四分戒本疏卷第一．第二．第三 2.98

2.98

若比丘知是僧物自求入己者尼薩耆波逸提。　此滿足戒本文有四句。一犯人。二若知。三許僧物。四迴向便犯。廣解中初句可知。第二言知者。律云。若不知許僧迴者非。第三言是僧物者。律云。有三種僧物。一已許僧為僧故作。二未許僧為僧故作。如俗家為僧作。床褥器具供僧之物。三已與僧者已許僧已捨僧。此三句之物迴有輕重。初物犯捨。迴第二物犯吉。迴第三犯重。第四言求入己尼薩耆波逸提者。是犯罪句。捨懺之法如前所明。下雜明僧祇。若人持物來　問。僧何處布施　答。言隨汝所敬處與　若何處果報多　答。施僧。若言何者持戒清淨。若言無犯戒不清淨。若言我已施僧。今施尊者得受無罪。若言此物置何處使我常見受用　答。某甲比丘坐禪誦經持戒。若施彼者長見受用。四分律云。明四對八句。謂迴不入己教犯輕罪。一塔相對。二四方現前相對。三僧尼兩眾相對。四料間上三同類。同類迴此與。彼故言許異處。故律云若物許僧轉與塔。許四方僧迴與現在僧。許比丘僧迴與尼僧許異處。乃至許異處迴與此處。一切吉羅。並謂未決定。若決別施隨前犯。僧祇迴此彼畜生物越心悔。但還物之中四五十三律捨竟自用不須還僧。以不定屬僧故。祇律云。五敷具迴僧對僧捨入僧己隨僧作何等用。多見兩論。捨竟還僧。不還犯重。了論迴僧所應得施入己應捨還大眾故。十誦多論云。若壇越施此自恣僧物迴與彼自恣僧者。物應還此比丘作吉悔。若不還此僧討錢成重。乃至此彼一人物迴亦成重。准此定屬僧此次迴與他人成重。不犯中。律云。若不知若已許作不許想。若許惡勸與好。若許少勸與多。若許一人勸與多人。若誤若戲若錯說者。並皆不犯。

"If a bhikṣu, knowing that property belongs to the saṃgha, seeks it for himself, it is a niḥsargika-prāyaścittika." / In this full text of the precept there are four phrases: first, the offender; second, "if knowing"; third, property promised to the saṃgha; fourth, diverting it, whereupon he commits the offense. / In the detailed explanation, the first phrase can be understood. The second, stating "knowing": the Vinaya states that if one does not know it was promised to the saṃgha and diverts it, it is not [an offense]. The third, stating "property of the saṃgha": the Vinaya states that there are three kinds of saṃgha property: first, already promised to the saṃgha and made for the saṃgha's sake; second, not yet promised to the saṃgha but made for the saṃgha's sake, such as when a lay family makes beds, mattresses, utensils, and articles to offer to the saṃgha; third, already given to the saṃgha, meaning already promised to the saṃgha and already relinquished to the saṃgha. With respect to these three categories of property, diverting them entails lighter or heavier offenses: diverting the first property incurs a forfeiture [prāyaścittika]; diverting the second property incurs a duṣkṛta; diverting the third incurs a grave [pārājika] offense. The fourth, stating "seeks it for himself, it is a niḥsargika-prāyaścittika," is the phrase establishing the offense. The method of forfeiture and confession is as explained before. / Below is miscellaneous clarification from the *Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya*. If a person brings property and asks: "Where should I make an offering to the saṃgha?" Answer: "Give it according to whichever place you revere." If [asked]: "Where is the retribution greatest?" Answer: "Give to the saṃgha." If [asked]: "Who maintains the precepts purely?" Answer: "None who break the precepts are impure." If he says: "I have already given to the saṃgha, but now I give to the Venerable," one may accept it without offense. If he says: "Where should this property be placed so that I may constantly see it being used?" Answer: "Bhikṣu So-and-so sits in meditation, recites the sūtras, and upholds the precepts; if you give it to him, you will long see it being used." / The *Dharmaguptaka Vinaya* clarifies four pairs and eight cases, meaning instructing someone to divert [property] not to oneself, incurring light offenses. First is the pair of the stūpa and the saṃgha; second is the pair of the universal [saṃgha] and the present [saṃgha]; third is the pair of the two assemblies of bhikṣus and bhikṣuṇīs; fourth is discerning the same classes among the above three. Among the same class, one diverts this to give to that, hence it says "promised to a different place." Therefore the Vinaya states: if property was promised to the saṃgha and one redirects it to a stūpa; promised to the saṃgha of the four directions and one diverts it to the saṃgha present; promised to the bhikṣu-saṃgha and one diverts it to the bhikṣuṇī-saṃgha; promised to a different place […] up to diverting from a different place to this place—all are duṣkṛtas. These all refer to when it has not yet been definitively determined; if it was definitively and specifically to be given, one commits offenses according to the previous [rules]. In the *Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya*, diverting between this and that animal incurs a transgression confessed by mind. However, among returning the property, in the four [Vinayas], five [Vinayas], and ten [recensions]—in the three Vinayas, having relinquished it, one uses it oneself and does not need to return it to the saṃgha, because it was not definitively owned by the saṃgha. The *Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya* states: if one diverts the five bedding items from the saṃgha, one relinquishes them facing the saṃgha, and once they enter the saṃgha, the saṃgha uses them as it pleases. The two commentaries, *Vibhāṣā* and *Samantapāsādikā*, state that having relinquished it, one returns it to the saṃgha; if one does not return it, one commits a grave offense. The *Vinayavibhāṣā* states: if one diverts an offering that should be received by the saṃgha to oneself, one must relinquish it and return it to the great assembly. Therefore the *Sarvāstivāda Vinaya* and *Vibhāṣā* state: if a donor gives property to this pravāraṇā saṃgha, and one diverts it to that pravāraṇā saṃgha, the property must be returned to this bhikṣu, and one makes a duṣkṛta confession; if one does not return it and this saṃgha demands the payment, it becomes a grave offense; even diverting property between this and that single person also becomes a grave offense. Based on this, when it definitively belongs to the saṃgha, diverting it this time to give to another person becomes a grave offense. / Regarding non-offenses, the Vinaya states: if one does not know; if it was already promised but one has the notion that it was not promised; if bad [goods] were promised and one persuades them to give good [goods]; if little was promised and one persuades them to give much; if it was promised to one person and one persuades them to give to many people; or if it was by mistake, in jest, or by slip of the tongue—in all such cases there is no offense.