Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
Ajahn Sona is a well known Western speaker in the Thai Forest tradition of Therevada Buddhism.
For those who saw this video series, from a Mahayana / Vajrayana cosmological standpoint, are these descriptions of cosmology compatible / accurate?
They were incredibly informative, I recommend other people to check it out when they have the chance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTkpFs ... =AjahnSona
For those who saw this video series, from a Mahayana / Vajrayana cosmological standpoint, are these descriptions of cosmology compatible / accurate?
They were incredibly informative, I recommend other people to check it out when they have the chance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTkpFs ... =AjahnSona
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
I got as far as "It is a dangerous thing to deny the enchanted universe." But, hey, that's just me. I'm sure the rest is beautiful, logical, rational science.Heimdall wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 7:42 pm Ajahn Sona is a well known Western speaker in the Thai Forest tradition of Therevada Buddhism.
For those who saw this video series, from a Mahayana / Vajrayana cosmological standpoint, are these descriptions of cosmology compatible / accurate?
They were incredibly informative, I recommend other people to check it out when they have the chance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTkpFs ... =AjahnSona
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
I didn't watch the whole thing, just the beginning to get the sort of "intro".Heimdall wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 7:42 pm Ajahn Sona is a well known Western speaker in the Thai Forest tradition of Therevada Buddhism.
For those who saw this video series, from a Mahayana / Vajrayana cosmological standpoint, are these descriptions of cosmology compatible / accurate?
They were incredibly informative, I recommend other people to check it out when they have the chance.
Generally speaking AFAIK Theravadan conceptions do not involve the multiple worlds that Mahayana cosmology does, there is one Mount Meru, etc. You might want to read Myriad Worlds by Kongtrul. So, I think Abhidharma cosmology is one world-system, but someone can correct me if that's wrong.
Why would you expect two Theravadin monks to be talking "beautiful, logical, rational science" in a video about Buddhist cosmology?
I ended up watching about half an hour, from what I see in that half an hour it is a good talk on Buddhist cosmology, contrasting and comparing to modern and medieval European cosmology, as well as discussing how and if these ideas are relevant to practitioners. There is no reason to be so quickly dismissive of it.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
- FiveSkandhas
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
There is no need to conflate the cosmology of modern science with Buddhist cosmology, or to set them in some kind of opposition. Because Buddhism is a soiterological rather than a metaphysical endeavor, the purpose of Buddhist cosmology is to hasten our liberation by using upaya to create a model of reality that is suited to facilitating the goal of liberation. It is the cosmos seen from a very specific perspective, one we might hazard to call somewhat "interior"(keeping in mind the ultimate lack of interiority and exteriority in a reality characterized by shunyata of course).
Meanwhile modern science is dedicated to creating an open-ended, falsifiable system that describes the physical aspects of samsaric reality.
Apples and oranges. No conflict, the two perspectives just slide past each other effortlessly as they are models of realty with very different purposes and perspectives. We wouldn't ask, "which is true, music or art?" It's a meaningless comparison. Same deal with Buddhist cosmology and modern science.
By the way on a different note it is important to remember Theravada and Mahayana cosmologies are quite different from each other as well.
Meanwhile modern science is dedicated to creating an open-ended, falsifiable system that describes the physical aspects of samsaric reality.
Apples and oranges. No conflict, the two perspectives just slide past each other effortlessly as they are models of realty with very different purposes and perspectives. We wouldn't ask, "which is true, music or art?" It's a meaningless comparison. Same deal with Buddhist cosmology and modern science.
By the way on a different note it is important to remember Theravada and Mahayana cosmologies are quite different from each other as well.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi
"Just be kind." -Atisha
"Just be kind." -Atisha
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
Watch from 15:30 onwards; it seems that they admit multiple Mount Merus as well, but they call it by the Pali name - "Sineru"Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:23 pm Generally speaking AFAIK Theravadan conceptions do not involve the multiple worlds that Mahayana cosmology does, there is one Mount Meru, etc. You might want to read Myriad Worlds by Kongtrul. So, I think Abhidharma cosmology is one world-system, but someone can correct me if that's wrong.
But in the video series as a whole they don't address the existence of multiple Buddhas except when it occurred in the past life of another being (for example, at one point, an Arhat in a past life was a Mara who threw a stone at a previous Buddha, who (Buddha) then told him he went too far, and the Mara immediately died, sentenced to the hell realms where demons pierced his chest for a long, long time).
Neither do they consider the possibility of Buddhas from other world systems (past or present) intervening in our world.
Last edited by Heimdall on Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:19 pm, edited 6 times in total.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
AFAIK this is an idea that came to prominence within the Mahayana, but I do not know for sure, someone more learned than me would know better. My understanding is that the original Abhidharma cosmology has the one world system.Heimdall wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:11 pmWatch from 15:30 onwards; it seems that they admit multiple Mount Merus as well, but they call it by the Pali name - "Sineru"Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:23 pm Generally speaking AFAIK Theravadan conceptions do not involve the multiple worlds that Mahayana cosmology does, there is one Mount Meru, etc. You might want to read Myriad Worlds by Kongtrul. So, I think Abhidharma cosmology is one world-system, but someone can correct me if that's wrong.
Since we are responsible for working with our own Karma, other than turning the wheel of Dharma itself, a Buddha's ability to "intervene" much is questionable outside of stories which serve the purpose of upaya.I am not surprised it is not a huge subject of the discussion, especially for Theravadins.Neither do they consider the possibility of Buddhas from other world systems (past or present) intervening in our world.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
Got it. it is not meant to be rational or scientific.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm the purpose of Buddhist cosmology is to hasten our liberation by using upaya to create a model of reality
I 'soiter' understand. It is about salvation from this viewpoint. From my Zen viewpoint, Buddhism is about just sitting (zazen). 'Salvation' was never in the conversation with any of my teachers, so literally not practical.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm Because Buddhism is a soiterological rather than a metaphysical endeavor,
Well, hmmm. I'm not sure I would assign the same weight to a 'model of reality' in opposition to science.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm Apples and oranges. No conflict, the two perspectives just slide past each other effortlessly as they are models of realty with very different purposes and perspectives. We wouldn't ask, "which is true, music or art?" It's a meaningless comparison. Same deal with Buddhist cosmology and modern science.
oh goodness. But, in all honesty, I am glad someone is on top of this.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm By the way on a different note it is important to remember Theravada and Mahayana cosmologies are quite different from each other as well.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
It appears to be pretty much only Western (mostly Soto influenced) Zen and "Secular Buddhism" which have so thoroughly dispensed with large parts of Buddhist teaching so as to have this kind of reflexive, derisive and cynical reaction to these subjects simply being discussed by some monks.reiun wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:50 amGot it. it is not meant to be rational or scientific.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm the purpose of Buddhist cosmology is to hasten our liberation by using upaya to create a model of reality
I 'soiter' understand. It is about salvation from this viewpoint. From my Zen viewpoint, Buddhism is about just sitting (zazen). 'Salvation' was never in the conversation with any of my teachers, so literally not practical.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm Because Buddhism is a soiterological rather than a metaphysical endeavor,Well, hmmm. I'm not sure I would assign the same weight to a 'model of reality' in opposition to science.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm Apples and oranges. No conflict, the two perspectives just slide past each other effortlessly as they are models of realty with very different purposes and perspectives. We wouldn't ask, "which is true, music or art?" It's a meaningless comparison. Same deal with Buddhist cosmology and modern science.oh goodness. But, in all honesty, I am glad someone is on top of this.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm By the way on a different note it is important to remember Theravada and Mahayana cosmologies are quite different from each other as well.
Perhaps you should take a look at your own conditioning and apparent lack of exposure to the subject before assuming any discussion of Buddhist cosmology is irrelevant, anti-science, or whatever.
Other than the subitism the soteriology of Zen is the same as other forms of Mahayana,... even if it is talked about differently. I think maybe you are missing how this term or "salvation" is used in discussing Buddhism. Zen acknowledges the same Samyaksambodhi as other Mahayana approaches, however teachers choose to talk about it at a given time.Buddhism is about just sitting (zazen). 'Salvation' was never in the conversation with any of my teachers, so literally not practical.
Similarly, much of the cosmological notions, reverence of Bodhisattvas etc. are also a historical part of Zen, whether they resonate with you or not. I watched a good chunk of that video and saw nothing objectionable at all, I'm puzzled by why it would provoke such a reaction in a Buddhist practitioner.
Perhaps watch the video a bit more before trying to critique the subject matter?
Fiveskandhas literally just got done saying that he did not feel it was in opposition to science, so how is this a response to what was said? It was also mentioned that science deals with the observable and falsifiable, whereas Dharma in many places goes beyond this. As far as I am concerned this is an accurate statement, whether people choose to reject all of Buddhist cosmology, or whether they become flat-earthers, or whether they (hopefully) find a sane place in between.Well, hmmm. I'm not sure I would assign the same weight to a 'model of reality' in opposition to science.
If by "scientific model of reality" you mean something akin to scientific materialism as viewed by someone like Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, etc..then your Buddhism being "about sitting" is just as ridiculous a notion as Mount Meru. So really, I think if you want to make this kind of argument you need to flesh out what exactly you think the 'scientific model of reality' is. in reality that is not one thing, and scientists and philosophers have a great many debates around subjects such as the nature of subjective experience, the philosophy of mind, etc.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
Unfortunately, when people introduce terms like 'soteriological' or 'subitism', I have to resort to wiki to keep up. This is strictly my own difficulty, indicating I am way behind on the discussion, compared to most others here, I'm sure. So I will bow out.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:55 amIt appears to be pretty much only Western (mostly Soto influenced) Zen which has so thoroughly dispensed with large parts of Buddhism so as to have this kind of derisive and cynical reaction to these subjects simply being discussed by some monks.reiun wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:50 amGot it. it is not meant to be rational or scientific.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm the purpose of Buddhist cosmology is to hasten our liberation by using upaya to create a model of reality
I 'soiter' understand. It is about salvation from this viewpoint. From my Zen viewpoint, Buddhism is about just sitting (zazen). 'Salvation' was never in the conversation with any of my teachers, so literally not practical.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm Because Buddhism is a soiterological rather than a metaphysical endeavor,Well, hmmm. I'm not sure I would assign the same weight to a 'model of reality' in opposition to science.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm Apples and oranges. No conflict, the two perspectives just slide past each other effortlessly as they are models of realty with very different purposes and perspectives. We wouldn't ask, "which is true, music or art?" It's a meaningless comparison. Same deal with Buddhist cosmology and modern science.oh goodness. But, in all honesty, I am glad someone is on top of this.FiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm By the way on a different note it is important to remember Theravada and Mahayana cosmologies are quite different from each other as well.
Perhaps you should take a look at your own conditioning and apparent lack of exposure to the subject before assuming any discussion of Buddhist cosmology is irrelevant, anti-science, or whatever.
Other than the subitism the soteriology of Zen is the same as other forms of Mahayana,... even if it is talked about differently. I think maybe you are missing how this term or "salvation" is used in discussing Buddhism. Zen acknowledges the same Samyaksambodhi as other Mahayana approaches, however teachers choose to talk about it at a given time.Buddhism is about just sitting (zazen). 'Salvation' was never in the conversation with any of my teachers, so literally not practical.
Similarly, much of the cosmological notions, reverence of Bodhisattvas etc. are also a historical part of Zen, whether they resonate with you or not. I watched a good chunk of that video and saw nothing objectionable at all, I'm puzzled by why it would provoke such a reaction.
Perhaps watch the video before trying to critique the subject matter?
I use *science only* as a model of reality. If you want to use 'enchanted universe' as one of your models, that is up to you.
I am ok with not reviewing my Zen conditioning. Not having prior or longer exposure to a subject doesn't invalidate an opinion. If you want to imply 'winner' for having such, again, that is up to you.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17071
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
Dictionaries are pretty easy to find online.
Right, and so far you haven't even defined what you think "science only" is. Do you mean astrophysics and astronomy, do you mean quantum physics or mechanics, do you mean cognitive psychology, neuroscience, what do you mean? I'm not a scientist but I work in a field where I occasionally have need of the most basic rudiments of science, and have a little interest in it. In my observations scientists don't totally agree on anything, ever.I use *science only* as a model of reality. If you want to use 'enchanted universe' as one of your models, that is up to you.
They all say somewhat different things, science has some consistency but it is not one monolithic thing, and there is no such thing as an "only science" worldview, there are multiple scientific worldviews, and of course we actually live entirely in the world of subjective experience anyway, it might be agreed subjective experience, but it is still subjective.
Of course none of this means that people need believe ancient Indian Cosmology is somehow literally true to derive spiritual value from it.
This section is precisely for these kinds of discussions - information about Mahayana Buddhism. Deriding people for doing so doesn't need to be a part of it, thanks. I don't know anything about these Monks btw, for the record. The cosmology they discuss is pretty standard though.I am ok with not reviewing my Zen conditioning. Not having prior or longer exposure to a subject doesn't invalidate an opinion. If you want to imply 'winner' for having such, again, that is up to you.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
I should also point out a few things as well:
1. The monks themselves evidently don't take the mythology too literally - they demonstrate that the Ancient Indians believed the whole world consisted of the Subcontinent of India and nothing else - something obviously not true. Moreover, in their later video on the "Northern Continent", they use two completely contradictory sources in elaborating what the "Northern Continent" is, and these two sources seem unreconcilable - one source describes the Northern Continent as some kind of Utopian post-agricultural-revolution Garden of Eden, another source describes it as a realm of floating cities where Yakas (Demonic Ogres) have slave ownership over human beings (perhaps, soteriologically, the two sources aren't so unreconcilable when you look at something like the Soviet Union, or, more pertinently, Mao China)
2. The monks don't draw a conclusion on interpreting these texts other than, in some sense, they are "real" beyond a merely psychological experience or symbolic metaphor, encouraging the viewer to have an open mind to these texts.
3. In addition to that, the monks do recognize the symbolic and psychological meanings of these stories as legitimate interpretations. While they recognize Mara as a real entity, they also recognize Mara's name literally means "death" and Mara is often used to refer to internal personal temptations as well.
1. The monks themselves evidently don't take the mythology too literally - they demonstrate that the Ancient Indians believed the whole world consisted of the Subcontinent of India and nothing else - something obviously not true. Moreover, in their later video on the "Northern Continent", they use two completely contradictory sources in elaborating what the "Northern Continent" is, and these two sources seem unreconcilable - one source describes the Northern Continent as some kind of Utopian post-agricultural-revolution Garden of Eden, another source describes it as a realm of floating cities where Yakas (Demonic Ogres) have slave ownership over human beings (perhaps, soteriologically, the two sources aren't so unreconcilable when you look at something like the Soviet Union, or, more pertinently, Mao China)
2. The monks don't draw a conclusion on interpreting these texts other than, in some sense, they are "real" beyond a merely psychological experience or symbolic metaphor, encouraging the viewer to have an open mind to these texts.
3. In addition to that, the monks do recognize the symbolic and psychological meanings of these stories as legitimate interpretations. While they recognize Mara as a real entity, they also recognize Mara's name literally means "death" and Mara is often used to refer to internal personal temptations as well.
Last edited by Heimdall on Tue Aug 24, 2021 6:41 am, edited 6 times in total.
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
For what it's worth, not all Western Zen has been stripped of it's theology and philosophy.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:55 am It appears to be pretty much only Western (mostly Soto influenced) Zen and "Secular Buddhism"
I regularly attended a Chan Temple where I lived for a bit. The Sifu there is one of those teachers that, just talking with him a couple of times, you know he is a direct blessing from the Buddha himself. Seriously. (Not that you should fully rely on others for Enlightenment). If you pray and meditate there, you experience a genuine school of Mahayana Buddhism that's not compromised in the slightest.
Last edited by Heimdall on Tue Aug 24, 2021 7:01 am, edited 8 times in total.
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
I didn't see the rest of the thread but I just wanted to say that this is such a beautiful way of putting things— something that's been troubling me recently when thinking about the relationship between Buddhist epistemology and metaphysics compared to like philosophy of Science etc. I don't think when Dogen or the Heart Sutra is talking about the universal Buddhanature or śunyatta that there is much to be applied to discussions over like the always already normative aspect of perception-content deployed discursively hahahahaFiveSkandhas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 5:56 pm There is no need to conflate the cosmology of modern science with Buddhist cosmology, or to set them in some kind of opposition. Because Buddhism is a soiterological rather than a metaphysical endeavor, the purpose of Buddhist cosmology is to hasten our liberation by using upaya to create a model of reality that is suited to facilitating the goal of liberation. It is the cosmos seen from a very specific perspective, one we might hazard to call somewhat "interior"(keeping in mind the ultimate lack of interiority and exteriority in a reality characterized by shunyata of course).
Meanwhile modern science is dedicated to creating an open-ended, falsifiable system that describes the physical aspects of samsaric reality.
Apples and oranges. No conflict, the two perspectives just slide past each other effortlessly as they are models of realty with very different purposes and perspectives. We wouldn't ask, "which is true, music or art?" It's a meaningless comparison. Same deal with Buddhist cosmology and modern science.
By the way on a different note it is important to remember Theravada and Mahayana cosmologies are quite different from each other as well.
tysm
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
Uttarakuru is the northern steppes, and also Ptolemy refers to people there are "Kurus." So this ancient geography was shared between the Occident and Orient.Heimdall wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 6:32 am I should also point out a few things as well:
1. The monks themselves evidently don't take the mythology too literally - they demonstrate that the Ancient Indians believed the whole world consisted of the Subcontinent of India and nothing else - something obviously not true. Moreover, in their later video on the "Northern Continent", they use two completely contradictory sources in elaborating what the "Northern Continent" is, and these two sources seem unreconcilable - one source describes the Northern Continent as some kind of Utopian post-agricultural-revolution Garden of Eden, another source describes it as a realm of floating cities where Yakas (Demonic Ogres) have slave ownership over human beings (perhaps, soteriologically, the two sources aren't so unreconcilable when you look at something like the Soviet Union, or, more pertinently, Mao China)
And Its pretty clear that this was a typological cosmology, treated differently in different sources, which Indian Buddhists in the classical period would have been familiar.
Re: Thoughts on Ajahn Sona's video series on Buddhist Cosmology?
Vasubandhu (4th to 5th century CE) had a more correct idea of what this world (planet Earth) is like. He gives measurements of the Jambudvipa cut triangle, these are found in AKB. The land area of Jambudvipa given in AKB is roughly equivalent with India plus the rest of the Asian continent.Heimdall wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 6:32 am I should also point out a few things as well:
1. The monks themselves evidently don't take the mythology too literally - they demonstrate that the Ancient Indians believed the whole world consisted of the Subcontinent of India and nothing else - something obviously not true. Moreover, in their later video on the "Northern Continent", they use two completely contradictory sources in elaborating what the "Northern Continent" is, and these two sources seem unreconcilable - one source describes the Northern Continent as some kind of Utopian post-agricultural-revolution Garden of Eden, another source describes it as a realm of floating cities where Yakas (Demonic Ogres) have slave ownership over human beings (perhaps, soteriologically, the two sources aren't so unreconcilable when you look at something like the Soviet Union, or, more pertinently, Mao China)
2. The monks don't draw a conclusion on interpreting these texts other than, in some sense, they are "real" beyond a merely psychological experience or symbolic metaphor, encouraging the viewer to have an open mind to these texts.
3. In addition to that, the monks do recognize the symbolic and psychological meanings of these stories as legitimate interpretations. While they recognize Mara as a real entity, they also recognize Mara's name literally means "death" and Mara is often used to refer to internal personal temptations as well.
In the world mandala the narrow end of the cut triangle of Jambudvipa is toward Mount Sumeru, it is not "north" in the modern sense. The narrow end of Jambudvipa is the narrow end of India.
Vasubandhu also knows that when there is day in Jambudvipa, it is night in Uttarakuru, and vice versa. Uttarakuru is definitely on the opposite side of the planet for Vasubandhu. Uttarakuru of Vasubandhu therefore correponds with South and North Americas.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)