Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:18 am
Can their storylines be taken seriously?
Buddhist forum about the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
A renownedsychiatrist in sri lanka ( who is expired now)
Do u mean the lessons behind the stories or the storylines? I agree the lessons are very good, but some of the stories details are absurb like different animals are friends and talking to each others.justindesilva wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:58 amA renownedsychiatrist in sri lanka ( who is expired now)
and a buddhist, Dr. Harishchandra, wrote a thesis on the psychiatrict values of the Jataka stories giving recognition to Jataka stories.
This proves that their storylines can be taken seriously.
Thanks for sharing. Can u ask him why didn't we see nagas and garudas around us?JamesTheGiant wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:34 amI know a monk, who has TWO medical degrees and was a pediatric specialist in an exclusive USA hospital. He believes the jatakas are the literal truth. So they can be taken seriously. But you don't have to. The important part is the message of each tale, they are "Morality Tales" and don't need to be factually true to be of value.
1. The early part of Jataka is only stanzas.
The Jatakas are best regarded as folk tales and legends, and are unlikely to have anything to do with the Buddha’s past lives. While the Buddha regularly spoke of past lives in a general sense, it seems that he didn’t tell stories from them. Or at least, not that were passed down
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on ... takas/2987
Well, it'd only be "absurd" only if it has been proven for a fact and beyond any shadow of doubt that animals are absolutely 100% unable to communicate with one another.some of the stories details are absurb like different animals are friends and talking to each others.
A more important question would be what would one apply/implement based on the moral of the story (whether it was a historical fact or not).form wrote:Can their story lines be taken seriously?
Interesting point regarding psychic power. Just a thought, what about that monk that was reprimanded by the Buddha for displaying his supernormal power in public to get a bowl from a very high pole? Did he also has the other ability to see and understand beings of other realms?Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:31 pmWe have not developed concentration or mystic powers like those monks of the Buddha's time.
Anuruddha, Moggallāna and others were renowned for their powers. Even in the Buddha's time other monks had no such powers.
With the power of microscopes scientists can see many living things that are invisible to the naked eye.
One of the reason why I brought out this thread is because I am studying suttanipata currently and at the same time looking at supposingly earlier suttas. I am surprised to find that info on marks of a great man were considered very early materials that also appears in SN, as well as MN. And looking at Wiki, Jataka is said to be very early creation as well.Antaradhana wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:36 pm1. The early part of Jataka is only stanzas.
2. Even the stanzas of most Jataka hardly belong to the Buddha, most likely these are later writings.
3. All the allegations that this was in the past the Bodhisatta or one of his students are contained precisely in the prose commentary, which entered the Canon together with the stanzas.
4. Even assuming that a certain number of verse stanzas were uttered by the Buddha himself, then without fictional stories from the comments - these are just instructive parables that have no direct meaning.
Yes, many of the Jataka stories are also found in pre-Buddhist stories, in vedas and things before the time of the Buddha. I seem to remember reading at least 30% are not original to Buddhism.
I saw in wiki it has a story called rabbit in the moon. So coincidental that Chinese myth also have that and I think way before Buddhism spread to China.JamesTheGiant wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:34 amYes, many of the Jataka stories are also found in pre-Buddhist stories, in vedas and things before the time of the Buddha. I seem to remember reading at least 30% are not original to Buddhism.