the greatness of Gautam, why?

[samabudhi]

"It was never my argument," replied Chuangtse.

Hueitse expected an answer for his question.
Chuangtse's question was rhetorical.

[Francis king]

well, as far as my crappy sanskrit studies have took me, when go is used to refer to a person, it means ur calling them stupid, and ut-tama would be- ut, fly up/or fall down, -tama, darkess/ignorance... so although I see where u get the light thing from, with uttama, I still think my version is bestest...

...because of "euphonic combination rules" of vowel letters in sanskrit, for it to be gauttama, and translate as u say, it would be go-uttama, and as u can't have that "ou" combo in sanskrit, the o and the u get changed into another vowel, in this case usually a u with a line above it, like a double u... the double t combo of uttama wouldn't be changed into a single t, and so, therefore, he wouldn't be referred to as gautama, but guttama... which he ain't... da dahh!

feel free though to contradict me though... especially if u remember ur euphonic combination rules more accurately than me...

[Agnideva]

Namaste Francis,

The etymology of Gotama is not mine, but that of Indian Sanskritists. As is the case with many ancient languages, a word may have multiple etymologies. For what it’s worth, I’ve come across the derivation that you posted here as well. I am neither a sanskritist nor a linguist. But, it is my understanding that Gotama is not a literal combination of go + uttama, but of go + tama, tama being a suffix for uttama. Tama can mean darkness as a noun, or it can also be a suffix that implies the superlative degree, as you can see from these sources:

gautama Aica (31)
gotama [go (ox, cattle) + suffix (most) = the largest amongst the oxen, the most valuable, name of one of the Rshis (poets) in the Rgveda; name of a disciple of mahAvIra; name of a few other Rshis and other important personages] + suffix (son of) = descendant of gotama, name of number of important personages including buddha. {Source}

From the Apte-Sanskrit Dictionary:
meanings of "tama" [1]
n.{a-stem}
1.darkness;
2.the tip of the foot
meanings of "tama" [2]
m.{a-stem}
1.an epithet of raahu;
2.the tamaala tree;
3.darkness
meanings of "tama" [3]
1.a taddhita affix of the superlative degree applied to nouns, adjectives and also to verbs and indeclinables in which latter case it is changed to tamaam

GOTAM
Gender: Masculine
Usage: Indian
Means "the best ox" from Sanskrit go "ox, cow" and tama "best". In Hindu legend this was the name of an ancient sage.
{Source}

GAOTƎMA, an Avestan proper name only attested in Yt. 13.16: "An eloquent man will be born, who makes his words heard in verbal contests, whose judgment is sought after, who comes away from the discussion victorious over the defeated Gaotəma." The word is a superlative formation of Av. ga„- "neat, cow" (Kellens, p. 404, but it cannot be excluded that it is a borrowing from Skt. go‚tama- or gautama- (descendant of Gotama), also epithet of Buddha (Pâli gotama-).
{Source}

In any case, this is completely off topic and I don’t want to derail this thread further, so this will be my last message on the topic (or should it be off topic?) .

OM Shanti,
A.

[Francis king]

u poser, agnideva...

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Namaste Francis,

The etymology of Gotama is not mine, but that of Indian Sanskritists. As is the case with many ancient languages, a word may have multiple etymologies. For what it’s worth, I’ve come across the derivation that you posted here as well. I am neither a sanskritist nor a linguist. But, it is my understanding that Gotama is not a literal combination of go + uttama, but of go + tama, tama being a suffix for uttama. Tama can mean darkness as a noun, or it can also be a suffix that implies the superlative degree, as you can see from these sources:
In any case, this is completely off topic and I don’t want to derail this thread further, so this will be my last message on the topic (or should it be off topic?) .

OM Shanti,
A.

I really don't go for moderators trying to stop socalled off-topic postings in a thread, or derails, etc.; because in the process of discussion on a topic other subjects and questions can arise which can be even more interesting and most important the really relevant issues to pursue.

Here is what I think how mankind found out that excrement is very good and healthy fertilizer -- recall that in Japan previously I don't know now, they would collect night soil systematically for use in their what, orchards, i.e., fruit gardens or plantations, and hotel personnel would ask guests whether they preferred Western latrine or the local kind which is designed to collect feces -- how did mankind discover the fattening power of feces, simple: where there was feces in the ground there plants grow luxuriantly.

Try this experiment which I do at home in the garden myself: when you collect the dogs' and cats' droppings, throw them in that patch of plants in the garden where there are thick shrubs, and the excreta there will not smell and and will be composted, i.e., decomposed into choice fertilizer. Now, get soil from that patch for use with other plants, no need to buy artificial and environmentally harmful chemically compounded enrichments.

Similarly, in the process of criticizing Buddhism I seem to get more shall we say if I may, spiritual? Yes, I believe religion is one thing and spirituality is another; spirituality must dictate religion, not the other way around.


Susma

[jiii]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Not wanting to be irreverent, but perhaps for some people who don't find anything of to him genuine worth in the teachings of Gautama, he could also be styled Gautama the Terrible, for inspiring so many men and women to give up their best years and all their life years in pursuit of emptiness in isolation from home, family, and community, that is, in the sangha (read that monastery).

Well, Susma, I don't know if such sentiments are realistic, at all. Firstly, let's compare 'Gautama the Terrible' with somebody who is, let's just say, a bit more qualified for the superlative. How about 'Ivan the Terrible', who you, yourself, mentioned?

Inspired by 'Buddha the Terrible', many people became monks or nuns. Why? To seek spiritual liberation. At the hands of 'Ivan the Terrible', thousands upon thousands were executed, including his own son, the prince, who was felled by a blow to the head with Ivan's staff. Why? One day the prince's pregnant wife wore clothes that Ivan apparently did not approve of, so he beat her so severely that she had a miscarriage. When Ivan's son came to him infuriated over the incident, Ivan stuck him dead. Let me assure you that 'Ivan the Terrible' may very well have been 'Ivan the Great' to some, but not to those he had slaughtered. Not to mention that in this modern era, only a few hundred years after his death, Ivan can unquestionably be called terrible...his greatness, it seems, is largely a product of nationalism in times when society didn't really have a huge problem with constant, successive slaughters. Things have changed nowadays.

Now granted, there are more types of violence than just physical. And frankly, I guess one COULD 'style' the Buddha to be 'Terrible', but no more than anybody else who had a profound effect on people's lives...so, that's Christ the Terrible, Muhammed the Terrible, Socrates the Terrible, Confucius the Terrible, and so on.

Suffice to say, there is as much realism in the idea of 'Gautama the Terrible' as there is in thinking of delicate Venus Fly-traps as beastly, man-eating, trees. Taking the whole of human history into account, there have been innumerable people who rightfully earned the title of 'The Terrible', and they've been granted that title during their lifetime by people who could could attest, first-hand, to their genuine wickedness. The Buddha does not number among these.

Monasticism has had a place in pretty much every civilization that has existed; Buddhism can hold no claim to being unique in that respect. And furthermore, it would be far too hasty for someone to assume that his or her values as far as the 'proper utilization of our best years' are necessarily universal. Perhaps their best years were well-spent outside of a monastery, but would it not be reasonable to allow for the possibility that others may have benefitted very much from their time as monks or nuns? Is it realistic to believe that the whole of monastic history and lineage is entirely one of misery and wasted life? I don't think that can be said, so clearly there must be something to it, no?

By the way, I realize that it may seem as though I am evading your question as to "Why the Buddha is so great", but not needlessly so. The fact of the matter is, you seem to be starting off tilted pretty drastically to a preconception that his greatness is a fraud, yet you seem to be asking about his teachings as if you don't know enough about them to be able to say either way. I am curious of why this is, but that is beside the point, really. It is, of course, beneficial to question great things sometimes, but the Buddha's greatness is not his doctrine, and if you're caught up on trying to either affirm or deny him as being 'great', you'll miss out on what he really has to offer.

[chakraman]

i think one of the problems that arises with buddha and jesus is that i dont think that anyones knows exactly what they "taught" - is there anything known to be written by there hand. i feel that they probably were avatars as you can see fragments of "the perrenial wisdom" in short quotes and phrases remembered by their followers and also to have survived a couple of thousand years in religious lore they must have had quite an impacting presence on those around them. as to his greatness i think krishnamurti answers that- you ask a man the direction to somewhere he tells you, you go or don't, but to worship him for giving directions is rediculous, also - it is the teachings that are relevant who the teacher is is not relevant. and i dont think there is a significant body of teaching, as i said earlier, that is known beyond doubt to have been ushered from his mouth. i'm sure some buddhists would claim that worship isn't involved, it may be more subtle but i feel its still there. i think krishnamurti saw this problem and insured against interpreters and advised people to go directly to the teachings which were only his words. one thing he has shown me or enabled me to realise by posing the correct question as opposed to telling me what to do, which only breeds dependance, is that i can rid myself of an external guru, but what of the guru within - the me, the i, which says this is right, that is wrong, this is moral, that isnt, the choices sculptured by my tradition, desires etc and therefore nothing to do with truth. i could justify pretty much anything to myself so i must rid myself of all "greatness" and authority from without and within and then maybe....j........

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Quote from Susma:
We can't be certain of whatever or better whether his promoters say about his followers getting anything at all after death, for that is one realm if it does exist at all is not accessible to evidence and logic.

Chuangtse and Hueitse had strolled on to the bridge over the Hao, when the former observed, "See how the small fish are darting about! That is the happiness of the fish."

"You not being a fish yourself," said Hueitse, "how can you know the happiness of the fish?"

"And you not being I," retorted Chuangtse, "how can you know that I do not know?"

"If I, not being you, cannot know what you know," urged Hueitse, "it follows that you, not being a fish, cannot know the happiness of the fish."

"Let us go back to your original question," said Chuangtse. "You asked me how I knew the happiness of the fish. Your very question shows that you knew that I knew. I knew it (from my own feelings) on this bridge."

- Chuang Tzu

And I am left wondering what is the point of that exchange between the two Chinese gentlemen who admire nature and are given to gab. Is this anecdote recorded in order to challenge guys like myself to search for the terrific lessons found in it?

I think it is an illustration of people who are sure what each means and understands and accepts the words of the other, but who just what to be argumentative for the sake of arguing, like those skeptics I meet in skeptics forum, though I consider myself a skeptic but not of their ilk.

Most probably the two Chinese gentlemen who are not occupied with manual work like plowing the fields for a living, because they belong to the leisure class from whatever sources of revenues like hand-me-down endowments or stipends from the imperial court for being philosophers, just wanted to exercise the skill of ascertaining conclusions from observations.

They don't seem to know about the method of analogy, which I may use that term for my own purpose here, like this: when humans are happy they exhibit actions and postures which indicate to others that they are happy, because others also show the same actions and postures; similarly also when they are in fear or in anger.

So, when fish display actions and postures which analogous actions and postures are seen in humans, and humans see these fish engaged in such actions and postures, the humans can be certain that the fish are happy in their own fishy ways.

What kinds of actions and postures in humans are indicative of happiness?

In my case, when I am satisfying my senses and needs, wants, desires, easily, with just enough effort as to not tire me out, that is happiness for me. What about postures? When I have eaten a good meal but not overly stuffed, and I lie in my simple but comfortable bed for a nap, or just to be lazy in the tradition of Italians, dolce far niente (sweet to do nothing), that is happiness for me.

No, I don't think I will be happy sitting on my haunches trying to empty my mind, in meditation. Lying comfortably in bed imagining pleasant thoughts or even risky ones, but nothing of perversity please, hahaha; that is also happiness for me, and no disturbance please -- no matter Buddha says desire leads to suffering; I will tell him, "Dude, it's all a matter of how you deal with desires; and if you stick around with me, I will teach you how."



Susma

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

. . . . .

...in the process of criticizing Buddhism I seem to get more shall we say if I may, spiritual? Yes, I believe religion is one thing and spirituality is another; spirituality must dictate religion, not the other way around.

I remember after I wrote that message in the other thread on end destiny of man and life in Buddhism that I want to make a lot of money, easily and quickly, that I also said earlier here in the message above that I have become more spiritual by criticizing Buddhism, and then that spirituality must dictate religion, not the other way around.

So, what kind of a religion do I have and what kind of spirituality, when I have avowed unabashedly that I want to make a lot of money?

You know what? I have a lot of aspirations for a lot of worldly goods, but I am too lazy to go after them, working myself to exhaustion, because of my innate laziness; laziness then is the motivational incentive for me to cultivate spirituality, understood as a detachment from worldly drives and also world attachments.

That is what I might consider from Aesop to be a spirituality of sour grapes.

Sorry, but that is the truth of the matter, and just the same I do enjoy a kind of peace and freedom thereby.

Yet if a lot of money should perchance come to my hands easily and quickly, then I will certainly know what kind of spirituality I will develop, definitely first the spirituality of security, then the spirituality of liberality, and also the spirituality of detachment.

It's like only the famous can indulge in the virtue of obscurity and be genuinely obscure, the rich in the virtue of poverty and be truly detached, the powerful in the virtue of humility and be truly weak; with the unknown masses, the indigent crowds, the rank and file of the helpless, there is no virtue but compulsion.


These latters can cultivate Nirvana or the Kingdom of Heaven.


What about Gautama, is his greatness founded on compulsion or on the luxury of virtue. I understnd that the man was born into renown and wealth and power, that of his parents; but he chose the life of a wandering preacher of renouncement for freeing oneself from suffering, i.e., overcome desire and of course flee from it. However, to be cynical I believe once he got himself into that kind of an advocacy and attained stature therefrom, he could no longer turn his back on it, then it had become for him a compulsion, like a hero enslaved in his heroism.


Susma

[samabudhi]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

What kinds of actions and postures in humans are indicative of happiness?

In my case, when I am satisfying my senses and needs, wants, desires, easily, with just enough effort as to not tire me out, that is happiness for me. What about postures? When I have eaten a good meal but not overly stuffed, and I lie in my simple but comfortable bed for a nap, or just to be lazy in the tradition of Italians, dolce far niente (sweet to do nothing), that is happiness for me.

No, I don't think I will be happy sitting on my haunches trying to empty my mind, in meditation. Lying comfortably in bed imagining pleasant thoughts or even risky ones, but nothing of perversity please, hahaha; that is also happiness for me, and no disturbance please -- no matter Buddha says desire leads to suffering; I will tell him, "Dude, it's all a matter of how you deal with desires; and if you stick around with me, I will teach you how."

A being's compassion is indicative of their happiness. If you are so confident about your views, then why quibble endlessly on our forum?
Go to the Buddhas and show them and their followers how to do it. That would be compassionate.

[Susma Rio Sep]

A being's compassion is indicative of their happiness. If you are so confident about your views, then why quibble endlessly on our forum?
Go to the Buddhas and show them and their followers how to do it. That would be compassionate. -- samabudhi

As I said in that other thread of mine on man's end destiny, exchange of thoughts on religion is entertainment of the mind; and it is specially however the attitude to be dismissive about it, a most noble activity of man.

You are not inclined to agree with me?


I had been wanting to say this piece for some months back but always forget, here:

You are into Buddhism of the kind of school you align yourself with, so also Vaj, and I am sure other Buddhists here, each with his peculiar school or sect and outsiders might even call cult.

As with Christians and Muslims, so also Buddhists express the desire to help people to know what is the purpose of life even just on this side of the grave (for I notice that Western Buddhists seem not to anymore bother with the realm beyond the grave). So, in this respect of wanting to share their religion with others, they do harbor a genuine kind of sincerity in their religious affiliation.

Are simple Buddhists like the lay Buddhist folks in Thailand, China, Burma, Tibet, Sri Lanka aware that as they go further and deeper into Buddhism, their religion, and wider, they will come across doctrinaires in their faith of Buddhism, who on the one hand are ardent believers ostentatiously of Buddhism, but on the other are also engaged in profoundly divisive and conflicting debates among themselves; these simple Buddhists are surely aware if they exercise regular devotions under the lead of these doctrinaires.

And these doctrinaires, for fighting over beliefs and practices of their respective denominations, with the keenest of cerebral broadswords and rapiers, are unavoidably from logic occupied with the most important issues for the guidance of their life, their own and that of the simple lay Buddhists. [Sorry for the long sentences.]

One controversy, and I was surprised to read about it, has to do with the question about whether once having attained enlightenment, if at all on this side of the grave, the enlightened Buddhist can and will still lose the state of enlightenment -- no different from the dispute in Christianity whether ever a Christian can be certain of being saved.


If simple Buddhists in a medical emergency of life and death are being attended to by highly renowned physicians, who while their patients are gasping for breath, are trying to convince each other whether to open the skull for brain surgery or the heart for repairing a valve, these patients will truly be in a fix, and most probably die before the renowned physicians come to a concurring line of action.

But as regards their faith of Buddhism, similarly also Christians and Muslims in their respective religions, they are acquainted with the controversies of their leaders on matters of beliefs and disciplines, yet they don't feel any panic, while their doctrinal and disciplinary worthies debate away on and on; why?

Because they, simple Buddhists and doctrinaire Buddhists, and outsiders even, we all know that in religion it's all an optional drama, playacting in the bottom line -- why indeed worry when it is all in religion a matter of imagination in the final analysis, a fiction which all of us who do take up a religion make it a point to observe by simulating serious comportment and eliciting solemn commitment.

Like an entertainment of the most transcendental level but which does not impose any risk on life and limb, unless you are foolish to take it with the same realism as you do with putting out the fire in your stove before leaving the house.


I hang out here because I am interested just the same, there might be some utility aside from entertainment even of the most transcendental level,


Susma

[samabudhi]

But as regards their faith of Buddhism, similarly also Christians and Muslims in their respective religions, they are acquainted with the controversies of their leaders on matters of beliefs and disciplines, yet they don't feel any panic, while their doctrinal and disciplinary worthies debate away on and on; why?

Perhaps it is because they have humbly learnt not to judge their leaders by appearances.
As Sakya Pandita says

When a virtuous man disputes, he benefits all.
A fool causes damage even by his friendship.
Though the gods be angry, they defend all sentient beings.
The Lord of Death may smile, but still kills his enemies.

The Dharma is profound and my ignorance is all-pervasive. I don't expect to know everything, not at the beginning, not in the middle, not without patience and respect.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Perhaps it is because they have humbly learnt not to judge their leaders by appearances.
As Sakya Pandita says

When a virtuous man disputes, he benefits all.
A fool causes damage even by his friendship.
Though the gods be angry, they defend all sentient beings.
The Lord of Death may smile, but still kills his enemies.

The Dharma is profound and my ignorance is all-pervasive. I don't expect to know everything, not at the beginning, not in the middle, not without patience and respect.

That's what it all comes down to when winnowing the wheat from the chaff, isn't it?

[Susma Rio Sep]

I don't know but I fear my sojourn here is about to end, unless Brian has the iron guts for freedom of speech as long as people don't resort to invectives, instead of civil words even the most disturbing of questions.

Here, read this exchange for a comic relief, for us all to lighten up even as some of you here are absolutely convinced with your religion and some like myself are just here for the, forgive the term, entertainment, and just maybe something of utility might come along.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pachomius" <pachomius2000@yahoo.com.sg>
To: "KL Leo" <esangha@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: Your daily new posts digest ( From E-sangha, Buddhist Forum and Buddhism Forum )


Thanks for the courtesy of your reply.

It is regrettable that you do not think that I have something to contribute in
your forums.

I consider myself also a spiritual person, but sort of a maverick, etc. Hence,
everywhere I go eventually I get banned sooner than later.

When people of any religion can tolerate what they feel to be disparaging words
from any kinds of peoples, then they will never lapse into the kind of attitude
like the, if I may use the term, fanatics of Islam who would issue a fatwa of a
death sentence to be executed by any Muslim on a writer for writing
'disparagingly' of Mohammed.

And that will be the testimony of religious people and spiritual people in their
own heart and mind that their faith or more correctly they can withstand the
worst crucible of hostile criticism and the extremes of 'disparaging' words.

So, if arriving at the goal of their religion should ever require such a kind of
loyalty testing, to all sorts and excesses of inimical fires and 'disparaging'
words, then such souls truly merit the reward of their religion.

Thanks for the courtesy of your reply, and best regards; just if you will, tell
me how you are getting on with your work toward the attainment of Nirvana --
unless you don't go for attainment of Nirvana, etc.

Allow me just to tell you for my own consolation and for your 'enlightenment',
it's not only in religious forums that I get banned eventually, but also in all
kinds of other forums, like the ones operated by skeptics and atheists, and also
philosophical forums. Why? because I raise up questions which enrage people, and
they react ultimately by throwing me out, instead of genuinely answering the
questions, or like Buddha or Gautama, allegedly, would say that he will not go
into them because they are not relevant to the present immediate crisis at hand,
etc.

Again, I appreciate the courtesy of your reply -- can't say the same for other
operators of forums, they seem to forget or turn their backs on civilization in
rabid bondage to their religions, convictions, and forums.

Pachomius

----- Original Message -----
From: "KL Leo" <esangha@gmail.com>
To: "Pachomius" <pachomius2000@yahoo.com.sg>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Your daily new posts digest ( From E-sangha, Buddhist Forum and
Buddhism Forum )


Hi,
I am the administrator of e-Sangha. I am not the one who execute the
banning. I had checked your postings in e-Sangha as well as other
forums eg comparative religion. Your last few postings in Comparative
Religion forum is still disparaing to Buddhism. Infact, from what I
know, e-Sangha is not the only board that had banned you. E-Sangha is
a very strict Buddhism board, and in fact, one of the strictest forum
on the Net today. I seriously doubt that your posting style will suit
our board well.
Regards
Leo

On 1/12/07, Pachomius <pachomius2000@yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
> I had been banned since last October or September 2006, for being critical of
> Buddhist doctrines and observances.
>
> Can you ask the personnel in charge of banning me to let me in again? I
promise
> not to be critical anymore to the point of appearing to disparage Buddhism.
>
> Pachomius
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "E-sangha, Buddhist Forum and Buddhism Forum" <esangha@gmail.com>
> To: <pachomius2000@yahoo.com.sg>
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 1:10 PM
> Subject: Your daily new posts digest ( From E-sangha, Buddhist Forum and
> Buddhism Forum )
>
>
>
> Pachomius,
>
> This is the digest of posts in topic "How To Use Bbcode At E-sangha" for
today.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Topic: How To Use Bbcode At E-sangha (Forum: Technical Support)
> =====================================
>
> -------------------------------------------
> romeo -- Yesterday, 08:43 PM
> thx
>
> Romeo
>
> P.S. How can I copy a code ( for a rss graphic ) in my signature??
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Dorje Shedrub -- Today, 03:11 AM
> You can only use BBcode in your signature - no HTML or code. If you just want
> to insert a graphic, use
>
> ------------ CODE SAMPLE ----------
> [IMG]insert url here[/IMG]
> -----------------------------------
>
>
>
> DS
>
>
> =====================================
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The topic can be found here:
> E-sangha, Buddhist Forum and Buddhism Forum -> How To Use Bbcode At E-sangha
>
> Unsubscribing:
> --------------
>
> You can unsubscribe at any time by logging into your control panel and
clicking
> on the "View Subscriptions" link.
>
> Regards,
>
> The E-sangha, Buddhist Forum and Buddhism Forum team.
> E-sangha, Buddhist Forum and Buddhism Forum (Powered by Invision Power Board)
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends Yahoo! Messenger
>
>

Postscript: My names elsewhere have been Yrreg, Gerry, Pachomius, and others I don't recall this moment. No, I have not been writing posts as much as others who do devote a lot of time in boards; I do it usually in the early morning while the family is still in bed, wife and kids.


Poor Leo of eSangha, he seems to have been a sheep astray, not knowing what had transpired between a moderator/administrator and myself some four or five months back, he was trying to catch up with his work in the forum at this late date,

To forum owners and operators: please monitor the going-ons of your forum to know who's in and who's out; even the power-person who threw me out, he also sent me a message, no, not by email, but when I clicked on his board, the message that my banning will be lifted in year 2500, exaggerated of course but some time when I will definitely be dead and reduced to ashes, unless the message really was inspired by the doctrine of rebirths and karma and the whole lot -- come to think about it, maybe that is the raison d'etre of that message. Hahahha.

When I wrote him by email whether I was still going to be able to click on their link to get to post, he wrote back, "... no more you have been banned absolutely." Hehehehe!


Susma

[Tariki]

Just browsing through this thread and what popped into my idle mind was a Sutta from the Majjhima Nikaya, No 27, The Culahatthipadopama Sutta, or - in English - "The Simile of the Elephant's Footprint". In this sutta a Buddhist "wannabee" exclaims that "The Buddha is fully enlightened, the teaching is good, those who practise it are practicing the best way". Rather than sitting back and accepting the plaudits, the Buddha instead insisted that it was only when the "wannabee" becomes fully enlightened themself that they would be able to come to any such conclusion.

So who can really say if the Buddha was "great"? It seems implied that even those who practice the teachings - by whatever "dharma gate" - must still hold a degree of trust/faith until final deliverance/enlightenment..............however that is conceived in the meantime! Arguments one way or the other this side of enlightenment will settle nothing, or so it seems.

The Buddhist writer Stephen Batchelor amplifies this to a certain extent at the beginning of his book "Buddhism Without Beliefs", where he speaks of the Four Noble Truths as originally taught.................That "suffering" is to be understood, that its cause is to be let go of, that its end is to be realized, and that the path to that end is to be cultivated. Batchelor points out that the distinction that each truth requires being acted upon in its own particular way "has been relegated to the margins of specialist knowledge". That it is when such "truths" are known only as "propositions to be believed" that Buddhism becomes a "religion", amid all the other "religions".

I would say that these comments by Stephen Batchelor could be stretched to cover ALL Faiths............using a little imagination!

I would say that a level of trust/faith is required for the practice - or the living - of any "path".

"Was the Buddha "great"? Who knows! In what does his greatness consist, if it exists at all? "ehipassiko"..................or, "come and see, for oneself"

Or, within another context, as Jesus said to Peter......"Who do you say that I am?"