Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

[obo]

How about:

vyapada = deviance, (I say via the not-path) cruelty
vihimsa = injury, violence

So the former is mental the latter is bodily so that the two form a progression: first you abandon violence, then cruel or deviant thoughts, the overriding policy being letting go or renunciation.

I also think sankappa is better as 'principles'. You first set up your working hypothesis (samma ditthi) and then you set up the principles by which you will work through the letting go of thirst.

[DGDC]

This is not intended to be a reply or an answer to the question posed. However, I hope that what I write will throw some light on the topic.

Sammaasankappa is an item of the Ariyo Atthangiko Maggo. This Magga can be understood only by an Ariyo; not by a Puthujjana. The difference between Ariya and Puthujjana is described fully in the MN 1.1. Mulapariyayasutta. By the way, It is the only Sutta in the canon that was not understood by the bhikkhus to whom it was addressed by the Bhagava.

Now the Ariyo Atthangiko Maggo is one of the Four Ariyan Truths; the discovery of Samana Gotama. No human, (god etc.) can understand it without the explanations provided by the Bhagava.

The way to understand the Dhamma of the Bhagava is to accept Bhagava as the Teacher (or leader) and follow his advice (Anusasana) [See Kitagiri Sutta, MN]. This is impossible now because Bhagava (Bhagava Buddho) or Dhamma of the Bhagava (Bhagavata Dhammo) or Sangha (Savakasangho) is not in the world any more.

However, the difference between Avyapada and Avihimsa may be compared with the difference between Dana (giving) and Caga (generosity). This comparioncan help one to appreciate the difference between Avyapada and Avihhimsa.

I must stress again that this is according to the Pali Suttas.

With friendly thoughts,

DGDC

P.S. I have capitalised Pali words and the letters are without diacritics because I don't know how to use them.

[Kumara]

Something occurred to me, and I see it's already mentioned:

vihimsa = injury, violence

Since this is under the context of freedom from suffering, it makes sense to look upon it in that context. So, how's are these as examples of actions based on vihimsa-sankappa:

• self-harm/injury by cutting, etc.*
• sitting for extended periods, causing injury
• forcing off thoughts (as one meditation teacher says, “Note the thoughts quickly as if you are hitting them with a stick: thinking, thinking, thinking….” This injures the thinking faculty.)

*This isn't an act of self-hatred, but usually a way of coping of mental numbness (which is a way of coping with unhappy feelings).

I also think sankappa is better as 'principles'.

I however have been experimenting with "attitude" and "orientation".

[Dhammanando]

Something occurred to me, and I see it's already mentioned:

vihimsa = injury, violence

Since this is under the context of freedom from suffering, it makes sense to look upon it in that context. So, how's are these as examples of actions based on vihimsa-sankappa:

• self-harm/injury by cutting, etc.*
• sitting for extended periods, causing injury
• forcing off thoughts (as one meditation teacher says, “Note the thoughts quickly as if you are hitting them with a stick: thinking, thinking, thinking….” This injures the thinking faculty.)

Bhante,

As far as I know, the scope of vihiṃsā —like the scope of its opposite, avihiṃsā/karuṇā— is limited to actions directed at others. Have you ever met with any evidence suggesting otherwise in the texts?

[Kumara]

As far as I know, the scope of vihiṃsā —like the scope of its opposite, avihiṃsā/karuṇā— is limited to actions directed at others.

That's what I thought and was taught too.

Have you ever met with any evidence suggesting otherwise in the texts?

In the first place, has there been any evidence to support what has been commonly believed?

According to the texts, the Ascetic Gotama did much self-harm, which he later gave up. I would expect that he make reference to it in the middel path, the N8P; and perhaps he did, in the form of avihiṃsā·saṅkappa.

[Dhammanando]

In the first place, has there been any evidence to support what has been commonly believed?

The evidence is that whenever vihiṃsā crops up in the texts, in contexts where its meaning is defined or can be intuited, it is other beings who are the victims and never oneself. Well, almost never — I have come across one partial exception in the Sammohavinodanī, shown below in bold:

Vihiṃsā paṭisaṃyuttā dhātu vihiṃsādhātu, vihiṃsāvitakkassetaṃ nāmaṃ. Vihiṃsāyeva dhātu vihiṃsādhātu, parasattavihesanassetaṃ nāmaṃ.

Vihiṃsanti etāya satte, vihiṃsanaṃ vā etaṃ sattānanti vihiṃsā. Sā viheṭhanalakkhaṇā, karuṇāpaṭipakkhalakkhaṇā vā; parasantāne ubbegajananarasā, sakasantāne karuṇāviddhaṃsanarasā vā; dukkhāyatanapaccupaṭṭhānā; paṭighapadaṭṭhānāti veditabbā.


The element which is associated with cruelty is the cruelty-element. This is the name for thoughts of cruelty. Cruelty itself as an element is the cruelty element; this is a name for persecution of other beings.

Cruelty — “They persecute beings by means of that” or “That is the persecution of beings”. It has persecuting as its characteristic, or opposition to compassion as its characteristic. Its nature is causing anguish in the continuity of others, or its nature is destroying compassion in one’s own continuity; its manifestation is the sphere of pain; its proximate cause is annoyance.
(Vibh-a. 74)

[Kumara]

In the first place, has there been any evidence to support what has been commonly believed?

The evidence is that whenever vihiṃsā crops up in the texts, in contexts where its meaning is defined or can be intuited, it is other beings who are the victims and never oneself. Well, almost never — I have come across one partial exception in the Sammohavinodanī, shown below in bold:

Vihiṃsā paṭisaṃyuttā dhātu vihiṃsādhātu, vihiṃsāvitakkassetaṃ nāmaṃ. Vihiṃsāyeva dhātu vihiṃsādhātu, parasattavihesanassetaṃ nāmaṃ.

Vihiṃsanti etāya satte, vihiṃsanaṃ vā etaṃ sattānanti vihiṃsā. Sā viheṭhanalakkhaṇā, karuṇāpaṭipakkhalakkhaṇā vā; parasantāne ubbegajananarasā, sakasantāne karuṇāviddhaṃsanarasā vā; dukkhāyatanapaccupaṭṭhānā; paṭighapadaṭṭhānāti veditabbā.


The element which is associated with cruelty is the cruelty-element. This is the name for thoughts of cruelty. Cruelty itself as an element is the cruelty element; this is a name for persecution of other beings.

Cruelty — “They persecute beings by means of that” or “That is the persecution of beings”. It has persecuting as its characteristic, or opposition to compassion as its characteristic. Its nature is causing anguish in the continuity of others, or its nature is destroying compassion in one’s own continuity; its manifestation is the sphere of pain; its proximate cause is annoyance.
(Vibh-a. 74)

Interesting.

From a practical point of you, the vihiṃsā attitude is certainly antithetic to the path, regardless of the target, isn't it?

[Dhammanando]

Interesting.

From a practical point of you, the vihiṃsā attitude is certainly antithetic to the path, regardless of the target, isn't it?

Quite.

[bhavanirodha]

Dear all,

I wondered about this distinction for some time as well.

In one of his talks, Ajahn Sona clarifies:
Ill will is always accompanied by pain/displeasure, not so with cruelty. Cruelty can at times seem fun or glorious (to the worldling.) Also, you can be angry at someone, without necessarily wishing harm upon them. You can be mad as heck at someone, but still not wish harm upon them.
(not a quote, just the gist.)

Hope this helps someone.

Metta and peace,
Andrew

[Kumara]

In one of his talks, Ajahn Sona clarifies:
Ill will is always accompanied by pain/displeasure, not so with cruelty. Cruelty can at times seem fun or glorious (to the worldling.) Also, you can be angry at someone, without necessarily wishing harm upon them. You can be mad as heck at someone, but still not wish harm upon them.
(not a quote, just the gist.)

The issue is this: When one wishes harm on another, it presupposes anger, doesn't it? On the flip side, when when one isn't angry at another, he wouldn't think of harming him, right? Thus my question.

[bhavanirodha]

Dear Kumara,

I would agree that there will be an overlap or rather, that the two will be found together, perhaps the majority of the time. However, one might wish harm upon another out of greed, or sheer ignorance.

Eg. In striving for a utopian paradise, one just happens to put millions of people to death, not out of any particular hatred for them, but merely because they were inconvenient.

So, i guess i disagree with your two points; but i admit that to wish harm upon another usually presupposes anger/hatred.

But again, the moment of anger is invariably unpleasant by way of its associated vedana. A previous instance of anger might lead to a consequent instance of harmful intention, which itself might be occuring without the previous quality of anger at the same time.

Another example, most carnivores don't eat meat, most hunters don't hunt, and most children don't combust ants -- out of anger. The intention of harm still occurs, but more out of ignorance or greed.

I guess i boil it down to the following three points:

1. It's an established fact in all Theravada circles, as far as i know, that anger is invariably associated with pain/sorrow. I believe this is established among both those of an Abhidhammic bent and those without.

2. However, some take pleasure in cruelty. Thankfully, it's been a long time since i recall having a cruel intention accompanied by pleasure/joy. On the few occasions i have been cruel in that time, it has always been a hot, burning experience; it was accompanied by anger.

and

3. The Buddha doesn't speak frivolously, especially in elucidating something like the fundamental structure of the Noble Eightfold Path.

I think this whole point that you have raised is quite worthy of being reflected upon and looked into.

Metta and peace,
Andrew

[Buddha Vacana]

What about this:

Abyapada is about non-ill will as usual
Avihimsa is about not harming

The difference would be that it is possible to harm without ill-will, for example out of carelessness. If you take the example of the Jains for example, who took avihimsa to great length, they would even sweep their path wherever they go to make sure they are not going to step on any insect. There would have been no ill will against the insect, just harming out of carelessness, so they felt compelled to do this.

[aflatun]

MN 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.

I think that sometimes we don't realise how much vyāpāda and vihiṃsā intrudes into our meditation, especially when we are faced with the hindrances. One might look at the 7th analysis in MN 2 and query if this more vehement aspect of paṭighānusaya has any place when one is trying to develop the 7 Awakening Factors. How does the letting go (vossagga) that is supposed to be dependant on seclusion, dispassion and cessation arise if craving intrudes at this point in the practice?

I think it's rather unfortunate that this pericope about the conditions for letting go is not more discussed by modern authors, a shortcoming that has been remedied by Ven Analayo's latest work that cites the fervent interest in the Agamas in developing vossagga as the culmination of the 7 Awakening Factors.

Greetings Sylvester and all

Could you direct me to the work of Ven Analayo where he discusses this? Much appreciated!

[Kumara]

What about this:

Abyapada is about non-ill will as usual
Avihimsa is about not harming

The difference would be that it is possible to harm without ill-will, for example out of carelessness. If you take the example of the Jains for example, who took avihimsa to great length, they would even sweep their path wherever they go to make sure they are not going to step on any insect. There would have been no ill will against the insect, just harming out of carelessness, so they felt compelled to do this.

Thanks for trying. However, as I understand your explanation for harming, it's physical. Sankappa however is mental.

[Buddha Vacana]

Thanks for trying. However, as I understand your explanation for harming, it's physical. Sankappa however is mental.

Bhante, I fail to see where the problem is. The aspiration (sankappa, mental) is about preventing harm (both physical and mental) from happening for others. Like when I walk on the monastery path, I remain constantly aware to make sure I will not inadvertently crush a snail. The sankappa is my mental attitude, the putative harm would happen to the snail. Therefore I have the aspiration to not cause harm, and at that stage harm is just a concept, that I prevent from taking a footing in physical reality.