This is a quote from the book "Everything Is Teaching Us", a collection of teachings of Ajahn Chah. I'm very curious what you guys think of his definition of vitakka and vicāra:


And he goes on:



To me this sounds like he does not necessarily relate initial and sustained thinking to the usual notion of initial and sustained application of awareness to the meditation object (here the breath) but primarily to every thought. It seems like he merges awareness of the breath with the investigation and moment to moment awareness of (wholesome) thoughts and everything that comes up.

Am I mistaken here? What's your oppinion and experience?

howdy,
i agree with you. it is an unfortunate translation.

vitakka is initial contact with an object and vicara is bearing the signs of that object in mind.

the first contact sorts out the particularizing signs of an object and via perception compares it to already stored 'templates'.  that is vitakka

vicara is bearing those signs in mind and applying energy and sati or mindfulness to hold those signs, or that object, in mind as continuously as possible.  this becomes easier with practice and requires less energy.  by refining attention to the positive signs and associated sensations we facilitate a deepening appreciation of the object and become absorbed.

Thanks, Tom, for clearing that up.

Ajahn Chah's definition reminded of something I experience in my own meditation: Trying to fix my mind to much on the meditation object often leads nowhere, whereas letting certain thoughts play themselves out often leads to more tranquility and deeper meditation once I come back to the meditation object. I'm not yet sure what to make out of it but I will certainly investigate further.

The words vitakka & vicarra have a generic meaning & a jhanic meaning, which is different. 

In the general meaning, vitakka simply means 'thought', such as in 

Vitakkasanthana Sutta: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html

Regards 

At this link there is a book which explains the different contexts of usage for these words: 

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/anapanasati.pdf  page 111-112 and page 203 to 204 

Regards 

Here's yet another perspective, along similar lines -- Ven. Sujato's blog essay "Why vitakka doesn’t mean ‘thinking’ in jhana":

https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/why-vitakka-doesnt-mean-thinking-in-jhana/

Also interesting the Q/A discussion following the essay, in which several other scholars chip-in.

excellent link chris. 
i noticed some references to shankman's book on jhana in the comments.  i am not a fan of his translation of vitakka / vicara.  on the other hand, i rely so heavily on bikku bodhi's translations that calling his scholarship into doubt really goes against my grain.  oh no!

again, great respect for YOUR scholarship

What I find interesting about this is that all these people look like credible teachers and experienced meditators to me. So either

a) my notion is wrong to begin with
b) all of them are right
c) only one or a few of them are right and the others are "succesful" meditators in spite of their wrong translation and application

So what it really boils down to: Which of the translations and applications make meditation work?

Andreas:


Haha!  I like it.



Good question, especially if you added the phrase "for me" at the end.  What is your direct experience, Andreas?

Well, my experience is that vitakka and vicara in the sense of initial and sustained thought of the meditation object isn't reliable in producing consistent outcomes (sorry for a lack of a better expression). For me focussing on that usually leads to frustration. My general feeling is that if and when my meditation gets deeper it is in spite of this. So a few months ago I started to question the common interpretation that it is sticking with the meditation object as good as possible that leads to the absorptions. Then a few weeks ago I stumbled upon an abstract in a journal on buddhist studies (forgot the name) and the author claimed that the common notion of applied/sustained thought leading to the jhanas is false and what's actually leading there is the overcoming/stilling of the hindrances. This, at least from my perspective, seems to be more in line with what many teachers say (e.g. Shinzen Young, Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Chah and others). Putting my understanding of their teachings into my own words I would describe applied and sustained thought as something that automatically happens when everything else falls away. As far as I know even the Buddha himself never mentioned that it is vitakka and vicara that lead to the jhanas but rather the seclusion from the senses and the craving that builds around that. Since I became aware of that my progress in meditation has become much more consistent and reliable. However, I think the Buddha also speaks about the possibility to suppress the hindrances with applied thought to the meditation object as only one option. So I wonder if the notion that vitakka and vicara are the way to jhana is really that accurate. Maybe it's just one method that addresses the real issue: overcoming of the hindrances. And as it is with all methods, they don't work ever time and not for everyone. Just a thought...

BTW, just today I listened to a talk by Rob Burbea and he's essentially saying the same thing here: http://dharmaseed.org/teacher/210/talk/21822/

@Andreas:

Wow you've aggregated a lot of good info on this subject, cool.  

I had some more thoughts.  There are different aspects of concentration one can train for.  'Absorption' (marshmellow body effect, adrenline/thrill entering jhana, weird chi/mental screen warping, etc.) is one of them.  Concentrating on pleasure is good for this.  'Continuity of attention' is another.  Shallow focus with vigilant peripheral awareness is good for this.  'Intensity of focus' is another.  Tight focus with less background awareness is good for this, but risks more forgetting/mind-wandering.  These different emphases will tend to lead to different types of jhanas as well, and perhaps will suggest different things about initial and sustained attention factors.

That's a very interesting thought and I recently askey myself the same question: Are there different types of jhanas/absorptions? As far as I can tell from my limited experience the tranquility and absorption that result from the concentration on a single spot (exclusive) seem to be different than those produced by the inclusion of peripheral awareness and a certain emphasis on vipassana techniques (inclusive).

From your post I conclude that you have also read Culadasa's great book 'The Mind Illuminated'. Am I right?

@Andreas:

Yeah.  His discussion of 3 different types of jhana (light [whole-body], medium-pleasure  and deep-luminous ) helped sort out some of my confusions.  As far as I can tell, his map ties it all together.  There are basically different times in the development of concentration, to focus on different aspects of concentration, which will lead to different types of jhanas.  He obviously focuses on 'continuity' aspect first, and when that becomes hard-wired, moves on to the 'intensity of focus' later.  He also ties in the vipassana vs samatha balance really well, in the same progression.  Cool stuff.  The degree of detail kind of bothers me because I feel like its micro-managing my practice, but I assume it will pay off when I understand the whole book.

@Noah: That sounds cool. I just started and finished the 2nd chapter. Looking forward to this. Any more insights from your side are very welcome!

Some thoughts:

He seems to be quite selective in which thoughts he works with.

These talks of his reflect his own experience as well as what he has found helpful in his teaching experience. It's a very pragmatic instruction.

Ajahn Brahm - Sujato's main teacher - has one of the deepest definitions of jhana out there. His first jhana is several stages beyond any thinking at all. So you have to keep this in mind - that there are different definitions of what constitutes jhana and therefore the factors present will likely be different as well. But their teaching I think is also very pragmatic - based on their experience.

Who's correct? With regard to what the Buddha experienced - only he knows for sure and he isn't talking. For those teachers who have reached at least stream entry - I think they are simply teaching jhana from the perspective of what kind of tranquility they had to develop in order for that event to take place. Everyone is different and we also have different ways of using language and expressing ourselves. In the suttas you find that release can take place in any of the jhanas - just depends on conditions.

If you were following Ajahn Chah's method then you could just continue on to the point where thinking and evaluation passes away and there you are in Sujato's territory. You just keep on that trajectory.

In my experience, as the mind settles down discursive thinking and hindrances in general subside as the mind is able to stay with some kind of theme - usually the breath energies for me. At this point the mind is not interupted but there is a kind of separation between the object and awareness of it. I define this as first jhana. At some point there is a kind of unification sometimes like dropping down onto a set of rails and the sense of separation disappears - and so the need or even ability to keep directing the mind to the object is gone. I think of this as the second one.

Sujato's argument that there can be no thinking in the first jhana depends on his definition of first jhana and also his definition of thinking. He points to MN19 to support his argument but that sutta just seems to be saying that everyday discursive thinking on even skillful topics will not lead to jhana. And Chah is saying that he is not referring to everyday discursive thinking.

I have in the past used a metta practice where thinking and evaluating was used to kind of fan the flames of metta until the sensation was strong enough that it could sustain itself just by directing attention to it and then dropping the thinking part of it. It's not just ordinary thinking and pondering as MN 19 describes as it carries with it an intention of tranquility - so it is quite directed in that sense. And the sense I get from Chah is that there is that intention or inclination toward tranquility as part of the practice he is describing.

Using thinking and pondering to gladden the mind in order to deepen tranquility is very effective for me. Perhaps that could be used through the first jhana. Practice develops skill and it's hard to know what is possible without giving it a try.

@Chuck: That's an interesting and helpful perspective. Furthermore, would you mind elaborating on your mentioned metta practice and the "thinking and pondering to gladden the mind". I feel like I can relate to that in my practice but still don't know how exactly. Thanks!

re: tom moylan (3/20/16 3:42 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie)

"i noticed some references to shankman's book on jhana in the comments.  i am not a fan of his translation of vitakka / vicara.  on the other hand, i rely so heavily on bikku bodhi's translations that calling his scholarship into doubt really goes against my grain.  oh no!"

I'm not entirely sure what scholarship you are referring to here, but had you noticed this bit from Sujato's blog discussion (by "Ven. Nandiya") ?

"I think it’s worth noting that at the end of the introduction to the Connected Discourses of the Buddha, Bhikkhu Bodhi himself, in the passage “Other Changes” when Bhikkhu Bodhi talks about the changefrom ‘Initial and Sustained Application’ he himself stresses:
“When vitakka is translated as ‘thought,’ however, a word of caution if necessary. In common usage, vitakka corresponds so closely to our ‘thought’ that no other rendering seems feasible; for example in kamavitakka, sensual thought, or it’s opposite, nekkhammavitakka, thought of renunciation. When, however, vitakka and vicara occur as constitutes of the first jhana, they do not exercise the function of discursive thinking characteristic of ordinary consciousness. Here, rather, vitakka is the mental factor with the function of applying the mind to the object, and vicara the factor with the function of examining the object nondiscursively in order to anchor the mind in the object”.
I think this is a particularly useful factette to bop people over the head with if they are basing their belief that jhana contains thought simply on the basis of their confidence in Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translations."

re: tom moylan (3/20/16 3:42 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie)

"again, great respect for YOUR scholarship"

Thanks, but it probably has more to do with being an inveterate pack-rat (upadana big time). I run across things and stash them away – more than 50 GB of stored, partially organized, dhamma texts, talks, discussion, etc.

Haven't seen mention here yet, but there are (at least) two video dhamma-talks by Sujato specifically about jhana:

1) Jhana - Heart of Buddhism (Dhammnet) -- ca. 51 min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kaGD2h5J-Y

Goes on and on about various things for a while, then, ca. 40-45 min in more specifically about the jhanic factors, how they appear, feel...

2) Life of Pleasure (Jhana) -- (Dhammanet) -- ca. 46 min
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik0B4Kip_Sc

More focused from the start; at ca 15 min some on the factors; later, after humorous stories, fascinating miscellaneous information, at ca. 30 min a lot of detail on the factors; at ca 40 min going through the 4 jhanas in detail.

Check it out -- whether you've experienced jhana this way or that, or not at all; agree with him or not; this is a worthwhile experience. I find it wonderfully inspiring, vivid, and hilarious.

Sure. Gladdening the mind:
I have some stock phrases or memories that bring a smile and feeling of happiness to me when I remember and think about them. These are really simple things. A recent example - a couple of weeks ago I came out of a clinic - rain was pouring down and there was this older guy standing in the rain with a pair of jumper cables - obviously needing some help getting his car started. So I brought my car over and gave him a jump. He was really happy, gave me a hug and thanked me. I felt really good that I could help him out. So that kind of thing. Nothing big.

The thing about gladdening the mind is it is just built-up little by little by reflecting on these kinds of things. Anyone wanting to do this just needs to spend some time recalling events or working with different thoughts and see what triggers a feeling of happiness, friendliness, joy, etc. Any of these kinds of positive emotions work. It's good to have a stock of different phrases or memories because using the same one over and over - it looses its juice after a while.

So you get the thing going by recalling one of these things and just kind of sinking into the experience - really allowing the sense of happiness or whatever to sink in - this is where I am using the word pondering - you spend some time with it almost like day dreaming in a way. It starts off really small so you have to keep on it.

After doing this for a while I can really feel the feeling of happiness - in my face mostly. A smile arises just on its own, the face relaxes, and there is kind of an expansive feel to it. If the feeling gets strong enough, then I can drop the thinking part and just breathing in feeling the happiness grow, breathing out feeling it radiate out (similar to the metta practice below). I find that if I start losing my interest - like a phrase losing its juice - random thoughts start popping up. Here, if it is suitable (supportive of happiness, etc) I can just work with that but if it is negative - fearful or angry or something like that - I chop it off quick and return to one of the stock phrases.

For the metta practice, I am looking to create a feeling of radiating light from the heart area. That's the goal. I work with my breath. As I breathe in, I imagine the breath as coming into the heart area and igniting a fire there (like a glowing ball of light) and as I breathe out I imagine the light from that fire radiating out in all directions.

Initially, this is pure thinking/imagining. I just keep doing that and eventually there is kind of a spark - some kind of feeling in the heart area that I can work with. I imagine the in-breath as like a bellows that builds the fire stronger and the out-breath radiates the light out in all directions. I just continue on with this building it up stronger and stronger. At some point, that sensation becomes strong enough where the fanning and radiating can be dropped as something intentionally being directed - and I can just stay with the feeling itself.

I think a key for both of these is to play with them - have fun with them.