Kamma is action by body, speech and mind. Obviously, commiting the act in physical form would be incredibly detrimental kamma, but fatasizing over it is also kamma, but by actions of the mind.
Volition (cetanā), O monks, is what I call action (cetanāhaṃ bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi), for through volition one performs the action by body, speech or mind… There is karma (action), O monks, that ripens in hell… Karma that ripens in the animal world… Karma that ripens in the world of men… Karma that ripens in the heavenly world… Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening during the life-time (diṭṭha-dhamma-vedanīya-kamma), ripening in the next birth (upapajja- vedanīya-kamma), ripening in later births (aparāpariya- vedanīya kamma)…
— AN 6.63
Yes, but in the case of the Trolley Problem, to not do something because you have no intention, you would need to be both blind and deaf to not recognize, and therefore not cognize, that there are a number of people about to die a painful death.
Sure it is; trying to establish the precise kamma of an act is itself trying to establish the precise moral weight of these actions, and that’s assessed based on its consequences.
…and in fact, since kamma results can affect people differently based on their ethical development, the kamma at a particular time & place is impossible to address with any precision at all.
Ah, no. I meant the purpose of the discussion is not about trying to predict kamma-results, but rather to understand how kamma and intention work.
At least that’s what I think the discussion is about, since I haven’t read the many posts that were published while I was writing (of which, if there is conjecture of kamma-results, then I would agree with you).
Let’s put it this way, in relation to the title of the thread…
The Road to Hell is any actions based on (with the volition of) greed, hate or delusion, regardless of results of those actions. Wrong views, based on delusion, being the worst of all.
What? I mean it is always an option if you are there and you are physically able to kill. Even if I say killing is not an option, it means that I considered it and said: ‘Oh no, I am not doing it, never, because I don’t consider killing an option’. So I am still making a decision based on reasoning, right? For you not to generate any kamma you should either not be aware that a person in front of you can be killed at all (you shouldn’t think something like ‘can I attack him?’) or not think about what you should do in that situation at all, this question should not cross your mind even for a millisecond, because otherwise you will still make a decision just to sit still (‘What can I do? Oh, only sit still, this is what I’ll do’).
… so I will do nothing. Is it a decision based upon the intention to follow the Right View? It is. If I do not have any ignorance and follow the Right View automatically, it means I am an arahant, so the kamma problem doesn’t exist for me at all. If I am not an arahant, I have ignorance, so I make decisions
Just to be clear, I don’t have such a belief. But imagine a situation where a deluded man is having an unwholesome intentions and paying a woman for sex and then she buys medicine for her ill father or feeds her kids. Or to take a less drastic examples, you kill a tiger on a hunt and then find out she was going to attack a little puppy or a little child, or what have you. So you had a bad intention, acted on it and your action had at least some very positive results (the father has medicine, kids are not hungry for the next day, the child is alive and well, etc.), and my question was what the kamma of such an action would be in the broadest sense and what is the scriptural support for it.
Thanks Dave, I know For me, the bulk of this thread has been trying to prove to Felipe that Ven. Brahmali was wrong to bring up the bus example I am even more grateful for the links, but I am not sure that the entire article would be applicable to the original Buddhist understanding of cetana because linguistics and stuff. I think that trying to establish whether this is true would cause even more madness and vexation in me. FInally, thanks for the links to the Salt Crystal sutta! I think that the parable of rich and poor man thrown to prison for theft is now my favourite one in the whole Canon.
Regardless of the action being deemed positive by social standards, if one acts with volition based on greed, hate or delusion, the action is unwholesome and the kamma-result will be unwholesome.
What happens socially and externally is irrelevant.Kamma is created from the mind.
Even if one were to feed 100 dying children in Africa, but if that person had the intention of doing this for unwholesome reasons, the kamma-result would be unwholesome because the intentions were unwholesome.
Again, sorry for being a stickler, but do you know about a scriptural example of such a thing? I mean, I agree 100% and it all sounds plausible, but still?
Monks, as low-down thieves might carve one limb from limb with a double-handled saw, yet even then whoever sets his mind at enmity, he, for this reason, is not a doer of my teaching. MN21
One could say: But I killed them without enmity, but that would not be correct for I would have to say: the life of this being is bellow the life of this other beings in order to kill.
Once your mind understands this, the thought of killing will not cross your mind, therefore it is not a decision. Just like one does not think about killing their family when hungry. It is not a decision that we make at every mealtime.
You are not an arahant by having Right View, but it is a good start.
The key here is in the step of making a decision, if you do this then yes, it is an action. One must go past this and not even consider killing. That is a very good point.
As long as you consider killing and you decide not to do it, you are creating kamma, good kamma in this case. But eventually, you will be beyond this, in the fourth type of kamma described earlier in this conversation.
It took me 45 minutes to write my initial post (and I did provide some references). Finding all the references for every single point would probably take me 3 or so hours.
You’ll have to take it as being possibly true and looking into it yourself.
I understand your point, I am the same with looking for this types of references.
Use this example: lets say you fed them poison, you wanted to kill them, but with a full belly, you wanted them to have a nice last meal, but in the end, you think they are better dead and the world is better without them.
Do you think there is any good result in this action? Maybe a small fraction because after all, you wanted them to have a nice last meal.
But, if you feed them actual food, you want them to be fine and healthy, but you do this just to avoid paying taxes so you have more cash and be able to buy drugs, prostitutes and party all day long, then we have a third kind of kamma, both bright and dark.
You will probably not find an exact reference for this, but as @samseva says, you will find the references, trust me, I am the same, if there is no support in the EBT I reject it, plain and simple.
There comes a guy to you and tells you: ‘Pleae give me money so that I can feed these starving childre, if you don’t do it, they die’. And you have exactly this sum of money. There comes a second guy and asks you for the same sum. Half the sum won’t cut it for both of them, because in that case someone will likely die. Then your son comes to you and tells you he needs this exact sum for his college education. What would be the kamma you’re generating, broadly speaking? Do we generate bad kamma each time we refuse spare money for charity causes or don’t give it to beggars?
For this post, see this passage that has been mentioined twice so far:
Puṇṇa, there are four kinds of action proclaimed by me after realising them for myself with direct knowledge. What are the four? There is dark action with dark result; there is bright action with bright result; there is dark-and-bright action with dark-and-bright result; and there is action that is neither dark nor bright with neither-dark-nor-bright result, action that leads to the destruction of action.
— MN 57
Dark action = Based on unwholesome volition (akusala-cetanā) = Rooted in either greed, hate or delusion (or a combination of these).
Bright action = Based on wholesome volition (kusala-cetanā) = Rooted in either greedlessness, hatelessness or undeludedness (or a combination of these).
And this passage:
Volition (cetanā), O monks, is what I call action (cetanāhaṃ bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi), for through volition one performs the action by body, speech or mind… There is karma (action), O monks, that ripens in hell… Karma that ripens in the animal world… Karma that ripens in the world of men… Karma that ripens in the heavenly world… Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening during the life-time (diṭṭha-dhamma-vedanīya-kamma), ripening in the next birth (upapajja- vedanīya-kamma), ripening in later births (aparāpariya- vedanīya kamma)…
— AN 6.63
For me, the bulk of this thread has been trying to prove to Felipe that Ven. Brahmali was wrong to bring up the bus example 
I am even more grateful for the links, but I am not sure that the entire article would be applicable to the original Buddhist understanding of cetana because linguistics and stuff. I think that trying to establish whether this is true would cause even more madness and vexation in me. FInally, thanks for the links to the Salt Crystal sutta! I think that the parable of rich and poor man thrown to prison for theft is now my favourite one in the whole Canon.