Dear Dmytro and Nina,

thanks. It seems like there are two schools of thoughts here, one of
which identifies with the commentarial interpretation. Perhaps this
is a good chance to look at the word again: aruupasa~n~nin.

Is it

(1) one who do not perceive (is not conscious of) the material forms;

or (2) one who perceive (is conscious of) the formless.

Both seems to be appropriate, until we look at the
adjective 'ajjhatta'. If we choose the second interpretation, the
question is then: how would a person in arupa jhana perceive the
formless internally?

Also, the fourth stage of arupa jhana is /beyond/ perception, so who
is then the percipient?

Let's open this discussion to the ground, and hopefully we can
derive a meaningful and enlightening solution.

metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote:

At first I also thought of aruupa jhaanas, but this was my rpoblem:
internally, as to own body.
And externally: limited, whereas for aruupa jhana it is not limited,
and he sees no forms. It is free of materiality.

I took the *a* negation for the whole word aruupasa~n~nii.

> Dmytro O. Ivakhnenko:
> This is about arupa jhanas throuh kasina practice.