<p>You say "unintentionally" but your friend might see it as "negligence".</p>

<ul>
<li>I didn't mean to break it!</li>
<li>Yes but you should have looked where you were going! No one else broke it...</li>
</ul>

<p>I suspect that Buddhism might classify negligence too as volitional, karmically active, and a cause of suffering.</p>

<p>Anyway, I think that arguing about it with the friend probably counts as intentional.</p>

<p>FWIW a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence" rel="nofollow noreferrer">civil court</a> might try to apportion blame e.g. based on where the vase was placed. Who knows, maybe it would be appropriate to share the blame.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-18T11:47:10.507Z
2018-11-18T11:47:10.507Z
ChrisW
<p>I have done many bad deeds in my headless life. Many living entities have been destroyed because I have been unaware: while doing ordinary karmic activities like sweeping or cleaning, while riding a car or bicycle. All these things, if not done while working for the benefit of the Whole, will create bad karma.</p>

<p>The solution to compensate for your bad deeds is to perform <em>metta</em> and expand your awareness. I was doing <em>metta</em> for all human beings and this practice changed my consciousness. I went out of my room with expanded awareness and saw how I can do things without destroying living entities. Living entities are everywhere and the only way to avoind destroying them is to become more aware. Metta is a very good process to create good karma and make spiritual advancement. Your awareness will expand.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-13T11:49:12.323Z
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/96146/discussion-on-answer-by-marino-klisovich-does-one-need-to-make-amends-for-a-bad).
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-10T18:41:49.887Z
2019-07-10T18:41:49.887Z
Marino Klisovich
<p>Breaking of the vase unintentionally is not bad Karma, but</p>

<ol>
<li>Refusing to acknowledge that it is your mistake and not apologizing when it really is your mistake is usually caused by ego. That is bad Karma.</li>
<li>Refusing to correct that mistake when one has the means to do it is usually caused by ego and greed. Any thoughts arose, words uttered, actions performed to justify this ego and greed are all bad Karmas.  </li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-18T12:31:42.373Z
2018-11-18T12:31:42.373Z
Sankha Kulathantille
<blockquote>
  <p>The friend asks for the person to buy them a new vase, <strong><em>but the person refuses</em></strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Well, intentional or not, the damage's already been done to the host's property and the guest cannot say that s/he's completely free from the responsibility. So even if the host did not request for payment, it should be the right thing for the guest to offer some payment to cover for the host's lost property. In terms of kamma, since the cause was unintentional, the fruit will certainly be of a different degree of severity than that of an intentional one. But that doesn't mean it'll guarantee that the guest will 100% be free in the future. Who knows, maybe in some near future, this guest might invite some of his own guests over, and his own guest in turns, will unintentionally break some property in his house! In short, if in doubt, try to play it safe and try one's best to be reasonable and responsible for one's own actions. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-17T21:12:16.750Z
Well, that's why I said "when in doubt". Unless we're arahants, there's no way we can say with 100% certainty that that guest will be 100% free from his unintentional action. So one should err on the safe side to avoid any regrets later on. The cultivation of the whole Path itself is difficult, arduous, take a lot of time, and confusing sometimes. But that doesn't mean one should not give it a try!
santa100
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-17T21:18:04.453Z
consequences or suffering or not, there's not explicit declaration that he's 100% free from his unintentional action. That's the whole point. We just don't know with 100% certainty, hence the "play it safe" approach.
santa100
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-17T21:03:28.873Z
2018-11-17T21:03:28.873Z
santa100
<p><em>Note: Originally I wrote "unintentionally" and not just "accidentally" but I have realized that even the "accidental" action described in the example below involves the person's intentions of their movements and thus even if the person's intention wasn't to break the vase they still broke the vase through their intentional action and I believe they would necessarily suffer for breaking the vase.</em> </p>

<p>Example: </p>

<ol>
<li>A person is walking through a friend's house and accidentally knocks a vase and causes it to fall and break. The friend asks for the person to buy them a new vase, but the person refuses. </li>
</ol>

<p>Does the person necessarily suffer for refusing to buy their friend a new vase?     </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-18T13:10:12.927Z
I am finding a trend in your questions: they mostly revolve around justice. But, to me, karma and the dharma are not about justice. And trying to impose theories of justice on them will pull you away from their true meaning. You should check out this [article](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/uncollected/Justice.html).
user29568
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-18T13:24:04.303Z
The degree that someone feels stress depends on the person's way of dealing with it. For example, if the person blames the vase's position, then they no longer feel guilty. Or, they can rationalize that the vase was ugly and deserved to be broken. The mind deals with situations in many ways, typically to help relieve the situation(most of the time this is done without thinking about the other person, but only the self.)
user29568
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-18T13:26:58.093Z
I think the basis of the four noble truths is that there is a way, but I do see how you can interpret as sometimes there is no way. Thich Hanh mentions that it is not about ending suffering, but suffering less.
user29568
<karma><philosophy>
Does one need to make amends for a bad-action done accidentally?
# Does one need to make amends for a bad-action done accidentally?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-11-17)

*Note: Originally I wrote "unintentionally" and not just "accidentally" but I have realized that even the "accidental" action described in the example below involves the person's intentions of their movements and thus even if the person's intention wasn't to break the vase they still broke the vase through their intentional action and I believe they would necessarily suffer for breaking the vase.*

Example:

1. A person is walking through a friend's house and accidentally knocks a vase and causes it to fall and break. The friend asks for the person to buy them a new vase, but the person refuses.

Does the person necessarily suffer for refusing to buy their friend a new vase?

**Tags:** karma, philosophy

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I am finding a trend in your questions: they mostly revolve around justice. But, to me, karma and the dharma are not about justice. And trying to impose theories of justice on them will pull you away from their true meaning. You should check out this [article](https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/uncollected/Justice.html).  
> **username_1**: The degree that someone feels stress depends on the person's way of dealing with it. For example, if the person blames the vase's position, then they no longer feel guilty. Or, they can rationalize that the vase was ugly and deserved to be broken. The mind deals with situations in many ways, typically to help relieve the situation(most of the time this is done without thinking about the other person, but only the self.)  
> **username_1**: I think the basis of the four noble truths is that there is a way, but I do see how you can interpret as sometimes there is no way. Thich Hanh mentions that it is not about ending suffering, but suffering less.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-11-18. Score: 3

You say "unintentionally" but your friend might see it as "negligence".

* I didn't mean to break it!
* Yes but you should have looked where you were going! No one else broke it...

I suspect that Buddhism might classify negligence too as volitional, karmically active, and a cause of suffering.

Anyway, I think that arguing about it with the friend probably counts as intentional.

FWIW a [civil court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence) might try to apportion blame e.g. based on where the vase was placed. Who knows, maybe it would be appropriate to share the blame.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-07-10. Score: 0

I have done many bad deeds in my headless life. Many living entities have been destroyed because I have been unaware: while doing ordinary karmic activities like sweeping or cleaning, while riding a car or bicycle. All these things, if not done while working for the benefit of the Whole, will create bad karma.

The solution to compensate for your bad deeds is to perform *metta* and expand your awareness. I was doing *metta* for all human beings and this practice changed my consciousness. I went out of my room with expanded awareness and saw how I can do things without destroying living entities. Living entities are everywhere and the only way to avoind destroying them is to become more aware. Metta is a very good process to create good karma and make spiritual advancement. Your awareness will expand.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/96146/discussion-on-answer-by-marino-klisovich-does-one-need-to-make-amends-for-a-bad).  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-11-18. Score: -1

Breaking of the vase unintentionally is not bad Karma, but

1. Refusing to acknowledge that it is your mistake and not apologizing when it really is your mistake is usually caused by ego. That is bad Karma.
2. Refusing to correct that mistake when one has the means to do it is usually caused by ego and greed. Any thoughts arose, words uttered, actions performed to justify this ego and greed are all bad Karmas.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2018-11-17. Score: -1

> The friend asks for the person to buy them a new vase, ***but the person refuses***.

Well, intentional or not, the damage's already been done to the host's property and the guest cannot say that s/he's completely free from the responsibility. So even if the host did not request for payment, it should be the right thing for the guest to offer some payment to cover for the host's lost property. In terms of kamma, since the cause was unintentional, the fruit will certainly be of a different degree of severity than that of an intentional one. But that doesn't mean it'll guarantee that the guest will 100% be free in the future. Who knows, maybe in some near future, this guest might invite some of his own guests over, and his own guest in turns, will unintentionally break some property in his house! In short, if in doubt, try to play it safe and try one's best to be reasonable and responsible for one's own actions.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Well, that's why I said "when in doubt". Unless we're arahants, there's no way we can say with 100% certainty that that guest will be 100% free from his unintentional action. So one should err on the safe side to avoid any regrets later on. The cultivation of the whole Path itself is difficult, arduous, take a lot of time, and confusing sometimes. But that doesn't mean one should not give it a try!  
> **username_5**: consequences or suffering or not, there's not explicit declaration that he's 100% free from his unintentional action. That's the whole point. We just don't know with 100% certainty, hence the "play it safe" approach.  

---

