MN 127 According to Ajahn Brahm and Vism. redefinition of jhāna, many deva realms could not possibly exist!

 In the EBT sutta definition of the four jhānas, there is such as thing as 'impure' jhāna, and it's still called 'jhāna'. 

MN 127 is an example of this, and many other suttas talk about the ability to see the undercurrents of 5 hindrances bubbling underneath and potentially arresting them before they technically 'out' one from the jhāna. (see learner's jhāna, impure jhāna, is still called "jhāna" )

But according to Ajahn Brahm and Vism. redefinition of jhāna, impure jhāna is not possible, since one supposedly can not have will or intention while in jhāna (wrong! see MN 111, first 7 attainments have cetana (will, intention), desire, attention), one would not even be able to do even a first jhāna.

If we believe Brahm and Vism., then MN 127 talking about doing impure jhāna (with 5 hindrances) would not be possible, and those meditators with impure 'not jhāna', would not be able to attain rebirth in those deva realms with impure radiance. 

So are you going to believe the Buddha's definition of jhāna, or Ajahn Brahm and Vism.? 

(who came 2500 years and 800 years after the Buddha)

I could just see followers of Ajahn Brahm and Vism. going to those deva realms with impure radiance to protest, and telling those devas, "You don't exist! You didn't do real jhāna, you did impure access concentration." 

And the devas respond, "Last time I checked, I'm a deva, and I exist. Read the suttas. There is no access concentration in the EBT. There's just jhāna, and they can be impure."

I highlighted in yellow the exact point in the sutta (you can click the sutta ref. link to jump there) where those devas don't exist according to Ajahn Brahm.

● MN 127 - 🔗🔊 16m, Anuruddha: (buddha's cousin, famous for divine eye):
        MN 127¹ – (layman Pañcakaṅga invites Anuruddha for meal offering, accepted)
        MN 127² - (layman asks if appamāṇā ceto-vimutti different than mahaggatā)
            MN 127^2.1 – (layman thinks they are the same practice, just different name)
            MN 127^2.2 – (Anuruddha corrects him, says they’re two different practices)
        MN 127³ – (Anuruddha explains ap-pamāṇā/measure-less refers to 4bv brahma-vihāra pervaded in 8 directions)
        MN 127⁴ – (Anuruddha explains mahag-gatā/expansive is pervading 4bv in gradually larger space starting with one tree)
        MN 127⁵ - (4 kinds of deva realm rebirth commensurate with appamāna and mahaggatā)
            MN 127^5.1 – (oil lamp simile: devas gather ↔ can see different colors of flame, but not different radiance)
            MN 127^5.2 – (oil lamp simile: devas leave gathering ↔ can see different colors of flame, and different power of radiance)
            MN 127^5.3 – (flies following luggage simile ↔ devas delight in radiance, but don’t assume permanent identity with it)
        MN 127⁶ – (Kaccana asks Anuruddha: are all devas reborn there limited or immeasurable?)
            MN 127^6.1 – (some are limited, some are limitless)
            MN 127^6.2 – (Why? Because some meditated pervading smaller space, some larger, some limtlesss)
        MN 127⁷ – (Kaccana asks Anuruddha: Do all the radiant deities have corrupted radiance, or some pure?)
            MN 127^7.1 – (some are corrupted, some pure)
            MN 127^7.2 – (Why? Because some did jhāna with more 5 hindrance corruption, some more pure)
            MN 127^7.3 – (simile of oil lamp, purity of oil and wick ↔ jhāna meditator purity free of 5niv)
        MN 127⁸ - (conclusion: Kaccana correctly guesses anuruddha is speaking from personal experience from conversation with devas)

Forum Discussion

https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=681178#p681178

Akusala wrote: ↑Sun Jun 19, 2022 6:29 amA suggestion to your article if I may. You did state there that: "So are you going to believe the Buddha's definition of jhāna, or Ajahn Brahm and Vism.?" I think it is more accurate to say "are you going to believe my interpretation of Jhana or Ajahn Brahm and Vism's?

Since the Buddha's parinirvana, it is no longer possible to go and ask the Bhagavan directly and confirmed what he meant. So, reading the suttas always requires an interpretation from our part. It may look to you that it is definitely what the Buddha said, it is so obviously clear and straight forward but in fact it always involves an interpretation - a subtle but important distinction.

by frank k » Sun Jun 19, 2022 7:44 am
There are critical and objective standards by which we can judge interpretations.
I've provided detailed audits proving that my interpretation is coherent and internally consistent, using EBT (early buddhist teachings) mainly the pāḷi texts.
See especially this article on coherence: (very short read, truly worth everyone's time to study it carefully!)
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/20 ... cy-in.html

Vism. and Ajahn Brahm's interpretation are invalid because they're incoherent and internally inconsistent with the same EBT pāḷi texts, which I've also showed with transparent, detailed audits.
Such as here:
https://lucid24.org/sted/8aam/8samadhi/ ... index.html

In short, when you see them cherry picking a few suttas that circumstantially don't contradict their theory and intentionally ignoring the majority of suttas that contradict their interpretation even when it's brought to their attention publicly, that's clear proof of an invalid, incoherent, internally inconsistent interpretation.

Now, of course my interpretation being coherent and internally consistent is not absolute proof of being correct, but it is obviously not blatantly wrong going out the starting gate, as is the case with Brahm and Vism. And a number of intelligent rational, well respected monastics and scholars have similar interpretations of jhāna to mine.
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... ectly.html

To give you a rough quantitative approximation on the relativity of wrong here,
the people who have a coherent interpretation of jhāna, are like people who
claim: 2+2 < 4.2, and 2+2 > 3.8 (+ or - 5% error roughly relative to absolute correct being 4.0)

Ajahn Brahm and Vism.,
claim: 2 + 2 > 100
Meaning it's many orders of magnitude (exponential scale) of wrong.

So yes, there's uncertainty in every interpretation of jhāna, but there is relativity of wrong, and one should develop the intelligence and critical thinking ability to recognize that if you're a truth seeker, you should be favoring the methods and interpretations that are more probable, and rejecting blatantly incoherent ideas.

One other huge problem, is people don't understand how cognitive dissonance and other cognitive bias works.

Basically, you see it at work here with Vism. and Ajahn Brahm.
In Brahm's case, because he's a great human being, warm, charismatic, well liked, popular, very intelligent with Phd in Physics from Cambridge, 

the rational part of people's brain turn off and they just start accepting everything he says as the truth because the possibility that his interpretation of jhāna is incoherent doesn't harmonize with the idea of him being warm, wise, intelligent, trustworthy. How could someone like that be wrong?