4

I can't understand the role intent has to play when it comes to Karma.

Let's just say I am giving to charity (in line with the norms laid down). But I know at the back of my mind that I am doing good karma, so I will reap benefits - maybe in this lifetime or next one. So does the fact that I am armed with this knowledge negate the act of charity?

In my humble opinion intent should not if it were the above scenario. But then where does one draw the line ? I mean how does the expectation that I will get benefits in this life or next one any different than a quid pro quo arrangement with the said charity's chairman ?

As always will be most helpful to get scripture references.

Artist Formerly Known As CSD
  • 5,202
  • 1
  • 17
  • 46
  • I would beg to differ. Let's say as a man of limited resources I put efforts in helping the most needy people in Africa. However noble my intentions are, and even if I were to assume god as the doer, I would have made a limited impact on people's life in Africa. And in the process I end up neglecting my duties towards parents , spouse and children. So yes, I have got the right intentions but i have not build any good karma or for that matter negate bad karma – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Oct 17 '19 at 16:34

1 Answers1

5

Does intent matter when it comes to Karma?

Yes.

So does the fact that I am armed with this knowledge negate the act of charity?

No, it does not negate the act of charity. In fact, doing a good action with the intent of reaping good karma is one of the reasons for knowing what is Dharma and Adharma and following the scriptures which talk about them.

People want to know how to achieve happiness, and the scriptures provide the means. The scriptures say things like, "One who desires heaven should offer charity." So, the person armed with this knowledge will offer charity so that he can reap the positive karmic fruits. Likewise, the scriptures say things like, "One who murders another goes to hell." And so a person armed with this knowledge who wants to avoid hell will choose not to commit murder.

So because the scripture is telling you to do good actions because you want a particular fruit, it follows that the intent does not negate the fruit acquired.

But then where does intent matter regarding actions?

It matters when you commit sins: actions prohibited by scripture.

When you do a sin intentionally, the punishment is much more severe than if the sin was done unintentionally. Likewise, the penance for a sin committed intentionally is much more taxing than the penance for a sin committed unintentionally.

Manusmriti:

  1. (All) sages prescribe a penance for a sin unintentionally committed; some declare, on the evidence of the revealed texts, (that it may be performed) even for an intentional (offence).

  2. A sin unintentionally committed is expiated by the recitation of Vedic texts, but that which (men) in their folly commit intentionally, by various (special) penances.

Now, knowledge of whether an action is sinful or not is different from whether you committed the sin intentionally or not.

For example, suppose a person knows meat-eating is sinful. He then ate a dish that had some meat in it, but he didn't know that it had meat in it. This person acquired the sin of unintentional consumption of meat.

On the other hand, suppose a person does not know that meat-eating is sinful. He then decides to eat cow flesh. This person acquired the sin of intentional consumption of meat.

However, if you know an action is sinful, and you do it, the karmic punishment is much more severe than doing the action without knowing it is sinful.

However, if you refuse to read scriptures thinking that the punishment of sins will be less severe because you are ignorant of what is sinful or not, then the punishment for doing all those sinful actions will be much, much more severe than even doing actions intentionally and having knowledge that those actions are sinful.

Ikshvaku
  • 22,130
  • 2
  • 39
  • 116
  • 1
    @Ikshavku - Thank you. Am now clear on intentional sin vs unintentional sin.Is there a difference between unintentional good deed and intentional good deed? Ajamil story seems to point out there is no difference – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Oct 17 '19 at 01:09
  • 1
    @Carmensandiego Good question. As far as I'm aware, the scriptures don't seem to mention anything about intentional good deeds versus unintentional good deeds. It merely talks about good deeds and their fruits. So, it is correct to think that there is no difference. – Ikshvaku Oct 17 '19 at 01:31
  • 1
    After your answer, I am afraid to ask this question thinking that I might be doing bad deed,. if it is said that eating non-veg is a sin, and most of the other country people don't know this and they will eat non-veg, so that means they are less sinful than those who eat intentionally – user2225190 Oct 17 '19 at 01:55
  • 1
    @user2225190 - I believe you have it slightly wrong. What ishvaku is saying is that eating beef is a sin. It is an intentional sin even if you have not read the scriptures because ignorance is no excuse. Yes, if someone who is poor, uneducated etc eats beef then he is doing unintentional sin – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Oct 17 '19 at 03:14
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku - Noted. Any explanation on why such skewness? Need not be scripture (though always helpful), even your own view would help. I always thought that it would be a normal distribution because that for me paves approach to understand Nirguna Brahman. – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Oct 17 '19 at 04:31
  • 1
    @Carmensandiego I'm not sure what the scripture says regarding this discrepancy, but I think this discrepancy is there because Brahman (God) is compassionate, and so he will reward people with good karma even if they are ignorant of what is good or bad, but he will punish people mildly even if they are ignorant of what is bad. – Ikshvaku Oct 17 '19 at 15:35
  • 1
    @Carmensandiego Also, I'm not sure if there is a difference between doing good acts while having the knowledge that they are good versus not having the knowledge that they are good. – Ikshvaku Oct 17 '19 at 17:32
  • 1
    @Ishvaku - I mentioned Ajamil story. He chanted Narayana at the time of death, and thus escaped Yamlok. Though he was yearning for his son, he was speaking God's name – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Oct 18 '19 at 05:02
  • 1
    @Carmensandiego Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa had told about story of Ajamila. He said Ajamila had been chanting God's name in previous births as well and that is the reason why at the time of death, his chanting of Narayana worked. – Pinakin Oct 18 '19 at 19:06
  • 1
    @ChinmaySarupria - not saying that Sri Paramahamsaji has it wrong. But this does lead to a whole new set of questions. And I would like to stick to story as mentioned in scriptures – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Oct 19 '19 at 03:31
  • 1
    @Carmensandiego Just to clarify. You said "Yes, if someone who is poor, uneducated etc eats beef then he is doing unintentional sin." To clarify, if someone doesn't have knowledge that been eating is sinful, and if he willingly eats beef, then he is doing intentional sin. – Ikshvaku Oct 21 '19 at 14:49
  • @Ikshvaku - I doubt it. If that was the case the modicum of punishment would not differ (highest for brahmin and progressively lower till Shudra) as seen in Manusmriti. It is unexpected from poor, destitute etc to be aware of scripture knowledge. But yes, someone who has gone through basic education should acquaint himself of scripture knowledge (ignorance is no defense for them) – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Oct 21 '19 at 14:55
  • @Carmensandiego I think it is more sinful for a Brahmin to intentionally eat meat than it is for a Shudra to intentionally eat meat. There are many things shudras can do that brahmins can't do, like drink liquor. Also, eating any form of meat when you are starving to death is permissible. – Ikshvaku Oct 21 '19 at 15:10
  • @Ikshvaku - So yes, i am thinking along the same lines. Brahmin is deemed more knowledgeable and thus punishment is higher for him. So same thing here. Eating meat is sin...but the quantum of sin differs. Given that in this day and age it is hard to figure out brahmin vs shudra, we are looking at those who have the capacity to know the scriptures vs those who don't. And the latter will come under unintentional sin for this case – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Oct 21 '19 at 15:23
  • @Carmensandiego But there is difference between intention and knowledge of sin of an act. Knowing that an action is sinful, is different from intentionally doing the action. – Ikshvaku Oct 21 '19 at 15:28
  • @Ikshvaku - Yes, but if someone (let's say Person A) doesn't have the knowledge (and Person A is not expected to have this knowledge given his socio-economic background, and no one preaching to him etc) ends up eating cow flesh on a regular basis. Now another person of similar socio-economic background (Person B) doesn't have the knowledge and doesn't eat beef. But he one day by mistake person B eats cow flesh, an unintentional act. At the end of the day when you compare the sins, I don't see any difference. – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Oct 21 '19 at 15:39