BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1touching it. If the animal is lying down, simply getting it to get up on its feet countsas taking it. In the case of helping a slave to escape from slavery, if the slavefollows one's order or advice to escape, one is guilty of taking; but if one simplyinforms the slave of good ways to reach freedom or offers food or protection alongthe way, one incurs no offense.Cutting down: plants growing in place, whether on dry land or in a body of water.The Commentary states that once the plant is cut totally through, then even thoughit doesn't yet fall down — as when a tree is entangled in the branches ofneighboring trees — it is nevertheless taken.Causing the owner to give up efforts (§) to regain possession: pieces of land (fields,orchards, building sites), buildings, objects deposited with a bhikkhu forsafekeeping. (According to the Commentary, items loaned to a bhikkhu also fall intothis category.) According to the Vibhaṅga, if a case of this sort goes to court, thistype of taking is completed when the owner finally loses the case. The Vinayamukhaadds that if the owner appeals the case after the first hearing, the taking isaccomplished when the owner loses in the highest court to which he/she makes anappeal.The discussion in the Commentary and Sub-commentary indicates that the twocategories of "objects a bhikkhu has been asked to guard," and "objects depositedwith a bhikkhu for safe keeping" differ in that in the latter case the object has beenhanded to the bhikkhu, whereas in the former it hasn't. This, however, does not fitwith the Vibhaṅga, which in defining "deposited" uses the word upanikkhitaṃ, whichin NP 18 means "placed down next to." A way to distinguish the two categoriesmore closely in line with the Vibhaṅga would be to say that, in the latter case, theobject is in such a location that the owner, in order to retrieve it, would have to askthe bhikkhu's permission to do so, whereas in the former he/she wouldn't. Forexample, an item placed in the bhikkhu's hut or a monastery storeroom would countas deposited with the bhikkhu — regardless of whether it had been handed to him— whereas an item set by the side of a public road — with the bhikkhu simply askedto watch over it for a short period of time — would count as an object he has beenasked to guard.Shifting a boundary marker: pieces of land. The Vinaya-mukha notes that thiscontradicts the preceding definition of how one takes a piece of land, as the ownermight not even know that the marker had been moved, and would not necessarilygive up ownership even if he/she saw a bhikkhu moving it. The Sub-commentarytries to explain the discrepancy by maintaining that shifting a boundary marker fulfilsthe factor of effort here only if the act of shifting the marker, in and of itself,induces the owner to give up any efforts to reclaim the land, but that would makethis category superfluous. A better explanation would be that this definition of takingapplies to attempts to lay claim to Saṅgha land, for otherwise — if land can bestolen only when the owner abandons ownership — then Saṅgha land could not bestolen, because there is no one acting for the Saṅgha of the Four Directions whocould renounce once and for all any efforts to reclaim the land.Exchanging lottery tickets: See Swindling, below.30