Discussion of the Problem of Theft

Question: There is a Chinese wolfberry tree in the park, but it does not bear wolfberries. Every year, if the tree is not pruned, it does not grow well. Trimming away its branches and leaves helps the tree flourish. If someone picks the leaves from this tree to take home and eat, does this count as theft?

Person A's Answer: First, this tree does not belong to oneself. If one has a stealing intent or a mindset of taking advantage, then it counts as theft.

Person B's Answer: It counts as theft. The park's wolfberry tree belongs to all the people. Taking it without permission is theft. Moving it with a stealing mind constitutes theft.

Person C's Answer: According to current legal provisions, land and its produce, when no specific owner is designated, are collectively owned by all citizens, constituting public property of the whole society. Therefore, picking fruits from an uncultivated mountain also constitutes theft. Taking wolfberries home out of greed, or plucking and eating them unintentionally due to hunger, both count as theft, but the karmic retribution will certainly differ greatly.

Question: What if the park tacitly allows it? What if removing the leaves actually helps the tree grow better? What if removing the leaves saves the park staff the labor of pruning? What if the leaves are useless to the park?

Person A's Answer: Pruning leaves to help the tree grow better is a meritorious act; knowing the leaves have medicinal value and taking them home privately is a fault. Trimming branches and leaves for the tree's better growth is meritorious; taking the leaves home without permission falls into two categories: if the leaves are highly valuable to the park, the karmic retribution is significant; if the leaves are entirely useless to the park, the retribution is minor. If pruning is done for the tree's benefit, it is meritorious; but if pruning causes the tree to die, it is a fault. Personally, I believe many things simultaneously possess aspects of both good and evil; it depends on which aspect predominates, and one should choose the good to act upon. For example, giving ten thousand yuan to a beggar is, in principle, a great act of kindness. However, in reality, you also indirectly contribute to the beggar's laziness and dependence, which should be considered a minor evil within a great good.

Person B's Answer: If it's tacitly permitted, it shouldn't count as theft, right? Probably everyone tacitly allows it. Ultimately, it depends on the intention.

Person C's Answer: Whether it counts as theft is determined by whether the taken item has an owner and whether the taker has stealing intent; the key lies primarily in the intention. Things produced by the collective karma of sentient beings have no definite single owner.

Person D's Answer: It still depends on the motive. Mining on the moon – Earthlings might think it's public and ownerless, but what if it actually belongs to invisible aliens? What then?

Summary: Overall, it depends on the park's purpose for planting the tree. Is it for beautifying the environment or for harvesting its branches, leaves, and fruit? If the park management does not care about the leaves, then picking them is not a fault, as it does not harm the public interest.

Taking ownerless property does not constitute theft. However, the tree belongs to the park management department. The key lies in whether the management department cares about or needs the leaves. If it is tacitly permitted, it does not count as theft. If the management department is helpless and lacks the capacity to manage it, then it constitutes theft. Whether it counts as theft depends on three factors: first, whether the owner consents or tacitly permits; second, whether the taker has stealing intent; third, the outcome – whether it harmed others to benefit oneself. Benefiting oneself without harming others does not fall under this category.