BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1the resident bhikkhus eat from the trees as if they alone were the owners and arenot willing to share. In other words, the visiting bhikkhus, as a matter of courtesy,should ask the residents first. If the residents share, one may take what they offer. Ifthey don't, and the trees are not dedicated to another purpose, one may take justenough for one's own consumption. The Commentary also adds that if themonastery is vacant, one may go ahead and take the fruit, for it is meant for allbhikkhus who come.The Vinita-vatthu also notes that a bhikkhu who takes heavy property of the Saṅghadonated for use in a particular monastery and uses it elsewhere incurs a dukkaṭa. Ifhe takes it on loan, he commits no offense.Deceit. If a bhikkhu uses a deliberate lie to deceive another person into giving anitem to him, the transgression is treated not as a case of stealing — because, afterall, the item is given to him — but rather as a case of lying. If the lie involves makingfalse claims to superior meditative attainments, it is treated under Pr 4. If not, it istreated under Pc 1. The Vinita-vatthu gives seven examples: five cases where,during a distribution of requisites in the Community, a bhikkhu asks for and is givenan extra portion for a non-existent bhikkhu; and two where a bhikkhunī approachesher teacher's lay supporter and asks for medicines, saying that they will be for herteacher, although she actually ends up using them herself. In all of these cases, thepenalty is a pācittiya for lying under Pc 1.The Commentary, in its discussion of the bhikkhus taking an extra portion for anon-existent bhikkhu, insists that the penalty for lying applies only to cases wheredonors have already given the requisites to the Community. If, prior to their givingthe requisites to the Community, a bhikkhu asks them directly for a portion for anon-existent bhikkhu, the Commentary says that he has committed a theft underthis rule. This, however, contradicts the ruling in the two cases involving thebhikkhunī, who asks directly from the donor. Thus it would appear that in any casewhere a bhikkhu obtains an article from a donor through deceit, the penalty wouldbe the pācittiya for lying.The question arises, what about a bhikkhu who, given an item to take to someoneelse, originally plans to take it to the intended recipient but later changes his mind?It does not seem right to impose a heavier penalty on him than on a person whouses deceit to get the item to begin with, so it seems best to impose on him thedukkaṭa for a broken promise (Mv.III.14.1-14 — see the discussion under Pc 1). Forthe principles surrounding the courier's right to take an item on trust in the donor orthe recipient, see the discussion of trust under the non-offense clauses.Receiving stolen goods. Accepting a gift of goods or purchasing them very cheaply,knowing that they were stolen, would in Western criminal law result in a penaltysimilar to stealing itself. However, neither the Canon nor the commentaries mentionthis case. The closest they come is in the Vinita-vatthu, where a groundskeepergives bhikkhus fruit from the orchard under his care, even though it was not his togive, and there was no offense for the bhikkhus. From this it can be inferred thatthere is no offense for receiving stolen goods, even knowingly, although a bhikkhuwho does so would not be exempt from the civil law and the consequent42