How to address faulty geography/cosmology?

[knotting]

Regarding the semi-frequent mentions of faulty geography & cosmology in the suttas, I can think of a few possibilities:

1. The Buddha never made such statements; they were interpolated by the later compilers of the Canon.

2. The Buddha knew about the physical reality (regarding a spherical Earth, solar systems, galaxies, etc.) but simply went along with the conventional understanding of ancient India, in order to avoid distraction to the path. I have heard Monk Sarana suggest this.

3. The Buddha genuinely believed the ancient cosmology, and was therefore not omniscient in all matters.

What do you all think?

[Mahabrahma]

Better to link to the actual Suttas, it may provide more light as to this topic. Commenting on how these interpretations work may seem better that way.

[knotting]

Better to link to the actual Suttas, it may provide more light as to this topic. Commenting on how these interpretations work may seem better that way.

One example from AN 10.29/AN 3.80:

"A thousand times the world in which the sun and moon revolve and light up the quarters with their brightness is called a thousandfold minor world system. In that thousandfold world system there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sinerus king of mountains, a thousand Jambudīpas, a thousand Aparagoyānas, a thousand Uttarakurus, a thousand Pubbavidehas, and a thousand four great oceans; a thousand four great kings, a thousand heavens of devas ruled by the four great kings."

According to modern science, the sun doesn't revolve, and there is no Mt Sineru. However, there is a parallel between the 'thousandfold minor world system' and galaxies.

Here's a comment from Ajahn Brahmali, and a link to more sutta excerpts & commentary:

"Some of the ideas expressed here, especially the mention of Sineru, are decidedly foreign from a modern perspective. But we should really expect this. The Buddha’s audience was used to a certain way of looking at the world and the Buddha would have had to meet his audience half way to get his message across. What is remarkable, rather, are the strong parallels to our modern outlook."

https://www.fourthmessenger.org/buddhis ... standings/

[SDC]

According to modern science, the sun doesn't revolve,

I think there is evidence that the sun has a rotation and that it orbits around a galactic center. Not that I would ever use science to fortify what the suttas are saying. I just thought it was worth mentioning.

[Dhammapardon]

Regarding the semi-frequent mentions of faulty geography & cosmology in the suttas,
What do you all think?

I'm not sure knowing if they're real oceans or mountains is crucial to the message.

I read AN10.29 to be a lesson on anicca. So part (2) of the sutta is more about describing scale or magnitude and how even the greatest of these things still is subject to anicca and therefor do not take refuge in it. Instead become dispassionate toward it, not to speak of anything lesser.

Like it could be drawing connection from ants to whales and how even whales are subject to anicca but it is not as impactful to the listener.

(2) “Bhikkhus, as far as sun and moon revolve and light up the quarters with their brightness, so far the thousandfold world system extends. In that thousandfold world system there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sinerus king of mountains, a thousand Jambudīpas, a thousand Aparagoyānas, a thousand Uttarakurus, a thousand Pubbavidehas, and a thousand four great oceans; a thousand four great kings, a thousand heavens ruled by the four great kings, a thousand Tāvatiṁsa heavens, a thousand Yāma heavens, a thousand Tusita heavens, a thousand heavens of devas who delight in creation, a thousand heavens of devas who control what is created by others, a thousand brahmā worlds. As far, bhikkhus, as this thousandfold world system extends, Mahābrahmā there ranks as the foremost. But even for Mahābrahmā there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.

AN3.80 appears to do something similar and so the specific geographies or cosmologies don't appear to conflict with what the message intends to explain. I read it to be more about examining distance and using the galaxies as an example measurement of that distance. However this is not the full message of AN3.80. A message which is lost on me.

Hope that's helpful.

[knotting]

I'm not sure knowing if they're real oceans or mountains is crucial to the message.

I agree, but it throws a wrench into the common belief that the Buddha was omniscient.

On that note, here's another quote from Ajahn Brahmali:

"Finally, the point of this essay is not to make any special claims for the Buddha, such as suggesting that he was superhuman or even omniscient, something he himself denies in the suttas."

Does anybody know where in the suttas the Buddha denies his (supposed) omniscience?

[santa100]

...

See a similar thread previously discussed here.

[Ceisiwr]

Regarding the semi-frequent mentions of faulty geography & cosmology in the suttas, I can think of a few possibilities:

1. The Buddha never made such statements; they were interpolated by the later compilers of the Canon.

2. The Buddha knew about the physical reality (regarding a spherical Earth, solar systems, galaxies, etc.) but simply went along with the conventional understanding of ancient India, in order to avoid distraction to the path. I have heard Monk Sarana suggest this.

3. The Buddha genuinely believed the ancient cosmology, and was therefore not omniscient in all matters.

What do you all think?

I don’t think the Buddha was omniscient however even without that if he did have knowledge of an untold number of past lives then he should have had a superior understanding of the universe than even modern science today (think how many lives he would have been a scientist in some advanced civilisation somewhere). Personally I think a lot of the cosmology was developed later, starting off as commentary of a kind when a Thera was giving a Dhamma talk. I’m also reminded of the Sīsapāvanasutta

At one time the Buddha was staying near Kosambī in a rosewood forest. Then the Buddha picked up a few rosewood leaves in his hand and addressed the mendicants: “What do you think, mendicants? Which is more: the few leaves in my hand, or those in the forest above me?”

“Sir, the few leaves in your hand are a tiny amount. There are far more leaves in the forest above.”

“In the same way, there is much more that I have directly known but have not explained to you. What I have explained is a tiny amount. And why haven’t I explained it? Because it’s not beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. It doesn’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. That’s why I haven’t explained it.

And what have I explained? I have explained: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’.

And why have I explained this? Because it’s beneficial and relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. It leads to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. That’s why I’ve explained it.

That’s why you should practice meditation

[TRobinson465]

Better to link to the actual Suttas, it may provide more light as to this topic. Commenting on how these interpretations work may seem better that way.

"A thousand times the world in which the sun and moon revolve and light up the quarters with their brightness is called a thousandfold minor world system. In that thousandfold world system there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sinerus king of mountains, a thousand Jambudīpas, a thousand Aparagoyānas, a thousand Uttarakurus, a thousand Pubbavidehas, and a thousand four great oceans; a thousand four great kings, a thousand heavens of devas ruled by the four great kings."

According to modern science, the sun doesn't revolve, and there is no Mt Sineru. However, there is a parallel between the 'thousandfold minor world system' and galaxies.

Thats not true. The sun doesnt revolve around the earth but it does revolve around something, scientists know our galaxy is spiral shaped and we are not at the center of the spiral. So its perfectly possible Mt Sumeru is at the center of the spiral galaxy and the stars of our galaxy revolve around it, we just can't see it.

Personally i dont think AN 3.8 is a contradiction of science at all.

“Ānanda, a galaxy extends a thousand times as far as the moon and sun revolve and the shining ones light up the quarters. In that galaxy there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sinerus king of mountains, a thousand Indias, a thousand Western Continents, a thousand Northern Continents, a thousand Eastern Continents, four thousand oceans, four thousand Great Kings, a thousand realms of the Gods of the Four Great Kings, a thousand realms of the Gods of the Thirty-Three, of the Gods of Yama, of the Joyful Gods, of the Gods who Love to Create, of the Gods who Control the Creations of Others, and a thousand Brahmā realms. This is called a thousandfold lesser world system, a ‘galaxy’.

A world system that extends for a thousand galaxies is called a millionfold middling world system, a ‘galactic cluster’.

A world system that extends for a thousand galactic clusters is called a billionfold great world system, a ‘galactic supercluster’.

If he wished, Ānanda, a Realized One could make his voice heard throughout a galactic supercluster, or as far as he wants.”

This sounds like a pretty accurate description of the scientific understanding of our universe with countless solar systems, galaxies and galactic clusters in it to me. Just minus the invisible deva and brahma realms and such.

[TRobinson465]

Regarding the semi-frequent mentions of faulty geography & cosmology in the suttas, I can think of a few possibilities:

1. The Buddha never made such statements; they were interpolated by the later compilers of the Canon.

2. The Buddha knew about the physical reality (regarding a spherical Earth, solar systems, galaxies, etc.) but simply went along with the conventional understanding of ancient India, in order to avoid distraction to the path. I have heard Monk Sarana suggest this.

3. The Buddha genuinely believed the ancient cosmology, and was therefore not omniscient in all matters.

What do you all think?

As for your actual question. There are some other suttas where the Buddha does seem to contradict science. I think it is probably more number 2 of your explanations. another explanation is that he was not talking about the physical world we see with telescopes but the world from a spiritual/inter-realm standpoint that cant be seen by worldly scientists (think the 85% of the universe that is dark matter). It is stated somewhere that Buddhas are not omnicient the way a God is, he just has unobstructed knowledge to anything he wants. If he just didnt care about the physical makeup of the universe its possible he just didnt use his enlightened eyes to look for the answer and simply didnt know becuase he didnt care.

[SarathW]

I'm not sure knowing if they're real oceans or mountains is crucial to the message.

I agree, but it throws a wrench into the common belief that the Buddha was omniscient.

On that note, here's another quote from Ajahn Brahmali:

"Finally, the point of this essay is not to make any special claims for the Buddha, such as suggesting that he was superhuman or even omniscient, something he himself denies in the suttas."

Does anybody know where in the suttas the Buddha denies his (supposed) omniscience?

I can recall reading a Sutta that Buddha says that he will know a particular thing only if he pays attention to it.
He is not like a surveillance system that keeps track of everything moving around him.

Buddha said that the air (atmosphere) sits in space, water sits on the air and the earth sits on the water.
(Please note that the average person (I) think that water sits on earth.
If you analys this you can see Buddha knew that you can go around the earth using space.

Sorry, I can't provide the Sutta reference but someone else can help.

[cappuccino]

there is no Mt Sineru

Mount Kailash

Mount Kailash (Kailasa) is known as Mount Meru in Buddhist texts. It is central to its cosmology, and a major pilgrimage site for some Buddhist traditions.

[justindesilva]

Regarding the semi-frequent mentions of faulty geography & cosmology in the suttas, I can think of a few possibilities:

1. The Buddha never made such statements; they were interpolated by the later compilers of the Canon.

2. The Buddha knew about the physical reality (regarding a spherical Earth, solar systems, galaxies, etc.) but simply went along with the conventional understanding of ancient India, in order to avoid distraction to the path. I have heard Monk Sarana suggest this.

3. The Buddha genuinely believed the ancient cosmology, and was therefore not omniscient in all matters.

What do you all think?

As for your actual question. There are some other suttas where the Buddha does seem to contradict science. I think it is probably more number 2 of your explanations. another explanation is that he was not talking about the physical world we see with telescopes but the world from a spiritual/inter-realm standpoint that cant be seen by worldly scientists (think the 85% of the universe that is dark matter). It is stated somewhere that Buddhas are not omnicient the way a God is, he just has unobstructed knowledge to anything he wants. If he just didnt care about the physical makeup of the universe its possible he just didnt use his enlightened eyes to look for the answer and simply didnt know becuase he didnt care.

Lord budda has in andhakara sutta , loka sutta , saptasurya sutta has exhibited his vision of the cosmos . In andhakara sutta he speaks of a world or a planet that is located where the light of sun and moon does not meet . Here budda compares the darkness to avidya .Loka sutta speaks of many other worlds or planets in the cosmos. Sapta surya sutta speaks of a future situation in the cosmos where seven suns appear (may not be simultaneously ) when this earth system gets destroyed .
In tevijjasutta lord budda claims the ability to have vision in to the many past lives and past situations but does not claim to be within certain limits .
After attaining buddahood while proceeding to explain dammacakkapavattana sutta budda is said to claim sabbavidu to mean an omniscient ability to perceive to cognise the incidents occurring at the same time in the cosmos . This is a momentary ability of samadhi , I would mean
We are often mislead of the meaning of omniscience as in theistic religions that god is present in all beings and cosmos unlimited
which we cannot apply on a budda nature .

[auto]

“Mendicants, there are these five obstacles to rain, which the forecasters don’t know, and which their vision does not traverse.
“Pañcime, bhikkhave, vassassa antarāyā, yaṁ nemittā na jānanti, yattha nemittānaṁ cakkhu na kamati.