四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1132

2.1132

Thirty-six. (When the Buddha was at Śrāvastī, a younger-brother bhikṣu was greedy for food. The elder-brother bhikṣu rebuked him for his fault, and [the younger one] harbored resentment. After the elder brother had eaten, [the younger] forcibly urged him to eat, and in turn rebuked him for his fault; on this account the rule was instituted.) In the name: forcibly urging one who is already satiated with food and drink, hence called "urging the satiated to eat". In the Commentary, it has four distinctions compared to the preceding precept: first, the former is an offense of bodily action, whereas the latter is an offense of verbal action; second, the former makes an exception for illness, whereas the latter makes no exception for illness; third, the former stems from greed, whereas the latter stems from the three natures; fourth, the former is violated upon one's own swallowing, whereas the latter is violated upon the other's swallowing.