Why Vitakka and Vicara is not mental determinations?

Literally all the time. I just translated a short paragraph:

In these few lines, we have brahmā, which shades in meaning from the supreme deity of Brahmanism to simply “highest, best” to “holy”. Kāya means “body”, but also moves towards the sense of “company, collection, corpus”. Dhamma most commonly means “teaching”, but has a range of meanings, which here shades off into “truth”. You’ll notice that in some of the passages in that post I have translated Dhamma as “teaching”, in others “truth”: I haven’t decided if I will keep this difference, or make them the same, and if so, which one.

These are three important words, and in this one passage they all have such an ambiguous meaning that it is not easy to decide.

Like i said, this is neither a bug nor a feature, but the fundamental principle in how language works. We do this kind of thing constantly in our own languages, but we are so used to it that we don’t even notice. It’s only when we are learning another language, we get stuck on literal meanings and don’t yet have an intuitive sense for the ebb and flow of natural sense. Over time, you get a feel for it and it becomes second nature.

I really don’t think so. As far as I’m aware, the dispute about the interpretation of vitakka/vicara has only arisen in modern times, and mainly among people who don’t know Pali very well. I’m not aware of it being controversial in ancient times. As far as I can see, it’s just a side-issue that’s arisen in the wake of the vipassana school, who created a huge amount of confusion around the whole topic.

2 Likes

There are any number of ways we can analyse our experience; there are a potentially infinite number of categories we can invent into which we can classify our experiences. What is important is that we remember the difference between category and experience, and avoid becoming lost in the category. Our tendency is to get lost in the categories, and in doing so, lose touch with experience. When we create a system of categories we freeze the process of living experience and create a solid something in which our experience must now conform. We now divide our experience into two basic divisions: those experiences which we can fit into our system of categories, and which is therefore valid, real and useful; and those experiences which we cannot fit into our system of categories. Of course, in the act of meditating, we put more attention to our valid, real and useful experiences than we do to the other type. In brief, we become stuck in attachment and aversion, and instead of investigating our experience, we revert to manipulating it. We take the practice of freedom and turn it into a prison. This is inevitably the case when we project reality into the categories of analysis - whatever system we use - and not into the actual, living, stream of experience. Hence we must treat this system with great caution. We must learn to use it, and not be used by it.

http://www.buddhanet.net/knowledg.htm

1 Like

It seems to me that what has been demonstrated here is that polysemy exists in Pali, obviously, just as in any other language. I was actually wondering if there were other examples where polysemy throws us in opposite directions that give us completely different understandings of the path. I am not sure it is the case with the polysemy of the words dhamma, kaya or brahma.

Also, we have ways to ascertain the reality of their polysemy either from many instances in context or from explicit definitions, which is not the case with vitakka, where every single instance of the word I am aware of in the EBTs outside the jhana context clearly refers to thoughts/thinking only.

That may legitimately look suspiscious to some, I think, and those are not all strangers to nor beginners with Pali language and/or meditation practice.

Yes, this has been recognised by the Buddha. The ability of the person to differentiate the meaning of various words are called “Niruttinānatte paññā nirutti­paṭi­sam­bhide ñāṇaṃ.”
If my understanding is incorrect, someone can correct me please.

https://suttacentral.net/pi/ps1.0/67