[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787) › 3.66 # 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.66 四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.66 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3.66) 若比丘展轉食除餘時波逸提餘時者病時施衣時是謂時　此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二所犯事。三開緣。四結罪。時者已下誦前第三。初句可知。二言展轉食者。律云。背請食也。請有二種。一僧次。二者別請。食謂五正食。飯\[麩-夫+少\]乾飯等。三言除餘時者。是開緣。緣如下說。四言波逸提者犯句。言開緣中病時者。為病比丘不能一坐。好食令足故聽無犯。言施衣時者有二。一一月衣時為迦提月。二五月衣為功德衣月。故律云。自恣竟無功德衣。一月若有衣五月。更復有餘施食及衣。聽受背請。問。所以開病者。病人苦惱若不開所宜形命難立。又施主體知不生譏嫌。故背無罪。非情所欣十二月常開不局時限。施衣開者有二義故。一為益比丘有待之形假衣資養。若施時不受後須難得。恐無理求多生患累。二者為利家。施主使衣食二施獲得兩種反報之福。為斯二益聖制許。衣利既重。或長貪結故。以時開之。非一切時故。文言一月五月。者律有餘施食及衣聽受者。前言一月是時提。時望衣食。衣食是時家之餘。單時無開。要假施食及衣。故言有請。後衣請取衣無犯。還前家食。不食違信故吉。三前家食請後亦食請背犯提罪。衣住頭亦有三句。一前衣食請後亦衣食請聽背無罪。以衣後或多及勝。二前家食請後單衣請如前。三前家衣食後唯食請犯提。祇律云。若到俗家言。今我家食即名請處作食。未熟欲往他家。應白而起。不白去者至彼得正食犯二提罪。一不自故。二背前請故。四分律云。若得多請應捨前請。而受一請。不爾者咽咽犯墮。若不捨後請食前請。咽咽吉。若一日受十請食。最後犯一提八吉。以其初一是前。餘八是後。若背後九得九吉羅。若食中間比說可知。伽論云　若受前請往至請家。坐上未食。若更有異家送食。若食後家食犯背請。食前請已即坐食。後家食無犯。律云。不犯者。若病時施衣時。一日得多請。自受一請。餘者迴施與人。若請非正食。或不足食。或無請處。隨食不犯。或一處再設。五正施主一故亦無背請。一切開不犯。 > “If a bhikṣu eats an alternate meal, except at the proper time, it is a prāyaścittika. Here, the proper time means: a time of illness, a time of robe-giving—these are called the proper time.” This full precept has four clauses in its text: first, the person committing the offense; second, the matter committed; third, circumstances for exemption; fourth, determination of the offense. The text from “the proper time” onwards recites the third clause above. The first clause is self-evident. Second, “eats an alternate meal”: the Vinaya states that it means eating by turning one's back on an invitation. There are two kinds of invitations: first, in the order of the Saṅgha; second, an individual invitation. “Food” refers to the five staple foods: boiled rice, parched grain, cooked dried rice, and so forth. Third, “except at the proper time”: this is the condition for exemption, the circumstances being as explained below. Fourth, “it is a prāyaścittika”: the clause determining the offense. In explaining the conditions for exemption: “a time of illness” means that because a sick bhikṣu cannot obtain sufficient nourishing food in a single sitting, it is permitted and there is no offense. “A time of robe-giving” has two meanings: first, the one-month robe season, which is the Kārttika month; second, the five-month robe season, which is the season of the kathina robe. Thus the Vinaya states: after the pravāraṇā has concluded, if there is no kathina robe, it is one month; if there is a robe, it is five months. If there are further offerings of food and robes, one is permitted to accept them, turning one's back on an invitation. Question: Why is illness exempted? Because an ill person suffers distress; if one is not accommodated with what is suitable, their physical life would be hard to sustain. Furthermore, the donor understands and does not produce criticism or reproach; therefore, reneging is without fault. It is not something desired by craving, so it is always permitted throughout the twelve months, not restricted to a time limit. Robe-giving is exempted for two reasons: first, to benefit the bhikṣu's contingent physical body, which relies on robes for support; if he does not receive them when offered, it will be difficult to obtain them later when needed, and it is feared that improper seeking would give rise to many afflictions and burdens. Second, for the benefit of the donor's household, enabling the donor of the two gifts of robes and food to obtain the merit of two kinds of reciprocal recompense. For these two benefits, the Sage's regulation permits it. Since the benefit of robes is significant and might foster the fetter of greed, it is exempted according to season, not at all times; hence the text says one month or five months. As for the Vinaya stating that if there are remaining offerings of food and robes one is permitted to accept them: earlier it was said that one month is the time \[for exemption from\] prāyaścittika; the time looks toward robes and food, and robes and food are the remainder of the time. The time alone does not provide exemption; it must rely on offerings of food and robes, hence it says there is an invitation. If one takes the robe upon a subsequent invitation of a robe, there is no offense; but one must return to the former family for food; if one does not eat, it violates trust, which is a duṣkṛta. Third, if the former family invited for food and the subsequent is also an invitation for food, reneging commits the offense of prāyaścittika. From the standpoint of robes, there are also three propositions: first, if the former invited for robes and food and the subsequent also invited for robes and food, reneging is permitted without fault, because the subsequent robes might be more abundant or superior. Second, if the former family invited for food and the subsequent invited solely for robes, it is as before. Third, if the former family invited for robes and food and the subsequent invited only for food, it is a prāyaścittika. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states: if one arrives at a lay family's home and they say, “Today eat at my home,” this is called preparing food at an invited place. If it is not yet cooked and one wishes to go to another family's home, one should announce it before leaving; if one leaves without announcing and arrives there and obtains staple food, one commits two prāyaścittika offenses: first, for not announcing; second, for turning one's back on the former invitation. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: if one obtains multiple invitations, one should relinquish the former invitation and accept one invitation; otherwise, each mouthful commits a fall \[into an offense\]. If one does not relinquish the subsequent invitation and eats at the former invitation, each mouthful is a duṣkṛta. If in one day one receives ten invitations and eats at the last, one commits one prāyaścittika and eight duṣkṛtas, because the first is the former and the other eight are subsequent. If one turns one's back on the subsequent nine, one incurs nine duṣkṛtas. If one eats in the middle, by analogy it can be understood. The Mātṛkā states: if one accepts a prior invitation and goes to the inviting family's home, and while seated before eating another family sends food, if one eats the subsequent family's food, one commits the offense of turning one's back on an invitation; if having eaten the former invitation's food one eats the subsequent family's food in the same seat, there is no offense. The Vinaya states: as for exemptions, at a time of illness or a time of robe-giving; if in one day one obtains multiple invitations and personally accepts one invitation, transferring the rest to others; if the invitation is not for staple food, or the food is insufficient, or there is no specific place of invitation—eating as it comes is not an offense; or if food is provided twice in one place, since the donor of the five staples is one, there is also no turning of one's back on an invitation. In all such cases, there is an exemption and no offense. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3.65) - [Next: 3.67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3.67) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787~en-mt.3.66) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [四分律比丘戒本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.vinaya.pratimoksa.dharmaguptaka*zh-buddhayasas.1.108) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2787.3.66) · Pramāṇa