法苑珠林 74.19

74.19

如善見論云。為他別人乃至三寶守護財物。若謹慎掌護。堅鎖藏戶。而賊從孔中屋中竊取。或逼迫取。非守物人能禁限者。但望本主結罪。皆不合徵。若主掌懈慢不勤守護。為賊所偷者。掌物人償之。以望守護主結罪。故十誦律云。遠處受他寄物。在道損破者。好心捉破者。不應償。惡心捉破者。須償。若借他物。不問好心惡心。若破一切須償。又十誦律云。賊偷物來。或好心施。或因他逐恐悑故施得取。以成物主故。但莫從賊乞。自與者得取。取已染壞色著。有主識認者應還。又摩德勒伽論云。若狂人自持物施。不知父母親眷者得取。若父母可知。不自手與者不得取。又十誦律云。若取他虎殘肉者犯小罪。由不斷望故。若取師子殘者不犯。由斷望故。又薩婆多論云。盜一切鳥獸殘者得小罪（今時儉世多有俗人毀壞他鼠窟取其貯粟胡桃雜果子等准此犯罪）四分律云。若與想取己有想取。糞掃想取。暫想取。親友意想取等。皆不犯。其親友者。依律要具七法。始名親友。一難作能作。二難與能與。三難忍能忍。四密事相告。五互相覆藏。六遭苦不捨。七貧賤不輕。如是七法。人能行者。是親善友。取而不犯也。

As the Samantapāsādikā says: When guarding wealth for another person, or even for the Three Jewels, if one cautiously protects it, securely locking the door of the storehouse, yet a thief steals it through a hole or through the roof, or takes it by force, and it was not something the guardian could prevent or restrain, the offense is reckoned solely against the original owner, and it should not be demanded [from the guardian] at all. If the manager was negligent and failed to guard it diligently, so that it was stolen by a thief, the manager must compensate for it, and the offense is reckoned against the guardian. Therefore the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: 'If one receives another's entrusted property from a distant place, and it is damaged on the road, if it was damaged while handling it with good intention, one should not compensate; if it was damaged with bad intention, one must compensate. If one borrows another's property, regardless of good or bad intention, if it is broken, one must compensate in all cases.'
Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: 'If a thief brings stolen goods, whether donating them with good intention, or donating them out of fear because others are pursuing him, one may take them, because he has become the owner of the goods. One simply must not beg them from the thief; if he gives them of his own accord, one may take them. Having taken them, if one dyes them an improper color and wears them, and the owner recognizes them, one should return them.'
Furthermore, the Mātṛkā-śāstra says: 'If a madman brings property of his own accord and donates it, and his parents or relatives are unknown, one may take it. If his parents are known, and it was not given by their own hands, one must not take it.'
Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: 'If one takes the leftover meat of a tiger from another, one commits a minor offense, because [the tiger] has not abandoned its expectation [of the prey]. If one takes the leftovers of a lion, one commits no offense, because [the lion] has abandoned its expectation.'
Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda-vibhāṣā says: 'Stealing the leftovers of any bird or beast incurs a minor offense.' (In today's times of famine, many laypeople destroy the burrows of mice to take their stored grain, walnuts, and miscellaneous fruits; according to this, it constitutes an offense.)
The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya says: 'If one takes with the thought that it was given, takes with the thought that it belongs to oneself, takes with the thought that it is refuse-rags, takes with the thought of temporary use, or takes with the thought of a close friend, none of these constitute an offense.' As for a close friend, according to the Vinaya, one must possess seven dharmas before being called a close friend: first, capable of doing what is difficult to do; second, capable of giving what is difficult to give; third, capable of enduring what is difficult to endure; fourth, confiding secret matters to each other; fifth, concealing each other's faults; sixth, not abandoning each other when encountering suffering; seventh, not slighting each other in poverty and lowliness. If a person can practice these seven dharmas, he is a close, good friend, and taking [from him] does not constitute an offense.