四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.71

2.71

盜法者。法是非情，無我所心，律中結重者，望守護主結也。文云：時有比丘，盜他經卷，佛言計紙墨結重，佛語無價故。《十誦》、《摩得伽》、《薩婆多》，並同，望護主結。《五分》：盜經者，計紙墨書功，滿五犯重。《摩得伽》云：偷經物，滿五得重，不滿犯輕。《五百問》中：不得口吹經上塵土，像上準同。若燒故經，得重罪，如燒父母；不知有罪者，犯輕。《十誦》：借經拒而不還，令主生疑者，偷蘭，此由心未絕故爾。《正法念》云：盜寫祕方犯重。問：如論中，盜像舍利供養無犯，盜經亦同，一向結重者？答：佛得遙心禮敬，法須執文讀誦。故《地持》云：不現前供養，名大大供養等。若欲互舉，亦互結犯；如人造像，專心為己，不通餘人，可不結重；造經為他，隨能受用，豈可結罪。

Regarding the theft of the Dharma: the Dharma is insentient and has no mind of "mine"; where the Vinaya establishes a major offense, it is established with respect to the custodian. The text states: at that time there was a bhikṣu who stole another's sūtra scroll; the Buddha said that the major offense is established by calculating the value of the paper and ink, because the Buddha's words are priceless. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya, Mātṛkā, and Sarvāstivāda are all the same, establishing it with respect to the custodian. The Pañcavargika-vinaya states: for one who steals a sūtra, calculating the cost of paper, ink, and copying labor, if it reaches five, it is a major offense. The Mātṛkā states: stealing sūtra property, if reaching five, one incurs a major offense; if not reaching [five], one incurs a light offense. In the Five Hundred Questions: one must not blow dust off a sūtra with one's mouth; the same applies to images. If one burns an old sūtra, one incurs a major offense, like burning one's parents; if one does not know it is an offense, one commits a light offense. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: if one borrows a sūtra and refuses to return it, causing the owner to doubt, it is a sthūlātyaya; this is because the owner's intention has not yet been cut off. The Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra states: secretly copying a secret formula incurs a major offense. Question: As in the treatises, stealing an image or relics to make offerings incurs no offense; why is stealing a sūtra not the same, but invariably judged as a major offense? Answer: The Buddha can be reverenced from afar in one's mind, whereas the Dharma requires grasping the text to read and recite. Therefore the Bodhisattvabhūmi states: an offering not in the presence [of the Buddha] is called a great, great offering, and so forth. If one wishes to cite counter-examples, offenses would also be established reciprocally: if someone makes an image exclusively for themselves and not for others to share, could it not be judged as a major offense? If someone produces a sūtra for others so that anyone who is able may use it, how could an offense be established?