Wednesday, July 31, 2024

4ip: four iddhipāda similes from SN, DN, Ab Vb commentaries

 


It is like the case of four ministers who, aspiring to a position, 
lived in close association with the king. 

(1) Chanda
One was energetic in waiting upon [the king]; 
knowing the king's wishes and desires, 
he waited upon him night and day; 
he pleased the king and obtained a position. 
The one who produces transcendent dhamma with chanda as chief should be understood as like him. 

(2) vīriya
Another, however, thought: 
'I cannot wait upon the king daily; 
when a task needs to be done I shall please him by my valour.' 
When there was trouble on the borders he was posted by the king, 
and having crushed the enemy by means of his valour he obtained a position. 
The one who produces transcendent dhamma with viriya as chief should be understood as like him. 

(3) citta
Another thought: 
'Waiting upon the king daily, taking swords and arrows on the chest is burdensome. 
I shall please the king by the power of my counsel.' 
Having pleased the king by providing counsel by means of his grasp of state craft, he obtained a position. 
The one who produces transcendent dhamma with citta as chief should be understood as like him. 

(4) vimamsa
Another thought: 
'What need of waiting upon [the king], and so on? 
Surely kings grant positions to those of [good] birth. 
When the king grants [a position] to such a one he will grant it to me.'
So relying solely on his possession of [good] birth, he obtained a position. 
The one who produces transcendent dhamma with vimamsa as chief, 
relying on thoroughly purified vimamsa should be understood as like him. 


The above version is taken from the Digha and Samyutta commentaries... 
The Vibhanga commentary's version of this simile 
inverts the illustrations for citta and vimamss, 
so we have citta illustrated by good birth, 
and vimamsa by the power of counsel.


from THE BUDDHIST PATH TO AWAKENING by Rupert Gethin page 90 and 91



Monday, July 29, 2024

mudita files: lawman George Nelson Moses


Full article below, 15 min. read.
Excerpt:


When Moses died of cancer in 1911 at 67, the Great Bend Tribune ran two pages of tributes, 
and businesses closed for his funeral.
 Describing him as “one of the best known peace officers in the West,” 
 the eulogists said he did not get his due — 
 “he never boasted of his deeds” and 
 “never played up the part he played in early day incidents that belonged to him.”
...

America remembers and even lionizes the gunslingers and stone-cold killers and hucksters of the Wild West, 
but it forgets other people who were no less fearless, 
but more bent on keeping the peace and founding churches 
than hanging out in brothels and preening for East Coast reporters and photographers.

...
 The gun’s real value has nothing to do with its death count.
 What matters is the mettle of the forgotten man who carried it, 
 as reflected in how he was eulogized in 1911:


“Civilization in overtaking him did not change him.
 The man of modesty, 
 the man of courage and strong convictions, 
 the man of great strength and physical prowess he was to be feared in any encounter and he had many.
 They found him right in character.
 It was in his blood.”

 

The real history of the Wild West, told through my grandfather’s gun

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/wild-west-gun-lawman/

An old gun’s value is not in its death count.
 It’s in the mettle of the man who carried it.

George Nelson Moses’s 1860 Colt Army revolver.
 (Samuel Dole for The Washington Post)
15 min
By Katy Roberts
July 29, 2024

Katy Roberts was an editor at the New York Times for 30 years and at Bloomberg Opinion for 10 years.


Getting rid of family heirlooms is a lost cause for many of us baby boomers.
 Younger relatives don’t want our grandmothers’ Haviland teacups, cinnabar bracelets or even the porcelain moose pitchers made in pre-World War II Czechoslovakia.
 Judging by similar offerings on Craigslist and eBay, no one else is interested in this stuff either.


Their only value lies in their connection to people we knew, loved ones who are long gone.
 My mother had no use for the bounty of fragile objects she offloaded on me, but maybe she hung on to them because they reminded her of her parents’ middle-class resilience in Depression-era Kansas.


My father’s side had no such trove.
 My paternal grandfather had been lucky to inherit a farm when he was in his early 20s, but it all blew away in the Dust Bowl.
 When he died in 1957 at age 69, he was scraping by as a bellhop at the Brown Palace Hotel in Denver and living in a rundown rooming house with my grandmother and the few possessions they had left.

Advertisement

She had a Royal Doulton rose jar and a Georgian silver set.
 My grandfather Morris had only one treasure:
 an old revolver with a notch carved on the handle.


Why, I wondered nearly 70 years later, did he cling to that beat-up thing, even after he lost everything else?


He had gotten it and the farm from his foster father, a lawman in post-Civil War Kansas named George Nelson Moses.
 The gun eventually ended up with my brother, who lived for years in Dodge City, Kan.
, and stashed it at a place called, yes, Gunsmoke Storage.
 He finally gave it to me to deal with.


My first step was to get an estimate from an online auction site.
 Though the gun was scratched up, the appraiser identified it from photos as an 1860 Colt Army revolver, standard issue in its day, valued between $1,000 and $2,000 — “depending on its origin.”


I naively thought a Kansas historical museum would want it.
 But these places can be picky.
 They urge you to document an object’s history, hire a real appraiser and get a notarized affidavit.


At first, there was little to go on.
 My father died in 1970, when I was in high school, so if family stories were told about the gun and “G.
N.”
 — which was how the older folks referred to George Moses — I wasn’t paying attention.


I did, however, vaguely recall one thing my grandmother said:
 G.
N. had no use for Wild Bill.


It didn’t take long, thanks to Kansas county histories and newspaper archives, to discover that Moses’s revolver was far more interesting than my grandmother’s precious rose jar.
 The story is both astonishing and, considering the way the history of the American West is told and remembered, completely predictable.
 I’ll start with the astonishing part.

Advertisement

When we think of the Wild West, Kansas and Missouri don’t spring to mind, but both states were epicenters of lawlessness after the Civil War.
 Jesse and Frank James and Cole Younger were Confederate guerrilla fighters in Missouri in the mid-1860s before they became bank-robbing killers.
 Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson courted trouble as lawmen in Dodge City.


James B.
 Hickok — Wild Bill — and the Texas outlaw John Wesley Hardin sized each other up in Abilene, Kan.
, where Hickok was briefly the sheriff in 1871. America was already gaga over Wild Bill, thanks largely to a fulsome 1867 article in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine about his supposed exploits.
 The bank-robbing Dalton brothers would leave their mark in Kansas later.


George Moses’s initiation into this violent world came early.
 He joined the Union army in 1861 at 17, and his right forefinger was shot off during a battle in Tennessee.
 It must not have affected his shooting because, after the Civil War, he was recruited for a small Union militia — “all expert horsemen” and “dead shots” who “could be relied upon to face any danger,” as he later described them.
 Their job was to track down Confederates who were still causing mayhem in Missouri.


Among the rebel “bushwhackers” was Archie Clement, who slaughtered and sometimes scalped unarmed Union captives and led a gang that included the young James brothers.


When Clement was spotted drinking in a hotel bar in Lexington, Mo.
, on Dec.
 13, 1866, Moses was one of three militiamen sent to arrest him.
 Witnesses largely confirmed his shot-by-shot description of the wild gunfight that ensued, and the historian T.
J. Stiles cited it in his biography of Jesse James.

Advertisement

Moses said their aim was to arrest Clement.
 But after the militiamen had sidled up to the bar, a fourth, more hotblooded member of their group burst through the front door and yelled, “Surrender!”


Clement lunged through a side door into an office.
 Moses went after him.


“Just as I slipped into the door Clement[s] turned and fired at me, the ball going through my clothes but not drawing blood,” Moses wrote.
 “I fired at him hitting him in the right breast, crippling him badly which accounts for his poor shooting after that.”


The gunfight secured the legend of Little Archie, who, though badly wounded, scrambled into the street and climbed on his horse while being shot at by Moses and others.
 His dying words, according to various sources, were, “I told you I’d never surrender.”
 (Moses said his actual last words were “Oh, hell!”
 But that doesn’t make as good a story.
)

In dark corners of the internet, Clement lives on as a rebel martyr, and you can find directions to his supposed Missouri gravesite (adorned with a Confederate battle flag).
 That Jesse James idolized this psychopath as “one of the noblest boys” and vowed revenge only magnified the mythologizing.


With the rebels subdued in Missouri, Moses headed west.
 Like Hickok, Moses hunted buffalo and worked as a marshal and scout.
 He ranged through lawless settlements in Colorado and the Southwest before he helped found the central Kansas town of Great Bend, where he served as the first sheriff from 1871 to 1875.

The new town was on the Santa Fe Trail, and it was soon plagued by disorderly Texas cowboys on cattle drives.
 Saloons, brothels and gambling halls sprang up to serve them.
 If Great Bend failed to achieve the notoriety of Dodge City or other cow towns, Moses’s fellow citizens gave him much of the credit.


One time, a drunk Texan was riding through town, shooting at the occasional citizen.
 Moses was summoned and began walking down the street toward him.
 “The man started swinging his gun hand toward G.
N. when the latter spoke to him pleasantly enough,” according to a Great Bend Tribune account.
 “G.N. wasn’t trying to pull a gun and still kept coming.”
 When he neared the cowboy, he reached up as if to shake his hand “and the next minute the gun man was off his pony and G.
N.’
s grip on his shoulder made him forget all his belligerency.”


A showdown in the summer of 1872 was so memorable that, 36 years later, the Kansas Historical Society asked Moses to write about it.


In a 4½-page account he typed in blue ink, he recalled that a cowboy had “ravished” a woman at an isolated homestead, and her husband rode into town demanding justice.
 With a warrant in hand, Moses and a marshal, James Gainsford, who had been Hickok’s deputy in Abilene, scoured the territory’s vast cattle herds, saloons and dance halls with no luck.
 Then, after midnight on a dark street in the town of Ellsworth, a man whispered to them to follow him up to a railroad track.


“I was beginning to get nervous, thinking there was a trap,” Moses wrote.
 But the man, who it turned out was the head of the cattle crew the wanted suspect was riding in, was merely terrified.
 He made them promise never to reveal who ratted out the outlaw, whom he said was “one of the best shots in Texas” and had killed men on the trail.
 “We thanked him for the information and started back for town.
 His last words were, ‘Be sure and kill him.’
Advertisement

Early the next morning, with the angry husband tagging along, they spotted the cowboy in a creekside camp, alone except for a cook.
 The husband’s job was to hold the horses if Moses and Gainsford dismounted to move closer to their target.
 But after the outlaw spotted them and started shooting, the husband galloped off;
 “that was the last I ever saw of him,” Moses wrote.


In the hail of bullets that followed, Moses was fairly sure he had wounded the gunman.
 But just as he and Gainsford were moving in, six horsemen waving their guns raced up from another direction.
 He and Gainsford trained their weapons on them.
 They were drovers on the outlaw’s cattle crew.
 Moses warned them to steer clear of the “little gunplay,” and they rode off.
 In the time this took, and despite the lawmen’s exhaustive searching, the culprit got away.


“We started home, very much crestfallen for I had been marshal and sheriff in both Missouri and Kansas for a long time and this was the first time I had ever failed getting a man I was sent after,” Moses wrote.


When they finally got back to Great Bend, hungry and tired, Moses took the warrant back to the justice of the peace.
 He wrote across it:
 “Received this writ [blank date].
 Served the same by shooting at the d — d son of a ----, but didn’t get him.”
 Later, he heard from the owner of the cattle herd that “our man” crawled into camp, got a horse and died on the trail soon thereafter.


Before Moses was sheriff, he could be as cocky as any famous gunslinger.
 At a construction camp in western Kansas, where “the gamblers, painted women and thugs were robbing several hundred railroad laborers,” a Santa Fe surveyor, David Heizer, told of how Moses went to a bar to collect a debt from a saloonkeeper who refused to pay him back.


“It made G.
N. mad and he kicked him out of the place and took charge of the saloon himself,” Heizer wrote.
 “We believe that Jim Gainsford was with him at the time.”


“The saloon man went out and gathered his gang and went back to fix G.
N. The latter was ready and had Gainsford stationed behind the door.
 When the gang filed in, G.
N. trained two guns on them and invited them to get out and stay out.
 He ran the saloon for two days, took in $68 and then turned it back to the owner and said that he had collected the interest due at least.”

Advertisement

Moses looked the part of the Western gunman.
 Heizer first met him when he galloped into a railroad labor camp one evening on a white pony:


“He was six feet tall, straight as an Indian, wore a slouch hat, a blue shirt, open at the throat, a pair of buckskin trousers, fringed down the seams and top boots.
 His face was bronzed by the desert sun, his features were hard and stern and to emphasize the caste a pair of navy 44s were slung from his belt.
 But through it all shone a pair of eyes as blue, clear and true, as the sky above us.”


If that sounds gushy, you aren’t a reader of Wild West biographies.
 Hickok, especially, dazzled everyone with his “herculean chest” and “long, wavy, silk curls” — “one of the most perfect types of physical manhood I ever saw,” George Armstrong Custer said.


But my grandmother was right:
 G.
N. did not speak well of Hickok.


“Wild Bill was a dead shot and a quick man on the draw, but he was a sneak with the gun and wanton with the same,” Moses is quoted as saying in a newspaper reminiscence.
 “He killed many men without provocation and without giving them a chance for their lives and took undue advantages.”


He also said Hickok could be a coward.
 He recalled being in an Abilene saloon when Wild Bill took a “bully’s dislike” to a cavalryman Moses knew in Missouri.
 When his friend “dared Hickok to draw his gun or attempt to arrest him,” he backed out.


Hickok’s fabled career as a lawman in Abilene lasted only a matter of months.
 He joined an entertainment troupe of Buffalo Bill Cody’s, but soon quit, and made his living playing poker.
 He was 39 in 1876 when he was shot dead from behind in a gambling hall in the Dakota Territory town of Deadwood.


Moses would have a longer and nobler life.
 After serving as Great Bend’s sheriff, he was elected mayor several times, and he and his brother built a successful mercantile business.
 He was on the board of three banks, and owned an ice plant and rich farmlands.
 He testified in a U.
S. Supreme Court case on water rights for Kansas farmers.
 He and his wife, who had no biological children, helped support local orphans.
 They took in my grandfather when he was a toddler.


When Moses died of cancer in 1911 at 67, the Great Bend Tribune ran two pages of tributes, 
and businesses closed for his funeral.
 Describing him as “one of the best known peace officers in the West,” 
 the eulogists said he did not get his due — 
 “he never boasted of his deeds” and 
 “never played up the part he played in early day incidents that belonged to him.”


All that’s left is his Colt Model 1860 Army percussion revolver with the notch on the handle.
 I recruited a top expert in vintage firearms who, taking into account the history of its owner, estimated the gun’s value at $15,000. 
 A historical society will want it now.


So what is the predictable part of this good-guy-with-a-gun tale?


America remembers and even lionizes the gunslingers and stone-cold killers and hucksters of the Wild West, 
but it forgets other people who were no less fearless, 
but more bent on keeping the peace and founding churches 
than hanging out in brothels and preening for East Coast reporters and photographers.


This fascination extends to the value of the guns these storied characters carried.
 Jesse James — “that great bank robber,” in the words of former president Donald Trump — had the same model revolver as Moses had.
 With its belt and holster, it sold in 2009 for $230,000. A Colt .
45 belonging to Wyatt Earp, who was both a lawman and a reputed brothel pimp in Wichita, went for $225,000 in 2014.

The Smith & Wesson revolver Hickok was reportedly carrying when he was killed sold for $235,000 in 2022, and a rifle of his brought in $475,312 in 2021. A Colt revolver he was said to own sold for $616,875 in 2022.

I will never know what is so special about the gun George Moses passed down to my grandfather.
 Does the notch mean it was used to shoot someone who needed killing — someone like Archie Clement?


Does it matter?
 The gun’s real value has nothing to do with its death count.
 What matters is the mettle of the forgotten man who carried it, 
 as reflected in how he was eulogized in 1911:


“Civilization in overtaking him did not change him.
 The man of modesty, 
 the man of courage and strong convictions, 
 the man of great strength and physical prowess he was to be feared in any encounter and he had many.
 They found him right in character.
 It was in his blood.”

Friday, July 26, 2024

intermittent fasting, because nothing good happens after dinner

 

Re: Not eating dinner

Post by frank k » 

befriend wrote: Thu Jul 25, 2024 1:22 pmDo monastics eventually get over the hunger pains of not eating after noon? I am thinking of not eating dinner just because it’s a hassle not for spiritual reasons.
I've been not eating dinners (just breakfast 7am and lunch 12 noon) for about 15 years now.
So that's a 5 hour eating window and 19 hour fasting period (only water).
If you cook your own meals, pay attention to how much protein, fats, nutrients you actually need, it's really easy, especially with 2 meals per day.
I'm retired and a full time yogi, but there are a fair number of worldlings who have jobs working full time also follow a similar intermittent fasting program (usually for health, not spiritual reasons), and they just have a bigger eating window, say 8 hours instead of 5 like mine, and perhaps more than 2 meals or snacking periods between their meals.

So there is plenty of people doing it, and plenty of data showing it's easy to do without getting hungry or not having enough energy to get through a full 24hr cycle.

Now for monastics and yogis only eating in one session per day, I don't know how the majority of them find their hunger and energetic situation.
For me (as of right now), whenever I've tried only eating in one session per day, I could not sustain it for too long, just a few weeks.
At some point, I just can't get the calories and energy to last a full 24hour cycle.
The last 2-4 hours of the fast I can't function. Too tired to even sit up straight, too tired to even read suttas, but sleep doesn't alleviate that kind of energy crash.
But I believe the ability to thrive on one meal a day is highly dependent on how advanced your meditation practice is and how open your energy channels are (which determine how much energy you can absorb from your environment beyond just eating and sleeping).
So I continue to experiment with one meal per day occasionally as my meditation practice advances.

But intermittent fasting with a 5-8 hour window of eating?
"Piece of cake" (slang for, extremely easy to do) once you figure out what foods are actually healthy and nourishing and you don't waste valuable energy and money from eating junk and suboptimal food.
It takes energy to process drowsy and sluggish inducing junk foods,
and that junk food takes up space that healthy nourishing food would have occupied.

Intermittent fasting will never catch on,
because most people eat to indulge in the 5 cords of sensual pleasure;
For the hedonic pleasure of eating, drinking,
for the hedonic pleasure of socializing and talking about nonsense while you're eating,
watching t.v. while your eating, and not even getting the full enjoyment of either eating or t.v. because your attention is split.

Here's another huge tip and reason to follow the 8 precept rules of intermittent fasting (just breakfast and lunch in Buddhist version).

Nothing good happens after dinner.
People are high on food indulgence, social pleasure from gathering from friends, and next thing you know
you're burning off the nervous and overexcited energy that you didn't need from dinner
into all manners of debauchery.
Eating rich foods make you horny,
You go out drinking, carousing, gambling, whoring, staying up all night, etc.

When you don't eat dinner, and don't socialize?
You're energy is refined, you don't have over excited energy where you can't sleep,
you have just right amount of energy to meditate, study the suttas,
go to sleep early and wake up early,
creating a virtuous cycle.


Wednesday, July 24, 2024

MN 8 excellent proof of right resolve showing difference between Abyāpāda (non-ill will) and Avihiṃsā (non harming)

 

The two latter aspects of right resolve,

 Abyāpāda (non-ill will) and Avihiṃsā (non harming),

have much similarity and overlap, but are emphatically not the same.

There are some important differences. 


Re: Abyāpāda and Avihiṃsā

Post by frank k » 

MN 8 is a great find, @culaavuso, on distinguishing between Abyāpāda and Avihiṃsā.
I'd always assumed this was the key difference between Abyāpāda and Avihiṃsā, but did not have any proof I could cite.
Great answer and analogy by the way, you really hit the nail on the head.

Abyāpāda is non-ill will, a mental activity.
Avihiṃsā is non harming, a physical activity.

The grouping in MN 8 shows that clearly.
Avihiṃsā is grouped with physical actions,
while Abyāpāda is grouped with mental actions.

So while abyāpāda·saṅkappa and avihiṃsā·saṅkappa does have some overlap,
they are very different classes of action.
Just as culaavuso pointed out from similar items in MN 8,
it's the difference between having a resolve of covetousness, (result in mental kamma)
versus a resolve to actually physically steal something. (results in physical kamma)

A resolve for ill will, involve mental kamma of wishing some being(s) suffer, are harmed, killed, etc.
A resolve to harm, involves physical kamma of actually doing the action to cause being(s) to suffer, come to harm, or be killed, etc.



culaavuso wrote: Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:56 amMN 8 appears to suggest a distinction along the lines of mental activity being avoided by abyāpāda while coarser physical and verbal activity is avoided by avihiṃsā. The ordering of the list which is likened to a road appears to not be arbitrary. In that list, harmfulness is found near killing and stealing while ill-will is found near covetousness and wrong view. It might be useful to consider the relationship between covetousness and stealing as being similar to the relationship between ill-will and harmfulness.
MN 8: Sallekha Sutta wrote:(1) A person given to harmfulness has non-harming by which to avoid it.
(2) A person given to killing living beings has abstention from killing by which to avoid it.
(3) A person given to taking what is not given has abstention from taking what is not given by which to avoid it.
...
(9) A person given to covetousness has non-covetousness by which to avoid it.
(10) A person given to thoughts of ill will has non-ill will by which to avoid it.
(11) A person given to wrong view has right view by which to avoid it.
MN 8 full sutta in pali and english
https://lucid24.org/mn/main/mn008/index.html#8.1


@culaavuso posted that response 10 years ago,
I wonder why it hasn't been widely accepted in the world already.
There are still lots of people who have strange views on samma sankappa,
* such as abyāpāda·saṅkappa and avihiṃsā·saṅkappa being practically the same.
* metta being equivalent to abyāpāda·saṅkappa and karuna being equivalent to avihiṃsā·saṅkappa
I disprove that here: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... metta.html


In Sujato's footnote for MN 19, he says:
MN 19: Dvedhāvitakkasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)
The difference between “malice” (or “ill will”, byāpāda) and “cruelty” (vihiṁsā) is subtle; they are the respective opposites of “love” (mettā) and “compassion” (karuṇā). Mettā wishes well simply and without qualification, just as “malice” wishes ill. But karuṇa takes pleasure in the alleviation of pain, while vihiṁsā takes pleasure in inflicting pain.
Almost everything Sujato says in that footnote is wrong.
* As I prove above metta is a subset, not the same as abyāpāda·saṅkappa, therefore metta is not the sole "opposite" of byāpāda.
* karuna does not have to take pleasure, for example Buddha explicitly is said to teach Dhamma in the suttas out of karuna/compassion, but in one of the suttas in MN for example, he does not become upset if is disciples don't listen to him, and he doesn't become excited or happy if they follow his advice.
* vihiṁsā does not have to take pleasure on inflicting pain. I don't know where Sujato gets that from. You can accidentally step on a bug and kill it, causing it harm, without taking pleasure in it.


Sunday, July 14, 2024

speaking of non profit orgs, which Buddhist ones good to bequeath or include in will?




speaking of non profit orgs, which Buddhist ones good to bequeath or include in will?

Post by frank k » Sun Jul 14, 2024 6:15 am
For the last 4 years I've been thinking of starting an NPO myself dedicated to preservation of authentic early buddhist jhāna teachings.

In the USA,
if you die unexpectedly, and you don't have a will, your wife and/or kids I believe will be entitled to your assets,
but if you don't have dependents, then the US govt. claims all of your property.

As I'm getting older, and I would like the remainder of my life savings to go to a good cause,

and I'm not aware of any current Buddhist organization dedicated to preservation of authentic early buddhist jhana teachings,

there's an urgent need to fill that void.

I'm sure there are probably other people in my same situation, getting older,
no dependents,
not wanting govt. to take all your assets when you die,
and not quite happy with the existing Buddhist organizations one can bequeath or include as part of one's will.

Anyone else interested?

It's not too hard or time consuming to form an NPO,
but I always have a maranassati mentality, would rather spend free time meditating or studying suttas.

But if some other people spur me on,
I'll finally stop dragging my foot and get it done.

What would this EBT jhāna NPO do?


Depending how much money we're working with,
building meditation halls,
publishing and teaching correct EBT jhāna,

and/or just passively investing cash and periodically as needed put some of it work with
monasteries and organizations that transmit correct EBT jhāna teachings,

for example, supporting some of the Ajahn Mun based Thai forest lineages.
contributing to Building meditation halls in some monasteries.
building kutis, or living subsistence financial support for monastics and 10 or 8 precept yogis that practice and teach authentic EBT jhāna.


 

Forum discussion

reddit 


dhamma wheel






Friday, July 12, 2024

Ven. Sujato revised his understanding of vitakka and jhāna in his new MN footnotes?

 

Ven. Sujato revised his understanding of vitakka and jhāna in his  new MN footnotes?

Let's take a look at some of his footnotes from key suttas:


MN 125: Dantabhūmisutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)

his second jhāna translation with vitakka as not 'thinking':
As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, they enter and remain in the second absorption …
his footnote says:
The Pali version, in a unique presentation, has the four satipaṭṭhānas in place of the first absorption, 
which offers further light on the problem discussed in the previous note.
 The first absorption is characterized by seclusion from sensual pleasures, while vitakka is still present.
 Clearly one is not “thinking of sensual pleasures” at this point, but it is not clear that one is not having vitakka for the body (and feeling, mind, and principles).
 I have translated vitakka as “thought” here, but it could mean the application of the mind to a meditation such as the breath, in which case one would be “thinking of the body”.
 This provides additional support for the reading “thoughts connected with sensual pleasures”.
 Any conclusions on this passage, however, are tenuous, and it seems likely there has been some textual corruption.
 Indeed, the Chinese parallel here has all four absorptions as usual.


frankk comment:

He acknowledges that vitakka of first jhāna (in MN 125 explicitly equated with satipatthana), can be verbal thoughts connected to the body (or any of the 4 frames of satiapatthana), 
yet where he translated second jhāna, vitakka goes right back to not being a verbal thought, but "placing the mind". 

Why?

If you're going to admit MN 125 has verbal vitakka in first jhāna, then you need to translate vitakka in second jhāna above in the same way, because second jhāna is referring back to first jhāna's vitakka "thought", not "placing the mind".
And you can't just casually accuse MN 125 of being corrupt, and not back it up with some research and evidence. 
The Chinese parallel to MN 125 listing all 4 jhānas, does not lead to evidence of Sujato's unsubstantiated interpretation of vitakka as "placing the mind".
All it does is leave a crack in the door open for someone with an agenda to try to claim first jhāna's vitakka is different than the vitakka that appeared immediately prior.  
But by virtue of Theravada's MN 125 deliberately omitting first jhāna, 
creating a second satipatthāna explicitly containing thoughts (vitakka) not connected to sensuality (kāma), 
it is clear for anyone to see that was by choice, carefully designed and crafted.
It is absolutely not a transmission error or corruption,
but a very conscientious choice, a deliberate way for the Theravada oral reciters 
to unequivocally gloss first jhāna's kāma (judicious seclusion from sensuality) 
and vitakka (3 types of right verbal thoughts and resolves of sammā saṇkappa). 
By doing so, they are very consciously attempting to prevent any future Bhikkhus 
from claiming first jhāna's vitakka is different than the vitakka that appeared immediately in the sentence and paragraph before.
  

In MN 19 footnotes, which we'll visit shortly, Sujato conveniently fails to mention that the Chinese parallel omits the first jhāna, just as Theravada does in MN 125.
For the very same reason.
To gloss vitakka as the 3 types of right thought/resolve (sammā saṇkappa) as the same vitakka in first jhāna,
and to close the door on Buddhist monks trying to claim vitakka changes meaning when you attain first jhāna.







Sujato's footnotes here don't shed any light on justifying Sujato's dubious translation and interpretation of  vitakka, since first jhāna is never explicitly mentioned (just samādhi and ekodi, a coded way of referring to all four jhānas).

But there is one very interesting footnote here, about an interesting term, vitakka sankhāra.
He writes:
The unique phrase “stopping the formation of thoughts” (vitakkasaṅkhārasaṇṭhānaṁ) lends the sutta its title. Here saṅkhāra refers to the energy that drives the formation of thoughts. Understanding the cause helps to deprive it of its power.


Now recall that one of Sujato's justifications for redefining vitakka in first jhāna,
is that the Buddha lacked vocabulary to describe the subtle process of the volition of directing the mind prior to verbal thoughts.
So the Buddha "was forced" to redefine vitakka as "placing the mind", according to Sujato's reasoning.

Well, here in MN 20, is one of the words the Buddha supposedly didn't have in his vocabulary.
vitakka sankhāra.

There are other words that also "place the mind",  used in the suttas  in a samādhi and jhāna context as well. 
Mano sankhāra, citta sankhāra, cetana to name a few.
Yet, the Buddha (according to Sujato) had a limited vocabulary for the subtle aspects of samādhi, 
and had no choice but to confusingly redefine vitakka as "placing the mind" in first jhāna.
Interestingly, Sujato translates the aggregate of sankhāra as "choice", and citta as "mind".
citta sankhāra is used frequently in the suttas.
Isn't the "mind" having the ability to "choose" the same as "placing the mind"? 
So why was the Buddha forced to redefine vitakka in first jhāna, Ven. Sujato?




His first footnote says:
This discourse shows that a meditator must abandon unwholesome thought (vitakka) then wholesome thought (vitakka) before entering absorption. 

Sujato's comment on section in MN 19 "So I assigned sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts":
By analyzing thoughts (vitakka), he is consciously developing the second factor of the noble eightfold path, right thought (sammāsaṅkappa). In this context, vitakka and saṅkappa are synonyms.

Frankk says:
Sujato makes several egregious errors of reasoning in his footnotes and justification for redefining first jhāna vitakka, 
but it suffices for now just to point out one very obvious one, 
a very gross error that anyone can clearly see and validate in just a few minutes of looking at the sutta pāḷi source.


Sujato in the first footnote cited, claims MN 19 says that even skillful vitakka must be completely removed before entering first jhāna, 
and therefore first jhāna vitakka must be something entirely different than the vitakka prior.

Yet, by his own admission in the second footnote cited, vitakka (verbal linguistic thoughts) and sankappa (resolves, 3 type of right thinking in sammā sankappo right resolves), 
are exactly the same in this context of MN 19 and MN 125,  4 jhānas.


Sujato conveniently ignores


where his footnotes for MN 78 fail to mention that

the 3 right resolves (sammā sankappa) are still active in first jhāna.
Therefore, the 3 right vitakka must also be active in first jhāna, 
since by Sujato's admission vitakka = sankappa in this context.

My annotated translation of MN 78 pali + english side by side clearly show 
where first jhāna contains the 3 thoughts (sankappa and vitakka):

 MN 78.5 - (what are 3 akusalā saṅkappā? exact opposite of 3 aspects of right resolve, lust, ill will, harm)
        MN 78.5.1 - (Akusalā saṅkappā depend on 3 perceptions based on opposite of right resolves, lust, ill will, harm)
        MN 78.5.2 - (3 unskillful akusalā saṅkappā cease in first jhāna)
        MN 78.5.3 - (right effort does the work of removing akusalā saṅkappā within, and prior to first jhāna)
    MN 78.6 - (what are 3 kusalā saṅkappā? same 3 aspects of Right Resolve)
        MN 78.6.1 (kusalā saṅkappā depend on the 3 kusala perceptions)
        MN 78.6.2 - (kusalā saṅkappā cease in 2nd jhāna)
        MN 78.6.2.0 – (that means kusalā saṅkappā (and 3 right vitakka) are active in 1st jhāna!



Conclusion

 Comparing Sujato's footnotes from MN 125, MN 19, MN 78,
he's making several incoherent, contradictory claims.

He admits vitakka and sankappa are the same in jhāna context in MN 19,
admits that MN 125 is probably agreeing, but thinks MN 125 is a corrupt sutta,
and completely ignores MN 78 (and its Agama parallel) which supports MN 125.

He also ignores the chinese Agama parallel to MN 19, similar to MN 125 in that it explicitly removes first jhāna to reinforce the point that vitakka in first jhāna is verbal and linguistic, 
exactly the same as the vitakka of rights and wrong thoughts that happen just before first jhāna.


What's the proper correction for Sujato's translation?

Ideally it's time for Sujato to finally admit he's wrong on his interpretation of vitakka in first jhāna.
But if he's going to insist on his current incoherent interpretation,
he needs to  explain how vitakka in first jhāna becoming non-verbal non-linguistic "placing the mind" 
coexists simultaneously with the 3 sammā sankappa (right "thoughts") which are still active in first jhāna (MN 78).
And he needs to explain why MN 125 is corrupt when MN 78, MN 19 agama parallel are in agreement.