On the Issue of Adinnadana

Question: There is a Chinese wolfberry tree in the park that does not bear fruit. Every year, if the tree is not pruned, it does not grow well. When its branches and leaves are trimmed, the tree grows more vigorously. If someone picks the leaves from this tree to take home and eat, does this constitute theft?

Person A replies: First, the tree does not belong to oneself. If one acts with a stealing mind or an intention to take advantage, then it counts as theft.

Person B replies: Yes, it counts. The park's wolfberry tree belongs to all the people. Taking it without permission constitutes theft. Acting with a stealing mind constitutes theft.

Person C replies: According to current legal regulations, land and its produce, when no owner is specified, belong to the public as social common property. Therefore, picking fruits from an uncultivated mountain also constitutes theft. Picking wolfberries out of greed to take home, or picking and eating them unintentionally due to hunger, both count as theft, but the karmic retribution will certainly differ greatly.

Question: What if the park tacitly allows it? What if trimming the leaves helps the tree grow better? What if picking the leaves saves the park staff the labor of pruning? What if the leaves are useless to the park?

Person A replies: Trimming the leaves to help the tree grow better is meritorious. Knowing the leaves have medicinal value and taking them home privately is a fault. Trimming branches and leaves to benefit the tree is meritorious. Taking the leaves home without permission falls into two categories: if the leaves are valuable to the park, the karmic retribution is significant; if they are purely useless to the park, the retribution is minor. If pruning helps the tree thrive, it is meritorious; but if pruning causes the tree to die, it is a fault. Personally, I believe many things possess both good and bad aspects simultaneously; it depends on which aspect predominates, and one should choose the good. For example, giving ten thousand yuan to a beggar is, in principle, a great good deed, but in reality, you indirectly encourage the beggar's laziness and dependence, which constitutes a minor evil within a major good.

Person B replies: If it's tacitly permitted, it shouldn’t count as theft. Indeed, it should be tacitly permitted by everyone. Ultimately, it depends on the underlying motivation.

Person C replies: Whether it constitutes theft is determined by whether the taken item has an owner and whether the taker possesses a stealing mind. The key lies primarily in the underlying motivation. Products of the collective karma of sentient beings have no fixed owner.

Person D replies: It still depends on the motive. Mining on the moon — Earthlings think it’s public, but what if it actually belongs to invisible aliens?

Summary: It depends on the purpose of planting the tree in the park. It is for beautifying the environment, not for harvesting its branches, leaves, or fruit. If the park management does not care about the leaves, then picking them incurs no fault, as it causes no harm to public interest. Taking ownerless property does not constitute theft. However, the tree belongs to the park management department. The key is whether the management department values or needs the leaves. If it is tacitly permitted, it is not theft. If the management is unable to enforce control despite opposition, it constitutes theft. Whether it constitutes theft depends on three factors: first, whether the owner consents or tacitly permits; second, whether the taker possesses a stealing mind; third, the result — whether it harmed others to benefit oneself. Benefiting oneself without harming others falls outside this category.