With or Without Origin

Welcome! Forums General Forum With or Without Origin

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #15315
      Embodied
      Spectator

      Hello

      A very general subject.
      Regarding the chain of cause and effect and rebirth the Buddha said (unless i misunderstood) : « with indiscernible beginning» which is different from saying «with no beginning at all».
      Indiscernible suggests thus the possibility of a beginning which would logically mean that all the beings in the Multiverse (re)born from one another , that we’re all somehow «one», that there’s something of my gandhabba in yours and vice-versa?

      I’m aware that i’m reasoning outside the box…

      Thanks

    • #15316
      y not
      Participant

      Embodied:

      The Buddha could see no ‘discernible’ beginning; that is, as far back as he went, he saw no beginning. So many days and nights he went back and still no beginning. And had he gone back and back, not for days, but to this very day, he would still have seen no beginning, because there IS no beginning. This is what I make out by ‘no discernible beginning'(by a Buddha, note well).

      See…how CAN there be a beginning? We are talking about Existence. If Existence did have a beginning, out of what would it emerge? It could possibly have emerged either from another existing thing (which is Existence as well) or from non-existence. So, it would emerge either from Itself (which would be just a progression of the same, one Existence) or from nothing, which is impossible. So it is well said in the Upanishads that there is no origination in any way whatsoever – and I add, possible or imaginable.

      I do not see how the gandhabba(s) come into all of this. Yes, we are one, but I do not see the rest of it with the gandhabba as the connection.

      Metta

      y not

      • #15318
        Embodied
        Spectator

        Y Not

        Alot can be said, in terms of philosophical labels centered around existence, non-existence, dual and non- dual perception, the beginning as a Knowing instead of as a Being and so on.Yet the Dhamma isn’t about philosophy. Or about existence coming from eternity which is beyond existence and non existence. These little things said, why is that the Buddha mentioned often ” the Unborn “/Deathless (or translated as such) ?

        Thank you very much for your kind attention.

    • #15319
      y not
      Participant

      Embodied:

      ‘….why is that the Buddha mentioned often ” the Unborn “/Deathless (or translated as such) ?

      He was refering to Nibbana. Which is the goal we all have to stive for.
      In existence we are already, but Nibbana we have not reached yet. So the Buddha’s message goes way beyond philosophy, whose goal is to explain Existence, while the Buddha’s Message is how to free oneself from all the suffering there.

      may you attain that Peace,

      y not

    • #15321
      Lal
      Keymaster

      The principle of causation, which is the basis of scientific studies, says that an effect arises due to one or more causes. Things just don’t happen or “pop-up into existence” without a cause(s).

      Therefore, by definition, there cannot be a “first cause”.

      In creator-based religions, it is ASSUMED that the first cause is the Creator.
      But that assumption itself is contradictory to the principle of causation. How did the Creator come into existence?

      The Buddha declared what he experienced. He could look back at the past with an incredible speed, but could not see a “beginning”. That is why he just said that there is no discernible beginning: No matter how far back he looked, he could not see a “beginning”.

      • #15323
        Embodied
        Spectator

        Ok but my post has nothing to do with the good and old creator god.

        The thing is, clinging to any form of Absolute would be the worst possible obstacle to liberation, the worst possible craving…and He – the Gotama – was such an extraordinary pedagogue. How would one feel/integrate then “clinging to nothing…etc” …? But once achieved isn’t Nibbana an Absolute knowing? Instead of a(one more) Being

        Nibbana Sutta

        “The born, become, produced,
        made, fabricated, impermanent,
        fabricated of aging & death,
        a nest of illnesses, perishing,
        come-into-being through nourishment
        and the guide [that is craving] —
        is unfit for delight.
        The escape from that
        is calm, permanent,
        a sphere beyond conjecture,
        unborn, unproduced,
        the sorrowless, stainless state,
        the cessation of stressful qualities,
        stilling-of-fabrications bliss.”

        Metta !

    • #15322
      Johnny_Lim
      Participant

      I always have this idea that the Buddha lineage follows a tradition whereby a Buddha (e.g Kassapa Buddha) would discern the past up to a certain point where there is no longer a need to trace back any further because His predecessor(s) had already done the ‘screening’. So, in the same manner, Gotama Buddha would have taken similar cue from Kassapa Buddha (via historical records in namagotta) and trace back to the past 91 world cycles where He saw only 6 samma-sambuddhas that appeared. Why not trace back a little further to 109 world cycles? Why not stretch it further to 1,9999 world cycles? The Buddha lineage forms a network which is a very efficient way to discern things that had happened deep in the past. Similarly, the future Metteyya Buddha would be taking similar cue from Gotama Buddha and other historical Buddhas. Of course, that’s just my speculation.

    • #15324
      y not
      Participant

      Johnny:

      As I see it, Buddha Gotama wanted to see or review the ‘karmic connections’ he was involved in throughout those mahakaplas, for the very practical reason of the balancing out of debts he had with beings throughout that time. He could go further back, but there was no point. He KNEW there was no beginning.

      Buddha Kassapa would have done the same, as would the other Buddhas that preceded him. However back any One of Them would have gone, He would not have gone back to the ‘first mahakalpa’ or the ‘first Budddha’, because there cannot be a first mahakalpa and a first Buddha. Otherwise a Buddha would remain there until death, derelicting His duty (Self-imposed) of preaching the Dhamma. That would hold for all Buddhas in all planetary systems, all galaxies and all universes.

      Metta

      y not

    • #15325
      Lal
      Keymaster

      Embodied said: “that there’s something of my gandhabba in yours and vice-versa?”

      Why do you need to make things so complicated? What does it have to do with a beginning? Please think carefully and formulate your question correctly. I am still not sure what your question is.

      How can two gandhabbas overlap? Gandhabba is a lifestream, just like a brahma. The only difference in a human is that we have physical body with the gandhabba inside. A brahma only has a gandhabba or a mental body.

      Embodied said: “But once achieved isn’t Nibbana an Absolute knowing?”

      First think about “knowing”: That involves “thinking”. Thinking involves thoughts which means citta and cetasika. Those belong to this world of 31 realms.

      Everything in the 31 realms have citta, cetasika, rupa (matter). Nibbana does not have ANY of those. It is useless to speculate what is in Nibbana.

      We don’t know ANYTHING AT ALL about what is in Nibbana. All we know is that Nibbana exists and that it is OUTSIDE the 31 realms; see the posts in “Nibbana“.

      I don’t have any idea how the initial question on “no discernible beginning” is connected to different Buddhas etc. Please formulate your questions carefully. It is a waste of time to try to understand what is meant in a question.

      Please read about Nibbana before asking any more questions: “Nibbana“.

      P.S. There is nothing special about a gandhabba. Any living being has a mental body or manomaya kaya. For a human or an animal, it is given a special name of gandhabba.

      The manomaya kaya keep changing as one goes from bhava to bhava. In some brahma bhava, it is the only body. In other bhava there is a denser body associated with it.

      If question is whether there was a first bhava in any realm, then it leads to the question: How did that manomaya kaya arise? For any living being, the Buddha did not see such a first.

      A related question is: If there an infinite number beings at some earlier time, and there have been an infinite number of Buddhas who helped an infinite number of living beings to attain Nibbana, how come there are still an infinite number of beings left now? Modern mathematics confirms that infinity minus infinity is still infinity!
      See: “Infinity – How Big Is It?

      • #15328
        Embodied
        Spectator

        Ah i’ll not miss this opportunity to improve my gati by mastering my tanha, thus avoiding bad kamma.

        Thank you

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.