量處輕重儀 2
English (machine translation) 2
- Language
- English
2.1
Thirteenth: robes, bowls, sitting mats, needle cases, clothing bags, storage chests, and koyala vessels (translated here as 'utensils that accompany the bowl', meaning what is contained inside the bowl), and razors—the Vinaya rules them all as light property. (There are three categories: first, robes; second, utensils; third, leather shoes. This applies to the fivefold assembly.)
2.2
1. Ready-made clothing. (First, clothing worn by those who have left home is explained; next, clothing worn by those who have not left home is explained.) That is, the three robes, shoulder-covering saṃkakṣikā, skirts, robes, mantles, sitting mats, and varied garments. (There are four categories.)
2.3
The above item refers to clothing worn on the body; though the names are manifold, they all cover the body. If one relies on the Mahāsāṃghika, it says: 'Wound-covering robes, rain-bathing robes, water strainers, two kinds of waistbands, and bedding enter into distribution.' The Mahīśāsaka also says: 'Utensil robes, single-layer garments, body-wrapping robes; as for blankets, they are an alternative name for bedding; undergarments, or śalaka (the Dharmaguptaka calls them nivāsana, which here means 'inner garment', namely śalaka)—these are distributable property.' Judged according to the above, they must be made of pure colors. If they are robes of five patches, the Vinaya text permits their use. Even if they are made from the five primary colors and are distinctly variegated, that is naturally formed in that manner; since they serve as the emblem of the holy Way, they should properly be distributed. If they are garments woven with brocade and patterned damask, they are all judged as below. As for Chinese lapel robes, gowns with long sleeves, open-shoulder vests, shoulder covers with added fasteners over the chest—various clothing of this sort is difficult to describe fully in shape and name, yet all are distributed as light property. Because their substance and appearance diverge from the worldly and their colors and types are different, they are not called garments worn by the laity, and so are allowed within the scope of personal use. Furthermore, bare-shoulder skirts and Chinese robes are Chinese Dharma robes; saṃkakṣikā and shoulder-coverings are the original Indian regulations. Comparing that with this, their forms and appearances are completely different, yet both are judged as light property without the least hesitation. If one comprehensively surveys the shapes and characteristics of garments, none are the original model. Thus in the Mahāsāṃghika, shoulder coverings and saṃkakṣikā are four cubits and two cubits long. For now, we distinguish between the religious and the lay, and therefore permit light and heavy property; if one strictly follows the Vinaya regulations, even the skirts and Chinese robes would be improper (hence the rules for putting on and taking off clothes in the Vinaya are not detailed in this land), just as in the Sarvāstivāda, narrow-sleeved garments, padded double garments, and the like are not permitted to be worn.
2.4
2. Accessories accompanying robes, referring to clasps, belts, waist cords, and the like made of copper, iron, bamboo, wood, lead, or tin, as well as clothing bags, boxes, wrapping cloths, and so forth.
2.5
The above item all follows the robes and enters into light property. Furthermore, as in the Mahīśāsaka, needle-and-thread pouches enter into light property, and clothing bags reaching to the navel in front and to the waist in back also enter into light property. By analogy with the above, if various bags, wrapping cloths, and the like are made of variegated materials, even if they have no patterned designs, if they resemble quilt bags among the worldly, they do not enter the scope of distribution.
2.6
3. Fabrics and materials for making clothing (referring to plain cloth, silk, patterned silk, gauze, pongee, coarse silk, coarse wool, lined clothes, silk floss, cotton batting, and the like, as well as brocade, patterned damask, embroidery, variegated cloth, and cloud-and-mist patterns).
2.7
The above item in meaning pertains to both heavy and light property. If it is material such as plain cloth or silk up to silk floss and cotton batting, as long as it does not have distinct variegated colors, it enters into distribution. If it is brocade, embroidery, or woolen rugs, but of a single pure color and in appearance reduced from a Dharma robe, it is distributed as light property as above. If dyed with the five great colors—blue/green, yellow, red, white, and black—or dyed with superior colors such as crimson, cyan, pink, green, or purple, regardless of whether it is much or little, light or heavy, it all follows clothing material and enters into distribution. If patched with squares, tiger-eyes, betel-nut patterns, or intermingled with various colors, it is classified as heavy property. Therefore, in the Mahīśāsaka, brocade, patterned damask, woolen rugs, or felts (referring to those whose width and length are as large as described above) and mosquito nets enter into heavy property. Furthermore, they are unlike patterned silk and gauze fabrics, which, although the fabric weave is interlaced, have pure and uniform colors; hence the Vinaya permits the wearing of clothing with fine goose-pattern weaves. By meaning and analogy, patterned silk and gauze woven on the loom enter into light property; the Vinaya permits receiving highly valuable robes from kings and various fine robes, and also permits highly valuable thin robes; thus one knows that fabrics of thin silk, kudzu, and the like are distributed by analogy.
2.8
4. Thread and yarn capable of making cloth (referring to threads of various colors, whether made of silk, cloth, ramie, kudzu, hemp tow, spun fiber, as well as hemp skeins, silk braids, and the like).
2.9
Judged according to the above: as in the Samantapāsādikā, needles and thread enter into light property; therefore, regardless of quantity, they all follow distribution. If there are cocoons containing living insects, or hemp adhering to taro, they are all gathered under heavy property.
2.10
Second: garments of tīrthikas and the laity. The Vinaya contains no direct judgment. They are distinguished below according to meaning (there are two cases).
2.11
First, the robes of tīrthikas: The root Vinaya text states that embroidered robes, bark robes, leaf robes, pearl-garland robes, wooden bowls, and all robes of tīrthikas, leather garments, bird-feather garments, human-hair garments, horse-hair garments, cat-tail garments, cow-tail garments, kambala garments, and so forth, down to the descendants of Old Li in the Tang land with their yellow kerchiefs, cowls, capes, and the like—all of the above are prohibited by the Vinaya from being worn, and by principle are judged under the category of heavy property. This is because they are distinguishing signs of heterodox paths, and not proper robes. If someone offers them, their acceptance is also permitted. If their color and appearance have already been altered, then with the exception of tree bark and animal or human hair, the remainder are judged according to what follows, being classified as light property and distributed.
2.12
Second, the clothing worn by all the laity: The Vinaya provides no direct decision on this. It must be determined by analogous reasoning (the instances are fivefold).
2.13
First, items of daily wear (meaning men's and women's gowns, tunics, lined jackets, shirts, trousers, drawers, skirts, petticoats, capes, kerchiefs, caps, quilts, coverlets, felt pads, boots, and shoes of such kinds).
2.14
Regarding the doctrinal judgment for the above items, it must be divided into two approaches, namely the past and present rulings. According to the past interpretation, if they were regular garments worn by deceased members of the fivefold assembly while alive, matching worldly conventions, they were classified as heavy property. Thus the Buddha said that all white garments must not be kept; in order to cut off worldly, unwholesome ways step by step, they reasonably belonged to heavy property. At present, we do not agree with this: although the text forbids wearing them, this does not designate them as heavy property. Transgressions regarding relinquished property and food generate an extreme amount of guilt during life, yet upon death their distribution is still permitted; hence they are not subsumed under heavy property. It is just as judged by principle below. If laypeople respectfully offer them, and monastics acquire them without having had the leisure to alter them into Dharma robes, by standard judgment they are classified as light property. This is because there are multiple justifications: first, the Buddha permitted accepting them as gifts; second, he allowed vikalpanā; third, he permitted altering them for proper use in accordance with the Dharma. If their color has not been altered and their appearance remains that of lay clothing, they are all classified as heavy property, in order to sever any lingering attachment to secular ways. This is set out in detail in the [Xingshi] chao. This is not like brocades and patterned silks: since their substance and appearance match worldly style, their color and appearance must be altered before they are allowed to be distributed. In the present case, though the appearance diverges [from the Vinaya], it can be adapted into a robe for the Way, and thus alteration for use is permitted. If there are long-haired śramaṇas whose minds yearn for fame and registration, who wear shirts and trousers in accordance with the secular, and entirely abandon the three robes—the Way resides in empty detachment, while the secular clings to a fixed self; since their thoughts are bound to fame, how could they practice the Way?—whether alive or dead, none of it may be distributed. I have heard that if an actress temporarily puts on a Dharma robe, lifetime after lifetime she will always remain in the monastic ranks; yet now, craving fame, they delight in lay clothes, which by principle means that for eons they will continually turn their backs on the truth. The path of reason is manifest: how could this fall within the category of light property? Furthermore, where the various Vinayas contain no ruling designating them as heavy, if due to obstructions one is not permitted to wear Dharma robes, even if one wears lay clothing, it need not be classified as light property. Although the Buddha permitted wearing them, it was not for lasting use, as in cases of robbery, terror, and hardship. Other garments such as kerchiefs and belts are definitively not for use in the Way, and by analogy are classified as heavy property. The two items of felt and rugs are also judged in the same manner as above.
2.15
Second, garments to ward off heat and rain (meaning coarse wool clothes, sheepskin outfits, oiled capes, reed raincoats, heat-shielding bamboo hats, parasols, and the like).
2.16
Third, garments to ward off the cold (meaning leather furs, marten furs, fox and badger caps, cushions, and items designed for the ears, hands, and feet).
2.17
Fourth, ornamental garments (meaning floral hairpins, necklaces, rings, bracelets, pendants, ribbons, bodily adornments, as well as mirrors, dressing cases, cosmetic boxes, and decorative items).
2.18
Fifth, court and sacrificial robes (meaning caps, head-wraps, marten tails, broad-sleeved coats, pleated skirts, leather belts, shoes, slippers, and the like).
2.19
The five items above are all clothing worn by worldly people; yet since bhikṣus occasionally acquire them, they must be analyzed and judged. Among the first category, sheepskin outfits and coarse wool garments are entirely of the nature of lay attire, and like those above are not light property. For the second category, leather garments, the Vinaya explicitly prohibits them and there should be no exception; but if they are tanned goods that provide a small degree of support for the lower body, their distribution is also permitted. For the third category, ornamental items, they are all the more prohibited; the root Vinaya fully addresses them, and since secular vanity has not been eliminated, by principle they must be discarded—one is not even allowed to touch them, so how could they be among light property? For the fourth category, court robes, although they are not appropriate, items like shirts and pleated skirts can be altered, so they may be classified as light property. Caps, leather items, and the like should be subsumed under heavy property; other items follow this analogy.
2.20
Second, essential utensils: The Vinaya rules that bowls and vessels are classified as light property; the rest follow the specific circumstance (there are four cases).
2.21
First, the proper pātra: that is, one with a capacity of three dou or less and one and a half dou or more, made of clay or iron, and colored solely by being smoked—this is a vessel in accordance with the Dharma.
2.22
Second, secondary bowls: meaning sub-bowls, small bowls, kuṇḍikās (the Vinaya says 'a small, shallow iron bowl'), along with copper and brass bowls and cups (their size corresponds to the measures given above, and including the seven kinds of chopsticks and so forth, they are collectively called koyala vessels).
2.23
Third, what contains these vessels: meaning cases, pouches, wrapping cloths, mesh bags, kerchiefs, and cloths.
2.24
Regarding the three items above, if the pātra's capacity, material, and color conform to the Dharma, the Vinaya directly rules it as light property. If its material is bamboo, wood, cloth, or silk, and its color is lacquer, oil, varnish, or mirror-bright, it is classified as heavy property. Thus the Mahāsāṃghika says that over-sized bowls, white bowls, porcelain, glazed pottery, iron, and so on are classified as heavy property, because their material and capacity do not conform. They are not like bottles, pitchers, and the like, which can be put to use as long as their capacity conforms. This is an item 'in accordance with measure', and it is all the more necessary to follow the standard. For other secondary bowls, the root Vinaya rules them as light property, but merely calls them 'koyala vessels' without describing their characteristics (just as the five proper bhojanīya foods and five improper khādanīya foods have both general and specific names). If we rely on the Sarvāstivāda, small bowls, half-bowls, and kuṇḍikās enter into distribution; their corresponding bags and wrapping cloths are also ruled in the Vinaya as rewards for nursing, and by principle belong to the limit of light property. Thus in the Mahīśāsaka, bowl bags enter into distribution. There are also those adorned with embroidery and colored silk; these may be singled out and classified as heavy property, treated like embroidered and brocaded garments.
2.25
Fourth, needle cases and implements: those made of copper, clay, wood, iron, or bird quills are ruled by the Vinaya as rewards for nursing, and by principle are not proper heavy property.
2.26
The single item above is a minor matter that everyone must possess, so by principle it must be distributed. In the Central Kingdom (India), many are made of ivory or horn; the Vinaya requires breaking them, and permits keeping them as described above, so they should be classified as light property and distributed. If they are made of felt, or adorned with variegated colors, or tied with embroidered knots, or made as pouches of patterned brocade (called 'needle-and-thread pouches'), these are all ornate and are entirely classified as heavy property. If they are plain-colored felt pouches and the bowls stored in them, regardless of whether the copper or iron is much or little, they are all distributed immediately (if needles have been accumulated with intent to trade them, this is also handled in accordance with the above).
2.27
Third, items supporting the lower body: meaning leather sandals, shoes, straw sandals, boots, socks, cloths for wrapping the feet, and any bags, pouches, kerchiefs, and cloths used to wrap and bind them.
2.28
Regarding the single item above, the proper Vinaya only explains leather shoes of one color, and does not explain the others. According to the rulings of the Mahāsāṃghika and Mahīśāsaka, leather sandals and pouches enter into distribution. If there is already cured leather, then following the Sarvāstivāda, straps of leather sandals, leather boots, deer-leather, cured leather, and leather for wrapping the toes should be distributed. If there is raw hide, by principle it is subsumed under heavy property. However, in this Divine Continent (China), these are not worn at all; in Lingbiao and Jiannan they are occasionally worn, whereas in the various South Sea countries and the Five Indias, both monastics and laity regularly wear them. Their shape is like this: square folded clogs, additionally fitted with a heel and completely lacking side loops, mostly made of leather. If judged by analogy with boots and shoes, their distribution is also permitted in principle. Among boots, shoes, slippers, and sandals, there are sometimes those embroidered with the Three Terraces, dragons and phoenixes, or interwoven with variegated threads; if they are not of a plain color, they should be classified as heavy property. Furthermore, there are flat-toed boots and pointed boots, on which the Vinaya has no direct ruling; however, in the Mahīśāsaka, boots with shafts that are too high are ridiculed by the world, and by principle should not be trodden upon by those who cherish the Way. Flat-toed boots differ from the secular and may be classified as light property; pointed ones entirely contradict the Way and by standard are classified as heavy property. If we follow the Indian phula, its shape is like leather boots, split open in front, overlapping and tied on the left and right when walking; if flat and pointed boots resemble this, they are both classified as light property by standard. Other varieties with short shafts and raised toes should also be judged the same as shoes and sandals.
2.29
To restate: The above judgments are based on Vinaya passages by analogy, with clearly defined sources; yet because spiritual understanding differs and intentional applications are hard to restrict, one must divide categories and open paths, organizing them according to principle. However, regarding both heavy and light property, the characteristics of transgression must be known. One must first thoroughly investigate and establish their essential principles; then, when the various characteristics are understood with evidence, judgments will be delivered with solemn caution. Like approaching a deep abyss or treading on thin ice, scrutinizing first and expounding later—does this not apply here? Monastic property is vast: whether belonging to one division or two divisions, four types or eight types, here we only address status and individuals, completely exhausting the four categories; hence, following these categories and principles, they are all cited below.
2.30
First, saṅgha property of the permanent locally restricted category refers to property that, by delimitation of boundary, does not extend to other monasteries and perpetually provides for a distinct dwelling; hence it is called so. What is the nature of these items? That is to say, fields, orchards, rooms and buildings, mountains and forests, ponds and marshes, human servants, livestock, and so forth. If one steals or damages these items, the offenses fall into two tiers: if there is an overseer, the offense is reckoned with respect to the custodian (that is, the administrator); if there is no guardian, it is reckoned comprehensively with respect to the saṅgha—if [the value] reaches five [māṣas], all are expelled, and if it does not reach that, it must be dealt with by the community. Some say that those who steal saṅgha property incur only a sthūlātyaya, because its substance pervades the saṅgha of the four directions and thus the money [stolen from any single monk] does not reach five [māṣas]. As in the Vinaya where at times some monks stole and divided saṅgha property, taking it as four shares, and incurred only a sthūlātyaya—the text establishes this as proof. I, however, deem this not to be the case. Why? The Vinaya was based on a temporary obstruction of the saṅgha. Originally, because [a monk] committed evil deeds in a village and defiled lay families, the saṅgha went to expel him; therefore, he devised this scheme: by dividing the property and temporarily assigning it to a saṅgha of four persons, they would have no secure place to dwell. With internal wealth not being harmed and external traces further purified and settled, using this to obstruct the saṅgha could be considered a clever expedient. However, since it was originally not permanent, the offense did not actually consummate. The Vinaya was based on his original intention and provisionally reckoned the offense according to his mental intent. That is why Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana deeply examined the circumstances and grounds, and returning to the original plot, clearly judged that it was not consummated, thereby causing the saṅgha to continue using it as before. If theft is definitely reckoned, it directly follows the amount of the property; although the offenses are ranked in two tiers (namely, reaching five is a pārājika, and less than five is a sthūlātyaya), they unquestionably pertain to it. If one forcibly seizes these items, one faces the ultimate punishment with respect to the owner: because one harms me, the other is punished, and the offense is consummated. If one returns it to me without harm, the offense remains a preliminary action; because it is a preliminary action, it may be recovered, leaving both sides without flaw. Because consummation pertains to the other, self and other are equally troubled. This appears in the Mahāsāṃghika, and the sacred authority is clear in the Samantapāsādikā and Vibhāṣā. Thus that Vinaya says: 'There was an administrative monk who used saṅgha property for both Buddha and Dharma purposes. The Buddha said: "It is a pārājika."' How could this be understood as extending a preliminary action with respect to the [saṅgha of] the four directions? If you suspect that in the permanent property of the four directions heavy and light property are mixed, that text also says: 'Even if one were able to assemble the saṅgha of the ten directions to divide this property together, it would still not be permitted.' Therefore we know that comprehensively regarding the single saṅgha, it is taken as a single owner as a whole, and ultimately there is no dividing this property. How can one, referring to numbers, say it can be divided? Saying it can be divided refers only to manifest property of the four directions and permanent property of the four directions. The root Vinaya text actually says: 'Neither the saṅgha, nor many people, nor a single person may divide this property, sell this property, or take it for oneself.' This was said on a different occasion due to a transgression. If the various traditions are integrated, dividing and selling are distinct: thus the Vinaya allows the exchange of fields and lands, and the treatises permit the sale of rooms and halls. When permitted, it is openly and publicly conducted; when prohibited, it is to block mental faults. If there are those who must subtly seize it, they cannot but do so subtly—all this refers to the thief's intent being hesitant and undecided. Now that specific ownership has already been settled, how can it be seized back? If one deliberately seizes it, one is still implicated in it. Therefore the root Vinaya says: 'At that time, someone seized the property of a robber; the Buddha said it was a pārājika, which is called a thief robbing a thief again.' The correct teaching is like this. To seize and strip it is even more difficult: since one caused the other to commit theft, the present stolen goods must be surrendered; once the stolen goods are reclaimed, the offense is falsely reckoned—since the property was not damaged, the theft was incurred in vain. If legal officials follow this, they would pursue their investigations with severe excess, presenting the nine unnatural deaths and forever prolonging the five injustices into the future. I consider ordinary words difficult to rely upon, whereas the intention of the sages is easy to discern: one should rely on the clear decisions of the Mahāsāṃghika according to whether the property is heavy or light. If after the death of members of the fivefold assembly property classified as heavy is misjudged, it will be clarified below. If there is a specific owner and a guardian, the two offenses are reckoned with respect to the owner (if one guards it with prudence, it is reckoned with respect to the saṅgha; if one is lazy and neglects to store it securely, it is reckoned with respect to the negligence of the guardian). If the manifest saṅgha collectively divides or sells it together, it is all reckoned with respect to the permanent property (namely, reaching five requires expulsion, while less is a sthūlātyaya), all explained in accordance with the features as in the Great Commentary. Thus the textual evidence is as sharp and clear as the division of heaven and the rending of earth; its form and voice are vast—who could be confused by it? If those who remain muddled without repenting cling to past habits, it is truly because evil types are difficult to cast out suddenly.
2.31
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.
2.32
Third, saṅgha property of the manifest four directions category. This means that intention extends to both internal and external, while establishing a rule prevents its distribution: namely, donations received by the saṅgha from the sevenfold assembly of monastics and laity, light property of deceased members of the fivefold assembly that enters into distribution, and the like. If one considers the appraisal of offenses, it is also reckoned in two ways: if the administrator steals it himself, since with respect to the saṅgha of the four directions it does not reach five, he incurs only a sthūlātyaya; if there is a specific guardian, a heavy offense is reckoned with respect to that individual. This refers to the time before ritual procedure is applied: it is therefore called saṅgha wealth and property, and looking upon the three-thousandfold world, the entire saṅgha of a single conversion field all obtains merit and benefit, which reciprocally supports the donors. If one steals this property, it is reckoned with respect to the saṅgha, yet the saṅgha is ultimately difficult to assemble and in principle requires regulation by legal procedure; therefore the Sage commanded that a karman be performed to prevent outsiders from coming. If a jñaptidvitīya-karman has already been applied, the property is restricted to the presently assembled saṅgha, and by having it fully entrusted to one person, it is left to him to appraise the amount and distribute it. If the custodian steals it himself, the offense is reckoned with respect to the manifest saṅgha. If the thief evades the guardian, offenses are reckoned in both ways (namely, dedicated guardianship is reckoned according to the saṅgha rule, while negligent storage is reckoned with respect to the guardian). Thus the Sujāta Sūtra says: 'Taking the property of a deceased monk before the karman is performed is a light offense with respect to the saṅgha of the ten directions (meaning the administrative punishment is light while the karmic retribution is heavy); if the karman has already been performed, it is a heavy offense with respect to the manifest saṅgha (meaning though the administrative punishment is heavy, the future karmic retribution is light).'
2.33
Fourth, saṅgha property of the manifest allocated portion category. This refers to the robes and personal property restricted to distribution among the assembly of utensils supporting the body. Because the matter is restricted to specific individuals and is not reckoned with respect to the saṅgha, the offense occupies two ranks, generally as presented above. All are reckoned with respect to a single manifest person as the owner of the wealth; even if many people share a common livelihood, comprehensively regarding them all, it is classified under a single charge: since the property affairs are equal, both vikalpanā and forfeiture are accepted together. The root Vinaya text says: 'Who commits a niḥsargika?' The Buddha said: 'Either the saṅgha, or many people, or one person.' According to this, if one person performs vikalpanā, none commit an offense. As the Mahāsāṃghika says: 'If many people have received their distributed shares, and among them there is someone skilled in the Vinaya who performs vikalpanā for them, none commit an offense. If many people share common property, even if they exceed the time limit, they incur no offense.' Because although the items are present, intentions diverge and matters differ, they must be divided before they are called having entered one's possession. Thus that Vinaya says: 'If many people share a distribution that has not yet reached their hands, exceeding the days does not incur a niḥsargika-pāyattika.' If one steals this property, it is reckoned with respect to the protecting owner (namely, as by analogy with someone entrusted or having performed labor, who seizes it back with grievance).
2.34
Because I consider light and heavy property difficult to distinguish, following the particulars of each matter, although the names of the items are fully revealed and their determinations are clear, I still fear that because their categories are manifold, it will be hard to comprehend them upon sudden inquiry. People might then deliberate with private feelings and dispose of them arbitrarily: converting heavy property to light property will immediately incur the ultimate penalty, while shifting light property to heavy property will likewise fall into penal sanctions; or where an entrustment was incomplete, they will unfairly allocate it with a crooked pen; or where debts are neglected, they will boldly assign it to another; or where prior facts were false; or where circumstances were difficult to train in, they will harbor private bribes and rely on influence to indulge their feelings, exchanging heavy and light property and misappropriating the saṅgha's benefit—all these are heavy offenses, and liberation through confession is difficult to expect. Therefore, I have repeatedly set forth standard maxims and proclaimed them throughout. Since our stage is not that of the first fruit, repaying debts in principle is difficult; only when one comprehends the entire scope from beginning to end can one determine penal guidelines.
2.35
Second, next we use theoretical categories to summarize. This clarifies the origins of permissions and prohibitions, and the order of adjudications; although it mutually reflects the preceding category, its intention lies in awakening the confused. Previously, division was made only according to appearances and uses, without comprehending the profound meaning of light and heavy property; now, following the meaning, we explain it in detail, unifying and summarizing them by category to reveal the clear texts of the sacred teachings and extract the great principles of appraising and allocating—because there are different paths, the divisions will be without error. Generally speaking, there are three types of deceased property among the fivefold assembly.
2.36
First are items ordained to be possessed, meaning those that one cannot do without, namely robes, the pātra, sitting mats, and the like. These are all classified as light property (meaning they are light and can be kept on one's person, being essentials for supporting the Way). Second are items ordained not to be possessed, meaning things whose possession obstructs the Way and which are therefore prohibited, namely humans, animals, precious items, and the like. These are judged to be heavy property (meaning that the responsibility of these affairs is burdensome and their inclination toward worldly mindsets is strong; though there may be loose pretexts, they bring initial benefit but ultimate harm). Third are items permitted to be possessed, meaning those where both possessing or not possessing them are permissible, namely various requisites for maintaining the body and the like. These span both light and heavy property (meaning they depend on circumstances and benefits, where the original intention rests on the Way, the Way consists in purity and simplicity, and permissions and prohibitions are adapted according to capacity).
2.37
Next, explaining the first: items ordained to be possessed. First, citations establish the mandate to possess them; next, citations determine them as light property. There are three categories.
2.38
The first is the three robes: namely the saṅghāṭī (the upper robe), the uttarāsaṅga (the middle robe), and the antarvāsa (here called the undergarment). The root Vinaya states: "From now on, keep the three robes and do not exceed [them]." The Da lun states: "No tīrthikas have these three names; the Buddha instituted them himself." The Āgamas state: "These are named Dharma robes."
2.39
The second is the pātra vessel: namely the pātra (here simply translated as 'bowl'). The root Vinaya states: "From now on, you must carry a pātra when traveling; make it of iron or clay, and receive it in accordance with measure." The Mahāsāṃghika states: "This is the emblem of Buddhas numerous as the sands of the Ganges." In the sūtras, it is named the 'vessel in accordance [with measure]'.
2.40
The third is the sitting mat: namely the niṣīdana (here translated as sitting mat, like that used in the world for sitting; it is also called sitting-and-reclining gear, which is a general name for the three robes; it is also bedding, like the general name for spreading quilts in the world). The root Vinaya ordains that it must be kept for the sake of the body, for robes, and for bedding. The Mahāsāṃghika states: "This is a cloth for sitting upon at will, and must not be put to bad use."
2.41
The reason why the previous three items are all classified as light property is that they are primary essentials for supporting the Way, which the Sage ordained to be kept, requiring only that they be kept on one's person and not allowed to be deficient. Therefore, the Buddha said that wherever one goes, one is together with robes and pātra, without any lingering attachments, just like a flying bird. Using this text as proof, their designated purpose is weighty, not unaccordant with the Dharma; therefore, they are classified as light property. Because they are all ordained to be received and upheld, and must not be casually abandoned without cause, if one is separated from them, it constitutes a principal offense in every case. Thus, the Dharma robes are used to cover the body, the vessel in accordance [with measure] is used for sustenance, and the niṣīdana mat is used for sitting in peace; if one goes against the regulation, it is ordained in all cases to be an offense.
2.42
Next, explaining the second: items ordained not to be permitted for possession. First, citations prove that their possession is prohibited; next, the meaning of judging them as heavy property is clarified (there are naturally five categories).
2.43
First: agricultural lands and planting. In the root Vinaya, planting trees oneself or instructing others to do so, if not done for the Buddha, Dharma, or Saṅgha, is termed committing evil conduct. The Samantapāsādikā states: "If a householder donates fields and lands, an individual may not receive them." The Mahīśāsaka states: "If fields and houses are donated to the saṅgha, it is permitted to receive them, having pure attendants manage them."
2.44
Second: rearing humans and livestock. In the "Skandhaka on Major and Minor Precept Observance" in the root Vinaya, it states: "The śramaṇas, sons of the Śākya, are not like other tīrthikas who extensively keep humans, livestock, and the like" (it extensively clarifies the prohibition). The Mahāsāṃghika states: "When male and female slaves and various animals are donated to the saṅgha, no individual may receive them for personal use; to manage them for the saṅgha, upon receiving them they must be handed over to the saṅgha."
2.45
Third: theatrical music and instruments of popular entertainment. The root Vinaya states: "One who has received the ten precepts should not watch or listen to music and the like." The Samantapāsādikā states: "If musical instruments are donated, they must not be held; they may be sold."
2.46
Fourth: the five types of military weapons. In the root Vinaya, bhikṣus are not permitted to watch armies fighting, down to playing around with them. The Samantapāsādikā states: "If weapons are donated, the saṅgha should smash and destroy them; they must not be sold." The Sarvāstivāda states: "If items made of faux jewels or made as men's accoutrements, such as spears, lances, military weapons, and musical instruments, one must not take them into one's hands."
2.47
Fifth: money, grain, and the seven jewels. The root Vinaya states: "If someone donates money and jewels, hand them to a pure attendant to oversee, saying: 'These are impure items, you should take charge of them.' Aside from this, it is not permitted." In the Mahāsāṃghika, money, jewels, and the like are classified as heavy property. Those already fashioned into hundred-and-one items are classified as light property; this does not refer to vessels of gold and jewels, but to those made of faux jewels such as copper and iron. Were it not so, how could a bhikṣu take hold of and use them? One may search the text above and below. The Sarvāstivāda states: "If one takes hold of gold, silver, maṇi pearls, genuine pearls, coral, giant clam, or agate—the seven jewels—one commits a pātayantikā. If faux jewels such as copper and iron and various colored beads are not included among the hundred-and-one items, taking them incurs a duṣkṛta. If one does not take them for oneself but performs vikalpanā according to the Dharma, it is permissible, according to handing them to a pure custodian to oversee." In the Mahāsāṃghika, down to the administrators, they must not do so; taking hold of gold, silver, money, and images belonging to the Three Jewels all constitutes a pātayantikā. The Samantapāsādikā states: "A bhikṣu must not take hold of living seeds. If any are donated, according to the Da lun, within ten days perform vikalpanā and hand them over to a layperson to oversee."
2.48
The previous five items are all included under heavy property, and they are the foremost causes of incurring criticism and obstructing the Way. First, regarding agricultural affairs: even despised worldly literati do not look upon them, much less the world-transcending fivefold assembly; rationally they should not be overseen by one's own person. Thus, the Dazhidulun states: "Inferior wrong livelihood refers to plowing fields and planting crops to obtain profit and maintain life; only when free from such undertakings is it called right livelihood." Now, personally engaging in manual labor or teaching others to plant is an evil conduct that corrupts families, generates faults, obstructs the Way, and brings especially grave defilement and censure; hence it is classified as heavy property. As for the second prohibition: the lives of humans and livestock require sustenance and support; a bhikṣu holds high and pure conduct, aiming high to benefit far and wide. If humans and animals gather together now, matters of filth and disorder become profound; if worldly matters are still performed and maintained, how can this form a bridge to entering the Way? Since labor and weariness apply to both, they are surrendered to the saṅgha, and there are many avenues for retaining or releasing them, as in the earlier rulings. As for the third prohibition: instruments of music and licentiousness are inherently not things to be harbored by the eyes and mind; if hearing their sounds is already prohibited as an offense, how could viewing them with the eyes be without guilt? The primary regulation forbids bodily contact in order to dispel attachment. If one now personally beats and plays them, the reason is intoxication; thus there are weeping, shedding tears, physical collapse, and mental agitation, which worldly people call actors and performers, and truly for good reason. Since the bans of the Way are strictly closed against this and the faults and excesses are especially profound, rationally they should be burned and destroyed to signify correction. However, for worldly people to generate joy, release anger, and dispel confusion, there is a slight condition for making offerings and merit, showing a modest sign of taking refuge; if there are such, they should be sold, which accords with the general text of the orthodox treatises. As for the fourth prohibition: military weapons inherently obstruct the way of compassion; states institute them only out of necessity to prepare against the unexpected; leaving the world inherently involves abhorring them. To delight in them now all the more becomes the root of faults, belonging either to the number of evil precepts or generating kalpas of warfare; harmful in both the present and future, on what principle could they be kept? They should be smashed, burned, and eliminated to uproot continuing evils. As for the fifth prohibition: gold and silver are prized and heavy, and money and grain yield deep profit. They can open the gate of unrighteousness and directly block the path of pure elevation. Therefore, both sūtras and vinayas lament the destruction of the Dharma over them, and both monastics and laity recognize the defilement of the mind; according to the treatises, one should assign someone to discard them, highlighting how intensely impure this karma is. However, the Vinaya accommodates deliberations of the times, with the intention of rectifying faults: during life, one performs vikalpanā and hands them over to other laypeople to manage and guard; upon death, they are collected into the permanent property and entrusted to the administrators.
2.49
Next, explaining the third: items permitted to be possessed. The root Vinaya expounds them broadly, and examples are described below.
2.50
The items in the preceding section have narrow designations but broad applications. The Buddha first set forth the rigorous edge of the teachings, and only later opened allowances, all because superior retribution declined while worldly duties increased, so the Sage's regulations were applied according to capacity, the intention resting on upholding the Way. If one harbors correct contemplation in mind, maintains discipline surpassing the ordinary, possesses a heroic and resolute will, and wind and frost do not constrain one's mind, then one sits beneath trees, covered only by the three robes and nourished only by begging for food. However, as for intermediate and inferior practitioners, their minds are like superior practitioners, but their bodily retribution is frail and exhausted; they have the aspiration but lack the capacity; though striving forward, their roots of the Way regress. For them, decorated rooms, fine personal property, and various requisites were provisionally permitted, granting provisions according to circumstance and capacity, originally to advance the Way and not merely to sustain the body. Therefore, the Madhyama Āgama states: "That I permit my disciples to possess various robes and items is entirely because of wholesome dharmas." The Chishi and Fozang jing state: "If one does not eliminate the inverted view of self and gives rise to attachments according to things, one is not permitted even to drink a cup of water or wear a patched robe, how much less other things!" Thus we know that the intention behind the allowances is profound and serious. Opening them only when unavoidable, the Vinaya accommodates human sentiment with the intention resting on the cultivation of the Way, while the sūtras restrict the mind and, taking external things as the arising causes, bring about an absolute absence of stockpiling, so that conditions are quiet for cultivating the Way. Therefore, in the Laṅkāvatāra, where smoke arises within a monastery, those who practice according to reality should not eat there. The Daśabhāṇavāra also states that the monastery must be strictly pure ground. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: "Although receiving and possessing them is permitted, such items must be purely bestowed by faithful dānapatis." When the authentic teachings are so clearly decisive, one must all the more scrupulously rely on them. However, when capacities are dull and weak, they are difficult to reform immediately; one must still adapt to capacities in accord with the teachings, allowing the property to be heavy or light. If based on the original allowance, in principle they should be distributed; but because material wealth is a burden and encumbrance, where there are no concerns, one simplifies and eliminates to keep what is quiet and essential. This section covers an extremely large number of categories, its principle encompasses both saṅghas, and its matters span both light and heavy property; if judged according to the Vinaya, it generally decrees that they not be distributed, arguing from the majority. Now, collecting all categories in summary, they must be divided into three rubrics: first, intrinsically light and intrinsically heavy; second, circumstantially light and circumstantially heavy; third, light and heavy by usage (each divided in half, making three light and three heavy).
First 50 of 129 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 量處輕重儀 — Classical Chinese