Delusion/Ignorance in english is different

Discussion
1

Without resorting to Pali, English words Delusion and Ignorance are not synonymous. But I often see them used in translations as if they were. Greed, Hatred, Delusion/Ignorance. It could be argued that some people are deluded in regard to the true nature and some people are ignorant but when one Pali word gets both as a translation it becomes confusing, no?
Ignorance:" lack of knowledge,understanding or information about something"
Delusion: “Belief in something that is not true” Cambridge dictionary.

There has been previous discussion about this in relation to Pali words moha and avijjā without any real resolution.
EDIT
"I often see them used in translations "

It has been pointed out that this is an error. Not a feature of Sutta translation more to be found in commentary and discussion. :folded_hands:

4 Likes
2

Would you like to give an example? :slight_smile:

There’s certainly a functional overlap, such that in a Dharma article or speech, I can see a teacher using either as a substitute to make a point, but I can’t recall in a live translation, people actually switching them up at a whim.

Edit: Unless of course you mean “popular” posts and translations. Writing “Greed Anger Ignorance”, I did find some articles, even some images that said ‘Moha’ next to Ignorance. So yeah, I guess people can be ignorant. :smiley:

3 Likes
3

It’s a good point. Perhaps the original Pali may have conveyed both meanings - something more process oriented.

For example: Ignorance is the cause (lack of knowledge) while delusion is the effect.

The Christian term ‘Sin’ may be similar to the Pali. I think it’s original meaning was “Off the mark” as in shooting an arrow and missing the target. So the single word sin can imply both cause and effect.

Sin might be technically a better choice but could have some other issues in our modern culture.

Maybe this is why most translators of the Suttas don’t seem to have any hair left ( Note to audience: That’s a joke - see “pulling one’s hair out”).

1 Like
4

Ignorance seems more fundamental, passive, latent. Delusion seems more process-oriented, active, expressed. But they’re essentially the same thing.

Venerable Nyanatiloka’s Buddhist Dictionary entry on the subject:

image
image1114×768 171 KB

5

I overstepped the mark with that assertion. I spent the night reading sutta after sutta and finding delusion consistently. So, my bad! But, it was a learning experience as all mistakes usually are. :folded_hands:
The rest of the post is relevant to commentary and discussion as you point out and remains valid I believe.
Metta

3 Likes
6

With respect :folded_hands: I believe they are similar but different. An ignorant person would be more susceptible to training, in that, they don’t know.
A delusional person believes they know and they are wrong and would be more resistant to training. They are different people. I understand this is mere semantics and that my heart knows what Greed,Hatred and Delusion are and I practice accordingly.
Metta Mkoll

1 Like
7

I’m thinking about a person who has never heard the Dhamma and has no idea of the teachings of the Buddha. The person could be a good person or a bad person but in Pali would be considered unaware or ignorant.

I’m thinking about a person who has heard the Dhamma, does know the Buddha’s teachings but misunderstands them and/or comes to wrong conclusions, thus deluded.

I think the two words overlap in meaning and so require context to suss out what the Pali word is pointing to.

4 Likes
9

The Buddha used them more or less synonymously. See for example AN3.66: “‘Salha, is there delusion?’—‘Yes, venerable sir.’—‘That is what I mean by ignorance.”

But I agree, ignorance refers to an absence of something (an understanding), while delusion is about a presence (of a misunderstanding).

And it can be helpful to keep these apart, since it allows us to reflect upon our practice in two different ways. Are we developing insight or abandoning wrong views? In a sense, that’s the same, but it provides two complementary perspectives.

It seems to me quite clear that the Buddha used avijja in large part to argue against the Brahmins, who constantly talked about vijja (or veda, same word basically). So I think ‘ignorance’ is the best translation, instead of ‘delusion’. Although literally ‘unknowing’ is closer. But as a noun that word is quite rare in English.

12 Likes
10

Maybe this is helpful:

The Sutta’s teach that Avijja refers to:

  1. not knowing the four noble truths (SN56.17, MN9, SN12.2, SN38.9)
  2. not understanding the khandha’s, i.e. what they are, their origin, their cessation, the path to their cessation, their gratification, their side-effects/dangers, their escape (SN22.113, SN22.126, SN22.129, SN22.131)

It is also used in the context of contact. If there is contact and something felt, and the notion I am arises, this is called avijja-contact (SN22.47, SN22.81). Often based upon this mental proliferation happens.

Avijja also exist as anusaya and asava. I do not think one can say that moha exist as anusaya and asava. Avijja as anusaya is related to neutral feeling. The arising, cessation, gratification, danger and escape of neutral feeling is most of the time ignored. Neutral feeling are experienced as a kind of normal and are not seen arising etc. They get no attention and are most of the time not investigated, unlike pleasant and unpleasant feelings which get much attention and investigation. We know how to get pleasant feelings, for example. In ignoring neutral feelings, taking them for granted, or experiencing them as a kind of basic feeling, then the avijja anusaya becomes stronger (MN148, SN36.6)

I tend to agree with @Mkoll that moha is a way to talk about avijja in active sense, like kilesa is a way to talk about defilement in an active sense and anusaya in latent sense. A tendency like dosa (dosa-anusaya) does not have to be triggered to be present in a latent way. But when it is triggered, dosa is present in an active way and is then experienced by the mind as being present (at least when there is mindfulness etc).

Avijja is also related to meritorious activity (SN22.51). It says:

“Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the meritorious; if he generates a demeritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the demeritorious; if he generates an imperturbable volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the imperturbable. But when a bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance and aroused true knowledge, then, with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, he does not generate a meritorious volitional formation, or a demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional formation. Since he does not generate or fashion volitional formations, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Not being agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’

So, having meritorious volitional activity does not mean this kind of kamma must be based upon wisdom. For example, one can still have a strong notion of I am doing good things and expacting good fruits for this I am.

But for avijja to disappear we must first be introduced in the four noble truths and all these 7 aspects of the khandha’s (see above). First we must have some basic knowledge or understanding to end suffering in a wise way.

5 Likes
11

Looking at Bhikkyu Sujato’s translation with the “side by side” feature turned on, I see:

“Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, sāḷhā,
atthi moho”ti?

“Evaṁ, bhante”.

“Avijjāti kho ahaṁ, sāḷhā, etamatthaṁ vadāmi.
Mūḷho kho ayaṁ, sāḷhā, avijjāgato pāṇampi hanati, adinnampi ādiyati, paradārampi gacchati, musāpi bhaṇati, parampi tathattāya samādapeti, yaṁ sa hoti dīgharattaṁ ahitāya dukkhāyā”ti.

“What do you think, Sāḷha?
Is delusion real?”

“Yes, sir.”

“‘Ignorance’ is what I mean by this.
A person who is deluded and ignorant kills living creatures, steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same. Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?”

Not familiar with Pali. From the initial sentences, it looks like “moho” is delusion and “avijjāti” is ignorance. Where the English is “deluded and ignorant” I don’t see those words. My ignorance when it comes to Pali, but can someone enlighten me on what’s going on there?

For a long time, I had a problem understanding ignorance as the first factor in the causal chain. My take now is based on Bhikkyu Sujato’s translation of “bhava”, and how that reads with regard to the cankers (asavas). From something I wrote elsewhere:

The three “cankers” were said to be three cravings: “craving for the life of sense”, “craving for becoming”, and “craving for not-becoming” (DN 22; translation PTS vol. ii p 340). When the cankers are “destroyed”, the roots of the craving for sense-pleasures, the roots of the craving “to continue, to survive, to be ” (tr. “bhava”, Bhikkyu Sujato), and the roots of the craving not “to be ” (the craving for the ignorance of being ) are destroyed.

"The craving not “to be ” is the ignorance of what is present in the moment, and I think makes sense as the source of volitive activity, the second link.

Greed, hatred, and delusion seem to me to be particular instances of the craving for sense, the craving to be, and the craving not to be.

1 Like
13

Moho = delusion. avijjā = ignorance.
Mūḷho … avijjāgato = “deluded and ignorant”.

What Ven Sujato translates as “is delusion real” is atthi moho, which can also be translated “delusion exists”.

THere are also other suttas which show the connectoin between the two but I don’t have my notes here right now.

3 Likes
14

That makes sense, thanks Sunyo!

15

The Dharmaguptakas also equated moha and avijja as interchangible synonyms. Which might explain why in DA 13 delusion is the root of the twelve-link chain of DO instead of ignorance. They considered them to be the same thing.

In Abhidharma, definitions of ignorance grew quite long listing out all sorts of different types of things that aren’t known. In that context, there is a difference as we would expect, with ignorance taking on the role as a “lack of fundamental knowledge”-- that knowledge being a laundry list that different things that varies from source to source. I wrote an essay on the topic of ignorance and why it seems out of place in some contexts. Delusion may be the earlier idea, if so, but I didn’t take the research beyond a basic overview.

4 Likes
16

I think one can say that the sutta’s teach that seeing with wisdom/insight cures delusion. Delusion is like understanding/seeing things in a distorted and so wrong way. This also means one deals with it in a wrong way. A way not leading to ones own and others welbeing. Like seeing something as nicca which is anicca, seeing something as sukha which is dukkha, seeing something as atta which is anatta.
These perceptions of anicca, dukkha and anatta pertain to vijja, to true knowlegde (AN6.35)

True knowledge (vijja) is the counterpart of avijja (MN44). In the sutta’s this is described as: knowledge of past lifes: knowlegde of how being fare on according their views and volitional activities based upon their views (kamma); knowledge of the asava’s, the origin, the cessation and the path to their cessation; knowledge of the four noble truths (MN39, for example)

In this sense one might say that delusion is more like dealing with what actually arises in a wrong way because one has also a wrong understanding of it. To cure this one must develop wisdom or insight ( i am not sure if these are synonims). To see the whole picture, and to see the rationale behind all practice, one needs vijja i think.

1 Like