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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kailash
Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12840
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
- equilibrium
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
As described in ancient Indian sources, mount Sineru (Meru) can't be seen by ordinary people.
For more details see the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5689
For more details see the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5689
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
Most probable and would make most sense and is the simplest and elegant explaination imho.Dmytro wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:00 pm As described in ancient Indian sources, mount Sineru (Meru) can't be seen by ordinary people.
For more details see the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5689
I speculate; That would make the non-visible worlds be "layered" around, above and below us in as a world system in a sense, that would explain the huge measurements.
Last edited by User1249x on Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
But why would one have to prove anything?User1249x wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:02 pmOne establishes beyond doubt that it is impossible, it cannot happen, that it is a myth. In this case one would have to disprove the Explorer claims, also disprove possibility of existence the mountain it self, one also has to prove that "Yodjana" the unit of measurement from the Sutta is correctly defined.
It is not easy for sure in this case, there is a lot of mystery and lack of evidence, unestablished legitimacy of evidence, lost/inaccessible information, it has not been disproven beyond reasonable doubt, actually there is a lot of reasonable doubt in this case.
And if all else fails:
Which is the equivalent of Christian ideas of heaven, hell, God, in that ordinary people can't see them.User1249x wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:07 pmMost probable and would make most sense and is the simplest and elegant explaination imho.Dmytro wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:00 pm As described in ancient Indian sources, mount Sineru (Meru) can't be seen by ordinary people.
For more details see the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5689
That would make the non-visible world systems be "layered" around, above and below us in a sense and account for dimensions.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
That is fine it is equivalent in that sense, it is different in sense that it is possible. That is very important difference:P
Unequipped eye cannot see radio waves either or the wi-fi singals, they are equivalent to Christian ideas of heaven, hell and God too in that sense.
Last edited by User1249x on Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
Well either that or disprove everything but the truth, otherwise can not establish what is true or false.
Last edited by User1249x on Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
[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."
— MN 58
[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."
— MN 58
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
To those on here who jump to the suggestion that the teaching re: Sineru is utterly false:
Consider that Sineru is the domain of beings on higher planes of existence than the human, with tavatiṁsa on top.
As taught by the Buddha higher beings are perceivable with the divine eye, not otherwise. In MN 79 a layperson to the Buddha says:
The Buddha did not lie. I see no evidence in the teachings themselves for concluding he taught in a legendary/mythical way where something he said would be untrue at face-value but point to something else true. That would be misleading & it'd be more effective for him to just get to the point, so I don't think this perspective on the Dhamma is viable. The Dhamma is unambiguous, free of hoodwink. It would be a flaw in his doctrine leading to difficulty in the placing of faith by his followers if the Buddha taught as people here are suggesting. & this thread is a good example of why, because these things are hard to believe for many.
Also, at the risk of sounding conspiratorial, consider the fact that dozens of cultures with vast separation between them have shared this theory of the world. The best example would be Mount Olympus - a pantheon of gods (like the thirty-three) lived on top & they even battled with the Titans as the Devas with Asuras. But similar ideas of a world-mountain on which gods lived has been found across all sorts of ancient cultures. & yet of course this is at conflict with the modern worldview - I think the solution should not be to dismiss the former & accept the latter but to find a way the two can be reconciled.
Consider that Sineru is the domain of beings on higher planes of existence than the human, with tavatiṁsa on top.
As taught by the Buddha higher beings are perceivable with the divine eye, not otherwise. In MN 79 a layperson to the Buddha says:
So interpreting the teaching regarding Sineru as a phenomenon perceivable with the divine eye seems totally within reason. But instead of considering this, or any of the other large ranges of interpretations (& there are a lot, because the suttas say very little on this topic, most of the information comes from the commentaries) that preclude denying the modern worldview, you all jump immediately to denial. If that denial is misplaced it will be the source of demerit for you, so I hope some of you will considering this more carefully.Venerable sir, now I do not even see a mud sprite, how could I see with a purified heavenly eye beyond human...
The Buddha did not lie. I see no evidence in the teachings themselves for concluding he taught in a legendary/mythical way where something he said would be untrue at face-value but point to something else true. That would be misleading & it'd be more effective for him to just get to the point, so I don't think this perspective on the Dhamma is viable. The Dhamma is unambiguous, free of hoodwink. It would be a flaw in his doctrine leading to difficulty in the placing of faith by his followers if the Buddha taught as people here are suggesting. & this thread is a good example of why, because these things are hard to believe for many.
Also, at the risk of sounding conspiratorial, consider the fact that dozens of cultures with vast separation between them have shared this theory of the world. The best example would be Mount Olympus - a pantheon of gods (like the thirty-three) lived on top & they even battled with the Titans as the Devas with Asuras. But similar ideas of a world-mountain on which gods lived has been found across all sorts of ancient cultures. & yet of course this is at conflict with the modern worldview - I think the solution should not be to dismiss the former & accept the latter but to find a way the two can be reconciled.
DN 23‘That, Prince, is just as if there were a man born blind who could not see objects as dark or bright, as blue, yellow, red or brown; who could not see things as smooth or rough, nor the stars, nor moon, nor sun. And he were to say—“There are none of these things, nor any one capable of seeing them. I don’t know them, I don’t see them; therefore they don’t exist.” Would one so speaking, speak rightly, Prince?’
‘Not so, Master Kassapa. The visual objects of which you speak do exist, and so does the faculty of seeing them.
To say “I don’t know them, I don’t see them; therefore they don’t exist”: that would not be speaking rightly.’
‘But even so, methinks, do you, Prince, talk like the blind man in my parable when you say—“But who lets Master Kassapa know that there are Three-and-Thirty Gods, or that the Three-and-Thirty Gods live so many years? We do not believe him when he says these things.” For, Prince, the other world is not, as you imagine, to be regarded with this fleshly eye.
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
here some a scientific work on the immaterial published mid 2017;
https://www.amazon.in/Aether-Immaterial ... A+Volume+8
pdf;
https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... ZN9SYMQoKv
of course i dont say it is accurate nor am i in position to confirm much, just posting to tell that it is not a crazy idea. I was looking for an experiment where the field existed independent of matter as we know it or something but i can't recall.
https://www.amazon.in/Aether-Immaterial ... A+Volume+8
pdf;
https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... ZN9SYMQoKv
of course i dont say it is accurate nor am i in position to confirm much, just posting to tell that it is not a crazy idea. I was looking for an experiment where the field existed independent of matter as we know it or something but i can't recall.
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
The article you brought is not scientific as far as I can tell. I started reading the introduction and it is pretty obvious that there are too many unsupported and unexplained assumptions for this to be a scientific paper.
I suppose that it is theoretically possible for those assumptions to be addressed in the body of the paper but I doubt it so much that I am not willing to waste my time reading beyond the small bit that I did read....in my experience this kind of paper is too much work with no payback if one is looking for science.
chownah
I suppose that it is theoretically possible for those assumptions to be addressed in the body of the paper but I doubt it so much that I am not willing to waste my time reading beyond the small bit that I did read....in my experience this kind of paper is too much work with no payback if one is looking for science.
chownah
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
If one considers that sineru is out of this world and is somewhere else then there is no way for us here on this forum to know anything about it except for our own fabricated thoughts based on this world.....so really there is not much point in discussing something we can know nothing about......or have I missed something and there is some point of discussing something that we can know nothing about?
I can claim that something exists on a higher plane of existence but there would be no way for us to evaluate it I think......if there is a way then I would like to know it.
chownah
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17169
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
I don't believe anyone here is jumping immediately to denial. It is after careful thought and checking the science and natural world. We know from science that mountains are formed from plate tectonics and shifting land masses. The Himalayas were formed when the large land mass that became the Indian sub-continent crashed into Asia, many millions of years ago. There was no divine force or divine meaning to that, just nature and natural causes. And we know from astronomy that earth is not the only planet and not the center of the universe.dylanj wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:50 pm So interpreting the teaching regarding Sineru as a phenomenon perceivable with the divine eye seems totally within reason. But instead of considering this, or any of the other large ranges of interpretations (& there are a lot, because the suttas say very little on this topic, most of the information comes from the commentaries) that preclude denying the modern worldview, you all jump immediately to denial.
The alternative, natural explanation doesn't have to mean the Buddha lied either. It could have been taught as a simile, allegory. Or it may not have been spoken by Buddha at all. The compilers of the Canon may have placed that in to fit the cultural mileau of the time, not as any form of deception, but simply to present the teachings in familiar language to the people of the time.The Buddha did not lie. I see no evidence in the teachings themselves for concluding he taught in a legendary/mythical way where something he said would be untrue at face-value but point to something else true.
Yes, all religions seem to like mountains; perhaps because they are so majestic looking, they are so high in elevation that they appear "heavenly." The Christians have the Sermon on the Mount; Judaism has Mt. Moriah Temple Mount and Mt. Sinai, Muslims have the mountains surrounding Mecca where Muhammad received revelations, etc.Also, at the risk of sounding conspiratorial, consider the fact that dozens of cultures with vast separation between them have shared this theory of the world. The best example would be Mount Olympus - a pantheon of gods (like the thirty-three) lived on top & they even battled with the Titans as the Devas with Asuras. But similar ideas of a world-mountain on which gods lived has been found across all sorts of ancient cultures. & yet of course this is at conflict with the modern worldview - I think the solution should not be to dismiss the former & accept the latter but to find a way the two can be reconciled.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17169
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
Yes, exactly, it would be another Russell's teapot.chownah wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:37 am If one considers that sineru is out of this world and is somewhere else then there is no way for us here on this forum to know anything about it except for our own fabricated thoughts based on this world.....so really there is not much point in discussing something we can know nothing about......or have I missed something and there is some point of discussing something that we can know nothing about?
I can claim that something exists on a higher plane of existence but there would be no way for us to evaluate it I think......if there is a way then I would like to know it.
chownah
Re: Let's discuss Mount Sineru!
That's lying. If one must reject the teaching it would be better to believe the Buddha did not speak it.
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss