Do I intend to do something if I also intend to stop myself from doing it? Suppose I intend to eat the hamburger, but also intend to stop myself doing so. Is that intent in the Buddhist sense?

From Reciting in Concert > Four kinds of reincarnation: There is a reincarnation where only one’s > own intention is effective, not that of others. There is a > reincarnation where only the intention of others is effective, not > one’s own. There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ > intentions are effective. There is a reincarnation where neither one’s > own nor others’ intentions are effective. Does it have something to do with the 31 planes of existence ?

I read [somewhere](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/50955/why-is-there-no-attention-aggregate/51065#51065) that: > Attention is a product of/maintained by volition/intention (which is sankhara aggregate). I am puzzled by this as the following examples illustrate: 1. I am driving back from a party. I maybe drunk but is 100% focused on the road. Despite this, I find myself driving into a road divider. 2. I am really interested in heavenly beings. I tried to read up, research and find any materials on this subject. After years and decades of studying, I still do not find any devas around me. 3. I am studying for an important test tomorrow. I am aware of the test’s importance and trying hard to attend to my study but my mind keeps drifting to the Netflix show on TV. So, what is attention and how does it work?

Suppose I suggest that someone else eats meat or steals someone's property: is the karma the same as performing the act? What if I allow them to do so, explicitly or implicitly? Is the karma defined by e.g. what I want the other person to do or what I expect and plan them to do?

If I imagine doing a thing, then do I intend it? Have any buddhist texts spoken about any difference between the imagination as it might feature in intent? Suppose I imagine putting a poison in someone's food, and then suggest they eat it. Surely I haven't intended to poison them, anymore than I intend to kill the bad guy when I watch an action movie. Do the fantastical results of a diseased mind incorporate intent? Suppose I have a delusion that everytime I clap my hand someone dies, and I clap my hands (this looks no different to the poison example, except for the fact I believe - rather than imagine - it): have I intended to kill?

Right intention is a good thing: can I intend to be an Arhat or Buddha? What if I believe I cannot be either, can I still intend it, have the intention to any of its unique qualities and skills etc.?

I am in search for some academic work on critical methods to analyze Buddhists’ texts. There exist numerous jātakas and avadānas. Many representations in Buddhist art visualize these legends. E.g. Maya’s dream about the white elephant with his six tusks, or several reliefs at the gateways of Sanchi. I assume that most of these stories are fiction. Therefore my question: • Do these texts or figural representations raise any truth claim? • If yes: Which claim? How can one validate the truth claim? • Which groups and which interests triggered the texts and their dissemination? Is there someone to recommend some academic papers from Buddhist or secular authors about the historical-critical study of the content of Buddhist texts? Or point to some journals devoted to the subject? Note. My question relates to https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/44173/is-this-forum-a-place-for-buddhist-hermeneutics

I've heard this quote in a few places, attributed to the Buddha. Prominently, Tara Brach uses it . It varies sometimes: - "Everything rests on the tip of one's motivation." - “Everything rests on the point of intention.” But the gist is always the same. 1. Where in the Tripiṭaka (or elsewhere) does this quote originate? 2. How can we understand this quote? What is this "tip of intention"? Is it perhaps translated from [mano, as in 'intending mind']( https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on-the-first-lines-of-the-dhammapada/18718?replies_to_post_number=16) , or some link in the chain of dependent origination, or something else?

I would like to know if the following premises are well stated and if their content is true. Also, I'd like to know if the conclusion/answer makes sense: 1) In the aggregates, 'sankhara' are kammic formations. 2) Kammic formations are any phenomena that have an underlying intention, and therefore create new kamma. Question: Is intention (cetana) a sankhara? Thanks in advance for your time. Kind regards!

With intent being so important, would the karmic benefit of saving someone's life because they were in danger be the same as doing it because you thought you would be rewarded for it?

I have heard this sutta referenced in dhamma talks by Ajahn Thanissaro, although I don't have a specific talk to point to. I know I have also read the sutta, but I can't remember when. In the sutta, various monks state that they practice by contemplating something along the lines of "If I live so long as one year... one month... one day... one hour... one breath... the time it takes to chew one bite of food... then I can accomplish a lot in the practice." The Buddha then states that the last two monks who cast their intention across one breath or one bite of food are heedful, while the other monks are not. Does anyone know which sutta this is? Thanks!

What is the difference between imagination and intent? Does imagination also create kamma? Can someone help me explain this in simpler terms?

The thirty-six states (6 x 6 classes of contact) to which beings are attached are described in Salayatana-vibhanga Sutta ; I have made a caricature while reading each state as below, states 1, 2, 4 & 5 are easy to understand, however, I'm straggling to clearly identify the two type of equanimity and how they differ. Quoted below is the definition given for each equanimity states in the Sutta, but it’s not clear to me how the foolish deluded householder equanimity is any different from the other. How do these two people react to a given situation? I will give an example for the householder equanimity and If possible please try to use the same situation to represent the state of the renunciation equanimity and if possible beyond renunciation equanimity (atammayata) in which there is no act of intention, not even the intention underlying equanimity is said to be present. For example, a householder loses his beloved son or a wife he could reason and say ‘I know I was only in love with a mortal and what has happened is natural’ and he remains calm without suffering. This equanimity, I take it, doesn’t go beyond form. With a wide open eye as I caricatured his state, he looks into pain and pleasure even death with equanimity without reasoning beyond form. Let them change he is just looking. Many thanks. > "And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity > that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill, > untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results > of action & who is blind to danger — sees a form with the eye. > Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called > household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile > sensations, & ideas.) > > "And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity > that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, > their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as > it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, > stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which > is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, > smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.) > > "And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on > multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity > with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [& ideas: > this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming > from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity. > > "And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on > singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the > infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the > infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of > nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception. This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent > on singleness.

I know that as long as someone isn't enlightened, thoughts will continue to arise in one's mind, including bad thoughts. And the only way to prevent bad thoughts from arising is through meditation. So does "not wanting to meditate" counted as bad karma? Because there's an intention to not want to meditate (meanwhile meditation is the only way to prevent bad thoughts from arising). So not wanting to meditate = letting bad thoughts to arise = bad karma(?) Can someone clear this for me? Thank you.

I read the following intentional thought on the internet: > Intention is directed conscious energy. When we think about doing > something, where does that energy go? Thoughts like these are created > before every conscious action as a means to mitigate the quantity and > quality of the repercussion. If an individual cultivates an intention > enough, the chances of inadvertently performing the action is more > within reason. 1. What is "conscious energy" in Buddhism? 2. In Buddhism, does "conscious intention" mean "wise intention"? 2. If cultivating intention leads to action more within reason, are ignorant actions without intention or unintentional in Buddhism?

The Yodhajiva Sutta tells the story of a warrior who thought that brave warriors who fought valiantly and died heroically on the battlefield, would go to warrior heavan. The Buddha disappointed him by saying: > When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already > seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be > struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not > exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus > striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the > body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those > slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior > strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & > slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with > the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of > devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two > destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or > the animal womb." What about judges who carry out their judicial duties correctly and pass the death sentence according to the law? Would these judges suffer the same fate as the warriors above, or not? And why? Is it right livelihood?

In [this](http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/b_f/chanda.htm) website, it's stated that: >chanda: intention, desire, will. 1. As an ethically neutral psychological term, in the sense of 'intention', it is one of those general mental factors (cetasika, q.v. Tab. II) taught in the Abhidhamma, the moral quality of which is determined by the character of the volition (cetanā) associated therewith. However, I've seen in a lot of discussions and sutta translations that the word *cetana* is usually translated as *intention*, which also happens to be the word chosen as the rendering for *chanda*. At first glance, I kind of understand this situation, mainly because how intertwined and related these two phenomena (*chanda* and *cetana*) seem to be. Sadly, I'm almost a complete ignorant in regard to pali issues (and dhamma matters in general, by the way), and so, I cannot comprehend the nuances that may differenciate these two processes. What is the difference between *chanda* and *cetana*? How do these two relate to each other? If they are related, which one comes first, and which after? Is one a condition for the other? Thanks a lot, in advance, for your time and patience. Kind regards!

Can you explain something about joy? For example it's mentioned in [AN 11.1](https://suttacentral.net/an11.1/en/sujato) : > “But what’s the purpose and benefit of having no regrets?” “Avippaṭisāro pana, bhante, kimatthiyo kimānisaṃso”? > “Joy is the purpose and benefit of having no regrets.” “Avippaṭisāro kho, ānanda, pāmojjattho pāmojjānisaṃso”. I can imagine several specific question, please answer any or none of these (from scripture or experience, any tradition of Buddhism). I'm especially interested in the context of everyday lay life, rather than specifically/only during formal meditation. - Can you explain the joy/rapture/tranquillity/bliss/immersion sequence? What's the difference between these, what's the connection? Is some of this specifically meditative? I'm guessing that at least the start of the sequence, "skilful ethics" isn't only meditative. If this is too long to explain in an answer is there a text/reference you recommend instead? - Does some condition or thing cause joy, apart from a lack of remorse? Is it a matter of choice, at all? When dukkha arises would you say "that's dukkha, I'd better wait for it to cease", or would you say, "that's dukkha, I'd better 'choose joy' instead?" - Is it "primarily ethical", if that makes sense as a question, e.g. if ethics is doing the right thing then is joy (or choosing joy, or intending joy) also "the right thing" in that way? - Would I be right to assume that these maybe happen in stages, like one before the other -- with earlier ones having each next one as their eventual purpose? Is it something of a gradual training, does it make sense to focus on sometimes improving or cultivating one stage (e.g. joy)? How do you "cultivate" joy (is it only by cultivating skilful ethics and non-remorse or...)? - I'm a bit conscious of [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7275/254) : > People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita). > Anyhow, I don't claim to have a good solution for the problem-- how do we stay optimistic and positive or happy once we realize the muddle we are in, but at least the Mahayana version, provides a path towards how to find happiness-- by taking action to solve everyone's problems. Do you agree with that and is that all there is to say on that subject? Does it happen that Buddhism provides a new raft, or tells a person how to swim, but they still tend to be "depressed" e.g. unhappy and ineffective, as well as troubled or restless? - There's an illustration of "household joy" and "renunciation joy" at the end of [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/25046/254) . Assuming I can imagine a bit what "household joy" might be, would it be worth explaining that illustration of "renunciation joy"? "Joy" seems to me to appear quite late in the "Ten Bulls" sequence -- relatively late compared to its being quite early in the Kimatthiyasutta -- i.e. it's the last, [Return to society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Bulls#Ku%C3%B2%C4%81n_Sh%C4%AByu%C7%8En 's_Ten_Bulls), which says, "I am ever blissful" etc. Is that significant? Or maybe it's earlier, like at the 5th of 6th stage.

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!

After attaining Nibbana, did the Buddha still have intention (*cetanā*)? In SN 12.2 , intention is part of name in name-and-form. In SN 12.38 (quoted below), it sounds like intention is removed in an arahant. For example, in the Udana 6.1 quote below, did the Buddha have the intention (*cetanā*) to go and sit at the Pavala shrine on a sitting cloth with Ananda for the day's abiding? How does the Buddha's apparent intention in Udana 6.1, not conflict with the quote from SN 12.38? From Udana 6.1 : > I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near > Vesālī at the Gabled Hall in the Great Forest. Then, early in the > morning, he adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes — > went into Vesālī for alms. Then, having gone for alms in Vesālī, after > the meal, returning from his alms round, he addressed Ven. Ānanda, > **"Get a sitting cloth, Ānanda. We will go to the Pāvāla shrine for the > day's abiding."** > > Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Ven. Ānanda > followed along behind the Blessed One, carrying the sitting cloth. > Then the Blessed One went to the Pāvāla shrine and, on arrival, sat > down on the seat laid out. > > Seated, the Blessed One addressed Ven. Ānanda, "Vesālī is refreshing, > Ānanda. Refreshing, too, are the Udena shrine, the Gotamaka shrine, > the Sattamba shrine, the ManySon shrine, the Sāranda shrine, the > Pāvāla shrine. From SN 12.38 : > “Bhikkhus, **what one intends, and what one plans and whatever one has > a tendency towards (yañca ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti)**: this **becomes a basis for the maintenance of > consciousness**. When there is a basis there is a support for the > establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and > has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed > existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, > future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, > and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of > suffering.