English
"The village vicinity is the throw of a clod by a medium man standing at the main gatepost of a bounded village." But for an unbounded village, the village definition must be stated. Therefore, to show its village definition, it is said: "the throw of a clod by a medium man standing in the vicinity of the house of an unbounded village." And when the village definition is shown, the definition of the village vicinity can be known by the method stated earlier, so again, "the throw of a clod by a medium man standing there" is not stated. But whoever says that the clod's throw from one standing in the vicinity of the house is "the village vicinity," for him, the vicinity of the house becomes the village. Then, house, vicinity of the house, village, village vicinity – this distinction is established. is mixed. From non-mixing, here, the determination should be known regarding entering a village at an improper time, and so on. Therefore, having compared the Pāli and the commentary, in the manner stated, here, the village and the village precincts should be known. And also, a village that was formerly large, but later became small due to the loss of families, that should be delimited by the throw of a clod from the house precincts. But its former boundary, whether enclosed or unenclosed, is indeed immeasurable. "Forest" means, excluding the village and village precincts, having excluded this village and village precincts with the characteristics stated, in this rule of taking what is not given, the remainder is to be known as "forest." But in the Abhidhamma, it is said: "Forest means, having gone out beyond the city pillar, all of this is forest." (Vibh. 529) In the rule for forest-dwellers, it is said: "A forest dwelling is one that is five hundred bow-lengths distant at the furthest." (Pārā. 654) That should be known as five hundred bow-lengths, measured from the city pillar with the teacher's bow. Thus, the Blessed One, dividing the meaning of "from villages or from forests," showed five divisions— "house, house precincts, village, village precincts, forest"— in order to prevent any loophole or opportunity for evil monks. Therefore, it should be known that for one who takes away owner-possessed goods, starting from the value of a foot-coin, whether in a house, house precincts, village, village precincts, or forest, it is indeed a pārājika offense. Now, in order to show the meaning of "should take what is not given, reckoned as theft," and so on, he says "What is not given," and so on. There, "what is not given" in the rule concerning tooth-sticks refers to one's own property, which is not yet received, but is allowable to consume. But here, whatever is property belonging to another, owner-possessed goods, that is "not given" if it has not been given by those owners, either physically or verbally. It is "not released" if it has not been released from one's hand or from its place. Even if it remains in its place, it is "not abandoned" if it has not been relinquished due to indifference. Protected... Protected by being guarded with a protective device, it is protected. Hidden by being placed in a box, etc., it is hidden. Claimed by the attachment of craving "This is mine," it is claimed. By those owners of goods, by others, it is taken possession of through not giving up, guarding, and hiding. This is called "not given." Here, in "theyyasaṅkhātaṃ" (that which is reckoned as theft), "thena" means a thief; "theyya" is the state of a thief; this is a designation for the intention to steal. "Saṅkhā" and "saṅkhāta" are one in meaning; this is a designation for a portion, as in "the proliferations are rooted in perception," etc. "Theyyañca taṃ saṅkhātañcāti theyyasaṅkhātaṃ" means one portion of mind reckoned as the intention to steal. And this is the instrumental case in meaning; therefore, it should be understood as "by that reckoned as theft." And whoever takes by that reckoned as theft, since he has the intention to steal, therefore, to show the meaning itself without taking the expression, it should be understood that its analysis of terms is given as "theyya-citto" (one with the intention to steal), "avaharaṇa-citto" (one with the intention to steal). Here, in "ādiyeyya, hareyya, avahareyya, iriyāpathaṃ vikopeyya, ṭhānā cāveyya, saṅketaṃ vītināmeyya" (should take, should carry away, should steal, should disturb the posture, should move from its place, should pass the boundary), the first term is said in the sense of seizing; the second term, in the sense of one going, carrying away another's goods; the third term, in the sense of deposited goods; the fourth, in the sense of a sentient being; the fifth, in the sense of something placed on the ground, etc.; the sixth, in the sense of a plan or in the sense of evading customs duty. And the application here is both in the sense of a single item and in the sense of multiple items. In the sense of a single item, it is only taken with a sentient being; in the sense of multiple items, with a mixture of sentient and non-sentient. There, in the sense of multiple items, it should be understood thus: "ādiyeyya" (should take): he seizes a monastery, an offense of dukkaṭa (wrongdoing). He causes doubt to arise in the owner, an offense of thullaccaya (serious offense). The owner gives up the claim, saying, "It will not be mine," an offense of pārājika (defeat). "Hareyya" (should carry away): carrying away another's goods on his head... With thievish intent, he touches the rope, an offense of dukkata. He makes it swing, an offense of thullaccaya. He places it on his shoulder, an offense of pārājika. (Intending) to take away deposited goods: When told "give me my goods," he says "I did not take it," an offense of dukkata. He causes doubt in the owner, an offense of thullaccaya. The owner, thinking "he will not give it to me," gives up his claim, an offense of pārājika. (Intending) to disturb its posture: Thinking "I will take it away with the goods," he lifts the first foot, an offense of thullaccaya. He lifts the second foot, an offense of pārājika. (Intending) to move it from its place: Goods on the ground, he touches with thievish intent, an offense of dukkata. He makes it swing, an offense of thullaccaya. He moves it from its place, an offense of pārājika. (Intending) to pass beyond the boundary: He passes the first foot beyond the designated place, an offense of thullaccaya. He passes the second foot beyond, an offense of pārājika. Or else, he passes the first foot beyond the customs barrier, an offense of thullaccaya. He passes the second foot beyond, an offense of pārājika. This is the explanation according to various goods. But according to a single item: A slave with an owner, or an animal, by the method of accusation etc. as stated, he takes, or carries away, or takes away, or disturbs its posture, or moves it from its place, or passes beyond the boundary. This is the explanation according to a single item. The discourse on the twenty-five ways of taking away. Furthermore, by explaining these six terms, and combining five fives, twenty-five ways of taking away should be shown. Indeed, by explaining thus, this pārājika of taking what is not given is well explained. And in this place, all commentaries are confused, muddled, and difficult to understand in their decisions. For indeed, in all commentaries, those elements of taking away which are stated in the Pāli text, such as "for one who takes what is not given in five ways, there is an offense of pārājika, and it must be owned by another," taking those also, (the explanation should be made). Here, one pentad is shown, and elsewhere, two pentads are shown along with the phrase "by six aspects." And these pentads are not [correct]. For where a removal is accomplished by each single word, that is called a pentad. But here, there is only one removal by all the words. And of those pentads that are found there and shown, the meaning of not all of them is explained. Thus, in this place, all the commentaries are confused, muddled, and their decisions are difficult to understand. Therefore, these twenty-five removals, which are shown by combining the five pentads, should be carefully noted. The five pentads are: the pentad of various goods, the pentad of single goods, the pentad of personal action, the pentad of prior instigation, and the pentad of theft-removal. Among these, the pentad of various goods and the pentad of single goods are found by means of these words: "would take, would carry away, would remove, would disturb the posture, would displace from its place." These should be understood in the manner shown by combining them previously. But as for this sixth word, "would transgress the agreement," it is common to the removal by arrangement and the removal by abandonment. Therefore, it should be combined by means of the words found in the third and fifth pentads. The pentad of various goods and the pentad of single goods have been stated. What is the pentad of personal action? Five removals: personal action, by command, by abandonment, by accomplishing the purpose, and by laying down the burden. Among these, "personal action" means one removes another's goods with one's own hand. "By command" means one commands another: "Remove the goods of so-and-so." "By abandonment" means one standing within the customs barrier causes [the goods] to fall outside the customs barrier, an offense of defeat. And with this, the word combination "would transgress the agreement" is found. "By accomplishing the purpose" means one commands: "Remove such and such goods whenever you can." There, if the other person, being unimpeded, removes it, the one who commanded is defeated at the moment of command. is alive, but the one who takes away is at the time of taking away. This is the one who accomplishes the purpose. The laying down of the burden, however, should be understood by means of the deposited goods.