Leigh Brasington and "Jhana-Lite" (Why there is no such thing as "jhāna-lite")

[anon72511327]

@Ratana

In dn9 you can have sentence while in highest jhana

@Ratana

“Standing on the peak of perception they think…’” (DN9)

Strangely enough, the Chinese parallel DA 28 specifically says of the same passage:

“After they attain this perception, they think, ‘Having thoughts is bad, and having no thoughts is good.’ When they think that, there’s a subtle perception that doesn’t cease, and then a cruder perception arises. They again think, ‘Now, I’d rather not have any thought activity and not produce attention".
“Once they don’t have any thought activity and don’t produce attention, the subtle perception ceases, and the cruder perception doesn’t arise. When they don’t have any thought activity, don’t produce thinking, the subtle perception ceases, and the cruder perception doesn’t arise, then they enter perception and knowing of the attainment of cessation.

The Pali seems to be missing the piece that describes how a coarser perception arises when a thought is formulated?

Can anyone more versed in Pali and Chinese than me take a look?

[Javier]

For what it’s worth, my solution to the whole jhana issue has been a simile I read in a book by Analayo a long time ago. Basically he says that it seems that some suttas do say one can hear sound etc in jhana, but others say you cannot. He then says that it might be possible due to one being partly submerged in jhana, kind of like how one can be partially submerged in a lake, halfway submerged, or fully submerged. So in this model there is a kind of spectrum of depth in first jhana which can accommodate for many of these discrepancies (between an easier and a deeper jhana).

As such, I kind of think the whole debate is kind of pointless. Of course there are shallower and deeper states of meditation, why wouldn’t there be? All other human experiences related to skill, concentration and focus are also on a spectrum, the psychological realm can never be measured in strict absolutes (you are either in jhana or you are not in jhana!). Likewise, there are sure to be many other states of meditation which are pre-jhanic states that still have value (or that are not jhana at all - no, heresy!). Also, every person’s mind is different and experiences (and interprets those experiences) in different ways, so there is that to be taken into account as well. These things have to be taken on a case by case basis through a process of introspection and personal dialogue with a close spiritual friend. They are not engineering projects, the mind is not a computer…

So yea, sometimes the jhana wars…it’s kind of silly…only Sith deal in absolu - well sort of

[Erika_ODonnell]

@Javier

So yea, sometimes the jhana wars…it’s kind of silly…only Sith deal in absolu - well sort of

Though, another angle to the jhana debate is perhaps who is a legitimate interpreter of the Buddha’s teaching, and who is not.

Is it the 2500 year old unbroken lineage of monastics who have dedicated themselves to Dhamma study and meditation…

…or is people from non-Buddhist cultures who have no academic training in Buddhism, Pali or ancient languages?

In other words, do you need any credentials or expertise to confidently explain the teachings of the Buddha found in ancient Pali, Chinese and Tibetan texts?

Is it enough to make a living as a lay meditation teacher? Is it enough to have written books about meditation?

Like, if someone from Japan wrote a book on Norse mythology, saying “This is what the Eddas really say”, I would be very surprised if I found out that person didn’t have any training in the old Norse language, or any immersion in Scandinavian culture and its folklore, such as one might get from growing up in Iceland.

[Javier]

@Erika_ODonnell

if someone from Japan wrote a book on Norse mythology, saying “This is what the Eddas really say”

I’d only listen to that person if they studied the material intensively, knew the language well and made reasonable arguments backed up by the source texts. It is possible to do this without having a direct personal connection to Scandinavia and even without having a formal academic training. Of course, it is generally less likely such self-taught people will be competent, so a good rule of thumb is to listen to scholars who have academic training or traditional Buddhist training. But then again, such people make all sorts of ridiculous claims all the time too (like, we can’t say the Buddha existed or we can’t say anything about what Buddha taught…etc). Or with traditional monastics they will say the Buddha taught Abhidhamma and so on (lol).

So, as I said before, you have to take this on a case by case basis, there is no single algorithm you can apply in all cases.

And good thing that Bhikkhu Sujato is teaching a course on epistemology now! This is very apropos of this discussion.

[Adutiya]

@anon72511327

Can anyone more versed in Pali and Chinese than me take a look?

Perhaps @cdpatton can help here.

[samseva]

@Ratana

In dn9 you can have sentence while in highest jhana

Dn9
Furthermore, a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness.

You mean the part that says “aware that ‘there is nothing at all’”?

You know “aware” is not “thought” or “thinking,” right?

[samseva]

@Javier

[…]

Most of your post is just some kind of an appeal to relativism, where you say something like: “You know, man, there aren’t absolutes. This whole issue is pointless and silly, man.”

(However, contrary to you saying that jhāna is some kind of “case-by-case” thing, jhāna is defined by: the absence of the hindrances (nīvaraṇa), and the presence of the jhāna factors (jhānanga). If someone makes claims of attainment of being in the arūpa-jhāna, and also being able to have thoughts while in arūpa-jhāna, then such a person is by definition not in arūpa-jhāna—and also, nor in the fourth, third or second jhāna, since—exactly as described in the Suttas—thoughts subside at the second jhāna.)

@Erika_ODonnell

Though, another angle to the jhana debate is perhaps who is a legitimate interpreter of the Buddha’s teaching, and who is not.

Precisely.

[cdpatton]

@anon72511327

Can anyone more versed in Pali and Chinese than me take a look?

DA 28 breaks the thought up, having the narrator interject part of it. DN 9 combines it all into a single quote. So, the two texts differ in that way.

The more interesting thing is that DA 28 takes the practitioner all the way up to nirodha-samāpatti, whereas DN 9 stops at the abode of nothingness, calling it the “peak of perception” (sañña-agga). Then after the practitioner has no more perception, DN 9 says they “touch cessation” (nirodhaṁ phusati).

Now, the Chinese doesn’t do this. Instead, the practitioner goes all the way to cessation. Then, after attaining it, they have a thought. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are actually in the nirodha-samāpatti when they have the thought. They may have fallen back into a kind of intermediate state that isn’t samādhi. But DA 28 doesn’t give us any explicit hint about that. It’s just kind of impossible to have any kind of mental activity while in the nirodha-samāpatti(!).

There’s another Agama sutra (MA 176) that does indicate this happening, which depicts practitioners not assessing correctly whether they are entering higher states of samādhi (i.e., dhyānas or formless samādhis) or dropping to lower ones. It explicitly indicates that before going from the first to the second dhyāna (etc.), there’s an intermission of sorts, during which time the practitioner has thoughts assessing themselves.

Below is the comparison of the Chinese and Pali passages.

Chinese	English
彼得此想已，作是念：『有念為惡，無念為善。』彼作是念時，彼微妙想不滅，更麤想生。彼復念言：『我今寧可不為念行，不起思惟。』	31. “After they attain this perception, they think, ‘Having thoughts is bad, and having no thoughts is good.’ When they think that, there’s a subtle perception that doesn’t cease, and then a cruder perception arises. They again think, ‘Now, I’d rather not have any thought activity and not produce attention.’
彼不為念行，不起思惟已，微妙想滅，麤想不生。彼不為念行，不起思惟，微妙想滅，麤想不生時，即入想知滅定。	32. “Once they don’t have any thought activity and don’t produce attention, the subtle perception ceases, and the cruder perception doesn’t arise. When they don’t have any thought activity, don’t produce thinking, the subtle perception ceases, and the cruder perception doesn’t arise, then they enter perception and knowing of the attainment of cessation.

Pali	English
“Yato kho, poṭṭhapāda, bhikkhu idha sakasaññī hoti, so tato amutra tato amutra anupubbena saññaggaṁ phusati. Tassa saññagge ṭhitassa evaṁ hoti: ‘cetayamānassa me pāpiyo, acetayamānassa me seyyo. Ahañceva kho pana ceteyyaṁ, abhisaṅkhareyyaṁ, imā ca me saññā nirujjheyyuṁ, aññā ca oḷārikā saññā uppajjeyyuṁ; yannūnāhaṁ na ceva ceteyyaṁ na ca abhisaṅkhareyyan’ti.	“Poṭṭhapāda, from the time a mendicant here takes responsibility for their own perception, they proceed from one stage to the next, gradually reaching the peak of perception. Standing on the peak of perception they think, ‘Intentionality is bad for me, it’s better to be free of it. For if I were to intend and choose, these perceptions would cease in me, and other coarser perceptions would arise. Why don’t I neither make a choice nor form an intention?’
So na ceva ceteti, na ca abhisaṅkharoti. Tassa acetayato anabhisaṅkharoto tā ceva saññā nirujjhanti, aññā ca oḷārikā saññā na uppajjanti. So nirodhaṁ phusati. Evaṁ kho, poṭṭhapāda, anupubbābhisaññānirodhasampajānasamāpatti hoti.	They neither make a choice nor form an intention. Those perceptions cease in them, and other coarser perceptions don’t arise. They touch cessation. And that, Poṭṭhapāda, is how the gradual cessation of perception is attained with awareness.

[samseva]

Here is something said by Leigh Brasington, in an interview with Insight Journal:

One thing I’ve discovered along the way is that the level of concentration that I get to on a ten-day course or a month-long course or that my students get to is probably not the level the Buddha and his disciples were getting to, because they were doing this practice full-time.

On long retreats, particularly during the two retreats I’ve done with Pa Auk Sayadaw, I was able to get deeply concentrated and then work with the same jhāna states I initially learned from Ayya Khema. The experiences I had during those retreats more closely matched the way they’re described in the suttas.

So then the question becomes, “If what I’m teaching is at a lesser level of concentration than what the Buddha was teaching, is that of any value, or should I just be teaching what he taught?” I’ve decided that, given that I’m working with lay students who come on retreat for ten or twenty days, it’s much more important to teach something that people can actually learn and use than to hold out for something that most people don’t have the time to properly develop. If someone wants to take their concentration to the level the Buddha was teaching, I can help with that as well. Basically, they just have to stay much longer in access concentration before moving into the first jhāna.

Source: https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/article/jhanas-lucid-dreaming-and-letting-there-be-just-seeing-in-the-seeing/

So, it would appear that Leigh himself says that:

1. “Jhāna-lite” is different from jhāna described in the Suttas and practiced/taught by the Buddha. AND, that…

2. “Jhāna-lite” is access-concentration (upacāra-samādhi).

[stephen]

I wonder if it is possible to have an interesting and fruitful discussion about the nature of jhāna without disparaging specific people’s practice and teaching.

[samseva]

@stephen

I wonder if it is possible to have an interesting and fruitful discussion about the nature of jhāna without disparaging specific people’s practice and teaching.

Quoting Leigh and pointing out the contradictions with the Suttas is “disparaging him”?

[Invo]

@Javier

For what it’s worth, my solution to the whole jhana issue has been a simile I read in a book by Analayo a long time ago. Basically he says that it seems that some suttas do say one can hear sound etc in jhana, but others say you cannot. He then says that it might be possible due to one being partly submerged in jhana, kind of like how one can be partially submerged in a lake, halfway submerged, or fully submerged. So in this model there is a kind of spectrum of depth in first jhana which can accommodate for many of these discrepancies (between an easier and a deeper jhana).

Greetings Javier ! Do you perhaps have a reference for this? It is exactly the way I see this issue as well and it would be most useful reference for work I’m writing. To have such prominent teacher as Bhikkhu Analayo agreeing with this interpretation would be a good addition and I could promote this view a little further.

If you don’t have specific reference, at least the title of the book would be helpful so I could try to find it myself. If you could please share the reference or title of the book, I kindly ask you. That would be helpful to me and perhaps those few who might read my work in the future.

And already thank you for your post Javier!

And thanks to Bhante Sujato for amazing post that illuminates the issue of jhana wars in general as well:

@sujato

But it’s not just the fact that the exact same words are used; that’s what an engineer looks for. In this case the words are the same; in other cases, the words are different, and an engineer might take this is a sign of different meaning. Which, in some cases it may be, in some cases not.

The more important thing is that the narrative context is the same. They are telling the same story (or a variation on it). Both these suttas tell the story of a person who first learns what is right and wrong, learns to understand the nature of the Dhamma, who learns and grows spiritually in their own way. And when ready, this spiritual growth prompts the arising of joy and tranquillity, which supports the development of profound meditation and fruits in wisdom and freedom.

Clearly the meditations developed along the way are of a similar nature. Are they exactly the same? Does one fit inside another, or the other inside the one? I mean, generally, sure? Or not? These questions are abhidhammic in nature, and the abhidhammas and commentaries expend a lot of energy to sort them out and define every point. But the Suttas tell us only so much, and human experience is vast and weird and unpredictable.

If we torture a text, we can make it confess anything we want. Better to sit down and have a cup of tea with it, and listen to the story that it wants to tell.

Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu! Thank you Bhante!

With Metta.

[nil]

Hello.

@samseva

As anyone who has read the Suttas knows, the jhāna factors (jhānanga) of thought-conception (vitakka) and discursive thinking (vicāra) both subside after the first jhāna. It is literally impossible for there to be thought-conception (vitakka) and discursive thinking (vicāra) in the second, third and fourth jhāna, let alone any of the four arūpa-jhāna.

Is it really totally impossible to have V&V (vitakka / vicara), in 2nd jhana and more, or how it should ideally be ?
I find SN40.2 interesting: SuttaCentral

Mogallana seems to be in the second jhana, but with V&V.
The buddha enjoins him to purify it further, but he does not say he was not in the second jhana.
It seems one could say he was in a “perfectible” Jhana.

Bhikkhu Bodhi translation:

Then, friends, with the subsiding of thought and examination, I entered and dwelt in the second jhana … While I dwelt therein perception an attention accompanied by thoughts and examination assailed me.

Or we might understand that he was in the 2nd jhana until the very moment V&V appeared, then he was out back in the first, which would make sense as a jhana is defined by its factors.
But it also seems to imply that one can go in and out a given jhana by having V&V, or even worldly thoughts ? interfere for a moment, and be back a few seconds later as the factors are purified.

So if one goes to the 2nd jhana for 10 minutes, but V&V interfere once every minute, either he was fully absorbed 10 times in this period, or one could say he was in a lesser, lite, unstable absorption the whole time.

[stephen]

Hi Nil,
Thank you for your post and very interesting sutta quote.

It does seem that ‘jhana-instability’ is a constant peril. Ven. Moggallana seems to describe this, as he struggled to master stability in the 2nd jhana.
For me the intrusions of V&V indicate a falling back to a slightly less refined mental state.

[Invo]

What I find puzzling, is that really a lot matters on what we actually mean by words like “rupa”, “arupa”, “vitakka”, “vicara”, “ekagatta”, etc. I’m writing P.hD about this stuff and as far as I can see, there is really no consensus among modern theravada teachers, including monastics, what this terms actually mean. More than that, different prominent teachers are clearly understanding these key terms differently, hence the difference in interpretations of various states and the path in general. Since there are no definite answers and definitions of many of key terms in suttas themselves, it seems we are dealing more or less with interpretations. Some interpretations might be wrong and some right, but everyone must decide themselves which are most true and helpful on the path, but it is good to be aware that various prominent teachers see these things a little differently.

Interesting challanging thing… if arupa jhanas have only 1 kandha removed - that is rupa, and vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana are still present… I wonder how can you not think in some way, and how can there be no movement at all, when sankharas are still there? In Ajahn Punnadhammo book on buddhist cosmology, arupa brahmas clearly has still some mental life going on.

3:7:3 EXISTENCE IN THE ARŪPABHŪMI
Beings that exist in the arūpa state are at the very summit of saṃsāric existence, not of course in a spatial sense, but in the sense of being the most refined and subtle form of existence. Evil, unskillful states (pāpakā akusalā dhammā) arise only in association with form, not without form (AN 2:83, eng. 2:82). The happiness of the formless exceeds the happiness based on form.

Among the five destinations (of rebirth) those of the devas are the best (seṭṭha).
Among these, those of the formless beings are the most glorious (ukkaṭṭha). They
are very far removed from defilement (kilesa) and suffering (dukkha). Their abidings
(vihāra, lit. “dwelling”) are endowed with tranquillity, excellence (paṇīta),
imperturbability (āneñja). Their life-spans are exceedingly long.

Whereas the brahmās of the rūpabhūmi are said to be “mind-made” (manomaya) the beings of the arūpabhūmi are “perception-made” (saññāmaya). “Use of sticks and swords, quarrels, abuse, slander and false speech occur on account of form (rūpa). But none of these exist in the immaterial (arūpa) sphere” (MN 60). The arūpa beings, having no bodies, do not possess physical senses, but experience only the mind-sense (Vibh 18). This implies that these beings are self-contained, living entirely within a self-generated world of mind objects. The outer universe is no concern of theirs. On those occasions in which all the devas assemble, even from thousands of world-systems, specific exceptions are made for the arūpa devas and the asaññasatta (unconscious beings) (DN-a 20 & It-a 3:4,3). No individual in these realms is named for us in the texts, nor are there any stories about them. Existence here is considered to be a spiritually advanced state, but it is not complete liberation. The rūpa plane is called a “fleshy” or “carnal” liberation (vimokkho sāmiso), whereas the arūpa plane is a “spiritual” or “non-carnal” liberation (nirāmiso vimokkho). However, arahantship is “more spiritual than the spiritual” (nirāmisā nirāmisataro vimokkho) (SN 36:31). Although these beings exist on a very refined plane, they are still subject to some degree of defilement. Although the root defilement of ill-will (dosa) cannot arise in their minds, the other two roots of desire (lobha) and delusion (moha) can (Vibh 18:3,2). Desire here takes the form of the craving for immaterial existence (Vibh 17:3). The defilement of delusion occurs among them in the form of not understanding the Third Noble Truth, that of cessation (nirodha) (SN-a 5:6).

Ajahn Punnadhammo - Buddhist Cosmos pp. 676-677

I think the whole understanding of “vitakka” and “vicara” are based on huge assumptions that cannot really be confirmed because of limitations of language when it comes to such subtle matters. Even the word “thinking” can mean completetly different things for different people. Some people might call “thinking” very coarse things, and some extremely subtle flowing awareness. I’m pondering this stuff for like 15 years and I still don’t really know if when I talk to people and we talk about “thinking” if we mean the same phenomena. Who is right? Does is matter?

I think Bhante Sujato has the best lead. Suttas teach us about letting go. And letting go of this proliferation about jhanas is part of the path.

@sujato

If we torture a text, we can make it confess anything we want. Better to sit down and have a cup of tea with it, and listen to the story that it wants to tell.

@sujato

The Suttas help us to let go. Jhanas are one of the outcomes of letting go.

I think this is supported by sutta about 4 imponderables:

AN4.77 Unthinkable

“Mendicants, these four things are unthinkable. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.
Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, acinteyyāni, na cintetabbāni; yāni cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.

What four?
Katamāni cattāri?

The scope of the Buddhas …
Buddhānaṁ, bhikkhave, buddhavisayo acinteyyo, na cintetabbo; aṁ cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.

The scope of one in absorption …
Jhāyissa, bhikkhave, jhānavisayo acinteyyo, na cintetabbo; yaṁ cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.

The results of deeds …
Kammavipāko, bhikkhave, acinteyyo, na cintetabbo; yaṁ cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.

Speculation about the world …
Lokacintā, bhikkhave, acinteyyā, na cintetabbā; yaṁ cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assa.

These are the four unthinkable things. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.”
Imāni kho, bhikkhave, cattāri acinteyyāni, na cintetabbāni; yāni cintento ummādassa vighātassa bhāgī assā”ti.

Dear Bhante @sujato could you please, if you’ve got a moment, tell us if in your opinion this phrase on “the scope of one in absorption” refers to things like:

• (1) incomprehensible vastness of immesurable mind (appanam citta)
• (2) possibilities of psychic powers that jhanas bring (as interpreted by Ajahn Thanissaro in second adnotation here: Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable), or
• (3) exactly the levels and scope and spectrum of meditative absorptions themselves like discussed in this thread?

I think your answer Bhante will be most helpful in understanding this issue, and I kindly ask you to elaborate a little on this fragment of AN4.77.

If it is the third thing, then Buddha himself said that overthinking this leads to madness or frustration that is counterproductive of actually letting go, as Bhante Sujato advised in post I’ve quoted above.

If anything I stated is wrong, please forgive me my ignorance.

[sujato]

@Invo

In Ajahn Punnadhammo book on buddhist cosmology, arupa brahmas clearly has still some mental life

Ok, so one thing is that the rebirth plane is not identical with the meditation attainment. The plane of rebirth is a bhava, a state of existence. Think of it as a certain frequency on a spectrum. Beings born there will by default resonate in that frequency, just as we by default resonate in a human frequency. However this is not static; in the human realm, we can change the way our mind works, become more heavenly or hellish, and even practice jhanas or arupas. But the general tendency is to revert back to the frequency of our bhava. In other realms the situation is similar, although it generally seems that the human realm is the most variable; in other dimensions people are more narrowly centered around their bhava (eg. the behavior of cows is more strongly determined by their rebirth and less variable).

@Invo

Even the word “thinking” can mean completetly different things for different people. Some people might call “thinking” very coarse things, and some extremely subtle flowing awareness.

This is absolutely true, and to use “thinking” in this very subtle way of vitakka is quite fine. Actually Blake pointed this out to me years ago. The problem is that when people read it, that’s not what they think of; they think that thinking means discursive and linguistic reflection, but that’s certainly not happening in jhana.

[samseva]

@Invo

What I find puzzling, is that really a lot matters on what we actually mean by words like “rupa”, “arupa”, “vitakka”, “vicara”, “ekagatta”, etc. I’m writing P.hD about this stuff and as far as I can see, there is really no consensus among modern theravada teachers, including monastics, what this terms actually mean.

If you are to imply academic authority, and saying it is related to the topic… would you mind saying what your PhD studies are?

I think there are a number of issues with the point that you’ve made.

First, it is surprising that an academic such as yourself says “no consensus among modern theravada teachers, including monastics, what this terms actually mean.” The reasons being:

1. This is a seriously bold claim (with little to support it).
2. Saying “among modern Therāvada teachers.” It’s not about teachers, but rather scholars, and especially monastic scholars—during the past 2564 years.
3. That you say “among modern Therāvada teachers.” You do know modern scholarship in Buddhism consists of 100 years out of over two thousand years? That’s a tiny amount.
4. Unless you can read Burmese, Sinhala and so on, I’m guessing you mean “English-speaking modern Therāvada teachers” (and works that were translated into English)?

@Invo

Since there are no definite answers and definitions of many of key terms in suttas themselves, it seems we are dealing more or less with interpretations. Some interpretations might be wrong and some right, but everyone must decide themselves which are most true and helpful on the path, but it is good to be aware that various prominent teachers see these things a little differently.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are you saying that “since modern (English-speaking) Theravāda teachers don’t know what these Pāḷi terms mean, then we should each decide for ourselves what these Pāḷi terms mean”?

And do tell what makes each person competent in the Pāḷi language—and in knowing what the true meaning of each Pāḷi term is?

@Invo

[…]

Ajahn Punnadhammo - Buddhist Cosmos pp. 676-677

Re most of your post, I don’t know how cosmology is in any way relevant to the discussion.

@Invo

I think this is supported by sutta about 4 imponderables:

[…]

If it is the third thing, then Buddha himself said that overthinking this leads to madness or frustration that is counterproductive of actually letting go, as Bhante Sujato advised in post I’ve quoted above.

Why do you seem to have an issue with someone just discussing it? So according to you, “we should not think about it, nor talk about it”?

And by the way, discussing jhāna isn’t one of the imponderables. Refuting “jhāna-lite” also is fairly straight-forward, and not one of the imponderables.

Now… could you please address points being made—and the topic itself—rather than trying to pigeonhole this as being an “imponderable” (it’s not)?

[Javier]

@Invo

Do you perhaps have a reference for this?

I really do not remember, maybe Early Buddhist Meditation Studies? It’s been awhile since I read this passage and drew this conclusion (that one can be only partially submerged in jhana and that this might explain why there are passages which seem to say one can hear sounds in jhana etc).

[Javier]

@sujato

but that’s certainly not happening in jhana.

And this is agreed upon by the Northern Abhidharma tradition as well in how they define vitarka and vichara.

[Invo]

@samseva

If you are to imply academic authority, and saying it is related to the topic… would you mind saying what your PhD studies are?

I think there are a number of issues with the point that you’ve made.

First, it is surprising that an academic such as yourself says “no consensus among modern theravada teachers, including monastics, what this terms actually mean.” The reasons being:

1. This is a seriously bold claim (with little to support it).
2. Saying “among modern Therāvada teachers.” It’s not about teachers, but rather scholars, and especially monastic scholars—during the past 2564 years.
3. That you say “among modern Therāvada teachers.” You do know modern scholarship in Buddhism consists of 100 years out of over two thousand years? That’s a tiny amount.
4. Unless you can read Burmese, Sinhala and so on, I’m guessing you mean “English-speaking modern Therāvada teachers” (and works that were translated into English)?

Greetings Samseva.

First of all please forgive me if I gave impression of wanting to imply any academic authority. I’m no authority at all, I’m just a P.hD student from minor University who tries to finish his studies and learning in the process. But as you asked my subject is “cognitive and functional aspects of meditation in Theravada buddhism”.

My post does not imply any authority. All I’m saying is I’m writing about it and I have some knowledge of this stuff, absolutely not exhaustive. Anyway for example Ajahn Thanissaro, Ayya Khema and Ajahn Brahmavamso - all have different understandings of jhanas. Ajahn Thanissaro and Ajahn Brahmavamso have different understanding of ekagatta. I’m sorry but I won’t be looking for references because for me this is just casual discussion on an Internet forum and I don’t treat it as seriously. I’m writing my P.hD in polish language so I can’t just copy paste too. If you’re curious, please read “With Each and Every Breath” of Ajahn Thanissaro and “Mindfulness, Bliss & Beyond” of Ajahn Brahmavamso, and listen to talks by Ayya Khema on jhanas on youtube, and you will find the differences.

@samseva

Re most of your post, I don’t know how cosmology is in any way relevant to the discussion.

I think it is relevant in a way. There is some information in EBTs about rupa-loka and arupa-loka brahmas that give some additional descritpion of these realms than we cannot find in descriptions about jhanas themselves. Since rupa-loka are connected to rupa-jhanas, and arupa-loka to arupa-jhanas, I think this can help us imagine what these states actually are from phenomenological point of view and to help navigate our own meditative experiences a bit, where we are more or less. I find this interesting and insightful, but not everyone has to.

@samseva

Why do you seem to have an issue with someone just discussing it? So according to you, “we should not think about it, nor talk about it”?

And by the way, discussing jhāna isn’t one of the imponderables. Refuting “jhāna-lite” also is fairly straight-forward, and not one of the imponderables.

Now… could you please address points being made—and the topic itself—rather than trying to pigeonhole this as being an “imponderable” (it’s not)?

I don’t argue to “be right”. I’ve actually asked Bhante Sujato what AN4.77 means about imponderable related to jhanas, because I honestly don’t know. I absolutely don’t think that saying jhana-lite does not exist is wrong, I actually agree with you. Thing is my post wasn’t at all directed at yours. I just wanted to point out the things I did, and everyone can interpret them as they like, for the sake of curiosity, to give food for thought, to stimulate interesting discussion, or perhaps to be helpful in their practice. Since we were already discussing so called “jhana wars” in this thread, which went in a little bit different direction than OP, I’ve added my own thoughts as we can do on a forum. My main point was that there are lots of spiritual states that can be similar to one another, even thou they’re not the same, and thats why there are endless debates about it. I think speaking publicly about spiritual attainments is unskillful, even for a lay person. So I actually agree with you that person you mentioned in the OP should not claim anything publicly and re-imagining jhanas is unskillful. Still I have respect for his experiences and whatever they are, they probably meant a lot for him.

With Metta