[Buddha-l] Earthquake

[Alex Wilding]

Isn't it always a question of context? In terms of "science", or at least of
knowledge of the physical world, this stands up rather poorly compared with
our modern understanding.

But if this more or less mechanical explanation is the first, what are the
others? (I am sure there are plenty of people on the list who know.) Does
the context contrast this explanation with plate tectonics, the movement of
magma, and so on? Or does the context mean that the explanation is saying
"for this dramatic mechanical event, first look at mechanical courses like
earth, water and so on - only bring in the wrath of the gods, karma, or any
other mysterious cause as secondary possibilities"?

It does seem to me to be a little risky to set this paragraph over against
our modern understanding, without first setting it over and against the
other aspects of its original context.

AW

-----Original Message-----
From: buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com
[mailto:buddha-l-bounces at mailman.swcp.com] On Behalf Of Erik Hoogcarspel
Sent: Thursday, 16 September 2010 11:37 AM
To: Buddhist discussion forum
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Earthquake

Op 16-09-10 09:25, Ngawang Dorje schreef:
> Hi,
>
>   "This great earth, Ananda, is established upon liquid, the liquid upon
the
> atmosphere, and the atmosphere upon space. And when, Ananda, mighty
atmospheric
> disturbances take place, the liquid is agitated. And with the agitation of
the
> liquid, tremors of the earth arise. This is the first reason, the first
cause
> for the arising of mighty earthquakes." (Digha Nikaya 16)
>
> How do you understand this passage in light of science?
>
>    
That everybody should stick to his own field of expertise. Apparently 
the Buddha had no clue as where he was talking about.

erik
_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l