Re: Question regarding the terminology 'discursive thought'
See KN Pe 7.72 explanations of vitakka and vicara.
http://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/v ... ndex.html
'discursive' means digressing from topic to topic.
So that's not 'vicara' in samadhi context. In EBT, it would be the job of sati and sampajano to reign in vitakka (directed-thought) from digressing discursively.
vitakka, inside first jhana, is selecting a topic to think about superficially, recalling a memorized Dharma topic and mentally reciting it with verbal thinking. Vicara takes the topic of thought selected by vitakka and evaluates/examines/ponders it more deeply.
So for first jhana context, it's carefully delimited in that way. If there is a digression from the Dharma topic in first jhana, you wouldn't say it was vicara that digressed, it would be a separate vitakka starting up a different Dharma topic.
Really the issue with jhana samadhi is whether discursive digression is intentional or not. If it is, for example consciously switching from breath mediation to asubha meditation, that's fine. Unintentional and unwanted discursiveness is the opposite of samadhi.
See MN 20 ending, which sums up the issue nicely.
Unfortunately many meditation teachers don't get the distinction, and just lump all thinking, discursive or otherwise, as an artifact of low quality samadhi. They demonize all verbal thought, and fetishize a wrong samadhi of frozen stupor.
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/20 ... rahm.html
http://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/v ... ndex.html
'discursive' means digressing from topic to topic.
So that's not 'vicara' in samadhi context. In EBT, it would be the job of sati and sampajano to reign in vitakka (directed-thought) from digressing discursively.
vitakka, inside first jhana, is selecting a topic to think about superficially, recalling a memorized Dharma topic and mentally reciting it with verbal thinking. Vicara takes the topic of thought selected by vitakka and evaluates/examines/ponders it more deeply.
So for first jhana context, it's carefully delimited in that way. If there is a digression from the Dharma topic in first jhana, you wouldn't say it was vicara that digressed, it would be a separate vitakka starting up a different Dharma topic.
Really the issue with jhana samadhi is whether discursive digression is intentional or not. If it is, for example consciously switching from breath mediation to asubha meditation, that's fine. Unintentional and unwanted discursiveness is the opposite of samadhi.
See MN 20 ending, which sums up the issue nicely.
Unfortunately many meditation teachers don't get the distinction, and just lump all thinking, discursive or otherwise, as an artifact of low quality samadhi. They demonize all verbal thought, and fetishize a wrong samadhi of frozen stupor.
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/20 ... rahm.html
wolf22 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 22, 2020 6:26 amHi everybody,
I have a question regarding vicara or 'discursive thought'. I know it has a somewhat different meaning in different circumstances where it pertains moreso to the 'movement of concentration' than actual (verbal) thinking/fabrications but is the latter I am interested in here.
...
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org
STED definitions
STED definitions
No comments:
Post a Comment