Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: December 13, 2020, 11:46:57 AM »Monks, using common, not given medias and resources, for their feeding and livelihood by teaching, if not to be dealt with rules of fraud or stealing, have to be dealt with Pācittiya 31. as the lightest offence:
Having shortly used the public alms-house SC (since dedicated for the world, public domain, not for the Sangha) for a search, Atma could find the Pātimokkha rule again: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 Sāvatthī. Some group-of-six bhikkhus, dressing early in the morning, taking their bowls and (outer) robes, entered Sāvatthī 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 Sāvatthī 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.
Perception as to whether one is actually ill is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4.)
Non-offenses. According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense in taking a meal on the second day —
if it does not include any of the five staple foods;
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 last 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.
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 pācittiya offense.
Questions in regard wheter proper to make use of public (if even not commercial) social media and other "giving" not intentional contributed to one or the Sangha, can be drawn from this rule.
Although the Vinaya gives help for worldlings it should be actually clear for a person arrived at righteousness that common social givings, even with strings to catch people are unaccessable for Noble Ones (or those holding and understandig Vinaya).
Actually it even deals with stealing if taking in trust does not apply, at least in ways of fraud (for the cases where monks "eat" on places covering they faces (anonymous).) From experiances, if social centers get aware that buddhist monks feed, they are in 95% not happy with such, being for the most follower of other sects. In this way, contributions originated by certain democratic tolerations as well, can not be used by monks if not an "emergency" case.
