BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1c. He/she has spoken of the matter. (According to the Commentary, thismeans that he/she has said, "You may take any of my property you want.")d. He/she is still alive.e. One knows that he/she will be pleased at one's taking it.The Commentary to this rule states that in practice only three of these conditionsneed to be met: the fourth, the fifth, and any one of the first three. As the Vinayamukhanotes, there are good practical reasons for adopting the Commentary'sinterpretation here. There is also the formal reason that otherwise the first twoconditions would be redundant.Mv.VIII.31.2-3 discusses how an item can be rightly taken on trust if a bhikkhu, ascourier, is conveying it from a donor to an intended recipient. The deciding factor iswhat the donor says while handing over the item, which apparently determines whoexercises rights of ownership over the item while it is in transit. If the donor says,"Give this to so-and-so" (which means that ownership has not yet been transferredto the recipient), one may rightly take the item on trust in the donor but not in therecipient. If he/she says, "I give this to so-and-so" (which transfers ownership tothe recipient), one may rightly take the item on trust in the recipient but not in thedonor. If, before the courier can convey the item to the intended the recipient, helearns that the owner — as determined by the donor's statement — happens to die,he may determine the item as an inheritance from the owner.In both cases where the item may be legitimately taken on trust, none of the textsdiscuss whether the factors listed in Mv.VIII.19.1 also have to be met or whether theallowances here are a special exemption to those factors granted specifically tocouriers. However, because the allowances are so particular about who maintainsownership over the article while it is in transit, it would seem that the owner wouldhave the right to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction over the courier's taking theitem on trust. This further suggests that the courier would have to take the owner'sperceived wishes into account, which implies that the factors listed in Mv.VIII.19.1still hold here.The Vinita-vatthu treats the case of a bhikkhu who takes an item mistakenly thinkingthat he had the right to take it on trust; the Buddha termed this a "misconception asto trust" and did not impose a penalty. The Commentary to this rule adds that if theoriginal owner informs one that he is displeased because he sincerely wanted tokeep the item for another use, one should return it to him; but, in line with theVinita-vatthu, it does not indicate a penalty for not returning it. If the owner isdispleased with one for other reasons, the Commentary says, there is no need toreturn the item.As for taking an item temporarily, the Commentary says this means taking it with theintention that (a) "I'll return it" or (b) "I'll make compensation." There is support inthe Vibhaṅga for including (a) here, but none for (b). If the Commentary included(b) to cover cases where a bhikkhu borrows an object but then happens to lose ordestroy it, there is no need to include it, for as we have already explained, a bhikkhu48