No intention = no kamma?

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
User avatar
lotuspadma
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:05 am

No intention = no kamma?

Post by lotuspadma »

I was reading a book by Ajahn Brahm, and he mentioned this guy who pushed his friend into the water as a child; his friend drowned. It got me thinking if he is to be blamed for his friend's death or not. He had no intention of doing it, but pushing him into the water was not a very nice thing to do, if he had given enough thought about it, he would have realized the risk. My question is: did he create unwholesome kamma from pushing his friend, from accidentally killing him, or both? Let's disregard the fact that he was a child, and only focus on him not having the intention. Thanks to everyone!
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by Goofaholix »

lotuspadma wrote:I was reading a book by Ajahn Brahm, and he mentioned this guy who pushed his friend into the water as a child; his friend drowned. It got me thinking if he is to be blamed for his friend's death or not. He had no intention of doing it, but pushing him into the water was not a very nice thing to do, if he had given enough thought about it, he would have realized the risk. My question is: did he create unwholesome kamma from pushing his friend, from accidentally killing him, or both? Let's disregard the fact that he was a child, and only focus on him not having the intention. Thanks to everyone!
The trouble with the notion of "no intention = no kamma" is that I don't think there is any such thing as an unintentional action, there are just unintentional results.

Kamma is the action not the results.

So this guy didn't intend to kill his friend but he did intend to push him into the water, in other words his intention was heedless and carried risks. His friend dying was the kammic result of his intention to do a risky and heedless action.

For an action to be unintentional it would have to be out of ones control, my arm never spontaneously darts into the air without my brain telling it to for example. So I guess someone with brain damage or something similar might be capable of unintentional action, but even so a wise person would take steps to minimise potential negative results, like putting away sharp objects for example.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
MJH
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Norway

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by MJH »

Goofaholix wrote: The trouble with the notion of "no intention = no kamma" is that I don't think there is any such thing as an unintentional action, there are just unintentional results....

....For an action to be unintentional it would have to be out of ones control, my arm never spontaneously darts into the air without my brain telling it to for example. So I guess someone with brain damage or something similar might be capable of unintentional action, but even so a wise person would take steps to minimise potential negative results, like putting away sharp objects for example.
Just to stir the pot.... A few weeks ago I was driving and a baby bird jumped out in front of my car. About 1 meter from me. I slammed on the brakes and swerved, but there was nothing I could do. Now, maybe I'm brain damaged :smile: But I clearly had no intention of hitting (and killing) anything.

So how would this fit in? Surely, I must accumulate some negative kamma, although not as much as if I was trying to kill the poor bird.... at least I hope.
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7215
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by bodom »

MJH wrote:. A few weeks ago I was driving and a baby bird jumped out in front of my car.... Surely, I must accumulate some negative kamma, although not as much as if I was trying to kill the poor bird.... at least I hope.


If you want to make up for it, go buy some birdseed, go to the park and feed his hungry friends. :smile:

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by manas »

Just my humble two cents worth here, but there is some passage somewhere where Buddha says 'volition is kamma', from which I infer that it is the intention which is the root of the kammic result, as expanded upon in Dhammapada 1.1:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

I infer from this that if one has the intent of drowning someone, and then carries it out, that unwholesome mind-state acted upon has a comparable kammic result ("...If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts..."). But if the state of mind is only of carelessness, whether a prank or ordinary ill-will but without the intent to kill, the corresponding kammic result would not be the same as if the intent had been to kill (though I can't imagine it would be a very good result). Recklessness is, of course, also unwholesome, and can have sad consequences, as I'm sure lots of us here would know from our own lives. But I recall the Buddha saying that kammas and their particular outcomes are inscrutable to ordinary beings, and that only (a Buddha?) can comprehend them (is that correct?).

NB: If I have explained any detail incorrectly, please may someone with more realization and / or erudition correct me. I would not wish to misrepresent the Teaching in any way.
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by Ben »

Hi lotuspadma
Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
--AN6.63
Certainly, there is intention involved in the act, and the vipakka (fruition) of that kamma will relate to it. So, what was the intention? Its impossible for me to speculate on, but it would not surprise me if the two boys were playing.
As to the drowning death of one of the boys, it relates to the fruition of his past kamma, and not the immediate kamma of the boy who did the pushing. Traditionally, the untimely death of a child is sometimes attributed to the vipaka of a violent past life. The little boy who died, had his kamma come to fruition through the agency of play and proximity to water. Its just one of those incredibly tragic things that happen from time to time.
There is no one to blame.
I hope that explains things for you.
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by manas »

Ben wrote:Hi lotuspadma
Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
--AN6.63
Certainly, there is intention involved in the act, and the vipakka (fruition) of that kamma will relate to it. So, what was the intention? Its impossible for me to speculate on, but it would not surprise me if the two boys were playing.
As to the drowning death of one of the boys, it relates to the fruition of his past kamma, and not the immediate kamma of the boy who did the pushing. Traditionally, the untimely death of a child is sometimes attributed to the vipaka of a violent past life. The little boy who died, had his kamma come to fruition through the agency of play and proximity to water. Its just one of those incredibly tragic things that happen from time to time.
There is no one to blame.
I hope that explains things for you.
kind regards

Ben
Thanks for giving the full quote and reference (of AN 6.63). I only remembered part of it. :)
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by Ben »

no problem manasikara

There's actually a kamma study guide at access to insight that might be worthwhile for members to review.
Just go to http://www.accesstoinsight.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and type in "kamma study guide" in the search window at the top right of the screen.
Here it is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Darren_86
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:46 am

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by Darren_86 »

Dear All,

I've read this from a book written based on stories of Luang Phor Jaran (Abbot of Wat Ambhavan) which explain the kamma as such : Lets take the example of us trying to killing a tortise.

1. You know it is a tortise (a living being).
2. You intend to turn it over.
3. You know that your action might / will cause it to die.
4. You performed your action.
5. The tortise died as a result of your action.

If all these five actions have been committed, then the effect of this killing kamma is strong. And if not, they would not be so strong. This is picked from the book 'Fruit of Karma'.

Hope this help.

:namaste:
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by Goofaholix »

MJH wrote:Just to stir the pot.... A few weeks ago I was driving and a baby bird jumped out in front of my car. About 1 meter from me. I slammed on the brakes and swerved, but there was nothing I could do. Now, maybe I'm brain damaged :smile: But I clearly had no intention of hitting (and killing) anything.

So how would this fit in? Surely, I must accumulate some negative kamma, although not as much as if I was trying to kill the poor bird.... at least I hope.
The bird was careless and flew in front of a moving car, the bird got the results of that kamma. It sounds like you did the best you could under the circumstances, why would you assume this story is about you?
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
lojong1
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:59 am

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by lojong1 »

I've never hit a person or animal with my car. That's one reason I've never had a car.
Acintita Sutta AN 4.77:
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by acinteyyo »

AN VI.63 wrote:Intention (cetanā), I tell you, is action (kamma). Intending, one does action (kamma) by way of body, speech, & intellect.
It is quite clear from the sutta, that when there is no intention (cetanā), there is no action (kamma). In this case what was actually intended, which result one assumed as outcome of a particular action doesn't matter whether it comes to action or not. It is mostly incomprehensible what results (vipāka) a particular action (kamma) will cause.
lotuspadma wrote:It got me thinking if he is to be blamed for his friend's death or not. He had no intention of doing it, but pushing him into the water was not a very nice thing to do, if he had given enough thought about it, he would have realized the risk.
Whether he had the intention to kill his friend or not, doesn't matter for the question whether there was action (kamma) or not. It's a matter of fact that he had an intention, and intending he did action.

It is a totally different question whether he is to "blame" for his friend's death or not, because this doesn't deal with the question whether there was intention=action or not, but rather whether the outcome (vipāka) was a result of that intention=action, which has been commited already.

But this in particular is a question I don't deal with, because it will be nothing more but supposition, because the precise working out of the results of kamma is incomprehensible. It is enough for me to know, that carelessness and a lack of mindfulness (among others, starting with ignorance) cause unwholesome intention=action. In other words, that causes unwholesome kamma, which leads to unwholesome results.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
MJH
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Norway

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by MJH »

bodom wrote:If you want to make up for it, go buy some birdseed, go to the park and feed his hungry friends. :smile:
Very good idea! Thanks.
Goofaholix wrote:The bird was careless and flew in front of a moving car, the bird got the results of that kamma. It sounds like you did the best you could under the circumstances, why would you assume this story is about you?
I guess because I was the one that ended the bird's life. But I do understand what you're saying and I appreciate the chance to see it from a different angle. :namaste:

edit:punctuation
Last edited by MJH on Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

The problem with paying for perceived misdeeds is when do you decide you've payed enough?

You see, I've tried this. I'm still attempting to pay for things I did when I was basically a child. Now I wish I had never made those promises. These are debts you can never repay. You go to your grave still feeling there's something more you should have done. :broke:

What studying Buddhadhamma has taught me? Should have just chalked it up to being stupid and let it go. Can't resurrect the dead by beating yourself with a stick. But you can learn from it and refine your mind toward the path of wisdom.

However, feeding strays is a great idea. Makes you feel good and animals always appreciate a free grub. So do I for that matter. :anjali:

J
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Contact:

Re: No intention = no kamma?

Post by BubbaBuddhist »

Had a similar cause-and-effect incident. Noticed an inordinate amount of Butterflies commuting suicide by flying into my windshield while I was driving. Then it occurred to me I had a brightly-colored faux Lei (flowery garland) wrapped around my rear-view mirror. It dawned on me these Butterflies might be mistaking them for real flowers and were aiming for it. Sure enough, I took it down and the suicidal dive-bombing stopped.

Was sad for the three or four deaths of the Butterflies but there was no way I could have anticipated this outcome. I liked looking at the flowers. My intention wasn't to cause harm, so I'm not going to kick myself. But I'm not going to put the Lei back up either. I learned something.

Hope this isn't too silly a posting. I thought it might help. It's hard to live in this world without inadvertently harming little things. I just try to do so as little as possible. :toast:

J
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
Post Reply