<p>Example 1: A commits bad Karma for provocation. B commits bad karma for hitting/killing. B's Karma is usually severe than A's for breaking the first precept.</p>

<p>Example 2: A commits bad karma for being ignorant or for lying. B commits bad karma for killing. B's Karma is usually severe than A's for breaking the first precept unless A's actions were caused by extremely strong ignorant views.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-28T02:09:11.353Z
Thanks for the answer. 
In example 1, does "A" break the precept of only 'False speech' ?  

In example 2, if it was a military commander persuading front-line soldiers to kill their enemies, the kamma for front-lines are still much worse than the commander because they had the 'intention' + 'action' of breaking the first precept? Whereas the commander only had 'intention' ?
Krizalid_Nest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-28T02:43:59.630Z
Provocation isn't false speech. Military commander persuading soldiers to kill will get the karma for  all the kills committed by soldiers on his instructions. Whereas a soldier is only responsible for the kills he commit.
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-28T06:30:52.680Z
Thank you, I think it clears my confusion now. I was also thinking about politicians/gov officials who support wars, maybe they also get the kamma for all the kills associated with that war too.
Krizalid_Nest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-25T17:41:15.293Z
2018-05-25T17:41:15.293Z
Sankha Kulathantille
<p>The question is: How does Kamma associate with "provocation"?</p>

<p>Example 1:
A says to B "Hit/kill me if you dare."</p>

<p>Example 2: 
A tells B that killing is justified if the cause is right.</p>

<p>In the above examples, and if B did the hitting/killing after the provocation, who's kamma is worse? A or B? And Why?</p>

<karma>
Kamma associated with "Provocation"
# Kamma associated with "Provocation"

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-05-25)

The question is: How does Kamma associate with "provocation"?

Example 1:
A says to B "Hit/kill me if you dare."

Example 2:
A tells B that killing is justified if the cause is right.

In the above examples, and if B did the hitting/killing after the provocation, who's kamma is worse? A or B? And Why?

**Tags:** karma


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-05-25. Score: 2

Example 1: A commits bad Karma for provocation. B commits bad karma for hitting/killing. B's Karma is usually severe than A's for breaking the first precept.

Example 2: A commits bad karma for being ignorant or for lying. B commits bad karma for killing. B's Karma is usually severe than A's for breaking the first precept unless A's actions were caused by extremely strong ignorant views.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for the answer.  In example 1, does "A" break the precept of only 'False speech' ?    In example 2, if it was a military commander persuading front-line soldiers to kill their enemies, the kamma for front-lines are still much worse than the commander because they had the 'intention' + 'action' of breaking the first precept? Whereas the commander only had 'intention' ?  
> **username_1**: Provocation isn't false speech. Military commander persuading soldiers to kill will get the karma for  all the kills committed by soldiers on his instructions. Whereas a soldier is only responsible for the kills he commit.  
> **username_0**: Thank you, I think it clears my confusion now. I was also thinking about politicians/gov officials who support wars, maybe they also get the kamma for all the kills associated with that war too.  

---

