五戒の細則
Section One: The Offense of Stealing in Worldly Matters (2)
Seventeen: What Determines the Retribution for the Offense of Stealing?
Question: When I was in school and had just started working, I once had my wallet and phone stolen on a bus. At the time I felt very indignant, but I have long since forgotten about it. If the manas truly no longer cares, does the thief's karmic offense thereby dissolve?
Answer: The thief's karmic offense of stealing will not be exempted from retribution just because you forgive him. As long as the offense has been committed, there must be corresponding retribution. The retribution brought about by stealing is repaying debts at a high multiple and poverty, and in the future he will likewise be stolen from. So even if your manas no longer cares, his offense remains a fact; in the future, the tathāgatagarbha will still manifest the retribution of stealing for him. As for you no longer seeking compensation, that is your own affair—perhaps in the future he will not have to repay you. Although you have forgotten, the thief's mind has not changed; the retribution for his offense depends on his mind. If he repents and makes amends, the offense can be lightened. Although you have forgiven him, his tathāgatagarbha still records this matter, and in the future the retribution will be manifested according to the original appearance of this event and his mental disposition.
The Buddha forgives all people and holds grudges against no one—have all people's offenses been lightened? Those who fall directly into hell right before the Buddha—this has nothing to do with whether the Buddha forgives them; it relates to whether the offender's manas can genuinely repent. Even after repentance, the karmic retribution must still be undergone, only more lightly. A person who slandered an arhat sincerely repented right before the arhat at the time, yet in the end still fell into hell. The reason is that the offense was too heavy; but had he not repented, the karma of falling into hell would have been even heavier, and the time of undergoing evil retribution even longer.
Repentance can only lighten an offense; completely eliminating it is very difficult, depending on the intensity and earnestness of the repentance, as well as the severity of the offense. If one wishes to completely avoid evil retribution, the only way is to attain realization of the fruits, eliminating the karma of the three evil destinies. Even one who has attained realization must still undergo retribution—only the evil retribution is undergone in the human realm rather than in the three evil destinies. Those who have not attained realization must, in most cases, undergo retribution in the three evil destinies. However great the evil retribution undergone in the human realm, it is smaller than that of the three evil destinies; however small the evil retribution in the three evil destinies, it is greater than that in the human realm. Therefore, no matter what suffering one encounters, one should persist in living to undergo all the suffering in the human realm, and not leave the suffering to be undergone in the three evil destinies—the suffering there is beyond description.
Eighteen: Unjustly Contesting a Lawsuit Is Also Stealing
In a lawsuit unjustly contesting farmland, if the outcome is a victory in court, do the judge and lawyer bear offense and karmic consequences? Of course they bear offense and must bear the karmic consequences. Contesting farmland that should not be obtained away from others constitutes forcible seizure and stealing; the judge and lawyer are essentially accomplices, and this karmic consequence is considerable.
Even if a judge's ruling appears fair and reasonable from the worldly perspective, it is not necessarily fair and reasonable to both parties in the lawsuit. What is unreasonable in the worldly realm may have a reasonable side; what is reasonable in the worldly realm may have an unreasonable side, because it involves disputes from past lives and the relationship of karmic recompense. For example, suppose you now see A slap B, but you did not see that earlier B had slapped A, and so you conclude that A slapping B was unreasonable and go criticize A. Only by connecting the before and after and viewing the whole matter can one know whether it is reasonable; seeing only an incomplete side of the matter leads to mistaken judgment.
The precepts, however, are judged according to present-life, current phenomena, without considering karmic cause-and-effect left over from past lives. They require Buddhist disciples to maintain a pure mind and observe the precepts and conduct under all circumstances. Tax evasion is originally a matter of worldly dharma; tax law is worldly law, yet the Buddha's precepts also touch upon it, requiring Buddhist practitioners and even monastics to abide by the laws and regulations of the secular world, and not to violate the rules and regulations of the nation and various regions. Therefore, when a Buddhist practitioner violates certain laws, they also simultaneously violate the Buddha's precepts. And coercive, one-sided contracts belong to the behavior of stealing; according to cause and effect, such contracts do not count—violating them neither breaks the law nor breaks the precepts. Nowadays the world is full of coercive contracts; in every era there has been the phenomenon of the strong preying on the weak.
Nineteen: Grave Robbing Is Also an Offense
To whom do the items stolen by grave robbers belong? Whose things are being stolen? The items in a tomb all belong to the tomb's owner; the owner is the deceased, not the deceased's family members. The family members have the responsibility and right of guardianship and supervision. Because burial objects are presented as accompaniments to the deceased, both in principle and in fact they belong to the deceased; therefore the deceased is the owner of the items in the grave.
Although the deceased's body has perished and lost its function, the deceased is still a sentient being, with the manas and the Ālayavijñāna not perishing, capable of owning, guarding, and using the burial objects—regardless of whether they can be used, regardless of whether there is attachment to these items. Until the burial objects decay, others are not permitted to make use of them; unless the tomb's owner appears in someone's dream entrusting instructions on how to use them, taking them away privately constitutes stealing, including by family members. Even for living people with bodies, all items are owned and used by the conscious mind; the body is used by the conscious mind, and the conscious mind ought to care for and cherish the body. Whether the owner is pleased or not, the items forever belong to the owner.
Even if the dead person becomes a ghost, an animal, or a deva, those items still belong to that person, and others may not casually take them away and use them, unless exchanging some item as a substitute. For example, suppose you bought a set of furniture and placed it in your home, then emigrated abroad and settled there, not necessarily to return—but that set of furniture and that house still belong to you. Whether the items are useful or not, whosever things they are, they are forever that person's things. Whether the owner is compassionate or not, generous or not, magnanimous or not, only with the owner's permission may the items be used and disposed of; otherwise, anyone making use of them is guilty of unauthorized use.
Twenty: The Relationship Between Overt Robbery and Stealing
If we want something belonging to another, we should observe whether they are truly willing to give it—is it the manas consenting, or is it the mind consciousness being willing while the manas is unwilling, a reluctant compliance? If the manas is unwilling to give, but in behavior the mind consciousness has no choice but to give generously, this giving is not true giving, and what is obtained is not obtained rightfully; the consequences may not be good—the person will find a way to take it back.
If a person knows the other party is inwardly unwilling to give, but also knows that the other party, out of concern for face and the like, will more or less be able to give, and so opens their mouth to ask, and the other party indeed reluctantly gives while feeling very displeased—this situation almost amounts to overt robbery.
What is the relationship between overt robbery and stealing? Both are seizing without the consent of the other's manas. Overt robbery is seizing openly; stealing is seizing covertly. A bandit commits overt robbery, equivalent to a petty thief or a grand thief. In this way, judging whether a person is a person of virtue or a petty person becomes basically clear. A person of virtue does not snatch what others cherish, does not impose on others what they themselves do not want, is open and upright, and does not secretly scheme and manipulate. A petty person is perpetually anxious and gloomy, scheming and plotting, full of hidden demons—wily tricks and sneaky ways, with many dark sides.
In transactions with others, haggling fiercely, even reaching or exceeding the bottom line of what the other party can bear—this also equals robbing and stealing. So when buying things, do not bargain excessively; allow the other person's mind to bear it, and be considerate of the other's feelings and capacity to endure. This too is part of being a cultivated person. Therefore the Buddha taught the five precepts and ten wholesome deeds precisely to teach us how to be human. Observing the current Dharma-ending age, there really are many people who do not know how to be human; since they cannot even be human, it is impossible for them to eradicate the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) and become sages.
All who commit unwholesome karma have an extremely heavy self-nature; their starting point is always for the self, centering everything on themselves, proceeding from their own subjectivity, everything for the sake of the self—this is the driving force of committing unwholesome karma. Therefore, people of poor mental disposition, heavy afflictions, and selfishness cannot possibly eradicate the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi). Either greed—greedy for dharma for oneself and thus committing evil; or hatred—hating when greed is unfulfilled, hating when things go against one's wishes, and thus committing evil; or delusion—committing evil to protect what one possesses or to seize what one loves; or committing evil with greed, hatred, and delusion all complete. As for those who commit wholesome karma—for what reason do they commit it? Is it also for the self that they commit wholesome karma? Or is it because of selflessness that they commit wholesome karma?
Twenty-One: Does Occupying a Mountain as Its King Count as Stealing?
In ancient times, occupying a mountain as its king meant taking the mountain as one's own, not allowing others to use it, nor allowing others to pass through from below unless they paid a toll. This is the conduct of bandits and robbers, and of course belongs to stealing and robbery. The mountains on Earth are owned objects, belonging to the public; local residents all have the right to use them, and outsiders also have the right to pass by. Only taking from the people and using it for the people does not count as stealing; if for private gain, it is stealing.
Occupying a mountain as its king is banditry—forcible, violent, open robbery. Occupying one mountain as king makes one a bandit; occupying a hundred mountains as king makes one even more a bandit; occupying all the mountains, rivers, and lands of the nation as king would make one a grand thief. There are still quite a few people on Earth committing the offense of stealing, which is why there are so many beings in the three evil destinies, and why the Buddha had no choice but to establish the precepts.
The Moon has no people; the mineral deposits and other resources there are ownerless objects, and it is perfectly justifiable for anyone to mine or occupy them. The resources on Earth belong to all the people of the globe, with ownership divided by region; they cannot be casually mined and occupied, otherwise wars will break out over contending for and protecting resources.
Twenty-Two: Do Peasant Uprisings Seizing Imperial Power Count as Stealing?
First one must see to whom imperial power actually belongs—who is the owner and holder of imperial power. If it belongs to the emperor and his family, then a peasant uprising is stealing from the current emperor. But who can be emperor forever? After an emperor dies, if he has no son to inherit, someone else of the ancestral surname becomes emperor. Clearly the emperor is not fixed and unchanging; since there is change, among the multitude, whoever has great merit and capability can likewise become emperor. Then a peasant who rises up and successfully becomes emperor does not count as stealing.
If this power belongs to everyone, then a peasant uprising to become emperor also does not count as stealing. Public power is not private; if it is gradually occupied as private property, that is wrong. Seizing imperial power with the selfish intent of wanting to be number one under heaven is stealing; acting single-mindedly for all under heaven is not stealing. Historically, many peasant uprisings were the product of officials driving the people to rebellion. If the class holding power becomes corrupt and benighted, implements tyrannical governance, and disregards the people's lives, then when the people rise up, remove its public power, and rescue themselves, this does not belong to stealing. But if the insurgents, having gained power, likewise abuse public power for private ends, even more corrupt and tyrannical than their predecessors, then the insurgents likewise have committed the offense of stealing.
One must look at what the beings of the time all thought, who benefited and who was harmed; one cannot use worldly morality to explain cause and effect. Judging from the characteristics of feudal dynastic rule, dynastic changes throughout history benefited the ruling class the most; ordinary people were not the greatest beneficiaries. If someone occupies the throne and does real things that benefit the people, it probably also does not count as stealing—it depends on the intention and the conduct. Then when an emperor takes imperial power as his own and makes it hereditary, is that not stealing? Is the emperor's imperial power not stolen?
Twenty-Three: Does Obtaining Private Information Constitute Stealing?
Question: I work in real estate brokerage. For convenience of operation, my company's boss spends money to buy homeowners' private information and phone numbers from property management companies or sales offices. In this behavior, both the boss and the sellers have committed stealing. If the boss subsequently assigns this stolen homeowner information to subordinate employees to use, do the employees commit stealing? If an employee actively solicits information from home buyers and uses it, does that constitute stealing?
Answer: This matter depends on whether the bosses of the property management company and sales office consent. If they do not consent, buying it with money is also stealing. It also depends on whether the homeowners are willing; if they do not consent, buying the homeowners' phone information with money is stealing. But in such matters, home-buying customers certainly do not care—having more channels for purchasing a home benefits them. When the boss lets employees use the purchased information, the employees do not commit stealing, because it was not the employees who stole the information. If employees themselves solicit information from home buyers and use it, that does not constitute stealing, because it was obtained by asking.
Twenty-Four: Stealing from a Thief Is Also Stealing
Question: If one secretly takes away what a thief has stolen, is this behavior stealing? Is one stealing the thief's things? Do those things belong to the thief? In autumn, when crops are harvested in the fields, field mice will steal some grain and bury it in their burrows to eat through the winter—it is their food for an entire winter. But when winter comes, some people will deliberately seek out the mice's burrows, dig out the various grains they have stored, and take them home—one burrow can contain several jin or even ten jin of grain. When the field mice return to their burrows and find the grain gone, some will despairingly die by suicide; otherwise, with nothing to eat in winter, they would starve to death anyway. Does digging away the field mice's grain constitute stealing?
Answer: There is a great difference between stealing with intent and taking without intent. Since beginningless kalpas, each person has obtained nothing at all, apart from a huge pile of countless karmic seeds of good and evil.
What is called stealing is taking what is not given—secretly taking away without the owner's consent, moving it without authorization to one's own side and under one's own name, making it one's own possession. The owner must be a sentient being; the thief, harboring a thieving mind, actively takes, and in the process employs certain expedient means, until finally the object leaves the owner and arrives at the thief's location, successfully possessing the stolen object.
The field mouse's behavior constitutes stealing: first, there is a thieving mind—secretly taking away so no one knows; second, carrying it away in its mouth, employing expedient means; third, the grain leaves the field and is placed in its own burrow, becoming its own possession. Since it is stealing, the stolen grain must belong to the field mouse; otherwise it would not be stealing, and the theft would not be established. If humans then dig up the grain in the field mouse's burrow, that constitutes stealing the field mouse's things. If the field mouse were not stealing but safeguarding the grain on behalf of humans, then when humans dig it up, it would not be stealing from the field mouse but stealing from someone else.
By the same logic, secretly taking away what a thief has stolen is also an act of stealing. Because the thief, through certain expedient means, successfully stole the things to his own location and became the new owner of the things; if the owner had not changed, the theft would not be established. When another person then employs certain expedient means and successfully takes the thief's things to their own location, they become the new owner, and this behavior also constitutes stealing. If there is some other intention in the middle—not wanting to possess the thief's things—then it is not necessarily stealing.
Twenty-Five: Does Stealing One's Own Possessions from a Previous Life Constitute Stealing?
Question: Suppose a person, after passing away, is reborn as a human again, and by chance digs open the tomb of their previous life. Due to the mystery of the intermediate obscuration, they do not know this tomb is their own from the previous life. If they then take away the burial objects, does this count as the owner's permission? If not, does this constitute stealing?
Answer: If the owner has not changed and is still the same person, it does not count as stealing—just like moving something from one's left hand to one's right hand, or putting a necklace from one's neck into one's handbag. Although this person steals their own possessions from a previous life, the behavior still has the attribute of stealing, because there is a thieving mind; all karmic acts of offense and merit are primarily determined by the mind—without the mind, there is no offense or merit. But because this person steals their own things and does not harm others, the items have not been transferred from another person to themselves, the owner has not changed, the karmic act of stealing is not fully established and accomplished, the theft has not succeeded, and the offense incurred is slight.
Someone clearly goes to another's home to steal a certain thing, but rummaging back and forth, cannot find it; although there is a thieving mind and thieving behavior, the offense of stealing is not consummated. Or, just as they are about to take the thing away, the owner returns, and they must abandon the goods and flee; the act of stealing is abandoned halfway through, and the offense of stealing is not consummated. These examples show that when the thieving mind exists but the act of stealing is not fully established and the items have not been transferred, the offense cannot be determined; the handling will be light, and the retribution will be light.
Twenty-Six: Appropriating Others' Labor Also Constitutes Stealing
There is another situation that constitutes stealing: several people living and working together in the same environment—the affairs of the shared environment should be managed jointly by the several people, with division of labor and cooperation; only through shared labor can the fruits of collective labor be enjoyed. If one of them long-term does not participate in the labor, yet enjoys the comfortable and clean environment, that constitutes stealing others' labor or the fruits of their labor. Among the Bodhisattva Precepts there is also a rule: a bodhisattva may not watch others laboring while not participating, not helping, not sharing the burden. If one stands by with folded arms watching others labor and ignores it, one violates the light defilement precepts of the bodhisattva precepts. A bodhisattva's duty is to help others; if one not only does not help, but fails to contribute one's own due share, letting others bear it, one has lost the bodhisattva's duty and violated the light defilement precepts.
Eating at a buffet restaurant, knowingly unable to finish, yet piling up that much food—the portion one cannot finish constitutes stealing. Our books charge only postage, not the price of the books. If a person travels on business everywhere throughout the year, then for convenience, upon leaving each place, throws the books away, and at the next place requests for free the books they need—because the books were obtained cheaply, without spending much money—the discarded portion constitutes stealing from the Three Jewels' property, and this offense is great.
If, upon seeing an object, one involuntarily gives rise to a thieving mind wanting to possess it, but then immediately becomes aware that the current behavior is stealing, terminates the behavior, and leaves—how should such an offense be determined? There is only a mental act, without bodily or verbal acts: a lesser offense subject to repentance. If one regrets before any action is taken, no precept is violated.
Twenty-Seven: How to Determine the Originality of a Design Draft?
A steals B's design materials and design drafts and publishes them. B presents their own design drafts and materials to sue A, but A in turn accuses B of stealing A's design drafts. How should this lawsuit be decided?
Take, for example, fashion design drafts, automobile design drafts, or other high-tech design drafts: the final version can be stolen, but the intermediate design process cannot be stolen. B can present all their design drawings, from the very first to the last, including discarded ones. These drawings represent the design process and embody the designer's own design concepts and thinking. The thief can only steal a result; they cannot steal the process, nor the thinking and concepts. As long as B further explains their concepts and thinking clearly, in agreement with the drawings, B can be judged the original creator. A, having no intermediate design drawings and no intermediate design process, cannot clearly explain the design thinking and concepts for the final version; even if A can guess at some of it, there will be loopholes. The judge will then rule that A stole from B, and B wins the case.
Furthermore, A and B can be asked to demonstrate the making of the finished product in person. During the demonstration, the original creator will be technically skilled, precise in every detail, consistent with the design concepts, with a flawless work. A, lacking the creative process and unfamiliar with the design concepts, will appear clumsy in execution, with obvious flaws, unable to fully embody the design concepts. With such a comparison, the superiority is immediately apparent, and who is the original creator becomes clear.
Details are most revealing and best manifest wisdom. If the details cannot be explained clearly, it shows insufficient wisdom; the work may have been stolen, or borrowed as reference, or produced from sentiment and conceptual understanding, fabricated by the mind consciousness. Without an actual intermediate process, only a rough and general result, the origin of that result is suspect. Process and details are the most trustworthy, most representative of originality—the crystallization of the sweat of labor; this thing cannot be stolen. If it is otherwise, there is suspicion of stealing.
Twenty-Eight: Well-Intentioned Stealing Has Wholesome Retribution
Stealing—almost everyone commits it. Taking what is not given is stealing, and most people do not understand this. I myself have committed it, knowingly and deliberately. In the past I liked to give extra things away to people; I have a habit of generosity (dāna), and I also hoped my family members could practice generosity (dāna) and cultivate merit, abandoning their stinginess. I cannot manage others, only my mother—but she was somewhat miserly and would not listen to me; she had too many things, still unused, yet would not give them away. Having no alternative, I secretly took her seldom-used things to give away, and then every time she could not find something, she would say I had stolen it and given it away. Actually, secretly taking one's own family members' things also has retribution. What will the future retribution be? Giving things away earns a thousandfold merit—who obtains it?
If I obtain the merit, it would be far more than a thousandfold or ten-thousandfold. But the things were not mine—how could I obtain merit? The act of generosity (dāna) was performed by me, so of course I obtain merit; different identities obtain different amounts of merit, and different intentions also yield different amounts of merit. But the things were my mother's, so she should also obtain merit; yet without the mind of giving, the merit she obtains is limited, and because of me she obtained it—without me she could not have obtained it. In the future when I receive the merit, I will need to repay a portion; I only obtain the merit of the intention itself.
Owing debts to one another among close relatives—through such karmic connections, in future lives one will still be together with them; even repaying debts is fine, for after all there is the opportunity to deliver them. Between relatives it has always been a muddled account that no one can calculate clearly; through such debt relationships, they are entangled life after life—wholesome connections bring joy, unwholesome connections bring suffering. Forming many wholesome connections with all people, one will have joy in future lives, without suffering.
Twenty-Nine: Discussing the Question of Stealing
Question: In a park there is a goji berry tree that does not bear goji berries. Every year, if this tree is not pruned of branches and leaves, it does not grow well; pruning the branches and leaves makes the tree grow lushly. If someone picks the leaves from the tree and takes them home to eat, does this count as stealing?
A's answer: First of all, the tree is not one's own; if there is a thieving mind or a mentality of taking advantage, then it counts as stealing.
B's answer: It counts as stealing. The park's goji tree belongs to all the people; if one eats from it without permission, that is stealing. Moving it with a thieving mind is stealing.
C's answer: According to current legal provisions, the land and the products on it, when no owner has been designated, belong to the whole people—they are the public property of society as a whole. Then, when we go to wild mountains to pick fruit, that is also stealing. Picking goji berries out of greed to take home, and picking and eating them unintentionally out of hunger, both count as stealing, but the retribution certainly differs greatly.
Question: What if the park tacitly permits it? What if picking the leaves makes the tree grow better? What if picking the leaves saves the park managers the labor of pruning? What if the leaves are of no use to the park?
A's answer: Pruning the leaves so the tree grows better—that is merit; knowing the leaves have medicinal value and privately taking them home—that is fault. Pruning branches and leaves so the tree grows better is merit; taking the leaves home without permission divides into two cases: if the leaves are of great use to the park, the retribution is great; if the leaves are purely useless to the park, the retribution is small. If one prunes branches and leaves for the tree's better growth, there is merit; but if the pruning causes the tree to die, there is fault. In my view, many things simultaneously possess both wholesome and unwholesome sides; it depends on which side occupies the greater proportion—choose the wholesome and act on it. For example, if you give ten thousand yuan to a beggar, in principle it is a great wholesome deed, but in fact you have also indirectly fostered the beggar's laziness and dependence—this should count as a small evil within a great good.
B's answer: If it is tacitly permitted, then it does not count as stealing, right? Presumably everyone tacitly permits it. In the end it comes down to the intention.
C's answer: Whether it counts as stealing is determined by whether the object taken is an owned object and whether the taker has a thieving mind—it mainly rests on the intention. It is a product of the collective karma of sentient beings, with no definite single owner.
D's answer: It still depends on the motive. Mining on the Moon—people on Earth think it is public and ownerless, but what if it actually belongs to hidden aliens? What then?
Summary: Overall, it depends on the purpose of the park's planting the tree—is it to beautify the environment, or to obtain the tree's branches, leaves, and fruit? If the park managers do not care about the tree's leaves, then picking them involves no fault and no harm to the public interest.
Taking and using ownerless objects does not constitute stealing. But the tree belongs to the park's management department; the key lies in whether the management department cares about and needs the leaves. If it is tacit permission, it does not constitute stealing. If the management department is helpless and lacks the capacity to manage, it constitutes stealing. Whether it constitutes stealing depends, first, on whether the owner consents or tacitly permits; second, on whether the taker has a thieving mind; third, on the result—whether others were harmed for one's own benefit. Benefiting oneself without harming others does not fall under this rule.
Thirty: How Can One Keep Oneself Pure in the Five Turbidities and Evil World?
The precept against stealing has yet another aspect: stealing others' trust through various channels, making them let down their guard, to facilitate one's own various undertakings. For example, gaining the other's trust so they invest in you, and then the funds evaporate—not only is there no return, even the principal is gone. Or having done something wrong to others, offering false repentance to them, insincere, merely seeking to win their forgiveness; when others develop trust and forgiveness, the offense of stealing trust is established. So when one is insincere toward others yet pretends to be sincere, that too constitutes stealing. Stealing others' hearts, others' affections, and so on—all constitute the offense of stealing, all with evil retribution.
Stealing also includes all kinds of false and deceptive advertising, tax evasion, fraudulent accounting, submitting fake receipts for reimbursement, poaching people and clients from other enterprises, stealing business—there are too many such things to count, and many people commit stealing without knowing it. In every corner of the world there are the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion; no corner is pure. What is called the evil world of the five turbidities? This is the evil world of the five turbidities.
Those of you who run companies and are bosses in the world should carefully examine your own business practices: do not break the law, do not violate the precepts, do not follow trends in pursuing the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion, do not go along with evil winds and bad habits; operate as legally, properly, and in accordance with the precepts as possible. The retribution of this life and future lives is most important; cause and effect far outweigh the benefits of present-life wealth and fame. One should value cause and effect, and not regret when it is too late. The Sahā world as a whole is one great dye vat; extremely few can avoid being stained by evil, extremely few can keep themselves pure alone, extremely few can withdraw with untainted bodies.
So among the successful people in life, what kind of people are they really? What is called success? What is the definition of success? How long must success last to count as success? The myriad states and appearances of the world manifest inversion to the fullest. After encountering the Buddha-dharma, if one wishes to keep oneself pure, one should work at sunrise and rest at sunset, eat and drink one's fill, have a dwelling that shields from wind and rain, devote all remaining time to cultivation, pass the days in peace and stability, and think of nothing else—to think is to generate unwholesome karma.
Thirty-One: How to Attain the Superior Worldly Dharma?
The Buddha said that those who fully observe the five precepts attain a human body, and those who are complete in the ten wholesome deeds are reborn in the heavens. In the present era, how many people can fully observe the five precepts? Devas can fully observe the five precepts and not commit unwholesome karma, so being human after death is no problem for them; but if, at the time of a deva's death, the evil karma of past lives ripens, they will fall directly into hell—what human body could they obtain? Among humans, those who fully observe the five precepts—if at death the evil karma of past lives ripens, they will fall directly into the three evil destinies—what human body is there to obtain? To obtain a human body in future lives, first one must fully observe the five precepts, and second one must eliminate the evil karma of past lives—how many people can accomplish this? Except for those who have eradicated the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi), those who have seen the mind and seen the nature.
There is a method for eradicating the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi), yet one does not put effort into actual practice, spending one's energy grasping at worldly dharma, and the result is grasping the retribution of the three evil destinies—is it worth it? In the three evil destinies, what is there left to grasp? Many people never calmly calculate this account: how many in the world are truly wise and intelligent? Having learned Buddhism yet still committing great unwholesome karma, still being incited by others to commit the great unwholesome karma of slandering the Three Jewels—are such people the most foolish? This is no different from eating a meal while throwing sand into the pot, or drinking water while throwing filth into the well—it is smashing one's own rice bowl.
Since one is grasping at worldly dharma, what is the most reliable and secure way to grasp it? How can one obtain more, greater, and more extraordinary worldly dharma? That is to cultivate the bodhisattva's six perfections and attain realization to become a bodhisattva and become a Buddha. The sages who have accomplished cultivation are at ease not only in transcendental dharma but also in worldly dharma. In the world, sages can not only be kings, but can also be the four great wheel-turning sage kings—the gold, silver, copper, and iron wheel-turning kings—able not only to govern one nation but to govern one continent, even to govern the four great continents, and even to ascend to heaven as the lords of the various heavens, governing the desire-realm heavens and the form-realm heavens. How could the beings of the human world compare with such merit and distinction? Moreover, sages with great supernatural powers, and bodhisattvas of the eighth bhūmi and above, can transform the entire Earth, the entire Sahā world, indeed entire other Buddha-lands in the blink of an eye—let alone the various jewels and treasures within each world.
Why does no one calculate this account? Because poverty limits imagination and blocks one's vision; those of meager merit (alpa-puṇya) cannot consider so much—they cannot even manage the trivial matters right before their eyes. Then investigate where the emperors of past kalpas and dynasties have all gone—what are they doing now? Probably most are still in the three evil destinies. Who can have the merit and distinction of those emperors? They are suffering poverty and misery in the three evil destinies—what is there in the world worth grasping for ordinary people? Many people have the affliction of pride. Just consider: what do you have that is worth pride, worth arrogance? Being some kind of chief, having so much paper money and silver coins—what is there worth arrogance and boasting?
Thirty-Two: Is There Such a Thing as Stealing in Learning the Buddha-Dharma?
Stealing, thieving, means taking what is not given. If others do not permit you to study, or have set a condition that payment is required to study, then studying without paying constitutes stealing. But the Buddha-Dharma is forever taught freely without charge; the copyright of the Buddha-Dharma has never been in Śākyamuni Buddha's hands, much less in anyone else's. All ordinary beings hold no patent or copyright on the Buddha-Dharma, because ordinary beings have not realized any dharma at all—no dharma belongs to them. And the sages who have already realized the Buddha-Dharma are all empty of mind, selfless, without private interest; they would not seek fame and profit for themselves, so they hold no copyright either. Therefore, in learning the Buddha-Dharma there is no such thing as stealing. Unless one studies heterodox dharma, dharma invented by individuals—if one privately studies it without fulfilling the conditions others require, that constitutes stealing.
In the study of the precepts there are certain requirements, because it is feared that beings with insufficient faith, knowing the contents of the precepts in advance, might refrain from receiving the precepts out of worry that they cannot keep them—this would be a loss for the cultivation of the Buddha-Dharma. Therefore, when one has no intention yet of receiving the precepts, one may freely study the Buddha-Dharma, but the precepts cannot be casually studied. But when one has already resolved to receive the precepts, at that time one may study the relevant precepts. Only by studying and understanding the relevant precepts can one prepare well to receive, attain, and keep the precepts. Buddhism does not require that the Vinaya be studied only after receiving the precepts across the board.
The purpose of Buddhism is to serve sentient beings selflessly and without private interest; there is no rule that learning the Buddha-Dharma requires payment. All Buddhas and bodhisattvas selflessly and without charge teach sentient beings to attain liberation, and the Buddha-Dharma they teach was all obtained from countless Buddhas and bodhisattvas, with no element of personal invention or creation in it; therefore the Buddha-Dharma holds no patent.
If there were a patent, the Buddha-Dharma would belong to the first Buddha. It was Buddha Vipula (Weiyin Wang, the Resounding King Buddha) who first attained Buddhahood, transmitting the dharma down through the generations to the present. Since the first Buddha did not apply for a patent, others have even less qualification to obtain one. But in the course of cultivating the path, Buddha Vipula obtained immeasurable merit and the provisions for attaining the Way through teaching sentient beings; the merit within it includes a share belonging to sentient beings, so even Buddha Vipula could not exclusively enjoy the patent.
Those encountered online or in person who charge fees for teaching dharma are almost certainly not teaching the true Buddha-Dharma. We should try to avoid them and not study with them, much less pay fees, and not foster those people's unwholesome karma and greed. Those people lack the mind and conduct of bodhisattvas, and the dharma they teach cannot be correct, so do not foster such deviant winds and evil tendencies.
