Where does Ven. Dhammanando stand on vitakka, vicara, jhana?

Re: Jhana

Post by frank k » Thu May 07, 2020 4:18 am

And here's detailed research thoroughly refuting B. Sujato's erroneous translation and interpretation of vitakka and vicara.
http://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/v ... ndex.html
I'm very disappointed in you Ven. Dhammanando for answering his question in such a way without acknowledging the difference between a straight EBT interpretation and the commentarial one. One would assume you support B. Sujato's interpretation? If not, what is your position? I've publicly and via private message asked you number of times on this and you've not answered so far. How do you translate and interpret vitakka and vicara?

edit: I see this is 'general theravada' forum, and your answer is completely appropriate for that board, since orthodox Theravada would not find it controversial at all to assume Vism. explanation of vitakka and vicara is authoritative, even though it contradicts canonical Abhidhamma as well as EBT pali suttas. But in practice, we all know how vitakka, vicara, kaya are translated and interpreted has radical implications on how the 4 jhanas are understood and practiced. We have a responsibility to clarify the differences, especially for someone like you who is highly regarded and sought after for advice on Buddhist forums.

Dhammanando wrote: ↑
Mon May 04, 2020 10:57 pm
zzzzzz wrote: ↑
Mon May 04, 2020 9:34 pm
What does "Placing the mind" mean here?
"Placing the mind" and "keeping it connected" are how Ven. Sujāto translates the jhāna factors of vitakka and vicāra. Here's a link to his blog where he explains the thinking behind his rendering of the first term:

https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/12/06 ... -in-jhana/

www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org

STED definitions

Ven. D's response: (still being cagey and not sharing his view on V&V)

e: Jhana

Post by frank k » Sat May 09, 2020 8:56 am

Dhammanando wrote: ↑
Fri May 08, 2020 7:13 pm
frank k wrote: ↑
Thu May 07, 2020 4:18 am
I'm very disappointed in you Ven. Dhammanando for answering his question in such a way without acknowledging the difference between a straight EBT interpretation and the commentarial one.
My post had no aim but that of clarifying a translation over which zzzzzz was puzzled. In fulfilment of this aim no more words were needed than those which I wrote.

I wish you the speediest of recoveries from your disappointment.

Thank you Ven. D. I'm recovered and feeling well. Could you share your English translation of vitakka and vicara of the first jhana formula, and how you understand the meaning of it?

Re: Jhana

Unread post by Dhammanando » Mon May 11, 2020 8:03 pm

frank k wrote: ↑
Sat May 09, 2020 8:56 am
Could you share your English translation of vitakka and vicara of the first jhana formula,

My preferred rendering would be "vitakka" and "vicāra".

That is, unless I'm talking to someone completely new to Buddhism I prefer to import technical terms rather than to translate them. This is the policy adopted by the Thai, Burmese and Sinhalese translators of the Tipiṭaka, and was also emulated by the Franco-Belgian scholars Poussin and Lamotte in their translations of Sanskrit Buddhist texts. Though I don't expect it to catch on in the anglophone world, I do think it's the best way to go about things.

frank k wrote: ↑
Sat May 09, 2020 8:56 am
and how you understand the meaning of it?

I take the terms as they are defined in the Atthasālinī (Dhs-a. 114-115; The Expositor I. 151-3, link).

And from your earlier post...

frank k wrote: ↑
Thu May 07, 2020 4:18 am
One would assume you support B. Sujato's interpretation?

Not having read any books by the Sujāto-Brahmavaṃso-Brahmali trio, I don't know to precisely what extent our understandings of jhāna coincide. But on the two points where you and the trio are in dispute (i.e., on whether in the first jhāna there can be (1) five-sense-door experience and (2) thinking about a plurality of ārammaṇas), I find their reading of the suttas to be more compelling.

frank k wrote: ↑
Thu May 07, 2020 4:18 am
If not, what is your position? I've publicly and via private message asked you number of times on this and you've not answered so far.

Sorry, but I seldom reply to private messages unless they're concerned with moderatorial matters. As for public threads about jhāna (especially debates on what counts as "true jhāna"), I almost never post to them unless it's merely to offer some minor note of clarification that won't get me embroiled in a never-ending debate.

Doodoot reiterating wrong views for the umpteenth time:

"In MN 19, the Buddha said his mind was silent before 1st jhana."

Re: Jhana

Post by frank k » Sun May 10, 2020 6:47 am

On MN 19: you need to stop stubbornly clinging to your wrong views and face reality. MN 19 does NOT say vitakka and vicara cease prior to first jhana. What it says is that EXCESSIVE vitakka and vicara tires the body and prevents first jhana. But the fact that the words vitakka and vicara are in the first jhana means there's an attenuated non excessive V&V in there.
The agama parallel to MN 19 makes this point even more extreme by removing the first jhana formula altogether (to emphasize the point that the state of samadhi described prior to the first jhana formula was the same activity taking place).
MN 125 also makes that same point by removing the first jhana formula.
MN 78 corroborates the point by saying that kusala sankappa (vitakka equivalent in this context) does not cease until SECOND jhana (not first).
AN 8.30 also explicitly uses vitakka in a vaci-sankhara (thoughts you think before you speak them out loud) immediately before first jhana.

Again and again you avoid the mountain of evidence, and keep infecting Dhamma forums with your wrong views on vitakka and vicara of jhana. People with correct understanding of vitakka and vicara and jhana get sick of correcting your wrong views all the time, picking up after you like dog walkers with their plastic doggy poop bags. I'm done with that. Other forum members, it's up to you to exercise civic responsibility and prevent viral wrong views from spreading.

DooDoot wrote: ↑
"In MN 19, the Buddha said his mind was silent before 1st jhana."Sun May 10, 2020 1:20 am
MN 19 wrote:... [ordinary verbal] thinking & pondering a long time would tire the body. When the body is tired, the mind is disturbed; and a disturbed mind is far from concentration.' So I steadied my mind right within, settled, unified & concentrated it. Why is that? So that my mind would not be disturbed.

Unflagging persistence was aroused in me and unmuddled mindfulness established. My body was calm & unaroused, my mind concentrated & single. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

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

notes on the Dhamma

Search This Blog