Well the jhānas are states of samādhi in which the hindrances are absent and one is secluded from sensuality. An arahant has no hindrances nor any sensuality in them, and they have no attachment to any of the sensual world (or any world). So there’s no reason why they wouldn’t be able to enter jhāna at will via turning their mind to it. Likewise, the arahant is said to have perfected sīla, samādhi, and paññā, or elsewhere, to have perfected all five spiritual faculties (including samādhi); one cannot have perfect samādhi if they struggle to attain jhāna (a struggle which would require hindrances to obstruct one, these being the only obstacle to jhāna).
Jhāna is also in the gradual training, and so to have an arahant who struggles to attain something in the training course would mean they have not really fulfilled or mastered that training. This is perhaps a slightly weaker logical argument but still relevant.
As for specific references to attaining jhāna at will— the Buddha Ven. Mahākassap can (SN 16.9), Ven. Sāriputta says he can do so SN 46.4, Citta the Householder (an anāgāmi; said to have perfected samādhi but not paññā) says he can in SN 41.9, the Bhikkhunī Uttamā can (Thig 3.3), Anuruddha and his companions can (MN 31). In AN 10.71, the Buddha says one will be able to attain them at will if they fulfil their precepts and see danger in the slightest fault. In AN 8.58, attaining them at will is a quality of the arahants / those worthy of alms. In MN 119, the Buddha says one who has fully cultivated kāyagatāsati will be able to achieve the jhānas at will. Those are some examples that come up w/ a quick search.
I don’t understand how there’s an issue with this. Is it not commonly understood that the Buddha was purely interested in strategies and pragmatism and NOT interested in metaphysical “understanding”? Knowledge itself seems to not be worth much to the Buddha except when it can be applied to practical usage in the quest to end suffering.
I feel like when he compared a handful of leaves representing the knowledge he spoke of as opposed to the leaves in a forest representing the knowledge he had but never spoke of completely illustrates this.
When I think of Buddhism I admire it for its pure purpose. It’s not about teaching you interesting things or acquiring knowledge for the sake of it. It is 100% a manual to achieve a specific aim. Am I misunderstanding something about Bhante Sujato’s purpose with essays like these?
Personally I think saying that everything you encounter is not self is a much more useful teaching than trying to say there is no self. “No self” is the sort of claim that you have to take on faith, whereas “not self” seems like the kind of thing you can fairly easily prove to anybody willing to investigate in good faith.
I don’t think arguing against “no self” is a straw man at all considering a quick google search will show that that is a VERY common idea attributed to Buddhism. I’m not going to say either of these monks are the correct one regarding the actual concept of anatta, but it seems clear to me that there IS a large enough amount of people that say that Buddhism believes there is no self that an argument against that would be necessary if that conclusion isn’t quite subtle enough…
