梵網經菩薩戒本疏 2.16

2.16

第二、明別類物中二：先、明主差別，二、辨輕業重。前中有十：一、為守護主。如《善見》云：比丘為三寶別人守護財，若謹慎掌護，堅鎖藏戶，而賊從孔中竊取，或逼迫強取，非是護主能禁之限者，不令徵守物人。若徵，犯重。若掌懈慢不勤，為賊所偷者，守物比丘必須償之。不償，結犯。《十誦》云：若受寄物，好看，失，不應償；若不好看，失，應償。又若好心誤破，不須償；惡心故破，須償。今有好為他洗鉢，誤破索倍，隨得皆重。二、賊施物，不應受之。賊為施故盜，即是盜緣也。若從他乞，即是教他盜也。故俱不得受。故《瑜伽戒》云：若知物是盜，得不取無犯。義准：若彼改過而施，計亦應受也。以悲心愍彼，亦應受。但不從彼乞，恐更盜將施故。若小乘戒，但有主施，皆受。故《十誦》云：賊偷物來，或好心施，或因他逐，恐怖故施，得取此物。莫從賊乞，自與者取。得取已，染壞色而著。有識者，若索還他。三、奪賊物者，有二：一、為自，二、為他。初中四句：一、自未作捨心賊得想，未成奪，取不犯重。故《五分》云：有比丘為賊所剝，爭得衣物，生疑問佛。佛言：不犯。若大乘戒，應犯輕垢，以順慳貪、違悲慧故。二、自心未捨，賊已作得想，奪亦成重。以賊作得想，物已屬賊，賊業成竟，奪則自成賊。故律云：賊奪賊物。故《多論》云：先失物，作心未捨，還取此物，計錢成重。三、自心已捨，賊未得想，取亦成重，以違本想故。謂已作捨心，物非己有，豈容得取？故《多論》云：先心已捨，正使己物不得取，取計成重。准此，若未覺失物，賊已偷盜，於外著用，後見本物，奪取犯重。四、己已捨，賊已得，成重無疑。准此，若失物已，後知埋藏處等，亦不得留意輒取及告人等，賊自致死，便犯二夷。又《毘奈耶》云：若失物，官人奪得，還比丘者，得取無犯。二、為他者，有二：一、若於賊起瞋，於物起貪，為自親知奪賊，同前四句准之。二、若起慈心，護三寶等物，奪取無犯。同下，開緣如後說。四、盜他物者。如已捨物施人，後還取者，犯重。故論云：施已還取，亦成犯盜。五、盜官物者，律云：比丘無輸稅法，不同白衣。官稅俗人物，比丘為他隱認者，得重。准此，今有屬致官人，令應稅不稅，理應犯重。《僧祇》云：官稅比丘物，方便自勉者，不犯重：一、我不共要，二、非理稅我。《薩遮尼乾子經》云：不輪王課，非盜。義准，應是私度修道，福資國主，故非盜也。問：山中柴木既屬國王，何因取時而不犯盜？答：王意本捨，擬給百姓，故隨取貼，即為主也。若山中伏藏諸寶物，王不捨故，取便犯也。六、盜狂人物者，《伽論》第七云：「狂人邊得取衣不？或得，或不得。云何得？不知父母等所在，自持施物，比丘得取。云何不可取？父母等可知不？自手與，不可取。」七、盜畜物者，《多論》云：「一切鳥獸食殘，取者，得吉羅罪。」准此戒，得重。如田中掘鼠藏等，亦重。八、盜神物者，《僧祇》云：盜外道塔物、神祠物，得重。此菩薩戒文云「乃至鬼神物」等，義准：若欲從鬼神乞，知與不與者，應擲卜辨捨悋等。九、盜鬼物，十、盜天物，並准可知。

Second, in explaining specific categories of property, there are two parts: first, explaining the distinctions among owners; second, distinguishing light and grave karma. In the former, there are ten: 1. Custodians: As the Samantapāsādikā states, if a monk guards property for the Three Jewels or another person, and if he watches over and protects it carefully, securely locking the storeroom doors, yet a thief steals it through an aperture or takes it by force and intimidation, beyond what the custodian could prevent, the property-keeper should not be demanded to compensate. If demanded, [the demander] commits a grave offense. If the keeper was remiss, negligent, and not diligent, and it was stolen by a thief, the monk guarding the property must compensate for it; if he does not compensate, an offense is adjudicated. The Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: 'If one receives entrusted property, watches it well, and it is lost, one need not compensate; if one does not watch it well and it is lost, one must compensate. Furthermore, if broken by accident with good intent, one need not compensate; if broken intentionally with evil intent, one must compensate.' Nowadays, when someone kindly washes a bowl for another and breaks it by mistake, demanding double its value incurs a grave offense for whatever is received. 2. Property given by thieves: This should not be accepted. If a thief steals in order to give, that is a condition for theft; if one begs from him, that is instructing another to steal. Hence in both cases it must not be accepted. Therefore the Śīlapaṭala of the Yogācārabhūmi states: 'If one knows property was obtained by theft, not taking it is without offense.' By logical extension: if he has reformed his faults and then gives, by calculation it should be accepted; out of a mind of compassion pitying him, it should also be accepted. One simply must not beg from him, for fear he might steal again and bring it to give. According to the Hīnayāna precepts, as long as the owner gives it, all is accepted. Thus the Daśādhyāya-vinaya states: 'When a thief brings stolen goods and either gives them with a good mind, or gives them out of fear because he is pursued by others, one may take this property. Do not beg from the thief; take what is given voluntarily. Having taken it, dye it an improper color and wear it. If there is a person who recognizes it and demands it back, return it to him.' 3. Seizing property from a thief: There are two cases: first, for oneself; second, for another. In the former, there are four propositions: First, if one has not yet formed the thought of relinquishment and the thief has not yet formed the thought of acquisition, the seizure is not complete; taking it does not constitute a grave offense. Thus the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya states: 'A monk was stripped by thieves; he fought back and recovered his robes and property, and having doubts, he asked the Buddha. The Buddha said: "There is no offense."' Under the Mahāyāna precepts, it should constitute a minor defilement (duṣkṛta), because it accords with stinginess and greed and contradicts compassion and wisdom. Second, if one's own mind has not relinquished it, but the thief has already formed the thought of acquisition, seizing it also constitutes a grave offense. Because the thief has formed the thought of acquisition, the property already belongs to the thief, the thief's karmic act is completed, and seizing it makes oneself a thief. Hence the vinaya says: 'A thief seizing property from a thief.' Thus the Sarvāstivāda-vibhāṣā states: 'Having previously lost property, if one has not relinquished it in one's mind and takes this property back, calculating the money, it constitutes a grave offense.' Third, if one's own mind has already relinquished it, but the thief has not formed the thought of acquisition, taking it also constitutes a grave offense, because it contradicts one's original thought. That is, having already formed the thought of relinquishment, the property is no longer one's own; how could one be permitted to take it? Thus the Sarvāstivāda-vibhāṣā states: 'If one's mind previously relinquished it, even if it was originally one's own property, one must not take it; taking it, by calculation, constitutes a grave offense.' According to this, if before realizing one lost an item, a thief has already stolen it and is using or wearing it outside, and later one sees one's original property and seizes it, one commits a grave offense. Fourth, if oneself has already relinquished it and the thief has already acquired it, it constitutes a grave offense without doubt. According to this, if after losing property one later discovers the place where it is buried or hidden, one must also not fix one's mind upon it, thoughtlessly take it, or inform others; if the thief thereby dies, one commits two parājikas. Furthermore, the Vinaya states: 'If lost property is seized by officials and returned to the monk, taking it is without offense.' Second, seizing for another: There are two cases: First, if one gives rise to anger toward the thief and greed toward the property, seizing it from the thief on behalf of one's own relatives or acquaintances, it is judged identically to the four propositions above. Second, if one gives rise to a mind of loving-kindness to protect the property of the Three Jewels or others, seizing it is without offense. This is the same as below; the exceptions will be explained later. 4. Stealing another's property: If one has already relinquished property and given it to someone, and later takes it back, one commits a grave offense. Therefore the treatise says: 'Taking back what has already been given also constitutes the offense of theft.' 5. Stealing government property: The vinaya states: 'Monks are not subject to taxation, unlike laypeople.' If the government taxes property belonging to laypeople and a monk falsely claims it for them, he commits a grave offense. According to this, nowadays, when someone exerts influence on officials so that what should be taxed is not taxed, in principle this constitutes a grave offense. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: 'If the government taxes a monk's property and he uses expedient means to exempt himself, he does not commit a grave offense, because: first, I did not make an agreement; second, it is unjust to tax me.' The Satyakanirgrantha Sūtra states: 'Not paying the king's taxes is not theft.' By logical extension, this must refer to secretly ordaining to cultivate the path, whose merit aids the ruler of the state, hence it is not theft. Question: Since firewood in the mountains belongs to the king, why is taking it not an offense of theft? Answer: The king's intention originally relinquished it, intending it to supply the common people; therefore, whenever one takes it to use, one becomes its owner. If there are buried treasures in the mountains, because the king has not relinquished them, taking them incurs an offense. 6. Stealing property of an insane person: Fascicle 7 of the Yogācārabhūmi states: 'May one take robes from an insane person? Sometimes one may, sometimes one may not. How may one? If the whereabouts of his parents and guardians are unknown, and he brings and gives the property himself, the monk may take it. How may one not take it? If his parents and guardians can be known, even if he gives it with his own hand, it must not be taken.' 7. Stealing property of animals: The Sarvāstivāda-vibhāṣā states: 'Taking the leftovers eaten by all birds and beasts incurs a duṣkṛta offense.' According to this precept, it incurs a grave offense. Digging up a mouse's cache in a field and the like is also grave. 8. Stealing property of spirits: The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: 'Stealing property of tīrthika stūpas or shrine property of spirits incurs a grave offense.' The text of this bodhisattva precept states: 'even the property of ghosts and spirits,' and so forth. By logical extension: if one wishes to beg from a ghost or spirit and to know whether it gives it or not, one should cast divining lots to determine whether it relinquishes or withholds it. 9. Stealing property of pretas, and 10. Stealing property of devas: Both may be understood by analogy.