[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [量處輕重儀](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1895) › 2.31 # 量處輕重儀 2.31 量處輕重儀 2.31 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1895.2.31) 二者，四方常住僧物。謂義通域外，事限坊中，故云然也。物相如何？即現熟僧供分噉之物是也。若盜此物，罪亦兩科，主掌自偷，罪便單結（謂望四方僧人無滿，《五分》唯結偷蘭遮，約體分三品故也）；若有主守護，望別結輕重（謂滿不滿故也）。有人云，無問生熟食具，盜者偷蘭。余亦謂之不然，謂物體通局也。前以人被四方，法均凡聖故，罪分二品，並約根本究竟。今集僧分食，謂是可食者分之，及至撾繫鐘磐，何曾均行米麫，但以四方僧侶望剎為家，法食義通，臨時進飯。今若方中賦粟，理須饋造，若待成熟，限期已過，終非急濟。豈曰當飢畫餅劇談驗之今矣。故佛令聲召八方，依時通給，受者執鉢而仰請，授者歡心而俯施，皆即可進口，不待火成。若猶須搗炊，便應持釜鑊五熟之器，制必畜之，此則罪漲滔天，福流沈地。必若然者，則自煮內煮纏附未央，壞生熟生卒難逃責。今以凡心叵禁，聖制易依。故《僧祇》中，時有盜將僧食還房，佛言偷蘭。此約四方僧不滿五也，《善見論》中，結重罪者，為約守護為言耳。此則輕重明文，深有所以，故結也。前達通收輕重者，濫委彌彰，然教有開合，前後相融。若執現文，俱須重斷。故《薩婆多》云，不打鐘而噉僧食者，犯盜。《善見論》云，至空寺不擊磬，而食果者，亦犯盜。此又正論明判。承古彌難，而文但言盜，故盜通大小也。故彼《多》、《見》、《母》等三論，並云隨直多少結，而不定罪名。準例如上約判，想無差貳也，由作法集僧，但分可噉之食，則米麫穀麥，不是僧分；若本由此等熟則可分，故入輕者。則田疇六畜園樹五行火調之器，須分。百穀之糧均給，既飯時無此正法，唯指現噉科之。故知能熟眾具，生舉儭糧，即是不分僧物。義同前段，重物有損結之極刑，文如本鈔所明。部別照鏡，以外五眾云歿，現成熟食宜同上律具解，通望四方不滿，但結一品偷蘭。必供濟別住，義通事局，宜作白二羯磨分上二物送給他寺者，佛正開之。 > Second, saṅgha property of the permanent four directions category. This means that in principle it extends beyond the boundary, while in practical affairs it is confined within the monastery; hence it is called so. What is the nature of these items? That is to say, the presently cooked food of the saṅgha that is distributed for consumption. If one steals these items, the offense also falls into two categories: if the administrator steals it himself, the offense is reckoned singly (namely, with respect to the monks of the four directions, no single person reaches the full amount; the Mahīśāsaka reckons it solely as a sthūlātyaya because the substance is divided into three grades); if there is an owner guarding it, light or heavy offenses are reckoned with respect to the specific individual (namely, according to whether it reaches the amount or not). Some say: 'Regardless of whether it is raw or cooked food or utensils, one who steals incurs a sthūlātyaya.' I also deem this not to be the case, pointing to the substance of the property being either general or restricted. Formerly, because the persons covered the four directions and the Dharma applied equally to ordinary people and sages, the offenses were divided into two grades, both based on root and consummation. Now, when assembling the saṅgha to distribute food, it means that what is edible is distributed. When it comes to striking the bell and sounding the stone chime, how could raw rice and flour ever be distributed equally? It is only that the monks of the four directions look upon the monastery as their home; Dharma and food are shared in principle, and rice is served as the occasion demands. Now, if grain were to be distributed in the area, it would need to be prepared and cooked; if one waits for it to become cooked, the appointed time will have passed, and it ultimately cannot serve an urgent need. Can drawing a cake when hungry be verified by lofty talk today? Therefore the Buddha commanded that the eight directions be summoned by sound and provision be made generally according to the mealtime: the recipient holds the bowl and respectfully requests, and the giver is joyful and lowers it in donation—all of which can immediately enter the mouth without waiting to be completed by fire. If it still needed to be pounded and cooked, one would have to keep cauldrons, kettles, and utensils for the five cookings; if the rules required keeping them, offenses would surge to the heavens while merit would sink into the earth. If that were the case, cooking by oneself or cooking indoors would entangle one endlessly, and damaging the raw or ripening the raw would be difficult to escape blame for. Now, since the ordinary mind is hard to restrain, the sage's regulations are easy to follow. Therefore, in the Mahāsāṃghika, at times someone stole and took saṅgha food back to his room, and the Buddha said it was a sthūlātyaya. This was because, with respect to the saṅgha of the four directions, it did not reach five. In the Samantapāsādikā, the heavy offense was established because it was spoken with respect to the guardian. Thus the clear texts on light and heavy have profound reasons, which is why they were so ruled. When former authorities treated light and heavy together, the confusion became all the more apparent. However, the teachings have relaxations and restrictions, blending earlier and later provisions. If one clings to the literal text, all must be judged as heavy offenses. Thus the Sarvāstivāda says: 'One who consumes saṅgha food without striking the bell commits theft.' The Samantapāsādikā says: 'Arriving at an empty monastery and eating fruit without striking the stone chime also commits theft.' These are clear determinations from the authentic treatises. Following the ancients is ever more difficult, yet the text merely says 'theft,' so theft encompasses both major and minor offenses. Therefore those three treatises—the Sarvāstivāda, Samantapāsādikā, and Mātṛkā—all state that the offense is reckoned according to the monetary value, without fixing the specific name of the offense. Deciding by analogy according to the distinctions above, I believe there will be no divergence. Because assembling the saṅgha through ritual procedure only distributes edible food, raw rice, flour, grain, and wheat are not saṅgha distributions; if it were that because these can originally become cooked they may be distributed and thus classified as light property, then fields, the six domestic animals, garden trees, and utensils tuned to fire across the five elements would all have to be distributed, and grain of the hundred cereals would have to be equally supplied. Since at mealtime there is no such standard practice, it points only to what is currently consumed for classification. Therefore we know that utensils capable of cooking food and raw, unhusked donation grain are saṅgha property that is not to be distributed. The principle is the same as the preceding section: damage to heavy property incurs the ultimate punishment, as explained in the primary commentary. Mirroring the differences among the schools, besides members of the fivefold assembly who have died, presently cooked food should be thoroughly understood according to the above Vinaya: comprehensively regarding the four directions, since it does not reach \[five per monk\], only a single grade of sthūlātyaya is reckoned. If it supplies and aids another dwelling, where the principle is general but the matter is local, one should perform a jñaptidvitīya-karman to distribute the above two items and dispatch them to the other monastery, which the Buddha explicitly permitted. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1895.2.30) - [Next: 2.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1895.2.32) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1895.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1895~en-mt.2.31) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1895.2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1895.2.31) · Pramāṇa