Vitakka & Vicāra

[AlexBrains92]

Consider it's role here

“Idha, gahapati, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṁ savicāraṁ vivekajaṁ pītisukhaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.So iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘idampi kho paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ. Yaṁ kho pana kiñci abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ tadaniccaṁ nirodhadhamman’ti pajānāti. So tattha ṭhito āsavānaṁ khayaṁ pāpuṇāti.

“Householder, it’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. Then they reflect: ‘Even this first absorption is produced by choices and intentions.’ They understand: ‘But whatever is produced by choices and intentions is impermanent and liable to cessation.’ Abiding in that they attain the ending of defilements."

https://suttacentral.net/mn52/en/sujato ... ript=latin

But this is about 1st jhana.

It goes up to Nothingness, which is the same presentation as the Jhana sutta. Perhaps “directly seeing” and “reflection” are synonyms here.

No, you'd like that. In that sutta there's no reflection involved in 2-3-4th jhana.

[Ceisiwr]

No, you'd like that. In that sutta there's no reflection involved in 2-3-4th jhana.

Then they reflect:
So iti paṭisañcikkhati:

‘Even this attainment of the dimension of infinite space is produced by choices and intentions.’
‘ayampi kho ākāsānañcāyatanasamāpatti abhisaṅkhatā abhisañcetayitā.

They understand: ‘But whatever is produced by choices and intentions is impermanent and liable to cessation.’ …
Yaṁ kho pana kiñci abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ tadaniccaṁ nirodhadhamman’ti pajānāti.
So tattha ṭhito …pe…
anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇāti.

[Ceisiwr]

No, you'd like that. In that sutta there's no reflection involved in 2-3-4th jhana.

fourth absorption …
Puna caparaṁ, gahapati, bhikkhu sukhassa ca pahānā …pe… catutthaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.

So iti paṭisañcikkhati:
‘idampi kho catutthaṁ jhānaṁ abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ …pe…
anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇāti.

[AlexBrains92]

No, you'd like that. In that sutta there's no reflection involved in 2-3-4th jhana.

fourth absorption …
Puna caparaṁ, gahapati, bhikkhu sukhassa ca pahānā …pe… catutthaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.

So iti paṭisañcikkhati:
‘idampi kho catutthaṁ jhānaṁ abhisaṅkhataṁ abhisañcetayitaṁ …pe…
anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ anupāpuṇāti.

Mhm, this is strange...
Anyway, let's say you're right... last question: do you agree that reflection is an intentional activity?

[nirodh27]

The Pāli text then strongly implies that "vitakka" in vitakka-vicāra should be viewed more as intentions rather than normal discursive thoughts. However, if someone wishes to reject the sutta then we also have the parallel to look at.

MN125 is a sutta that is composed of various other sources (I've spent a month on that and the parallel 2 years ago, I would have to find my notes) and there are mistakes like there are in MN19. If I remember well it skips to second Jhana, while the agama parallel goes to first jhana. In MN19 and MA102 the thing is actually inverted with the agamas going directly to second jhana, so it seems like a mexican standoff (if there were no tons of other arguments that supports second jhana = end of discursive thought ofc).

But there's nothing to reject here. Intentions will always be there in every case. The point is that the Elephant have intentions (here sankappa is used) or "thought without verbalization" we could even say, while the monk, being a human and humans usually verbalize in thoughts, they do vitakka which is more strongly linked to verbalization than sankappa (this I think is pacific due to the Vitakkasanthana sutta). This distinction can be precisely because people tend to have trains of thoughts about their laylife, while elephants have "only" images, memories and intentions.

So I agree with you when you say:

Also, on vitakka here, it doesn't establish if these thoughts are mental verbal trains of thoughts.

MA125 not a place in which you can establish things in one way or another. You should demonstrate that "If they are synonymous with each other then "vitakkaṁ vitakkesi" would mean "do not think an intentional thought directed to sensual pleasures". But that they are synonimous in a sense that it is different than the one I've pointed out to Alex is yet to be demonstrated. Thinking about it, we have seen that Vitakka is used for a Monk, while Sankappa is used for an elephant. This suggests that there's a distinction. Elephants doesn't vitakka in the suttas as far as we know, while Monks do and they usually vicara about that vitakka as well.

[jankala]

To conclude then, based on this sutta and it's parallel it cannot be established that "vitakka" in the Jhāna formular means normal verbal thinking (for those who think verbally) akin to reading a book. A limitation to my argument is my inability to examine the Chinese, to see if "thoughts with the householder life" is a translation of "vitakka"

Honestly I don't see a problem with this sutta at all given our understanding of oral transmission and what the texts, on their own terms, define as sati, jhāna, vitakka/vicara, etc.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mettā

[frank k]

MN125 is a sutta that is composed of various other sources (I've spent a month on that and the parallel 2 years ago, I would have to find my notes) and there are mistakes like there are in MN19. If I remember well it skips to second Jhana, while the agama parallel goes to first jhana. In MN19 and MA102 the thing is actually inverted with the agamas going directly to second jhana, so it seems like a mexican standoff (if there were no tons of other arguments that supports second jhana = end of discursive thought ofc).

It's not a mexican standoff for many reasons.
First of all, there's MN 78, which shows that kusala sankappa doesn't cease until second jhāna, which means it is active in the first jhāna.
Second, both MN 125, and the agama parallel, both have two distinct stages of satipatthana. The first satipatthana is not jhana, the second satipatthana descirbed right after that IS first jhāna.
The Agama then shows an abbreviated all four jhana ellision.
But explicitly stating first jhana doesn't mean it can't be equivalent to that second satipatthana section.
However, explicitly omitting first jhana is explicitly and unequivocally equating it to that prior satipatthana clause.
Now even if you still have doubts, why the heck would there be a second satipatthana clause right after the first, if it wasn't going tell you something about first jhāna?

The other error you're making with this 'mexican standoff', is you should be judging the group of V&V related suttas from each school on their own.
That is, you look at MN 19, MN 20, MN 78, MN 125 as a group and see their coherence, and then look at the same group from the agama and evaluate their meaning as a group.

The key factor, is if you state first jhana, that doesn't make it "not satipatthana". But if you don't state first jhana, then it's explicilty saying the prior section IS talking about first jhāna.
So each school, though they choose a different sutta, in their group of vitakka themed suttas EXPLICITLY AND INTENTIONALLY omit first jhāna to make a point that either satipatthana or seven awakening factors described prior to second jhana is talking about first jhāna.
And the fact that 3rd and 4th jhana both explicilty contain sati and sampajano withn their formula,
makes it clear that satipatthana, right remembeirng, right effort, were active through all 4 jhanaas even though they're not explicitly stated in first two jhanas.

[frank k]

vitakka and vicara in first jhana, just as they are anywhere else, in an oral tradition, is linguistic verbal thoughts mental talk.

Here is a concrete example.

In first jhāna, you can have the verbal linguistic thought, "do I have samādhi?"

in second jhāna, you can have the nonverbal knowing without mentally saying, "I have samadhi".
That's the difference.

Here's another easy concrete example.

You know instantly if you are 5 years old or not 5 years old. You don't have to mentally talk it out.
First jhāna would be, "am I 5 years old, no."
second jhāna would be nonverbal knowing (pajānati, what sampajāno does in satipaṭṭhāna and jhāna), without mentally saying to yourself "no I am not 5 years old."

Other examples, easy to do, even for people without jhāna.
You can nonverbally lucidly discern whether this moment you have greed or hatred.
You can lucidly discern all of that subverbally, without mental talk, in all 4 jhānas.

The Buddha has vocabulary that he uses for nonverbal knowing and lucid discerning. The most common being paying attention (manasi karoti) to perceptions, he also talks about samādhi nimitta which could be vitakka (linguistc verbal thought), or subverbal perceptions.
The Buddha also occasionally uses words like 'vitakka sankhara" and "mano sankhara" to describe subverbal mental processing that doesn't involve linguistic mental talk.
The most common subverbal terms, are of course citta sankhara, which are perceptions and sensations (sañña and vedana).

Even if you do vism. "jhāna", you are using subverbal mental processing, such as evaluating (vicāra!) whether the visual nimtta is bright or dim, if the shape is even or spiky, etc.
You can even use the Buddha's vitakka (verbal thought) while doing vism "jhāna" , mentally talking to yourself, "wow that nimitta is sure bright and clear, the edges are a little bit fuzzy though." without cause pīti and sukha to drop away.
The Buddha doesn't call that "access concentration", he just calls it 'four jhānas'.

There are many suttas, here's just one of them making it clear the oral tradition basic ideas of hearing, memorizing, recollecting, mentally saying it in your mind, and saying it out loud, in a four jhānas context.
https://lucid24.org/an/an05/an05-0026/index.html

[Ceisiwr]

…

What about people who think in terms of images?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_thinking

Did the Buddha exclude a lot of people here? Do said people just enter the 2nd Jhana? Both are doubtful.

[jankala]

Also, I would like to contribute some more suttas to this to consider:

SN 40.1 gives an interesting reflection from Ven. Mahā Mogallāna:

SN 40.1

“Just now, reverends, as I was in private retreat this thought came to mind:
“Idha mayhaṁ, āvuso, rahogatassa paṭisallīnassa evaṁ cetaso parivitakko udapādi:
‘They speak of this thing called the “first absorption”.
What is the first absorption?’
It occurred to me:
Tassa mayhaṁ, āvuso, etadahosi:
‘It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, with thinking (savitakka) and pondering (savicāra). ...
And so I was entering and remaining in the first absorption.

He was thinking about first jhāna, and entered first jhāna after sensual perceptions and things were stilled.
I'd also wonder: "Why is second jhāna called 'noble silence' if first jhāna has a silent mind without discursive thought?" I'm not sure how people logically reconcile this without just ignoring logic itself.

The mind is silent when even it is not talking mentally, i.e. the verbal preparation vacīsankhara is stilled. A mind with mindfulness and awareness and attention on something is already silent and is no different from the properties of the mind in 3rd and 4th jhāna, but even clearer.

I'd also call to attention SN 41.8, where a Nigantha doesn't believe that there could be a state of mind without thinking and pondering / directed thought and evaluation (vitakka vicāra).
If these terms had a special meaning in the Buddhist context of jhāna, why would this conversation occur between another ascetic and a Buddhist without confusion? Just a straightforward question in every day parlance about "vitakka vicara," i.e. thinking and pondering.

Of course one could argue that they would have understood that it didn't really mean vitakka and vicara as they used it every single day of their lives in the normal, never-defined-otherwise sense, but we could also argue that the Buddha taught a soul-theory as some Pali scholars have done. It would make much more sense that someone, who is of wrong view and another sect, would be portrayed as not comprehending a silent mind without any thoughts and who has no access to deeper states of samādhi where mindfulness is more purified than first jhāna, to me at least.

AN 3.101 is sometimes mentioned as evidence that V&V, even wholesome dhammavitakka, must be stilled for jhāna. But that sutta says that once the dhammavitakka are stilled, the mind is capable of doing everything that is said when the mind is in fourth jhāna. Psychic powers, immaterial spheres, etc etc. None of that is possible from the 1st jhāna, and so I really don't see, again, how anyone who is not reflecting their views onto the pages is going to come to the same conclusion.

All of this said, I do think there is middle ground. Like I mentioned in my last reply, these thoughts are not "normal everyday discursive thinking", but that doesn't mean that they aren't still thoughts. They are just extremely still, focused, quiet, and collected. They are minimal, undistracting, wholesome, not at all related to a scattered or sensual mind, including restlessness. In a way they would not seem to be the same as everyday verbal thoughts, but from another angle they would be identical and we all experience them everyday. It's just a less restless and scattered form of thinking: the tiny, focused thoughts and mental exploring we do when "in the zone," focused, with a single goal in mind. The mind just kind of works on silent autopilot and deepens it's seclusion until everything is stilled for complete noble silence.

It may also be good to recall that early satipatthana practice involves investigating 31 anatomical parts, breaking up the body into elements, and reflecting on decomposition. I'm not sure how one does this without subtle forms of thinking and exploring of the topics at hand, but again in a subtle way. The mind is doing this all the time and we don't notice it I think.

Just my "thoughts" haha.
Mettā

[frank k]

Here's an analogy of the difference between Buddhism during the Buddha's time, and Buddhism 1000 years later circa Vism, and 2500 years circa Ajahn Brahm.
Vism. and Ajahn Brahm redefinition of jhāna, is like two young hormonally charged teenagers going out on a date.
The girl would be like the Buddha using consistent dictionary definition of what "yes" and "no" means.
The boy would have his own dictionary definition of "yes" and "no" that conveniently agrees with what he wants.

[Ceisiwr]

Here's an analogy of the difference between Buddhism during the Buddha's time, and Buddhism 1000 years later circa Vism, and 2500 years circa Ajahn Brahm.
Vism. and Ajahn Brahm redefinition of jhāna, is like two young hormonally charged teenagers going out on a date.
The girl would be like the Buddha using consistent dictionary definition of what "yes" and "no" means.
The boy would have his own dictionary definition of "yes" and "no" that conveniently agrees with what he wants.

Back to comparing venerables who disagree with you to sex offenders again I see.

[nirodh27]

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.

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've highlighted some parts as quote, but all the post is Excellent. Thank you.

[frank k]

...I'd also call to attention SN 41.8, where a Nigantha doesn't believe that there could be a state of mind without thinking and pondering / directed thought and evaluation (vitakka vicāra).
If these terms had a special meaning in the Buddhist context of jhāna, why would this conversation occur between another ascetic and a Buddhist without confusion? Just a straightforward question in every day parlance about "vitakka vicara," i.e. thinking and pondering.

You can actually prove, based on SN 41.8, that vitakka and vicāra must be the same lingustc verbal mental talk as a fundamental component of the oral tradition.

link to sutta, and link to its agama parallel
https://lucid24.org/sn/sn41/sn41-v01/index.html#s8

What most people fail to notice, is that since Nigantha is saying second jhana (samādhi without V&V) is not possible,
he's saying that first jhāna is possible (with V&V).
Very likely, he and his students could do first jhāna.
And if they couldn't at least he doesn't find it unreasonable to have that kind of samādhi (Buddha's first jhāna).
So what first jhāna with what kind of V&V (vitakka and vicāra) is he doing then?
Did Sujato use a time machine to go back and inform Nigantha the "special" redefined V&V of "placing the mind and keeping it connected"?

That can't be, because if NIgantha could do that kind of frozen disembodied stupor of Vism. and Ajahn Brahm redefinition of jhāna,
then he wouldn't be saying second jhana is impossible.
Either you can do Vism. corrupted jhana, all four of them, or you can't.
If you think the 2nd Vism. jhana is impossible, then you think all 4 of them are impossible.
∴ If you think just 2nd Vism. jhana is impossible, but first jhana is possible, then first jhana V&V is not what Vism., Brahm, Sujato claims it is.

So we've proven the Vism. redefinition of V&V as "placing the mind and keeping it connected" are definitely wrong.
If it's not that, and no other special definition of V&V is provided by the Buddha in SN 41.8, then we can conclude V&V means the same as it does everywhere else.

V&V: vitakka & vicāra
Vitakka = directed thought.
Vicāra = the evaluation of that very same directed thought, not a separate train of thought (SN 46.3).
Vicāra explores, inspects, discriminates, evaluates, ponders, scrutinizes, discerns, considers the very same thought initially fixed upon by vitakka.
Vitakka decides on a topic, then gives it to vicara to analyze it further, KN Pe 7.72.
V&V are speech vocalization co-activities, MN 44. You need to think and evaluate with V&V before coherent speech can be vocalized.


V&V in 1st Jhāna
vitakka & vicāra in 1st Jhāna is intrinsically the same in 1st jhāna as it is outside of it, with 2 conditions.
1. The content of those thoughts, unlike ordinary V&V, must be kusala (skillful) related to Dharma (AN 6.73, AN 6.74, AN 6.75).
1b. The content of the Dhamma vitakka in first jhāna, often is just the meditator mentally reciting the oral instructions of the Dhamma meditation topic they're about to do (SN 46.3). For example, in 31asb‍ body parts, even in non EBT following canonical Abhidhamma and Abhidhamma commentary such as Vimt., one mentally recites the body parts (kesa, loma, ...) while in first jhāna.
2. The thinking is attenuated. The intensity and frequency of vitakka is reduced to the point where it would not tire the body and/or block kāya-passaddhi (bodily pacification), pīti & sukha (rapture and pleasure) (MN 19).
First jhāna j1 is vocal silence, SN 36.11, where speech ceases, but thoughts connected to Dhamma continue (MN 19, MN 786.2.0, MN 1253.10.3, AN 8.30).
Second jhāna j2 is noble silence, , where V&V ceases, S&S takes over.
In third jhāna j3, S&S does vipassana (AN 4.41, AN 9.36, MN 111), a deeper version of first jhāna doing vipassana using V&V.
S&S and V&V correspond to sati and Dharma-vicaya of 7sb, SN 46.3.
Sammā-saṅkappo 2 (right-resolve) precedes vitakka (thinking), but in most contexts involving jhāna you can treat them as equivalent (MN 117, MN 78).
Even in Vism. and Abhidhamma V&V still means mental recitation of speech. After exiting 2nd jhāna, one mentally chants, 'earth [kasina], earth', to get into third jhāna.

[Ceisiwr]

But there's nothing to reject here. Intentions will always be there in every case. The point is that the Elephant have intentions (here sankappa is used) or "thought without verbalization" we could even say, while the monk, being a human and humans usually verbalize in thoughts, they do vitakka which is more strongly linked to verbalization than sankappa (this I think is pacific due to the Vitakkasanthana sutta). This distinction can be precisely because people tend to have trains of thoughts about their laylife, while elephants have "only" images, memories and intentions.

You still seem stuck on the idea that everyone thinks in terms of "The elephant is grey" when they think of a grey elephant. You might think your thoughts via words, but not everyone does. Some people think wholly in terms of verbal thoughts. Others it's a mix of both, and for others too it's pure imagery.