There is a major difference between Ven. Analayo's understanding of sammāsamādhi and that of Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato. In keeping with the Paṭisambhidāmagga, Ven. Analayo understands that one doesn't have to have mastery of any model of absorption prior to entering the first noble path.Sylvester wrote:I notice that you have also elected to remain silent on Ven Analayo's absorption model which agrees with the Brahm model.
I never claimed anything of the sort. 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. It is only among people who have either been largely influenced by the Visuddhimagga or someone like Ven. Brahmavamso that jhāna and vipassanā are considered incompatible. I haven't seen any historical evidence of this view outside of the classical Sinhalese Theravāda sub-school.Sylvester wrote:Your claim that the entire commentarial community is pro-discursive jhana, save for Ajahns Brahm and Sujato, is a wild exaggeration in an attempt to appeal to authority.
I've already demonstrated this at length. If you were willing to approach the Tipiṭaka directly you might be able to discern it for yourself. I'd recommend reading the Paṭisambhidāmagga.Sylvester wrote:Not that you have demonstrated, regardless of how many times you proclaim this.But the distinction between Ven. Gunaratana's teachings on sammāsamādhi and the teachings of Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato are significant: Ven. Gunaratana's teachings accord with the Tipiṭaka, including the Paṭisambhidāmagga and the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, while Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato's do not. Moreover, there is nothing particularly Buddhist about what Ven. Brahmavamso and Ven. Sujato consider to be "jhāna."
Context is everything. The "problem" that you are intent on hanging your hat upon is merely a pseudo problem of your own making. It's obvious that paragraphs dealing with jhāna factors no longer present in the higher jhānas are dropped in the explanation of those higher jhānas. U Kyaw Khine understood this. It isn't a problem at all.Sylvester wrote:Sadly, Geoff, if the resort to "context" is the best you can offer, then I have to say that you have not even been able to mount a single rebuttal to the implausibility of your thesis of 56 concomittant dhammas given the problems of piti, sukha, vitakka, vicara and sankappa that I posed you.
Here.Sylvester wrote:Please address the problem of including these 5 states as being invariably concommitant in the rupavacara, instead of just proclaiming that you have addressed it. Where?
Already addressed here.Sylvester wrote:please refer to Karunadasa's very insightful explanation (The Theravada Abhidhamma, 2010, p.89 - 90) for how this Dhammasangani schema is actually composed of a differentiation of the cittas into 8 classes of wholesome consciousness. One of the 3 qualifiers used by the Dhammasangani to differentiate the 8 classes is the presence or absence of "paññā" which, unsurprisingly, is also the description in para 55 for vipassana. This 8-fold classification makes it clear that "vipassana" as a rupavacara dhamma is not invariably present (let alone concommitantly present as Nyanaponika points out) and only 4 out of the 8 types of cittas will have "vipassana" as an attribute.
Sorry, but Karunadasa interprets the Abhidhamma through a Sinhalese Mahāvihāra commentarial framework. For some critiques of Mahāvihāra commentarial anomalies I would refer you to the writings of Ven. Gunaratana, Ven. Ñāṇananda, and Ven. Kheminda for starters.Sylvester wrote:My initial suspicions of vipassana being an attribute of only the lokuttara jhanas in the Abhidhamma scheme is confirmed by Karunadasa at p.93.
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. Interesting sidebar is that the teachings of Ajahn Chah don't accord with Ven. Brahmavamso's jhāna theory.Sylvester wrote:I have said as much when I alluded to the cluster of verbs in the present tense - these indicate the historical present, which is how everyone has translated it.In the case of MN 111 the grammar reflects the speaker (the Buddha) narrating events which have already transpired.
That is a wild leap, if by "knew" you meant "pajanati".The context also makes it clear that Ven. Sāriputta knew those various dhammas as they occurred within jhāna while in the first seven abidings.
All the best,
Geoff