English
one rejecting it still makes a formal declaration. When given to the one next in line, the other one covers his bowl; what is offered to another is considered rejected, therefore, there is no formal declaration. Here, regarding 'rejection': rejection of what is offered by speech, not r... When one offers, but when it is brought by the body, or by a bodily gesture like moving a finger, or by a verbal gesture like "Enough, do not give," for one who rejects, there is a refusal. Someone brings a meat broth. He says, "Receive the broth." Hearing that, for one who rejects, there is no refusal. But when "meat broth" is said, for one who rejects, there is a refusal. Even when "Take this" is said, it is so. Even when the meat is separated, and "meat broth" is said, if there is even a mustard-seed-sized piece, for one who rejects, there is a refusal. If there is not, it is permissible. They cook fish meat mixed with bamboo shoots, jackfruit, and so on. Taking that, he says, "Take bamboo shoot soup, take jackfruit curry." Even so, there is no refusal. Why? Because it is stated by the name of something not subject to refusal. But when "fish meat curry" or "Take this" is said, one refuses. This is the summary here, but the detailed explanation is given in the Samantapāsādikā. But regarding going and so on, in whichever posture one refuses, that should be eaten without disturbing it. "Anatiritta" means "not surplus," "not excessive." But that is either not made allowable by the seven Vinaya procedures like "made allowable," or it is not excessive for a sick person. Therefore, in the word-division (Pāci. 239), "not made allowable," etc., is stated. There, whatever fruit or root-vegetable, and so on, is not made allowable by the five monastic allowances, and whatever unallowable meat or unallowable food, this is called unallowable. That unallowable thing, made surplus by saying "All this is enough," should be understood as "not made allowable." "Not received" means that which is not received by a bhikkhu, made surplus in the previous manner. "Not declared" means by a bhikkhu who has come to make it allowable, it is not even slightly lifted or moved aside. "Made outside arm's reach" means for one who has come to make it allowable, it is made by one standing outside arm's reach. "Made by one who has not eaten" means by one who makes it surplus, by him, enough for refusal... Food made by one who has not eaten. Made by one who has eaten, declared, risen from his seat - this is clear. "Enough of all this" - not said, making a break in speech, thus not said. Thus, by these seven Vinaya actions, that which is surplus, allowable, not made, and that which is not a sick person's surplus, both of these are not surplus. Surplus, however, should be understood by the opposite method. Moreover, here, "it is made by one who has eaten" (Pacittiya 239) means that even if one has eaten a single grain of rice or a piece of meat from the bowl of one sitting next to him, it is considered "made by one who has eaten." One who, having eaten and declared, sits down early in the morning, is allowed to make allowable even a meal brought and offered by a bhikkhu at a later time. If, however, while he is eating that which has been made allowable, other food is poured in, he is not allowed to make it allowable again. For what is not made, that should be made. And by whom it is not made, by him it should be made (Pacittiya Commentary 238-9) - it is said. Therefore, when it is being made in that same bowl, it is considered made along with the first made, so it is not proper to make it (again). In another bowl, however, it is proper for him or another to make it. What is thus made is proper to eat even mixed with the first made. And not only for him by whom it was made, but also for others who have declared, it is proper to eat, excluding that. However, so that it is not mixed with what is not made, one should eat after cleaning the mouth and hands. A sick person's surplus, however, is not merely the leftovers of a sick person, but whatever is brought for a sick person with the thought, "He will eat it today or tomorrow or whenever he wishes," all of that should be understood as 'a sick person's surplus.' Whatever is eatable or consumable, for a limited time. "Should eat or consume, it is a Pacittiya" - in the manner stated here, for one who has declared, when receiving any non-surplus food for the purpose of eating, there is a dukkata offense upon receiving, and a Pacittiya offense upon each act of eating. threefold. In Sāvatthī, concerning many bhikkhus, it was laid down regarding a matter other than eating. "Not surplus" is the supplementary rule here. It is a non-general rule, not by command, a threefold pācittiya. For one who takes things like yāmakālika (food for a specific time) for food, and consumes non-flesh items, there is a dukkaṭa (offense of wrong-doing). Likewise, for one who perceives a surplus as not surplus, and for one who is in doubt. But for one who perceives it as surplus, and takes it thinking, "I will have it made surplus and eat it," for one who takes it for another's sake, for one who consumes non-flesh items like yāmakālika in the manner of their permitted consumption, and for the insane and the like, there is no offense. Being invited, the non-surplus nature of the food, and consuming it at the proper time—these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are just like the first kathina. This, however, is an action-inaction. The explanation of the first invitation training rule is finished. 6. Explanation of the Second Invitation Training Rule In the sixth (rule), "should offer and invite" means, having offered, one should invite thus: "Here, bhikkhu, eat or consume." "Knowing" means knowing his invited state, either by hearing or seeing. "Intending to offend" means intending to offend, to accuse, to embarrass. "Pācittiya when eaten" means, here, at the time of offering, there is a dukkaṭa. If he takes it, again there is a dukkaṭa for the offerer. But while he is eating, for the offerer, at each mouthful, there is a dukkaṭa. At the end of the meal, there is a pācittiya. In Sāvatthī, concerning a certain bhikkhu, it was laid down regarding the matter of offering and inviting with non-surplus food. It is a non-general rule, not by command. For one who is invited and perceives himself as invited, there is a pācittiya. For one who is in doubt, for one who offers yāmakālika and the like for food, and for them, in the acts of receiving and consuming, and for one not invited but perceiving himself as invited, and for one in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa. But for one who perceives himself as not invited, and for one who has it made surplus and gives it, or gives it saying, "Have it made surplus and eat," or one who carries it for another's sake... “Take it!” and gives it, and one who gives medicinal food, etc., saying, “Eat it if there is a reason,” for him, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The five factors here are: being invited, perceiving oneself as invited, expecting to please, the invitation to take what is not surplus, and the end of the meal. The origins, etc., are similar to taking what is not given, but this is a painful feeling. The explanation of the second invitation training rule is finished. 7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Eating at the Wrong Time In the seventh, “at the wrong time” means when the time has passed, the intention being from the passing of midday until dawn. Therefore, if a monk during this interval receives anything whatsoever, such as wild roots and fruits, raw or cooked, considered as food, whether a solid food or a soft food, for the purpose of eating it, there is an offense of wrong-doing upon receiving it, and an offense of expiation upon each act of eating. This rule was laid down in Rājagaha concerning the group of seventeen monks regarding the matter of eating at the wrong time. It is a general rule, not requiring an order, an expiation offense of three kinds. For receiving and eating medicinal food, etc., at the wrong time, for one who perceives it as the wrong time when it is the right time, and for one who is in doubt, there is an offense of wrong-doing. For one who perceives it as the right time when it is the right time, for one who eats medicinal food, etc., when there is a reason, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. As allowed in the permission, “Monks, I allow the hair of the hair-eater, but, monks, it should not be taken out through an external opening and then eaten,” there is no offense even for the hair-eater. The three factors here are: wrong time, being a lifetime food, and eating. The origins, etc., are similar to the sheep’s wool. The explanation of the training rule on eating at the wrong time is finished. 8. Explanation of the Training Rule on Storing Up In the eighth, “storing up” means the act of doing, the action, the deed, which is one in meaning. “Storing up” means that there is a storing up. “Storing up” is indeed “storing up.” This is the name given to what has been received and kept for one night. Therefore, whatever lifetime food or medicinal food has been stored up in this way, “I will eat it.” For one who takes thus, in receiving, a dukkaṭa. In consuming, in consuming, a pācittiya. Even if the bowl is poorly washed, such that when rubbed with a finger, a streak appears, or if in a knotted bowl, grease has entered between the knots, which oozes out when exposed to heat, or becomes visible when hot gruel is taken, even with such a bowl, for one who eats on the next day, it is a pācittiya. But if a bhikkhu, without attachment, having given up (food) to the novices, and then receives what they have set aside and eats it, that is permissible. For one who has received it himself, and has not given it up, if he eats permissible food on the second day, it is a pācittiya. But among impermissible (foods),