chownah wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:16 am
It seems that when retrofuturist grasps the logic he becomes dismissive so he rejects the logic.
It seems chownah ought to speak for himself, rather than spilling even more of his erroneous conjecture all over the place. Chownah should ask if unsure, as this would be preferable to more rampant speculation which has no founding whatsoever in reality.
chownah wrote:I don't think the buddha teaches two lokas.
He does. The two main senses of loka are played at in the following riddle from the Samyutta Nikaya...
SN 35.116 wrote:‘Bhikkhus, I say that the end of the world cannot be known, seen, or reached by travelling. Yet, bhikkhus, I also say that without reaching the end of the world there is no making an end to suffering,’
...where "the world" is initially regarded in the conventional sense
Loka [cp. Vedic loka in its oldest meaning "space, open space." For etym. see rocati. To the etym. feeling of the Pāli hearer loka is closely related in quality to ruppati (as in pop. etym. of rūpa) and rujati. As regards the latter the etym. runs "lujjati kho loko ti vuccati" S iv.52, cp. Nd2 550, and loka=lujjana DhsA 47, 308: see lujjana. The Dhtp 531 gives root lok (loc) in sense of dassana] world, primarily "visible world," then in general as "space or sphere of creation," with var. degrees of substantiality. Often (unspecified) in the comprehensive sense of "universe." Sometimes the term is applied collectively to the creatures inhabiting this or var. other worlds, thus, "man, mankind, people, beings." -- Loka is not a fixed & def. term. It comprises immateriality as well as materiality and emphasizes either one or the other meaning according to the view applied to the object or category in question. Thus a trsln of "sphere, plane, division, order" interchanges with "world." Whenever the spatial element prevails we speak of its "regional" meaning as contrasted with "applied" meaning. The fundamental notion however is that of substantiality, to which is closely related the specific Buddhist notion of impermanence (loka=lujjati). -- 1. Universe: the distinctions between the universe (cp. cakkavāḷa) as a larger whole and the world as a smaller unit are fluctuating & not definite. A somewhat wider sphere is perhaps indicated by sabba -- loka (e. g. S i.12; iv.127, 312; v.132; It 122; Mhvs 1, 44; cp. sabbāvanta loka D i.251; iii.224), otherwise even the smaller loka comprises var. realms of creation. Another larger division is that of loka as sadevaka, samāraka, sabrahmaka, or the world with its devas, its Māra and its Brahmā, e. g. S i.160, 168, 207; ii.170; iii.28, 59; iv.158; v.204; A i.259 sq.; ii.24 sq.; iii.341; iv.56, 173; v.50; It 121; Nd1 447 (on Sn 956), to which is usually added sassamaṇa -- brāhmaṇī pajā (e. g. D i.250, see loci s. v. pajā). With this cp. Dh 45, where the divisions are paṭhavī, Yamaloka, sadevaka (loka), which are expld at DhA i.334 by paṭhavī=attabhāva; Yamaloka=catubbidha apāyaloka; sadevaka=manussaloka devalokena saddhiŋ. -- The universe has its evolutional periods: saŋvaṭṭati and vivaṭṭati D ii.109 sq. The Buddha has mastered it by his enlightenment: loko Tathāgatena abhisambuddho It 121. On loka, lokadhātu (=cosmos) and cakkavāḷa cp. Kirfel, Kosmographie p. 180, 181. <-> 2. Regional meaning. -- (a) in general. Referring to this world, the character of evanescence is inherent in it; referring to the universe in a wider sense, it implies infinity, though not in definite terms. There is mention of the different metaphysical theories as regards cosmogony at many places of the Canon.
... and also in what the same Pali dictionary refers to as "loka" in the logic (vinaya) of the ariyā
SN 35.116 wrote:That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline. And what, friends, is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world? The eye is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world . The ear … The nose … The tongue … The body … The mind is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world. That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline.
Both uses are found in the Pali Canon, and which one is to be applied in any given translation is usually evident from the context in which the term is used. To conflate both the aryan and conventional usages and imagine them to be one and the same is to mistake and/or misrepresent the Buddha's teaching, by effectively conflating the putthujana-eye with the dhamma-eye. Both eyes can be used, depending on the situation and type of investigation and analysis being done, but not when one is confounded as to which is being used. Hence my succinct note that triggered Chownah's conceptual proliferation...
Just curious... would you apply the same kind of dismissive logic to climate change, mass poverty, mass starvation, world wars etc.?
I would suggest that not conflating the two lokas (i.e. loka of the six sense spheres, and the loka which signifies the world in general) might lead to more consistency in these matters.