四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.68

3.68

若比丘別眾食除餘時波逸提餘時者病時作衣時施衣時道行時乘船時大眾集時沙門施食時此是時　此滿足戒本文有四句。一者犯人。二別眾食。三除開緣。四結犯罪。下言餘時誦前第三句。一言若比丘者義如上釋。二言別眾食。律云。若四人若過四人名眾。食者飯[麩-夫+少]乾飯等。三四兩句可知。言餘時者誦前第三開緣。言病時作衣時施衣時。此三緣如前戒說。第四言道行時者。律云。下至半由旬內有來去者。佛聽別食。第五言乘船時者。下至半由旬乘上下者是。第六言大眾集時者。八人已上名為大眾。食無信供。又是八難得者。開使不犯。已下小眾食雖難得容有兼濟故亦不開。又言大眾者。四人已上名為大眾。故律云。食足四人長一人為患。乃至百人長一人為患。此是兩家聚落。東家限與四人。西家局與一人。彼此二家施心限局各不相融。餘處乞食復是難得。若不開者。西家一人與東家四人作患。由是患故開使不犯。此謂舉患以開不患。如是乃至百人長一人為患者。但使食食難得悉皆不犯。故云大眾集時。第七言沙門施食時者。律云。諸外道中出家者是名沙門。施食緣如律中廣說。准此而言。比丘施食不開別眾。祇律云。比丘無別眾食緣。當言我於此別眾食無緣應求出。若二三人隨意食。若四人應作二部。更互入食。律云。為攝難調人故制不聖別眾食。若依多論。界內不集亦名別眾。若作四相。有客比丘來遮不聽入亦是別眾。若不依僧次差往者名別眾。若先別請後不遮入轉別名。次餘義廣大疏說。律云。不犯者。如上七緣開食無罪。多論若四人各自乞食共一處亦無有過。以非一家故。善見云。人各別乞至同一處。一時受皆犯。二各各去一時受各處食犯小罪。三各去各受各食不犯。四若一人覆鉢不食。待餘三食竟。後一人食不犯。多論三比丘一狂心。三人在內一在界外。三是大僧一是沙彌。悉皆不犯。不成別眾。不相足數故。又有四句。一食主是一盡集無過。二食一處二彼此乃異故不犯。三食別處一前後食故不犯。四食別處別彼此二眾互請一人不犯。善見五種足四不犯。一不請足四。施主別請四人。一人不去檀越見少。臨中見一比丘。即喚與食。請無簡別故名僧次。二乞食足四。亦以別請一人不去。臨中乞食比丘至彼依次與食。三沙彌足四。四鉢孟足四。別請四人三人身至一人盋請。五病人足四。狂等之病並非別眾食。皆不犯。

“If a monk eats in a separate group, except at the permitted times, it is a prāyaścittika. The permitted times are: a time of illness, a time of making robes, a time of bestowing robes, a time of journeying on the road, a time of boarding a boat, a time when a great assembly gathers, and a time when a śramaṇa provides food; these are the permitted times.”

This complete Prātimokṣa text has four clauses: 1. The person who offends. 2. Eating in a separate group. 3. Exceptions. 4. The statement of the offense. Below, “the permitted times” recites the preceding third clause. 1. “If a monk”: the meaning is as explained above. 2. “Eats in a separate group”: The Vinaya says that four persons or more than four persons is called a group. “Eating” refers to boiled rice, parched barley meal, dried rice, and so forth. Clauses 3 and 4 are understandable. “The permitted times” recites the preceding third [clause of] exceptions. “A time of illness, a time of making robes, a time of bestowing robes”: these three conditions are as explained in the preceding precept. Fourth, “a time of journeying on the road”: The Vinaya states that if one travels back and forth at least half a yojana, the Buddha permits eating separately. Fifth, “a time of boarding a boat”: when one travels up or down [a river] by boat for at least half a yojana, that is it. Sixth, “a time when a great assembly gathers”: eight persons or more is called a great assembly. If there is no faithful donation of food, and it is also difficult to obtain [food] for eight, an exception is made so that it is not an offense. As for a smaller group below this, although food is difficult to obtain, there is capacity to assist one another, so it is also not permitted. Furthermore, “a great assembly” means four persons or more is called a great assembly. Thus the Vinaya says: “If food is sufficient for four persons, having one extra person causes distress, up to having one extra person among a hundred causes distress.” This refers to a village with two households: the eastern household is limited to giving to four persons, and the western household is restricted to giving to one person. The giving intention of each of the two households is limited and restricted, not blending with the other, and begging for food elsewhere is also difficult. If this were not permitted, the one person at the western house would cause distress to the four persons at the eastern house. Because of this distress, an exception is made so that it is not an offense. This means that raising the distress allows an exception for that which is not distress. In this way, up to one extra person among a hundred causing distress: whenever food is difficult to obtain, none of it is an offense. Therefore it is said, “a time when a great assembly gathers.” Seventh, “a time when a śramaṇa provides food”: The Vinaya states that those who have gone forth among non-Buddhist traditions are called śramaṇas. The circumstances of donating food are as explained extensively in the Vinaya. According to this, when a monk provides food, an exception is not made for eating in a separate group. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states: “If a monk has no circumstance for eating in a separate group, he should say, ‘I have no circumstance for this separate-group meal; I should seek to leave.’ If there are two or three persons, they may eat as they please. If there are four persons, they should form two groups and take turns entering to eat.” The Vinaya says: “To restrain difficult-to-train persons, eating in a separate group is not permitted by the sage.” If according to the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā, not gathering within the boundary is also called a separate group. If one establishes the four marks, when a visiting monk arrives and one blocks him and does not allow him to enter, this is also a separate group. If one does not proceed according to the monastic seniority assignment, it is called a separate group. If one is separately invited first and later does not block others from entering, it turns into a separate designation. Next, other meanings are explained extensively in the commentary. The Vinaya says: “There is no offense”: eating under the above seven exceptions is without fault. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā [says]: If four persons each beg for food separately and [eat] together in one place, there is also no fault, because it is not from a single household. The Samantapāsādikā says: 1. If people each beg separately, arrive at the same place, and receive [the food] at the same time, all commit an offense. 2. If each goes separately, receives at the same time, and eats in separate places, they commit a minor offense. 3. If each goes separately, each receives separately, and each eats separately, there is no offense. 4. If one person covers his bowl and does not eat, waiting until the other three finish eating, and then this one person eats, there is no offense. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā [says]: Three monks and one who is deranged; three persons inside and one outside the boundary; three fully ordained monks and one śrāmaṇera—none of these commit an offense, as they do not constitute a separate group, since they do not complete the required number together. Furthermore, there are four propositions: 1. The food host is one, and everyone gathers completely: no fault. 2. Eating in one place, but [the groups] are two, each being different: therefore no offense. 3. Eating in separate places, but [the host] is one, eating before and after: therefore no offense. 4. Eating in separate places and [the hosts] are separate, the two groups each inviting one person: no offense. The Samantapāsādikā [gives] five kinds of making up four that do not constitute an offense: 1. Making up four without an invitation: A donor separately invites four persons, and one person does not go; the donor sees there are fewer, and around midday sees a monk, immediately calling him and giving him food; because the invitation makes no distinction, it is called monastic seniority. 2. Making up four by begging food: Likewise, because one person of a separate invitation does not go, around midday a monk begging for food arrives there, and is given food in sequence. 3. A śrāmaṇera making up four. 4. A bowl making up four: Separately inviting four persons, three persons arrive in body and one sends a bowl. 5. A sick person making up four: Derangement and other illnesses do not constitute eating in a separate group. None of these is an offense.