… at Rājagaha in the Bamboo Grove at the squirrels’ feeding-place. Now at that time the nun Thullanandā came to frequent a certain family as a regular diner. And monks who were elders came to be invited by that householder. Then the nun Thullanandā, dressing in the morning, taking her bowl and robe, approached that family, and having approached, she said to that householder:

“Householder, why is this abundant solid food and soft food prepared?”

“Lady, elders are invited by me.”

“But who are the elders for you, householder?”

“Master Sāriputta, master Moggallāna the Great, master Kaccāna the Great, master Koṭṭhita the Great, master Kappina the Great, master Cunda the Great, master Anuruddha, master Revata, master Upāli, master Ānanda, master Rāhula.”

“But why did you, householder, invite fellows posing as great heroes?”

“But who are the great heroes for you, sister?”

“Master Devadatta, master Kokālika, master Kaṭamorakatissaka, master the son of the lady Khaṇḍā, master Samuddadatta.”

Now this chance talk of the nun Thullanandā was interrupted when these monks who were elders entered. She said:

“Householder, is it true that the great heroes are invited by you?”

“You, lady, called (them) now ‘fellows,’ now ‘great heroes,’” he said, and he turned her out of the house and put an end to regular dining. Those who were modest monks … spread it about, saying:

“How can Devadatta eat alms-food knowing that it was procured through (the intervention of) a nun?”

“Is it true, as is said, that you, Devadatta, ate alms-food knowing that it was procured through (the intervention of) a nun?”

“It is true, lord.”

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

“How can you, foolish man, eat alms-food knowing that it was procured through (the intervention of) a nun? It is not, foolish man, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased … And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:

“Whatever monk should eat alms-food knowing that it was procured through (the intervention of) a nun, 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 a certain monk who had gone forth from Kajagaha arrived at a family of (his) relations. People, saying: “At last the revered sir is come,” duly made ready a meal. A nun who frequented that family spoke thus to these people:

“Sirs, give a meal to the master.”

Then that monk, thinking: “It is forbidden by the lord to eat alms-food knowing that it was procured through (the intervention of) a nun,” being scrupulous, did not accept it; he was not able to walk for alms, he became famished. Then that monk, having gone to the monastery, told this matter to the monks. The monks told this matter to the lord. Then the lord on this occasion, in this connection, having given reasoned talk, addressed the monks, saying:

“I allow you, monks, to eat alms-food knowing that it was procured through (the intervention of) a nun, if there is a prior arrangement with the householder. And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:

“Whatever monk should eat alms-food knowing that it was procured through (the intervention of) a nun, unless there is a prior arrangement with the householder, there is an offence of expiation.”

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

He knows means: either he knows by himself, or others tell him, or she herself tells him.

A nun means: one ordained by both Orders.

Procures means: previously not desirous of giving, not desirous of treating him, if she says: “The master is a repeater, the master is very learned, the master is versed in the Suttantas, the master is an expert in Vinaya, the master is a speaker of dhamma, give to the master, treat the master”: this means procures.

Alms-food means: any one meal of the five (kinds of) meals.

Unless there is a prior arrangement with the house-holder means: setting aside the arrangement with the householder.

An arrangement with the householder means: they are relations or they are invited or they are ordinarily prepared (for the monk).

If he says: “I will eat,” and accepts (a meal), unless there is a prior arrangement with the householder, there is an offence of wrong-doing. For each mouthful there is an offence of expiation.

If he thinks that it is procured when it is procured (and) eats it, unless there is a prior arrangement with the householder, there is an offence of expiation. If he is in doubt as to whether it is procured (and) eats … with the householder, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that it is not procured when it is procured (and) eats … with the householder, there is no offence. If he eats what is procured through (the intervention of) one ordained by one (Order only), unless there is a prior arrangement with the house-holder, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that it is procured when it is not procured, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he is in doubt as to whether it is not procured, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If he thinks that it is not procured when it is not procured, there is no offence.

There is no offence if there is a prior arrangement with the householder; if a female probationer procures it, if a female novice procures it; setting aside the five (kinds of) meals, there is no offence in (eating) any others; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer.

The Ninth