Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

[ignobleone]

"It doesn't say anything" is different than "You don't see it". So let me repeat:
There is "safeguarding the truth" and there is "realization of the truth". The first one is still in the realm of Pariyatti to Patipatti, while the other one is Pativeda. I talk about conviction, which means talking on the level of "safeguarding the truth", not talking on the level of "realization of the truth".

And how do you know that your understanding (not realization) that you are "safeguarding"is THE correct one?

(here we go again, almost back to square one, anyway, sorry if I'm not good in explaining things)
The correct one should be the one closest to the absolute certain (a term you used earlier somewhere above.)
The suttas preserved by the Sangha is the closest one. My conviction makes me thinks so. That's the role of conviction.

When you drink medicine from a doctor, you don't know it yourself that the medicine is good, but you have conviction that it's good. It includes conviction in the doctor, the medicine provider, etc. You will know for yourself it's a good medicine after you drink it (realization.)

I am simply addressing your criticisms of Brasington, where you state that "The interview clearly shows the teacher's lack of conviction in the Dhamma and conviction in the Sangha." On what basis do you make this statement?

Brasington says the suttas is incomplete. He doesn't trust the Sangha has successfully preserved the Dhamma.

[tiltbillings]

"It doesn't say anything" is different than "You don't see it". So let me repeat:
There is "safeguarding the truth" and there is "realization of the truth". The first one is still in the realm of Pariyatti to Patipatti, while the other one is Pativeda. I talk about conviction, which means talking on the level of "safeguarding the truth", not talking on the level of "realization of the truth".

And how do you know that your understanding (not realization) that you are "safeguarding"is THE correct one?

(here we go again, almost back to square one, anyway, sorry if I'm not good in explaining things)
The correct one should be the one closest to the absolute certain (a term you used earlier somewhere above.)
The suttas preserved by the Sangha is the closest one. My conviction makes me thinks so. That's the role of conviction.

Okay, but that does not mean that those who do not see things the way you do lack conviction. They simply may have better understanding and different experiences, but you are in no position to comment upon the convinction of others unless you can read minds.

I am simply addressing your criticisms of Brasington, where you state that "The interview clearly shows the teacher's lack of conviction in the Dhamma and conviction in the Sangha." On what basis do you make this statement?

Brasington says the suttas is incomplete. He doesn't trust the Sangha has successfully preserved the Dhamma.

That is your opinion based upon a variety of assumptions.

[Kamran]

Leigh Brasington's jhana resources are invaluable.

Although I have not been able to repeat it, I am very fortunate to have reached 1st Jhana a couple of times because I now know what Leigh and others are saying is true (atleast for the first jhana).

However, If I was proficient in jhana practice I don't think I would waste any time arguing about it on a forum

[ignobleone]

(here we go again, almost back to square one, anyway, sorry if I'm not good in explaining things)
The correct one should be the one closest to the absolute certain (a term you used earlier somewhere above.)
The suttas preserved by the Sangha is the closest one. My conviction makes me thinks so. That's the role of conviction.

Okay, but that does not mean that those who do not see things the way you do lack conviction. They simply may have better understanding and different experiences, but you are in no position to comment upon the convinction of others unless you can read minds.

I have conviction in the medicine I got from a doctor. Those who have conviction in a medicine they found laying somewhere on a street is nothing to do with me.
No mind reading is needed to see one's conviction. It's obvious by itself from its indications.

Brasington says the suttas is incomplete. He doesn't trust the Sangha has successfully preserved the Dhamma.

That is your opinion based upon a variety of assumptions.

Nope, LB says: "it's because there are three major sources of jhana material, all of which are incomplete."
Your disagreement IS based on assumption.

[daverupa]

The correct one should be the one closest to the absolute certain (a term you used earlier somewhere above.)
The suttas preserved by the Sangha is the closest one. My conviction makes me thinks so. That's the role of conviction.

Brasington says the suttas is incomplete. He doesn't trust the Sangha has successfully preserved the Dhamma.

So, you said absolute certainty isn't possible without a Buddha, so we have to settle for the closest, and then you imply that you think the Suttas are completely and perfectly preserved by 'the Sangha' - or, maybe just that these are "as good as it gets".

Are "the Suttas" "complete"? Which ones, which collection(s)? What of the differences between the Agamas and the Nikayas? Or among the Nikayas themselves? There are traces of mistakes and other artifacts of transmission throughout the texts, and clear evidence of a chronological development - what does such conviction as you envision say about this?

This word, saddha...

[tiltbillings]

I have conviction in the medicine I got from a doctor. Those who have conviction in a medicine they found laying somewhere on a street is nothing to do with me.
No mind reading is needed to see one's conviction. It's obvious by itself from its indications.

You can speak for yourself, but you cannot speak to other people's convictions, other than to voice an opinion, but since you cannot see what is in the heart of the other, your opinion has no real grounding.

Brasington says the suttas is incomplete. He doesn't trust the Sangha has successfully preserved the Dhamma.

That is your opinion based upon a variety of assumptions.

Nope, LB says: "it's because there are three major sources of jhana material, all of which are incomplete."
Your disagreement IS based on assumption.

And do you know what Brasington means by his statement? Either way, you do not know what is in his mind/heart in terms of his conviction in regards to the Dhamma.

[ignobleone]

"Bharadvaja, first you went by conviction. Now you speak of unbroken tradition. There are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. These are the five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Now some things are firmly held in conviction and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not firmly held in conviction, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken.

You say, "It shows his lack of conviction in the Dhamma and the Sangha."

In some suttas the Buddha says about being consummate in conviction (e.g. AN 8.54, AN 5.38, etc.) If you notice the context and notice what other suttas have to say about being consummate in conviction, you'll find there is no inconsistency in the Buddha's saying. The Buddha refers to Bharadvaja's conviction in the Brahman sears of the past. My conviction is in the Buddha (through Sangha and Dhamma) as it's mentioned in suttas.

"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.'

...which seems to be what you're doing.

Nope, that's not the case.
"Safeguarding the truth" and "come to an awakening to the truth" are different. The message I want to deliver is the importance of conviction, which is still in the boundary of "safeguarding the truth". I never stated that I have come to an awakening to the truth. Conviction is starting point prior to an awakening to the truth.

[tiltbillings]

In some suttas the Buddha says about being consummate in conviction (e.g. AN 8.54, AN 5.38, etc.) If you notice the context and notice what other suttas have to say about being consummate in conviction, you'll find there is no inconsistency in the Buddha's saying. The Buddha refers to Bharadvaja's conviction in the Brahman sears of the past. My conviction is in the Buddha (through Sangha and Dhamma) as it's mentioned in suttas.

That is fine, but simply your conviction is not an objective basis for judging what an other person's conviction is or is not.

[ignobleone]

Okay, but that does not mean that those who do not see things the way you do lack conviction. They simply may have better understanding and different experiences, but you are in no position to comment upon the convinction of others unless you can read minds.

In what way LB has better understanding? Better compared to what?

[tiltbillings]

Okay, but that does not mean that those who do not see things the way you do lack conviction. They simply may have better understanding and different experiences, but you are in no position to comment upon the convinction of others unless you can read minds.

In what way LB has better understanding? Better compared to what?

That is the thing, you do not know. You do not know what he basis his conviction on, nor do you know the nature of his conviction.

[daverupa]

The message I want to deliver is the importance of conviction, which is still in the boundary of "safeguarding the truth".

Yet you've said that others, in this case Brasington, do not have conviction, and in this case because you have said Brasington "thinks the Sangha has failed preserving the Dhamma" - but that is nowhere stated, except by you.

Discussing the importance of saddha - your alleged goal - can happen without this sort of vitriol.

[ignobleone]

In what way LB has better understanding? Better compared to what?

That is the thing, you do not know. You do not know what he basis his conviction on, nor do you know the nature of his conviction.

You say I don't know. How about you, do you know?

[ignobleone]

The message I want to deliver is the importance of conviction, which is still in the boundary of "safeguarding the truth".

Yet you've said that others, in this case Brasington, do not have conviction, and in this case because you have said Brasington "thinks the Sangha has failed preserving the Dhamma" - but that is nowhere stated, except by you.

"the suttas is incomplete" implies "the Sangha has failed preserving the Dhamma"

[Cittasanto]

So, you said absolute certainty isn't possible without a Buddha, so we have to settle for the closest, and then you imply that you think the Suttas are completely and perfectly preserved by 'the Sangha' - or, maybe just that these are "as good as it gets".

Are "the Suttas" "complete"? Which ones, which collection(s)? What of the differences between the Agamas and the Nikayas? Or among the Nikayas themselves? There are traces of mistakes and other artifacts of transmission throughout the texts, and clear evidence of a chronological development - what does such conviction as you envision say about this?

This word, saddha...

...

[daverupa]

"the suttas is incomplete" implies "the Sangha has failed preserving the Dhamma"

So, are you able to address the questions I asked? In particular, what to make of the Agama/Nikaya differences, in light of your ideas about conviction?