B. Analayo's translation of vitakka and vicara (jué and guān) in MA volume 2-4, compared to volume 1
Someone asked me today:
Hi Frank,
first, I would like to thank you for your blog, it really helped me to further and reconsider my practice, with great benefit.
I would like you to read this, this is a quote from the introduction of the Volume 2 of the Agamas:
The first exception concerns the paired Chinese terms jue and guan. These denote the first two factors of the first meditative absorption (Pāli jhāna) and correspond to the paired Pāli terms vitakka and vicāra. In Volume I jue and guan are translated as “initial and sustained application of the mind,” because that (or something similar) is how the corresponding Pāli terms are sometimes ren-dered. In Volumes II to IV, however, the terms jué and guān in the same context are translated as “[directed] awareness and [sustained] contemplation.” We believe this phrase succeeds in capturing the meanings of the two terms as they are used elsewhere in the Chinese Madhyama-āgama. This change was made with full recognition that there is sometimes a tension between the twin aims of producing a faithful rendering of the Chinese text and taking due account of the underlying Indic text.
I've started to read the volume 2 of the agamas today (it is online for free), what do you think about this choice of words for the translation of Vitakka and Vicara?
Thank you very much.
My response:
A more detailed answer to this specific question is forthcoming.
I did a detailed audit and critique of his translation interpretation of vitakka and vicara in pali texts here:
And the whole MA volume one "initial application and sustained application" is based on a completely wrong translation and interpretation from a non EBT, Late Theravada Abhidhamma perspective, which I show here:
simsapa wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:59 amThe key in all definitions of fraud is the intent. I very much doubt the venerable intended to deceive others by translating this text. If you don't agree with his translation choices, that's up to you.
Why not examine the audit trail and then weigh in with an opinion? You may decide I'm not exaggerating at all, perhaps even being understated in just calling it fraud. I concede your point on the label of fraud in this respect: one without accurate psychic powers can't ascertain another's intent, and IMO there's no fraud on his part in terms of seeking financial gain, but who knows what he's willing to do for the gain of reputation and status.
But in the essential aspect of fraud, there is a clearly documented audit trail showing deception, intellectual dishonesty, fallacious reasoning, circular logic, cherry picking, equivalence fallacy, and lots of ostrich strategy of deliberately ignoring important suttas that contradict their erroneous thesis, ducking detailed legitimate challenges to their thesis (not just from me). If that's not fraud, please suggest a better word. I'm open to suggestions.
You're still on my blocked list, and will remain so after reading your post reply. You sound like a broken record.
If you didn't understand the first, second, or third time I explained your error (over the months and years), you're probably not going to understand it now. This is for the other readers on the thread:
The link for the agama parallel is on the navigation bar of MN 19. Doo Doot (I would guess is an onomatopoeia of the sound one makes when they talk using the wrong orifice), has trouble understanding the difference between the kusala dhamma vitakka of first jhana, and the bahuli (much, excessive) vitakka and the anu-vitakka (continuous-thought) that the buddha said tires the body and mind. If you bahuli vitakka and anu vitakka, that can happen.
But if the kusala vitakka is attenuated, decreased to the point where the body pacified (passadhi sambojjhanga), then that triggers jhana.
No comments:
Post a Comment