俱舍論記 16.119

16.119

「若有盜取至望守護者」者，此下明盜結罪處別。率堵波，是高勝義，舊云藪斗波，訛也。或云塔，更是邊國胡語，彌更訛也。若言制多，是積聚義，與率都波相似。此中兩說，前說為正。《正理》亦有兩說，還前師為正，破後師云：則彼自盜應無有罪。是故前說於理為勝。又《婆沙》一百一十三評取此論前師為正，故彼論云「有說亦於國王處得，有說於施主處得，有說於守護人處得，有說於能護彼天、龍、藥叉、非人處得。如是說者，於佛處得。」

"If someone steals […] in relation to the guardian": from here down, it explains the differences in the entities in relation to which the sin of stealing is incurred. Stūpa means "high and eminent"; formerly written *sou-dou-po*, which is an error. Or called *ta*, which is further a foreign word from the borderlands, even more corrupt. If one says caitya, it means "accumulation", which is similar to stūpa. Here there are two explanations, and the former is correct. The Nyāyānusāra also has two explanations, and likewise takes the former master as correct, refuting the latter master by saying: then if they steal it themselves they would commit no sin. Therefore the former explanation is logically superior. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 113, evaluates and adopts the former master of this treatise as correct; hence that treatise says: "Some say it is incurred in relation to the king; some say it is incurred in relation to the donor; some say it is incurred in relation to the guardian; some say it is incurred in relation to the devas, nāgas, yakṣas, and non-humans who can protect it. The definitive position is: it is incurred in relation to the Buddha."