B.Sujato definition of sankappo in MN 117
14.1And what is right thought that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sammā-saṅkappo ariyo anāsavo lokuttaro maggaṅgo?
14.2It’s the thinking—the placing of the mind, thought, applying, application, implanting of the mind, verbal processes—in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path.
Yo kho, bhikkhave, ariyacittassa anāsavacittassa ariyamaggasamaṅgino ariyamaggaṃ bhāvayato takko vitakko saṅkappo appanā byappanā cetaso abhiniropanā vacīsaṅkhāro—
Above definition makes no sense
Here's B.Bodhi's translation where he translates vitakka = thought, sankappo = intention“And what, bhikkhus, is right intention that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The thinking, thought, intention, mental absorption, mental fixity, directing of mind, verbal formation in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path: this is right intention that is noble…a factor of the path.
Yo kho, bhikkhave, ariyacittassa anāsavacittassa ariyamaggasamaṅgino ariyamaggaṃ bhāvayato takko vitakko saṅkappo appanā byappanā cetaso abhiniropanā vacīsaṅkhāro—
takka, vi-takka, anu-vi-takka (PED and CPED)
takka: thought; reasoning; logic.
Vitakka [vi+takka] reflection, thought, thinking;
anuvitakketi: reflects; ponders over. (anu + vi + takk + e)
Just as passana and anu-passana and vi-passana have pretty similar meanings,
just as cara, cāra, vi-cara, vi-cāra, anu-vi-cāra have pretty similar meanings, often synonymous,
For takka, vitakka, anuvitakka one would also expect to have pretty similar meanings.
B. Sujato’s takka=thinking, it’s relation to vi-takka = “placing the mind” is completely disconnected and incoherent. Much like how later Abhidhamma smuggled in “appanā”/applying into the vitakka/sankappo definition to accomodate their VRJ (vism. redefinition of jhana), B. Sujato is giving a completely inconsistent, incoherent definition of vitakka to accomodate his interpretation of first jhana. But whereas Vism. created a new word and created an “access concentration” category to separate the context between vitakka in normal “thinking” definition, there isn’t a clean separation for when B. Sujato translates vitakka as “thinking” and when he translates it as “placing the mind.” It’s a complete mess because vitakka already has a prior established consistent meaning in the suttas.
vaci-sankhara portion of sankappa definition (needs to match MN 44 vaci-sankhara)
vitakka and vaci-sankhara also need to be consistent in meaning with each other. Here we compare Ven. Thanissaro’s translation to B.Sujato’s, for vaci-sankhara in MN 44:
pubbe kho, āvuso visākha, vitakketvā vicāretvā pacchā vācaṃ bhindati, |
Having first directed one’s thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. |
tasmā vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro. |
That’s why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. |
15.3First you place the mind and keep it connected, then you break into speech. That’s why placing the mind and keeping it connected are verbal processes.
Keep in mind vaci-sankhara does not operate only in first and second jhana, it’s a general speech-fabrication that applies everywhere (e.g. SN 12.2), anytime, as the constituent building blocks of vāca (speech) that makes human speech discernible and meaningful. “placing the mind and keeping it connected” does not preserve meaning here, and that is why it is incoherent.
When is the last time you placed your mind on a white kasina, kept it connected to a white kasina, and then suddenly, spontaneously, without “thinking and evaluation”, coherent speech formed in your mind, you flapped your lips and the vaci-sankhara of your mind became fully formed vaca (speech)?
vitakka, vaci-sankhara, sankappa need to have a closely related meaning to maintain coherence through all the suttas.
Conclusion
So why would anyone use the translation "placing the mind & keeping it connected" in these two contexts (MN 117 and MN 44) when "thinking & evaluation" (or semantic equivalent) is the correct choice?We can deduce that the translator is probably trying to change the rules, to create coherence where it doesn’t exist by adding some new words in to the dictionary. Just as Vism. smuggled in “appanā” into the definition of vitakka for the jhānas to support the VRJ (vism. redefinition of jhana), B. Sujato is adding dictionary entries for V&V (vitakka & vicara) to have dual meanings:
- thinking & evaluation outside of the 4 jhanas
- placing the mind & keeping it connected in jhanas.
B. Sujato’s redefinitions for V&V in MN 117 and MN 44 serve the same function as Te Ab Vb (where late Abhidhamma smuggled in extra meanings for key terms to advance their agenda).
“Placing the mind & keeping it connected” as V&V is completely incoherent in the MN 117 and MN 44 contexts, but that’s intentional. They’re incoherent here, so that everywhere else in the suttas they can be coherent.
The big problems are:
- People have to remember B. Sujato’s redefinition of V&V
- People are reading the English, not pali+english, so when they see “placing the mind …” or “thinking” in B. Sujato’s English translations, they have absolutely no idea whether V&V (pali terms) were intended, or other synonyms for “thinking” (there are several).
- There is already mass confusion from Vism.'s, redefinition of V&V, even when people are aware the redefinition and remember to take that into consideration. Bhante Sujato’s redefinition of V&V serves the same purpose, but does not have the benefit of the “access concentration” distinction, so whatever confusion Vism’s redefinition caused, and it was massive, Bhante Sujato’s redefinition of V&V has more hurdles to overcome.