四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.89

2.89

Major Section Three: Stealing the property of non-humans and animals. First, explaining the property of non-humans. If there is a protector, the offense is determined with reference to the protective owner. The Pañcavargika-vinaya states: Taking another's tomb-covering banners and canopies, or clothing in a spirit shrine; if it is property protected by another, and the other's mind has not relinquished it, if it is worth five coins, one commits a grave offense. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: Stealing property from an outside path stūpa or the dwelling of a spirit shrine results in a grave offense; if there is no protective owner, the offense is determined according to the object. Thus the Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: Stealing the clothing, flower garlands, and so forth of a celestial deity's image incurs a sthūlāccaya. The Samantapāsādikā states: Taking the property of various ghosts and spirits, or property tied to trees by humans, where there is no custodian, involves no offense (meaning the non-humans also do not protect it). The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: Taking the property of non-humans, worth five coins or more, is a grave sthūlāccaya; four coins or less is a light sthūlāccaya. Nowadays, when many people take clothing and articles of various spirits, according to principle, whether it is permissible is not as above; if there is definitely no human guarding it, but one fears the spirit protects it, one may cast divining blocks to know whether it has been relinquished or held onto. Concerning stealing the property of animals, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya has no text; some determine it to be identical to the major grave [offense]. Thus the Vinaya states: Rats stole walnuts and accumulated a large pile; a bhikṣu stole them, and the Buddha said it was a pārājika. There is an explanation: This is not with reference to the animals, but is still with reference to the original owner; since the theft by the rats was hesitating and undecided, with reference to the human he is still the original owner, hence a grave offense is still determined with reference to the human. The rest is as in the other traditions. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: Taking the leftovers of a tiger commits a duṣkṛta, because its intention of expectation has not ceased; the leftovers of a lion incur no offense. The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā states: For leftovers of food of all birds and beasts, whoever takes them commits a duṣkṛta.