The Intention - Action Conundrum

I am writing this post on a whim in the hopes of getting answers to some of my questions. I do not have anything conclusive to say as these thoughts are still in the shaping-up stage. So any comments, inputs, references are most welcome!

Let me define the premise of my doubt. 

1. It is often said that the intention behind an action is very important. Hence, you cannot understand a person from his actions alone. You have to look at his intent i.e. state of mind. 

2. The catch here is that you can understand one's intent only through his actions! Because we are not mind-readers, we have to look at the person's actions to understand his intent. To put it more clearly, we have to look at his other actions other than the one at question. This means we are trying to understand if the person is consistent. 

3. Chasing intent behind an action is important in determining criminal culpability. The IPC punishes only those criminal acts done with a criminal intent i.e. mens rea. It uses many qualifiers such as -  knowingly, with intent to cause harm, willfully, had reason to believe, dishonestly, fraudulently, negligently etc. - to find a person culpable. If the person did not have a guilty mind, then he is not be punished. 

4. This is similar to the Hindu concept of karma. It is not only actions that create karmafal, but even thoughts and words have rebounding effect. So it is important to not only speak good and do good, but also think good! All the three should be on the same page. However, punishment is only attached to the outer deed - that is words spoken and acts done. Till date we do not punish having wrong thoughts like in George Orwell's 1984 where thought-crime is viewed seriously.

5. Hinduism says the character traits of people can be largely grouped into three categories - tamas, rajas and sattva. To put it in simple terms tamas guna is characterized by indolence, rajas guna is characterized by action based on attachment, and the sattva guna is characterized by goodness, contentment and positivity. While all are important for balanced life, it is sattva which is highest ideal to achieve. In fact, the real goal is to transcend even sattva and become nirguna as the brahman itself.

6. Action and omission are both punishable. Further, a negligently done act is equally punishable as a willfully done act. Both our law and sanatan dharma are consistent in this regard. One can equate the three guna with the criminal law qualifiers like this.

Tamas - negligence - a state of mind with less awareness

eg: In the case of King Pandu, he is cursed by Rishi Kindama. The rishi and his wife had taken the form of a deer and were mating when Pandu shot arrows at them and killed them. The reason why he was cursed was because he should have known that it was not any ordinary deer. Another reason is that he should have restrained from committing the killing when they were in intercourse. Because his act lacked awareness, he was cursed. 

Rajas - wilful intent - a state of mind with high sense of ego

Sattva- innocent and pure mind 

7. Having defined my foundation of doubt, I will come to the doubt itself, which I have depicted below for ease of understanding.

     Intention - Action - Result

I. Good - Good - Reward

II. Bad - Bad - Punishment

III. Bad - Good - Mixed Results

IV. Good - Bad - ?

8. I have generally put out the result as reward and punishment, but the truth is there are many forces at play which influences the result. Our past karma could greatly influence the present outcome. That is why it is important to do an act for the sake of itself rather than for the possible outcome it will have. Mahabharat is the perfect example for showing that a good action can result in disastrous consequences. But despite that the action needs to be carried out i.e. a kshatriya needs to wage war even though the result will be that many children will be left fatherless and wives widowed.

eg: Take the case of Bhagawan Shri Krishna. He was cursed by Gandhari who felt he was solely responsible for the death of Kauravas. According to her, he could have taken all efforts to prevent their death as God but he refused to do so. Just as she cursed, the Yadavas fought amongst themselves and Krishna's lineage was destroyed. But when it comes to his death, one could either view it as the working of Gandhari's curse or the settlement of karma from the previous avatar. Jara, the hunter who killed Krishna was Vali in the previous birth in Ramayana.

9. Case I and II are straightforward and self-explanatory. Case III is also not that complicated because generally, people do not suspect the intent behind good actions. If the action is good, it is taken for granted that the person had a good intention. And since it doesn't affect others negatively, because it is a good action, the intention goes unnoticed. It only concerns the individual of the action. That is why it is said a good act done with wrong intent will give mixed results. For example, if someone donates not out of charitable intent, but instead for fame and recognition, the results will not be so good.

10. It is case IV that is most complicated - where an action is bad but the intention of the person was good. As far as others are concerned, they have been affected and will not treat the person so kindly. But what about the person who did the action? He had no guilty mind. The state of mind while doing an act is important. Does a good intention convert a bad action into good? No, it cannot be so. But does a good intention absolve the person of liability for a bad action?

11. That should be it. One needs to exercise discriminatory intelligence to assess what is right and wrong in a given situation. A general template will not help in a case of complex facts. That is why I feel, it is not agreeable to say two wrong do not make a right when the intention is essentially different for the same action. Take a simple case of someone ill-treating you. They shout at you or demean you with the very purpose of making you feel bad. Perhaps tolerating will work for sometime, but if the ill-treatment can be stopped only if you also take an equally aggressive stance, there is nothing wrong in it. It is simply communicating in a language that they can understand and accept. Outwardly, the act will look same, but a person of good emotional intelligence will decipher that the intention was different. And some others may think that it is ends justifying the means. Is it?

12. The example given was something simple. But take it to the next level of seriousness and ask yourself some tough questions. Do we need to hesitate to do an apparently wrong action if our intention is in the best interest? If only that supposedly bad act will get the job done? Similarly, do we need to condemn someone for a wrong act they did out of good intention? Of course, these questions will beget other questions as to what is good and bad. But let us not concern ourselves with it for now. 

13. Karmafal - the fruit of our actions. Regardless of whether we do an action with good intent or bad intent, we must face the consequences. That is why seeking forgiveness or repentance has no meaning before the strict laws of karma. Only acceptance (not even realization) of what we have done will give us the courage to face what is to come. 

In the next blog piece, I would like to understand what punishment should be aimed at - reformation? Or paying for one's deeds?

14. Perhaps, it is to avoid all this complexity they say act and actor should be one. That way there is no question of intention?  Just as in deep sleep where we are one with the supreme consciousness, in our every act we should kill our mind and become the act itself! A true karma-yogi.