In the context of first jhāna, vitakka does not refer to conceptual thought would also have been the understanding of the translator(s) of the Madhyama-āgama, as they instead speak of "awareness", a rendering found also in other Āgama discourses. For example, MĀ 102 at T I 589c9 uses 覺 in the context of jhāna but in the same line 念 to refer to "thoughts", both occurrences being parallels to the use of vitakka in MN 19 at MN I 116,35 and 117,7.
The use of different renderings does convey the impression that the translator(s) were aware of the difference between these two types of vitakka and endeavoured to render them in such a way that they would not be confused with each other. Also, the translators seem to express their understanding of its practical implications. This would fit with an interpretation of the jhāna factor vitakka as conveying the idea of an application of the mind, in the sense of a directing of the mind that can take place in rather subtle ways.
Credit: Ven. Anālayo
First Jhāna Vitakka in Early Buddhism
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: First Jhāna Vitakka in Early Buddhism
Hi Stillness
the Chinese doesn't show properly could you upload a image file of the characters? (just below submit button there is an attachments tab).
Kind Regards
Cittasanto
the Chinese doesn't show properly could you upload a image file of the characters? (just below submit button there is an attachments tab).
Kind Regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6490
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
- Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun
Re: First Jhāna Vitakka in Early Buddhism
They should display if you set your browser to Unicode-8 encoding and your font settings to a Unicode font that includes Chinese characters.
Anyhow, they are...
Anyhow, they are...
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.
“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.
“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: First Jhāna Vitakka in Early Buddhism
Thanks Bhante,Dhammanando wrote:They should display if you set your browser to Unicode-8 encoding and your font settings to a Unicode font that includes Chinese characters.
Anyhow, they are...
Got it sorted
Kind Regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill