Seven Cases of Theft

Section Two of the Original Text from the Sutra on the Five Precepts for Upāsakas: Additionally, there are seven types. First, thinking [the item] does not belong to oneself. Second, taking without consent. Third, taking not for temporary use. Fourth, knowing it has an owner. Fifth, not being insane. Sixth, not having a confused mind. Seventh, not having a mind impaired by illness. In these seven cases, taking valuable items constitutes an unpardonable offense. Taking items of little value constitutes a moderately pardonable offense.

Explanation: There are also seven types of theft: The first is knowing or thinking the item does not belong to oneself yet taking it without authorization, constituting an unpardonable offense. The second is taking without the owner's consent, constituting an unpardonable offense. The third is taking the item not for temporary use with the intention to return it, but for permanent use, constituting an unpardonable offense. The fourth is knowing the item has an owner yet taking it without the owner's permission, constituting an unpardonable offense.

The fifth is taking another's property while being mentally clear and not insane, meaning intentionally taking without permission, constituting an unpardonable offense. The sixth is taking without authorization while the mind is not confused, meaning taking without permission while mentally lucid, constituting an unpardonable offense. The seventh is taking without authorization while the mind is unimpaired by illness and capable of self-control, meaning taking without permission while the mind is in a normal state, constituting an unpardonable offense. In these seven situations, if the item taken is valuable, such as exceeding five mace in value, it constitutes an unpardonable offense. If the item taken is not valuable, it constitutes a moderately pardonable offense.

 Original Text: Additionally, there are seven types. First, thinking [the item] belongs to oneself. Second, having consent. Third, taking for temporary use. Fourth, believing it is ownerless. Fifth, insanity. Sixth, mental confusion. Seventh, a mind impaired by illness. Taking items under these seven circumstances does not constitute an offense.

Explanation: There are seven situations that do not constitute a violation of the precept. The first is taking an item believing it belongs to oneself; this is a misunderstanding, not taking without permission. The second is taking an item with the other party's consent, lacking the intent to steal. The third is taking the item for temporary use with the intention to return it afterward, not to keep it permanently. The fourth is taking an item believing it has no owner, lacking the intention to possess another's property, thus it does not count as a violation. The fifth is taking an item while insane and mentally disturbed; without subjective intent to steal while mentally abnormal, taking the item does not constitute a violation. The sixth is taking an item while mentally confused; without the intent to steal while mentally abnormal, taking the item does not constitute a violation. The seventh is taking an item while the mind is impaired by illness and unable to exercise self-control, not subjectively intending to steal, thus it does not constitute a violation. Taking items under these seven circumstances does not incur the offense of theft.

From this, it can be seen that whether an action constitutes a violation of precepts or an offense depends on the actor's intention and subjective state of mind. One cannot judge solely by the surface action. The mind behind the action plays the dominant role. It is necessary to deeply examine the true motivation behind it, as the action and the mind may be diametrically opposed. Therefore, all precepts are rooted in the mind.