Mother, how will I know when it's real jhana?

[Sylvester]

In short, nirodhasamāpatti would be asaṅkhata when viewed through idappaccayata, but would be neither saṅkhata nor asaṅkhata when viewed through the sabhava theory.

In the Abhidhammapiṭaka, which predates the commentarial use of sabhāva language, nirodhasamāpatti doesn't play any significant part in the path of awakening. Moreover, the Theravāda has never accepted that nirodhasamāpatti is asaṅkhata because that would mean that there are two asaṅkhata-s, and that a produced meditative state is asaṅkhata, and that nirodhasamāpatti would have the same liberating role as the supramundane paths and fruitions, and so on. This is a specific point of controversy in the Kathāvatthu, where all of these alternatives are rejected (see Points of Controversy, pp. 190-91).

Thanks Geoff. I think this just illustrates the point I was making - ie the suttanta analysis of saṅkhata /asaṅkhata in the context of the 9 attainments differs significantly from the Abhidhammic treatment of saṅkhata /asaṅkhata in the context of dhammas. The former explains saṅkhata in the context of the paccayāfor the state, ie saṅkhāra being the condition of consciousness makes consciousness predicated as saṅkhata. On the other hand, the latter analysis picks up a different saṅkhata angle, namely the saṅkhatassa saṅkhatalakkhaṇāni expounded in AN 3.47.

I do not think the 2 methods or angles can mingle in any meaningful way. Just as it is impossible to superimpose the Abhidhamma model of mundane and supramundane cittas on the sutta model.

[Ñāṇa]

I do not think the 2 methods or angles can mingle in any meaningful way. Just as it is impossible to superimpose the Abhidhamma model of mundane and supramundane cittas on the sutta model.

Well, I think it all fits together quite fine, providing that one remains moderate and doesn't get carried away by either commentarial or modern revisionist extremes.

[Sylvester]

I do not feel privileged enough to declare if a position falls within a "modern revisionist extreme" or otherwise. So, I won't cast the first stone, although I'm rather tempted to do so with Schopen...