BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1Objects on a living person — such as a bracelet on the person's arm — have theperson's body as their place. Thus if, in trying to remove the bracelet, one pulls itup and down the arm, it is not yet taken. It is taken only when one removes itentirely from the hand. If one is stealing the person's clothes, they are taken onlywhen removed from his/her body. If the person, stripped of the clothes, is stillholding onto them, they are taken only when pulled from his/her hand.For some objects, the Commentary defines place in terms that seem rather arbitrary.For instance, a robe on a line is taken when it is lifted a hairbreadth off the line, butfor some reason if it is moved along the line it is not taken until it is ten or twelvefingerbreadths away from the area it originally occupied on the line. An objectleaning against a wall has two places: the spot where it sits on the ground and thespot it touches on the wall. A vehicle's place is defined two-dimensionally: thespots where its wheels touch the ground (perhaps this is defined on analogy withthe feet of an animal). An object tied to a post has that connection as an extra partof its place. Thus a pot tied by a chain to a post is not taken until it is removed fromthe area it occupied under the general definition above and either the chain is cut orthe post pulled up. Although there is a certain logic to each of these cases, theadded distinctions seem unnecessary complications added to an alreadycomplicated issue. For simplicity's sake there would seem every reason to stick withthe general definition of place even in these special cases, although there is nothingin the Vibhaṅga to prove or disprove the Commentary here.However, as noted above, several of the Commentary's definitions of place clearlycontradict the Vibhaṅga. In some cases, the contradiction is simple, as when theCommentary insists that an animal kept in an enclosure — a cow in a pen, apeacock in a garden — is taken not when its feet are moved, but only whenremoved from the enclosure. In other cases, the contradiction is more complex, inthat the Commentary tries to define taking as "moving the object from its place" incases where the Vibhaṅga defines the act of taking in other terms. For example,with an object sitting in the bottom of a container, it says that the object is takenwhen lifted a hairbreadth from the bottom, there being no need to remove the objectfrom the container before it is considered taken. In the case of a boat, theCommentary defines the place of the boat in modified three-dimensional terms: theentire space where the boat displaces water. To take it by pushing it down in thewater, the top of the boat has to sink lower than the level where the keel originallywas; to take it by lifting it up, one need only lift it a hairbreadth above the water,there being no need to lift the keel to a point higher than where the highest point ofthe boat was. However, because the Vibhaṅga does not define the taking of boatsor objects in containers in terms of "moving the object from its place," theCommentary's analysis of these possibilities is beside the point.Other special cases in the Vibhaṅga include the following:a. Swindling: Objects are being distributed by lot to the Community, and a bhikkhutakes the portion rightfully going to another bhikkhu. The Vibhaṅga offers no furtherexplanation, but the Commentary states that the taking can be accomplished invarious ways. If, after the drawing of the tickets, X puts his ticket in the place of Y'sticket before picking up Y's, the taking is accomplished when he picks up Y's. If he32