And I'm arguing that the debate in the Jhana camp is not nearly as divided as you claim. In all the debates here as well as other more scholarly ones in the public arena, the vast majority seem to come down to one group just rejecting Jhana completely and the other group arguing for its necessity; within the latter there are disagreements over minor issues, but you seem to be painting it as a far more divisive free-for-all than it is. In truth, most advocates of Jhana can agree on enough of a basic general structure to allow for hassle-free practice.tiltbillings wrote:It is not my response to "any objection towards the Mahasi's undue emphasis on insight over tranquility." It is simply the fact of the matter when it comes to the question of what jhana actually means, which we have seen in the various debates on the forum (many of which I have not been part of), opinions vary.
There is historical and linguistic evidence abounding for the standard definitions given to the Jhana factors, but they're secondary anyway because we can know just from direct experience of meditation whether or not piti is arising, when vicara ceases, etc.And regarding such terminology as vitaka and a vicara, can you say with absolute certainly what they mean? And it is not at all a distraction to ask the question. It is a reasonable question to ask of those who are jhana advocates.
It's not like the Buddha is naming five types of plants in a far-away jungle we can never get to; it's far more like he's describing sights we'll see along the way as we go there ourselves. The job is matching the points on the map, i.e. the terms like vicara and vitaka, to the real experiences of Jhana itself, and I don't think there is a huge diversity of experience when it comes down to that actual examination.
I think the real "Jhana debate" is far more the role of Jhana in practice and far less what "Jhana is," although honestly I think that both questions are easily put to rest if one simply makes recourse to the suttas.