"Creationists"? "Believing the Earth to literally be only 6,000 years old"? "Conspiracy theorists"?
It's quite the straw-man fest here isn't it.
To compare the believing of the Earth to be only 6,000 years old to Buddha-Dharma Anthropology & Cosmogony, is ludicrous.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:...there is much more profound truth to the concept of a buddha living 20,000 years
as a metaphor than as a literal statement.
Sure, such a statement could in some contexts be symbolic of the number of Bhumis reached, or something similar. This however does not mean that some of the "fantastical" sounding phenomena described by the Buddha-Dharma are not literal.
smcj wrote:HHDL says that if science has something right, and Dharma something wrong, then concede the point and move on.
"IF" being the big if here.
Asunthatneversets is right...
(And in case anyone missed it):
...modern scientism's so-called facts are oftentimes only theories (or as ASTNS said, they're bits & pieces of evidence that are constructed into theories which are passed off as "fact"), theories that are in a lot of cases heavily funded by corporate, government, pharmaceutical-company, and military-industrial-complex interests. And educators, media outlets, (and even Buddhists), etc. regurgitate the corpocratic propaganda as if it were undeniable fact.
Evolution may be a fact, but there are good reasons why the widely-accepted model of it ought to be subject to major scrutiny.
Edit: The following link is to the Sutra
section of Jigme Lingpa's Treasury of Precious Qualities
, so I think it is okay to post here:
Party-line evolutionists don't take into account the possibility of devolution (i.e. that some apes and/or various hominids could have devolved from humans) because contemporary scientism-ists are either ignorant or too close-minded to even consider the possibility of devolution in light of the above-linked-to Buddha-Dharma Teaching (of course we can forgive the men of scientism's not having been exposed to such teachings, however we cannot excuse their overall narrow-mindedness).
Of course I'm not trying to replace
evolution with devolution; I'm just referring to their existing side-by-side.
We're not talking about trying to prove flying-spaghetti monsters here either. We're talking about a system of knowledge (Buddha-Dharma) that has proven to be worthy of getting taken seriously. Of course we shouldn't take everything of the Buddha-Dharma literally (for example the ones who first wrote about Meru Cosmology must have known that Meru Cosmology is symbolic, albeit with some literal—yet non-physical—aspects), as some of the Buddha's teachings are provisional. At the same time, much of Buddha-Dharma is definitive.
And yes it is likely that some of the giant skeletons that Aemilius posted a link to were photo-shopped, but there are many other sources about the existence of giants; including the writings of Upasika Blavatsky—who was certainly a friend of the Buddha-Dharma even though she was seemingly more learned in the 'Vehicles of Gods and Men' than she was in the Buddha-Dharma proper that she had taken Refuge in—which were (and still are) capable of causing the self-proclaimed men of science to question their theories (which they often dislike doing, so they resort to smug ridicule or simply go into ignore mode).
Oh and before anyone accuses H.P. Blavatsky of racial prejudice (which inevitably happens whenever her name is brought up in forums), first see:THIS POST with quotes of her alleged racism
My main criticism of H.P. Blavatsky is her criticism of Bön; because she apparently assumed that all Bönpo's are the same as the negative Böns that Padmasambhava subdued, which is a mistake because there have always been positive Bönpo's both before and after Padmasambhava arrived in Tibet. If she were still physically alive today, I'm sure that she would rectify her mistake.
(Also, for those skeptical of her Stanzas of Dzyan and Books of Kiu-te, see David Pratt and David Reigle)
Upasika Blavatsky on Giants:http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd2-1-16.htm
On Science:http://www.theosophytrust.mobi/485-the- ... of-science
Upasika Blavatsky on Science wrote:"In our day, as has been proved repeatedly, no statement can hope for a fair trial, or even hearing, unless its arguments run on the lines of legitimate and accepted inquiry, remaining strictly within the boundaries of either official, materialistic science, or emotional, orthodox theology.
"Our age, reader, is a paradoxical anomaly. It is pre-eminently materialistic, and as pre-eminently pietist, a Janus age, in all truth."
She was way ahead of her time for a European, and still is light-years ahead of your average party-line spouting European & Ashkenazi secularist-scientism-ist despite her having physically passed away over 100 years ago.
Also (Edit: I wrote this before Aemilius posted above), the difference between creationists who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and the Buddha-Dharma's assertion of Siddhis such as the Five or Six Abhijna(s); is that the latter are said to be possible for Buddha-Dharma practitioners to attain in this very lifetime, while the former is based on mere belief (because in Abrahamic exotericism in general, one cannot know the truth about many things until after one physically dies).
By the way, Siddhis, Jhanas, and Abhijnas are in harmony with the Scientific Method, as according to instructions the way to attain them is based on precise methods and also of personal trial & error. It is just that some of them would be difficult to display to others; and, the ones that one could display to others, are likely never shown to those who have an overly-skeptical or even negative attitude towards such things.
If there is any step of the Scientific Method missing from the process of the attaining of Siddhis, Jhanas, Abhijnas, etc.; then please share with us what that is.