English
then, with both giving up hope, the bhikkhu incurs a pārājika. Even if he says with his mouth, "I will give it back," but in his mind he does not intend to give it, even then, if the owner gives up hope, it's a pārājika. But if, for the purpose of safeguarding, he moves an item placed in his hand by others from an unguarded place to a guarded place for safekeeping, there is no offense. Even if he moves it with a thieving mind, there is no carrying away (theft). Why? Because it was placed in his hand. But it becomes an item to be given back. Even if he uses it with a thieving mind, the same applies. 54. It is permissible to put away any item belonging to five fellow Dhamma-farers. If a visiting bhikkhu, placing his bowl and robe near resident bhikkhus who are doing robe-work, thinking, "They will safeguard these," goes to bathe or elsewhere, if the residents safeguard them, that is good. If not, if it is lost, there is no responsibility. Even if he says, "Sirs, please put this away," and goes, and the others, being busy with their duties, do not know, the same applies. Or if, being told, "Sirs, please put this away," they refuse, saying, "We are busy," and the other, disregarding this, thinking, "They will surely put it away," goes, the same applies. If however They, by him, asked or unasked, do not say, "We will keep, you go." That must be protected. If they do not protect, lost, the neck is lost. Why? Because of having accepted. A monk, having become a storekeeper, in the early morning, having lowered the monks' bowls and robes to below the monastery, having closed the door, and without informing them, goes far for alms. If thieves steal them, his neck is lost. But a monk, being told by the monks, "Lower, venerable sirs, the bowls and robes, it is time for the distribution of tickets," having asked, "Are you assembled?" and when told, "Yes, we are assembled," having taken out and placed the bowls and robes, having closed the storehouse door, and having said, "You, taking the bowls and robes, should guard the door below the monastery and go," he goes. And there, one lazy monk, after the monks 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's neck is not lost. Even if someone, without informing the storekeeper, places his own requisites in the storehouse, if that is lost, the storekeeper's neck is not lost. But if the storekeeper, seeing it, takes it, thinking "It is placed in the wrong place," and places it (elsewhere), if lost, his neck is lost. Even if, being told by the monk who placed it, "Venerable sir, such and such a requisite has been placed by me, please take note," he accepts, saying "Good," or thinking it is badly placed, he places it in another spot, if lost, his neck is lost. But for one who denies, saying "I do not know," there is no lost neck. And whoever places it while he (the storekeeper) is watching, but does not make the storekeeper accept it, if lost, it is well and truly lost. But if the storekeeper places it elsewhere, if lost, his neck is lost. If the storehouse is well-guarded, and all requisites of the Sangha and the cetiya are placed there, and the storekeeper is a fool... Oh, an unwise one, having opened the door, to hear a Dhamma talk, or to do something else, goes somewhere. Seeing that moment, whatever thieves take, all of it is his neck. Or for one who has left the storeroom and is walking outside, or one who has opened the door and lets his body take in the weather, or one who is sitting right there practicing ascetic duties, or one who is sitting right there occupied with some work, or even one afflicted by urination or defecation, and there being a facility right there, goes outside, or one who is negligent in any other way, having opened the door, or having entered through an already open door, or having broken a wall, whatever the thieves take due to his negligence, all of it is his neck. "In the hot season, it is permissible to lie down with the window open," they say. But for one afflicted by urination or defecation, if there is no facility there, and he goes elsewhere, being in the category of the sick, it is not his domain, therefore, it is not his neck. 55. But if one, afflicted by heat inside, having made the door well-secured, goes outside, and thieves seize him and say, "Open the door!" he should not open it even up to the third time. But if those thieves, saying, "If you do not open it, we will kill you, and breaking the door, we will take the requisites," raise axes and the like, then, thinking, "If I die and the Sangha's dwelling is destroyed, there is no benefit," it is permissible to open it. Here too, they say, "Because it is not his domain, it is not his neck." If some visitor gives a key, or opens the door, whatever the thieves take, all of it is his neck. The Sangha, for the purpose of guarding the storeroom, has given a bolt and a key with a seal attached. The storeroom keeper, having given it for a moment, lies down. Thieves open it and take the requisites; it is his neck. But if, having attached the bolt and the key with the seal, he lies down, and thieves come and say, "Open the door!" then in that case, he should proceed in the same manner as before. Having made it thus well-secured... If, however, when he is lying down, they break through the wall or the roof, or enter through a tunnel and steal, that is not his fault. If other elders also live in the storehouse, and with the door open, they take their own requisites and go, and the storehouse keeper does not guard the door after they leave, if anything is stolen there, due to the storehouse keeper's authority, it is the storehouse keeper's fault, but the elders should be his companions. This is the proper conduct. If the storehouse keeper says, "You stand outside and take your requisites, do not enter," and one greedy great elder, together with novices and attendants, enters the storehouse and sits and lies down, whatever goods are lost, all of it is his fault, but the storehouse keeper and the remaining elders should be his companions. If the storehouse keeper himself, taking greedy novices and attendants, sits and lies down in the storehouse, whatever is lost, all of it is his fault. Therefore, only the storehouse keeper should live there, the others should live even at the foot of a tree, and not in the storehouse. 56. Those who place their requisites in the living quarters of their own similar monks, when the requisites are lost, it is the fault of those who placed them, but the others should be companions. If, however, the Sangha arranges gruel and food for the storehouse keeper right in the monastery, and he goes to the village for alms, what is lost is his fault. For the monastery watchman, who is given gruel or food, for keeping extra robes, if he goes for alms, whatever is lost there, all of it is his fault. And not only this much, like the storehouse keeper, whatever is lost due to his negligence, all of it is his fault. If the monastery is large, and he goes to guard another area, and what was placed in another area is stolen, due to it being out of his range, it is not his fault. occurs. But in such a monastery, in the middle, at the place where everyone gathers, after placing the requisites, one should sit, or two or three monastery-keepers should be appointed. If, even when they are heedful, and protecting things here and there, something is lost, it is not their fault. Even if the goods are stolen by binding the monastery-keepers and taken away, and the thieves go by another path, it is not their fault. If there is no gruel or rice or provisions to be given to the monastery-keepers in the monastery, it is permissible to set aside two or three extra gruel-tickets and enough rice-tickets for them from the alms they receive, but they should not be fixed. For people become resentful, thinking, "The monastery-keepers are eating our food," therefore, they should be rotated and set aside. If their relatives bring and give them ticket-food and so on, that is good. If they do not give, they should be made to take turns and be brought out. If a monastery-keeper, receiving two or three gruel-tickets and four or five ticket-meals, goes on alms-round, then everything lost is his fault, like a store-keeper. If there is no food or provisions to be given to the monastery-guards of the Sangha, the bhikkhus take turns guarding the monastery and make their dependents guard the monastery; one cannot refuse to take the assigned turn. Just as other bhikkhus do, so should it be done. However, a turn should not be assigned to a bhikkhu who is alone or without a companion, or one whose relative bhikkhu is not there to bring and give food. Whatever is kept in the monastery for the purpose of cooking, one who lives by taking it should remain there. One who does not live by it should not be made to take a turn. Bhikkhus are also appointed in the monastery for the purpose of fruits and produce; they guard and protect them, and divide and eat them according to the fruit-turn. One who eats them should remain there; one who does not live by it should not be made to take a turn. They are also appointed for the protection of lodgings, beds, chairs, and coverings. One dwelling in a residence should stay. But one who lives in the open or at the foot of a tree should not be made to take a turn. If one is a novice, but is learned and teaches Dhamma to many, gives answers to questions, explains the Pāli, delivers Dhamma talks, and carries the burden of the Sangha, even if this one enjoys gains and dwells in a residence, he should not be made to take a turn. They say, "A special person should be known." But for the guardian of the Uposatha hall and the image house, double gruel and food, daily a nāḷi of rice,