MN 117 Sujato's fraudulent/criminal interpretation of 'vitakka' is based on this sutta

I don't use the word "fraud" or "criminal" lightly, or hyperbolically. 

To wrongly accuse a monastic of crime, is a sure ticket to hell.

I did my research carefully for more than 10 years, 

and have published detailed audits for at least the past 5.

If I don't use strong words to emphasize the situation,
then people think it's just some minor error I'm critiquing in a friendly way,

or that the source text is somewhat ambiguous and there are different legitimate interpretations.

The fact that LBT Theravada works like KN Pe and Vimuttimagga,
supports my interpretation of jhāna and vitakka (of just looking at the suttas),
gives me complete confidence in its correctness.

This is an important topic, and therefore I do not mince words.
It would be wrong speech, wrong action, wrong view, wrong intention to downplay a horrific crime of promulgating a corrupt version of Buddha Dhamma,
as some trivial difference of opinion.

MN 117: Mahācattārīsakasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)

And what is right thought that is accompanied by defilements, partakes of good deeds, and ripens in attachments?Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammāsaṅkappo sāsavo puññabhāgiyo upadhivepakko?Thoughts of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness.Nekkhammasaṅkappo, abyāpādasaṅkappo, avihiṁsāsaṅkappo:This is right thought that is accompanied by defilements.‘ayaṁ, bhikkhave, sammāsaṅkappo sāsavo puññabhāgiyo upadhivepakko’.

And what is right thought that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path?Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammāsaṅkappo ariyo anāsavo lokuttaro maggaṅgo?It’s the thinking—the placing of the mind, thought, planting, implanting, embedding of the mind, verbal process—in one intent on the noble, intent on the undefiled, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path.
Yo kho, bhikkhave, ariyacittassa anāsavacittassa ariyamaggasamaṅgino ariyamaggaṁ bhāvayato takko vitakko saṅkappo appanā byappanā cetaso abhiniropanā vacīsaṅkhāro—

Sujato's footnote

This passage shows that the scope of saṅkappa or vitakka is wider than discursive “thought”, 

especially in deep meditation.

 This definition is similar to that in the Abhidhamma (eg. Vb 3:23.2) | 

 Takka (“thinking”) is normally “logic” but here is a synonym of vitakka. | 

 Appanā (“planting”) is where a movement enters its goal, as a river the ocean (SN 15.8:2.3), 

 or a peg the wood (Mil 3.3.13, for which see also MN 20.3.4). | 

 Byappanā is an intensive form that appears only in this definition. | 

 Abhiniropana is likewise a unique term, with the sense of “sinking into” or “embedding”.

 Compare Sanskrit āropaṇa, “placing or fixing in or upon”. | 

 For “verbal process” see MN 44:15.3 = SN 41.6:2.4.

Frankk comment:

Sujato's footnote says:  Takka (“thinking”) is normally “logic” but here is a synonym of vitakka. | 
Yet, where he translates takka as thinking, he translates vitakka as "placing the mind".

Didn't Sujato just say in this context takka is the same as vitakka?

So either he should translate both as "placing the mind", or translate both as "thinking". 

First piece of evidence of fraudulence / criminal translation + interpretation of vitakka here.

Abhidhamma Vibhanga (Ab Vb) definition of vitakka (sankappo)

https://lucid24.org/misc/text-index/ab-vb/index.html#12.1.11.3

12.1.11.3 – vitakka = verbal thought including all 3 right resolves/saṇkappo

Tattha katamo vitakko? Yo takko vitakko saṅkappo appanā byappanā cetaso abhiniropanā sammā-saṅkappo—ayaṃ vuccati “vitakko”.

Therein what is directed-thought? That which is mentation, thinking, thought, fixation, focussing, application of the mind, right thought. This is called directed-thought.

Frankk comment:

Now the Ab Vb glossing of vitakka in first jhāna above, 

is nearly identical to MN 117 glossing of samma sankappo.

The difference is, MN 117 also includes vacī-sankhāro (a separate fraud by Sujato explored in other articles),

and whereas MN 117 mentions sankappo in the list,

AbVb mentions sammā-sankappo.

Meaning, both MN 117 sankappo and AbVb vitakka are referring to all three types of sankappo:

Resolves on Renunciation, Non ill will, Non harming.

So where MN 117 is giving the list of what appears to be synonyms for sankappo:

[right resolve is]

takko	thinking,
vi-takko	Directed-thinking,
saṅkappo	resolve,
appanā	applying,
By-appanā	strong-applying,
cetaso abhiniropanā	mind being implanted, [inculcate, apply, fixed]
Vacī-saṅ-khāro—	verbal-co-doings

is meant to be expanded out to this:

[right resolve is]

takko	thinking [of resolves on Renunciation, Non ill will, Non harming]    ,
vi-takko	Directed-thinking [of resolves on Renunciation, Non ill will, Non harming],
saṅkappo	resolve  [on Renunciation, Non ill will, Non harming]
appanā	applying [of resolves on Renunciation, Non ill will, Non harming],
By-appanā	strong-applying [of resolves on Renunciation, Non ill will, Non harming],
cetaso abhiniropanā	mind being implanted [on resolves on Renunciation, Non ill will, Non harming]
Vacī-saṅ-khāro—	verbal-co-doings  [of resolves on Renunciation, Non ill will, Non harming],

If you don't mentally plug in what I explicitly wrote out above,

then MN 117 passage doesn't make sense.

Those are supposed to be resolves (sankappo) that are noble, without asavas (defilement).

Just any old "vitakka", is not noble, without defilements.

It has to be those 3 types of right resolve [of resolves on Renunciation, Non ill will, Non harming]

in order to be considered noble, without defilement.

In Vimuttimagga, appanā samādhi ["fixed absorption"], doesn't mean one is in a disembodied frozen stupor "jhāna". (as Visuddhimagga would redefine it hundreds of years after vimuttimagga)

Appanā samādhi in Vimt. is referring to this vitakka appanā:

That the mind is fixated, planted firmly, on the 3 types of right resolves, 

as opposed to access concentration which can waver and be interrupted from 5 hindrances.

In Vimt., it's the same as the suttas, the four jhānas are embodied, one can operate all 5 sense faculties,

can think verbal thoughts.

And first jhāna, one's "fixed penetration" (appanā samādhi) means one's thoughts are pure, 

locked in onto any of the 3 types of right resolves.

So at this point, we could conclude Sujato is either incompetent for not interpreting MN 117 correctly,

or he is fraudulent because his is using a wrong reading of MN 117, 

treating the short list of so called synonyms of sankappo to justify 

redefining vitakka as "placing the mind".

But here is a public forum thread, on Sujato's own forum, 

where he ostensibly welcomes corrections to potential errors in his translation,

yet when publicly questioned on his erroneous treatment of 'vitakka',

he evades, distorts, prevaricates, and just ignores people pointing out the error, over a 7 year period.

AN 3.67 Kathāvatthu sutta, what about Bhikkhus evading credible challenges to their erroneous views?

So we can conclude this is fraudulence, criminal translation, not ignorance or simple incompetence.

There was motive to redefine vitakka, 

and he used illicit, fraudulent means in order to do so.

Further proof from KN Pe and Vimuttimgga that confirm exactly how I describe a correct interpretation of vitakka and sankappo from above

KN Petakopadesa gloss of 4 jhānas

    Pe ^7.1 - (first jhāna j1🌘 )
        Pe ^7.1.1 - (rich section on V&V💭 , vitakka & vicara: 3 right thoughts are 2💭 )
        Pe ^7.1.2 - (V&V example: vitakka sees person, vicara scrutinizes their sila)
        Pe ^7.1.3 - (appana is not a frozen trance)
        Pe ^7.1.4 - (V&V winged bird simile)
        Pe ^7.1.5 - (V&V relationship to right/wrong resolves)
        Pe ^7.1.6 - (V&V example: oral tradition of reciting vocally first requires V&V to contain thinking and evaluation)
        Pe ^7.1.7 - (vicara needs to finish the job vitakka started)
        Pe ^7.1.8 - (example: vitakka’s comprehension more superficial, vicara explores/dives deep into meaning)
        Pe ^7.1.9 - (example (related to right effort), vitakka sets task, vicara finishes)
        Pe ^7.1.10 - (first jhāna: what parts mental, physical)
    Pe ^7.2 - (second jhāna j2🌗 )
    Pe ^7.3 - (third jhāna j3🌖 )
    Pe ^7.4 - (fourth jhāna j4🌕 )

Vimuttimagga

Nyanatusita's Eng.Translation where first jhāna glossing of terms starts:

https://lucid24.org/tped/v/vimtn/index.html#8.1

What does Sujato think a simile is similar to?

In that thread I alluded to earlier,

AN 3.67 Kathāvatthu sutta, what about Bhikkhus evading credible challenges to their erroneous views?

When directly asked by someone (not me, and not anyone I know) about the KN Pe gloss of vitakka,

and how vitakka are encoded words in the oral tradition as vacī sankhāra (vocal fabrications),

KN Pe essentially says, just like SN 46.3, that vitakka (verbal thoughts),

are linguistc, communicable language.

The Pe example, the oral reciter memorize the Dhamma, encoded in linguistic, verbal thoughts, mental words, as "vitakka", and thinks about it.

So when one recites memorized passages, it's in the form of vitakka,

and then as one recites it, 

one thinks about it and has some superficial understanding of what one recites.

Vicāra (whether in first jhāna or not), then explores (cāra literally means walk, wander, explore) the meaning of the verbal thoughts vitakka first picked up. 

Sujato in the thread, claimed (paraphrase from memory) "That example of oral recitation and memory is just a simile."

What exactly is it a simile for?

Sujato doesn't explain, doesn't even try.

He just stops answering follow up questions.

That's evidence of fraud and criminal activity, as an act of omission.

If we are to believe Sujato is merely incompetent rather than fraudulent,

he would have provided some excuse, some explanation of what that supposed simile is.

Instead, he just flees the scene of the crime.

I imagine the follow up question, had he bothered to behave like an honorable bhikkhu and defend his interpretation against credible challenges,

would be,

then what about SN 46.3, and the many suttas like that?

Is that also a "simile"?

The vimuttimagga passage (almost identical to KN Pe V&V section) is just echoing the literal, exact same thing as SN 46.3:

SN 46.3  - (0👂☸ Bhikkhūnaṃ dhammaṃ sutvā)

Tathārūpānaṁ, bhikkhave, bhikkhūnaṁ dhammaṁ sutvā	Because after hearing The Dharma of such monks, a monk
dvayena vūpakāsena vūpakaṭṭho viharati— kāya-vūpakāsena ca citta-vūpakāsena ca.	will live withdrawn in both body and mind,

46.3.1 - (1🐘 taṃ Dhammaṃ anus-sarati anu-vitakketi)

So tathā vūpakaṭṭho viharanto taṁ dhammaṁ anus-sarati anu-vitakketi.	as they recollect and think about that Dharma.
Yasmiṁ samaye, bhikkhave, bhikkhu tathā vūpakaṭṭho viharanto taṁ dhammaṁ anussarati anuvitakketi, sati-sam-bojjh-aṅgo tasmiṁ samaye bhikkhuno āraddho hoti;	At such a time, a monk has activated the awakening factor of remembering and applying Dharma;
sati-sam-bojjh-aṅgaṁ tasmiṁ samaye bhikkhu bhāveti;	they develop it
sati-sam-bojjh-aṅgo tasmiṁ samaye bhikkhuno bhāvanā-pāripūriṁ gacchati.	and perfect it.

46.3.2 - (2💭🕵️ taṁ dhammaṁ paññāya, pa-vicinati, pa-vicarati, pari-vīmaṁsam-āpajjati)

So tathā sato viharanto	As they live remembering and applying [Dharma] in this way they
taṁ dhammaṁ paññāya, pa-vicinati, pa-vicarati, pari-vīmaṁsam-āpajjati.	discern-Dharma-with-wisdom, investigate it, evaluate-&-explore, and discriminate.
Yasmiṁ samaye, bhikkhave, bhikkhu tathā sato viharanto taṁ dhammaṁ paññāya pavicinati pavicarati parivīmaṁsamāpajjati, dhammavicaya-sam-bojjh-aṅgo tasmiṁ samaye bhikkhuno āraddho hoti;	At such a time, a monk has activated the awakening factor of investigation of dharmas;
dhammavicaya-sam-bojjh-aṅgaṁ tasmiṁ samaye bhikkhu bhāveti;	they develop it
dhammavicaya-sam-bojjh-aṅgo tasmiṁ samaye bhikkhuno bhāvanā-pāripūriṁ gacchati.	and perfect it.

Related

According to Sujato, other than the wisdom chapters not much difference between Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga

Forum discussion

MP = Mogha Purisa

MP wrote:
The Vimuttimagga defines sukha of the 3rd Jhāna as mental pleasure,
something you vehemently deny.
On V&V, the Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga aren't that different.
Regarding the rest of your article,
I find its reasoning and conclusions to be spurious at best.

Frankk response:

First of all, the topic is Sujato's fraudulent interpretation of vitakka in first jhāna,

not sukha in 3rd jhāna.

Show me where I ever deny Vimt., or AbVb defines sukha as mental pleasure.

Your lack of memory, reading comprehension, understanding of the differences between Ab Vb, Vimt., Vism., is appalling. 

How are you qualified to even offer an opinion, let alone  disagree with the analysis, 

and with the audacity to do so without even offering any evidence to support your claim?

Vimt. clearly is talking about an embodied jhāna experience with 5 senses active, 

and vitakka as verbal linguistic mental talk. 

Vism. uses nearly the same definition of vitakka as Vimt., 

but it moves it to upacāra samādhi (access concentration), outside of first jhāna.

Vimt. vitakka is part of first jhāna, just as genuine Buddha's sutta first jhāna. 

Huge difference. 

The topic is about Sujatos' fraudulent redefinition of first jhāna and vitakka, remember?

Vism. redefines vitakka once one enters [the corrupt redefinition of] "first jhāna", as the mind being glued to a nimitta, and body senses shut off. 

Reading Vimt.'s sections on all the four jhānas, breath meditation section, 31 body parts, brahmavihāras carefully and scrupulously makes it unequivocal and completely obvious they're talking about an embodied jhāna with verbal thought as vitakka, not disembodied mind glued to a nimitta. 

Vimt.'s nonsensical definition of sukha as mental pleasure (which contradicts the suttas), 

is done in order to conform to canonical Abhidhamma AbVb,

not because it treats jhāna is a disembodied frozen stupor as Vism. does. 

All this I provide many articles with detailed audits and evidence in my blog.