Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Universe Origins
zidangus
Veteran
I'm just wondering what people thought about the actual origins of the Universe, do people believe Buddhist cosmology that the universe is beginningless there was no origin, or do you believe that there has only been one universe and the Big bang was the beginning of it ? Also does anyone think that there is some sort of grand design in the universe, or that things are the way they are because of probability, for example if there are numerous universes then statistically the chances are that one of them (ours) has all the right conditions in it for life to flourish.
0
Comments
And weren't there repeated big bangs, expansions, then contractions, cycling over and over? So maybe it was beginningless? Maybe Buddhism and physics coincide now and then. I don't believe anything, I just watch the research unfold. The conclusions change every generation or two, so what's the point of clinging to one point of view? It's ever-changing. How can we as individuals pretend to know?
Its hard to imagine a beginningless universe, but its proven impossible so far for anyone to figure out how to get something from nothing. Positing an infitely hot and infinitly dense singularity without time or space just "deciding" to expand without a cause is like saying you can explain how the universe works as long as I get one free miracle. I think that the universe is infinite and goes through cycles, but the nature of the cycles is still a mystery.
Here's an article explaining a beginningless universe from a Buddhist point of view:
https://bdigital.ufp.pt/dspace/bitstream/10284/782/3/241-246Cons-Ciencias 02-9.pdf
And a nice documentary that explains the current scientific views about what
came before the big bang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Just wondering peoples views on this
With Metta
You Cannot.
My favorite retort would be a basketful of laughing kittens with a banner reading: "Suggestions Welcome!"
With Metta
So, the bigger question for me is, what is theory and what is satisfactorily proven?
With Metta
http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/is-evolution-just-a-theory-a-scientific-theory-or-a-fact/
Most theories are handles on comprehension of how and why things work. In other words, most theories are useful and add to our understanding. I never intended to be understood as saying that all theories are unprovable. I was only referring to those about how the universe came into being and metaphysical ideas about God, &c.
The theory of evolution is a most useful theory and one that opens the mind to possible further discovery and understanding. We all know evolution to be a fact when it comes to the psychological/physical development of the thriving individual. If some deny any relevance of evolution in the development of species, etc., they do so only by putting halters around their minds' eyes.
Many theories have been ultimately provable.
My point is simply that...well, theories are somewhat evolutionary. For example, in Buddha's time not many people knew much about their world. Over the centuries more and more has been learned and ideas have evolved, and will continue to evolve.
In a sense, our lack of knowledge and understanding about the universe(s) is very much like people's lack of knowledge and understanding of the continent next to theirs in the time of Lord Buddha.
The truth is probably far "weirder" than we can imagine though.
THERE IS no True or False Universe. The boundaries of what we think exists are purely phenomenological. In other words, we create the boundaries of our own universes and what they are is dependent on how we parse things out. Whether we include what's behind the nearest or furthest horizon is up to us, the considerers. The sidereal masses may or may not be relevant; It all depends. Everything is relative to what we expect —literally expect: What we Look Out For. We can be petty and inhabit a very small world indeed, or we can live in awe of everything and live in an infinitely rich world.
For an ant, the world may consist of just a small dung heap and for an astronomer the universe may be an expanse of points of light ever moving ever outwards and away from him.
For the advaita vedantist only the Self is Real and all else is just looking at things from the wrong angle. For the panentheist God is in everything and therefore infinity in the space/time continuum is not so much sought in time as in the space around us and the grace manifested in it...
Ortega said it very well in his vital philosophy: What is real takes shape in the context of my life. Jerusalem, London, and Montreal are not truly abiding realities. I can escape them and build a life elsewhere. It is my life, my conscoiusness which comprises the fundament upon which all else happens for and to me. It is in my life that I find the Truth, find Buddha or Christ, find my lover or whatever. My universe, my world, THE world is what I see, what I accept, what I and those I know and care about make.
There is no True Universe. No. My world is my construct and yours is yours. Going on and on about the origins of "the universe" is just spinning yarn that will never be knit into anything of any real use or help to anyone.
Translation: It's neat to think about, but ultimately useless.
To me, a scientist who tries to make serious claims about the origin of the universe seems like somebody who watches something from far away for a long time, then scracthes his head, shrugs and says, "Well it *could* work this way...." with a hopeful look on his face.
I apologize for my horrible lack of familiarity with the scriptures, I can't cite this... But I believe the Buddha said something like: contemplating the origin of the universe is either "imponderable", or that it is an unskillful act. Basically... that it should not be done. Could someone with better knowledge than me back me up on that?
most religions outside of christianity believe in a cyclical existence.
fun stuff.
The beginning of the Universe was just the appearance of the miracle. The miracle is the thing that happens after you die :-)
Yes it will not expand your path to awakening too much, but it is sure interesting
anyone feeling insane yet?
The Buddha said:
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
AN 4.77 Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html
with kind wishes,
D.
(and also not easy to pronounce).
http://sciencefocus.com/feature/space/have-we-all-been-here
@Nirvana, I disagree that cosmology theories are not useful to our understanding. Cosmology theories do have evidence or possible sources of evidence to back them up, and are a immensely useful in adding to our understanding of how come we actually exist in the first place, scientifically speaking. For example, some observational evidence for the big bang theory may include the observed large scale homogeneity of the universe, Hubble Diagram, Abundances of light elements,Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Fluctuations in the CMBR, Large-scale structure of the universe, Age of stars, Evolution of galaxies, Time dilation in supernova brightness curves, Tolman tests, Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Also regarding the Big Bang theory, in quantum field theory it is possible in science for something to be created from nothing via vacuum fluctuations. For example in the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear out of nowhere, exist for a short time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. There is experimental support for this sort of effect for example the Casimir effect.
@Dazzle I am sorry I do not buy it when people say you can't ponder on such questions as you will go insane. This is plainly not true, there are many scientists who have pondered such questions and instead of going insane they actually come up with logical scientifically sound theories.
@BuckyG feel free to add your own options
In my opinion there is no harm whatsoever in asking questions such as this, it is by asking questions that seem unanswerable that our scientific understanding of the universe develops, and also how our civilizations develop. And I imagine each of us has wondered at some time or other how and why the universe is the way it is.
With Metta
I wasn't quoting what "people say" or making personal comments - I was simply quoting the Buddha's words in response to a post from BuckyG.
Kind regards,
D.
With Metta
The words of the Buddha usually seem pretty clear to me even though they came from another culture many years ago.
Maybe 'different strokes for different folks' though I guess.
kind regards,
Dazzle
I notice that the topics he mentioned require one to hold too many threads than what is reasonable for a mind, like noting it would drive a person crazy to attempt to observe all of the insects in a forest. I wonder if these topics are specifically mentioned because any others are covered in his 'leaves in the forest', whereas these topics are 'in the hand', but unreasonable to observe as a tool of cessation.
Anyway, sorry - back to topic!
I've heard this before (the going crazy aspect...although I think the actual translated word was "mad"). My background was in the geosciences, and there were lots of focuses, one of which was astronomy. All the people who were having the discussions at the university about things like the origin of the universe and the origin of man...never knew a one who went crazy or mad.
A theoretical framework, of course, is necessary on the scientific level, but not on either the technical or every-day level.
One would have to be mad to be always inveighing ultimate causes and such while his village is turning into mud and slipping down the side of the mountain or other practical issues are urgently calling out for his attention.
In the end, it's all relative to the perspective of the observer. E=MC2 is only realizable microcosmically on the observed plane. You can either be the vehicle or build a bigger ship. In the end it is you who defines what YOUR Universe is. It is just impossible to circumscribe entirely what the specific borders of any universe or world may be. Such can never be completely com-pre-hended.
If Siddhattha Gotama, had this attitude and did not ask questions of this nature, would he have gained his insight ?
An interesting question in itself :rolleyes:
With Metta
Obviously this is not a scientific question more of a question of what your gut feeling or belief is (please no more "its not relevant to practice" or "speculation is not worth speculating on" comments please I'm just curious if people have thought about it, and if they have what they believe
With Metta
''On the basis of this cosmology, Buddhism talks about the infinite process of the universe, coming into being and going through a process of dissolution before again coming into being. This process has to be understood in relation to the three realms of existence. It is from the third level of the form realms downwards that the world is subject to continuous process of arising and dissolution. From the fourth level of the form realm upwards, which includes the formless realm, the world is beyond this process which we could call the evolution of the physical universe.''
With Metta
I will copy the rest of this section of the book with regards to enlightenment and transcending the physical universe...
''In buddhism you can find the distinction between ordinary beings and superior beings, or the Arya. This basis can be made on their respective levels of consciousness or realization. ANyone who has gained direct intuitive realization of emptiness, or the ultimate nature of reality, is said to be an Arya according to Mahayana, and anyone who has not gained that realization is called an ordinary being. In relation to the three realms, the subtler the level of consciousness an individual attains, the subtler the realm of existence he can inhabit.
For example, if a person's ordinary mode of being is very much within the context of desire and attachment- that is to say that he tends to develop attachment to whatever he perceives, like desirable forms or pleasant sensations and so on - then such attachment to physical objects, thought processes and sensory experiences leads to a form of existence which is confined within the desire realm, both now and in the future. At the same time, there are people who have transcended attachment to objects of immediate perception and physical sensations, but who are attached to the inner states of joy or bliss. That type of person creates causes that will lead him or her to future rebirths where physical existence has a much more refined form.
Furthermore, there are those who have transcended attachment not only to physical sensations, but also to pleasurable inner sensations of joy and bliss. They tend more towards a state of equanimity. Their level of consciousness is much more subtler than the other two, but they are still attached to a particular mode of being. The grosser levels of their mind can lead to the fourth level of the form realm, while the subtler attachment towards equanimity leads to the formless realms. So this is the way we relate to three realms to level of consciousness.