B.Sujato definition of sankappo in MN 117, vacī-saṅkhāra in MN 44

[frankk]

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.

Here's B.Sujato's translation of the same sentence:

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:

1. thinking & evaluation outside of the 4 jhanas
2. 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:

1. People have to remember B. Sujato’s redefinition of V&V
2. 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).
3. 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.

[Gabriel_L]

Hey @frankk what exactly is the point of discussion here?

Personal opinions about specific translations?
If so, maybe it will prove hard to start a constructive conversation on the basis of ad hominem!

We are all entitled to opinions about all things and to some extent that is one of the objectives of the Discussion category.

However, we should be mindful of how much traction, response and receptivity our opinions and views will receive depending on the way we approach some specific topics.

In my opinion (hope you can allow for that) issues related to translation like this should be first discussed with the translator and if possible among translators.

Beside that, given that SuttaCentral often offers its users / visitors more than one translation for the same text, I would only consider making the conversation public if I were a translator with as much experience as the one I am trying to engage.

Don’t worry about replying this and feel free to ignore completely my opinion on this matter. I will as well carrying on opening the multiple topics you start here just to mute them - reading your opinion about vitakka and vicara is definetely not the reason why I come to this forum on a daily basis.

Peace mate!

[frankk]

@Gabriel_L

If so, maybe it will prove hard to start a constructive conversation on the basis of ad hominem !

If you can point out where “ad hominem” is happening, I’ll gladly edit. I criticized B. Sujato’s translation and inconsistent, incoherent application of “vitakka & vicara” across the suttas, not B. Sujato the person.

Unfortunately most people are not able to read the above sentence and make that distinction (between criticizing the idea versus the person who voiced the idea). We tend to have thin skin and take everything personally. I am a fan of Bhante Sujato and very grateful for his contributions to the world. Finally having all the EBT pali suttas available in English, free, is priceless. But being a fan of someone doesn’t mean we need to become sheep and agree with everything they say or politely refrain from criticizing them because we like them and we think they’re great people. We are all stewards of the Dhamma, and if we want to keep the Dhamma alive in this world, we need to voice are opinions when we feel something is going to harm the sustainability and survival of Dhamma. Our voices are important because even though we’re not professional translators, we are the consumers relying on their translations! If you don’t speak up, Bhante Sujato is going to assume how he is presenting first jhana, vitakka and vicara is making sense. Is it?

@Gabriel_L

Hey @frankk what exactly is the point of discussion here?

By collecting all the detailed pali+english audits from the many passages, into one organized article, that show exactly how V&V and first jhana need to be consistent and coherent, the pieces of the puzzle will finally start to all come together and you realize you can’t hide from the truth (or your interpretation of it).

YARVVI Chronicles: V&V, Vitakka = directed-thoughts, Vicāra=Evaluation (of said Vitakka)

[SCMatt]

I think @gnlaera is pointing out something that many many others here I think have also gotten the impression of from your exhaustive campaigns. Let me first say that I think you actually have a point and find some of your arguments convincing. It’s just the tone comes off as very aggressive (you might not realize it), I believe if you took a poll here the majority would agree that your many posts come off as a personal attack or in some way disrespectful. Sometimes we might not even realize we’re being rude and it takes some reflection from the perspective of others to realize that…

Because I think you have a point in some of your criticisms, I think you could bolster the strength of your arguments by showing respect and understanding for the viewpoint of the one you’re attacking. This is debate 101.

[karl_lew]

@frankk

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)?

Q: “ffrank!!!”
A: “yes?”

[Pison]

@SCMatt

tone comes off as very aggressive (you might not realize it), I believe if you took a poll here the majority would agree that your many posts come off as a personal attack or in some way disrespectful. Sometimes we might not even realize we’re being rude…

Tone is not aggressive, not disrespectful, or rude. Just making point. Just good remark.

[Gabriel_L]

To me the translations make perfect sense, and to many others as well I assume.
People are free to choose the words that convey the meaning they see as important to convey.
It’s not appropriate to corner a bhikkhu on the translation of a term so connected to a topic that is subject of a parajika.
No ordained monastic will ever feel comfortable in the position to openly back his choice by his practice or experience of jhana.
There are different translations out there. Feel free to use the one you wish to support your understanding of the path.
Just don’t think that you’re responsible for guaranteeing the world has the right understanding of the Dhamma.
All we can do as individuals is share to those interested what works for us and what not - with that not meaning it should work for others as well!
There are online resources about effective conversations, Google the topic and see if there’s anything you can try to engage others here in a constructive and respectful conversation about this refined topic.
And please, drop the cult argument. No one is worshiping anyone. We only want people to respect each other.

[Pison]

@Gabriel_L

And please, drop the cult argument. No one is worshiping anyone.

There is a lot of “each one its own truth”, lately in world. But I have noticed that, for cults and sects (of same “holding”, <>) that hammer this slogan, “their” truth is often that one should accept gently their view, or being cast out.
That is no good.

If saṅkappo has meaning of purpose or intention, and not just thought; one has right to say so - without being “gently” flamed by partisans of forum.

And may I add Sir, that what you just said above,
seems very aggressive to me; and even a bit threatening.
.

[Aminah]

Hi folks, as you can see this thread has now reopened. If you’d like to carry the discussion forward, please stick to the actual topic of the OP rather than getting into wranglesome meta discussion. If the conversation continues to veer in that direction the thread will be permanently closed.

[frankk]

I’ve added this section to the essay in the first post:

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.

(this paragraph to clarify something for @karl_lew ):
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:

1. thinking & evaluation outside of the 4 jhanas
2. 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:

1. People have to remember B. Sujato’s redefinition of V&V
2. 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).
3. 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.

[suaimhneas]

It would seem that unification isn’t perfect in the first jhana and one has to work at keeping the mind on the focus to some degree (until the mind settles down further and more effortlessly unifies in the second), e.g. there’s the distinction in several suttas (though not everywhere) of “rapture & pleasure born of seclusion” in first jhana versus “rapture & pleasure born of unification” in the second and above. I guess translations like Bhante Sujato’s and other renderings like “initial and sustained application” do capture that aspect well.

I’d understand V&V to be something like “sub-verbal thought & examination”. SN 36.11 would indicate that what’s going on is non-verbal (or reading from MN 44 it’s maybe even better described as “sub-verbal”). The first approach loses this whole cessation of speech and the speech formation thing. Of course, what “sub-verbal” actually means in practice is unclear from the suttas, but use of “sub-verbal” does at least tick the SN 36.11 and MN 44 boxes.
EDIT: oops, meant 36.11 rather than 36.1!

To me “thinking & examination” is overly broad, the other approach is just a bit too narrow, and something like “sub-verbal thinking & examination” is just way too clunky. V&V is one of those controversial terms that might best be left in Pali, but that’s not possible in a plain English translation approach (so any choice is going to upset someone ).

[frankk]

@suaimhneas

I’d understand V&V to be something like “sub-verbal thought & examination”. SN 36.1 would indicate that what’s going on is non-verbal (or reading from MN 44 it’s maybe even better described as “sub-verbal”). The first approach loses this whole cessation of speech and the speech formation thing. Of course, what “sub-verbal” actually means in practice is unclear from the suttas, but use of “sub-verbal” does at least tick the SN 36.1 and MN 44 boxes.

You might have to define what you mean by ‘verbal’ and ‘nonverbal’, and ‘subverbal’. A quick google on ‘verbal’ gives: relating to or in the form of words.

vāca = speech, words (verbal) spoken aloud. example, right speech of not speaking out loud lies, abusive speech, etc.

so vaci-sankhara, equivalent to V&V, are the words (verbal) you “think and evaluate” before you speak them out loud as vāca.

Pali has other words to express the sub-verbal. See the recent MN 78 sutta post, and MN 18.

From SN 36.11, you might be misunderstanding what vāca means for first jhana.

(9 gradual nirodho/cessations)

atha kho pana, bhikkhu, mayā anu-pubba-saṅkhārānaṃ nirodho akkhāto.
“And I have also taught the step-by-step cessation of fabrications.

1. paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpannassa vācā niruddhā hoti.
2. When one has attained the first jhāna, speech has ceased.
3. dutiyaṃ jhānaṃ samāpannassa vitakka-vicārā niruddhā honti.
4. When one has attained the second jhāna, directed thought & evaluation have ceased.

vaca/speech ceased in first jhana means: you can’t open your mouth and speak out the fully formed coherent words (verbal) in your mind, V&V. If vaca only mean verbal words that you haven’t spoken out loud, no one would ever be in violation of right speech.

I’ll do a deep dive into MN 19 soon, which is probably the sutta the gives the most detail on how V&V is sublimated and changes from ordinary to first jhana.

The best way to understand what V&V can do in the jhanas is from experience. I have done formless attainments (arupa samadhis) where I can carry on verbal conversations in my mind like “whoah! where is my body? which way is up? I can’t find my hands and feet, i don’t know which way is up or down!”. And it doesn’t take me out of that arupa samadhi.

I have had 2nd jhanas that last 2 to 3 hours, total mind blowing full body orgasms, and I have had those 2nd jhanas interrupted with V&V (thinking and evaluation) of thinking “whoah! this is awesome! is this first or second jhana? Can I think while i’m in jhana? I guess I am thinking in jhana!”

And when full on verbal mental chatter happens, it causes energy spikes of decreased magnitude in the body orgasm. And that’s what first jhana is in my experience. It’s an unperfected second jhana interrupted by ordinary discursive thoughts causing energy spikes diluting the power of “samadhi jam piti sukham”.

But sato and sampjano (S&S) are active through all the jhanas. So you can do “pajanati” without spiking the smooth energy of thought-less jhana. You can “pajanati” that your nimitta is white, or grey, you can “pajanati” that your mind is in samadhi/jhana or not in samadhi. That’s the subverbal S&S that can know and discern without V&V.

And that’s why SN 36.11 describes this as gradual step by step training! It’s not sudden, it’s not random, and it’s not backwards. In VRJ, they’ve redefined jhana, which operates in rupa realm, as an arupa samadhi. So you need a Phd in samadhi before they’ll certify you with a bachelors degree. Arupa samadhi is a lot harder to do than rupa. Also, there’s the not so minor detail that rupa is the opposite of a-rupa? Vism. estimates that 1 in a million people can generate a stable visual kasina or breath nimitta. And one in 1 billion people can attain VRJ (their redefinition of jhana). Does that sound gradual to you?

I trained in a Vism. VRJ system for 10 years, and seen hundreds of serious, earnest meditators come through. With their experienced teachers who closely, daily guide these meditators, they report that typically, once they certify someone for first jhana (VRJ), then they usually get fourth jhana within a few days. Does that sound gradual to you? Months and years of not having first jhana (VRJ), and then suddenly all 4 jhanas within a few days? The ones who can do it think they’re something special, but most come away feeling like they’re failures and they don’t have the parami or talent to do first jhana. This is tragic and completely unnecessary.

[frankk]

Here is Arahant Upatissa describing speech ceasing in Vimuttimagga.

(speech ceasing in first jhāna)

Q. What are the miscellaneous teachings in the field of concentration?

A. Stoppage of sounds; overturning; rising; transcending; access; initial application of thought; feeling; uncertainty. “Stoppage of sounds”: In the first meditation, jhāna, speech is stopped. On entering the fourth meditation, jhāna, the yogin stops breathing.

Gradual stoppage of sounds: When the yogin enters into concentration, he hears sounds, but he is not able to speak because the faculty of hearing and that of speech are not united. To a man who enters form concentration {four jhānas}, sound is disturbing. Hence the Buddha taught: “To a man who enters meditation, jhāna, sound is a thorn”.

Vimuttimaga is an early Abhidhamma work, 500 years before Vism. Early abhidhamma still respected and abided by much of the EBT. Later Abhidhamma starts rewriting things, changing the rules to accomodate their radical momentariness ideas.

[suaimhneas]

As regards my definitions of “non-verbal”, “sub-verbal” etc. I’m not sure. “Sub-verbal” seems an apt adjective to take from MN 44, but I’m not really sure what exactly is being meant there. “Sub-verbal” is a vague enough term, but the suttas do also seem fairly vague to me on this point.

Your distinction between mental and physically verbalizing words seems a very fine one to me. For example, what if I internally in my mind announce to any devas present some untrue or malicious statement (or curse someone in mental words). Surely, that’s essentially wrong speech (even if not technically physically verbalized)?

Or I can imagine myself shadow boxing in my mind. I’d reckon I’m using many of the same regions of the brain that would be involved if I was actually physically shadow boxing. Similarly, I can imagine myself in front of a crowd making a speech and saying the words. Maybe the final motor parts of the brain are not activated but I’d reckon most other same areas of the brain are being used. Perhaps, this simple distinction between physical and mental verbalization is all that is intended, but it seems to me a little too close to actual speech.

I’d tend to think that sub-verbal means something a bit deeper than that (maybe the ideas underlying the words are still there but the symbolic processing part of the brain has quietened). Perhaps advocates of initial and sustained application and similar wordings have a yet even more restrictive understanding of sub-verbal (the merest flickers of thought left but not much more)?

I’ve seen the Vimuttimaga quote before. I’d reckon it indicates that the parts of the brain concerned with words have quietened and hearing sounds/words may threaten to reactivate that faculty.

[frankk]

@suaimhneas

Your distinction between mental and physically verbalizing words seems a very fine one to me. For example, what if I internally in my mind announce to any devas present some untrue or malicious statement (or curse someone in mental words). Surely, that’s essentially wrong speech (even if not technically physically verbalized)?

I’m not 100% sure vaca only means spoken out loud speech, but why else would kaya/vaca/mano distinction need to be made?

Ime vā pana, bhonto, sattā
{but} these ** ****, ******, beings
kāya-su-caritena samannāgatā
bodily-good-conduct (they) possess,
vacī-su-caritena samannāgatā
verbal-good-conduct (they) possess,
mano-su-caritena samannāgatā
mental-good-conduct (they) possess,
(the sutta passage, this is from standard formula on divine eye goes on to describe the karmic consequences).

Now obviously someone who is thinking really evil bad thoughts but doesn’t speak it out loud in an attempt to do sila has good kammic consequences of that (compared to not restraining). Devas, and humans with strong samadhi who can read minds also are going to take into account people who are exercising restraint versus not.

[frankk]

@suaimhneas

I’ve seen the Vimuttimaga quote before. I’d reckon it indicates that the parts of the brain concerned with words have quietened and hearing sounds/words may threaten to reactivate that faculty.

You can hear sounds in all 4 jhanas, that’s what he’s saying. The part about how it affects speaking out loud is unclear. If you can’t hear sounds in samadhi, your mind has separated from the 5 senses of the body into an arupa samadhi. If you’re in an arupa samadhi, you’re not in the 4 jhanas anymore. But you can be straddling both worlds, where you’re in and out of rupa and arupa.

These states of samadhi are a continuum, and not an exact science. The VRJ samadhi system actually isn’t bad, in its own right, the problem is they corrupt the EBT by redefining jhana, V&V, vedana, etc. to pretend it’s the word of Buddha and legitimize their teachings.

[suaimhneas]

One thought I’ve had is that verbal thought is primarily symbol manipulation. Words are symbols: symbols of ideas. When manipulating those words, the mind touches upon the underlying ideas. Those ideas in turn may slightly trigger the actual experiences underlying those ideas (not very much in everyday thought since the symbols/words and ideas are usually whizzing by so fast). Think of the word “happy” or “hate” and just a slight shadow of the experience may flicker across the mind.

When the mind slows down, the mind has more chance to focus on an idea like “metta” more, which may in turn trigger an actual experience of metta, and when the mind gets quiet enough we are left focusing on metta the experience, and the idea and certainly the symbol/word has been left behind.

Probably not very clear (all rather vague to me ). Where the lines should be drawn I’m not sure. As you say, it’s a continuum. Maybe some people draw the line at one place and others at another, but perhaps it’s all the same continuum.

On the Vimuttimagga quote, yes it seems to be saying that. However, the author seems to be working with the same relevant suttas we have available. It does seem to indicate (assuming the translation is ok) that the author’s view was that sound could be heard in first jhana. I also tend to your viewpoint on this. However, the statement “sound is a thorn to the first jhana” I’d generally hold to be a neutral piece of evidence in this regard.

The whole argument that has been made regarding the meaning of “vivicceva kamehi” is probably the strongest one in favour of sound not being hearable (other senses too). The fact that a messy physical process, breathing, is involved in the transition to fourth jhana is to me the strongest argument against. Sound as a thorn sits somewhere in the middle.

There are also some examples of sense exclusion in samadhi states in the suttas. That all usually devolves into arguments about what exact states are involved (arupa or rupa jhanas or other states) and intricate arguments about ablatives and very fine points of Pail grammar, which are far beyond my pay grade!

Sound being a thorn to the first jhana could be interpreted either way (as support for sound not being hearable or alternatively that instead sound is hearable andcan threaten to reactivate the speech formation). Anyway, that’s probably getting sidetracked enough!

[Pison]

“Closer scrutiny of the discourse itself shows that some of the Pali terms used in the Mahacattarasaka-sutta’s definition of supra-mundane right intention, such as “fixing” (appanā) of the mind and “mental inclination” (cetaso abhiniropanā), are not found in other discourses and belong to the type of language used only in the Abhidharma and historically later Pali texts.”
(Madhyama-āgama Studies)
Anālayo