English
But regarding the wealth that grows in the place it went, it is said in all three knot-passages: "The wealth taken after being placed, along with the interest, is the neck of the abductor." Here, regarding "born within...etc...there is abduction," it should be understood that even for one who abducts a person who has become a slave by surrendering themselves due to local custom, it is still a pārājika offense. "Born of a slave woman's womb, a slave" —this is said by taking what is possible, as this can also happen. But even one born of another in a slave woman's womb is included here. "Brought by force" means captured by force. Therefore it is said, "having plundered from another country," etc. There, "having plundered from another country" means having plundered another country by plunderers, great thieves like kings, great ministers, etc., from another country. "No offense of pārājika" means if he does not increase the speed more than that by his words, there is no offense. "By implication" means by implied speech. In the section on human beings, because it is said, "he might praise death," one is not freed even by implied speech; but here, because only "taking what is not given, which is theft" is mentioned, one is freed by implied speech. The explanation of the section on living beings is concluded. Explanation of the section on footless creatures In the section on footless creatures, "by name" means by its own name or by the name given by the owner. "Karaṇḍapuṭa" means the lid of a basket. "Āhacca" means having struck. Explanation of the section on four-footed creatures 116. In the section on four-footed creatures, "bhiṅkacchāpa" means an elephant calf that has obtained such a name from making the sound "bhiṅkabhiṅka." "Within the dwelling" means within the enclosed dwelling. "In the royal courtyard" means in the royal courtyard outside the dwelling gate in an enclosed city. "Elephant stable place" means a place within the reach of a water-sprinkler. "Standing outside the city" is said with reference to an enclosed city; but in an unenclosed city, even if it stands within the city, it stands A place that is no place. "Broken door" means a door broken by oneself. "Broken branch" means a broken branch. "Two for one lying down" means two with the binding. Here, regarding "he kills," the teachers say: "Since it is used together with destroying with a thieving mind, it is only a dukkaṭa, not a pācittiya." The explanation of the story of the quadruped is finished. Explanation of the story of the entrusted guardian In the story of the entrusted guardian, "oṇi" means "oṇīta" (entrusted), the meaning is "brought." They say: "Because an item placed with an entrusted guardian is not deposited for safekeeping like a trust, but placed for a moment's observation, merely moving it from its place generates a pārājika." Explanation of the story of joint theft In the story of joint theft, because it is stated without distinction in the Pāli, "Many having conspired, one takes the item, there is an offense of pārājika for all," the meaning should be understood by combining it appropriately, that for those who ordered, the offense is at the moment of ordering, and for the one who took, it is at the removal, just as in the story of ordering, "He takes that item, there is an offense of pārājika for all," and so on. Here too, indeed, the offense for the one who ordered is stated to be at the moment of ordering. And thus it will be said: "If that item is certainly to be taken, that which is later said, 'there is an offense of pārājika for all,' then for him, the pārājika occurs at that very moment – this reasoning should be understood everywhere" (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.121). And in joint theft, it should not be said, "there is no ordering," because of the statement, "Among the disciples, each one has one māsaka by his own hand, five are those who ordered." And when there is an order, the offense for the one who ordered should be desired at the moment of ordering, not at the removal. If so, why is it said, "Among them, one takes the item, at its removal, there is pārājika for all"? This is no fault. For here, in order to show the offense for all, by showing the place where the offense is possible even for the one who takes, it says, "at its removal, there is pārājika for all," and not to show the offense for those who ordered only at the removal. The meaning should be understood thus. Even in cases like, "Many people command one person, 'Go, bring that!', and when it is taken, all incur a pārājika," the meaning should be understood in the same way. Or, in the case of theft by arrangement, the commanders also incur an offense only when the item is taken, not at the moment of command. This unique characteristic should be understood according to the authority of the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, or it should be understood by investigating in another way, so that the earlier and later parts do not contradict in the Aṭṭhakathā. "By arrangement" means having arranged. Therefore, it is said that they incur a dukkaṭa offense when a pārājika offense is not possible due to the command. If those commanded certainly take it, then a pārājika offense should be seen for them, not a dukkaṭa offense. That which is done by oneself is not a factor for one who commands, nor is that which is commanded a factor for one who acts by oneself, because their spheres of time are different, they are not factors for each other. Thus, for one who takes by oneself, the offense occurs at the removal from its place; but for one who commands, it is at the moment of command. Therefore, the offenses to be incurred by direct action and by command are of different temporal spheres. The explanation of theft by arrangement is concluded. Explanation of the chapter on theft by signal 119. In the chapter on theft by signal, it is in the same manner as stated concerning the scout, in the manner stated beginning with "when the item is certainly to be taken." In the Pāli, regarding "that signal, before or after," the phrase "that signal" should be understood as a word used in the sense of possession, meaning "of that signal." Or, the interpretation here should be understood thus: "before reaching that signal, or after passing that signal." Therefore, it is said, "today, having passed that appointed signal," etc. Here too, regarding "that sign, before or after," the meaning should be understood in this same way. The explanation of the chapter on theft by signal is concluded. Explanation of the chapter on theft by sign 120. In the chapter on theft by sign, the act of signaling by winking the eye, etc., is quick and momentary. Therefore, it is not possible to take that item at that very moment. Thus, some items are far away, some are heavy. While he goes to take it, while he tries to lift it, it is after the sign-deed. Even so, because he began to take it starting from the sign-deed, it is said that he steals by that very sign. If so, does the statement "this is a pure-meal application" become authoritative? It does not. For a sign-deed should not be seen like a signal-deed. In that, there is a time limit; here, there is not. For a signal-deed is spoken of by time, a sign-deed by action; this is the difference between them. But "that sign, before or after, steals that item; the owner has no offense" this is said in the case of one who, after that sign-deed is done, does not begin to take it, but takes it by himself. The explanation of the sign-deed is finished. The explanation of the command 121. In the explanation of the command, for the sake of non-confusion: Because one person, making signal-deeds and sign-deeds, says "take it" seeing eye-blinks or the like before meals, etc.; another, making it dependent on the item to be taken, says "take an item of such color and shape before the meal"; another commands by a succession of persons, saying, "you tell so-and-so, and he should tell another," and so on. Therefore, for the sake of non-confusion regarding these signal-deeds and sign-deeds, in terms of the command by time, by action, by item, and by person, whether it is a signal or not a signal. Having made a sign-perception: having made a distinguishing mark that is a sign for taking, in terms of color, shape, etc., such as "an item of this kind." "It goes according to intention" means that the second tells the third, the third tells the fourth, and so on; it is said that they speak in succession. But if the second informs the fourth, the command has not gone according to intention; then there is no grave offense, only the minor offense mentioned first. "It is the same" means that since only the mere acceptance of the message is accomplished without the taking of the item, that alone is the grave offense, not The meaning is: it is a dukkaṭa, not a pārājika. "Everywhere" means in all such places. For them too, it is a dukkaṭa, due to the announcement, it is a dukkaṭa. Here, regarding "as soon as it is received," if he necessarily receives it, then even before that, it is a thullaccaya for the teacher, not that it has been received. Why then is it a thullaccaya for him? He says: "For the great multitude is thereby engaged in evil." "It is a dukkaṭa for the original owner" – this is indeed the commentary's method. But the teachers say: "Because it is not stated in the Pāḷi that 'it is for the original owner due to being disengaged,' that dukkaṭa is said to be for the one who receives it. By this same reasoning, in the cases that came below, a dukkaṭa should be understood for those who receive at the moment of reception. That, however, not having been stated there due to lack of opportunity, is stated here." Thus, again, even by command, it is only a dukkaṭa, it is said first due to the absence of accomplishing the purpose. "It is a pārājika at the moment of command" means, like the fruit immediately following the path, it is a pārājika