[Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat

[Michael Paris]

Or could intention alone be sufficient to create karma?

I believe Mike Austin gave an example of karma resulting purely from
intention, even though the planned action did not take place.

I'm not up on formal Catholic doctrine, but I believe good intentions
do count as good works. Honest, serious good intentions, of course,
even if circumstances prevent their realization.

And likewise, bad intentions. If I wish a person disgraced, even though
I cannot bring that about, then I bear some responsibility for that
desire. 

I can't provide justification with formal references, but it makes
sense. We are creatures with the capacity to imagine - an extra
dimesion of thought that animals seem to lack. Seems we should use that
carefully.

On a personal note, I dislike villifying even those I despise, e.g.,
certain political figures discussed at length on this list. I simply
feel bad when I act hateful, even in typed words. 


Michael


--- Richard Nance <richard.nance at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/23/05, Michael Paris <parisjm2004 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > I wonder if Buddhist ethics and morality can be discussed in
> English terms, without reference to "karma" and other
semi-metaphysical terms. That might clarify the arguments.
> >

> The Sanskrit noun "karman" means action, though people tend to forget
this. Hence, the term itself is really not any more metaphysical than
the English "action".
>
> In discussions like the one we're having, the following test might
prove useful: when you run across (or feel tempted to make) a claim
employing the term karman/karma, replace each instance of the term
with the English "action(s)" (or, given that this is a list devoted
to Buddhism, "intentional action(s)").
> 
> Does the claim still makes sense? If not, then it probably ought to
> be revised.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> R. Nance



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com