四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 3.72

3.72

“If a monk has finished eating, and at another time receives an invitation, and eats without having performed the procedure for leftover [food], it is a prāyaścittika.”

This complete Prātimokṣa text has three clauses: 1. The person who offends. 2. Being satisfied with food. 3. Violating and stating the offense. The first clause is understandable. Under the second, being satisfied with food, the text has two parts: First, “has finished eating”: The Vinaya says there are five conditions for satisfaction: 1. Knowing it is boiled rice: clearly knowing the five proper foods. Offending with satisfaction applies to proper food, not to non-proper food. 2. Knowing it is brought: knowing that it is brought for oneself, the object being large and sufficient. 3. Knowing the refusal of the five proper foods: The holy regulation does not permit being brought to fullness twice in one day; hence it is called knowing the refusal. That is, knowing that the food eaten in the earlier sitting was plenty and capable of satiating poses an obstruction; having eaten little during the day does not pose an obstruction; hence it is called knowing the refusal. 4. Knowing deportment: knowing that whenever one of the four deportments—walking, standing, sitting, lying down—is broken, each commits the offense of satisfaction. 5. Knowing the abandonment of deportment: as when eating while sitting on a seat, after one is satisfied, suddenly lowering the head, taking, giving, or separating from the seat; hence it is called abandoning deportment. Endowed with these five conditions, it is called having finished eating. “At the time of the precept receives an invitation”: “five” refers to receiving a donor's food, which in five respects constitutes satisfaction. The third clause, “without having performed the procedure for leftover food”: this violates the exception. The Vinaya says: “If a monk is not yet satisfied with food, he should take the food, face the monk in front, and say, ‘I have eaten to satisfaction. Venerable, please know that this is seen: make for me the procedure for leftover food.’ The other should take a little food and then say to him, ‘I accept and take it for eating.’” “And eats, it is a prāyaścittika”: this is the violation stating the offense. Thus the Vinaya says: “Having satisfied oneself with food, abandoned deportment, and not performed the procedure for leftover food, if one subsequently eats proper or non-proper food, every swallow incurs a prāyaścittika.” The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya says: “Not performing the procedure for leftover food [...] incurs a prāyaścittika.” The Vinaya says: “There is no offense”: perceiving food as non-food; not receiving the procedure for leftover food; not performing it for non-food; leftover food of a sick person without performing the procedure; if one has already performed the procedure for leftover food—in all such cases there is no offense.