Ven. Sujato revised his understanding of vitakka and jhāna in his new MN footnotes?

 

Ven. Sujato revised his understanding of vitakka and jhāna in his  new MN footnotes?

Let's take a look at some of his footnotes from key suttas:

MN 125: Dantabhūmisutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)

his second jhāna translation with vitakka as not 'thinking':

As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, they enter and remain in the second absorption …

his footnote says:

The Pali version, in a unique presentation, has the four satipaṭṭhānas in place of the first absorption, 

which offers further light on the problem discussed in the previous note.

 The first absorption is characterized by seclusion from sensual pleasures, while vitakka is still present.

 Clearly one is not “thinking of sensual pleasures” at this point, but it is not clear that one is not having vitakka for the body (and feeling, mind, and principles).

 I have translated vitakka as “thought” here, but it could mean the application of the mind to a meditation such as the breath, in which case one would be “thinking of the body”.

 This provides additional support for the reading “thoughts connected with sensual pleasures”.

 Any conclusions on this passage, however, are tenuous, and it seems likely there has been some textual corruption.

 Indeed, the Chinese parallel here has all four absorptions as usual.

frankk comment:

He acknowledges that vitakka of first jhāna (in MN 125 explicitly equated with satipatthana), can be verbal thoughts connected to the body (or any of the 4 frames of satiapatthana), 

yet where he translated second jhāna, vitakka goes right back to not being a verbal thought, but "placing the mind". 

Why?

If you're going to admit MN 125 has verbal vitakka in first jhāna, then you need to translate vitakka in second jhāna above in the same way, because second jhāna is referring back to first jhāna's vitakka "thought", not "placing the mind".

And you can't just casually accuse MN 125 of being corrupt, and not back it up with some research and evidence. 

The Chinese parallel to MN 125 listing all 4 jhānas, does not lead to evidence of Sujato's unsubstantiated interpretation of vitakka as "placing the mind".

All it does is leave a crack in the door open for someone with an agenda to try to claim first jhāna's vitakka is different than the vitakka that appeared immediately prior.  

But by virtue of Theravada's MN 125 deliberately omitting first jhāna, 

creating a second satipatthāna explicitly containing thoughts (vitakka) not connected to sensuality (kāma), 

it is clear for anyone to see that was by choice, carefully designed and crafted.

It is absolutely not a transmission error or corruption,

but a very conscientious choice, a deliberate way for the Theravada oral reciters 

to unequivocally gloss first jhāna's kāma (judicious seclusion from sensuality) 

and vitakka (3 types of right verbal thoughts and resolves of sammā saṇkappa). 

By doing so, they are very consciously attempting to prevent any future Bhikkhus 

from claiming first jhāna's vitakka is different than the vitakka that appeared immediately in the sentence and paragraph before.

  

In MN 19 footnotes, which we'll visit shortly, Sujato conveniently fails to mention that the Chinese parallel omits the first jhāna, just as Theravada does in MN 125.

For the very same reason.

To gloss vitakka as the 3 types of right thought/resolve (sammā saṇkappa) as the same vitakka in first jhāna,

and to close the door on Buddhist monks trying to claim vitakka changes meaning when you attain first jhāna.

MN 20: Vitakkasaṇṭhānasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)

Sujato's footnotes here don't shed any light on justifying Sujato's dubious translation and interpretation of  vitakka, since first jhāna is never explicitly mentioned (just samādhi and ekodi, a coded way of referring to all four jhānas).

But there is one very interesting footnote here, about an interesting term, vitakka sankhāra.

He writes:

The unique phrase “stopping the formation of thoughts” (vitakkasaṅkhārasaṇṭhānaṁ) lends the sutta its title. Here saṅkhāra refers to the energy that drives the formation of thoughts. Understanding the cause helps to deprive it of its power.

Now recall that one of Sujato's justifications for redefining vitakka in first jhāna,

is that the Buddha lacked vocabulary to describe the subtle process of the volition of directing the mind prior to verbal thoughts.

So the Buddha "was forced" to redefine vitakka as "placing the mind", according to Sujato's reasoning.

Well, here in MN 20, is one of the words the Buddha supposedly didn't have in his vocabulary.

vitakka sankhāra.

There are other words that also "place the mind",  used in the suttas  in a samādhi and jhāna context as well. 

Mano sankhāra, citta sankhāra, cetana to name a few.

Yet, the Buddha (according to Sujato) had a limited vocabulary for the subtle aspects of samādhi, 

and had no choice but to confusingly redefine vitakka as "placing the mind" in first jhāna.

Interestingly, Sujato translates the aggregate of sankhāra as "choice", and citta as "mind".

citta sankhāra is used frequently in the suttas.

Isn't the "mind" having the ability to "choose" the same as "placing the mind"? 

So why was the Buddha forced to redefine vitakka in first jhāna, Ven. Sujato?

MN 19: Dvedhāvitakkasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)

His first footnote says:

This discourse shows that a meditator must abandon unwholesome thought (vitakka) then wholesome thought (vitakka) before entering absorption. 

Sujato's comment on section in MN 19 "So I assigned sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts":

By analyzing thoughts (vitakka), he is consciously developing the second factor of the noble eightfold path, right thought (sammāsaṅkappa). In this context, vitakka and saṅkappa are synonyms.

Frankk says:

Sujato makes several egregious errors of reasoning in his footnotes and justification for redefining first jhāna vitakka, 

but it suffices for now just to point out one very obvious one, 

a very gross error that anyone can clearly see and validate in just a few minutes of looking at the sutta pāḷi source.

Sujato in the first footnote cited, claims MN 19 says that even skillful vitakka must be completely removed before entering first jhāna, 

and therefore first jhāna vitakka must be something entirely different than the vitakka prior.

Yet, by his own admission in the second footnote cited, vitakka (verbal linguistic thoughts) and sankappa (resolves, 3 type of right thinking in sammā sankappo right resolves), 

are exactly the same in this context of MN 19 and MN 125,  4 jhānas.

Sujato conveniently ignores

MN 78: Samaṇamuṇḍikasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)

where his footnotes for MN 78 fail to mention that

the 3 right resolves (sammā sankappa) are still active in first jhāna.

Therefore, the 3 right vitakka must also be active in first jhāna, 

since by Sujato's admission vitakka = sankappa in this context.

My annotated translation of MN 78 pali + english side by side clearly show 

where first jhāna contains the 3 thoughts (sankappa and vitakka):

 MN ^78.5 - (what are 3 akusalā saṅkappā? exact opposite of 3 aspects of right resolve, lust, ill will, harm)
        MN ^78.5.1 - (Akusalā saṅkappā depend on 3 perceptions based on opposite of right resolves, lust, ill will, harm)
        MN ^78.5.2 - (3 unskillful akusalā saṅkappā cease in first jhāna)
        MN ^78.5.3 - (right effort does the work of removing akusalā saṅkappā within, and prior to first jhāna)
    MN ^78.6 - (what are 3 kusalā saṅkappā? same 3 aspects of Right Resolve)
        MN ^78.6.1 (kusalā saṅkappā depend on the 3 kusala perceptions)
        MN ^78.6.2 - (kusalā saṅkappā cease in 2nd jhāna)
        MN ^78.6.2.0 – (that means kusalā saṅkappā (and 3 right vitakka) are active in 1st jhāna!

Conclusion

 Comparing Sujato's footnotes from MN 125, MN 19, MN 78,

he's making several incoherent, contradictory claims.

He admits vitakka and sankappa are the same in jhāna context in MN 19,

admits that MN 125 is probably agreeing, but thinks MN 125 is a corrupt sutta,

and completely ignores MN 78 (and its Agama parallel) which supports MN 125.

He also ignores the chinese Agama parallel to MN 19, similar to MN 125 in that it explicitly removes first jhāna to reinforce the point that vitakka in first jhāna is verbal and linguistic, 

exactly the same as the vitakka of rights and wrong thoughts that happen just before first jhāna.

What's the proper correction for Sujato's translation?

Ideally it's time for Sujato to finally admit he's wrong on his interpretation of vitakka in first jhāna.

But if he's going to insist on his current incoherent interpretation,

he needs to  explain how vitakka in first jhāna becoming non-verbal non-linguistic "placing the mind" 

coexists simultaneously with the 3 sammā sankappa (right "thoughts") which are still active in first jhāna (MN 78).

And he needs to explain why MN 125 is corrupt when MN 78, MN 19 agama parallel are in agreement.