retrofuturist wrote:
To understand paticcasamuppada (and thus the Dhamma), I believe it is imperative to understand and observe the structural primacy of manasikara and mano in the creation of all things. Any view or practice that obscures this, or ignorantly diminishes it as philosophical papanca, sets us on the path away from nibbāna.
And Vitakka vicārā as well!
The following are (mostly) definitions from the PTS:
Mana sikaroti
---------------------------
(ref: Mano)
manasi-karoti - to fix the mind intently, to bear in mind, take to heart, ponder, think upon, consider, recognise.
Manasikara = attention, pondering, fixed thought.
(ref: Descartes Meditations > Attention as the "maker of things".)
"yoniso manasikara" = fixing one's attention with a purpose or thoroughly," (yoni = origin, way of birth, place of birth)
COMPARED TO
Vitakka vicārā
--------------------------
vi + takka - reflection, thought, thinking ; "initial application"
vi + cara - investigation, examination, consideration, deliberation.
Takka= [Sankrit. tarka doubt ; science of logic (lit. " turning & twisting")
Cara = [fr. car carati to move about] motion, action, process.
vitakka the characteristic of fixity & steadiness,
vicara the characteristic of movement & display
vitakka is often combination with vicara or "initial & sustained application"
////////
Rhys Davids:
"to denote the whole of the mental process of thinking (viz. fixing one's attention and reasoning out)"
"vitakka is the directing of concomitant properties towards the object ; vicara is the continued exercise of the mind on that object."
////////
Both are properties of the first jhana (called sa-vitakka sa-vicara) but are discarded in the second jhana
Note. Looking at the combination vitakka + vicara in earlier and later works one comes to the conclusion that they were once used to denote one & the same thing : just thought, thinking, only in an emphatic way (as they are also semantically synonymous) , and that one has to take them as one expression, like janati passati, without being able to state their difference. With the advance in the Sangha of intensive study of terminology they became distinguished mutually. Vitakka became the inception of mind, or attending, and was no longer applied, as in the Suttas, to thinking in general.
____________________
There is the perceived, the perceiver and the perception (reverse order.)
There is the thing felt, the one who feels, and the feeling. (reverse order.)
There is the thing thought, the thinker and the Thought (reverse order.)
The puthujjana must position himself in the Sankhara khandha and perceive his perception, feel her feeling and think his thought.
He must discriminate between perception, feeling, thought, and breath. He must reflect on the arising, remaining and cessation of each.
"Ānanda, remember this too as a wonderful and marvelous quality of the Tathāgata: Here, Ānanda, for the Tathāgata feelings are known as they arise, as they are present, as they disappear; perceptions are known as they arise, as they are present, as they disappear; thoughts are known as they arise, as they are present, as they disappear. Remember this too, Ānanda, as a wonderful and marvelous quality of the Tathāgata.” MN123
As far as Thinking is concerned, this is the most difficult to realize.
For there are these two type of thinking indeed (Vitakkavicārā & Manasikāra).
The thinking that occurs in NamaRupa (a willfull and intended thinking) that create things.
And a thinking in Sankhara khandha, that first lays down it's potential doubt on the ground of the actual "reality"; then reflect that thinking back to it.
Should we always compare both type of "thinking".
Is "NOT THINKING" (avitakkavicārā) in Sankhara Khandha a key to the disappearance of Dukkha?
More easily said than done.
