What This Concept Is About
To explain 不偷盜 (adattādānād-virati, "abstaining from taking what is not given") thoroughly, it must first be dragged out of the thin figure it occupies in most people's minds. For most, it is nearly equivalent to "don't reach for other people's things." But in the scriptures, this precept was never defined by "things" from the start — it was defined by the pair of interpersonal states 與／不與 (datta/adatta, "given/not given").
The 雜阿含經 (Saṃyuktāgama, T99) puts it bluntly: 「不與不取」("do not take what is not given") and 「不與不妄取」("do not wrongly take what is not given"). The criterion is not the value of the object, not the quantity, not whether one is discovered — it is the simplest question: Did the other person give it to you? If not, "taking" constitutes stealing. This rivets the entire logic of the precept onto "relationship" rather than "object" — you are not guarding a boundary beside a pile of goods, but guarding the other's "not-yet-given" within every relationship.
In the early scriptures this precept branches into two related but non-overlapping lineages, and the wording therefore splits into two strands that must be distinguished.
The lay lineage: named "not stealing," listed as one of the 五戒 (pañcaśīla, the five precepts).
In the 長阿含經 (Dīrghāgama, T1), King Ajātaśatru, repenting and taking refuge in the Buddha, says to him: 「自今已後，盡形壽不殺、不盜、不婬、不欺、不飲酒」("From this day forward, for the rest of my life, I will not kill, not steal, not commit sexual misconduct, not deceive, not drink alcohol.") The Brahmin Luzhe makes the same vow upon taking refuge in the Buddha. The two characters 不盜 ("not stealing") stand alongside the other four precepts as a fundamental item that lay people uphold for life. The 大寶積經 (Mahāratnakūṭa-sūtra, T310) gives the most detailed exposition of the psychological basis of this precept: 「彼應不盜，自財知足，於他財物不生希望，除捨於貪、不起愚癡，於他封祿不生貪著，乃至草葉不與不取」 ("He should not steal: be content with his own wealth, harbor no hope for others' property, set aside greed, give rise to no delusion, feel no attachment to others' holdings — down to a blade of grass, take nothing that is not given.")
Here lies a three-layer structure, from within outward, from shallow to deep: - The first layer, 自財知足 ("contentment with one's own wealth") — already satisfied with what one has; the foundation of the precept is not external restraint but inner sufficiency or insufficiency. - The second layer, 於他財物不生希望 ("harboring no hope for others' property") — not even a thought of wanting arises toward others' belongings. - The third layer, 乃至草葉不與不取 ("down to a blade of grass, taking nothing not given") — the lower limit of restraint is set at a single blade of grass; no matter how trivial, no matter how seemingly inconsequential, whatever has not been given is not touched.
The 大寶積經 further pushes this precept to its extreme through the bodhisattva's original vow 菩薩本願 (bodhisattva-pūrva-praṇidhāna): 「夫盜業者能令眾生貧窮下劣無依無怙。假使我貧命不存濟，終不行於不與取法。」 ("The karma of stealing causes sentient beings to be poor, base, without support, without refuge. Even if I am so poor that my life cannot be sustained, I will never practice the dharma of taking what is not given.") Even if one is too poor to survive, one does not transgress. This is not moral theater; it is a choice made with clear knowledge of 業 (karman, "action and its consequences") — the feedback of one's actions upon one's own and others' fates.
The monastic lineage: not "not stealing," but "storing nothing, never satisfied."
In the 長阿含經, through the question of the young brahmin 摩納 (māṇava), it lists the various improper behaviors of "other ascetics and brahmins" who receive donations of faith — seeking further accumulation, insatiable desire for clothing and food, managing their own livelihoods, planting trees, pursuing material benefits (ivory, precious objects, high wide beds, embroidered cushions, butter and oil for anointing the body, perfume baths, flower garlands, eye cosmetics, jeweled canopies, jeweled fans adorning jeweled carriages), devoting themselves to games (chess, gambling, eight-board, ten-board, hundred-board games), speaking aimless obstructive talk (kings' battles, horses, women's clothing, going to sea for treasure), and using countless expedient means to make wrong livelihoods (flattery, fine words, appearing virtuous to deceive, seeking profit through profit) — and then states plainly: 「入我法者，無如此事。」 ("For those who enter my Dharma, there is no such thing.")
The monastic norm is not the two words "not stealing" but:
「量腹而食無所藏積，度身而衣趣足而已，法服應器常與身俱，猶若飛鳥羽翮隨身。」
*"Eat according to the measure of the belly, storing nothing; clothe according to the measure of the body, stopping at sufficiency; the dharma-robes and begging bowl always accompany the body, like a flying bird whose wings travel with it."*
This passage is crucial — the negative face of the monastic precept is not "taking what has not been given" but "coveting what has already been given." The laity has already given alms, but if a renunciant, after receiving, continues to seek more, stores it up, runs private enterprises, chases ever more splendid enjoyments — that slides from "receiving alms" into the extended territory of "taking what is not given."
The simile of 「飛鳥羽翮隨身」("the flying bird whose wings accompany its body") deserves separate mention: a bird does not pack its wings away; the wings are part of it, used as they are, not stored. A monk's enjoyment of 信施 (śraddhādeya, "alms given in faith") should be this state — eaten from the bowl, worn on the body, received today, empty tomorrow; not possession but flow. This simile in the early scriptures is very concrete, not abstract, and cannot be flattened into the four characters 少欲知足 ("few desires, knowing contentment").
There is also an extension of the "thief among ascetics" that most people overlook.
The 大寶積經 raises a sharp contrast: 沙門之賊 (śramaṇa-cora, "the thief among ascetics")... 「凡夫未得聖果而自稱得道、虛受信施，其罪多於以刀杖劫奪閻浮提一切眾生珍寶。」 ("An ordinary person who has not attained the noble fruit yet claims to have attained the path, vainly receiving donations of faith — his offense is greater than plundering with sword and staff the treasures of all sentient beings in Jambudvīpa.")
This extends the concept of "taking what is not given" into the spiritual domain — if you have not attained the path, yet the donor treats you as an "attainer" and offers sincere charity; if you knowingly accept without having attained, then you have taken a portion of genuine reverence and material support from a trust that was "not given." This extension applies equally to lay people — in any setting, whenever you accept a share of "being seen, being recognized, being trusted" that does not actually belong to you, it can be checked against this.
The hierarchical differences among several key terms must be preserved in their correspondences, not glossed over:
- 不盜 ("not stealing") — the lay precept name in the 長阿含經 and 大寶積經. - 不與不取／不與不妄取 ("do not take / do not wrongly take what is not given") — the distinctive phrasing of the 雜阿含經, with "given/not given" as the criterion. - 不與取／不與取法 (adattādāna, "taking what is not given" / "the dharma of taking what is not given") — the name for the prohibited act in the 雜阿含經 and 大寶積經. - 無所藏積、無有厭足、更求餘積 ("storing nothing, never satisfied, seeking further accumulation") — the 長阿含經's description of the monastic, starting from the limits of taking and using. - 盜業 ("the karma of stealing") — the 大寶積經's name for the offense. - 盜香賊 ("thief of fragrance") — the distinctive name in the 雜阿含經,: 「不求而不捨，世間名為賊，汝今人不與，而自一向取，是則名世間，真實盜香賊。」("Not asking, yet not letting go — the world names such a one a thief; now you, without the other's giving, take it all one-sidedly — this is what the world calls a true thief of fragrance.") — stacking "taking what others have not given" together with "taking reverence, position, or trust that others have not given."
These expressions must not be flattened into "don't steal things." Each formulation opens a different angle: 不盜 is the designation, 不與不取 is the logic, 無所藏積 is the measure, 盜香賊 is the admonition.
Finally, the position of this precept within the whole path of liberation must be stated. It is not an isolated "moral item" but the preparatory project for inner purity. The 雜阿含經 first uses the rivers 孫陀利河 (Sundarī), 婆休多河 (Vāśiṣṭha), 伽耶河 (Gayā), and 薩羅河 (Sarayū) as a foil — they cannot purify one who does evil — and then says: 「內心自清淨，不待洗於外。下賤田舍兒，身體多污垢，以水洗塵穢，不能淨其內。」 ("When the mind is itself pure, there is no need to wash externally. The lowly village child, whose body is covered in filth, may wash the dust with water, but cannot purify the inside.") — the purity accomplished by upholding precepts is purity of the mind-ground, not something ritual can replace. It then concludes with a verse: 「正戒善至老，淨信善建立，智慧為人寶，功德賊不奪。」 ("Right precepts, good until old age; pure faith, well established; wisdom is a person's treasure; 功德 (puṇya, "merit") the thief cannot seize.") — upholding precepts into old age, so that merit cannot be seized by "thieves" (afflictions, external circumstances, adverse conditions). In other words, 不偷盜 is the layer that lays the foundation for "purity." If the foundation tilts, everything built above it cannot stand.
A Walk Through Daily Life
Mapping the classical definition onto specific contemporary scenes is the real test of this precept. Following the criterion of "given/not given," I walk through common life situations one by one, and point out where people most often mis-map.
Scene one: the "grab" on the commute.
In the morning, passing the front desk, you casually pocket a company pen; at your desk you treat the company's coffee order as your own stock; you mooch off a colleague's takeout coupons, parking vouchers, corporate negotiated rates.
Mapping: The company's pens, coffee, and negotiated rates are things not explicitly granted to you as an individual (even if a colleague says "use it freely," that does not necessarily constitute company authorization). 草葉不與不取 — this is the lowest limit in the scriptures. The amount of a pen is not within the scriptures' purview, but the logical structure of "given/not given" is identical. The most common mis-mapping: thinking "the company doesn't care anyway" or "everyone takes some" means it is not stealing. The precept against stealing does not depend on whether the other party cares; it depends on whether the other party has explicitly given it to you.
Scene two: the "sharing" while scrolling.
Screenshotting paid column content and sending it to a group of dozens; lending a purchased e-book, course, or video membership account to a group of people; using pirated resources, cracked software, or scrapers to grab content others have paid for; saving and reusing photos from others' moments that were not set to public.
Mapping: Here the "other party" is the content producer, the platform, the copyright holder. A membership account is usually licensed for "single use"; giving your account to a group is taking hold of an unauthorized copy right. This is a textbook case of 不與不取. The most common mis-mapping: thinking "digital things are not physical objects" — what the scriptures forbid has never been the physical form of the object, but the posture of "taking what has not been given." The form can be data, bandwidth, attention, or an unauthorized right to repost.
Scene three: overtime and gray zones at work.
Taking the company's client list privately to do side business; using company computers, devices, and email systems for your own side projects; putting the team's work results under your own name alone; clocking in for overtime you did not work; padding personal expenses into business expense reports.
Mapping: The client list is the company's 「他物」("other's property") — not authorized for you to take away, so it is 不與不取; using company resources for personal side work is the modern version of the thief among ascetics — you received the company's salary and trust (a kind of donation of faith), and you quietly took the part of that trust that was not given to you; padding personal expenses into expense reports is directly taking company property. The most common mis-mapping: thinking "gray zones don't count" — the scripture's lower limit of 「乃至草葉不與不取」 exists precisely to block all "gray" excuses. What is gray is not the zone, but the eye.
Scene four: "taking what was not given" in intimate relationships.
Looking through your partner's phone, email, or private files without telling them; making major decisions for the other person (quitting a job, buying a house, breaking up) without first seeking consent; demanding emotional labor, time, or money beyond their willingness; using "we're so close" as a pass for crossing boundaries.
Mapping: Intimate relationships are where this precept most easily fails, because "intimacy" makes people think "between us we don't need to be so clear." But the scripture's criterion of "given/not given" is precisely not exempted by closeness of relationship. You looked at a phone the other person did not let you see — the other did not give, and you took. Structurally this is equivalent to stealing a pen. The most common mis-mapping: treating "intimacy" as "automatic authorization." The closer the relationship, the more you must actively ask "may I look / may I use / may I decide," rather than assuming the other has already tacitly consented. Tacit allowance is not bestowal; silence is not consent.
Scene five: parenting and occupying public resources.
Cutting in line, grabbing numbers, using connections to let your child bypass the queue; forging materials or falsifying identity for your child to obtain qualifications they should not have; appropriating public space (hallways, elevators, shared facilities) for private use.
Mapping: Cutting in line is "taking before the giving" of the service order from everyone waiting in line; forging materials is "taking before the giving" of a benefit from the managers of public resources. The most common mis-mapping: thinking "it's for my child" exempts it — the psychological foundation of the precept against stealing in the scriptures is precisely 「除捨於貪、不起愚癡」("set aside greed, give rise to no delusion"). To give rise to greed for the child, to act in delusion for the child — it is still greed, still delusion; only the object has changed, the structure of karma has not.
Scene six: reputation and "being seen."
Reporting others' work as your own; exaggerating your résumé, falsifying identity to obtain a position, client, or partnership that is not yours; quietly taking credit for a colleague's contribution in a team; failing to clarify "actually it was mainly their work" when praised.
Mapping: This is the most widespread 盜香賊 in contemporary life. The verse from the 雜阿含經 — 「人不與，而自一向取，是則名世間，真實盜香賊」("without the other's giving, you take it all one-sidedly — this is what the world calls a true thief of fragrance") — originally referred to receiving others' reverence without truly possessing virtue, but it applies equally to the workplace: at the moment credit is distributed, you take the portion of "being recognized" that was not given to you. The most common mis-mapping: thinking "I didn't actively ask for it, someone else gave it to me" — but you accepted it, knowing it was not entirely yours, and did not clarify. That is 「取」("taking"). The contrast of the thief among ascetics exists precisely for this: 「未得而自稱得、虛受信施，其罪多於以刀杖劫奪一切眾生珍寶」("claiming attainment without attainment, vainly receiving donations of faith — the offense is greater than plundering all sentient beings' treasures with sword and staff.")
Scene seven: "taking what was not given" in the age of AI.
Training your own AI model on others' articles, paintings, and music; publishing AI-generated content under your own name without disclosing it; scraping others' databases and processing the content for sale.
Mapping: This is the most cutting-edge contested zone of 「不與不取」 in the digital age. Using others' works without authorization to train a model is, in essence, taking the "right of use" that others never gave you; publishing AI content without disclosing its source is taking the "original authorship" that others never gave. The most common mis-mapping: treating "technical capability" as "moral exemption" — being able to scrape is not being entitled to take, being able to generate is not being entitled to sign. Technology lowers the threshold of action; it cannot lower the structure of karma.
Why Contemporary People Need It
In the contemporary era this precept is not a "dated moral item"; it is more urgent than when it was born. There are three layers of reason.
Layer one: the boundary of "given/not given" is a hundred times fuzzier than in agricultural society.
In ancient society, "whose thing it is" was relatively clear — land had boundaries, granaries had doors, neighbors all knew. Today, almost everything you touch has a complex authorization structure: the "right to use" a song belongs to the platform, the platform's license belongs to the paying user, and the paying user's license may not include copying or redistribution; the ownership of a data set belongs to the company, the right to use belongs to the individual, and the right to dispose belongs to the law. As the criterion grows fuzzier, the mind must be all the more steady. The true modern meaning of the precept against stealing is not to make you memorize every law, but to have you cultivate, in every moment when "the other party has not explicitly given it to you," one action: stop, ask, confirm that the other truly wishes you to take and use it — and only then take.
Layer two: the forms of "donations of faith" in contemporary life have changed, and thieves among ascetics are everywhere.
In ancient times, renunciants received rice, clothing, and bedding; today, knowledge workers receive salary, reputation, platform traffic, trust, client lists, the goodwill of partners. You take the company's salary but give your time to side work; you take the platform's traffic but produce content that does not meet what you promised; you take the client's trust but secretly divert orders to a competitor — these are all mixed states of 「已與而貪」("coveting what has already been given") and 「未與而取」("taking what has not been given"), precisely the modern version of the improper practices of monastics described in the 長阿含經: 「更求餘積、無有厭足、自營生業」("seeking further accumulation, never satisfied, managing private livelihoods").
Layer three: it directly treats the two deepest afflictions of our time.
The 大寶積經 says the psychological basis of the precept against stealing is 「除捨於貪、不起愚癡」("set aside greed, give rise to no delusion"). The two most common psychological movements of contemporary people are precisely these two: when seeing others have and oneself does not, 貪 (rāga, "greed") arises; when thinking "might as well take it, no one will know anyway," 癡 (moha, "delusion") arises (not seeing the chain of consequences one's action will bring, not seeing the other's loss, not seeing one's own karmic account). Upholding this precept is not suppression — suppression is the side effect of treating greed and delusion — but training a kind of clarity before every concrete action: "Did he give it to me? If I do this, what will the world become?"
The deeper value of this precept is that it offers contemporary people a baseline structure of trust in dealing with others and with the world. If everyone held the boundary in judging "given/not given," the cost of cooperation between people would drop sharply. The reason we must write so many clauses in contracts, set so many punishments in law, and conduct so many audits in the workplace is precisely that the baseline of 「不與不取」 has not been established. This precept is not a trivial detail that "doesn't matter"; it is the foundation of social trust. If the foundation does not exist, all cooperation, all goodwill, all order built upon it may collapse at any moment.
Common Misreadings and Clarifications
Misreading one: "Not stealing = not stealing anything valuable."
Correct reading: the lower limit of the scriptures is 「乃至草葉不與不取」. Even a blade of grass constitutes what is prohibited. The amount of value, the quantity, has nothing to do with the criterion; the criterion is always "given/not given." Tying this precept to amounts is to pull out its entire logic.
Misreading two: "As long as I'm not discovered, it doesn't count."
Correct reading: the scriptures have never used "being discovered" as a criterion. Karma does not depend on an external witness; it depends on the structure of the act itself — taking what was not given already constitutes the seed of karma. Thinking "as long as no one sees it, it doesn't matter" is precisely the 「癡」("delusion") the 大寶積經 speaks of: "not seeing the retribution in future lives, not seeing the feedback of karmic force" — the core disease that the precept against stealing treats.
Misreading three: "Company/institutional property doesn't count as 'other's.'"
Correct reading: a company or institution is a collective of "others" — shareholders, partners, employees, customers, regulators — and their bestowal (through systems, contracts, salaries) constitutes the boundary of what you may take and use. Any taking not explicitly authorized by this collective is structurally 「不與不取」. This misreading is extremely common in the workplace; almost everyone has used this excuse at some point when "taking advantage of the company."
Misreading four: "Gray zones aren't stealing."
Correct reading: gray zones are precisely where the precept against stealing should operate. The scriptures use 「草葉不與不取」 as the minimal prohibition, which is to tell you plainly: the function of the precept is not to handle theft that is already obvious, but to handle those tiny thefts that appear "negotiable." What is gray is not the zone, but the eye inside that refuses to look closely.
Misreading five: "Not stealing is a precept at the material level, unrelated to mind."
Correct reading: completely wrong. The 大寶積經 says clearly: 「自財知足，於他財物不生希望，除捨於貪、不起愚癡」. The real work of this precept lies in 「不生希望」("harboring no hope") and 「除捨於貪」("setting aside greed") — the moment the thought of "wanting" arises in your mind, the precept is already being tested. The hand has not moved only because it has not yet moved. The depth of upholding precepts begins precisely here.
Misreading six: "As long as I'm not caught, being called a thief by others doesn't matter."
Correct reading: the verdict of 「賊」("thief") does not depend on external opinion but on the structure of one's own act. The 「盜香賊」 verse of the 雜阿含經 — 「汝今人不與，而自一向取，是則名世間，真實盜香賊」 — uses the third-person "the world calls it a thief," not "the police call it a thief." When you take what another has not given, the character "thief" is already realized at the very moment of the act.
Misreading seven: "Not stealing is only a form of moral self-restraint; failing at it is no great matter."
Correct reading: the karma of stealing is described in the scriptures as 「能令眾生貧窮下劣無依無怙」 ("causing sentient beings to be poor, base, without support, without refuge"). This is not moral intimidation; it is a description of how karmic force operates — when you habitually "take before the giving," you continuously leave traces of "owing" and "encroachment" on your own karmic account, and these traces return to you in various forms, the most common being a sense of deprivation in relationships, the draining of trust, the drying up of opportunities. This is not retribution; it is structure.
Misreading eight: "The lay precept of not stealing differs from the monastic one, so I can judge myself by lay standards and be more lenient."
Correct reading: the lay level of not stealing and the monastic level of 「無所藏積」("storing nothing") are not a difference of strictness but a difference of level. The monastic level is more thorough in what it prohibits (not coveting what has been given), the lay level is the more basic requirement (not taking what has not been given). But the monastic level of diligence exists precisely so that 「不與不取」 can transform from external restraint into inner naturalness. Lay people are not confined to the basic requirement — they can study the inner work of 「自財知足」("contentment with one's own wealth") that monastics practice; this is moving toward greater depth, not a monastic monopoly.
In Closing
The precept of 「不偷盜」, on the surface, governs the hand; in its bone, it governs the mind's stance toward the "other." It does not ask "did you steal anything today," but "when you face every piece of 'other's property,' are you a taker or one who stands in reverence?"
The scriptures wrote it so finely — not taking a blade of grass, not storing donations of faith, not vainly receiving, not taking reverence — not to hand you a checklist, but to have you practice the same thing in every concrete scene: in the face of every "not-given," settle the mind that reaches out to take.
That settled mind is the beginning of purity; that purity is the foundation of all subsequent practice.
If the foundation does not exist, whatever is built on top will collapse. This is why this precept, though small, is listed among the lay five precepts, the monastic fundamentals, and the bodhisattva's original vow — it is not a moral item; it is the most basic posture in dealing with others and with the world.