Being unaware of the nature of what is being grasped is being unconscious of the consequences and nature of the action. It is precisely this unawareness that serves as a condition for unskillful conduct resulting in greater harm. This does not seem to change the grasping itself being an intentional action.LXNDR wrote: well, to understand his answer the Milinda's question must be taken into consideration
what is of greater demerit, conscious or unconscious?
the answer is - unconscious is of greater demerit
which, again, contradicts Vinaya principles for example
The Vinaya does not seem to be an exact mapping to the results of kamma, but appears to have other considerations in the origination of the rules. If the Vinaya were solely a description of the results of kamma, then it seems there would not be rules whose origin stories were based on the conduct of arahants. One example of this is Pācittiya 38.
Additionally, if the goal were merely the enforcement of the cause and effect of kamma then the Vinaya would seem to be superfluous.[url=http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Buddhist_Monastic_Code_1.pdf]Buddhist Monastic Code vol. 1[/url] (p. 326) by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote: This is one of the few rules where the original instigator was an arahant: Ven. Beḷaṭṭhasīsa, Ven. Ānanda's preceptor and formerly the head of the 1,000 ascetics who attained Awakening on hearing the Fire Sermon (SN XXXV.28). The origin story here reports that he made a practice of keeping leftover rice from his alms round, drying it, and then moistening it to eat on a later day. As a result, he only rarely had to go out for alms. Even though he was doing this out of frugality rather than greed, the Buddha still rebuked him. The story doesn't give the precise reasons for the rebuke. Perhaps it was because the Buddha saw that such behavior would open the way for bhikkhus to avoid going on alms round, thus depriving themselves of the excellent opportunity that alms-going provides for reflecting on their dependency on others and on the human condition in general; and depriving the laity of the benefits that come from daily contact with the bhikkhus and the opportunity to practice generosity of the most basic sort every day. Although frugality may be a virtue, there are times when other considerations supercede it.