- This topic has 21 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 5 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
The posts are at: “Origin of Life“.
Please refer to the name of the particular post (and the relevant bullet # if applicable) when posting a comment.
-
Reference : latest post – Wrong View of Creationism (and Eternal Future Life) – Part 1
#5 ‘The Bible never mentions people having a second chance at life or coming back as different people or animals’.
The early ‘Church fathers’, the philosopher-theologians of the day, influenced by the Neo-Platonists in particular and by Greek thought in general, embraced ‘reincarnation’. Only later did the now dogmatic pope-dominated Church stamp out, forcibly at times, the ‘heresy of re-incarnation’.
The compilers of the New Testament in the late 4th Century A.D selected only those books for inclusion in the Bible that accorded with the current accepted tenets of the hierarchy, who were averse, to put it mildly, to the idea of their having been common men or ‘brutes’ in former existences. Many additions, obliterations and alterations were made and kept being made in line with the changing creeds or ‘whims’ of one pope or another. It was easy to do. Since printing had not yet been invented, all hand-written copies in all churches and monasteries were simply ‘corrected’.
So it is difficult to see where Jesus figures in all of this. To my mind, 90% of the whole of it is a fabrication, hundreds of them rolled into one. Yet something of his true teaching surely must have survived even after this mighty butchering and soup-mix of texts. One finds passages that teach compassion, good-will, generosity and point out the conflict between good and evil that each must go through in life.
Perhaps we will never know whether Jesus had indeed been a Buddhist monk during those ‘lost years’ between the ages of 12 and 29, taught the ‘pure teaching’ during his ministry and returned to India after the crucifixion.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I can tell some views of catholic people regarding questions raised in the post.
Babys/kids who die early are going to heaven because they are so pure in the mind. Also all other people who had no chance to hear about the christian religion are “excused” in similar way, even e.g. indians of the Amazonas river.
Animals are indeed a problem. They are thought to be inferior and not really worth to be considered. Actually catholics become silent when asked in such a way and do not have an answer.
The big differences among the people are also not seen. Again no (good) answer from a catholic.
——–
There is another new age theory which says that each being has chosen its “type of life”, say as a disabled person or a child that gets raped someday. We all come from God and we are actually God. God is thought to be so pure that he cannot perceive himself. In order to perceive himself he created the earth and sends parts of himself to earth to experience life. All our deeds have no consequences, even this life is an illusion, the world is an illusion. …This view is in my eyes totally twisted and sick. But with such a view you can “explain” some things and relax, because it does not matter how you behave…1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Thank you Tobias.
I share your view about Catholics. I was born and raised and still live in a Catholic country. Up until the 60’s Church attendance was about 95%, now that is about 45%. People are starting to investigate things, no longer feeling bound by dogmas and fear of eternal hells and’fire and brimstone’. That is thanks mainly to the world becoming smaller, all genre of books being available everywhere, not to mention the internet.
When I was still a boy they used to say that babies and infants(who had not yet received baptism) go to a place called limbo. No one seemed to know what that state was exactly. Priests had a hard time handling inquisitive minds. The doctrine has now been abolished!!That is because, as with nearly every other dogma,’truth’ is invented, and can be modified or abolished by a decree of a human being, the pope.
You say : ‘this view is in my eyes totally twisted and sick’ What about prayer then? If prayer were efficacious, no one would be sick for long, no one would die, everyone would pass exams,etc, when relatives pray for you. Some years ago there was this football decider and the tv crew interviewed first a fan of one team, then a fan of the other in front of their clubs in their home town. Their wish? ‘ May baby Jesus bring the trophy here, to this town’ ** Both men believe in Jesus, both expect that he grant their wish. Now what will baby Jesus do? for he cannot grant both their wish. And note, it is an image of a baby they have in mind (in a crib, probably).
What it boils down to really is selfishness.
** Napoleon was once asked: ‘Whose side is God on’? He replied: ‘He is on the side with the heaviest artillery’ !!
He was a butcher, yes, but he was not stupid.1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
The very idea of an omnipotent God is flawed to start with:
Even if this God had the power to create so huge a rock that he himself would not be able to lift it, that would be proof of his lack of omnipotence. Yet, even in that case, it would be he himself who thus makes himself non-omnipotent, so even this non-omnipotence would be HIS doing, so he can still claim to be omnipotent.
It comes to such logical absurdities.
-
Regarding the new post yesterday on, “Buddhist Worldview – Introduction“, there are two updates.
1. Siebe sent me the following sutta that has a description of the hell (niraya) by the Buddha:
“Devadūta Sutta (MN 130)“. A translation at, “Devaduta Sutta: The Deva Messengers“.Much merits to Siebe and his family!
2. I just realized that there are 81 suttas in the “Devatā Saṃyutta” and 111 suttas in the “Devaputta Saṃyutta” in the Saṃyutta Nikāya, that describe visits to the Buddha by various devas to ask questions and discuss Dhamma.
– Translations of some of the suttas are available at Sutta Central (in the above links). Click on the “hamburger menu” on the top left to check for available translations.
– English translations of some of those suttas may also be found by doing a Google search.I have revised #6 of the post to include the above information.
Also, it would be better if questions on future posts in the new series on “Origin of Life” are posted under this general topic. That way we can have all that information under one topic.
-
It is strange that King Yama speaks in terms of Buddha Dhamma as if he would know the Buddha Dhamma. Then he could have reached stream entry. King Yama would also not support the torture of others.
Also strange these hell wardens create very bad kamma for themself while punishing other beings.
Is the hell not a place where all those bad gathi gather and torture each other? So no one would be safe in hell because there are too many beings with hate. -
Tobias wrote: “It is strange that King Yama speaks in terms of Buddha Dhamma as if he would know the Buddha Dhamma.”
From your full post, you seem to think that all “hell beings”, including King Yama are subjected to torture. That is not really true.
– As I have pointed out many times (regarding deva and brahma realms), concepts and ideas about our world do not directly apply to other realms.
– Regarding your above statement, we can roughly compare “hell wardens” and King Yama to policemen and the head of the police department in a city. They are doing a tough job. Even though the policemen are not there to be punished, they get battered too while trying to control criminals. They probably could get other jobs, but that job of controlling criminals is compatible with their “gati”. They get satisfaction out of that. It is according to the “sankhara” that they cultivate (not liking what criminals do and genuinely wanting to do something about it). In fact, some of them may actually be born as hell wardens. The bodies of those hell wardens are made to be able to bear the harsh conditions. They do not feel the “unbearable heat” as hell-beings do in some hells, for example.
– Another point is that King Yama is more like a deva in a lower deva realm. He is likely to visit the human realm at times.You wrote: “Then he could have reached stream entry. King Yama would also not support the torture of others.”
Just because one can appreciate the value of Buddha Dhamma, and even working hard to attain Stream Entry, does not mean one can get there easily.
“Also strange these hell wardens create very bad kamma for themselves while punishing other beings.”
– Again, this is a good comparison with policemen. Policemen do acquire bad kamma by beating up criminals at times, but they also gain good kamma by helping out the general population.“Is the hell not a place where all those bad gathi gather and torture each other? So no one would be safe in hell because there are too many beings with hate.”
No. Hopefully, the above description would be helpful. Hell-beings may attack each other too, just like inmates in our prisons (I just realized that our prisons may a be good comparison too, in some aspects). But those tortures are done by the hell wardens. In many cases, the hell-beings subject themselves to torture too.
– One example mentioned by Waharaka Thero is the presence of trees in some hells with razor-sharp leaves. A beautiful woman beckons from the top of the tree and the hell beings climb the tree trying to beat each other to get there. In the process, they get cut up (again, their bodies are “designed” by kammic energy to just feel the pain, but not to die). By the time they get to the top, the woman is on the ground beckoning from there. It is a non-stop process.
– So, I would not disregard these descriptions of the hell out-of-hand. One reason for starting this series is to point out that there are many things in this world that we cannot perceive, but true.P.S. Also, see, “Buddha Dhamma: Non-Perceivability and Self-Consistency“
-
Further to king Yama and the Sotapanna stage, I read or heard a desana (not on here) that he actually aspires to attain a human birth specifically for that purpose. Moreover, it seemed to me that it was more of a resolve, a very strong determination rather than a mere aspiration.
He should know about the suffering hell-beings must go through more than most – so it makes sense that he is so bent on freeing himself forever of the tortures there.
-
I had forgotten about a post an old post on the hell: “Does the Hell (Niraya) Exist?“.
It has more information on this topic and I have just revised and updated it.
-
Please direct any questions on the new post, “Contact Between Āyatana Leads to Vipāka Viññāna” here.
-
Dr. Lal, I have read several posts on the site and most of them have been great. But there is one specific page titled “Origin Of Life – There is No Traceable Origin” that I have some issues with. While critiquing the theory that living cells (life) have origins in inert matter, you make the following assertion about a cell:
“If it cannot be created in a laboratory under controlled conditions, it WILL NOT be possible for life to arise in a natural process starting with inert matter.”
It looks like there is a big flaw in your reasoning. The inability to create a living cell in a laboratory under current controlled conditions does not necessarily mean that life could not have arisen through natural processes. This statement overlooks several important distinctions:
- Life is incredibly complex, with intricate cellular structures and processes that we are only beginning to understand. Recreating this level of complexity in a laboratory is a monumental challenge and is not achievable with current technology and knowledge. However, the absence of laboratory synthesis does not preclude the possibility of natural processes leading to the emergence of life over billions of years under different conditions on early Earth.
- The conditions present on early Earth billions of years ago were vastly different from those in a modern laboratory. Natural processes operate on much larger scales and over much longer periods of time than laboratory experiments. Abiogenesis Theory suggests that life may have arisen through gradual, incremental changes over millions of years, a process that is difficult to replicate in a laboratory setting.
- There is a BIG difference between the way humans build things and nature builds things. Nature often achieves outcomes that are far beyond human capabilities or understanding. Just because we cannot replicate certain natural phenomena in a laboratory does not mean they are impossible or do not occur in the natural world. As a prime example, we cannot create black holes in a laboratory either, but that does not mean that they can’t be formed due to natural processes as they are usual occurrence in the universe. Things happen in nature when suitable conditions are there.
I also took some time to go through the video you referenced by a chemist named James Tour and while it seems to bring up some fair points, I feel like it has several issues. It seems obvious to me that this guy’s critique of Abiogenesis is heavily influenced by his religious views. I am not going through all of his talking points as I’m not interested in annoying myself to that extent, but I will address some of the major points he makes:
The first thing he talks about is how “molecules don’t know how to move towards life”. He even mentions that they don’t have a “brain”, which is such an absurd thing for a chemist to say in my opinion. But regardless, this claim misunderstands the process of abiogenesis and evolution. Molecules themselves don’t possess consciousness or intentionality, so they don’t “know” how to evolve or form complex cells in the way that living organisms do. Instead, the theory of emergence of life from non-living matter proposes that it is a result of natural chemical and physical processes that operate according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Molecules interact with each other through chemical reactions, driven by factors such as energy availability, temperature, and chemical composition of the environment. Over time, these reactions can lead to the formation of more complex molecules from simpler ones. Once self-replicating molecules, such as RNA, emerged through these chemical processes, natural selection could act upon them. Variations in the molecular structures that conferred advantages in replication or stability would be more likely to persist and proliferate, while less favorable variations would diminish. This process could gradually lead to the emergence of more complex molecular structures capable of performing functions necessary for life. Complex cellular structures and processes can emerge from simpler components through the process of emergence, where the interactions between individual components give rise to collective properties and behaviors that are not present in the individual parts alone. This is a fundamental concept in systems theory and is observed in various fields, including physics, chemistry, and biology. Thus, the evolution of life from non-living matter is a consequence of natural processes operating over vast spans of time, rather than a result of molecules consciously striving towards a specific outcome.
Tour’s presentation of how Origin of Life research is done in the context of chemical synthesis experiments is also utterly misleading. Abiogenesis research involves laboratory experiments synthesizing organic molecules which is a multifaceted and rigorous scientific endeavor that extends far beyond simple chemical mixtures. While it’s true that many experiments in abiogenesis research involve synthesizing basic organic molecules in laboratory settings, these experiments represent just one aspect of a much broader and more nuanced field of study. Abiogenesis research encompasses a wide range of interdisciplinary approaches, including experimental chemistry, theoretical modeling, astrobiology, and field studies of extreme environments.
Tour also mentions that “Nothing has happened in OOL research since Miller – Urey experiment”. This is total nonsense. Abiogenesis research is a dynamic field and has made significant strides since the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953. While early experiments focused on synthesizing simple organic molecules, subsequent research has explored more complex chemical pathways, investigated alternative environments for the origin of life (such as hydrothermal vents or outer space), and developed sophisticated analytical techniques to study prebiotic chemistry. Each new discovery builds upon previous knowledge, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the conditions and mechanisms involved in abiogenesis.
Also, contrary to the implication in his argument, abiogenesis research is conducted with scientific rigor and adheres to rigorous experimental protocols and peer-reviewed publication standards. Scientists carefully design experiments to test specific hypotheses, control for variables, and replicate results. While there may be sensationalized media coverage of certain findings, the scientific community evaluates research based on its merits and evidence. Tour’s argument implies that scientists claim to fully understand how life formed based on simplistic laboratory experiments. In reality, scientists acknowledge the complexity and uncertainties inherent in abiogenesis research. While progress has been made in elucidating some aspects of the origin of life, many questions remain unanswered, and ongoing research continues to explore new avenues of investigation. So, the blame of sensationalized media should go to the press who exaggerate for clicks.
Afterwards in the video, Tour talks about the challenges associated with the “synthesis” and “assembly” problems. While I think he is not fully inaccurate in depicting some of the challenges associated with understanding the origin of life through chemical synthesis, he is pretending as if they are unsolvable issues. The following are important points to consider:
- It’s true that living systems exhibit homochirality, but there are proposed mechanisms for how this could have emerged from initially racemic mixtures. For instance, asymmetric catalysis or chiral amplification processes could have played a role in selecting one chirality over the other. Some of the possible routes towards Homochirality includes Heterogeneous catalysis in tidal pools and Enantiomeric resolution. Also, not all biomolecules had to start out chiral like the racemic lipids, for example which might have developed this feature much later.
- While it’s challenging to reverse synthetic reactions once they’ve occurred, this doesn’t necessarily preclude the formation of complex molecules. Prebiotic environments were likely dynamic and could have provided opportunities for molecules to undergo multiple pathways and reactions, leading to diverse products.
- Prebiotic chemistry might not have had a “goal” in the human sense, but it’s plausible that certain environmental conditions or energy gradients could have driven chemical reactions towards increased complexity and organization.
- While time can lead to degradation or unwanted reactions, it also provides opportunities for more favorable reactions. Also, prebiotic environments could have contained catalysts or compartments that helped stabilize and protect molecules from degradation. It should also be mentioned that molecules aren’t just made on time. The process of polymerization, for example, could have been repeatedly occurring while the degradation was also happening. Degradation is irrelevant if the process is perpetually ongoing and even more irrelevant if we are dealing with self-replicating molecules.
- It’s true that controlling reaction conditions is important for selective synthesis, but natural environments might have provided localized conditions conducive to certain reactions. For example, mineral surfaces or hydrothermal vents could have acted as templates or catalysts for specific chemical transformations.
- Characterizing reactions and products is challenging in prebiotic systems, but advances in analytical techniques have allowed scientists to infer potential pathways and products based on experimental data and theoretical models.
- While nature doesn’t keep a laboratory notebook, it also doesn’t face the same resource limitations as a laboratory setting. Prebiotic environments were rich in diverse chemical compounds, and iterative processes over time could have led to the accumulation of complex molecules.
To summarize, the broad stages of the current state of Abiogenesis research are the following:
- Generation of Small Biomolecules: This stage involves the formation of simple organic molecules such as amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and fatty acids. Various experiments and theoretical models have explored how these molecules could have arisen from simple precursor molecules in prebiotic conditions, such as the primordial soup hypothesis or reactions in hydrothermal vents.
- Polymerization to get Biopolymers: Once small biomolecules are present, the next step is their polymerization into larger macromolecules like proteins, nucleic acids, polysaccharides, and lipids. Polymerization could have occurred through various mechanisms, including condensation reactions on mineral surfaces, template-directed synthesis, or catalysis by metal ions or organic molecules.
- Assembly into Organized Structures: In this stage, the macromolecules formed in the previous step start to organize into more complex structures. This could involve the self-assembly of lipids into membranes, the formation of RNA or protein complexes, or the encapsulation of biomolecules within vesicles or other compartments.
- Formation of Protobionts: Protobionts are hypothetical precursors to living cells, consisting of organized structures with some properties of life, such as metabolism, growth, and replication. Various models propose different scenarios for how protobionts could have emerged, including lipid vesicles with simple metabolic pathways, RNA-based replicators, or combinations of both. Jeewanu protocells, for example, have been synthesized since the 1960s.
I am going to stop it here but am willing to discuss more if you would like. I would like to make it clear that I am not asserting that the hypothesis “life has origins in inert matter” is certainly true. I do not deny the possibility of the Buddha’s description in the Aggañña sutta. It is certainly a lot more logical than the creationist model. But I also think that it is unfair to misrepresent the scientific work that has been done in this field. So, I think you should make some corrections and stop mentioning that some evangelical liar “proves” that Abiogenesis is wrong when he clearly does not.
-
You wrote: “But I also think that it is unfair to misrepresent the scientific work that has been done in this field. “
I don’t think I misrepresented anything. Do you think scientists even have the slightest idea of how to make a cell?
- I used Dr. Tour’s video because he mentioned some key aspects. Most of your comments are bashing his ideas. I did emphasize that I don’t agree with all of his views. I just wanted to show the views of other scientists who agree that scientists are nowhere close to making a cell in a laboratory. He is a reputable scientist.
- How exactly did I misrepresent the scientific work done up to now? Science has not been able to make a living cell, and they are nowhere close to that.
- A cell is a factory by itself. It produces its own energy. Most animal and plant cells are 0.01 – 0.10 mm in size!
- Please read the following post and watch the videos in there: “Living Cell – How Did the First Cell Come to Existence?
Even if they can create a cell, creating a “conscious life” is an impossibility. How can inert matter give rise to feelings of joy or sadness, perceptions, etc.?
-
Hello dhamma frinds,
Do you approach such a Bhavana meditation on creation hungry? The Buddha denied such a thing, so from the perspective of the Dhamma I must point out that the diversity of the universe is so immense that it far exceeds our understanding. When it comes to the origin of life on Earth, we are dealing with many complex systems, all of which are interrelated and support each other or are based on resistance. To shed light on something like that you would have to do research on several levels: astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics and who knows what else. First and foremost, according to the Dhamma, we are dealing with devolution, from Realm 31 downwards, and then with supportive, constructive evolution. Devolution created RNA.
And here I’ll abbreviate it quite a bit, because I don’t want to deliver a doctoral thesis here.We need some emergence cycles of birth and destruction of the solar system to even create a foundation of elements based on carbon, carbon as a connector. Or water is also a very important substance that is important for development, not just in terms of humidification. So that something like “Luca” (Last Universal Common Ancestor) comes into being in the first place. Then today’s science needs three things for simple life.
1. Cell structure (Rupa)… something like that which the Buddha also pointed out so that we have a separation between inside and outside.
2. The metabolism to produce energy like/ Non-equilibrium system
3. DNA/RNA information/4 bases C, G, A, U
Rupa——————————
Nama——————————
4. Entity Mind, with underground as Suddhāṭṭhaka
5. Namagotta with innumerable Pancakkhandha
6. Kamma energy 3x for awakening, sustaining and destroying.
Points 4 to 6 are still completely unknown to today’s science. So it always depends on the complexity of the structure when we can call something conscious life. No conscious life without Suddhāṭṭhaka as an underground, with the emergence of “entity mind” with the generation of the 5 aggregates: R, V, S, S, V…and Namagotta’s and countless “Pancakkhandha”, as well as the dhammā energy. All others who are not at the structural level are considered living but not feeling. Structure levels like in humans did not arise from a cell but in devolution, but this basic mechanism of evolution and metabolism, first to third points, is needed to sustain further life. Many things appear alive through the connection of matter with laws that are stored in point 5 “Pancakkhanda”. Cell division is caused by proteins, but is controlled by a law from the “Pancakkhandha”. So there are many mechanisms at work but all of them are controlled by Pancakkhandha and are awakened, maintained or destroyed with dhammā energy.
-
I used Dr. Tour’s video because he mentioned some key aspects. Most of your comments are bashing his ideas. I did emphasize that I don’t agree with all of his views. I just wanted to show the views of other scientists who agree that scientists are nowhere close to making a cell in a laboratory. He is a reputable scientist.
Just bashing his ideas? I feel like you read my post but didn’t actually think about the points that I made. The guy is clearly lying and distorting scientific information. My issue is not with you showing a view different from other scientists but claiming that James Tour “proves” that Abiogenesis is wrong. He may be a reputable scientist in the realm of Chemistry but what reputation does he have in the context of Origin of Life research, which is an interdisciplinary field? When someone is manipulative enough to claim that “Nothing has happened in Origin of Life research since Miller – Urey experiment”, they have lost all credibility from the scientists that study this stuff.
How exactly did I misrepresent the scientific work done up to now? Science has not been able to make a living cell, and they are nowhere close to that.
And again, I feel like you didn’t carefully read my post above. I never said you are misrepresenting the scientific work for simply claiming that scientists have not been able to artificially make a living cell. My issue is with the erroneous implication that if it can’t be done in a human lab, it couldn’t have happened due to natural process. We don’t have the technology to compress something down to its schwarzschild radius either, does that mean black holes can’t come into existence due to natural process?
Even if they can create a cell, creating a “conscious life” is an impossibility. How can inert matter give rise to feelings of joy or sadness, perceptions, etc.?
This one may be right. Many intriguing research done by scientists in UVA, Division of Perceptual Studies and in other institutions have raised compelling questions about the nature of the conscious experience. If scientific tools gets advanced enough to demonstrate that mind isn’t produced by the brain, it will cause an implication to the origin of life research where the mind will be central. This is fully consistent with Buddha dhamma, but will take a paradigm change in the mainstream Science perspective. I feel like one of the reasons why many Scientists have been stubborn with their materialistic views is because religious people say a lot of unsubstantiated things about the world, and acknowledging that consciousness isn’t created by the brain could come off as validating those claims that don’t have basis in fact. Just when you are done with the issue of materialism, you will encounter the issue of creationism. What a messed up world this is, lmao
-
OK, taryal. I understand that you are among most scientists who believe “science is never wrong.” But if you get deeper into Buddha Dhamma someday, you will see that Buddha Dhamma is the “ultimate science,” and modern science can not even come close.
- That is why you stated again, “When someone is manipulative enough to claim that “Nothing has happened in Origin of Life research since Miller – Urey experiment”, they have lost all credibility from the scientists that study this stuff.”
- I agree with the view that “Nothing significant has happened in Origin of Life research since the Miller–Urey experiment.”
- Making a bunch of organic molecules in an electric discharge is nothing compared to making a DNA strand. That is nothing compared to making a “living cell.” That is nothing compared to “creating a conscious life.”
- Scientists are nowhere close to any of those.
This discussion will not be useful because Modern science and Buddha Dhamma are built on two different foundations/axioms.
- Modern science believes the Earth started as a lifeless planet with conditions unsuitable for even primitive life. Furthermore, they believe life evolved gradually, and humans “evolved” only within the past few hundred thousand years.
- The Buddha stated that in the early stages, the Earth was very different in a radically different way. It had no trees or animals, but it was suitable for humans with “Brahma-like subtle/fine bodies.”
So, it is like arguing an issue starting with very different axioms. We can debate for years and years without agreeing.
- I suggest reading the following post, which lays out the basic ideas of Buddha’s worldview. I am not asking you to agree with it. But at least you will be able to see what I am trying to say: “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27).”
Another related point is that modern science has evolved over the past few hundred years by developing theories along the way. Scientists discarded theories that did not work and developed new or revised theories.
- In contrast, the Buddha’s worldview, laid out in the above post, has not changed. It is in the Tipitaka. Even though scientists have not yet accepted those fundamental axioms, they have accepted many other aspects over time.
- See, for example, “Dhamma and Science – Introduction.”
P.S. I noted the following sentence at the end of your comment: “Just when you are done with the issue of materialism, you will encounter the issue of creationism. What a messed up world this is, lmao.”
- Buddha’s worldview does not belong to materialism or creationism.
- It is based on Paticca Samuppada: Things (and living beings) come into existence based on “root causes and prevailing conditions.”
- The “Origin of Life” section is an introduction to that subject. If you look at the list of posts in that section, the last post is on Paticca Samuppada.
-
I’m not a scientist who believes “science can never be wrong” but one who has many questions about the world which is why I want to study Buddha’s teachings. I appreciate your elaborate response and will look into the pages you referenced.
I am curious to know how you come up with the information you present in this website. It seems different from other (western) sources of Buddha dhamma. For instance, where can I find the description of 4th Jhāna (or OBE) in the Tipitaka? Also, why is it that you claim Abhidhamma can only be discovered by a Buddha but western scholars like Bhikkhu Bodhi say it was likely a later addition?
-
taryal: “I am curious to know how you come up with the information you present in this website. It seems different from other (western) sources of Buddha dhamma. For instance, where can I find the description of 4th Jhāna (or OBE) in the Tipitaka? Also, why is it that you claim Abhidhamma can only be discovered by a Buddha but western scholars like Bhikkhu Bodhi say it was likely a later addition?”
I do not intend to coerce or persuade anyone to read my website. Anyone can read it, take what they like, and leave what they don’t. Of course, I will do my best to answer any questions they may have. The rest of my life is dedicated to informing others (those with an interest and an open mind) about the value of Buddha’s original teachings.
- All my information comes from the Pali Tipitaka.
- Yes. It is different from “other (western) sources of Buddha dhamma.” I have explained why here: “Elephants in the Room.”
- I have many posts about jhana on the website. You can search the website using the “Search” box on the top right and read what you like. If you have questions, you can post them on the forum by specifying the post.
- Bhikkhu Bodhi has written a book on Abhidhamma: “Abhidhamma – Introduction“
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
I really like taryal inquires, I think it is very important to have this quality in yourself to succeed in Dhamma. Keep this mindset the way it is but you need to understand a thing or two about Dhamma practitioners who reached a certain level when comes to Lal answers or in general you may feel we want you cut you off short or just hide from your inquireness to not “show” our misunderstanding that you think we can have but in reality Dhamma practitioners do not have spare time to play those “mental games” as life is passing quick and there is no time to spend on intellectual bantering at least to some extent or eventually when is needed.
Just added that input so you will not misunderstand the intent behind that interaction as it may not be as you think it is. Deep inquiry is really important but not all practitioners will be willing to do it. If you are the type of intellectual who enjoys digging you can join my discord (which is a hub for all pure Dhamma content) and we have a section for questions & answers where you can ask as much as you want https://discord.gg/3nMWMZv9yU
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Yes. I agree that taryal’s comments were reasonable from his perspective. Anyone without exposure to Buddha’s teachings would not know differently.
- But I have gone through many discussions like this where people kept bringing up point after point based on the “wrong assumptions” about the fundamental nature of this world (mostly scientists tend to do that; I have given up such discussions with a few of my dear friends.) If I did not “get to the point” such discussions can take a lot of time, and that is a waste of time. If someone is unwilling to look at the “previously unheard axioms” about this world (for example, Darwin’s theory of evolution is wrong), then there is no point in further discussions. One should be open to that idea and then go through the explanations BASED ON THEM to see whether they lead to logical conclusions. That takes a lot of time and patience.
- P.S. The “Origin of Life” section is an introduction to that subject. It discusses why the assumptions of Darwin’s theory of evolution do not make sense in the broader worldview that takes into account the rebirth process and the existence of other realms that we cannot directly see. By the way, the Buddha personally visited all those realms, so this is not a mere philosophical theory. Anyone who can cultivate abhinna powers can do that.
- P.P.S. There are other sections on the website on this subject. For example, see “Buddha Dhamma – A Scientific Approach” and “Dhamma and Science.”
- I hope Taryal will read the posts I recommended. I would be more than happy to clear up any questions he (or anyone else) may have regarding any of those posts. Please refer to any post and ask questions.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.