Contradiction regarding directed thought and evaluation in relation to knowledge?

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
Post Reply
Notice
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 am

Contradiction regarding directed thought and evaluation in relation to knowledge?

Post by Notice »

Hello!

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!
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

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

Post by confusedlayman »

Notice wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:53 pm Hello!

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!
I think according to me (I might be wrong) ... directed thought is thinking of something specific ... u think of body that's a directed thought
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

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

Post by form »

What about no thoughts?
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

Notice wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:53 pm You don't want the knowledge that comes from directed thought and evaluation: Stop.

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?
The article says:
Use your powers of directed thought to bring the mind to the object, and your powers of evaluation to be discriminating in your choice of an object. Examine the object of your meditation until you see that it's just right for you. You can choose slow breathing, fast breathing, short breathing, long breathing, narrow breathing, broad breathing, hot, cool or warm breathing; a breath that goes only as far as the nose, a breath that goes only as far as the base of the throat, a breath that goes all the way down to the heart. When you've found an object that suits your taste, catch hold of it and make the mind one, focused on a single object. Once you've done this, evaluate your object. Direct your thoughts to making it stand out. Don't let the mind leave the object. Don't let the object leave the mind. Tell yourself that it's like eating: Put the food in line with your mouth, put your mouth in line with the food. Don't miss. If you miss, and go sticking the food in your ear, under your chin, in your eye, or on your forehead, you'll never get anywhere in your eating.
The above is type of meditation using volition or control. It can bring a level of knowledge.

However, the higher path is abandoning this volition & control, such as in the sutta SN 48.10, where it is taught the noble disciple develops jhana by making "letting go" the object of meditation.

Its similar to kindergarten vs university. Knowledge can be learned at both kindergarten & university however one type of knowledge is higher.

Kind regards :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Notice
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:13 am

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

Post by Notice »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:47 pm
The above is type of meditation using volition or control. It can bring a level of knowledge.

However, the higher path is abandoning this volition & control, such as in the sutta SN 48.10, where it is taught the noble disciple develops jhana by making "letting go" the object of meditation.

Its similar to kindergarten vs university. Knowledge can be learned at both kindergarten & university however one type of knowledge is higher.

Kind regards :smile:
That makes sense! Thank you.

I have to admit it is still a little odd to me he that he articulates it in that manner especially given the context where he initially refers to it as dhamma knowledge and leading to discernment and helping insight to arise. Even if we consider it as a stepping stone to higher level knowledge you do in some sense still want that knowledge because of that reason alone. It is not the same knowledge as ‘ordinary knowledge’ he was referring to as well in the end and it almost seems they got lumped together which is a bit unfortunate.

I think I do understand now that he is saying that ultimately that knowledge is to be superseded by higher level knowledge or perhaps as thanissaro bhikkhu would say ‘Learn how to put your thinking to good use before thinking about letting it go’.
User avatar
frank k
Posts: 2247
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:55 pm
Contact:

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

Post by frank k »

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 4:53 pm Hello!

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!
www.lucid24.org/sted : ☸Lucid24.org🐘 STED definitions
www.audtip.org/audtip: 🎙️🔊Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages
Post Reply