robertk wrote:Woul
d you agree that both jhana described in the Suttas and Visuddhimagga, regardless of their "depth" are both true/real jhana?
As subaro suggested, there is no difference beween mundane jhana in the visuddhimagga and the suttas. The ancient Commentaries - atthakatha- are merely the elucidators of the Buddha's word. They don't add any new concepts but do explain difficult aspects and give background to the pithy explanations in the Tipitaka.
I would have to disagree here. I don't think that the commentaries
contradict the Tipitika. However, there are certainly many Pali terms in the commentaries that don't appear in the Tipitika, or are used differently. See, for example, Nyanatiloka's Appendix to his Buddhist Dictionary:
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... append.htm. Failure to appreciate these changes is one reason why people see more contradiction than is actually the case.
My understanding is that there are some key concepts that are prominent in later texts, but do not appear in the Tipitika, or in a far less developed form. For example, the minute division of experience into mind moments. One presumes that this analysis is based in the experience of skilled practitioners.
I emphasise that what I am saying is not a
criticism of the ancient commentaries, but an effort to keep straight what is an isn't the word of the Buddha in the context of Classical Theravada. The ancient commentators compiled extremely useful practical advice and analysis, based on the experience of many practitioners, as we can see by the very detailed instructions in the Visuddhimagga.
There was certainly a development in the terminology of states leading up to jhana (access concentration for example). Whether the concept of what was "really jhana" also evolved is an interesting question, but possibly one better explored elsewhere.
Mike