四分律行事鈔資持記 2.348

2.348

雜用中，初科，引論三問，初明供給未度。彼云：白僧得，不白犯墮。若下，二明將持在道。還須償者，準持去時，先作還心；不爾離處即犯。此為僧乞尚爾；今多為己，輒取僧物；制罪雖同，來報不等。若下，三明食用齋米。供僧米者，即屬常住常住；前後得食，作相免過。準前，不作相，例須結蘭；今云犯重，應望盜僧齋米，非盜食也。（舊云熟食應蘭，論云犯棄，故知非矣。）言一飽者，彼論結犯，以一食為限；然飽無分齋，準須計直。

Regarding miscellaneous usage: in the first section, three questions from the treatise are cited. The first clarifies supplying those not yet ordained. It states: "If one announces to the Saṃgha, it is permissible; if one does not announce, one commits a pāyattika." From "If..." downward, the second clarifies carrying it along on the road. Concerning "one must still repay it": according to the moment of taking it away, one must first produce the intention to repay; otherwise, upon leaving the place, one commits an offense. This is even so when begging on behalf of the Saṃgha; nowadays, many arbitrarily take Saṃgha property for themselves; although the instituted offense is the same, the future retributions are not equal. From "If..." downward, the third clarifies consuming and using the fast-day rice. Rice offered to the Saṃgha belongs to permanent-permanent property; both before and after, if one is to eat it, making the requisite arrangement avoids fault. According to the preceding, if one does not make the requisite arrangement, by analogy a sthūlātyaya must be established; now it says that one commits a grave offense, which should be regarded as stealing the Saṃgha's fast-day rice, not stealing cooked food. (An old view said cooked food should be sthūlātyaya, but the treatise states committing a pārājika, hence we know it is wrong.) Regarding "one satiation": that treatise determines the offense taking one meal as the limit; however, satiation has no fractional portion of a meal, so according to the rule, one must calculate its value.