BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

The Food Chapter Chapter 8.4himself and has not abandoned it, it is not proper on the second day." Thisallowance raises two main questions, the first being how to interpret it. Some,focusing on the second sentence to the exclusion of the first, have noticed that itmakes no mention of the presence or absence of any desire for the food, and sohave interpreted it as meaning that the issue of desire is totally irrelevant: If one hasnot given the food to a non-bhikkhu, it is not allowable; if one has given it away, itis. This interpretation, however, ignores the point that if the presence or absence ofdesire for the food were irrelevant, the first sentence would not have mentioned it.Both the Old and New K/Sub-commentaries note this point, and say theabandoning in the second sentence means "abandoning without desire." In otherwords, the Commentary's allowance is meant to apply only in cases where one hasabandoned both the food and any desire to receive it back.This, however, begs the second question, which is what justification theCommentary has for making the allowance. There is no basis for it in the Vibhaṅga'sdefinition of "stored-up," nor is there anything else in the Vibhaṅga to this rule fromwhich the Great Standards could be used to support the allowance. TheCommentary is apparently importing one of the non-offense clauses from NP 23 tothis rule, but that is a misapplication of the Great Standards. The Vibhaṅga for onerule cannot be used to rewrite the Vibhaṅga for another; otherwise there would beno end to the rewriting of the rules. Had the compilers meant for the principle underNP 23 to be applied here, they could have done so themselves. For these reasons,there seem to be no grounds for accepting the allowance as valid. Thus, if oneabandons food received today then, regardless of whether one has abandoneddesire for it, if one accepts it again on a later day and eats it, one commits the fulloffense under this rule all the same.Effort. The Vibhaṅga says that there is a dukkaṭa "if one accepts/takes it, thinking, 'Iwill eat it.'" The question has arisen as to whether "it" here means food that hasalready been stored up or food that one is planning to store up. The Commentary,noting that the intention "I will store it up" is not mentioned, adopts the firstinterpretation: "It" here means food already stored up. The Vibhaṅga adds that thereis a pācittiya for every mouthful one eats.Perception is not a factor here. Thus, a bhikkhu who eats stored-up food commitsan offense regardless of whether he perceives it as stored-up. This means —1) If Bhikkhu X receives the food on one day and lets someone else put itaway, and Bhikkhu Y eats it on a later day, Y commits an offense all thesame, regardless of whether he knows that the food was stored-up.2) One should be careful that there are no traces of any edible receivedyesterday on a utensil from which one will eat food today. The protocols astudent should follow with regard to his preceptor (upajjhāya-vatta)(Mv.I.25.9) show that the custom in the Buddha's time was to rinse outone's bowl before going for alms. The Commentary suggests a method formaking sure that one's bowl is clean: Run a finger along the inside of thebowl while it is dry. If there is enough food residue or dust in the bowl forthe finger to make a mark in it, clean the bowl again before use.327