梵網經菩薩戒本疏 2.11

2.11

第二、明互用者，有二種：一、三寶互，二、當分互。初中，如《僧祇》中，摩摩帝互用佛、法、僧物，佛言：波羅夷。今有檢校塔、像、經等者，取僧食糧，乘僧畜生，使僧淨人，一毫俱重。又於僧房院地內造佛堂塔，及於塔院地中取井水等，俱重。又准《寶梁經》云：佛法二物不得互用，由無能與佛法物作主，復無處可諮白。不同僧物常住招提，互有所須。營事比丘和僧索欲行籌，和合者得用。若用僧物修治佛塔，依法取僧和合得用，不和合者勸俗人修治。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，乃至風吹爛壞，不得貨寶供養，以如來塔物無人作價。若准此文，僧物得和作佛法用，佛法物無有僧用義。又佛堂內設僧席，僧坊內置經像，妨僧受用，共成互用，由三寶位別故。若暫安或不礙用，理亦無犯。又《五百問事》云：本非佛堂設像，在此中比丘如法共宿，作隔障者不犯。由佛在時亦與弟子同房宿故。又《薩婆多論》云：四方僧地不和合者，不得作佛塔及為佛種花菓。若僧中分得者，得聽隨意供養。花多無限者，隨用供養。若經荒餓，三寶園田無有分別，無可問處者，若僧和合，隨意處分。若屬塔水，用塔功力者，僧用得重。若功力由僧，當籌量多少，莫令過限，過即結重。若施主通施三寶者，皆全用得，無犯。二、明當分互者，先辨佛物，有六重：一、是佛寶物，應懸塔中供養。故《多論》云：「佛在世時，若施主佛供養，即色身受用。若言供養佛寶，即色身為不得受用，應著狐髮塔中，施心供養法身，法身長在故。」二、佛受用物，謂佛堂帳座等，及佛衣鉢等，但曾經佛及像受用，皆不得易，以一切天人敬如塔故。如前《寶梁經》說。又《五百問》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。准此文，佛堂基土及泥木金石，曾作佛像及受用者，竝合供養，不得轉用也。三、屬佛物。謂入施佛，許令出息等。《十誦律》云：以佛塔物出息，佛言聽之。《五百問》云：佛物得賣供養具供養。又准《後分涅槃經》上卷云：佛告阿難：若佛現在所施物，僧眾應知。若佛滅後，一切信心處施佛物，應用造佛形像，及造佛衣、七寶幡蓋，買諸香油、寶華，以供養佛。除供養佛，餘不得用。用者，即犯盜佛罪。又《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。比丘容作佛像、書經，得物不得取。若得佛家人畜，不得使，使得大罪。四、供養佛物。加《僧祇律》云：供養佛華多，聽轉賣香燈油。猶故多者，轉賣著佛無盡財中。又云：「有舍利者名塔，無舍利名支提。支提得安佛華蓋、供養具。若有云：佛貪欲、瞋、癡已斷，用是精舍供養為？得越毘尼罪，業報重。」又言：若佛生等大會日，得持供養佛塔中。上者供養佛塔，下者供養支提。又《五百問》云：佛幡多，欲作餘佛事者，得問施主，不許不得。又《智論》云：如畫作佛像，一以不好故壞得福，一以惡心故壞便得罪。五、獻佛物。《四分律》云：供養佛塔食，治塔人得食。《善見論》云：佛前獻飯，侍佛比丘得食。若無比丘，白衣侍佛亦得食。准此文，齊上佛盤，應與掃治塔人食。六、局佛物。如本造釋迦像，後改作彌陀等。《善見論》云：欲供養此像，乃供養彼像，得小罪。准此望境，理實義通，俱違施心，得互用罪。若作僧像及菩薩、天神，理宜結重。若施心通，擬侍佛供養故，理亦無犯。《五百問》云：用佛彩色作鳥獸形得罪，除在佛前為供養故。若檢校佛物，於上六位應善分別，勿令有互用。第二、法物者，亦六重：一、法寶物。應著塔中供養。《多論》云：若施法寶者，應懸塔中，不得作經及與說戒人等。二、法受用物。如軸、帙、箱、巾、函、帊等類，准前不得餘用。三、施法物。《多論》云：「若直言施法，分作二分：一分與經，一分與讀誦經人。」准前亦得出息等。四、供養法物。五、獻法物。並准佛應知。六、局法物中。若本作《大品經》，改作《涅槃》，理應非重。若改寫論及人集偽經，決判得重。若本施通寫，理亦無犯。第三，僧物者。有五種：一、僧寶物。《多論》云：「若施僧寶，凡夫僧、聖人僧不得取分，以施僧寶故。此物應還付施主。若無施主，應著塔中，供養第一義諦僧。若言施眾僧者，聖僧、凡僧俱得取分，以言無當故。」准此文，受施者甚須善知。二、常住僧物。《摩得勒伽論》云：持此四方僧物，盜心度與餘寺，得小罪。以還為僧用，故不犯重。准此，若將僧食不與餘寺，出界而食，不還，犯重。雖打鐘，亦不免盜，以處攝定故。又《五百問》云：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。准此文，若為僧使，路無乞食處，聽和僧得食，未必鳴鐘。若僧家莊磑，鳴鐘得食，不須和僧。若將餘寺淨人畜等，食此寺物，准前《伽論》，得少罪。若為此寺作使，理亦無犯。若私用一毫已上，俱重。又破戒及時，全戒非時，食俱成犯。若有請食至房，非時安然而食，正當斯犯也。三、十方現前僧物，將入常住亦重。比見知事存好心人，方便迴施現前僧物，供常住用，將為益僧，背正犯重。或為僧侵俗，或為俗侵僧，或非法羯磨分衣物等，竝盜十方現前僧物，又斷輕重割，違文皆重，幸善思之。四、眾僧物，如亡比丘物，作如法羯磨竟，屬現前一眾。或非分賊賣，或分可不均，或不和僧，別賞餘人等，俱重。五、已界局僧物。如本施此寺，現前僧迴將餘寺等。或維那執疏，越次差僧；或別人得疏，私自獨受。皆以施主情䛷僧次，故違獲重。若先受別請，即後犯戒。

Second, explaining interchangeable use, there are two kinds: first, interchangeable use among the Three Jewels; second, interchangeable use within their respective categories. In the first kind, as in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, where the overseer interchangeably used the property of the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha, the Buddha declared it a pārājika. Nowadays, there are those who supervise stūpas, images, scriptures, and so forth, who take the Saṃgha's provisions and grain, ride the Saṃgha's livestock, or employ the Saṃgha's pure attendants (kappiyakārakas)—even a single hair's breadth constitutes a grave offense. Furthermore, building Buddha halls and stūpas on the monastic residential grounds, or drawing well water from the stūpa precinct, are both grave offenses. Furthermore, according to the Ratnarāśi Sūtra, property of the Buddha and the Dharma must not be used interchangeably, because no one can act as owner of Buddha or Dharma property, nor is there any place to petition for permission. This is unlike Saṃgha property belonging to the universal Saṃgha of the four quarters, where mutual needs arise. The managing monk seeks the consensus of the Saṃgha, calls for consent (chanda), and casts voting sticks (śalākā); if there is concord, it may be used. If Saṃgha property is used to repair a Buddha stūpa, if obtained through the Saṃgha's concord according to the Dharma, it may be used; if there is no concord, laypeople should be encouraged to repair it. If there is property belonging to a Buddha stūpa, even down to a single coin, it was relinquished because of the donor's earnest reverence. Devas and humans should give rise to thoughts of the Buddha and the stūpa regarding this property, down to when it is blown by the wind and decays; it must not be traded for treasures to make offerings, because no one can set a price on the Tathāgata's stūpa property. If one follows this passage, Saṃgha property may, through concord, be used for the Buddha or Dharma, but Buddha or Dharma property can never be used by the Saṃgha. Moreover, setting out monastic seating inside a Buddha hall, or placing scriptures and images inside monastic quarters so as to obstruct the monks' usage, both constitute interchangeable use, because the ranks of the Three Jewels are distinct. If temporarily placed or not obstructing usage, in principle there is no offense. Furthermore, the Five Hundred Questions states: If a place was not originally a Buddha hall but an image was installed, and monks lodge together there according to the Dharma, if a partition is made there is no offense, because when the Buddha was in the world he also lodged in the same room with disciples. Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda Commentary states: On land belonging to the Saṃgha of the four quarters, if the Saṃgha is not in concord, one may not build a Buddha stūpa or plant flowers and fruits for the Buddha. If allocated from within the Saṃgha, one is permitted to make offerings as one wishes. If flowers are abundantly limitless, one may make offerings with them as needed. If one goes through famine and starvation, and the orchards and fields of the Three Jewels cannot be distinguished, with no place to ask, if the Saṃgha is in concord it may dispose of them as it sees fit. If water belongs to a stūpa and utilizes the stūpa's labor and resources, the Saṃgha's use of it incurs a grave offense. If the labor and resources were provided by the Saṃgha, one should estimate the amount and not exceed the limit; exceeding it is adjudicated as a grave offense. If the donor universally gave to the Three Jewels, it may all be fully used without offense. Second, explaining interchangeable use within their respective categories: First, distinguishing Buddha property, there are six levels: 1. Property of the Buddha Jewel: It should be hung in a stūpa as an offering. Therefore the Sarvāstivāda Commentary states: 'When the Buddha was in the world, if a donor made an offering to the Buddha, it was used by the physical body. If they said they were making an offering to the Buddha Jewel, then the physical body could not use it; it should be placed in the Fox-Hair Stūpa, with the donor's intention of making an offering to the dharmakāya, because the dharmakāya endures forever.' 2. Property for the Buddha's personal use: namely, canopies, seats, and so forth in the Buddha hall, as well as the Buddha's robes, bowls, and so forth. Whatever has been used by the Buddha or an image may not be exchanged, because all devas and humans revere it as they do a stūpa, as stated earlier in the Ratnarāśi Sūtra. Furthermore, the Five Hundred Questions states: One must not sell silk from the Buddha's body to make robes for the Buddha. Furthermore, when pillars of a Buddha hall decayed and the donor replaced them, giving the old pillars to the Saṃgha, the Saṃgha could not use them. According to this text, the foundation soil, mud, wood, gold, and stone of a Buddha hall that previously served for a Buddha image or for his personal use must all be revered as offerings and cannot be diverted to other uses. 3. Property belonging to the Buddha: namely, donated to the Buddha and permitted to yield interest. The Daśabhāṇavāra Vinaya states: Regarding yielding interest on the property of a Buddha stūpa, the Buddha said it is permitted. The Five Hundred Questions states: Buddha property may be sold to make offerings with offering implements. Furthermore, according to the upper fascicle of the Latter Part of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra: The Buddha told Ānanda: 'Regarding property donated while the Buddha is currently present, the community of monks should be informed. After the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, property donated to the Buddha from all places of faithful conviction should be used to make Buddha images, to make Buddha robes and seven-jeweled banners and canopies, and to buy various fragrant oils and precious flowers to make offerings to the Buddha. Except for making offerings to the Buddha, it must not be used for anything else. If used, it incurs the offense of stealing from the Buddha.' Furthermore, the Five Hundred Questions states: Buddha property must not be moved to another monastery; doing so incurs expulsion (pārājika). If all the monks leave, if one petitions the Saṃgha and the Saṃgha permits taking it along, there is no offense. If a monk is capable of making Buddha images or copying scriptures, when he receives property he must not take it. If one obtains livestock or people belonging to the Buddha's household, one must not employ them; employing them incurs a great offense. 4. Property for making offerings to the Buddha: In addition, the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya states: If flowers offered to the Buddha are plentiful, it is permitted to sell them to buy fragrant lamp oil. If there is still a surplus, sell them and place [the proceeds] in the Buddha's inexhaustible wealth. It also says: 'That which contains relics is called a stūpa; that without relics is called a caitya. A caitya may have Buddha flower canopies and offering implements placed on it. If someone says: "The Buddha has already eradicated desire, anger, and delusion; what is the use of making offerings with this vihāra?", he incurs a vinaya-transgression offense (duṣkṛta), and the karmic retribution is severe.' It also says: On days of great assemblies such as the Buddha's birthday, one may take offerings to Buddha stūpas; superior ones to Buddha stūpas, inferior ones to caityas. Furthermore, the Five Hundred Questions states: If Buddha banners are numerous and one wishes to use them for other Buddhist activities, one may ask the donor; if the donor does not permit it, one may not. Furthermore, the Dazhidulun states: As when painting a Buddha image, one person destroys it because it is not well done and gains merit; another destroys it with an evil mind and incurs sin. 5. Offerings presented to the Buddha: The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: Regarding food offered to a Buddha stūpa, those who maintain the stūpa may eat it. The Samantapāsādikā states: Regarding cooked rice presented before the Buddha, monks attending the Buddha may eat it. If there is no monk, a layperson attending the Buddha may also eat it. According to this passage, dishes offered to the Buddha should be given to those who sweep and maintain the stūpa to eat. 6. Property restricted to a particular Buddha: such as originally making an image of Śākyamuni and later altering it to Amitābha. The Samantapāsādikā states: Wishing to make offerings to this image, one instead makes offerings to that image, incurring a minor offense. In accord with this, viewing the object, in principle the meaning extends: both violate the donor's intention, incurring the offense of interchangeable use. If it is changed to an image of a monk, a bodhisattva, or a deva, it should in principle be adjudicated as a grave offense. If the donor's intention was general, intended to attend upon the Buddha to make offerings, in principle there is also no offense. The Five Hundred Questions states: Using colors belonging to the Buddha to paint forms of birds and beasts incurs an offense, except when done before the Buddha for the purpose of making offerings. If one oversees Buddha property, one should distinguish well among the above six ranks, so as not to allow interchangeable use. Second, Dharma property also has six levels: 1. Property of the Dharma Jewel: It should be placed in a stūpa as an offering. The Sarvāstivāda Commentary states: 'If someone donates to the Dharma Jewel, it should be hung in a stūpa, and must not be used to make scriptures or given to those who expound the precepts, and so forth.' 2. Property for the Dharma's personal use: such as rollers, wrappers, cases, cloths, boxes, and wrappers of these kinds; in accord with the above, they must not be put to other uses. 3. Property given to the Dharma: The Sarvāstivāda Commentary states: 'If one simply says "given to the Dharma", divide it into two portions: one portion given to the scriptures, and one portion given to the reciters of the scriptures.' In accord with the above, it may also yield interest, and so forth. 4. Property for making offerings to the Dharma. 5. Offerings presented to the Dharma: Both should be understood in accord with the Buddha. 6. Within property restricted to a particular Dharma text: If originally made for the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and altered to the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, in principle it should not be grave. If altered to copy a treatise or apocryphal scriptures compiled by humans, it is definitively judged to be grave. If originally donated for copying generally, in principle there is also no offense. Third, Saṃgha property has five kinds: 1. Property of the Saṃgha Jewel: The Sarvāstivāda Commentary states: 'If donated to the Saṃgha Jewel, neither ordinary monks nor noble monks may take a share, because it was given to the Saṃgha Jewel. This property should be returned to the donor. If there is no donor, it should be placed in a stūpa to make offerings to the ultimate-truth Saṃgha. If one says "given to the community of monks", both noble monks and ordinary monks may take a share, because the words do not refer [specifically to the Saṃgha Jewel].' According to this text, recipients of donations must understand this very well. 2. Perpetual Saṃgha property: The Mātṛkā Commentary states: Taking this property of the Saṃgha of the four quarters and, with a thieving intention, transferring it to another monastery incurs a minor offense, because it is still used for the Saṃgha and therefore does not constitute a grave offense. According to this, if one takes Saṃgha food, not giving it to another monastery, and goes outside the boundary to eat it without returning it, it constitutes a grave offense. Even if the bell was struck, one still cannot escape [the charge of] theft, because the location is fixed. Furthermore, the Five Hundred Questions states: If begging on behalf of the Saṃgha, if one petitions the Saṃgha and is permitted to take Saṃgha food on the road, [there is no offense]. If the Saṃgha does not permit it, or if one departs without petitioning, one must repay it; if not, it constitutes a grave offense. According to this text, if on an errand for the Saṃgha where there is nowhere along the road to beg for food, with the Saṃgha's concord one is permitted to obtain food, without necessarily ringing the bell. If at the Saṃgha's estates or mills, one may eat by ringing the bell, without needing the Saṃgha's concord. If one brings pure attendants, livestock, and so forth from another monastery to eat this monastery's property, in accord with the earlier Mātṛkā Commentary, it incurs a minor offense. If they perform service for this monastery, in principle there is also no offense. If privately used to the extent of a single hair's breadth or more, it is all grave. Furthermore, eating while violating the precepts even at the proper time, or eating outside the proper time even while observing complete precepts, both constitute an offense. If one is invited to eat in a room and complacently eats outside the proper time, it directly incurs this offense. 3. Property of the present Saṃgha of the ten directions: Diverting it into perpetual Saṃgha property is also a grave offense. Recently I have seen administrators harboring good intentions who expediently divert property donated to the present Saṃgha to supply perpetual Saṃgha use, thinking they are benefiting the Saṃgha; turning their backs on correctness, they commit a grave offense. Whether encroaching on the laity for the Saṃgha, encroaching on the Saṃgha for the laity, or dividing robes and property through an unlawful karmic act (adharmakarma)—all constitute stealing property of the present Saṃgha of the ten directions; furthermore, severing the distribution of minor and major shares contrary to the texts is all grave. May one reflect on this carefully! 4. Property of the community of monks: such as the property of a deceased monk; once the lawful karmic act is completed, it belongs to the present assembly. If unlawfully embezzled and sold, or unequally divided, or distributed to reward others individually without the Saṃgha's concord, and so forth, it is entirely grave. 5. Property restricted to the Saṃgha within a specific boundary: such as originally donated to this monastery, but the present monks divert it to another monastery, and so forth; or if the karmadāna holds the roster and assigns monks out of order; or if an individual obtains the roster and privately receives [offerings] alone. Because the donor's intention was to invite the Saṃgha in order, intentionally violating this incurs a grave offense. If one previously accepted an individual invitation, one subsequently violates the precepts.