Buddhist Scriptures: the Sun will become a red giant

[lpetrich]

It's in the Sermon of the Seven Suns, Anguttara Nikâya 7.62 in the Pali Canon. Here are some translations of it:

Buddhist Sutra - The Sermon Of The Seven Suns
The Sermon of the Seven Suns (Anguttara VII. 62)
The_Numerical_Discourses_of_the_Buddha,Anguttara_Nikaya,Bodhi,2012.pdf
(note: 1 yojana / league is 12 - 15 km / 7 - 9 mi)

This is what it says will happen:

• A long drought: all the land plants will die.
• A second sun: the streams and ponds will dry up.
• A third sun: the great rivers will dry up.
• A fourth sun: the lakes will dry up.
• A fifth sun: the oceans will dry up.
• A sixth sun: the Earth becomes very volcanically active and fiery.
• A seventh sun: the Earth melts and boils off.

We can interpret the extra suns allegorically and suppose that those extra suns are our Sun getting brighter and brighter. Which is indeed what the Sun is doing (The Once & Future Sun,  Future of Earth). As it does so, over the next few billion years, life will gradually be driven into extinction: first multicellular organisms, then one-celled eukaryotes, and finally prokaryotes, with hyperthermophiles being the last holdouts. The oceans will become hot enough to boil, and the Earth will become much like Venus.

When the Sun becomes a red giant, some 7 billion years from now, it will expand out to the Earth's orbit, and the Earth may not survive.


So should we convert to Buddhism because of this?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do we have to convert?
Can we be Buddhist atheists?

 

[funinspace]

Do we have to convert?
Can we be Buddhist atheists?

Sure you can, but you will still have to wear an orange wrap at least some of the time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

 

[Learner]

Do we have to convert?
Can we be Buddhist atheists?

Don't see why not . There are atheist Jews.

 

[Juma]

It's in the Sermon of the Seven Suns, Anguttara Nikâya 7.62 in the Pali Canon. Here are some translations of it:

Buddhist Sutra - The Sermon Of The Seven Suns
The Sermon of the Seven Suns (Anguttara VII. 62)
The_Numerical_Discourses_of_the_Buddha,Anguttara_Nikaya,Bodhi,2012.pdf
(note: 1 yojana / league is 12 - 15 km / 7 - 9 mi)

This is what it says will happen:

• A long drought: all the land plants will die.
• A second sun: the streams and ponds will dry up.
• A third sun: the great rivers will dry up.
• A fourth sun: the lakes will dry up.
• A fifth sun: the oceans will dry up.
• A sixth sun: the Earth becomes very volcanically active and fiery.
• A seventh sun: the Earth melts and boils off.

We can interpret the extra suns allegorically and suppose that those extra suns are our Sun getting brighter and brighter. Which is indeed what the Sun is doing (The Once & Future Sun,  Future of Earth). As it does so, over the next few billion years, life will gradually be driven into extinction: first multicellular organisms, then one-celled eukaryotes, and finally prokaryotes, with hyperthermophiles being the last holdouts. The oceans will become hot enough to boil, and the Earth will become much like Venus.

When the Sun becomes a red giant, some 7 billion years from now, it will expand out to the Earth's orbit, and the Earth may not survive.


So should we convert to Buddhism because of this?

No.
We should interpret it as it stands: utter nonsens.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do we have to convert?
Can we be Buddhist atheists?

Don't see why not . There are atheist Jews.

Yes, but Buddhist is not usually used interchangeably as a nationality, ethnicity, religion, verb, and for lamellophone nomenclature.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No.
We should interpret it as it stands: utter nonsens.

Ya, this is about the same level as saying that Christianity is real because the Bible says that the universe was created at some point and the Big Bang is the starting point of the universe, so therefore the Bible is scientifically accurate and therefore God. If you take one aspect of the text out of context and ignore everything around it, it sort of lines up with something real, but that's not actually what scientific accuracy means.

 

[lpetrich]

(The Buddhist Sermon of the Seven Suns: the Sun baking the Earth and becoming a red giant?)

No.
We should interpret it as it stands: utter nonsens.

Ya, this is about the same level as saying that Christianity is real because the Bible says that the universe was created at some point and the Big Bang is the starting point of the universe, so therefore the Bible is scientifically accurate and therefore God. If you take one aspect of the text out of context and ignore everything around it, it sort of lines up with something real, but that's not actually what scientific accuracy means.

That's right.

BTW, Muslim apologists love this sort of argument. They believe that the Koran got lots of things right, like embryology and the Big Bang.

Richard Carrier has taken on this sort of argument in Secular Web Kiosk: Predicting Modern Science: Epicurus vs. Mohammed, showing that Lucretius's On the Nature of Things (De rerum natura) does remarkably well at anticipating the findings of modern science.

 

[tantric]

It's in the Sermon of the Seven Suns, Anguttara Nikâya 7.62 in the Pali Canon. Here are some translations of it:

Buddhist Sutra - The Sermon Of The Seven Suns
The Sermon of the Seven Suns (Anguttara VII. 62)
The_Numerical_Discourses_of_the_Buddha,Anguttara_Nikaya,Bodhi,2012.pdf
(note: 1 yojana / league is 12 - 15 km / 7 - 9 mi)

This is what it says will happen:

• A long drought: all the land plants will die.
• A second sun: the streams and ponds will dry up.
• A third sun: the great rivers will dry up.
• A fourth sun: the lakes will dry up.
• A fifth sun: the oceans will dry up.
• A sixth sun: the Earth becomes very volcanically active and fiery.
• A seventh sun: the Earth melts and boils off.

We can interpret the extra suns allegorically and suppose that those extra suns are our Sun getting brighter and brighter. Which is indeed what the Sun is doing (The Once & Future Sun,  Future of Earth). As it does so, over the next few billion years, life will gradually be driven into extinction: first multicellular organisms, then one-celled eukaryotes, and finally prokaryotes, with hyperthermophiles being the last holdouts. The oceans will become hot enough to boil, and the Earth will become much like Venus.

When the Sun becomes a red giant, some 7 billion years from now, it will expand out to the Earth's orbit, and the Earth may not survive.


So should we convert to Buddhism because of this?

i'm buddhist and you're being silly. no. buddhist scriptures also have some utterly weird descriptions of the world.

Earthly realms

Manuṣyaloka (Tib: mi; Jpn: 人 nin) – This is the world of humans and human-like beings who live on the surface of the earth. The mountain-rings that engird Sumeru are surrounded by a vast ocean, which fills most of the world. The ocean is in turn surrounded by a circular mountain wall called Cakravāḍa (Pāli: Cakkavāḷa) which marks the horizontal limit of the world. In this ocean there are four continents which are, relatively speaking, small islands in it. Because of the immenseness of the ocean, they cannot be reached from each other by ordinary sailing vessels, although in the past, when the cakravartin kings ruled, communication between the continents was possible by means of the treasure called the cakraratna (Pāli cakkaratana), which a cakravartin and his retinue could use to fly through the air between the continents. The four continents are:

Jambudvīpa or Jambudīpa (Jpn: 閻浮提 Enbudai) is located in the south and is the dwelling of ordinary human beings. It is said to be shaped "like a cart", or rather a blunt-nosed triangle with the point facing south. (This description probably echoes the shape of the coastline of southern India.) It is 10,000 yojanas in extent (Vibhajyavāda tradition) or has a perimeter of 6,000 yojanas (Sarvāstivāda tradition) to which can be added the southern coast of only 3  1⁄2 yojanas' length. The continent takes its name from a giant Jambu tree (Syzygium cumini), 100 yojanas tall, which grows in the middle of the continent. Every continent has one of these giant trees. All Buddhas appear in Jambudvīpa. The people here are five to six feet tall and their length of life varies between 10 to power 140 years (Asankya Aayu) and 10 years.

Pūrvavideha or Pubbavideha is located in the east, and is shaped like a semicircle with the flat side pointing westward (i.e., towards Sumeru). It is 7,000 yojanas in extent (Vibhajyavāda tradition) or has a perimeter of 6,350 yojanas of which the flat side is 2,000 yojanas long (Sarvāstivāda tradition). Its tree is the acacia. The people here are about 12 feet (3.7 m) tall and they live for 250 years.

Aparagodānīya or Aparagoyāna is located in the west, and is shaped like a circle with a circumference of about 7,500 yojanas (Sarvāstivāda tradition). The tree of this continent is a giant Kadamba tree. The human inhabitants of this continent do not live in houses but sleep on the ground. They are about 24 feet (7.3 m) tall and they live for 500 years.
Uttarakuru is located in the north, and is shaped like a square. It has a perimeter of 8,000 yojanas, being 2,000 yojanas on each side. This continent's tree is called a kalpavṛkṣa (Pāli: kapparukkha) or kalpa-tree, because it lasts for the entire kalpa. The inhabitants of Uttarakuru are said to be extraordinarily wealthy. They do not need to labor for a living, as their food grows by itself, and they have no private property. They have cities built in the air. They are about 48 feet (15 m) tall and live for 1,000 years, and they are under the protection of Vaiśravaṇa.

the reason that you should convert to buddhism is that ALL of us know that that stuff is nonsense and we don't believe it anymore. we do not believe that our scriptures are the word of god(s) or in any way infallible. in fact, we are told that they will be misunderstood and come to be irrelevant over time. we, in general, flat accept the scientific method and what it says about the material world...now. we had little interest in newtonian clockwork cosmology, because it was wrong. otoh, we look at the double slit experiment and say, 'yes, of course' because it matches our non-dualist view of the nature of reality. it makes sense to us, though apparently to very few others. this also doesn't prove buddhism is 'right' but, rather, makes it useful.

 

[Keith&Co.]

we, in general, flat accept the scientific method and what it says about the material world...now.

So, you accept the science that your religious beliefs don't filter out.
Like every religion out there...

 

[lpetrich]

Yes, one can say that the real message of the Sermon of the Seven Suns is the danger of being attached to impermanent things. They have an annoying habit of ceasing to exist.

 

[tantric]

we, in general, flat accept the scientific method and what it says about the material world...now.

So, you accept the science that your religious beliefs don't filter out.
Like every religion out there...

no. a century ago, it was scientifically proven that black people are closer to apes and thus inferior. the existence of the ether was once fact. it goes on. science is a method of accumulating experimental data and statistical analysis of such, and also the body of data so accumulated. it's not holy or sacred and certainly not inviolate. it's also VERY FUCKING USEFUL. but that's all.

i said that we didn't accept the newtonian universe - the clockwork, cause and effect utterly objective view of reality. because it's demonstrably and logically wrong. useful, but wrong. the existence of a completely objective reality is an unprovable assumption. in the west, it was thought that the only alternative was subjectivism, which is also an assumption, but a useless one. buddhism takes the unprovability of both theories as data and goes from there to explore nonduality.

science has no understanding whatsoever of consciousness. we have no clue how memories are stored. neurology is nascent, at best. most 'rational' people regard this as irrelevant or insignificant. it is not. there are good, logical reasons to expect that we will never understand consciousness. how much faith would you put in astronomy if you flat could not explain how telescopes work?

so, you accept facts that your scientific preconceptions don't exclude?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Every time that religion has come along and told us that science can't explain something so we need to go within the faith-based explanation, science has come along and explained that thing. Science is a dick to religion that way.

 

[tantric]

So what do you do when science tells you that everything can't be explained? Heisenberg, Godel, Wolpert?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So what do you do when science tells you that everything can't be explained? Heisenberg, Godel, Wolpert?

The same thing that's been done for the past few centuries while theists have been asking that exact same question over and over again. I'll realize that religion has absolutely nothing to offer in discovering these answers and the claims that they offer a better path to understanding various aspects of the universe then scientists do is absolute bullshit.

It may well be that some things are fundamentally unknowable and we'll never get an answer to them. Saying that staring at our belly button or paying attention to some revelation on the matter, however, only ever decreases our knowledge of the universe, it doesn't increase it.

 

[lpetrich]

So what do you do when science tells you that everything can't be explained? Heisenberg, Godel, Wolpert?

Wolpert???

Werner Heisenberg? His Uncertainty Principle simply states that one cannot measure two related quantities with a combined accuracy greater than Planck's constant. It is derived from a property of waves, that for time variation, (time resolution) * (frequency resolution) >= 1, and analogously for space variation.

Kurt Gödel / Goedel? He essentially extended the liar paradox to formal systems. He showed that if one can get natural numbers out of a formal system of axioms, then one can construct a theorem T that states "T is not a theorem".

 

[bilby]

So what do you do when science tells you that everything can't be explained? Heisenberg, Godel, Wolpert?

If science says things can't be explained, I accept its findings (once they have been appropriately tested). That implies that I must reject the explanations for those things that are offered by religion, as science has demonstrated that the religious explanations must be bullshit.

 

[lpetrich]

I first learned of these additional suns from an account of the Great Panadura Debate of 1873 between Xian and Buddhist religious leaders:

Controversy at Panadura, or Pânadurâ Vâdaya,
Re-edited by Pranith Abhayasundara, Sri Lanka State Printing Company, 1990

In the archives of the old board, I did a blow-by-blow analysis of that debate, discussing the two sides' arguments.

The part of it which mentioned that sermon was where a Xian debater asked where Mt. Meru is. With its great size, it ought to have been easy to discover.

 

[sdelsolray]

...
So should we convert to Buddhism because of this?

I would suggest the human race devote sufficient resources to migrate carbon based life along with appropriate cultural and societal memes and knowledge from Earth to other destinations capable of supporting carbon based life. Within our solar system that might buy a few hundred million years. Migrating to a more youthful solar system could buy billions of years.

The Buddhism aspect has nothing whatsoever to do with solving the problem of extending the time carbon based life from Earth will exist. We already know what will happen. Whether the first awareness of the death/change of Sol (e.g., becoming a red giant star) came from one source or another is simply not relevant to the solution.

 

[Elixir]

So what do you do when science tells you that everything can't be explained? Heisenberg, Godel, Wolpert?

Maybe try to wean ourselves off constantly needing explanations for things, and instead focus on experiencing the wonders that defy explanation?
That sort of thing is often what leads to insights that lead to breakthroughs in understanding, i.e. explanations.