Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I was thinking the same thing. Buddha Kassapa apparently lived for about 16,000 years. Considering that humans these days only live for a 100 years (if you’re lucky), the humans in Kassapa’s time should’ve been a lot different than us. So I would think their languages would be different too.
Thank you! The most convincing part for me is that the Vedic descriptions are quite superficial and don’t go into enough depth compared to those of the Tipitaka. If Buddha was copying them, the concepts should not magically appear.
Thank you, pathfinder. I am quoting Dr. Lal’s post on the thread that Jittananto started:
The sutta doesn’t say not to teach Dhamma; it just says to avoid useless debates.
The English translation is good. There are no “deep concepts” here, and it is straightforward.
“Bhikkhus, don’t get into arguments, such as:
“You don’t understand this teaching and training. I understand this teaching and training. What, you understand this teaching and training? You’re practicing wrong. I’m practicing right. I stay on topic, you don’t. You said last what you should have said first. You said first what you should have said last. What you’ve thought so much about has been disproved. Your doctrine is refuted. Go on, save your doctrine! You’re trapped; get yourself out of this—if you can!”
- Those types of “debates” are the ones to avoid.
- Just saying, “Your argument is wrong. Mine is correct,” etc., is not beneficial. You only need to present your arguments with evidence from the Tipitaka. There is no need to engage in debates.
Such attitude can cause us to lose compassion towards those that don’t agree with our views. I will also add that we need to keep a humble attitude. Most of us are at most a Sotapanna which is only the beginning of the noble path.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Good post, pathfinder. I agree with most of what you said.
But, in this part of your post:
- we dont know for sure what is good and bad, his divine wisdom is greater than our wordly one
- so the bad can actually be helping us in god’s view
I am unable to see anything logical in this. It just sounds like an excuse to dodge difficult questions. Probably the most unsettling question for Theologians is, “If God exists, what exactly is stopping him from doing a better job of managing this world?” If they respond with something like, “God is bigger than you so you have no right to question His work“. How is this not a quintessential case of an ad hominem attack?
Laws of Kamma and Paticca Samuppada can’t be proven by modern science but Dr. Lal has repeatedly emphasized that one could approach these concepts with a scientific approach. Introduction – A Scientific Approach to Buddha Dhamma
1 user thanked author for this post.
I feel like we’ve had similar experiences. Very recently, I tried sharing Dhamma with a (kind) Christian girl that I liked and whom I believed has enough paramita to be able to comprehend the teachings. I spoke about the “anicca” nature of the world described by Buddha. She immediately brought up the Genesis chapter of Bible which allegedly describes the origin of world’s “brokenness”. I questioned it by asking questions like, Why God chose to punish the descendants of the original sinners, why uncountable animals are suffering, etc. and also the theology itself by questions like why there is so much inequality in the world. She said she couldn’t find the answers to former questions and only answered the latter by saying, “There is a lot of inequality because of the sin. I believe that Jesus died for my sin and His promise is to come back to this world and save those that accept Him. Then there will be no death, sorrow and grief…”
She added at the end, “Justice will be served to those who don’t accept Him. They will be thrown into a lake of fire.” It sounded like she was telling me to F off, intentionally or not. So at that point, there was nothing I could do other than wish her well in disappointment.
As part of comprehending the anicca nature of this world, we must detach ourselves from outcomes that we don’t control. This made realize that we should inform others (even those we care about) without any expectation.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Of course, an anariya arupa brahma won’t be able to attain Nibbana in that bhava. That is why I said, “As long as one has the intelligence, wisdom and sensory faculty capable of receiving dhamma input…”. A deaf person can’t listen but if they can see, they can read and ponder the dhamma concepts written by ariya.
The monk doesn’t elaborate why one can’t become a sotapanna by reading and contemplating dhamma concepts. As long as one has the intelligence, wisdom and sensory faculty capable of receiving dhamma input, I don’t see why a deaf person can’t be a sotapanna. It might be harder than for those who can listen though.
I don’t know if you plan to mention this in that post but I think it would also be worth pointing out that Buddha banned the use of Sanskrit words. In the forum I see some folks subconsciously using words like “karma” and “dharma” which should be discouraged in my opinion. We should make it clear that Buddha didn’t “copy” from the Vedas (Hinduism).
I agree, this website is the most valuable English source in the world right now. The fact that Dr. Lal has it for free speaks volumes.
As for people dismissing it because it does not match “any other interpretation of Buddhism”, keep in mind that even Gautam Buddha’s work was controversial. After attaining Buddhahood, his popularity erupted in South Asia. Many Vedas followers called him a Nāstika out of fear because he rejected their doctrine and many of the commonly held practices of that time like cast system, animal sacrifices, etc. If you are doing something right, there will always be people unhappy with you because they fear change.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I think I can summarize what skywander is trying to ask. This website, for example, is laid out in such a way that you wouldn’t need to be an ariya right from the beginning to comprehend the deep meanings. If an English speaking puthujjana discovered this website a 1000 years from now, they could (apparently) become a sotapanna by reading posts here. So the question is why the Tipitaka wasn’t written in the same way.
For example, many suttas that discuss PS do not explicitly mention that sankhara refers to abhisankhara, viññana refers to kamma viññana, etc.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Yes. It is possible that the Buddha was referring to visible expansions of a nearest star that eventually “blew up” as a supernova.
The view of sky would certainly be a lot different billions of years from now. The following is based on the prediction by NASA:
Collision of Andromeda with Milky Way:
We can’t really be too sure. So whether Buddha was referring to the increase of temperature in stages or the visible craziness in the sky, the most important message of that sutta is the anicca nature of this world. Another significant statement by Buddha:
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.
Many concepts in Vedic literature, including karma (for kamma) got into the Vedas from Buddha Kassapa, who was on Earth before Buddha Gotama.
Many Buddhist texts say that Buddha “burrowed” the idea of “karma” from Hinduism. This was my assumption too before I found the correct interpretation of kamma/kamma vipaka which is a lot different from the “supernatural force of morality governed by Gods” idea of karma. This foundational concept can be used as an axiom to examine the self-consistency of Buddha Dhamma which makes it appropriate for a scientific approach. Isn’t it ironic that the exact same thing has happened since Mahayana Buddhism started using the Sanskrit terms with Vedic ideas?
But it is crazy to think that humans have been here for billions of years. Considering the fact that most of our technologies have been innovated in the past few thousand years, I can’t imagine the sheer number of wars, pandemic, natural disasters, etc that have caused mass extinctions all over the planet. What a crazy world we live in!
Since people were unaware of such details then, the Buddha probably provided that analogy with the appearance of “seven Suns.”
Or could it be that the Buddha was referring to visible expansions of the nearest stars? From modern science, we know that stars expand over long periods of time, right? And there are stars nearby our solar system that are a lot more massive than our sun. So it would make sense to look like new suns are appearing in the sky as those stars expand and increase in size.
It is interesting because there is a Hindu text which also refers to the seven suns. For example, in the Vishnu Purana: Book VI: Chapter III:
Thus fed, through his intervention, with abundant moisture, the seven solar rays dilate to seven suns 6, whose radiance glows above, below, and on every side, and sets the three worlds and Pátála on fire. The three worlds, consumed by these suns, become rugged and deformed throughout the whole extent of their mountains, rivers, and seas; and the earth, bare of verdure, and destitute of moisture, alone remains, resembling in appearance the back of a tortoise.
The date of composition of this text is disputed but estimated around 400–900 CE. So it is possible that they copied it from Gautam Buddha but I’m not really sure. There were yogis before him that could recall past lives and see the formations and destructions of the world according to suttas.
P.S. I love what Buddha says towards the end of this Sutta:
Mendicants, who would ever think or believe that this earth and Sineru, king of mountains, will burn and crumble and be no more, except for one who has seen the truth?
From the perspective of Modern Astronomy, we know this is exactly what will happen to Earth and our solar system billions of years into the future when the Sun becomes a red giant. But for the people back then, there was no confirmation from modern science. So it was quite a significant statement from the Buddha that only the one that has put in the work to discover the truth for themselves can be fully sure about anything.
2 users thanked author for this post.
