V&V in Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā

[frankk]

@karl_lew

This interpretation of the memorized piece requires the contemplation you’ve mentioned for vicāra , so it feels natural to me to think of vicāra as connecting vitakka to the universe.

Does this work for you as well? I think we need to reach a shared understanding before proceeding to jhanas.

I don’t quite understand your example. And I suspect even if I understand your example, the EBT would not supply a satisfactory answer that you’re looking for, because as I explained in the previous post there’s a number of terms/concepts that are subverbal/nonverbal, that survive past first jhana.

For example, we all know how to walk, as human bipeds practicing it regularly so often. We could be aware of our walking, as we walk, without V&V, since we’re already well trained and just executing off of muscle memory.

The more specific example relevant for the most frequent context, is for example reciting a memorized sutta. One can easily verify for themself, it’s possible to recite the memorized sutta without paying attention to its meaning, only being aware to the extent of keeping track of the fidelity of the recitation (compared to memory of it), such as knowing you didn’t make a mistake. So that’ the bare minimum of ‘vitakka’, the verbal words, the label attached to the meaning of the sutta that we’re not paying attention to at all. If we’re reflecting on the meaning as we’re reciting, and this one should verify for themself, this is possible to do. ‘vicara’ reflects/ponders meaning of the thought/vi-takka.

takka (notice resemblance of that word to ‘think’), in EBT usually means a specific type of thinking, logical reasoning.

My research was primarily looking at every instance of V&V within first jhana that I could find in the EBT, and comparing to what V&V was doing right before first jhana. What I saw was that V&V did not change in fundamental nature. And even in Vism., which is late Theravada with corrupted VRJ (vism. redefinition of jhana), even in there, vitakka still has to retain the meaning of mental talk, verbal, words strung together with a label, mental recitation. The Vism. explanation makes that explicit and clear, that vicara in VRJ is acting on mental words “earth kasina, earth kasina” for example.

SN 21.1 (thanissaro trans.)

Look at how “pari-vitakko” is used here (train of thought):
Moggallana 's pari-vitakka is the mental label composed of words, “what is noble silence?”
And vicara would be the examination in meaning of the followup vitakka (memorized second jhana formula mentally recited).

STED ariyo vā tuṇhī-bhāvo

SN 21.1 (V&V could not be visual nimitta here, clearly thinking and evaluation)

♦ āyasmā mahāmoggallāno etadavoca —	Ven. Mahā Moggallāna said,
“idha mayhaṃ, āvuso, rahogatassa paṭisallīnassa	"Friends, once as I was withdrawn in seclusion,
evaṃ cetaso parivitakko udapādi —	this train of thought arose to my awareness,
‘ariyo tuṇhībhāvo, ariyo tuṇhībhāvoti vuccati.	'"Noble silence, noble silence," it is said.
katamo nu kho ariyo tuṇhībhāvo’ti?	But what is noble silence?'
tassa mayhaṃ āvuso, etadahosi —	Then the thought occurred to me,

(STED second jhāna = noble silence)

‘idha bhikkhu vitakkavicārānaṃ vūpasamā	'There is the case where a monk, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations,
ajjhattaṃ sampasādanaṃ	[1] enters & remains in the second jhāna:
cetaso ekodibhāvaṃ	rapture & pleasure born of concentration,
avitakkaṃ avicāraṃ	unification of awareness
samādhijaṃ pītisukhaṃ	free from directed thought & evaluation —
dutiyaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati.	internal assurance.
ayaṃ vuccati ariyo tuṇhībhāvo’ti.	This is called noble silence.'

compare to B. Sujato translation, vitakka suddenly changes meaning and becomes incoherent

Venerable Mahāmoggallāna said this: Āyasmā mahāmoggallāno etadavoca: “Just now, reverends, as I was in private retreat this thought came to mind: “idha mayhaṃ, āvuso, rahogatassa paṭisallīnassa evaṃ cetaso parivitakko udapādi: ‘They speak of this thing called “noble silence”. ‘ariyo tuṇhībhāvo, ariyo tuṇhībhāvoti vuccati. What then is this noble silence?’ Katamo nu kho ariyo tuṇhībhāvo’ti? It occurred to me: Tassa mayhaṃ āvuso, etadahosi: ‘As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, a mendicant enters and remains in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and confidence, and unified mind, without placing the mind and keeping it connected.

And then it gets much more incoherent,

as perception and attention occurring while moggallana is in second jhana, are operating on B.sujato’s V&V of “mind not placed and not connected”, like a snake trying to swallow it self by eating its own tail.

[karl_lew]

@crizna

However this is not related in any way to my remarks, which was about ‘agreed usage’ (conventions) of language only.

But for me coming new to the suttas this year I see ongoing disagreement and nitpicking in discourse. How should I proceed? This is quite bewildering. I have my own decades of personal meditation experience and insight that I am trying to match up to the suttas and here I see unending arguments that span years of discourse. It seems eeriely like the Jain squabbling mentioned in DN33. Our conventions are broken. The only way I can see to fix them is by sharing experiences. I see a rock. You see a rock. Etc.

[karl_lew]

@frankk

as we walk, without V&V, since we’re already well trained and just executing off of muscle memory.

Imagine being on the edge of a thousand foot cliff on a ledge one-foot wide. Some cliffs in Yosemite are three-thousand feet high or more. Here is such a ledge.

Can we really here just walk mindlessly? Well-trained and just executing off muscle memory is insufficient. All of us play at walking on a six-inch curb. But a one-foot ledge on a cliff?

To survive, we need to be all here, thoughts, eye, nose, ear, tongue, body, walking on that ledge one-foot wide. Any, absolutely any, distraction is death. I think this is how we should walk every day. Not afraid, just walking. This is also how I would walk with DN33. I should be able to walk DN33 on that ledge, thinking, “All beings are sustained by conditions”. Because in that walking, I would indeed be sustained by conditions.

@frankk

The more specific example relevant for the most frequent context, is for example reciting a memorized sutta. One can easily verify for themself, it’s possible to recite the memorized sutta without paying attention to its meaning, only being aware to the extent of keeping track of the fidelity of the recitation (compared to memory of it), such as knowing you didn’t make a mistake. So that’ the bare minimum of ‘vitakka’, the verbal words, the label attached to the meaning of the sutta that we’re not paying attention to at all. If we’re reflecting on the meaning as we’re reciting, and this one should verify for themself, this is possible to do. ‘vicara’ reflects/ponders meaning of the thought/vi-takka.

I am realizing this is much deeper than I thought. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

Yes. I agree that one can recite unaware…like a zombie. That is practicing to be a zombie.

But when I recite/listen/practice the sutta, I am at a particular place on my walking meditation when I hear the birds, smell the trees, feel the road, see the leaves, think the sutta, taste the toothpaste. All these become my experience of the sutta and its recitation. In the beginning the senses are sharp, at the end they attenuate to keeping me alive and away from cars, etc.) but they are always “in DN33”. This is exactly the same for me sitting zazen counting breaths. The thought is “42 innnn”, the sight is my closed eyelids, etc. Where exactly should does vitakka relate to this experience? It has to be one of:

• the tiny inconsequential thought “42 in”
• the whole experience linked to “42 in”
• something completely other and I have misunderstood V&V.

Of these three possibilities, the second matches my experience best and is the experience that allows me to agree with you that there is thought (i.e., “42”) and with Bhante Sujato (“placing the mind”). Like you, I don’t agree with “placing the mind”, but I disagree for different reasons.

I would just rather say that in vitakka, my world became “42” or “DN33”.

And I would distinguish that from vicara, because for me, the isolated experience of vitakka is useless unless connected with the world. And I would connect it with the meditation, “42 to all sentient beings, above, below, to the north, south, east and west”. As with DN33. That connection for me would be vicara.

I would rather just say that with vitakka, we pour ourselves into the subject of meditation.
I would rather just say that with vicara, we connect our understanding with the world.
I would rather just say “pour awareness into and connect it” for V&V.
This is the meditative experience I would like to share.

Is that personal experience V&V or jhana or something else?

[Gillian]

It seems to me that there are five major types of discussion that take place here on D&D

1. • those among IT nerds on how to develop the features of Sutta Central Sadhu!
2. • those between professional translators on difficult/subtle points of translation in the EBTs Sadhu!
3. • those been interested parties who want to investigate their own and each others understandings of specific points in the EBTS May these help increase your understandings and support your practice!
4. • questions asked to the experts by beginner learners of Pali Thank you for answering!
5. • those that seek to relate contents of the EBTs to our individual lives and meditation practices Thank you!

After a little time reading generally in the forum, it becomes easier to select and contribute to the threads that are relevant to oneself. (For me it is 4&5.)

@karl_lew: last night I happened to be reading chapter 4 of Kittisaro & Thanissara’s Listening to the Heart. It contains a description of the Five Jhana Factors that explains how V&V fits into a regular mediation practice that I think might interest you.

(Tho it doesn’t address the issues of translation and interpretation that are being debated in this and related threads on D&D.)

[Gillian]

I feel that we are in danger of veering away from the topic direction set by the OP, so I shall attempt to use my shiny new moderator hat for the first time ever by splitting this contribution and the question it responds to into a new thread.

[Mat]

[quote=“crizna, post:39, topic:11316”]
M: Only people who haven’t experienced jhana and examined it are vying for ‘lighter’ interpretations.

C: Could you please come up with real arguments instead of producing yet another cliché. Otherwise any discussion is pointless. [/quote]

I’m not trying to argue, you are using arguments for something which needs practice. These verbal exchanges are the antithesis of samadhi. It’s your lack of awareness and/or verbosity that shows this discussion is not going to be productive.

@crizna

After all we are talking here about concrete states of mind which have been described in detail in the Suttas and Abhidhammas of various Early Buddhist Schools, so our arguments should at least refer to those descriptions.

Yes we should but texts can be wrong too. It helps to ‘triangulate’ EBTs with my experience and those of prominent teachers. I don’t agree that there are 5 Rupa jhanas as per the Theravada abhidhamma. Triangulation shows there’s four not five, and it can be argued that five was derived from subtracting one jhana factor each from those of the first jhana i.e. and analytical exercise.

@Rosie

Fascinating

Just that could be attachment.

[karl_lew]

@Gillian

@karl_lew: last night I happened to be reading chapter 4 of Kittisaro & Thanissara’s Listening to the Heart . It contains a description of the Five Jhana Factors that explains how V&V fits into a regular mediation practice that I think might interest you.

Thank you for the link. And thank you for editing the posts. I was quite confused while posting and had rambled all of us into very strange waters. I realized this myself last evening after reading MN44, which is the other sutta I am studying. MN44 has a different presentation of V&V that aligns with a separate experience of mine and completely renders all my prior posts irrelevant and confusing to both myself and others. Briefly, I had confused V&V with immersion. They are quite different. Since that insight is recent, I won’t say more. Rather, I will study and practice harder before saying anything further about V&V or immersion.

And apologies to all for my rambles!

[Rosie]

@karl_lew

I am a very bad meditator

Thanks for your honesty. I needed to hear that.

@karl_lew

This is a daily struggle for me and I am always placing the wandering mind back in its fenced pasture

Me too, and the work, for me, is smiling at the ‘monkey’ [as in monkey mind] and not regarding my success or failure in meditating as real failure in Buddhist practice.

[karl_lew]

@Rosie

as in monkey mind

I was born in the Year of the Monkey.

Monkey’s Mischief is endless. All that Monkeey Poop to pick up. sigh

[Rosie]

@karl_lew

Monkeey Poop to pick up

Gotta go to Walmart for a Monkey Pooper Scooper!

[Rosie]

" Monkey is the ninth in the 12- year cycle of Chinese zodiac. The Years of the Monkey include 1920, 1932, 1944, 1956, 1968, 1980, 1992, 2004, 2016, 2028… The monkey is a clever animal. It is usually compared to a smart person."

" People born in a year of the Monkey have magnetic personalities and are witty and intelligent. Personality traits like mischievousness, curiosity , and cleverness, make them very naughty. Monkeys are masters of practical jokes, because they like playing most of the time."

Oh! This is me:
" Rabbit is the fourth in the 12- year cycle of Chinese zodiac sign. The Years of the Rabbit include 1915, 1927, 1939, 1951, 1963, 1975, 1987, 1999, 2011, 2023… For Chinese people, the rabbit is a tame creature representing hope for a long time. It is tender and lovely."
" Ladies belonging to the rabbit zodiac sign, apart from a pretty and demure appearance, have a pure heart"

“Fire Rabbit 1927, 1987 Broad-minded, smart, and flexible, with unique views”

Wow!

[karl_lew]

@Rosie

because they like playing most of the time

Gotcha. Neener neener.
And yes, your heart is pure.
Of me I would be wary. Monkey knows how to untie the leash.

[Mat]

@Rosie

I am a very bad meditator

I find it takes me about 5 days on retreats, to overcome the 5 hindrances (one day each, Abhidharma may deduce ).

[frankk]

@Mat

I’m not trying to argue, you are using arguments for something which needs practice. These verbal exchanges are the antithesis of samadhi . It’s your lack of awareness and/or verbosity that shows this discussion is not going to be productive.

You seem to be arguing something different than what Crizna was trying to point out. He wrote at least two excellent posts on this thread that were very clear, and is worth re-reading.

The ability to do what the teachings say is a separate issue. The main point he was getting at is the language we use needs to be coherent and consistent. For example, when scholar monks redefine body as “not physical, but a collection of mental aggregates”, or vitakka as “placing the mind” when everywhere else in the suttas it means “thinking”, this causes havoc. It has nothing to do with whether one can do jhanas or not. We are using a common language and need to be consistent in how we use words.

[Rosie]

So then you leave and start all over again?

[pjteh]

@frankk

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.

Hi! I have two comments.

First, I wonder if part of the issue is a fundamental disagreement on the reference set:

• Ajahn Brahmali was pointing out where ekagatta was in reference to samma samadhi. The first jhana being part of the standard definition of samma samadhi. → since ekagatta is used to describe the whole set of samadhi, which includes first jhana, then ekagatta also applies to the first jhana.
• Your focus is on finding an explicit definition of ekagatta within the first jhana. → since ekagatta is not explicitly used to describe first jhana in EBT, then ekagatta isn’t a descriptor for the first jhana, even if ekagatta describes samadhi in the four jhanas.
  While I struggle to understand your logic, could I check if my paraphrasing and framing of my understanding of your argument thread and of the source of disagreement with Ajahn Brahmali is correct?

The second comment is with reference to V&V. When you refer to EBT, i notice that you have made no references to the Chinese Agamas. But looking at the Chinese, it is quite clear that vitakka in the jhanas (覺, which means awareness) is a completely different character from vitakka outside the jhanas (尋, which means search, thinking). And this is repeated throughout the Chinese Agamas whenever the jhanas are referred to. How would this reconcile with your point of view?

With much metta.

[Gillian]

@karl_lew

Thank you for the link. And thank you for editing the posts. I was quite confused while posting and had rambled all of us into very strange waters. I realized this myself last evening after reading MN44, which is the other sutta I am studying. MN44 has a different presentation of V&V that aligns with a separate experience of mine and completely renders all my prior posts irrelevant and confusing to both myself and others. Briefly, I had confused V&V with immersion. They are quite different. Since that insight is recent, I won’t say more. Rather, I will study and practice harder before saying anything further about V&V or immersion.

And apologies to all for my rambles!

@Rosie

I am a very bad meditator

Thanks for your honesty. I needed to hear that.

No need for anyone to apologise. It is confusing finding one’s way around here at first.

When I read some of the ‘high end’ discussion on this site I started wondering if I was a bad meditator. Then I remembered the word path. The best way to stay on a difficult path is to put one’s foot right in front of where one is standing atm. That is the only skilful thing to do; staring at the acrobatic antics of people further up the mountain might even be a little dangerous.

I didn’t split the thread: it doesn’t seem necessary, and I couldn’t push the right button anyway. One of us might start a new thread in the Discussion category, if we’re interested in discussing experiential ramifications further. … I’m off to read MN44 and see what it says about immersion.

[Gillian]

Please can we remember that the Forum is dedicated to fair discussion and follows the tenets of Right Speech? This should apply in all the threads.

[Mat]

@crizna

‘experience-mantra’

No. Triangulation is what I’m proposing : comparing texts to jhana experience to expert teachings. As 100’s of posts have already been written purely from a textual perspective I propose that approach is not productive, and only lead to arguments which is counter to Right speech.

[frankk]

@pjteh

The second comment is with reference to V&V. When you refer to EBT, i notice that you have made no references to the Chinese Agamas. But looking at the Chinese, it is quite clear that vitakka in the jhanas (覺, which means awareness) is a completely different character from vitakka outside the jhanas (尋, which means search, thinking). And this is repeated throughout the Chinese Agamas whenever the jhanas are referred to. How would this reconcile with your point of view?

I don’t read chinese and I’m not really qualified to have a view on that. But I do know that ancient Chinese is vague and abstruse enough that there’s no agreed upon unambiguous understanding of V&V in the jhanas.

One thing is for sure though, and that’s V&V in Chinese Agama passages could not be translated as “placing the mind & keeping it connected.”, as well as the sanskrit passage featured in this thread.

What’s motivating your line of questions? Why do you care about ekaggata and its framing?