I've just started reading Joseph Goldstein's One Dharma (with Kornfield's A Path with Heart on the shelf). Ajahn Brahm has also made some comments regarding the core of all Buddhist traditions being the same.
Here these views are often met with vehement opposition. What I'd like to ask though is what of substance is missing from what these people teach? If you read any of these books or studied with these teachers, I'd really like to hear a substantiated critique.
I saw Kearney's critique of A Path with Heart but all I could glean from that was that he disagreed with Kornfield's contention that psychotherapy could be of use for some people before they start meditating. I think this is pretty self-evident but in any case it's not such a biggie. I read through those two threads on Ajahn Brahm and gathered that he seems to be over-exaggerating the importance of jhana and bliss while under-emphasizing insight, but I suspect this is more the "sales talk" and in actual instruction he gives a more balanced approach.
I know this is likely to stir up a hornet's nest, so I'd really like to ask that people substantiate their statements with quotes and references and refrain from statements like "Whatever it is, it's not Dhamma." If you believe so, please provide some serious backing for this. Otherwise this thread will just degenerate into polemics and won't be useful to anyone.
Personally I am happy with my practice and don't need some other take on the Dhamma/Dharma. My interest in this is to understand modern developments in Buddhism, in particular what is working and what isn't working so well, and why.
Thank you to anyone who can shed some light on this development!