English
" Otherwise, if one takes it thinking, "I will not take it now, I will take it later when it is dark or when I can recognize it; now I will make it as if I am looking at it, and take it into my hand," even for such a person, there would be an act of theft at the moment of taking, and that is not appropriate, as there is no firm intention at that time of taking. For just as with the unwholesome acts like taking life, it is with a firm intention. For if one takes a living being thinking, "I will kill it later," even if that being dies, it is not an act of taking life at that very moment, because the act of killing with the intention of killing has not been performed. Similarly here, even if it is moved from its place with a temporal intention, such as "I will steal it when the sun has set," there is no act of theft at that time, as in the case of a spatial intention. But when the time comes as intended in that place, if one goes with the intention of stealing without putting the object on the ground, it seems that the act of theft occurs with the movement of the feet. Therefore, the three kinds of intention—object intention, spatial intention, and temporal intention—should be understood. In the commentary, however, in the case of spatial intention, when combined The intention regarding time was not stated separately. So it is our understanding. It should be taken after investigation. "It should be done by way of a step" is said because it was investigated without being placed on the ground. "Pariyuṭṭhito" means connected. "The intention is seen" means the intention is seen at the moment of taking. It shows that it is not a theft according to their view at that time. "The intention-theft is not seen because it was taken after seeing" means that later, having investigated outside and known it to be a robe, and having taken it with a thievish mind afterwards, because the previously made intention is not part of the theft, it would be a theft just like taking something knowing it to be thread. Therefore, the intention-theft is not seen. Because an intention like "if it is a robe" was not present at that time, the meaning is that it is merely a theft, not an intention-theft. By this, regarding the intention-theft of an object, it shows its occurrence only at the moment when there is no certainty about the object, as in "if it is a robe, I will take it." Therefore it is said: "Theft is for one who takes what was intended, unseen, remaining in its intended state." If so, why would the intention-theft of a place be an intention-theft for one who takes an object after seeing it? This is not a fault. Because that intention concerns a non-object. For the intention regarding a place is indeed stated for an object known after seeing it beforehand. "Thinking it to be that, he took it" - this Sutta, although it is stated in the sense of one taking it, having determined "it is indeed that," nevertheless, even in this intention that proceeds as "if it is that, I will take it," because there is certainty in the taking, "I will take it," it serves to establish the meaning of theft, so it is quoted. Therefore it is said "it agrees." "Some" means some teachers in the Great Commentary itself. And by "in the Mahāpaccari, etc.," the view of some is censurable. It shows that the view of the Great Commentary is more appropriate. "Ornamental object" means a finger-ring, etc. "Having thrown down a kusa grass" means having thrown down a marker made of bamboo strips or palm leaves, etc. Even if the kusa grass is taken from another's portion, not yet of the kusa grass... "Turning back" is said to mean "it protects in the removal." "As soon as it is released from the hand, it is a pārājika" shows that, apart from moving from its place and laying down the burden, what is called "moving a blade of kusa grass" is a distinct, single act of taking. Indeed, all acts of taking, being accomplished by means of direct action, instruction, or intention, should be understood as converging in essence into these three: moving from its place, laying down the burden, and moving a blade of kusa grass. The other person removes his share. "In the removal, it is a pārājika" is said because the attachment to one's own portion of the former (thing) has not ceased. But if there is absolutely no attachment, there is no act of taking. Therefore, it is said, "Even for one who takes the remaining portion after selection, there is no act of taking." In "even knowing 'This is not mine'," by the word "even," one who takes with a thievish mind, even being doubtful about it, is included. "Siveyyaka" means born in the Sivi country. 140-1. "Having caused it to be made allowable" means having caused it to be cooked. "In that, there is a pācittiya" should be understood to mean that a dukkaṭa is not mentioned because there is no co-use with the state of not-given-taking (theft). "By those instructed" means by those instructed by consent. "By one instructed" means by one instructed by the owners. "An object to be returned" means it does not become a pārājika because it was given by consent, etc. But it is called "an object to be returned" because it was taken by speaking of a non-existent person. "Being given by another" means being given by another of the four (types of givers) such as by consent, etc. "One who takes" means one who takes, saying, "Give a share to another." "To another" means: But without showing a non-existent person, or saying, "Give another share," or taking by counting false years, when given by the owner in the case of lay property, and by one instructed thus, "Give to this one," it is not even an object to be returned. But in the case of Sangha property, it is. To show this distinction, "by one not consented to or not instructed," etc., is said again. "Being given by others" means being given by one consented to or instructed. "One who takes thus" means one who takes, saying, "Give yet another share," or by counting false years. In "But by the owner," the word "but" indicates a special meaning. Therefore, one who takes, saying, "Give yet another share," or by counting false years... It is said that there is a difference whether one takes without being ordered, or if the owner himself gives, or causes it to be given. "Well-given" means it is not a case of goods to be returned. Below, however, when the owner or his agent gives the layperson's property, and one takes it saying, "Give a share to another," since there is no other, it becomes the owner's property, and thus, it is a case of goods to be returned. Here, however, when it is given by them, and one takes it saying, "Give a share to another," or by counting false years, because "give" was said, apart from a mere unknown request, it is not a case of goods to be returned; it is said to be well-given. But when one takes goods given by an unauthorized agent, they say it is a case of goods to be returned. Like in the four cases of bowls, the act of taking away is appropriate here. In the Sangha's property, however, even if "give" is said, since there is no specific owner, even if given by consent, it should be understood that it is said to be a case of goods to be returned. 146-9. Regarding those who cause things to be brought, it is a case of goods to be returned. From the saying, "He is pleased with what is taken," it is said that even if property of one who is displeased is taken, it must be given back. From the saying, "It should be divided by those present," divisible goods reach only the area within the boundary. Therefore, he says, "It is permissible to take only for one who is within the boundary." It is a case of goods to be returned, even if both are greedy, it should be given to the owner, not the thief, because even the thief must give it to the owner. This is the method: if taken with the perception of a rag-robe, it is a case of goods to be returned. If with the intention of theft, it is a pārājika offense. "Regarding those who leave" means those who abandon the village and flee. "Without distinction" means without considering specific efforts, etc., but generally. Mere effort is the measure of the offense, because the owners are specified. "From that" means from the Sangha's property, etc. "He gives for the sake of supporting families" means he takes it with the perception of a rag-robe or similar, and gives it. Then, due to supporting families, it is a dukkaṭa offense and a case of goods to be returned. But if there is an intention of theft, even if taking for the sake of supporting families, it is a pārājika offense. In cases of less than five māsa coins, etc., it is a family-corrupting offense. Minor offenses together with grave offenses and minor offenses. This, designated for lodging, is said for showing a grave offense when given with authority. Even if given for other requisites, without a thieving mind, but with authority, for the support of a family, or to relatives, a minor offense and a fine of goods still occurs. "With authority" means: "Who will stop me when I give? I am the authority here." Thus, by one's own lordly power. "Grave offense" means: when given for family support or for some other reason, that which is designated for lodging, being heavy property, is a grave offense and a fine of goods. Here, "Gīvā" (life/neck) means: when designated for lodging, it is a "gīvā" together with a grave offense; in other cases, it is with a minor offense. This should be understood. "Eaten with pleasure" is said because one stood within the precinct boundary, divided it, made it one's own, and then ate it. Indeed, communal property, belonging to the monastery, divisible, and located outside the precinct boundary, should be divided only by monks who are within the precinct. It should not be divided by those who are outside the precinct boundary. 150. "I will avoid what is said" when a monk is told "Avoid what is said," and afterwards,