Lzh Mg Bu Vb Pc 34Encouraging Another Monastic to Eat More After Refusing an Invitation

– MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA VINAYA

– PĀCITTIYA RULES

– CLEARLY EXPLAINING THE FIFTH SECTION OF THE NINETY-TWO SINGLE EXPIATION RULES

34. RULE: ENCOURAGING ANOTHER TO EAT AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY EATEN.

When the Buddha was residing in the city of Śrāvastī, as described in full above. At that time, the Venerable Ānanda had two attendant disciples, one named Mañṭha and one named Avikī, together with two attendant disciples of Maudgalyāyana, one named Ajātu and one named Śāśātu. They habitually competed with one another to see who was more learned and who was more eloquent.

At that time, one of Ānanda's attendant disciples was more eloquent and of sharper faculties, so that Maudgalyāyana's disciple could not prevail in debate. Because of this, he constantly followed the other closely during walking, standing, lying down, and sitting, seeking an opening or weakness. Then the two of them were invited together to take a meal at a certain household.

At that point, Maudgalyāyana's disciple received a cake, ate half of it, and carried the other half outside, saying to Ānanda's disciple:

—Elder, would you like to eat some cake?

—Where did you get cake?

—I received it at the meal I just attended, and I have brought it here.

The Elder took the cake and ate it. When he had finished eating, the other said:

—Elder, you have committed an offense.

—What offense?

—The Blessed One has established a rule not permitting a bhikkhu who has eaten his fill, risen from his seat, and not performed the act of residual-food declaration to eat again.

—How did you know that I had not performed the act of residual-food declaration, yet you deliberately encouraged me to eat?

—Previously in debate, why did you use your eloquence to defeat and humiliate me?

On account of this the two quarreled with each other, then went together to the Blessed One, bowed their heads in reverence at the Buddha's feet, stood to one side, and reported the entire matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha then said to the two bhikkhus: "What do you think? Did I teach the nine divisions of scripture to the Śrāvakas—Sūtra, Geya, Vyākaraṇa, Gāthā, Udāna, Itivṛttaka, Jātaka, Vaipulya, and Adbhutadharma—so that they would incite their disciples to argue and dispute over victory and defeat?"

—No, that is not so, Blessed One.

—If that is not so, then I taught these nine divisions of scripture to the Śrāvakas so that, having heard them, they would practice accordingly—is that not so?

—Indeed it is so, Blessed One.

Then the two bhikkhus faced each other and confessed their fault in the presence of the Blessed One. The Buddha thereupon instructed: "One must not rely on one's mastery of the scriptures to look down upon others. Nor do I permit anyone who knows that another has eaten his fill and has not performed the act of residual-food declaration to incite that person to eat again."

Then the Buddha commanded all the bhikkhus residing in the city of Śrāvastī to assemble, and for the sake of ten benefits established this rule for the bhikkhus; and even those who have already heard it must hear it again:

"If a bhikkhu, knowing that another has eaten his fill, has risen from his seat, and has not performed the act of residual-food declaration, yet out of a wish to vex and disturb encourages that person to eat again, he commits a Pācittiya offense."

Explanation

(Certain terms have already been explained above.)

To vex and disturb: To cause annoyance and disturbance to a person who is before one, wishing to make that person displeased.

Not having performed the act of residual-food declaration: If one has fulfilled five unlawful conditions, it cannot be called performing the act of residual-food declaration. If one has fulfilled five lawful conditions, then it may properly be called performing the act of residual-food declaration. If a person presses and urges one to eat and one eats, a Pācittiya offense is committed.

Pācittiya: As explained above.

If a bhikkhu has fulfilled five unlawful conditions, he may not perform the act of residual-food declaration to eat for the rest of his life. If he has fulfilled five lawful conditions, he is permitted to perform the act of residual-food declaration to eat for the rest of his life. Other matters have been explained in full above.

If another person has already eaten his fill and one mistakenly thinks he has not yet eaten his fill and encourages him to eat, a Vinaya transgression is committed.

If another person has not yet eaten his fill and one mistakenly thinks he has eaten his fill and encourages him to eat, a Vinaya transgression is committed.

If another person has already eaten his fill and one correctly perceives that he has eaten his fill and still encourages him to eat again, a Pācittiya offense is committed.

If another person has not yet eaten his fill and one correctly perceives that he has not yet eaten his fill and encourages him to eat, there is no offense.

In this connection, if one eats such things as: gruel freshly ladled from the pot that is too liquid to write with, fruit, vegetables, and the like—there is no offense. Therefore it is said as above.

Vietnamese translation: Thích Phước Sơn. MAHĀSĀṂGHIKA VINAYA

Chinese translation: THE TRIPIṬAKA MASTER BUDDHABHADRA OF INDIA

TOGETHER WITH ŚRAMAṆA FAXIAN, TRANSLATED DURING THE EASTERN JIN DYNASTY

DOCTRINAL VERIFICATION: THÍCH ĐỖNG MINH