The Great Greenfly Challenge

seeker242

Citta said:

I think its as well to remember that the Buddha also said that earthquakes are caused by breaches in the ocean that circles the Earth above the atmosphere..

I don't recall him ever saying that!

Citta

Florian said:

No, not good on planetary formation either @Citta. But I wonder why you think they were poor on ontology.

Their ontology was of its time...as is all ontology, and therefore shot through with catagories of existence common to all of the religious models of the ancient Indian Subcontinent.

Citta

seeker242 said:

Citta said:

I think its as well to remember that the Buddha also said that earthquakes are caused by breaches in the ocean that circles the Earth above the atmosphere..

I don't recall him ever saying that!

Mahaparinibbana Sutta,
" This great earth Ananda is founded upon liquid which rests on the atmosphere which rests on space......... When the liquid is agitated it results in Great Earthquakes."

edited for brevity but retaining the essence.

federica

'Greenfly' to 'earthquakes' is a bit of a leap in topics.

let's keep to it, folks.

Thanks.....

seeker242

But "liquid" does not mean "water". The meaning of "liquid element" is much different than the typical conventional use of the word "liquid". In other words, liquid does not literally mean liquid. Not that this matters to greenflys though.

Citta

seeker242 said:

But "liquid" does not mean "water". The meaning of "liquid element" is much different than the typical conventional use of the word "liquid". In other words, liquid does not literally mean liquid. Not that this matters to greenflys though.

You can differ from Thanissaro Bhikkhu about the translation if you so choose.
But even if we take the translation to be the liquid element it still makes no sense as an ontological statement..the liquid element does not rest on the atmosphere, which does not rest on space. And none of these go anywhere to explaining earthquakes...
The fact is whoever compiled the Suttas which contain that explanation did not have an ontological explanation which corresponds to our understanding of the term...it was part of the Pan - Bharat mythos common to Jainism and the Upanishads.
The problem comes with the idea that there was a historical figure who was omniscient...

Citta

federica said:

'Greenfly' to 'earthquakes' is a bit of a leap in topics.

let's keep to it, folks.

Thanks.....

My apologies...it has gone off topic. Mea Culpa.

_/\_

seeker242

Citta said:

You can differ from Thanissaro Bhikkhu about the translation if you so choose.

I don't differ from Thanissaro about the translation. Thanissaro does not think it means water literally either!

federica

START
A
NEW
THREAD.

GUYS.

Florian

Citta said:

seeker242 said:

But "liquid" does not mean "water". The meaning of "liquid element" is much different than the typical conventional use of the word "liquid". In other words, liquid does not literally mean liquid. Not that this matters to greenflys though.

You can differ from Thanissaro Bhikkhu about the translation if you so choose.
But even if we take the translation to be the liquid element it still makes no sense as an ontological statement..the liquid element does not rest on the atmosphere, which does not rest on space. And none of these go anywhere to explaining earthquakes...
The fact is whoever compiled the Suttas which contain that explanation did not have an ontological explanation which corresponds to our understanding of the term...it was part of the Pan - Bharat mythos common to Jainism and the Upanishads.
The problem comes with the idea that there was a historical figure who was omniscient...

It does not make sense, as you say, so a more generous interpretation seems in order.

But this is physics, not ontology. Ontology is metaphysics. Neither omnsiscience nor metaphysics requires knowing all the details of physics.

My greenfly problem is sorted, by the way, so the OP doesn't mind where the thread goes.

seeker242

Florian said:

It does not make sense, as you say, so a more generous interpretation seems in order.

A more generous interpretation is exactly what the scripture describe. This is a good excerpt on the subject. From here. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html#ruupa

Ruupa

The third reality or paramattha dhamma is ruupa, matter or material form. In its analysis of matter the Abhidhamma recognizes twenty-eight kinds of material phenomena. Four of these are called primary, twenty-four secondary. The secondary kinds are dependant on the primary.

The four primary elements (cattaari mahaa bhuutaani)

These are metaphorically referred to under their ancient names but signify distinct properties of matter:

The Earth element (pa.thavi dhaatu) = solidity
The Water element (aapo dhaatu) = adhesion
The Fire element (tejo dhaatu) = heat
The Wind element (vaayo dhaatu) = motion

There is no unit of matter that does not contain these four elements in varying proportions. The preponderance of one element over the other three gives the material object its main characteristic.

The solid element gives consistency to matter varying from hardness to softness. The more predominant the solid element, the firmer the object. This is also the element of extension by virtue of which objects occupy space. It has the function of supporting the other material phenomena.

The adhesion element has a cohesive function. It holds the particles of matter together and prevents them from scattering. It predominates in liquids because, unlike solids, liquids unite when brought together. This adhesion element is intangible.

The heat element accounts for an object's temperature. An object is hot or cold depending on the amount of heat element. This element has the function of maturing or vitalizing. It accounts for preservation and decay.

The motion element imparts motion and causes expansion and contraction.

The Fire element, for example. Fire element, among other things, is "that by which ingested food is digested". This obviously does not mean there is actual fire inside your belly! "Fire" does not actually mean just the red stuff on top of a lit candle. If it did, then there could be no such thing as "internal fire element".

"The fire element may be internal or external. Regarding the internal, whatever is heat, warmth, and derived therefrom, such as that by which one is vitalized, consumed, or burnt up, and that by which the ingested food is digested, this is the fire element. Whatever is an internal fire element and whatever is an external fire element are just fire element.

As far as The Water element (aapo dhaatu) = adhesion. Earthquakes happening when there is a disturbance of the property of "adhesion", makes perfect sense. For example, when the "adhesion bond" (AKA water element) between tectonic plates is disturbed, you get earthquakes!

karasti

I do not know if this would work for plants, but perhaps for some. Get yourself a bug vacuum. It was the only way I could easily convince my husband and kids not to kill the bugs. You can get them at any department store in the kid's outdoor toy section. The company is Backyard Safari, I think. You just use a small handheld, battery operated vacuum that sucks them into a container that you can then simply bring elsewhere to open and let them out. It works REALLY well. In fact, my husband just sucked up about 20 sandflies from our dining room with it and released them outside. Win-win for everyone. Much easier and less time consuming than trying to catch them with a cup and piece of paper. I think it was $15 (US) when we got it at Target, though ours does not have a lazer light on it, lol.
Here it is on amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Summit-Backyard-Safari-Vacuum-Lazer/dp/B0046LVS2S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371347481&sr=8-1&keywords=bug+vacuum

Florian

Thanks @karasti. That seems a very good idea.