..续本文上一页hich the other may use as he likes without incurring penalty or blame. "Taking what is not given" is the volition to steal on the part of one who is aware, in respect of another”s possession, that it is another”s possession, and which (volition) initiates activity resulting in the taking of that thing.

　　That (taking of what is not given) is less blameworthy when the other”s property is of low value, and more blameworthy when it is of high value. Why

　　 Because of the high value of the object (stolen). When the value of the objects is equal, the act is more blameworthy when the object belongs to one of outstanding qualities, and less blameworthy when the object belongs to one who, in comparison, is inferior with respect to moral qualities.

　　There are five constituents of this act: another”s possession, awareness that it is another”s possession, the mind to steal, the activity, and the carrying off (of the object) thereby.

　　There are six means: one”s own person, etc. (as for killing).

　　And these (acts of stealing) may be classed, according to the way in which they occur, by way of the following: taking by theft, by force, by concealment, by stratagem, by fraud. This here is in brief; the details, however, are given in the Samantapasadika.[9]

　　Misconduct in sensual pleasures (kamesu micchacara): here, "in sensual pleasures" (kamesu) means in regard to sexual intercourse. "Misconduct" is entirely reprehensible vile conduct. As to characteristic, sexual misconduct is the volition to transgress bounds occurring through the body door by way of unrighteous intent.

　　Herein, out of bounds for men, firstly, are the twenty kinds of women, that is, the ten beginning with those protected by the mother, namely, "protected by the mother, protected by the father, protected by the mother and father, protected by the brother, protected by the sister, protected by relatives, protected by the clan, protected by the law, under protection, entailing a penalty"; and the ten beginning with those purchased with money, namely, "one purchased with money, one who lives (with a man) by her own desire, one who lives (with a man) on account of wealth, one who lives (with a man) on account of cloth, one who is given (in marriage with the ceremony of) dipping the hand in water, one who has been (taken to wife and) relieved of her burden-carrying head-pad, one who is a slave and a wife, one who is a servant and a wife, one who is carried off in a raid, one engaged at so much a time."[10]

　　Then, as concerns women, for the twelve kinds of women consisting of the two, namely, under protection and entailing a penalty, and the ten beginning with those purchased with money, other men are out of bounds.

　　This sexual misconduct is less blameworthy when (the person) out of bounds is without good qualities such as virtue, etc., and more blameworthy when (the person) possesses good qualities such as virtue, etc. There are four constituents of this act: an object which is out of bounds, the mind to engage in that, the effort to engage, and consent to the union of sexual organs.[11] The means is single:, one”s own person.

　　False speech (musavada): "false" (musa) is the verbal effort or bodily effort for destroying welfare (made) by one bent on deceiving. "False speech" is the volition initiating the verbal effort or bodily effort of deceiving another on the part of one intent on deceiving. According to another method, "false" means an unreal, untrue case, "speech" the communication of that as being real, true. As to characteristic, "false speech" is the volition of one desiring to communicate to another an untrue case as being true, which (volition) initiates such an act of communication.

　　This is less blameworthy when the welfare destroyed is slight, and more blameworthy when t…

《The Discourse on Right View - The Sammaditthi Sutta and its Commentary》全文未完，请进入下页继续阅读…