- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
Good questions, but they cannot be answered in a single response. They have been already discussed here. You may be able to find them by scanning through. If someone remembers, please post the link(s).
You can also read relevant posts from the following. If you have questions, you can quote from any of those posts, and we would be happy to discuss.
You can get the answer to the third question, when you understand the first two.
-
-
Hello Sir,
Though I did not check the documents, but when I started with the first document, it told me to go to – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questionsSo I went there and it says that Buddha did not answer this question that how does a being come into existence. But if Buddha has told so many stories about this world, that world, Gods, Brahmas, humans, their many lives, he also has clearly talked at lengths about the end of cycle of birth and death then why not the start. This is an issue of mystery and dissatisfaction.
-
hi @Student…(aren’t we all…?)
- “why not the start” … apparently (but only apparently) the Buddha was not an adept of a “start”. Didn’t you already notice how much boring can be to have a start (and thus an end) clearly in your mind ?
- What brings you more satisfaction : the quest for solving a mystery or its solution? Notice how boring can be when hindus start talking about the Brahman (NOT Brahma. Brahman equates to Supreme Consciousness) : from the Brahman you came (in a way or another) to the Brahman you’ll return and that’s all folks. Isn’t this somehow disappointing ? But that which Gotama Buddha proposes it’s vertiginously original…
- Also the more one approaches nibanna, the less one cares about “start”…
- Moreover he knew that such quest would become just one more source of clinging (possibly the biggest one) thus of suffering…
-
-
Did you not read the post itself?
Misconceptions on the Topics the Buddha “Refused to Answer”In that post I pointed out that the Buddha indeed answered those “unanswered questions”.
-
@ Student, @Yeos
‘then why not the start’
From Mil3.3.2: The beginning of timeThe king said: ‘You say that the ultimate point of time is not apparent. Give me an illustration of that.’
‘Suppose, O king, a man were to plant in the ground a tiny seed, and that it were to come up as a shoot, and in due course grow, develope, and mature until it produced a fruit. And then the man, taking a seed from that fruit, were again to plant it in the ground, and all should happen as before. Now would there be any end to this series?’
Certainly not, Sir.’ ‘Just so, O king, the ultimate point in the past of the whole of this time is not apparent.’
‘Give me a further illustration.’
‘The hen lays an egg. From the egg comes a hen. From the hen an egg. Is there any end to this series?’
‘No.’
‘Just so, O king, the ultimate point in the past of the whole of this time is not apparent.’
‘Give me a further illustration.’
Then the Elder drew a circle on the ground and asked the king: ‘Is there any end to this circle?’
‘No, it has no end.’
‘Well, that is like those circles spoken of by the Blessed One. “By reason of the eye and of forms there arises sight, when these three come together there is touch, by reason of touch sensation, by reason of sensation and longing (Taṇhā, thirst), by reason of the longing action (Karma), and from action eye is once more produced.” Now is there any end to this series?
‘No.’
Then setting out a precisely corresponding circle of each of the other organs of sense (of the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind), he in each case put the same question. And the reply being always the same, he concluded:
‘Just so, O king, the ultimate point of time in the past is not apparent.’
‘You are ready, Nāgasena, in reply.’
Also, IMHO Nibbana does not necessarily mean an end to a sentient being… it means a shift to a state beyond the bounds of observation or description… #<DoesNotCompute>#
-
Hi Student.
You wrote:
“This is an issue of mystery and dissatisfaction.”I have such similar questions myself, so I understand your curiosity.
Student wrote:
“why not the start.”Here is a sutta that might be of use to those on the Path, whenever these questions arise:
“Malunkyaputta, if anyone were to say, ‘I won’t live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that “The cosmos is eternal,”… or that “After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,”‘ the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.
“It’s just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me… until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short… until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored… until I know his home village, town, or city… until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow… until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated… until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird… until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.’ He would say, ‘I won’t have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.’ The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.”
Existing in sansara is like being shot with that poisoned arrow. The antidote is Nibbana.
In my opinion, if the Buddha never explicitly spoke about such topics, I think it is of not much benefit to ponder at long lengths about them. Because the only being I’d trust to get the full/correct answers to these questions is from the Buddha himself, the best source. So if he answered any of these questions, it would most likely be in the Tipitaka, that is our second best source now without the Buddha. Otherwise we can only speculate/guess/theorize, and never find the true definitive/satisfying answer.
-
Student wrote:
“Can anybody share any document which proves that Mahāyāna is a later branch?”To your question regarding Mahāyāna. In my opinion, I think the proof of it being a later branch is self-evident. One just needs to read the sutras. One red flag after another. Full of one contradiction and inconsistency after another. I think one could possibly write a book listing the contradictions/inconsistencies.
The sutras from Mahāyāna are in Sanskrit. The suttas from the Tipitaka are in Pali. The fact that the “sutras(not suttas)” are in Sanskrit and not in Pali alone, is a red flag. The Buddha did not give his discourses in Sanskrit. It was in Maghadhi. As Lal wrote in one of the posts: “Pāli is a version of Maghadhi suitable for writing down oral discourses in summary form suitable for transmission.”
From Preservation of the Buddha Dhamma :
“That is when the Buddha admonished them that Sanskrit was a language with musical overtones developed by the high-minded Brahmins and thus it was not possible to convey the true meanings of Maghadhi (Pali) words in Sanskrit; see, Chulavagga 5.33.”From Chulavagga 5.33 :
“You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put the word of the Buddhas into (Sanskrit) verse. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata. I allow you, O Bhikkhus, to learn the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect.'”
To get more clarity on Mahāyāna, I think you will find the following post in particular, to be beneficial. If you have not read it already, I highly recommend it:
The Saddharma Pundarika Sutra (Lotus Sutra) – A Focused Analysis
Here’s one of the best highlights from that post, major clear as day/obvious contradiction/inconsistency:
“This sutrā starts off by the Buddha saying that even though he had taught that there were three paths to nibbāna but now he is admitting that there is only one; when Ven. Ananda asked why, he says that he did not think people were “ready” for this higher doctrine. Thus instead of there being three vehicles (or paths) one can take, there is only one which is the great vehicle or the Mahāyāna (“mahā” is great and “yāna” is vehicle). And this is the path that he himself took by striving for aeons as a Bodhisattva to become a Buddha.Continuing with this sutrā, now he (the Buddha) was advising everyone to become a Bodhisattava and to attain the Buddhahood. Then he assures all those Arahants present there, including Ven. Sariputta, that they themselves will become Buddhas. This is a complete lack of understanding of the concept of an Arahant (even though the sutta itself says that those Arahants had removed all defilements). An Arahant is not going to be reborn and thus there is no way for an Arahant to become a Buddha.”
-
The only thing I can add to the above posts by faujidoc1, upekkha100, and myself is about the “beginning of universe” and “beginning of life”.
Neither has a beginning that can be traced back to.
That is inherent in the principle of causation (cause and effect), which is the backbone of Buddha Dhamma. Anything happens due to causes(s).
– I must add that modern science is also based on principle of causality.Therefore, by definition, there CANNOT be a beginning.
Whatever one takes to be the beginning (say a Creator) runs into the problem of “how did that (Creator) come into being?Planetary systems like our Solar system go through an endless recycle process: they come into being, and destroyed, only to be re-formed and repeat the process endlessly; see, “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)“
-
@student
DN1 : the prime net is a good starting point to understand the Buddha’s analysis of the various theories of origin, many of which are still floating around today. You might find reading it tedious… Try listening to it instead- I found it made a significant difference in understanding.
https://www.paliaudio.com/mn-34
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.