I fully agree with that. Richard Shankman's book
"The Experience of Samadhi" made this very clear
and convincing. Theravada (Visuddhimagga) jhana
is not the same as Early Buddhist (Sutta) jhana.
For a Theravadin diehard, It's a pretty difficult pill to swallow!
kb
Gerard wrote thus at 06:58 PM 05-01-13:
>Interesting in this connection are the ideas
>about meditation and jhana of the American monk Vimalaramsi (dhammasukha.org).
>
>According to him the idea of jhana as
>absorption, or even, concentration meditation,
>which is, in vipassana-circles, the common vue,
>is utterly false. It is based on the
>commentaries, he says, in particular on the
>Visuddhimagga, but not on the Suttaâs.
>
>Metta,
>
>Gerard Blok,
>Amsterdam
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Kumara Bhikkhu
>Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 9:06 AM
>To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Pali] All of that is considered JhÃÂna ?
>
>
>The reason is clear to me, since (for me) jhana simply means meditation.
>
>I've included this in my book on jhana and
>samadhi. It's still growing as more evidences and
>ideas to connect them come up. I hope I don't spend my whole life on this!
>
>Frank K wrote thus at 08:11 AM 22-12-12:
> >Dear Pali friends,
> >
> >This part is interesting.
> >I'm reading B.Bodhi's new AN translations book right now.
> >
> >from AN 1.382 to AN 1.554, it seems to qualify many activities as being
> >"jhÃÂna",
> >for example, AN 1.382 - AN 1.393