Vinaya Pitaka (1): Bhikkhu-vibhanga (the analysis of Monks’ rules)
by I. B. Horner | 2014 | 345,334 words | ISBN-13: 9781921842160
The English translation of the Bhikkhu-vibhanga: the first part of the Suttavibhanga, which itself is the first book of the Pali Vinaya Pitaka, one of the three major ‘baskets’ of Therevada canonical literature. It is a collection of rules for Buddhist monks. The English translation of the Vinaya-pitaka (first part, bhikkhu-vibhanga) contains many...
Monks’ Expiation (Pācittiya) 35
Bu-Pc.35.1.1 BD.2.326 … at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time, a certain brahmin, having invited the monks, gave them a meal. The monks, having eaten,[1] being satisfied,[2] went to relations and families, and some ate, some went out taking the alms-bowl. Then that brahmin spoke thus to the neighbours[3]:
“Masters, the monks were satisfied[4] by me; come and I will satisfy you.” These said:
“How will you, master, satisfy us? For those invited by you came to our houses, some ate, others went out taking the alms-bowl.”
Then that brahmin looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying:
“How can the revered sirs, having eaten in our house, eat elsewhere?[5] Yet am I not competent to give as much as they please?”[6] Monks heard that brahmin who … spread it about. BD.2.327 Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying:
“How can these monks, having eaten, being satisfied, eat elsewhere?” …
“Is it true, as is said, that you, monks … ate elsewhere?”
“It is true, lord.”
The enlightened one, the lord, rebuked them, saying:
“Monks, how can these foolish men, Vin.4.82 having eaten, being satisfied, eat elsewhere? Monks, it is not for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased … And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:
“Whatever monk, having eaten, being satisfied, should eat or partake of solid food or soft food,[7] there is an offence of expiation.”
And thus this rule of training for monks came to be laid down by the lord.
Bu-Pc.35.2.1 Now at that time monks brought back sumptuous alms-food for ill monks.[8] The ill monks did not eat as much as expected, (and) the monks threw these away.[9] The lord heard a loud noise, a great noise, a noise (like) the cawing of crows,[10] and hearing this he addressed the venerable Ānanda, saying:
“What, Ānanda, is this loud noise, this great noise, this noise (like) the cawing of crows?” Then the venerable Ānanda told this matter to the lord.
“But, Ānanda, monks should eat what is left over by ill (monks).[11]”
“They would not eat it, lord.”
Then the lord on this occasion, in this connection, BD.2.328 having given reasoned talk, addressed the monks, saying:
“I allow you, monks, to eat what is left over[12] both by one who is ill and by one who is not ill. And, monks, (what is left over) should be made left over,[13] saying, ‘All this is enough.’[14] And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:
“Whatever monk, having eaten, being satisfied, should eat or partake of solid food or soft food that is not left over,[15] there is an offence of expiation.”
Bu-Pc.35.3.1 Whatever means: … is monk to be understood in this case.
Having eaten means: any one meal of the five (kinds of) meals,[16] and even (as little as) becomes eaten with a blade of grass.[17]
Being satisfied means: eating is to be seen,[18] a meal is BD.2.329 to be seen, standing within a reach of the hand,[19] he asks[20] (him), a refusal is to be seen.[21]
What is not left over[22] means: it becomes made not allowable[23]; it becomes made not formally accepted[24]; it becomes made not delivered[25]; it becomes made not within a reach of the hand[26]; it becomes made by one who has not eaten[27]; it becomes made by one who has eaten, has been satisfied (and) has risen from his seat; it does not come to be said, ‘All this is enough’; it does not come to be left over by one who is ill: this means what is not left over.[28]
What is left over means: it becomes made allowable; it becomes made formally accepted; it becomes made being delivered; it becomes made within a reach of the hand; it becomes made by one who has eaten; it becomes made by one who has eaten, has been satisfied (and) has BD.2.330 not risen from his seat; it comes to be said, ‘All this is enough’; it comes to be left over by one who is ill: this means what is left over. Vin.4.83
Solid food means: setting aside the five (kinds of) meals, and food (that may be eaten) during a watch of the night,[29] during seven days,[30] during life,[31] the rest means solid food.
Soft food means: the five (kinds of) meals: cooked rice,[32] food made with flour,[33] barley-meal,[34] fish, meat. If he accepts, thinking, ‘I will eat, I will partake of,’ there is an offence of wrong-doing. For every mouthful there is an offence of expiation.
Bu-Pc.35.3.2 BD.2.331 If he thinks that it is not left over when it is not left over (and) eats or partakes of solid food or soft food, there is an offence of expiation. If he is in doubt as to whether it is not left over … If he thinks that it is left over when it is not left over … an offence of expiation. If he accepts for the sake of nutriment (food to be eaten) during a watch of the night, during seven days, during life, there is an offence of wrong-doing. For every mouthful there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that it is not left over when it is left over, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he is in doubt as to whether it is left over, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that it is left over when it is left over, there is no offence.
Bu-Pc.35.3.3 There is no offence[35] if, having caused it to be made left over, he eats; if, having caused it to be made left over, he accepts it, thinking: “I will eat”; if he goes away, conveying it for the sake of another; if he eats the remainder of an ill (monk’s meal); if, when there is a reason,[36] he makes use of (food to be eaten) during a watch of the night, during seven days, during life; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer.
The Fifth
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
bhuttāvin.
[2]:
pavāritā. Pavāreti in conjunction with bhuttāvin seems in Vinaya to mean “to offer, to invite,” also “to satisfy,” as in Pali-English Dictionary Vinaya Texts i.39, Vin.2.74, Vin.2.76, Vin.2.118 use “to offer” or “invite.” Vin-a.821 says that the brahmin told the monks to take as much as they wanted, but they asked for only a little. Lower down there is another verb, santappati, meaning to satisfy, just as nimanteti means “to invite.” Doubtless the notion of offering implied satisfying, and here “refusing” on the part of the monk. Vin-a.821 says, “the offer made, the refusal made,” which probably means, as Vinaya Texts i.39 suggests, that the monk, though he has finished his meal, is still invited to continue eating—but refuses to do so. Cf. abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya at BD.2.51 above. At Mil.266 one of the offences into which an arahan may fall is said to be that of thinking food was not offered when it was offered.
[3]:
paṭivissake. Cf. MN.i.126.
[4]:
santappitā.
[7]:
The two terms for eating, khādeyya and bhuñjeyya, correspond to the two classes of food, khādaniya, solid food, and bhojaniya, soft food. Vinaya Texts i.39, n.5, gives some account of what these comprise, and see Old Commentary below.
[8]:
At Vin.1.293 the monk who tends the sick, bhikkhu gilānupaṭṭāko, is the one who brings back food for him.
[9]:
chaḍḍenti, or rejected them, tāni.
[11]:
gilānātiritta.
[12]:
atiritta. Cf. Mil.266, where one of the offences into which an arahan may fall is said to be that of thinking food is left over when it is not left over.
[13]:
atirittaṃ kātabbaṃ.
[14]:
alaṃ etaṃ sabbaṃ, spoken by the ill monk. If he is too ill to speak, he makes a sign.
[15]:
anatiritta. Exceptions are made to this rule at Vin.1.213, Vin.1.214, Vin.1.215 in times of scarcity. But at Vin.1.238, the time of scarcity having passed, the exception does not stand, and the monk is to be dealt with according to rule—i.e., to this Bu-Pc.35. Referred to also at Vism.69. In the account of the Council of Vesālī (Kd.12) it is affirmed that gāmantarakappa—i.e. (as explained at Vin.2.300), going amidst villages, having eaten, being satisfied—it is not allowable to eat food that is left over because (Vin.2.306) it violates a pācittiya rule. It is also affirmed that amathitakappa—i.e. (as explained at Vin.2.301), having eaten, being satisfied—it is not allowable to drink milk that is left over, because it violates a pācittiya rule (Vin.2.307).
[18]:
asanaṃ paññāyati. Vinaya Texts i.39, n.2, reads āsanaṃ, and translates tentatively, “a seat for him is there.” Vin-a.821 says, “a meal left unfinished means ‘he is satisfied’ … it is to be seen (dissati).”
[19]:
hatthapāse ṭhito. Vin-a.821, “if, taking enough of the meal offered, the donor comes to be in a place distant two and a half cubits (from him)”; cf. above, BD.2.200, n.1.
[20]:
abhiharati—i.e., the donor or benefactor, dāyaka, offers him food with a gesture. Buddhaghosa at Vin-a.821, Vin-a.825 takes “standing within a reach of the hand” and “he asks (him)” as separate items, while at Vin-a.822 he says that in five ways is an offer or invitation, pavāraṇā, to be seen (or is apparent, visible), and then he enumerates the five occurring in this paragraph.
[21]:
paṭikkhepo paññāyati. The monk refuses what was offered by a gesture or by voice. This is called “being satisfied” according to the fifth of the ways given at Vin-a.822. See preceding note, and also BD.2.326, n.2.
[22]:
anatiritta—i.e., if the following means have not been carried out.
[23]:
akappiyakataṃ hoti. Kata in this and the following phrases is comparable in meaning to the atirittaṃ kātabbaṃ above.
[24]:
appaṭiggahitakataṃ hoti—i.e., by the monk (Vin-a.829).
[25]:
anuccāritakataṃ hoti. Vin-a.829 says kappiyaṃ kārāpetuṃ āgatena bhikkhunā īsakaṃ pi anukkhittaṃ vā anapanāmitaṃ vā kataṃ.
[26]:
Vin-a.829, to make it allowable is done by standing beyond the reach of the hand of one coming in.
[27]:
abhuttāvinā kataṃ hoti. Vin-a.829 says that whoever saying, ‘This is enough,’ makes it left over, it is made (allowable) by one who has not eaten (though) a sufficient meal was offered.
[28]:
Vin-a.829 says, by the seven Vinaya acts that which is left over is not made allowable, rather than that not left over by an ill monk; but both should be called ‘not left over.’
[29]:
yāmakālika. Pali-English Dictionary gives “of a restricted time … (literally) only for one watch of the night.” Vinaya Texts ii.144 render, “till the first watch of the night,” but had “first” been specially meant surely paṭhamayāma would have been used. Vin-a.839 (on Bu-Pc.38) says this term means “until the last watch of the night.” Vinaya Texts ii.144 also states that yāmakālika “refers to certain medicines; see Mahāvagga VI. 1, 5.” (Kd.6.1.5) These five standard medicines apparently could be eaten at night, since they did not count as ordinary forms of nutriment (na ca oḷāriko āhāro paññādyati), Vin.1.199. The relations of yāmakālika and the next two: sattāhakālika, yāvajīvika, are discussed at Vin.1.251 with the addition of yāvākālika, temporary (shorter than yāmakālika).
[30]:
[31]:
yāvajīvika. Vinaya Texts ii.144, n.4, says, “what this refers to is unknown to us.” I think it may refer to the different kinds of roots and other things allowed as medicines, and which could be stored up for life, yāvajīvam, Vin.1.201. Vin-a.833, quoting this Vinaya passage (Vin.1.201), says that these roots are called in the text yāvajīvikaṃ. They apparently did not deteriorate with keeping, and so could be kept during a life-time.
[32]:
odana. Vin-a.822 says odana is sāḷi (rice), vīhi (paddy, rice), yava (corn, barley), godhūma (wheat), kaṅgu (millet), varaka (a bean), kudrūsaka (perhaps rye, see Dialogues of the Buddha 3. 70, n.1)—i.e., the seven kinds of grain, dhañña. At Vin.4.264 these seven appear in definition of āmakadhañña, grain in its raw, uncooked state. Cf. DN-a.78, BD.1.83, n.4. Vin-a.822 defines all these grains.
[33]:
kummāsa. Vin-a.823 says that it is yavehi katakummāso, a junket made with barley; see yava in previous note.
[34]:
sattu, see above, BD.2.322, n.4.
[36]:
sati paccaye. Vin-a.831 says that if he is thirsty and makes use of the food to be eaten during the periods mentioned above, for the sake of slaking his thirst, or if he has a pain that could be eased, and uses these foods for that purpose, there is no offence.