What is Intention in Kamma?

This is an old post; revised February 21, 2018

1. Here is an email that I received in early September, 2015 (I am just showing the relevant part of the email):

• In the above comment, emphasize in bold is mine to indicate each key point. I think what is meant by that first statement is that having adverse thoughts is the bad thing and it does not matter to whom it was directed.
• The second point is that if one doesn’t know the status of the person (or being) it was directed to, then one must not be responsible for the kammā.

2. I am sure many others had similar thoughts on this or somewhat related issues, so I wanted to share the reply with everyone. By the way, we have a new discussion forum (since December 2017) to discuss such questions; see, “Forum“.

• Figuring out how kammā works (with certainty) can be done by only a Buddha. This is one of those things that are discernible only to a Buddha. But as I have pointed out before, we can figure out some general trends that are compatible with the laws that the Buddha has clearly stated; see, “What is Kamma? – Is Everything Determined by Kamma?“. Here we analyze in a bit more depth.

• Since killing a normal human is not an ānantariya kammā, it is clear that the “strength of the kammā” depends on who is being killed.
• Kamma vipāka for committing any other offense, is similar. Hurting an Arahant would be million -fold grave compared to hurting a normal human. Thus, logically, hurting an Anāgāmi, a Sakadāgāmi, a Sōtapanna would have corresponding levels of consequences.
• The “value of a life” depends on the “mental status” of that lifeform. Any life is not the same. This is why it is not possible to compare the life of an animal with that of a human; even among animals there are huge variations, and we can easily see that a gorilla or a dog is “more sentient” than a worm.
• However, we must keep in mind that we all had been born a lowly worm; so even though we need to keep in mind that there is a variation, we should never take the life of ANY sentient being intentionally (unnecessarily).

6. Regarding the issue of “how would one know” the status of the living being who is affected by one’s actions, the “nature” would know.

• This point of “we are all inter-connected” is now proven by quantum mechanics: “Quantum Entanglement – We Are All Connected“.
• This is a key factor in understanding kammā/vipāka, and is my next project. I believe that quantum mechanics can show this at an even deeper level.

7. Let us consider some prominent examples from the Tipiṭaka.

• It is clearly stated that the reason  ascetic Siddhartha had to strive for 6 years and undergo such hardships to attain the Buddhahood is that he had said some insulting things regarding the Buddha Kassapa in a previous life. At that time, Siddhartha was a wealthy person by the name Jotipala, and had a friend called Gatikara who listened to desanas from Buddha Kassapa and became an Anāgāmi. Gatikara tried to persuade Jotipala to go and listen to Buddha Kassapa, but Jotipala kept refusing, saying “I do not want to go and listen to the bald-headed monk”.
• That was the kammā that forced ascetic Siddhartha to undergo such hardships before attaining the Buddhahood. This is a very clear example that one DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW that one is insulting a Buddha to accumulate the corresponding kammā vipāka.
• In fact, there are 11 more such kammā vipāka that brought about adverse effects to the Buddha Gotama even after attaining the Buddhahood. Three of those were for bad kammā committed against Pacceka Buddhas. It is especially not possible to recognize a Pacceka Buddha as such, because they appear during times when a Sammā Sambuddha (like Buddha Gotama) is not present, and they cannot teach Dhamma to others.
• Therefore, NOT KNOWING the status of the person (or the being) against whom the wrong act was done DOES NOT come into play. These are not rules made up by the Buddha; Buddha himself was not immune from those laws. Kammic laws are natural laws, just like laws of gravity; a Buddha just discovers them.

• Any akusala kammā results from INTENDING TO DO one or more of the dasa akusala.
• A given akusala kammā has several stages (each has a different number of steps). For example, in the case of taking a life, the following are the four steps: there must be a living being, one must know that it is alive and one must have the intention to kill that being, one plans and carries out the necessary actions to kill, and finally the living being ends up dead. If all necessary steps are completed, then it is called a kammā patha.
•  As the number of completed steps keep increasing, the severity of the vipāka will increase; when all are complete and a kammā patha is done, the kammā vipāka will be strongest possible.

• The human being in question could be a normal human or a Noble person, say an Arahant. There is no way for the killer to know whether the victim is an Arahant. Thus the resulting kammā vipāka could be quite different depending on the “status of the victim” and the killer may even not know the severity of the crime committed.
• Now, suppose the killer went through the first four steps, but the victim survived. Now the killer will not face an ānantariya kammā because he/she merely injured an Arahant even though the intention was to kill. Still, the strength of the kammā vipāka will be much higher compared to injuring a normal human.
• Kamma vipāka are based on natural laws. Their enforcement is automatic. Just like gravity operates regardless of the person involved, so do kammā vipāka.

• The “intention” is one (or more ) of the dasa akusala.
• The weight of kammā depends on the “mental status” of the victim, REGARDLESS of whether the person committing the kammā knew about that “mental status”.
• The weight of the kammā also depends on how many of the necessary steps were actually completed. Just having an intention is not enough to yield the full impact.

• The intention was to kill (one of the dasa akusala), and the victim turned out to be X’s own father. Thus even though X did not intend to kill his father, X has now acquired an ānantariya kammā.

• Here, there was no intention of killing a living being. Thus even though the action resulted in the father’s death, not even an akusala kammā was committed let alone an ānantariya kammā.

• When we encounter someone anywhere, just by looking at him/her, we cannot say whether he/she is a Noble person or not.
• But we can definitely see the difference between an animal and a human being. A human life has much more worth than any animal life; it is extremely difficult get a “human bhava“.
• Even among the animals, we can see that some animals are “more sentient” than others, even though there are no clear guidelines.
• However, one definitely does not need to worry about “accidental killings” of insects, for example, who may get crushed under one’s feet as one walks around.

14. Going back to another statement in the comment of the reader: “..What makes offending an enlightened being so much worse is the fact that it requires a very perverted mind state to act evil towards someone like that”.

• The problem is that most times we do not know whether a given person is a Sōtapanna or not. And most people may not have even heard “who a Sōtapanna is”.
• Yet, the consequences will be the same whether one knew or not.

• The Buddha said, “cetana ham Bhikkave kammaṃ vadami“. Thus, what determines the type of kammā is the cetana. So, we need to look at the cetana cetasika carefully.
• Cetana is translated sometimes as “intention” and other times as “volition”. It is hard to distinguish the difference between the two; volition seems to incorporate “more personal attributes” and thus may be better. But neither is really a correct translation for cetana.
• As I point out below, cetana is not “intention” in the sense that it is not the cetana cetasika that determines the nature of a citta. Cetana combines the cumulative effect of many cetasika that come into play. This is why sometimes it is best to keep the Pāli terms and understand their meanings.

This issue is being discussed at the discussion forum at, “Adding Kamma vs. Receiving Vipaka” and “Clarification of definition – “Anantariya”“.