[Lal]

1. Pathfinder: “Also, I haven’t been able to find ‘anatta’ (without long ā) as a standalone word in any sutta, so I don’t think that word exists, …”

• See “Anattadhamma Sutta (SN 23.18)” and “Anatta Sutta (SN 22.14)“
• Anicca, dukkha, and anatta are characteristics (lakkhana) as explained in “Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (SN 22.59).”
• Of course, the English translations in those links are incorrect.

2. However, the anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature (of anything associated with our mental or physical bodies) leads to the conclusion that there is no unchanging “soul-type entity” (no permanent “self” or soul) that goes through the rebirth process.

• The error in my old post was also due to referring to that aspect. But that is not quite right. 

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[Lal]

I did not realize that I had not updated that section of the post, even though I had made some revisions to #2 even recently. 

• I need to revise it. Sorry about the confusion.
•  I know that some old posts need revision. I should maybe start going through old posts and updating them before writing new ones. 
• Thanks for pointing it out.

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[Lal]

Yes. You are correct in that case. I revised it as follows:

3. Pāli is a phonetic language. The Tipiṭaka was faithfully transmitted for hundreds of years because verses were formulated for easy memorization. Grammar rules are different in Pāli. That is clear in verses “Buddhaṃ Saranam gacchāmi” and “Dhamman Saranam gacchāmi,” for example.

• There is no apparent subject in the above verse. The first, of course, means, “I take refuge in the Buddha,” but “I” is missing in “Buddhaṃ Saranam gacchāmi”  because it is taken into account as “Buddhaṃ Saranam gacchāmi.”

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[Lal]

First of all, ChatGPT learns “grammar” from what is fed to it by its programmers. See “Pāli Dictionaries – Are They Reliable?“

• Pali grammar is a complex subject. I don’t want to get into a discussion on that. Of course, I am not discouraging anyone from learning Pali (learning the meanings of critical Pali words is essential), but relying too much on “adopted grammar rules” could become a problem. 
• I suggest trying to understand a verse’s meaning in the context of a given sutta. 
• Of course, each person can decide how to proceed. 

As I see it, AI bots like ChatGPT are great resources but have limits. They are good at summarizing information. They can look through all available resources and summarize them. But we need to be careful because their capabilities are limited by the resources available to them (fed by their programmers).”Artificial intelligence” (AI) is a misnomer; there cannot be any “intelligence” in a computer program!

[Lal]

You wrote: “The sentence becomes ‘giving a gift of mental adornation and mental pre-requisites’ instead of ‘with a pre-requisite of a clear mind’. Meaning ‘we should give dhamma’ instead of previous interpretation ‘we should give with a clear mind'”

• Is the sutta about “giving dhamma” to another? In other words, is it about teaching Dhamma to others?
• My point was that the merits of giving depend on the giver’s mindset. I think the sutta also tried to convey that idea in the context of that sutta.
• Of course, giving Dhamma is the best giving!

[Lal]

I am glad to see that ChatGPT can analyze Pali grammar!

• But I don’t understand the point of this “analysis.” Does it change the meaning of the sutta (in a way different than I explained)?

[Lal]

Thank you, TGS. It makes it easier to find suttas.

[Lal]

1. “cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ” = citta alaṅkāra citta parikkhāra; when combining two words, one ending in a and the other starting with a, the combined word has a “long a” or ā.

So, the Pali word there is “alaṅkāra.” The mundane meaning can be ‘ornament’ / ‘decoration’ but here, it refers to a citta devoid of defilements and also with comprehension of Tilakkhana/PS. 

• parikkhāra means more like “pre-requisite.”
• P.S. “Prerequisite” emphasizes a preceding condition or order, whereas “Requisite” speaks to the fundamental necessity of something.

2. Thus, “api ca kho cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ dānaṁ deti” conveys the idea: “instead (compared to the dāna in the previous verses), with a “cleansed mind.” 

3. The same is stated in the “Paṭhamadāna Sutta (AN 8.31).”

• The word “parikkhāra” is correctly translated as “pre-requisite” in the “Subha Sutta (MN 99).”

[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

[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]

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

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

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

[Lal]

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

[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 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

[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

[Author]

Posts