Dmytro wrote:IMHO, the sutta states it quite differently:I'm not sure it will be easy reconciling some of the apparent contradictions in the Canon regarding the attachment to Jhana. As a counter example to MN 106, MN 44 quite clearly states that one does not anuseti with raganusaya in first Jhana, despite the presence of sukha. Further, it goes on to assert that one does not anuseti with avijjanusaya when experiencing the equanimity of 4th Jhana.
"No... There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With that he abandons passion. No passion-obsession gets obsessed there. There is the case where a monk considers, 'O when will I enter & remain in the dimension that those who are noble now enter & remain in?' And as he thus nurses this yearning for the unexcelled liberations, there arises within him sorrow based on that yearning. With that he abandons resistance. No resistance-obsession gets obsessed there. There is the case where a monk, with the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. With that he abandons ignorance. No ignorance-obsession gets obsessed there."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ven. Thanissaro explains the meaning in comments.
I think you would agree that the fourth jhana doesn't mean the absence of avijja-anusaya.
Actually, Ven Thanissaro's rather eclectic translation of the subject of Anusayas conceals more than it illuminates. Especially the part in bold red above.
This is what the Pali simply says -
It's a horrifying prospect trying to reconcile this categorical statement in MN 44 that is at odds with the Commentarial notion of the Jhanas being unsafe places.Idhāvuso visākha, bhikkhu sukhassa ca pahānā, dukkhassa ca pahānā, pubbeva somanassadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamā, adukkhamasukhaṃ upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṃ catutthaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati. Avijjaṃ tena pajahati, na tattha avijjānusayo anusetī”ti.
PS - I've just noticed something. You refer to Ven Thanissaro with the "ayasma", but you refer to Ven Brahmavamso and Ven Analayo without the "ayasma". Is this perhaps a measure of your disdain for them, or perhaps over-rapid typing?