四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 3.72

3.72

Third, differences regarding living together and sharing wealth: If the teacher's original intention was merely to provide his disciple with robes and food without living together as one livelihood, what was already given belongs to [the disciple], and what was not yet given enters entirely into the saṃgha after the teacher passes away. If they truly did not share a livelihood, and he falsely pretends to take the saṃgha's property, he commits a grave offense. If the teacher's original covenant was that all property was determined to be shared equally, regarding him like a son without ever making a separation, then if either of them dies, as much as he wishes of what is for personal use enters entirely into the saṃgha. If teacher and disciple entered a mutual covenant that property would be held in common, each has a separate due share. If residing in one place, but living separately or abandoning the path, all is equally split in half; this is called "shared livelihood." When dividing such property, model the monastic rule upon the secular: clothes already worn and utensils already used each belong to the person who used them, and neither need be divided; any surplus property remaining is split in half according to the standard. If they did not share a livelihood nor share wealth, and one falsely claims to take a share, both the taker and the granter commit an offense: if grave, it is a grave offense; if light, a sthūlātyaya. In the Sujāta-sūtra, there are also two adjudications, both based on light property.