I thought that kamma not only included the mental, but in fact "was" the mental, with the associated rupa movements being amoral, and indicative only of the fact the mental volition was strong enough to prompt the movement by way of body or speech. I realise its different in the context of precept violations where there's a checklist of intentions, rupa-movements and worldly results required to constitute a precept violation... but that kamma in the strict sense is a slightly different matter. An example that comes to mind is someone begrudgingly giving dana out of obligation rather than from wholesome intention.Dhammanando wrote:Well, actually there are, because not every ethically significant (i.e. wholesome or unwholesome) mental process will be adequate to generate a kamma. For example, in the case of unwholesome mental processes, if they are of too brief a duration or too weak an intensity to bring about any of the akusala kammapaṭha (killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech, frivolous speeech, covetousness, ill will, or wrong view), then they won't create any unwholesome kamma.