Theravāda Vinayapiṭaka

Monks’ rules and their analysis

Monks’ Expiation (Pācittiya) 35

… at Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time, a certain brahmin, having invited the monks, gave them a meal. The monks, having eaten, being satisfied, went to relations and families, and some ate, some went out taking the alms-bowl. Then that brahmin spoke thus to the neighbours:

“Masters, the monks were satisfied by me; come and I will satisfy you.” These said:

“How will you, master, satisfy us? For those invited by you came to our houses, some ate, others went out taking the alms-bowl.”

Then that brahmin looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying:

“How can the revered sirs, having eaten in our house, eat elsewhere? Yet am I not competent to give as much as they please?” Monks heard that brahmin who … spread it about. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying:

“How can these monks, having eaten, being satisfied, eat elsewhere?” …

“Is it true, as is said, that you, monks … ate elsewhere?”

“It is true, lord.”

The enlightened one, the lord, rebuked them, saying:

“Monks, how can these foolish men, having eaten, being satisfied, eat elsewhere? Monks, it is not for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased … And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:

“Whatever monk, having eaten, being satisfied, should eat or partake of solid food or soft food, there is an offence of expiation.”

And thus this rule of training for monks came to be laid down by the lord.


Now at that time monks brought back sumptuous alms-food for ill monks. The ill monks did not eat as much as expected, (and) the monks threw these away. The lord heard a loud noise, a great noise, a noise (like) the cawing of crows, and hearing this he addressed the venerable Ānanda, saying:

“What, Ānanda, is this loud noise, this great noise, this noise (like) the cawing of crows?” Then the venerable Ānanda told this matter to the lord.

“But, Ānanda, monks should eat what is left over by ill (monks).”

“They would not eat it, lord.”

Then the lord on this occasion, in this connection, having given reasoned talk, addressed the monks, saying:

“I allow you, monks, to eat what is left over both by one who is ill and by one who is not ill. And, monks, (what is left over) should be made left over, saying, ‘All this is enough.’ And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:

Whatever monk, having eaten, being satisfied, should eat or partake of solid food or soft food that is not left over, there is an offence of expiation.”


Whatever means: … is monk to be understood in this case.

Having eaten means: any one meal of the five (kinds of) meals, and even (as little as) becomes eaten with a blade of grass.

Being satisfied means: eating is to be seen, a meal is to be seen, standing within a reach of the hand, he asks (him), a refusal is to be seen.

What is not left over means: it becomes made not allowable; it becomes made not formally accepted; it becomes made not delivered; it becomes made not within a reach of the hand; it becomes made by one who has not eaten; it becomes made by one who has eaten, has been satisfied (and) has risen from his seat; it does not come to be said, ‘All this is enough’; it does not come to be left over by one who is ill: this means what is not left over.

What is left over means: it becomes made allowable; it becomes made formally accepted; it becomes made being delivered; it becomes made within a reach of the hand; it becomes made by one who has eaten; it becomes made by one who has eaten, has been satisfied (and) has not risen from his seat; it comes to be said, ‘All this is enough’; it comes to be left over by one who is ill: this means what is left over.

Solid food means: setting aside the five (kinds of) meals, and food (that may be eaten) during a watch of the night, during seven days, during life, the rest means solid food.

Soft food means: the five (kinds of) meals: cooked rice, food made with flour, barley-meal, fish, meat. If he accepts, thinking, ‘I will eat, I will partake of,’ there is an offence of wrong-doing. For every mouthful there is an offence of expiation.


If he thinks that it is not left over when it is not left over (and) eats or partakes of solid food or soft food, there is an offence of expiation. If he is in doubt as to whether it is not left over … If he thinks that it is left over when it is not left over … an offence of expiation. If he accepts for the sake of nutriment (food to be eaten) during a watch of the night, during seven days, during life, there is an offence of wrong-doing. For every mouthful there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that it is not left over when it is left over, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he is in doubt as to whether it is left over, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that it is left over when it is left over, there is no offence.


There is no offence if, having caused it to be made left over, he eats; if, having caused it to be made left over, he accepts it, thinking: “I will eat”; if he goes away, conveying it for the sake of another; if he eats the remainder of an ill (monk’s meal); if, when there is a reason, he makes use of (food to be eaten) during a watch of the night, during seven days, during life; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer.

The Fifth