菩薩戒本疏 2.93

2.93

去普就別，失彼廣田，故制不得，大小不共。聲聞法中亦許別請，菩薩法中七眾同制。有說：菩薩請僧齋會，一向不得別請，悉應次第的請一人，便犯此戒。有說：一處隨人多少請一僧次便不犯，若都無者犯。文意似前釋。文中「有出家菩薩」者，正制菩薩不應別請。「及一切檀越」者，兼制餘人，雖無戒可犯而失廣福故。「請僧福田」乃至「今欲次第請」者，示請次方軌。謂道俗檀越欲請福田，求心所願，心無適莫，不簡持犯，僧皆清淨，無非法故。唯就應彼五法成就知事人所問：今欲得僧中次第。心無所簡，故云次第。「即得十方賢聖僧」者，田廣博包容十方，一切賢聖莫不入中。設不得賢聖，但得一凡夫。請心既無簡別，興福冥通十方，故云「即得十方賢聖僧」也。問：餘十方僧既不受施，何得由心空擬興實福於十方？答：罪福之起，以心為主。心既遍擬，福何不普？如惡戒人於一切羊上起害意樂，故雖一切羊非皆被害，而於一切羊遍起不律儀。以惡例善，善何不然？問：若如是者，不律儀人於一切羊起不律儀，於彼殺羊得業道，施亦應然，須簡別耶？答：不無此義。遍於一切僧得起施福，唯於一僧次起施福業，暢思唯在受施人故。又解：不例殺業，害生為本，故於被害得殺生業。布施捨心為主，故於一切得施福業，以我施心遍一切故。若受用福，於施人後時別起。「別請百羅漢菩薩僧不如僧次一凡夫僧」者，謂請百羅漢百菩薩者，以心簡別故，唯於所請處與福，非所餘邊。請一僧次，無簡別故，遍於一切皆起福善。律中佛呵師子長者別請僧云：雖五百羅漢，不如一凡夫也。「若別請僧是外道法」者，諸佛本懷等遍為主，是故本無別請之法。設律教中許別請者，曲順世情權施教門，如佛法中不聽食肉，為欲漸制且聽三淨。此亦如是，故云「是外道法，七佛無」也。違佛本教，故「不孝順道」也。

Rejecting the universal to pursue the particular forfeits that vast field [of merit]; hence it is instituted that it is not permitted, which is not shared between the Greater and Lesser [Vehicles]. In the śrāvaka Dharma, personal invitations are also permitted; in the bodhisattva Dharma, it is prohibited across all seven assemblies. Some say: When a bodhisattva invites the sangha for a feast, they are categorically not permitted to invite individuals; all must be invited according to seniority; if one specifically invites a single person, one commits this precept. Some say: If in a single place, regardless of the number of people, one invites even a single monk by monastic order, one does not commit an offense; if none at all [are invited by order], one commits it. The textual sense seems to align with the former interpretation. In the text, 'there are renunciant bodhisattvas' explicitly prohibits bodhisattvas from making personal invitations. 'And any dānapati' additionally restricts other people; although they have no precepts to violate, they would lose vast merit. From 'inviting the field of merit of the sangha' down to 'now wish to invite in turn' shows the correct procedure for inviting by order. That is, when monastics and lay dānapatis wish to invite the field of merit to fulfill what their heart wishes, having no partiality, not discriminating between upholding and violating precepts, the sangha is entirely pure and free of illegality. They inquire only of the administrative officer who is accomplished in those five qualities: 'I now wish to invite according to seniority in the sangha.' With a mind that does not discriminate, it says 'in turn.' 'You will obtain the noble and holy sangha of the ten directions' means the field is broad and vast, encompassing the ten directions, such that all the noble and holy are included within it. Even if one does not obtain a noble or holy one, but obtains only an ordinary person, since the inviting mind makes no discrimination, the arising merit mysteriously reaches throughout the ten directions; therefore it says 'you will obtain the noble and holy sangha of the ten directions.' Question: Since the rest of the sangha of the ten directions does not receive the offering, how can the mind's mere conceptualization give rise to real merit throughout the ten directions? Answer: The arising of sin and merit is centered on the mind. Since the mind extends everywhere, why should the merit not be universal? Just as a person of evil precepts conceives the intention to kill all sheep, so although not all sheep are killed, an unwholesome discipline arises universally with respect to all sheep. Taking the evil to illustrate the good, why should the good not be the same? Question: If that is so, a person with an unwholesome discipline gives rise to the unwholesome discipline toward all sheep, yet only with respect to the slaughtered sheep does the course of karma obtain; should giving be the same, requiring discrimination? Answer: This meaning is not absent. One universally obtains the merit of giving with respect to all the sangha, yet one gives rise to the karma of the merit of giving only with respect to the one monk invited by order, because the culmination of volition resides solely with the recipient. Another explanation: It is not analogous to the karma of killing. Killing sentient beings takes harm as its basis; therefore with respect to the one harmed one obtains the karma of killing. In giving, the mind of renunciation is primary; therefore with respect to all one obtains the karma of the merit of giving, because my mind of giving extends to all. As for the merit of enjoyment, it arises separately at a later time with respect to the giver. As for 'separately inviting a hundred arhats and bodhisattvas is not equal to one ordinary monk by monastic order,' this means that when one invites a hundred arhats or a hundred bodhisattvas, because the mind discriminates, merit is bestowed only upon those invited, not beyond them. When one invites a single monk by monastic order, because there is no discrimination, merit and goodness arise universally toward all. In the Vinaya, the Buddha rebuked the elder Siṃha for personally inviting the sangha, saying: 'Even if there were five hundred arhats, they are not equal to one ordinary person.' As for 'if one makes personal invitations to the sangha, this is a non-Buddhist practice,' the original intent of all Buddhas takes equality and universality as primary; therefore originally there is no practice of personal invitations. If personal invitations are permitted in the disciplinary teachings, this is an expediently applied teaching to accommodate worldly sentiment—just as eating meat is not permitted in the Buddha's Dharma, but in order to restrict it gradually, the three kinds of clean meat are temporarily allowed. This is also like that; hence it says 'this is a non-Buddhist practice, and not found among the seven Buddhas.' Because it violates the Buddha's original teaching, it 'does not conform to the filial way.'