English
But the bran of paddy roasted evenly or dried in the sun is not subject to the rule of invitation. Parched grains, or cooked rice and flour made from them, are not subject to the rule of invitation; nor is roasted flour, or any pure dry food, subject to the rule of invitation. But dry food filled with fish or meat, or flour balls, are subject to the rule of invitation. Fish and meat are obvious. This is the distinction: If, while one is drinking gruel, two pieces of fish or two pieces of meat, the size of gruel grains, are given in the same bowl or in different bowls, if he rejects anything else that is sufficient for the rule of invitation without eating them, it is not subject to the rule of invitation. If one is eaten, and one is in his hand or bowl, if he rejects anything else, it is subject to the rule of invitation. If both are eaten, and not even a mustard seed's worth remains in his mouth, even if he rejects anything else, it is not subject to the rule of invitation. One who eats permissible meat, permissible meat ...he refuses, he incurs the invitation. Eating allowable meat, if he refuses unallowable meat, he does not incur the invitation. Why? Because it is not a proper object. For when a monk refuses what is allowable for him to eat, then there is an invitation. But if he, knowing this, refuses it because it is unallowable, or even unknowingly refuses what is in a state to be refused, he does not incur the invitation. However, if eating unallowable meat, he refuses allowable meat, he incurs the invitation. Why? Because it is a proper object. For what he has refused is the object for an invitation. And what he eats, even though it is in a state to be refused, while being eaten, it does not lose its nature as meat. Therefore, he incurs the invitation. Or, eating unallowable meat, if he refuses unallowable meat, he does not incur the invitation, in the same way as before. Or, eating either allowable or unallowable meat, if he refuses any allowable food among the five foods, he incurs the invitation. Food produced by corrupting families, by medical practice, by proclaiming superhuman states, by silver, etc., which is condemned by the Buddha, obtained by improper means, if he refuses such unallowable food, he does not incur the invitation. Or, if he refuses allowable food or unallowable food, he does not incur the invitation. Or, even while eating allowable food or unallowable food, if he refuses allowable food, he incurs the invitation. If he refuses unallowable food, he does not incur the invitation – the reason for this should be understood everywhere in the manner stated. 118. Thus, in phrases like "eating," etc., when one refuses what one eats, or food brought by someone within arm's reach, one incurs an invitation. Having understood that, now, to know how one incurs it, this is the determination: Here, regarding "eating" and "food," if one has swallowed even a single mouthful, and if there is any one of the five foods in the bowl, mouth, or hand, and he refuses another one of the five foods, he incurs the invitation. If there is no food anywhere, only the smell of food is perceived, not... He refuses. If there is no food in mouth or hand, but there is in the bowl, and he wishes not to eat in that seat, or wishes to enter the monastery and eat, or wishes to give to another, if in that interval he refuses food, he does not decline. Why? Because the state of unfinished eating is cut off. "Even if one wishing to go elsewhere to eat, having swallowed the food in the mouth, taking the rest, going on the way, refuses other food, for him too there is no declining," so it is said in the Mahāpaccariya. And as in the bowl, so also in the hand. Or if food existing in the mouth, he does not wish to swallow, and at that moment he refuses other, he does not decline. For a characteristic stated in one instance is to be understood everywhere. Moreover, in the Kurundi this method is shown. For it is said there: "Food in the mouth swallowed, food in the hand wishing to give to a scavenger, food in the bowl wishing to give to a bhikkhu, if at that moment he refuses, he does not decline." Here, regarding "standing within arm's reach": if the bhikkhu is seated, starting from the back edge of the seat; if standing, starting from the heel; if lying down, from the far edge of the side he is lying on; excluding the outstretched hand of the donor, whether seated, standing, or lying down, the nearest limb, circumscribing its inner edge, a distance of two and a half cubits is to be understood as "arm's reach." Only for one standing within that, refusing what is brought, is there a declining, not beyond that. "Brings forth" means standing within arm's reach, he offers for taking. But if a bhikkhu, even one sitting nearby, without bringing forth a bowl placed in his hand, or on his lap, or on a stand, says, "Take food," for one refusing that, there is no declining. Even when a food-basket is brought and placed on the ground in front, and "Take it" is said, the same rule applies. But having slightly lifted or moved away, and then "Ta... When "Take it" is said, for one who refuses, there is an invitation. The elder, seated on the elder's seat, sends a bowl to a young monk seated far away, and says, "Take rice from here." But having taken it, he goes and stands silently. The young monk refuses, saying, "Enough for me." He does not make an invitation. Why? Because of the elder's distance, and the messenger not bringing it. But if the monk who brought it says, "Take this food," for one who refuses it, there is an invitation. For serving, one person takes the rice-basket with one hand, and the ladle with the other, and serves a monk. If another comes and says, "I will hold the basket, you give the rice," and merely takes hold of it, but the server himself still holds it, then it is considered as brought. Therefore, for one who refuses it, when it is offered with the intention to give, there is an invitation. But if it is merely touched by the server, and the other person holds it, then for one who refuses it, when it is offered with the intention to give, there is no invitation. But for food scooped out with a ladle, there is. Indeed, bringing with a ladle is its bringing. "Even if the shares are equal for two, one who refuses still makes an invitation," it is said in the Mahāpaccariya. When food is being given to the next monk, the other covers his bowl with his hand. There is no invitation. Why? Because it was refused when brought for another. Here, regarding "refusal is known," for one who refuses what is brought by speech, there is no invitation. But for what is brought by body, for one who refuses it by any means, by body or by speech, there is an invitation, so it should be understood. Therein, refusal by body means: moving a finger, or a hand, or a fly-whisk, or the corner of a robe, or making a sign with the eyebrows, or looking angrily. Refusal by speech means: saying "Enough!" or "I don't take it!" or "Don't scatter it!" or "Go away!" Thus, by any means, when refused by body or by speech, there is an invitation. is. 119. One, afraid of the invitation when food is brought, removing his hands, to one repeatedly piling rice into his bowl, says, "Pile it on, pile it on, pound it, pound it, fill it up!" What is said here? Elder Mahāsumma says, "Since it was said so that it would not be piled on, there is an invitation." But Elder Mahāpaduma, saying, "Is there an invitation for one who says, 'Pile it on, fill it up'?" says, "He does not invite." Another, noticing a monk bringing food, says, "Friend, will you take anything more from here? I will give you something." There too, Elder Mahāsumma says, "Since it was said, 'It will not come thus,' there is an invitation." But Elder Mahāpaduma, saying, "Is there an invitation for one who says, 'Will you take'?" says, "He does not invite." One brings a broth with meat and says, "Take the broth." Hearing that, if one rejects it, there is no invitation. If "fish-meat broth" is said, and one rejects it, there is an invitation. If "take this" is said, there is also an invitation. Separating the meat, he says, "Take the meat broth." "If there is even a mustard-seed-sized piece of meat in it, and one rejects it, there is an invitation. But if it has been strained, it is permissible," says Elder Abhaya. To one asking with meat broth, the Great Elder says, "Wait a moment," and then says, "Friend, bring the bowl." What is said here? Elder Mahāsumma says, "The bringing person's going is interrupted, therefore he invites." But Elder Mahāpaduma, saying, "Where does this one go? What kind of going is this? Is there an invitation for one who takes?" says, "He does not invite." They cook meat mixed with bamboo shoots and jackfruit, etc. Taking that, they say, "Take the bamboo shoot soup, take the jackfruit curry." Even so, he does not invite. Why? Because it is named with a name that is not subject to invitation. But if "fish soup" or "meat soup" or "this g or they say "take it," he declines. It is called meat-mixture. Even if one wishes to give that, and says "take the mixture," it is permissible, he does not decline. But if "meat-mixture" or "this" is said, then he declines. This is the rule for all fish and meat mixtures. 120. "But if one, eating at an invitation, rejects meat brought to him, thinking it was 'prepared specifically for him', he has indeed declined," it is said in the Mahāpaccariya. The discussion on mixtures, however, is well stated in the Kurundi. For thus it is said there – A bhikkhu on alms-round, having brought rice-mixed gruel, says "take gruel," he does not decline. But if "take rice" is said, he declines. Why? Because that which was asked for is present. This is the meaning here – If he says "take the gruel-mixture," and if the gruel is more or equal, he does not decline. If the gruel is little, and the rice is more, he declines. And this,