The Sin of Stealing Resources from the Three Jewels

The lecture halls of a monastery belong to the monastery and the main speaker. Without the owner's consent, using the lecture hall at will to teach the Dharma, or bringing people up to teach, constitutes theft. Driving a Dharma teacher who is currently lecturing out of the hall and going up oneself to speak, or finding someone else to speak instead, is robbery-style theft—the crime of robbing the inherent rights and resources of the Three Jewels—and it also constitutes the crime of obstructing and sabotaging the Three Jewels' propagation of the Dharma.

Cyberspace is also a kind of resource and can also be an exclusive lecture hall, belonging to an individual or a group. For example, our inner-circle group was established for the purpose of the Master teaching the Dharma; it is not a venue provided for others to teach. Without the Master's permission, to arbitrarily post other people's Dharma-teaching materials and remarks in the group, or to go up oneself and chat idly about useless gossip and trivial matters that do not benefit the group members, constitutes theft—stealing the Master's rights and stealing the resources of the faithful and the group. It is the crime of appropriating the Three Jewels, and also the crime of disrespecting the Master and fellow practitioners. If one draws away group members and sows discord between master and disciples, it constitutes the crime of sabotaging the Three Jewels and the crime of slander, among others.

So-called theft means "taking what is not given." In the Buddha-Dharma, apart from the precepts—which may not be read or studied without having received them—all the Dharma spoken by the Buddha was spoken for sentient beings; it was all spoken to sentient beings, all made public to sentient beings. For sentient beings to study the Buddha-Dharma, there is no such thing as "taking what is not given." The Buddha taught the Dharma precisely for sentient beings, so that sentient beings could learn the Dharma—unconditionally, charging no fee whatsoever. The Buddha's mind is selfless and without self, single-mindedly devoted to liberating sentient beings from the suffering and distress of birth and death, so fundamentally there is no "taking what is not given."

Even followers of external paths may freely read and study the Buddha-Dharma. Although followers of external paths may do so in order to pick out flaws or to slander, reading Buddhist sutras to find faults does not constitute stealing the Buddha-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 study the Dharma freely, and learning required preconditions, then studying without meeting those conditions would be stealing the Dharma. But Buddhism has no such rule; it always lets sentient beings 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 the contents, they would not dare to receive the precepts; second, if one studies them without having received the precepts, one will use the precepts to measure and judge those who have received them, and this incurs fault. Those who have received the precepts stand above those who have not; Buddhism does not allow the lower to criticize the higher—even with factual grounds this is not permitted; there is fault in it either way. As for the Bodhisattva Precepts, if one reads them before intending to receive them, that also counts as stealing the precepts. Although many teachings are now displayed on the internet, teachings one should not view should not be opened and read. The contents of the Five Precepts have long been public and may be read and studied in advance.

As for the monastic precepts, laypeople absolutely must not look at them. After reading the monastic precepts, to point fingers at a monastic's words and conduct, saying how a monastic is this way or that way, is the crime 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 sinful karma. Criticizing a monastic with evidence also constitutes slandering the Saṅgha—it is slander with grounds; if one criticizes and publicizes a monastic's faults without factual basis, it is slander without grounds, and the fault is greater and the karmic consequences heavier.

There is one special case of stealing the Dharma: with a thieving mind, transplanting the Buddha-Dharma intact into an external path, turning it into the Dharma of that external path. When the ownership of the Buddha-Dharma is changed, that constitutes stealing the Dharma. If someone is sent by an external path specifically to steal the Dharma, turning the Buddha-Dharma into the Dharma of the external path to serve that path, there is the crime of 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 thing is changed does it count as theft. If the Buddha-Dharma has not been renamed as the Dharma of an external path, it does not count as theft.

Stealing the Dharma can also be determined in this way: if it is said that A stole B's Dharma, then one must compare the degree of refinement of the Dharma taught by the two. Which is deeper and more subtle, better manifesting wisdom? Which has more of an actual practice process and concrete methods, more detail? Which is more logical and analytical? Which is easier to begin with? Which was realized through personal verification, and which was learned, analyzed, organized, and summarized? With careful, calm comparison, one can determine the answer.

Crude, shoddily made Dharma cannot be original. Dharma without process or detail cannot be original. Dharma with no point of entry for practice cannot be original. Dharma without personal verification, with the middle portion of actual practice cut out, cannot be original. Dharma without personal verification, constantly being supplemented, revised, and patched, cannot be original. Only Dharma that is deeper and more subtle, with a practice process, with detail, with concrete and practical methods, with a point of entry, that easily transforms one's disposition and easily leads to accomplishment—only such Dharma is original, realized through personal verification.

For every practitioner who has achieved attainment, or even great attainment, their practice has not been for a single lifetime, nor for a few lifetimes; for most, it is reckoned in kalpas. Great achievers have cultivated and realized through countless, immeasurable kalpas; their wisdom has long accumulated very, very deep, beyond measure. Upon encountering the Buddha-Dharma in this life, their wisdom gushes forth and advances by leaps and bounds, leaving ordinary people far behind. A person of conscience cannot say that such a person attained accomplishment by stealing the Dharma of someone whose wisdom is cruder and shallower than their own. If so, why do none of the disciples they personally taught turn out like this? Even if such a person appears among the disciples, it shows that this disciple's spiritual faculties are exceptionally excellent—that they cultivated for immeasurable kalpas in past lives to have such fruits of wisdom; they were absolutely not taught into being by someone over a single lifetime. Even the Buddha could not, within a few years or even a single lifetime, teach a person of the most rudimentary foundation into becoming a great achiever. Otherwise, becoming a Buddha would be far too easy.