Theft, the Second Defeat of Monastic Rule: An Interpretation

Abstract

        The article aims to propose that in the interpretation of theft, the second Defeat of the monastic rules, theft among monks must be considered from the standpoint of criminal wrongdoing according to present laws as opposed to strict rules from ancient tradition. According to Pāli tradition, the second Defeat rule measures theft by the cost of the stolen or damaged property. At the time, stealing anything worth more than 5 Māsaka, the currency in the Buddha’s time, was considered theft.  The tradition has it that the Buddha legislated the rule based on the theft law of Magadha country, where the first theft occurred, and this was subsequently applied to thefts in other places.  His intention to legislate the rule was to expel the wrongdoer from the monkhood so that he was punished by the state law and that the monkhood would not protect him from punishment. In my view, the Defeat rule should not be based on an ancient value of currency, because the value associated with theft changes over time, resulting in inequitable justice. To obey the spirit of the monastic rule, it is important to consider that monastic rule should be based on present law and whether the theft or the wrongful interference with goods is a crime or not. According to the Thai criminal code, a theft or a wrongful interference with goods of any cost, is regarded as a public offense in the case that the victim, or a person other than them, alleges to authorities that the wrongdoer has committed an offense according to the provisions of the code.  In this way the Defeat rule, as a monastic rule in Thai society, should be reconsidered based on the modern Thai theft laws.