beeblebrox wrote:It's been established that the intention is kamma, but he was asking if this is the same as saying the kamma is intention.
Both of these two statements are very different. Why different? Lyndon gave us this example: red is color, but does that mean the color is (necessarily) red?
All reds are colors, not all colors are reds. This shows very little, however - we need to make sure there is a valid baseline for this comparison.
So let's check. We can agree that all intentions generate kamma of one of the four sorts, but then there is the question: is all kamma the result of intention? Yes. Intending, one does kamma via body, speech, or mind. Nowhere does kamma arise without intention.
Finally, is everything that happens kamma - is everything that happens the result of intention? No. Trees moving in the wind are unrelated to kamma.
The red:color comparison is flawed; 'red' doesn't generate 'color', while 'intention' does indeed generate 'kamma'.