VIII. Discussion on the Issue of Theft

Question: There is a Chinese wolfberry tree in the park that does not bear fruit. Every year, if the tree is not pruned, it does not grow well; pruning its branches and leaves allows it to flourish. If someone picks the leaves from this tree to take home and eat, does this count as theft?

Person A replied: First, since the tree is not one’s own, if there is an intention to steal or to take advantage, then it counts as theft.

Person B replied: Yes, it counts. The park’s wolfberry tree belongs to all the people. Taking it without permission constitutes theft. Moving it with a stealing mentality is theft.

Person C replied: According to current legal provisions, land and its produce, when no owner is specified, are collectively owned by all citizens and constitute public property of society.

Therefore, picking fruit from an uncultivated mountain also constitutes theft. Whether picking wolfberries out of greed to take home or eating them unintentionally out of hunger, both count as theft, but the karmic retribution will certainly differ greatly.

Question: What if the park tacitly allows it? What if removing the leaves actually helps the tree grow better? What if removing the leaves saves the park staff the labor of pruning? What if the leaves are useless to the park?

Person A replied: Pruning leaves to help the tree grow better is meritorious; knowing the leaves have medicinal value and taking them home privately is a demerit. Pruning branches and leaves for the tree’s benefit is meritorious. Taking leaves home without permission falls into two categories: if the leaves are valuable to the park, the karmic retribution is significant; if they are purely useless to the park, the retribution is minor. If pruning helps the tree thrive, it is meritorious; but if pruning causes the tree to die, it is a demerit. Personally, I believe many actions simultaneously contain both good and evil aspects; it depends on which aspect predominates. Choose the good and act accordingly.

For example, giving ten thousand yuan to a beggar is, in principle, a great act of kindness. However, you also indirectly encourage the beggar’s laziness and dependence, which constitutes a minor evil within a major good.

Person B replied: If tacitly permitted, it shouldn’t count as theft. Indeed, it should be considered tacitly permitted by all. Ultimately, it comes down to the intention.

Person C replied: Whether it constitutes theft depends on whether the item taken has an owner and whether the taker has a stealing mentality. The key lies primarily in the intention. Products of collective karma have no definite single owner.

Person D replied: It still depends on the motive. Mining on the moon—earthlings think it’s communal, but what if it actually belongs to invisible aliens?

Summary: Consider the park’s purpose in planting the tree. It is for beautifying the environment, not for harvesting its branches, leaves, or fruit. If the park management does not care about the leaves, then picking them is not an offense, as it causes no harm to public interest.

Taking ownerless property does not constitute theft. However, the tree belongs to the park management department. The key lies in whether the management department values or needs the leaves. If tacitly permitted, it is not theft. If the management is helpless and incapable of enforcing control, it constitutes theft. Whether it counts as theft depends on three factors: first, whether the owner consents or tacitly permits; second, whether the taker has a stealing mentality; third, the outcome—whether it harms others to benefit oneself. Benefiting oneself without harming others falls outside this rule.