vitarka and vicara in EBT agamas and (non Theravada) Abhidharma sources

I'm looking to add more sources to this set of references on non Theravada EBT explanations of vitakka and vicara in first jhana.

Especially, what sources B. Analayo used to arrive at his translation of V&V as:

B.Anālayo mistranslation of V&V💭: [directed] awareness and [sustained] contemplation

Can anyone cite references to where he details how he derived his translation?

Abhidharma from non Theravada sources

Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā 64-65

.

.

(excerpt from post by user crizna)https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/v-v-in-sphu-artha-abhidharmakosavyakhya/11316https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/misunderstandings-of-the-dhamma-alternative-views/11226/17Let me illustrate the point by means of the much disputed terms ‘vitakka’ and ‘vicāra’. Unlike with the interpretations in the Theravāda tradition, there seems to have been no major disagreement among the Northern Schools as to the meaning of those terms.

vitarkaḥ katamaḥ. paryeṣako manojalpaḥ cetanāprajñāviśeṣaḥ yā cittasyaudārikatā.	'What is ‘vitarka’? A mental murmur of enquiry (paryeṣako manojalpaḥ), which rests on the support of volition (cetanā) or speculative knowledge (prajñā), according as it does not or does include deduction (abhyūha), It is a gross state of mind.
vicāraḥ katamaḥ. pratyavekṣako manojalpas tathaiva yā cittasya sūkṣmatā. anabhyūhāvasthāyāṃ cetanā abhyūhāvasthāyāṃ prajñeti vyavasthāpyate.	What is ‘vicāra’ ? A mental murmur of judgment (pratyavekṣako manojalpas) which rests on the volition, etc. (as above). That is the subtleness of mind.’

(Translation by P.S. Jaini in the Introduction to his edition of the Abhidharmadīpa, p. 87).P.S. Jaini remarks: ‘Here ‘vitarka’ refers to the state of enquiry of mind and ‘vicāra’ to the state of judgment.’In the Sphuṭārthā passage cited above Yaśomitra quoted the view of the old masters (pūrvācārya). Almost identical explanations are found in various treatises of Asaṅga (e.g. Abhidharmasamuccayabhāṣyam 8-9) and Vasubandhu (e.g. Pañca-Skandhaka 64). A similar explanation is also found in Harivarman’s Satyasiddhiśāstra 215 -216.

(crizna adds more in a related thread)

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/v-v-in-sphu-artha-abhidharmakosavyakhya/11316/11Just to avoid any misunderstanding I would like to set the record straight. In my post I was referring to ‘vitakka’ (Skt. vitarka) and ‘vicāra’ in the context of ‘jhāna’ as defined in the Buddhist Sanskrit sources. There was of course a lot of controversy on ‘vitakka’ and ‘vicāra’ among the Northern schools, such as on the question if the two can arise simultaneously or not, if they are really two distinct qualities or just two aspects of the same principle and other questions of this type. But as regards the definition of meaning in the context of ‘jhāna’ there seems to have been no major disagreement among those schools.Although the Abhidharmikas are well-known for their hairsplitting abilities, and at fine-tuning the smallest subtleties, such a definition as B. Brahmali presented here was evidently unknown to them. There exists no source material which is even faintly alluding to such a state of affairs. The whole idea of ‘vitakka’ and ‘vicāra’ as ‘pre-verbal movements of the mind’ clearly contradicts the Suttas. What could possibly be imagined as corresponding to this idea is referred to in the Sanskrit Abhidharma definition as volition (cetanā).As I understand it, the definition given in the Sanskrit Abhidharma literature is not in any way broad, but rather quite specific and clear, leaving no room for fantastical interpretations. Contrary to what B. Brahmali is assuming, the most characteristic feature appearing in virtually all the Sanskrit text books dealing with the question is the distinction of ‘vitarka’ as gross state of mind (cittasyaudārikatā) and ‘vicāra’ as subtle mental state (cittasya sūkṣmatā).In recent years there has been a worrying increase of fictional interpretations even of key terms without any foundation in language or scripture. I especially find the carelessness of how this is done alarming. If everybody now starts to ignore all conventions and just reads the meaning into a word that fits his personal view or legitimates a meditative practice which otherwise has no textual foundation, what will be the most likely outcome of this?

Yogacarabhumi Commentary to SA263:

又尋求諸法，此慧名智；既尋求已，伺察諸法，此慧名見。	“As for contemplating on/thinking about (xun/vitakka) a teaching, the discernment [that is exercised thereupon] is called wisdom; once a teaching is contemplated, it is investigated/further ruminated upon (si/vicara), and the discernment [that is exercised thereupon] is called seeing.”

(trans. By Dr. W. Chu)

Yogacarabhumi Commentary to SA272:

於彼發起諸不正想，隨取相好，自斯已後，於其隨法，多隨尋思，多隨伺察。	“On an occasion when an improper perception is given rise to, [the person] seizes on/is captivated by an alluring feature. In chasing after that phenomenon, he proliferates in thoughts (note: the character for vitakka is connected with the character for thinking, forming the compound xunsi) and proliferates in rumination.

(trans. By Dr. W. Chu)

Yogacarabhumi 302b22: game changer

here's a real game changer that explicitly defines vitakka and vicara as thinking:

應知此相略有七種。一體性。二所緣。三行相。四等起。五差別。六決擇。七流轉。尋伺體性者。謂不深推度所緣。思為體性。若深推度所緣。慧為體性應知。尋伺所緣者。謂依名身句身文身義為所緣。	“As for the essence and nature of vitakka and vicara: when a person is not deeply contemplating on and analyzing the object at hand, then thinking is the essence and nature [of vitakka and vicara]. When a person does deeply contemplate on and analyze the object at hand, then discernment is the essence and nature [of vitakka and vicara].
	As for the corresponding objects of vitakka and vicara, they are individual words, sentences, and narratives.”

(trans. By Dr. W. Chu)

⛔ Wrong translations for V&V💭

✅ ☸EBT V&V💭: vitakka & vicāra = directed-thought & evaluation

⛔ Vism. Redefinition V&V💭: applied-thought & sustained-thought (b.nanamoli)
⛔ Vism. Redefinition V&V💭: initial-application & sustained-application (u thittila, Te Ab Vb 12 )
⛔ B.Sujato mistranslation of V&V💭: placing-the-mind & keeping-it-connected
⛔ B.Anālayo mistranslation of V&V💭: [directed] awareness and [sustained] contemplation

⛔🔗The one stop V&V shop, where errant views meet the chopping block

V&V💭: vitakka & vicāra

Vitakka 💭 = directed thought.
Vicāra 🕵️ = the evaluation of that very same directed thought, not a separate train of thought (SN 46.3).
Vicāra explores, inspects, discriminates, evaluates, ponders, scrutinizes, discerns, considers the very same thought initially fixed upon by vitakka.
Vitakka decides on a topic, then gives it to vicara to analyze it further, KN Pe 7.72.
V&V are speech vocalization co-activities, MN 44. You need to think and evaluate with V&V before coherent speech can be vocalized.



V&V💭 in 1st Jhāna🌘

vitakka & vicāra in 1st Jhāna🌘 is intrinsically the same in 1st jhāna as it is outside of it, with 2 conditions.
1. The content of those thoughts, unlike ordinary V&V, must be kusala (skillful) related to Dharma (AN 6.73, AN 6.74, AN 6.75).
1b. The content of the Dhamma vitakka in first jhāna, often is just the meditator mentally reciting the oral instructions of the Dhamma meditation topic they're about to do (SN 46.3). For example, in 31asb🧟‍ body parts, even in non EBT following canonical Abhidhamma and Abhidhamma commentary such as Vimt., one mentally recites the body parts (kesa, loma, ...) while in first jhāna.
2. The thinking is attenuated. The intensity and frequency of vitakka is reduced to the point where it would not tire the body and/or block kāya-passaddhi (bodily pacification), pīti & sukha (rapture and pleasure) (MN 19).
First jhāna j1🌘 is vocal silence, SN 36.11, where speech ceases, but thoughts connected to Dhamma continue (MN 19, MN 78, MN 125, AN 8.30).
Second jhāna j2🌗 is noble silence, 👑😶, where V&V ceases, S&S🐘💭 takes over.
In third jhāna j3🌖, S&S🐘💭 does vipassana (AN 4.41, AN 9.36, MN 111), a deeper version of first jhāna doing vipassana using V&V.
S&S and V&V correspond to sati and Dharma-vicaya of 7sb☀️, SN 46.3.
Sammā-saṅkappo 2💭 (right-resolve) precedes vitakka (thinking), but in most contexts involving jhāna you can treat them as equivalent (MN 117, MN 78).
Even in Vism. and Abhidhamma V&V still means mental recitation of speech. After exiting 2nd jhāna, one mentally chants, 'earth [kasina], earth', to get into third jhāna.

• explicit: every. single. reference. to vitakka in the suttas 🔗bl

Discussion threads on this topic

from reddit: 

MN 20: More ostrich adventures with B. Sujato and B. Analayo, fraudulent translation and interpretation of vitakka in jhāna

u/lucid24-frankk Here's a talk by Ajahn Brahm where he explains Samyutta 41.8, fast forward to 3:45 and please post a reply here after doing that. But after 9:48 he says that in Chinese Agamas, the words for Vitakka - Vicara are different in the context of Jhana, I am not sure about the agamas, hope you can clarify. Now, I understand the motivation behind resorting to the agamas and at times giving them more authority even over the Pali nikayas. It was motivated from the get-go to justify Ajahn Brahm's teachings as Canonical.

link to dharmawheel mahayana forum asking same questions

satya siddhi sastra of harivarman, near page 390 for 4 jhana comy

https://archive.org/details/104775752-satyasiddhisastra-of-harivarman/page/n417/mode/1up