a question regarding precepts...
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Hi fellow buddhists,
I think everybody understands one of the precepts is not to steal. Stealing, as everyone know, is to take away other's possessions without approval...
I think that including plucking a flower from a nature park, even if no ones owns the park.
Does downloading music considered stealing? Same goes to watching movies online etc ...
Since technology has greatly improved, should the definition of the precepts change according to times.....?
Thanks for your view... I have not taken precepts yet.... When I thought of Buddha's theories of the 5 senses, ear(hearing) which craves for pleasant sound, desires grow in the mind... how true..
Whether you have taken precepts or not is not the point. As a human being (Buddhist or not), we have to adhere to these five precepts as taught by the Buddha. Any lower than this will make us no different from a beast.
-
Originally posted by CrazyWorld:
I think we should not cite "karma" too readily. It makes Buddhism scary. Who is to judge that you have too much bad karma, but your current state of mind and happiness?
You don't know, there are people who kill and murder, and they can still sleep well. They even get good at it.
Does that mean they have no bad karma? No, it just means the karma is waiting to show itself next life.
-
Originally posted by CrazyWorld:
I am not going to debate about downloads anymore since we have different understanding of how the Internet works.
However, I am surprise that you judge an effect (steal that packet of drink) without consideration to its causes (motivation).
<!--Session data-->
There are people who destroyed the world trade center for 'noble' reasons, doing the work of God, and getting their virgins after life in heaven.
What does Buddha say of such people?
"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply answer you. When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.003.than.html
My point is:
You may think that your cause or motivation is great.
But killing, stealing, is still killing and stealing. You will still get bad karma.
http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/397588
When formulating lay precepts based on his distinction between skillful and unskillful, the Buddha never made any allowances for ifs, ands, or buts. When you promise yourself to abstain from killing or stealing, the power of the promise lies in its universality. You won't break your promise to yourself under any conditions at all. This is because this sort of unconditional promise is a powerful gift. Take, for instance, the first precept, against killing:
"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans."
— AN 8.39
If you make exceptions in your promise to yourself — trying to justify killing in cases where you feel endangered or inconvenienced by another being's existence — your gift of freedom is limited, and you lose your share in limitless freedom. Thus the gift of freedom, to be fully effective, has to be unconditional, with no room for exceptions, no matter how noble they may sound, of any kind.
The dynamic of this kind of gift, of course, depends on an important principle, the teaching of karma and rebirth: If you act on unskillful motivations, the act will result in your suffering, now or in lives to come; if you act on skillful intentions, the act will result in your pleasure now or in lives to come. If you don't kill anyone, you are not creating the circumstances where anyone or anything will cut short your life span. Your past karma may still leave an opening for your murder or accidental death — you can't go back and undo what you've already done — but once you make and follow through with the promise not to kill again, you are creating no new openings for having your life cut short. As the Dhammapada says,
If there's no wound on the hand,
that hand can hold poison.
Poison won't penetrate
where there's no wound.
There's no evil
for those who don't do it.
— Dhp 124
This is why the Buddha listed virtue as one of a person's greatest treasures. Kings and thieves can steal your material belongings and even take your life, but they can't take your virtue. If it's uncompromising, your virtue protects you from any true danger from now until you reach nirvana.
Even if you're not ready to accept the teaching on karma and rebirth, the Buddha still recommended an absolute standard of virtue. As he told the Kalamas, if you decide to act skillfully at all times, harming no one, then even if it turned out that there was no life after death, you'd still come out ahead, for you would have been able to live and die with a clear conscience — something that no amount of money or political influence can buy.
So the Buddha's position on the precepts was uncompromising and clear. If you want to follow his teachings, there's absolutely no room for killing, stealing, or lying, period. However, in our current climate of terrorism and counter-terrorism — where governments have claimed that it's their moral duty to lie, kill, and torture in order to prevent others from lying, killing, and torturing — a number of Buddhist teachers have joined in the effort, trying to find evidence that there were some occasions, at least, where the Buddha would condone killing or offer a rationale for a just war. Exactly why they would want to do this is up to them to say, but there's a need to examine their arguments in order to set the record straight. The Buddha never taught a theory of just war; no decision to wage war can legitimately be traced to his teachings; no war veteran has ever had to agonize over memories of the people he killed because the Buddha said that war was okay. These facts are among the glories of the Buddhist tradition, and it's important for the human race that they not be muddied in an effort to recast the Buddha in our own less than glorious image.
Because the Pali Canon is such an unpromising place to look for the justification of killing, most of the arguments for a Buddhist theory of just war look elsewhere for their evidence, citing the words and behavior of people they take as surrogates for the Buddha. These arguments are obviously on shaky ground, and can be easily dismissed even by people who know nothing of the Canon. For example, it has been argued that because Asian governments claiming to be Buddhist have engaged in war and torture, the Buddha's teachings must condone such behavior. However, we've had enough exposure to people claiming to be Christian whose behavior is very un-Christian to realize that the same thing can probably happen in the Buddhist world as well. To take killers and torturers as your guide to the Buddha's teaching is hardly a sign of good judgment.
On a somewhat higher note, one writer has noted that his meditation teacher has told soldiers and policemen that if their duty is to kill, they must perform their duty, albeit compassionately and with mindfulness. The writer then goes on to argue that because his teacher is the direct recipient of an oral tradition dating back to the Buddha, we must take this as evidence that the Buddha would give similar advice as well. This statement, of course, tells us more about the writer's faith in his teacher than about the Buddha; and when we reflect that the Buddha expelled from the Sangha a monk who gave advice of this sort to an executioner, it casts serious doubts on his argument.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Sorry should be ���智。You mean you really make an effort to trace the source and really pay the person in charge? Though I hardly download and this question does not affect me but I know very few people do it. In what way is the suggestion
邪� ?
Just like when you need some information from a book, you just borrow from friends and photocopy instead of buying the book. This is also stealing because there is copyright. I believe everybody does that before isn't it ?
Borrowing is perfectly legal. But not pirating. -
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
I'm on your side because as what you said internet are built by a large number of people and it is difficult to trace at times.
I just don't understand what you guys mean by 'tracing the source'. You do NOT need to trace the source. Just like you go to supermarket and buy your stuff, do you need to trace the source? No! You just buy them. Similarly in the internet, there are legal sites to make purchases. These sites will pay the record labels, the artistes, or whatever producers that made the products. -
I'd like to provide some obvious, concrete examples
Using pirated software downloaded from file sharing sites is obviously stealing, so is downloading of music, since all these can be legally purchased from sites which are selling these stuff.
Some software (or music, photos or other creative works) may be downloaded and used for free if the license explicitly states that it is free for non-commercial use, or if stated that it is in the public domain.
As for borrowing a book and photocopying, I think 10% to 15% can be photocopied for own use and it is not considered as violating copyright. I think if the book is out of print and you really need to use the book, and there is no way of getting it 2nd hand, then I think it is alright to make a copy since you have exhausted all avenues.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I just don't understand what you guys mean by 'tracing the source'. You do NOT need to trace the source. Just like you go to supermarket and buy your stuff, do you need to trace the source? No! You just buy them. Similarly in the internet, there are legal sites to make purchases. These sites will pay the record labels, the artistes, or whatever producers that made the products.Let me give you a simple example. For instance some smart guys (I don't know them)hacked and downloaded from a legal source but they are "kind" enough to share and let others download for free. Others will just take the advantage even though they know these guys have downloaded them illegal.
Another example is friends send to me what they have downloaded even though I know they have done it without paying. I will conveniently make use of it and I won't know the souce unless I make an effort to trace it.
So far, I have not done any of the above.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Let me give you a simple example. For instance some smart guys (I don't know them)hacked and downloaded from a legal source but they are "kind" enough to share and let others download for free. Others will just take the advantage even though they know these guys have downloaded them illegal.
Another example is friends send to me what they have downloaded even though I know they have done it without paying. I will conveniently make use of it and I won't know the souce unless I make an effort to trace it.
So far, I have not done any of the above.
If your friend sends you his download, then regardless of whether he bought it legally or not, it is still pirating. Unless they are freeware, trialware, or other distributable stuff.
-
Up to 15% is fine and considered 'fair use'. I myself quote from books.Originally posted by wl_t:
I'd like to provide some obvious, concrete examples
Using pirated software downloaded from file sharing sites is obviously stealing, so is downloading of music, since all these can be legally purchased from sites which are selling these stuff.
Some software (or music, photos or other creative works) may be downloaded and used for free if the license explicitly states that it is free for non-commercial use, or if stated that it is in the public domain.
As for borrowing a book and photocopying, I think 10% to 15% can be photocopied for own use and it is not considered as violating copyright. I think if the book is out of print and you really need to use the book, and there is no way of getting it 2nd hand, then I think it is alright to make a copy since you have exhausted all avenues.
-
AEN, I do not think someone who can sleep peacefully would willingly end the live of yourself and others. If you have read about the background of these suicide bombers/ terrorists, you would much better appreciate the gravity and complexities of these violence. Not to say that the acts are justifiable, but that they are performed with much pain, anger, and suffering.
Not many decades ago, before capitalism came to us, Chinese think that trading is bad and we should just try to help each other selflessly. Now we embrace buying and selling, along with all these notions of copyright/ piracy. If you have watched the video that I shared, you would have know that many aspects of copyright/ piracy is under reconsideration. Companies and countries are using loopholes of the laws to lay claims to software that are not theirs. Is there really such a clear boundary between right and wrong, yours and mine?
If stealing can be so clearly defined, Buddhism will be a piece of cake, just needing sheer hardwork to abandon all desires, right? Maybe, but that is not the Buddhism I know.
-
Originally posted by CrazyWorld: AEN, I do not think someone who can sleep peacefully would willingly end the live of yourself and others. If you have read about the background of these suicide bombers/ terrorists, you would much better appreciate the gravity and complexities of these violence. Not to say that the acts are justifiable, but that they are performed with much pain, anger, and suffering.
Many people kill as a job. Think: assassins, merceneries, executioners, what not. Maybe not just killing humans - just look at farms and slaughterhouses. They don't kill out of hatred or anger, they kill for the money, and they may think it is ok for a job and is just a means to make money. What they aren't aware of is Karma.
Not many decades ago, before capitalism came to us, Chinese think that trading is bad and we should just try to help each other selflessly. Now we embrace buying and selling, along with all these notions of copyright/ piracy. If you have watched the video that I shared, you would have know that many aspects of copyright/ piracy is under reconsideration. Companies and countries are using loopholes of the laws to lay claims to software that are not theirs. Is there really such a clear boundary between right and wrong, yours and mine?
Helping each other selflessly is a good thing to emulate.
In fact today, there are those who create music and softwares and share them for free. Call them freeware, open source, etc. They aren't after the money.
However, those that are intended to be sold and you just take them - that is obviously outright stealing. Not everyone is wealthy enough to give things for free - some of them are selling these stuff to make a living, and by taking things for free you are denying them their livelihood.
-
You can only abandon 'all desires' by the arising of insight. A.k.a. enlightenment.
Before that, we still have to cultivate wholesome deeds and qualities to counter unwholesome deeds and qualities. We have not become liberated from the cycle of samsara, we still create karma, so must as well make good karma than bad ones.
Once we achieve enlightenment, then naturally all poisons are liberated on their own accord and requires no antidotes.
-
assassins, merceneries, executioners? Do you actually have a friend who is one type of these people? I am sure no one wants to do these jobs unless their life circumstances are hard. In my army days, I was put together with secret society members within the same company. I can tell you, it is hard being them. They do a lot of "mischieves," and they are not happy.
Forget about downloads. We are on the wrong pages and I will discuss no more.
Whether you obtain enlightenment by abandoning desires, or vice versa, is a circular argument. Which comes first? Abandoning desires, or enlightenment? Even after enlightenment, the Buddha still cultivate diligently, meditate regularly. If any, I think enlightened people cultivate harder than you and me. The doctrine of not needing further antidote after enlightenment is no different from the doctrine of "going to heaven and live happily ever after."
You have not answer my question: whether there is clear boundary between right and wrong, yours or mine?
-
Originally posted by CrazyWorld:
assassins, merceneries, executioners? Do you actually have a friend who is one type of these people? I am sure no one wants to do these jobs unless their life circumstances are hard. In my army days, I was put together with secret society members within the same company. I can tell you, it is hard being them. They do a lot of "mischieves," and they are not happy.
I can tell you that assassins, merceneries and executioners are not 'desperate people' and have plenty of alternatives to choose for livelihood. But if you're not convince: also consider slaughterhouses, farms, killing chickens for festivals (common in kampongs), fishing as a leisure activity, hunting animals in the forests (not common in singapore but in other countries), etc. Some of them kill for the fun of killing, because they have no idea about Karma.
Whether you obtain enlightenment by abandoning desires, or vice versa, is a circular argument. Which comes first? Abandoning desires, or enlightenment? Even after enlightenment, the Buddha still cultivate diligently, meditate regularly. If any, I think enlightened people cultivate harder than you and me. The doctrine of not needing further antidote after enlightenment is no different from the doctrine of "going to heaven and live happily ever after."
It is impossible to abandon desires totally until you reach Anagami stage of enlightenment according to Buddha's ten fetter and four path model. Letting go is always part of the path from the beginning, but the seed of desire will not be uprooted until the arising of insight/realisation. Therefore, it is important to practice insight meditation, and ultimately these ten fetters only get uprooted via enlightenment/realisation, not by samadhi, jhanas (which only temporarily suppress them), etc. Of course as I said earlier: before liberation, we still create karma, so might as well make good karma. This means using antidotes - like cultivating metta as an antidote to hatred, cultivating the four immeasurables etc which the Buddha said can lead to the Brahma realms: but these are antidotes that turn bad into good karma, it does not lead to the liberation from the three poisons or the cycle of samsara (but it leads to a rebirth in heaven). Having these qualities will temporarily transform and weaken the fetters in the gross manifestations and hence important, but it does not mean that you will never become 'evil' again perhaps many lifetimes later, because the seed of ignorance is still present. In fact the ten fetters are still completely present, just that its gross manifestations become temporarily weakened/transformed. If you wish to remove the fetters you need to practice insight meditation and attain enlightenment. When you become enlightened all poisons self-liberate without using any antidotes and this is not a reversible state. They self-liberate via insight:
In MN 64, the "Greater Discourse to MÄ�lunkyÄ�putta," the Buddha states that the path to abandoning the five lower fetters (that is, the first five of the aforementioned "ten fetters") is through using jhana attainment and vipassana insights in tandem.[25] In SN 35.54, "Abandoning the Fetters," the Buddha states that one abandons the fetters "when one knows and sees ... as impermanent" (Pali: anicca) the twelve sense bases (Ä�yatana), the associated six sense-consciousness (viññaṇa), and the resultant contact (phassa) and sensations (vedanÄ�).[26] Similarly, in SN 35.55, "Uprooting the Fetters," the Buddha states that one uproots the fetters "when one knows and sees ... as nonself" (anatta) the sense bases, sense consciousness, contact and sensations.[27]
As Thusness said before,
Even if we were to search the entire globe, still it is hard to find one that can be completely detached. Try as we may, ‘attachment’ continues to arise. The reason being detachment is not a matter of ‘will’, it is a matter of prajna wisdom and only in Buddhism this is pointed out and for this I am grateful to Buddha.
Although it is not right to spout high views, it is also important not to over simplify matters. In my view, if our mind is filled with ‘dualistic and inherent thoughts’, even with utmost sincerity and honesty in practice, there is still no true ‘detachment’.
Next. Buddha did not have to cultivate any more - his virtues are perfect, his wisdom and insight is perfect, his powers are perfect, everything is perfected, he is completely liberated. He meditates to set a good example to his students, and probably for a healthy body and mind. If everything is perfected, what else do you want to cultivate? Rather there is simply the insight that Spontaneous Perfection is already present from the beginning and fully manifested in this moment and there is no other 'further goals'. However it is true that Buddha is 'happily ever after', because once you are fully liberated, (mental) suffering can no longer ever arise. Even if his physical body gets sick, etc.
Maybe let's not take Buddha as an example. I know of people who no longer need to meditate. When you reach non-meditation state of enlightenment, you no longer need to cultivate - meditation becomes like exercise, healthy to do it, but not for the purpose of achieving greater states of experience (and even if you want to meditate to experience higher states of consciousness or absorption, it is realised that ordinary experience and these jhanic experiences are all of One Taste, the same nature). There is absolutely no separation between meditation and post-meditation, and there is no longer any effort necessary to sustain mindfulness. Eating, walking, talking, is all the manifestation of Buddha-nature, and spontaneous self-liberation.
After cycles and cycles of refining our practice and insights, we will come to this realization:
Anatta is a seal, not a stage.
Awareness has always been non-dual.
Appearances have always been Non-arising.
All phenomena are ‘interconnected’ and by nature Maha.
Emptiness is the ground of all experiences.Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned.
After the arising of Prajna Wisdom, we realise that All are always and already so. Only dualistic and inherent views are obscuring these experiential facts and therefore what is really needed is simply to experience whatever arises openly and unreservedly. However this does not denote the end of practice; practice simply moves to become dynamic and conditions-manifestation based. The ground and the path of practice become indistinguishable.
It is not that there is no need to do anything or practice is unnecessary. Rather it is the deepest insight of a practitioner that after cycles and cycles of refining his insights on the aspect of anatta, emptiness and dependent origination, he suddenly realized that anatta is a seal and non-dual luminosity and emptiness have always been ‘the ground’ of all experiences. Practice then shift from ‘concentrative’ to ‘effortless’ mode and for this it requires the complete pervading of non-dual and emptiness insights into our entire being like how “dualistic and inherent views” has invaded consciousness.
I'm not saying that meditation is not important for us. Of course, until you realise the stage of 'non-meditation', or the stage of Buddhahood, we should still meditate diligently. Non-meditation requires deep insight and is not something most beginners can immediately experience. I'm just saying that let's not put a judgement on something we have not realized yet. Let's not judge Buddha.
You have not answer my question: whether there is clear boundary between right and wrong, yours or mine?
If I make something, it's mine. If I say 'ok, I wish to share this with others for free', then you can take it. If I say 'I want to sell this for $10' then please pay up and don't take it without permission.
To answer you: I'd say that most often, and this includes the topic of piracy, has a clear boundary between right and wrong, yours and mine. It is only in the very minority cases that there are disputes.
-
to address, i prefer a quite similar concept of 胡�林, a disciple of old Master Chin Kung.
Right and wrong it's in the know how to turn between the benefit of self or the benefit of others.
i believe him as his life is itself a show of Dharma, really bless by bodhisattva and dharma protectors.
/\
-
Very interesting verse, sinweiy.
Not to say that anyone is wrong, I think I and AEN came from different schools of Buddhism and life experiences. Good debate. I think we had enough of "TNT" and I rest my case :)
Cheers!