四分律行事鈔資持記 2.321

2.321

四中，初示物體。文出一相，或是檀越時非時施，並同此攝。《善生》下，斷犯三段，初中。未羯磨者，準下分衣，具列二法；約後付分，以定限齊。注犯蘭者，同上十方常住也。（古云：結無邊蘭，準《戒疏》、《尼鈔》，止云犯蘭；若犯無邊，為結多少，太成浮漫；此無所出，講者猶傳。）次段。注斷犯夷，有人云：總望現僧，盜五成重；同前常住常住之倒。又云：現前百僧，須盜五百，方成滿五；減則得輕。問：秉羯磨已，即付五德；此同主掌，何不望結？答：此據出物正作法時，爾前必有知事看守，應從守護結重；後付五德，令為僧分；現物屬僧，即非掌護。若下，三明囑授。既屬別人，不望僧結。準亡物中，囑授不決，還同僧物，如上所判。

In the fourth: first, it indicates the essence of the property. The text presents one aspect, or it may be a timely or untimely gift from a dānapati, all of which are subsumed under this. From "Upāsakaśīla…" down, there are three sections determining the offense. In the first: "not yet having performed the karmavācanā"—according to the robe division below, two methods are fully listed; it is determined by the subsequent handing over of shares to fix the limit. The note "commits a sthūlātyaya" is the same as the permanent of the ten directions above. (An ancient said: "Incurring boundless sthūlātyayas; according to the Precept Commentary and the Manual for Nuns, it only says incurring a sthūlātyaya; if one incurs boundless ones, how many are incurred? It becomes far too diffuse and vague; this has no textual basis, yet lecturers still transmit it.") The next section: the note determines the offense as a pārājika. Someone said: "Taking the present Sangha as a whole, stealing five constitutes a heavy offense; this is the same inversion as the permanent-permanent property above." Another said: "For a hundred monks present, one must steal five hundred before it reaches five; if less, one incurs a light offense." Question: once the karmavācanā is performed, it is handed over to the five virtues; this is the same as having a guardian, so why not determine it in reference to them? Answer: this refers to the precise time of bringing out the property and performing the formal act; prior to that there must be an administrator watching over it, so one should determine a heavy offense in reference to the guardian; afterwards it is handed over to the five virtues to make it the Sangha's share; the present property belongs to the Sangha, so there is no guardian. From "If…" down, the third explains entrustment. Since it belongs to another individual, it is not determined in reference to the Sangha. According to [the rules on] deceased property, if the entrustment is not settled, it still counts as Sangha property, as determined above.