五戒の細則
Section Two: The Second Precept — Stealing
Original text:佛告诸比丘。优婆塞以三种取他重物。犯不可悔。一者用心。二者用身。三者离本处。用心者。发心思惟欲为偷盗。用身者。用身分等取他物。离本处者。随物在处。举着余处。
Explanation: The Buddha told the bhikṣus: When an upāsaka takes another person's relatively valuable items by one of three methods, he commits an irredeemable offense. First, taking by mental intent; second, taking by bodily action; third, moving the item away from its original place. Taking by mental intent means giving rise to thoughts and deliberation with the desire to steal; taking by bodily action means using parts of the body and so forth to obtain another person's items; moving away from the original place means taking the item from wherever it is located and moving it to another place.
Original text:复有三种。取人重物。犯不可悔罪。一者自取。二者教他取。三遣使取。自取者。自手举离本处。教他取者。若优婆塞教人言。盗他物。是人随意取。离本处时。遣使者。语使人言。汝知彼重物处不。答言知处。遣往盗取。是人随语。取离本处时。
Explanation: There are also three ways of taking another person's valuable items that constitute an irredeemable offense: first, taking it oneself; second, teaching others to take it; third, sending someone to take it on one's behalf. Taking it oneself means using one's own hands to lift the item away from its original place. Teaching others to take it means that if the upāsaka instructs someone, saying "Steal his belongings," and that person takes them at will, the offense is committed when the items are moved away from their original place. Sending someone to take it on one's behalf means saying to the person sent: "Do you know where that valuable item is kept?" The person answers that he knows the place, and is then sent to steal it. When that person follows the instruction and takes the item in hand, moving it away from its original place, the offense of stealing is committed.
Original text:复有五种。取他重物。犯不可悔。一者苦切取。二者轻慢取。三者诈称他名字取。四者强夺取。五者受寄取。重物者。若五钱。若直五钱物。犯不可悔。
Explanation: There are also five ways of stealing another person's valuable items that constitute an irredeemable offense. First, feigning pitifulness, suffering, or being old, weak, sick, or disabled to swindle items away; second, using power and influence from a position of superiority, taking with a contemptuous mind; third, falsely claiming to be someone else to swindle items; fourth, seizing items by force; fifth, accepting items entrusted for safekeeping and not returning them, thereby swindling them. As for valuable items, if the value is five coins, or other items worth five coins, reaching this standard constitutes an irredeemable offense.
Original text:若居士知他有五宝。若似五宝。以偷心选择而未离处。犯可悔罪。若选择已。取离本处。直五钱者。犯不可悔。离本处者。若织物异绳。名异处。若皮若衣。一色名一处。异色名异处。若皮衣物。一色名一处。异色名异处。若毛褥者。一重毛名一处。一色名一处。异色名异处。是名诸处。
Explanation: If a householder knows that someone else has the five treasures of gold, silver, copper, iron, and tin, or items resembling the five treasures, and selects them with a thieving mind but has not yet moved them away from their place, he commits a redeemable offense. If, after selecting the items, he moves them away from their original place, and their value reaches five coins or more, he commits an irredeemable offense. "Moving away from the original place" means: if the five treasures are placed on woven fabric, and the weaving threads are changed, the treasures leaving the original weaving threads counts as leaving the original place. If the five treasures are placed on leather or clothing, one color counts as one place, and changing to a different color counts as leaving the original place. If they are placed on leather clothing, one color counts as one place, and a different color counts as a different place. If they are placed on a wool felt mat, one layer of wool counts as one place, one color counts as one place, and changing the color counts as a different place. These are the distinctions of the various places.
Original text:居士为他担物。以盗心移左肩着右肩。移右手着左手。如是身分。名为异处。车则轮轴衡轭。船则两舷前后。屋则梁栋。椽桷四隅及隩。皆名异处。以盗心移物。着诸异处者。皆犯不可悔。
Explanation: If a householder carries items for someone else on his shoulder, and with a thieving mind moves them from the left shoulder to the right shoulder, or from the right hand to the left hand, such different parts of the body are called different places. For a cart, the wheel, axle, crossbar, and yoke are different places; for a boat, the two sides and the front and rear are different places; for a house, the beams, the rafters, the four corners, and the inner room are all different places. If one moves items with a thieving mind and places them in any of these different places, one commits an irredeemable offense.
Original text:盗水中物者。人筏材木随水流下。居士以盗心取者。犯不可悔。若以盗心捉木令住。后流至前际。及以盗心沉着水底。若举离水时。皆犯不可悔。
Explanation: Regarding stealing items in the water: when someone's raft timber floats downstream with the current, if a householder takes it with a thieving mind, he commits an irredeemable offense. If with a thieving mind he grabs the timber and holds it back, letting it later float to the front, or sinks the timber to the bottom of the water with a thieving mind, or lifts it out of the water with a thieving mind, in all these cases he commits an irredeemable offense.
Original text:复次有主池中养鸟。居士以盗心。按着池水中者。犯可悔罪。若举离池水。犯不可悔。若人家养鸟。飞入野池。以盗心举离水。及沉着水底。皆犯不可悔。又有居士。内外庄严之具在楼观上。诸有主鸟。衔此物去。以盗心夺此鸟者。犯不可悔。
Explanation: There is an owner who raises birds in a pond. If a householder, with a thieving mind, presses the bird down into the pond water, he commits a redeemable offense; if he lifts the bird out of the pond water, he commits an irredeemable offense. If a bird raised by someone else's household flies into a wild pond, and the householder, with a thieving mind, lifts the bird out of the water or sinks it to the bottom of the water, he commits an irredeemable offense in both cases. There was also a householder who saw adornments for inner and outer decoration on a tower, and some birds with owners carried these items away in their beaks; the householder seized these birds with a thieving mind, committing an irredeemable offense.
Why did the householder seize the birds? In order to obtain the adornments. Why did he want to obtain the adornments? Because of craving and attachment, because of a greedy mind. Why did he have a greedy mind? First, because of the view of self; second, because he took self-interest to be real and thus developed it.
Original text:若见鸟衔宝而飞。以盗心遥待之时。犯中可悔。若以咒力令鸟随意所欲至处。犯不可悔。若至余处。犯中可悔。
Explanation: If one sees a bird flying through the air with a treasure in its beak, and the householder waits from afar with a thieving mind for the bird to come, he commits a moderately redeemable offense. Why? Because although there is a thieving mind and preparatory action, the item has not come into his hands, so the offense of stealing is not complete and the offense can be repented. If he waits for the bird to arrive and obtains the treasure, he commits an irredeemable offense. If he uses the power of mantras to make the bird go wherever he wishes, in order to obtain the treasure, he commits an irredeemable offense, because the act of stealing is completed and the item is in hand. If the bird arrives at some other place, he commits a moderately redeemable offense, because although there is a thieving mind and preparatory means, the item has not been obtained, so the offense of stealing is not fully accomplished.
Original text:若有野鸟衔宝而去。居士以盗心夺野鸟取。犯中可悔。待野鸟时。犯小可悔。又诸野鸟衔宝而去。诸有主鸟夺野鸟取。居士以盗心夺有主鸟取。犯不可悔。若待鸟时。犯中可悔。余如上说。又诸有主鸟衔宝物去。为野鸟所夺。居士以盗心夺野鸟取。犯中可悔。若待鸟时。亦犯中可悔。余亦同上。
Explanation: If a wild bird flies away with a treasure in its beak, and the householder seizes the treasure from the wild bird's beak with a thieving mind, he commits a moderately redeemable offense. If he merely waits for the wild bird, intending to seize it, he commits a mildly redeemable offense. There is also the case where wild birds fly away with treasures in their beaks, and birds with owners snatch the treasures from the wild birds; if the householder seizes the treasure from the owned bird's beak with a thieving mind, he commits an irredeemable offense. If he merely waits for the bird with a thieving mind, he commits a moderately redeemable offense. The rest is as stated above.
There is also the case where a bird with an owner flies away with a treasure, and the treasure is snatched by a wild bird; if the householder seizes the treasure from the wild bird's beak with a thieving mind, he commits a moderately redeemable offense, because at this point the treasure already belongs to the ownerless bird, so the offense of seizing it is lighter. If he waits for the wild bird to fly to him with the item, he also commits a moderately redeemable offense; the rest is the same as stated above.
When a wild bird carries a treasure in its beak, the treasure belongs to the wild bird; when a bird with an owner carries a treasure, the treasure belongs not only to the bird but also to the bird's owner. Therefore the offense of stealing from a wild bird is lighter, while stealing from an owned bird is heavier — regardless of how the wild birds and owned birds snatch the treasure from one another.
Original text:若居士蒱博。以盗心转齿。胜他得五钱者。犯不可悔。若有居士以盗心偷舍利。犯中可悔。若以恭敬心而作是念。佛亦我师。清净心取者。无犯。若居士以盗心取经卷。犯不可悔。计直轻重。
Explanation: If a householder, while gambling, cheats with a thieving mind by manipulating the gears of the gambling device and wins more than five coins from his opponent, he commits an irredeemable offense. If a householder steals relics (śarīra) with a thieving mind, he commits a moderately redeemable offense. If, with a mind of reverence, he gives rise to the thought: "The Buddha is also my teacher; I too should make offerings," and then takes the relics with a pure mind, there is no offense. If a householder takes sutra volumes with a thieving mind, he commits an irredeemable offense; the severity of the offense is determined by the value of the volumes.
Why is the offense for stealing relics judged more lightly? Because the relics belong to the Buddha, and the Buddha has no attachment to them and claims no ownership; therefore the relics also belong to all the Buddha's disciples — everyone has a share — and among the stolen relics there is also one's own portion. Moreover, the purpose of stealing relics is also to make offerings, not to generate profit, so the offense is light. Why does stealing sutra books constitute an irredeemable offense? Because printing sutra books requires costs such as ink, paper, and labor; that is, sutra books have a certain value, so stealing them constitutes an offense, and if the value exceeds five coins, the offense is irredeemable.
Original text:夫盗田者。有二因缘。夺他田地。一者相言。二者作相。若居士为地故。言他得胜。若作异相。过分得地。直五钱者。犯不可悔。
Explanation: As for stealing and encroaching on farmland, there are two causes and conditions by which the encroachment of another person's land can occur. First, litigation: by filing a lawsuit and winning the case, the land becomes one's own. Second, setting boundary markers: moving the boundary line into the other party's land in order to illegally occupy their fields. If a householder, in order to obtain more land, sues another person and wins, he commits an irredeemable offense. Or if he sets boundary markers to occupy extra land, and the portion occupied in excess is worth five coins, he commits an irredeemable offense.
Original text:有诸居士。应输估税而不输。至五钱者。犯不可悔。复有居士至关税处。语诸居士。汝为我过此物。与汝半税。为持过者。违税五钱。犯不可悔。
居士若示人异道。使令失税。物直五钱。犯中可悔。若税处有贼及恶兽或饥饿。故示异道。令免斯害。不犯。又有居士。与贼共谋。破诸村落得物。共分直五钱者。犯不可悔。
Explanation: Some householders owe taxes but do not pay them; if the evaded tax reaches five coins, they commit an irredeemable offense. There are also householders who, at the customs checkpoint, tell other householders: "Smuggle this item through for me, and I'll give you half the tax." If one smuggles goods for someone and evades taxes amounting to five coins, one commits an irredeemable offense.
If a householder points out a side road to someone — not the road to the customs checkpoint — so that the person has no way to pay the tax, and the evaded tax on goods is worth five coins, he commits a moderately redeemable offense. If he knows there are bandits and fierce beasts at the checkpoint, and the beasts may be hungry, and therefore deliberately points out another road so that the householder can avoid that harm, there is no offense. There are also householders who conspire with bandits to raid villages and obtain goods; if their share of the loot reaches five coins, they commit an irredeemable offense.
Original text:盗无足众生者。蛭虫于投罗虫等。人取举着器中。居士从器中取者。犯不可悔。选择如上。盗二足三足众生者。人及鹅雁。鹦鹉鸟等。是诸鸟在笼樊中。若盗心取者。犯不可悔。余如上说。
Explanation: As for stealing footless sentient beings, such as leeches and yinduluo worms and the like: if someone catches them and places them in a vessel, and the householder takes them out of the vessel, he commits an irredeemable offense. Selecting footless sentient beings from the vessel is as stated above: if one selects them but does not take them away, one commits a redeemable offense; if one takes them away, one commits an irredeemable offense. As for stealing two-footed and three-footed sentient beings, such as humans, geese, wild geese, parrots, and other birds: when these birds are in cages, if one takes them with a thieving mind, one commits an irredeemable offense; the rest is as stated above.
Original text:盗人有二种。一者担去。二者共期。若居士以盗心。担人着肩上。人两足离地。犯不可悔。若共期行。过二叟步。犯不可悔。余皆如上说。
Explanation: There are two ways of stealing a human being: first, carrying the person away; second, coercing the person to walk along together. If one carries a person on one's shoulders and the person's two feet leave the ground, one commits an irredeemable offense. If one coerces the person to walk along and goes more than two paces, one commits an irredeemable offense. The rest is as stated above.
Original text:盗四足者。象马牛羊也。人以绳系着一处。以盗心牵。将过四叟步。犯不可悔。若在一处卧。以盗心驱起。过四叟步。犯不可悔。多足亦同。
Explanation: As for stealing four-footed sentient beings, such as elephants, horses, cattle, and sheep: if the owner has tethered the being in a place with a rope, and the householder leads it away with a thieving mind, moving it more than four double-paces (the number of steps for four-footed beings), he commits an irredeemable offense. If the four-footed being is lying in a place, and the householder drives it up with a thieving mind and moves it more than four double-paces, he commits an irredeemable offense. The same applies to beings with more than four feet.
Original text:若在墙壁篱障内。以盗心驱出过群。四叟步者。犯不可悔。余如上说。若在外放之。居士以盗心念。若放牧人入林去时。我当盗取。发念之机。犯中可悔。若杀者。自同杀罪。杀已取五钱肉。犯不可悔。
Explanation: If the four-footed beings are within walls or fenced enclosures, and the householder drives them out of the herd with a thieving mind, moving them more than four double-paces, he commits an irredeemable offense. The rest is as stated above.
If the four-footed beings are roaming freely outside, and the householder thinks with a thieving mind: "When the herdsman goes into the forest, I will steal them," then at the moment this thought arises, he commits a moderately redeemable offense. If he kills these beings, it is naturally the same as the offense of killing. If after killing them he obtains meat worth five coins, he commits an irredeemable offense of stealing.
Original text:复有七种。一非己想。二不同意。三不暂用。四知有主。五不狂。六不心乱。七不病坏心。此七者取重物。犯不可悔。取轻物。犯中可悔。
Explanation: There are also seven kinds of stealing. The first: knowing or believing that the item is not one's own, yet taking it without authorization — this is an irredeemable offense. The second: taking the item when the owner does not consent — an irredeemable offense. The third: taking the item not for temporary use with the intention of returning it afterward, but intending to use it permanently — an irredeemable offense. The fourth: knowing the item has an owner and taking it without the owner's consent — an irredeemable offense.
The fifth: when taking another person's item without authorization, the mind is clear and not deranged — that is, the taking-without-consent is deliberate — an irredeemable offense. The sixth: when taking the item without authorization, the mind is not confused — that is, the taking-without-consent occurs while the mind is clear — an irredeemable offense. The seventh: when taking the item without authorization, the mind is free of illness and in control of itself — that is, the taking-without-consent occurs while the mind is in a normal state — an irredeemable offense. Under these seven conditions, if the item taken is valuable, worth more than five coins, the offense is irredeemable; if the item taken is not valuable, the offense is moderately redeemable.
Original text:又有七种。一者己想。二者同意。三者暂用。四者谓无主。五狂。六心乱。七病坏心。此七者取物无犯。
Explanation: There are seven circumstances in which no offense is committed. The first: taking an item believing it to be one's own — this is a misunderstanding, not taking without consent. The second: taking the item with the other party's consent — there is no thieving mind. The third: taking the item for temporary use and returning it after use, not intending to keep it for oneself. The fourth: taking the item believing it to be ownerless — there is no intention to appropriate another's belongings, so it does not count as an offense. The fifth: taking the item while mentally deranged — when the mind is abnormal there is no deliberate thieving mind, so taking the item does not count as an offense. The sixth: taking the item while mentally confused — when the mind is abnormal there is no thieving mind, so taking the item does not count as an offense. The seventh: taking the item while suffering from an illness that renders one unable to control oneself — it is not a deliberate intention to steal, so it does not count as an offense. Under these seven circumstances, taking items does not constitute the offense of stealing.
From this we can see that whether an action constitutes a violation of the precepts or a criminal offense depends on the actor's state of mind and subjective intentions; one cannot judge only by outward behavior. The mind behind the action plays the governing role, and one must dig deep into the true intention behind it — the action and the mind may well be in direct opposition. Therefore all precepts are precepts of the mind.
Original text:有一居士种植萝卜。又有一人来至园所。语居士言。与我萝卜。居士问言。汝有价耶。为当直索。答言。我无价也。居士曰。若须萝卜。当持价来。我若但与汝者。何以供朝夕之膳耶。客言。汝定不与我耶。主曰。吾岂得与汝。客便以咒术令菜干枯。回自生疑。将无犯不可悔耶。往决如来。佛言。计直所犯。可悔不可悔。茎叶华实皆与根同。
Explanation: There was a householder who grew radishes. Another person came to the garden and said to the householder: "Give me radishes." The householder asked him: "Will you pay for them, or are you just asking outright?" The person replied: "I have no money." The householder said: "If you want radishes, you should bring money. If I simply give them to you for nothing, what will I have to feed myself morning and evening?" The person said: "Do you really refuse to give me any?" The householder said: "How could I give them to you?" That person then used mantra-spells to wither the vegetables. After returning home, he himself gave rise to doubt: "Could I have committed an irredeemable offense?" He then went to the Tathāgata to have the matter resolved. The Buddha said: "Judge the offense by the value of what you destroyed; whether it is redeemable or irredeemable depends on that. The stems, leaves, flowers, and fruits are all counted the same as the roots."
Original text:有一人在祇洹间耕垦。脱衣着田一面。时有居士四望无人。便持衣去。时耕者遥见。语居士言。勿取我衣。居士不闻。犹谓无主。故持衣去。耕人即随后捉之。语居士言。汝法应不与取耶。居士答言。我谓无主。故取之耳。岂法宜然。耕人言。此是我衣。居士言曰。是汝衣者。便可持去。
Explanation: There was a man tilling a field at Jetavana who took off his clothes and set them at one side of the field. At that time a householder came by, looked around, saw no one, and took the clothes away. The man tilling the field saw him from afar and said to the householder: "Do not take my clothes." The householder did not hear him, and still believing the clothes to be ownerless, took them away. The farmer immediately chased after him and seized him, saying to the householder: "Is taking without consent in accordance with your Dharma?" The householder replied: "I thought they were ownerless, so I took them — is that not reasonable?" The farmer said: "These are my clothes." The householder said: "If they are your clothes, then take them back."
Original text:居士生疑。我将无犯不可悔耶。即往佛所。咨质此事。佛知故问。汝以何心取之。居士白言。谓言无主。佛言无犯。自今而后取物者。善加筹量。或自有物。虽无人守。而实有主者也。若发心欲偷未取者。犯下可悔。取而不满五钱者。犯中可悔。取而满五钱。犯不可悔。
Explanation: Afterwards the householder gave rise to doubt about his own conduct, thinking: "Could I have committed an irredeemable offense?" He immediately went to where the Buddha was and consulted him about this matter. The Buddha, knowing already, asked deliberately: "With what state of mind did you take them?" The householder replied that he had taken them believing the clothes to be ownerless. The Buddha said: "You have committed no offense. But from now on, when taking things, deliberate and consider carefully. Some items, although no one is guarding them, do in fact have owners. If one gives rise to the intention to steal but does not take the item, one commits a mildly redeemable offense. If one takes the item and its value is less than five coins, one commits a moderately redeemable offense. If one takes the item and its value reaches five coins or more, one commits an irredeemable offense."
