Do you mean that by causing harm you're acting with a kind of intent that isn't attentive enough; that intent which is negligent is necessarily harmful intent? It depends on the semantics of the terms: intent which turns out to be harmful is different than intent that is designed to be harmful. So in the sense of describing the purpose behind the intent, not all accidents are preceded by harmful intent. Harmless intent can be harmful just as harmful intent can be harmless; you can do your best and still fail...hence the need to train ceaselessly.
Hi Matthew. I did say apart from accidents.
Funny thing is that every time a person with such causes harm they then justify it by saying it's an accident.
Let's put it another way. I meet someone who does Aikido, he just so happens to complain and tell me about all the times damage has resulted from his Aikido in practice. All well justified to himself.
Mmmm. A trail of 'accidents.'
I proceed to train with him and get him to show me his skill.
He stops confused. It doesn't make sense. It usually works but against me it doesn't. He's confused.
I point out he's using force, that's why, and get him bit by bit to replace it with Ki.
Now, he's getting it bit by bit bujt bumps into this confusion again. It don't make sense once again. He sees it works but it don't make sense.
Why? Because it doesn't fit his usual parameters of thought. I then proceed to chat to him and find out what he actually thinks he should do and why. I uncover his thoughts, his intentions, what he thinks should be. Oh dear, there they are, harmful intentions.
He didn't know there was a way to do it without them. He's been doing Aikido x years and no one ever told him. Things begin to make sense.