Which offence does the most heinous in doing and perpetrating evil deeds?

[SarathW]

According to the following Sutta,the mental Kamma are the most heinous.
However based on the example given, it appears that mental Kamma will the most heinous only if his thought come to the fruition.
For example if an ordinary many wish to destroy the village, it will not be a heinous kamma, as he does not have the power to do so.
Does this mean that "Cetana" is the kamma, is not totally correct?


https://suttacentral.net/en/mn56

[Virgo]

Venerable Pesala's book on this is actually very informative:

http://aimwell.org/kamma.html#

I highly recommend it.

Kevin

[SarathW]

Thanks Virgo.
Yes it is a very good article.
However my question is whether "Cetana" is Kamma.

[Virgo]

Cetana is a cetasika. Kamma is a condition. They are not the same, but cetana is always involved in kamma, and is an important factor.

[SarathW]

Can you explain this using the two examples in the Sutta I quoted?
- In the first case a villager threaten to destroy a large town with his sward
- In the second case a person with very high mental power trying to destroy the town.

[fivebells]

The main thrust of the argument is clear: intention lies at the root of an action's quality, so mental activity should be observed with great heedfulness. The argument still makes sense without the genocide story, so that part can be ignored.

[perkele]

Cetana is a cetasika. Kamma is a condition. They are not the same, but cetana is always involved in kamma, and is an important factor.

This is abhidhamma speak. Sorry to use this as a slightly derogatory term. But I mean to say is, to me it just has no explanatory power whatsoever. Unless maybe you could flesh it out somewhat and explain what it means in more ordinary terms.
I would be interested to thereby get some grasp of abhidhammic technical language.

"Kamma" means "action". The Buddha said, "cetana'm, bhikkhave, kamma" (from my memory, probably not without mistakes), which has popularly been translated as "It is intention, bhikkhus, that I call kamma", or "It is intention, bhikkhus, that is kamma", or something along those lines. The original Pali seems to be missing a verb there, so something had to be filled in, I guess. I always understood it (with some more inferred meaning) as something like "Intention is the vital factor in all action, and determinant of its result (vipaka)", with the result (vipaka) for the "doer" being an important contextual addition.

(I'm just saying that for the sake of clarity, or my own unclarity and somewhat vague grasp of the underlying message here.)

I would be intrigued how the message of the Buddha's utterance "cetana'm, bhikkhave, kamma" could be fleshed out somewhat more elaborately in (what I call) "abhidhamma speak".

[perkele]

Hello Sarath,

I think this is a great and very important sutta, and a very good question.

However based on the example given, it appears that mental Kamma will the most heinous only if his thought come to the fruition.
For example if an ordinary many wish to destroy the village, it will not be a heinous kamma, as he does not have the power to do so.
Does this mean that "Cetana" is the kamma, is not totally correct?

Cetana is a cetasika. Kamma is a condition. They are not the same, but cetana is always involved in kamma, and is an important factor.

Can you explain this using the two examples in the Sutta I quoted?
- In the first case a villager threaten to destroy a large town with his sward
- In the second case a person with very high mental power trying to destroy the town.

I think in the example the Buddha gave here, the point was not only that the man with the sword would simply intend (mental) and threaten (verbal kamma) to destroy the city and kill all its citizens, but that if he would then actually endeavour to do so (bodily kamma), this would not amount to quite as much, in comparison with his mental kamma (the mentally intended destruction), as his threat would have to remain eventually unfulfilled, due to the incapacity of his bodily action. He would simply have to give up (forcibly, by being stopped and possibly hurt or killed by others opposing him, or maybe through his own realization that he is not up to the task). In this case his mental kamma (intending) simply does not have a strong enough handle on the physical, the bottleneck of his ability to wield destruction being his bodily (in)capacity to do so on such a scale as intended. The consequences of his mental kamma (intending and trying to do so), however, would nevertheless be very dire, as still many could be killed or injured and he would probably be killed or otherwise heavily punished as a result. Still, it is at the root his mental intention that brought him and others into trouble.
In the second case, an ascetic with "high mental power" could use that power to kill and destroy instantaneously, simply by his mental intention. Although this illustration may seem unrealistic and as a mere fantasy to modern people who in most cases would not believe in the possibility of such things, we could also in more modern terms find a "realistic" comparable situation, taking the example of someone who, equipped with the necessary technical facilities and knowledge of their effective function, was in the situation to cause the drop of an atomic bomb on a large city by the push of a button. The necessary "bodily kamma" in this situation (the push of a button) would be quite insignificant in comparison to the mental kamma required (fully intending the death and destruction of millions of people in a matter of seconds) to perpetrate this act.

Does this mean that "Cetana" is the kamma, is not totally correct?

I think, on the contrary, the given examples underline the role of cetana as the vital factor.

[SarathW]

Thanks P
I am glad you got my point.
So does this means, Vipaka relating to a Kamma will be limited to weight of the real cause not mere thinking about it.