梵網經菩薩戒本疏 2.7

2.7

第四、具緣者，通緣三種，如前已辨。別緣淮彼《十地》、《對法》二論參糅。七緣同前：一、非己物，謂盜己物，不成重故；謂無主物，雖非己有，不成重故。次第二、須明有主，雖實有主，若迷謂無主，亦不成重故。次第三、有主想，何不云知而言想耶？以知唯了境，想通迷悟，闕緣順此，故有想也。雖有主想，若不作盜意，亦不成重故。次第四、明有盜心，心雖念盜，若不舉方便，侵損不犯成，亦非成重故。次第五、舉方便，方便雖起，若為大悲救苦，或不成犯。次第六、有三毒心，或雖現行，若物不離處，屬己不犯成故。次第七、舉離本處也。

Fourth, fulfilling the conditions: the general conditions are of three kinds, as already explained before. The specific conditions are synthesized by consulting the two treatises, the Daśabhūmika and the Abhidharma-samuccaya. The seven conditions are the same as before: 1. It is not one's own property: because stealing one's own property does not constitute a major [offense], and unowned property, although not one's own possession, does not constitute a major [offense]. Next, second: it must be clarified that it has an owner: although it actually has an owner, if one is confused and considers it unowned, it also does not constitute a major [offense]. Next, third: having the notion that it has an owner. Why does it not say 'knowledge' but says 'notion'? Because knowledge only discerns the object, whereas notion encompasses both delusion and awakening; the missing condition accords with this, hence there is 'notion.' Although one has the notion of an owner, if one does not produce an intent to steal, it also does not constitute a major [offense]. Next, fourth: clarifying that there is a mind of theft: although the mind thinks of theft, if one does not initiate expedient means, infringement and damage are not constituted as an offense, nor does it constitute a major [offense]. Next, fifth: initiating expedient means: although expedient means are initiated, if done out of great compassion to rescue from suffering, it may not constitute an offense. Next, sixth: there is a mind of the three poisons: or although active, if the property does not leave its place, because it is not yet constituted as an offense belonging to oneself. Next, seventh: executing the removal from its original place.