The Relationship Between Robbery and Theft

If we desire something from others, we must observe whether they are genuinely willing to give it—whether it is the manas (mental faculty) that consents, or merely the consciousness that reluctantly agrees while the manas objects. If the manas is unwilling to bestow, yet the consciousness feels compelled to give generously in action, such giving is not true generosity. What is gained then becomes improper, and the consequences may be unfavorable, as the giver may seek ways to reclaim it.

If a person knows that the other is inwardly unwilling to give, yet also knows that factors like saving face will likely compel them to comply, and thus boldly asks for it—resulting in the other reluctantly giving while feeling deeply displeased—this situation almost amounts to open robbery.

What is the relationship between open robbery and theft? Both involve taking without the consent of the other's manas. Open robbery is taking overtly, while theft is taking covertly. A robber engages in open robbery, equivalent to a thief or a grand thief. Thus, judging whether a person is a noble person (junzi) or a petty person (xiaoren) becomes fundamentally clear. A noble person does not seize what others cherish; they do not impose on others what they themselves do not desire. They are open and aboveboard, upright and forthright, never resorting to covert schemes or manipulations. In contrast, a petty person is perpetually scheming and sinister, employing tricks and plots, harboring devious thoughts and dark intentions, with many hidden, shadowy facets.

When engaging in transactions with others, driving a hard bargain to the point of reaching or exceeding the other's tolerable limit is equivalent to robbery and theft. Therefore, when purchasing goods, one should not haggle excessively. It is essential to ensure the other party can bear it psychologically, to consider their emotional state and capacity to endure. This too is part of one's cultivation and conduct as a person. Hence, the Buddha taught the Five Precepts and Ten Wholesomeness precisely to instruct us in how to be human. Observing the current Dharma-Ending Age, it is evident that many truly do not know how to be human. Since they cannot even conduct themselves properly as humans, it is impossible for them to sever the view of self and become sages.

All who commit unwholesome karma possess an extremely strong sense of self. Their motivation stems entirely from self-interest, revolving around the ego, acting subjectively from their own perspective, everything for the sake of self. This is the driving force behind creating unwholesome karma. Therefore, those with poor mental disposition, heavy afflictions, or selfishness are incapable of severing the view of self. Some act out of greed—craving things for themselves, thus creating unwholesomeness. Some act out of hatred—hatred arising from unfulfilled greed, or hatred arising when things don't go their way, thus creating unwholesomeness. Some act out of delusion—protecting what they possess or seizing what they covet, thus creating unwholesomeness. Or they may act with all three—greed, hatred, and delusion—to create unwholesomeness. As for those who create wholesome karma, why do they do so? Is it also for the sake of self that they create wholesome karma? Or is it selflessly, without the sense of self, that they create wholesome karma?