I take it then you accept the commentarial explanation?
“And what, bhikkhus, is right intention that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The thinking, thought, intention, mental absorption, mental fixity, directing of mind, verbal formation in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path: this is right intention that is noble…a factor of the path." - MN 117
I agree. We shouldn't discard things because we don't agree with them. We should draw conclusions based on what is available. There is no contradiction between that and highlighting potential errors in the texts. As robust as the oral tradition was, it wasn't perfect. MN 125, as it reads, is contradictory in light of the other texts in which it is contextualised.It makes perfect sense that people would think things are 'problems,' 'don't make sense,' or fit their ideas exactly because they read the suttas with an idea of what the text should say and then when it doesn't match that, it's obviously an error in the sutta or a mix-up and confusion that we should just set aside and keep believing as we do.
I'm not saying you do or are doing this, but just a general pattern that I tend to see: people read suttas and the their eyes and views reflect on the text, rather than the text reflecting onto their views. It's almost like religious texts turn into a mirror where whoever reads it ends up looking at their own mental reflection.
I wouldn't say you tie down the hindrances, but generally I agree with this.Jhānas and samādhi are the culmination of the right view, right sankappa, right effort, and right mindfulness, with speech action and livelihood already purified beforehand. Sati leads to samādhi, and samādhi is simply an extremely clarified and hindrance-free establishment of mindfulness.
You practice satipatthana and tie down the hindrances and household intentions/thoughts/inclinations, and eventually satipatthana bleeds those away, and you can enter first jhāna—all unwholesome and coarse forms of thinking, especially sensual thinking and that related to the hindrances is completely stilled.
This doesn't contradict the vipassana way of meditation, as far as I can see.Then we are left with wholesome intentions and thoughts. The mind still may be inclining itself to themes related to the satipatthana, let's say the body. It may still be reflecting on the body, on it's seclusion from hindrances, examining the extent of the body and things. Even that then can be stilled and one enters the second jhāna just as normal. There's no problem or contradiction here—sometimes suttas use formulas in places that are more than obviously the repetition of a formula for recitation, and that by no means dismisses the core content. The logical leap is simply nonsensical—it only dismisses the regular formulaic insertion in an expected place.
I think you are misunderstanding this sutta.In fact, this was even mention in the suttas. People are explicitly warned not to argue about the Dhamma in such a way:
"You said X first, it should be Y. You said Y first, it should be X." Blah blah. Irrelevant to the actual content of the suttas.
It doesn't follow that because V&V are the vacīsankhara that they are inherently verbal. Furthermore, if that could be established, how then do they work for people who do not think in words?Then, we're left with the question you brought up: are V&V in the jhānic context identical to everyday discursive thinking with long verbal thoughts and things?
Well, let me remind us that vitakka and vicara are defined as the vacīsankhara. They are inherently verbal. We also see all over the suttas and probably even more so in the Chinese Āgamas talk of how ānāpānasati calms distracting vitakka/vicara, and there's even a parallel where the 16 steps include calming the vacīsankhara.
Seclusion is both bodily and mental. The seclusion from the kāmā is seclusion from the external sensual pleasures. Seclusion from unwholesome states is seclusion from the hindrances, of which one is sensual desire for things. I would agree that it is not normal everyday thinking.On the other hand though, we have to remember that the whole point and characteristic of a jhāna is that it is seclusion from the sensual domain. It is seclusion from all unwholesome mind states and thoughts. Unity of mind, purity of mindfulness. So in that sense, of course it isn't just everyday discursive thinking. Most daily discursive thinking is almost all related to planning for things in the sensual domain, doing X, getting Y, consuming Z, distracting oneself, getting lost in thought, daydreams, conversations, reasoning and study, etc. None of that is present in the jhāna, so to then come to the conclusion that "welp V&V is either everyday discursive thinking or its something else entirely" are both mistaken.
Almost sounds like you are saying V&V is directed and sustained thought. In the commentarial tradition vitakka is the initial investigation, whilst vicāra is sustained investigation. In purely samatha exercises it is applied and sustained thought to one object. In vipassana meditation it is applied and sustained investigation into many different objects, analysing them in terms of impermanence etc. I wonder how close you are to orthodoxy here? So far your ideas are quite close to how V&V is taught in Theravāda. Could you expand on why you think they are at odds, if it all?It is vitakka and vicara. Those are the words used. But it isn't everyday discursive planning and sensual distraction or irrelevant thinking. It's a subtle, directed, mindful, relevant form of directing the mind to think and examine the topic of satipatthana practice, the seclusion from sensuality, etc. in a quiet, gentle manner.
I appreciate the accommodating attitude and attempt at reconciliation. Far more commendable than some other posters here.This approach to understanding also makes sense of both parallels. Inserting the first jhāna in there is all too predictable and easy: "Ope, not the standard formula that shows up thousands of times, must be an error; let's add the first jhāna back" when originally it wasn't there. The fact that it's missing in the Pali is much more indicative to me of something authentic. The 4 jhāna formula is so common and inserted over and over again.
But even if the 1st jhāna were originally there, it still doesn't conflict in any way with the understanding of vitakka and vicara. It simply refers to all the unwholesome thoughts more specifically being stilled, perhaps compensating for the recitation-formula insertion you pointed out where the household thoughts are repeated. Even still, there can be subtle forms of wholesome direction and reflection in the mind that are going on only in relation to the satipatthana.
I think a good simile or similar phenomenon would be the thinking that goes on when the mind is "in the zone." Say one is creating or drawing for instance, completely absorbed in the task and not distracted or even perceiving external sounds and things. This is a form of samādhi, it just isn't sammā samādhi or jhāna necessarily. But there, afterwards, we may ask someone: "we're you thinking verbally?" On the one hand, yes, they were. The mind was making some subtle decisions and reflection while working. But on the other hand, it would almost feel like there wasn't any thinking when reflecting back on it from a more normal state, because everything was so directed, calm, silent, collected, etc. The mind wasn't just yapping away, it was very collected in the specific thoughts and reflections it was partaking in almost without even noticing.