Chinese
应如是配合。此处哪些财物的物主是将被剥夺的，那些将被剥夺的如果是多数，那么被剥夺的每一个的份额是什么，那些部分就是各自被盗的，本体和结合的自性是不同的。因此，盗取了一个的份额多少，就会产生多少堕落。盗贼们也是如此，如果是多数，那么各自盗取的份额是不同的，应如是配合。哪些盗取他人财物的人，那些被称为盗贼，那些如果是多数，那么那些盗贼各自的分配份额是什么，每一份被盗都是不同的。如此宣示：多少盗贼，那些各自的份额多少，每一个的价值，对每一个都会各自产生堕落。同样，第二个盗贼的份额是什么，以那个价值多少来确定那个的堕落等等。如果将被剥夺的也是多数，盗贼们也是多数，那么堕落是什么样的呢？如果将被剥夺的一个的份额是多少，被多数盗贼分割，一个盗贼获得的份额是什么，以那个价值来确定一个盗贼的堕落，同样，将被剥夺的第二个的份额是多少，被多数盗贼分割，第二个盗贼获得的份额是什么，以那个价值，来确定第二个盗贼的堕落等等。这两部经的论述是，尊者世尊说，比丘盗取五摩沙迦等等就会堕落，很多比丘盗取就不会堕落吗？有的，对很多人会产生粗重的罪过。同样，和很多人一起盗取也会有粗重的罪过，是这样说的。此处，很多人这个数量，应知是不足以使一个的物品完整的那些。对此，如果是多数智慧，获得就是盗取，是说，如果是多数盗贼，对此盗……
English
It should be applied accordingly. Here, those whose property is to be stolen, the owners of those properties are to be deprived. If those to be deprived are many, then whatever the share of each of the deprived is, those parts are individually stolen, the nature of the entity and the combination are different. Therefore, however much of one's share is stolen, that many downfalls will occur. The thieves are also like that, if they are many, then the shares stolen by each are different, it should be applied accordingly. Those who steal the property of others are called thieves, if those are many, then the share of each of those thieves is determined to be different for each part that is stolen. It is declared thus: however many thieves there are, the value of each of their respective shares will cause each of them to fall separately. Similarly, whatever the share of the second thief is, the downfall of that is determined by how much that value is, and so on. If there are many to be deprived and the thieves are also many, then what kind of downfall is it? If the share of one to be deprived is divided by many thieves, then whatever share one thief gets, the downfall of one thief is determined by that value, and similarly, whatever the share of the second to be deprived is divided by many thieves, then by the value of whatever share the second thief gets, the downfall of the second thief is determined, and so on. The discourse of these two sutras is that the venerable Bhagavan said that if a monk steals five mashakas etc., he will fall, but if many monks steal, will they not fall? Yes, a heavy offense will occur to many people. Similarly, stealing together with many people will also be a heavy offense, that's what was said. Here, the measure of 'many people' should be understood as being so many that it is not enough to make one's item complete. On this, if there are many wisdoms, obtaining is stealing, it is said, if there are many thieves, then stealing on this...
Chinese
如果盗贼们的想法不一致，有多种想法，那么分到份额算是偷盗，如果从原地拿走，那就不算偷盗。如此教导说：如果多个盗贼没有达成一致意见，而是像乌鸦和棕榈树那样，以各种各样的想法聚集在一个物品上，那么从那里拿走不算偷盗，但如果分到份额就算偷盗，因为彼此不一致而各自存在。这里的案例是，比丘们在黑暗中放置法衣，四个比丘偷盗会犯什么罪？回答说：犯重罪。有时也会犯根本罪，什么时候分成四份，而且每一份的装备物品都齐全，就会犯根本罪。如果不齐全，就犯重罪，这样说的。不予取的最终情况已经说完了。因此，通过物品、所有者、后续行为和最终情况这些，就应该了解不予取情况的仪轨。题为“陈述不予取导致失败的情况”是说，已经讲述了从陈述不予取导致失败的情况中产生的内容。陈述的情况已经说明，现在要讲述调伏者的案例，即在获得之前就死亡，就放在那里，这是说，在分配份额、抓住损害、提前安置的时候，如果那个比丘死亡，那么从哪里获得他的份额，就放在那里，要知道这不是死亡的遗物。相反，如果是死亡的遗物，这是说，如果死者之前已经拿走了东西，那么要知道那是死亡的遗物。僧团就像兄弟一样，因此为了僧团而偷盗，不是不占为己有，这是说，例如兄弟之间没有分家，对所有财产都有共同拥有的想法，同样，比丘们对于僧团的财物，不应该分开，因为不分开，所以会产生占为己有的想法。因此，为了僧团而偷盗的人，不是不占为己有，因此，如果一个人为了僧团而偷盗，那么只有一个人
English
If the thieves' ideas are not consistent, and there are multiple ideas, then receiving a share is considered stealing, but if taking from the original place, then it is not considered stealing. It is taught thus: If multiple thieves have not reached a consensus, but gather on one item with various ideas, like crows and palm trees, then taking from there is not considered stealing, but if receiving a share is considered stealing, because they exist separately due to mutual disagreement. Here, the case is that monks place Dharma robes in the darkness, what offense do four monks commit if they steal? The answer is: They commit a grave offense. Sometimes they also commit a root offense, when it is divided into four parts, and each part's equipment is complete, then they commit a root offense. If it is not complete, then they commit a grave offense, so it is said. The final situation of taking what is not given has been said. Therefore, through the object, the owner, the subsequent actions, and the final situation, one should understand the rituals of the situation of taking what is not given. The title "Stating the situation of taking what is not given leading to defeat" means that what arises from stating the situation of taking what is not given leading to defeat has been explained. The situation of stating has been explained, now the case of the tamer is to be spoken of, that is, if one dies before obtaining, it is placed there, this is to say, when allocating shares, seizing harm, and placing in advance, if that monk dies, then from where his share is obtained, it is placed there, one should know that this is not the relics of death. Conversely, if it is the relics of death, this is to say, if the deceased has already taken the item before, then one should know that it is the relics of death. The Sangha is like brothers, therefore stealing for the sake of the Sangha is not not taking possession, this is to say, for example, brothers who have not separated their families have the idea of jointly owning all property, similarly, monks should not separate the Sangha's property separately, because they do not separate, so the idea of taking possession arises. Therefore, the one who steals for the sake of the Sangha is not not taking possession, therefore, if one person steals for the sake of the Sangha, then there is only one person.
Tibetan
་དེ་ཉིད་ཕམ་པར་འགྱུར་ཏེ། དངོས་པོ་ཚང་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དགེ་འདུན་གཞན་ལ་སོ་སོར་ཉེས་པར་འགྱུར་བ་ནི་མེད་དེ། འདིར་ཆ་མ་བགོས་པས་ཐ་སྙད་དུ་མི་བྱའོ། །འདིར་གཞུང་ནི་དགེ་སློང་གཉུག་མར་གནས་པ་དགེ་འདུན་ཞིང་རྨེད་དུ་འཇུག་པ་དེས་ཉེན་ཀོར་ན་ཁྱིམ་བདག་གི་ཞིང་འདུག་པ་ཡང་རྨེད་དུ་བཅུག་པ་དང༌། ཁྱིམ་བདག་འོངས་ཏེ་སྨྲས་པ། བཙུན་པ་ཅིའི་ཕྱིར་བདག་གི་ཞིང་འདི་རྨེད་དུ་བཅུག །སྨྲས་པ། འདི་ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་མ་ཡིན་གྱི། དགེ་འདུན་གྱི་ཞིང་ཡིན་ནོ། །སྨྲས་པ། བཙུན་པ་ཁོ་བོས་མི་མ་ཡིན་པའི་ཆེ་བཞི་བསྟན་པར་བྱའོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནས། བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་ཀྱིས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ། གལ་ཏེ་དངོས་པོ་ཚད་ན་ཕམ་པར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་བར་དུ་གསུངས་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །བདག་པོ་ཐ་དད་པ་མ་ཡིན་པ་ནི་རང་གི་དང་འདྲའོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི། །གནས་གང་དུ་སྦྱིན་བདག་གིས་ཟངས་ལ་སོགས་པའི་རྫས་བྱིན་པར་གྱུར་ལ་གལ་ཏེ་དགེ་སློང་གིས་རྐུ་སེམས་ཀྱིས་རྫས་དེ་དག་གནས་ནས་གནས་གཞན་དུ་སྤོ་བར་བྱེད་ཅིང་གནས་དེ་གཉིས་ན་སྡེ་པ་ཐ་དད་པ་ལ་སོགས་པས་བདག་པོ་ཐ་དད་པ་མེད་ན། དེའི་ཚེ་བཀྲུས་པ་དེ་རང་གི་དང་འདྲ་བར་རིག་པར་བྱ་སྟེ། ཇི་ལྟར་རང་གི་རྫས་རྐུ་སེམས་ཀྱིས་བླངས་ན་སྦོམ་པོར་འགྱུར་བ་བཞིན་དུ། འདིར་ཡང་དེ་བཞིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཐ་ཚིག་གོ །གལ་ཏེ་དགེ་སློང་དེ་གནས་གང་ནས་དགེ་འདུན་གྱི་རྫས་ལེན་པར་བྱེད་པ་དེ་ལ་བདག་པོ་ཉིད་མ་ཡིན་ལ། དགེ་སློང་དེ་གནས་གང་དུ་དགེ་འདུན་གྱི་དོན་དུ་སྤྱིན་པར་བྱེད་པ་དེ་ན་བདག་པོ་ཉིད་ཡིན་ན་ནི། དེའི་ཚེ་དངོས་པོ་ཚང་ན་ཕམ་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །གལ་ཏེ་མ་ཚང་ན་ནི་སྦོམ་པོར་འགྱུར་ཏེ། དེ་ཡང་བདག་པོ་ཐ་དད་པ་ལས་འགྱུར་རོ། །འདིར་གཞུང་ནི་དགེ་སློང་གཉུག་མར་གནས་པས་ཕྱོགས་བཞིའི་དགེ་འདུན་གྱི་དཀོར་རྐུ་ སེམས་ཀྱིས་གནས་ནས་གནས་གཞན་དུ་སྤོས་པ་དང༌། དེ་འགྱོད་པ་སྐྱེས་ནས་བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་ཀྱིས་བཀའ་སྩལ་པ། ཕམ་པར་ནི་མི་འགྱུར་རོ། །ཉེས་པ་སྦོམ་པོར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེས་གསུངས་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཕྱིར་ལོག་གམ་མི་བླང་བར་ངེས་པ་ནི་ལྷག་མ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་བརྐུས་པ་ནི་དེའི་ཡན་ལག་ཉིད་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི། གང་གི་ཚེ་རྐུན་པོ་མང་པོའི་ཚོགས་རྐུ་བའི་ཆེད་དུ་ཞུགས་པ་ན་གལ་ཏེ་དགེ་སློང་དེ་དེའི་ནང་ནས་ཕྱིར་ལོག་སྟེ། ལམ་གཞན་དུ་འགྲོ་འམ་ཡང་ན་དེར་འགྲོར་ཟིན་ཀྱང་གལ་ཏེ་མི་བླང་བར་ངེས་པ་མ་བྱིན་པར་བླང་བར་མི་བྱའོ་ཞེས་ངེས་པར་བྱེད་ན་དེར་རྐུན་པོ་ལྷག་མ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་བརྐུས་པ་ནི་དགེ་སློ
Chinese
那本身就会导致失败，因为物品是完整的。对于其他僧团来说，分别产生罪过是不存在的，因为这里没有分配份额，所以不能称为术语。这里的经典是，一位常住的比丘让僧团的田地耕种，同时也让附近的屋主的田地耕种。屋主来了说：尊者，为什么让我的田地耕种？回答说：这不是你的，是僧团的田地。屋主说：尊者，我将展示非人的四大力量，从这开始，世尊开示说：如果物品达到一定量，就会导致失败，直到这之间所说的话。不是不同的主人，就像自己的东西一样，是指：在任何地方，施主布施了铜等物品，如果比丘以盗心将这些物品从一个地方移到另一个地方，并且这两个地方没有不同的团体等不同的主人，那么，偷盗的东西应该被理解为像自己的东西一样。就像偷盗自己的东西会犯粗罪一样，这里也是如此。这是总结。如果那位比丘从某个地方拿取僧团的物品，而他不是那个地方的主人，并且那位比丘在某个地方为了僧团的利益而使用，而他是那个地方的主人，那么，如果物品完整，就会导致失败。如果物品不完整，就会犯粗罪，那也是因为不同的主人造成的。这里的经典是，一位常住的比丘以盗心将四方僧团的财物从一个地方移到另一个地方，他感到后悔，世尊开示说：不会导致失败，会犯粗罪。返回或者确定不拿取，是指其余的人偷盗不是它的分支，是指：当许多盗贼聚集在一起为了偷盗时，如果那位比丘从他们中返回，走向其他道路，或者即使已经去了那里，如果确定不拿取，确定不未经给予而拿取，那么其余的盗贼偷盗，那位比丘
English
That itself will lead to defeat, because the object is complete. There is no separate offense for other sanghas, because there is no division of shares here, so it cannot be called a term. Here, the scripture is that a resident bhikshu has the sangha's field cultivated, and also has the householder's field nearby cultivated as well. The householder comes and says: Venerable, why did you have my field cultivated? He replies: This is not yours, it is the sangha's field. The householder says: Venerable, I will show the four great powers of non-humans, from this point on, the Blessed One taught: If the object reaches a certain amount, it will lead to defeat, up to the words spoken in between. Not different owners, like one's own, means: In any place where a donor has given substances such as copper, if a bhikshu, with a thieving mind, moves those substances from one place to another, and in those two places there are no different owners due to different groups, etc., then the stolen item should be understood as like one's own. Just as taking one's own property with a thieving mind results in a gross offense, so too here. This is the summary. If that bhikshu takes the sangha's property from a place where he is not the owner, and that bhikshu uses it for the benefit of the sangha in a place where he is the owner, then if the object is complete, it will lead to defeat. If the object is not complete, it will result in a gross offense, and that is also because of different owners. Here, the scripture is that a resident bhikshu, with a thieving mind, moves the property of the four directions' sangha from one place to another, and he feels remorse, and the Blessed One taught: It will not lead to defeat, it will result in a gross offense. Returning or determining not to take, means that the theft by the remaining ones is not a branch of it, meaning: When a group of many thieves gathers together for the purpose of stealing, if that bhikshu returns from among them, going to another path, or even if he has already gone there, if he determines not to take, determining not to take what is not given, then the remaining thieves steal, that bhikshu