East and West, knowledge and consequence.

Something interesting I've thought about numerous times is the consequence of knowledge. There's a very interesting distinction between knowledge and ignorance when you compare "Western" and "Eastern" traditions.

The West, heavily influenced by Christianity, we have a lot of influential thought about intention and innocence. If one commits a wrong-doing, but doesn't know that it's wrong, it's forgivable. Provided, that is, if one knows that it is wrong from then on and does not do it again. After all, if they didn't know, it's not their fault, right? Innocence of intention is really important here. It is much more heinous to commit a wrong-doing when one knows that it is wrong. Their intention here is not innocent.

In the East, heavily influenced by Buddhism, you have a different perspective entirely. Throughout life, knowledge is really important. Thus, it is more heinous to commit a crime when one is ignorant of it. The logic there is that before one does something, they should understand what it is that they're doing, and the consequences thereof. It's more forgivable to commit a wrong-doing if you know that it is wrong. That's because one knew it was wrong, and still brought himself to do it. He must have had a reason, and so from there, it's easier to forgive and repent, and to atone and move on. Ignorance is not an excuse. How intention figures into this is a lot more complicated, but suffice it to say, the perspective does not change as much as you'd think.

An interesting point of contention.