I’m reluctant to dive back into this. Oh, well.
I understand that you’re just responding to Deele’s point, but still, even to use these terms is to engage, however innocently in a way of thinking that just wastes time. I’m not meaning to criticize you, but to call attention to the way these terms distort the whole topic.
It’s impossible to briefly describe all the things that are wrong with this distinction, but one of the many, many problems is that it treats the treatment of jhanas in the Visuddhimagga as if it were straightforward and well understood. But in fact it is a complex and difficult text, and there are many areas that are hard to interpret. In one place—I can’t find the reference—it says that the first jhana “lasts for a single mind moment”. What could this even mean?
Unlike most of the teachers lumped as teaching the Visuddhimagga approach, I have actually studied the text in some detail, and have some idea of some of the issues.
Here’s just one passage I found in a quick scan of the chapter on the earth kasina (which, problematically, is where the main treatment of jhana is found). (my translation):
Athassa yadā paṭhamajjhānā vuṭṭhāya satassa sampajānassa jhānaṅgāni paccavekkhato vitakkamattaṃ oḷārikato upaṭṭhāti, vicārādayo santato. Tadāssa oḷārikaṅgappahānāya santaṅgapaṭilābhāya ca tadeva nimittaṃ ‘‘pathavī pathavī’’ti punappunaṃ manasikaroto vuttanayeneva dutiyajjhānaṃ uppajjati.
Then after emerging from the first jhana one reviews the jhana factors, mindful and aware, regarding the remnant of vitakka as coarse and vicāra, etc., as peaceful. Giving up the coarse factor and regaining the peaceful factors, they once again focus on that nimitta, thinking “earth, earth” and attain the second jhana by the method already explained.
No-one that I know teaches anything even vaguely like this. Maybe in some the Burmese systems, where they are in fact following the method of the Visuddhimagga. But it’s completely different to the approach taught by Ajahn Brahm and so on.
Like I said, this is just one example, I could go on for days. The division of jhanas into “sutta” and “visuddhimagga” approaches is baseless and useless. It’s a category error, and is best ignored entirely.