daverupa wrote:I hypothesize that jhana debates are, in sum, debates about (a) the authority of various parts of the Theravada Canon, due to (b) the differing cognitive - though preferably phenomenological - interpretations of the factors (including whether or not factor A is part of Jhana X).
Before going into more detail on higher topic (such as jhana), isn't it good to keep in mind a few important fundamentals? I'd like to address a few fundamentals which are forgotten by many. I'll explain one by one in other comments below.
tiltbillings wrote:ignobleone wrote:It's endless since there's no clear measure has been established to decide the end. After a measure has been established, maturity to accept losing in the debate is required, no exception. Only then this jhana debate can be put to an end.
I am not worried about losing a debate, but I have not seen anything here that unequivocally would bring the debate to an end, which is not say that this issue should not be discussed.
I found the main suttas unequivocally definitive, the only problem is, important points are scattered all over the places in many (more than 1000) suttas. We need to put them together by paying attention to relations and consistencies, then things can make more sense.
That is one fundamental. It's related to saddha, to be more precise, confidence in the Dhamma, which means in this case we want to arrive at the certainty of the Teaching. Because you don't want to be "an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person who hasn't arrived at the certainty of the True Dhamma." The best we can get certainty is from the main suttas.
tiltbillings wrote:Quite frankly, having worked with jhana practice, having been taught by an experienced teacher, I'd rather do the practice than waste time on endless opinionating.
Practice and practice, a very common view. Are you sure you don't waste your time by doing the practice? What jhana practice, what kind of teacher - are the questions you need to investigate first. I suppose your teacher was from Theravada tradition. Do you know that Theravada these days can be equalized to commentaries? And commentaries are unreliable.
Bhante Gunaratana said in a youtube video (someone posted in a thread above) that many people forget to see the text(sutta), that's why there's war among meditation teachers. (fyi, I'm not a fan of Bhante G, nor he's my teacher)
reflection wrote:ignobleone wrote:If the debate can be ended, things will be clearer than before, it'll be of great fruit for everyone in this forum since it promotes right view.
Well, a debate on Buddhist ideas is in my view usually not done to end it, to prove a point, or to come to a final conclusion.
Especially in the case of this jhana debate, this'll never happen anyway; the only way to come to some sort of a conclusion about jhana is by own experience. But still I think these debates can be useful to show others our point of view, maybe inspire them, or get them at least an idea of what we think is the "right track".
by own experience, this is what makes people went wrong. The same thing I found in "pragmatic Dhamma forums" out there. As the result, they're deluded, their jhana standards have become very low. It's about another fundamental many people have forgotten: phases of Dhamma learning, i.e. 1)Pariyatti 2)Patipatti 3)Pativeda.
Your comment shows us that you go to #2 with insufficient #1. You use your practice to validate the instructions, not the way it should be - the otherwise. Thus you are eligible to be called "an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person", CMIIW.
When you don't even know what it is, it's almost a waste of time to do this. There may be some extraordinarily gifted people who can, but I think most of the people can't. As I've said before, how do you want to know how an engine works without having opened the car bonnet? When the mind is inside of itself, it gets data about the aggregates that is unmissable. Because in absorption there is no decision making, you can really contemplate the no-self of volitions, for example. After the absorption, of course.
) or you can dismiss the whole of the AN as being for telling stories to lay people... 
