[Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat

[curt]

There isn't necessarily (or, really, at all) a distinction between 
"intention" and "action" - because "intention" itself should be 
considered an "act" - a "mental" act, if you will. If anything, mental 
actions are considered more important that mere physical actions. There 
is degree of "reality" that is readily granted to the inner world in the 
Buddhist tradition that is at least somewhat foreign to the 
western/materialist/positivist/"scientific" mind. If the inner world is 
accorded such a reality then the sharp distinction between such mental 
acts as imagination and intention, on the one hand, and bodily actions 
on the other hand, vanishes. With that understanding I think that 
Richard Nance's substitution of "act" for "kamma" is reasonable - but 
without it, there are problems.
- Curt

Michael Paris wrote:

>Or could intention alone be sufficient to create karma?
>
>I believe Mike Austin gave an example of karma resulting purely from
>intention, even though the planned action did not take place.
>
>I'm not up on formal Catholic doctrine, but I believe good intentions
>do count as good works. Honest, serious good intentions, of course,
>even if circumstances prevent their realization.
>
>And likewise, bad intentions. If I wish a person disgraced, even though
>I cannot bring that about, then I bear some responsibility for that
>desire. 
>
>I can't provide justification with formal references, but it makes
>sense. We are creatures with the capacity to imagine - an extra
>dimesion of thought that animals seem to lack. Seems we should use that
>carefully.
>
>On a personal note, I dislike villifying even those I despise, e.g.,
>certain political figures discussed at length on this list. I simply
>feel bad when I act hateful, even in typed words. 
>
>
>Michael
>
>
>--- Richard Nance <richard.nance at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On 10/23/05, Michael Paris <parisjm2004 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I wonder if Buddhist ethics and morality can be discussed in
>>>      
>>>
>>English terms, without reference to "karma" and other
>>    
>>
>semi-metaphysical terms. That might clarify the arguments.
>  
>
>
>  
>
>>The Sanskrit noun "karman" means action, though people tend to forget
>>    
>>
>this. Hence, the term itself is really not any more metaphysical than
>the English "action".
>  
>
>>In discussions like the one we're having, the following test might
>>    
>>
>prove useful: when you run across (or feel tempted to make) a claim
>employing the term karman/karma, replace each instance of the term
>with the English "action(s)" (or, given that this is a list devoted
>to Buddhism, "intentional action(s)").
>  
>
>>Does the claim still makes sense? If not, then it probably ought to
>>be revised.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>R. Nance
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>	
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>buddha-l mailing list
>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>
>
>  
>