Exposing the fraud, dialogs with Mike Olds and Daniel Ingram

[Jhanananda]

on 7/3/12 6:32 AM, Mike Olds at mikeolds@att.net wrote:

> Hello Jeffrey,
>
> I am writing because I read some of your writings many years ago and
> came across your site this morning and have a dialog with another
> correspondent you may find interesting and wish to add to your
> collection of debates on orthodoxy, jhana, etc.
>
> There is also a discussion with Bhk. Sujato there that might interest
> you but it has nothing to do with jhana.
>
> http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/dhamma_talk/dt_10.001.d.ingr
> am.htm
>
> There may be other things on the site of interest.
>
> --
> Best Wishes!
> obo
> Visit The Mozone at:
> http://obo.genaud.net/
> What's New?
> http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/whats.new.htm
> Sutta Index:
> http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm

[Jhanananda]

To: Mike Olds <mikeolds@att.net> 07-03-2012
Subject: Re: Approach

Hello Mike, I examined the first link, which is a dialog between Daniel Ingram, who claims to be an Arahat, which I find little supporting evidence for; and OBO, who I do not know.  It is a debate over whether there are suttas that might be wrong, etc. 

While it is good that they both get that "we can throw out the Jataka and the Abhidhamma and the Questions of King Milinda, we can throw out the suttas unique to Mahayana, Chan, Zen and Tibetan Buddhisms, etc," because it is all utter nonsense; however, they do not seem to get that all of the translators have hopelessly botched the job. 

For instance, jhana is not rapture, nor is it meditation, nor is it concentration.  And, apparently from the dialog both OBO and Daniel think that jhana is concentration; therefore, neither of them have experienced jhana, because jhana is not concentration.  Jhana is an altered state of consciousness that is characterized by bliss, joy, ecstasy, tranquility, equanimity and freedom from anxiety.  They would have to read and understand Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross to get the difference. 

Vitakka and Viccara are not "initial thought and discursive thought."  It is "applied and sustained attention."  It is utterly impossible for anyone to arrive at the experience of jhana through "initial thought and discursive thought," or through applied and sustained thought.  Therefore, anyone who claims otherwise, or translates the suttas thus, has obviously not experienced jhana.

DI: "Why, if arahats do not suffer, did one kill himself from suffering?"

Jhananda: The confusion with the case of several arahats committing suicide in the suttas (The Shorter Discourse on Voidness SN 4.35.87), due to painful injury or disease that was going to lead to death, is simple.  Painful injuries and sicknesses exist, to which an arahat can suffer, but that does not necessarily mean that they had any mental anxiety due to those injuries or diseases. 

They had no attachment to the physical body, so when it was wracked with pain and leading toward death, then why not end the pain quickly, rather than draw out the suffering for some empty noble cause? So, the confusion is the Pali language was not able to differentiate between mental suffering and physical pain.  That is all.  Channa was an Arahat at the time he 'used the knife,' because he is said elsewhere in the suttas to be an Arahat.

Jhananda: I agree with OBO on the following:

OBO: "(the differences are in the translators words only, the Pali is the same). This way we retain the Dhamma as our guide to Awakening."

I also agree with OBO, when he writes,:

OBO: "Translations are interpretations.  Most importantly we cannot say, even from the Pali language alone, that we can ever really know what the words really said. I have a completely different understanding of Pali from the Harvard scholors, the Oxford scholars and the Theravadan scholars. I have a completely different understanding of the tone of life at the time. The best we can do is to judge by context and through the results of practice. It is possible some will be able to 'remember'. It is possible some may have 'guidance'"...

"What is important is the doctrine as expounded by Gotama in the suttas. No faith at all in the Pali Cannon, as that includes the commentaries, the Jataka, the Abhidhamma, and Kuddaka Nikaya which I personally reject as being in contradiction in certain aspects, with the Suttas. These works all depend on the suttas so why not let them go and just work with the suttas?"

"The system solves the problem in theory and as to the method outlined for realizing the goal [freedom in detachment] absolute faith is not required. What is required is a willingness to test and evaluate and move on to the next step if the result of the test is positive."

"I have complete certainty that you are no Arahant in Gotama's system as found in the Suttas as far as my experience."

Jhananda: However, I am surprised that OBO quoted Don Juan, because Don Juan is a fictional character in Carlos Castaneda’s works of fiction.

I have already explored the Dhamma Over Ground, and found they have no idea what jhana is, because they speak of it as a meditation practice or technique.  Jhana is not a meditation practice or technique, it is an experience.  So, why should I believe that Daniel Ingram is an Arahat?  I do not.

Strive on in this world full of frauds, Jhananda

[Jhanananda]

on 7/4/12 3:32 PM, Mike Olds at mikeolds@att.net wrote:

> Hello Jeffrey,
>
> I am happy to hear from you. From reading further in your site it looked
> like you had given up and I didn't expect a reply.
>
> First off I need to clarify that 'I am' obo! I was not trying to
> deceive, it's just that I have been using that persona for a long time
> and since I write mostly for people who know me, I forget that others
> may not know the connection. I believe my e-mail signature does indicate
> this.
>
> I wonder if you could clarify one confusion I have reading your
> materials: It seems in one place you are claiming to be an arahant, in
> another a once-returner, and in another a streamwinner. The order seems
> to me to be that the claim to be streamwinner is the later claim. What
> are you saying about this at this time? And related to that, are you
> saying that your claim is being made based on what is found in the
> suttas or are you speaking about Mahayana suttas or something else? Does
> your unaffiliated system have ranks?
>
> Then, as for a few of your points.
>
> JB: Vitakka and Viccara are not "initial thought and discursive
> thought."  It is "applied and sustained attention."  It is utterly
> impossible for anyone to arrive at the experience of jhana through
> "initial thought and discursive thought," or through applied and
> sustained thought.  Therefore, anyone who claims otherwise, or
> translates the suttas thus, has obviously not experienced jhana.
>
> OBO: Vitakka and Vicara are two terms both of which are simply thinking.
> Vitakka = Re-talking, Vi-cara = Re-carrying on. If you carefully read
> the descriptions of the jhanas in the suttas and you note the placement
> of these two terms in the descriptions of the method for attaining the
> jhanas in the suttas you will see that what is being said is that in the
> first jhana there still remains thinking. To get to the second jhana
> thinking needs to be let go.
>
> Jhana, in Gotama's system, is not one thing, it is a somewhat arbitrary
> description of stages in a process, and specifically in the case of the
> jhanas to be used in the attaining of the goal of utter detachment, it
> is the process of letting go of the world. We begin involved with things
> of the world, sitting we let worldly matters go but are still thinking,
> then we let the thinking go ...
>
> The word itself is our 'knowing' and it is the root for the Chinese
> 'Chan' or 'Ch'an' and the Japanese 'Zen'. Push it back a little and it
> means Ja 'burning' or 'shinning' na = know. Burning with knowledge or
> shinning with wisdom.
>
> JB: However, they do not seem to get that all of the translators have
> hopelessly botched the job.
>
> OBO: This goes too far. You yourself speak about the meaning of vitakka
> and vicara, but what you have done is put your own interpretation on the
> existing translations of the terms and not looked at what the terms mean
> in the large variety of contexts in which they appear in the Pali and
> you have not given reasonable consideration to the etymology which
> clearly eliminates 'attention' and where there is no support for the
> idea of 'sustained' anything.
> That idea is coming from commentaries! So you are messing up yourself
> here in terms of translation in such a way that indicates that you do
> not yet have a good basis for criticism. You are making the same mistake
> as some of the other translators and those who make commentary, you are
> imposing on the Pali an idea you are forming from your understanding of
> other translator's translations, not your understanding of what Gotama
> himself taught in the suttas.
>
> Additionally, whatever mess may in fact have been made by the
> translators out there, including myself, what we are dealing with is a
> vast literature. As I mentioned in the debate with Dr. Ingram, some 25
> volumes in a foreign extinct language in a discipline highly subject to
> bias from a simple human perspective (everybody thinks they know what
> life is all about; it took me 10 years to first believe I understood the
> system, today it takes kids 2 hours, and then they write a textbook on
> the subject).
>
> The Oxford translators did a tremendously objective job all things
> considered. There are very few internal contradictions  — In English! —
>   across the entire collection with it's five different translators.
> That's miraculous in a work done over 100 years with huge redundancy and
> inter-connectedness and them without computers. Almost every major topic
> of debate is given a footnote in the Pali Text Society Translations.
> They were not trying to convert people to anything. They were linguists.
> Later in the translations of Bhk. Bodhi, Thanissaro, and others
> including myself there is the possibility of bias based on point of view
> concerning the teaching but here we come to another issue:
>
> Gotama's use of language was such as to make his teaching 'timeless'.
> This means he used terms that are broad generalizations and which are
> aimed at being understood at the lowest level — infantile in some cases
> ... not, as you might assume, at the highest. An uneducated 15 year old
> (past puberty so as to be able to recognize sexual innuendo) should be
> able to understand it.
>
> The logic is simple: the highly educated can understand the simple, the
> uneducated cannot relate to every sort of abstract concept. Here today
> try to get someone from the working class to admit he experiences
> 'suffering' or 'angst' or 'unsatisfactoriness' or even 'stress'; but
> they will admit to suffering 'pain.' Even better, but I have found meets
> too much resistance is the etymologically correct: do-do, uk, ukky,
> k-kha: dukkha, shit. 'Shit happens' is universally understood.
>
> This results, in terms of translating, in people 'hearing' the terms
> being used at their own level. The person with Christian background
> hears: 'Do not kill human beings', what is being said is 'train yourself
> to abstain from harming living creatures.'
>
> There are all sorts of issues there if you look. The most pronounced is
> that in all likelihood the only person truly competent to do a flawless
> translation into English would be the Arahant and, although it is
> another discussion, I assure you the Arahant would not find the idea of
> doing translations at all of interest. Gotama was against putting the
> Dhamma into writing!
>
> I have arrived at the position that the best that can be hoped for is
> honest translation with strong instructions to readers that if they are
> really interested in the benefits of sutta study, they need to become
> familiar with the Pali. All my translations are linked to their Pali
> version.
>
> Now then! I do wish to take personal exception in a relative way
> (meaning I do not claim perfection in my translating) to this blanket
> condemnation of all translators.
>
> I suggest you are mistaking your interpretation of the meaning of a
> translation for a translation from the Pali.
>
> The Pali Text Society translations themselves do a similar thing with
> their assumption that Pali is based on Sanskrit. The translations of
> Bhk. Bodhi and Bhk. Thanissaro do a similar thing by the fact that they
> are based on an acceptance of the Pali English Dictionary.
>
> Every English translation with the exception of my own out there at this
> time is essentially a derivative of the Pali English Dictionary and is
> really only an editing of the Pali Text Society translations.
>
> In your analysis of Vitakka and Vicara you show that you are doing the
> same thing.
>
> I have gone back farther than the Pali English Dictionary. I have gone
> back to the level of the syllable, which in the case of the Pali is the
> letter. I have worked up from there. I have not done this without
> reference to the dictionaries and the translations and I am able to
> justify my deviations in detail.
>
> And then, additionally, and deeper than that, my translations are based
> on insight attained during or after sit down practice and from having
> spent years and years in putting into practice the basics: giving,
> ethical development, self-control and the building and organization of
> memory. And I have been doing sit down practice as my primary
> Dhamma-research effort since the early 60s.
>
> You are hot under the collar because you see the need for the doctor who
> writes a book about medicine to practice medicine, not the law. I agree.
> But you look only to jhana experience where the system is much broader
> than that. Jhana gets you nowhere without a strongly developed sense of
> ethical behavior and the confidence instilled by a person who has been
> generous for a long time, well trained in self-discipline so as to not
> be upset at having to let go, able to remember what was said and done
> long ago and in detail.
>
> You have misunderstood 'obo's' understanding of jhana. I am not saying
> that jhana is concentration. In fact I make a big thing of the fact that
> it is not concentration. If you read more on the site you will see that.
>
> You say: "Jhana is an altered state of consciousness that is
> characterized by bliss, joy, ecstasy, tranquility, equanimity and
> freedom from anxiety.  They would have to read and understand Teresa of
> Avila and John of the Cross to get the difference."
>
> OBO: This is another demonstration that you are not referencing the Pali
> in your thinking.
>
> The jhanas in the Pali that are the sub-categories of High Samadhi (also
> translated 'concentration' so you need to distinguish which wrong
> translation is which), and are therefore the jhanas which are being
> explicitly stated to lead to the goal, are not things to be got, whether
> bliss, joy, ecstasy, tranquility, or equanimity (freedom from anxiety is
> an exception in your list, the goal is freedom from anything so that
> counts, but one should not mistake anxiety as being the only thing one
> needs to be free from). They do involve those things in the same way as
> they involve concentration. Nibbana is not a state that is 'got' it is a
> state to be achieved by the abandoning of identification with every
> conceivable thing whatsoever, including attributes of the jhana. The
> jhanas themselves are a progression of letting's go, each higher one
> being achieved by the letting go of aspects of the lower one.
>
> What I am not saying here is that I doubt your experiences.
> Additionally, you experiences are very likely to have been labeled jhana
> in other systems. It's just that this is not what is being taught in
> Gotama's system nor will the jhana as you describe it lead to ultimate
> freedom.
>
> OBO: We are in agreement in our understanding of the separation of
> physical and mental pain in the Arahant. Perhaps I was not as clear
> about my position as I could have been. But when you say: "So, the
> confusion is the Pali language was not able to differentiate between
> mental suffering and physical pain." you show your lack of familiarity
> with the Pali. The same problem as with Dr. Ingram.
>
> The distinction between the reaction of the Arahant to pain and the
> reaction of the 'common man' is stated explicitly a great number of
> times, and additionally, in the Maha Satipattana Sutta it is made clear
> that 'Dukkha' is a term exactly like our term 'pain' which can be
> understood as both physical and mental. The details of what is
> considered 'pain' or the thing that is to be brought to an end by the
> system is spelled out there in detail.
>
> JB: However, I am surprised that OBO quoted Don Juan, because Don Juan
> is a fictional character in Carlos Castanedas works of fiction.
>
> OBO: How do you know this? This indicates to me a dangerous impulse to
> speak with authority about something you do not know. You do that too
> much and nothing you say can be trusted. Were you there? Did you follow
> him around every minute. Did he confide in you? I don't mean to get into
> two-penny psychology here, but take a look mon, your first impulse
> everywhere down the line is to angrily denounce. (A state of mind
> described as common by Don Juan, people being able to live out entire
> lives in one continuous outrage) Anger, when it arises is absolutely a
> sign of misunderstanding and should always bring one up short asking:
> what do I not see here? Why should there be anything there to get angry
> about? ooh bla di, ooh bla dha, life goes on.
>
> This is the thing, one sorcerer there or a group, fiction or not what is
> well said is well said.
>
> Part of the discipline involved deception and disguise so right from the
> start we have no basis for judging the work on those grounds. I have
> read contemporaneously with publication, re-read through five or six
> times, thought extensively about the whole system and had personal
> contact with two different individuals who I am fairly confident were
> honest in describing their personal contacts with Carlos and knowledge
> of who Don Juan really was -- one was the editor of the New York Times
> Book Review, another a currently popular radio shrink in N.Y.C.). There
> isn't an internal contradiction. (Like with the suttas, that's not easy
> to do for a liar, and once published, he could not go back and make
> changes to make things fit a changed story). And then there are the
> works of Florinda Donner Grau and Taisha Abelar that give one
> triangulation. Of course they are liars too! I have read the work of
> DeMille. He has an axe to grind, Carlos would have nothing to do with
> him, and he made all sorts of accusations with 'proof' that all comes to
> a bunch of nothing and it is a very humorous thing to read it
> understanding that it was published right after the third of Carlos'
> books and then just torn to shreds by what was in the fourth book.
>
> Towards the end of the series we learn that Don Juan's system, if not
> orthodox Buddhism, was certainly influenced by a period of study of
> Buddhism in China, and I have found the books to be a valuable resource
> of wise thought. I judge what is well said according to the saying:
>
> In the same way as the sea always tastes of salt,
> In the same way the Dhamma (or in this case wisdom) always tastes of
> freedom.
>
> If it tastes of freedom I don't care who brings it to me.
>
> Take a look at "Don Juan's Table".
> http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/dhamma_talk/dt_005.don.juans
> .table.htm
>
> That is pure Buddhism masterfully taught.
>
> JB: Strive on in this world full of frauds, Jhananda.
>
> OBO: And you, too, JB. Best of luck to you.
>
> Best Wishes!
> obo
> Visit The Mozone at:
> http://obo.genaud.net/
> What's New?
> http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/whats.new.htm
> Sutta Index:
> http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm

[Jhanananda]

Subject: Re: Approach
Date: Friday, July 6, 2012 7:03 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Brooks <jhananda@greatwesternvehicle.org>
To: Mike Olds <mikeolds@att.net>
Conversation: Approach

Hello Mike aka OBO, it is a pleasure to meet you, sorry I did not get that you were one and the same; however, I did notice that your name " Mike Olds" appeared in the dialog with Daniel Ingram, but I did not make the connection to OBO.

OBO: First off I need to clarify that 'I am' obo! I was not trying to deceive, it's just that I have been using that persona for a long time and since I write mostly for people who know me, I forget that others may not know the connection. I believe my e-mail signature does indicate this.

Jhananda: Sorry, if my website suggests that I have given up.  I am not sure where that comes from, but I have certainly given up finding anyone enlightened within a Buddhist context.  I still work with sincere contemplatives; however, my health is in decline, so I do not expect to live much longer.

OBO: I wonder if you could clarify one confusion I have reading your materials: It seems in one place you are claiming to be an arahant, in another a once-returner, and in another a streamwinner. The order seems to me to be that the claim to be streamwinner is the later claim. What are you saying about this at this time? And related to that, are you saying that your claim is being made based on what is found in the suttas or are you speaking about Mahayana suttas or something else? Does your unaffiliated system have ranks?[quote

Jhanada: On my claims of: streamwinner, once-returner, non-returner and arahant.  When I described my meditation experiences to every guru, meditation teacher, bhikkhu, lama, rinpoche, etc. that I encountered I was either laughed at or ignored, or marginalized.  When I joined hundreds of meditation and/or Buddhist forums to find contemplatives who meditate to the depth I do, I was banned from most of them, and flamed by the rest. 

When I read the sutta pitaka as it became published I found gross translation errors, so, while I knew I was an arahant, I thought I would start with claiming stream entry to see where it went.  I was met with extreme offense.  I let a few years go by, then I claimed once-returner, then non-returner and now arahant. There are many web pages on the GWV website.  I just have not gotten around to fixing them all.

Yes, the GWV retains the ranking system as described by Siddhartha Gautama in the Pali suttas.  We have members who are: streamwinner, or once-returner, or non-returner or arahant.

How we define the ranks is how they are defined in the suttas.  If you are free of certain sins/hindrance/fetters, then you are at whatever rank.  We find that those ranks closely follow the jhanas, ie: rank 1= first jhana, etc.

However, we also find that just a single experience of a particular jhana is insufficient to transform an individual to one of the ranks.  Instead the individual has to become saturated to that level of jhana. 

Thus, someone who experiences the stilling of the mind every time they meditate, will then often carry that still mind with them most of the day, and will become fairly free of the sins/hindrance/fetters to the point of becoming a once-returner.  We have several such people in the GWV.

And, those who meditate at the level of the 4th jhana every time they meditate will become so saturated with the 4th jhana that they will carry with them all day: bliss, joy, ecstasy, a still mind, tranquility and freedom from anxiety.  We find such a person has no obsessive compulsive behavior ie, the are free of the sins/hindrance/fetters; therefore that person is an arahant.  We have at least 2 that I know of in the GWV.

]OBO: Vitakka and Vicara are two terms both of which are simply thinking. Vitakka = Re-talking, Vi-cara = Re-carrying on. If you carefully read the descriptions of the jhanas in the suttas and you note the placement of these two terms in the descriptions of the method for attaining the jhanas in the suttas you will see that what is being said is that in the first jhana there still remains thinking. To get to the second jhana thinking needs to be let go.

Jhanada: On the use of the terms 'Vitakka' and 'Viccara' in the suttas: 
First, you really should be asking if any of the translators knew what they were talking about.  Have you read my essay Exposing translator bias in the translation of the Pali Canon and other Asian literature (updated 11-10-04)
http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/criticism/translation.htm

Secondly, does it seem reasonable to you to consider that the description of the 4 jhanas is a formula for the characteristics of jhana?  If so, then perhaps you would consider that formula is not a description of what is wrong with someone's meditation to produce x-jhana, but what is right.  If you are willing to consider that the sutta description for the 4 jhanas only describes what is right, and not what is wrong, then why should we ever consider that "simply thinking" ever led to any jhana?  However, I agree that "in the first jhana there still remains thinking. To get to the second jhana thinking needs to be let go" among other things.

OBO: Jhana, in Gotama's system, is not one thing, it is a somewhat arbitrary description of stages in a process, and specifically in the case of the jhanas to be used in the attaining of the goal of utter detachment, it is the process of letting go of the world. We begin involved with things of the world, sitting we let worldly matters go but are still thinking, then we let the thinking go ...

Jhananda: On jhana:
I disagree with "Jhana, in Gotama's system, is not one thing, it is a somewhat arbitrary description of stages in a process"  I find the description of the 4 jhanas in the suttas is not arbitrary at all.  It is in fact the most lucid description of the first 4 stages of the religious experience publishing in any literature to date, other than my own descriptions, which are based upon the sutta descriptions and my own experiences.

Jhana is not "the process of letting go of the world."  However, it leads to letting go of the world.  The 4 Jhanas are altered states of consciousness that are characterized by bliss, joy, ecstasy, tranquility (stilling of the mind) equanimity, and freedom from anxiety (adhukkha).

The word itself is our 'knowing' and it is the root for the Chinese 'Chan' or 'Ch'an' and the Japanese 'Zen'. Push it back a little and it means Ja 'burning' or 'shinning' na = know. Burning with knowledge or shinning with wisdom.

Jhananda: Actually dhyana is the root of the Chinese 'Chan' or 'Ch'an' and the Japanese 'Zen' and the Korean 'Son'.  When the Pali Canon was translated into Sanskrit in the 1st century BC 'jhana' was incorrectly translated as 'dhyana.'

While jhana may share its roots with 'to burn,' it is most probably not "Burning with knowledge" or "shinning with wisdom."  There are a number of possible reasons why jhana relates to burning.  It is more probably the consuming of the hindrances, fetters, and/or aggregates, and/or the identity, because it dissolves them all.

OBO: You are making the same mistake as some of the other translators and those who make commentary, you are imposing on the Pali an idea you are forming from your understanding of other translator's translations, not your understanding of what Gotama himself taught in the suttas.

Jhananda: I have led a rigorous, self-aware contemplative life for 39 years; whereas, most translators have most probably never meditated.  I am also a trained anthropologist, and I have given a great deal of attention to the world-view of the period and place of the suttas; whereas, the translators have not. Thus, I am most probably doing a much better job of placing the suttas within their context than any other translator.  However, I am willing to entertain a better interpretation of the terms 'Vitakka' and 'Viccara'; however, your version is just too mainstream and has too many holes in it.

(I skip over a lot of longwinded defense of Buddhist scholarship, which I find deeply corrupt, then...)

OBO: " You say: "Jhana is an altered state of consciousness that is characterized by bliss, joy, ecstasy, tranquility, equanimity and freedom from anxiety.  They would have to read and understand Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross to get the difference."

OBO: This is another demonstration that you are not referencing the Pali in your thinking.

The jhanas in the Pali that are the sub-categories of High Samadhi (also translated 'concentration' so you need to distinguish which wrong translation is which), and are therefore the jhanas which are being explicitly stated to lead to the goal, are not things to be got, whether bliss, joy, ecstasy, tranquility, or equanimity (freedom from anxiety is an exception in your list, the goal is freedom from anything so that counts, but one should not mistake anxiety as being the only thing one needs to be free from). "

" What I am not saying here is that I doubt your experiences. Additionally, you experiences are very likely to have been labeled jhana in other systems. It's just that this is not what is being taught in Gotama's system nor will the jhana as you describe it lead to ultimate freedom..."

Jhananda: The suttas describe jhana in terms of: bliss, joy, ecstasy, tranquility, equanimity and freedom from anxiety (dhukkha). Every time I meditate I experience: bliss, joy, ecstasy, tranquility, equanimity and freedom from anxiety (dhukkha). I am free of the hindrances and fetters, therefore I am an arahant, and I did it by saturating and suffusing myself in jhana for 39 years. Therefore the results suggest that I have found the jhana of the Buddha, because I have reaped the rewards (fruit/phala) as described by the Buddha in the suttas (DN-2).

It does not sound like you have experienced jhana at all. Just out of curiosity, how often do you meditate?  How long is your average meditation session?  Do you find it easy to still your mind during meditation?  Do you find it easy to still your mind throughout the day? How deeply do you meditate during your average meditation?  How lucid is your sleep state?  Do you experience jhana?  How often?  How deep into jhana do you meditate?  Please describe your experience of jhana?

OBO: We are in agreement in our understanding of the separation of physical and mental pain in the Arahant. Perhaps I was not as clear about my position as I could have been. But when you say: "So, the confusion is the Pali language was not able to differentiate between mental suffering and physical pain." you show your lack of familiarity with the Pali. The same problem as with Dr. Ingram.

The distinction between the reaction of the Arahant to pain and the reaction of the 'common man' is stated explicitly a great number of times, and additionally, in the Maha Satipattana Sutta it is made clear that 'Dukkha' is a term exactly like our term 'pain' which can be understood as both physical and mental. The details of what is considered 'pain' or the thing that is to be brought to an end by the system is spelled out there in detail.

Jhananda: On Dhukka: The problem with translation of any early religious literature into English is all of the early religious literature was the product of an illiterate society, thus the religious literature depended upon a simple language that in most cases had only about 5,000 terms in it; whereas the English language today is a product of a society that has been literate for about 1000 years, thus the average English speaker has command of about 50,000 terms.  Thus, properly translating any early religious literature into English requires a flexible translation.

All Physical pain is something that we have no control over.  If we translate dhukka as pain only, then the implication is if we get to a place of arhantship, then we will have no pain.  However, in the suttas we see at least two arahants commit suicide because they were dying from injuries or sicknesses that produced severe pain, and were leading to death.  If they were free of pain, then there would have been no reason to commit suicide.

My own experience of chronic pain has shown me that, while I can submerge my normal level of chronic pain under the layers of bliss, joy and ecstasy; nonetheless the pain is still there.  I simply attend to the bliss, joy and ecstasy, and I do not attend to the pain. 

However, my condition regularly results in episodes of sever pain. I find the bliss, joy and ecstasy that I experience every day, all day long, does not mask this level of pain; which has brought new meaning to me as to why Jesus said while on the cross, "Lord, Lord, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)." 

I believe he had access to the same altered states of consciousness that Siddhartha Gautama had, and expected that he could mask the pain of crucifixion, but was disappointed to find he could not.

I believe the important take-home message of the 4 Noble Truths is by leading a rigorous, self-ware contemplative life, as described by the N8P, then we can be free of our anxieties, which is in part a reaction to pain, and environmental conditions.  Thus, I chose to translate 'dhukkha' as 'anxiety.'

Jhananda: However, I am surprised that OBO quoted Don Juan, because Don Juan
is a fictional character in Carlos Castaneda's works of fiction.

OBO: "How do you know this? This indicates to me a dangerous impulse to speak with authority about something you do not know. You do that too much and nothing you say can be trusted. Were you there?"

Jhananda: I did not have to be there.  I am a trained anthropologist, my subject has been southwestern archaeology and anthropology.  There was nothing in Castaneda's work that shows he ever met a Yaqui Indian, or that his "Don Juan" was a Yaqui Indian.  Additionally, I have an English degree, thus I find Castaneda's work nether reflects good anthropology, nor good writing.  It was nothing more than formula fiction.  Castaneda's wife exposed him as a fraud.  Castaneda has since been discredited in academic circles.  Get a clue.

OBO: " your first impulse everywhere down the line is to angrily denounce."

Jhananda: In psychology this would be called a "projection."  Critical literary and philosophical analysis does not require anger. It is something I was trained in while engaged in 15 years of university scholarship and research.

I have meditated every day for 39 years.  When I meditate I tend to meditate for an hour or so.  I find it easy to still my mind, so I go much deeper to the 4th jhana every time I meditate.  My sleep state has been lucid for the last 38 years, and I have been free of obsessive-compulsive behaviors for 12 years.

Strive on in this world full of frauds, Jhananda.

[Jhanananda]

on 7/6/12 12:11 PM, Mike Olds at mikeolds@att.net wrote:

> Hello Jeffrey,
>
> Thank you for your response clarifying your claims to accomplishment and
> your responses to my comments.
>
> You have made a number of statements and asked a few questions.
> According to my understanding of Samma Vaca there is no need where I see
> no gain to be made for me to respond to your comments. I would ask you
> not to ask the direct questions.
>
> I suggest you look at
>
> http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/mn/mn.112.olds.bd.htm
>
> for the questions to be asked of one claiming to be Arahant.
>
> Best Wishes!
> obo

[Jhanananda]

To: Mike Olds mikeolds@att.net 07-06-2012.2
Subject: Re: Approach

Mike, you cannot even say that by following the Noble Eightfold Path you have been freed from any of the hindrances and fetters?  That is too bad, because I have been freed from all of the fetters and hindrances, and my students have been relatively freed from theirs, relative to the depth of religious experience (jhana) that they attend to during their daily meditation practice.  Without freedom from the fetters and hindrances your translations and meditation practice are a sham.

On the GWV website I have described my meditation/religious experiences in great detail.  In the suttas Siddhartha Gautama described his meditation/religious experiences in great detail.  The major mystics, such as: Patanjali, Kabir, Rumi, Teresa of Avila, and John of the Cross, described their meditation/religious experiences in great detail.  For the pretentious, it is all too easy to hide behind the vinaya. 

Strive on in this world of pretentious frauds, Jhananda

[Alexander]

Vitakka and Viccara are not "initial thought and discursive thought."  It is "applied and sustained attention."  It is utterly impossible for anyone to arrive at the experience of jhana through "initial thought and discursive thought," or through applied and sustained thought.  Therefore, anyone who claims otherwise, or translates the suttas thus, has obviously not experienced jhana.

This is the key orthodox error they make in the translations. I've changed all my dictionaries on Buddhism to rectify it. It is strange that very few people become suspicious of it, as how are you supposed to experience samadhi through a thinking process? It does not make sense.

> I wonder if you could clarify one confusion I have reading your
> materials: It seems in one place you are claiming to be an arahant, in
> another a once-returner, and in another a streamwinner. The order seems
> to me to be that the claim to be streamwinner is the later claim. What
> are you saying about this at this time? And related to that, are you
> saying that your claim is being made based on what is found in the
> suttas or are you speaking about Mahayana suttas or something else? Does
> your unaffiliated system have ranks?

You should probably just come out and say you are an arahant. I am a nonreturner, Jhananda, and you are clearly above me on the ladder. Not even going to mention the immense and thankless efforts you've done to get your writing, videos, et al available to people.

> You are hot under the collar because you see the need for the doctor who
> writes a book about medicine to practice medicine, not the law. I agree.

I am glad we all agree direct experience is the real determiner of wisdom. The fact is that no academic can have a full knowledge of Buddhism, as he will always lack experience with the 7th and 8th folds of the eightfold path. Strange he admits this in his post, but goes on to say...

> What I am not saying here is that I doubt your experiences.
> Additionally, you experiences are very likely to have been labeled jhana
> in other systems. It's just that this is not what is being taught in
> Gotama's system nor will the jhana as you describe it lead to ultimate
> freedom.

I understand why people would be skeptical. Not only does the 21st century Buddhist have to get over all the materialism he grew up with, but he has to reform his views several more times still to get to the "right view" required to be an ariya. But, the jhanas are the way to freedom. Maybe a few more lifetimes in samsara will help him realize that.

> OBO: How do you know this? This indicates to me a dangerous impulse to
> speak with authority about something you do not know. You do that too
> much and nothing you say can be trusted. Were you there? Did you follow
> him around every minute. Did he confide in you? I don't mean to get into
> two-penny psychology here, but take a look mon, your first impulse
> everywhere down the line is to angrily denounce. (A state of mind
> described as common by Don Juan, people being able to live out entire
> lives in one continuous outrage) Anger, when it arises is absolutely a
> sign of misunderstanding and should always bring one up short asking:
> what do I not see here? Why should there be anything there to get angry
> about? ooh bla di, ooh bla dha, life goes on.

I do think writers like Castaneda have some merit to them, but there is a difference between the people who actually "went there" (ie the Buddha) and those who only wrote about "going there" (Carlos Castaneda).

[Jhanananda]

This is the key orthodox error they make in the translations. I've changed all my dictionaries on Buddhism to rectify it. It is strange that very few people become suspicious of it, as how are you supposed to experience samadhi through a thinking process? It does not make sense.

It is laughable that the botched translations all say something about thinking for Vitakka and Viccara.  It just shows how pervasive the fraud is.  I too have scratched out many sections in my volumes of the Discourses of the Buddha.  Every place it says, "Applied and sustained thinking,"  I have changed to "Applied and sustained attention."  Every place it says, "concentration," I have changed to "ecstasy," or "absorption."  Every place it says "rapture," I have changed to "bliss," etc.

You should probably just come out and say you are an arahant. I am a nonreturner, Jhananda, and you are clearly above me on the ladder. Not even going to mention the immense and thankless efforts you've done to get your writing, videos, et al available to people.

Well, when I started out revealing my meditation experiences I found myself demonized for it, so I thought I would just start small and announce stream entry with the intention of upping the anti each year.  But, just announcing my stream entry created such a furor, that I just let it go for a few years, then I upped it to once-returner.  I think it was just this year that I finally announced arahatship.

Yes, I have had no end to insults from Buddhist priests and their naiver devotees for expressing myself in a public forum.  We can all know who is a fraud by the way they act, because "we know a tree by its fruit."

I am glad we all agree direct experience is the real determiner of wisdom. The fact is that no academic can have a full knowledge of Buddhism, as he will always lack experience with the 7th and 8th folds of the eightfold path. Strange he admits this in his post, but goes on to say...

> What I am not saying here is that I doubt your experiences.
> Additionally, you experiences are very likely to have been labeled jhana
> in other systems. It's just that this is not what is being taught in
> Gotama's system nor will the jhana as you describe it lead to ultimate
> freedom.

Well, it is not that an academic cannot have the direct experience, but we are in agreement that thinking is not the way.  An academic would have to engage in a rigorous, self-aware contemplative life, which is the 7th fold, to have the direct religious experience, which is the 8th fold; and that requires the stilling of the mind, which is the second jhana. 

Just establishing the stilling of the mind, which is the second jhana, has created another furor.  And, expressing that I and my students, like Michael Hawkins, can still our mind, has created yet another furor.

I understand why people would be skeptical. Not only does the 21st century Buddhist have to get over all the materialism he grew up with, but he has to reform his views several more times still to get to the "right view" required to be an ariya. But, the jhanas are the way to freedom. Maybe a few more lifetimes in samsara will help him realize that.

It is good that you get that "the jhanas are the way to freedom."  However, mainstream Buddhism has been selling jhana is optional, even to be avoided, for thousands of years.

I do think writers like Castaneda have some merit to them, but there is a difference between the people who actually "went there" (ie the Buddha) and those who only wrote about "going there" (Carlos Castaneda).

Sure, spiritual fiction has its place of inspiring us; however, it cannot take the place of the commentary from a genuine enlightened person, like Siddhartha Gautama, Patanjali, Jesus, Kabir, Rumi, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross.

And, the fact the Mike Olds (aka OBO) did not get that Castaneda was writing fiction says a lot about whatever else he got wrong, like jhana being just a case of concentration.

[Jhanananda]

I just got this email reply from Mike Olds. He thinks he knows the dhamma even though he has no attainment.  Too bad.

on 7/7/12 11:58 AM, Mike Olds at mikeolds@att.net wrote:

> Hello Jeffrey,
>
> Nope. Can't even say that. You got me! Hiding behind the vinaya.
>
> As for describing my meditation/religious experiences in great detail, I
> believe I will wait until I'm up there with Gotama ... why waste
> people's time with something they will only doubt? Na, I concede even
> the possibility of such scope. I'm content to be a bit player, a
> signpost pointing to the real deal.
>
> As for you, there is nothing more I am able to say to you or about the
> details of your meditation/religious experiences that would not be an
> insult.
>
> Best Wishes!
> obo

[Jhanananda]

Dear Mike, good to receive another letter from you.  It had been so long since your last reply that I had given up on you.

on 8/3/12 12:30 PM, Mike Olds at mikeolds@att.net wrote:

> Hello Jeffrey,
>
> I feel that in spite of my reluctance to place myself in the path of
> your cutting words, since you have carried the dialog with me forward
> without giving me an opportunity to defend myself by informing me and
> since you did this in public, I should respond.

Jhananda:
I am sorry that you find my literary and philosophical criticism are "cutting words." And, I am sorry that you feel that I carried our dialog forward without giving you an opportunity to respond; however, it was you who chose not to respond.

I find it funny that you seem to resent me making our dialog public, because you made your dialog with Danial Ingram public, I figured that you would do the same thing with our dialog, so I just wanted to make sure that my side of that dialog was faithfully recorded.

Mike Olds:
>
> I have just visited your site where you make the statement that I hold
> that jhana is 'concentration.' This is the second time you have made
> this assertion. The first time was in the actual dialog with me where I
> made the following response to you:
>
> "You have misunderstood 'obo's' understanding of jhana. I am not saying
> that jhana is concentration. In fact I make a big thing of the fact that
> it is not concentration. If you read more on the site you will see that."

Jhananda:
I would not be interested in reading more of your site, because you have clearly shown that you do not understand the dhamma

>
> In addition to this, if you had read a little more deeply in the
> original document I passed along to you you would have seen the same
> thing stated in a way that should have made my position clear:

Jhananda:
I read as deeply as your document went.

>
> This is from the dialog with Doc Ingram which you supposedly read:
>
> "First some definitions.
>
> "Pali: Samadhi, nanadassana, jhana
> SAMA=Even,ADHI=Higher; NANA: a blend of 'Na's' 'knows'; jhana = burn,
> shine, know, chan, zen.
> Bhks. Nanamoli/Bodhi: concentration, knowledge and vision, jhana
> Horner: concentratin, knowledge and vision, meditation
> Olds: serenity, book-knowledge and understanding, attainment of a degree
> of detachment in the burnings.
>

Jhananda:
When you think samadhi is just 'serenity' and Nanamoli/Bodhi/Horner believe it is just 'concentration', then we know none of you know what samadhi is.  Samadhi is a Sanskrit term for the religious experience.  If you want to understand the English terms related to the religious experience, then I would recommend that you read the Christian mystics.  Most notably Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross were among the most articulate of the Christian mystics, and they were contemplatives.  Teresa of Avila called it 'ecstasy' John of the Cross called it 'contemplation.'

nanadassana: Nanamoli/Bodhi/Horner/Jhananda 'knowledge' (nana) & 'vision' (dassana),
Mike Olds: "book-knowledge and understanding"?

Jhananda:
Oh, dear. There were no books at the time of Siddhartha Gautam, so it is doubtful that 'nanadassana' could possibly mean "book-knowledge and understanding."

Because nanadassana is supposedly the product of leading a contemplative life, then I am inclined to interpret it as reference to the divine eye (dibbacakkhu, s. abhiññá), being produced through absorption of the mind (samádhi), which produces self luminosity or light and wisdom, not "book-knowledge and understanding."

Jhana: is generally translated or interpreted by most translators as simply 'concentration,' which I have already pointed out is a hopeless misunderstanding of the religious experience. 

When Horner interprets it as 'meditation' then we know Horner has confused the 7th fold of the N8P with the 8th fold. 

When you define it as "attainment of a degree of detachment in the burnings," I wonder what you are getting at.  Yes, jhana requires a degree of detachment to experience it, but it is not detachment itself, and what do you mean by the 'burnings'?  Sure, the root of jhana comes from to burn, but are we talking about witch burnings? No, we are talking about the religious experience and how it consumes the fetters and hindrances.

Mike Olds:
> "There is no word for 'meditation' in the Pali, unless you understand
> the term literally in which case it is using sati (thinking about a
> thing). Otherwise the place is also sometimes taken by 'bhavana',
> development.
>
> "Jhana is not 'concentration.' Concentration is an aspect of Jhana.

Jhananda:
Well, now I get why you do not understand what jhana is, because you do not understand what meditation (sati) is.  I believe we are in agreement that sati is the term used in the suttas for the 7th fold of the Noble Eightfold Path; and it is defined in 4 major discourses (DN-22, MN 10, 118, 119).  In those 4 suttas we see various exercises that appear to use the 5 aggregates as meditation objects.  A meditation object is understood here as a focusing mechanism for developing one-pointedness (ekagatta). 

The practice of meditation is not at all related to thinking, so it is understandable that you do not understand jhana, because you think meditation is just thinking, which it is not. Thus, you have most probably never experienced jhana, because all of the time you put into what you thought was meditation was just endless mind-games and thinking.

Mike Olds:
> "Samadhi is a general term that is defined in different ways. If it is
> defined as the jhanas as in Samma Samadhi, High serenity, it is the
> first four jhanas. It can be just ordinary serenity, it can be a fruit
> of the practice of loving kindness, it can be any number of practices of
> other doctrines, and in this doctrine it can also be the three:
> Aimlessness, Signlessness, Emptiness.

Jhananda:
This is another example how you do not understand jhana as it was used by Siddhartha Gautama in the Discourses of the Buddha.  However, I will agree that it is also consistently "the first four jhanas."

In the Discourses of the Buddha jhana and samadhi are consistently used in the same way and described as an ecstatic altered state of consciousness, which is characterized by the 7 factors of enlightenment.  And, its attainment is there said to be the product of practicing meditation, which is called "sati" in the suttas.

There are Signless, Emptiness aspects of samadhi.  And, samadhi, there, can be the product meditations upon the 4 Brahma Viharas (houses of god).

Mike Olds:
> "Within this doctrine, samadhi can be higher or lower than knowing and
> seeing (nana and dassana) depending on if it is attained in a manner
> that is informed by nana book-knowledge of and dassana seeing or
> understanding the goal, which in this case is described as the ending of
> the corruptions (asava: lust, being, and blindness).
>
> "Suppose a person came upon the description of jhana in Gotama's system
> without being informed about any of the rest of the system or it's goals
> such as could be the case in the case of this sutta (he is going after
> the heart-wood without knowing what it is). In the case of such a one,
> even able to attain the jhana, such jhana would be contentless or have
> content meaningless in terms of the goal. For one understanding and
> striving after the goal then, samadhi by any definition when not
> informed by knowledge of the goal, would be lower than knowing and
> seeing. Informed by the goal jhana is an actual step in the direction of
> letting go of the world and therefore higher than mere book knowledge
> and understanding (aka, intellectual knowledge).
>
> "So so far, we might put it this way:
>
> "Samadhi is lower than
> Nana and dassana which is lower than
> Jhana attainment informed by nana and dassana"
>
Jhananda:
I find the above all nonsense and unworthy of a comment

Mike Olds:
> In addition to the above, there is this from the second page of the
> dialog with Doc Ingram, which I believe you did not read at all.

Jhananda:
I read the whole pile of nonsense, but if you recall I actually agreed with some of your more worthy points.

Mike Olds:
> "This is an argument based on confusion arising from translation. The
> PTS translators started this with translating 'samadhi' as
> concentration. The Sri Lankan, Thai, and Burmese scholars learned the
> English they use to explain the Dhamma to English speakers from the
> English scholars that tried to understand the Sri Lankan scholars
> explanations of it when the Sri Lankan's to whom they spoke had not
> practiced the system themselves in any meaningful way for hundreds of
> years. I don't know, but it seems that the Sri Lankan, Thai, Burmese
> teachers of today have in their turn interpreted the Pali into their own
> languages following the PTS English translations. Round and round.

Jhananda:
This is another place where I happen to actually agreed with your more worthy points.  I have often reflected upon how the English speaking translators got so many Pali terms so off the mark.  They could not have learned Pali without an Asian helping them to understand it.  Therefore there seems to be good support for your premise that " the Sri Lankan's to whom they spoke had not practiced the system themselves in any meaningful way for hundreds of years."

This also suggests that the Sri Lankan, Thai and Burmese teachers of today have no clue, because they have " not practiced the system themselves in any meaningful way for hundreds of years."  I suspect it is more likely thousands of years, because the Abhidhamma is 21 centuries old, and is a good example of how far off someone got in their understanding of the Buddha dhamma.

Mike Olds:
> Jhana includes concentration. What jhana is all about is a defining of the
> final steps in letting go.

Jhananda:
I agree with this part, but I would not say "jhana is all about is a defining of the final steps in letting go." because it is inaccurate.  Jhana is not about defining anything.  It is 4 relative degrees of altered states of consciousness that are acquired through detachment, while remaining mindfully self-aware.

Mike Olds:
> This requires calm and knowledge. When the
> knowledge informs the jhana what needs to be let go and how to do that
> is seen and this is called insight, the actual letting go is done
> through calming body and mind. They work together and although one or
> the other may be the way a sit down session is described before and
> after, during the practice they are not separate."
>
Jhananda
While I will agree that meditation practice is about learning to calm body and mind, and understanding how to meditate might require some study from people who actually understand how to meditate; however, your use of the term 'knowledge' suggest book knowledge, which you used above, and I see no support for such a premise.

And, insight is not book knowledge.  It is an intuitive and revelatory experience in which one sees into the path to freedom.  Insight is needed because there are so very many deluded teacher putting themselves off as wise all knowing ones.

Mike Olds:
> Finally, you should know that I have held this position with regard to
> the translation of jhana and the meaning of samadhi for several decades
> already and have early posts to document this statement.
>
Jhananda:
Well, this would explain why you have most probably never experienced either jhana or insight.

Mike Olds:
> I would just like to ask you how it is that you justify to yourself
> making disparaging remarks about me based on statements that are not
> only untrue but are proven incorrect in your very own post and which
> point only to the fact that you read carelessly and speak hostilities
> before you think?
>
Jhananda:
I am sorry if you cannot handle the truth.  If you cannot handle the fire, then stay away from the flames.

Mike Olds:
> There are two other remarks you have made that are baseless:
>
> That I have no 'attainments' which is not what I said and is not
> something you could judge, certainly not with such little knowledge of
> me and knowledge which we can see in front of our eyes is faulty. What I
> said was that I could not say that I had attainments.
>
Jhananda:
With your writing you prove that you have no attainment.

Mike Olds:
> You persist in a mistranslation of vitakka and vicara with no basis in
> any understanding of Pali or the etymology of these two terms and you
> justify your misunderstanding with a misunderstanding of the jhana
> process. You hold that vitakka and vicara, however translated are being
> used to attain jhana and then point to the way 'thinking' would
> interfere with jhana and so could not be 'used' to attain jhana.
>
> Reading the instructions for jhana attainment what is being said is that
> vitakka and vicara (again, however translated) are there from prior to
> the first jhana and are to be dropped to attain the second jhana.
>
> You do not like the other translators translations, but they are
> essentially correct:
>

Jhananda:
This has already been argued ad nauseum.  I have meditated every day for 39 years, I have studied the Pali language and I am trained in Linguistic anthropology.  You, on the other hand, have clearly been playing mind-games.

Mike Olds:
> The first jhana:
>
> So vivicc'eva kamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkam savicaram
> vivekajam piti-sukham pathamajjhanam upasampajja viharati.
>
> Rhys Davids: Then estranged from lusts, aloof from evil dispositions, he
> enters into and remains in the First Rapture — a state of joy and ease
> born of detachment, reasoning and investigation going on the while.
>
> Walshe: Being thus detached from sense-desires, detached from
> unwholesome states, he enters and remains in the first jhana, which is
> with thinking and pondering, born of detachment, filled with delight and
> joy.
>
> This is saying that vitakka and vicara are 'going on the while' or 'with
> thinking and pondering', not that the first jhana is to be got by using
> vitakka and vicara.
>
> This does not make these two things incompatible with attaining jhana
> ... they could be apples and oranges for all their use in attainment of
> jhana. The first jhana is simply a state that while being above
> indulgence in gross worldly activities still has thinking connected with
> it.
>
Jhananda:
If, Mike, you ever actually practiced meditation, then you would know that to suggest that the first jhana required thinking is totally ridiculous. However, I will agree that thinking can be present during the first jhana, as well as a sore butt, but a sore butt was not mentioned in the suttas.

Rhys Davids is wrong, a Rapture is an out-of-body experience.  Obviously Rhys Davids did not spend any time with a dictionary.  You might try it sometime.

The Fruit of the Contemplative Life
Samaññaphala Sutta (DN 2) <http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/samannaphala.htm>  .62
First Jhana
62. "With (So) the renunciation (vivicceva) of sensuality (kàmehi), and renunciation (vivicca) of unwholesome mental states (akusalehi), and with applied and sustained attention (savitakkaü savicàraü) and originating from dispassion (vivekajaü), s/he resides in (viharati) the clarity (upasampajja), bliss and joy (pãtisukhaü), of the first (pañhamaü) ecstasy (jhànaü).

Mike Olds:
> Finally you have referred to me as an academic with no experience at
> practice. This is preposterous and a huge irony in that virtually my
> entire life has been spent in practice and I have been almost completely
> ignored by the academic community precisely because I do not hold any of
> their acceptable credentials. And turn around with no self-awareness,
> you yourself attacked me using academic credentials!
>
Jhananda:
I agree, Mike, it is a great irony that the most respected translators of Buddhist literature have no experience at meditation practice, but you said it yourself; and it is so sad that you have spent so much time just thinking, when you could have been practicing meditation.

Mike Olds:
> Please try and understand me when I say that reading about your tears
> and suicidal depression and your burning anger which you write about
> yourself but deny when I point it out to you even at this time in your
> career the only possible conclusion is that your jhana practice has been
> useless to you because you have not understood the goal and methodology
> of Gotama's Dhamma. This sort of thing is not possible in a person who
> understands how the system works and has put it into practice.
>

Jhananda:
This is where you disgrace yourself by bringing up my medical condition of chronic joint pain due to arthritis and diabetes.  ad hominem arguments only prove your fallacies.

[bodhimind]

Dear all, I would love to know if this map corresponds to your practice. It is from integrateddaniel.info :

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5037f52d84ae1e87f694cfda/t/506fcc5c84aefb9a79a610b3/1349504092518/Pathways.jpg

and

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5037f52d84ae1e87f694cfda/t/506fcc0de4b04b0e1036b709/1349504013275/APmindmapbuscolors.jpg

And his book:

http://static.squarespace.com/static/5037f52d84ae1e87f694cfda/t/5055915f84aedaeee9181119/1347785055665/

i find it quite interesting that he has mapped out the phenomena in Jhana all the way to even the 8th.

[Jhanananda]

This is just the work of the sudo-arahat Danie l M. Ingram.  While, he may have made a very impressive map; nonetheless, I do not find my experience of the 8 stages of samadhi in his map.  Just remember if there is no bliss, joy or ecstasy in the description then it is not jhana/samadhi/holy spirit or whatever other term you want to use for a religious experience. 

Danie l M. Ingram's whole confusion is to home the 8 stages of samadhi are just mental exercises, not experiences.  He should start with stilling his mind, and allow the experience of samadhi to unfold on its own from there.

Just remember "we know a tree by its fruit."  What "fruit" is that?  It is the superior fruit (maha-phala) of the contemplative life.  Is Danie l M. Ingram known for the superior fruit (maha-phala) of the contemplative life?  Other than his bogus interpretation of jhana he is not know for the attainment of the other superior fruit (maha-phala) of the contemplative life.  Therefore we should conclude that he has missed the boat.

[bodhimind]

This is just the work of the sudo-arahat Danie l M. Ingram.  While, he may have made a very impressive map; nonetheless, I do not find my experience of the 8 stages of samadhi in his map.  Just remember if there is no bliss, joy or ecstasy in the description then it is not jhana/samadhi/holy spirit or whatever other term you want to use for a religious experience. 

Danie l M. Ingram's whole confusion is to home the 8 stages of samadhi are just mental exercises, not experiences.  He should start with stilling his mind, and allow the experience of samadhi to unfold on its own from there.

Just remember "we know a tree by its fruit."  What "fruit" is that?  It is the superior fruit (maha-phala) of the contemplative life.  Is Danie l M. Ingram known for the superior fruit (maha-phala) of the contemplative life?  Other than his bogus interpretation of jhana he is not know for the attainment of the other superior fruit (maha-phala) of the contemplative life.  Therefore we should conclude that he has missed the boat.

Thank you for your guidance on this, Jhanananda. I'm so glad to have asked for an opinion before even reading his texts.