四分律行事鈔資持記 3.142

3.142

In the third section: The *Bodhisattvabhūmi-śāstra* says: 'A bodhisattva first, regarding all stored requisites, because they are impure, with a pure mind relinquishes them to all Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions, just as a bhikṣu relinquishes his present robes and goods to his upādhyāya, ācārya, and so forth.' The *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* says: 'Although one is permitted to accept and store them, one must necessarily purify and give them to a devout, faithful dānapati.' This is what is meant. Nowadays, those lecturing and studying exclusively strive for gain and fame; they are not ashamed of the five wrong livelihoods and amass many of the eight impure things. Merely following floating secular customs, how do they ever recall the sacred words? From the time they leave the ordination platform through many summer retreats, as for the method of purification, not even once has it touched their persons. How could they know that the requisites of daily use are nothing but defiled goods, and what is accumulated in their chests and bags is entirely offending property? Disdaining the Dharma and deceiving their own minds, they bring sorrow upon themselves. Those studying the Vinaya knowingly violate it, and for those of other traditions, it is certainly not even worth speaking of. Who understands that retribution follows the formation of the mind? Who believes that the fruit is tied to the seed? In the present, one sees the kāṣāya separate from the body; in the future, iron plates will wrap around one's torso. Reborn as a human, one will be born into poverty, with clothing filthy; reborn as an animal, one will fall into impurity, with feathers and fur fishy and foul. Moreover, both the Great and Small Vehicles comprehensively explain the method of purification; if one cherishes deep faith, how could one shrink from putting it into practice? Thus Chan Master Jingxi's *Fuxing ji* says: 'Someone said: "Regarding all possessions, one should maintain the notion that they are not one's own goods; if they are beneficial, one simply uses them—what is the point of speaking purification?" Now I ask: since you consider them not to be your own wealth, why not abandon them to the four seas? If they are beneficial, you simply use them, so why not directly consign them to the two fields [of compassion and reverence]? Instead, you lock them in deep rooms and seal them in bags and boxes. If you truly harbor the thought of them belonging to another, using them will certainly incur a fault (constituting theft); if you suddenly consider them your own wealth, you still violate the speaking of purification. To speak purification and then bestow them, what hindrance is there in principle? Giving rein to one's own stubborn mind causes later generations to imitate it.' (The above is his text.) Thus we know that those who do not speak purification profoundly contravene the Buddha's intent; they are not encompassed by either of the Two Vehicles, nor gathered in by the three faculties. If one leaves household life in this manner, is it not in vain? Alas!