Seven Circumstances of Committing the Crime of Theft

Original text of the Upāsaka Five Precepts Sūtra, Section Two: 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 seven more kinds of stealing: The first is knowing or believing that something is not one's own, yet taking it without authorization—this incurs an unpardonable offense; the second is taking something without the owner's consent—this incurs an unpardonable offense; the third is taking something not for temporary use with the intention of returning it afterward, but with the intention of using it permanently—this incurs an unpardonable offense; the fourth is knowing that something has an owner and taking it without the owner's consent—this incurs an unpardonable offense;

The fifth is taking another person's belongings without authorization while the mind is clear and not deranged, that is, deliberately taking what has not been given with intent—this incurs an unpardonable offense; the sixth is taking something without authorization while the mind is not confused, that is, taking what has not been given while the mind is clear—this incurs an unpardonable offense; the seventh is taking something without authorization while the mind is free of illness and capable of self-control, that is, taking what has not been given while the mind is in a normal state—this incurs an unpardonable offense. Under these seven circumstances, if what is taken is a valuable item, such as something worth more than five coins, it incurs an unpardonable offense; if what is taken is not a valuable item, it incurs a middling, pardonable offense.

 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 that do not constitute a violation of the precepts. The first is taking something while believing it is one's own—this is a misunderstanding, not taking what has not been given; the second is taking something with the other party's consent—there is no intention to steal; the third is taking something for temporary use and returning it after use, not with the intention of keeping it for oneself; the fourth is taking something while believing it has no owner—since there is no intention to appropriate another's belongings, it does not count as a violation of the precepts; the fifth is taking something while the mind is deranged—when the mind is abnormal, there is no subjective intention to steal, so taking something does not count as a violation of the precepts; the sixth is taking something while the mind is confused—when the mind is abnormal, there is no intention to steal, so taking something does not count as a violation of the precepts; the seventh is taking something while the mind is ill and unable to control itself—since there is no subjective intention to steal, it does not count as a violation of the precepts. Under these seven circumstances, taking something does not constitute the offense of stealing.

From this we can see that whether an action constitutes a violation of the precepts or an offense depends on the doer'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 deeply 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.