BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

The Food Chapter Chapter 8.43) lottery meals, for which the bhikkhus receiving the meals were to bechosen by lot; and4) periodic meals, i.e., meals offered at regular intervals, such as every dayor every uposatha day, to which bhikkhus were to be sent on a rotatingbasis, as with designated meals. The meal designator was to supervise thedrawing of lots and keep track of the various rotating schedules. (Theexplanations of these various types of meal come partly from theCommentary. For a fuller explanation, see Appendix III.)The non-offense clauses to this rule state that in addition to the exceptionsmentioned in the rule, which we will discuss below, this rule does not apply tolottery meals or periodic meals. The Commentary concludes from this — and on thesurface it seems reasonable enough — that the rule thus applies to meals to whichthe entire Community is invited and to invitational meals. (Buddhaghosa reports thatthere was disagreement among Vinaya authorities as to whether it applies todesignated meals — more on this point below.)The Commentary's conclusion, though, creates a problem when lay people want toinvite Communities of more than three bhikkhus to their homes for a meal. Perhapsthis problem is what induced the Commentary to interpret the Vibhaṅga's definitionof a group meal as meaning one in which the invitations specifically mention theword meal or food, or the type of meal or food to be served. ("Come to my housefor breakfast tomorrow." "I know you don't often get a chance to eat Indian food, soI'm inviting you all over for chappatties and curry.") This interpretation has led to thecustom of phrasing invitations to eat "in the morning" or to eat "before noon," sothat groups of four or more bhikkhus may be invited without breaking this rule.The Buddha's purposes for establishing this rule, though, are listed at Cv.VII.3.13 asfollows: "For the restraint of evil-minded individuals, for the comfort of wellbehavedbhikkhus, so that those with evil desires will not split the Community by(forming) a faction, and out of compassion for families."The Commentary's definition of group meal accomplishes none of these purposes:The custom of phrasing invitations to avoid the word meal or food does nothing torestrain evil-minded individuals, etc., and it actually creates trouble for lay peoplewho do not know the custom, a point well-illustrated by the Commentary itself in anentertaining section on how to deal with a person whose invitation contains theword meal. After getting the run-around from the meal designator — who apparentlywas not allowed to tell him in any straightforward way how to phrase his invitationand so gave him a long series of hints — the poor man returns to his friends andmakes a cryptic statement that the A/Sub-commentary translates as: "There are alot of words that have to be spoken in this business of making an invitation. What'sthe use of them all?"Two other arguments against the Commentary's interpretation are:1) The Vibhaṅga's definition of invited in this rule is repeated word-for-wordunder Pc 33 & 46. If the factor of mentioning "food" or "meal," etc., isnecessary for there to be an offense under this rule, it would have to be309