Ah I see. Many thanks @Dhammanando! I did not realise it was vitakka and vicāra they were referring to there, wow so many different ways people chose to translate those!
So, we know that it is something which precedes speech. And if we for a moment disregard all of those translation except for @sujato’s, then that alone does not tell us whether it is wholly or partly or not at all conceptual. It merely defined them as vitakka and vicāra.
In the context of jhāna, I take vitakka as ’ initial mental application ’ and vicāra as ’ sustained mental application ’, as is supported by the Chinese, such as in MĀ 72 where, in the context of jhāna, they are translating vitakka with 覺 ( awareness/realising ), and vicāra with 觀 ( contemplation ). This seems also in good harmony potentially, with @sujato’s choice, though the flavour is a little different.
So how about in this context? Let’s consider vicāra, which Bodhi has as ‘sustained thought’, and Horner as ‘discursive thought’ (the other two translations you gave were not specifically conceptual). I wondered that these words might give us a wider context for words perhaps connected to vicāra. From the PED, I have highlighted meanings that could be in conformity to vicāra have in the context of jhāna:
vicāra
[vi+cāra] investigation, examination, consideration, deliberation .
vicāraka
(adj.) [fr. vicāreti] 1. looking after something; watching J I.364 (ghara°). – 2. investigating ;
vicāraṇā
(f.) & a° (nt.) [fr. vicāreti] 1. investigation , search, attention Sn 1108, 1109 (f. & nt.); J III.73 (°paññā). – 2. arranging, planning, looking after ;
vicāreti
[Caus. of vicarati] 1. to make go round, to pass round, to distribute PvA 272 (salākaṃ). – 2. to think (over) S V.156 (vitakketi+). – 3. to investigate, examine , test J II.413; III.258; VvA 336 (a° to omit examining). – 4. to plan, consider , construct J II.404; VI.333. – 5. to go about (some business), to look after, administer ,
vicarita
[pp. of vicarati] occupied by (–°), haunted, frequented
All of these seem to me easily connected to that meaning in jhāna, where vicāra is that function which keeps the mind ‘placed’. And so I am not surprised that this is associated with ‘intention’. Similarly, we could think that our minds use this function casually also before making speech, as a part of the fundamental steps of intention, in directing the mind and settling on an intention. So this may not necessarily refer to the specifically conceptual process, which may be viewed as an aspect of this, or could even be viewed as a higher order process, which occurs after this motion has been established. Either way, does anyone have any objection in concluding that the Pāli is not necessarily being thought-process-specific here?
I acknowledge that the root, vacī, means speech. But is it possible that that meaning was left behind in the technical sphere of Buddhist terminology? This is theoretically possible, as a pre-speech process that is not necessarily conceptual, but now we see the ‘speech’ part of the word and assume it has a more literal meaning, just as we may see ‘vitakka’ in the jhāna context and assume it actually means thought, which seems to be refuted by the Chinese and jhāna teachers.
Also does this not also open the possibility that if vacīsaṅkhāra = vitakka vicāra, this could even be referring to jhāna practice itself? It’s asking us to ‘totally fix/fixate’ (abhiniropanā) vacīsaṅkhāra - doesn’t that sound like jhāna training? Or at least that it does not necessarily exclude jhāna training, perhaps. And it could be regarded as actually stopping conceptual thought. If that is the domain of conceptual thought, then ‘totally fixing/fixating’ (abhiniropanā) it might be to cease any discursive thought (seems likely), and possibly even cease all thought, as one can do even while not in jhāna, and then even while vitakka and vicāra are still present up to 1st jhāna.
In fact let’s take a look at the definition in MN 44:
First 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.
Pubbe kho, āvuso visākha, vitakketvā vicāretvā pacchā vācaṃ bhindati, tasmā vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro.
I think most often, people do not have conceptual thought before they speak. It depends on the conversation - if you being very careful and considered, or suffer from anxiety, then perhaps. But most people ‘just speak’, without actually planning their words. However, on the fine resolution level, that speech is preceded by subtle, non-verbal mental intentions. And by non-verbal I mean not even mental words. To give you some more extreme examples to make it clearer, if someone jumps out at you, you may shout out some expletive, without having made any concepts before that speech. But it is common that feelings without concept precede speech. So this may be or include non-conceptual motions of the mind.
Looking again at MN 44,
- Breathing is a physical process .
- Placing the mind and keeping it connected are verbal processes.
- Perception and feeling are mental processes.
“Assāsapassāsā kho, āvuso visākha, kāyasaṅkhāro, vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro, saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāro”ti.
Or I offer perhaps, my changes in bold:
- Breathing is a physical process.
- Initial mental application and sustained mental application are cognitive processes.
- Perception and feeling are heart processes.”
I do not offer this as a concrete translation, but let me explain. The difference between the last two sets is that the last pair are more automatic. You can direct your mind towards certain objects in order to generate certain perceptions and feelings, but they are basically ‘things which arise’ in response to the environment (whether externally or internally). Whereas vacīsaṅkhāra is an active function. And this seems to me to be cognitive, whether it is taken in the non-conceptual way or the conceptual way of thoughts, or indeed both.
Further on in the sutta, we have this:
“But ma’am, which cease first for a mendicant who is entering the cessation of perception and feeling : physical, verbal, or mental processes?”
“Saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpajjantassa panāyye, bhikkhuno katame dhammā paṭhamaṃ nirujjhanti—yadi vā kāyasaṅkhāro, yadi vā vacīsaṅkhāro, yadi vā cittasaṅkhāro”ti?
“ Verbal processes cease first, then physical, then mental .” “Saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpajjantassa kho, āvuso visākha, bhikkhuno paṭhamaṃ nirujjhati vacīsaṅkhāro, tato kāyasaṅkhāro, tato cittasaṅkhāro”ti.
Again this makes it seem like this can be referring to subtle levels of the mind, not merely gross conceptual thought. When we are talking about the level at which bodily processes cease, this sounds and going into this formless absorption, this is a deeply tranquil state. It makes sense that the mental functioning that shuts down just before that, could be the type of subtle mental functioning designated vitakka and vicāra, such as in jhāna.
This is also supported by what we see later after emerging:
“But ma’am, when a mendicant has emerged from the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling, how many kinds of contact do they experience?”
“Saññāvedayitanirodhasamāpattiyā vuṭṭhitaṃ panāyye, bhikkhuṃ kati phassā phusantī”ti?“They experience three kinds of contact: emptiness, signless, and undirected contacts.”
“Saññāvedayitanirodhasamāpattiyā vuṭṭhitaṃ kho, āvuso visākha, bhikkhuṃ tayo phassā phusanti—suññato phasso, animitto phasso, appaṇihito phasso”ti.
Basically it could be saying that there are 3 categories of processes which do not all cease at once when going into this formless absorption. First the active cognitive processes of initial mental application and sustained mental application shut down; then the physical processes (or at least the breathing process) shuts down; then the recognition and feeling processes shut down.
Note that affect is limited to the third category only. Though I would not necessarily assume saññā to exclude the cognitive. I’m not sure where saññā lies in the cognitive/affect split. But, if saññā is the kind of recognition that is so common even to reptiles let alone mammals, then this may not be a pre-frontal cortex activity. Hmm… which one do we think it’s more connected to? Recognition is a kind of feeling in a way. Think of when a dog recognises a loved one - or an enemy for that matter! So it certainly triggers affect. And does not have to trigger thought. But I don’t know what the neuroscientific view would be on this one. Anyway it seems to be laying out these three sets of processes which directly relate to a highly refined state.
So provisionally I will refrain from making the translation thought-based in meaning, by using some Pāli:
- takko vi+ takko saṅkappo
- appanā by+ appanā cetaso
- abhiniropanā vacīsaṅkhāro—
As
- It’s the examining and reexamining (/reflection) of intention,
- the directing and repeated directing of mind,
- the total fixation of <mental process defined as comprising vitakka and vicāra>.
What is the Chinese equivalent for abhiniropanā in the passage? @cdpatton?
For the time being, returning to the Chinese:
With the above considered, how well do you think my provisional English conforms to the Chinese?