Mileage on that varies, but what would be interesting is to look at those manuals in terms of what they have say about jhana, and then the question is how was jhana defined.Ñāṇa wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Seems to, and maybe does, but Kester is correct and you are quite wrong. The "usual interpretation" of the Theravada is the Visuddhimagga.
Prior to the 19th century colonial interest in Pāḷi Buddhism the Visuddimagga was little more than a historic artifact relegated to library shelves -- rarely, if ever used. What was used -- and was a living tradition in SE Asia right up until the Cambodian genocide -- was the practices of the Pāḷi Yogāvacara tradition, which has its own corpus of meditation manuals.
IIndian Buddhism? Not the subject here. But if the VM were little known among the "scholastic" Theravadins pre19th cent, then the texts you have been quoting, were not known at all. Looking at the scholastic Buddhism of Ledi Sayadaw and the like, the VM plays am important part.tiltbillings wrote:The earlier texts, little known (if at all) and certainly so compared to the VM, become an important part of the ongoing dialogue. The rhetorical language you are employing probably doesn't help.
Historically the Visuddhimagga occupies a rather marginal place in the history of Indian Buddhism. The Vimuttimagga on the other hand, was twice translated in part into Tibetan and fully translated into Chinese.
The sort of exegesis you are doing is even more modern, and reflects a Western outlook.