Goofaholix wrote: Well if it really bothers you the why don't you write to him and ask him.
I am having something of a discussion about it here. He is not my teacher, so I don't care. If he were I'd ask him, but since this quotation with this loaded expression was put out there I have raised a question about it here and - geez- you guys just keep on chewing this bone, with no real answers as to why "ground of being."
As for me I'm happy with how I've interpreted the passage, if that's alright with you.
Even though it is a bit convoluted, fine. I hope you have learned something now about how "Ground of Being" is generally used. Always good to learn something new.
Well, I didn't get lost in the forest with the Ajahn Sucitto quote either, so maybe next time carry a bag of breadcrumbs with you.
You are so cute, I just want to pinch your cheeks. The thing is, you still have no clue as what Sucitto meant; you just have your guess.
So you do think he meant god after all? that means you basically think he was saying in a nutshell "calm is god and this is different from self". Well as they say in Thailand up to you but I'm happy to give a teacher of longstanding the benefit of a doubt that he isn't slipping new heresies subliminally into his talks.
I have no idea what he meant or why he choose to use that loaded expression. I am not accusing him of heresies. That is your attempt at spinning this. Simply, whatever it might be, it is a very poor choice of words on his part. The only other explanation which has been offered above, which actually makes sense, is that Sucitto has slipped in a bit of Dzogchen, but that raises a other set of questions. I am happy to stay with the clarity of the Pali suttas.
But if you like the idea of union of one's essential purity with the basis-of-all, Dzogchen would be the way to go; however, mixing traditions and technical terminology is not without is problems.