English
and pull from the end of the thread. 220. 'Uninvited fourth' means the fourth of that group of four monks who is uninvited, that is 'uninvited fourth'. So too in the rest. Therefore it is said, "of five groups of four." 'Having caused to enter together' means having joined with them. 'The group is broken' means the invited Sangha does not exist. 'Having accepted and come' here, at the moment of accepting an improper invitation, there is no dukkata in the prior action; but in the act of accepting after a request, at the moment of request, a dukkata arises according to other training rules, this should be understood. 'Accept the invitation' means accept the invited meal. 'And those' means and the gruel and so on, because they were taken later by one of those monks, they were not taken together. "The distributor of food should be wise... (and so on)... should be released" by this, when the distributor of food accepts an improper invitation, it is considered accepted by all. It shows that for those who take together, there is also an offense of group eating. Fearing the words "take the food" again after coming to the messenger's door, it is said "standing at the village gate." Group eating, lack of a proper time, and consumption— these are the three factors here. The commentary on the training rule concerning group eating is finished. 3. Commentary on the training rule concerning successive eating. 221. In the third Pāli text, 'the sequence of meals was not established' means the sequence of meals to be given according to family tradition was not established. They are not fixed, meaning they flow continuously without interruption. When jujube fruits are put in, cooked porridge and the like are called "jujube gruel." In Pāli, 'paramparabhojana' means eating the food of another after the food of the one who first invited. 'Vikappanā' (delegation), though not included in the Mātika as an anupaññatti (supplementary rule), is counted among the "four anupaññattis" in the Parivāra (Pari. 86). Although in the Commentary, 'parammukhāvikappanā' (delegation in absence) is established by being mentioned after the Mahāpaccarivāda, 'sammukhāvikappanā' (delegation in presence) should also be taken. Therefore, in the Mātika Commentary too, it is said: "When a bhikkhu to one of the five co-dhamma followers says, 'I give my meal expectation to you,' or 'I delegate,' thus in presence" (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paramparabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). 229. "Milk or juice" refers to the five kinds of food-offering that are above the meal. Since they are not food, there is no offense even for one who drinks them out of order. Therefore, it says: "by one who is eating," and so on. Since delegation is not done, this arises by way of non-action even through speech, therefore it says: "verbal action." Successive eating, absence of agreement, and swallowing— these are the three factors here. The explanation of the Paramparabhojana training rule is finished. 4. Explanation of the Kāṇamātā training rule 231. In the fourth, in Pāli, 'paṭiyālokaṃ' means the western direction, the direction behind. Even for one who takes it with the intention of 'paṭiyādita' (prepared) for provisions and so on, there is an offense, because the training rule is without intention. Since one incurs an offense even by saying, "Give it into his hand" for one's own benefit, it is called "verbal action." The described characteristics of cakes and gruel, being completely finished, not having gone back, being unknown, and so on, and taking an excess— these are the five factors here. The explanation of the Kāṇamātā training rule is finished. 5. Explanation of the Paṭhamapavāraṇā training rule 237. In the fifth, "without saying 'ti-kāraṃ'" by this, the action to be done Obtained by lack of understanding, the word "thus" shows that it should not be said when it is done. Here, however, even if the word "thus" is used by those who do not know, it should be understood that it is merely an excess action. 238-9. And this "pavārito" (invited/offered), to show that it is produced in the sense of the agent, "one who has made an offering" and so on, is said. To prove the meaninglessness of the word "bhuttāvī" (one who has eaten), "even if it is said" and so on, is said. "By them" means by the flat rice. "Sattumodaka" is unbaked, made by soaking flour. But if they grind flour, make a dough, soak it, make a cake, and bake it, that is not an offering. Because it is said, "One rejects only that which is in a place to be rejected," it should be understood that by rejecting whatever belongs to a shameless person, or what is not suitable for oneself, or what belongs to the Sangha, etc., there is no offering. "The nearest limb" means: for one who stands outside arm's reach, bows down, and gives, the head is the nearest; it should be defined by its lower boundary. "Having brought it near" means having brought it forward. "He says, 'Take this food'" means he says it without bringing anything near. Because merely bringing it by word is not intended, even if it is not scooped out with a spoon, having begun to take it by "take it," because it was brought forward in this way even before, it is an offering; therefore it is said, "it is indeed brought forward." "Merely scooped out" means merely separated from the vessel. "Even if two are equally shared" means the server and another person carrying the food basket are equal. Here, "Take the juice," because it is said by the name of merely meat juice, which does not generate an offering, for one who rejects it, there is no offering. In "fish juice" and so on, because the meaning "fish and juice" is possible, and because the substance is also of that kind, there is an offering. Even if one does not say "Take this," but rejects what is brought in silence, there is indeed an offering. "Karambaka" is a term for a mixture. For whatever they make by mixing many things, that is called "karambaka." Here, "thinking 'it was made for me'," because the substance is allowable, it is said, "he is indeed offered." That. If it is made for a specific purpose, there is no prohibition. This is the intention here, as stated in "by whom he was asked," etc., referring to the same meaning. The reason here is difficult to see, meaning that the reason for the impossibility of invitation due to the abundance of food is difficult to see; otherwise, even in a mixture, if there is an abundance of fish, etc., an invitation would be possible. Just as the reason here is difficult to see, so too later in "take the mixture," the reason is also to be understood as difficult to see. And the reason stated, "but this is a mixture of rice," etc., does not agree with the statement "he does not invite for less." "He gives separately" means that he gives separately by saying "take the flavor," etc. It does not mean separating the flavor, etc., physically. Similarly, if one refuses even when not separated, due to the impossibility of invitation, and because it is mentioned by the name of "not enough for invitation," like in cases where a rice-mixture gruel is brought and it is said, "take the gruel," or in other ways, the intention should be understood so that there is no contradiction between the preceding and succeeding parts. In "a boat or a bridge," etc., at the moment of boarding a boat, etc., even if one stands for a while, and even if boarding, etc., is to be done, it is not considered a "standing" in the sense of being ready to go. However, due to the crowd of people or lack of space, it is not permissible to do so. "Without moving" means that one may move it to another place or upwards from the stated position, but one may turn it around in that very place. Therefore, it is said, "by which side," etc. "Unsuitable food" means that which arises from defiling families, etc. By "unsuitable," it shows that the rice, etc., mixed with it, becomes surplus. Therefore, whatever is made unsuitable there, such as roots and fruits, should be removed, and the rest should be eaten. "He cannot do it again" means that what is done in the same vessel is done together with what was done first, so he himself cannot do it again, but another can. For what is done by another, another can do it again. But in another vessel, by him or by another, it is proper to do it. Therefore it is said: “By whom it was not done, by him it should be done. And what was not done, that should be done.” “Thus done” means done in another vessel. But if it is to be understood that “mixed with food” here means that even food stuck to the mouth, etc., should be cleaned off before the excess is eaten. 241. It should be seen as arising from non-action, because the excess was not caused to be done by commanding with speech. Being invited, the food not being excess, and eating it at the proper time— these are the three factors here. The explanation of the first invitation training rule is finished. 6. The Explanation of the Second Invitation Training Rule 243. In the sixth, because it is stated in the mātikā as “when eaten,” the offense is at the end of the meal. Being invited, perceiving it as such, expecting to be pleased, an invitation brought with non-excess food, and the end of the meal— these are the five factors here. The explanation of the second invitation training rule is finished. 7. The Explanation of the Eating at the Wrong Time Training Rule 247. In the seventh, “dancers’ plays” (naṭanāṭakā) refers to plays of dancers, such as those involving the abduction of Sītā. 248-9. “The purpose of edibles in edibles” means that the function of edibles, which is to satisfy hunger, should be performed by edibles, such as cakes. They do not reach or accomplish the purpose. It is said “in those various countries” and so on, because it is possible that in one region they accomplish the function of food, or in another region, due to differences in soil nutrients, etc.