梵網經古迹記 2.47

2.47

述曰：此中第一制意者，施攝六度廣濟群生，盜正壞檀二利俱喪。世間醜謂盜也，如應障道廣招苦故，寧應捨身以避斯咎，何以少財自辱二世？故損依報，次正報制。第二釋文，於中亦四：初門者，如經「自盜」至「方便盜」故，讚歎隨喜略而不論，理應有故。其第二門如前應知。此世間門。若出世戒，《文殊問經》云：若於他物心起盜想，犯波羅夷。境界事門者，如經「乃至鬼神」至「不得盜」。此中攝重，故言「乃至」。然有主物略有五種：一、三寶物，二、屬人物，三、畜生物，四、鬼神物，五、劫賊物。其有主言，攝前後也。《僧祇律》云：知事人互用三寶物，佛言波羅夷。《寶梁經》云：佛法二物不得互用，於佛法物無有主故，復無可白。不同僧物常住招提互有所用，營事比丘和僧得用。若用僧物修治佛塔，僧若不和，勸俗修理。若依此文，前《僧祇律》，約僧不和，皆言犯重。互用尚爾，況盜心取？若爾，何故《涅槃經》云：盜佛物者，若知不知，犯偷蘭遮。以佛於物無我所故，無惱害故。漢地傳說，約無守護，《經》說偷蘭。若有守護，互用尚重，況盜何輕？故《善生經》，望護人結重。然《涅槃經》，說小乘戒。菩薩不爾，但有主物，皆犯重故。凡三寶物，難可掌之，制聽持犯，難可委故。如《大集》言：佛聽二人：一、阿羅漢，二、須陀洹。又有二人：一、持戒識知，二、畏罪慚愧。然菩薩戒，亦用佛物。如《瑜伽》說：菩薩先於所畜資具，為作淨故，以淨意樂，捨與十方諸佛菩薩。見來求者，不稱道理，言此他物，耎言發遣。若當正理，應作是念：諸佛菩薩無有小物於諸眾生而不施者。如是知已，取淨施物，施來求者，令所願滿。由此等教。和上云：軌則雖如小乘律說，然如殺生，有利應行。諸佛出現，皆為興法。興法之意，皆為眾生。興法利生，何所不用？除有染心，及無勝利。但小乘戒，不得互用。雖佛即法，違施意故。然《四分》云：供養佛塔食，治塔人得食。《五分》云：若白衣入寺，僧不與食，便起嫌心。佛言：應與。又《僧祇》云：若損者、益者，應與。《十誦》：供給王、大臣、賊。小乘狹小，猶見損益，何況大乘？不可一定。問：《十誦》云：偷佛舍利，淨心供養，自作念言：於彼亦師，於我亦師。如是意者，不犯。若盜賣者，犯罪。何故盜法？律中結重，法亦師故。答：佛得遙申敬法，對方生解。然菩薩戒，知彼不用淨心盜學，理應無犯。知障彼善，盜佛亦重。問：《瑜伽》、《俱舍》云：劫奪僧物，破僧同類。何故《大集》盜僧物者，罪過五逆？《方等經》云：四重五逆，我亦能救。盜僧物者，我所不救。答：所望各別，破僧暫時。且現前僧盜和合財，普障三世常住僧道，非親障聖，故名同類。言劫賊物者，物已屬彼，律不許奪。如律云：賊奪賊物。《五分》云：有比丘為賊所剝，爭得衣物，然疑問佛。佛言：不犯。菩薩不然。如《瑜伽》云：菩薩見有增上宰官上品暴惡，於諸有情無慈逼惱，起憐愍心，廢增上位。見劫盜賊，奪他財物，若僧伽物，率堵波物，執為己有，利樂意樂，隨力逼奪，勿令受用，受長夜苦。所奪財寶，各還其本，乃至廣說。菩薩如是雖不與取，而無違犯，生多功德。如《五分》云：爭衣比丘，若菩薩戒，由慳財罪，若護彼罪，生多功德。如是所說但有主物，於無義利盜心取乃至一草，犯波羅夷。若於己物或無主物，或於有主迷謂無主，或雖有主不作盜心不成盜故。若於己物謂他而盜，或無主物謂有主物，傳說約心結重方便，彼物實非犯重境故。若於有主迷謂無主後知不還，或於人物謂非人物，或求餘物餘人物替，傳說皆重，是犯境故。云何名為無主物耶？如他棄等。《善見論》云：子作惡事父母趁出，後父母死其物無主。《婆娑》等云：二國中間伏藏等也。若爾，百姓取山林等應盜王物，不爾國王擬養彼故。聲聞法中五錢方重，今欲簡異言一針草。言「菩薩」下，第四門也。「孝順慈悲」名為「佛性」，菩薩由此異二乘故。「生福」者利益故，「生樂」者安樂故，而盜人物生彼煩惱故違利益，奪命緣故亦違安樂。如《智論》十三頌曰：「一切諸眾生，衣食以自活，若劫若奪取，則為劫奪命。」

The commentary states: In this, the first [heading], the intention behind enacting the precept: giving subsumes the six perfections and broadly delivers all sentient beings; stealing directly destroys giving, so that both benefits are lost together. The world considers stealing vile, and because it properly obstructs the path and broadly incurs suffering, one should rather forfeit one's body to avoid this fault—why disgrace oneself throughout both lifetimes for the sake of petty wealth? Hence, [the precept against] harming circumstantial retribution is enacted next after [that against harming] direct retribution. In the second [heading], explaining the text, within it there are also four [sections]. As for the first gate, it is as the sūtra states from "steals by himself" up to "the expedient means of stealing"; praising and rejoicing in it are omitted and not discussed, because in principle they must be present. Its second gate should be known as explained before. This is the mundane gate. In the case of the supramundane precepts, the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra states: "If one conceives a thought of stealing directed toward another's property, one commits a pārājika." As for the gate of the objective domain and matter, it is as the sūtra states from "down to ghosts and spirits" up to "must not steal." Here, it subsumes the major offenses, hence it says "down to." However, owned property is briefly of five kinds: first, property of the Three Jewels; second, property belonging to humans; third, property of animals; fourth, property of ghosts and spirits; fifth, property of robbers. The phrase "owned" subsumes both what precedes and what follows. The Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: "If managers mutually misappropriate the property of the Three Jewels, the Buddha said it is a pārājika." The Ratnarāśi-sūtra states: "Property of the Buddha and the Dharma must not be mutually misappropriated, because there is no owner of the property of the Buddha and the Dharma, and furthermore there is no one to inform. It is not like property of the saṃgha, whether permanent or of the four quarters, which may be mutually used: if the managing bhikṣu harmonizes the saṃgha, they may use it. If one uses property of the saṃgha to repair a stūpa of the Buddha, if the saṃgha is not in harmony, one should urge the laity to repair it." According to this passage, the preceding Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya is based on the saṃgha not being in harmony, which is in every case said to be a major offense. If mutual misappropriation is already so, how much more so taking with a mind of theft? If so, why does the Nirvāṇa-sūtra state: "One who steals the Buddha's property, whether knowing or not knowing, commits a sthūlātyaya. Because the Buddha has no sense of 'mine' toward property, there is no torment or harm"? The tradition in the land of Han says that it is based on there being no guardian that the sūtra speaks of a sthūlātyaya. If there is a guardian, even mutual misappropriation is already a major offense—how much less could stealing be minor? Therefore, the Upāsakaśīla-sūtra determines it to be a major offense with respect to the guardian. However, the Nirvāṇa-sūtra speaks of the Śrāvaka precepts; for a bodhisattva it is not so, because as long as it is owned property, it is always a major offense. In general, property of the Three Jewels is difficult to manage, because the rules, permissions, upholdings, and transgressions are difficult to fathom. As the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra states: "The Buddha permits two kinds of persons: first, arhats; second, srotāpannas. Further, there are two kinds of persons: first, those who uphold the precepts and have discernment; second, those who fear transgressions and possess shame and modesty." However, in the bodhisattva precepts, one may also use the Buddha's property. As the Yogācārabhūmi states: "A bodhisattva, in order to purify the requisites they keep, with a pure intention first relinquishes them to the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions. Seeing a seeker approach whose request does not accord with the principle, the bodhisattva says, 'This belongs to another,' and dismisses them with gentle words. If it accords with the correct principle, the bodhisattva should reflect: 'There is no small item that the Buddhas and bodhisattvas would not give to sentient beings.' Having known this, the bodhisattva takes the purified gift and gives it to the seeker, causing their wish to be fulfilled." Based on teachings such as these, the preceptor said: "Although the rules are as stated in the Śrāvaka-vinaya, nevertheless, just like taking life, where there is benefit one should act. All Buddhas appear solely to promote the Dharma. The intention to promote the Dharma is entirely for the sake of sentient beings. To promote the Dharma and benefit sentient beings, what would one not use? Excepting where there is an afflicted mind or no superior benefit." But in the Śrāvaka precepts, one may not mutually misappropriate it. Although the Buddha is identical with the Dharma, it would contravene the intention of the donor. However, the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya states: "Food offered to the Buddha's stūpa may be eaten by the person who tends the stūpa." The Mahīśāsaka-vinaya states: "If white-robed laity enter the monastery and the saṃgha does not give them food, they would generate resentment. The Buddha said: 'One should give it.'" Also the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya states: "If it causes loss or gives benefit, one should give it." The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya states: "Supply it to kings, ministers, and bandits." Even the narrow and minor Śrāvaka-yāna still sees loss and benefit—how much more so the Mahāyāna? It cannot be fixed invariantly. Question: The Sarvāstivāda-vinaya states: "If one steals a Buddha relic with a pure mind to make offerings, reflecting to oneself, 'To them it is the Teacher, and to me it is also the Teacher,' with such an intention, there is no violation. If one steals it to sell, one commits an offense." Why is stealing the Dharma judged as a major offense in the Vinaya, since the Dharma is also the Teacher? Answer: In the case of the Buddha, one can express reverence from afar, whereas in the case of the Dharma, understanding arises when facing it. However, in the bodhisattva precepts, if one knows that they do not use it and with a pure mind steals it to study, in principle there should be no violation. If one knows that it obstructs their wholesome qualities, stealing the Buddha['s relic] is also a major offense. Question: The Yogācārabhūmi and the Abhidharmakośa state: "Robbing property of the saṃgha is analogous to causing a schism in the saṃgha." Why does the Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra state that the sin of stealing the saṃgha's property exceeds the five deeds of immediate retribution? And the Vaipulya-sūtra states: "Even for the four major offenses and the five deeds of immediate retribution, I can save [them]. But one who steals the saṃgha's property is someone I cannot save"? Answer: What they have in view is distinct in each case. Causing a schism in the saṃgha is temporary; furthermore, stealing the communal property of the currently present saṃgha universally obstructs the path of the permanent saṃgha of the three times; it does not directly obstruct the noble ones, so it is called 'analogous'. As for the phrase "property of robbers": the property already belongs to them, so the Vinaya does not permit seizing it. As the Vinaya says: "A thief seizing a thief's property." The Mahīśāsaka-vinaya states: "There was a bhikṣu stripped by robbers who fought to retrieve his robes and items, but having doubts, he asked the Buddha. The Buddha said: 'There is no violation.'" For a bodhisattva it is not so. As the Yogācārabhūmi states: "A bodhisattva, seeing that an exalted sovereign or minister possesses extreme and gross cruelty, and torments sentient beings without compassion, generates a mind of pity and deposes them from their exalted rank. Seeing robbers and thieves snatch others' wealth, or saṃgha property, or stūpa property, and hold it as their own, with the intention to benefit and delight, uses power to wrest it away, so as not to allow them to enjoy it and suffer prolonged misery; and returns the wrested wealth and treasures each to their original owner," down to detailed explanations. "A bodhisattva, though thus taking what is not given, commits no violation and generates much merit." As the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya states: in the case of the bhikṣu fighting for his robes, if judged by the bodhisattva precepts, because of the offense of stinginess with wealth, if one guards against that offense, much merit is generated. Thus, as stated, as long as it is owned property, if one takes it with a mind of theft without beneficial purpose, down to a single blade of grass, one commits a pārājika. If it is one's own property or ownerless property, or if it is owned but one erroneously considers it ownerless, or although it is owned one does not generate a mind of theft, theft is not constituted. If toward one's own property one considers it another's and steals it, or toward ownerless property one considers it owned property, the tradition says that based on the mind, an expedient means toward a major offense is determined, because that item is not actually an objective domain for committing a major offense. If toward owned property one erroneously considers it ownerless and later, upon knowing, does not return it, or toward human property one considers it non-human property, or seeking another item, another person's item is substituted instead, the tradition says these are all major offenses, because they are objective domains of transgression. What is called ownerless property? Such as that which has been abandoned by others, and so forth. The Samantapāsādikā states: "A son commits evil deeds and his parents drive him out; later, when the parents die, their property is ownerless." The Mahāvibhāṣā and other works state: "Hidden treasures between two kingdoms, and so forth." If so, when commoners take from mountains and forests, should that be stealing the king's property? It is not so, because the king intends it to sustain them. In the Śrāvaka teachings, it is a major offense only at five coins; now, wishing to distinguish it, it says "a single needle or blade of grass." From the word "bodhisattva" downward is the fourth gate. "Filial compliance, compassion, and kindness" are called "Buddha-nature," because a bodhisattva is distinguished from the two vehicles by means of these. "Producing blessings" means bringing benefit; "producing happiness" means bringing peace and happiness. Yet stealing people's property produces their afflictions, which contravenes benefit; and because it deprives them of the requisites of life, it also contravenes peace and happiness. As the verse in fascicle thirteen of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: / "All sentient beings / Rely on clothing and food to sustain their lives; / If one robs or snatches them away, / One is robbing and snatching away their life."