Skip to main content

V&V fallacious logic: since 16APS breath meditation cuts off vitakka (thinking), therefore first jhana vitakka is different



Re: manasā dhammaṃ viññāya: b.sujato's translation is grievously wrong

Post by frank k » Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:40 am
No, it's not two meanings. distractive thoughts and permissable thoughts are both 'thoughts'. In first jhana you have thoughts which are not distractive, they're nekhamma, abyapada, avihimsa sankappo/vitakka, such as "may you be happy", or "i will pervade my awareness of breath within the entire physical body". This is clearly explained in MN 19, MN 125, MN 78. What makes the vitakka outside first jhana different from inside (MN 19) is that intensity and frequency of vitakka is attenuated to not tire the body, and allow passadhi-sambojjhanga to take you into first jhana.
Volo wrote: 
Sat Aug 24, 2019 9:35 am
frank k wrote: 
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:22 am
So here's the important point. Even though B. Bodhi personally believes in the Commentary and Vism. interpretation of V&V, he realized as an ethical translator, that V&V needs to be TRANSLATED with the same terms that are used for V&V outside of first jhana. If the Buddha had intended first jhana to have a different meaning than outside, then it's the Buddha's job to explain it in other suttas, it's not up to a translator to impose their own bias.
I was answering to another question, and recollected, that in AN 9.1 and AN 9.3 Buddha said:
Mindfulness of breathing should be developed to cut off thoughts.

ānāpānassati bhāvetabbā vitakkupacchedāya
If we accept that practice of ānāpānasati leads to the first jhāna, then vitakka in AN 9.1&3 is not the same as jhāna factor vitakka. So, we have two meanings of vitakka: distracting thoughts and jhāna factor. This is not unique for vitakka, we see multiple meanings for other words as well. Therefore using two words for translating it is justified.
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.  I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas   if you're serious about jhāna.  (since monastics are already celibate by rule)   If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,   celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a

1min. video: Dalai Lama kissing boy and asking him to suck his tongue

To give more context, this is a public event,  * everyone knows cameras are rolling  *  it's a room full of children * the boy's mom is standing off camera a few feet away watching all of this * the boy initiated contact, he had already had a hug with Dalai Lama earlier and then asked Dalai Lama for another hug which triggered this segment  17 min. video showing what happened before that 1 min. clip and after, with some explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78 16min talk from Ajahn Acalo with his thoughts on Dalai Lama kissing boy, relevance to Bhikkhu monastic code, sexual predators in religion in general, and how celibate monastics deal with sexual energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2m0TcUib0 The child's comments about the incident in a filmed interview later https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2023/04/18/643eba5d46163ffc078b457c.html The child: It's a great experience It was amazing to meet His Holiness and I think it's a great ex