What does "ending karma" mean?

I tried to read [Kamma & the Ending of Kamma](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1-b) 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](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html) ", 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](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19901/254) 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](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19843/254) 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)](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html) 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](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1-b) 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catatonia) ... but descriptions of arhats in the suttas don't portray them as incapable -- capable of Right Speech etc.