The problem is that, sutta descriptions of Jhānās are very broad, and commentarial traditions vary considerably. See how Vimuttimagga vs Visudhimagga each treat nimitta. Vmt considers nimitta a distraction to be abandoned (paraphrasing) and Vism considers focusing on Nimitta essential.
Nikayas lay out several paths to enlightenment - by wisdom, by faith, by insight, etc., etc. I think the “grooming” that Bhante Subhuti here is accusing Ajahn Brahm of, is also applicable to Pa-auk Method and general Theravada attitude as well.
Instead of giving tools to people to enrich and make sense of their meditative experience, we’re more concerned with laying out the exact path - something that’s lacking in Nirayas, ironically.
Perhaps there is a reason that Nikayas are speaking only of broad strokes about Jhānās and refrain from giving out anything more specific - perhaps the reason is that people have vastly different experiences.
Also consider that even Nikaya formulations can be considered rather specific concerning meditative experience, born out of necessity to strreamline a process applicable to as many people as possibe.
So on one hand, as much as I agree with the direction of OP’s critique of Ajahn Brahm’s meditation, I also raise that against their own preferred Vism. method as well.
4 years ago Madam @Viveka nailed the topic on its head: