English
If he leaves the path, he is to be dealt with by the foot-step rule. If he goes to that monastery, and staying there, he uses it with a thieving mind and wears it out, or if thieves steal it from him, there is no carrying away, but it is a debt of goods. The same rule applies even if he comes back from there. But for one who, without being told, or when the elder makes a sign, or by himself observing it is dirty, says, "Give me the robe, Venerable Sir; I will go to such and such a village and dye it and bring it back," and takes it and goes; for him, if a thieving mind arises on the way, and he places the burden on his head or shoulder, it is a pārājika. Why? Because it was taken without being told. Even if he leaves the path, or turns back and comes to that monastery, or transgresses the monastery boundary, it is said by that very act, it is a pārājika. Even having gone there, dyed it, and returned, if a thieving thought arises, the same rule applies. But if, having gone to that place, or on the way, or in the monastery, having returned to that very monastery, dwelling in one part of it, not transgressing the boundary of the precinct, consuming it with a thieving thought, he wears it out, or thieves steal it from him, or it is lost in any way whatsoever, it is a debt for the goods. But if he transgresses the boundary of the precinct, it is a pārājika. But if, when the elder makes a sign, someone says, "Give it, venerable sir, I will dye it and bring it back," and asks, "Where shall I go, venerable sir, to dye it?" And the elder tells him, "Go wherever you wish and dye it," this one is called a "released messenger." Even if he runs away with a thieving thought, he is not to be charged with theft. But even if he runs away with a thieving thought, or destroys it by use or otherwise, it is only a debt for the goods. A monk sends some requisites in the hand of another monk, saying, "Give this to such-and-such a monk in such-and-such a monastery." If a thieving thought arises in him, in all cases, the decision is similar to what was stated regarding "Go to such-and-such a monastery, wash and dye the robe, and come back." Another, wishing to send a monk, makes a sign, saying, "Who will take it and go?" If one says, "Give it, venerable sir, I will take it and go," and takes it, if a thieving thought arises in him, in all cases, the decision is similar to what was stated regarding "Give the robe, venerable sir, I will go to such-and-such a village, dye it, and bring it back." An elder, having received cloth for a robe, has placed it in a supporter's family. Then his pupil, wishing to steal the cloth, goes there and says, "Please give that cloth," as if sent by the elder. Believing his words, if the female lay follower gives out what the male lay follower had placed, or the male lay follower gives out what the female lay follower had placed, or anyone else gives it out, it is a pārājika for him immediately upon taking it out. But if By the elder's attendants, "We will give this to the elder," their own robe was placed. Then his pupil, desiring to take it, went there and said, "You wish to give a robe to the elder, please give it." And they, believing him, said, "Venerable sir, we placed it intending to give it after feeding him, here, take it." And they gave it. Since it was given by the owners, there is no pārājika offense, but because it was taken with an impure mind, it is a dukkaṭa offense, and it is a case of giving property. A bhikkhu tells another bhikkhu and goes to a village, "So-and-so will give my rain-retreat robe, please take it and keep it." "Very well," that bhikkhu the expensive robe given by that person having placed it with his own inexpensive robe that he received, when the first bhikkhu returns, whether he knows or doesn't know that his expensive robe has been received, and says, "Give me my rain-retreat robe," (the second bhikkhu) says, "Your coarse robe has been received, but my robe is expensive. Both are placed in such-and-such a place, go in and take it." When he goes in and takes the coarse robe, for the other who takes the other, for taking what was set aside, it is a pārājika offense. Or if on his robe, his own name, and on his own robe, the other's name is written, and he says, "Go, read the name and take it," in that case too, the same rule applies. But if he places both robes received by himself and by the other together, and says to him thus – "Both robes received by you and by me are placed inside the room, go, choose what you wish and take it." And if he, out of shame, takes only the coarse robe received by the resident bhikkhu, in that case, for the resident bhikkhu who takes the other which remains after the choice, there is no offense. A guest bhikkhu places his bowl and robe near resident bhikkhus who are doing robe-work, thinking, "They will look after these," and goes to bathe or elsewhere. If the resident bhikkhus look after it, that is good. If not, and it is lost, there is no responsibility. Even if he says, "Venerable sirs, please keep this," and goes, it And they, being busy with their own duties, do not know. This is the rule. Even if they are told, "Venerable sir, put this away," they refuse, saying, "We are busy." And the other, not paying attention, thinking "They will surely put it away," goes. This is the rule. But if, whether asked by him or not asked, they say, "We will put it away, you go," then it must be guarded. If they do not guard it, and it is lost, they are liable. Why? Because they accepted responsibility. If a bhikkhu, being the storekeeper, in the early morning, takes the bowls and robes of the bhikkhus down to the lower pavilion, closes the door, and without even informing them, goes far away for alms-round; if thieves steal them, he is liable. But if, when told by the bhikkhus, "Venerable sir, take down the bowls and robes; it is time for the distribution of tickets," he asks, "Are you all assembled?" and when they say, "Yes, we are assembled," he takes out the bowls and robes, places them down, closes the storehouse door, and says, "You should take your bowls and robes, guard the lower pavilion door, and go," and then he goes. And there, a lazy bhikkhu, after the other bhikkhus have gone, wiping his eyes, gets up and goes to the water place to wash his face. Seeing that moment, thieves steal his bowl and robe. It is well stolen. The storekeeper is not liable. Even if someone, without informing the storekeeper, places his own requisites in the storehouse, if they are lost, the storekeeper is not liable. But if the storekeeper, seeing it, takes it, thinking "It is placed in the wrong place," and puts it away, if it is lost, he is liable. Even if the bhikkhu who placed it says, "Venerable sir, I have placed such and such a requisite, please take note," and the storekeeper accepts, saying "Good," or thinking it is badly placed, puts it in another place, he is liable. But for one who refuses, saying "I do not know," there is no liability. And if someone places it while the storekeeper is watching, but does not get the storekeeper to accept responsibility, Lost is well lost. If the storekeeper places it elsewhere, his neck is on the line for what is lost. If the storeroom is well-guarded, and all the requisites of the Saṅgha and the cetiya are kept there, but the storekeeper, being foolish and incompetent, opens the door and goes somewhere to listen to a Dhamma talk or to do something else, and thieves, seeing that moment, take whatever they can, all of that is on his neck. If he goes out of the storeroom and walks outside, or opens the door and lets his body feel the weather, or sits there engaged in ascetic practice, or sits there occupied with some task, or even if he is pressed by urination or defecation and there are facilities nearby, but he goes outside, or if he is negligent in any other way, and leaves the door open, or enters when it is already open, or breaks in, whatever the thieves take due to his negligence, all of that is on his neck. However, they say it is permissible to open a window and lie down in hot weather. But if one is pressed by urination or defecation and there are no facilities nearby, and one goes elsewhere, it is not his fault, being in the category of the sick; therefore, his neck is not on the line. But if someone, being oppressed by the heat inside, secures the door well and goes outside, and thieves seize him and say, "Open the door!" he should not open it until the third time. If, however, those thieves raise axes and the like, saying, "If you don't open it, we will kill you and break down the door and take the requisites," then it is permissible to open it, thinking, "If I die, and the Saṅgha's dwelling is destroyed, there is no benefit." In this case too, they say his neck is not on the line, because it is not his fault. If some visitor gives a key or opens the door, whatever the thieves take, all of that is on his neck. If the Saṅgha has provided a bolt and a key-ring for the security of the storeroom, and the storekeeper gives a key and lies down, and thieves open it and take the requisites, his neck is on the line. is not his neck. Having joined the bolt and the key and the key-ring, if, when he is lying down, thieves come and say, "Open it!" he should act in the same way as before. But if, when he is lying down, having thus secured it, they break through the wall or the roof, or enter by a tunnel and steal, it is not his neck. If other elders also live in the storeroom, and with the door open, they take their own requisites and go, and the storekeeper does not guard the door after they have gone, if anything is stolen there, due to the storekeeper's authority, it is the storekeeper's neck. But the elders should be his friends. This is the proper conduct there. If the storekeeper says, "You stand outside and take your requisites, do not enter!" and one greedy elder,