Discussion on the Issue of Stealing

Question: There is a goji berry tree in a park that does not bear goji berries. Every year, if this tree is not pruned and trimmed, it does not grow well; when the branches and leaves are cut away, the tree grows more luxuriantly. If someone picks the leaves from the tree and takes them home to eat, does this count as stealing?

Answer A: First of all, the tree is not one's own. If there is a thieving mind or a mind of taking advantage, then it counts as stealing.

Answer B: It counts as stealing. The goji tree in the park belongs to all the people; if one eats from it without permission, that is stealing. Moving something with a thieving mind is stealing.

Answer C: According to current legal provisions, when the land and the products on it have no designated owner, the rights of ownership belong to all the people and constitute the common property of society as a whole. In that case, when we go to barren mountains to pick fruit, that also constitutes stealing. Picking goji berries out of greed and taking them home, and picking and eating them unintentionally out of hunger, both count as stealing, but the karmic retribution would certainly differ greatly.

Question: What if the park tacitly permits it? What if picking off the leaves would make the tree grow better? What if picking off the leaves would spare the park staff the labor of pruning and trimming? What if the leaves are of no use to the park?

Answer A: Pruning the leaves so the tree grows better is merit; knowing the leaves have medicinal value and privately taking them home is an offense. Pruning branches and leaves so the tree grows better is merit; taking the leaves home without permission falls into two cases: if the leaves are of great use to the park, the retribution is great; if the leaves are purely useless to the park, the retribution is small. If one prunes branches and leaves so the tree grows better, there is merit; but if the pruning causes the tree to die, there is an offense. In my view, many things simultaneously have both wholesome and unwholesome sides; it is just a matter of which side accounts for a greater proportion—choose the wholesome and act on it. For example, if you give ten thousand yuan in generosity (dāna) to a beggar, in principle it is a great good deed, but in fact you have also indirectly encouraged the beggar's laziness and dependence—this should count as a small evil within a great good.

Answer B: If it is tacitly permitted, then it does not count as stealing, right? Presumably everyone tacitly permits it. In the end, it comes down to the intention.

Answer C: Whether it counts as stealing is determined by whether the thing taken is owned property and whether the taker has a thieving mind—it mainly rests on the intention. The products of the shared karma of sentient beings have no definite owner.

Answer D: It still depends on the motive. Suppose we mine on the moon—people on Earth assume it is public and ownerless, but it actually belongs to invisible aliens. What then?

Summary: Generally speaking, it depends on the purpose of the park's planting the tree: is it to beautify the environment, or to obtain the tree's branches, leaves, and fruit? If the park staff do not care about the tree's leaves, then picking them carries no offense, as there is no harm to the public interest.

Taking and using ownerless property does not constitute stealing. But the tree belongs to the park's administrative department; the key lies in whether the department cares about and needs the leaves. If it tacitly permits it, then it is not stealing. If the department is simply unable to manage it, then it is stealing. Whether something constitutes stealing depends on three things: first, whether the owner agrees or tacitly permits it; second, whether the taker has a thieving mind; third, the outcome—whether one has harmed others to benefit oneself. If one only benefits oneself without harming others, it does not fall under this category.