Where do lives come from?
-
Then do take you time to continue reading..Originally posted by MooKu:I didn't read everything... but then if Nuwa (or whoever else) created us, then who created our Creator?
How do you actually tackle the issue of not knowing the origin of your 'Creator'????
Unlike theistic religions, Buddhism does not posit the existence of a personal creator -- meaning a separate person, yet like us, who can create other beings. Regarding the existence of a personal creator, Albert Einstein said:
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity", Albert Einstein
“If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.” Albert Einstein
But if you want to talk about true origin... in a way we can say that our primordial reality is our true essence or Buddha Nature. It has never left us... though we have not realised it due to ignorance (like a layer of dust covering the face of the clear bright mirror). Actually Buddha did not really 'create' sentient beings so to speak... rather it is due to ignorance that sentient beings continues to suffer in samsara. But it is this primordial reality that gives rise to the myriads of phenomena, and knowingness/luminosity is in-built.. the mirror-mind reflecting everything neverendingly, or the light that by itself is invisible but lights up every single thing. Therefore it is known as pure consciousness/awareness.
The excerpt below explains what I'm trying to say but take note that it is not meant to be interpreted in a personal tone, as if it is really a personal being that is 'God'. As a matter of fact all religions texts when they tak about God have deeper metaphorical meaning... which is why out of those mainstream religionists who have no experience or insights of the true nature of God takes the words literally and made it into a form of mental belief... there are those who have experieneced/glimpsed this higher reality and choose to walk the more mystical and contemplative paths (such as Christian mysticism, Islamic sufism, Hindu vedanta, original Taoism, and so on..) There are differences in terms of the depths of realisations between these traditions with Buddhism, but that is another topic. But just to say, that this primal reality can actually be realised... though it is formless, featureless it can be directly known and experienced.. and there are many people, even in this forum who do have such insights. It is not something or a person that we 'believe' in... it is not some deity... (Buddhists do not worship any deities and gods) but is the ground reality that we have yet to realise. For now..
Here's another article:Here are some quotes from the All-Creating King Tantra, in which Samantabhadra speaks directly to the listener:
"I, the supreme source ["All-Creating King"], am the sole maker, and no other agent exists in the world. The nature of phenomena is created through me ... The very manifestation of existence itself depends on me ... I am self-arising wisdom that has existed from the beginning. I am the supreme source of everything, pure and total consciousness ...'Consciousness' means that self-arising wisdom, the true essence, dominates and clearly perceives all the phenomena of the animate and inanimate universe. This self-arising fundamental substance, not produced by causes and condition, governs all things and gives life to all things ... As my nature is unhindered and all-pervading, it is the celestial abode of wisdom and luminous space: therein abides only self-arising wisdom. As I am the substance whence everything arises, the five great elements, the three worlds [i.e. the worlds of Desire, Form, and Formlessness] and the six classes of beings [hell-denizens, ghosts, animals, humans, Titans, and gods] are only my body, my voice, and my mind: I myself create my own nature ... The root of all phenomena is pure and total consciousness, the source. All that appears is my nature. All that manifests is my magical display. All sounds and words express only my meaning ...
"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am 'the core', because I contain all phenomena. I am 'the seed', because I give birth to everything. I am 'the cause', because all comes forth from me. I am 'the trunk', because the ramificationsof every event sprout from me. I am 'the foundation', because all abides in me. I am called 'the root', because I am everything [emphasis added]" (Translation of "The All-Creating King", published as The Supreme Source, tr. by Adriano Clemente and Andrew Lukianowicz, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, New York 1999, pp. 137-141, 157).[/quote]
My forum friend, Thusness, writes from the perspective of causal consciousness, the I AM THAT I AM:Originally posted by Thusness:
This is an interesting topic and since it is allowed to discuss more about God in a Buddhism forum, I would like to talk a little more about the experience of 'AMness" in all things.
Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?
Being free individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going. This "AMness" is “God”.
[quote]http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/boomeritis/sidebar_e/index.cfm/
...Lesa Powell smiled gently. "So let's start with perhaps the most amazing aspect of Descartes's work, and then suggest a few ways that he might have gotten sidetracked. To begin with, the cogito. That is, ' Cogito, ergo sum ,' usually translated as, 'I think, therefore I am.' But that translation loses the immediacy of the intuition that impelled Descartes. As interpreters such as Kroy and Bonnett have pointed out, this pithy phrase really has the meaning of: 'consciousness, hence being.'
"In other words—and this was the basis of the famous Cartesian doubt—there are many things that I can doubt, but I cannot believably doubt my own consciousness in this moment . My consciousness IS, and even if I tried to doubt it, it would be my consciousness doing the doubting. I can imagine that my senses are being presented with a fake reality—say, a completely virtual reality or digital reality, which looks real but is merely a series of extremely realistic images. But even then, I cannot doubt the consciousness that is doing the watching.
"Likewise, I can imagine that my consciousness is delivered to me by a complex brain mechanism of neurotransmitters, synapses, and the like, so that my consciousness is merely a byproduct, an epiphenomenonon—but that is merely a rational deduction, and even that deduction is known only in my immediate consciousness. This does not deny that the brain is involved in consciousness; it simply points out that unless the immediate reality of my own present consciousness is included in the equation, I am missing a reality that I cannot believably doubt in any event...
cont. -
"Consciousness, hence being. The very undeniability of my present awareness, the undeniability of my consciousness, immediately delivers to me a certainty of existence in this moment, a certainty of Being in the now-ness of this moment. I cannot doubt consciousness and Being in this moment, for it is the ground of all knowing, all seeing, all existing. This, of course, is exactly the path that had been taken by Vedanta, by Vajrayana, by the Neoplatonists, and by many other great wisdom traditions. It is the path of I AM, and this great I AMness is said to open directly on to, or even to directly be, nothing other than pure Spirit, radiant God/dess, the Atman that is Brahman, timelessly and eternally—a supreme equation secreted in the fact that you cannot doubt the Immediacy of your own Now-ness. Consciousness, therefore Being. And Being is God in the state of I AM.
Though it has to be noted that even the causal is not a complete and final realisation, especially in Buddhism, since the experience of causal consciousness does not necessarily entail realisation of no self and non duality where even cartesian dualism is transcended.
"Who am I? Ask that question over and over again, deeply. Who am I? What is it in me that is conscious of everything? This self-inquiry was used by Sri Ramana Maharshi to realize the Self, the Self that is one with the entire Kosmos in all its radiant splendor. In other words, Sri Ramana Maharshi was using the Cartesian doubt to drive to heart of the Atman that is Brahman—although, of course, the technique is centuries old. Descartes did not invent it, he merely rediscovered it. In Descartes's burning desire to know 'What is ultimately true? What is so true that it can never be doubted ?,' he turned his attention inward with such a fierce and awesome dedication to Truth that he eventually was brought—as all such sincere and prolonged self-inquiry is—directly to the Self that is the Witness of all worlds, a Self that can never be believably doubted because it is always already ever-present. Consciousness IS Being, even here and now.
"How similar was this Cartesian doubt to the Path of Awakening in the great wisdom traditions? Here is only one example, taken from Dzogchen Buddhism, generally regarded as the highest of the Buddha's teachings. This is from the great Paltrul's 'Self-Liberated Mind':
"'At times it happens that some meditators say that it is difficult to recognize the nature of the mind (note: in Dzogchen, 'the nature of the mind' means the ultimate reality of pure Emptiness or primordial Spirit). Some practitioners believe it to be impossible to recognize Spirit. They become depressed with tears streaming down their cheeks. There is no reason at all to become sad. It is not at all impossible to recognize. Rest directly in that which thinks that it is impossible to recognize Spirit , and that is exactly it .'"
Lesa Powell looked up. "In other words, if you think that you know Spirit, or if you think you don't, Spirit is actually that which is thinking both of those thoughts. So you can doubt the objects of consciousness, but you can never believably doubt the doubter, never really doubt the Witness of the entire display. Therefore, rest in the Witness, whether it is thinking that it knows God or not, and that witnessing, that undeniable immediacy of now-consciousness, is itself God, Spirit, Buddha-mind. The certainty lies in the pure self-felt Consciousness to which objects appear, not in the objects themselves. You will never, never, never see God, because God is the Seer, not any finite, mortal, bounded object that can be seen. (Consciousness, therefore Being— not: objects of Consciousness, therefore Being.)
"Thus, this pure I AM state is not hard to achieve but impossible to escape, because it is ever-present and can never really be doubted. You can never run from Spirit, because Spirit is the Runner. To put it very bluntly: Spirit is not hard to find but impossible to avoid: it is that which is looking at this page right now. Can't you feel That One? Why on earth do you keep looking for God when God is actually the Looker?
"Therefore, simply rest in the ever-present Witness. As Patrul also says: 'There are some meditators who don't let their mind rest in itself or in basic immediateness, as they should. Instead they let it watch outwardly or search inwardly. You will neither see nor find Spirit by watching outwardly or searching inwardly (for it is the Seer, not the seen!). There is no reason whatsoever to watch outwardly or search inwardly. Let go directly into this mind that is watching outwardly or searching inwardly, and that is exactly it .'
"Well, all of that is good Cartesianism—although, again, Descartes didn't invent it, he just rediscovered it in his own I AMness. This path of self-inquiry—and the Great Liberation that is secreted in the ever-present I AM state—goes back at least 2,000 years (although the traditions always claim, not completely convincingly, that it goes back tens of thousands of years or more). We find it in Plato and therefore Neoplatonism (and therefore virtually every mystical school in the West), where it appears as a basic Wakefulness present even in sleep; it is clearly announced in India in the Upanishads, where this Atman that is Brahman is the doorway to Enlightenment; we find it in Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism (when faced with those who thought that the attainment of nirvana depended on prayers and chanting, Zen asked instead: 'WHO chants the name of the Buddha?'); we find it in the great Christian mystics, such as Boethius, who in his great distress cried out to Philosophia, who ever-so-gently whispered in his ear: 'You have forgotten who you are.' Because who you are is... Spirit itself, even when you think you can never find it.
"At the beginning of the modern world—that is, somewhere between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment—Descartes looked into this own mind and found the Looker. From Descartes this I AM realization poured into modern Western philosophy. When Husserl explains that the world could end and it wouldn't affect the pure Self, or when he describes the splitting of the witnessing self from empirical self (e.g., in section 15 of Cartesian Meditations ), or when Fichte describes the pure Observing Self as being infinite and supraindividual Spirit—this is Western Vedanta at its finest. To varying degrees we find it in Kant, Spinoza, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Heidegger... oh, it is a long list!
"And I am getting quite ahead of the story." Powell laughed, shifted her position sitting on the stage, and continued. "Several scholars have suggested that Descartes's major satori occurred in an altered state of consciousness when he climbed into an old stove and curled up on himself. He is quoted as saying something like, When I came out, my entire philosophy was formed.
"Well, what we do know is that Descartes very probably had a peak experience of the causal realm. A peak experience of the pure Self, the formless Witness, the pure Consciousness that cannot believably be doubted because it is the ground of all Being and all doubt. A peak experience of Atman, a peak experience of the ever-present I AM: no wonder Descartes was the first great modern philosopher, powered by that fuel!
"But—and this is crucial—we also have good reason to believe that Descartes's frontal development—that is, his average center of gravity—was at the orange meme (this was, after all, the beginning of modernity). And therefore Descartes did pretty much what integral psychology predicts that he would do: he interpreted his altered state or peak experience of the causal realm in terms of the orange meme . Aye, and there's the rub.
"We can find no evidence that Descartes was permanently developed to the causal realm—the causal was therefore only a passing state, not a permanent trait. Recall that integral psychology maintains that a person at virtually any stage of development (infant, child, adult—purple, red, blue, orange, green, yellow, etc.) can have an altered state or peak experience of any of the great states of consciousness—gross, subtle, causal, nondual (corresponding to waking, dreaming, sleeping, and nondual). But the person will tend to interpret that altered state in the terms of their present stage of development.... (continued in URL) -
Regarding big bang.. this is a gd read I posted in forum quite some time back: Recycled Universe: Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery
In Buddhism, there is no beginning to existence... there is no ultimate beginning because there is no beginning.. it is completely an everchanging process... and the universe is known to undergo stages of death and reneweal. This universe might be just one out of countless other universes unknown to us as well.http://www.mahindarama.com/e-library/whybuddhism2.html
Which is also why I said in another topic recently Buddhism is not about beliefs... it is something more fundamental to do with every single human being and sentient being.
..."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 it is not important to our spiritual practise, enlightenment, and liberation from samsara.
"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 delcared. 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"...
And if you want to go deeply into the essence of the 'universe', you will see that the whole universe is empty in nature, reality is empty yet luminous. -
Regarding why Buddhism does not accept the idea of a personal Creator:
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. -
(continued from previous post)
http://www.mahindarama.com/e-library/whybuddhism2.html
Therefore in Buddhism, the question of God is irrelevant and not given importance. Instead, like a scientist, the Buddha encouraged the Buddhist practitioners to find out for themselves the truths that the Buddha said, to put it to test, and to see for ourselves, and to get enlightened. Buddhism does not encourage any blind belief and dogmas (see Kalama Sutra), and also encourages analytical questioning -- whether this teaching actually helps us.
"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"Kalama Sutra
There are countless enlightened persons from Buddha's times till today, some of them even posting in this forum (not me), who have awakened to the ultimate reality and seen for themselves the truths that the Buddha taught. Beliefs in divine etc are not important and irrelevant in Buddhism, Buddhism being a man-centered (means having great love and compassion for all sentient being, as well as to practise for one's own spiritual development) rather than God-centered teaching, which is a reason why it is the only religion that does not have a history of having fought religious wars, --
"Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the
spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience.Do not believe in anything simply because you
have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do
not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is
written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
- the Buddha
Note: this is just a summary, please read the entire sutra here: http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/kalama_sutra.htmlOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:
No fanaticism
Of Buddhism alone can it be affirmed it is free from all fanaticism. Its aim being to produce in every man a thorough internal transforming by self-conquest, how can it have recourse to might or money or even persuasion for effecting conversion? The Buddha has only shown the way to salvation, and it is left to each individual to decide for himself if he would follow it.
- Prof. Lakshmi Narasu, "The Essence of Buddhism" -
Originally posted by sgquitter:WRONG.
only males carry Y-chromosome, while the X-chromosome is carried by both sexes (excluding genetic anomalies).
and btw, Mitochondrial Eve does NOT point to the fact that she is the FIRST and only human female on Earth during her time.
misread ur thread....clarify here
OF COURSE LAH....my statement did NOT point to the fact ...however it meant for AEN reference ONLY
so far it the best evidence that given by a DOCTOR regarding evolutionary process,not some religion mist
-
Kalama Sutra
"Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the
spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience.Do not believe in anything simply because you
have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do
not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is
written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
- the Buddha
Therefore I do not believe in everything as it is written in all religious books including buddhism,rather investigating the truth among all religious books -
Therefore in buddhism,I do not believe in everything including below statement:
During the first phase of the formation of earth, the earth's crust covering the ground was not fully solidified. The ground surface appeared milky in colour. Looking from the celestial plane, the earth shone brightly and afar. In the heaven of Radiant Lustre, many of those celestial beings whose blissful life in the heaven was coming to an end and who by disposition were more restless and impetuous, on seeing the brightness, and out of curiosity, began to travel down to the earth. They used their "clairvoyance feats" to fly down and reached different continents of the earth. They saw fluid springing out from the ground and they dipped their fingers in it. They tasted the fluid and found it extremely tasty, sweet like honey. While the fluid was so tasty, everyone craved for more. Those who had most, their bodies became rough and heavier. They began to lose their light illusory physical forms and their bodies slowly formed into the material body of bone and flesh. The weight forced them to the ground and they lost their "clairvoyance feats" and "natural heavenly clothes", and were unable to fly through the skies to return to the celestial world[/quote]
rather believe in evolutionary origin of species...HOPE
-
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is DNA that is located in mitochondria. This is in contrast to most DNA of eukaryotic organisms, which is found in the nucleus. Nuclear and mtDNA are thought to be of separate evolutionary origin, with the mtDNA being derived from bacteria that were engulfed by early precursors of eukaryotic cells. Thus in cells in current organisms, the vast majority of proteins found in the mitochondria (numbering approximately 1500 in mammals) are encoded by nuclear DNA: some, if not most, are thought to have been originally of bacterial origin and have since been transferred to the nucleus during evolution. In mammals, 100% of the mtDNA contribution to a zygote is inherited from the mother and this is true for most, but not all, organisms. Currently, human mtDNA is present at 100-10,000 copies per cell, with each circular molecule consisting of 16,569 base pairs with 37 genes, 13 proteins (polypeptides), 22 transfer RNA (tRNAs) and two ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs).
Unlike nuclear DNA in which the genes are rearranged by about one half of each generation (due to the process called recombination), there is usually no change in mtDNA from parent to offspring by this mechanism. Because of this and the fact that its mutation rate is higher than nuclear DNA and easily measured, mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking matrilineage, and has been used in this role for tracking many species back hundreds of generations. Human mtDNA can also be used to identify individuals, however it is not a failsafe way to discriminate involvement of people at crime scenes and is no longer commonly used in court cases for this purpose. -
Origin of mitochondrial DNA
The existence of mitochondrial DNA also supports the endosymbiotic theory, which suggests that eukaryotic cells first appeared when a prokaryotic cell was absorbed into another cell without being digested. These two cells are thought to have then entered into a symbiotic relationship forming the first organelle.
Mitochondrial inheritance
Female inheritance
Mitochondria in mammalian sperm are usually destroyed by the egg cell after fertilization. In 1999 it was reported that paternal sperm mitochondria (containing mtDNA) are marked with ubiquitin to select them for later destruction inside the embryo (Sutovsky et al. 1999). Some in vitro fertilization techniques, particularly injecting a sperm into an oocyte, may interfere with this.
The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers to trace uterine lineage far back in time. (Y chromosomal DNA, paternally inherited, is used in an analogous way to trace the agnate lineage.) This is accomplished in humans by sequencing one or more of the hypervariable control regions (HVR1 or HVR2) of the mitochondrial DNA. HVR1 consists of about 440 base pairs. These 440 base pairs are then compared to the control regions of other individuals (either specific people or subjects in a database) to determine maternal lineage. Most often, the comparison is made to the revised. Vilà et al have published studies tracing the matrilineal descent of domestic dogs to wolves. The concept of the Mitochondrial Eve is based on the same type of analysis, attempting to discover the origin of humanity by tracking the lineage back in time.
Because mtDNA is not highly conserved, and has a rapid mutation rate, it can be used in phylogenetic study. Biologists sequence a few selected genes across different species, and can build an evolutionary tree depending on how conserved or divergent the sequences happen to be.
Male inheritance
It has also been reported that mitochondria can occasionally be inherited from the father [1] in some species such as mussels. Paternally inherited mitochondria have also been reported in some insects such as the fruit fly (Kondo et al. 1992) and the honeybee (Meusel & Moritz 1993). Increasing evidence supports rare instances of male mitochondrial inheritance in some mammals as well. Specifically, documented occurrences exist for mice (Gyllensten et al. 1991, Shitara et al. 199
, sheep (Zhao et al. 2004), cattle (Steinborn et al. 199, and humans (Schwartz & Vissing 2002). While many of these cases involve cloned embryos or subsequent rejection of the paternal mitochondria, others document in vivo inheritance and persistence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA#Origin_of_mitochondrial_DNA -
You don't have to believe. But one day when your cultivation is deep enough you will be able to verify those things as well.Originally posted by Owl^:Therefore in buddhism,I do not believe in everything including below statement:
During the first phase of the formation of earth, the earth's crust covering the ground was not fully solidified. The ground surface appeared milky in colour. Looking from the celestial plane, the earth shone brightly and afar. In the heaven of Radiant Lustre, many of those celestial beings whose blissful life in the heaven was coming to an end and who by disposition were more restless and impetuous, on seeing the brightness, and out of curiosity, began to travel down to the earth. They used their "clairvoyance feats" to fly down and reached different continents of the earth. They saw fluid springing out from the ground and they dipped their fingers in it. They tasted the fluid and found it extremely tasty, sweet like honey. While the fluid was so tasty, everyone craved for more. Those who had most, their bodies became rough and heavier. They began to lose their light illusory physical forms and their bodies slowly formed into the material body of bone and flesh. The weight forced them to the ground and they lost their "clairvoyance feats" and "natural heavenly clothes", and were unable to fly through the skies to return to the celestial world[/quote]
rather believe in evolutionary origin of species...HOPE -
Here's a evolutionist interpretation of the Aganna Sutta, which is the commonly held view especially in Modern Theravada... however I do not agree with this interpretation. But I am posting here for others' reference. http://web.archive.org/web/20060520045340/http://www.webcastmy.com.my/bodhivision/aganna/lesson3/pt3.htm
Ven. S Dhammika, who agrees with the evolutionist's view, says "It is interesting that the Buddha's explanation of the origin of the universe corresponds very closely to the scientific view. In the Aganna Sutta, the Buddha describes 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." Buddhism and the God-idea
I personally agree about the universe part, but not exactly evolution of micro-organisms to human. -
Cultivation got nothing to do verifying those stuffOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:You don't have to believe. But one day when your cultivation is deep enough you will be able to verify those things as well. it is purely an investigation in religious book...
So far it best evidence that given by DOCTOR than blind believing in 'religion mist' -
I'm not saying whether it is to do with verifying those stuff... what I'm saying is when your cultivation reach certain levels you will naturally know about these things.Originally posted by Owl^:Cultivation got nothing to do verifying those stuff it is purely an investigation in religious book...
So far it best evidence that given by DOCTOR than blind believing in 'religion mist' -
So far it best evidence that given by DOCTOR than blind believing in 'religion mist'Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I'm not saying whether it is to do with verifying those stuff... what I'm saying is when your cultivation reach certain levels you will naturally know about these things. -
Depends on whether you are able to see into the past. Some people can see into the past all the way back to the beginning of our universe. Of course science is by far most accurate but it is not necessarily completely correct. Anyway I'm not discouraging confidence in science.. and I do agree that many things in Buddhism cannot be proven (such as does other realm like heaven exist?) There are many things we cannot ascertain. But doesn't mean they don't exist or they are not true, just that we are not the Buddha who is omniscient. There is no need to believe everything he said, but keep an open mind and practice.. eventually many things we can verify with our own experience.Originally posted by Owl^:So far it best evidence that given by DOCTOR than blind believing in 'religion mist' -
http://www.mahindarama.com/e-library/whybuddhism2.htmlOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:Depends on whether you are able to see into the past. Some people can see into the past all the way back to the beginning of our universe.
..."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
I do not believe everything in religious book,rather keep an open mind to investigate the truth of all religious books including buddhism espOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:There is no need to believe everything he said, but keep an open mind and practice.. eventually many things we can verify with our own experience.
Science is by far most accurate of all 'religion mist' -
http://www.mahindarama.com/e-library/whybuddhism2.html
We're not talking about first cause here -- the Buddha taught that every universe undergoes formation, stability, destruction and void. However prior to this universes, there are uncountable other previous universes... there is no beginning.
..."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
Anyway believe what you want to believe about science... but I wld suggest while believing in science still keep an open mind, because scientific findings and understanding are always subject to changing... -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Anyway believe what you want to believe about science... but I wld suggest while believing in science still keep an open mind, because scientific findings and understanding are always subject to changing...
oK -
Do note however that there are many things that are only dealt within the domains of Buddhism and spirituality... many things are of course better left to science, or in fact can only be left to science, such as medicine, technology, and many things... while in Buddhism, deal with Buddhism things.
-
So that means Buddism cannot be applied in actual life.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Do note however that there are many things that are only dealt within the domains of Buddhism and spirituality... many things are of course better left to science, or in fact can only be left to science, such as medicine, technology, and many things... while in Buddhism, deal with Buddhism things. -
You shld apply dhamma teachings in your life... you shld not rely on theory,Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:So that means Buddism cannot be applied in actual life.
but on experience.... -
But somehow, science is by far best evidence eg mitochondrial DNA than blind believing in 'religion mist'Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Do note however that there are many things that are only dealt within the domains of Buddhism and spirituality... many things are of course better left to science, or in fact can only be left to science, such as medicine, technology, and many things... while in Buddhism, deal with Buddhism things. -
Let me ask you a questionOriginally posted by Owl^:But somehow, science is by far best evidence eg mitochondrial DNA than blind believing in 'religion mist'
Clones you have heard of it rite ?
Why is the clones sheep thats was born bear a different characteristic than the main clone
Read up on clone research before you treat Science as Supreme
Alot of the Science thesis is mere paper talk ,with a totally unacceptable
practical research
Science define cloning will produce the same species and thinking
So how come science could not explain the discrepancies
How do you define Vow Power in Buddhism ? It just sitting down there waiting for things to happen with those people just concentrate their mind on something ?
Sometimes if you said "religious mist " you are debunking them as superstitious and unscientific
Let me tell you Vow Power in Science .It is a totally changing of magnetic field of ones mind to align to change and hope for a certain condition
Now Buddhism is scientific .. -
Pls do not quote my thread
I do not wish to engage in any conversation with you
I rather believe in science evidence is by far most accurate NOW that given by DOCTOR than reading ur paper talk or 'mist talk'
.....................................................
For AEN reference ONLY
'Suspicious idea' of intelligent design eg alien intelligent