The two latter aspects of right resolve,
Abyāpāda (non-ill will) and Avihiṃsā (non harming),
have much similarity and overlap, but are emphatically not the same.
There are some important differences.
Re: Abyāpāda and Avihiṃsā
MN 8 is a great find, @culaavuso, on distinguishing between Abyāpāda and Avihiṃsā.
I'd always assumed this was the key difference between Abyāpāda and Avihiṃsā, but did not have any proof I could cite.
Great answer and analogy by the way, you really hit the nail on the head.
Abyāpāda is non-ill will, a mental activity.
Avihiṃsā is non harming, a physical activity.
The grouping in MN 8 shows that clearly.
Avihiṃsā is grouped with physical actions,
while Abyāpāda is grouped with mental actions.
So while abyāpāda·saṅkappa and avihiṃsā·saṅkappa does have some overlap,
they are very different classes of action.
Just as culaavuso pointed out from similar items in MN 8,
it's the difference between having a resolve of covetousness, (result in mental kamma)
versus a resolve to actually physically steal something. (results in physical kamma)
A resolve for ill will, involve mental kamma of wishing some being(s) suffer, are harmed, killed, etc.
A resolve to harm, involves physical kamma of actually doing the action to cause being(s) to suffer, come to harm, or be killed, etc.
https://lucid24.org/mn/main/mn008/index.html#8.1
@culaavuso posted that response 10 years ago,
I wonder why it hasn't been widely accepted in the world already.
There are still lots of people who have strange views on samma sankappa,
* such as abyāpāda·saṅkappa and avihiṃsā·saṅkappa being practically the same.
* metta being equivalent to abyāpāda·saṅkappa and karuna being equivalent to avihiṃsā·saṅkappa
I disprove that here: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... metta.html
In Sujato's footnote for MN 19, he says:
I'd always assumed this was the key difference between Abyāpāda and Avihiṃsā, but did not have any proof I could cite.
Great answer and analogy by the way, you really hit the nail on the head.
Abyāpāda is non-ill will, a mental activity.
Avihiṃsā is non harming, a physical activity.
The grouping in MN 8 shows that clearly.
Avihiṃsā is grouped with physical actions,
while Abyāpāda is grouped with mental actions.
So while abyāpāda·saṅkappa and avihiṃsā·saṅkappa does have some overlap,
they are very different classes of action.
Just as culaavuso pointed out from similar items in MN 8,
it's the difference between having a resolve of covetousness, (result in mental kamma)
versus a resolve to actually physically steal something. (results in physical kamma)
A resolve for ill will, involve mental kamma of wishing some being(s) suffer, are harmed, killed, etc.
A resolve to harm, involves physical kamma of actually doing the action to cause being(s) to suffer, come to harm, or be killed, etc.
culaavuso wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:56 amMN 8 appears to suggest a distinction along the lines of mental activity being avoided by abyāpāda while coarser physical and verbal activity is avoided by avihiṃsā. The ordering of the list which is likened to a road appears to not be arbitrary. In that list, harmfulness is found near killing and stealing while ill-will is found near covetousness and wrong view. It might be useful to consider the relationship between covetousness and stealing as being similar to the relationship between ill-will and harmfulness.MN 8 full sutta in pali and englishMN 8: Sallekha Sutta wrote:(1) A person given to harmfulness has non-harming by which to avoid it.
(2) A person given to killing living beings has abstention from killing by which to avoid it.
(3) A person given to taking what is not given has abstention from taking what is not given by which to avoid it.
...
(9) A person given to covetousness has non-covetousness by which to avoid it.
(10) A person given to thoughts of ill will has non-ill will by which to avoid it.
(11) A person given to wrong view has right view by which to avoid it.
https://lucid24.org/mn/main/mn008/index.html#8.1
@culaavuso posted that response 10 years ago,
I wonder why it hasn't been widely accepted in the world already.
There are still lots of people who have strange views on samma sankappa,
* such as abyāpāda·saṅkappa and avihiṃsā·saṅkappa being practically the same.
* metta being equivalent to abyāpāda·saṅkappa and karuna being equivalent to avihiṃsā·saṅkappa
I disprove that here: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... metta.html
In Sujato's footnote for MN 19, he says:
MN 19: Dvedhāvitakkasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)
* As I prove above metta is a subset, not the same as abyāpāda·saṅkappa, therefore metta is not the sole "opposite" of byāpāda.
* karuna does not have to take pleasure, for example Buddha explicitly is said to teach Dhamma in the suttas out of karuna/compassion, but in one of the suttas in MN for example, he does not become upset if is disciples don't listen to him, and he doesn't become excited or happy if they follow his advice.
* vihiṁsā does not have to take pleasure on inflicting pain. I don't know where Sujato gets that from. You can accidentally step on a bug and kill it, causing it harm, without taking pleasure in it.
The difference between “malice” (or “ill will”, byāpāda) and “cruelty” (vihiṁsā) is subtle; they are the respective opposites of “love” (mettā) and “compassion” (karuṇā). Mettā wishes well simply and without qualification, just as “malice” wishes ill. But karuṇa takes pleasure in the alleviation of pain, while vihiṁsā takes pleasure in inflicting pain.Almost everything Sujato says in that footnote is wrong.
* As I prove above metta is a subset, not the same as abyāpāda·saṅkappa, therefore metta is not the sole "opposite" of byāpāda.
* karuna does not have to take pleasure, for example Buddha explicitly is said to teach Dhamma in the suttas out of karuna/compassion, but in one of the suttas in MN for example, he does not become upset if is disciples don't listen to him, and he doesn't become excited or happy if they follow his advice.
* vihiṁsā does not have to take pleasure on inflicting pain. I don't know where Sujato gets that from. You can accidentally step on a bug and kill it, causing it harm, without taking pleasure in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment