SuttaCentral
"Ananda, as long as I had not attained and emerged from these nine* step-by-step dwelling-attainments in forward and backward order in this way, I did not claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening.” - AN9.41
*Phalasamapatti is attained by each of the four kinds of noble beings just after attaining the knowledge of the path, and it can be cultivated and extended by them as well. Nirodhasamapatti however, can only be entered by non-returners and arahats.
Look at what I said carefully:
And:
I challenge you to find any reference from any early text of him practicing any of the jhānas from 2~4 before he had first practiced immaterial states!
Yes, he recalls how as a child, he remembered having a samadhi experience under the 
-apple 
I believe the next time he entered samma-samadhi, through all the jhanas and, beyond, was on the night of his awakening. He would have entered the four form-jhanas and then, the four formless-jhanas - in that ascending order. Practicing the first four then, the subtle refinements of the fourth jhana.
Text:
a book or other written or printed work, regarded in terms of its content rather than its physical form.
the main body of a book or other piece of writing, as distinct from other material such as notes, appendices, and illustrations.
Congratulations on your assumption, and for helping to illustrate how assumption not based on evidence can lead to believing made up texts from later periods.
I get your point!
It’s also possible that his two earlier teachers: ‘Alara and Udaka’ may have helped him to understand samadhi-type attainments - jhanas 7/8. Ajahn Brahm seems to believe these teachers were not teaching samma-samadhi. This seems to be a moot-point that appears now and then when Buddhists find nothing better to do with their time. 
I get the strong sense that the Buddha specifically did not do any jhāna practice with his two teachers at all. I therefore conclude that he was either doing only immaterial practice with him, with no practice of the 4 jhānas; or that he didn’t even practice immaterial attainments with them, and that that story (which by the way has no mention of him practicing jhāna with them at all) has come to us in some damaged fashion, perhaps because he practiced somethign else with them and it was later mistakenly thought to be the standard immaterial attainments the Buddha taught.
There’s too much to suggest that the Buddha’s jhāna practice had nothing whatsoever to do with him learning them or training in them under those two teachers.
Do you have a specific question? We have discussed these points many times. The earliest writing in India was Brahmi:
When speaking of the “early Buddhist texts”, of course we are speaking of the oral tradition.
Yes, the oral/chanting tradition that was then turned into an oral and textual tradition when scribes committed it to writing. The Pali texts and, the other early rendering/renderings in what written language?
Pali is the language. The script is Brahmi, as per the Wikipedia article I posted 
Dear Laurence your curiosity is not inappropriate. However, these questions are far from this topic. If you clarify what it is you want to ask, then please start a new thread to address those questions. Specific questions are best in the Q and A category.
I am hesitant to start new threads as they seem to cause inexplicable alarm. My lucky-last attempt went into lock-down before anyone had a chance to comment and be ‘damaged’ as a consequence.
It’s clear I don’t make the ideological-cut. As there is no ‘court of appeal’ in this system, just some kind of ‘Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’ it seems I must stop making contributions that ‘apparently’ are unrelated to EBT teachings although, this is news to me.
I hope this brings welcome relief to my long-suffering mitta’s.
It might be better to overcome that. It’s good to keep posts on topic. You may find your answers here but perhaps dont reply to this comment here: https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf
If everyone is letting you know the same thing, it’s time to take a hard look at yourself. No point looking outwards…
Aren’t all bodies psychically created in Buddhism, or have I misunderstood? My understanding is that what is generally referred to as ‘reality’ is the things that we agree on at any given point in time. This understanding is from the ‘consciousness science’ community, in particular Anil Seth. This seems to resonate with my current understanding of the general thrust of the EBTs.
Interesting article: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/consciousness-may-be-product-carefully-balanced-chaos
The body can be ‘represented’ in the mind in this way. However it won’t explain how the Buddha could go unnoticed, as shown above. Short of not having to physically transform one explanation is that the marks are visible (or made visible) on an ‘astral body’ which is mind made ie ‘psychic’ in nature. Or we could just put it down to the making of a myth.
Both heterosexual and homosexual activity is against the rules for monks.
It says in the Vinaya:
"At that time the venerable Upananda, of the Sakya tribe, had two novices, Kandaka and Mahaka; these committed sodomy with each other. The Bhikkhus were annoyed, &c.: ‘How can novices abandon themselves to such bad conduct?’
They told this thing to the Lord Buddha, &c.
‘Let no one, O Bhikkhus(Monks), ordain two novices. He who does, is guilty of a dukkata offence.’" - PTS cs Kd.1.52.1, PTS vp en BD.4.100, Mahavogga 1.52 | Wikipitaka - The Completing Tipitaka | Fandom , SuttaCentral
If heterosexual activity is against the rules for monks obviously homosexual activity would be too.
This does not seem to be a well founded statement to me, but rather a statement of assumption.