Discussing the Problem of Theft

Question: There is a goji berry tree in a park that does not bear goji berries. Every year, if this tree is not pruned and trimmed, it does not grow well; when the branches and leaves are cut away, the tree grows more lushly. If someone picks the leaves from the tree and takes them home to eat, does this count as stealing?

Answer A: First of all, the tree is not one's own. If there is a thieving mind or a mindset of taking advantage, then it counts as stealing.

Answer B: It counts as stealing. The goji tree in the park belongs to all the people; if one eats from it without permission, that is stealing. Moving something with a thieving mind is stealing.

Answer C: According to current legal provisions, when the land and the products on it have no designated owner, ownership belongs to the whole people and constitutes public property of society as a whole. Then, when we go to barren mountains to pick fruit, that would also be an act of stealing. Picking goji berries out of greed and taking them home, and unintentionally picking and eating them out of hunger, both count as stealing, but the karmic retribution would certainly differ greatly.

Question: What if the park tacitly permits it? What if picking the leaves makes the tree grow better? What if picking the leaves saves the park staff the labor of pruning and trimming? What if the leaves are of no use to the park?

Answer A: Pruning the leaves so the tree grows better is merit; knowing the leaves have medicinal properties and privately taking them home is a fault. Pruning branches and leaves so the tree grows better is merit; taking the leaves home without permission divides into two cases: if the leaves are of great use to the park, the retribution is great; if the leaves are purely useless to the park, the retribution is small. If one prunes branches and leaves so the tree grows well, there is merit; but if the pruning causes the tree to die, there is a fault. In my personal view, many things simultaneously possess both wholesome and unwholesome aspects; it just depends on which aspect takes up a greater proportion—choose the wholesome and act on it. For example, if you give ten thousand yuan in generosity (dāna) to a beggar, in principle it is a great good deed, but in fact you have also indirectly encouraged the beggar's laziness and dependence—this should count as a small evil within a great good.

Answer B: If it is tacitly permitted, then it does not count as stealing, right? Presumably everyone tacitly permits it. In the end it comes down to the arising of intention.

Answer C: Whether it counts as stealing is determined by whether the thing taken is owned property and whether the person taking it has a thieving mind—it mainly depends on the arising of intention. The products of the shared karma of sentient beings have no definite single owner.

Answer D: It still depends on the motive. Mining on the moon—people on Earth think it is public and ownerless, but what if it actually belongs to invisible aliens? What then?

Summary: Generally speaking, it depends on what the purpose of the park planting trees is—is it to beautify the environment, or to obtain the trees' branches, leaves, and fruit? If the park staff do not care about the tree leaves, then picking them carries no fault, as there is no harm to the public interest.

Taking and using ownerless property does not constitute stealing. But the tree belongs to the park management department; the key lies in whether the management department cares about and needs the leaves. If it tacitly permits it, then it is not stealing. If the management department is helpless and lacks the ability to manage it, then it is stealing. Whether something constitutes stealing depends, first, on whether the owner agrees or tacitly permits; second, on whether the taker has a thieving mind; and third, on the outcome—whether one has harmed others to benefit oneself. If one only benefits oneself without harming others, it does not fall under this category.