V&V in Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā

Fair enough. I hope you do write the essay at some point, because you do not adequately explain some important points in detail, and for most of the controversial points, you only cite some sutta references without substantiating the claim behind that with compelling reasons.

For example, some of the points you summarized in the link to your post quoted:

Here are a few examples: (1) The evidence from the suttas that the first jhāna is ekaggatā (one-pointed) is actually quite strong; (2) kāma in the formula for the first jhāna quite likely refers to the five senses and not desire; (3) point 2 is reinforced by a sutta (AN 10.72) that says hearing has to disappear before one can enter first jhāna ; (4) kāyena , as used in the third jhāna , does not mean “with the body”, but “directly”/“personally” (see Bucknell’s note 34); (5) the overcoming of perceptions of form mentioned in the first immaterial attainment does not relate to the five senses but to the echo of these senses as experienced by the mind; (6) the division of jhāna into five stages is sufficiently attested in the suttas ; (7) the sutta formula for the second jhāna makes it clear that vitakka-vicāra ceases completely in that state; that vitakka-vicāra in the first jhāna should therefore refer to a very refined aspect of thought - a mere movement of the mind - seems quite natural.

For #1, how is the evidence quite strong? AFAIK the only sutta passages where first jhana is explicitly called ‘ekaggata’, are from MN 43, and MN 111, both spoken by Sariputta, not the Buddha. Those are late suttas and probably not EBT, and we know how non EBT treatises, commentary, and schools of Buddhist thought are often attributed to Ven. Sariputta. Other times in the suttas when ekagga and ekodhibhava are used as a verb or as a noun, it can be referring to four jhanas, not to specifically just first jhana. For example, MN 122 has a passage that explains making the mind ekodibhava and samadhi is done by doing the standard four jhana formula. The words ekodibhava and samadhi do not appear until the second jhana formula, so it’s pretty clear what the Buddha is saying that until one is in a-vitakka a-vicara samadhi (2nd jhana or higher), he doesn’t consider it properly called “ekodi-bhava and in samadhi”. Ockham’s razor is usually correct, and it appears to be the case here.

All 7 of your points above are seriously flawed, and I have ample sutta references with pali+english word for word audit to support that, but I restrict my critique for the moment to just V&V.

On #7, I don’t follow your reasoning that since V&V cease completely in 2nd jhana, then in 1st jhana, V&V

“should therefore refer to a very refined aspect of thought - a mere movement of the mind - seems quite natural.”

Doesn’t seem at all natural to me. MN 19, with explicit description and similes, describes the V&V prior to first jhana, being of such a nature that causes the body and mind to become fatigued. So even though the akusala V&V has been replaced by kusala, that level of tension in the kusala is preventing it from qualifying as first jhana. What’s the difference in first jhana then? You’ll note in the cowherd simile and description of the mind before and after, the difference is passadhi takes place. The body and mind have been pacified to a degree, to allow piti&sukha to emerge. So it’s clear V&V has been attenuated in frequency and intensity, but the fundamental nature of the kusala V&V itself has not been altered. Otherwise, of all suttas, you would expect this to be the place where the Buddha explains how V&V has undergone a radical paradigm shift.

There are far more problems than that, and they are discussed here, with pali+english audit so you can see if the pali supports other interpretations.

The only way the EBT could support your interpretation of V&V currently, is if we assume the Buddha was negligent and incompetent in leaving out this important change in V&V in all the passages where V&V in one sentence to the next (where first jhana formula starts) undergoes a radical transformation without comment.

Now given a choice between the Buddha being negligent, or an overzealous, dubious interpretation of V&V that violates Bhante Sujato’s cardinal rules of “principle of least meaning” and “ockham’s razor is usually correct”, which scenario is more likely to be true?

2 Likes

I think this is correct

1 Like

To all interested, especially Bhantes @sujato and @Brahmali
You might want to read

Dmytro pulled up some excellent passages from Vism. this year, showing that even in Vism. first jhana, vitakka still retains the meaning of verbal, mental recitation. For example, when one mentally recites “earth kasina, earth kasina” as the vitakka, takka & vitakka are “striking” that that quoted thought “earth kasina”, which is a verbal label.

And the commentary explains that’s why first jhana in VRJ (vism. redefine version of jhana) is coarse compared to 2nd VRJ.

VRJ definition and understaning of ‘vicara’ is still corrupted (compared to EBT jhana), but at least ‘vitakka’ in VRJ needs to be translated with something that includes ‘thought’ in there.

edit: addition.
So Bhante Sujato’s translation for vitakka in first jhana as “placing the mind” would not even be the correct translation for Visuddhimagga’s ‘vitakka’ in their first jhana!
Here’s a simile. Let’s say vitakka is a horse-drawn-vehicle. You can not just give me a horse, or a vehicle, and tell me that’s a ‘vitakka’. A horse and carriage in isolation are PART of a horse-drawn-vehicle, but if you try to give just one of them to a customer who paid for the whole package, it won’t work as advertised and they’ll be very angry with you. Similarly, vitakka in first jhana of VRJ (vism.) is not just “striking” or “placing the mind”, it’s the “placing the mind on a THOUGHT”.

2 Likes

Say if I want to keep my attention on a mango. That is Vitakka
Then I keep my attention on a banana. That also Vitkka
Then I keep my attention only on mango for a longer period.
That is Vicara.
There is no speach (verbal or mental involed). Only observation.
That is how I understand it. I may be wrong.

2 Likes

See here.

What seems obvious to me, is not clear to you. This is one of the reasons I doubt we will be able to discuss this fruitfully.

This is also the case if you see them as a mere movement of the mind. Even the most subtle movement of the mind is on the same spectrum as gross thinking, albeit on the opposite end.

Please stick to real arguments. This is just an appeal to emotions.

4 Likes

The first jhana requires one to ‘abide in it’. Understanding the suttas require experience of the dhammas mentioned in them: only limited number of factors can exist in the first jhana and if others exist in it, it’s referring to other samadhi states.

2 Likes

I’ve reviewed those sutta passages cited in your link and they do nothing to disprove or add to what I already concisely summarized. Ekagga and Ekodibhava in the general sense can refer to the four jhanas, but the only sutta passages that explicitly say ekaggata is a “jhana factor” of first jhana are non-ebt passages spoken by Sariputta. “Jhana-factor”, as one of the 5 jhana factors late Theravada loves to talk about and emphasize (while trying to supress 7sb-bojjhanga). 5 jhana factors are not EBT, in the way late Theravada teaches.

The point of my nitpicking ekaggata here, for now, is not to debate which interpretation is more likely to be correct, but to show how you have a tendency to authoritatively cite sutta passages phrased in a way that assumes a much greater degree of certainty than is justified. (“the evidence…first jhana is ekaggata is actually quite strong”)

What seems obvious to me, is not clear to you. This is one of the reasons I doubt we will be able to discuss this fruitfully.

Let me restate the question again in explicit detail so you have no excuse to reply with a deflection tactic.

It seems like you’re saying since 2nd jhana has no V&V, as a logical consequence, we can deduce therefore first jhana is most likely to be subverbal mental movement. And my response to that was, this does not seem like any kind of natural logic to me. What the evidence of the actual words of the Buddha in EBT tells us, such as in MN 19, is that first jhana V&V has a spectrum of possible activity in intensity and frequency, but absolutely no text that would suggest the fundamental nature of V&V itself has shifted to become noverbal or preverbal.

This is also the case if you see them as a mere movement of the mind. Even the most subtle movement of the mind is on the same spectrum as gross thinking, albeit on the opposite end.

If Bhante Sujato is willing to translate V&V as preverbal mind movement everywhere, including outside of first jhana, then at least it would show conviction in your own explanation. As it is, it just sounds like sophistry to me.

Please stick to real arguments. This is just an appeal to emotions.

Please don’t use emotional tone as an excuse to dodge the real argument underlying the tone, and expressed clearly immediately prior to that, without the tone.

A mountain of evidence has been collected below, in the link you might not have reviewed yet, already given in the prior response.

(this message has been edited a few times to sort out formatting to more clearly differentiate who is saying what)

(This message should have been edited a few times more to include basic decency.)

1 Like

Please keep discussion respectful, refraining from personal criticisms of fellow forum members.

7 Likes

I cannot see this going anywhere useful and so I will withdraw from this discussion. We have had different views on this issue for several years now and it is inconceivable to me that we will be able to sort this out on a public forum. It is far more likely things will just get further bogged down. We will probably end up wasting precious time that could be spent far more profitably on other things.

I know you are very sincere, both in your practice and in your Dhamma opinions, and I respect you for that. From the little I know of you, you are a goodhearted person who is doing his very best to live Buddhism with integrity. A big sādhu to that!

Your sincere friend in the Dhamma,
Ajahn Brahmali

18 Likes

@frankk, I hear agonized frustration in your posts at being unheard. Please accept my own personal inquiry and let us just talk as we are, you and I each from our own life experience. I confess to having skimmed your writings on V&V since I, being easily confused, shy away from Nagarjuna subtleties and tend to value the concrete and actionable. :pray:

I will start by confessing that I am of limited mental means and can only encompass thoughts that can be spoken in a single breath. I have known others such as Richard Feynman who could spin entire universes of amazing connected thought. I lack any such gift.

Suppose I came to you and said, Venerable Frank, please teach me V&V so I can utter and know the truth in a single breath. What would you say in a single breath? What I recall you writing is that vittaka is directed thought and viccara is evaluation and contemplation of the implications of that vittakka thought. This I can say in one long breath and is hopefully aligned with what you have written. It also aligns with my own meditative wanderings through DN33 every day.

Just a one breath definition, please! I cannot understand more.

I wish to start afresh. Let us invest clearly in a shared understanding.

1 Like

Really? How do you know

Venerable Frank, I ask you a second time to teach me your understanding of the suttas starting with Vitakka and Vicara. This is a genuine request. I have meditated, concentrated, focused, absorbed and immersed in this or that for over five decades. Yet I have only started reading the sutta translations this year. I am trying to align my experiences with the suttas. This is very important to me. And you yourself have brought the words Vitakka and Vicāra into my life.

I have memories of directing and focusing and contemplating this and that from a very young age. I was a good student and slow but had many encouraging teachers. Focusing has always been natural to me and I often would focus on this or that for hours to the detriment of my body. Yes I had to pee. Not now, back to the math problem or whatever. My experience of this was world receding into problem, problem alone, problem solving. Just that. From this and your words I understand vitakka to be “framing the problem” and vicāra to be “solving the problem”. Those are not your words, but my words based on my experience and my gleaning of your words. I am a problem solver by profession.

If we can accept the understanding of V&V as “framing/solving X”, I would then like to understand the four jhānas as you do. I have not till a few months ago, really seen the term jhāna. For me this a new thing. How strange right? To have meditated for five decades without considering jhāna? So I have some experience and many questions.

Please teach me. :pray:

1 Like

Thank you Bhante, for taking the time to explain your position and share your diplomatic and friendly energy. I appreciate it.

6 Likes

Hi Karl,
I wasn’t ignoring your question, I’m just on Frank time, and I don’t check my email and respond to things as frequently or promptly as most modern folks, unless there is a need or emergency.

Please don’t address me as Venerable Frank, I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but ‘Venerable’ should be reserved for those ordained in the Sangha.

I don’t know that a ‘one breath amount of time’ explanation of V&V would be sufficient, but then some people have longer breaths than others. I can recite 31 body parts in pali in one breath.

I believe the best way to understand V&V is with examples, from the suttas.

example 1: AN 8.30, 8 great thoughts

here, vitakka would be directed-thought, sati remembering a memorized piece of dhamma, mentally reciting one of the 8 great thoughts. such as, “this Dhamma is for one of few desires…”.

vicara would be pondering, contemplating, evaluating, reflecting on the meaning of that thought (vitakka), the memorized sutta/dhamma recollected by sati.

example 2: AN 8.63
vitakka establishes the meditation topic by picking a topic from the 8 given in this sutta, 4sp + 4bv. So for example, vitakka selects ‘metta’, and mentally recites the metta formula, “metta sahagatena cetasa. ekam disam pharitva viharati.” (with metta infused mind, in one direction he pervades [with that metta energy])

vicara would be reflecting on that memorized sutta passage, its meaning, and carrying it out.

example 3: AN 6.10, recollection of 6 topics, buddha, dhamma, sangha…

this works the same way as the previous 2 examples. vitakka ‘fixes’ on , selects one of the 6 topics, mentally recites verbal words of that topic, then vicara evaluates/ponders the meaning of that.

Check for yourself, the suttas i already cited in the post you quoted from. MN 43, MN 111. Sariputta is doing the speaking, not the Buddha.

1 Like

Senior Frankk, thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. I now understand the following:

Sati for me is analogous to “framing and stating a problem”. I know, understand and can recite the math problem (or sutta) for others. This is where I am now with DN33, building sati.

Vitakka as directed thought feels natural, since I can consider “find the third odd number” and “find the third step of the NF8” with the same perspective. A linear direction is indeed happening to thought as I arrive at “5” or “Right Speech”.

However, this linear directing of thought from A to B is a bit incomplete for me. It works for high school math problems (e.g., simplify this equation). But it does not work with problems having multiple solutions (e.g., “design a computer”). To solve such problems, I have had to relinquish direct linear effort. Instead, I need to invite and allow my consciousness to “fill the problem”. When the problem is one with (i.e., filled with) my consciousness, the solution appears, without direction. And yet I would still think of that “filling the problem with awareness” to perhaps be vitakka as you have described. With vitakka, forms arise in consciousness to fit the problem (or sutta). This is where I want to be with DN33, filling it with undirected awareness.

Vicara is pondering, contemplating, evaluating, reflecting on the meaning of that thought (vitakka). Yes. That makes sense as well. Vicara is the bridge to greater open-ended considerations. This too is where I want to be with DN33, with awareness of DN33 connected to the world via contemplation.

If the above is acceptable, do please help me understand how I should understand first jhāna as it fits with all the above.

Thank you for pointing this out.
In line with this I think a careful analysis of the 1st jhana simile (the ball-of-soap) and a clear understanding of what piti & sukha really are (rapture & pleasure of body & mind), will demonstrate that the debate about the two types of jhanas should not exist. i.e. that in jhana the five senses are active as in normal life.
For me this is the most important issue as this will guide the practitioners trying to achieve jhana to be in tune with the body (i.e. experiencing the pleasure of piti & sukha in the body and in the mind) instead of a pure-mind-based-jhana-with-an-insensitive-body.
The Buddha in MN36 says: “why am I afraid of that pleasure (sukha) that has nothing to do with sensual pleasures … ?”. He is taking about a pleasure (as far as I know pleasure has a physical component) that is not due to grasping at external objects to satisfy the five senses but a pleasure that arises without objects. A pleasure that arises on its own accord without us having any direct control when it appears and grows eventually filling up the whole body and mind.

For me the V&V discussion is much less important as it is only about an aspect of what is happening in the mind while one is in the 1st jhana.

Mindfulness directed to the body is one of the most important topic of the EBTs; also the four jhanas were called (after the EBTs), rupa-jhana not citta-jhana or mano-jhana.

5 Likes

I would like to learn swimming from someone who knows how to swim rather than people who are only discussing swimming instructions because it’s a hobby - however both parties can get it wrong without intending and it’s best if written instructions reflect actual experience.

Whether you are in a jhana decides whether you attain Nibbāna so multiple definitions isn’t helpful.

Predominantly mind but it can be directed to feel the body and the other senses intentionally. How a jhana is determined as compared to a deeper unification is because there is a sudden stepping into a different consciousness. One develops deep unification but jhana is a further development of that deep unification.

2 Likes

Hmm. Personal views and experience are individual, yes. I drop a stone. It falls. That is my experience. If you share that experience, we can talk about dropping stones and how fast they drop. This is physics. When I learned physics, I did not believe the guru who said that two objects of different weight fall at the same speed. After I tried it myself, I agreed with the guru. In this very simple way, my conventional meaning of the word “gravity” changed in understanding and usage. If you will, it was “straightened” by the guru.

I treat Buddhism just like physics. I listen to teachings here, and verify them myself against experience or practice. Invariably, just as with physics, I find my vocabulary and experience are changed and informed. For example, currently Senior Frankk is adjusting my vocabulary.

If we refrain from bending convention we risk embracing ignorance. Because the world was flat, and now it isn’t. That was a convention changed. And changed by idiosyncratic individuals from personal experience.

2 Likes

sati is memory/remembering/remembrance.
smrti is sanksrit version of sati.

Here’s a mnemonic device I made up to help remember what sati does in EBT.

SMRTI = You (S)uppose to (M)emorize and ®ecollect (T)errific (I)deas.
SATI = You (S)uppose to (A)ctualize (T)errific (I)deas

vitakka on its own (without vicara) I suppose can do a fair amount of ‘evaluation/pondering’ on its own. I’ve haven’t researched that in the EBT.

If you remember that ‘cara’ is the basic word component used for walking, exploring, wandering, walking meditation, then you’ll remember that vitakka fixes on a topic, and vicara explores it (rather than starting a new line of thought completely independent of the original vitakka).

I suppose V&V can be subverbal or nonverbal type of thinking, if that’s what you’re describing with problem solving in your example. But in EBT jhana, there’s already terminology for that, S&S (sati and sampajano), also manasi karoti (attention) to sañña (perceptions). That kind of cognitive power and ability to discern survives past first jhana. So in a sense V&V is an energetically inefficient version of S&S. In EBT 4 jhanas, it’s not a frozen state where cetana and willpower is disabled as Ajahn Brahm and VRJ state. If you’ve slipped into a frozen state like that, you’re not in 4 jhanas anymore.

2 Likes