English
, into the rice, knead it, and then offer it saying, "Take porridge," there is no refusal. "Even with porridge" means even with porridge that has thus fallen into the category of porridge, or with any other porridge. However, pure juice or juice-porridge does not generate refusal. Because the state of being food that has been eaten at the wrong time is cut off by being one of the five kinds of food, it is said, "Even two have been eaten... and he does not refuse." Unsuitable meat (Pacittiya Commentary 238-239) and unsuitable food, being condemned by the Buddha, do not provide a basis for refusal when one prohibits them, so there is no refusal. Therefore, it is said, "But whoever," and so on. For a bhikkhu, refusal occurs only when he prohibits what is permissible for him to eat. But knowing this, the unsuitab Out of affection, he refuses. Even unknowingly, he refuses what is in a refusable place, so he does not make a formal refusal. But if, while eating unsuitable meat, he refuses suitable meat or food, he makes a formal refusal. Why? Because it is the basis. For what he refused, that is the basis for a formal refusal. But what he eats, even if it is in a refusable place, while being eaten, it does not lose its nature as meat, therefore he makes a formal refusal. What then to say of one eating suitable meat and refusing suitable meat-food? This is the same method for one eating unsuitable food and refusing suitable food. "When there is food" means when there is even one of the five kinds of food. "Other food of the described kind" means any one of the five kinds of food, other than what is in the bowl, etc., of the described kind. "He is unconcerned" is an explanation of "what is in the bowl, etc." He says "or elsewhere" to mean not only unconcerned. "Even if he refuses, he does not make a formal refusal" means if, in the meantime, other food is brought, even if he refuses it, he does not make a formal refusal. Why? Because the state of having unfinished food is cut off. "He brings it near" (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 238-239) shows the physical bringing. In "in the hand or in a container," the word "or" here implies an unstated alternative, so it implies "or on the lap." Sending a bowl to a young monk sitting far away and saying, "Take rice from here," and he, having taken it, goes and stands silently, for him too, if he refuses, it is the same method. Why? Because of the monk's distance, and because the messenger does not bring it. But if the monk who has taken it comes and says, "Take this food," for him who refuses it, there is a formal refusal. "Even when it is said thus" means even when "Take the food" is said. "For one serving with a food basket" means for one serving, holding the food basket with one hand and the ladle with the other hand. Another, having taken it, saying, "I will hold it." He does only that much. Another comes, saying, "I will hold the basket, you give the rice." He does only as much as is taken. It is brought forth. It is brought forth by the server himself. Now, when there is no desire to give on his part, to show that it does not happen even when refusing at the time of taking, "If, however," etc., was said. He lifts up. When the food is lifted up. Indeed, the offering by the ladle is his offering, this is the intention. When given to the next. When food is given to the next monk. By bodily gesture: "He moves a finger, or a hand, or a fly-whisk, or a corner of a robe. Or makes a sign with the eyebrow. Or looks angrily." Thus, as stated, by a bodily gesture such as moving a finger. By verbal gesture such as "Enough, do not give": "Enough," or "I do not take," or "Do not scatter," or "Go away." Thus, by any such verbal gesture. But when the food is brought, fearing the refusal, having removed his hands, repeatedly scattering rice into the bowl, to one who says, "Scatter, scatter, fill it up by pounding," there is no refusal. This is the method. Observing a monk bringing food, even to one who says, "Friend, will you take anything else from here? I will give you something." "Take the essence." Because it was said by taking the name of something that does not cause refusal, it was said, "For one who refuses after hearing that, there is no refusal." But here, "meat-essence." It is not understood merely as the essence of meat, as "meat-essence." But rather as meat and essence, "meat-essence." Thus, even by way of a name that causes refusal. Therefore, he says that for one who refuses that, it is indeed a refusal. "But when 'meat-essence' is said, for one who refuses, it is a refusal." Further on, "fish and meat as curry." Here too, the same method applies. In whichever posture one refuses, it should be eaten without disturbing that. Whoever refuses while walking, by him, it should be eaten while walking. Mud. Having reached meat or water, standing, the remainder should be made. If in between a river is full, by going around a bush on the river bank, it should be eaten. Or if there is a boat or a bridge, having ascended it, it should be eaten while walking, the journey should not be interrupted. This is the rule for other postures too. By disturbing that posture, the remainder should be made. Whoever, having squatted, makes the declaration, by him, it should be eaten while squatting. But for him, below, a straw mat or some other seat should be given. But by one who, having sat on a stool, made the declaration, without moving the seat, by turning in the four directions, it is allowed to eat. By one who, having sat on a bed, made the declaration, it is not allowed to shift this way or that. But if, together with the bed, they lift and carry him elsewhere, it is permissible. Even by one who, having lain down, made the declaration, it should be eaten while lying down. By turning over, the place on which he lay, should not be exceeded. "This is enough of everything" means this all is enough, sufficient; "this is also more than you need, you will not get anything else from here." "Whoever makes the remainder" means whoever makes the remainder saying "This is enough of everything." "By the opposite method" means: "Made allowable, made received, made declared, made within arm's reach, made by one who has eaten, made by one who has eaten, declared, and not risen from his seat, saying 'This is enough of everything'" (Pacittiya 239) by these seven modes of Vinaya action, whatever remainder is made allowable, and whatever is a sick person's remainder, both of these are remainders. Thus, by that very opposite method. And here, "This is enough of everything" should be said three times; this is indeed the custom. But the Vinaya-holders say it should be said only once. Why can he not do it again? It is said, "Whatever..." There, "whatever is not done" means by whom the first allowable was made, by him, whatever was not done, that should be done. But in the first portion, it is not allowed to do it. And by whom it was not done... It means it should be done by another bhikkhu, by whom it was not done first. It is stated in the Sinhalese commentaries. In another vessel: that is, from the vessel in which it was done first, into another bowl, or pot, or basket, or wherever, having placed it in front, in a tilted vessel. In another eating place: having eaten and refused, in another eating place. Three pācittiyas: in the case of not-leftover, with the perception of not-leftover, doubt, and perception of leftover, there are three pācittiyas. And a dukkaṭa when swallowing: when swallowing, at each swallow, a dukkaṭa. But if they are mixed with food, whether for food or not for food, having received and swallowed, it is a pācittiya. In the manner of their permitted consumption: in the manner of permitted consumption of one-day medicines and so on. One-day medicine, when there is thirst, for quenching thirst; and seven-day medicine and lifelong medicine, when there is an ailment to be alleviated by that, for alleviating it, it is said. This too, from swallowing, is a bodily action. By speech, by not causing "make it leftover, venerable sir" to be done, it is a verbal action. Thus it is said, "the origins and so on are similar to the first kathina." Action and non-action: here, eating after refusing is action. Not making it leftover is to be understood as non-action. The commentary on the first refusal training rule is finished. 6. Commentary on the second refusal training rule Having heard: having heard it announced by another or by oneself. Because it is said "pācittiya when eaten" (Pāci. 243), it is said "pācittiya at the end of the meal." The commentary on the second refusal training rule is finished. 7. Commentary on the training rule of eating at the wrong time Wrong time: here, from dawn until midday, this is called the time for eating, practiced and observed by the noble ones like the Buddhas. Other than that is the wrong time, having made it "past time." Therefore it is said "when the time has passed," etc. Even at standing midday (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 248-249) reaches the time limit. From then on, it is not possible to eat or consume. It might be possible to drink quickly, but it should not be done with scruple. To know the time limit, a time-post should be set up. The meal should be taken within the time. "Whatever... etc. ... or solid food" shows that there is nothing to say about what is made of grains and pulses, like sugar candy and sweet cakes. "Food" means the five kinds of food. "When there is a cause" means when there is a reason like thirst. "Of one who vomits" means a monk who, having swallowed and then vomited, has food placed in his mouth, which has come out of the mouth opening, out of the food passage, is called "one who vomits." Here, however, it is intended to mean "having swallowed, vomited, and placed in the mouth." Therefore, it is said, "And, monks, not..." etc. Except for one who vomits, for others who retain the vomit that has come up in their mouth