MN 44 Sujato's fraudulent interpretation of 'vitakka' in jhāna via conflating vācā (speech) and vacī-sankhāra (speech co-activities)

MN 44: Cūḷavedallasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato


Pubbe kho, āvuso visākha, vitakketvā vicāretvā pacchā vācaṁ bhindati, tasmā vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro.
First you place the mind and keep it connected, then you break into speech. 

His footnote to this:

That’s why placing the mind and keeping it connected are verbal processes.

Vitakka and vicāra have a more basic sense in ordinary states of mind (“thought” and “exploring”) 

and a more refined sense in the elevated consciousness of jhāna (“placing the mind” and “keeping it connected”). 

They act as a condition for breaking into speech, so any hint of such movement, no matter how subtle, must be abandoned.

vitakka relation to speech (vācā) and verbal process (vacī-sankhāra)

Sujato MN 117 excerpt

“Saññāvedayitanirodhaṁ samāpajjantassa kho, āvuso visākha, bhikkhuno paṭhamaṁ nirujjhati vacīsaṅkhāro, tato kāyasaṅkhāro, tato cittasaṅkhāro”ti.

“The verbal process ceases first, then physical, then mental.”

His footnote says:
The verbal process (vacī-saṅkhāro) ceases in the first absorption, 

the breath in the fourth absorption (SN 36.11:2.19), 

and feeling and perception in the attainment of cessation.

Frankk response

Sujato is wrong. See SN 36.11.

vācā (speech) ceases in first jhāna: meaning if you vibrate your vocal cords, flap your lips and utter sound containing communicable language, then you've exited first jhāna.

vacī-sankhāra ceases in second jhāna, not first.: meaning if you decide to think a verbal thought, then you are no longer in second jhāna, you've dropped down to first jhāna, where vacī-sankhāra (which include verbal thoughts) are still active.

Remember, cetana (volition), sampajāno (lucid discerning, pañña wisdom faculty) is active in all four jhānas (MN 111).

You can decide to speak in first jhāna, think in second jhāna, and then do it.

Then you aren't in those particular jhānas anymore.

See learner's jhāna, impure jhāna, is still called "jhāna" and AN 9.41 where exactly this is happening, 

something which supposedly isn't possible with Ajahn Brahm and Vism. redefinition of jhāna,

of which Sujato believes in.

Vism. and Ajahn Brahm apologists are at a loss to explain why noble silence is second jhāna, 

rather than first, if vitakka in the jhānas is supposed to take on a new meaning.

So (part of) their solution to the problem is to conflate vācā (speech) with vacī-sankhāra (equivalent to vitakka).

Here, presumably Sujato made an honest mistake in his footnote.

But it's very telling that he made such a fundamental mistake in the first place,

because it shows that in his mind, he has to start conflating vocalized speech and verbal thought (unvocalized) as the same thing, in order to try to make sense of the sutta passages.

But even with that invalid move (conflating vocal speech with non-vocal mental thought),

the sutta passages on jhāna would still be completely incoherent with their vitakka redefinition.

So what would someone with integrity do?

They would would plug in "vitakka = verbal linguistic thoughts, mental talk" 

in every occurrence of vitakka in the jhāna sutta passages, and find that it's coherent, and works.

Then they would plug in "placing the mind"

in every occurrence of vitakka in the jhānas, and find that it's completely incoherent, 

fails in the vast majority of sutta passages,

and even in the cherry picked few suttas that it doesn't immediately jump out as incoherent, 

doesn't quite make sense.

So that's the first test of whether a monastic translator has honesty and integrity,

especially if they undertook the task of translating the entire collection of suttas,

and have a few years time to reflect on it.

The second test, is if they honestly didn't understand, 

but since people have been privately and publicly trying to inform them of this error for many years,

they would listen and try to understand,

and explain why and if they disagree, publicly, openly, transparently.

Sujato has failed both tests so far,

but there's always a chance to redeem himself.

Better late than never!

And better sooner rather than later,

because the longer an offender waits to confess and redeem themselves, 

the stronger the backlash and damage to their reputation will be.

You can only ride the coattails of Visuddhimagga (LBT late buddhist corruption of vitakka and jhāna) and Ajahn Brahm for so long.

Eventually, a new generation of authentic EBT followers who recognize the fraud being hoisted upon them will replace the dying breed of false EBT and LBT proponents. 

see: Short summary of difference between vācā and vacī-sankhāra in first jhāna

Also I've written about this fraudulent maneuver over the years on my blog, 

and even on Sujato's forum which he pretended not to see. 
Some of the articles that come up on the search:


V&V vitakka & vicara are vaci-sankhara (vocalization-co-doings), very close relationship with vaca/speech
August 25, 2019
Vācā = vocalized speech vaca is not 'mental talk', is not unspoken speech mentally recited. vaca = voice/vocalization/spoken-speech. Same as latin vox, same as english voice, vocal, etc. It is not mental talk. It has to be spoken talk. Otherwise right-speech has no distinction with right thought, there would be no need to have 3fold classification of kaya/body misconduct, vaca/vocal misconduct, mano/mind misconduct, you could just reduce it down to 2. Vācā = voice, vocal-speech, relationship to V&V Vācā = voice, vocal-speech, vocal, vocalization, vocalized-speech, vocalized-words, vocalized-communication, vocalized-language. * vocalization of words and speech, spoken out loud words and speech. * notice the indo-latin connection, vaca = voice = vox = vocalized-words * auditory communication, vocalized-words that can be heard. * vibrating the vocal cords & flapping the lips to communicate intelligible sound, usually in the form of a language .....




Fake "logic": When B. Sujato, B. Analayo, and Vism. "Jhana" apologists try to explain why noble silence is second jhāna and not first jhāna
September 14, 2020
1. False equivalence: An example of the type of deception they use First, a simple and very clear example of fallacious reasoning of the same type of argument they use to explain why noble silence is second jhana instead of first. (they're trying to unconvincingly explain how their erroneous redefinition of vitakka and vicara of "placing the mind and keeping it connected" is noble silence) 1. (true statement) That vehicle has four wheels. (true statement) A formula one race car has four wheels. (fallacious assertion) Therefore that vehicle must be a formula one race car. Can you see the error? It's easy to see with many counter examples. A truck also has 4 wheels, a shopping cart also has four wheels, a wagon has four wheels, a toy car has 4 wheels, even a toy car replica of a formula race car has four wheels. So having four wheels is not enough information to establish what kind of vehicle it is. 2. The hypnotic bait and switch This tactic is very effective, ...


vacī-sankhāra: vocalized speech co-activities, proof that Sujato, Brahm, Vism. redefinition of vitakka doesn't work in oral tradition
October 03, 2022

B. Sujato mumbling incoherently: MN 44 vitakka & vicara
August 11, 2019

V&V, Analayo's misunderstanding of noble silence
March 02, 2019

Concise Proof that Vitakka and Vicāra of first jhāna means 'thinking & evaluation'
February 11, 2020


DN 22: vitakka and vicāra as part of the subverbal mental activity hierarchy and 4 jhānas
February 21, 2020



SN 36.11, MN 44 B. Sujato, as of august 2019 still refuses to correct his misinterpretation and mistranslation of vitakka & vicara
August 08, 2019
A Man looks at a woman, and then she becomes pregnant But does she? Making eye contact may be one of the prerequisite conditions (you could argue blind men can still get women pregnant), but eye contact is not the cause of pregnancy. Similarly If B. Sujato's understanding of vitakka & vicara are correct, then based on MN 44, anyone who is not comatose or dead, would randomly have coherent speech pop out of their mouth at any time without cause. In fact, even a brain damaged mute, should be able to vocalize speech because they "place their mind and keep it connected to some kind of thought process". When is the last time, you were in samadhi, "placed your mind and kept it connected" to a white kasina with no thought, and suddenly coherent speech was vocalized? This is so wrong on so many levels, and I questioned B. Sujato publicly on why he did this on suttacentral forum. He acknowledged what I said made sense, but would not or could not explain ...

V&V vitakka & vicara are vaci-sankhara (vocalization-co-doings), very close relationship with vaca/speech
August 25, 2019
Vācā = vocalized speech vaca is not 'mental talk', is not unspoken speech mentally recited. vaca = voice/vocalization/spoken-speech. Same as latin vox, same as english voice, vocal, etc. It is not mental talk......

Related

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