Re: atypical vitakka in Mil 116?

Here it is part of a set of eight things. Each of them is something
under whose influence Vessantara's mind does not operate. They are
contrasted with generosity. His mind does operate under the influence of
generosity. Since the eight things include greed, hate, delusion, pride
and views, each of which is a character-type, I assume that vitakka here
is being used in the same way as when it is a character-type: a
propensity to think about things too much in a disordered way. One might
also think of sensual, hostile and cruel thoughts.

Lance Cousins


On 09/07/2011 16:59, Eugen Ciurtin wrote:
> In *Mil* 116, in an eightfold apophatic listing of Vessantara's qualities,
> Nagasena says he is without *vitakka*, and the occurrence is clearly
> distinct from the more typical discussion in e.g. *Mil* 63. As no mention of
> *vicara* is made here, the alternatives are perhaps a bit less strict than
> is the case with the famous meditational pairing, most helpfully overviewed
> by Prof Cousins in *IIJ* 1992 = FS 1 K.R. Norman. Despite this guidance, I
> don't know how to render *vitakka* in this very passage.
>
> The text reads *na vitakkavasena* (*pavattati*). Checking the translations,
> we found rather unsatisfactorily renderings: 'disputation' in Rhys Davids
> (1890: 1.173, 'his heart not turned in the way of' etc.) and 'raisonnement'
> in Nolot (1995: 111; 'la pensée n'était mue ni par etc.'), but 'je reste
> sur ma faim' as there are no further comments. A similar situation is met in
> the modern *Mil-a* edited by Prof Deshpande, in *DOP*&  in *CPD* (if I am
> not mistaken; I was able to check neither Prof Jaini's *tika*, nor Dr
> Ferreiro-Jardim's 2006 unpublished Australian paper). Horner (1969: 1.162 *
> cum* n. 2) has 'way of thought', rightfully adding 'a very difficult word to
> translate' (for 'not that it [scil. the mind] proceeded'). Paribok's Russian
> *Mil* and Osier's recent French *Vess* translations offer, again, no clue.
> Note *vitakka* described with *pavattati* in Cousins 1992: 157 n. 82.
>
> This seems to be a little bit puzzling: is this to be taken *prima facie* as
> e.g. 'initial thought', with Horner and Prof Gethin's thesis (1992/2001
> passim)? Or perhaps the most context-sensitive translation is still the
> first English one, however far from a proper substantiation (perhaps
> *citta*cannot be taken here in the sense of
> *hadaya,* as in many a non-Buddhist Indian setting; see Sugunasiri,
> *PhEW*1995: 409-430), and looking like a wild guess?
>
> Would you be so kind as to offer an alternative hint for translation? Please
> excuse the lack of diacritics.