梵網經菩薩戒本疏 2.10

2.10

初中，先明佛物。有說：盜佛物不得重罪，以佛物無我所心故、無惱害故，如《涅槃》中得偷蘭者是。若《善生經》說：望護主結重。有說：一切俱重，以侵損劣位尚結重，況尊位財物、天人供養，非理損盜，豈得輕罪？塔有神守，非無護主。今依此經，菩薩戒宗一切皆重，《涅槃經》約小乘說故。若盜佛像及舍利等，不作意偷者，無犯。依《薩婆多論》說：為淨心供養，自念云：彼即亦弟子，我亦弟子。如是者，無犯。又作偷心取，犯重。故《摩得勒伽論》云：盜佛像、舍利滿五，犯重。又此菩薩戒不待滿五也。二、法物者，一切皆重。若盜經論，佛言：以無價計，紙墨皆重。《五百問》云：不得口吹經上塵土，像塵准同。若燒故經，得重罪，如燒父母。若不知有罪者，犯輕。准借他經論疏抄等，不還皆重。若有壞損，私卷還他，不令主知，亦重。《正法念處經》云：盜他祕方犯重。准此，是私讀記取，或私抄寫，雖不損本，以方法直物，故皆結重。問：淨心取像，既不犯重，淨心取經，應亦無犯？答：不例。以像可遙敬，法要親讀，讀誦現違，故結重也。若本造經，通為一切，以淨心取，計亦無犯。又若造像，情局不通，取已生惱，計亦應犯。三、僧物。有二種：一、廣大，二、限局。初中二：一、十方常住僧物。謂眾僧寺家常住穀麥菓子等，體通十方，不可分用，故云常住。但盜一毫，已上俱重。《大集經》中：盜眾僧田宅、園林、奴婢、畜等物，是名破戒相，失比丘法，是波羅夷，非沙門。不得與如法眾僧同共止住，應當擯出。又《善見論》云：不打鐘食僧食者，犯盜。又設打鐘閉門，計亦應犯。二、十方現前僧物，謂如僧得施及亡比丘物，未作法前，通十方僧，有取分義，故云十方現前。取一毫已上，十方一一僧邊，各為一波羅夷。二、限局者，亦二：一、眾僧物，謂即此亡比丘物等，已作法竟，為屬現前僧等，及有施主持物施與現在僧，或一七、二七等，並未分之。二、別人物，謂一比丘物，及如上物已分者等，俱重。《善生經》云：盜亡比丘物，若未羯磨，從十方僧得罪；若已羯磨，望現前僧得罪。若臨終時，隨亡屬授物盜者，隨約所與人結罪也。

In the first [section], we first clarify the Buddha's property. Some say: stealing the Buddha's property does not incur a major offense, because the Buddha's property lacks the thought of 'mineness' and lacks afflicted harm, as in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] where a sthūlātyaya is incurred. If according to what the Sujāta Sūtra says, a major offense is determined in relation to the protecting guardian. Some say: all are major offenses, because if damaging an inferior status is still determined as a major offense, how much more so for the property of the venerable status, offerings of devas and humans—if unrighteously damaged or stolen, how could it incur a minor offense? Stūpas have guardian spirits; they are not without protecting guardians. Now according to this sūtra, the doctrine of the bodhisattva precepts holds that all are major offenses, because the Nirvāṇa Sūtra spoke in terms of the Hīnayāna. If one takes Buddha images, relics, and the like without the intention to steal, there is no offense. According to what the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā says: doing so with a pure mind of offering, one thinks to oneself: 'That person is also a disciple, and I am also a disciple.' In such a case, there is no offense. Furthermore, if one takes them with a stealing mind, one commits a major offense. Therefore, the Mātrīkā-śāstra says: stealing Buddha images or relics worth a full five [māṣakas] constitutes a major offense. Furthermore, these bodhisattva precepts do not depend on completing five [māṣakas]. Second, as for Dharma property: all are major offenses. If one steals sūtras or treatises, the Buddha said: calculated as priceless, both paper and ink are of major gravity. The Five Hundred Questions says: one must not blow dust off a sūtra with the mouth; dust on an image is likewise. If one burns an old sūtra, one incurs a major offense, like burning one's parents. If one does not know that there is an offense, one commits a minor offense. Based on this, if one borrows another's sūtras, treatises, commentaries, extracts, or the like, and does not return them, all are major offenses. If there is damage, and one secretly rolls it up and returns it to the other without letting the owner know, it is also a major offense. The Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra says: stealing another's secret formula constitutes a major offense. Based on this, secretly reading and memorizing, or secretly copying, even if not damaging the original, because the formula has the value of property, all are determined as major offenses. Question: Since taking an image with a pure mind does not commit a major offense, taking a sūtra with a pure mind should also be without offense? Answer: They are not comparable. Because an image can be revered from afar, whereas the Dharma must be read intimately; reciting it presents a manifest contradiction, and is therefore determined as a major offense. If a sūtra was originally produced universally for everyone, taking it with a pure mind is also considered to be without offense. Furthermore, if an image was produced with a restrictive, non-universal intent, and taking it gives rise to distress, it should also be considered an offense. Third, Saṅgha property. There are two kinds: (1) broad, and (2) restricted. Within the first, there are two: (1) property of the permanent Saṅgha of the ten directions. This refers to the permanent grains, wheat, fruits, and the like of the Saṅgha's monasteries; their substance extends universally to the ten directions and cannot be divided for use, hence they are called 'permanent.' Stealing even a single hair's worth or more is universally a major offense. In the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra: stealing the fields, dwellings, orchards, groves, slaves, cattle, and the like of the Saṅgha—this is called the mark of breaking precepts, losing the status of a monk; it is a pārājika, not a śramaṇa. One must not dwell together with the Saṅgha that accords with the Dharma; one must be expelled. Furthermore, the Samantapāsādikā says: eating the Saṅgha's food without striking the bell constitutes stealing. Furthermore, even if the bell is struck but the doors are shut, it should also be considered an offense. (2) Property of the present Saṅgha of the ten directions. This refers to things such as offerings received by the Saṅgha and the property of a deceased monk; before the formal act is performed, they pertain universally to the Saṅgha of the ten directions and have the sense of taking shares, hence they are called 'the present [Saṅgha] of the ten directions.' Taking even a single hair's worth or more constitutes, with respect to each individual monk of the ten directions, one pārājika each. Second, as for the restricted, there are also two: (1) property of the Saṅgha, referring to precisely this property of a deceased monk or the like, after the formal act has been completed, becoming belonging to the present Saṅgha or the like, as well as when a donor brings property to give to the currently present Saṅgha, or for one week, two weeks, etc., and it has not yet been divided. (2) Property of an individual person, referring to the property of one monk, as well as the aforementioned property after it has been divided, etc.; all are major offenses. The Sujāta Sūtra says: stealing the property of a deceased monk, if the karmavācanā has not been performed, one incurs the offense from the Saṅgha of the ten directions; if the karmavācanā has been performed, one incurs the offense in relation to the present Saṅgha. If at the time of death, property is stolen following the deceased's assignment and transmission, an offense is determined according to the person to whom it was given.