四分律行事鈔資持記 2.395

2.395

引證中，初引本律。正文云：時有比丘，他盜取物，而奪彼盜者物，疑；佛言：波羅夷。劫，合云盜，恐是寫訛。次《僧祇》三斷，奪並成重；初約彼此得捨二心。奪者，亦合云盜者。縱下，二單據盜者得心，不取主心。若下，三單約本主捨心，不論盜心。謂於己物作棄捨意；縱今不捨，以先捨故，亦不可奪。屬後取者，即能盜也。

In citing evidence, first it cites its own Vinaya. The main text states: 'At that time there was a bhikṣu whose property another stole; he then seized property from that thief, and had doubts. The Buddha said: Pārājika.' 'Robbed' (jie) should say 'stole' (dao); it is feared to be a scribal error. Next, in the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya, there are three rulings, all of which conclude as a grave [offense] for seizing. First, it is based on both parties' dual states of mind of acquisition and relinquishment. 'Seizer' also should say 'thief'. 'Even if,' and so forth, secondly rests solely on the thief's mind of acquisition, without considering the owner's mind. 'If,' and so forth, thirdly pertains solely to the original owner's mind of relinquishment, regardless of the thief's mind. That is, having an intention of abandonment toward one's own property; even if one does not abandon it now, because it was abandoned earlier, it may also not be seized. 'Belonging to the subsequent taker' means the one capable of stealing.