You can hear sounds in the four jhanas, AN 10.72, and is 'Theravada' an oxymoron?

[frank k]

...

Do you believe Jataka tales are real?

By and large, I don't think they reflect reality.
...

Many Theravadins believe Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha, and Jataka tales as well.
They believe the Buddha went to tusita heaven to teach his mother abhidamma, and secretly taught Sariputta.
I find that impossible.
Not impossible that Buddha could visit his mother in tusita, or that he could teach Sariputta some marginal Dharmas he felt wasn't worth sharing with the entire sangha.

I base that conclusion on how many abhidharma schools there are, with the different authors attributed, unlike the EBT suttas, which all 18 original schools tried to preserve accurately and not deliberately alter. We find great consistency in the EBT's, wild divergence in Abhidharma schools. If the Buddha really did teach it to Sariputta and his mother in tusita heaven, don't you think all the other schools would agree on that point?
Wouldn't you expect also to find a very consistent core Abhidhamma in all the schools? But you don't.
Who would dare take the Buddha's (supposed word) on Abhidhamma and then attribute the work to some other arahant or non arahant?
Will the real Abhidharma please stand up?

[Ṭhānuttamo]

Everything we have inherited from the ancient sanghas is hear say, unconfirmed. So I'm open to any new evidence and will change my mind instantly if evidence is compelling. Ultimately, it's not even Buddha Gotama I'm loyal to, the only allegiance I have is to truth.

I don't see how this is true about the hearsay, unless you really believe that Theravādins have throughout the millennia up to the present day, incl. most bhikkhus from Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka etc. nowadays, all completely missed it about jhāna and have no practical experience on the basis of the commentarial understanding. It has already stood the test of time and essentially doesn't need any modern-day interpretations from people who don't even read, let alone completely understand the commentaries, usually with much less time and effort devoted to actual practice.

I admit that commentaries provide an alternative account, but despite objectively and giving it fair review, I don't find the commentaries (in their entirety) equally cogent. There are inconsistencies, contradictions. They're incoherent (in their entirety).

Didn't you already say that you haven't even read all of them? Interestingly, scholars who do seem to read and understand them, approaching them with an open mind, grant them that they have this power of at least providing an equally cogent alternative, like Rupert Gethin (The Buddhist Path to Awakening, p. xiii).

One of the things I suggested in my conclusion was that before we throw away the Abhidhamma and the commentaries, we need to be very sure we have understood what is is they are saying, and how it is they are actually interpreting earlier texts. What prompted that suggestion then was a sense that in dealing with the theory of the Buddhist path in the Nikāyas scholars had tended to dismiss the views of the Abhidhamma and commentaries without fully understanding them. Yet my own investigation of the treatment of the bodhi-pakkhiyādhammā in the Nikāyas and abhidhamma/abhidharma texts had led me to the conclusion that in fact, while the understanding of the later texts might not be precisely the same in all matters of detail, it was, when worked out and carefully considered, broadly consistent with what is found in the Nikāyas. [...] my study does at least [...] place a question mark against some of the claims of 'contradiction' and 'inconsistency' in the way the texts (the Pali Nikāyas, the Abhidhamma, and the commentaries) present the theory of Buddhist meditation.

I agree with him in that this is how they present themselves to me as well when carefully considered. What "late" means is again up to debate.

[Ṭhānuttamo]

Many Theravadins believe Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha, and Jataka tales as well.
They believe the Buddha went to tusita heaven to teach his mother abhidamma, and secretly taught Sariputta.
I find that impossible.
Not impossible that Buddha could visit his mother in tusita, or that he could teach Sariputta some marginal Dharmas he felt wasn't worth sharing with the entire sangha.

I base that conclusion on how many abhidharma schools there are, with the different authors attributed, unlike the EBT suttas, which all 18 original schools tried to preserve accurately and not deliberately alter. We find great consistency in the EBT's, wild divergence in Abhidharma schools. If the Buddha really did teach it to Sariputta and his mother in tusita heaven, don't you think all the other schools would agree on that point?
Wouldn't you expect also to find a very consistent core Abhidhamma in all the schools? But you don't.
Who would dare take the Buddha's (supposed word) on Abhidhamma and then attribute the work to some other arahant or non arahant?
Will the real Abhidharma please stand up?

Look, Frank,
I believe you will close up when I try to give you some actually readily available alternative explanations of why there is more consistency among the schools regarding the main Nikāyas and regarding the other points you raised. I mean except the Jātaks tales, which I don' take literally. I won't bother to present them since everybody openly investigating the issue would easily see that for him- or herself, especially someone as intelligent as you, but I think preference has probably gotten the best of you, at least parts of it. No offence, but bias is a real obstacle to actually seeing all viable alternatives.

Mettā!
A. Bhikkhu

[frank k]

...

I don't see how this is true about the hearsay, unless you really believe that Theravādins have throughout the millennia up to the present day, incl. most bhikkhus from Burma, Thailand, Sri Lanka etc. nowadays, all completely missed it about jhāna and have no practical experience on the basis of the commentarial understanding. It has already stood the test of time and essentially doesn't need any modern-day interpretations from people who don't even read, let alone completely understand the commentaries, usually with much less time and effort devoted to actual practice.
...

VRJ (vism. redefinition of jhāna) is a working meditation system. I never disputed that. I have personal experience with it, more than 10 years.
But a straightforward reading of the sutta jhānas also works, and more importantly, it's coherent across all the suttas.

VRJ, and Ajahn Brahm and Sujato redefinition of jhāna, is incoherent with the suttas, as my detailed audits have shown.
They know it, I deduce, because they refuse to ever explain how MN 111, AN 9.36, MN 125, etc. works with their 'jhāna'.
I still haven't heard your take on how MN 111 and MN 125 (first jhāna = satipaṭṭhāna, if you can hear in 4sp, you can hear in jhāna) harmonizes with your cogent commentary jhāna.

One thing we do have in common though, is the wish to see all the commentary translated.
If you have any you'd like to share, please do.

I know you shared at least part of the DN 21, but do you have the complete section for:
DN 21 Tv commentary on what kind of samādhi Buddha was in when sound Sakka's chariot caused him to emerge from it
♦ salaḷāgāraketi salaḷamayagandhakuṭiyaṃ.

aññatarena samādhināti tadā kira bhagavā sakkasseva aparipākagataṃ ñāṇaṃ viditvā okāsaṃ akāretukāmo phalasamāpattivihārena nisīdi. taṃ esa ajānanto “aññatarena samādhinā”ti āha.

bhūjati ca nāmāti bhūjatīti tassā nāmaṃ.

paricārikāti pādaparicārikā devadhītā. sā kira dve phalāni pattā, tenassā devaloke abhiratiyeva natthi. niccaṃ bhagavato upaṭṭhānaṃ āgantvā añjaliṃ sirasi ṭhapetvā bhagavantaṃ namassamānā tiṭṭhati.

nemisaddena tamhā samādhimhā vuṭṭhitoti “samāpanno saddaṃ suṇātī”ti no vata re vattabbe, nanu bhagavā sakkassa devānamindassa “apicāhaṃ āyasmato cakkanemisaddena tamhā samādhimhā vuṭṭhito”ti bhaṇatīti. tiṭṭhatu nemisaddo, samāpanno nāma antosamāpattiyaṃ kaṇṇamūle dhamamānassa saṅkhayugaḷassāpi asanisannipātassāpi saddaṃ na suṇāti. bhagavā pana “ettakaṃ kālaṃ sakkassa okāsaṃ na karissāmī”ti paricchinditvā kālavasena phalasamāpattiṃ samāpanno. sakko “na dāni me satthā okāsaṃ karotī”ti gandhakuṭiṃ padakkhiṇaṃ katvā rathaṃ nivattetvā devalokābhimukhaṃ pesesi. gandhakuṭipariveṇaṃ rathasaddena samohitaṃ pañcaṅgikatūriyaṃ viya ahosi. bhagavato yathāparicchinnakālavasena samāpattito vuṭṭhitassa rathasaddeneva paṭhamāvajjanaṃ uppajji, tasmā evamāha.

[frank k]

If you have links to share, please do.
If there is a plausible explanation, is there some reason why it can't be summarized in a short writeup? Even just a few lines?

Many Theravadins believe Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha, and Jataka tales as well.
They believe the Buddha went to tusita heaven to teach his mother abhidamma, and secretly taught Sariputta.
I find that impossible.
Not impossible that Buddha could visit his mother in tusita, or that he could teach Sariputta some marginal Dharmas he felt wasn't worth sharing with the entire sangha.

I base that conclusion on how many abhidharma schools there are, with the different authors attributed, unlike the EBT suttas, which all 18 original schools tried to preserve accurately and not deliberately alter. We find great consistency in the EBT's, wild divergence in Abhidharma schools. If the Buddha really did teach it to Sariputta and his mother in tusita heaven, don't you think all the other schools would agree on that point?
Wouldn't you expect also to find a very consistent core Abhidhamma in all the schools? But you don't.
Who would dare take the Buddha's (supposed word) on Abhidhamma and then attribute the work to some other arahant or non arahant?
Will the real Abhidharma please stand up?

Look, Frank,
I believe you will close up when I try to give you some actually readily available alternative explanations of why there is more consistency among the schools regarding the main Nikāyas and regarding the other points you raised. I mean except the Jātaks tales, which I don' take literally. I won't bother to present them since everybody openly investigating the issue would easily see that for him- or herself, especially someone as intelligent as you, but I think preference has probably gotten the best of you, at least parts of it. No offence, but bias is a real obstacle to actually seeing all viable alternatives.

Mettā!
A. Bhikkhu

[atipattoh]

Hello Bhante,

This is not a response to your post, but presenting a perspective on the word “Jhānā”, may be referring to.

I’m splitting the content into 3 segments.
(I) (you probably already aware of)
MN125

When they have ethical conduct, the Realized One guides them further: ‘Come, mendicant, guard your sense doors. When you see a sight with your eyes, don’t get caught up in the features and details. …

(This should be expanded as in MN 107, the Discourse with Moggallāna the Accountant.)

They [colour=red]give up[/colour] these five hindrances, corruptions of the heart that weaken wisdom. Then they meditate observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world

MN 107

Giving up desire for the world, they meditate with a heart rid of desire, cleansing the mind of desire.

SN1.70& SN12.44

“In six has the world arisen;
In six it forms intimacy;
By clinging to six the world
Is harassed in regard to six.”

“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world.

“In dependence on the ear and sounds … In dependence on the nose and odours … In dependence on the tongue and tastes … In dependence on the body and tactile objects … In dependence on the mind and mental phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging … existence … birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world.

(2)
Does Jhānā means all four jhānas? Not necessarily!
Please access this link on momentariness before reading the third segment.

(3)
From the perspective of the second point, doesn't seems
that sound, a thorn on all four!
Furthermore, from
iti 73 & iti 72

..formless states are more peaceful than states of form; cessation is more peaceful than formless states

states of form - formless states – cessation, thus RupaJhana: states of form is referred in

Renunciation is the escape from sensual pleasures.

Renunciation is “departure from worldly life; the renunciation of worldly things and values; whatever is the opposite of or rejection of all worldly, sensual experience and desires”; that the world has been described in point (1); renunciation directly reject sense bases experience. One that depart from these bases, how could one hear sound, experiencing sound?
In SN28.3, Sāriputta did not event knows: entering, entered or emerging! If He could hear sound, He would have known entering, entered or emerging!

When the “fuel” (ekaggata) has already depleted, at this moment of upacārabhāvanā, a very loud noise may cause slight difficulty but not a thorn for re-entry the similar Jhānas. Sound perception arises, and passes quickly.
Sāriputta is not even aware of those three; how can sound knocks Him out of Jhānas?

Since in SN28.3, sound can not be a knock-out factor, it is unlikely to be in the other 3 Jhānas as well. So we are left with the case in, a thorn for arising of counterpart sign, during Parikammabhāvanā, thorn for first Jhānā.


~~ metta ~~~

[auto]

MN28 gives us a possible idea of how it can occur. If your attention is solely on one thing, say the nimitta, then the other senses won’t be experienced since attention is required to experience seeing, hearing etc.

mn28 is good sutta to study what grasping aggregates are

But the Buddha has also said:
Vuttaṁ kho panetaṁ bhagavatā:
..
And these five grasping aggregates are indeed dependently originated.
Paṭiccasamuppannā kho panime yadidaṁ pañcupādānakkhandhā.

grasping aggregates are identity(sakkaya),

“Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are identity.
“Pañca kho ime, āvuso visākha, upādānakkhandhā sakkāyo vutto bhagavatā,
That is: form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.
seyyathidaṁ—rūpupādānakkhandho, vedanupādānakkhandho, saññupādānakkhandho,

desire for sakkaya

The desire, adherence, attraction, and attachment for these five grasping aggregates is the origin of suffering.
Yo imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chando ālayo anunayo ajjhosānaṁ so dukkhasamudayo.

i think its fair to assume sakkaya is kāma, (desire for ..)

“It’s the craving that leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, taking pleasure in various different realms. That is,
“Yāyaṁ, āvuso visākha, taṇhā ponobbhavikā nandīrāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī, seyyathidaṁ—
craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence.
kāmataṇhā bhavataṇhā vibhavataṇhā;
The Buddha said that this is the origin of identity.”
ayaṁ kho, āvuso visākha, sakkāyasamudayo vutto bhagavatā”ti.

and the other part is that do you still can say "there is no grasping-aggregates(identity) to begin with? looks like one doesn't have seen dependent origination to say that the self doesn't exist at first place.

“One who sees dependent origination sees the teaching.
“yo paṭiccasamuppādaṁ passati so dhammaṁ passati;
One who sees the teaching sees dependent origination.”
yo dhammaṁ passati so paṭiccasamuppādaṁ passatī”ti.
And these five grasping aggregates are indeed dependently originated.
Paṭiccasamuppannā kho panime yadidaṁ pañcupādānakkhandhā.

In short:
If sakkaya is dependently originated, can you still claim sakkaya hasn't been exited at all, it is conventional speech?