法苑珠林 62.14

62.14

問曰。如前所斷。依經施主將寶盆雜華開獻如前。若無施主。得用常住僧物造華供養佛不。答曰。亦須量時觀前損益。若如小寺無多貴勝。復無外譏者。不合用常住僧物造作雜華佛前供養。僧地樹生華者。得取佛前供養。故十誦律云。僧園中樹華聽取供養佛塔。若有果者使人取供僧噉。又毘尼母論云。已處分地種樹得木後用治房。不須白僧。僧樹治塔。和僧得用。故寶印經云。若用僧物修治佛塔。依法取僧和合得用。不和合者勸俗修治。又薩婆多論云。四方僧地不和合者。不得作佛塔為佛種華果。若僧中分得者。聽隨意供養。若華多無限者。隨用供養。又寶印經云。欲興寺舍供養者。所施之物付囑僧已。不復更得干預。若其本主還取錢財用者。並須七倍還償。若有新立寺時。比丘啟白眾僧。其寺內種植所有華果獻佛。枝葉子實與現前僧食。并施一切眾生。若不爾者。無問道俗。食者得罪。議曰。既知三寶各別不得互用。初立寺時佛院僧院各須位別。如似大寺別造佛塔。四周空廓內所有華果。得此物者並屬塔用。空廓以外即屬僧用。故十誦律云。佛聽僧坊佛圖得畜使人及象馬牛羊等。各有所屬不得互用。又寶梁寶印經云。佛法二物不得互用。由無與佛法物作主。復無可諮白不同僧物。常住招提互有所須。營事比丘和僧索欲。行籌和合者得用。又薩婆多論云。寺舍若經荒餓。三寶園田無有分別可問處者。若僧和合隨意處分。若屬塔永用塔功力者。僧用得重罪。若功力由僧者。當籌量多少。僧取用之。莫令過限。則得重罪。上來所列小寺無外譏損。即須依前所斷。若如今時。或有大寺國家營造。別有供給。并有勅賜田莊。官人貴勝日多來往。既無通用之物。豈得不看。復如七月十五日。佛殿前獻供。豈得單罄。若不廣造飲食華果獻佛。唯加少多。常食獻佛得不。儻有在上察訪被俗譏論。道僧慳悋不如白衣。非直不敬於佛亦不懼在上一朝被責。豈得椎注僧物不合將獻佛。既知如是。若無通用之物。止得用常住僧物。種種造作華果百味飲食獻佛。令他俗人生善滅惡。此亦無損。雖用僧物不能救別人存亡眷。屬且免被俗譏謗之罪。如五分律云。俗人入寺值僧食。僧不供給被俗譏謗。佛開聽與。既許開與惡器盛與亦被俗瞋。佛言。開與好器。此並由知事摩摩帝等。臨時斟酌。進不合宜。即稱聖意。不得雷同一向固執。故五分律云。雖是我語。於餘方不清淨者。不行無過。雖非我語。於餘方清淨者。不得不行（此言商攉何事不該）。

Question: According to the preceding determination, based on the sūtra, donors are permitted to offer precious vessels and varied flowers as stated before. If there are no donors, is it permissible to use the permanent property of the Saṃgha to make flowers and offer them to the Buddha? Answer: One must also weigh the time and observe the gain and loss in the situation. If it is a small monastery without many nobility and prominent persons, and also free from external reproach, it is not permissible to use the permanent property of the Saṃgha to fashion varied flowers and offer them before the Buddha. If trees on the Saṃgha's land produce flowers, one may take them to offer before the Buddha. Hence the Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: 'Trees and flowers in the Saṃgha's park are permitted to be taken and offered to the Buddha's stūpa. If there are fruits, people are dispatched to harvest them to supply the Saṃgha for eating.' Furthermore, the Vinayamātṛkā states: 'When land has already been assigned and trees planted, once the timber is obtained, it may later be used to repair dwellings; there is no need to announce it to the Saṃgha. If the Saṃgha's trees are to repair a stūpa, with the harmonious consensus of the Saṃgha they may be used.' Hence the Ratnamudrā-sūtra states: 'If one uses the Saṃgha's property to repair and construct a Buddha stūpa, taking it according to the Dharma with the harmonious consensus of the Saṃgha, it may be used. If they are not in harmony, encourage laypersons to repair it.' Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda-śāstra states: 'On the land of the Saṃgha of the four directions, if they are not in harmonious agreement, one must not make a Buddha stūpa or plant flowers and fruits for the Buddha. If they are apportioned from within the Saṃgha, they are permitted to be offered as one pleases. If the flowers are limitlessly abundant, one may use them for offerings at will.' Furthermore, the Ratnamudrā-sūtra states: 'Those who wish to build a monastery to make offerings, once the offered goods have been entrusted to the Saṃgha, may no longer interfere. If the original owner takes the wealth and property back for use, he must repay it sevenfold. When a monastery is newly established, the bhikṣu announces to the Saṃgha: "All flowers and fruits planted within this monastery shall be offered to the Buddha. The branches, leaves, seeds, and fruits shall be eaten by the present Saṃgha and bestowed upon all sentient beings." If it is not done so, whether monastic or lay, anyone who eats them commits an offense.' The discussion states: Since we know that the Three Jewels are distinct from one another and their property cannot be used interchangeably, when a monastery is first established, the Buddha courtyard and the Saṃgha courtyard must each have separate allocations. For instance, in a large monastery where a Buddha stūpa is built separately, all the flowers and fruits within the four surrounding open enclosures belong to the use of the stūpa once obtained; outside the open enclosure, they belong to the use of the Saṃgha. Hence the Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: 'The Buddha permitted monastic dwellings and Buddha shrines to keep laborers, elephants, horses, oxen, sheep, and the like, each having its own affiliation, and they must not be used interchangeably.' Furthermore, the Ratnarāśi-sūtra and the Ratnamudrā-sūtra state: 'The property of the Buddha and the Dharma must not be used interchangeably. Because no one acts as master over the property of the Buddha and the Dharma, and there is no one who can be consulted, they are not like the property of the Saṃgha.' If the permanent residents and visiting monks mutually have needs, the monastic manager harmonizes the Saṃgha and solicits their consent; if they reach harmony through the distribution of voting-sticks, it may be used. Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda-śāstra states: 'If a monastery undergoes famine, and there is nowhere to inquire about the distinguishing of the fields and gardens of the Three Jewels: if the Saṃgha harmoniously agrees, they may dispose of it at will. If it belongs permanently to the stūpa through the labor of the stūpa, the Saṃgha incurs a grave offense by using it. If the labor came from the Saṃgha, they should deliberate the amount; the Saṃgha may take and use it, but must not exceed the limit, otherwise they incur a grave offense.' The above enumeration concerns small monasteries free from external reproach and harm, which must follow the preceding determination. However, in present times, there are large monasteries constructed by the state, with separate allocations and imperial grants of estates and manors, where officials and noble guests come and go frequently each day. Since there are no common-use funds, how could one not attend [to their appearance]? Moreover, as on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when making offerings before the Buddha hall, how could it be left bare and empty? If one does not elaborately prepare food, drink, flowers, and fruit to offer to the Buddha, but merely adds a little to the ordinary meals to offer to the Buddha, could that be permissible? Should superiors come to inspect and laypeople ridicule and gossip, saying that the monastics are stingy and inferior to the white-robed, this would not only show disrespect to the Buddha, but also show no fear of receiving reprimand from above one morning. How could one rigidly adhere to the rule that the Saṃgha's property must not be taken to offer to the Buddha? Since this is known to be so, if there are no common-use funds, one can only use the permanent property of the Saṃgha to prepare varied flowers, fruits, and the hundred flavors of food and drink to offer to the Buddha, causing other laypeople to give rise to goodness and eradicate evil; this also causes no harm. Although using the Saṃgha's property cannot rescue others' living or deceased relatives, it at least avoids the offense of receiving lay ridicule and slander. As the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya states: When laypeople entered the monastery and met the Saṃgha during their meal, the Saṃgha did not provide for them and was slandered and ridiculed by the laypeople. The Buddha permitted giving [food] to them. Having permitted giving to them, they served it in poor vessels and were also resented by the laypeople. The Buddha said: 'I permit giving it in good vessels.' These all depend on the administrators and monastic officers to weigh according to circumstances; adapting appropriately conforms to the sage's intent, and one must not blindly follow a uniform rule with unbending obstinacy. Hence the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya states: 'Although it was spoken by me, if it is impure in other regions, there is no fault in not practicing it. Although it was not spoken by me, if it is pure in other regions, one must practice it.' (This statement deliberates on circumstances; what matter does it not encompass?)