An Integrated Framework Linking Thai Law on Theft and the Second Pārājika Rule (Dutiyapārājika) in Theravāda Buddhism for Peaceful Coexistence

Abstract

This qualitative comparative study examines Thai law on theft and the Second Pārājika rule (Dutiyapārājika) in Theravāda Buddhist monastic discipline and develops an integrated framework for peaceful coexistence. The study had three objectives: (1) to analyze the development and principles of Thai law on theft in relation to ethical responsibility and property protection; (2) to analyze the development and principles of the Second Pārājika rule, with particular attention to its ethical and disciplinary foundations; and (3) to develop an integrated framework linking the two normative systems. The research combined qualitative documentary analysis with semi-structured expert interviews involving ten purposively selected informants with expertise in Buddhism and law. The research analyzed documentary and interview data through directed content analysis, thematic coding, and comparative synthesis.

The findings show that Thai theft law and the Second Pārājika rule share a concern with protecting property and restraining wrongful taking, but they differ in legal status, jurisdiction, evidentiary structure, and consequences. Thai criminal law requires dishonest taking and applies no minimum property-value threshold for the basic offense, whereas a Pārājika determination under the Vinaya depends on specific conditions including ownership, knowledge, intention, action, and the prescribed value threshold for a defeat offense. The analysis also identifies procedural tension when state detention measures affect monastic status before a final criminal judgment. The study contributes a coordination framework that distinguishes secular criminal adjudication from Vinaya disciplinary determination while promoting communication between legal and ecclesiastical authorities. Recommendations concerning statutory amendment, preliminary Vinaya review, and specialized training are presented as normative proposals derived from the comparative analysis and expert interviews rather than as conclusively established legal requirements.