Thank you Lal,
-“He will show remorse without doubt”.-
That is clear, but it did not ‘surface’,it eluded me, when I was absorbed in formulating the question.
One other point (unrelated to this) I have been meaning to raise concerns the wording: ‘taking that which is not given’ instead of the single words ‘theft’ or ‘stealing’. I do not know whether it is the only way possible to convey the idea of stealing in Pali, but in English there is of course a difference.
Say one comes across a fruit tree in the woods or finds a valuable object in a public place. In both instances, one is taking, if he does, that which is not given. In the first case he just helps himself to the fruit without even the idea of doing something immoral (still, the fruit is ‘not given’); now if it is a companion who picks the fruit and gives it to him, he would now be taking only that which ‘has been given’. But the ‘act’ remains the same, something which had not been given was taken. In contrast, in the case of the valuable object one feels a moral obligation to hand it over to the authorities, sincerely hoping that in this way it finds its way back to its owner.
The moral, as I see, is that of always being mindful of how one’s actions may affect others; if adversely, refrain, if beneficially, persist. Here the case of the fruit would fall under neither, but under ‘does not affect them at all’
Is there more that one should see …or, is this understanding enough to live by and apply? Does it satisfy all that is meant by ‘not taking that WHICH IS NOT GIVEN’?
Ever so grateful
P.S… excluding, no need to say, other subtle forms of theft like time-wasting or deliberate negligence at work, immoral though ‘legal’ forms of transactions and all else done to one’s benefit at the expense of others.