Tracing Buddhist Responses to the Crisis of Cosmography

Home , Buddhist cosmology, Mount Meru (Buddhism), Tominaga Nakamoto

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2020-08-17 Tracing Buddhist Responses to the Crisis of Cosmography

Ereshefsky, Joshua Ian

Ereshefsky, J. I. (2020). Tracing Buddhist Responses to the Crisis of Cosmography (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/112477 master thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Tracing Buddhist Responses to the Crisis of Cosmography

Joshua Ian Ereshefsky

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN RELIGIOUS STUDIES

CALGARY, ALBERTA

AUGUST, 2020

ABSTRACT

Buddhists, across different schools and regions, traditionally posited a similar world model—one that is flat and centered by giant Mount Meru. This world model is chiefly featured in Vasubandhu’s fourth century CE text, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. In 1552,

Christian missionary Francis Xavier introduced European spherical-world cosmography to Japan, precipitating what this thesis terms the Buddhist ‘Crisis of Cosmography’.

Buddhists responded to a challenge of their cosmography nonuniformly. This thesis identifies and traces three different Buddhist responses to the Crisis of Cosmography.

The three types of respondents explored in this thesis are 1) the Rejecter (who rejects emergent European science and seeks to uphold the traditional Buddhist world model), 2) the Accepter (who conversely accepts European science and seeks to discard the traditional Buddhist world model), and 3) the Upayer (who cites the traditional Buddhist world model as a pedagogical upāya). To explore these respondents, this thesis primarily examines Japanese and Tibetan sources.

PREFACE

This thesis is an original, unpublished and independent work by the author, Joshua Ian

Ereshefsky.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I wish to thank my supervisor, the Numata Chair in Buddhist Studies,

Dr. Wendi Adamek for her invaluable direction and support of my project. I wish to thank the University of Calgary Department of Classics and Religion. Their support and resources greatly enriched my master’s studies. I also wish to thank my Sanskrit teachers who made the complex enjoyable— Dr. Christopher Framarin at the University of

Calgary and Joseph Larose at Kathmandu’s Rangjung Yeshe Institute. Lastly, I wish to thank my family for their unceasing encouragement and for fielding my obtuse grammatical questions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION UNCOVERING COSMOGRAPHY……………………………………………….1 THE BUDDHIST WORLD MODEL……………………………………………...2 HISTORICAL CONSIDERTIONS………………………………………………...4 THE CRISIS OF COSMOGRAPHY………………………………………………5 THESIS STRUCTURE…………………………………………………………….8

1. BUILDING A WORLD: BUDDHIST COSMOGRAPHY IN THE KOŚA A MYSTERIOUS MOUNTAIN……………………………………………...……11 VASUBANDHU AND THE KOŚA………………………………………….……13 STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD ………………………………………...………15 BELOW AND ABOVE……………………………………………………………18 PROBLEMATIC COSMOGRAPHY? ……………………………………………21 MORE THAN JUST A MAP………………………………………………...……22

2. THE REJECTER A GREAT DEBATE………………………………………………………………24 WHERE’S THE MOUNTAIN? ………………………………………………...... 26 ARRIVAL OF NEW THOUGHT…………………………………………………30 COMPETING COSMOGRAPHIES ……………………………………...……...33 CHRONOLOGY OF FUMON ENTSŪ……………………………………...…...35 ENTSŪ’S PARADIGM SHIFT………………………………………………...…37 BUKKOKU REKISHŌHEN………………………………………………...……39 ENTSŪ’S GEOGRAPHY……………………………………………………...…41 FLAT OR ROUND? …………………………………………………………..…43 MOVEMENT OF THE SUN……………………………...………………...……45 ENTSŪ’S LEGACY…………………………………………………………....…48

3. THE ACCEPTER AND THE UPAYER A MOUNTAIN OF A CROWN………………………………………...…………52 FROM JAPAN TO TIBET……………………………………………...……...…53 DALAI LAMA: THE ACCEPTER…………………………………...………...…55 GENDUN CHOPEL: THE UPAYER……………………………...……………..60

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………...………….……67

FIGURES……………………………………………………..……………………...…73

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………...……….……81

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1………………………………………………………………..Elemental structure

Figure 2……………………………………………………………………..Birds-eye view

Figure 3…………………………………………………………………Hot and cold hells

Figure 4……………………………………………….Meru and abodes of earth-dwelling deities

Figure 5……………………………………….…………..Copernican Model, 1543 (left), Tychonic Model, 1647, (right)

Figure 6……………………………………….….Gotenjikuzu (map of five Indias), 1364. Late Edo period re-creation from National Museum of Japanese History, Gallery Collection, Tokyo.

Figure 7…………………………………………..…...Nansenbushū bankoku shōka no zu (map of the world inside Jambudvīpa Island), Hōtan, 1710. From Nubuo & Unno, “The Buddhist World Map in Japan and Its contact with European Maps.” Imago Mundi 16 (1962), 63.

Figure 8………………………………………….Conceptualization of Entsū’s world map

Figure 9………………………………………...... Argument for spherical model (left), Entsū’s argument for flat model (right)

Figure 10……………………….…………….……………………Vertical sun path (left), Entsū’s horizontal sun path (right)

Figure 11………………. Sun hitting top of mountain before bottom (on spherical earth)

Figure 12…………………………………………...... Birds-eye view of Entsū’s sun path

Figure 13……………...... Entsū’s vertical sun paths demonstrating changing sunlight hours

Figure 14…...... Entsū’s horizontal sun paths over Jambudvīpa demonstrating seasonal darkness

Figure 15………………………………………..Shumisengi (map/model of Meru world). Replica made by Toshiba founder, Hisashige Tanaka, 1850. From Seiko Museum, Traditional Japanese Clocks (Wodokei) Collection, Tokyo.

INTRODUCTION

UNCOVERING COSMOGRAPHY

I visited the mammoth Buddhist ruins of Borobudur for the first time in 2014. A shuttle picked me up at 3:30 AM from my hotel in Yogyakarta, Central Java, Indonesia.

The hour and a half drive to Borobudur passed through lush farmland fringed by steep volcanoes. During the drive I thought how curious that the world’s largest Buddhist structure is nestled in the farmland of the world’s most populous Muslim country. Today, ninety percent of Indonesians are Muslim and less than one percent are Buddhist.1

However, during the middle of the first millennium CE, Central Java was ruled by the

Buddhist Shailendra dynasty (the builders of Borobudur). But by the second millennium,

Buddhism had all but disappeared from Central Java.2 A combination of assimilation by

Hinduism and the arrival of Islam to Java literally buried Borobudur. In 1814, Dutch colonial surveyor Hermann Cornelius led the restoration of Borobudur. A team of two hundred labourers burned vegetation and cleared soil.3 They unearthed a gigantic multi- tiered structure made from volcanic rock and lined with more than two thousand five hundred reliefs panels and five hundred Buddha statues.

In 2014, I arrived at Borobudur at sunrise and circumambulated each of its narrow stone tiers. I observed the intricate relief panels depicting episodes from the Lalitavistara

1 “Sensus Penduduk 2010,” Badan Pusat Statistik, 2010, https://sp2010.bps.go.id/index.php/site/tabel?tid=321&wid=0. 2 While Java is largely void of Buddhist and Hindu practice today, South Asian linguistic influence remains. For example, ‘Java’ traces to the Sanskrit ‘Yavadvipa’ (Island of Barley) featured in the Rāmāyana. Additionally, the Javanese language uses Pallava script developed in Southern India. 3 John Miksic, Borobudur: Golden Tales of the Buddhas (Tokyo: Tokyo Tuttle Publishing, 1990), 19.

Sūtra (an account of Siddārtha Gautama’s path to Buddhahood) and Jātaka tales (accounts of his past lives). While I noted the reliefs, I remained unaware of Borobudur’s greater symbolic project. Four years later, during a subsequent visit to Borobudur, I learned that the structure is in fact a grand representation of the Buddhist cosmographic model.4

This thesis studies the conceptual evolution of the Buddhist cosmographic model.

More specifically, it studies how Buddhists responded to a challenge of their cosmographic model by European science. I term the European scientific challenge to

Buddhist cosmography the ‘Crisis of Cosmography’. In this thesis, we will identify and trace three different Buddhist responses to the Crisis of Cosmography. Before framing our three Buddhist respondents, we must first contextualize the topic of Buddhist cosmography, beginning with the Buddhist world model.

THE BUDDHIST WORLD MODEL

What is cosmography? Simply put, cosmography is the study of the physical and spatial. Cosmographic sub-fields include geology, geography, and astronomy. By contrast, cosmology, a closely related term, concerns the origin and evolution of the

4 A number of scholars describe Borobudur as a physical re-creation of Buddhist cosmography. For example, John Miksic writes that Borobudur was crafted to mirror Mount Meru. See John Miksic, Borobudur: Golden Tales of the Buddhas (Tokyo: Tokyo Tuttle Publishing, 1990), 49- 50. Paul Mus argues that Borobudur’s design implements the cosmographic scheme from Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. See Paul Mus, Barabuḍur: Sketch of a History of Buddhism Based on Archaeological Criticism of the Texts, trans. Alexander Macdonald (New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, 1998), 247. Mircea Eliade echoes Miksic and Mus, writing: “Borobudur is itself an image of the cosmos.” See Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return: Cosmos and History, trans. Willard Trask (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 15.

3 universe. Further, in Religious Studies, cosmology often incorporates the divine. And so, while cosmology invokes the metaphysical, cosmography is simply the material. This thesis investigates Buddhist cosmography.

Sparked by my visit to Borobudur, I discovered, to my surprise, that geographically disparate Buddhists shared a similar cosmographic scheme.5 This scheme, labeled bhājanaloka (the inanimate world) in Sanskrit, will be explored in detail in

Chapter One of this thesis. In brief, the scheme describes a world comprised of flat elemental layers, stacked one upon the other.6 Atop the elemental layers sit continents, including our own, positioned according to the cardinal directions. At the center of this world sits a giant mountain— Mount Meru. In Buddhist literature, Meru also appears as

Sumeru, with the ubiquitous Sanskrit prefix su-, meaning ‘great’. Sineru is the Pali variant.7 As its axis mundi, Mount Meru typifies the Buddhist cosmographic model.8

Mircea Eliade writes that Mount Meru represents the archetypal cosmic centerpiece.9 It is the liminal connecter of heaven, earth, and hell.

Borobudur itself is a representation of Mount Meru. It was constructed in the eighth century CE by the Shailendra dynasty—whose name means ‘Lords of the

5 This is evidenced by the Buddhist figures explored in this thesis. Migettuwatte Guṇānanda of Sri Lanka (Chapter Two), Fumon Entsū of Japan (Chapter Two), and Gendun Chopel of Tibet (Chapter Three) all describe the same Buddhist cosmographic model. Further, each figure references Vasubandhu’s seminal cosmographic work in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam (explored in the first chapter of this thesis). 6 Indeed, Buddhists were flat earthers, though this term should be used carefully—today, ‘flat earther’ connotes a dubious fringe ideology. 7 Where possible, this thesis uses Sanskrit nomenclature rather than Pali. 8 For example, Japanese monk Fumon Entsū refers to the cosmographic model as ‘Shumikai’, meaning ‘Shumisen (Mount Meru) world’. See Masahiko Okada, “Vision and Reality: Buddhist Cosmographic Discourse in Nineteenth- Century Japan” (dissertation, UMI Company, 1997), 10. 9 Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return: Cosmos and History, trans. Willard Trask (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 12.

Mountain’. And the project was spearheaded by King Indra—whose namesake is the resident deity of Mount Meru’s summit.10 Further, Borobudur’s tiered design symbolizes

Mount Meru’s tripartite structure, comprised of Kāmadhātu (the Realm of Desire),

Rūpadhātu (the Realm of Form), and Arūpadhātu (the Realm of Formlessness).11 While

Borobudur may be one of the most impressive representations of Mt. Meru, it has many kinds of counterparts. Let us briefly trace the history of the Mount Meru paradigm.

HISTORICAL CONSIDERTIONS

A whole thesis could be dedicated to tracing Buddhist cosmography’s pre-

Buddhist roots. Akira Sadakata argues that the first mention of Mount Meru is found in the Hindu Mahābhārata.12 Indeed, the Meru concept is not unique to Buddhism. Eric

Huntington writes that Mount Meru also centres Hindu and Jain cosmographic models.13

However, he notes that each tradition varies in its placement of the human realm relative to Mount Meru. For example, the Puranic model places humans near the base of Mount

Meru, whereas the Buddhist model places them further away.

As a result, Huntington argues, the Buddhist model’s decentralization emphasizes the long and arduous path towards enlightenment.14 Thus, the Buddhist cosmographic model employs both axis— (Y) vertical signification between hell and heaven, and (X) horizontal signification between ignorance and awakening.

10 John Miksic, Borobudur: Golden Tales of the Buddhas (Tokyo: Tokyo Tuttle Publishing, 1990), 49. 11 Ibid., 50. 12 Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kosei Publishing, 1999), 28. 13 Eric Huntington, Creating the Universe: Depictions of the Cosmos in Himalayan Buddhism (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2019), 24. 14 Ibid., 24.

Drilling back further, scholars suggest that Mount Meru traces to ancient Persia and Mesopotamia. Paul Mus writes that the concept of a central mountain is originally

Mesopotamian, embodied by the ziggurat structure.15 Mircea Eliade echoes Mus and likens the ziggurat to Borobudur, arguing that both structures represent the navel of the cosmos.16 Finally, Akira Sadakata investigates the name Meru, tracing its etymology to

Persia’s Mount Merv.17

THE CRISIS OF COSMOGRAPHY

In 1552, Jesuit missionary Francis Xavier arrived in Japan. Donald Lopez flags this sixteenth century meeting between Xavier and Japanese Buddhists as the first encounter between Buddhism and science.18 This meeting is detailed in Chapter Two of this thesis. Crucially, the encounter between Xavier and the Japanese Buddhists brought contrasting cosmographic models face-to-face. Simply put, the traditional Buddhist model posits a flat world centered by Mount Meru. By contrast, the European scientific model posits a spherical world with no such mountain. Juxtaposed with European science, the Buddhist cosmographic model came under threat. And so, the meeting of

15 Paul Mus, Barabuḍur: Sketch of a History of Buddhism Based on Archaeological Criticism of the Texts, trans. Alexander Macdonald (New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, 1998), 120. 16 Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return: Cosmos and History, trans. Willard Trask (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 13. 17 Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kosei Publishing, 1999), 28. 18 This thesis uses the term ‘European science’ rather than simply ‘science’ as Lopez uses. This is done to avoid the suggestion that prior to interaction with Europeans, Buddhism was entirely void of science. See Donald S Lopez, Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 45.

these two models set in motion a Buddhist dilemma—what this thesis terms the ‘Crisis of Cosmography’.

The primary focus of this thesis is tracing Buddhist responses to the Crisis of

Cosmography. Just how did Buddhists respond to a competing interpretation of the world? How did they react to being told their world was not as they thought? In an effort to answer this question, I investigated an array of historical literature—both scholarly and autobiographical. The study of these texts revealed two major points. First, Buddhists encountered the Crisis of Cosmography in different places and at different times.

Buddhists wrestled with cosmography in Japan and Tibet alike. However, while Japan’s

Crisis of Cosmography began in the sixteenth century, Tibet’s began hundreds of years later in the twentieth century. As a result, this thesis employs a multi-regional and multi- temporal approach.

Second and most critical, Buddhist responses to the Crisis of Cosmography were not uniform. Instead, when their world model was challenged by European science,

Buddhists responded differently. At present, scholarship exploring the history of

Buddhist cosmography is sparse. Rarer still is scholarship compiling and comparing different Buddhist responses to the Crisis of Cosmography.19 That is precisely the project of this thesis.

This thesis heuristically categorizes three different Buddhist responses to the

Crisis of Cosmography.20 The first paradigmatic Buddhist respondent to the Crisis of

19 The notable exception is Donald Lopez’s first chapter from Buddhism and Science: A guide for the Perplexed. In this chapter, Lopez surveys Buddhist responses to a challenge of traditional cosmography. This chapter is chiefly influential to this thesis. See Ibid., 39-72. 20 The categorization of responses in this thesis is labelled ‘heuristic’. While categorization aids the analysis of responses to the Crisis of Cosmography, it is not entirely unproblematic. First, the categories used in this thesis are emic creations. Second, some Buddhist responses to the Crisis of

Cosmography is the ‘Rejecter’. The Rejecter rejects incoming European science and seeks to defend traditional Buddhist cosmography. The second respondent is the

‘Accepter’. By contrast to the Rejecter, the Accepter accepts incoming European Science and discards traditional Buddhist cosmography. The third respondent is the Upayer. The

Upayer employs the Buddhist pedagogical tool upāya to position themselves between the

Rejecter and the Accepter. Upāya or upāyakauśalya is variously translated from Sanskrit to ‘skillful means’, ‘skill-in means’, and ‘expedient means’. It describes the pedagogical employment of the provisional and is famously described in the Lotus Sutra.21

It is important to bracket the study of the Crisis of Cosmography with a brief mention of Buddhist epistemology. Specifically, one must be careful not to frame the

European scientific world model as uniquely empirically driven, and conversely, the traditional Buddhist world model as metaphysically driven. Buddhism too is fundamentally undergirded by empirical study. Indeed, the fourteenth Dalai Lama (who we will study in Chapter Three of this thesis) states: “As in science, so in Buddhism,

[both seek] understanding the nature of reality pursued by means of critical investigation…”22 However, Buddhism and European science do diverge with regard to their study of the world, but in a different way. While the European scientific study of the world is positioned as a study of objects by subjects, Buddhism conversely studies the

Cosmography do not fit neatly into the categories used here. These are discussed in the conclusion of this thesis. 21 The Upayer argues that Buddha’s teaching of traditional cosmography was provisional—an upāya. For a detailed discussion of upāya, see page 60 of this thesis. 22 Tenzin Gyatso, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (Morgan Road Books, 2005), 2-3.

23 world in an effort to dissolve the subject-object dichotomy. In this way, their aims are fundamentally different.

Scholars suggest an additional dissimilarity between the European scientific world model and the traditional Buddhist world model. These scholars, such as Masahiko

Okada, label the traditional Buddhist model as teleological.24 They argue that the

Buddhist model was constructed, in part, as a means to explain Buddhist phenomena, rather than simply as an observation of reality from which phenomena arise. The traditional Buddhist model features locations that the karmic-bound being cycles though, such as continents, heavens, and hells. Thus, a teleological approach integrates Buddhist soteriology into the world model. There is an apparent tension, then, between Buddhist empiricism and the teleological approach. This tension will be explored throughout the chapters of this thesis.

THESIS STRUCTURE

The first chapter of this thesis explores in detail the traditional Buddhist cosmographic model. Aided by diagrams, I will illustrate the topography of mountains and continents, heavens and hells. A detailed examination of traditional Buddhist cosmography contextualizes the ensuing Crisis of Cosmography—just what comprised the Buddhist model that was under attack by European science? Here, we will investigate the seminal Buddhist cosmographic text—Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam.

23Advaya (nonduality) is a core Buddhist teaching. See Donald S Lopez and Robert E Buswell, “advaya,” in The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), 18-19. 24 Masahiko Okada, “Vision and Reality: Buddhist Cosmographic Discourse in Nineteenth- Century Japan” (dissertation, UMI Company, 1997), 10-11.

The second chapter explores Francis Xavier’s sixteenth century visit to Japan.

This visit is identified as ground-zero for the Buddhist Crisis of Cosmography. In this chapter we will meet our first respondent, the Rejecter. Here, we will study the nineteenth century monk Fumon Entsū. Entsū avidly rejected the European scientific cosmographic model and mounted a defense of the traditional Buddhist model. Aided by diagrams, we will explore Entsū’s magnum opus, Bukkoku rekishōhen. In Bukkoku rekishōhen, Entsū cleverly attempts to prove that traditional Buddhist cosmography—including a flat world and giant mountain— is unerring.

In the third chapter of this thesis we travel from Japan to Tibet to meet examples of our other two types of respondents. First, we study the Accepter, turning to the world’s most famous living Buddhist, the fourteenth Dalai Lama. Indeed, The Dalai Lama is famous for embracing Western science. He accepted the European cosmographic model once he encountered it, and subsequently called for the repudiation of traditional

Buddhist cosmography. Here we will survey the Dalai Lama’s related texts and speeches.

Also in the third chapter of this thesis we will meet our third and final Buddhist respondent—the Upayer. To study the Upayer we turn to the twentieth century Tibetan scholar Gendun Chopel. We examine Chopel’s articles from The Tibet Mirror, where he argues that the Buddha’s teaching of traditional Buddhist cosmography utilizes upāya. He is thus able to acknowledge the veracity of European scientific cosmography, while also maintaining the omniscience of the Buddha. His arguments enable us to flesh out the nuanced argument of the Upayer.

The three respondents to the Crisis of Cosmography elicit compelling questions.

These questions will be addressed throughout the thesis and then revisited in the

conclusion. For example, how can a Rejecter maintain their position when confronted by European science? Does the Accepter’s discarding of teleological Buddhist cosmography endanger other Buddhist tenets? And is the Upayer’s citation of upāya rhetorically unassailable?

Lastly, it should be noted that while the study of traditional Buddhist cosmography is historical, its influence is extant.25 And so, in an effort to illustrate the contemporary symbolic ubiquity of the Mount Meru world model, each chapter will open with an anecdote involving, in some way, traditional Buddhist cosmography. In this thesis, these anecdotes serve as a peripheral parallel track to the exploration of Buddhist responses to the Crisis of Cosmography. By beginning each chapter with a Meru-world anecdote, I hope to demonstrate that the symbolism of traditional Buddhist cosmography is alive and well.

25 Namely, traditional cosmography is exhibited in Buddhist art and architecture across East, South, and South East Asia. Eric Huntington is the foremost scholar of this field. His 2018 book surveys Meru-model inspired art and architecture across the Himalayas. See Eric Huntington, Creating the Universe: Depictions of the Cosmos in Himalayan Buddhism (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2019).

CHAPTER ONE BUILDING A WORLD: BUDDHIST COSMOGRAPHY IN THE KOŚA

A MYSTERIOUS MOUNTAIN

Mount Everest was first summited in 1953, by Tenzing Norgay and Edmund

Hilary. Twenty years earlier, an unsuccessful attempt was led by British mountaineer

Hugh Ruttledge. However, before his attempt to climb Everest, Ruttledge was instead pursuing another Himalayan giant, some six hundred kilometres to the west— Mount

Kailash. Ruttledge, like other European mountaineers, was drawn to Kailash because of its striking appearance and religious significance. Rising over twenty-two thousand feet, its peak is described as “uncannily symmetrical,” as if “it might have been carved by human—or more accurately, super-human hands.”26 Indeed, Mount Kailash is deeply revered by Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists. It is for this reason that Ruttledge refrained from summiting Kailash.27 Today, Mount Kailash remains un-summited.28 However, its base is trafficked by tourists and pilgrims alike.29 Pilgrims circumambulate the

26 John Snelling, The Sacred Mountain: Travellers and Pilgrims at Mount Kailas in Western Tibet, and The Great Universal Symbol of The Sacred Mountain, 2nd ed. (London: East-West Publications, 1990), 22. 27 Ibid., 154. 28 Since Ruttledge’s visit in 1926, two high-profile attempts have been called off. First, in 1985, famed mountaineer Reinhold Messner claimed he had received a permit from the Chinese Government to climb Mount Kailash. After some contemplation, Messner declined. Next, in 2001, a Spanish team led by Jesus Martinez Novas received a permit to climb Kailash. After hearing of international protests their attempt was called off. See “The Mountain Messner Will Not Climb; Mountaineer Cancels Permit for Mount Kailash, Tibet.” The Times. August 15, 1985, and Julian West, “Climber Calls off Ascent of Sacred Peak amid Protests,” The Telegraph, May 27, 2001. 29 The opening of Tibet to foreigners resulted in an influx of visitors to the pilgrimage route surrounding Mount Kailash. Subsequently, many accounts were colorfully penned. See Wendy Teasdill, Walking to the Mountain: A Pilgrimage to Tibet's Holy Mount Kailash (Hong Kong: Asia 2000 Limited, 1996), Colin Thubron, To a Mountain in Tibet (London: Chatto & Windus, 2011), and Charles Allen, A Mountain in Tibet: The Search for Mount Kailas and the Sources of the Great Rivers of India (London: Futura Publications, 1982).

mountain’s base, reciting mantras and performing ritual viewings (darshan) of the mountain.30 Some travel the entire fifty-kilometre circuit via body-length prostrations,31 and some describe experiencing magical effects.32 However, the most striking feature of

Mount Kailash is its association with mythical Mount Meru— the axis mundi of the

Buddhist universe, and the cosmic central-pillar that connects the physical world to the heavens. A quick Google search will find countless tour-operators offering routes around

Kailash, which they label interchangeably as Meru. Somewhat surprisingly, however, early Buddhist literature does not equate the two mountains. Later in this chapter we will see why this association between Kailash and Meru is misguided.

In my thesis I take Mount Meru and its various mirrors, like Mount Kailash, as means to explore key turning points in the evolution of Buddhist cosmography.

Traditionally, Buddhist cosmography, as this chapter will illustrate, describes a flat, layered planet, centred by Mount Meru. However, as European science— positing a spherical planet— filtered into the Buddhist world, the Buddhist world-model was contested. I term this the ‘Crisis of Cosmography’ and it is the focal point of my thesis.

Among Buddhists, there were different responses to the Crisis of Cosmography. My thesis heuristically divides these Buddhist responses into three groups: ‘Rejecters,’

‘Accepters,’ and ‘Upāyers’. These Buddhist responses will be examined in the second

30 John Snelling, The Sacred Mountain: Travellers and Pilgrims at Mount Kailas in Western Tibet, and The Great Universal Symbol of The Sacred Mountain, 2nd ed. (London: East-West Publications, 1990), 315. 31 Ibid., 38. 32 Pilgrims to Mount Kailash report increased ageing, observing speedy growth of hair and fingernails. However, the route’s elevation exceeds 19,000 feet, where the effects of high-altitude may mirror ageing. See (the decidedly non-academic) Resham Sengar, “Mount Kailash Facts: Mindboggling Things You May Not Know about Lord Shiva’s Home,” Times of India, n.d., and Gianfranco Parati et al., “Aging, High Altitude, and Blood Pressure: A Complex Relationship,” High Altitude Medicine & Biology 16, no. 2 (2015): pp. 97-109.

13 and third chapters of this thesis. In these chapters we will answer the question: How do

Buddhists differently respond to the Crisis of Cosmography? Crucially, all of these

Buddhist responses share a common factor. Each takes its position with reference to a common text— Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, Buddhism’s seminal cosmographic text. And so, before launching into an investigation of Buddhist responses to a crisis of cosmography, the task of this chapter is to elucidate the cosmography itself.

We will do so by parsing Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, replete with descriptions of heavens, hells, and the towering Mount Meru.

To aid our interpretation, I have constructed diagrams that illustrate

Vasubandhu’s complex descriptions (Figures 1-4). When a passage from the

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam is explored, the corresponding diagram will be referenced.

VASUBANDHU AND THE KOŚA

Vasubandhu was born in what is now Peshawar, Pakistan. While the dating of

Vasubandhu’s life and works is a topic of debate, scholars highlight evidence that

Vasubandhu regularly consulted King Chandragupta, who reigned from 375-415 CE.

Thus, Vasubandhu’s works are often dated to the fourth century CE.33

Chief among his lengthy expositions is the Sanskrit Abhidharmakośakārikā

(Verses on the Treasury of Abhidharma) and their prose-form commentary (Bhāṣyam).

Together, they form the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam (A Treasury of the Abhidharma, with

Commentary).34 This text—henceforth shortened to ‘Kośa’ in this chapter—is comprised

33 Stefan Anacker, Seven Works of Vasubandhu: The Buddhist Psychological Doctor (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986), 10. 34 Donald S Lopez and Robert E Buswell, “Abhidharmakośabhāṣya,” in The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), 5.

35 of six hundred verses, with their commentary. The Kośa is described as Vasubandhu’s “attempt to interpret and explicate the Buddha’s thought,”36 and is received as “perhaps the most instructive book of early Buddhism.”37 With regard to Buddhist cosmography, the Kośa’s influence cannot be overstated. The Kośa is the lingua franca of Buddhist discussions of cosmography and includes a foundational Buddhist description of the physical world.

The Kośa is divided into nine chapters (kośasthānas). We will focus on the third chapter, titled ‘The World’ (loka nirdeśa), which is further divided into six sections: (3.1)

Living Beings and the Physical World; Introduction, (3.2) The Variety of Sentient

Beings; Their Transmigration, (3.3) Dependant Origination and Transmigration, (3.4)

The Lifespan and the Death of Sentient Beings, (3.5) The Physical World; The Size and

Lifespans of Sentient Beings, and (3.6) The Dimensions of time and Space; the Cosmic

Cycle. It is the fifth section, ‘The Physical World; The Size and Lifespans of Sentient

Beings,’ that is of particular interest to us. Here, with similar detail to cartographer’s map, Vasubandhu describes the structure of the physical world (bhājanaloka). This

35 This thesis draws from Leo M. Pruden’s English translation of Louis de la Vallée Poussin’s French translation of the Kośa. A web of translations leads the Kośa from its original Sanskrit form to the English used here. Pruden, while translating from la Vallée Poussin, also consulted Prahlad Pradhan’s Sanskrit edition of the Kośa (see Pradhan, ed., [1967] 1975). In his preface, Pruden explains that la Vallée Poussin translated the Kośa to French from both Sanskrit and Chinese versions, citing la Vallée Poussin's Sanskrit text as Yasomitra's (fl. late 6th century) text with auto-commentary (the current standard edition is Śāstrī 2008), and his Chinese text as the Kando-bon edition of the Kusharon (see Saeki, ed. [1887] 1978). Pruden added references to the Taishō edition of the Chinese text to his English translation (T. 1558, 29). See Pruden, trans., Vol. 1, 1988: xxiii-xxiv. 36 Lata Bapat, Abhidharmakośa: A Study with a New Perspective (Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1994), ix. 37 Louis De La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, trans. Leo M. Pruden, vol. 1 (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), 4.

15 section of the Kośa is further divided into thirteen sub-sections, such as: (3.5.3) The Four

Continents, (3.5.4) The Geography of Jambudvīpa, and (3.5.5) The Hells.

STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD

We start in Chapter Three, Section Five, where Vasubandhu begins the description of the physical world (bhājanaloka) in order of its formation. He describes three elemental discs—wind, water, and golden earth—stacked one upon the other.

Centered atop the golden earth disc, emerging from the sea, is Mount Meru:

Here is how it is thought that the receptable (sic) world is arranged: at the bottom there is a circle of wind…It is sixteen [hundred] thousand yojanas thick; it is immeasurable in circumference… … By the predominate action of beings, there falls from massed clouds, upon the circle of wind, a rain the drops of which are like the shafts of a carriage. This water forms a circle of water, with a thickness of eleven hundred twenty thousand yojanas. …Then the water, agitated by the wind which the force of actions gives rise to, becomes gold in its upper part, as churned milk becomes cream. …Then there is above the circle of water now reduced to eight hundred thousand yojanas thick, a sphere of gold, three hundred twenty thousand yojanas thick. … On the circular sphere of gold which thus rests on the water [there is Mount Meru]…38

In the passage above, Vasubandhu describes that a sea covers the golden earth disc, from which Mount Meru emerges (Figure 1). The Kośa describes Meru as a towering four- sided mountain, rising eighty-thousand yojanas39 (approximately eight hundred thousand

38 Louis De La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, trans. Leo M. Pruden, vol. 2 (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), 451-452. 39 The yojana is an ancient Indian unit of measurement, etymologically related to the English word, yoke. One yojana is said to be the average distance that yoked oxen could travel in one day. Modern interpretations of the yojana range between seven and fifteen kilometres. See Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing, 1999), 186.

40 kilometres) above the surface of the sea. Seven additional mountains concentrically surround Meru. The closest to Meru is Yugandhara, then Īṣādhara, Khadiraka, Sudarśana,

Aśvakarṇa, Vinataka, and Nimindhara.41 Moving outward from Meru, the distance between each mountain is half that of the previous.42 Far out at sea, beyond the eight central mountains, lie four continents, arranged symmetrically in the four cardinal directions. The Kośa describes these four continents:

1) [To the south,] Jambudvīpa has three sides of two thousand yojanas in length, one side of three yojanas and a half… 2) Eastern Videha or Pūrvavideha has the shape of half-moon… 3) Godānīya, which faces the western side of Meru, is round like the moon… 4) Facing the northern side of Meru is Kuru or Uttarakuru which has the shape of a seat; it is square…43

While humans inhabit all four continents, ‘our type’ of humans only inhabit the southern continent, Jambudvīpa.44 Named after the fruit-bearing jambu tree45, our southern continent is shaped similarly to an upside-down triangle. Scholars argue that

Jambudvīpa’s resemblance to the shape of the Indian Subcontinent is no coincidence.46

Additionally, Vasubandhu writes that each cardinal continent is flanked by two smaller

40 Louis De La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, trans. Leo M. Pruden, vol. 2 (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), 454. 41 Ibid., 452. 42 Ibid., 454. 43 Ibid., 455. 44 According to the Kośa, humans occupy each of the four cardinal islands. On each of these islands, the size of humans, and their lifespans varies. For example, on Uttarakuru, the northern continent, humans grow over twenty-five feet tall, and live for up to one thousand years. See, Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing, 1999), 58-59. 45 Louis De La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, trans. Leo M. Pruden, vol. 2 (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), 456. 46 Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing, 1999), 31.

17 sub-continents, one on either side47 (Figure 2). In the case of Jambudvīpa, its eastern subcontinent is likely Sri Lanka.48 What about the western subcontinent? Scholars suggest it is the Maldives, or simply the result of an Indian desire for symmetry.49

Vasubandhu describes a mountain-range in northern Jambudvīpa, called Himavat, or Himālayas (‘abode of snow’). Here lies Lake Anavatapta, located at the foot of Mount

Gandhamādana.50 Today, scholars link Lake Anavatapta with Lake Manasarovar in Tibet, located at the foot of Mount Kailash.51 Thus, according the Kośa, Mount Kailash is associated with mythical Mount Gandhamādana, in northern Jambudvīpa, and not with

Mount Meru. Further, the Kośa locates Meru one large sea and seven central mountains away (Figure 2). In other words, Buddhists and misguided tourists, like those cited at the beginning of this chapter positing that Mount Meru is Mount Kailash, do so against the description of Vasubandhu’s Kośa.

Vasubandhu explains that each of Mount Meru’s four sides is composed of a different mineral. The southern face is composed of lapis lazuli. As a result of Meru’s massive size, for those residing to its south, the sky appears blue.52 Conversely, for beings of the other three cardinal continents, the sky appears differently. Finally, framing the edge of the earth-topping sea is a thin mountain, appropriately named Cakravāḍa

47 Louis De La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, trans. Leo M. Pruden, vol. 2 (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), 455. 48 Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing, 1999), 36. 49 Ibid., 36. 50 Louis De La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, trans. Leo M. Pruden, vol. 2 (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), 456. 51 Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing, 1999), 35. 52 Louis De La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, trans. Leo M. Pruden, vol. 2 (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), 453.

(ring-mountain). Made of iron, this ring-shaped mountain “prevents the waters of the great sea containing four landmasses from falling into the void”53 (Figure 2).

BELOW AND ABOVE

So far, we have explored the Kośa’s horizontal dimension, filled with human and animal inhabited lands. Let us now explore vertically to regions that lie deep below

Jambudvīpa, and along/ above Mount Meru.

Below Jambudvīpa, stacked one upon the other, lie eight ‘hot hells’, the lowest of which is Avīci. Avīci is located twenty thousand yojanas (approximately two hundred thousand kilometres) beneath Jambudvīpa54 (Figure 3). Each of the eight hot-hells contains four entryways, leading to four different sub-hells (utsada), combining for a total of one hundred and twenty-eight hot sub-hells!55 In the Kośa, Vasubandhu describes the torture endured by hell-beings in each utsada. The graphic descriptions rival Dante:

[In the third utsada, there is] Asipattravana, the forest whose leaves are swords; when these swords fall, they cut off major and minor parts of the body, which are then devoured by the śyāmaśabala [‘black and spotted’] dogs… The fourth utsada is the river Vaitaraṇī, of boiling water loaded with burning ashes. On both sides there are persons (puruṣa) armed with swords, lances and javelins, who push [back] the damned who would [try to] get out… The damned are boiled and cooked, [just] as grains of sesame or corn poured into a cauldron placed over the fire.56

53 Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing, 1999), 26. 54 Louis De La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, trans. Leo M. Pruden, vol. 2 (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), 456. 55 Ibid., 457. 56 Ibid., 457-458.

Underneath Jambudvīpa, and parallel to the eight-stacked hot hells, are eight-stacked cold hells, with their own unique and unsavory conditions57 (Figure 3).

Gods and demi-gods occupy the area on and around Mount Meru. Above ground, four terraces jut out from the side of Mount Meru. The first terrace is located ten thousand yojanas (approximately one hundred kilometres) above the mountain’s base. It juts out sixteen thousand yojanas (approximately one hundred and sixty kilometres) from

Meru’s side.58 Each successive terrace upwards juts out half the distance from Meru’s side, as does the one below it. This results in a tapering effect described as offering

Meru’s residents “the right to sunshine.”59

The fourth terrace, forty thousand yojanas (approximately four hundred thousand kilometres) above Meru’s base, is home to the Four Great Kings

(Cāturmahārājakāyikas), organized in the cardinal directions: Vaiśravaṇa to the north,

Dhṛarāṣṭra to the east, Virūḍhaka to the south, and Virūpākṣa to the west. On the summit of Mount Meru, resides the Thirty-three Gods (Trāyastriṁśas) (Figure 4).60 Chief among these thirty-three is Indra. The Four Great Kings, and the Thirty-three Gods are classified as earth-dwelling deities. There are many more gods still, who occupy aerial abodes above Mount Meru.61

57 Ibid., 459. Look for images of hell suffering on large bhāvacakra (wheel of life) murals. 58 Ibid., 462. 59 Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing, 1999), 56. 60 Louis De La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, trans. Leo M. Pruden, vol. 2 (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), 463. 61 Ibid., 465.

62 Higher still, we arrive at the dhyānas (region of meditative absorption). To review, the Kośa schematizes all beings into three ascending tiers: The Realm of Desire

(Kāmadhātu), the Realm of Form (Rūpadhātu), and the Realm of Formlessness

(Ārūpyadhātu). Thus far, each of the cosmographic regions we have explored belong to the Realm of Desire (Kāmadhātu). As such, each occupant we have studied is bound to karma. By contrast, beings in the aerial Realms of Form and Formlessness are not. Each of these two realms is divided into four additional sub-realms—though we will not parse these here. The Realm of Form reaches an unfathomable one hundred and sixty billion yojanas (over one and a half trillion kilometres) above Meru’s base.63 This realm is occupied by practitioners who achieve meditative absorption and have momentarily withdrawn from external sensory awareness. Next, the Realm of Formlessness is more ethereal. Strictly speaking, it does not exist above the Realm of Form. Rather, the Realm of Formlessness is unbound from the concept of space and form (rūpa) entirely. The

Realm of Formlessness is inhabited by adept practitioners of samādhi (non-dual superconsciousness).64 Indeed, though Vasubandhu’s model is largely material, the upper realms blur into the immaterial. Thus, as one traces the dhyānas they observe a paradoxical shift. How can a cosmographic model incorporate the dissolution of its own framework—a framework which appears to present a balanced linear cosmos?65

62 Donald S Lopez and Robert E Buswell, “dhyāna,” in The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), 256-267. 63 Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing, 1999), 58-59. 64 Ibid., 76. 65 This is a decidedly emic question—one that can only be answered by an enlightened dhyāna- experiencing being.

Lastly, the dhyānas are of great soteriological importance in Buddhism—they mark vital stages of consciousness on the path to enlightenment. And so, with the dhyānas in mind, any change or challenge to Vasubandhu’s model poses significant soteriological ramifications.

PROBLEMATIC COSMOGRAPHY?

Having reviewed Chapter Three, Section Five of the Kośa, we now have a detailed map of the physical Buddhist world. Interestingly, Vasubandhu anticipates critical scrutiny of his cosmographic assertions. As a result, following his descriptive passages, Vasubandhu identifies a question that challenges his own description. Then he succinctly answers the question and moves on to the next passage. This practice dialectically strengthens the Kośa.

For example, having described the elemental water disc— the middle disc, situated between air and earth— he asks, how do these waters not flow over the edge?

Here, he offers a two-part explanation. First, “the waters are sustained by the force of actions of beings, [just] as food and drink which do not fall in the intestines before being digested.”66 Second, “the waters are sustained by the wind, like grain in a basket.”67

Later, having described that hells beneath Jambudvīpa are wider than Jambudvīpa itself, he asks, how is there place under a single Jambudvīpa, for the hells which are indeed wider than Jambudvīpa? In response, he explains that the hells beneath Jambudvīpa become increasingly wider, forming the same shape as a pile of grain (Figure 4).68

66 Louis De La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, trans. Leo M. Pruden, vol. 2 (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), 452. 67 Ibid., 452. 68 Ibid., 459.

While Vasubandhu does his best to anticipate scrutiny, a number of incongruities can be found in the Kośa. In Creating the Universe: Depictions of the Cosmos in

Himalayan Buddhism, Eric Huntington identifies a number of problematic passages from the Kośa. Notably, he cites Vasubandhu’s attempt to account for the lengthening and shortening of daylight hours throughout the year.69 The Kośa claims that the sun rotates concentrically around Mount Meru, and above the golden earth disc. Throughout the year, the sun’s rotational path moves horizontally. This results in a changing length of time the sun spends on each side of Meru. Vasubandhu writes: “When the sun goes to the south side of Jambudvīpa, there is an increase of night; when (it) goes to the north, an increase in day.”70 Here, Huntington identifies that Vasubandhu’s explanation is backwards. As the sun’s rotational path veers south of Jambudvīpa, sunlight hours should instead increase.

MORE THAN JUST A MAP

The Kośa describes the physical world in remarkable detail. It becomes the foundational cosmographic text, ubiquitous across Buddhist traditions. A drawing of this cosmography is often found at the entryway to Buddhist monasteries.71 But this drawing is not simply a Google Maps-esque replication of the world. Instead, Vasubandhu’s cosmographic project serves a greater religious purpose. Through his detailed description,

Vasubandhu synchronizes Buddhist doctrine and soteriology. Tethered to karma, the

69 Eric Huntington, Creating the Universe: Depictions of the Cosmos in Himalayan Buddhism (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2019), 41. 70 Ibid., 41. 71 For example, at Ka-Nying Shedrub Ling (also known as White Gompa) in Boudha, Nepal, where I studied Sanskrit in the summer of 2019. For more examples across South Asia, see Ibid.

Buddhist practitioner cycles through the locations of the physical world (bhājanaloka) as, for example, a human or animal on one the cardinal continents, or as a suffering hell- being beneath Jambudvīpa, or even as a god on the summit of Mount Meru. Thus, the

Kośa’s cosmography illustrates a grand soteriological and interconnected geography.

Let us use an over-simplistic comparison. Imagine that Vasubandhu’s model is the game board for Snakes and Ladders. Beings are represented by the game pieces. The different positions on the board represent different Buddhist realms of rebirth, positioned towards enlightenment. Using this metaphor, the discarding of Vasubandhu’s model is akin to discarding the game board itself. How, then, can the players of Snakes and

Ladders play without a board? And how does the nature of the game change once the board is discarded?

Further, Vasubandhu’s colorful descriptions help motivate the Buddhist practitioner. By knowing, for example, the great depth and descriptions of the eight hot- hells, the Buddhist is encouraged to live a pious life. Thus, Vasubandhu’s cosmography intimately tethers the practitioner and their doctrine. Consequently, any undoing of

Buddhist cosmography risks untethering the practitioner from their doctrine. That is why an attack of the Kośa’s cosmography is an existential one. And so, as Donald Lopez cleverly quips, the undoing of Meru-cosmography is indeed a slippery slope.72

72 Donald S Lopez, Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 72.

CHAPTER TWO THE REJECTER

A GREAT DEBATE

At 8:00 AM on August 26th, 1873, an audience of thousands gathered at

Panadura, Sri Lanka. The occasion was a two-day organized debate between local

Theravāda Buddhists and Protestant Christian missionaries. Years earlier, in 1855, Sri

Lankan Buddhists acquired a printing press, enabling the production and distribution of texts responding to colonial Christian missionaries.73 In turn, missionaries rebutted the

Buddhists and disseminated literature of their own. And so, both parties organized a series of public debates, culminating in the 1873 Panadura debate. Representing the

Christian side was Reverend David da Silva, a Sinhalese Convert to Wesleyan

Protestantism.74 Representing the Buddhist side was the monk Migettuwatte Guṇānanda, founder of the Society for the Propagation of Buddhism.75 The two debaters spoke in one-hour blocks from 8:00-10:00 AM and 3:00-5:00 PM each day. During this time, the debaters attacked their opponent’s tradition and responded to attacks against their own.

The entire debate was transcribed by J.M. Peebles and published in the book The Great

Debate: Buddhism and Christianity Face to Face.76 Peebles colorfully describes the scene:

Thousands of natives were seen wending their way, attired in their gayest holiday suits, into the large enclosure in which stood the ample bungalow where the adversaries were to meet… All this, the yellow robed [Buddhist] priests, the sable

73 George Bond, The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka: Religious Tradition, Reinterpretation and Response (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 47. 74 Donald S Lopez, Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 40. 75 Ibid., 40. 76 J M Peebles, The Great Debate: Buddhism and Christianity Face to Face (Colombo: P.K.W. Siriwardhana, 1873).

attire of the Protestant Clergymen, the fantastic dresses of the immense multitude, the inspector stalking perfectly erect on the walk lined on each side by children of all ages and complexions, the slow murmur of human voices rising at times like the waves of an ocean, interspersed occasionally by the clear voices of the ubiquitous sherbet-vendor, and the roasted gram seller—the invariable concomitants of a Ceylon Crowd—rendered the scene perfectly picturesque. Larger crowds may often be seen in very many places in Europe, but surely such a motley gathering as that which congregated on this occasion can only be seen in the East.77

Peebles’ illustration is steeped in colonial condescension. Evidently, he is struck by the scale and liveliness of the scene. In total, an estimated six thousand people attended the debate. First to speak was Reverend David da Silva, who was fluent in both Pāli and

Sanskrit. He targeted Buddhist sutras describing the doctrine of not-self (anātman), arguing that without a permanent and enduring soul, the Buddhist practitioner is unmotivated by the consequences of good and evil.78 Next spoke Guṇānanda, who was equally multi-lingual and well-versed in Christian literature. He criticized the omniscience of the Christian God, pointing to an episode in Exodus where the Hebrews marked their doors with lamb’s blood to prevent the killing of their firstborn. “If [God] were omniscient” Guṇānanda argued, “surely this was not necessary.”79 For two days, the debate raged on. According to Peebles’ account, while Rev. da Silva was a learned speaker, the audience was unreceptive to the details of his argument:

He addressed the audience as if each of his hearers was a Jas. Alwis, a Louis Zoysa, a Childers, or a Max Muller80… It is doubtful whether there were even thirty out of the five or six thousand who were present at this controversy who

77 Ibid., 31, 33. 78 Donald S Lopez, Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 40. 79 Ibid., 41. 80 Jas. Alwis and Louis Zoysa were Pali-Sanskrit-Sinhalese philologists of the nineteenth century. Likewise, Max Muller penned seminal translations of many Sanskrit texts. Here, Peebles invokes

even understood the ornate, though chaste and classic language in which his explanations of these almost incomprehensible subjects were couched, much less the subjects themselves.81

By contrast, the Buddhist speaker Guṇānanda was received favorably. A skilled debater,

Guṇānanda gripped the audience with his speeches. He spoke in colloquial language, targeting Buddhist anxieties of colonial Christianity. Indeed, his approach recalls the

Buddhist practice of upāya.82 Additionally, Guṇānanda spoke in the latter hour of each two-hour session. And so, by all accounts he had the home-field advantage.

Following its publication, J.M. Peebles’ account of the debate was widely distributed. Among its readers were Colonel Henry Olcott and Madame Blavatsky, founders of the Theosophical Society in 1875. So enamoured with Guṇānanda’s performance, Olcott and Blavatsky traveled to Sri Lanka in 1880.83 The Theosophical

Society garnered many followers, playing a pivotal role in Sri Lanka’s ‘Buddhist Revival

Movement’.84

WHERE’S THE MOUNTAIN?

Let us now focus our attention towards a topic argued on the debate’s second day.

Both Rev. da Silva and Guṇānanda address the issue of Buddhist cosmography. Rev. da

these figures to suggest that Rev. da Silva’s speeches—dense and scholarly—were better suited for a learned audience. In reality, the mostly lay audience was unmoved by his arguments.

81 J M Peebles, The Great Debate: Buddhism and Christianity Face to Face (Colombo: P.K.W. Siriwardhana, 1873), 36. 82 Ibid., 36. 83 George Bond, The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka: Religious Tradition, Reinterpretation and Response (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 48. 84 George Bond, Scholar of South Asian religion, terms the nineteenth century resurgence of Buddhism in Sri Lanka the ‘Buddhist Revival’. Among other features, the revival is characterized by its pushback of colonial Christianity. See Ibid., 48.

Silva spoke first, citing the Buddhist ‘Seven Suns Sūtra’ from the Aṅguttara Nikāya.85

The Seven Suns episode cited by Rev. da Silva at the 1873 Panadura debate is an eschatological story, signaling the moment of dissolution of the Buddhist universe before its cyclical regeneration, marked by the arrival of Maitreya. In the episode, seven suns successively appear, bringing droughts, famine, fires and eventually the crumbling of

Mount Meru.86 Notably, the Seven Suns episode is one of the only Buddhist texts, outside of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, which describes Mount Meru’s dimensions.87 Having referenced the Seven Suns episode, Rev. da Silva asks:

Where, then, is this great mountain which is 84,000 yojanas [Approximately 840,000 kilometres] in length, 84,000 yojanas in breadth, and 84,000 yojanas above the seas situated? How is it possible that it could not be seen to the eyes of men?88

Rev. da Silva proceeded to hold up a model globe in front of the audience, stating: “a mountain with such dimensions could not exist on this earth!”89 It follows, he argued, that if Mount Meru does not exist, neither can its abodes— including the abode of the Four

Great Kings (on Meru’s slope), or the abode of the Thirty-Three Gods (on its summit).90

85 The Aṅguttara Nikāya translates literally to ‘Increased by One Collection’ but is more commonly known as the ‘Numerical Discourses’. The Aṅguttara Nikāya is the fourth of five Nikāya texts, containing over eight-thousand sutras divided into eleven numbered volumes. The sutras are organized into volumes according to their numerical property. This is a common Buddhist pedagogical method aiding memorization. For example, teachings pertaining to the Nobles Four Truths are found in Volume Four, the Five Aggregates in Volume Five, and the Eight-fold Path in Volume Eight. See Bikkhu Bodhi, tran., The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Aṅguttara Nikāya (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2012), 17. 86 Ibid., 1071. 87 Dimensions of the Buddhist cosmographic model also appear in Buddhagosa’s Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification). See Eric Huntington, Creating the Universe: Depictions of the Cosmos in Himalayan Buddhism (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2019), 27. 88 J M Peebles, The Great Debate: Buddhism and Christianity Face to Face (Colombo: P.K.W. Siriwardhana, 1873), 142. 89 Ibid., 141. 90 Ibid., 142.

Thus, he concludes: “One who has said there was such a mountain cannot be supposed to have been a wise man, one who spoke the truth. That [Mount Meru] saying is a falsehood, it is an ignorant saying.”91

In the debate’s following hour, Guṇānanda responded to Rev. da Silva’s attack of

Mount Meru. First, he referred to Rev. da Silva’s prop globe:

The little globe which the Rev. gentleman produced was one made on Newton’s principle; but even among Englishmen there were serious doubts and differences of opinion as to whether Newton’s theory was correct or not.92

Here, Guṇānanda cites the 1872 New Principia by R. J. Morrison, a prominent Victorian astrologer. Morrison was a vocal critic of Newton’s heliocentric model, arguing instead for a geocentric model.93 And so, having introduced a dissenting European voice,

Guṇānanda claims that Rev. da Silva’s cosmography—based on Newton’s principles—is flawed:

How unjust, then, to attempt to demolish the great Buddha’s sayings by quoting as authority an immature system of Astronomy, the correctness of which is not yet accepted.94

In his final appeal to the Panadura audience, Guṇānanda references the mariner’s compass. Traditional Buddhist cosmography places the human world (Jambudvīpa) to the south of Mount Meru. And this, Guṇānanda argues, is why the compass always points north:

91 Ibid., 141. 92 Ibid., 153. 93 Morrison’s dissent of Newtonian teachings was used by Guṇānanda to cast doubt on the soundness of European Science at large. Ironically though, Morrison still posited a spherical globe, the antithesis of Guṇānanda’s Buddhist world-model. 94 J M Peebles, The Great Debate: Buddhism and Christianity Face to Face (Colombo: P.K.W. Siriwardhana, 1873), 154.

Keep it where you may, the attraction of the magnetic needle is always toward the North. This demonstrates that there is a huge mass in that direction… Can the Christian party adduce a single reason why there should be this attraction in the needle towards the North more than to the East, West, or South? This is impossible. The mariner’s compass is the most conclusive argument for the existence of the famed Mahameru.95

This argument, though unconvincing to a modern audience, was highly effective for

Guṇānanda. By Peebles’ account, Guṇānanda emerged as the debate’s winner. Notably, at the crux of Guṇānanda’s argument was the defence of traditional Buddhist cosmography. The debate remains a significant event in the history of Buddhism in Sri

Lanka.

The 1873 Panadura debate plainly illustrates what this thesis terms the ‘Crisis of

Cosmography’. Often, studying religious responses to conflict is challenging. Exploring a dialogue between opposing parties can involve piecing together anachronistic timelines, sifting through hyperbolic statements, and concern over the assignment of authority. By contrast, the Panadura debate represents a plain and succinct account of one Buddhist response to the crisis of cosmography by a leading Theravadin monk. And so, it acts as an entryway to exploring the greater responses by Buddhists to the attack of their

Vasubandhu-inspired traditional cosmography.

Moving from Sri Lanka, this chapter will explore sixteenth century Japan, the site of the first encounter between European science and Buddhism, and Ground Zero for the

Buddhist Crisis of Cosmography. The final section of this chapter will examine the works of Japanese monk Fumon Entsū, the staunchest defender of traditional Buddhist cosmography. This thesis heuristically divides Buddhist respondents into three groups:

95 Ibid., 155.

‘Rejecters’, ‘Accepters’, and ‘Upayers’. By examining Fumon Entsū, this chapter focuses on the first group of Buddhist respondents— the Rejecters. As a Rejecter, Entsū rejects

European cosmography. Like Guṇānanda, he argues to maintain the Buddhist flat world model. Before investigating Entsū’s arguments, we must first trace the arrival of

European science to Japan.

ARRIVAL OF NEW THOUGHT

In 1549, Jesuit missionary Francis Xavier arrived in Kagoshima, on the island of

Kyushu, Japan. His crew was small, eight in total.96 Xavier’s circuitous path to Japan brought him through South and South East Asia (the East Indies), where he spearheaded the Portuguese evangelization effort. He spent three years establishing churches in

Southern India, centered in Goa—the capital of Portuguese India. Xavier also visited

Africa, the Spice Islands, and Malacca, Malaysia.97 In Malacca, in 1547, Xavier met

Angirō, a Japanese convert to Christianity. Angirō fled Japan with Portuguese traders after reportedly killing a man. Angirō described Japan and the Japanese to Xavier. In an effort to intrigue Xavier, Angirō described Japanese Buddhism using Christian terminology and concepts. By tailoring his descriptions to Xavier’s interests, Angirō deployed a tactic comparable to the Buddhist concept of upāya, or skillful means.98

Angirō’s descriptions of Japanese Buddhism prompted Xavier to wonder if Japanese

96 Xavier’s crew included three Spanish Jesuits, three Japanese-Jesuit converts and two servants. See Robert Ellis, “The Best Thus Far Discovered: The Japanese in the Letters of Francisco Xavier,” Hispanic Review 71, no. 2 (2003): pp. 155-169, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3247185, 155. 97 Ibid., 157. 98 For a detailed exposition of upāya, see page 60 of this thesis.

Buddhism and Christianity had already met.99 Intrigued, Xavier and his crew set sail for

Kagoshima, Japan.

Francis Xavier wrote hundreds of letters addressed to the Portuguese Mission in

Goa, describing his arrival and mission through Japan. These letters provide an important window into the earliest interaction between (Catholic) Christianity and Japanese

Buddhism. In starkly racial terms, Xavier writes of his admiration of the Japanese:

The people whom we have met so far, are the best who have as yet been discovered, and it seems to me that we shall never find among heathens another race equal to the Japanese. They are a people of very good manners, good in general, and not malicious; they are men of honor to a marvel, and prize honor above all else in the world.100

Xavier traveled east through Japan, eventually reaching Kyoto where he attempted to visit the Emperor.101 During informal conversations, Xavier’s evangelism received pushback from Japanese Buddhists. Specifically, Japanese Buddhists took issue with the

Christian primacy of God. They questioned why, if God created everything, evil still persisted. Xavier responded by arguing that God did not create evil—he created man, who is independently capable of evil. Xavier details this exchange in one of his letters:

God, if He were good, could never have done such a thing as create beings so evil. To these arguments we replied that the devils were created by God, but became evil by their own fault, and that in consequence they were subject to eternal punishment and torment. Then they objected that God, who was so severe in punishing, was not at all merciful. Again, how could He, if He created the human race in the manner we taught, allow men sent into the world to worship

99 Ibid., 158. 100 C.R. Boxer, The Christian Century in Japan (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1951), 37. 101 Xavier arrived outside the compound of the emperor, seeking permission to preach Christianity throughout Japan. He also sought to convert the emperor himself. The emperor did not meet with Xavier. This damaged his credibility in Japan thereafter. See Robert Ellis, “The Best Thus Far Discovered: The Japanese in the Letters of Francisco Xavier,” Hispanic Review 71, no. 2 (2003): pp. 155-169, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3247185, 164.

Him to be tempted and persecuted by the devil? In like manner, if God were good, He ought not to have made man so weak and so prone to sin, but free from all evil.102

And then there is the problem of Hell. The permanency of Christian hell is plainly incongruous with its temporary and cyclical Buddhist counterpart. Thus, the Christian concept of eternal damnation was a major sticking-point for Japanese Buddhists.

Moreover, as Xavier notes, the Japanese commonly pray in an effort to rescue and relocate their deceased relatives:103

Their religious tradition, on the contrary [to an eternal hell], taught that all who should invoke the authors of their religion would be delivered even from the torments of hell. They were quite unable to digest the idea that men could be cast into hell without any hope of deliverance. They said therefore, that their doctrines rested, more than ours, on clemency and mercy.104

In spite of this religious rift, Xavier abruptly claims: “In the end, by God’s favour, we succeeded in solving all their questions, so as to leave no doubt remaining in their minds.”105 Xavier may well have believed in the efficacy of his proselytization, but his claim here begs for a healthy dose of scepticism.

102 Henry James, The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier (London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1921), 337. 103 It is important to note that Xavier did not distinguish between the traditions of Buddhism and Shintoism in Japan. This helps to explain his generalizations regarding Japanese piety for the deceased. See C.R. Boxer, The Christian Century in Japan (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1951), 44. 104 Henry James, The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier (London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1921), 337. 105 Ibid., 337-338.

COMPETING COSMOGRAPHIES

We turn now to the interaction between Xavier and the Japanese regarding

European science and the structure of the physical world. Notably, Donald Lopez labels this as one of the seminal encounters between science and Buddhism.106 And so, the science-and-Buddhism discourses in vogue today—exploring consciousness, environmentalism and quantum theory—may trace their discursive lineage to the port city of Kagoshima in 1549. In his letters, Francis Xavier details this interaction:

The Japanese are led by reason in everything, more than any other people, and in general they are all so insatiable of information and so importunate in their questions that there is no end either to their arguments with us, or to their talking over our answers among themselves. They did not know that the world is round, they knew nothing of the course of the sun and stars, so that when they asked us and we explained to them these and other like things, such as the cause of comets, of the lightning, and of rain, they listened to us most eagerly, and appeared delighted to hear us, regarding us with profound respect as extremely learned persons. This idea of our great knowledge opened the way to us for sowing the seed of religion in their minds.107

While this entry oozes self-aggrandizement, it importantly notes the introduction of a spherical-world model to a populace of flat-world believers. Ironically, the model Xavier posits is still geocentric, in which the sun travels around the earth (note Xavier’s line on

‘the course of the sun’).108 Nonetheless, the Japanese Buddhists were confronted with a radically different cosmography, one that did not include stacked, elemental discs, centred by a giant mountain. Indeed, a major part of the Jesuit mission in Japan was the

106 Donald S Lopez, Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 45. 107 Henry James, The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier (London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1921), 338. 108 Donald S Lopez, Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 46.

discussion of astronomy, physics and geography. Xavier himself described using these subjects as a key to gaining trust and interest in Christianity by the Japanese.

Additionally, the missionaries brought instruments such as globes, astronomical maps, and telescopes.109

Jesuit missionaries remained in Japan until the early seventeenth century, when

Japan closed its borders in an effort to expunge outside influence. The Jesuit departure from Japan ushered a period of two-hundred years of isolationism.110 While foreigners were expelled from the county along with the publication and distribution of Western thought, Western science —including the teaching of a spherical earth—remained in

Japan.

Western astronomy filtered into Japan via Chinese texts, which were still acquirable by specialists.111 One such specialist was the Japanese astronomer Shibukawa

Tenkai, who in 1684 established the Tokugawa Government Astronomy Office.112

Tenkai’s office adopted a spherical interpretation of the world, though it wasn’t until the mid-eighteenth century when the idea of a spherical earth gained serious traction in

Japan.113 This followed the Japanese government’s lifting of the foreign book ban in

1720. Among the first books circulated was Tenkei wakumon (Catechism on the Celestial

109 Masahiko Okada, “Vision and Reality: Buddhist Cosmographic Discourse in Nineteenth- Century Japan” (dissertation, UMI Company, 1997), 112. 110 This culminated with the ‘Twenty-six Martyrs of Japan’ episode. Increasingly aggressive anti- Christian policy demanded renunciation of new converts. Those who refused to renounce were killed. In 1597, twenty Japanese and six foreigners were killed. The martyrdom of all twenty-six were canonized by Pope Pius IX in 1862. See Robert Ellis, “The Best Thus Far Discovered: The Japanese in the Letters of Francisco Xavier,” Hispanic Review 71, no. 2 (2003): pp. 155-169, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3247185, 155. 111 Masahiko Okada, “Vision and Reality: Buddhist Cosmographic Discourse in Nineteenth- Century Japan” (dissertation, UMI Company, 1997), 112. 112 Ibid., 113. 113 Ibid., 112.

Law).114 Tenkei wakumon presented astronomical theories—both Asian and European.

This was the first time a spherical earth theory was widely disseminated in Japan. The book spurred a fierce debate over the true nature/shape of the world.

The most famous respondent to the Tenkei wakumon was Japanese Buddhist monk Fumon Entsū. Fumon Entsū dedicated his entire life to attacking the spherical world-model and upholding the traditional Vasubandhu-inspired model. The remainder of this chapter will explore Entsū’s teachings, publications and models. In our investigation of three types of Buddhist respondents (Rejecters, Accepters, and Upayers), Fumon Entsū represents the chief Rejecter, and his rich works are illustrative.

CHRONOLOGY OF FUMON ENTSŪ

In this chapter, the study of Fumon Entsū is greatly aided by the work of

Masahiko Okada. His 1997 dissertation Vision and Reality: Buddhist Cosmographic

Discourse in Nineteenth-Century Japan is one of the only English-language explorations of Fumon Entsū. Donald Lopez too cites Okada in his book, Buddhism and Science: A

Guide for the Perplexed. As we will discuss, Fumon Entsū was a prolific author, penning over forty works. However, outside of the passages in Okada’s dissertation, these books remain untranslated.

Fumon Entsū was born in 1755 in Tottori Prefecture, some two hundred and fifty kilometres from Kyoto. Entsū’s earliest Buddhist affiliation is unclear.115 At the age of

114 Ibid., 113. 115 Donald S Lopez, Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 47. Also see, Masahiko Okada, “Vision and Reality: Buddhist Cosmographic Discourse in Nineteenth-Century Japan” (dissertation, UMI Company, 1997), 51.

116 seven, Entsū moved into Myōyō temple, belonging to the Nichiren school. There, he intensively studied Buddhism. Eight years into his studies, Entsū read the aforementioned

Tenkei wakumon. This recently un-blocked text introduced Entsū to European astronomical theories at odds with his own Buddhist teachings. Fascinated by the competing theories, Entsū desired to comparatively study different Buddhist schools. As a result, Entsū investigated Pure Land and Zen teachings. Additionally, he was tutored by

Tendai monk Gōchō at Mt. Hiei, and by Shingon monk Jiun near Osaka.117 Entsū’s multi- sectarian journey is important, as his later defenses of Buddhism draw from a variety of doctrinal positions. In other words, Entsū sought to defend Buddhism using its overlapping teachings.

In 1782, Entsū studied under Kawano Tsūrei, the official astronomer of the

Imperial Court. Here, he began the systematic comparison between European astronomy and Bonreki (Buddhist astronomy). Ten years later Entsū moved to Kyoto, where he began lecturing on Bonreki. In 1810, Entsū wrote his seminal book, Bukkoku rekishōhen

(Astronomy of the Buddhist Country), which we will examine shortly. In 1818, Entsū appealed to the Tokugawa government to include Bonreki as an official astronomical theory, and three years later it was officially admitted.118 In 1823, Entsū moved to Zōjō temple (of the Pure Land school) in central Edo (Tokyo). He remained in Edo until his death in 1834.119 During his life, Fumon Entsū lectured on Bonreki at Buddhist cites across Japan120 and wrote over forty books.121 Masahiko Okada writes that at the time of

116 Ibid., 51. 117 Ibid., 52. 118 Ibid., 53. 119 Ibid., 54. 120 Ibid., 140. 121 Ibid., 54.

37 his death, Entsū had over one-thousand disciples—no small feat.122 The posthumous trajectory of Entsū’s movement will be explored at the end of this chapter.

ENTSŪ’S PARADIGM SHIFT

In 1720, the Japanese government lifted their decades-long book ban. Among the first foreign books allowed into circulation was the aforementioned Tenkei wakumon

(Catechism on the Celestial Law). It presented competing astronomical theories, including the spherical-earth theory. By the middle of the eighteenth century, around the time of Fumon Entsū’s birth, competing texts emerged, including Hitenkei wakumon

(Anti-Tenkei wakumon). Its author, the Pure Land monk Monno, wrote: “Recently, this book [Tenkei wakumon] was publicly circulated. Therefore, many people indulge in this evil teaching now. Because they did not investigate this theory thoroughly, they accept

[its] falsehood as truth.”123 In Hitenkei wakumon, Monno argues for upholding traditional

Buddhist cosmography, citing Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam flat-earth model.

In 1790, the scholar Motoori Norinaga criticized Monno’s work, and defended the new spherical world model.124 Norinaga criticizes Monno’s reliance on fanciful Buddhist cosmography. He wrote: “The Shumisen [Mt. Meru] theory is originally an illusory and delusive theory. Therefore, it cannot conceal its falsehood after all. Since the idea of the spherical earth is an actual theory, it is impossible to defeat it.”125

Let’s further unpack the chronology of these three competing views. In the span of sixty years, three successive oppositional texts emerged. The first (Tenkei wakumon)

122 Ibid., 141. 123 Ibid., 114. 124 Ibid., 116-117. 125 Ibid., 117.

was an introduction to the spherical world model, the second (Hitenkei wakumon) was a full-throated defense of the flat world model, and the third (by Motoori Norinaga) was a rebuttal of the second and a promotion of the spherical world model once again. It is important to explore this layered, albeit confusing chronology, as it contextualizes the climate in which Fumon Entsū’s work emerges. By the end of the eighteenth century, in spite of the Buddhist effort to maintain their traditional cosmography, European science was winning the day. The importation of foreign science, including Rangaku (Dutch

Learning), and equipment such as telescopes, sparked rapid growth in cartography and astronomy in Japan.126 As a result, the natural world was increasingly observable and measurable. Consequently, scientific theories became more compelling than traditional

Buddhist teachings. Fumon Entsū was keenly aware of this developing two-sided paradigm— New Science (observable, convincing) VS. Traditional Buddhism (non- observable, unconvincing). And so, Entsū positioned himself differently, seeking instead to fight science with science. Masahiko Okada describes Entsū’s new approach:

Entsu’s theory, which was constructed as an oppositional theory to modern Western astronomy and geography, used the explanatory method of these modern sciences… Entsū’s cosmography of the flat world was described as a scientifically explainable flat world system, and this flat world system was explained not as a ‘teleological’ system of the world, but as a scientifically explainable system of the world.127

126 Indeed, Rangaku (Dutch Learning) played a major role in the development of Japanese science during the country’s lockdown. Despite the policy of isolationism, a Dutch trading post in Nagasaki allowed for the importation of scientific books and materials. For example, it is estimated that one hundred and fifty telescopes were brought to Japan between 1640 and 1676 (only decades after its invention in Holland). See Wolfgang Michel, “On Japanese Imports of Optical Instruments during the Early Edo Period,” Annals of the History of Western Learning in Japan 12 (2003): pp. 119-164. 127 Masahiko Okada, “Vision and Reality: Buddhist Cosmographic Discourse in Nineteenth- Century Japan” (dissertation, UMI Company, 1997), 10-11.

Entsū sought to use emerging scientific tools and methods to defend traditional Buddhist cosmography. Entsū himself understood the efficacy of the scientific approach, writing:

The reason why people believe in the idea of a spherical earth is that they scientifically demonstrate it by using astronomical calculation. In order to dispel the doubts about the Shumisen [Mt. Meru] world, we have to make people believe it by settling the astronomical calculation of the Shumisen world. Without doing it, how can we make people listen to us?128

Entsū, therefore, positioned himself to simultaneously defend the traditional Buddhist conception of the world, while also appealing to the in-vogue European scientific approach. In the world of marketing lingo, Entsū’s strategy could be labeled a

‘rebranding’ of Buddhist cosmography. Ironically though, Entsū’s efforts to appeal to emerging science alienated some in the Buddhist community. And so, even as his works gained popularity, he received criticism from both sides. Astronomers questioned the validity of his flat world science, while fundamentalist Buddhists criticized his reliance on scientific theory.129 However, as Entsū’s work gained traction, the latter group would eventually come to embrace his approach.

BUKKOKU REKISHŌHEN

In 1810, Fumon Entsū published his seminal text, Bukkoku rekishōhen

(Astronomy of the Buddhist Country). The text is a scientifically-oriented exposition of

Bonreki (Buddhist astronomy). It meticulously lays out and defends Vasubandhu’s cosmographic model. Entsū refers to this as the ‘shumisen (Mt. Meru) model’. In the introduction to Bukkoku rekishōhen, Entsū discusses the text’s three objectives:

128 Ibid., 55. 129 Ibid., 5.

1) To refute evil theories and to protect Buddhism by showing the Buddhist worldview in the holy teaching. 2) To [scientifically] prove that all astronomical theories in various countries are originally based on Bonreki. 3) To complement the missing teaching of Buddhism by introducing Bonreki, which has never been introduced into Japan.130

Entsū’s first objective is to disprove the increasingly popular spherical world model and to conversely prove the traditional flat world model. His second objective is to show the primacy of Buddhist cosmography— to suggest (counter-intuitively) that all astronomy originates from Buddhist astronomy. His third objective—to introduce Buddhist astronomy to Japan—is confusing. How can a pre-existing astronomical system be introduced for the first time? Here, a more careful analysis of Bonreki is helpful.

Masahiko Okada alternately defines Bonreki as ‘Indian astronomy’.131 This translation reveals that Entsū traces his teachings to India, not Japan. Indeed, throughout Bukkoku rekishōhen, Entsū cites Vasubandhu’s (Indian) Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. Thus, Entsū claims, his teachings are new to Japan.

All three of Entsū’s objectives rely on a convincing scientific presentation of the

Shumisen world model. Crucially, for Entsū’s work to influence its readers, it had also to disprove the increasingly popular spherical world model introduced by Europeans. Entsū bolsters his attack on the spherical world model by highlighting disagreements among

European scientists. This strategy harkens back to the Sri Lankan Buddhist/ Christian debate discussed at the outset of this chapter, where the Buddhist monk Guṇānanda makes use of a disagreement between R.J. Morrison and Isaac Newton. By drawing attention to this disagreement, Guṇānanda attempted to undermine the validity of

130 Ibid., 42. 131 Ibid., 1.

Newton’s heliocentric theory. Similarly, in Bukkoku rekishōhen, Fumon Entsū cites disagreement between European astronomers Nicolaus Copernicus and Tycho Brahe. He explains that the 1543 Copernican model places the sun at the center of the universe, around which the earth rotates, around which the moon rotates (Figure 5). By contrast,

Entsū notes that the 1647 Tychonic model places the earth at the center, around which both the moon and the sun rotate (Figure 5). By highlighting variances between European astronomical theories, Entsū sought to undermine popular belief in the European- introduced spherical world model.

ENTSŪ’S GEOGRAPHY

Fumon Entsū’s geography sought to marry traditional Buddhist cosmography with contemporary scientific cartography. However, before describing Entsū’s world map, let us briefly look at its predecessors. We begin by examining the 1364 Gotenjikuzu

(map of five Indias), considered to be the oldest world map produced in Japan132 (figure

6). The five Indias refer to the continent’s four cardinal directions and center. It is shaped like a teardrop, resembling a rounded version of Vasubandhu’s trapezoidal southern continent, Jambudvīpa. The map constitutes the geography known by Japanese artists at the time, depicting only Japan, China, and the Indian Subcontinent. At the center of the map we see the Himalayas and Anavatapta Lake (at the foot of Mt. Kailash). Little attention is given to geographic scale or accuracy, rather it is an artistic rendering of the known world.

132 Ibid., 98.

Next, we move forward three hundred and fifty years to the 1710 Nansenbushū bankoku shōka no zu (map of the world inside Jambudvīpa Island), drawn by the

Buddhist Monk Hōtan (Figure 7). It too resembles the trapezoidal Jambudvīpa, but includes significantly more geographical information. Regions such as Europe and South-

East Asia have been added, with some attention to scale. Again, the Himalayas and

Anavatapta Lake are at the map’s center. We can clearly see the influence of European science and cartography, as the map’s geographic detail is privileged over its artistic flair.

Finally, we move forward one hundred years to Fumon Entsū’s 1810 world map.

Unfortunately, a legible copy of this map is only available at the International Research

Center for Japanese Studies in Kyoto, where a copy of Entsū’s Bukkoku rekishōhen is also housed. We will instead use a conceptualization of his map (Figure 8). Entsū’s map attempts to merge contemporary geography with traditional Buddhist cosmography. To do so, Entsū incorporates newly recorded countries into the trapezoidal Jambudvīpa shape. He suggests that the continents (separated today) were once one land. Entsū explains that Asia, Europe and Africa form the body of Jambudvīpa, while the Americas and Antarctica form the flanking sub-continents on either side of Jambudvīpa.133 Though he incorporated newly recorded regions such as Antarctica, Entsū’s efforts to arrange his map according to the trapezoidal Jambudvīpa render it less scientifically accurate than

Hōtan’s 1710 map. Here we see the limitations of Entsū’s strategy to marry traditional

Buddhist cosmography with contemporary science.

133 Ibid., 73.

FLAT OR ROUND?

A major focus of Entsū’s Bukkoku rekishōhen is the discussion of the earth’s shape. Entsū argues that the world is flat, or more accurately a flat-topped series of elemental discs, as described in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam (Figure 1,

Chapter 1). He begins by attacking the spherical world model. First, Entsū argues, if the world was truly spherical, its surface would be impossibly steep. He describes the impossibility of a spherical earth:

Going up from the horizon [would be] like climbing a cliff and going down from the top to the horizon [would be] like descending a steep mountain. If we [were] on the sea, the water [would] cascade like a great waterfall.134

It is rather apparent to the modern reader, that Entsū here ignores the concept of gravity.

Curiously though, Entsū was indeed aware of Newton’s theory. However, Entsū took issue with the theories’ positing of earth’s rotation. He writes:

It is said that the Earth rotates once in one day and night. If so, the one rotation is faster than electric light. The power of [this] rotation [would] blow away giant stones, and the seas and rivers would gush out.135

If made today, these arguments would strain credulity. However, in early nineteenth century Japan, Entsū’s arguments carried sway, evidenced by the Tokugawa government’s 1818 acceptance of Bonreki as an official astronomical theory.136

Let us now examine one of Entsū’s more sophisticated arguments in favor of the flat world model. The argument concerns the changing appearance of objects by an individual as they change their viewing position on the earth (Figure 9). In other words,

134 Ibid., 70. 135 Ibid., 70. 136 Ibid., 53.

why does the viewable position of an object change when the viewer changes their location? Entsū acknowledges that there are two answers to this question. The first answer theorizes a spherical earth and the second answer theorizes a flat earth (Entsū’s theory). Entsū begins by tracing the spherical answer. This theory identifies that a spherical world must be 360 degrees in circumference. The theory imagines a person standing under the North Star. At this exact location, the angle of the North Star relative to the person is X (their viewing angle). Next, the theory imagines that the same person moves 1/360th of the earth’s circumference away from their original position under the star. After moving 1/360th away, the star appears lower and the viewing angle has changed (now viewing angle Y). Crucially, according to this theory, the change in viewing angle is proportionate to the earth’s circumference, thereby proving that the earth’s shape is indeed 360 degrees, or spherical.137

After describing this spherical theory, Entsū discusses the second answer— that the changing perspective of an object can also be explained using the flat world theory

(figure 9). This theory imagines a person standing at the north edge of a flat earth, in front of a giant object (in my diagram, a flagpole). As one moves further away from the object, it appears to get smaller, until it disappears into the horizon. Simply, this is a function of one’s increasing distance from the object. Thus, according to Entsū, a spherical world is not necessary to explain the changing perspective of an object— a flat earth theory is sufficient.138 It is worth noting that using this explanation, Entsū has not disproven the spherical world theory. Rather, he has presented the flat world theory as an alternative explanation.

137 Ibid., 68. 138 Ibid., 68.

MOVEMENT OF THE SUN

In Bukkoku rekishōhen Entsū also demonstrates the movement of the sun. Like in

Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, the sun is described as following a circular path horizontally above the flat earth, like a ceiling fan spinning overtop a bed. This horizontal path contrasts with the vertical path posited by spherical-earth theorists, who say it travels underneath the earth. To prove the sun’s horizontal path, Entsū turns to a mountain- climbing anecdote. According to mountain climbers, Entsū says, the sunrise is first viewable from the top of a mountain before the bottom (Figure 10). Entsū argues that if the sun were to rotate vertically, as spherical-theorists say, the sun should pass by the bottom of the mountain before the top. Then, as a matter of distance, the sunrise would be viewable from the bottom of the mountain before the top. In reality however, the sunrise is first viewable from the top of the mountain. Therefore, according to Entsū, the sun must move horizontally above the earth, where it is closer to the top of the mountain than the bottom (Figure 10). Thus, the horizontal configuration allows the sunrise to reach the top of the mountain first, as mountain-climbers say it does.139

Entsū’s sunrise example assumes a flat world model. However, when combining a spherical world model with a vertical sun path, it is clear that the earth’s curvature enables sunlight to reach the top of a mountain before the bottom (Figure 11). Notably,

Entsū’s sunrise example can be disproven using a flat world model too. Provided that the mountain is not positioned on the edge of the flat earth, a vertically-moving sun will be seen from the top of a mountain before its bottom—this is simply a matter of angles.

139 Ibid., 71.

Next, how can Entsū’s model—a flat earth and horizontally moving sun—explain daily and seasonal sunlight changes? Where does the sun go at night? Here, Mount

Meru’s size and positioning is key. Remember, according to Vasubandhu’s

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, Mount Meru sits at the center of the world, towering eight hundred thousand kilometres high. The sun, according to Entsū, rotates clockwise around

(not above) Mount Meru (Figure 12). This helps to explain why the sun travels from east to west. It also explains that nightfall is the period of time when the sun is obscured behind Mount Meru. For example, when the sun is to the south of Mount Meru (overtop

Jambudvīpa), it is obscured from the northern continent, where it is nighttime (Figure

12).

But Entsū still has to account for the seasonal change in sunlight. Why are sunlight hours longer in summer and shorter in winter? Here, Entsū explains that the sun’s horizontal path around Meru oscillates vertically (Figure 13). In other words, the sun’s path around Mount Meru moves up and down the slope of the mountain according to the season. Crucially, Entsū explains, Mount Meru’s top is wider than its bottom, like an upside-down triangle.140 And so, in the winter, the sun travels around the upper and wider section of Mount Meru, obscuring more sunlight from the continents. Conversely, in the summer, the sun travels around the lower and narrower section of Mount Meru, resulting in longer sunlight hours (Figure 13).

Entsū though, has heard of a region where there is no sunlight during winter. He labels this region ‘Night Country’. Just how can Entsū account for the seasonal twenty- four-hour darkness of Night Country? Here, Entsū’s model becomes more complex still.

140 Ibid., 75.

In Bukkoku rekishōhen, he explains that the sun’s path not only oscillates vertically, but horizontally too. As a result of this three-dimensional oscillation, Entsū’s sun-paths resemble a spirograph drawing. In the winter, he explains, the sun’s path loops further south over Jambudvīpa (Figure 14). He goes on to explain that Night Country is located in northern Jambudvīpa, behind a giant mountain called ‘Konron’. In the winter, when the sun’s path shifts south, it passes behind Konron, concealing light from reaching Night

Country.141 In this position, daytime sunlight is concealed by Konron and nighttime sunlight is concealed by Mount Meru, leaving Night Country in twenty-four-hour darkness (Figure 14).

Entsū’s explanation here elicits a number of questions. To begin with, how tall is

Konron? As previously discussed, during winter, the sun travels along a higher path (to account for reduced sunlight hours). Konron, then, must be enormously tall to conceal sunlight from reaching Night Country. Moreover, Konron is located on Jambudvīpa.

Thus, shouldn’t such a mountain be visible, or at least visit-able? Further, just how popular is Konron in Japanese Buddhism? Is Konron synonymous with Mount Kailash?

In his dissertation, Masahiko Okada does not discuss the concept of Konron in any detail.

Indeed, Konron is worthy of future study.

So far, we have discussed Fumon Entsū’s defense of the traditional Buddhist world model, including the shape of the earth and path of the sun. However, these are just a few of the topics explored by Entsū in Bukkoku rekishōhen. Entsū also discusses the path of the moon, demonstrating why it waxes and wanes.142 He develops a Bonreki

141 Ibid., 76. 142 Ibid., 88.

143 calendar system that charts the solar and lunar cycles and eclipses. Indeed, in his effort to defend traditional Buddhist cosmography, Entsū leaves no stone unturned.

Entsū’s Bukkoku rekishōhen competes with newly imported European science, aiming to account for every geographic and astronomical phenomenon. To illustrate his theories, Entsū created an intricate mechanical model of the traditional Buddhist world.144

Amazingly, according to Okada, “Entsū’s miniature model could actually be moved by clockwork. Scores of springs were built into the model, and the models of the orbit of the sun and moon were turned and slid in correspondence with his astronomical theory.”145

Entsū later published blueprints of his mechanical model, inspiring followers to create their own models (Figure 15).

ENTSŪ’S LEGACY

Fumon Entsū approached the study of Buddhist cosmography differently than his predecessors. He sought to fight science with science. European science— originally brought to Japan by Francis Xavier in the sixteenth century— had largely permeated

Japanese culture by the nineteenth century. Therefore, Entsū shrewdly used the scientific approach to re-invigorate the fading Buddhist world model. In doing so, he sought to quantify the imagined, turning Vasubandhu’s teleology into strict phenomenology.146

And yet, throughout Bukkoku rekishōhen, Entsū speaks about the divine nature of

Buddhist teachings. For example, in his fifth chapter, Entsū writes that “knowledge

143 Ibid., 47. 144 Ibid., 46. 145 Ibid., 126. 146 Teleology, here, refers to a world model created to explain Buddhist doctrine/ phenomena, rather than an observational model from which doctrine/ phenomena arise.

49 contained in Buddhist scripture is that seen by the Buddha’s spiritual eye and therefore, a knowledge beyond that of modern science.”147 Thus, there is a tension in Entsū’s work— a pull between European science as a compelling explanatory mode and Buddha’s vision as cosmically infallible. Maybe, then, Entsū considered his scientific approach as provisional, or an upāya. From this perspective, Entsū’s work is difficult to attack, because the critic of Entsū’s science is labeled as unable to see Buddhist reality as it actually is.

Notably though, Entsū does seem to bracket his defense of traditional Buddhist cosmography. Conspicuously absent from his world model are the abodes of heavens and hells, featured plentifully in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. Here, Entsū’s delicate balance—incorporating European scientific methods and also defending traditional Buddhist cosmography—has hit a snag. He goes to great lengths to demonstrate the veracity of the flat world model, accounting for movement of the sun, moon, and stars. Why, then, doesn’t he incorporate a discussion of heavens and hells?

Indeed, these realms are essential to Vasubandhu’s model and to Buddhist soteriology at large. Has he left them out because they are particularly hard to defend?

Masahiko Okada writes that at the time of Fumon Entsū’s death in 1834, Entsū had over one thousand disciples. Twelve years later, in 1846, his followers erected a monument to honor Entsū, on the grounds of Bukkōji Temple in Kyoto. The monument is inscribed, reading in part:

Fumon the great precept master, Entsū…[He] mastered both Japanese and foreign learnings. [And] especially had a thorough knowledge of astronomical theory… [Entsū] made people realize that [the] system of the movement of heavenly bodies in the Buddhist teaching was solely based on actual experiments and it was not [a]

147 Ibid., 47.

nonsensical theory… Oh, it was fortunate for people that the Buddha widely preached the astronomical theory and the precept master Entsū appeared in our county thousands of years later.148

The inscribed monument was built by Shingyō, one of Entsū’s closest disciples.

Following Entsū’s death, Shingyō claimed to possess a letter from Entsū detailing that he was to fill Entsū’s role and become the new leader of the Bonreki movement. However,

Kanchū, another close disciple of Entsū’s, claimed to possess a similar letter!149 And so,

Entsū’s Bonreki movement fractured into two groups—followers of Shingyō and followers of Kanchū. The two groups proceeded to fight over the details of Entsū’s theories, including, notably, a three-year dispute over the seasonal orbit of the sun.150

The Bonreki movement was most popular in the years following Entsū’s 1810 publication of Bukkoku rekishōhen. In 1818, the Tokugawa government accepted Bonreki as an official astronomical theory.151 However, in the years following Entsū’s death, the popularity of Bonreki fell precipitously. This was in large part due to the growth of astronomy in Japan and the increasing acceptance of the spherical world theory.

Masahiko Okada writes that by the twentieth century, the Bonreki movement had become all but obsolete.152

To get a sense of the reception of Bonreki at the time, we look to the writing of the monk Shimaji Mokurai. Mokurai writes of Bonreki:

Of course, I am deeply impressed by their sincerity to preserve dharma, but the foundation of Buddhism is unfortunately not on this issue. Disputing on this issue

148 Ibid., 142. 149 Ibid., 143. 150 Ibid., 153. 151 Ibid., 53. 152 Ibid., 166.

is not good for Buddhism. On the contrary, it is to disgrace the shining authority of Buddhism… This is an old, imaginary, and fictional theory.153

These words signal the end of Fumon Entsū’s Bonreki movement. However, thanks to his rich, albeit convoluted works, Entsū remains one of Buddhism’s staunchest defenders of the traditional world model.

By studying Fumon Entsū, this chapter traced the first of three respondents to the

Crisis of Cosmography—the Rejecter. Resultantly, the study of Entsū’s work elicits the following question: Surrounded and confronted by European science, how was Entsū able to compellingly teach his flat world model? Two factors should be noted here. First, the time preceding Entsū’s life is marked by European scientific flux. In other words,

European astronomical theory was still under debate. As a result, the unconventionality of his arguments is less apparent. Second, Entsū utilizes European scientific language and methods. By doing so, he appears to fight science with science. Thus, Entsū cleverly incorporates European science while simultaneously defending traditional Buddhist cosmography. Indeed, Entsū’s middle-path seems distinctly Buddhist.

153 Ibid., 167.

CHAPTER THREE THE ACCEPTER AND THE UPAYER

A MOUNTAIN OF A CROWN

In 2016, Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej died. His death marked the end of a seventy-year reign. It was the longest reign of any (living) monarch in the world.

Following his death, Thailand officially observed a year of mourning. His only son, Maha

Vajiralongkorn was crowned as Thailand’s new king in 2019. Though Thailand’s constitutional monarchy does not recognize a state religion, the Thai monarchy is steeped in Buddhist tradition. In 2019, the three-day coronation of new King, Maha

Vajiralongkorn, included a procession between the Grand Palace and the Temple of the

Emerald Buddha. The procession was lined with more than two hundred thousand onlookers. The coronation also included the bathing of the king-to-be, using water collected from Buddhist temples across the Thai kingdom. Vajiralongkorn read the declarations of an incoming king, including the pledge to serve as ‘Defender of the

Buddhist faith’. Finally, surrounded by monks, Vajiralongkorn donned the Phra Maha

Phichai Mongkut (The Great Crown of Victory). The Great Crown of Victory is sixty-six centimetres from base to tip, weighing an impressive sixteen pounds (equal to maximum weight of a professional bowling ball). It includes a robust golden chin-strap, allowing it to safely sit atop its wearer’s head. The multi-tiered crown is covered in gleaming jewels and adorned by a large diamond at its apex. Notably, the Great Crown of Victory, the chief symbol of Thai sovereignty, symbolizes Mount Meru—the centerpiece of the

Vasubandhu world model.

Evidently, Mount Meru remains as potent symbol to practitioners across the

Buddhist world. In this chapter we turn to Buddhist Tibet, a land steeped in mountains— both symbolic and literal. Here, we meet our final two respondents to the Crisis of

Cosmography.

FROM JAPAN TO TIBET

Our previous chapter explored a Japanese Buddhist response to emergent

European science promoting a spherical world model. In Japan, debates over cosmography began in the sixteenth century with the arrival of Jesuits to Kyushu. Over time the debates intensified, culminating with Fumon Entsū’s Bonreki (Buddhist astronomy) in the early nineteenth century. Entsū’s Bonreki represented a full-throated defence of traditional Buddhist cosmography. In this chapter, we will explore the two remaining Buddhist responses to the Crisis of Cosmography. To do so, we shift our attention to twentieth century Tibet. It would be reasonable for one to question this abrupt shift to the twentieth century. By this time, hasn’t the question of traditional Buddhist cosmography been settled? Indeed, in Japan, by the twentieth century, Bonreki had disappeared and the spherical world model was ubiquitous. Not so in twentieth century

Tibet. In Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, Donald Lopez quips:

In 1938 Hitler annexed Austria; Otto Hahn produced the first nuclear fission of uranium; Howard Hughes, flying a twin-engine Lockheed, set a new record for the circumnavigation of the globe; color television was first demonstrated; the first photocopied image was produced; the ball point pen was patented; the first Superman episode appeared in Action Comics; Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs premiered; Benny Goodman’s orchestra performed “Sing, Sing,

Sing” at Carnegie Hall and Gendun Chopel [a Tibetan scholar] was attempting to prove to his countrymen that the world is not flat.154

This passage illustrates the recency of Tibet’s Crisis of Cosmography. Where Japan’s crisis began in the sixteenth century and persisted until the nineteenth century, Tibet’s only just starts in the twentieth century.

It is important to note that by the time Tibet experiences its Crisis of

Cosmography, European science had committed to the spherical and heliocentric world model. By contrast, when Francis Xavier introduced European cosmography to Japan in the sixteenth century, the jury was still out. For example, Xavier himself falsely posited that the sun revolved around the earth.155 As discussed in the last chapter, Fumon Entsū exploits this European Scientific disagreement to bolster his alternative cosmography.156

In other words, Entsū’s potentially tenuous position as the Rejecter was softened by ongoing disagreement among European scientists. This is not the case in twentieth century Tibet. Instead, the European cosmography that Tibetan Buddhists wrestled with was uniform and endorsed across much of the world. This context is significant because it helps to explain why, in twentieth century Tibet, the Accepter and Upayer were more likely to have been compelled to discard the Buddhist flat world model.157 It is reasonable to argue that the approaches of the Accepter and Upayer were formed, in part, by

154 Donald S Lopez, Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 57-58. 155 Ibid., 46. 156 As discussed in Chapter Two of this thesis, Entsū also cites disagreement between astronomers such Capernicus and Brahe. See Masahiko Okada, “Vision and Reality: Buddhist Cosmographic Discourse in Nineteenth-Century Japan” (dissertation, UMI Company, 1997), 65. 157 As will be discussed in this chapter, the Upayer too discards traditional Buddhist Cosmography, but not because they are newly unconvinced by its science. Rather the Upayer is able to discard traditional Buddhist cosmography because they believe it was taught by the Buddha as an upāya.

55 pressure to cohere to a greater scientific consensus. Thus, when we compare the arguments of Tibetan and Japanese Buddhists, we must remember their historical context.

We begin by examining our only living respondent, the fourteenth Dalai Lama.

DALAI LAMA: THE ACCEPTER

To repeat, this thesis heuristically classifies different Buddhist respondents to the

Crisis of Cosmography. The fourteenth and current Dalai Lama represents our second respondent—the Accepter. Simply put, the Accepter is characterized by their acceptance of European science and refutation of traditional Buddhist cosmography. Indeed, the world’s most popular living Buddhist, the Dalai Lama, accepts the spherical world model and wholly rejects the traditional Buddhist model. In 1935, when the Dalai Lama was born, Tibetan Buddhists maintained that the world was flat, centered by giant Mount

Meru, and surrounded by four outlying continents positioned at each of the cardinal directions. Those who challenged this model were criticized and often ostracized. As a result, in the early twentieth century, Tibetan skeptics of the flat world model, though they did exist, remained largely quiet.158 The Dalai Lama voiced skepticism of traditional

Buddhist cosmography, but he did so decades later and from exile.

The Dalai Lama leads the Gelug (Yellow Hat) school of Tibetan Buddhism. In

The Madman’s Middle Way, Donald Lopez describes the Gelug monastic curriculum during the early to mid-twentieth century. He writes that completion of the curriculum took roughly twenty years and chiefly involved studying five seminal texts, including

158 Ibid., 60.

159 Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. As a result, Gelug monks were well-versed in the cosmographic model we explored in the first chapter of this thesis.

At the age of twenty, the Dalai Lama began his study of Vasubandhu’s

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam.160 At the same time, the young Dalai Lama also viewed images of the moon’s craters in magazines and observed the heliocentric movement of planets through his telescope.161 Indeed, the Dalai Lama’s youth was marked by asymmetrical systems of knowledge.

Famously, the Dalai Lama is quoted as saying: “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” What does he mean here, and how does this pertain to the discussion of traditional Buddhist Cosmography? This popular quote is an incomplete citation of the Dalai Lama’s words. It comes from his 2005 book,

The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. The popular quote is just the second half of its original sentence. In its entirety the sentence reads: “My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in

Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”162 Examining the quote in its entirety reveals a new meaning. The Dalai Lama does not describe Buddhism and science as entities working towards different goals.

159 Donald S Lopez, The Madman's Middle Way: Reflections on Reality of the Tibetan Monk Gendun Chopel (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 6-7. 160 Tenzin Gyatso, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (Morgan Road Books, 2005), 79. 161 Ibid., 79. 162 Ibid., 2-3.

Rather, he argues, they both seek reality and are to be used in tandem towards that effort.

What then of traditional Buddhist cosmography? In short, informed by sciences such as astronomy and geography, the Dalai Lama rejects the traditional Buddhist world model.

Examples of this rejection are scattered throughout the Dalai Lama’s many texts. We will, in brief, explore statements from two of these texts.

We begin with the aforementioned The Universe in a Single Atom: The

Convergence of science and Spirituality (2005). In this book, the Dali Lama traces his fascination with astronomy to his childhood in Tibet. There, he reportedly spent many nights peering through a telescope atop the Potala Palace roof.163 Later, in exile, he visited his first observatory—Delhi’s Birla Planetarium. In 1973, he visited the

University of Cambridge’s famous radio telescope.164 A lengthy discussion of astronomy is found in the book’s fourth chapter, where the Dalai Lama surveys Buddhist cosmology.165 He cites Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam:

Abhidharma cosmology describes a flat earth, around which celestial bodies like the sun and moon revolve. According to this theory, our earth is one of four ‘continents’—in fact, the southern continent—which lie in the four cardinal directions of a towering mountain called Mount Meru, at the center of the universe. Each of these continents is flanked by two smaller continents, while the gaps between them are filled with massive oceans.166

163 “Where Science and Religion Coexist,” His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet (The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama, January 26, 2013), https://www.dalailama.com/news/2013/where-science-and-religion-coexist/amp. 164 Tenzin Gyatso, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (Morgan Road Books, 2005), 74. 165 By exploring cosmology (by contrast to cosmography), the Dalai Lama includes a discussion of Buddhist metaphysical quandaries, such as the origin of the universe and the posthumous state of the Buddha. He writes that, according to early scriptures, the Buddha avoided these topics. Here, the Dalai Lama cites the parable of the poisoned arrow. See, Ibid., 77-78. 166 Ibid., 79.

In this passage, the Dalai Lama describes the world-model traced in the first chapter of this thesis. This model was widely accepted in Tibet during the Dalai Lama’s youth.

Next, however, the Dalai Lama criticizes this model:

These sizes, distances, and so forth [of Vasubandhu’s model] are flatly contradicted by the empirical evidence of modern astronomy. There is a dictum in Buddhist philosophy that to uphold a tenet that contradicts reason is to undermine one’s credibility; to contradict empirical evidence is a still greater fallacy. So it is hard to take the Abhidharma cosmology literally…My own view is that Buddhism must abandon many aspects of the Abhidharma cosmology.167

The Dalai Lama plainly seeks to reject the traditional world model. Further, he warns that acceptance of such a model undermines credibility.

Next, we turn to The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai

Lama (2004). This text contains a collection of conversations between the Dalai Lama and leading academics, including astronomer George Greenstien and physicist Anton

Zeilinger. They discuss a wide range of topics from quantum entanglement to extra- terrestrial sentient life. In the book’s fourth chapter, the Dalai Lama is asked about the evolution of astronomical thought in Buddhism. He responds by addressing

Vasubandhu’s world model:

It [Vasubandhu’s model] gives very exact measurements of the distance from the earth to the sun and moon and the stars, as well as the size of the sun and moon. The problem is, these measurements are wrong from the modern scientific point of view. For example, [according to Vasubandhu] the sun is only bigger than the moon by a tiny fraction, and they are the same distance from the earth. These measurements are just crazy. The writer of this fifth century text [Vasubandhu]

167 Ibid., 80.

didn't have any telescopes, of course, but he probably also had very blurred vision!168

This response echoes the sentiment in the Dalai Lama’s The Universe in a Single Atom.

He plainly argues that Vasubandhu’s world model is fallacious, even suggesting that his measurements are ‘crazy’.

More recently, during speeches, the Dalai Lama has addressed traditional

Buddhist cosmography. In New Delhi, in 2014, the Dalai Lama stated that he does not believe in Vasubandhu’s world model.169 Three years later, in Ladakh, the Dalai Lama

“rejected the existence of Mount Meru explicitly,” noting that he has flown around the world and has not seen such a towering mountain!170

The book passages and speech sound-bites that we have briefly explored are among the most succinct examples of the Dalai Lama’s rejection of traditional Buddhist cosmography and acceptance of European science.171 They make clear that the Dalai

Lama represents the second group of Buddhist respondents to the Crisis of

Cosmography—the Accepters. Next, we move to our final respondent, the Upayer. Here,

168 Arthur Zajonc, The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004), 97. 169 “Trisamayavyuharaja - Empowerment Related to Buddha Shakyamuni,” His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet (The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama, March 23, 2014), https://www.dalailama.com/news/2014/trisamayavyuharaja-empowerment-related-to-buddha- shakyamuni/amp. 170 “Teaching ‘Stages of Meditation’ and ‘Thirty-Seven Practices of Bodhisattvas’ at Disket,” His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet (The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama, July 11, 2017), https://www.dalailama.com/news/2017/teaching-stages-of-meditation-and-thirty-seven- practices-of-bodhisattvas-at-disket/amp. 171 Further instances (not traced in this chapter) remain. For example, in the fifth chapter of The Way to Freedom (1994), the Dalai Lama argues that Vasubandhu’s world model does not exist as described. See, Tenzin Gyatso, The Way to Freedom: Core Teachings of Tibetan Buddhism (The Library of Tibet, 1994), 108.

we will explore the arguments of Gundun Chopel. Chopel is also Tibetan, so we need not move far.

GENDUN CHOPEL: THE UPAYER

Thus far we have discussed the first two Buddhist respondents to the Crisis of

Cosmography. First, we traced the Rejecter—one who rejects European science and continues to posit traditional Buddhist cosmography (Fumon Entsū). Second, we identified the Accepter—one who accepts European science and discards traditional

Buddhist cosmography (the fourteenth Dalai Lama). We arrive now at our final respondent—the Upayer. The Upayer’s name references the Sanskrit term upāya, meaning ‘method’ or ‘strategy’, and variously used with upāyakauśalya, meaning

‘skillful means’, ‘skill-in-means’ or ‘expedient means’.172 Let us focus on two of its pedagogical connotations: provision and adaptation. First, upāya is the tactful employment of the provisional. This is most famously illustrated in the simile of the raft, from the Alagaddūpamasūtra, and in the simile of the burning house, from the

Saddarmapuṇḍarīkasūtra (Lotus Sutra).173 Each of these similes show the effectiveness and indeed the necessity of provisional teachings in the pursuit of the ultimate. In other words, they describe a means-to-end approach. Here, the translation ‘expedient means’ is apt. Secondly, upāya is the strategic adaptation of a message to its listener. The Buddhist

172 Donald S Lopez and Robert E Buswell, “upāya,” in The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), 942. 173 The parable of the raft describes the necessary use of raft to cross a raging river. Upon reaching the other side, the raft is to be discarded. Here, the raging river represents saṃsāra, the other side nirvāṇa, and the raft dharma (translated in this context to ‘teaching/doctrine’). The parable of the burning house describes a father compelling his children to escape a burning house by promising their favourite items outside. In this case, the burning house represents saṃsāra, the outside nirvāṇa, and the father’s promise dharma.

61 teacher employs upāya in this way by carefully tailoring their teachings to the context of their audience. Here, the translation ‘skill-in-teaching’ is illustrative.

Our third group of Buddhist respondents to the Crisis of Cosmography—the

Upayers— argue that traditional Buddhist cosmography is an upāya– a provisional teaching tailored to the early practitioners of Buddhism. They argue that when the

Buddha spoke of a flat, disc-shaped world centered by Mount Meru, he did so provisionally. In other words, the Buddha knew, as we know now, that the world is spherical and orbits the sun. Why, then, did the Buddha purvey a false world-model? He did so, the Upayer explains, to avoid distraction from more important teachings regarding the elimination of suffering and the pursuit of enlightenment. The Upayer supposes, that had the Buddha suggested, radically, that the world was round and Mount Meru fictitious, he would have lost his credibility. Thus, the Upayer positions themself between the

Rejecter and the Accepter. This placement is dialectically shrewd, accomplishing two significant tasks. First, the Upayer acknowledges and accepts European scientific cosmography (like the Accepter). Secondly, the Upayer is able to maintain the Buddha’s omniscience (like the Rejecter)—by claiming he knew the true cosmography all along!

And so, our third respondent, the Upayer, strategically treads between the other two respondents. Let us now explore the arguments of one such Upayer, twentieth century

Tibetan scholar Gendun Chopel.

174 Donald Lopez writes that Gendun Chopel “was arguably the most important Tibetan intellectual of the twentieth century.”175 Chopel was born in 1903, in Amdo,

Northeast Tibet, the same region as the fourteenth Dalai Lama. At the age of fourteen,

Chopel entered a local Gelug monastery, named Rdi tsha. Three years later, he moved to a larger Gelug monestary, named Blab rang bkra shis’khyil, housing over twenty-five hundred monks.176 There, among other texts, Chopel studied Vasubandhu’s

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. Chopel remained at the monastery for six years, gaining notoriety as a skilled debater. In 1926, for reasons unclear, Chopel was expelled from the monastery.177

In 1934, Chopel partnered with Indian Sanskrit scholar Rahul Sankrityayan.

Chopel and Sankrityayan surveyed Southern Tibet for Sanskrit manuscripts brought by the early disseminators of Buddhism from India. Next, they traveled Nepal. Finally, the pair traveled to India, where Chopel remained for twelve years.178 In India Chopel painted, wrote poetry, and published articles in various newspapers and journals.

Importantly, by contrast to his youth in Tibet, in colonial India, Chopel was exposed to an array of modern subjects and technologies. He writes of this exposure in his journal:

It is generally the case that in every kind of worldly custom, the intelligence of

174 Lopez’s transliteration from Tibetan reads dGe’dun chos’phel, which he simplifies to ‘Gendun Chopel’. He notes eighteen written variations. Lopez translates dGe’dun to ‘saṅgha’ and chos’phel to ‘spreading the dharma’. See, Donald S Lopez, The Madman's Middle Way: Reflections on Reality of the Tibetan Monk Gendun Chopel (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 3, 6. 175 Ibid., 3. 176 Ibid., 6. 177 Lopez indicates Chopel’s expulsion may have been a result of criticism Chopel leveled towards monastic texts. Lopez translates a poem written by Chopel, where he laments his expulsion. See Ibid., 9-10. 178 Ibid., 11.

Europeans is superior to ours [Tibetans] in a thousand ways. They could easily spin the heads of peoples of the East and South who, honest but naïve, have no experience of anything other than their own countries. And thus they [colonial Europeans] came to many lands, large and small, accompanied by their armies. Their hearts were willed with only self-interest, in their sexual behaviour their lust was even greater than a donkey’s.179

This passage conveys Chopel’s coupled awe and distaste towards the colonial occupants of India. It illustrates the gap in modernity between Chopel’s native Tibet and the outside world. Later in the entry, Chopel writes what he has learned about the colonial slave- trade, describing, in shock, the forceful transport of over one million Africans.180

During his time in India, Chopel studied European geography and astronomy.

Following this study, Chopel published articles enumerating the differences between traditional Buddhist cosmography and European science. A number of these article appeared in the Tibet Mirror, the only Tibetan-language newspaper of the time. The Tibet

Mirror was published in India and circulated widely throughout Tibet.181 Chopel published under the pseudonym Drang po Dharma (Honest dharma). Let us examine one of his articles published in 1938, titled “The World is Round or Spherical”:

In the past, in the lands of the continent of Europe, it was only said that the world is flat, just as it appears to the non-analytical mind; there was not a single person who said that it was round. All the ancient religions in the various lands said only that the world was flat; there was not one who said that it is round… Today, not only has the fact that it is round been determined, but also the size [of] all the islands in the world just four or five yojanas [approximately fifty kilometres] long have been measured down to spans and cubits. Therefore, in the great lands there

179 Ibid., 14. 180 Ibid., 14. 181 Ibid., 15.

is not a single scholar who has even a doubt. Among all of the Buddhists in Singhala, Burma, Ceylon [sic, probably ‘Siam’], Japan and so forth, there is not one who says that it is untrue that it is round. Yet we in Tibet still hold stubbornly to the position that it is not.182

In this passage, Chopel calls for Tibetans to adopt the spherical world model. He appeals for their consideration, explaining that at one point, like in twentieth century Tibet, all societies posited a flat earth. Moreover, he explains, Buddhists of all other countries have since abandoned the flat world model.

Next, he addresses the Buddha’s omniscience, anticipating that his countrymen might ask: But why would the Buddha teach a falsehood?

[Saying that the world is flat] because the Buddha stated that [it] is flat is not accepted as authoritative in other [non-Buddhist] schools and thus does not do a pinprick of damage. Even with regard to the scriptures of our own [Buddhist] school, which does accept [the Buddha’s position] as authoritative, because the majority of sūtras were set forth by the Buddha in accordance with the thoughts of sentient beings, even in this case, we do not know what is provisional and what is definitive… At that time, throughout all the world, the words of “[the world] is flat” were as famous as the wind. Thus, even if the Buddha had said, “it is round,” whose ear would it have entered?183

In this passage, Chopel argues that the Buddha’s teaching of a flat earth was an upāya.

Chopel recognizes the desire among Tibetan Buddhists to maintain the Buddha’s omniscience. And so, Chopel suggests that the Buddha’s teaching of a flat earth was provisional. Further, he argues that had the Buddha suggested the world was round, he would not have been believed. In other words, the Buddha knowingly and strategically

182 Ibid., 15-16. 183 Ibid., 16.

65 taught that the earth was flat, when he knew that it was round. Chopel’s argument here is rhetorically significant. It allows him to simultaneously recognize modern scientific cosmography, and to recognize the Buddha’s omniscience. Significantly, this flat-earth- as-upāya argument allowed holdout Tibetan Buddhists to recognize the spherical earth without sacrificing the authority of the Buddha.

In 1945, twelve years after he left, Gendun Chopel returned to Tibet. In 1946

Chopel was jailed, though his crime is unclear.184 Following a three-year sentence,

Chopel was released from prison and reportedly developed severe alcoholism. Two years later, following the Tibetan takeover by China’s People’s Liberation Army, Chopel died of liver complications. In his final moments Chopel was reported quipping: “The madman Dge chos (Gendun Chopel) has already seen all the sights of the world. Now, I have heard talk of a famous land below. If I went to have a look, I wonder what it would be like?”185

What of Gendun Chopel’s legacy? The fourteenth Dalai Lama cites Chopel’s poems and articles as a major source of inspiration and a catalyst towards his study of

European science and its symbiosis with Buddhism.186 Indeed, Chopel is remembered as one of Tibet’s foremost Buddhist modernists. To us, though, Chopel chiefly represents the Upayer—the third and final Buddhist respondent to the Crisis of Cosmography.

184 Lopez writes that Chopel was possibly framed for the production of counterfeit currency. He also lists other indiscretions associated with Chopel including spying, communist affiliation, and incendiary philosophical views. See, Ibid., 43. 185 Ibid., 45. 186 Tenzin Gyatso, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (Morgan Road Books, 2005), 2.

Though he is the sole Upayer explored in this chapter, he is one of many Upayers found across Buddhist traditions.187

This chapter has traced the final two Buddhist respondents—the Accepter and the

Upayer. By contrast to the Rejecter (Fumon Entsū), both the Accepter (the fourteenth

Dalai Lama) and the Upayer (Gendun Chopel) accept the European scientific world model. However, where the Accepter discards the flat world teaching altogether, the

Upayer suggests it was strategic and provisional.188 Importantly, the thinkers explored in this chapter were situated amidst a scientific consensus. In other words, by the twentieth century, the European world model that the Dalai Lama and Gendun Chopel encounter is incontrovertible. This likely aided their repudiation of the Buddhist flat world. And so, though surrounded by mountains, both the Dalai Lama and Chopel argue for the toppling of Meru.

187 In Japan, for example, a prominent Upayer is Tokugawa scholar Tominaga Nakamoto (1715- 1746). Tominaga Nakamoto writes of the Buddha’s utterances of Mount Meru: “He was urgently seeking people’s salvation and had no time for such petty matters. What he did is what is known as skillful means.” Nakamoto also criticizes contradictory measurements of the Buddhist world model in early literature, writing “It is extremely squalid, indeed ridiculous.” See, Tominaga Nakamoto, Emerging From Meditation, trans. Michael Pye (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), 88-89. 188 Donald S Lopez, Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 69.

CONCLUSION

The task of this project was to highlight varying Buddhist responses to the Crisis of Cosmography. Three different responses were identified and traced in tandem with

Buddhist thinkers. The Rejecter was explored via Japanese monk Fumon Entsū (1755-

1834), the Accepter via the fourteenth Dalai Lama (1935-), and the Upayer via Tibetan scholar Gendun Chopel (1903-1948). This thesis does not parse the relative persuasiveness of each thinker’s argument. Rather, it presents their position in context.

However, this thesis has identified questions, conundrums, and tensions faced by

Buddhists as a result of their encounter with the Crisis of Cosmography. These points have been tabled throughout the thesis and will be reviewed once more here.

The Rejecter

The Rejecter rejects incoming European science and continues to posit the

Vasubandhu-influenced traditional Buddhist model of the world. In Chapter One, we explored Fumon Entsū’s Bukkoku rekishōhen—a nineteenth century defense of the

Vasubandhu model. From a contemporary perspective, of the three respondents, the

Rejecter (Entsū) has the most heavy-lifting to do. Amidst the proliferation of European science in Asia, just how did the Rejecter argue that the world is flat?

In Entsū’s case, context is important. His work emerged in a period of scientific flux. He utilized this, citing disagreement between his European predecessors such as

Copernicus and Brahe189 (Figure 5). Additionally, Francis Xavier, the original purveyor

189 Masahiko Okada, “Vision and Reality: Buddhist Cosmographic Discourse in Nineteenth- Century Japan” (dissertation, UMI Company, 1997), 65.

190 of the spherical earth to Japan, incorrectly posited that the sun rotated around the earth. And so, the polemical climate in which Entsū was positioned may have insulated his flat earth teachings from greater criticism.191

But Entsū also had an ace up his sleeve. Though he painstakingly illustrated the traditional Buddhist model using geography and astronomy, he also stated: “knowledge contained in Buddhist scripture is that seen by the Buddha’s spiritual eye and therefore, a knowledge beyond that of modern science.”192 Thus, did Entsū, the Rejecter, ultimately rely on the primacy of the Buddha’s omniscience? Does this render details from his magnum opus, Bukkoku rekishōhen simply provisional?

The Accepter

By contrast to the Rejecter, the Accepter accepts the European scientific model and seeks to discard the Buddhist flat world model. Though the Accepter conforms to modern European science, it seems that their position, of the three respondents, is the most dramatic. Indeed, Vasubandhu’s world model is not simply an inanimate map.

Instead, his world— replete with hells, heavens, and aerial dhyānas— provides the

190 Donald S Lopez, Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 46.

191 Worth noting too, Entsū’s complex descriptions in Bukkoku rekishōhen use the language of European geology and astronomy. This likely bolstered its reception. For example, Entsū goes to great lengths to explain how, on a flat earth, the sunlight hours can vary seasonably, and how there are regions of the world that receive twenty-four hours of sunlight. See page X of this thesis. 192 Masahiko Okada, “Vision and Reality: Buddhist Cosmographic Discourse in Nineteenth- Century Japan” (dissertation, UMI Company, 1997), 47.

69 backdrop to the Buddhist soteriological journey. When the Accepter discards this backdrop, how does it affect Buddhist soteriology at large?193

Further, it could be argued that Vasubandhu’s world model invigorates Buddhist doctrine. For example, in Chapter One of this thesis we examined the

Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam’s description of Hell. There, we read about hell-beings sliced by swords, boiled in cauldrons, and eaten by dogs.194 In the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam,

Vasubandhu marries this unsavory description with its physical location (stacked under

Jambudvīpa). A Buddhist who believes that such a terrifying place exists may be especially compelled to study Buddhist teachings that lead towards a favorable rebirth.

However, the Accepter discards Vasubandhu’s model (including Hell). In doing so, does the Accepter demotivate the practitioner’s adherence/ study of doctrine?

The Upayer

The Upayer posits that the teaching of traditional Buddhist cosmography was an upāya. As a result, the Upayer occupies a rhetorical space between the Rejecter and the

Accepter. The Upayer is able to accept the European scientific world model, while also maintaining the omniscience of the Buddha. However, the Upayer’s position elicits a rhetorical frustration— can any teaching be deemed an upāya when it is proven false?

And, how is one to tell which teachings are upāyas and which are not?

193 We return to the metaphor of Snakes and Ladders from page 23 of this thesis. To review, the game board represents Vasubandhu’s world model and the game pieces represent world- inhabitants. And so, if the game board is discarded, how can the players continue to play? How does the nature of the game change once the board is discarded? 194 Louis De La Vallée Poussin, Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, trans. Leo M. Pruden, vol. 2 (Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988), 457-458.

Indeed, different Buddhist schools employ different schemes to distinguish between neyārtha (the provisional) and nītārtha (the definitive). Buswell and Lopez suggest two broad schemes:

1) Any statement by the Buddha that cannot be accepted literally is

provisional.

2) Any statement [by the Buddha] that does not describe the final nature of

reality is provisional. 195

Tibetan scholar Gendun Chopel (our Upayer) also cites the neyārtha-nītārtha dichotomy, acknowledging that different schools use different interpretations. Thus, he remains

“agnostic” with regard to distinguishing the provisional from the definitive.196 However, if he maintains a hermeneutic ambiguity towards the issue of traditional Buddhist cosmography, how can he label it as an upāya?

A FOURTH RESPONDENT?

Finally, I wish to briefly discuss a limitation of my three-respondent scheme.

Each of the Rejecter, Accepter, and Upayer’s positions are, in part, predicated on the

Buddha’s discussion of traditional cosmography. Indeed, by virtue of being respondents, they are responding to that fact. For example, it is the Buddha’s teaching of cosmography that motivates the Rejecter (Entsū) to reverently uphold the flat world model. Likewise, it is the Buddha’s teaching of cosmography that motivates the Upayer (Chopel) to cite it as

195 Donald S Lopez and Robert E Buswell, “neyārtha,” in The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), 579. 196 Donald S Lopez, Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 61.

71 an upāya. However, did the Buddha actually teach about cosmography? What evidence of this exists?

Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam seems to apply new detail to Buddhist cosmography. It details the dimensions of every hell, continent, sea, mountain, and heaven. Notably, however, it was written some eight hundred years after the Buddha’s death.

Over the course of my research I discovered many off-hand references to Mount

Meru made by the Buddha.197 These are the most common type of reference, and are periphery, indicating the significance, size, or distance of something/ someone.

Surprisingly, during my research I found only one instance where the Buddha describes

(in minor detail) Buddhist cosmography.198

And so, a fourth Buddhist respondent might emerge. This respondent would argue that the attribution of traditional cosmography to the Buddha is misguided. In other words, that the Buddha never taught about traditional cosmography. As a result, this respondent may dismiss the Crisis of Cosmography as being unrelated to the Buddha, and therefore unrelated to the core of Buddhism. Further, this Buddhist would rather focus on the Buddhist epistemological method than on questions of the material world. To the

Crisis of Cosmography, this respondent would say, so what?199

197 For example, the Gaddula Sūtra (Dog on Leash Simile). Here, the Buddha peripherally mentions Mount Meru as the ‘king of mountains’. See Bhikkhu Bodhi, tran., In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pāli Canon (Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2015), 39-40. 198 In the Seven Suns Episode from the Aṅguttara Nikāya (Numerical Discourses of the Buddha), while describing the cyclical destruction of the world, the Buddha details the dimensions of Mount Meru. See Bikkhu Bodhi, tran., The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Aṅguttara Nikāya (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2012), 1071. 199 And so, at the risk of flippancy, incorporating this fourth respondent into our scheme could leave us with: The Rejecter, the Accepter, the Upayer, and the Whatever.

Still, the heuristic scheme used in this thesis reveals that Buddhists of different times, in different locations, responded to a changing perception of their world. Almost invariably, that world was influenced by Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. The influence of traditional Buddhist cosmography is evidenced by Indonesia’s Borobudur,

Tibet’s pilgrimage to Mount Kailash, Sri Lanka’s Panadura debate, and Thailand’s royal crown. Indeed, there is an asymmetry to the limited scholarly exploration of traditional

Buddhist cosmography and its ubiquity throughout the Buddhist world. And so, a world of inquiry remains—one that is flat and centered by a giant mountain.

FIGURES

Figure 1 Elemental structure

Figure 2 Birds-eye view

Figure 3 Hot and cold hells

Figure 4 Meru and abodes of earth-dwelling deities

Sun hitting top of mountain before bottom (on spherical earth)

Entsū’s vertical sun paths demonstrating changing sunlight hours

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Charles. A Mountain in Tibet: The Search for Mount Kailas and the Sources of the Great Rivers of India. London: Futura Publications, 1982. Anacker, Stefan. Seven Works of Vasubandhu: The Buddhist Psychological Doctor. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986. Bangdel, Dina, and John Huntington. "Buddhist Cosmology: Environment of Meditative Transformation." In The Circle of Bliss: Buddhist Meditational Art, 66-69. Chicago, IL: Serindia Publications, 2003. Bapat, Lata. Abhidharmakośa: A Study with a New Perspective. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1994. Bikkhu Bodhi, trans. The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Complete Translation of the Anguttara Nikaya. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2012. Bond, George. The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka: Religious Tradition, Reinterpretation and Response. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988. Boxer, C.R. The Christian Century in Japan. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1951. Brockman, Norbert. “Mount Kailash, Tibet, China.” In Encyclopedia of Sacred Places, 355–57. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2011. Brockman, Norbert. “Mount Meru.” In Encyclopedia of Sacred Places, 359. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2011. Buddhaghosa, Bhadantācariya. Visuddhimagga: The Path of Purification. Translated by Bhikkhu āṇamoli. Buddhist Publication Society, 2010. Buswell, Robert E., and Donald S. Lopez. The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton University Press, 2014. Coleridge, Henry. The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier. London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, 1921. Dabphet, Siriporn. National University of Singapore, 2009. http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/16627. De La Vallée Poussin, Louis. Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam. Translated by Leo Pruden. Vol.2. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1988.

Eck, Diana. "Mountains." Encyclopedia of Religion. 2nd ed. Vol. 9. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 6212-215. Eitel, Ernest. Buddhism: Its Historical, Theoretical, and Popular Aspects in Three Lectures. 2nd ed. London: Trubner & Co., 1873. Ellis, Robert. “The Best Thus Far Discovered: The Japanese in the Letters of Francisco Xavier.” Hispanic Review 71, no. 2 (2003): 155–69. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3247185. Eliade, Mircea, and Jonathan Smith. The Myth of the Eternal Return. Translated by Willard Trask. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. Engelhardt, Isrun. Reflection in The Tibet Mirror: News of the World 1937-1946. International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies GmbH, 2007. Faure, Bernard. The Fluid Pantheon: Gods of Medieval Japan. Vol. 1. University of Hawaii Press, 2015. Gethin, Rupert. "Cosmology." Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 183-187. Gyatso, Tenzin. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. New York: Morgan Road Books, 2005. Gyatso, Tenzin. The Way to Freedom: Core Teachings of Tibetan Buddhism. The Library of Tibet, 1994. Hardy, Spence. A Manual of Buddhism in Its Modern Development. New Delhi: Aryan Books International, 1996. Hardy, Spence. The Sacred Books of the Buddhists Compared with History and Modern Science. Colombo: Wesleyan Mission Press, 1863. Harrer, Heinrich. Seven Years in Tibet. Translated by Richard Graves. London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1953. Huntington, Eric. Creating the Universe: Depictions of the Cosmos in Himalayan Buddhism. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 2019. James, Henry. The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier. London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1921. Johnson, Russell, and Kerry Moran. Tibet's Sacred Mountain: The Extraordinary Pilgrimage to Mount Kailas. Rochester: Park Street Press, 1999.

Ketelaar, James Edward. Of Heretics and Martyrs in Meiji Japan: Buddhism and Its Persecution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990. Kloetzli, Randy. Buddhist Cosmology: Science and Theology in the Images of Motion and Light. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983. Lopez, Donald S. Buddhism & Science: A Guide for the Perplexed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008. Lopez, Donald S. Buddhist Hermeneutics. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1988. Lopez, Donald S. The Madman's Middle Way: Reflections on Reality of the Tibetan Monk Gendun Chopel. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Mabbett, I. W. “The Symbolism of Mount Meru.” History of Religions 23, no. 1 (August 1983): 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1086/462936. McMahan, David. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Michel, Wolfgang. “On Japanese Imports of Optical Instruments during the Early Edo Period.” Annals of the History of Western Learning in Japan 12 (2003): 119–64. Miksic, John. Borobudur: Golden Tales of the Buddhas. Tokyo: Tokyo Tuttle Publishing, 1990. Mus, Paul. Barabuḍur: Sketch of a History of Buddhism Based on Archeological Criticism of the Texts. Translated by Alaxender Macdonald. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, 1998. Nakamoto, Tominaga. Emerging from Meditation. Translated by Micheal Pye. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1990. Okada, Masahiko. “Vision and Reality: Buddhist Cosmographic Discourse in Nineteenth- Century Japan.” Dissertation, UMI Company, 1997. Parati, Gianfranco, Juan Ochoa, Camilla Torlasco, Paolo Salvi, Carolina Lombardi, and Grzegorz Bilo. “Aging, High Altitude, and Blood Pressure: A Complex Relationship.” High Altitude Medicine & Biology 16, no. 2 (2015): 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1089/ham.2015.0010. Peebles, J.M. The Great Debate: Buddhism and Christianity Face to Face. Colombo: P. K. W. Siriwardhana, 1873.

Pradhan, Prahlad, ed. [1967] 1975. Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam of Vasubandhu. 2nd edition. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. Pruden, Leo M., trans., 1988. Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam, by Vasubandhu. From the French translation by Louis de la Vallée Poussin. Vol. 1, 2. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press. Quintman, Andrew. "Kailasa (Kailash)." Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 407-08. Sadakata, Akira. Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins. Translated by Gaynor Sekimori. Tokyo: Kōsei Publishing, 1999. Saeki, Kyokuga, ed. [1887] 1978. Kandō Abidatsuma kusharon, by Vasubandhu. Kyōto: Hōzōkan. Śāstrī, Dwārikā Dās, ed. 2008. The Abhidharmakośa and Bhāṣya of Ācārya Vasubandhu with Sphuṭārthā Commentary of Ācārya Yaśomitra. 2 vols. 2nd Edition. Varanasi: Bauddha Bhāratī. Sengar, Resham. “Mount Kailash Facts: Mindboggling Things You May Not Know about Lord Shiva's Home.” Times of India Travel. Times of India, November 8, 2019. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/travel/destinations/mount-kailash- factsmindboggling-things-you-may-not-know-about-lord- shivashome/as61220500.cms “Sensus Penduduk 2010.” Badan Pusat Statistik, 2010. https://sp2010.bps.go.id/index.php/site/tabel?tid=321&wid=0. Snelling, John, and Tenzin Gyatso. The Sacred Mountain: Travellers and Pilgrims at Mount Kailas in Western Tibet, and The Great Universal Symbol of The Sacred Mountain. 2nd ed. London: East-West Publications, 1990. Tachard, Guy. A Relation of the Voyage to Siam: Performed by Six Jesuits Sent by the French King, to the Indies and China in the Year 1685. Bangkok: Orchid Press, 2001. “Teaching ‘Stages of Meditation’ and ‘Thirty-Seven Practices of Bodhisattvas’ at Disket.” His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet. The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama, July 11, 2017. https://www.dalailama.com/news/2017/teaching- stages-of-meditation-and-thirty-seven-practices-of-bodhisattvas-at-disket/amp.

Teasdill, Wendy. Walking to the Mountain: A Pilgrimage to Tibet's Holy Mount Kailash. Hong Kong: Asia 2000 Limited, 1996. “Thailand's King Vajiralongkorn Crowned.” BBC News. BBC, May 4, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48101877. "The Mountain Messner will not Climb; Mountaineer Cancels Permit for Mount Kailash, Tibet." Times [London, England], August 15, 1985. Gale Academic Onefile. https://linkgalecom.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/apps/doc/A117964592/AONE?u=ucal gary&sid=AONE&xid=71f49962. “The Royal Regalia.” The Thai Monarchy. The Government Public Relations Department, n.d. https://www.thaimain.com/eng/monarchy/regalia.html. Thubron, Colin. To a Mountain in Tibet. London: Chatto & Windus, 2011. Tominaga, Nakamoto. Emerging from Meditation. Translated by Michael Pye. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1990. “Trisamayavyuharaja - Empowerment Related to Buddha Shakyamuni.” His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet. The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama, January 26, 2013. https://www.dalailama.com/news/2014/trisamayavyuharaja- empowerment-related-to-buddha-shakyamuni/amp. Tsutsui, William. A Companion to Japanese History. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. West, Julian. “Climber Calls off Ascent of Sacred Peak amid Protests.” The Telegraph, May 27, 2001. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/tibet/ 1331876/Climber-calls-off-ascent-of-sacred-peak-amid-protests.html. “Where Science and Religion Coexist.” His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet. The Office of His Holiness The Dalai Lama, January 26, 2013. https://www.dalailama.com/news/2013/where-science-and-religion-coexist/amp. Zajonc, Arthur. The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.