This is in response to B. Subhuti's blog article where he states Vism. has the correct definition and method of 'jhana', and Ajahn Brahm does not.
Re: Ajahn Brahmavamso's Dark Jhana
Last time I checked, Theravada claimed to be 100% backward compatible with EBT sutta.
So anywhere Vism. contradicts that is fair game to question.
You certainly are under no obligation to address those inconvenient truths, but not addressing it only tends to confirm people's suspicions that you know there are contradictions and have no evidence and reasoning to prove otherwise. (Maybe it's on the reddit forum with your same thread OP where you avoided answering the issue of Vism. contradicting EBT in a post of mine).
And as far as your main thesis,
As another user pointed out, if Ajahn Brahm's "jhana" fulfills vism's white kasina as a prerequisite, what exactly is the big deal on the difference between Vism. and Ajahn Brahm's redefinitions of 'jhana'?
It's like the (black) pot wearing white blinders thinking it's white and calling the kettle black.
So anywhere Vism. contradicts that is fair game to question.
You certainly are under no obligation to address those inconvenient truths, but not addressing it only tends to confirm people's suspicions that you know there are contradictions and have no evidence and reasoning to prove otherwise. (Maybe it's on the reddit forum with your same thread OP where you avoided answering the issue of Vism. contradicting EBT in a post of mine).
And as far as your main thesis,
As another user pointed out, if Ajahn Brahm's "jhana" fulfills vism's white kasina as a prerequisite, what exactly is the big deal on the difference between Vism. and Ajahn Brahm's redefinitions of 'jhana'?
It's like the (black) pot wearing white blinders thinking it's white and calling the kettle black.
bksubhuti wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 9:35 pmI only assert that Ajahn Brahmavamso and Pa-Auk Methods are different by night and day, literally.
Ajahn Brahmavamso does not follow the visudhimagga.
Pa-Auk method follows the visuddhimagga.
The visuddhimagga is vastly accepted as a Theravada text. If you want to call that sectarian.. so be it. This is a sectarian website the last I checked, Dhammawheel was a Theravada website and discussion group. On the other hand, EBT and the Suttanta sects are are not Theravada. Suttacentral is the place for such discussions. Get your terms right.
The best thing to do when on foreign ground (which you are), is to qualify your statement. "According to the suttanta sect" The Theravada / commentary / abhidhamma following sect does not need to do such since it is a Theravada website.
This is the same reddit thread where B. Subhuti ducks the tough questions on Vism. contradicting EBT early buddhist texts.
And here's a response to me from B. Subhuti, and my rebuttal
Re: Ajahn Brahmavamso's Dark Jhana
bksubhuti wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:45 pmI find suttanta people to be quite angry in their writings and speech. One seasoned suttanta monk calls this "nyanavirus". Usually people outgrow this stage, but it is typically shortly after they read "clearing the path". I would guess the same is with EBT followers who prefer chinese writings with Mahayana influence over the Pali texts.I find that many Vism. followers, including ordained monastics, tend to avoid confronting the truth and civil discourse and fair questions asked of them, and living in denial when there is abundance of evidence that a significant amount of Theravada commentary does not cohere, and in many cases flat out contradict core EBT teachings.
...
Much of the EBT Chinese is congruent and consistent with the Theravada EBT, so it's not a matter of choosing one interpretation over another as B. Subhuti insinuates.
Even if you stay within Theravada exclusively, there's more than enough evidence of Vism. contradicting EBT.
Take the KN Pe word commentary on the four jhana formula for example.
http://lucid24.org/kn/kn-pe/jhana/index.html
It's extraordinarily clear and detailed in what vitakka and vicara do. And also very explicit about 'kaya' being the physical body.
Check the pali. What's the point of working on a new pali digital tool if you don't use it to examine important passages on jhana that could illuminate your understanding of the corruption of jhana by Vism.?
Also take a look at MN 111 and AN 9.36.
Those two suttas are especially clear about jhana not being a frozen stupor that one predetermines an amount of time to enter and emerge from before one can do vipassana WHILE in jhana (and the first 7 attainments). It's only the 8th and 9th attainment that resemble the kind of 'emerging from attainment to do vipassana' that Vism. talks about.
I heard Pa Auk made an excuse about MN 111 that only Sariputta was special enough to do 'jhana' in that way described in MN 111. Then take a look at AN 9.36. It's talking about everyone, not just Sariputta. And there are a number of other suttas corroborating, if one is willing to actually not be afraid to confront uncomfortable truths that challenge their faith.
Subhuti's claim that Visuddhimagga is a "vastly accepted" Theravada text.
ReplyDeleteTheravada traces its founding to the before-common-era time; Visuddhimagga is written in the 5th century.
Before Theravada is supposedly vastly represented by Visuddhimagga, what was it represented by? And if that earlier representation differs greatly from the later representation by the Vism, does that mean Theravada is an inconsistent tradition?
Here's a gaping hole in Subhuti's logic:
He claims Visuddhimagga is a "vastly accepted" Theravada text; the implication is that therefore it must be considered orthodox within the Theravada context.
Is Ajahn Brahm a "vastly accepted" Theravada teacher? By his logic, he shouldn't criticize Ajahn Brahm and claim that Brahm is vastly different than Pa Auk in their teachings.