法苑珠林 74
English (machine translation) 74
- Language
- English
74.1
Compiled by the Śramaṇa Shi Daoshi of Ximing Temple
74.2
Chapter 84: The Ten Unwholesome Deeds, Part 2
74.3
Section 5: Stealing (This contains seven divisions)
74.4
Division on Explaining the Intent
Division on the Property of the Buddha
Division on the Property of the Dharma
Division on the Property of the Saṃgha
Division on Interchangeable Use
Division on Ordinary Property
Division on Bequeathed Property
74.5
Division 1: Explaining the Intent
74.6
Now, of those who receive physical form within the six destinies, there is none whose origin is not greedy desire. Of those who take on substance between the two modes [of Heaven and Earth], all have clinging to wealth as their root. Although humans and beasts are distinct from each other, yet in stinginess and possessiveness they are no different. Therefore, one who seeks only gain when faced with wealth cannot be called a wise man; one who forgets righteousness upon seeing profit fails to become an exemplary person. Furthermore, money, wealth, jade, and silk are external dependencies, whereas banners, flowers, and the property of the Saṅgha are internal offerings. In principle, one ought to reflect on one's own poverty and rejoice in the wealth of others; how could one, because of one's own poverty, greedily plunder the property of another? For this reason, Devadatta's plucking of a flower immediately caused him to regress and fall; Gavāmpati's damage to grain brought him in return the body of an ox; Kāśyapa's begging for cakes was ridiculed by laypeople; and when a bhikṣu smelled a lotus fragrance, the pond divinity reprimanded him with astonishment. From this we know: how could the transgression of theft not be a grave sin? Consequently, in the morning one has no reliance for food, and at night one has no clothes to sleep in; one roosts like a bird or lodges like a deer, naked and exposed to bitter suffering; one sleeps by the roadside and seeks food walking through marketplaces. Mothers are driven south like partridges, and sons are borne north following Hu horses. Husbands rush west like the shadow of the sun, and wives flow east like river currents. There is none who does not suffer heartbreak looking back toward their old homeland, or weep aloud when thinking of their birthplace. Tears stream swiftly and dissolve into blood; hearts are melancholic and oppressed, with brows furrowed. Such sufferings all come from having failed to give dāna in previous lifetimes and having committed robbery and theft. Thus the sūtra says: 'If you wish to know the past causes, look at the present fruits; if you wish to know the future fruits, simply observe the present causes.' For this reason, I urge all practitioners: you must always be admonished and vigilant not to give rise to a mind of theft, even to the point of not coveting dropped and abandoned things—how much less intentionally stealing the goods of others!
74.7
Section 2: Property of the Buddha
74.8
As the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'If someone builds a Buddhist monastery and offers pearl garlands to it, anyone who takes them without asking—whether knowingly or unknowingly—incurs an offense of preliminary theft.' Furthermore, the Vinaya-vibhāṣā states: 'If one steals banners or flowers from a stūpa of the Buddha or a stūpa of a śrāvaka, one incurs a grave offense with respect to the donor, because one severs that donor's merit.' Furthermore, the Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: 'If one steals property from a Buddhist shrine or offering utensils from a monastery, if there is a custodian in charge, one's offense is calculated according to the owner as a grave offense.' According to the Daśādhyāya[-vinaya], stealing a Buddha's śarīra, and according to the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā, stealing a Buddha image, if done with a pure mind for the purpose of making offerings, thinking to oneself, 'He was a disciple, and I too am a disciple'—in such cases, although taken without asking, no offense is incurred in offering to them. (This refers to cases where the donor's intention is open; if the donor's intention is restricted, one incurs a grave offense.) If one follows the Mātṛkā-śāstra, it states: 'If one steals a Buddha image or śarīra in order to resell it for a livelihood, one commits an exceedingly grave offense.'
74.9
Section 3: Property of the Dharma
74.10
As the Caturvargika-vinaya states: 'Once, someone stole another person's sūtra scroll. The Buddha said: The words of the Buddha are priceless; the grave offense is determined according to the value of the paper and ink.' The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: 'If one borrows another's sūtra and refuses to return it, causing the owner to harbor doubt, one incurs an offense of preparation (because the owner's intention is not yet severed; if it is completely severed, it is a grave offense).' The Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra states: 'If one steals another's secret formulas, one incurs a grave offense.' The *Vijñapti-[mātratā]-viniścaya-śāstra states: 'Surreptitiously taking another's sūtras or treatises to read, even down to a single phrase, constitutes an offense of stealing phrases.' (This should be when the owner has a mind of secrecy and stinginess; generally, with other texts where the owner's feelings are open and generous, taking and reading them is without fault.) The Oral Decisions on the Five Hundred Inquiries states: 'One must not blow dust off a sūtra with one's mouth, because the breath from the mouth is foul (the same applies to dust on an image). If one burns an old sūtra, one incurs a grave offense equivalent to burning one's father and mother; one who does so without knowing it is an offense incurs a light one.' (Frequently there are evil people who steal bronze Buddha images and melt down the sacred forms to support their own lives. Among perverse acts, none surpasses this extremity. Or they steal banners and flowers to use as clothing, or to sell them for a livelihood. For such sins, they will receive retributions in the future with no date of release.)
74.11
Section 4: Property of the Saṅgha
74.12
As the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya states: 'Borrowing the property of the Saṅgha and not returning it: calculating the value, one incurs a grave offense.' Furthermore, the Guan Fo sanmei jing states: 'One who steals garlands and property of the Saṅgha incurs a sin greater than killing eighty-four thousand fathers and mothers.' Furthermore, the Ratnarāśi-sūtra states: 'Better to eat one's own flesh than ever to use the property of the Three Jewels.' Furthermore, according to the Vaipulya Sūtra, Bodhisattva Kusumasañcaya said: 'I can save even those guilty of the five heinous deeds and the four grave offenses, but one who steals the property of the Saṅgha, I cannot save.' Furthermore, the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra, in the 'Chapter on Rescuing the Dragons', states: 'At that time, there were dragons who attained the knowledge of past lives. Recalling their past karma, they wept tears like rain, came before the Buddha, and spoke thus: We remember in the past, within the Buddha's Dharma, due to conditions as relatives of laypeople or conditions of listening to the Dharma, we had faithful minds and gave in dāna various flowers, fruits, food, and drink, eating together with the bhikṣus in order. Or some said: I once consumed the flowers, fruits, food, and drink belonging to the Saṅgha of the four directions. Or some said: I went to the monastery to give dāna to the Saṅgha or to prostrate, and thus ate and drank there. Even across the era of the seven Buddhas, having been a faithful layperson, for the purpose of making offerings I gave various flowers, fruits, and food and drink; after the bhikṣus received them, they gave them back to me, and I took and ate them. Due to the conditions of that karma, I spent immeasurable kalpas in the hells amidst fierce blazing fires, being burned or boiled, drinking molten copper, or swallowing iron pellets. Emerging from the hells, I fell among beasts; leaving the bodies of beasts, I was born among hungry ghosts. In this way I fully endured all manner of bitterness and hardship. The Buddha told the dragons: This evil karma is no different from stealing the property of the Buddha. The offense of a bhikṣu committing the five heinous deeds is only half as great. Yet this karmic retribution is difficult to escape: you will encounter the final Buddha in the Bhadrakalpa, named Ruci, and in the time of that Buddha your sins will be eliminated.'
74.13
I state: Why is the sin of stealing and using the property of the Saṅgha exceptionally grave? The answer is: In stealing a single item, it is directed toward the ordinary and noble beings of the ten directions—reaching upward to all Buddhas and downward to ordinary monks. Because the object is boundless, it in turn forms an equally boundless sin. Even the number of fine dust motes may be known, but this person's karmic retribution cannot be measured. Why is this? Because when the donors originally gave even a single hair or a single grain, it was intended as an offering to the ordinary and noble renunciants of the ten directions to sustain their food and drink so that they could cultivate the Way day and night; they did not wish to offer it to the laity. Therefore, when the bell sounds a single chime, those near and far feast together; both the ordinary and the noble are supported, and together accomplish the karmic fruits of the Way. Secretly aiding the donors, the benefit obtained is boundless. This blessed reward alone equals the dharmadhātu in merit. When the good invoked is so great, how could the sin incurred be small? Now we see foolish, deluded sentient beings who do not distinguish between noble and base, and do not believe in the Three Jewels. They greedily covet the goods of the fields of merit to support their own persons: either eating the food of the Saṅgha and using their flowers and fruits; or riding the various livestock of the Saṅgha and taking the Saṅgha's servants to accompany them; or borrowing the property of the Saṅgha and not returning it for a long time, and upon seeing the monks repeatedly demanding it, insulting and abusing them instead; or relying on the influence and power of officials to look for the monks' faults. Harmful acts such as these are difficult to list completely. Calmly reflecting on this fault, how could one's heart not ache? If monks are now stingy and do not give, it is not that they are miserly and ungenerous, but out of compassion for the white-robed laity, fearing they will suffer future agony. If they were to give, it would not only harm the laity, but the offense would also fall upon the administrators, and they would share the calamity together in their future birthplaces. Therefore, the Abhiniṣkramaṇa-sūtra states: 'A single thought of evil can open five unwholesome gates: first, evil can burn up a person's roots of goodness; second, from evil further evil is born; third, one is rebuked by the noble ones; fourth, one regresses from and loses the fruit of the Way; fifth, at death one enters the evil destinies.' Knowing that it is not easy, this is truly a great admonition. When taking and receiving in later times, examine yourself and your usage.
74.14
Section 5: Interchanging Property
74.15
As the Ratnarāśi-sūtra and the Bao yin jing state: 'Property belonging to the Buddha and property belonging to the Dharma must not be interchanged. Because there is no one acting as owner for the property of the Buddha and the Dharma, there is no one to consult. This is unlike the property of the Saṅgha: whether permanent property or property of the Saṅgha of the four directions, there are people to consult with one another. If one uses the property of the Saṅgha to repair a stūpa of the Buddha, if one takes it according to the Dharma with the harmony of the Saṅgha, it may be used; if they are not in harmony, one should urge laypeople to repair it. If there is property belonging to a stūpa of the Buddha, even a single coin or more, because the donor gave it with great reverence, devas and humans should produce the thought of the Buddha and the thought of the stūpa regarding this property. Even if it is blown by the wind and rots, one must not exchange it for precious items to make offerings, for no one can set a price on the property of the Tathāgata's stūpa.' Furthermore, the Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: 'The Buddha permitted monastic dwellings and Buddhist shrines to keep servants, elephants, horses, cattle, and sheep, but each belongs to its own sphere and they must not be interchanged.' Furthermore, the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: 'Of property offered to the Buddha, if there are too many flowers, it is permitted to sell them to buy incense and lamps; if there is still an excess, it may be sold and put into inexhaustible wealth.' Furthermore, the Oral Decisions on the Five Hundred Inquiries states: 'If there are too many banners for the Buddha, if one wishes to use them for other Buddha-affairs, it is permitted; if the donor does not allow it, it is not permitted.' Furthermore, the Caturvargika-vinaya states: 'Regarding food offered to the stūpa of the Buddha, the person who maintains the stūpa is permitted to eat it.' Furthermore, the Samantapāsādikā states: 'Regarding food offered before the Buddha, the bhikṣu who serves the Buddha is permitted to eat it; if there is no bhikṣu, a white-robed layman who serves the Buddha is also permitted to eat it.' Furthermore, the Zuifu jueyi jing states: 'When first offering food to the Buddha, the senior, middle, and junior theras must instruct the white-robed laity to offer it to the Buddha and the Saṅgha. When the offering to the Buddha is finished, it is distributed and given to the Saṅgha to eat, which incurs no offense. If it is not done in this way, because they eat the Buddha's property, they will fall into Avīci Hell for a thousand koṭis of years. If the dānapati does not accept the master's instruction, he will also incur this same retribution; if born in the human realm, he will fall into base conditions for nine million years. Why is this? Because no one can set a price on the property of the Buddha.' (Generally, in the case of fasting households and the regular two daily meals in monastic temples, food offered to the Buddha and the noble Saṅgha is not strictly restricted. What enters the Buddha and the Saṅgha does not need to be redeemed; after the remaining food is announced, all may eat it. If the donor explicitly specifies the offered food as strictly for the Buddha and the Saṅgha, not open to the white-robed laity, one must redeem it oneself before taking and eating it.)
74.16
Or if a donor originally intended [the gift] to make Śākyamuni, but one changes it to make Amitābha; originally intended to make the Large Prajñāpāramitā, but one changes it to supply the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]; originally intended to make monks' quarters, but one changes it to provide monks' food; originally donated to the two assemblies, but one changes it to enter one assembly; originally intended to circulate to the ten directions, but it enters the present [community]; originally intended for the great community, but one diverts it to enter a particular person; originally intended for the assembly of monks, but one diverts it to enter laypeople: these all go against the donor. Calculating the amount of money, if it reaches five [māṣas], it constitutes a grave offense; if less than five, one incurs a sthūlātyaya. Therefore the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says: 'Promising it to this place but giving it to that place both constitute offenses.' (The gravity of the offense is weighed according to the former donor.)
According to this text, when inspecting and managing Buddha images, surplus pigments must not be used to make figures of bodhisattvas, holy monks, and the like. Because the positions of master and disciple are distinct, they must not be mutually exchanged. One may only use them to make other decorative articles, returning them to serve as offerings to the Buddha, without committing an offense. If the donor's intention was broad, for a complete suite of Buddha images to be adorned at will—various figures of monastic, lay, ordinary, and holy beings, diverse offerings, famous flowers, plants and trees, mountains, ponds, birds, and beasts—not restricted to the Buddha image, then making them in common entails no offense. Therefore the Questions of Five Hundred [Arhats] says: 'Using pigments of the Buddha to make figures of birds and beasts incurs an offense, except when made before the Buddha as an offering, in which case there is no offense.'
(One frequently hears that in border regions, monastics and laypeople are not familiar with the Vinaya. Although they have good intentions to manage the Three Jewels, they follow their own ordinary sentiments to mutually exchange the property of the Three Jewels, even taking the holy monks' money from vegetarian feasts, either taking it for themselves, or entering it into the permanent property [of the monastery], or making Buddha images, or painting figures of Kāśyapa, Ānanda, and others on walls. None of this is permissible and all incurs offenses, fully as explained above in the chapter on Receiving Invitations. Question: 'Nowadays at vegetarian feasts there is money for the Buddha; into what kind of use should this money enter?' Answer: 'If the donor's original intention was specifically set on making images, one must judge according to the aforementioned text on mutual exchange: it can only be used to make Buddhas and must not be used for anything else. If, as in today's feast hosts, after the ordinary monks have eaten, they broadly bring out money for the Buddha and the Saṃgha, knowing that the donor did not make specific restrictions, one is free to use it to buy incense, purchase oil, make banners, construct Buddha halls, and make various offerings to the Buddha; to use it in such ways is entirely permissible, but it must not enter into use for sūtras, monks, or particular individuals. What has been briefly recounted above is entirely decided according to the texts of sūtras and Vinayas, and is not a matter of human sentiment. If one does not act according to the Dharma, one conversely incurs the offense of ignorance and failing to study. Matters beyond this that have not been fully treated are extensively expounded in the ten-fascicle Commentary on the Vinaya for Monks and Nuns. Therefore, inspecting and managing the Three Jewels is a grave matter, not a light one. Unless one clearly understands the Vinaya, deeply believes in cause and effect, exercises caution in mind, fears the karmic path, is constantly diligent in mindfulness, and does not shield human sentiments—only such a person is worthy of serving as a monastery director (karmadāna) or administrator. Those outside of this are not fit to do so.')
74.17
Furthermore, the Ratnarāśi-sūtra says: 'The Buddha addressed Kāśyapa: "I permit two kinds of monks to manage community affairs. What are the two? First, those capable of purely upholding the precepts; second, those who fear the future world as if it were a vajra. There are another two kinds. What are the two? First, those who recognize and understand karmic retribution; second, those who possess various senses of shame, conscience, and repentance. There are another two kinds. What are the two? First, arhats; second, those capable of practicing the eight liberations. Monks of these two kinds I permit to manage affairs: free from blemish themselves, they are able to protect the minds of others." Because this matter is difficult, he addressed Kāśyapa: "Within the Buddha's Dharma there are various renunciants, various clans, various minds, various liberations, and various severances of fetters. There are those in the araṇya, those who beg for food, those who delight in dwelling in mountain forests, those who delight in staying near settlements while purely upholding the precepts, those capable of leaving behind the four yokes, those who diligently cultivate extensive learning, those who eloquently explain the dharmas, those who excel at upholding the Vinaya, those who excel at maintaining the Vinaya's ceremonial decorum, and those who travel among cities and settlements to preach the Dharma for people. For there being such various monks of the Saṃgha, the monk who manages affairs must skillfully grasp the mental characteristics of such people."
'Therefore the sūtra says: "That monk who manages affairs ought to distinguish: property of the permanent Saṃgha must not be given to the Saṃgha of the four directions (cāturdiśa-saṃgha), and property of the Saṃgha of the four directions must not be given to the permanent Saṃgha." (These two kinds of property must not be mutually exchanged.) "Property of the permanent Saṃgha and property of the Saṃgha of the four directions should not be mixed with the property of the Buddha." (Property of the Buddha also must not be mixed with the two.) "If the property of the permanent Saṃgha is plentiful and the Saṃgha of the four directions has a need, the monk who manages affairs should assemble the Saṃgha, distribute tally sticks, and solicit consent. If the Saṃgha is in harmony, one should distribute property of the permanent Saṃgha to give to the Saṃgha of the four directions. If the Tathāgata's stūpa has a need or is about to fall into ruin, and either the property of the permanent Saṃgha or the property of the Saṃgha of the four directions is plentiful, the monk who manages affairs should assemble the Saṃgha, distribute tally sticks, and solicit consent, speaking thus: 'This stūpa of the Buddha is ruined and now has a need. This property of the permanent Saṃgha or property of the Saṃgha of the four directions is plentiful. May the venerable Saṃgha listen! If the time has arrived for the Saṃgha, and the Saṃgha is patient to listen: if the Saṃgha does not begrudge the donated property received, whether property of the permanent Saṃgha or property of the Saṃgha of the four directions, I shall now take it and use it to repair the Buddha's stūpa.' If the Saṃgha is not in harmony, the monk who manages affairs should exhort laypeople, seeking wealth from them to repair the Buddha's stūpa. If the property of the Buddha is plentiful, it must not be divided and given to the permanent Saṃgha or the Saṃgha of the four directions. Why is this? Toward this property one ought to give rise to the perception of the World-Honoured One. Even a single thread belonging to the Buddha was donated to the Buddha by a donor with a faithful mind. Therefore, the devas and people of the world ought to give rise to the perception of the Buddha's stūpa toward this property, how much more so toward precious items! Even if it would be left in the Buddha's stūpa to be blown by the wind, rotted by the rain, and completely destroyed, one should not trade these robes for precious items. Why is this? For the property of the Tathāgata's stūpa, there is no one who can set a price on it; moreover, the Buddha has no needs. As for such a person who manages affairs, they should not cause the property of the Three Jewels to become mixed. Because using it in a mixed way by oneself brings great painful retribution: whether undergoing it for one kalpa, or exceeding one kalpa, because of encroaching upon the property of the Three Jewels."
'Furthermore, the Ratnarāśi-sūtra says: The Buddha said, "If a monk managing affairs gives rise to anger and, toward venerable persons who uphold the precepts, drives and employs them at will, he will therefore fall into hell. If he obtains birth as a human, he will be a servant or slave, subjected to bitter labor by masters and beaten by others. Furthermore, if a monk managing affairs, acting at will, institutes heavy restrictions exceeding the Saṃgha's regular limits, punishes monks, and compels them to work at improper times, because of this unwholesome root he will fall into the Minor Hell of Many Nails. Having been born therein, his body will be pierced and pinned with hundreds of thousands of nails, his body blazing like a great mass of fire. Furthermore, if a monk managing affairs intimidates those of great virtue who uphold the precepts with grave matters and speaks with an angry mind, he will be born in hell. The tongue he obtains will be five hundred yojanas long, and with hundreds of thousands of nails his tongue will be pinned, with a great flame issuing from every single nail. Furthermore, if a monk managing affairs repeatedly obtains Saṃgha property and stingily hoards it, either giving it to the Saṃgha at an improper time, or making it difficult to give, or giving it grudgingly, or giving little, or not giving it, or giving to some and not to others, because of this unwholesome root, there are foul hungry ghosts (pretas) who constantly eat balls of excrement, and when this person's life ends he will be born among them. For hundreds of thousands of years he will constantly fail to obtain food, or sometimes the food will transform into feces, or turn into pus and blood. Therefore, Kāśyapa, a monk managing affairs had rather eat his own flesh than ever mix and use the property of the Three Jewels to make robes, bowls, food, or drink."
74.18
Section 6: Ordinary Property
74.19
As the Samantapāsādikā says: When guarding wealth for another person, or even for the Three Jewels, if one cautiously protects it, securely locking the door of the storehouse, yet a thief steals it through a hole or through the roof, or takes it by force, and it was not something the guardian could prevent or restrain, the offense is reckoned solely against the original owner, and it should not be demanded [from the guardian] at all. If the manager was negligent and failed to guard it diligently, so that it was stolen by a thief, the manager must compensate for it, and the offense is reckoned against the guardian. Therefore the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: 'If one receives another's entrusted property from a distant place, and it is damaged on the road, if it was damaged while handling it with good intention, one should not compensate; if it was damaged with bad intention, one must compensate. If one borrows another's property, regardless of good or bad intention, if it is broken, one must compensate in all cases.'
Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: 'If a thief brings stolen goods, whether donating them with good intention, or donating them out of fear because others are pursuing him, one may take them, because he has become the owner of the goods. One simply must not beg them from the thief; if he gives them of his own accord, one may take them. Having taken them, if one dyes them an improper color and wears them, and the owner recognizes them, one should return them.'
Furthermore, the Mātṛkā-śāstra says: 'If a madman brings property of his own accord and donates it, and his parents or relatives are unknown, one may take it. If his parents are known, and it was not given by their own hands, one must not take it.'
Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: 'If one takes the leftover meat of a tiger from another, one commits a minor offense, because [the tiger] has not abandoned its expectation [of the prey]. If one takes the leftovers of a lion, one commits no offense, because [the lion] has abandoned its expectation.'
Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda-vibhāṣā says: 'Stealing the leftovers of any bird or beast incurs a minor offense.' (In today's times of famine, many laypeople destroy the burrows of mice to take their stored grain, walnuts, and miscellaneous fruits; according to this, it constitutes an offense.)
The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says: 'If one takes with the thought that it was given, takes with the thought that it belongs to oneself, takes with the thought that it is refuse-rags, takes with the thought of temporary use, or takes with the thought of a close friend, none of these constitute an offense.' As for a close friend, according to the Vinaya, one must possess seven dharmas before being called a close friend: first, capable of doing what is difficult to do; second, capable of giving what is difficult to give; third, capable of enduring what is difficult to endure; fourth, confiding secret matters to each other; fifth, concealing each other's faults; sixth, not abandoning each other when encountering suffering; seventh, not slighting each other in poverty and lowliness. If a person can practice these seven dharmas, he is a close, good friend, and taking [from him] does not constitute an offense.
74.20
Furthermore, the Ekottarika-āgama says: The Buddha addressed the monks: 'If a person acts as a thief and steals another's property, and is seized by the owner, bound, and delivered to the king to be punished for his crime of theft, the king then sends men to lock him in prison, or cut off his hands and feet, or amputate his ears and nose, or flay his skin, or pull out his sinews, or hang him upside down, or saw him apart, or roast him with fire, or boil him in hot water, or bind and wrap his head with raw leather, or pour molten copper over his body, or pierce his loins with a long stake, or have a vicious elephant trample him to death, or rip open his belly, pull out his entrails, and stuff it with grass, or bind his hands behind his back, beat the ominous drum, lead him to the execution ground in the marketplace, and behead him beneath the post, or dismember his form joint by joint, or hack him with knives, or shoot him with arrows—thus killing him with various kinds of harsh torment.
'By the cause and condition of this evil karma of theft, after his life ends he is born in hell: blazing fire burns his body, molten copper is poured into his mouth, with caldrons of boiling water, hearths of coals, mountains of knives, trees of swords, glowing ashes, excrement and feces, being ground in mills, and pounded in mortars. He undergoes various such sufferings, his bitter pains and venomous agonies impossible to calculate, with no date of escape for hundreds of thousands of myriads of years.
'When his hell offense is exhausted, he is born among animals: elephants, horses, cattle, sheep, camels, donkeys, dogs, and the like, for hundreds of thousands of years repaying the labor of others.
'When his animal offense is exhausted, he is born among hungry ghosts: his hunger, thirst, and distress impossible to describe fully, never hearing even the name of water or broth, enduring such suffering for hundreds of thousands of years.
'When his offense in the evil destinies is exhausted, he is born among humans. If born among humans, he obtains two kinds of retributions: first, poverty, with clothes that do not cover his body and food that does not fill his mouth; second, constantly being plundered by kings, thieves, fire, water, and wicked bandits.'
Furthermore, the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra says: 'What is called theft? If a person reflects: "May various kinds of grain and wheat mature for me alone, and cause the people of the world to suffer crop failure," constantly harboring such unwholesome thoughts. Furthermore, at another time, when sentient beings have meager merit and the crops in the fields yield no harvest, such an evil person, seeing the world in famine, gives rise to joy in his mind, thinking: "It is just as I wished!" He sells them in the market, using a crooked mind and deceitful trickery to measure the grain and wheat, deceiving people, and consummating the karma. If the mind reflects, it is called mental karma; when committing the deception, it is called deceptive karma; having committed the deceptive karma, it is called consummated karma.'
74.21
Section 7: Inherited Property
74.22
As the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra says: If one sees lost property by the roadside—whether gold, silver, or other treasures—after taking it up, one should call out: ‘Whose property is this?’ If someone says, ‘This is my property,’ one must inquire into its distinguishing features; if the claim is true, one must return it. If no one claims it, one should carry it about for seven days, calling out day after day. If no owner claims it, one should deliver this treasure to the king, the great ministers, or the prefectural and county magistrates. If the king, the great ministers, or the prefectural and county magistrates are persons of merit and virtue who do not take this property for themselves, it should later be used to protect and maintain the Buddha-dharma and the Saṃgha. This is termed not stealing.
74.23
Moreover, the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya says: If one sees lost clothing or goods, one must call out for the owner. If there is no owner, one should hang it in a high and visible place so that people may see it. If someone says, ‘It is my property,’ one should ask, ‘Where did you lose your property?’ If the answer corresponds, give it to them. If no one recognizes it, one should keep it for up to three months. If it was found within the grounds of a stūpa, it should be put to the use of the stūpa. If it was found within the grounds of the saṃgha, it should be put to the use of the saṃgha of the four quarters. If it is an item of great value—meaning gold, silver, or necklaces—it must not be openly displayed. One should call out that a treasure has been found; one should examine it carefully, looking repeatedly at what distinguishing marks it has, and only then take it in hand. When someone comes to claim it, give it if the description corresponds. Give it in the presence of many people; it must not be done in a secluded place, and one should also instruct them to take the three refuges, saying to them: ‘Were it not that the Buddha established the precepts, you could not even look upon it.’ If no one comes to claim it, keep it for up to three years; use it within the relevant domain as in the previous cases. If one finds a hidden treasure while repairing a stūpa, it should be put to the use of the stūpa; the same applies to the saṃgha's land. Therefore the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra says: Taking and using a hidden treasure incurs no transgression. When the Buddha was in the world, the Elder Anāthapiṇḍada was a sage and also took such things; thus we know it is without transgression. Furthermore, obtaining goods naturally is not termed robbery. Moreover, the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya says: If there are lost items when entering a village, one may not take them. If they are given to a bhikṣu, he may accept them, for then the person is a donor. One may not take clothing blown by the wind in a village by treating it as refuse rags (pāṃsukūla). If it is in an open road where no one is present, one may take it. Moreover, the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya says: If clothing has been kept for twelve years without being claimed, assemble the saṃgha to appraise it and put it to the use of the saṃgha of the four quarters. If that person later returns, reimburse them with the saṃgha's property; if they do not accept it, that is good.
74.24
The verse on primary retribution says:
74.25
Robbing goods to serve another’s use,
One sinks alone into Niraya.
Predatory birds with vajra beaks
Peck open the brain and tear the heart;
Molten bronze is poured into the mouth,
And iron rods crush the body on the anvil.
Terrified and frantically fleeing about,
One plunges right back into the forest of swords.
74.26
The verse on habitual retribution says:
74.27
The retribution reaped from robbery:
Being melted down in the hells.
When the penalty ends and one is born among humans,
One ends one’s life in hunger and poverty;
Joint wealth is controlled by others—
How does this differ from the base and lowly?
Let a word be sent to those who hold integrity:
One must reflect on remaining steadfast in adversity.
74.28
Conditions of sympathetic resonance (Briefly citing six verifications):
74.29
Gong Shou, Pavilion Director of Cangwu Commandery under the Han;
The Pavilion Director of Li Pavilion in Mei County, Qi Prefecture, under the Han,
who robbed and killed another’s daughter;
A man named Huangfu Qian of Yi Prefecture under the Sui;
The daughter of Wei Qingzhi, Chief Administrator of the Prince of Wei’s Princely Establishment, under the Tang;
The daughter of the Zhao family in the brush-making guild of the Eastern Market in the Western Capital under the Tang;
Registrar Zhou Ji, killed through robbery by an official, under the Tang.
74.30
In the Han era, when He Chang served as Regional Inspector of Jiaozhi, he made an inspection tour and reached Gaoyao County in Cangwu Commandery. At dusk, he lodged at Queben Pavilion. Before midnight, a woman came out from beneath the watchtower. She identified herself: ‘My surname is Su, my given name is E, and my courtesy name is Yishu. Originally a person of Xiu Lane in Guangxin County, I lost my parents early and had no brothers; my husband also died long ago. I had one hundred and twenty bolts of assorted silk and one bondmaid named Zhifu. Orphaned, poor, emaciated, and weak, I could not sustain myself and wished to travel to an adjacent county to sell the silk. From Wang Bo, a man of my county, I rented a cart and an ox, worth twelve thousand cash, to carry me along with the silk, and had Zhifu hold the reins. Then, on the tenth day of the fourth month of the year before last, we reached the outside of this pavilion. At the time, the sun had set and travelers had vanished; not daring to proceed forward, we remained and stayed there. Zhifu suddenly developed abdominal pain, and I went to the pavilion director’s quarters to beg for hot water and fetch fire. The pavilion director Gong Shou, wielding a knife and holding a halberd, came to the side of the cart. He asked me: “Where does the lady come from? What is loaded on the cart? Where is your husband? Why do you travel alone?” I answered him: “Why do you ask this?” Shou then seized my arm and said: “A tender beauty with fine looks—might we take pleasure together?” At that time I was terrified and would not consent. Shou then stabbed my flank with his knife; with one wound I died on the spot. He also killed Zhifu. Shou dug under the watchtower and buried me together with the maid, took our goods and property, slaughtered the ox, and burned the cart. He stored the metal hubs of the cart and the ox’s bones in an empty well east of the pavilion. The agony of my death is excruciating and I had nowhere to lodge my complaint, so I have come on my own to submit to your wise honor.’ Chang said: ‘If I now wish to uncover your remains, what will serve as proof?’ The woman said: ‘Above and below I was dressed in white clothing; my shoes of blue silk have not yet decayed.’ When they dug, it was indeed as she said. Chang then sent officials to arrest Shou; under interrogation and torture, he fully confessed. They referred the matter to Guangxin County to verify and interrogate, and the details matched E’s words. They arrested Shou’s parents and brothers, and all were imprisoned. Chang submitted a memorial stating that although Shou's murder would not, under regular statutes, warrant the extermination of his clan, Shou had concealed his evil for years, escaping the king’s law; and since complaints by ghosts and spirits do not occur once in a thousand years, he requested that they all be beheaded to aid the retribution of the unseen realm. The emperor granted his request in a reply.
74.31
In the Han era, Wang Tun, whose courtesy name was Shaolin, served as the magistrate of Mei County. Traveling to his county post, he reached Li Pavilion. The pavilion regularly had a ghost that repeatedly killed people. Tun lodged in the upper story. In the night, there was a woman who claimed she wished to lodge a grievance, but had no clothes to cover herself. Tun gave her clothes. She then stepped forward and said: ‘I was originally the concubine of the magistrate of Fu. When traveling to the official post, I passed this pavilion to lodge. The pavilion director killed me and more than ten people, young and old, and buried us under the watchtower, seizing our clothes and wealth. The pavilion director is now a patrol officer under the county gate.’ Tun said: ‘I shall avenge you; do not kill innocent good people anymore.’ The ghost cast down the clothes and left. Tun straightaway arrested the patrol officer, and upon interrogation he immediately confessed. Tun arrested his more than ten co-conspirators and had them all executed. He excavated all the remains and returned them to their families for burial. The pavilion became forever peaceful and tranquil. The people had a popular ditty that said: ‘How trustworthy is Shaolin, unmatched in the world! Flying the quilt and galloping the horse, he speaks with ghosts.’ ‘Flying the quilt and galloping the horse’ refers to another matter, not recorded here. (The above two verifications come from the Yuanhun zhi).
74.32
In the eighth year of the Daye era of the Sui (612 CE), more than forty li southeast of the city of Yi Prefecture, there was a family surnamed Huangfu. There were four brothers living at home; the eldest brother and the younger brothers were all diligent in their livelihoods, benevolent, compassionate, loyal, and filial. The second brother, named Qian, associated with evil companions and did not attend to a livelihood. Later, on one occasion, their mother was in the main hall and took sixty cash, intending to buy things at the market, and placed it temporarily on the bed. The mother went to the rear of the house. Qian came into the hall from outside, looked left and right and saw no one, whereupon he stole the money, took it out, and spent it for his private use. When the mother returned, she could not find the money. Not knowing that her son had taken it, she investigated the entire household. Both free and bondservant said they did not have it. The mother, aggrieved that the whole house was dishonest, whipped both young and old, and both young and old harbored resentment. The following year Qian died. He was reincarnated in the womb of the sow in the household, and after three to five months, she gave birth to a piglet. When it reached two years of age, the August community sacrifice arrived. In need of money, they sold it to the village community-sacrifice guild in a distant village for six hundred cash. The guild officer took it away. In the early night, it startled and awakened the entire household, young and old. It first touched its wife with its snout. In her sleep, the wife dreamed that it said: ‘I am your husband. Because I took sixty cash from Mother, falsely implicating the whole house to suffer beatings in vain, I was made to become a pig and have now come to repay the debt. Now I am to be sold to the community-sacrifice guild, and the guild will bind me and kill me. You are my wife; how can you bear not to tell our sons and daughters to ransom me?’ At this first dream, the wife suddenly woke up with a startled heart, but still did not believe it. When she slept again, she dreamed the same thing. The pig again touched the wife with its snout. The wife, alarmed, put on her clothes, went to the hall, and reported to her mother-in-law. The mother-in-law had already sat up, having had the same dream as the daughter-in-law. The sons and daughters had also dreamed the same. In that single night, they prepared their gear, sent the son and Qian’s elder brother, and took one thousand two hundred cash. The mother told the son: ‘If the guild officer is unwilling to release it, ask to pay double the price. Fearing they will kill it at dawn, gallop your mounts and go quickly.’ The place was more than thirty li from the house. When the son arrived there, he did not speak of his relation, fearing it would disgrace the family name; he merely said: ‘There is no need to slaughter it; we now wish to ransom the pig.’ The guild officer refused: ‘The time for our community sacrifice has arrived; I will not give the pig to you.’ Despite repeated earnest requests, he would not release it. The brother and son were anxious and panicked, fearing it would be killed. Privately, they relied upon a discerning, faithful, and respected man who had once served as a county magistrate, recounting to him the complete details of the true circumstances, and only then did they manage to ransom it. Having obtained the pig, they drove it toward the open fields. The elder brother said to the pig: ‘If you truly are my younger brother, you can hurry ahead and return home.’ The son also said to the pig: ‘If you truly are my father, you should also go ahead on your own and return home.’ Hearing these words, the pig galloped ahead and returned to the house. Much time later, the villagers all came to know of it; the sons and daughters felt ashamed, and neighbors who bore grudges against them all mocked and reviled them over the pig. The sons and daughters privately told the pig: ‘Father created unwholesome karma and received this pig's body, so your sons and daughters cannot hold up our heads. During Father's lifetime, you were always on intimate terms with Worthy Xu. If you go to the Xu family, your children will deliver food there to provide for you.’ Hearing these words, the pig shed tears and galloped toward the Xu family. The Xu family was more than forty li from the house. During the eleventh year of the Daye era (615 CE), the pig died at the Xu family. From this, one truly knows that karmic retribution does not discriminate between close and distant relations, and is as clear as what is right before one's eyes. How could one not be cautious? Dharma Master Jinglin of Hongfa Temple in Chang’an was Qian’s neighbor and saw the pig with his own eyes; the Dharma Master personally related the account to me.
74.33
During the Zhenguan era of the Tang, Wei Qingzhi of Jingzhao, the Chief Administrator of the Prince of Wei’s Princely Establishment, had a daughter who died young, deeply grieved and mourned by Wei and his wife. Two years later, Qingzhi was about to gather relatives and guests and prepare a banquet. The household bought a sheep that had not yet been slaughtered. That night, Qingzhi’s wife dreamed that her deceased daughter, dressed in a blue-green skirt and a white blouse, with a pair of jade hairpins in her hair—the very garments she had worn during her life—came to see her mother, weeping and saying: ‘In the past, I once used goods without telling Father and Mother. Because of this karmic retribution, I have now received the body of a sheep to come and repay Father and Mother with my life. Tomorrow morning I am to be slaughtered; the blue-green sheep with the white head is I. I earnestly beg your compassionate grace to spare my life.’ The mother woke with a start, and in the morning went in person to look at the sheep. Sure enough, there was a blue-green sheep whose neck and shoulders were completely white, with two white marks on its head that matched the shape of the jade hairpins. Facing it, the mother wept with sorrow and stopped the servants from slaughtering it, waiting for Qingzhi to arrive so they could release it. Shortly afterward, Qingzhi arrived and pressed for the meal. The cook reported: ‘The lady does not permit the slaughter of the blue-green sheep.’ Qingzhi was enraged and immediately ordered it slaughtered. The butcher hung the sheep up and was about to slaughter it, just as several guests arrived. They saw a woman hanging there, of dignified and upright appearance, who appealed to the guests, saying: ‘I am the daughter of Chief Administrator Wei; I beg you to save my life.’ The guests, shocked and astonished, stopped the butcher. The butcher, fearing Qingzhi’s rage and seeing only a sheep bleating, immediately slaughtered it. Afterward, when the guests sat down, they did not eat. Qingzhi thought it strange and questioned them, and the guests told him the full story. Qingzhi was struck with grief and sorrow; he fell ill and never recovered. Many local gentlemen of the capital know of this matter. Minister Cui Dunli recounted it in full to me in person.
74.34
According to the custom of the wards and markets of Chang'an under the Tang, from New Year's Day onwards, people would take turns preparing food and drink to invite one another, calling it 'passing the seats.' It was the turn of the brush-maker Zhao Da in the Eastern Market to host. A guest arrived first, and going out back, he saw on the mortar a young girl about thirteen or fourteen years old, wearing a blue-green skirt and a white blouse, with a well-rope tied around her neck, attached to the pestle post. Weeping tears, she said to the guest: 'I am the master's daughter. Formerly, before I died, I stole one hundred coins from my parents wishing to buy rouge and powder, but died before I could do so. That money is now inside the kitchen, in the wall at the northwest corner. Although I did not spend it, because I stole it, I have incurred guilt on this account. Now I must repay my parents with my life.' Having finished speaking, she transformed into a blue-green sheep with a white head. The guest, alarmed, informed the master. The master asked about her appearance, and it was indeed his little daughter, who had died two years earlier. They retrieved the hundred coins from the kitchen wall, which seemed to have been placed there long ago. Thereupon, they sent the sheep to a Buddhist monastery, and the entire household ate meat no longer. Lu Wenli recounted this to me personally (the above two proofs are from the Mingbao ji).
74.35
Under the Tang, an assistant magistrate of Guantao County in Jizhou was surnamed Zhou; his personal name has been forgotten. In the eleventh month of the fourth year of Xianqing [659 CE], he was dispatched on an official mission to Linyu Pass for mutual trade. When he departed, he took two subordinate clerks along with him. Zhou carried a considerable amount of money and silk. The two men then crushed him to death with bags of earth. They stole all the money and silk away, leaving only the clothes on his body for his burial. At the end of the year, he entered his wife's dream, recounting in full the details of how he was killed, and also told her the hiding place of the stolen goods and wealth. His wife then reported this to the authorities accordingly. The officials investigated and interrogated, obtaining the true facts along with the money and silk, and captured both men; both were condemned to death. The monk Huiyong of Zhili Temple in Xiangzhou said that he personally met the Daoist priest Liu Renkuan of the Mingting Abbey, who recounted it (the above one proof is from the Mingbao shiyi).
First 35 of 37 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 法苑珠林 — 道世, Classical Chinese