Virtual Dhamma-Vinaya Vihara
Open monastery, laity practice area- [Öffentliches Kloster, Laienpraxisbereich] (vata assama) => Workplace for good condition - [Arbeitsplatz für gute Bedingungen] pāramī => Topic started by: Dhammañāṇa on September 22, 2019, 06:39:20 AM
-
For people relaying on wrong view, the missdeed of "taking what is not given" is hard to trace as thinking in manner of rights, inherent allowance to still desires.
So my person thought to make a topic on the distinction between common laws and common judgement and the breaking of virtue as well as on kammic effects, starting here with this Sutta:
Maybe Bhante Varado likes to join here as well, and share his merits.
009.04. Bhikkhus, the highwaymen endowed with eight things does not do it long, ends up quickly. What eight?
Attacks those who should not be attacked, takes away without leaving anything, kills women, defiles maidens, plunders the gone forth, plunders the royal treasury, steals in the vicinity and does not have a saving Bhikkhus, the highwaymen endowed with these eight things does not do it long, ends up quickly.
Bhikkhus, the highwaymen endowed with eight things does it long, does not end up quickly. What eight?
Does not attack those who should not be attacked, does not take away without leaving anything, does not kill women, does not defile maidens, does not plunder the gone forth, does not plunder the royal treasury, does not steal in the vicinity and has a saving Bhikkhus, the highwaymen endowed with these eight things does it long, does not end up quickly.
-
Common laws usually measure all kinds of thieves mostly not by the fact that one as taken something under ones control, possession, primarly, but whether another is harmed or not, effected by loose of control over what he regards as his.
Stealing, requires therefore the move away for the owner to be conducted. Taking what is not given, the move toward the taker.
Whether the previous owner knows or not, perceives harm or not, perceives lose or not, once one has taken on something not having been given by deeds or words (kammic also thoughts), it's nevertheless taken on.
-
This is already hard to understand in regard of physical moveable objects, grows harder to be understood if it comes to objects not possible to move, taking land, areas, for example, or status, stand and even more harder and easy confusing when it comes the finer material things possible to copy.
-
As it is hard for the worldling to trace mind as the source of unskillful and as the wordling fails in judging by all kinds of reasonings, wise tried to give ways to cut off defilements by requesting single factors of an undertaking, yet those ways of division it self gives of course again possibilities for defilements to drive in, so at least sacca, much truthfulness by the actor himself is needed, if not crossquestioned by a skilled "judge" who has also the ability of reading, knowing, states of mind in others.
-
The factors to prove are given by wise - it's not sure if the Buddha thought it as useful tool, at least outward of his community laws - as such:
"Even taking a halm of grass, not given, is a transgression"
- 1) Object: anything belonging to another (human) being or a group of (human) beings.
- 2) Perception: One perceives the object as belonging to another human being or a group of (human) beings.
- 3) Intention: One decides to steal it.
- 4) Effort: One takes it.
My person put "human" under breaks since this regards community laws, precepts, and not to akusala and kamma.
Object should be clear wheather it is moveable physical, not to move like "realities", land, house..., fine material things like digital or written means, non-material things like stands, position.
Perception or "knowledge", cognition. This includes aside of getting known by seen, heard or felt, the understanding as being hold as own by someone or a group. Such "holding as ones own" does not require that something is legal hold as own by someone. Even if it has been brought by depriving, by taking not given on it, it may be someone elses occupation.
Intention should be not mistaken with possible later aim or "for the sake" but simply the thought or objection of bringing the object under ones own control: to take what is not handed over physical or by speech (and thoughts in regard of kamma).
Effort means that one actually acts in this way, takes on it, moves it into or toward his sphere. It doesn't necessarily requires the perception of the previous owner to be moved out of his controll. The matter here is whether one acts in moving it into ones, or toward ones controll, out on of the sphere or border of someones control. Yet it includes also the destruction, depriving of having control over it by the owner.
The last might be the main area where on could confuse stealing (harm of someone perceiveable, countable) and taking what is not given.
-
_/\_ _/\_ _/\_
Sadhu, Sadhu
-
Taking of what is not given requires wrong view to be persent. It's not possible to take what is not given when right view is present.
And what is wrong view, as a condition for unskillful deeds by thoughts, signs and deeds?
There is the case where a certain person is covetous. He covets the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears ill will, corrupt in the resolves of his heart: 'May these beings be killed or cut apart or crushed or destroyed, or may they not exist at all!' He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'
This is wrong view, as a condition for unskillful deeds by thoughts, signs and deeds.
And what is right view, as a condition for skillful deeds by thoughts, signs and deeds?
There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'
This is right view, as a condition for skillful deeds by thoughts, signs and deeds.
It is not possible that one acts skillful in the world without right view as forerunner and it's not possible that one acts unskillful in the world without wrong view as forerunner.
-
Taking what is not given as Element of the Ariyamagga, Path beyond.
And what is wrong view which does nevertheless not go beyond the world, being not skillful in ways to be an element of the path?
There is the case where a person regards the eye, the touch on the eye, the object of the eye, form; feelings, consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on touch on the eye, as real, lasting, a refuge, under ones control. He regards the ear,... sound... nose,... smell... tongue... taste, ... body..., bodily touch... He regard the intellect, the touch on the intellect, the object of the intellect, thoughts/ideas; feelings, consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on touch on the intellect, as real, lasting, a refuge, under ones control.
This is wrong view which does nevertheless not go beyond the world, being not skillful as a element of the path. Yet it is may be still skillful based on right view objected in the world.
And what is right view which goes beyond the world, being skillful as a element of the path?
There is the case where a person does not regards the eye, the touch on the eye, the object of the eye, form; feelings, consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on touch on the eye, as real, lasting, a refuge, under ones control. He does not regard the ear,... sound... nose,... smell... tongue... taste, ... body..., bodily touch... He does not regard the intellect, the touch on the intellect, the object of the intellect, thoughts/ideas; feelings, consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on touch on the intellect, as real, lasting, a refuge, under his control.
This is right view which goes beyond the world, being skillful as a element of the path. Yet it is may be still unskillful based on wrong view objected in the world.
It is not possible that one relaying on right view as a factor of the path acts unskillful and takes on the senses and their objects as his and under his control. It is therefore that one who has arrived on right view that goes beyond the world, hasn't world as it's object, is incapable to act wrong, unskillful and in ways to w fall from the path. Yet it is possible that one who uses this transcendent view to reject right view objected on world, acts in ways which do not only close up the path for long time but head him straight downward, into painful realms. Therefore those views are told to be evil wrong views, hard to abound once they have arisen.
It is possible that one relaying on wrong view which is not a factor of the path acts skillful as he takes on the senses and their objects as his and under his control. It is therefore that one who has not arrived on right view that goes beyond the world, hasn't world as it's object, is capable to act right, skillful and in ways toward the path. It is possible that one who does not use this transcendent view to regard right view objected on world, acts in ways which do not close him up the path for long time and heads him straight upwardly, to good existences. Therefore those views are told to be right views, even if not being element of the path.
-
And how can the factor of being there an object be missperceived by wrong view?
There is the case where a person, desiring on taking on what is not given, on facing it, regarding the object, thinks: "This is an object of the eye, the touch on the eye, the object of the eye, form; feelings, consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on touch on the eye, and it is not real, not lasting, a refuge refuge, not to be regarded under someones control, and there is nothing taken when taking on it. He regards the ear,... sound... nose,... smell... tongue... taste, ... body..., bodily touch... He regard the intellect, the touch on the intellect, the object of the intellect, thoughts/ideas; feelings, consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on touch on the intelect, as not real, not lasting, no refuge, not to be regarde under ones control, and there is nothing taken when taking on it.
This is how one miss-perceives the fact hat there is an object. Rejecting that there is an object he takes on it althought not given and acts evil unskilful in regard of the object.
Or he acts on relaying on wrong view objected in the world and denies the object in regard of it's worth: there is nothing thats been to be give, to sacrifies, has no parents, no preparer.
-
And how can the factor of perceiving ownership on an object be miss-perceived?
There is the case where a person, desiring on taking on what is not given, on facing it, regarding the owner-ship thinks: "This is an object of the eye, the touch on the eye, the object of the eye, form; feelings, consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on touch on the eye, and it is not real, not lasting, a refuge refuge, not to be regarded under someones control, and there is nothing taken when taking on it as there is no owner perceiveable. He regards the ear,... sound... nose,... smell... tongue... taste, ... body..., bodily touch... He regard the intellect, the touch on the intellect, the object of the intellect, thoughts/ideas; feelings, consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on touch on the intelect, as not real, not lasting, no refuge, not to be regarde under ones control, and there is nothing taken when taking on it, as there is no owner perceivable.
This is how one miss-perceives the fact that there is an owner. Rejecting that there is an owner he takes on it althought not given and acts evil unskilful in regard of the owner.
Or he acts on relaying on wrong view objected in the world and denies the owner in regard of it's worth: there is nothing he can hold, to sacrifies, has no parents, no preparer, no owner.
-
And how can the factor of perceiving intention on an object be miss-perceived?
There is the case where a person, desiring on taking on what is not given, on facing it, is regarding his intention, thinks: "This is an intention on the eye, on the touch on the eye, on the object of the eye, form; on feelings, on consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on intention on touch on the eye, and it is not real, not lasting, no refuge, not to be regarded under someones control, and so there is no intention of taking when taking on it as there is no one intending, no actor. He regards the ear,... sound... nose,... smell... tongue... taste, ... body..., bodily touch... He regard the intention on intellect, the intention on touch on the intellect, the intention on the object of the intellect, thoughts/ideas; feelings, consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on touch on the intention on intelect, as not real, not lasting, no refuge, not to be regarded under ones control, and there is no intendion of taken when taking on it, as there is no one intending, no actor.
This is how one miss-perceives the fact that there is intention. Rejecting that there is an intention he takes on it althought not given and acts evil unskilful in regard of the owner.
Or he acts on relaying on wrong view objected in the world and denies the intention in regard of it's fruits and effects: there are no fruits and results of good or bad intentions, there is no heir of good and bad intentions.
-
And how can the factor of perceiving effort be miss-perceived?
There is the case where a person, desiring on taking on what is not given, on facing it, is regarding his effort, thinks: "This is an effort on the eye, on the touch on the eye, on the object of the eye, form; on feelings, on consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on effort on touch on the eye, and it, the effort, is not real, not lasting, no refuge, not to be regarded as there being an actor, and so there is no effort of taking when taking on it as there is no actor. He regards the ear,... sound... nose,... smell... tongue... taste, ... body..., bodily touch... He regard the effort on intellect, the effort on touch on the intellect, the effort on the object of the intellect, thoughts/ideas; feelings, consciousness, will and what ever phenomena arises on touch on the effort on intelect, as not real, not lasting, no refuge, not to be regarded under ones control, and so there is no effort of taken when taking on it, as there is no actor.
This is how one miss-perceives the fact that there is effort. Rejecting that there is an effort he takes on it althought not given and acts evil unskilful in regard of the actor.
Or he acts on relaying on wrong view objected in the world and denies the effort in regard of there being an actor: although there is effort on desire, there is no actor, being there no actor, there is no heir of efforts effects and fruits.
-
Now how does one, in the position of a giver, avoid that others might fall into remorse or a actually into a transgression?
By ways of "Zuvorkommenheit" ("prevenience courtesy", habit of acting before [a wish would arise, be expressed], good if based on obligingness) is most important if wishing for the welfare of others.
It's therefore usual that if a new fellow arises in ones sphere of dwelling (except gross improper behavior is perceived, to the limits of ones fear of loos) to offer by speech the one of all ones possessions and of what can be used without being not given.
Why is the thought alone "oh may he take what ever he needs" not enough alone? Because it might be that someone has doubt, yet nevertheless takes, and although the "giver" had actually mentally agreed, he would nevertheless fall into a transgression.
It's usual that in good societies, if the case arises that one needs to ask, others in relation, being in a situation of duty, would be ashamed if such could happen.
In bad societies, there where the thoughts of wrong view domain, thoughts like "he could act as all of us", "why serving if nobody serves us/me" "only if there is a deal, deeds are well placed", "Zuvorkommenheit" is seen as weakness on both sides. For one side it is a loose of possibilities to win or get others in debts, and for the other side, the receiver, it's fear of getting in debt or being observed as receiver.
This is why in certain "poor" societies, even if not instructed and knowing limits of others, "Zuvorkommenheit" solves a lot of issues while in certain "rich" societies, although limits are known stinginess overwhelms any kind of "Zuvorkommenheit" and rather then releasing each other pulling each other more and more down to the point of breaking apart.
There is normally nevertheless no change to protect a person of no integrity from faults, as the wish to deny obligation, goodness and debt, domains. Related to this issue is there a short story about the matter of Giving, taking and the "new" world (http://forum.sangham.net/index.php/page,Arbeit-macht-frei.html).
-
Next to "Zuvorkommenheit" it's good to do not banter by letting things simply lie around, having an owner. Another might be habitual not care whether something has an owner or not it easy to take on. If deposing open to take it's good to declare it as well.
Especially this days people at large do not dare much if taking is possible especially in the internet-realm which is somehow considered similar like wild forest.
Not that others could in this way increase their debt (it could be that they are not wishing to have toward even good and liberation), they could also easy be motivated to don't care about doubt.
Doing such not is actually the modern way of getting people caught, whether they know it or not. There will be (actually are) a lot of slaves with heavy debts toward "free giver". Such situations, as people are not aware, yet nevertheless bond and depended, can cause very harmful actions to try to abound debts later in wrong ways.
So it's not such as an easy way to try to gain debtors with "free suggestions" because once "ones own" one is required to feed them on of which would not end when people firm bond in the world.
That is why monks, if not after catching and do favors, take care of things and place them best possible or mark things. Not because of stingy but simply that others would not fall in even bad situations, what at least also endangers themselves toward strange things.
-
_/\_ _/\_ _/\_
Sadhu, Sadhu
-
Kana/Atma wants to tell a little example on this topic with the intension to give some "insights" for daily life, for the growing and unity of the Buddhaparisāta and not to disgrace someone.
Yesterday, when Kana was in the Monks Kuti, some of the laity came into the dwelling place of the Monks and took a bottle of water. When he realised, that kana was in the Kuti, he tell kana :" I take this, ok?!" and kana answered :" Atma do not know who is the owner of this, this bottled water was not given to Atma, so he is not the owner and because of that, Atma is not able to give it to a another person." the person responded :" Yes, Yes!" and continued with open the bottle and drank the water.
-
One takes on the habits of his association. To explain the water thing. Here, maybe generally, Monks consider water as "free". They would not ask or care. When water is found anywhere in monasteries monks would make use of it. That is why people generally consider it likewise, following it.
The same is in regard of things like download and therefore very dangerous if monks give wrong advice, "give rights" by their sublime status, reflecting the Gems, Bhante.
That's a normal case. Once the three governing principles (http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.040.than_en.html) are absent or thought that fine with something, one acts.
(Just to mention: It's given by the Buddha to his monks, other then other things, to take on water without having been given personally: if it has no owner!)
-
Kana, Bhante _/\_ _/\_ _/\_
-
But there is also the case of considering something as cast off, ownerless. Of which is also fast done here once easy accessible, out of fances or when no one is within the fence perceived.