梵網經菩薩戒本疏 2.8

2.8

第五、闕緣者，通緣可知。別中且闕初緣，有二罪：一、盜己物已，畢竟不知是自物，約心結重方便；二、後知是己物，得輕方便。次闕第二緣，有六罪，以雙闕在此門故。且約境三者：一、欲盜人物，畜等物來替，盜畜等物作人物想，盜已於後若知不知，一切俱重，以皆是犯境故；二、無主物替，盜已畢竟不知是無主，約心結重方便；三、盜已知是無主，得輕方便。二、雙闕三者：一、欲盜人物，畜等物替，是闕境，於上復疑為人物、為畜等物，是闕心，盜已於後若決不決，一切皆重；二、無主物替，復生疑為有主、為無主，盜已不知，得重方便，以少闕心故；三、疑心盜已，後知無主，得輕方便，以知境全闕，心關一分，故輕也。上二位各三中，二夷、二重方便、二輕方便，可知。次闕第三緣，有想、疑二別。想中有五句：一、約本迷，本迷有主作無主想，取已不犯，以三心俱闕故；二、後知有主不還，結重；三、約轉想，謂欲盜有主物，臨至境所轉作無主想，取已不知有主，得方便罪，以不暢本思故，闕中、後故，約前方便結一輕罪；四、後知有主不還，亦重；五、若於人物起畜等物想，本迷、轉想俱重。二、疑中亦五句：初、約本境有主物上生疑：為有主？為無主？取已畢竟不決，得重方便；二、取已後決不還，得重，若還輕罪，同次前句；三、於異境無主物上疑：為無主？為有主？取已不知，得重方便；四、取已後決，得輕方便；五、人畜互疑，俱皆重也。問：云何名為無主物耶？答：《善見論》云：子作惡事，父母逐去，後時父母死者，是物名無主，用即無罪。《薩婆多論》云：二國中間二邊村，其相間空地有物，是名無主。若國破王走，後王未綩，此中有物，亦名無主。有心取用，並皆不犯。次闕第四緣，本無盜心，總無罪也。次關第五緣，有二罪：一、雖有盜心，未起方便，彼有別緣，還送此物來生心受，得方便罪；二、不還心，決得重罪。次闕第六緣，有二：一、無記心，取亦重；二、以大悲善心為救重苦，即不犯。如下開緣中辨。次闕第七緣，有二罪：一、行至物所，作己有想竟，得重罪；二、至物所生疑，得方便罪也。

Fifth, as for missing conditions: the common conditions are understandable. Among the specific conditions, first, if the first condition is missing, there are two offenses: (1) having stolen one's own property, if one never knows that it is one's own property, a major preparatory offense is determined with respect to the mind; (2) if one later knows that it is one's own property, one incurs a minor preparatory offense. Next, if the second condition is missing, there are six offenses, because both missing [conditions] are included under this heading. First, with respect to the object, there are three: (1) one intends to steal a human's property, but the property of an animal or the like replaces it; one steals the property of the animal or the like, conceiving it to be the property of a human; having stolen it, whether one later knows or does not know, all are major offenses, because both are objects of offense; (2) ownerless property replaces it; having stolen it, if one never knows that it is ownerless, a major preparatory offense is determined with respect to the mind; (3) having stolen it, if one knows that it is ownerless, one incurs a minor preparatory offense. Second, as for the three [cases] of both being missing: (1) one intends to steal a human's property, and the property of an animal or the like replaces it—this is the missing object—and in addition one doubts whether it is a human's property or an animal's property—this is the missing mind; having stolen it, whether it is later resolved or not resolved, all are major offenses; (2) ownerless property replaces it, and one further generates doubt as to whether it is owned or ownerless; having stolen it, if one does not know, one incurs a major preparatory offense, because of the partial lack of the mind; (3) having stolen it with a doubting mind, if one later knows it is ownerless, one incurs a minor preparatory offense, because since the object is completely missing and the mind is involved in only one part, it is therefore minor. Among the three in each of the above two categories, two pārājikas, two major preparatory offenses, and two minor preparatory offenses are clear. Next, if the third condition is missing, there are two distinctions: conception and doubt. Within conception there are five clauses: (1) with respect to fundamental delusion: if fundamentally deluded, one conceives what has an owner to be ownerless; having taken it, one does not commit an offense, because all three minds are missing; (2) if one later knows it has an owner and does not return it, a major offense is determined; (3) with respect to shifting conception: that is, one intends to steal property that has an owner, but upon arriving at the object, one's conception shifts to its being ownerless; having taken it, if one does not know it has an owner, one incurs a preparatory offense, because one does not carry out the original thought, and because the intermediate and subsequent [minds] are missing, one minor offense is determined based on the preceding preparation; (4) if one later knows it has an owner and does not return it, it is also a major offense; (5) if, with respect to a human's property, one gives rise to the conception of it being an animal's property or the like, both fundamental delusion and shifting conception are major offenses. Second, within doubt there are also five clauses: (1) with respect to generating doubt about the original object of owned property: 'Does it have an owner, or does it lack an owner?'; having taken it, if it is never resolved, one incurs a major preparatory offense; (2) having taken it, if it is later resolved and one does not return it, one incurs a major offense; if one returns it, it is a minor offense, the same as the preceding clause; (3) one doubts about a different object of ownerless property: 'Is it ownerless, or does it have an owner?'; having taken it, if one does not know, one incurs a major preparatory offense; (4) having taken it, if it is later resolved, one incurs a minor preparatory offense; (5) if one mutually doubts between human and animal, both are major offenses. Question: What is called ownerless property? Answer: The Samantapāsādikā says: 'If a child commits evil deeds and the parents expel them, and later the parents die, this property is called ownerless; using it carries no offense.' The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā says: 'Between two kingdoms are border villages; if there is property in the vacant land between them, this is called ownerless. If a kingdom is destroyed and the king flees, and the subsequent king has not yet been enthroned, if there is property therein, it is also called ownerless.' If one has the intention to take and use them, none of these constitute an offense. Next, if the fourth condition is missing: if there was fundamentally no intention to steal, there is entirely no offense. Next, if the fifth condition is missing, there are two offenses: (1) although one has the intention to steal, one has not yet initiated preparatory action; if due to other circumstances [the owner] instead sends this property over and one conceives the mind to receive it, one incurs a preparatory offense; (2) if one's mind is resolved not to return it, one incurs a major offense. Next, if the sixth condition is missing, there are two: (1) if taken with an indeterminate mind, it is also a major offense; (2) if, out of great compassion and a wholesome mind, one takes it to rescue [someone from] severe suffering, there is no offense, as will be explained below under allowable exceptions. Next, if the seventh condition is missing, there are two offenses: (1) walking to the place of the property, after generating the conception that it is one's own, one incurs a major offense; (2) arriving at the place of the property and generating doubt, one incurs a preparatory offense.