四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.60

3.60

若比丘知比丘尼讚歎教化因緣得食食除檀越光有意者波逸提　此滿足戒本文有六句。一犯人。二知。三讚嘆。四得食。五開緣。六結罪。初句可知。二言知者。律云。若不知食無犯。三言尼讚歎教化者。律云。讚言謂阿練若乞食人。乃至持三衣嘆多聞法師律師坐禪。四言得食者。從旦至中將食。五言除檀越先有意者。律云。彼有施心故開不犯。六言波逸提者。是犯句。律云。若食所嘆食者咽咽犯提。除飲食得餘襯衣燈油犯吉。祇云。除舊檀越乃至下食已唱等供食時。更有餘比丘來尼言。更有比丘施主。言善哉者不犯。若尼言此下二頭陀者墮。若言多與好食平等與不犯。若通讚一舉眾一切不犯提。若某甲眾生精進為是比丘故。通請二十一人名讚歎。餘者不犯。若有嘆食不得捨去。當展轉貿食。若比丘垢穢不淨不喜。與貿者當念此鉢中食。是某比丘許我當食不犯。五分若先不知臨時言。好與比丘食者不犯　問。所以得儭衣燈油犯吉者　答。財物利重情著難捨。又是別囑理無通用。勸捨義希致受不數。是以犯輕。食無獨食勸辨義易致受義數。是故制重。燈油外用嘆勸亦希。是以制輕。又大僧嘆尼義希致受不數。故尼犯輕。律云。不犯者。若不知若先有意。若無教化想。若尼自作。若檀越令尼經營。若不教化。而乞食與者並開不犯。

“If a bhikṣu, knowing that food was obtained through a bhikṣuṇī's praise and exhortation, eats that food, except when the donor previously had the intention [to give], it is a prāyaścittika.” This full precept has six clauses in its text: first, the person committing the offense; second, knowing; third, the praise; fourth, obtaining the food; fifth, circumstances for exemption; sixth, determination of the offense. The first clause is self-evident. Second, “knowing”: the Vinaya states that if one eats without knowing, there is no offense. Third, “a bhikṣuṇī's praise and exhortation”: the Vinaya states that “praising” means praising someone as an araṇya dweller, an alms-gatherer, up to one who keeps the three robes, or praising one as a master of Dharma of great learning, a vinaya master, or a meditator. Fourth, “obtaining food”: having food from dawn until midday. Fifth, “except when the donor previously had the intention”: the Vinaya states that because the donor already had the intention to give, there is an exemption and no offense. Sixth, “it is a prāyaścittika”: this is the clause determining the offense. The Vinaya states that if one eats food that was praised, each mouthful is a prāyaścittika. If, instead of food and drink, one obtains other things such as undergarments or lamp oil, it is a duṣkṛta. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states: except when it is an old donor, up to when, after the food has been set out and the announcement for equal distribution of food has been made, another bhikṣu arrives and the nun says, “There is another bhikṣu,” and the donor says, “Excellent!”—there is no offense. If the nun says, “Give to these two inferior dhūta practitioners,” one falls [into an offense]. If she says, “Give much good food equally,” there is no offense. If she praises the entire assembly collectively, none commit a prāyaścittika. If someone says, “Beings are energetic; it is for the sake of these bhikṣus,” and she mentions twenty-one names in praise, for the others there is no offense. If there is food obtained through praise, one must not discard it and leave; one should exchange the food successively. If a bhikṣu is soiled and impure and one is displeased to exchange with him, one should reflect: “This food in the bowl was permitted to me by a certain bhikṣu, so I may eat it,” and there is no offense. The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya states: if one did not know beforehand, and at the time she says, “It is good to give food to the bhikṣus,” there is no offense. Question: Why is it that obtaining undergarments or lamp oil constitutes a duṣkṛta? Answer: Material wealth and possessions are substantial gains, and emotional attachment to them is difficult to abandon; moreover, they are designated for specific individuals and by principle cannot be shared for general use. The context of exhorting others to give them away is rare, so receiving them does not occur frequently; therefore the offense is light. As for food, one does not eat alone, and the context of exhorting others to prepare it is easy, so receiving it occurs frequently; therefore the prohibition is heavy. Lamp oil is for external use, and praise or exhortation [to give it] is also rare, so the prohibition is light. Furthermore, a senior monk rarely praises a nun, so receiving it does not occur frequently, and thus the nun's offense is light. The Vinaya states: as for exemptions, if one did not know; if there was previous intention; if there was no thought of exhortation; if the nun prepared it herself; if the donor instructed the nun to manage it; or if without exhortation she begged for food and gave it—all these are exempt and not an offense.