Buddhism And Infinity

[Xangsamhua]

I understand that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence, with no centre, nor any permanent entity underpinning it. There has been no creation. Nothing that does not exist can be brought into existence and nothing that exists can ever disappear into nothingness.

That’s pretty mind-boggling, yet the idea of infinity is happily taken on board by many religious and non-religious people. But when we speak of infinity we really, I suspect, are thinking only of a very long time or a very great expanse of space. I don’t think we can really handle the idea of infinity, of something that just goes on and on and on…… In infinity, after all, all things become possible – indeed, inevitable. So in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of exact replicas of yourself currently reading an infinity of thaivisa.com postings on Buddhism and Infinity.

The medieval Kalam school of Islamic philosophers rejected the idea of an actual infinity, thereby, though still leaving the questions of temporal and spatial boundaries open, getting rid of an unhelpful and distracting construct. But mainstream Islamic, Christian, Hindu and Buddhist philosophers, to my knowledge, retain the idea.

Is it helpful, though? Is it best left to Mathematics as a theoretically possible construct, but in the “real” world of physics and human destiny discarded as an unhelpful conundrum?

If it is retained, does it imply that we’re living in an absurd universe (or infinity of universes)? If it is discarded, what can we then say about boundless continuity of existence, without permanence or any fixed point we could call a centre?

I was thinking about this after reading the comments of Matthieu Ricard (the monk) in "The Monk and the Philosopher". Also John Barrow's "The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless".

[Brucenkhamen]

I understand that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence, with no centre, nor any permanent entity underpinning it. There has been no creation. Nothing that does not exist can be brought into existence and nothing that exists can ever disappear into nothingness.

I don't doubt that some schools of Buddhism might teach it that way, and there'd be some truth in it, but I'm pretty sure the Buddha would see such attempts at defining of existance as a waste of time.

So in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of exact replicas of yourself currently reading an infinity of thaivisa.com postings on Buddhism and Infinity.

I can't say I understand how you come to that conclusion.

Is it helpful, though? Is it best left to Mathematics as a theoretically possible construct, but in the “real” world of physics and human destiny discarded as an unhelpful conundrum?

I don't see it as helpful in terms of the Buddhist path. If there is the possibility such inquiry can help you to gain freedom from the cycle of greed, hatred, and delusion in the present moment then it would be helpful.

If it is retained, does it imply that we’re living in an absurd universe (or infinity of universes)? If it is discarded, what can we then say about boundless continuity of existence, without permanence or any fixed point we could call a centre?

There is no need to retain it or discard it, just put it aside as not being immediately relevant to the path, along with such things as Macrame and C# programming.

[Xangsamhua]

I understand that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence, with no centre, nor any permanent entity underpinning it. There has been no creation. Nothing that does not exist can be brought into existence and nothing that exists can ever disappear into nothingness.

I don't doubt that some schools of Buddhism might teach it that way, and there'd be some truth in it, but I'm pretty sure the Buddha would see such attempts at defining of existance as a waste of time.

So in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of exact replicas of yourself currently reading an infinity of thaivisa.com postings on Buddhism and Infinity.

I can't say I understand how you come to that conclusion.

Is it helpful, though? Is it best left to Mathematics as a theoretically possible construct, but in the "real" world of physics and human destiny discarded as an unhelpful conundrum?

I don't see it as helpful in terms of the Buddhist path. If there is the possibility such inquiry can help you to gain freedom from the cycle of greed, hatred, and delusion in the present moment then it would be helpful.

If it is retained, does it imply that we're living in an absurd universe (or infinity of universes)? If it is discarded, what can we then say about boundless continuity of existence, without permanence or any fixed point we could call a centre?

There is no need to retain it or discard it, just put it aside as not being immediately relevant to the path, along with such things as Macrame and C# programming.

I thought when I tossed this into the ring that you might come up with something like the dry but eminently sensible response that you have. Of course this kind of speculation doesn't help one "gain freedom from the cycle of greed, hatred and delusion in the present moment"; however unpursued thoughts remain thoughts even if we put them aside, and they have a way of re-presenting themselves in unguarded moments.

Those of a speculative disposition may be justified in asking the question, particularly where there is a Buddhist metaphysics and where it is put into the public domain by scholars such as the Dalai Lama and the Bhikkhu Mathieu Ricard. To quote from the latter in the text I mentioned: "Buddhism holds that an entity that truly existed could neither arise in the first place nor ever disappear. Being can't be born from nothingness, because even an infinitude of causes wouldn't be able to make something that didn't exist come into existence; nor can it be born from what already exists, as in that case there would be no need for it to be born." (p. 106) If one is going to argue against the possibility of a Creator then one has to argue in favour of infinity (or to argue that nothing exists at all!). But the idea of infinity is, perhaps, as impossible to grasp as that of a Creator.

On the question of inevitable infinite replication (e.g. an infinite number of replications of oneself currently reading an infinite replication of thaivisa.com posts etc.), I didn't come to that conclusion. I don't understand it either, but it is the theme of chapter 8 of Barrow's book and I think is summed up in the principle: "In a universe of infinite size, anything that has a non-zero probability of occurring must occur infinitely often." (p. 156) I assume a zero probability would refer to something that is logically impossible (i.e. logically contradictory, e.g. that black cats will be white cats at the same time). Maybe there's a mathematically clear-minded person out there who can explain Barrow's principle. (Barrow, incidentally, is professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge.)

I know this is a somewhat arcane and unrewarding topic, so I do appreciate your response.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Xangsamhua

[IMA_FARANG]

I understand that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence, with no centre, nor any permanent entity underpinning it. There has been no creation. Nothing that does not exist can be brought into existence and nothing that exists can ever disappear into nothingness.

That's pretty mind-boggling, yet the idea of infinity is happily taken on board by many religious and non-religious people. But when we speak of infinity we really, I suspect, are thinking only of a very long time or a very great expanse of space. I don't think we can really handle the idea of infinity, of something that just goes on and on and on…… In infinity, after all, all things become possible – indeed, inevitable. So in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of exact replicas of yourself currently reading an infinity of thaivisa.com postings on Buddhism and Infinity.

The medieval Kalam school of Islamic philosophers rejected the idea of an actual infinity, thereby, though still leaving the questions of temporal and spatial boundaries open, getting rid of an unhelpful and distracting construct. But mainstream Islamic, Christian, Hindu and Buddhist philosophers, to my knowledge, retain the idea.

Is it helpful, though? Is it best left to Mathematics as a theoretically possible construct, but in the "real" world of physics and human destiny discarded as an unhelpful conundrum?

If it is retained, does it imply that we're living in an absurd universe (or infinity of universes)? If it is discarded, what can we then say about boundless continuity of existence, without permanence or any fixed point we could call a centre?

I was thinking about this after reading the comments of Matthieu Ricard (the monk) in "The Monk and the Philosopher". Also John Barrow's "The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless".

You ought to go to the site www.e-sangha.com which has a section on Buddhist Philosophy (among other subjects). To be able to post on that site you need to register and assign yourself a password. The response is quick when you register, only takes a few minutes before you can post and discuss ideas regarding Buddhism or anything else to your hearts content.

In order to respond to your original post, I would have to read it carefully and think a while. Unfortunately now, I have other business I have to get done first.

[Xangsamhua]

I understand that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence, with no centre, nor any permanent entity underpinning it. There has been no creation. Nothing that does not exist can be brought into existence and nothing that exists can ever disappear into nothingness.

That's pretty mind-boggling, yet the idea of infinity is happily taken on board by many religious and non-religious people. But when we speak of infinity we really, I suspect, are thinking only of a very long time or a very great expanse of space. I don't think we can really handle the idea of infinity, of something that just goes on and on and on…… In infinity, after all, all things become possible – indeed, inevitable. So in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of exact replicas of yourself currently reading an infinity of thaivisa.com postings on Buddhism and Infinity.

The medieval Kalam school of Islamic philosophers rejected the idea of an actual infinity, thereby, though still leaving the questions of temporal and spatial boundaries open, getting rid of an unhelpful and distracting construct. But mainstream Islamic, Christian, Hindu and Buddhist philosophers, to my knowledge, retain the idea.

Is it helpful, though? Is it best left to Mathematics as a theoretically possible construct, but in the "real" world of physics and human destiny discarded as an unhelpful conundrum?

If it is retained, does it imply that we're living in an absurd universe (or infinity of universes)? If it is discarded, what can we then say about boundless continuity of existence, without permanence or any fixed point we could call a centre?

I was thinking about this after reading the comments of Matthieu Ricard (the monk) in "The Monk and the Philosopher". Also John Barrow's "The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless".

You ought to go to the site www.e-sangha.com which has a section on Buddhist Philosophy (among other subjects). To be able to post on that site you need to register and assign yourself a password. The response is quick when you register, only takes a few minutes before you can post and discuss ideas regarding Buddhism or anything else to your hearts content.

In order to respond to your original post, I would have to read it carefully and think a while. Unfortunately now, I have other business I have to get done first.

Thanks IMA. I'll do that. I have visited that site before (on your advice?) with good results.

Cheers

XSH

[Brucenkhamen]

I thought when I tossed this into the ring that you might come up with something like the dry but eminently sensible response that you have. Of course this kind of speculation doesn't help one "gain freedom from the cycle of greed, hatred and delusion in the present moment"; however unpursued thoughts remain thoughts even if we put them aside, and they have a way of re-presenting themselves in unguarded moments.

I'd think about applying a rule of thumb here.

If attempting to quantify the infinite or define the indefinable leads to open mindedness, a sense of wonder and awe in your existence, a burst of energy to your practice, then it's probably skillful means.

If it leads to frustration with all the unanswered questions, sleepless nights, or worse a blind belief in a chosen answer to all your questions, then it's the opposite of skillful means (whatever that is).

If all it does is lead to interesting things to talk about at cocktail parties it's pretty harmless.

[jamesc2000]

I am not an expert on Buddhism and I could be wrong but I think your premise that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence is wrong.

I thought it was the opposite.

Not infinity but nothing!

[Xangsamhua]

I am not an expert on Buddhism and I could be wrong but I think your premise that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence is wrong.

I thought it was the opposite.

Not infinity but nothing!

As I understand it, "emptiness" (shunyata) does not equate to "nothingness", but to lack of identity, permanence or self. The Buddha, and Nirvana are "real". (Wikipedia article on "Shunyata") Dharmakaya would also be "real".

At IMAFARANG's suggestion (above) I looked at the E-sangha forum www.e-sangha.com and they've got lots on this and related topics. One poster (#3 to the thread on "Emptiness" in the Buddhist Philosophy forum) suggested that "'mind' or 'consciousness' has underlying 'layer' or 'base' (metaphoricaly) that is not dependent upon, and therefore conditioned by, 'external' (or even other 'internal') events or things. It is out of this 'base' that 'appearance' arises in dependence on a number of factors".

I posted my questions under the topic heading "Buddhism and Infinity, Can we handle it?" to the E-sangha forum on Buddhist Philosophy and have already had some fascinating replies, ones that show me how much of a beginner I am in Buddhist metaphysics. You may like to visit that forum.

Cheers

XSH

[rockyysdt]

Hi XSH

I've heard it said that God is "everything that there ever was, and everything that there ever will be, all at once and forever".

Infinity can be a mathematical representation of what might be experienced when enlightened but if/until this occurs, it's beyond our ability to comprehend.

I don't think that any amount of discussion or study would come anywhere near understanding infinity.

Your best bet is to devote your life to following the teachings of becoming enlightened.

Edited May 28, 2008 by rockyysdt

[cobra]

I am not an expert on Buddhism and I could be wrong but I think your premise that Buddhist philosophy argues for an infinitely continuing (forward and reverse) state of existence is wrong.

I thought it was the opposite.

Not infinity but nothing!

That was my understanding also,

... observe a raindrop, it appears then disappears, it's existence undeniable, to be aware of all existence but to cling to none is both the journey and the challenge, ... comes to mind.

Nothing, being an analog of non-existence,

The infinity twist is always interesting and if pondered long enough results in a metal blue-screen for me, after reboot resolve never to think about it again.

[Brucenkhamen]

As I understand it, "emptiness" (shunyata) does not equate to "nothingness", but to lack of identity, permanence or self. The Buddha, and Nirvana are "real".

This is my understanding also, I don't know where this idea that Buddhism teaches there is "nothing" comes from.

One poster (#3 to the thread on "Emptiness" in the Buddhist Philosophy forum) suggested that "'mind' or 'consciousness' has underlying 'layer' or 'base' (metaphoricaly) that is not dependent upon, and therefore conditioned by, 'external' (or even other 'internal') events or things. It is out of this 'base' that 'appearance' arises in dependence on a number of factors".

Let me get this straight, he's saying there is an unconditioned "base" to existence out of which all events or things arise according to conditions? Sounds like closet theism to me, why doesn't he come right out and call this base "God"?

From my understanding the Buddha taught that everything arises according to conditions, as to what started the ball rolling.. I don't know, and don't really feel that knowing would change my life in any way.

I posted my questions under the topic heading "Buddhism and Infinity, Can we handle it?" to the E-sangha forum on Buddhist Philosophy and have already had some fascinating replies, ones that show me how much of a beginner I am in Buddhist metaphysics. You may like to visit that forum.

If somebody comes up with some impressive philosophy that catches your interest don't forget to ask them how it has changed their life

[Naam]

Nothing, being an analog of non-existence, The infinity twist is always interesting and if pondered long enough results in a metal blue-screen for me, after reboot resolve never to think about it again.

isn't it against forum rules to post in languages other than thai or english?