菩薩戒本疏 2.90

2.90

違施主廣福，失眾僧等利，故制不受。聲聞俱許二請，菩薩一向遮別，七眾之中應制出家五眾。文中「一切不得受別請利養入己」者，聲聞法中受頭陀法不受別請，非頭陀者亦許受之。菩薩法中不問頭陀非頭陀，一切時遮故。一云「一切不得受別而此利養屬十方僧」者，謂若菩薩不受別請，此所得利理屬十方。然由菩薩受別請故，即有遠損十方別屬己義故云。「而別受請即取十方僧物入己，八福田物自己用故」者，非但取十方物入己，亦復損八福田物自受。菩薩若不受別請者，於八福田兼有分故，然由受別利擁在己。「八福田」者：一、佛；二、聖人；三、和尚；四、阿闍梨耶；五、僧；六、父；七、母；八、病人。和尚、阿闍梨。或經本中，或云「二師」，或云「一一師」，義皆無差。問：《菩薩地》云：「若諸菩薩他來迎請，或往居家，或往餘寺，奉施飲食及衣服等諸資生具，憍慢所制，懷嫌恨心，懷恚惱心，不至其所，不受所請，是名有犯有所違越，是染違犯。若由嬾惰、懈怠、忘念、無記之心，不至其所，不受所請，是名有犯有所違越，非染違犯。」此文為就別請遮不受耶？為就僧次遮不受耶？答：有云：彼論文遮不受僧次，別請既是一向不聽，設不受之，亦無所犯。有云：彼亦遮不受別請，懷慢恚，不受別請，違背眾生，乖慈行故。若彼施主請僧次已，別請菩薩，必欲施物，如《論》所制，不得不受。唯除開緣，不受不犯。如彼文云：「無違犯者：或有疾病。或無氣力。或心狂亂。或處懸遠。或道有怖。或欲方便調彼伏彼，出不善處，安立善處。或餘先請。或為無間修善法，欲護善品，令無暫廢。或為引攝未曾有義。或為所聞法義無退。如為所聞法義無退，論義決擇，當知亦爾。或復知彼懷損惱心，詐來迎請。或為護他多嫌恨心。或護僧制，不至其所，不受所請。皆無違犯。」

Because it frustrates the widespread merit of the donor and deprives the sangha of equal benefit, [the Buddha] instituted that one must not accept [such an invitation]. In the śrāvaka Dharma, both forms of invitation are permitted; for bodhisattvas, personal invitations are categorically prohibited. Among the seven assemblies, this should apply to the five renunciant assemblies. In the text, as for 'one must not accept personal invitations and benefits for oneself,' in the śrāvaka Dharma those who undertake the dhūta practices do not accept personal invitations, whereas those who are not dhūta practitioners are permitted to accept them; in the bodhisattva Dharma, regardless of whether one is a dhūta practitioner or not, it is prohibited at all times. One explanation says: regarding 'one must not accept personal [invitations], for these benefits belong to the sangha of the ten directions,' this means that if a bodhisattva does not accept a personal invitation, the benefits obtained in principle belong to the [sangha of the] ten directions. However, because a bodhisattva accepts a personal invitation, it indirectly deprives the ten directions and makes them privately belong to oneself; hence it is stated [in this way]. As for 'accepting personal invitations means taking the property of the sangha of the ten directions for oneself and using the property of the eight fields of merit for one's own use,' not only does one take the property of the ten directions for oneself, but one also diminishes the property of the eight fields of merit for one's own enjoyment. If a bodhisattva does not accept a personal invitation, they would otherwise share in the eight fields of merit; however, by accepting a personal benefit, they monopolize it for themselves. As for the 'eight fields of merit': first, the Buddhas; second, the noble ones; third, the upādhyāya; fourth, the ācārya; fifth, the sangha; sixth, the father; seventh, the mother; eighth, the sick. Regarding upādhyāya and ācārya, some editions of the sūtra text read 'the two masters' and some read 'each master'; the meaning is without difference. Question: The Bodhisattvabhūmi states: 'If someone comes to invite bodhisattvas, either to go to their home or to another monastery, to offer food and drink, clothing, and other requisites for living, and dominated by pride, harboring a resentful mind or an angry mind, they do not go to that place and do not accept the invitation, this is called an infraction, an transgression; it is a defiled transgression. If, due to laziness, indolence, forgetfulness, or an indeterminate state of mind, they do not go to that place and do not accept the invitation, this is called an infraction, an transgression; it is a non-defiled transgression.' Does this passage prohibit non-acceptance with respect to personal invitations, or does it prohibit non-acceptance with respect to invitations according to seniority in the sangha? Answer: Some say: The text of that treatise prohibits not accepting invitations by order of the sangha; since personal invitations are categorically not permitted, even if one does not accept them, there is no offense. Some say: It also prohibits not accepting personal invitations; harboring pride or anger and not accepting a personal invitation runs counter to sentient beings and conflicts with compassionate practice. If that donor has already invited according to seniority in the sangha, and then separately invites the bodhisattva, insisting on bestowing gifts, then as instituted by the treatise, one must not fail to accept them. Only by an exemption is non-acceptance without offense. As that text states: 'There is no transgression if: one is sick; or one lacks physical strength; or one's mind is deranged; or the place is distant; or there is danger on the road; or one wishes by skillful means to tame and subdue them, draw them out from unwholesome states, and establish them in wholesome states; or there was a prior invitation elsewhere; or in order to practice wholesome Dharmas without interruption, wishing to guard wholesome qualities so they do not lapse even briefly; or to apprehend an unprecedented meaning; or so that the meaning of the Dharma one has heard does not decline—just as for not letting the meaning of the Dharma one has heard decline, it should be known that the same applies to determining doctrine through debate; or knowing that they harbor harmful intent and feign an invitation; or to protect others from much resentment; or to uphold the monastic rule, one does not go to that place and does not accept the invitation—in all such cases there is no transgression.'