Of course they don't. They are accompanied by piti-sukha.DooDoot wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 9:02 pmvitakka-vicara in the 1st jhana do not refer to ordinary thoughts. MN 19 should make this clear:
And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with renunciation arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with renunciation has arisen in me; and that leads neither to my own affliction, nor to the affliction of others, nor to the affliction of both. It fosters discernment, promotes lack of vexation, & leads to Unbinding. If I were to think & ponder in line with that even for a night... even for a day... even for a day & night, I do not envision any danger that would come from it, except that thinking & pondering a long time would tire the body. When the body is tired, the mind is disturbed; and a disturbed mind is far from concentration.' So I steadied my mind right within, settled, unified & concentrated it. Why is that? So that my mind would not be disturbed.
Unflagging persistence was aroused in me, and unmuddled mindfulness established. My body was calm & unaroused, my mind concentrated & single. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.
Let's get this straight once and for all:
Where are the literal definitions (in Pali)between:
& Sanna ?
Vaca appears to be actual spoken word, while vitakka-vicara covers both directed thought and attention and discursive thought, internal dialogue, etc.
Further, sanna appears to be perception, I.e. "this is impermanent, this is dukkha, this is blue, red, etc. I.e. the interpretation of a phenomenon as something. The point I'm trying to make is that vitakka-vicara is often taken to be mental activity when in reality it is the motive and verbal component of that. Sanna, is the interpretive component of the mind and is subverbal, though in english, we might consider this under the umbrella of "thought", though vitakka-vicara does not seem to include sanna under its own umbrella.
I think the main delineation of interest is whether vitakka-vicara is non-verbal motivic activity only rather than motivic and verbal activity as it's rather consistently defined as elsewhere in the canon. If it's both motivic and verbal, as it appears to be, then what reason do we have that it's only motivic and is non-verbal as a jhana factor?
Furthermore, MN19 does not in fact provide conclusive evidence that vitakka-vicara is non-verbal as a jhana factor, because of the following interpretation:
1. The thinking imbued with renunciation, etc. is a jhana factor if and only if it's accompanied by rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.
2. The passage "I do not envision any danger that would come from it, except that thinking & pondering a long time would tire the body. When the body is tired, the mind is disturbed; and a disturbed mind is far from concentration.' So I steadied my mind right within, settled, unified, & concentrated it. Why is that? So that my mind would not be disturbed." implies either the arising of piti-sukha as a jhana factor, or the entrance into the second jhana if piti-sukha was present, or (more likely) both, and the subsequent settling of the mind into the third, fourth etc.
3. The passages explaining vitakka imbued with renunciation, etc. are notably devoid of "accompanied by piti-sukha". If they were accompanied by piti-sukha, they would be jhana factors. The transition then between access or whatever you want to call it and the first jhana is then not the transition between verbal and non-verbal vitakka-vicara, but rather the arising of the concomitant jhana factors.
You may bring up suttas which state that speech has ceased upon attainment of the first jhana. If you can prove to me that vaca in this case means verbal thinking (which I think is a long shot) I will renounce my views on this matter.