Recycled Universe: Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery
-
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060508_mm_cyclic_universe.html
Recycled Universe: Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery
By Ker Than
Staff Writer
posted: 08 May 2006
12:28 am ET
One of the biggest mysteries in cosmology could be explained by a controversial theory in which the universe explodes into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.
Called the cyclic universe theory, it could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant" and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.
In a new study detailed in the May 5 issue of the journal Science, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University propose that the constant was once much larger, but that its value decayed with each incarnation of the universe.
Puzzling great minds
The cosmological constant, also known as "lambda", is thought to be a form of energy that gravitationally repels itself and causes the expansion of the universe to speed up.
Einstein initially proposed it as a counterforce to the gravitational attraction of matter to explain why the universe appeared static, neither growing nor shrinking. He later discarded the idea, however, when observations by astronomer Edwin Hubble revealed the universe was in fact expanding.
Lambda was revived in the late 1990s when astronomers discovered that the universe was not only expanding, but that it was doing so at an accelerated pace.
Scientists are still not sure what lambda is. According to one popular idea, it is the energy of space itself. According to quantum physics, the seemingly empty vacuum of space actually contains phantom particles that continually blink in and out of existence like flecks of sea foam. These particles are fleeting, but their energies combine to give every cubic centimeter of space a certain amount of energy. According to general relativity, this "vacuum energy" produces an anti-gravitational force that pushes space—and the matter in it—apart.
But there is a problem: the lambda that scientists have detected is more than a googol (1 followed by 100 zeros)times smaller than what theory predicts. To explain such a large discrepancy, physicists have been forced to come up with ever wilder theories.
Explaining lambda
One idea is that the lambda is not really small, but only seems so because it is being cancelled out by another unknown force with near perfect precision. To date, though, no mechanism has been found that can cause this cancellation.
An alternative solution is that of "anthropic selection," a controversial idea that attempts to explain why so many constants in nature appear to be precisely the right value to produce life. If lambda were too large, for example, the universe would have instantly blown up shortly after the Big Bang.
According to the so-called Anthropic Principle, certain features of the universe are selected by the requirement that observers—in our case, humans—can detect them. In other words, only in a universe where lambda is small can intelligent beings exist who can wonder why it is small.
There are different ideas about how anthropic selection works. One possibility is that there are many parallel universes coexisting together; each would have constants of different values and in our universe, those constants can sustain life.
A similar idea is that there is only one infinite universe, but lambda varies from region to region. We just happen to live in a rare bubble where the constant is just right for galaxies and stars—and us—to form.
Anthropic selection makes many scientists uneasy because it suggests that the laws of physics might work differently in remote parts of the universe. In its strongest form, anthropic selection could also be viewed as support for creationism, since it suggests that the universe is somehow fine-tuned specifically for intelligent life.
"The anthropic idea suggests that, in order to explain the universe that we do see, we must make very strong assumptions about other universes we can never see," Steinhardt told SPACE.com. "Also, it assumes our universe is atypical. These assumptions are not normal in science and it's not clear that we must head in such a radical direction."
Cyclic universe
The idea of a cyclic universe, first proposed in 2002 by Steinhardt and Turok, is an alternative to anthropic selection.
"The [value of lambda] is one of the prime mysteries of physics," Steinhardt said. "It's really been so puzzling that it's driven the physics community to this anthropic approach. So it's important to know if a non-anthropic solution might exist."
The researchers' latest tweak to their model is to have the value of lambda decay over time with each passing cycle of the universe and even within a single cycle.
Scientists experimented with a varying lambda before within the context of the standard Big Bang model, but it didn't work because the time required for it to reach its current low value was far longer than the known age of the universe.
Combining a decaying lambda with a cyclic universe potentially solves this problem.
'Ingenious'
Although he expressed other concerns about the cyclic universe theory, Alexander Vilenkin, a cosmologist at Tufts University in Massachusetts who was not involved in the study, said Steinhardt and Turok's solution to the cosmological constant problem was "ingenious."
In a cyclic universe, new matter and energy are created about every trillion years when two sheet-like "branes" collide along an extra dimension of space. Branes are predicted by string theory.
Because there can be endless cycles, the universe would be far older than the 14.7 billion years that scientists currently estimate. This would allow ample time for lambda to shrink to what astronomers see now.
Steinhardt and Turok think lambda decreased in such a way that the rate of decay slowed with time. This means that observers measuring lambda are much more likely to get a small value than a large one.
Because a high lamda prevents the universe as we know it from forming, early cycles of the universe would have been void of galaxies, stars and life; only in later cycles, when lamda had decreased to a much smaller value, could matter coalesce to create the world we inhabit today.
The pair estimates that each cycle lasted about a trillion years. During this time, the universe runs its natural course, but all the while matter and energy fans out through space until they are extremely dilute.
"They are so dilute, in fact, that we would likely see not even a single particle of that early matter and radiation within our horizon—that is, the patch of space we can see," Steinhardt said.
Once the universe is emptied out, a weak attractive force brings our universe's two branes together in a cosmic collision. Each collision is essentially a new Big Bang that infuses the aging universe with new matter and energy.
Steinhardt says their crazy theory can be tested: the inflationary Big Bang theory predicts that gravitational waves produced at the end of inflation leave an imprint on the cosmic microwave background, a diffuse form of electromagnetic radiation that fills the universe.
If future experiments show the polarization pattern produced by such waves, it would disprove the cyclic universe theory, ruling it out as a possible solution to the cosmological constant problem. -
It is interesting that the BuddhaÂ’s explanation of the origin of the universe corresponds very closely to the scientific view.
In the Aganna Sutta, the Buddha described the universe being destroyed and then re-evolving into its present form over a period of countless millions of years. The first life formed on the surface of the water and again, over countless millions of years, evolved from simple into complex organisms. All these processes are without beginning or end, and are set in motion by natural causes -
"Shi4 Jie4 Wei1 Chen2 Yin1 Xin1 Cheng2 Ti3"
-
The Eternal Buddha Nature
by Venerable Master Hsuan Hua
At the very start, before heaven and earth came into being, there weren't any people. There was no earth, no living beings, or anything called a world. Basically, none of these things existed at all. And then, at the onset of the kalpa when things were coming into being, people gradually came to exist. Ultimately, where do they come from? Some say that people evolved from monkeys. But what do the monkeys evolve from? If people evolved from monkeys, then why are there no people evolving from monkeys right now? This is really strange. People who propagate this kind of theory basically don't have any understanding. They are just trying to set up some special theory. So there's the theory of evolution which says that people came from monkeys, why couldn't it be the case that people evolved from mice? Or caterpillars? Why couldn't we say that mice evolved from people or caterpillars evolved from people? In general, there can be said to be four kinds of beings - flying, swimming, walking, and plants. Those with blood and breath are called animals, and the plants refers to all kinds of grasses and trees and flowers. Where do all of those four kinds of beings come from? What is their origin? Their origin is the Buddhanature. If there was no Buddhanature, everything would be annihilated. The Buddhanature is the only thing that passes through ten thousand generations and all time without being destroyed. From the Buddhanature comes Bodhisattvas, Sound Hearers, Those Enlightened to Conditions, gods, asuras, people, animals, ghosts, and hell beings. Those are the beings of the Ten Dharma Realms, and the Ten Dharma Realms are not apart from a single thought of the mind. This single thought of the mind is just the seed of the Buddhanature. It's just another name for the Buddhanature—the one true thought.
So, people are transformed from the Buddhas and animals are those who have fallen from the realm of humans. This is all explained very clearly in the Ten Dharm Realms. Stupid people say that the origin of humans is the monkey and there are others who say that people came from pigs. For example, some cultures still worship animal gods. They are a result of only knowing a little bit and not understanding the complete picture, with such ideas, the world catapults in confusion and chaos. People who believe in such things write books and set up theories, they categorize everything to fit into their theories, claiming this to be this and that to be that. So we have science and philosophy - everything is put in its own little niche. But ultimately, what's this all about? It's a case of not having anything to do and looking for something to do. People like that are not able to simply sit around, so after they eat their fill, they go about setting up their own theories to confuse people by. This is why most people are so perplexed.
Ultimately, where did humans come from? How did they come about? In investigating this question, we might consider how chickens came about. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you don't have a chicken, then there's no way you can have an egg, and if you don't have an egg, how can a chicken hatch? So this problem has no solution. As far as people are concerned, were there women first, or were there men first? If you claim that the men came first, how do you explain that men are born from women? And, without women, how can there be any men? If you claim that the women were first to appear, how can you explain that both men and women are required to produce more people? Without a man, how can another woman be conceived? In investigating this question, it is impossible to come up with a clear solution. This is because all of this began so very long ago, we've all forgotten. -
Ultimately, what's the answer? Well, ultimately, everything comes from the Buddhanature. Everything comes into being naturally: from nothing something manifests and that something transforms once more into nothing. This happens without end, over and over again; an infinite on-going series of production and transformation.
For example, the bugs that appear in the dry rice: basically, the rice just sits there in the bag without any worms, but suddenly they appear. You may ask how they come about, if originally there weren't any worms. Rice is not sentient, it's not alive, so how is it the case that it can produce bugs since bugs are creatures with feeling? Here is a case of something devoid of feeling producing something that has feeling. Investigate this problem to its ultimate point. Consider how it will be when heaven and earth are destroyed by the "death ray" (laser), to the point that the world and all of humanity are completely annihilated. There will still be the spiritual souls of those living beings who once dwelled in the world. The Buddhanature will continue to exist. And it is the Buddhanature that can make things appear from nothing, for it can create mankind and all living beings. And so, even if you insist this is not the case and say, "It's certain that people evolved from monkeys," your theory just won't stand.
Take a look at Americans. They have their own habit patterns. And so do the people of Russia. And the same goes for the French, English, and so on. "But," you say, "In America, there are all kinds of people." Yes, that's true, they branch out into many sub-cultures. Since there are so many kinds of people, how can you say that mankind evolved from only one particular kind of creature? The people of each and every country have a generally different appearance. There are yellow people, white people, black people, red people, and brown people, where did the black people come from? Where did the white people come from? Where did the yellow people originate from and where did the red people and the brown people come from? If you discuss this back and forth you won't be able to pin-point a particular origin. But you can explain it all by returning it to the Buddhanature: from nothing comes something and something returns to nothing. The transformations continue endlessly, over and over again. This is the source behind it all.
Now this is a theory that can hold up. But although this theory is one that holds true, very few people have the wisdom to reach an understanding of it. People are transformed from nothing; we manifest from out of nothing. That is the nature of all living beings. They appear from nothing. Originally, living beings did not exist, but then they came about through transformation. In cultivating the Way, we want to get back to the place where from something we become nothing. This is called "going back to the origin and returning to the sources" -returning to the original Buddhanature. "What good is there to this?" you ask. Well, what good is there in being a person? If you return to the original nature you can quickly accomplish the Buddha Way. Even if heaven and earth were to no longer exist, the Buddha-nature would still be ever-present. And even if all of mankind were finished off by the "death ray," the Buddhanature would still abide, be forever indestructible.
Why did I bring this up tonight? Today is Earth Store Bodhisattva's birthday and his vow power has spurred me on to speak a bit of true principle for all of you. So don't think that everything I say is very ordinary. Don't think that what I tell you is commonplace, because I am outlining the basic principles that explain what people and living beings are all about. This is the principle of transforming something from nothing, and transforming back to nothing again. If you don't believe this, how can you explain that bugs can grow from rice? You may say,"Well, there are certain causes and conditions that bring this about." People in this world are just like those bugs, except that our attachments are stronger and our magical nature is greater. But we cannot begin to compare ourselves with the Buddha. We are just as far from being Buddhas as those bugs are from being people. Compared to the Buddha, we are just like those bugs. When people look at those bugs which grow from the rice we think of them as being really pitiful, that they don't have any purpose in life. Well, the Buddha sees us as just as pitiful. We see that these bugs go through life without knowing anything; they are born unaware of anything and then they die. This principle holds true for us as well. You should all look into this. It's really quite interesting. If you understand this principle, then you can cultivate the Way. So in your cultivation, every day you should be very level and balanced in everything you do. -
What does it mean to be balanced? For instance, when you read in the Sutras that "afflictions are just Bodhi and birth and death are just Nirvana," you may find it easy to understand this principle and think this is an easy thing to do. But you can't actually realize this truth. For example, when you read that afflictions are just Bodhi, you think, "afflictions are just Bodhi and since I have afflictions, that's just Bodhi; if I didn't have any afflictions then I wouldn't have any Bodhi." This is not what is meant here. You must change those afflictions and then they will become Bodhi. When you have afflictions, if you can recognize them, then you won't have any afflictions anymore. That's Bodhi. It's not that you put down your afflictions and look for something else that is Bodhi. If you don't have any afflictions, then basically there is nothing whatsoever, so where can the dust alight? When riding on a donkey, don't go looking for the donkey. You need to be balanced. You need to remain level and quiescent at all times so that you don't stir up the slightest wave in your self-nature, and this is the state where afflictions are just Bodhi and birth and death are just Nirvana. If you aren't worried about birth and death and don't see them as a problem, if you feel that if you live you live and if you die you die, that if there's food to eat you eat, and if there's clothes to wear you wear them, and otherwise, it doesn't matter whether or not you eat or wear clothes—if you are not attached to any of this—that is the state of birth and death just being Nirvana. So don't be so attached and drag around those fetters and chains on your body. What fetters and chains? All your bad habits and faults. Those are your fetters. If you hold on to those fetters, you can't lift up your legs and you can't get to the other shore. The words I am speaking now are very simple, but the meaning is very profound. Don't think that you are so clever and think, "I understand everything that you are saying." If you really understand it all then I can speak Buddhadharma to you and we can investigate how to cultivate the Way. But only if you truly understand. If you don't truly understand, then you still have problems with regard to fame and benefit. You still can't put them down. You can't put down name and you can't put down gain. You see everything as being too important, so how can I talk to you about true Buddhadharma? How can I investigate with you the cultivation of the Way? You should all wake up from your dream! Wake up from your dream!
-
Big Bang < a theory about the origin of the universe> has started to bang out after 30 years of falsehood.. See Stephen Hawkings confessions on his thirty years bet http://space.com/news/hawking_bet_040716.html
quote my article:
Have your read the book entitled A Brief History of Time. Well it's professor Stephen Hawkings' masterpiece. In order to understand this book, one has to understands what's the great mind behind the book. Who is this Stephen Hawkings? Not surprisingly, the principal influence in Stephen's early life was his mother, Isobel. Isobel Hawking was a member of the Communist Party in England in the 1930's, and her son has carried some of that intellectual tradition right through his life. By the time he was 13, Hawking's hero was the brilliant agnostic philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. At the same age, two of Hawking's friends became Christians as a result of the 1955 Billy Graham London campaign. According to his 1992 biographers (Michael White and John Gribben), Hawking stood apart from these encounters with "a certain amused detachment." There is little in A Brief History of Time that deviates in a significant way from what we know of the religious views of the 13-year-old Stephen Hawking. However, we must note that in public questioning Hawking insists that he is not an atheist. And I am told by eyewitness observers that in recent years Stephen Hawking has appeared "once or twice a month" in an Anglican church with his second wife. Perhaps the most important event of Stephen Hawking's life occurred on December 31, 1962. He met his future wife of 25 years, Jane Wilde, at a New Year's Eve party.One month later, Hawking was diagnosed with a debilitating disease, ALS or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known in North America as Lou Gehrig's disease. He was given two years to live at the time. That was nearly 45 years ago. However, there is little doubt that Jane Wilde's appearance on the scene was a major turning point in Stephen Hawking's life. The two of them began to see a lot more of one another and a strong relationship developed. It was finding Jane Wilde that enabled him to break out of his depression and regenerate some belief in his life and work. For Hawking, his engagement to Jane was probably the most important thing that ever happened to him. It changed his life, gave him something to live for and made him determined to live. Without the help that Jane gave him, he would almost certainly not have been able to carry on or had the will to do so.They married in July of 1965.Jane Hawking is a Christian. She made the statement in 1986, "Without my faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation (namely, the deteriorating health of her husband, with no obvious income but that of a Cambridge don to live on). I would not have been able to marry Stephen in the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me through, and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it."
The reason the book has sold more than 10 million copies, i.e., the reason for Hawking's success as a popularizer of science, is that he addresses the problems of meaning and purpose that concern all thinking people.The book overlaps with Christian belief and it does so deliberately, but graciously and without rancor.Stephen Hawking has made some eminently sensible statements on the relationship between science and Christianity. For example, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God". Perhaps, it's a counterpart of like Rick Warren's simple-to-read book "Purpose Driven Life" from a Christian point of view except without God in name! Stephen wrote for the thinkers, and intellectuals. For example the famous Albert Einstein used to say" God don't play dice" but Stephen Hawkings would have said it like this: " God play dice but sometimes he throws it and we cannot find those dices". Both are famous by playing with the idea of God and both don't deny God in any way but tried to explain the Great expanse within their logical minds.165.21.154.117 12:59, 19 Jul 2005 (SGT) unquote...
Perhaps you will like to read more on this subject..
http://www.sgwiki.com/wiki/Proofs_of_God
Norey
PS. Untimately Buddhism seek to replace God with the philosophy and belief in Buddha, and the original human creator had just disappeared into so many transmigrations that at best is a illusion ! -
AMiTaBha.
I think you have misunderstood Buddhism. The existence of GOD is irrelevant to Buddhism. Buddhism is about realisation. I do not see also that Buddhism seek to "replace God" - but a complete Enlightenment, a state of ONENESS.
In worldly view, imho, your defination of GOD may be the same of defination of the word Karma. They are just labels and could meant the same thing thousand of years ago. It is highly likely that through evolution, different groups interprets them different.
There are other very interesting postings about GOD in other threads, with interesting links. Maybe you would also like to see them.
As for me, with the recent global events - both natural and human errors, I am not convinced about the existence of almighty or the human creator. Just based on logic and deduction, our minds and Karma seem more a very convincing and reasonable explaination about things.
Just my OWN way of thinking.
Originally posted by norey:PS. Untimately Buddhism seek to replace God with the philosophy and belief in Buddha, and the original human creator had just disappeared into so many transmigrations that at best is a illusion ! -
So does God appear in the story ?Originally posted by norey:Big Bang < a theory about the origin of the universe> has started to bang out after 30 years of falsehood.. See Stephen Hawkings confessions on his thirty years bet http://space.com/news/hawking_bet_040716.html
quote my article:
Have your read the book entitled A Brief History of Time. Well it's professor Stephen Hawkings' masterpiece. In order to understand this book, one has to understands what's the great mind behind the book. Who is this Stephen Hawkings? Not surprisingly, the principal influence in Stephen's early life was his mother, Isobel. Isobel Hawking was a member of the Communist Party in England in the 1930's, and her son has carried some of that intellectual tradition right through his life. By the time he was 13, Hawking's hero was the brilliant agnostic philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. At the same age, two of Hawking's friends became Christians as a result of the 1955 Billy Graham London campaign. According to his 1992 biographers (Michael White and John Gribben), Hawking stood apart from these encounters with "a certain amused detachment." There is little in A Brief History of Time that deviates in a significant way from what we know of the religious views of the 13-year-old Stephen Hawking. However, we must note that in public questioning Hawking insists that he is not an atheist. And I am told by eyewitness observers that in recent years Stephen Hawking has appeared "once or twice a month" in an Anglican church with his second wife. Perhaps the most important event of Stephen Hawking's life occurred on December 31, 1962. He met his future wife of 25 years, Jane Wilde, at a New Year's Eve party.One month later, Hawking was diagnosed with a debilitating disease, ALS or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known in North America as Lou Gehrig's disease. He was given two years to live at the time. That was nearly 45 years ago. However, there is little doubt that Jane Wilde's appearance on the scene was a major turning point in Stephen Hawking's life. The two of them began to see a lot more of one another and a strong relationship developed. It was finding Jane Wilde that enabled him to break out of his depression and regenerate some belief in his life and work. For Hawking, his engagement to Jane was probably the most important thing that ever happened to him. It changed his life, gave him something to live for and made him determined to live. Without the help that Jane gave him, he would almost certainly not have been able to carry on or had the will to do so.They married in July of 1965.Jane Hawking is a Christian. She made the statement in 1986, "Without my faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation (namely, the deteriorating health of her husband, with no obvious income but that of a Cambridge don to live on). I would not have been able to marry Stephen in the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me through, and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it."
The reason the book has sold more than 10 million copies, i.e., the reason for Hawking's success as a popularizer of science, is that he addresses the problems of meaning and purpose that concern all thinking people.The book overlaps with Christian belief and it does so deliberately, but graciously and without rancor.Stephen Hawking has made some eminently sensible statements on the relationship between science and Christianity. For example, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God". Perhaps, it's a counterpart of like Rick Warren's simple-to-read book "Purpose Driven Life" from a Christian point of view except without God in name! Stephen wrote for the thinkers, and intellectuals. For example the famous Albert Einstein used to say" God don't play dice" but Stephen Hawkings would have said it like this: " God play dice but sometimes he throws it and we cannot find those dices". Both are famous by playing with the idea of God and both don't deny God in any way but tried to explain the Great expanse within their logical minds.165.21.154.117 12:59, 19 Jul 2005 (SGT) unquote...
Perhaps you will like to read more on this subject..
http://www.sgwiki.com/wiki/Proofs_of_God
Norey
PS. Untimately Buddhism seek to replace God with the philosophy and belief in Buddha, and the original human creator had just disappeared into so many transmigrations that at best is a illusion !
If God can post articles ,I would like to See
If your purpose here is to defute Buddhism ,save your finger's labour
You wont succeed .
thats all
If your idea is to prove Buddhism is right , kudos for the good effort
-
No, Buddhism does not believe in a Creator.Originally posted by norey:PS. Untimately Buddhism seek to replace God with the philosophy and belief in Buddha, and the original human creator had just disappeared into so many transmigrations that at best is a illusion ! -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Slightly edited from the first topic in our forum regarding Creationism: How the Brahma believed He was God?
In Buddha's days there were many many different teachings, one popular one was Brahmanism. In fact the Brahma was still worshipped nowadays. Brahma was known to be "The Supreme One, the All-mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of All".
In Buddhism, the Mahabrahma resides in the 1st Jhana plane, the first plane among the 8 jhanic planes. There were higher realms above where he lives that he was unaware of, and above it all, beyond the 8 Jhanic planes and all Samsaric planes, is Nirvana. Nevertheless all the devas below the 1st Jhana planes considered him as the Creator God. Buddha did not subscribe to the belief of such a notion that the Universe and its Inhabitants were the Creation of the Mahabrahma. He met with the Brahma, asked him questions which he could not answer. Eventually he has taken refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.
The Buddha was also known to have said this,
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!
When the previous universe was destroyed and this universe was formed, the Mahabrahma was first to be reborn. Other subsequent brahmas/devas were to be reborn.
'On this, brethren, the one who was first reborn thinks thus to himself: " I am Brahmà , the Great Brahmà , the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days the Father of all that are and are to be. 'These other beings are of my creation. And why is that so? A while ago I thought, 'Would that they might come!' And on my mental aspiration, behold the beings came." DN 1 2:5
In reality, the universe works by the law of Karma and he has no control over the system of karma.
The Venerable Ledi Sayadaw, a highly renowned Myanmar scholar-monk of the first part of this century, gave a careful analysis of the powers of Maha Brahma in his Niyama Dipani (MB pp. 138-39). He states that although Maha Brahma can perform all sorts of transformations, he cannot actually create independent creatures, change the kammic law of cause and effect, or keep anyone from growing old or dying. Brahma can use his special powers to transport a man to the brahma plane for a short visit, but he cannot ensure that someone will be reborn there.
from http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol5no3f.htm:
When he came to know about Sakyamuni Buddha in the human world who speaks of the universal truth, he was curious and arrived at the human world with the intention to debate with the Buddha. The Buddha, with his ability to know another's mind, knew his intention and asked, "You claim to be the creator of the human race and all things in the universe, is this a fact?"
The king replied, "Yes, it is."
Buddha continued to question him, "Since you created life, why did you also create death? Is death created by you too?"
The king paused for while, and thinking that everyone loves life and nobody welcomes death, he replied, "I did not create death."
Buddha asked him again, "All human beings experience sickness, did you create sickness also?" The king knew that nobody likes to be ill, and he replied, "I did not create illness."
Buddha asked many questions in succession, but the king denied that he created them. Eventually, he admitted that he did not create the universe and all things in it, and certainly not the human race. The king of heavens was full of regrets and he felt ashamed. Finally, he accepted Buddha as his teacher and invited Him to spread the Dharma in the heavens.
-----------------------------
http://www.mahindarama.com/e-library/whybuddhism2.html
"To those who talked about the first cause of this world, the Buddha responded by saying that it is impossible to find a first cause since everything is changing, interdependent and conditioned by other things. Something that acts as the cause in the present may become the effect in the future. Later that same effect may again become the cause. Such phenomenon continues ad infinitum. It is called the universal law of Anicca or impermanency.”
However, Buddhism is largely Agnostic rather than Atheist. We believe that pondering over such things brings no benefits at all to our spiritual practice, enlightenment, and liberation from samsara.
Kinds of speech to be avoided by contemplatives
"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these -- talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not -- he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to debates such as these -- 'You understand this doctrine and discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine and discipline. How could you understand this doctrine and discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. I'm being consistent. You're not. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine; extricate yourself if you can!' -- he abstains from debates such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue."
-- DN 2
Ten wholesome topics of conversation
"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful -- to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects."
-- AN X.69
-------
"Malunkhyaputta Sutta stresses that whether the universe was created or uncreated, finite or infinite, is irrelevant to our main spiritual concerns: the cause and cessation of suffering:
"Therefore Malunkhyaputta, bear the undeclared as undeclared. Malunkhyaputta, what are the not declared? The world is eternal, is not declared by me. The world is not eternal, is not declared by me. They are not essential for the principles of the holy life, they do not lead to turning away, to detachment, to cessation, to appeasement, to realisation, to enlightenment and to extinction. Malunkhyaputta, what are the declared by me? This, is unpleasant, is declared. This, is its arising, is declared. This, is its cessation is declared. This is the path to its cessation, is declared. Malunkhyaputta, why are these declared by me? These are the essentials for the principles of the holy life; they lead to turning away, to detachment, to cessation, to appeasement, to realisation, to enlightenment and to extinction. Malunkhyaputta, I declare them." MN 64" -
Reply...Originally posted by bohiruci:So does God appear in the story ?
If God can post articles ,I would like to See
If your purpose here is to defute Buddhism ,save your finger's labour
You wont succeed .
thats all
If your idea is to prove Buddhism is right , kudos for the good effort
No point in refuting what billions adhere to for belief..
Thanks for the response...yes
I went to m'sia over last 2 weekends ago, and a friend show me a 100,000 rupiah note, and if I have ten of them notes it's a fortune of ONE million rupiah which BTW is equal with about a few hundred Sing dollars, and someone in Indonesia would probably bet a few rupiah to hit that million rupiah jackpot! Or I heard they had it as a show promotion thing. It’s a million whatever..
I do have a note, and it's a show note with a million dollars in Canadian currency..
and you probably have never even seen one. None of our Singaporeans living here have seen that note, however, it's with me here I will put in online soon in Sgwiki
Then if I tell you that I am a poor old gentleman with a few dollars in my pocket. and I hope to win some money tonight when I go fishing for my bets at the 4D..Would you believe me?
The point is simply:
waht is true and waht is false?
I really don't give a dime for charity or any religious organizations if it 's not true however, I had given more than a bucket-ful to waht I believe and my daughter is a graduate with honors with a theological degree...it's not about money, but waht are the evidences for the demand for a verdict,
How does Buddha knows about all his belief in re-incarnation -
As I began earlier, Buddha did not personally believed in a personal God, as being described clearly in the Old Testament, or in the old Brahmanistic belief that the Maha Brahma created the world.
The Buddha remembered his past life through deep samadhi which can be experienced by everyone who does meditation. Even those who do past-life regression.
Pls see this very interesting article that contains a lot of interesting details of Buddhism and Science by Ajahn Brahmavamso: http://buddhism.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=179467
Exerpt:Come and See for Yourself
Furthermore, if Buddha received message from God, it is even more suspicious since we cannot at all prove whether this God exist or not. But for buddha's case, since his meditative experience can be reached by everyone, it is a sort of scientific experiment that can be repeated by everyone to reach the same conclusions.
If you had just one person who had been confirmed as medically dead who could describe to the doctors, as soon as they were revived, what had been said, and done during that period of death, wouldn't that be pretty convincing? When I was doing elementary particle physics there was a theory that required for its proof the existence of what was called the 'W' particle. At the cyclotron in Geneva, CERN funded a huge research project, smashing atoms together with an enormous particle accelerator, to try and find one of these 'W' particles. They spent literally hundreds of millions of pounds on this project. They found one, just one 'W' particle. I don't think they have found another since. But once they found one 'W' particle, the researchers involved in that project were given Nobel prizes for physics. They had proved the theory by just finding the one 'W' particle. That's good science. Just one is enough to prove the theory.
When it comes to things we don't like to believe, they call just one experience, one clear factual undeniable experience, an anomaly. Anomaly is a word in science for disconcerting evidence that we can put in the back of a filing cabinet and not look at again, because it's threatens our worldview. It undermines what we want to believe. It is threatening to our dogma. However, an essential part of the scientific method is that theories have to be abandoned in favour of the evidence, in respect of the facts. The point is that the evidence for a mind independent of the brain is there. But once we admit that evidence, and follow the scientific method, then many cherished theories, what we call 'sacred cows' will have to be abandoned.
When we see something that challenges any theory, in science or in religion, we should not ignore the evidence. We have to change the theory to fit the facts. That is what we do in Buddhism. All the Dhamma of the Buddha, everything that he taught, if it does not fit the experience, then we should not accept it. We should not accept the Buddha's words in contradiction of experience. That is clearly stated in the Kālāma Sutta. (AN III, 65) The Buddha said do not believe because it is written in the books, or even if I say it. Don't just believe because it is tradition, or because it sounds right, or because it's comforting to you. Make sure it fits your experience. The existence of mind, independent of the brain, fits experience. The facts are there.
Sometimes, however, we cannot trust the experts. You cannot trust Ajahn Brahm. You cannot trust the scientific journals. Because people are often biased. Buddhism gives you a scientific method for your practice. Buddhism says, do the experiment and find out for your self if what the Buddha said is true or not. Check out your experience. For example, develop the method to test the truth of past lives, rebirth and reincarnation. Don't just believe it with faith, find out for yourself. The Buddha has given a scientific experiment that you can repeat.
Until you understand the law of kamma, which is part of Buddhism, kamma is just a theory. Do you believe that there is a God 'up there' who decides when you can be happy or unhappy? Or is everything that happens to you just chance? Your happiness and your suffering in life, your joy, your pain and disappointments, are they deserved? Are you responsible or is it someone else's fault? Is it mere chance that we are rich or poor? Is it bad luck when we are sick and die at a young age? Why? You can find the true answer for yourself. You can experience the law of kamma through deep meditation. When the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree at Bodhgaya, the two knowledge's he realized just before his Enlightenment were the knowledge from experience of the truth of rebirth, and the knowledge from experience of the Law of kamma. This was not theory, not just more thinking, not something worked out from discussions around the coffee table this was realization from deep experience of the nature of mind. You too can have that same experience.
All religions in the world except Buddhism maintain the existence of a soul. They affirm a real 'self', an 'essence of all being', a 'person', a 'me'. Buddhism says there is no self! Who is right? What is this 'ghost in the machine'? Is it a soul, is it a being, or is it a process? What is it? When the Buddha said that there is no one in here, he never meant that to be just believed, he meant that to be experienced. The Buddha said, as a scientific fact, that there is no 'self'. But like any scientific fact, it has to be experienced each one for themselves, paccattam veditabbo viññūhī. Many of you chant those Pāli words every day. It is basic scientific Buddhism. You have to keep an open mind. You don't believe there is 'no self', you don't believe there is a 'self' both beliefs are dogmatism. Keep an open mind until you complete the experiment. The experiment is the practice of sila, samādhi and pañña, (virtue, meditation and insight). The experiment is Buddhist practice. Do the same experimental procedures that the Buddha did under the Bodhi tree. Repeat it and see if you get the same results. The result is called Enlightenment.
Men and women have repeated that experiment many times over the centuries. It is in the laboratory of Buddhist practice that the Enlightened Ones, the Arahants, arise. The Arahants are the ones who have done the experiment and found the result. That's why Buddhism always has been the scientific way. It is the way of finding out for your self the truth of Enlightenment.
When we remember a past life, we do not remember vaguely, but in great details, and remain undoubtable about the memories because it is just like asking 'have you had tea in the morning'? In meditation memories are recalled in great clarity and leaves no doubt. You were there in your past life, and nobody could convince you otherwise.
What I have said is only past life. Anyway Buddhism does not dwell so much on such aspects but on practising the dharma to gain in wisdom, liberate from sufferings in life, and attain the highest bliss.
Buddhists 'really are happier' -
However, it's a fact that he is One whom millions/billions worshipped just as they do in bowing down and rasing hands to worship and sing praises to God..how did Buddha become so godlike?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No, Buddhism does not believe in a Creator. -
Again that is a very common misunderstanding.Originally posted by norey:However, it's a fact that he is One whom millions/billions worshipped just as they do in bowing down and rasing hands to worship and sing praises to God..how did Buddha become so godlike?
Buddha did not ever called himself a God or a god, he merely said 'I am awakened'. He never demanded that anyone worship him, and neither do the Buddhists worship him at all.
Buddhists do not worship deities and gods, and since we do NOT even worship the Buddha, much less any others and anything. We treat the Buddha as a great teacher. We do venerate and revere him out of our utmost respect, but ultimately, there is no need to worship him, and we all CAN attain and become Buddhas ourselves. The Buddha merely showed the way, and all Buddhist practitioners cultivate to attain the great Enlightenment like the Buddha.
But it is important not to mistake the folks-practitioners in Singapore who worship many deities and gods along with some Buddhist figures as being Buddhists. These are not Buddhists, they just so happen to worship some figures in Buddhism. It is interesting to note that some of these folks-practitioners also worship some figures in Islam, which is a monotheistic religion. It doesnt make them any more muslim, does it?
A Buddhists is only a Buddhist after they have taken refuge in the Triple Gems: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. It is sort of like baptism in Christianity although I think the significance behind it is different. It is similar in a sense because without being 'baptised', just because you respect Jesus Christ doesnt make you a Christian. -
AMiTuoFo.
This is a very interesting and good question. I read the reply to this question in other topics.Originally posted by norey:However, it's a fact that he is One whom millions/billions worshipped just as they do in bowing down and rasing hands to worship and sing praises to God..how did Buddha become so godlike? -
Although Buddhism does have its spiritual aspects, on a deeper level it may not be correct to call Buddhism a religion, because religion implies we worship someone, or believe in an almighty God, etc.
-
Does taht make him less and less godlikeOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:Again that is a very common misunderstanding.
Buddha did not ever called himself a God or a god, he merely said 'I am awakened'. He never demanded that anyone worship him, and neither do the Buddhists worship him at all.
Buddhists do not worship deities and gods, and since we do NOT even worship the Buddha, much less any others and anything. We treat the Buddha as a great teacher. We do venerate and revere him out of our utmost respect, but ultimately, there is no need to worship him, and we all CAN attain and become Buddhas ourselves. The Buddha merely showed the way, and all Buddhist practitioners cultivate to attain the great Enlightenment like the Buddha.
But it is important not to mistake the folks-practitioners in Singapore who worship many deities and gods along with some Buddhist figures as being Buddhists. These are not Buddhists, they just so happen to worship some figures in Buddhism. It is interesting to note that some of these folks-practitioners also worship some figures in Islam, which is a monotheistic religion. It doesnt make them any more muslim, does it?
or more godlike? -
What I meant is, godlike is irrelevant at all in regard to Buddha.Originally posted by norey:Does taht make him less and less godlike
or more godlike? -
we are indeed fortunate to live in this part of the 1st world country - singapore, living together with multi-racial cultures, traditions and religions. we are sure bound to have challenging questions put to each other's beliefs and practices. some may say it is a test of faith. but i do not see it that way. faith can be blinding but the mind is not blind. i would put it as when questioned, it questions our grounded knowledge in self-knowledge - the capacity in oneself that can go far and deep. it is not about all the time knowing about external things when you do not even know the slightest thing about yourself. (here we do not touch the subject on the non-existing self because 1st we must know it before we understand it is not there... this is a different topic.)
when something is good, you don't need to advertise it or pull people in to believe in it, people will come to it naturally at own free will.
thus, one do not have to even promote buddhism. for those with eyes to see, ears to listen, mind to explore, they can see and listen and explore for themselves free willingly. -
Lovely. AMiTaBha.
-
-
profound it is....Originally posted by concerned_man: -
Yes... very.Originally posted by paperflower:profound it is....
-
Buddhism gives due credit to man's intelligence and effort for his achievements rather than to supernatural beings. True religion means faith in the good of man rather than faith in unknown forces. In that respect, The Buddha taught that what man needs for his happiness is not a religion with a mass of dogmas and theories but knowledge of the cosmic nature and its relationship to the law of cause and effect.Originally posted by norey:Does taht make him less and less godlike
or more godlike?
Btw we respect Buddha oso cause he free our mind from a curse which has been ensalving our human mind for centuries tat's the illusion that salvation can be obtain by surrendering our dignities as human ,begging ,asking for forgiveness,bribery(be obedience in order to gain something) thru the so-called gods.To us no practice could be more humiliating or degrading to man thru such practises.Such salvation is not any self-respecting man would care to get.
Rather buddha made us reliase that man is supreme, a master of his own destiny, it follows that he must also be responsible for his own action and inaction.
"No one saves us but ourselves,
No one can and no one may.
We ourselves must walk the path,
But Buddhas clearly show the way". -- Dp 165
Pls read Uniqueness of buddhism
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=185088