Zom wrote:If you have much saddha, you will accept. If you have not much saddha, you will not accept. The main point in this "accepting" is that it lessens or even removes your hindrance called "sceptical doubts", and this allows you to progress further without this obstacle, with more aroused effort because of saddha. And later you can check that out for yourself by direct experience and direct knowledge - what exactly was right or wrong. But that will be later - at first you have to tread the path. And if you don't accept and hesitate about all these thing at the beginning of the path, that is a problem for your progress. You don't have personal direct knowledge about all these things - what you do is speculating and hesitating: "may be all this is wrong.. maybe Buddha was mistaken.. maybe all suttas were written later by hindu priests and no authentic Buddha words left" and so on.
Sumeru (Sanskrit) or Sineru (Pāli) is the name of the central world-mountain in Buddhist cosmology. Etymologically, the proper name of the mountain is Meru (Pāli Neru), to which is added the approbatory prefix su-, resulting in the meaning "excellent Meru" or "wonderful Meru".
The concept of Sumeru is closely related to the Hindu mythological concept of a central world mountain, called Meru, but differs from the Hindu concept in several particulars.
According to Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, Sumeru is 80,000 yojanas tall. The exact measure of the yojana is uncertain, but some accounts put it at about 24,000 feet, or approximately 4-1/2 miles, but other accounts put it at about 7-9 miles. It also descends beneath the surface of the surrounding waters to a depth of 80,000 yojanas, being founded upon the basal layer of Earth. Sumeru is often used as a simile for both size and stability in Buddhist texts.
Sumeru is said to be shaped like an hourglass, with a top and base of 80,000 yojanas square, but narrowing in the middle (i.e., at a height of 40,000 yojanas) to 20,000 yojanas square.
Sumeru is the polar center of a mandala-like complex of seas and mountains. The square base of Sumeru is surrounded by a square moat-like ocean, which is in turn surrounded by a ring (or rather square) wall of mountains, which is in turn surrounded by a sea, each diminishing in width and height from the one closer to Sumeru. There are seven seas and seven surrounding mountain-walls, until one comes to the vast outer sea which forms most of the surface of the world, in which the known continents are merely small islands. The known world, which is on the continent of Jambudvīpa, is directly south of Sumeru....
...From this point Sumeru expands again, going down in four terraced ledges, each broader than the one above. The first terrace constitutes the "heaven" of the Four Great Kings and is divided into four parts, facing north, south, east and west. Each section is governed by one of the Four Great Kings, who faces outward toward the quarter of the world that he supervises.
40,000 yojanas is also the height at which the Sun and Moon circle Sumeru in a clockwise direction. This rotation explains the alteration of day and night; when the Sun is north of Sumeru, the shadow of the mountain is cast over the continent of Jambudvīpa, and it is night there; at the same time it is noon in the opposing northern continent of Uttarakuru, dawn in the eastern continent of Pūrvavideha, and dusk in the western continent of Aparagodānīya. Half a day later, when the Sun has moved to the south, it is noon in Jambudvīpa, dusk in Pūrvavideha, dawn in Aparagodānīya, and midnight in Uttarakuru.
lojong1 wrote:"Omniscience in the Pali Canon
In the Pali texts, two differing versions of omniscience are discernible and it will soon become clear that the connotations of the Pali term commonly rendered 'omniscience' are quite different from those of the English word [same old problem]. In the Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta (Majjhima Nikaaya, Sutta 71), the ascetic Vacchagotta approaches the Buddha. He wants to clarify the precise scope of the Buddha's knowledge and so questions him.
Lazy_eye wrote:Sherab wrote:Hi PeterB,
I am inclined to think that the Buddha knew all that can be known, past present and future.
If this is the case, don't we necessarily end up with a Mahayana conception of the Buddha? To be able to know everything, the Buddha's mind must be everywhere. It must be something like the "limitless mind, pervading infinite space" that we hear about in Zen.
I wonder what the "observer effect" might be.
Vepacitta wrote:... I have great respect for the Tathagata - but he was human. A human with tremendous insights. But still, human ...
Does that include how many nose hairs you might have in 30 yerars from now?Sherab wrote:I think that since all phenomena are dependently arisen, it is possible for the Buddha to know any phenomenon - past, present or future.
If he was all knowing, I suspect that it means he knows the "all." No need to go much beyond that.Kenshou wrote:Makes the Buddha sound like a variation of Laplace's demon. Siddhartha may have been a real smart guy, but as for having knowledge of that enormous magnitude, I ain't buying it.
Kenshou wrote:Makes the Buddha sound like a variation of Laplace's demon. Siddhartha may have been a real smart guy, but as for having knowledge of that enormous magnitude, I ain't buying it.
Sherab wrote:Vepacitta wrote:... I have great respect for the Tathagata - but he was human. A human with tremendous insights. But still, human ...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a certain tree — his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident, inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a naga. On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?"
"No, brahman, I am not a deva."
"Are you a gandhabba?"
"... a yakkha?"
"... a human being?"
"No, brahman, I am not a human being."
Except they still get sick, they still have to eat and excrete, they still have memories . . . .Sherab wrote:Or, once someone is an awakened one, the phenomenal categorisation of deva, gandhabba, yakkha, human are no longer applicable.
And you know this how? And what does this even mean?Sherab wrote:As perceived by those still within the phenomenal categorisation.
PeterB wrote:Are you, in the context of a Theravadin forum , positing the existence of a docetic Buddha ?
It seem you may be reading a bit too much into all of this. Why don't you quote the relevant portion of MN 72, et al so we know what exactly you are talking about. And then I will, of course, quote the Yasa Sutta.Sherab wrote:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.036.than.html
The Buddha's refusal to identify himself as a human being relates to a point made throughout the Canon, that an awakened person cannot be defined in any way at all. On this point, see MN 72, SN 22.85, SN 22.86, and the article, "A Verb for Nirvana." Because a mind with clinging is "located" by its clinging, an awakened person takes no place in any world: this is why he/she is unsmeared by the world (loka), like the lotus unsmeared by water.
Users browsing this forum: clw_uk, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests