In DN 14, the Buddha claimed to been informed of the existence of past Buddhas by visiting heavens. However, both DN 23 and AN 3.70 claim that time in some heavens passes much slower, so much that it’s not possible to go and come back. Don’t the heavens the Buddha visited have such time difference, or is DN 14 incorrect?
1 Like
It isn’t that time passes more slowly in heavens (or hell realms for that matter). It’s that the life span in those realms is so much longer that beings perceive time differently.
Ghosts and heavenly beings can also visit the human realm and it doesn’t change their lifespans.
4 Likes
In DN 23, the monk explicitly says that it is not possible for someone to visit heavens and come back because we’d be dead by then.
"Well then, chieftain, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. A hundred human years are equivalent to one day and night for the gods of the thirty-three. Thirty such days make a month, and twelve months make a year. The gods of the thirty-three have a lifespan of a thousand such years. 36,000,000 years.Now, as to your friends who are reborn in the company of the gods of the thirty-three after doing good things. If they think, ‘First I’ll amuse myself for two or three days, supplied and provided with the five kinds of heavenly sensual stimulation. Then I’ll go back to Pāyāsi and tell him that there is an afterlife.’ Would they come back to tell you that there is an afterlife?
No, worthy Kassapa. For I would be long dead by then"
It is possible for them to visit us, though, but that’s because spending a lot of time here will be negligible when they come back.
1 Like
No, that’s not what it says at all. You are mixing being born in a heavenly realm and visiting a heavenly realm.
I think you are also be misunderstanding this bit…
The point is that if they linger for just a bit in the heavenly world (as a deva) then so much time will have passed in the human world that the person they made the promise to will have died.
Anathapindika very famously returned after death (MN143). It’s easy to imagine that his deep love for the monks caused him to not take that pleasure break the theoretical deva in the Payasi sutta took.
3 Likes
In either case, the time would pass similarly. Or are you saying that the time passes different if you are a visitor than if you are born there? I don’t see how that would work.
That sounds possible indeed if he didn’t spend time in heaven and went straight back.
No, that’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s not about time, it’s about lifespan. Someone who travels to a heavenly world doesn’t age more slowly.
1 Like
Actually, I believe they would. One who can travel to heavenly worlds almost certainly has solid meditative calm, which has been shown by modern science to slow the aging process slightly. Also, while they are in heaven, they aren’t getting into any accidents, etc so their life expectancy is probably slightly higher from that effect as well. 
2 Likes
I’m afraid this may just muddy the waters for the op. Sure, your time visiting the heavenly world might be safer, etc. But that’s no different from someone leaving, say, Australia, to spend time in New Zealand. They aren’t going to age any slower, but they reduce the risk of deadly animal attack. 
4 Likes
I see your point. My concern is that this interpretation renders the monk’s rebuttal in DN 14 meaningless. If it’s just a matter of lifespan, then there would be no problem of someone coming back to tell the news, which was what Pāyāsi wanted.
Btw, I was not the first to interpret this as relativity of time:
DN14 mentions dhammadhātu, not lokadhātu.
Dear Mike,
The claim that “time in some heavens passes much slower” should be understood as a difference in the duration of day. It’s not that time itself slows down, but rather that a “day” or a “year” in those realms is significantly longer compared to earthly time.
Nowhere is it stated that “it’s not possible to go and come back.” if you have any such statement please refer so we can understand and explore its meaning. if you are referring to anāgāmīs (non-returners), Sudhamma Vāṇī explains that they are no longer subject to rebirth on Earth. However, this doesn’t mean they are unable to return. They can choose to visit whenever they deem it necessary. For instance, Brahma Sahampati returned to request the Buddha to teach the Dharma.
Thanks
Best regards
Rajeev
And the very famous case of SN6.9
1 Like
So how do you interpret the monk’s rebuttal in DN 23?
Dear Sir,
The monk and the chieftain have presented different perspectives and reasoning. However, for us, the guiding principle is the wisdom imparted by the Buddha. While there may be arguments or logic opposing it, they are not beneficial to us. This is because the Dhamma, as spoken by the Buddha, transcends ordinary logic.
We should not assume that the Buddha cannot visit the highest heavens simply because time moves more slowly there. In those realms, lifespans are exceedingly long. Yet, the time it takes for a healthy person to fold their hand (used in Pali literature to denote a second or two) remains the same, whether on Earth or in the heavens.
Thus, it is entirely possible that the Buddha visited the Suddhāvāsa Brahmaloka and returned. There, he met beings who had witnessed the previous Buddha.
Best Regards
Rajeev
Wonderful Sutta , Thanks Snowbird !! 