The Second Precept.
Vastmind
Memphis, TN Veteran
The Second Precept is "to refrain from taking that which is not given." This precept is sometimes shortened to "do not steal" or "practice generosity." This training calls on us to realize that our clinging and grasping and hoarding come from ignorance of our true nature. The practice of generosity is important to opening our hearts to compassion.
From access to insight, Buddhist Precepts in the Modern World, Lily de Silva:
"Traditionally, the Five Precepts are regarded as part and parcel of personal morality, a stepping stone along the path to liberation. However, these Five Precepts also have a momentous relevance to modern society. Man in the modern world lives in a critical state of illness — an illness rooted in moral negligence. The five rules of training which form the backbone of Buddhist ethics offer a remedy for that illness, a course of therapy that is radical because it strikes at the root of the problem.
"The first step to curb greed is the observance of the second precept, the positive aspect of which is non-ostentatiousness and the ability to be contented with a simple life where needs are satisfied rather than greeds.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/bl123.html
"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."
-- Thich Nhat Hanh
Comments
This is what gets me about the second precept. My neighbor's brand new wheel barrow isn't mine to take. But what about what we 'take' on the emotional level that isn't ours to take? We have pets. Are their lives 'ours' to give or take? Not to actually ARGUE or discuss these matters, but the second precept goes a lot deeper than stealing my neighbor's wheel barrow or ketchup packets from Denny's. There are serious bits of wisdom about the three jewels pondering the second precept for sure.
"Needs satisfied rather than greeds". Very easy for me to mix up.
The second precept concerns obtaining anything to which you are not directly entitled, whatever form that might take.
Further elaboration and interpretation - insinuating that we should "read into it" the further step of giving freely of ourselves (materially and psychologically) - irritates the crap out of me, because first of all it intrinsically alters the original meaning and intention of the Buddha's teaching, secondly it plays the guilt card ('not only should you not covet, but you should be giving it away!') and thirdly it infers that by definition, all the other precepts probably have hitherto hidden converse meanings and scrutiny of those may be in order.
Or is there something I am not getting...!?
TNH says "share". That's what's important to me. Having been trained that I should always put others before myself, I have finally unlearnt this to understand that I can receive so as to share, that I can't give when I have nothing left - I do have to "count the cost" when I give. But it's the hope of being able to share that makes the receiving so beautiful for me.
Oh I have no quarrel with that. I completely agree. I'm just irritated that constant re-evaluation and re-interpretation of perfectly good, existing lessons (which have been around a good while, I might add!) adds layer upon layer of caveats, suggestions, inflections and recommendations.
I have enough problem just putting one foot in front of the other, without committing to further intense "Strictly Come dancing" foot-shuffling...
Taking what is not given has a slightly different connotation to me that refrain from not stealing. For example, if you found $20 on the street and you took it, that wouldn't seem like stealing but it would be taking something that wasn't given.
So for myself I try to stick more with the original refrain from taking what is not given. Though if I found money on the sidewalk I might still pick it up depending on the amount. BAD BUDDHIST! NAUGHTY!
I think the phraseology is careful for precisely that reason.
For example, Many Monks rely on alms, and being given food and sustenance to support them.
A Monk holds out his bowl.
While the person is dishing rice into it, the monk surreptitiously takes an apple from the basket on the table, next to the giver.
That's stealing.
A Monk holds out his bowl.
The person dishes rice into it, and the monk bows in thanks,.
Returning into his monastery, he sees an apple on the ground. he picks it up, and decides to eat it later, so that it does not rot and go to waste.
That's NOT stealing.
I don't know if monks then empty their bowls and share everything out equally.
Some time ago, I posted a link about three lads in Africa who met two young, very hungry boys, wandering from town to town, looking for food.
Yet, even sharing their sandwiches with these little boys, these two starving children still tried to divide their donations so that everyone would have a piece.
So I do get the sharing. I do get the need to know that we all deserve to benefit...
I have just never, ever in all my days as a Buddhist, seen the second precept 'shortened to "practise Generosity" ' because that's an entirely different factor, completely, and has nothing to do with not stealing, or taking that which is not freely given.
Sorry, @Vastmind, I'm not picking a fight with you.
I just don't agree with TNH in this case.
He's Gilding the lily.
I agree with your examples, what is the true meaning then of the second precept? To refrain from stealing where picking up the apple on the ground is ok or refrain from taking what is not given where picking up the apple breaks the precept?
A quick google search comes up with
Which doesn't give much clarity.
And reading about a bit more the distinction isn't raised anywhere that I found which suggests to me that it isn't a distinction that is generally made, Buddhists are usually thorough in these types of fine detail. Thus in either wording picking up the apple either would or wouldn't break the precept.
So maybe you can understand my chagrin at the further, complicating elaboration of "share my time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need."
Sheesh!!
Who needs it - ?!
Oh no, @federica.....no fight feelings here...
. We're just chewing the fat on the precept....please, add your opinion and/or different takes on the precept. Or....simple that thing up, if it works for you! hahaha...... Maybe it's like getting two birds with one stone......Don't steal, but also give if/when you can. I think its about being aware of our clinging and attachment to items.....whether that entails grabbing something thats not given or not giving things we don't need when other people do.
I'll use the money example @person used .... I too, would probably pick up the money if I saw it laying there...in fact, I have before.....but the last two times I did....I was much more mindful about it.....I asked around the area if it belonged to anyone, and then I went and gave it away to someone else.
In mahayana the giving paramita involves giving of free will. It's a cultural difference because in the west we give because of 'charity' which is a kind of sacrifice. The idea is to feel joy to give because it relieves your closedness of clinging tight.
The original Buddha teachings are to achieve nirvana. In TB there are three turnings and the first turning has to do with nirvana which they call 'peaceful nirvana'.
The second turning is the prajna paramita and involves arousing Bodhicitta. This teaching was not given by Buddha directly and it is said that the Nagas kept and gave the teaching. Incidentally the Theravada tradition may not believe in Nagas but they do believe Buddha gave teachings to Devas and other beings.
The second turning of the wheel of dharma is about Bodhicitta and dana or giving paramita is practiced as fused with prajna paramita and they are all teachings about arousing bodhicitta. This is different from the first turning where non-suffering is the goal.
The third turning is neither about peaceful nirvana (non-suffering) nor bodhicitta. It is about Buddhanature.
All three pretty much overlap because non-suffering helps to awaken bodhicitta and bodhictta or awakened heart is pretty much the same as Buddha nature.
In the enumeration of the Precepts as it is done in the Majjhima-Nikaya and the Khuddaka-Patha (the latter is better known as the Buddhist layman's prayer book), there is no addenda whatsoever to "being generous" in the second precept.
The second precept (I am using Nyanatiloka Thero's version) is simply stated as "Stealing is evil," therefore "To abstain from stealing is good."
In the Khuddaka-Patha (F.L. Woodward's translation) we read "The charge to avoid taking what is not given."
In point 4 of the "Sutra of Forty-two Sections," which belongs in the zen tradition (I have Soyen Shaku and Christmas Humphreys version), again are the precepts enumerated in the same way as the MN, but no mention is added to generosity.
Branching out to generosity from the precept of stealing, seems to me to be a long-winded assumption, though reading de Silva's analysis as quoted by @Vastmind above does make sense.
I can see how plundering non-renewable natural resources, catering to our greed rather than to our needs, using more than we can ever use (probably leaving less for someone else) could enter into the second precept.
Still, well, it's a very personal inference.
In general Buddhism seems to take things in a step by step approach. So generally ethics comes first, refraining from stealing. Then as one develops ones ability virtue is practiced, generosity.
Though often in Mahayana they will start with a firm foundation in compassion as a context within which to develop ethics. For example, one of the most basic prayers taught in TB is the refuge prayer which is always followed by a prayer generating bodhicitta.
In the Buddhas, the Dharma and the Sangha.
Through the merit I create by practicing giving
and the other perfections
May I attain Buddhahood for the sake of all
sentient beings.
Oh.![:\](https://newbuddhist.com/plugins/emojiextender/emoji/little/confused.png ":\")
Just to irritate @federica even more
, I find the following words of Sangharakshita in his The Ten Pillars of Buddhism interesting:
FWIW (just got round to looking up what that means!)
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!
(Just kidding..... :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: )
That's why monks have only a bowl, robes and maybe shoes. Less chance of attachment.
I think it was Susuki who said that when we get anything. We should see it as a gift to others. Not ours.
Like when you get payed, it's others money through generosity and not ours. It's a tool to deconstruct the ego.
So if you take something it should be as a tool to help others.
I do feel better giving than receiving, I do understand how hard these things are to do but we should definitely head words from people who have walked further along the path than ourselves.
It's not a short path to follow but the precepts are a damn good starting point
It's worth observing that TNH developed these as mindfulness trainings, and they are intended as a comprehensive practice. Though loosely based on the precepts, they actually go far beyond these basic ethical principles.
http://plumvillage.org/mindfulness-practice/the-5-mindfulness-trainings/
I used to chant these regularly when I was involved in Interbeing, though I lost the plot a bit when they were revised and further broadened to include, among other things, a responsibility to overcome global warming....I mean, there are only so many hours in a day.
This morning the cashier in the cafeteria gave me a discount I was not entitled to. I remained mum, and silently accepted the discount. Would this be a violation of the second precept (taking something I'm not entitled too?)
Yes, you've been naughty. Say four "Hail Marys" and two "Our Fathers"...
Yes but you could turn it around by donating that extra money to someone who needs it _ /\ _
I have read somewhere that dana means generosity. Second precept does not talk of dana. So TNH may have been misunderstood when talking about dana in amongst talk of not stealing, not talking about the second precept itself, as talking about the second precept meaning be generous. Or am I missing something?
To put in plain American English what I think TNH might have meant is:
Not only follow second precept, but also practice dana.
Yes, but TNH developed these as mindfulness trainings, a comprehensive practice. They are based on the precepts but go beyond them.
Ajahn Chah also advocated things like dana, BTW. See Jayantha's blog for a quote appropo to that. Also Bhavana Society's site.
The way I understand mindfulness trainings is that they teach bending over backwards almost as to going toward opposites of what the precepts say merely not to do, they teach that for monastics and renunciates to have attitudes and actions that preclude doing what the precepts say not to do-- by doing the opposite you are definitely not breaking the precepts.
Also it's worth remembering that Right Intention and Right Effort are factors of the path. In simple terms you could say that Right Effort is about minimising the unskillful ( eg via observing the precepts ) and developing the skillful ( eg via developing Right Intention ).
And of course in the Mahayana there are the perfections to be developed, which could be seen as equivalent to "positive" Right Effort. I think TNH has tried to incorporate both these aspects in his mindfulness trainings.
Yes, walking and living mindfully involves right effort and right intention. TNH has tried to show how as well as what.