[taryal]

In Buddhist Theory of Matter – Fundamentals:

• The proportion of the eight constituents dictates any specific entity. For example, the Earth’s crust is made of “hard things” like rocks. Those are made of suddhāṭṭhaka with mainly the pathavi element, which determines the “hardness.”
• Water and most liquids are made of suddhāṭṭhaka with predominantly the apo element. Similarly, air (wind) and fire have suddhāṭṭhaka made predominantly with the vayo and tejo elements.
• This set of four constituents (pathavi, āpo, tejo, vāyo) is added to suddhāṭṭhaka due to moha (or avijjā).

I’m having a hard time visualizing how an elementary particle (suddhāṭṭhaka) would have attributes of pathavi, āpo, tejo, and vāyo. Isn’t the “hardness” of a rock an emergent property due to many molecules tightly packed together with strong bonds? It makes more sense to view pathavi, āpo, tejo, vāyo as emergent attributes. In the case of water, the molecules are loosely bonded compared to that of solid objects, allowing them to freely move past each other which is why liquids have higher characteristics of liquidity (āpo) and motion (vāyo).

Similarly, in the same essay:

The four components of vaṇṇa, gandha, rasa, oja get incorporated into suddhāṭṭhaka because of the craving for sense experiences.

• For example, the “rasa” component originates from our craving for tasty foods. Thus, greedy thoughts based on the taste of honey, for example, would create suddhāṭṭhaka , leading to the availability of honey. Honey would have a dominant presence of the rasa component; since it is a liquid, it would also have a significant apo component.

Aren’t color, smell, taste, and nutriment not intrinsic properties of matter but made up by our minds/sense faculties? How is it that taṇhā for the taste of honey (for example) can contribute to future creation of honey? If the minute amounts of matter generated via javana citta is released into the air, I would assume it would get mixed into the zillions of molecules that exist in the atmosphere and practically disappear.

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[Lal]

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.

[taryal]

Yeah I don’t understand it but thanks. It would have been helpful if Abhidhamma provided more details but I guess having a general sense of the material aspects and its correlation with the mind is enough.

[Lal]

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

[taryal]

Thank you! I’m kind of curious about where the pure octads go or are stored when generated by the mind.

[Lal]

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. 

[Lal]

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).

[taryal]

Dr. Lal wrote: “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.”

Yes, I understood the above but I was specifically referring to the example where craving the taste of honey can contribute to accumulation of honey

[SengKiat]

Taryal says: “Yes, I understood the above but I was specifically referring to the example where craving the taste of honey can contribute to accumulation of honey.”

If you are interested to learn Abhidhamma, get the PDF books in this link: Guide to the Study of Tharavāda Buddhism by YMBA.

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

[Lal]

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

[Lal]

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

[Lal]

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

[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.

[Lal]

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

[Lal]

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

[pathfinder]

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?

[Lal]

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

[Lal]

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

[taryal]

Lal wrote:

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.

I didn’t realize Brahmas can desire sensual pleasures. I thought they don’t remember their lives in the kama loka?

[Lal]

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

[pathfinder]

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!

[Lal]

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.

2 users thanked author for this post.

taryal, pathfinder

[Lal]

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

I asked Grok (Elon Musks’ AI bot): Are there alternate explanations for the red shift measurements on the receding galaxies?

Answer:

Yes, while the prevailing explanation for the redshift of light from distant galaxies is the expanding universe model, there are indeed alternative theories and explanations for this phenomenon. Here are some of them:

1. Tired Light: This theory posits that photons lose energy as they travel through space due to interactions with matter or other photons, thereby shifting to longer (redder) wavelengths. This idea does not require the expansion of space and suggests that the universe might not be expanding but could be static or even contracting.
2. Quantum Effects: Some theories suggest quantum effects might cause redshift. For instance, the interaction of light with virtual particles in the vacuum could result in energy loss over vast distances.
3. Variable Speed of Light (VSL): Proponents of this theory argue that the speed of light might not be constant but could have been higher in the early universe. If light slowed down over time, this could explain redshift without needing expansion.
4. Plasma Redshift: Proposed by Halton Arp among others, this idea suggests that redshift might occur due to the interaction of photons with plasma in intergalactic space. This could potentially explain why some quasars appear redshifted but seem to be associated with much closer galaxies.
5. Gravitational Redshift: While normally associated with the gravitational field of massive objects like black holes, some models consider the cumulative effect of gravitational fields over cosmic distances might contribute to observed redshift.
6. Cosmic Fatigue: A less mainstream but intriguing idea where photons lose energy due to some intrinsic ‘fatigue’ over time and distance, not necessarily explained by current physics.
7. Modified Gravity Theories: Some theories modify general relativity to account for large-scale phenomena without dark matter or dark energy, which might also offer different interpretations of redshift.

Each of these alternative explanations has its challenges when it comes to explaining all astronomical observations comprehensively, particularly when compared to the Lambda-CDM model (which includes dark energy causing the acceleration of expansion). The standard model accounts for a wide range of observations, including the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements, and large-scale structure formation, in addition to redshift.

However, the exploration of these alternatives often pushes the boundaries of our understanding of physics, potentially opening up new avenues for research. They might not currently offer as cohesive an explanation as the expanding universe theory, but they highlight that science is an ever-evolving field where anomalies and alternative models can lead to significant breakthroughs or at least refine our understanding of the universe.

_________

Regarding Question 3: Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation:

I asked: Could the microwave background be due to something other than the “Big Bang”? Are there alternate explanations?

Grok’s Answer:

Indeed, while the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is widely accepted as relic radiation from the Big Bang, there have been alternative explanations proposed over the years for its origin. Here are some of those alternate theories:

1. Steady State Theory: Before the CMB was discovered, and even for some time afterward, the Steady State Theory was a contender. This theory proposed that the universe had no beginning as it is eternal, and new matter is created as the universe expands to maintain a constant density over time. The CMB could be explained as the result of matter creation processes or as the equilibrium temperature of a universe that’s infinitely old.
2. Infinite Universe Models: Some models, like those involving infinite or cyclic universes, might suggest that the CMB is simply the background temperature of an infinitely large universe, where over time, radiation and matter reach a sort of thermal equilibrium.
3. Tired Light Revisited: If we consider the “tired light” hypothesis, where photons lose energy over time due to interactions with intergalactic medium or other unknown phenomena, this could result in a universe where all light eventually red-shifts to the microwave spectrum, creating what we observe as the CMB.
4. Plasma Universe: Within plasma cosmology, which views the universe as being dominated by electromagnetic forces rather than gravity, the CMB might be explained by the thermal radiation from a pervasive cosmic plasma rather than from a singular event like the Big Bang.
5. Multiverse Hypotheses: In some multiverse scenarios, our observable universe could be a bubble in a much larger cosmos. The CMB could then be interpreted as the thermal radiation from the boundary of this bubble or from interactions with adjacent universes.
6. Alternative Cosmological Models: Some theories, like those involving varying physical constants over time, might suggest that what we perceive as the CMB could be the result of these changes affecting how radiation propagates through space over cosmic scales.
7. Quantum Zero-Point Radiation: Some fringe theories propose that the CMB could be a manifestation of quantum zero-point energy, where the universe itself has a non-zero energy state even at absolute zero temperature.

The challenge with many of these alternatives is that they often struggle to explain the detailed characteristics of the CMB, such as its spectrum, which is extraordinarily close to that of a blackbody, the slight variations in temperature (anisotropies) that correspond well with models of inflation and structure formation in the Big Bang theory, and its uniformity from all directions in the sky (isotropy).

However, these alternative explanations serve an important role in science. They push the boundaries of our understanding and invite rigorous testing and examination. They are crucial for ensuring that the Big Bang theory, and by extension, our understanding of the CMB, continue to be scrutinized and potentially refined or even overturned if new evidence strongly supports a different model.

While currently, the CMB’s characteristics, particularly its blackbody spectrum and the precise pattern of anisotropies, fit the Big Bang model exceptionally well, the scientific process always leaves room for new data or interpretations that could shift our understanding.

_______

I don’t think Question 2 is critical either way.

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[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

[lagrade]

Speaking of Pure Octad Constituents, I was wondering what gandhabba is made of. I’ve read that the essence of a human (and animal) is in the gandhabba which contains 6 pure octads (for 5 pasada rupa and hadaya vatthu). What is different about these particles compared to those that make up the physical world? For example, how can a pure octad for chakkhu pasada rupa “see” things? I don’t know if there is something other than the fundamental units of matter in the mental body, so I would appreciate an explanation.

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

[Lal]

This is a complex topic. I will summarize the main points related to your questions. 

1. Everything in this world (living and lifeless) is made of pure octads (suddhāṭṭhaka.) A pure octad is made of eight components, as I described above. It is a complex account, but all eight components have “seeds” in mental power.

• Four arise due to avijja (ignorance about Buddha’s teachings), and the other four due to craving (tanha). Defiled minds create them with rage, dosa, and avijja. See “The Origin of Matter – Suddhāṭṭhaka.”
• It may seem impossible, but it can be explained in detail with a good background in Abhidhamma.

2. The proportions of the eight components define an infinite variety of inert things in the world. For example, rocks primarily have the pathavi component, and water primarily has the apo component. On the other hand, sugar would have pathavi (giving hardness) and rasa (giving sweetness.)

• I provided brief explanations in “Buddhist Theory of Matter – Fundamentals” and “The Origin of Matter – Suddhāṭṭhaka.”

3. Lagrade wrote, “I’ve read that the essence of a human (and animal) is in the gandhabba which contains 6 pure octads (for 5 pasada rupa and hadaya vatthu).”

• That is correct. Thus, a gandhabba is primarily made of six suddhāṭṭhaka.
• But they have two other components each to make them “alive.” Here, a suddhāṭṭhaka combines with a jivita rupa and another unit created by kammic energy to become a dasaka.
• P.S. The jivita rupa component is in all “live entities” and the tenth component carries out a specific task. 
• For example, a cakkhu pasada (together with the other nine units) creates a cakkhu dasaka responsible for seeing. That tenth component of cakkhu pasada makes it possible to “see.” The tenth component in the seat of the mind, hadaya vatthu, makes it able to create thoughts (citta.) See “Rupa Kalāpa (Grouping of Matter)” for some details.
• Those basic kammic laws cannot be explained further. They are nature’s laws, just like laws of gravity. Like scientists discover the laws of gravitation, a Buddha discovers the laws of kamma.
• The laws of kamma make it possible for cakkhu pasada rupa “to see,” or a hadaya vatthu to become the “seat of the mind,” for example.

4. As explained in #3 above, Our mental body is the gandhabba, made of six types of dasaka. 

• That is where all the “action” takes place. Our physical sensory faculties (like the eyes, nose, etc.) are only the “doors” to the external world. The brain processes the signals coming through them and passes them over to the corresponding pasada rupa. 
• That is explained in “Brain – Interface between Mind and Body.”
• When the gandhabba comes out of a physical body (as in NDE or OBE), a gandhabba can see, hear, etc., on its own. See “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind” and “Manomaya Kaya and Out-of-Body Experience (OBE).”

This is a complex subject. One needs to have a good knowledge of Abhidhamma to fully understand, but one should be able to get the general idea.

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

[Lal]

I think it is a good idea to start with #4 above.

• To quote the relevant point: “When the gandhabba comes out of a physical body (as in NDE or OBE), a gandhabba can see, hear, etc., on its own. See “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind” and “Manomaya Kaya and Out-of-Body Experience (OBE).”

First, look at the evidence in the above two posts that seeing, hearing, etc., can happen while the physical body is “effectively dead” and the brain activity is absent.

• That leads to the conclusion that the Buddha was right. There is a mental body (gandhabba) associated with the physical body. Furthermore, the mental body is primary, and the physical body (born when a gandhabba enters a womb) is secondary. The death of the physical body is not necessarily the end of human existence; in most cases, gandhabba comes out of the dead body and gets into another womb to make another physical body. 
• In other words, the physical human body has a maximum lifetime of about 100 years, while the mental body may live for thousands of years.

Once one is convinced of the LOGICAL necessity for a mental body, one would be motivated to take the account of the pure octads (suddhāṭṭhaka) more seriously.

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

[lagrade]

Yes, thank you Lal. Your explanations make sense. But my only concern pertaining to the concept of pure octads (suddhāṭṭhaka) is that it seems like it is not present in Tipitaka. According to this wikipedia article:

Kalapa or rupa-kalapa (from Sanskrit rūpa “form, phenomenon” and kalāpa “bundle”) is a term in Theravada Buddhist phenomenology for the smallest units of physical matter, said to be about 1/46,656th the size of a particle of dust from a wheel of chariot. Kalapas are not mentioned in the earliest Buddhists texts, such as the Tripitaka, but only in the Abhidhammattha-sangaha, an Abhidhamma commentary dated to the 11th or 12th century, and as such not part of common Theravada doctrine.

This raises question about the legitimacy of this concept. I will say that you run a juggernaut of a website so I think you know what you’re doing but sometimes I find some information here that I do not find elsewhere.  

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

[Lal]

It is a bit long explanation why the concept of pure octads (suddhāṭṭhaka) seems absent in Tipitaka. It is definitely absent in the Sutta Pitaka. I will write about it at some point, but there are more pressing issues to be discussed right now.

• It is easier to proceed the other way, as I suggested above.
• Did you read the posts I recommended in my last comment above? Do you think there is insufficient evidence supporting the mental body (gandhabba) concept?

[lagrade]

Yes, I read them and no, I don’t think there is insufficient evidence advocating for the concept of gandhabba. There are plenty of evidence from the Tipitaka itself (like Buddha’s travel to higher realms, for example), reinforced by evidences from NDEs, OBEs, rebirth evidence, etc. that legitimize the concept of mental body. But I don’t know if I can say the same about the idea of pure octads, even though I find it convincing to think that the mental body would have a trace of materiality to it. Buddha said it would ignoble to teach something that isn’t part of the Dhamma and the fact that this doesn’t appear in the Tipitaka seemed like a red flag to me. But I haven’t looked too deeply into the Abhidhamma Pitaka so I could be wrong about this point.

[Lal]

OK. Then that should be enough. 

1. Even during the Buddha’s time, no one knew about the details of the gandhabba. The Buddha or other bhikkhus did not teach Abhidhamma (including pure octads and that a gandhabba is made of pure octads.)

• That is why those concepts are not in the Sutta Pitaka.

2. The Buddha explained the framework of Abhidhamma to Ven. Sariputta. He and his lineage of bhikkhus started on the monumental task of providing the details of Abhidhamma. It begins with the structure of a citta (with cetasika or mental factors), a fundamental building block of a pure octad (suddhāṭṭhaka), and explains the details in a systematic analysis.

• That is equivalent to the efforts of modern scientists to explain all material phenomena starting with a set of elementary particles. 
• Of course, they have been unable to accomplish that and will not be.
• That is because material phenomena arise based on mental phenomena. 

3. It took many generations of bhikkhus to finalize the Abhidhamma Pitaka. 

• Arahants attended four “recitals” or Councils (Dhamma Sangayana) conducted at the following times after the passing away of the Buddha:  After three months, one hundred years, two hundred years, and five hundred years.
• At each Council, all three Pitaka (Sutta, Vinaya, Abhidhamma) available at that time were recited to ensure their self-consistency. Of course, the first two Pitakas were complete even in the first Council, but Abhidhamma Pitaka was finalized only at the third Council. Then, that complete Tipitaka was written down in the fourth council.
• See “Abhidhamma – Introduction.”

4. Many Commentaries were written at various times to explain the details of the Sutta and Abhidhamma Pitaka. 

• Of the reliable Commentaries, only the three Commentaries composed during the time of Buddha have survived. 
• See “Historical Background.”
• Also, see a recent discussion on the forum: “Definition of Energy in Buddha Dhamma.”

5. It seems that one book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka may have been lost. That book should provide details of pure octads and the details of the mental body.

• However, a Commentary that summarized that “missing book” (together with details of the other sections of Abhidhamma) survived. 
• Most people learn Abhidhamma using a few books available in Sinhala and English. See the references listed in “Abhidhamma – Introduction.”

6. At some point, I will probably have to write a book explaining all this.

• People did not need to learn Abhidhamma at the time of the Buddha. They were able to grasp the concepts without getting into Abhdiahmma, which is probably why the Buddha did not teach Abhidhamma to a wider audience at that time. In addition, it would not have been possible to compile the material in Abhidhamma within the Buddha’s lifetime. 
• But Abhidhamma would suit those who like to “dig deeper.” 

7. Allocating time to explain different aspects is a huge task. I will try to tackle various aspects at a given time as I see fit.

• Others (who learned Dhamma from Waharaka Thero; see “Parinibbāna of Waharaka Thēro“) also do that, but many do not go into Abhidhamma.  
• I have not seen anyone else discuss these details. Of course, Waharaka Thero discussed them, and I am building on that with my scientific background. 

8. Each person needs to choose the way forward. If Abhidhamma seems too complex, it is not necessary to learn those details. As I pointed out above, most people were not even aware of Abhdidhamma during Buddha’s time. 

• On the other hand, Abhidhamma could help many these days. See “Sutta Learning Sequence for the Present Day” 
• I quote the following from that post. Many people at Buddha’s time belonged to the ugghaṭitañña and vipañcitañña categories. They could understand concepts with only a little explanation.

“4. As pointed out by Buddha, There are three types of people who can comprehend Tilakkhana, categorized according to their “inherent capabilities.” That has nothing to do with “book knowledge,” but has everything to do with one’s inherent capabilities accumulated over many, many lives.

• The first category is ugghaṭitañña or “persons with high wisdom”; they could grasp concepts very quickly. Then some belong to the vipañcitañña category, and they needed a bit more explanation to understand the concepts. The third category is neyya; they need detailed explanations (i.e., patiniddesa)  to grasp a concept. People in the last group of “padaparama” are unable to comprehend Dhamma.”

9. P.S. I just revised the post “Abhidhamma – Introduction” to provide the name of the Commentary based on which the References in that post were compiled.

• Commentary on the Abhidhamma Piṭaka by Ācāriya Anuruddha (Abhidhammattha Sangaha). 
• Also, see Bhikkhu Bodhi’s note, “A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: The Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Acariya Anuruddha.”

[lagrade]

Thank you, that helps a lot.

“5. It seems that one book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka may have been lost. That book should provide details of pure octads and the details of the mental body.”

That’s quite intriguing! I would surmise that your evaluation of concepts such as these entails assessing their compatibility and internal consistency with the Tipitaka, even if it may not manifest in that precise format.

“8. Each person needs to choose the way forward. If Abhidhamma seems too complex, it is not necessary to learn those details. As I pointed out above, most people were not even aware of Abhdidhamma during Buddha’s time. 

• On the other hand, Abhidhamma could help many these days. See “Sutta Learning Sequence for the Present Day””

I observed that the Jethavanarama Buddhist Monastery places significant emphasis on practical aspects. I have found considerable success in their focus on the deluded perceptions of our minds, such as the tendency to seek clearly defined entities when only manifestations of causes and conditions exist, or the mistaken belief that external objects possess intrinsic pleasures when they do not. In contrast, the Abhidhamma serves as a theoretical framework that elucidates the unparalleled wisdom of the Buddha.

I believe our primary focus should center on practical aspects while also engaging with theoretical ones. We must remain vigilant to avoid becoming overly immersed in abstraction.

[Author]

Posts