No Buddha did not have views.
That is the pre-requisite to become a Sotapanna.
Actually I am not worry at all.
I am just pointing the teaching the way I understand.
You are welcome to ask question.
It is another special teaching in Buddhism.
I asked a similar question to OP in the past and I will post the link to it later.
Hi Laurence,
Just to confirm something that was raised below by the mention of the Traibhumikatha, in the Pali commentarial tradition also the worlds were conceived of as flat, or rather, as layers oriented around a plane. I donât think thereâs an explicit statement on this in the EBTs, but it might be inferred by a careful study.
5 Likes
Fine, I am not asking a question about the duration of the cosmos - am I? Somebody else brought that up - bless their cotton socks!
There are two things I have been busy with: 1) did the Buddha have any idea about the fact that we are on a spheroidal rock hurtling through space and, 2) is it possible that the Buddha got it wrong when he concluded that âJambudvipaâ was an Island uponâ water? The latter âIsland upon waterâ theory has a long history. The Zoroastrians may also have a version of it, as they are also an âAryanâ religion - as in the Aryan tribe that invaded India.
I also needed to provide an explanation of why the Buddha may have come up with the âIsland upon waterâ theory and, why it is possible for an awakened being to have opinions and pet-theories that do not pertain to awakening - that have nothing to do with the liberating Dhamma.
I am still somewhat mystified as to why any of this seems unreasonable or, untenable?
That is all I have been doing - nothing else as far as I know?
A sotapanna does not have the view that ârights and ritualsâ can produce awakening. They donât have personality belief etc. They may have other views and opinions like: the pineapple pizza looks nicer than the green salad or vice versa. They may have the view: this person is an Arahant and He/She is not! They may have the view and opinion: this group of people have stupid beliefs - maybe the born-agains or, the conservative party or, the Moscow womenâs lawn tennis association. In contrast, they may think that that group - or individual - is making sense - seeing clearly.
Firstly, try to visualise what a view or opinion is and then decide if a âstream entererâ would have any?
I am not convinced that everyone in this thread has even considered what a view or an opinion actually is? I mean, taken a close look? It would be helpful - they come in many shapes and sizes. 
Actually, this is a good point.
I created a post but the very poor response so far.
Perhaps they did.
But what I like to know is what Buddha said about this.
I believe Ajahn Brahm is fond of the physics theory: the âMultiverseâ - this has a layer-cake model in it - multiple universes in a stack with hyperspace sandwiched between them. Xxoo
Unfortunately, sometimes we have to sugar coat the bitter pill.
We have to take everything in context.
I donât know if you have met Ajahn Brahm? He is a wonderful and much loved Dhamma teacher. He is also a physicist! Physicists entertain all sorts of theories, they often have models they prefer. They may decide they like string theory or the idea of parallel worlds etc. They have pet-theories that they may research. They may advocate or attempt to educate etc.
All this involves the expression of opinions and views, preferences and prejudices. They may be expressing professional opinions but they donât all agree with each other - far from it.
There are so many ways in which we give expression to opinions and views, likes and dislikes, preferences and prejudices. There is nothing mysterious about this - we all have our own ways of looking and being in the world.
1 Like
@Laurence
Finally penny droped!!!
Thank you for raising this question.
This is not a pet-theory it is Buddhas own experience.
The statement made by Buddha is the birds eye view of the earth from the outer space.
Just imagine you are in outer space gasing at the earth.
How would you describe earth.
You see the space, air, water and earth.
Now I am convinced that Buddha had super normal powers.
Now I am convinced Buddha knew that the earth is spherical.
Perhaps he knew that a person like you and me will ask this question one day.
So he kept it like a secret code without rocking the popular belief in his time.
So thank you again asking this question.
I asked the same question in DW about three and a half years ago.
I have come a long way since that question.
I hope you also continue with your quest for the realisation of the truth.
Hear is the link enjoy reading.
1 Like
Not wishing to muddy the waters even more, but ⊠the earth bit of Earth floats on liquid (lava) as tectonic plates.
5 Likes
There is nothing unreasonable about it.
I was replying to the whole thread.
Regardless of if they knew or didnât know that the Earth was spherical, nearly every culture knew that there was âsome sort of curvatureâ. Why? Ships appear mast-first on the horizon.
3 Likes
Wouldnât the earth have to be spherical for the sun (and moon) to revolve around it?
With metta
Exactly my point about the 2nd grader questioning the teacherâs ability to do 2-digit addition. The ability to see countless world systems automatically assumes the ability to see a spherical earth. If the teacherâs able to talk about differential equations, topology, and combinatorics, asking him about 2-digit addition would be an absurdity. By the way, on the topic about critical thinking and intelligence, letâs hear Prof. Neil Degrasse Tysonâs brilliant analogy about our human intelligence here:
2 Likes
Why is it necessary for something to be round for something else to circle/revolve around it? I can circle a chair, a mountain and - metaphorically speaking - an island in a cosmic ocean? Maybe the sun and moon revolve around an island called: jambudippa, in a cosmic ocean? That makes sense! I also thought we had established that the sun and moon donât revolve around our island home - is this grounds for healthy scepticism?
It is also interesting to use the translation ârevolveâ instead of circle or, such like! When we think of revolve it makes it easier to make the association with actual planets etc. The planets in our solar system revolve around the sun, the moon revolves around the Earth and so on, whereas sun and moon circling an island in a cosmic sea might be a bit closer to the original meaning? The question also arises: does it actually say the sun and moon circle âJambudippaâ or is there just a vague reference to revolving/circling/circumnavigating/circumambulation or, something about âa path surrounding somethingâ (see below)?
online definition:
âParikrama or Pradakshina refers to circumambulation of sacred places in Hindu, Jain or Buddhist context. Parikrama means âthe path surrounding somethingâ in Sanskrit, and is also known as Pradakshina (âto the rightâ), representing circumambulation. ⊠Pradaksina paths are defined.â
Not at all.
If accept without questioning it is blind faith.
Asking question removes doubt.
According to Buddhism Lava also come under the same category of water (Apo)
2 Likes
Are we to conclude that the Buddha was talking about the molten and solid layers of the Earth - earth established upon liquid? The centre of the Earth is a solid mass - I think iron - it then has a molten layer and then the crust. It is the solid core that gives us magnetic north and magnetic south - the Earthâs magnetic field - the north and south poles. The Buddha would then have said âliquid established upon earth then, earth established upon liquid then atmosphere then spaceâ?