The Second Precept
-
The Second Buddhist Precept states simply:I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.
Adinn�d�n� veramaṇī sikkh�padaṃ sam�diy�mi.
This means abstaining from taking what belongs to others — in other words, stealing. Unlike the Judeo-Christian Eighth Commandment, it’s not a divine edict. It’s training in the practice of non-greed for the good of one’s character and for the happiness of oneself and others.
Most of us don’t go around breaking and entering, mugging, or shoplifting, so it would seem that abstaining from stealing should be a relatively easy matter — but it’s not. There are more subtle forms of theft — downloading and uploading copyrighted material without permission, underreporting cash income on one’s taxes, using ideas without attribution, bringing paper clips home from the office, inflating damage estimates for insurance reimbursement. The temptation to petty larceny runs deep within the crooked human heart, and aspiring to impeccability requires some heavy lifting.
Corporations can also violate the Second Precept. Ethical businesses obtain raw materials and labor at a fair price and create something of value which they sell at a fair price. Ethical businesses also abstain from passing hidden costs along to stakeholders. Companies that purchase raw materials from developing nations at unfair prices, exploit workers through unfair wages and working conditions, expose consumers to risk through unsafe products, and pollute the environment are engaging in a form of theft. So are industries that systematically mislead others about the real costs of their products, for example, the health costs of tobacco and soft-drink consumption, or the health and environmental costs of mining and burning coal, deep sea drilling for oil, hydrofracking for gas, or storing “spent” nuclear fuel in cooling ponds.
Governments can violate the Second Precept through unjust confiscatory taxation. Zen Master Hakuin (1686-1769) railed against the typical Japanese Daimyo (feudal lord) of his day who lived:
“a life of the greatest luxury… with never a thought of the difficulties of the common people under him. From the blood and sweat he wrings from them he is able to fill his tables with fine sake…. As there is never enough money to satisfy such appetites, he ends up dispatching merciless ministers…. Not only do officials reckon the tax rate yearly, they also raise the rate two or three times during the same year.” [1]
Closer to our own time, the American revolution was fought over taxation without representation, and some present day third-world countries are governed by oligarchies so corrupt they can only be called “kleptocracies.”
Political conservatives sometimes claim taxation levels in the United States are confiscatory. In fact, personal U.S. taxation levels are considerably lower than most Western European democracies. Additionally, federal tax revenues currently constitute a smaller percentage of our gross domestic product than they did during the decade of the nineteen-fifties.
The Bush era tax cuts have, however, contributed to a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthiest Americans. This transfer is also a function of exponential increases in executive compensation while the hourly wages of American workers have declined. Fortune 500 CEOs enjoyed a 23% increase in compensation in 2010 alone. The wealthiest one percent of the country now owns 38% of all privately held stock, 60% of all financial assets, and 62% of all business equity, returning concentration of wealth to levels not seen since the Roaring Twenties and the Gilded Age. [2] Current tax policy benefits the richest at the expense of improvements in infrastructure, education, and health care for all.
No doubt, the reasons for the increasing disparity in wealth are multiple and complex, including the globalization of the world economy, the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas, the decline of labor unions, the deregulation of the banking industry, the rising cost of energy, the failures of our educational system, and the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy. The simple, unbridled exercise of human greed fits somewhere into the mix as well. Not unexpectedly, the wealthy continue to vigorously advocate for a variety of policies (subsidies, incentives, tax write-offs, deregulation, union busting, shredding the social safety net, shifting medical risk from insurers to patients, ending the estate tax, hobbling Medicare’s bargaining power, etc.) that further accelerate the ongoing transfer of wealth. We might also note that the Supreme Court’s “Citizen’s United” decision gives the wealthy even more of an advantage in shifting the political playing field to their advantage.
The Second Precept applies to more than just the theft of property and wealth, however. It can also apply to the giving and receiving of affection, attention, and caring in personal relationships and the sharing of tasks and responsibilities within them. Most imbalances within relationships are not regulated by law and some are reinforced by prevailing customs, making it easier to fail to recognize them when they occur, and allowing their justification since “everyone does it.” Focusing on the needs of our partners and dependents more than our own is an important part of Buddhist practice. We might consider replacing the Golden Rule of “Do unto others as we would have them do unto us” with the Platinum Rule: “Do unto others as they would wish to be treated.” This isn’t to suggest one should neglect one’s own needs — self-compassion is important too. As Rabbi Hillel said, “If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am not for others, what am I?” It’s just that most of us are so self-focused that a little overcompensation in the other direction couldn’t hurt! Is it possible to give more of ourselves emotionally — to be more generous than we are at present — without resentment — without fearing we might give more than we get in return? Can we make that our ongoing practice?
The beauty of the Precepts is that they turn all our interactions into fields of practice in a way solitary sitting never can. They allow us to explore the degree to which we express integrity, generosity, and compassion in our daily lives. In following the Second Precept we aspire to more than mere equity, the fair giving of tit-for-tat, but to being open-hearted, caring, and mindful of the needs of others.
Thich Nhat Hanh has rewritten and expanded the Second Precept to make its intention clearer:
Aware of the suffering caused by exploitation, social injustice, stealing, and oppression, I am committed to practicing generosity in my thinking, speaking, and acting. I am determined not to steal and not to possess anything that should belong to others; and I will share my time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need. I will practice looking deeply to see that the happiness and suffering of others are not separate from my own happiness and suffering; that true happiness is not possible without understanding and compassion; and that running after wealth, fame, power and sensual pleasures can bring much suffering and despair. I am aware that happiness depends on my mental attitude and not on external conditions, and that I can live happily in the present moment simply by remembering that I already have more than enough conditions to be happy. I am committed to practicing Right Livelihood so that I can help reduce the suffering of living beings on Earth and reverse the process of global warming.
The beauty of Thay’s reformulation is that it turns a negative — abstaining from stealing and avoiding greed — into a positive — the practice of generosity along with genuine activity to reduce individual and systemic suffering.
In discussing his reformulation in depth, Thay adds:
“When you practice one precept deeply, you will discover that you are practicing all five. The First Precept is about taking life, which is a form of stealing — stealing the most precious thing someone has, his or her life. When we meditate on the Second Precept, we see that stealing, in the forms of exploitation, social injustice, and oppression, are acts of killing — killing slowly by exploitation, by maintaining social injustice, and by political and economic oppression. Therefore, the Second Precept has much to do with the precept of not killing. We see the “interbeing” nature of the first two precepts. This is true of all Five Precepts.”
Buddhist practice is truly holographic — every part of the practice contains and reflects every other part of the practice. If all we do is practice the Second Precept, we are decreasing self-aggrandizement, increasing generosity, increasing mindful awareness of our greed, grasping, and self-justification, and increasing awareness of how we depend on and influence the interconnected web of existence.
Not a bad payoff for one simple precept.
-
never expect a precept to have micro-to-macro impact....
-
Yes. I posted this because five precepts are subtle and has vast implications... we better take it seriously.
Recently I just noticed how I have not been living up to the five precepts in many small or big ways and how it has been harmful and decided to take it more seriously... I told Thusness and he too agrees and made the same observation for himself (that he should be careful about the consequences of his actions, etc).
P.S. forgot to add the source:
http://www.existentialbuddhist.com/2011/06/the-second-precept/
-
AEN, can I hear your view about this?
I am more interested on topics related to music, so I gonna ask music-related stuffs.
(Just to let you know, I am an avid downloader and uploader of musics, so this is harmful)
How about Youtube? I have been thinking about this, you see, there are lots of videos posted by others (let's say copyrighted anime), and we, the users of Youtube, watches the Animes for free, without paying, so is this considered breaking the 2nd precept?
Cos the difference in between downloading of the mp3 music is the "owning", but what if it is "watching" anime off Youtube, without owning anything of its physical properties? (>> can apply my question to tons of music videos off Youtube also)
And let's say a second-hand dealer buys a used CD from me (quite nearly brand new state), at 1/3 original price (let's say he bought at $7 from me which I bought at $20), and decided to sell it to another person back at $20, is it considered breaking of 2nd precept that the new buyer doesn't know?
-
I am no expert in copyright laws... so I can't say whether it is right to view copyrighted materials online... perhaps someone may be able to give you a better answer.
I don't think reselling is forbidden... however, deceiving others into think it is first hand is probably not a good idea - it is like breaking the precepts of lying.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I am no expert in copyright laws... so I can't say whether it is right to view copyrighted materials online... perhaps someone may be able to give you a better answer.
I don't think reselling is forbidden... however, deceiving others into think it is first hand is probably not a good idea - it is like breaking the precepts of lying.
Thanks for the prompt reply.
I had actually wanted to ask this question after pondering on your forums' previous thread here:
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/400092
hehe now I thought of it again and so ride on your thread to ask lor
The second part, no, the shop does not deceive others, it states it is second hand. That means 願者上鈎 i think.
-
Suddenly want to add on something related
The library usually states no photocopying of more than 10% of book. This led me to think, what if in more than 1 circumstances, I photocopied more than 10% in total ? But intention-wise, it is to use the material to educate someone (good intention), is it considered as stealing if I don't use money to buy the book instead? And I wonder why there is library in the first place if it doesn't encourage people to buy original books?
-
I see..
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I see..
Cos in the past, I photostated a large numbers of piano scores from the Library @ Esplanade, but well, I do not happen to distribute them because simply I do not have anyone to distribute to, and furthermore I noted the composers of the scores of the same songs are different persons (because they transcribed the music differently) so published under different books under different publishers.
-
Originally posted by BanguIzai:
Cos in the past, I photostated a large numbers of piano scores from the Library @ Esplanade, but well, I do not happen to distribute them because simply I do not have anyone to distribute to, and furthermore I noted the composers of the scores of the same songs are different persons (because they transcribed the music differently) so published under different books under different publishers.
Were the publications out-of-print and could you reasonably obtain them through other means? If you can't easily buy them elsewhere, then the unspoken understanding as I got it from a friend who is a librarian is that you can photocopy 10% each time, multiple times.
And I suppose with books and educational materials also is the entire concept that libraries are there to level out the playing field for the have and have-nots where access is concerned. An acceptable grey area especially if the purpose is to educate... sort of :)
-
Originally posted by realization:
Were the publications out-of-print and could you reasonably obtain them through other means? If you can't easily buy them elsewhere, then the unspoken understanding as I got it from a friend who is a librarian is that you can photocopy 10% each time, multiple times.
And I suppose with books and educational materials also is the entire concept that libraries are there to level out the playing field for the have and have-nots where access is concerned. An acceptable grey area especially if the purpose is to educate... sort of :)
During that time, some were out of print, not all. I have seen such books at Bras Basah complex around that time too. The shop is the one which is on the first floor that lies in front of the security guard sitting under the escalator that one.
Ya, thanks for the kind response.
-
Ah, the precept that can cause so many people to look at you strangely. Thanks to the internet the value of intellectual property has taken a nosedive and people's opinion of what constitutes stealing... is really weird now.
Just thought I'd share some personal experience and strategies in trying to uphold this precept on the non-downloading aspect. Downloading of copyrighted stuff for entertainment like games, movies, music, comics, general software is for me a no no. I'll only make exceptions if I've exhausted my efforts in trying to procure them the legit way i.e. can't find locally, can't buy online. When that happens though, I notice that I'm pretty much being a bit too desperate for trying to find some loophole over something so trivial, then it's off to look at my thoughts and examine the item I'm crazy over. Usually works at diminishing my desire to get them.
On a side note, oh how I wish all music could be easily purchasable online without regional restrictions.
I do have certain exceptions though. Professional software that I use at home for training/honing my craft. They cost upwards of $4-6k and unless I'm actually going to do freelance work and directly profiting through using them at home, I'm unlikely to ever buy them. If I do have that kind of money to spare on something I use only from time to time, I figured they'd be better off donated to people who really need it. Still, this gnaws on me and I'm looking to see if I can do without having them on my home PC completely, eventually.
One great side effect from observing this precept: No more piles of re/writable DVDs, and no need to get TB HDDs! People are also genuinely curious about the buddhist precepts when they discover someone not doing something everyone's practically doing, so it's an excellent chance to talk about your faith.
-
Second precept has its exception and expediency like alcohol etc. Zen master Yong Ming Yan Shou stolen the money of the emperor, to buy fishes and liberated them to the pond
-
Originally posted by Jui:
Ah, the precept that can cause so many people to look at you strangely. Thanks to the internet the value of intellectual property has taken a nosedive and people's opinion of what constitutes stealing... is really weird now.
Just thought I'd share some personal experience and strategies in trying to uphold this precept on the non-downloading aspect. Downloading of copyrighted stuff for entertainment like games, movies, music, comics, general software is for me a no no. I'll only make exceptions if I've exhausted my efforts in trying to procure them the legit way i.e. can't find locally, can't buy online. When that happens though, I notice that I'm pretty much being a bit too desperate for trying to find some loophole over something so trivial, then it's off to look at my thoughts and examine the item I'm crazy over. Usually works at diminishing my desire to get them.
On a side note, oh how I wish all music could be easily purchasable online without regional restrictions.
I do have certain exceptions though. Professional software that I use at home for training/honing my craft. They cost upwards of $4-6k and unless I'm actually going to do freelance work and directly profiting through using them at home, I'm unlikely to ever buy them. If I do have that kind of money to spare on something I use only from time to time, I figured they'd be better off donated to people who really need it. Still, this gnaws on me and I'm looking to see if I can do without having them on my home PC completely, eventually.
One great side effect from observing this precept: No more piles of re/writable DVDs, and no need to get TB HDDs! People are also genuinely curious about the buddhist precepts when they discover someone not doing something everyone's practically doing, so it's an excellent chance to talk about your faith.
Great you are making effort to rid one of piracy.
I am trying my best to buy CDs, books, movies instead of downloading them. In fact mostly I buy them.... even though they can cost quite some money. It is ethical... and certainly better than owing karmically to them! If one is a Buddhist, one must have faith in the dharma, and in karma.
I buy a lot of things from Amazon.com nowadays.
-
Originally posted by Amitayus48:
Second precept has its exception and expediency like alcohol etc. Zen master Yong Ming Yan Shou stolen the money of the emperor, to buy fishes and liberated them to the pond
What expediency of alcohol? I think one has to be careful about alcohol... From my experience (well I admit I used to binge drink quite often - I am a naughty dharma boy
), alcohol is very harmful to mindstate and behaviour... that is why Buddha said those who always drink alcohol will go lower realms or be reborn as a mad person. This totally make sense if one experiences what alcohol does! Total abstainance is best. If you have to do business, just drink a few sips. If it is just friends, can reject them. Like my Master say, a Buddhist should be optimist when it comes to doing good (积�), but when it comes to negative things like asking you to go clubbing, drinking, or whatever... one should be a pessimist (消�)Lets not follow Zen masters unless we are enlightened. Buy fish for liberation is good... but still best to use your own money! Anyway many masters (Zen or Vajrayana alike) themselves break precepts, drink, womanize, etc.... sometimes to their death. I do not think it is a good example. They call it crazy wisdom, but Dalai Lama thinks they're weird! Me too. In other words, just 'crazy', not necessarily 'wisdom'. Some call it spontaneous wisdom, I call it spontaneous ignorance. Even enlightened people can have flaws and faults. Don't put teachers on pedestial just because they appear to be authorities!
'Expediency' is more often than not 'misused and abused'.
-
-----------------------------------------
-
Nowadays I am trying to stop killing mosquitoes. I just let them go. It takes some awareness to stop the instinctual habit to slap them.
I often bring to mind how zen monks in Japan actually have some 'mosquito sacrificing session' - they actually intentionally sit in the open to feed the mosquitoes!
As I go outfield very often where swarms of mosquitoes come and attack me, I have a lot of chance to practice non-killing.
I am not as good as them... I don't feed mosquitoes, but at least I just let them fly away.
Dalai Lama said something very good... in fact I was reading this when outfield... that you should treat all sentient beings more precious than the jewel fulfilling gems, because they let you accomplish your practice.
Like how can you practice non-killing, non-violence, compassion, without the other sentient beings? So even mosquitoes are trying to let you accomplish Buddhahood. They are your benefactors.
That was really relevant to me at that time.
-
Originally posted by Jui:
Ah, the precept that can cause so many people to look at you strangely. Thanks to the internet the value of intellectual property has taken a nosedive and people's opinion of what constitutes stealing... is really weird now.
Just thought I'd share some personal experience and strategies in trying to uphold this precept on the non-downloading aspect. Downloading of copyrighted stuff for entertainment like games, movies, music, comics, general software is for me a no no. I'll only make exceptions if I've exhausted my efforts in trying to procure them the legit way i.e. can't find locally, can't buy online. When that happens though, I notice that I'm pretty much being a bit too desperate for trying to find some loophole over something so trivial, then it's off to look at my thoughts and examine the item I'm crazy over. Usually works at diminishing my desire to get them.
On a side note, oh how I wish all music could be easily purchasable online without regional restrictions.
I do have certain exceptions though. Professional software that I use at home for training/honing my craft. They cost upwards of $4-6k and unless I'm actually going to do freelance work and directly profiting through using them at home, I'm unlikely to ever buy them. If I do have that kind of money to spare on something I use only from time to time, I figured they'd be better off donated to people who really need it. Still, this gnaws on me and I'm looking to see if I can do without having them on my home PC completely, eventually.
One great side effect from observing this precept: No more piles of re/writable DVDs, and no need to get TB HDDs! People are also genuinely curious about the buddhist precepts when they discover someone not doing something everyone's practically doing, so it's an excellent chance to talk about your faith.
i share your sentiments too... wanted to buy music only but I can't find any online source. Just because I like one particular song doesn't mean I have to buy the entire album... lol
-
Yeah... there needs to be online outlets. Especially when CD shops around Singapore closing down because everyone is downloading them.
-
Just few moments ago typing keyboard and cockroach visited me....
now it's in the sewer...
zzz
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Just few moments ago typing keyboard and cockroach visited me....
now it's in the sewer...
zzz
Umm......
-
There's nothing wrong with killing pests. AEN is funny. If you do not kill mosquitoes in oufield a dengue or malaria mosquito might bite your mates. The town council just hired a pest terminator to kill cockcroaches in my flat. Tonnes of cockroaches are found lying on the floor and the blangah sweeper sweep it away. Even government do this like spray pesticides in those Private housing areas. Pests should be killed. I see pests the pests sure die.
-
Downloading songs and movies online are morally wrong and infringe copyright. Alot of my firends see manga online and anime too.
-
Originally posted by Blacktron:
There’s nothing wrong with killing pests.
AEN is funny. If you do not kill mosquitoes in oufield a dengue or malaria mosquito might bite your mates.
The town council just hired a pest terminator to kill cockcroaches in my flat.
Tonnes of cockroaches are found lying on the floor and the blangah sweeper sweep it away.
Even government do this like spray pesticides in those Private housing areas.
Pests should be killed. I see pests the pests sure die.
It's you who is funny. Please see my post reply to you here:
http://sgforums.com/forums/1796/topics/350618?page=66#post_10313496
-
Originally posted by Blacktron:
There’s nothing wrong with killing pests.
AEN is funny. If you do not kill mosquitoes in oufield a dengue or malaria mosquito might bite your mates.
The town council just hired a pest terminator to kill cockcroaches in my flat.
Tonnes of cockroaches are found lying on the floor and the blangah sweeper sweep it away.
Even government do this like spray pesticides in those Private housing areas.
Pests should be killed. I see pests the pests sure die.
From society's standpoint, those insects should be exterminated.
From a Buddhist and karmic standpoint and a compassionate standpoint, it's not good.
Ａｎｙｗ�ｙ　ｉｎ　�ｕｔｆｉｅｌｄ，　ｔｈｅｒｅ　�ｒｅ　ｓｗ�ｒ�ｓ　�ｆ　��ｓｑｕｉｔ�，　ｓ�　ｋｉｌｌｉｎｇ　�ｎｅ　ｄ�ｅｓｎ＇ｔ　ｉ��ｒ�ｖｅ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｉｔｕ�ｔｉ�ｎ　�ｔ　�ｌｌ．　Ｔｈｅｒｅ　�ｒｅ　ｃ�ｕｎｔｌｅｓｓ　�ｆ　ｔｈｅ�．　Ａｌｓ�, I and my friends all have been bitten by mosquitoes that look like aedes with the white stripes, but so far we haven't gotten dengue fever.
