Newtown Shootings

[Mr Man]

Why should I answer your questions when you do not answer mine?

Which question was that tilt?

[tiltbillings]

Why should I answer your questions when you do not answer mine?

Which question was that tilt?

Let us just drop it here.

[Mr Man]

Why should I answer your questions when you do not answer mine?

Which question was that tilt?

Let us just drop it here.

Fair enough but I couldn't find a question that you had asked me when you made that post.

[Alex123]

Killing or hurting for self defense is still killing or hurting. It appears that it is still negative kamma.

So, you will just let the person kill you or kill others, even though you could stop it? Also, keep in mind the Buddha's definition of kamma.

What if one's premature death is due to akusala kamma vipāka? Can one avoid such negative vipāka by having guns? Remember the story of MahaMoggallana? He had super super powers and yet couldn't prevent his own painful death which was result of bad kamma done long time ago.

According to commentarial Abhidhamma it explicitly states that all unpleasant bodily feelings is vipāka. So being shot, etc, is result of past akusala kamma .

[Alex123]

Doesn't the word "kill" inply intent?

to a degree yes, but you do not have to have the intent to kill for a death to be kammically unwholesome. as an example, cutting corners with equiptment, unsafe use, or being careless could kill someone, yet killing is not the intention, so to say that has no kammic effect would both be correct and incorrect as the effect/end result does effect the outcome, yet it is the intention which matters most.

Being careless while, lets say driving, and getting into an accident is one thing.

But what about buying a gun (or worse, an assault rifle), buying ammo, practicing target shooting, bringing gun with you wherever you go, then deliberately accurately aiming and shooting? Doesn't sound accidental or un-intentional to me.

[Cittasanto]

Doesn't the word "kill" inply intent?

to a degree yes, but you do not have to have the intent to kill for a death to be kammically unwholesome. as an example, cutting corners with equiptment, unsafe use, or being careless could kill someone, yet killing is not the intention, so to say that has no kammic effect would both be correct and incorrect as the effect/end result does effect the outcome, yet it is the intention which matters most.

Maybe from a doctrinal point of view you are correct Cittasanto (i'm not sure though). When people cause death through negligence there is still definite karmic consequence just possibly not the Karmic consequence of the intention to kill. Personally I don't look at karma in such a legalistic way (in terms of Vinaya/precepts it would be different). The karmic consequence could be devastating.

who is talking about doctrinal or legality points of view? It is foolish to assert what informs an opinion & expression, and the opinion itself are all the same thing.
Kammic consequences are not definite - hence kamma being imponderable, because (but not limited to), the numerous factors which influence the fruit of action. It is the intention that is the propelling force, the actual result (in the chain of events) of the acts direct that force.

[Cittasanto]

Killing or hurting for self defense is still killing or hurting. It appears that it is still negative kamma.

So, you will just let the person kill you or kill others, even though you could stop it? Also, keep in mind the Buddha's definition of kamma.

What if one's premature death is due to akusala kamma vipāka? Can one avoid such negative vipāka by having guns? Remember the story of MahaMoggallana? He had super super powers and yet couldn't prevent his own painful death which was result of bad kamma done long time ago.

According to commentarial Abhidhamma it explicitly states that all unpleasant bodily feelings is vipāka. So being shot, etc, is result of past akusala kamma .

care to give a specific reference?

[Cittasanto]

Doesn't the word "kill" inply intent?

to a degree yes, but you do not have to have the intent to kill for a death to be kammically unwholesome. as an example, cutting corners with equiptment, unsafe use, or being careless could kill someone, yet killing is not the intention, so to say that has no kammic effect would both be correct and incorrect as the effect/end result does effect the outcome, yet it is the intention which matters most.

Being careless while, lets say driving, and getting into an accident is one thing.

But what about buying a gun (or worse, an assault rifle), buying ammo, practicing target shooting, bringing gun with you wherever you go, then deliberately accurately aiming and shooting? Doesn't sound accidental or un-intentional to me.

because that is a deliberate act you are talking about, rather than what I was talking about!

[Mr Man]

who is talking about doctrinal or legality points of view

Me

It is foolish to assert what informs an opinion & expression, and the opinion itself are all the same thing.

Is that what I was doing?

Kammic consequences are not definite

What I said was "there is still definite karmic consequence" I was not saying there would be a specific karmic consequence

[Alex123]

care to give a specific reference?

In comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma (Abhidhamma sangaho), for example on page 40-43 (google books) there is a chart that shows that unwholesome resultant body consciousness feels pain, while wholesome bodily consciousness feels pleasant. These are said to be result of kamma.

Also on page 220, one of the causes of death is destructive kamma.



http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hxo ... ma&f=false

[Cittasanto]

care to give a specific reference?

In comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma (Abhidhamma sangaho), for example on page 40-43 (google books) there is a chart that shows that unwholesome resultant body consciousness feels pain, while wholesome bodily consciousness feels pleasant. These are said to be result of kamma.

Also on page 220, one of the causes of death is destructive kamma.



http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hxo ... ma&f=false

that is not the same as

According to commentarial Abhidhamma it explicitly states that all unpleasant bodily feelings is vipāka. So being shot, etc, is result of past akusala kamma .

[Cittasanto]

who is talking about doctrinal or legality points of view

Me

It is foolish to assert what informs an opinion & expression, and the opinion itself are all the same thing.

Is that what I was doing?

you tell me.

Kammic consequences are not definite

What I said was "there is still definite karmic consequence" I was not saying there would be a specific karmic consequence

misread that sorry, but you didn't say anything I hadn't.

[Khalil Bodhi]

I'm closing this thread per the request of the OP.