BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

The Food Chapter Chapter 8.4mean one of two things: having taken one's first bite of a meal or having finished ameal — even the smallest possible one. The Commentary adopts the firstinterpretation, but in doing so creates two problems:1) If having eaten means having taken one's first bite of a meal, then theword serves no purpose in the rule, because the first factor of "havingturned down an offer of further food" is "the bhikkhu is eating," and as theCommentary itself notes, if one is eating then one has already taken one'sfirst bite of the meal. It concludes that the word having eaten, both in therule and in the Vibhaṅga, is completely superfluous.2) A more practical problem coming from the Commentary's interpretation isthat if one turns down an offer of extra food when one already has morethan enough food in one's bowl but has yet to finish one's meal, one cannotcontinue eating. The Commentary tries to get around this predicament byintroducing an additional factor: As long as one does not move from thespot on which one is sitting, one may continue eating. This, though, createsfurther problems: Suppose a bhikkhu has turned down an offer of furtherfood but has yet to finish his meal. If there is then some compelling reasonfor him to move from the spot on which he is sitting — for example, thedonor spills a pot of hot soup, or ants come crawling into his robes — thenhe cannot finish his meal even if the donor begs him to continue eating.The Sub-commentary gets around the first problem by interpreting having eaten as"having finished a meal," which fits better with the origin story and with the linguisticusage of the Canon itself. (The word bhuttāvin also appears in MN 91, Cv.VIII.4.6,and Cv.VIII.11.5, where it clearly and consistently means "having finished a meal."The Canon uses a separate term, asana, for one who is in the process of eating ameal without yet having finished it.) The author of the Sub-commentary doesn'trealize, though, that in adopting this interpretation he is also eliminating the need forthe Commentary's extra factor concerning moving from one's spot. If the factor isunnecessary and has no basis in the Canon, there seems no reason to adopt it.Thus the Commentary's factor, and not the wording of the rule, is what issuperfluous. So we can say that having eaten means having finished one's meal,and that the question of having moved from one's spot doesn't enter into the rule.As the Commentary itself notes when discussing the term asana, the point whereone finishes eating is determined in one of two ways:a) There is no food left in one's bowl, hand, or mouth; orb) one decides that one has had enough for that particular meal.Thus, as long as the bhikkhu has not yet finished the donor's meal, he is free to turndown, accept, and eat food as he likes. In other words, if he turns down an offer offurther food, he may continue eating what is left in his bowl. If he initially turns downan offer of further food but then gives in and accepts it after being pressured by thedonor, he may eat what he accepts without penalty. Or if he feels, for example, thathe has enough vegetables but would like more rice, he may turn down an offer ofvegetables yet accept and eat an offer of rice that follows it.319