Is a monk allowed to destroy a thief’s hand phone, motor cycle, etc. or to take them?
No, he isn’t.
If he destroys them because of anger, he must compensate the thief for the damage. If he doesn’t compensate, he’ll undergo a Pārājika offense as soon as the thief gives up the hope for the compensation which has the least amount of money that causes the Pārājika offense.
If he takes them, he’ll undergo a Pārājika offense when his intention of stealing appears because the mind can change quickly.
{The least amount of money that causes a Pārājika offense is calculated below.
The price of 5.105-milligram gold, which has to be paid on the day when a monk commits a crime, equals one-kyat money at the time of the Buddha. One quarter of that one-kyat money is the least amount of money that causes the Pārājika offense.
Therefore, if the price of 5.105-milligram gold is divided by four, there’ll appear result that shows that least amount of money. Two fifths to four fifths of that least amount of money cause the Thullaccaya offense. One fifth causes the Dukkaṭa offense.}
Is this meant to be 5,105 milligrams, i.e. just over 5grams. Or is it actually only about 5milligrams.
I am guessing it is supposed to be 5,105 but the period instead of a comma is a bit confusing.
Yes… I’ll fix that…
It is 1/24 of a troy ounce of gold
BMC1
V/Sub-commentary,
which sets one māsaka as equal to 4 rice grains’ weight of gold. At this rate, the theft of an item worth 20 rice grains’ (1/24 troy ounce) weight of gold or more would be a pārājika offense. One objection to this method of calculation is that some of the items mentioned in the Vinita-vatthu as grounds for a pārājika when stolen — e.g., a pillow, a bundle of
laundry, a raft, a handful of rice during a famine — would seem to be worth much less than 1/24 troy ounce of gold. However, we must remember that many items regarded as commonplace now may have been viewed as expensive luxuries at the time.
In addition, there is one very good reason for adopting the standard set by the V/Sub-commentary: It sets a high value for the least article whose theft would result in a pārājika. Thus when a bhikkhu steals an item worth 1/24 troy ounce of gold or more, there can be no doubt that he has committed the full offense. When the item is of lesser value, there will be inescapable doubt — and when there is any doubt concerning a pārājika, the tradition of the Vinaya consistently gives the bhikkhu the benefit of the doubt: He is not expelled. A basic principle operating throughout the texts is that it is better to risk letting an offender go unpunished than to risk punishing an innocent bhikkhu.
I’m not clear on why it matters if the person is a thief. Wouldn’t this apply to stealing or damaging anyone’s possessions? I’m assuming we aren’t talking about a phone that the thief has just stolen, are we?
We have to be careful that when I thief steals something, he considers it his. This can be a big problem for monks.
It is always best to be not attached to anything as the cliche for Buddhist monks says, “Don’t be attached”.
No, he isn’t.