Thought and examination (Vitakka and Vicara) after composure?

[SarathW]

Thought and examination (Vitakka and Vicara) after composure?

It appears that you find Vitakka and Vicara in first Jhana as well as before first Jhana.
How this is possible.
The following video discuss this matter in detail.
But I am not happy with any of the answers given.
What is your answer?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM8u40kdf74

[cjmacie]

Thought and examination (Vitakka and Vicara) after composure?

It appears that you find Vitakka and Vicara in first Jhana as well as before first Jhana....

Of course they do. Everyone agrees on that -- the "sutta-jhana" (jhana-lite) fans as well as the "Visuddhimagga-jhana" (hard-jhana) fans (even though they may disagree on defining vitakka & vicara). And in experience that just happens to be how it goes.

You're asking a rhetorical question here?

(Haven't gone through the video yet, but this guy knows it all pretty well, judging from many others I've watched. Wouldn't expect him to propose anything unusual here.)

[SarathW]

You're asking a rhetorical question here?

No.
Please listen to the video.
Ven. Aggacitta is a very learned monk. No doubt about it.
But he says it appear some thing wrong with the Suttas.
See last few minutes of the video.
It is a concern for me when people think that Suttas are wrong without knowing what they exactly mean.

[santa100]

Unless one's already enlightened, no matter how learned s/he is, there'll always be blind spots in their understanding of the Dhamma. Is it possible to provide what exact point that venerable disagrees with the Suttas to help with the discussion?

[SarathW]

Hi Santa
It is from counter 28.2. on wards.
He gives various examples from Chinese Agama and the opinion of Ven. Analayo.
Then he goes on to say that there could be a glitch in the Sutta.
However he cleverly distance him self from all opinion.

It is good if you listen to the whole video.
This is a very important discussion.



So what is your opinion?

[santa100]

I didn't quite see what exactly the "glitch" in the Sutta is. That's why I asked if you know any specifically to discuss 'cuz you raised the OP?

[SarathW]

There is Vitakka and Vicara in first Jhana as well as before first Jhana.
How this is possible?

[santa100]

Just like there's wrong concentration and right concentration, or wrong mindfulness and right mindfulness, there's also wrong vitakka/vicara and right vitakka/vicara. So they're always there all along, just a matter of what quality they represent when one's in 1st jhana or when one is not in 1st jhana. See Ven. Nyanaponika's Dictionary definition for more details..

[SarathW]

Actually the meditator is having wholesome thoughts (right thought) before first Jhana.

[SarathW]

Well, I got this answer from Sutta Central.
=======
Thanks so according to MN 78:
- Un wholesome thoughts ceased in first Jhana and wholesome thoughts ceased in second Jhana.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[Polar Bear]

The question boils down to the difference between:

anuvitakkeyyaṃ anuvicāreyyaṃ - this is the vitakka and vicara that is tiring and keeps one far from samadhi according to the sutta

&

savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ - this is the vitakka and vicara which does not tire since the above type was abandoned so as to enter 1st jhana which is accompanied by this type, according to the sutta

Pali sutta: https://suttacentral.net/pi/mn19

[cjmacie]

You're asking a rhetorical question here?

...
Ven. Aggacitta is a very learned monk. No doubt about it.
But he says it appear some thing wrong with the Suttas.
See last few minutes of the video.
It is a concern for me when people think that Suttas are wrong without knowing what they exactly mean.

1) Read the whole sutta (maybe even compare with the Pali). Obviously, the first part (Bhikkhu Bodhi's numbering #1 - #12) and the rest (#14 - #27) just don't fit together. For instance, as BB points out, a big chunk (14-23) is identical with #23-#32 in Sutta MN 4.

That 1st part is using vitakka and vicara in the sense of what we would perhaps call normal, or discursive "thinking". As in English usage in "Let's think this through" or "I've got to think about than more", i.e. as a discursive process. The Buddha is here talking about mundane thoughts and thinking, their value as kusala (skilfull) / akusala (defiled) and how to work with them.

That 2nd part is using the terms in a different sense – as directing attention and holding it there. As in English "That thought came to mind", "I thought of you", i.e. simply something that appeared to attention. Here the Buddha is talking about working the mind into jhana-samadhi.

Compare with the in-depth discussion of these very terms and the divergent meanings of them in different (sutta) contexts, in Ven. Sujato's blog …
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/12/06 ... -in-jhana/

It's detailed there that, just as in English, in Pali "thinking" has a broad range of uses, meanings, in different contexts.

2) It's well established that the sutta-s are full of patchwork inclusions and exclusions, some of which rather clearly represent some kind error in transmission – something left out, or various pieces thrown together. Ven. Analayo specializes in studying that out, and writes about it – especially clear when comparing not only within the Pali Canon, but with the other canons.

Ven. Sujato does that kind of research also (and in conjunction with V. Analayo). See his book to get a detailed sense of this:
http://santifm.org/santipada/wp-content ... Sujato.pdf

In this case, clearly -- just read through MN-19 it with a sense of stylistic and content analysis. Two chunks of text (oral) from completely different contexts were put together as a single text, maybe trying to show some kind of progression between the two – which one can try to construe (as Ven. Aggacitta attempts).

It's not that "the sutta-s are wrong", but rather they come in a vast body of texts put together, taken-apart, re-joined at various times by various people, at times who didn't quite know what they were doing, and hence subject to human error.

This is well known in any historically ancient body of text. I've seen it up close in the texts (of about the same period) which form the basis of classical Chinese medicine. An old friend of mine, retired classics (Latin & Greek) scholar, has shared with me how the same goes on down throughout the history and transmission of the Greek and Roman classical texts. Likewise in (Hebrew-Christian) biblical texts.

Unless, of course, one chooses to view the Buddhist canons as infallible, divinely inspired, or what not…