Let's discuss Mount Sineru!

[User1249x]

...Sineru, monks, the monarch of montains, is eighty-four thousand leagues1 in length and breadth; eighty-four thousand lagues deep in the great ocean, and eighty-four thousand above it.
...
After a last vast interval, a seventh sun appears, and then, monks, this great earth, and Sineru, the monarch of mountains, flare and blaze, and become one mass of flame. ... Just as when ghee or oil is consumed and burnt, monks, neither ashes nor soot remains, so it is with the great earth and Mount Sineru. THE SERMON OF THE SEVEN SUNS
(ANGUTTARA NIKÂYA VII. 62)

Saṃyutta Nikāya 56

Connected Discourses on the Truths
50. Sineru (2)

“Bhikkhus, suppose that Sineru, the king of mountains, would be destroyed and eliminated except for seven grains of gravel the size of mung beans. What do you think, bhikkhus, which is more: the portion of Sineru, the king of mountains, that has been destroyed and eliminated or the seven grains of gravel the size of mung beans that remain?”

Here from The Great Debate vs Christians in Sri Lanka in the last Round of the Debate the Buddhist Party defends the existence of Mt. Sineru.
Sorry for the format;





Here is a contemporary analysis of the Sutta;

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 2-piya.pdf
2. MOUNT SINERU
2.2.1
Historically, Sineru is probably the Himalayas, “the king of the mountains.” However, it is also possible that see
it as some kind of axis mundi, or centre of our galaxy or the universe. The ancient Indi-ans, in their cosmology, have some mythical notion that Mount Sineruis also the physical centre of their universe, which is geocentric. Here, the Sutta is alluding to the popular ancient Indian world view.
13

Afaik there also seem to be supposedly legitimate accounts of such Mountain at North Pole from an early NP explorer or several of them, according to some youtube video about NP conspiracies.

[dylanj]

Wow thank you for sharing. Is that book accessible in full? I assume this is about the Panadura Debate? Also can I see those North Pole videos if you have links?

Given that the Buddha actually taught of Sineru (& I am inclined to disbelieve claims of artificial doctrines in the suttas) then it certainly is true, it's just a question of how it is true - the sutta description of Sineru & the four diipas gives a lot less to work with than the much more detailed story given by the commentaries, leaving room for different interpretations, e.g. with Sineru as some sort of axis mundi versus the Himalayas.

I am very intrigued by the point about the compass.

Based on that, on the fact that a compass points north regardless of where one stands on Earth as we know it and thus the entirety of such Earth is south of the North Pole, & the fact that Jambudiipa is stated to be south of Sineru, then perhaps Jambudiipa is a term for the Earth as a whole, which would also explain why it is said that the remainin 3 diipas are inaccessible to those on Earth aside from in the time of a cakkavatti.

Just a thought, other interpretations would be interesting to hear as well.

[cappuccino]

“Both formerly and now, it is only suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering.” The Buddha

[JamesTheGiant]

84,000 leagues is 36 times bigger than the whole planet Earth. If Mount Sumeru exists, it's not in this plane of reality, maybe in another of the realms.

[DNS]

Mythology. But non-essential to the basic teachings of the Buddha and Dhamma as cappuccino noted here:

“Both formerly and now, it is only suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering.” The Buddha

It is not a deal-killer and doesn't effect my following of the Buddha-Dhamma-Vinaya. It's not essential in the way, for example the divinity and immaculate conception might be to a Christian. I know there are some Christians who don't accept the divinity of Jesus, but I consider that an essential teaching of Christianity that cannot be dismissed so easily. Mt. Sineru doesn't hold that high a status in Buddhism, imo.

I don't know if there is any center-of-the-universe, but if there is one it is highly unlikely to be earth or anywhere near earth.

[User1249x]

...

There are a lot of videos, a lot of the "FE" theories are based on the evidence we are looking into.
Early exlorer account;
"Mercator's Letter To John Dee Of 1555"

Here's the debate book, very awesome i wont even spoil. Id skip the intro tho.
http://www.khamkoo.com/uploads/9/0/0/4/ ... o_face.pdf

I was unable to find the New Principia.

Fear not to look into it ppl!

Dhajagga Sutta: The Top of the Standard
(edited down)
On one occasion the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks!"

"Yes, lord," the monks responded to him.

The Blessed One said, "Monks, once the devas & asuras were arrayed for battle. Then Sakka, the chief of the devas, addressed the devas of the Thirty-three: 'If, dear sirs, when the devas have gone into battle, there should arise fear, terror, or horripilation, then on that occasion you should catch sight of the top of my standard. For when you have caught sight of the top of my standard, whatever fear, terror, or horripilation there is will be abandoned.

"'If you can't catch sight of the top of my standard, then you should catch sight of the top of the deva-king Pajapati's standard.
...

"'If you can't catch sight of the top of the deva-king Pajapati's standard, then you should catch sight of the top of the deva-king Varuna's standard.
...

"'If you can't catch sight of the top of the deva-king Varuna's standard, then you should catch sight of the top of the deva-king Isana's standard.
...

"But, monks, when the top of the deva-chief Sakka's standard is caught sight of, or when the top of the deva-king Pajapati's standard is caught sight of, or when the top of the deva-king Varuna's standard is caught sight of, or when the top of the deva-king Isana's standard is caught sight of, whatever fear, terror, or horripilation there is may be abandoned or may not be abandoned. Why is that? Because Sakka the chief of the devas is not devoid of passion, not devoid of aversion, not devoid of delusion. He feels fear, feels terror, feels dread. He runs away.

"But I tell you this: If — when you have gone into the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — there should arise fear, terror, or horripilation, then on that occasion you should recollect me: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.' For when you have recollected me, whatever fear, terror, or horripilation there is will be abandoned.

... Why is that? Because the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — is devoid of passion, devoid of aversion, devoid of delusion. He feels no fear, feels no terror, feels no dread. He doesn't run away."
...

if it was so obvious smart people would not be discussing any of it.

[Kim OHara]

...I don't know if there is any center-of-the-universe, but if there is one it is highly unlikely to be earth or anywhere near earth.

Sorry, David, but you are wrong.
I am the centre of the universe.

My universe, of course.
It's the only one I know, or can possibly know.

"All perspectives are wrong but some are useful," as someone on the internet said.


Kim

[User1249x]

How's this for analogy;
if a stream of water split up into many streams and the streams were covering more and more ground each of their own, with every moment that stream would be gaining more footing on dry ground, the contact between dry ground and the stream is the contact there (there our experience is delineated from contact). If stream dries out, there is no further arising contact. Each stream of the main stream covers unique, not-same ground, therefore is contact [experience] unique for us in that sense.

btw if people want to attack Buddhism it is good if they focus their efforts on analyzing the evidence for us as well so we can focus on the practice.

[Dhammarakkhito]

“Both formerly and now, it is only suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering.” The Buddha

since you only posted the quote and not what you are using it to say, i surmise that you mean the whole topic here is irrelevant to the path. but it cannot be that what the buddha has said is at all not conducive to release
you could say the dhamma is being grasped wrong, perhaps it is an unhealthy intellectual curiosity, but the buddha shared many facts about our world and events in the past.

Mythology.

i don't want you to think im picking on you, david, but when you say mythology, period, without leaving any wiggle room here it is a glaring mistake. you know with direct knowledge that what the buddha told about cosmology is pure myth? skillful means? hoodwinking?

[chownah]

Sineru is mythology.
chownah

[Dhammarakkhito]

automatic denial of disagreeable metaphysical aspects of the canon is the kind of view clinging rejected by the buddha

regards

[dylanj]

automatic denial of disagreeable metaphysical aspects of the canon is the kind of view clinging rejected by the buddha

regards

[Kim OHara]

automatic denial of disagreeable metaphysical aspects of the canon is the kind of view clinging rejected by the buddha

regards

But there is nothing "metaphysical" about 2500-year-old geography. It is as irrelevant to the dhamma as the geographical location of the Garden of Eden is to Christian morality.
And there is nothing "automatic" about my denial of it (or, I guess, of Chownah's rejection). I look at sources and their relevance, and make a reasoned choice.
Nor do I find that aspect of the canon "disagreable". The people of the time did their best to understand the physical world they lived in, and that's fine. We have done better, and that's good, too.
When I want to go to Europe I will use a modern map; but when I want to understand myself, the best map I know is the dhamma.


Kim

[chownah]

I think that there are things that are correctly called "mythological". How does one come to the conclusion that something is "mythological".
chownah

[User1249x]

I think that there are things that are correctly called "mythological". How does one come to the conclusion that something is "mythological".
chownah

One 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.