The Flat Earth in Buddhist Cosmology

[Yoder777]

It's worth noting that, according to ancient Buddhist cosmology, the earth is flat with Mount Sumeru at the center. I don't think that we should necessarily take everything we read in the sutras at face value. On the other hand, I don't think we should just blindly believe something for being popularly accepted either. I know this might be crazy, but I am open to whatever possible evidence there may be of the earth being flat, especially since I have no dog in the fight over whether it's flat or round.

http://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2015/07/buddhisms-flat-earth-cosmology.html

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Believing that the earth is flat in 2016 is just deliberate, cultivated ignorance.

 

[Yoder777]

I don't literally believe in a flat earth. I just want to be 100% informed on what Buddhist cosmology traditionally taught and why.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I don't literally believe in a flat earth. I just want to be 100% informed on what Buddhist cosmology traditionally taught and why.

The why is simple:
a) They did not put as much stock in hard facts, and more in the symbolic quality of things. (Which is why medieval maps placed Jerusalem at the exact centre of a very orderly planet earth, which in turn was at the very centre of the cosmos).
b) They did not have the means to know any better. (Even though people *did* find out that the earth was spherical rather than flat, even in antiquity.)

 

[Robban]

It's worth noting that, according to ancient Buddhist cosmology, the earth is flat with Mount Sumeru at the center. I don't think that we should necessarily take everything we read in the sutras at face value. On the other hand, I don't think we should just blindly believe something for being popularly accepted either. I know this might be crazy, but I am open to whatever possible evidence there may be of the earth being flat, especially since I have no dog in the fight over whether it's flat or round.

http://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2015/07/buddhisms-flat-earth-cosmology.html

First I know nothing of Buddist teachings.

But would suspect it is not talking about a flat Earth as such.

East and west, what difference does make on a round Earth?

If one for example lifts off from say, London Airport and flies west,
and keeps on going, they will end up in London again.

Same if they fly east, because the Earth is round.

But with certain texts and what they want to convey,
the approach has to be different.
To get the meaning of what the text is saying.

Like in a lot of things, would reckon.

 

[Yoder777]

I personally don't see how a flat earth fits with the Buddhist rejection of a Creator God. I can't think of any natural explanation for there possibly being a flat earth.
At the same time, I think that the descriptions of a flat earth in Buddhist literature may have been based on mystical or meditational experiences, rather than a literal observation.

 

[Yoder777]

To be honest, I haven't seen any evidence that the Buddha himself taught a flat earth in the first place. Sure, early Buddhists may have believed in a flat earth due to the cosmology popular in India at the time, but I've seen no evidence that the Buddha himself taught it.

I'm reminded of this quote by the Dalai Lama, "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

 

[gordonbennett]

Believing that the earth is flat in 2016 is just deliberate, cultivated ignorance.

The only ignorant thing here is your comment. Flat Earth is a very old belief, a pagan should have more respect for it I reckon.

 

[awitch]

The only ignorant thing here is your comment. Flat Earth is a very old belief, a pagan should have more respect for it I reckon.

Thread necromancy alert.

We've known the earth was not flat since the 5th century BC. No, we don't respect flat earth. Modern Pagans do not believe things just because ancient people once did. That's equally ridiculous.

 

[Zoness]

Let's not forget how long ago 5c BCE actually was; that means Mediterranean pagans alone would have believed in a round Earth for nearly a thousand years, if we say that Roman Paganism officially ended around the time Julian closed the Academy.

And like awitch already said, modern pagans tend to align closely with scientific understandings of the world and confront the facts head-on. You won't make friends in that space easily as a flat-earther, and for good reason.

 

[gordonbennett]

Thread necromancy alert.

We've known the earth was not flat since the 5th century BC. No, we don't respect flat earth. Modern Pagans do not believe things just because ancient people once did. That's equally ridiculous.

I beg to differ, we've known no such thing. The idea that the earth is a ball is an extreme view because what you are saying is everything can be the right way up and upside down at the same time although we know that to be patently silly. Your only bit of evidence for this nonsense, it seems, is a picture you were told was taken from space. No one can show us how a body of water can bend outside of a container and therefore according to the scientific method means it's not demonstrable (a necessary criteria in the natural sciences, you'll agree). Your view is non-scientific and until you can demonstrate how to get a body of water to bend and stick to a ball is-at best-hypothetical. It's not enough to appeal to authority for your beliefs, you really do need to think about what you're being asked to believe. Then you might understand why the ancients took the view they did.

In my comment, if you were paying attention, you would have noticed I never mentioned the word 'belief'. The word I used, was 'respect' which is somewhat different. I don't think you are really trying to understand why ancient peoples believed the earth was flat simply because you feel those beliefs can be safely dismissed because you already believe you know the truth although you are only taking someone else's word for it. In other words your view on the subject is only a belief and until you can demonstrate what you claim, always will be.

 

[awitch]

I beg to differ, we've known no such thing.

Pardon me, whilst I snicker out loud.

In other words your view on the subject is only a belief and until you can demonstrate what you claim, always will be.

If you want to believe the earth is flat, be my guest.
I don't tend to respect beliefs that are patently false.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The only ignorant thing here is your comment. Flat Earth is a very old belief, a pagan should have more respect for it I reckon.

Erroneous beliefs do not gain validity based on their age. Quite the contrary: the further back you go, the more false assumptions about the nature of reality you'll find, based on the limited information (and information gathering/preserving methods) the ancients possessed.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I beg to differ, we've known no such thing. The idea that the earth is a ball is an extreme view because what you are saying is everything can be the right way up and upside down at the same time although we know that to be patently silly.

Oh boy.

The worst kind of ignorance is the kind that presents itself with an air of knowledgeability, affecting insight while betraying crass illiteracy. That's the kind that can set execution pyres ablaze, burns down libraries, or erects autocratic regimes to silence the "liars" who just try to educate people.

Have you ever even heard of such a thing as gravity?

 

[jacknife]

I beg to differ, we've known no such thing. The idea that the earth is a ball is an extreme view because what you are saying is everything can be the right way up and upside down at the same time although we know that to be patently silly. Your only bit of evidence for this nonsense, it seems, is a picture you were told was taken from space. No one can show us how a body of water can bend outside of a container and therefore according to the scientific method means it's not demonstrable (a necessary criteria in the natural sciences, you'll agree). Your view is non-scientific and until you can demonstrate how to get a body of water to bend and stick to a ball is-at best-hypothetical. It's not enough to appeal to authority for your beliefs, you really do need to think about what you're being asked to believe. Then you might understand why the ancients took the view they did.

In my comment, if you were paying attention, you would have noticed I never mentioned the word 'belief'. The word I used, was 'respect' which is somewhat different. I don't think you are really trying to understand why ancient peoples believed the earth was flat simply because you feel those beliefs can be safely dismissed because you already believe you know the truth although you are only taking someone else's word for it. In other words your view on the subject is only a belief and until you can demonstrate what you claim, always will be.

It's actually not a perfect ball it's more like an egg shape also gravity.

 

[dlamberth]

Your view is non-scientific and until you can demonstrate how to get a body of water to bend and stick to a ball is-at best-hypothetical.

The scientific view is called "gravity". Gravity also bends time and space.

 

[gordonbennett]

Pardon me, whilst I snicker out loud.



If you want to believe the earth is flat, be my guest.
I don't tend to respect beliefs that are patently false.

Interesting argument. 'I will not debate you because you question what is generally accepted as fact. Of course, I can't prove my beliefs are true but all the same they are true because everyone says they are, even though no one can demonstrate how they are'. Well done, you've won today's 'I'm a good drone' award. You should be very proud.

 

[awitch]

Interesting argument. 'I will not debate you because you question what is generally accepted as fact. Of course, I can't prove my beliefs are true but all the same they are true because everyone says they are, even though no one can demonstrate how they are'. Well done, you've won today's 'I'm a good drone' award. You should be very proud.

I won't debate because it's a waste of my time. With all the easily available evidence debunking flat earth, it's most likely that nothing will convince you. We can sit here an copy and paste links to various websites for a few days, but what would I get out of it even if I did convince you? Go ahead and believe the earth is flat, but you shouldn't feel important or special because you do.

 

[gordonbennett]

The scientific view is called "gravity". Gravity also bends time and space.

Yes, I'm well aware that we're supposed to believe in an invisible magical force which holds the universe together. I wouldn't go so far as to call it scientific though. We're told this invisible force is able to bend oceans although no one has ever demonstrated how such a thing is possible. We believe these things because we are programmed to, not because they are necessarily true. 'Gravity also bends time and space' - ideas such as this are built on assumptions such as the assumption that we live on a ball flying through space. That's also not very scientific either, if you ask me. You willingly accept it as being true only because the information comes from a perceived authority and is repeated to you constantly. Again, not very scientific.

 

[gordonbennett]

I won't debate because it's a waste of my time. With all the easily available evidence debunking flat earth, it's most likely that nothing will convince you. We can sit here an copy and paste links to various websites for a few days, but what would I get out of it even if I did convince you? Go ahead and believe the earth is flat, but you shouldn't feel important or special because you do.

So the evidence that there are people walking upside down right now, that ships and planes are doing the same is such an obvious fact to you that you can't even be bothered to debate it? It seems you truly are worthy of the award!

I by the way am not a hardline Flat Earther. I'm open to evidence but it has to be the type of evidence which is demonstrable following the scientific method. I feel I have the right to be skeptical when an idea can't be demonstrated properly. Usually,--as I'm sure you know--a hypothesis has to be proved and be shown to be repeatable in order for it to be accepted as a scientific theory (at least, I'm sure that's how it used to be). But this claim that water can bend in the face of everything we know about H20 well, for some reason, it seems that's not necessary to prove because apparently it's a given already! It's apparently a thing so obvious that no one even thinks to question it anymore. What is this evidence you have btw, you don't have to provide it all of course. Just one piece will do. I'll be very open minded about it, I promise! I just want to know if you've looked at it from another angle or whether you're just accepting it on face value. Is it the pics from space by any chance? I'm not saying they aren't real but knowing what we do regarding how governments operate I feel I'm within my rights to be cautious about agencies such as NASA.