Agganna Sutta

[Alex123]

Exactly, which means it is based upon what is measurable and observable and is open to being falsified. Science is doing science, not religion and religion is a poor basis for science.

Even today not all regions of Earth were explored, and not every creature discovered. Nothing to say about what creatures existed or didn't millions and billions of years ago.


What has happened millions to billions of years ago is not directly and 100% accurately observable today, nor is it fully replicable by scientists until they gain clairvoyance or have a time machine. Thus direct observation and replication of what has occurred and all beings that existed is impossible.

[Alex123]

Also, due to my practical experience of the Buddhadhamma, I have seen pettas, asuras, and the devas of Catumaharajika, who are "tree spirits" and who also live in lakes and springs, and I have talked with and interacted with them. This I think means that I know at least of the Pettivisaya, Asurayoni, and Catumaharajika planes from personal experience.
with metta

But you realize that that is not an objective argument. It might mean that you need to have your medications adjusted or it might mean that you are highly suggestible, open seeing things because you really want to. It could be that what you are seeing are some sort of disembodied beings but there is no reason to assume that they are what you claim they are. The problems with your claim are multiple.

What about the Buddha who has seen these beings and hell realms (ex: MN130)?

[tiltbillings]

Exactly, which means it is based upon what is measurable and observable and is open to being falsified. Science is doing science, not religion and religion is a poor basis for science.

Even today not all regions of Earth were explored, and not every creature discovered. Nothing to say about what creatures existed or didn't millions and billions of years ago.


What has happened millions to billions of years ago is not directly and 100% accurately observable today, nor is it fully replicable by scientists until they gain clairvoyance or have a time machine. Thus direct observation and replication of what has occurred and all beings that existed is impossible.

There were humans millions to billions of years ago?

[Alex123]

The thing about science is that it is constantly open to revision, thus Piltdown man is is the trash heap, but religion is not open to revision. Faith, without question, is all too often the basis of religion.

So are you willing to alter Buddha's teaching because you believe that Buddha erred in some things? Do you know better than the Buddha?

[tiltbillings]

Also, due to my practical experience of the Buddhadhamma, I have seen pettas, asuras, and the devas of Catumaharajika, who are "tree spirits" and who also live in lakes and springs, and I have talked with and interacted with them. This I think means that I know at least of the Pettivisaya, Asurayoni, and Catumaharajika planes from personal experience.
with metta

But you realize that that is not an objective argument. It might mean that you need to have your medications adjusted or it might mean that you are highly suggestible, open seeing things because you really want to. It could be that what you are seeing are some sort of disembodied beings but there is no reason to assume that they are what you claim they are. The problems with your claim are multiple.

What about the Buddha who has seen these beings and hell realms (ex: MN130)?

You did not read what I wrote, did you?

[Alex123]

There were humans millions to billions of years ago?

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

Even today not all regions of Earth were explored, and not every creature discovered. Nothing to say about what creatures existed or didn't millions and billions of years ago.

[Alex123]

RE:

Also, due to my practical experience of the Buddhadhamma, I have seen pettas, asuras, and the devas of Catumaharajika, who are "tree spirits" and who also live in lakes and springs, and I have talked with and interacted with them. This I think means that I know at least of the Pettivisaya, Asurayoni, and Catumaharajika planes from personal experience.
with metta

But you realize that that is not an objective argument. It might mean that you need to have your medications adjusted or it might mean that you are highly suggestible, open seeing things because you really want to. It could be that what you are seeing are some sort of disembodied beings but there is no reason to assume that they are what you claim they are. The problems with your claim are multiple.

What about the Buddha who has seen these beings and hell realms (ex: MN130)?

You did not read what I wrote, did you?

I've read what you wrote.

What about the Buddha who taught about these beings. Was Buddha hallucinating? Did He need his medications adjusted? Was Buddha highly suspectible? Did Buddha see what he wanted to see?

Do you deny what the Buddha has said because science has no evidence for it?

[Virgo]

because science has no evidence for it?

[Yet]

[tiltbillings]

There were humans millions to billions of years ago?

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

Even today not all regions of Earth were explored, and not every creature discovered. Nothing to say about what creatures existed or didn't millions and billions of years ago.

Yeah, and we see that America's science education is in the toilet.

[Alex123]

There were humans millions to billions of years ago?

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

Even today not all regions of Earth were explored, and not every creature discovered. Nothing to say about what creatures existed or didn't millions and billions of years ago.

Yeah, and we see that America's science education is in the toilet.

Do you put current science above Buddha Dhamma?

[Virgo]

There were humans millions to billions of years ago?

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

Even today not all regions of Earth were explored, and not every creature discovered. Nothing to say about what creatures existed or didn't millions and billions of years ago.

Yeah, and we see that America's science enducation is in the toilet.

What science says changes all the time. When science says that humans have been around for only so long, it is not proven, it is simply a tenuous conclusion which they have come to based on various evidence. The future is open to more evidence that changes things being found. Can this be denied, Tilt?

kevin

[tiltbillings]

I've read what you wrote.

Then you obviously did not understand it.

What about the Buddha who taught about these beings. Was Buddha hallucinating? Did He need his medications adjusted? Was Buddha highly suspectible? Did Buddha see what he wanted to see?

Do you deny what the Buddha has said because science has no evidence for it?

I am not addressing what the Buddha said, am I? My comments were addressed to a claim made by a person who posted in this thread. There is no way his claim can be verified and for that reason it carries no objective weight. Alex, it would help if you stayed on topic.

[tiltbillings]

What science says changes all the time. When science says that humans have been around for only so long, it is not proven, it is simply a tenuous conclusion which they have come to based on various evidence. The future is open to more evidence that changes things being found. Can this be denied, Tilt?

kevin

Tenuous conclusion? Not really. It is a conclusion that open to revision, as is all science. The choice of words here is important, unless we want Buddhists to sound like a Buddhist version of Xtian creationists.

[tiltbillings]

Do you put current science above Buddha Dhamma?

They are two different things, dealing with very different issues. My comment was directed at your sad lack of understanding of what science is, what it does, how it works, and what its scope is and the sad fact that science is poorly taught in American schools.

[Alex123]

Please answer the question.

Whom do you believe more, the scientists or the Buddha?


When the Buddha was talking about Hells (ex: MN130) or when He talked to Devas and Brahmas - was that a lie?

[tiltbillings]

Please answer the question.

Whom do you believe more, the scientists or the Buddha?


When the Buddha was talking about Hells (ex: MN130) or when He talked to Devas and Brahmas - was that a lie?

Again Alex, trotting out the The Buddha did not do science, but science does not do awakening.

[Alex123]

Please answer the question.

Whom do you believe more, the scientists or the Buddha?


When the Buddha was talking about Hells (ex: MN130) or when He talked to Devas and Brahmas - was that a lie?

Again Alex, trotting out the The Buddha did not do science, but science does not do awakening.

Can you answer the question without ad hominem?


When there is difference between what the Buddha teaches and what the science teaches, do you side with the Buddha or with the science?

When one sides with puthujjana scientists vs the Buddha, how can one be a follower of the Buddha?

[tiltbillings]

Can you answer the question without ad hominem?


When there is difference between what the Buddha teaches and what the science teaches, do you side with the Buddha or with the science?

You seem not to know what an ad hominem is. There is none, and I answered your question more than once quite clearly.

[Alex123]

Can you answer the question without ad hominem?


When there is difference between what the Buddha teaches and what the science teaches, do you side with the Buddha or with the science?

You seem not to know what an ad hominem is. There is none, and I answered your question more than once quite clearly.

When there is difference between what the Buddha teaches and what the science teaches, do you side with the Buddha or with the science?
When one sides with puthujjana scientists vs the Buddha, how can one be a follower of the Buddha?

So when it comes to Agganna sutta, do you believe the Buddha or puthujjana scientists?

[tiltbillings]

When one sides with puthujjana scientists vs the Buddha, how can one be a follower of the Buddha?

More trotting out of the It is not an issue of one vs the other. If you actually understood what science is and does, you would know that. You are way off topic here.