[Buddha-l] What's the point

[Dan Lusthaus]

>> Please explain, then, what Traditional Buddhists mean when they 
>> distinguish:
>>
>> (1) prak.rti sāvadya (lit. "blameworthy by nature"), i.e., wrongdoing 
>> that is a violation of basic human or natural laws, regardless of one's 
>> affiliation with Buddhism, such as murder; and
>>
>> (2) pratik.sepa.na sāvadya (lit. "blameworthy for contradicting [the 
>> precepts]"), i.e., wrongdoing that violates a Buddhist precept or rule.
>
> Tell me which texts make this distinction. I have never encountered those 
> terms in my readings.

They are found in precisely the sorts of texts one would expect to look at 
for ethical and moral categories, such as 四分律 T 22.1428.899b27 
Dharmagupta vinaya;
五分律 T 1421.22.7c5 Mahīśāsaka vinaya;
and the Bodhisattvabhūmi.

prakṛti sāvadya 性罪, the Tib. is rang bzhin gyis kha na ma tho ba dang bcas 
pa

pratikṣepaṇa sāvadya 遮罪, the Tib. is bcas pa'i kha na ma tho ba dang bcas 
pa

prakṛti sāvadya 性罪 is found over 820 times in the main part of the Chinese 
Buddhist canon, and pratikṣepaṇa sāvadya 遮罪 about 700 times, so hardly 
what would be considered rare terms.

Not as familiar with their frequency in Tibetan literature, but Tsongkhapa 
does discuss the distinction (may be present in Mark Tatz _Asaṅga’s Chapter 
on Ethics with the Commentary of Tsong-kha-pa_, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 
1986, pp. 214f or so).

If you go to this link, you will find some Tibetan occurrences
http://tinyurl.com/6fqvbfy
(keep clicking the various items until texts appear)

Dan