法苑珠林 74.16

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.')