四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.70

3.70

若比丘至白衣家請與比丘餅[麩-夫+少]飯若比丘須者當二三鉢受還至僧伽藍中應分與比丘食若比丘無病過兩三鉢受持還僧伽藍中不分與比丘食波逸提　此滿足戒本文有三句。一犯人。二開受分齊食之方軌。三若無病已下過取違教結罪。初句可知。第二句中文有三節。一施塗糧。二若比丘下教受分齊。所以開齊。三者為令施主獲反報之福。亦令比丘資身長道。三還僧伽藍下教食方法。第三句反上。第二開受等文。辨相中。初句可知。如上。二句中言白衣家者。律云。有男有女。故曰言與餅[麩-夫+少]飯者。是五正食。言二三鉢受者。是教受分齊。多論云。若上鉢取一鉢無罪。取兩鉢犯。中鉢取二不犯。三乃便犯。下鉢取二不犯。四鉢方犯。文云。過三鉢者。就下鉢為言。第二言無病者。是開緣。律云。為不能一坐好食飽足。故聽不犯。言過受犯提者。是第三結犯句。律云。若一人取過三鉢。前三人不犯。以不過限故。後一人犯。以前三人語莫持來。而往取過。在後人出彼門限即犯提罪。若方便悔者吉羅。五分云。過受不分比丘食俱犯提罪。四分過受犯提。不分故吉。祇云。女及價客去後不犯。律云。不犯者。若兩三鉢受。若病過受。若問已共分。若彼自送僧寺。若送尼寺俱受。不犯。

“If a monk goes to a lay family, and they invite and give the monk cakes, parched barley meal, and boiled rice, if the monk needs it, he should accept two or three bowls; returning to the saṅghārāma, he should share it with the monks to eat. If a monk, being without illness, accepts more than two or three bowls, brings it back to the saṅghārāma, and does not share it with the monks to eat, it is a prāyaścittika.”

This complete Prātimokṣa text has three clauses: 1. The person who offends. 2. The standard for permitted reception and the rule for eating. 3. From “if being without illness” onward, taking excessively in violation of the teaching and stating the offense. The first clause is understandable. Within the second clause, there are three sections: 1. Offering travel provisions. 2. From “if a monk” onward, teaching the limit of reception. The reason for permitting the limit: 3. In order to cause the donor to obtain the reward of reciprocal blessing, and also to cause the monk to sustain his body and advance in the Path. 3. From “returning to the saṅghārāma” onward, teaching the method of eating. The third clause reverses the above second text of permitted reception, etc. In distinguishing the characteristics: The first clause is understandable, as above. In the second clause, “a lay family”: The Vinaya says there are men and women, hence it is so stated. “Give cakes, parched barley meal, and boiled rice”: these are the five proper foods. “Accept two or three bowls”: this is teaching the limit of reception. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā says: If with a large bowl, taking one bowl is without fault, and taking two bowls is an offense. With a medium bowl, taking two is not an offense, but three is an offense. With a small bowl, taking two is not an offense, and only with four bowls is it an offense. When the text says “more than three bowls,” it speaks in terms of the small bowl. Second, “being without illness”: this is an exception. The Vinaya says that because [the sick] cannot be fully satisfied by good food in a single sitting, it is permitted and not an offense. “Accepting excessively is a prāyaścittika”: this is the third clause stating the offense. The Vinaya says: If one person takes more than three bowls, the first three persons do not offend, because they did not exceed the limit; the last person offends, because the first three persons told him not to bring more, yet he went and took excessively; when the last person steps beyond that threshold, he immediately commits a prāyaścittika offense. If he undertakes the preparatory act and repents, it is a duṣkṛta. The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya says: Accepting excessively and not sharing it with the monks to eat both incur prāyaścittika offenses. In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, accepting excessively incurs a prāyaścittika, and not sharing incurs a duṣkṛta. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya says: After the woman and merchant have departed, it is not an offense. The Vinaya says: “There is no offense”: if one accepts two or three bowls; if being ill, one accepts in excess; if having asked, one shares it; if they themselves deliver it to the monastery; if they deliver it to the nunnery—in all such cases of receiving, there is no offense.