Morally unwholesome deeds knowing the consequences but without unwholesome intentionsCan you criticise or...
Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics
What is the strongest case that can be made in favour of the UK regaining some control over fishing policy after Brexit?
What gives an electron its charge?
Was it really necessary for the Lunar Module to have 2 stages?
Feels like I am getting dragged in office politics
How to create an ad-hoc wireless network in Ubuntu
Minimum value of 4 digit number divided by sum of its digits
Confusion about capacitors
Find the coordinate of two line segments that are perpendicular
Why is the origin of “threshold” uncertain?
Binary Numbers Magic Trick
Pawn Sacrifice Justification
Where did the extra Pym particles come from in Endgame?
Historically, were women trained for obligatory wars? Or did they serve some other military function?
How does a Swashbuckler rogue "fight with two weapons while safely darting away"?
Colliding particles and Activation energy
Weird result in complex limit
When and why did journal article titles become descriptive, rather than creatively allusive?
Are some sounds more pleasing to the ear, like ㄴ and ㅁ?
What does "rf" mean in "rfkill"?
Why was Germany not as successful as other Europeans in establishing overseas colonies?
Transfer over $10k
Are Boeing 737-800’s grounded?
Given what happens in Endgame, why doesn't Dormammu come back to attack the universe?
Morally unwholesome deeds knowing the consequences but without unwholesome intentions
Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of MahayanaShould a person never lie?What does Buddhism say about the consequences of good and bad behaviour?Is anxiety connected to the three unwholesome roots?What are the karmic consequences of writing horror / fantasy fiction?Sources on the Consequences of insultingIs there a way to hasten the results of bad deedsIs it possible to Take Refuge in the Three Jewels, but still learn spiritual wisdom from teachers in other religions?Why is “idle speech” one of the ten unwholesome actions?What if there is no rebirth but karma is not eradicated by meditation and the path?
As far as I understand (of course I may be wrong), every act done voluntarily is born from some specific kind of intentions, and according to the nature of that intention, the act can contribute to perpetuate dukkha or to its eradication.
What happens when one acts without any amount of aversion nor passion, doing an action which in most cases is considered almost inseperable from evil intentions and almost objectively inmoral, let's say, consciously killing a child or raping somebody, while knowing the consequences?
Can those acts actually be executed without any amount of evil intentions? Is that even possible?
Thanks in advance for your time!
karma intention
add a comment |
As far as I understand (of course I may be wrong), every act done voluntarily is born from some specific kind of intentions, and according to the nature of that intention, the act can contribute to perpetuate dukkha or to its eradication.
What happens when one acts without any amount of aversion nor passion, doing an action which in most cases is considered almost inseperable from evil intentions and almost objectively inmoral, let's say, consciously killing a child or raping somebody, while knowing the consequences?
Can those acts actually be executed without any amount of evil intentions? Is that even possible?
Thanks in advance for your time!
karma intention
add a comment |
As far as I understand (of course I may be wrong), every act done voluntarily is born from some specific kind of intentions, and according to the nature of that intention, the act can contribute to perpetuate dukkha or to its eradication.
What happens when one acts without any amount of aversion nor passion, doing an action which in most cases is considered almost inseperable from evil intentions and almost objectively inmoral, let's say, consciously killing a child or raping somebody, while knowing the consequences?
Can those acts actually be executed without any amount of evil intentions? Is that even possible?
Thanks in advance for your time!
karma intention
As far as I understand (of course I may be wrong), every act done voluntarily is born from some specific kind of intentions, and according to the nature of that intention, the act can contribute to perpetuate dukkha or to its eradication.
What happens when one acts without any amount of aversion nor passion, doing an action which in most cases is considered almost inseperable from evil intentions and almost objectively inmoral, let's say, consciously killing a child or raping somebody, while knowing the consequences?
Can those acts actually be executed without any amount of evil intentions? Is that even possible?
Thanks in advance for your time!
karma intention
karma intention
edited 41 mins ago
Brian Díaz Flores
asked 2 hours ago
Brian Díaz FloresBrian Díaz Flores
574110
574110
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
I think the doctrine says there are three unwholesome roots: i.e. passion, aversion -- and ignorance (or delusion).
It's also possible to do things accidentally -- but that's not what you're asking about.
See also e.g. this answer about lying -- but maybe that's not without passion, nor considered "objectively immoral", nor without consequences.
It's hard for me to imagine another case, other than these.
- I think you're trying to talk about a "dispassionate killer" -- I guess killers can appear to be dispassionate, but I'm not sure a killer (a real person) can be actually dispassionate except in fiction, though perhaps practised at controlling their emotions.
- Another case might be a "sociopath" -- maybe they act for a reason of their own though, e.g. passion rather than aversion. Or a psychosis -- misunderstanding reality. I'm not really equipped to judge that.
- I'm not sure about animals. I think they're understood as being passionate, but perhaps unreasoning. I'm not sure that the "lower" animals have a theory of mind which allows them to see others as "sentient beings" (and immoral to harm them), instead of simply moving objects (which might be killed for food).
This isn't a very good answer -- not based on much personal experience nor references.
I think that's because I tried to map the question -- "is it even possible?" -- to the doctrine, and didn't really succeed very well. So I think the answer might be: "in general, no".
Thanks Chris for your answer! I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices. If you see the world as non-dual, killing might not be seen as "good" or "bad", nor as "kusala" nor "akusala". I wanted to know if such logic is based on the suttas or if it's reasonable or possible according to our current scientific evidence. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
26 mins ago
I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices
Perhaps you might have said so in the question. I can't really comment on that, from experiences or references (though maybe everyone has heard of some cases which are publicly understood as harmful).
– ChrisW♦
21 mins ago
I didn't want to write that without being sure about the logic behind tantra. I'm absolutely ignorant about tantric practices in general, so I didn't want to express my question based in mere hearsay, lack of information or misunderstanding. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
15 mins ago
@BrianDíazFlores I've read of e.g. drinking a small amount of alcohol (which Buddhists may consider "objectively immoral") -- not in order to get drunk, but in order to abandon an attachment to rites and rituals (i.e. the 5th precept in this case). That might be seen as relatively harmless too though -- killing people, and so on, even drinking regularly, seems to me a different category. I'm not very familiar with even the whole Mahayana doctrine, see e.g. Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana.
– ChrisW♦
9 mins ago
add a comment |
Only harming others or oneself unknowingly can be done without evil intentions. It is not possible to intentionally harm others without having greed anger and delusion in the mind. Harmfulness is just the natural/scientific result of having evil intentions in the mind. And being gentle, good, harmless, happy, peaceful is the result of having a pure mind. Mindfulness and goodness support eachother, just like negligence/suffering and evil support eachother.
Killing, raping, stealing, cheating.. Abusing/harming partners, coworkers, family members, other living beings.. Constantly lying, manipulating people for selfish reasons or being an active internet troll etc.. The list can be very long. These actions all makes people's minds more mixed up and makes it impossible to realize Nibbana in one life time or maybe in countless of life times. In ultimate reality there is no judgement, no good or bad, no up and down. But these unwholesome actions naturally and inevitably make people more worlding, more greedy, angry and delusional. Make them suffer more internally and externally.
That's why some people's(even some meditators) disregarding the consequences of unwholesome actions(because the objectivity of the ultimate reality) is wrong because these actions have long lasting and heavy consequences for humans:
The Tangle by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
1
Thanks for your answer! As I wrote to Chris under his response, I wanted to know if what I've heard is the reasoning behind some tantric practices was true or logically possible. It seems that to some practitioners, intention can be totally separated from the deed itself, and I wanted to know if that's possible. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
22 mins ago
Yes, some practitioners are not aware that intention and actions are not seperate from eachother and both intention and actions have natural results.
– Murathan1
16 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "565"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33089%2fmorally-unwholesome-deeds-knowing-the-consequences-but-without-unwholesome-inten%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think the doctrine says there are three unwholesome roots: i.e. passion, aversion -- and ignorance (or delusion).
It's also possible to do things accidentally -- but that's not what you're asking about.
See also e.g. this answer about lying -- but maybe that's not without passion, nor considered "objectively immoral", nor without consequences.
It's hard for me to imagine another case, other than these.
- I think you're trying to talk about a "dispassionate killer" -- I guess killers can appear to be dispassionate, but I'm not sure a killer (a real person) can be actually dispassionate except in fiction, though perhaps practised at controlling their emotions.
- Another case might be a "sociopath" -- maybe they act for a reason of their own though, e.g. passion rather than aversion. Or a psychosis -- misunderstanding reality. I'm not really equipped to judge that.
- I'm not sure about animals. I think they're understood as being passionate, but perhaps unreasoning. I'm not sure that the "lower" animals have a theory of mind which allows them to see others as "sentient beings" (and immoral to harm them), instead of simply moving objects (which might be killed for food).
This isn't a very good answer -- not based on much personal experience nor references.
I think that's because I tried to map the question -- "is it even possible?" -- to the doctrine, and didn't really succeed very well. So I think the answer might be: "in general, no".
Thanks Chris for your answer! I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices. If you see the world as non-dual, killing might not be seen as "good" or "bad", nor as "kusala" nor "akusala". I wanted to know if such logic is based on the suttas or if it's reasonable or possible according to our current scientific evidence. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
26 mins ago
I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices
Perhaps you might have said so in the question. I can't really comment on that, from experiences or references (though maybe everyone has heard of some cases which are publicly understood as harmful).
– ChrisW♦
21 mins ago
I didn't want to write that without being sure about the logic behind tantra. I'm absolutely ignorant about tantric practices in general, so I didn't want to express my question based in mere hearsay, lack of information or misunderstanding. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
15 mins ago
@BrianDíazFlores I've read of e.g. drinking a small amount of alcohol (which Buddhists may consider "objectively immoral") -- not in order to get drunk, but in order to abandon an attachment to rites and rituals (i.e. the 5th precept in this case). That might be seen as relatively harmless too though -- killing people, and so on, even drinking regularly, seems to me a different category. I'm not very familiar with even the whole Mahayana doctrine, see e.g. Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana.
– ChrisW♦
9 mins ago
add a comment |
I think the doctrine says there are three unwholesome roots: i.e. passion, aversion -- and ignorance (or delusion).
It's also possible to do things accidentally -- but that's not what you're asking about.
See also e.g. this answer about lying -- but maybe that's not without passion, nor considered "objectively immoral", nor without consequences.
It's hard for me to imagine another case, other than these.
- I think you're trying to talk about a "dispassionate killer" -- I guess killers can appear to be dispassionate, but I'm not sure a killer (a real person) can be actually dispassionate except in fiction, though perhaps practised at controlling their emotions.
- Another case might be a "sociopath" -- maybe they act for a reason of their own though, e.g. passion rather than aversion. Or a psychosis -- misunderstanding reality. I'm not really equipped to judge that.
- I'm not sure about animals. I think they're understood as being passionate, but perhaps unreasoning. I'm not sure that the "lower" animals have a theory of mind which allows them to see others as "sentient beings" (and immoral to harm them), instead of simply moving objects (which might be killed for food).
This isn't a very good answer -- not based on much personal experience nor references.
I think that's because I tried to map the question -- "is it even possible?" -- to the doctrine, and didn't really succeed very well. So I think the answer might be: "in general, no".
Thanks Chris for your answer! I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices. If you see the world as non-dual, killing might not be seen as "good" or "bad", nor as "kusala" nor "akusala". I wanted to know if such logic is based on the suttas or if it's reasonable or possible according to our current scientific evidence. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
26 mins ago
I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices
Perhaps you might have said so in the question. I can't really comment on that, from experiences or references (though maybe everyone has heard of some cases which are publicly understood as harmful).
– ChrisW♦
21 mins ago
I didn't want to write that without being sure about the logic behind tantra. I'm absolutely ignorant about tantric practices in general, so I didn't want to express my question based in mere hearsay, lack of information or misunderstanding. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
15 mins ago
@BrianDíazFlores I've read of e.g. drinking a small amount of alcohol (which Buddhists may consider "objectively immoral") -- not in order to get drunk, but in order to abandon an attachment to rites and rituals (i.e. the 5th precept in this case). That might be seen as relatively harmless too though -- killing people, and so on, even drinking regularly, seems to me a different category. I'm not very familiar with even the whole Mahayana doctrine, see e.g. Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana.
– ChrisW♦
9 mins ago
add a comment |
I think the doctrine says there are three unwholesome roots: i.e. passion, aversion -- and ignorance (or delusion).
It's also possible to do things accidentally -- but that's not what you're asking about.
See also e.g. this answer about lying -- but maybe that's not without passion, nor considered "objectively immoral", nor without consequences.
It's hard for me to imagine another case, other than these.
- I think you're trying to talk about a "dispassionate killer" -- I guess killers can appear to be dispassionate, but I'm not sure a killer (a real person) can be actually dispassionate except in fiction, though perhaps practised at controlling their emotions.
- Another case might be a "sociopath" -- maybe they act for a reason of their own though, e.g. passion rather than aversion. Or a psychosis -- misunderstanding reality. I'm not really equipped to judge that.
- I'm not sure about animals. I think they're understood as being passionate, but perhaps unreasoning. I'm not sure that the "lower" animals have a theory of mind which allows them to see others as "sentient beings" (and immoral to harm them), instead of simply moving objects (which might be killed for food).
This isn't a very good answer -- not based on much personal experience nor references.
I think that's because I tried to map the question -- "is it even possible?" -- to the doctrine, and didn't really succeed very well. So I think the answer might be: "in general, no".
I think the doctrine says there are three unwholesome roots: i.e. passion, aversion -- and ignorance (or delusion).
It's also possible to do things accidentally -- but that's not what you're asking about.
See also e.g. this answer about lying -- but maybe that's not without passion, nor considered "objectively immoral", nor without consequences.
It's hard for me to imagine another case, other than these.
- I think you're trying to talk about a "dispassionate killer" -- I guess killers can appear to be dispassionate, but I'm not sure a killer (a real person) can be actually dispassionate except in fiction, though perhaps practised at controlling their emotions.
- Another case might be a "sociopath" -- maybe they act for a reason of their own though, e.g. passion rather than aversion. Or a psychosis -- misunderstanding reality. I'm not really equipped to judge that.
- I'm not sure about animals. I think they're understood as being passionate, but perhaps unreasoning. I'm not sure that the "lower" animals have a theory of mind which allows them to see others as "sentient beings" (and immoral to harm them), instead of simply moving objects (which might be killed for food).
This isn't a very good answer -- not based on much personal experience nor references.
I think that's because I tried to map the question -- "is it even possible?" -- to the doctrine, and didn't really succeed very well. So I think the answer might be: "in general, no".
answered 30 mins ago
ChrisW♦ChrisW
30.9k42487
30.9k42487
Thanks Chris for your answer! I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices. If you see the world as non-dual, killing might not be seen as "good" or "bad", nor as "kusala" nor "akusala". I wanted to know if such logic is based on the suttas or if it's reasonable or possible according to our current scientific evidence. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
26 mins ago
I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices
Perhaps you might have said so in the question. I can't really comment on that, from experiences or references (though maybe everyone has heard of some cases which are publicly understood as harmful).
– ChrisW♦
21 mins ago
I didn't want to write that without being sure about the logic behind tantra. I'm absolutely ignorant about tantric practices in general, so I didn't want to express my question based in mere hearsay, lack of information or misunderstanding. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
15 mins ago
@BrianDíazFlores I've read of e.g. drinking a small amount of alcohol (which Buddhists may consider "objectively immoral") -- not in order to get drunk, but in order to abandon an attachment to rites and rituals (i.e. the 5th precept in this case). That might be seen as relatively harmless too though -- killing people, and so on, even drinking regularly, seems to me a different category. I'm not very familiar with even the whole Mahayana doctrine, see e.g. Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana.
– ChrisW♦
9 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks Chris for your answer! I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices. If you see the world as non-dual, killing might not be seen as "good" or "bad", nor as "kusala" nor "akusala". I wanted to know if such logic is based on the suttas or if it's reasonable or possible according to our current scientific evidence. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
26 mins ago
I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices
Perhaps you might have said so in the question. I can't really comment on that, from experiences or references (though maybe everyone has heard of some cases which are publicly understood as harmful).
– ChrisW♦
21 mins ago
I didn't want to write that without being sure about the logic behind tantra. I'm absolutely ignorant about tantric practices in general, so I didn't want to express my question based in mere hearsay, lack of information or misunderstanding. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
15 mins ago
@BrianDíazFlores I've read of e.g. drinking a small amount of alcohol (which Buddhists may consider "objectively immoral") -- not in order to get drunk, but in order to abandon an attachment to rites and rituals (i.e. the 5th precept in this case). That might be seen as relatively harmless too though -- killing people, and so on, even drinking regularly, seems to me a different category. I'm not very familiar with even the whole Mahayana doctrine, see e.g. Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana.
– ChrisW♦
9 mins ago
Thanks Chris for your answer! I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices. If you see the world as non-dual, killing might not be seen as "good" or "bad", nor as "kusala" nor "akusala". I wanted to know if such logic is based on the suttas or if it's reasonable or possible according to our current scientific evidence. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
26 mins ago
Thanks Chris for your answer! I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices. If you see the world as non-dual, killing might not be seen as "good" or "bad", nor as "kusala" nor "akusala". I wanted to know if such logic is based on the suttas or if it's reasonable or possible according to our current scientific evidence. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
26 mins ago
I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices
Perhaps you might have said so in the question. I can't really comment on that, from experiences or references (though maybe everyone has heard of some cases which are publicly understood as harmful).– ChrisW♦
21 mins ago
I ask this because I've heard that that's the reasoning behind some tantric practices
Perhaps you might have said so in the question. I can't really comment on that, from experiences or references (though maybe everyone has heard of some cases which are publicly understood as harmful).– ChrisW♦
21 mins ago
I didn't want to write that without being sure about the logic behind tantra. I'm absolutely ignorant about tantric practices in general, so I didn't want to express my question based in mere hearsay, lack of information or misunderstanding. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
15 mins ago
I didn't want to write that without being sure about the logic behind tantra. I'm absolutely ignorant about tantric practices in general, so I didn't want to express my question based in mere hearsay, lack of information or misunderstanding. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
15 mins ago
@BrianDíazFlores I've read of e.g. drinking a small amount of alcohol (which Buddhists may consider "objectively immoral") -- not in order to get drunk, but in order to abandon an attachment to rites and rituals (i.e. the 5th precept in this case). That might be seen as relatively harmless too though -- killing people, and so on, even drinking regularly, seems to me a different category. I'm not very familiar with even the whole Mahayana doctrine, see e.g. Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana.
– ChrisW♦
9 mins ago
@BrianDíazFlores I've read of e.g. drinking a small amount of alcohol (which Buddhists may consider "objectively immoral") -- not in order to get drunk, but in order to abandon an attachment to rites and rituals (i.e. the 5th precept in this case). That might be seen as relatively harmless too though -- killing people, and so on, even drinking regularly, seems to me a different category. I'm not very familiar with even the whole Mahayana doctrine, see e.g. Can you criticise or improve Ven. Bodhi's description of Mahayana.
– ChrisW♦
9 mins ago
add a comment |
Only harming others or oneself unknowingly can be done without evil intentions. It is not possible to intentionally harm others without having greed anger and delusion in the mind. Harmfulness is just the natural/scientific result of having evil intentions in the mind. And being gentle, good, harmless, happy, peaceful is the result of having a pure mind. Mindfulness and goodness support eachother, just like negligence/suffering and evil support eachother.
Killing, raping, stealing, cheating.. Abusing/harming partners, coworkers, family members, other living beings.. Constantly lying, manipulating people for selfish reasons or being an active internet troll etc.. The list can be very long. These actions all makes people's minds more mixed up and makes it impossible to realize Nibbana in one life time or maybe in countless of life times. In ultimate reality there is no judgement, no good or bad, no up and down. But these unwholesome actions naturally and inevitably make people more worlding, more greedy, angry and delusional. Make them suffer more internally and externally.
That's why some people's(even some meditators) disregarding the consequences of unwholesome actions(because the objectivity of the ultimate reality) is wrong because these actions have long lasting and heavy consequences for humans:
The Tangle by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
1
Thanks for your answer! As I wrote to Chris under his response, I wanted to know if what I've heard is the reasoning behind some tantric practices was true or logically possible. It seems that to some practitioners, intention can be totally separated from the deed itself, and I wanted to know if that's possible. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
22 mins ago
Yes, some practitioners are not aware that intention and actions are not seperate from eachother and both intention and actions have natural results.
– Murathan1
16 mins ago
add a comment |
Only harming others or oneself unknowingly can be done without evil intentions. It is not possible to intentionally harm others without having greed anger and delusion in the mind. Harmfulness is just the natural/scientific result of having evil intentions in the mind. And being gentle, good, harmless, happy, peaceful is the result of having a pure mind. Mindfulness and goodness support eachother, just like negligence/suffering and evil support eachother.
Killing, raping, stealing, cheating.. Abusing/harming partners, coworkers, family members, other living beings.. Constantly lying, manipulating people for selfish reasons or being an active internet troll etc.. The list can be very long. These actions all makes people's minds more mixed up and makes it impossible to realize Nibbana in one life time or maybe in countless of life times. In ultimate reality there is no judgement, no good or bad, no up and down. But these unwholesome actions naturally and inevitably make people more worlding, more greedy, angry and delusional. Make them suffer more internally and externally.
That's why some people's(even some meditators) disregarding the consequences of unwholesome actions(because the objectivity of the ultimate reality) is wrong because these actions have long lasting and heavy consequences for humans:
The Tangle by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
1
Thanks for your answer! As I wrote to Chris under his response, I wanted to know if what I've heard is the reasoning behind some tantric practices was true or logically possible. It seems that to some practitioners, intention can be totally separated from the deed itself, and I wanted to know if that's possible. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
22 mins ago
Yes, some practitioners are not aware that intention and actions are not seperate from eachother and both intention and actions have natural results.
– Murathan1
16 mins ago
add a comment |
Only harming others or oneself unknowingly can be done without evil intentions. It is not possible to intentionally harm others without having greed anger and delusion in the mind. Harmfulness is just the natural/scientific result of having evil intentions in the mind. And being gentle, good, harmless, happy, peaceful is the result of having a pure mind. Mindfulness and goodness support eachother, just like negligence/suffering and evil support eachother.
Killing, raping, stealing, cheating.. Abusing/harming partners, coworkers, family members, other living beings.. Constantly lying, manipulating people for selfish reasons or being an active internet troll etc.. The list can be very long. These actions all makes people's minds more mixed up and makes it impossible to realize Nibbana in one life time or maybe in countless of life times. In ultimate reality there is no judgement, no good or bad, no up and down. But these unwholesome actions naturally and inevitably make people more worlding, more greedy, angry and delusional. Make them suffer more internally and externally.
That's why some people's(even some meditators) disregarding the consequences of unwholesome actions(because the objectivity of the ultimate reality) is wrong because these actions have long lasting and heavy consequences for humans:
The Tangle by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
Only harming others or oneself unknowingly can be done without evil intentions. It is not possible to intentionally harm others without having greed anger and delusion in the mind. Harmfulness is just the natural/scientific result of having evil intentions in the mind. And being gentle, good, harmless, happy, peaceful is the result of having a pure mind. Mindfulness and goodness support eachother, just like negligence/suffering and evil support eachother.
Killing, raping, stealing, cheating.. Abusing/harming partners, coworkers, family members, other living beings.. Constantly lying, manipulating people for selfish reasons or being an active internet troll etc.. The list can be very long. These actions all makes people's minds more mixed up and makes it impossible to realize Nibbana in one life time or maybe in countless of life times. In ultimate reality there is no judgement, no good or bad, no up and down. But these unwholesome actions naturally and inevitably make people more worlding, more greedy, angry and delusional. Make them suffer more internally and externally.
That's why some people's(even some meditators) disregarding the consequences of unwholesome actions(because the objectivity of the ultimate reality) is wrong because these actions have long lasting and heavy consequences for humans:
The Tangle by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
answered 29 mins ago
Murathan1Murathan1
782147
782147
1
Thanks for your answer! As I wrote to Chris under his response, I wanted to know if what I've heard is the reasoning behind some tantric practices was true or logically possible. It seems that to some practitioners, intention can be totally separated from the deed itself, and I wanted to know if that's possible. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
22 mins ago
Yes, some practitioners are not aware that intention and actions are not seperate from eachother and both intention and actions have natural results.
– Murathan1
16 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Thanks for your answer! As I wrote to Chris under his response, I wanted to know if what I've heard is the reasoning behind some tantric practices was true or logically possible. It seems that to some practitioners, intention can be totally separated from the deed itself, and I wanted to know if that's possible. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
22 mins ago
Yes, some practitioners are not aware that intention and actions are not seperate from eachother and both intention and actions have natural results.
– Murathan1
16 mins ago
1
1
Thanks for your answer! As I wrote to Chris under his response, I wanted to know if what I've heard is the reasoning behind some tantric practices was true or logically possible. It seems that to some practitioners, intention can be totally separated from the deed itself, and I wanted to know if that's possible. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
22 mins ago
Thanks for your answer! As I wrote to Chris under his response, I wanted to know if what I've heard is the reasoning behind some tantric practices was true or logically possible. It seems that to some practitioners, intention can be totally separated from the deed itself, and I wanted to know if that's possible. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
22 mins ago
Yes, some practitioners are not aware that intention and actions are not seperate from eachother and both intention and actions have natural results.
– Murathan1
16 mins ago
Yes, some practitioners are not aware that intention and actions are not seperate from eachother and both intention and actions have natural results.
– Murathan1
16 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Buddhism Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33089%2fmorally-unwholesome-deeds-knowing-the-consequences-but-without-unwholesome-inten%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown