Taking honey from a bee hive

[Johann]

...
My question is regarding 2nd precept.
Does taking some honey from a bee hive count as breaking 2nd precept?
..

I think a monk would not take honey from a beehive. They go for alms round and eat only what is given to them once a day.

They even reject it where such is knowingly harvest in forest, especially for richer people who love to make merits, and most forest fires are made by that, good householder.
Unfortunate there are lot of monks in SEA "calling" for honey under such circumstances.

[Johann]

...
My question is regarding 2nd precept.
Does taking some honey from a bee hive count as breaking 2nd precept?
..

I think a monk would not take honey from a beehive. They go for alms round and eat only what is given to them once a day.

They even reject it where such is knowingly harvest in forest, especially for richer people who love to make merits, and most forest fires are made by that, good householder.
Unfortunate there are lot of monks in SEA "calling" for honey under such circumstances.

[Johann]

...
My question is regarding 2nd precept.
Does taking some honey from a bee hive count as breaking 2nd precept?
..

I think a monk would not take honey from a beehive. They go for alms round and eat only what is given to them once a day.

They even reject it where such is knowingly harvest in forest, especially for richer people who love to make merits, and most forest fires are made by that, good householder.
Unfortunate there are lot of monks in SEA "calling" for honey under such circumstances.

[Johann]

...
My question is regarding 2nd precept.
Does taking some honey from a bee hive count as breaking 2nd precept?
..

I think a monk would not take honey from a beehive. They go for alms round and eat only what is given to them once a day.

Perhaps a forest monk?

Fools yes, and don't one think there aren't.

Some can be so greedy after it, that after disrobing come again...

...
My question is regarding 2nd precept.
Does taking some honey from a bee hive count as breaking 2nd precept?
..

I think a monk would not take honey from a beehive. They go for alms round and eat only what is given to them once a day.

They even reject it where such is knowingly harvest in forest, especially for richer people who love to make merits, and most forest fires are made by that, good householder.
Unfortunate there are lot of monks in SEA "calling" for honey under such circumstances.

[Johann]

My question is regarding 2nd precept.
Does taking some honey from a bee hive count as breaking 2nd precept?

In the Vinaya taking something from an animal isn't a breach of the stealing precept for monks and nuns, so it seems unlikely that it would be for the laity.

There is no offense [of theft]:

if he perceives it as his own;
if he takes it on trust;
if he borrows it;
if it is the possession of a ghost;
if it is the possession of an animal;
if he perceives it as discarded;
if he is insane;
if he is deranged;
if he is overwhelmed by pain;
if he is the first offender.

https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-pj2/en/brahmali

This sounds like Marxism–Leninism
Perhaps someone has to elaborate this.

Actually there are many former wanderers of this sect...

May one be reminded that monks are not even given to pick fruits from trees, or take not given food, or harm plants.

It's pointless if one has troubles to get it, but many rules are for such "corrupt" individuals, good householder.

[mjaviem]

Perhaps a forest monk?

Do you mean monks can sow fields and harvest the crops and keep bees and take the honey? Do you mean this is ok when there's no community supporting your correct lifestyle?

[Mumfie]

This sounds like Marxism–Leninism

Not really.

In Marxism-Leninism when the proletariat rises up and expropriates from the expropriators, not only is it not considered stealing, but it's considered that what they do is a good and a just thing.

The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production, into socialised property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people.
– Karl Marx, Capital, ch. 32

By contrast, the Buddha doesn't state that it's good to take from an animal, merely that it doesn't count as theft.

Perhaps someone has to elaborate this.

On one occasion a number of monks were descending from the Vulture Peak when they saw the remains of a tiger’s kill ...

saw the remains of a panther’s kill ...
saw the remains of a hyena’s kill ...
saw the remains of a wolf’s kill ...

They had it cooked and ate it. They later became anxious [and reported to the Buddha what they'd done] ...

“There’s no offense when it’s the possession of an animal.”

This story, however, dates from an early stage in the Vinaya's evolution. Later it became a requirement that all food had to be offered to monks before it would be allowable to eat, which I guess came as a relief to all the Magadhan tigers, panthers, hyenas and wolves.

[Johann]

...
My question is regarding 2nd precept.
Does taking some honey from a bee hive count as breaking 2nd precept?
..

I think a monk would not take honey from a beehive. They go for alms round and eat only what is given to them once a day.

Good so, good householder,

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

As the bee collects nectar and flies away without damaging the flower or its colour or its scent, so also, let the bhikkhu dwell and act in the village (without affecting the faith and generosity or the wealth of the villagers).

How ever, "worthy" to note that forest bees are actually the most annoying animals a forest monk gets touched... especially in dry season. But's maybe chosen as simile because non-forest dweller have another perception of the bees and don't know the havest style of forest bees.

[mjaviem]

Good so, good householder,

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

As the bee collects nectar and flies away without damaging the flower or its colour or its scent, so also, let the bhikkhu dwell and act in the village (without affecting the faith and generosity or the wealth of the villagers).

...

Thank you Bhante. I think it's natural "not leaving any footprints" for those with diminished ego. I think they go as if they were not there. The Sutta paragraph that brings a vivid image of this to me is this:

... He’s put down the shovel and doesn’t dig the earth with his own hands. He takes what has crumbled off by a riverbank or been dug up by mice...

[Johann]

Good so, good householder,

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

As the bee collects nectar and flies away without damaging the flower or its colour or its scent, so also, let the bhikkhu dwell and act in the village (without affecting the faith and generosity or the wealth of the villagers).

...

Thank you Bhante. I think it's natural "not leaving any footprints" for those with diminished ego. I think they go as if they were not there. The Sutta paragraph that brings a vivid image of this to me is this:

... He’s put down the shovel and doesn’t dig the earth with his own hands. He takes what has crumbled off by a riverbank or been dug up by mice...

Good Mjaviem might reflect here an lay Non-Returner. Even non-returner have a very high and clean estimate of self, high-refined conceit. It's because "loving oneself" that one goes harmless for oneself and others the tiny path out and it's not so that elephants foot prints, or say the path, behind such can not be seen, traced.

[TRobinson465]

I dont think its a good comparison to say that just because its not a monastic offense for a monk means its not morally impure. It is not an offense to smell a flower yet there is that sutta about not smelling the flowers of others. It is not an offense to lustfully fantasize about a woman when you are a monk, but it is not really the behavior fitting of monks.

That said, you have to remember that bees are drone like beings with very little awareness compared to humans and other intelligent animals. A bee having attachment to its honey the way humans are attached to our belongings is like saying we can train lobsters to be as loyal as dogs, it just isnt in thier brains. They probably wouldnt even notice you were taking their honey or would forget very quickly. If you want to be super pure about dont do it at all. If you need or really want to harvest honey, just be sure to not be greedy and be responsible enough to leave enough honey for the bees to live (they always produce more than they need anyways, so long as they have the nectar)

[SarathW]

This sounds like Marxism–Leninism

Not really.

In Marxism-Leninism when the proletariat rises up and expropriates from the expropriators, not only is it not considered stealing, but it's considered that what they do is a good and a just thing.

The transformation of scattered private property, arising from individual labour, into capitalist private property is, naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private property, already practically resting on socialised production, into socialised property. In the former case, we had the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people.
– Karl Marx, Capital, ch. 32

By contrast, the Buddha doesn't state that it's good to take from an animal, merely that it doesn't count as theft.

Perhaps someone has to elaborate this.

On one occasion a number of monks were descending from the Vulture Peak when they saw the remains of a tiger’s kill ...

saw the remains of a panther’s kill ...
saw the remains of a hyena’s kill ...
saw the remains of a wolf’s kill ...

They had it cooked and ate it. They later became anxious [and reported to the Buddha what they'd done] ...

“There’s no offense when it’s the possession of an animal.”

This story, however, dates from an early stage in the Vinaya's evolution. Later it became a requirement that all food had to be offered to monks before it would be allowable to eat, which I guess came as a relief to all the Magadhan tigers, panthers, hyenas and wolves.

I do not think eating the remaining of a kill is stealing even for lay people.
It is like eating from a rubish bin.

[[james]]

I do not think eating the remaining of a kill is stealing even for lay people.
It is like eating from a rubish bin.

Unless it happens that the tiger, panther, hyena, wolf return from their postprandial nap and decide that you are stealing from their not so abandoned kill …

[[james]]

Good day Venerables,
Blessed be the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha.

My question is regarding 2nd precept.
Does taking some honey from a bee hive count as breaking 2nd precept?

If so, does it matter how much honey is taken?
Whether the bee hive is wild or domestic?
Whether care and protection has been provided to the bee hive?

If we admit that bees are not in the habit of giving away the honey that they have, with great effort, produced then it must be obvious that in taking their honey for our own benefit we are in fact taking what has not been given to us. Therefore, yes, a breach of the second precept.
From the perspective of the bees, I don’t think it matters whether a small or large amount is taken. They will try to defend their hive without regard for the possibly reasonable intentions of the intruder. Although there have been attempts to domesticate certain bee species, all bee colonies are in fact wild. Any care and protection provided to bee hives is almost always in the interests of the beekeepers and only secondarily in those of the bees themselves.

[Mumfie]

I do not think eating the remaining of a kill is stealing even for lay people.

Well, I don't disagree, but "... even for laypeople" seems a strange way of putting it.

Surely it's of monks and nuns, not laypeople, that we expect a higher standard, right?

And so if taking from an animal isn't reckoned as theft even when monks do it, then a fortiori it oughtn't to be reckoned as theft when householders do it.