legolas wrote:I am sorry, I cannot help you with your confusion. My understanding of meditation according to the suttas is a holistic one so therefore it does not seem inappropriate to bring in such things as the definition of what right concentration is. Your confusion about thinking being abandoned seems a trivial matter. Abandoning/freeing/subsiding take your pick. I thought my point was quite obvious - thinking is important as a way into jhana and establishing a right view - as one progresses thinking subsides or is abandoned, I am sorry if this is confusing. Abandoning is "letting go" not suppression.
That's not where the confusion is. I actually agree with everything
that you say above. Look:
beeblebrox wrote:[. . .] In some posts Legolas says that thinking is OK (as per the topic of this thread), which I agree with. In other posts, Legolas implies that they shouldn't be suppressed (which I agree with), but abandoned (which I don't agree, since it's still a form of suppression). They just shouldn't be clung to.
I agreed that thinking is OK. I agreed that suppressing shouldn't be done. I disagreed with "abandoning," but only because I define that as suppression
I said that there should be no clinging (which I also define as being able to let go), which in turn is what you defined "abandoning" as... this means that WE BOTH AGREE, on all of the relevant points.
If I follow your definition of abandoning, I have no problem with it. If you follow my definition, would you also have a problem with it, like me? I think so... because of according to what you said about the suppression.
Can we apply this to the words "vipassana jhana" and even "noting"? It's obvious some people define them differently than you do, but I'm pretty sure that if you saw what their definitions actually were, you'd pretty much agree. That's why I said this thread was confused... and I think it's pretty much due to clinging
We should try to abandon this ignorance (of other people's definitions) right now... it's a defilement. I don't care about what other people's definitions are (must be the Zen in me)... only knowing about what actually leads to the liberation.
As per vipassana jhana. Would it be possible for you to explain to me the difference between vipassana jhana and the jhana found in the suttas? If there isnt one, then I agree it is silly that there is disagreement, but my confusion arises because calling it vipassana jhana seems to be making it different from what the Buddha was talking about.
Here are a few things to think about:
The Buddha first entered jhana when he was a kid, but he wasn't liberated. Why?
He learned different kinds of jhanas from different teachers... such as the jhana for nothingness, and the jhana for neither-perception-nor-not-perception. They weren't liberating. Why?
I think that the idea of "vipassana jhana" clarifies this point.
I just want to get back on the topic. Thinking isn't an hindrance in itself. Only these are hindrances: sense-desire, ill-will, sloth and boredom, restlessness and worry, and doubt.
Suppose that you're able to stick with the "same" thought, and then observe it (of course it changes), you will see that its quality changes significantly when you take away each of the hindrances listed above.
The "boring" thought stops being boring. The thought stops being "doubtful." The thought stops filling you with "worry." The thought stops being "angry." The thought stops being "great" for your mind. How can that be? It's (let's just suppose) exactly the same
thought that you're observing.
It's just like how some people on here seem like they're working from the same premises (more-or-less), but they can't see this because of their own conditionings. That's just my own observation... this could be mistaken.