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.
The number of beings.
chrispche
Southend on Sea, Essex, UK Explorer
If the universe or the multiverse within the 6 realms is eternal and locked in an eternal cycle forever. Logic dictates that the is a finite number of beings and entities in this multiverse. They are being re-born continually. Except when someone attains Nirvana they are released from the cycle. So using logic eventually after eons and eons everyone is destined to be enlightened. Leading to there being no more beings in Samsara. Eventually there will be no one left. Or will there be, is there new cycles of birth starting from the beginning? Are there new entities, beings or persons whatever entering Samsara all the time? If so where are they created and where do they come from.
Why does logic always make religion confusing?
Why does logic always make religion confusing?
0
Comments
Time, empty space, persons, and other such specific things are imputedly known phenomena and lack being self-standing substantial entities.
Understanding this establishes a new way to look at starting stopping and abiding, such as clearly cognizing the fact of beginninglessness and endlessness of certain things (most importantly our minds).
Buddhist logic is based on reasonings which use these realistic subjects and assertions to go about text after text systematically dismantling logic founded upon broken subjects and assertions.
Here's a quote from the Malunkya-Sutta:
"So what is it that I have not explained? That the world is eternal, I have not explained. That the world is not eternal, I have not explained. ...
.....
.....
And why have I not explained this? Because it is not relevant to the goal, it is not fundamental to the spiritual life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to full awakening, to nibbana. Therefore I have not explained this."
I am fairly new to Buddhism and having read the above sutta, I was under the impression the the subject of whether the world is eternal or not should be avoided by Buddhists as it is not essential to the Path. But it seems that my view is wrong. Could someone please give me some clarification on this.
The famous "unanswered questions" are an example of the audience being unripe and strongly grasping to self yet still asking all the right questions (ie. how should we understand the nature of persons). This forced the buddha to remain silent because no matter what he might have said he would have been wrong.
To answer the question, no, universes are not eternal. They start and eventually end, the process being without beginning and will never end as long as causes remain (namely karma).
I've pondered the same thing in another way, I think. If the essence of our mind/spirit/non-self/etc. was never created and will never end then we must be eternal and eternally old (this essence/awareness). Why are we still in Samsara then and have not reached enlightenment?
Very true.
The Buddha provided an answer in the suttas?
In the Samyutta Nikaya there is a section concerning specifically to these questions (Avyakata Samyutta). "Is the cosmos eternal? Is it not eternal? Is it finite? Is it infinite? Is the body the same as the soul? Is the body one thing and the soul another? Does the Tathagata exist after death? Does he not exist after death? Both? Neither?" All these questions were left unanswered, but the so called section explains the reasons why.
I understand that. But my question to aaki is: if those are "the right questions to be asking," and the only reason he did not answer was because the audience was "unripe," then at some point in the Tipitaka he must come across a "ripe" audience whom he provided the answers to? Surely he at least said at some point that those are the right questions to be asking?
Well the Buddha refused to answer such questions to Ananda, and Sariputta never got a straight answer. How more ripe can you be?
The interpretation that aaki holds is not solely his. Specially when concerning the existence of a self many people say he just didn't answer that question because of the audience, but when he talked about his motivations he just said it was irrelevant, detrimental or it didn't apply.
So with that in mind, in the abhidharmkosha, it goes into great detail explaining how the universe starts, will end, what happens to living beings during that time, the variety of ways that planets are destroyed, various type of galaxies populated with the 6 type of beings, various cycles of time (kalpa), etcetc.
We haven't gotten rid of the habits of seeing things and interacting with them as if they possessed a self, particularly ourselves.
Maybe not all of them, but the ones regarding the self+person are the whole point of buddhism.
I don't know enough about sutra to say whether he did or did not specifically to those 2 people but the general topic of the debate would be that there are different types of arhats, plus bodhisattva arhats which we may or may not accept depending on whether we accept mahayana sutras. Actually most hardline Vaibhashikas would say that only a buddha can know the answers to most of those questions, so that's yet another reason why buddha remained silent/gave differing instructions/etc.
Is this what you are talking about? He (the OP guy) is not talking about the cycles of destruction and emergence of world-systems, he was asking if everybody will get enlightened someday. The Abhidarmhakosa doesn't answer that, as far as I know, neither does it approach the emergence of completely new beings, from scratch. If it does please quote it here.
I wish this were true... but wishing is also "clinging" ... so I'll just let it be. Up until 26 December 2008 I was an agnostic. On this day I get a birthday present, a book by His Holiness The Dalai Lama - "In My Own Words - An Introduction to My Teachings and Philosophy" - edited by Rajiv Mehrotra. Within a week of reading just this one book I decided to walk the Buddhist Path. Is this luck? Or chance perhaps? Nope... its kamma! Anyway, in the past eleven months, I have been able to get one foot on the Buddhist Path but the other one is still dangling in the ocean of samsara with Mara's army frantically tugging at it. I gotta put plenty more effort... Nothing is in the bag yet... except perhaps a whole lot of ignorance...
A big heartfelt thank you for the encouragement.
Your response proves Mundus right. Lol! Even though you're only 11 months into it I think it's pretty clear that you've found a perfect fit. I could go on and on but I don't want to cause you to struggle with your ego.
I'm very glad you're here. You've already taught me a few things.