Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

On Wikipedia's Buddhist cosmology article, it says:

The picture of the world presented in Buddhist cosmological descriptions cannot be taken as a literal description of the shape of the universe. It is inconsistent, and cannot be made consistent, with astronomical data that were already known in ancient India. However, it is not intended to be a description of how ordinary humans perceive their world; rather, it is the universe as seen through the divyacakṣus (Pāli: dibbacakkhu), the "divine eye" by which a Buddha or an arhat who has cultivated this faculty can perceive all of the other worlds and the beings arising (being born) and passing away (dying) within them, and can tell from what state they have been reborn and into what state they will be reborn. The cosmology has also been interpreted in a symbolical or allegorical sense (see Ten spiritual realms).

Am I wrong to assume that Theravada takes the cosmology to be merely symbolical or allegorical?

Anyway, Wikipedia says that, but then there are actual stories I've heard of monks' meditation being disturbed by gandhabbas (I believe the commentary says this?) and of people actually seeing devas... And the various miraculous stories of the suttas, Classical Theravadins take this literally, yes?

I'm not so sure what to make of cosmology based strictly on the suttas, because the suttas have so many stories of such things which are apparently literal, yet despite this, certain other stories seem to poke fun at these things.

In the Juñha Sutta, Sariputta, whose wisdom is said to be second only to the Buddha himself, is meditating and a yakkha hits him on the head. Moggallana sees this and asks Sariputta how he is feeling, and Sariputta mentions only a slight headache. Was this a joke by Sariputta or was he actually totally unaware of the Yakkha's presence?

Another sutta I remember (though I'm lacking a reference at the moment -- but it's well-known, so should be easy to find.. Mahaparinibbana Sutta, maybe?), the Buddha remarks to one of his followers that they need to step out of the way, because there are many gods who trying to see him and they're blocking his view.

Some have also remarked that the Agganna Sutta, the most elaborate sutta on the creation of the world, was a satirical parody of metaphysical speculation but the joke was lost on later commentators. Could this be true?

But in any case, if the cosmology is not literal... and it is not merely metaphorical... and it is the way a Buddha sees with his divine perception, how would this relate to mundane experience? As an example, how might a kalpa relate to the physical expansion and contraction of a universe, during the Big Bang and the theoretical Big Crunch? As another specific question, if devas can choose to take physical form or not, then what is their locality and nature when they are not in physical form?

This sort of question has been bugging me lately. Devas, Asuras, planes of this or that. Beings who live for Eons in other realms. Were these just accepted ideas at the time, and said to "householders" in an attempt to relate the teachings to their beliefs? Was it particular to the Buddha?
Love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks...

Hello alan, all,

You may find this chapter helpful on the Realms of Existence in the book by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda - the whole book is worth keeping as an initial reference.

What Buddhists Believe Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Dr._ ... _Existence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

metta
Chris

Chris wrote:Hello alan, all,
You may find this chapter helpful on the Realms of Existence in the book by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda - the whole book is worth keeping as an initial reference.

What Buddhists Believe Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Dr._ ... _Existence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

metta
Chris

Thanks,Chris.
I found the first part made perfect sense to me, especially ideas like :
"The explanation of the origin of the universe is not the concern of religion. Such theorizing is not necessary for living a righteous way of life and for shaping our future life. However, if one insists on studying this subject, then one must investigate the sciences, astronomy, geology, biology and anthropology. These sciences can offer more reliable and tested information on this subject than can be supplied by any religion."
But I was disappointed that he then, in 'Other World Systems', performed extraordinary contortions in an apparent attempt to avoid treating other realms in the same way.
As far as I can see (not always very far, I know), there is no need whatever to even consider, let alone believe in, the conventional physical reality of other planes of existence.
I welcome other suggestions, though.


Kim

Chris wrote:Hello alan, all,

You may find this chapter helpful on the Realms of Existence in the book by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda - the whole book is worth keeping as an initial reference.

What Buddhists Believe Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Dr._ ... _Existence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

metta
Chris

I would have been helpful if he had defined his terms a little clearer. He seems to use "world" and "universe" interchangeably, but he also seems to use world meaning "earth", and then he throws in "world system" just for variety.

Hello all,

Buddhist Cosmology - Rev. Tri Ratna Priya Karuna
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/budcosmo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What do you think?

metta
Chris

The explanation of the kalpas is fairly consistent with the advanced astronomy of several ancient cultures - including this:

The kalpa in which we are now living has the distinction of being a greatly auspicious kalpa of five Buddhas: Kusanda, Konagamana, Kasyapsa, Sakyamuni and Maitreya, who is yet to come.

...with the difference that they were known as "suns". They were personified, with names - but it was suns that were named.

There are countless, endless cycles of varying sizes. Here's one culture's story about a cycle that measures 35 million years:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092145.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Our present position in the galaxy suggests we are now very close to another such period."

Chris wrote:Hello all,

Buddhist Cosmology - Rev. Tri Ratna Priya Karuna
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/budcosmo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What do you think?

Since you ask ... the cosmology as such bears no discernible relationship to conventional reality. It is a mythology. Anyone teaching that it is an accurate description of our physical world creates the same problems as any Christian teaching that the creation story in Genesis is literally true: they set up an irreconcilable clash with science.
And the cosmologies are not even necessary to either Buddhism or Christianity. They can (and, IMO, should) be abandoned so that the more important parts of the doctrine can be presented without unnecessary intellectual obstacles.
From the point at which this teacher begins to speak about sentient beings, what he says about other planes can be interpreted in psychological and metaphorical terms and the conflicts with science become much less significant. Karma and rebirth may lack scientific proof but they are also free of scientific disproof, meaning that a rational enquirer can give them provisional trust and see where they lead.
That's my view, anyway. Yours may be different and still valid.


Kim

...The world system re-evolves from the residual energy of matter, while most of the beings return from the Brahma world to reborn on a dark and water covered earth. This does not seem to inconvenience the mind-generated beings, since they continue to live much as they had formerly in the Brahma world, self-luminous, nourished by rapture and not divided into different sexes.

With the passage of an immense length of time, conditions begin to change. A scum, with the character of boiled, milky rice, begins to accumulate on the cooling earth, and the terrestial inhabitants begin to taste it and enjoy the sensation. This new sense pleasure leads to craving and an ever increasing dependence on the scum for nourishment. The earthly residents find that their formerly light, ethereal bodies become gross and solid and more differentiated in shape and appearance. Gradually, the waters covering the earth subside; the mists disperse and the sun and moon are clearly revealed in the heavens.

With the continuation of this period of evolution, first lichenous growths, then creeping plants and finally edible grains appear. As the beings learn to subsist on these food sources, they become even more gross, losing their bright and radiant character. They eventually become differentiated into many species, as well as into male and female genders. This separation into two sexes leads to lust, passion and hatred, and the concomitant development of family grouping, and all the institutions of society. The blood smeared record of the last few thousands of years bear witness to the conditions which are typical of the last phase of the third period of the kalpa.

Just curious...is there anyone here who takes this passage literally? What would be an argument for doing so, and how would you answer the objections that it is unscientific...i.e. conflicts with known facts about the formation of the earth, timetable for appearance of life, etc?

It's interesting that it describes a kind of evolution-in-reverse, that is, higher beings devolving into lower ones. By that logic, humans ought to have appeared prior to chimps, no?

Lazy_eye wrote:Just curious...is there anyone here who takes this passage literally? What would be an argument for doing so, and how would you answer the objections that it is unscientific...i.e. conflicts with known facts about the formation of the earth, timetable for appearance of life, etc?

It's interesting that it describes a kind of evolution-in-reverse, that is, higher beings devolving into lower ones. By that logic, humans ought to have appeared prior to chimps, no?

Oh, yeah. There were some heated discussion arounds this on e-sandbox.

Lazy_eye wrote: Just curious...is there anyone here who takes this passage literally? What would be an argument for doing so, and how would you answer the objections that it is unscientific...i.e. conflicts with known facts about the formation of the earth, timetable for appearance of life, etc?

I don't think it sounds that far-fetched. It was written in a way that the people of the time could understand. And it actually sounds pretty close to the scientific account. For example, the beings without gender could be the single-celled amoebas and bacteria who then went through an evolutionary process to the large beings we have today.

The waters receding sounds very much like the known scientific account of about 400,000 years or so of continual rain and then the rain stopped, exposing some of the land, i.e., surface.

I don't tend to spend an awful lot of time thinking about this kind of thing. Maybe it is useful to some practitioners, I don't know. However for me, thinking about cosmology, doesn't benefit my practice, so I don't tend to partake in it.

Kim O'Hara wrote:

Chris wrote:Hello all,

Buddhist Cosmology - Rev. Tri Ratna Priya Karuna
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/budcosmo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What do you think?

they set up an irreconcilable clash with science.

That would be the same "science" that aggressively resisted the idea of plate tectonics just 60 years ago and considered the idea of impact cratering to be speculation until the 1980s (!)...even preferring to believe that the moon's cratering was caused by dead volcanos. I'm not "anti-science" by any measure, but it seems to me that science often clings to some ideas that are as strange as some of what we find in premodern cosmology.

pink_trike wrote:... it seems to me that science often clings to some ideas that are as strange as some of what we find in premodern cosmology.

The crucial difference is that science does abandon errors when better information comes along while (some) religions refuse to even consider altering one iota of the sacred text.
Of course, individual scientists are sometimes as attached to views as individuals in any other occupation, but science as a whole is explicitly committed to discovering and rejecting errors.

Kim

Greetings,

As this question...

Chris wrote:What do you think?

... is difficult to answer within the confines of the Classical Theravada forum, and Individual (the original poster) is on a voluntary hiatus from Dhamma Wheel, it seems logical to move this topic into the General forum so that both "classical" and "modern" viewpoints can be taken up simultaneously, as per each individual's interest.

Metta,
Retro.