English
or being invited says, "I will take alms," for him, in the case of regular alms-recipients and so forth, excluding the five kinds of food, in all other cases, and for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. Successive eating, absence of a fixed time, and swallowing — these are the three factors here. Its arising and so forth are similar to the first Kathina (rule), but this is an active and inactive (offense). The explanation of the rule concerning successive eating is finished. 4. The explanation of the Kāṇamātā rule. In the fourth (rule), "sweets" (pūvehi) means any edibles prepared as gifts, such as sweet cakes, rice cakes, or fried cakes. "Flour" (manthehi) means any provisions prepared for a journey, such as roasted flour, sesame, or rice. "Two or three bowlfuls" means two or three bowlfuls that do not exceed the line below the rim. If it exceeds that, even if one takes a third bowl heaped up, it is a pacittiya offense for the amount of sweets placed above the line below the rim. Regarding "having received two or three bowlfuls," if one has taken two, upon seeing another bhikkhu outside, one should say, "I have taken two bowlfuls here; you may take one." That bhikkhu, upon seeing another, should also say, "The first one who came took two bowlfuls; I took one; you should not take any." For one who first took one, the same method applies in successive announcements. But if one has taken three by oneself, upon seeing another, one should say, "Do not take anything here." For not saying so, it is a dukkata; for taking after hearing that, it is also a dukkata. Having taken it out from there, it should be shared with the bhikkhus at the nearest place from where it was received. To a refectory or a monastery, or wherever one regularly goes, having gone there, having kept one bowlful for oneself, the rest should be given to the community of bhikkhus. However, it is not allowed to give according to friendship. By whom one (bowlful) has been taken, by him nothing should be given unwillingly, it should be done as one wishes. Concerning many bhikkhus in Sāvatthī, it was laid down regarding the matter of not knowing the measure and receiving (food). It is a general rule, without (requiring) an order, a triple pācittiya. For one who perceives more or is in doubt when it is less than two or three bowlfuls, there is a dukkaṭa. But for one who perceives less, (if it is) not prepared for a gift or for provisions, or the remainder prepared for that purpose, or when the journey is calmed (i.e., finished), or when giving to relatives or those who have invited, for one taking with one's own money, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The described characteristic of cakes and gruel, not being leftover, the journey not being calmed (i.e., not finished), not being relatives, etc., and receiving in excess— these are the five factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of sañcaritta. The explanation of the Kāṇamātā training rule is finished. 5. The Explanation of the First Pavāraṇā Training Rule In the fifth (rule), "bhuttāvī" means one who has eaten, by whom even a mustard seed's worth of the five kinds of food has been consumed, he is so called. "Pavārito" means one who has made a pavāraṇā according to the five factors stated in the Pāli (Pāci. 239): "food is apparent, a meal is apparent, one standing within arm's reach offers it, a refusal is apparent." The meaning is, one who has made a refusal. There, since by "food is apparent" one who has not finished eating is called 'pavārito'. And one who has not finished eating, by him something has been eaten, something has not been eaten. And that which has been eaten, referring to that, he also goes by the designation 'bhuttāvī'. Therefore, we do not see any distinct purpose achieved by the word 'bhuttāvī', but it should be understood that this is stated as a complement to the word 'pavārita' due to its alliterative connection, like the word "diratta" etc. in "dirattatiratta" etc. (Pāci. 52). Among the factors of refusal, 'food is seen' means unfinished food is seen, and the meaning is that the person is eating it. 'Food is seen' means food sufficient for refusal is seen, and the meaning is that it is food, one of rice etc., that is to be refused. 'Standing within arm's reach' means if the donor, having taken food sufficient for refusal, is standing in a place about two and a half cubits away, that is the meaning. 'He offers' means if that donor offers that food to him with his body, that is the meaning. 'Refusal is seen' means refusal is seen, and the meaning is that if that bhikkhu refuses that offered food with his body or with his speech. Thus, by means of these five factors, he is considered to have refused. Herein is the determination – First, concerning 'food' etc., whatever one eats, and whatever food is offered by one standing within arm's reach and is refused, that should be understood as one of these: rice, gruel, flour, fish, or meat. Therein, 'rice' means taking the grains of these seven cereals: sāli, vīhi, barley, wheat, millet, varaka, kudrūsaka, and cooking them with the intention of 'we are cooking rice' or 'we are cooking gruel' or anything else; if, when eating, whether hot or cold, a boundary is seen at each place where it is taken, it is rice, and it generates refusal. But if it is a milk-rice or a sour gruel, which, immediately after being taken from the stove, is still warm enough to be stirred and drunk, and if no boundary is seen even in the place where it is taken by hand, it does not generate refusal. However, if, after the steam has gone, it becomes thick and shows a boundary, then it again generates refusal; its former thinness does not prevent this. Even if many leaves, fruits, and vegetables are put in, and only a handful of grains are added, if a boundary is seen at mealtime, it generates refusal. In an invitation for non-gruel, saying 'we will give gruel,' they pour water, sour gruel, milk, etc., into the rice, and give it saying 'take gruel,' even if it is thin... , it generates a refusal. But if they cook and give it after putting it into boiling water and so on, it goes into the category of gruel. If even a mustard-seed-sized piece of fish or meat or a tendon is put into the gruel, it generates a refusal. Excluding the grains mentioned as being in conformity, food made from other bamboo rice and so on, or from roots, tubers, or fruits, or from anything whatsoever, does not generate a refusal. Kummāsa is made from barley. But kummāsa made from other mung beans and so on does not generate a refusal. Sattu is made by roasting seven grains. Even flour or bran made by pounding the husked grains of even roughly roasted rice, goes into the category of sattu. But bran of evenly roasted or sun-dried grains, or any husked grains, or puffed rice, or food and sattu made from puffed rice, do not generate a refusal. Regarding fish and meat, if, while one is drinking gruel, they give two pieces of fish or two pieces of meat, the size of a grain of gruel, either in one dish or in separate dishes, and if, without eating them, one refuses anything else that is sufficient for a refusal, it does not generate a refusal. If one is eaten, and one is in the hand or in the bowl, if one refuses anything else, it generates a refusal. If both are eaten, and there is not even a mustard-seed-sized piece left in the mouth, even if one refuses anything else, it does not generate a refusal. But if one eats unallowable meat, or unallowable food obtained through defiling families, medical practice, boasting of superhuman attainments, or dealing in silver and so on, and refuses other allowable or unallowable food, it does not generate a refusal. Thus, knowing that whatever one eats, and whatever food brought within reach one refuses, generates a refusal, this determination should now be understood to know how it applies: "Eating and food" - here, if one has swallowed even one grain, and if there is food anywhere in the bowl, mouth, or hands, and one is still desirous, and refuses anything else of the described characteristics, He rejects offered food, he makes a formal declaration. But if he is unconcerned, what is left in the bowl etc., and he does not wish to consume it, or wishes to give it to another, or wishes to go elsewhere and eat, even though he rejects it, he does not make a formal declaration. But here, regarding "standing within arm's reach": if the bhikkhu is seated, from the rear edge of his sitting place; if standing, from the heels' edge; if lying down, on whichever side he is lying, from the outer edge of that side; of the donor, whether seated, standing, or lying, excluding the outstretched hand, whichever limb is closer, delimited by its inner edge, two and a half cubits should be understood as 'arm's reach'. Standing within that, only when rejecting what is offered, is there a formal declaration, not beyond that. "He offers" means: standing within arm's reach, he brings it near for taking. But if even a bhikkhu seated nearby, without bringing near a bowl held in hand or on a stand, says "take food," for one rejecting that, there is no formal declaration. Having brought a food basket, and placed it on the ground in front, even if it is said thus, the same rule applies. But if slightly having lifted or moved it away, if "take" is said, for one rejecting that, there is a formal declaration. For one serving, having taken the food basket, if another says "I will hold it" and merely takes hold of it, but only the server holds it, therefore, it is considered offered; for one rejecting it, wishing to give, there is a formal declaration. But if it is merely touched by the server, and the other one holds it, then for one rejecting it, wishing to give, there is no formal declaration. But when scooped out with a ladle, there is a declaration; even if both have equal share,