Sylvester wrote:Try as I might, I cannot find any grammatical or ungrammatical fashion of reading his statement to mean that the "black-out" = maggaphala-nana.
All you are displaying is a misunderstanding of the sequential stage model of the vipassanāñāṇas as presented in the Visuddhimagga, and in Mahāsi Sayādaw's Visuddhiñāṇakathā and Kearney's text. In recent threads you have displayed similar misunderstandings of Ñāṇananda's teachings and Ñāṇavīra's teachings. I don't know if this is intentional or not, but it can't seriously be considered to accurately reflect the intended meaning of what Kearney is saying.
Kearney lists and describes each of the first 14 ñāṇas in sequential order, then, according to you, when he gets to stage 15, the maggaphalañāṇa, he mysteriously decides to not describe this stage, but to describe a completely unrelated experience instead.
Sorry, but your interpretation can't be taken seriously. If it's intentional, then it's just another attempt to muddy the waters.
All the best,
No misunderstanding here Geoff. What is apparent in your reading is your very patent blind spot. Kearney did describe that maggaphalla nana, and that description was quite clearly distinguished from the black out.
I cannot help but articulate what I'm sure many in this Forum have noticed about your tactics.
For example, you accuse Ajahn Brahm of presenting non-sutta descriptions of the Jhanas, and conveniently dismiss him as being uncanonical. Off you merrily go with your Jhana according to the Pali Nikayas thread, and your contributions to the Bhante G thread.
When your Pali grammar and interpretations of the suttas are criticised (remember your hoti-honti faux pas equation to "as they occurred"? remember your subsequent anupada/as they occurred as an adjective, instead of an adverb faux pas? remember your "unestablished consciousness" which you most recently disavowed and denied ever advocating? etc etc etc), you take shelter with your interpretation of the Abhidhamma's Dhammasangani. After years of harassing the folks at DSG with your criticisms of the Abhidhamma, you decide to switch tactics and run to the Abhidhamma, when your interpretations of the Nikayas are shown to be hollow. Never mind that, you are allowed to change your mind upon reflection. But, your insistence on interpreting the locative absolute in the Dhammasangani to import concommittance only, led to all sorts of absurd results, such vipassana and dhammavicaya in jhanas without vitakka-vicara.
And now, you have come full circle, hiding behind the Commentarial interpretation of the Dhammasangani to launch a meaningless attack on Kearney. Meaningless because -
1. it seems to have been based on a simple, yet terrible misunderstanding of what Kearney wrote;
2. you are unfit to be the arbiter as to what yardstick by which the Mahasi method is to be assessed. You demonstrate your unfitness by first attacking Kearney based on your interpretation of the Dhammasangani, but then running to the Commentaries when confronted again with your ignorance of the locative absolute dimensions of the Dhs. Don't take this as an ad hominem tu quoque - the point I want to make is that there is nothing in Logic to dictate that the Mahasi school signed up for a lifetime of Commentarial-only scrutiny, just because of their claim to adhere to the Commentaries. Even the Kheminda-Soma camp in the 1966 Debates did not flash this fallacy at their Mahasi counterparts.
Geoff, the way you seem to flit so casually between suttas, and Abhidhamma and then the Commentaries, as and when it serves your need, despite the inconsistencies, seems to suggest you are either -
1. driven by a very unprincipled agenda to attack whomever you find disagreeable, by whatever means necessary; or
2. you are desperately trying to get noticed.
If it is #2, then you have my attention, but for the wrong reasons.