well, I think this is a point underlying this whole discussion. Accepting only textual sources as a valid source of knowledge, even on a Pali forum discussing technical Pali terms, is imo a mistake. There can be no understanding of those technical terms without direct knowledge, and the opinion of knowledgeable experts, whatever the subject of a discussion may be, is also to be taken into account and discussed, perhaps even rejected, but not simply ignored.
Otherwise the outcome is the one I pointed to a couple of my post back. Dmytro is right
(or can almost arguably be considered so) if you only take into account the textual side of things. He is wrong if you consider the effect of his statement on beginners who may take that word for the truth and get confused while trying to meditate. Many people want to acquire some knowledge of Pali in order to understand the practice better, and that will most probably confuse them.