Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

[tiltbillings]

The following two posts were taken from this thread Interview with Leigh Brasington (concerning jhana).

[ignobleone]

This is a bit of an Interview with Leigh Brasington. It was scanned, but I cannot guarantee that I caught all the bugs.

LB: Partially, it's because there are three major sources of jhana material, all of which are incomplete.

LB: In the suttas, the jhanas are described most of the time using a standard formula. The standard formula for the first jhana has four factors one-pointedness is not mentioned. There are just the four factors of vitakka, vicara, piti, and sukha.

The interview clearly shows the teacher's lack of conviction in the Dhamma and conviction in the Sangha. Most likely he never have learned this very basic of the Teaching. No one should learn from such teachers.

[daverupa]

The interview clearly shows the teacher's lack of conviction in the Dhamma and conviction in the Sangha.

In which way(s)?

[ignobleone]

The interview clearly shows the teacher's lack of conviction in the Dhamma and conviction in the Sangha.

In which way(s)?

Lack of conviction in the Dhamma: he hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.
Lack of conviction in the Sangha:

LB:We might ask how this happened. Think about who was preserving the Buddha's teaching during these thousand years. It's a bunch of guys hanging out in the woods -- no TV, no women. They've got just their minds to work with. And so they start working on the jhanas, And if somebody can take it a little bit deeper, obviously he's doing it "better." The natural human tendency is, "Well, if! can do it better than you are doing it, I'm doing it the right way, and I'll teach you to do it my way."

It's clear he has no conviction in the Sangha, even he sounds kinda insulting them. He thinks the Sangha has failed preserving the Dhamma. Thus we can say he hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.
Also he misses some points in the suttas regarding Jhana (all he knows seems to be only jhana factors,) but he says the suttas is incomplete.

[tiltbillings]

The interview clearly shows the teacher's lack of conviction in the Dhamma and conviction in the Sangha.

In which way(s)?

Lack of conviction in the Dhamma: he hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.

There is no way you can honestly say that unless you are claiming iddhis.

Lack of conviction in the Sangha:

LB:We might ask how this happened. Think about who was preserving the Buddha's teaching during these thousand years. It's a bunch of guys hanging out in the woods -- no TV, no women. They've got just their minds to work with. And so they start working on the jhanas, And if somebody can take it a little bit deeper, obviously he's doing it "better." The natural human tendency is, "Well, if! can do it better than you are doing it, I'm doing it the right way, and I'll teach you to do it my way."

It's clear he has no conviction in the Sangha, even he sounds kinda insulting them. He thinks the Sangha has failed preserving the Dhamma. Thus we can say he hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.
Also he misses some points in the suttas regarding Jhana (all he knows seems to be only jhana factors,) but he says the suttas is incomplete.

Is his discussion here insulting? Probably, if one is so rigid that there cannot possibly be any humor in one's discussion of these things. The point is, as has been repeatedly pointed out by others in various threads here that there seems to be a significant difference between the portrayal of the jhanas in the suttas from what we find in the commentarial work such as the Visuddhimagga.

[ignobleone]

Lack of conviction in the Dhamma: he hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.

There is no way you can honestly say that unless you are claiming iddhis.

Nope, there's no iddhis involved. You have thought too far. My explanation about his lack of conviction in the Sangha explains it, if you read thoroughly.

It's clear he has no conviction in the Sangha, even he sounds kinda insulting them. He thinks the Sangha has failed preserving the Dhamma. Thus we can say he hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.
Also he misses some points in the suttas regarding Jhana (all he knows seems to be only jhana factors,) but he says the suttas is incomplete.

Is his discussion here insulting? Probably, if one is so rigid that there cannot possibly be any humor in one's discussion of these things. The point is, as has been repeatedly pointed out by others in various threads here that there seems to be a significant difference between the portrayal of the jhanas in the suttas from what we find in the commentarial work such as the Visuddhimagga.

Let me try to make it clearer.
Sangha has failed ---> Dhamma is not preserved ---> no way LB can learn the True Dhamma ---> LB hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.
Very simple. Nothing to do with commentary (Visuddhimagga.)

[tiltbillings]

Lack of conviction in the Dhamma: he hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.

There is no way you can honestly say that unless you are claiming iddhis.

Nope, there's no iddhis involved. You have thought too far. My explanation about his lack of conviction in the Sangha explains it, if you read thoroughly.

I read it thoroughly and it is baseless and an unnecessary personal attack on this man.

It's clear he has no conviction in the Sangha, even he sounds kinda insulting them. He thinks the Sangha has failed preserving the Dhamma. Thus we can say he hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.
Also he misses some points in the suttas regarding Jhana (all he knows seems to be only jhana factors,) but he says the suttas is incomplete.

Is his discussion here insulting? Probably, if one is so rigid that there cannot possibly be any humor in one's discussion of these things. The point is, as has been repeatedly pointed out by others in various threads here that there seems to be a significant difference between the portrayal of the jhanas in the suttas from what we find in the commentarial work such as the Visuddhimagga.

Let me try to make it clearer.
Sangha has failed ---> Dhamma is not preserved ---> no way LB can learn the True Dhamma ---> LB hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.
Very simple. Nothing to do with commentary (Visuddhimagga.)

Less clear.

[ground]

The interview clearly shows the teacher's lack of conviction in the Dhamma and conviction in the Sangha. Most likely he never have learned this very basic of the Teaching. No one should learn from such teachers.

This argument recalls mind set of other advocates of other religions.

[ignobleone]

Let me try to make it clearer.
Sangha has failed ---> Dhamma is not preserved ---> no way LB can learn the True Dhamma ---> LB hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.
Very simple. Nothing to do with commentary (Visuddhimagga.)

Less clear.

Clear is relative (depends on the person.) If it's still not clear, sorry, nothing more I can do.

[ignobleone]

The interview clearly shows the teacher's lack of conviction in the Dhamma and conviction in the Sangha. Most likely he never have learned this very basic of the Teaching. No one should learn from such teachers.

This argument recalls mind set of other advocates of other religions.

Saddha is number one on the list in learning the Teaching. Whether you like it or not, it's up to you.

[tiltbillings]

Let me try to make it clearer.
Sangha has failed ---> Dhamma is not preserved ---> no way LB can learn the True Dhamma ---> LB hasn't arrived at certainty with regard to the True Dhamma.
Very simple. Nothing to do with commentary (Visuddhimagga.)

Less clear.

Clear is relative. If it's still not clear, sorry, nothing more I can do.

You have slammed Brasington. So let us look at the basis of that. So, you know -- you are the arbiter of -- what the "True Dhamma" is. Is that what you are saying here? Are you telling us that you have unshakable confidence as to what is and is not the "True Dhamma" and that you know for absolute certain -- without any question -- what the "True Dhamma" actually is?

[ground]

The interview clearly shows the teacher's lack of conviction in the Dhamma and conviction in the Sangha. Most likely he never have learned this very basic of the Teaching. No one should learn from such teachers.

This argument recalls mind set of other advocates of other religions.

Saddha is number one on the list in learning the Teaching. Whether you like it or not, it's up to you.

Neither liking nor disliking. No involvement.

[tiltbillings]

Neither liking nor disliking. No involvement.

He said, involving himself in this conversation.

[ground]

Neither liking nor disliking. No involvement.

He said, involving himself in this conversation.

What is involved?

[tiltbillings]

Neither liking nor disliking. No involvement.

He said, involving himself in this conversation.

What is involved?

Obviously that which asked the question: "What is involved?" It seems not to be able to extricate itself from such involvements, and doubtless, it will have what it thinks is a snappy answer to this.