Contradiction regarding directed thought and evaluation in relation to knowledge? (thinking in jhana vs. no jhana)

 

Re: Contradiction regarding directed thought and evaluation in relation to knowledge?

• Edit
• Delete
• Report
• Quote

Post by frank k » Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:15 am

Yes, it seems contradictory. But it's the difference between using vitakka and vicara in first jhana, and someone with no jhana using V&V.
What he describes in your quote, is someone who's in samadhi of second jhana or higher, and then using vitakka / thought from that state of samadhi, whatever higher jhana or attainment they were in, and then they downshift into first jhana, if you want to think of it that way, or you can also legitmately say theyr'e in an imperturbable purified version of fourth jhana (where they can levitate, exercise psychic power, have conversations with gods that require vitakka)

Think of V&V as a sword. Someone with first jhana, second, ... .fourth jhana, has a sword of samadhi +1, +2, +3, +4. And someone coming out of samadhi to use that V&V can do some serious damage with their wisdom.

An ordinary person is using a rusty unsharpened dull sword, and they lack skill in using it. That's what their vitakka is doing. So in both cases, it's still vitakka thinking, but the vitakka from one with deep samadhi has potency.

Nothing inherently wrong with discursive thinking. It's an impediment with those with no jhana who are in the process of trying to develop jhana, and that's why you hear so many teachers criticize it. But once one is skilled in jhana, one can think or not think whenever they want according to necessity.

Notice wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:53 amHello!

I was reading ajan lee’s commentary ( https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/tha ... ledge.html) on the value of directed thought and evaluation in relation to right concentration and it being conducive to insight arising. I have a question regarding a statement he makes that appears to contradict the case he is making in his talk regarding the arising of knowledge.

He begins to separate worldy knowledge from dhamma knowledge. In regards to dhamma knowledge he speaks about different levels and the level after cintamaya-panna is called directed thought and evaluation and has to be given another name: bhavanamaya-panna, the discernment that comes with meditation. He then goes on to say: ‘When the mind gives rise to directed thought and evaluation, you have both concentration and discernment. Directed thought and singleness of preoccupation (ekaggatarammana) fall under the heading of concentration; evaluation, under the heading of discernment. When you have both concentration and discernment, the mind is still and knowledge can arise.’

However a bit further along he makes the following statement: ‘The knowledge here isn't ordinary knowledge. It washes away your old knowledge. You don't want the knowledge that comes from ordinary thinking and reasoning: Let go of it. You don't want the knowledge that comes from directed thought and evaluation: Stop. Make the mind quiet. Still. When the mind is still and unhindered, this is the essence of all that's meritorious and skillful. When your mind is on this level, it isn't attached to any concepts at all. All the concepts you've known — dealing with the world or the Dhamma, however many or few — are washed away. Only when they're washed away can new knowledge arise.’

I have highlighted the sentence in particular that prompted my question. The majority of the commentary here seems to be making the case precisely for the value of directed thought and evaluation in gaining dhamma knowledge as opposed to worldy knowledge so how is one to reconcile or interpret these 2 seemingly contradictory statements?

Thanks!