Rebirth and endless time

[Heruka]

mind is in time.

is there anything outside of mind?

[Indrajala]

More inquiry:

If we accept the current, scientific model we must at the same time accept that there was a time, and will be a time when neither animals nor humans will exist.

At least on planet earth.

At some point the universe is swallowed up in flames up to a certain celestial heaven. The deva above that point are witness to the destruction of the universe and its eventual revival.

In Abhidharma literature this is addressed. Where does a being go if it commits an act that should send it to hell, yet no hell realm is present? The being is reborn in another universe where a hell realm exists.

If sentient beings could never have begun to be sentient beings, since sentient beings are by their very nature, sentient, there could never have been any other beings other than the very beings that they are, to be the beings that they are, i.e. sentient beings – since they are all busy being reborn.

The kama-loka (desire realm) is said to initially have dwellers when lower deva experience kama (desire) and, along with falling into feelings of craving, they "fall into" the kama-loka. Basically, the origins of physical beings is not from insentient matter, but from a higher realm of existence.

Similarly, if we connect this with evolution we'd end up with more confusion. If earth creatures are born from complex processes, a primordial soup, and since there have been no beings earlier in our cosmos up to this point, we'd just have to assume that their sentiency popped up from nowhere (if all creatures are the effects of karma), rather than having been created from the soup that have apparently granted them their life. In short: what caused the first birth or creation of a creature in this universe?

This assumes there are only beings made up of physical matter. Bio-chemical lifeforms. In Buddhist cosmology there are a myriad of beings that have no physical form yet are still part of the universe.

Presently science does not recognize this, but then that's not an issue for Buddhism.

Keep in mind however, some scientists recently discovered a new form of life that completely goes against the former models of how bio-chemical lifeforms operate.

http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life

NASA has discovered a new life form, a bacteria called GFAJ-1 that is unlike anything currently living in planet Earth. It's capable of using arsenic to build its DNA, RNA, proteins, and cell membranes. This changes everything. Updated.

NASA is saying that this is "life as we do not know it". The reason is that all life on Earth is made of six components: Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. Every being, from the smallest amoeba to the largest whale, share the same life stream. Our DNA blocks are all the same.

That was true until today. In a surprising revelation, NASA scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon and her team have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today, working differently than the rest of the organisms in the planet. Instead of using phosphorus, the newly discovered microorganism—called GFAJ-1 and found in Mono Lake, California—uses the poisonous arsenic for its building blocks. Arsenic is an element poisonous to every other living creature in the planet except for a few specialized microscopic creatures.

So, the model is subject to change when new discoveries are made.

It sounds like religion or sci-fi, but in the future maybe they will discover beings made up of light energy. That's originally what deva are said to be in India: beings of light. Shining ones.

Anyways, given that we have mental aggregates that carry over from lifetime to lifetime regardless of the state of the physical body, the issue of sentience is not a matter of asking how the primordial soup gave rise to it from insentient matter.

Taken as an objective concept, as something ”out there” going on right now, rebirth as apparently understood, boil down to absurd versions of infinite regresses and end up making little or no sense at all.

This is perhaps why karma is said to be only fully understood by a Buddha.

A lot of western thinkers feel uncomfortable with an infinite past. This perhaps reflects the older lines of thought that had god creating time and space. Time has a starting point one can measure and find stability on. An infinite past is far less stable and perhaps even frightening to consider.

[Ogyen]

look at the anatomy of this thread, and you will find rebirth answered satisfactorily.

How is this thread constantly reborn in every forum one visits about Buddhism. How are the same arguments always addressed? This thread is concrete evidence of the same phenomena reappearing in seemingly unrelated phenomena. We don't know all the other Buddhists who ask the same question, but this question rebirths nonetheless as if it had a consciousness of its own... hrmmm... this leaves an uncomfortable lingering question... how?

[Astus]

A conceptual, abstract ”beginning” is always implied whenever we consider rebirth. It provides the contextual background of our present assumed birth. That is, thinking of ourselves as having been reborn into this period of time is inconceivable unless it is put into relation to what is past – and if you perceive the past as being endless you'd find it hard to motivate the (assumed) karma that we're supposed to suffer from. I say supposed, because when should we begin to measure it (karma) in time, if there is no limit to it? It's like trying to measure the quantity of water in a bottomless well. I'd appreciate it's about 5 litres.

Problem 1: if every effect have to have a cause, as cause is an effect too, there can't be a causeless cause, thus a first cause is not possible.

Problem 2: understanding birth as a becoming of an entity supposes that such an entity was non-existent but now exists, which is saying that from nothing comes something, or that something becomes without cause.

Problem 1 is to show how a beginning point is fallacious from a causal point of view. Problem 2 points to the mistake of conceiving fixed beings (atman) instead of mind-streams.

Nagarjuna says (MMK 11.1-2):

"When asked, “is a before-extreme evident?” the great Muni said, “it is not.” Samsara has no beginning, no end; it has no before, no after. For that without beginning [and] end, where can a middle be in that? Therefore, it is not possible for it to have before, after, and simultaneous phases."

[Aemilius]

More inquiry:

If we accept the current, scientific model we must at the same time accept that there was a time, and will be a time when neither animals nor humans will exist.

At least on planet earth.

At some point the universe is swallowed up in flames up to a certain celestial heaven. The deva above that point are witness to the destruction of the universe and its eventual revival.

In Abhidharma literature this is addressed. Where does a being go if it commits an act that should send it to hell, yet no hell realm is present? The being is reborn in another universe where a hell realm exists.

If sentient beings could never have begun to be sentient beings, since sentient beings are by their very nature, sentient, there could never have been any other beings other than the very beings that they are, to be the beings that they are, i.e. sentient beings – since they are all busy being reborn.

The kama-loka (desire realm) is said to initially have dwellers when lower deva experience kama (desire) and, along with falling into feelings of craving, they "fall into" the kama-loka. Basically, the origins of physical beings is not from insentient matter, but from a higher realm of existence.

Similarly, if we connect this with evolution we'd end up with more confusion. If earth creatures are born from complex processes, a primordial soup, and since there have been no beings earlier in our cosmos up to this point, we'd just have to assume that their sentiency popped up from nowhere (if all creatures are the effects of karma), rather than having been created from the soup that have apparently granted them their life. In short: what caused the first birth or creation of a creature in this universe?

This assumes there are only beings made up of physical matter. Bio-chemical lifeforms. In Buddhist cosmology there are a myriad of beings that have no physical form yet are still part of the universe.

Presently science does not recognize this, but then that's not an issue for Buddhism.

Keep in mind however, some scientists recently discovered a new form of life that completely goes against the former models of how bio-chemical lifeforms operate.

http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life

NASA has discovered a new life form, a bacteria called GFAJ-1 that is unlike anything currently living in planet Earth. It's capable of using arsenic to build its DNA, RNA, proteins, and cell membranes. This changes everything. Updated.

NASA is saying that this is "life as we do not know it". The reason is that all life on Earth is made of six components: Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. Every being, from the smallest amoeba to the largest whale, share the same life stream. Our DNA blocks are all the same.

That was true until today. In a surprising revelation, NASA scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon and her team have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today, working differently than the rest of the organisms in the planet. Instead of using phosphorus, the newly discovered microorganism—called GFAJ-1 and found in Mono Lake, California—uses the poisonous arsenic for its building blocks. Arsenic is an element poisonous to every other living creature in the planet except for a few specialized microscopic creatures.

So, the model is subject to change when new discoveries are made.

It sounds like religion or sci-fi, but in the future maybe they will discover beings made up of light energy. That's originally what deva are said to be in India: beings of light. Shining ones.

Anyways, given that we have mental aggregates that carry over from lifetime to lifetime regardless of the state of the physical body, the issue of sentience is not a matter of asking how the primordial soup gave rise to it from insentient matter.

Taken as an objective concept, as something ”out there” going on right now, rebirth as apparently understood, boil down to absurd versions of infinite regresses and end up making little or no sense at all.

This is perhaps why karma is said to be only fully understood by a Buddha.

A lot of western thinkers feel uncomfortable with an infinite past. This perhaps reflects the older lines of thought that had god creating time and space. Time has a starting point one can measure and find stability on. An infinite past is far less stable and perhaps even frightening to consider.

I find the metafors in Avatamsaka sutra and Lotus sutra that convey the immensity of time important and essential to buddhism. It is a difficult thing to believe and to imagine.

[David N. Snyder]

Unless we have the insight from deep kensho / satori we may not comprehend this fully. But perhaps some deductive reasoning is shown in posts above and we can also use mathematical logic:

In mathematical terms to say that something can arise from nothing would
be written like this:

1/0

The above is one over zero, which is an error. If you divide 1 by 0 you come to an error since it
is logically impossible. It would require 0 to be multiplied by something to equal 1 which cannot
happen.

You can't get 'something' from 'nothing' thus, no first cause appears to be possible.

[catmoon]

Unless we have the insight from deep kensho / satori we may not comprehend this fully. But perhaps some deductive reasoning is shown in posts above and we can also use mathematical logic:

In mathematical terms to say that something can arise from nothing would
be written like this:

1/0

The above is one over zero, which is an error. If you divide 1 by 0 you come to an error since it
is logically impossible. It would require 0 to be multiplied by something to equal 1 which cannot
happen.

You can't get 'something' from 'nothing' thus, no first cause appears to be possible.

I wonder why you think it is logically impossible. If you assume every effect has a cause, and further assume that every cause is the result of a prior cause, then of course "something from nothing" would appear impossible. But what grounds are there for making such assumptions? If you have a scientific turn of mind, you might like to consider radioactive decay. Although there are prior conditions, in this case there is no actual cause for the decay, it occurs completely at random. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't, no cause at all.

[norman]

Problem 1: if every effect have to have a cause, as cause is an effect too, there can't be a causeless cause, thus a first cause is not possible.

Problem 2: understanding birth as a becoming of an entity supposes that such an entity was non-existent but now exists, which is saying that from nothing comes something, or that something becomes without cause.

Problem 1 is to show how a beginning point is fallacious from a causal point of view. Problem 2 points to the mistake of conceiving fixed beings (atman) instead of mind-streams.

Nagarjuna says (MMK 11.1-2):

"When asked, “is a before-extreme evident?” the great Muni said, “it is not.” Samsara has no beginning, no end; it has no before, no after. For that without beginning [and] end, where can a middle be in that? Therefore, it is not possible for it to have before, after, and simultaneous phases."

For Nagarjuna it is the sequence of time, passing time, that is examined, is it not? He tells us that time is not an object, it's a symbol. Both karma and rebirth, as currently understood, is dependent on time being an object, i.e. endless in this case, otherwise our theories of them would be meaningless.

Both karma and rebirth are dependant on time being an object, since they are both bound up with the concept of passing-time in order to be perceived as what they are perceived to be at all. Karma without a temporal context is senseless, and so is rebirth.

It's my surmise, therefore, that rebirth is not an object in time.

We only have these problems of infinite regressions, first causes, etc, as long as we perceive time to be objective.

[Astus]

Norman,

The analysis of time in the MMK is in the 19th chapter. This chapter (11) is mainly about samsara, and generally about the concepts of beginning, middle and end. As none of the three can be established as truly existent samsara is not truly existent. Not being truly existent is its inconceivability. Saying that samsara is eternal is of course equally wrong as it'd mean it is truly existent but this time from an eternalist point of view.

Here's Tsongkhapa's commentary to verse 1:

If cyclic existence existed inherently, then like such things as a pot, it would also have a beginning and an end. But it is said that cyclic existence does not have a beginning or end, in that the cycle of birth, aging, and death does not have an origin or a terminus.
Various non-Buddhist teachers, including Purana a, held a discussion and decided to ask the Buddha whether he knew that this cyclic existence has a beginning or end. They said that if he says that he does, this would contradict the many statements that there is no creator and that nothing arises without a cause, but if he says that he does not, he would contradict his statement that he is omniscient. Then they asked him “Hey, Gautama! Do you know that this cyclic existence has a beginning?” The great sage replied, “There is no knowledge of a beginning.” Thus, having said that cyclic existence has no beginning or end, he said clearly that it does not exist essentially. Therefore, since the origin and terminus are not seen, cyclic existence does not exist essentially; cyclic existence is like the circle made by swinging a glowing ember.
Someone might say, “The statement that cyclic existence has no origin demonstrates that there is no specific point from which it arises, nor any point after which it does not continue. How could it be tenable that to say that neither of these exists is to say explicitly that cyclic existence does not exist essentially?” But here we reply that the statement, “Cyclic existence has neither origin nor terminus,” does not mean what you say it does, but instead means that he has also said that there is neither a beginning nor an end. This means that they do not exist ultimately. Buddhapalita also says in the same vein,

In accordance with the presentation of the ultimate, the Buddha has said “there is neither beginning nor end.”

Thus, this does not contradict Prasannapada’s earlier explanation. Suppose someone thought as follows: Responding “I don’t know” to the question, “Do you know that there is a beginning?” is a conventional statement. How could this be a premise for the assertion that cyclic existence is essenceless?
Here, consider the similar argument in Yuktisastika:

If through the elimination of afflictions
monks depart from cyclic existence,
Why have the buddhas not
Explained the beginning?

If there were an end of cyclic existence—and of aggregates that exist through their own characteristics—then there would be no reason for saying that there is no initial beginning.
Suppose someone argued as follows: If the teacher had denied that there is a beginning and end of cyclic existence, then this would contradict the following statement in sutra that there is elimination at the end:

Therefore, oh monks, one should make strenuous effort to eliminate cyclic existence. Thinking that, you should begin training immediately. [Samyuttanikaya XV Anamataggasamyuttam, IX Dandasuttam, Vol. II, 616]

There is no contradiction here, because this quotation from sutra presents only the cyclic existence of those “sentient beings who are ignorant” as having no end, but for those who have completely eliminated the afflictions, there is an end.
Suppose one thought, would it not be contradictory for that which lacks an origin to have a terminus? There is no contradiction, because, as Catuhsataka says,

Just as the terminus of the seed is seen,
But the origin is not seen,
Without completing all of the causes,
Nor does birth occur. [VIII: 25]

Just as even though the seed does not have an origin, there is a terminus when it is burned by fire, although birth does not have a beginning for those who have not completed the causes through the exhaustion of the afflictions, it is said that there is a terminus—the exhaustion of that birth which occurs due the afflictions. Here, although the origin and terminus are equally nonexistent with respect to the way things really are, conventionally, the origin and terminus are not similar with respect to their existence and nonexistence.
Suppose someone says that although it has neither origin nor terminus essentially it must have a middle essentially, since that has not been refuted.

And another explanation by Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso Rinpoche (PDF):

If samsara actually existed, it would have to have a beginning, an end, and some span of time in the middle. Analysis, however, cannot find any beginning to samsara. Whatever our current situation in samsara, it had to have its own causes, and those causes had to have their own causes, and so on—nothing in the cycle of existence occurs without causes to bring it into being. We can therefore never find an ‘‘original cause’’ that would constitute the beginning of cyclic existence, because if there were one, it would have arisen without a cause itself, which is impossible. Thus, there was no point when samsara began, and how could something that never began ever end? Without a beginning or an end, how could there be any period of time in the middle? Since it has neither beginning, middle, nor end, samsara does not truly exist.

[norman]

Hello, Astus,

I have Ocean of Reasoning, but I've read far too little from it to be able to comment on it.

However your other quote by Khenpo Tsültrim Gyamtso Rinpoche speaks clearly enough.
Since we can't find a beginning, we can't find an end. And because we can't find either, we can't find anything inbetween. Yet such deduction doesn't admit of an endless time-sequence, it breaks down the notion of sequence as such. We could just throw it around, and say that because we can't find a middle, we can't find either beginning or end. They're all interdependent.

But it's the time-context that matters, in either case. We could just as well ask when time as an entity (object) began, and be done with it. Time as an object, without seqence is not endless, it's senseless, because conceiving of the idea of time, as such, requires the temporal sequence necessary in order to conceive it in the first place.

Let's not forget that samsara too, is just a symbol.

As a matter of fact, however, the true nature of dharmas is not
past, nor future, nor present; it lies quite outside the three periods
of time; and for that reason it cannot possible be converted, cannot
be treated as a sign, or as an objective support, and it cannot be
seen, nor heard, nor felt, nor known.

- Prajnaparamita in 8000 lines

[Astus]

Norman,

Yes, that goes for the empty part of samsara and time and all concepts. But as for the conventional side, we can very well say that there was never a starting point of samsara, there was never a first cause (i.e. God). Buddhist cosmology talks about the periods of arising and destruction, a never stopping cycle of events.

[Sherab]

Norman,

The analysis of time in the MMK is in the 19th chapter. This chapter (11) is mainly about samsara, and generally about the concepts of beginning, middle and end. As none of the three can be established as truly existent samsara is not truly existent. Not being truly existent is its inconceivability. Saying that samsara is eternal is of course equally wrong as it'd mean it is truly existent but this time from an eternalist point of view.

Here's Tsongkhapa's commentary to verse 1:

If cyclic existence existed inherently, then like such things as a pot, it would also have a beginning and an end. But it is said that cyclic existence does not have a beginning or end, in that the cycle of birth, aging, and death does not have an origin or a terminus.

Hi Astus,

I don't think the argument is convincing.

I could say that what is meant by the arguments is this: Cyclic existence does not exist inherently but exists dependently. Because it exists dependently, it has no beginning nor end. We are then back to the problem of beginningless causality-chain.

In other words, dependent arising is real but that which are dependently arisen are not.

[Aemilius]

mind is in time.

is there anything outside of mind?

Mula Madhyamaka Karika Chapter 9. Investigation of the Presence of Something Prior deals with the problem of assuming there is something(?) before its perception.
http://stephenbatchelor.org/verses2.htm#Investigation%20of%20the%20Presence%20of%20Something%20Prior

[norman]

Norman,

The analysis of time in the MMK is in the 19th chapter. This chapter (11) is mainly about samsara, and generally about the concepts of beginning, middle and end. As none of the three can be established as truly existent samsara is not truly existent. Not being truly existent is its inconceivability. Saying that samsara is eternal is of course equally wrong as it'd mean it is truly existent but this time from an eternalist point of view.

Here's Tsongkhapa's commentary to verse 1:

If cyclic existence existed inherently, then like such things as a pot, it would also have a beginning and an end. But it is said that cyclic existence does not have a beginning or end, in that the cycle of birth, aging, and death does not have an origin or a terminus.

Hi Astus,

I don't think the argument is convincing.

I could say that what is meant by the arguments is this: Cyclic existence does not exist inherently but exists dependently. Because it exists dependently, it has no beginning nor end. We are then back to the problem of beginningless causality-chain.

In other words, dependent arising is real but that which are dependently arisen are not.

"In other words, dependent arising is real but that which are dependently arisen are not."

Indeed, and that would include everything, even the concept of dependent arising itself.

[Astus]

We are then back to the problem of beginningless causality-chain.

Why would a beginningless causality be a problem? There is samsara without a beginning, consciousness without beginning, ignorance without beginning. That is, there has never been a first moment of delusion, a creation, a start of existence, a source.

[muni]

Previous moment give birth to this moment, moment, moment. Cause of mind is in an expression spacelike. Nothing is out of mind and delusion makes identification with body till nature is recognized.

[norman]

It's turtles all the way down.

You can't have endless time without sequence. Dharmas are not in time, they're not temporal phenomena. That IS the conventional side. There is no other world, nor any other side.

Samsara is Nirvana perceived samsarically (as being objective); what we are required to do is to perceive Samsara nirvanically. Samsara nirvanically perceived is not Samsara, it's Nirvana.

”Endless time” is not an object of perception, either. We think that ”the conventional side” is an object of thought, and obsess about details (because that is what we think it is), about how many turtles support the world – it's neither endless, nor one, because it's not an object.

Norman,

Yes, that goes for the empty part of samsara and time and all concepts. But as for the conventional side, we can very well say that there was never a starting point of samsara, there was never a first cause (i.e. God). Buddhist cosmology talks about the periods of arising and destruction, a never stopping cycle of events.

[Astus]

Norman,

What do you mean dharmas are not in time? What about their basic description of them being momentary and in that momentariness they have the phases of arising and disappearing?

[muni]

Anyone remembers when dharmata has been build?

[Sherab]

"In other words, dependent arising is real but that which are dependently arisen are not." .

Indeed, and that would include everything, even the concept of dependent arising itself.

Yes, therefore beginninglessness and endlessness of samsara are merely illusions.
Everything within this realm of phenomena are but illusions - mind, matter, time. The problem is that we do not experience the realm of phenomena as illusions but as something real and concrete.