四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.64

3.64

若比丘施一食處無病比丘應一食若過受者波逸提　此滿足戒本文有五句。一食處。二無病者及舉開緣。三比丘者犯。四應一食者食之分齊。五若過下結犯。言施一食處者。律云。在中一宿也食者謂時食。除鉢三藥故輕。二言無病者及舉開緣。律云。病者離彼村增劇者是。三言比丘應一食犯人。四言應食者明食之分齊。五言若過受波逸提者。律云。無病比丘一宿處過食咽咽結墮。若受餘儭身衣及燈油犯吉　問。所以食重衣輕　答。食資最急。人喜過受。又復受用體壞損施主故。所以重。施主造立福舍安儭身衣聽一夜受用。不聽將去。過受義希。雖過受用衣體不壞。猶囑施主。損惱義微故。所以輕。燈油塗足。雖體盡壞身。外受用過受義希。是故犯輕　問。別食七緣。此獨開病者　答。然病人苦惱吉即成損。住則有益施主體知不生譏惱。是故聖開。別眾食中施主請與開。六無損此戒。一食後無施心。若六緣開便成損惱。故無餘六。律云。不犯者。一宿受食。若病過受。若居士請住與食。若次第請食。若水陸道斷等緣。並開不犯。

“If a bhikṣu is at a place where a single meal is provided, a bhikṣu without illness should eat one meal; if he receives in excess, it is a prāyaścittika.” This full precept has five clauses in its text: first, the place of the meal; second, “without illness” and raising the conditions for exemption; third, “a bhikṣu,” the person committing the offense; fourth, “should eat one meal,” the limit of eating; fifth, “if he receives in excess” and following, determining the offense. “At a place where a single meal is provided”: the Vinaya states that it means staying there for one night; “meal” refers to food at the proper time; since it excludes bowls and the three kinds of medicine, it is light. Second, “without illness” and raising the conditions for exemption: the Vinaya states that an ill person is one whose illness would worsen if he departed from that village. Third, “a bhikṣu should eat one meal”: the person committing the offense. Fourth, “should eat”: explaining the limit of eating. Fifth, “if he receives in excess, it is a prāyaścittika”: the Vinaya states that for a bhikṣu without illness, eating in excess of one night's stay incurs a fall [into an offense] with each mouthful; if one receives other undergarments or lamp oil, it is a duṣkṛta. Question: Why is food treated heavily and robes treated lightly? Answer: Food is the most urgent necessity of life, and people are prone to excessively receive it; furthermore, consuming it destroys its substance and harms the donor, which is why it is treated heavily. When a donor establishes a hall of merit, they provide undergarments and permit their use for one night, not permitting them to be taken away; the likelihood of excessively receiving them is rare. Even if one uses them excessively, the substance of the garment is not destroyed and still belongs to the donor, so the sense of loss and distress is slight, which is why it is treated lightly. As for lamp oil to rub on the feet, even though its substance is entirely consumed, its use is external to the body and the likelihood of excessively receiving it is rare; therefore the offense is light. Question: Among the seven exemptions for eating in a separate group, why is only illness exempted here? Answer: Because an ill person suffers distress, leaving constitutes harm, whereas staying brings benefit; the donor understands this and does not develop criticism or distress, which is why the Sage granted an exemption. In eating in a separate group, the donor invites and gives, which allows six exemptions without causing harm; in this precept, after one meal there is no further intention to give. If the six conditions were exempted, it would result in harm and distress; therefore, the other six do not apply. The Vinaya states: as for exemptions, receiving food for a one-night stay; if ill, receiving in excess; if the layperson invites one to stay and gives food; if invited for food in regular order; or if travel routes by water or land are blocked—all such conditions are exempt and not an offense.