Agganna Sutta

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
son of dhamma
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by son of dhamma »

Yet doesn't mean anything to science. And the day that it becomes scientifically verifiable, why would I deny it? You are clearly favoring scientific theory. I'm not favoring either side, that's my thought.
I really don't think I have anything of use to you all to say.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

Yet doesn't mean anything to science.
What doesnt?
You are clearly favoring scientific theory.
Whats wrong with that?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

son of dhamma wrote: What I really said was, "scientific evidence cannot even remotely suggest that such beings cannot possibly exist." Science can't, absolutely cannot suggest that these beings have no possibility of existing if it cannot include them or phenomena related to them in its field of study. Science can neither affirm nor negate the existence of these beings, and that's what I said. If you disagree with that, then you have grounds for name-calling, I think.
You might want to try writing a little more clearly and you might want to try reading what is written a little more carefully.
I think also that I clearly have separated scientific study from what I'm talking about. And just so I've made is explicitly clear, Form beings, Formless beings, and really material beings of other planes are definitely outside the realm of scientific study and when I speak of them I'm not speaking of scientific study or theory
.At best, what you have been writing has been muddled.
Abiogenesis is not a concrete, exact science. No one has produced a living organism from those tests. Creationist science is ridiculous.
Are you saying that a living organism will not be produced from those experiments, are you saying that nothing valid has come from those experiments? And you read all those linked articles?
This hyper-presumptuous forum is ridiculous.
Maybe it is your lack of clarity and your possible presumptuousness that might be contributing to the communication difficulty here.
"So you are not Theravadin." There isn't even a question mark at the end of that sentence. This is rude, people. Are you human beings or what?
Read what you wrote; it is, at best ambiguous.
As for everything else, I'm not going to throw out definitions of Bodhisatta and world-system for your scrutiny. UNHELPFUL to this discussion, as I said.
Once the Buddha awakened, he was not a bodhisatta, so who knows what you mean by that term. And as for world system, it is an interesting concept, but not one that fits all too well with modern astronomy.
The fault was completely mine due to my careless speaking. I must have been speaking carelessly because so many of you general people have had the same misconceptions about my thoughts. I apologize for that.
General people? I though I was a specific people. It is good to see that you are acknowledging the source of the problem here.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

son of dhamma wrote:Yet doesn't mean anything to science. And the day that it becomes scientifically verifiable, why would I deny it? You are clearly favoring scientific theory. I'm not favoring either side, that's my thought.
That is not how you have come across in your msgs above.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
son of dhamma
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by son of dhamma »

I'm glad that you understand my acknowledgment. I am very discouraged by you attitude. On four of these characterized responses, you commented on my non-clarity or muddled speech. That's not necessary. I also answered that "I am a conservative disciple of the Buddhadhamma, and because I am in complete agreement with the Theravada I am thus a member of the tradition.
I don't have any value in this discussion.
I apologize if I haven't come across accordingly.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

son of dhamma wrote:I'm glad that you understand my acknowledgment. I am very discouraged by you attitude. On four of these characterized responses, you commented on my non-clarity or muddled speech. That's not necessary. I also answered that "I am a conservative disciple of the Buddhadhamma, and because I am in complete agreement with the Theravada I am thus a member of the tradition.
I don't have any value in this discussion.
I apologize if I haven't come across accordingly.
with metta
First of all this is a debate. No onre here is saying naughty things about your mother, so I would suggest that you not tie yourself up in knots over this, but that is your choice. There is always something to be learned from this sort of thing, and one of the things this sort of debate offers is a chance to learn how to express yourself with some degree of clarity. Also, there is always someoine who knows more than you do.

As for being a "conservative Theravadin," fine. There are a fair few here. What is interesting is that as one moves through the Dhamma over the years, whether you want to or not, you will redefine things for yourself, which is as it should be. Beliefs are tools and experiences can be illuminating, but we can also fool ourselves all to easily based upon our beliefs and our experiences. It is a balancing act that is well worth the effort. No need to apologize; just relax a little.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
son of dhamma
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by son of dhamma »

I am relaxed. Thanks very much for explaining what it means to be a Buddhist to me. I'm not tying myself into knots, I simply have nothing to offer. I realize that I was not expressing my ideas clearly to you, but that does not mean I don't express ideas clearly. It was these ideas in this context that were not clear. I do have developed expressive skills, as I talk discursively with a wide variety of different-thinking people.
I said conservative disciple of the Buddhadhamma, and that I am a Theravada Buddhist. That is being clear, whereas you reworded me as to say "conservative Theravadin". Not good debate etiquette, Tilt. I am in a constant process of redefinition as I actually understand the nature of a mind in constant flux. Furthermore I hardly expressed any of my profound ideas here, as they were not appropriate, and such things I would not call "beliefs" under any circumstances. I've never liked believing. You don't have anything to assume that I fool myself with my beliefs and experiences.
I'm not sore or disliking of this discussion. I said clearly that I'm of no more use to it. Many other people aren't, also.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Jason »

Interesting topic. I've been thinking about this recently as well. Here's part of something I wrote about a month ago:
  • As for DN 27, the Buddha tells a story about the beginning of life on this world to two brahmins which, in the end, was used to illustrate how the way to liberation is beyond caste and lineage. So, in this regard, the Buddha does give what can be interpreted as a rough theory of evolution to the pair of brahmins in that the physical characteristics of the mythological beings in question change due to environmental changes and interactions, as well as a description the universe somewhat akin to the oscillating universe theory.

    I think that, when taken literally, the creation myth in DN 27 can be seen as an attempt to give a naturalistic explanation of the origins of life and the universe, and Darwin's fairly well-proven theory of evolution isn't inconsistent with Buddhism, which makes many new Buddhists breath a sigh of relief. That being said, I agree with Prof. Gombrich that, taking the context of DN 27 into account, this sutta is a lively and ingenious parody that was actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development (How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings, pg. 81-82).

    Personally, I see Buddhism as dealing exclusively with mental stress and its cessation (i.e., psychology), not biology, or physics, etc. And while some people get excited when they discover that Buddhism contains teachings which seem to be in accord with modern science, I think they can often be misleading and shouldn't be taken too seriously, or at least, too literally. I think this is especially true of DN 27 considering that recent observations of cosmic background radiation indicate the universe is actually expanding at an accelerated rate, hence there may not be any contraction or 'Big Crunch.' (Lawrence Krauss mentions this in his talk at the 2009 AAI Conference; although it should also be noted that Roger Penrose recently challenged the commonly-held 'inflationary theory' of cosmology with his suggestion that analysis of cosmic microwave background shows echoes of previous Big Bang-like events.)
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

son of dhamma wrote:I am relaxed. Thanks very much for explaining what it means to be a Buddhist to me.
I am not explaining what it means to be a Buddhist to you or anyone else. That you will need to figure out for yourself with a good teacher.
I said conservative disciple of the Buddhadhamma, and that I am a Theravada Buddhist. That is being clear, whereas you reworded me as to say "conservative Theravadin". Not good debate etiquette, Tilt.
Okay, if you say so.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

Jason wrote:Interesting topic. I've been thinking about this recently as well. Here's part of something I wrote about a month ago:
  • As for DN 27, the Buddha tells a story about the beginning of life on this world to two brahmins which, in the end, was used to illustrate how the way to liberation is beyond caste and lineage. So, in this regard, the Buddha does give what can be interpreted as a rough theory of evolution to the pair of brahmins in that the physical characteristics of the mythological beings in question change due to environmental changes and interactions, as well as a description the universe somewhat akin to the oscillating universe theory.

    I think that, when taken literally, the creation myth in DN 27 can be seen as an attempt to give a naturalistic explanation of the origins of life and the universe, and Darwin's fairly well-proven theory of evolution isn't inconsistent with Buddhism, which makes many new Buddhists breath a sigh of relief. That being said, I agree with Prof. Gombrich that, taking the context of DN 27 into account, this sutta is a lively and ingenious parody that was actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development (How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings, pg. 81-82).

    Personally, I see Buddhism as dealing exclusively with mental stress and its cessation (i.e., psychology), not biology, or physics, etc. And while some people get excited when they discover that Buddhism contains teachings which seem to be in accord with modern science, I think they can often be misleading and shouldn't be taken too seriously, or at least, too literally. I think this is especially true of DN 27 considering that recent observations of cosmic background radiation indicate the universe is actually expanding at an accelerated rate, hence there may not be any contraction or 'Big Crunch.' (Lawrence Krauss mentions this in his talk at the 2009 AAI Conference; although it should also be noted that Roger Penrose recently challenged the commonly-held 'inflationary theory' of cosmology with his suggestion that analysis of cosmic microwave background shows echoes of previous Big Bang-like events.)
Excellent. Thank you.

Bears repeating:

this sutta is a lively and ingenious parody that was actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

Personally, I see Buddhism as dealing exclusively with mental stress and its cessation (i.e., psychology), not biology, or physics, etc.

And this is the crux of the matter


:goodpost: :clap: :clap: :twothumbsup:
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
son of dhamma
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by son of dhamma »

I agree that it is the entire point. But then why did you ask for everyone else's interpretation of the sutta? Every time someone responded by saying that it WASN'T essential to the teachings of the Buddha, of awakening, you specifically applauded that statement. As did everyone else.
But the question was for interpretations of the sutta.
I am asking this for future discursive purposes as far as this forum is concerned. Why is this particular discussion, in the debate forum, set-up and carried out in this manner?
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

son of dhamma wrote:I agree that it is the entire point. But then why did you ask for everyone else's interpretation of the sutta? Every time someone responded by saying that it WASN'T essential to the teachings of the Buddha, of awakening, you specifically applauded that statement. As did everyone else.
But the question was for interpretations of the sutta.
I am asking this for future discursive purposes as far as this forum is concerned. Why is this particular discussion, in the debate forum, set-up and carried out in this manner?
with metta


Look at the date when I posted it


I have changed since then
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

son of dhamma wrote:I agree that it is the entire point. But then why did you ask for everyone else's interpretation of the sutta? Every time someone responded by saying that it WASN'T essential to the teachings of the Buddha, of awakening, you specifically applauded that statement. As did everyone else.
But the question was for interpretations of the sutta.
I am asking this for future discursive purposes as far as this forum is concerned. Why is this particular discussion, in the debate forum, set-up and carried out in this manner?
with metta
Unclear as to whom you are addressing here.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
son of dhamma
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by son of dhamma »

clw_uk wrote:
Look at the date when I posted it

I have changed since then
Ah, that is very helpful! Thanks very much clw_uk. In the future I will cross-check dates and respond accordingly to that awareness. Until a future time.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
Post Reply