4 ms·

First of all, there is no such thing as a Buddhist 'prohibition' of anything. The precepts are trainings that describe skillful ways to live, and are much more

by sandal 16y ago

First of all, there is no such thing as a Buddhist 'prohibition' of anything. The precepts are trainings that describe skillful ways to live, and are much more like guidelines which can vary wildly from person to person and must be worked out individually Secondly, while I can't know for sure, I think the 'Stealing is Wrong' mentality is not a statement about whether stealing is good or bad, but how strongly it is stigmatized in the west. So, likening some other unrelated activity (such as copyright infringement) to theft has a powerful mental effect. Finally, if you sneak into a movie theater or jump the fence at a concert, you are actually taking up a seat or space that could have been used by a paying customer. This isn't the same thing as downloading digital goods, in which your use of these goods has no impact on the producer unless it prevented you from purchasing something you otherwise might have. Copyright infringement is not an innocent act, but all acts of infringement are not considered equal. Honestly, I feel like you're the one oversimplifying things.

michael_dorfman 16y ago
First of all, there is no such thing as a Buddhist 'prohibition' of anything. The precepts are trainings that describe skillful ways to live, and are much more like guidelines which can vary wildly from person to person and must be worked out individually Umm, no. Some modern Buddhist traditions may treat the precepts as "guidelines which can vary wildly from person to person", but that's a fairly recent innovation. The precepts (including the lay precepts) are described in painful detail in the Pali canon, the Agamas, and some Mahayana Sutras, and although the details of the prohibitions differ somewhat between various traditions, all of them go far beyond "guidelines". Trust me on this one. Second: I ask again-- do you know a non-Western culture where theft is not stigmatized? Finally: taking up space or a seat is not a factor in the legal definition of "theft of services"-- theft of Cable TV holds as well. The salient characteristc (which coincidentally agrees with the Buddhist precept) is "taking that which is not given." I understand that you'd like to divorce copyright infringement from the notion of theft, based on the physical deprivation of goods, but the legal notion of theft is (and as far as I know, has always been) a great deal broader than that, however inconvenient this happens to be to your conscience.
- sandal 16y ago
  Trust me on this one. Okay, I trust you now. Congratulations, you've won an argument on the internet, and you didn't even need a citation.
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    My point was, I'd rather not provide the citations, but I could. I'm just finishing up an M.A. in Buddhist Studies, and as part of a Buddhist Ethics course I recently did some work on the scriptural bases of the precepts in five different canons, but I really didn't think anyone here would be interested in the details. I was hoping that you'd be willing to just take my word on the issue.
    - sandal 16y ago
      This is quite interesting and I think that rather than saying 'trust me', by providing a bit of background it makes it much more likely for us to have a productive conversation. But for what it's worth, while I don't have an academic background in it, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now.
      - michael_dorfman 16y ago
        Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. Let me guess: Thich Nhat Hanh? Personally, I find the notion of "precepts as guidelines and not laws" to be attractive; I suppose a lot of Westerners do, too. Unfortunately, this is a very modern notion-- if you look at the (pre-20th-Century) literature, you'll find that the precepts are treated as laws, and that they go into explicit detail, and leave very little to personal judgment. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. I disagree (as you might guess.) I'd argue that "taking that which is not given" is, literally, theft, and vice versa. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I've never come across that reading of the precepts; usually, the prohibition on lying is taken to include non-skillful speech. That is quite a figurative reading, indeed. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now. I'd suggest that in your attempt to separate the words and the intent, you run the risk of redefining words to mean what you wish them to mean. You'd like to make a distinction between copyright infringement and theft, based on a physical analogy; but, as I've pointed out, the notion of theft has always been broader than that. The intent is clear: you're not permitted to take that which is not given-- whether it is a physical object, or a service, or a copyrighted work.

by sandal 16y ago

michael_dorfman 16y ago

First of all, there is no such thing as a Buddhist 'prohibition' of anything. The precepts are trainings that describe skillful ways to live, and are much more like guidelines which can vary wildly from person to person and must be worked out individually Umm, no. Some modern Buddhist traditions may treat the precepts as "guidelines which can vary wildly from person to person", but that's a fairly recent innovation. The precepts (including the lay precepts) are described in painful detail in the Pali canon, the Agamas, and some Mahayana Sutras, and although the details of the prohibitions differ somewhat between various traditions, all of them go far beyond "guidelines". Trust me on this one. Second: I ask again-- do you know a non-Western culture where theft is not stigmatized? Finally: taking up space or a seat is not a factor in the legal definition of "theft of services"-- theft of Cable TV holds as well. The salient characteristc (which coincidentally agrees with the Buddhist precept) is "taking that which is not given." I understand that you'd like to divorce copyright infringement from the notion of theft, based on the physical deprivation of goods, but the legal notion of theft is (and as far as I know, has always been) a great deal broader than that, however inconvenient this happens to be to your conscience.

sandal 16y ago
Trust me on this one. Okay, I trust you now. Congratulations, you've won an argument on the internet, and you didn't even need a citation.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  My point was, I'd rather not provide the citations, but I could. I'm just finishing up an M.A. in Buddhist Studies, and as part of a Buddhist Ethics course I recently did some work on the scriptural bases of the precepts in five different canons, but I really didn't think anyone here would be interested in the details. I was hoping that you'd be willing to just take my word on the issue.
  - sandal 16y ago
    This is quite interesting and I think that rather than saying 'trust me', by providing a bit of background it makes it much more likely for us to have a productive conversation. But for what it's worth, while I don't have an academic background in it, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now.
    - michael_dorfman 16y ago
      Every retreat I've been on, and every book I've read has presented the precepts as a set of mindfulness trainings, and specifically distinguishes the concept of precept from the concept of 'commandment' or law. Let me guess: Thich Nhat Hanh? Personally, I find the notion of "precepts as guidelines and not laws" to be attractive; I suppose a lot of Westerners do, too. Unfortunately, this is a very modern notion-- if you look at the (pre-20th-Century) literature, you'll find that the precepts are treated as laws, and that they go into explicit detail, and leave very little to personal judgment. We talked past each other, but to say that Buddhist ethics are stronger about things like 'not taking anything which is not freely given' is indeed correct. But equating that with theft is still not meant to be taken literally. I disagree (as you might guess.) I'd argue that "taking that which is not given" is, literally, theft, and vice versa. If we were to go down that road, much of what I've read about the precept not to commit murder also applies to speaking harshly to someone. I've always understood this as figurative, and valuable. But I am not going to call someone who harms someone through their words a murderer. I've never come across that reading of the precepts; usually, the prohibition on lying is taken to include non-skillful speech. That is quite a figurative reading, indeed. I feel like you are emphasizing too much on the words you are reading and not the intent or meaning behind them. That was the point I wanted to make, and hopefully I've done that now. I'd suggest that in your attempt to separate the words and the intent, you run the risk of redefining words to mean what you wish them to mean. You'd like to make a distinction between copyright infringement and theft, based on a physical analogy; but, as I've pointed out, the notion of theft has always been broader than that. The intent is clear: you're not permitted to take that which is not given-- whether it is a physical object, or a service, or a copyrighted work.