BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 135. Should any bhikkhu, having eaten and turned down an offer (offurther food), chew or consume staple or non-staple food that is notleftover, it is to be confessed."Now at that time a certain brahman, having invited bhikkhus, fed them. Thebhikkhus, having eaten and turned down an offer of further food, went to theirrelatives' families. Some ate there; some left having received alms."Then the brahman said to his neighbors, 'Masters, the bhikkhus have been satisfiedby me. Come and I will satisfy you as well.'"They said, 'Master, how will you satisfy us? Even those you invited came to ourhomes. Some ate there; some left having received alms.'"So the brahman criticized and complained and spread it about, 'How can theirreverences, having eaten in my home, eat elsewhere? Am I not capable of giving asmuch as they want?'"When a donor invited bhikkhus for a meal, the custom in the time of the Buddhawas for him/her to offer food to the bhikkhus repeatedly while they ate, and to stoponly when the supplies of food were exhausted or the bhikkhus refused any furtheroffers. (This custom is still widespread in Sri Lanka and Burma.) Thus it was often amatter of pride among donors that their supplies were not easily exhausted and thatthey could continue offering food until the bhikkhus were completely satisfied andcould eat no more. Now, where there is pride there is bound to be wounded pride:A donor could easily feel insulted if bhikkhus refused further offers of food, finishedtheir meal, and then went to eat someplace else.As the origin story shows, this rule is designed to protect generous donors frombeing insulted by the bhikkhus in this way. It is also designed to protect bhikkhusfrom being forced to go hungry by stingy or impoverished donors. If the donorstops offering food before the bhikkhus have refused further offers — or if whathe/she offers is not substantial food at all (see the discussion under Pc 8 for anhistoric case of this sort) — the bhikkhus, after finishing their meal, are free toaccept food elsewhere that morning if they are still hungry.There are two factors for an offense here.1) Object: staple or non-staple food that is not leftover.2) Effort: One eats the food after having eaten and turned down an offer offurther food.Before explaining these factors, we must first explain the situation of having eatenand turned down an offer of further food.Having eaten (bhuttāvin), according to the Vibhaṅga, means having eaten any of thefive staple foods, "even as much as a blade of grass." On the surface, this could318