Frank,

Before you make any more akusala kamma by insinutating that some posters
are pompous, irrational, illogical, and abusive, perhaps you should
reflect not on the meaning of sammaa samaadhi, but on the meaning of
sammaa vaaca.

It is untrue to say that jhana is essential for the attainment of insight
and nibbana. Those of us who have practised the Mahasi method know that it
is effective, and no amount of quoting one-sided statements from this or
that text will convince us that we need to develop samatha jhaana. There
is no doubt that the Mahaasi Sayaadaw would have taught samatha if it was
necessary, or even useful, for the development of insight. The fact that a
monk of his great learning and deep insight did not routinely teach it,
should be proof enough that it is not essential. If you need more proof,
then practice vipassana meditation. No amount of reading books and
articles will resolve your doubts.

No one denies that right concentration is an essential part of the path,
but there is also right concentration called khanika samadhi that is
gained by following the Satipatthana method. Purity of mind is gained if
one can removed the five hindrances to the point of access concentration,
and this access concentration is sufficient for developing insight.

The loss suffered by Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta was very great.
They were both adept in samatha meditation, and possessed spotless
morality, but they did not hear the Buddha's teaching on vipassana, so
missed the opportunity to gain the path and its fruition during this
Buddha's very rare and precious dispensation.

If you haven't already read it, please read Sayadaw U Pandita's
explanation of vipassana jhaana. It may clarify some points for you.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pesala/Pandita/html/jhanas.html

You said earlier:

"I've never tried out the Mahaasi Sayaadaw school so my intention here is
not to question the merit of his technique, but I just wanted to point out
that "being reasonably sure... reaching nibbaana" based on the number of
branch centers and Mahaasi Sayaadaw's ranking in the religious order is
not sufficient cause to reach that conclusion."

Because you have not practised the Mahasi method, you are not qualified to
say that I am wrong to draw the conclusions that I do. I have spent many
years practising in Mahasi centres in Burma, and have a long association
with my preceptor and his senior disciples. I have also lived as a bhikkhu
for 26 years, associating with good and not so good monks from many
traditions. I have very good reasons to draw the conclusion that many of
those who practised the Sayadaw's method did, in fact, attain nibbāna and
higher stages of the path too. I am not some pompous fool who has never
practised meditation, and only read books on meditation.

The wisdom and virtue of another person like the Mahasi Sayadaw can be
known by long association with them, by a wise person, but not by a
foolish one. If you do not recognise the Sayadaw's wisdom, then either you
are a fool, or you know nothing about him or his meditation method.