Alcoholic Vervet Monkeys

[Aemilius]

I think you should read Thomas Paine's book Agrarian Justice , where he discusses the origin of property. It is sensible and in line with the buddhist views that are expressed in the suttas and in the abhidharma.
An other important work is Peter Kropotkin's book from 1902 Mutual Aid, Factor of Evolution, there the author discusses mutual aid between animals, between animal species, in barbarian human and in developed human societies.

[ronnewmexico]

I think I should read none of those.

Yes...gulls stealing food from one another are not stealing they are reallocating resources..

Geeze Louise.

Talk about double speak.....

Yes...the color of that blue wall is not blue at all as....

see in my mind I have quite pretended and theorized that it is now dark out and the wall is now black.
So I contend that blue wall is quite black. Stealing is now considered only a human value.When other species do such it is reallocation of resources for best benefit.....

in a world with marmalade skies and cotton candy trees that is.

[Dexing]

"what is owned by an other" is again a human projection, it does not say on a morsel of food that it is owned by a particular duck, or a crow, or a gull, so who "owns" it ? The idea is only in your mind!

That is certainly true, however the precept against stealing has nothing to do with the commonality and general acceptance of "ownership". It is to refrain from taking that which is not given.

The impulsive action to take something that is not given is the karma of stealing.

Whether animals are aware of the principle of karma or the precepts, they still act on such impulses and break the precept by creating the karma of stealing. Their impulses will result in retribution and are thus karmic.

The problem of ownership comes up when an animal wants something for themselves and acts on the desire. Also in another animal who may have been in possession of an object and is suddenly separated from it because of their attachment to self and ownership.

So while ownership is a mental fabrication, born of the view of self, and not an objective reality, still it is the overriding condition for the creation of many types of karma.

[Aemilius]

With all respect to your views, but one would have to know the mental state of the gulls. It may be that they have at the back of their minds the purpose of achieving the highest common good! When they seem to be fighting to their utmost about every little morsel of food.

I think I should read none of those.

Yes...gulls stealing food from one another are not stealing they are reallocating resources..

Geeze Louise.

Talk about double speak.....

Yes...the color of that blue wall is not blue at all as....

see in my mind I have quite pretended and theorized that it is now dark out and the wall is now black.
So I contend that blue wall is quite black. Stealing is now considered only a human value.When other species do such it is reallocation of resources for best benefit.....

in a world with marmalade skies and cotton candy trees that is.

[Aemilius]

That is certainly true, however the precept against stealing has nothing to do with the commonality and general acceptance of "ownership". It is to refrain from taking that which is not given.

The impulsive action to take something that is not given is the karma of stealing.

The prolem is "what is given to you"!?
It has been discussed at length in european or "western" philosophy.

The fields are not given to you. Humans conquer them, and take them, and steal them, from nature and from all living beings.
I recommend the standard philosophical treatises on this issue, I can't say it any better!

In the buddhist point of view world is samsara, it arises from the three poisons( greed, hatred and delusion), so all living beings partake of these root poisons, in different ways and in different degrees.

It has been said in the european philosophy that human society is a contract or an agreement, and it thus defines what is stealing and what is not stealing!

[ronnewmexico]

I'm sorry...you are confuseing the issue with overthinking the issue.Karma is just simply not all that difficult.

Through sense of self and habitual tendency of awareness we develope as sentient beings tendency.
This tenedency presents as habit which (though we die) remains as imprint. When conditions precipitate which cause for this particular consciousness to arise, it arises with the habit so formed. If the habit so formed is by action, is producing a unhappy state, it will replicate in form and likewise it will replicate in form and action and when circumstances present for its elicitation, it will then produce a unhappy or suffering state.

Stealing, simple stealing, will produce a unhappy state wether in animal form or in human. It may not produce a consious unhappy state in a gull or some animal but upon replication as habit in form with what we call as rebirth, it certainly may, if that animal does precipitate in a (what we call conscious state) it will . precipiate with this habit to steal so intigrated.

So even if you consider some animal not to suffer directly by stealing, even then upon rebirth assumeing eventually the animal precipitates to a human form even then, the present stealing has a negative effect by serving as substantion for tendency or habit..

I contend gulls and animals suffer directly in their animal state but even if you believe they do not eventually they will by habitual imprint and replication of the tnedency to steal. So generally if we can stop them from stealing it is a better thing.It will stop them from developeing this habit to steal and thus will not produce a suffering state in their present or future life. Letting them steal is to replicats the habit and thusly will replicate the action eventually and lead to their personal suffering and suffering of those they steal from. So allowing them to do so is a negative action, it should not be done..If we can reasonably prevent it and are in a circumstance to do so.

It is not that the argument you present is confounding nor very difficult it is that you perhaps are stubbornly holding to point in argument when point has already been refuted by now several responses.

[Dexing]

That is certainly true, however the precept against stealing has nothing to do with the commonality and general acceptance of "ownership". It is to refrain from taking that which is not given.

The impulsive action to take something that is not given is the karma of stealing.

The prolem is "what is given to you"!?

Any object that is in the possession (either mentally or physically) of another, and which you acquire by means of willful giving from the possessor, rather than just taking it.

The rest of your post about "contracts" is an interesting philosophical discussion about interaction and mental constructs, but is irrelevant (although not wholly) to the topic of karma.

The negative karma of taking that which is not given depends on the thief's view of self, and not at all on the commonality of "ownership" within a given society, or whether the possessor cares if it is taken without permission, or whether an object "really" belongs to someone.

It is still a serious Anantarika-karma to take the life of an Arhat, or wound a Buddha, although they wouldn't be attached to the body.

Devadatta committed three Anantarika-karmas, including creating a schism in the sangha, setting up his own monastic order, which was a "contract" "agreed upon". That acceptance did not nullify the Anantarika-karma however.

What retribution did Devadatta suffer for his three actions?

Likewise, your position of "ownership" being a mental construct which is mutually agreed upon in a "contract" should aid in abstaining from taking that which is not given because of the realization of anātman and the emptiness of possession.

Rather what you are suggesting is that taking that which is not given won't constitute negative karma if the ownership of the object is not mutually agreed upon.

Again, karma depends on the personal view of self, not the commonality of ownership in a given society.

[Aemilius]

The thing is that Samsara goes through certain phases of development. These phases are a gradual development of "I" and "mine". This has been described in the buddhist suttas and in the Abhidharma, and in part also in the european philosophy, from which we take the example of Thomas Paine who says in his book Agrarian Justice : ...the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race; the concept of private ownership arose as a necessary result of the development of agriculture, etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice

This theme is found in the Agganna sutta, it has vast political implications and there are several translations or renderings of it:
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/AggannaSutta.pdf
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta

In the absolute truth there is neither "I" nor "mine".

[ronnewmexico]

The idea that all human defilement arose with the advent of agriculture is simply not sustainable. Even the issues of greed and averice perhaps most annointed to land ownership were present in societies that did not essentially have land boundary...the hunter and gatherer societies. Actually that probably is a judeo christian concept related to the story of cain and able, but not a asian concept related to karma.
How the world evolved to be what it is is considered to be by most as a vehicle for karma. And the first being here by mosts view..... Brahma is found to have a rather large sense of self in which he mistakening thinks due to ego, he has created all other beings he finds in a new universe because he wished such to happen and then they appeared. Sutra explicited states that.

That aside nothing in the sutta stated indicates a differing view of karma, nor karmic force. Human kind is simply not considered a only being who accumulates karma nor are humans considered to be the only sentient beings who accumulate karma due to their more developed sense of self. With one ioata of self it is consdered karma is created. And Brahma most certainly had sense of self completely exaggerated.

If one is to take all sutta or sutra literally with literal intent we will all be burning our fields at certain times of the year sleeping on certain colored sheets and doing all number of things,
If one wants to read into sutta what one wants to find..it is quite possible to find all sorts of things.

NOw to introduce a idea that is not a accepted idea on how a thing like Karma works is right and fine...no problem with that. It would have its place perhaps in a thread so titled...I claim karma works this way not that.

This thread was not that issue but this, and you engage to correct others correct view when no statement is made initially to correct your view.

So you can feel that way and spout these things there is nothing wrong with that. It is however not as others generally find those things. Perhaps some forms of Hinduism do....I really don't know.

Here...all beings with self concept even the lowest of the lowest animals do.....that is how it is.

As a aside the lions firstly mentioned..... the male lions....they eat the baby lions of another pride if they are not closely watched by their lioness. The animal realm is rift with such behaviors not rift with romantic notions of other things if only humankind were not involved.

[Aemilius]

You manage to confuse everything! It has not been claimed by me or by Shakyamuni or by others that all mental defilement arose with the advent of agriculture, neither has it been claimed that animals are free of mental defilement,... It has been claimed that in the process of Samsara there are different levels of defilement, and that there are different levels in the development(or degeneration) of the human realm. Different realms of Samsara are different in their habitual mental patterns. While we are in the human realm it is very difficult to conceive of them, some people seem to consider other realms of Samsara "enlightened", when they are just slightly better than the human realm, if they happen to have a glimpse or understanding of them. This a buddhist view.

The idea that all human defilement arose with the advent of agriculture is simply not sustainable. Even the issues of greed and averice perhaps most annointed to land ownership were present in societies that did not essentially have land boundary...the hunter and gatherer societies. Actually that probably is a judeo christian concept related to the story of cain and able, but not a asian concept related to karma.
How the world evolved to be what it is is considered to be by most as a vehicle for karma. And the first being here by mosts view..... Brahma is found to have a rather large sense of self in which he mistakening thinks due to ego, he has created all other beings he finds in a new universe because he wished such to happen and then they appeared. Sutra explicited states that.

That aside nothing in the sutta stated indicates a differing view of karma, nor karmic force. Human kind is simply not considered a only being who accumulates karma nor are humans considered to be the only sentient beings who accumulate karma due to their more developed sense of self. With one ioata of self it is consdered karma is created. And Brahma most certainly had sense of self completely exaggerated.

If one is to take all sutta or sutra literally with literal intent we will all be burning our fields at certain times of the year sleeping on certain colored sheets and doing all number of things,
If one wants to read into sutta what one wants to find..it is quite possible to find all sorts of things.

NOw to introduce a idea that is not a accepted idea on how a thing like Karma works is right and fine...no problem with that. It would have its place perhaps in a thread so titled...I claim karma works this way not that.

This thread was not that issue but this, and you engage to correct others correct view when no statement is made initially to correct your view.

So you can feel that way and spout these things there is nothing wrong with that. It is however not as others generally find those things. Perhaps some forms of Hinduism do....I really don't know.

Here...all beings with self concept even the lowest of the lowest animals do.....that is how it is.

As a aside the lions firstly mentioned..... the male lions....they eat the baby lions of another pride if they are not closely watched by their lioness. The animal realm is rift with such behaviors not rift with romantic notions of other things if only humankind were not involved.

[ronnewmexico]

Well yes...that, what you now state, seems a Buddhist view(though I be no sole authority on what constituts such a view)....

What you have stated earlier, though you may not have realized it, did not. Which is why you received more opposition than just mine in response.
Different levels of defilement..sure I could live with that. Animals karmic faults are certainly not as significant as ours since their level of counsciousness is simply not as our is. Stealing by monkey or human is still stealing, the karmic result of both are differing certainly. Both provide habitual input and related to self and are of karmic effect though one is more significantly meaningful to one than to another. That does not mean that no karmic effect is present. With self concept karma originates, the twelve links of dependent origination exemplify that. And with taking of anothers thing unwillingly stealing exists.

Agriculture caused by most anthropologists view....warfare,the ariseing of tribal warfare, or organized fighting (most probably). Prior to the advent of such they was undoubtly fighting of various sorts but not of the organized variety we call warfare.

[Aemilius]

You are no measuring stick of buddhist orthodoxy, which in fact you are saying yourself, so no problem there.

Well yes...that, what you now state, seems a Buddhist view(though I be no sole authority on what constituts such a view)....

What you have stated earlier, though you may not have realized it, did not. Which is why you received more opposition than just mine in response.
Different levels of defilement..sure I could live with that. Animals karmic faults are certainly not as significant as ours since their level of counsciousness is simply not as our is. Stealing by monkey or human is still stealing, the karmic result of both are differing certainly. Both provide habitual input and related to self and are of karmic effect though one is more significantly meaningful to one than to another. That does not mean that no karmic effect is present. With self concept karma originates, the twelve links of dependent origination exemplify that. And with taking of anothers thing unwillingly stealing exists.

Agriculture caused by most anthropologists view....warfare,the ariseing of tribal warfare, or organized fighting (most probably). Prior to the advent of such they was undoubtly fighting of various sorts but not of the organized variety we call warfare.

[ronnewmexico]

Well this started, with you finding error in my initial statement not me in yours, with your conclusion and correction...."The killing of some tiny creatures was not your intention and your purpose in your washing, and therefore this latter aspect does not create karma."

is simply not true for my own views on this thing nor to the views of those that hold themselves absolutely Buddhist through and through...

If you persist I mayl find cause to provide quote.

[Aemilius]

I think the initial statement is that monkeys don't need to accept the ownership of humans on anything at all, there is no "law of nature" to that effect !

Well this started, with you finding error in my initial statement not me in yours, with your conclusion and correction...."The killing of some tiny creatures was not your intention and your purpose in your washing, and therefore this latter aspect does not create karma."

is simply not true for my own views on this thing nor to the views of those that hold themselves absolutely Buddhist through and through...

If you persist I mayl find cause to provide quote.

[ronnewmexico]

I posted a comment on the initial issue, with no mention of any others comment, nor any others opinion on comment.

You chose to quote my comment.... correct my commment, and stated it wrong

Your response was incorrect.....my initial comment stands without change of any sort.

My comment reflects generally held Buddhist view which I can substantiate with quote if I so desire.
Your's does not. There is nothing wrong with expressing such a view, and perhaps it is a valid view in some's determinations but to arbitrarily engage in and correct my comment as it is a general Buddhist view on this thing of Karma, bears response.

[Dexing]

The thing is that Samsara goes through certain phases of development. These phases are a gradual development of "I" and "mine".......

......In the absolute truth there is neither "I" nor "mine".

What's your point? As valid as that may be, it has no impact on karma.

If karma depended on a real "I" or "mine" then there would be no such thing, and no retribution for any actions. But we cannot deny that confused beings suffer the consequences of karma caused by impulses based on a fabricated selfhood.

Earlier you cited your sources for understanding karma, one being Vasubandhu's Karma-siddhi-prakaraṇa.

In that text it is explained very clearly that all action of body, speech, and mind cannot be separated like this- because for example the body cannot act by itself. Otherwise dead bodies would still be committing acts.

But karma is an intentional impulse in one's manas which compels the body, etc.. The manner in which the action is perceived by others (physical movement, or sound) or not perceived by others (mental action), the actions are respectively termed actions of body, speech, and mind.

However, all karmic action is an intentional impulse of manas.

The manas is always accompanied by four passions: delusion about self, view of self, self conceit, and self-love.

So karma is absolutely dependent upon the defiled manas with it's passions for selfhood. It matters not whether ownership is valid or "I" or "mine" are real. As long as the passions are present, one has intentional impulses to act on them.

That acting upon having first willed is what is termed "karma". Be it body, speech, or mind, it is the impulse of the deluded manas with self-passions.

Therefore, in this case, the karma of stealing doesn't depend upon validity of ownership or the commonality of it. When one has the impulse to take that which is not willfully given, because of the love and service to selfhood, one creates the karma of stealing.

[Aemilius]

To Dexing

"So karma is absolutely dependent upon the defiled manas with it's passions for selfhood. It matters not whether ownership is valid or "I" or "mine" are real. As long as the passions are present, one has intentional impulses to act on them."

Here we agree.

"That acting upon having first willed is what is termed "karma". Be it body, speech, or mind, it is the impulse of the deluded manas with self-passions."

Here we also agree.

"Therefore, in this case, the karma of stealing doesn't depend upon validity of ownership or the commonality of it. When one has the impulse to take that which is not willfully given, because of the love and service to selfhood, one creates the karma of stealing."

Here you bring in the concept of "stealing" and an other concept of "what is given". For example, if you pick an apple from a tree is that stealing? or do you feel that the apple is given to you?
By whom is it given ? by Nature? By the fact of your hunger? Or by your need ?


I remember that somewhere in the Pali scriptures there is made a distinction into conventional morality and a morality that is included in the Nature, -can't remember the exact words nor their pali equivalents-, the idea is that much of the morality is made by human society, and there is an other, deeper level of morality. This distinction was made by the Tathagata. It is implied in the Agganna sutta too, in my view.

[ronnewmexico]

A tree in Buddhism is not considered a sentient being, not once, nor ever. So one may not steal from a tree.

If one steals something(stealing has already been defined several times) from a sentient being, a being with self concept and thusly a being who may be able to suffer, one thusly accumulates karma of the negative kind. It may be a very very small amount of the negative especially if done on a considered unconscious or instinctual basis...but negative it remains. A pattern of habit of taking what was not freely given is established or reinforced and will have to be remedied in some fashion. This may be remedied by spiritual means, giving freely what is ours to others, or by actual cause and effect means, or a playing out of the effect. Some other sentient being will steal from us, and if we do not steal again we will be neutral in that regard. The habitual tendency will however perhaps remain in that event. But no such habit is established by taking things from considered nonsentient sources such as a tree. WE may reinforce taking objects from subjects with such action, which reinforces our reality and may reinforce habitual tendency of that sort, and that may be a negative reinforcement of a sort(or not), but that is a totally differing subject and not stealing.

Nonsentient and animate or sentient beings are clearly established by this basis in Buddhism.
Other religions such as HInduism abscribe Buddhism as a form of Hinduism and thusly may interpret sutra and sutta in their own particular fashion. The Supreme court of India has established Buddhism as a form of Hinduism.
So thusly we may have HIndus who believe other thngs on innanimate objects, nonsentient things or animate objects and sentient beings and interpret things in a differing fashion to suit their belief structres. Some Hindus per example do not believe humans can birth as nonhumans/animal or vise a verse except perhaps with divine intervention(there are many many differing forms of Hinduism) So such a believer may interpret things the Buddha said in their fashion to establish a differing quality to humans and animals or other sentient beings introducing conscious and unconscious thought as a defineing quality to karmic effect....that is not however as a Buddhist sees that thing.

Anything with a self concept is considered to accumulate karma, negative postive or neutral, even the most minutest of animals. A buddha having no real self concept is not considered able to accumulate karma nor is a inannimate object or a nonsentient thing, which a tree may be considered, as it is thought to have no sense of self.

I am not stateing who is right or wrong on these things, but this is a Buddhist board not a Hindu/Buddhist board so reflected here is generally not the Hindu/Buddhist view or interpretations of things Buddhist.

Trees one cannot steal from.

[Dexing]

Aemilius-

It seems to you are unnecessarily over-complicating things.

[Aemilius]

Over-complicating things ? Unnecessary?
The fact is that there is history. History according to dharma. History according to different ideologies. History according to different states, history according to their opposing national interests. You can't avoid the existence of history, the existence of ideologies etc... I just tried to be clear and simple. In explaining how the idea of possession, idea of ownership, idea of I and mine gradually take form, gradually develop.

with best wishes!

Aemilius-

It seems to you are unnecessarily over-complicating things.