Well, it’s not surprising if his interpretation of both is based on his cross-analysis of Early Buddhist sources. And if he is trying to be consistent and believes to know the Indic that the Chinese is based on. Especially if he believes, which he appears to do, that the Chinese affirms his interpretation of the Pāli, by the word choice they made which he feels shows that the Chinese translaros actually made it less ambiguous than the Pāli, dissalowing the meaning ‘thought’ here in this context by their specific choice of not translating it with the character that does mean thought (in his opinion), which they apparently do do for this word in other contexts. That seems to be his reasoning.
Ah ok thanks.
Well, I thought that already, but, I also thought that samādhi, while broader, still implies one-pointedness in many contexts. Maybe I am wrong? For example, jhāna = sammā samādhi, and jhāna is one-pointed.
That could still be referring to the mind being devoid of parallel processes, devoid of multiple objects of the 6 senses.
Is it not possible that the meaning differs according to the context? This quote is certainly inteesting. And so this kind of concentrated attention could be spoken of, in this lighter context of listening to speech. But this does not mean to me that the other factors present in this case of ek’agga while listening, and thus parallel processing, are necessarily present in jhāna. For example, a red football and a red car are both red. But they are different in many ways. So I do not see this passage as support for the idea that one can be in jhāna while walking around. Same also for your next quote.
Just came across this from Lance Cousins in:
‘Buddhist Jhāna - Its nature and attainment according to the Pali sources’ pg 122
The first two of these factors of jhāna are vitakka and vicāra, translated above as initial thought and sustained thought. Historically these are little more than two synonyms for ‘thinking’, but in Buddhist usage they are given a distinct meaning which is followed also by the Yoga-sûtra.60 The first denotes the directing of the mind to an object of thought or imagination while the second indicates rather the discipline which keeps it there.81
These meanings seem to fit very well with Anālayo’s translations ‘initial mental application’ and ‘sustained mental application’ .
You’d be better off reading the relevant V&V (vitakka and vicara) passages in the EBT and forming your own conclusions, as you are doing with kāya. Ven. Analayo despite his many wonderful contributions, is not infallible. He has his blind spots, and his conclusions on V&V do not adequately account for many EBT passages where his translation does not work at all.
Yeah it would be nice to do that, though I do not have the time right now. I did study some suttas with him and this did come up in context, but there must be more to the argument of which I am unaware.
In the context of jhāna, or elsewhere? The meaning might change depending on context, which I believe was his point about why the Chinese translator did not chose the usual word for thought in this context, although he did in other contexts, for the same word.
