You are suggesting that 'vipssana jhana ' or its scriptual equivalent was invented by Mahasia sayadaw or his group?tiltbillings wrote:retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
It has been pointed out by some here that the vipassana jhana notions looks quite a bit more like the sutta notions of jhana than the commentarial notion of jhana, but the point is that to discuss vipassana jhana, which is something that arose out of the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, .
Do you think in those long tracts and books where they refute the need for mundane jhana that Mahais et al were unaware of the What do you make of Buddhaghosa's summary in the Atthasalini, 'Fourfold
Jhana', PTS transl.
"Jhaana is twofold: that which (views or) examines closely the object
and that which examines closely the characteristic marks
[aaramma.nupanijjhaana~n ca lakkha.nupanijjhaana.m]. Of these
two, 'object-scrutinising' jhaana examines closely those devices [for
self-hypnosis]* as mental objects. Insight, the Path and Fruition are
called 'characteristics-examining jhaana.' Of these three, insight is
so called from its examining closely the characteristics of
impermanence, etc. Because the work to be done by insight is
accomplished through the Path, the Path is so called. And because
Fruition examines closely the Truth of cessation, and possesses the
characteristic of truth, it also is called 'characteristic-examining
Of course Mahasi knew about the very clear distinction made between mundane jhana - as in absorption - and the lakkha.nupanijjhaana. The suttas clearly talk about both at different times. BOTH are highly kusala , both have a great deal of insight.
U pandita talks about lakkha.nupanijjhaana as being 'the vipassana jhanas'- which is reasonable as at the very brief processes when (genuine) vipassana occurs is by definition lakkha.nupanijjhaana. Totally different from mundane jhanas, which the suttas also talk about.