[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism

[Kate]

Hi Everyone,

I am new to the study of Buddhism.  I have limited access to my teachers so
a lot of my knowledge has come from my interpretation of what I've read and
personal insights. However I don't know if these interpretations and
insights are correct.  Would someone please look over the following
statements regarding karma and tell me if I've missed something basic.

Firstly, I was under the impression that it is the intent behind an act that
counts, not so much the act itself.  Secondly, any act has to be done out of
compassion and wisdom, that they are two sides of the same coin.  In other
words, it might be compassionate to let one's home be overrun by a plague of
mice, spiders, etc but it wouldn't be very wise.  Likewise, while it would
be wise to call in the pest exterminator, this doesn't mean that one takes
pleasure in the prospect of all the creatures dying.

This is the same with defending oneself or another.  On one level, it might
be compassionate to standby while an attacker acts but it wouldn't be very
wise.  Wisdom dictates the need for action but compassion dictates what that
action should be.  A defence shouldn't be made out of fear, hate, anger,
revenge etc and should be as non-violent as possible.

Thirdly, a lot of writers on Buddhism (and Hinduism) seem to use "karma" as
the term for the result of action.  I've been taught that karma was
"action".  It is the term for the act, the doing, and not the term for the
result of the action.  The result is "karma vipaka", the fruits of karma.
Also that in Buddhism (though not Hinduism), "karma" refers to acts of the
mind instead of physical as any physical act first occurs in the mind. This
is why Right Thought is so important as a deed is considered done even if
the perpetrator has only thought it.  I can't remember any members here
using the term karma vipaka.  Is anyone familiar with it?

Thanks for your help
Kate