Buddhist Cosmology

Traditional Buddhist Cosmology

Cosmology and religion are often closely interlinked. Traditional Buddhism is no exception. Thoroughly grounded in its Indian origins, Buddhist cosmology nevertheless plays a large role in the popular understanding of Buddhism in East and Southeast Asian countries such as Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, China, and Korea. This article attempts to present an overview of early Indian Buddhist answers to many of the key cosmological questions that have aroused human curiosity for thousands of years and how these answers relate to our contemporary conception of the universe.

Basic Components of Matter

As in the modern Western conception of the universe, traditional Buddhist cosmology is based on the principles of atomic theory. Early Buddhist theories as outlined in an important philosophical treatise called the Abhidharmakosa propose that atoms are “the smallest part of matter, uncuttable, unable to be destroyed, taken up, or grasped. They are neither long nor short, neither square nor round. They cannot be analyzed, seen, heard, or touched.”[1] This conception closely parallels some of the principal theories of modern physics, notably the ideas that matter cannot be created or destroyed and the uncertainty principle of quantum theory which stipulates that the smallest particles cannot be analyzed without affecting the particles directly.

According to these Buddhist theories, atoms come together to form compounds and this process of conglomeration continues as these groups of matter become larger and larger, eventually becoming visible to the naked eye. An “invisible force,” much like the strong force or the electromagnetic force of modern physics, makes this process possible.[2] Like many other ancient civilizations, early Indian Buddhist philosophers propose that all matter can be divided into four basic groups: earth, water, fire, and air. These divisions were used to explain the interactions between various substances and their intrinsic properties.

The Structure of the Universe

Unlike Western scientific cosmologies, early Buddhist texts posit that the universe only comes into existence because of the karma (actions and their enduring results) of living beings, including humans.[3] Thus in Buddhism the universe is strongly associated with human life and consciousness and its position as a objective spatial entity is subservient to its role as the theatre of volition actions and their enduring consequences. Furthermore, because the universe is created by the minds of living beings, it also follows that their karma also brings about its disintegration.[4]

The ancient Indians measured distance in yojanas, each of which is about seven kilometers. The universe as described in classical Buddhist uses yojanas as the primary way of describing the vast distances of the cosmos. The Abhidharmakosa gives the following description of the universe: A vast cylinder of wind floats in space. Shaped like a disk, in is 10^59 yojanas in circumference, 1,600,000 yojanas in depth and supports a disk of water that measures 1,203,450 by 800,000 yojanas. Above this is a disk of golden earth of equivalent diameter and a depth of 320,000 yojanas. This basis of the universe rather resembles a gigantic wedding cake. On top of the layer of golden earth is a vast ocean, at the center of which a great mountain of 160,000 yojanas rises into the air. In the ocean are four great landmasses, on of which corresponds to where the ancient Indians resided.[5]

The sun and the moon are critical elements of most cosmologies. According to early Buddhist sources, the sun and the moon revolve in the circle of wind that surrounds the great mountain at the center of the world. The sun is said to be fifty-one yojanas in diameter and the moon has a diameter fifty yojanas, indicating that the ancient Indians assumed that the apparent sizes of these objects were in fact their real sizes. They also explained the change in the length of the days over the course of a year as a function of how the sun moved around the massive central mountain. Traditional Buddhist cosmology also asserts that the waxing and the waning of the moon are due to the way shadows are cast on it, although they also believed that the moon gave off a light of its own.[6]

Transmigration, Karma, and Enlightenment

One of the central points of Buddhist cosmology is the idea of the six realms. Transmigration, a key element of all Indian philosophy, refers to the belief that living beings live many lives in succession and may be reborn into any of the six realms according to their past volitional actions, or karma. The six realms are the hells, hungry spirits, animals, humans, titans, and gods. Each of these realms is a realm of delusion, and even though beings in hell face immense physical pain and gods in heaven live long and happy lives, beings do not stay forever in any realm. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to transcend the six realms, attain enlightenment and escape from the round of birth and death.

The hells are located deep beneath the landmass where humans live; according to early texts they extend as deep as 40,000 yojanas below the surface. Just below the surface live the hungry spirits, which are considered to make up the second realm, who suffer from interminable greed and hunger but cannot find any anything to satisfy their desires. Above them are the animals, followed by humans, who live on the surface. The human state is considered to be the only one from which it is possible to attain enlightenment. The titans live on the lower slopes of the central mountain, and are constantly fighting with the gods. The significance of this realm is unclear. Above the titans live the gods, who live on the top of the central mountain and above into the heavens. Furthermore, it is possible for humans to practice meditation, enter states of deep concentration and ascend into the heavens. The furthest extent of the highest heaven is 167,722,160,000 yojanas above the earth’s surface and is the realm of the deepest states of meditation short of enlightenment.[7] Those who have attained complete enlightenment no longer abide in the six realms and are not subject to time and space, realizing perfect nirvana (extinction).

The Cosmos and Time

Until this point this article has focused on the cosmology of the single-world system, or what may be called our world. However, early Buddhists in Indian also developed a much larger view of the universe, called the thousand-cubed great-thousand-world. A single world consists of the central mountain, the great ocean and its four landmasses, the sun, the moon, the disks golden earth and water, and the vast cylinder of wind on the very bottom.[8] In modern terms, this would correspond to a solar system. A thousand single worlds are described as a “small-thousand-world.” This can be likened to our modern galaxy. One billion of such worlds is called a “thousand-cubed great-thousand-world.”[9] This is the closest idea in traditional Buddhist cosmology to the modern picture of the entire known universe. To the ancient mind, the “thousand-cubed great-thousand-world” certainly represents the boundless and infinite nature of the universe.

Another key element in Buddhist cosmology is the conception of time. According to the ancient Indians, the smallest unit of time possible was the ksana. This unit is so small it can only be expressed in abstract terms, but the concept is similar to the idea of a Planck time, meaning the shortest possible instant or division of time. In terms of larger periods of time, such as hours, days, months, and years, the ancient Buddhist conception is relatively similar to the Western understanding of time.

Because of the Buddhist theory of the universe as being infinite in time as well as space, it is important to discuss the units of time used to describe the cycles of the universe. An important unit is called a kalpa, which is described as the time it takes for a block of rock one cubic yojana in volume to be worn down completely if it is wiped every hundred with a soft piece of silk.[10] Obviously, a kalpa is too great to be measured in years, and can even be thought as a metaphor for infinity, but the imagination of early Buddhist thinkers produced even longer units of time. One great kalpa is equal to eighty kalpas, but in comparison with an amsamkhya kalpa even these units seem no more than brief moments.

The final temporal element of the traditional Buddhist conception of the universe is the idea of the cycle of creation and destruction of each world system. The whole cycle takes place over one great kalpa, divided into four phases of twenty kalpas each. The first phase is known as the kalpa of dissolution. It begins when living beings are no longer reborn into the hells; when the hells are empty, they themselves vanish, having only been supported by the karma of living beings. This process occurs similarly in the other realms. When the karma of living beings that gave rise to the world runs out, the world system burns up and disappears. The living beings are reborn in other world systems.[11] After this dissolution comes the kalpa of nothingness, which lasts for twenty kalpas. According to the Abhidharmakosa, the kalpa of creation begins “through the indirect force of the karma of living beings.”[12] The world system forms from the bottom up for twenty kalpas. Then final stage is the kalpa of duration, in which the world exists as it is now for twenty kalpas. Traditional Buddhist philosophy asserts that we are now in the ninth kalpa of the kalpa of duration.[13]

The Modern Significance of Traditional Buddhist Cosmology

The fanciful and imaginative conceptions of the universe described in this article may seem to have little basis in science and have even less relevance to the modern world. Yet the insights of Buddhist cosmology are important to the contemporary world in several ways. The first of these is how many of the ideas of the early Buddhist philosophers are compatible with modern physics. However, much of scientific reasoning used by the Indians has been outdated, and today there are much more sophisticated methods of trying to understand the universe. The early formation of Buddhism was governed by the scientific theories of the time, but the religion as a whole has remained very open to new discoveries in science.[14] In fact, as shown above, many of the insights of modern science confirm and support the ideas of ancient Buddhist thinkers. However, the most important contribution that Buddhist cosmology can make to our contemporary society is the very human outlook it puts on cosmological speculation. Indeed, all of Buddhist cosmology can be viewed as a matrix for humans to use to find a path to happiness for themselves and others. It is this humanistic outlook that combines science and religion that will remain as the enduring legacy of traditional Buddhist cosmology. The condition of modernity is such that technology and fundamentalism seem to be pulling society dangerously in opposing direction, but the existence of the Buddhist conception of the universe points towards a way to unite science and religion without losing their respective insights.

---

[1] Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins. Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Co., 1997, 20.

[2] Sadakata, 23.

[3] K. Sankarnarayan with Kazunobu Matsuda and Motohiro Yoritomi. Lokaprajñapti: A Critical Exposition of Buddhist Cosmology. Mumbai: Somaiya Publications Pvt. Limited, 2002, 80.

[4] Jamgön Kongtrul Lodrö Tayé. Myriad Worlds: Buddhist Cosmology in Abhidharma, Kalacakra and Dzog-chen. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1995, 42.

[5] Sankarnarayan et al, 84.

[6] Sadakata, 39.

[7] Sadakata, 58.

[8] Reynolds, Frank E. and Mani B. Reynolds. Three Worlds According to King Ruang: A Thai Buddhist Cosmology. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1982, 275.

[9] Kloetzli, Randy. Buddhist Cosmology: From Single World System to Pure Land: Science and Theology in the Images of Motion and Light. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983, 51.

[10] Sadakata, 96.

[11] Sadakata, 103.

[12] Kloetzli, 62.

[13] Sadakata, 105.

[14] Sadakata, 183.

Globalization and Music

In our current age of globalization, traditional cultures, natural habitats, and precious resources around the world are being marginalized in favor of the market forces of transnational capitalism and the ideals of economic efficiency. While these may be worthy goals, the disappearance of small tribal languages, rare plant and animal species, and limited resources certainly should raise a warning flag in our personal and national consciousness. One such dimension of human society marginalized by cultural globalization is traditional music, which in many regions of the globe is being passed up in favor of Western pop styles. Master musicians from traditional societies now have trouble finding employment, and their musical craft itself is beginning to fade into obscurity in the face of globalization. Moreover, the instruments themselves are being neglected as a result of the importation of electric guitars, synthesized instruments, and the recorded foreign music. While there can be no doubt that the confluence between such traditional music cultures and dominant Western styles has yielded expressive new varieties of music, a result of globalization that ought to be celebrated, the traditional instruments themselves are caught in a losing battle for their own survival.

Buddhism and Homosexuality

Among religious communities in America, there seems to be a considerable amount of debate surrounding homosexuality. I thought I would share one possible Buddhist perspective on this issue, so that the frame of the discussion can extended beyond the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The Christian argument against homosexuality is entirely scriptural; that is, it relies on the assumption that the word of God in the Bible is infallible. Yet when considering Buddhism, such justifications are implausible. Although there are massive corpus of Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha taught that one should not believe in something just because he had said it, because someone else had said it, because the scriptures said it, or because that it your view. He instead that one should test this teaching of his in daily life to see if it works, and further to test it to see if it can alleviate the suffering of oneself and all other beings. Buddhism thus teaches that one should not depend upon written words, and therefore it would be ridiculous and antithetical to the teaching of the Buddha to to try to consider Buddhist scripture to be infallible. This is not to say that Buddhism teaches that its own scriptures are useless and not worthy of being followed, but rather that they should not be seen as fundamental.

Yet what do the written teachings have to say on the topic of homosexuality? First, let's examine the Theravada school of Buddhism, which is the oldest and is practiced today mainly in Southeast Asia. This tradition is generally centered on the monastic practice, so most of its moral teachings are intimately connected to the practice of nuns and monks, who each take vows that include those preclude any sexual activity, homosexual or otherwise. This celibate standpoint makes the position on homosexuality rather ambiguous. Indeed, certain moral precepts indicate that one should not engage in homosexual activities, but others state the same restrictions on heterosexual activities. The basic teaching that the Buddha is offering here is that sexuality is neither inherently good nor inherently evil, but that indulgence in the pleasures of the body inevitably leads to suffering. He thus recommended that nuns and monks remain celibate, so they could focus on their spiritual practice. However, for those who are not part of monastic practice, the Buddha taught that in order to preserve the well-being of all living things, one should "refrain from sexual misconduct," which primarily meant adultery and non-consensual sexual activities. Nevertheless, Buddhism does not teach the sacredness of marriage and neither does it regard procreative sex and necessarily better than non-procreative sex.

What do other schools of Buddhism have to say on this issue? This question is difficult to answer because in many countries Buddhist teachings and pre-existing cultural practices have become intertwined. So while the Dalai Lama, who is the head of a certain school of Tibetan Buddhism, has said that homosexual behavior is inappropriate for Buddhists, he also unequivocally supports tolerance and human rights for all. Is this a contradiction? The Dalai Lama has himself suggested that this bias is result of the cultural conditioning, because it does not accord with the spirit of the Buddha's teaching. Japanese and Chinese Buddhism has a similar situation: homosexuality is "discouraged" out of cultural tendencies rather than Buddhist thinking.

In general, the Buddhist attitude towards sexual activity is that sexual desire is a hindrance to spiritual awakening and furthermore that indulgence or attachment to sensual pleasure leads only to suffering. Thus in the eyes of Buddhism the only worthwhile sexual relationships are those that are mutual and supported by long-term commitment to a partner. In this the sense, heterosexuality and homosexuality are looked at in an equal light. The primary message of the Buddha is one of love and compassion for all beings. Hence, although sexuality is not seen as something to be celebrated, Buddhism still teaches that one should love and support people of all sexual orientations.

It should be noted that the Buddha's message is very similar to that of Jesus and other religious teachers. These people who realized the heart of things intimately knew the importance of loving and respecting everyone. Indeed, not only did they know the importance of such a compassionate mind, but further they realized that this very mind was what they were all originally seeking.

Some thoughts on affirmative action

Someone asked me whether or not APAs, as a racial minority in the U.S., should benefit from affirmative action from colleges. I thought this was an interesting question.

Most proponents of affirmative action would agree that it is not justified by minority status alone; rather, it is racial discrimination that is the basis of affirmative action. Needless to say, virtually all people of color in this country have faced and even now face racial discrimination, albeit in a wide variety of forms. But to return to the original inquiry, the question then becomes "why is affirmative action necessary in college admissions?"

I do not intend to restate the obvious, but inequality of opportunity (in education, jobs, politics, etc) is one of the most pervasive and statistically verifiable forms of racism in America. Affirmative action in college admissions arose to redress this situation and provide the seeds for a more equitable and racially inclusive society. By some measures, affirmative action has been sucessful and there are undoubtably more people of color (and on a even more dramatic scale, women) in institutions of higher education than forty years ago, although it would be difficult to argue that the foundations of contemporary society have been shaken nearly enough to bring about equality. Despite the many steps that are yet to be made, I believe strongly in the importance and efficacy of college affirmative action programs on the behalf of underrepresented minorities.

The most direct answer to this question is that Asian Americans do not receive affirmative action from college because, unlike African Americans, Latina/os, and Native Americans, they are not underrepresented on most campuses. In no way does this mean that Asian Americans do not face racial discrimination; in my opinion, it simply shows a general trend among Asian Americans indicating a strong interest and tenacity in pursuing education. While I have seen enough evidence to see why the "model minority" myth can be hurtful and damaging, I would also conclude that the general lack of underrepresentation means that Asian Americans are not necessary beneficiaries of affirmative action in college.

However, the breadth and diversity of culture and privilege among the nation's four million Asian Americans means that affirmative action based on very broad racial categories overlooks many differences of educational opportunity between different Asian ethic groups in this country. Although I believe it is harmful and divisive to make generalizations about particular ethnic groups and their position in society, I also think it is possible to overlook the importance of why, how, and when one's ancestors came to this country. I make the reasoned assumption (please inform me if you think I am wrong or missing the point in any way) that generally speaking, one will have easier time getting a good education if one's parents were doctors or professors in another country or have been in this country for four generations than if one recently arrived in America as an illiterate refugee from a war-torn region in Southeast Asia.

As a final point, I would like to note that while Asians may even be "overrepresented" on college campuses (I hesitate because I believe they absolutely deserve to be there, unlike [generally white] children of alumni or children of large donors, who may or may not deserve their position), they are certainly underrepresented in most other areas in this country, including school administration, law enforcement, local, state, and national government, the media, the entertainment industry, and Wall Street. Affirmative action on the behalf of Asian Americans is essential in governmental jobs, including law enforcement and managerial positions, if we are to build a society that gives full voice and respect to the diversity of cultures and viewpoints within this country's borders and beyond.

First Post

Well, not much to say at the moment...