BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

The Food Chapter Chapter 8.4Buddha's words — and because the Buddha warned bhikkhus against making uptheir own rules (NP 15.1.2) — the opinions expressed in the treatise are notnecessarily normative. Many Communities do not accept them, or are selective inchoosing what they do and do not accept. Here we will give a summary of some ofthe Commentary's opinions that have influenced practices found in some, if not all,Communities of bhikkhus at present.1. Taking into the mouth is defined as going down the throat. As we have alreadynoted under Pc 37, though, this definition has no justification in canonical usage.The Sub-commentary attempts to justify the Commentary's stand here by defining"mouth" (mukhadvāra — literally, the door of the face) as the larynx, i.e., the backdoor rather than the front door to the mouth, but again this is not supported by theCanon. Sk 41 — "I will not open the door of the face when the mouthful has yet tobe brought to it" — shows decisively that this term refers to the lips and not to thelarynx. MN 140 explicitly lists the mukhadvāra and the passage "whereby what iseaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets swallowed" as two separate parts of theinternal space element in the body. Taking into the mouth thus means taking inthrough the lips.2. Food. Pond water so muddy that it leaves a scum on the hand or on the mouth isconsidered to be food, and so must be given before it can be drunk. The sameholds true with water into which so many leaves or flowers have fallen that theirtaste is discernible in the water. For some reason, though, water that has beenscented with flowers need not be given, and the same is true with water taken froma stream or river no matter how muddy. (There is a belief still current in India andother parts of Asia that flowing water is inherently clean.) Although leaves andflowers technically do count as edibles — they are classed as non-staple foods ormedicines, depending on one's purpose in eating them — the idea of counting mudand scum as edibles seems to be taking the concept of edible a little too far.If tooth wood is chewed for the sake of its juice, it must first be given. Even if oneis chewing it for the sake of cleaning the teeth but accidentally swallows the juice,one has committed an offense all the same. These two opinions have no basis inthe Canon, inasmuch as intention is not a factor in determining the offense underthis rule.A long section of this treatise discusses what to do if things that are not given getinto food that has been given. It concludes that they must be removed from thefood or the food must be given again. If the items "not given" are edibles, thisseems reasonable enough, but the Commentary extends the concept to includesuch things as dust, dirty rain water, rust from a knife, beads of sweat droppingfrom one's brow, etc. Again, this seems to be taking the concept too far, for theVibhaṅga states clearly that the rule covers only those things generally consideredas fit to eat.3. Giving. The Commentary redefines the act of giving, expanding its factors to five:(a) The item is such that a man of average stature can lift it.(b) The donor is within reach — 1.25 m. — of the bhikkhu.333