四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.77

2.77

四隨相物中自互。先約佛物，有四種：一佛受用物。不得互轉，謂堂宇衣服床帳等物，曾經佛用者，著塔中供養，不得互易，如前《寶梁經》說。《五百問事》云：不得賣佛身上繒，與佛作衣。又佛堂柱壞，施主換訖，故柱施僧，僧不得用。律中佛言：若佛園坐具者，一切天人供養，不得輒用，皆是塔故。廣敬如〈僧像致敬〉法中。二施屬佛物。《五百問》云：佛物得買取供養具供養。《十誦》：以佛塔物出息，佛言聽之。《五百問》云：佛物不得移至他寺，犯棄；若眾僧盡去，白僧，僧聽，將去無罪。比丘客作佛像書經，得物不得取。若得佛家牛畜，亦不得使，使佛牛奴，得大罪。三供養佛物。《僧祇》：供養佛華多，聽轉賣買香燈；猶故多者，轉賣，著佛無盡財中。《五百問》云：佛旛多，欲作餘佛事者，得；施主不許，不得。準此，迴改作故，不轉變本質。如《大論》云：如畫作佛像，一以不好故壞，得福；一以惡心壞，便得罪也。四者獻佛物。律云：供養佛塔食，治塔人得食。《善見》云：佛前獻飯，侍佛比丘食之；若無比丘，白衣侍佛亦得食。準此，俗家佛盤，本不屬佛，不勞設贖；言贖，偽經。次明法物，亦有四別：一法所受用。如箱函、匱簏、巾帖之屬，本是經物，曾經置設，不可迴改；餘三得不，準上可知。三明僧物。若二種常住，局處已定，不可轉移，如上所明；若通濟他寺，羯磨和得。初之常住，止得受用。十方常住，鳴稚同時，即預食分；若惡戒及時，有德非時，非法而用，並結偷蘭。二種互用，通和得不，準上可知。常住人畜，必無賣買，準經罪重，諸律無文。故《僧祇》中，施僧婢並不合受，可以意知。若論二種現前，罪互如上。就輕重二物，斷割非文；違者，雙結二罪。

Fourth, mutual use among specific types of property within their respective categories. First, regarding Buddha property, there are four kinds: First, property used by the Buddha. This must not be diverted or exchanged; that is, buildings, robes, beds, curtains, and other items that were once used by the Buddha are to be placed inside a stūpa for worship and must not be exchanged, as stated earlier in the *Ratnarāśi-sūtra*. The *Wubai wenshi* states: one must not sell the silks on the Buddha's body to make robes for the Buddha. Furthermore, when the pillars of a Buddha hall deteriorated and the donor replaced them, offering the old pillars to the saṃgha, the saṃgha was not permitted to use them. In the Vinaya, the Buddha said: regarding sitting mats in the Buddha's garden, all gods and humans make offerings to them, and they must not be used arbitrarily, because they all belong to the stūpa. The extensive veneration is as described in the ritual for 'Paying Homage to the Saṃgha and Images'. Second, property donated to belong to the Buddha. The *Wubai wen* states: Buddha property may be bought to procure offering requisites for worship. The *Daśādhyāya* states: when Buddha stūpa property was lent out for interest, the Buddha said he permitted it. The *Wubai wen* states: Buddha property must not be moved to another monastery; [to do so] is an offense of parājika. If the assembly of monks all depart, and one announces it to the saṃgha, and the saṃgha permits it, taking it away is without offense. If a visiting monk makes Buddha images or copies sūtras and receives property for it, he must not take it. If one obtains oxen or livestock belonging to the Buddha, one also must not put them to work; putting the Buddha's oxen or slaves to work incurs a great offense. Third, property offered to the Buddha. The *Mahāsāṃghika* states: if flowers offered to the Buddha are plentiful, one is permitted to resell them to purchase incense and lamps; if they are still plentiful, resell them and place [the proceeds] into the Buddha's inexhaustible wealth. The *Wubai wen* states: if Buddha banners are plentiful and one wishes to use them for other Buddha affairs, it is permissible; if the donor does not permit it, it is not permissible. Based on this, redirecting and altering them preserves them without transforming their original substance. As the *Mahāvibhāṣā* (or *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra*) states: as when painting a Buddha image, if one destroys it because it is ugly, one gains merit; if one destroys it with an evil mind, one incurs an offense. Fourth, food presented to the Buddha. The Vinaya states: as for food offered to the Buddha's stūpa, those who maintain the stūpa may eat it. The *Sudarsana* states: as for meals presented before the Buddha, the bhikṣu who attends the Buddha may eat them; if there is no bhikṣu, a layperson attending the Buddha may also eat them. Based on this, the Buddha dishes in lay households did not originally belong to the Buddha, so there is no need to arrange for redemption; to speak of redemption comes from apocryphal scriptures. Next, to clarify Dharma property, which also has four distinctions: First, property used by the Dharma. Such items as cases, boxes, chests, baskets, covers, and labels originally belong to the scriptures; once they have been put to use, they cannot be altered or diverted. Whether the other three kinds are permissible or not can be known by analogy with the above. Third, to clarify saṃgha property. Regarding the two kinds of permanent property, their location is already fixed and cannot be transferred, as clarified above; if used to relieve another monastery in common, it may be obtained through the harmony of a karman. The former kind of permanent property may only be enjoyed in its use. Regarding the permanent property of the ten directions, at the time the gaṇḍī is struck, one is immediately entitled to a share of food; if one of bad precepts participates on time, or a virtuous one participates at an improper time, using it unlawfully, both incur a thullaccaya. Whether the mutual use of the two kinds may be permitted through harmony can be known by analogy with the above. The permanent persons and livestock must under no circumstances be bought or sold; based on the scriptures the offense is severe, though the various Vinayas have no text on this. Therefore, in the *Mahāsāṃghika*, the donation of female slaves to the saṃgha was entirely unacceptable, as may be understood implicitly. Regarding the two kinds of current property, the offenses of mutual use are as described above. Deciding between light and heavy property is not found in the text; those who violate this doubly incur both offenses.