critique of vitakka as ‘placing the mind’

,	,

Hi Charlie, that’s a good analogy and you make some really good points.

charlie wrote:

IMO the suttas take the former view while Ajahns Brahm, Sujato, and others follow the latter – resulting in this need to redefine terms and the resulting incoherent statements that result from this that you have documented.

my response:

But the problem is, a translator’s job is not to redefine words, especially critically important ones like vitakka & vicara. Vism. had to redefine V&V to fit with late Abhidhamma ideas of radical momentariness. Earlier in Vimt. (which followed an earlier version of Abhidhamma), they still kept the original EBT meaning of V&V intact.

IMO, there’s no problem if Ajahn Brahm and B. Sujato believes the Vism. model of (redefined jhana) using visual light nimitta with 16 APS (anapana) is a better system of gradual samadhi development than the Buddha’s EBT gradual 4 jhana training system. But it’s clear to anyone objectively reading the EBT pali texts, and their EBT parallels, that those two systems of jhana (EBT and vism.) are very different. I personally think the best gradual samadhi training system would be 90% EBT (such as Ajahn Lee, Ven. Thanissaro), with 10% qigong and yoga to augment the system. But I would never translate the EBT to reflect my own preference and biases. Just if my job was to translate the Vism., where I vehemently disagree with many important doctrinal points in there, my job as translator would be to translate what the text says, not to misrepresent what they are writing about.

B. Nanamoli’s translation of V&V of Vism. is very accurate. I would translate V&V in Vism. in the jhana context exactly the same way as he did. I wouldn’t try to put the EBT meaning of V&V (thinking & evaluation) in Vism., otherwise the Abhdhamma part would be incoherent. It’s hard to blame B. Nanamoli for translating MN’s V&V usage as he did in Vism. He was working under the assumption that the late Abhidhamma and Vism. were authoritative and correct. He was betrayed by Theravada orthodoxy, so he was translating MN in good faith IMO and incurs no unwholesome kamma.

B. Bodhi followed B. Nanamoli in translating V&V in MN using Vism. usage of “applied thought & sustained thought”, but later realized his error and corrected it to “thinking and pondering” for SN, AN, KN.

So it’s highly disturbing that B. Sujato is undoing the huge mistake corrected by B. Bodhi. An analogy: It’s like if women had been held down by Vism. with no right to vote, and B. Bodhi liberated them by restoring that right, then B. Sujato comes along and repeals women’s right to vote once more. Similarly, in EBT, V&V has the right to “think & ponder” in first jhana, but B. Sujato is bringing back the oppressive days of Vism. and only allow V&V to “place the mind” and “keep it connected.”

B. Sujato often talks about translating with these two guiding principles:

principle of least meaning

ockhams razor is usually correct

What I’ve done with assembling a thorough pali+english passage audits over the years, shows clearly how B. Sujato’s translation of V&V does not follow his two guiding principles. At some point, I believe he has to do one of the following things:

revise his translation of V&V for jhana

give a credible justification, explain to the world why he needs to violate the two guiding principles when a straightforward reading of EBT, it’s parallels in Sarvastivada, early abhidhamma, support a straightforward understanding of V&V in first jhana.

It’s ok to disagree, but at least you have to present a credible justification.

conversation with B.Brahmali, 2018-11

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/v-v-in-sphu-artha-abhidharmakosavyakhya/11316/6

B.Brahmali:

I really do not want to get into a long discussion on this. We have been there before and I didn’t find it very fruitful. I have given reasons in other threads for why I think vitakka and vicāra refer to a pre-verbal movement of the mind, for instance, here.

frank:

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?

role of samadhi in liberation, clear and honest

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/tayo-samadhi-and-aparepi-tayo-samadhi-dn33-dn34/11197/12

Dear Frank, one can be clear, honest, AND polite :smiley: These things are not mutually exclusive.

That would be preferable. But there are times when they aren’t compatible. And if one insists on politeness and gentle speech at all times, then it comes at the cost of clarity.

In the case of V&V, this issue is of vital importance and grave errors need to be clearly expressed, including the degree of severity. If one is too worried about being polite in how that is expressed, then it obfuscates the severity of the problem and the nature of the problem.

The Buddha Dhamma comes down to just seeing Dukkha clearly, and abandoning it. You can only see Dukkha clearly to the degree that Samadhi is powerful enough.

If you can’t see it clearly, you won’t abandon it, won’t want to abandon it, don’t realize you would be better off abandoning it.

That’s why Samadhi is so important.

The Buddha promised a gradual training, including Samadhi.

When you teach V&V (vitakka & vicara) of first jhana monumentally wrong, you’ve killed the gradual training.

Without first jhana, people think they “don’t have enough merit and/or wisdom” and need to wait lifetime(s) before they can practice seriously.

This is not conjecture, this is what happened when the VRJ (vism. redefinition of jhana) became the dominant/popular understanding in Theravada.

Bhante Sujato’s V&V translation follows the VRJ model of redefined Jhana (and V&V). There is no support for that anywhere in the EBT.

He needs to be held accountable for that. He needs to revise his translation to follow his own excellent two guiding principles for a translation: (my simplified paraphrasing of it)

principle of least meaning

ockham’s razor is usually correct

Until he fixes his error or can prove his case, I will keep pointing it out. As politely as I can, but not at the cost of being clear and honest.

message vs. messenger, msg 23

many years ago, I was reading an article by Lance Cousins (famous buddhist scholar), highly critical of B. Bodhi’s english translations. At the time, it really made me angry. I thought, "how dare you insult B. Bodhi’s translations? Where’s Lance Cousin’s translation of middle length discourses? "

If I were to go back and read Lance’s article again, I’d probably see he wasn’t being harsh or insulting, it was just my own attachment and inability to separate people from ideas that caused me to have that emotional reaction. If read Lance’s article now, I wouldn’t be surprised if I agreed with at least 50% of his criticism, or at least understand and at least see how the criticism is justified.

The key is to understand our cognitive biases and cognitive dissonance. I still listen to Ajahn Brahm’s talks, and enjoy them. I still admire B. Sujato and his visionary work on suttacentral and some of his books.

But if they have a grave misunderstanding of how the 4 jhanas, kāya, vitakka &vicara work in the EBT, then we, who have clearly researched, understood those erors, have an obligation to point it out. Just like if there’s a flood coming, I will point it out. If there are pot holes and sink holes that people will gravely injure themselves if not made aware, I will point it out. It doesn’t mean I don’t like Ajahn Brahm and B. Sujato. They’re still wonderful humans beings, inspirational, skillful teachers.

The people are one thing, their ideas are another. If ideas are criticized, that does not automatically mean the person is.

wronger than wrong, vaca = sounds waves hitting ear drums

B. Sujato’s translation of V&V as “placing the mind & keeping it connected” is not only an error purely from a translation standpoint, it’s wronger than wrong in several aspects.

The evidence is there, you just need to read and confirm it. It’s almost identical to if we were to translate vāca (vocalized speech) as

“sound waves emitted from the mouth that hit the ear drums of the listener”.

That translation is not untrue, but it’s only a partial truth and it omits the most important part of vāca. If you were to plug that translation everywhere in the pali suttas, that would be coherent in isolated contexts, and not untrue, but holistically it would be incoherent in making the Dhamma pieces fit together and have coherent, consistent meaning.

I hope everyone can see that translating vāca in the pali suttas as “…sound waves … hitting ear drums” is A GRAVE ERROR. Do I really need to engage in open dialogue without presuming to skip to a resolution on that? I could do a detailed pali + english audit for that as well, but it should be obvious pretty quickly the problem with that translation is that it removes the aspect of communicable meaning in language ( of vāca).

In exactly the same way, B. sujato’s translation of V&V as “placing the mind and keeping it connected” removes the aspect of communicable meaning in language (of V&V)

There are many more problems besides that, but that alone is enough to justify it as being labeled an ERROR.

ajahn brahm contradicts ajhan chah, msg 39

So you could start by asking why Ajahn Brahm contradicts his teacher. Many other virtuous, famous, widely followed teachers like B. Thanissaro, Ajahn Lee, B. Gunaratana, also interpret V&V, jhanas, consistently with a straightforward reading of the suttas.

You have the right idea that one should compare their meditative experience with what the suttas say, and not rely on suttas alone.

Ideally, one could do the VRJ (vism. redefinition of jhana) and the EBT jhana (straightforward reading of the sutta), and then see which matches the suttas better. Both methods work. It’s not an issue of whether either system works as advertised.

The difference is EBT jhana fits like the glass slipper on cinderella’s foot.

Ajahn Brahm (VRJ without abhidhamma baggage) requires a convoluted redefinition of important basic terms, much like cinderella’s stepsisters trying to jam the glass slipper on. The only way they would be able to get the EBT passages on jhana to support their position is to mutilate kāya, vitakka, vicāra, perhaps cut off a few toes to get the feet to fit in the slipper. If you could call a bloody stump of a foot fitting inside the glass slipper a good fit, then you could say Ajahn Brahm’s interpretation of jhana from the EBT passages is a reasonable fit too.

The pali+english audits I’ve provided are there for when people are ready to examine the evidence for themselves to sort out who has reasonable interpretations of the suttas and who does not.

Examine the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions. But you can start with asking why Ajahn Brahm contradicts his own teacher.

effect of B.Sujato's popularity, msg45

The cautious thing to do, for a translator whose job is to translate (rather than be consciously or unconsciously influenced by biases and other religious agendas), is to translate the term consistently unless there is compelling reason not to.

For example, B. Sujato translates kāya correctly and consistently as “body” in the 16 APS (anapanasati), and in MN 119. If he didn’t do that, the kāya would be incoherent and inconsistent in those 2 contexts.

V&V (vitakka & vicara) is the same situation, and B. Sujato does not choose the cautious approach on this one, and causes incoherence. There are numerous explicit examples given in my detailed pali+english audit.

I’m all in favor of diversity in various samadhi training systems, and I personally encourage people to experiment with various ones, not just Buddhist methods either. But Suttacentral is purported to be an accurate translation of the EBT and pali suttas, and therefore the translation must be held accountable to EBT standards.

And Bhante Sujato needs to revise his V&V translation to follow his own excellent standard of “principle of least meaning” and “ockhams razor is usually correct.” His published writings on why he translates V&V have been refuted point by point not only by myself and others, with an abundance of explicit evidence in the pali + english audit. He doesn’t have to change his translation, but the mountain of evidence and reason against his translation demands some kind of response. At the very least, a published attempt to justify his translation and understanding of how V&V and EBT jhana works, which would involve a rebuttal and counter argument of at least the major errors pointed out in the pali+english audits.

I have nothing personal against B. Sujato. I’m targeting his translation because I anticipate it will become the most popular and widely read version of the pali suttas, largely because it’s free, complete, available in digital formats, including audio, as well as being written in a plain but eloquent, accessible style of writing.

His English translations are likely affecting how other foreign language sutta translations are being made. I shudder with horror at the thought of the damage to the Buddha’s dispensation being done when important terms are mistranslated.

Ajahn Brahm, "up" = down

Ajahn Brahm redefining important jhana terms is like redefining “up” as “down”, “body” as “mind”, “forward” as “backward.” It causes massive confusion, not just for beginners and intermediate meditators, but those trying to read and understand the suttas.

Here’s an analogy. Suppose every country in the world has traffic laws where automobiles drive on the right side of the road, except for England where they drive on the left side. And for traffic lights, red light always means stop and green always means “go”. Then Ajahn Brahm comes along and says, “in the Buddha’s time they always drove on the left side of the road, even though the text look like it says drive on the right side.” And he also adds, “all the time except during jhana, red light means go” and “green light means stop.”

That wouldn’t just cause inconvenience for the rest of the world, it causes fatalities and death on a massive scale. If Dhamma becomes corrupted on important fundamental aspects of the path, it’s far worse than death of a single life. Samsara is a long journey.

There are plenty of ways Ajahn Brahm could teach his meditation method to be in accordance with EBT, in a way that doesn’t have to redefine basic terms, and doesn’t seriously screw up the rest of the world.

If you were to get 1000 non buddhist objective, intelligent translators with integrity, and their job was to translate the EBT texts without bias, I’d bet the farm not a single one would translate the EBT texts on jhana related material anything close to how Ajahn Brahm did. Ajahn Brahm got away with it (so far) because Vism. did the same thing, but they had to invoke the authority of late Abhidhamma texts having primacy over EBT. Ajahn Brahm and B. Sujato do not follow late Abhdhamma, they follow EBT, so they need to translate accordingly.

MN 125 why B. Sujato avoids this

http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/02/mn-125-why-b-sujato-and-b-analayo.html

MN 125 why B. Sujato and B. Analayo conspicuously avoid discussing this sutta

His blog post originally dated 2012 dec.

A copy of B. Sujato's blog on V&V here

https://archive.org/stream/Lucid24VitakkaAndVicara/sujato-vitakka-blog#page/n11/mode/2up

He deliberately avoid talking about MN 125 because it clearly blows away his mistranslation of V&V.

Over a period of more than 2 years, I've been collecting incontrovertible evidence that invalidate his mistranslation of V&V.

Publicly. On his forum. Impossible for him to miss my posts.

My post on MN 125

from 2018-august

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/yarvvi-chronicles-v-v-discussion-is-encouraged/10208/11

Look for the missing first jhana in that sutta MN 125:

MN 125 gradual training of wild elephant, Pali+Eng, B.Sujato trans 1

(Buddha is like the wild elephant trainer)

(renounce, shave head, work on sīla)

(guard sense doors)

(moderation in eating)

(wakefulness)

(S&S: sati & sampajāno)

(5niv hindrance removal)

(4sp satipatthana nonstop, like elephant tethered to post)

(do 4sp with no kāma-vitakka/thoughts of sensuality)

(skip first jhāna, go directly to 2nd jhāna, since first jhāna can have thoughts connected to Dhamma)

(imperturbability/āneñjappatte, the dynamic form of 4th jhāna)

(#4 of 6: higher knowledge of reviewing past lives)

First note, you don’t leave 4sp (satipatthana, samma sati) to enter the jhanas. S&S (sati & sampajano) is explicitly state as factors in 3rd jhana, and 4th with upekkha. You can’t be in a frozen state where the “will” disappears and have S&S perform their duties.

Now look at carefully how V&V are used in this section where the first jhana is missing, in Bhante Sujato’s translation. V&V are clearly thoughts & evaluation right before jhana, and when it gets to second jhana, it becomes (b.sujato trans.)“placing the mind and keeping it connected”. You got to keep the translation of V&V consistent here, it just doesn’t make sense the way it reads now.

In the section right before jhana it says, “don’t think thoughts connected with sensual desire”, and then the sutta deliberately omits first jhana and jumps to second jhana. This means that the V&V (thoughts and evaluation) are “thoughts not connected with sensual desire.” In other words, the V&V in first jhana, you have thoughts about Dhamma, whatever the 4sp meditation topic you’ve chosen happens to be. (not “placing the mind and keeping it connected” as B.Sujato renders in 1st and 2nd jhana).

And this is why you just hear deafening silence in response when I talk about the elephant in the room. There are a few other places in the suttas like this. And if you look at the EBT time line:

480 BCE: Birth of the Buddha

400 BCE: Pari-nibbāna of the Buddha

350 BCE: AN 5.50/EA 32.7

237 BCE: KN Ps = Paṭi-sambhidā-magga

200 BCE: Abhidhamma is not EBT

101 BCE(?) KN Pe = Peṭakopadesa

100 BCE KN Mil = Milinda Pañha

1 CE Vimt. = Vimutti-magga

500 CE Vism = Visuddhi-magga

In Theravada, you see from the pali+english audits I posted in SCDD for KN Pe, Vimt., they retain the proper interpretation of V&V in first jhana as thinking & evaluation. Even early Abhidhamma agrees with straightforward V&V = thinking. But then in Vism. in VRJ (redefined jhana), they are forced to deal with the contradiction in V&V, so they get around the problem by creating “access concentration” for pre jhana, and then the redefine, creating a different V&V for first jhana.

Bhante Sujato follows the Vism. V&V definition in first jhana, but with no “access concentration” in EBT, it gets into these incongruent and flat out nonsensical situations like MN 125.

To the people who’ve studied the EBT carefully, this is obvious to them. But for most people, pali is a barrier, and then they just end up trusting their teachers, not having the means to verify their claims. So hopefully these detailed pali/english passage audits I’m publicizing will allow non-pali readers to see the truth.

I believe Bhante Sujato is reasonable, and if enough people voice their concerns, he would consider rendering V&V differently. But if no one speaks up, he’s going to assume everyone is fine with it.

(do 4sp with no kāma-vitakka/thoughts of sensuality)

Tamenaṃ tathāgato uttariṃ vineti: ‘ehi tvaṃ, bhikkhu, kāye kāyānupassī viharāhi, mā ca kāmūpasaṃhitaṃ vitakkaṃ vitakkesi. Vedanāsu … citte … dhammesu dhammānupassī viharāhi, mā ca kāmūpasaṃhitaṃ vitakkaṃ vitakkesī’ti.

Then the Realized One guides them further: ‘Come, mendicant, meditate observing an aspect of the body, but don’t think thoughts connected with sensual pleasures. Meditate observing an aspect of feelings … mind … principles, but don’t think thoughts connected with sensual pleasures.’

(skip first jhāna, go directly to 2nd jhāna, since first jhāna can have thoughts connected to Dhamma)

So vitakkavicārānaṃ vūpasamā ajjhattaṃ sampasādanaṃ cetaso ekodibhāvaṃ avitakkaṃ avicāraṃ samādhijaṃ pītisukhaṃ dutiyaṃ jhānaṃ … tatiyaṃ jhānaṃ … catutthaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati.

As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, they enter and remain in the second absorption … third absorption … fourth absorption.

4👑☸ Cattāri Ariya-saccaṃ 四聖諦

B. Sujato's vitakka and vicāra

Prologue

This is why it matters

🤦Placing the palm and keeping it connected to the face

Ostrich adventures with B. Sujato, B. Analayo, Ajahn Brahm

B. Sujato hops in Ajahn Brahm’s time machine