What they demonstrate is that the meaning of the expression is not very narrow. You don't have any evidence that it should mean something completely different in different contexts, or do you? Actually if you take Occam's razor, saying that the meaning is not clear involves less assumptions than saying it has a definite and narrow yet unverifiable meaning.CecilN wrote:These arguments are not strong because they refer to one-pointedness is specific contexts, such as listening & walking; just as MN 19 refers to one-pointedness is the specific context of "concentration". Since when did concentration imply active verbal thinking?
This is not an argument of authority. It's an argument coming from comparative studies. Actually, I proposed that authenticity problem, see my article Early and late in MN 117. This is also heavily corroborated by Bhante Analayo's The Mahācattārīsaka-sutta in the Light of its Parallels. Anyway, as I said this is not even the point. The fact that manasikara is mentioned in MN 111 doesn't make up for the fact that it is not mentioned in the first jhana pericope, in place of vitakka, which would be an utterly misleading term to use.Sorry, we don't take arguments of authority. Who has proposed authenticity problems?Buddha Vacana wrote:Yeah but MN 111, like MN 117 has serious authenticity problems, as far as I am aware.
Sujato & his group? It sounds like your argument has been self-contradicted twice, in that: (i) it relied on the authority of Sujato & his group (who try to debunk MN 117 because MN 117 treats their beloved "re-birth" as 2nd rate dhamma); and (ii) the Sujato group is the very group you are trying to debunk with this thread. You will have to do better than to write-off MN 117 and MN 111, which are dhamma well-spoken.
Did you not say that manasikara is mentioned as part of the concentration faculty for each jhana in MN 111?Also, your 'manasikara' argument in itself is weak because 'manasikara' implies pondering, discernment & reflectiveness, which possibly may fall into the wisdom faculty rather than concentration faculty.
According to Ven. Nyanatiloka:
Now, I am not an expert on the exact meaning of manasikara in the suttas, so if this definition of Ven. Nyanatiloka turns out to be erroneous, I might have to remove that example from my article. But it still needs to be proven (I'll have a closer look). Anyway, in the end, it doesn't change much my argument, just that this particular example, in case it does turn out to be that way, is not appropriate. But the other ones I provided ("cittaṃ abhinīharati" or "cittaṃ paṇidahitabbaṃ") clearly are from their context, there is no question about it.manasikàra: ‘attention’, ‘mental advertence’,
1. As a psychological term, attention belongs to the
formation-group (sankhàra-kkhandha; s. Tab. II) and is
one of the 7 mental factors (cetasika) that are insepar-
ably associated with all states of consciousness
(s. cetanà). In M. 9, it is given as one of the factors
representative of mind (nàma) It is the mind’s first
‘confrontation with an object’ and ‘binds the associated
mental factors to the object.’ It is, therefore, the promi-
nent factor in two specific classes of consciousness:
i.e. ‘advertence (àvajjana, q.v.) at the five sense-doors’
Generally, I would fully agree with you here but the issue here is those that have actually experienced real jhana will always disagree with you.Buddha Vacana wrote:Sorry, we don't take arguments of authority.
We are trying to get past circular arguments.
Not all people who are highly developed agree with your understanding of jhana. So arguments of authority just don't work.It is similar to an astronaut that has experienced floating in space & an astronomer from earth attempting to argue by using a telescope that floating in space is not possible. Buddhism is an experiential tradition. Those that spent years meditation in forest before they became teachers probably have more authority. If they tell you that your ideas or "over-estimation" about jhana is not jhana, why would they do that? Out of conceit? To put you down? If that was so, is not the whole faith in the Sangha is destroyed?
I have already answered in the O.P. See my quote from MN 78.allow me to ask you a question for you to reply to: "What types or manner of thinking (vitakka) do you expect or believe occur in the 1st jhana?" Thanks