311
The Commentary notes further that if a bhikkhu himself makes any of the
juice drinks, he may consume it only before noon. If the juice is made by a nonbhikkhu and formally offered before noon, one may “also” drink it with food
before noon—the “also” here implying that the original allowance, that one may
drink it without food after noon and before dawnrise, still holds. If the juice is
made by a non-bhikkhu and formally offered after noon, one may drink it
without food until the following dawnrise. The allowance for mango juice drink
covers juice made either from ripe or from unripe mangoes. To make unripe
mango juice, it recommends that the mango be cut or broken into small pieces,
placed in water, heated in sunlight, and then strained, adding honey, sugar,
and/or camphor as desired. Juice made from Bassia pierrei must be diluted with
water, as the undiluted juice of this fruit is too thick.
The five tonics are discussed in detail under NP 23.
Medicines. According to the Mah›vagga (VI.3.1-8), any items in the six
following categories that, by themselves, are not used as staple or non-staple
food are medicines: roots, astringent decoctions, leaves, fruits, resins, and salts.
For example, under fruits: Oranges and apples are not medicines, but pepper,
nutmeg, and cardamom are. Most modern medicines would fit under the
category of salts. Using the Great Standards, we can say that any edible that is
used as a medicine but does not fit under the categories of staple or non-staple
food, juice drinks, or the five tonics, would fit here. (For a full discussion of
medicines, see BMC2, Chapter 5.)
Keeping and consuming. Each of the four basic classes of edibles—food, juice
drinks, the five tonics, and medicines—has its “life span,” the period during
which it may be kept and consumed. Food may be kept and consumed until
noon of the day it is received; juice drinks, until dawnrise of the following day;
the five tonics, until dawnrise of the seventh day after they are received; and
medicines, for the remainder of one’s life.
Mixed foods. Edibles made from mixed ingredients that have different life
spans—e.g., salted beef, honeyed cough syrup, sugared orange juice—have the
same life span as the ingredient with the shortest life span. Thus salted beef is
treated as beef, honeyed cough syrup as honey, and sugared orange juice as
orange juice (Mv.VI.40.3). According to the Commentary, mixing here means
thorough intermingling. Thus, it says, if fruit juice has a whole, unhusked
coconut floating in it, the coconut may be removed, and the juice is all right to
drink until the following dawnrise. If butter is placed on top of rice porridge, the
part of the butter that hasn’t melted into the rice may be kept and eaten for
seven days. If items with different life spans are all presented at the same time,
they maintain their separate life spans as long as they don’t interpenetrate one
another. Not all Communities, however, follow the Commentary on this point.
Mv.VI.40.3, the passage underlying these rulings, can be translated as follows
(replacing the formal terms for categories of food with the primary examples of
each category):
“Juice-mixed-with-food, when received that day, is allowable during the
right time and not allowable at the wrong time. A tonic-mixed-with-food,
when received that day, is allowable during the right time and not

312
allowable at the wrong time. Medicine-mixed-with-food, when received
that day, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the
wrong time. A tonic-mixed-with-juice, when received that day, is
allowable through the watches of the night and not allowable when the
watches of the night have past. Medicine-mixed-with-juice, when received
that day, is allowable through the watches of the night and not allowable
when the watches of the night have past. Medicine-mixed-with-a-tonic,
when received, is allowable for seven days and not allowable when seven
days have past.”
Translated in this way, the passage covers foods that are already mixed when
presented to a bhikkhu. One of the general issues that led to the convening of
the Second Council, however, concerned how to treat cases where foods
received separately are then mixed by a bhikkhu. The specific issue presented to
the Council was that of bhikkhus who kept a horn filled with salt so that they
could add salt to bland foods. The Council’s verdict was that in doing so, the
bhikkhus incurred a p›cittiya under Pc 38. The Vibhaºga to that rule, however,
gives a dukka˛a for using, as food, life-long medicine that has been stored
overnight, and salt is a life-long medicine. Thus the elders at the Council seem to
have reasoned that if the salt has been mixed in with food, the mixture as a
whole counts as food accepted when the first ingredient (the salt) was accepted:
thus the p›cittiya, rather than the dukka˛a, under Pc 38. This principle is nowhere
expressly stated in the texts, but is in some places taught as an oral tradition.
The Commentary, in treating the issue of foods mixed by a bhikkhu,
translates Mv.VI.40.3 as follows:
“Juice received that day, when mixed with food, is allowable during the
right time and not allowable at the wrong time. A tonic received that day,
when mixed with food, is allowable during the right time and not
allowable at the wrong time. Medicine received that day, when mixed
with food, is allowable during the right time and not allowable at the
wrong time. A tonic received that day, when mixed with juice, is allowable
through the watches of the night and not allowable when the watches of
the night have past. Medicine received that day, when mixed with juice, is
allowable through the watches of the night and not allowable when the
watches of the night have past. Medicine received, when mixed with a
tonic, is allowable for seven days and not allowable when seven days
have past.”
The question the Commentary then raises is, “Why is the word ’that day’
(tadahu) omitted from the last case?” Its answer is that there is no limit on when
the medicine has to be received for it to be properly mixed with a tonic received
today. In other words, it could have been received any number of days before
the tonic was received. If it is mixed with the tonic on the first day of the tonic’s
life span, the mixture as a whole has a seven-day life span. If mixed with the tonic
on the second day of the tonic’s life, the mixture has a six-day life span, and so
forth. The Commentary’s translation of this passage may strain standard Pali
syntax, but it is grammatically correct and is the only way of deriving from

313
Mv.VI.40.3 a general principle to cover the issue of foods received separately that
are then mixed by a bhikkhu. Thus the principle has been generally accepted that
tonics and medicines, such as sugar and salt, received today may be eaten mixed
with food or juice drinks received today, but not with food or juice drinks
received on a later day. Medicine, such as salt, tea, or cocoa, received at any time
may be eaten mixed with any of the five tonics on any day of the tonic’s life
span.
* * *

31. A bhikkhu who is not ill may eat one meal at a public alms center. Should he eat

more than that, it is to be confessed.

“Now at that time a certain guild had prepared food at a public alms
center not far from S›vatthı. Some group-of-six bhikkhus, dressing early
in the morning, taking their bowls and (outer) robes, entered S›vatthı for
alms but, after not getting any almsfood, went to the public alms center.
The people there said, ‘At long last your reverences have come,’ and
respectfully waited on them. Then on the second day … the third day, the
group-of-six bhikkhus … entered S›vatthı for alms but, after not getting
any almsfood went to the public alms center and ate. The thought
occurred to them, ‘What’s the use of our going back to the monastery? (§)
Tomorrow we’ll have to come right back here.’
“So staying on and on right there, they ate the food of the public alms
center. The members of other religions fled the place. People criticized and
complained and spread it about: ‘How can these Sakyan-son monks stay
on and on, eating the food of the public alms center? The food at the
public alms center isn’t prepared just for them; it’s prepared for absolutely
everybody.’”
A public alms center is a place—in a building, under the shade of a tree, or in
the open air—where all comers are offered as much food as they want, free of
charge. Soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless, if run in this way, would fit
under this rule. A meal is defined as one that includes any of the five staple foods.
Not ill in this rule is defined as being able to leave the alms center.
The origin story seems to indicate that this rule is directed against staying on
and eating day after day in the alms center. The Commentary, though, maintains
that it forbids eating in the center two days running, without making any
mention of whether the bhikkhu stays on at the center or not. To eat one day in
a center belonging to one family (or group) and the next day in a center
belonging to another group, it says, entails no penalty. However, if—after one’s
first meal there—a center has to close down for a period of time for lack of food
and then later reopens, one should not eat there the first day of its reopening.
According to the Vibhaºga, a bhikkhu incurs a dukka˛a for accepting, with
the intention of eating it, any food that falls under the conditions specified by this
rule, and a p›cittiya for every mouthful he eats.

314
Perception as to whether one is actually ill is not a mitigating factor here (see
Pc 4.)
Non-offenses. According to the Vibhaºga, there is no offense in taking a
meal on the second day—
if one is invited by the proprietors;
if one is ill;
if the food is specifically intended for bhikkhus (§); or
if the center determines the amount of food the recipients may take, rather
than allowing them to take as much as they want (§). The reason for this
allowance is that if the owners of the center were unhappy with having a
bhikkhu eat there, they could give him very little or nothing at all.
The Vibhaºga also states that, “everything aside from the five staple foods is
a non-offense.” None of the texts discuss this point, but this apparently refers
both to the first and to the subsequent meal. In other words, if a bhikkhu
consumed no staple foods at his first meal, then there would be no penalty in
accepting and eating any of the five staple foods in the subsequent meal. But if he
did consume any staple foods at his first meal, then at the subsequent meal he
would have to refrain from eating staple foods if he wanted to avoid an offense.
Also, there is no offense in taking a second meal when “coming or going,”
which in the context of the origin story seems to mean that one may take a
second meal if one simply leaves the center and then comes back. The
Commentary, though, interprets this phrase as meaning “coming or going on a
journey,” and even here it says a meal should not be taken from the center two
days running unless there are dangers, such as floods or robbers, that prevent
one from continuing on one’s way.
Summary: Eating food obtained from the same public alms center two days
running—without leaving in the interim—unless one is too ill to leave the center, is a
p›cittiya offense.
* * *

32. A group meal, except at the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the proper

occasions are these: a time of illness, a time of giving cloth, a time of making robes, a time
of going on a journey, a time of embarking on a boat, a great occasion, a time when the
meal is supplied by monks. These are the proper occasions here.

This is a rule dating from Devadatta’s efforts to create a schism in the Saºgha.
“Now at that time Devadatta, his gain and offerings diminished, ate his
meals with his following having asked and asked for them among
households. (Here the Commentary elaborates: ‘Thinking, “Don’t let my
group fall apart,” he provided for his following by eating his meals
among households together with his following, having asked for them
thus: “You give food to one bhikkhu. You give food to two.”’) People
criticized and complained and spread it about: ‘How can these Sakyan-son
monks eat their meals having asked and asked for them among

315
households? Who isn’t fond of well-prepared things? Who doesn’t like
sweet things?’”
Group meals. The Vibhaºga defines a group meal as one consisting of any of
the five types of staple foods to which four or more bhikkhus are invited.
Pv.VI.2 adds that this rule covers any group meal that the donor offers at
his/her own initiative, as well as any that results from a bhikkhu’s requesting it.
In the early days of the Buddha’s career, donors who wished to invite
bhikkhus to their homes for a meal would invite an entire Community. Later, as
Communities grew in size and there were times of scarcity in which donors were
unable to invite entire Communities (Cv.VI.21.1), the Buddha allowed:
1) designated meals, at which a certain number of bhikkhus were to be served.
The donors would ask the Community official in charge of meal distribution—
the meal designator (bhattuddesaka)—to designate so-and-so many bhikkhus
“from the Community” to receive their meals. Bhikkhus would be sent on a
rotating basis to these meals as they occurred.
2) invitational meals, to which specific bhikkhus were invited;
3) lottery meals, for which the bhikkhus receiving the meals were to be chosen
by lot; and
4) periodic meals, i.e., meals offered at regular intervals, such as every day or
every uposatha day, to which bhikkhus were to be sent on a rotating basis, as
with designated meals. The meal designator was to supervise the drawing of lots
and keep track of the various rotating schedules. (The explanations of these
various types of meal come partly from the Commentary. For a fuller
explanation, see Appendix III.)
The non-offense clauses to this rule state that in addition to the exceptions
mentioned in the rule, which we will discuss below, this rule does not apply to
lottery meals or periodic meals. The Commentary concludes from this—and on
the surface it seems reasonable enough—that the rule thus applies to meals to
which the entire Community is invited and to invitational meals. (Buddhaghosa
reports that there was disagreement among Vinaya authorities as to whether it
applies to designated meals—more on this point below.)
The Commentary’s conclusion, though, creates a problem when lay people
want to invite Communities of more than three bhikkhus to their homes for a
meal. Perhaps this problem is what induced the Commentary to interpret the
Vibhaºga’s definition of a group meal as meaning one in which the invitations
specifically mention the word meal or food, or the type of meal or food to be
served. (“Come to my house for breakfast tomorrow.” “I know you don’t often
get a chance to eat Indian food, so I’m inviting you all over for chappatties and
curry.”) This interpretation has led to the custom of phrasing invitations to eat
“in the morning” or to eat “before noon,” so that groups of four or more
bhikkhus may be invited without breaking this rule.
The Buddha’s purposes for establishing this rule, though, are listed at
Cv.VII.3.13 as follows: “For the restraint of evil-minded individuals, for the
comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, so that those with evil desires will not split
the Community by (forming) a faction, and out of compassion for families.”

316
The Commentary’s definition of group meal accomplishes none of these
purposes: The custom of phrasing invitations to avoid the word meal or food does
nothing to restrain evil-minded individuals, etc., and it actually creates trouble
for lay people who do not know the custom, a point well-illustrated by the
Commentary itself in an entertaining section on how to deal with a person
whose invitation contains the word meal. After getting the run-around from the
meal designator—who apparently was not allowed to tell him in any
straightforward way how to phrase his invitation and so gave him a long series
of hints—the poor man returns to his friends and makes a cryptic statement that
the A/Sub-commentary translates as: “There are a lot of words that have to be
spoken in this business of making an invitation. What’s the use of them all?”
Two other arguments against the Commentary’s interpretation are:
1) The Vibhaºga’s definition of invited in this rule is repeated word-for-word
under Pc 33 & 46. If the factor of mentioning “food” or “meal,” etc., is necessary
for there to be an offense under this rule, it would have to be necessary under
those rules as well, a proposal that makes no sense in their context and that no
one has ever suggested.
2) In the origin stories of two of the reformulations of the rule, bhikkhus
refuse invitations on the grounds that they would break the rule against a group
meal, and yet the invitations make no mention of “food” or “meal.”
An alternative interpretation. To find an alternative to the Commentary’s
explanation, we have to go back to the origin stories leading to the
reformulations of the rule, where we find an interesting point: The invitations
rejected by scrupulous bhikkhus on the grounds that they would break the rule
all deal with “invitational” meals. In one of them, a naked ascetic invites a group
of bhikkhus to an invitational meal and is rejected on the grounds that it would
constitute a group meal. He then goes to the Buddha and—after complaining
that he should not be subjected to such treatment—rephrases the invitation, this
time inviting the entire Community. This suggests that he felt an invitation of
this sort would not constitute a group meal.
His reasoning has its grounds in the Vinaya itself: Throughout the Vibhaºga
and Khandhakas, the word group is used to refer to any set of bhikkhus not
forming a complete Community and yet acting as an independent unit. This may
be why the category of Community meal was not mentioned in the non-offense
clauses: The arrangers of the Vibhaºga may have felt that no mention was
necessary, in that the term group meal automatically excluded Community
meals.
Similar considerations suggest that designated meals may also be exempted
from this rule even though they are not mentioned in the non-offense clauses.
Invitations to such meals were customarily worded as requests for so-and-so
many bhikkhus “from the Community,” and thus—as a type of Community
meal—they would by definition not be invitations to a “group” meal.
Because invitations to lottery meals and periodic meals did not customarily
make reference to the Community, the Vibhaºga arrangers did have to make
mention of those types of meals in order to exempt them.

317
We are left with a rule that applies exclusively to invitations to specific groups—not
Communities—of four or more bhikkhus regardless of whether the invitation mentions
the word “food” or “meal.”
The rule in this form has the virtue of fulfilling the express purposes
mentioned for it in Cv.VII.3.13: It would prevent evil-minded bhikkhus and lay
people from trying to exert influence over specific groups in the Community by
arranging meals especially for them; and in the same way, it would prevent
people with evil desires from creating a split in the Community. (Because the
smallest faction that can create a split in the Community is four bhikkhus, the
maximum number allowed at a group meal is three.)
The rule in this form would also contribute to the comfort of well-behaved
bhikkhus in that invitations to meals would not be preempted by factions; and it
would protect lay families from being prey to the maneuverings of bhikkhus
who would pressure them repeatedly into providing meals as part of their
strategy to create and maintain such factions. (Anyone who has lived in a
traditional Buddhist country knows only too well the influence of sweet-talking
bhikkhus over unsuspecting or low-minded lay people. This sort of thing neither
started nor ended with Devadatta.)
Because Community meals and designated meals would not form an opening
for such machinations, there would be no reason to limit them to groups of three
if lay people want to invite groups larger than that. One objection to exempting
Community meals from this rule is that a meal for the entire Community would
be more burdensome than a meal for a smaller group, but that is what
designated meals are for. A donor willing and able to provide a meal for an
entire Community is welcome but not required to do so. A donor willing but not
able may simply ask to provide a meal for x-number of bhikkhus from the
Community, leaving it up to the meal designator to designate which bhikkhus
will go for the meal, with no danger of creating a faction.
Thus the point at issue is not whether the invitation makes mention of food or meals,
but whether it specifies the individual bhikkhus to be invited. If it specifies more than
three individual bhikkhus—either naming them outright or saying such things as
“Ven. X and four of his friends,” or “The five of you,” etc.—the meal would
count as a group meal.
Perception as to whether food actually constitutes a group meal is not a
mitigating factor (see Pc 4).
Effort. The Vibhaºga states that, aside from the allowable times, there is a
dukka˛a for accepting—with the thought of eating it—food that would qualify as
a group meal, and a p›cittiya for every mouthful eaten. Whether the bhikkhus
accepting the food actually eat together is not an issue. If they receive their food
at the same invitation to a group meal but then split up and eat it separately,
they still incur the full penalty.
Non-offenses. The Vibhaºga defines the proper occasions mentioned in the
rule—during which bhikkhus may eat a group meal without committing an
offense—as follows:
A time of giving cloth is the “robe season.”
A time of making robes is any time the bhikkhus are making robes.

318
A time of journeying is any time the bhikkhus are about to go, are going, or
have just returned from a journey of at least half a yojana (about five miles, or
eight kilometers).
A time of embarking on a boat is any time the bhikkhus are about to embark, are
embarking, or are disembarking from a boat. No minimum distance for the boat
journey is specified.
A time of illness is, in its minimal terms, a time when the bhikkhus’ feet are
split (and they cannot go for alms).
A great occasion is one in which there are so many bhikkhus in proportion to
the donors giving alms that three bhikkhus going for alms can obtain enough
food to support themselves, but not enough to support a fourth.
A meal supplied by monks is one provided by a person who has taken on the
state of religious wanderer. This the Commentary explains as meaning not only
those ordained in other religions, but also one’s own co-religionists (bhikkhus,
bhikkhunıs, and novices) as well; the Vibhaºga’s definition of “one who has
taken on the state of religious wanderer” under Pc 41 suggests that the
Commentary is correct. This exemption, as its origin story makes clear, was
formulated to promote good relations between bhikkhus and members of other
religions, but it also means that a bhikkhu, from his own resources, can provide
food for a group of his friends without incurring an offense. Although this
exemption could thus open the door for wealthy bhikkhus to attract factions, as
long as they are not getting their funds from lay donors, they would be placing
no burden on the laity, which seems to be the most important of the purposes
for this rule.
Aside from the proper occasions, there is no offense—
if groups of three or less eat a meal to which they have been specifically
invited;
if the meal to which a group of four or more is invited does not include any
of the five staple foods; or
if bhikkhus, having walked separately for alms, eat assembled as a group.
No mention is made of whether bhikkhus can go for alms in groups of four
or more, as is the custom at present in the rural areas of many Buddhist
countries. From the various stories of bhikkhus and bhikkhunıs on alms round
that appear in the Canon, it seems that the custom was for them to go
individually. Pc 42 mentions bhikkhus going for alms as a pair, but the Vibhaºga
notes that they might receive less food that way than when going individually.
Apparently, going as a group would not have made much sense in their cultural
context.
As mentioned above, the Vibhaºga also states that there is no offense for
groups of any number eating periodic meals or lottery meals; and as we have
already stated, our interpretation would explicitly extend this exemption to cover
Community and designated meals as well.
Summary: Eating a meal to which four or more individual bhikkhus have been
specifically invited—except on special occasions—is a p›cittiya offense.
* * *

319

33. An out-of-turn meal, except at the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the

proper occasions are these: a time of illness, a time of giving cloth, a time of making robes.
These are the proper occasions here.
“Now at that time a meal-series of exquisite meals had been arranged in
Ves›lı. The thought occurred to a certain poor laborer: ‘The way these
people respectfully present meals suggests that it’s not a minor thing at
all. What if I were to present a meal?’ So he went to his supervisor (§) and
said, ‘Young master, I want to present a meal for the Community of
bhikkhus with the Buddha at its head. Please give me my wage.’ Now that
supervisor also had faith and confidence in the Buddha, so he gave the
laborer more than his wage.
“Then the laborer went to the Blessed One, bowed down to him, sat
down to one side, and said, ‘Venerable sir, may the Blessed One together
with the Community of bhikkhus acquiesce to a meal with me
tomorrow.’
“‘You should know, friend, that the Community of bhikkhus is large.’
“‘Let it be large, venerable sir. I have prepared plenty of jujube fruits.
The masters (§) will fill themselves even with the jujube hash.’
“So the Blessed One acquiesced by becoming silent…. The bhikkhus
heard, ‘…The masters will fill themselves even with the jujube hash,’ so
right before the time of the meal they went for alms and ate. People
heard, ‘They say that the poor laborer has invited the Community of
bhikkhus with the Buddha at its head,’ so they took a great deal of staple
and non-staple foods to the laborer…. (When the time came for the meal)
the Blessed One went to the poor laborer’s house… and sat on a seat
made ready, together with the Community of bhikkhus. Then the poor
laborer served the bhikkhus in the meal-hall. The bhikkhus said, ‘Give just
a little, friend. Give just a little.’
“‘Don’t take so little, venerable sirs, thinking that I’m just a poor
laborer. I’ve prepared plenty of staple and non-staple food. Take as much
as you want.’
“‘That’s not the reason why we’re taking so little, friend. It’s simply
that we went for alms and ate just before the time for the meal: That’s
why we’re taking so little.‘
“So the poor laborer criticized and complained and spread it about:
‘How can their reverences eat elsewhere when they were invited by me?
Am I not capable of giving them as much as they want?’”

Object. The term out-of-turn meal covers two sorts of situations: A bhikkhu
has been invited to a meal consisting of any of the five staple foods but then
either (1) goes elsewhere and eats another meal consisting of any of the five
staple foods at the same time as the meal to which he was originally invited; or
(2) eats a staple food prior to going to the meal, as in the origin story.
Perception as to whether food actually constitutes an out-of-turn meal is not a
mitigating factor (see Pc 4).

320
Effort. The Vibhaºga states that there is a dukka˛a for accepting—with the
thought of eating it—food that will constitute an out-of-turn meal, and a p›cittiya
for every mouthful eaten.
Proper times. The special occasions when one may accept and eat an out-ofturn meal are defined as follows:
A time of illness is when one is unable to eat enough at one sitting and so has
to eat two or more times in a morning.
The times of giving cloth and making robes are defined as in the preceding rule.
The reason for exempting them is that in the days of the Buddha, cloth and
thread were hard to come by, and donors who wanted to offer them usually did
so in conjunction with a meal. If these exemptions were not made, a bhikkhu
making a robe, having already been invited to one meal, could not go to another
meal beforehand to receive the cloth or thread offered there.
There is reason to believe that these three exemptions apply to out-of-turn
meals of the type mentioned in the origin story: i.e., a bhikkhu is allowed in
these cases to go to another meal before attending the meal to which he was
originally invited.
Sharing invitations. As for the sort of out-of-turn meal where a bhikkhu
invited to one meal goes to another meal instead, the Buddha in a story ancillary
to this rule gives permission to share invitations: If a bhikkhu has received an
invitation, he may give it to another bhikkhu or novice by saying, “I give my
expectation of a meal to so-and-so.” He is then allowed to eat elsewhere.
The Commentary regards the act of sharing as a mere formality: One may
even make the statement outside of the other bhikkhu’s presence without his
knowing anything about it. This, though, is very unlikely to satisfy the original
donor. The wise policy in this case would be to make the statement in the
presence of the other bhikkhu—“I give my expectation of a meal to you”—
making reasonably sure that he is willing and able to go.
The Vinaya-mukha adds, though, that if the donors of the meal have
specifically invited one to a meal—i.e., one is going to an invitational meal rather
than a designated meal (see Pc 32)—it would be bad manners to share the
invitation without making an agreement with the donors first.
Non-offenses. In addition to mentioning the “proper times” during which
one may eat an out-of-turn meal, the non-offense clauses state that there is no
penalty for a bhikkhu who, on receiving an invitation, states, “I will go for alms.”
This statement the Commentary explains as a refusal, and interprets the
allowance as meaning that if a bhikkhu refuses an invitation, he is still allowed to
eat another meal at the time for which the invitation was made. If the Vibhaºga
arrangers did mean this statement to be a refusal, though, it is probably for the
sake of those bhikkhus who hold to the dhutaºga vow of going for alms and not
accepting invitations. If a bhikkhu who does not hold to such a vow refuses an
invitation for a time for which he has no prior commitment, it is considered very
bad manners. And if he were later to accept an invitation for a meal served at the
same time as the meal he earlier refused, it would be extremely bad manners.
An alternative explanation for the statement, “I will go for alms,” is that there
is no offense if the bhikkhu lets the donor know beforehand that he will go for