The Crime of Stealing the Resources of the Three Jewels

The temple lecture hall belongs to the temple and the speaker. Without the owner's consent, casually using the lecture hall to teach the Dharma, or bringing people in to teach, constitutes stealing. Forcibly removing a Dharma master who is currently teaching from the lecture hall and going up oneself to teach, or finding someone else to go up and teach, constitutes robbery-style stealing — it is the crime of robbing the Three Jewels of their inherent rights and the crime of seizing the Three Jewels' resources, and it also constitutes the offense of disrupting and obstructing the Three Jewels' Dharma propagation.

Cyberspace is also a kind of resource, and it can also be an exclusive lecture hall, owned by an individual or a group. For example, our Inner Hall group was established for the purpose of the master using it to teach the Dharma, not as a place for others to teach. If, without the master's permission, one arbitrarily posts other people's Dharma teaching materials and remarks in the group, or goes up oneself to speak idle chatter and trivial matters that are of no benefit to the group members, that constitutes stealing — stealing the master's rights, stealing the faithful's and the group's resources — and constitutes the offense of encroaching upon the Three Jewels, and also carries the offense of disrespecting one's teachers and fellow practitioners. If one lures away group members and alienates the master-disciple relationship, that constitutes the offense of destroying the Three Jewels and the offense of slander, among others.

The so-called "stealing" is "taking what is not given" (adattādāna). In Buddhism, apart from the precepts — where one may not read or study them without having received them — all Dharma spoken by the Buddha was spoken for the sake of sentient beings, was spoken to sentient beings, and is open to all sentient beings. For sentient beings studying the Buddha's Dharma, there is no such matter as "taking what is not given." The Buddha taught the Dharma for sentient beings so that they could learn the Dharma, unconditionally, without charging any fee. The Buddha's mind is selfless and without ego, wholly devoted to liberating sentient beings from the suffering of birth and death. Therefore, "taking what is not given" fundamentally does not exist.

Even non-Buddhists may freely read and study the Buddha's Dharma. Although non-Buddhists may be looking for loopholes or seeking to slander, reading the Buddhist scriptures to find faults does not constitute stealing the Dharma. The key point is that the Buddha's mind is vast — everything is for sentient beings, not for personal gain. If the Buddha did not allow sentient beings to casually study the Dharma, requiring prerequisite conditions before one could learn, then learning without meeting those conditions would be stealing the Dharma. But Buddhism has no such rule; all sentient beings are encouraged to study and practice openly and aboveboard.

As for the precepts (vinaya): if one has not received the corresponding precepts, one is not permitted to study them. This is because, first, if sentient beings knew the contents, they might be afraid to receive the precepts; and second, if one studies the precepts without having received them, one will use them to measure those who have received them, which creates offense. Those who have received the precepts are superior to those who have not. Buddhism does not permit those of lower status to criticize those of higher status. Even if there is factual basis, it is not allowed, and there is fault either way. As for the Bodhisattva precepts, if one reads them before intending to receive them, it also constitutes stealing the precepts. Although many texts are displayed online, one should not open and read texts that one ought not to read. The contents of the Five Precepts have long been public and may be read and studied in advance.

As for the precepts of monastics, laypeople absolutely must not read them. After reading the monastic precepts, if one points fingers at monastics' words and deeds, saying how monastics are this or that, that is the offense of slandering the Three Jewels. Regardless of whether what is said is right or wrong, it is not permitted. Even if a monastic has violated the precepts, laypeople are not permitted to criticize them; otherwise, there is fault, with karmic consequences and offenses. Criticizing monastics with factual basis is still slandering the Saṅgha — it is slander with a root (foundation). Criticizing and publicizing monastics' faults without factual basis is rootless slander, with even greater offense and heavier karmic consequences.

There is a special case of stealing the Dharma: when one, with a thieving mind, moves the Buddha's Dharma intact into non-Buddhist teachings, turning it into the non-Buddhists' own teaching, and the ownership of the Buddha's Dharma changes, that constitutes stealing the Dharma. If someone is sent by a non-Buddhist school specifically to steal the Dharma, transforming the Buddha's Dharma into non-Buddhist teaching to serve non-Buddhism, there is the offense of stealing the Dharma. Taking another's belongings back to one's own home and claiming them as one's own — only when the ownership of the thing changes does it constitute stealing. If the Buddha's Dharma has not been renamed as a non-Buddhist teaching, it does not constitute stealing.

Stealing the Dharma can also be determined in this way: if A is said to have stolen B's Dharma, then one must compare the coarseness and fineness of the Dharma spoken by A and B. Whose teaching is deeper and more detailed, better able to embody wisdom? Whose teaching has more practice stages and concrete methods, more detail? Whose teaching is more logical and discursive? Whose teaching is easier to enter into? Which one was realized through actual practice, and which one was learned, analyzed, organized, and summarized? With careful and calm comparison, one can determine the answer.

Crudely and carelessly made Dharma cannot be original. Dharma without process and without detail cannot be original. Dharma without a point of entry for practice cannot be original. Dharma that lacks actual realization and cuts away the middle of actual cultivation cannot be original. Dharma that lacks actual realization and is constantly being supplemented, revised, and patched cannot be original. Rather, the deeper and more detailed teaching — one that has a practice process, has details, has concrete and practical methods, has a point of entry, and can easily transform the mind and easily bring accomplishment — that is the original one, the one realized through actual practice.

Everyone who has achieved accomplishment in practice — even great accomplishment — has not cultivated for just one lifetime, nor for just a few lifetimes. Most are reckoned in kalpas. Great achievers have all passed through cultivation and realization over countless kalpas, immeasurable kalpas; their wisdom has long since accumulated extremely deeply, beyond measure. In this life, upon encountering the Buddha's Dharma, wisdom gushes forth, advancing by leaps and bounds, leaving ordinary people far behind. A person with conscience could not say that such a person achieved accomplishment by stealing the Dharma of someone whose wisdom is shallower than theirs. If that were so, why are there no such people among the disciples one has personally taught? Even if such a person does appear among one's disciples, it shows that this disciple has extremely good spiritual faculties (indriya) and had already cultivated for immeasurable kalpas in past lives to possess such wisdom and achievement — it is by no means the result of being taught by someone in a single lifetime. Even the Buddha could not teach a person of the most basic level into a great achiever in just a few years or even a single lifetime. If that were possible, attaining buddhahood would be far too easy.