Thirteen: No One Who Studies the Dharma Commits the Act of Stealing It

What is referred to as "stealing" means taking what is not given. In the Dharma, aside from the Vinaya (monastic rules) — which cannot be read or studied without having received the corresponding precepts — all teachings spoken by the Buddha were all expounded for sentient beings, addressed to them, and made publicly available to them. Therefore, when sentient beings study the Dharma, the act of taking what is not given does not exist. The Buddha taught for the sake of sentient beings, enabling them to learn the Dharma unconditionally and without charging any fees. The Buddha's mind is selfless and free from ego, solely dedicated to liberating sentient beings from the suffering of birth and death. Hence, taking what is not given fundamentally does not apply.

Even non-Buddhists can freely read and study the Dharma, even if their intention might be to find faults or to slander it. Reading the Buddhist scriptures to pick faults does not constitute stealing the Dharma. The key point is that the Buddha's mind is vast and all-encompassing, acting solely for the benefit of sentient beings, not for personal gain. If the Buddha did not allow sentient beings to study the Dharma freely, requiring specific prerequisites for learning, then studying without meeting those prerequisites would constitute stealing the Dharma. However, Buddhism has no such rule; it encourages sentient beings to study and practice openly and righteously.

As for the Vinaya (precepts), if one has not received the specific precepts, one is not permitted to study them. This is for two reasons: first, to prevent sentient beings from learning the contents and then becoming afraid to receive the precepts; second, studying the precepts without having received them leads to using the rules to judge those who have taken the precepts, which incurs fault. Those who have taken the precepts are considered superior to those who have not. Buddhism does not permit those of lower standing to criticize those of higher standing; even if there is factual basis, it is not allowed and incurs fault. Especially regarding the precepts for monastics (ordained practitioners), laypeople absolutely must not look at them, let alone use them to comment on how monastics should or should not behave. Even if a monastic breaks the precepts, laypeople are not permitted to criticize them; otherwise, they incur fault, sin, karmic retribution, and negative karma. Criticizing monastics based on facts still constitutes slandering the Sangha (monastic community), which is defamation with basis. Criticizing or spreading the faults of monastics without factual basis constitutes defamation without basis, which carries even greater fault and heavier karmic consequences.

There is one specific exception to stealing the Dharma: it is when, with the intention to steal, one transplants the Dharma verbatim into a non-Buddhist system, turning it into the doctrine of that non-Buddhist path. When the ownership of the Dharma is changed, it constitutes stealing the Dharma. Taking something that belongs to others to one's own home and claiming it as one's own, thereby changing the owner, constitutes theft. If the Dharma is not renamed as a non-Buddhist doctrine, it does not constitute stealing. However, if someone is sent by a non-Buddhist path specifically to steal the Dharma, turning the Buddha's teachings into non-Buddhist doctrine to serve that path, then the sin of stealing the Dharma is incurred.