Does a teacher necessarily share karma when a student uses taught techniques to deceive people?

A student using learned techniques to deceive does not mean the teacher necessarily bears the same shared karma merely for having taught them. Consider what was taught, why, and how much the teacher knew about later events. “They are your student” alone cannot settle the matter.

A student asked whether a Chinese chess divination teacher was also at fault if they had not fully assessed a learner’s character and the learner later used the skills to obtain money or manipulate relationships dishonestly. From my religious understanding, I answered that teaching sound techniques, a diviner’s virtues, and proper treatment of clients is not teaching harm. A student’s later misuse differs from a teacher initially teaching how to hurt people.

Knowledge also needs distinction. I used house construction as an example: knowingly remaining silent about corner-cutting differs from genuinely not knowing what others are doing. This illustrated shared karma, motivation, and connection, not a determination of legal responsibility in a concrete case.

Teachers can still set conditions and understand students before teaching, and must clearly explain the techniques’ purpose and virtues of service. Early in teaching Chinese chess divination, I also wrote petitions reporting to the deities. This expressed care and religious arrangements in teaching. Completing a ritual cannot replace the judgment and instruction a teacher should provide.