Which leads to more harm unawareness or vindictiveness?

[Wizard in the Forest]

Thank you so much for the clarification.

[phil]

See the Anangana Sutta Majjhimanikāya Sutta 5

Here, friend, Moggallāna, this person with blemish, who does not know, as it really is, there is blemish in me, would not arouse interest, and make effort to dispel that blemish. So he would die with a defiled mind with greed, hate, and delusion. Just like a bronze bowl bought from a shop or smithy would be covered with dust and stains, its owner not partaking food in it would not clean it, would let it lie with dust and as time goes that bronze bowl would be much more dusty and stained. In the same way this person with blemish, who would not know, as it really is, there is blemish in me, would not arouse interest, and make effort to dispel that blemish. So he would die with a defiled mind with greed, hate, and delusion.

Friend, this person with blemish, who knows, as it really is, there is blemish in me, would arouse interest, and make effort to dispel that blemish. He would die with a non-defiled mind without greed, hate, and delusion. Just like a bronze bowl bought from a shop or smithy would be covered with dust and stains. Its owner partaking food in it would clean it. Would not let it lie with dirt and as time goes the bronze bowl would be more and more clean. In the same manner this person with blemish, who knows, as it really is, there is blemish in me, would arouse interest and make effort to dispel that blemish. So he would die with a non-defiled mind without greed, hate, and delusion.

Dear Bhante, may I respectfull ask the connection of this passage to the one in question? I've always taken the "blemish" here to be representative of an accumulated tendency that is seen in habitual behaviour of body, speech or mind rather than a momentary citta expressed through an action which is what the sutta passage in question is about, if I'm not mistaken..

Nobody had commented on it yet, but Isn't my above post about prompted and unprompted cittas relevant to this discussion? For example, last night a mosquito mysteriously appeared in my room when I was sleeping, although the temperature was close to the freezing point. A December mosquito! In summer, I am always aware of the high possibility that I will be tempted to kill a mosquito, and when the temptation arises, there is more often than not wise consideration that stops me from doing it. Last night, my guard was down and I just instinctively slapped at the mosquito without time to pause. Now, perhpas according to Abhidhamma if I understand correctly, and perhaps according to the sutta passage in question, there would be a stronger akusala kamma in the unprompted citta (slapping the mosquito instinctively last night) than there would be if I had stopped to consider ("well, I have to work early tomorrow, if I don't take care of this mosquito my day will be ruined due to sleeplessness, just this once won't hurt...) In conventional thinking, it would certainly seem the latter would be worse, but according to Abhidhamma, and perhaps the sutta passage in question, the latter bears a less strong kamma by being prompted. The Dhamma goes against conventional thinking, at times, though I agree with Alan that common sense usually reigns...

Thank you for any feedback Bhante, or anyone.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

I think the issue is not about prompted vs unprompted, but associated with wrong view (ditthigata sampayutta) vs dissociated from wrong view (ditthigata vippayutta). This applies to unwholesome consciousness rooted in greed (lobhamūla citta).

Premeditated killing is prompted consciousness, while spontaneous killing is unprompted consciousness. Prompted consciousness is more powerful than unprompted consciousness, not less powerful. In murder cases, premeditated murder is regarded as a more serious crime than a crime of passion that happens on the spur of the moment. In the matter of causing rebirth, habitual kamma takes precedence over kamma that is done only once or only occasionally. When the view is wrong, one tends to make a habit of doing unwholesome kamma. If the view is right, one does it rarely if at all.

For example, a Buddhist who knows that it unwholesome kamma to take intoxicants does it rarely, if at all. While taking alcohol he is ashamed in case another Buddhist might criticise him if he comes to know about it. A non-Buddhist who holds the wrong view that there is no harm in taking alcohol, does it frequently, and habitually, speaks on praise of it, and encourages others to do likewise. When told that it is unwholesome, he shows anger and feels ill-will, which is further unwholesome kamma.

Before gaining faith in the Buddha's teaching one might think that killing a mosquito is not a blemish, whereas now one realises that it is, in fact, a blemish to act with anger and aversion, whether spontaneously or deliberately.

[phil]

I think the issue is not about prompted vs unprompted, but associated with wrong view (ditthigata sampayutta) vs dissociated from wrong view (ditthigata vipayutta). This applies to unwholesome consciousness rooted in greed (lobhamūla citta).

Premeditated killing is prompted consciousness, while spontaneous killing is unprompted consciousness.

Before gaining faith in the Buddha's teaching one might think that killing a mosquito is not a blemish, whereas now one realises that it is, in fact, a blemish to act with anger and aversion, whether spontaneously or deliberately.

Dear Bhante

I see, thank you very much for the explanation.

[D1W1]

hi all, sorry to wake this thread up.

Which is the greater demerit, conscious or unconscious wrongdoing?”
“Unconscious wrong-doing, O king.”
“Then we should doubly punish those who do wrong unconsciously.”
“What do you think, O king, would a man be more seriously burned if he seized a red-hot iron ball not
knowing it was hot than he would be if he knew.”
“He would be burned more severely if he didn’t know it was hot.”
“Just so, O king, it is the same with the man who does wrong unconsciously.”

Does anyone know in terms of the intensity of the bad kamma, which one is more weightier, one who does wrong doing unknowingly or one who does it knowingly?
I think this Sutta talks about a single wrongdoing rather than how often a person does wrongdoing.

[perkele]

Does anyone know in terms of the intensity of the bad kamma, which one is more weightier, one who does wrong doing unknowingly or one who does it knowingly?
I think this Sutta talks about a single wrongdoing rather than how often a person does wrongdoing.

I found this essay to make for very good reading on the topic: Unwholesome done knowingly and unknowingly

I had already intended to include this reference in an answer to that other question of yours but had not come around to complete writing it.

Despite its somewhat poor English translation (the German original version - albeit with some orthografic quirks that could still be corrected - being considerably better in its overall expressiveness) and avoiding to give quick and straight direct answers for those with a "logical, calculating mindset", thereby perhaps being a bit "longwinded", it may provide plenty of food for thought, reflection and consideration, and possibly prompting for the right questions to ask of oneself.

(Corrections on the clumsy English are quite welcome, as I can include and update them there. [No, I'm not the author.])

See also this topic maybe for a possibly related discussion.