On 1/27/10, frank <fcckuan@...> wrote:

>
> In reading [M. 22] simile of snake,
>
> I came across: pa-pakam. dit.t.higatam.
> which was translated as "pernicious view". (which arose in the monk
> Arittha who misrepresented the Buddha's teaching by claiming that one
> could enjoy sensual pleasures without it being an obstacle to the path).
>
> checking DPR's dictionary, and CST4, I can not discern how that compares
> with miccha-ditthi, the usual translation of "wrong view" that occurs
> frequently throughout the cannon.
>
> So on the scale of wrong and harmful views, which is worse, more offensive?
> Papakam ditthigatam or miccha-ditthi?
>
> DPR defines "ditthigatam" as "a belief, a wrong view"
> and paapakam as "wicked, sinful".
>
> Nyanatiloka buddhist dictionary says "ditthigatam" is a theory, such as
> "the buddha was free from theory (ditthigatam), for he saw material form
> as it really is."
>
> Based on nyanatiloka's definition, "ditthigatam" used on it's own seems
> to have an ethically neutral quality.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Di.t.thi is a view, theory, dogma etc.

micchaa sammaa, paapaka.m etc are adjcetives that qualify di.t.thi.

paapaka.m (evil) as an adjective qualifies di.t.thi. Evil view. This
has to do with ethihcs and behaviour.

micchaa makes it an 'empty or false' view. This has to do with
knowledge and truth.

So there is no comparison


--
Metta is being friendly to everybody