[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 08:59 +1000, Kate wrote:

> 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.

I'm sure you've already done so, but I think one of the best sites for
basic information on the kinds of questions your are asking is
www.accesstoinsight.org.

> Firstly, I was under the impression that it is the intent behind an act that
> counts, not so much the act itself. 

Both intention and the act itself are important. But you are right that
the more important factor is intention.

> 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.

Yes, that is correct. 

> 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.

In both Hinduism and Buddhism, karma refers to mental actions (including
intentions) and the bodily and verbal conduct that results.

> I can't remember any members here using the term karma vipaka.

For twelve years I have been nagging people to use that term (or its
translation, ripening of karma) when it is appropriate. Thank you for
yet another gentle reminder. 

As for you analysis of self-defense or exterminating termites, the
intention to get rid of pests is a kind of aversion and is therefore
potentially unwholesome. More wholesome is the intention to get rid of
greed, hatred and delusion, wherever it occurs. Termites are not greedy.
They are just making a living, the same as you. As for an assailant (or
a terrorist), there is nothing unwholesome in neutralizing his hatred
and other harmful states. It is much less wholesome to harm him.

-- 
Richard Hayes