梵網經菩薩戒本疏 2.10

2.10

In the first [section], we first clarify the Buddha's property. Some say: stealing the Buddha's property does not incur a major offense, because the Buddha's property lacks the thought of 'mineness' and lacks afflicted harm, as in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] where a sthūlātyaya is incurred. If according to what the Sujāta Sūtra says, a major offense is determined in relation to the protecting guardian. Some say: all are major offenses, because if damaging an inferior status is still determined as a major offense, how much more so for the property of the venerable status, offerings of devas and humans—if unrighteously damaged or stolen, how could it incur a minor offense? Stūpas have guardian spirits; they are not without protecting guardians. Now according to this sūtra, the doctrine of the bodhisattva precepts holds that all are major offenses, because the Nirvāṇa Sūtra spoke in terms of the Hīnayāna. If one takes Buddha images, relics, and the like without the intention to steal, there is no offense. According to what the Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā says: doing so with a pure mind of offering, one thinks to oneself: 'That person is also a disciple, and I am also a disciple.' In such a case, there is no offense. Furthermore, if one takes them with a stealing mind, one commits a major offense. Therefore, the Mātrīkā-śāstra says: stealing Buddha images or relics worth a full five [māṣakas] constitutes a major offense. Furthermore, these bodhisattva precepts do not depend on completing five [māṣakas]. Second, as for Dharma property: all are major offenses. If one steals sūtras or treatises, the Buddha said: calculated as priceless, both paper and ink are of major gravity. The Five Hundred Questions says: one must not blow dust off a sūtra with the mouth; dust on an image is likewise. If one burns an old sūtra, one incurs a major offense, like burning one's parents. If one does not know that there is an offense, one commits a minor offense. Based on this, if one borrows another's sūtras, treatises, commentaries, extracts, or the like, and does not return them, all are major offenses. If there is damage, and one secretly rolls it up and returns it to the other without letting the owner know, it is also a major offense. The Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra says: stealing another's secret formula constitutes a major offense. Based on this, secretly reading and memorizing, or secretly copying, even if not damaging the original, because the formula has the value of property, all are determined as major offenses. Question: Since taking an image with a pure mind does not commit a major offense, taking a sūtra with a pure mind should also be without offense? Answer: They are not comparable. Because an image can be revered from afar, whereas the Dharma must be read intimately; reciting it presents a manifest contradiction, and is therefore determined as a major offense. If a sūtra was originally produced universally for everyone, taking it with a pure mind is also considered to be without offense. Furthermore, if an image was produced with a restrictive, non-universal intent, and taking it gives rise to distress, it should also be considered an offense. Third, Saṅgha property. There are two kinds: (1) broad, and (2) restricted. Within the first, there are two: (1) property of the permanent Saṅgha of the ten directions. This refers to the permanent grains, wheat, fruits, and the like of the Saṅgha's monasteries; their substance extends universally to the ten directions and cannot be divided for use, hence they are called 'permanent.' Stealing even a single hair's worth or more is universally a major offense. In the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra: stealing the fields, dwellings, orchards, groves, slaves, cattle, and the like of the Saṅgha—this is called the mark of breaking precepts, losing the status of a monk; it is a pārājika, not a śramaṇa. One must not dwell together with the Saṅgha that accords with the Dharma; one must be expelled. Furthermore, the Samantapāsādikā says: eating the Saṅgha's food without striking the bell constitutes stealing. Furthermore, even if the bell is struck but the doors are shut, it should also be considered an offense. (2) Property of the present Saṅgha of the ten directions. This refers to things such as offerings received by the Saṅgha and the property of a deceased monk; before the formal act is performed, they pertain universally to the Saṅgha of the ten directions and have the sense of taking shares, hence they are called 'the present [Saṅgha] of the ten directions.' Taking even a single hair's worth or more constitutes, with respect to each individual monk of the ten directions, one pārājika each. Second, as for the restricted, there are also two: (1) property of the Saṅgha, referring to precisely this property of a deceased monk or the like, after the formal act has been completed, becoming belonging to the present Saṅgha or the like, as well as when a donor brings property to give to the currently present Saṅgha, or for one week, two weeks, etc., and it has not yet been divided. (2) Property of an individual person, referring to the property of one monk, as well as the aforementioned property after it has been divided, etc.; all are major offenses. The Sujāta Sūtra says: stealing the property of a deceased monk, if the karmavācanā has not been performed, one incurs the offense from the Saṅgha of the ten directions; if the karmavācanā has been performed, one incurs the offense in relation to the present Saṅgha. If at the time of death, property is stolen following the deceased's assignment and transmission, an offense is determined according to the person to whom it was given.