SN 41.8 Jain founder doesn’t believe 2nd jhana possible, B. Sujato interpretation of vitakka illogical and incoherent

Jain founder doesn’t believe 2nd jhana is possible

SN 41.8  The Jain founder Nigantha Nataputta (Mahavira) doesn’t believe 2nd jhana, samadhi that is without vitakka and vicara (thinking and examination) , is possible.

“saddahasi tvaṃ, gahapati, samaṇassa gotamassa—	“Householder, do you have faith in the ascetic Gotama’s  (The Buddha's) claim that
atthi avitakko avicāro samādhi, atthi vitakkavicārānaṃ nirodho”ti?	there is a state of undistractible-lucidity without directing-thought and evaluation; that there is the cessation of directing-thought and evaluation?”
“Na khvāhaṃ ettha, bhante, bhagavato saddhāya gacchāmi.	“Sir, in this case I don’t rely on faith in the Buddha’s claim that
Atthi avitakko avicāro samādhi, atthi vitakkavicārānaṃ nirodho”ti.	there is a state of undistractible-lucidity without directing-thought and evaluation; that there is the cessation of directing-thought and evaluation.”
Evaṃ vutte, nigaṇṭho nāṭaputto ulloketvā etadavoca:	When he said this, Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta looked up at his assembly and said:
“idaṃ bhavanto passantu, yāva ujuko cāyaṃ citto gahapati, yāva asaṭho cāyaṃ citto gahapati, yāva amāyāvī cāyaṃ citto gahapati, vātaṃ vā so jālena bādhetabbaṃ maññeyya, yo vitakkavicāre nirodhetabbaṃ maññeyya, sakamuṭṭhinā vā so gaṅgāya sotaṃ āvāretabbaṃ maññeyya, yo vitakkavicāre nirodhetabbaṃ maññeyyā”ti.	“See, good sirs, how straightforward this householder Citta is! He’s not devious or deceitful at all. To imagine that you can stop directing-thought and evaluation would be like imagining that you can catch the wind in a net, or dam the Ganges river with your own hand.”

Now Nigantha is not a Buddhist, he's the founder of the Jain religion,  so he’s using vitakka and vicara in the way the rest of the world understands it, as ‘thinking and evaluation.’ 

If you compare my correct translation and interpretation above, with Sujato's SN 41.8: 

“Householder, do you have faith in the ascetic Gotama’s claim that there is a state of immersion without placing the mind and keeping it connected; that there is the cessation of placing the mind and keeping it connected?

B. Sujato's description of second jhana makes no sense for Buddhists, and even less sense for a non Buddhist! In order for both Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike to understand B. Sujato's redefined jhana and redefined vitakka (thinking) as "placing the mind", he would need to borrow Buddhaghosa (Vism. author) and Ajahn Brahm's 🔗vitakka time machine  and travel back to the Buddha in 450 BCE and kindly inform Nigantha, and all the Buddhist disciples, "hey by the way, when the Buddha uses the word "thinking" in first jhana, what he really means is "placing the mind").  How do you transmit coherent sacred religious oral teaching for 2500 years that requires a time traveler from the future to redefine important basic words like "up", "down", "thinking"? 

Nigantha doesn't think 2nd jhana is possible, but he believes first jhana with thinking is possible

Let's look at this part of his statement again:

Evaṃ vutte, nigaṇṭho nāṭaputto ulloketvā etadavoca:	When he said this, Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta looked up at his assembly and said:
“idaṃ bhavanto passantu, yāva ujuko cāyaṃ citto gahapati, yāva asaṭho cāyaṃ citto gahapati, yāva amāyāvī cāyaṃ citto gahapati, vātaṃ vā so jālena bādhetabbaṃ maññeyya, yo vitakkavicāre nirodhetabbaṃ maññeyya, sakamuṭṭhinā vā so gaṅgāya sotaṃ āvāretabbaṃ maññeyya, yo vitakkavicāre nirodhetabbaṃ maññeyyā”ti.	“See, good sirs, how straightforward this householder Citta is! He’s not devious or deceitful at all. To imagine that you can stop directing-thought and evaluation [of second jhana] would be like imagining that you can catch the wind in a net, or dam the Ganges river with your own hand.”

Now the sutta doesn't explicitly say that Nigantha says, "2nd jhana is impossible, first jhana is possible", but from logical deduction, that is exactly what he's saying, or if you want to be strict, he only says second jhana (and higher) is impossible, but he doesn't say first jhana is impossible. 

Now if Nigantha is using the words vitakka and vicara as non-buddhists do in the above passage, then of course he is using it in the sense of "thinking", and not Buddhaghosa and B. Sujato's redefined vitakka. So essentially Nigantha is saying first jhana with thinking is doable, possible, feasible, by buddhists and non buddhists alike. 

Another important detail that most people don't notice:

The standard first jhana formula doesn't even mention the keywords -

 'samadhi', (undistractible lucidity, concentration), or 

'ekodi/ekaggata' (singular focus, singular preoccupation of mind). 

Those two special words are reserved for 2nd jhana.  This is not to say that first jhana is not a proper samadhi, but it sure seems to imply that the Buddha placed a special status on the ability to stop thoughts, and designated that with special terms like 'samadhi', 'ekaggata', 'noble silence' (ariya tumhi bhava).

Response to comments:

Re: SN 41.8 Jain founder doesn’t believe 2nd jhana possible, B. Sujato interpretation of vitakka illogical and incoheren

• Edit
• Delete
• Report
• Quote

Post by frank k » Fri Jun 12, 2020 4:38 am

Volo wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:29 pm

...
As I pointed out before, even in English the word "thought" doesn't mean some kind of internal dialogue as you seem to understand it. I quoted R. Gethin who uses this word in much broader sense in his translations. So, no time machine is required, the only thing you need to do is to stop narrowing the meaning of the word so that it fits your ideas.

Agreed that 'thought' in English has broad meaning.
You've got the 'narrowing' accusation completely bass ackwards (reversed, inverted, wrong). It is Vism. and B. Sujato that narrow the Buddha's definition of vaci sankhara, vitakka and vicara, into an incomplete subset of 'thought'. And that's why they need a time machine, to groom the original disciples with their corrupt redefinition of that narrow and incomplete redefinition of 'thought' based on a type of equivalence fallacy.

Just as 'placing the sound wave and connecting it to the ear drum' is just an incomplete subset of vaca (speech, vocalization), 'placing the mind' is an incomplete subset of 'thought', and not even the important part!