Who has not experienced a feeling of amazement when looking at the depths of the sky filled with countless twinkling stars on a cloudless night? And who hasn’t wondered whether intelligent life exists there too? Who hasn’t asked himself whether our planet is the only habitable place in the Universe? In my opinion, such questions are posed by the very natural curiosity inherent in the human mind. Attempts to find answers to them have been made throughout the history of human civilization. One of the greatest achievements of modern science is that it has brought us closer than ever before to understanding the conditions and causes of the complex processes underlying the emergence of the Universe.
Like most ancient cultures, Tibet developed a complex astrological system, including elements that would now be classified as astronomical knowledge, and therefore the Tibetan language has names for many of the stars visible to the naked eye. Already in ancient times in India and Tibet, people learned to predict lunar and solar eclipses with a high degree of accuracy based on astronomical observations. As a child, I spent many nights looking at the sky through a telescope and learning the shapes and names of the constellations.
I remember the joy I felt when I first visited a real astronomical observatory in Delhi and the Birla Planetarium. In 1973, during my first visit to the West, I was invited by the University of Cambridge in England to give lectures in the Senate House and at the Faculty of Theology. When the Vice-Chancellor asked me what I particularly wanted to see in Cambridge, I answered without hesitation that I would first like to visit the famous radio telescope in the astronomy department.
During one of the Life and Consciousness conferences in Dharamsala, astrophysicist Pete Hut of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University showed me a computer model of how astronomers think events unfold when galaxies collide. It was an amazing sight, a whole performance. Such computer animation helps, based on knowledge of certain conditions existing immediately after a cosmic catastrophe, to imagine how the Universe unfolds in time according to the basic laws of cosmology. After the demonstration given by Pete Hut, we had an open discussion. Two other participants in this meeting, David Finkelstein and George Greenstein, attempted to demonstrate the phenomenon of the expansion of the Universe using rubber bands with rings attached to them. I remember this clearly because two of my translators and I myself had certain difficulties in imagining the corresponding cosmic process on the basis of such a demonstration. Then all the scientists present at the meeting jointly tried to simplify the presentation, which, of course, led to even greater difficulties.
Modern cosmology, like most modern physical sciences, is largely based on Einstein’s theory of relativity. It interprets astronomical observations on the basis of the general theory of relativity, which views gravity as the curvature of space and time, and concludes that our Universe in its modern form is neither eternal nor unchanging. On the contrary, it is constantly expanding and evolving. In this I see a certain consonance with the basic ideas of ancient Buddhist thinkers, who believed that every single Universe goes through periods of emergence, formation and complete destruction. In modern cosmology, back in the 1920s, based on both theoretical calculations performed by Alexander Friedman and empirical observations by Edwin Hubble – for example, the observation that the so-called red shift in the emission spectrum of distant galaxies was stronger than that of nearby ones – there was a The fact that the Universe is curved and is in the process of expansion has been demonstrated beyond doubt.
It has been suggested that this expansion is a consequence of the greatest cosmic cataclysm – the so-called Big Bang, which scientists believe occurred 12-15 billion years ago. Many modern researchers believe that within a few seconds after this explosion, the temperature reached the point at which reactions begin that lead to the emergence of nuclei of light elements; subsequently, all matter existing in space came from them. Thus, space, time, as well as all the matter and energy we observe, originated from this primary clot of matter and radiation. In 1960, scientists discovered cosmic background radiation in the microwave range; it was regarded as an echo or a kind of lightning of the primordial Big Bang. Accurate measurements of the spectrum, polarization and spatial distribution of this radiation have provided confirmation, at least in general terms, of this theoretical model of the origin of the Universe.
Until the accidental discovery of this background radiation, there had been endless debate between the two influential schools of cosmology. Some scientists believed that the expansion of the Universe was a uniform process; this means that the Universe is expanding at a constant rate, and physical laws remain unchanged over time. Others believed that the evolution of the Universe was the result of a cosmic cataclysm. Proponents of the uniformity theory included some of the greatest minds in modern cosmology, such as Fred Hoyle. In fact, at some point, even within our memory, this theory was dominant among views on the process of formation of the Universe. At the present time, it seems to me that most scientists agree that the presence of background radiation provides undoubted evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory. This is a wonderful example of how science, through in-depth analysis, makes a certain judgment based on the empirical data obtained. The same is true, at least in principle, of Buddhist thought, where it is believed that to deny the weight of empirical facts is to admit one is incapable of conducting reasoned discussion.
In the pre-Buddhist Bon religion of Tibet , there were quite complex myths about the origin of the Universe.
Their main themes were the origin of order from chaos, light from darkness, day from night, existence from non-existence. These actions were performed by extra-mundane beings who produced all things from their own pure potentiality. Other myths spoke of the Universe as a living organism born from a cosmic egg. In the rich spiritual and philosophical tradition of Ancient India, many contradictory cosmological theories also arose. They contained such dissimilar positions as the theory of primordial matter of the Samkhya school, according to which the origin of the cosmos and life in it is a manifestation of the underlying absolute substance; the atomism of the Vaisheshikas, who asserted the existence of many indivisible atoms that form “building blocks,” a kind of substrate of reality; various theistic theories pointing to Brahma or Ishvara as the source of divine creation of the gods; and even the radical materialism of the Charvaka school, which argued that the evolution of the world is a process of development of matter on the basis of chance that does not have a specific goal, and all mental processes are the result of complex relationships of material phenomena. This last position is almost no different from the scientific-materialist belief that all manifestations of consciousness can be reduced to biochemical processes occurring in neurons, which, in turn, can be considered at the level of physics. In contrast, Buddhism explains the evolution of the cosmos on the basis of the law of causal origination, according to which the origin and existence of everything must be understood in terms of a complex relationship of cause and effect. This applies equally to both consciousness and matter.
According to ancient scriptures, the Buddha himself never directly answered questions asked of him about the origin of the universe. To those asking such questions, he, with his famous smile, gave as a comparison the example of a man wounded by a poisoned arrow. According to this comparison, such a person, instead of allowing the doctor to pull out the arrow and heal him, demands that he first be told to what class the one who shot the arrow belongs, what his name is and what family he is from; whether he is black, dark or golden-skinned; whether he lives in a village, town or city; what kind of bow was used to wound him: a simple bow or a crossbow; what kind of string is on the bow – reed, hemp or vein; whether the arrow shaft was made of wild or cultivated wood, and so on. Commentators have explained the meaning of this answer in a variety of ways. One view is that the Buddha refused to answer such metaphysical questions because they were not directly related to the path of Liberation. Another position, defended mainly by the Nagarjuna school, argues that questions of this kind are formulated on the basis of the assumption of the true reality of the whole world, without taking into account the law of dependent origination, and therefore any answer to it will lead to strengthening the belief in the existence of an unchanging soul and the independent self-existence of things.
Different schools of the Buddhist tradition arrange the relevant metaphysical questions in slightly different orders. The Pali Canon lists ten such unanswered questions, while the classical Indian tradition inherited by Tibet lists fourteen:
1. Are “I” and the Universe eternal?
2. Are they non-eternal?
3. Are they both eternal and non-eternal?
4. Are they neither eternal nor non-eternal?
5. Did “I” and the Universe have a beginning?
6. Or are they beginningless?
7. Or do they both have a beginning and are beginningless?
8. Or are they neither beginning nor beginningless?
9. Does the Tathagata exist after death?
10. Or does it not exist?
11. Or does it both exist and not exist?
12. Or neither exists nor does not exist?
13. Is the mind identical to the body?
14. Or are they different?
Despite the Buddha’s scriptural refusal to engage in debate on these metaphysical issues, Buddhism as a philosophical system of ancient India has a long history of deeply addressing these fundamental and eternal issues concerning our own existence and the world in which we live. Their analysis became part of the philosophical heritage and my own tradition – Tibetan Buddhism.
There are two schools of cosmology in Buddhism. One of them is the Abhidharma system, which is accepted by many schools, including Theravada, which today is dominant in countries such as Thailand, Sri Lanka, Burma, Cambodia and Laos. Although Buddhism came to Tibet in the Mahayana form, namely through the lineage of Indian Buddhism known as the “Nalanda University tradition,” the psychology and cosmogony of abhidharma became an important part of the Tibetan intellectual heritage. The first work from the cycle of the Abhidharmic cosmology system that came to Tibet was the Treasury of Higher Knowledge written by Vasubandhu. The second cosmological tradition widespread in Tibet is the system presented in the collection of authoritative Vajrayana texts belonging to a line of theory and practice known as the Kalachakra system, which literally means “wheel of time.” Although tradition credits the Buddha himself with creating the core teachings of the Kalachakra cycle, it is very difficult to pinpoint the exact date of the earliest work from this system. After carried out in the 11th century. translation of key texts on Kalachakra from Sanskrit into Tibetan, she occupied an important place in the heritage of Tibetan Buddhism.
When, at the age of twenty, I began to systematically study works on Abhidharma cosmology, I already knew that the Earth is a sphere, and I had already seen photographs of craters on the surface of the Moon in magazines, and also had some idea of the rotation of the Earth and the Moon around the Sun . Therefore, I must confess that when I became acquainted with the classical presentation of abhidharma cosmology through the work of Vasubandhu, it did not seem particularly convincing to me.
Abhidharma cosmology speaks of a flat Earth around which celestial bodies such as the Sun and Moon revolve. According to this theory, humanity lives on one, namely the southern, of four so-called continents, located in cardinal directions around the peak located at the center of our Universe, called Mount Meru. On the sides of each continent there are two islands, and the spaces between them are filled with the waters of a huge ocean. The entire world system rests on the Earth, which itself hangs in empty space, supported by the force of air. Vasubandhu gives a detailed description of the orbits of the Sun and Moon, and also indicates their sizes and distance from the Earth.
These dimensions, distance and all other parameters contained in its description are in complete contradiction with the data of modern astronomy. In Buddhist philosophy, there is a ban on the use of arguments that directly contradict empirical experience. Therefore, it will be difficult for us to accept the data of Abhidharma cosmology literally. But in fact, even without reference to modern scientific data, we can say that the Buddhist cosmological model has enough internal contradictions that call into question the literal understanding of any of its versions. My own view is that many aspects of abhidharma cosmology should be excluded from Buddhism.
The question to what extent Vasubandhu himself believed in the Abhidharma picture of the world remains open. First of all, he gave a systematic presentation of the various cosmological ideas that existed in India at that time. Strictly speaking, the description of the cosmos and its origin – that is, what is called the “container” in Buddhist texts – is secondary to the description of the nature and origin of the living beings inhabiting it, called in this context “contents”. Tibetan scholar Gedhun Chopel, who traveled extensively in India in the 1930s, suggested that the abhidharma’s description of the Earth as the southern continent of our world system reflects the actual geographical ideas of ancient India. He even tried to guess what realities of modern Indian geography the description of the other three “continents” corresponds to. It is impossible to say for sure whether his guesses are correct or, on the contrary, certain regions of India were named after the mythical “continents” of ancient cosmogony.
Some ancient texts describe planets as spherical bodies located in empty space, which is very similar to the idea of planetary systems in modern astronomy. Kalachakra astrology gives an accurate description of the evolution of the celestial bodies of our cosmic system. First of all, stars are formed, then the solar system arises, and so on. To describe the vastness of world systems, both the Abhidharma and the Kalachakra use the term trichilicosm (which, as I understand it, is approximately equal to a billion world systems); it also contains the statement that there are countless such systems in the world. Thus, although the Universe as a whole does not have a beginning and an end, in relation to each individual world system we can talk about its existence in time and indicate the time periods corresponding to its beginning, middle and end.
The evolution of each individual world system is described in terms of four main stages, or eras: emptiness, formation, abiding and, finally, destruction. Each of these stages lasts for a huge period of time, counted by twenty middle zones, and only in the last of these middle eons of the formation stage do living beings arise. The destruction of the world system occurs by the force of one of the three primary elements, excluding earth and space, namely: water, fire and air. The element that caused the destruction of the previous world system becomes the basis for the formation of the next one.
Thus, at the core of Buddhist cosmology is not only the idea of a plurality of world systems—more numerous, according to some texts, than grains of sand in the Ganges River—but also the idea that they are all in a constant process of arising and passing away. This means that the Universe does not have an absolute beginning. In light of this idea, scientists are faced with truly fundamental questions. Was there only one Big Bang or were there many? Is the Universe limited or is it limitless as stated in Buddhism? Will our Universe expand indefinitely, or perhaps its expansion will slow down and even reverse over time, ending in a “big collapse”? Is our Universe part of a continuously reproducing cosmos? All this is very intensively discussed by modern scientists. But from the point of view of Buddhism, other questions are also possible. Even if we assume that there was only one Big Cosmic Bang, one can ask: did it cause the formation of the entire cosmos or just our Universe? So the key question is: Is the Big Bang, which modern cosmology suggests was the origin of our world system, also the real origin of the rest of the cosmos?
From a Buddhist point of view, the idea that there is a single and definite principle is extremely problematic. Logically speaking, two conclusions can be drawn from the idea of an absolute beginning. One of them leads to theism, that is, to the idea that the Universe was created by a mind that is completely transcendental to it, and therefore is beyond the laws of cause and effect. The second possibility is that the world came into being for no reason at all. Buddhism rejects both of these possibilities. If the Universe was created by a mind that preceded it, the question arises about its ontological status and what kind of reality it itself resides in.
The great Indian logician and epistemologist Dharmakirti (7th century AD) developed a convincing and standard critique of theism for Buddhism. In his classic work, The Ground of Valid Knowledge (Pramanavinischaya), Dharmakirti examines some of the most famous proofs for the existence of a Creator as formulated by the theistic schools of thought in ancient India. Briefly put, the theists’ argument boils down to this: the world of internal experience and external matter was created by a previous mind, since all their parts interact in a certain sequence and in an orderly manner, like a carpenter’s tools; they are shaped like a jug; they produce actions on the basis of causality, like objects of everyday use.
I think these arguments should be similar to the theistic arguments developed in the Western philosophical tradition. According to them, the very orderliness of the world testifies to the higher mind that created it. Just as we cannot imagine a watch without the watchmaker who created it, it is difficult for us to imagine an ordered cosmos without an intelligent creative principle behind it.
The classical schools of thought in ancient India that developed a theistic understanding of the origins of the universe are as varied as their counterparts in the West. One of the oldest trends here is represented by the Samkhya school, which adhered to the idea that the world was created by the creative play of the so-called primary substance, prakriti, and the god Ishvara. This complex metaphysical theory, recognizing the natural law of causality, explained the mysterious components of the world, such as creation, the purpose of existence, and the like, by divine intervention.
Dharmakirti’s criticism of these provisions amounts to demonstrating the internal inconsistency of the theistic approach. He points out that the very attempt to understand the origin of the Universe in theistic terms is based on consideration of the principle of causality, but in the final analysis theism will be forced to abandon it. By asserting the existence of an absolute beginning in the chain of causality, theists thereby assume that there is something, at least one cause, which itself is outside this law. Thus, this beginning, being in its essence the first cause, itself turns out to be uncaused. The first reason must be regarded as an unchangeable and absolute principle. If this is so, then how can it produce transitory things and events? Dharmakirti points out that such an unchanging principle cannot itself have the power to produce action. In essence, he argues that the very concept of a first cause implies the negation of metaphysical ideas, which means they cannot be proven.
Asanga (4th century AD) understood the origin of the world in terms of the theory of dependent origination. According to this theory, all things arise and end their existence depending on causes and conditions. Asanga identified three key principles governing dependent origination. The first of these is the absence of prior intelligence. Asanga rejected the possibility of the creation of the Universe by a previous mind, justifying this by the fact that by assuming its presence, we would thereby go beyond the law of cause and effect. The Absolute, being eternal, transcendental and outside the law of causality, could not interact with causes and results, and therefore would not be able to start or stop anything. The second principle is impermanence, which means that the very causes and conditions that gave rise to the world of dependent origination are impermanent and changeable. The third principle is potentiality, which states that something cannot come from anything. On the contrary, a certain set of causes and conditions produces a certain series of results and consequences, and there must be a natural relationship between them. So, according to Asanga, the origin of the world should be understood in terms of an infinite chain of causation, without the need to postulate the presence of some transcendental or prior intelligence.
Buddhism and science share a common and fundamental reluctance to posit a transcendental being as the creator of all things. Therefore, we can safely say that both of these systems are non-theistic in their philosophical basis. However, if we consider the Big Bang to be an absolute beginning, which presupposes that the Universe has a fixed moment of origin, scientific cosmology willy-nilly will be forced to either recognize a certain transcendental principle as the cause of the origin of the world or completely abandon further reflection on this cosmic event. Such a principle may not be the God of theistic religions, but nevertheless, due to the exclusivity of its role in the origin of the world, this transcendental principle will turn out to be something divine.
On the other hand, if, as some scientists propose, we consider the Big Bang not as the absolute starting point of the origin of the Universe, but as a certain moment of violation of thermodynamic equilibrium, we will have the possibility of a more subtle and complex understanding of this event. I have heard that many scientists doubt whether the Big Bang was the absolute beginning of all existence. So far, empirical evidence suggests only that our cosmos has unfolded from a previous state of unusually high temperatures and densities. Until various aspects of this theory receive experimental confirmation and a deeper understanding of the relationship between the key principles of quantum physics and the theory of relativity is achieved, many questions facing scientific cosmology will remain in the realm of metaphysics rather than experimental science.
According to the cosmology of Buddhism, the world is formed from five primary elements: the all-encompassing element of space and the four basic primary elements – earth, water, fire and air. Space gives all other elements the opportunity to exist and manifest. In the Kalachakra system, space is not just complete absence; it consists of particles of emptiness, a kind of atoms of space, which are a kind of tiny particles. This is the basis for the development and disappearance of the other four elements, which arise from this element and dissolve in it. The dissolution process occurs in the following order: earth, water, fire and air. The process of emergence occurs in reverse order: air, fire, water and earth.
According to Asanga, these primary elements, which he calls the “four great elements,” are not to be understood in a grossly material sense. Asanga makes a distinction between the four great elements, which are more like potentialities, and those four elements that form the composite matter that surrounds us. Probably, the action of the four elements in the material world should be understood as the properties of hardness (earth), fluidity (water), heat (fire) and energy of motion (air). The four primary elements arise in sequence from the subtler to the coarser, starting from their underlying cause in the form of empty particles, and dissolve in the reverse order, returning to the state of particles of space. Space with its particles of emptiness is the basis of the entire process. The term “particle” may not be the best way to describe these phenomena, since it already contains an indication of something material. But, unfortunately, the texts do not have sufficient descriptions to more accurately define the concept of “atom of space.”
In Buddhist cosmology, the cycle of existence of the Universe is described as follows: first comes a period of formation, then existence, followed by a period of destruction, followed by a period of emptiness, which precedes a new cycle. During the fourth period, that is, the period of emptiness, only atoms of space exist, from which all other particles of the new Universe are subsequently formed. Thus, in these atoms of space is found the fundamental reason for the existence of the entire physical world. If we want to describe the process of formation of the Universe and the physical bodies of living beings inhabiting it, we must analyze how the various elements that form them arise from the atoms of space.
It is the specific potentiality of these atoms that brings into existence all the diversity of the Universe with all its contents – planets, stars and living beings such as humans and animals. Returning to the original reason for the existence of material objects in the world, we ultimately come to the atoms of space. They precede the Big Bang (that is, the beginning of a new cycle of existence) and represent, in fact, the remnant of the previous Universe that was destroyed. I have heard that some scientists share the opinion that the Universe originated as a result of the so-called quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. In my opinion, this idea resonates with the theory of the atoms of space contained in the Kalachakra.
From the point of view of modern cosmology, understanding the state of the Universe in the first few seconds after its formation is an almost impossible task. Part of the problem is that the four forces of nature we know—gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces—are not yet functioning at this point. They come into effect later, when the density and temperature of the initial stage of development decrease so much that the first atoms of matter, such as hydrogen and helium, begin to form. At the very beginning of the Big Bang, there is a state called singularity. No mathematical formulas or laws of physics are applicable to describe it. At this moment, quantities that are usually subject to measurement, such as density or temperature, are completely indeterminable.
To scientifically study the process of the emergence of the Universe, the use of mathematical formulas is required, and the existence and operation of certain physical laws is also assumed. Therefore, we must ask: is it even possible to fully understand and adequately describe the state of the Universe in the first moments after the Big Bang? My scientist friends said that the best scientific minds are working on this issue. Some believe that the solution to these complex problems can be found in the form of a unifying theory that will combine all the hitherto known laws of physics. Perhaps a way will be discovered to combine two paradigms of modern physics that currently seem to be contradictory to each other – the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. I have heard that the original axioms of these two theories have not yet been reconciled. The theory of relativity suggests that, given sufficient information, it is possible to accurately calculate the state of the cosmos at a given moment in time. In contrast, the postulates of quantum mechanics imply that the world of subatomic particles can only be described in probabilistic terms, since at a fundamental level all matter consists of quanta of matter (from which quantum physics gets its name), which are subject to the uncertainty principle. Currently, various theories with exotic names, such as superstring theory and M-theory, claim to be the new unifying paradigm.
There is another problem that challenges our very attempt to gain complete knowledge of the process of the primary origin of the Universe. From the point of view of the laws of quantum mechanics, at a fundamental level it is impossible to accurately predict how a particle will behave in a given specific case. All predictions are possible only on the basis of probability. If this is so, then no matter how powerful our mathematical apparatus may be, since our knowledge of the initial conditions of a given phenomenon or phenomenon always remains incomplete, we are not able to accurately predict and understand the further unfolding of events. At best, we can only make rough guesses, but we will never be able to give a complete and accurate description of even a single atom, let alone the entire Universe.
In Buddhism there is a recognition of the practical impossibility of obtaining complete and accurate knowledge of the origin of the Universe. The Mahayana text called the Flower Garland Sutra contains a long discussion about the innumerability of world systems and the limitations of human knowledge. The chapter “Incalculability” gives a series of calculations using huge numbers, ending with numbers called “incalculable”, “immeasurable”, “infinite”, “incomparable”. The largest number, called the square of the ineffable, is the number called the ineffable multiplied by itself. Later in Garland of Flowers these unimaginable numbers are applied to the calculus of world systems; it states that if the “ineffable” number of world systems are broken down into atoms, each atom will contain an “ineffable” number of world systems, so their number cannot be calculated.
Similarly, in beautiful poetic lines, the text compares the complex and interconnected reality of our world with an endless precious network called “Indra’s diamond network”, which extends into limitless space. In each node of this network there is a precious stone that is connected to all the other stones in the network and reflects all of them in itself, being reflected in each of them. Due to the deepest interconnection of everything in the Universe, without achieving omniscience it is impossible to have complete knowledge of even one atom, since such knowledge also presupposes knowledge of all its interrelations in the limitless Universe.
The Kalachakra texts say that until the moment of emergence, any Universe remains in a state of emptiness, when all its material components are in the form of potentiality, like the atoms of space. At a certain moment, when the karmic preconditions of living beings who are to live and develop in this Universe mature, the atoms of air begin to unite with each other, creating the cosmic wind. The atoms of fire then combine, creating powerful streams of heat flowing through the air. Following this, water atoms gather, creating torrential rain, riddled with flashes of lightning. Finally, the earth atoms are collected, which, in combination with other elements, provide their compaction. The fifth element, space, permeates all other elements as an inherent force, and therefore has no separate existence of its own. Over a huge period of time, these five primary elements form the physical world that is known to us from our experience.
So, we talked about the origin of the Universe as consisting only of a mixture of lifeless matter and energy – this is how galaxies, “black holes”, stars, planets and the world of subatomic particles are born. However, from the point of view of Buddhism, consciousness plays a leading role in this process. For example, in the cosmologies of Kalachakra and Abhidharma, the idea is expressed that the formation of each world system is closely related to the karmic preconditions of living beings. In modern parlance, Buddhist cosmology suggests that our planet was formed in such a way that it could support the evolving life of the vast array of forms of organisms that we see around us.
Speaking here about karma, I do not at all claim that, according to Buddhism, absolutely everything in the world is a derivative of it. One must distinguish between the operation of the natural laws of nature, according to which a certain set of causes leads to completely definite consequences, and the law of karma, according to which action resulting from intention bears fruit. If, for example, an unextinguished fire in the forest leads to a forest fire, then the fact that the tree catches fire from the fire, turning into coal and smoke, is a simple action of the natural laws of nature, a manifestation of the properties of fire and the flammability of the tree. There is no karma involved in such a sequence of events. But karmic causation comes into play for the one who lit a fire in the forest and forgot to put it out, which led to further events.
My own point of view is that the entire process of unfolding of the Universe belongs to the realm of natural laws of nature. I believe that karma comes into play at two points. When the Universe develops to the stage where living beings arise, its fate begins to depend on the karma of its inhabitants. It is more difficult to understand the primary introduction of karma, which represents the maturation of the karmic potential of living beings inhabiting a given Universe, and at the same time is the cause of its very occurrence.
The ability to accurately recognize the measure of the relationship of karma with the natural laws of nature is considered by the Buddhist tradition to be the area of omniscience of the Buddha. The problem is how to find a relationship between two lines of explanation: the first, that every world system and the living beings inhabiting it arise as a result of the action of karma, and the second, that there are natural, natural laws of cause and effect. Early Buddhist texts argue that matter and consciousness operate according to their own laws of cause and effect, and this in both cases gives rise to new sets of functions and properties. Based on an understanding of their nature, causal manifestations and functions, the observer can draw conclusions – both regarding matter and consciousness – which leads to the emergence of knowledge. This position is known as the “four principles”: natural laws, dependence, functioning and evidence.
The question arises whether these principles themselves (which are actually the laws of nature from the point of view of Buddhist philosophy) are subject to the action of karma or whether their presence determines the functioning of the karma of living beings? This problem is similar to the question that arises in science regarding the status of physical laws. Could there be different laws of nature in different universes, or would every possible universe hold true to all the laws of physics we know? If we decide that different physical laws may operate in different universes, we will have to assume (from the Buddhist point of view) that the laws of physics themselves depend on the karma of living beings inhabiting a given Universe.
How do Buddhist cosmological theories describe the unfolding relationship between the karmic background of living beings and the evolution of the physical world? What is the mechanism of connection between karma and the evolution of physical systems? In general, the Abhidharma texts do not provide detailed answers to these questions. They only say that the natural conditions of existence are generated by the collective karma of living beings. However, the Kalachakra texts contain descriptions of a direct correlation between the cosmos and the bodies of living beings inhabiting it, between the natural elements of the external physical world and those elements that make up the bodies of its inhabitants, as well as between the phases of rotation of celestial bodies and changes occurring in the bodily structure of living organisms . The Kalachakra contains detailed descriptions of such relationships and their manifestations in the lives of living beings. For example, these texts say that solar and lunar eclipses can affect the bodies of living organisms by changing the rhythm of breathing. It would be interesting to subject such reports, which belong to the field of empirical experience, to experimental scientific verification.
But all the scientific theories of the origin of the Universe that I know leave very serious questions unresolved. What existed before the Big Bang? Why did it happen? What happened before it? For what reason was life able to develop on our planet? What is the relationship between space and its inhabitants? Scientists may simply dismiss such questions as unscientific, or they may, even while recognizing their importance, consider them beyond the scope of scientific consideration. In any case, both approaches lead to the recognition of the limits of scientific knowledge regarding the origin of the Universe. I am not a supporter of a purely materialistic picture of the world. Buddhism considers the Universe to be limitless and beginningless, so I would not like to limit my consideration to the Big Bang and am ready to reflect on what came before it.
Read online. The book “The Universe in One Atom: Science and Spirituality in the Service of the World.” Tenzin Gyatso
Content
Preface. Introduction
1. Meditation
2. My encounter with science
3. Emptiness, relativity and quantum physics
4. The Big Bang Theory and the Buddhist Beginningless Cosmos
5. Evolution, karma and the world of living beings
6. The problem of the emergence of consciousness
7. Towards a science of consciousness
8. Factors of consciousness
9. Ethical problems of modern genetics
Conclusion. Science, Spirituality and Humanity