DN 33: B. Sujato incoherence in differentiating vitakka (thinking) and sankappo (resolve/intention)

This article is going to focus on two problems. Both are illustrated by the same passage in DN 33.

1. First we'll look at B.Sujato's  lack of differentiation between vitakka and sankappo.
2. Then we'll look at the importance of consistency of fundamental meaning in terms for meditation experience.

from B. Sujato translation of DN 33
https://suttacentral.net/dn33/en/sujato#dn33:1.9.39

Three ways of performing good conduct:Tīṇi sucaritāni—by body, speech, and mind.kāyasucaritaṃ, vacīsucaritaṃ, manosucaritaṃ. (4)

Three unskillful thoughts:Tayo akusalavitakkā—sensuality, malice, and cruelty.kāmavitakko, byāpādavitakko, vihiṃsāvitakko. (5)

Three skillful thoughts:Tayo kusalavitakkā—renunciation, good will, and harmlessness.nekkhammavitakko, abyāpādavitakko, avihiṃsāvitakko. (6)

Three unskillful intentions:Tayo akusalasaṅkappā—sensuality, malice, and cruelty.kāmasaṅkappo, byāpādasaṅkappo, vihiṃsāsaṅkappo. (7)

Three skillful intentions:Tayo kusalasaṅkappā—...Three unskillful perceptions:Tisso akusalasaññā—sensuality, malice, and cruelty.kāmasaññā, byāpādasaññā, vihiṃsāsaññā. (9)... (later down in the same section of threes) ...Three kinds of immersion. Tayo samādhī— Immersion with placing the mind and keeping it connected. Immersion without placing the mind, but just keeping it connected. Immersion without placing the mind or keeping it connected. savitakkasavicāro samādhi, avitakkavicāramatto samādhi, avitakkaavicāro samādhi. (50)quick comment:First sankappo and vitakka in most of Sujato's translations were both 'thinking', then in this passage, he's forced to differentiate those two terms, and then later on in the same passage, vitakka is now 'placing the mind'. THINK about this. How is the disciple going to hear this sutta (in pali) and arrive at all of these contradictory understandings of vitakka? The only way for this to work, is for Ajahn Brahm, Sujato, and Buddhaghosa to get in a time travel machine and go back in time, and inform the bhikkhus they have to be careful not to think 'vitakka' means the same thing everywhere like a sane person would assume.see this article, a blast from the past:

Ajahn Brahm and the time machine: DN 21 B. Sujato's erroneous translation of vitakka & vicara explained.

1. Analyzing the lack of differentiation in sankappa and vitakka.

In this sutta, B. Sujato does the rare thing where he DOES differentiate them. He translates vitakka as 'thinking', and sankappo as 'intention'. Normally he translates both terms as 'thinking'.  Why? In this passage he can't get away with it because the context makes it clear that there is some distinction between those two terms, however subtle it is. If he translates both as 'thinking' here, it looks like an error where he copy and pasted the same passage twice. So you ask, if there is a subtle difference, then why does he translate sankappo as 'thinking' everywhere else in the pali suttas, instead of 'intention' as he does here, preserving the subtle distinction with vitakka?   The short answer is, it's part of an agenda to redefine what vitakka means in meditation. We'll do a deep dive another time, but basically, he's translating sankappo (see MN 117), vitakka, and vitakka as part of vaci-sankhara (see MN 44) in such a way where it ends up looking like the suttas support his misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what vitakka does in first jhana. 

2. Why are the other terms highlighted in the DN 33 passage above?

Because they are core, fundamental terms that describe experience in meditation. They need to be coherent, consistent, unambiguous. Otherwise, the Buddha can't communicate clear instructions. In first jhana, there are still 3 kusala sankappa/intentions, and 3 kusala vitakka (thoughts). In second jhana, those 3 kusala sankappa and vitakka drop out, and are replaced by 3 kusala sañña: perceptions.In Sujato's world, where vitakka means 'placing the mind', you can't do metta meditation in the four jhanas. Metta in first jhana requires a kusala vitakka of good will (abyapada). It can't be just a 'placing of the mind'. If you're going to incorporate his erroneous interpretation, then at the very least, it needs to be 'placing the mind  on a kusala perception sañña.'And then even with that, it's not metta meditation. It's a comatose vegetative person STARTING to do metta meditation, and then the mind blanks out. Because it's not enough to just place the mind on a perception, one has to cognize, perceive, understand what the perception means.