Details on Stealing

[zengen]

With all due respect, I don't think your understanding is correct. Intention does play a role in the heaviness of the karma.

[Johnny Dangerous]

With all due respect, I don't think your understanding is correct. Intention does play a role in the heaviness of the karma.

Why do you think my understanding is incorrect, other than your own intuition?

I can virtually guarantee that in Buddhism Karma means intentional acts, and not accidental ones - this is basic. Read any basic book on Dharma.

[zengen]

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?

[Johnny Dangerous]

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?

Not for a Dharma practitioner who has taken the precepts, because in that case you are aware it is wrong livelihood to sell alcohol. Under those circumstances doing so is definitely negative.

For a non-practitioner though, I'm not sure. There are no such thing as "pure" deeds in that sense anyway though, only Buddhas and seriously realized have 'pure' enough deeds that they don't create karma, the rest of us have to settle for lessening the negative and accumulating positive.

[zengen]

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.

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]

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.

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.

I don't know, I'm sure it's explained somewhere or other. I do know though that karma is action driven by intention, and not by mistake.

Something like:

wrong action done with a neutral or pure intention is less severe than wrong action done with a malicious intention.

[zengen]

I do know though that karma is action driven by intention, and not by mistake.

Who said karma cannot be created 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?

[Johnny Dangerous]

I do know though that karma is action driven by intention, and not by mistake.

Who said karma cannot be created 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?

The Buddha said Karma cannot be created by mistake, in fact, essentially.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm#1

[zengen]

But what do Mahayana texts say about this?

[Johnny Dangerous]

But what do Mahayana texts say about this?

AFAIK similar, except that in Mahayana karmic consequences can be lessened through purification. other than that the essentials are the same.

There is no teaching in Buddhism that I'm aware of that acknowledges karma without any kind of intentional act.

[Iconodule]

But what do Mahayana texts say about this?

AFAIK similar, except that in Mahayana karmic consequences can be lessened through purification. other than that the essentials are the same.

There is no teaching in Buddhism that I'm aware of that acknowledges karma without any kind of intentional act.

Hm, what about the turtle earning merit by accidentally circumambulating a stupa? Or is merit different from karma in this respect?

[Johnny Dangerous]

But what do Mahayana texts say about this?

AFAIK similar, except that in Mahayana karmic consequences can be lessened through purification. other than that the essentials are the same.

There is no teaching in Buddhism that I'm aware of that acknowledges karma without any kind of intentional act.

Hm, what about the turtle earning merit by accidentally circumambulating a stupa? Or is merit different from karma in this respect?

I have never known what to think about those stories, they do not fit into any traditional presentation of karma that I've read, someone else would know.

[zengen]

Hm, what about the turtle earning merit by accidentally circumambulating a stupa? Or is merit different from karma in this respect?

Good point. Can an animal create karma?

[Johnny Dangerous]

Hm, what about the turtle earning merit by accidentally circumambulating a stupa? Or is merit different from karma in this respect?

Good point. Can an animal create karma?

Of course, all beings in the six realms can and do...

[Karma Dorje]

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.

One can watch a video without forming the intention to steal, quite clearly. Stealing is done with the body. It necessarily involves an *object*. 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. It may be inconsiderate not to reward an author for their work. That is also clear. Let's not cloud the issue though by calling it something it is not.

[zengen]

Stealing is done with the body. It necessarily involves an *object*.

Not so. If you download a pirated copy of Microsoft Office for example, that is considered stealing.

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.

[zengen]

Example:

Chinese hackers broke into US government database, stole military information. By your definition, theft was not committed since nothing tangible was stolen.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Stealing is done with the body. It necessarily involves an *object*.

Not so. If you download a pirated copy of Microsoft Office for example, that is considered stealing.

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.

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.

It's a complex issue I admit, but assuming that you should base personal Buddhist ethics on early 21st century notions of IP law is insane.

[Karma Dorje]

Example:

Chinese hackers broke into US government database, stole military information. By your definition, theft was not committed since nothing tangible was stolen.

They broke into a database and *copied* military information. Fixed it for you.

That is correct. From the point of view of the second precept, it was not stealing.

[Karma Dorje]

Stealing is done with the body. It necessarily involves an *object*.

Not so. If you download a pirated copy of Microsoft Office for example, that is considered stealing.

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.

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.

In the case of downloading Microsoft Office, it is not considered stealing. It is considered copyright violation. This is what you are charged with in court. Not theft. If it was theft, they would not have had to develop entirely new laws as theft was *already* illegal.

I agree with JD, if you aren't going to bring any actual argument to bear on your assertions there is little point in continuing the discussion.