do different schools have different view on collective karma?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
dawn of peace
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:59 am

do different schools have different view on collective karma?

Post by dawn of peace »

according to Abhidharmakośa, if people commit killing in group,each individual in the group is responsible to all killing commit by the group:
when many persons are united with the intention to kill, either in war, or in the hunt, or in banditry, who is guilty of murder, if only one of them kills? As soldiers, etc., concur in the realization of the same effect, all are as guilty as is the one who kills. Having a common goal, all are guilty just as he who among them kills, for all mutually incite one another, not through speech, but by the very fact that they are united together in order to kill. But is the person who has been constrained through force to join the army also guilty? Evidently so, unless he has formed the resolution: ‘Even in order to save my life, I shall not kill a living being.
but in a Dhammapada story in Theravada, a woman who achieved sotapanna, handed the weapon to her husband, who was a hunter. The Buddha said that she did not commit any bad karma:
At Rajagaha there was once a rich man's daughter who had attained Sotapatti Fruition as a young girl. One day, Kukkutamitta, a hunter, came into town in a cart to sell venison. Seeing Kukkutamitta the hunter, the rich young lady fell in love with him immediately; she followed him, married him and lived with him in a small village. As a result of that marriage, seven sons were born to them and in course of time, all the sons got married. One day, the Buddha surveyed the world early in the morning with his supernormal power and found that the hunter, his seven sons and their wives were due for attainment of Sotapatti Fruition. So, the Buddha went to the place where the hunter had set his trap in the forest. He put his footprint close to the trap and seated himself under the shade of a bush, not far from the trap.When the hunter came, he saw no animal in the trap; he saw the footprint and surmised that someone must have come before him and let cut the animal. So, when he saw the Buddha under the shade of the bush, he took him for the man who had freed the animal from his trap and flew into a rage. He took out his bow and arrow to shoot at the Buddha, but as he drew his bow, he became immobilized and remained fixed in that position like a statue. His sons followed and found their father; they also saw the Buddha at some distance and thought he must be the enemy of their father. All of them took out their bows and arrows to shoot at the Buddha, but they also became immobilized and remained fixed in their respective postures. When the hunter and his sons failed to return, the hunter's wife followed them into the forest, with her seven daughters-in-law. Seeing her husband and all her sons with their arrows aimed at the Buddha, she raised both her hands and shout: "Do not kill my father."When her husband heard her words, he thought, "This must be my father-in-law", and her sons thought, "This must be our grandfather"; and thoughts of loving-kindness came into them. Then the lady said to them, ''Put away your bows and arrows and pay obeisance to my father". The Buddha realized that, by this time, the minds of the hunter and his son; had softened and so he willed that they should be able to move and to put away their bows and arrows. After putting away their bows and arrows, they paid obeisance to the Buddha and the Buddha expounded the Dhamma to them. In the end, the hunter, his seven sons and seven daughters-in-law, all fifteen of them, attained Sotapatti Fruition.Then the Buddha returned to the monastery and told Thera Ananda and other bhikkhus about the hunter Kukkutamitta and his family attaining Sotapatti Fruition in the early part of the morning. The bhikkhus then asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any evil."
Do Theravada and Sarvastivada have different view on collective karma?
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:08 pm
Location: Amphoe Li, Lamphun

Re: do different schools have different view on collective karma?

Post by Dhammanando »

dawn of peace wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:18 am according to Abhidharmakośa, if people commit killing in group,each individual in the group is responsible to all killing commit by the group:
In the Theravada Vinaya the same principle applies. For example:
At one time a number of bhikkhus, having plotted together, went their separate ways, thinking, “We shall steal these goods.” One of them stole the goods. The others said, “We are not defeated. Only he who stole the goods is defeated.” They told the Buddha. “You have all committed an offense entailing defeat.”
User avatar
dawn of peace
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2022 6:59 am

Re: do different schools have different view on collective karma?

Post by dawn of peace »

Dhammanando wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:54 pm
dawn of peace wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:18 am according to Abhidharmakośa, if people commit killing in group,each individual in the group is responsible to all killing commit by the group:
In the Theravada Vinaya the same principle applies. For example:
At one time a number of bhikkhus, having plotted together, went their separate ways, thinking, “We shall steal these goods.” One of them stole the goods. The others said, “We are not defeated. Only he who stole the goods is defeated.” They told the Buddha. “You have all committed an offense entailing defeat.”
how about the scenario below:

1. a person work as an anesthetist in an abortion clinic, his job is to administer an anesthetic to the women who receive abortion service. He never directly take part in the abortion, nor agree with the abortion, mentally nor verbally. his intention is only earn money through his profession, and never make decision to abort babies. only the women who receive the service and the doctors who give the service make the decision.

2.a landlord give a space for a business that killing animals and sell their meat. the landlord only own the land, and never involve in the meat business himself. only the people in the meat business decide how many animals and which animal they kill.

3. a person selling knives for people to cut vegetable. eventually, some people use the knives to kill animals, or even killing human.

4.a person sell food to slaughterhouse which is for feeding animals, which will eventually be killed for food.

are people above share the karma of those who do the killing themselves.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:08 pm
Location: Amphoe Li, Lamphun

Re: do different schools have different view on collective karma?

Post by Dhammanando »

dawn of peace wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:56 pm are people above share the karma of those who do the killing themselves.
I don't think any of the four would.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: do different schools have different view on collective karma?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

dawn of peace wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:18 am according to Abhidharmakośa, if people commit killing in group,each individual in the group is responsible to all killing commit by the group:
when many persons are united with the intention to kill, either in war, or in the hunt, or in banditry, who is guilty of murder, if only one of them kills?
If you look closely, you will see that the sutra you cited does not exactly refer to the question you ask.

You ask about the shared act of killing. The sutra refers to the shared intention to kill.

A group of people may share the same intention and each will experience the same karmic results associated with intention.

But if some actually commit the act and others don’t, then although all share the results from intention, only those who actually kill will experience the karmic fruition from the actual killing.

After that, the next phase you might say, is being happy with having committed the action. Those who feel remorse will not suffer the karma specifically associated with being happy about committing the action. Those who are proud about having done it will.

Finally, if there is then a desire to do it again, those who possess that desire will suffer from that desire and its consequences, while those who think, ‘This was a terrible thing to do and I hope never to do it again’ will not suffer from the intention to repeat the action.

Intention to commit an act, committing the act, rejoicing in having committed the act, and then desiring to commit the act again all add up to a full-blown “transgression” particularly if we are referring to the breaking of a vow, either a layperson’s vow or a monk/nun vow.

Specifically referring to the title of this thread, my understanding (I think this is the same in all traditions) is that the level of ‘karmic payback’ varies according to the four degrees associated with committing an act, described above But I may be mistaken, and some schools may hold that all four are required, and unless one hits all four, that no karmic seeds are planted. Kind of like hitting all the bases to score a run in baseball.

Again, one has to consider whether we are talking about breaking vows, for example, if a monk kills, or whether we are just talking about a general pattern of negative accumulation, as in the case of a hunter or butcher, who hasn’t made such vows.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”