A monk, having gone to the washermen’s area, stole a washerman’s bundle (rajakabhaṇḍikaṃ avahariṃsu). Verdict: parajika.
A monk having gone to the washermen’s area, looked at a precious cloth with a thieving attitude (mahagghaṃ dussaṃ passitvā theyyacittaṃ uppādesi). Verdict: no offence for just thinking about stealing (anāpatti bhikkhu cittuppāde”ti).
A monk having gone to the washerman’s area, touched a precious cloth with a thieving attitude (mahagghaṃ dussaṃ passitvā theyyacitto āmasi). Verdict: dukkata.
A monk having gone to the washerman’s area, slightly moved a precious cloth with a thieving attitude (mahagghaṃ dussaṃ passitvā theyyacitto phandāpesi). Verdict: thullaccaya. [Phandati: twitch, tremble, move or stir].
A monk having gone to the washerman’s area, removed a precious cloth with a thieving attitude (mahagghaṃ dussaṃ passitvā theyyacitto ṭhānā cāvesi). Verdict: parajika. [‘Remove’ means ‘move to another place’: see cases 17, 20, 23: from one's head to one's shoulder; from one's back to one's hips; from one's hips into one's hands].
A monk looked at a precious cloth with a thieving attitude (mahagghaṃ uttarattharaṇaṃ passitvā theyyacittaṃ uppādesi). Verdict: no offence.
...touched a precious cloth. Verdict: dukkata.
...slightly moved a precious cloth. Verdict: thullaccaya.
... removed a precious cloth. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole goods (bhaṇḍaṃ: a pada-worth presumably) at night having planned it by day. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole goods at night mistakenly thinking they were what he saw by day. Verdict: parajika.
A monk deliberately stole different goods at night having planned by day to steal other goods. Verdict: parajika.
A monk mistakenly stole different goods at night having planned by day to steal other goods. Verdict: parajika.
A monk mistakenly stole his own goods at night having planned to steal different goods by day. Verdict: dukkata.
A monk carrying someone’s goods (bhaṇḍaṃ) on his head, touched them with a thieving attitude (theyyacitto āmasi). Verdict: dukkata.
A monk carrying someone’s goods on his head, slightly moved them with a thieving attitude (theyyacitto phandāpesi). Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk carrying someone’s goods on his head, lowered them to his shoulder with a thieving attitude (theyyacitto khandhaṃ oropesi). Verdict: parajika.
A monk carrying someone’s goods on his back, touched them with a thieving attitude. Verdict: dukkata.
A monk carrying someone’s goods on his back, slightly moved them with a thieving attitude. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk carrying someone’s goods on his back, lowered them to his hip with a thieving attitude. Verdict: parajika.
A monk carrying someone’s goods on his hip, touched them with a thieving attitude. Verdict: dukkata.
A monk carrying someone’s goods on his hip, slightly moved them with a thieving attitude. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk carrying someone’s goods on his hip, took them into his hands with a thieving attitude (theyyacitto hatthena aggahesi). Verdict: parajika.
A monk carrying someone’s goods in his hands, put them on the ground (bhūmiyaṃ nikkhipi) with a thieving attitude. Verdict: parajika.
A monk took someone’s goods into his hands from the ground (bhūmito aggahesi). Verdict: parajika.
A monk left his robe outside. Another monk put it away in case it got damaged. The first monk asked: “Who stole my robe?” The other monk replied “I stole it.” The first monk accused him of a parajika offence (“assamaṇosi tvan”ti). The Buddha, having asked what the monk’s intention had been, said there was no offence in a mannerism of speech (anāpatti bhikkhu niruttipathe”ti).
A monk left his robe on a sitting platform (pīṭhe). The same scenario ensued: no offence in a mannerism of speech.
A monk left his sitting cloth on a sitting platform. The same scenario ensued: no offence in a mannerism of speech. [A sitting cloth 1m x 0.875m made of linen would be 10 padas; see discussion on pada under Parajika Two].
A monk left his bowl under a sitting platform. The same scenario ensued: no offence in a mannerism of speech.
A nun left her robe on a fence. The same scenario ensued. Verdict: no offence in a mannerism of speech.
A monk picked up a garment (sāṭakaṃ) to return it to the owner. The owner accused him of stealing. The Buddha having asked what the monk’s intention had been, said that with no intention to steal, it was no offence (anāpatti bhikkhu atheyyacittassā”ti).
In a strong wind, a monk grabbed a headwrap (veṭhanaṃ) with thieving intent hoping that the owner would not notice (pure sāmikā passantī”ti). Verdict: parajika. [A headwrap was worth two padas at least: Using the figure of forty padas allowed to bhikkhunis for a 3.5 m² linen robe (Vin.4.255-7), a pada of linen would measure 30 cm square. This is the size of a small handkerchief. A veṭhanaṃ would need to be twice that size. It would therefore be two padas, at least. Stealing a headwrap is therefore parajika].
A monk took a cloth (sāṭakaṃ) from a corpse. Verdict: dukkata offence to take cloth from a corpse that is not ‘broken’ [by animals, perhaps] (na ca bhikkhave abhinne sarīre paṃsukūlaṃ gahetabbaṃ. so gaṇheyya āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti).
At a distribution of Sangha cloth, a monk stole a robe (cīvaraṃ). Verdict: parajika. [Even though a monk is part of the Sangha, he can nonetheless steal from the Sangha if he wrongfully takes an extra share].
After a sauna, Venerable Ananda mistakenly put on someone else’s inner robe. Verdict: no offence in taking something one thinks is one’s own (anāpatti bhikkhave sakasaññissā”ti).
Monks took the remains of a lion’s kill. Verdict: no offence to take the remains of a lion’s kill (anāpatti bhikkhave sīhavighāse”ti).
Monks ate the remains of a tiger’s kill...
Monks ate the remains of a leopard’s kill...
Monks ate the remains of a hyena’s kill...
Monks ate the remains of a wolf’s kill. Verdict: no offence in taking what an animal has acquired (anāpatti bhikkhave tiracchānagatapariggahe”ti).
At a distribution of cooked rice for the Sangha (saṅghassa odane bhājīyamāne) a monk claimed a portion for a non-existent monk. Verdict: pacittiya offence for lying, not theft.
At a distribution of insubstantial food for the Sangha (saṅghassa khādanīye bhājiyamāne) a monk claimed a portion for a non-existent monk. Verdict: pacittiya offence for lying, not theft.
At a distribution of cake (pūve) for the Sangha... pacittiya offence for lying, not theft.
At a distribution of sugarcane (ucchumhi) for the Sangha ... pacittiya offence for lying, not theft.
At a distribution of timbaru fruit (timbarūsake) for the Sangha... pacittiya offence for lying, not theft.
During a food shortage (dubbhikkhe), a monk with a thieving intent stole a bowlful of cooked rice (pattapūraṃ odanaṃ theyyacitto avahari) from a rice kitchen (odanīyagharaṃ). Verdict: parajika. [‘theyyacitto avahari’ – ‘steal with a thieving intention’ -- is a tautology often used in the stories, perhaps to emphasise the defining element of theft: theyyacitta].
During a food shortage, a monk with thieving intent stole a bowlful of meat from a slaughterhouse. Verdict: parajika.
During a food shortage, a monk with thieving intent stole a bowlful of cake (pūvaṃ) from a bakery. Verdict: parajika.
During a food shortage, a monk with thieving intent stole a bowlful of sweetmeat (sakkhaliyo) from a bakery. Verdict: parajika.
During a food shortage, a monk with thieving intent stole a bowlful of sweetmeat (modake) from a bakery. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole goods (parikkhāraṃ: pada-worth assumed) at night having planned it by day. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole goods at night mistakenly thinking they were what he saw by day. Verdict: parajika.
A monk deliberately stole different goods at night having planned by day to steal other goods. Verdict: parajika.
A monk mistakenly stole different goods at night having planned by day to steal other goods. Verdict: parajika.
A monk mistakenly stole his own goods at night having planned by day to steal other goods. Verdict: dukkata.
A monk thought he could, without falling into an offence, steal a bag (thavikaṃ) lying on a sitting platform (pīṭhe) if he took it together with the platform. Verdict: parajika. [we assume the ‘bag’ was more than a pada. The monk had obviously missed the point about ṭhānā cāvesi: see Case 5, which shows that ‘remove’ means ‘move to another place’. He thought that if he left the bag on the platform, the bag was still in the 'same place'].
A monk with thieving intent stole a mattress belonging to the Sangha (saṅghassa bhisiṃ). Verdict: parajika.
A monk thieving intent stole a robe (cīvaraṃ) from a robe rail. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole a robe inside a dwelling. He thought it would be no offence if he kept it in the dwelling [like Case 56]. Verdict: parajika.
Two bhikkhus were friends. One monk was on almsround during a distribution of insubstantial food to the Sangha (saṅghassa khādanīye bhājīyamāne). His friend ate his portion, taking it on trust (vissasanto). When the monk returned, he accused his friend of a parajika offence of theft. The Buddha, having asked what the monk’s attitude/intent had been (“kiṃ citto tvaṃ bhikkhū”ti?), said there was no offence in taking on trust (anāpatti bhikkhu vissāsaggāhe”ti).
A monk ate another monk’s portion of insubstantial food (khādanīye) distributed to the Sangha, thinking it was his own, and was accused of a parajika offence. The Buddha, having asked what the monk’s attitude/intent had been, said there was no offence in taking what one thinks is one’s own (anāpatti bhikkhu sakasaññissā”ti).
Same as Case 61. Verdict: no offence.
Mango thieves (ambacorakā), having felled mangoes (ambaṃ pātetvā) made up a bundle (bhaṇḍikaṃ), but had to drop the bundle when the owner arrived. A monk took the bundle thinking it was thrown away. The owner accused him of a parajika offence (assamaṇosi tvan”ti). The Buddha, having asked what the monk’s attitude/intent had been, said there was no offence in taking what seems thrown away (anāpatti bhikkhave paṃsukūlasaññissā”ti). [Ambaṃ in this context may mean mango tree i.e. ‘the thieves felled a mango tree’. But in Case 77, a monk takes the Sangha’s ambaṃ. This could not mean the Sangha’s mango tree, but the Sangha’s mango. But in Cases 117 and 118, monks divided up the Sangha’s ambaṃ and the Sangha’s jambuṃ i.e. the Sangha’s mango and roseapple. Dividing up a roseapple, or even a mango, for a group of monks seems unlikely. I therefore translate the word ambaṃ as mangoes (plural), and likewise with the other fruit in these stories. This solution is consistent with Case 124, where the guardian of a mango grove gave a group of monks ‘ambaphalaṃ’, which is likely to mean mango fruit plural not singular. To take ambaṃ as the fruit, not the tree, is consistent with tālapakka, which means palmfruit not palm tree (which is tāla). It is important to know this when assessing the value of the pada. A single mango or roseapple, except in a food shortage, are probably not worth a pada. Therefore, stealing single fruits is unlikely to be parajika.
Roseapple thieves (jambucorakā)... no offence in taking what seems thrown away.
Breadfruit thieves (labujacorakā)... no offence in taking what seems thrown away.
Jackfruit thieves (panasacorakā)... no offence in taking what seems thrown away.
Palmfruit thieves (tālapakkacorakā)... no offence in taking what seems thrown away.
Sugarcane thieves (ucchucorakā)... no offence in taking what seems thrown away.
Timbaru fruit thieves (timbarūsakacorakā)... no offence in taking what seems thrown away.
Mango thieves, having felled mangoes, made up a bundle, but had to drop the bundle when the owner arrived. A monk stole the bundle with a thieving attitude “before the owner sees” (pure sāmikā passantī”ti). Verdict: parajika.
Roseapple thieves.... Verdict: parajika.
Breadfruit thieves.... Verdict: parajika.
Jackfruit thieves.... Verdict: parajika.
Palmfruit thieves.... Verdict: parajika.
Sugarcane thieves.... Verdict: parajika.
Timbaru fruit thieves .... Verdict: parajika.
With a thieving attitude, a monk stole mangoes belonging to the Sangha (saṅghassa ambaṃ).... Verdict: parajika. [The parajika offences in Cases 77-83 should be contrasted to Cases 117-123 where the Buddha said there was no offence in taking food for the sake of eating it (anāpatti bhikkhave paribhogatthāyā”ti). In these present cases, however, a thieving attitude was involved. Obviously, these monks took the fruit, thinking "before the monks see". But, if they were taking the fruit for the sake of eating it, why did they not claim it was therefore no offence? It is problematic. It might be better to see these cases in terms of 'taking on trust'. In these present cases, the monks did not take on trust; so the act was theft. In Cases 117-123, the monks thought the fruit was the possession of the resident monks, and they took it on trust. Alternatively, they thought the resident monks had no feelings of ownership for the fruit. In which case, they were treating the fruit as ownerless].
... roseapples belonging to the Sangha (saṅghassa jambuṃ).... Verdict: parajika.
... breadfruit belonging to the Sangha .... Verdict: parajika.
... jackfruit belonging to the Sangha .... Verdict: parajika.
... palmfruit belonging to the Sangha .... Verdict: parajika.
... sugarcane belonging to the Sangha .... Verdict: parajika.
... timbaru fruit belonging to the Sangha.... Verdict: parajika.
A monk, having gone to a flower garden, with a thieving attitude stole a cut flower worth one pada (equal to five masakas) (pañcamāsagghanakaṃ). Verdict: parajika.
A monk, having gone to a flower garden, with a thieving attitude cut and stole a flower worth one pada. Verdict: parajika.
A monk asked, and received permission, from another monk to take his greetings to that monk's supporter. The supporter gave the first monk a garment (sāṭakaṃ) which he kept for himself. The first monk complained. Verdict: dukkata offence to ask a monk to take his greetings to his supporters.
A monk told a monk to greet his laysupporter. The laysupporter gave two garments to the monk. He kept one for himself and gave the other to the first monk. The first monk complained. Verdict: dukkata offence to ask a monk to greet one’s own supporters.
A monk asked a monk if he could greet that monk’s laysupporters. That monk agreed. The laysupporters gave gifts which the monk used himself. The other monk complained. The Buddha made it a dukkata offence to ask to greet one’s laysupporters; and a dukkata to let someone, if he asks.
A man planted an expensive jewel (mahagghaṃ i.e. more than a pada) on a monk while going through customs (suṅkaṭṭhānaṃ). The Buddha said there was no offence in smuggling unknowingly (anāpatti bhikkhu ajānantassā”ti).
A man asked a monk to carry his bag through customs. The monk was thereby tricked into smuggling an expensive jewel. The Buddha said there was no offence in smuggling unknowingly (anāpatti bhikkhu ajānantassā”ti).
A monk was bribed to smuggle a jewel for someone. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, from compassion, released a pig from a trap. Verdict: no offence since he acted out of compassion (anāpatti bhikkhu kāruññādhippāyassā”ti).
A monk stole a pig from a trap. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, from compassion, released a deer from a trap. Verdict: no offence.
A monk stole a deer from a trap. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, from compassion, released a trapped fish. Verdict: no offence.
A monk stole a fish from a trap. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole goods (bhaṇḍaṃ) in a vehicle, thinking he could avoid a parajika offence by moving the goods together with the vehicle. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, intending to return it to the owner, picked up some meat stolen by a hawk. The owner accused him of a parajika offence. Verdict: no offence because he had no intention to steal (anāpatti bhikkhu atheyyacittassā'ti).
A monk picked up some meat stolen by a hawk, intending to steal it. Verdict: parajika.
Monks took goods lying beside the river thinking they were thrown away (paṃsukūlasaññi). Verdict: no offence.
Monks with thieving intent stole goods lying beside the river. Verdict: parajika.
A monk took a garment (sāṭakaṃ) thinking it was thrown away. Verdict: no offence.
A monk picked up a garment (sāṭakaṃ) wanting to return it to the owner and was accused of theft. Verdict: no offence.
A monk picked up a garment (sāṭakaṃ) intending to steal it. Verdict: parajika.
A monk saw a large round pot of ghee (sappikumbhiṃ), and consumed it bit by bit (thokaṃ thokaṃ paribhuñji). Verdict: dukkata. [Not parajika, because each act of theft was less than a pada].
A group of monks arranged that one monk would steal goods (bhaṇḍaṃ) for them, thinking that the rest of the group would not be parajika. The Buddha said they were all parajika [because, in the Word Analysis, included in the definition of ‘takes’ (ādiyeyyāti) is the phrase ‘waits at a rendezvous’ (saṅketaṃ vītināmeyya) which means ‘waits at a rendezvous as a member of a gang’].
A group of monks stole goods, then divided them up so that each monk received less than one pada: the Buddha said they were all parajika. [So each member of a gang is responsible for the whole theft].
During a food shortage (dubbhikkhe), a monk stole a handful of rice grain from a shop. Verdict: parajika.
During a food shortage, a monk stole a handful of kidney beans from a shop. Verdict: parajika.
During a food shortage, a monk stole a handful of beans from a shop. Verdict: parajika.
During a food shortage, a monk stole a handful of sesame seed from a shop. Verdict: parajika.
A monk ate beef left by thieves thinking it was thrown away. No offence.
A monk ate pork left by thieves thinking it was thrown away. No offence.
A monk stole more than a pada (pañcamāsagghanakaṃ) of reaped straw from a field. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole more than a pada of unreaped straw from a field. Verdict: parajika.
Visiting monks (āgantukā bhikkhū) shared out and ate the Sangha’s mangoes. Resident monks (āvāsikā bhikkhū) accused those monks of theft. The Buddha said it was no offence in taking food for the sake of eating it (anāpatti bhikkhave paribhogatthāyā”ti). [These cases discussed above: Cases 77-83].
Visiting monks shared out and ate the Sangha’s rose apples (saṅghassa jambuṃ)... no offence in taking for the sake of food.
Visiting monks shared out and ate the Sangha’s breadfruit (saṅghassa labujaṃ)... no offence in taking for the sake of food.
Visiting monks shared out and ate the Sangha’s jackfruit (saṅghassa panasaṃ)... no offence in taking for the sake of food.
Visiting monks shared out and ate the Sangha’s palmfruit (saṅghassa tālapakkaṃ)... no offence in taking for the sake of food.
Visiting monks shared out and ate the Sangha’s sugarcane (saṅghassa ucchuṃ)... no offence in taking for the sake of food.
Visiting monks shared out and ate the Sangha’s timbaru fruit (saṅghassa timbarūsakaṃ)... no offence in taking for the sake of food.
The guardian of a mango grove gave monks some mangoes (ambaphalaṃ). The monks refused them, thinking that a guardian is supposed to guard fruit, not give it away. The Buddha said that accepting the gift of a guardian is no offence.
The guardian of a roseapple grove... gift of a guardian, no offence.
The guardian of a breadfruit grove... gift of a guardian, no offence.
The guardian of a jackfruit grove... gift of a guardian, no offence.
The guardian of a palmfruit grove... gift of a guardian, no offence.
The guardian of a sugarcane grove... gift of a guardian, no offence.
The guardian of a timbaru fruit grove... gift of a guardian, no offence.
A monk borrowed (tāvakālikaṃ haritvā) a piece of wood from the Sangha (saṅghassa dāruṃ) to temporarily prop up a wall in his own dwelling (attano vihārassa). Monks accused him of a parajika offence. Verdict: no offence to take things temporarily (anāpatti bhikkhu tāvakālike”ti).
A monk stole water from the Sangha. Verdict: parajika. [Cases 132-4 seem to involve materials for building work, possibly for the offending monk’s own hut, as described in Case 31. So large amounts were stolen, more than a pada].
A monk stole [a large amount of] earth from the Sangha. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole [a large amount of] straw from the Sangha. Verdict: parajika.
A monk with thieving intention burned the Sangha’s straw (saṅghassa puñjakitaṃ tiṇaṃ theyyacitto jhāpesi) [perhaps wanting to simply deprive the Sangha of it]. Verdict: dukkata.
A monk stole the Sangha’s sleeping platform [for his own private hut, perhaps]. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole the Sangha’s sitting platform. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole the Sangha’s mattress. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole the Sangha’s pillow. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole the Sangha’s door. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole the Sangha’s window frame. Verdict: parajika.
A monk stole the Sangha’s roof beam. Verdict: parajika.
In the Buddha’s day, monasteries and buildings were sometimes named after their donors. Migāramātupāsāda was the name given to the storeyed building erected by Visākhā Migāramātā in the Pubbārāma. Jetavane Anāthapindikassa Ārāma was named after the men who purchased it. Ghositārāma was a monastery in Kosambi built by Ghosita, the Treasurer of King Udena. When the Sangha are having a new building erected, they formally allocate responsibility for building “the dwelling of whatever householder (itthannāmassa gahapatino vihāraṃ)” to an overseer of building work (navakammiko bhikkhu). So the monasteries and dwellings were called the “donors’ monasteries” and “donor’s dwellings” not because the donors owned them, but because they had offered them, and continued to take an interest in them. Therefore when monks removed furnishings from a donor’s dwelling to use elsewhere (aññatarassa upāsakassa vihāraparibhogaṃ senāsanaṃ aññatra paribhuñjanti) the donor complained, and the Buddha made it a dukkata offence “to use elsewhere furnishings belonging somewhere else” (aññatra paribhogo aññatra paribhuñjitabbo) except if they are taken temporarily (tāvakālikaṃ) or taken to protect them (guttatthāya haritunti) (Vin.3.66; Vin.2.174). Verdict: dukkata offence to make use of requisites in this way.
Following the rule laid down in the previous Case, monks did not move mats elsewhere. They got their robes dusty during the Uposatha recitation. The Buddha allowed monks to move things temporarily (anujānāmi bhikkhave tāvakālikaṃ haritu'nti).
The pupil of the nun Thullananda lied to a supporter that Thullananda wanted a some three-ingredient rice gruel (ayyā icchati tekaṭulayāguṃ pātu’nti). When it was cooked and offered (pacāpetvā haritvā), the pupil ate it herself. Thullananda accused the pupil of a parajika offence. Verdict: pacittiya offence for lying.
The pupil of the nun Thullananda lied to a supporter that Thullananda wanted to eat a honeyball (ayyā icchati madhugoḷakaṃ khāditu’nti). When it was cooked and offered (pacāpetvā haritvā), the pupil ate it herself. Thullananda accused her of a parajika offence. Verdict: pacittiya offence for lying.
A dying father hid his fortune from his young relatives, and asked Venerable Ajjukassa to explain to the relatives where he had hidden it, either to his son or his nephew, whichever developed faith in Dhamma. The nephew developed faith, and therefore gained the inheritance. The son, having got Venerable Ananda to agree that the son is the rightful heir, then told Venerable Ananda that Venerable Ajjhukassa had taken his rightful fortune and given it to his cousin. Venerable Ananda accused Venerable Ajjukassa of a parajika offence. Venerable Upali resolved the problem by explaining to Venerable Ananda that Venerable Ajjukassa was acting on the father’s wishes, and that the nephew was the rightful heir, not the son (interpretation taken from Bhikkhu Thanissaro's correction of Horner's translation).
Venerable Pilindavaccho rescued some kidnapped children. Monks complained about this [perhaps thinking that his conduct was theft]. The Buddha said there is no offence for one who acts with psychic powers (anāpatti bhikkhave iddhimassa iddhivisaye”ti). [This last comment is hard to explain. Perhaps it means that one would not, or could not, use psychic powers for stealing].
A piece of fat (medavaṭṭi) stuck against a monk’s feet while he was crossing a river downstream from a pork butcher. When he lifted the fat to give it back to the butcher, the butcher accused him of a parajika offence of theft. The monk accepted this accusation, so, soon thereafter, agreed to a woman’s invitation to intercourse. Verdict: parajika offence for sexual intercourse, not for theft.
Venerable Dalhika’s pupil stole a shopkeeper’s headwrap (āpaṇikassa veṭhanaṃ). Venerable Dalhika said the pupil was not parajika because the headwrap was not worth a pada. [This is a strange story. In Case 32, the Buddha said a monk who stole a veṭhanaṃ was parajika. Perhaps, in this case, the material was of poorer quality. Or perhaps, as there is no mention of the Buddha, and because it is the last of the illustrative stories, and therefore may have been added last, this story happened after the Parinibbana, and inflation may have depressed the value of the pada].
