Seven Circumstances of Committing the Offense of Stealing

Original text of the Sūtra on the Precepts for Upāsakas, Section Two: 复有七种。一非己想。二不同意。三不暂用。四知有主。五不狂。六不心乱。七不病坏心。此七者取重物。犯不可悔。取轻物。犯中可悔。

Explanation: There are seven more kinds of theft: The first is taking something without authorization while knowing or believing that it does not belong to oneself, which incurs an irredeemable offense; the second is taking something without the owner's consent, which incurs an irredeemable offense; the third is taking something not for temporary use with the intention of returning it afterward, but with the intention of using it permanently, which incurs an irredeemable offense; the fourth is knowing that something has an owner and taking it without the owner's consent, which incurs an irredeemable offense;

The fifth is taking another person's belongings while the mind is clear and not deranged, that is, intentionally taking what has not been given with deliberate intent, which incurs an irredeemable offense; the sixth is taking something without authorization while the mind is not confused, that is, taking what has not been given with a clear mind, which incurs an irredeemable offense; the seventh is taking something without authorization while the mind is free of illness and capable of self-control, that is, taking what has not been given while the mind is in a normal state, which incurs an irredeemable offense. Under these seven conditions, if what is taken is a valuable item, such as something worth more than five coins, it incurs an irredeemable offense; if what is taken is not a valuable item, it incurs a middling, redeemable offense.

 Original text: 又有七种。一者己想。二者同意。三者暂用。四者谓无主。五狂。六心乱。七病坏心。此七者取物无犯。

Explanation: There are seven circumstances that do not constitute a breach of the precepts: The first is taking something while believing it belongs to oneself—this is a misunderstanding, not taking what has not been given; the second is taking something with the other party's consent, with no intention to steal; the third is taking something for temporary use and returning it after use, not with the intention of keeping it for oneself; the fourth is taking something while believing it has no owner, without any intention of appropriating another's belongings, and therefore it does not count as a breach of the precepts; the fifth is taking something while mentally deranged—when the mind is abnormal, there is no subjective intention to steal, so taking something does not count as a breach of the precepts; the sixth is taking something while the mind is confused—when the mind is abnormal, there is no intention to steal, so taking something does not count as a breach of the precepts; the seventh is taking something while suffering from an illness that renders one unable to control oneself—not a subjective intent to steal, so it does not count as a breach of the precepts. Under these seven circumstances, taking something does not constitute the offense of theft.

From this, it can be seen that whether an action constitutes a breach of the precepts or a transgression depends on the mental state and subjective intentions of the person committing it; one cannot judge solely by outward behavior. The mind behind the action plays the governing role, and one must dig deep into the true intention behind it. The action and the mind may well be in direct opposition. Therefore, all precepts are precepts of the mind.