梵網經菩薩戒本疏 2.19

2.19

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.