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
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.
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.
0
Comments
I'm sure you heard the arrow analogy, right?
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.
So, essentially, its saying: We'll die before we answer these questions, so lets first try to get the arrow out to begin with.
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:
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).
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.
So why conject? :crazy:
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.
So in that sense, what is the difference in "creation" of the universe and "creation" of mufflers?
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.
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.