I read such things as being ancient commentary. The result of adding some flare to a dhamma talk, that the audience at the time could connect with. Overtime, it became “fact”.
The Buddha never claimed to be scientifically omniscient and never said his teachings were about scientific facts that were not known during his time – let alone what would have been scientifically unknown in even earlier times during his past lives.
As we all know, he taught the 4 NTs as dukkha, its cause(s), its cessation, and the way (N8FP) leading to its cessation – and said this was the purpose and goal of his teachings.
If we wish, we can stop right there and let go of concerns and papañca-nizing about why he didn’t discover penicillin, know about the gravitational constant of the universe, etc.
Does such speculation reduce dukkha and cultivate wholesome qualities?
If the Buddha taught the earth was as flat as a pancake it wouldn’t undermine the truth, purpose, and benefits of his teachings.
4 Likes
It would though cast some doubt on the claim that he remembered past lives, and so would change the nature of the 4NT and the whole practice somewhat.
4 Likes
If somebody started talking about the Avengers universe as if it were real, we would view them as mentally unbalanced. However, when the Buddha in MN 81 talks about his past life as a Brahmin with Buddha Kassapa in the Ganges Valley during the time of the dinosaurs (or even earlier) as an apparently real story, we somehow don’t have the same dismissive (or concerned) attitude.
Regarding the self-selection bias: is it more reliable to infer population rebirth probabilities from multiple scientific case studies, or should we trust some specious claims from ancient texts that already demonstrate faulty assumptions about the natural world at nearly every turn? I concede your point about the self-selection bias, but to me it seems that the ‘bias’ of the ancient texts is much more problematic.
The 32 marks are such an obviously silly interpolation into the suttas, I didn’t even remember to mention them in this thread. 
Such speculation (or critical inquiry, to use a more generous term) may encourage detachment from the texts, which are themselves part of samsara; imperfect transmissions which should probably not be clung to with excessive fervor.
As @Ceisiwr just mentioned, if the Buddha actually believed in flat earth, then it calls into question the entire notion that he accurately remembered countless past lives.
It would be interesting to see where suttas which seem to suggest this are most often found. I would guess they are mostly found in the DN and its parallels. Worth taking into consideration that the canon as we have it was consciously edited and put together by the Sangha when the Buddha had died with DN material being aimed at potential converts, mostly Brahmins. Brahmins of course, and Jains, already having that worldview.
I explained my take about the 32 marks a long time ago. I do not have any problem with it.
Sometimes, because of misunderstanding, we judge this or that. It is always better to refrain from making judgments (especially to the noble ones) about what we think because most of the time, I found that we are often wrong in our understanding.
1 Like
My point is that if I say “was Thanos right or wrong?” everyone in my audience would know I don’t think Thanos is literally real, because the Avengers universe is part of a shared culture between me and my audience.
I can effortlessly reference Thanos without needing to explain it’s not real, that’s the point 
Where did you get that timeline from?
There is of course another way of looking at this. If we assume the Buddha did give Dhamma talks where he spoke of Mount Meru or a flat earth, it could be because he was just using the generally accepted worldview at the time. The Buddha was aiming to undo a delusion, rather than establish a theory or philosophy. It could have been the case then that he did make use of these concepts despite his knowledge of past lives, because to teach otherwise would then the Dhamma into a scientific theory about the world. Monks and nuns then would be engaging in the kind of debates the Buddha wanted them to avoid. Later on many of the Sangha went on to develop proto-scientific theories with the Abhidharmas, and so ended up in those very debates the Buddha warned against. I’m reminded of this sutta
Sir, the few leaves in your hand are a tiny amount. There are far more leaves in the forest above.”
“In the same way, there is much more that I have directly known but have not explained to you. What I have explained is a tiny amount. And why haven’t I explained it? Because it’s not beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. It doesn’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. That’s why I haven’t explained it.
And what have I explained? I have explained: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’.
And why have I explained this? Because it’s beneficial and relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. It leads to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. That’s why I’ve explained it.
SN 56.31
3 Likes
I still don’t understand your analogy. According to the sutta, the Buddha supposedly pointed at a physical location and said, more or less, ‘I was born there a long time ago, with the last Buddha, and society was just the same back then as it is today’. If anybody did this nowadays, we would immediately assume they had either mental problems or ignorance of human history.
Where did you get that timeline from?
In the sutta, the Buddha describes a typical 5th century BC scene in India. It couldn’t have taken place in the directly preceding centuries, unless the Indians forgot the Buddha Kassapa almost immediately after he passed away. That, plus the ‘once upon a time’ phrase, makes me assume that the story refers to the distant past.
If he knew that the ancient Indian cosmology was false, but still actively participated in it, then this would have reinforced a collective delusion in his audience, which seems like unbecoming behavior for a fully enlightened sage.
As a more sagely alternative, he could have simply remained silent on cosmological issues, and if anybody inquired on that subject, he could have pointed out the uselessness of wondering about such matters. But that’s not what the suttas portray - instead, the Buddha (supposedly) told exquisite tales about seven suns consuming Mt Meru, the origins of humanity from devolved devas, etc.
2 Likes
If I say we met at sunrise and we did in fact meet then what I said is true, despite it being false. The sun doesn’t rise. The Earth revolves. Us meeting at sunrise is true, from a certain point of view. The Buddha used worldly conventions, even if ultimately they aren’t true. For example, was he lying when he told village folk they they would be reborn? From a certain point of view, their point of view, they would be reborn. From a higher perspective, there is emptiness. I don’t see an issue with the Buddha saying there are 4 elements if really he knew there were atoms, or some higher scientific understanding
“Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”
Obi-Wan Kenobi
As a more sagely alternative, he could have simply remained silent on cosmological issues, and if anybody inquired on that subject, he could have pointed out the uselessness of wondering about such matters. But that’s not what the suttas portray - instead, the Buddha (supposedly) told exquisite tales about seven suns consuming Mt Meru, the origins of humanity from devolved devas, etc.
The best way to communicate with people is to use language they understand. This is why many complicated religious ideas are framed in simple terms in many religions.
2 Likes
Why?
The teachings are not limited by whatever scientific facts were or were not known at the time. His remembrance of past lives was a direct experience.
Thanks.
This point seems logically unconnected from the truths the Buddha taught which,as he said, were from his his direct experience.
They offer teachings which lead beings out of saṁsāra, so best not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The Buddha said to let go of the raft after one has realized the “other shore” of liberation, as in MN22:
“Mendicants, I will teach you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft: it’s for crossing over, not for holding on.”
The teachings are not to be blindly clung to but they’re needed to clear out the defilements and to develop the insight needed for final liberation.
In this way, they’re precious and extraordinarily valuable.
1 Like
From the conventional point of view, it is true that the sun ‘rises’ (from our perspective). However, from that same conventional point of view, it is false to say that the sun orbits around Mt Meru. There is no ‘perspective’ in which that would be true, other than the perspective of ignorance. It’s the difference between 2+2=4 (a conventional truth), and the horns of a hare (a conventional falsehood).
The texts state that the Buddha’s enlightenment was based on his recollection of past lives and his destruction of the taints. Logically, if he was delusional about the former, then it would follow that he could have been delusional about the latter.
The offer teachings which take beings out of samsāra, so best not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The teachings are not to be blindly clung to but they’re needed to clear out the defilements and for final liberation.
I completely agree. There is profound wisdom in the suttas, so I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, I do want to keep the baby, and flush away the bathwater. And the claims of past life memories in the suttas are beginning to smell like bathwater to me.
1 Like
From the perspective of Iron Age Indians, it was true. The sun also arose for them, because the earth was flat. It was accepted as true back then, like the earth element. Today there is no such thing as an earth element. Science of course never arrives at what’s true, just what’s the most likely current theory.
Well, that’s up to you.
But, again, how one comes to suspect the Buddha’s seeing and understanding of past lives, as directly known and experienced by him, as possibly dubious because people at the time did not know the shape of the earth appears logically unconnected.
In either case, as mentioned in a prior post, his teachings remain effective and beneficial whether the earth is spherical or flat.
We’re dealing with different sorts of truths and purposes here.
Scientific truth in itself does not lead to liberation from dukkha and the Dhamma does not, and is not meant to, explain the physics of supernovas.
1 Like
‘A noble disciple with right immersion truly sees any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’’
It seems there are no facts regarding the Material World other than that it is a composed thing. Composed things are regarded dukkha so we should let it go.
I suppose any reference to the physical world is merely used to point to its dukkha nature. Wether earth is flat or not simply doesn’t matter with regards to nibbana.
1 Like
Hi @ahimsa,
Welcome to the D&D forum!
Enjoy the multiple resources here available: may these be of assistance along the path.
Should you have any questions about the forum, feel free to contact the @moderators.
With Metta,
Ric
On behalf of the moderators
1 Like
Well, civilization in the Indus valley could go back at least 8000 years, giving plenty of time for rise and collapse of more organized civilization, one which could have contained the Buddha Kassapa – who would be an echo of a distant memory (perhaps) in the time of the Buddha.
This is such a harsh way of expressing your feelings about the EBTs. You must know this is likely to be very unpleasant to read for many here on D&D?
3 Likes
From what I can gather, the Aryans arrived in India around 1500 BC, so that permits maybe 1000 years of Brahminical society in the Kosalan region before Gotama Buddha.
This is such a harsh way of expressing your feelings about the EBTs. You must know this is likely to be very unpleasant to read for many here on D&D?
I don’t wish to offend anybody, but who said seeking the truth was supposed to be pleasant? We have to be willing to challenge and let go of all our preconceived notions and views if there is to be any chance of finding freedom. In my experience, using mental gymnastics to justify objective falsehoods in ancient texts is a form of suffering.
2 Likes
But the Aryans could have adopted a system that was already in place, which seems to be a pretty common tactic used by invaders.
Also, a 1000 years is a lot, maybe it’s enough for a rise and fall, who knows…
Agree 100% 
For general history, I highly recommend The Dawn of Everything by Graber and Wengrow. It’s not about Indian history, but it gives a sense of the vast diversity of past societies.
I would also recommend learning more about the scientific process in general 
in my experience, people tend to overestimate modern science’s ability to produce objective facts about the world.
2 Likes