四部律并論要用抄 2.53

2.53

別眾食戒　毘尼毘婆沙論云。凡別眾惡是檀越食。是別請非僧次。是界內非界外。若僧祇食一切無別眾食罪。若食僧祇食。但名不清淨亦名盜僧食。不名別眾食。若界內有有檀越別食。能一切無遮者大善。若不能無遮。應僧次請僧中一人。若送一分食不犯。請一人外更者異僧來。乃至一人犯墮。若不爾者三人已下各異處食無過。若界內有檀越食。先作意請僧中一人。若忘不請食。已在前應取一分置上坐頭。送與眾僧。若僧遠恐時過應取此食。次第行之無犯。若三比丘一尼者不犯。三尼一比丘。三比丘一沙彌。三界內一在界外三在空一地等不犯。若俗人請比丘。或設十日食。或九日食。先隨意請人。使定至作食。初日一切集。鳴槌竟。勸化比丘應高處立。高聲大唱六十獵者入。無被請者。各住處未被請中有六十臘者應入。若無次唱五十九臘。乃至唱沙彌亦得清淨。若界內不相容。持食外出不犯。若檀越家內請四比丘。已上食雖打犍槌。若檀越遮者知外有一比丘。不得食者犯。凡界有多種。僧結界者。有聚落界。有曠野自然界。方一拘盧舍。此諸界內不得別眾食及作法事。大眾集時者極少。乃至客舊四人。若食難得聽食易得不聽　善見論云。有五因緣。不犯別眾罪。一犯請足。四先請四人一人不赴請。施主臨時趣喚一人。雖四人俱食不犯。何以故。以一人非請故。二乞食足。四三人受請。一人乞食不受。三沙彌足。四三比丘一沙彌不犯。四鉢虧足。四一比丘一鉢請食不犯。五病人足。四三比丘一病人不犯。若人來詣寺。請僧受我等飯。此人不知法。解律者應語。明日知如是。乃至半月故。不解者應語。汝如是請者但得沙彌。若言。大德亦受餘家請。何以故不受我請。語言。汝但言請僧。莫言與飯等。若四人中一人解法者。作方便持三人食竟方不犯　五分云。若白衣請比丘舍內食。有客比丘在門外白。施主不聽入者應語言。與我等食分自平等共食善。若不得應各以鉢受分出外共食。若得者善。若復不得僧坊內有食。應與之。

The precept against eating in a separate assembly: The Vinayavibhāṣā-śāstra states: "In all cases, the fault of eating in a separate assembly applies when it is a donor's meal, a personal invitation rather than in the order of the Saṃgha, and inside the sīmā rather than outside the sīmā. In the case of Saṃgha food, there is never the offense of eating in a separate assembly. If one eats Saṃgha food, it is merely called impure and also called stealing Saṃgha food; it is not called eating in a separate assembly. If within the sīmā there is a donor's personal meal, if it can be made entirely without obstruction, that is very good. If it cannot be made without obstruction, one should invite one person from the Saṃgha according to the Saṃgha's order; or if one portion of food is sent, there is no offense. If beyond the one invited person another monk comes, even a single person incurs a falling offense. If not so, three persons or fewer eating in separate places commits no fault. If within the sīmā there is a donor's meal, and one initially intended to invite one person from the Saṃgha, but forgot and did not invite them, and the food is already in front of them, one should take a portion and place it before the senior monk, and send it to the Saṃgha. If the Saṃgha is far away and one fears the time will pass, one should take this food and distribute it in order; there is no offense. If there are three monks and one nun, there is no offense. Three nuns and one monk, three monks and one śrāmaṇera, three inside the sīmā and one outside the sīmā, or three in the air and one on the ground, etc., do not constitute an offense. If a layperson invites monks and provides food for ten days or nine days, and initially invites people at will, establishing who will come, on the first day when food is prepared and all gather, after striking the mallet, the soliciting monk should stand in a high place and proclaim loudly: 'Let those of sixty varṣas enter!' If none have been invited, among those from the various residences who have not yet been invited, those of sixty varṣas should enter. If there are none, proclaim next for fifty-nine varṣas, down to proclaiming for śrāmaṇeras; this is also pure. If there is no room within the sīmā, taking the food and going outside incurs no offense. If within a donor's house four or more monks are invited to eat, even though the gaṇḍī is struck, if the donor refuses and one knows there is a monk outside who cannot eat, an offense is incurred. There are many kinds of sīmās: those where the Saṃgha establishes a sīmā, village sīmās, and wilderness natural sīmās of one krośa square. Within these various sīmās, one must not eat in a separate assembly or perform ritual acts. When the great assembly gathers, the minimum is four persons, whether guests or residents. If food is difficult to obtain, eating is permitted; if easy to obtain, it is not permitted. The Samantapāsādikā states: 'There are five conditions under which one does not commit the offense of eating in a separate assembly: First, quorum by defective invitation: Four people were invited, but one person does not attend the invitation; the donor casually calls one person at the time; although four people eat together, there is no offense. Why? Because one person was not invited. Second, quorum by begging food: Of four, three received the invitation and one begged for food without accepting. Third, quorum by śrāmaṇera: Of four, three are monks and one is a śrāmaṇera; there is no offense. Fourth, quorum by lacking a bowl: Of four, one monk has one bowl and was invited to eat; there is no offense. Fifth, quorum by an ill person: Of four, three are monks and one is an ill person; there is no offense.' If someone comes to the monastery and says, 'Please let the Saṃgha accept our meal,' and this person does not know the Dharma, one who understands the Vinaya should say: 'Acknowledge it for tomorrow like this, or up to half a month.' If he does not understand, one should say to him: 'If you invite like this, you will only get śrāmaṇeras.' If he says: 'The venerable ones also accept invitations from other households; why do you not accept my invitation?' one says to him: 'You should only say "I invite the Saṃgha," and do not say "to give rice," etc.' If among the four persons one understands the Dharma, he should use skillful means to hold the food for three persons until finished, and only then is there no offense. The Mahīśāsaka[-vinaya] states: 'If a layman invites monks to eat within his house, and a guest monk outside the gate reports that the donor will not permit him to enter, they should say: "Give us portions of food and we shall share them equally among ourselves," which is good. If this cannot be done, they should each receive portions in their bowls, go outside, and eat together. If this is achieved, it is good. If this again cannot be achieved, and there is food within the monastery, they should give it to him.'"