Skip to main content

MN 8 excellent proof of right resolve showing difference between Abyāpāda (non-ill will) and Avihiṃsā (non harming)

 

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

Post by frank k » 

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.



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: 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.
MN 8 full sutta in pali and english
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)
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.


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