Hi Akvan,
Of course, I knew that and I said so.
You said: “I was just trying to explain how in an ultimate (pramaththa) sense the ownership of things work. And also trying to explain how the ultimate (pramaththa) laws may defer from conventional and legal rules. .”
The conventional laws do not need to be different from ultimate (pramaththa) sense, especially in cases like ownership. If conventional law and order breaks down, we will have a chaotic situation. If one can just grab something from another, would not that lead to chaos?
The point is that when one makes progress on the Path, he/she will not care much if someone else takes things from him/her. The “sense of ownership” goes down. That is true. But we cannot impose that on the whole society, because law and order will break down.
I can see that the precept about “musavada” (making “adhamma as dhamma”) is different from “conventional lying”. But I don’t see how stealing can be justified in any way.
Because this involves breaking a very fundamental precept of not hurting another person: “In a similar way, if B steals something from A, say by grabbing his bag and running off, in the ultimate sense the ownership of that bag changes from A to B after the point that B takes hold of the bag. ”