Skip to main content

hiri + otappa = shame and dread, not "conscience and prudence"

 

hirikopīnappaṭicchādanatthaṃ

ind. to conceal the genitals; lit. for the purpose of covering the shameful private parts [hirikopīna + paṭicchādana + attha + aṃ] ✓



MN 2.3.1 (Robes to ward off cold and heat, mosquitos...)


Katame ca, bhikkhave, āsavā paṭisevanā pahātabbā?
And what are the asinine-inclinations that should be given up by using?
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevati:
Take a monk who, reflecting properly, makes use of robes:
‘yāvadeva sītassa paṭighātāya, uṇhassa paṭighātāya, ḍaṃsamakasavātātapasarīsapasamphassānaṃ paṭighātāya, yāvadeva hirikopīnappaṭicchādanatthaṃ’.
‘Only for the sake of warding off cold and heat; for warding off the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles; and for covering the private parts.’



A nun or monk wears a robe so they don't walk around naked.

If someone grabbed their robe and tore it, off, would they feel "shame" because their private parts are exposed?

or would they feel "conscience"? 



The word otappa has the root √tap which means really hot 

otappati pr. is heated; becomes warm [ava + √tap] ✗


Do you "fear" touching a hot stove?

Do you "dread" touching a hot stove?

Or do you feel "prudence" when touching a hot stove?



"conscience and prudence" is a really poor translation of hiri and otappa

It loses the emotional charge, the urgency, the warning of dire consequences that hiri and otappa are supposed to protect you from.

On a nuclear power plant, you want to see clear, bright signs warning of extreme dangers.

Not a discrete, hidden, camoflauged sign, small lettering, hard to read, saying "conscience and prudence should be exercised." 

I can only guess Sujato chose "conscience and prudence" because of emotional baggage from theistic religions with unskillful understandings of 'sin', 'shame', etc.


If you're contemplating actions of killing, stealing, raping, lying,  that's a nuclear reactor that needs bright urgent signs. You should feel shame, fear, dread, not conscience and prudence.

If you're going to a tea party with your friends, and you're worried about what to wear or what kind of snack to bring will cause any offense, that's "conscience and prudence."


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.  I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas   if you're serious about jhāna.  (since monastics are already celibate by rule)   If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,   celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a

1min. video: Dalai Lama kissing boy and asking him to suck his tongue

To give more context, this is a public event,  * everyone knows cameras are rolling  *  it's a room full of children * the boy's mom is standing off camera a few feet away watching all of this * the boy initiated contact, he had already had a hug with Dalai Lama earlier and then asked Dalai Lama for another hug which triggered this segment  17 min. video showing what happened before that 1 min. clip and after, with some explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78 16min talk from Ajahn Acalo with his thoughts on Dalai Lama kissing boy, relevance to Bhikkhu monastic code, sexual predators in religion in general, and how celibate monastics deal with sexual energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2m0TcUib0 The child's comments about the incident in a filmed interview later https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2023/04/18/643eba5d46163ffc078b457c.html The child: It's a great experience It was amazing to meet His Holiness and I think it's a great ex