Vinaya Pitaka (1): The Analysis of Monks’ Rules (Bhikkhu-vibhanga)

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) 36

Bu-Pc.36.1.1 BD.2.332 … at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time two monks were travelling to Sāvatthī along a high-road in the Kosalan districts. One monk indulged in bad habits; the second monk said to this monk: “Your reverence, do not do that, it is not allowable.” He grumbled at him.[1] Then these monks arrived at Sāvatthī. Now at that time food for the Order was (prepared) by a certain guild[2] in Sāvatthī. The second monk, having eaten, came to be satisfied. The monk who grumbled,[3] having gone to his relations, taking alms-food, approached that monk, and having approached he said to that monk:

“Do eat, your reverence.”

“No need, I am full, your reverence.”

“Your reverence, the alms-food is delicious, do eat.”

Then this monk, being pressed by that monk, ate that alms-food. The monk who grumbled Vin.4.84 said to that monk:

Your reverence, you think that I should be advised (by you), when you, having eaten, being satisfied, eat soft food that is not left over?”

“Your reverence, should it not be spoken about?”

“Your reverence, should it not be inquired into?”

Then that monk told this matter to the monks. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying:

“How can a monk, asking a monk who has eaten, who is satisfied, invite him (to take) soft food that is not left over?”

BD.2.333 “Is it true, as is said, that you, monk, asking a monk … soft food that is not left over?”

“It is true, lord.”

The enlightened one, the lord, rebuked him, saying:

“How can you, foolish man, asking a monk who has eaten, who is satisfied, invite him (to take) soft food that is not left over? It is not, foolish man, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased … And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:

Whatever monk, asking[4] a monk who has eaten, who is satisfied, should invite him (to take) solid food or soft food that is not left over, saying: ‘Now, monk, eat or partake of,’[5] knowing,[6] desiring to find fault with,[7] in the eating there is an offence of expiation.”


Bu-Pc.36.2.1 Whatever means: … is monk to be understood in this case.

Monk means: another monk.

Having eaten means: see Bu-Pc.35.3 … this means what is not left over.

Solid food means: see Bu-Pc.35.3 … meat.

Asking, should invite[8] means: he says, “Take just as much as you want.

He knows[9] means: either he knows by himself, or others tell him, or he[10] tells him.

Desiring to find fault with means: if he asks (him), saying: ‘I will reprove him for this, I will remind him, I will blame him, I will make him think back, I will shame[11] him,’ there is an offence of wrong-doing. If, at his bidding, he accepts, saying: ‘I will eat, I will partake BD.2.334 of,’ there is an offence of wrong-doing. For every mouthful there is an offence of wrong-doing. At the end of the meal there is an offence of expiation.


Bu-Pc.36.2.2 If he thinks that he was satisfied when he was satisfied (and), asking him, invites him (to take) solid food or soft food that is not left over, there is an offence of expiation. If he is in doubt as to whether he was satisfied … offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that he was not satisfied when he was satisfied … is no offence.[12] If he asks him (to take) for the sake of nourishment (food to be eaten) during a watch of the night, during seven days, during life, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If, at his bidding, he accepts, saying: ‘I will eat, I will partake of,’ there is an offence of wrong-doing. For every mouthful there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that he was satisfied when he was not satisfied, Vin.4.85 there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he is in doubt as to whether he was not satisfied, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that he was not satisfied when he was not satisfied, there is no offence.


Bu-Pc.36.2.3 There is no offence[13] if, having caused it to be made left over, he gives it; if, having caused it to be made left over, he gives it, saying, “Eat”; if he gives it, saying: “Go away, conveying it for the sake of another”; if he gives the remainder of an ill (monk’s meal); if, when there is a reason, he gives (food to be eaten) during a watch of the night, during seven days, during life, saying, “Make use of it”; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer.

The Sixth

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

To here = Vin.2.118, but where the story proceeds to a tragic ending.

[2]:

Cf. above, BD.2.160.

[3]:

upanandha bhikkhu, explained by janita-upanāha, produced a grudge, ill-will, Vin-a.831.

[4]:

Above, BD.2.51, BD.2.323.

[5]:

Above, BD.2.327.

[6]:

I.e., knowing by means of one of the three ways of knowing (see Old Commentary) that that monk is satisfied.

[7]:

āsādanāpekkho. Vin-a.831, desiring to arouse insult, rebuke, shame.

[8]:

Above, BD.2.51, BD.2.324.

[9]:

Above, BD.2.161, BD.2.297.

[10]:

I.e., that monk.

[11]:

maṅkum karoti, cf. above, BD.2.178.

[12]:

Variant reading āpatti dukkaṭassa, see Vin.4.360.

[13]:

Cf. Bu-Pc.35, above, BD.2.331.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: