Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:29 pm
by Ceisiwr
Interestingly a section of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad mentions Ajatasatru, the same king we find in the suttas:
II-i-1: Om. There was a man of the Garga family called Proud Balaki, who was a speaker. He said to Ajatasatru, the king of Benares, ‘I will tell you about Brahman’. Ajatasatru said, ‘For this proposal I give you a thousand (cows). People indeed rush saying "Janaka, Janaka". (I too have some of his qualities.)’
II-i-2: Gargya said, ‘That being who is in the sun, I meditate upon as Brahman’. Ajatasatru said, ‘Please don’t talk about him. I meditate upon him as all-surpassing, as the head of all beings and as resplendent. He who meditates upon him as such becomes all-surpassing, the head of all beings and resplendent.
II-i-3: Gargya said, ‘that being who is in the moon, I meditate upon as Brahman’. Ajatasatru said, "Please don’t talk about him. I meditate upon him as the great, white-robed, radiant Soma.’ He who meditates upon him as such has abundant Soma pressed in his principal and auxiliary sacrifices every day, and his food never gets short...
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:29 pm
by cappuccino
rhinoceroshorn wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:27 pm
Read this post
a 2500-kilometre-thick layer of liquid iron and nickel
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
"It is not possible that a brahman or contemplative would claim a knowledge and vision that is all-knowing and all-seeing without exception."' Those who say this: are they speaking in line with what the Blessed One has said? Are they not misrepresenting the Blessed One with what is unfactual? Are they answering in line with the Dhamma, so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma would have grounds for criticizing them?"
"Great king, those who say that are not speaking in line with what I have said, and are misrepresenting me with what is untrue and unfactual."
Only later in the sutta it's talked about knowing things at the same time.
The Buddha was asked if he said that it is impossible to claim knowledge and vision that is all knowing and seeing. The Buddha said he never said that. He clarifies that he said that it is only impossible to know everything at once.
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
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.
liquid metal, is correct
a 2500-kilometre-thick layer of liquid iron and nickel
how did he know?
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
rhinoceroshorn wrote:Please, don't try to convince me this is any right. It's obviously wrong.
It's interesting that a seemingly scientific-leaning person like you already shut down your mind for abstract reasoning and further investigation. If there's anything we can learn out of science, its' that it constantly evolves and it never stops investigating ideas, no matter how crazy they seems to be at the moment. Just remember what you believe as absolute scientific truth as of now will likely be perceived as incorrect, dumb, and ignorant a few centuries later down the road, exactly as how you're seeing the beliefs of folks back then during the Buddha's time in 5 B.C! So with that said, it's totally possible that the Buddha was omniscient but simply used the existing common lingo at the time to convey the necessary infos to his listeners, with just enough scopes to help their practice. Afterall, He already made this point clear in the Simsapa Leaves Sutta. So, to demonstrate the point, see if you could understand what Prof. Brian Greene was saying in the video below using his normal non-dumbed-down lingo to explain General Relativity:
I understand your point, santa, and no, I didn't understand what he said.
I hold this same position about Aggañña sutta. I believe in Darwin's evolution but I don't know how it connects with the devolution of the sutta (Brahma god> ethereal deva> human> (?) animal (?)). It's a quite difficult topic.
Though, it's now quite obvious that earthquakes are a product of tectonic plates. It has nothing to do with wind or water. Period.
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:46 pm
by cappuccino
rhinoceroshorn wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:42 pm
Though, it's now quite obvious that earthquakes are a product of tectonic plates.
there is more to it, I think
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
"It is not possible that a brahman or contemplative would claim a knowledge and vision that is all-knowing and all-seeing without exception."' Those who say this: are they speaking in line with what the Blessed One has said? Are they not misrepresenting the Blessed One with what is unfactual? Are they answering in line with the Dhamma, so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma would have grounds for criticizing them?"
"Great king, those who say that are not speaking in line with what I have said, and are misrepresenting me with what is untrue and unfactual."
Only later in the sutta it's talked about knowing things at the same time.
The Buddha was asked if he said that it is impossible to claim knowledge and vision that is all knowing and seeing. The Buddha said he never said that. He clarifies that he said that it is only impossible to know everything at once.
And is it possible to know everything at all? Why didn't the Buddha discover the beginning of Samsara?
What about the monks who committed suicide doing maranasati? He also didn't know that.
What about the pork meat who killed him?
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
Only later in the sutta it's talked about knowing things at the same time.
The Buddha was asked if he said that it is impossible to claim knowledge and vision that is all knowing and seeing. The Buddha said he never said that. He clarifies that he said that it is only impossible to know everything at once.
And is it possible to know everything at all? Why didn't the Buddha discover the beginning of Samsara?
He said it is without discoverable beginning.
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
The Buddha was asked if he said that it is impossible to claim knowledge and vision that is all knowing and seeing. The Buddha said he never said that. He clarifies that he said that it is only impossible to know everything at once.
And is it possible to know everything at all? Why didn't the Buddha discover the beginning of Samsara?
He said it is without discoverable beginning.
In other words, it's not possible to know everything.
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
Do you think the answer to your question seriously worth knowing for you?
Actually, there is no way to know the truth about this. Just collecting opinions.
It'd be useful to know the range of knowledge of the Buddha. The most pragmatic position is assuming he was not omniscient. It doesn't create unnecessary implications and we can hypothesize he was maybe wrong, not blindly denying the possibility of mistakes.
Agreed much with that answer
Omniscient definitely have different definitions between Theravada and other traditions. For me Buddha is undoubtedly omniscient according to my definition that: he can know everything that he inclines to know, and it seems, to me, quite reasonable and logical and requires no strange superhuman abilities apart from purest of the pure minds.
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
And is it possible to know everything at all? Why didn't the Buddha discover the beginning of Samsara?
He said it is without discoverable beginning.
In other words, it's not possible to know everything.
The Buddha knows everything about and within the All. That is the limit of what can be known. If there is anything outside of the All, we cannot know. In other words, the Buddha can know anything about what is possible to know. The interesting thing is that if he said he did know the beginning of samsara someone else could say he wasn't all knowing, since his knowledge would have a limit
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:52 pm
by cappuccino
rhinoceroshorn wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:48 pm
In other words, it's not possible to know everything.
perhaps you lack faith
thus are coming to a skeptical conclusion
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:53 pm
by cappuccino
Again, Ananda, when an ascetic or holy man of great power, one who has gained mastery of his mind, or a deity who is mighty and potent, develops intense concentration on the delimited aspect of the earth element, and to a boundless degree on the liquid element, he, too, causes the earth to tremble, quiver, and shake. This is the second reason, the second cause for the arising of mighty earthquakes.
In other words, it's not possible to know everything.
The Buddha knows everything about and within the All. That is the limit of what can be known. If there is anything outside of the All, we cannot know. In other words, the Buddha can know anything about what is possible to know. The interesting thing is that if he said he did know the beginning of samsara someone else could say he wasn't all knowing, since his knowledge would have a limit
If all that there is is samsara and nibbana, there is nothing else to look for.
Re: DN16: How to explain this WRONG explanation about earthquakes?
