The Relationship Between Open Robbery and Stealing

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, a reluctant compliance? If the manas is unwilling to give, yet in behavior the mind consciousness has no choice but to give generously, such giving is not true giving, and what is obtained is not rightfully obtained; the consequences may not be good, for the 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, but is very unhappy about it—this situation is almost tantamount to outright robbery.

What is the relationship between outright robbery and stealing? Both are seizing 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. With this, one can basically distinguish clearly whether a person is a gentleman or a petty person. A gentleman does not snatch away what others treasure, does not impose on others what he himself does not desire, is open and upright, and does not secretly scheme and manipulate. A petty person, on the other hand, is constantly anxious and gloomy, resorting to schemes and tricks, with nothing but ghosts in their heart—crooked ideas and devious ways, full of dark corners.

In making a transaction with someone, driving the price down hard, even to or beyond the bottom line the other party can bear—this too is equivalent to robbery and stealing. Therefore, when buying things, do not bargain excessively; you must let the other person's mind be able to bear it, and be considerate of their feelings and capacity to endure. This is also part of the cultivation and refinement of being a person. This is why the Buddha taught the five precepts and ten wholesome deeds: 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 manage to be human, it is impossible for them to eliminate self-view and become a sage.

Whoever commits evil deeds has an extremely heavy self-nature; their starting point is always for the self, centering on themselves everywhere, proceeding from their own subjectivity, with everything for the sake of the self—this is the driving force behind committing evil karma. Therefore, a person of poor character, a person with heavy afflictions, a selfish person, cannot possibly eliminate self-view. It may be greed—greedy to obtain the Dharma for oneself and thus committing evil; or it may be aversion—when greed is unfulfilled, aversion arises, and when things do not go as one wishes, one commits evil out of aversion; or it may be delusion—committing evil to protect what one possesses or to seize what one loves; or one may commit evil with greed, aversion, and delusion all complete. As for those who create wholesome karma, on what basis do they create it? Is it also for the sake of the self that they create wholesome karma? Or do they create wholesome karma because of selflessness?