English
It is said that even an object not released from attachment is called "not taken possession of," as it states, "it should be given when made to bring." By this, it is shown that even if attachment was initially relinquished, if later the perception of "mine" arises, that object belongs to them; there is no fault in taking it by force with the perception of "mine." It is only an act of taking if it is not given. If, however, the owner has a doubt, "Was it relinquished by me initially, or is it mine now, or not?" it is not proper to take it by force, as it falls under the condition of being taken again only by the power of the perception of "mine." By the statement, "a full defeat for one who does not give," it is indicated that even if the thief has the perception of "mine," it is not proper to take it from the owners who are attached. In other (texts), such as the Mahāpaccariya, "there is no deliberation," by this, it means that since there is no rejection even there, this very meaning (holds). he shows. Explanation of the Section on Deposits 112. In the section on deposits, for the purpose of safekeeping, even if, when there is a disturbance in the kingdom or the like, both parties, having sat in their respective places, abandon the burden, saying, “I will not give it to him now, he will not give it to me now,” without having made any other application such as “I will not take it without the application of putting away the goods deposited in my hand in a safe place,” there is no misappropriation. Some here say, “It is a pārājika because of the application of putting away,” but that is merely their opinion, not to be believed as essential. For at the time of putting away, he has no intention of stealing. But at the moment the intention to steal arises, saying, “I will not give it to him now,” there is no bodily or verbal application that is the cause of the owner’s intention to abandon the burden, by which he would incur an offense. For this offense does not arise from inaction. It should be understood that when he is eager to give, he protects it, and since it is not said with reference to misappropriation, when he makes a false statement such as “I will not take it,” it is only a pācittiya, not a dukkaṭa, because there is no application along with the absence of the intention to steal. Even if he says with his mouth, “I will give it”… (etc.)… “pārājika”—here, by which application is the offense incurred? Not by the first application of putting away the goods, as there was no intention to steal then. Nor by the application of saying “I will give it,” as even if there was an intention to steal then, the application is permissible? It is said: When the owner repeatedly asks, “Give it,” but he does not give it, the offense is incurred by that application by which he makes his unwillingness to give known to the owner, and by which the owner, knowing, “This one is unwilling to give, he is procrastinating,” abandons the burden. For in the case of deposited goods, there is no indirect release here. For if the owner is made to abandon the burden even by indirect words such as, “When was it given to you? Where was it given to you?” due to the unwillingness to give, it is still an offense. Therefore, it is said in the commentary: “What do you say… (etc.)… thus, by the abandonment of the burden by both, it is a pārājika for the bhikkhu” (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.111). For what is not one's own, when others are made to take it, there is release only in a certain way, not in every case, this should be understood. "Placed in one's own hand" – here, because it was given by the owner into one's own hand, and because one is in the position of a storekeeper, even if it is not removed from its place, there is no theft. However, if taken with the intention to steal, one is not freed from a dukkaṭa, this should be known. "This is the method" – only by removal is there a pārājika for the thief. Why? Because a common distinguishing mark was stated by others. "It is applicable when taking another of the same kind" – due to the distinguishing mark and the location, it is applicable when taking another of the same kind. The meaning is: if, after the thief has marked a place, that item is removed by someone, and another similar bowl is placed there, it is applicable if the thief takes that. Thus, even if the bowl marked by the thief during the day is removed elsewhere, and other similar bowls are placed there, the intention to steal that arises in the thief later at night is shown to arise by taking hold of another similar bowl placed in the spot marked during the day. "By the step" – by the step of the thief who takes the bowl given by the elder after taking it out. "It is applicable when taking one not of the same kind" – because there is no theft at the moment the elder takes one not of the same kind, the meaning is that the theft is applicable by the step alone when, later, the bowl in hand is perceived as "that" or "another," and one goes saying, "I will take this and go." "There is no pārājika" – it should be understood that even by the step, there is no pārājika, just as with deposited goods. "Village gate" – because the monastery is established outside the village, it is said to show the starting point of entering the village. The meaning is "inside the village." "For both, only by removal is there a pārājika" – this is said because the elder is not a storekeeper. For if he were a storekeeper, everything would be deposited. And even if one takes deposited goods with the intention to steal, there is not yet theft for the elder; there is theft only for the thief. "For both, a dukkaṭa" – because it is the elder's own property, and the thief's owner... By whom given, no removal occurred. By both having taken with impure mind, the meaning is a dukkaṭa. Taken by command, thus: "Take the bowl and robe," thus, by the elder's command, it was taken. Enters the forest. Should be done by foot-steps, thus: "Take the bowl and robe, having gone to such-and-such a village, we will wander for alms," thus. By the elder, from the monastery onwards, even on the village path, even in the entire village, the wandering being regulated. For one going off the path, the offense is said to be by foot-steps. Indeed, from the monastery's outer part, from the vicinity onwards, up to the vicinity beyond that village, all that is the young monk's area of movement by the elder's command, but not beyond that. Therefore, "transgressing the vicinity, it is a pārājika." "Transgressing the village vicinity, it is a pārājika," thus it is said. Even when sent back for washing robes, etc., the same method applies. "Having stood, not having sat," here: having entered the monastery, not having placed the burden from the head, etc., on the ground, standing or sitting, having rested, if, when the intention to steal has subsided, he again generates the intention to steal and goes, it should be done by lifting the foot. If, having placed it on the ground, he again takes it and goes, it should be done by lifting. Why? What was to be done by the commander's order, that, by then, was completed. Not specifying "such-and-such a village," when it is said generally "we will go into the village," they say that all feeding-ground villages, previously entered for alms from the vicinity of the monastery, are indeed the field. The rest, thus: all such as going off the path, going towards the monastery, etc. Just like the former, thus: even if taken without command, by having told the owner and taken it, it is said, considering all the monastery vicinity, etc., mentioned below, to be indeed the field. This is the method, thus: it refers to the method stated in the Pārājika Aṭṭhakathā 1.112, beginning with "having generated the intention to steal on the way," etc. Or he makes a sign: "My robe is dirty, who indeed will dye and give it?" etc., when a sign is made. By the method stated, thus. In the manner stated when taking the bowl and robe with the Elder who was not commanded, and going. In one part, because of the monastery's size, without showing himself, in one part. Consuming with a thievish mind, he causes it to wear out. When a thievish mind arises, without changing the place, consuming in the manner of wearing and covering, he causes it to wear out. But if he changes the place, and there is a thievish mind, it is a pārājika offense, like placing a burden on the head or shoulder (Pārā. 101). It perishes somehow or other, it perishes by fire and so on. And by "some other person," it should be understood that the one who placed it is also included. "Of the other" means of the thief. Here, regarding "pārājika for taking the other by removal," because it was freed from being a deposit by "enter and take your robe," and because there is attachment to one's own robe when taking the other's, it is said, "pārājika for removal." If the owner is completely unattached, saying, "Let this be mine, or something else, what does it matter? I am content with this," it should be understood that there is no pārājika for the thief. "They do not know" means they do not know, not hearing the words spoken by him. Here, regarding "this is the same method," if they know but do not consent with their mind, it should be seen as the same method. Here, regarding "they reject," it should be understood that rejection by mind is also included. "Existing in the vicinity" means existing in the place for urination and defecation near the storeroom. Here, regarding "and when I die, and the dwelling of the Saṅgha is destroyed," even if only "we will kill him" is said, it is permissible to reveal, because it is said to be "not within the scope" due to being in the sick party. For after death, sickness and being out of scope do not exist. Even if only "we will break the door and take the requisites" is said, it is permissible to reveal. "They should be companions" means it is said that they too,