Learning the Dharma by anyone does not constitute stealing the Dharma.

So-called stealing means taking what has not been given. In the Buddha's teachings, 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, was taught to sentient beings, and was made openly available to sentient beings. Therefore, when sentient beings study the Buddha's teachings, there is no question of taking what has not been given. The Buddha taught the Dharma precisely so that sentient beings could learn it—unconditionally and without charging any fee. The Buddha's mind is selfless and without self, wholly devoted to liberating sentient beings from the suffering and distress of birth and death; thus, there is fundamentally no such thing as taking what has not been given.

Even adherents of non-Buddhist paths may freely read and study the Buddha's teachings. Although such people may be looking for flaws in order to slander, reading the sutras to find faults does not constitute stealing the Dharma. The key point is that the Buddha's mind is vast, acting entirely for sentient beings and not for personal gain. If the Buddha did not allow sentient beings to study the Dharma freely, and required certain prerequisites before learning, then studying without meeting those conditions would be stealing the Dharma. But Buddhism has no such rule; it always allows sentient beings to 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 their contents, they would not dare to receive the precepts; second, if one studies them without having received the precepts, one would then use the precepts to scrutinize 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 those of lower standing to criticize those of higher standing—even with factual grounds, this is not allowed, and it is always a fault. In particular, the monastic precepts must absolutely never be looked at by laypeople, and still less may laypeople take the precepts and go about saying how this or that monastic behaves. Even if a monastic has violated the precepts, laypeople are not permitted to criticize them; otherwise there is fault, or even offense, with its karmic causes and sinful karma. Criticizing a monastic even with factual grounds still constitutes slandering the sangha—slander with basis; if one criticizes and publicizes a monastic's faults without factual grounds, it is slander without basis, and the offense is greater and the karmic consequences heavier.

There is one special case of stealing the Dharma: with a thieving mind, taking the Buddha's teachings intact and transplanting them into a non-Buddhist path, turning them into that path's own doctrine. When the ownership of the Buddha's teachings is changed, that constitutes 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 things is changed does it count as theft. If the Buddha's teachings have not been renamed as the doctrine of a non-Buddhist path, it does not constitute theft. But if someone sent by a non-Buddhist path deliberately steals the Dharma, transforming the Buddha's teachings into the doctrine of that path to serve it, then there is the offense of stealing the Dharma.