Buddhist Cosmology
Throughout history there have been many
attempts to explain the origin and
workings of our universe. Most every
culture has their own cosmogony. Nearly
every individual has his or her own
idea of what our universe is. During our
modern era of advanced scientific
knowledge, we feel that we have a good grasp
on how the universe works. We
have our Chemistry and Physics, along with
Mathematics, to examine the
universe with. Any person educated in these fields
will tell you that they
know our universe. The point is science in the modern
era is thought to be
the correct summation of the universe. We think we are
right. Does this make
everyone else wrong? Those that believe in myth over
science, are they wrong?
These are some of the questions that I will be
discussing in this essay. I
will examine the evolution of cosmological thought
in Ancient Greece
(Pre-Socratics through Aristotle). In doing this, I will show
a movement from
myth to more science based cosmologies. I will then examine the
Buddhist
Cosmology, which is somewhat separated from Ancient Greek thought.
After
all of this, I will examine the question of which is more correct, Science
or
Myth. Before continuing a clear definition of "myth" needs to be
established.
The term myth has multiple meanings. Webster’s II Dictionary,
defines it the
three different ways. "1. A traditional story that deals with
supernatural
beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a
primitive
view of the world. 2. A real or fictional story that appeals to
the
consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideals or by
giving
expression to deep commonly felt emotions. 3. A fictitious or
imaginary person,
idea, or thing." For the sake of this essay, I would like
the second
definition to apply to my use of the word myth. The term myth
should not be
thought of as fictitious or primitive. The possibility for the
myth to be real
should always be considered. Some of the earliest known
philosophies on the
creation of the Earth come from the works of Hesiod. In
his Theogony he attempts
to explain the creation of the Earth, and all that
surrounds him, using myth. In
the myth Hesiod anthropomorphizes the cosmos.
He tells of "Chaos" being the
first to come into being, then he goes on to
describe how each of the gods of
the cosmos comes in to being. The gods of
the cosmos are all related to some
characteristic of our universe. They can
be physical parts or concepts (similar
to Plato’s idea of the forms). For
example the line, "Earth first bore
starry Heaven, equal to herself, to cover
her on every side, and to be an
ever-sure abiding-place for the blessed
gods."(Theogony, 126) describes both
the act of birth, which is a human
characteristic, and physical parts of the
universe being gods (Heaven meaning
the stars, and the Earth). He also has gods,
such as Eros, which represents
the concept of Love. Two main issues the come up
during discussions of
cosmology are how the universe was created and out of what
was the universe
created. In the Theogony, Hesiod has the world created out of
gods that are
human by nature and to create this universe the gods reproduced.
Hesiod’s
theories of the universe can clearly be classified as myth, since
there is no
scientific background for it. The philosophers to follow Hesiod
moved
slightly away from this. The Pre-Socratics begin to de-anthropomorphize
the
universe. Even later, in the works of Socrates and Plato, the universe
is
completely de-anthropomorphized. The Pre-Socratics focus more on what
the
universe was made of than how it was created. They typically chose a
single
element that everything consisted of and tried to explain the world
according to
that element. Sometimes these elements were one of the basic
four elements;
earth, fire, air, and water. Sometimes they were more abstract
such as
Anaximander’s theory. "...The principle element of existing
things was the
aperion... it is neither water nor any other of the so-call
elements, but some
other aperion nature, from which come into being all the
heavens and the worlds
in them."(Hetherington, pg. 58) The Pre-Socratics
based their theories on
insight and observations. For this reason their
theories are both mythical and
scientific. Because some of their choices of
what the key element is are based
on instinctive feelings, they can be
considered myth. On the other hand, they
support their ideas through
observations and experience making the ideas
scientific. Science is defined
one way in Webster’s II Dictionary to be
"Knowledge that is acquired
through experience." The Pre-Socratics were not
completely scientific because
not everything they theorized was based on
experience, but they were not as
mythical as Hesiod either. Aristotle’s
concept of the universe was mostly
scientific. Since Aristotle was the tutor of
Alexander the Great, he had
access to a wide variety of cultures. By gathering
information from all of
these cultures, he was able to analyze the world from a
scientific
perspective. He came up with four fundamental theses to the universe.
1.)
The universe was Geocentric, Earth centered. 2.) The universe contained
two
separate worlds, one that spanned out to the moon and it was ever
changing, and
another that was from the moon out that was unchanging and made
of the fifth
element (ether). 3.) The universe did not consist of any void or
empty space
within the inner world. 4.) The only motion of the planets was
that of uniform
circular motion around the center of the universe. More
important than
Aristotle’s four theses were the scientific methods he
used to establish them.
For example, in determine that there was no void,
Aristotle argues, "If water
were twice as thick as air, an object should move
through water with half the
speed it moved through air. But void with no
thickness made such a ratio
nonsense; it meant dividing by zero."
(Hetherington, pg. 99) From examining
the history of cosmology in Ancient
Greece, it becomes clear that there was an
evolution away from myth and
towards science. What are some of the reasons of
why this could be? A likely
answer is that the evolution came about out of an
adaptation to the
environment. Ancient Greece was a very volatile area to be a
part of. Greece
was established in an area mainly known for warring. A history
of Ancient
Greece is mostly a timeline and description of the various types of
war that
occurred there. Because of this factor, the need for science
increased.
Aristotle spent his time studying the natural environment. By
doing so he could
make fairly reliable predictions (some of which we still
believe to be true
today) of the physical world. If one can predict the
workings of the physical
world, they will have a better chance of succeeding
in battle. The constantly
active environment in Greece lead to the
development of science, but what
results would we find in a civilization that
did not have interaction with
others? To examine this question, I will break
down the Buddhist Cosmology and
see the affects of the near isolation from
Western civilization. The Buddhist
cosmology is summed up as, "a single,
circular world system surrounded by a
mountain of iron... above this circular
surface is a series of four meditations
(dhy-ăna) or "meditation realms" as
they are generally designated. The
successive divisions of the meditation
realms into seventeen heavens mark the
progress of the srăvaka... Detachment
from all the mediation realms through the
practice of meditation eventuates
in the extinction of nirvăna." (Kloetzi,
pg. 3) Given this information about
the Buddhist cosmology, it is clear that
their world is more focused on the
spiritual than the physical. It is described
in a physical manner (mountain
of iron), but all of the different stages of the
world are attainable through
mediation and spiritual growth. It is clear that
the Buddhist did not believe
that the world they were describing was the world
we see with our eyes. They
believed that they were describing a world that was
beyond our own
perception. The world wasn’t something that we can view with
our senses, but
instead it could only be understood through meditation. Buddhist
beliefs
about the workings of the universe were also very spiritually
centered.
"Everything we apprehend in the world is mere illusion."
(French, pg. 61)
This statement was considered the core truth behind
human interaction in the
world. If everything in the world were an illusion,
then it would be impossible
to use science to determine the workings of the
universe. Science could only be
used to predict how the illusion will act and
respond to different situations.
With this concept brought to life, the
only thing that could be used to explain
the universe is myth. A Buddhist
parable about a man walking through the forest
helps describe their belief of
reality in the world. It is summed up as follows.
"A man is walking a
narrow path in a sun-dappled forest. Before his on the
path, amid the leaves
and streaks of light, he suddenly sees a very large coiled
snake. Shocked and
afraid, he noiselessly turns to hide behind a tree and waits,
anxiously aware
of the great danger. In time, he ventures a look around the tree
once more
and refocuses his eyes. He focuses again. Then he comes back to the
path and
stares down at the snake. He sees that it is not a snake but a heavy,
coiled
rope in front of him. With a wave of relief, he bends down to pick it up
and
finds that the rope, worn with age, disintegrates in his hands into
tiny
strands of hemp." (French, pg. 61) This parable shows the three levels
of
reality according to the Buddhist tradition. The first level is that of
the
reality we perceive with our senses, the physical world we interact
with
everyday. This world is the illusion of the snake. The second level of
reality
is still somewhat illusionary. In the second level we will see things
as they
relate to the third level of reality. The reasons for the illusion of
the first
reality become clear in the second reality. In the third reality
the truth is
found. This third reality is on the level of nirvăna and is only
reached
through a lifetime, or many lifetimes, of meditation. Multiple
lives,
reincarnation, is another important aspect of the Buddhist thought.
The idea of
karma plays a major role in the lives of Buddhists. "In Buddhism,
an
individual experiences rebirth into this world and begins the
volitional
production of both good and bad karma, or lay, which will
determine his or her
future rebirth and chances for enlightenment." (French,
pg. 63) To reach
enlightenment is the highest standard for the Buddhists,
which might be why nirvăna
is placed on the outer most edge of their world.
To reach enlightenment one must
have developed a high level of good karma.
Those that do not reach enlightenment
in their lifetime are reborn into the
world, and the life given to them is based
on the level of karma they were at
when they died. This makes karma not only
important because it is the way to
reach enlightenment, but also because it will
provide a better life. After
discussing the cosmogonies of different cultures,
we have come across to
different methods of thought. These being, myth and
science. We have seen the
Greek thought move from myth to science, and we have
seen the Buddhist
thought focus in on myth. The question arises, which method of
thought is
better or more accurate? Ask an astronomer or a physicist, and they
will
probably tell you that science is more accurate. Ask a Buddhist monk or
a
Zen master and they might tell you that myth is better (if the
definition of
myth is presented to them properly). The physicist will argue
that science has
evolved so far that we can accurately predict the motion of
the planets, we can
explain the process of recreation, etc. This is a very
strong argument for using
science to explain the universe. The Buddhist monk
will reply that we only
believe that we know those things and that it is just
a part of the illusion of
the first reality. This won’t convince the
physicist, but it does open another
door. A person who opens their minds to
all the possibilities will not be able
to rule out the idea that everything
we perceive could simply be an illusion
presented to us. Science itself could
be the illusion. If the entity that set up
the illusion (if there is one)
wanted the illusion to be believable, they most
likely would place a set of
laws on the illusion to keep it consistent. These
laws could be the laws that
we are now discovering and calling science. This is
just one of many possible
arguments for myth being the method of explanation of
the universe. A
scientist might not agree and say that this argument is
implausible, but
their only evidence against it would be the science that has
been declared
illusionary. By no means am I stating that myth is the proper
method of
explaining the universe. I am merely stating that it, and science,
are
possible explanations. Which one to believe in is complete up to the
individual.
Bibliography
Hetherington, Norriss S. Cosmology :
Historical, Literary, Philosophical,
Religious, and Scientific
Perspectives. New York & London: Garland
Publishing, Inc, 1993.
French, Rebecca Redwood. The Golden Yolk : The Legal
Cosmology of
Buddhist Tibet. Ithaca & London, Cornell University Press,
1995.
Kloetzli, Randy. Buddhist Cosmology. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1983.