Severity of Kammic consequences based on the experience of the victims of the crime?

[LQM]

This topic of mine might seems ignorant or even inappropriate and if it is then i am quite sorry about that. Please kindly let me know of my mistakes and ignorance as you see fit.

Also, let temporarily put aside the fact that Kamma should not be pondered upon

For now, i would like to direct your attention to these case studies below and please give me your honest answer:

Case studies #2: The act of stealing something in regard to emotional value

(The act of theft is absolutely bad kamma and should not be dismissed in anyway, but what about the severity of the act itself depending on the emotional value of what you take?)

Example A:
In an imaginary situation, you steal something from a warehouse full of stuffs that belong to somebody. However, the owner have too much stuffs in that warehouse and therefore do not actually noticed that he was robbed of something. He barely feels any negative emotions due to your theft.

Example B:
In another (imaginary) case, you steal the exact same stuff as the example above. However, in this case the owner cherishes that object very much and immediately notices that the object is lost. Therefore, he grieves and feel saddened.

Similarities and Differences: In both cases, the owner lost something. And yet, their emotional responses are different.

The question: In these cases, can we say for certain that the kammic effect of example B is greater due to the emotional damage incurred to the owner?

Case studies #3: To determine if things were actually stolen according to the BMC by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Example A: Bhikkhu #1 asks bhikkhu #2 to move some stuffs from room X to room Y. While carrying the stuffs to room Y as instructed, Bhikkhu #2 (maybe due to his monkey minds or boredom…etc), thinks jokingly or ironically to himself: “I have to “steal” these stuffs…”. However, all Bhikkhu #2 does in the end is simply move the stuffs as instructed to room Y.

Now according to the BMC, could Bhikkhu #2 be said to have fulfilled the factor for intention and efforts (since he was holding and moving the stuffs) and therefore commited a Parajika?

But if you ask Bhikkhu #1 what he thinks about the act, Would bhikkhu #1 say: " But he didn’t steal anything, he just moved items according to my instructions, i didn’t lose anything" ?

Example B: a person is hired to carry some stuffs from point #1 to point #2, then regardless of whether he thinks:" I am stealing this…etc" due to boredom, or maybe he want some excitement in his life. If all he does is simply move those things according to instruction to point #2 then can his employers or the law rightly accuse him of theft:

just as when, in the taking of what is not given, kings arresting the criminal would flog, imprison, or banish him, saying, “You are a robber, you are a fool, you are benighted, you are a thief”

The question: can we accuse either person in these 2 example above of theft when nothing was actually taken and therefore no negative emotional damage was done to the owner?

Thank you for having the patient to read so far. If i have offend or say anything inappropriately then i apologize. I would like to learn your answers to each of them.

[Dhammanando]

@LQM

Is the discrepancies in relation to the severity of these acts affected by the fact that the Arahant in example C consciously experience the evil act that was commited against them?

I think it’s more likely because Uppalavannā was a chief disciple, while the two monks were probably ordinary arahants (since neither is even named).

@LQM

The question: In these cases, can we say for certain that the kammic effect of example B is greater due to the emotional damage incurred to the owner?

In commentarial accounts of the kammic weightiness of wholesome and unwholesome deeds, the intensity of the emotional response of the beneficiary or victim isn’t included in the list of factors that affect this.

@LQM

The question: can we accuse either person in these 2 example above of theft when nothing was actually taken and therefore no negative emotional damage was done to the owner?

Guilt under the second pārājika rule doesn’t necessarily entail that something be taken away from its owner, but merely that it be removed, with thieving intent, from the place where it was standing. For example, if a bhikkhu goes into a supermarket to steal an expensive bottle of wine, picks it up and then immediately changes his mind and puts it down again, then he’s pārājika, even though his action probably wouldn’t be indictable in secular law.

[Thito]

Would an Arahant have an intense emotional reaction in the first place?

[CurlyCarl]

@LQM

Similarities and Differences : As we can see in this case study, in example A and B we can see that the Arahant was asleep and the rapists walk away while in example C the Arahant was awake and the rapist was swallowed by the earth.

Personally, I guess/speculate the above difference is due to gender bias/discrimination.

The male arahants were raped in their sleep. Ordinarily, if they were awake, being male, they could repulse/stop the rape. Apart from this, the text also seems characteristic of the general gender bias in the world; thus it being OK for men to be sacrificed in war; men drowning while women & children first into life-rafts before men; etc.

The female arahant was awake (not asleep) and rendered helpless/defenseless due to her inferiority of physical strength. I imagine that is why the crime was heinous to result in hell. The rapist was a coward.

I guess in the secular world we will find similar examples of gender bias because the world generally does not see it as a great crime when men are raped.

Woman jailed for raping man

Associated Press in Oslo

Thu 28 Apr 2005 09.04 AEST

A 23-year-old Norwegian woman was sentenced to nine months in prison yesterday after she was convicted of raping a man.

The Bergen district court also ordered her to pay 40,000 kroner (£3,340) in compensation, in what the local news media said was the first case of its kind in Norway.

According to court testimony, the January 2004 sexual assault took place when the 31-year-old man, whose name was withheld, fell asleep on a couch in the apartment the woman shared with her boyfriend.

The court said a legal amendment from 2000 defines such undesired sexual contact as rape.

The man said the episode left him with insomnia and virtually no interest in sex. He also described it as a breach of trust that had crushed his faith in people.

A proportion of victims of rape or other sexual violence incidents are male. Historically, rape was thought to be, and defined as, a crime committed solely against females. This belief is still held in some parts of the world, but rape of males is now commonly criminalized and has been subject to more discussion than in the past.[1]

Rape of males is still taboo, and has a negative connotation among heterosexual and homosexual men.[2][3] Community and service providers often react differently to male victims based on their sexual orientation and the gender of their perpetrators.[4] It may be difficult for male victims to report a sexual assault they experienced, especially in a society with a strong masculine custom. They might be afraid that people will doubt their sexual orientation and label them homosexual, especially if raped by a male, or that they may be seen as un-masculine because they were a victim, and therefore many statistics underestimate how many males are raped due to their unwillingness to report sexual assault and rape.[5] Most of the time, male victims try to hide and deny their victimization, similar to female victims, unless they have serious physical injuries. Eventually, the male victims may be very vague in explaining their injuries when they are seeking medical or mental health services

Wikipedia