四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.75

2.75

二當分互用。謂本造釋迦，改作彌陀；本作《大品》，改作《涅槃》；本作僧房，改充車乘；皆望前境，理義可通，但違施心，得互用罪。律云：許此處，乃與彼處；及現前堂直，迴作五衣，並得罪也。若本作佛，迴作菩薩，本經未論等，則情理俱違；本造正錄、雜錄真經，乃造人集偽經者，因果全乖；決判得重，福無福別，邪正雜故。若東西二龕，佛法財物，有主不合，無主通用。若元通師徒，及眾具供養者，理通得作；而不通牛馬雜畜，非義之人。《五百問》云：用佛彩色，作鳥獸形，得罪；除在佛前，為供養故。《善見》：若施主本擬施園果，為衣服湯藥等，盜心迴分食者，隨計結重。若擬作僧房舍重物，而迴作僧食，犯偷蘭。若住處乏少糧食，各欲散去，無人守護者；和僧減用上園果等重物作食，主領守之；乃至四方僧房亦得。若房破壞，賣麁者以相治捕。若賊亂世，聽持隨身；賊去靜時，還復本處。欲供養此像，迴與彼像，吉羅。第八、第九、第十卷中，論盜戒大微密。《十誦》、《勒伽》云：持此四方僧物，盜心度與餘寺，吉羅；以還與僧，不犯重也。《僧祇》：若在近寺破，無臥具供養者，通結一界，彼此共用。《五百問》中：白衣投比丘，未度者，白僧與食。若為僧乞，白僧，聽將僧食在道；若僧不許，或不白行，還須償；不者犯重。若供僧齋米，僧去，齋主用供後僧，打犍稚得食；若不打者，一飽犯重。準上，不得輒將僧食出界而食，本無還心者，犯重；雖復打鐘，猶不免盜，以物體攝處定故。律中，共利養別說戒者，須作羯磨和僧方得；若直得者，何須同界同法也。若為僧差遠使，路非乞食之所，和僧將食在道，亦不必作相，準《善見》守寺之文。若寺莊磑，不必和僧，彼此通用，住處各鳴犍稚通食。若行至外寺，私有人畜，用僧物者犯重；以施主擬供當處住僧，不供別類，非是福由故；僧家人畜，犯吉羅。

Second, mutual use within the same category. This refers to originally intending to make a Śākyamuni [image] but changing it to Amitābha; originally intending to copy the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā* but changing it to the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*; or originally intending to build monastic dwellings but altering it to provide carts and mounts. Considering the recipient domain in each case, the underlying principle might seem admissible, yet because it contravenes the donor's intention, an offense of mutual use is incurred. The Vinaya states: promising to this place and then giving to that place, or diverting the value of a current hall to make the five robes, both incur an offense. If an image originally intended to be a Buddha is redirected to be a bodhisattva, or an original sūtra to an as-yet-unwritten treatise, then both feelings and principle are contravened. If materials originally intended for authentic scriptures in the orthodox or miscellaneous catalogues are instead used to produce apocryphal scriptures compiled by people, cause and effect are completely distorted; it is definitively judged that a severe [offense] is incurred, because there is a distinction between merit and non-merit, and the heterodox and orthodox are confounded. As for the eastern and western niches, if the Buddha or Dharma property has an owner, [mutual use] is improper; if it has no owner, it may be shared in common. If the [donation] originally applied generally to master and disciple, and to the assembly's requisition of requisites, then on principle it may legitimately be done; but it does not extend to oxen, horses, miscellaneous livestock, or improper persons. The *Wubai wen* states: using the Buddha's paints to depict birds and beasts incurs an offense, except when done before the Buddha as an offering. The *Sudarsana* states: if a donor originally intended to bestow orchard fruits for robes, medicines, and the like, and one diverts them with a mind of theft to consume as food, a severe [offense] is charged according to the valuation. If materials intended for the heavy property of monastic dwellings are diverted for the saṃgha's food, it is a thullaccaya. If a monastery lacks food and [the monks] all wish to disperse, leaving no one to guard it, the saṃgha may convene in harmony to reduce and use the heavy property such as the aforementioned orchard fruits for food, so that someone will take charge and guard it; it is even permissible to do so with the dwellings of the cāturdiśa-saṃgha. If the dwellings fall into ruin, the rougher materials may be sold to repair and mend them. In times of robbery and disorder, one is permitted to take them along on one's person; when the robbers have gone and it is peaceful, one must return them to their original place. If one wishes to make offerings to this image but redirects them to that image, it is a duṣkṛta. In the eighth, ninth, and tenth fascicles, the treatise discusses the stealing precept in great and subtle detail. The *Daśādhyāya* and the *Lokottaravāda* state: if one takes property of this cāturdiśa-saṃgha and, with a mind of theft, passes it to another monastery, it is a duṣkṛta; because it was still given to the saṃgha, one does not commit a grave offense. The *Mahāsāṃghika* states: if a nearby monastery is ruined and lacks bedding and requisites, a single boundary may be established encompassing both, so that both may use them in common. In the *Wubai wen*: when a layperson seeks refuge with a monk and has not yet been ordained, one must announce it to the saṃgha before giving him food. If one begs [food] for the saṃgha, one must announce it to the saṃgha, and one is permitted to take the saṃgha's food on the road; if the saṃgha does not permit it, or if one sets off without announcing it, one must reimburse it afterwards; if not, one commits a grave offense. If rice is provided for a feast for the saṃgha, and after the saṃgha departs the patron uses it to feed a later saṃgha, striking the gaṇḍī allows them to eat; if it is not struck, taking one meal commits a grave offense. According to the above, one must not arbitrarily take the saṃgha's food outside the boundary to eat; if one originally had no intention to repay it, one commits a grave offense. Even if one strikes the bell, one still does not escape stealing, because the location that subsumes the substance of the property is fixed. In the Vinaya, to share provisions while reciting the precepts separately requires performing a karman to bring the saṃgha into harmony before it is permissible; if it were directly permissible, why would sharing the same boundary and the same Dharma be necessary? If one is dispatched by the saṃgha on a distant mission where the route is not a place for begging food, and the saṃgha has harmoniously agreed to one taking food on the road, it is also not necessary to make formal signs, based on the text on guarding the monastery in the *Sudarsana*. As for the estates and mills of a monastery, it is not necessary to convene the saṃgha in harmony; they may be used in common between both places, with each residence striking the gaṇḍī to share food. If while traveling to an outside monastery, one's private persons or livestock consume the saṃgha's property, one commits a grave offense, because the donor intended to make offerings to the monks residing at that place and not to other kinds, this not being a ground for merit; for the saṃgha's own persons and livestock, one commits a duṣkṛta.