Bases for Skillful Action?

[contemplans]

Do you ever find it strange that the Buddha speaks freely about various worlds of existence, and rebirths back millions upon billions of years, but regard something like the soul or God as a question to be set aside? Which is a more reasonable to speak about, millions of eons of birth, or the soul and God which are held to be right here and now? What about someone who says scientific evidence proves the world started 3.5 billions years ago, but they doubt Shakespreare wrote his plays. Must of been Francis Bacon.

[ground]

Do you ever find it strange that the Buddha speaks freely about various worlds of existence, and rebirths back millions upon billions of years, but regard something like the soul or God as a question to be set aside?

No because the Buddha puts everything he says into appropriate context.
What context?

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

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

Kind regards

[danieLion]

Do you ever find it strange that the Buddha speaks freely about various worlds of existence, and rebirths back millions upon billions of years, but regard something like the soul or God as a question to be set aside?

No, I don't find it strange because setting something aside does not mean it stops "existing" (if it exists)--in the Buddha's case it gets appropriately prioritized.

Why do you suppose the Buddha appears inconsistent when speaking of "other worlds" or "rebirth" in contrast to his teaching on impermanence, not-self and stress/suffering? Surely he was aware he'd be misunderstood.

The Buddha taught that "god" exists and thinks he created the world but didn't.

Which is a more reasonable to speak about, millions of eons of birth, or the soul and God which are held to be right here and now? What about someone who says scientific evidence proves the world started 3.5 billions years ago, but they doubt Shakespreare wrote his plays. Must of been Francis Bacon.

Depends on what you mean by "reason." Mmm, Bacon.
D

[danieLion]

Do you ever find it strange that the Buddha speaks freely about various worlds of existence, and rebirths back millions upon billions of years, but regard something like the soul or God as a question to be set aside?

No because the Buddha puts everything he says into appropriate context.
What context?

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

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

Kind regards

D