BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1Intention. The act of taking what is not given, even when one perceives it as notgiven, counts as theft only if one's intention is to steal it. Thus, as the non-offenseclauses say, a bhikkhu incurs no offense if he takes an object temporarily or ontrust. On these points, see the discussion under Non-offenses, below. Also, theVinita-vatthu rules that a bhikkhu who, seeing an article left in a place where itmight be damaged, puts it in safe keeping for the owner, commits no offense.The Commentary discusses two cases of taking an item with a conditional intent(parikappāvahāra): placing a condition on the article, and placing a condition on theplace. It illustrates the first case with the example of a bhikkhu entering a darkstoreroom and taking a sack full of items, thinking, "If the sack contains cloth, I'llsteal it; if it contains just thread, I won't." In this case, if the sack does indeedcontain cloth, then it was stolen the moment the bhikkhu moved the sack from itsplace (see below). If it contains just thread, and he returns it to its place, hecommits no offense. If, however, the bhikkhu takes the sack thinking, "I'll stealwhatever is in the sack," the Commentary maintains that he is not guilty of stealinguntil he finds out what the sack contains and then picks it up again, but this casedoes not really fit under this category, as the bhikkhu has actually placed nocondition on the article and so stole it when he first picked it up.Placing a condition on the place means thinking, "If I can take this item past suchand-sucha place (such as a gateway), I'll steal it; if anyone sees me beforehand,I'll pretend that I'm just looking at it and will return it to its place." Because one hasnot definitely decided to steal it when first picking it up, the theft is committed onlywhen one takes the item past the determined place.Effort. Assuming that all of the above conditions are met — the object belongs tosomeone else, one perceives it as belonging to someone else, and one intends tosteal it — if one then takes it, that constitutes stealing. The question then arises asto precisely what acts constitute taking.The Vibhaṅga, instead of giving a systematic answer to this question, provides along list of possible situations and then defines how taking is defined in each case.Simply reading through the list can require some patience, and it's easy tosympathize with the bhikkhus in the past who had to memorize it. Here, to shortenthe discussion, we will reverse its order, listing first the actions that qualify as takingand then the situations to which the actions apply. Actions requiring only minorclarification will be explained in the list; those requiring extended discussion will beexplained below.Moving the object from its place: objects buried in the ground; sitting on theground; sitting on another object sitting on the ground; hanging from a place aboveground, such as a peg or clothesline; floating, flying, or dropping in mid-air; sittingin a boat; sitting in a vehicle; an object that one has caused another person todrop; footless animals, animals that one might pick up or push from their place(according to the Commentary, this also covers larger footed animals that are lyingdown); objects that one has been asked to guard. The Vibhaṅga makes clear thatitems in a vehicle also count as taken when the vehicle is moved from its place.28