Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
ignobleone
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby ignobleone » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:05 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
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".
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.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:15 pm

ignobleone wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
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".
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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12

User avatar
Kamran
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby Kamran » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:25 pm

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 :)
"Silence gives answers"

Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi

ignobleone
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby ignobleone » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:40 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote:(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.

tiltbillings wrote:
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.

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5974
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby daverupa » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:50 pm

ignobleone wrote: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...

Image
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:55 pm

ignobleone wrote: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.

tiltbillings wrote:
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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12

ignobleone
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby ignobleone » Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:00 pm

daverupa wrote:
MN 95 wrote:"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.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:04 pm

ignobleone wrote: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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12

ignobleone
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby ignobleone » Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:12 pm

tiltbillings wrote: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?

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:26 pm

ignobleone wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: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.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5974
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby daverupa » Sat Oct 20, 2012 10:28 pm

ignobleone wrote: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.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

ignobleone
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby ignobleone » Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:15 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote: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
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby ignobleone » Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:28 pm

daverupa wrote:
ignobleone wrote: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"

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6515
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby Cittasanto » Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:30 pm

daverupa wrote: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...

...

:anjali: :anjali: :anjali:
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5974
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby daverupa » Sat Oct 20, 2012 11:46 pm

ignobleone wrote:"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?
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

ignobleone
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby ignobleone » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:06 am

daverupa wrote: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".

Yes, as good as it gets, the best we can get.

Are "the Suttas" "complete"? Which ones, which collection(s)? What of the differences between the Agamas and the Nikayas? Or among the Nikayas themselves?

I wonder when I won't need to repeat it again.
We're talking about LB's claim that the suttas is incomplete regarding jhana, not about completeness of the whole suttas. He speaks jhana only in terms of the jhana factors, yet he says the suttas is incomplete - he cannot find anything else other than the jhana factors, while there's more.

daverupa wrote: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?

My conviction in the Triple Gems says one still can find the proper instructions (regarding jhana) from the text. Because if no one cannot, it means the Dhamma has completely gone. And if the Dhamma has completely gone, there should be a new Buddha comes to existence. The fact that there's no new Buddha now, makes me believe the Dhamma is still available.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:08 am

ignobleone wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote: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?
Do you have iddhis that you can see in the mind/heart of Brasington? Have you had a long discussion with Brasington and he told about his convictions?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12

ignobleone
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby ignobleone » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:16 am

tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote:You say I don't know. How about you, do you know?
Do you have iddhis that you can see in the mind/heart of Brasington? Have you had a long discussion with Brasington and he told about his convictions?

You haven't answered my question. Simple, just yes/no is all I expect.
Answer my question then I'll continue answering yours.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 14899
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:18 am

Hi Ignobleone,
ignobleone wrote:We're talking about LB's claim that the suttas is incomplete regarding jhana, not about completeness of the whole suttas. He speaks jhana only in terms of the jhana factors, yet he says the suttas is incomplete - he cannot find anything else other than the jhana factors, while there's more.

Several times in these conversations you have stated that "there is more" or "I have not explained it yet". It would be helpful if you would explain your interpretation in a little more detail.

Since I have very little idea what your interpretation is, I am unable to understand or comment on your criticisms of other interpretations.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:33 am

ignobleone wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote:You say I don't know. How about you, do you know?
Do you have iddhis that you can see in the mind/heart of Brasington? Have you had a long discussion with Brasington and he told about his convictions?

You haven't answered my question. Simple, just yes/no is all I expect.
Answer my question then I'll continue answering yours.
The questions I have asked, answer you question. You have already stated that there are no iddhis involved, so there is no way you can know the heart of this man without either seeing it with iddhis, or you could have directly asking him, and since you have not claimed to have directly asked him, what is left is that poor Brasington simply does not fit your particular notion of what conviction should be. That Brasington does not meet your particular notion of conviction does not mean anything other than he does not meet your particular notion of conviction.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12


Return to “General Theravāda Meditation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine