits on the ground, he is said to be disturbing the posture. So that one may sit comfortably without disturbing the squatting posture, it is said, "underneath that... ...a sitting cloth should be given." "Without moving the seat" means "without lifting the buttocks from the place touched on the stool." It means "without standing up." It should not be taken as "moving from the place" as in the case of taking what is not given. This is stated in all three glossaries. Here, regarding "made unsuitable," because only what is made unsuitable is not surplus. Without having made it allowable, Only the roots and fruits put in that bowl Are not surplus. But the rest included in the bowl Is indeed surplus. It is allowable to consume. But that root and fruit etc., By one wishing to consume, Should be taken out from there, Had it made allowable, Placed in another vessel, Had it made surplus, And then consumed. He cannot do it again. Because what is being done In that very vessel Is considered done with what was done first. So he himself cannot do it again. Another can. But in another vessel, By him or by another, It is allowable to do. Therefore it is said: "By whom it was not done, By him it should be done. And what was not done, That should be done." Here, the word 'pi' in 'tenapi' Indicates not merely 'by another'. "Thus done" means Done in another vessel. "Having sent" means Having sent it into the hand Of an unordained person. Because this is a Vinaya act, It is said: "What is in the hand Of an unordained person Should not be caused to be done." But if they are mixed with food, Here, if they are mixed With food that has even entered the mouth And is not surplus, It should be understood That it is indeed a pācittiya offense. Therefore, by one who has made the invitation, Even when consuming food After having had it made surplus, So that it is not mixed With what is not done, Thus, having made the mouth and hand clean, It should be consumed. Although for one who has not made the invitation, Even when consuming yāmakālika etc. Before noon for food, There is no offense. But for one who has made the invitation, There is indeed a dukkaṭa offense Rooted in the invitation. As it is said in the Pāli: "Yāmakālika... etc. ... Upon consumption, There is an offense of dukkaṭa." 241. By eating with the body, By ordering with speech, And by not having it made surplus, An offense arises. Therefore it is said "by body and speech." The rest here is clear. The state of having made the invitation, The food not being surplus, And consuming it at the wrong time— These are the three factors here. The commentary on the first training rule Concerning the invitation is finished. 6. Commentary on the second training rule Concerning the invitation. 243. In the sixth (rule), It is indeed common, As in "Come, monk, eat," etc. is common to the aforementioned invitation. Since it is stated in the mātikā, "There is an offense when eaten," the offense occurs at the end of the meal, not at each mouthful. When one invites by bringing it, there is an offense of pācittiya, and this too should be understood as referring to the end of the meal. The rest here is clear. Being invited, the perception of being invited, the expectation of offense, the invitation by bringing what is not surplus, and the end of the meal— these are the five factors here. The explanation of the second invitation training rule is finished. 7. Explanation of the training rule concerning eating at the wrong time 247. In the seventh, "aggasamajja" means a supreme dance. It is said that they perform it on a mountaintop, dedicating it to a certain deity. "Naṭānaṃ nāṭakāni" are the plays of actors, such as the abduction of Sītā. "Apaññatte sikkhāpade" means when the training rule for those under twenty years old was not yet laid down. "Adaṃsu" means they gave,