Any thoughts, anyone?
Bhante @Brahmali,
I wasn’t going to post during the rains, but there has to be an exception to every rule! 
Because it seems nobody has yet jumped to the defense of ‘cosmology’ (edit: or ‘cosmological theories’, which is also fine with me).
At some point I had similar doubts about ‘cosmology’, even considering ‘metaphysics’ for my own translations. But in AN9.38, Lokāyatika Brahmins are asking questions about the world’s infinitude, which certainly does refer to the universe/cosmos.
the questions [about the “all”] at SN12.48 do not, to my mind, have much to do with cosmology in the modern sense
But they are asked by Brahmins, so the question is, were they about cosmology to them? I think so. In the Upanishads sarva ‘all/whole’ often refers to the universe. Olivelle even regularly translates just the noun sarva (without loka) as “whole world”. Brahman, the source and ground of the universe, is also called the All/Whole, and the Ātman becomes ‘all/whole’ after the brahmin knows this. Such a concept may be what’s referred to in the sutta with “is all a unity?” For another cosmology, see BU3.9: “The six are fire and earth, wind and the intermediate region, sun and sky—for these six are this all/whole.” This might be a form of “is all a plurality?”
Not that it matters for the translation of lokāyata, but I think that to Brahmins the question “does the All (or ‘Whole’) exist?” would effectively be “does the Brahman/Ātman exist?” To ask “does the Whole not exist?” would be to question this Upanisadic monism, similar to asking whether all is a plurality. That is, I don’t read it as a denial of existence in general (“does all not exist?”) but specifically of a monistic universal Whole (sarva). See Gonda’s ‘Reflections on Sarva- In Vedic Texts’ for this “whole/entire” meaning of sarva.
So it seems very likely that these questions are specifically about the universe, not about philosophy or metaphysics more generally. Of course, to the Buddha the “all” is not literally the whole universe, but then he’s not the one asking these questions! Nor does he answer them, just indicating that they are old. We shouldn’t read the Buddha’s redefinition of sabba in SN35.85 back into these questions.
In the modern era “cosmology” is outrightly misleading.
It seems fine to me, as long as we are talking about the philosophy and don’t confuse it with the natural science, which the context doesn’t really allow for anyway. But a lot of that science borders on philosophy, anyway, with multiple universes and stuff. (Is all a plurality?…) Also, considering that cosmology as a philosophy is “a metaphysical study into the origin and nature of the universe” (Wiktionary), I don’t think ‘metaphysics’ or ‘philosophy’ would be an improvement over ‘cosmology’. It would broaden the term too much and make it even more misleading, potentially.
Second, we have the argument used by the Buddha that lokāyata is not compatible with a proper understanding of the Dhamma. Again, it seems to me that philosophical speculation is more to the point than cosmology.
It seems to me the other way around. I agree with josephzizys that Buddhism also is a kind of philosophy. And prior to right view there will always be some speculation involved in it too. And depending on how we look at the notoriously vague term ‘metaphysics’, Buddhism arguably engages in it too, although initially not with the goal to set down first principles but to understand reality as fundamentally dukkha and anatta.
I say this not to argue exactly what counts as philosophy or metaphysics but because you say, “I don’t want my translation to be understood only by people with an appreciation of modern philosophy.” But if you would translate, “you shouldn’t teach philosophy/metaphysics”, that may well be misunderstood to discourage things which are fundamental to Buddhism, or at least to certain branches. Especially if you’d use ‘philosophy’, I would consider myself to have committed lots of dukkatas! At least ‘cosmology’ isn’t likely to have that problem.
I think the question to be answered is instead, why are the monks who engage in lokāyata accused of acting like householders? I don’t see how this would be solved by translating it as ‘philosophy’ or ‘metaphysics’ or alike. Perhaps it’s just a way of saying they aren’t acting like monks should. We find the exact same complaint all the time, after all. So it seems to simply be a trope that’s repeated here, perhaps even without too much thought as to the context. (Or perhaps it was, because many Brahmins were also householders.)
It sounds like the people are accusing the monks amongst themselves, but the purpose of the text is of course for monastics to reflect on it. And being called a householder would be shameful for them. So saying that teaching lokāyata is householder’s business is primarily for the sake of instilling such shame in them, not for the sake of explaining what householders would really have been spending their time on. I think.
