There are a few points that I would like to bring up as follows:

Discouraging the pursuit of the universe’s origins and encouraging the pursuit of science may not be contradictory positions especially if there is a practical and pragmatic reason behind the former. This will be elaborated later.

When the Buddha was alive, science as we understood today, did not exist. And philosophy as it is known then is nothing like the natural philosophy that the Western world understand and engage in discourse. In fact, superstitious beliefs and practices were quite common then.

Buddhism do not believe that an omnipotent or omniscient being exists. It should be stressed that there is no middle ground on this point. Either the Buddha is wrong and the other religions (that believe in such a being) are right or the Buddha is right and the others are wrong. This is an important point and we will come back to it.

The rise of the scientific movement is a confluence of many factors. One is the relative ease of discussion and dissemination of scientific and philosophical ideas with the advent of paper and print. This allowed intellects to critic and examine the works of scholars. The widespread acceptance of science driven values and principles based on keen observations and the study of nature within the scholarly community help support objective and fact-based discourses. The rise of places of learning like schools/universities similarly aided in the dissemination and rigorous evaluation of knowledge. As a result, solid theoretical foundations in reasoning and logic were laid and provided a springboard for further scientific pursuits.

Science as a set of principles is more important than science as a label. Central to all scientific pursuits is a willingness to test, verify and validate everything. I remembered having the privilege of working with researchers in my previous job. I recalled the great pains that these researchers go through to test, validate and replicate their experiments. If the Buddha had lived in this modern time, he would be the epitome of a scientist. Similarly, one should recognise a scientist not by their title but by the scientific principles and practices that they adhere to. I view the Buddha as a man of science because he was careful with his words, do not engage in speculation or talk of things that are not validated and known through verification by himself.

Although the Buddha did not have scientific equipment and tools to work with, he had other tools like the divine eye and the power to recollect past lives to investigate issues like the origins of the universe. However, the use of these supramundane tools comes with costs, in the form of time, efforts and energy of the Buddha. As the Buddha stated to Ananda that it is to answer queries on the rebirth of noble ones who passed away because he needed to spend time and efforts to investigate and get the necessary answer. Such an explanation mirrored the working ethics of modern professionals (e.g. doctors, engineers, researchers and technicians). Given a complex issue, a conscientious and diligent professional will first do the necessary investigations, testing and what not to understand the underlying causes and effects before giving a qualified answer.

Buddhism’s (like Hinduism) position is that our universe follows a cyclic model with previous universes that go way, way back. The Buddha himself alluded to the just to investigate and uncover its original beginning. The unimaginable effort needed is simply beyond the lifespan of a human being. This is the practical reason behind point 1.

I believe it is for this reason that questions on the universe's origin was met with silence by the Buddha. Let us use a further analogy to illustrate this point. Suppose someone came to you with a math problem and asked you to solve it. After working on it for half an hour, you realised the proof would be complicated and required a few days’ work. You decide to put it aside as you got more important stuff to attend to. The next day, the questioner asked if you had succeeded. You started to explain that the problem requires a lot of work and time. At this point, the irritated and impatient questioner cut you off and demanded that you give a simple, "Yes, I know the solution" or "No, I don't know the answer" reply. How should one respond? I believe the silence of the Buddha is appropriate in such a situation because to say he knows would not be true. Likewise, saying he does not know would be equally disingenuous.

At this point, those who believe in an omnipotent/omniscient being might proclaim that this shows that the Buddha is a mere mortal and the answer to the universe's origins would be just a snap of the fingers for such a being. Which brings us back to point 3 above. The Buddha did not claim to be omniscient. It is just that knowledge in any area if he directed his mind towards it and is willing to expend the time and energy to investigate it.

There is a difference between these two approaches. One is within the realm of cause and effect while the other operate in an unknown realm. One can potentially be validated (note: the Buddha is not the only one with supramundane powers), the other operates with a one-of-a-kind, unknown mechanism that cannot be validated by anyone else. If you are a supporter of scientific principles and approaches, which one would you rather work with?

Lastly, I believe the Buddha would strongly encourage pursuits that brings about long-lasting wellbeing and happiness such as scientific endeavours that generate greater wellbeing for humanity. However, he would not encourage pursuits that consume an inordinate amount of time and resources with hardly any tangible benefits to anyone. At the core lies a principle that truly sustainable happiness has to be pragmatic.