菩薩戒本疏 2.87

2.87

預在釋侶，法利應同。若法同利異，則同俗穢，聲聞尚所不許，況大士也？故制令同，大小俱制，道俗不共。既言僧利不兼俗眾，文中有二：一、就僧物辨，應均主客；二、約檀越利辨，主客應均。初中，先明在僧住處；二、「舍宅」下，明在檀越處。「若無物，應賣自身及男女身肉」者，准此文相，應兼俗眾。雖不預僧利，瞻給客人，理通在家菩薩。「若有檀越」下，就檀越辨客主同利。差僧事，略有六種：一、能差人，必五法成，謂不愛、不恚、不怖、不癡、知應差不應差。又持戒清淨，不滯行法，然後當職。二、所差人，謂出家五眾，非破戒、無戒，乃至為解脫出家者，方得受之。若帶僧殘行法，及白四羯磨人，依本夏次，學戒人居僧下、沙彌上受也。三歸五戒沙彌者，一云：亦得受僧次，即以《涅槃》為證。一云：受十戒已，得受僧次中，《涅槃經》文，大小兩本，又不同故，不可為證。三、差會處，僧俗二處，自然作法，皆得差次。舊說云：古來可依准。四、差次法，唯有一次，從上座至下座，周而復始，不簡大僧及沙彌，皆須次第差之。若言上座，得名僧次。若言經導僧次、講席僧次等，乃是的請異名，不開十方僧次也。若大小見異，尚不得共住一處，同飲一河，何況同利？別小差大，應成僧次。如五部異見，不共法利。又可小乘住處得別大乘，不信大乘是佛法故。若大乘住處不得別於小乘，大乘信五部皆是佛法故。蓋聞西國大乘住處，通行十八部義。五、疏來早晚。六、受請捨請。舊疏備論，此不煩引。「僧房主得無量罪」者，由奪他人應得之利故。雖物不屬己，而得盜損之罪。若受請人知而故受，理應同犯。「畜生無異」等者，訶其過重，唯貪現利，不見後過，故畜生無異。既作非法，何名息惡？違佛教故，非釋種姓也。

Those who belong to the Śākya assembly should share the Dharma and benefits equally. If the Dharma is shared but the benefits are divided, it is identical to worldly defilement; even the śrāvakas do not permit this, so how much less the great beings! Therefore, it was instituted to make them equal. The Great and Small [Vehicles] both institute it; monastics and laypeople do not share it. Since it states 'monastic benefits,' it does not include the lay assembly. In the text there are two parts: first, explaining with regard to monastic property that host and guest should be equal; second, explaining with regard to the dānapati's benefits that host and guest should be equal. In the first part, it first explains when residing in a monastic dwelling; second, from 'dwelling' onward, it explains when at a dānapati's dwelling. 'If they have no provisions, they should sell their own body and the flesh of the bodies of their sons and daughters'—according to the textual features of this passage, it should include the lay assembly. Although they do not partake in monastic benefits, providing for guests in principle applies to lay bodhisattvas. From 'If a dānapati' onward, it explains the equality of benefits between host and guest with regard to the dānapati. The matter of assigning monastics generally has six aspects: First, the person capable of assigning must be endowed with five qualities, namely, freedom from affection, anger, fear, and delusion, and knowing who should and should not be assigned. Furthermore, they must observe the precepts purely and not be obstructed in practice; only then may they assume the office. Second, the persons to be assigned refer to the five renunciant assemblies; those who have not broken the precepts, are not without precepts, and even have gone forth for liberation may receive it. If one is undergoing penance with a saṃghāvaśeṣa or is undergoing a jñapti-caturtha-karman, they receive according to their original summer seniority; a probationer (śikṣamāṇā) receives below the monastics and above the novice monks (śrāmaṇeras). Regarding novices with the three refuges and five precepts, one view says: they may also receive assignment in the monastic order, taking the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra as proof. Another view says: only after receiving the ten precepts may they receive assignment within the monastic order, and because the two texts—the Great and Small versions—of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra differ, it cannot serve as proof. Third, the place of assignment and gathering: in both monastic and lay places, through natural procedure or formal karman, assignments may be made in order. An old explanation says: what has come down from the past may be followed. Fourth, the method of sequential assignment: there is only one sequence, from senior seat to junior seat, cycling through and beginning again, without distinguishing between fully ordained monastics and novices; all must be assigned in due order. If one refers to the senior seats, it can be called the monastic sequence. If one refers to a scripture-reciter's sequence, a lecturer's sequence, and so on, these are different names for designated invitations and do not allow for the general order of the monastics of the ten directions. If views of the Great and Small Vehicles differ, they cannot even live in one place or drink from the same river, so how much less share benefits? Excluding the Small and assigning the Great should constitute a monastic sequence. Just as the five schools had different views and did not share Dharma and benefits, it is also permissible that a Hīnayāna dwelling may exclude the Mahāyāna, because they do not believe the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's teaching. But a Mahāyāna dwelling must not exclude the Hīnayāna, because the Mahāyāna believes that all five schools are the Buddha's teaching. One has heard that in the Western lands, Mahāyāna dwellings accommodate the doctrines of all eighteen schools. Fifth, the timing of the letter's arrival. Sixth, accepting or declining an invitation. Old commentaries discuss these fully; they will not be tediously cited here. 'The monastery leader incurs limitless offenses' means it is due to depriving others of the benefits they ought to receive. Although the property does not belong to oneself, one incurs the offense of stealing and damaging. If the invited person knows this and intentionally accepts, in principle they share the offense. 'No different from beasts' and so on reproaches their grave fault: because they crave only present benefits and do not see future transgressions, they are no different from beasts. Since they perform un-Dharmic acts, how could they be called 'ceasers of evil'? Because they violate the Buddha's teaching, they are not of the Śākya gotra.