Skip to main content

TITWOW syndrome, 'a-byāpāda': some translators inconsistently interpret that as "good will" or "free of ill will"

 What does this matter? 

It's like the difference between the silver rule and the golden rule.

example: SN 55.7 The golden rule and silver rule



It matters because the precise Dhamma instruction in the suttas, if we go by some translations,  on what to do when we see "byāpāda"  is unclear.

It's quite a different mental state to 
1. be actively engaged with sending thoughts of good will towards specific groups of living beings,

2. Or to dwell in a mental state where one does not have to actively engage in thoughts about other living beings, but simply dwell peaceful and free of hatred, animosity, aversion. 

Which is it?


The Theravāda commentaries seem to believe a-byāpada (non ill will) and metta (friendliness) can be treated synonymously in most if not all situations.

There are about 150 sutta references to byāpada in the nikāyas, and I'm looking through them all right now. 
So far, I've seen some instances where it's definitely the silver rule (freedom of non ill will rather than "good will"),
and most cases either "non ill will" or "good will" would fit the context.



 Given the ambiguity, the best translation choice is the most versatile one



"Non ill will" or "freedom of ill will" is more versatile, because both silver rule and golden rule are options. 
Good will is a type of non ill will.

But if you lock yourself into translating byāpāda as "good will", 
you've restricted the interpretation to only the golden rule, blocking the possibility of the silver rule. 
One has to have good will directed toward other living beings,
one no longer has the option to dwell free of hatred, not thinking of any living beings.



byāpāda = ill will
✅a-byāpāda = non ill will, non hatred, or free of ill will, etc.
⛔a-byāpāda should not be translated as "good will"



Why do some translators choose "good will" as the translation for a-byāpāda?

Not always, but often because of TITWOW Syndrome  




Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more