coconut wrote: ↑Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:25 pm
frank k wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:57 pm
I heard Pa Auk made an excuse about MN 111 that only Sariputta was special enough to do 'jhana' in that way described in MN 111. Then take a look at AN 9.36. It's talking about everyone, not just Sariputta. And there are a number of other suttas corroborating, if one is willing to actually not be afraid to confront uncomfortable truths that challenge their faith.
I have only one question for any Pau-Auk follower. Where is "Kalapa"
found in the suttas of the four nikayas?
Split from the "Ajahn Brahmavamso's Dark Jhana" thread. – Dhammanando
From what I can tell (and I haven’t done the math) this doesn’t sound too far off from your ordinary “molecule”
Kalapas are composed of eight inseparable elements of material essence in varying amounts which are: Pathavi (earth), Apo (water), Tejo (fire), Vayo (air), Vanna (color), Gandha (smell), Rasa (taste), and Oja (nutrition).
Someone with time and a calculator might be interested in comparing the size of a kalapa with the size of a molecule.
said to be about 1/46,656th the size of a particle of dust from a wheel of chariot. the size of a particle of dust from a wheel of chariot.
This would require measuring the spherical surface of a piece of dust from a chariot wheel. While not exactly impossible in theory, very difficult in practice.
We can make a few assumptions.
maybe I have the time. Let’s see ... I definitely have the calculator. Do I possess the wits
? That is the main question.
First: the spherical surface area of a piece of dust from a chariot wheel. Leaving aside the wheel for now, we can assume that we have a single piece of dust.
That is about a micron in diameter at the most - assuming spherical shape. 0.000001 metres. Okay. We’re off to the races.
Divide this by 46,656 ... mmm hmm
That’s: 0.000000000128 m
Mkay - moving right along
let’s see how big an average aromatic particle is in diameter. Hmm
According to Google:
The diameter of a molecule, assuming it to be spherical; has a numerical value of 10-8 centimeter multiplied by a factor dependent on the compound or element.
Those familiar with scientific notation will recall that 10^-8 cm can be rewritten:
Our previous result:
Is consistent with the kalapa theory.
So, again, Buddhist thinkers at either the Buddha’s time or shortly thereafter have put forth theories that do not contradict modern day science. If we have no reason to assume that modern science is “flawed” then we can accept the theories of the Theravadins in a Abidhammic sense.
Of course, it likely never appeared in a sermon by the Buddha - however (as my intellectual endeavours have shown) the theory of the kalapa is compatible with scientific discovery (certainly where the particle is said to possess scent and basic aromatic compounds are relatively small in molecular number and - as I’ve shown - contain the same degree of “smallness” in the scientific field as the Buddhist Abhidammic field).
Remarkable that these early theorists could ration 1/46,656 - as if with certainty and (some two thousand years later) show themselves to be entirely accurate.
An awe inspiring wonder, to be sure.