DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.

How do you explain this blatant error?

The Buddha was not omniscient and only had the three knowledges. He could have been wrong about other things.
7
30%
The Buddha was omniscient but spoke what was understood at his time, like the explanation about Nibbāna and a🕯️.
3
13%
Geologists are wrong. The Buddha is right.
4
17%
Scribal error.
0
No votes
Later edition of the sutta (since it's not found in the equivalent Agama).
3
13%
Other.
6
26%
 
Total votes: 23

User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by salayatananirodha »

i don't see anything wrong necessarily with the quote you posted (in OP), but the first two options of the poll are definitely wrong. assuming geologists necessarily disagree with the teaching in DN 16, i would choose the third option, but the last three options are plausible. do you have a copy of the dirgha agama? i've been looking for it
later addition does not mean inauthentic by default, however

the origin and cause of things is not something scientists can really access using mundane scientific tools. what do you propose is the cause of an earthquake, and how do you claim to know this?
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadhamma/
https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexe ... ta_toc.htm
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 3419
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by Coëmgenu »

salayatananirodha wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 7:15 pmthe dirgha agama?
See this post.
Then, the monks sang this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and rots.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.

(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by cappuccino »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:21 pm Seeing a tsunami in conjunction with an earthquake would make this story more reasonable. You just need to imagine a wind somewhere caused the tsunami, which hit the floating earth and made it shake in addition to flooding it.
hm…
User avatar
rhinoceroshorn
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 01, 2020 7:27 pm

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by rhinoceroshorn »

Yes, the explanation about earthquakes is in Dirgha Agama. I'm sorry, I trusted Dan74 too much instead of checking the source. :anjali:

Image


It's the second sūtra, for who is interested in it. Download it here: https://bdkamerica.org/product/the-cano ... ses-vol-i/
Eyes downcast, not footloose,
senses guarded, with protected mind,
not oozing — not burning — with lust,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.
Sutta Nipāta 1.3 - Khaggavisana Sutta
Image
See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable are conditions, so unreliable are conditions. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
Dīgha Nikāya 17
Spiny Norman
Posts: 7919
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by Spiny Norman »

SarathW wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:28 pm What do you think about the following?
This great Earth, Ānanda, stands in the water, the water stands in the atmosphere, the atmosphere stands in space.
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=120

Isn't water stand on earth and atmosphere stands on water and space stand on the atmosphere?

I voted Buddha is right.
Except that what you said is completely different to the sutta quote.

What's the problem with acknowledging that they didn't understand earthquakes back then? It's no big thing, surely.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 3935
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by confusedlayman »

Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:01 am
SarathW wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:28 pm What do you think about the following?
This great Earth, Ānanda, stands in the water, the water stands in the atmosphere, the atmosphere stands in space.
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=120

Isn't water stand on earth and atmosphere stands on water and space stand on the atmosphere?

I voted Buddha is right.
Except that what you said is completely different to the sutta quote.

What's the problem with acknowledging that they didn't understand earthquakes back then? It's no big thing, surely.
the problem is buddha don't say anything without understanding.. so it hurts when u have doubt of buddhas speech.

buddhas dont utter lies as long as they live - one characteristic of buddha
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
sunnat
Posts: 662
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:08 am

Post by sunnat »

It can be seen as wrong to think the Buddha was talking about earthquakes as they are thought of here. The rest of the sutta is all about events on the path so why isn't the first part.?

In many suttas the Buddha uses natural events to explain or describe experiences one may have on the path. It is probably important to consider the audience as well, then and now. Some people are full of superstitions and accompanying delusions, some are full of scientific thinking and accompanying delusions. The talks delivered by the Buddha were aimed at particular people for the general purpose of helping them come out of ignorance. It doesn't really matter why there are earthly earthquakes as far as progressing on the path. It does matter to consider the experience of a quake and how it relates to progress on the path.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 7919
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by Spiny Norman »

confusedlayman wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:45 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:01 am
SarathW wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:28 pm What do you think about the following?



https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=120

Isn't water stand on earth and atmosphere stands on water and space stand on the atmosphere?

I voted Buddha is right.
Except that what you said is completely different to the sutta quote.

What's the problem with acknowledging that they didn't understand earthquakes back then? It's no big thing, surely.
the problem is buddha don't say anything without understanding.. so it hurts when u have doubt of buddhas speech.

buddhas dont utter lies as long as they live - one characteristic of buddha
It looks to me like the Buddha was just describing the common understanding of his time, so he wasn't being dishonest.
Don't sweat the small stuff.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by salayatananirodha »

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html wrote:Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince's lap. So the Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you think, prince: If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?"

"I would take it out, lord. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy."

"In the same way, prince:

[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."
materialism is trash. give it up
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadhamma/
https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexe ... ta_toc.htm
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
User avatar
rhinoceroshorn
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 01, 2020 7:27 pm

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by rhinoceroshorn »

I'm no materialist. But it doesn't mean I have to believe the Buddha was omniscient. ;)
There is plenty of evidence of the Buddha not knowing about certain things in the suttas or even giving unscientific responses.

Can you explain this, for example?
This topic was absurdly ignored and you can see one member of the forum tries to draw illogical conclusions just to defend the Buddha.

It happens that the sutta has a context, which is shared with DN 16: the ancient Indian cosmology. That's why all the geological data from the suttas are utterly incorrect. They only make sense if we put the flat Earth and Meru.
Eyes downcast, not footloose,
senses guarded, with protected mind,
not oozing — not burning — with lust,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.
Sutta Nipāta 1.3 - Khaggavisana Sutta
Image
See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable are conditions, so unreliable are conditions. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
Dīgha Nikāya 17
User avatar
rhinoceroshorn
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 01, 2020 7:27 pm

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by rhinoceroshorn »

I was just reading Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's appendix on Udāna and found it. Gonna leave it here.

Image


It doesn't matter if the Buddha was omniscient or not. It doesn't change the Dhamma. But let's not delude ourselves.
Eyes downcast, not footloose,
senses guarded, with protected mind,
not oozing — not burning — with lust,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.
Sutta Nipāta 1.3 - Khaggavisana Sutta
Image
See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable are conditions, so unreliable are conditions. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
Dīgha Nikāya 17
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 10475
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by Ceisiwr »

rhinoceroshorn wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:17 pm I'm no materialist. But it doesn't mean I have to believe the Buddha was omniscient. ;)
There is plenty of evidence of the Buddha not knowing about certain things in the suttas or even giving unscientific responses.

Can you explain this, for example?
This topic was absurdly ignored and you can see one member of the forum tries to draw illogical conclusions just to defend the Buddha.

It happens that the sutta has a context, which is shared with DN 16: the ancient Indian cosmology. That's why all the geological data from the suttas are utterly incorrect. They only make sense if we put the flat Earth and Meru.
According to Ven. Analayo the Udana verses likely come from the Buddha but the proses are likely commentaries added to explain those verses.
“No one in the world, Dhotaka,
can I release from doubting.
But knowing the most excellent Dhamma,
you will cross over the flood.”


Dhotakamāṇavapucchā
Spiny Norman
Posts: 7919
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by Spiny Norman »

rhinoceroshorn wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:37 pm I was just reading Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's appendix on Udāna and found it. Gonna leave it here.

Image


It doesn't matter if the Buddha was omniscient or not. It doesn't change the Dhamma. But let's not delude ourselves.
:thumbsup:

Just do the practice, and see where it leads. Possibly in unexpected directions, but that's OK.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by salayatananirodha »

rhinoceroshorn wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:37 pm I was just reading Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu's appendix on Udāna and found it. Gonna leave it here.

[image]


It doesn't matter if the Buddha was omniscient or not. It doesn't change the Dhamma. But let's not delude ourselves.
https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf wrote:Most academic scholars of Early Buddhism cautiously affirm that it
is possible that the [early buddhist texts] contain some authentic sayings of the Buddha.
We contend that this drastically understates the evidence. A sympathetic
assessment of relevant evidence shows that it is very likely that the bulk
of the sayings in the [early buddhist texts] that are attributed to the Buddha were actually
spoken by him. It is very unlikely that most of these sayings are inauthentic.
Last edited by salayatananirodha on Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadhamma/
https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexe ... ta_toc.htm
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
User avatar
rhinoceroshorn
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri May 01, 2020 7:27 pm

Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?

Post by rhinoceroshorn »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:55 pm
rhinoceroshorn wrote: Tue Dec 01, 2020 5:17 pm I'm no materialist. But it doesn't mean I have to believe the Buddha was omniscient. ;)
There is plenty of evidence of the Buddha not knowing about certain things in the suttas or even giving unscientific responses.

Can you explain this, for example?
This topic was absurdly ignored and you can see one member of the forum tries to draw illogical conclusions just to defend the Buddha.

It happens that the sutta has a context, which is shared with DN 16: the ancient Indian cosmology. That's why all the geological data from the suttas are utterly incorrect. They only make sense if we put the flat Earth and Meru.
According to Ven. Analayo the Udana verses likely come from the Buddha but the proses are likely commentaries added to explain those verses.
Yes, Ven. Geoff says the same.
What does Bhikkhu Analayo have to say about DN16 earthquakes?
Eyes downcast, not footloose,
senses guarded, with protected mind,
not oozing — not burning — with lust,
wander alone
like a rhinoceros.
Sutta Nipāta 1.3 - Khaggavisana Sutta
Image
See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable are conditions, so unreliable are conditions. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
Dīgha Nikāya 17
Post Reply