user254: I tried to read Kamma & the Ending of Kamma but I don't wholly understand it, perhaps especially:

The paragraph which begins with "The truth of the Buddha's understanding of the processes of kamma" (which tries to connect kamma with fabrications).
The last 7 paragraphs, including "Only a person who has mastered the skill of release has the mental skills needed to comprehend such matters"; and, "This is why the Buddha insisted repeatedly ... that conviction in the fact of his Awakening necessarily involves conviction in the principle of kamma".

I'd like to ask, what is meant by "ending kamma"?
My understanding is that the doctrine says that

Kamma is intention (cetanā)
An arhat generates no new kamma
"No new kamma" implies "no rebirth" and is an essential feature of enlightenment

So what is kamma and how can it be ended?
Here were some of my theories (which may be wrong or unsatisfactory), for what they're worth, in case reading these help to correct my views:

An arhat has eliminated identity-view. Kamma is associated with identity-view ("I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator"). An enlightened person acts, but unselfishly, and so etc. (?).
Like it is possible to have a "desire to end desire", it's possible to have an "intention to end kamma". If the only "intention" you permit yourself is the intention to end karma, then etc. (?).
Maybe this answer implies that all cetanā arise, by definition, only with ignoble mental factors (e.g. ignorance, restlessness, greed, etc.); so action without ignoble mental factors is (by definition) without "intention", and is therefore not new kamma (?).
Contradicting this, this answer says that cetanā are responsible for Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Thought. Do Right Speech and Right Action create new kamma, if not why not? The Ariyamagga Sutta (AN 4.235) says they result in kamma which leads to the ending of kamma.
"From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma" (AN 6.63), so kamma is ended only when/while there's no contact ... does "no contact" imply "Jhanas"? But for example sukha (happiness) is associated with the first jhana, which is a form of contact (mind-contact)? So anyway, maybe it's something to do with attaining mastery of the jhanas ... I think someone wrote that the Buddha moved back into some kind of jhana state between each word he spoke?
This says, "In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind, without reference to who or what lay behind those processes." So apart from not paying attention to "who", it also focuses on "the immediate present" -- maybe kamma only happens when you intend/want something to happen in the future? But I think the Buddha still acted on (present) cause and (future) effect -- e.g. decide to go somewhere in order to spend the afternoon there, or to go to Sarnath in order to find the people to give his first sermon to. I guess that deciding to act (deciding to go to Sarnath) would cause the stress (e.g. knowledge of people's need to be taught) to cease, and so the action itself (actually going to Sarnath) would be relatively stress-free and without attachment (except perhaps attachment to continuing to do the right thing) ... but even if that's so, I don't see how to relate that to "not creating new kamma".
It also says, "when there is ignorance of the four noble truths ... the feeling that results from kamma gives rise to craving ..., clinging, and becoming; and these, in turn, form the conditions for further kamma". Is that saying that any Right Intention, which is not motivated by sensuality, doesn't create new kamma? If so, if this is the answer, is the difference between sankappa and cetanā significant, somehow?
It also says "because good and bad kamma, consisting of good and bad intentions, simply perpetuate the ups and downs of experience in the cosmos, a way must be found out of the mechanism of kamma by mastering it in a way that allows it to disband in an attentive state of non-intention". There's a joke in English (actually an American Blues song) which says, "If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all". Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu saying "if it weren't for 'good' and 'bad' kamma I would have no kamma at all", i.e. that kamma disappears when desire and aversion disappear?

The main topic which I misunderstand is what it might mean to "have no intention" or to "live without intention". It seems to me (using some ordinary English-language meaning of "intention") that "be or become enlightened" and "be harmless" and "keep vinaya" and "go on alms round when hungry" and so on are all examples of "intention" ... if that's so then how can even an arhat live without intention?
What the appearance of someone who is "without intention" or "not generating new kamma": are there visible characteristics, it it possible to recognize that state when you see it (or conversely to recognize the absence of that state, to recognize when someone is generating new kamma)?
Is kamma closely related to fabrications, somehow?
I guess that a pathological example of "lack of intention" might look something like catatonia ... but descriptions of arhats in the suttas don't portray them as incapable -- capable of Right Speech etc.

user8157: Ending self-view (atta) or the idea of 'a being' (satta) ends kamma. This is why AN 6.63 states the noble eightfold path ends kamma. 
Please consider those mundane suttas about kamma always refer to 'a being' ('satta') or 'person' ('puggala') that inherits good & bad results of kamma. 
MN 117 clearly states views of good & bad kamma side with merit but are polluted with asava (defilements) & burdensome self-views (upadhi). 
Good & bad kamma are mundane matters, which are only sustained by self-views. 
For example, think about the most evil or harmful action you have done in your life. Then change this self-view to the view it was not 'me' that performed that action but only the element of ignorance that performed that action. Notice the weight of kamma falls away & the liberation. 

user8157: 
The paragraph which begins with "The truth of the Buddha's understanding of the processes of kamma" (which tries to connect kamma with fabrications).

Yes, kamma is volition. It is thinking. It is part of sankhara aggregate. 

An arhat generates no new kamma

Yes. No new kamma that can bring vipaka. No kamma-vipaka. 

Kamma is associated with identity-view ("I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my
  actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my
  actions as my arbitrator").

The above is a mundane or conventional view. 

An enlightened person acts, but unselfishly, and so etc. (?).

Yes. 

Like it is possible to have a "desire to end desire", it's possible to have an "intention to end kamma". If the only "intention" you
  permit yourself is the intention to end karma, then etc. (?).

Yes. But when that intention is not clung to; it is not "kamma". 
When AN 6.63 refers to "kamma", it refers to kamma that leads to five destinations, none of which are enlightenment. To quote:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma
  to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
  experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
  of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.



Maybe this answer implies that all cetanā arise, by definition, only with ignoble mental factors (e.g. ignorance, restlessness, greed,
  etc.); so action without ignoble mental factors is (by definition)
  without "intention", and is therefore not new kamma (?).

Not really. Buddhas have noble intention rather than ordinary intention. 

Contradicting this, this answer says that cetanā are responsible for Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Thought. Do Right Speech and
  Right Action create new kamma, if not why not? The Ariyamagga Sutta
  (AN 4.235) says they result in kamma which leads to the ending of
  kamma.

Yes. This is noble kamma, which ends kamma. It is not really kamma. 

"From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma" (AN 6.63), so kamma is ended only when/while there's no contact ... does "no
  contact" imply "Jhanas"?

The Pali word "nirodha" does not mean "cessation". It means the "extinguishing" of the fires of greed, hatred & delusion. It means "quenching". 

But for example sukha (happiness) is associated with the first jhana, which is a form of contact (mind-contact)?

Yes. 

So anyway, maybe it's something to do with attaining mastery of the jhanas ... I think someone wrote that the Buddha moved back into some
  kind of jhana state between each word he spoke?

No. You are stuck on this mistranslation "cessation". 

This says, "In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate
  present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind,
  without reference to who or what lay behind those processes."

The Buddha was not concerned with kamma. It has nothing to do with enlightenment. Kamma is only a foundation. The Buddha was concerned with suffering & ending suffering. The idea of kamma causes suffering. 

So apart from not paying attention to "who", it also focuses on "the immediate present" --

I would speculate Thanissaro is teaching some kind of skilful means here for American students rather than the truth. 
The fact that Thanissaro denied Buddha taught "what lay behind kamma" shows how wrong Thanissaro is. 

maybe kamma only happens when you intend/want something to happen
  in the future?

No. Longing for the past is kamma. Merely hating a thought with attachment is kamma. 

But I think the Buddha still acted on (present) cause and (future) effect -- e.g. decide to go somewhere in order to spend the afternoon
  there, or to go to Sarnath in order to find the people to give his
  first sermon to.

Sure. But this was unrelated to himself. It was for the benefit of teaching others anatta. 

I guess that deciding to act (deciding to go to Sarnath) would cause the stress (e.g. knowledge of people's need to be taught) to cease,
  and so the action itself (actually going to Sarnath) would be
  relatively stress-free and without attachment (except perhaps
  attachment to continuing to do the right thing) ... but even if that's
  so, I don't see how to relate that to "not creating new kamma".

The Buddha wasn't concerned with kamma. Kamma is like a teaching given to children. For example, in the dependent cessation, dependent origination, three characteristics & four noble truths, the word kamma is never mentioned, apart from one factor of the noble path. Buddhism is not about kamma. Kamma is only something in Buddhism taught for the laypeople who feed the monks. 

It also says, "when there is ignorance of the four noble truths ... the feeling that results from kamma gives rise to craving ...,
  clinging, and becoming; and these, in turn, form the conditions for
  further kamma".

This is wrong. Kamma does not create feelings. Kamma starts to manifest at craving & attachment and consolidates at becoming. Kamma is essentially becoming rather than a distant cause of becoming. Please refer to AN 3.76. The 2nd link of D.O. is unrelated to kamma or intention. In D.O., intention, in relation to internal phenomena, first appears at the 4th link. The translation of kammic formations for the 2nd link of D.O. is non-sense. 

Is that saying that any Right Intention, which is not motivated by
  sensuality, doesn't create new kamma? If so, if this is the answer, is
  the difference between sankappa and cetanā significant, somehow?

I doubt it. I think sankappa & cetana are synonymous and both probably can be unwholesome, wholesome & noble. MN 117 refers to unwholesome & ignoble sankappa.

It also says "because good and bad kamma, consisting of good and bad intentions, simply perpetuate the ups and downs of experience in the
  cosmos, a way must be found out of the mechanism of kamma by mastering
  it in a way that allows it to disband in an attentive state of
  non-intention".

This is just Thanissaro's opinion. You are taking Thanissaro too seriously. I lived around Western monks for many years and found few to be inspiring, Most of them, particularly translators, are heavily distracted. It is a open fact that Bhikkhu Bodhi has always struggled with meditation. These people are merely people. 

There's a joke in English (actually an American Blues song) which says, "If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all". Is
  Thanissaro Bhikkhu saying "if it weren't for 'good' and 'bad' kamma I
  would have no kamma at all", i.e. that kamma disappears when desire
  and aversion disappear?

I think Thani was trying to be a bit Zen with his non-intention. 
Kamma is common word in Indian culture. It is always personal. This is why the Buddha used it but also depersonalised it. 

The main topic which I misunderstand is what it might mean to "have no intention" or to "live without intention". It seems to me (using
  some ordinary English-language meaning of "intention") that "be or
  become enlightened" and "be harmless" and "keep vinaya" and "go on
  alms round when hungry" and so on are all examples of "intention" ...
  if that's so then how can even an arhat live without intention?

Thanissaro was wrong or otherwise just trying to behave Zenny for the benefit of his students. 

What the appearance of someone who is "without intention" or "not generating new kamma": are there visible characteristics, it it
  possible to recognize that state when you see it (or conversely to
  recognize the absence of that state, to recognize when someone is
  generating new kamma)?

It is best to simply define kamma as self-invested or self-identified action. That makes it easy. 

Is kamma closely related to fabrications, somehow?

No. While kamma is certainly a fabrication (sankhara), the word sankhara is extremely broad. Buddhas have sankhara aggregate functioning.

I guess that a pathological example of "lack of intention" might look something like catatonia ... but descriptions of arhats in the
  suttas don't portray them as incapable -- capable of Right Speech
  etc.

As I mentioned, when AN 6.63 states kamma is intention, it is highlighting mental kamma (per MN 56) & goes on to describe the five unenlightened realms of kamma. Since it mentions the realms, we must assume the phrase: "kamma is intention" is mundane and does not include Noble Intention. AN 6.63 is probably pointing out, similar to AN 3.61, that kamma is not something mysterious from a past life. AN 6.63, SN 12.25 and other suttas say kamma can only arise from sense contact (thus cannot be from a past life). Saying "kamma is intention" brings it into the present reality  & stops people speculating about unknowable causes. 

254: <p>I tried to read <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1-b" rel="noreferrer">Kamma &amp; the Ending of Kamma</a> but I don't wholly understand it, perhaps especially:</p>

<ul>
<li>The paragraph which begins with "The truth of the Buddha's understanding of the processes of kamma" (which tries to connect kamma with fabrications).</li>
<li>The last 7 paragraphs, including "Only a person who has mastered the skill of release has the mental skills needed to comprehend such matters"; and, "This is why the Buddha insisted repeatedly ... that conviction in the fact of his Awakening necessarily involves conviction in the principle of kamma".</li>
</ul>

<p>I'd like to ask, what is meant by "ending kamma"?</p>

<p>My understanding is that the doctrine says that</p>

<ul>
<li>Kamma is intention (<em>cetanā</em>)</li>
<li>An arhat generates no new kamma</li>
<li>"No new kamma" implies "no rebirth" and is an essential feature of enlightenment</li>
</ul>

<p>So what is kamma and how can it be ended?</p>

<p>Here were some of my theories (which may be wrong or unsatisfactory), for what they're worth, in case reading these help to correct my views:</p>

<ul>
<li>An arhat has eliminated identity-view. Kamma is associated with identity-view ("I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator"). An enlightened person acts, but unselfishly, and so etc. (?).</li>
<li>Like it is possible to have a "<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html" rel="noreferrer">desire to end desire</a>", it's possible to have an "intention to end kamma". If the only "intention" you permit yourself is the intention to end karma, then etc. (?).</li>
<li><p>Maybe <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19901/254">this answer</a> implies that all <em>cetanā</em> arise, by definition, only with ignoble mental factors (e.g. ignorance, restlessness, greed, etc.); so action without ignoble mental factors is (by definition) without "intention", and is therefore not new kamma (?).</p>

<p>Contradicting this, <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19843/254">this answer</a> says that <em>cetanā</em> are responsible for Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Thought. Do Right Speech and Right Action create new kamma, if not why not? The <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html" rel="noreferrer">Ariyamagga Sutta (AN 4.235)</a> says they result in kamma which leads to the ending of kamma.</p></li>
<li>"From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma" (AN 6.63), so kamma is ended only when/while there's no contact ... does "no contact" imply "Jhanas"? But for example <em>sukha</em> (happiness) is associated with the first jhana, which is a form of contact (mind-contact)? So anyway, maybe it's something to do with attaining mastery of the jhanas ... I think someone wrote that the Buddha moved back into some kind of jhana state between each word he spoke?</li>
<li><p><a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1-b" rel="noreferrer">This</a> says, "In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind, without reference to who or what lay behind those processes." So apart from not paying attention to "who", it also focuses on "the immediate present" -- maybe kamma only happens when you intend/want something to happen in the future? But I think the Buddha still acted on (present) cause and (future) effect -- e.g. decide to go somewhere in order to spend the afternoon there, or to go to Sarnath in order to find the people to give his first sermon to. I guess that deciding to act (deciding to go to Sarnath) would cause the stress (e.g. knowledge of people's need to be taught) to cease, and so the action itself (actually going to Sarnath) would be relatively stress-free and without attachment (except perhaps attachment to continuing to do the right thing) ... but even if that's so, I don't see how to relate that to "not creating new kamma".</p>

<p>It also says, "when there is ignorance of the four noble truths ... the feeling that results from kamma gives rise to craving ..., clinging, and becoming; and these, in turn, form the conditions for further kamma". Is that saying that any Right Intention, which is not motivated by sensuality, doesn't create new kamma? If so, if this is the answer, is the difference between <em>sankappa</em> and <em>cetanā</em> significant, somehow?</p>

<p>It also says "because good and bad kamma, consisting of good and bad intentions, simply perpetuate the ups and downs of experience in the cosmos, a way must be found out of the mechanism of kamma by mastering it in a way that allows it to disband in an attentive state of non-intention". There's a joke in English (actually an American Blues song) which says, "If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all". Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu saying "if it weren't for 'good' and 'bad' kamma I would have no kamma at all", i.e. that kamma disappears when desire and aversion disappear?</p></li>
</ul>

<p>The main topic which I misunderstand is what it might mean to "have no intention" or to "live without intention". It seems to me (using some ordinary English-language meaning of "intention") that "be or become enlightened" and "be harmless" and "keep vinaya" and "go on alms round when hungry" and so on are all examples of "intention" ... if that's so then how can even an arhat live without intention?</p>

<p>What the appearance of someone who is "without intention" or "not generating new kamma": are there visible characteristics, it it possible to recognize that state when you see it (or conversely to recognize the absence of that state, to recognize when someone <em>is</em> generating new kamma)?</p>

<p>Is kamma closely related to fabrications, somehow?</p>

<p>I guess that a pathological example of "lack of intention" might look something like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catatonia" rel="noreferrer">catatonia</a> ... but descriptions of arhats in the suttas don't portray them as incapable -- capable of Right Speech etc.</p>
 8157: <p>Ending self-view (<em>atta</em>) or the idea of 'a being' (<em>satta</em>) ends kamma. This is why AN 6.63 states the noble eightfold path ends kamma. </p>

<p>Please consider those mundane suttas about kamma always refer to 'a being' ('<em>satta</em>') or 'person' ('<em>puggala</em>') that inherits good &amp; bad results of kamma. </p>

<p>MN 117 clearly states views of good &amp; bad kamma side with merit but are polluted with <em>asava</em> (defilements) &amp; burdensome self-views (<em>upadhi</em>). </p>

<p>Good &amp; bad kamma are mundane matters, which are only sustained by self-views. </p>

<p>For example, think about the most evil or harmful action <em>you</em> have done in <em>your</em> life. Then change this self-view to the view it was not 'me' that performed that action but only the element of ignorance that performed that action. Notice the weight of kamma falls away &amp; the liberation. </p>
 8157: <blockquote>
  <p><strong>The paragraph which begins with "The truth of the Buddha's understanding of the processes of kamma" (which tries to connect kamma with fabrications).</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes, kamma is volition. It is thinking. It is part of sankhara aggregate. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>An arhat generates no new kamma</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. No new kamma that can bring vipaka. No kamma-vipaka. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Kamma is associated with identity-view ("I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my
  actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my
  actions as my arbitrator").</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The above is a mundane or conventional view. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>An enlightened person acts, but unselfishly, and so etc. (?).</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Like it is possible to have a "desire to end desire", it's possible to have an "intention to end kamma". If the only "intention" you
  permit yourself is the intention to end karma, then etc. (?).</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. But when that intention is not clung to; it is not "kamma". </p>

<p>When AN 6.63 refers to "kamma", it refers to kamma that leads to five destinations, none of which are enlightenment. To quote:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, &amp; intellect.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma
  to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
  experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
  of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Maybe this answer implies that all cetanā arise, by definition, only with ignoble mental factors (e.g. ignorance, restlessness, greed,
  etc.); so action without ignoble mental factors is (by definition)
  without "intention", and is therefore not new kamma (?).</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Not really. Buddhas have noble intention rather than ordinary intention. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Contradicting this, this answer says that cetanā are responsible for Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Thought. Do Right Speech and
  Right Action create new kamma, if not why not? The Ariyamagga Sutta
  (AN 4.235) says they result in kamma which leads to the ending of
  kamma.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. This is noble kamma, which ends kamma. It is not really kamma. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>"From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma" (AN 6.63), so kamma is ended only when/while there's no contact ... does "no
  contact" imply "Jhanas"?</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Pali word "nirodha" does not mean "cessation". It means the "extinguishing" of the fires of greed, hatred &amp; delusion. It means "quenching". </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>But for example sukha (happiness) is associated with the first jhana, which is a form of contact (mind-contact)?</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>So anyway, maybe it's something to do with attaining mastery of the jhanas ... I think someone wrote that the Buddha moved back into some
  kind of jhana state between each word he spoke?</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. You are stuck on this mistranslation "cessation". </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>This says, "In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate
  present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind,
  without reference to who or what lay behind those processes."</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Buddha was not concerned with kamma. It has nothing to do with enlightenment. Kamma is only a foundation. The Buddha was concerned with suffering &amp; ending suffering. The idea of kamma causes suffering. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>So apart from not paying attention to "who", it also focuses on "the immediate present" --</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I would speculate Thanissaro is teaching some kind of skilful means here for American students rather than the truth. </p>

<p>The fact that Thanissaro denied Buddha taught "what lay behind kamma" shows how wrong Thanissaro is. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>maybe kamma only happens when you intend/want something to happen
  in the future?</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. Longing for the past is kamma. Merely hating a thought with attachment is kamma. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>But I think the Buddha still acted on (present) cause and (future) effect -- e.g. decide to go somewhere in order to spend the afternoon
  there, or to go to Sarnath in order to find the people to give his
  first sermon to.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Sure. But this was unrelated to himself. It was for the benefit of teaching others anatta. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>I guess that deciding to act (deciding to go to Sarnath) would cause the stress (e.g. knowledge of people's need to be taught) to cease,
  and so the action itself (actually going to Sarnath) would be
  relatively stress-free and without attachment (except perhaps
  attachment to continuing to do the right thing) ... but even if that's
  so, I don't see how to relate that to "not creating new kamma"</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Buddha wasn't concerned with kamma. Kamma is like a teaching given to children. For example, in the dependent cessation, dependent origination, three characteristics &amp; four noble truths, the word kamma is never mentioned, apart from one factor of the noble path. Buddhism is not about kamma. Kamma is only something in Buddhism taught for the laypeople who feed the monks. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>It also says, "when there is ignorance of the four noble truths ... the feeling that results from kamma gives rise to craving ...,
  clinging, and becoming; and these, in turn, form the conditions for
  further kamma".</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is wrong. Kamma does not create feelings. Kamma starts to manifest at craving &amp; attachment and consolidates at becoming. Kamma is essentially becoming rather than a distant cause of becoming. Please refer to <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.076.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 3.76</a>. The 2nd link of D.O. is unrelated to kamma or intention. In D.O., intention, in relation to internal phenomena, first appears at the 4th link. The translation of kammic formations for the 2nd link of D.O. is non-sense. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Is that saying that any Right Intention, which is not motivated by
  sensuality, doesn't create new kamma? If so, if this is the answer, is
  the difference between sankappa and cetanā significant, somehow?</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I doubt it. I think sankappa &amp; cetana are synonymous and both probably can be unwholesome, wholesome &amp; noble. MN 117 refers to unwholesome &amp; ignoble sankappa.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>It also says "because good and bad kamma, consisting of good and bad intentions, simply perpetuate the ups and downs of experience in the
  cosmos, a way must be found out of the mechanism of kamma by mastering
  it in a way that allows it to disband in an attentive state of
  non-intention".</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is just Thanissaro's opinion. You are taking Thanissaro too seriously. I lived around Western monks for many years and found few to be inspiring, Most of them, particularly translators, are heavily distracted. It is a open fact that Bhikkhu Bodhi has always struggled with meditation. These people are merely people. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>There's a joke in English (actually an American Blues song) which says, "If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all". Is
  Thanissaro Bhikkhu saying "if it weren't for 'good' and 'bad' kamma I
  would have no kamma at all", i.e. that kamma disappears when desire
  and aversion disappear?</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I think Thani was trying to be a bit Zen with his non-intention. </p>

<p>Kamma is common word in Indian culture. It is always personal. This is why the Buddha used it but also depersonalised it. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>The main topic which I misunderstand is what it might mean to "have no intention" or to "live without intention". It seems to me (using
  some ordinary English-language meaning of "intention") that "be or
  become enlightened" and "be harmless" and "keep vinaya" and "go on
  alms round when hungry" and so on are all examples of "intention" ...
  if that's so then how can even an arhat live without intention?</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Thanissaro was wrong or otherwise just trying to behave Zenny for the benefit of his students. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>What the appearance of someone who is "without intention" or "not generating new kamma": are there visible characteristics, it it
  possible to recognize that state when you see it (or conversely to
  recognize the absence of that state, to recognize when someone is
  generating new kamma)?</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is best to simply define kamma as self-invested or self-identified action. That makes it easy. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Is kamma closely related to fabrications, somehow?</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. While kamma is certainly a fabrication (sankhara), the word sankhara is extremely broad. Buddhas have sankhara aggregate functioning.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>I guess that a pathological example of "lack of intention" might look something like catatonia ... but descriptions of arhats in the
  suttas don't portray them as incapable -- capable of Right Speech
  etc.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>As I mentioned, when AN 6.63 states kamma is intention, it is highlighting mental kamma (per MN 56) &amp; goes on to describe the five unenlightened realms of kamma. Since it mentions the realms, we must assume the phrase: "kamma is intention" is mundane and does not include Noble Intention. AN 6.63 is probably pointing out, similar to AN 3.61, that kamma is not something mysterious from a past life. AN 6.63, SN 12.25 and other suttas say kamma can only arise from sense contact (thus cannot be from a past life). Saying "kamma is intention" brings it into the present reality  &amp; stops people speculating about unknowable causes. </p>
