四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.72

2.72

盜僧物者。有護主者，同上結重。若主掌自盜，準《善見論》，盜僧物犯重。然僧有四種：一者常住常住。謂眾僧厨庫，寺舍眾具，華果樹林，田園僕畜等。以體通十方，不可分用，總望眾僧，如論斷重。《僧祇》云：僧物者，縱一切比丘集，亦不得分。此一向準入重攝。二者十方常住。如僧家供僧常食，體通十方，唯局本處，若有守護，望主結重；同共盜損，應得輕罪。《僧祇》云：若將僧家長食還房，得偷蘭。《善見》云：若取僧物如己物，行用與人，得偷蘭（準共盜僧食）；若盜心取，隨直多少結，是名第五大賊（準似有主）。《毘尼母》亦爾。《薩婆多》、《善見》：不打鐘，食僧食者，犯盜；又空寺中，客僧見食盜啖者，隨直多少結罪（準此如上偷蘭）。三者現前現前。必盜此物，望本主結重；若多人共物，一人守護，亦望護主結重。四者十方現前。如亡五眾輕物也。《善生經》云：盜亡比丘物，若未羯磨，從十方僧，得罪輕（謂計人不滿五，但犯偷蘭）；若已羯磨，望現前僧，得罪重（謂人數有限則，可滿五，夷）。若臨終時，隨亡人屬授物，盜者，隨約所與人邊結罪。《四分》云：四方僧物，若僧、若眾多人、若一人，不應分、不應賣、不應入己，皆犯偷蘭。因即有人言，若盜僧物，云不成盜，便即奪取。此未見諸部明文，若奪成重。《四分》：暫礙僧用，故結輕；若永入已，同《善見》，斷重。《五分》：盜心貿僧好物，直五錢犯夷；一錢已上，犯偷蘭。《大集》云：盜僧物者，罪同五逆。然盜通三寶，僧物最重，隨損一毫，則望十方凡聖，一一結罪。故諸部《五分》中：多有人施佛物者，佛並答言，可以施僧，我在僧數，施僧得大果報。又《方等經》云：五逆四重，我亦能救，盜僧物者，我所不救。餘如《日藏分》、《僧護傳》等經廣陳。《五百問》云：負佛法僧物，縱償還，入阿鼻而得早出，何況不償者，永無出期。因說三藏法師還債事（云云）。

Regarding the theft of Saṃgha property: if there is a custodian, it is judged as a major offense as above. If the manager steals it himself, according to the Samantapāsādikā, stealing Saṃgha property is a major offense. However, Saṃgha property is of four kinds: First is permanent-permanent [property]. This refers to the Saṃgha’s kitchen and storehouse, monastery buildings and utensils, flowers, fruit, groves and trees, fields, gardens, servants, livestock, and the like. Because its substance pertains to the ten directions and cannot be divided for use, it is viewed collectively with respect to the Saṃgha, and as in the treatises, it is judged as a major offense. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: as for Saṃgha property, even if all bhikṣus assemble, it may not be divided. This is consistently subsumed under the major offenses. Second is permanent property of the ten directions. Such as the regular food provided by the Saṃgha community to feed the Saṃgha; its substance pertains to the ten directions, but it is confined exclusively to the local place. If there is a custodian, a major offense is established with respect to the custodian; if jointly stolen and damaged, one should incur a light offense. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: if one takes the Saṃgha's regular food back to one’s room, one incurs a sthūlātyaya. The Samantapāsādikā states: if one takes Saṃgha property as one's own to use and give to others, one incurs a sthūlātyaya (this applies to jointly stealing Saṃgha food); if taken with a mind of theft, the offense is established according to its value, and this is called the fifth great thief (this applies to cases where there is a clear owner). The Vinayamātṛkā is also like this. The Sarvāstivāda and the Samantapāsādikā state: if one eats Saṃgha food without striking the bell, it is theft; furthermore, if a visiting bhikṣu sees food in an empty monastery and steals and eats it, the offense is established according to its value (this applies as a sthūlātyaya as above). Third is presently manifest presently manifest [property]. If one steals this property, a major offense is established with respect to the original owner; if it is the shared property of many persons and one person guards it, the major offense is also established with respect to the custodian. Fourth is presently manifest property of the ten directions. Such as the light personal property left behind by deceased members of the five assemblies. The Upāsakaśīla-sūtra states: regarding stealing the property of a deceased bhikṣu, if karman has not yet been performed, the offense is light with respect to the Saṃgha of the ten directions (meaning that counting individuals it does not reach five [māṣakas], so it is only a sthūlātyaya); if karman has already been performed, the offense is heavy with respect to the present Saṃgha (meaning the number of persons is limited, so it can reach five, which is a pārājika). If, at the time of death, the property is assigned to someone according to the deceased person's designation, the thief’s offense is established according to the recipient. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya states: property of the cāturdiśa-saṃgha, whether of the Saṃgha, many persons, or one person, should not be divided, sold, or taken as one's own; all such acts incur a sthūlātyaya. Consequently, some people say that if one steals Saṃgha property, it does not constitute theft, and so they seize it. Such people have not seen the explicit texts of the various Vinayas: if seized, it constitutes a major offense. In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, temporarily obstructing the Saṃgha's use is judged as a light offense; if permanently taken as one’s own, as in the Samantapāsādikā, it is judged as a major offense. The Pañcavargika-vinaya states: if with a mind of theft one exchanges inferior goods for the Saṃgha's fine goods, a value of five coins is a pārājika; one coin and above is a sthūlātyaya. The Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra states: stealing Saṃgha property is an offense equal to the five heinous crimes. Theft applies across the Three Jewels, but that of Saṃgha property is the gravest: damaging even a single hair establishes an offense with respect to every single ordinary and noble being of the ten directions. Therefore in the Pañcavargika-vinaya of the various schools: when many people made offerings to the Buddha, the Buddha always replied, "You may give it to the Saṃgha; I am counted within the Saṃgha, and giving to the Saṃgha yields great reward." Furthermore, the Mahāvaipulya-sūtra states: "The five heinous crimes and the four major offenses, even these I can save; but for those who steal Saṃgha property, I cannot save them." The rest is explained in detail in sūtras such as the Sūryagarbha section and the Biography of Saṃgharakṣita. The Five Hundred Questions states: if one owes property to the Buddha, Dharma, or Saṃgha, even if one repays it, one enters Avīci and only gets out early; how much more so for those who do not repay, who will have no time of release! Thereupon it narrates the story of the Tripiṭaka master repaying his debt (and so on).