(here we go again, almost back to square one, anyway, sorry if I'm not good in explaining things)tiltbillings wrote:And how do you know that your understanding (not realization) that you are "safeguarding"is THE correct one?ignobleone wrote: "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".
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.)
Brasington says the suttas is incomplete. He doesn't trust the Sangha has successfully preserved the Dhamma.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?