Agganna Sutta

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
son of dhamma
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by son of dhamma »

Apologies. I just had the impression you were when we wound up talking about the same debate on two different discussion boards simultaneously. I don't mind debating in this section, but I'm not motivated to argue this point in any further detail concerning clw_uk's question of my own interpretation of the Agganna Sutta. I answered clw_uk's question, and I want to know their response before I debate about it in further detail.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

son of dhamma wrote:Apologies. I just had the impression you were when we wound up talking about the same debate on two different discussion boards simultaneously. I don't mind debating in this section, but I'm not motivated to argue this point in any further detail concerning clw_uk's question of my own interpretation of the Agganna Sutta. I answered clw_uk's question, and I want to know their response before I debate about it in further detail.
with metta
In other words, you do not really want to debate it at all.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
son of dhamma
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by son of dhamma »

tiltbillings wrote:In other words, you do not really want to debate it at all.

I only meant that I would like to hear the questioners response to my viewpoint before I debate with you. I did not mean to be pesky. Thank you for debating with me, I am thankful for you. I do want to debate with you, or I would not have posted anything on the page, I would have sent a private message.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by rowyourboat »

clw_uk wrote:
"There comes a time, Vasettha, when, after the lapse of a long, long period, this world died. And when this happens, beings have mostly been reborn into the Realm of Radiance [as devas]; and there they dwell, made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. There comes also a time, Vasettha, when sooner or later this world begins to re-evolve. When this happens, beings who had deceased from the World of Radiance usually come to life as humans...now at that time, all had become one world of water, dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared, no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only. And to those beings, Vasettha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savours was spread out in the waters, even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear."
This extract from the sutta is sometimes taken to show that the Buddha was teaching the evolution of life on earth, I however have difficulty in this interpretation as the Buddha wouldnt take up a metaphysical view point about things such as origin of life etc, but I cannot come to another conclusion as to what the buddha meant by this teaching.

Whats is everone else's interpretation of this sutta?
The metaphysical (ie the existence of Devas- heavenly beings-that is being who have done much better karma and hence have much more luxurious existences) are a part of the mundane right view- I see no contradiction with the above.

with metta

Matheesha
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
User avatar
yuttadhammo
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:03 pm
Location: Sri Lanka
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by yuttadhammo »

If we don't take this story as literal, we will have to come up with some other explanation as to where we all were before the earth became liveable... unless we're going to deny the core Theravada doctrine of rebirth.

There's an argument for you, Tilt.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

yuttadhammo wrote:If we don't take this story as literal, we will have to come up with some other explanation as to where we all were before the earth became liveable... unless we're going to deny the core Theravada doctrine of rebirth.

There's an argument for you, Tilt.
Damdifino, but there is no reason to take that creation story as literal any more than Christians need to take the Flood story from the Old Testament as being literal to make a point. And certainly it is not a basis for criticizing science.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
yuttadhammo
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:03 pm
Location: Sri Lanka
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by yuttadhammo »

And as to the OP, it really depends what you mean by metaphysics... devas and brahmas are just as much a part of the causal universe as are we, they are just less physical.

It is important to distinguish between Abrahamic conceptions of God and creation and their corresponding Indic conceptions. The former are outside of the laws of nature, the latter are within them. This story is not discussing the creation of the universe, just the recent past. Nor is it discussing eternal supernatural beings, it is pointing out that no such beings exist.

Really, I think the point of the story is to show that we are on a downward slope based on our ever increasing attachment and clinging to the physical. This is very much in line with the Buddha's teaching that craving is the cause of suffering. If it is not true, how could it work as evidence to support the teaching?
User avatar
yuttadhammo
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:03 pm
Location: Sri Lanka
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by yuttadhammo »

tiltbillings wrote:Damdifino, but there is no reason to take that creation story as literal any more than Christians need to take the Flood story from the Old Testament as being literal to make a point.
You mean there was a point to the flood story? How about the part where Noah gets drunk?
And certainly it is not a basis for criticizing science.
In what way does it conflict with science?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

Forgot about this thread :jumping:


I agree with Tilt


Also, I dont subscribe to Rebirth being a part of Buddhas teachings however I will say that one can take this sutta non-literally and still hold a view of rebirth
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by tiltbillings »

yuttadhammo wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Damdifino, but there is no reason to take that creation story as literal any more than Christians need to take the Flood story from the Old Testament as being literal to make a point.
You mean there was a point to the flood story? How about the part where Noah gets drunk?
Sure, within Xtian context, there is a point.
And certainly it is not a basis for criticizing science.
In what way does it conflict with science?
Time frame; the process of evolutions; the assumptions behind the sutta story; those things that cannot be measured and so forth.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Lazy_eye »

yuttadhammo wrote:If we don't take this story as literal, we will have to come up with some other explanation as to where we all were before the earth became liveable... unless we're going to deny the core Theravada doctrine of rebirth.

There's an argument for you, Tilt.
If we do take it literally, how is it compatible with evolutionary theory? Or is it?

Darwinian theory asserts that lower life forms appeared first and that the process of evolution resulted in more sophisticated forms of life, including humans. The Agganna sutta teaches a theory of devolution, in which higher level beings were on the earth first and then degenerated into coarser beings as a result of their desires and hungers. While it doesn't mention animals, one may surmise that these appeared on earth separately from humans. Or, following the logic of the sutta, they should have appeared after humans as beings became even more degenerate. The sutta appears to suggest that humans invented sex, so did the animals learn it from us?

In evolution, the drives for food and sex are the engines of natural selection and hence evolution. Without these drives, no one would have the option of a precious human birth. But in the Agganna Sutta, "natural selection" leads to degeneration and without it all beings would exist in the heavenly realm.

The two theories lend themselves to contrasting philosophical viewpoints. From the Agganna Sutta, it follows logically that we should seek to curtail and finally eliminate "defilements" and "hindrances", since these are what caused us to fall from the harmonious heavenly realm.

If we follow evolutionary theory the issue becomes more complex, since without desire, differentiation and competition for resources we would never have developed to the point where we could understand or practice any higher-order or "wholesome" activities, including dhamma. So the idea of cessation/suppression might require some reworking.

It seems to me that both viewpoints might end up at a similar conclusion going by opposite routes, though. That is, in one model we seek liberation by eliminating defilements, and the in the other we seek it via "evolution of consciousness" -- but the desired end point is probably the same.

LE
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by DNS »

son of dhamma wrote: Why would we take most of the Buddha's teaching to be literal, and selectively claim the rest to be non-literal?
Because the Buddha said to take some Suttas literally and some to take by inference:

Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata.”

Anguttara Nikaya 2.25


Note the words in bold, which show that there are at least some discourses where the meaning is to be inferred and the literal meaning will be wrong. And then, also, there are some discourses which should be taken literally, but the point the Buddha makes, is that it is not all of them.

The Aganna Sutta should be taken somewhat allegorical. But in many ways, it still has it right. The first "beings" on the planet according to science were non-sexual, without gender. And it was craving that made them multiply. This fits with evolution and the Dhamma.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Alex123 »

Lazy_eye wrote: If we do take it literally, how is it compatible with evolutionary theory? Or is it?
Evolution theory says it right there, a theory. It has never been and can never be (unless one has time machine or clairvoyant powers) directly observed.
All its evidence is an inference and a theory.


Since some lifeforms may not form fossils - they may not be found. Not because they didn't exist, but because they didn't leave any material remains. Even those lifeforms that do form fossils, the fossiles could all be destroyed through billions of years that this Earth has existed and shifted continents.

Maybe the Buddha was more correct in that regard because He didn't need to use inferences. He could use his omniscient knowledge.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

Evolution theory says it right there, a theory
Its a SCIENTIFIC Theory. Theory does not mean a guess in science, rather it is something that has evidence for it

We still have the Theory of gravity or Germ Theory, you going to dismiss these to because they are "just a theory"
. It has never been and can never be (unless one has time machine or clairvoyant powers) directly observed.
Evolutionary change can be observed

All its evidence is an inference and a theory.
Nope. Fossil evidence as well as the geographic distribution of animals and genetic evidence
Since some lifeforms may not form fossils - they may not be found. Not because they didn't exist, but because they didn't leave any material remains. Even those lifeforms that do form fossils, the fossiles could all be destroyed through billions of years that this Earth has existed and shifted continents.
Fossils are only a part of the evidence, as I said there is genetic evidence as well. Also there is direct observation of evolution via natural selection, such as via moths
Maybe the Buddha was more correct in that regard because He didn't need to use inferences. He could use his omniscient knowledge
Sounds like "it cant be so because the bible says so", its just you have replaced Bible with Buddha (and your understanding of what he said)
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
pulga
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by pulga »

[quote="David N. Snyder
Note the words in bold, which show that there are at least some discourses where the meaning is to be inferred and the literal meaning will be wrong. [/quote]

If you were to tell me that you were going to the store, and I were to "infer" that you planned to buy something, does that mean that I would be taking your statement metaphorically? There were times when the Buddha gave his sermons in brief without elaborating on the details of their meanings (the Madhupindika Sutta is a prime example). He expected his disciples to infer such details, but that doesn't mean that they were expected to take what he had to say metaphorically.

~~~~~~

Cosmologies come and go: it is we as historical individuals who provide the nama that makes rupa intelligible.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Post Reply