English
he replies, “Because it was done so before,” and if they say, “We do not give for that reason, we give now because of your virtue,” they should be accepted. If the act of corrupting families was done in a place where alms are customarily given, it is permissible to accept only the customary alms from there. That which is increased gives, that is not allowable. And since there is no fault in the question asked, therefore if someone should ask another bhikkhu who has entered among the houses in the forenoon or in the afternoon, "Why, venerable sir, do you wander?" Having explained the purpose for which he wanders, if, when asked "Have you received or not received?", he has not received, having said "Not received", it is allowable to take what that person gives. 37. "And, bhikkhus, one should not dwell in the wilderness with a wish; whoever should dwell, there is an offense of wrong-doing. And, bhikkhus, one should not wander for alms with a wish... And, bhikkhus, one should not walk with a wish... And, bhikkhus, one should not stand with a wish... And, bhikkhus, one should not sit with a wish... And, bhikkhus, one should not arrange a sleeping place with a wish; whoever should arrange, there is an offense of wrong-doing," (Pārā. 223 onwards) it is said. Therefore, one should not dwell in the wilderness making such a wish as "Thus (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.223) dwelling in the wilderness, people will regard me as an Arahant or as one in a training stage; thereby I will be respected, honored, esteemed, and worshipped by the world." If one goes with such a wish, "I will dwell in the wilderness," there is an offense of wrong-doing at every step. Similarly, in all activities such as building a hut, walking, sitting, wearing robes, putting on outer robes, etc., in the wilderness, there is an offense of wrong-doing at every effort. Therefore, one should not dwell in the wilderness in this way. For one who dwells in this way, whether he gains esteem or not, he incurs an offense of wrong-doing. But one who has undertaken the ascetic practices, wishing to dwell a blameless dwelling, thinking "I will protect the ascetic practice," or "When I dwell near a village, my mind becomes distracted; the wilderness is suitable," or "Surely in the wilderness I will attain one of the three kinds of solitude," or "Having entered the wilderness, I will not leave without attaining Arahantship," or "Dwelling in the wilderness is praised by the Blessed One, and when I dwell in the wilderness, many fellow celibates will leave the village vicinity and become forest-dwellers," it is by him that one should dwell. Alms- Even for one going for alms, thinking, "I will go for alms, having composed my deportment," from the act of donning robes until the end of the meal, for each attempt, a dukkaṭa. Whether he obtains alms or not, it is indeed a dukkaṭa. But for fulfilling the Khandhaka and Sekhiya duties, or for fellow celibates to follow his example, one who enters for alms with pleasing deportment, such as advancing and retreating, is blameless in the eyes of the wise. In walking meditation, etc., the same rule applies. Thus, in the Summary of Vinaya Decisions Beyond the Pāli, The Discourse on Decisions Regarding Family Maintenance is concluded. 6. Discourse on Decisions Regarding Fish and Meat 38. Now, regarding fish and meat, by 'fish,' all aquatic creatures are meant. Among them, nothing is unallowable. But among meats, ten kinds are unallowable: human, elephant, horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, and hyena. For human flesh, a grave offence. For the others, a minor offence. Thus, of these ten, human and the others, their flesh, bones, blood, skin, hair, all are not allowable. But among fats, only human fat is not allowable. In milk, etc., nothing is unallowable. But regarding these unallowable meats, or bones, etc., whatever it may be, whether knowing or not knowing, for one who eats, it is an offence. When he knows, then it should be confessed. For one who takes, thinking, "I will eat without asking," even at receiving, a dukkaṭa. For one who takes, thinking, "I will eat after asking," no offence. But for that specially prepared, only for one who eats it knowing, is there an offence. One who knows later should not be charged with an offence. (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 281) There (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.410), 'specially prepared' means fish or meat killed and prepared for the sake of bhikkhus. Indeed, both specially prepared are not allowable. But that unseen, unheard, unsuspected is allowable. Indeed, fish and meat purified in three ways were allowed by the Blessed One: unseen, unheard, unsuspected. There, 'unseen' means deer or fish being killed and taken for the sake of bhikkhus, unseen. "Unheard" is when it is unheard that animals and fish were killed and taken for the sake of bhikkhus. But what is un-suspected, what is suspected by seeing, what is suspected by hearing, and what is suspected, free from both— knowing these, one should understand their opposites. How? Here, bhikkhus see people with nets, snares, and the like in hand, leaving the village or wandering in the forest. And on the next day, when they enter that village for alms, they are offered alms food with fish and meat. By that seeing, they suspect: "Was this done for the sake of the bhikkhus?" This is "suspected by seeing." It is not allowable to accept this. That which is thus un-suspected, that is allowable. But if those people, having asked, "Why, venerable sirs, do you not accept it?" and having heard the reason, say: "Venerable sirs, this was not done for the sake of the bhikkhus. We did it for our own sake, or for the sake of royal officials, and so on," then it is allowable. Bhikkhus do not see, but they hear: "It is said that people with nets, snares, and the like in hand are leaving the village or wandering in the forest." And on the next day, when they enter that village for alms, they are offered alms food with fish and meat. By that hearing, they suspect: "Was this done for the sake of the bhikkhus?" This is called "suspected by hearing." It is not allowable to accept this. That which is thus un-suspected, that is allowable. But if those people, having asked, "Why, venerable sirs, do you not accept it?" and having heard the reason, say: "Venerable sirs, this was not done for the sake of the bhikkhus. We did it for our own sake, or for the sake of royal officials, and so on," then it is allowable. Bhikkhus do not see, nor do they hear. But when they enter that village for alms, taking their bowl, they are offered alms food with fish and meat, having been prepared. They suspect: "Was this done for the sake of the bhikkhus?" This is called "suspected, free from both." This too, to accept... is not allowable. That which is thus unsuspicious, that is allowable. But if those people, having asked, "Why, venerable sirs, do you not take it?" and having heard the matter, say, "This, venerable sirs, was not made for the sake of bhikkhus; it was made by us for our own sake, or for the sake of royal officials and so forth, or it is meat that was already available, obtained in an allowable way, and prepared for the sake of bhikkhus," it is allowable. The same method applies even if it was made for the sake of funeral rites for the dead, or for auspicious ceremonies and so forth. For whatever was not made solely for the sake of bhikkhus, and about which there is no doubt, all that is allowable. 39. But if, in a certain monastery, it was made specifically for bhikkhus, and they do not know that it was made for their own sake, but others know. For those who know, it is not allowable; but for the others, it is allowable. If others do not know, but they themselves know, for them alone it is not allowable; for others it is allowable. If they also know, "It was made for our sake," and others also know, "It was made for their sake," then for all it is not allowable. If all do not know, then for all it is allowable. For among the five co-religionists, that which is made specifically for the sake of any one of them is not allowable for all. But if someone kills an animal specifically for one bhikkhu, fills his bowl, and gives it to him, and he, knowing that it was made for his own sake, takes it and gives it to another bhikkhu, and that other bhikkhu consumes it with faith in him, whose offense is it? There is no offense for either of them. For the one for whom it was specifically made, there is no offense because it was not consumed; for the other, because of not knowing. Indeed, there is no offense in receiving allowable meat; and there is no duty of confessing an offense for one who consumed meat made specifically for him without knowing, and then later came to know. However, if one consumed unallowable meat without knowing, even if one later comes to know, the offense must be confessed. For an offense occurs only when one consumes that which was made specifically for him, knowing it; but for one who consumes unallowable meat without knowing, there is still an offense. Therefore, one who fears offense, even when discerning the appearance, should ask before consuming meat. should be accepted. When consuming, one should ask and then consume, or take and then ask and consume. Why? Because it is difficult to discern. Even deer meat can resemble pork, and leopard meat, etc., can resemble deer meat, etc. Therefore, they say it is proper to ask before taking. Thus, in the Collection of Vinaya Decisions Outside the Pāli Canon, The Discourse on Decisions Regarding Fish and Meat is concluded. 7. Discourse on Decisions Regarding What Should Not Be Touched 40. "What should not be touched" means it should not be handled. Herein is the decision (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.