Pure Octad constituents

Yes. It is difficult to understand these concepts because we are used to evaluating everything based on the “laws of nature” we have learned from daily experiences and solidified by modern science. Modern science is based on the study of matter. It attempts to address consciousness (or life) as an emergent property, as I pointed out at the beginning of that post, “Buddhist Theory of Matter – Fundamentals.”

• Buddha taught that the fundamental nature is precisely the opposite. Mind is the precursor, and matter is an emergent property. See “Manōpubbangamā dhammā..”
• That is why the Buddha hesitated to even start teaching his “new-found Dhamma” because he realized it would not be easy. See, for example, “Brahmāyācana Sutta (SN 6.1).”

Also, clarifying some of these concepts may require asking questions. It is impossible to explain everything in a post where I focus on what I feel to be the optimum approach. However, some or even many people may not be able to understand that approach. So, keep asking questions, and I will do my best to explain.

• “Matter” (or at least the seeds of matter or suddhatthaka) is created by our thoughts, specifically javana citta with raga, dosa, and moha.

It is difficult to imagine how the mind can create “dense” matter. There are two factors to consider.

1. The matter is not as dense as we perceive (again, it is a “distorted sanna“); it is an illusion created by the mind. Our vision is restricted to a very narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum. You can do a Google search for “wavelength band in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum.”

• Any material object is made of atoms. An atom is mostly empty. The nucleus at the center is contains most of the mass and the “electron cloud” around (with very little mass) takes most of the volume. If the atom is of the size of a stadium, the nucleus can be compared to a grain of sand in the middle of the stadium.

• However, our eyes utilize a small wavelength range (which encompasses relatively long wavelengths compared to the size of an atom), so we cannot discern that fact.

2. Kammic energies created by a mind are tiny. Yet, it is the seed of the matter.

• We can consider the following analogy: A mighty oak tree originates in a tiny seed. That oak tree cannot exist without a seed, which germinates and extracts all that mass from the soil! 
• Think about how complex that process is, i.e., oak seed giving rise to an oak tree!
  

• The video does not show the latter stages of growing into a giant oak tree over many years.
• As we can see, all necessary “materials for the tree” come from the soil. The seed only has the blueprint for the tree!
• The same is true for a gandhabba getting into a womb and giving rise to a full-grown human! That gandhabba has the blueprint for the body, even though the DNA of the mother and father also contributes. All the “mass/weight” of a human comes from food.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Amin, pathfinder, taryal

Pure octads (suddhatthaka) are made in two ways:

1. Some  are released to the external world as made by the mind. This contributes to the “aura” that surrounds our bodies.  

2. The rest of kammic energy created by javana cittas does not reach the suddhatthaka stage and accumulates in vinnana dhatu as dhammā. See “What are rūpa? – Dhamma are rūpa too!” 

• Those accumulated dhammās (discussed in the link above) generate suddhatthaka needed to make hadaya vatthu and pasada rupa for a new existence at  cuti-patisandhi moments.

__________

Those two types of kammic energies are discussed only in Abhidhamma. The first category is sahajātā (in the present life), and the second is nānākkhaṇikā (for rebirth). 

• I have discussed that briefly in “Two Types of Kamma Viññāṇa.” See #1 and Ref.1 there.
• Understanding the details is not necessary, but it may help some to grasp the basic ideas involved.

__________

The creation of kammic energy in javana cittas is discussed in “Javana of a Citta – The Root of Mental Power.”

• Buddha Dhamma is fully self-consistent. However, it takes an effort to probe to such deep levels. One can go deeper as needed, and I am finding new things regularly. But if one can develop enough saddha (faith based on one’s understanding) to proceed with the practice, it is unnecessary to probe deeper. Too many details can disturb a mind (or even a waste of time.) It depends on the person.
• My problem is that without presenting the basic framework, it is not possible to “connect the dots.” But then details like this pop up, and I need to go into details. 

Interesting video on scientific worldview:

I can’t entirely agree with everything he says, but I agree with many of his points, especially about the “Big Bang” and the mind (that brain is not the mind).

Yes. Now, we are getting to the “heart of the issue.”

• I planned to write such a post in a week or two, but I will try to write a draft and post it in a day or two.
• In the meantime, those interested should read up on the posts I referred to in my comment above on October 9, 2024, at 6:34 am.
• This is “previously unheard Dhamma,” as the Buddha stated repeatedly. Not easy to understand, mainly because we are primed to think in mundane ways with saññā vipallāsa. Also, read “Cognition Modes – Sañjānāti, Vijānāti, Pajānāti, Abhijānāti.”

P.S. Don’t hesitate to ask questions on those posts.

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

1. I started thinking about what I wrote above. It may not be possible to write a post like that immediately. A bit more background is necessary.

• We are discussing an issue at the heart of Buddha’s teachings. 
• It may not be possible with even a couple of posts. This is about trying to explain the complex world with a brand-new approach.
• Imagine someone trying to explain nuclear physics with a few lectures or posts. That requires learning the background material first.

2. I have learned Abhidhamma from my school days. I think Seng Kiat has done the same. I don’t know of anyone else with such a background on this forum. There could be none. If anyone has such a background, I would appreciate knowing who it is and their opinions on these recent posts on suddhatthaka and also saññā vipallāsa.

• It is good to get feedback from those who are at least familiar with Abhidhamma.

3. For others, I recommend reading through the posts I suggested above. Seng Kiat has also provided a helpful reference (I have not read that). I offered a couple more in “Abhidhamma – Introduction.”

• Reading the “Abhidhamma” section could be a helpful first step.

4. However, it is a good idea to continue this discussion by asking specific questions about the posts I referred to or other suggested references. 

• Those questions should not be on the endpoint (e.g., how the “sweetness of sugar” gets embedded in sugar).
• That requires a lengthy explanation, which can be given only to someone familiar with the basic concepts of Abhidhamma.
• Many of my old posts assumed that background, and I now realize that many people found them too difficult to comprehend.

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

I decided to start explaining saññā vipallāsa (or “distorted/false saññā” ) from another perspective in a series of posts. Hopefully, that would help convey the basic idea before we use an Abhidhamma analysis to get into details.

• That should help explain the connection to suddhāṭṭhaka (pure octad) formation, giving rise to a “distorted/false saññā” of a sweet taste in honey or sugar, for example.
• The first post on that series was posted today: “Attaining Nibbāna Requires Understanding Buddha’s Worldview.”

1 user thanked author for this post.

dosakkhayo

I would like to share my understanding of this topic.

If there are any mistakes, I would be grateful if you could kindly point them out.

Buddhist Theory of Matter – Fundamentals

#9 third bullet

The collective accumulation of suddhāṭṭhaka created by all living beings leads to the sustenance of the “external world.”

I understand the above statements as follows:

1. There is no beginning to ‘samsara.’
2. Therefore, there is always ‘pre-existing matter.’
3. To this pre-existing matter, additional minute quantities of suddhatthaka are continuously and collectively added.
4. Of course, the pre-existing matter was added in the same manner as described in point 3 at some point in the past.

Dosakkhayo’s description is not quite right.

• I suggest carefully reading the post “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27).”
• I just revised it to address some of those points and made some revisions, too.  

For example, it is incorrect to say the following.  “2. Therefore, there is always ‘pre-existing matter.’”

• All dense matter will be destroyed when the Solar system and Earth are destroyed. The re-formation of the Solar system occurs over many billions of years. That has origins in suddhāṭṭhaka formation by an uncountable number of Brahmas in the Ābhassara Brahma realm over billions of years.

Please feel free to ask questions. It is impossible to cover this complex subject in a single post.

1 user thanked author for this post.

dosakkhayo

The critical point is that suddhāṭṭhaka formation takes place in minds!

• Anything created by the mind cannot last forever. The lifetime of a set of suddhāṭṭhaka depends on the level of raga, dosa, and moha involved in the mind.
• Thus, a set of suddhāṭṭhaka created by a human while hitting/killing another human arises with dosa and moha. They will bring harsh outcomes, but those outcomes will deplete their energy relatively quickly. In contrast, a human cultivating a jhana seeking birth in a Brahma realm is mainly associated with rupa raga and moha. They bring results that are much less stressful and also last longer.
• Dosa brings the most suffering; kama raga, rupa raga, and arupa raga are less potent in that order. Of course, moha is associated with decreasing levels there, too. Dosa causes fires and other punishments in niraya (hell), the environment that a hell-being is subjected to. Kama loka, rupa loka, and arupa loka have decreasing levels of suffering. 
• Thus, both sensory faculties for a given existence and the environment in that existence are created by the mental energy in javana cittas. That is one version of the “previously unheard teachings of a Buddha.” 

A post discusses this to some extent: “Ye Dhammā Hetuppabhavā.. and Yam Kiñci Samudaya Dhammam..“

• More relevant posts: “Search Results for: dhammā hetuppabhavā“
• This is a deep subject and may not be suitable/understandable for those without sufficient background.

1 user thanked author for this post.

dosakkhayo

Trying to link to what we already know, the sun is created by hydrogen atoms (possibly from other supernovas) being attracted and increasing in mass which attracts more hydrogen atoms. This means that not much was neccessary at the beginning to create something so huge like the sun! Likewise for Earth and everything else, it starts from tiny to big.

The creation of matter is also quite possible. There are arahants who could create multiple copies of themselves. That means that a simple thing like hydrogen would be possible, which the brahmas could have created with strong javanna power.

I have several questions:

1. Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)
   • 2(ii) – The universe is made of an uncountable number of “dasa sa­has­si loka dhātu” (clusters or groups of star systems like our Solar system). Our Solar system is one of 10,000 “star systems” (cakkavāla or planetary systems; chakrawāta in Sinhala) in our “loka dhātu“. 
   • Is each galaxy a “loka dhātu“? For example, we have discovered around 4000 solar systems in our milky way.
2. In the Aggaññasutta, it is said that the Earth’s nectar appears, followed by the sun and moon. Does this mean that the Earth was created first? Is it because the ‘Earth’ as we know back then is different from ‘Earth’ as we know now, it could have been much less dense which scientists don’t consider ‘Earth’?
3. If things are created by thought, why are there seemingly uneccessary matter, like other planets? For example Jupiter is 1300 times the volume of the Earth, but I would guess that the craving for Earth would be much less than the craving for Jupiter. Is the size irrelevant to the desire? If I were to rationalise it, it would be that the desire for bean sprout is the same as a desire for a tree, but both would lead to different sizes.
4. How can we link this world view to our current findings? For example, we know that the universe expanded by looking at cosmic background radiation. Does that mean that all the cakkavāla were ‘squeezed’ together into a small space after they were destroyed, which then expanded to what we know as the big bang? Or could it be that the interpretations in cosmic background radiation is wrong?
5. In physics we learn that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Does this contradict what we have, which is that energy is created from the javanna cittas, which can create matter?

It seems that Dosakkhayo and Pathfinder are deeply thinking about this issue. Of course, Taryal started this discussion with a similar mindset and curiosity. 

• These are all good questions. As a physicist, these questions also came up when I started learning Dhamma seriously after retirement. 
• It is probably time to write a sequence to the post on the Agganna sutta, which I revised a couple of days ago:  “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27).”
• I will write a draft and post it here first. It may take a day or two.
• However, a critical point to remember is that all these questions are based on our “mundane knowledge base,” primarily on (i) modern science and (ii) our own sensory experiences (“sañjānāti and vijānāti“). It helps to do an overview of how the predictions of the Buddha have compared to those of science over the years. Science has discarded several earlier “theories” over time to be compatible with Buddha’s teachings. It is a good idea to read “Dhamma and Science – Introduction” and “Cognition Modes – Sañjānāti, Vijānāti, Pajānāti, Abhijānāti” about those two issues. Buddha’s teachings are based on a completely different worldview (pajānāti and abhijānāti.)
• If anyone has other questions on the subject, please feel free to ask. I can also try to address those.

3 users thanked author for this post.

taryal, dosakkhayo, pathfinder

The following draft is an introduction to the Aggañña Sutta. It should appear before the previous post. I will write another post to be the third post on the Aggañña Sutta. Such a three-part series should provide enough information. Please free to ask questions. I hope to post the final version as a regular post over the weekend.

Aggañña Sutta Discussion – Introduction

Introduction

1. In a previous post, “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27),” I discussed the salient aspects of Buddha’s explanation of our physical universe. That post raises many questions in the minds of those who read it for the first time because Buddha’s answer is drastically different from the picture proposed by modern science.

• Modern science’s current theory is that the universe started with a “Big Bang” out of nothing about 15 billion years ago, i.e., the universe did not exist before that.
• In contrast, the Buddha taught that each of us is going through a rebirth process with “no discernible beginning,” i.e., the universe has existed forever!
• Those are two very different “worldviews.”  

2. In the “Aggañña Sutta (DN 270)” the Buddha explained that the universe is not static, i.e., it does not remain the same over time. He taught that Earth — with its Sun and other planets — (called a cakkavāla) is one of the uncountable such systems in the universe.

• A cluster of 10,000 such cakkavāla constitutes a “loka dhātu,” and there could be an uncountable number of them in the universe.
• Such a “loka dhātu” undergoes a cyclic process of destruction and re-formation over billions of years, i.e., it is destroyed and then re-formed over many billions of years. However, only a few are in the “destruction phase” at a given time. 
• Every year, scientists observe a few such destructions with their telescopes. There must also be a few “re-formations,” but scientists cannot observe them. All scientific observations of the universe are based on detecting light emitted by the stars. For example, the destruction of a “loka dhātu” is due to the “blowing-up” of a star in that cluster, and scientists can easily observe that intense light from such a supernova explosion. 
• However, there is no available mechanism to observe re-formation of a cakkavāla, which happens over billions of years (as pointed in “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27).”)

3. Even though the “dense matter” (including the human realm) in all of those 10,000 cakkavāla disappear (destroyed), the living beings in them survive in higher-lying realms that are not destroyed. Thus, “destruction” means only the destruction of the “realms of living beings with dense bodies,” and living beings there would have moved up to higher “less-dense realms” (at or above the Ābhassara Brahma realm) well before the destruction takes place.

• All cakkavāla in a loka dhātu remain in that state for billions of years. Toward the latter half of that phase, all those Brahmas start “missing their sensual pleasures” they enjoyed while in the lower dense realms. Their desire to go back to such a way of living creates suddhāṭṭhaka (the fundamental particle in Buddha Dhamma; see below) in abundance; the accumulation of them over billions of years lead to the re-formation of the Sun, Earth, and other planets (cakkavāla.) It happens to all cakkavāla in that loka dhātu.
• When each cakkavāla is re-formed, those lower-lying realms are re-populated over billions of years. See the introduction in “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)” for details.
• A critical point is that only a tiny fraction of the universe is destroyed periodically, not the whole universe.

Scientific Theories about the Universe Have Evolved

4. Even a few hundred years ago, scientists (or, more accurately, philosophers and religions, because no actual science existed before Galileo’s generation) believed our Earth was at the center of the universe: “Geocentric model.” They thought “Gods” resided in the “heavenly sphere” with the stars above the Earth.

• Only after Galileo invented the telescope (in the late 1500s) did true science emerge, and it was realized that the Earth (and other planets) orbited around the Sun. Even as recently as at the beginning of the 1900s, Lord Kelvin (one of the top scientists of the day) estimated that the age of the Sun was less than 40 million years. Our knowledge of the universe was also pretty much limited to the Solar system. So, this meant the age of our “known universe” was very short.
• Thus, the Buddha’s teachings on a universe filled with an uncountable number of cakkavāla going through a cyclic “destruction/re-formation” process lasting billions of years seemed preposterous even in the year 1900!
• Vindication of the Buddha’s teachings started in the 1900s with the advent of quantum mechanics and relativity. Becquerel’s Discovery of radioactivity in 1898 and Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905 led to the quantum theory of atomic structure. That, in turn, led to the correct picture of nuclear fusion as the source of solar energy.
• By 1956, the solar system’s age was more than 4 billion years, and the universe’s age was estimated to be around 14 billion years. Yet, even billions of years are hardly the same as “beginning-less time”!

5. Then, scientists discovered that our Solar system was just one of billions of such “star systems” in the Milky Way galaxy and that there were other such galaxies in the universe. 

• By 1929, Edwin Hubble proved that distant galaxies were moving away from each other and that our galaxy was but one of many galaxies. That was a vast understatement since now we know that there are well over 100 billion galaxies in our observable universe!
• So, the “scientific view” of the universe is much closer to the Buddha’s worldview now regarding its vastness (the uncountable number of stars) and the basic structure of planets around each star (cakkavāla). Therefore, it is clear that, at least in that respect, science has gradually proved the validity of Buddha’s explanations about the universe. 
• The remaining significant difference is regarding the universe’s age, as discussed in #1 above. Scientists say the universe was “born out of nothing” about 15 billion years ago. The Buddha taught that only tiny sections (loka dhātu with 10,000 cakkavāla) go through a cyclic “destruction/re-formation” process over many billions of years and that there is no traceable beginning to that process.  

The Immensity of the Universe

6. At this point, it is worthwhile to pause and consider how incredible it is that a single human could “see” the universe’s structure using only his mind 2600 years ago. It took 400 years for modern science to reach this level of understanding after 400 years of effort by many generations of scientists. 

• The following is a high-resolution image of our Milky Way galaxy. We can see only a couple of thousand stars with our naked eyes, as indicated by the “red dot” in the image. But there are hundreds of BILLIONS of stars in our galaxy. Furthermore, there are about an equal number of GALAXIES in our universe. Thus, there is a whole galaxy for each star in our galaxy. It is truly mind-boggling.

• Even a few hundred years ago, it was believed our Earth was at the center of the universe; see #4 above.
• Therefore, Buddha’s view of the universe as consisting of innumerable “world systems” was not looked at favorably even a few hundred years ago. Of course, that has changed now.

Our “Mundane Knowledge Base”

7. Humans have developed many “theories” or “views” about the world. Those who focus on this issue fall into two categories: scientists and philosophers. 

• Both scientists and philosophers come to conclusions based on their observations of the external world, i.e., their sensory experiences.
• However, our sensory experiences are limited. In particular, we can “see” the world only through a narrow wavelength range, and even then, we can see only a limited distance.
• As we discussed above, Galileo’s discovery of the telescope enhanced that capability, i.e., our sensory experience. Subsequently, scientists have improved their ability to see through vast distances in space. 
• The image in #6 above provides a good visualization of this capability. Even though all our telescopes are within the “red dot,” we can deduce details of the structures of galaxies even outside our galaxy! 

Limitations of Scientific Techniques 

8. However, we should not be fooled into thinking that those measurements provide the “whole picture.” 

• As I mentioned above, all those images are based on light emitted by stars! 
• We (I mean the scientists) can only indirectly infer things about planets around other stars. For example, they deduce the number of plants around a star by monitoring the shadow cast on that star’s light by the movements of those planets. Incredibly, they have enough precision in their measurements to accomplish that.
• However, scientists are genuinely blind to whether there is life on those planets! Biological activities do not generate light.

9. Some say we should be able to detect emissions (light or radio signals) from highly advanced living beings on some of those faraway planets. Would that be possible?

• The closest star (cakkavāla) in our loka dhātu is about four light years away (and thousands of such stars are within the “red dot” in the image above!
• That means a rocket ship traveling at the speed of light will take four years to reach the closest star. For comparison, the distance from the Earth to our Moon would take only 1.25 SECONDS. Therefore, a rocket ship traveling at the speed of light will take only 1.25 SECONDS to arrive at the Moon! But our rocketships take about three days to get to the Moon. Therefore, a modern rocketship would take about 800 thousand years (depending on the speed attained in interstellar space) to reach the NEAREST star. See “Pāṭihāriya (Supernormal Abilities) of a Buddha – Part I.”
• No matter how intense a light beam (like a laser), it will fade away at distances of the order of light years. Scientists can monitor only light from stars at such distances, and no artificial light source can match a star.

The Universe Is Unfathomably Enormous and Complex

10. Even the “range of a Buddha” is limited to a loka dhātu with 10,000 cakkavāla. 

• Since the Milky Way galaxy has roughly 100 billion stars, it contains 100 million loka dhātu!
• This is why the Buddha admonished us not to probe the details of the universe. It is an impossible task, and it will consume precious time that could be used to reach the end of suffering!

11. From the Acinteyya Sutta (AN 4.77):

“There are four things that are not to be conjectured about, which could make one go mad (become a mental patient). Which four?

(i). “Buddha’s knowledge is unconjecturable and not to be conjectured about.
(ii). The details of jhāna (including kinds of supernormal powers that one can attain).
(iii). The precise workings of the results of kamma, i.e., kamma vipāka.
(iv). Origins/details about the external world, i.e., the universe.”

• These are the four incomprehensible things that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness and confusion to anyone who tries to find everything about them.

Basic Knowledge Necessary to “End the Suffering”

12. However, getting SOME IDEA about the broader world of 31 realms is good. No single sutta or a chapter on Abhidhamma is focused on that.

• I have collected bits and pieces of information in many places in the Tipiṭaka and tried to form a crude picture. We will never be able to go into fine details. Even if the Buddha wanted to, he would not have been able to provide such a vast amount of information. People kept asking him questions about the universe, and in most cases, he refused. Agganna Sutta is an exception.
• He said he does not want people to get distracted from the main goal: to end future suffering in the rebirth process.
• I will discuss some critical issues relevant to understanding the fundamental principles of Buddha’s teachings in the next post, “Aggañña Sutta Discussion – Part 2.”

4 users thanked author for this post.

jennydo, dosakkhayo, pathfinder, taryal

Yes. That was not quite correctly worded. I will think about how to revise that. They start remembering “getting together and enjoying the company of others.”

• It is not the same as the desire for sensory pleasures or kama raga.
• The desire for sensory pleasures comes gradually after they are reborn on the newly-formed Earth.

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

Lal: All scientific observations of the universe are based on detecting light emitted by the stars.

This is my understanding of how scientists could misinterpret the results of the Big Bang theory. Here are its main arguments and evidence supporting the theory:

1. Cosmic Expanion: They discovered a ‘redshift’ phenomenon where light coming from further away has a higher wavelength. From this, they can measure and figure out that galaxies are moving further and further away.
   1. Scientific Interpretation: If the universe is expanding, there must be a point where the universe is infinitely small. From the furthest star they can see, they calculate the age of the universe to be 14 billion years.
   2. Dhamma view: It doesn’t need to be infinitely small, but it could just be expanding from a beginningless time. The current age is only by the furthest star we can see, but it does not confirm that there are no stars beyond that
2. Abundance of Elements: The theory predicts that there should have been a lot of hydrogen compressed at the start of the Big Bang, which gave rise to other elements. The current measured ratio of elements in the universe matches the expected ratio from the theory. 
   1. Scientific Interpretation: Since observations match theory, theory should be true
   2. Dhamma view: (not sure)
3. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation: In the 1960’s, using a radiotelescope, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a background radio emission coming from every direction in the sky, day or night.
   1. Scientific Interpretation: This was consistent with the Big Bang Theory, which predicted that after the Big Bang, there would have been a release of radiation, which then expanded billions of light years in all directions and cooled to the point that it shifted to invisible, microwave radiation.
   2. Dhamma view: The CMB could have come from other sources

It could also be possible that the dhamma fits big bang theory, where the loka dhātu squeezed together at the start (at the singularity), since they were less dense. Then, this would fit the ‘Big Bounce’ model where the universe constantly expands and contracts.

I have only a limited background understanding of the Big Bang theory, so please correct me if I am wrong!

1. There is a danger in reconciling scientific measurements with Buddha’s teachings. 

• The main problem is with the assumption of a “Big Bang.” It does not make sense that all this “stuff” came into existence in one moment. It is a good idea to contemplate the immensity of the universe using the image of our Milky Way galaxy in #6 of the draft I posted above. There are billions of such galaxies in the universe.

2. If we accept that all matter has been created somehow in a ‘Big Bang,” what is the origin of matter (in an uncountable number of stars in all those galaxies)?

• Scientists have no clear explanation for this. They say they can calculate the universe’s evolution from a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, but physics cannot explain what happened before that moment.
• Of course, the “Big Bang Theory” has not yet been fully confirmed, even though most scientists believe it.
• Still, some scientists do not believe everything “popped up” suddenly in the Big Bang.  See, for example, “Endless Universe – Beyond the Big Bang” by P. J. Steinhardt and N. Turok (2007).
• By the way, English astronomer Fred Hoyle coined the term “Big Bang” to ridicule the concept. See “Fred Hoyle – Rejection of the Big Bang.”

3. Scientists are willing to discard their theories based on new evidence contradicting any given theory.

• I think the breaking point of the “Big Bang Theory” will be the discovery of stars or galaxies older than the supposed “age of the universe of 15 billion years.”
• Better telescopes can probe deeper into space. They are already finding some old stars born very close to the “Big Bang.”  Once they find even a single star older than 15 billion years, that would be the end of the theory. The only problem is that most stars blow up in supernova events as they age. I have not looked into it, but that may prevent a star from being older than 15 billion years. That may avoid the negation of the “Big Bang Theory.” That would be very unfortunate. 

4. The Buddha looked at the world from a different point of view. He was focused on the issue of suffering and realized that the principle of cause and effect naturally leads to the existence of a beginning-less rebirth process.

• Focusing on the behavior of inert matter (as scientists have) can lead to many technological advances. However, that does not accomplish anything regarding the issue of suffering. We can reap the benefits of technological advances as long as we live. If one is reborn as an animal after death, what good is that? We need to focus on the issue of suffering in the long term, not just while we are living this brief life as a human.
• The following old post discussed that point to some extent, “Complexity of Life and the Way to Seek “Good Rebirths.”
• Ancient yogis realized this problem and tried for rebirths in Brahma realms by cultivating jhanas. But the Buddha realized that it was also a “temporary solution.” Until the causes for the continuation of the rebirth process (raga, dosa, moha) are eliminated, suffering will not stop in the long run.

• This reply was modified 4 days ago by Lal.

2 users thanked author for this post.

taryal, pathfinder

I looked into the question 1 from Pathfinder on Cosmic Expansion:

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

Wonderful! We can see how scientific measurements can go wrong, so the theories developed from them should not be taken as the absolute truth. Thus when we say ‘this teaching contradics science’, we should see how science arrived at these conclusions in the first place, most of the time there are plenty of room for other possibilities.

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal