[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

[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!

[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?

[pathfinder]

Based on the earlier prompts, I ask Chat: did the Buddha say anything about being in the military or war?

ChatGPT:

Yes, the Buddha did address topics related to the military and war. While he did not explicitly condemn the military profession in the same way he did certain trades (such as selling weapons), he emphasized non-violence and compassion. His teachings on war and conflict revolve around the principle of ahimsa (non-harm), which is central to Buddhist ethics.

1. Dhammapada (verses 129-133): In these verses, the Buddha speaks against violence, highlighting the suffering caused by killing or harming others:
   • “All tremble at violence; all fear death. Comparing oneself with others, one should neither kill nor cause others to kill.”
   • “Whoever seeks his own happiness by inflicting pain on others is not released from hatred, being caught in the toils of hatred.”
2. Yodhajiva Sutta (SN 42.3): In this discourse, a soldier named Yodhajiva asks the Buddha about the consequences of his profession. The Buddha explains that a soldier who fights in battle with the intention of killing is likely to face negative karmic consequences. He does not explicitly condemn the soldier but points out that actions motivated by the intent to kill lead to suffering.
3. Mahabharata’s Comparison: Although not from the Pali Canon, in other Buddhist traditions, there are stories that draw comparisons to the Mahabharata and its warrior ideals. However, the Buddha’s emphasis was always on peaceful resolutions and the cessation of violence, contrasting with warrior codes that justify war for duty or honor.

In summary, the Buddha did not encourage participation in war or the military, as it inherently involves harm to others, which goes against the core Buddhist principles of non-violence and compassion. He advised restraint from violence and emphasized the importance of peace and inner reflection over conflict.

—
The most relevant one here would be Yodhajiva Sutta: 

Yo so, gāmaṇi, yodhājīvo saṅgāme ussahati vāyamati, tassa taṁ cittaṁ pubbe gahitaṁ dukkaṭaṁ duppaṇihitaṁ:

When a warrior strives and struggles in battle, their mind is already low, degraded, and misdirected as they think: 

‘May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed, or annihilated!’ His foes kill him and finish him off, and when his body breaks up, after death, he’s reborn in the hell called ‘The Fallen’.

So it is more of the intention rather than the act, corresponding with A Simple Way to Enhance Merits (Kusala) and Avoid Demerits (Akusala)

• If done with wrong vision, with pleasure, and without prompting, it will have the highest strength (of course, this will be the highest BAD strength).
• If done WITHOUT wrong vision, with a neutral feeling, and with prompting, it will have the least strength.

—
On a side note, we need to be discerning with ChatGPT’s answers, it suggested Mahabharata which is a narrative from Hinduism. Sometimes it gives suttas with the wrong content as well.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Yash RS

[pathfinder]

That would be the “Vaṇijjā Sutta“! 

“Trade in weapons, living creatures, meat, intoxicants, and poisons.”

It is not a full time employment, but it is a mandatory conscription so we are in reserve until a war breaks out. Otherwise we just live a normal life and are free to do whatever.

By the way would like to share with everyone, we can find suttas by writing it in chatgpt! (though not 100% accurate)

I typed: the Buddha pointed out a list of livelihoods (jobs) one must avoid; those include selling meat and alcohol, the slave trade, etc.

which sutta?

ChatGPT: The Buddha mentioned a set of livelihoods that one should avoid in the **”Right Livelihood”** aspect of the **Noble Eightfold Path**, which is found in various suttas, including the **”Samma Ajiva Sutta”** and the **”Vanijja Sutta”**.

Specifically, in the **Vanijja Sutta** (AN 5.177), the Buddha lists five trades that should be avoided:
1. Trading in weapons.
2. Trading in human beings (slave trade).
3. Trading in meat or animals for slaughter.
4. Trading in intoxicants (such as alcohol).
5. Trading in poisons.

This sutta emphasizes that one should earn a living in ways that do not cause harm to others.

[pathfinder]

HugoZyl: The opening post must have taken an hour to write, and the reply by brother Lal more than an hour. What would the Buddha think about us spending so much time typing out long forum posts?

When we write there can be a few reasons:

• It is meritorious to share the dhamma, it said that the gift of dhamma is the best!
• Discussion is a way to better understand concepts, to see where we are wrong, to validate if we are right, just like how teachers would ask us to discuss topics in class
• As we write we are organising the concepts in our mind, so it is a form of contemplation too!

2 users thanked author for this post.

lagrade, HugoZyl

[pathfinder]

Thank you! It’s a shame not to be able to understand it, as it is one of the few arguments put forth by Ven Kassapa on how we know there is rebirth. The other arguments are mainly about why Pāyāsi’s arguments are illogical.

However, one things that stood out to me is the simile of being Blind from Birth:

11.16

“Chieftain, suppose there was a person blind from birth. They couldn’t see sights that are dark or bright, or blue, yellow, red, or magenta. They couldn’t see even and uneven ground, or the stars, or the moon and sun. They’d say, ‘There’s no such thing as dark and bright sights, and no-one who sees them. There’s no such thing as blue, yellow, red, magenta, even and uneven ground, stars, moon and sun, and no-one who sees these things. I don’t know it or see it, therefore it doesn’t exist.’ Would they be speaking rightly?”

“No, Mister Kassapa. There are such things as dark and bright sights, and one who sees them. And those other things are real, too, as is the one who sees them. So it’s not right to say this: ‘I don’t know it or see it, therefore it doesn’t exist.’”

“In the same way, chieftain, when you tell me you don’t believe me you seem like the blind man in the simile. You can’t see the other world the way you think, with the eye of the flesh. There are ascetics and brahmins who live in the wilderness, frequenting remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest. Meditating diligent, keen, and resolute, they purify the heavenly eye, the power of clairvoyance. With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, they see this world and the other world, and sentient beings who are spontaneously reborn. That’s how to see the other world, not how you think, with the eye of the flesh. By this method, too, it ought to be proven that there is an afterlife.”

——

It is the fact that there were others who could corroborate the seeing of past lives which makes it more valid! And yes, Taryal has mentioned many other wonderful reasons to build faith.

[pathfinder]

That’s a sensible explanation! Unfortunately we have no way of confirming it, I won’t dwell into it further as Lal suggested.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Waisaka

[pathfinder]

It makes sense that the Buddha talks about conditions at the moment. In the 6.2 he says: Suppose there were totally and utterly no upādāna for anyone anywhere. That is, upādāna at sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, and theories of a self. When there’s no upādāna at all, with the cessation of upādāna, would continued existence still be found?”

Here it clear that he is not describing the upādāna at the cuti-patisandhi moment, but the upādāna day to day. This is the same for his description for Taṇhā and Vedana. I have some questions though:

——

At 21.1 in  Mahānidāna Sutta, the Buddha says:

‘Consciousness is a condition for name and form’—that’s what I said. And this is a way to understand how this is so. If consciousness were not conceived in the mother’s womb, would name and form coagulate there?”

“No, sir.”

“If consciousness, after being conceived in the mother’s womb, were to be miscarried, would name and form be born into this place?” 

“No, sir.”

“If the consciousness of a young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name and form achieve growth, increase, and maturity?”

“No, sir.”

“That’s why this is the cause, source, origin, and reason of name and form, namely consciousness.

Why does the Buddha talk about the mother’s womb when the sutta is about conditions at that time/  Idappaccayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda?

Another interesting thing is that the Buddha skips saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso in that analysis, and links nama rupa straight to phasso. He also stops at viññāṇa in his anaylsis, he does not go back further to talk about avijja and sankhara.

It is also interesting to note that the Buddha describes another cycle in the middle of the PS cycle:

So it is, Ānanda, that feeling is a cause of craving. Craving is a cause of seeking. Seeking is a cause of gaining material things. Gaining material things is a cause of evaluation. Evaluation is a cause of desire and lust. Desire and lust is a cause of attachment. Attachment is a cause of ownership. Ownership is a cause of stinginess. Stinginess is a cause of safeguarding. 

[pathfinder]

I see. So Idappaccayā can be manifested in two ways.

1. In real time like the example given in Idappaccayātā Paṭicca Samuppāda, of the drunk teenager. The (san)phassa paccayā vedanā refers to the good feelings of the teenager at that time.
2. The (san)phassa based on conditions at that time, or Idappaccayā (san)phassa can also lead to vedanā at the cuti-patisandhi moment. That is how Idappaccayā upadana can lead to future jati, future old age, and future death.

You said: Suppose a human bhava ends, and that lifestream grasps an animal existence (animal bhava.); let us say it is a deer. That will also take place with an Idappaccayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda process taking place at that time. 

Is this not the uppatti Paṭicca samuppāda cycle at the cuti-patisandhi moment?

[pathfinder]

Not really, im just trying to understand what makes a bad vipaka actually a bad vipaka. I can use more simple examples as well. I have heard of people getting angry when someone gives up a seat for them because they thought they were pregnant when they were just fat, then they get angry because people assume they were pregnant. So im not sure if getting the seat is a good vipaka which made them angry, or a bad vipaka which made them angry.

For a personal experience, I used to feel insulted if someone rejects my compliments. It can be a “neutral vipaka” when someone simply says “im not that good actually”. Or is it a bad vipaka for me because I feel insulted?

Another example: I used to find bananas disgusting to eat. Now I am alright to eat them. Was it a bad vipaka when i ate the bananas in the past, but a good vipaka when I eat them now?

[pathfinder]

In that case, will a good kamma vipaka always lead to good feelings? In the example you gave, a poor person getting 100 dollars as a good vipaka, there is an initial “good feeling”, that is because the gati of the person perceives it to be good. However, what if the gati of the person perceives it to be bad? Let’s say the person has some superstition against cash, and does not feel good receiving the $100. Would you say that is good or bad vipaka?

I find it confusing because if we agree that the same vipaka can bring different feelings based on our gati, then we can feel happy experiencing bad vipaka, and feel bad experiencing good vipaka, since it is up to our gati. 

[pathfinder]

It brings me joy to read the above discussion! I learnt about theravada concepts from young, but I did not start to seriously read into them until coming across this site. However, I have been asking myself “Why Buddhism” constantly until today. That is because I have seen how other people believe that they find rational explanations for their own religion, and I realise that I could well be in the same group as them. Others will also say that they became a better person following this religion. Until today I am still scrutinising Buddhism, trying to see if my beliefs or the teachings are correct. There still somethings that I cannot 100% convince myself in, such as

• The idea that we have been in countless rebirths
• The idea that we have been born in other realms

Even though the mechanism of the above processes are described (Paticca Samuppada), they are still theories for me which I take as working hypothesis. However, I find that the evidence for rebirth is quite convincing, at least from human to human rebirths. Evidence for Rebirth. This is one of my earliest post that I read which made me read more because the materialist understanding of the world clearly does not account for this.

That being said, I find that Buddhism has by far been the most convincing philosophy to explain the world, and I continue to take it as a working hypothesis. There are some aspects of the dhamma that I do not find it in other religions:

• The Buddha constantly invites people to experience and understand for themselevs rather than believe him purely by faith
• The Buddha is extremely precise in the teachings. Eg in Brahmajālasutta, he gives the exact number of ways how people come to conclusions about certain views, he gives the exact number of wrong views. This is not common in other philosophies or religion which are more extract and do not give such precise explanations. 
• The dhamma is extremely consistent. This is also not common across other religions.
• The Buddha has no incentive to lie or bluff that he knows everything
• A relatively clear process of how the teachings are passed down – through the arahant council, and the arahants are those who would have understood the teachings well. Other religions may not be as clear.

One can simply read on other philophies and religions and decide for themselves the quality of explanations. I have talked to people from different backgrounds to compare, and Buddhism is still the best for me.

Upon reflections of anicca dukkha and anatta, I also saw that this applies to everything in our world. Of course, I cannot 100% confirm myself that there is no lasting heaven, but even in this life I start to see that we have been mindlessly pursuing pleasures that have no ultimate essence. Hope this helps!

2 users thanked author for this post.

lagrade, Yash RS

[pathfinder]

I see, thank you!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[pathfinder]

With that in mind, in Pannāvimutti – Arahanthood without Jhāna we discussed how jhana is not required for arahanthood. However, this sutta seems to place an importance in cultivating jhana (I assume they are talking about ariya jhana).

In the later part of the sutta, Sāriputta explains sammāsamādhi as going through the four jhanas. That means that jhanas are part of the 8 fold path! Should we place more emphasis on formal meditation for ariya jhana? Of course, after obtaining right view.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[Author]

Posts