梵網經菩薩戒本疏 2.19

2.19

二、盜有情者。《僧祇》：盜四足者，驅向所期，舉足邊遍，犯重；不隨向者，輕。本期不定，舉足遍，即重；本主來逐，心未得失者，輕。《善見》云：盜空中鳥，左翅至右翅，尾至頭，上下亦爾，俱得重罪。准此戒，縱無主鳥，身自為主，盜皆重也。准此，若獵殺生，得殺、盜二罪；若盜乘馬等，亦重，謂盜功用也。二、盜無足者。《僧祇》云：籠蛇等，盜取犯重。若瞋罵言：何以籠繫？即開放者，越。《五分》：若壞殺具，無犯，不應示。《十誦》、《伽論》：慈心壞網，吉羅。依此菩薩戒，若以盜心以取，犯；以慈心解放，應無犯。如下開緣中。三、盜二足者。若盜良人男女作賤，隨移二脚，便重。故《菩薩內戒經》云：菩薩不得良民作奴婢。義准：若引令出家，於父母無惱，應不犯。若父母交不濟者，私引逃背，理亦應犯。必堪入道，教令者孝養，即為菩薩正行也。問：私引入道，現闕王課，望損國王，豈非犯重？答：若是實行修道之人，福資國王，過所稅財，故亦無犯。若苟避王役，偷身入道，亦應不勉。又若為無人驅使，方便引作弟子，但圖其力，使不教訓者，即盜其力用也。必有師資，以法理教訓，豈少驅使而得報恩？何容彼有犯也？《十誦》中：賊促弟子將去，師還奪取，犯重。賊未決想，無犯。弟子自偷身來者，不犯。依菩薩戒，應贖弟子，或以身替。若弟子於後日受大苦，贖替不得，奪應不犯，同開緣故。《善見》云：盜奴婢犯重。《十誦》：見他奴婢，語言辛苦，何不走去？如語去，舉一足蘭，二足舉重。若奴婢已叛，催令馳去，隨語得重。或言此儉彼豐，奴即叛去，不教故不犯。或聞豐樂，逐比丘去，即驅使者，逢難喚走，皆不犯也。問：既驅使，豈不盜功力耶？答：若奴未巡力，用屬曾主，故教私使，使犯。奴既走後，功力屬奴，奴自施力，故無犯也。據此，但背尊私使，畢皆犯也。次輕重者，唯是俱犯重。然草葉等小物，小損業道，應輕，反此為重。

Second, stealing sentient beings: The Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya says: in stealing four-footed animals, if one drives them toward the intended place, once all feet have been lifted, one commits a grave [offense]; if they do not follow along, it is light. If the original destination was not fixed, once all feet are lifted, it is immediately grave; if the original owner comes in pursuit and the thought of gaining or losing has not settled, it is light. The Shanjian lü says: stealing a bird in the air, from the left wing to the right wing, from the tail to the head, and upward and downward likewise, all incur a grave offense. According to this precept, even with an ownerless bird, since its body is its own master, stealing it is always grave. According to this, if one hunts and kills living beings, one incurs the two offenses of killing and stealing; if one steals and rides a horse or the like, it is also grave, meaning stealing its utility. Second, stealing footless animals: the Mahāsaṃghika Vinaya states: with caged snakes and the like, stealing them commits a grave [offense]. If out of anger one scolds, saying, 'Why are they caged and bound?' and immediately releases them, it is a duṣkṛta. The Wufen lü states: if one destroys hunting gear, there is no offense, but one should not reveal it. The Shisong lü and the Galun state: destroying a net with a mind of compassion is a duṣkṛta. According to this bodhisattva precept, if one takes it with a mind of stealing, it is an offense; if one releases it with a mind of compassion, there should be no offense, as in the permissible conditions below. Third, stealing two-footed beings: if one steals sons or daughters of good people to make them base, as soon as both feet are moved, it is immediately grave. Therefore, the Pusa neijie jing states: 'A bodhisattva must not make commoners into slaves.' By inference: if one leads them to renounce household life and causes no distress to their parents, there should be no offense. If the parents are in absolute distress, and one secretly leads them to run away, by principle it should also be an offense. If the person is definitely capable of entering the path, instructing them to be filially supportive is the correct practice of a bodhisattva. Question: If one secretly leads them to enter the path, this currently deprives the king of taxes, causing loss to the king; how could this not be a grave offense? Answer: If they are persons who truly practice the path, their merit assists the king of the state, exceeding the taxed wealth, so there is also no offense. If they merely evade royal corvée and secretly slip into the path, they should also not be excused. Furthermore, if, lacking someone to command, one uses skillful means to draw someone in as a disciple merely coveting their labor, making use of them without instructing them, that is stealing their labor. If there is definitely the master-disciple relationship and one instructs them with the principles of the Dharma, how could slight labor repay that kindness? How could that be an offense? In the Shisong lü: when thieves urge a disciple away, if the master snatches him back, he commits a grave [offense]. If the thief has not formed a definitive thought of possession, there is no offense. If the disciple secretly escapes on his own, there is no offense. According to the bodhisattva precepts, one should ransom the disciple, or substitute oneself. If the disciple would later suffer great torment, and ransoming or substitution is impossible, snatching him should be without offense, conforming to the permissible conditions. The Shanjian lü says: stealing slaves or maidservants commits a grave [offense]. The Shisong lü states: seeing another's slave or maidservant, one says, 'You work so hard, why not run away?' If they go according to what was said, lifting one foot is a thullaccaya; lifting both feet is grave. If the slave has already rebelled and one urges him to flee, one incurs a grave [offense] according to one's words. If one says that it is scarce here and abundant there, and the slave then rebels and flees, since one did not instruct him, there is no offense. If he hears of abundance and follows the monk away, and the monk then commands him, or when encountering danger calls him to run, in all such cases there is no offense. Question: Since one commands him, does one not steal his labor? Answer: If the slave has not run away, his labor belongs to his former master; therefore, instructing him for private use commits an offense. Once the slave has run away, his labor belongs to the slave; since the slave provides the labor himself, there is no offense. Based on this, whenever one rebels against a superior for private use, all are offenses without exception. Next, concerning lightness and gravity: all are strictly grave offenses. However, with small items such as grass and leaves, which slightly impair the path of karma, it should be light; the opposite of this is grave.