四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.83

2.83

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.