Here, it seems to me, is an example of a view which approaches such a description:Modus.Ponens wrote:It was not directed at Mahasi Sayadaw. But you know perfectly well that there are teachers that do what I said, be it in a subtle way or in a direct way.
The rose-apple tree event seems to be an origin story for the Buddha's experience and description of jhana, and it is in a context of the rejection of prevailing meditation technologies. He recalls a childhood/adolescent experience which provides the foundation for Buddhist jhana, which does not seem to have been associated with any other teacher or mode of practice."Suffice to say that a common supposition is that the jhānas are a borrowed technique from Indian contemplative traditions, while vipassanā is the only unique liberating technique which is uniquely Buddhist."
To then say, as I have seen done, that these jhanas were part of the pre-Buddhist meditation repertoire - and therefore, that they precede any formless attainments and were thus a relatively common preliminary practice - is to see them as subordinate to formless attainments, which I think is a gross misunderstanding.
It doesn't seem to be an intentional disrespect, however.
As far as the paper goes, I see jhanas as descriptions rather than practices, so to that extent I can agree. That samatha-vipassana is also correctly recognized as a description of qualities, rather than practices, is encouraging.