I will start to repost some of ven Paññadīpa’s vinaya posts on fb which are very valuable.
Brandon Driesen (Australia) asked, “It is expected to report a theft to the police if a thief steals a property from the monks, isn’t it?”
A monk isn’t allowed to make a lawsuit against a thief. Why? Because of the Vinaya-code.
He isn’t allowed to report a theft to the police after telling a thief’s name. Why? Because he must compensate the thief for a fine. However, he’s allowed to report without telling the thief’s name.
He isn’t allowed to ask the police to fine the thief. Why? Because the thief’s fine may be the least amount of money that causes a Pārājika offense.
However, he’s allowed to ask the police not to fine the thief if he has to tell the thief’s name.
(A Myanmar CID police officer said, “The police don’t let anyone report any crime to the police without telling a criminal’s name. Nor do the police let them ask the police not to fine the criminal if the criminal’s name has to be told.”)
What is the basis in the Vinaya of this parajika for reporting a criminal to the police. Are you somehow stealing something? Could you break it down for us?
Strangely, after only 2 hrs I’m not allowed to edit my post, so I’ll have to clarify here:
Can you please share from whatever source you have? Is it purely commentary? If so, could you share a translation of the commentary, or at least share the Pali so we could independently try and translate it?
Specifically I’m curious in this logic when the Pacittiya is incurred. When the report is made to the police? When the thief is caught? When they are charged? When they are convicted? If the conviction is overturned is the monk’s Pacittiya overturned?
Bhante @Panna Please translate your pali for us… we are not that skilled.
From what I could understand… it is the pali reference to the original post. Saying that forcing the punishment, can lead to pārājika.
As far as I know. I think the answer might be that… Once the thief has taken your item, it is now his. Causing a loss to him for taking it back can be a pārājika amount. it says it cannot be forced back, because the thief owns it now. Furthermore, if you force a fine or loss to the thief… and that amount is the amount qualifying for pārājika, then it will be a pārājika for the monk who reports him.
This does not apply to lay people who call the police on thieves.
At Pa-auk there was once someone who was stealing laptops. A camera and sting was set up to catch the thief. It turned out to be a monk. He was claiming to also have jhāna (if I remember the story right). There were several (I think 5) laptops in his kuti. The police were called (not sure by who), but one of the monks who lost his laptop was never able to recover his own stolen laptop because of this even though it was within reach.
It’s unallowable also for a monk to report by telling a thief’s name. When the monk tells the thief’s name, the police fine the thief. This fine is the compensation for the monk. When the monk asks the police to fine the thief, the monk incurs a Pārājika offense.
This is the translation of the passage extracted from Pācittiya-aṭṭhakathā; 183.
It sounds like if a monk reports a thief but requests that the thief not be fined, then there is no problem.
Because we are talking about the most serious type of offense, it seems like it’s very important to understand what is and what is not an offense. I’m sure we would not want to arouse doubt.
So the problem seems to be with the fine. Does this mean that a monk would be parajika if they put out the trash on the wrong day of the week and the city levied a fine against the owner of the property. Or would that not be parajika since it’s not the monk who gets paid the fine?
Only if the police give up a hope for a fine from a monk after the monk decides not to pay a fine, will he incur any offense according to the amount of the fine.
A monk isn’t allowed to make a lawsuit against a thief. Why? Because of the Vinaya-code.