son of dhamma wrote:I was addressing that to everyone, I'm sure. You've said that you're not denying the existence of devas, and claiming a reasoning for the Buddha to explain cosmology and the arising of life that is other than showing the real cosmology. You've been saying that. But the Buddha is said to be teacher of gods and to have taught the Brahma you've been talking about. All throughout the Canon. I don't see the base for you claim, anywhere. I'm trying to, but I don't see why you would have grounds to think this way unless you took the entire scripture at face value. And you might say that his teaching of awakening doesn't concern these things, but you can't read the teaching of awakening without standing neck-deep in devas and brahmas and hell, and rebirth.
Damdifino what you think I am saying, though I have been quite clear.
His mother even became a devi in Tusita, upon dieing some time after the birth of Siddhatta.
The name Siddhattha is not found in the suttas. It is, rather, a name coined after the death of the Buddha as his "life story" was being composed by those who came after him as is the story of his mother and the origins of the Abhidhamma. This not at all unlike what the Mahayanists have done in their claims about their sutras.
The Buddha was using the current representation of the world to explain the reality of the cosmological structure. The people would not have understand that the world was a sphere, they would not have understand galaxies, or galactic clusters, or the universe.
This is sort of correct. He did use the Brahmanical stories to make a point by turning the Brahmanical stories into Buddhist stories that really are critiques of the basis of the Brahmanical claims.
Just because the Brahmanistic ideas were so similar to the real cosmos, doesn't mean that the Buddha was just fabricating something to convince them of their fallacy. What if the Buddha arose in such a time of those ideas to correct them? That is much more plausible, and it doesn't rip apart the scripture, either.
It only "rips apart" anything if you are stuck on having to have the security of a literalist point of view, and then you are stuck with having to act like other literalist such as Xtian fundamentalists when confronted with science, making the Dhamma look stupid.