The Relationship Between Open Robbery and Theft

If we want something from others, we should observe whether they are truly willing to give it—is the manas in agreement, or is it a case of the mind consciousness being willing while the manas is not, leaving them with no choice? If the manas is unwilling to give, but in behavior the mind consciousness has no option but to give generously, such giving is not true giving, and what is obtained is not obtained rightfully; the consequences may not be good, for that person will find a way to take it back.

If a person knows that the other party is unwilling in their heart to give, and 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 for it—and as a result the other party does indeed give reluctantly, though feeling very unhappy about it—this situation is almost tantamount to outright robbery.

What is the relationship between outright robbery and stealing? Both involve seizing something without the consent of the other party's manas. Outright robbery is seizing openly, while stealing is seizing covertly; a robber commits open robbery, which is equivalent to being a petty thief or a grand thief. In this way, one can basically distinguish clearly whether a person is a gentleman or a petty person. A gentleman does not snatch away what others cherish, does not impose on others what he himself does not desire, is open and upright, magnanimous and candid, and does not secretly scheme or play tricks. A petty person, on the other hand, is often anxious and fretful, gloomy and sinister, playing tricks and scheming, with nothing but ghosts in their heart—crooked ideas and devious ways, full of dark corners.

When making a deal with someone, haggling fiercely—even reaching or exceeding the bottom line the other party can bear—is also equivalent to robbery and stealing. Therefore, when buying things, do not bargain excessively; leave the other person in a state of mind they can accept, and be considerate of their feelings and capacity to bear it. This too is part of one's cultivation and moral refinement as a person. This is why the Buddha taught the five precepts and ten good deeds: to teach us how to be a person. Observing the current Dharma-ending age, there really are many people who do not know how to be a person; since they cannot even manage to be a person, it is impossible for them to eradicate the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) and become a sage.

Whoever commits evil deeds has an extremely heavy self-nature; their starting point is always for the self, centering everything on themselves, proceeding from their own subjectivity, doing everything for the sake of the self—this is the driving force behind committing evil deeds. Therefore, a person of poor character, a person with heavy afflictions, a selfish person, cannot possibly eradicate the view of self. Either out of greed—greedy for the Dharma for oneself and thus committing evil; or out of hatred—hating because greed goes unfulfilled, hating because things do not go according to one's wishes, and thus committing evil; or out of 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 create good deeds, for what reason do they create them? Do they also create good deeds for the sake of the self? Or do they create good deeds out of selflessness?