One possible explanation is that abyapada·sankappa simply remains as thought, while avihimsa·sankappa is a thought that is behind the action itself. 

My experience with the suttas is that there is always a good reason that the words or terms are there. Figuring them our is very interesting and zest-inducing. Sadhu.

Fortunately there the suttas are still with us. The Chinese Mahayana are very strong here and trying to promote Mahayana the superior vehicle, and that there is no such thing as "early Buddhism."

PMT is also planning a "Lotus Sutra Fellowship" especially promoting "Chinese Mahayana." When I openly questioned what if western or English-speaking Buddhists come to learn, do we teach them "Chinese" Buddhism, or just Buddhism. A number of voices responded in the meeting, but none that is really coherent.

They are really missing all the peace and joy of early Buddhism. or, maybe I am just being "fundamentalist." Buddhist fundamentals are vital, anyway. Moment like this, the radiant image of the lone Buddha under the Bodhi tree is inspiring and meaningful.

Piya

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Kumara Bhikkhu kumara.bhikkhu@... [Pali] <Pali@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

In samma·sankappa, we find abyapada·sankappa and
avihimsa·sankappa (besides nekkhamma·sankappa). I
still can't see why is there a need to include
avihimsa·sankappa. Shouldn't abyapada·sankappa cover it?

OR perhaps I'm not understanding these terms correctly.

Please enlighten.

mettâ,
kb




--
hp (65) 8211 0879

The Minding Centre
Shenton House
3 Shenton Way, #03-06 B
Singapore 068805

Meditation courses & therapy: http://themindingcentre.org
Sutta translation: http://dharmafarer.org