score:2
Because of the immense depth of the teaching, different skillsets/levels of students, and complexity/multidimensionallity of life in general, Buddhist theory and practice is a set of incremental approximations, from very coarse to more refined and precise. The provisional teachings are formulated in the narrative that makes sense to each particular student, such as the eastern religious narrative, or the narrative of shamanic mysticism, or the narrative of the mainstream society. More advanced teachings make use of the phenomenological narrative, the narrative of the subtle energies, and others. Some of the very advanced teachings require stepping outside of all narratives.
Since all people are different, all operate in different contexts, it is very difficult to make universal statements that mean the same thing to all people, have the motivating/inspiring effect in all the different contexts, and generally lead to positive outcomes in all of the endless "realities" (personal narratives).
The precepts are the lowest common denominator designed to work in all these different worlds. That is, they are meant to be the basic rule of thumb that works well enough regardless of the exact interpretation.
As individual practitioner, your understanding of precepts and of Dharma in general grows and matures - and transforms - during the entire journey. This is known as the transmutation of vows.
You see? So you don't have to think in terms of the 5 precepts all the time. As your insight and practice matures, your context will change - but if your understanding is right then your actions that come from your new mental context will still be correct fulfillment of the vows taken on the previous levels. Generally speaking, if you do something on your current level that looks obviously wrong on a previous level - it means you got something very confused.
Makes sense? Sorry, I know you want clarity, you want clear guidelines that can help with your day to day decision making in support of your practice. This may not be the answer you expected, but I hope it will make things clearer for you. Let me know if you have specific examples you want to analyze.
Upvote:2
ownership is arbitrary and can't be properly defined
I think it has a conventional and legal (law-of-the-land) meaning; for example:
When I'm an infant my parents give me food, clothing, etc. -- that isn't "taking what's not given".
When I'm a child and want more sweets than I'm permitted to buy, take money from my mother's purse without permission -- that is "taking what's not given".
When I'm adult, sign an employment contract, earn a salary -- that isn't "taking what's not given".
When I travel on a public footpath -- that isn't "taking what's not given" (because it's public, given to public use).
There are some edge cases, so people manage to argue over whether copyright is theft, whether intellectual property is a thing, and so on, but in general I think it's clear and not abstract.
You might have some personal or political belief such as "Property is theft!" -- I think the Vinaya (which are the detailed rules for monks) mention the King's law as a standard of conduct or definition of theft:
Should any bhikkhu, in what is reckoned a theft, take what is not given from an inhabited area or from the wilderness—just as when, in the taking of what is not given, kings arresting the criminal would flog, imprison, or banish him, saying,
“You are a robber, you are a fool, you are benighted, you are a thief”
—a bhikkhu in the same way taking what is not given also is defeated and no longer in affiliation.
See pages 51 through 52 of this document which details whether an object qualifies as "not given".
Lying is pretty objective, but also has its issues in getting proper communication across.
You might like to read or browse the The Patimokkha Rules (linked/referenced above) ... they're quite detailed, legalistic. The Chapter about "lying" starts on page 245, saying,
A deliberate lie is a statement or gesture made with the aim of misrepresenting the truth to someone else. The K/Commentary, summarizing the long “wheels” in the Vibhanga, states that a violation of this rule requires two factors:
- Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
- Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to communicate based on that aim
So, "failure to communicate" doesn't count as lying ... unless your aim is to misrepresent the truth.
People in this discussion, at least, decided that the "precept" is about (specifically) lying, rather than (more generally) about right speech.
In right speech, abusive speech is subjective: some consider certain words abusive, so if you speak to them in such a manner it won't be right speech.
I suppose I try to use mild words always, use a neutral or formal "register", even though some people, friends, swear or tease each other for fun. I'm not saying that my doing so is "skillful", but I don't intend it to be offensive.
Others might not, and then there should be no violation of right speech in that situation even though everything you do is the same.
Well, here are some definitions of Right Speech. A lot of that is, hopefully, easy to understand.
Some of it is difficult, e.g., "the Tathagata ... has a sense of the proper time for saying them" -- I suppose that's a matter of wisdom and knowledge.
Occasionally it may be wrong not to speak (c.f. Ananda in AN 5.166).
Personally, I feel as if though I went from the first level you describe into confusion.
To avoid taking what's not given, if you want something, you can buy it, or be given it as a gift, or it's free (like air) ... otherwise not. Perhaps you can apply it to personal relationships too: people can't be given, aren't property, don't try to "take" them. Maybe consider what "right employment" means for a layperson, how to use wealth properly, and give to who needs a gift.
To avoid lying: I don't know, if you're tempted to lie then maybe think about why that temptation comes about, what gives rise to it? I've long thought that an ideal is that a person should see no need to lie.