Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.
Beide Seiten der vorigen RevisionVorhergehende ÜberarbeitungNächste Überarbeitung | Vorhergehende ÜberarbeitungNächste ÜberarbeitungBeide Seiten der Revision | ||
de:lib:authors:thanissaro:bmc1:bmc1.ch08-4_old [2019/10/28 16:57] – close f div Johann | de:lib:authors:thanissaro:bmc1:bmc1.ch08-4_old [2019/10/30 10:29] – docinfo_head del. Johann | ||
---|---|---|---|
Zeile 1: | Zeile 1: | ||
+ | <WRAP box fill >< | ||
+ | <div center round todo 60%> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Kodex für buddhistische ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Title: Kodex für buddhistische | ||
+ | Einsiedler I: Kapitel 8.4 | ||
+ | |||
+ | Summary: | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <div #h_meta> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div navigation></ | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div alphalist> | ||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.intro|Einleitung]] | [[bmc1.ch01|1]] | [[bmc1.ch02|2]] | [[bmc1.ch03|3]] | [[bmc1.ch04|4]] | [[bmc1.ch05|5]] | [[bmc1.ch06|6]] | [[bmc1.ch07-1|7.1]] | [[bmc1.ch07-2|7.2]] | [[bmc1.ch07-3|7.3]] | [[bmc1.ch08-1|8.1]] | [[bmc1.ch08-2|8.2]] | [[bmc1.ch08-3|8.3]] | 8.4 {{de: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.ch08-6|8.6]] | [[bmc1.ch08-7|8.7]] | [[bmc1.ch08-8|8.8]] | [[bmc1.ch08-9|8.9]] | [[bmc1.ch09|9]] | [[bmc1.ch10|10]] | [[bmc1.ch11|11]] | [[bmc1.ch12|12]] | [[bmc1.glossary|Glossar]] | [[bmc1.biblio|Literaturverz.]] | [[bmc1.rule-index|Regeln]] | [[bmc1.addendum|Anhang]] </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 4. Das Speisen Chapter ===== | ||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Many of the rules in this chapter classify food into two groups: // | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Staple foods** are consistently defined as five sorts of foods, although the precise definitions of the first two are a matter of controversy. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Cooked grains:// The Kommentar to [[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * //2) Kummāsa:// The Kommentar describes this as a staple confection made out of //yava// but doesn' | ||
+ | * //3) Sattu:// any of the seven types of grain dried or roasted and pounded into meal. | ||
+ | * //4) Fish:// the flesh of any animal living in the water. | ||
+ | * //5) Meat:// the flesh of any animal living on land, except for that which is unallowable. Because the Kommentar, in discussing unallowable meat, uses the word //meat// to cover all parts of an animal' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The following types of meat are unallowable: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar adds three comments here: These prohibitions cover not only the meat of these animals but also their blood, bones, skin, and hide (the layer of tissue just under the skin — see [[de: | ||
+ | |||
+ | To eat human flesh entails a thullaccaya; | ||
+ | |||
+ | Fish or meat, even if of an allowable kind, is unallowable if raw. Thus bhikkhus may not eat steak tartare, sashimi, oysters on the half-shell, raw eggs, caviar, etc. (Raw flesh and blood are allowed at Mv.VI.10.2 only when one is possessed by non-human beings (!)) Furthermore, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-staple foods** are defined according to context: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a) in [[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * b) in [[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * c) in [[bmc1.ch08-5# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar to [[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar also acknowledges that some societies use roots, tubers, confections made out of flour, etc., as staple foods, but it nowhere suggests that the definition of staple food be altered to fit the society in which one is living. However — because eggs come under meat — any bread, pastries, noodles, and pasta made with eggs are staple foods. Thus in the West we are left with a somewhat zigzag line separating what are and are not staple foods for the purposes of the rules: Meal pounded from grain is a staple; flour ground from grain is not. Bread made with oat meal, corn meal, wheat germ, etc., would thus be a staple; bread made without any grain meal or eggs would not. The same holds true for pastries, noodles, and pasta. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This means that it would be possible for a donor to provide bhikkhus with a full, strictly vegetarian meal that would include absolutely no staple foods. A wise policy in such a case, though, would be to treat the meal as if it did contain staple foods with reference to the rules ([[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | Conjey, the watery rice porridge or gruel commonly drunk before alms round in the time of the Buddha, is classed differently according to context. If it is so thick that it cannot be drunk and must be eaten with a spoon, it is regarded as a staple food (Mv.VI.25.7; | ||
+ | |||
+ | Mv.VI.34.21 contains an allowance for the five products of the cow: milk, curds, buttermilk, butter, and ghee. The Kommentar mentions that each of these five may be taken separately — i.e., the allowance does not mean that all five must be taken together. Milk and curds are classed as "finer staple foods" under [[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | One of the ten disputed points that led to the convening of the Second Council was the issue of whether thin sour milk — milk that has passed the state of being milk but not yet arrived at the state of being buttermilk — would count inside or outside the general category of staple/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | In addition to staple and non-staple foods, the Vibhaṅga to the rules in this chapter mentions three other classes of edibles: juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Juice drinks** include the freshly squeezed juice of sugar cane, water lily root, all fruits except grain, all leaves except cooked greens, and all flowers except liquorice (Mv.VI.35.6). The way the allowance for juice drinks is phrased — fruits, leaves, and flowers are mentioned as a class, whereas canes and roots are not — suggests that the Great Standards should not be used to extend the allowance for sugar cane juice and water lily root juice to include the juice from other canes or roots. | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the Kommentar, the juice must be strained and may be warmed by sunlight but not heated over a fire. What category boiled juice would fit under, the Kommentar does not say. As we noted under [[bmc1.ch07-3# | ||
+ | |||
+ | In discussing the Great Standards, the Kommentar says that grain is a "great fruit," | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the Kommentar, allowable leaf-juice drinks include juice squeezed from leaves that are considered food — such as lettuce, spinach, or beet greens — as well as from leaves that are classed as medicines. Health drinks such as wheat grass juice would thus be allowable. Leaf-juice may be mixed with cold water and/or warmed in the sunlight. The prohibition against consuming the juice from cooked vegetables in the afternoon covers all cooked leaves that are considered food, as well as any medicinal leaves cooked in liquids that are classed as food, such as milk. Medicinal leaves cooked in pure water retain their classification as medicines. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar notes further that if a bhikkhu himself makes any of the juice drinks, he may consume it only before noon. If the juice is made by a non-bhikkhu and formally offered before noon, one may " | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The five tonics** are discussed in detail under [[bmc1.ch07-3# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Medicines.** According to the Mahāvagga (VI.3.1-8), any items in the six following categories that, by themselves, are not used as staple or non-staple food are medicines: roots, astringent decoctions, leaves, fruits, resins, and salts. For example, under fruits: Oranges and apples are not medicines, but pepper, nutmeg, and cardamom are. Most modern medicines would fit under the category of salts. Using the Great Standards, we can say that any edible that is used as a medicine but does not fit under the categories of staple or non-staple food, juice drinks, or the five tonics, would fit here. (For a full discussion of medicines, see [[..: | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Keeping and consuming.** Each of the four basic classes of edibles — food, juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines — has its "life span," the period during which it may be kept and consumed. Food may be kept and consumed until noon of the day it is received; juice drinks, until dawnrise of the following day; the five tonics, until dawnrise of the seventh day after they are received; and medicines, for the remainder of one's life. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Mixed foods.** Edibles made from mixed ingredients that have different life spans — e.g., salted beef, honeyed cough syrup, sugared orange juice — have the same life span as the ingredient with the shortest life span. Thus salted beef is treated as beef, honeyed cough syrup as honey, and sugared orange juice as orange juice (Mv.VI.40.3). According to the Kommentar, //mixing// here means thorough intermingling. Thus, it says, if fruit juice has a whole, unhusked coconut floating in it, the coconut may be removed, and the juice is all right to drink until the following dawnrise. If butter is placed on top of rice porridge, the part of the butter that hasn't melted into the rice may be kept and eaten for seven days. If items with different life spans are all presented at the same time, they maintain their separate life spans as long as they don't interpenetrate one another. Not all Communities, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Mv.VI.40.3, the passage underlying these rulings, can be translated as follows (replacing the formal terms for categories of food with the primary examples of each category): | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div excerpt> | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Translated in this way, the passage covers foods that are already mixed when presented to a bhikkhu. One of the general issues that led to the convening of the Second Council, however, concerned how to treat cases where foods received separately are then mixed by a bhikkhu. The specific issue presented to the Council was that of bhikkhus who kept a horn filled with salt so that they could add salt to bland foods. The Council' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar, in treating the issue of foods mixed by a bhikkhu, translates Mv.VI.40.3 as follows: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div excerpt> | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | The question the Kommentar then raises is, "Why is the word 'that day' (// | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So staying on and on right there, they ate the food of the public alms center. The members of other religions fled the place. People criticized and complained and spread it about: 'How can these Sakyan-son monks stay on and on, eating the food of the public alms center? The food at the public alms center isn't prepared just for them; it's prepared for absolutely everybody.'"</ | ||
+ | |||
+ | A //public alms center// is a place — in a building, under the shade of a tree, or in the open air — where all comers are offered as much food as they want, free of charge. Soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless, if run in this way, would fit under this rule. A //meal// is defined as one that includes any of the five staple foods. //Not ill// in this rule is defined as being able to leave the alms center. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The origin story seems to indicate that this rule is directed against staying on and eating day after day in the alms center. The Kommentar, though, maintains that it forbids eating in the center two days running, without making any mention of whether the bhikkhu stays on at the center or not. To eat one day in a center belonging to one family (or group) and the next day in a center belonging to another group, it says, entails no penalty. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perception as to whether one is actually ill is not a mitigating factor here (see [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense in taking a meal on the second day — | ||
+ | |||
+ | * if it does not include any of the five staple foods; | ||
+ | * if one is invited by the proprietors; | ||
+ | * if one is ill; | ||
+ | * if the food is specifically intended for bhikkhus (§); or | ||
+ | * if the center determines the amount of food the recipients may take, rather than allowing them to take as much as they want (§). The reason for this last allowance is that if the owners of the center were unhappy with having a bhikkhu eat there, they could give him very little or nothing at all. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Also, there is no offense in taking a second meal when " | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is a rule dating from Devadatta' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div excerpt> | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Group meals.** The Vibhaṅga defines a //group meal// as one consisting of any of the five types of staple foods to which four or more bhikkhus are invited. Pv.VI.2 adds that this rule covers any group meal that the donor offers at his/her own initiative, as well as any that results from a bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the early days of the Buddha' | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) designated meals,// at which a certain number of bhikkhus were to be served. The donors would ask the Community official in charge of meal distribution — the meal designator (// | ||
+ | * //2) invitational meals,// to which specific bhikkhus were invited; | ||
+ | * //3) lottery meals,// for which the bhikkhus receiving the meals were to be chosen by lot; and | ||
+ | * //4) periodic meals,// i.e., meals offered at regular intervals, such as every day or every uposatha day, to which bhikkhus were to be sent on a rotating basis, as with designated meals. The meal designator was to supervise the drawing of lots and keep track of the various rotating schedules. (The explanations of these various types of meal come partly from the Kommentar. For a fuller explanation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The non-offense clauses to this rule state that in addition to the exceptions mentioned in the rule, which we will discuss below, this rule does not apply to lottery meals or periodic meals. The Kommentar concludes from this — and on the surface it seems reasonable enough — that the rule thus applies to meals to which the entire Community is invited and to invitational meals. (Buddhaghosa reports that there was disagreement among Vinaya authorities as to whether it applies to designated meals — more on this point below.) | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Buddha' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Two other arguments against the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) The Vibhaṅga' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * 2) In the origin stories of two of the reformulations of the rule, bhikkhus refuse invitations on the grounds that they would break the rule against a group meal, and yet the invitations make no mention of " | ||
+ | |||
+ | **An alternative interpretation.** To find an alternative to the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | His reasoning has its grounds in the Vinaya itself: Throughout the Vibhaṅga and Khandhakas, the word //group// is used to refer to any set of bhikkhus not forming a complete Community and yet acting as an independent unit. This may be why the category of Community meal was not mentioned in the non-offense clauses: The arrangers of the Vibhaṅga may have felt that no mention was necessary, in that the term //group// meal automatically excluded Community meals. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Similar considerations suggest that designated meals may also be exempted from this rule even though they are not mentioned in the non-offense clauses. Invitations to such meals were customarily worded as requests for so-and-so many bhikkhus "from the Community," | ||
+ | |||
+ | Because invitations to lottery meals and periodic meals did not customarily make reference to the Community, the Vibhaṅga arrangers did have to make mention of those types of meals in order to exempt them. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //We are left with a rule that applies exclusively to invitations to specific groups — not Communities — of four or more bhikkhus regardless of whether the invitation mentions the word " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The rule in this form has the virtue of fulfilling the express purposes mentioned for it in Cv.VII.3.13: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The rule in this form would also contribute to the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus in that invitations to meals would not be preempted by factions; and it would protect lay families from being prey to the maneuverings of bhikkhus who would pressure them repeatedly into providing meals as part of their strategy to create and maintain such factions. (Anyone who has lived in a traditional Buddhist country knows only too well the influence of sweet-talking bhikkhus over unsuspecting or low-minded lay people. This sort of thing neither started nor ended with Devadatta.) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Because Community meals and designated meals would not form an opening for such machinations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Thus the point at issue is not whether the invitation makes mention of food or meals, but whether it specifies the individual bhikkhus to be invited.// If it specifies more than three individual bhikkhus — either naming them outright or saying such things as "Ven. X and four of his friends," | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perception as to whether food actually constitutes a group meal is not a mitigating factor (see [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** To accept an invitation to a group meal entails a dukkaṭa; and to eat it, regardless of whether one realizes that it is a group meal, a pācittiya. Whether the bhikkhus actually eat together is not an issue. If they receive their food at the same invitation to a group meal but then split up and eat it separately, they still incur the full penalty. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** The Vibhaṅga defines the //proper occasions// mentioned in the rule — during which bhikkhus may eat a group meal without committing an offense — as follows: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //A time of giving cloth// is the "robe season." | ||
+ | * //A time of making robes// is any time the bhikkhus are making robes. | ||
+ | * //A time of journeying// | ||
+ | * //A time of embarking on a boat// is any time the bhikkhus are about to embark, are embarking, or are disembarking from a boat. No minimum distance for the boat journey is specified. | ||
+ | * //A time of illness// is, in its minimal terms, a time when the bhikkhus' | ||
+ | * //A great occasion// is one in which there are so many bhikkhus in proportion to the donors giving alms that three bhikkhus going for alms can obtain enough food to support themselves, but not enough to support a fourth. | ||
+ | * //A meal supplied by monks// is one provided by a person who has taken on the state of religious wanderer. This the Kommentar explains as meaning not only those ordained in other religions, but also one's own co-religionists (bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Aside from the proper occasions, there is no offense — | ||
+ | |||
+ | * if groups of three or less eat a meal to which they have been specifically invited; | ||
+ | * if the meal to which a group of four or more is invited does not include any of the five staple foods; or | ||
+ | * if bhikkhus, having walked separately for alms, eat assembled as a group. | ||
+ | |||
+ | No mention is made of whether bhikkhus can go for alms in groups of four or more, as is the custom at present in the rural areas of many Buddhist countries. From the various stories of bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs on alms round that appear in the Canon, it seems that the custom was for them to go individually. [[bmc1.ch08-5# | ||
+ | |||
+ | As mentioned above, the Vibhaṅga also states that there is no offense for groups of any number eating periodic meals or lottery meals; and as we have already stated, our interpretation would explicitly extend this exemption to cover Community and designated meals as well. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Then the laborer went to the Blessed One, bowed down to him, sat down to one side, and said, ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So the Blessed One acquiesced by becoming silent... The bhikkhus heard, ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So the poor laborer criticized and complained and spread it about: 'How can their reverences eat elsewhere when they were invited by me? Am I not capable of giving them as much as they want?'"</ | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** The term // | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perception as to whether food actually constitutes an out-of-turn meal is not a mitigating factor (see [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The Vibhaṅga states that there is a dukkaṭa for accepting — with the thought of eating it — food that will constitute an out-of-turn meal, and a pācittiya for every mouthful eaten. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Proper times.** The special occasions when one may accept and eat an out-of-turn meal are defined as follows: | ||
+ | |||
+ | //A time of illness// is when one is unable to eat enough at one sitting and so has to eat two or more times in a morning. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //The times of giving cloth// and //making robes// are defined as in the preceding rule. The reason for exempting them is that in the days of the Buddha, cloth and thread were hard to come by, and donors who wanted to offer them usually did so in conjunction with a meal. If these exemptions were not made, a bhikkhu making a robe, having already been invited to one meal, could not go to another meal beforehand to receive the cloth or thread offered there. | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is reason to believe that these three exemptions apply to out-of-turn meals of the type mentioned in the origin story: i.e., a bhikkhu is allowed in these cases to go to another meal before attending the meal to which he was originally invited. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Sharing invitations.** As for the sort of out-of-turn meal where a bhikkhu invited to one meal goes to another meal instead, the Buddha in a story ancillary to this rule gives permission to share invitations: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar regards the act of sharing as a mere formality: One may even make the statement outside of the other bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vinaya-mukha adds, though, that if the donors of the meal have specifically invited one to a meal — i.e., one is going to an invitational meal rather than a designated meal (see [[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** In addition to mentioning the " | ||
+ | |||
+ | An alternative explanation for the statement, "I will go for alms," is that there is no offense if the bhikkhu lets the donor know beforehand that he will go for alms before the meal: He can have his alms meal first and then go to receive the meal offered by the donor. This would make room for the custom common in village monasteries throughout Theravādin countries, where invitations are usually for the late-morning meal, and bhikkhus are expected to have an early-morning alms meal before that. (If this interpretation does not hold, most village bhikkhus would then probably claim a perpetual "time of illness" | ||
+ | |||
+ | Meals that do not include any of the five staple foods are also exempted from this rule. Thus if one is invited to a meal and takes a snack of milk, drinking conjey, fruit, etc., beforehand, this would not constitute an offense — although to be in keeping with the spirit of the rule, one should not take so much as to spoil one's appetite for the meal. | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is no offense if, when invited to more than one meal on the same day, one goes to them in the order in which one received the invitations (but see [[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar, in discussing this point, mentions a situation that often occurs where there are very few bhikkhus in proportion to the number of donors: A bhikkhu has been invited to a meal but, before he leaves the monastery to go to the meal, another group of donors arrives with food to place in his bowl; or after he arrives at the home of the original donor, another group of donors arrives with still more food. According to the Kommentar he may accept the food of these various donors as long as he is careful — when he finally eats — to take his first mouthful from the food offered by the original donor. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Periodic meals and lottery meals do not count as out-of-turn meals under this rule. The Canon offers no explanation for these last two exemptions, but the Kommentar to Cullavagga VI.21 shows that the custom was for many families to prepare such meals on the same day. This exemption would thus seem to provide for the situation where there are fewer bhikkhus than there are families preparing these meals. One bhikkhu would be allowed to accept more than one meal so that no family' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Mv.VI.25.7 implies that if the donor of the meal provides a pre-meal snack of thick conjey — or by extension any other staple food — there would be no offense in eating it. And the Kommentar notes that if the donor gives explicit permission to eat another meal before the one he/she is providing, there would be no offense in doing so. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | The purpose of this rule is to prevent bhikkhus from abusing a donor' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The origin story deals with two separate cases. In the first, a woman named Kāṇā is about to return to her husband' | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the second case, a man is preparing provisions for a journey by caravan. A similar series of events takes place, and he eventually ends up tagging along behind the caravan and getting robbed. People criticize and complain as usual, and spread it about, "How can these Sakyan-son monks accept food without knowing moderation?" | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are two factors for the full offense here. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Effort:// Receiving more than three bowlfuls | ||
+ | * //2) Object:// of cakes or cooked grain-meal (// | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** Receiving, here, is defined in the context of an invitation to take as much as one likes. Perception as to whether one has taken more than three bowlfuls is not a mitigating factor here (see [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** In the context of this rule, the Vibhaṅga defines //cakes// to cover anything prepared as a present, and //cooked grain-meal// | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vinaya-mukha, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Protocol.** If a bhikkhu has accepted two or three bowlfuls of such items, then on his return from there he should tell every bhikkhu he sees, "I accepted two or three bowlfuls over there. Don't you accept anything there." | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar states further that a bhikkhu receiving two or three bowlfuls may keep one bowlful and do as he likes with it, but must share the remainder among an entire Community, i.e., not just among his friends. A bhikkhu receiving only one bowlful may do with it as he likes . | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense in taking more than three bowlfuls of items not intended as presents or provisions, of items left over from preparing presents or provisions, or of provisions remaining when plans for a journey have been abandoned. As explained above, the Vinaya-mukha would include items prepared for sale or for parties, etc., under the word // | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga also says that there is no penalty in accepting more than three bowlfuls from relatives or from those who have offered an invitation. Here the Kommentar states that if such people give more than three bowlfuls outright, one may accept them without penalty, but if they tell one to take as much as one likes from items prepared as presents or provisions, the proper course is to take only two or three bowlfuls. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Also, there is no offense in having more than three bowlfuls of presents or provisions purchased with one's own resources. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Finally, the Vibhaṅga says that there is no offense in taking extra for the sake of another. Neither the Kommentar nor Sub-commentary discusses this point, but the only way it can make sense in the context of this rule is if it refers to cases where the bhikkhu takes extra for the sake of another not on his own initiative, but because the donor asks him to. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Then the brahman said to his neighbors, ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "They said, ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So the brahman criticized and complained and spread it about, 'How can their reverences, having eaten in my home, eat elsewhere? Am I not capable of giving as much as they want?'"</ | ||
+ | |||
+ | When a donor invited bhikkhus for a meal, the custom in the time of the Buddha was for him/her to offer food to the bhikkhus repeatedly while they ate, and to stop only when the supplies of food were exhausted or the bhikkhus refused any further offers. (This custom is still widespread in Sri Lanka and Burma.) Thus it was often a matter of pride among donors that their supplies were not easily exhausted and that they could continue offering food until the bhikkhus were completely satisfied and could eat no more. Now, where there is pride there is bound to be wounded pride: A donor could easily feel insulted if bhikkhus refused further offers of food, finished their meal, and then went to eat someplace else. | ||
+ | |||
+ | As the origin story shows, this rule is designed to protect generous donors from being insulted by the bhikkhus in this way. It is also designed to protect bhikkhus from being forced to go hungry by stingy or impoverished donors. If the donor stops offering food before the bhikkhus have refused further offers — or if what he/she offers is not substantial food at all (see the discussion under [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are two factors for an offense here. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Object:// staple or non-staple food that is not leftover. | ||
+ | * //2) Effort:// One eats the food after having eaten and turned down an offer of further food. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Before explaining these factors, we must first explain the situation of having eaten and turned down an offer of further food. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Having eaten** (// | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) If //having eaten// means having taken one's first bite of a meal, then the word serves no purpose in the rule, because the first factor of " | ||
+ | * 2) A more practical problem coming from the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Sub-commentary gets around the first problem by interpreting //having eaten// as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | As the Kommentar itself notes when discussing the term //asana,// the point where one finishes eating is determined in one of two ways: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a) There is no food left in one's bowl, hand, or mouth; or | ||
+ | * b) one decides that one has had enough for that particular meal. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus, as long as the bhikkhu has not yet finished the donor' | ||
+ | |||
+ | But once he no longer has any food in his bowl, hand, or mouth, or has decided that he has had enough for that particular meal, he fulfills the factor of " | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Turning down an offer of further food.** The Vibhaṅga defines this as an act with five factors: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) The bhikkhu is eating. | ||
+ | * 2) There is further staple food. | ||
+ | * 3) The donor is standing within // | ||
+ | * 4) He/she offers the food. | ||
+ | * 5) The bhikkhu turns it down. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar adds that if the bhikkhu has finished eating before the further food is offered, factor (1) is not fulfilled, so if he turns down the food he does not fall under the terms of this rule. Similarly, if the food in factor (2) is not a staple food — e.g., if it is fruit, chocolates, or cheese — or if it is staple food of a sort unallowable for a bhikkhu to eat — e.g., it has been offered as a result of a bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Factor (5) is fulfilled by any refusal made by word or gesture. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Cv.VI.10.1 states that when a senior bhikkhu makes a junior bhikkhu get up from his seat before the latter has finished his meal, the senior bhikkhu counts as having turned down an offer of further food (§). In other words, when the senior bhikkhu then finishes his own meal, he comes under the purview of this rule as well. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Staple & non-staple food.** //Staple food,// here, follows the standard definition. // | ||
+ | |||
+ | Leftover food is of two sorts: (1) leftover from a sick bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) The food is allowable. | ||
+ | * 2) It has been formally received by any bhikkhu except Bhikkhu Y. | ||
+ | * 3) Bhikkhu X lifts it up in the presence of Bhikkhu Y. | ||
+ | * 4) Bhikkhu Y is within hatthapāsa of X. | ||
+ | * 5) Bhikkhu Y has finished his meal. | ||
+ | * 6) Bhikkhu Y has not yet gotten up from the seat where he has finished his meal and turned down an offer of further food; and | ||
+ | * 7) he says, "All that is enough (in Pali: // | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar notes under step (3) that X may either offer the food to Y or simply lift it up, even slightly. It goes on to say that any bhikkhu except Bhikkhu Y may eat the food formally made leftover in this way. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Both of these allowances for leftover food are designed to prevent food's going to waste. The first needs no explanation; | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** If a bhikkhu who, having eaten and turned down an offer of further food, is presented with staple or non-staple food that is not leftover — e.g., a snack of milk or ice cream — he incurs a dukkaṭa if he accepts it with the thought of eating it, and a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats. | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the Vibhaṅga, perception as to whether the food is actually leftover is not a mitigating factor here (see [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** There is no offense — | ||
+ | |||
+ | * if a bhikkhu accepts the food and takes it for the sake of another, | ||
+ | * if he accepts and eats leftover food, or | ||
+ | * if, having a reason, he later in the day accepts and consumes juice drinks, any of the five tonics, or medicine. According to the Kommentar, //having a reason// means, in the case of juice drinks, being thirsty; and in the case of the tonics and medicine, suffering from an illness that they are meant to assuage. (As we have noted under [[bmc1.ch07-3# | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the Mahāvagga (VI.18.4, VI.19.2, VI.20.4), this rule was relaxed during times of famine so that a bhikkhu who had eaten and turned down an offer of further food could later in the day consume food that was not leftover: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * if it was accepted before he went to his meal, | ||
+ | * if it is brought back from a place where a meal has been offered, or | ||
+ | * if it has been taken from a wilderness area or a pond. The texts offer no explanation for this last stipulation. Perhaps, during famines, these were places where people would commonly forage for food. | ||
+ | |||
+ | These famine allowances were later rescinded (Mv.VI.32.2), | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Now at that time one of the guilds in Sāvatthī presented a Community meal. The second bhikkhu finished his meal, having turned down an offer of further food. The bhikkhu with the grudge, having gone to his relatives and bringing back almsfood, went to the second bhikkhu and on arrival said to him, 'Here, friend, have some of this.' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So the second bhikkhu, being pressured by the first, ate the almsfood. Then the bhikkhu with the grudge said to him, 'You think // | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | This rule covers cases in which one bhikkhu, knowingly and wishing to find fault, offers food to another bhikkhu in order to trick him into committing an offense under the preceding rule. The full offense here requires a full set of five factors. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Object// staple or non-staple food that one perceives not to be leftover. | ||
+ | * //2) Effort:// One gives the food to a bhikkhu who has eaten and turned down an offer of further food, as under the preceding rule. | ||
+ | * //3) Perception:// | ||
+ | * //4) Intention:// | ||
+ | * //5) Result:// He accepts the food and eats from it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Only four of these factors — object, perception, intention, and result — require further explanation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** //Staple food// and // | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Perception.** If one is in doubt as to whether a bhikkhu has eaten and turned down an offer of further food, he is grounds for a dukkaṭa regardless of whether he has. If one thinks that he has eaten and turned down an offer of further food when he actually hasn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Intention.** //Wishing to find fault,// according to the Vibhaṅga, means planning to reprove or reprimand the bhikkhu or to make him abashed after one has succeeded in tricking him into breaking the preceding rule. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Result.** Bhikkhu X, in giving food to Bhikkhu Y " | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** There is no offense — | ||
+ | |||
+ | * if one gives leftover food for the other bhikkhu to eat; | ||
+ | * if one gives him food for the sake of another; or | ||
+ | * if one gives him juice drinks, any of the five tonics, or medicines when he has a reason to take them. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the case of the second exemption — one gives him food for the sake of another — none of the texts mention the point, but it would seem to hold only in cases where the other bhikkhu is ill or has not eaten and turned down an offer of further food. | ||
+ | |||
+ | None of the texts make any mention of a bhikkhu trying to trick another bhikkhu into committing an offense under any rule other than [[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** //Staple food// here follows the standard definition given in the preface to this chapter. // | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The wrong time.** The Vibhaṅga defines the //wrong time// as from noon until dawnrise of the following day. (See [[bmc1.ch12# | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perception as to whether one is eating at the wrong time or the right time is not a mitigating factor here (see [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The verbs //chew// and //consume// in the Pali of this rule are the verbs normally paired, respectively, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar generally defines eating as going down the throat, but a passage from the Cullavagga (V.25) suggests otherwise. In it, the Buddha allows a ruminator who brings up food to his mouth at the "wrong time" to swallow it, and ends with the statement: "But food that has been brought out from the mouth should not be taken back in. Whoever should take it in is to be dealt with according to the rule (i.e., this rule and the following one)." This suggests, then, that eating is technically defined as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Offenses.** The Vibhaṅga says that a bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa when, intending to eat it, he accepts staple or non-staple food. The question is, is the dukkaṭa only for accepting the food in the wrong time, or is it also for accepting food in the right time, intending to eat it in the wrong time? The Vibhaṅga doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | No exception is granted to an ill bhikkhu, because there are a number of edibles an ill bhikkhu may consume at the wrong time without involving an offense: juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicines. Also, there is an allowance in Mv.VI.14.7 for a bhikkhu who has taken a purgative to take strained meat broth, strained rice broth, or strained green gram (mung bean) broth at any time of the day. Using the Great Standards, we may say that a bhikkhu who has a similar illness or worse may take these broths at any time; and some have argued that other bean broths — such as strained broth made from boiled soybeans — would fit under the category of green gram broth as well. However, unlike the case with the five tonics, mere hunger or fatigue would not seem to count as sufficient reasons for taking any of these substances in the wrong time. | ||
+ | |||
+ | A substance termed // | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** There is no offense if, having a reason, one consumes juice drinks, any of the five tonics, medicine, or water after noon or before dawnrise. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is one of the few rules where the original instigator was an arahant: Ven. Beḷaṭṭhasīsa, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Another possible reason for this rule is expressed in [[de: | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** //Staple food// here, as usual, follows the standard definition given in the preface to this chapter. // | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perception as to whether food has been stored up is not a mitigating factor here (see [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The story of the Second Council (Cv.XII.2.8) shows that this rule also forbids storing such medicines as salt (or pepper, vinegar, etc.) to add to any bland food one might receive on a later day. (See the discussion preceding [[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar contains an allowance of its own, saying that, "If a bhikkhu without desire (for the food) abandons it to a novice, and the novice, having stored it (overnight) gives it (again), that is all allowable. If, however, he has received it himself and has not abandoned it, it is not proper on the second day." This allowance raises two main questions, the first being how to interpret it. Some, focusing on the second sentence to the exclusion of the first, have noticed that it makes no mention of the presence or absence of any desire for the food, and so have interpreted it as meaning that the issue of desire is totally irrelevant: If one has not given the food to a non-bhikkhu, | ||
+ | |||
+ | This, however, begs the second question, which is what justification the Kommentar has for making the allowance. There is no basis for it in the Vibhaṅga' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The Vibhaṅga says that there is a dukkaṭa "if one accepts/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perception is not a factor here. Thus, a bhikkhu who eats stored-up food commits an offense regardless of whether he perceives it as stored-up. This means — | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) If Bhikkhu X receives the food on one day and lets someone else put it away, and Bhikkhu Y eats it on a later day, Y commits an offense all the same, regardless of whether he knows that the food was stored-up. | ||
+ | * 2) One should be careful that there are no traces of any edible received yesterday on a utensil from which one will eat food today. The protocols a student should follow with regard to his preceptor (// | ||
+ | * 3) In a monastery where there are lay and novice attendants, it is important that they be fully informed of the need to make sure that leftovers from the bhikkhus' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Derived offenses.** If a bhikkhu accepts or takes, for the sake of food, a juice drink, a tonic, or medicine that has been stored overnight, there is a dukkaṭa in the taking, and another dukkaṭa for every mouthful he eats. The Kommentar, though, asserts that when a bhikkhu takes, not for food but simply to assuage his thirst, a juice drink stored overnight, he incurs a pācittiya for every swallow he drinks. | ||
+ | |||
+ | It seems strange that drinking the juice simply as juice would entail a stronger penalty than taking it as food. As there is no basis anywhere in the Canon for the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** There is no offense in the mere act of storing food. A bhikkhu going on a journey with an unordained person may thus carry the latter' | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is also no offense in telling an unordained person to store food that has not been formally received. For example, if donors simply leave food at a bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, Mv.VI.33.2 states that food may be stored indoors in a monastery only in a building designated for the purpose (this would include the dwelling of anyone who is not a bhikkhu — see [[..: | ||
+ | |||
+ | If a bhikkhu accepts, sets aside, and then eats any of the four kinds of edibles all within their permitted time periods — e.g., he receives bread in the morning, sets it aside, and then eats it before that noon; or receives honey today, sets it aside, and takes it as a tonic tomorrow — there is no offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This rule makes no exceptions for a bhikkhu who is ill, although the rule as a whole is suspended when there is scarcity and famine, and reinstated when the scarcity and famine have passed (Mv.VI.17-20; | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga defines //finer staple foods// as any of the nine foods mentioned in the rule, either on their own or mixed with other foods. Thus milk and milk-mixed-with-cereal would both be finer staple foods. The ancient commentators, | ||
+ | |||
+ | As we have seen, though, the Vibhaṅga defines its terms to fit the situation covered by each particular rule and is not always consistent from one rule to another. Thus, as the Vibhaṅga is not at fault for being inconsistent here, there is no reason to follow the Kommentar in deviating from it. The rule means what it says: It covers each of the foods mentioned in it, whether pure or mixed with other ingredients. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The first five of these finer staple foods are discussed in detail under [[bmc1.ch07-3# | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the Kommentar, any food other than these nine finer staple foods is grounds for a dukkaṭa under [[bmc1.ch10# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** A bhikkhu who is not ill, requesting any of the finer staple foods for his own use, incurs a dukkaṭa for every request he makes, a dukkaṭa for accepting the food, and a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Not ill// means that one is able to fare comfortably without these foods. None of the texts go into detail on this point, but //ill// probably means something more than simply being hungry, for there is a separate allowance under [[bmc1.ch10# | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perception as to whether one is actually ill is not a mitigating factor here (see [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar adds that if a bhikkhu asks for one kind of finer staple food but receives another kind instead, he incurs the dukkaṭa for asking, but no penalty for accepting and eating what he gets. It also notes that when a bhikkhu asks a lay person for any of the finer staple foods, and the lay person makes a donation of money to the bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** There is no offense: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * in asking for food — any kind of food — when one is ill, and then eating it, even if one has recovered in the meantime (§); | ||
+ | * in eating food that has been requested for the sake of an ill bhikkhu and is leftover after his meal; | ||
+ | * in asking from relatives; | ||
+ | * in asking from those who have offered an invitation to ask; | ||
+ | * in asking for the sake of another person; or | ||
+ | * in asking that food be bought with one's own resources. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Also, according to the Meṇḍaka Allowance (Mv.VI.34.21), | ||
+ | |||
+ | None of the texts mention any permission for the bhikkhu, after he has searched for the provisions, to store them longer than usual or to cook them in any way. Apparently, they expect him to arrange for an unordained person — or people — to accept the provisions and be responsible for their storage and preparation while on the road. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div excerpt> | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are two factors for the full offense here: object and effort. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** An //edible// is whatever is fit to eat, and includes all four classes of food and medicine: staple and non-staple foods, juice drinks, the five tonics, and medicine. As the rule notes, however, there are two exceptions: | ||
+ | |||
+ | //1) Water,// according to the Kommentar, includes ice, hailstones, and snow as well. Whether such things as boiled water, bottled water, and man-made ice should also come under this exception is a controversial point. Because the texts offer no specific guidance here, this is an area where the wise policy is to follow the dictates of one's Community. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //2) Tooth-cleaning sticks,// as used in the time of the Buddha, were semi-edible. They were sticks of soft wood, like balsam, cut four to eight fingerbreadths long, chewed until they were reduced to fiber and spat out. People in India still use tooth-cleaning sticks of this sort even today. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Here again there is a controversy as to whether toothpaste comes under this exception as well. On the one hand it fits in with the pattern for tooth-cleaning sticks — it is semi-edible and not intended to be swallowed — but on the other hand it contains substances, such as mineral salts, that the Canon classes as medicines (Mv.VI.8) and that are meant to have medicinal value for the teeth and gums. This second consideration would seem to override the first, as it is a question of following what is explicitly laid out in the Canon, rather than of applying the Great Standards. Thus the wise policy would seem to be to regard toothpaste as a medicine that has to be formally given before it can be used, and not as coming under this exception. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //The act of giving// food and other edibles, as described in the Vibhaṅga, has three factors: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) The donor (an unordained person) is standing within reach — one hatthapāsa, | ||
+ | * 2) He/she gives the item with the body (e.g., the hand), with something in contact with the body (e.g., a spoon), or by means of letting go. According to the Kommentar, //letting go// means releasing from the body or something in contact with the body — e.g., dropping from the hand or a spoon — and refers to such cases as when a donor drops or tosses something into a bhikkhu' | ||
+ | * 3) The bhikkhu receives the item with the body or with something in contact with the body (e.g., his bowl, a piece of cloth). | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is a tradition in Thailand that a bhikkhu should never receive an offering from a woman hand-to-hand. Either she must offer it with something in contact with her body (e.g., a tray) or the bhikkhu must accept it with something in contact with his: an alms bowl, a tray, a piece of cloth, etc. Apparently this tradition arose as a means of protecting a sexually aroused bhikkhu from committing an offense under [[bmc1.ch05# | ||
+ | |||
+ | A special allowance in the Cullavagga (V.26) states that if food accidentally falls while being offered, a bhikkhu may pick it up himself and eat it without committing an offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perception as to whether the food has actually been formally given is not a mitigating factor in the full offense here (see [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** Regardless of whether the bhikkhu incurs a dukkaṭa in the act of taking food that hasn't been properly given, the Vibhaṅga states that he incurs a pācittiya for every mouthful he eats. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** There is an allowance (Mv.VI.17.8-9; | ||
+ | |||
+ | Mv.VI.14.6 allows a bhikkhu bitten by a snake to make an antidote of urine, excrement (burned in fire), ashes, and soil. If there is no unordained person present who can or will make these things allowable, the bhikkhu may take and prepare them himself, and then eat them without incurring a penalty under this rule. The Kommentar adds that if he cuts a tree under these circumstances to burn it, or digs the earth to get soil, he is exempt from the rules dealing with those actions as well. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **// | ||
+ | |||
+ | **1. Taking into the mouth** is defined as going down the throat. As we have already noted under [[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **2. Food.** Pond water so muddy that it leaves a scum on the hand or on the mouth is considered to be food, and so must be given before it can be drunk. The same holds true with water into which so many leaves or flowers have fallen that their taste is discernible in the water. For some reason, though, water that has been scented with flowers need not be given, and the same is true with water taken from a stream or river no matter how muddy. (There is a belief still current in India and other parts of Asia that flowing water is inherently clean.) Although leaves and flowers technically do count as edibles — they are classed as non-staple foods or medicines, depending on one's purpose in eating them — the idea of counting mud and scum as edibles seems to be taking the concept of edible a little too far. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If tooth wood is chewed for the sake of its juice, it must first be given. Even if one is chewing it for the sake of cleaning the teeth but accidentally swallows the juice, one has committed an offense all the same. These two opinions have no basis in the Canon, inasmuch as intention is not a factor in determining the offense under this rule. | ||
+ | |||
+ | A long section of this treatise discusses what to do if things that are not given get into food that has been given. It concludes that they must be removed from the food or the food must be given again. If the items "not given" are edibles, this seems reasonable enough, but the Kommentar extends the concept to include such things as dust, dirty rain water, rust from a knife, beads of sweat dropping from one's brow, etc. Again, this seems to be taking the concept too far, for the Vibhaṅga states clearly that the rule covers only those things generally considered as fit to eat. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **3. Giving.** The Kommentar redefines the act of giving, expanding its factors to five: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * (a) The item is such that a man of average stature can lift it. | ||
+ | * (b) The donor is within reach — 1.25 m. — of the bhikkhu. | ||
+ | * (c) He/she makes a gesture of offering the food. | ||
+ | * (d) The donor is a celestial being, a human being, or a common animal. | ||
+ | * (e) The bhikkhu receives the item with the body or with something in contact with the body. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Factor (a)// was included apparently to discourage the practice, still found in many places, of getting two or more men to present a table of food to a bhikkhu by lifting the entire table at once. The inclusion of this factor, though, has given rise to the assumption that the donor must lift the food a certain distance before handing it to the bhikkhu, but the Kommentar itself shows that this assumption is mistaken, for it states that if a small novice too weak to lift a pot of rice simply slides it along the table or floor onto a bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Factor (b)//: If any part of the donor' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Although the donor must be within reach, the food itself need not be. Thus if the donor places many vessels on a mat while the bhikkhu touches the mat with the intention of receiving them, all of the food is considered to be properly received as long as the donor is within reach of the bhikkhu. The same holds true if the donor places many vessels touching one another while the bhikkhu touches one of the vessels with the intention of receiving them all. (The factor of the bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Factor (c)// means that the donor cannot simply tell the bhikkhu to take the food being given. Rather, he/she should make a physical gesture of offering the food. In some Communities, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The question arises as to how much of a gesture is necessary for this factor to be fulfilled. In the West, if a donor brings a tray of food and stands in front of a bhikkhu, waiting for him to take some of the food, the fact that he/she stands there waiting would be considered enough of a gesture to show that the food is being given. If the bhikkhu were to demand more of a gesture than that, the donor would probably be offended. Because the opinions expressed in this section of the Kommentar are not necessarily normative, this is an area where one can make allowances for cultural norms. The essence of this factor would seem to be that a bhikkhu should not snatch food that a person happens to be carrying past him without showing any indication that he/she wants him to take the food. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Factor (d)// is not discussed by the Kommentar, although it is probably inspired by such stories as that of elephants offering lotus stalks to Ven. Moggallāna, | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Factor (e)//: The effort involved in receiving the item may be minimal indeed. In fact, the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Food placed in a bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **4. Taking food that has not been given.** To take food knowing that it has been improperly given or not given at all (here we are not talking about cases of stealing) is no offense if the bhikkhu has no intention of eating it. If, after he has set it down, the food is later " | ||
+ | |||
+ | To take food with the purpose of eating it, thinking that it has been properly given when in fact it hasn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | To take food with the purpose of eating it, knowing that it has not been properly given, entails a dukkaṭa, as stated in the Vibhaṅga. According to the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | If the first bhikkhu, instead of merely touching the food or its vessel, actually moves it from its place, then neither he nor any of the other bhikkhus may receive it. Thus if a donor brings a pot of stew to the monastery, and one of the bhikkhus, curious to see what is going to be offered that day, tilts the pot to peek inside, none of the bhikkhus may eat the food, and the donor must either give it to the novices and any attendants at the monastery, if there are any, throw it to the dogs, or take it home. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Many Communities do not accept the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is an area in which none of the texts gives an authoritative answer, and a wise policy is to adhere to the views of the Community in which one is living, as long as they fit into the framework provided by the Canon. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **5. When food becomes " | ||
+ | |||
+ | * (a) The original recipient undergoes a spontaneous sex change. | ||
+ | * (b) He dies. | ||
+ | * (c) He disrobes and becomes a lay person. | ||
+ | * (d) He becomes a low person. (According to the Sub-commentary, | ||
+ | * (e) He gives it to an unordained person. | ||
+ | * (f) He abandons it, having lost interest in it. | ||
+ | * (g) The item is stolen. (The Sub-commentary, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Of these seven instances, the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu with rice in his hand offers it to a novice: The rice remains " | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu places food in a vessel and, no longer interested in it, tells a novice to take it: The food is " | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu sets his bowl on a stand and tells a novice to take some rice from it. Assuming that the novice' | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu holding a stick of sugar cane tells a novice to cut off a piece from the other end: The remaining section is still " | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu places pieces of hardened molasses on a tray and tells other bhikkhus and novices to help themselves from the tray: If the bhikkhus and novices simply pick up their portions and take them, the remaining hardened molasses is still " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Sub-commentary explains this by saying that the novice picking up the molasses is thinking, "This is mine. I'll take it," then changes his mind, puts it down and then lays claim to another piece, and so on. Thus, only the pieces that the novice claims and then abandons in this way become " | ||
+ | |||
+ | This last example, when taken out of context, has led to the widespread view that food given to a bhikkhu becomes " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus in cases where the bhikkhu is not giving away the food and has not abandoned interest in it — and the unordained person is not stealing it — there is no reason to hold that " | ||
+ | |||
+ | These points from the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Still, as we have noted several times, the guidelines in the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div chapter> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div alphalist> | ||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.intro|Einleitung]] | [[bmc1.ch01|1]] | [[bmc1.ch02|2]] | [[bmc1.ch03|3]] | [[bmc1.ch04|4]] | [[bmc1.ch05|5]] | [[bmc1.ch06|6]] | [[bmc1.ch07-1|7.1]] | [[bmc1.ch07-2|7.2]] | [[bmc1.ch07-3|7.3]] | [[bmc1.ch08-1|8.1]] | [[bmc1.ch08-2|8.2]] | [[bmc1.ch08-3|8.3]] | 8.4 {{de: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.ch08-6|8.6]] | [[bmc1.ch08-7|8.7]] | [[bmc1.ch08-8|8.8]] | [[bmc1.ch08-9|8.9]] | [[bmc1.ch09|9]] | [[bmc1.ch10|10]] | [[bmc1.ch11|11]] | [[bmc1.ch12|12]] | [[bmc1.glossary|Glossar]] | [[bmc1.biblio|Literaturverz.]] | [[bmc1.rule-index|Regeln]] | [[bmc1.addendum|Anhang]] </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div showmore> | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div f_zzecopy> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | Einsiedler I: Kapitel 8.4", von Thanissaro Bhikkhu. //Access to Insight//, 26 August 2012, [[http:// | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | " | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # |