Agganna Sutta

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby clw_uk » Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:49 pm

I think that the theory of evolution as explained by spontaneous generation is "new age white-noise"


What theory of evolution has "spontaneous generation" in it?

.
The Buddha knew how humans appeared on earth,


Im not so convinced of this but thats just me

but he didn't explain it explicitly for a modern scientific context, did he?


Nope, personally I dont think he knew much about biology or genetics

Therefore I don't know how human beings appear on a world during the evolving phase.


The Evolution of man was a long drawn out process. However I would like to posit a caution here in interpreting evolution in terms of us. Evolution did not plan for humans and we are not the finished product, all adaptations are made for short term goals, not to eventually give rise to a species prone to solipism

If that's not how humans arise, then fine


Its not
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby son of dhamma » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:03 pm

The theory of evolution as explained by spontaneous generation. How does all this life come about? There is no evidence at all to show how even the most basic of organic cells formed on this planet. The theory of evolution doesn't mean much without something to begin it, the evidence doesn't authentically support the theory with an original root. The main theory of the origin of organic matter is spontaneous generation. Regardless, there is no evidence for the physical beginning of the biological evolutionary theory. It is all so theoretical in fact that I don't understand you're utter confidence in saying that my petty inference is definitely "not" how humans arise. Or are you a Fully Enlightened Buddha?
When I was talking about the evolving phase and using the term "evolving", I was talking about the world-system evolving, not biological processes. I don't think that the evolution of man is important. The Buddha was born as a human and taught what he taught. I think that he was Fully Enlightened.
I agree that he probably didn't know much about genetics or biochemistry, but I do think that he knew clearly how everything formed and dissolved from a human perspective. Or was he not a Fully Awakened Sammasambuddha? He wasn't merely an Arahant or Savakbuddha (from commentaries), he was distinguished among all awakened beings, a Bodhisatta.
I understand that you're not convinced that the Buddha knew how human beings arose on this world. Many Buddhists on this site seem to share this sentiment. I couldn't disagree with the idea more, no offense. And I wouldn't argue about on a Theravada forum. At all.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
son of dhamma
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby clw_uk » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:15 pm

The theory of evolution as explained by spontaneous generation. How does all this life come about? There is no evidence at all to show how even the most basic of organic cells formed on this planet.



Spoken like someone who doesnt know what Evolution is


Evolution happens after life has come to be, it is change over time


How life came to be is under the field of study called Abiogenesis


In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inanimate matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.[1] In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


(wikipedia I know so have caution)


Regardless, there is no evidence for the physical beginning of the biological evolutionary theory. It is all so theoretical in fact that I don't understand you're utter confidence in saying that my petty inference is definitely "not" how humans arise. Or are you a Fully Enlightened Buddha?


Regardless of how the first life came to be, Humans did not come to be until billions of years of Evolution after the first life


For one thing the early earth would not have supported humans, even when the first life appeared


Homosapiens have only been around for 100,00 to 250,000 years, nothing in evolutionary time, smaller still in earth time and sweet FA in cosmic time



When I was talking about the evolving phase and using the term "evolving", I was talking about the world-system evolving, not biological processes.


Tell me, what is the Buddhas special definition of the word "world"?



I understand that you're not convinced that the Buddha knew how human beings arose on this world. Many Buddhists on this site seem to share this sentiment. I couldn't disagree with the idea more, no offense. And I wouldn't argue about on a Theravada forum. At all.


You admit yourself that he doesnt, since you wrote

I agree that he probably didn't know much about genetics or biochemistry,
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby Lazy_eye » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:20 pm

son of dhamma wrote: I think that the theory of evolution as explained by spontaneous generation is "new age white-noise".


According to at least one well-regarded commentator,

Master Sheng-Yen, Orthodox Chinese Buddhism, page 23 wrote: As for the first appearance of life on Earth, Buddhists believe that all living beings, from single-celled organisms to human beings, first emerged on this planet through spontaneous birth.


Granted he is Mahayana not Theravada, but I guess he is basing this on the Agganna.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby clw_uk » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:29 pm

Master Sheng-Yen, Orthodox Chinese Buddhism, page 23 wrote:
As for the first appearance of life on Earth, Buddhists believe that all living beings, from single-celled organisms to human beings, first emerged on this planet through spontaneous birth.


Granted he is Mahayana not Theravada, but I guess he is basing this on the Agganna.


Which is just Buddhist creationism and also goes against the genetic evidence

If all life just popped into existence why is there genetic relatedness between all life, that when you map it out forms a family tree? Why am I 35% related genetically to a daffodil?
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby son of dhamma » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:40 pm

Lazy_eye wrote:
son of dhamma wrote:I think that the theory of evolution as explained by spontaneous generation is "new age white-noise".


According to at least one well-regarded commentator,

Master Sheng-Yen, Orthodox Chinese Buddhism, page 23 wrote: As for the first appearance of life on Earth, Buddhists believe that all living beings, from single-celled organisms to human beings, first emerged on this planet through spontaneous birth.


Granted he is Mahayana not Theravada, but I guess he is basing this on the Agganna.


Now, Lazy, we cannot refute the literal meaning of the Agganna Sutta by means of scientific theory and then support scientific theory with the Agganna Sutta.
As someone has said more than once on this forum, "science is science". Something else of another name is something else of "another name".


clw_uk wrote:
The theory of evolution as explained by spontaneous generation. How does all this life come about? There is no evidence at all to show how even the most basic of organic cells formed on this planet.



Spoken like someone who doesnt know what Evolution is

Evolution happens after life has come to be, it is change over time



I understand that you're not convinced that the Buddha knew how human beings arose on this world. Many Buddhists on this site seem to share this sentiment. I couldn't disagree with the idea more, no offense. And I wouldn't argue about on a Theravada forum. At all.


You admit yourself that he doesnt, since you wrote

I agree that he probably didn't know much about genetics or biochemistry,


I admitted no such thing. Why be semantic, my friend? :|
I know very well what evolutionary theory is. I did not speak like an ignoramus about evolution. I am aware of what biological evolution means, I explained that I was talking about the original root beginning of biological evolution. The theory of evolution does not have any meaning to me without that origin. I didn't say that evolution was the origin of life. You misunderstood something simple that I said.
If you accept evolutionary theory then that's fine. I don't accept theory. I don't accept mere interpretations of scripture either. Moreover I don't engage in name-calling, telling people what they don't understand about evolutionary theory.
I'm not carrying on an argument with someone who simply wants to tell me what I don't understand about science, when I'm simply pointing out that it is science, and theoretical also. I'm not standing on that platform with hundreds of scientists to back me up. I'm standing on my own platform of practical experience and saying "hm, that's not helpful".
I hope I'm not engendering anymore misconstrued views on my thoughts, from anyone.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
son of dhamma
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby clw_uk » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:45 pm

Son of Dhamma


I admitted no such thing. Why be semantic, my friend?
I know very well what evolutionary theory is. I did not speak like an ignoramus about evolution. I am aware of what biological evolution means, I explained that I was talking about the original root beginning of biological evolution. The theory of evolution does not have any meaning to me without that origin. I didn't say that evolution was the origin of life. You misunderstood something simple that I said.
If you accept evolutionary theory then that's fine. I don't accept theory. I don't accept mere interpretations of scripture either. Moreover I don't engage in name-calling, telling people what they don't understand about evolutionary theory.



Evolution via natural selection has occurred and does occur regardless of if that first life was spontaneous or was planted by aliens or whatever


I will admit I did slightly misread your post initially so apologies for that


I'm not carrying on an argument with someone who simply wants to tell me what I don't understand about science, when I'm simply pointing out that it is science, and theoretical also. I'm not standing on that platform with hundreds of scientists to back me up. I'm standing on my own platform of practical experience and saying "hm, that's not helpful".


Whats not helpful?
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby son of dhamma » Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:55 pm

This discussion has become unhelpful. Are you not the person who originally posted the question, "what is everyone else's interpretation of this sutta?" I am thus-far only inclined to think that you care only about scientific evidence for evolution (which I agree does take place on our world), and that the Agganna Sutta has no significant value to you as a credible source for anything. You've been refuting it. I was simply attempting to explain the sutta in regard to science.
I understand that evolution via natural selection (among other processes) does occur, but to say that it does so regardless of the first cause of it. It is in COMPLETE regards to its first cause. Or are we to assume that if we looked back into history that everything would just become fuzzy, and then we would see evolution appearing out of a vacuum?
Evolution occurs. The theory of evolution as explained by any first cause has no meaning to me, because there is no clear first cause supported by scientific evidence.
My assumption, originally, was that this was the purpose of you posting the excerpt from the Agganna Sutta and posing such a question. But I was incorrect.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
son of dhamma
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby clw_uk » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:16 pm

This discussion has become unhelpful. Are you not the person who originally posted the question, "what is everyone else's interpretation of this sutta?"


Years ago

I am thus-far only inclined to think that you care only about scientific evidence for evolution (which I agree does take place on our world),


Only because of the literalistic views that were being put forth here, then me and you got tied into discussing it

and that the Agganna Sutta has no significant value to you as a credible source for anything.


I view it in the same way tilt does. However since I dont live in a hindu society the relevance to me is small

You've been refuting it. I was simply attempting to explain the sutta in regard to science.


Refuting that it is a description of a cosmological model, yes

I understand that evolution via natural selection (among other processes) does occur, but to say that it does so regardless of the first cause of it. It is in COMPLETE regards to its first cause. Or are we to assume that if we looked back into history that everything would just become fuzzy, and then we would see evolution appearing out of a vacuum?


Evolution began after the fist replicating molecule occured. Before that evolution did not exist, on earth anyway. Saying how the first life came to be has no real bearing on the process of evolution at all


Evolution occurs. The theory of evolution as explained by any first cause has no meaning to me, because there is no clear first cause supported by scientific evidence.


Yet
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:17 pm

son of dhamma wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Sure, just like he put the idea of a creator god into his perspective. He did not have to deny it to deprive it of significance, and that pretty much what he did in the Aggañña Sutta. If you want to want to believe something like that is literal truth, fine, but once you trot it out there and try to bump it up against science, you are making claims you cannot support via objective arguments and you are putting yourself on the same plane as the Xtian fundamenalists/literalists creationists.

I don't see why consistently compare me to other groups of thought. There's no need to say that I'm on the same plane as anyone in this argument. I haven't put you on a plane of anything. I'm attempting to do talking in terms of one individual to one individual, without name-calling.
It is not name calling. It is stating a fact. Using a religious text to criticize science is a problem, and then to claim my religious text is different others' religious texts is nothing more than special pleading.

And what is this "bumping"?
It is what you are doing in your very next sentence:
At what point does scientific evidence refute that Form-beings do not exist as a result of the kamma of their meditative attainments?
At what point does science deal with souls, angels, demons, heaven and hell?
At what point does scientific evidence even remotely suggest that a being of Form and not matter, on a higher plane of existence, absolutely cannot possibly exist?[/b] If I heard a scientific source say that, then I would laugh and think to myself, "science has finally fallen in on its own superiority-complex". At what point, evidently?
Again, here we have the abject failure of American education in terms of what science is and what it does. You really do not know. Are your form-beings and kamma (souls and angels) measurable and observable, can predictions be made upon its measurement and observations? Nope. they are religious concept. Science does not deal with religious concepts and religious concepts make for crappy science.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19754
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:26 pm

son of dhamma wrote:Human beings, in this plane of existence, have always been the humans on this world. When they devolved from higher states and gross living matter (mold, fungi, r. plants, complex plants) evolved to generate a stable biological ecosystem into the continued evolution phase (where we are now), what human beings were was not biologically similar to what we are now, in the evolved phase.
Then they were not human beings.
The world was evolving, higher beings were becoming what we are now. I am not claiming that there was a separate human species in the past, but that the human species was quite differently physiologically during the evolving phase. Make sense?
Not from the stand point of science. What you are doing here is not science; it is religion, which fine as long as you do not try to claim otherwise. Also, even if you could establish that this is really what the Buddha meant (and you have yet to do that) as being the literal truth, it is not a necessary belief for awakening (which is one reason for not taking this as being literal).
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19754
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby clw_uk » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:32 pm

Also, even if you could establish that this is really what the Buddha meant (and you have yet to do that) as being the literal truth, it is not a necessary belief for awakening (which is one reason for not taking this as being literal).


I agree with Tilt here

The topic of how humans came to be and how life came to be does not aim at dukkha or its cessation (it is the area of science)

It is therefore hard to see why Buddha would teach it


However overcoming the superstitions of the Brahmans is aimed at dukkha and its cessation, since their superstitions lead to attachment to ritual and Self


It is therefore more likely the Buddha taught the Sutta as a critique of the Brahman cosmology, to help people let go
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:37 pm

son of dhamma wrote:The theory of evolution as explained by spontaneous generation. How does all this life come about? There is no evidence at all to show how even the most basic of organic cells formed on this planet. The theory of evolution doesn't mean much without something to begin it, the evidence doesn't authentically support the theory with an original root.
And your scientific support for this claim is? The main theory of the origin of organic matter is spontaneous generation. [/quote]You are reading creationist stuff. Maybe you want to update your knowledge base: spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis

When I was talking about the evolving phase and using the term "evolving", I was talking about the world-system evolving, not biological processes.
Actually, what constitutes a "world system?" A solar system, a galaxy, the whole universe?

I agree that he probably didn't know much about genetics or biochemistry, but I do think that he knew clearly how everything formed and dissolved from a human perspective. Or was he not a Fully Awakened Sammasambuddha? He wasn't merely an Arahant or Savakbuddha (from commentaries), he was distinguished among all awakened beings, a Bodhisatta.
Please explain how you are using this word: bodhisatta.

I understand that you're not convinced that the Buddha knew how human beings arose on this world. Many Buddhists on this site seem to share this sentiment. I couldn't disagree with the idea more, no offense. And I wouldn't argue about on a Theravada forum. At all.
So you are not Theravadin.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19754
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby son of dhamma » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:53 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
son of dhamma wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Sure, just like he put the idea of a creator god into his perspective. He did not have to deny it to deprive it of significance, and that pretty much what he did in the Aggañña Sutta. If you want to want to believe something like that is literal truth, fine, but once you trot it out there and try to bump it up against science, you are making claims you cannot support via objective arguments and you are putting yourself on the same plane as the Xtian fundamenalists/literalists creationists.

At what point does scientific evidence even remotely suggest that a being of Form and not matter, on a higher plane of existence, absolutely cannot possibly exist?[/b] If I heard a scientific source say that, then I would laugh and think to myself, "science has finally fallen in on its own superiority-complex". At what point, evidently?
Again, here we have the abject failure of American education in terms of what science is and what it does. You really do not know. Are your form-beings and kamma (souls and angels) measurable and observable, can predictions be made upon its measurement and observations? Nope. they are religious concept. Science does not deal with religious concepts and religious concepts make for crappy science.


I... agree. On this very page I agreed with those exact sentiments. I said science is science and something of another name is something of another name. I said not a word about SOULS and that is not a word I use even subliminally. Strange that you should mention it.
You have just exhibited the identical misunderstanding that clw_uk has. I do understand what science is and what it does. I do understand that scientific study does not apply to Form beings and Formless beings, because they are not concerned in terms of dimensions of measurement. I never said anything to the contrary, in fact. What I really said was, "scientific evidence cannot even remotely suggest that such beings cannot possibly exist." Science can't, absolutely cannot suggest that these beings have no possibility of existing if it cannot include them or phenomena related to them in its field of study. Science can neither affirm nor negate the existence of these beings, and that's what I said. If you disagree with that, then you have grounds for name-calling, I think.
I think also that I clearly have separated scientific study from what I'm talking about. And just so I've made is explicitly clear, Form beings, Formless beings, and really material beings of other planes are definitely outside the realm of scientific study and when I speak of them I'm not speaking of scientific study or theory.
Abiogenesis is not a concrete, exact science. No one has produced a living organism from those tests. Creationist science is ridiculous. This hyper-presumptuous forum is ridiculous.


"So you are not Theravadin." There isn't even a question mark at the end of that sentence. This is rude, people. Are you human beings or what? I've never had such exchanges with Buddhists. I consider myself to be a conservation disciple of the Buddhadhamma, and because I am in complete agreement with the Theravada I am thus a member of the tradition. I'll answer because you seemed to imply a question, in giving the answer without one. :|

As for everything else, I'm not going to throw out definitions of Bodhisatta and world-system for your scrutiny. UNHELPFUL to this discussion, as I said.

The fault was completely mine due to my careless speaking. I must have been speaking carelessly because so many of you general people have had the same misconceptions about my thoughts. I apologize for that.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
son of dhamma
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby clw_uk » Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:59 pm

What I really said was, "scientific evidence cannot even remotely suggest that such beings cannot possibly exist." Science can't, absolutely cannot suggest that these beings have no possibility of existing if it cannot include them or phenomena related to them in its field of study. Science can neither affirm nor negate the existence of these beings, and that's what I said.



Sure, it cant in relation to God, elves or vampires either


Probability can be used however...




Abiogenesis is not a concrete, exact science. No one has produced a living organism from those tests.


Yet




"So you are not Theravadin." There isn't even a question mark at the end of that sentence. This is rude, people. Are you human beings or what? I've never had such exchanges with Buddhists. I consider myself to be a conservation disciple of the Buddhadhamma, and because I am in complete agreement with the Theravada I am thus a member of the tradition. I'll answer because you seemed to imply a question, in giving the answer without one.

As for everything else, I'm not going to throw out definitions of Bodhisatta and world-system for your scrutiny. UNHELPFUL to this discussion, as I said.

The fault was completely mine due to my careless speaking. I must have been speaking carelessly because so many of you general people have had the same misconceptions about my thoughts. I apologize for that.
with metta



Why on the defensive, its only a debate, chill out :)
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby son of dhamma » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:03 pm

Yet doesn't mean anything to science. And the day that it becomes scientifically verifiable, why would I deny it? You are clearly favoring scientific theory. I'm not favoring either side, that's my thought.
I really don't think I have anything of use to you all to say.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
son of dhamma
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby clw_uk » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:06 pm

Yet doesn't mean anything to science.


What doesnt?

You are clearly favoring scientific theory.


Whats wrong with that?
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:10 pm

son of dhamma wrote: What I really said was, "scientific evidence cannot even remotely suggest that such beings cannot possibly exist." Science can't, absolutely cannot suggest that these beings have no possibility of existing if it cannot include them or phenomena related to them in its field of study. Science can neither affirm nor negate the existence of these beings, and that's what I said. If you disagree with that, then you have grounds for name-calling, I think.
You might want to try writing a little more clearly and you might want to try reading what is written a little more carefully.

I think also that I clearly have separated scientific study from what I'm talking about. And just so I've made is explicitly clear, Form beings, Formless beings, and really material beings of other planes are definitely outside the realm of scientific study and when I speak of them I'm not speaking of scientific study or theory
.At best, what you have been writing has been muddled.

Abiogenesis is not a concrete, exact science. No one has produced a living organism from those tests. Creationist science is ridiculous.
Are you saying that a living organism will not be produced from those experiments, are you saying that nothing valid has come from those experiments? And you read all those linked articles?

This hyper-presumptuous forum is ridiculous.
Maybe it is your lack of clarity and your possible presumptuousness that might be contributing to the communication difficulty here.

"So you are not Theravadin." There isn't even a question mark at the end of that sentence. This is rude, people. Are you human beings or what?
Read what you wrote; it is, at best ambiguous.

As for everything else, I'm not going to throw out definitions of Bodhisatta and world-system for your scrutiny. UNHELPFUL to this discussion, as I said.
Once the Buddha awakened, he was not a bodhisatta, so who knows what you mean by that term. And as for world system, it is an interesting concept, but not one that fits all too well with modern astronomy.

The fault was completely mine due to my careless speaking. I must have been speaking carelessly because so many of you general people have had the same misconceptions about my thoughts. I apologize for that.
General people? I though I was a specific people. It is good to see that you are acknowledging the source of the problem here.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19754
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:15 pm

son of dhamma wrote:Yet doesn't mean anything to science. And the day that it becomes scientifically verifiable, why would I deny it? You are clearly favoring scientific theory. I'm not favoring either side, that's my thought.
That is not how you have come across in your msgs above.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19754
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Postby son of dhamma » Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:18 pm

I'm glad that you understand my acknowledgment. I am very discouraged by you attitude. On four of these characterized responses, you commented on my non-clarity or muddled speech. That's not necessary. I also answered that "I am a conservative disciple of the Buddhadhamma, and because I am in complete agreement with the Theravada I am thus a member of the tradition.
I don't have any value in this discussion.
I apologize if I haven't come across accordingly.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
son of dhamma
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests