quote from AN 3.67
Re: How to Discuss the Dhamma
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 4:53 pm... (from a sutta) If, monks, when asked a question he does not change the subject, thus keeping the discussion on-topic, if he does not become angry or sullen; then he is fit to discuss with.”Here is a thread from 2016.
...
Sujato posted 2nd message on this thread, a link to his essay with his wrong interpretation of vitakka.
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wh ... ra/3148/28
The message #28 that I link to above, is from Sept. 2023,
where he is directly engaged in questioning about his vitakka interpretation and translation,
and evades the subject.
So seven years at least, on public record where an ordained Bhikkhu is not exactly changing the subject,
but definitely not "keeping the discussion on topic" in the spirit of the meaning.
Normally, I don't care if someone, even a monastic, has wrong views on anything,
that's just the way of the world.
But someone who is very popular, very influential, his sutta translations are probably quoted more than anyone else's nowadays,
has a responsibility to answer any credible challenges to their translation on important key terms.
What do you think, Ven. Pesala?
Re: How to Discuss the Dhamma
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:54 amThe PTS Dictionary gives several meanings of Vitakka, including “thinking,” but in the context of the factors of jhāna I use the translation “Initial Application.” It is the mental factor that applies the mind to an object, paying attention to it, in order to understand its true nature....Thanks Ven., I should have been more specific in my question.
I wasn't asking you what your understanding of vitakka's definition was.
I was only interested in the context of this thread,
what are proper protocol in discussing Dhamma,
especially by influential Buddhist teachers like Ajahn Sujato, Brahm, Analayo, who have widespread teachings on jhāna through their translation, interpretation, etc.
The thread link I shared,
Sujato had been evading the question of why he insists on his interpretation when people show many suttas and canonical texts that contradict it.
Over a 7 year period of time he's been evading these questions.
AN 3.67 doesn't really address that, neither does the vinaya AFAIK.
If experts showing detailed evidence that Sujato's interpretation of vitakka is incoherent,
isn't he obligated by some moral code, if not vinaya,
to at least respond and give some explanation of why he doesn't agree with credible challenges?
This is a dispute of major aspects of Dhamma that have huge implications on how people practice Dhamma,
not some trivial issue where busy monks and busy people could be expected to avoid answering.
Again, It's not about whether Sujato's interpretation of vitakka is correct,
it's about one's honor, integrity, moral code, to answer credible challenges from experts with detailed evidence from the suttas
challenging one's interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment