if you witness a crime

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
suaimhneas
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:02 am

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by suaimhneas » Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:04 pm

frank k wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:39 am
...
Frankk, haven't yet had a chance to work through those posts in depth. However, the following thoughts did occur to me, which seem relevant.

I'll leave aside for now the issue of whether mental speech is in V&V. Instead I want to focus on the conceptualization issue. I think you said you didn't think the conceptualization stage was in V&V. I also asked the question earlier of at what point conceptualization does actually drop out.

Thinking about all this again, it strikes me that sankhara certainly have certain kammic/intentional connotations (apart from the sankappo link). And, of course, there are three types of kamma also: verbal, bodily and mental (though usually mano rather than citta). And those domains occur in that order in the eightfold path too (verbal first, later bodily actions and mind towards the end).

Anyway, intention needs a certain minimal framework of ideas/concepts to be meaningful. Bodily intention requires certain bodily concepts. Verbal intention requires verbal concepts. It seems reasonable to me that any generation of verbal karma has gone into abeyance after the first jhana since the speech sankhara has ceased. Image if, even conceptually, the mind was still capable of making plans about possible future speech in the second jhana or higher. Then the mind would still be capable of generating verbal kamma. So I'd assume mental conceptual machinery related to speech must be in abeyance at that point.

Now, consider the bodily sankhara. Conceptually, planning a bodily action in the arupa jhanas might generate bodily kamma. So, surely, conceptual machinery related to the body wouldn't be functioning at that stage. Of course, in fourth jhana, one presumably is aware of the quietening of the breath (that does still need some conceptual machinery: the concept of the breath and its ceasing etc.). Something similar must hold for the first jhana (enough verbal conceptual machinery must still be there for the mind to recognize speech is tranquilized). I think, generally, concepts about the body must come under the bodily (kaya) sankhara. Imagine someone holding a gun and planning in his mind to pull the trigger and fire it at a person, and someone grabs and pulls it out of his hand before he fires it. He must have been generated bad bodily karma just with his thoughts alone (even though the gun never was physically fired). Therefore, I'd argue some conceptual machinery related to ideas of the body must be part of this sankhara.

It must be similar for the mental (citta) sankhara. I suppose even with the arupa jhana, purely mind-related concepts like "infinite space" and "nothingness" must still be meaningful to the mind. So, generally, I'd argue that conceptual machinery is part of each of these three sankhara.

I asked earlier when does conceptualization drop out of jhana and posited that second jhana as a good candidate point. On reflection though, perhaps it drops out in phased manner and to a degree carries on even into arupa jhanas. I suppose this does all does work better with the idea of things like psychic powers occuring within fourth jhana (maybe conceptualization is still there even if in a more refined form).

frank k
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by frank k » Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:06 pm

suaimhneas wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:04 pm
...
I don't remember what you mean by 'conceptualization' off hand,
but citta sankhara, sanna, vedana, are active through the first 7 samadhi attainments. It would be good if we could use standard EBT terms as much as possible.

how do you interpret the speech ceasing in first jhana of SN 36.11? I believe the chat from a few years ago, based on B. sujato's V&V, you thought vaca here could mean ceasing of mental talk.

But what I see is a very straightforward way of saying (just as the exclusions for 2nd jhana and higher attainments are saying), if you open your mouth to speak, then the energetic dispersion from that activity precludes first jhana.

See AN 9.34, AN 9.41. SN 40. second jhana for example, doesn't mean V&V is impossible to do. It means if you start up V&V, you've moved out of 2nd jhana into first jhana.

Similarly being in first jhana doesn't mean you are incapable of speech.

It still seems like your'e chasing your own abhidhamma unified theory trying to figure out how that fits in with what the suttas say, rather than trying to read the suttas on their own terms and pick up on what its trying to do: which in this case, is trying to tell you the difference between the various jhanas and samadhis. To differentiate them, then vaca, vitakka, sanna, vedana, phassa, vinnana has a clear hierarchy.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages

suaimhneas
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:02 am

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by suaimhneas » Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:39 am

frank k wrote:
Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:06 pm

I don't remember what you mean by 'conceptualization' off hand,
but citta sankhara, sanna, vedana, are active through the first 7 samadhi attainments. It would be good if we could use standard EBT terms as much as possible.

...

It still seems like your'e chasing your own abhidhamma unified theory trying to figure out how that fits in with what the suttas say, rather than trying to read the suttas on their own terms and pick up on what its trying to do: which in this case, is trying to tell you the difference between the various jhanas and samadhis. To differentiate them, then vaca, vitakka, sanna, vedana, phassa, vinnana has a clear hierarchy.
No, I'm not creating a new Abhidhamma! :) I'm just exploring in depth a limited point actually pertinent to the V&V issue.
For example, I can mentally chant "may all beings be happy" in my mind. That will arouse the related concepts and relationships between those concepts. I can then hold the basic ideas behind the words in mind without actually mentally chanting the words. Or it can happen the other way around. The underlying ideas/concepts behind the words may first occur to my mind, they may then form into the associated mental words and syntax, which I may then finally say.

So which part of this is in V&V? One or the other? Both? That's the question. You seem to think just the literal mental words are meant. I'd be more inclined to think the cluster of related concepts is what is meant by V&V. Another possibility is that both are included.

Most of the Pali words you'd prefer me to use are uncontroversial (and subverbal too). It's because we disagree on the scope of some of them like V&V that I am using more psychological non-Pali terms. My above example with "may all beings be happy" doesn't contain obscure psychological concepts. It's a straightforward example. So where in the hierarchy do you think the subverbal web of concepts underlying "may all beings be happy" falls?
I suppose many of the items in the hierarchy are subverbal but I suppose we're focused here on subverbal thoughts and concepts that might possibly be in V&V.

how do you interpret the speech ceasing in first jhana of SN 36.11? I believe the chat from a few years ago, based on B. sujato's V&V, you thought vaca here could mean ceasing of mental talk.
Your recollection of the chat is mostly correct I think. However, I'm not coming to my opinions just because Sujato says something or translate something in a particular (I'd tend to think his views on V&V are too restrictive). On SN 36.11, I think the likeliest interpretation is that speech ceasing in the first jhana also means mental speech ceases. Obviously, if mental speech has quieted, there's not going to be verbal speech. But if the mental concepts, like the ideas behind "may all beings be happy", underlying speech are still present, then speech really isn't that far away. Vaci sankhara ceasing in the second jhana would then mean the mental concepts directly underlying speech ceasing there. My above post does concede that this can hardly mean all mental concepts ceasing entirely (just the part of thought/concepts/ideas directly connected to/underlying speech).
But what I see is a very straightforward way of saying (just as the exclusions for 2nd jhana and higher attainments are saying), if you open your mouth to speak, then the energetic dispersion from that activity precludes first jhana.
Just seems a very fine technical distinction to me (fully formed mental words and syntax in the mind versus the same words and syntax physically expressed by the mouth). That's obviously not a sutta-based argument! :) Just seems getting close to splitting hairs to me.

See AN 9.34, AN 9.41. SN 40. second jhana for example, doesn't mean V&V is impossible to do. It means if you start up V&V, you've moved out of 2nd jhana into first jhana.

Similarly being in first jhana doesn't mean you are incapable of speech.
Sure, like being in fourth jhana doesn't mean one can't breathe (there's still awareness of breath I'd assume and the possibility of it restarting and coming out of fourth jhana). I'd imagine this is less likely from the arupa jhana; likewise, starting talking is less likely from second jhana and higher.

Going back to earlier posts, your Vism. point does I think tend to be evidence against Sujato's restrictive interpretation of V&V. However, I still don't think it's relevant to differentiating between what we two are arguing about. I don't think it is clear that words are described as literally being mentally chanted actually within jhana. One could as easily interpret these passages to mean that words first are mentally chanted until the concept becomes clear in mind and that the concept is the V&V being used to strike in the mind until the sign arises. It's not clear though I'll admit.

I thought your strongest piece of evidence was here, https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... mn-44.html in passage 2:
yathā-sutaṃ yathā-pariyattaṃ dhammaṃ
{with the Dhamma} as-heard (and) as-memorized *******,
cetasā anu-vitakkeyyāsi anu-vicāreyyāsi,
mentally re-think (and) re-examine (that),
showing how V&V is often used. It's certainly somewhat indicative of your point (makes me think that it's certainly possible you have a point) but it's not really "proof". Some of other passages on the 7 enlightenment factors remind me a bit of SN46.38 where an eager listener fully develops all 7 enlightenment factors just while listening to Dhamma. How much one reads into or infer from such general passages is another question.

Sure, I have my favoured theory on V&V. It is IMO coherent. It doesn't seem to contradict the sutta evidence as far as I can see. It might be wrong. I wouldn't be highly confident in or too dogmatic about my viewpoint because the suttas just don't seem very clear-cut on the point to me.
frank k wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:06 pm
I'm glad you decided to jump in. You're an exemplar of the model Buddhist. You consider various theories and check the suttas to see if it matches up. Always question authority! I've already benefited from the exchange. I'm going to try to concisely summarize the passages that show vitakka as vaci-sankhara.
Thanks. However, while I might talk a good talk, I still have plenty of flaws to be worked on! :) A bit of argument can be good for helping one understanding things too (testing one's assumptions). Am I even a Buddhist? I have certainly great respect for the suttas. They set out a good working hypothesis, which I'm actually working with. Do I believe all the standard Buddhist beliefs? No, I'm agnostic on some I'm afraid; even if they are still working hypotheses for me. So, technically, I'm not sure that I'm really even a fully signed up member of the club.

frank k
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by frank k » Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:26 pm

suaimhneas wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:39 am
...
No, I'm not creating a new Abhidhamma! :) I'm just exploring in depth a limited point actually pertinent to the V&V issue.
For example, I can mentally chant "may all beings be happy" in my mind. That will arouse the related concepts and relationships between those concepts. I can then hold the basic ideas behind the words in mind without actually mentally chanting the words. Or it can happen the other way around. The underlying ideas/concepts behind the words may first occur to my mind, they may then form into the associated mental words and syntax, which I may then finally say.

So which part of this is in V&V? One or the other? Both? That's the question. You seem to think just the literal mental words are meant. I'd be more inclined to think the cluster of related concepts is what is meant by V&V. Another possibility is that both are included.

Most of the Pali words you'd prefer me to use are uncontroversial (and subverbal too). It's because we disagree on the scope of some of them like V&V that I am using more psychological non-Pali terms. My above example with "may all beings be happy" doesn't contain obscure psychological concepts. It's a straightforward example. So where in the hierarchy do you think the subverbal web of concepts underlying "may all beings be happy" falls?
I suppose many of the items in the hierarchy are subverbal but I suppose we're focused here on subverbal thoughts and concepts that might possibly be in V&V.

...
The point of the 4 jhanas, (having 4 jhanas, and not just one), and the 9 samadhi attainments (4 jhanas and 5 arupa attainments), is to differentiate the increasingly more subtle subverbal mental states. So in the context of jhanas, vitakka & vicara (SN 36.11 9 gradual passadhis, SN 45.8 STED 4 jhana formula, SN 46.3 7sb awakening factor), must be the unspoken mental words. Otherwise, if your abhidhamma (I'm not using it in a pejorative sense) gives vitakka a lower floor of subverbal than that, then there's no meaningful distinction of the perception/sanna of "may I be happy" differs than your abhidhamma subverbal vitakka version of "may I be happy."

The purpose of differentiating 1st and 2nd jhana, there has to be a clear boundary between sanna/perception and vitakka and vicara. Do you agree?

vaca = voice/vocalization/spoken-speech. Same as latin vox, same as english voice, vocal, etc. It is not mental talk. It has to be spoken talk. Otherwise right-speech has no distinction with right thought, there would be no need to have 3fold classification of kaya/body misconduct, vaca/vocal misconduct, mano/mind misconduct, you could just reduce it down to 2. Agreed?

Even the Buddha had to use speech, and vitakka & vicara of mental talk, as a way to formulate the teaching into communicable language.
look at SN 35.113

The Buddha was in solitary retreat (patisallana), a term often implying or equating with samadhi, and in that retreat he's composing the words for a teaching on dependent origination. He's speaking (bhasati, syn. of vaca), composing the words (v&v), and a bhikkhu over hears, and the buddha tells him to remember it and recite it (vaca, speak out), and practice it.

This is an oral tradition, and chanting suttas is also explicitly described as a samadhi practice. (an 5.209)
So when you put all these pieces together, for it all to be coherent, like in linear algebra, if you have 6 constraints and 6 characteristic equations, there's only one way to understand vitakka, vicara, vaca in the samadhi context for it to all fit together and be coherent.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages

suaimhneas
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:02 am

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by suaimhneas » Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:44 am

frank k wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:26 pm
The point of the 4 jhanas, (having 4 jhanas, and not just one), and the 9 samadhi attainments (4 jhanas and 5 arupa attainments), is to differentiate the increasingly more subtle subverbal mental states. So in the context of jhanas, vitakka & vicara (SN 36.11 9 gradual passadhis, SN 45.8 STED 4 jhana formula, SN 46.3 7sb awakening factor), must be the unspoken mental words. Otherwise, if your abhidhamma (I'm not using it in a pejorative sense) gives vitakka a lower floor of subverbal than that, then there's no meaningful distinction of the perception/sanna of "may I be happy" differs than your abhidhamma subverbal vitakka version of "may I be happy."

The purpose of differentiating 1st and 2nd jhana, there has to be a clear boundary between sanna/perception and vitakka and vicara. Do you agree?
Your point about sanna is good. However, I thought recognition was closely associated with sanna, the recognition of an object in a particular sense field? The idea/concepts associated with speech seem to be more indirect. There is mental talk and words, e.g. the word "earth" (in V&V in your setup). There's the concept "earth". That doesn't have to come with perceptual recognition (can just be an independent idea). Then there's perception and recognition when I'm actually perceiving earth. Similarly, for an arupa sphere like the sphere of nothingness: there's the mental word, there's the concept of nothingness, and finally there's the actual perception/experience of nothingness and the associated recognition. The concepts/ideas underlying word symbols/labels aren't surely sanna given we aren't necessarily perceiving what they represent at the time? Furthermore, unlike bare recognition, the ideas underlying speech are woven together in a web with various interrelationships to collectively form larger ideas (ideas are being manipulated). Again, this is rather far from simple sanna.

So, if not in sanna, do they better fit into V&V? Or maybe they fit into neither the basket of V&V or sanna (and be something in the gap and not categorized under this scheme)? I guess these hierarchies are not really intended to be a fully comprehensive theory of all reality.

So for your view of V&V as strictly mental speech, the concepts/ideas underlying mental speech have to be in sanna (doesn't seem to fit) or in a gap between V&V and sanna.

vaca = voice/vocalization/spoken-speech. Same as latin vox, same as english voice, vocal, etc. It is not mental talk. It has to be spoken talk. Otherwise right-speech has no distinction with right thought, there would be no need to have 3fold classification of kaya/body misconduct, vaca/vocal misconduct, mano/mind misconduct, you could just reduce it down to 2. Agreed?
That's actually a good argument (IMO your best so far).

A soft boundary does not necessarily mean two categories don't exit, e.g. in terms of colours, there is black at one side, grey in the middle, and white at the opposite end, and just because there is grey doesn't mean there is no such thing as black and white. Your argument does presuppose a hard boundary between mental and verbal actions. Maybe there is.

However, in terms of mental and verbal kamma, is the transition so clear? Usually mental actions mean things like generalized greed, hatred or delusion. So what if I spend the afternoon thinking about how best to embarrass or humiliate a colleague at an upcoming event, mentally constructing a whole elaborate series of words in my mind (fully planning the content of what I am going to say). Then he has the bad grace to not show up at the event and I never get the opportunity to make use of my efforts. Kammmically that can't be good. So it is just mental kamma just because I never got to make the final set of utterances?

Or contrast these situations: the first where a person murders someone else in a spontaneous fit of passion and the other when he coldly mentally plans out the whole thing in advance and goes and carries it out. Surely, the kamma of both situations is different even though they both have the same end result. And different again to someone merely wishing someone would die (without the intent and planning to actually bring that about). So can bodily or verbal kamma/intent be so cleanly separated from mental kamma?

Your argument also presupposes that there is no gap between physical speech and V&V. Logically, vaca could just mean physical speech and V&V the conceptual machinery/concepts/ideas underlying speech (the speech conditioner/fabricator) and mental speech is somewhere in the gap between the two (categorized under neither). That's somewhat like the seemingly gap between your notion of V&V and sanna in my above point.

Though, if I did buy your vaca argument (and I'm beginning to think it is worth considering), I could still legitimately lump *both* mental speech/words and the concepts directly underlying those symbols all into V&V (the third option).


Even the Buddha had to use speech, and vitakka & vicara of mental talk, as a way to formulate the teaching into communicable language.
look at SN 35.113

The Buddha was in solitary retreat (patisallana), a term often implying or equating with samadhi, and in that retreat he's composing the words for a teaching on dependent origination. He's speaking (bhasati, syn. of vaca), composing the words (v&v), and a bhikkhu over hears, and the buddha tells him to remember it and recite it (vaca, speak out), and practice it.
I looked at the sutta. A monk overhears the Buddha practicing a talk out loud. I don't see any V&V word derivatives used though.
This is an oral tradition, and chanting suttas is also explicitly described as a samadhi practice. (an 5.209)
So when you put all these pieces together, for it all to be coherent, like in linear algebra, if you have 6 constraints and 6 characteristic equations, there's only one way to understand vitakka, vicara, vaca in the samadhi context for it to all fit together and be coherent.
Sure, there's a strong oral tradition and association between recitation and wholesome characteristics (or between mindfulness and being able to recall suttas, e.g. in SN46.55). But the quoted suttas talks about physical recitation and samadhi (not specifically jhana).

frank k
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by frank k » Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:01 pm

suaimhneas wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:44 am
The concepts/ideas underlying word symbols/labels aren't surely sanna given we aren't necessarily perceiving what they represent at the time?
sanna/perception applies to all 6salayatana sense doors. "mano dhamma vinnana" = mind cognizes dhamma-ideas.
dhamma can be very low level sensory data, vinannam (to parallel the 5 of the remaining 6sal).
So for your view of V&V as strictly mental speech, the concepts/ideas underlying mental speech have to be in sanna (doesn't seem to fit) or in a gap between V&V and sanna.
ekaggata in the four jhanas doesn't mean you can only have one perception. It means you have a single-preoccupation. So if that happens to be the breath, you could have perceptions of heat, electricity, tactile sensation, perceptions and conceptions about the mental idea of breath apart from the direct vedana sensation of breath, via the sanna arising at the sense door of mano.

on sankhara, what you wrote is similar to the other thread on the early buddhism forum here that I'm investigating, and we can take it up there. For the purpose of vitakka, vaci-sankhara and the 3 types of sankharas relative to samadhi, we don't have the ambiguity that we do with sankhara in general (which can be co-doing as dependent origination, co-doing as one of 5khandhas, or PRODUCTS of co-doing). Within 4 jhanas and samadhi, vitakka and vaci sankhara are well defined.

I'll respond to some of your other points in a blog post today so I can post pali+english passage and run a highlighter through it to make things clear and easy to see.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages

frank k
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by frank k » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:06 pm

suaimhneas wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:44 am
Sure, there's a strong oral tradition and association between recitation and wholesome characteristics (or between mindfulness and being able to recall suttas, e.g. in SN46.55). But the quoted suttas talks about physical recitation and samadhi (not specifically jhana).
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... hara.html
V&V vitakka & vicara are vaci-sankhara (vocalization-co-doings), very close relationship with vaca/speech

look especially closely at SN 21.1 on noble silence.
there, 3 different vitakkas are expressed in just in that super short passage.

1. when one is in patisallana, that's nearly equivalent of saying one is in samadhi
quoted text iti here is explicitly called 'pari-vitakka'. So if moggallana is in samadhi, it's just a question if which whether you want to call it 4ip iddhipada (equivalent to 4th jhana), or he's in something beyond 1st jhana and 'downshifts' into first jhana to express that pari-vitakka of 'what is noble silence?'. Now as long as he doesn't disturb passadhi samobjjhanga (pacification awakening factor of 7sb), then it's definitely first jhana by MN 19 definition.

2. The second vitakka is not explicitly called vitakka like in case #1, but again its quoted iti text of the STED 2nd jhana formula, Dhamma instructions for doing 2nd jhana, in the form of quoted vitakka words. This happens frequently in the suttas, unquoted text being implicit vitakka. Quoted text sometimes could be subverbal (sañña and manasi karoti), but most of the time they are vitakka.

3. the third reference to vitakka, or lack of it, is from the explanation of the STED 2nd jhana formula that says vitakka & vicara from first jhana have been vupasaama'd, calmed to enter 2nd jhana. As I frequently like to to make this joke, if this was B. Sujato's Vitakka & vicara of 'placing the mind and keeping it connected', or Ajahn Brahm's 'first jhana wobble where the mind doesn't stay glued to the breath nimitta', then why would the Buddha not call first jhana noble silence? Is it because that first jhana wobble on the nimitta is making squeaky noises? So the Buddha is saying, "You guys, stop making all those damn squeaky noises and stick closely to that kasina already. You're driving me crazy with that noise!"
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages

User avatar
Volo
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by Volo » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:57 pm

frank k wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:06 pm
As I frequently like to to make this joke, if this was B. Sujato's Vitakka & vicara of 'placing the mind and keeping it connected', or Ajahn Brahm's 'first jhana wobble where the mind doesn't stay glued to the breath nimitta', then why would the Buddha not call first jhana noble silence?
Because vitakka and vicāra as application of mind and sustaining of mind pay an important role in forming the speech. It is not that it whenever there is vitakka and vicāra we start making noise, but without them speech is not possible.

frank k
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by frank k » Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:25 pm

I don't think you get the joke.
The point is, if V&V were just "application of mind and sustaining of mind", in first jhana, then the Buddha would have designated first jhana as noble silence. This is why SN 36.11 talks of speech ceasing in first jhana. Because it's possible to speak from jhana, but one does not. Just as in 2nd jhana, it's possible to think with V&V, but one does not.
first jhana is vocal silence.
second jhana is noble silence.
Volo wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:57 pm
frank k wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:06 pm
As I frequently like to to make this joke, if this was B. Sujato's Vitakka & vicara of 'placing the mind and keeping it connected', or Ajahn Brahm's 'first jhana wobble where the mind doesn't stay glued to the breath nimitta', then why would the Buddha not call first jhana noble silence?
Because vitakka and vicāra as application of mind and sustaining of mind pay an important role in forming the speech. It is not that it whenever there is vitakka and vicāra we start making noise, but without them speech is not possible.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages

suaimhneas
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:02 am

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by suaimhneas » Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:33 pm

frank k wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:01 pm

sanna/perception applies to all 6salayatana sense doors. "mano dhamma vinnana" = mind cognizes dhamma-ideas.
dhamma can be very low level sensory data, vinannam (to parallel the 5 of the remaining 6sal).
Frankk, I'd a quick look but I'll go through your posts more carefully in the next few days (just don't have the time at the moment).

Just some quick points:

Thought does not equal perception. Sure, when I said "sense fields" I also implicitly meant the mind field too. There can be perception of thought but that does not equal thinking.

Without ideas and concepts there is no thought. Without thought there is no speech. Sanna, by itself, is not enough for speech.
IMO thought/ideas/concepts must be in V&V. Isn't it called directed *thought* and exploration/evaluation/examination after all. The same holds for vicara/exploration (mental talk alone cannot be vicara). These have to be thought of some kind. Perhaps mental speech is or isn't involved (that's a separate issue).

It is a different question as to whether mental speech is in V&V. Surely you agree concepts and ideas are in V&V? How can there be speech without these? Surely, these are speech fabricators? Unless one is like a zombie and mindless mouthing off empty syllables.

I'll come back to your other posts later. One more point about speaking. When I verbally speak, there is no mental speech in my mind at the same time. There is a direct leap from the concepts/ideas in my mind to the vocalized speech The mind throws syntax and structure onto these on the way out and my mouth fires them off. If V&V is just purely mental speech, then I must not have any V&V in my mind when I am physically talking!

Of course, I do have ideas and concepts in my mind when physically talking. When I am mentally talking, then I have both mental talk and ideas/concepts. The only difference there is the presence of mental speech when I am mentally speaking. In both the cases of physical and mental speaking, there is the shared presence of concepts/ideas in both situations. For speech of both kinds, that is the core constant, which is why I think it is the core component (maybe only component?) of V&V.

Anyway, more later.

frank k
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by frank k » Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:40 pm

suaimhneas wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:39 am
But what I see is a very straightforward way of saying (just as the exclusions for 2nd jhana and higher attainments are saying), if you open your mouth to speak, then the energetic dispersion from that activity precludes first jhana.
Just seems a very fine technical distinction to me (fully formed mental words and syntax in the mind versus the same words and syntax physically expressed by the mouth). That's obviously not a sutta-based argument! :) Just seems getting close to splitting hairs to me.
Not hair splitting at all. Energy dispersion has a gradual continuum with very noticable differences even in small gradual changes.
For example, just in the range of vaca,
1. someone who yells for an hour
2. somone who talks loud for an hour
3. someone who talks normal volume for an hour
4. someone who talks in soft voice for an hour
5. someone who whispers for an hour

Very noticable differences in how tired your body will get.

passadhi/pacification/relaxation of the four jhanas, is felt just as the sutta describes in AN 5.28 with the 4 jhana similes. A force that pervades the entire body, and the current of hydraulic sensation that flows can be as intense as a full body orgasm.

Now while your in this jhana,
the mental talk of V&V, unvocalized speech, versus if you vocalize the same unvocalized speech, you feel the energy dispersion, the pleasure juice decreasing like its being siphoned off.

Just like you have a light bulb in the house, someone turns on the hair dryer, toaster, washing machine, and the light flickers dims.

Anyone wants to experiment, you should! Take a simple word like "om", and sustain it. Mentally recite 'om', and compare it to vocally reciting 'om'. Your piti sukha will get dispersed just like the hair dryer and light bulb example.

Whereas with normal vitakka and vicara of mentally talking, you can mentally say, "wow! jhana is awesome!", without piti sukha getting dispersed so much.

It's not just a matter of whether V&V is there, it's more about how intense the energy you put into it. For example, someone who isn't relaxed, using too much force to just shut off thinking with will power, will not get any closer to first jhana, because passadhi/pacification is blocked.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages

frank k
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by frank k » Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:46 pm

suaimhneas wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:33 pm

Thought does not equal perception. Sure, when I said "sense fields" I also implicitly meant the mind field too. There can be perception of thought but that does not equal thinking.

Without ideas and concepts there is no thought. Without thought there is no speech. Sanna, by itself, is not enough for speech.

http://lucid24.org/sn/sn46/index.html

look at the 20 suttas starting at
Ānāpāna Vagga 7
SN 46.57 Aṭṭhika
SN 46.58 Puḷavaka
SN 46.59 Vinīlaka
SN 46.60 Vicchiddaka
SN 46.61 Uddhumātaka
SN 46.62 Mettā
SN 46.63 Karuṇā
SN 46.64 Muditā
SN 46.65 Upekhā
SN 46.66 Ānāpānasati
Nirodha Vagga 8
SN 46.67 Asubha
SN 46.68 Maraṇa
SN 46.69 Paṭikkūla
SN 46.70 Sabbaloke
SN 46.71 Anicca
SN 46.72 Dukkha
SN 46.73 Anatta
SN 46.74 Pahāna
SN 46.75 Virāga
SN 46.76 Nirodha

Each one of these meditation subjects, is called a sañña/perception. And they are fed into the 7sb awakening factor samadhi engine that results in 4 jhanas, not just first jhana. I think you can agree most of those subjects would cover what you consider 'thought'.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages

suaimhneas
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:02 am

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by suaimhneas » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:01 pm

frank k wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:46 pm
...
OK, frank. I'll get back to you on the sutta references at a later stage. I'm starting to wonder slightly what I'm actually arguing about and what we actually agree or disagree on.

Back to the simple physical speech example. I'm talking out loud in a conversation to someone. V&V has to be present since I'm speaking. There is no mental speech in my mind. Thoughts/concepts are being directly structured and thrown out as speech.

Do you agree that these thoughts and concepts are part of V&V? Yes or no?

I'll leave aside whether mental speech can be in V&V. Perhaps the definition is flexible enough to contain this too. However, mental speech doesn't exist in this example but there still has to be V&V.

Do you agree that the thoughts and concepts involved with the vocalized speech are in V&V? Simple question.

frank k
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by frank k » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:07 pm

suaimhneas wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:33 pm
Surely you agree concepts and ideas are in V&V? How can there be speech without these? Surely, these are speech fabricators? Unless one is like a zombie and mindless mouthing off empty syllables.
Yes, of course concepts and ideas have to be part of V&V,
but concepts and ideas are also part of sanna/perception.
So taking a metta V&V, 'may you be happy' in first jhana,
compared to 2nd jhana metta 'may you be happy' in the form of just paying attention (manasi karoti) to a sanna/perception,

they both have meaning, idea, concept, 'thought'. But in second jhana, it's a just a perception without a verbal word needing to label it.
Last edited by frank k on Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages

frank k
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm

Re: if you witness a crime

Post by frank k » Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:11 pm

yes, and yes.
I would say as you're firing off vaca, each word, before you say it out loud, is simultaneously happening with a mental recitation of that same word.
Just because you don't pre-rehearse an entire sentence or paragraph in your mind, before rapid firing each word, doesn't mean the mental unspoken word isn't there, otherwise you would be mispronouncing and misremembering words right?
suaimhneas wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:01 pm
frank k wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:46 pm
...
OK, frank. I'll get back to you on the sutta references at a later stage. I'm starting to wonder slightly what I'm actually arguing about and what we actually agree or disagree on.

Back to the simple physical speech example. I'm talking out loud in a conversation to someone. V&V has to be present since I'm speaking. There is no mental speech in my mind. Thoughts/concepts are being directly structured and thrown out as speech.

Do you agree that these thoughts and concepts are part of V&V? Yes or no?

I'll leave aside whether mental speech can be in V&V. Perhaps the definition is flexible enough to contain this too. However, mental speech doesn't exist in this example but there still has to be V&V.

Do you agree that the thoughts and concepts involved with the vocalized speech are in V&V? Simple question.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests