Abhidhammattha Sangaha ( A Manual of Abhidhamma )
Translated by Narada Maha Thera
Published By the Buddhist Missionary Society
12.Viriya—
Derived from
√ aj, to go + ir. Vi is substituted for aj.
Vira is one who strenuously carries on his work uninter-
ruptedly.
It is defined as the state or action of energetic per-
sons (Viranam bhavo, kammam). Or, it is that which is
effected or carried out methodically (Vidhina irayitabbam
pavattetabbam va).
It has the characteristic of supporting (upattham-
bana) upholding (paggahana), sustaining (ussahana).
As an old house is supported by new pillars even so
concomitants are aided and supported by Viriya.
Just as a strong reinforcement would help an army to
hold on instead of retreating, even so Viriya upholds or
uplifts its concomitants.
Viriya is regarded as a controlling factor (Indriya)
because it overcomes idleness. It is also regarded as one of
the five powers (Bala) because it cannot be shaken by its
opposite idleness. Viriya serves as one of the four means of
accomplishing one’s ends (Iddhipada). It is this Viriya that
appears as Four Modes of Supreme Efforts (Sammappad-
hana). Viriya is sublimated as one of the seven factors of
Enlightenment (Bojjhanga). Finally it has been elevated to
one of the eight members of the Noble Path. (Atthangika–
Magga) as Samma Vayama (Right Effort).
Atthasalini states that Viriya should be regarded as
the root of all achievements.
Effort, exertion, energy are suggested as best equivalents.
13. Piti—See Ch. 1. note 40.
14.Chanda—
Derived from
√ chad, to wish.
The chief characteristic of Chanda is the wish-to-do
(kattukamyata). It is like the stretching of the hand to
grasp an object.
This unmoral Chanda should be distinguished from
immoral Lobha which is clinging to an object.
There are three kinds of Chandas—namely,
(i)Kamacchanda which is sensual craving, one of
the Five Hindrances (Nivarana). This is ethically immoral.
(ii)Kattukamyata Chanda, the mere wish-to-do.
This is ethically unmoral.
(iii)Dhammacchanda, righteous wish. It is this
Dhammacchanda that impelled Prince Siddhartha to
renounce Royal pleasures.
Of them it is Kattukamyata Chanda, meaning
attached to this particular mental state, that serves as one
of the four dominant influences (Adhipati).
Shwe Zan Aung says—“The effort of conation or will
is due to Viriya. Piti signifies an interest in the object;
Chanda constitutes the intention with respect to object.”
(Compendium—p. 18.)
Buddhists have this Dhammacchanda for the realisa-
tion of Nibbana. It is not a kind of craving.
15.Moha—
Derived from
√ muh, to be stupefied, to be deluded.
Moha is one of the three roots of evil and is common to all
immoral types of consciousness. It is opposed to Panna—
wisdom.
The chief characteristic of Moha is confusion with
regard to the nature of an object. Moha clouds one’s know-
ledge with regard to Kamma and its consequences and the
four noble Truths.
16.Ahirika—
An abstract noun formed of “a” + hirika.
He who is not ashamed of doing evil is ahiriko. The
state of such a person is ahirikkarim = ahirikam.
One who has hiri recoils from evil just as a cock’s
feather shrinks in front of fire. One who has no Hiri, would
commit any evil without the least compunction.
17.Anottappa—
Na + ava +
√ tapp, to be tormented.
Ottappa is fear to do evil, i.e., fear of the conse-
quences.
Anottappa is its opposite and is compared to a moth
that is singed by fire. A person who is afraid of fire would
not touch it, but a moth, unaware of the consequences,
attracted by fire, would get burnt. In the same way a per-
son without Ottappa would commit evil and suffer in
states of woe.
Both these terms—Hiri and Ottappa—are found in
conjunction. Hiri should be differentiated from ordinary
shyness and Ottappa from ordinary fear of any individual.
Fear is regarded as one of the ten armies of Mara. A Bud-
dhist is not expected to be afraid of any individual, even a
God, for Buddhism is not based on the fear of the unknown.
Hiri arises from within, and Ottappa from without.
Suppose, for instance, there is a piece of iron, one end of
which is heated, and the other smeared with filth. The
filthy end one would not touch owing to disgust, and the
other end through fear. Hiri is compared to the former and
Ottappa to the latter.
The following note by Mrs. Rhys Davids on Hiri and
Ottappa clearly depicts the difference between these rela-
tive mental constituents:—
“Hiri and Ottappam, as analysed by Buddhaghosa,
present points of considerable ethical interest. Taken
together they give us the emotional and conative aspect of
the modern notion of conscience, just as sati represents its
intellectual side. The former term ‘is equivalent to shame
(lajja), the latter to ‘anguish (ubbego) over evil-doing.’
Hiri has its source within; ottappam springs from without.
Hiri is autonomous (attadhipati); ottappam, heterono-
mous, influenced by society (lokadhipati). The former is
established on shame; the latter on dread. The former is
marked by consistency; the latter by discernment of the
danger and fearsomeness of error. The subjective source
of hiri is fourfold, viz., the idea of what is due to one’s
birth, age, worth, and education. Thus, one having hiri
will think ‘Only mean folk (fishers etc.) children, poor
wretches, the blind and ignorant, would do such an act,’
and refrains. The external source of ottappam is, the idea
that ‘the body of the faithful will blame you,’ and hence
one refrains. If a man has hiri, he is, as said the Buddha,
his own best master. To one who is sensitive by way of
ottappam, the masters of the faith are the best guides”.
In a supplementary paragraph the ‘marks’ (consist-
ency etc.) are thus explained: “In Hiri one reflects on the
worth of one’s birth, one’s teacher, one’s estate, and one’s
fellow-students. In Ottappam one feels dread at self-
reproach, the blame of others, chastisement, and retribu-
tion in another life.”
(Buddhist Psychology, p. 20).
Hiri and Ottappa are regarded as the two dominant factors
that rule the world. No civilized society can exist without
them.
18.Uddhacca—
U = up, above, +
√ Dhu, to waver, to shake off.
Uddhutassa bhavo Uddhuccam = Uddhaccam =
state of throwing up. It is compared to the disturbed state
of a heap of ashes when hit with a stone. It is the unsettled
state of mind, and is opposed to collectedness (vupasama).
As one of the five Hindrances it is the antithesis of Sukha,
happiness.
In some rare instances Uddhacca is used in the sense
of puffed-up state of mind, corresponding to conceit. Here
it is not used in that sense. As a rule Uddhacca is differen-
tiated from Mana because both of them are treated as
Samyojanas (Fetters).
These four, viz., Moha, Ahirika, Anottappa,
Uddhacca—that head the list of Immoral Cetasikas—are
common to all Immoral types of consciousness.
19.Lobha—See Ch. 1, note 9.
20.Ditthi—See Ch. 1, note 11.
The difference between Moha and Ditthi should be noted.
The former clouds the object; the latter deals with one’s
views, such as as ‘this indeed is truth, and the rest is false’.
Ditthi is opposed to ¥ana, wisdom. The former rejects the
real nature and views wrongly. The latter discerns the
object as it is.
When the Pali term Ditthi is used alone, unqualify-
ingly, it is employed in the sense of Miccha Ditthi—wrong
belief.
Samma Ditthi or Amoha is used as the antithesis of
Moha.
21.Mana—Derived from
√ man, to think.
22.Dosa—See Ch. 1, note 9
23.Issa—Derived from i +
√ su, to be envious,
to be jealous.
It has the characteristic of envying others’ success
and prosperity. As such it is objective.
24.Macchariya—
Maccharassa bhavo = the state of an avaricious person.
Commentary gives another explanation:—
‘Let not this wonder be to others, but to myself.’
(Ma idam acchariyam annesam hotu, mayham’eva hotu).
The chief characteristic of Macchariya is the concealment
of one’s prosperity. Contrary to Issa, this is subjective.
Both Issa and Macchariya are regarded as the friends
of Dosa because each of them arises with it.
25.Kukkucca—
Kukatassa bhavo = kukkuccam = the state of having done
amiss.
According to the commentary evil that is done is
ku+ kata, and so is good that is not done. Remorse over
the evil that is done is Kukkucca, and so is remorse over
the good that is not done.
It has the characteristic of grieving over the evil that
is done and the good that is not done.
Dhammasangani explains:—
“What is worry?”
“Consciousness of what is lawful in something that is
unlawful, consciousness of what is unlawful in something
that is lawful; consciousness of what is immoral in some-
thing that is moral; consciousness of what is moral in
something that is immoral—all this sort of worry, fidget-
ing, over-scrupulousness, remorse of conscience, mental
sacrificing—this is what is called worry.”
(Buddhist Psychology — p. 313.)
Kukkucca is one of the five Hindrances and is used
together with Uddhacca. It pertains to past things only.
According to Vinaya, Kukkucca is healthy doubt with
regard to rules, and is commended. According to Abhi-
dhamma, on the contrary, it is repentance which is not
commended.
26.Thina—Derived from√ the, to shrink, + na.
Thena = thana = thina.
It is the shrinking state of the mind like a cock’s
feather before fire. It is opposed to Viriya. Thina is
explained as Citta—gelannam, sickness of the mind.
As such It is the antithesis of Cittakammannata,
adaptability of the mind, one of the Sobhana cetasikas.
27.Middha—Derived from
√ middh, to be in-
active, to be inert, to be incapable.
This is the morbid state of the mental factors.
Both Thina and Middha are always used in conjunc-
tion, and are one of the five Hindrances. They are inhibited
by Vitakka, initial application, one of the Jhana factors.
Middha, too, is opposed to Viriya. Where there are Thina
and Middha there is no Viriya.
Middha is explained as the Kaya-gelanna, sickness of
the mental body. Here body is not used in the sense of mate-
rial form, but is applied to the body of mental factors, viz.,
Vedana, Sanna and Sankhara (feeling, perception, and the
remaining fifty mental factors). Hence Middha is the anti-
thesis of Kayakammannata, Adaptability of mental factors.
Both Thina And Middha are explained in the Dham-
masangani as follows:
“What is stolidity (Thina)?
“That which is indisposition, unwieldiness of intel-
lect; adhering and cohering; clinging, cleaving to, stick-
iness; stolidity, that is, a stiffening, a rigidity of the
intellect—this is called stolidity.
“What is torpor (Middha)?
“That which is indisposition, unwieldiness of sense,
a shrouding, enveloping, barricading within; torpor that
which is sleep, drowsiness; sleep, slumbering, somnolence
this is called torpor.”
(Buddhist Psychology, pp. 311, 312.)
28.Vicikiccha—See Ch. 1, note 13.
Vicikiccha, as a Hindrance, does not mean doubts with
regard to the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, etc.,
Majjhima Nikaya commentary states — “it is so
called because it is incapable of deciding that it is as such,”
(Idam’ev’idanti nicchetum asamatthabhavato’ti vicikiccha).
29.Saddha—Sam, well; +
√ dah, to establish,
to place, to put.
Samskrt Sraddha is composed of Srat = faith +
√ dha to establish.
According to Pali, Saddha is well-established confi-
dence in the Buddha, Dhamma, and the Sangha. Purifica-
tion (sampasadana) of its mental associates is its chief
characteristic. It is compared to the water purifying gem of
the universal monarch. This particular gem; when thrown
into water, causes mud and water-weeds to subside. The
water is consequently purified. In the same way Saddha
purifies the mind of its stains.
This Saddha is not blind faith. It is confidence based
on knowledge.
One might question whether a non-Buddhist could
also possess this Saddha.
Atthasalini raises this very question and provides an
answer which is rather unsatisfactory and inadequate.
“Do men of false opinions not believe in their own teach-
ers?” questions Venerable Buddhaghosa. His answer is:—
“They do. But that is not Saddha; it is a mere acqui-
escence in words (Vacanasampaticchanamattameva).”
If Saddha is limited only to Buddhists, what shall we
say when a non-Buddhist places his faith or confidence in
his teacher? Surely his mind also gets purified to some
extent when he thinks of his particular religious teacher.
Could it be Ditthi-false view? Then it is immoral
(Akusala). In such a case there is no occasion for a non-
Buddhist to experience a moral consciousness.
Would it not be more correct to say that Saddha is
mere confidence or faith, instead of restricting to the
Triple Gem?
Dhammasangani explains Saddha as follows:—
“The faith which on that occasion is trusting in, the
professing confidence in, the sense of assurance, faith,
faith as a faculty and as a power:”
(Buddhist Psychology, p. 14.)
Saddha is also apprehension intuitively of experience or
knowledge gathered in past births.
No comments:
Post a Comment