When you say bulk of Theravada, you’re talking about late Theravada and modern Theravada. If you look at Abhidhamma Vb, I even did a detailed pali audit lined up right next to the english so you can easily confirm for yourself, in another thread I posted a day or two earlier, and in previous threads. Spelled out clearly. V&V, Vitakka & vicara in early Abhidhamma and early theravada can have the range of samma sankappo, thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non ill will, etc.
@cjmacie, you’ve got a serious blind spot on these issues. Even posting detailed pali+english audits, spelled out, you still insist on unsupportable (with scriptural evidence) positions.
I consider early Abhidhamma, Arahant Upatissa in Vimt., a more accurate representation of Theravada than the “bulk of modern Theravada” you refer to and imply as the correct Theravada interpretation on V&V.
If you have a genuine and sincere wish for me to explain points you don’t agree with, I’ll try my best to do so. But mostly I would just be repeating myself, where I’ve painfully and in detail supported my arguments with scriptural evidence in previous threads. That you’ve participated in those threads already and didn’t grok what I was saying, I think it may be best we agree to disagree.
Ajahn Lee, Ajahn Fuang, Thanissaro (those are his teachers) as far as I can tell have the same exact understanding of V&V (which Thanissaro translates as directed thought and evaluation)
Bhante Gunaratana, ordained as orthodox modern theravada Bhikkhu in Theravada Sri Lanka, 30 years held the modern Theravada position, but 30 years later reversed his position and sided with the EBT interpretation on V&V, body as physical, in Jhana. I basically went through with a highlighter so you can’t miss the evidence.
What’s worth reading in Bhante G’s book, whereas Ajahn Lee, B. Thanissaro mostly only talk about V&V in the context of 16 APS, Bhante G shows how you can use metta and 4bv with V&V to enter jhana.
Ajahn Chah is Ajahn Brahm’s teacher, so it’s fair to ask why they have such a different understanding of first jhana.
There’s a new collection of 4 Ajahn Lee treatises on dhammatalks.org that I just read recently. If you really want to know how he understands the Abhidhamma samadhi terms that he uses sometimes, you’ll see he redefines those terms to be compatible with EBT and early Abhidhamma understanding of jhana & samadhi.
And don’t forget the survivorship bias westerners are all subjected to. Survivors write the history books. Just because you happen to move in Burmese Theravada circles, and think that’s an accurate representation of Early Buddhist teachings, you really have to do your homework and compare the difference between Vism., Vimt., early Abhidhamma such as the Vibhanga, etc. to see the important differences.
Another EBT school, the sarvastivada school, seen in the Agamas in SA and MA, if you look at their position on jhana, it’s very consistent with Ajahn Lee, Thanissaro, Bhante G, early Theravada, Arahant upatissa in Vimt, etc.
the Abhidhamma school for Sarvastivada, and Sarvastivada commentaries also agrees, does not contradict the Sutta school of Sarvastivada.
So basically if you look at the evidence of all the EBT schools, and not just look at Vism., it gives a very different impression of what the standard intrepretation of jhana, V&V, physical body in jhana.