English
and the later ones are on top, for one who eats starting from the top, there is an offense. But having inserted the hand, and taken out even one morsel from the first invitation, and from the time of eating onwards, eating however one wishes, there is no offense. "Even if they pour milk or juice there, by which the food is covered and becomes of one taste, for one who eats starting from the edge, there is no offense," it is said in the Mahāpaccariya. But in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā it is said: "For one who has received milk-rice or juice-rice and is seated, if others pour more milk-rice or juice-rice there, for one who drinks the milk or juice, there is no offense. For one who eats, having first put the received piece of meat or lump of rice into the mouth, it is permissible to eat starting from the edge. The same method applies to ghee-porridge." A great lay follower invites a monk. When he goes to that family, the lay follower, and his sons, wives, brothers, sisters, and so on, each bring their own portion and put it into the bowl. "By the lay follower, first..." "Having not eaten what was given to me, one who eats what was received later, commits an offense," it is said in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. In the Kurundaṭṭhakathā, it is said, "it is permissible." In the Mahāpaccariya, "If they cook individually, and bring and give from their own cooked food, there, one who first eats what was brought later commits a pācittiya offense. But if there is only one cooking for all, it is not successive eating," it is said. A great lay follower invites and seats (a monk). Another person takes the bowl. It should not be given. "Why, Venerable Sir, do you not give it?" (he asks). "Lay follower, were we not invited by you?" (the monk replies). (The lay follower) says, "Let it be, Venerable Sir, eat whatever you receive." It is permissible to eat. "When food is given after being brought by another, it is permissible to eat even after asking," it is said in the Kurundī. Having made the anumodanā, those wishing to hear the Dhamma invite all (monks) who are leaving, saying, "Venerable Sirs, please come tomorrow as well." On the next day, having come, it is permissible to eat whatever is received. Why? Because they were invited by all. Even one monk, while going for alms, receives food. Another lay follower invites him and seats him in his house. But the food is not yet ready. If that monk, having gone for alms, eats the food he received, it is an offense. When he is seated without eating, and it is said, "Why, Venerable Sir, do you not eat?" and he says, "Because I was invited by you," and it is said, "Venerable Sir, eat whatever you receive," it is permissible to eat. For one invited by the entire village collectively, there is no offense in eating anywhere. The same rule applies to a group. "There is no offense for one invited by the entire village who eats anywhere in that village. For one invited by the entire group who eats anywhere in that group. One who, when invited, says, 'I will accept alms.' Except for the five meals: the regular meal, the ticket meal, the fortnightly meal, the Uposatha meal, and the first-day-of-the-month meal, there is no offense in all other cases," it is said (Pāci. 229). There, when invited, (one who says) "I will accept alms..." Here, regarding "he says": When invited with "receive food," he says, "I have no need of your food, I will receive alms." The meaning is: there is no offense. But here, Elder Mahāpaduma said: "One who speaks thus is able to make it a non-invitation in this training rule. But an an opportunity for eating is made, so he is not freed from group-eating, nor from wandering for food." Elder Mahāsuma said: "Insofar as he is able to make it a non-invitation, to that extent there is neither group-eating, nor wandering for food." There, "wandering for food" means – "Whatever monk, being invited and having eaten, without asking a present monk, either before eating or after eating, should wander for food among families, apart from the proper time, there is an offense of pācittiya. Therein, this is the proper time: the time of offering robes, the time of making robes. This is the proper time there." (Pācittiya 299) – Thus, the training rule concerning wandering for food is stated. Indeed, by this training rule, whoever is invited with an improper invitation, such as "receive food," for one of the five kinds of food, and having eaten that invited food, without asking a present monk with words like "I am going to so-and-so's house" or "I am going to wander for food," whether having eaten or not eaten the food with which he was invited, and without letting the midday pass, should enter other families from the one where he was invited, for him, an offense of pācittiya is stated, apart from the two kinds of proper times mentioned. Therefore, if, being invited with an improper invitation, he says, "I will receive alms," by this training rule too, there is no offense. 3. Here, regarding "without asking a present monk" (Pācittiya Commentary 298): To what extent is he present? To what extent not present? Within the monastery, where one is staying, if the thought of attending to families has arisen, from that point, whoever one sees or sees in front of them, to whom it is possible to announce with ordinary words, this one is called "present." From here and there, p... But having sought, there is no need to inform. Indeed, he who is to be sought thus, he is simply not present. Moreover, seeing a bhikkhu within the precinct boundary, he goes, thinking, "I will ask permission." Whomever he sees there, he should ask permission from. If he does not see, he is considered to have entered without asking permission from a non-existent bhikkhu. The same rule applies to entering a village at the wrong time. But if many bhikkhus, for some purpose, enter a village, they all should ask permission from each other, saying, "I ask permission for entering the village at the wrong time." If that purpose is not accomplished in that village, and they go to another village, even if it's a hundred villages, there is no need to ask permission again. But if, having relaxed their effort, they are going to the monastery, and in between, wish to enter another village, they must ask permission again. Having performed the meal duty in a family house or a sitting hall, if he wishes to go for alms for oil or for ghee, if he sees a bhikkhu present, he should go after asking permission. If there is no bhikkhu present, he should go, thinking, "there is none." If he descends into the street and sees a bhikkhu, there is no need to ask permission; he may go for alms without asking. If there is a path through the middle of the village, and as he goes along it, the thought arises in his mind, "I will go for alms for oil, etc.," if he sees a bhikkhu present, he should go for alms after asking permission. But for one going for alms without deviating from the path, there is no need to ask permission. If a lion or a tiger comes, or a cloud rises, or any other danger arises, in such emergencies, it is permissible to enter the inner village from outside the village even without asking permission. 4. "And, bhikkhus, a rag-robe should not be taken when the body is not broken; whoever takes it incurs an offense of wrong-doing." (Pārā. 137) According to this saying, a rag-robe should not be taken when the body is hot and wet; one who takes it incurs an offense of wrong-doing. And dangers arise for him. But when it is broken, it is permissible to take it. But to what extent is it broken? By crows, owls, dogs, jackals, etc., with their mouths and beaks... Or by something, or by a tusk, even by a slight splitting. But if, by falling and scraping, only the skin is cut, the hide not cut, this is still unbroken. But if the hide is cut, it is broken. And if, while still alive, there were burst boils, leprosy sores, or wounds, this too is broken. From the third day onwards, having become a corpse, bloated and so on, it is also broken. But all in all, even if unbroken, it is permissible to have it taken by cemetery keepers or by other people. If one does not get another, it should be taken by making a wound with a knife or something. But in a body of a different kind, having established mindfulness, having generated the perception of a recluse, it is permissible to take it by making a wound on the head or on the back of the hands and feet. 5. How should a monk whose robe is lost conduct himself? "I allow, monks, for one whose robe is lost or whose robe is destroyed, to request a robe from an unknown householder or householder's wife. Whatever dwelling one first approaches, if there is there a Sangha's dwelling-robe, or an upper covering, or a ground covering, or a cushion cover, one may take it and wear it, thinking, 'I will put it back when I get one.' If there is not a Sangha's dwelling-robe, or an upper covering, or a ground covering, or a cushion cover, one should come covered with grass or leaves, but one should not come naked. Whoever should come naked, there is an offense of wrong-doing." (Pārā. 517) According to this saying, one should act in the manner stated here. This is the gradual story here (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.517). If indeed, seeing thieves, the young monks took their bowls and robes and fled, and the thieves took only the lower and upper robes of the elders and left, the elders should not yet request a robe, nor should they break off branches and leaves. But if the young monks abandoned all their belongings and fled, and the thieves took the elders' lower and upper robes and those belongings and left, the young monks, having come, their own Wearing and covering cloths Should not yet be given to the elders. For they, without cut robes, Are not allowed to break branches and leaves for themselves, But for those with cut robes, they are allowed. Those with cut robes Are allowed for themselves and for others.