Chinese
无异罪名。是故得揽因成果不犯。以下第五开通不犯。淫戒有此五段文。自余下一切戒皆有此五段文。 盗戒第二 律二。劫夺盗祸不与取。此三名者劫以强夺为名。盗窃畏觉之称。不与取者论主不舍结成上罪也。僧祇云。瞋心坏他物得突吉罗。四分得重罪者欲明。僧祇但论始心故得轻罪。此律论其终处故得重罪。皆是二部互明有异若具解释。二部尽应有两罪。僧祇云。盗三宝物皆得重罪。余律戒犯偷兰。戒犯重罪。所以不同者。意谓。僧祇犯重者。佛法物时于守护人遍得重罪。余律盗佛法物犯偷兰遮者。直论佛法于物无戒所心盗之但得偷兰。不论守护人边得罪。若欲广解二部。尽应有两罪。盗僧物有二重。一四方僧物 不可分盗满五钱。诸律尽同皆应犯两重罪。于假名僧边犯一重。于寺守护人边复得一重罪。若盗现前僧物亦犯两罪。但于守护人边满五钱得一重罪。既云现前所分物。计一人难满复得一偷兰。盗戒亦有五段文。第一从初讫正法久住已来。明起过因缘。第二从欲说戒者以下讫不共住已来。明正制戒本。第三从比丘义如上以下讫无主物减五钱已来。明广解。第四从比丘尼以下讫足谓为犯已来。正明通结五众。第五从不犯者以下讫未明。开通不犯。就因缘中有三子段。第一从初讫破戒屋持归已来。明作 现代汉语译本：没有不同的罪名。因此，获得揽因成果不会犯戒。以下是第五个开通不犯的情况。淫戒有这五个段落的文字。从其余的戒律开始，一切戒律都有这五个段落的文字。 盗戒第二，《律》二：劫夺、盗祸、不与取。这三个名称中，‘劫’以强行抢夺为名，‘盗’是害怕被发觉的称呼，‘不与取’是指物主不舍弃而结成上等罪过。僧祇律中说：‘嗔心毁坏他人财物，得突吉罗（Dukkata，恶作罪）。’四分律中说得重罪，是为了说明僧祇律只论初始的心念，所以得轻罪。此律论其最终结果，所以得重罪。这都是两部律互相说明，有所不同。如果详细解释，两部律都应该有两种罪。僧祇律中说：‘盗三宝（Triratna，佛法僧）之物，都得重罪。’其余律中，戒犯偷兰（Sthulanandana，粗罪），戒犯重罪。之所以不同，意思是说，僧祇律犯重罪，是因为佛法之物，对于守护人普遍得重罪。其余律中，盗佛法之物犯偷兰遮（Sthulanandana，粗罪）的，直接论佛法之物，没有戒所对的心而盗取，只得偷兰，不论守护人方面得罪。如果想要广泛解释两部律，都应该有两种罪。盗僧物有两种重罪：一是四方僧物，不可分割盗取满五钱，各律都相同，都应该犯两种重罪。对于假名僧方面犯一种重罪，对于寺庙守护人方面又得一种重罪。如果盗取现前僧物，也犯两种罪，但对于守护人方面满五钱得一种重罪。既然说是现前所分之物，估计一人难以满足，又得一种偷兰。盗戒也有五个段落的文字。第一，从最初到正法久住以来，说明产生过失的因缘。第二，从‘欲说戒者’以下到‘不共住’以来，说明正式制定戒本。第三，从‘比丘义如上’以下到‘无主物减五钱’以来，说明广泛解释。第四，从‘比丘尼’以下到‘足谓为犯’以来，正式说明通结五众。第五，从‘不犯者’以下到未明，开通不犯。在因缘中，有三个子段。第一，从最初到‘破戒屋持归’以来，说明作
English
English version: There is no different charge. Therefore, obtaining the result of embracing the cause does not constitute an offense. The following is the fifth case of opening up non-offense. The precept against sexual misconduct has these five sections of text. Starting from the remaining precepts, all precepts have these five sections of text. The second precept against stealing, Vinaya 2: Robbery, theft, disaster, taking without being given. Among these three names, 'robbery' is named for forceful seizure, 'theft' is a term for fearing being discovered, and 'taking without being given' refers to the object not being relinquished by the owner, resulting in a major offense. The Sanghika Vinaya states: 'Destroying another's property with anger results in a Dukkata (misdeed) offense.' The Sarvastivada Vinaya states that it results in a major offense, to clarify that the Sanghika Vinaya only discusses the initial intention, hence the minor offense. This Vinaya discusses the final result, hence the major offense. These are both Vinayas explaining each other, with differences. If explained in detail, both Vinayas should have both offenses. The Sanghika Vinaya states: 'Stealing items belonging to the Triratna (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) all result in major offenses.' In other Vinayas, violating the precept results in a Sthulanandana (gross offense), violating the precept results in a major offense. The reason for the difference is that the Sanghika Vinaya considers it a major offense because, for items belonging to the Buddha's teachings, a major offense is universally incurred towards the guardians. In other Vinayas, stealing items belonging to the Buddha's teachings results in a Sthulanandana (gross offense) because it directly discusses the items belonging to the Buddha's teachings, without the intention of the precept towards the object being stolen, only resulting in a Sthulanandana, without considering the offense incurred towards the guardians. If one wants to broadly explain both Vinayas, both should have both offenses. Stealing Sangha property has two major offenses: one is property belonging to the Sangha of the four directions, which cannot be divided and stolen if it amounts to five coins. All Vinayas are the same, and all should incur both major offenses. Towards the nominally designated Sangha, one incurs one major offense, and towards the temple guardians, one incurs another major offense. If one steals property belonging to the present Sangha, one also incurs two offenses, but towards the guardians, if it amounts to five coins, one incurs one major offense. Since it is said to be property divided among the present Sangha, it is estimated that it is difficult for one person to satisfy, and one incurs another Sthulanandana. The precept against stealing also has five sections of text. First, from the beginning to the long-lasting of the Proper Dharma, it explains the causes and conditions for generating faults. Second, from 'those who wish to recite the precepts' down to 'not living together,' it explains the formal establishment of the precept. Third, from 'the meaning of Bhikkhu is as above' down to 'unowned property less than five coins,' it explains the broad interpretation. Fourth, from 'Bhikkhuni' down to 'sufficient to be considered an offense,' it formally explains the universal conclusion of the five assemblies. Fifth, from 'those who do not offend' down to not being clear, it opens up non-offense. Within the causes and conditions, there are three sub-sections. First, from the beginning to 'taking the broken-precept house home,' it explains the making of --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
草屋因缘。第二从我今自有伎契以下讫正是其宜已来。明作瓦屋因缘。第三从尔时摩竭国以下讫正法久住已来。明盗王财因缘。就第三广解中有二段。第一从初讫不共住者如上说已来。明略解戒本。第二从有三种不与取以下讫无主物取减五钱已来。广明不与取。就第二广明不与取中有三子段。第一从初讫是为六种取得波罗夷已来。略明不与取。第二从处者以下讫看者我当看道已来。广逐事明不与取。第三从方便求过五钱以下讫末。明不与取克心。就一略明不与取中有三子句。第一三句明盗业。第二非己物想三句明盗心。第三有三种取。他物他物想已下讫末。明所盗物。他物他物想者。持他寄信物人。即自盗取物属所寄与人。故曰他物。未想他护。他护想者。明贼人劫他得物将度开逻为功人所逼贼即舍心弃之。本主复作失心。此物官人不作己物。故称为他。而守赏此物故曰他护。比丘若盗此物。但于守护人边得罪。本主贼人皆作舍心故。尔有主有主想者。此泛举一切财物主之。以物二俱现前。假令物不现前。主无舍心亦名现前。若盗此物于主边得罪。若三宝物即以三宝为主。故得尽为有主。上来列所取物。未成盗罪。但就因说果也。第三五句以下。正明成盗。增六中但更举初二五句。增一盗心足成其六得成盗罪。后三五 现代汉语译本 草屋因缘。第二部分，从‘我今自有伎契’以下到‘正是其宜’为止，阐明建造瓦屋的因缘。第三部分，从‘尔时摩竭国’以下到‘正法久住’为止，阐明盗取国王财物的因缘。在第三部分的详细解释中，包含两个小段。第一段，从开头到‘不共住者如上说已’为止，简要解释戒本。第二段，从‘有三种不与取’以下到‘无主物取减五钱’为止，详细阐明不与取（偷盗）。在第二部分详细阐明不与取中，包含三个小段。第一小段，从开头到‘是为六种取得波罗夷’为止，简要阐明不与取。第二小段，从‘处者’以下到‘看者我当看道’为止，详细逐一说明不与取的各种情况。第三小段，从‘方便求过五钱’以下到结尾，阐明不与取的克心（决定偷盗的意念）。 在第一小段简要阐明不与取中，包含三个小句。第一句到第三句，阐明盗业。第二句‘非己物想’到第三句，阐明盗心。第三句‘有三种取。他物他物想’以下到结尾，阐明所盗之物。‘他物他物想’是指，持有他人寄托的信物之人，私自盗取该物，此物属于寄托之人，所以说是‘他物’。‘未想他护。他护想’是指，盗贼抢劫他人财物，准备通过关卡，被官兵追赶，盗贼于是舍弃财物。原本的失主又产生了失物之心。此物官府之人不据为己有，所以称为‘他’，而看守赏赐此物，所以说是‘他护’。比丘如果盗取此物，只对守护之人构成犯罪。因为原本的失主和盗贼都已舍弃此物。‘尔有主有主想’是指，泛指一切财物都有主人。以物和主人二者都同时存在为前提。假设物不出现，但主人没有舍弃此物的心，也称为现前。如果盗取此物，对物主构成犯罪。如果是三宝之物，就以三宝为主，因此全部都算作有主。以上列举了所盗之物，但尚未构成盗罪，只是就因来说果。第三句到第五句以下，正式阐明构成盗罪。在增六中，只是再次举出最初的二句和第五句。增一盗心就足以构成六种情况，从而构成盗罪。后三句到第五句
English
English version The Karma of the Thatched Hut. The second part, from 'From my own skills now' to 'This is truly appropriate,' clarifies the karma of building a tiled house. The third part, from 'At that time, the kingdom of Magadha' to 'The Proper Dharma will long endure,' clarifies the karma of stealing the king's property. In the detailed explanation of the third part, there are two sub-sections. The first section, from the beginning to 'Those who do not live together as described above,' briefly explains the Vinaya-mula (root precepts). The second section, from 'There are three types of taking what is not given' to 'Taking ownerless objects worth less than five coins,' elaborates on 'not taking what is not given' (stealing). In the detailed explanation of 'not taking what is not given,' there are three sub-sections. The first sub-section, from the beginning to 'These are the six ways of obtaining Parajika,' briefly explains 'not taking what is not given.' The second sub-section, from 'The place' to 'The watcher, I shall watch the path,' elaborates on the various situations of 'not taking what is not given' case by case. The third sub-section, from 'Skillfully seeking more than five coins' to the end, clarifies the intention to steal (the determination to steal). In the first sub-section, which briefly explains 'not taking what is not given,' there are three sub-clauses. The first to third clauses clarify the karma of stealing. The second clause, 'The thought that it is not one's own,' to the third clause, clarifies the intention to steal. The third clause, 'There are three types of taking. Another's object, the thought of another's object,' to the end, clarifies the object being stolen. 'Another's object, the thought of another's object' refers to a person holding an item entrusted to them by another, secretly stealing the item. This item belongs to the person who entrusted it, so it is called 'another's object.' 'Not thinking of another's protection, the thought of another's protection' refers to a thief robbing another person's property, preparing to pass through a checkpoint, being pursued by officials, and the thief then abandoning the property. The original owner then has the thought of losing the item again. The officials do not claim this item as their own, so it is called 'another's,' and guarding and rewarding this item is called 'another's protection.' If a Bhikkhu steals this item, they only commit an offense against the guardian. Because the original owner and the thief have both abandoned this item. 'Having an owner, the thought of having an owner' refers to all property having an owner in general. It is based on the premise that the item and the owner both exist simultaneously. If the item does not appear, but the owner does not have the intention of abandoning the item, it is also called present. If this item is stolen, an offense is committed against the owner. If it is an item belonging to the Three Jewels (Triratna), then the Three Jewels are the owner, so all of it is considered to have an owner. The above lists the items being stolen, but does not yet constitute the crime of stealing, it is only speaking of the result based on the cause. From the third to the fifth clauses below, it formally clarifies the constitution of the crime of stealing. In the augmented six, it only repeats the first two and the fifth clauses. Adding the intention to steal is sufficient to constitute the six situations, thereby constituting the crime of stealing. The last three to the fifth clauses. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------