English
This is the five of personal taking. What is the five of prior application? There are five other takings away – prior application, simultaneous application, taking away by agreement, symbolic act, and act of omen. Among these, prior application should be understood by way of command. Simultaneous application by way of removal from a place. The other three, however, should be understood in the way they are stated in the Pāḷi (Pārā. 118-120). This is the five of prior application. What is the five of theft-taking? There are five other takings away – theft-taking, forceful taking, presumptive taking, concealed taking, and straw-taking. All five of these we will explain in the story of the straw-moving, where “a certain bhikkhu, when robes were being distributed by the Saṅgha, with the intention of theft, moved a straw and took a robe” (Pārā. 138). This is the five of theft-taking. Thus, combining these five fives, these twenty-five takings away should be understood. And among these five fives, a skilled Vinaya master, without hastily deciding a case that has arisen, should examine five points. Regarding which the ancients said: “The object, and time, and place, The value, and the fifth, the use; Weighing these five points, The wise one should grasp the meaning.” Here, “object” means goods; for even if the one who took away says, “I took away this named thing,” without imposing an offense, that object should be examined as to whether it has an owner or is ownerless. Even if it has an owner, the owners’ state of being attached or unattached should be examined. If it was taken away when they were attached, the object should be valued and an offense imposed. If it was at a time when they were unattached, he should not be made to incur a pārājika. But when the owners of the goods come to take the goods, the goods should be given. This is the proper course here. And for the purpose of explaining this matter, this story: it is said that during the time of King Bhātiya, for the great cetiya festival From the south, a monk, carrying a seven-cubit, yellowish-brown robe on his shoulder, entered the pagoda courtyard. At that very moment, the king also arrived to worship the pagoda. There, as people were being cleared, there was a great crowd. Then that monk, pressed by the crowd, without seeing the robe falling from his shoulder, departed. Having departed, and not seeing the robe, thinking, "Who will find a robe in such a crowd? It is no longer mine," he abandoned his claim and went away. Then another monk, coming later, seeing that robe, took it with a thieving mind. Later, regretting it, even though the thought arose, "Now I am no monk, I will fall away," he thought, "I will ask the Vinaya masters and then know." At that time, the Elder Cūḷasumana, who knew all the scriptures, and was the chief Vinaya teacher, resided in the Great Monastery. That monk approached the Elder, paid homage, made an opening, and asked about his remorse. The Elder, knowing that it was taken by him who came later in the scattered crowd, thought, "Now there is an opportunity here," and said: "If you could bring the monk who owns the robe, it would be possible to establish your standing." "How, Venerable Sir, shall I see him?" "Go here and there and look for him." He looked in all five Great Monasteries, but did not see him. Then the Elder asked him, "From which direction do many monks come?" "From the south, Venerable Sir." "Then, measure the robe by its length and width, and put it aside. Having put it aside, search in the monasteries in sequence from the south, and bring that monk." He did so, and finding that monk, brought him to the Elder. The Elder asked, "Is this robe yours?" "Yes, Venerable Sir." "Where did it fall from you?" He explained everything. The Elder, having heard his abandonment of claim, then asked the other monk: "Where did you see this and take it?" He also reported everything. Then him... The Elder said: ‘‘If it had been taken by you with a pure mind, there would have been no offense for you. But because it was taken with avery a thieving mind, you have incurred a dukkaṭa offense. Confess it and be free from offense. And make this saffron robe your own property, and give it to that very monk.’’ That monk, as if anointed with nectar, attained supreme solace. Thus, the object should be examined. Kāla means the time of taking away. For that very article is sometimes cheap, sometimes expensive. Therefore, at whatever time that article was taken away, by whatever value it had at that time, the offense should be determined. Thus, the time should be examined. Desa means the place of taking away. For that article, at whatever place it was taken away, by whatever value it had at that place, the offense should be determined. For in the place where the article originated, it is cheap, elsewhere it is expensive. And to illustrate this meaning, there is this story: It is said that a certain monk in the midst of the ocean obtained a well-formed coconut, and having put it on a lathe, made a charming drinking cup like a conch-shell plate, and having placed it there, went to Cetiyagiri. Then another monk, going to the midst of the ocean, residing in that monastery, seeing that cup, took it with a thieving mind and came to Cetiyagiri itself. While he was drinking gruel there, the owner of the cup, seeing that cup, said: ‘‘Where did you get this?’’ ‘‘It was brought by me from the midst of the ocean.’’ He, saying, ‘‘This is not yours, it was taken by you by theft,’’ dragged him to the midst of the Saṅgha. And not finding a decision there, they went to the Mahāvihāra. There, having caused a drum to be beaten, they held an assembly near the Great Cetiya and began the deliberation. The Elders skilled in Vinaya made known the theft. And in that assembly, there was an Elder named Godatta, skilled in Abhidhamma and Vinaya. He said thus: ‘‘Where was this cup taken away by this monk?’’ ‘‘It was taken away in the midst of the ocean.’’ ‘‘There, this What is it worth? It is not worth anything. For there, having broken the coconut, eaten the kernel, they throw away the shell. But it serves as firewood. What is the value of this monk's handiwork here? A māsaka, or less than a māsaka. But has the Perfectly Enlightened One ever prescribed a pārājika for a māsaka or less than a māsaka? When this was said, "Excellent! Excellent! Well-spoken, well-judged!" there was a single acclamation. And at that time, King Bhātiya, also leaving the city to worship the cetiya, hearing that sound, asked, "What is this?" and having heard everything in order, he had a drum beaten in the city: "While I am present, the disputes of monks, nuns, and laypeople judged by the Elder Abhidhammikagodatta are well-judged. Whoever does not abide by his judgment, I will punish by royal decree." Thus, the country should be observed. "Aggho" means the price of goods. For the price of new goods, it later decreases. Just as a newly washed bowl is worth eight or ten, but later, when broken or holed or struck by a nail or knot, it is of little value. Therefore, goods should not always be valued at their original price. Thus, the price should be observed. "Paribhogo" means the use of goods. By use, too, the value of goods like an axe decreases. Therefore, it should be examined thus: If someone steals an axe worth a quarter (of a coin) from someone, the owner of the axe should be asked: "How much did you buy this axe for?" "For a quarter, venerable sir." "But did you buy it and just keep it, or did you use it?" If he says, "One day I cut a tooth-stick, or bark for dye, or wood for cooking leaves, or sharpened it by grinding," then its old value should be understood as diminished. And just as with an axe, so with an eye-ointment box, or an eye-ointment stick, or a key, or straw, or husks, or brick dust, washing it by rubbing it once Even by that, the value decreases. Even by cutting off a makara-tooth from a three-sphere ornament, or merely by polishing it, even by once wearing or covering oneself with a bathing cloth, or merely by placing it on the shoulder or head for the purpose of use, even by winnowing rice and the like, or by removing one or two grains from it, even by merely picking up and discarding a single stone chip, even by transferring ghee, oil, and the like from one vessel to another, even by merely picking up and discarding a fly or an ant from it, even by piercing a lump of jaggery with a nail and taking a tiny bit to know its sweetness, the value decreases. Therefore, whatever item worth a quarter-coin has been diminished in value by the owners' use in the manner described, a monk who takes it is not to be deemed guilty of a pārājika. Thus, use should be considered. Thus, a discerning person, weighing these five points, should determine whether it is an offense or not, a grave or a light offense, and place the offense in its proper category. Finished is "should take...etc....should transgress the agreement." The explanation of these terms. Now, in explaining "in the case of such taking of what is not given," and so on, "such" and so on was stated. Therein, "such" means "of such a kind." Since that begins from a quarter-coin, therefore it is said, "a quarter-coin, or worth a quarter-coin, or more than a quarter-coin." Therein, by "a quarter-coin," it indicates only an unallowable item worth a fourth part of a kahāpaṇa. By "worth a quarter-coin," it indicates an allowable item worth a quarter-coin. By "more than a quarter-coin," it indicates both. By this much, the object sufficient for the second pārājika is shown in all its aspects. "King of the earth" means a king of the entire earth, a universal monarch like Asoka, or any other king of a single island, like the king of Sri Lanka. "Regional king" means a ruler of a region within a single island, like Bimbisāra, Pasenadi, and others. "Maṇḍalikas" are those who enjoy a single district