Seven Cases of Theft

Section Two of the Upasaka Five Precepts Sutra Original Text: Additionally, there are seven [conditions for theft]. First, thinking [the item] is not one's own. Second, lack of consent [from the owner]. Third, not for temporary use. Fourth, knowing it has an owner. Fifth, not being insane. Sixth, not having a confused mind. Seventh, not having a mind impaired by illness. In these seven [conditions], taking valuable objects constitutes an unpardonable offense. Taking objects of little value constitutes a medium offense that can be repented.

Explanation: There are also seven kinds of theft: The first is knowing or thinking the object is not one's own yet taking it without permission, constituting an unpardonable offense. The second is taking without the owner's consent, constituting an unpardonable offense. The third is taking the object not for temporary use with the intention to return it, but for permanent use, constituting an unpardonable offense. The fourth is knowing the object has an owner yet taking it without the owner's permission, constituting an unpardonable offense.

The fifth is taking another's property while being mentally lucid and not insane, meaning intentionally taking without permission, constituting an unpardonable offense. The sixth is taking without permission while the mind is not confused, meaning taking without permission while mentally clear, constituting an unpardonable offense. The seventh is taking without permission while the mind is unimpaired by illness and capable of self-control, meaning taking without permission while the mind is in a normal state, constituting an unpardonable offense. In these seven circumstances, if the taken object is valuable, such as exceeding five masha, it constitutes an unpardonable offense. If the taken object is not valuable, it constitutes a medium offense that can be repented.

 Original Text: Additionally, there are seven [conditions]. First, thinking [the item] is one's own. Second, having consent. Third, [taking for] temporary use. Fourth, assuming it has no owner. Fifth, insanity. Sixth, mental confusion. Seventh, a mind impaired by illness. Taking objects under these seven conditions is not an offense.

Explanation: There are seven situations that do not constitute an offense: The first is taking an object believing it to be one's own; this is a misunderstanding, not taking without permission. The second is taking with the other party's consent, lacking a thieving mind. The third is taking the object for temporary use, intending to return it after use, not to appropriate it. The fourth is taking an object believing it has no owner, lacking the intention to possess another's property, thus it does not constitute an offense. The fifth is taking an object while insane or mentally deranged; without a subjective thieving mind when mentally abnormal, taking does not constitute an offense. The sixth is taking an object while mentally confused; without a thieving mind during mental confusion, taking does not constitute an offense. The seventh is taking an object while mentally ill and unable to control oneself, not subjectively intending to steal, thus it does not constitute an offense. Taking objects under these seven circumstances does not violate the precept against stealing.

From this, it can be seen that whether an action constitutes a violation of the precept or an offense depends on the actor's intention and subjective thought. One cannot judge solely by the surface action. The mind behind the action plays the governing factor. One must deeply examine the true motivation behind it. Actions and the mind may be completely opposite. Therefore, all precepts are ultimately precepts of the mind.