The Crime of Stealing the Resources of the Three Jewels

The lecture hall of a monastery belongs to the monastery and the main lecturer. Without the owner's consent, arbitrarily using the lecture hall to teach the Dharma, or bringing people up to teach the Dharma, constitutes theft. Driving a Dharma master who is currently teaching out of the lecture hall and going up oneself to teach, or finding someone else to go up and teach, is robbery-style stealing — the offense of robbing the inherent rights and resources of the Three Jewels, and it also constitutes the offense of sabotaging and obstructing the Three Jewels' propagation of the Dharma.

Cyberspace is also a kind of resource and can also be an exclusive lecture hall, belonging to an individual or a group. For example, our inner-circle group was established for the purpose of the Master teaching the Dharma, not as a venue for others to teach. Without the Master's permission, arbitrarily posting in the group other people's Dharma-teaching materials and remarks, or going up oneself to chat idly about gossip and trivial matters that are of no benefit to group members, constitutes theft — stealing the Master's rights and stealing the resources of the faithful and the group. It belongs to the offense of appropriating the Three Jewels, and also carries the offense of disrespecting the Master and fellow practitioners. If one pulls group members away and sows discord between master and disciples, it constitutes the offense of sabotaging the Three Jewels and the offense of slander, and so on.

So-called theft means taking what is not given. In the Buddha's Dharma, apart from the precepts — which one may not read or study without having received them — all the Dharma spoken by the Buddha was spoken for sentient beings; it was all spoken to sentient beings, all made public to sentient beings. For sentient beings to study the Buddhadharma, there is no such thing as "taking what is not given." The Buddha taught the Dharma precisely for sentient beings, so that sentient beings could study the Dharma — unconditionally, charging no fees whatsoever. The Buddha's mind is selfless and without self, single-mindedly devoted to liberating sentient beings from the suffering and distress of birth and death, so fundamentally there is no "taking what is not given."

Even adherents of non-Buddhist paths may freely read and study the Buddhadharma. Although non-Buddhists may do so in order to pick out flaws or to slander, reading Buddhist sutras to find faults does not constitute stealing the Buddha's Dharma. The key point is that the Buddha's mind was vast — everything was for sentient beings, not for personal gain. If the Buddha did not allow sentient beings to study the Dharma freely, and required prerequisites before studying, then studying without meeting those conditions would be stealing the Dharma. But Buddhism has no such rule; it lets all sentient beings study and practice openly and honorably.

As for the precepts, if one has not received the corresponding precepts, one is not permitted to study them. First, it is feared that if sentient beings knew the contents, they would not dare to receive the precepts; second, if one studies them without having received the precepts, one will use the precepts to measure and judge those who have received them, and this incurs fault. Those who have received the precepts stand above those who have not; Buddhism does not permit the lower to criticize the higher — even with factual basis this is not allowed, and there is fault in it. As for the Bodhisattva Precepts, looking at them before one intends to receive them also constitutes stealing the precepts. Although many teachings are displayed online, teachings one should not view should not be opened and read. The contents of the five precepts have long been public and may be read and studied in advance.

The precepts of monastics must absolutely never be viewed by laypeople. After reading the monastic precepts, to point fingers at and criticize the words and deeds of monastics, saying this or that about them, constitutes the offense of slandering the Three Jewels. Regardless of whether what is said is right or wrong, it is not permitted. Even if a monastic has violated the precepts, laypeople are not permitted to reproach them; otherwise there is fault, with karmic consequences and sinful karma. Reproaching monastics with factual basis also constitutes slandering the Sangha — slander with basis; if one criticizes and publicizes a monastic's faults without factual basis, it is slander without basis, and the fault is greater and the karmic consequences heavier.

There is one special case of stealing the Dharma: taking the Buddhadharma intact with a thieving mind and transplanting it into non-Buddhist paths, turning it into the doctrine of those paths — when the ownership of the Buddhadharma is changed, that constitutes stealing the Dharma. If someone is sent by a non-Buddhist path specifically to steal the Dharma, turning the Buddhadharma into a non-Buddhist doctrine to serve that path, there is the offense of stealing the Dharma. Taking someone else's belongings back to one's own home and claiming them as one's own — only when the owner of the thing is changed does it constitute theft. If the Buddhadharma has not been renamed as a non-Buddhist doctrine, it does not constitute theft.

Stealing the Dharma can also be determined in this way: if it is said that A stole B's Dharma, then one must compare the degree of refinement of the Dharma taught by the two. Which is deeper and more refined, better manifesting wisdom? Which has more of an actual practice process and concrete methods, more details? Which is more logical and analytical? Which is easier to begin with? Which was realized through actual practice, and which was learned, analyzed, organized, and summarized? With careful, calm comparison, one can determine the answer.

Crude, shoddily made Dharma cannot be original. Dharma without process or detail cannot be original. Dharma with no point of entry for practice cannot be original. Dharma without actual realization, with the middle portion of real practice cut out, cannot be original. Dharma without actual realization, constantly being supplemented, revised, and patched, cannot be original. Only Dharma that is deeper and more refined, with a practice process, with details, with concrete and practical methods, with a point of entry, that easily transforms one's disposition and easily leads to accomplishment — only such Dharma is original, realized through actual practice.

For every practitioner who has achieved accomplishment, even great accomplishment, their practice has not been just one lifetime, nor a few lifetimes — for most it is reckoned in kalpas. Those with great accomplishment have passed through countless, immeasurable kalpas of practice and realization; their wisdom has long accumulated very, very deeply, beyond measure. In this life, upon encountering the Buddhadharma, their wisdom gushes forth and advances by leaps and bounds, leaving ordinary people far behind. A person of conscience cannot say that such a person achieved accomplishment by stealing the Dharma of someone whose wisdom is cruder and shallower than theirs. If so, why have no such people appeared among the disciples they personally taught? Even if such a person does appear among one's disciples, it shows that this disciple's indriya is exceptionally excellent — they must have cultivated for immeasurable kalpas in past lives to have such wisdom and attainment; it is absolutely not something taught to them by anyone in a single lifetime. Even the Buddha could not, within a few years or even a single lifetime, teach a person of the most rudimentary level into becoming one of great accomplishment. If it were otherwise, attaining buddhahood would be far too easy.