AGGANNA SUTTA: Evolution of theUniverse

[@mkartmkart6335]

Thank you. such clearity is hard to find. Thank you again... like again.... as in recognising I just said it earlier in this message

[@dulikadealwis9520]

Bhante Punnaji is an indisputable teacher and guide in buddhism. His life long research to uncover the original teachings of the Buddha is commendable. There's nothing wrong with drawing parallels between buddhism and sciences. When the highest point is reached by science, it will only prove that the Buddha was right all along. The late Bhante Punnaji is a rare jewel indeed, with indepth knowledge in science, philosophy, psychology and Buddhism. His perspective of the dhamma is revolutionary because of these knowledges. Ever so greatful to Bro. Billy Tan for sharing these valuable sermons. 🙏

[@paradoxsolverparadoxsolver748]

The Agganna Sutta is a Buddhist scripture found in the Pali Canon, which is the primary scripture of Theravada Buddhism. It presents a cosmological account of the origin and evolution of the universe, as well as the cycles of human civilization. However, it is important to note that the Agganna Sutta is primarily regarded as a religious and mythological text rather than a scientific account. Scientific evidence refers to empirical observations, experiments, and data that are subject to rigorous testing, peer review, and verification within the scientific community. The Agganna Sutta does not provide scientific evidence in this sense, as it is not based on empirical observations or subject to scientific scrutiny. The cosmological and mythological accounts presented in the Agganna Sutta are allegorical and symbolic in nature, conveying spiritual and philosophical teachings rather than scientific explanations. They are meant to provide a narrative framework for understanding the nature of existence, the cycles of life and death, and the moral and ethical lessons taught in Buddhism. It is worth noting that Buddhism, like many other religious and philosophical traditions, offers perspectives on topics that intersect with scientific inquiry, such as consciousness, human suffering, and the nature of reality. However, these perspectives are not presented as scientific theories or competing with scientific explanations. In summary, the Agganna Sutta is a religious and mythological text that conveys Buddhist teachings and cosmological narratives. It does not provide scientific evidence or align with the empirical, evidence-based methodology of scientific inquiry. The role of religious texts is distinct from scientific investigation and understanding.

[@manoharsurdas6764]

Vande mi Bhante Bhante explain very well In simple words as comprehend science Respect Bhante

[@Joe45011]

It is true that we do not have Buddha today but Arhant monks may exist in forests. Mae-Chee-Kaev was one of the Books written about Arhant nun lived 1950s. But we cannot say that Arhant monks do not exist without knowing.

[@thailandamulets]

Good Point. Only Arahants know about Arahant MInd. It is pointless to concern oneself with what is outside of one's own knowledge. And even if there are any Arahants, it wont make us become one will it? Only our own efforts and our own practice can lead us to liberation. Following an Arahant around wont help

[@thailandamulets]

Bhante makes very advanced teachings... But he says there were Only 2 kinds of Matter in Buddha's Time? Bpatawī and Āpō .. what about 'Vāyō'?? Thats Air (Gas) - agreed Techo is heat, and is a quality not an element. But Ãpō was existent in Buddha's time, and it is the material element of Air So many distortions and false interpretations in Bhante's lectures. Like in part one of Paticca Sammuppada lecture, he ends up saying 'Consciousness is Perception' (Vinyana is Sanya).. i am sorry but Perception and Memory is Sanya. Vinyana is not Perception, it is 'Awareness of Perception'. He says the Vedhana Khanda is the Body.. but the Body is the Rupa Khanda, not the Vedhana Khanda.. ALL of the 5 aggregates (Khandas) depend on the body to arise in the first place, but the description of what each Khanda is given by Bhante, is not in line with the teachings. The teachings are very advanced and would be excellent, if they did not base some points on false assumptions, which because of this, ends up being a lecture that has dangers in it that can mislead the listener into falsely contemplating the 5 aggregates, and the elements. One can see of course, that unlike the Buddha, Bhante has a pile of paper notes, which means he doesnt know what he is saying spontaneously realised.. he is using the analytical part of the mind to define things. Any Master who has realised the teachings he is giving, does not use notes on pieces of paper. He states various confusing and incorrect things, which is a shame, because it distorts the teaching, which would otherwise be excellent

[@kelumtube]

I don't think theory of evolution should be connected with Buddhas teachings. Modern science and Buddhism are completely two different things. Anyone who sees Buddhism through glasses of science can never get the true meaning of Buddhism. And the biggest danger is, comparing modern science and Buddhism will ultimately distort Buddhas teachings.

[@bathparty1552]

Yes. Science is purely quantitative but truth (dhamma) is not but qualitative.

[@DayInLife2]

buddhism seeks the truth, science also seeks the truth of the universe, why not?

[@thailandamulets]

Dont know about Buddhism as it is a religion with people bowing to statues, which isnt very scientific is it. But the Budfdha Dhamma explanation of the way things truly are, and the methods of contemplation and practice given by Buddha, are supreme, and are pure science. The Buddha gave us an explanation of the nature of all things in existence, and a path of practice to escape the existential problem. Buddhism is a religion separate and apart from Buddha's Explanation and Method of Practice. Christianity and God are two separate matters. So are Buddhism and the Dhamma. The Dhamma stands with or without Buddhism. The Dhamma is science. Buddhism is superstition (bowing to deities and cliinginig to rituals)

[@thailandamulets]

I have problems with the 'an angel came to see the Buddha' stories. They are unprovable fables and do not belong in the teachings. I have never seen anybody able to talk to a Deva in this material world. Such fairy stories damage people's faith, because they are obviously fairy stories. Have to say though Bhantes teachings are on a very high level, which is why he makes the odd mistake, because it is very difficult to teach this level of Dhamma. He is a very good teacher, but he is not enlightened yet, and is making some mistakes. I consider his teachings to be excellent for anybody who has enough wits to question and confirm the accuracy of his statements, because there are some errors, but there is more accurate stuff than erroneous. However, the listener needs to clarify it all by researching and confirming both academically and also in meditation

[@sophiehill1157]

Our monk, explained that when it states that the Buddha was teaching the Gods and devas, he was actually teaching beings from other planets.

[@nuwanchathuranga8407]

angel is not Christin angel. buddha teach A diagrammatic representation of a Buddhist Universe. it have life but they not human. but Superior to human beings. The Buddha described the nature of those worlds and the distance and time they take to reach those worlds. that awesome teching.

[@Joe45011]

Also, we should not mix science and Buddhism. If someone join Science and Buddhism that means like trying to weigh weight using a ruler.

[@thailandamulets]

Buddhism is a religion with superstitions and cant be Mixed with Science, but the Buddha-Dhamma (explanation of the nature of existence), can be mixed with science, because it IS science. For example, the Dhamma of three marks of existence are defined in physics. the first for example 'Anijja' is the constant flux and changing of all things, changing states.. this in Physics is called 'Entropy' Science and Dhamma dont need mixing, because they are the same thing. Buddha did not teach religion, that is what we built up around him. He taught sicence

[@bathparty1552]

@@thailandamulets No science is quantitative but Dhamma is qualitative.

[@muhandiram88]

This is not Buddhism

[@thailandamulets]

What is Buddhism? (To you.. because ask a million people, get a million different answers). Who has the global authority to say what Buddhism is and is Not? - Its all imaginary in people's heads anyway (Sangkhara) conditioned thoughts.. Chimeras. 'This is Not Buddhism' because 'Buddhism is not Anything' just like all things.. empty, and only appears to exist in a subjective sense

[@projectone7875]

this is the real buddhism kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJytY5-OibWZZsk

[@nuwanchathuranga8407]

you are an idiot. you have no idea about Buddhism. this is the buddhist cosmology