Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Buddhist cosmological view of the universe.
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
Everyone,
In our modern world, science has given use the means to test our beliefs about the world, regardless if they appeal to our own sense of logic and reason. When Buddhists have the conviction that the Buddha was in possesion of profound knowledge, knowledge even of the workings of the universe, this conviction is strengthened when science provides evidence to support what we are told the Buddha discovered. In the Agganna Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, for example, we are given a cosmological view of the universe in which the universe is in a continually state of expansion and contraction.
Although in the Aganna Sutta the Buddha tells a story about the beginning of life on this world, in the end, the story was used to illustrate how Dhamma is best in this world and the next, and that the way to liberation is beyond caste and lineage. While some people like Prof. Gombrich believe that this Sutta is a lively and ingenious parody, others take it quite literally. I have always been of the inclination to view it both ways; however, if science could prove that the univese was indeed expanding at an increasingly accelerated rate, I would seriously have to rethink my view of the universe.
In general, I have found that the concept of a continually expanding and contracting universe to be in line with reason as well as the evidence provided through scientific means. I have admittedly been pleased that the Buddha appears to be correct in this assertion as well. There has been, however, certain evidence provided by the scientific community in recent years that seems to suggest that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. If, in the future, more evidence proves this to be more conclusive, what would that mean in relation to the Buddhist cosmological view in general?
Curiously,
Jason
In our modern world, science has given use the means to test our beliefs about the world, regardless if they appeal to our own sense of logic and reason. When Buddhists have the conviction that the Buddha was in possesion of profound knowledge, knowledge even of the workings of the universe, this conviction is strengthened when science provides evidence to support what we are told the Buddha discovered. In the Agganna Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, for example, we are given a cosmological view of the universe in which the universe is in a continually state of expansion and contraction.
Although in the Aganna Sutta the Buddha tells a story about the beginning of life on this world, in the end, the story was used to illustrate how Dhamma is best in this world and the next, and that the way to liberation is beyond caste and lineage. While some people like Prof. Gombrich believe that this Sutta is a lively and ingenious parody, others take it quite literally. I have always been of the inclination to view it both ways; however, if science could prove that the univese was indeed expanding at an increasingly accelerated rate, I would seriously have to rethink my view of the universe.
In general, I have found that the concept of a continually expanding and contracting universe to be in line with reason as well as the evidence provided through scientific means. I have admittedly been pleased that the Buddha appears to be correct in this assertion as well. There has been, however, certain evidence provided by the scientific community in recent years that seems to suggest that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. If, in the future, more evidence proves this to be more conclusive, what would that mean in relation to the Buddhist cosmological view in general?
Curiously,
Jason
0
Comments
Of course, and that is an excellent point, but what becomes of Buddhist cosmology in general if the facts hapen to support that the univese is indeed expanding at an increasingly accelerated rate? In most traditions of Buddhism, this cosmology plays an important role in explaining Buddhist concepts such as kamma and rebirth, the thirty-one planes of existence, nibbana, et cetera.
How are these concepts supposed to be understood if science contradicts the cosmological view of the universe in which everything is in a continually state of expansion and contraction? Should the 31 planes of existence, for example, be understood as purely metaphorical descriptions of mental states as opposed to actual realms where beings are reborn based upon their actions?
In addition, if people like Prof. Gombrich are correct in that the Agganna Sutta was actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development, then as John Holder notes, "it has the unfortunate side effect of opening the doors to endless debate about which parts of the Pali Canon are allegory and which are to be taken literally" (source).
Jason
That's a nice way of putting. I am of the mind to agree.
Jason
Most cultures appear to have told themselves stories about the age of the universe. Because of the predominating role of religion in pre-modern societies, these stories have tended to have a teaching as much as a knowledge base. For the past 350 years, the system elaborated by Archbishop Ussher has been the best-known of these datings in the West. Even today, we have people who hold to a date of 6010 BP (Before Present), although all scientific evidence militates against such a notion.
Each story, resting in a cultural context, has an important function of 'proving' the truth of the system within which it is told. For example, the three creation stories in the book called Genesis are used as 'proof' of Elohim/Adonai/Yahweh and, as a consequence, of the rest of the Mosaic religions.
In Western thought, first the size and then the age of the universe have been expanded. No longer can we sit comfortably at the centre of a small set of spheres only a few millennia old. Astronomy has shown us vastness beyond imagining, and geology, palaeontology and evolution have extended our awareness of time.
The stories that we now tell ourselves use the language of science rather than that of religion. They continue, however, to contain moral lessons, usually about our insignificance and transience rather than human centrality.
I find it fascinating that Professor Gombrich should find it necessary to make the same sort of accommodation between science and mythology as do other religions. What, I wonder, is the point? Perhaps it comes from the fact that many - but far from all - scientists prefer to approach their disciplines without any reference to the extra-natural. As a notable Buddhologist, he may feel it important that the physical sciences accord, point for point, with pre-scientific stories.
The question that it raises for me is this: if the Buddha's stories about the origins (or lack thereof), size and behaviour of the physical universe turn out to be just that, stories, does this invalidate any other part of his teaching? Does the Tathagata have to have had precise knowledge of physics, cosmology, evolution and so on? Is that what we understand by his "omniscience"?
I have enormous respect for Professor Gombrich's work, just as I had for dear Sir Ernst. Both of them have contributed enormously to our understanding. I have doubts, however, when they stray outside their field of expertise. There are still too many unknowns and arguments in the field of cosmology for us to assert that the 'steady state' or the 'Big Bang' or any other theory of the nature of the universe is final, yet.
It is also interesting to note that the Buddha talked about 3,000 myriads (i.e. limitless numbers) of universes, something which has only recently been theorized in quantum physics.
Palzang
Peace and blessings
Ian
Perhaps that's true, and I think there are many possibilities that could account for a literal interpretation of the continual expansion and contraction of the world as described in DN 27. Who can really say that it's not possible, or even what the exact nature of our universe is like?
Palzang is correct that what we know through science is limited. One can certainly subscribe to a literal interpretation of the events described in DN 27, and who's to say that it's not possible? Since the discourse begins as a story about the beginning of life on this world, it's not unreasonable to posit that the Buddha was merely using the story itself to illustrate his point to his audience; nevertheless, that doesn't mean that the story was simply concocted with no factual basis whatsoever.
What's more intriguing to me, however, is whether stories like these evolved to counter the prevalent wrong views of the time, or whether they contain actual first-hand knowledge of the way in which our physical universe works.
I suppose that I've leaned more towards agnosticism when it comes to this particular subject — choosing instead to focus on how these teachings relate to the workings of the mind, and in particular, the arising of suffering and the cessation of suffering — but, I feel that it's important to have a clear picture of the context in which the Buddha was teachings in order to avoid misconceptions about those teachings.
While I agree with Gombrich that the basic principles of Buddhism are not affected by intellectual inquiry into the history of Buddhist texts and the development of the religion itself, such an inquiry can have a tremendous impact on how certain teachings are to be understood, and more specifically, the context in which these teachings are provided.
Gombrich believes that we can discover the objective meaning of these ancient texts as opposed to the postmodern view that the meaning of a text has no inherent meaning apart from that ascribed to it by each reader or generation of readers, and I think this is an idea that's at least worth exploring.
Jason
My teacher also has addressed this issue. She once told us a story of her daughter asking how the universe was created or begun. She said close your eyes, still your mind and center yourself. Then open your eyes. There, that's the answer!
Palzang
I mean, in a post-Einstein understanding of the Universe, what is a "direction". How can certain Buddha-lands be located to the the "West" and others to the "East"?