According to the word by word analysis which comes after the origin story and declaration of the rule by the Buddha,the offering should be in hatthapasa.
So the question is, who is doing that analysis? I am not saying that the analysis is bad but if after its explanation ,has essentially created new protocols or a new rule, then it goes against the Buddha when He said that nobody should make new rules.
1st rule from the Buddha:
“If any monk takes into the mouth nutriment that that has not been given, except
for water and tooth-sticks: a Pācittiya.”
2nd rule from the analyser:
“If any monk takes into the mouth nutriment that that has not been given, except
for water and tooth-sticks. Not been given: This refers to something that has not been received.
Given: Given with the body, with something connected with the body, or by relinquishing;
staying within arm’s reach, one receives it with the body or with something connected
with the body: this is called “given” :… a Pācittiya.”
Although the 2nd is similar to the 1st, it still is new, and made by someone other than the Buddha.
Your objection to allowing me to offer food to you over the phone etc, which has been left in the kappiya kuti near your dwelling, on account of you not wanting to take food out of the kappiya kuti because it seems like management, …i accept but question. What exactly is the problem with removing food from the kappiya kuti after i have offered all of it to you? That small act of ‘management’ if you can really call it that, is not against any rule that i am aware of.
Pacittiya 40 states the food must be ‘given’, and that act is a transaction, and transactions of such a kind are done reguraly over phone or internet nowadays, and are considered valid pretty much by every sane person.
In the origin story, people were upset because the food that the monk was using was not intended for him, and that was the fault there, not because nobody gave that food to him within hatthapasa. Which means, if the food was intended for him, if there was the perception of ‘given’, nobody would have complained.
It can also come across as quite conceited, if someone offers you something in person, but doesnt put it in your hand, but just clearly gestures to you that the food on the table is offered to you, and then the monastic refuses to take the food until the layman raises the dish into the monastics hand. it would seem as though the monastic refuses to lower themselves to level of an ordinary transaction of generosity, which can seem quite prideful or just plain crazy…from a point of view of a person who hasnt been brought up in such an environment.
Also, such transactions done through modern technology can open up possibilities for quite a secluded lifestyle for the monastic, and also possibilities to live in places previously unconsidered due to the fact that normal pindapata is unlikely.
And why wouldnt your voice or image being projected through a device not stand for ‘being connected to the body’ or ‘within hatthapasa’? If that doesnt count as a physical presence, then it would also open up other possibilities for actually performing certain acts which would normally be considered a breach of vinaya, such as pacittiya 45 for the bhikkhu, which states that he should not sit in private with a woman. If a zoom call is not considered a physical presence, then if he has a private zoom with a woman, he is considered from this point of view, not having broken that pacittiya, because the main factor of a woman being in his presence is not considered ‘there’. However, any sane person , i believe, owing to the belief in my own sanity, would consider that a breach of that rule, and no doubt if a husband had to walk in on his wife having a private call with another man/monk, in most cases there would an upset. And that is pretty the origin story for that pacittiya 45 .
All the best with your covid-hotspot-food-offering-situation, and thanks for taking your time to comment.