Vitakka and vicara in the agamas and the Chinese parallel to Snp 4.2

[CurlyCarl]

@cdpatton

They describe the conditions for suppressing the hindrances, but they don’t explicitly describe a technique for entering the first jhana.

Hello. I was unable to find the term “suppressing” the hindrances in the link provided. Thanks. The link says:

“Ime pañca nīvaraṇe pahāyā”ti ime pañca nīvaraṇā santā honti samitā vūpasantā atthaṅgatā abbhatthaṅgatā appitā byappitā sositā visositā byantīkatā. Tena vuccati “ime pañca nīvaraṇe pahāyā”ti.

“Abandoning these five hindrances” means: These five hindrances are calmed, tranquillized, inhibited, terminated, vanished, destroyed, well destroyed, withered, well withered, abrogated. Therefore this is called “abandoning these five hindrances”.

@cdpatton

In the Agamas, the Chinese translation was the early consensus of 覺 for vitakka and 觀 for vicara. Translated literally and given the context, they mean “to notice/perceive” and “to examine.”

The above sounds useful for the context of jhana. For me, “perceive” sounds too general because obviously the 2nd, 3rd & 4th jhanas are “perceived”. I imagine the term “to notice” means “to be drawn to” or “to give special attention to”, i.e., in a manner lacking in perfect equanimity. I imagine “to examine” has the quality “to explore”, again, in a manner lacking in perfect equanimity. In summary, in both cases of vitakka & vicara, I imagine somehow the mind is “enticed” or “drawn” towards the piti & sukha of the 1st jhana.

I recall in one (translated) book of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa (who was a Chinese-speaking-Thai), the translations of “noting” & “experiencing” were used for vitakka & vicara in the 1st jhana. For me, the translation “experiencing” was too general & unsatisfactory for explanation. Similarly, at least how it is used in Buddhism, also the word “contemplation” seems too general.

When the mind is one-pointed, there are no other feelings, thoughts, or objects of that mind. There remain only the things called jhananga (factors of jhana ). At the first level of one-pointed­ness there are five factors. At this level the mind is still coarse enough to perform the function of contemplating the object. The mind noting its object is called vitakka. The mind experiencing that object is, called vicara. Due to vitakka and vicara the mind is satisfied or contented (piti). And once there is piti, there is the feel­ing of joy (sukha) at the same instant. Lastly, one-pointedness of mind continues as before. Thus, the mind on this level of samadhi (concentration) has five factors: noting (vitakka), experiencing (vicara), contentment (piti), joy (sukha), and one-pointedness (ekaggata). These five show that the mind has entered the first level of perfect samadhi. This kind of awareness does not include any kind of think­ing, yet these five activities of the mind occur. We call them factors of jhana. If we can identify that all are present, then we can be satisfied with experiencing success in having perfect samadhi, although only the first. That sounds strange - perfect, but only the first stage.

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa - Anapanasati Mindfulness with Breathing

While not on topic & while the above was a translation, the following also seems strange: “Due to vitakka and vicara the mind is satisfied or contented (piti).” In other words, I imagine piti & sukha are not caused by vitakka & vicara.

[cdpatton]

@CurlyCarl

Hello. I was unable to find the term “suppressing” the hindrances in the link provided. Thanks.

The hindrances aren’t necessarily abandoned forever and ever, in which case they are being suppressed in order to permit the mind to enter samadhi. After a practitioner exits samadhi, they are liable to encounter the hindrances again and need to go through the process again, though presumably in a good spiritual setting and practice, it gets less often and easier to do. I would imagine would need to be quite advanced along the fruits of the path to abandon the hindrances forever.

This issue may well be why the notion of the anusayas, or tendencies, arose in Buddhist thought to explain how a person can be pure in mind at one moment and then have mental disturbances come back to cause them trouble.

@CurlyCarl

seems too general.

They seem too general to me, too, but that’s the way the texts read. They use general terms without explaining exactly how they were being used. So, we are left with similarly general, unspecific words in English.

But, as I said before, my strong suspicion these days is that vitakka-vicara refers to a visualization exercise used to enter samadhi, and then it’s gradually dropped once samadhi deepens. But, so far, I have only Buddhaghosa and the basic meanings in Chinese translation to base that impression on. These days, people seem to not be practicing in this way, so it’s all very nebulous and intellectual.

[Raftafarian]

@CurlyCarl

@cdpatton

In the Agamas, the Chinese translation was the early consensus of 覺 for vitakka and 觀 for vicara. Translated literally and given the context, they mean “to notice/perceive” and “to examine.”

The above sounds useful for the context of jhana. For me, “perceive” sounds too general because obviously the 2nd, 3rd & 4th jhanas are “perceived”.

I think there are two main contenders for what vitakka and vicara mean: sensory perception and thought or peripheral awareness and focused attention of sensory objects . Since vitakka and vicara are both present in the first jhana and absent in the second, third, and fourth, I would say that both my proposed alternatives imply sensory perception is available in the first jhana, but unavailable in the other three. The last three would be formless, that is, there would be no sense objects.

The following appears to me to reference mastery of the jhanas.

Ud 1.10
And when a sage, a brahmin, finds understanding
through their own sagacity,
then from forms and formless,
from pleasure and pain they are released.

In the first jhana there are forms. The second jhana is formless. The third is formless and without pleasure. The fourth if formless and without pain. When all four are “understood”, the sage is released. I think the four formless attainments use the word “perception” in a metaphorical sense.

[cdpatton]

Something I should add that I didn’t point out in previous posts is the historical dimension to my “suspicion.” Buddhaghosa and the Chinese Agama translations are roughly contemporaneous to each other in India and China (~4-500 AD). So, it’s quite possible that the practice Buddhaghosa describes is what practitioners were during in that period of history - which is really quite late in Buddhist history. It doesn’t necessarily mean much for early Buddhist studies, as such.

[Raftafarian]

The Chinese parallels are data points and many different “curves” or hypotheses can accommodate them. They have to be considered in the context of the evidence as a whole to see which accommodates them more easily.

It is striking that the Chinese used words connoting perception in both parallels we discussed. Perhaps, the translator was unduly influenced by later commentaries or, perhaps, that is how the Pali was understood when it was written.

Vitakka and vicara are interpreted differently by different translators. How best to decide the most likely intended meaning? I am looking at how their meanings best reconcile to goals expressed in what many academics regard as the earliest suttas, the nucleus of the Snp (4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5). There are other suttas that talk about the importance of reaching the end of the world in a figurative sense that appear to be consistent with Snp 4.2, especially with regard to the full comprehension of perception, the end of the world of the senses.

If the formulaic description of the jhanas was from the same layer it presumably was for that end. Otherwise, what end was it for to be so highly regarded? If it only brought the meditator half way, what got them the rest of the way and why would only a partial solution be presented in so many places?

To some extent, I simply prefer “tiny” Buddhism, as I refer to it, of the Snp 4.2-4.5, but many academics appear to believe it was written possibly at the time of the Buddha or perhaps even before and incorporated into the canon. In any event, whatever it is, I find it compelling, intriguing, practical, original, and ahead of its time.