Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
14 questions to which the Buddha remained silent
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
The Mahayana Version
To those who believe in a true findably existent “me” or “self” (bdag, Skt. atman) and a true findably existent universe, Buddha did not answer when they asked are the “I” or the “self” and the universe:
•
eternal,
•
not eternal, since they undergo gross impermanence at the time of their destruction,
•
as both, in the sense that some beings and their environments, like the Creator Brahma and his heaven, are eternal; while all else, such as his creations, are not eternal and end at the time of their destruction,
•
neither, since it is impossible to know?
Are “I’s” or “selves” and the universe:
•
finite,
•
infinite,
•
both finite and infinite, in the sense that limited beings (sentient beings) are infinite in number, but the universe is finite in size,
•
neither, since it is impossible to know?
Does the “I” or the “self” of a Buddha:
•
continue to exist after death,
•
not continue after death,
•
both, in the sense that the body does not continue, but the life-force (srog) does,
•
neither?
Buddha did not answer these because there is no such thing as a true findably existent “me” or “self” for either limited beings (sentient beings) or a Buddha, and no such thing as a true findably existent universe. Therefore, there can be no question whether such things are eternal or not eternal, or finite or infinite. It is like asking do rabbit-horns, turtle-hair or chicken-lips last forever or only a limited time. If Buddha said the “me,” and so on are eternal, these people would fall to the position of eternalism. If he said they are not eternal, they would fall to the position of nihilism, since they would not understand his answer. Therefore, it was more skillful not to specify an answer at all.
To those who believe in a true findably existent body and life-force, Buddha did not answer when they asked are the body and life-force:
•
the same entity,
•
totally separate and different entities?
He remained silent for a similar reason, since they would only misunderstand anything he said.
The Theravada Version
An earlier, abbreviated list of ten unspecified points appears in the Pali canon in the Sutta of Shorter (Instructions) to Malunkya (Pali: Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta, within the The Collection of Middle-Length Discourses (Pali: Majjhima Nikaya). In this version, the monk Malunkyaputta was continuously distracted by metaphysical speculation during his meditation. In order to turn him back to his intensive meditation practice, Buddha remained silent when Malunkyaputta asked whether:
•
the universe is eternal,
•
the universe is not eternal,
•
the universe is finite,
•
the universe is infinite,
•
after death, a Buddha continues to exist,
•
after death, a Buddha does not continue to exist,
•
after death, a Buddha both continues to exist and not to exist,
•
after death, a Buddha neither continues to exist or not to exist,
•
the body and the “self” are the same entity,
•
the body and the “self” are totally separate and different entities.
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level4_deepening_understanding_path/interferences/fourteen_questions_which_buddha_rem.html
To those who believe in a true findably existent “me” or “self” (bdag, Skt. atman) and a true findably existent universe, Buddha did not answer when they asked are the “I” or the “self” and the universe:
•
eternal,
•
not eternal, since they undergo gross impermanence at the time of their destruction,
•
as both, in the sense that some beings and their environments, like the Creator Brahma and his heaven, are eternal; while all else, such as his creations, are not eternal and end at the time of their destruction,
•
neither, since it is impossible to know?
Are “I’s” or “selves” and the universe:
•
finite,
•
infinite,
•
both finite and infinite, in the sense that limited beings (sentient beings) are infinite in number, but the universe is finite in size,
•
neither, since it is impossible to know?
Does the “I” or the “self” of a Buddha:
•
continue to exist after death,
•
not continue after death,
•
both, in the sense that the body does not continue, but the life-force (srog) does,
•
neither?
Buddha did not answer these because there is no such thing as a true findably existent “me” or “self” for either limited beings (sentient beings) or a Buddha, and no such thing as a true findably existent universe. Therefore, there can be no question whether such things are eternal or not eternal, or finite or infinite. It is like asking do rabbit-horns, turtle-hair or chicken-lips last forever or only a limited time. If Buddha said the “me,” and so on are eternal, these people would fall to the position of eternalism. If he said they are not eternal, they would fall to the position of nihilism, since they would not understand his answer. Therefore, it was more skillful not to specify an answer at all.
To those who believe in a true findably existent body and life-force, Buddha did not answer when they asked are the body and life-force:
•
the same entity,
•
totally separate and different entities?
He remained silent for a similar reason, since they would only misunderstand anything he said.
The Theravada Version
An earlier, abbreviated list of ten unspecified points appears in the Pali canon in the Sutta of Shorter (Instructions) to Malunkya (Pali: Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta, within the The Collection of Middle-Length Discourses (Pali: Majjhima Nikaya). In this version, the monk Malunkyaputta was continuously distracted by metaphysical speculation during his meditation. In order to turn him back to his intensive meditation practice, Buddha remained silent when Malunkyaputta asked whether:
•
the universe is eternal,
•
the universe is not eternal,
•
the universe is finite,
•
the universe is infinite,
•
after death, a Buddha continues to exist,
•
after death, a Buddha does not continue to exist,
•
after death, a Buddha both continues to exist and not to exist,
•
after death, a Buddha neither continues to exist or not to exist,
•
the body and the “self” are the same entity,
•
the body and the “self” are totally separate and different entities.
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level4_deepening_understanding_path/interferences/fourteen_questions_which_buddha_rem.html
0
Comments
the range of a person in Jhana is unknowable
the powers of a buddha are unknowable
(I might have the phrasing wrong, unfortunately, but it is what I recall)
A case in point is the teaching on not-self. Many students interpret this as the Buddha's answer to two of the most frequently-asked questions in the history of serious thought: "Who am I?" and "Do I have a true self?" In the light of these questions, the teaching seems to be a no-self teaching, saying either an unqualified No: There is no self; or a qualified No: no separate self. But the one time the Buddha was asked point-blank if there is a self, he refused to answer, on the grounds that either a Yes or a No to the question would lead to extreme forms of wrong view that block the path to awakening.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/questions.html
or not-guess..... :crazy:
Is different to -
"Just not bothering because really, it's not worth anyone's time going in to it....Let's move on, shall we...?"
Gautama said certain things are imponderable, meaning, as I take it, that any answer would lead not to greater understanding but rather to more confusion. I can credit that approach.
My question -- and I'm not kidding, it is a question -- is this: There are imponderable things: OK. What then, precisely, is ponderable? What is it that when discussed leads to greater understanding and less confusion? There are a lot of facile answers even I could give, but at the nitty-gritty level, the level of honesty ... well, what exactly is ponderable?
A rock? A toothbrush? A winning lottery ticket? A profound philosophy? Is any of this and more like it any less imponderable than the designated imponderables? I'm not trying to suggest that a grumpy silence should be our approach to things, but I wonder if there isn't some usefulness to the old suggestion, "stop talkin' and start walkin'"
Just noodling here. What do you think?
@genkaku, you can ponder while you are doing an art. For example you ponder what word in a poem. It's kind of spontaneous but I guess it depends what you dilineate 'ponder' as. In dharma teachings you ponder the meaning of the teaching you heard. Hearing, pondering, and meditation are all one. When one happens all three do.
The nature of mind is clarity. It is fused with openness and sensitivity. Clarity is the samadhis we come to with the problem we are thinking about. This can be a mathematical problem or accepting some change in our life.
On the buddhist path often we discover things that are frightening. For example we may see that others happiness is our responsibility. This results in a painful sensitivity because we are off-kilter (dukkha). And that is when we may close down back into our cacoon of ego...
Ok I'm regurgitating teachings in the lineage of Trungpa haha... You've been around a long time! Now you tell me
Incidentally opening is 'the walk' in my opinion.
And
The Zen teacher Obaku/Huang Po once stood before his assembled monks and said, "There is no such thing as a Zen teacher." One of the monks stood up and said more or less, "But master, how can you say such a thing when clearly you are standing here before us and teaching." And Huang Po replied, "I said there was no such thing as a Zen teacher. I did not say there was no such thing as Zen."
I imagine any of us might ponder about such things -- or even call them imponderable -- but in the end, would it create more understanding or more confusion? I don't know, but just at the moment, I need to get some sleep.
When we don't know is the best time for insight to bubble up..
I thought of that as I questioned Tibetan Buddhism tradition of honoring the teacher. The reason the teacher is honored is to provide a good connection with the student. It is believed that a student who opens to the lineage can better open to the dharma. As my teacher's husband said "ego doesn't cut its own throat". Sometimes we do even small things in fellowship. I might do another sitting as I think of my sanghamates and get inspired. I might see the example of the masters who have gone before and be very grateful such that I get confidence that 'rubs off'.
OK ... thank you very much!
And then the matter comes to the fore: Is weeping and gratitude and imitative effort the whole story? Is this any way to repay what is owed, to flower as those who went before might have suggested or wished? I'm not trying to be dismissive or coldly above the fray. But as a serious question worth investigating: Is weeping and gratitude and imitative effort the whole story? Ducking such a question is a mistake, I'd say.
But what do I know?
If I’m correct about that, pondering is a good thing. Ponder away. Don’t stop pondering.
I mean, we often suffer because of things we know. And if we only dared to ponder them – question them –that would be liberation.
In Buddhism the idea of not asking some questions – fortunately – is not prompted by dogma. The reason for the suggestion, to not put too much energy in such questions, is their lack of practical purpose.
Ponder (think, question) with the right purpose; with the goal of liberation in mind; so that it will not reinforce our fixed ideas but so that it will lead to “dropping body and mind”.
And this talk of gratitude is such a parrot-thing. Everyone is so grateful towards the teachers; why?
Have you ever listened to what the teacher said? Did you hear anything new? Or was it all –just clearer - in the first stupid book you read about Buddhism?
When I did a full retreat-schedule at home; all by myself, I noticed the same things happening to me as in an organized retreat or sesshin. But in the sesshin I was so sure it all had to do with the inspiration of the teacher and the people around me.
It’s the meditation; it’s the simple teachings we've known for ages. They do the trick. The teacher is just a facilitator.
Pondering is one thing. Answering all the time, is another.
The OP is about the fact that Buddha remained silent on some things and why.
It's been a few moons since I had seen this lesson, so It was refreshing to be reminded that Buddha would not want me to answer everything.
Good message for a discussion forum!
Though the Buddha wouldn't have needed to explain it to another enlightened being..
I never said they are completely useless.
1. In most cases if you look in previous conversation where he did respond, you will find the answer to the question there. It is often a matter of going back and paying attention to what he already said.
2. In the Lankavatara Sutra page 110 it clearly states “The Tathagata had not uttered a word in answer or in discourse” during his life-time between his Enlightenment and the Nirvana. The idea here is “do not cling to words”. For “dharma naira ca disito bhagavata pratyatmavedyo yatah” or translated. “The truth has indeed never been preached by Buddha, seeing that one has to realise it within oneself.”
Words should instead be treated like the reflection of the moon in water as far as they are related in meaning. The reflection is there, though the moon itself has not entered into the water, nor is it to be considered standing in relation to the water, because the latter has something in it to reflect the moon. Best not to fall into the habit of superficially taking mere words for real meaning. This is the warning of the Lankavatara: Yatharutarthabhinivesasamdhau na prapatata. “Do not fall into the secret error of getting attached to the meaning as expressed in words.”
Conrad.