Could you supply references to indicate the source of your information and idea?
That’s one good way to make it so that the Buddha didn’t make such a mistake!
Ajahn, I believe the venerable one of the pali canon was wrong about the reason the weather sometimes becomes cool 
As in the cool cloud deva I think this counts as not “otherworldly” as it seems he is getting asked directly why it becomes cool. However, I think this might be a good teaching - when conditons change, and you feel hard done by, nevermind, have sympathetic joy for the cool cloud devas who are reveling in their own particular kind of delight
At Sāvatthī.
Seated to one side, that mendicant said to the Buddha:
“Sir, what is the cause, what is the reason why sometimes it becomes cool?”
“Mendicant, there are what are called gods of the cool clouds. Sometimes they think: ‘Why don’t we revel in our own kind of enjoyment?’ Then, in accordance with their wish, it becomes cool. This is the cause, this is the reason why sometimes it becomes cool.”
Next time it is “too hot” just remember, the warm cloud devas are reveling in ther own particular kind of joy
1 Like
I’m guessing that Bhante Pesala’s ultimate source is the commentary to SN. Here is one of Venerable Bodhi’s notes on the sutta in his SN translation (“Spk” is the commentary):
3 Likes
Many thanks indeed for your reply, Mkoll, BhikkhuPesala,
According to the Pali commentary, hunters who make a living by killing deer or animals and birds are carrying out bad kamma.
How about fishermen who make a living by killing fishes? Does the Pali tradition also consider fishermen carrying out bad kamma?
As Mkoll pointed out, it is found in the commentary, not in the sutta. That means, the Buddha does not say the kamma story.
Simple logic, yes. Killing produces bad kamma, when done intentionally.
Let’s speak science wise, the weather prediction using the best super computer is limited by chaos. So this means that there’s no practical way to rule out beings like devas controlling the weather with their will, sometimes. Thus, one couldn’t categorically say that this is where the Buddha got wrong.
1 Like
Logically, yes. But it seems no such information found in the Pali texts.
Seriously?
AN 4.264: Pāṇātipātīsutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)
A search on killing and simply pick one, I got one. It’s repeated many times to avoid killing. It’s bad kamma.
Yes. But I refer to “fishermen”.
I don’t understand how being fishermen lies outside of killing.
AN 5.177: Vaṇijjāsutta—Thanissaro Bhikkhu (suttacentral.net)
“Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
“These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.”
Fishermen are certainly not outside of killing.
But in terms of livelihood specifically for bad kamma, the Pali texts do not mention fishermen, but only hunters, or a bird-catcher (sākuṇiko; SN 19.3: SN II 256). Cf. pp. 80-1 in Choong Mun-keat “A comparison of the Chinese and Pāli Saṃyukta /Saṃyuttas on the Venerable Mahā-Maudgalyāyana (Mahā-Moggallāna)”, Buddhist Studies Review (Journal of the UK Association for Buddhist Studies), v. 34.1 (2017), pp. 67-84.
Hi Doug! Pleasure to see you here, I wanted to tell you I loved your video on Sariputta.
Moving on, in regards to the four elements, there is some difference in the concept between later brahmanic literal interpretations (ie; elements are literal earth, fire, etc) and the buddhist understanding of them. Using the equivalent states of matter is a good comparison but it’s not quite right. Mostly because the elements way of organizing matter was in a much broader range than our modern physics.
EARTH: Solid or attractive forces fall under here.
WATER: Liquid or forces of relative motion fall here.
AIR: Gases typically, repulsive and expansive forces fall here.
FIRE: Heat and energy, anywhere energy is in prominence falls here.
The Dhātuvibhaṅgasutta is an example of this typical usage of the four elements. The understanding then is still correct as any of these things can be found in the human body.
2 Likes
Thanks @Danamitra ! I have a new video out on Ānanda as well just now … 
Yes one could make similar apologia about most ancient cultures’ usages of natural terms like the classical elements. That is, folks back then weren’t foolish, they were looking at the phenomena around them and finding useful generalizations that had some truth to them. But as our experimental techniques have become more refined we have essentially come to realize that those earlier generalizations, while useful and perhaps even true in a broad sense, aren’t really correct as regards what’s really going on. That is, the material world isn’t really made up of four kinds of things.
Now, the Buddha wasn’t interested in constructing a comprehensive theory of matter; he was interested in ending dukkha, and whether there are four elements or a hundred eighteen doesn’t really make a difference to the ending of dukkha. So all this establishes is that he wasn’t literally omniscient, which we already know from other examples listed in the above thread.
2 Likes
So, this whole thing is off topic. However, obviously fishermen are killing, therefore committing bad karma. I can’t understand why you would think this is any different than hunting. They are hunting and killing fish. Just so happens we have a different name for it. But since it’s totally off topic, could you please start a new thread if you still have doubts.
3 Likes
I have always been wondering if it was a good idea of the Buddha to explain to king Ajātasattu’s minister Vassakāra the particular reasons for the strength of the Vajjis, so that the king knew how to undermine their strenght and defeat the Vajjis. Would it not have been a better idea to try to convince him not to make a war?
AN7.22:1.1: So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha, on the Vulture’s Peak Mountain. Now at that time King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Māgadha wanted to invade the Vajjis. He declared: “I shall wipe out these Vajjis, so mighty and powerful! I shall destroy them, and lay ruin and devastation upon them!”
2 Likes
Maybe Buddha didn’t simply use his mind reading powers on everyone. The sutta anyway is useful for the 7 factors of non decline for the monks.
Like I can teach you nuclear physics, you can use the knowledge to build a nuclear power plant, or nuclear bomb. What you do is on you.
Since you mentioned physics… I totally would map this another way.
EARTH: element of solidity, hardness, softness, roughness, etc. Solidity in physics is due to electromagnetic repulsion between electrons for atoms to atoms. Going down to subatomic world, solidity (for fermions) is due to Pauli’s exclusion principle (no two same quantum states, including same location can exist together). Examples of fermions are electrons, and bosons (the other category) are not subject to Pauli’s exclusion principle so light, photon, an example of a boson can pass through each other and gather together into a laser.
WATER: element of cohesion. This I take it to mean the 4 fundamental forces in physics. If we examine what cohesion in water is due to, it’s due to hydrogen-oxygen bond between different water molecules. That’s basically back to electromagnetic forces. I added in the other 3 forces just cause the others doesn’t seem to be able to fit them.
AIR : element of motion. Due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, even if we can cool something down to 0 kelvin, there’ll still be motion. It’s also the capturing of the concept of kinetic energy, momentum, etc.
FIRE : element of heat. Temperature is able to be measured everywhere, and hear flows from hot to cold. At the very least, electromagnetic radiation of stuffs, even of the cosmic microwave background radiation gives everything a temperature. Also kinetic theory of gasses confirm that heat is motion of molecules. So it’s very hard to make a clear distinction between the elements once we bring in physics.
Yes, indeed.
They are fishing, which is catching or killing fish, not hunting. Hunting is searching for wild animals or birds with the intention of killing or catching them.
A friendly reminder to kindly stay on topic
Don’t divert a topic by changing it midstream
If you feel some aspect of a particular thread is worth further discussion, start a new thread. This can be quickly done by using the ‘Reply as linked topic’ option.
9 Likes