MA 101 and MA 102, the agama parallels for MN 19 and MN 20 are prime examples of B. Analayo's fraudulent translation of

[frank k]

MA 101 and MA 102, the agama parallels for MN 19 and MN 20 are prime examples of B. Analayo's fraudulent translation of vitakka
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... s-for.html
excerpt:
MA 101 T 26.101 增上心 T i 588a03 MN 20
MA 102 T 26.102 念 T i 589a11 MN 19



Let's look at MA 102 first

MA 102 念
MA 102 念
Thoughts (vitakka)
(simile of cowherd keeping cows in line with stick)
(Thinking inclines mind in a direction)
(This is either first jhana, or close to it right here)
(Allow myself thoughts about Dharma)
(simile of cowherd sitting with peaceful thought of just, “cow”)
(Skip to STED Second Jhana because Dhamma Vitakka above is first jhana!)
(3rd jhana)
(4th jhana)
(purified, imperturbable 4th jhana directed to realize nirvana)
(simile of deer hunter)

[simsapa]

Fraudulent? That's quite a claim.

[dharmacorps]

You must know a lot about B. Analayo's inner motivations and thoughts to make such an otherwise bombastic and vexatious claim.

[rhinoceroshorn]

Maybe Venerable Analayo just wasn't so cohesive in his translations.
Contemplation can fit both as vitakka and contemplation as in satipaṭṭhānas depending how you interpret the context.


Edit

I don't know much about him, but I know many people seem to hide the fact that the Buddha clearly described the first jhāna as containing thought in order to fit the sutta jhānas with the commentarial jhānas.

[frank k]

Fraudulent? That's quite a claim.

Not one that I make lightly.
If you check the related recent articles in the blog, there's a long audit trail I've done over many years, and backed with copious detailed evidence.

[simsapa]

The key in all definitions of fraud is the intent. I very much doubt the venerable intended to deceive others by translating this text. If you don't agree with his translation choices, that's up to you.

[frank k]

The key in all definitions of fraud is the intent. I very much doubt the venerable intended to deceive others by translating this text. If you don't agree with his translation choices, that's up to you.

Why not examine the audit trail and then weigh in with an opinion?
You may decide I'm not exaggerating at all, perhaps even being understated in just calling it fraud.
I concede your point on the label of fraud in this respect: one without accurate psychic powers can't ascertain another's intent,
and IMO there's no fraud on his part in terms of seeking financial gain, but who knows what he's willing to do for the gain of reputation and status.

But in the essential aspect of fraud, there is a clearly documented audit trail showing deception, intellectual dishonesty, fallacious reasoning, circular logic, cherry picking, equivalence fallacy, and lots of ostrich strategy of deliberately ignoring important suttas that contradict their erroneous thesis, ducking detailed legitimate challenges to their thesis (not just from me). If that's not fraud, please suggest a better word. I'm open to suggestions.

[dharmacorps]

Audit? seriously.. Do you work for the IRS or just an independent prosecutor?

[frank k]

Audit? seriously.. Do you work for the IRS or just an independent prosecutor?

Seriously.
And if you care about preserving genuine Dharma, you should be serious and investigate the evidence yourself, rather than do what most people do and default to blindly believing whatever their teacher says, or whatever the most popular interpretation happens to be.

[dharmacorps]

Seriously.
And if you care about preserving genuine Dharma, you should be serious and investigate the evidence yourself, rather than do what most people do and default to blindly believing whatever their teacher says, or whatever the most popular interpretation happens to be.

Naturally your mind reading abilities extend to me as well.

[frank k]

To be clear:
1. I'm not claiming mind reading powers,
2. I'm not guessing or trying to read your mind
3. I didn't accuse you of being a blind faith follower, although re-reading my comment I can see how it was taken that way. I apologize if that was the case.

What I am saying, is that before people jump to conclusions and start attacking me for criticizing B. Analayo, you really should actually review the evidence and think and decide for yourself if the evidence has merit. If you find a flaw in the reasoning, point it out.

Naturally your mind reading abilities extend to me as well.

[dharmacorps]

What I am saying, is that before people jump to conclusions and start attacking me for criticizing B. Analayo, you really should actually review the evidence and think and decide for yourself if the evidence has merit. If you find a flaw in the reasoning, point it out.

That I can see, nobody is attacking you for criticizing Analayo. They are criticizing you, and your style of speech.

What I am trying to point out is that the manner you present these topics is so bombastic (calling others fraudulent, etc) that it doesn't invite much serious discussion (which from what you say, is your goal). Whoever the current object of disdain is doesn't really matter (Analayo or other monks, academics, whoever).

In other words, if you kept the ad-hominem attacks to yourself, people may take you more seriously and therefore you may be more likely to get the involvement in the academic/intellectual analysis you say you desire. Otherwise people will probably just tune it out at a minimum or scoff at the thread titles and move on at most.

[Ceisiwr]

What I am saying, is that before people jump to conclusions and start attacking me for criticizing B. Analayo, you really should actually review the evidence and think and decide for yourself if the evidence has merit. If you find a flaw in the reasoning, point it out.

That I can see, nobody is attacking you for criticizing Analayo. They are criticizing you, and your style of speech.

What I am trying to point out is that the manner you present these topics is so bombastic (calling others fraudulent, etc) that it doesn't invite much serious discussion (which from what you say, is your goal). Whoever the current object of disdain is doesn't really matter (Analayo or other monks, academics, whoever).

In other words, if you kept the ad-hominem attacks to yourself, people may take you more seriously and therefore you may be more likely to get the involvement in the academic/intellectual analysis you say you desire. Otherwise people will probably just tune it out at a minimum or scoff at the thread titles and move on at most.

It’s no use having a good idea. You also need to sell it. In other words, good marketing and PR.

[SDC]

What I am saying, is that before people jump to conclusions and start attacking me for criticizing B. Analayo, you really should actually review the evidence and think and decide for yourself if the evidence has merit. If you find a flaw in the reasoning, point it out.

That I can see, nobody is attacking you for criticizing Analayo. They are criticizing you, and your style of speech.

What I am trying to point out is that the manner you present these topics is so bombastic (calling others fraudulent, etc) that it doesn't invite much serious discussion (which from what you say, is your goal). Whoever the current object of disdain is doesn't really matter (Analayo or other monks, academics, whoever).

In other words, if you kept the ad-hominem attacks to yourself, people may take you more seriously and therefore you may be more likely to get the involvement in the academic/intellectual analysis you say you desire. Otherwise people will probably just tune it out at a minimum or scoff at the thread titles and move on at most.

This is excellent advice.

[frank k]

What I am saying, is that before people jump to conclusions and start attacking me for criticizing B. Analayo, you really should actually review the evidence and think and decide for yourself if the evidence has merit. If you find a flaw in the reasoning, point it out.

That I can see, nobody is attacking you for criticizing Analayo. They are criticizing you, and your style of speech.

What I am trying to point out is that the manner you present these topics is so bombastic (calling others fraudulent, etc) that it doesn't invite much serious discussion (which from what you say, is your goal). Whoever the current object of disdain is doesn't really matter (Analayo or other monks, academics, whoever).

In other words, if you kept the ad-hominem attacks to yourself, people may take you more seriously and therefore you may be more likely to get the involvement in the academic/intellectual analysis you say you desire. Otherwise people will probably just tune it out at a minimum or scoff at the thread titles and move on at most.

You make good points, and I agree that people get turned off by strong critical language, and have a tendency to dismiss the writer as "bombastic and using simply using adhominem."

But here's the problem.

When you're dealing with subtle errors, or gross errors that are commonly accepted as true and difficult to correct, polite criticism tends to be ignored because of people's cognitive biases filter out new evidence that counters a very strongly ingrained commonly accepted truth.

There are others who point out the same errors in B. Analayo and B. Sujato's errors in mild, understated language, and I have used much milder language in the beginning, and the result is people just ignore or don't even read it. This doesn't invalidate your point, which I agree with in general, but there comes a point where I decided I need to use language commensurate with the offense just so it draws attention.

Check the meaning for "bombastic" and "ad hominem." My posts may appear to have that flavor, but they are not.
It's only ad hominem if I'm attacking their character without substantiating the allegations with reasons and evidence.
I've provided the most detailed audits on vitakka and vicara ever published, incontrovertible evidence, english lined up side by side with the source language, usually with high lighted portions containing the error, so it literally takes just a few seconds to review the article to check whether the allegations even SEEM to have merit.

All of my accusations are carefully researched, over 10 years, and I've ran them by experts in the field.
Why do you think B. Analayo and B. Sujato have not responded to my accusations (as well as all of those from others who used mild language)? Because they have no evidence to to back it up, so they just rely on their good reputations and hope their devoted followers accept their word over the accusers who makes claims that are contrary to popular (but wrong) ideas about jhana.

If I call Bill Cosby a criminal rapist monster (he's a beloved actor who has also done many charitable and laudable deeds for his community, and who by all objective measures has many outstanding aspects in character), it appears to be "bombastic and ad hominem."

It's not ad hominem. Evidence from scores of women who claimed he drugged and date raped them over decades, and a conviction by the justice system prove it is not.

And calling him "criminal rapist monster" may APPEAR to be 'bombastic', but it's not.
Bombastic = high-sounding but with little meaning; inflated. example: "bombastic rhetoric".

So what happened with the first wave of individuals who publicly accused Bill Cosby?
They were dismissed as bombastic ad hominem lobbing fame seeking blackmailers looking for a pay day suing the Saintly Bill Cosby.

Are you guys familiar with Enron, Bernie Madoff, Wirecard?

All had seemingly unassailable credibility and reputation, so because of that credibility, people for a long time ignored the auditors who exposed the crimes who'd been laying out the evidence and pointing out all the very suspicious red flags that were actually very obvious, blatant, and clear as clear can be for anyone with eyes and would just look at the evidence and review it.

If you remember Bill Cosby at the height of his popularity, and the words "criminal rapist monster", that SEEMS to be bombastic and ad hominem, but the evidence has shown it is not.