- This topic has 47 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
In Prof Stephen Hawking’s multiverse finale
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43976977“As physicists analysed the idea it emerged that it carried with it the implication that the Big Bang would create not just one universe – but an endless supply.
Some, according to the Hartle-Hawking theory, would be very like our own, perhaps have Earth-like planets, societies, even individuals similar to the ones in our Universe.
Other universes would be subtly different – perhaps with Earth-like planets where dinosaurs were not wiped out. And there would be universes completely unlike our own, with no Earths, perhaps no stars and galaxies and different laws of physics.”- In case of different laws of physys then Dhamma should be also different ? if so can Dhamma regard as subject to change ?
- If big bang consider as birth of universe then it must have death moment (sankhata), so universe also have birth/rebirth cyclic, in human cyclic gandhabba will change according to one’s kamma (annica). As for universe can physics law change in the next birth ?
Uyap
-
Hello Uyap
My bit as regards this topic:
Keep in mind that a scientist, even one considered ‘great’, discovers bit by bit. And sometimes theories have to be modified or even abandoned altogether. (Doubts have recently arisen about the Big Bang itself) Also,the ‘overall view’ or world view is not complete, it cannot be, because these are people working for the most part each in their own field.
The story of the Raj and the blind men saying that what was in fact an elephant was this or that or the other depending on which part of the elephant’s body each touched is very apt. The Buddhas SEE the whole of Reality as it is. Science discovers it bit by bit, by trial and error, observation and experimention to the best that the means of the times permit.
I myself had given a lot of thought about what you are saying, infinite universes in Infinity, whether some of us have lived on other planets other than this one…and so on. The point is, unless one KNOWS there will be no end to the endless cycle of reasoming, speculation, conjecture etc. But, ask yourself, to what purpose? What benefit to yourself and others ultimately?
The Buddhas reveal that which is necessary for us to know and to apply in order to free ourselves from suffering. There must be much much more that They know and did not reveal becuase all that, although true and part of Reality as well, will only serve as an obstruction, in the sense of it being a distraction from the IMPERATIVE task we are being called to here.
y not
-
-
@Y not :”Doubts have recently arisen about the Big Bang itself”
True, thus the Big Bang “simply” as an effect of a cause…and so on.
Which reminds me the Deathless/the Unborn that is the highest Nibanna, which theoretically would be not an acausal Being but a an acausal Knowing.
For He knew that an acausal Being would be the supreme clinging,which would make “not clinging to nothing” even more difficult.
-
Embodied:
Lal says somewhere that clinging is of two types: the normal one for sense pleasures etc. and Nibbana (of course these are my own words).
The release from the first is difficult enough. I know for myself that I cannot even expect to aim for the Highest yet, for I am stuck somewhere in the beginning, at some stage in the beginning, and I can even say why. So I am taking it in stages, not even focusing on attaining Nibbana yet.
Do not influence yourself too much by that however – YOU aim for the Highest if you feel you are up to it.
y not
-
-
Uyap:
The Buddhas do not find the Dhamma out of curiosity. They had been ‘at it’,so to speak, for many aeons. Even Lal here must have done that for at least a number of lives before this one, otherwise how does it come about that he is so prepared to broadcast It now? And the ‘original spark’ cannot fall under curiosity either, for that spark must have arisen from the urge to know what is necessary to be known.
My advice is try to control the sense of curiosity; some questions we ask or even think through in our minds come under the wider sense of frivolous talk ( or frivolous thought, in this case, which leads to frivolous talk). That is why those who know do not even answer questions that spring from mere curiosity: it is a sheer waste of time for both of them.
Metta
y not
-
yes, you’re right.
If you don’t want to waste time to nibbana, may be this little formula help :
whenever sensation arise from 6 indria, you mindfully terminate it before perception arise, with that if you can terminate 100% then dukha/tanha will never take place.
“Hold the butterfly wing, then no more futher effect”
Uyap.
-
think of following simile :
once upon a time, one bird egg hatch and this little chick thru whole it’s life is doctrine with fish doctrine ie. how to live as fish, when the moment come this little chick because of hv strong fully faith practice to swim & dive, then of course this it cost little chick lives.for fish, flying is useless skill and waste of time to learn, for bird diving and live under water is as well useless and waste of time.
think of what will happen if there is a being in other universe that hv totally different set of nature law with our’s and practicing our dhamma ?
Just a little food of thought…
May I and all being in all universe free from suffering and attain arahat and nibbana….
Uyap
-
-
-
I’m sorry if this post waste anyone time, I don’t hv any of such intention at all. I thought it was this “Dhamma & Science” section create for, and try to participate. I’m sure it will last only after several posts not even days or weeks.
Y not, sorry to make you waste your time, you don’t hv to.
Uyap
-
-
Uyap:
No, no….you are not wasting my time. Not at all. My time is after all not a bit as prescious as that of some others on here.
I can sense that your intention is ‘to learn more from Lal whose has rare to find, blend of profound knowledge both science and dharma’ You do well. It is just that at times we are led away from our goal by our own thinking.
What I meant most of all is that one should pass thoughts as they arise through the first filter and then see whether the subject contemplated is worth any effort in pursuing; if so, how much of your time does it deserve. That is all.
Metta
y not
-
“It is just that at times we are led away from our goal by our own thinking”
Yes, It also happened to me many times. I’m keep practicing to mindfully filtering new thought when not sure then better discard it rather than become wrong perception that trigger wrong action end up with bad karma.
Don’t rush, slow down.Uyap
-
-
Embodied:
Yes I understood what you meant alright: if Nibbana WERE a causeless Being then people would cling to it all the more – as adherents of the world’s monotheistic religions cling to ‘God the Almighty’; and if it were so, where is the possibility of abandoning clinging? It would actually be re-enforced, if anything
My bringing in ‘the Highest’ (in the sentence in which I did) was to show that It would result only after having first battled against and abandoned clinging.
It seems to me we are at one about this, in spite of our different ways of putting it forward.
Metta
y not
-
-
-
Your “Karmic fuel” will disappear only through the overcoming of Asava.
-
-
-
-
-
@Johnny,
Réf. Einstein words on Buddhism
Globally: yes. But tell me, as for his “spiritual”: where is the Spirit in Buddha Dhamma ? For Spirit is by definition “eternal” THUS not compound…
P.S. – that said i’m not doing the apology of the existence of something that would be eternal, not-compound & whose condition would be totally nicca, may such thing exist or not…
-
-
Sorry about the delay in replying. I am going to be somewhat busy for next several days. But I like to set the background with the following post:
“Buddha Dhamma: Non-Perceivability and Self-Consistency“.I am not sure how many if you have read it. What that post tries to say is that modern science is still at the very early stage compared to Buddha Dhamma. I will expand on that.
I also want to point out the following which is not really related to this topic, but important, regarding a statement made above.
Y not said: “Lal says somewhere that clinging is of two types: the normal one for sense pleasures etc. and Nibbana (of course these are my own words).”
This is not really correct. One’s desire to attain Nibbana is not called clinging. The Pali word is “chanda” and specifically chanda iddhipada; even the word “desire” may have a sensual connotation.
– But it is tanha which probably should translated as clinging. You may have the correct understanding, but if you use the word “clinging” that seems to imply attachment to something in this world.
– This is why it is better to understand key Pali words and use those even in English sentences whenever possible. We just want to make sure to convey the idea. -
sometimes, we have to bend our faith to find deeper truth…
Gotama did that too ! :)
https://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Udaka_Ramaputta
“This doctrine does not lead to aversion, to absence of passion nor to quiescence for gaining knowledge, supreme wisdom and nibbāna , but only as far as the realm of Neither Perception nor Non-perception. Once there, a long life of 84,000 world cycles is enjoyed only to come back again to the existence of sensual pleasures and be subjected to much suffering. This is not the doctrine of the Undying that I long for.”
Uyap
-
@Uyap said… “this doctrine doesn’t lead to aversion” ?!?!?! There’s a mistake here…
As for Udaka yes the Buddha practiced dhyana under his guidance having surpassed him in terms of absorption.
-
-
Lal:
Yes ,that is exactly how it is. The appropriate word (chanda) did not surface at the time, so I tried to make good for that by adding the phrase in brackets that followed.
I often have to look up again the difference in meaning between related Pali words. Using English instead is my way of by-passing that when too absorbed in typing, the sole aim being to get my idea across. But of course, that will not do really,because, as you have observed and pointed out, chances are that what is stated will be,strictly-speaking, simply INCORRECT.
I will make an effort to follow your advice.
Thank you
-
Uyap quoted from an article: ““As physicists analysed the idea it emerged that it carried with it the implication that the Big Bang would create not just one universe – but an endless supply.
Some, according to the Hartle-Hawking theory, would be very like our own, perhaps have Earth-like planets, societies, even individuals similar to the ones in our Universe.
Other universes would be subtly different – perhaps with Earth-like planets where dinosaurs were not wiped out. And there would be universes completely unlike our own, with no Earths, perhaps no stars and galaxies and different laws of physics.”These are all speculations, which are called theories. A theory is not accepted until it is confirmed by observations/experiments. That is very hard to do in Cosmology. Of course, there are indirect ways to confirm theories, but none is there right now to confirm any of this.
Human mind is naturally curious. We want to know everything, especially regarding this wondrous place called universe. It is mind-boggling, but exciting at the same time. I used to spend a lot of time reading science fictions as well as speculations about the origins of the universe, etc.
Let me start with a couple of stories from the Tipitaka that really settled the issue for me. One time, Ven. Moggallana, who was only second to the Buddha in psychic (abhinna) powers, wanted to explore the universe and see for himself how far he could go. He got lost! Buddha had to come to his rescue. I don’t remember the name of Tipitaka reference. It would be great if someone can post it.
– So, if Ven. Moggalana was curious about these things, even after becoming a chief disciple, it is not a surprise that most humans are curious.Then there is the account about a yogi, Rohitassa, who developed abhinna powers. He wanted to see the end of the world and took off looking for it, got lost and died. He was reborn a deva, came to see the Buddha and told the Buddha about his quest; see, “Rohitassa Sutta: To Rohitassa“.
Looking at the issue from another angle, let us think about Einstein. Of course, he made great discoveries. But he died a very discouraged person. Last several decades of his life, he did not make any new discoveries. He was obsessed with formulating a Grand Unified Theory that could explain all phenomena. He was unable to do that and died still trying.
– Even though I am grateful to him for all his discoveries, he did not accomplish very much in stopping future suffering. Even though he made some remarks about Buddhism based on incomplete and inaccurate information available at that time, he was not ever exposed to the main message of the Buddha.From the viewpoint of the Buddha, Einstein could have spent his life pursuing the Sotapanna stage (if he was exposed to true and pure Dhamma), and could have attained the Sotapanna stage.
– From this viewpoint, he would have been free of an unimaginable level of suffering. He may have been reborn a human (if he had kammic energy for the human bhava left), and now he would start all over with nothing to show for his accomplishments as “Einstein” in the previous life.Another key point is that these theories on a multiverse (innumerable universes, not Solar systems but whole universe with billions of galaxies in EACH one), is based on the assumption of a “Big Bang”: that a given universe basically came into existence from NOTHING, in an unimaginable explosive event.
– But the validity of that assumption is not proven either, even though most scientists believe in it; see, “What If the Big Bang Wasn’t the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative“.Cosmology is one of the things that the Buddha declared “unthinkable (acinteyya)” for a normal human. One can spend a lifetime looking into, and getting no where.
Here is a video from Carl Sagan to get an idea how vast our “detectable universe” is: https://youtu.be/5Ex__M-OwSA
More details at :”The Grand Unified Theory of Dhamma – Introduction“.P.S. I have deleted 3 postings that appeared above. Please do not use the discussion forum as a instant messaging board. Make only useful and thought-out comments. It does not serve anyone to make statements based merely on one’s intuition. One should provide reasonable explanations.
-
-
Uyap: It is not the universe that undergoes cyclic rebirth. It is our Solar system that undergoes cyclic rebirth. We discussed this in just a few days ago: “Are Every Buddha’s Teachings the Same?”
As I said, please think through carefully before rushing to post.
-
-
That post was one of the earliest written. I need to revise it, if I can find it.
15 billion years what the scientists estimate for the life of the universe which they assume arose due to the Big Bang. But according to Buddha Dhamma, the whole universe is not destroyed at once (and there was no Big Bang either). It is individual star systems that are born and destroyed in a billion year time scales, but not all at the same time.
According to Buddha Dhamma, the following is what happens:
1. The universe has no traceable beginning, just like life has no traceable beginning.
2. When our Sun blows up in a few billion years, 10,000 other star systems in the vicinity are destroyed due to that blast. In modern science it is called a superrnova.
3. Such 10,000 clusters of world systems blow up from time to time in the universe. Again, such supernova are observed by scientists every year.
4. What science does not know yet is that those star systems, like our Solar system, are re-formed over billions of years. Of course science is not aware of that part yet.
5. When our Solar system is destroyed, not all 31 realms are destroyed. Higher lying brahma worlds (where there is very little of “destructible matter”) are NOT destroyed. That is where all living beings on this Earth ends up before the destruction of the Earth.
6. Then when the Earth is re-formed, those brahmas — at the end of their lifetimes in those worlds — are re-born as humans.
7. Then the life on Earth evolves to other lifeforms too, and eventually is destroyed again after billions of years.
8. So, that is the life cycle. It happens all over the universe at any given time. That is why scientists observe several supernovas even in our own galaxy each year.This is the story detailed in the Agganna Sutta. It is very complex and requires more background material to discuss in detail. But that is an outline.
-
-
-
“An asankata has no beginning, does not change during existence, and has no end point. An asankata lasts forever. Nibbana is the only asankata dhamma, and it does not belong to “this world of 31 realms”.
There is nothing in between. Please think carefully of the truth of that.
Everything in this world is a sankata, i.e., has a beginning and an end. And this has been confirmed by science during the past 100 years or so. Einstein thought our universe was in a steady state, and if proven that way, could have contradicted Buddha Dhamma. But now it is clear that nothing in this universe will last forever. And everything is changing, in flux.”Base on above asankata last forever and nibbana is the only one? If Universe never destroy what is universe catagory, since there is nothing in between sankata and asankata?
-
-
“A sankata has a beginning, transforms in unpredictable ways during existence (viparinama), and eventually ceases to exist; see, for example, “Root Cause of Anicca – Five Stages of a Sankata” and “Does any Object (Rupa) Last only 17 Thought Moments?“.
Sankata has begining & end (annica) universe never destroy and no begining?
-
Lal:
“..2. When our Sun blows up in a few billion years, 10,000 other star systems in the vicinity are destroyed due to that blast. In modern science it is called a superrnova..”
So far as I have read, only stars with several times the mass of the Sun can go supernova; those with equal (yellow) or lower mass (orange and so down the spectrum) expand into red giants then collapse into white dwarfs. So it seems science has it wrong thus far on this issue.(??) Or has all of that, and more, been revised of late?
Also, since this one star, the Sun, will mean the destruction of the other 10,000 stellar systems nearby, it stands to reason than any one of those stars nearby could mean the end of this solar system here, IF our Sun is not the one to explode first. Why should it be this star, just because WE happen to be living on it, that is to cause the destruction of all the rest, and not that any one of those others be responsible instead for the cataclysm. The chances are, after all 10,000: 1 against.This is not speculation,Lal, it is logical inference. And it is not that the Sun is entitled to some priviliged status, because there are living beings there too,so much so devas and brahmas visit when a Buddha delivers a desana here. So it must follow that devas and brahmas from Earth visit planets of those stellar systems when Buddhas appear there. Still, the one consistent point would be: WHICHEVER STAR blows up first will cause the destruction of all the rest.
This tendency to attribute to the Earth, and everything connected with it ,all kinds of distinctions and special status annoys me. Why should we be special? Life is everywhere, literally, and infinite in extent, multiplicity and diversity.
y not
-
-
-
-
Yes the Universe is sankata meaning it’s a phenomenon but one without traceable beginnning THUS with no traceable end ;-). (The so despised western philosophical vocabulary can help a bit)…every being and thing is rupa namarupa meaning matter(?)and energy with name and form. This said:
- All such scientific speech might be less enriching than the following, because the following has to do with everyday’s gathi improvement, so can you pls clarify:
“this doctrine doesn’t lead to aversion” There’s a mistake here…?!?! Because the way you expressed yourself it’s like Buddha Dhamma would lead to aversion…
Pls clarify.
-
Embodied, I paste it from this link :
-
-
Thank you. Dhammawiki is wrong, someone translated something wrongly.
Seen the context, there are at least 2 possibilities of correction:
- “This doctrine does not lead to overcome aversion”.
- “This doctrine does not lead to equanimity”.
(This doctrine = the other one, Udaka’s doctrine probably).
AS for the scientific part:
I dare to say that “Yes the Universe is sankata meaning it’s a phenomenon but one without traceable beginnning THUS with no traceable end ;-). (The so despised western philosophical vocabulary can help a bit)…every being and thing is rupa namarupa meaning matter(?)and energy with name and form.” is susceptible of enriching your “As for “Bing bang + rebirth + multiverse = comform with buddha dhamma and solve scientific world “before big bang” mistery.” I hope.
-
-
-
- The mostly accepted theory for the “big bang” is the inflationary theory of Alan Guth (see, “The Inflationary Universe” by Alan Guth, 1997). In the inflation theory, if one “Big Bang” is possible, then it is a given that many other “Big Bangs” are possible. The total energy of our universe is completely consistent with adding up to zero.
If a universe requires a sum total of zero energy to produce, then “the universe is the ultimate free lunch”, as Guth explains in his book (pp. 247-248). Thus, implied in the inflation theory is the existence of multiple universes.
6. There are several theories currently being explored in quantum mechanics that are related to cosmology. There is one theory that requires a universe being existing for each possible event! So, there may be infinite number of parallel universes. For example, see “The Beginning of Infinity” by David Deutsch (2011). In all these theories there are multiple universes that always exist.- While there is no “accepted theory” yet, it seems clear that any type of explanation is likely to be consistent with an existence of multiple universes, or universes that support life at all times (for example, no “material world” with tangible matter is needed to support beings in the arūpa loka as well as in higher realms in the rūpa loka.).
-
Just revised that post: “Sansaric Time Scale, Buddhist Cosmology, and the Big Bang Theory“.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.