Human reborn as Human

[Ceisiwr]

I also found this, although obviously not from Buddha's mouth

The Buddhist Universe

Ancient Buddhists imagined the universe as essentially flat, with Mount Meru at the center of all things. Surrounding this universe was a vast expanse of water, and surrounding the water was a vast expanse of wind.

This universe was made of thirty-one planes of existence, stacked in layers, and three realms, or dhatus. The three realms were Ārūpyadhātu, the formless realm; Rūpadhātu, the realm of form; and Kāmadhātu, the realm of desire. Each of these was further divided into multiple worlds that were the homes of many sorts of beings. This cosmos was thought to be one of a succession of universes coming into and going out of existence through infinite time.

Our world was thought to be a wedge-shaped island continent in a vast sea south of Mount Meru, called Jambudvipa, in the realm of Kāmadhātu. The earth, then, was thought to be flat and surrounded by ocean.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthi ... ntmeru.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tiltbillings]

I also dont see how accepting that the earth is flat or other such things would help with liberation

Is there a sutta that states the earth is flat?

Hey

7-8. "When the resplendent sun — offspring of Aditi — with its full orb, arises, then the night ceases, and it is called the day. The direction from which the sun rises (is the East). There exists the ocean deep and vast.

9. "This — a spreading sheet of water — they know as the ocean. Where there is East (to the East of Mount Meru) they say that quarter is East.


...


16-18. "The direction from where the petas (corpses), backbiters, murderers, the fierce brigands, and the deceitful are removed, is the direction (to the right of Mount Meru), and is called the quarter of the South. The custodian of this quarter is a great king named Virulha who has a retinue of attendants, and is the sovereign lord of Kumbhandas. Attended by the Kumbhandas he enjoys their song and dance


...


32. "Where lies delightful Uttarakuru (the Northern continent), where towers beautiful Mount Meru, there are born men who are selfless and unattached.

33. "They neither sow the seed nor use[8] the plow. Spontaneously grown corn is there for them to enjoy.

.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .piya.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Mount Meru being considered the centre of the world, with land and ocean surrounding it, at the time

Thanks. It will be interesting to see if you get a response to your questions about it.

[isle21self]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .piya.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The above sutta( Atanata sutta) was not preached by budda but by king vessavana. The budda asked the disciples to memorize it for their protection.

metta

[Alex123]

I believe the links have been provided

So then the question remains, do you really believe that the earth is flat with a big mountain in the middle, despite the fact that in no way at all could this be true?

If you really believe that then im afraid it seems your deluded, since it would amount to being faced with a cube and calling it a triangle

"Mt. Meru" It could be a space object of very large size. Furthermore it could be an object not seen by *normal* eyes and require clairvoyant abilities.


As I've said, there were many good ascetic monks in Thailand who developed clairvoyant abilities and could see another realms, beings (Devas, hungry ghosts, Brahma, Indra, etc). So these phenomena do seem to be visible AND EXPERIENCED even in 20th Century. Maybe even today.


World could be a flat time-space object, so no problem there.


So do you believe worldling scientists or the suttas + experience of meditative monks?


A lot of science today is NOT based on actual observation of that scientist, and financial interests play their role. A lot of what science claims, cannot be checked by an ordinary person. So faith is involved in many things that scientists say. The scientists are not holy, and can be mistaken.

[ground]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .piya.html

The above sutta( Atanata sutta) was not preached by budda but by king vessavana. The budda asked the disciples to memorize it for their protection.
metta

The context to be considered is "Who is adressing what kind of words to whom in what kind of time-space-frame of-reference"

Now if the Buddha is addressing his words about rebirth/re-appearance to humans in human-time-earth-human-realm-frame-of-reference that isn't comparable at all. Comparing these two examples presumes an absolute truth that is accessible by means of human words of a given language and completely ignores the relativity of experience that words try to capture for a given audience. But this relativity does not negate the "relative experience as such" that words try to capture. Therefore the Buddhas teachings about rebirth/re-appearance arising from actions and motivations that have neither beginning nor end have to be considered valid.


Kind regards

[Ceisiwr]

"Mt. Meru" It could be a space object of very large size. Furthermore it could be an object not seen by *normal* eyes and require clairvoyant abilities.

Mt Meru was seen as a physical mountain in the middle of the world with land surrounding it, at the time, and this was also the view of the early Buddhists


http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthi ... ntmeru.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I've said, there were many good ascetic monks in Thailand who developed clairvoyant abilities and could see another realms, beings (Devas, hungry ghosts, Brahma, Indra, etc). So these phenomena do seem to be visible AND EXPERIENCED even in 20th Century. Maybe even today.

People claim to see Brahman, Virgin Mary, Jesus etc. To me these claims are interesting to a degree but nothing more and they have no bearing on liberation

World could be a flat time-space object, so no problem there.

Since you have made a scientific claim you need to explain how

So do you believe worldling scientists or the suttas + experience of meditative monks?

Its not either or, the Buddha was concerned with Dukkha and its cessation and less concerned with cosmological, geological, chemical or biological claims. How would explaining genetics help with the NEFP? (Although I dont think Buddha knew about genetics or the like)


Your argument is also the same as biblical literalism/creationist.

"The scientists are sinful while God knows everything, so it was 6 days with Adam and Eve..."

A lot of science today is NOT based on actual observation of that scientist, and financial interests play their role

Evidence? Specific fields of science that you could name would help

. A lot of what science claims, cannot be checked by an ordinary person. So faith is involved in many things that scientists say.

It is easy to look at the evidence yourself, can even carry out the experiments if you have the equipment

The scientists are not holy, and can be mistaken

Spoken like someone who doesnt understand science. Can I get a show of hands for those who claim that scientists are "holy" and never mistaken

Anyone?

[Ceisiwr]

"We don't use the Pali Canon as a basis for orthodoxy, we use the Pali Canon to investigate our experience." -- Ajahn Sumedho

[ground]

"We don't use the Pali Canon as a basis for orthodoxy, we use the Pali Canon to investigate our experience." -- Ajahn Sumedho

That is correct but not complete, because it is also a basis to catch a rough-cut glimpse of the experiences resulting from actions and motivations.

Kind regards

[Alex123]

Mt Meru was seen as a physical mountain in the middle of the world with land surrounding it, at the time, and this was also the view of the early Buddhists

"physical" may not mean optically visible. The "world" could include the solar system, the galaxy, the universe or the multiverse.

People claim to see Brahman, Virgin Mary, Jesus etc. To me these claims are interesting to a degree but nothing more and they have no bearing on liberation

Some believe that this life is all there is, so their actions are aimed only at the perceived benefit of this life.

Your argument is also the same as biblical literalism/creationist.

Except that the Buddha was right. He taught Gods (Gods who could be and remain deluded).

A lot of science today is NOT based on actual observation of that scientist, and financial interests play their role

Evidence? Specific fields of science that you could name would help

Astro-physics is an example. How many people have direct access to Hubble telescope? How much would this cost?

How many scientists have access to particle-accelerators? How much would this cost?

. A lot of what science claims, cannot be checked by an ordinary person. So faith is involved in many things that scientists say.

It is easy to look at the evidence yourself, can even carry out the experiments if you have the equipment

When can I go and have direct access to Hubble space telescope (or some equivalent of it)?
What about particle-accelerators?


Most scientists do not have access to billion dollar equipment and have to rely on claim of other scientists. Most of laity cannot have direct experience and direct proof of sub-atomic particles or objects lying outside of visible range. Generally speaking a person takes on faith that there is some XYZ galaxy that is only visible by Hubble space telescope, or existence of certain sub-atomic particles. None of these things can be directly seen by most laity, so they take it on faith from scientists, who themselves may take it on faith from the experiments done by other scientists.



As I understand it, many scientific verifications are TOO expensive or inaccessible for everyone.


Advanced science is very expensive. Scientists need to feed their families. Someone pays them. Who pays "orders the music" and promotes what they want to promote. Belief in one-life only can be a good marketing ploy to sell more material products and do good business... We live in commercial times, where the money is often THE bottom line. Money can corrupt.

Ascetic Bhikkhus do not handle money and do not store material possession. Good monks don't have financial interests, they don't serve their creditors... Read between the lines.

[Ceisiwr]

"physical" may not mean optically visible. The "world" could include the solar system, the galaxy, the universe or the multiverse.

Could, it doesnt really matter to me what Mount Meru meant back then since its not important

Some believe that this life is all there is, so their actions are aimed only at the perceived benefit of this life.

Belief in one life doesn't automatically equal selfish actions. However as I said, the claims of these people, be it a priest seeing mary of a monk seeing himself as a frog, has no bearing on liberation

Except that the Buddha was right. He taught Gods (Gods who could be and remain deluded).

This is just special pleading. I could just as easily come back with "jesus was right, he knew everything" or that Mahavirha was right, and so on

Astro-physics is an example. How many people have direct access to Hubble telescope? How much would this cost?

How many scientists have access to particle-accelerators? How much would this cost?

Astro-physics, from what I understand, is based upon observation as well as Maths

And no, not everyone can access the telescope but you can see the results if you wanted. Also science is peer reviewed, which means lots of people testing and picking holes in hypothesis and data etc

Most scientists do not have access to billion dollar equipment and have to rely on claim of other scientists. Most of laity cannot have direct experience and direct proof of sub-atomic particles or objects lying outside of visible range. Generally speaking a person takes on faith that there is some XYZ galaxy that is only visible by Hubble space telescope, or existence of certain sub-atomic particles. None of these things can be directly seen by most laity, so they take it on faith from scientists, who themselves may take it on faith from the experiments done by other scientists.

As I said above, one can learn about it if they wish and examine the data. However for the laymen it is taken as a given, however as I have said, Science is peer-reviewed with lots of people examining and re-testing and observing.

so they take it on faith from scientists, who themselves may take it on faith from the experiments done by other scientists.

They examine the data and retest

Advanced science is very expensive. Scientists need to feed their families. Someone pays them. Who pays "orders the music" and promotes what they want to promote. Belief in one-life only can be a good marketing ploy to sell more material products and do good business... We live in commercial times, where the money is often THE bottom line. Money can corrupt.

Your forgetting that science is international and that other scientists will look at the date with skepticism and scrutiny. If the data has been falsified or whatever to appeal to some other agenda, it can easily be weeded out

Ascetic Bhikkhus do not handle money and do not store material possession. Good monks don't have financial interests, they don't serve their creditors... Read between the lines.

And monks dont engage in science


I would also like to add that not all scientists do their job just for money but for love of science its self

[Ceisiwr]

I would also like to add, Alex, that you forget that science actually work's

For all your hype that most science is just a guess or not observable, its strange how those "guesses" have practical uses

[Alex123]

I would also like to ad, Alex, that you forget that science actually work's

For all your hype that most science is just a guess or not observable, its strange how those "guesses" have practical uses

Certain aspects of it, sure. It has many positive things, sure.

But it is not perfect, scientists are human beings, they need to earn money, and there are special interests.


Certain aspects of science have to be taken on faith by us.

This is just special pleading. I could just as easily come back with "jesus was right, he knew everything" or that Mahavirha was right, and so on

Jesus was called "Son of God". But it was the Buddha who taught Gods. Buddha is the Awakened teacher of Gods and humans. The description of Abrahamic God doesn't sound like a description of an Awakened being.



As for

As I said above, one can learn about it if they wish and examine the data. However for the laymen it is taken as a given, however as I have said, Science is peer-reviewed with lots of people examining and re-testing and observing.

They examine the data and retest

Your forgetting that science is international and that other scientists will look at the date with skepticism and scrutiny. If the data has been falsified or whatever to appeal to some other agenda, it can easily be weeded out

I hope it is the case. But the data/theory could be mistaken or incomplete. Not every scientist can directly verify certain things (so has to take on conviction). Group mentality can override real skepticism, one doesn't submit controversial theory so not to get kicked out by others, etc. It is easier to control the group than individuals.


As I understand it, the science is often at the service of those who supply the money for the scientists. Sometimes the financial reasons can influence certain claims.

[Alex123]

Could, it doesnt really matter to me what Mount Meru meant back then since its not important

OK. Ultimately I think that practical teaching applicable to the here and now is the most important. About the rest, we can agree to disagree. I'd like to limit participation in discussions that are not going anywhere.

[tiltbillings]

This is just special pleading. I could just as easily come back with "jesus was right, he knew everything" or that Mahavirha was right, and so on

Jesus was called "Son of God". But it was the Buddha who taught Gods. Buddha is the Awakened teacher of Gods and humans. The description of Abrahamic God doesn't sound like a description of an Awakened being.

And that is still special pleading, which is pretty much the basis of your whole argument in this thread.

[Alex123]

This is just special pleading. I could just as easily come back with "jesus was right, he knew everything" or that Mahavirha was right, and so on

Jesus was called "Son of God". But it was the Buddha who taught Gods. Buddha is the Awakened teacher of Gods and humans. The description of Abrahamic God doesn't sound like a description of an Awakened being.

And that is still special pleading, which is pretty much the basis of your whole argument in this thread.

Who is your teacher, Buddha or Jesus? What do you believe more, Bible or the Tipitaka?

I believe the Buddha, but you are free to believe whom ever you want.