What exactly were/are petas in early Buddhism? I have been looking into this topic recently, and have read relevant portions of Buddhist Cosmos by Ven Punnadhammo Mahāthero (and by extension many Petavatthu stories), looked at relevant suttas such as AN10.177 and SN19.1, and scoured over any discussion in this forum related to petas, but I still can’t put together an idea of what petas were actually considered to be by the Buddha and the early Saṅgha.
Among the possible explanations I can think of are:
A short-lived state based on residual negative kamma (if the beings in the Lakkhaṇasaṁyutta are indeed petas)
A fully developed realm of rebirth
A sort of fragmented state of suffering caused by attachment to a human life after death
An adoption of pre-existing beliefs without necessarily considering them real
An adoption of pre-existing beliefs while considering them real?
I also have some specific questions about petas in early Buddhism:
Can they be given offerings? Is it not possible, is it possible only to offer to relatives in this state or any peta, can only merit be offered, must it be done indirectly through donations to the Saṅgha, will the peta actually receive and use the offering or only benefit from the goodwill involved?
Were the petas considered in early Buddhism one of the realms of rebirth as stated in the sutta, or is this potentially a later insertion/development?
Are the beings in the Lakkhaṇasaṁyutta actually petas as identified in the commentaries?
Do petas generally suffer majorly (excluding vemānikapetas, who are said to experience both extreme suffering and pleasure), similar to Niraya beings, or do they generally suffer less than even animals? (as suggested by some in the "Hungry Ghosts" by Andy Rotman - #3 by TheSynergist thread)?
It seems to be quite unclear from what I’ve read, with most of the development of the idea of the peta coming after the Buddha’s passing, but in the thread previously mentioned some people seem to have made up their mind about what petas were in early Buddhism in ways that go against what little I can put together from the sources I’ve read. Is there some early sutta or verifiably very old Jātaka/commentary/Petavatthu story I’m missing?
What do others on this forum think about petas? What sources informed these opinions?
If you use the search feature, you are going to come up with lots of threads that discuss the great difficulty in determining earliness and lateness in the strata of suttas that are called EBT on this forum. So a lot of your questions are going to be difficult to answer.
There is plenty of material in the Nikayas about ghosts existing, but as you say, not so much in the way of details. This is reflected in the CIPS
To me the Mahāsīhanāda MN12 sutta makes it clear where ghosts fall in the range of rebirth (between animal and human). To me this matches with what we learn in the Petavatthu.
As far as merit sharing, we get the best information from Jāṇussoṇī [Jāṇussoṇi] AN10.177, which I am sure you are aware of.
I’m curious about this too! I think that is the common belief, but I don’t know why.
I think you will find that the notion of “adopting preexisting beliefs” is going to be controversial. If we take the texts as they present themselves, the Buddha taught about ghosts because of what he could see with his own eyes and knew with his own mind.
Of course. I am mainly hoping to see what others know or believe about the topic. Since most of this is bound to be educated guesswork/inference, while I know more than enough about Buddhism to make inferences about doctrine, I don’t have the appropriate skillset or knowledge related to EBTs to make assumptions about where these sources fit in or how a concept developed, past knowing that one source is a sutta in the Nikayas (and so maybe earlier), another is a text from the Petavatthu (and so probably later), and one is in a commentary (and so probably later as well), while some people on this forum might know enough to make inferences.
I’d love to know more about these texts and if they (A) influenced the idea of petas being disfigured beings with unique suffering, or (B) if petas developed similar traits independently and these beings were identified with petas after the fact.
Yeah, I don’t think I considered that enough before writing it down. With all the sources I’ve read with different aspects of or slightly different views on petas, it’s difficult to remember the details of each and I mistakenly gave more credence than I should’ve to the idea that it might be a sort of concession to allow pre-existing practices/beliefs to exist within the Buddha’s lay community. I certainly don’t believe it’s the case
As I understand it there is a strong case that the form of the Petavatthu is more recent than the material in the first 4 nikayas. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the content of the Pv is newer.
My metric is “Are there any novel doctrinal points in the Pv that are not found in the first four nikayas? Are there any contradictions with material found in the first four nikayas?” My answer to both is no. So for practical purposes I lump the PV, and Vv for that matter, into my own definition of EBT.
Now, I know that some people will point out that the way those stories are narrated it can appear that the action they did right before their death caused their rebirth because it was done right before their death. The logic then goes that this means the content is late because the whole “last mind moment” thing is definitely late.
I disagree. I think it is just the necessity of story telling that if you are teaching about karma and someone dies, it’s natural that you tell stories where it is easy to make connections with action and result.
As an apologist, my thinking is that the great arahants thought that it would be handy to collect all the ghost stories (or more accurately, stories of the departed) into one collection (i.e. have them all memorized by the same individual/group of individuals) rather than having them scattered.
That this was a good idea is apparent to me. Just today in Dhamma school a kid raised his hand and asked, “Do you still have that book of ghost stories? When are we going to hear more ghost stories?” And according to the Mahavamsa, after Mahinda converted the royalty using suttas from the MN, he went on to convert the masses using the Vimanavatthu and the Petavatthu.
Of course this is not related to the EBT status, and may all be ahistorical. But it’s something to consider.
Hi. This sutta appears to distinguish peta from animals and hell beings. Each have done bad kamma. But the animals sound similar to hardened criminals; without any remorse or conscience; continuing to do bad kamma for their sadistic self-gratification. The hell beings sound like they suffering in so much pain for their transgressions that a kind loving gift or word cannot help them. They are too far gone in their self-destruction. However the peta is like a confused lost soul due to their bad kamma and kind words & gifts can help them. There is some hope for the peta.
That would definitely make sense. I was thinking earlier that the Lakkhaṇasaṁyutta was probably recorded for much the same reason (though, it’s definitely a lot less compelling than the Petavatthu stories). Perhaps they have pretty much the same origin, but the Lakkhaṇasaṁyutta remained as largely a record of beings seen by Ven Moggallāna (and possibly others) and mentioned to others, while the Petavatthu included/added more narrative and moral elements.
I agree. It’s pretty clear that it has elements added in order to make it a bit easier to digest, like Pv1.3
You have seen this with your own eyes, Nārada Bhante. The wise and compassionate Buddhas have taught about wholesome things. I say the same to you. Never tell lies or break friendships with divisive speech. Then you will be reborn in heaven and enjoy every happiness you desire.
The peta here is talking to a monk, and yet still gives the bhante advice on how to be reborn as a deva to “enjoy every happiness [he] desire[s]”!
Personally I hesitate to think of the Petavatthu as an EBT because it has quite specific descriptions of petas as a class of beings (among other things) while the Nikayas (afaik) don’t, and similar beings found in the Lakkhaṇasaṁyutta are not identified as petas (which could at least suggest to me that the beings in the Petavatthu are not petas, or that the text comes after the beings in the Lakkhaṇasaṁyutta were identified with petas). If it has an EBT base it seems pretty far removed from the current product. That said, I haven’t read all of it - I actually stopped reading it after about Pv1.7 because I realised I’d already read every story up to that point in Buddhist Cosmos, but I realise now that there’s probably some I haven’t read. I think I’ll try reading it all to see what I think of it.
None of what I’ve said is proof, either, and I’m definitely more receptive to the idea that it at least derives from an earlier source now.
Adeana McNicholl has a book about the history of ghosts in Buddhism: Of Ancestors and Ghosts: How Preta Narratives Constructed Buddhist Cosmology and Shaped Buddhist Ethics
I think this is the most plausible explanation because the petas were borrowed from Brahmanical belief of “the father’s realm” (pitṛ) in which soul of the departed one expected to join their ancestor. To ensure the departed soul is joining their ancestor in pitṛ, the brahmanas perform Sraddha ritual which is referenced in AN 10.177. This ritual is still practised by the Hindus today:
I think this realm was considered real by the brahmanas in the Buddha’s time, but in the sutta the Buddha reinterpreted this realm as the peta realm and the ritual was adopted to become the donation to Sangha at later times as pattidana as we know today…
In DN1 the Buddha talks about the causes for the arising of wrong views. Brahmins and ascetics of other sects, through the development of psychic powers, became able to recollect their past lives (including previous lives as petas) or became able to see these beings. But because of their lack of wisdom, they developed wrong views about the things they were experiencing. Besides this, there are also people with certain characteristics (defined by previous kamma) who manifest the ability to see these beings without performing ascetic practices. It is also possible for these beings to make themselves visible to human beings without psychic powers, although in an imperfect way and only for short periods of time.
It is because of these factors that belief in petas already existed before the Buddha (and is also existent in other parts of the world).
The Buddha makes it very clear that his teachings are superior to the teachings of other masters, and that his mental development and wisdom are superior. Because of this, he is able to see the reality of these things as they truly are, and at the same time understand false teachings in detail — how they arise and also its drawbacks.
Unfortunately I’ve already looked through this thread.
The closest thing there is the response by Dhammanando Bhikkhu, but I’ve already looked at that entry in the Vinaya and I don’t think it actually refers to the beings from the Lakkhaṇasaṁyutta (which it references) as petas. Maybe I’m just being too pedantic about the identification of the beings there with petas and should accept that there aren’t many early sources? It’s so odd to me that there don’t seem to be any descriptions in the Nikayas that actually call them petas (that I know of).
