Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Post by Kumara » Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:57 am

In sammā·saṅkappa, we find abyāpāda·saṅkappa and avihiṃsā·saṅkappa (besides nekkhamma·saṅkappa). I still can't see why is there a need to include avihiṃsā·saṅkappa. Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover it?

OR perhaps I'm not understanding these terms correctly.

Please enlighten.
Last edited by Kumara on Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Profile: visualcv.com/kumara
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

santa100
Posts: 3367
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Abyāpāda and Avihiṃsā

Post by santa100 » Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:12 pm

Out of the 4 BrahmaVihara attributes, Abyapada is associated with Metta, loving-kindness to wish that all beings be happy, while Avihimsa is associated with Karuna, compassion to wish for all beings to be free from suffering (also see SN 14.12)

culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Abyāpāda and Avihiṃsā

Post by culaavuso » Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:56 pm

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. 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.

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Abyāpāda and Avihiṃsā

Post by Kumara » Sat Sep 20, 2014 6:28 am

Thanks for responding, but none of those seems to answer my question.
Profile: visualcv.com/kumara
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Abyāpāda and Avihiṃsā

Post by Sylvester » Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:20 am

culaavuso wrote: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.

:anjali:

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Post by Kumara » Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:52 am

Thanks for the idea, Sylvester. I've just looked up the definition of 正志 (sammā·saṅkappa):
http://buddhaspace.org/main/modules/dokuwiki/agama:正志

It shows 3 (the 3rd and 4th are identical). The first one says:
有斷除煩惱、出離生死、不瞋恚忿怒、不傷害一切生物的志趣。
(My translation: The inclination to eliminate defilements, be escape birth and death, not be angry, not harm all beings.)

If the Pali version puts it in this way, I wouldn't have this question. :-) Now I wonder if the Pali version came out of some kind of standardization that created the problem.
Profile: visualcv.com/kumara
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Post by Sylvester » Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:45 pm

May I trouble you to elaborate, Bhante?

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Post by Kumara » Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:14 am

Sylvester wrote:May I trouble you to elaborate, Bhante?
What to elaborate?
Profile: visualcv.com/kumara
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Post by Sylvester » Mon Sep 22, 2014 3:50 am

Hi Bhante.

I'm unsure what you mean by citing that passage above.

I scurried around a bit in that site and my search yielded this -

http://buddhaspace.org/main/modules/dok ... 9%E6%83%B1

The passage you cited was embedded in the Gloss (註解) to SA 784 (http://suttacentral.net/zh/sa784), of which I reproduce below, with my translation of the relevant passage -
如是我聞:

一時,佛住舍衛國祇樹給孤獨園。

爾時,世尊告諸比丘:「有邪、有正。諦聽,善思,當為汝說。何等為邪?謂邪見,乃至邪定。何等為正?謂正見,乃至正定。何等為正見?謂說有施、有說、有齋,有善行、有惡行,有善惡行果報,有此世、有他世,有父母、有眾生生,有阿羅漢善到、善向,有此世、他世自知作證具足住:『我生已盡,梵行已立,所作已作,自知不受後有。』何等為正志?謂出要志、無恚志、不害志。(What is Right Intention? Renunciation Intention, Non-Ill Intention, Non-Harming Intention) 何等為正語?謂離妄語、離兩舌、離惡口、離綺語。何等為正業?謂離殺、盜、婬。何等為正命?謂如法求衣服、飲食、臥具、湯藥,非不如法。何等為正方便?謂欲、精進、方便、出離、勤競、堪能常行不退。何等為正念?謂念隨順,念不妄、不虛。何等為正定?謂住心不亂、堅固、攝持、寂止、三昧、一心。」

佛說此經已,諸比丘聞佛所說,歡喜奉行。
After the sutra, we see the 校勘, giving the dynastic variant readings (in notes 54 and 55), followed by the Glosses. Your citation of -
有斷除煩惱、出離生死、不瞋恚忿怒、不傷害一切生物的志趣。
was found in gloss no. 81 giving a [modern?] commentary on Right Intention.

So, I am a little puzzled by your citation of gloss no.81, when the primary material SA 784 unequivocally gives the standard definition of Right Intention. Even if there was standardization of the Nikaya and Agama definitions of sammāsaṅkappa, I am not aware of any Canonical variant reading that could qualify as a lectio difficilior potior over the standard set, at least not gloss no.81.

Could I trouble you to also expand on -
It shows 3 (the 3rd and 4th are identical).
:anjali:

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Post by Kumara » Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:18 am

Oh, I see. Thanks for that.

So, it's the same after all. So, my question remains. Basically, if there's already abyāpāda·saṅkappa, why need to add avihiṃsā·saṅkappa? Can one have byāpāda·saṅkappa without vihiṃsā·saṅkappa?
Profile: visualcv.com/kumara
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Post by Sylvester » Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:05 am

Perhaps they are different manifestations of the latent tendency to aversion. Ill-will may be dislike simplicter ("dislike" not being the hedonic tone of unpleasant but the emotional response of grief or denial or "why must it be me?", invariably described with this latent tendency as its root). Harmfulness, I think, is the more vehement aspect of this latent tendency. With ill-will, one recoils from the contact. With harmfulness, one manhandles it.

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Post by Kumara » Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:08 am

Thanks, Sylvester. I've tried to think along those lines too. To rephrase what you said:
  • Both byāpāda and vihiṃsā are based on aversion.
  • Byāpāda recoils from the object.
  • Vihiṃsā attacks it.
Assuming this is correct, then
  • Abyāpāda is not recoiling.
  • Avihiṃsā is not attacking.
In practice, I'm happy to accept this. In fact, I just realised that this view of sammā·saṅkappa fits perfectly with the 3 coping strategies spoken of in Schema Therapy: Surrender, Avoidance and Overcompensation. (The word choices are poor in my opinion). These attitudes keeps us stuck in our patterns of suffering, called "maladaptive schemas" by the founder of this therapy.
Profile: visualcv.com/kumara
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Post by Sylvester » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:32 am

I think that's a very good approximation.

But I would (like most Ajahn Brahm junkies) add to Right Intention the "Hello Kitty" dimension. The negator would thus include "embracing" under non-illwill and "mollycoddling" under non-harm.

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6480
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Post by Mkoll » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:20 am

Good discussion here, folks.

:thumbsup:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Shouldn't abyāpāda·saṅkappa cover avihiṃsā·saṅkappa?

Post by Kumara » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:42 am

One issue: How do we reconcile this view with the abyāpāda in the 5 hindrances?

Also, if we go by this, how shall we translate abyāpāda to English (since ill-will don't fit)?
Profile: visualcv.com/kumara
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Volo and 10 guests