English
But if a shameless one accuses a shameless one, he should be told: "Friend, what can be said about this one by your word?" And the other, having said the same, they should be dismissed, saying: "Both of you live sharing the same enjoyment and consumption." For the sake of morality, no judgment should be made for them. But for the sake of bowls, robes, monasteries, and so forth, it should be done after obtaining a suitable witness. Now if a conscientious one accuses a conscientious one, and their dispute is about some small... he is not heedless. Having admonished him, saying, "Do not do thus," and having made him confess his transgression, he should be dismissed. But if in this case, the accused has erred suddenly, there is no one who is shameless from the beginning. And if he does not give a promise to protect his faction, many rise up, saying, "We believe, we believe." Let him be innocent once or twice by their promise. But if he does not stand in his place from the time of his transgression, the judgment should not be given. 232. When judging a case of taking what is not given, the twenty-five modes of theft should be carefully considered. And in these, a skilled Vinaya master, without hastily judging the case that has arisen, should examine five points, concerning which the ancients said: "The wise one should weigh the object, time, and place, the value, and the fifth, enjoyment, and hold to these five points." Here, "object" means the goods. For even if the thief says, "I have stolen this," without imposing an offense, that object should be examined as to whether it is "with an owner or without an owner." Even if it has an owner, the owners' state of being protected or unprotected should be examined. If it was stolen when they were protected, the offense should be made by valuing the goods. If it was when they were unprotected, it should not be made a pārājika. But if the owners of the goods cause the goods to be brought, the goods should be given. This is the proper course here. To illustrate this matter, there is this story: It is said that during the time of King Bhātiya, for the great stupa festival, a monk from the south entered the stupa courtyard carrying a seven-cubit yellow robe on his shoulder. At that very moment, the king also arrived to pay homage to the stupa. Then, as the clearing was taking place, there was a great crowd of people. Then that monk, pressed by the crowd, left without seeing the robe falling from his shoulder. Having left, and not seeing the robe, he thought, "Who would get a robe in such a crowd? "It is no longer mine," he said, abandoning his burden, and went. Then another bhikkhu, coming later, seeing that robe, took it with a thievish mind. Again, regretting it, when the thought arose, "Now I am no recluse, I shall fall away," he thought, "I will ask the Vinaya experts and find out." At that time, the Elder Cūḷasumana, master of all the Pāli Canon, chief Vinaya teacher, resided in the Great Monastery. That bhikkhu approached the Elder, paid homage, made an opportunity, and asked about his remorse. The Elder, knowing that it was taken by one who came later among the crowd of people, thought, "Now there is an opportunity here," and said: "If you can bring the bhikkhu who owns the robe, it might 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 bhikkhus come?" "From the south, venerable sir." "Then measure the robe lengthwise and crosswise, and put it aside. Having put it aside, search along the monastery path in the southern direction, and bring that bhikkhu." He did so, and finding that bhikkhu, brought him to the Elder. The Elder asked, "Is this robe yours?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Where did it fall from you?" He told everything. The Elder, hearing of his abandonment of the burden, asked the other, "Where did you see this and take it?" He also reported everything. Then the Elder said to him, "If you had taken it with a pure mind, there would be no offense for you. But because you took it with a thievish mind, you have incurred a dukkaṭa offense. Confess that, and you will be without offense. And make this robe your own, then give it to this very bhikkhu." That bhikkhu was as if sprinkled with nectar, and attained supreme reassurance. Thus, the case should be examined. "Time" means the time of removal. For that very item is sometimes of little value, sometimes of great value. Therefore, that item, at whatever time it was taken, at that very time, whatever its value was, with that value, the offense should be made. Thus, the time should be considered. "Place" means the place of taking. For that item, in whatever place it was taken, in that very place, whatever its value was, with that value, the offense should be made. For in the place where the item originated, it is of little value, elsewhere it is of great value. And to illustrate this point, this story is told: It is said that in the middle of the ocean, a certain monk, having found a well-formed coconut, polished it, and made a beautiful drinking bowl, like a conch shell, and having left it there, went to Cetiyagiri. Another monk, having gone to the middle of the ocean, and residing in that monastery, seeing that bowl, took it with the intention of stealing, and came to Cetiyagiri. While he was drinking gruel there, the owner monk, seeing that bowl, said, "Where did you get this?" "I brought it from the middle of the ocean." He (the owner) then, saying, "This is not yours, you took it by theft," dragged him before the Sangha. And not finding a decision there, they went to the Mahavihara, and there, having had a drum beaten, and having held an assembly near the Great Cetiya, they began the judgment. The Vinaya-holding elders declared it a theft. And in that assembly, there was a Vinaya expert named Abhidhammika Godatta Thera, he said thus: "Where was this bowl taken by this monk?" "It was taken in the middle of the ocean." "What is it worth there?" "It is worth nothing." For there, coconuts are broken, the kernel is eaten, and the shell is discarded. "But does it serve 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 anywhere 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 of approval. And at that time, King Bhatiya... He, having gone out of the city to worship the cetiya, hearing that sound, asked, "What is this?" Having heard everything in order, he had a drum beaten in the city: "While I am present, any dispute of monks, nuns, or laypeople, decided by the elder Godatta, the Abhidhammika, is well-decided. Anyone not abiding by his decision I will punish by royal decree." Thus, the country should be observed. "Value" means the value of goods. The value of new goods later decreases. Just as a newly washed bowl is worth eight or ten, but later, if broken, or holed, or struck by a nail, it becomes of little value. Therefore, goods should not always be valued at their original price. Thus, value should be observed. "Use" 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 another, the owner of the axe should be asked: "By how much was this axe bought by you?" "For a quarter, venerable sir." "But was it bought and just kept, or did you use it?" If he says, "One day I cut a toothbrush stick, or bark for dye, or wood for cooking leaves, or it was sharpened or ground," then it should be understood that its former value has decreased. 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— even by just grinding and washing it once, its value decreases. Even by cutting a makara-tooth (design) on a tin plate, or just polishing it; even by wearing or covering oneself with a water-cloth once; even by just placing it on the shoulder or head as a result of use; even by winnowing rice, etc., or removing one or two grains from it; even by just picking up and throwing away one small stone; even by pouring oil, ghee, etc., from one vessel to another; even by just picking up and throwing away a fly or an ant from it; a lump of jaggery— Even by piercing with a nail and taking a tiny bit to know its sweetness, its value is lost. Therefore, whatever foot-worth item is diminished by the owners' use in the manner described, a monk who takes it should not be made liable for a pārājika offense. Thus, the value should be assessed. Thus, having weighed these five points, the discerning one should grasp the meaning, and place the offense or non-offense, the grave or light offense, in its proper place. Therefore, the Commentators said: No other training rule is equal to this one; It is replete with many methods, a deep decision of meaning. Therefore, when a case arises, by a monk who knows the Vinaya, making a decision here with the aid of the Vinaya. Having thoroughly delved into the Pāḷi and the commentaries, with their full intent, the decision should be made heedfully. No effort should ever be made to see an offense; One should make up one's mind, "I shall see a non-offense." And even having seen an offense, without speaking repeatedly, having investigated with the wise, and compared, then one should speak. Even in a permissible matter, due to a mind that acts lightly, the qualities of a recluse fall away here for ordinary people. Therefore, another's requisites should be seen like a venomous snake, or like fire; the discerning one should not name them. However, by one investigating a declaration of superhuman states,