World Cycles and Cosmic Systems

[son of dhamma]

Actually, the three knowledges are quite bare boned. There is very little of what is worked in detail in the OP in the three knowledges, and that stuff really is not needed for awakening.

No, it isn't needed for awakening at all. An Arahant doesn't necessarily understand the structure of the cosmos.
with metta

[pt1]

So in answer to your question, there is no branch system in Buddhist cosmology whatsoever--it is a Mahayana imposition.

Ok thanks. How about Mount-Meru though?

Buddha-fields are also Mahayana impositions

Hm, I could swear I saw the term "buddhafield" somewhere in Visuddhimagga, though it’s likely the term is used in a different sense than in Mahayana.

Formless beings certainly do perceive other beings and the beings of planes below them, which includes all beings that exist who populate innumerable world-systems, endlessly arising. They have no corporeality, but they are composed of mind and have mental perception.

Hm, I remember an explanation where it’s said that rebirth in formless realms should not be aimed for because one cannot get in touch with the dhamma teachings there. This is apparently because beings in formless realms have no senses with which to get in touch with the teachings – can’t hear it, can’t see it, etc. But, you’re saying that they can perceive other beings, so then I wonder why can’t they also perceive dhamma teachings, e.g. when some of those beings is giving a dhamma lesson? Anyway, I’m just basically hoping for a reference regarding what you said above about formless beings perceiving other beings. But if you can’t remember where you read/heard it, that’s ok, I can’ remember where I heard what I said above either.

Best wishes

[pt1]

Hm, unless perhaps one gets to awakening through three knowledges - recollection of former abodes, seeing the arising and passing away of beings, and destruction of cankers. I think the second knowledge of seeing the arising and passing away of beings would have something to do with what son of dhamma is talking about. But, not having any sort of experiences in that direction, I don't really know.

Best wishes

Actually, the three knowledges are quite bare boned. There is very little of what is worked in detail in the OP in the three knowledges, and that stuff really is not needed for awakening.

I guess I disagree to an extent on practical grounds. I remember an explanation that the problem one can run into with the first two knowledges is if the vision is limited and you don't really know how to use the two to understand kamma, conditionality, etc. E.g. you get to see only up to a certain plane/heaven, so you assume that this is the best there is, that this is nibbana, etc. Theistic religions in a way seem to suffer from this problem – since the two knowledges are not restricted to Buddhism - someone gets to see a certain glorious deva on a certain plance, and so he assumes that union with that god, or rebirth in that plane/heaven, etc, is the goal of the holy life.

So, that’s why I feel it’s important to have this cosmology business explained - if someone runs into the same problem, at least the map is already there, and then a step can be taken towards what’s really important - the third knowledge - by knowing that the point of the first two knowledges is to directly verify the workings of kamma and conditionality, what should then naturally lead to the third knowledge.

Though, you do have a point to an extent. I mean the three knowledges seemed to be a common way of attainment in the Buddha’s time, but not nowadays. Moreover, these days the experiences with the first two knowledges are often frowned upon as delusions, etc. So perhaps this stuff isn’t that relevant nowadays, but I guess there still must be some who really experience this sort of stuff, so they are therefore liable to get lost without proper directions. So, perhaps the OP stuff might seem superfluous to most nowadays, but it still might be needed by some to avoid getting lost.

Best wishes

[tiltbillings]

So, that’s why I feel it’s important to have this cosmology business explained -

I can only shrug my shoulders. I don't agree, but this is hardly life or death here. What is needed, as I understand it, is to simply pay attention to the rise and fall of what one experiences, be it one's breath or the vision of one's past lives, which should be seen in terms of paticcasamuppada. Without paticcasamuppada the danger is great of getting lost. Nothing else is needed.

[Paññāsikhara]

Actually, the Buddha did not describe the horizontal "dimensional-width" of the cosmos. The chiliocosms were explained in later doctrinal formation of the Mahayana, specifically the Diamond Sutra. So, chiliocosms and and greater world-systems should not be considered Theravada or traditional Buddhist cosmology. I was inclined to think that this would be evident to the Buddhists here, but I should not have been careless.
The Buddha explained the 31 planes, and the temporal cosmology as well, in various suttas and in books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. But greater world-systems were never mentioned by him, and are simply inventions of the traditions which later formed. I consider these ideas to be notable and so I noted them. So in answer to your question, there is no branch system in Buddhist cosmology whatsoever--it is a Mahayana imposition. Buddha-fields are also Mahayana impositions, which surely don't seem to relate to the original Dhammic cosmology, at least not in the notable way that the included horizontal scheme of the Mahayana does. Apologies to having confused anyone regarding chiliocosms. Temporal and vertical cosmology is in fact accurate.

For the sake of convenience, I removed the extraneous Mahayana content.
with metta

Hello Son of Dhamma,

I am not sure what "extraneous Mahayaan content" you may have removed, but I would like to make a comment here on your post. I have made bold above the claim that I would like to discuss.

The notion of various types of cosmology, such as the small-thousand-fold, medium-million-fold, and great-billion-fold world system, is well attested in Sarvastivada literature, such as the Prajnapti Sastra and Mahavibhasa. The former is almost certainly pre-Mahayana, probably by a few centuries; and the latter is contemporary with the early strata of Mahayana, though because it does not even seem to know of the existence of anything Mahayana, I am unaware of any scholar who thinks that Mahayana ideas influenced this work in any way. It also appears in the Lokaprajnapti Sastra, too, another early non-Mahayana commentarial work.

Thus, it is quite incorrect to claim that "it is a Mahayana imposition", for it most certainly is not. And in fact, by so claiming, you have further confused the issue.

Moreover, the so-called Diamond sutra merely mentions these systems, but does not "explain" them at all. It does not have to. The reason being, that those followers of such a large school of the Sarvastivada, which was perhaps the most dominant school in mainland India at the time, already very clearly had a notion of such world systems.

On a broader note, I hope that posters here will refrain from what is a common tendency, that of inaccurate and baseless assumptions that whatever is not in early Theravada but appears later in Buddhism must of necessity be a Mahayana creation (or "imposition"). A kind of baseless "let's blame it all on the Mahayana" type of approach.

It would be nice to see a broader study of the Buddhist tradition as a whole, which soon shows that the Theravada was just one of a large number of early Nikayan schools, and that these others schools had a host of different ideas about a number of topics. And often, these different views were not creations of the Mahayana, but rather, the Mahayana picked up these views from other mainstream Nikayan schools, views which were quite the norm in parts of mainland Indian Buddhism, but possibly not the Theravada.

[tiltbillings]

"let's blame it all on the Mahayana"

Geez, that is good sport.

Seriously, Bhante, you are a solid voice here and I am ever so appreciative of your contributions here, which very often give a balanced perspective to what can be an all too lopsided approach. So, what you said above: good stuff.

[Paññāsikhara]

Buddha-fields are also Mahayana impositions

Hm, I could swear I saw the term "buddhafield" somewhere in Visuddhimagga, though it’s likely the term is used in a different sense than in Mahayana.

In the Visuddhimagga, the Apadana, and Theragatha too.

The sense is different from that of later developed Mahayana thought, but let's be honest enough to admit that such general terms are there, at least. Especially no definition or qualification of what "buddha-fields" are "Mahayana impositions" was given in the original claims.

Now someone will probably come along and point out that "but these texts are not taught by the Buddha!", he would be correct, but that does nothing for the original claims about these these being "Mahayana impositions".

[mikenz66]

Dear Venerable,

Thank you for your input.

On a broader note, I hope that posters here will refrain from what is a common tendency, that of inaccurate and baseless assumptions that whatever is not in early Theravada but appears later in Buddhism must of necessity be a Mahayana creation (or "imposition"). A kind of baseless "let's blame it all on the Mahayana" type of approach.

It would be nice to see a broader study of the Buddhist tradition as a whole, which soon shows that the Theravada was just one of a large number of early Nikayan schools, and that these others schools had a host of different ideas about a number of topics. And often, these different views were not creations of the Mahayana, but rather, the Mahayana picked up these views from other mainstream Nikayan schools, views which were quite the norm in parts of mainland Indian Buddhism, but possibly not the Theravada.

I'm sorry that it is up to a small number of people, in particular yourself, who are knowledgeable enough on early Buddhism in general to be able to discuss such things authoritatively. All I can do (if I have time) is to consult modern reasonably general books to try to glean a little information.

It seems a pity that our "Early Buddhism" forum http://dhammawheel.com/viewforum.php?f=29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is relatively inactive.


Mike

[pt1]

What is needed, as I understand it, is to simply pay attention to the rise and fall of what one experiences, be it one's breath or the vision of one's past lives, which should be seen in terms of paticcasamuppada. Without paticcasamuppada the danger is great of getting lost. Nothing else is needed.

Yes, but I feel what you're speaking about here already has to do with the third knowledge so to speak, since that's what breaks the cankers. What I'm trying to say though is that problems are bound to happen already with the first two knowledges for those who have such abilities. So, then the cosmolgy stuff seems useful so that they can get over the whole thing and just get to considering conditionality in it. Especially because those who have such abilities often tend to spend a lot more time on meditation than on reading, so they might not be very familiar with the teachings on conditionality, etc. Hm, in what case they probably won't be bothered to read about cosmology and how it ties in with conditionality either...

Best wishes

[son of dhamma]

Thus, it is quite incorrect to claim that "it is a Mahayana imposition", for it most certainly is not. And in fact, by so claiming, you have further confused the issue.

Moreover, the so-called Diamond sutra merely mentions these systems, but does not "explain" them at all. It does not have to. The reason being, that those followers of such a large school of the Sarvastivada, which was perhaps the most dominant school in mainland India at the time, already very clearly had a notion of such world systems. ...
...
It would be nice to see a broader study of the Buddhist tradition as a whole, which soon shows that the Theravada was just one of a large number of early Nikayan schools, and that these others schools had a host of different ideas about a number of topics. And often, these different views were not creations of the Mahayana, but rather, the Mahayana picked up these views from other mainstream Nikayan schools, views which were quite the norm in parts of mainland Indian Buddhism, but possibly not the Theravada.

I should have spoken more specifically, as I am aware that I'm not so knowledgeable as to which terms and concepts originate from which doctrinal formations. But when I spoke that it is a Mahayana imposition, I was thinking that they impose it now--thanks for explaining where it comes from. "It would be nice to see a broader study of the Buddhist tradition as a whole, which soon shows that the Theravada was just one of a large number of early Nikayan schools, and that these others schools had a host of different ideas about a number of topics."
It would be nice, and I have studied every tradition of Buddhist practice and thought to a deep degree. Honestly, I don't know how to step around in those areas on this forum, and so I'm inclined to avoid posting about such things here, on the "Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of the Theravada". From what I understand, "mainland Indian Buddhism" is quite ambiguous doctrinally.
with metta

[pt1]

Buddha-fields are also Mahayana impositions

Hm, I could swear I saw the term "buddhafield" somewhere in Visuddhimagga, though it’s likely the term is used in a different sense than in Mahayana.

In the Visuddhimagga, the Apadana, and Theragatha too.

The sense is different from that of later developed Mahayana thought

Thanks for that Bhante. When you have time, it'd be great if you can say a bit on how you understand the difference between the two senses.

Best wishes

[son of dhamma]

In the Visuddhimagga, the Apadana, and Theragatha too.

The sense is different from that of later developed Mahayana thought, but let's be honest enough to admit that such general terms are there, at least. Especially no definition or qualification of what "buddha-fields" are "Mahayana impositions" was given in the original claims.

Now someone will probably come along and point out that "but these texts are not taught by the Buddha!", he would be correct, but that does nothing for the original claims about these these being "Mahayana impositions".

That's really interesting! I'm not as studied in the Theravada commentaries--some specifics yes--as I am in the Mahayana commentaries, whereas concerning the Theravada Pali Canon I am quite studied, and in the Mahayana Sutras.
It is true that when I mentioned Buddha-field as a response to a question, I was thinking of the Buddha field presently imposed by the Mahayana--this certainly can't be found in a Theravada context, obviously. I was unaware that there were other concepts of the term and that they are commented. I haven't seen any mentioning of Buddha fields in those commentaries, but I would like to learn about what this term means and possibly gain knowledge from it. Could you make some references or just explain?
with metta

[Paññāsikhara]

Thus, it is quite incorrect to claim that "it is a Mahayana imposition", for it most certainly is not. And in fact, by so claiming, you have further confused the issue.

Moreover, the so-called Diamond sutra merely mentions these systems, but does not "explain" them at all. It does not have to. The reason being, that those followers of such a large school of the Sarvastivada, which was perhaps the most dominant school in mainland India at the time, already very clearly had a notion of such world systems. ...
...
It would be nice to see a broader study of the Buddhist tradition as a whole, which soon shows that the Theravada was just one of a large number of early Nikayan schools, and that these others schools had a host of different ideas about a number of topics. And often, these different views were not creations of the Mahayana, but rather, the Mahayana picked up these views from other mainstream Nikayan schools, views which were quite the norm in parts of mainland Indian Buddhism, but possibly not the Theravada.

Hello Son of Dhamma,

Thanks for your response.

I should have spoken more specifically, as I am aware that I'm not so knowledgeable as to which terms and concepts originate from which doctrinal formations. But when I spoke that it is a Mahayana imposition, I was thinking that they impose it now--thanks for explaining where it comes from.

"Imposition", from dictionary.com:
–noun
1. the laying on of something as a burden or obligation.
2. something imposed, as a burden or duty; an unusual or extraordinarily burdensome requirement or task.
3. the act of imposing by or as if by authority.
4. an instance of imposing upon a person: He did the favor but considered the request an imposition.
5. the act of imposing fraudulently or deceptively on others; imposture.
6. the ceremonial laying on of hands, as in confirmation or ordination.
7. Printing . the arrangement of page plates in proper order on a press for printing a Signature.
8. the act of putting, placing, or laying on.

Well, it was the Sarvastivada (and almost certainly other schools, too) that came up with the idea. As they were the dominant schools, they may (or may not) have "imposed" it upon the broader Buddhist tradition of the time.

But, does the Mahayana "impose" it? Do they go knocking on doors demanding that people accept this idea? Maybe some zealous types do, but most do not. Another reason why they do not, is that some 2000 years ago, the other non-Mahayana schools had already influenced pretty much the whole of Buddhism to accept this doctrine, including the Theravada. So, even nowadays, the Mahayana does not have to "impose" this even on the Theravada.

"It would be nice to see a broader study of the Buddhist tradition as a whole, which soon shows that the Theravada was just one of a large number of early Nikayan schools, and that these others schools had a host of different ideas about a number of topics."
It would be nice, and I have studied every tradition of Buddhist practice and thought to a deep degree.

Then I am surprised that you didn't see, for example, the large amount of material on such cosmology which is found in the Abhidharmakosa, another major non-Mahayana source (which again stems from the Sarvastivadins). Or that the Dharmaguptakas adhered to this notion in their Buddha biographical material.

Honestly, I don't know how to step around in those areas on this forum, and so I'm inclined to avoid posting about such things here, on the "Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of the Theravada". From what I understand, "mainland Indian Buddhism" is quite ambiguous doctrinally.
with metta

I tend to disagree that it is ambiguous. If you have a statement in a given text, and you have a basic providence and school for the text, then not too much problem. The problems come when we tend to over generalize, beyond what we have evidence for. For example, even if a given doctrine is first found in a given Mahayana text, we still cannot really say "this was created by the Mahayana", rather, "the first evidence we have for this is in a Mahayana text". Once you see the doctrines, the lines of flow through schools over time, not so ambiguous. Lots of blank spaces, but that is another matter.

[Sylvester]

So sad that the intersticial hells did not even get a mention...

[tiltbillings]

That's really interesting! I'm not as studied in the Theravada commentaries--some specifics yes--as I am in the Mahayana commentaries, whereas concerning the Theravada Pali Canon I am quite studied, and in the Mahayana Sutras.
It is true that when I mentioned Buddha-field as a response to a question, I was thinking of the Buddha field presently imposed by the Mahayana--this certainly can't be found in a Theravada context, obviously.

presently imposed by the Mahayana" Imposed? What are you talking about here?

I was unaware that there were other concepts of the term and that they are commented. I haven't seen any mentioning of Buddha fields in those commentaries, but I would like to learn about what this term means and possibly gain knowledge from it. Could you make some references or just explain?

Maybe you are not so well read. Try the Visuddhimagga XIII, 31 (pgs 455-6 in Nanamoli's translation).