善見律毘婆沙

Passing beyond the designated place (sanketam vitināmeti) means that, following the wording and according to its characteristics, one analyzes the rule concerning theft in due sequence.

According to form and designation (Yathā rūpam nāmā’ti) means according to the place. “Designation” means according to the name, whether one part, the value of one part, or more than one part; this is called designation. Why is this so? One kahāpana is divided into four parts. This indicates an impure object (of sufficient value to constitute an offense?). The value of one part indicates a pure object (not yet sufficient to constitute an offense). More than one part means more than one part of a pure object or more than one part of an impure object. This fulfills the factors of the second Pārājika rule.

A lord of the land (pathabbyārājan [pathavya]) is a king ruling all four continents, such as a Wheel-Turning Monarch (Dīpa-cakkavattin); one ruling a single continent, such as King Asoka or the King of Sīhala (Sīhalarājan); one ruling a country, such as King Bimbisāra or King Pasenadi; or, in a frontier region, the ruler of territory lying to one side of the king of a country. At the intermediate level, the lord of one village or two villages is also called a king.

An administrator of justice (Akkhadassa) means one who enforces the king’s laws, putting a person to death, cutting off the nose, or severing the hands or feet according to the gravity of the offense. A chief minister, crown prince, or king of a small frontier country may possess such authority to administer punishment and is therefore called a king.

“To kill” means to put someone to death or to beat someone to death with whips or sticks.

“To banish” means to expel someone to another country.

“A robber” means one who steals much or little of another person’s property. Thus concludes the first statement concerning the offense of theft. The Dharma teacher said: “The subsequent statements, beginning with ‘taking away,’ are readily understood in their proper sequence.” Thus all six statements have been explained. If one takes one part—five māsakas—or an object worth one part or more than one part, this constitutes the offense of theft, a Pārājika.

Question: “If taking one part already constitutes the offense, why is it necessary to mention the value of one part or more than one part?”

Answer: “It is stated extensively in this way to restrain bhikkhus in the future.”

There are objects within the ground and objects upon the ground. An object within the ground is an object hidden in the earth. This is explained in the Vinaya.

The Dharma teacher said: “The wording here is difficult to understand, so I shall explain it clearly. A cache is made by digging into the ground, burying something, and then covering it again with earth, stones, wood, and so forth. This is called something buried beneath the ground. If a bhikkhu says, ‘I wish to steal and carry away objects hidden in the earth,’ every preparatory means he undertakes constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense.”

Question: “What constitutes a preparatory means?”

Answer: “When preparing to go, he dresses himself and gradually sets out upon the road while thinking, ‘This object is very large; I cannot take it by myself, so I shall seek a companion.’ Setting out with such a thought constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense. Upon meeting a companion, he says, ‘At such-and-such a place treasure has been hidden. Let the venerable one come with me to take it.’ If the other agrees and accompanies him, it is a Dukkaṭa offense.

Or he says, ‘At such-and-such a place there is a large jar filled with valuables. I wish the venerable one to come with me to take them. If we obtain them, we shall divide them between us and perform meritorious deeds.

By this means, neither the venerable one nor I shall suffer want.’ All such statements constitute Dukkaṭa offenses. After finding a companion, he then seeks a sharp hoe. If there is a sharp hoe, he goes to fetch it for use.

If there is no sharp hoe, he goes to another bhikkhu or a layperson to borrow one.

The owner asks: ‘What will you use the hoe for?’

He replies: ‘For a minor matter.’

This constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense.

If he deliberately lies in order to obtain the hoe, brings it back to the monastery, and uses it to dig the ground, he commits a Pācittiya offense. Another commentary (mahāaṭṭhakathā) explains that this is not so and that all such acts constitute only Dukkaṭa offenses. Why? Because they are merely preparations for theft. The Dharma teacher said: ‘If he deliberately tells a lie, he commits a Pācittiya offense.’

This is the reasonable explanation.

If the hoe has no handle and, in order to make one, he cuts dead wood, he commits a Dukkaṭa offense; if he cuts a living tree, he commits a Pācittiya offense. Another teacher explains that cutting a living tree constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense. Why? Because it is merely a preparation for theft.

If he wishes to borrow a hoe but fears that others will discover his purpose, and therefore makes a hoe himself for digging, then, while searching for iron, if he digs the ground or causes a tree to die, he commits respectively a Pācittiya and a Dukkaṭa offense. Another teacher explains that all these acts constitute Dukkaṭa offenses because they are preparations for theft. If he has no basket and enters the forest to pluck vines for making one, he commits a Pācittiya offense, as stated above.

If, however, he thinks, ‘I shall take this object to make offerings to the Triple Gem, to expound the Dharma, or to give in charity,’ then when he sets out speaking in this way, there is no offense. If he sets out with the intention to steal, he commits a Dukkaṭa offense. If, wishing to reach the place where the object is buried, he cuts down trees and plants to clear a path, he commits a Pācittiya offense; if he cuts dead wood, he commits a Dukkaṭa offense.

Regarding living plants at the site: this means that the object has been buried for a long time and trees and grass have now grown over it. If he cuts or destroys such trees and grass, he commits a Dukkaṭa offense. The Dharma teacher said: “There are eight kinds of Dukkaṭa offense: 1. Dukkaṭa of preparation; 2. Dukkaṭa of concomitant action; 3. Dukkaṭa concerning weighty objects; 4. Dukkaṭa concerning things not counted as money; 5. Vinaya Dukkaṭa; 6. Dukkaṭa of knowledge; 7. Dukkaṭa of a formal announcement; and 8. Dukkaṭa based upon a scriptural statement. (Pubbapayogadukkata; sahapayoga; anāmāsa; durūpacinna; vinaya; natā; nati; patissava).”

Question: “What is a Dukkaṭa of preparation?”

Answer: “When a thief seeks companions, knives, axes, and hoes as preparatory means, this is called a Dukkaṭa of preparation. If an act falls under Pācittiya, he commits a Pācittiya offense; if it falls under Dukkaṭa, he commits a Dukkaṭa offense.”

A Dukkaṭa of concomitant action means using a knife or axe to cut and destroy living trees and grass growing over the place where treasure is buried. Here, acts that would otherwise fall under Pācittiya all become Dukkaṭa offenses because they are merely preparations for theft.

“Objects that must not be handled” means the ten kinds of treasure, the seven kinds of grain, and various weapons. Taking hold of them constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense.

“Things not counted as money” means such fruits as oranges, bananas, and coconuts. Taking them constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense.

“Vinaya” means that when a bhikkhu enters a village on almsround and dust falls into his bowl, if he receives food and drink without having the bowl accepted again (after cleansing the bowl?), the recipient commits a Dukkaṭa offense.

A Dukkaṭa of knowledge means that, after hearing another person raise a matter, one knows of the offense but does not have it cleared; this constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense.

“A formal announcement” means that one becomes liable under one of the ten procedures involving a formal announcement and thereby commits a Dukkaṭa offense.

“Based upon a scriptural statement” means that the Buddha told the bhikkhus: “If you cease the action before completing it, you commit a Dukkaṭa offense.” This is a Dukkaṭa based upon a general scriptural statement. Why? The Vinaya text says that cutting and destroying living plants growing over a place where treasure is hidden constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense. Yet if, while cutting, one feels remorse and returns to one’s former wholesome state of mind, then although the cutting and destruction incurred a Dukkaṭa offense, through repentance one is released from the offense. If one has no sense of shame or moral dread and exerts all one’s strength to dig up the earth in search of treasure, one also commits a Dukkaṭa offense.

“Beside the heap of earth” means that the excavated earth is dead soil and is piled to one side; this constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense.

“The preceding Dukkaṭa ceases” means that if one touches the treasure with one’s hand but has not yet moved it, this constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense. First one incurs a Dukkaṭa offense for gathering away the earth; then, upon causing the object to move, one incurs a Thullaccaya offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “What is the meaning of these Dukkaṭa and Thullaccaya offenses?”

Dukkaṭa means failing to act in accordance with the Buddha’s teaching. “Duk” means evil; “kaṭa” means done; together they mean “an evil deed.” Improper and unbecoming conduct by a bhikkhu is called Dukkaṭa. In the Vinaya there is a verse:

Listen to the meaning

Of the Dukkaṭa offense;

It is also called a fault,

And is further named Sāvaṭa.

When people in the world do evil,

Whether concealed or openly shown,

It is called Dukkaṭa;

You should know this for yourselves.

Thullaccaya: thulla means great; accaya means obstructing the path of goodness, so that afterward one must fall into an evil destination. Among the offenses that must be confessed before one person, this is the gravest.

As stated in the Vinaya:

Listen well to the meaning,

Of the Thullaccaya offense:

It is confessed before one person,

And one person receives the confession;

Among offenses confessed to one person,

This offense is the gravest.

If one has already moved the object but afterward regrets it, one may be released by confessing a Thullaccaya offense.

Question: Among the ten proclamations concerning Dukkata, how is a Dukkata offense committed?

Answer: Before the formal act has been performed, if the proclamation has been completed but one does not relinquish it, one commits a Dukkata offense. After the first proclamation of the formal act has been completed, if one does not relinquish it, and after the first formal act has been completed, if one still does not relinquish it, then at each stage of the formal act in which one refuses to relinquish it, one commits a Thullaccaya offense.

“Removing an object from its original place” means that, with the intention to steal, if a bhikkhu moves an object to another place by even the breadth of a hair, he commits a Parajika offense. If he merely causes the container holding the object to tilt to one side, he has not yet committed the offense. If it leaves its original place, he commits a Parajika offense.

If the jar is held too tightly by the surrounding earth, and he uses three supports to suspend it, then digs away all the earth from its four sides and from above and below, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he removes one support or two supports, this is also Thullaccaya. If he removes all three supports and the jar falls to the ground, he commits a Parajika offense.

If he suspends the jar from a tree with a rope, then digs away the earth and lowers the jar, he has not yet committed the offense, regardless of the length of the rope. If he unties the rope so that it is separated from the tree, he commits a Parajika offense. If he does not untie the rope but cuts down the tree, he likewise commits a Parajika offense.

If a tree has been planted above the jar as a marker and its roots have grown entwined around the jar, when the bhikkhu digs away the earth and cuts the tree roots, he commits Pacittiya and Dukkata offenses. When the roots have been severed and the jar is exposed, he has not yet committed the grave offense. If he clears the roots to one side in order to take the jar and moves it away from the tree by about the breadth of a hair, he commits a Parajika offense.

If the tree falls and the jar is exposed, and the shifting earth pushes the jar from its original place, he commits no offense. If he then takes it from that new position, he commits a Parajika offense. If there is a stone above the jar and he overturns the stone, thereby exposing the jar, he has not committed the grave offense but only a Dukkata offense.

If the container or jar is too large to move, and he brings another vessel to take treasure worth one unit, he commits a Parajika offense. If there is a jeweled cap or golden lock inside the jar and he pulls part of it outside while the other part remains within the jar, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he cuts off and takes one part, he commits a Parajika offense.

If the jar is filled with treasures and he puts his hand inside to take an object but has not yet removed it, and only pulls it partway out before it falls back inside, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If he removes the object from the jar, he commits a Parajika offense. Some Dharma teachers explain that if the object is lifted from the bottom of the jar, even though it has not yet passed beyond the jar’s mouth, a Parajika offense is committed.

The Dharma teacher said: “For an offense under the Vinaya to be complete, all the requisite factors must be present. One may commit a Parajika offense by drinking a single mouthful: if one drinks a mouthful worth one unit, one commits a Parajika offense. There is also another explanation, distinguishing the circumstances differently.

If a jar containing a precious beverage is too heavy to carry away, and one puts one’s mouth to it and drinks, then while one’s mouth has not yet left the jar, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. When one’s mouth leaves the jar, one commits a Parajika offense. If one sucks the liquid through a bamboo tube and so forth, and an amount worth five masakas enters one’s throat, one commits a Parajika offense.

If one holds the tube in one’s mouth, stops when both the mouth and tube are full, closes one end of the tube with one’s hand, and removes it from the jar, one commits a Parajika offense. If one puts a robe into a jar to absorb the ghee or oil within it, then takes hold of the robe and removes it from the jar, one commits a Parajika offense.”

Some Dharma teachers explain that this is not so. If, after putting the robe into the jar, one regrets the act and therefore does not remove it, one commits a Thullaccaya offense. If one does not regret it and removes it from the jar, one commits a Parajika offense. After one has put it in, if the owner learns of the matter and demands repayment of its value, then if one repays it, one commits a Thullaccaya offense; if one does not repay it, one commits a Parajika offense.

A bhikkhu has an empty jar, and another person pours oil or ghee into it. If, out of anger, the bhikkhu moves it elsewhere, he commits no offense. If he moves it elsewhere not out of anger but because of greed, that bhikkhu commits a Parajika offense.

If he does not move it elsewhere but pierces the jar so that an amount of oil worth one unit flows out, he commits a Parajika offense. If he pierces the jar but at that moment the oil or ghee is congealed and does not flow out, and afterward sunlight causes an amount worth one unit to flow out, he commits a Parajika offense. If he makes the hole too large and the thick ghee or oil flows out continuously, and after more than one unit has flowed out he sees this and regrets it, then puts it back into the jar, he commits a Thullaccaya offense.

If he leaves an amount worth one unit outside, he commits a Parajika offense. If he moves the jar to a tree or stone with the intention of tilting it and spilling its contents, he commits a Parajika offense. Suppose the owner places an empty jar on uneven ground and, though he has not yet put oil or ghee into it, intends to do so.

Knowing this, the bhikkhu places a large piece of wood or stone upon the jar with the intention of breaking it.

Seeing that the bhikkhu has done this, when the jar breaks, its owner demands compensation from the bhikkhu. Whether he repays the full value or not, he commits a Parajika offense.

If the bhikkhu does not intend to break the jar but puts various kinds of corpses, feces, or urine into it, before placing them inside he commits a Dukkata offense; while placing them inside, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. After they have been placed inside, if the owner sees this and demands compensation for the value, then if the bhikkhu does not compensate him, he commits a Parajika offense. If he has no intention to steal but, solely out of anger, smashes or burns the jar, pours water into it, or by any means renders it unusable to its owner, he commits a Dukkata offense and should compensate the owner.

If he does not, he commits a Parajika offense. If he puts sand, stones, or earth into the jar and pours in water so that it overflows, rendering the jar unusable, he must compensate the owner. If he does not compensate him, he incurs the offense stated above.

The Dharma teacher said: “The explanation concerning objects beneath the ground is now complete. Next, objects upon the ground will be discussed.”

An object upon the ground means an object placed in the earth, upon a palace, or on a mountaintop. Whether placed in such locations in a heap or scattered about, or contained in a jar without being buried and concealed, it is called an object upon the ground. The Dharma teacher said: “This was already explained extensively above; it will now be stated in general terms... whether one takes it with one’s hand, you should understand accordingly.”

Ghee, oil, honey, milk, and curds all belong to the class of substances that flow like water. Heavy or light objects, golden bracelets, jeweled necklaces, lengths of cloth, and so forth—if any of these is moved from its original place by even the breadth of a hair, a Parajika offense is committed. This concludes the section on objects upon the ground.

Concerning objects in the air, first consider a peacock. It has six parts: the beak, tail, two wings, feet, back, and crest. Wishing to steal a peacock while it is in the air, a bhikkhu stands directly in front of it as it is about to fly.

Seeing the bhikkhu, the peacock is unable to fly and descends and remains standing; the bhikkhu incurs a Dukkata offense. If he reaches out and touches the bird, he also incurs a Dukkata offense. If he causes the bird to move, he incurs a Thullaccaya offense.

If he grasps its feathers and pulls them away from its body, he commits a Parajika offense. If he pulls the left or right wing away from its position, he commits a Parajika offense; the same applies to moving it upward or downward. If the peacock descends and perches upon the bhikkhu’s body or right hand, and the bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, catches it and transfers it to his left hand, he commits a Parajika offense because it has left its original place.

If it flies over by itself, he commits no offense. If he carries it away with the intention to steal, at the first step he commits a Thullaccaya offense; at the second step, a Parajika offense. If the peacock is on the ground and, with the intention to steal, the bhikkhu seizes another person’s peacock, then if he lifts one or two parts of the bird’s body but it has not yet left the ground, he commits a Thullaccaya offense.

If he lifts the bird’s entire body from the ground, he commits a Parajika offense.

A peacock is in a cage. If, with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu takes the cage together with the bird and carries it away, he incurs an offense according to the act. If a peacock is feeding in a garden and, with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu drives it outside the gate, he commits a grave offense.

If, with the intention to steal, he catches the bird and throws it outside the garden, he commits a pārājika offense. If a peacock is in a village and, with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu drives it beyond the boundary of the village, he commits a pārājika offense. If the peacock goes away by itself, whether to a monastery or to a secluded place, and the bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, throws a stick, stone, or piece of wood at it, but the frightened bird flies into the forest, onto a rooftop, or returns to its former place, the bhikkhu has not yet committed the offense.

If, with the intention to steal, he deliberately drives or catches the bird and causes it to rise from the ground by even the breadth of a hair, he commits a pārājika offense. Thus, with all other kinds of birds, the cases in which an offense is or is not committed are the same as with the peacock.

Regarding a robe: if the wind blows a robe upward into the air and, with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu grasps one part of it, he commits a dukkaṭa; if he grasps the entire robe, a thullaccaya; if he moves it from its former place, a pārājika. With respect to this offense, there is no difference between the robe and the peacock. If a robe is falling from the air and a bhikkhu reaches out and grasps it, he commits a dukkaṭa; if he moves it from its former place, he commits a grave offense.

Regarding fallen objects: if another person's valuable property falls without that person knowing it, and a bhikkhu sees the valuables falling through the air and picks them up with the intention to steal, then, upon raising them from the ground by even the breadth of a hair, he commits a pārājika offense. The same offense as above applies to a fallen kāṣāya robe. This concludes the section concerning objects falling from the air.

Objects placed upon a bed, whether they can or cannot be taken, are treated in the same way as objects placed upon the ground. If one carries away the bed together with the objects upon it from its former place, you should understand the offense for yourselves. A kāṣāya robe is hanging on a rack.

If, with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu takes the robe hanging on the rack and moves it from its former place, he commits a grave offense. If the robe leaves its former place without his touching its two ends, he also commits the offense; if he causes both ends to move, he also commits the offense. If he carries away the rack together with the robe, he likewise commits a grave offense.

If a kāṣāya robe is firmly tied to the robe rack and he causes its two ends to move, he commits a thullaccaya. If he unties it and carries it away, he commits a pārājika offense. If a bhikkhu ties the four corners of a kāṣāya robe to keep out dust, and another bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, unties one, two, or three corners, he commits a thullaccaya in each case; if he unties all four corners, he commits a pārājika offense.

If a kāṣāya robe is hanging on a rack, with one end on the rack and the other end hanging down to the ground, and he pulls one end away from the rack while the other end has not yet left the ground, he commits a thullaccaya. If one end leaves the ground while the other has not yet left the rack, he likewise commits a thullaccaya. If it leaves both the rack and the ground, he commits a pārājika offense.

If a bhikkhu uses a bundle to hold robes and miscellaneous objects and hangs it on a peg, and another bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, takes the bundle down onto his shoulder but then regrets it and replaces it on the peg, he commits a thullaccaya. If the intention to steal arises in him again and he takes it away, he commits a pārājika offense. If he lifts it from the peg but the heavy object falls to the ground, he commits a thullaccaya.

If he picks it up from the ground and carries it away, he commits a pārājika offense.

Question: What is a peg?

Answer: It is about one cubit long and is firmly driven into a wall. Curved pegs, ivory pegs, and other kinds of pegs are all treated in the same way.

If another person's robe is hanging on a tree and a bhikkhu steals it, the gravity of the offense is the same as for a robe hanging on a peg. If a robe is hanging on a fruit tree and a bhikkhu, with the intention to steal, shakes the tree to obtain the robe, but before the robe falls he sees the fruit and an intention to steal it arises, so he deliberately shakes the tree until the fruit falls, he commits one pārājika offense. If neither the robe nor the fruit falls, he commits a thullaccaya. This concludes the section concerning the theft of hanging objects.

Objects in water. First, because of fear of the authorities (Rājabhaya), an object is concealed in water. An object that does not deteriorate when placed in water is, foremost, an object made of copper. Among places containing water, the first is a pond. In a place where the water does not flow, the object also remains still.

If, with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu searches for an object in the water, looking for it where the water is shallow, he commits a dukkaṭa with every step he takes in the search. If he devises means to search for an object in deep water, he commits a dukkaṭa. When entering the water, he first dives beneath the surface. If, before reaching the object, he sees a venomous snake, a large fish, a turtle, or some other dangerous creature, becomes frightened, and flees, there is no offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “It begins with grasping the object... What follows is as explained above; you should understand it for yourselves.”

“Place” means that there are six places by which an object may be grasped: its four sides, its top, and its bottom.

Regarding objects in a pond, the first is the lotus. If a bhikkhu steals a flower by plucking it, the offense is determined according to whether its value is great or small. If he breaks off a lotus flower but the lotus stalk or fibers have not yet been severed, he nevertheless commits a pārājika offense. If he digs into the earth to steal a lotus root, the gravity of the offense is as stated above.

If various objects are placed upon the water and, with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu draws an object toward the place where he intends to take it, then, while he is pulling it but it has not yet left the water, he commits a thullaccaya. If he raises it above the water by even the breadth of a hair, he commits a pārājika offense.

If an entire bundle of flowers is placed in the water and, with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu opens the bundle, he commits a thullaccaya. If he removes a flower from the bundle, he commits a pārājika offense.

Next, regarding “place,” as explained above: if he steals a flower by uprooting it but its root has not yet been severed, he commits a thullaccaya; when the root is severed, he commits a pārājika offense.

If a pond contains no water and he steals a flower by uprooting it from any of the four sides, then, when the root is severed, he commits a thullaccaya. When he takes the flower away from its place, the offense is determined according to whether its value is great or small.

If the fish in a pond are owned and, with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu casts a hook, spreads a net, or sets a fish trap, but no fish has yet been caught, he commits a dukkaṭa. If a fish enters the trap, he commits a thullaccaya. If he lifts the fish out of the water, he commits a pārājika offense. If a fish leaps out of the net onto the bank, he commits a thullaccaya. If he catches the fish on the bank, the offense is determined according to whether its value is great or small. The same applies to turtles and Bābā.

If a bhikkhu wishes to steal fish but cannot catch them because the pond is large, and he digs an additional small pond and channels the fish into it, he commits a dukkaṭa if the fish enter the small pond. If he fails to catch the fish in the small pond and they return to the large pond, he commits a thullaccaya. If the fish have not yet left the small pond, he likewise commits a thullaccaya.

If he removes fish from a water channel or pond, the offense is determined according to whether their value is great or small. If the water in a pond is nearly exhausted and the fish gather in one place, and another person administers poison that kills the fish, but a bhikkhu does not know this and, thinking them to be discarded objects, picks them up, he commits no offense. If he knows that the fish have an owner but nevertheless steals them, the offense is determined according to their value.

If the owner of the fish demands compensation, he must make restitution; if he does not, he commits an offense. If the owner has taken the fish and no longer intends to retain them, and a bhikkhu steals them, he commits a thullaccaya. The Dharma teacher said: “The gravity of this offense is as explained above; you should understand it for yourselves.”

This concludes the section concerning objects in water.

A boat means any conveyance used to cross a river, including one that is moored with a rope and can carry other objects. There may be a person in the boat, or there may be goods, no goods, or various other objects, as explained above. If, with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu wishes to take a boat and conceal it, and he thinks, “I wish to take this boat, but I have no companion; therefore, I shall go and find one,” and then pulls the boat, he incurs the offense as explained above.

Regarding untying the rope: if he unties it but the rope mooring the boat has not yet left its former place, he commits a dukkaṭa. When the rope leaves its place, he incurs a thullaccaya and a pārājika offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “I shall explain this clearly. If a boat is moored where the current is strong, and after the rope has been untied the boat has not yet left its former position, it is a Thullaccaya offense; when the boat leaves its former position, it is a Pārājika offense. If the boat is in still water and one first pulls it away and only afterward unties the mooring rope, when the rope comes loose, it is a Pārājika offense.

If the boat is on land, pulling it away from its former place is a Pārājika offense. If the boat is supported by two pieces of timber, stealing one of them is a Thullaccaya offense; taking both so that the boat falls and touches the ground is a Pārājika offense. If the boat is on the ground and a bhikkhu, with intent to steal, ties a rope from it to a cart in order to drag it away, it is a Thullaccaya offense; when the boat leaves its former position and he unties the rope, it is a Pārājika offense.

If an unmoored boat is in the water and a bhikkhu, with intent to steal, boards it and wishes to direct it eastward, but the wind blows it westward, it is a Thullaccaya offense; if he follows the boat to a suitable place and appropriates it, it is a Pārājika offense. If he regrets his action, or if the wind blows the boat back to its former place, then when the owner demands its return, he should return it; if he does not return it to the owner, it is a Pārājika offense.

Here ends the section on boats.

Among vehicles, the first is the cart. Whether or not one knows that a cart contains miscellaneous goods, the rule is as stated above. If a cart carries grain and a bhikkhu uses a basin, bowl, or other vessel to scoop it up and steal it, while the basin or other vessel has not yet been removed from the cart, it is a Thullaccaya offense; when the basin or other vessel has been removed from the cart, it is a Pārājika offense.

If the cart is too heavy to pull and he therefore seeks oxen to draw it, while seeking them he commits a Dukkaṭa offense; when he has obtained the oxen and they pull the cart forward by about one footstep, it is a Thullaccaya offense; when the oxen have moved all four feet, it is a Pārājika offense. If he wishes to go south but the oxen instead go east or west, it is a Thullaccaya offense; if he directs the oxen along the intended road, it is a Pārājika offense.

The offenses and non-offenses concerning the theft of a cart placed upon a rampart are the same as in the cases concerning the theft of a hanging bowl bag.

Here ends the section on carts.

Carrying an object means bearing it upon the head.

The Dharma teacher said: “I shall explain the meaning of this. The head is the part above the hairline at the nape and the throat. Placing objects there is called carrying them upon the head. The part below the hairline at the nape and the throat is called the shoulder. The area below the armpits and above the abdomen is used to carry or embrace an object; doing so constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense. In all other respects, the rule is as stated in the section on carrying goods entrusted by another upon the head. The same applies when they are carried upon the shoulder, abdomen, and similar places. The sequence of statements in this passage is easy to understand.”

Here ends the section on carrying objects.

A garden means a garden of flowers, fruits, and various fragrant plants. If a bhikkhu digs up and steals these things, the offense is determined according to whether their value is great or small. If he steals bark by stripping it from trees in the garden, the offense is determined according to whether its value is great or small; the same applies to flowers and fruits.

Disputing over a grove means that a bhikkhu deliberately contends to seize another person’s grove. When he first begins the dispute, it is a Dukkaṭa offense; when he causes the owner of the grove to become doubtful and afraid, it is a Thullaccaya offense. If the owner of the grove decides to relinquish the claim and no longer contend, the bhikkhu who seizes the grove commits a Pārājika offense.

Even if the owner of the grove has not decided to relinquish it, when the bhikkhu forms the definite intention to seize the grove, it is a Pārājika offense. If he brings the matter before an official and spends money to prevail in the dispute, when the owner of the grove believes that he has lost, the bhikkhu commits a Pārājika offense. If the dispute is brought before the Sangha for adjudication, and the Sangha knowingly renders an unjust decision, the adjudicator commits a Pārājika offense.

If the Sangha renders a just decision, the person who makes the unjust claim commits a Thullaccaya offense.

Here ends the section on groves.

Within a monastery, miscellaneous objects may be stored. If an object is supported at four points, the rule is as stated above. Regarding large or small dwellings that have been offered to the Sangha of the four directions, if a bhikkhu wishes to contend for and seize one but does not succeed, then because the dwelling is communal property and has no particular owner, he does not commit the grave offense. If a donor has offered it to one community or even to a single person, and a bhikkhu seizes it with intent to steal, then when the owner of the dwelling believes it to have been taken from him and the thief forms the definite intention to appropriate it, the cases of offense and non-offense are as stated above.

Here ends the section on objects within a monastery.

Objects in fields.

There are two kinds of fields: pubbanna and aparanna. Pubbanna fields are fields planted with the seven kinds of grain and sorghum. Aparanna fields are fields planted with beans, sugarcane, and so forth.

Any bhikkhu who steals grain worth one full unit—the value of five māsakas—commits the grave offense. If the grain has not yet been harvested and a bhikkhu, with intent to steal, seeks a sickle, carrying pole, basket, or other implement with which to take it, he commits a Dukkaṭa offense; if he gathers the grain stalks together with his hands, it is a Thullaccaya offense. If he cuts through parts of the living stalks but some connection remains and the grain has not left its place, it is a Thullaccaya offense; when he severs the remaining connection, the offense is determined according to whether the value is great or small.

If he steals grain in order to make rice, while devising the means he commits a Dukkaṭa offense; reaping, threshing, and pounding each constitute a separate Thullaccaya offense. When it has become rice, he places it in his own container and lifts it from the ground, it is a Pārājika offense.

If a bhikkhu disputes over a field with another person, the rule is as stated above. If a bhikkhu encroaches upon and steals another person’s field, even by no more than the width of a hair, with the definite intention to steal it, it is a Pārājika offense. Why? Because the land extends downward to an immeasurable depth.

If this bhikkhu approaches the Sangha and asks, “May I take this piece of land?” and the Sangha replies, “We consent,”

they all commit the grave offense.

If a tract of land has two boundary stakes and a bhikkhu pulls up one stake, it is a Thullaccaya offense; if he pulls up both stakes, it is a Pārājika offense. If the land has three stakes and the bhikkhu pulls up one, it is a Dukkaṭa offense; two, a Thullaccaya offense; all three, a Pārājika offense. If the land has many stakes, pulling up any stake from the first through the one preceding the last two constitutes a Dukkaṭa offense in each case. Of the final two stakes, if the bhikkhu pulls up the first, it is a Thullaccaya offense; if he pulls up the last, it is a Pārājika offense.

If he uses a measuring cord to encroach upon and steal another person’s land, placing one end of the cord upon the ground is a Thullaccaya offense; placing both ends is a Pārājika offense. If he marks the ground to designate the land as his own, drawing the first end of the boundary is a Thullaccaya offense; completing both ends of the first boundary is a Pārājika offense. If, with intent to steal, he declares, “The land up to this point is mine,” and upon hearing this the landowner becomes anxious and fears losing part of his land, that bhikkhu commits a Thullaccaya offense. If the landowner believes that he has lost and relinquishes that part of the land, the bhikkhu commits a Pārājika offense.

Here ends the section on fields.

Land means the land of houses and gardens. Whether or not it has trees and enclosing walls, the rule is as clearly stated in the sections on flower gardens and fields.

Here ends the brief section on land.

Concerning villages, the Vinaya has spoken extensively and clearly. Wilderness land may have an owner. The Dharma teacher said: “It may also be ownerless.”

Question: “What is meant by having an owner or being ownerless?”

Answer: “If trees and plants in a forest may not be taken without being purchased, the forest is said to have an owner. If the trees and plants in a forest may be freely cut and cleared without anyone objecting or demanding an account, it is said to be ownerless. If a bhikkhu steals an object from wilderness land that has an owner, the offense is determined according to whether its value is great or small.

If a bhikkhu picks up an object that has been discarded in wilderness land that has an owner, there is no offense. If wilderness land has an owner and timber and miscellaneous objects have remained there for a long time without anyone taking possession of them, a bhikkhu may borrow and use them; if the owner later returns and the bhikkhu gives them back, the person who took them commits no offense. If a bhikkhu brings the price of an object to wilderness land that has an owner and tells the keeper of the grove, ‘Please allow me to take timber, and I shall pay according to its value,’

and the owner of the forest replies, ‘Very well, take whatever you wish,’

then the bhikkhu may send someone into the forest to take whatever is needed, and there is no offense.

If the owner of the forest tells the forest keeper, ‘When the bhikkhu takes timber, do not demand payment according to its value,’ but the keeper nevertheless demands payment, the bhikkhu must pay him.

If the forest keeper is asleep and therefore unaware, or is absent, and the bhikkhu enters the forest and takes timber, then if the keeper later returns and demands payment according to its value, the bhikkhu must pay him.”

If a bhikkhu enters a forest and takes timber, but is then pursued by robbers or a tiger and, being exceedingly frightened, has no time to make payment, he should pay afterward. If he does not pay, the bhikkhu incurs an offense according to the value of the timber.

If a bhikkhu enters a forest and, without asking the forest keeper, steals some other object and carries it beyond the boundary of the forest, the offense is determined according to its value.

Here ends the section on the arañña.

Water stored in jars during a water shortage. Regarding large jars filled with water in a house, if a bhikkhu, intending to steal the water, finds a large or small drill and places the drill against the jar, he commits a dukkaṭa. If he drills but has not yet pierced the jar, he commits a thullaccaya. If he pierces the jar and obtains the water, the offense is determined according to the quantity of water.

If the jar is small and the bhikkhu tilts it to take the water, the offense is determined according to its value.

If the jar has a wide mouth and he inserts a small basin to scoop out the water, the offense is determined as in the preceding section on stealing oil.

If a bhikkhu, intending to steal water from another person's pond, digs a channel to take it, and more than one portion of water—worth five māsakas—flows through, he commits a pārājika.

Employing a stratagem with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu digs beside another person's pond and stops when he reaches the water's edge, intending that the pond's bank collapse because of this excavation, or that children break it, or that cattle trample and breach it. If the water then flows out through that place and the bhikkhu obtains it, he commits a pārājika.

If there is a large tree in the pond and, wishing to obtain the water, the bhikkhu cuts it down so that it falls into the pond, causing waves that collapse the side of the pond, whereupon the water flows out, he incurs an offense according to the value of the quantity of water.

Another person's pond lies between two ponds belonging to a bhikkhu, one containing water and the other dry. Intending to steal, the bhikkhu digs a channel so that the water from his pond flows through the other person's pond, fills it, and then flows into his own dry pond. If this causes a loss of the other person's water, the offense is determined according to the value of that water.

If a bhikkhu's field is near another person's dry pond and, wishing to arrange for the field to receive water, he digs a channel connecting the pond to his field, and when it rains water flows from the pond into the field, then if the pond's owner comes and demands payment for the value of the water, the bhikkhu should pay him. If he does not pay, the offense is determined according to the value of the water.

If several households share one pond and distribute its water among their fields, and a bhikkhu, intending to steal, diverts another person's water into his own field, then if the other person's rice seedlings have not yet died, he commits a thullaccaya; if the seedlings die, the offense is determined according to their value.

Here ends the section on stealing water.

Tooth-cleaning sticks are as explained in the section on the garden.

The Dharma teacher said: “If the Sangha hires someone to gather tooth-cleaning sticks, but that person has not yet delivered them to the Sangha and they remain in his possession, they still belong to him. If a member of the Sangha selects and takes some beforehand with the intention to steal, the offense is determined according to their value. If the Sangha appoints someone to manage property, any bhikkhu who, without informing the Sangha, takes an object with the intention to steal incurs an offense according to its value.

If the Sangha instructs a novice to distribute tooth-cleaning sticks to the Sangha in due order on the fifteenth day, and before they are distributed to the Sangha the novice selects the good sticks and first offers them to his own teacher, then if the bhikkhu selects and takes the good sticks with the intention to steal, the offense is determined according to their quantity. If the tooth-cleaning sticks have already been set out in the place where the Sangha ordinarily uses them, one who takes them commits no offense.

You should clearly understand the proper way to take tooth-cleaning sticks.”

Question: “How is it to be understood?”

Answer: “If the Sangha ordinarily uses three tooth-cleaning sticks per person each day, one should conform to the Sangha's practice and take three. If one is entering the meditation room or going to hear a Dharma discourse, one may take five or six; after using them all, one may take more. Why is one not allowed to take many, but only five or six? It is to avoid the reproach of others.”

Here ends the section on tooth-cleaning sticks.

Trees and plants. In the case of a jambu tree, a mango tree, or a climbing vine, if a bhikkhu, intending to steal, uses an axe to cut the tree or vine, and it is severed but remains attached by the bark, he commits a thullaccaya; when it is completely severed, he commits a pārājika. If a vine is severed but remains attached to the tree, he commits a pārājika. If, intending to steal a tree, he cuts through more than half of it and then stops, but the tree consequently falls, he should compensate according to the tree's value; if he does not compensate, he commits an offense. The same applies if he injects poison into the tree's bark to kill it.

Here ends the section on trees and plants.

Taking in succession. A thief has taken an object, and a bhikkhu, intending to steal, seizes it from him. The object leaves the thief's person, but because the thief is stronger, he seizes it back and carries it away.

Although the bhikkhu does not obtain the object, he nevertheless commits a pārājika. Why? Because he had the resolute intention to seize and take it, and the object left its former place.

If the owner does not relinquish an object and the bhikkhu forcibly snatches at it, then while it has not yet left the owner's hand, he commits a thullaccaya; when it leaves the owner's hand, he commits the grave offense. If, intending to steal, a bhikkhu strips a bracelet or ring from a person's hand, he commits a pārājika when it leaves the hand; while it remains attached to the hand, he commits a thullaccaya. The same applies to an object worn on the foot.

If, intending to steal, a bhikkhu forcibly strips off a person's clothing, then upon grasping the robe he commits a dukkaṭa; upon pulling at the robe, he commits a thullaccaya; when the robe leaves the person's body, he commits a pārājika. If the robe is torn while being pulled, the offense is determined according to its value.

If, intending to steal, a bhikkhu carries away both a person and the clothing that person is wearing, on the first step he commits a thullaccaya; on the second step he commits a pārājika. If he steals a person together with the clothing worn by that person and the person runs away, the bhikkhu commits a dukkaṭa. If the person throws the robe on the ground and the bhikkhu reaches out to take it, he commits a dukkaṭa; if he moves the robe, he commits a thullaccaya; when the robe leaves its former place, he commits a pārājika.

If, intending to steal, he seizes both the person and the robe, and the person runs away, but the bhikkhu cannot catch up and says, “Leave the robe behind and I will let you go,” then if the person reaches out to loosen the robe, the bhikkhu commits a dukkaṭa; when the robe is loosened, he commits a thullaccaya; when the robe leaves the person's body, he commits a pārājika.

If, intending to steal, he seizes both the person and the robe, and the person runs away and throws the robe on the ground, while the bhikkhu continues the pursuit but cannot catch up and therefore turns back, then when he takes the robe from the ground, he commits a pārājika.

If a bhikkhu, intending to steal, seizes a person, and the terrified person throws away his robe and runs, but the bhikkhu cannot catch up with or seize him and therefore turns back, then upon seeing the robe on the ground, if the bhikkhu says, “This person has abandoned the robe, so I shall pick it up,” he commits no offense regarding the robe; however, because he intended to steal the person, he commits a dukkaṭa. If the person returns and says to the bhikkhu, “Do not take my robe,” but the bhikkhu nevertheless takes it, then when the robe leaves the ground, he commits a pārājika.

If the person casts off the robe in order to flee and the bhikkhu, unable to catch him, returns, sees the robe on the ground, and says, “This robe has been obtained through my exertion,” and picks it up, he commits a dukkaṭa. Another teacher explains that he does not commit a dukkaṭa because the robe's owner intended to abandon it.

Here ends the section on taking in succession.

Receiving property entrusted for safekeeping. A person entrusts an object to a bhikkhu and later returns to claim it, but the bhikkhu says, “I did not receive any object entrusted by you.” Because he lies, the bhikkhu commits a pācittiya; because he employs a means to steal, he commits a dukkaṭa.

If the bhikkhu thinks, “This person entrusted an object to me, but no one knows about it. Should I return it or not?” he commits a thullaccaya. If the bhikkhu resolves to retain it and the owner relinquishes his claim to it, the bhikkhu commits a pārājika.

If the bhikkhu says to himself, “I shall trouble him. If he persists in disputing, I shall return it; otherwise, I shall take it,” and the owner relinquishes his claim, then when the bhikkhu takes the robe, he commits a pārājika.

Having received property entrusted for safekeeping, when the owner comes to claim it, the bhikkhu says he will return it but is resolved to keep it, thereby causing the owner to become doubtful and afraid. When the bhikkhu obtains the robe, he commits a pārājika.

Having received property entrusted for safekeeping, if a bhikkhu, intending to steal, moves it to another place, he commits a dukkaṭa. If he exchanges the property for food and consumes it all, then when the owner comes to inquire about it, he commits a dukkaṭa; if the owner comes to claim it and he does not return it, he commits a pārājika. If he merely borrows it for use, there is no offense.

Seeing another person's bowl to be fine and beautiful, when the bowls were gathered at the senior monk's place, a bhikkhu, with intent to steal, brought his own inferior bowl there to exchange it for that fine bowl. By various means, he enticed the bhikkhu who owned that bowl to remain awake all night, so that he overslept; then he secretly arose early, went to the senior monk, and said, “I am about to travel far away.” This bhikkhu described the distinguishing features of the other monk's bowl, saying, “My bowl and bowl-cover are such and such...” The senior monk gave that bowl to him. When the bowl left its original place, this bhikkhu committed a Parajika offense.

If, when taking out the bowl and about to give it to this bhikkhu who intended to steal it, the senior monk said, “Who are you, taking a bowl at an improper time?” Hearing this question, the bhikkhu became frightened and fled; he nevertheless committed a Parajika offense.

If the senior monk took the bowl with good intentions, he committed no offense. If the senior monk thought, “Since the bhikkhu has fled, I shall steal the bowl,” he committed a Parajika offense. If, in the darkness of night, the senior monk mistakenly took his own bowl and gave it to the thieving bhikkhu, the thieving bhikkhu incurred a Dukkata offense. If the senior monk mistakenly took the thieving bhikkhu's own bowl and gave it to him, the thieving bhikkhu incurred a Dukkata offense, while the senior monk committed no offense.

A certain bhikkhu, with intent to steal, paid homage to the senior monk and said, “I am a sick bhikkhu; please give me my bowl.”

The senior monk said, “There is no sick bhikkhu in this room. You are a thief.”

Because he had previously quarreled with a bhikkhu who shared his room, the senior monk, with intent to steal, took the bowl belonging to the bhikkhu who was his adversary and gave it to this thief. Both the senior monk and the thieving bhikkhu committed Parajika offenses.

If, with intent to steal, the senior monk intended to take the bowl belonging to the bhikkhu who was his adversary but failed to do so, and instead took the thieving bhikkhu's bowl and gave it to him, the senior monk committed a Parajika offense.

If, with intent to steal, the senior monk intended to take the bowl belonging to the bhikkhu who was his adversary but failed to do so, and instead took his own bowl and gave it to the thieving bhikkhu, both the senior monk and the other bhikkhu incurred Dukkata offenses.

If a senior monk gave an article to a junior monk (dahara) to carry, saying, “I shall take you to that place.”

With intent to steal, the junior bhikkhu carried the article and followed the senior monk to that place, then secretly departed with the article. On the first step he incurred a Thullaccaya offense; on the second step he committed a Parajika offense.

Having given the article to the junior bhikkhu to carry, the senior monk entered the village to seek alms. With intent to steal, the junior bhikkhu thought, “I shall carry it while following the senior monk, and when we have entered the village, I shall depart.”

Before reaching the village, with each step he incurred a Dukkata offense. When one foot entered the boundary of the village while the other remained outside, he incurred a Thullaccaya offense. When both feet had fully entered the boundary of the village, he committed a Parajika offense. If he formed the intent to steal only after entering the village and then went out, the offenses were the same as above.

A senior monk gave a robe to a junior bhikkhu to take to another village to be washed and dyed. The junior bhikkhu stole the robe and carried it away. With each step he incurred a Dukkata offense; upon passing beyond the agreed place, he committed a Parajika offense. If he reached the village and exchanged the robe for food or sold it, he had not yet committed the grave offense. Upon returning to the original place, the robe's owner asked:

“Where is the robe?”

He replied:

“I exchanged it and consumed everything.”

The owner demanded compensation according to its value. The bhikkhu had to repay him; if he did not repay him, he committed a Parajika offense.

With intent to steal, a bhikkhu deliberately asked to take the senior monk's robe to wash it. If the senior monk handed the robe to this bhikkhu, when the robe left the senior monk's hand, this bhikkhu committed a Parajika offense. If the bhikkhu with intent to steal thought, “After taking this article to the village, I shall appropriate it,” the offense was likewise as above. If the robe was soiled and the senior monk brought it out, indicating that he wished to have someone wash it, and the junior bhikkhu, with intent to steal, asked to take it for washing, the senior monk said, “Do you wish to wash this robe?”

He asked:

“Where should it be washed?”

The senior monk replied:

“Wherever the Venerable One goes, wash it there.”

If this bhikkhu took the robe to that place, he incurred a Dukkata offense; if he used it, he incurred a Thullaccaya offense; if he did not return it when the senior monk demanded it, he committed a Parajika offense.

If the senior monk had entrusted a blanket to a donor, and a junior bhikkhu, with intent to steal, went to the donor's house and falsely said, “The senior monk sent me to collect it,” then if it had been entrusted to the husband and the husband gave it, if it had been entrusted to the wife and the wife gave it, or if it had been entrusted to the wife and the husband gave it, as soon as the blanket passed into the bhikkhu's hands, he committed a Parajika offense in every case.

If a donor said to the senior monk, “I wish to invite you to a meal and offer you a piece of cloth,” and, knowing this, the junior bhikkhu went to the donor's house and said, “The senior monk sent me to collect the cloth in advance; he will accept the meal on the appointed day.”

The donor handed the cloth to him. Afterward, the senior monk learned of this and demanded the cloth from him. If he did not return it, he committed a Parajika offense. If a donor invited two bhikkhus to spend the rains retreat and, after the retreat had ended, offered two bolts of cloth, one inferior and one fine, but did not present them while both bhikkhus were present, then afterward the senior monk sent the junior bhikkhu to the donor's house to collect the cloth. When giving the cloth to the junior bhikkhu, the donor instructed him, “Offer the fine one to the senior monk and the inferior one to the junior bhikkhu.” After bringing the cloth back, the junior bhikkhu placed both pieces together in one place.

The senior monk asked:

“Which one was offered to me?”

With intent to steal, the junior bhikkhu replied:

“This inferior one is yours.” When the senior monk took the inferior piece, the junior bhikkhu incurred a Thullaccaya offense. When the junior bhikkhu took the fine piece from its original place, he committed a Parajika offense.

If, when writing names on the pieces of cloth, the junior bhikkhu, with intent to steal, falsely wrote his own name on the fine piece, and afterward the senior monk took a piece of cloth according to the name written upon it, the junior bhikkhu incurred a Thullaccaya offense. When the junior bhikkhu took the other piece of cloth, he committed a Parajika offense.

Upon entering a monastery and seeing a resident bhikkhu making a kasaya robe, a visiting bhikkhu thought, “He is a resident bhikkhu, so he will look after my bowl,” and departed without saying anything. If the bowl was subsequently lost, the visiting bhikkhu could not demand compensation, because he had not entrusted it to him. If he did say that he was entrusting the bowl to him, but the resident bhikkhu did not understand the visiting bhikkhu's words, while the visiting bhikkhu thought that the other had accepted the entrusted bowl, then if the bowl was subsequently lost, the visiting bhikkhu likewise could not demand compensation, because his words had not been clear.

If, when the other monk entrusted the bowl to him, the resident bhikkhu said, “Very well,” but the bowl was subsequently lost, he had to compensate the other monk according to its value, because he had accepted responsibility for the entrusted bowl.

If the bhikkhu in charge of the bowl storeroom took the bhikkhus' bowls into and out of storage but forgot to close the storeroom door, and the bowls were lost, that bhikkhu had to compensate for them. If someone broke through the wall and entered to steal them, he did not have to compensate for them.

The bhikkhus said to the bhikkhu responsible for the bowls, “Venerable sir, bring the bowls outside early in the morning; we shall send someone to guard them.”

If the keeper overslept and the bowls were lost, the bhikkhu in charge of the bowl storeroom did not have to compensate for them.

If the bhikkhus entrusted their bowls to the bhikkhu responsible for them, but he was too lazy to open the storeroom door and therefore kept the bowls in his own room, then if the bowls were lost, he had to compensate for them. If the bhikkhu in charge of the bowl storeroom opened the storeroom door but fell ill before he could close it and had no opportunity to ask someone to guard it, then if the bowls were lost, he did not have to compensate for them.

If the bhikkhu responsible for the bowls was sleeping with the storeroom door closed and bandits came and ordered him to open it, but the bhikkhu did not open it, the bandits said, “If we have to open the door ourselves, we will kill you.” The bhikkhu still did not open it, so the bandits used an axe to break down the door. The bhikkhu then thought, “If I do not open the door, I shall lose my life and the bowls as well.”

Therefore, the bhikkhu opened the door, and if the bandits took the bowls away, he did not have to compensate for them.

The bhikkhu in charge of the bowl storeroom gave the storeroom key to a visiting bhikkhu. The visiting bhikkhu opened the storeroom, stole the bowls, and carried them away. The bhikkhu in charge of the storeroom had to compensate for the bowls.

The senior monk said to the bhikkhu in charge of the bowl storeroom, “I wish to deposit my bowl, so let us inspect the bowls in the storeroom together, Venerable sir.” If they opened the door and did not close it, and the bowls were lost, both had to compensate for them.

The senior monk brought someone into the storeroom. The bhikkhu in charge of the bowl storeroom said, “Do not bring people in here.”

The elder said:

“No offense.”

If the bowl is lost, the elder must compensate for it.

When the Sangha takes miscellaneous articles from the Sangha’s storeroom to hold a great assembly, if one person fails to watch over them and the articles are lost, the bhikkhu in charge of the storeroom need not compensate for them. If offerings from outside are brought in, the bhikkhu in charge of the storeroom may receive two shares. Although a bhikkhu who practices the dhutanga observances lives in the monastery, if he does not stay in the Sangha’s lodging, does not eat the Sangha’s food, receives food from a donor, and constructs his own dwelling, the Sangha may not appoint him as distributor of duties or have the steward order him about.

If a bhikkhu obtains offerings for himself and for the Sangha through recitation, instruction, or preaching the Dharma, the Sangha may not appoint him as the Sangha’s steward. When lodgings and fine robes and bowls are available, this bhikkhu should first be given the fine articles, and he may additionally be given such things as food, fruit, and so forth.

If a bhikkhu uses the Sangha’s lodging, robes, or bowls, but treats them carelessly and causes the Sangha’s property to be lost, he must compensate for it. If the Sangha assigns him to guard offerings made to the Buddha, he may not refuse; if they are lost, he must compensate for them.

Failure to pay duty to the authorities (sunkaghāta): evading duty by secretly passing the customs station—upon merely touching the article, there is a dukkata; upon concealing it, a thullaccaya; upon passing beyond the customs station, a parajika. With the intention to steal, if one throws an article outside the customs station, one commits a parajika; if it falls within the station, a thullaccaya. If it is thrown outside but falls back inside the customs station, it is a parajika; some Dharma teachers say that it is a thullaccaya.

If a large tree serves as a bridge, with one end within the customs station and the other outside it, and, with the intention to steal, one moves an article along the tree to take it out of the station, then until it has passed beyond the tree there is a thullaccaya; when it has passed beyond the tree, there is a parajika.

If two people are jointly liable for the same duty, and one remains inside the station while the other is outside it in order to evade the duty, there is a thullaccaya; when both have passed beyond the station, there is a parajika.

When taking cattle, horses, or a carried load through a customs station, a bhikkhu tells the customs officer, “Please collect the duty.” If the customs officer forgets to collect it and the cattle pass beyond the station, the bhikkhu commits no offense, because he informed the customs officer.

If a bhikkhu arrives at a customs station and one customs officer tells him to pay while another tells him not to, and the bhikkhu does not pay the duty but passes through the station, he commits no offense.

A bhikkhu brings an article to the customs station intending to pay the duty, but the customs officer says:

“This article is insignificant; there is no need to pay duty.”

Therefore, when the bhikkhu takes the article through the station, he commits no offense.

A bhikkhu brings an article to the customs officers, but they are gambling. He calls them three times, but they do not respond. If the bhikkhu passes through, he commits no offense.

When he brings an article to the place where duty is paid, a disaster such as flood, fire, or bandits suddenly occurs, and the customs officers flee in terror without collecting the duty. If the bhikkhu passes through, he commits no offense.

The boundary of a customs station is reckoned as extending as far as a stone can be thrown. If a bhikkhu takes an article by another route before reaching the boundary of the customs station, he commits no offense.

The Dharma teacher said:

“I wish to explain the case in which one takes a person but commits no offense.”

Question:

“How is there no offense?”

Answer:

“Because the person has no owner, there is no offense.”

In the case of children who have become separated from their families, whose parents have poured water over their heads and told them to go away, or who have lost their parents, a bhikkhu commits no offense by taking them in. If a person has been handed over by another as compensation, a bhikkhu commits no offense by taking that person away.

There are persons born in a household, obtained by purchase, or acquired through conquest. “Born in a household” means a child born to a slave in the household; “obtained by purchase” means acquired through an exchange of goods; “acquired through conquest” means obtained through warfare. The Vinaya states that if a bhikkhu steals any such person, he commits an offense. Upon merely taking hold of the person, he commits a dukkata; if he embraces or carries the person and lifts one foot from the ground, he commits a thullaccaya; if he lifts both feet from the ground, he commits a parajika. If he frightens the person into following him, he commits a minor offense; when the person takes one step, he commits a thullaccaya; when the person takes a second step, a parajika.

A bhikkhu says to another person’s slave:

“You suffer greatly here. Why do you not leave? If you went elsewhere, you would be happy.”

On hearing the bhikkhu’s words, as soon as the slave forms the intention to leave, the bhikkhu commits a dukkata; when the slave takes one step, a thullaccaya; when the slave takes a second step, a parajika.

A slave rebels against his master, and some bhikkhus show him the route by which to flee. The bhikkhus who show him the route commit a grave offense. If the slave urges the bhikkhu to flee, and the bhikkhu says, “Run in this way and you will escape,” the bhikkhu commits no offense.

A slave is walking slowly, and a bhikkhu says:

“If you walk so slowly, your master will catch you.”

On hearing this, the slave runs quickly, and the bhikkhu commits a grave offense.

If a runaway slave reaches another country and a bhikkhu says:

“You should go on to another region, for your master will find you here.”

On hearing this, the slave immediately flees, and the bhikkhu commits a grave offense.

If a bhikkhu says:

“You suffer hardship here; in that place there is great happiness.”

On hearing this, the slave runs away. Because the bhikkhu did not tell him to go, he commits no offense.

A bhikkhu says:

“That country is very pleasant, with many roads and abundant food. Who is able to accompany me there?”

On hearing this, the slave follows the bhikkhu of his own accord. If the bhikkhu sends him away, he commits no offense. If, halfway along the road, they encounter tigers, wolves, or bandits and the bhikkhu tells him to run along with him, there is no offense.

Here ends the section on stealing persons.

Footless creatures, such as snakes and so forth, may have owners. People make snakes perform for spectators who pay one coin or half a coin.

When the handler has left the snake sleeping soundly, if a bhikkhu steals and carries it away, the offense is determined according to its value.

If a snake is in a basket and, with the intention to steal, a bhikkhu uses a frog to lure it out or pulls it from the basket, the offense is determined according to its value. Here ends the section on footless creatures.

Two-footed beings: the first are spirits and human beings, but spirits cannot be stolen.

Birds are of three kinds. Those whose wings are made of feathers, such as peacocks, chickens, and so forth; those whose wings are made of skin, such as bats; and those whose wings are supported by a bony structure, such as bees. If a bhikkhu steals any of these creatures, the offense is determined according to its value, as stated above.

Four-footed beings comprise all kinds of animals, such as elephants and so forth. If a bhikkhu forcibly steals an elephant and lifts it from the ground, he commits a parajika. If an elephant is in a pen and is tethered around its belly, neck, or leg, and a bhikkhu removes the rope from its original place; if it is not tethered and he drives it outside; if it is outside and he drives it beyond the gate or beyond the boundary of the village; if it is in a wilderness place and he drives it away from the place where it is standing; or if it is sleeping and he makes it stand up—in each of these cases, when the elephant leaves its original place, he commits a parajika.

The same applies to four-footed animals such as cattle, horses, donkeys, camels, and so forth. If a cow or another animal is halfway within an enclosure, the enclosure is taken as the boundary; if a bhikkhu unties it and drives it outside, he commits the offense described above. If a bhikkhu calls a cow by name, it understands and follows him out, he commits the offense described above.

If he kills a cow sleeping on the ground and the cow’s owner demands compensation, the bhikkhu must compensate him, but he does not ordinarily commit the grave offense.

Here ends the section on four-footed beings.

Many-footed creatures include centipedes and millipedes, which have a hundred feet. If a bhikkhu lifts ninety-nine of their feet from the ground at once, he commits a thullaccaya; when he lifts the final foot, the offense is determined according to the creature’s value.

Here ends the section on many-footed creatures.

If they act on behalf of thieves, a bhikkhu goes to another person's house to inspect where valuables are kept and where the wall is damaged or breached, then returns and reports this to them. Having heard the bhikkhu's report, the thieves act accordingly and remove the valuables from their original place. If several bhikkhus send one bhikkhu, all of them commit an offense.

If they send a bhikkhu... to inspect the place where valuables are kept, and another bhikkhu says, “Do not send him; let me go,” that bhikkhu commits an offense, while the one who gave the order and the one who was originally sent are without offense. A group of bhikkhus compels one bhikkhu to go and steal valuables, then makes him stand guard over them. While his accomplices go in search of further valuables, the bhikkhu guarding the goods conceives the intention to steal, secretly selects the best objects, and takes them; he incurs an offense according to their value.

A group of bhikkhus says, “Let us go together to that village, to that place, to steal valuables.” If they all go together and one person enters and takes the valuables, once the valuables have been moved from their original place, all commit a Pārājika offense.

Regarding the question concerning a case in which four persons steal together but three incur an offense while one escapes it, I shall pose the question, and you should consider it carefully. There are four bhikkhus, one teacher and three disciples, who wish to steal six māsakas. The teacher tells the disciples, “Each of you take one māsaka, and I shall take three māsakas.”

The first disciple says to the teacher, “Venerable sir, take three; I shall take one,” and tells the other two each to take one. The other two likewise tell one another the same. The teacher steals three coins and commits a Thullaccaya offense; by instructing the three disciples to steal, he also commits a Thullaccaya offense.

Why? Because stealing oneself and instructing others to steal constitute separate offenses, he incurs two Thullaccaya offenses. The three disciples incur the grave offense because each instructed others to steal five māsakas (telling the teacher to take three and the two companions to take one each, totaling five—the translator).

You should carefully consider this case so as to distinguish clearly the principles pertaining to the precept against stealing. How should it be considered clearly? You must clearly distinguish the cases of one kind of object kept in one place, one kind of object kept in many places, many objects kept in one place, and many kinds of objects kept in many places.

One kind of object kept in one place is as follows: a person keeps five māsakas in a shop. Seeing this, several bhikkhus send one bhikkhu to take them away. All those bhikkhus commit a Pārājika offense.

A person has five shops and keeps one māsaka in each. Seeing this, several bhikkhus send one bhikkhu to all five places to take those māsakas. When he takes the one from the last place, they commit a Pārājika offense.

Many objects kept in one place means different kinds of objects kept together in one place, whose combined value is five māsakas or more. Several bhikkhus send one bhikkhu to take them. When that bhikkhu moves the objects from their place, all the bhikkhus commit the grave offense. Many kinds of objects kept in many places is as follows: five persons each have a shop, and several bhikkhus send one bhikkhu to take the objects. When the last object is moved from its original place, all the bhikkhus commit the grave offense.

End of the section on instructing another to take.

They agree to go together at a particular time—whether in the morning, this afternoon or evening, today or tomorrow, this year or next year. If they keep precisely to their agreement and do not deviate from the appointed time, whether or not they commit an offense is as explained above.

If the instruction is not carried out as given—for example, one is told to take the object in the morning but instead takes it in the afternoon; is told to take it at the beginning of the night but instead takes it at the end of the night; is told to take it during the bright fortnight but instead takes it during the dark fortnight; or is told to take it in this year but instead takes it in the following year—the one who gave the instruction commits a minor offense, while the one who takes the object commits a Pārājika offense. If it is taken at the instructed time, both incur the offense.

End of the section on making an appointment.

Commentary on the Vinaya, the Samantapāsādikā

– Fascicle Nine -