BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1monastery. If, after that, the owner does come to claim the item, the bhikkhu shouldtell him/her of the use to which it was put. If the owner is satisfied, there is noproblem. If not, the bhikkhu should arrange to have the owner compensated.However, as we noted in the discussion of compensation under Pr 2, the Canonimposes only one potential penalty on a bhikkhu in a situation such as this: TheCommunity, if it sees fit, can force him to apologize to the owner (Cv.I.20; seeBMC2, Chapter 20).The factors for the offense here are four.1) Object: a valuable or anything considered a valuable that one finds leftbehind, except in a monastery or a dwelling that one is visiting.2) Perception: One does not perceive it as discarded.3) Intention: One wants to keep it in safe keeping for the owner.4) Effort: One picks it up or has someone else pick it up.Object. The Vibhaṅga defines a valuable as jewels, gold, or silver. At present,money would be included here. What is considered a valuable means anything thatpeople use or consume. Items meeting these definitions at present would includewallets, watches, keys, eyeglasses, cameras, etc.According to the K/Commentary, the object has to belong to someone else to fulfillthe factor of effort here. The Vibhaṅga does not state this point explicitly, but itdoes make the point implicitly by the activities it discusses under this rule: puttingan item in safe keeping, quizzing those who come to claim it, taking an item on trust,borrowing it. These are all activities that pertain to the belongings of others, and notto one's own belongings. The K/Commentary adds that if the owner has given onepermission to take the article, it does not fulfill the factor of object here. Thiscomment has to be qualified, of course, by noting that if the item is a valuable, thentaking it would involve an offense under another rule.The Vibhaṅga defines in a monastery as follows: If the monastery is enclosed, thenwithin the enclosure. If not, then in the immediate vicinity (according to theCommentary, a radius of two leḍḍupātas — approximately 36 meters — around themonastery buildings). As for in a dwelling: If the area around the dwelling isenclosed, then within the enclosure. If not, then in the immediate vicinity (accordingto the Commentary, the distance one can throw a basket or a pestle (!) from thedwelling).For some reason, the Commentary says that if the item has fallen in an area of themonastery where many people come and go — e.g., the doorway to the Bodhi treeor public shrine — one should not pick it up. Its reasoning here is hard to guess. Itnotes that the Kurundī — one of the ancient commentaries — interprets the range ofa bhikkhu's responsibility in the opposite direction. In other words, the Kurundīholds that if a bhikkhu walking alone along a road outside a monastery comesacross a valuable or anything considered valuable in such circumstances that hemight later be suspected of being responsible for its disappearance, he should stopand wait by the roadside until the owner appears. If no owner appears, he shouldmake it "allowable" and take it with him. The Sub-commentary adds that making it414