That would be preferable. But there are times when they aren’t compatible. And if one insists on politeness and gentle speech at all times, then it comes at the cost of clarity.
In the case of V&V, this issue is of vital importance and grave errors need to be clearly expressed, including the degree of severity. If one is too worried about being polite in how that is expressed, then it obfuscates the severity of the problem and the nature of the problem.
The Buddha Dhamma comes down to just seeing Dukkha clearly, and abandoning it. You can only see Dukkha clearly to the degree that Samadhi is powerful enough.
If you can’t see it clearly, you won’t abandon it, won’t want to abandon it, don’t realize you would be better off abandoning it.
That’s why Samadhi is so important.
The Buddha promised a gradual training, including Samadhi.
When you teach V&V (vitakka & vicara) of first jhana monumentally wrong, you’ve killed the gradual training.
Without first jhana, people think they “don’t have enough merit and/or wisdom” and need to wait lifetime(s) before they can practice seriously.
This is not conjecture, this is what happened when the VRJ (vism. redefinition of jhana) became the dominant/popular understanding in Theravada.
Bhante Sujato’s V&V translation follows the VRJ model of redefined Jhana (and V&V). There is no support for that anywhere in the EBT.
He needs to be held accountable for that. He needs to revise his translation to follow his own excellent two guiding principles for a translation: (my simplified paraphrasing of it)
- principle of least meaning
- ockham’s razor is usually correct
Until he fixes his error or can prove his case, I will keep pointing it out. As politely as I can, but not at the cost of being clear and honest.