breaking the second precept 違犯第二戒

written in response to this call for submissions

“As I stated, the Western military experts admit that the mechanized establishment guard must outnumber the attacking worker by ten to one. What they cannot afford to admit is that even with this numerical superiority they cannot win [...] At ten to one, we still enjoy a strategic, military superiority if we are attacking, because they must defend so many different points vital to the order and continuity of their life-support system, all at the same time. The points to be protected will always outnumber the units who are available to protect them.”

—George Jackson, Blood in My Eye

「如上所述，西方軍事專家承認機械化當權派的警衛隊人數必須是進攻勞動者的十倍。他們擔負不起承認的是就算是擁有數量方面的優勢他們完全贏不了 [...] 在十比一的比例之下，如果我們進攻還是能享有戰略性、軍事方面的優勢，因為他們必須守護那麼多對他們生命維持系統的秩序和持續必不可少的的不同地點，而且要同時守護。必須保護的地點永遠會超過可以保護它們的小隊。」

—喬治·傑克遜，《眼露凶光》

The first time I shoplifted, I was scared as shit. To calm myself down, I kept repeating George Jackson's words like a mantra in my head: The points to be protected will always outnumber the units who are available to protect them. The points to be protected will always outnumber the units who are available to protect them. The security guards couldn't check every aisle at once. There were so many security cameras, I was nothing but a humanoid blur on their screens. I acted like a regular shopper, just browsing for things to buy, while moving nonstop like a shark to avoid the fate of being caught. And I got away. And I couldn't believe it was that easy.

第一次商店行竊的時候，我心裡著急得很。為了讓自己靜下來，我像在唸咒語一樣在心裡中一直重複喬治·傑克遜的話：必須保護的地點永遠會超過可以保護它們的小隊。必須保護的地點永遠會超過可以保護它們的小隊。保安人員不可能一次巡查每一個通道。監視攝影機那麼多，我在它們的螢幕上只不過是個模糊的人形點。我假裝自己是個普通的購物者，只是在看看能買的東西，同時像鯊魚一樣不停地移動，避免被抓到的命運。我就那樣溜走了。簡直不敢相信，真的是那麼簡單。

When I got home, I went back to my Buddhist altar, and turned to face my Siddartha Gautama statue with a sense of guilt. There are five basic precepts in Buddhism that even laypeople have to follow, and I just violated the second one, which was not to steal. Should I even be keeping the altar up anymore? Supporting illegalism and other people's illegalist praxist was one thing, but how could I have the nerve to do it myself and still keep saying I'm Buddhist?

到家的時候，我回到自己的佛壇，愧疚地面對我的釋迦牟尼調像。佛教連在家眾都要遵守的基本五戒，之中我違犯了第二個不偷戒。這樣的話，我是該把佛壇拆下來嗎？支持非法主義和別人的非法主義實踐是一回事，但自己去幹的話，哪來有臉皮繼續說自己是佛教徒？

Well, what kind of political conditions does that kind of Buddhism create? As a Buddhist, do you problematize me for being a thief that steals necessities I cannot afford, or the capitalists for robbing the proletariat of access to those things? As a Buddhist, are you obligated to ignore that the bourgeoisie have hegemony over laws and social norms that govern theft and ownership, and to pretend that the exploiters and the exploited steal under the same conditions? Are you enlightened for refusing to kill the cop in your head (killing violates the first precept, after all)?

啊那種佛教會創造什麼樣的政治狀況？作為佛教徒，你要問題化的是偷買不起必需品的我，還是剝奪無產階級對那些東西的使用權的資本主義者？作為佛教徒，你必要忽略資產階級對管理偷竊的法律和社會規範的霸權，假裝剝削者和被剝削者偷竊的情況一模一樣嗎？拒絕幹掉心裡警察是表示無上正覺的事嗎（殺生不是違犯第一戒嗎）？

What does a Buddhist politically achieve by personally refusing to steal (or kill oppressors)? Reality is not a sutta governed by Buddhist principles—by refusing to take what we need and dying like martyrs, we will not prefigure the ruling class and their lapdogs into dāna and mettā, let alone anarchy and communism. Every commodity you buy fuels the death machine that is capitalism. A cop is not going to care how clean your conscience is before they shoot you. To take the five precepts as universally applicable moral guidelines at face value, and to let the praxis of transcendent spiritual liberation take precedence over the praxis of destroying hierarchical power dynamics and ending the historical material conditions that created them is counterrevolutionary. To me, it is meaningless to believe in a religion that aims for all beings to be free from suffering if the world continues to reproduce systems that create preventable suffering for classes of oppressed people in fact. The only thing that would give it meaning is a religious commitment to changing that world.

佛教徒個人拒絕偷竊（或擊殺壓迫者）的話會得到什麼樣的政治效果？現實不是取決於佛教理論的契經—我們不會以拒絕奪取需要的物品像烈士死去的方式預示統治階級和它們的走狗表現出佈施和慈觀，更不用說無治和共產。每個購買的商品是為資本主義這死亡機器添加的燃料。對你開槍的警察不會管你有沒有天理良心。把五戒信以為真地當作是普遍適用的道德指導方針，並且讓超越宇宙靈性解放的實踐比消滅等級制度的權力動態和結束製造那些動態的歷史物質條件的實踐變得更重要是反革命性的行為。對我來說，如果世界在實際上繼續再生產為被壓迫階級的人製造可阻止的痛苦的系統，對一個目標是讓一切眾生脫離痛苦的宗教有信仰完全沒有意義。唯一能讓它有意義的是虔誠改變那世界的承諾。

So yes, I have the nerve to keep calling myself a Buddhist. I have the nerve to turn breaking the second precept into a religious ritual I regularly observe, because I know ownership isn't politically neutral, and my faith obligates me to take a side, and to accept the karma of that decision. I am not afraid of being reincarnated in Naraka for these transgressions. By the end of a militant life in the human realm, I hope the wardens in hell will be afraid of me.

所以沒錯，我有臉繼續說自己是佛教徒。我有臉把違犯第二戒當作是一種定期舉行的宗教儀式，因為我知道物主身分不是政治中立的事，而我的信仰強使我決定自己站在哪一邊，並且接受決定的果報。我不怕因為這些違反投生奈落。在人間好鬥地過完一生之後，我希望心裡著急的會是地獄裡的獄卒。