Motivation is not Intention (or is it?)

[Hwbao]

@stu

I guess (with regard to the definitions of motivation and intention above) we can always split a plan-of-action (intention) into smaller steps to see if there is any point where we are breaking precepts, thereby exposing good intentions (with good results) and bad intentions (with bad results). At the level of reasons-for-doing-something (motivation) it is hard to see the harm (or good) that one is doing because the underlying plan is hidden.

See buddha teaching is beyond duality, in every bad things there’s good things and so in every good things there’s bad things.

If you still see things as good and bads, your good intention might cause bad results. No intention is still better for you’re training yourself to go beyond duality, higher state of consciousness, able to see the beginning and end of everything.

When there’s a flood in thailand, many volunteers from the west flew asap to help those people. Some of them go to ajahn chah temples to confront them of being so close but no actions.
Do you also judge those monks?

[Mat]

@stu

Very good. I guess we are playing statistics here when we are asked to reflect and alter our behaviour. We can’t know for sure what will happen, but we can know what has happened previously, and this helps us to stack the odds in favour of ending up in a calmer place, which in turn aids further (better?) reflection and progression on the path.

It is an illusion that we have complete control over every outcome of our actions. This in turn leads to much regret when things don’t work out the way we want it to, if not outright anger. Many causes lead to arriving at a particular intention and furthermore there will be more external causes affecting the final outcome, so there is no ‘me’ or ‘my’ outcome here. It is just an illusion -of ‘my intention’.

Reflect → moral action [test] → review [feedback] → adjust [practice- remove defilement, wiser acts, etc …learn] → better actions next time when same situation presents itself, or even if it doesn’t defilements will be less, wiser/more compassionate responses learnt and this allows transmitting/teaching others as well, which is the role of a spiritual friend to others.

Its a bit like throwing a paper airplane- you can throw it, but its hard to say where it will land -but you do your best. But there’s not much point in holding oneself responsible for that which is absolutely beyond one’s control. It’s just causes and effects.

IMO both motivation (Samma sankhappa?) and intention (cetana) must be as pure ‘as possible’. But the Jains decided ritual suicide is the best way for this to be achieved, while the Buddha didn’t think that was pragmatic (or effective), which meant ‘perfect’ morality couldn’t be achieved, compared to the Jains. This leads me to think that the ‘Relay of Chariots’ (ratavineeta sutta) depicts how one takes the ‘chariot’ of morality only as far as it will take you to the chariot of samadhi, and not more- that is, worrying too much about morality and that which is beyond your control or morality via hidden ‘holier than thou’ defilements, or morality that defeats peace of mind (Samadhi) -such as having to commit suicide, self punishment/flagellation, excessive guilt is counter to the Path. It’s a middle path of sorts. The Jains tortured their bodies to get rid of bad karma, while the Buddhists meditated on brahmavihara, jhanas, vipassana etc. which not only had a similar effect but was effective in stopping samsara- because as long as ‘we exist’ others beings have to ‘die for it’, one way or the other. Nibbana is the ultimate moral path, in many ways.

with metta

[stu]

@Hwbao

Do you also judge those monks?

Yes. In fact I don’t just judge them, I pre-judge them. And I don’t only pre-judge those monks, I pre-judge all beings. You might say that my position is one of extreme prejudice. And the way that I pre-judge all beings is in this way: All beings are doing the best that they can, according to their causes and conditions. Everyone is trying their hardest, everyone is doing their best! Those monks were doing their best, those westerners complaining to them were doing their best. You are doing your best and I am doing my best. How could any being (or any ‘thing’) be any different than what they are at any point in time? That would be impossible, and why would I ask for the impossible? By pre-judging all beings in this way - myself included, I find it possible to quickly forgive all beings every (supposed) transgression. We are all ‘let off’ in advance, because we are all doing the best we can. Please note that I’m not saying that beings can’t do any better in the future. With the right training, we can do better, with the wrong training we can do worse. There can be change; there will be change. But, right there, at the time when the doing was being done, we were all doing the best that we could.

@Hwbao

everything you do, you’re not doing it for yourself but for others around you

I like the model from SN47.19

And how do you look after others by looking after yourself? By development, cultivation, and practice of meditation.

And how do you look after yourself by looking after others? By acceptance, harmlessness, love, and kindness.

[stu]

@laurence

We wake up when we get out of the way. Let go now - be kind now - it’s not a matter of time.

Would you agree that there is a process involved in bringing about the deed “get out of the way” or the deed “Let go”? And further that this (as with all processes) is a time bound process?

[laurence]

I really don’t know what time is or, if it really is anything at all. Sorry, the nature of what we call time is not something I can help you with. I wouldn’t know who to point to - who could crack that nut open.

My understanding of what I call the ‘living’ Dhamma - the Dhamma that needs to be lived to be realised - is based on my own journey in what we are calling ‘practice’. On that basis it seems clear that there is a process or progression that leads into natural stillness and the new-vision this enables.

Disenchantment was important in this journey to insight. Inspiration is also important and the guidance and help of the wise.

Everything begins to settle down and a state of astonishment and wonder begins to permeate the being.

Reaction free attention that is sustained - unbroken - lands in a place before the sense of self arises. This is entirely fresh and new territory.

[Brahmali]

@stu

So who is correct? My teacher all those years ago, or those who suggest that the quality of kamma is dependant on your reason for doing the deed?

I think the two views can be reconciled.

Let’s look at your example of George W. Bush’s “war on terror”. His stated intention is to end terrorism. His motivation for doing so might in theory be entirely wholesome, in that he may simply want to end suffering. (In practice, I believe his intention is more likely to be greyish, but I’ll leave that aside for now.)

He then needs to decide how to end terrorism. If he decides to end terrorism by killing people, then this is a sub-intention with an unwholesome motivation. You can only kill people by either having ill will towards them or being indifferent to their suffering, the latter being a form of vihiṃsa, the third kind of wrong intention. If, on the other hand, he decides to end terrorism by helping reduce poverty and social problems in societies in which terrorism thrives, then his sub-intention derives from a wholesome motivation.

My point is that our actions are often complex, involving a series of intentions, each one driven by different or a set of overlapping intentions. Each of these intentions will come with a particular motivation, which will decide its ethical quality. It is only by continuously monitoring our motivations that we can be sure all our intentions are roughly on the right track.

This way of viewing kamma is actually supported by the suttas, for instance at AN 3.69. This sutta states that any action rooted in lobha, dosa, or moha (desire, ill will, and confusion) is unwholesome. These three qualities are motivations that colour intentions, not intentions in their own right. They are called hetu, “causes”, in Pali.

So it seems to me that the two viewpoints are not different, but merely different angles on the same issue.

@stu

At the level of reasons-for-doing-something (motivation) it is hard to see the harm (or good) that one is doing because the underlying plan is hidden.

We can never be absolutely sure that our actions will be helpful to others. We try our best, but sometimes we fail. This is precisely why motivation is such an important factor in understanding kamma. If our intention is imbued with a wholesome motive, then it does not matter if ultimately we fail to do good. This does not exempt us from evaluating how we can best be of help, but this outlook is very helpful in a world where information is never perfect.

[Mat]

Wholesome intentions may or may not have positive results but are likely to be weighted to being positive. Unwholesome intentions may or may not have negative results but are weighted to being negative.

Craving, aversion and delusion is the conscious or subconscious bed of emotions and incorrect information that unwholesome intentions arise from. This is the first point where karma is generated (cetanaham bhikkhave kammam vadami).

Karma acts in a subtle and complex manner, hence the point of death karma doesn’t determine absolutely everything but the next life is determined by a summation of what karma occurred in this life, as I see it.

with metta

[laurence]

@Brahmali

You can only kill people by either having ill will towards them or being indifferent to their suffering

It’s easy to see how a soldier or a murderer may have ill-will towards their enemy or their victim. It’s easy to imagine how a soldier or a murderer may be indifferent to the suffering of their victim.

What about a doctor who is asked to end the life of a patient seeking euthanasia? In some instances, when euthanasia was illegal almost everywhere, some doctors administered lethal doses of drugs that they new would lead to the death of the patient.

The doctor behaving in this way was not indifferent to the suffering of their patient. Their intention was to end the suffering of their patient and, they were acting in accord with their patients request.

The same with many vets. They don’t have ill-will towards the animals they euthanase. They don’t seem to kill animals because they hate them. That’s not their motivation - not even close!

It would be an improvement in warfare if they had major technological improvements in some weaponry. One day they may have sci-fi type stun-guns or, robots doing the fighting.

I would think a lot of soldiers - and armed police - would prefer to use nonlethal weaponry if that is possible. Police use electric stunners if its possible and pepper-spray.

It may be the case that strong ideological adversaries in a war may have a hatred of the enemy but many soldiers may just be following orders and trying to stay alive. They may be driven by a desire to stay alive and less so, by hatred of the so-called enemy.

Most of us seem to recognise a difference between killing in self-defence and, killing as an overt act of aggression.

Self defence is about self-preservation. There may not be a hatred of an aggressor. Instead, there is an awareness of a clear and present danger and an intention to eliminate the threat.

In a situation like this there may be no ill-will or indifference to the suffering of an aggressor. It may be a situation where it’s a choice between killing or, being killed.

A violent aggressor in this situation may be motivated to terminate a life - with extreme prejudice.

One kills in order to preserve life - under duress - while the other is motivated to behave the way they do for a different reason.

Some may consider euthanasia as an appropriate course of action because they feel compassion for a dear one/dear ones. They may see the writing on the wall and don’t wish to be a burden on others when their condition worsens.

I understand that being cared for by others can be a wholesome situation for everyone involved - that’s not the point. The point is, the motivation behind the intention to stop living this life.

[brooks]

Perhaps, in some instances, motivation is more general and gross whereas intention can be more subtle, persistent and specific. Here’s a passage from DN 23 that addresses when two beings have a similar, initial motivation to make merit, but whose ongoing, more subtle intentions differ. Their different ongoing intentions behind roughly the same actions cause each person to reap different fruit.

5. On the Brahmin Student Uttara
   Then the chieftain Pāyāsi set up an offering for ascetics and brahmins, for paupers, vagrants, travelers, and beggars. At that offering such food as rough gruel with pickles was given, and heavy clothes with ball-tails. Now, it was a brahmin student named Uttara who organized that offering. When the offering was over he referred to it like this: “Through this offering may I be together with the chieftain Pāyāsi in this world, but not in the next.” Pāyāsi heard of this, so he summoned Uttara and said: “Is it really true, dear Uttara, that you referred to the offering in this way?” “Yes, sir.” “But why? Don’t we who seek merit expect some result from the offering?” “At your offering such food as rough gruel with pickles was given, which you wouldn’t even want to touch with your foot, much less eat. And also heavy clothes with ball-tails, which you also wouldn’t want to touch with your foot, much less wear. Sir, you’re dear and beloved to me. But how can I reconcile one so dear with something so disagreeable?” “Well then, dear Uttara, set up an offering with the same kind of food that I eat, and the same kind of clothes that I wear.” “Yes, sir,” replied Uttara, and did so.

So the chieftain Pāyāsi gave gifts carelessly, thoughtlessly, not with his own hands, giving the dregs. When his body broke up, after death, he was reborn in company with the gods of the Four Great Kings, in an empty palace of acacia. But the brahmin student Uttara who organized the offering gave gifts carefully, thoughtfully, with his own hands, not giving the dregs. When his body broke up, after death, he was reborn in company with the gods of the Thirty-Three.

Is there anything else that can be gleaned from this sutta regarding motivation and intention?