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

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:04 am

ignobleone wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: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?

First, it's not about absolute certain. Absolute certain happens if and only if the Buddha is still alive and you hear it directly from him. Agree?
Then it is your opinion that Brasington does not understand the Dhamma as you understand it, being that the Buddha is not here to say one way or another if it what Brasingtn is saying is off-the-wall in terms of how he would actually teach it.
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 6:00 am

tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote:First, it's not about absolute certain. Absolute certain happens if and only if the Buddha is still alive and you hear it directly from him. Agree?
Then it is your opinion that Brasington does not understand the Dhamma as you understand it, being that the Buddha is not here to say one what or another if it what Brasingtn is saying is off-the-wall in terms of how he would actually teach it.

Hold on, I said "First", I'm not finish.
Second, if it's not about absolute certain, then what? Then, since absolute certain (direct Buddha's saying) is impossible, all the followers can do is to get the closest to the absolute certain.
Third, this is where conviction comes in. To get the closest to the absolute certain, we use conviction in the Sangha (who preserved the Teaching, in the form of suttas, we trust their success in preserving.)
Finally, we can say from conviction in the Sangha we gain conviction in the Dhamma. Using the suttas is the manifestation of our conviction in the Dhamma which has been preserved by the Sangha.

LB said that the suttas is incomplete (while he missed something from the suttas), and the Sangha used their subjective measure for jhana practice (which means without using preserved instruction from the previous Sangha generation) in the jungle with no tv, no women. It shows his lack of conviction in the Dhamma and the Sangha.

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

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:04 am

ignobleone wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote:First, it's not about absolute certain. Absolute certain happens if and only if the Buddha is still alive and you hear it directly from him. Agree?
Then it is your opinion that Brasington does not understand the Dhamma as you understand it, being that the Buddha is not here to say one what or another if it what Brasingtn is saying is off-the-wall in terms of how he would actually teach it.

Hold on, I said "First", I'm not finish.
Second, if it's not about absolute certain, then what? Then, since absolute certain (direct Buddha's saying) is impossible, all the followers can do is to get the closest to the absolute certain.
Third, this is where conviction comes in. To get the closest to the absolute certain, we use conviction in the Sangha (who preserved the Teaching, in the form of suttas, we trust their success in preserving.)
Finally, we can say from conviction in the Sangha we gain conviction in the Dhamma. Using the suttas is the manifestation of our conviction in the Dhamma which has been preserved by the Sangha.

LB said that the suttas is incomplete (while he missed something from the suttas), and the Sangha used their subjective measure for jhana practice (which means without using preserved instruction from the previous Sangha generation) in the jungle with no tv, no women. It shows his lack of conviction in the Dhamma and the Sangha.
Convinction, however, does not mean that one has it right. What Brasington shows is that he does not necessarily believe the way you do. You have not shown that your "conviction" is congruent with actual knowledge or insight.
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 6:19 am

tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Then it is your opinion that Brasington does not understand the Dhamma as you understand it, being that the Buddha is not here to say one what or another if it what Brasingtn is saying is off-the-wall in terms of how he would actually teach it.

Hold on, I said "First", I'm not finish.
Second, if it's not about absolute certain, then what? Then, since absolute certain (direct Buddha's saying) is impossible, all the followers can do is to get the closest to the absolute certain.
Third, this is where conviction comes in. To get the closest to the absolute certain, we use conviction in the Sangha (who preserved the Teaching, in the form of suttas, we trust their success in preserving.)
Finally, we can say from conviction in the Sangha we gain conviction in the Dhamma. Using the suttas is the manifestation of our conviction in the Dhamma which has been preserved by the Sangha.

LB said that the suttas is incomplete (while he missed something from the suttas), and the Sangha used their subjective measure for jhana practice (which means without using preserved instruction from the previous Sangha generation) in the jungle with no tv, no women. It shows his lack of conviction in the Dhamma and the Sangha.
Convinction, however, does not mean that one has it right. What Brasington shows is that he does not necessarily believe the way you do. You have not shown that your "conviction" is congruent with actual knowledge or insight.

Are you sure you want to continue this? Promise you won't run away and will accept the final result?
Btw, I need to go to sleep.

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

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:23 am

ignobleone wrote:Are you sure you want to continue this? Promise you won't run away and will accept the final result?
It goes both ways. Lay on, MacDuff.
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
Ben
Posts: 18442
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby Ben » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:40 am

Leigh Brassington's ideas are certainly interesting and merit close and objective consideration.
I wouldn't be so rash as to dismiss his ideas based on my own predelictions, my incomplete understanding of the Theravada and my own perception of what warrants the imprimateur of "True Dhamma".
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com..

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

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby ignobleone » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:53 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote:Are you sure you want to continue this? Promise you won't run away and will accept the final result?
It goes both ways. Lay on, MacDuff.

Now you use a metaphor. Of course you can write anything you want without getting deleted, you are the admin.
The reason I ask you, is because you ran away from the discussion in our last debate.
Anyway, some people can see, some people can't. That's why even a Buddha cannot free anyone from samsara.
When someone says this to some people, bad thoughts may arise in them, which is not something unexpected.

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

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby daverupa » Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:23 pm

ignobleone wrote:if it's not about absolute certain, then what? ... conviction ... conviction in the Sangha ... from conviction in the Sangha we gain conviction in the Dhamma... our conviction...


So conviction, and then conviction in the tradition which is whichever Sangha you have conviction in (I presume you are not considering Mahayana Sangha...)

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."

"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.
    "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 5:02 pm

ignobleone wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote:Are you sure you want to continue this? Promise you won't run away and will accept the final result?
It goes both ways. Lay on, MacDuff.

Now you use a metaphor. Of course you can write anything you want without getting deleted, you are the admin.
If I violate the TOS my msgs can get deleted just as anyone else's.
The reason I ask you, is because you ran away from the discussion in our last debate.
And what debate was that?
Anyway, some people can see, some people can't. That's why even a Buddha cannot free anyone from samsara.
When someone says this to some people, bad thoughts may arise in them, which is not something unexpected.
Fine. So, let us see your argument.
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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:52 pm

Well, ignobleone, I am waiting for you to "continue."
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 7:08 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Well, ignobleone, I am waiting for you to "continue."

My comment to daverupa above should be able to answer your inquiry, or at least gives you an idea.

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

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:18 pm

ignobleone wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Well, ignobleone, I am waiting for you to "continue."

My comment to daverupa above should be able to answer your inquiry, or at least gives you an idea.
It really does not say anything. And it certainly does not answer my question to you.
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
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby LonesomeYogurt » Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:37 pm

I don't have any strong feelings on the writings of Leigh Brasington - but I will say that, while informed criticism of the historicity or worth of various Buddhist scriptures is valuable and necessary, there is a somewhat obnoxious trend in modern lay Buddhist teachers to be overly critical to the point of cynicism in order to appear "non-religious" or "open minded." I think a particular amount of reverence or respect has been thrown out by modern Westerners who are more interested in presenting the Dhamma as this completely historical, secular, anti-religious human endeavor, and describing an incredibly important text like the Visuddhimagga as the result of monks "hanging out in the woods -- no TV, no women" smacks more of the self-consciously irreverent attitude that many lay teachers are copping nowadays rather than real, substantial criticism.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.

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

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:39 pm

LonesomeYogurt wrote:I don't have any strong feelings on the writings of Leigh Brasington - but I will say that, while informed criticism of the historicity or worth of various Buddhist scriptures is valuable and necessary, there is a somewhat obnoxious trend in modern lay Buddhist teachers to be overly critical to the point of cynicism in order to appear "non-religious" or "open minded." I think a particular amount of reverence or respect has been thrown out by modern Westerners who are more interested in presenting the Dhamma as this completely historical, secular, anti-religious human endeavor, and describing an incredibly important text like the Visuddhimagga as the result of monks "hanging out in the woods -- no TV, no women" smacks more of the self-consciously irreverent attitude that many lay teachers are copping nowadays rather than real, substantial criticism.
And no one is allowed any humor in any of this? We must be grimly respectful at all times in all situations?
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 8:00 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote:My comment to daverupa above should be able to answer your inquiry, or at least gives you an idea.
It really does not say anything. And it certainly does not answer my question to you.

"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".
Your question (in bold):
Convinction, however, does not mean that one has it right. What Brasington shows is that he does not necessarily believe the way you do. You have not shown that your "conviction" is congruent with actual knowledge or insight.

means you ask me whether I have come to the realization of the truth. I talk about one realm but your response is in another realm. You have misunderstood here.
And also your question suggests me to think that you have realized the truth using actual knowledge and insight. Am I right?

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

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby ignobleone » Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:06 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
LonesomeYogurt wrote:I don't have any strong feelings on the writings of Leigh Brasington - but I will say that, while informed criticism of the historicity or worth of various Buddhist scriptures is valuable and necessary, there is a somewhat obnoxious trend in modern lay Buddhist teachers to be overly critical to the point of cynicism in order to appear "non-religious" or "open minded." I think a particular amount of reverence or respect has been thrown out by modern Westerners who are more interested in presenting the Dhamma as this completely historical, secular, anti-religious human endeavor, and describing an incredibly important text like the Visuddhimagga as the result of monks "hanging out in the woods -- no TV, no women" smacks more of the self-consciously irreverent attitude that many lay teachers are copping nowadays rather than real, substantial criticism.
And no one is allowed any humor in any of this? We must be grimly respectful at all times in all situations?

See tilt, you start getting into trouble here. That's why I asked you whether you are sure to continue.

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

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:08 pm

ignobleone wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
ignobleone wrote:My comment to daverupa above should be able to answer your inquiry, or at least gives you an idea.
It really does not say anything. And it certainly does not answer my question to you.

"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?

Convinction, however, does not mean that one has it right. What Brasington shows is that he does not necessarily believe the way you do. You have not shown that your "conviction" is congruent with actual knowledge or insight.

means you ask me whether I have come to the realization of the truth. I talk about one realm but your response is in another realm. You have misunderstood here.
And also your question suggests me to think that you have realized the truth using actual knowledge and insight. Am I right?
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?
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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:09 pm

ignobleone wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
LonesomeYogurt wrote:I don't have any strong feelings on the writings of Leigh Brasington - but I will say that, while informed criticism of the historicity or worth of various Buddhist scriptures is valuable and necessary, there is a somewhat obnoxious trend in modern lay Buddhist teachers to be overly critical to the point of cynicism in order to appear "non-religious" or "open minded." I think a particular amount of reverence or respect has been thrown out by modern Westerners who are more interested in presenting the Dhamma as this completely historical, secular, anti-religious human endeavor, and describing an incredibly important text like the Visuddhimagga as the result of monks "hanging out in the woods -- no TV, no women" smacks more of the self-consciously irreverent attitude that many lay teachers are copping nowadays rather than real, substantial criticism.
And no one is allowed any humor in any of this? We must be grimly respectful at all times in all situations?

See tilt, you start getting into trouble here. That's why I asked you whether you are sure to continue.
And what trouble might that be?
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
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby LonesomeYogurt » Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:27 pm

tiltbillings wrote:And no one is allowed any humor in any of this? We must be grimly respectful at all times in all situations?

I'm not saying you have to be deadly serious at all times, but if you're going to take lighthearted jabs at the historical chronicles of the Dhamma we have, then 1) do them from a basis of real scholarship instead of cartoonish conjecture and 2) don't fall into the trap of trying to be contrary because you're afraid people will consider you too religious or traditional or backwards or whatever if you don't cynically criticize and poke fun at everything. Leigh Brasington, to me, has that "look how non-dogmatic, free-thinking I am" attitude of critical examination that has befallen a lot of Western Buddhism, and it's just kinda annoying. I'm certainly not offended.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.

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

Re: Disagreeing with Leigh Brasington

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:36 pm

LonesomeYogurt wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And no one is allowed any humor in any of this? We must be grimly respectful at all times in all situations?

I'm not saying you have to be deadly serious at all times, but if you're going to take lighthearted jabs at the historical chronicles of the Dhamma we have, then 1) do them from a basis of real scholarship instead of cartoonish conjecture and 2) don't fall into the trap of trying to be contrary because you're afraid people will consider you too religious or traditional or backwards or whatever if you don't cynically criticize and poke fun at everything. Leigh Brasington, to me, has that "look how non-dogmatic, free-thinking I am" attitude of critical examination that has befallen a lot of Western Buddhism, and it's just kinda annoying. I'm certainly not offended.
Having read and heard other things that Brasington has said in terms of Dhamma practice, I am not sure that your interterptation of his "light-hearted" attitude in an extemporaneous discussion is indicative of Brasington's attitude towards the Dhamma. I suspect Brasington, if he were to write about this, woud take a bit of a more serious look at things, but then tastes differ.
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 meditation-related issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine