MA 143 傷歌邏經 || AN 3.60, mind reading a meditator in second jhana, B. Analayo and B. Sujato sustains deathblow to their vitakka interpretation

Just as an alert reader should be asking, why is noble silence second jhana, and not first jhana, if all four jhanas one is supposedly [according to VRJ🐍 (V)isuddhi-magga (Re)-definition of (J)hana and Jabrama🤡-jhana] having already cut off thinking, and mind is in a frozen state divorced from the body? 

You should be asking the same thing again here, why is it that one exercising the psychic power of mind reading, is it talking about reading a mind of a meditator in second jhana, not first jhana?

I've already dissected AN 3.60 elsewhere previously, we'll just focus on MA 143 for now. 

Vol. 2 of BDK's MA translation only goes up MA 131, who knows how many years it's going to take before they publish MA 143 in volume 3? 

Why wait that long when I can deliver the death blow to the B. Analayo's mistranlsation of vitakka and vicara ("[directed] awareness and [sustained] contemplation")  right now?

The section on mind reading is translated by Dr. W. Chu, one of the translators from the BDK project. The rest of MA 143 is google translate.

MA 143 傷歌邏經    || AN 3.60  (links to the two parallel suttas)

MA 143 傷歌邏經

• MA 143 傷歌邏經
  • Logical sutra
  • (section on Mind Reading power)
    • (2a. Miracle of telepathy, by sign or vision)
    • (2b. Telepathy by talking to external beings)
    • (2c. telepathy by directly “hearing” vitakka and vicara)
    • (2d. Telepathy by 6ab #3, abhiñña #3, mind encompass mind)

(2d. Telepathy by 6ab #3, abhiñña #3, mind encompass mind)

以他相占他意，	Reading another’s thoughts by ways of reading a certain sign:
亦 不以聞天聲及非人聲占他意，	[it might be that such a reader] reads another’s thoughts not by ways of a deva’s report or the report of an invisible being,
亦不以他 念、他思、他說，	and also not by ways of
聞聲已占他意者，	listening to another’s thought, intention, and/or speech.
但以見他 入無覺無觀定，	Instead, he reads another mind simply by noticing that a certain person has entered the samadhi that has no vitakka or vicara.  (This is second jhana!)
見已，作是念：	Upon noticing this, [that samana/Brahmin] thinks:
『如此賢者	“This sagacious person harbors
不 念	no thoughts and
不思，	no rumination,
如意所願。	as is the way he intends himself to be [due to his practice].
彼賢者從此定寤，如是 念。	When this sagacious person emerges from this samadhi, he would give rise to a certain thought;
從此定寤即如是如是念，	When he emerges from this samadhi, he would have in him these sorts of thought.”

Now notice the word 念  (nian)  that is usually used for the vitakka different from jue and guan (vitakka and vicara) of first jhana. B. Analayo uses that as his rationalization for his interpretation of V&V in first jhana. But here, we see that the vitakka and first jhana is being equated with 'nian', a verbal type of thought.

If V&V in first jhana were as B. Analayo and B. Sujato claim, then they wouldn't use the example of reading the mind of a second jhana meditator, they would use the example of a first jhana meditator.

If the mind of a person in second jhana "has no thoughts and no rumination", then that means in first jhana they can have vitakka thoughts that are of the order of complexity allowing for "thoughts and rumination." So 'jue' and 'guan' (chinese translator choice of words for vitakka and vicara) has that range. It definitely is not "placing the mind and keeping it connected." 

The direct implication of this, is that a mind reader reading the mind of a meditator in first jhana who has vitakka and vicara, would not be using the the telepathy of section 2d, but instead using the telepathy of section 2c, "hearing" the sound of vitakka, the same way you would hear speech, you "hear" the thoughts of one mentally talking in first jhana, just the same as you hear the thoughts of the mental talk of someone not even in first jhana, just in ordinary mind not in samadhi.

(2c. telepathy by directly “hearing” vitakka and vicara)

以他相 占他意，亦不聞天聲及非人聲占他意者， 但以他念、他思、他說，聞聲已，占他意，有是 意、如是意、實有是意，無量占不少占，彼一 切真諦而無有虛設。

Reading another’s thoughts by ways of reading a certain sign: [it might be that such a reader] reads another’s thoughts not by ways of a deva’s report or the report of an invisible being, but instead by ways of listening to another’s thought, intention, and/or speech--“[he is one] with this thought present,” “he is one with such a thought,” “he surely has such a thought [in him]!” [That samana/Brahmin] performs such reading on innumerable occasions and on plenty occasions, and on all those occasions his reading is accurate and is never in error.

And that's why first jhana is not noble silence, second jhana is the minimum. 

Q.E.D.

quod erat demonstrandum

Definition. Latin abbreviation for quod erat demonstrandum: "Which was to be demonstrated." Q.E.D. may appear at the conclusion of a text to signify that the author's overall argument has just been proven.

Comments from forum members

post replyMA 143 傷歌邏經 || AN 3.60, mind reading a meditator in second jhana, B. Analayo and B. Sujato sustains deathblow to their vitakka interpretation

from knerpus via /r/theravada sent an hour ago

Frankly, their translation of the term was never tenable simply due to the fact that that's not remotely what the words mean. Vitakka and vicara are routinely used outside of the context of Jhana, and in that circumstance ven. Sujato does translate them as thinking and pondering. The fact that he translates them differently in the stock phrase for Jhana seems to be the fact that he reads the orthodox Theravada interpretation of Jhana into the text.

The suttas are circumspect in their consistency in word usage. If a word is used differently, it is defined specifically for the purpose. Thinking that one needs to bring in concepts, explanations and lines of thinking not to be found in the suttas in order to explain the suttas seems to me like it can only stem from a lack of understanding.
Having to inelegantly cram the suttas into your interpretation is a sign that your view is wrong. One should change their interpretation to fit the suttas, not the other way around.

This essay here might be interesting, as it deals with the same thing regarding the clumsy defining of the word sankhāra by tradition. I find that it deals with many of the same elements as this problem.

Best wishes.