Beginningless existence and liberation

Festin

Hello everyone.

I am very interested in Buddhism, and one question is really bothering me lately. According to Buddhism, every sentient being was reborn countless times already, and this chain of rebirths has no beginning. My question is: if somebody has existed for eternity, and thus had been reborn in all possible lives already, why haven't he already achieved liberation in one of those lifetimes? He had countless tries, so he should have been able to do it if it is possible at all.

I would be very grateful if somebody could explain this point to me.

compassionate_warrior

How do you know he was trying? Only when one is reborn in human form and finds the Dharma and begins practicing does that count as a "try".

seeker242

>He had countless tries, so he should have been able to do it if it is possible at all.

He had countless tries in which he wasn't even trying.

aMatt

Consider that evolution dumped us in a pool of our own filth, beating each other up for the best grubs and ants to eat. Buddha only penetrated into the dharma 2500 years ago give or take, and the evolution is underway. Mass communication has been around only for a few years.

Its not really important for "Festin" to pop a light bulb or reach an enlightened state, but you're part of the global perception that is moving toward greater alertness and awareness. And in that, Festin is the extreme surfer at the forefront of the evolution. So, its not so much "Why not yet" but rather "How about you, right now... you have a good mind and a curious gaze. Get to work."

thickpaper

According to Buddhism, every sentient being was reborn countless times already, and this chain of rebirths has no beginning.

FYI, This is one interpretation/view. There are others that do not comment on such possibilities, and others that are diametrically opposed to any notion of rebirth.

SattvaPaul

Maybe he's asking from a logical perspective? I've read that someone (some scientist possibly) said that if you put a monkey in front of a typewriter and let it press the keys randomly, and let it do it for millions of years, statistically at some point in time it will produce one of Shakespeare's sonnets. Or something like that. :eek2:

Any expert on different kinds of eternities here?

Festin

Maybe he's asking from a logical perspective? I've read that someone (some scientist possibly) said that if you put a monkey in front of a typewriter and let it press the keys randomly, and let it do it for millions of years, statistically at some point in time it will produce one of Shakespeare's sonnets. Or something like that.

Yes, it's something like that. I mean, of course, human rebirth is rare, and human rebirth in which it is possible to practice Dharma is super-rare, but during infinity you would get an infinite number of such rebirths anyway. We are still here, so looks like we failed countless times already.

He had countless tries in which he wasn't even trying.

But how is it possible? During infinity, surely there were some rebirths in which we tried to achieve liberation (and since we are dealing with infinity, "some" means "infinite number"). If there were no such attempts, why does it happen now? It means some new factor was introduced, which was not present during that past infinity. Where did it come from, and why now?

person

I think this is a great question. I don't really know, in the traditional accounting our past lives are said to be countless not necessarily infinite. But then again our stream of lives is said to be beginningless. The fact that we haven't achieved enlightenment seems to suggest some kind of finitude. I'm going to have to ponder this one for a while I think.

santhisouk

Hi @Festin,

I have wondered this same question before. As I have been taught, I must have come to a conclusion that the present time is most important. Imagine if you were studying Buddhism one day, and you saw the light of the true dhamma, and then you decided that you wanted to give up worldly passions and ordain as a monk. This changes everything because no matter how many countless lives we have lived, we are now taking that stand that to end these chain of events that
keeps us from seeing the higher truth.

It doesn't really matter what others believe or not. The most important thing is that if you believe it to be true, and you are going to make a difference, then this move you are making will either change the course of your history forever or it will just be another round of birth and rebirth. Either way, there are no answers. We have to decide for ourselves how we want to look at the world, and choose whether we want to live out our destiny or choose to create it.

with metta

Festin

Well, I have been reading Buddhist philosophy for a considerable time already, and all of it generally made sense to me. But with this question I feel like I have run into a logical contradiction, and I cannot possibly accept a Buddhist viewpoint until I somehow resolve it. Why do we see the light now, after infinite lifetimes? Why is this lifetime special compared to countless others? If it was possible to awaken in previous lifetimes, then we had infinite chances to do so. If it was impossible, why is it possible now?
Myself, I see no solution here. I hope that somebody can point out something that I missed, because surely Buddhist philosophers should have considered this problem before, it's pretty obvious.

thickpaper

I hope that somebody can point out something that I missed, because surely Buddhist philosophers should have considered this problem before, it's pretty obvious.

In my opinion the entire notion of past and future lives is incompatible with Dharma - so for me the Buddha just didnt teach it, perhaps he tauight directly against it.

I suggest, since you ask, that you contemplate these possibilities and see how that frees up your contemplation and meditation.

Dharma works utterly perfectly without these ideas, and, with these ideas, as you have noted, it becomes much more intractable.

Perhaps before we cross the river, we have to get out of the swamp.....

SattvaPaul

Dharma works utterly perfectly without these ideas, and, with these ideas, as you have noted, it becomes much more intractable.

That's your view. For others it will be exactly opposite.

seeker242

During infinity, surely there were some rebirths in which we tried to achieve liberation

Are you basing this on probabilities, by logical conjecture, by inference?


"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, don't go by probability..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta

Festin

Are you basing this on probabilities, by logical conjecture, by inference?

In this case, I fail to see why Buddhist philosophers bothered to create any coherent theories anyway. You make guys like Nagarjuna or Vasubandhu look like pretty lousy Buddhists.

SattvaPaul

@Festin,

Your question might be a starting point for a PhD thesis.

I'm curious myself about it. Let's see if someone will come up with some solution.

aMatt

According to Buddhism, every sentient being was reborn countless times already, and this chain of rebirths has no beginning.

This statement is not correct. It is not that "first cause" or "first birth" doesn't exist, it is just we do not have access to it, so we let it go. Consider reading "The Quantum and the Lotus" which explains this concept from a physics and buddhist perspective.

Our mind here and now is like a teacher walking onto a playground and seeing a fight. We don't look for who started it, in the chaos of the brawl, we stop the fighting. I feel the buddha said not to ponder this because it is unskillful to do so. How dumb would it be for the teacher to add to the chaos by trying to scream for answers?

seeker242

Questions such as this are generally not addressed by Buddhist theories because they don't cause suffering to end. Have you ever heard the story of the poison arrow and the guy that died trying to figure out why it had hit him, instead of removing it? It's a good story.

SattvaPaul

This statement is not correct. It is not that "first cause" or "first birth" doesn't exist, it is just we do not have access to it, so we let it go.

Not according to the teachings on this subject I've come across. There are many instances of teachers pointing out the logical impossibility of the "first cause".

aMatt

somebody has existed for eternity

Buddha taught that "somebody" doesn't even exist now. The conditions that are "you" are only around for a moment, and even during that moment it is just sense organs bouncing nerve impulses.

With your wrong view of self, it is no wonder you can't understand countless births. Consider: "If I have taken countless breaths, how is it possible that during this one something is different?"

Festin

This statement is not correct. It is not that "first cause" or "first birth" doesn't exist, it is just we do not have access to it, so we let it go.

I am pretty sure the notion of a beginningless mind is quite crucial in Buddhist philosophy. The arguement goes like this: everything that happens/exists has a cause. Any of our mental states is caused by previous states. If we accept that there was a first state, then we have to accept that it was not caused by anything, it just somehow appeared without any causes. But if such things were possible, then anything at all could just happen randomly out of nowhere, which is nonsense. So, there was no first state, and the mind is beginningless.

Festin

Buddha taught that "somebody" doesn't even exist now. The conditions that are "you" are only around for a moment, and even during that moment it is just sense organs bouncing nerve impulses.

With your wrong view of self, it is no wonder you can't understand countless births. Consider: "If I have taken countless breaths, how is it possible that during this one something is different?"

I can answer this one. There is no such thing as a permanent, unchanging object, "thing", essense or anything that constitutes a "self". Instead, a self is viewed as a process, just like a wave in the ocean - it is changing with each moment, and in a few seconds all atoms constituting a wave are different, but it is still a distinct entity. Same with an individual mindstream.

Regarding breaths, no problem here - this breath is not really different from all past ones. Breaths (unlike liberation) can be repeated, so there will be no paradoxes if I say that prior to this moment I kept breathing for an eternity already.

aMatt

Not according to the teachings on this subject I've come across. There are many instances of teachers pointing out the logical impossibility of the "first cause".

Teachers also say columbus discovered America, usually to children. I have seen many of the same logical mind ponderings, and never found one without an error. Link one if you'd like.

I think a good example of first cause is shown in the beginning of 2001:A Space Odyssey.

SattvaPaul

Teachers also say columbus discovered America, usually to children. I have seen many of the same logical mind ponderings, and never found one without an error. Link one if you'd like.

I think a good example of first cause is shown in the beginning of 2001:A Space Odyssey.

Ok, I should have said Buddhist teachers who have quite rigorous training in logic, as well as personal experience.

Here's something I just found (but haven't time to read it yet):
A beginningless universe by Matthieu Ricard

Regarding the film Space Oddysey, that's easy to refute: announcements came before, before that most likely commercials, and before maybe the evening news, etc... :crazy:

aMatt

I am pretty sure the notion of a beginningless mind is quite crucial in Buddhist philosophy.

My mind began developing in my mother's womb, as my PFC sparked and grew. Why would Buddhism say it has no beginning?

Festin

My mind began developing in my mother's womb, as my PFC sparked and grew. Why would Buddhism say it has no beginning?

I believe that different philosophical schools would give different answers to this question. For example (this is my unconfirmed guess), a Sautrantika realist might say that physical and mental events have different natures, and a subjective mental event cannot be caused by any objective physical events. A Yogacara idealist might say that whatever happened in your mother's womb prior to you gaining consciousness was not part of your individual mindstream, and so it could not cause anything within it. Or something like this.

person

Not according to the teachings on this subject I've come across. There are many instances of teachers pointing out the logical impossibility of the "first cause".

Teachers also say columbus discovered America, usually to children. I have seen many of the same logical mind ponderings, and never found one without an error. Link one if you'd like.

I think a good example of first cause is shown in the beginning of 2001:A Space Odyssey.

This is the one I keep around for these situations.

https://bdigital.ufp.pt/dspace/bitstream/10284/782/3/241-246Cons-Ciencias 02-9.pdf

Yishai

This is silly, in the very definition of the word, "Ridiculously trivial or frivolous". You are missing the point of Buddhism if you are using it to try to gaze at the past or into the future. Pursuing an answer to the unanswerable...

aMatt

Ricard is talking about the continuity of the universe, which I find to be stable and reasonable. I do find physics more sensible than logic and cosmology, but see no reason to dispute his words for the sake of helping Festin get past this usual and normal logical loop.

The OP context is "in Buddhism, and one question is really bothering me lately. According to Buddhism, every sentient being was reborn countless times already, and this chain of rebirths has no beginning."

In this case, and in the case of what is revelant to liberation, it is "first self" or "beginning of mind" or "cycle of DO", not "what came before the big bang". I apologize if my meaning of 'first cause' was inconsistent with yours, I was using the context my teacher used, as in "first moment the self experienced a fruit of karma"

Festin

This is silly, in the very definition of the word, "Ridiculously trivial or frivolous". You are missing the point of Buddhism if you are using it to try to gaze at the past or into the future. Pursuing an answer to the unanswerable...

Well, if I could accept a logically inconsistent religious viewpoint, there are easier choices than Buddhism.
just saying.

SattvaPaul

@Festin,

The way I see it, it's an interesting intellectual exercise, and I wouldn't accept Buddhism myself if it didn't make some logical sense. Sometimes analysis can be a part of practice as well. But sooner or later you'll have to leave the intellect behind. It can only take you so far. Dharma goes far beyond that.

Yishai

This is silly, in the very definition of the word, "Ridiculously trivial or frivolous". You are missing the point of Buddhism if you are using it to try to gaze at the past or into the future. Pursuing an answer to the unanswerable...

Well, if I could accept a logically inconsistent religious viewpoint, there are easier choices than Buddhism.
just saying.

What would be logically consistent? Please, explain the universe to me. I am always open to ideas. I don't particularly have a view on the beginnings of time or anything of that nature. I have grown weary of it, but I wouldn't hesitate to accept the full explanation.

Festin

What would be logically consistent? Please, explain the universe to me.

I do not need to have an exhaustive knowledge of some system to spot an apparent logical contradiction and try to resolve it. Otherwise, any progress in our knowledge would be impossible.

@Festin,

The way I see it, it's an interesting intellectual exercise, and I wouldn't accept Buddhism myself if it didn't make some logical sense. Sometimes analysis can be a part of practice as well. But sooner or later you'll have to leave the intellect behind. It can only take you so far. Dharma goes far beyond that.

Of course, I agree with you. The way I see it, there is a method (Buddhist practice) and there is theory behind it. Theory without practice is useless, but I can't bring myself to adopt a method if the theory behind it is not sound.

Yishai

@Festin,

The way I see it, it's an interesting intellectual exercise, and I wouldn't accept Buddhism myself if it didn't make some logical sense. Sometimes analysis can be a part of practice as well. But sooner or later you'll have to leave the intellect behind. It can only take you so far. Dharma goes far beyond that.

Our logic should always follow us. You can, however, set certain concepts aside. You don't have to accept anything into your belief system that you don't want to. Just look at each individual person on this forum. No two people have the same complete set of beliefs, yet we consider ourselves to be of the same religion.

As far as this topic is concerned, I do not know. If the Buddha said it, then that is what he believed or even knew. Currently, I do not have the understanding to handle the topic in question. I do not know enough of timelessness, transcendence, how transcendence works, what it means to 'be', what a karmic stream really is, if enlightened beings can eventually 'fall'. I do not know. I do not know the complete functionings of reality.

santhisouk

One thing that we should take into consideration is that most westerners cannot comprehend the idea that past births and rebirths involve different realms and not just the human realm. This would explain the meaning of countless rebirths, it does not mean countless "human" births and rebirths.

Yishai

Just because the Buddha said it, doesn't make it so. He said many things, but he never said he was infallible. But infallibility comes from perspective doesn't it? The Buddha also said nothing is permanent except for change. So we could logically say that enlightenment is subject to change. Craziness.

We can even make the argument that all beings ARE enlightened. We just fail to notice it.

This is why I think such things are 'silly'. It's intellectually oppressive.

Festin

Our logic should always follow us. You can, however, set certain concepts aside. You don't have to accept anything into your belief system that you don't want to. Just look at each individual person on this forum. No two people have the same complete set of beliefs, yet we consider ourselves to be of the same religion.

As far as this topic is concerned, I do not know. If the Buddha said it, then that is what he believed or even knew. Currently, I do not have the understanding to handle the topic in question. I do not know enough of timelessness, transcendence, how transcendence works, what it means to 'be', what a karmic stream really is, if enlightened beings can eventually 'fall'. I do not know. I do not know the complete functionings of reality.

I understand your position, but for me this issue present a very practical problem. In all texts on Buddhist practice that I have read, it is stressed that one of the most formidable obstacles on our way to liberation is doubt. It is said that if a person doubts that liberation is possible, doubts the Four Noble Truths, or Three Jewels, etc., then his practice will not bring him any benefit. Having false views is one of ten negative actions, and is considered a breach of 9th root Bodhisattva vow. And so on. I cannot just remove this doubt from my mind as an act of will. I guess I could give myself a lobotomy to deal with doubts caused by critical thinking, but I am afraid this would have a detrimental effect on my practice.

If this is not a problem for you, great. It is a problem for me.

seeker242

Here's something I just found (but haven't time to read it yet):
A beginningless universe by Matthieu Ricard

That was a good read. Thanks! What stood out to me was this:

"Although we find it very difficult to conceive beginninglessness, from a logical point of view, it is the only possibility that stands on analysis."

Yishai

What subject/concept/understanding do you have conviction in @Festin ? Through conviction, we typically leave doubt behind. I am being genuine; I want to know

Festin

One thing that we should take into consideration is that most westerners cannot comprehend the idea that past births and rebirths involve different realms and not just the human realm. This would explain the meaning of countless rebirths, it does not mean countless "human" births and rebirths.

I can understand the idea about rebirths in different realms and in nonhuman forms. Still, it does not solve anything: if I was born as a human in past, it means it was possible for me to be reborn as a human, meaning that among countless other rebirths, there were countless human rebirths (no matter how unlikely they were, the possibility just has to be nonzero).

SattvaPaul

@Festin,

Go and speak to some good teacher trained in logic, like a Tibetan geshe. Are you in the UK? You could go to London and ask Geshe Tashi at Jamyang (oops, their website seems to be down at the moment).

Festin

What subject/concept/understanding do you have conviction in @Festin ? Through conviction, we typically leave doubt behind. I am being genuine; I want to know

I am sure that I exist and experience various things. I am sure that 2*2=4. I am pretty sure about lots of other things, like cause and effect or laws of physics (but this is inductive reasoning of course, so not 100% sure here).

Yishai

We aren't arguing timelessness/beginninglessness, but the probability of enlightenment. But we're also assuming that enlightenment is permanent, which I do not think it is. After all, nothing is permanent except change. Change(on some level) will always occur as long as we are looking at reality.

Festin

@Festin,

Go and speak to some good teacher trained in logic, like a Tibetan geshe. Are you in the UK? You could go to London and ask Geshe Tashi at Jamyang.

Unfortunately, I am not in UK.
If I have such an opportunity, I will surely do so.

Festin

We aren't arguing timelessness/beginninglessness, but the probability of enlightenment. But we're also assuming that enlightenment is permanent, which I do not think it is. After all, nothing is permanent except change. Change(on some level) will always occur as long as we are looking at reality.

So, you mean that in the past I have already achieved enlightenment (countless times), but then for some reason I re-entered sansara? Well, it solves this particular problem, but I think most Buddhist teachers would disagree with you.

SattvaPaul

So, you mean that in the past I have already achieved enlightenment (countless times), but then for some reason I re-entered sansara? Well, it solves this particular problem, but I think most Buddhist teachers would disagree with you.

Well according to some Buddhist schools, not only you have wandered in Samsara since beginningless time, but you have also been fully enlightened since beginningless time. Now, the question is, why haven't you realised it?

Festin

Well according to some Buddhist schools, not only you have wandered in Samsara since beginningless time, but you have also been fully enlightened since beginningless time. Now, the question is, why haven't you realised it?

In this case, just replace "liberation" with "realization" in my original post, and the problem remains the same

Yishai

We aren't arguing timelessness/beginninglessness, but the probability of enlightenment. But we're also assuming that enlightenment is permanent, which I do not think it is. After all, nothing is permanent except change. Change(on some level) will always occur as long as we are looking at reality.

So, you mean that in the past I have already achieved enlightenment (countless times), but then for some reason I re-entered sansara? Well, it solves this particular problem, but I think most Buddhist teachers would disagree with you.

That is their path; this is mine. I also think most Buddhist teachers would disagree with each other as well as me. Buddhism, to me and many others, is non-dogmatic. This isn't a bee-hive religion. You can do your own thing. I'm just trying to live a better life and be happier. If this path brings me enlightenment, sends me to hell, sends me to heaven, makes me rot in the ground... I guess I will know then what I did correctly or incorrectly. Otherwise, there isn't a way for me to know. All I can do is be happier now. I hate to complicate things, as you can tell.

Vincenzi

countless or uncountable doesn't mean beginningless or infinite.

compassionate_warrior

>He had countless tries, so he should have been able to do it if it is possible at all.

He had countless tries in which he wasn't even trying.

haha! And that's why he didn't succeed--"he had countless tries in which he wasn't even trying"! Only when he tries, will he find the Path, and then it may take many more rebirths to reach Enlightenment.

According to TB teachings (I can't speak to other traditions), to find the Dharma is a tremendous blessing. It can take an uncountable number of human rebirths to find the Dharma and begin practicing. So this seems to be the answer to the OP. Look at all the humans on Earth who still haven't found the Dharma, and consider how many human rebirths they may already have had.

santhisouk

We aren't arguing timelessness/beginninglessness, but the probability of enlightenment. But we're also assuming that enlightenment is permanent, which I do not think it is.

I don't quite disagree with you just yet. This is because I am uncertain and can't possibly fathom the probability of things that can happen in an exact recurrence. If a seedling of a tree falls onto the ground and were subjected to an exact amount of environmental conditions, would it grow into the same looking tree? Is it possible for the laws of nature to duplicate itself at a certain point in time? When a person passes away, could the same amount of elements and conditions that make up that person's existence come together in the same way and recreate that person in another point in time? We can only imagine these things, but if all those things can happen and be proven, then I will agree that enlightenment is not permanent.

santhisouk

Those things are just on the physical level too. Then there are also the probabilities that exists on top of that on mental and spiritual level. So all those probabilities would have to come together and create that 1 out of an unimaginable number, then it would be possible.