Hello Jhananda,
I was watching your YouTube video "the second jhana is tranquility" of a discussion between Adam Murray and yourself.
It seems that Adam Murray thinks that Ajhan Brahm's definition of Vitakka and Vicāra is applied and sustained attention, and he might be right.
See here at 2min, 35sec: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpkB5Spn51I
"Vitakka and Vicāra is applied and sustained attention" is my definition.
So here is what Ajhan Brahm thinks Vitakka and Vicāra are in his own words:
The Wobble (Vitakka and Vicāra)
"All jhānas are states of unmoving bliss, almost. However, in the first jhāna, there is some movement discernible. I call this movement the “wobble” of first jhāna. One is aware of great bliss, so powerful it has subdued completely the part of the ego that wills and does. In jhāna, one is on automatic pilot, as it were, with no sense of being in control. However, the bliss is so delicious that it can generate a small residue of attachment. The mind instinctively grasps at the bliss. Because the bliss of the first jhāna is fueled by letting go, such involuntary grasping weakens the bliss. Seeing the bliss weaken, the mind automatically lets go of its grasping, and the bliss increases in power again. The mind then grasps again, then lets go again. Such subtle involuntary movement gives rise to the wobble of the first jhāna.
This process can be perceived in another way. As the bliss weakens because of the involuntary grasping, it seems as if mindfulness moves a small distance away from the bliss. Then the mindfulness gets pulled back into the bliss as the mind automatically lets go. This back-and-forth movement is a second way of describing the wobble.
This wobble is, in fact, the pair of first jhāna factors called vitakka and vicāra. Vitakka is the automatic movement back into the bliss; vicāra is the involuntary grasping of the bliss. Some commentators explain vitakka and vicāra as “initial thought” and “sustained thought.” While in other contexts this pair can refer to thought, in jhāna they certainly mean something else. It is impossible that such a gross activity as thinking can exist in such a refined state as jhāna. In fact, thinking ceases a long time prior to jhāna. In jhāna, vitakka and vicāra are both subverbal and so do not qualify as thought. Vitakka is the subverbal movement of mind back into the bliss. Vicāra is the subverbal movement of mind that holds on to the bliss. Outside of jhāna, such movements of mind will often generate thought, and sometimes speech. But in jhāna, vitakka and vicāra are too subtle to create any thought. All they are capable of doing is moving mindfulness back into the bliss and holding mindfulness there."Brahm, Ajahn (2006-08-10). Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator's Handbook (pp. 155-156). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
The “wobble” is Brahm's definition of vitakka and vicāra.
The conflict that I have with Brahm's definition of the 8 stages of samadhi is he believes the first jhana is a profound religious experience in which the sensory world is completely effaced. If this were true, then there are a lot of problems trying to cram Brahm's definition of the 8 stages of samadhi into the range of religious experience.
Whereas, if we consider that the 8 stages of samadhi that are defined in the suttas, are shades of gray in the full range of the religious experience, then the first jhana is just the first observable signs of a religious experience. This is how I take it.
When we examine the stilling of the mind, then we find it is not a more profound religious experience in which the sensory world is completely effaced, but it is certainly more profound than the first jhana.
So, the problem with Brahm's definition of the 8 stages of samadhi is anyone who has stilled their mind knows that when they do it, it is without the experience being a profound religious experience in which the sensory world is completely effaced.
The very last two sentences in Brahms description, "But in jhāna, vitakka and vicāra are too subtle to create any thought. All they are capable of doing is moving mindfulness back into the bliss and holding mindfulness there.",
might imply applied and sustained attention-- but it's a stretch, I think.
Over all what Brahm is saying is unclear and complex, in my view.
Brahm's premise just sounds like nonsense to me. Brahm is a classic example of how far one has to reach when one has an unsustainable agenda to support.
I think it's important to understand what vitakka and vicāra are.
I agree that, if we want to meditate deeply, then we have to figure out what the religious experience is; and if we are going to do that in a Buddhist context then we need to understand a number of Pali terms including vitakka and vicāra. Along the way we will have to realize that Buddhism is just another religion that has been hijacked by a pretentious and hypocritical priesthood.
