Indeed, there are some differences between Ven Analayo's and Ajahn Brahm's understanding of the necessity of Jhana to attainment of Stream Entry. But it is a concession to this difference that Ajahn Brahm expressly acknowledges the possibilities of the work of a faith-follower and wisdom-follower proceeding without Jhana. But that was not relevant, was it, to the concurrence of both monks' views regarding the kamas and intention within the Jhanas?
I said that in the greater pan-Buddhist history of exegesis it is widely (probably universally) accepted that jhāna and vipassanā are not incompatible, and that the optimal development of vipassanā is understood to occur within the four jhānas.
And because there is no way of testing your understanding of this "pan-Buddhist" history of exegesis, unless you lay it out, it remains nothing more than ex-cathedra.
Posting those links to your old posts on the piti-sukha problems does not bolster your case. In case you do not recognise it, here's what you are attempting-Your Proposition - Vipassana is invariably present in every rupavacara citta
Your Reason - becos' the Dhammasangani says so
Counter 1 - if the Dhammasanagani is interpreted as such, that means vipassana must also be present in the arupavacara's attainment of NPNNP.
Counter 2 - if the Dhammasangani is interpreted as such, that means that piti-sukha, vitakka-vicara, sankappa must be present in all Jhanas
Your demurrer to Counter 2 as per your post below - "Omissions are made of paragraphs no longer relevant to the higher jhānas. The formless attainments retain the same paragraphs as those pertaining to the fourth jhāna, with further omissions appropriate to the fourth formless attainment."
It's a total non-sequitor, as should be obvious.
I suppose the redactors of the Dhammasangani will have to be faulted for allowing your perverse interpretation of the 56 dhamma as being invariably concommitant in every kamavacara and rupavacara citta. Why perverse? Because the contemporaneity of joy and neutral feelings in the list as you interpret it, violates
the prohibition of such contemporaneity in the Mahanidana Sutta DN 15-
At a moment when a feeling of pleasure is sensed, no feeling of pain or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pleasure is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pain is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of pain is sensed. Only a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed at that moment.
Why force the Dhammasangani to be read in such a way that violates the canon, when the Dhammasanagani itself gives very clear indications that it is dealing with conditionally arisen dhammas? You are pressing into service a bizarre reading so as to justify your notions that vipassana permeates every rupavacara and kamavacara citta.
Sorry, but Karunadasa interprets the Abhidhamma through a Sinhalese Mahāvihāra commentarial framework.
Sorry, but ad hominems need not be dignified with a response. Even more sorry is your misattribution of the 8-fold citta schema to the Commentaries. The 8 fold schema is laid out explicitly in the Dhammasangani's Suññatavāra, at paras 146 to 159, which Karunadasa sets out nicely in a tabular form. I trust you're not going to now assert that the 8 cittas exist concurrently...
Context is everything. The "problem" that you are intent on hanging your hat upon is merely a pseudo problem of your own making.
As will be obvious from the above, the problem was not of my own-making, but the express instructions of the Suññatavāra. You were either unaware of paras 146 to 159, or you decided to push it out of consideration as it was inconvenient to your thesis that relied on a bizarre reading of the Dhammasangani.
It's quite obvious to me by now that anything which doesn't agree with Ven. Brahmavamso's jhāna theory will be interpreted as a "wild leap" by you.
I would re-phrase it this way -
"... anything that takes issue with Ven. Brahmavamso's jhāna theory on the basis of some spurious reading of the suttas will be interpreted as a "wild leap" by you. "