四分律行事鈔資持記 2.361

2.361

二施屬者，即錢寶田園人畜等物；不堪受用，但係屬耳。引文為三，初引論明貿易。《十誦》下，二引律明出息。五下，三復引論，有二節，初明移處通塞。比丘下，次明別人受用。論中自為三節。初客作得物不得取者，以屬佛故；鈔加書經字，彼論本無。若下，節第二節；彼云：比丘作佛事，得佛奴牛驢等，得借使否？答：若知本是佛物，不得；彼文但云不得，不明罪相；今言大罪，必須準前盜佛斷之。下又云：佛奴小兒不得使，便是佛物。今鈔不引。

The second, assigned property: namely money, valuables, fields, orchards, human servants, livestock, and other such things; they cannot be used and enjoyed directly, but merely belong [to the Buddha]. Citing texts falls into three parts: first, citing the treatise to clarify trading. From "The Daśādhyāya..." downward, second, citing the Vinaya to clarify lending at interest. From "In the five..." downward, third, citing the treatise again, which has two clauses: first, clarifying whether moving locations is permissible or barred. From "The bhikṣu..." downward, next, clarifying another person's use and enjoyment. In the treatise it naturally divides into three clauses. First, when a hired laborer obtains property and may not take it, it is because it belongs to the Buddha; the Manual adds the words "copying scriptures," which are originally absent in that treatise. From "If..." downward, the second clause: it says, "When a bhikṣu performs Buddha work and obtains a Buddha-slave, ox, donkey, etc., may he borrow and use them?" Answer: "If he knows it is originally Buddha property, he may not." That text only says "he may not," without clarifying the phase of offense; now stating "a grave offense," it must be judged according to the previous stealing from the Buddha. Below it also says: "A Buddha-slave boy may not be employed, for he is Buddha property." Now the Manual does not cite this.