Vitakkavicārā & Manasikāra

[cathutch]

There is the perceived, the perceiver and the perception (reverse order.)
There is the thing felt, the one who feels, and the feeling. (reverse order.)
There is the thing thought, the thinker and the Thought (reverse order.)

The puthujjana must position himself in the Sankhara khandha and perceive his perception, feel her feeling and think his thought.
He must discriminate between perception, feeling, thought, and breath. He must reflect on the arising, remaining and cessation of each.

"Ānanda, remember this too as a wonderful and marvelous quality of the Tathāgata: Here, Ānanda, for the Tathāgata feelings are known as they arise, as they are present, as they disappear; perceptions are known as they arise, as they are present, as they disappear; thoughts are known as they arise, as they are present, as they disappear. Remember this too, Ānanda, as a wonderful and marvelous quality of the Tathāgata.” MN123

As far as Thinking is concerned, this is the most difficult to realize.
For there are two type of thinking indeed (Vitakkavicārā & Manasikāra).

The thinking that occurs in NamaRupa (a willfull and intended thinking) that create things.
And a thinking in Sankhara khandha, that first lays down it's potential doubt on the ground of the actual "reality"; then reflect that thinking back to it.

Here are some definitions of both thinking in the PTS dictionary:

Mana sikaroti
-------------

(ref: Mano)
manasi-karoti - to fix the mind intently, to bear in mind, take to heart, ponder, think upon, consider, recognise.

Manasikara = attention, pondering, fixed thought.

"yoniso manasikara" = fixing one's attention with a purpose or thoroughly," (yoni = origin, way of birth, place of birth)


COMPARED TO


Vitakka vicārā
--------------

vi + takka - reflection, thought, thinking ; "initial application"
vi + cara - investigation, examination, consideration, deliberation.

Takka= [Sankrit. tarka doubt ; science of logic (lit. " turning & twisting")
Cara = [fr. car carati to move about] motion, action, process.

vitakka the characteristic of fixity & steadiness,
vicara the characteristic of movement & display

vitakka is often combination with vicara or "initial & sustained application"

////////
Rhys Davids:
"to denote the whole of the mental process of thinking (viz. fixing one's attention and reasoning out)"
"vitakka is the directing of concomitant properties towards the object ; vicara is the continued exercise of the mind on that object."
////////

Both are properties of the first jhana (called sa-vitakka sa-vicara) but are discarded in the second jhana

Note. Looking at the combination vitakka + vicara in earlier and later works one comes to the conclusion that they were once used to denote one & the same thing : just thought, thinking, only in an emphatic way (as they are also semantically synonymous) , and that one has to take them as one expression, like janati passati, without being able to state their difference. With the advance in the Sangha of intensive study of terminology they became distinguished mutually. Vitakka became the inception of mind, or attending, and was no longer applied, as in the Suttas, to thinking in general.



Should we always compare both type of "thinking".

Is NOT THINKING (avitakkavicārā) in Sankhara Khandha a key to the disappearance of Dukkha?
More easily said than done.

Think whatever thought we want to think,
Don,t think whatever thought we don,t want to think.

Difficult but possible with practise.

[TheImmortal]

Originally Posted by cathutch

Both are properties of the first jhana (called sa-vitakka sa-vicara) but are discarded in the second jhana.

I usually express the two thought processes as thought-conception and discursive thought. The first (thought-conception) can be compared to an initial thought or insight as when a bee first sees a flower. The second (discursive thought) can be compared to the bee circling the flower and examining it from many perspectives just as one can reflect on a thought-conception from many different perspectives.

Many traditions discuss "holding the thinker" (Krishnamurti), "be still and know that I am God" (Judaism), "blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see/realize God" (Christianity), and so on. I fully concur that one must transcend the thought processes at some point in order to go deeper into consciousness and beyond.

Can you share what has worked best for you in transcending thought and proceeding to the second jhana?

Can you elaborate more on the subsequent jhanas and the supramundane jhanas as well?

This is a good beginning to a very good subject.

[sunsoul]

I am not sure if I would classify the second as thought (manasikara) but more as focus in the way you are outlining it above. The first jhana(s) or what is known as 'stream entry' is described as focusing one's attention firmly on one thing (like the breath which brings concentration and absorption). This is the opposite of discursive thought which tends to tumble along..

However, I am not very familiar with the term manasikara so I will look it up myself as there may be different meanings or different terms used.

Thanks for the information!

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by TheImmortal

I usually express the two thought processes as thought-conception and discursive thought. The first (thought-conception) can be compared to an initial thought or insight as when a bee first sees a flower. The second (discursive thought) can be compared to the bee circling the flower and examining it ...

I see it a bit differently - just a bit!
- "thought-conception" (Vitakka) is the first potentiality of thought in Sankhara khanda, before putting an actual verb on what is already there (object that is, or object to be). It would match the PTS definition as "initial application". The thought that turns & twists the doubt (Ignorance).
- "discursive thought" (Vicārā) is the reflected thought into the thought in Sankhara khanda. On that point, sunsoul is right to present
Manasikara as just a mental process in actualizing the thought, and not as a thought per se.

Originally Posted by TheImmortal

... from many perspectives just as one can reflect on a thought-conception from many different perspectives.

This is a Jainic concept, that I personally find a bit useless. We know how Jains ended having just two points of view about their religion, and are still fighting over the issue!?!?!
Points of views are useless as much as knowing what's "beyond" in Buddhism.
The only interest of having something actualized is to show that it has that painful bipolarity attached to it (might it be on just one point of view - it would suffice). Jains have proved it; didn't they?
If the tail of the elephant is no good; then the elephant is not perfect. It is like in hi-fidelity music. If one component is bad, the result will be bad; however good the other components are.

Originally Posted by TheImmortal

Can you share what has worked best for you in transcending thought and proceeding to the second jhana?

Definitely One-pointedness.

Originally Posted by TheImmortal

Can you elaborate more on the subsequent jhanas and the supramundane jhanas as well?

Jhana is not a definitely acquired process. You can lose it, due to external influences.

People have a very mystical approach on jhana ; particularly on the "supramundane" jhanas.
Infinity of space is just for me the realization (recognition) of what has been fabricated (determined) and actualized over the history of the world - and the endless fabrications to come (not some trip into the cosmos).
Infinity of consciousness is just the realization (recognition) of what has been conceived (actualized or not). Consciousness means "is known" (as per Buddha definition). It is the infinity of all the "is known" that are and will be.
Nothingness is just the land between Ignorance and Sankhara khanda. The land of No-Thing. The land of no-determination (no-fabrication).
It is the end of the great flood. It is the dormant Sankhara khanda.
"beyond" is:
As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind goes to an end that cannot be classified,
Evaṃ munī nāmakāyā vimutto, atthaṃ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṃ
so the sage free from naming activity goes to an end that cannot be classified.
Accī yathā vātavegena khittā Atthaṃ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṃ;
.....
One who has reached the end has no criterion by which anyone would say that — for him it doesn't exist.
Atthaṅgatassa na pamāṇamatthi, Yena naṃ vajjuṃ taṃ tassa natthi;
When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well.
Sabbesu dhammesu samohatesu, samūhatā vādapathāpi sabbeti.
Pārāyanavaggo

I am a bit rationalistic and consider all mysticism as just fabrications like in SN 1. 2. 10. Samiddhi - Venerable Samiddhi sutta here
And it seems that there is also a "beyond" within the visible and invisible realm of the fabrications. I'd call that "multiverses" for what I know. Multiverses with the same "verbs" (pamāṇamatthi) than we have.



Cordially

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by celest

Think whatever thought we want to think,
Don,t think whatever thought we don,t want to think.
Difficult but possible with practise.

Originally Posted by celest

Think whatever thought we want to think,
Don,t think whatever thought we don,t want to think.
Difficult but possible with practise.

A bit like the noble powers:
- unconscious of disgust amid what is disgusting ; or
- conscious of disgust amid what is not disgusting ; or
- unconscious of disgust amid what is both disgusting and the opposite ; or
- conscious of disgust amid what is both disgusting and the opposite ; or,
- avoiding both that which is disgusting and the opposite, should remain indifferent to them as such, mindful and understanding.

:)

Cordially

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by sunsoul

I am not sure if I would classify the second as thought (manasikara) but more as focus in the way you are outlining it above.

Right indeed (see what I had to say to TheImmortal above). Yet we (the western world) consider this mental activity as thought.

Originally Posted by sunsoul

The first jhana(s) or what is known as 'stream entry' is described as focusing one's attention firmly on one thing (like the breath which brings

concentration and absorption). This is the opposite of discursive thought which tends to tumble along.

Therefore the need to get rid of thought.

I find breath a bit harder to concentrate on, than just one-pointedness (a meaningless one-pointedness ; ) because I always have a tendency to modulate it. While one-pointedness is just one-pointedness :)

Cordially

[TheImmortal]

Originally Posted by cathutch

I see it a bit differently - just a bit!
- "thought-conception" (Vitakka) is the first potentiality of thought in Sankhara khanda, before putting an actual verb on what is already there (object that is, or object to be). It would match the PTS definition as "initial application". The thought that turns & twists the doubt (Ignorance).
- "discursive thought" (Vicārā) is the reflected thought into the thought in Sankhara khanda. On that point, sunsoul is right to present
Manasikara as just a mental process in actualizing the thought, and not as a thought per se.


This is a Jainic concept, that I personally find a bit useless. We know how Jains ended having just two points of view about their religion, and are still fighting over the issue!?!?!
Points of views are useless as much as knowing what's "beyond" in Buddhism.
The only interest of having something actualized is to show that it has that painful bipolarity attached to it (might it be on just one point of view - it would suffice). Jains have proved it; didn't they?
If the tail of the elephant is no good; then the elephant is not perfect. It is like in hi-fidelity music. If one component is bad, the result will be bad; however good the other components are.



Definitely One-pointedness.



Jhana is not a definitely acquired process. You can lose it, due to external influences.

People have a very mystical approach on jhana ; particularly on the "supramundane" jhanas.
Infinity of space is just for me the realization (recognition) of what has been fabricated (determined) and actualized over the history of the world - and the endless fabrications to come (not some trip into the cosmos).
Infinity of consciousness is just the realization (recognition) of what has been conceived (actualized or not). Consciousness means "is known" (as per Buddha definition). It is the infinity of all the "is known" that are and will be.
Nothingness is just the land between Ignorance and Sankhara khanda. The land of No-Thing. The land of no-determination (no-fabrication).
It is the end of the great flood. It is the dormant Sankhara khanda.
"beyond" is:
As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind goes to an end that cannot be classified,
Evaṃ munī nāmakāyā vimutto, atthaṃ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṃ
so the sage free from naming activity goes to an end that cannot be classified.
Accī yathā vātavegena khittā Atthaṃ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṃ;
.....
One who has reached the end has no criterion by which anyone would say that — for him it doesn't exist.
Atthaṅgatassa na pamāṇamatthi, Yena naṃ vajjuṃ taṃ tassa natthi;
When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well.
Sabbesu dhammesu samohatesu, samūhatā vādapathāpi sabbeti.
Pārāyanavaggo

I am a bit rationalistic and consider all mysticism as just fabrications like in SN 1. 2. 10. Samiddhi - Venerable Samiddhi sutta here
And it seems that there is also a "beyond" within the visible and invisible realm of the fabrications. I'd call that "multiverses" for what I know. Multiverses with the same "verbs" (pamāṇamatthi) than we have.



Cordially

In any case, we agree that one must ultimately go beyond thought-conception and discursive-thought at some point and abide in pure thought-free alert awareness except, of course, when one performs the dualistic role one has assumed on the stage of life and activates the mind as an instrument only. The actual words and definitions, however, become irrelevant at that point.

In the thought-free pure alert awareness where the "present" extends into the eternal now and the consciousness is ever expanding to unitary consciousness and beyond, the four supramundane jhanas just happen but there are no words to adequately express what happens. There is nothing mystical about them at all. It's quite natural and spontaneous.

Thanks for sharing.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by TheImmortal

In any case, we agree that one must ultimately go beyond thought-conception and discursive-thought at some point and abide in pure thought-free alert awareness

Yes indeed.

Originally Posted by TheImmortal

In the thought-free pure alert awareness where the "present" extends into the eternal now and the consciousness is ever expanding to unitary consciousness and beyond..

I must say that I haven't yet attain the level of perceiving plainly consciousness.
I have that faint awareness of a loss of self (pudgala-personality,) when I perceive that my-self" as part of a broader lower realm, so to speak. But as far as an infinity of consciousness is concerned, I am very far from that, I presume.