四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.74

2.74

就初中。如《僧祇》：寺主摩摩帝，互用佛法僧物，謂言不犯，佛言波羅夷。謂知事人，取僧糧食器具及以牛馬，為佛像家營事使役，並得正重；將佛法物，僧用亦爾。廣文如彼律。《寶梁》等經云：佛法二物，不得互用，由無有人為佛法物作主故；復無可咨白，不同僧物。所以常住招提，互有所須，營事比丘和僧，索欲行籌，和合者得用。若欲用僧物，修治佛塔，依法取僧，和合得用；不和合者，勸俗修補。若佛塔有物，乃至一錢，以施主重心故捨，諸天及人，於此物中，應生佛想塔想，乃至風吹雨爛，不得貿寶供養；以如來塔物，無人作價故。若準此義，佛堂之內，而設僧席；僧房之內，安置經像，妨僧受用；並是互用，由三寶位別，各攝分齊故。若無妨暫安，理得無損。文云：不得安佛下房，已在上房也。問：招提常住等，是何物耶？答：《中含》：阿難受別房，用施招提僧；菴婆女以園施佛為首，及招提僧。文中不了，準此，房宇等是招提僧物，華果等是僧鬘物。《五百問》：本非佛堂，設像在中，比丘共宿臥，作障隔者，不犯。由佛在世，亦與弟子同房宿故。《十誦》：佛聽僧坊畜使人，佛圖使人，乃至象馬牛羊亦爾，各有所屬，不得互使。《薩婆多》：四方僧地，不和合，不得作佛塔，為佛種華果。若僧中分行得已，聽隨意供養；華多無限者，隨用供養。若經荒餓，三寶園田，無有分別，無可問白，若僧和合，隨意處分。若屬塔水，用塔功力得者，僧用得重；若功力由僧，當籌量多少，莫令過限，過則結重。《十誦》：僧園中樹華，聽取供養佛塔。若有果者，使人取啖；大木供僧椽梁用；樹皮葉等，隨比丘用。亦得借僧釜鑊瓶盆等雜用。《毘尼母》云：已處分房地，種樹得木，後用治房，不須白僧；僧樹治塔，和僧者得。《僧祇》：院內樹薪，應準多少，供溫室、食厨、浴室、別房，不得過取；若無定限，隨意多少，應取乾枯者。若僧須木用，或有樹在妨地，而施主不許者，使淨人以魚骨刺灰汁澆，令死，然後語施主知，後乃斫用。若僧田宅，連接惡人，得語檀越轉易。《四分》：瓶沙王以園施佛，佛令與僧等。故知三寶不得互用，便勸施僧，僧猶得供佛法也。若本通三寶施者，隨偏用盡，不得破此物以為三分，則乖本施心故。《善見》云：伏藏中物，若為三寶齋講設會，得取，無罪。上律中，乃至別人，得用僧薪草者，此要須具戒清淨，應僧法者。如律所斷，財法皆同。若行少缺，乖僧用者，得罪無量，廣如前經中。又如傳云：由取僧樹葉染作雜用，罪藉藏在石函，身皆入地獄受苦。斯由戒非全具，心無慚愧故耳。有心行者，自隱而參取焉。

Regarding the first: As in the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya: the monastery administrator mamati mutually transferred the property of the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha, claiming it was no offense; the Buddha said it was a pārājika. This means that if a manager takes the Saṃgha's provisions, utensils, oxen, or horses to perform services and labor for the Buddha image, all constitute a primary major offense; taking Buddha or Dharma property for Saṃgha use is likewise. The full text is as in that Vinaya. Sūtras such as the Ratnarāśi state: property of the Buddha and the Dharma must not be transferred mutually, because there is no person who acts as the master of Buddha or Dharma property; furthermore, there is no one who can be consulted, unlike Saṃgha property. Therefore, when the permanent residence and the cāturdiśa-saṃgha mutually have needs, the bhikṣu managing affairs harmonizes the Saṃgha, solicits chanda, and circulates the voting tallies; if there is consensus, it may be used. If one wishes to use Saṃgha property to repair a Buddha stūpa, one consults the Saṃgha according to the Dharma; if there is consensus, it may be used; if not in consensus, one encourages the laity to repair it. If there is property belonging to a Buddha stūpa, down to a single coin, given by a donor with a reverent mind, devas and humans should produce the thought of the Buddha and the thought of the stūpa toward this property; even if blown by the wind and rotted by the rain, it must not be exchanged for valuables to make offerings, because no one may set a price on property of the Tathāgata’s stūpa. According to this principle, if one sets out Saṃgha seats inside a Buddha hall, or installs sūtras and images inside a Saṃgha room so that it obstructs the Saṃgha's use, these are all instances of mutual transference, because the stations of the Three Jewels are distinct, each comprehending its own boundary. If there is no obstruction and it is placed temporarily, in principle there is no fault. The text states: one must not place the Buddha in a lower room; it must be in an upper room. Question: What kind of property are the permanent residence of the cāturdiśa-saṃgha and the like? Answer: The Madhyama-āgama states: Ānanda received individual rooms and gave them to the cāturdiśa-saṃgha; the woman Āmrapālī gave a grove with the Buddha as the head and to the cāturdiśa-saṃgha. The text is not entirely clear; according to this, buildings and the like are the property of the cāturdiśa-saṃgha, and flowers, fruits, and the like are the Saṃgha's garland property. The Five Hundred Questions states: if a room was originally not a Buddha hall, but an image was set up inside, and bhikṣus sleep together in it, if they erect a partition screen, there is no offense, because when the Buddha was in the world, he also shared a room with his disciples. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: the Buddha permitted servants to be kept for the Saṃgha quarters and servants for the stūpa, and the same applies to elephants, horses, oxen, and sheep; each has its own affiliation and they must not be used interchangeably. The Sarvāstivāda states: on the land of the cāturdiśa-saṃgha, without consensus, one may not build a Buddha stūpa or plant flowers and fruit for the Buddha. If they have already been distributed within the Saṃgha, one is permitted to make offerings as one pleases; if flowers are abundant and limitless, one may use them for offerings as needed. If during famine and starvation the fields and orchards of the Three Jewels are indistinguishable and there is no one to ask, if the Saṃgha is in consensus, it may dispose of them as it sees fit. If water belongs to a stūpa and was obtained through the labor of the stūpa, its use by the Saṃgha is a major offense; if the labor was by the Saṃgha, one should calculate the amount and not exceed the limit; exceeding it establishes a major offense. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: one is permitted to take flowers from trees in the Saṃgha's orchard to make offerings to the Buddha stūpa. If there is fruit, servants may take and eat it; large timber is used for the Saṃgha's rafters and beams; tree bark, leaves, and the like may be used by the bhikṣus as needed. One may also borrow the Saṃgha's cauldrons, kettles, bottles, basins, and other utensils for miscellaneous use. The Vinayamātṛkā states: if timber is obtained from planting trees on assigned room plots, it may later be used to repair the rooms without needing to inform the Saṃgha; using the Saṃgha's trees to repair a stūpa is permitted if the Saṃgha is in consensus. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: firewood from trees within the compound should be measured according to the amount needed to supply the warming room, kitchen, bathhouse, and separate rooms, and one must not take excess; if there is no fixed limit, one may take dry and withered wood as needed. If the Saṃgha needs wood, or there is a tree obstructing the land and the donor does not give permission, a kappiyakāraka should be sent to pour fish-bone ash water on it to make it die; afterwards the donor is informed, and then it is felled and used. If the Saṃgha's fields or dwellings are adjacent to wicked people, one may inform the dānapati to exchange them. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: King Bimbisāra offered an orchard to the Buddha, and the Buddha ordered it to be given to the Saṃgha, and so forth. Thus we know that the property of the Three Jewels must not be mutually transferred; one then encourages donations to the Saṃgha, and the Saṃgha may still make offerings to the Buddha and the Dharma. If a donation was originally given generally to the Three Jewels, it may be used up for one purpose; one must not divide this property into three parts, as that would contradict the original donor's intention. The Samantapāsādikā states: buried treasure, if taken for the Three Jewels' fasting lectures and assemblies, may be taken without offense. In the Vinayas above, where it even allows individual persons to use the Saṃgha's firewood and grass, this requires that they have complete and pure precepts and accord with the Saṃgha's Dharma. As judged in the Vinaya, material goods and the Dharma are identical. If one's practice is slightly deficient and violates proper Saṃgha use, one incurs immeasurable offenses, as detailed in the previous sūtras. Furthermore, as related in the accounts: because someone took the leaves of a Saṃgha tree to dye for miscellaneous use, the record of the offense was stored in a stone casket, and his whole body entered hell to suffer torment. This was because his precepts were not fully intact and his mind was devoid of shame. Discerning practitioners should quietly examine this for themselves.