Intent is everything...or nothing
vinlyn
Colorado...for now Veteran
There have been quite a few conversations here over the past couple of years that in regard to karma, intent is everything.
That sentiment came to mind as I read the following news article: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-deputy-robert-bates-says-he-had-no-desire-take-n343386
Robert Bates is sorry.
Robert Bates had no INTENTion of shooting the victim.
Robert Bates said he just made a mistake.
Robert Bates "has lost sleep and been unable to concentrate since it happened". Poor baby.
But meanwhile, despite the INTENT, and the sorrow, and the lack of sleep, and the problem concentrating, another man is DEAD forever. No longer a father to help raise a teenage boy. No longer a family member. Just dead. DEAD.
So I'm sorry, any idea that intent is everything, which has so often been said here, is pure rubbish.
And, just in case you're thinking that I don't seem to have much compassion for Robert Bates, maybe a 73 year old man ought not be wielding a gun and a taser in "volunteer service" playing at being a cop. Maybe a 73 year old man ought to know his limitations, and as an older man, I know people my age (almost 10 years younger than Robert Bates) have physical and coordination limitations.
And yes, I know I'm being provocative.
Comments
I think there can be a wide difference between a stated intent after the event that may be tempered by it's apparent consequences and ones original intent.
Do you think it would be any difference if he had intentionally shot him with a gun? I think there would be a difference. So intention is at least something.
How can you have right intent without heedfullness?
What else is he going to say? He's being charged. If he didn't want to kill someone he should not have been trying to arrest a gun dealer.
Perhaps trying to understand intent should be confined to ones own experiences. Trying to be mindful of our own intentions.
Jeffrey and robot, I think you are pointing in the right direction. Yes, @Jeffrey, intent is "something", but heedfullness, @robot, if I am reading you right, is equally necessary. Right thought + right action.
Intention is not everything, its only part of the whole, you can have a good intention but suddenly you made a mistake, you forgot it, you didnt focus, and woops you are in maras trap.
You need many tools to hold your good intentions in check, it comes and goes and are never staibel, our defilments and bad habits are very strong.
Robert Bates is a victim for maras trap, this situation was not his intention, but woops it changes so fast and he shot the victim...what happend?? He didnt focus, his animal instinct was suddenly stronger then his "good will".
To bad for him and the victim, he was headless in few seconds and thats enough
Intention is everything. You intended to shoot a person or else your finger would not have pulled the trigger! Every voluntary action(as opposed to reflex) has to be preceded by intention. And every action has consequences including mental action ie. Intention. If an honest mistake has been made the consequences are lesser.
Volunteering to be a cop is a voluntary action.
@pegembara, I think you didn't read the article, which is fine. But I do agree with your last sentence.
Intention Its just a starter, we also need concetration, awarness, sati and panna to hold this good intention in check.
We can also have reminders around us, iam writing a diary just to remember better my "good" intentions. So inention is not everything.
but on the other hand, iam setting up new intentions every second...so maybe its everything?
The diffcult part is to always be aware of what you actually are doing and thinking.
I think of it terms of mental development. If you are heedless but have good intent at least you can learn. But if you have a bad intent there is no possibility to learn unless your hostility is changed. So like if you have a food company and you release something unhealthy unintionally when you learn that it is unhealthy then you change your product to be healthy. But if you originally had the intention to screw people over even if you learned it was unhealthy you wouldn't care because your intention is bad to start with. So basically it takes a lot longer to progress in right action/speech/livelyhood.
I agree...who wouldn't. But, tragic accidents are plentiful and death is definitely something the Buddha told us to get used to - in so many words. It is even said that when we get in our vehicles to think of them as weapons. These sorts of things have happened in the past, happening as we speak, etc.
But I don't think we're really talking about true accidents. Yes, things happen. A tire blows, a car crosses the line and causes a head on collision. Pure accident, probably unpreventable.
We're talking more about things like the middle school girl at my school who got angry during a field hockey game, threw her stick, struck a boy in mouth and broke off his 2 front teeth at the gum line. She kept saying, "I didn't intend to hurt him", but her bad decision led to another student having to have oral surgery and a life with 2 false teeth.
Yes, of course, but 'accidents' come in small, medium and large! In my book anyway.
I believe we are all dumb little Urkels -- the proverbial accident waiting to happen.
If we as Buddhists or Buddha admirers are far from perfect, what about those who don't practice mindfulness or have even heard of mindfulness and if they did didn't care to hear about it, blah blah blah, and you originally were talking about the cop who shot someone accidentally with a gun instead of a taser. That'd be a size L. Yeah.
Well.. we could talk about the consequences of having a gun oriented society...Gee I wonder what that outcome would likely to be?
Or if someone who has spent a lot of time practicing his fast draw from his hip gets surprised when in the heat of the moment that muscle memory takes over.
Or how a heavy 2 lb black Glock with the safety on the trigger that is located in a hip holster can get mixed up for a 1/2 lb plastic yellow banded Tazer with the safety in a different location, a totally different handle and was located in a chest holster. I have handled both and it is like mistaking a hammer for a screwdriver.
Karmic Intent does not just have to be limited to the moments of the Robert Bates killing.
You're right, @how, karmic intent doesn't have to be limited, but it's an important one and at least it's somewhere to start. I can think of all kinds of things to improve these types of situations, can't you? I bet you can. I don't think people in the United States want to be known as sloppy, but by and large, our institutions are just that. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, etc. Training...lots of training, intensive stuff, by serious people for serious people. Now, that would be nice.
I guess the fact that I don't go about my life wielding weapons reinforces my intent in everyone's eyes.
@Silver
I don't think Vinlyn was trying to figure out how to make the situation better.
Vinlyn was talking the falsity of folks saying that karmic intent is everything and was using the example of the Robert Bates fiasco to prove it. Very old testament in my view.
The problem with that argument is it only works by believing that those consequences only occurred from the karmic intent of the moment of that gun discharge.
I pointed out the wider range of karmic intent that possibly allowed this tragedy to happen to illustrate how** limited**, assessing the karmic consequences of that event strictly to the decision of that moment, actually is.
Well then 'this' isn't about intent.
It's about lying about intent. And since we can't know if another person is lying about their intent, all we can do is be honest with ourselves about our own intent. Which can be just as difficult, at times, as reading another person's mind.
I think more just misunderstanding karma. The law of karma is only descriptive of action and consequence for the individual concerned.
Yes, it's a major difference, but only for the person carrying out the action. The effect on the victim is the same.
Correct, and Right Intention is only one factor of the 8-fold path. But that's a separate issue to the law of karma.
I've often had good intentions, but unfortunately the world seems to judge me on my actions.
Exactly
Seems to me the consequences of the action aren't what determines the karma. For example, a gangbanger popping a cap in someone's @$$ will be very different karma from a cop shooting someone with no actual intent to kill them. The consequence will be the same, but the karma that the person makes will be quite different. Similar to how accidentally killing a bug on the sidewalk will be different karma than intentionally stepping on it. Same exact consequence, very different karma. The intention alone is what makes the karmic difference. If that policeman actually didn't mean to kill the guy, he will be making very different karma from that gangbanger. Intention is everything with regards to what kind of karma the person doing the action will make for themselves, even though the consequences might be exactly the same. You can't judge what kind of karma is made just by the consequences IMO. I believe the Buddha said "Intention is everything, with regards to the kind of karma that you are making". Keeping the statement in this context is most important when it comes to understanding what the Buddha meant by "intention is everything" IMO. To say this cop, even if he did not intend to kill the person, will be making the same karma as the gangbanger, doesn't really make any sense IMO.
True, angrily throwing a stick at someone will make bad karma. However, angrily throwing a stick at someone, with the intention to permanently harm the for life, will be different karma. The first is bad, the 2nd is worse. Intention alone is what causes it to go from bad to worse.
Exactly, the law of karma describes the consequences for the person doing the action, not the consequences for others. It's analogous to the legal differences between murder, manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter, these apply to the perpetrator only.
Let say you work as an operator in a factory were they produce deadly gas, and the owner of the factory will sell this gas to a concetration camp (forexample auswitch), and you have only heard few rumors were they will use it, but are not 100 % sure. Your intention is just to do a good job at this factory, and recive your payment every month...
Will you then be guilty for killing those people, since you made this gas and was a part of the prosess...
Giving intent a crown-jewel status strikes me as iffy at best. This is because, whatever the intent, it always relates to the future and, the last I checked, the future CAN NOT be known.
Predicating your life on what cannot be known is possible -- we all take risks -- but imagining that intent (however angelic) will have a fershur lock on the future is delusional, don't you think?
Isn't this why there is some impact to the old saw, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions?"
OMG, every once in a blue moon, my grandma used to say that phrase (road to hell paved...) and it used to drive me crazy because it made me feel guilty because gosh - what normal person doesn't have good intentions, so I did a double-take - my mind did spin on that one because even now, I hear it and think it's devilish to even say it out loud! It still is driving me bats. I truly get 100% all the previous stuff you said, though.
@silver -- I imagine you're a little older now and can look with less irritation/anguish on the times in your own life, little and large, when the "best laid plans of mice and men do oft times go awry."
Intention is important in respect of the law of the dhamma and the law of the land. In respect of the former, a practitioner is expected not only to have non harmful intentions but to act with skillful mean to achieve to actualise and implement those non harmful intentions. In respect of the law of the land, if you lack the intention, or mens rea, to commit a specific crime you can still be found guilty (usually, but not always) of a lesser crime because the outcome of your acts, even if not intended, were reasonably forseeable or you were simply reckless or indifferent to the consequences of your actions. So, it can be criminal to be negligent or reckless. As the mind is, so are the actions of that mind.
From my own life experience, I think actions are more important than intentions. I sometimes lie to guys who are new to A.A. and I'll tell them that some other meeting I know is full of good looking women. It won't be (probably), but if the lie gets them to the meeting, they might get something they need to hear. And they'll hopefully be sober.
So these guys might go to a meeting with all the wrong intentions, but it may produce a positive result.
And the bonus is that I get a smile of it too the next time I see the newcomer. I'm so naughty sometimes.
Good thread everyone. Interesting and well laid out POV's.
A person who has seen into their true nature realises that the truth is always adequate and as a consequence that there is no need to lie.
Yes Actions are most important, you can often trick your self to do some boring work, and add some fun in to it at the same time.
Actions are not most important. What is most important is the ability not to act, not to react. The ability to abide peacefully in the current moment without restlessness.
Ok @Mumonkanman ....I've seen what cha got...and im not impressed. You may have some claimed
authority...but ur social skills could use some work. And thats the truth. Have a nice day.
Oops. You guys read into the real incident something that wasn't there. She didn't throw the stick at the other kid. She simply threw the stick. It happened to hit him in the face.
@silver said: OMG, every once in a blue moon, my grandma used to say that phrase (road to hell paved...) and it used to drive me crazy because it made me feel guilty because gosh - what normal person doesn't have good intentions, so I did a double-take - my mind did spin on that one because even now, I hear it and think it's devilish to even say it out loud! It still is driving me bats.
It's an odd saying really, because presumably the road to heaven is also paved with good intentions. I suppose it means that having good intentions isn't enough?
Intention isn't 'action'.
DO, or DO NOT. There IS no "Try".
In other words, intending to do something indicates sloth, (1 of the 7 deadly sins) and an unwillingness to perform the act.
So "I'll get round to it, I promise" and then letting the wife mow the lawn/put the trash out/pick up the dirty clothes, is the Intention leading to 'hell'.
Hell, in this case, being having your ear chewed of by the whiny mutterings and complaints of the wingeing Missus, as she mows the lawn/puts out the trash/picks up the dirty clothes.
When going to hell (sometimes on the kind suggestion of others) I always skip and sing 'we are off to see the wizened, the wonderful wizened of Australia' or some such ditty ...
The results of good intention from book burning clerics to science denying dharma jihadists to benevolent banking and well meaning politicos are indeed often hell manifested. We can find examples all around and in our own experience.
However people with mal intent, to do intentional crime, cause suffering as a nihilistic empowerment etc. Oh boy, they are the most extreme example of 'ignorance'. Very sad
It is why the intention to do good, is totally dependent on the situation and capacity of the intentional. The result is a manifestation of what is possible.
I personally support the hell initiative to use smaller pitch forks. Not much of an improvement but the limitations of the situation have to be considered.
The intention of those of us inclined, trained and empowered is to do more intentional good. I would suggest these efforts of good intent 'pave our way to Nirvana'.
I don't know much about "Nirvana," but I do know that I prefer nice people to nasty ones and as a result I do what I can -- not always successfully -- to be nice.
But I also like honesty and my experience is that "intentional good" is a sticky wicket if ever there were one.
Consider, for example, the doctor's Hippocratic Oath, a series of ethical standards reworked over the centuries and often known for a guiding principle stated as "first, do no harm."
It once made me curious why the oath didn't read, "do good" and chose to state the principle from the harm point of view. I asked a philosophy professor about it and he sat me down for a longish talk which examined the pitfalls of doing "good." And his was just an intellectual approach. How much more tricky might a 'real' approach be?
"Do no harm" underscores, for me, the imperatives of attention and responsibility. "Do good" runs the very real risk of sounding good and ducking the consequences when things turn out badly. "Do no harm" suggests to me that my actions may be "good" or "bad," but that "good" and "bad" take a back seat to the willingness to shoulder the responsibility for whatever action I choose to take.
Yes, it's nice to be nice. It's nice to make nice. And it may be fun or consoling to imagine that a well-intended activity will have a nourishing outcome. But I like to keep an eye skinned for the willingness to swoon without reflection.
On the other hand, of course, swooning is pretty delicious... like "Nirvana," maybe?
Oddly, the same Wikipedia article states this (I have removed the link references for ease of reading):
However, on reading both the Classic AND Modern versions, I firmly believe that 'do good' is emphatically implied.
But intention often precedes action. That's why Right Intention is a factor of the 8-fold path.
Yes, it always precedes Action - in the 8FP.
Sadly, the main point of the quotation is that all too often (outside the parameters and guidance of said path), it doesn't.
In other words, the basic fact that people whose intentions are never followed through, means that they are on the 'slippery slope'.
I MEANT to go to church, I MEANT to be a good Christian, I MEANT to follow the 10 Commandments, I MEANT to be nice, be kind, be generous, be charitable.... I just never got round to it....
around to it - just being helpful
Either is correct, but 'around' is more common in American English.. ("I'm going round to Jim's house...." "I'm going around to Bill's neighborhood...")
Those colonials have ruined the Queen's bleedin' English.
Yes, and the influence is pernicious. If @lobster's fallen for it, what hope for the rest of us...?!
@federica -- I stand corrected. Thanks. And still I think the principle is better stated as "do no harm." I guess I like it better because it seems to demand a more rigorous examination and responsibility.
But that's just me.
It also sounds comfortingly close to some versions of the 1st precept....