菩薩戒本疏 1.45

1.45

制意釋名者，財為外命有待所資，自除己我莫不愛護，大士為懷應當助生，福樂而變侵損他物，潤己長貪違行處深，故次制也。「盜」猶「不與取」之名也。竊取名偷，顯奪名劫，盜通二也。具緣犯中不與取，事者，《論》云：「謂他所攝物。」有人准律唯取人物五錢已上方犯重也。一云：不爾。文云：「乃至鬼神有上物物，一針一草不得故盜。」故知異聲聞也。想者，他物他物想也。倒不倒四句，准殺應知。欲樂者，謂劫盜欲。煩惱者，謂三種中或單或具。方便究竟者，謂起方便移離本處，結犯輕重准殺應知。學處同異者，亦准殺也。《菩薩地》云：「又如菩薩見有增上增上宰官上品暴惡，於諸有情無有慈愍，專行逼惱。菩薩見已，思擇彼惡，起憐愍心，發生利益安樂意樂，隨力所能，若廢若黜增上等位。由是因緣，於菩薩戒無所違犯，生多功德。又如菩薩見劫盜賊奪他財物，若僧伽物、窣堵波物，取多物已，執為己有，縱情受用。菩薩見已，起憐愍心，於彼有情發生利益安樂意樂，隨力所能，逼而奪取，勿令受用如是財故，當受長夜無義無利。由此因緣，所奪財寶，若僧伽物還復僧伽，窣堵波物還窣堵波，若有情物還復有情。又見眾主或薗林主取僧伽物、窣堵波物，言是己有，縱情受用。菩薩見已，思擇彼惡，起憐愍心，勿令因此邪受用業，當受長夜無義無利，隨力所能，廢其所主。菩薩如是雖不與取，而無違犯，生多功德。」就文中如前又三。敘犯事中，先辨不應犯事有四，第四呪盜成犯四句後方列。「方便盜」者，如律云受供比丘語施主云受汝供養是阿羅漢等是也。若得供者罪兼二事，謂妄語、盜。「呪盜」者，誦呪令物自來也。無讚喜者，不由讚喜成自業故。「鬼神有主物」者，謂神廟中物，或鬼神即為主，或餘為守護主也。「劫賊物」者，謂官所收劫賊物也。又可劫賊物者，本雖是我物，若劫奪而取即成賊者物也。物無定屬，隨取成其主故。

Regarding explaining the purpose of the prohibition and the name: material wealth is an external life[-support], on which dependent [beings] rely; except for oneself, there is none who does not cherish and protect it. The Great Being, cherishing this in mind, ought to help engender their blessings and joy; yet turning around and invading or damaging others' possessions to enrich oneself fosters greed, which profoundly contradicts the practice. Therefore, it is prohibited next. "Theft" is synonymous with "taking what is not given." Taking secretly is called stealing; openly snatching is called plundering; theft encompasses both. Among the conditions that constitute an offense, regarding the object of taking what is not given, the *Śāstra* states: "It refers to objects possessed by another." Some hold, in accordance with the Vinaya, that only taking another person's goods worth five coins or more constitutes a grave offense. Another says: it is not so; the text says, "down to the valuable goods of ghosts and spirits, not even a needle or a blade of grass may be intentionally stolen." Hence we know it differs from the śrāvaka [rules]. Regarding the perception: it is the perception of another's property as another's property. The four permutations of inverted and non-inverted [perceptions] should be understood in accordance with [the discussion on] killing. Regarding desire: it refers to the desire to plunder and steal. Regarding affliction: it refers to one among the three kinds, or a combination of them. Regarding preliminary and consummation: it refers to undertaking the preparatory action and moving [the object] away from its original place. The gradation of grave and light offenses should be understood in accordance with [the discussion on] killing. Regarding the similarities and differences in the precepts: this also follows [the discussion on] killing. The *Bodhisattvabhūmi* states: "Furthermore, for example, a bodhisattva sees that there is a high-ranking official of superior power who is exceedingly violent and wicked, has no compassion toward sentient beings, and exclusively inflicts oppression and harassment upon them. The bodhisattva, having seen this, reflects upon his evil, gives rise to a compassionate mind, engenders the aspiration to benefit and bring peace and happiness [to beings], and according to the best of his ability, deposes or removes him from his superior rank and the like. Through this causal condition, he does not violate the bodhisattva precepts and generates much merit. Furthermore, for example, a bodhisattva sees robbers and thieves snatching others' property, whether it belongs to the saṃgha or to a stūpa, and having taken many items, they claim them as their own and indulge their desires in using them. The bodhisattva, having seen this, gives rise to a compassionate mind, engenders the aspiration to benefit and bring peace and happiness toward those sentient beings, and according to the best of his ability, coerces and snatches [the property] away, so that they may not enjoy such wealth and thereby suffer long-enduring meaninglessness and disadvantage. Through this causal condition, the confiscated wealth and treasures, if belonging to the saṃgha, are returned to the saṃgha; if belonging to a stūpa, are returned to the stūpa; if belonging to sentient beings, are returned to sentient beings. Furthermore, seeing a community leader or orchard keeper taking property of the saṃgha or stūpa, claiming it is his own, and indulging his desires in using it, the bodhisattva, having seen this, reflects upon his evil and gives rise to a compassionate mind, wishing that through this karma of improper consumption he may not suffer long-enduring meaninglessness and disadvantage, and according to the best of his ability, deprives him of his stewardship. When a bodhisattva takes what is not given in this manner, he does not commit a violation, and generates much merit." As for the text itself, as before, it is threefold. In presenting the offense-objects, first four prohibited matters are distinguished; the fourth, "theft by sorcery," forms four permutations of committing an offense and is listed afterwards. "Theft by expedient means" is, as the Vinaya says, when a monk receiving an offering tells the donor, "One who receives your offering is an arhat," and so forth. If he obtains the offering, his guilt combines two matters: lying and theft. "Theft by sorcery" refers to chanting incantations to cause objects to come by themselves. The absence of praising or rejoicing [in the list of completions] is because one's own karma is not completed through another's praise or rejoicing. "Goods possessed by ghosts and spirits" refers to goods in shrines: either the ghosts and spirits are themselves the owners, or others are the custodial owners. "Goods of robbers and thieves" refers to goods of robbers and thieves seized by the authorities. Or again, "goods of robbers and thieves" means that even though it was originally my own property, if it was snatched and taken, it became the property of the robber. Goods have no fixed ownership; ownership is determined by whoever takes them.