I really fail to see the problem, right jhana is the jhana as described in the suttas. If people want to play linguistic games with the suttas to redefine jhana or take commentarial versions of right jhana as their standard then that is their prerogative. If one gives precedence to the suttas without reference to the later interpretations, one can then compare ones own experience with what the Buddha said. If your experience matches up to the suttas then you will know you are on the right track, if your experiences don't match up then the question to be asked is.... 'why'?tiltbillings wrote:But, of course, it all depends upon what is meant the word jhana. Fortunately, I know of no meditative tradition within the Theravada that rejects right jhana.Brizzy wrote:The view that jhana is not an integral part of the path to liberating insight is half right, simply because these statements are founded upon a wrong view of jhana. Right jhana is part of the path. We cannot cherry pick parts of the path just to suit our selves.
I know one or two traditions that do indeed reject right jhana, they do this by their vocal warnings of the 'dangers' and the unnecessariness of jhana and their redefinition of what the Buddha considered 'right' and what they consider nearly right 'access to rightness'. I think it is a strange situation where the noble eightfold path can be so readily redefined.
I come from the viewpoint that the suttas give a fairly clear idea of what the Buddha said. This I believe is true, despite certain issues that may arise due to translation. The suttas have a cohesion and 'taste' that shines through and cannot be hidden by the odd disagreement of translation.