English
the Elder did not make a direct designation. And the Blessed One did not state a separate direct designation. Nevertheless, a direct designation is also permissible.” Therefore, in the Mātikaṭṭhakathā (Kankhā. Aṭṭha. Paramparabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) it is said: “Whatever bhikkhu, to one of the five co-religionists, says ‘I give you my meal portion’ or ‘I designate it’ thus directly, or ‘I give it to so-and-so’ or ‘I designate it’ thus indirectly, without designating the first invitation, and afterwards consumes even one grain of rice from the food received in the invited household, commits an offense of pācittiya.” For one invited with five kinds of food, if he does not designate it in reverse order from the food of the one who first invited him, or if the food of one after another is successive food, it is said: “If the original invitation is at the bottom, and the last is at the top, for one who eats starting from the top, there is an offense.” For one who puts his hand in and takes the very bottom, what is in the middle also comes into his hand, so it is said: “By hand… (etc.)… or in whatever way one eats, there is no offense.” Because milk and juice are not mixed with rice and are placed on top, it is said: “For one who drinks milk or juice, there is no offense.” “Mahāupāsaka” means the householder. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, the word ‘āpatti’ (offense) seems to contradict the word ‘vaṭṭati’ (is permissible) in the Kurundi. The intention of both is explained in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said in the Mahāgaṇṭhipada. All invite means they invite in the manner of an improper invitation. “Successive food” means one who has been invited with one of the five kinds of food, and setting that aside, (takes) another of the five kinds of food. consumes any other food, because it is said, "this is called successive food," even if it was obtained first through alms-round, it is said, "if one consumes food obtained by going on alms-round, there is an offense." But in the Vimativinodaniya (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.229), it is said with reference to milk or juice, which are mixed with the five kinds of food, and placed on top of the meal. For since they are not food, there is no offense even if one drinks them out of order. Therefore, it is said, "by one who consumes," and so on. But in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pācittiya 229), it is said: "From the statement in the commentary: 'A great lay follower invites monks... (and so on)... there is an offense for one who consumes food obtained later. If one consumes food obtained by going on alms-round, there is an offense.' From the Pāli text: 'We went on alms-round early and consumed food.' And from the statement in the Khandhaka: 'And, monks, apart from an invitation, no other food or gruel of another should be consumed. Whoever consumes it should be dealt with according to the Dhamma.' Therefore, whether one has been invited or not, any other food belonging to another, apart from the food of the first invitation, for a monk who has accepted the first invitation, creates an offense of successive food. One's own food, or food obtained from the Sangha group, or food not belonging to a householder, is permissible. But because it is fixed before the invitation, even food belonging to others, such as regular meals, is permissible." The Chapter on Not Asking Permission 3. In the Chapter on Not Asking Permission: "By ordinary speech" here means that which can be heard by one standing within twelve cubits. That is called ordinary speech. "One should ask permission" means one should ask permission with such words as, 'I am going to the house of so-and-so,' or 'I am undertaking the practice of wandering.' The rest here is clear. The acceptance of an invitation for one of the five kinds of food, not asking permission from an existing monk, entering another house from the house of a devotee, not having passed midday, and the absence of a proper time or an emergency— these are the five factors here. In the Sāratthadīpanī, only this much is said: “There is no need to search and report.” But in the Vimativinodanī, it is said: “Since it is stated that there is no need to search and report, if one sees a monk who should not be searched for, in a suitable place to approach, even if he is beyond the range of ordinary speech, he should be approached and asked. Therefore it is said: ‘Moreover… whom he sees, he should be asked,’ and so on. And in the section on non-offence here, since only those within the monastery and so on are mentioned, an offence occurs even for one who crosses the monastery to the village street without an authorized reason, not only for one who crosses the precincts of a house. What is said in the Pāḷi, ‘one who enters the precincts of another’s house… crosses the threshold with the first foot,’ and so on, is said with reference to one who has entered the village. Even so, one who goes without entering the precincts of another’s house, but through the middle of the street, stands at the door of the desired house, looks at the people, and then goes, still commits a Pācittiya offence. Some say here: ‘The offences are counted by the number of house precincts crossed on the street.’ Others say: ‘By the number of families for whom he went.’ The five factors here are: accepting an invitation for one of the five kinds of food, not asking a present monk, going to another house from the invited house, not exceeding midday, and the absence of a reason of time.” Regarding entering the village at the wrong time, it shows that the second clod-throw is the precinct here, by saying: “The precinct of an unfenced village should be understood in the same way as stated in Adinnādāna.” The rest here is clear. The three factors here are: not asking a present monk, absence of an authorized reason, and entering the village at the wrong time. Story of the Rag-robe 4. In the story of the rag-robe, “abhinne sarīre” means “with a wet body due to heat.” “Allasarīre” is said to explain what is meant by “abbhuṇhe” without a change in meaning. “Visabhāgasarīre” means a female body. in this body. Since it is a different kind of body, it should not be very close, so it says, "on the head, or" and so on. "It is permissible" means it is permissible to perform the aforementioned method and to take the robe even from a different kind of body. Some, however, say, "Although there is no offense by this training rule, there is a dukkaṭa offense for touching a woman's form." "He has gone according to his kamma" shows the state of death from the state of a ghost. "He is warm" shows the body's warmth due to its proximity to death, therefore it says, "in a fresh body." Even if it has become a corpse, it is still broken, because it is broken from being fresh. "In a different kind of body" means a woman's body. "On the head, or" and so on, is said with reference to the arising of mental defilement in the lower part of the body, in the region of the raised knees. Whatever is done without touching anywhere is well done. They say that even for a dead body, one who intentionally touches it in any way commits an anāmāsa-dukkaṭa offense, and that is correct. For a dukkaṭa offense that occurs in the form of a woman, even if it is not a parajika offense, it does not cease in the dead body of a woman, which is the object of a parajika offense, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.135). In this place, although not mentioned by the teacher, the story of rag-robes should be understood by the common understanding of rag-robes. For it is stated thus in the Robe Section (Mahāva. 340): "At that time, those bhikkhus who accepted robes from householders were scrupulous and did not accept rag-robes, thinking, 'Only one robe has been allowed by the Blessed One, not two.' They reported this matter to the Blessed One: 'I allow, bhikkhus, one who accepts a householder's robe to also accept a rag-robe. I commend contentment with both, bhikkhus.'" There, "Only one robe has been allowed by the Blessed One, not two" — they understood this to mean "by one or the other robe," that is, "either by a householder's robe or by a rag-robe." But there, "by one or the other" means "by any kind, whether cheap or expensive," as stated in the Commentary. Therefore, Not having undertaken that ascetic practice, a monk who merely accepts rag-robes according to the Vinaya may also accept householder's robes. But for one who observes the rag-robe ascetic practice, householder's robes are not permissible. It should be understood as: "I reject householder's robes, I undertake the rag-robe practice." Now at that time, many monks in the Kosala country were traveling on a road. Some monks went to a charnel ground for rag-robes, some monks did not wait. Those monks who went to the charnel ground for rag-robes obtained rag-robes. Those monks who did not wait, they said thus: "Give us a share too, friends." They said thus: "We will not give you a share, friends, why did you not wait?" They reported this matter to the Blessed One: "I allow, monks, that a share should not be given unwillingly to those who did not wait." Here, "did not wait" means until they came back from the charnel ground, they did not stay, they just went away. "Should not be given unwillingly" means not to give unwillingly. But if they wish, it should be given. Now at that time, many monks in the Kosala country were traveling on a road. Some monks went to a charnel ground for rag-robes, some monks waited. Those monks who went to the charnel ground for rag-robes obtained rag-robes. Those monks who waited, they said thus: "Give us a share too, friends." They said thus: "We will not give you a share, friends, why did you not go?" They reported this matter to the Blessed One: "I allow, monks, that a share should be given unwillingly to those who waited." Now at that time, many monks in the Kosala country were traveling on a road.