四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.60

3.60

“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.