梵網經古迹記 2.65

2.65

述曰：初制意者，菩薩本願為有情界留生死身。既菩薩身屬於眾生，況乎財物非自所有？故慳施障破萬行甚，深居意地廣毀六度，是故偏制為根本重。多求廣施，菩薩所宜；貪不深違，故為輕罪。釋文中，言「菩薩見一切貧窮人來乞」者，《菩薩地》云：見有勝利而來乞者，方應施與，欲以財攝易化導故。若無利益，設有安樂，不應施與。何以故？若施彼時，雖暫令彼於菩薩所心生歡喜，而後令彼廣作種種不饒益事。謂因施故，令彼多行憍逸惡行，身壞已後墮惡趣故。此中諸句，如七十五略攝頌曰：「設他財法利，不應自法衰，若自但衰物，他財法盛為。」言「隨前人所須一切給與」者，七十四云：「若貧乏者，於自僕從；若中財者，即於彼所及貧苦所；若大財者，即於彼所，亦於其餘來求者所。」各善分布而行布施。今此經文且依第三也。如龍樹云：菩薩身心應如藥樹，一切雖取根莖枝葉，而不分別由我得益。若爾，多財但彼有益，一切施耶？不爾。頌曰：「父母及師長，未許自無能，此亦於一切，一向不應為。」《菩薩地》云：身命乃至毒刀酒等，但有義利一切施與，父母師長定不應施。何以故？以有恩者常生頂戴任屠賣故。言未許者，亦有二種：一、他所有，謂如《論》說：不應侵奪父母妻子奴婢等物持用布施，行有罪福，菩薩相似功德攝故。二、自所有，謂如《論》說：若不先以正言曉喻令其歡喜，終不強逼令其憂惱施來求者，雖復曉喻令生樂欲，而不施與怨家惡者，不以妻子形容耎弱族姓男女施來求者令作奴婢。此意為顯此亦眾生平等所愍，不應為彼樂，令此生苦故。若爾，云何須達拏太子強逼男女施婆羅門？彼亦曉喻，謂如彼云：「兩兒白言：『我宿何罪，是國王種而作奴婢？今乞懺悔。』太子語言：『天下恩愛皆當別離，一切無常何可保守？我得無上平等道時，自當度汝。』」問：若已曉喻，何不肯去？如彼經云：「婆羅門打，血出流地，太子淚下，其地即沸。」答：彼非不肯作奴婢，唯待阿孃欲面別，如說母來不見我，當如牛母失犢子。啼哭竟日，向東西言，自無能者。若見由施退菩提行，則不應施。為顯此義，鶖子十解示退之迹，非分慧施反生退故。如《十住論》云：「出家之人若行財施，則妨餘善。」必多事故。故於出家稱讚法施，於在家者稱讚財施，由此《決定毘尼經》云：在家菩薩應行二施：一、財，二、法。出家菩薩應行四施：一、紙，二、墨，三、筆，四、法。得忍菩薩應行三施：一、王位，二、妻子，三、頭目皮骨。然《大集》云：新發意菩薩於身命財常作捨想者，欲令漸薰至堪捨故。如《十住論》：「乞極惜物時，當自勸喻。心猶貪惜者，應辭謝乞者言：『我今是新學，善根未成就，心未得自在，願後當相與。』」言「有求法者」，一句威力能出苦輪，是故法施勝於財施。如《瑜伽》七十一、《金光明經》第二廣說。然《菩薩地》云：不求勝智，不應施與。廣說法施，如彼應知。言「而反罵辱」者，此句通上慳財法也。慳財反罵，便墮餓鬼。慳法招狂，長夜障道。《瑜伽論》云：現有資財，有來求者，懷嫌恨心，壞恚惱心，不施染犯。若怠放逸，非染違犯。無違犯者：若無可施物，若求不宜物，若調伏彼，若彼王所匪宜，若護僧制。問：以何義故，《大集經》云：於身命財常作捨想。頌曰：「為身求財集惡行，當歸死滅不知恩，財隨命捨惡業隨，受彼果時無共受。」

He states: First, as for the intention behind the enactment: the bodhisattva's primal vow is to retain a body in saṃsāra for the realm of sentient beings. Since even the bodhisattva's body belongs to sentient beings, how much more so material wealth, which is not one's own possession? Therefore, parsimony heavily obstructs giving and damages the myriad practices, deeply occupying the mind-ground and extensively destroying the six pāramitās; hence it is specifically enacted as a fundamental major [precept]. Seeking much to give extensively is appropriate for a bodhisattva; greed does not deeply conflict [with this], and so it is a minor offense. In explaining the text, the words 'the bodhisattva sees all poor people come begging' mean, as the Bodhisattvabhūmi states, that only when seeing those who come begging with superior benefit should one give, wishing to gather them with wealth to easily transform and guide them. If there is no benefit, even if there is peace and joy, one should not give. Why? Because if one gives to them, though it temporarily makes them feel joy toward the bodhisattva, later it will cause them to extensively commit various unbeneficial acts. That is, due to the giving, it causes them to engage in much haughty, negligent, and evil conduct, and after the destruction of the body they fall into the evil destinies. The various phrases here are as the summary verse in fascicle seventy-five says: 'Even if there is gain of wealth and Dharma for the other, / One must not let one's own Dharma decline; / If one only loses material goods, / While the other's wealth and Dharma flourish, do it.' The words 'giving everything in accordance with what the other person needs' mean, as fascicle seventy-four states: 'If one is poor, [give] to one's own servants; if of moderate wealth, then to them and to the poor and suffering; if of great wealth, then to them, and also to other seekers who come,' distributing well to each and practicing giving. Now this sūtra text is based on the third. As Nāgārjuna says: 'The bodhisattva's body and mind should be like a medicinal tree; though all take roots, trunks, branches, and leaves, it does not discriminate that they gain benefit because of me.' If so, when one has great wealth, as long as it benefits the other, should one give everything? Not so. A verse says: 'Parents and teachers, / If not yet consenting or one is incapable, / These also toward all / One should unequivocally not do.' The Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'From physical life down to poison, knives, wine, and so forth, as long as there is beneficial purpose, give everything; parents and teachers definitely must not be given.' Why? Because toward those who have shown kindness, one should always carry them on one's head, rather than allowing them to be butchered or sold. As for 'not yet consenting,' there are also two kinds: First, belonging to others: as the treatise says, one should not seize and plunder the property of parents, wife, children, male and female slaves, and so on, to use for giving; this is an action with both guilt and merit, subsumed under an apparent virtue of a bodhisattva. Second, belonging to oneself: as the treatise says, if one does not first explain with right words to make them rejoice, one must never force and compel them, causing them sorrow and distress, to give them to seekers who come; even if one explains so that they produce desire and joy, one must not give them to enemies and evil persons; and one must not give wives, children, and boys and girls of noble clans with delicate physical forms to seekers who come to be made slaves. The intention here is to show that these are also equally pitied as sentient beings; one should not, for the joy of that one, cause suffering to this one. If so, why did Prince Sudāna force his son and daughter to be given to a brāhmaṇa? He also explained it to them, as when it says: 'The two children said: "What sin from past lives do we have, being of royal stock, yet to be made slaves? Now we beg to confess." The prince told them: "All love and affection in the world must be parted from; all is impermanent, how can it be preserved? When I attain the unsurpassed, equal path, I will naturally liberate you."' Question: If he had already explained it, why were they unwilling to go? As that sūtra says: 'The brāhmaṇa beat them, blood flowed to the ground, the prince shed tears, and the earth boiled.' Answer: It was not that they were unwilling to be slaves; they were only waiting for their mother, wishing to part face-to-face, as it says: 'When mother comes and does not see us, she will be like a mother cow that has lost her calf.' They wept all day, looking east and west, expressing their inability to bear it. If one sees that giving causes one to regress from the bodhi practice, then one should not give. To reveal this meaning, Śāriputra's ten understandings displayed the traces of regression; giving beyond one's capacity of wisdom conversely produces regression. As the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā states: 'If an out-goer from home practices the giving of wealth, it obstructs other virtues,' as there will certainly be many affairs. Therefore, for an out-goer from home, the giving of Dharma is praised, while for a householder, the giving of wealth is praised. Because of this, the Vinayaviniścaya-sūtra says: 'A householder bodhisattva should practice two kinds of giving: first, wealth; second, Dharma. An out-goer bodhisattva should practice four kinds of giving: first, paper; second, ink; third, pens; fourth, Dharma. A bodhisattva who has attained forbearance should practice three kinds of giving: first, the royal throne; second, wife and children; third, head, eyes, skin, and bones.' However, the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra says that a newly resolved bodhisattva always conceives the thought of renunciation toward body, life, and wealth because it wishes them to gradually habituate until they are able to renounce. As the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā says: 'When begging for extremely cherished items, one should advise oneself. If the mind is still greedy and parsimonious, one should decline and thank the beggar, saying: "I am now a beginner, my roots of goodness are not yet accomplished, my mind has not attained mastery; I hope to give it to you later."' The words 'there is a seeker of the Dharma' mean that the power of a single verse can bring one out of the wheel of suffering, and therefore the giving of Dharma is superior to the giving of wealth. This is as explained at length in Yogācārabhūmi fascicle seventy-one and the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra fascicle two. However, the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: 'If they do not seek superior wisdom, one should not give.' The giving of Dharma is explained at length there and should be understood accordingly. The words 'yet conversely reviles and abuses' apply to both parsimony of wealth and Dharma above. Parsimony of wealth and reviling leads to falling among the hungry ghosts. Parsimony of Dharma incurs madness and obstructs the path throughout the long night. The Yogācārabhūmi says: 'When one currently possesses requisites and wealth and there are seekers who come, if one harbors resentment and malicious anger and does not give, it is an afflicted transgression. If it is due to indolence and negligence, it is an unafflicted transgression. There is no transgression: if there is no material object to give; if what is sought is inappropriate; if it is to tame them; if it is inappropriate before the king; or if it is to guard the monastic regulations.' Question: For what meaning does the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra say to always conceive the thought of renunciation toward body, life, and wealth? A verse says: 'Seeking wealth for the body accumulates evil deeds; / Facing death, it knows no gratitude. / Wealth is abandoned with life, but evil karma follows; / When experiencing that fruit, none shares in it.'