The Second Precept ADINNADANA VERAMANI SIKKHA-PADAM SAMADIYAMI I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from taking things not given. The essential purpose of this precept is to abstain from taking away with thieving intent that which is not given. The objects covered by this precept include every kind of property, both living and non-living, that is still rightfully owned by someone, and those things, although without any individual owner, which are for general or public use (such as offerings that have been devoted to a special religious place or the fixtures that belong to a society). This precept prohibits an offense against other people’s property, thereby encouraging a right means of livelihood. It is based on the fact that everyone has the right to the ownership over his own property. He who refuses to obey this universal law transgresses the second precept. He has committed an evil action. Broadly speaking, there are three degrees of stealing: direct stealing, indirect stealing, and actions analogous to stealing. Direct Stealing Several manners of stealing may be listed here as follows: Stealing An act of silently or stealthily taking away a thing unseen. A person who takes away a piece of cloth which belongs to some other person, or who steals into a house at night by prying open a door or a window in order to take something with intent to steal, is guilty of this manner of stealing. Snatching Taking something away by force, with or without harming the owner. A person who takes away by force anything belonging to another person who is off his guard is a snatcher. He is a criminal who practices the ‘snatch-and-run’ method of stealing. Extortion An act of stealing which is accompanied by a threat of some kind or other and may be seen in the case of a robber who threatens the property owner with death or with torture if the latter refuses to reveal where his valuables are kept. Gang-Robbery A joint effort by many armed robbers who forcibly break into a person’s house whether involves killing or not. Laying False Claim There are two kinds of this manner of stealing. The first concerns property, which is not under one’s protection, whereas the second involves what is at that moment under one’s care and responsibility. An example of the former may be seen when a person files a case against the Rightful owner of a piece of land, falsely claiming his right to that land. An example of the latter can be seen in the case of a person who claims ownership over property which its rightful owner has bona fide committed to his care for the time being (such as during his absence). Or in the case of a person who, having rented a piece of land for some time, comes to claim it as his own. Lying Thieving done by lying. This is illustrated when a person goes to another and tells him that he (the former) was sent by someone (usually the property owner) to take such-and-such piece of property away. When the latter believes this false statement and gives the former what he asks for, there is an offense of stealing through lying. Deceit Theft through such deceptive means as giving short weight or short measure, including raising the bottom of the vessel used for measuring. Imitation Passing a thing of lower worth or inferior, quality off as one of higher value or superior quality, either by means of mixing together or by substitution. Breaking Of Promises A person who borrows a thing from another but who later refuses to return it, or one who borrows money on interest but who afterwards purposely neglects to pay back the interest or the principal or both are examples of stealing by breaking a promise. Pilfering Turning to private use part of the money entrusted to one’s care. Thus a salesman who pockets part of the cash in his control for his personal use or a bill collector who cheats the company of part of the money he has collected is committing a theft by pilfering. Change The underhanded changing of a superior thing, replacing it with an inferior one. Smuggling And Evasion This relates to government tax and revenue. Smuggling means secretly removing taxable commodities from one place to another or producing things prohibited by law or rules such as the growing of opium poppies or liquor distilling. Evasion is the refusal to pay to the government what is required by law in the form of taxes and revenues. Embezzlement Appropriating for one’s own use the property that is entrusted to his care, or misappropriating his own property, which is to be confiscated by law. A person who commits any of the above-mentioned offenses himself or who has another do so for him, or who is an accomplice of someone else who does so, is likewise guilty of the crime of stealing. He will be punished by the law of the country as well as receive the effects of his bad karma. The verdict of the law of the country is, as a rule, based on: 1 the property stolen - its value which is in direct proportion to the loss suffered by the owner, 2 the criminal’s motive - whether the act was committed with malicious intent or not, and 3 the effort involved - whether it is a mere act of stealing or whether it involves any harm to the property owner or the loss of his life, the latter of which is sure to receive greater punishment than a case of theft. Such property, being wrongfully obtained, cannot bring about any peace or pride to its possessors, as does that which is honestly earned. The delight of one who earns his living in a rightful way is fourfold: 1 He is blessed with justifiable pride in that he is the rightful owner of the property. 2 He is free from the burden of un-payable debt, which would otherwise compel him to live a life of concealment to avoid being discovered by his creditors. 3 While he is using his well-earned money, there is nothing to disturb his conscience. 4 It keeps him from falling into evil ways. But this is not so with ill-gotten gains, for they always bring worry and fear to their wrongful owners, requiring them to remain in hiding and to keep the stolen goods hidden in secret. Such a person is forced to live under the shadows of disguise and concealment, thereby depriving himself of any opportunity to settle down and provide for his future like other law-abiding citizens. He will, in all probability, be compelled to commit other crimes until he is overtaken by the inevitable results, even in the present life. It is therefore advisable that a self-respecting person should, by all means, avoid such immoral ways of earning a livelihood, which, in the long run, produce only shame and regret. Indirect Stealing Indirect stealing means that conduct which, although not direct forms of theft as earlier described, are closely associated with them and are considered equally blameworthy. They are as follows: Acting As An Accomplice This is helping criminals in their wrong doings or keeping their crimes secret for their sakes. An example can be seen in the receiving of stolen property for sale at good profit. This is indirect support of crime since it gives thieves the confident hope that they will always find a place to dispose of their stolen goods. It also encourages them to be more daring in mercilessly depriving honest people of the property, which they have earned through their own efforts. Exploiting (Or Fleecing) Making friends with, or making love to, someone with the malicious intent of swindling. It also means the deserting of the exploited or swindled person in time of need. Accepting Bribery Taking what is clandestinely given in return for unlawful services. An example of this may be seen in the case of a judge who, for the sake of personal gains, shamelessly perverts the justice of the law, pronouncing judgment in favor of that side which offers him more money, regardless of humanity or the truth in that case. This practice is a serious offense in that it is an incentive for the criminals to perpetuate worse crimes in the hopes that they will be able to go scot-free after all, in spite of the law. Property or money obtained in such ways of indirect thieving, like that of direct stealing, are never known to have given any peace or prosperity to their unlawful owners. They are, on the contrary, conducive to all forms of disgrace and decline. Thus he is a true Buddhist who applies himself to his work assiduously and with sincerity avoids even indirect stealing. Actions Analogous To Stealing Under this heading come two kinds of immoral acts: willful destruction and careless (unscrupulous) taking or using. Willful Destruction This is the deliberate destruction of another’s property with revenge as the motive. It is true that the criminal who does so does not especially desire anything for his own, nor does he profit materially by doing so, but it does practically deprive the property owner of his rightful property in much the same way as an act of stealing does. It is, in fact, all the more evil because of the sinister motive on which such an act is based. This may be seen when a person malignantly kills another’s cattle or sets fire to his enemy’s place in order to gratify his bitter hatred of that property owner. Careless (Unscrupulous) Taking Or Using For example, a wild and unruly youth who arbitrarily uses the money or property of his or her parents or relatives, arguing evasively that it belongs to members of the same family, is guilty of analogous stealing. It is true that sometimes a person is tacitly allowed to take away another person’s property or money, and friends can, at times, use each other’s money or property without the formality of asking the permission of their owner. Such using, however, should be based on what are called the rules of intimacy (vissasa): 1 The owner must be closely intimate with the user so that there may not be any suspicion or accusation of theft. 2 The owner has made his or her permission known sometime before. 3 The object taken must not be one that is still very precious to its owner so that by taking it an intimate friend has not caused him a loss too great to bear. 4 The owner, having learned that his property has been taken away in such a manner, must be willing to part with it, or at least he will not bother to make any complaint against the user. These are the rules of intimacy, the criterion by which to clear a person of the complaint or the accusation of theft. In the absence of any of these rules, the act of taking away another person’s property or money, without waiting for the owner’s permission to do so, is never justified. It is sure to be branded as an act analogous to theft, resulting in disgrace for the person who does so and distrust on the part of other people. To sum up this precept, there is a twofold practice for every self-respecting person to keep. This is the avoidance of theft in all its forms and manners as mentioned above, and respect for the inalienable right of everyone to his property
Posted on: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 07:49:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015