勅修百丈清規 4.63

4.63

莊主

procure the adequate quantity needed for each winter season.

10. The Head of Estate Management

[The holder of this post] is obliged to inspect the demarcation of the temple’s rice fields, repair the estate cottages, supervise farming, and settle disputes with the farmers. He may handle small or trifling incidents but if the situation is of some magnitude and negatively affects the monastic institution, it must be reported to the temple and the matter taken up with due procedure. In recent times, innumerable evils have been observed to happen in the affairs of many temples, and the most extreme cases have involved estate management. The following three points briefly explain the extent of the problem.

The common characteristic of this evil, first and foremost, in all temples, is the fact that the post of estate management is the object of fierce competition. But how could such a post be open and attainable to anyone and everyone who wants it? Accordingly, some hold grudges against the abbot for not appointing them to the post, and they create discord between superiors and subordinates. Once appointed to this position, however, the appointee often stays on, rarely leaving the temple even for short periods of time, and thereby becomes undeterred in doing practically anything, including creating discord, bringing lawsuits, using up temple funds originally donated for the practitioners, or even creating debts for the temple, thereby resulting in years of ongoing problems. [In such a situation,] it is natural that the temple community’s morale and discipline would decline, while the farmers may become contemptuous, slighting their duty of paying dues to the temple. This is the second evil.

Even if a mature and capable person is appointed [to this post], he is obliged to deal with the prefectural and district governments, and will likely have to deal with the clerks of local governments, in the city or village, or neighboring wealthy landowners. If he is unable to meet the customary standard in establishing relationships with these agents, there necessarily develops a detrimental gap. Even when there has been no clear expenditure, by cunning contrivance a deficit may result, and there is no benefit whatsoever in this case to the temple or to the person in regard to his own religious goals. Thus, the expense for running the estate often takes half of the temple’s entire budget. This is the third evil.

There is a difference between the way a temple operates such estates and the way a secular private owner operates his holdings. It is never the case that temples assign members widely in various parts of the estate operation in the way a wealthy family uses its clan members extensively. A temple estate may have a group of farmers at the time of sowing, a group of supervisors (jiagan) for farming, and at harvest time the temple sends a practitioner in charge of revenue and his attendants for the task. Although there are other nominal posts, such as transportation (shuna), dike repair (xiuyu), and grain distribution (biaoliang), these tasks are entrusted, only when necessary, to a group of retired officials to do the job as quickly as possible, and who return to the temple as soon as the task is completed. This way not only saves the cost of manpower but also sometimes prevents possible disasters by reducing the expenditure required. Thus, it serves both communal and individual goals simultaneously. Today, many temples have abandoned their estate operations, leaving their facilities like abandoned houses. If the abbot and the retired officials truly wish to restore their temple institution, to save costs, reform evils, and eliminate unnecessary expenses they should start with abolishing the temple estate as the first step. If, however, there is someone who, even facing grave difficulties, is capable of managing such an estate, his appointment may be separately discussed along with the idea of an honorarium.

11. The Head of Collection of

Various Estate Revenues

In the Ancient Regulations, in the very beginning there was no post such as estate revenue officer under the head of estate management. Only in recent times was this office created. Since this post was established there have occurred innumerable evils. There are cases where, upon becoming abbot, a person secretly appoints someone who has been convicted of a crime, or out of personal interest, he falls into favoritism in appointing someone to such a post. There are also cases when officials and managing practitioners who have just retired [upon the appointment of a new abbot] overreach the latter’s authority in appointing someone; or there are some who demand their own appointment due to their power base in the temple community; or those

who organize a group in order to obtain the post on the basis of its majority. There are even some who take the post by physical force. There is no end of such examples, which in all cases are harmful both to the temple community and individuals. Even though everyone might wish to rectify this state of affairs and restore the proper form of the temple institution, there is no way to realize this goal. Only if there are retired officials who are honest and assist the abbot may it become possible to select an appropriate person in terms of public election and appoint him over some limited area of responsibility. Or it may also be possible to appoint a person by lottery from among the practitioners.

Anyone who holds this post must be rigorous in his standard of personal conduct and motivated to serve the community of practitioners. One must