Hi,
"This great earth, Ananda, is established upon liquid, the liquid upon the atmosphere, and the atmosphere upon space. And when, Ananda, mighty atmospheric disturbances take place, the liquid is agitated. And with the agitation of the liquid, tremors of the earth arise. This is the first reason, the first cause for the arising of mighty earthquakes." (Digha Nikaya 16)
How do you understand this passage in light of science?
Thanks a lot,
Rahula
Science-Earthquake
Re: Science-Earthquake
Well Rahula, maybe you can enlighten us?
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: Science-Earthquake
Atmosphere?? I think the translation could be better. There are four Mahābhūta and Space as traditionally believed in Buddhism and Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81bh%C5%ABta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) . And they can be understood in subtle sense (rather than in usual coarse sense). If understood in the subtle sense the reason of earthquake as some subtler Mahābhūta may make sense.rahula80 wrote:Hi,
"This great earth, Ananda, is established upon liquid, the liquid upon the atmosphere, and the atmosphere upon space. And when, Ananda, mighty atmospheric disturbances take place, the liquid is agitated. And with the agitation of the liquid, tremors of the earth arise. This is the first reason, the first cause for the arising of mighty earthquakes." (Digha Nikaya 16)
How do you understand this passage in light of science?
Thanks a lot,
Rahula
Last edited by SamKR on Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Science-Earthquake
I wonder how 'atmosphere' got in there.
wiki: "An atmosphere (New Latin atmosphaera, created in the 17th century from Greek ἀτμός [atmos] "vapor" and σφαῖρα [sphaira] "sphere") is a layer of gases that may surround a material body of sufficient mass, and that is held in place by the gravity of the body."
[Warning: the following quote is not about the Pali word vaata]: "The word Vaata is derived from the Sanskrit root Va gatigandhanayoh. The word gati means movement. So Vaata is the initiator of all life processes that are dynamic in nature. It is similar to the air/wind and possesses the following six qualities:
1. Rooksha – dry
2. Laghu – light
3. Seeta – cold
4. Khara – rough
5. Sukshma – subtle (capable of passing through even the subtlest pore)
6. Chala – moving, unstable
Though all pervading by nature, Vaata has some specific locations in our body."
http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Three_Doshas#Vaata" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Other translations have 'wind' in place of sister Vajira and Francis Story's 'atmosphere'.
also Visuddhimagga XIII, 183: "He trains thus: 'I shall breathe in/out tranquillizing the bodily formation.' That being so, there is production of awareness of wind (vaato) and there is production of in-breaths and out-breaths..."
How is vaato related to the mahabhuuta vaayo?
"Ayaṃ, ānanda, mahāpathavī udake patiṭṭhitā, udakaṃ vāte patiṭṭhitaṃ, vāto ākāsaṭṭho. Hoti kho so, ānanda, samayo, yaṃ mahāvātā vāyanti. Mahāvātā vāyantā udakaṃ kampenti. Udakaṃ kampitaṃ pathaviṃ kampeti. Ayaṃ paṭhamo hetu paṭhamo paccayo mahato bhūmicālassa pātubhāvāya."rahula80 wrote:"This great earth, Ananda, is established upon liquid, the liquid upon the atmosphere, and the atmosphere upon space. And when, Ananda, mighty atmospheric disturbances take place, the liquid is agitated. And with the agitation of the liquid, tremors of the earth arise. This is the first reason, the first cause for the arising of mighty earthquakes." (Digha Nikaya 16)
wiki: "An atmosphere (New Latin atmosphaera, created in the 17th century from Greek ἀτμός [atmos] "vapor" and σφαῖρα [sphaira] "sphere") is a layer of gases that may surround a material body of sufficient mass, and that is held in place by the gravity of the body."
[Warning: the following quote is not about the Pali word vaata]: "The word Vaata is derived from the Sanskrit root Va gatigandhanayoh. The word gati means movement. So Vaata is the initiator of all life processes that are dynamic in nature. It is similar to the air/wind and possesses the following six qualities:
1. Rooksha – dry
2. Laghu – light
3. Seeta – cold
4. Khara – rough
5. Sukshma – subtle (capable of passing through even the subtlest pore)
6. Chala – moving, unstable
Though all pervading by nature, Vaata has some specific locations in our body."
http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Three_Doshas#Vaata" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Other translations have 'wind' in place of sister Vajira and Francis Story's 'atmosphere'.
also Visuddhimagga XIII, 183: "He trains thus: 'I shall breathe in/out tranquillizing the bodily formation.' That being so, there is production of awareness of wind (vaato) and there is production of in-breaths and out-breaths..."
How is vaato related to the mahabhuuta vaayo?
Re: Science-Earthquake
Well if you consider lava to be liquid rock, then it makes sense that earthquakes are dependant upon shifts in liquids as these molten liquids are what move plates beneath the earth and thus cause them collide creating earthquakes.
May you be happy. May you be a peace. May you be free from suffering.
http://www.everythingspirals.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.everythingspirals.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27839
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Science-Earthquake
Greetings Rahula,
The Buddha was explaining this in accord with cosmology as it was understood at the time.
Whether he did know, or could have known otherwise, are rather speculative and ultimately unrewarding questions, that are neither connected with dukkha nor its cessation.
Metta,
Retro.
The Buddha was explaining this in accord with cosmology as it was understood at the time.
Whether he did know, or could have known otherwise, are rather speculative and ultimately unrewarding questions, that are neither connected with dukkha nor its cessation.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Science-Earthquake
Having a science background, seeing such passages in the suttas IS dukkha to me.retrofuturist wrote: The Buddha was explaining this in accord with cosmology as it was understood at the time.
Whether he did know, or could have known otherwise, are rather speculative and ultimately unrewarding questions, that are neither connected with dukkha nor its cessation.
Re: Science-Earthquake
Yet it was taught by buddha, towards the end of his life, and to Ananda of all people. Odd circumstances for an unrewarding lie. What's wrong with saying "I don't know" or "There may also be another cause" or "It doesn't matter"? Could it be that we just haven't understood the Pali correctly? Cf. atmosphere, winds, etc.,...Buddha's rolling in his grave!retrofuturist wrote:Whether he did know, or could have known otherwise, are rather speculative and ultimately unrewarding questions, that are neither connected with dukkha nor its cessation.
A reasonable assumption. I wouldn't mind seeing where else this cause of earthquakes was previously recorded in the same terms.The Buddha was explaining this in accord with cosmology as it was understood at the time.
Which passages? How are they mistaken?Sherab wrote:Having a science background, seeing such passages in the suttas IS dukkha to me.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27839
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Science-Earthquake
Greetings Sherab,
Metta,
Retro.
Whilst I sense there was an element of humour to your posting, it's worth investigating the cause of this dukkha you speak of, and observe that it is rooted in either craving or aversion.Sherab wrote:Having a science background, seeing such passages in the suttas IS dukkha to me.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Science-Earthquake
You are right Retro. It is rooted in my craving to understand what the Buddha was saying and in my aversion to apparent contradiction between what the Buddha said and modern science.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sherab,
Whilst I sense there was an element of humour to your posting, it's worth investigating the cause of this dukkha you speak of, and observe that it is rooted in either craving or aversion.Sherab wrote:Having a science background, seeing such passages in the suttas IS dukkha to me.
Metta,
Retro.
Re: Science-Earthquake
The simple and realistic explanation is just that Buddha's area of expertise was the human condition and that some of his understandings about things were taken as given from the culture in which he lived. He didn't as far as we know challenge the basic physical facts of the universe as was understood at the time: the earth is flat with four continents, where they meet is a huge mountain (Mt Meru/Sumeru) with various level of beings living on it etc. I don't know if he specifically said any of this or not, but he doesn't seem to have challenged it. He certainly taught about various beings and realms which would have been 'common knowledge' at the time but which would make most modern people squint. He was not God and while he may have been awakened, he was not omniscient. I think it is healthier to accept that rather than practice a sort of Buddhist fundamentalism.
Last edited by Shonin on Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Science-Earthquake
"Buddhist fundamentalism"?
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. SN 56.31
I think the Buddha had to explain things according to the accepted knowledge of the times, even if he knew that the accepted knowledge was incorrect. Why? Because otherwise, he would end up wasting time and energy trying to refute the accepted knowledge, time and energy that would be best used to propagate his message.
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. SN 56.31
I think the Buddha had to explain things according to the accepted knowledge of the times, even if he knew that the accepted knowledge was incorrect. Why? Because otherwise, he would end up wasting time and energy trying to refute the accepted knowledge, time and energy that would be best used to propagate his message.
Re: Science-Earthquake
The simplest and (IMO) by far the best solution to the clash between the Buddha's cosmology and modern science is Shonin's: to say that the Buddha's area of expertise was human nature, not the hard sciences, and that it is perfectly reasonable to accept that modern science has surpassed the Buddha's knowledge in some areas.
Any other course leads to irreconcilable contradictions, which I haven't time to spell out now and most people should be able to work out for themselves anyway..
Kim
Any other course leads to irreconcilable contradictions, which I haven't time to spell out now and most people should be able to work out for themselves anyway..
Kim
Re: Science-Earthquake
You better believe itSherab wrote:"Buddhist fundamentalism"?
Your quote doesn't show that Buddha was omniscient. It only shows that he was a pragmatist who didn't share everything he knew or believed he knew. Evidence for omniscience might be revealing understanding of the world that was beyond that of that of his time and culture. In fact, aside from being a reformer of Vedic/Sramana thought at that time, his teachings correspond pretty much exactly to what we know of the culture of that time. You can believe that he was 'secretly omniscient' if you like, but this is a matter of faith, there's no evidence for it.Sherab wrote:"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. SN 56.31
I think the Buddha had to explain things according to the accepted knowledge of the times, even if he knew that the accepted knowledge was incorrect. Why? Because otherwise, he would end up wasting time and energy trying to refute the accepted knowledge, time and energy that would be best used to propagate his message.
Re: Science-Earthquake
That's no reason to assume he would spread unnecessary BS among his closest students, those who already had full faith in his words and had been exposed to his methods for many years with all kinds of audiences.Shonin wrote:He was not God and while he may have been awakened, he was not omniscient.
Even to a Sotapanna?Sherab wrote:I think the Buddha had to explain things according to the accepted knowledge of the times, even if he knew that the accepted knowledge was incorrect.
At least atmosphere is related to gravity, which plays as a part in the movement of liquid and earth (and wind).SamKR wrote:Atmosphere?? I think the translation could be better.
http://www.ohhaveyouseenthis.com/2009/0 ... avity.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/12418" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Vāto ākāsaṭṭho...I think this kind of double nominative is usually an apposition, which would make this a Vāta that is ākāsaṭṭha, as opposed to a [non-ākāsaṭṭha] Vāta that is established upon ākāsaṭṭha as mahāpathavī is upon udaka.
If this--Vāto ākāsaṭṭho--is an idiom that continues the preceding pattern using nominatives instead of repeating the verb and normal noun declension, please show me where else it is used.
While this bare bones passage is clearly not an in-depth description of an earthquake cause/condition, I just want to know what part contradicts modern science: "Ayaṃ, ānanda, mahāpathavī udake patiṭṭhitā, udakaṃ vāte patiṭṭhitaṃ, vāto ākāsaṭṭho. Hoti kho so, ānanda, samayo, yaṃ mahāvātā vāyanti. Mahāvātā vāyantā udakaṃ kampenti. Udakaṃ kampitaṃ pathaviṃ kampeti. Ayaṃ paṭhamo hetu paṭhamo paccayo mahato bhūmicālassa pātubhāvāya."
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/GRB.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Stellar winds, cosmic radiation, gravitational waves...far out! Vāto ākāsaṭṭho?