Buddhist Cosmology Essay Research Paper Throughout history

Buddhist Cosmology Essay, Research Paper

Throughout history there have been many attempts to explain the origin and

workings of our universe. Most every culture has their own cosmogony. Nearly

every individual has his or her own idea of what our universe is. During our

modern era of advanced scientific knowledge, we feel that we have a good grasp

on how the universe works. We have our Chemistry and Physics, along with

Mathematics, to examine the universe with. Any person educated in these fields

will tell you that they know our universe. The point is science in the modern

era is thought to be the correct summation of the universe. We think we are

right. Does this make everyone else wrong. Those that believe in myth over

science, are they wrong. These are some of the questions that I will be

discussing in this essay. I will examine the evolution of cosmological thought

in Ancient Greece (Pre-Socratics through Aristotle). In doing this, I will show

a movement from myth to more science based cosmologies. I will then examine the

Buddhist Cosmology, which is somewhat separated from Ancient Greek thought.

After all of this, I will examine the question of which is more correct, Science

or Myth. Before continuing a clear definition of .myth. needs to be

established. The term myth has multiple meanings. Webster.s II Dictionary,

defines it the three different ways. .1. A traditional story that deals with

supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a

primitive view of the world. 2. A real or fictional story that appeals to the

consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideals or by giving

expression to deep commonly felt emotions. 3. A fictitious or imaginary person,

idea, or thing.. For the sake of this essay, I would like the second

definition to apply to my use of the word myth. The term myth should not be

thought of as fictitious or primitive. The possibility for the myth to be real

should always be considered. Some of the earliest known philosophies on the

creation of the Earth come from the works of Hesiod. In his Theogony he attempts

to explain the creation of the Earth, and all that surrounds him, using myth. In

the myth Hesiod anthropomorphizes the cosmos. He tells of .Chaos. being the

first to come into being, then he goes on to describe how each of the gods of

the cosmos comes in to being. The gods of the cosmos are all related to some

characteristic of our universe. They can be physical parts or concepts (similar

to Plato.s idea of the forms). For example the line, .Earth first bore

starry Heaven, equal to herself, to cover her on every side, and to be an

ever-sure abiding-place for the blessed gods..(Theogony, 126) describes both

the act of birth, which is a human characteristic, and physical parts of the

universe being gods (Heaven meaning the stars, and the Earth). He also has gods,

such as Eros, which represents the concept of Love. Two main issues the come up

during discussions of cosmology are how the universe was created and out of what

was the universe created. In the Theogony, Hesiod has the world created out of

gods that are human by nature and to create this universe the gods reproduced.

Hesiod.s theories of the universe can clearly be classified as myth, since

there is no scientific background for it. The philosophers to follow Hesiod

moved slightly away from this. The Pre-Socratics begin to de-anthropomorphize

the universe. Even later, in the works of Socrates and Plato, the universe is

completely de-anthropomorphized. The Pre-Socratics focus more on what the

universe was made of than how it was created. They typically chose a single

element that everything consisted of and tried to explain the world according to

that element. Sometimes these elements were one of the basic four elements;

earth, fire, air, and water. Sometimes they were more abstract such as

Anaximander.s theory. .…The principle element of existing things was the

aperion… it is neither water nor any other of the so-call elements, but some

other aperion nature, from which come into being all the heavens and the worlds

in them..(Hetherington, pg. 58) The Pre-Socratics based their theories on

insight and observations. For this reason their theories are both mythical and

scientific. Because some of their choices of what the key element is are based

on instinctive feelings, they can be considered myth. On the other hand, they

support their ideas through observations and experience making the ideas

scientific. Science is defined one way in Webster.s II Dictionary to be

.Knowledge that is acquired through experience.. The Pre-Socratics were not

completely scientific because not everything they theorized was based on

experience, but they were not as mythical as Hesiod either. Aristotle.s

concept of the universe was mostly scientific. Since Aristotle was the tutor o

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать