---
title: "律抄第三卷手決 · 20 販賣戒"
description: "律抄第三卷手決是佛教律宗重要典籍，相传为唐代高僧道宣律师所著。该书成书于中国佛教律学鼎盛时期，系统总结了佛教戒律的精要，尤其侧重比丘、比丘尼的日常行为规范与戒律实践。内容涵盖衣、食、住、行等僧团生活细节，并阐释持戒与修行的内在关联。作为南山律宗的核心文献之一，该手決不仅为唐宋时期僧团提供了权威戒律指南，更对汉传佛教律学体系的形成产生深远影响，至今仍被视为了解佛教戒律思想的重要参考。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmcwplq4a277ljs04o9tvrj1r"
---

### 販賣戒第二十

> Selling Precepts, Chapter 20

戒本云。種種販賣也。准餘部雙開者。多論中云。比丘亦得一度酬。是一開也。又開淨人賣買。是二開。抄下文引衣法中。若易大價衣遣淨人易。若無淨人時遣比丘易得。亦是雙開也。據一物為語者。具出彼文云。若比丘為利故買而不賣者犯吉。若為利賣不買亦吉。若為利買已後賣墮。二業共成一墮。約一物體上。前具二業後方得提也。不同四分。單賣一物自提。單買一物自提。販亦觸得提。四分文不了。但言。若悔應還不言日數故云不了也。一切須捨懺者。明前方便有罪過。須無罪者。先為利益得。今不供養也。要須盡捨懺斷相續心。方聽施僧作福等用不爾。准前僧不應食等。若蘇油相易無犯者。何故前文云。以七日易七日得提邪。若此戒中文略。前戒開文中云。以油易蘇為佛法僧不犯。既俱貿易理合得開。但此文略佛法僧字。又解前是自為不開。此為供養燈明故開無罪。十誦三索不得者。謂三度當價作知淨語索也。

> The precepts text states: "All manner of selling and trading." According to other sections that allow both forms, the \*Mahīśāsaka Commentary\* says a monk may also set a price once—that is one allowance. Another allowance permits lay attendants (pure ones) to buy and sell—that is the second allowance. In the later text on robe regulations, it says: if exchanging for a valuable robe, have a lay attendant make the exchange; if no lay attendant is available, then have a fellow monk do it—this too is the dual allowance. Speaking of a single item, the text clearly states: if a monk buys for profit but does not sell, he commits a \*dukkaṭa\* offense. If he sells for profit but does not buy, it is also \*dukkaṭa\*. If he buys for profit and later sells, it is a \*pācittiya\* offense—two actions combined into one transgression. On a single object, only after both actions are complete does the offense arise. This differs from the \*Dharmaguptaka\* version, where merely selling one item alone incurs \*pācittiya\*, and merely buying one item alone incurs \*pācittiya\*, and even bartering also touches upon \*pācittiya\*. The \*Dharmaguptaka\* text is unclear, only saying "if he regrets, he should return it," without specifying a time limit—hence it is called unclear. As for "all must be relinquished and confessed," this means that the preparatory actions carried fault, and one must become blameless. What was previously obtained for personal benefit should now not be used for one's own support. One must entirely relinquish and confess, cutting off the continuing mind of attachment. Only then may it be given to the Saṅgha for merit-making purposes. Otherwise, according to the preceding text, the Saṅgha should not consume such items. As for "exchanging butter for oil without offense"—why does the earlier text say that exchanging a seven-day item for another seven-day item incurs \*pācittiya\*? If this precept's wording is abbreviated, the earlier precept's allowance text states: "exchanging oil for butter for the sake of the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha is not an offense." Since both involve trade, the allowance should logically apply here too, but this text merely omits the words "Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha." Another interpretation: the earlier case involves personal benefit and is not allowed, while this case involves offering lamp oil for worship, hence it is allowed without fault. As for "asking three times in the \*Sarvāstivāda\* without obtaining"—this refers to asking three times, evaluating the price, and making a statement of knowing it to be pure.