Agganna Sutta

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

They must not have the basic faith in the Buddhadhamma that you do. I think that for them it consitutes "doubt in the Buddha's teachings", because they think he was meaning something entirely different based on modern scientific theory,

Doubt in the teachings is doubt in the Buddhas knowledge of dukkha and how to end it, not doubt in a cosmology


However if Buddha did teach the Agganna Sutta in the literalist way that is being put forward here, it contradicts mainstream Biology quite badly and it would seem Buddha was ignorant


However this all rests on reading such suttas literally, which I dont think is the suttas intent at all
“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:
yuttadhammo wrote: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.
I don't see a time frame specified...
In that you are correct. It had been awhile since I read the text.
As for the process of evolution, it's important to distinguish between the evolution of a single being and the evolution of a species. Science says species on Earth are evolving; this is in no way contradictory to the idea that individual beings have been devolving - in fact, it's pretty clear that it is the devolution of higher beings that is leading to the population increase on Earth (along, one might presume, with the evolution of hell beings).
Devolving. Well, yes, here you are talking not about science but a religious notion.
What assumptions are behind the story and what things cannot be measured? Are you being vague on purpose?
You tell me what can be .... ah, wait. The Aggañña Sutta is a religious text within a particular context. Ignore the context, try to take it literally in a scientific context and what you have is a Buddhist version of Xtian fundamentalists/literalists creationists trying to make a religious text do scientific work, which none of the literalist here have shown it can do, which would mean giving a credible accounting of the scientific accounting of the formation of the earth and the rise of life, which clearly has not been done. What we have gotten here is an attempt at impugning science as a way of opening the door for this creation story, which is the sort of tactic Xtian creationists use in promoting their religious creation story. All this does is make the Dhamma look cheesy.
>> 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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

Since Evolution is being discussed here and since some misunderstandings have been posted, here are some links to give better information on the Subject


http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... lution.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (this one is quite good)


http://www.newscientist.com/topic/evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“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 »

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote: You answer it first.
Sure. Pretty much the same thing that is going on in Digha Nikaya 1 and 24.

Here is how I understand it. The suttas do not deny the existence of Devas and Brahmas or what is said in Agganna sutta quote.
The existence of Devas is not an issue here. I am not denying they exist.
The DN1 sutta denies forming Self Views based on limited knowledge (or limited clairvoyance) about Devas/Brahmas.


What the Buddha known and seen was not a speculation for Him. So what He taught in Agganna sutta was not a speculation.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Patika_Sutta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What is going on in the texts involved here is an addressing of the Brahmanical points of view as found in the creation teachings in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad, giving a very specific Buddhist twist to them via a rather biting satire, undermining the Brahmanical position by having God/Brahma appear somewhat foolish and as a being still bound by kamma. This is also done in the Aggañña Sutta, a discourse involving two young brahmins wanting to become bhikkhus. In the process he critiques the Brahmanical notion of societal hierarchy among other things. Walshe, in the first footnote to this text (THUS HAVE I HEARD, page 603) states: ”This is a parallel fable to the previous Sutta, giving a slightly different account of ‘origins’, and including a devastating attack on the pretensions of the Brahmins.”
>> 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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

On the issue that since we cant "see" macroevolution and speciation then we should discount it, I found this


Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_48" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“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
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 »

In the Samyutta nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka, it says,
"it is out of compassion for all creatures, for the welfare and happiness of gods and men, that a Buddha arises".

Why the (theoretical) epithet "gods" be used here? Do you insist that it is not referring to real, living gods here?
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:In the Samyutta nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka, it says,
"it is out of compassion for all creatures, for the welfare and happiness of gods and men, that a Buddha arises".

Why the (theoretical) epithet "gods" be used here? Do you insist that it is not referring to real, living gods here?
with metta
To whom are you addressing this?
>> 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 »

I was addressing that to everyone, I'm sure. You've said that you're not denying the existence of devas, and claiming a reasoning for the Buddha to explain cosmology and the arising of life that is other than showing the real cosmology. You've been saying that. But the Buddha is said to be teacher of gods and to have taught the Brahma you've been talking about. All throughout the Canon. I don't see the base for you claim, anywhere. I'm trying to, but I don't see why you would have grounds to think this way unless you took the entire scripture at face value. And you might say that his teaching of awakening doesn't concern these things, but you can't read the teaching of awakening without standing neck-deep in devas and brahmas and hell, and rebirth.

And again the entire expanse of the Dhamma scripture quotes over and over again that the Buddha is a teacher of gods and men. His mother even became a devi in Tusita, upon dieing some time after the birth of Siddhatta. He teaches the Abhidhamma to her along with the other devas in Tavatimsa. He also claimed to know Sakka and lists the exact qualities required to become the King of the Gods (of Tavatimsa).
The Buddha was using the current representation of the world to explain the reality of the cosmological structure. The people would not have understand that the world was a sphere, they would not have understand galaxies, or galactic clusters, or the universe. So, he told them about their world, about how the solar system with its sun, moon, and earth forms, and how beings come to arise on earth. And he explained how the planes of existence rise to the top of all existence, above a thousand worlds, a thousand of those systems, a thousand of those systems.
Just because the Brahmanistic ideas were so similar to the real cosmos, doesn't mean that the Buddha was just fabricating something to convince them of their fallacy. What if the Buddha arose in such a time of those ideas to correct them? That is much more plausible, and it doesn't rip apart the scripture, either.
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:I was addressing that to everyone, I'm sure. You've said that you're not denying the existence of devas, and claiming a reasoning for the Buddha to explain cosmology and the arising of life that is other than showing the real cosmology. You've been saying that. But the Buddha is said to be teacher of gods and to have taught the Brahma you've been talking about. All throughout the Canon. I don't see the base for you claim, anywhere. I'm trying to, but I don't see why you would have grounds to think this way unless you took the entire scripture at face value. And you might say that his teaching of awakening doesn't concern these things, but you can't read the teaching of awakening without standing neck-deep in devas and brahmas and hell, and rebirth.
Damdifino what you think I am saying, though I have been quite clear.
His mother even became a devi in Tusita, upon dieing some time after the birth of Siddhatta.
The name Siddhattha is not found in the suttas. It is, rather, a name coined after the death of the Buddha as his "life story" was being composed by those who came after him as is the story of his mother and the origins of the Abhidhamma. This not at all unlike what the Mahayanists have done in their claims about their sutras.
The Buddha was using the current representation of the world to explain the reality of the cosmological structure. The people would not have understand that the world was a sphere, they would not have understand galaxies, or galactic clusters, or the universe.
This is sort of correct. He did use the Brahmanical stories to make a point by turning the Brahmanical stories into Buddhist stories that really are critiques of the basis of the Brahmanical claims.
Just because the Brahmanistic ideas were so similar to the real cosmos, doesn't mean that the Buddha was just fabricating something to convince them of their fallacy. What if the Buddha arose in such a time of those ideas to correct them? That is much more plausible, and it doesn't rip apart the scripture, either.
It only "rips apart" anything if you are stuck on having to have the security of a literalist point of view, and then you are stuck with having to act like other literalist such as Xtian fundamentalists when confronted with science, making the Dhamma look stupid.
>> 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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by Ceisiwr »

And you might say that his teaching of awakening doesn't concern these things, but you can't read the teaching of awakening without standing neck-deep in devas and brahmas and hell, and rebirth.
Depends on interpretation of those terms and what the Buddha meant by them


We already know he put a different twist on words in relation to kamma and by what he meant by "world"
“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
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 »

Yes, he was the supreme wordsmith.
The Buddhadhamma is not to be taken literally in all respects.
Tilt, I don't see why you're saying that the Buddha was, "turning the Brahmanical stories into Buddhist stories that really are critiques of the basis of the Brahmanical claims." I can understand how you think that, and your points, but I think that it isn't necessarily true and so I don't think that "my argument" verses "your argument" has any basis. I don't think it can lead to anything. I'm not stuck on the security of the literal point-of-view, I enjoy the security of the Dhamma on practical experience, not because of the Agganna Sutta or Abhidhamma cosmology. If the Buddha explained the cosmos, fine. If he didn't, that's fine too. I'm not stuck on anything. But I am inclined to think that it is literal in the subtle sense of the Buddha.
clw_uk wrote:
And you might say that his teaching of awakening doesn't concern these things, but you can't read the teaching of awakening without standing neck-deep in devas and brahmas and hell, and rebirth.
Depends on interpretation of those terms and what the Buddha meant by them
I agree. I interpret them one way on my practical experience, and other Buddhists interpret them in another. I don't think there is a basis for us to argue it on, to any real point.
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:Yes, he was the supreme wordsmith.
The Buddhadhamma is not to be taken literally in all respects.
Tilt, I don't see why you're saying that the Buddha was, "turning the Brahmanical stories into Buddhist stories that really are critiques of the basis of the Brahmanical claims." I can understand how you think that,
I do not think you have a clue why I think that. Maybe you might try studying some of the pre-Buddhist "Hindu"/Brahmanical literature, such as the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad, which is very directly used as a basis in DN 1/24 and read some of the better histories of that time.
. . . but I think that it isn't necessarily true and so I don't think that "my argument" verses "your argument" has any basis I don't think it can lead to anything.
If you are not willing to inform yourself about the milieu of the Buddha's time, you are absolutely correct about the hopelessness of any such discussion. The thing is, these discourses did not appear in a vacuum.
But I am inclined to think that it is literal in the subtle sense of the Buddha.[/b]
Whatever that might mean.
>> 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
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Agganna Sutta

Post by mikenz66 »

son of dhamma wrote: Tilt, I don't see why you're saying that the Buddha was, "turning the Brahmanical stories into Buddhist stories that really are critiques of the basis of the Brahmanical claims."
Have you read any of Richard Gombrich's books?

How Buddhism Began
http://books.google.com/books?id=aIOY5g ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What the Buddha Thought
http://www.equinoxpub.com/equinox/books ... p?bkid=385" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

See also this thread: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5599" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Mike
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:
But I am inclined to think that it is literal in the subtle sense of the Buddha.[/b]
Whatever that might mean.
I meant that the Buddha spoke subtly, regardless of literacy or non-literacy, his words were always imbued with a subtle meaning, that meaning which is of the Dhamma which is "subtle and difficult to understand". I think that it is subtle, and when I read the Buddha's words I find there to be the subtle meaning of the Dhamma in them, a subtle meaning that speaks to the practice. A knowledge of the Buddha, in some sense.
I am familiar with the Upanishads, the Vedas, and I study Brahmanistic tradions such as Hinduism and especially the Bhagavad-gita and related texts.
I never implied that I thought they appeared out of a vacuum, I stated my position:
son of dhamma wrote: The Buddha was using the current representation of the world to explain the reality of the cosmological structure. The people would not have understand that the world was a sphere, they would not have understand galaxies, or galactic clusters, or the universe. So, he told them about their world, about how the solar system with its sun, moon, and earth forms, and how beings come to arise on earth. And he explained how the planes of existence rise to the top of all existence, above a thousand worlds, a thousand of those systems, a thousand of those systems.
Just because the Brahmanistic ideas were so similar to the real cosmos, doesn't mean that the Buddha was just fabricating something to convince them of their fallacy. What if the Buddha arose in such a time of those ideas to correct them?...
That is what I am inclined to think on my practical experience of the Eightfold Path and experiences with meditation. I do NOT think that we don't have a basis for argument because you are familiar with the milieu of the Buddha's time and I am not. I think that we don't have a basis because our practical experience is not the same, and that according to the scripture I think "the Brahmanistic ideas were so similar to the real cosmos... and the Buddha effectively arose in such a time of those ideas to correct them. I don't have a basis to argue this point with you, do you find one, without presuming things about me?
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: I am familiar with the Upanishads, the Vedas, and I study Brahmanistic tradions such as Hinduism and especially the Bhagavad-gita and related texts.
I do not find you at all convincing in what you just said in light of what you said above: 'I don't see why you're saying that the Buddha was, "turning the Brahmanical stories into Buddhist stories that really are critiques of the basis of the Brahmanical claims.' If you really had studied the earliest Upanishads this statement would not have been made.
That is what I am inclined to think on my practical experience of the Eightfold Path and experiences with meditation. I do NOT think that we don't have a basis for argument because you are familiar with the milieu of the Buddha's time and I am not. I think that we don't have a basis because our practical experience is not the same, and that according to the scripture I think "the Brahmanistic ideas were so similar to the real cosmos... and the Buddha effectively arose in such a time of those ideas to correct them. I don't have a basis to argue this point with you, do you find one, without presuming things about me?
Ah, the reformist notion of the Buddha. And on the basis of over 40+ years of "practical experience" with the path the Buddha taught and with experiences of bhavana, working with excellent teachhers, studying the Pali texts, I see that there is no reason to take some of this cosmological stuff literally. The Buddha was far more subtle than that.
>> 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
Post Reply