user16297: Which Sutta? Karma of unknowingly doing evil is worse than knowingly doing evil.
Which Sutta(s) talk about this, hopefully in more detail than I can remember?
The subject is karmic consequence, and the law is surprisingly not intuitive.
In comparing two types of actions:
1) Not knowing that an action is evil, one commits an evil action.
2) Knowing that an action is evil, one commits an evil action.
What is not intuitive about that law, is you would think if one had wholesome and skillful intentions, before committing an action which is actually evil, that one is less culpable for the negative karmic consequence, in comparison to someone who knowingly commits and evil action even knowing fully well that the action is evil.
Which sutta(s) talk about this?
I don't remember if I'm stating the general form of the law quite correctly, what concrete examples were given in the sutta(s).
I see there is this thread with mostly the same question:
Doing evil knowingly and unknowingly
It seems KN Miln might be the only scripture, and no one was able to identify a sutta. The key words from that passage "knowingly" (jānāti) and "evil action" (pāpaka kamma).
So can anyone confirm there is no sutta about that?

user471: Perhaps you're thinking about the Lonaphala Sutta:

"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
  water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in
  the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit
  to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
  Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River
  Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit
  to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by
  one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case
  where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to
  hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in
  the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e., painful
  feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in
  discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.   A
  trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.


user8157: The following sutta is not about kamma (but is about internal defilements). 

Mendicants, these four people are found in the world. What four? One
  person with a blemish (aṅgaṇa) doesn’t truly understand: ‘There is a blemish in
  me.’ But another person with a blemish does truly understand: ‘There
  is a blemish in me.’ One person without a blemish doesn’t truly
  understand: ‘There is no blemish in me.’ But another person without a
  blemish does truly understand: ‘There is no blemish in me.’ In this
  case, of the two persons with a blemish, the one who doesn’t
  understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is
  better. And of the two persons without a blemish, the one who doesn’t
  understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is
  better.
MN 5

I cannot imagine knowingly doing evil wicked kamma is better than not knowingly doing evil wicked kamma (such as the wicked Mara kamma of reviling Noble Ones & making false declarations of jhana attainment). Knowingly doing evil wicked kamma sounds psychopathic. 

16297: <p>Which Sutta? Karma of unknowingly doing evil is worse than knowingly doing evil.
Which Sutta(s) talk about this, hopefully in more detail than I can remember?</p>

<p>The subject is karmic consequence, and the law is surprisingly not intuitive.</p>

<p>In comparing two types of actions:</p>

<p>1) Not knowing that an action is evil, one commits an evil action.
2) Knowing that an action is evil, one commits an evil action.</p>

<p>What is not intuitive about that law, is you would think if one had wholesome and skillful intentions, before committing an action which is actually evil, that one is less culpable for the negative karmic consequence, in comparison to someone who knowingly commits and evil action even knowing fully well that the action is evil.</p>

<p>Which sutta(s) talk about this?</p>

<p>I don't remember if I'm stating the general form of the law quite correctly, what concrete examples were given in the sutta(s).</p>

<p>I see there is this thread with mostly the same question:
<a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11054/doing-evil-knowingly-and-unknowingly">Doing evil knowingly and unknowingly</a>
It seems KN Miln might be the only scripture, and no one was able to identify a sutta. The key words from that passage "knowingly" (jānāti) and "evil action" (pāpaka kamma).</p>

<p>So can anyone confirm there is no sutta about that?</p>
 471: <p>Perhaps you're thinking about the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lonaphala Sutta</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
  water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"</p>
  
  <p>"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in
  the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit
  to drink."</p>
  
  <p>"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
  Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"</p>
  
  <p>"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River
  Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit
  to drink."</p>
  
  <p>"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by
  one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case
  where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual
  is experienced in the here &amp; now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.</p>
  
  <p>'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to
  hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in
  the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e., painful
  feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in
  discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.   A
  trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.</p>
  
  <p>'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here &amp; now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here &amp; now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.</p>
</blockquote>
 8157: <p>The following sutta is not about kamma (but is about internal defilements). </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Mendicants, these four people are found in the world. What four? One
  person with a blemish (<a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/a%E1%B9%85ga%E1%B9%87a" rel="nofollow noreferrer">aṅgaṇa</a>) doesn’t truly understand: ‘There is a blemish in
  me.’ But another person with a blemish does truly understand: ‘There
  is a blemish in me.’ One person without a blemish doesn’t truly
  understand: ‘There is no blemish in me.’ But another person without a
  blemish does truly understand: ‘There is no blemish in me.’ In this
  case, of the two persons with a blemish, the one who doesn’t
  understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is
  better. And of the two persons without a blemish, the one who doesn’t
  understand is said to be worse, while the one who does understand is
  better.</p>
  
  <p>MN 5</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I cannot imagine knowingly doing evil wicked kamma is better than not knowingly doing evil wicked kamma (such as the wicked Mara kamma of reviling Noble Ones &amp; making false declarations of jhana attainment). Knowingly doing evil wicked kamma sounds psychopathic. </p>
