http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/152581
The evolving world goes through four stages, namely:
[1] Kalpa:
1. Formation = 20 small kalpas
2. Existence = (we are in this stage)
3. Destruction
4. Void or Emptiness
Each stage has a time span termed a "medium kalpa" [1]. Twenty "small kalpas" make one "medium kalpa". The four stages, each termed a "medium kalpa", make up a "great kalpa".
1 small kalpa = 16.8 million years
20 small kalpas = 1 medium kalpa = 336 million years
80 small kalpas = 4 medium kalpas = 1 great kalpa = 1.344 billion years
ps: the calculation is yet to be exact.
The above description is very close to what the Buddha said. Further, records from Buddhist scriptures match very well with what astronomers of today have found. It is in this manner that the world is returned to the great natural phenomenon of the universe.
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. They began to lose many of their intrinsic celestial qualities such as celestial colours, fragrant scent, brightness, beauty, wisdom and their innate miraculous quality. In particular, their "clairvoyance eyes" turned into human eyes; and their "clairvoyance ears" became human ears. They became unable to remember their past lives. They lost their special ability to read the minds of others. They were unable to communicate by radiant light from their mouths and they needed to depend on sounds from the movements of their tongues. While without sufficient languages and vocabulary, they needed sign language to assist them to fully communicate with each other. They became ordinary human beings on earth. After running out of the tasty fluid, they resorted to feed on thick weedy plants, then hard crops from the wild. At that time, the life span of human being was long and there was no disease or sickness. Later, they learned to plant crops and vegetables. During the period of feeding from nature, those who were greedy in feeding themselves acquired darker skin colours, ranging from brown to black. Others who did not feed as much and those who arrived later had lighter skin colour, ranging from fair to yellow. As time went on, together with the influence by climatic conditions of different regions (equatorial, temperate and cold regions), various skin coloured races of people were formed.
/\
Originally posted by BroInChrist:So, you think a six day creation week by an almight God is fictional, mythical, and un-scientific but that your BELIEF that first there was nothing, then something come out of nothing, then over millions of years some of that something become living, and then over millions of years that living something become more complex until it becomes human, is true, fact, and scientific?
In short, you think that God making the universe is myth but that the universe made itself is fact. I think you have not gone through the thinking process enough to know what that implies.
BTW, the Biblical account is not un-scientific, but it is certainly written in a non-scientific way. Do you know the difference?
u everytime confuse me with other people. when did i said first there was nothing? or said we came from germs?
if i believe got a very very begining, then i am rejecting Buddha's teaching of cause and effect, Causality, dependent origination or dependent arising. "begining" of our earth is just a speck of dust in the countless universe and limitless space. space, mind unit and 4 abstract elements are already there beginless.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:u everytime confuse me with other people. when did i said first there was nothing? or said we came from germs?
if i believe got a very very begining, then i am rejecting Buddha's teaching of cause and effect, Causality, dependent origination or dependent arising. "begining" of our earth is just a speck of dust in the countless universe and limitless space. space, mind unit and 4 abstract elements are already there beginless.
/\
Did I? So let's clarify this. I assume you know what the evolution story is. Which part do of the story do you accept or reject? Why?
BTW, there is only one universe, and it has a beginning. You have to agree to this if you wish to be scientific. The universe did not exist in space, that would be a wrong understanding. The universe is the totality of time, space and matter.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Did I? So let's clarify this. I assume you know what the evolution story is. Which part do of the story do you accept or reject? Why?
BTW, there is only one universe, and it has a beginning. You have to agree to this if you wish to be scientific. The universe did not exist in space, that would be a wrong understanding. The universe is the totality of time, space and matter.
Based on our current limited understanding of science? Just like how Judeo-Christian long thought earth was the center of the universe and everything else orbits around earth?
Originally posted by zeus29:Based on our current limited understanding of science? Just like how Judeo-Christian long thought earth was the center of the universe and everything else orbits around earth?
The Bible does not teach that the earth is physically at the centre of the universe. The Bible also does not teach that everything else physically orbits the earth. So where did you get these two ideas from?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Did I? So let's clarify this. I assume you know what the evolution story is. Which part do of the story do you accept or reject? Why?
BTW, there is only one universe, and it has a beginning. You have to agree to this if you wish to be scientific. The universe did not exist in space, that would be a wrong understanding. The universe is the totality of time, space and matter.
to me if got evolution, then should also have de-evolution. we are into upgrading of life form and degrading of life form in the form of reincarnation. all and all will move up to an advance life-form, aka Buddha.
what ever u call it, cosmo, galaxy, milky way etc. milky way is more to normal understanding. Buddhism called it Three thousand great thousand world 三�大�世界 (1000000000 worlds) and mount sumeru. and we have not gone into different "dimensions" or realms or "universe". my take, Existence is the totality of time, space and matter. we don't always agree with scientists. things can already been discovered by Buddha, but not science.
/\
Originally posted by BroInChrist:The Bible does not teach that the earth is physically at the centre of the universe. The Bible also does not teach that everything else physically orbits the earth. So where did you get these two ideas from?
Who mentioned about the bible?
Originally posted by sinweiy:The Earth People: Genesis in Buddhism
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/152581
ps: the calculation is yet to be exact./\
I don't see why this account you related should be deemed more plausible than the creation account in Genesis 1. In any case, there are problems with your beliefs that I can see. Why would it start with formation? What is the cause of the formation?
Originally posted by sinweiy:
to me if got evolution, then should also have de-evolution. we are into upgrading of life form and degrading of life form in the form of reincarnation. all and all will move up to an advance life-form, aka Buddha.what ever u call it, cosmo, galaxy, milky way etc. milky way is more to normal understanding. Buddhism called it Three thousand great thousand world 三�大�世界 (1000000000 worlds) and mount sumeru. and we have not gone into different "dimensions" or realms or "universe". my take, Existence is the totality of time, space and matter. we don't always agree with scientists. things can already been discovered by Buddha, but not science.
/\
You can have "devolution" without having evolution. In fact, "devolution" would be the state of things after the Fall, when the perfect state is ruined by sin, and things get from bad to worse.
You mentioned about moving up to Buddhahood. But I believe you also said that we were all Buddhas to begin with. So why is the state of Buddhahood so unstable? Wouldn't that have already meant nirvana to begin with? Cessation of all desires?
Originally posted by zeus29:Who mentioned about the bible?
Oh, so you were just saying that some people in the Judeo-Christian world thought centre of the universe was earth, but you do not agree that the Bible teaches this. If so, I'm perfectly fine with that. BTW, it wasn't just Christians who believed that, almost everyone at that time believed that, since that was really the Aristotelian worldview which the church also subscribed to, without Biblical basis. The same problem exists today that many Christians also subscribed to the evolution worldview which is contrary to what the Bible plainly teaches.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Oh, so you were just saying that some people in the Judeo-Christian world thought centre of the universe was earth, but you do not agree that the Bible teaches this. If so, I'm perfectly fine with that. BTW, it wasn't just Christians who believed that, almost everyone at that time believed that, since that was really the Aristotelian worldview which the church also subscribed to, without Biblical basis. The same problem exists today that many Christians also subscribed to the evolution worldview which is contrary to what the Bible plainly teaches.
Yes, I said that in reference to your reply "BTW, there is only one universe, and it has a beginning. You have to agree to this if you wish to be scientific. The universe did not exist in space, that would be a wrong understanding. The universe is the totality of time, space and matter."
We also thought that there was one galaxy but as science advance, we found that there are many galaxies out there. Why limit our minds to our current limited resources?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I don't see why this account you related should be deemed more plausible than the creation account in Genesis 1. In any case, there are problems with your beliefs that I can see. Why would it start with formation? What is the cause of the formation?
formation is like birth, as in birth, old, ill, death. then birth again, old, ill, death. then again on and on....this is samsara. cause is karma. simple.
/\
Originally posted by BroInChrist:You can have "devolution" without having evolution. In fact, "devolution" would be the state of things after the Fall, when the perfect state is ruined by sin, and things get from bad to worse.
You mentioned about moving up to Buddhahood. But I believe you also said that we were all Buddhas to begin with. So why is the state of Buddhahood so unstable? Wouldn't that have already meant nirvana to begin with? Cessation of all desires?
Duality is in the unreal world of samsara. got up sure got down, got good, sure got bad. got dark sure got light. i still reject evolution in the form of mutation and coming from germs. to me if there's a split of species many millions of years ago, u should also see that 'split' now in term of species with quite similarity feature. moreover Buddha is all knowing, and since He talk about how the form material like river, mountian, the realms, the whole existence are created etc especially in Shurangama Sutra(wisdom opener), He should also mentioned about evolution (in the form of mutation) in the sutras, but i only feel that species of animal like owl, fox, snake etc were already there in the sutra. and all these animals are very different, but are born by certain karma.
Buddha said that when one attained Buddhahood, they would not turn back into sentient beings. it's like ore turning into gold, the gold remain as gold, and will not become ore again. it's like a person lost his way, but later found the way, then next time he wouldn't be lost again. when i said we are "originally" Buddha, i mean that we have the quality to become Buddha. ore have the quality to become gold. we call this quality Buddha-nature. u can become Buddha. we all can. Buddhism is Equal to all. not bias.
perfect state is ruined by sin? where does the sin came from?
/\
Originally posted by zeus29:Yes, I said that in reference to your reply "BTW, there is only one universe, and it has a beginning. You have to agree to this if you wish to be scientific. The universe did not exist in space, that would be a wrong understanding. The universe is the totality of time, space and matter."
We also thought that there was one galaxy but as science advance, we found that there are many galaxies out there. Why limit our minds to our current limited resources?
I think you have not grasped the meaning of the word "universe". It is defined as "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole." People who invoke multiverses in order to avoid a theistic cause also commit the same mistake. They redefined or distort the word "universe".
Originally posted by sinweiy:formation is like birth, as in birth, old, ill, death. then birth again, old, ill, death. then again on and on....this is samsara. cause is karma. simple.
/\
I don't think you addressed my question at all.
Originally posted by sinweiy:Duality is in the unreal world of samsara. got up sure got down, got good, sure got bad. got dark sure got light. i still reject evolution in the form of mutation and coming from germs. to me if there's a split of species many millions of years ago, u should also see that 'split' now in term of species with quite similarity feature. moreover Buddha is all knowing, and since He talk about how the form material like river, mountian, the realms, the whole existence are created etc especially in Shurangama Sutra(wisdom opener), He should also mentioned about evolution (in the form of mutation) in the sutras, but i only feel that species of animal like owl, fox, snake etc were already there in the sutra. and all these animals are very different, but are born by certain karma.
Buddha said that when one attained Buddhahood, they would not turn back into sentient beings. it's like ore turning into gold, the gold remain as gold, and will not become ore again. it's like a person lost his way, but later found the way, then next time he wouldn't be lost again. when i said we are "originally" Buddha, i mean that we have the quality to become Buddha. ore have the quality to become gold. we call this quality Buddha-nature. u can become Buddha. we all can. Buddhism is Equal to all. not bias.
perfect state is ruined by sin? where does the sin came from?
/\
You said that Buddha is all-knowing, you mean omniscient as traditionally an attribute of God?
So now you you have qualified your statement that we were all originally Buddha to mean having the potential to become Buddha. It would seem to be a wrong choice of words you used as it conveys a completely different idea! Of course, it is a matter of debate as to whether anyone can become a Buddha. Given the Buddhist's premise that we have infinity past or countless lives, we should all have become Buddhas already. It's the same with the idea of an eternal universe. If it were true, we would have reached heat death infinite time ago. But since we have not, then clearly the universe is not eternal.
Sin doesn't come from anywhere. Sin is disobedience against God. It first took root in Satan, and then man. Only free-will moral creatures can sin. God gave free will to angels and man, who then exercised the wrong choice.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I think you have not grasped the meaning of the word "universe". It is defined as "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole." People who invoke multiverses in order to avoid a theistic cause also commit the same mistake. They redefined or distort the word "universe".
According your current understanding, right?
Originally posted by zeus29:According your current understanding, right?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
According to dictionary.
Current version of the dictionary right?
Originally posted by zeus29:Current version of the dictionary right?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Your point being? That the definition will soon change to mean something else?
If there's new discovery and understanding, why not?
Originally posted by zeus29:If there's new discovery and understanding, why not?
While the meaning of a word may change over time due to usage, it only means there are more than one meaning to the word depending on the context. Which is why a dictionary always have a few entries for each word. But the word universe cannot mean a multiverse, it's incoherent and contradictory. Really, you need to understand that this agenda to prove the existence of multiverses is to steer people away from the notion that this universe is uniquely designed for life. People do not want there to be purposeful design in the universe, so positing the existence of billions of multiverses would give people (mainly those who do not want there to be a God) the comfort that one of these billions must be suitable for life, and that is us. It's philosophy at work here, not science. It is purely hypothetical and mathematical with no empirical evidence. It is the arbitrary multiplying of probabilistic resources to make the impossible or improbable more probable. Nothing conclusive has been found, but people are still looking for it, I'd say it is wishful thinking.
See http://www.livescience.com/15530-multiverse-universe-eternal-inflation-test.html
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I don't think you addressed my question at all.
all ur answers i see had always being in the context of Bible/Creation, and it also make u want to hear answers that are more in the context of Bible. But while mine is in context of Buddhism. Buddhism talks about Continuum/Change.
sometimes, it's quite far-fetched to say a person did an act (as in died at the cross) and this act had "paid" for our sins. so it can be any kind of act like even traveling around the world by foot, or climb the highest mountain, etc?. and that act had said to "finish" another act(of payment). a bit magical to me.
/\
Originally posted by BroInChrist:You said that Buddha is all-knowing, you mean omniscient as traditionally an attribute of God?
So now you you have qualified your statement that we were all originally Buddha to mean having the potential to become Buddha. It would seem to be a wrong choice of words you used as it conveys a completely different idea! Of course, it is a matter of debate as to whether anyone can become a Buddha. Given the Buddhist's premise that we have infinity past or countless lives, we should all have become Buddhas already. It's the same with the idea of an eternal universe. If it were true, we would have reached heat death infinite time ago. But since we have not, then clearly the universe is not eternal.
Sin doesn't come from anywhere. Sin is disobedience against God. It first took root in Satan, and then man. Only free-will moral creatures can sin. God gave free will to angels and man, who then exercised the wrong choice.
Buddha is truely omniscient, but omnipotent need more explaination, and clarification due to karma. Though Buddha is the highest enlightened beings with unconceiveable spiritual power, he is unable to do the following:
1. to eliminate or change the
karmic retribution
2. to cross over those who reject Buddhism
3. to
cross over the entire sentient beings in the Dharma Realms
Buddha attained Buddhahood the 8000 times stated in Lotus Sutra. if Buddha said that one can be lost again after Buddhahood, then no one will want to become Buddha.
universe is not eternal? then after heaven, it become eternal? another magical saying. if everything happen in a loop or cycle, then there's no issue.
have u imagine living eternally and what would it take to live eternally? would it be bore after some very long time? that's when change/freshness is helpful in an eternal living.
where Satan come from? seems like there's always discrimination in Bible. but in Buddhism we are to get rid of discrimination aka dualism in the end.
/\
Originally posted by BroInChrist:While the meaning of a word may change over time due to usage, it only means there are more than one meaning to the word depending on the context. Which is why a dictionary always have a few entries for each word. But the word universe cannot mean a multiverse, it's incoherent and contradictory. Really, you need to understand that this agenda to prove the existence of multiverses is to steer people away from the notion that this universe is uniquely designed for life. People do not want there to be purposeful design in the universe, so positing the existence of billions of multiverses would give people (mainly those who do not want there to be a God) the comfort that one of these billions must be suitable for life, and that is us. It's philosophy at work here, not science. It is purely hypothetical and mathematical with no empirical evidence. It is the arbitrary multiplying of probabilistic resources to make the impossible or improbable more probable. Nothing conclusive has been found, but people are still looking for it, I'd say it is wishful thinking.
See http://www.livescience.com/15530-multiverse-universe-eternal-inflation-test.html
and your understanding is finite?