四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.165

2.165

販賣戒二十。《多論》四義制：一為佛法增尚故，二為止鬪諍故，三為成四聖種故，四為長信敬不生誹謗故。論犯六緣成：一在家二眾，二共同交貿，三決價，四為己，五自貿易，六領受犯。律令淨人貿，準餘部雙開。《四分》：衣藥交貿，爭價高下，數數上下，皆犯。《多》云：此販賣墮，一切墮中最重，寧作屠兒，何以故？屠兒止害一生，販賣一切俱害；不問道俗、賢愚、持戒破戒，無往不欺。常懷惡心，設若居穀，恒希天下荒餓，霜雹災變；若居鹽積貯，恒願四遠反亂，王路隔塞。多有此過故。此販賣物作塔像，不得向禮。又云：但作佛意禮之。設與僧作食，及四方僧房，一切不得住中；持戒比丘，不應受用，得罪。若死，得羯磨分之。所以爾者，以此販賣業罪過深重，若生存時僧得用者，此比丘言，雖販賣有罪，猶得作福，續作無已。今不聽僧食用，無供僧福，後得重罪，以此因緣，不敢更作。比丘既死，無更作理，故得分之。若販賣食，咽咽墮；作衣者，著著墮；作臥具，隨轉轉墮。故重結。《五百問》云：治生得物施人，犯捨。若窮厄無食處，使白衣作食治生；道人白眾言，此非我物，得食；不者犯墮。若施俗人，俗人與僧，不犯。《僧祇》：若糴穀時，此後當貴；糴時越，糶時墮。若恐後貴，擬自食行道，到後穀貴食長，或與師僧，作功德，餘者出糶得利，無罪。諸藥草等亦爾（衣鉢不為利，後賣不犯）。《十誦》：若相似貿似相，如衣鉢、澡罐、瓶、戶鉤、四藥交貿；不相似者，以衣易鉢；一切墮。若可捨物、金銀錢，糴粟，或用粟買物；若可食啖，口口吉；可作衣，著著提。《五百問》云：有求利販賣作福無罪耶？答：此人尚不免地獄，何況得福？由不隨佛語，故非供養。《四分》中：販賣買三事，但為利故，買賣俱墮。《十誦》中：據一物為語。《多論》：若眾僧衣未三唱，得益價；若三唱已，不應益，以屬他故。若眾中三唱得衣，設悔，不應還。《十誦》：若賣買，前人悔，七日內者還之，若過不應。《四分》文不了，此是私賣買也。《五分》：使淨人易時，應心念，寧使彼得我利，我不得彼利。比丘共僧貿易應陪者，當使價均，然後交博；若貧無可陪，僧必知賢善知足，聽直與。《四分》：衣法中，有貴價衣，令淨人貿易；無淨人者，乃至遣比丘貿易。準此開之。必有淨人，亦制與罪。《僧祇》：若自問價、若使人問價、作不淨語、爭價高下，皆越；得物，墮。四藥隨輕物重物、淨不淨物，一切相貿，得提。肆上有衣，其價已定，比丘齎直來與物主；雖搖頭作與相者，比丘亦須語言：此直知是物也。若估客物直五十而索百錢，比丘以五十知之；如是求者，不名為下。若前人欲買此物，比丘不得抄市；當問言：汝止未？若報云：我休者。比丘方云：我以是價知是物好不？比丘自貿，抄市者越。若僧中買物，得上價取。若和尚闍梨取，不得抄上。若營事比丘雇匠，作不淨語，乃至為僧月直，市油麵等不淨語者，越；自為得物，入手犯墮。淨語者，以是物價知是好不？不淨語，分別價者索幾許等。若市買物，得嫌訶說；實前人物此好、此惡、麁細、斗秤大小、香臭者，無罪。《五百問》：若自舉物價，前人信之，貴取故，犯盜罪。《僧祇》：若食殘持博穌油等，作不淨語，犯捨。雇治革屣，作不淨語，越。若前與食後治，前治後與食，無罪。乃至殘食雇治草土等，準前。《多論》：如販賣戒中物，或方便有罪，果頭無罪；如為利居鹽穀，後得好心，即施僧作福。或果頭有罪；如為福糴米不賣，後見利便賣，以利自入，即是方便無罪。言得施者，謂一切俱捨懺也。律不犯者，聽五眾出家人共交貿，應自審定，不應共相高下，如市道法。不得與餘人貿易，令淨人貿。若悔聽還。若穌油相易者，無犯。準上衣法，得令淨人作者，謂據有者言之。《十誦》：三度語索不得者，覓淨人使買。淨人不知市易，當教以爾所物買是物，應知好惡思量，得者不犯。此賤彼貴，有利不犯。

Precept twenty: Engaging in trade. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states that it was instituted for four reasons: first, to cause the Buddha-Dharma to increase and flourish; second, to stop disputes; third, to bring the four noble lineages to completion; fourth, to foster faith and reverence and prevent slander. The treatise states that six conditions constitute a transgression: first, [trading with] the two classes of laypersons; second, mutually bartering together; third, determining the price; fourth, doing so for oneself; fifth, personally trading; sixth, receiving [the goods or profit] constitutes the transgression. The Vinaya instructs using a kappiyakāraka to trade, and following other vinayas, both are allowed. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: Bartering robes and medicines, haggling over price rises and falls, and repeatedly bargaining up and down are all transgressions. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: This pāyattika of trading is the heaviest among all pāyattikas; one would rather be a butcher. Why is that? A butcher harms only one lifetime, whereas trade harms everything together; irrespective of monastic or lay, wise or foolish, observing or breaking precepts, there is nowhere that deception is not practiced. One constantly harbors malicious intentions: if one hoards grain, one always hopes for famine across the world, or disasters of frost and hail; if one stores salt, one always wishes for rebellions from afar, blocking the royal highways. Because there are many such faults. If one builds stūpas or statues with such traded goods, one may not bow in veneration toward them. It also states: One may bow to them only by conceiving them as the Buddha. If they are used to prepare food for the saṃgha, or to build dwellings for the cāturdiśa-saṃgha, no one may live in them; a precept-observing bhikṣu should not use them, [for doing so] incurs an offense. If [the trader] dies, they may be distributed through a karman. The reason for this is that because the offense of this livelihood of trade is profoundly heavy, if the saṃgha were permitted to use it while he was alive, this bhikṣu would say: 'Although trading is an offense, it can still create merit,' and he would continue doing so endlessly. Now, by not allowing the saṃgha to consume or use it, there is no merit in making offerings to the saṃgha, and afterward he incurs heavy offenses; by this cause and condition, he will not dare to do it again. Once the bhikṣu has died, there is no rationale for him doing it again; therefore it may be distributed. If one trades for food, every swallow is a pāyattika; if made into robes, every wearing is a pāyattika; if made into bedding, with every turn there is a pāyattika. Therefore it is heavily condemned. The Five Hundred Questions states: Giving to others goods acquired through livelihood incurs a forfeiture [offense]. If one is in dire straits with nowhere to obtain food, and instructs a layperson to prepare food through livelihood, the religious person should announce to the community: 'This is not my property,' and then may eat it; otherwise, he incurs a pāyattika. If it is given to a layperson, and the layperson gives it to the saṃgha, it is not an offense. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: If when buying grain one knows it will become expensive later, buying it incurs a duṣkṛta, and selling it incurs a pāyattika. If one fears it will be expensive later and plans to eat it oneself to practice the Way, and when the grain becomes expensive later food is abundant, and one gives it to a master or the saṃgha to make merit, and sells the remainder at a profit, there is no offense. Various medicinal herbs and the like are also like this (robes and bowls not meant for profit do not incur an offense if sold later). The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: If similar goods are bartered for similar goods, such as robes, bowls, water vessels, pitchers, door-hooks, and the four medicines bartered among themselves; or dissimilar goods, such as trading a robe for a bowl; all are pāyattika. If forfeitable goods, gold, or silver coins are used to buy grain, or grain is used to buy goods, if they are edible, every mouthful is a duṣkṛta; if they can be made into robes, every wearing is a pāyattika. The Five Hundred Questions asks: If one seeks profit through trade to create merit, is there no offense? Answer: This person does not even escape hell, let alone obtain merit! Because he does not follow the Buddha's words, it is not an offering. In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya: For the three acts of trafficking, selling, and buying, merely because of profit, both buying and selling are pāyattika. In the Daśādhyāya-vinaya: It speaks based on a single item. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: If the saṃgha's robes have not been announced three times, the price may be increased; if already announced three times, it should not be increased, because it belongs to someone else. If one obtains a robe through three announcements among the saṃgha, even if one regrets it, it should not be returned. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: In buying and selling, if the other party regrets it within seven days, return it; if past that, one should not. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya text is not clear; this refers to private buying and selling. The Pañcavargika-vinaya states: When employing a kappiyakāraka to trade, one should mentally resolve: 'Better that he gains my profit than that I gain his profit.' When a bhikṣu trades with the saṃgha and an indemnity is due, he should balance the price before exchanging; if he is poor and has nothing to compensate with, and the saṃgha knows he is virtuous and content, they are permitted to give it straightaway. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: In the section on robe protocols, if there is an expensive robe, order a kappiyakāraka to trade it; if there is no kappiyakāraka, even dispatch a bhikṣu to trade it. Based on this, it is permitted. If there is definitely a kappiyakāraka, it is also prohibited under penalty of an offense. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: Asking the price oneself, sending someone to ask the price, using impure speech, or haggling over price rises and falls are all duṣkṛta; obtaining the goods is a pāyattika. Bartering the four medicines mutually, whether light goods, heavy goods, pure goods, or impure goods, all incurs a pāyattika. If there is a robe in the market whose price has been fixed, and a bhikṣu brings the payment to give to the owner of the goods, even if [the owner] nods or gestures agreement, the bhikṣu must still say: 'This payment knows this object.' If a merchant's goods are worth fifty but he asks for a hundred coins, and the bhikṣu 'knows' it with fifty, seeking it in this way is not called bargaining down. If someone else wishes to buy this item, the bhikṣu must not outbid him in the market; he should ask: 'Have you finished?' If he replies: 'I have stopped,' only then may the bhikṣu say: 'With this price I know whether this object is good or not?' If a bhikṣu trades personally and outbids someone in the market, it is a duṣkṛta. If buying goods in the saṃgha, one may take it at the highest bid. If an upādhyāya or ācārya takes it, one must not outbid them. If a monastery manager hires an artisan with impure speech, or even uses impure speech when buying oil, flour, etc., for the saṃgha's monthly provisions, it is a duṣkṛta; if he does so for himself and obtains the goods, receiving them incurs a pāyattika. Pure speech means saying: 'With this value of goods, I know whether it is good or not?' Impure speech means specifying prices, asking how much is wanted, and the like. If buying goods in the market, one may express dislike or speak critically; if one truthfully assesses the other person's goods as good or bad, coarse or fine, big or small by peck or scale, fragrant or foul, there is no offense. The Five Hundred Questions states: If one inflates the price of goods oneself and the other person believes it and pays an exorbitant price, it constitutes an offense of theft. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: If one takes leftover food to barter for ghee, oil, and the like with impure speech, it is a forfeiture offense. Hiring someone to repair leather shoes with impure speech is a duṣkṛta. If one gives food first and repairs later, or repairs first and gives food later, there is no offense. And so on, down to hiring someone to handle grass or earth with leftover food, according to the above. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: As for goods under the precept on trade, sometimes the preliminary action has an offense but the final result has no offense; as when one hoards salt or grain for profit, but later develops a good mind and donates it to the saṃgha to make merit. Or the final result has an offense; as when one buys grain for merit without intending to sell it, but later sees profit and sells it, pocketing the profit for oneself, then the preliminary action has no offense. Saying that one may donate it means confessing with complete forfeiture of all of it. In the 'no offense' provisions of the Vinaya: Members of the five monastic assemblies are permitted to trade with one another, but they should examine and settle [the price] themselves, and should not haggle over higher and lower like secular market methods. One must not trade with other people; instruct a kappiyakāraka to trade. If one regrets it, it is permitted to return it. If exchanging ghee and oil with each other, there is no offense. Following the above robe protocols, being permitted to order a kappiyakāraka to do it refers to cases where one is present. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: If after asking three times one does not obtain it, find a kappiyakāraka and have him buy it. If the kappiyakāraka does not understand market exchange, one should instruct him: 'Buy this item with such an amount of goods; you should discern whether it is good or bad and consider carefully'; if obtained, there is no offense. If it is cheap here and dear there, making a profit is not an offense.