BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Pārājika Chapter 4The term peta also includes human corpses. In the early days of the religion,bhikkhus were expected to make their robes from discarded cloth, one source beingthe cloths used to wrap corpses laid in charnel grounds. (The bhikkhus would washand boil the cloth before using it themselves.) However, they were not to take clothfrom undecomposed bodies, and here is why:"Now at that time a certain bhikkhu went to the charnel ground and took hold ofdiscarded cloth on a body not yet decomposed. But the spirit of the dead one was(still) dwelling in that body. Then it said to the bhikkhu, 'Venerable sir, don't takehold of my cloak.' The bhikkhu, disregarding it, went off (with the cloak). Then thebody, rising up, followed right behind the bhikkhu. Then the bhikkhu, entering hisdwelling, closed the door. Then the body fell down right there."The story gives no further details, and we are left to imagine for ourselves both thebhikkhu's state of mind while being chased by the body and his friends' reaction tothe event. As is usual with the stories in the Vibhaṅga, the more outrageous theevent, the more matter-of-fact is its telling, and the more its humor lies in theunderstatement.At any rate, as a result of this incident the Buddha laid down a dukkaṭa for takingcloth from an undecomposed body — which, according to the Commentary, meansone that is still warm.Perception. There is no offense if a bhikkhu takes an object perceiving it (1) to behis own or (2) to have been thrown away (§). The Commentary states that if thebhikkhu finds out that the object does indeed have an owner, he owes the ownercompensation and would be guilty of an offense when the owner abandons hisefforts to gain that compensation. As we have already noted, the concept ofcompensation owed has no basis in the Canon, but if the object still lies in thebhikkhu's possession and he decides not to return it, that decision would count as athieving intention. The theft of the object could then be treated under the categoryof a borrowed object, which in practice has the same effect as the Commentary'snotion of compensation owed: The theft would be accomplished when the ownerabandons his/her efforts to regain possession. However, if the object no longerexists (it was consumed by the bhikkhu or destroyed) or is no longer in thebhikkhu's possession (he lost it or gave it away), the resolution of the issue is purelya individual matter between the bhikkhu and the owner, although as we noted above,the Community, if it sees fit, could force the bhikkhu to apologize to the owner.Intention. There is no offense if a bhikkhu takes an object (1) on trust or (2)temporarily.To rightly take an object on trust, Mv.VIII.19.1 states that five conditions must bemet:a. The owner is an acquaintance.b. He/she is an intimate.47