Re: Details on Stealing
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:47 pm
With all due respect, I don't think your understanding is correct. Intention does play a role in the heaviness of the karma.
A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
https://www.dharmawheel.net:443/
Why do you think my understanding is incorrect, other than your own intuition?zengen wrote:With all due respect, I don't think your understanding is correct. Intention does play a role in the heaviness of the karma.
zengen wrote:Another example:
I open a shop that serves alcohol. My intention is not to harm others. My intention is to make money so I can support myself and my family. Is my deed pure?
Then by your reasoning, non-virtue is committed by a Dharma practitioner, but for a non-practitioner who is unaware, non-virtue is not committed.Johnny Dangerous wrote: Not for a Dharma practitioner who has taken the precepts, because in that case you are aware it is wrong livelihood to sell alcohol.
For a non-practitioner, I'm not sure.
zengen wrote:Then by your reasoning, non-virtue is committed by a Dharma practitioner, but for a non-practitioner who is unaware, non-virtue is not committed.Johnny Dangerous wrote: Not for a Dharma practitioner who has taken the precepts, because in that case you are aware it is wrong livelihood to sell alcohol.
For a non-practitioner, I'm not sure.
Who said karma cannot be created by mistake?Johnny Dangerous wrote: I do know though that karma is action driven by intention, and not by mistake.
zengen wrote:Who said karma cannot be created by mistake?Johnny Dangerous wrote: I do know though that karma is action driven by intention, and not by mistake.
If I'm a doctor and through negligence I make a mistake in prescribing the wrong medicine, the patient dies, I am not karmically responsible?
AFAIK similar, except that in Mahayana karmic consequences can be lessened through purification. other than that the essentials are the same.zengen wrote:But what do Mahayana texts say about this?
Hm, what about the turtle earning merit by accidentally circumambulating a stupa? Or is merit different from karma in this respect?Johnny Dangerous wrote:AFAIK similar, except that in Mahayana karmic consequences can be lessened through purification. other than that the essentials are the same.zengen wrote:But what do Mahayana texts say about this?
There is no teaching in Buddhism that I'm aware of that acknowledges karma without any kind of intentional act.
Iconodule wrote:Hm, what about the turtle earning merit by accidentally circumambulating a stupa? Or is merit different from karma in this respect?Johnny Dangerous wrote:AFAIK similar, except that in Mahayana karmic consequences can be lessened through purification. other than that the essentials are the same.zengen wrote:But what do Mahayana texts say about this?
There is no teaching in Buddhism that I'm aware of that acknowledges karma without any kind of intentional act.
Good point. Can an animal create karma?Iconodule wrote: Hm, what about the turtle earning merit by accidentally circumambulating a stupa? Or is merit different from karma in this respect?
zengen wrote:Good point. Can an animal create karma?Iconodule wrote: Hm, what about the turtle earning merit by accidentally circumambulating a stupa? Or is merit different from karma in this respect?
Walking around a stupa is intentional. They may not know the significance of the stupa and circumambulate it knowing its value, but one can not walk without forming an intention to walk. Beyond that, those that create the stupa form the strong intention that anyone that interacts with the stupa in any way makes a connection with the Dharma. The connection is obviously tenuous compared to someone who circumambulates the stupa with reverence and awareness of its value.Iconodule wrote: Hm, what about the turtle earning merit by accidentally circumambulating a stupa? Or is merit different from karma in this respect?
Not so. If you download a pirated copy of Microsoft Office for example, that is considered stealing.Karma Dorje wrote:Stealing is done with the body. It necessarily involves an *object*.
Karma Dorje wrote:A video stream, torrent, etc. is not a physical object. There is simply no way to violate the second precept without depriving a person of an actual thing they possess.
Yes you did, and it's laughable to put it side by side with Buddhist philosophy, particularly because IP law is one of the most abused, most ridiculous areas of law, and the concept is quite new in human history.zengen wrote:Not so. If you download a pirated copy of Microsoft Office for example, that is considered stealing.Karma Dorje wrote:Stealing is done with the body. It necessarily involves an *object*.
Karma Dorje wrote:A video stream, torrent, etc. is not a physical object. There is simply no way to violate the second precept without depriving a person of an actual thing they possess.
Didn't I mention the term Intellectual Property? It does not have to be an object. It can be the creative work of others.
They broke into a database and *copied* military information. Fixed it for you.zengen wrote:Example:
Chinese hackers broke into US government database, stole military information. By your definition, theft was not committed since nothing tangible was stolen.
Buddhist philosophy and morality is not a question of just making up shit as you go along. It has textual sources and explanations of the precepts. There is no such thing in Buddhist thought as "owning a thought". The idea of it on its face is laughable. It's a modern business model, nothing more.zengen wrote:Not so. If you download a pirated copy of Microsoft Office for example, that is considered stealing.Karma Dorje wrote:Stealing is done with the body. It necessarily involves an *object*.
Karma Dorje wrote:A video stream, torrent, etc. is not a physical object. There is simply no way to violate the second precept without depriving a person of an actual thing they possess.
Didn't I mention the term Intellectual Property? It does not have to be an object. It can be the creative work of others.