The Crime of Theft of Three Jewels Resources

The lecture halls of the monastery belong to the monastery and the speaker. Using the lecture hall to teach the Dharma without the owner's consent, or bringing others to teach there, constitutes theft. Forcibly removing a Dharma teacher who is currently teaching from the lecture hall and replacing them with oneself or another person constitutes robbery-style theft. This is the crime of robbing the Three Jewels of their inherent rights and resources, and also constitutes the crime of obstructing and hindering the propagation of the Dharma by the Three Jewels.

Cyberspace is also a form of resource and can be an exclusive lecture hall, belonging to an individual or a group. For example, our inner hall group was established for the Master to teach the Dharma; it is not a venue provided for others to teach. If, without the Master's permission, one arbitrarily posts the Dharma materials or statements of others in the group, or speaks idle, unbeneficial chatter to group members, this constitutes theft—theft of the Master's rights, theft of the resources of the devotees and the group. It belongs to the crime of misappropriating the Three Jewels and also the crime of disrespecting teachers and friends. If one lures group members away, sowing discord between master and disciples, this constitutes the crime of destroying the Three Jewels, slander, and so forth.

What is called theft is taking what is not given. In the Dharma, apart from the Vinaya (precepts), which must not be read or studied without having received the precepts, all Dharma spoken by the Buddha is for the sake of sentient beings, spoken to sentient beings, and publicly available to sentient beings. When sentient beings study the Buddha Dharma, the issue of "taking what is not given" does not exist. The Buddha teaches the Dharma for sentient beings, enabling them to learn the Dharma unconditionally, without charging any fee. The Buddha's mind is selfless and devoid of ego, solely focused on liberating sentient beings from the suffering of birth and death. Therefore, "taking what is not given" fundamentally does not exist.

Even non-Buddhists can freely read and study the Buddha Dharma, even if they might be seeking flaws to slander it. Reading the Buddhist sutras to find faults does not constitute stealing the Dharma. The key point is the vastness of the Buddha's mind; everything is for sentient beings, not for personal gain. If the Buddha did not allow sentient beings to freely learn the Dharma, stipulating prerequisite conditions for learning, then learning without meeting those conditions would be stealing the Dharma. But Buddhism has no such rule; it allows sentient beings to learn and practice openly and honorably.

Regarding the Vinaya (precepts), if one has not received the corresponding precepts, one is not permitted to study them. Firstly, it is feared that sentient beings, knowing the contents, might dare not receive the precepts. Secondly, studying them without having received the precepts leads to using the precepts to judge those who have received them, which incurs fault. Those who have received the precepts are higher than those who have not; Buddhism does not permit the lower to criticize the higher. Even if based on facts, it is not allowed and incurs fault for both. Regarding the Bodhisattva Precepts, reading them without the intention to receive them also constitutes stealing the precepts. Although many Dharma texts are displayed online, one should not open and read texts one should not see. The contents of the Five Precepts have long been public and can be read and researched in advance.

The Vinaya for monastics absolutely must not be read by laypeople. After reading the monastic precepts, if one comments on monastics' words and deeds, saying how this or that monastic is, this constitutes the crime of slandering the Three Jewels. Regardless of whether what is said is right or wrong, it is not permitted to speak about it. Even if a monastic breaks the precepts, laypeople are not allowed to criticize them; otherwise, they incur fault, karmic consequences, and negative karma. Criticizing monastics with evidence also constitutes slandering the Sangha, which is substantiated slander (有根诽谤); criticizing and publicizing monastics' faults without factual basis constitutes unsubstantiated slander (无根诽谤), which carries greater fault and heavier karmic consequences.

There is a special case of stealing the Dharma: stealing the Dharma with the intent to transplant the Buddha Dharma unchanged into non-Buddhist paths, making it the Dharma of those non-Buddhists. If the ownership of the Dharma changes, this constitutes stealing the Dharma. If someone sent by a non-Buddhist path deliberately steals the Dharma to turn it into non-Buddhist Dharma, serving that non-Buddhist path, they incur the crime of stealing the Dharma. Taking someone else's belongings back to one's own home and claiming them as one's own constitutes theft only if the ownership of the item changes. If the Buddha Dharma is not renamed as non-Buddhist Dharma, it does not constitute theft.

Stealing the Dharma can also be determined this way: If it is said that person A stole the Dharma of person B, then one must compare the depth and subtlety of the Dharma taught by A and B. Which teaching is deeper and more detailed, better reflecting wisdom? Which has more of the cultivation process and specific methods, more details? Which is more logical and dialectical? Which is easier to start with? Which is realized through actual practice? Which is learned, analyzed, organized, and summarized? Through careful and calm comparison, one can determine it.

Crudely made Dharma cannot be original. Dharma without process or details cannot be original. Dharma without a starting point for practice cannot be original. Dharma without actual realization, cutting out the middle part of actual practice, cannot be original. Dharma without actual realization, constantly needing supplements, revisions, and patches, cannot be original. Only Dharma that is deeper and more subtle, possessing the cultivation process, details, specific and practical methods, a clear starting point, easily transforming the mind, and easily leading to accomplishment is original, realized through actual practice.

Every person who achieves success in practice, even great success, has not cultivated for merely one lifetime or even several lifetimes. Most are measured in kalpas. Great achievers have all undergone cultivation and realization through countless, immeasurable kalpas. Their wisdom has long accumulated profoundly and boundlessly. Encountering the Buddha Dharma in this life, their wisdom gushes forth, advancing by leaps and bounds, leaving ordinary people far behind. A person with conscience cannot say that such a person achieved success by stealing the Dharma from someone whose wisdom is shallower than theirs. If that were so, why haven't they personally taught any disciples who are like this? Even if such a disciple appears, it shows that this disciple has extremely good roots, having cultivated for immeasurable kalpas in past lives to achieve such fruition of wisdom. It is absolutely not the result of being taught by someone in one lifetime. Even the Buddha could not teach someone starting from the very basics to become a great achiever within a few years or even one lifetime. If that were possible, attaining Buddhahood would be far too facile.