English
as it would lead to the uselessness of the investigator, and because the admonisher must stand by the shameless one's confession. For here, the confession of admitting the fault is indeed intended as confession. Therefore, it will be said, "He does not give a confession, saying, 'This also does not exist, this also does not exist.'" "For the purpose of illustrating that meaning" means for the purpose of illustrating that even when the fault of the shameless one is revealed, it should be done only by his confession of admitting the fault. "Atthapaccatthikā" are the adversaries in the matter called the subject of dispute. "Having given a sign" means having made a sound to interrupt their speech and to make them face him. "Unsuitable to decide" is said with reference to the inability to investigate, because he has entered the side of the admonisher with the perception of impurity, and is outside the state of an investigator. For one can investigate only when there is doubt; but when there is a doctrine of impurity, everything said by the accused It appears as untrue, how can there be investigation there? Thus, without giving a decision that "he will be destroyed," it shows that this separation from the Sangha is also a kind of destruction, like the destruction of a sign. "Sharing and consuming together" this was said for their release from oneself, not for uniting them in mutual sharing. "It is spoiled" means he intentionally committed an offense. "There is no shameless person from the beginning" this is the reason given for the arising of the characteristic of shamelessness in "he does not give a promise to protect the factions." "From the time of concealment onwards, he is indeed shameless; his former sense of shame does not protect him" this is the meaning. "He does not give a promise" means he does not promise, thinking, "If I reveal the fault I committed, my followers will split." "He does not stand in place" means he does not stand in the place of shame; there is indeed an transgression in body and speech this is the intention. Therefore it is said, "a decision should not be given," meaning that even a dispute that was settled by the promise of factions before, due to its unsettled nature, this too will be destroyed in the same way. 232. In "one who is deciding a case of taking what is not given should carefully consider the twenty-five acts of theft," the twenty-five acts of theft are five fives. There, the five fives are: the five of various goods, the five of a single good, the five of personal action, the five of prior arrangement, and the five of theft. Thus it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyapārājikavaṇṇanā): "Those acts of theft, combining the five fives, should be carefully considered," and so on. There, the five of various goods and the five of a single good are obtained by means of the words mentioned in the word analysis (Pārā. 92): "should take, should carry away, should remove, should disturb the posture, should displace from its place." Thus it is said by the ancients: "Taking, carrying away; Carrying away, the posture; Disturbing..." moving thus from its place; even causing it to move is a defeat. Therein, the fivefold group of various goods should be understood as animate and inanimate; the other, only as animate. How? Regarding 'should take': one applies oneself to the property, an offense of wrong-doing. One causes doubt in the owner, an offense of grave fault. The owner abandons the burden, (thinking) "It will not be mine," an offense of defeat. Regarding 'should carry away': carrying another's goods, one touches the burden on the head with thievish intent, a wrong-doing. One causes it to shake, a grave fault. One places it on the shoulder, a defeat. Regarding 'should appropriate': being told "Give me my goods" (for) deposited goods, one says "I did not take it," a wrong-doing. One causes doubt in the owner, a grave fault. The owner abandons the burden, (thinking) "It will not be mine," a defeat. Regarding 'should disturb the posture': (thinking) "I will take it with the goods," one moves the first foot, a grave fault. One moves the second foot, a defeat. Regarding 'should move from its place': goods on the ground, one touches with thievish intent, a wrong-doing. One causes it to shake, a grave fault. One moves it from its place, a defeat. Thus far, the fivefold group of various goods should be understood. But for a slave with an owner, or an animal, by the method of application and so on, as stated, in terms of taking, carrying away, appropriating, disturbing posture, and moving from place, the fivefold group of a single item should be understood. Therefore the ancients said: "Therein, the fivefold groups of various goods, and the fivefold groups beginning with 'taking', are declared to be of two kinds." What is the fivefold group of personal action? Personal action, by command, by abandonment, by accomplishing the purpose, by abandoning the burden. For thus it was said: "Personal action, and by command, and by abandonment, by accomplishing the purpose, and by abandoning the burden – this is the fivefold group of personal action." Therein, 'personal action' means one appropriates another's goods with one's own hand. 'By command' means one commands another, (saying) "Appropriate so-and-so's goods." 'By abandonment' means conceived as a customs evasion... having stood inside the enclosures, to throw them outside. One who causes a benefit is called “When you are able to take away the goods of so-and-so, then take them away,” he commands. There, if the other person, without hindrance, takes them away, at the moment of the commander’s command, it is a pārājika. Or, if one puts into another’s oil pot oil that is to be drunk, or sandals and so on, as soon as it leaves the hand, it is a pārājika. The abandonment of a burden, however, should be understood as goods deposited due to an attack on the monastery. Even for not giving temporary goods, this is the same method. This is the fivefold category of personal action. What is the fivefold category of prior application? Prior application, joint application, agreement and taking away, signaling, and indicating. Therefore it is said— “Prior and joint application, and also agreement and taking away; Signaling and indicating, this is the fivefold category of personal action.” There, prior application should be understood as by command. Joint application should be understood as by moving from a place, or by taking fields and so on, after removing thorns and so on. Agreement and taking away is “We will take away such and such goods,” having agreed and consulted, to take them away. For those who have gone having thus agreed, even if one person moves those goods from their place, it is a taking away for all. Signaling is the act of making a sign. If, having specified some time, such as before mealtime, one is told, “At such a time, take away such and such goods,” and one takes them away later or earlier than the sign, at the moment of making the sign, it is a taking away for the one who made the sign. Indicating is the act of making a sign like winking an eye to produce a perception. If, having been told, “Take away what you can,” one takes it away later or earlier than the sign thus made, at the moment of the sign, it is a taking away for the one who made the sign. This is the fivefold category of prior application. What is the fivefold category of theft? Theft, forceful taking, scheming, concealed taking, and taking by trickery. Therefore it is said— “Theft, forceful taking, scheming, Ah, hidden are the kusa grasses thus; These five are removals, the five removals of theft. Therein, whoever, having cut through a wall and so on, takes away unseen, or deceives and takes with false scales, false measures, false coins, and so on, for him taking thus, the removal is to be known as removal of theft. But whoever takes another's property by force and violence, like village destroyers, or takes more than his due power, in the manner stated, like royal officers, for him taking thus, the removal is to be known as removal by force. Taking by pre-conception, however, is called removal by pre-conception. That is twofold by way of the opportunity for the goods. Therein, this is the pre-conception of goods: a person desiring a cloth enters an inner chamber and, having pre-conceived, "If it is a cloth, I will take it. If it is thread, I will not take it," takes a bag in the dark. If there is a cloth therein, it is a pārājika upon lifting. If it is thread, he is safe. Having carried it out, released it, and known it to be "thread," he brings it back and puts it down, he is safe. Even knowing it to be "thread," if he goes intending to take what he has obtained, he should be made to act by steps. If he places it on the ground and takes it, it is a pārājika upon lifting. If, being pursued with "Thief! Thief!", he abandons it and flees, he is safe. If the owners see and take it, he is safe. If another takes it, it is a gift of goods. Even if, when the owners turn back, he himself sees it and, with the perception of a rag, takes it, thinking, "This was taken by me long ago, it is now my property," it is still a gift of goods. Therein, this pre-conception that occurred in the manner of "If it is a cloth, I will take it," and so on, is called the pre-conception of goods. The pre-conception of opportunity, however, is to be understood thus: someone having entered another's monastery and so on, seeing some desirable goods, makes a demarcation by way of the entrance to the chamber, the base of the palace gate, the root of a tree, and so on, and thinks, "If they see me within this boundary, I will show it as if I am walking around having taken it out of curiosity." If he thinks, "If they do not pass by, I will take it," and he takes it, and the stipulated boundary is exceeded, then there is an act of taking.