The Buddha knows everything in this universe via his mind alone. Can I do the same? I want to know what is inside a black hole.

In AN 8.70 , the Buddha lists eight causes for an earthquake. The passages read as follows:- > Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one > side, and said to him, “Sir, that was a really big earthquake! That > was really a very big earthquake; awe-inspiring and hair-raising, and > thunder cracked the sky! **What’s the cause, what’s the reason for a > great earthquake?”** > > “Ānanda, **there are these eight causes and reasons for a great > earthquake**. What eight? > > **This great earth is established on water, the water is established on > air, and the air stands in space. At a time when a great wind blows, > it stirs the water, and the water stirs the earth. This is the first > cause and reason for a great earthquake.** > > Furthermore, there is an ascetic or brahmin with psychic power who has > achieved mastery of the mind, or a god who is mighty and powerful. > They’ve developed a limited perception of earth and a limitless > perception of water. They make the earth shake and rock and tremble. > This is the second cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the being intent on awakening passes away from the > host of joyful gods, he’s conceived in his mother’s belly, mindful and > aware. Then the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the third > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the being intent on awakening comes out of his > mother’s belly mindful and aware, the earth shakes and rocks and > trembles. This is the fourth cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One awakens to the supreme perfect > awakening, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the fifth > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One rolls forth the supreme Wheel of > Dhamma, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the sixth > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One, mindful and aware, surrenders the > life force, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the > seventh cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One becomes fully extinguished in the > element of extinguishment with no residue, the earth shakes and rocks > and trembles. This is the eighth cause and reason for a great > earthquake. > > These are the eight causes and reasons for a great earthquake.” Seven of these eight causes are clearly supernatural (e.g., divine beings, psychic powers, events related to a Buddha) while the first and the only natural explanation of earth resting on water stirred by cosmic winds being the cause of earthquakes does not align with what we understand today as the geological and entirely naturalistic explanation of earthquakes. My question is:- How do Buddhists, especially those who identify with traditional or orthodox readings of the suttas understand these earthquake causes today? Do they:- - Reject the modern scientific understanding of earthquakes and accept the sutta’s description literally? - Interpret these causes allegorically or symbolically? If so, how? I’m curious how different Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, etc.) approach this apparent conflict between scripture and modern scientific understanding.

I'm writing an article comparing Buddhist accounts of perception with modern concepts in robotics (autonomous driving) and cognitive science (e.g., Andy Clark’s Surfing Uncertainty). I am particularly interested in the term *nimitta*, which Andriy Volkov describes as a “defining characteristic” of an object rather than the object itself (I'm not talking about *nimitta* that arises in the context of *kasina* meditation). Note: I've started to write up a document on nimitta where I try to be specific about the term and my intended use. I'll reference this discussion in the document. My questions are: 1. Does nimitta ever refer to the object itself, or only to its facets or identifying features? 2. Would it be accurate, within the framework of Buddhist philosophy, to describe nimitta as an “internal representation”?

Ānanda, the earth rests on water, the water rests on air, and the air rests on space. When a great wind blows, the water is stirred, which in turn causes the earth to shake—resulting in an earthquake **Is that scientifically accurate regarding how the Earth is *structured*? And *cause* for earthquake**

I’ve heard many people say that Buddhist texts refer to a flat Earth. Is it true that Buddhism considers the Earth to be flat? Please give an unbiased answer.

In traditional Buddhist texts, Solar and lunar eclipses are often seen as being caused by a demon named Rāhu who attempts to seize the sun or moon, as seen for example in the SN 2.9 and 2.10 where the Buddha speaks of Rāhu releasing the sun or moon after the Buddha’s intervention. This is pretty similar to the mythical explanation of eclipses found in Hindu puranas. Today in light of modern science, eclipses are understood as natural events governed by the movement and alignment of the earth, moon, and sun. There is no magical phenomenon behind it and no gods or demons involved. Is there room within Buddhist philosophy for integrating or accepting the astronomical explanation of eclipses, or would that be seen as rejecting scriptural authority?

Science categorize physical world in to solid,liquid,gas and energy(thermal,kinetic,nuclear,radiation etc....) when it analyze, prove that nothing more than those three state of material and energy and science has already proven the interconnection of energy and matter(in nuclear technology). Also the three state of matter is conditioned by energy.E.g when you apply heat(energy) to ice (solid) it will convert into water(liquid) and further reach steam(gas). Once we consider four great elements patavi,apo,thejo,vayo; is it an equivalent of above scientific categorization?

Wikipedia's Kalpa(aeon) in Buddhism article says, > In another simple explanation, there are four different lengths of kalpas. A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long (16,798,000 years<a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKalpa_%2528aeon%2529%23Buddhism" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">[1] <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years. I just went through the Visuddhimagga, and could not find where or how that time in years is calculated. I was wondering how to calculate it. Please explain how it's calculated, with reference to scripture where Lord Buddha mentioned it, and/or where the calculation or the result of the calculation is described, perhaps in the Thripitaka or Visuddhimagga? --- <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKalpa_%2528aeon%2529%23Buddhism" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">[1] <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> Wikipedia's reference is to a book: > Epstein, Ronald B.(2002). Buddhist Text Translation Society's Buddhism A to Z p. 204. Buddhist Text Translation Society. ISBN 0-88139-353-3, ISBN 978-0-88139-353-8. Perhaps that book may have a reference to where they found it, but I still haven't find that book.

I may consider myself as a strong buddhist. But when I read about concept of quantum consciousness , it seems very realistic. And add to that, considering capabilities of current simple(chat GPT, etc) AI models, and considering how powerful an AI model(in DNA) would be powered by evolution through millions of years, it seems possible to believe ability to produce consciousness like behavior with 1) biological quantum consciousness and 2) AI model coded by DNA. So, my question is, what are the best **Buddhist answers** against this? Why may be these ideas of physically produced consciousness are wrong? In other words, what information we can gather from buddhist philosophy and buddhist teachings regarding origin of the consciousness?

What, exactly, is the notion of cause and effect at work in a causal series that includes the citta-santāna? I suppose the obvious answer is the 12 links of dependent origination, but I am confused ***how*** ignorance causes sankhara to arise. **Obviously, speculating where will be reborn is frowned upon, even if suggesting that rebirth may work even with some views (such as mind-brain identity) is not.** ---------- Suppose that it reduces to something physical, so that my *brain state* for my "death thought" must bring about a new brain state somewhere: is it very conceivable, in contemporary physics or biology, that the state of my brain right sufficiently for citta-santana with an existing (or just coming into existence) brain state that is not "my" brain?

Here is what I have been told by some Thai followers: The sun's light takes 8 minutes to reach the Earth, but our mind can think of the sun or even of distant stars instantly. That is to say, our mind is faster than the speed of light. They claim science is a subset of Buddhism. Is this true or false?

In Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara, there is a debate with the Charvakas (ancient materialists) about the existence or non-existence of past and future lives. In the commentary, Rinpoche compares and contrasts the Charvakas tenets with modern day scientists who would deny the conventional existence of past or future lives. Rinpoche accuses modern scientists with the phrase "divorcing the view and the action" and advises that this is a saying among masters to describe something considered very dangerous: As Rinpoche implies that this phrase is commonly used by masters to describe something very dangerous I am wondering if there are other examples of masters using this phrase and why it is considered so dangerous. Can anyone find Sutra/Treatise/Commentary/Anecdote of other masters using this phrase? I'm also wondering if it is appropriate to describe modern Secular Buddhists who also deny the conventional existence of past or future lives as holding the same view as modern scientists and subject to this same phrase? If so, why is this so dangerous and what is meant by "divorcing the view and the action?" What is the translation of this phrase in Pali, Sanskrit, or Tibetan to the extent that there are examples of masters using this phrase in a similar way in any of these languages?

UPDATED Thank you very much for your answers! Due to the answers, the post has been updated and something added. Modern *brain-centered evolutionary reductionism* says that: Ego, personality and "free will" are just illusions, "optical effects". Culture: music, poetry etc; some romantic, delicate feelings are just by-products of evolution. Evolution has no "meaning", sense, "goal" etc. *** Instead of evolution, we can consider any process or explanation. The main thing is that all the concepts that were considered philosophical or important, special - received the simplest explanations. Good and evil, space-time, philosophy and morality - *all have no essential special nature.* I see a parallel here with Buddhism. *** Space-time, causality, all math and science have roots only and exactly inside the brain. The existence of an "external objective world" is only a hypothesis, a model. *** No one claims that *certainly there is no outward world*. *Nor* is it necessarily there. It is a model, a framework. Here I see no contradiction with @ChrisW answer *** Aside from the idea of reincarnation, is there any contradiction with Buddhism in these statements?

Whenever I have read any book or article on Buddhism, one of the biggest takeaways of Buddhism seems to be its indifference to pursuit of 'Metaphysical' questions like origin of the Universe (which in those times belonged to the realm of Philosophy) and the fundamental nature of reality, etc. Buddha was non-theistic, that is, he kept mum on the existence and nature of God. Buddhism seems to teach us not to bother with these questions and focus on ethical living. But Science and Engineering IS the reason why we have everything we have now. Many of the sufferings like death from polio or tetanus has been eradicated thanks to Science, famine has become a thing of the past due to Science, and so on. And all this has happened because of metaphysical questions which later evolved into the subject of Science (and still guides Scientific progress). For example, NASA's missions like James Webb help us unravel the mysteries of the Universe but at the same time, it also helps us push the boundaries of technology and reduce our sufferings. It seems to me that Buddhism seems to discourage us asking questions like these that has lead to Humanity's progress and sideline Science and Philosophy. Is my thinking correct? Would Buddha, if he would have lived today, discouraged us from pursuing Science and Philosophy and try to make us go to monasteries and live ethical life of meditation? By this rule, does it mean that physicists should abandon Physics and Cosmology?

I came across [this article](http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2010/12/general-theory-of-conditionality.html) by a long time contributor of this forum. In particular, the article mentioned a definition of paticca samuppada (PS) in [Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary](https://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_p.htm) > 'dependent origination', is the doctrine of the conditionality of all physical and psychical phenomena, The article proceeded to attempt to position this as a general theory explaining the basis for all phenomena. **Qn 1:** Is there anything inherently wrong with generalizing dependent origination or PS into a theory of conditionality? FYI, there is a [post regarding the appropriateness of treating PS](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/44729/difference-between-the-scientific-law-of-causality-and-the-buddhist-law-of-condi) as a law of conditionality. Note that in science, a law is a description of a phenomena (that is scientifically proven) while the article mentioned above is attempting for a general theory of conditionality i.e. to explain the why. (Although the article mentioned principle but I think we can forget it; I don’t think there is anyway to prove it scientifically). My question is not on the appropriateness as a law but instead as a general theory. Reason for my uncertainty is as follows: 1) PS was taught by the Buddha in the context of explaining the arising of suffering. 2) In general, physical phenomena have a certain range of possible outcomes. For example, a sapling may or may not grow into a tree or a forecasted rain may or may not occur. In fact, probability is the way to describe the quantum world. But the way PS is explained traditionally, *When this exists, that comes to be. With the arising of this, that arises* indicates a certainty in outcome, therefore: **Qn 2:** How can the certainty alluded in PS be reconciled with the probabilities in outcomes we see in reality? Personally, I am neither for nor against this generalization of PS into a theory of conditionality. Thanks for sharing of any insights.

I was wondering if this could be scientific or dhamma proof of the eminence of suffering coming from a physical and mental root. If you touch and rub the front right part of your forehead you can feel the dukkha or suffering from rubbing it. You will even feel a residual paste on your skin that contains stress and suffering. What is this and do other people experience this? Is this actual physical scientific proof of suffering and Buddhism?

It seems that there are different "versions" of Buddhism today, and many of the teachings from these different versions appear to be at odds with one another. I'd like a way to tell which teachings are incomplete, corrupted, or flat-out fakes. If Buddhism is really a "science" of the mind, like many teachers say, shouldn't there be ways to test things? Are there ways to test the authenticity of a teaching?

Many practising Buddhists that I know also have strong ecological concerns. Is this concern for 'green' issues part of Buddhism or do the two things just attract the same kind of people i.e. people that like Buddhism also like green issues. Specifically does concern for the environment have any basis in canonical texts or commentaries or is it a modern development?

For example, software/code/algorithms themselves can be very complex, dense, cryptic (often without value), overly detailed, stressful to understand intent (sometimes), generation of new abstractions that generate new problems... and requires more cognitive strain for advanced theory and implementations. Zen type practices seem very opposite - simplicity, clarity, open space, non-judging, non-solving, higher non-thinking intelligence, beauty, expansiveness, ease, flow and lightness of mind/thought. Does computer science really fit on this path...or are we trying to shove it in based on others expectations and financial wealth? (Then of course the physical environments and people environments that tend to correlate with each).

I have heard that Lord Buddha wrote or discussed about the smallest indivisible particle i.e the atom. What exactly did he say. Is it mentioned in some scriptures? If yes, did he give any argument or detail of his observations.