Hi!
I’m currently reading a book written by Keren Arbel, named “Early Buddhist Meditation: The Four Jhanas as an Actualization of Insight”. In one of the chapters, the author stated that ‘viveka’, usually and traditionally translated as “seclusion” or “separation”, can have another connotation. Her argument seems to be based on the way the word is used in Sanskrit, as “discrimination”, “discernment” or “judgement”.
Wisdomlib (in its Sanskrit-English dictionary) and other sources seem to confirm this use, but I’m not sure what meaning was older, which could give us some clue for alternative readings for the Pali Suttas.
I wasn’t sure about posting this on Q&A or on Discussion. For now, I’ll ask like this:
Is it possible that the term ‘viveka’ could mean “discrimination” in the Pali Suttas?
I’ve been looking for more mundane uses of the term viveka in the suttas. And while I wasn’t systematic or complete in my search AN 3.93 stands out. Here, wanderers distinguish between or differentiate among types of clothes, food, and housing. There is no connotation of ‘seclusion’ in this context.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Both Ven Bodhi and myself translate as “seclusion” or “solitude” here, and the commentary has no indication of any meaning other than the usual. The commentary understands cīvaraṃ nissāya uppajjanakakilesehi vivittabhāvaṃ (“the state of being secluded from the defilements that arise dependent on a robe, etc.”).
The metaphor is, true, a little forced, but then, it is an adaptation of what is already a dogmatic metaphor in another (less known) system. It’s not unusual to find that the metaphors get strained in such cases.
To be clear, I have no issues with the idea that viveka might mean “discrimination” in some places in the suttas; I’m just not seeing it here.
I think that the original sense of the Jain (or similar) prescription was that a true ascetic would make use of requisites that did not require them to have any contact with humans: hemp, hide, or bark for robes; forest foods and bush tucker to eat; living in the open air or the forest. It is a staple trope of Indic stories that an ascetic will live in the Himalayas, surviving in this way, until they need salted food and other requirements. They come down to settled lands, close to people, and there fall prey to baser desires. The Buddha is, as usual, redefining it to emphasize psychological and ethical seclusion.
One slightly off thing about this sutta is that the simile at the end doesn’t really closely apply. It’s not wrong or anything, it just doesn’t match the text as neatly as one might expect, as it’s about growth through effort, rather than seclusion.
