四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.66

3.66

“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.