MN 44 footnote error: Proof that Bhikkhu Sujato has no integrity in translating and interpreting jhāna samādhi in EBT

I'm posting this today,
because checking Sujato's translation footnotes for SN 41.6 (today, 2026 april 5),
which shares his fraudulent translation notes discussed below for MN 44,
Sujato has not bothered to change the gross and obvious error I informed him of years ago.

I don't enjoy publicly exposing Bhikkhu fraud, whether they're famous or not.

It makes all Buddhists look bad, monastic, lay, etc.

That's why this post sat in my draft folder for a long time, unpublished. 

But in the end, 

I can't sleep at night if I'm aware of a major crime, 
and in response do and say nothing when my action has the potential to help right things. 

Civic responsibility, being a decent human being, etc.
It's amazing to me Sujato and his followers seem to be able to get a good night's sleep.

Originally intended to post this on 2025 oct. 28, sat in my draft folder for about half a year (today is 2026 april 5)

 I checked today to see if Sujato corrected an error in his translation note that I notified him just a little over a year ago. 

He has not.

MN 44: Cūḷavedallasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato  (2025 oct. 28)

Pubbe kho, āvuso visākha, vitakketvā vicāretvā pacchā vācaṁ bhindati, tasmā vitakka-vicārā vacī-saṅkhāro.First you place the mind and keep it connected, then you break into speech. That’s why placing the mind and keeping it connected are a verbal process.....
“But ma’am, which process ceases first for a mendicant who is entering the cessation of perception and feeling: physical, verbal, or mental?”

“The verbal process ceases first, then physical, then mental.”[Sujato translation footnote:] The verbal process ceases in the first absorption, the breath in the fourth absorption (SN 36.11:2.19), and feeling and perception in the attainment of cessation.

What Sujato is calling "verbal process" is vaci-sankhara, defined as vitakka and vicāra.
In his footnote bolded above, he erroneously states verbal process (vitakka and vicāra) ceases in first jhāna.

As everyone knows, including Sujato, vitakka and vicāra don't cease until SECOND jhāna, 
not first jhāna.

Over a year ago, 2024-10-19, I wrote a detailed blog article explaining Sujato's error,

and how it's symptomatic of erroneous jhāna interpretation to conflate verbal thought (vitakka and vicāra) with vocalized speech (vāca).

MN 44 Sujato's fraudulent interpretation of 'vitakka' in jhāna via conflating vācā (speech) and vacī-sankhāra (speech co-activities)
October 19, 2024

I even sent Sujato a personal email linking the above article informing of his translation footnote error.

So he was notified publicly, privately, and was aware of his error.

This is a time stamp and copy of my email, 

and you can check his email archive showing receipt of said email.

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 13:49:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHKRAKL954uoKT-y8hnKpxKVYbFUJwH6m91W2V28=qWocPa_Rg@<email info redacted>>
Subject: you have an error in footnote for MN 44
From: Frank K <my email redacted>
To: Sujato Bhikkhu <his email redacted>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c7ddfe0624da8ca1"

--000000000000c7ddfe0624da8ca1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

MN 44 Sujato's fraudulent interpretation of 'vitakka' in jh=C4=81na via
conflating v=C4=81c=C4=81 (speech) and vac=C4=AB-sankh=C4=81ra (speech co-a=
ctivities)
<https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/10/mn-44-sujatos-fraudulent-int=
erpretation.html>

--000000000000c7ddfe0624da8ca1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><br></div><div>

<h3 class=3D"gmail-post-title" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 24px;color:rgb(62,63=
,60);font:44px/1.33333 &quot;EB Garamond&quot;,serif;letter-spacing:normal;=
text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white=
-space:normal;background-color:rgb(94,92,97);text-decoration-style:initial;=
text-decoration-color:initial"><a href=3D"https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot=
.com/2024/10/mn-44-sujatos-fraudulent-interpretation.html" style=3D"backgro=
und:transparent;color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration:none;font:44px/1.333=
33 &quot;EB Garamond&quot;,serif">MN 44 Sujato&#39;s fraudulent interpretat=
ion of &#39;vitakka&#39; in jh=C4=81na via conflating v=C4=81c=C4=81 (speec=
h) and vac=C4=AB-sankh=C4=81ra (speech co-activities)</a></h3>

</div><div><br></div></div>

--000000000000c7ddfe0624da8ca1--

Did Sujato fix his error a year later?

No. As shown in beginning of this article.
This is not an isolated incident.
There are many issues related to jhāna samādhi where Sujato deliberately avoids addressing issues of contradiction, 
incoherence, 
lack of evidence supporting his interpretation of jhāna.
It's one thing to have wrong views on jhāna,
but a monastic with honor and integrity has a moral obligation,
an obligation as an ordained monastic,
to address credible challenges to fallacious views on jhāna,

an obligation to defend with evidence in support of your view.
Not doing so, shows the world your true character.

This is not an isolated incident.
There is more evidence, all played out in public, with date time stamps,

where we see evidence that Sujato has no honor and integrity,

when it comes to translating and interpreting jhāna samādhi issues in EBT.
Ordained monastics, especially popular influential ones,
need to be held accountable.

These problems have been going on for over 10 years,
I did my best to amicably address these issues in private,
also attempting a number of times to enlist assistance from some of Sujato's peers and senior monastics, to no avail.

It's important to note here that I was not asking Sujato to change his views on Jhāna,

I was only asking that he provide evidence to support his view of jhāna,

after having credible challenges by myself, and many others, privately and publicly over more than 10 years.

If he were to act like an ethical bhikkhu, 

genuinely trying to provide answers and evidence,

then there would be no ethical problem.

He has his view, and his reasoning and evidence to support it.

But when you dodge credible challenges, cherry pick evidence, avoid credible challenges showing incoherence and contradiction in the evidence you didn't cherry pick,

this is morally reprehensible for any person of any occupation, 

let alone an ordained Bhikkhu claiming to translate according to EBT (early buddhist teachings).

Enough is enough.
Ordained monastics, especially popular influential ones,
need to be held accountable.