四分比丘戒本疏 2.65

2.65

取行人糧過三鉢戒第三十四，准律文中，歸婦欲歸遂辦糧餉，比丘過乞久不得歸，令夫棄婦。又有價客行途辦糧，比丘過乞，令彼價客行不及伴，為賊所劫。故此並是行人糧食，但欲臨行，過取並犯，病即是開。何必要是歸婦價客？而南山云「此事犯希，故不廣釋」者非也。又准律文，從一比丘至五比丘，如其次第皆有犯義。且如第一比丘於彼家食，食訖復持四鉢食來，即初人犯。若此比丘食訖，持三至伽藍中分而共食，此人未犯。有第二人欲往乞食，第一比丘告彼往人云：「我食訖，復持三來。汝若往者，但於彼食，慎莫持來。」而彼食訖，故復持一，即第二人犯也。若第一人食訖持二，又第二人食訖持一並分而食，告第三人汝往彼食慎莫持來；其第三人食訖持一，即第三人犯也。若第一人食訖持一，又第二第三食持各一，並分而食，告第四人，往食莫持；其第四人食訖持一，即第四人犯也。若第一人食訖不持，第二三四人各往食訖又各持一分，並分而食，告第五人往食莫持；第五過持，即第五人犯也。然准律文，過限持來，雙足出門即犯提罪。持三還寺不分而食，犯突吉羅。而戒本云不分提者，不了義也。准律，至施主家，應問是何食也。

Precept thirty-four: Taking traveler's provisions in excess of three bowls. According to the Vinaya text, a married woman who wished to return home prepared travel provisions, but a monk begged excessively so that she could not return for a long time, causing her husband to abandon her. Furthermore, there were merchants preparing provisions on a journey, and a monk begged excessively, causing those merchants to fail to keep up with their companions and be robbed by bandits. Therefore, all these are traveler's provisions; merely whenever they are on the verge of traveling, taking in excess is an offence; illness is an exemption. Why must it strictly be a returning wife or merchants? When Nanshan states, 'Occurrences of this matter are rare, so I do not elaborate,' he is mistaken. Furthermore, according to the Vinaya text, from one monk up to five monks, there is sequentially a sense in which an offence is committed. For instance: if the first monk eats at that house, and after finishing eating brings back four bowls of food, the first person commits the offence. If this monk, after finishing eating, brings back three [bowls] to the saṅghārāma to divide and eat together, this person has not yet committed an offence. If there is a second person who wishes to go beg for food, the first monk tells the person going: 'I have finished eating and brought back three. If you go, only eat there; by all means do not bring any back.' Yet when he finishes eating, he intentionally brings back one; then the second person commits the offence. If the first person eats and brings two, and the second person eats and brings one, and they divide and eat them together, telling the third person: 'Go eat there; by all means do not bring any back,' and the third person eats and brings one, then the third person commits the offence. If the first person eats and brings one, and the second and third persons each eat and bring one, and they divide and eat them together, telling the fourth person: 'Go eat, do not bring any back,' and the fourth person eats and brings one, then the fourth person commits the offence. If the first person eats and does not bring any back, and the second, third, and fourth persons each go, eat, and each bring back one portion, and divide and eat them together, telling the fifth person: 'Go eat, do not bring any back,' and the fifth person brings an excess, then the fifth person commits the offence. However, according to the Vinaya text, if one brings back food exceeding the limit, as soon as both feet exit the door, one commits a prāyaścittika offence. Bringing three back to the monastery and not dividing them to eat is a duṣkṛta offence. As for the Prātimokṣa stating that not dividing is a prāyaścittika, that is an inexplicit teaching. According to the Vinaya, upon arriving at the donor's house, one should ask what kind of food it is.