四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.83

2.83

三被盜物主。《十誦》：若眾中失物者，眾主不得為其撿挍，及以投竄誦呪而取。義張二位：一不現前盜。物主護心義弱，取者得想決徹；主雖有心不捨，後見此物，不得奪取；以離地屬賊義成，若奪犯重。故律云，時有比丘奪劫者物，佛言波羅夷。《僧祇》：面不現前，一本主不捨，二奪者未作得想，後得奪取；反上二緣，奪得重罪。縱自心不捨，前人決定取者，正成盜損，不得奪之；若先捨者，無主物故，亦不合奪，舉離屬於後取。二對面現前奪。由守護義強，奪者猶預，得想未定；本主心弱，而未捨者，亦得追奪。《僧祇》：賊奪物去，比丘逐賊，奪得本物，無犯。又闇逐賊，彼藏物去，比丘即取將來。又賊漸近村落，比丘逐賊；若和喻得，若恐𭮒得，無犯。知有死事，不應告人。如上諸句，皆是對面被劫。若已作失想，不問奪者決定、不決定，後還取者，便為賊復奪賊物；並由決屬賊故。縱不失想，而賊心決取無畏，亦是屬賊，不合追奪。《毘奈耶》云：若失物，官人奪得，還比丘者，得取無犯。準此，面不現前，乃至盜金像等，雖知藏處，亦不合取。《十誦》：若比丘為賊所獲，自偷身賊所，無犯；若師奪弟子，將來，得重。

Third: The owner of stolen property. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: If property is lost within the community, the leader of the community must not investigate and search for it, nor retrieve it by hiding in ambush or chanting spells. In terms of principle, two situations are set forth: First, theft that does not occur in one's presence. The owner's intention of guardianship is weak, and the taker's apprehension of acquisition is decisive; although the owner internally has not relinquished it, if he sees this property later, he must not forcibly seize it back; because removal from its place has established the principle of belonging to the thief, if he seizes it back, he commits a grave offense. Thus the Vinaya states: At that time a bhikṣu forcibly seized property from a robber; the Buddha said it was a pārājika. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: When not occurring in one's presence, if, first, the original owner has not relinquished it, and second, the robber has not yet formed the apprehension of acquisition, then later he may forcibly seize it back; if the reverse of these two conditions holds, seizing it back results in a grave offense. Even if his own mind has not relinquished it, if the other person has decisively taken it, the theft and loss are properly accomplished, and he must not seize it back; if he had previously relinquished it, because it is ownerless property, he is likewise not permitted to seize it back, for its removal and lifting makes it belong to the subsequent taker. Second, robbery occurring face-to-face in one's presence. Because the principle of guardianship is strong, the robber hesitates, and his apprehension of acquisition is not yet settled; the original owner's mind is weak, but if he has not relinquished it, he may also pursue and seize it back. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: A thief robbed property and left; the bhikṣu pursued the thief, seized back the original property, and incurred no offense. Furthermore, if he pursued the thief in the dark, and the thief hid the property and fled, the bhikṣu immediately retrieved and took it away, [there is no offense]. Furthermore, when the thief gradually approached a village, the bhikṣu pursued the thief; whether he recovered it by gentle persuasion or by intimidation, there is no offense. If he knows that a fatal incident would occur, he should not report it to others. All the above clauses pertain to being robbed face-to-face. If he had already formed the thought of loss, then regardless of whether the robber's [mind] was decisive or indecisive, if he later takes it back, he becomes a thief who in turn robs the thief's property; all because it has decisively belonged to the thief. Even if he did not form the thought of loss, yet the thief's mind decisively took it without fear, it likewise belongs to the thief, and he is not permitted to pursue and seize it back. The Vinaya states: If property is lost, and officials seize it and return it to the bhikṣu, he may take it without offense. Based on this, when not occurring in one's presence, even with the theft of a gold image and the like, though he knows the hiding place, he is likewise not permitted to take it. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: If a bhikṣu is captured by thieves and steals himself away from the thieves' place, there is no offense; if a teacher forcibly seizes a disciple back, he incurs a grave offense.