BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Pārājika Chapter 4doesn't mention it here. Nevertheless, the Commentary's judgment on this pointreflects a custom that had become widespread by its time, that of giving valuableitems to a cetiya (this includes Buddha images) and dedicating them not to theSaṅgha but to the cetiya. Some medieval Indian Buddhist inscriptions express theidea that the cetiya or the Buddha relics (if any) within the cetiya actually own suchobjects, but the Commentary states that these objects have an owner simply in thesense that human beings are watching over them for the purpose of the cetiya. Thejewels decorating the reliquary of the Sacred Tooth in Kandy or the offerings to theEmerald Buddha in Bangkok, for example, would fall under this category. Accordingto the Commentary, the Saṅgha is duty-bound to care for such items but has norights of ownership over them. In its discussion both of this rule and of Pv.XIX, itstates that items given to the Saṅgha may be used for the purpose of the cetiya —for example, to contribute to its decoration or upkeep — but items given to thecetiya may not be used for the purpose of the Saṅgha.From the Commentary's discussion of this type of ownership, it would appear that ifthere are no longer any human beings watching over a cetiya, the items donated toit would no longer count as having an owner and thus could be removed forsafekeeping, preferably to another cetiya. Any bhikkhu who took such items forhimself, however, would be risking the wrath of the devas who might be guardingthe cetiya. This is why it is traditional in such cases to conduct a ceremony formallyrequesting the permission of any guardian devas, at the same time promising not totake such items for one's own use.Items belonging to common animals or petas are not covered by this rule. On thispoint, see the discussion under Non-offenses, below.Perception. For the act of taking what is not given to count as theft, one must alsoperceive the object as not given. Thus there is no offense if one takes an object,even if it is not given, if one sincerely believes that it is ownerless or thrown away.Similarly, if a bhikkhu takes an object mistaking it for his own or as belonging to afriend who has given him permission to take his things on trust, there is no offenseeven if the assumption about the trust proves to be a misperception. Also, a bhikkhuwho takes things from the Community's common stores, on the assumption that hehas the right to help himself, commits no offense even if the assumption provesfalse.The Vinita-vatthu contains a case in which a bhikkhu, spotting some objects duringthe day, returns to steal them at night. However, instead of taking the objects hespotted, he ends up taking some possessions of his own. He earns a dukkaṭa forhis efforts.None of the texts discuss the possible case in which one might be in doubt as towhether the object in question is not given, perhaps because the compilers felt thatthe factor of intention, discussed next, would not apply in such cases. Thus it wouldnot be an offense under this rule. However, the wise policy when one is in doubtabout an item's ownership would be not to take the item for one's own, or at mostto take it on loan, as explained below.27