Morally unwholesome deeds knowing the consequences but without unwholesome intentionsCan 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?

Find the coordinate of two line segments that are perpendicular

Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?

What does YCWCYODFTRFDTY mean?

If Earth is tilted, why is Polaris always above the same spot?

What's the metal clinking sound at the end of credits in Avengers: Endgame?

How to set printing options as reverse order as default on 18.04

Did Henry V’s archers at Agincourt fight with no pants / breeches on because of dysentery?

Multiple options for Pseudonyms

Colliding particles and Activation energy

Confused by notation of atomic number Z and mass number A on periodic table of elements

How to create an ad-hoc wireless network in Ubuntu

Pressure to defend the relevance of one's area of mathematics

What does "rf" mean in "rfkill"?

Do I have to worry about players making “bad” choices on level up?

Why does nature favour the Laplacian?

Why does processed meat contain preservatives, while canned fish needs not?

Weird result in complex limit

Why do TACANs not have a symbol for compulsory reporting on IFR Enroute Low Altitude charts?

Why is current rating for multicore cable lower than single core with the same cross section?

Minimum value of 4 digit number divided by sum of its digits

Is it possible to measure lightning discharges as Nikola Tesla?

Reverse the word in a string with the same order in javascript

Morally unwholesome deeds knowing the consequences but without unwholesome intentions

How to back up a running remote server?



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?













1















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!










share|improve this question




























    1















    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!










    share|improve this question


























      1












      1








      1








      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!










      share|improve this question
















      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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago







      Brian Díaz Flores

















      asked 3 hours ago









      Brian Díaz FloresBrian Díaz Flores

      574110




      574110




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          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".






          share|improve this answer























          • 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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour 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
            56 mins ago






          • 1





            @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
            50 mins ago



















          0














          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






          share|improve this answer


















          • 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
            1 hour 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
            57 mins ago











          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
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          1














          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".






          share|improve this answer























          • 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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour 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
            56 mins ago






          • 1





            @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
            50 mins ago
















          1














          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".






          share|improve this answer























          • 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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour 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
            56 mins ago






          • 1





            @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
            50 mins ago














          1












          1








          1







          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".






          share|improve this answer













          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".







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          ChrisWChrisW

          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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour 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
            56 mins ago






          • 1





            @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
            50 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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour 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
            56 mins ago






          • 1





            @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
            50 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
          1 hour 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
          1 hour 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
          1 hour 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
          1 hour 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
          56 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
          56 mins ago




          1




          1





          @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
          50 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
          50 mins ago












          0














          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






          share|improve this answer


















          • 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
            1 hour 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
            57 mins ago















          0














          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






          share|improve this answer


















          • 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
            1 hour 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
            57 mins ago













          0












          0








          0







          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






          share|improve this answer













          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







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour 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
            1 hour 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
            57 mins ago












          • 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
            1 hour 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
            57 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
          1 hour 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
          1 hour 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
          57 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
          57 mins ago

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          ParseJSON using SSJSUsing AMPscript with SSJS ActivitiesHow to resubscribe a user in Marketing cloud using SSJS?Pulling Subscriber Status from Lists using SSJSRetrieving Emails using SSJSProblem in updating DE using SSJSUsing SSJS to send single email in Marketing CloudError adding EmailSendDefinition using SSJS

          Кампала Садржај Географија Географија Историја Становништво Привреда Партнерски градови Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију0°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.340°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.34МедијиПодациЗванични веб-сајту

          Кастелфранко ди Сопра Становништво Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију43°37′18″ СГШ; 11°33′32″ ИГД / 43.62156° СГШ; 11.55885° ИГД / 43.62156; 11.5588543°37′18″ СГШ; 11°33′32″ ИГД / 43.62156° СГШ; 11.55885° ИГД / 43.62156; 11.558853179688„The GeoNames geographical database”„Istituto Nazionale di Statistica”проширитиууWorldCat156923403n850174324558639-1cb14643287r(подаци)