Buddhist Cosmology

compassionate_warrior

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology
www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html (on the 31 planes of existence in Buddhist cosmology)

"Buddhist cosmology ...is the universe as seen through the "divine eye" by which a Buddha or arhat who has cultivated this faculty can perceive all of the worlds and the beings arising and passing away within them, and can tell from what state they have been reborn and into what state they will be reborn. Buddhist cosmology can be divided into two related kinds: spatial cosmology, which describes the arrangement of the various worlds within the universe, and temporal cosmology, which describes how those worlds come into existence and how they pass away."

Did the Buddha teach cosmology, or metaphysics? Apparently he did have a "divine" (clairvoyant) eye which allowed him to perceive far beyond our ordinary physical reality. And rebirth was part of his vision of the universe. How are the 31 realms of existence and the various worlds within the universe to be understood?

Arjquad

I've seen the phrase on here before but what exactly is metaphysics?

In relation to the planes of existence. I can see how it could make sense in relation to reincarnation but I don't know if the Buddha taught that. Then again I am still kinda new. I hope to see a good conclusion to this question since it's now intrigued me.

Dazzle

A quote from Ajahn Amaro, abbot of Amaravati Monastery UK :

"Buddhist cosmology and the stories of the suttas always have a historical, a mythical and a psychological element to them."

source:

http://archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/winter/ajahnamaro.html

Takuan

I've seen the phrase on here before but what exactly is metaphysics?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world,[1] although the term is not easily defined. (From Wikipedia)

The ability to view/travel to these realms seems to be some sort of siddhi. Moggallana appears to have this ability (among his others) as he is able to visit Buddha worlds at will.

One day, when Mogallana was in the meditation room, he could actually hear the voice of the Buddha who was teaching in the hall. He was very surprised because the Buddha was quite far from him. To find out how far the Buddha's voice could reach, he decided to go to Buddhaksetra, or land of a Buddha.

Through his divine feet, he came to a Buddhaksetra and saw Lokesvararaja Buddha preaching there. The delighted Mogallana sat down and listened to the preaching.

Surprisingly, he could hear the preaching of the Buddha on the earth and that of the Lokesvararaja Buddha at the same time.
Mogallana's presence was later discovered by one of the bodhisattvas. Knowing that he was the great disciple of the Buddha on the earth, Lokesvararaja Buddha asked him, "Venerable, you are here to find out how far the voice of the Buddha can reach. Am I right?"

"Yes!" answered Mogallana.

"Venerable, you should not have this intention. The power of all Buddhas is quite beyond the mortals and the preaching of all Buddhas is everywhere in the immaterial universe. The state that the living beings reach can be far or near. One must not have discrimination and try to find out how far the Buddha's voice can reach."

Mogallana felt quite ashamed after hearing that. From then on, he never dared do the same again.

Mogallana frequented not only Buddhaksetra but also the hell to observe living beings receiving the retribution for their good or bad deeds.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/db_02.htm

compassionate_warrior

I've seen the phrase on here before but what exactly is metaphysics?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world,[1] although the term is not easily defined. (From Wikipedia)

I don't like that definition of "metaphysics". The meaning has changed over the centuries. "meta" means "beyond", so it's "beyond physics", meaning, most commonly these days, trying to explain the paranormal.

vinlyn

This whole thing begins to bother me. It seems so much like the "magic" that we sometimes criticize in the Christian religions. Why can't Buddha simply be an extremely wise man without having a "divine eye", etc. Why do we, as humans, have to conjure up magic to believe in Buddha's wisdom?

vinlyn

Just to further comment. It's not that it's not possible, I just don't see any evidence for this magic aspect.

But of course, everyone is free to believe as they wish.

aMatt

This whole thing begins to bother me. It seems so much like the "magic" that we sometimes criticize in the Christian religions. Why can't Buddha simply be an extremely wise man without having a "divine eye", etc. Why do we, as humans, have to conjure up magic to believe in Buddha's wisdom?

Conversely, what repels us from that which is unexplained in modern scientific context? I wonder if we can set aside "magic eye vs wise man" and get back to a more practical "what is being seen"

Best not to prejudice ourselves in either direction.

Vincenzi

science falls to reductionism.

personally, I'm glad that such a chart exists for whoever has the eye of dharma.

vinlyn

This whole thing begins to bother me. It seems so much like the "magic" that we sometimes criticize in the Christian religions. Why can't Buddha simply be an extremely wise man without having a "divine eye", etc. Why do we, as humans, have to conjure up magic to believe in Buddha's wisdom?

Conversely, what repels us from that which is unexplained in modern scientific context? I wonder if we can set aside "magic eye vs wise man" and get back to a more practical "what is being seen"

Best not to prejudice ourselves in either direction.

Could you elaborate, please.

vinlyn

science falls to reductionism.

personally, I'm glad that such a chart exists for whoever has the eye of dharma.

And could you elaborate, please.

Vincenzi

@vinlyn

science currently only focus on phenomena that can be explained exclusively with what happens to energy and matter. it hasn't even scratched the surface of what is mind (because it reduces mental phenomena to something that it is not).

some experiences and skills can be obtained through meditation. the eye of dharma (or divine eye), the recollection of past lives and astral travel (mind-made body in the pali tripitaka) are used in a better way if the practitioner has a general overview of the cosmology (the 31 planes) according to other meditators.

vinlyn

@vinlyn

science currently only focus on phenomena that can be explained exclusively with what happens to energy and matter. it hasn't even scratched the surface of what is mind (because it reduces mental phenomena to something that it is not).

some experiences and skills can be obtained through meditation. the eye of dharma (or divine eye), the recollection of past lives and astral travel (mind-made body in the pali tripitaka) are used in a better way if the practitioner has a general overview of the cosmology (the 31 planes) according to other meditators.

Thank you for expanding your thoughts for me.

I'm glad that science sticks to what is provable at this time. Of course, "what is provable" expands over time.

The problem with concepts such as divine eye, past lives, 31 planes, and astral travel is that one group of people believes in that. Another group of people believes in some other set of phenomenon. Another group something else. Any or all may be true, or not. And, many of those things may be "suggestable" by other "believers".

There is so much of the Dhamma that we can work with that we can confirm through our own actions and testing. And there is so much on these discussion boards that is mere speculation (e.g., did you read the post about teaching dogs to meditate?).

Again, each person may believe what they wish and have faith in what they wish.

aMatt

Again, each person may believe what they wish and have faith in what they wish.

Its not even a matter of wishing, people have belief and faith, sometimes in the concrete and sometimes in the unseen.

"Its best not to prejudice ourselves in either direction" means simply to stay alert to where you are, stay awake. Then, whether you are moving through a part of the 31 planes, or the local McDonalds, you will be moving in a skillful direction. If you spend time denying the improbable, when it happens you'll be relating to your shock instead.

compassionate_warrior

This whole thing begins to bother me. It seems so much like the "magic" that we sometimes criticize in the Christian religions. Why can't Buddha simply be an extremely wise man without having a "divine eye", etc. Why do we, as humans, have to conjure up magic to believe in Buddha's wisdom?

In case anyone was wondering, or had the wrong impression, just because I put this up for discussion doesn't mean I endorse these beliefs. The quote came up on another thread, I'd never heard of Buddhist cosmology, so I thought it would make for a good discussion. One of the sources I gave says this cosmology and the 31 realms is a pan-Buddhist belief, meaning part of Theravada as well as Mahayana. But other info I came across indicates it's much stronger in the Pure Land tradition. It would be helpful if we had someone on the forum who could give us an overview on this.(Jason? Are you out there?)

As for a "divine eye" and other "magic", I take the word of the few members who have said over the months that they have had clairvoyant or other "paranormal" experiences (recalling past lives, whatever) as a result of meditation. So much Buddhist and Hindu literature says that "siddhis" are a by-product of the meditation practice, and just a stepping-stone along the path, not to be clung to, so it must be real. But to go so far as to say the Buddha was able to see other realms or worlds around the universe and the beings inhabiting and being reborn in them? Maybe that's a bit of mythology. or...not. A discussion board is about fielding a range of opinions, that's what's so interesting and fun about it. I think the Buddha was a very wise man, and I don't doubt he experienced some "siddhis" in his practice. Was there more to it than just that? As Vinlyn said, it's everyone's choice to believe as they wish. :om:

Ric

Vinlyn,
I agree with you. I think there are many reasons people enjoy these ideas. But it is interesting when someone who believes in supernatural Buddhism thinks that Christianity or any other religion is silly.

zidangus

This whole thing begins to bother me. It seems so much like the "magic" that we sometimes criticize in the Christian religions. Why can't Buddha simply be an extremely wise man without having a "divine eye", etc. Why do we, as humans, have to conjure up magic to believe in Buddha's wisdom?

Well I think things such as magic, supernatural stuff etc etc was included into the Dharma because the people who originally compiled it in writing believed that without such things Buddha and his teachings may lose significance or respect by lay Buddhists and even young monks. For evidence of this you just need to go to countries like Thailand to see that Buddha is thought of as God like by the majority of lay Buddhist. I mean would this still be the case if the majority of lay Buddhists in countries like Thailand thought that Buddha was just a normal man who had no supernormal powers or was not god like ? Its an interesting question ?



Metta to all sentient beings

Jason

My suggestion is to take some time to read a wide range of suttas from the Pali Canon, and then read some modern, scholarly research that takes a more critical look at these teachings, especially a from an historical and philological point of view (e.g., What the Buddha Thought). I think this kind of approach will ultimately help one use their own discernment when it comes to answering these kinds of questions, because there are more choices and possibilities than taking everything literally or simply rejecting it altogether.

vinlyn

In case anyone was wondering, or had the wrong impression, just because I put this up for discussion doesn't mean I endorse these beliefs. The quote came up on another thread, I'd never heard of Buddhist cosmology, so I thought it would make for a good discussion. One of the sources I gave says this cosmology and the 31 realms is a pan-Buddhist belief, meaning part of Theravada as well as Mahayana. But other info I came across indicates it's much stronger in the Pure Land tradition. It would be helpful if we had someone on the forum who could give us an overview on this.(Jason? Are you out there?)

As for a "divine eye" and other "magic", I take the word of the few members who have said over the months that they have had clairvoyant or other "paranormal" experiences (recalling past lives, whatever) as a result of meditation. So much Buddhist and Hindu literature says that "siddhis" are a by-product of the meditation practice, and just a stepping-stone along the path, not to be clung to, so it must be real. But to go so far as to say the Buddha was able to see other realms or worlds around the universe and the beings inhabiting and being reborn in them? Maybe that's a bit of mythology. or...not. A discussion board is about fielding a range of opinions, that's what's so interesting and fun about it. I think the Buddha was a very wise man, and I don't doubt he experienced some "siddhis" in his practice. Was there more to it than just that? As Vinlyn said, it's everyone's choice to believe as they wish. :om:

While living in Thailand and visiting MANY temples, I often saw depictions of Buddhist cosmology...not only at temples, but also sometimes at city pillars (these are phallic columns housed in small temple-like buildings; almost every village and city has one).

I think it's good that we bring topics like this up for discussion. And I guess the question then comes up -- when we begin believing in things that cannot be proven, where does it stop. For example, at many Theravada temples in Thailand you see statues of mythic monsters. Sometimes you see lurid depictions of Buddhist hell that are usually even more gruesome than depictions of Christian hell. Someone "saw" those mythic monsters and Buddhist hell, too.

And when we get to thinking that because so many Buddhists have seen visions of their past lives, how about all the people who believe in fortune tellers all over the world? How about all the people who have had visions in near-death experiences, almost all of which report very similar things? Again, where do we draw the lines between reality, what is possible, and what is farce?

And don't get me wrong. I am open-minded about most such things. But it I am going to be truly open-minded, then I have to be open-minded that Buddhism may not have every answer, or may be way off the mark, that the millions of Christians may be right or just as right, and so forth.

vinlyn

Vinlyn,
I agree with you. I think there are many reasons people enjoy these ideas. But it is interesting when someone who believes in supernatural Buddhism thinks that Christianity or any other religion is silly.

Thank you for saying that.

It's a point I often try to make...perhaps not too well, sometimes.

I am reminded of a conversation I once had with a very dear friend of mine who happens to be Born Again Christian. We were talking about Mormonism, because I happen to be from Palmyra, NY -- where Joseph Smith lived when he was supposedly given the Golden Plates by the angel Moroni.

My friend said, "Well, if Joseph Smith was given those Golden Plates, then why can't the Mormons show them to us? That proves it's a false religion."

Playing devil's advocate I said, "Well, if Moses was given the tablets with the Ten Commandments, then why can't you Christians show them to us? Does that prove Christianity is a false religion?"

Her predictable answer was: "Well, that's different."

And that's where I think if we are going to be REASONable people (and note my emphasis on the root word REASON), we have to be careful to judge each religion by the same standards.

I am a little of both -- I believe in many aspects of Buddhism, while also believing in many aspects of Christianity. In fact, I don't think I've ever expressed this in the forum, but I think that there is God who sent several teachers to this world to teach principles of morality...that Buddha was one, that Christ was one, and that there were others. I believe that these different teachers taught to people of one cultural type...different cultures, different teachers.

But, that's just my personal belief. I have no proof, and I fully realize that.

In regard to the belief in God, most of my Thai friends over the years of both visiting there and living there, all of whom are Theravada Buddhist, have told me they also believe in God. My logic for God is as follows, and I'll say it as a sort of parable. If out in the field you threw piles of bricks and lumber, and shingles, and nails, etc. Would you have a house? No. You would have piles of raw materials. Someone has to actually build the house.

And, as a person with a degree in geology, concentrating in historical geology and paleontology, I look at evolution. I believe in evolution, although I realize we don't have every piece of the puzzle (sort of like our religions). As Stanley Miller's experiments back in the 50s led us to believe that life began with mixtures of amino acids that somehow evolved first probably into blue-green algae, and that all else evolved from that primordial mixture. So when a person tells me that I say, you think it is just pure coincidence that that blue-green algae ultimately evolved into your retina and heart and brain? I can better believe in a power that can create a man better than I can believe in that string of coincidences.

I don't expect anyone else to believe as I do. That's the joy of freedom of thought.

vinlyn

Well I think things such as magic, supernatural stuff etc etc was included into the Dharma because the people who originally compiled it in writing believed that without such things Buddha and his teachings may lose significance or respect by lay Buddhists and even young monks. For evidence of this you just need to go to countries like Thailand to see that Buddha is thought of as God like by the majority of lay Buddhist. I mean would this still be the case if the majority of lay Buddhists in countries like Thailand thought that Buddha was just a normal man who had no supernormal powers or was not god like ? Its an interesting question ?



Metta to all sentient beings

Ah, good point. What does that then say about the belief of many that the Dhamma is the exact teaching of Buddha?

vinlyn

My suggestion is to take some time to read a wide range of suttas from the Pali Canon, and then read some modern, scholarly research that takes a more critical look at these teachings, especially a from an historical and philological point of view (e.g., What the Buddha Taught). I think this kind of approach will ultimately help one use their own discernment when it comes to answering these kinds of questions, because there are more choices and possibilities than taking everything literally or simply rejecting it altogether.

Very good point, Jason. It's been a very long time since I read that book (I assume you're talking about the Rahula book).

Jason

My suggestion is to take some time to read a wide range of suttas from the Pali Canon, and then read some modern, scholarly research that takes a more critical look at these teachings, especially a from an historical and philological point of view (e.g., What the Buddha Taught). I think this kind of approach will ultimately help one use their own discernment when it comes to answering these kinds of questions, because there are more choices and possibilities than taking everything literally or simply rejecting it altogether.

Very good point, Jason. It's been a very long time since I read that book (I assume you're talking about the Rahula book).

My bad. I meant What the Buddha Thought by Richard Gombrich.

zidangus

Ah, good point. What does that then say about the belief of many that the Dhamma is the exact teaching of Buddha?

Well I would suggest that they read the wiki link below and also the references cited within for an overview of what scholars actually think about the origin of the Pali Canon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pāli_Canon


Metta to all sentient beings

compassionate_warrior

Thanks for the reference, Jason. That might be a good suggestion for the bookclub at some point.
And thanks, zidangus, for the link.

vinlyn

Ah, good point. What does that then say about the belief of many that the Dhamma is the exact teaching of Buddha?

Well I would suggest that they read the wiki link below and also the references cited within for an overview of what scholars actually think about the origin of the Pali Canon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pāli_Canon


Metta to all sentient beings

Very interesting. Thanks for the reference.

Ric

See vinlyn, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions, you state without this assumption of truth. That is what I think is lacking in a lot of people. It really is ok to believe in whatever, but dont claim to know the unknowable. Anyone who tells me they know the unknowable loses credibility.

People who claim such things also tend to be very close-minded because they are so certain that even when someone points out obvious contradictions they tend to cling even harder to their beliefs.

I think the old saying applies, A wise man knows he knows nothing.

vinlyn

See vinlyn, even though I disagree with some of your conclusions, you state without this assumption of truth. That is what I think is lacking in a lot of people. It really is ok to believe in whatever, but dont claim to know the unknowable. Anyone who tells me they know the unknowable loses credibility.

People who claim such things also tend to be very close-minded because they are so certain that even when someone points out obvious contradictions they tend to cling even harder to their beliefs.

I think the old saying applies, A wise man knows he knows nothing.

Yes. To be a little more open with you, I am older and having some health issues now that may or may not be serious. I spend a lot more time than I used to thinking about such things. And the more I think about the whole topic, the more open-minded I become.

Julia

I think it is really important to stay open-minded, if not we will not be able to see the truth. I have also different beliefs about life but I know that it is a belief and I will not cling to that belief so hard so I get attached to it.
We can instead concentrate ourselves on our practice and maybe we will, in the future, find small glimpses of the truth.

Sabre

And maybe karma and rebirth were invented by a God that was so supreme even the Buddha didn't see him, haha Or maybe life is just The Matrix! How will we ever know?

vinlyn

And maybe karma and rebirth were invented by a God that was so supreme even the Buddha didn't see him, haha Or maybe life is just The Matrix! How will we ever know?

Sort of my line of thought. Well, not the Matrix part!

DaltheJigsaw

I have been meaning to post ask this question myself:)

Dakini

My understanding is that the BUddha didn't deny the existence of God, he just didn't see the question as relevant to the cessation of suffering. So it could be that a God or gods "invented" karma and rebirth. Maybe that was among the secret knowledge that the Buddha kept to himself. We'll never know.

vinlyn

My understanding is that the BUddha didn't deny the existence of God, he just didn't see the question as relevant to the cessation of suffering. So it could be that a God or gods "invented" karma and rebirth. Maybe that was among the secret knowledge that the Buddha kept to himself. We'll never know.

Well, we might know...but hopefully later, not sooner.

:hair:

NOTaGangsta

I personally like to think of all the other realms and worlds out there. Makes the universe very interesting! More hopeful than reading about alien invasions all the time anyway!

NOTaGangsta

Well, we might know...but hopefully later, not sooner.

:hair:

It shouldn't make a difference, whether god or our own self created karma, so get what we deserve. But at least Bodhisattvas and Buddhas comes back again and again to repeat the same old story over and over to us so we can all get it.

zidangus

And maybe karma and rebirth were invented by a God that was so supreme even the Buddha didn't see him, haha Or maybe life is just The Matrix! How will we ever know?

Sort of my line of thought. Well, not the Matrix part!

Great so who invented/created God ? maybe a bigger God, who in turn was created by aliens in another universe, who were emm created by emm another God, Im going to stop as my head hurts. :banghead:
I have a feeling this could go around in circles


:eek2:

Dakini

I personally like to think of all the other realms and worlds out there. Makes the universe very interesting! More hopeful than reading about alien invasions all the time anyway!

According to info on the links provided in the OP, this cosmology is part of Theravada belief as well as Mahayana. So the Buddha did indeed deal with metaphysics.
Unless this cosmology was a later addition to the canon that was accepted by the Southern school, for whatever reason, as well as the Northern.

dharma

Hi all,

For a detailed logical examination of rebirth with case studies, the article "Survival and Kamma In Buddhist Perspective" is a good one.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qMMbndcHE2IJ:www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh141.pdf+Survival+and+karma+from+the+Buddhist+perspective&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjJgXX6G9RvrD-trkVqJghDiNjNMQWpROuSM-fJQpLhEnMkBqmgctAbvJDoT5KSV0HZo6UONGRupaBVykrPJgj0C86C0fwetGrR0qe5Fi224AR-hlsJohEz-jm5N686aiGSf7KN&sig=AHIEtbQSUG8dlmg1SFLHSWlFiN_XmTsBPw&pli=1

With metta,

ThailandTom

everything is just created by consciousness, the entire universe is, the multiverse, and that consciousness is that of a small child asleep in a bed somewhere

Vincenzi

@ThailandTom

"first a dream, then comes life"

...it may be argued that pratitya-samutpada can lead to similar conclusions.