I'm glad to see you resorting to more ex cathedras.
As far as I can see, your aversion to grammar is nothing more than a blatant attempt to sweep aside everything that is inconvenient to your readings of the suttas. There is nothing acrobatic in my critique of your arguments and citations but I think accolades must go to you for your attempts to re-write Pali grammar; those do not bear recapitulating but I really love your attempt to transform a declinable verb into an adverb with hoti/honti.
And I have not seen any evidence that you have successfully demonstrated the unsustainability of my reliance on Pali grammar over English grammar, other than your tired refrain to the Dhammasangani (which turns out to be 11 sets of iddapaccayata propositions instead of 56 ontological dhammas) or the Psm (I'm still waiting for your much vaunted passages for its vavattheti-in-jhana treatment).
Pleading "context" and "pan-Buddhist" appeals does not count for anything when the plain old grammatical readings in Pali of MN 111, AN 9.36 and MN 127 all point towards jhanas being truly models of absorption. If you wish to argue that an idiomatic meaning is to prevail, demonstrate it by reference to the Grammars. Your erudition and readings do not endow you with some magic wand with which you wave into existence ideas on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
This has not really been a waste of time. For me, for some strange reason, you bring to the table more and more evidence of absorption each time we engage the jhana subject. For the others, a cautionary tale on reading English translations without a good teacher looking over one's shoulder.