梵網經菩薩戒本疏 2.25

2.25

第十、釋文者，三義同前：一、制斷惡業，二、制修善行，三、違制結犯。初中二：先舉過，後正制。前中四：初、辨能盜，二、盜方法，三、顯所盜相，四、所盜物。初中自盜、教人皆成究竟，此中有二問答，皆同前戒，可知。問：前殺心中有四，謂自、他、讚、喜，何故此中無後二耶？答：文中存略，攝在方便中，謂讚歎、隨喜俱非正盜，故在方便中釋。此中嘆其盜法，見盜隨喜通不犯夷，故存略也。前釋為勝。言方便盜者，或因市易，或餘種種，但使方便侵損財物，又類非一，故通名方便。「盜因」下，明盜方法。於中因等四種，亦四釋同前，謂：一、自作為因，教他為緣，方便為法，事畢為業。二、約所盜者，謂：一、他人用功為得財之因，枉奪其功，故名盜因。又如密作，隱其少功，枉取多直，皆盜彼財因故也。二、他人應得賊破壞，令其不得盜彼賊緣故也。三、受學法術不與其直。四、侵損產業故云盜業。三、約能盜者，謂一、自為賊，二、助賊為伴，三、設諸方便法，四、家為賊業。四、約具緣者，一、內有盜心，二、外乏資具，三、施功造趣，四、舉離本處。《十地論》中初二是因離，次一是對治離，謂尚應施與，後一是果行離，謂何況盜取，並可知。三、所盜相者，盜取其物方便多種，下至呪盜故偏舉之。准前戒有「乃至」字，故得知也。以盜心呪物令屬己等，又託彼呪緣枉取他物，俱名呪盜。四、「乃至」下顯所盜物，於中二：先約主，謂通五趣唯除地獄，始從人天至非人，故云「乃至鬼神」也。但是有主必犯，故云「有主」。又為己奪他劫賊之物，又可劫他賊物，故云「劫賊物」。二、約物體，謂「一針一草」者，明極少尚犯不待滿五也。二、言「不得故盜」者，立制禁斷，謂誤取無犯，故云不得故也。第二、「而菩薩」下，明制修善行，亦是攝善戒行也，亦是治彼惡之行。於中有二：一、起心，二、作益。前中應起四心，然有四釋：一、起四種心：一、起佛性心，二、孝順心，三、慈心，四、悲心。以上「生」字貫下，以下「心」字通上。故初二緣上位，尚須供養，何得有盜？後二緣下位，尚須救濟，何容有盜？為對治盜故，起此心也。二、依佛性起二心，謂生佛性之孝順、佛性之慈悲。以此二心雖緣上下二類眾生，而常隨順本性平等，故云「佛性」，即同前戒中「常住」字也。三、以此佛性有二義故，生二心也：一、常住義，經云：其藥本味停住山中。約此本性清淨義故，生孝順心而尊敬，如常不輕菩薩敬四眾等。二、約隨緣義，經云：隨其流處，成種種味。約此成染義故，生慈悲心而救度，如常啼菩薩愍四眾等。又以常住即隨緣，隨緣即常住，不二故，是菩薩緣眾生常具二心也。又義准眾生，皆有二義：一、是所依佛性，具有二義，如上辨；二、是能依雜染，亦二義：一、緣成似有義；二、無性即空義。由此染法有即空義故，所依佛性常淨不反也；由此染法有似有義故，所依佛性隨緣成染也。今此文中不約染法，但就佛性二義說二心也。四、約自性住，佛性在纏可愍，生慈悲心也；約引出及至得果，出障可尊，生孝順心也。二、「常助一切」下，明依心作益。於中言「常助」者，明長時無間也；「一切人」者，明廣攝無餘。「生福」者，令種樂因也；「生樂」者，令得樂果也。此二通世、出世，大、小二乘可知。准《瑜伽》，但生現樂無福利，或俱無菩薩皆不作；或但生福利，或俱生菩薩皆作。是故此中具生福樂二種益事。第三、「而反」下，違制結犯，有三義：一、違前斷惡，又違後修善制，謂盜他物，令他生苦生罪，乖福樂故。二、應益生而不益生，犯攝生戒；應施不施，犯攝善戒；不應盜而盜，犯律儀戒。故此一盜具違三戒，結為重罪。三、應助生福樂，而反盜生罪苦，違反之甚，故結重罪。下示罪名，可知。盜戒竟。

Tenth, regarding the explanation of the text, the three meanings are the same as before: first, proscribing to cut off unwholesome karma; second, enjoining the cultivation of wholesome practices; third, transgressing the prohibition and adjudicating the offense. The first part has two sections: first, presenting the fault; thereafter, the actual prohibition. The former has four parts: first, identifying the agent of theft; second, the methods of theft; third, revealing the characteristics of what is stolen; fourth, the items stolen. Under the first, stealing oneself and having another steal both constitute the culmination [of the offense]. Here there are two questions and answers, both identical to the previous precept and understandable accordingly. Question: Previously, regarding the mind of killing, there were four aspects, namely: self, other, praise, and rejoicing. Why are the latter two absent here? Answer: The text condenses them, subsuming them under preparatory actions; that is, praising and rejoicing with approval are both not the actual theft itself, so they are explained under preparatory actions. Here, praising the technique of theft and rejoicing upon seeing theft generally do not incur a pārājika offense, which is why they are omitted. The former explanation is superior. As for "theft through preparatory actions," whether through commercial trade or various other means, so long as one uses expedient methods to infringe upon and diminish property—and since their types are more than one—they are collectively called "preparatory actions." From "causes of theft" onward, the methods of theft are clarified. Within this, the four kinds—causes and so forth—also have four explanations, as before: First, doing it oneself is the cause; having another do it is the condition; preparatory actions are the method; and completing the act is the karma. Second, in terms of what is stolen: first, another person's exertion of effort is the cause of obtaining wealth; wrongfully seizing the result of their effort is therefore called the cause of theft. Also, such as working in secret, concealing a small amount of work to wrongfully take a large payment, are all because one steals the cause of their wealth. Second, another person's rightful gain is ruined by a thief, making them unable to obtain it, which is the condition of that thief. Third, learning an art or technique and not paying its price. Fourth, infringing upon property and livelihood, hence called the karma of theft. Third, in terms of the agent of theft: first, acting as a thief oneself; second, assisting a thief as an accomplice; third, devising various preparatory methods; fourth, making theft one's household occupation. Fourth, in terms of possessing the conditions: first, inwardly having a mind of theft; second, outwardly lacking resources; third, applying effort to initiate action; fourth, lifting and removing [the item] from its original place. In the Daśabhūmika-śāstra, the first two are renunciation of the cause; the next one is renunciation through counteraction, meaning that one should rather give; the last one is renunciation in the conduct of the result, meaning how much more so should one not steal—all of which are understandable. Third, as for the characteristics of what is stolen, there are many kinds of preparatory actions for stealing items; it goes so far down as to theft through incantations, which is why it is specifically singled out. In accordance with the previous precept containing the words "so far as," we know this. Using a mind of theft to cast an incantation over an item so that it belongs to oneself, or taking advantage of the conditions of that incantation to wrongfully seize another's property, are both called "theft through incantations." Fourth, from "so far as" onward, the items stolen are revealed. Within this are two parts: first, in terms of the owner, it extends through the five destinies, excluding only the hells, beginning with humans and devas and down to non-humans; hence it says "so far as ghosts and spirits." Anything that has an owner invariably constitutes an offense; hence it says "having an owner." Also, taking for oneself what has been seized from another by bandits, or robbing another bandit's loot, is why it says "the goods of robbers and bandits." Second, in terms of the substance of the item: stating "a single needle or a blade of grass" clarifies that even the utmost minimum still constitutes an offense, without waiting to reach five [māṣas]. Second, as for the words "one must not intentionally steal," this establishes the proscription to prohibit and cut it off, meaning that mistakenly taking incurs no offense; hence it says "one must not intentionally." Second, from "whereas a bodhisattva" onward, it clarifies the enjoining of the cultivation of wholesome practice, which is also the practice of the precepts collecting good qualities and the practice that counteracts those unwholesome deeds. Within this there are two: first, generating the mind; second, producing benefit. In the former, one should generate four minds, yet there are four explanations: First, generating four kinds of minds: 1. generating the mind of Buddha-nature; 2. the filial mind; 3. the mind of kindness; 4. the mind of compassion. The preceding character "generate" extends through what follows, and the succeeding character "mind" applies to what precedes. Thus, the first two relate to those in higher positions, where one must still offer support—how could there be theft? The latter two relate to those in lower positions, who still require rescue and relief—how could theft be permitted? To counteract theft, one generates these minds. Second, generating two minds based on Buddha-nature, meaning giving rise to the filial obedience of Buddha-nature and the kindness and compassion of Buddha-nature. Although these two minds relate to the two categories of beings, higher and lower, they constantly accord with the equality of original nature; hence it says "Buddha-nature," which is identical to the words "eternally abiding" in the previous precept. Third, because this Buddha-nature has two meanings, two minds are generated: 1. The meaning of being eternally abiding. A sūtra states: "The original flavor of that medicine abides in the mountains." In terms of this meaning of original purity of nature, one generates a filial mind and reveres them, just as Bodhisattva Sadāparibhūta revered the fourfold assembly and so forth. 2. In terms of the meaning of according with conditions. A sūtra states: "Following the places where it flows, it becomes various flavors." In terms of this meaning of becoming defiled, one generates a mind of kindness and compassion to rescue and cross them over, just as Bodhisattva Sadāprarudita pitied the fourfold assembly and so forth. Furthermore, because being eternally abiding is precisely according with conditions, and according with conditions is precisely being eternally abiding, being non-dual, the bodhisattva in relating to sentient beings constantly possesses both minds. Furthermore, by analogy, sentient beings all possess two meanings: 1. The underlying Buddha-nature, which possesses both meanings as explained above. 2. The supported defilements, which also have two meanings: first, the meaning of existing by conditioned production as an appearance; second, the meaning of being empty through lack of inherent nature. Because these defiled phenomena possess the meaning of being identical to emptiness, the underlying Buddha-nature is ever pure and never reversed; because these defiled phenomena possess the meaning of having apparent existence, the underlying Buddha-nature accords with conditions to become defiled. Now, in this text, it does not rely on defiled phenomena, but speaks of the two minds merely with respect to the two meanings of Buddha-nature. Fourth, in terms of abiding in self-nature, Buddha-nature while enveloped [in defilements] is pitiable, so one generates a mind of kindness and compassion; in terms of drawing it forth and reaching the attainment of the fruit, emerging from hindrances is venerable, so one generates a filial mind. Second, from "constantly helping all" onward, it clarifies producing benefits based on the mind. Therein, saying "constantly helping" clarifies that it is prolonged without interruption; "all people" clarifies that it broadly encompasses all without remainder. "Generating blessings" means causing them to plant the causes of happiness; "generating happiness" means causing them to obtain the fruit of happiness. These two extend across the mundane and supramundane, the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna, as can be understood. According to the Yogācārabhūmi, if it merely generates present happiness without beneficial welfare, or if it lacks both, the bodhisattva does neither; if it merely generates beneficial welfare, or if it generates both, the bodhisattva does both. Therefore, here it possesses both kinds of beneficial matters: generating blessings and happiness. Third, from "if instead" onward, it adjudicates the offense for violating the proscription, which has three meanings: First, violating the preceding proscription to cut off evil and violating the succeeding enjoining to cultivate good, meaning that stealing another's property causes another to generate suffering and generate guilt, running contrary to blessings and happiness. Second, where one ought to benefit beings, one does not, violating the precepts collecting sentient beings; where one ought to give, one does not give, violating the precepts collecting good qualities; where one ought not to steal, one steals, violating the precepts of restraining conduct. Therefore, this single act of theft fully violates all three clusters of precepts and is adjudicated as a major offense. Third, where one ought to help generate blessings and happiness, one instead steals to generate guilt and suffering, which is an extreme violation; hence it is adjudicated as a major offense. Below, the name of the offense is indicated, which is understandable. The precept on theft is concluded.