English
" In that case, in "Venerable sir, tomorrow," just as the mere words were not taken, but the meaning was taken according to the sequence of improper invitations, so too in "having gone for alms," the meaning should be taken as referring to food received through an improper invitation in the interim. For seeing one going for alms, they say, "Venerable sir, take food here." Even that given by hand is called received by an improper invitation. But by common usage it is called "food received by going for alms," this should be understood in this way. Otherwise, in the Commentary on the Mātikā, "in the same way as said for group meals, for one invited to five kinds of food... in the food of each successive person" there would be a contradiction with this statement. For this statement, by whom one was first invited, having taken that first invitation and gone, to the food of each successive inviter, by clarifying the meaning, indicates that the offense is only in eating food received by invitation. It also accords with the statement "two or three invitations together," otherwise it would have to be said "from the food of the one who invited, to the food of another," or in the Pāli, it would have to be said "eats together by invitation." To prevent the possibility of an offense in the first meal of the second invitation, "by whichever, by whichever" and so on was said. If it is said that the Pāli means "eats according to the sequence of invitations"? No, because it contradicts the Pāli "no offense in regular meals" and so on. But in the Gaṇṭhipada, "If it is asked, 'Why is food received by going for alms not allowed to be eaten?' 'Successive eating' means being invited to one of the five kinds of food, and setting that aside, eating another of the five kinds of food; because it is said, 'this is called successive eating.'" —it is written. If so, then it would follow that even regular meals and so on are not permissible. If it is said that regular meals and so on are specifically designated? That is not so, for what is produced by one's own wealth, or if the morning gruel received from the Saṅgha is thick, for that too, and for the regular meal to be obtained by alms-round for one dwelling dependent on a village with a single hut, there would be the possibility of it being improper. If it is said that what is received by alms-round is not proper because it does not bring satisfaction to those who invite? No, because it contradicts the statement "except for the five kinds of food, there is no offense in all others." Indeed, having eaten and consumed what was taken from another, not eating the invited meal, one certainly causes displeasure. Therefore, what causes displeasure is not to be measured. Therefore, regular meals and the like, if designated, are not possible. Moreover, having compared the method stated below with the method stated here, whatever is agreeable, that should be taken – this is the decision of some teachers. But the teacher's decision will become clear later. It is said: "The intention is that for one drinking milk or juice, it is not mixed." In the commentary (Gaṇṭhipada), it is written: "Having mixed it with rice below, it remains above." "Mahāupāsaka" means householder. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, the word "offence" seems to contradict the word "is permissible" in the Kurundi. It is written: "The intention of both is discussed in the Mahāpaccariya." It is said: "By 'customary practice' (cārittato) is meant 'without asking a virtuous bhikkhu' as will be stated later." Verbal action is not a determination. Here, from the statement in the Aṭṭhakathā: "A great lay follower invites bhikkhus... (and so on)... for one eating food received later, there is an offence. Having gone for alms and eaten the received food, there is an offence." From the Pāḷi: "We went for alms early and ate." And from the statement in the Khandhaka: "And, bhikkhus, except by invitation, the food-gruel of another should not be consumed. Whoever consumes it, should be dealt with according to the Dhamma." (Mahāva. 283) Whether invited or not invited, for a bhikkhu who has accepted a first invitation, any food belonging to another, other than the food of the first invitation, causes an offence of successive eating. What belongs to oneself, or what is received from the Sangha or a group, or what belongs to a non-householder, is permissible. But because regular meals and the like are established before the invitation, even if they belong to another, they are permissible. The statement in the Khandhaka: "And, bhikkhus... (and so on)... should be dealt with according to the Dhamma" (Mahāva. 283) is a regulation concerning food belonging to another. Therefore, the teacher says, "It is a hand, not a reason." The description of the training rule concerning subsequent meals is finished. 4. The description of the training rule concerning Kāṇamātā They look to the west. By counting cakes, means by counting extra cakes. If one takes it with the perception “prepared for provisions, etc.,” because of not knowing the mind, there is an offense against the training rule. If one takes what has been taken, one is not released. But in not sharing, there is no offense because it is not allowable. Some say that not knowing the mind is only due to not knowing the precept, not due to not knowing the object. No, in the Mātikā Commentary, “knowing that it is prepared for provisions, etc.” is not mentioned among the factors. But in the ancient commentary it is said thus: “When two or three bowlfuls of cakes are taken by one or many, if one does not declare them, or if one knows it oneself, and takes another, there is a dukkaṭa for that person. If two bowlfuls are taken by one person, when three or four have been put together, and the second person takes two, if the first does not prevent it, there is a pācittiya for the first. If one prevents it, there is no offense, only a dukkaṭa for the second.” If one intentionally does not speak, there is a pācittiya according to what is said in the ancient commentary, a dukkaṭa according to the Mātikā Commentary (Kankhā. Aṭṭha. Kāṇamātāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). “Taking an excess” is stated there as the fifth factor. Therefore, because it is not taken, there is no pācittiya, but because of not doing what should be done, there is a dukkaṭa. Otherwise, this would become an act of commission or omission; not preventing or not declaring would have to be stated as the sixth factor. Here, concerning “those of one community,” it is said: “If bhikkhus in nearby monasteries, or those who have come to nearby assembly halls, do not accept what is brought by strangers, or if one knows that ‘they give it only to monastery attendants, etc.,’ it is allowable to give it where it will be consumed.” Some Vinaya holders say: “According to the saying ‘two or three bowlfuls,’ there is no offense even if one takes more in baskets, etc.” Let that be for them. But the teachers say: “Even in baskets, etc., two or three bowlfuls should be taken according to the measure of the best bowl. The best This is called the discourse on the definition of the boundary. The explanation of the Kāṇamātā training rule is finished. 5. Explanation of the First Invitation Training Rule 236. Although one who has been invited with an invitation for as much as one needs is indeed meant by "invited" due to the origin story, yet the latter is meant here. 237. Because it is said, "This is enough for all," it becomes an excess. The meaning is, it seems, "Monk, this too is extra for you, you will not receive anything else from this." 238-9. Since "eaten" is established by "food is evident," there is no separate establishment of meaning. If there is, it is the showing of the sixness of the factors. It is also said, "and so on," showing the fiveness of the invitation factors. "Varaka" is any varaka. It is written, "They make a separate grain of rice or water, saying, 'It generates an invitation.' It does not generate an invitation. One who drinks gruel first drinks water; it is allowable. The remaining bottom grain of rice does not generate an invitation." Upatissa Thera says, "It generates it," but the teachers do not wish that. "Bhajjitapiṭṭha" is just rice flour. "Sattumodaka" is a sweet made by kneading roasted barley flour. Because it is said, "He rejects just a grain of gruel... ...he does not invite," Dhammasiri Thera says, it seems, if one drinks cooked gruel after putting in other things like fish from a pond, and then rejects something else of the same kind, it is not an invitation. If he rejects something else, he does not invite. Why? Because there is no unfinished food counted as food. If one is eating in the refectory, and rejects a portion brought to him that he did not reach, he does not invite. He may reject it, but if the park-keeper pours it into his bowl, it is not allowable to eat from it. This indeed falls under improper seeking condemned by the Buddha. Just as a wicked person gives alms food taken from the Sangha, and one rejects it, and does not invite, so is this case. "If a modest person gives something dissimilar, wishing not to associate with him, he rejects it." "He invites, he offers," it is said. For serving, that is, at the meal hall. "From 'meat with juice,' and 'meat and juice' becoming 'meat-juice,' when 'meat-juice' is said, it is a rejection, the meaning 'juice of meat' is not intended," it is said. Meat-karambaka, that is... (etc.)... it is proper, it is just pure gruel. It is a karambaka mixed with non-invitation, therefore he does not invite. Therefore, it is said later, "This should not be equated with karambaka," and so on. Therefore, "He rejects one who says, 'Bring that and take the gruel,' and there is no invitation," and "Because it is not said, 'Take mixed gruel,' but 'He gives it separately mixed,'" it is said.