I have been looking into this question myself recently. Though I may be making mistakes, I think I have it more or less figured out. As such, I would appreciate any comments/corrections/additions from many the learned Bikkhus and scholars on this site. Many thanks
-------------------------
Question: Is Moha identical to Avijja?
-------------------------
The answer is a little more complicated than a straightforward yes or no. TLDR:
There are two different forms or levels of Non-Delusion/Amoha:
- Mundane (or Relative) Amoha, leading to a good rebirth, and
- Supramundane (or Transcendent) Amoha, leading to Nibbana
Knowledge/Vijja, however, is ALWAYS transcendent, leading to Nibbana (with one notable exception – see Footnote 1 below). As such:
- Transcendent Amoha IS identical to Vijja (Cessation of Avijja)
- Relative Amoha IS NOT Vijja. Still some Avijja present, though less than in full Moha
By the same logic:
- Moha IS Avijja
- Relative Amoha IS ALSO Avijja
- Transcendent Amoha IS NOT Avijja, but Vijja
The twofold Relative vs Transcendent division is also applied to Right View/Sammādiṭṭhi in the Suttas, and is extended to the term Wisdom/Paññā in the Abhidhamma (Footnote 2).
However, the Suttas often do not explicitly state which form of Non-Delusion or Right View they are referring to, so one must look to the context to determine this.
Detail:
In the Kalamasutta, AN 3.65, the Buddha teaches a form of Amoha where, as you note, the Four Noble Truths and Nibbana are not known, which leads to good results and a good rebirth. In the very next sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya, however, the Salhasutta, AN 3.66, one of the Buddha’s senior disciples, Nandaka, gives almost exactly the same teaching as that given to the Kalamas, including the very same phrases about Amoha, but the result, rather than a good rebirth, is Nibbana. This seems confusing – what appear to be the same teachings lead to two very different results.
In distinction to the Buddha, however, Nandaka states that by Moha he means Avijja, and by Amoha he means Vijja. The Buddha gives no such equivalence in his teaching to the Kalamas. We should understand, therefore, that Nandaka is describing how he, specifically, is using the term Amoha in that specific context, rather than that Amoha always means Vijja/the ending of Avijja.
- The Buddha, therefore, is speaking to the Kalamas of Relative Amoha (the implied reason being that those he was teaching were confused uninstructed lay people not yet ready for the deeper teachings);
- Nandaka, however, is speaking to Salha and his friend of Transcendent Amoha (implicitly because, though laymen, they were children/grandchildren of important Sangha members, and as such were ready for the deeper teachings).
Noting that the term Right View/Sammādiṭṭhi can be used, in some circumstances at least, coterminously with the term Non-Delusion (Amoha) (see the paragraph on the Four Kinds of Action and AN 4.236 below), the Relative vs. Transcendent distinction is set out by the Buddha in MN 117:
Right view is twofold, I say.
There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, partakes of good deeds, and ripens in attachments [this refers to the kind of right view that results in a good rebirth but not liberation. This kind of right view is not specifically Buddhist] .
And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path. [This is the right view of one on the noble path… | “Transcendent” (lokuttara) means “leading beyond the world (of transmigration) ”].
- Note: square brackets contain select notes from Bikkhu Su jato
[Note: the term Relative is my own, but I use it because it refers to relatively less delusion than believing that killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and intoxication will lead to happiness. The term Mundane (Lokiya), though not in the Suttas, is employed in Abhidhamma as the inverse of the Sutta based Transcendent/Supramundane (Lokuttara).]
This twofold division in MN 117 parallels the Buddha’s teachings on The Four Kinds of Action/Kamma. For example, in AN 4.236, the Buddha teaches that “Bright Actions with Bright Results” (meaning happy results here and a good rebirth) are grounded in Right View/Sammādiṭṭhi. It is also to be noted that the way the phrase is structured in this Sutta – “content, kind-hearted, with right view” – clearly parallels the usual framing of “non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion”. This demonstrates that in this instance at least, Right View/Sammādiṭṭhi can be equated with Non-Delusion/Amoha. As such, in AN 4.236, Right View/Non-Delusion leads to a good rebirth.
In AN 4.237, however, the Buddha teaches that “Neither-Bright-Nor-Dark Actions with Neither-Bright-Nor-Dark Results, Kamma leading to the destruction of Kamma” (i.e. resulting in Nibbana) are grounded in Right View/Sammādiṭṭhi (this being the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path). So in AN 4.237, Right View/Non-Delusion leads to Nibbana.
The reason for this Twofold Division, as set out in different ways in both MN 117 and AN 4.237, is that:
- Relative Amoha (leading one to, for example, follow the precepts) is arrived at either with the purpose of achieving good results in this life and a good rebirth (or without that purpose and is simply a basic but naive sense of right and wrong); whilst
- Transcendent Amoha (leading one to, for example, follow the precepts) is arrived at explicitly with the purpose of following the Noble Eightfold Path, extinguishing defilements, and nibbana.
In relation to the 12 links of dependent origination, e.g. SN 12.1, where it is taught that Ignorance/Avijja drives the whole ongoing process of dependent origination, including good results in this life and a good rebirth, it is clear that where there is Relative Amoha, leading to a good rebirth, Avijja must still be present. However, where there is Transcendent Amoha, leading to the end of kamma and extinguishment, there is no Avijja. Therefore, we may arrive at the following answer to the initial question of whether Moha and Avijja are identical:
- Moha = Avijja, full
- Relative Amoha = Avijja, but lesser (logically, one could also conceive of this as Relative Moha)
- Transcendent Amoha = Cessation of Avijja (i.e. Vijja)
To determine whether Ending Moha = Cessation of Avijja, leading to cessation of Dependent Origination, one must examine the context to determine whether the “Ending” of Moha amounts to Relative or Transcendent Amoha.
-------------------------
- Footnote 1: Though as a general rule Vijja is not subject to the twofold division between mundane and transcendent, but is always transcendent, there is at least one exception, at DN 18. This Sutta says that when “Ignorance [Avijja] is given up and Knowledge [Vijja] arises” happiness in this life is the result, and it is clearly in the context of discussing good rebirth. However, this is an unusual Sutta (Bikkhu Sujato’s commentary notes are very useful in providing context), and as such should probably be taken as the exception rather than the rule. Nevertheless, it is a reminder that usage is not always 100 percent consistent, and one should always check the context in which a key term is used. Avijja/Vijja at least CAN be used in the relative sense.
- Footnote 2: Though not given in the Suttas, the distinction between Mundane/Lokiya and Supramundane/Lokuttara Wisdom/Paññā is explicitly drawn in the Abhidhamma, for instance at Vibhanga 16, under heading 2, Twofold Summary.
)
Don’t think we need to formalise it into a strict Abhidhammic framework…
), drew out the both the similarity and distinction between the two for these purposes quite clearly, including, in the detail section, full sutta references. So hopefully that will be reinstated, and then I will edit to clarify the for the purposes of point. But gist is as follows: