Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


The Buddhist Tradition: Contemporary Issues of Cosmology and Ethics

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search





The Buddhist Tradition: Contemporary Issues of Cosmology and Ethics

Annotated lecture

Lewis Lancaster


University of California, Berkeley



At present, one of the most controversial issues in world religions revolves around cosmology. Not since the Middle Ages in Europe has there been such a battle over the nature of the universe within the religious sphere. This is particularly true in the United States where school boards and legislatures are debating what to teach in public schools about the origin of the world. Based on the Western Asian traditions and texts, some groups are pushing for curriculum in public schools that gives equal status to the doctrine of “creation” and the scientific explanation of “evolution.” The “creation” group has

defined one of its positions as “intelligent design” indicating that the world can only be explained by seeing it as a creation based on supernormal intelligence. Cosmology is a crucial matter for society because it is impossible to separate ethical systems from the collective perceptions about the nature of the cosmos and its history. That is why the battles over “evolution” are being so fiercely fought. Many people do not see how it is possible to have an

ethical and moral system without a cosmology that is based on a “creator” who sets the laws and the punishments for violation of those laws. This view of the nature of the world had led some people to date the “creation” as occurring some 4000 years ago. This idea of a recent “creation” by “intelligent design” stands in stark contrast to scientific descriptions

One of the most pressing concerns of certain religious leaders arises from the fear that the enormity of the cosmos and the relatively inconsequential size and importance of the earth will destroy the basis for morality and ethical behaviour. Therefore, it is imperative to this group that scientific data about an evolving universe be reduced in importance and “creationism” be considered in scientific curriculum as the equal of “evolutionism.”


That is not to say that current science has a complete explanation for the universe and its origins. There are many thorny and difficult problems to be resolved as we struggle to use all available information to understand the world in which we live. One of the most important topics in science is how to have

a General Theory that can account for the different laws of physics that change as we move from the sub-atomic level to the galactic view of the Hubble telescope. It is obvious that the universe of the atomic level does not function exactly like the universes of the cosmos. The complexity that our telescopes and laboratories present to us about the world in both its macro and micro form has destroyed many of the former ideas about the universe. In the 19th century,

people in Europe had a much simpler view of the world and postulated a universe that was clock-like. Material in the universe was thought to follow the laws governing inertia and motion that had a set of equations that could explain most observations.


Out of this scientific exploration, we have developed a scientific cosmological “story” about the history of the universe which is at odds with the biblical accounts and with the 19th century view. The scientific “story” tells us about the beginning of “time” and the minute size of all matter prior to the “Big Bang.” In sum, the “story” tells us that 15 billion years ago, there was an “event” where the symmetry of density expanded and differentiation or asymmetry

took place. From the asymmetry came the universe in which we exist as animated matter. While the whole of this universe is now thought to be endlessly expanding, within its vast structure over millions of years, solar and planetary systems emerge and disappear. Our life is taking place within a small planetary system that may be a third generation solar group. It is possible that our system contains the remains of two previous systems that arose existed for a time and then disintegrated. In this “story,” our solar system and even our bodies have evolved from the “event” of 15 billion years ago.


As can be imagined, something as important as cosmology and the origin of things was not limited to the considerations of theologians. Philosophers were equally involved in the search for meaning in the cosmos. Some of the early speculations in European philosophy came from such important thinkers as Goethe and Diderot , along with Lamarck . One of the outcomes of these philosophical discourses was the concept of “evolution” as the process for the generation of the universe as we experience it. . It was Charles Darwin who took the philosophical ideas of “evolution” into field work as he explored a natural science of

observation of life forms around the globe . He concluded that these forms could not be accounted for by random variation but represented the survival of a species in the face of the challenges of environment. The very idea of “evolution” was propounded by thinkers such as Thomas Huxley and Herbert Spencer . The philosophers soon took the idea of “evolution” beyond the cosmological realm and applied it to the history of ideas. Every field of research could be seen to be evolving over time toward a larger and more comprehensive understanding. The philosophical speculations continued throughout the 20th century. The work of

Henri Bergson and Teilhard de Chardin kept some form of cosmological discourse in public debate. Current research has raised the question of whether “information” is a basic element of the universe, similar to space and time. Robert O. Becker takes this investigation to the cellular level and asks if the cell is a receiver and transmitter of information in an electromagnetic sphere. In the exploration of “information,” the digital world has entered the cosmological discourse.


When we consider the role of Buddhism in general, in the development of contemporary ethical or moral standards, cosmology becomes an important factor. Since Buddhism does not describe a “creator” as the explanation for the universe, the question arises as to how the tradition has maintained an ethical and moral position through the centuries.


Even before the time of Sakyamuni, conceptional teachings were being developed about levels of existence in the ether above. Deities and ancestral spirits occupied spaces that were not so distant from the earth but were in a different category. Early Buddhist cosmology postulated that an “islanduniverse floating in the ether. Mt. Sumeru rose from its center and contained on its slopes, the four continents. Beings could be reborn in five or six distinct destinies, some celestial in the upper space and some celestial in the lower space. Certain realms were open only to those who have achieved high states of meditation and spiritual development while others were the result of destructive behaviour.


Mt. Sumeru is but one of the many views about cosmology that we find in Buddhist texts and practices. It constitutes the idea of a single cosmic realm, a uni(single) verse (wholeness). The description of of Mt. Sumeru is very close to the meaning of the English worduniverse” that comes from the Latin universus meaning “entire, all”. Mt Sumeru is the entire world floating like an “island” in the ether, with mountains in a ring around it. At the top of the mountain is

the palace of Indra and the sun and the moon which circle it are seen as celestial mansions not orbs. Rising upward from these levels are the tiers of the seventeen gods of the Form Realm and the four tiers of the gods of Formless Realm. The levels of existence on this “universe” involve mental states as well as physical ones. The states of meditation that can only be experienced by those who are proficient in yogic discipline help to define the Form and Formless realms .

In the Mahayana sutras, Mt. Sumeru was replaced by a quite different view of the cosmos. For example, in the texts prized by the Tien-tai or Cheontae tradition of East Asian Buddhism, we do not find just a single “uni-verse.” In texts such as the Avatamsaka-sutra, the Prajnaparamita sutras, and the Saddharmapundarika-sutra we have a description of the cosmos that is a “multi-verse” rather than a “uni-verse.” The experience of the Buddhas and the audience

surrounding them is one in which billions of universes are “seen” to exist at the same time. Each of these parallel universes is similar to one in which the sutra is being taught to the audience surrounding Sakyamuni Buddha. As the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas illuminate space with light produced by their meditation, the audience is able to experience a view of these billions of universes in which Buddhas are at this very moment teaching the very same sutra.


At first glance these colorful and extravagant descriptions are often ignored or dismissed by scholars and readers as being metaphoric or exaggeration of numerical lists. It is not so easy to understand the purpose of such a “mindscape.” However, in an ironic twist, cosmological scientists have suddenly elevated the “multiverse” to the forefront of current research and thinking. An examination of the quantum mechanics and the interpretation of the current data which provides the mathematical equations of an abstract space “proves” that such a space must be infinite in its dimensions. From this infinite

dimensionality comes the strongest of probabilities that there are parallel universes. The probability of such parallel multiverses is mathematically far beyond mere speculation. With a growing belief in the scientific community that the multiverses are indeed probable, we are experiencing a shift of cosmology that goes even further than the expanse of our universe. If there is fear that a huge universe makes our earth and our solar system seem small and insignificant, what will be the result of these new theories that make our universe potentially a small and insignificant point in the infinite space of multiverses?


It is perhaps time for the Buddhist groups to revisit the descriptions of the multiverses and reevaluate the importance and significance of this cosmology. This paper will not attempt to compare Buddhism and science in the sense of trying to show that ancient religious thought had already achieved an insight about the multiverse that is only recently been touched on by physical sciences. Buddhist thought and practice and quantam mechanics are quite different and both

deserve to be studied independently. The purpose of this study is to explore the ways in which the Buddhist tradition has dealt with a multiverse view of reality in terms of constructing and maintaining an ethical and moral tradition. The “mindscape” of the Mahayana sutras presented the Buddhists with quite a different approach. These sutras described a multiverse with the cosmic world systems being parallel. It is this parallel multiverse that was dominant in the Tientai system of East Asia.


There are questions that can be asked about multiverses. For example, how can it be that the Buddha can see billions of other Buddhas teaching the same sutra. It is one thing to see that the “other” world of the spirits and the ancestors is similar to our own with houses, clothes, food. That it is not culturally transformed. It is quite another to think that our world system with Buddhas and sutras can be endlessly reflected in the multiverse.


We can look at two examples of the use of the multiverse idea and consider the ramifications of them. In the Gandhavyuha-sutra we find the story of the youth Sudhana who is seeking enlightenment. In this story, there is an explanation for the importance of multiverses. Sudhana goes from teacher to teacher within the ordinary world. Some of them are workers, some young, some old, some powerful and others magical. While each teacher provides another link in the journey

of the young man, there are some who provide the help Sudhana needs to experience the teachings of the multiverse. The mentor sends out a ray of light and illuminates billions of universes filled with Buddhas. The Dharma is not just being taught by Sakyamuni, but it is duplicated in an endless reflection of Buddhas in other lands who are teaching the same message. Sudhana’s journey toward enlightenment cannot occur without the experience of coming into contact


with these Buddhas and receiving the teaching from them. In a body that is transformed by his karmic power, Sudhana visits every one of the billions of Buddhas in the realms that are as numerous as motes of dust, existing within the ten directions and hears them all teach the Dharma. Why is it so important for the pilgrim to include the multiverses in his journey? The fact that the description of the multiverses opens many of the Mahayana texts should alert us to the importance it held for the tradition. It is only in seeing the endless space, the repeated imagery, and the infinite expressions of the same Dharma, that

Sudhana can have a sense of the reality of the nature of the cosmos. The Dharma is perfectly expressed within this multiverse and without such a view the practitioner falls into a limited and false view of a small and constrained sphere of experience. With this cosmology in place, Buddhist teaching is taken to be applicable everywhere and in all times. The endless expanse of world systems does not allow Sudhana to fix attributes or essence on any aspect. Emptiness is fully experienced in this cosmological realm that has no “creator, ” no core, no limitation, no barriers of conceptions. His final enlightenment is then intimately tied to a cosmological view of multiverses.


In the Avatamsakasutra we also find a teaching that relies on scale. When phenomenon are seen and experienced, it is always within a context. Part of that context is the scale from which we view phenomenon. As a human, I can have one experience of a grain of sand while an ant will have quite a different one. The difference is, in part, determined by the scale of the sand in relation to my size and that of the ant. This issue of scale is another way of looking at

the multiverses. The message of the Avatamsakasutra is based on scale. That is, any statement of quantity must be made relative to the surrounding environment. But if, we have the idea of billions of world systems on the tip of a hair and billions of world systems that are so large that one can encapsulate another, and that this goes on in an infinite continuum, how can we judge whether we are large or small? The answer is, that we cannot make

reference to “large” or to “small” without indicating the scale of our measurement. If things are only measurable relative to something else, then the concept of size is without a fixed certainty. For students of the Avatamsakasutra, it is impossible to see reality in words such as “large” and “small” since anything can be one or the other depending on the relativity of comparison. Just as with Sudhana, the multiverse arguments about scale are used to provide the experience of the reality of emptiness and the lack of an essential nature for any aspect of life.


In order to analyze these multiverses, we would need to have a measuring instrument that is larger than the infinite expanse of them. This will never be possible and so our development of ideas about patterns, rules, and purposes fail us. We live in the midst of “suchness” and any concepts of it will of necessity be flawed. What are we to make of this? How are we to answer the questions about the significance of life and the nature of insight about it? The

Buddhists can make a contribution to the contemporary world by pointing out that they have maintained an ethical and moral system for centuries while holding to a multiverse view of reality. This is important because the world is facing the ever encroaching reality of the multiverse and science has released enough data so that it can not be suppressed for long by religious traditions that fear potential dangers from the information. As we come to understand the complexities and the scale of our universe, the assurances of Buddhism about how to live with this knowledge can be of great assistance.


It is the multiverse cosmology that can help to remove the delusions about the nature of the world. The statement that Bodhisattvas are those who know that the world is like a bubble, a flash of lightning, a mirage in the desert, and yet there arises within them compassion for all beings, takes on new significance when we face the endless expanse of the multiverses. The religious leaders in the West who are determined to downgrade or even block the information about the mathematical probability of evolving multiverses, may do great damage to our educational systems and our scientific advances. For those who worry that we are

moving into a cosmological point of view that will endanger the whole of ethical behavior, the Buddhist tradition can offer assurance that the destruction of the social and religious fabric of life need not occur. It is for the Buddhists to step forward and indicate that a view of multiverses has the potential to produce an enlightened state that holds a compassionate feeling for all beings. Rather than being destructive, the cosmology of multiverses holds the key to our comprehension of the nature of this world that we experience.




Source