Intentionally but unknowingly?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
Sha Bac
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue May 17, 2022 7:37 am

Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Sha Bac »

Is it possible to kill intentionally but unknowingly? Suppose a person has power to kill mentally, but they do not realize it. They have murderous thoughts with intention to kill, but do not realize that these forces/thoughts are efficacious. Are they responsible for the death of the person? Even if it was intentional, it wasn't understood or believed to be an act, but rather a thought. But suppose the "victim" dies. What does that mean? It's basically killing with intention but unknowingly. So what does that mean?

Or, suppose a person keeps a journal and writes angry things about somebody with the intention of hurting them. Kind of like working out on a punching bag and thinking about a person you dislike. Suppose the person finds the journal and reads it and is hurt by what was written in it. Is there karma there?
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by SarathW »

Buddha said that the intention (Cetana) is karma.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
justindesilva
Posts: 2602
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by justindesilva »

Adam1234 wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 1:18 am Is it possible to kill intentionally but unknowingly? Suppose a person has power to kill mentally, but they do not realize it. They have murderous thoughts with intention to kill, but do not realize that these forces/thoughts are efficacious. Are they responsible for the death of the person? Even if it was intentional, it wasn't understood or believed to be an act, but rather a thought. But suppose the "victim" dies. What does that mean? It's basically killing with intention but unknowingly. So what does that mean?

Or, suppose a person keeps a journal and writes angry things about somebody with the intention of hurting them. Kind of like working out on a punching bag and thinking about a person you dislike. Suppose the person finds the journal and reads it and is hurt by what was written in it. Is there karma there?
The 1st verse of dammapada explains that
The mind comes in the forefront of all deeds and actions of a person and if one acts with evil intentions ill results will follow him as a cart follows the ox drawing the cart .
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Bundokji »

You can think of it as degrees of determinations and certainties. Suppose someone takes the first precept to intentionally refrain from taking life. When he takes the precept, he has no guarantee/certainty that he wont kill, but that he is not determined to kill.

How to test his determination not to kill? suppose he was walking in the forest and encountered a snake, then fear took control and he killed it. When he went to the forest, his intention was not to kill snakes, but he did so against his previous determinations (the precept). He did not know, before hand, that he is going to encounter a snake and kill it, nor had the intention to do so. He would most likely experience regret for killing the snake even though his action can be described as intentional and with knowledge. Such descriptions are mere linguistic technicalities, but bear little meaning on how he feels about snakes in general or whether he wishes them harm.

Now, suppose someone leaves home and goes to the forest with the intention of seeking snakes to kill them. The degree of determination in this case is considered higher by virtue of the time, effort and risks taken to hunt for snakes. Even in this case, there are no guarantees or certainties that he would find snakes and succeed in killing them.

Just think about the Jains who sought to kill Ven Maha Moggallana. He escaped few times using his psychic powers, but they kept on returning. It is said that an old kamma committed by the Venerable in previous life proved more powerful than his psychic powers, so he could not escape anymore and the jains eventually succeeded in killing him.

As to the relationship to kamma, it is said that when Ven. Moggallana used his psychic powers to escape, he did it out of compassion for the Jain gang, not out of desire to prolong his life. His use of psychic powers to escape lacked certainty, which adds a poetic note to the whole saga. I guess this is why we are encouraged to contemplate the impermanence of all determinations rather than speculating about the exact workings of kamma.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Sha Bac
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue May 17, 2022 7:37 am

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Sha Bac »

Bundokji wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 12:08 pm You can think of it as degrees of determinations and certainties. Suppose someone takes the first precept to intentionally refrain from taking life. When he takes the precept, he has no guarantee/certainty that he wont kill, but that he is not determined to kill.

How to test his determination not to kill? suppose he was walking in the forest and encountered a snake, then fear took control and he killed it. When he went to the forest, his intention was not to kill snakes, but he did so against his previous determinations (the precept). He did not know, before hand, that he is going to encounter a snake and kill it, nor had the intention to do so. He would most likely experience regret for killing the snake even though his action can be described as intentional and with knowledge. Such descriptions are mere linguistic technicalities, but bear little meaning on how he feels about snakes in general or whether he wishes them harm.

Now, suppose someone leaves home and goes to the forest with the intention of seeking snakes to kill them. The degree of determination in this case is considered higher by virtue of the time, effort and risks taken to hunt for snakes. Even in this case, there are no guarantees or certainties that he would find snakes and succeed in killing them.
So if he kills the snake out of fear, that's a lesser karma than if he went out looking for snakes? Is that what you mean? What if he really hated snakes, and thought "if I ever found a snake I'd kill it". And then fear overtook him and he actually killed it? So in between the two examples you gave. He had an underlying prejudice to snakes, but didn't go looking for them.

So, if fear overtakes him and he kills a snake, is that pre meditated? If he wasn't looking for snakes, but killed it out of fear, that's intentional but not premeditated. Is that right? So how does all that work?

So suppose a person had power to kill mentally, but they didn't know that. And in the heat of the moment in a state of anger they will a person to die...that's kind of like the snake example...I mean the person couldn't die if there was no intention. But it was unbeknownst to the agent that they had the intention.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Bundokji »

Adam1234 wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 5:58 pm So if he kills the snake out of fear, that's a lesser karma than if he went out looking for snakes? Is that what you mean? What if he really hated snakes, and thought "if I ever found a snake I'd kill it". And then fear overtook him and he actually killed it? So in between the two examples you gave. He had an underlying prejudice to snakes, but didn't go looking for them.

So, if fear overtakes him and he kills a snake, is that pre meditated? If he wasn't looking for snakes, but killed it out of fear, that's intentional but not premeditated. Is that right? So how does all that work?
I would not equate kamma with determinations. Determinations in my mind is synonym to preparation or mediation. For example, in a court of law, and as a general rule, a premeditated murder is often more punishable than a murder than happened accidentally or on the spot (manslaughter). The logic behind it is that in the case of premeditated murder, the culprit had more time to reflect and deter himself from acting on the initial thought/intention, whereas manslaughter leaves less time for reflection and more room for compulsion. As such, determination is a measure of the degree the "will" was involved in action (hence it is determinism vs freewill).

The above worldly state of affair warrants some cosmic justice system to operate in parallel, in case the culprit gets away with his crime. As such, for justice to be impeccable, kamma became widely understood as cosmic justice system. The Buddha did not deny outright that actions have consequences in a way that might escape the untrained eye, but emphasized uncertainty (or impermanence) as the major drawback of this state of affairs, hence in his definition of dukkha, he described both pleasure and pain as suffering. This is why, the Buddha's teaching on kamma has to do with his path as kamma that is neither bright nor dark, not kamma as heavenly justice system.
So suppose a person had power to kill mentally, but they didn't know that. And in the heat of the moment in a state of anger they will a person to die...that's kind of like the snake example...I mean the person couldn't die if there was no intention. But it was unbeknownst to the agent that they had the intention.
Mentalism is nothing but worldly non-sense repackaged. In the world, too much ethereality is indicative of mental illness. Only central authorities/governments are allowed to use such rhetoric (state religion), but not individuals. Individuals are supposed to parrot what they read in scriptures (thus have i heard). It is tempting to interpret the Buddha's teachings in terms of converting people from materialism to mentalism, but one cannot exist without the other. If you are a mentalist, and you believe that through the power of mind one can kill another being, then you are still a materialist in disguise.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Sha Bac
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue May 17, 2022 7:37 am

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Sha Bac »

Bundokji wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:23 pm
I would not equate kamma with determinations. Determinations in my mind is synonym to preparation or mediation. For example, in a court of law, and as a general rule, a premeditated murder is often more punishable than a murder than happened accidentally or on the spot (manslaughter). The logic behind it is that in the case of premeditated murder, the culprit had more time to reflect and deter himself from acting on the initial thought/intention, whereas manslaughter leaves less time for reflection and more room for compulsion. As such, determination is a measure of the degree the "will" was involved in action (hence it is determinism vs freewill).
Ok. So if determination is a measure of will, is WILL synonymous with INTENTION?

If a person has a handgun and a raccoon charged them, the person impulsively shoots the raccoon. Is the karma the same as if they had been hunting the raccoon with the intention to kill it? I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how it would be the same. I suppose the person could shoot the raccoon out of fear, without intention to kill it.

Regarding mental murder, I've found multiple sources which assert this is possible. I guess my question is, does intention entail determination? I mean what is intention without determination? But when mahamogallana tried to use his powers, it didn't work. So when he used his powers and they worked, he didn't know they would work. But here it is: if they didn't work, he must not have been able to apply his mind in the same manner. Something was MISSING from his determination such that his powers failed.

So in a person unbeknownst of their capabilities, how does intention manifest without knowledge? And if intention did manifest without knowledge (determinations), what is that karma?
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Bundokji »

Adam1234 wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 8:52 pm Ok. So if determination is a measure of will, is WILL synonymous with INTENTION?
Will is often considered of higher echelon, such is the nature of metaphysics. For example, people often say "god's will" rather than "god's intention" due to his "greatness". Also, the "will" is often associated with creation and power, whereas intention is often described as "underlying" that you have to dig deep somehow to figure it out. They are not synonymous, but rather interchangeable.
If a person has a handgun and a raccoon charged them, the person impulsively shoots the raccoon. Is the karma the same as if they had been hunting the raccoon with the intention to kill it? I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how it would be the same. I suppose the person could shoot the raccoon out of fear, without intention to kill it.
Killing out of fear is often excused in the sense that it compromises control, and control is a measure of accountability. Again, if you believe kamma to be a cosmic justice system, then you would be interpreting the operations of kamma in the same way you interpret worldly affairs, while using religious language/connotations.
Regarding mental murder, I've found multiple sources which assert this is possible.
I also read once that half truths are the worst type of lying. One could argue that all murders begin somehow in the mind, quite poetically.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Sha Bac
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue May 17, 2022 7:37 am

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Sha Bac »

Bundokji wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:11 pm Killing out of fear is often excused in the sense that it compromises control, and control is a measure of accountability. Again, if you believe kamma to be a cosmic justice system, then you would be interpreting the operations of kamma in the same way you interpret worldly affairs, while using religious language/connotations.
Are you saying its excused in dhamma, or worldly systems? And also, killing out of fear: is that actually intention to kill? Or is it ACTING OUT OF FEAR which LEADS TO killing? What of intention without determination? You said they're interchangeable, but does one entail the other?

Regarding mental murder I have a similar question about control. The act is RIGHT THERE, and without understanding/determination, is intention accomplished?
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Bundokji »

Adam1234 wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:31 pm Are you saying its excused in dhamma, or worldly systems? And also, killing out of fear: is that actually intention to kill? Or is it ACTING OUT OF FEAR which LEADS TO killing? What of intention without determination? You said they're interchangeable, but does one entail the other?
I do not know what is excused in dhamma, probably its better to ask a monk. My input is how i view these terms used in worldly affairs. The interchangeability between the terms is due to the following:
The past (intention), reverends, is one end. The future (the will) is the second end. The present (choices) is the middle. And craving is the seamstress.
The colored are my additions. In the present, you can remember the past and imagine the future. In the past, when it appeared as present, you could do the same. Same thing about the future when it appears as present. This is what i meant by interchangeable. They are not the same, and they are not disconnected in meaning, considering that we crave for meaning.
Regarding mental murder I have a similar question about control. The act is RIGHT THERE, and without understanding/determination, is intention accomplished?
Which act? wishing for someone to die on the mental level happens all the time if you observe, and it does not lead to physical death. The inevitability of physical death, as an observable phenomena, can easily turn into believing that wishing someone to die caused the inevitable.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Sha Bac
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue May 17, 2022 7:37 am

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Sha Bac »

Bundokji wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:57 pm Which act? wishing for someone to die on the mental level happens all the time if you observe, and it does not lead to physical death. The inevitability of physical death, as an observable phenomena, can easily turn into believing that wishing someone to die caused the inevitable.
"viāpka-jā iddhi.

Sometimes there are humans with such powers that can cause others to drop dead. King Vattagāmani-abhaya ground his teeth because of some misconduct by his brother and caused his brother to drop dead. These are kamma-vipāka-jā iddhi. Prior to achieving the state of stream-entry, Vessavana used to frown at the accused brought before him and they would drop dead, as would mustard seeds burst when heated. These are called kamma-vipāka-jā iddhi. They occur both on the wholesome and unwholesome sides. If on the wholesome side they arise as a result of wholesome desire, energy, consciousness and investigation and on the unwholesome side they are the result of unwholesome desire, energy and consciousness. There is no [wise] investigation on the unwholesome side. "

So you can understand where I'm coming from. Of course everybody wishes someone to drop dead at some point. But those are just thoughts. But what about when it is willed, and it wasn't understood to be an act, but a thought. So, intention without determination, or something.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Bundokji »

Adam1234 wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 10:39 pm "viāpka-jā iddhi.

Sometimes there are humans with such powers that can cause others to drop dead. King Vattagāmani-abhaya ground his teeth because of some misconduct by his brother and caused his brother to drop dead. These are kamma-vipāka-jā iddhi. Prior to achieving the state of stream-entry, Vessavana used to frown at the accused brought before him and they would drop dead, as would mustard seeds burst when heated. These are called kamma-vipāka-jā iddhi. They occur both on the wholesome and unwholesome sides. If on the wholesome side they arise as a result of wholesome desire, energy, consciousness and investigation and on the unwholesome side they are the result of unwholesome desire, energy and consciousness. There is no [wise] investigation on the unwholesome side. "

So you can understand where I'm coming from. Of course everybody wishes someone to drop dead at some point. But those are just thoughts. But what about when it is willed, and it wasn't understood to be an act, but a thought. So, intention without determination, or something.
What makes those powers distinctive from, let us say, someone shooting someone else with a gun? That they do not have to use a gun?

Do not you think that negating physical means, in a way, makes those iddhis rooted in materialism (they cannot be explained without negating physical means - hence rooted in it). Also if you observe the underlying value of such claims: that human life is valuable and should be protected, hence those people are quite powerful, exercising their will over the highest value, which is human life. Of course, people with such powers, being mentalists and too ethereal and mind made, would take human life lightly to their own misfortune.

What kind of meaning to be sought or salvaged from all of this if i may ask? If i were to feel too ethereal, i would try to bring myself back to earth, where being ordinary can be quite rare.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Sha Bac
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue May 17, 2022 7:37 am

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Sha Bac »

Bundokji wrote: Sat Jun 03, 2023 11:04 pm What makes those powers distinctive from, let us say, someone shooting someone else with a gun? That they do not have to use a gun?

Do not you think that negating physical means, in a way, makes those iddhis rooted in materialism (they cannot be explained without negating physical means - hence rooted in it). Also if you observe the underlying value of such claims: that human life is valuable and should be protected, hence those people are quite powerful, exercising their will over the highest value, which is human life. Of course, people with such powers, being mentalists and too ethereal and mind made, would take human life lightly to their own misfortune.
Well what makes those powers distinct is that it can happen ANY TIME, through a single malevolent act of will. They don't even need to do anything regarding determinations. I mean do you realize how catastrophically volatile that is? And suppose a person has those powers without knowing, and they blithely KILL SOMEBODY. Of course they think nothing of it because they don't believe they have powers, and then the "victim" croaks! That's why I was asking about the interrelatedness of determinations and karma.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by pegembara »

Intention (Cetana) is karma.
There also action by body, speech and mind but it all begins in the mind actually.
How can an intention be unknown?
What is unknown is the result of that intention AT the moment that the intention was formed which is strictly speaking vipaka(not kamma).

To rephrase this. There is intention or kamma and whether that kamma will bear fruit(vipaka) will depend on many causes and conditions.
Kamma or intention---> Vipaka or resultants
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Sha Bac
Posts: 1180
Joined: Tue May 17, 2022 7:37 am

Re: Intentionally but unknowingly?

Post by Sha Bac »

pegembara wrote: Sun Jun 04, 2023 1:54 am Intention (Cetana) is karma.
There also action by body, speech and mind but it all begins in the mind actually.
How can an intention be unknown?
Not so much that intention is unknown but that the means for carrying it out are nebulous. If a person carries out an act with the mind while under the impression that mental acts are mere thoughts, intention to act is confused with intention to think. So there is an intended act unknowingly being carried out.
Post Reply