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 by body, speech, and mind. kāyasucaritaṃ,
Three unskillful thoughts: Tayo akusalavitakkā sensuality, malice, and cruelty. kāmavitakko,
Three skillful thoughts: Tayo kusalavitakkā renunciation, good will, and harmlessness. nekkhammavitakko, abyāpādavitakko,
Three unskillful intentions: Tayo akusalasaṅkappā— sensuality, malice, and cruelty. kāmasaṅkappo, byāpādasaṅkappo,
Three skillful intentions: Tayo kusalasaṅkappā— ... Three unskillful perceptions: Tisso sensuality, malice, and cruelty. kāmasaññā, byāpādasaññā, ... (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:
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.
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.
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
Thanks for your work, I think the most apt simile for vitakka and vicara
ReplyDeleteis the bird simile found in the Petakopadesa. Probably it was not available to Buddhaghosa.
@Frank In the Vism. system, how are formless jhanas differentiated from the 4 jhanas ? Because as far as I know there is only awareness of the light as an object.
ReplyDeleteI'll reply to your commnents by updating the blog with my response, in a day or 2.
Delete