So this part is clear: Vitakka is the same vitakka inside first jhana. Is vitakka and vicara subverbal mental activity, or ordinary mental talk of vaci sankhara, from the point of this sutta in isolation?
DN 22 vitakka towards 6 senses as part of craving & dukkha
DN 22 towards 6 senses, as part of 'origin of dukkha'
Rūpavitakko loke …
| Thoughts about sights … |
saddavitakko loke …
| thoughts about sounds … |
gandhavitakko loke …
| thoughts about smells … |
rasavitakko loke …
| thoughts about tastes … |
phoṭṭhabbavitakko loke …
| thoughts about touches … |
dhammavitakko loke piyarūpaṃ sātarūpaṃ, etthesā taṇhā uppajjamānā uppajjati, ettha nivisamānā nivisati.
| thoughts about thoughts in the world seem nice and pleasant, and it is there that craving arises and settles. |
DN 22 vicara
Rūpavicāro loke …
| Considerations regarding sights … |
saddavicāro loke …
| considerations regarding sounds … |
gandhavicāro loke …
| considerations regarding smells … |
rasavicāro loke …
| considerations regarding tastes … |
phoṭṭhabbavicāro loke …
| considerations regarding touches … |
dhammavicāro loke piyarūpaṃ sātarūpaṃ, etthesā taṇhā uppajjamānā uppajjati, ettha nivisamānā nivisati.
| considerations regarding thoughts in the world seem nice and pleasant, and it is there that craving arises and settles. |
Idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, dukkhasamudayaṃ ariyasaccaṃ.
| This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering. |
DN 22 towards 6 senses, as part of 'cessation of dukkha'
The same dependent origination sequence from 'origin of dukkha', but elided.
And as you know, the 4 jhanas, right samadhi, is the way by which dukkha is brought to cessation.
DN 22, the maha satipatthana sutta, in Theravada is considered one of the most complete, important suttas in the canon. It would be unthinkable (pun intended) for this sutta to have a special extra meaning for vitakka in first jhana than the vitakka that was referenced in the origin and cessation of dukkha.
So this part is clear: Vitakka is the same vitakka inside first jhana. Is vitakka and vicara subverbal mental activity, or ordinary mental talk of vaci sankhara, from the point of this sutta in isolation?
It is not subverbal mental activity, because there is a definite hierarchy here similar to MN 18, and vitakka falls outside of the subverbal area.
For reference: ✴️MN 18 Madhupiṇḍika: honey cake: sequence, highlighting subverbal portion
Cakkhu + rūpe + viññāṇaṃ → phasso → vedeti (vedanā) → sañjānāti → vitakketi → papañceti
eye + forms + consciousness → contact → feel → perceive → think → proliferate
Cakkhu + rūpe + viññāṇaṃ → phasso → vedeti (vedanā) → sañjānāti → cetana → tanha → vitakketi → vicāra
eye + forms + consciousness → contact → feel → perceive → intend/volition → crave → directed-thinking → evaluation (of those thoughts)
In DN 22, it's even more clear that vitakka and vicara is quite removed from the subverbal mental activity, separated by intending/cetana and craving/tanha in comparison to MN 18.
And if you examine the EBT parallel suttas to the MN 10 and DN 22 pali satipatthana suttas, in the agama parallels the 4 jhanas are even much more deeply imbedded as an active, simultaneous activity done with sati, and not just a theoretical reflection of the samma samadhi formula as in DN 22.
✴️MN 10 Sati-paṭṭhāna, nearly the same as DN 22.
also see: || MA 98 (4 jhanas are part of kayanupassana here) agama version of 4sp sutta,
EA 12.1 (4 jhanas are part of dhamma anupassana here)
MN 119 kāya-gatā-sati 🏃kgs, || MA 81 (matches MN 119 very closely, 4 jhanas part of kayaanupassana)
Now this Craving, bhikkhus,
where does it take its rise,
where does it have its dwelling?
In those material things of this world
which are dear to us,
which are pleasant.
The thoughts that arise through sight,
the thoughts that arise through hearing,
the thoughts that arise through smell,
taste,
touch and imagination
— these are the things in this world
that are dear,
that are pleasant.
There does Craving take its rise,
there does it dwell.
Rūpa-vitakko loke piya-rūpaɱ sāta-rūpaɱ,||
etth'esā taṇhā uppajjamānā uppajjati,||
ettha nivisamānā nivisati.|| ||
Etc. Sadda, Gandha, Rasa, Phottabba, Dhamma; and also next: vicara.
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-v
and the linked Pali:
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-v
Once again, in this sutta where 'the path to convergence' is being
described, there is no explanation that when entering the first jhana,
the meaning of the term vitakka suddenly changes.
Again, the next section speaks about the elimination of this vitakka
(and later vicara) without remainder. So if vitakka and vicara are
eliminated prior to entering the first jhana, without explanation there
is no justification for thinking that they are to be reintroduced in the
next breath with a different meaning and different implications in order
to experience the first jhana.
No mention: no path to convergence. This is just unacceptable as a
teaching without such an explanation and the Buddha does not teach in
unacceptable ways.
This is such elementary logic that it hurts just to think about it!
How is "the path to convergence"
idiomatic English? What does 'convergence' mean? Convergence with what?
Of what? Isn't this coming very close to Hinduism? Convergence with
Brahma? It's "The One Sure Way".
DN 22 also definition of samma samadhi has 1st and 2nd jhana vitakka refs
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammāsamādhi?
| And what is right undistractible-lucidity? |
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati.
| It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first jhāna, which has the rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, while directing-thought and evaluation. |
So this part is clear: Vitakka is the same vitakka inside first jhana. Is vitakka and vicara subverbal mental activity, or ordinary mental talk of vaci sankhara, from the point of this sutta in isolation?
It is not subverbal mental activity, because there is a definite hierarchy here similar to MN 18, and vitakka falls outside of the subverbal area.
For reference: ✴️MN 18 Madhupiṇḍika: honey cake: sequence, highlighting subverbal portion
Cakkhu + rūpe + viññāṇaṃ → phasso → vedeti (vedanā) → sañjānāti → vitakketi → papañceti
eye + forms + consciousness → contact → feel → perceive → think → proliferate
DN 22 has a similar sequence, with some additions:
Cakkhu + rūpe + viññāṇaṃ → phasso → vedeti (vedanā) → sañjānāti → cetana → tanha → vitakketi → vicāra
eye + forms + consciousness → contact → feel → perceive → intend/volition → crave → directed-thinking → evaluation (of those thoughts)
In DN 22, it's even more clear that vitakka and vicara is quite removed from the subverbal mental activity, separated by intending/cetana and craving/tanha in comparison to MN 18.
And if you examine the EBT parallel suttas to the MN 10 and DN 22 pali satipatthana suttas, in the agama parallels the 4 jhanas are even much more deeply imbedded as an active, simultaneous activity done with sati, and not just a theoretical reflection of the samma samadhi formula as in DN 22.
✴️MN 10 Sati-paṭṭhāna, nearly the same as DN 22.
also see: || MA 98 (4 jhanas are part of kayanupassana here) agama version of 4sp sutta,
EA 12.1 (4 jhanas are part of dhamma anupassana here)
MN 119 kāya-gatā-sati 🏃kgs, || MA 81 (matches MN 119 very closely, 4 jhanas part of kayaanupassana)
A friend shared his analysis of DN 22, same section as I examined above.
Now this Craving, bhikkhus,
where does it take its rise,
where does it have its dwelling?
In those material things of this world
which are dear to us,
which are pleasant.
The thoughts that arise through sight,
the thoughts that arise through hearing,
the thoughts that arise through smell,
taste,
touch and imagination
— these are the things in this world
that are dear,
that are pleasant.
There does Craving take its rise,
there does it dwell.
Rūpa-vitakko loke piya-rūpaɱ sāta-rūpaɱ,||
etth'esā taṇhā uppajjamānā uppajjati,||
ettha nivisamānā nivisati.|| ||
Etc. Sadda, Gandha, Rasa, Phottabba, Dhamma; and also next: vicara.
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-v
and the linked Pali:
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-v
Once again, in this sutta where 'the path to convergence' is being
described, there is no explanation that when entering the first jhana,
the meaning of the term vitakka suddenly changes.
Again, the next section speaks about the elimination of this vitakka
(and later vicara) without remainder. So if vitakka and vicara are
eliminated prior to entering the first jhana, without explanation there
is no justification for thinking that they are to be reintroduced in the
next breath with a different meaning and different implications in order
to experience the first jhana.
No mention: no path to convergence. This is just unacceptable as a
teaching without such an explanation and the Buddha does not teach in
unacceptable ways.
This is such elementary logic that it hurts just to think about it!
(and he points out B. Sujato never explains anywhere what he means by 'convergence' (ekayano) )
How is "the path to convergence"
idiomatic English? What does 'convergence' mean? Convergence with what?
Of what? Isn't this coming very close to Hinduism? Convergence with
Brahma? It's "The One Sure Way".
No comments:
Post a Comment