Shonin wrote:lojong1 wrote:Shonin wrote:The key facts stated by the Buddha here are as follows: 1. The earth is above liquid 2. ...above... 3. ...above...
You mention this elsewhere as a layering one atop another. Patitthita sutta: "Monks, when one quality is established in a monk, the five faculties are developed & developed well. Which one quality? Heedfulness."
Would you say that the monk literally stands above heedfulness?
No. 'Established in' means 'founded or standing within'. 'Established on' means 'founded or standing upon'. The key word describing their relative positions is not 'established' it is the word 'on' (or in your example 'in'). I presume you know what 'on' means? In case there was somehow a doubt about what this means, the other translation I posted makes it doubly clear: "this great earth is supported by water, the water by air, the air by space"
If you have the passage in Pali please post it.
Some people, when shown a rock, would insist it was an asura.
Then there were two Buddhas at the same time, which they both claim is impossible...different dimensions...time-traveling Buddha saw all the confusion and went back to fix it...I'll make this work somehow! [what must they think of me?]Shonin wrote:Incidentally, while looking into this last night I discovered that there are two versions of this sutta and that this passage is absent from one of them, hinting to the possibility that it may be a later addition. Perhaps this would be more palettable for our friends.
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.
rahula80 wrote:Shonin, can you provide the reference to the other version of the sutta?
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/mission-accomplished.pdfThe multiplicity of the subjects discussed
in the Sutta is a clear indication to its later compilation
which invariably challenges its authenticity. Supernatural
phenomena intermingled with the flow of gentle as
well as realistic occurrences found in the Sutta cannot be
taken as historical truth. It is more plausible to regard
place names such as Gotamatittha and Gotamadvàra found
in the Sutta as names introduced after the demise of the
Buddha.13 Undoubtedly, the list of the causes of earthquakes
can be easily set aside as late material interpolated
in elucidation of the super-human qualities of the Buddha.
The eight causes of earthquakes naturally depict
how the redactors of the Sutta turned apologetic in regard
to giving up of the term of life in order to attain Parinibbana
by the Buddha...
...These eight causes of earthquakes are totally absent in the
Tibetan version of our text. Rhys Davids, too, observed
that these passages dealing with earthquakes are ‘quite out
lojong1 wrote:I just noticed something I forgot to post in explaining [mostly to myself] 'established in/on/over' etc.. In fact, what I missed was the very reason I quoted the Patitthita Sutta in the first place.
Patitthita Sutta, which I quoted for it's relevant vocabulary, grammar, translation, says: "when one quality [heedfulness, how apt] is established in a monk...". No wonder it was so easy to dismiss my next question, since I forgot to mention that in Pali this more literally says "When a monk is established in/on (or 'supported by') one quality...". That is why I asked if it is reasonable to say the monk must be physically standing on [<--your "key word"] heedfulness, which lays beneath him in a flat layer. If this is unreasonable and you weren't reading the Pali, then on what basis could you possibly have chosen to favor the "explicit and doubly clear" translation of the quake passage?
Shonin wrote:But, as I've pointed out, there is a much much simpler interpretation, which requires far fewer assumptions and no significant re-interpretations. I'm inclinded to go with that.
lojong1 wrote:The New Akashic recordsp.139 chips away at the flat layer assumption, and the assumption that Buddha was repeating the "commonly held knowledge of the time."
Another possibility for the grammatical change at vāto ākāsaṭṭho is that patitthati establishes a more direct relationship between the elements than a simple locative. i.e. there are one or more supports between vāto and ākāsaṭṭho that play no significant part in causing an earthquake. Fire is the first to pop into my head.
Rahula80 wrote:Heavier things, logically, would support lighter stuff. No?
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], Kamran, Khalil Bodhi, Kim O'Hara, lifefool, Majestic-12 [Bot], marc108, mettafuture, mikenz66, new_student_ejs_135, onaquest, rahul3bds, reflection, robertk, thaijeppe, UpwardBound