This question plays into a bigger topic: In the reception of Buddhism in the West the whole deal with devas and supernatural powers was an important question. Early researchers held it as exaggerated bogus of later additions and were looking for a ‘pure’ Buddhism underneath of all these supposed additions. Now we came to realize, like @Brahmali pointed out, that devas, powers, rebirth etc. are doctrinal and can hardly be put aside without sacrificing larger parts of Buddha-dhamma.
So let’s play it through a bit more: Given that devas are a tough crowd, some devas are still portrayed as sincere. We have the devas of SN 1, we have the Sakka-Samyutta SN 10, we have (at least in Pali) Brahma Sahampatti crucial in the role of teaching the Dhamma, and we have sincere Bhikkhus being reborn in the Brahma realm.
They all have, according to numerous suttas, immense life spans - up to a Maha-Brahma who basically has the age of the universe. Now, do all of these get deva-Alzheimer?
At least a Maha-Brahma should remember the Buddhas of the last 10 Billion years or so. And other old devas too. Also, if we assume that under previous Buddhas bhikkhus were reborn in the Brahma realm they would be still disciples of these former Buddhas, should remember their former teacher’s dhamma, share stories of him etc…
There are not many ways to dissolve these inconsistencies, and they are all not pretty:
Devas, Brahmas, Sakka etc. were originally in the suttas, but not as interlocutors, rather as elements in a complex universe - all interactions (and many suttas) would hence be fictional and late additions
Devas etc. were additions altogether. In that case the Buddha would have rejected a big part of Indian cosmology, or would have refused to comment on it. Then he would have been much more of a sakyanmuni than we usually assume.
All long-lived Devas etc. get Alzheimer and become bewildered every time a Buddha appears. They would be perfect in having a “Zen mind - beginner’s mind” each time
Buddhas appear only once in a given universe, i.e. a world-expansion world-contraction cycle. So that even if there are some beings who survive that, they are not open for communication. Yet this appearance would be much less frequent than the suttas suggest
The suttas get the life span of Devas etc. totally wrong
The Buddha and everyone who experiences interactions with Devas etc. is imagining it in their private mental spaces as visions
Buddhas appear only in “parallel universes” - that’s why they are all Indian
In short, since most alternatives are not really satisfying I wonder if we don’t have to go back to the “old-style” Western perception of seeing all interactions with Devas etc. as bogus, and assuming that most probably original Buddhism included the Indian cosmology but not conversations, poems by Devas, no invitation by Brahma, etc.
Thank you for your reply. I too have reasoned something along the lines of what you were saying. I am hoping someone might be able to provide an explanation that I had maybe failed to piece together. The issue for me is that if the cosmology has been fabricated, how much else … Maybe even Nirvana? I hope not and will keep an open mind its just that its hard for me to over look such things. I have for a long time considered Buddha to be the best teacher but this does cause me some doubts in the tipitaka sadly.
I don’t see any issue here. The Buddha had people so unintelligent that they dissed him while he was alive. Imagine teaching a doctrine of suffering (and a way out of it) to beings living in bliss and ‘never-ending’ sensual pleasure. It wouldn’t be far off to think they would turn up their nose at it. Frankly, to most it would be theoretical- how much ever they learn about it, it wouldn’t translate to anything they can relate to. But as you rightly say there would be a population of devas who are attained. Anatha pindika, Buddha’s chief lay disciple, was reborn as a deva (or brahma?) after his demise, and re-visits the Buddha to pay his respects. There were disciples of the former Buddha visiting him as well, I think (ghatikara?). The Pure abodes exclusively have non-returners (and arahanths) who would have learnt from numerous Buddhas. However Sakkha the deva god who is a stream entrant is swept away with his astounding deva mansion and Ven Moggallana has to bring him to his senses with a lesson in impermanence (sutta?)! I think this is very relatable and doesn’t require deva ‘cognitive decline’.
As I said, they are mostly in the pure abodes (suddhavasa) and frankly they must be tired of hearing the dhamma from so many Buddhas! They are non-returners or arahanths and gone beyond sharing stories and other kinds of gossipy behaviors. I think they would be more inclined to seclusion and peaceful states of being rather than engage in internet forums!
You mention one. Do you see more?
The way I see it, I find an all compassionate, omnipotent God in the theistic faiths vs the suffering present in the world as a inherent contradiction. The issue devas face in Buddhism is whether they exist or not. I personally don’t see a problem in their interaction etc that cannot be understood. The Buddha said ‘belief’ in rebirth, devas etc are optional. He never forced anyone to believe it. Nevertheless he said they existed and reported his interactions with them. He would have done this despite knowing the risk of alienating potential followers. This suggests he and certainly followers who developed the ‘divine eye’ (Ven Anuruddha, Ven Moggallana etc) could see them, but not everyone could -not even some arahanths- the latter suggesting it wasn’t necessary for attaining Nibbana. Even they would have just believed it (or not?), without really experiencing devas. There is a meditation called recollection of the devas (Mahanama sutta). It is not designed to develop psychic abilities but rather to think of devas good qualities and develop joy, if one sees the same qualities within oneself (devas, as humans in their previous lives were supposed to have very wholesome qualities as they would then go on to become devas). This provides a rationale for the Buddha to speak about Devas at least, if not for the fact that in his experience they did exist (according to the suttas), and people at the time believed it.
When I was in my thirties, I went through a couple years of major depression which included psychoses. There were auditory and visual hallucinations and a large amount of magical thinking. Ever since gradually coming back to reality, I’ve been on guard, watching my thoughts for any return of such delusions. If I ever had the thought that devas (or any other of the bazillion imaginary beings and places in the suttas) existed, I’d hie myself off to a psychiatrist and get back on anti-psychotic medications.
In my occasional cynical states of mind, I’ve entertained the idea that the supernatural stuff in the suttas were placed there to impress the rubes. “Other teachers have magical nonsense that people seem to like-- look! So do we!” When I settle down into a more charitable mindset, I reflect that such ways of thinking were so commonplace in earlier times that they had to be taken into account. There’s still plenty of animism and such in the world today, too, but at least the mechanisms of reality are better understood, and humanity in general is better for it, mostly.
I’m aware that supernatural concepts are a big help to a lot of people-- I’m a member of AA, and that’s a constant theme there-- but that’s really none of my business. I’m unable to do things that way myself, and am fairly sure that it’s just a long way around to just letting go, which I already knew about.
In this sutta (AN 3.65), the kalama sutta (why cant I just search the name and find the sutta on search in SC?) the Buddha is teaching a group of people new to the dhamma. He says don’t go by what other people say, or by what is said in ancient scriptures, but when you know for yourself that something is wholesome for yourself and others, then to follow that. So for most people belief in devas would be only a belief. He encourages them to consider the consequences of practicing the dhamma, with and without rebirth.
"‘If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.’ This is the first assurance he acquires.
"‘But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.’ This is the second assurance he acquires.
I think devas and kamma fall into the same catergory as they cannot be verified for oneself in this life (unless one develops the psychic powers to do so through meditation). It must be noted that belief in these things are included as part of mundane right view (MN117), again not ‘enforced’ as the supramundane right view is what actually leads to nibbana -and that is entirely verifiable in the present moment. One can adopt mundane right view beliefs as they can lead to wholesome modes of being, which is of course beneficial to oneself and others. However if adopting such beliefs is harmful rather than helpful, it is wise to avoid them. It is a safe bet, or a ‘hedged bet’ as we could say nowadays.
[quote=“sujato, post:19, topic:224”]
I think devas listen to Dhamma a bit like rich people do.
[/quote]Personally, I think devāḥ are “rich people”. But that is a very symbolic reading of mine as pertaining to modern perspectives on social justice, that I would not force on anyone.
The devāḥ living in their sense-pleasure heavens. I’m hardly “rich”, but even I sometimes I feel like that in my apartment building after ordering Chinese takeout. Luxuries the past could have never imagined.
Are there places in the suttas where “deva” is used explicitly as a designation for aristocrats or the wealthy? I was thinking about the comparison with “yakka” and “naga” which are sometimes used as names for types of non-human being, but are also sometimes used to refer to humans with yakka-like or naga-like characteristics.
Thanks for that! I remember Ajahn Thate writing about the refined khandhas of the mind (in Steps Along the Path). It would make sense they included the “divine eye” and “divine ear,” as encountered in the EBTs.
Those are some great points and I feel there may be great relevance to them. Again though it was more issues such as why had baka Brahma not been brought out of his delusion long before Master Gautama? And why do you think it may be that the beings in the pure abodes don’t out of compassion interact with other realms in sharing the Dhamma? Thank you kindly for you reply
Also for the record I do believe in Devas, auras, kamma etc. Just not 100% sure of course about the dynamics of this cosmology. That is to say, is more like Buddha has laid out or like the Hindus? This would effect right view on the 8 fold path in various ways. I do also struggle with a creator concept and don’t care much for it. Peace to you all and thank you all very much for responding!
Conceit is well known to lead to a closed mind. The Buddha said to someone listening with a criticising mind the dhamma will not become apparent. Baka bhrama had his status to protect and probably thought he knew everything. It is said the Devas see humans as creatures ‘hung upside down and dunked in a cess pit’ (paraphrasing according a sutta by Ven Anuruddha, the foremost in divine eye), and when they are born as as Devas the same person is bathed, perfumed, clothed in the finest clothes, and placed on the top floor of the finest seven floor mansion with all luxuries complete. Baka Brahma probably wouldn’t want advice from such a lowly being. The Brahma’s reputation seems to be as all knowledgeable and in one sutta he has to lead a monk out of sight of other Brahmas to save face and his reputation when he didn’t know the answer to a question posed by the monk about where the earth element ceased. He then asked the monk to go to the Buddha to resolve his problem.
As to why beings in Pure abodes don’t interact with others imagine not having sensual desires and aversions and having Samma Samadhi (Right unification of mind). I think it must be like those notices they hang at retreats: Noble silence, retreat in progress, …all the time! Maybe it is that they have seen many Buddha’s come and go and think the Buddha’s role is to teach while they devote time to practicing what is taught. Then again even after so many Buddha’s it it interesting that we still haven’t attained Nibbana!
Some suttas are just VERY simple in telling the reader that the Buddha was the supa-dupa guy, and that the devas that the brahmins believe in are celestial morons (hence, the brahmins must be morons too).
Sorry, but how is it not obvious that these are purposeful fabrications? Sure, of course it’s possible that the highest celestial being is a dumb idiot who’s sole aspiration is to save face like a low-life ruffian. But the easier explanation is that these suttas are pure propaganda.
I don’t think that we can have both: the efficacy of kamma, and random stupid celestials. If we believe in kamma then specific very good circumstances have to be created in order to be reborn as high celestials, both ethical (including truthfulness) and spiritual maturity.
If heaven on the other hand is full of dum-wit beings, forgetful, unethical, lying, deceiving, scheming, dull, it means that they got there without the seed of good kamma, then the teachings about kamma and its effect are wrong and useless.
[quote=“Gabriel, post:36, topic:224”]
If heaven on the other hand is full of dum-wit beings, forgetful, unethical, lying, deceiving, scheming, dull, it means that they got there without the seed of good kamma, then the teachings about kamma and its effect are wrong and useless.
[/quote]Isn’t the narrative that these heavenly beings start their lives righteous, brilliant, and luminous but descend into decadence and cruelty towards their end? I ask honestly, because I recall reading this but I can’t for the life of me remember where.
There are also different classes and kinds of devāḥ. Some are very noble. Some aren’t.
Like Brahmā, who is sometimes a beneficent figure, and who is sometimes depicted as a fool.
I see what you are saying Mat and i guess maybe previous Buddhas didn’t even bother to try and set Baka straight either. Or maybe another did and proved their superiority but baka quickly decided he didn’t want to let others know so he kept it quiet. Thanks kindly for your reply.
Hmm maybe so too. Or maybe they get there by good deeds but still have conceit. Not sure if they are complete morons but rather they are just very caught up in the intellectual understanding they do possess to the point they were convinced they know all so therefore except certain wrong views like permanence without a second thought. How ever you could just be right about the sutta being what the writer thought as allegorical truth. Peace.
Unless one has gone past the point of no return by attaining one of the Four Noble Fruits, retrogression is a real possibility for everyone in the six realms of existence, the devas are certainly no exception.
