Hey, this is an English text. I want you to translate it into the Tunisian dialect. Please follow these steps:
1. Translate step by step and highlight differences between Tunisian dialect and Modern Standard Arabic.
2. Highlight sections you are confident translating into the Tunisian dialect.
Translate this text into the Tunisian dialect, focusing on capturing the essence of the language nuances:

I would agree with Astus on this one. Btw, I think that OP's question isn't limited to jhanas as in the Pali Canon but also to corresponding dhyanas, am I right? Of course in the countries where mahayana assumed a more syncretic form like China and Korea it is not easy to distinguish which practice is zen, which is not zen. Some will agree that chan is only sitting, or only sitting with a huatou, or only silent ilumination. But then again, a teacher who is nominally chan/seon could teach whatever - chanting, bowing, different kinds of meditation, mantra, sutra studying - if it makes it a chan/zen practice remains for me an open question. But considering that all off today's zen schools have their root in the idea of "seeing nature", teaching gradual meditation stages seems an acquired addition. I remember that long ago in the beginning of my practice I was really confused by a statement by late Ven. Sheng-yen in one of his books about chan. He said something like "This is the first dhyana. Can you attain it? No? You should try." Now I'm pretty sure that going through dhyanas wasn't a part of his chan teaching so I have no idea why somebody put it in the book. Of course I couldn't reach the first dhyana which made me quite anxious so I asked my teacher about it. He explicitly told me that our practice's scope wasn't attaining any dhyanas - they're irrelevant to huatou, although they can, of course, appear. bulhaeng wrote:Of course in the countries where mahayana assumed a more syncretic form like China and Korea it is not easy to distinguish which practice is zen, which is not zen. Some will agree that chan is only sitting, or only sitting with a huatou, or only silent ilumination. But then again, a teacher who is nominally chan/seon could teach whatever - chanting, bowing, different kinds of meditation, mantra, sutra studying - if it makes it a chan/zen practice remains for me an open question. But considering that all off today's zen schools have their root in the idea of "seeing nature", teaching gradual meditation stages seems an acquired addition. Syncretism I wouldn't say there was a point when in China/Korea/Vietnam they begun syncretising schools. First of all, there were never really separate schools, so it's not possible to mix them up. The exception is actually Japan where they separated Buddhism to different institutions. What happened is that Chan - actually, the idea of dharma-transmission and lineages - spread far and wide in the Song dynasty and again in the Ming dynasty in China and created a seeming unity among monastic leaders. But Chan as a school, a path, a practice was not taken up and preserved with the same enthusiasm or exclusivism. Chan practice There is no Chan practice really. It's not about practising something specifc. What can be called distinctly Chan method is the huatou technique, which was actually made up by