rahula80 wrote:Now, how about Mt Meru?
rahula80 wrote:If you cannot trust the Buddha to get geographical facts right, why trust him on issues related to the supernatural / spiritual?
"An attempt may be made to set aside the consequences of this exposure of Buddha's ignorance, by saying, that this is a kind of mistake that does not invalidate his doctrines; Buddhism may still be true as a religious system. But this is a fallacy that I am most anxious to set aside. If the Buddha said that which is false, under the supposition that it is true, be betrays ignorance, imperfect knowledge, and misapprehension. He cannot, therefore, be a safe teacher; there may be some things about his religion that are true, as there are about every religion;......................" (The Legends and Theories of the Buddhists Compared with History and Science, p.78 )
Retrofuturist wrote:The Buddha (as recorded in the Suttas, at least) did not speak about these things arbitrarily and for the purpose of speaking of them, in and of themselves. The lessons were always connected to the Dhamma - the earthquake, Meru and big fish were just a means of communicating the underlying message.
So to answer the "why", I would suggest it was to teach the Dhamma (not to teach physics or biology) for the benefit of sentient beings.
rahula80 wrote:I believe I have mentioned elsewhere that I want to know how (other) Buddhists response to these passages (I am a Buddhist, myself)
Apart from that, I have to admit I am bias, I was hoping there are some scientific support.
The most honest reason is that I am writing a thesis - providing a Buddhist answer to critics of Buddhism. I need some help in this area - scientific contradiction. Hopes this answer your question.
retrofuturist wrote:....Specific to your thesis, I'd be very careful in trying to defend the Dhamma or the Buddha against scientific viewpoints. Frankly, I think fighting science with Dhamma-science misses the whole point of the Dhamma (i.e. liberation), and many attempts to defend the Dhamma against claims rooted in science often come across as very desperate, and do the Dhamma no favours.
rahula80 wrote:no, not against scientific viewpoints, but rather against those who used it to attack Buddhism, eg. Hardy.
rahula80 wrote:Flat earth society? From the suttas, it is also difficult to explicitly claimed the Buddha mentioned that the earth is flat.
rahula80 wrote:Lazy-eye, thanks. I am aware of Lopez's book. I believed I mentioned it in one of my posting.
Can you give me the reference to Hakuin - the title of the book?
Hakuin wrote: Buddha originally had three kinds of discourse: discourse on principle, metaphorical discourse, and explanation of causality. The doctrine in question here is a metaphorical discourse, in which illusory things of the world are used to illustrate true reality. You folks with the eyes of goats and sheep and the intelligence of foxes and badgers merely see the illusory things of the world and cannot understand the truth as it really is. Thus you arbitrarily slight the words of the enlightened."
In reading the scriptures there are two kinds of mistakes. One is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles. The second is to recognize the principles but not apply these to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
rahula80 wrote:What happened when the yogi read the suttas, and finds that it apparently or seemingly contradicts what he learned in school?
Users browsing this forum: davidbrainerd and 50 guests