Yes, it does tend to create a different inner attitude toward action.

I’ll keep the comparison simple and mainly from a Jain standpoint.

---

1. Jainism: “I am responsible for the harm that occurs through me”

Core points in Jain Dharma:

• Ahimsa is physical as well as mental

- Violence is counted not only when you “meant it,” but when a being is hurt through your body, tools, speech, livelihood, negligence, etc.

• Accidental harm still binds karma

- The intensity is less than deliberately cruel harm, but it is not “zero” simply because you “didn’t mean it.”

• Hence the strong emphasis on:

- Samiti – carefulness in walking, speaking, taking things, disposing of waste, and in daily conduct. - Gupti – guarding mind, speech, and body from carelessness. - Apramāda – vigilance, non‑negligence.

• Both Digambar and Śvetāmbara traditions agree on this basic idea:

external care + internal intention together determine karmic result.

Psychological effect: A Jain is trained to think:

• “My every small movement has consequences.”
• “Even if my intention is not bad, I must refine my habits so that less and less harm occurs through me.”
• “I carry responsibility for the micro‑world around me.”

So the mind becomes:

• Highly vigilant and detail‑oriented in physical actions (stepping, sweeping, food choices, business activities, use of resources, etc.).
• More humble: “I inevitably cause some harm, so I must keep reducing it,” rather than, “If I didn’t mean harm, I am completely innocent.”
• Guilt is softened but not erased for “accidental” harm: one accepts, “This shows my apramāda (carelessness); I should improve,” instead of dismissing it as spiritually irrelevant.

---

2. Buddhism: “Intentional mental states are decisive for karma”

In most Buddhist teachings (especially Theravāda and much of Mahāyāna):

• Karma is primarily based on cetanā (intention, volition).
• If:

- there was no intention to harm, - no mental approval of the harm, - and no delight in the harm afterward, then karmic weight is usually considered very low or negligible.

Psychological effect (very roughly):

• More focus on inner mental states: greed, hatred, delusion, clinging.
• If something harmful occurs without intention, there’s a tendency to:

- examine whether any unwholesome mental state was present, - let go of unnecessary guilt if it was a pure accident, - focus on purifying the mind rather than endlessly replaying the physical incident.

---

3. How this shapes the relationship to action

a) Attention field

• Jainism:

- Attention spreads outward to the whole field of beings affected by your presence and movement. - You’re trained to think: “How can I walk, speak, eat, work, and consume in ways that minimize even unintended harm?”

• Buddhist focus (comparatively):

- Attention is drawn more centrally to inner factors: “Was there greed, hatred, or delusion behind this act?”

Both traditions care about mind and body, but the Jain “sphere of responsibility” is visibly wider in the physical direction.

---

b) Sense of responsibility vs. intention

• Jain attitude:

- Responsibility is tied to causation plus degree of care. - “If harm happened through my body or negligence, some karmic dust arose—even if I did not want it. Let me refine my care.” - This can cultivate: - deep scrupulosity and conscientiousness, - a strong ethic of restraint and simplicity (aparigraha), - and a habit of continuous correction of posture, movements, habits.

• Buddhist attitude (simplified):

- Responsibility is tied more directly to intentional mental factors. - “If I truly had no ill intention, then this is not a heavy karmic stain; I should learn from it, but not cling to guilt.”

So:

• Jainism often produces a karmic sensitivity to “what happened through me?”
• Buddhism often produces a karmic sensitivity to “what was happening in my mind?”

---

c) Emotional tone

Because of this difference:

• A Jain practitioner may:

- feel more lifelong seriousness about small physical acts, - experience some degree of ongoing regret for inevitable harms (e.g., in cooking, walking, work), - but channel that into vigilance, austerity, and gradual reduction of harm.

• A Buddhist practitioner may:

- feel more relief regarding pure accidents: “If I truly had no harmful intent, the karmic weight is small,” - direct energy strongly into transforming mental states.

For a mature Jain, this carefulness is not meant to be neurotic; it is meant to ripen into:

• Stable apramāda (non‑negligence),
• Deep compassion for even the smallest lives,
• Detachment from luxury and unnecessary action, because every extra possession or activity multiplies possible harm.

---

4. Where they overlap

Despite the contrast:

• Jainism also insists on inner intention (bhāva) being primary; mere outer ritual or caution without right attitude does not liberate.
• Buddhism also teaches compassion and harmlessness in behavior; intention is not an excuse to be careless.

But:

• Jain Dharma builds stronger doctrinal weight under minimizing harm in all circumstances, including “accidental,” through lifetime habits of carefulness and restraint.
• This naturally produces a somewhat different psychological relationship to action than a system where karma is framed more narrowly around intention alone.

---

In summary: Yes, Jain emphasis on carefulness and minimizing even “accidental” harm tends to cultivate a more continuous, bodily and environmentally vigilant relationship to action, whereas Buddhist emphasis on intention creates a relatively more mind‑centric relationship to action and responsibility.