Enlightened Gods?

No, I meant objectivity/ontology is conjecture according to the dhamma, not denied, but also not confirmed according to the Kaccayanagotta sutta. We can let go and that’s a good-enough response to these beings. They can be said to be real as 1) the Buddha says so 2) his Arahants say so and experiences them in the same manner 3) people remember past lives as devas, and linked to good and bad karma. For this list to be of value it takes some trust or faith. The bodisatva himself was a deva before being born as Siddhartha.

1 Like

I don’t quite understand I’m afraid. So if I believe in them (based on the EBT), then they exist?

I’m not going to do a flying-spaghetti monster trick! If you say consciousness is more than an emergent property of the physical world then devas are situations where consciousness is conjoined with bodies made of more subtle matter. You might have faith in science when they report back on neutrinos flying through matter in a ghost-like manner - and use it as a reason for their salaries (reasonably, I assume). I can have faith in the report the Buddha made, including his claims to have gotten rid of craving, aversion and delusion so I am assuming he didn’t just say it with a negative motivation. I can’t provide evidence for devas but I think the Buddha doesn’t make such serious claims lightly.

2 Likes

I still don’t understand what you mean :frowning: In the suttas Sakka and Sahampatti appear just as real as Ananda and Kassapa. You seem to have a more complex understanding of them - but is your view based on the suttas - and if so, from where - or is it your interpretation?

2 Likes

Then, late at night, the glorious god Hatthaka, lighting up the entire Jeta’s Grove, went up to the Buddha. Thinking, “I will stand before the Buddha,” he sank and melted down, and wasn’t able to stay still. It’s like when ghee or oil is poured on sand, it sinks and melts down, and can’t remain stable (AN 3.127).

3 Likes

Fascinating quote!

Ghee is pure and holy, truly worthy of deva perfection. The image of it melting into the sand–wow!

:pray:

Well, consider, arhatva is not a die-immediately situation. There is a clause somewhere about having to join the order or die, but that is likely just to limit arhatva-claims in the laity IMO and claims of arhatva in rival non-Buddhist sects. Pratyekabuddhas don’t have to die immediately, for instance, and we simply wouldn’t know if the Buddha set up a sangha amongst the gods parallel to that amongst humans. Gods and nāgas cannot join the assembly of humans as it stands now IIRC.

Devas are conceived of with extraordinary lifespans. A deva who attained nirvana would take an extraordinary deal of time to pass into parinirvana.

What’s the difference between an enlightened deva and a figure like Amitābha Buddha or Mahāvairocana Buddha with their extraordinary lifespans?

It’s possible limiting the sangha to humans is designed to stop the sangha and laity from the veneration/worship of buddhic deities. Is there an account of a devatā wishing to ordain and the Buddha instead giving him a discourse on the precious human birth or instruction on how to be reborn with this in mind (i.e. as a human)? I presume not, but am not widely well-read.

2 Likes

You’re right. Still strange that we have only the one instance of Sakka declaring stream-entry, and not even the status of Sahampati (even though devoted ‘from the beginning’) is completely unclear.

The long timespan brings another problem - why didn’t they get any attainment from a previous Buddha? Did the last Buddha really only live in the last universe when these gods were not there yet?

I think there is only one reasonable explanation for all these questions, namely that the ‘system’ was not in place originally. The ‘talking gods’ were introduced only later, first as props to elevate the Buddha, and then once the fable-like nature of the talking gods was lost they had to be pressed into the system with a specific lifespan and the possibility for attainments (which were designed for humans only).

2 Likes

Studying DN33, we notice that the perfection of good deeds, the best that kamma can offer is the Brahma realm:

DN33:3.1.133: ‘If only, when my body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of the Gods of Brahmā’s Host!’

And given that Sakka is the Lord of the Gods, perhaps the best that deva existence can offer is stream-entry:

DN21:2.7.20: But sir, I am the Buddha’s disciple, a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.”

Reasonably, one might also understand that all further steps along the Noble Eightfold path could only be explored in the human realm, with permits the ending of deeds. In other words, devas may be bound to their perfection of deeds.

DN33:1.11.148: There are neither dark nor bright deeds with neither dark nor bright results, which lead to the end of deeds.