Fairwell

It’s time, once more, to bid fairwell to my dear blog friends. I’m leaving my Dad’s place tomorrow, and will be moving about for some time. I will be back when I get settled a bit more. In the meantime, keep on going!

18 thoughts on “Fairwell”

  13. Bhante,

    Best wishes with your future accommodation . I’ve heard Santi’s not the same without you – shame…..

    A bit of a blast from the past I know but ……

    Geoff / Dec 19 2011 12:44 pm
    Haven’t you committed yourself to believing in, for example, rebirth because you see it as an essential teaching of the Buddha and nothing will sway you from this? If so, doesn’t this make Buddhism another faith based religion?

    sujato / Dec 20 2011 11:10 am

    In any case, speculating about people’s “real” motivations is pretty much a waste of time. This is not about me and why I do what I do. It is about what the nature of our life is, and how we should respond to it.

    Bhante,

    Is this a case of eel wriggling? Why can’t you tell me what your “real” motivations are? I was doing more than speculating about other people’s motives, I was asking you specifically. I was /am happy to stand corrected on any speculation I might be making. (Incidentally haven’t you speculated about the Buddha’s motivation? Unlike you we don’t have the option of asking him.)

    Are you trying to avoid admitting to me (and yourself? – again happy to stand corrected) that despite all the mention of scrutinising and testing, underlying this Buddhism is dependent on faith, like any other religion?

    Eg are you saying we don’t need faith to believe the Buddha was able to recollect past lives going back billions of years? or there are various “realms of existence” where humans go after death awaiting rebirth and that rebirth is affected by kamma? How are we able to scrutinise and test for this?

    Of course the beauty of being a blogger is you can conveniently choose what questions to answer. Thought I would toss it in anyway and see if I get a nibble…..

    Cheers

    Geoff

    Reply

    • Dear Geoff

      Permit me to respond fr wht i understand and for Bhante Sujato to correct my explanation where necessary;

      http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html
      SN 44.10 PTS: S iv 400 CDB ii 1393. Ananda Sutta: To Ananda. (On Self, No Self, and Not-self). translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 2004–2012

      “Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: “Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?”
      ……”
      It is customary to be seated when in ‘serious’ discussion.:-)

      http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.042.than.html
      AN 4.42 PTS: A ii 46. Pañha Sutta: Questions. translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 1997–2012
      “There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions.”

      First the categorical answer,
      then the qualified,
      third, the type to be counter-questioned,
      & fourth, the one to be set aside.
      Any monk who knows which is which,
      in line with the Dhamma,
      is said to be skilled
      in the four types of questions:
      hard to overcome, hard to beat,
      profound, hard to defeat.
      He knows what’s worthwhile
      & what’s not,
      proficient in (recognizing) both,
      he rejects the worthless,
      grasps the worthwhile.
      He’s called one who has broken through
      to what’s worthwhile,
      prudent,
      wise.

      You question; Despite all the mention of scrutinising and testing, underlying this Buddhism is dependent on faith, like any other religion?”

      Buddhism is NOT dependent on faith.

      http://www.lapislazulitexts.com/translations.html
      T02n125: Ekottarika Āgama

      Translated by Trepiṭaka Dharmanandi in 384-385 CE, as Zengyi Ahan Jing (增壹阿含經). The Ekottarika Āgama is another large collection of early Buddhist texts, which follows a numeric organizational principle from which the collection derives its name. This translation is often thought to come from the Dharmaguptaka monastic sect in India, and contains a version of the Ānāpānasmṛti Sūtra (EA 17.1), which teaches methods of cultivating mindfulness of the vital breath for the attainment of samādhi. This text also describes related subjects such as the Four Dhyānas and seeing past lives.

      If lucky, one might even ‘see’ resurrection too…

      The Path of Purification by Bhadantaacariya Buddhagosa, translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Naanamoli. Part II. Concentration, Ch. III. Description of Concentration-Taking a Meditation Subject. B.Para no., 130…pg 120.
      “When with sincerity of inclination and whole-hearted resolution in this way he asks for a meditation subject, then a teacher who has acquired the penetration of minds can know his temperament by surveying his mental ….”

      Ppl meet bcoz there is affinity… Ask your meditation guide/teacher… meditate. ehi passiko…

      The answer to the question in your heart is within yourself, friend Geoff.

      we might as well have a big ‘gobble, gobble’ while we’r at it…;-p oh oh but i’m a vegie, so…

      cheers

      AN

  16. PS Bhante

    Hope you have found some agreeable accommodation

    re Geoff / Nov 4 2012 10:02 am

    To quote you again if I may:

    sujato / Dec 20 2011 11:10 am
    In any case, speculating about people’s “real” motivations is pretty much a waste of time. This is not about me and why I do what I do. It is about what the nature of our life is, and how we should respond to it.

    You say it’s not about you and we shouldn’t speculate about people’s “real” motivations – but if (say) you did disclose that you do have a strong need to believe in the Buddha’s teaching, doesn’t that undermine (or at least cloud) the claim that you have found impartial truths in the Buddha’s teaching which you can then teach us about?

    (As a comparison, if a scientist were to admit that they had a strong need to believe their theory was correct – eg to protect their reputation – wouldn’t it be proper to be sceptical of their claims to have found an impartial truth?)

    Cheers

    Geoff

    Reply

Leave a reply to bodhishari Cancel reply