Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where does he say this? Do you think he would castigate cosmogony as "a useless, counterproductive and positively harmful distraction which drives people mad (in more ways than one)"?I agree with the Buddha that speculating about it either way, whether or not he/she/they/it exist(s) is a useless, counterproductive and positively harmful distraction which drives people mad (in more ways than one).
If you're thinking about some "historical" Buddha, I don't know. If you mean the Buddha in the scriptures ofDo you think he would castigate cosmogony as "a useless, counterproductive and positively harmful distraction which drives people mad (in more ways than one)"?
Thanks for answering the second of my two questions. Now, for those of us less familiar with "the Buddha in the scriptures of Hinduism," could you please cite your source?If you're thinking about some "historical" Buddha, I don't know. If you mean the Buddha in the scriptures of Hinduism, then yes.
Thanks for answering the second of my two questions. Now, for those of us less familiar with "the Buddha in the scriptures of Hinduism," could you please cite your source?
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
Magical thinking is what got us to where we are today and is at the heart of the very beginning of Science.I'm an atheist because I'm a fan of evidence.
I'm anti-religion because magical thinking might just destroy the planet.
Thanks. I found the quote to be wrong and disturbing.- Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable, translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Thanks for that. I think that's the first thing attributed to Buddha that I have found wrong, assuming that the words in brackets faithfully represent what was said and meant. Even if we remove those words, we've got a wrong-headed statement.Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
I agree with you that magical thinking is potentially dangerous, but I don't agree that all religions are a problem. The polytheists (I'm including the dharmics with the Druids, Wiccans, and other so-called pagans) seem to be mostly harmless since their focus seems to be earth-centered and their gods symbols for the elements of nature.I'm anti-religion because magical thinking might just destroy the planet.
Actually I don't think that applies to big bang theories for example, because they aren't claiming that the big bang is the first cause or origin of all being. It isn't affirming or denying the existence of a first cause or origin. It's just investigating the results of projecting current theories of relativity and quantum mechanics as far as they can into the past. I think the people who really understand it think that it fails some time before it actually reaches the time where it all converges to zero, and even then the researchers aren't saying that there isn't anything before that. Just that with current theories we can't go back any farther than that.Thanks for answering the second of my two questions. Now, for those of us less familiar with "the Buddha in the scriptures of Hinduism," could you please cite your source?
It isn't affirming or denying the existence of a first cause or origin.
I don't think that there is anything that anyone will ever be able to imagine, describe or define, that created the universe.
Thanissaro BhikkhuSo, for example, is "[the origin, etc., of]" your addition or that of Thanissaro Bhikkhu?
That's Buddhist sutta, not a Hindu scripture.- Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable, translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Pali:Given your quote ...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."
... it's rather hard to know precisely what is being affirmed or denied. So, for example, is "[the origin, etc., of]" your addition or that of Thanissaro Bhikkhu? When removed, the sentence simply rails against the pursuit of knowledge. That's a dangerous dogma.
Returning to your second post:
So you don't believe in the indescribable because it's indescribable? OK.