dhammacoustic wrote:there is no certain concensus on these things as of yet... Nevertheless, to me...
An ongoing frontier of scientific assertions, and either an amorphous & idiosyncratic description of what lies in the gaps of those assertions or else a Traditional one of some flavor: that's everyone's cosmological speculation in a nutshell.
Some people strongly value their cultural cosmologies, and many take up these descriptions and traditions with zeal. Others adhere with equal strength to physicalist and atheist assertions... again, each group tending to place conjectured preferences into any gaps in cosmological knowledge.
Awareness of the given scientific/physical cosmos is a requisite modern step; no ancient people looked at a sunrise and knew that the longer wavelengths of light rays (!) from the star (!!) were striking the atmosphere (!!!) and causing the deep reds and golds. No ancient person knew about bacteria or neutrinos, and so our entire cosmos here in modernity is nothing at all like the cosmos of ancient peoples.
This indicates a problem: due to the completely different cultures & circumstances which obtain for modern folk, it's very likely that we don't actually understand the way that ancient peoples spoke about their experiences: they spoke of spirits and gods and energies where we speak of natural events and psychology and phenomenology.
But the ancient idea that cosmology recapitulates psychology is today a baroque & ungainly assertion; one ends up arguing at the edges of knowledge, diving into speculations about consciousness & the universe that are simply off-target.
There are many Buddhist cosmologies; I don't think there are any Dhammic cosmologies, however, only various ways that this & that cultural cosmology came to be used to indicate Dhammic teachings. To take up such pedagogical frameworks as though they were factual descriptions is altogether troublesome.