English
For when they have gone having thus arranged, if even one person removes that article from its place, it is a taking for all of them. Signaling means an act of recognition. For if, having fixed some time, such as before mealtime, one is told, "Take such and such an article at such a time," and one takes it later or earlier than the signal, it is a taking for the one who made the signal at the very moment the signal was made. Indicating means making a sign, such as winking, to produce a perception. For if, having been told, "Take that," later or earlier than the sign thus made, one takes it, it is a taking for the one who made the sign at the very moment the sign was made—this is the fivefold prior application. What is the fivefold theft-taking? Theft-taking, forceful-taking, conceptual-taking, concealed-taking, and grass-taking. Therein, one who, having made breaches and the like, takes unseen, or deceives and takes with false measures, false coins, and the like; for such a one taking thus, the taking is to be understood as theft-taking. But one who takes others' property by force and violence, like village destroyers, or takes more than due by their own acquired power, like royal officials; for such a one taking thus, the taking is to be understood as forceful-taking. Taking by conception, however, is called conceptual-taking. It is twofold, by way of article and by way of place. Here is the conception of an article: a person desiring a cloth enters an inner room, conceiving, "If it is a cloth, I will take it; if it is thread, I will not take it," and takes a bag in the dark. If it is a cloth therein, it is a pārājika offense immediately upon lifting it. If it is thread, he keeps it. Having taken it out, having released it, knowing it to be "abandoned," he brings it back again and places it, he protects it. Even knowing it to be "abandoned," if he goes thinking, "What is found, that should be taken," he should be made to pay a fine. If he places it on the ground and takes it, it is a pārājika for taking it up. If he is pursued with "Thief! Thief!" and he casts it away and flees, he protects it. If the owners see it and take it, he protects it. If someone else takes it, it is a fine for the goods. When the owners have turned back, if he sees it himself, with the perception of a rag from a dust-heap, thinking, "This was taken by me earlier, now it belongs to me," even for such a one, it is a fine for the goods. Here, this thought that arises in the manner of, "If it is a cloth, I will take it," and so on, this is called "the thought of goods." The thought of place, however, should be understood thus: Someone, having entered another's monastery, etc., seeing some desirable item of goods, makes a boundary by way of a door to a chamber, the front of a lower palace door, a corner of a storeroom, the root of a tree, etc., and thinks, "If they see me within this boundary, I will pretend to be walking around, having taken it out of curiosity; if they do not see me, I will take it away." For him, when he has taken it and has just crossed the thought-out boundary, there is an act of theft. Thus, this thought that arises in the manner described, this is called "the thought of place." Thus, for one who takes having thought in terms of these two thoughts, the act of theft is to be understood as "theft by thought." Taking away after concealing, however, is called "concealed theft." It should be understood thus: A bhikkhu who, in parks, etc., sees finger-rings, etc., left by others, and conceals them with dust or leaves, thinking, "I will take them later," for him, there is no taking up by this much, so it is not yet an act of theft. But when the owners, searching, do not find them, and have gone away, thinking, "We will know tomorrow," then, when he takes it up, there is an act of theft in the taking up. Even at the time of concealment, if he takes it with the perception of "This belongs to me," or "They have gone now, cast away..." "This is a discarded item," or taking it with the perception of a rag from a dust-heap, then it is a giving of the item. Even if on the second or third day, they come, search, and not seeing it, give up their claim and depart, what was taken is still a giving of the item. But if later, knowing, when accused, he does not give it, then for the owners, when they gave up their claim, it becomes an appropriation. Why? Because by his action, it was not seen by them. But if someone, such an item, while it is in its proper place, without concealing it, with a thieving mind, steps on it with his foot, and sinks it into mud or sand, for him, at the very moment it is sunk, it is an appropriation. But an appropriation by moving a blade of grass is called "grass-appropriation." This too should be understood thus: If a bhikkhu, having dropped any blade of grass, made of bamboo strips or palm leaves, as a marker, when robes are being distributed, wishing to take another's share, which is near his own share, whether less valuable, more valuable, or of equal value, and wishing to drop the grass that fell in his own share into another's share, lifts it up, he is still innocent. Even when dropped into another's share, he is still innocent. But when, after that is dropped, he lifts up another's grass from another's share, at the very moment of lifting, it is an appropriation. If he first lifts up another's grass from another's share, wishing to drop it into his own share, at the lifting, he is innocent, at the dropping, he is innocent. But if he lifts up his own grass from his own share, at the lifting, he is innocent. When he lifts that up and drops it into another's share, at the very moment it leaves his hand, it is an appropriation. This is grass-appropriation. Thus, what was said: "Should take" means "should carry away by one of the twenty-five kinds of appropriation," its meaning is made clear. "Such a kind" means "of what kind." "Taking what is not given" means "the taking of another's property that was not given." "Kings" – this was said referring to Bimbisāra himself. Others might or might not do so, they are not the standard. "They might strike" means "they might beat with hands, etc., or cut with a weapon." "They might bind" means "binding with ropes." or they would bind them with various bonds. Or they would banish them, meaning, expel them. "You are a thief, you are foolish, you are deluded, you are a robber!" With these words they would revile them. For taking what kind of un-given thing do kings act thus? For a quarter (of a kahāpaṇa) or for what is worth a quarter. "A monk taking what is not given of such a kind" means: such a monk, taking what is not given— a quarter of an old kahāpaṇa, or goods worth a quarter, or anything whatsoever, animate or inanimate, standing anywhere on land or elsewhere, by any kind of theft of the aforementioned types of taking— becomes pārājika. What need is there to speak of more than that? It was laid down in Rājagaha concerning the elder Dhaniya, regarding his taking the king's wood that was not given. "From village or from forest" is an additional rule here, a general rule, with a specific intention. In the preliminary act of going to steal, etc., there is a dukkaṭa. In touching, there is a dukkaṭa. In moving the object of pārājika, there is a thullaccaya. For one who takes, for a māsaka or less than a māsaka, there is a dukkaṭa. For more than a māsaka or less than five māsakas, there is a thullaccaya. For five māsakas or more than five māsakas, there is a pārājika. In all cases, the determination should be understood according to the time of taking, the place of taking, and whether it is diminished or not diminished by use, change of container, etc. There is no offense for one who thinks it is their own, for taking by trust, for temporary taking, for what is owned by ghosts, for what is owned by animals, for one who thinks it is a rag from a dust-heap, and for the insane, etc. Transgression of morality, what is owned by another human being, the perception that it is owned by another, a valuable object, the intention to steal, and the act of taking according to the aforementioned types of theft— these are the five factors here. The origin of taking what is not given, an action, release from perception, with intention, blameworthy by the world, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome thought, and three-fold (root). The explanation of the second pārājika is concluded. 3. Explanation of the Third Pārājika In the third (pārājika), "intentionally" means having intended, having thought together. "A living being" means together with the perception of a living being. "I will kill him" – having intended and planned with the intention to kill. "Human body" means a living human body from the embryo onwards. "Deprive of life" means even in the embryonic stage, by heating or crushing, or by administering medicine, or even later, by a similar method, to separate from life. For the clarification of this meaning, "living being" should be understood, "taking life" should be understood, "one who takes life" should be understood, "the method of taking life" should be understood. Here, "living being" is conventionally a sentient being, ultimately, the life faculty. "Taking life" is that intention by which one initiates an action that severs the life faculty. "One who takes life" is the individual endowed with the aforementioned intention. "Method of taking life" means there are six methods of taking life: by one's own hand, by dispatching, by command, by fixed means, by magical knowledge, by psychic power. Here, "by one's own hand" is striking with one's body or with something connected to one's body, by one who kills himself. "By dispatching" is releasing arrows, spears, machines, stones, etc., with one's body or something connected to one's body, by one who wishes to kill someone far away. Here, each of these is twofold: specific and non-specific.