BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1necessary under those rules as well, a proposal that makes no sense in theircontext and that no one has ever suggested.2) In the origin stories of two of the reformulations of the rule, bhikkhusrefuse invitations on the grounds that they would break the rule against agroup meal, and yet the invitations make no mention of "food" or "meal."An alternative interpretation. To find an alternative to the Commentary's explanation,we have to go back to the origin stories leading to the reformulations of the rule,where we find an interesting point: The invitations rejected by scrupulous bhikkhuson the grounds that they would break the rule all deal with "invitational" meals. Inone of them, a naked ascetic invites a group of bhikkhus to an invitational meal andis rejected on the grounds that it would constitute a group meal. He then goes tothe Buddha and — after complaining that he should not be subjected to suchtreatment — rephrases the invitation, this time inviting the entire Community. Thissuggests that he felt an invitation of this sort would not constitute a group meal.His reasoning has its grounds in the Vinaya itself: Throughout the Vibhaṅga andKhandhakas, the word group is used to refer to any set of bhikkhus not forming acomplete Community and yet acting as an independent unit. This may be why thecategory of Community meal was not mentioned in the non-offense clauses: Thearrangers of the Vibhaṅga may have felt that no mention was necessary, in that theterm group meal automatically excluded Community meals.Similar considerations suggest that designated meals may also be exempted fromthis rule even though they are not mentioned in the non-offense clauses. Invitationsto such meals were customarily worded as requests for so-and-so many bhikkhus"from the Community," and thus — as a type of Community meal — they would bydefinition not be invitations to a "group" meal.Because invitations to lottery meals and periodic meals did not customarily makereference to the Community, the Vibhaṅga arrangers did have to make mention ofthose types of meals in order to exempt them.We are left with a rule that applies exclusively to invitations to specific groups — notCommunities — of four or more bhikkhus regardless of whether the invitationmentions the word "food" or "meal."The rule in this form has the virtue of fulfilling the express purposes mentioned for itin Cv.VII.3.13: It would prevent evil-minded bhikkhus and lay people from trying toexert influence over specific groups in the Community by arranging meals especiallyfor them; and in the same way, it would prevent people with evil desires fromcreating a split in the Community. (Because the smallest faction that can create asplit in the Community is four bhikkhus, the maximum number allowed at a groupmeal is three.)The rule in this form would also contribute to the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhusin that invitations to meals would not be preempted by factions; and it would protectlay families from being prey to the maneuverings of bhikkhus who would pressure310