BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Pārājika Chapter 4proceedings, in the course of which the Community would probably urge him todisrobe.Compensation owed. The Commentary introduces the concept of bhaṇḍadeyya, orcompensation owed, to cover cases where a bhikkhu is responsible for the loss ordestruction of another person's property. It defines this concept by saying that thebhikkhu must pay the price of the object to the owner or give the owner anotherobject of equal value to the one lost or destroyed; if the owner gives up his/herefforts to receive compensation, the bhikkhu incurs a pārājika. The Commentaryapplies this concept not only to cases where the bhikkhu knowingly and intentionallydestroys the object, but also to cases where he borrows or agrees to look aftersomething that then gets lost, stolen, or destroyed through his negligence; or wherehe takes an item mistakenly thinking that it was discarded or that he was in aposition to take it on trust.To cite a few examples: A bhikkhu breaks another person's jar of oil or placesexcrement in the oil to spoil it. A bhikkhu charged with guarding the Communitystoreroom lets a group of other bhikkhus into the storeroom to fetch belongingsthey have left there; they forget to close the door and, before he remembers tocheck it, thieves slip in to steal things. A group of thieves steal a bundle ofmangoes but, being chased by the owners, drop it and run; a bhikkhu sees themangoes, thinks that they have been thrown away, and so eats them after gettingsomeone to present them to him. A bhikkhu sees a wild boar caught in a trap and,out of compassion, sets it free but cannot reconcile the owner of the trap to whathe has done. In each of these cases, the Commentary says, the bhikkhu in questionowes compensation to the owner of the goods. (In the case of the mangoes, hemust compensate not only the owners but also the thieves if it turns out that theyhad planned to come back and fetch the fruit.) If he abandons his responsibility tothe owner(s), he incurs a pārājika.In making these judgments, the Commentary is probably following the civil law of itsday, for the Canon contains no reference at all to the concept of bhaṇḍadeyya, andsome of its judgments contradict the Commentary's. As we noted above, theVibhaṅga states that if a bhikkhu breaks, scatters, burns, or otherwise rendersunusable the property of another person, he incurs a dukkaṭa. When the Vinitavatthudiscusses cases where a bhikkhu takes an item on mistaken assumptions, orwhere he feels compassion for an animal caught in a trap and so sets it free, it saysthat there is no offense. Thus it seems strange for the Commentary to assign apārājika to an action that, according to the Canon, carries a dukkaṭa or no penaltyat all. Of course, it would be a generous policy to offer the owner reasonablecompensation, but it is by no means certain that a bhikkhu would have thewherewithal or liberty to do so. Because the Canon does not allow a bhikkhu to askhis supporters for donations to pay to another lay person — except for his parents(Mv.VIII.22; see BMC2, Chapter 10) — there is no way a bhikkhu could raise theneeded funds. The Canon places only one responsibility on a bhikkhu who causesmaterial loss to a lay person: The Community, if it sees fit, can force him toapologize to the owner (Cv.I.20; see BMC2, Chapter 20). Beyond that, the Canondoes not require that he make material compensation of any kind. Thus, as the43