English
that is, not accepting. Pavāraṇā is that which is refused, that is, prohibition. Pavāraṇā called refusal is refusal-pavāraṇā. Or, pavāraṇā by way of refusal is refusal-pavāraṇā. The connection is that when one is eating one of the five kinds of food and another food is offered, it is pavāraṇā called refusal. 117. "What one eats" means what one consumes. "In sour gruel, etc." by the word "etc." it includes milk-gruel, etc. There, by the mention of sour gruel, thick gruel mixed with sour substances like buttermilk, etc., is meant. By the mention of milk-gruel, gruel mixed with milk is included. "Generates pavāraṇā" due to the offense of not having surplus food. He makes the refusal. Even if the refusal is made, it is not tied to an offense of not eating enough, but remains as if not made, so it is said, "it does not generate an invitation." It is stated in all three glosses, "Since the word 'yāgu' (gruel) is common to gruel that generates an invitation, even if it is said 'take gruel,' an invitation occurs, so it does generate an invitation." This does not agree with the reason stated later in the same place, "having brought gruel mixed with rice." For it is stated there that in the invitation for non-gruel below, an invitation occurs because "take gruel" refers to rice mixed with water, kanjika, milk, etc. But where it says "having brought gruel mixed with rice," an invitation does not occur because gruel exists separately. Therefore, the reason here should be stated in this way: an invitation occurs because "take gruel" refers to rice mixed with milk, etc., as stated in that passage, and because gruel itself is absent there. If this is the case, it also agrees with the reason stated in the commentary later, "for him who was asked." Otherwise, there would be a contradiction between earlier and later statements in the glosses themselves, and it would not agree with the commentary. If… (etc.)… it is known. By this, it shows merely the existence of the mentioned amount of fish or meat, or sinew. By these: by the flattened rice. "Sattu made from rice, paddy, and barley" is said by way of the majority, but sattu is also made by roasting seven kinds of grain. Therefore, it is said, "millet, varaka… (etc.)… goes into the category of sattu." "Sattumodaka" means an uncooked ball of sattu made by kneading sattu. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.238-239), however, it is stated, "Sattumodaka means uncooked sattu made by soaking sattu. But they pound sattu, make flour, soak it, make a cake, and cook it; that does not generate an invitation." Because the state of being food that has been interrupted as one of the five kinds of food, "even a mustard seed's worth in the mouth… (etc.) … is not offered,” it is said. “He rejects improper meat, he does not offer.” By this statement, if he rejects a gain belonging to the Sangha, knowing or not knowing that it does not accrue to him, he does not offer, because what should be rejected has been rejected. Even one who rejects something belonging to a shameless person does not offer. “Due to being without a basis” means due to being without a basis for an invitation that leads to an offense of excess. By this, it is shown that what should be rejected has been rejected. For what should be rejected, its rejection is not a factor for an offense, therefore it is called “without a basis for an invitation.” 118. “The closer part” means for one giving, standing outside arm’s reach and bending down, the head is closer. It should be delimited by its lower part. “He brings near” by this, a physical offering is shown. “Having brought forward” means having brought it facing him. “He says, ‘Take this food’” means he says it after bringing something forward. Since a mere verbal offering is not intended, “Take it” means it is begun to be taken. For one standing outside arm’s reach, even if there is an offering with the desire to give, for one rejecting, due to the distance itself, there is no invitation. Showing the absence of an invitation by taking only the elder’s distance, he says, “Due to the elder’s distance,” and so on, but not due to the elder’s ability to offer. Even if he has taken it and stands within arm’s reach, but has said nothing, and stands in the place of support, there is no offering, therefore it is said, “and due to the messenger not offering.” “When one who has taken it and come says, ‘Take the food,’ there is an offering. Thus, ‘If, however, a bhikkhu who has taken it and come… …there is an invitation,’ it is said.” This is stated in all three knot-passages. Some, however, say, “It should be understood as, ‘having brought near even a little of the bowl, he says, “Take this food.”’” That seems appropriate, as a mere verbal offering is not intended here. “For serving” means at the meal-hall. “It is indeed brought” means it is brought by the server himself. From that, taking with the desire to give. In the phrase, "When one rejects that, there is an invitation," even if one does not take it, if one rejects it, there is still an invitation. Why? Because it was brought with the intention to give, and it is said, "Therefore, it is considered as brought." For this reason, in all three knot-sections, it is said, "When there is an offering with the intention to give, merely taking it with the thought 'I will give' is not the offering. Whether one takes it with the thought 'I will give' or does not take it, the offering is the bringing with the intention to give. Therefore, whether at the time of taking or not taking, if one rejects it, there is an invitation." Now, to show that if there is no bringing with the intention to give, even if one rejects it at the time of taking, there is no invitation, it is said, "But if..." Even if it is not scooped out with a spoon, because it was brought beforehand, there is an invitation, which is why it is said, "it is considered as brought." "Merely lifted out" means merely separated from the vessel. "Even when there are two equal portions" means when the server and another person have an equal share of the rice portion. 119. In "Take the juice," because only the name of meat juice, which does not generate an invitation, is mentioned, if one rejects it, there is no invitation. In "fish juice," etc., because the meaning of "fish and juice" is possible, and the object is also of that nature, there is an invitation. Even if one does not say, "Take this," but rejects what is brought in silence, there is still an invitation. "Karambaka" is a term for a mixture. What is made by mixing many things is called "karambaka." Even if it is made by mixing with meat, if one rejects it when "Take the karambaka" is said, there is no invitation, because it is mentioned by a name that does not warrant an invitation. But if "Take the meat karambaka" is said, it means "Take the meat mixture," and therefore, there is an invitation. 120. In "thinking it is 'dedicated'," they say, "Because the object is allowable, even if one rejects it with the perception of it being unallowable, since there is no intention, there is an invitation for this training rule." "Below, in the invitation for non-gruel, what is kneaded with water, gruel, milk, etc., is..." Referring to that very thing, because it is said, 'Take gruel,' there is a 'pavāraṇā' (invitation/acceptance). But where it is said, 'Bring gruel mixed with rice,' because the gruel exists separately, there is no 'pavāraṇā,' they say. This is the intention here, referring to what was said earlier, starting with "by whom it was asked." The reason here is hard to see. Some indeed say here: "Because what is called 'gruel-mixed' is not just rice, it can also be milk, etc. Therefore, like with 'karambaka' (mixed food), there should be no 'pavāraṇā.' And if that is the case, 'If the gruel is more or equal, one does not accept; if the gruel is little, the rice is more, one accepts' - the reason here is hard to see." But some say: "What is called 'gruel-mixed' is rice. Therefore, for one who rejects it, there should indeed be a 'pavāraṇā.' And if that is the case, 'Here there is 'pavāraṇā,' here there is not' - the reason here is hard to see." Just as the reason here is hard to see, so too, further on, where it says, "Take the mixed," the reason there is also hard to see, it should be understood. For the quantity of what is sufficient for 'pavāraṇā' is not the cause for the presence or absence of 'pavāraṇā.' What then? The naming of what generates 'pavāraṇā' is the criterion here. Therefore, even the reason stated, beginning with "this should not be equated with 'karambaka'," when compared with what was said before, does not fit. If "mixed" were indeed a term established for "rice-mixed," then, just as when "rice-mixed" is said, whether the rice is more, or equal, or less, one accepts; so too, when "mixed" is said, even if the rice is less, there should be a 'pavāraṇā,' because "mixed" is established for "rice-mixed." Thus, it is said in all three 'gaṇṭhipada' (commentaries on difficult points): "Because 'mixed' is a term commonly used for 'rice-mixed,' this is indeed said to be 'rice-mixed'." Now, if "mixed" is not established for "rice-mixed," but refers to "mixed rice" when "take the mixed" is said. Even so, if... Alas, in an invitation not for gruel, referring to rice mixed with milk and so on, if it is said "take gruel," there is a refusal. So too here, referring to mixed rice, if it is said "take the mixed (food)," whether the rice is little or much, there would be a refusal. Therefore, whether "mixed" is a common term for mixed rice, or spoken referring to the mixed (food), in both cases, the former and latter do not agree. So what is the point of thinking about the reason here? But in such places, one should proceed only by the authority of the commentaries; this is our acceptance. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Tī. Pācittiya 2.238-239), it is said: