Polite criticism of wrong jhāna by famous teachers without naming names

nemakazaty wrote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/theravada/comments/1btvm2h/ven_sujato_doesnt_understand_how_jh%C4%81na_works_in/

...

I like the way that Ajahn Thanissaro never mentions someone by name when discussing a point of disagreement. Such an approach goes a long way in keeping an open and critical discussion about ideas instead of people. 

lucid24-frankk replied:

Here's Ven. Thanissaro criticizing the type of "jhāna" that Brahm, Sujato, Vism. proponents are teaching, without naming names, labeling, or identifying where those views came from, exactly the classy type of right speech all idealists love.

From 2005. Almost 20 years ago.

How effective has that been in changing the public perception of how Brahm and Sujato teach in those 20 years?

How often do you hear constructive discussion around Thanissaro's excellent essay and compare that to Vism., Brahm, and Sujato's ideas of right concentration?

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/jhananumbers.html

My version formatted a little easier to read:

https://lucid24.org/tped/s/samadhi/book/than-breath/index.html#10.2

excerpt:

The best state of concentration for the sake of developing all-around insight is one that encompasses a whole-body awareness.

There were two exceptions to Ajaan Fuang’s usual practice of not identifying the state you had attained in your practice, and both involved states of wrong concentration.

The first was the state that comes when the breath gets so comfortable that your focus drifts from the breath to the sense of comfort itself, your mindfulness begins to blur, and your sense of the body and your surroundings gets lost in a pleasant haze.

When you emerge, you find it hard to identify where exactly you were focused.

Ajaan Fuang called this moha-samadhi, or delusion-concentration.

The second state was one I happened to hit one night when my concentration was extremely one-pointed, and so refined that it refused settle on or label even the most fleeting mental objects.

I dropped into a state in which I lost all sense of the body, of any internal/external sounds, or of any thoughts or perceptions at all—although there was just enough tiny awareness to let me know, when I emerged, that I hadn’t been asleep.

I found that I could stay there for many hours, and yet time would pass very quickly.

Two hours would seem like two minutes.

I could also “program” myself to come out at a particular time.

After hitting this state several nights in a row, I told Ajaan Fuang about it, and his first question was, “Do you like it?

” My answer was “No,” because I felt a little groggy the first time I came out.

“Good,” he said.

“As long as you don’t like it, you’re safe.

Some people really like it and think it’s nibbana or cessation.

Actually, it’s the state of non-perception (asaññi-bhava).

It’s not even right concentration, because there’s no way you can investigate anything in there to gain any sort of discernment.

Forum discussion

frank's credentials and mission

https://www.reddit.com/r/EarlyBuddhistTexts/comments/1bvq1oc/comment/ky4uht9/?context=3

(responding to nemakatazy taking discussion in directions I wasn't interested in)

I didn't refuse to answer, I just don't stay on my phone and computer all day and check my messages and respond to everything immediately like many people seem to do.

https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/

https://lucid24.org/

I have over 30 years of meditation experience, over 10 years spent in pa auk system (vism. based, similar to Brahm), and over 30 years practicing authentic EBT sutta based jhāna with instruction and personal interactions with reputable teachers like Thanissaro, etc.

I talk about details of that through those two links.

Now the crux of the issue, is that if you just go by what the teachers of those two systems (EBT and Vism. based) say, they're all educated, eloquent, sound credible, and claim to be 100% sutta based.

So at this point, you have to start studying the suttas carefully, need to learn a little bit of pāli (expertise is not necessary for determining who's really telling the truth on claiming to be sutta based).

I spent over 10 years of doing detailed, careful research, staying agnostic, keeping an open mind, making sure I really understood before drawing conclusions.

In the end, it comes down to integrity and honesty (for teachers and followers and whistle blowers).

If I know for sure, then I'm going to say I know for sure and here's the evidence.

If the evidence proves to be inclusive, then I say it's inconclusive.

If I'm not sure or I don't know, I'll say that. I won't bullshit and pretend to know something I don't.

If I'm shown to be wrong, mistaken, then I own up to it as soon as I confirm and realize the error.

I've had over 10 years of actively posting publicly, and it's all on public record.

Anytime someone has caught an error, I've confirmed and admitted within 7 days.

For example, Ven. Dhammanando caught a couple of errors over the 10 years, I thanked him and agreed.

The areas you're interested in discussing, probably don't intersect with mine.

I'm only interested in whether those famous teachers who claim the EBT suttas support their system,

 are they correct or not?

Exposing false interpretations of EBT jhāna is a civic duty, not a personal vendetta

(from same thread)

frank: I'm only interested in, all of those teachers who claim the EBT suttas support their system, are they correct or not.

nem.: Which comes back to my point, I don't really see much discussion here. It's you with some sort of vendetta against two monks.

frank:

Those with personal experience with EBT (legitimate) jhāna, vs. BRJ (brahm redefinition of jhana claiming to be EBT), (and even those without jhāna experience), can read the suttas and see they are giving clear instructions on what kāya (body) and vitakka (verbal thought) means, with a little bit of study.

It's not inconclusive, it's not ambiguous. I've looked at every single relevant samādhi related passage in the suttas. Many times.

There are about, let's say 50 relevant references. A correct interpretation consistently work on all 50 references. Brahm and Sujato's interpretation only works on about 5 cherry picked references, and blatantly contradict most of the other 45.

Anyone with average intelligence and willingness to investigate it can confirm for themselves.

I don't have a vendetta against two monks.

I just do my civic duty to whistle blow if famous popular teachers are making false claims about EBT jhāna, because popular influencers have an outsized effect on transmission of true Dharma.