Morally unwholesome deeds knowing the consequences but without unwholesome intentionsShould 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?

How to back up a running remote server?

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

How to replace the "space symbol" (squat-u) in listings?

You look catfish vs You look like a catfish

Is creating your own "experiment" considered cheating during a physics exam?

What does 「再々起」mean?

Is it possible to measure lightning discharges as Nikola Tesla?

Airbnb - host wants to reduce rooms, can we get refund?

Examples of non trivial equivalence relations , I mean equivalence relations without the expression " same ... as" in their definition?

Was it really necessary for the Lunar Module to have 2 stages?

Why is the origin of “threshold” uncertain?

What word means to make something obsolete?

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

How to stop co-workers from teasing me because I know Russian?

How can Republicans who favour free markets, consistently express anger when they don't like the outcome of that choice?

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

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

What does YCWCYODFTRFDTY mean?

Can a creature tell when it has been affected by a Divination wizard's Portent?

A non-technological, repeating, visible object in the sky, holding its position in the sky for hours

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

How to determine the actual or "true" resolution of a digital photograph?

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

Can fracking help reduce CO2?



Morally unwholesome deeds knowing the consequences but without unwholesome intentions


Should 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 31 mins ago







      Brian Díaz Flores

















      asked 2 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
            16 mins 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
            11 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
            5 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
            12 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
            6 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
            16 mins 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
            11 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
            5 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
            16 mins 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
            11 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
            5 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 20 mins 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
            16 mins 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
            11 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
            5 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
            16 mins 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
            11 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
            5 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
          16 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
          16 mins 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
          11 mins 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
          11 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
          5 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
          5 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
            12 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
            6 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
            12 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
            6 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 19 mins 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
            12 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
            6 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
            12 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
            6 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
          12 mins 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
          12 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
          6 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
          6 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

          Log på Navigationsmenu

          Creating second map without labels using QGIS?How to lock map labels for inset map in Print Composer?How to Force the Showing of Labels of a Vector File in QGISQGIS Valmiera, Labels only show for part of polygonsRemoving duplicate point labels in QGISLabeling every feature using QGIS?Show labels for point features outside map canvasAbbreviate Road Labels in QGIS only when requiredExporting map from composer in QGIS - text labels have moved in output?How to make sure labels in qgis turn up in layout map?Writing label expression with ArcMap and If then Statement?

          Nuuk Indholdsfortegnelse Etyomologi | Historie | Geografi | Transport og infrastruktur | Politik og administration | Uddannelsesinstitutioner | Kultur | Venskabsbyer | Noter | Eksterne henvisninger | Se også | Navigationsmenuwww.sermersooq.gl64°10′N 51°45′V / 64.167°N 51.750°V / 64.167; -51.75064°10′N 51°45′V / 64.167°N 51.750°V / 64.167; -51.750DMI - KlimanormalerSalmonsen, s. 850Grønlands Naturinstitut undersøger rensdyr i Akia og Maniitsoq foråret 2008Grønlands NaturinstitutNy vej til Qinngorput indviet i dagAntallet af biler i Nuuk må begrænsesNy taxacentral mødt med demonstrationKøreplan. Rute 1, 2 og 3SnescootersporNuukNord er for storSkoler i Kommuneqarfik SermersooqAtuarfik Samuel KleinschmidtKangillinguit AtuarfiatNuussuup AtuarfiaNuuk Internationale FriskoleIlinniarfissuaq, Grønlands SeminariumLedelseÅrsberetning for 2008Kunst og arkitekturÅrsberetning for 2008Julie om naturenNuuk KunstmuseumSilamiutGrønlands Nationalmuseum og ArkivStatistisk ÅrbogGrønlands LandsbibliotekStore koncerter på stribeVandhund nummer 1.000.000Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq – MalikForsidenVenskabsbyerLyngby-Taarbæk i GrønlandArctic Business NetworkWinter Cities 2008 i NuukDagligt opdaterede satellitbilleder fra NuukområdetKommuneqarfik Sermersooqs hjemmesideTurist i NuukGrønlands Statistiks databankGrønlands Hjemmestyres valgresultaterrrWorldCat124325457671310-5