Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Creation Myths & Buddhism

TheDoctorDonnaTheDoctorDonna
edited December 2010 in Buddhism Basics
Sorry that I have been MIA for a while, Things got a bit busy. Work is always hectic this time of year and my wife and I adopted a new kitty.

Anyway...

Out of all the worlds faiths, Buddism seems to be one of the few, if not the only one, to not have a Creation story / Myth at its heart. As the Dharma Teachings are focused entirely on the ending of suffering, both for oneself and for all other Beings, is a Creation Story simply unimportant and , in a sense, irrelivent? Or is it simply something that will slowly be reveled to each Being as they reach Enlightenment?

And, do people find this lack of interest in the creation of the Universe a stumbleing block when attempting to discuss the benifits of the Dharma?

I have had some difficultly with this and would be gratful for any input.

Thank You.

Comments

  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited December 2010
    Anything that is unknowable in this life is a foundation for dukkha if pursued or clung to. This is indeed where there are so many creation myths and people fighting over them... because it's an unknowable. And so the Buddha didn't "go there". :)
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    The Buddhadharma isn't about mythology, explaining how the physical world came to be. It's a methodology for liberating oneself from suffering, a "how to", if you will.
  • MindGateMindGate United States Veteran
    If we do figure out how we got here, which is unlikely that will happen in our lifetime, if anyone's at all, so what? We figured it out... and thats it. Whoop-dee-do. Buddhism is more concerned about the things that matter: our lives.

    I'm sure you heard the arrow analogy, right?
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    You mean, pull the arrow out, rather than analyze how it got there? I don't agree with that entirely. I think one needs to do both. Pull it out, but figure out how it got there so you can avoid future arrows.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    I think the essence is to first pull it out; then ask questions.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    That's what I said. :)
  • MindGateMindGate United States Veteran
    It goes something like:

    A man was shot by an arrow, and some kind fellows came over to help him. As they were trying to get the arrow out of him, he was asking, "Who shot the arrow? Who made the arrow? Whats the tip made of? What direction did it come from? When was the arrow made? What are we going to do with the arrow?" and as the fellows were trying to answer his questions... he bled out and died. :D

    So, essentially, its saying: We'll die before we answer these questions, so lets first try to get the arrow out to begin with.
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    edited December 2010
    Thank you for the full story, MG. It does sound a bit absurd, all those questions. ("What's the tip made of"?! Who cares!)) The busy analytical mind, par excellence! I was thinking that the key question would be, "Why did I get shot with an arrow here, now". as in, did I accidentally cross a hunting preserve? Is somebody out to get me? That sort of thing. But it's probably a much simpler tale than that, I'm probably reading too much into it. However, in real life, it pays to ask questions and not just gloss over unexpected problems, in my experience. First, solve the problem (or stop the bleeding), then figure out the cause of the problem, so it doesn't happen again.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    The whole arrow thing... makes me think of the people who study Buddhism, reading everything they can, arguing with people over this-and-that, saying no this is right, that's wrong... and never practice. Never reap the benefit, because they reason out and memorize the teachings, not internalizing them through the transformation of mind caused by direct experiential insight. *insert sad face here*
  • MindGateMindGate United States Veteran
    The whole arrow thing... makes me think of the people who study Buddhism, reading everything they can, arguing with people over this-and-that, saying no this is right, that's wrong... and never practice. Never reap the benefit, because they reason out and memorize the teachings, not internalizing them through the transformation of mind caused by direct experiential insight. *insert sad face here*
    I must admit, thats me.

  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    You know, I see my participation here as an opp'ty to practice compassion. Sure, some of it is chatter, more or less. But sometimes people are in dire straits and need skillful responses, and that's important. Am I concerned about the amount of time I've been spending on here lately? You bet. I notice you've been online the better part of the day, too, Cloud. But you have good insights that do help people. So it's time well-spent, I don't judge you for that.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited December 2010
    There's no better use of my time today. There's an attachment, that's for sure, but it's seen. :) All of us are useful, because any one of us might say the right word at the right time to spark the awakening of a ripe mind. No one can know for sure! I'd like to think that a lot of it is planting seeds.
  • VincenziVincenzi Veteran
    in cyclic time there's no creation.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited December 2010
    Interesting topic. I've been thinking about this recently as well. Here's part of something I wrote about a month ago:
    As for DN 27, the Buddha tells a story about the beginning of life on this world to two brahmins which, in the end, was used to illustrate how the way to liberation is beyond caste and lineage. So, in this regard, the Buddha does give what can be interpreted as a rough theory of evolution to the pair of brahmins in that the physical characteristics of the mythological beings in question change due to environmental changes and interactions, as well as a description the universe somewhat akin to the oscillating universe theory.

    I think that, when taken literally, the creation myth in DN 27 can be seen as an attempt to give a naturalistic explanation of the origins of life and the universe, and Darwin's fairly well-proven theory of evolution certainly isn't inconsistent with this, which makes many new Buddhists breath a sigh of relief. That being said, I agree with Prof. Gombrich that, taking the context of DN 27 into account, this sutta is a lively and ingenious parody that's actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development (How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings, pg. 81-82).

    Personally, I see Buddhism as dealing exclusively with mental stress and its cessation (i.e., psychology), not biology, or physics, etc. And while some people get excited when they discover that Buddhism contains teachings which seem to be in accord with modern science, I think they can often be misleading and shouldn't be taken too seriously, or at least, too literally. I think this is especially true of DN 27 considering that recent observations of cosmic background radiation indicate the universe is actually expanding at an accelerated rate, hence there may not be any contraction or 'Big Crunch.' (Lawrence Krauss mentions this in his talk at the 2009 AAI Conference; although it should also be noted that Roger Penrose recently challenged the commonly-held 'inflationary theory' of cosmology with his suggestion that analysis of cosmic microwave background shows echoes of previous Big Bang-like events.)
    (As a side note, the last part isn't suggesting that there's only two competing theories, I just added the two that I thought were most relevant. The first was referenced because it's the more likely scenario, i.e., if the current data about the size and shape of our universe is correct, it's very likely that our universe will continue to expand indefinitely because the density of the universe is less than or equal to the critical density, hence no 'Big Crunch' or cosmic contraction. The second I offered as evidence in opposition in an attempt to be fair, evidence which may, if the data and observations check out, actually support a continually expanding and contracting model of the universe, which seems to be more in line with how Buddhist cosmology is often presented, i.e., expanding and contracting world-systems.)

    There have been some valid criticisms of what I've written above, though. One that was brought up by Phra Noah at Dhammawheel.com is that, "This argument assumes that the word 'sa.mva.t.tati' in the Agganna Sutta means 'contracts', which it doesn't." This criticism is mainly levelled against Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of DN 27, however, which reads:
    There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long period, this world contracts. At the time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time. But sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand again. At a time of expansion the beings from the Abhassara Brahma world, having passed away from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious—and they stay like that for a very long time.

    Having a look at the Pali, and the words used are samvattati and vivattati for 'contraction' and 'expansion' respectively. I agree with Phra Noah that 'contraction' and 'expansion' aren't generally the best translations, ('dissolve' and 'evolve' might be better), and I'm not sure why Bhikkhu Bodhi translates them this way. Perhaps it's due to something in the commentarial literature, or maybe he simply thought it was more appropriate given the overall context. Either way, I think this is something that merits further discussion.

    Another good point was made by son of dhammam who said, "I don't consider that the world being talked about in the Agganna Sutta is 'the universe'. In fact I don't see why anyone would have this notion after considering the context." Taking another look at the Pali, I'm inclined to agree.

    Since the Buddha uses the word loko or 'world,' which is often used as a metaphor for the six sense spheres, I agree that given the context, 'the world' being referenced is most likely not the universe but the world of sensory experience, which, incidentally, makes me even more convinced that this sutta is a lively and ingenious parody that's actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development. However, it should be noted that according to Nyanatiloka's Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, the term loka denotes "the 3 spheres of existence comprising the whole universe," so perhaps this term should be analyzed in more detail as well.

    All in all, I'm still of the opinion that questions such as this are ultimately irrelevant to the practice, and this mainly due to the focus of the practice itself, which is to comprehend suffering, abandon its cause, realize its cessation and develop the path leading to that cessation (SN 56.11).
  • compassionate_warriorcompassionate_warrior Veteran
    edited December 2010
    Getting the right translation is so important, thanks for reminding us, Jason.

    In a nutshell, I think by far the main purpose of the Dharma is psychology, a methodology for Enlightenment. I don't think any comments on the origin of the universe were intended to be a main or even secondary focus. That's not what Buddhism is about, if I'm not mistaken. And thanks for bringing us back to the OP's question. :o
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    The Buddha states quite clearly that it's an unconjecturable.
    So why conject? :crazy: :D
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    Buddhism is not unique. Jainism considers the universe to be eternal and constantly changing, with no creation or creator. Both Buddhism and Jainism have roots in India and share a lot of core concepts.

    While there is no creation myth attached to Buddhism, there can be no religion without myths of some type and Buddhism certainly has those, because all religion is mythical in nature. It's what gives the religion its power to transform people.

    A myth in this broader case is just a story that addresses universal needs and experiences and questions, and uses mythic elements and structure and archetypes. Let me be clear that a myth can be true. However, it is a true story told using a mythic format.

    A religion stripped of myths is just a philosophy at best, a footnote in a history book at worst. So what myths does Buddhism have? Well, Buddha is a mythic savior figure. He resisted temptation, underwent trials, and was reborn to lead us.

    That gives his teachings an emotional impact. Being a mythic figure, additional details are tacked on here and there. I have a wonderful poster that shows Maya, Prince Gautama's mother, being visited by a Bodhisattva in the form of a sacred white elephant, and she became pregnant when the elephant's trunk touched her. So even the divine pregnancy as a mythic element is there, if you look.

    But we in the Western world mostly treat Buddhism as a philosophy, stripped of myth. Some schools, like Pure Land, use mythic elements and the power of faith, and even Zen has their Crazy Prophet mythic but many people here embrace Buddhism because they can separate the mythic from the message. I'm not sure that's entirely a good thing. Philosphy will never change your life the way myth can.

  • DeformedDeformed Veteran
    According to some scientific theories, the big bang could be happening over and over. Of course, we may never know because we may not survive long enough as a species.

    So in that sense, what is the difference in "creation" of the universe and "creation" of mufflers?
  • TheDoctorDonnaTheDoctorDonna
    On reflecting on this for a while the concept of creation in Buddhism is very much the same as the origin of Alzheimer's disease in the work that I do with Disabled Seniors.

    As of now, the why and the how of AD is much less important than the steps that I can take every day to help ease the suffering and pain that is a part of Alzheimer's. While an interesting and important area of study, an understanding of the causitive factors of AD are so far off as to be irrelivent in my day to day concern as to what I can do in the moment to help ease the suffering of someone right in front of me.

    For me to spend time and effort in a disscussion about Brain Chemistry would take away from the time and energy that I can give to help in a direct and compassionate way.

    Like the story of the arrow, some things are best left to figure out latter, while other things require instant attention.

    A friend of mine once used the term "Spiritual CPR" when refering to AA, and in a way, the 4 noble Truths and the 8 fold path are also CPR for those caught in Samsara.
  • RogerRoger
    edited December 2010
    Creation myths are exciting, dramatic and fun, they can be reduced to enticing comic book narratives too! Reading Joseph Campbell years ago was a highlight of my book list. C. Myths are like TV. Entertainment and a reflection of what writers think will engage and impress most the people of any particular culture, or era (or market or season :D ).

    Though analogies, metaphors and myths are extremely useful and can inspire: anything we can come to understand via these devices is, ultimately, just something we created.

    Once thoughts and actions are directed inward, as in Buddhism, there's less imperative to create an elaborate currency of spiritual meaning, via myth, which circulates and binds together individual followers.

    IM_H_O of course. :)
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    The whole arrow thing... makes me think of the people who study Buddhism, reading everything they can, arguing with people over this-and-that, saying no this is right, that's wrong... and never practice. Never reap the benefit, because they reason out and memorize the teachings, not internalizing them through the transformation of mind caused by direct experiential insight. *insert sad face here*
    Ding ding ding! Bingo! Buy that person a banana!! All the heaps and heaps and heaps of man made hooplah that have been piled on top of the essence of Buddhism - the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path - cover up the good stuff, and make us slaves to minutiae of meaning in things that ultimately are meaningless. That's one reason I'm almost glad I don't have a local sangha or temple to go to. Less of that kind of thing to pollute my mind :)
Sign In or Register to comment.