Tipitaka Studies 4: The Second Pārājika—The Case of Dhaniya and the Origin of the Rule Against Theft
Introduction: Legal Significance in the Vinaya
In the process of establishing monastic discipline, the “Second Parajika”—the rule prohibiting Adinnadana (taking what is not given)—is a regulation of immense complexity, deeply intertwined with the social context and civil laws of the time.
The origin of this rule did not stem directly from “greed” for gold or wealth. Instead, it began with a struggle to find shelter and a disastrous misinterpretation of authority. The most critical case study regarding this rule is the story of “Phra Dhaniya, the Potter’s Son.”
1. The Housing Problem and Skills Contrary to Monkhood
Phra Dhaniya, originally the son of a skilled potter, resided at Vulture Peak (Gijjhakuta) in Rajgir. His troubles began when his grass-thatched hut was dismantled three times by others seeking materials. Frustrated, he decided to utilize his former “Worldly Skills” to construct a “Pure Clay Hut.”
The creation of this clay hut was elaborate; it was fired to a bright red hue resembling a jewel beetle and rang like a bell when tapped. However, this beauty came at the cost of destroying the ecosystem and harming living creatures through the extensive digging and burning of soil.
When the Buddha saw this, He rebuked Phra Dhaniya on two major grounds:
- Not the duty of a Samana: Being obsessed with elaborate, unnecessary construction.
- Lack of Compassion: Harming a multitude of living beings during the construction process.
The Buddha commanded that the hut be destroyed to prevent it from becoming a precedent for future generations of monks.
2. Misinterpreting Intent: From Clay Hut to Royal Timber
With his clay hut destroyed, Phra Dhaniya sought new materials, setting his sights on “Royal Timber” reserved by the authorities for repairing the city. He negotiated with the royal guard, claiming a right based on King Bimbisara’s coronation decree: “Grass, wood, and water, I have given to the Samanas…”
The guard, holding innate respect for monks, believed this claim and allowed the wood to be cut. This incident reflects the “trustworthiness of the monastic status” in ancient Indian society, where laypeople rarely suspected monks of wrongdoing.
3. The Judicial Process and Royal Mercy
When the truth surfaced, Vassakara, the Chief Minister, ordered the arrest of the guard. Phra Dhaniya was forced to seek an audience with King Bimbisara to explain himself. During the inquiry, King Bimbisara provided a clear legal interpretation:
His Royal Decree intended to cover only natural resources in the wilderness (Res Nullius), not state-owned property (Public Property).
Although Phra Dhaniya was technically guilty, King Bimbisara—out of respect for the “Saffron Robe”—used his royal prerogative to pardon the monk but issued a stern warning. While the legal matter ended peacefully, it sparked severe social backlash, with the public criticizing monks as liars who were unashamed of sin.
4. Standards of Punishment: Aligning State Law with Monastic Law
The public outcry led to a gathering of the Sangha. The Buddha interrogated Phra Dhaniya and consulted a former judge-turned-monk to determine the monetary threshold for a “grave offense” (Parajika), aligning it with the criminal law of the Magadha Kingdom.
The determined threshold was “Property worth 5 Masakas (or 1 ancient Baht),” which was the minimum value for which the state would impose execution, imprisonment, or exile. Based on this, the Buddha established the training rule:
“Whatever monk takes what is not given, which is known as theft (Theiya-citta), in such a manner that kings would seize the thief… such a monk is Parajika (defeated), no longer in communion.”
5. Conclusion and Legal Expansion
Following the establishment of the primary rule, legal loopholes emerged when the “Group of Six Monks” (Chabbaggiya) stole items in the forest, claiming the rule only applied to villages. The Buddha subsequently issued subsidiary rules to cover theft in both “villages” and “forests.”
Summary: The Second Parajika chapter demonstrates a philosophy of Vinaya that considers not just the act, but the “value of damage according to social standards” and the “dishonest intent” (Theiya-citta). The story of Phra Dhaniya serves as a timeless reminder that the purity of the Sangha must be founded on strict honesty and respect for the rights of others.
