Sanghamitta wrote:Quite so Shonin.
Personally I find it both puzzling and sad that there are those who can only see the enormous riches contained in the Suttas if they take a literalist view of the metaphorical and mythological view of the world view of 2500 years ago which was the psycho social context of the Buddhas teaching and not only was not of the essence of those teachings but was in fact peripheral to them. What is true and timeless about the Suttas is the light they shed on Dukkha and the path to end it. Not magical stories of giant fish or cosmology long ago shown not to have correspondence with physical actuality.
That is to mistake a diamond of huge worth with the box it comes in.
The essence of The Buddhas teaching is in the 8fp , the three signs, D.O. not speculation concerning what amount to creation myths.
We have a lot to actualise with needing to engage in this kind of banter. We are here. Dukkha is real. There is a way out.
Giant fish and the supernatural origin of earthquakes are self indulgence.
Mostly good post, Sanghamitta. This is actually what I've been trying to say. Applying science to the Dhamma is taking a literalist viewpoint of the Dhamma. Shonin seems to think that this kind of view is necessarily anti-science... I've repeatedly said that it's not. I'm glad that Shonin understood your post, at least.
I honestly couldn't figure out why it seems like Shonin couldn't get what I was saying.
Maybe the posts were set up in a way that just happened to cause my points to lie within his blind spot. If this was set up by me (and not him)... then I really apologize.
I've already said this before (I think), I can tell the difference between the Dhamma and science. I appreciate both
of them, within their own terms. I don't mix them if this causes confusion. How is that delusional?
I'd like to go back to the points I tried to make about the so-called "Right View." (Because it's really relevant.)
In Pāli, this is Sammā Diṭṭhi (of course). Several possible translations for this is: the usual "Right View"; "Proper Understanding"; "Compatible Position"; "Harmonious Belief"; "Coincidental Attitude"; "Perfectly Oriented"; Etc.
If you try to look at a dew drop (from many angles), you'll only see the drop; the world reflected within it; the leaf behind it; the sky; a reflection of your face; etc. Only in a certain position (at the angle of 42
°, in fact) will you see the rainbow. This is Sammā Diṭṭhi, the point where it becomes harmonious.
If you try this on something else (viewing at the angle of 42°), like a glass of water you will not get the rainbow. You have to view the glass in a different way.
It's the same with the Dhamma and science. Each of them has their own specific angle, where the proper understanding happens. Without this proper alignment, you will not benefit much. That's all I've been trying to say.