Jump to content

Talk:The unanswerable questions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grv87 (talk | contribs) at 01:23, 21 May 2022 (→The unanswered questions contain the examples of Catuṣkoṭi, don't they?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comparisons to other Philosophies

Perhaps some mention of Kant's concept of antinomy in the Critique of Pure Reason belongs somewhere here, since it seems to share some intellectual paralells?Wilhelm Ritter 16:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the section on possible answers here, it seems to me this is just someone's collection of scientific theories, and then putting the term buddhist perspective there, while the buddha's perspective was quite clear (not answered).

Further, one could write an opposite answer (to the one given below) to those questions also, and then it would become too confusing, not taking a stand anywhere but giving all possible answers. This page is not for filosophizing, or trying to claim we know the answer to these questions now, when we do not and many different answers can be given, underscoring their unanswerability. Basically, the whole section is not just good enough. Greetings, Sacca 06:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Answers from a Buddhist Perspective

Although the Buddha did not answer the fourteen questions, through reasoning with common sense combined with findings from modern science, it is possible to provide a reasonably sound answer for the above questions.

Is the world eternal? Buddha taught that with existence one of the key points is that it is impermanent. So the answer to this is no. In the context of whether the world or the planet Earth can remain eternal in space, we can also say this is neither. Why? To answer this question let us consider the Sun. We have known after some time through modern science, stars like our own Sun within the universe will eventually either die out and crystalise forming a large diamond[1], or possibly explode[2] and destroy itself in the process. In the context of considering whether another world like Earth will exist again one day if it was destroyed, one could consider the Expanding Universe theory. If the universe is expanding, then common sense would suggest at some point it may contract, and everything within it implode. Whether this theory holds true remains to be seen for possibly billions of years, but it is certainly a fundamental question that is yet to be answered both by religion and science.

With regards as to whether the Tathagata exists after death the answer is quite possibly yes. If it is Tathagata the teaching, it certainly will remain true regardless of what realm one appears in, because the laws of truth will apply to all realms. We now know in modern science through findings from String Theory that it is quite possible other 'universes' or multi-verse dimensions can exist within the same area of space. If this is the case, we are looking at quite possibly multitudes of other planes or dimensions of existence. However at the same time in Buddhist teachings it is said the Tathagata only exists if ignorance exists in the world. If ignorance is extinguished, so does the Tathagata.

With regards to the last question whether the self is identified with the body or different, one can answer it through mental deduction. Modern Buddhism teaches that it is through formation of the five senses - sense, sight, smell, taste, and touch, and the five skandhas of form, perception, mental formation and consciousness that existence, craving and ignorance arises out from. If in the context that the self is also the body, then the self will be destroyed if it is part of the body at death. But we know that the Buddha taught that there is reincarnation and that reincarnation can occur in different bodies. In this sense the answer therefore must be no. The self must be independent and so is not part of the body.

In the context of the above question as to whether the wholesome and unwholesome karmas committed by the body cannot affect the self, this is debateable because Buddhism teaches one to create wholesome actions and the following of certain precepts to avoid the creation of certain karmic conditions that are negative for the self (or soul). One can take a Buddhist viewpoint of reincarnation. Consider the fate of an animal like a normal cow. Apart from coming into existence and providing milk to those who wish to nourish from it, the cow, unlike humans - cannot communicate to another cow or being exactly what it wants. It can only do a few things. Eat, drink, walk, care for its young, defecate and copulate. Although it is intelligent it cannot speak as humans do, nor does it have the freedom to act or think freely like humans do. In fact being a cow is worse because one cannot say no if one wants to have its life taken away and have it slaughtered.

Although cows are probably a lame example in the context of a body causing unwholesome karma because it is a herbivore, there is a case for karmic consequences amongst carnivorous animals like those of say a lion or a tiger. Through the need to support their own bodies, they have to kill another animal and/or sentient being in order to eat and survive. In this sense (from a Buddhist viewpoint), unwholesome karmas are created by the body (in this case an animal) which can affect the self (or soul) of that creature.

This is why most Buddhists tend to view animals as being in very unfortunate circumstances, compared to humans because they are mostly within a perpetual state of suffering within each cycle of existence or reincarnation. Most animals have to kill in order to eat and survive, but doing so also means they have created a karmic result for themselves, which may add on top of what they have done previously. For them reincarnation is very hard to get out of.

Within some Buddhist circles, the viewpoint of karma is that it is a very powerful force, much like the gravitational pull of the Earth. The Earth stays in its place because gravity holds it in place. Likewise sentient beings within reincarnation stays in their place by the force of their karmic actions. A good analogy is that of a washing machine at spin. When a washing machine spins, any form of clothing is pulled down by the force of gravity pulling on the drum, and nothing can get out of it. Only good wholesome deeds and practice are the key to breaking the bond of karma and reincarnation. There is a popular saying in Buddhism 'To know what your previous life was like, look at the state of your life now. To know what your next life will be like, start practising now'.

The fundamental question for all Buddhists and non-Buddhists is, 'Can one break the bond of reincarnation?' or rather 'Can one control one's birth and death?'. If one can control their own state of birth and death, and comes and goes as one wishes, one is considered a Buddha. If one cannot, one is not a Buddha, but a mere sentient being. As the Buddha said, the difference between a Buddha and a sentient being are very minor.

This is why Buddha's teachings are so important, even for a practitioner today. It teaches qualities that are relevant for the betterment of mankind, and respect for all other forms of life.


I've just redireced that page to this one, as it contains no additional information.
While I'm here, I may as well point out that the stuff about the universe being (in)finite is nothing to do with astronomy. It's about a supposed higher reality of the universe experienced in certain meditational states. I don't know whether there's a reliable source for this, so I haven't put it in the article. Peter jackson (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Diamond star thrills astronomers". 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-27.
  2. ^ "Star 'soon to become supernova'". 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-27.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

I've blanked the page for the moment, as it's called 14 ... but actually lists only 11. I'll see if I can find out. Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorted it out now. I've also changed statements about the Buddha from the historical past to the literary present. There are no statements about the Buddha's teachings not contested by some historians (see User:Peter jackson#His teachings). Peter jackson (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Question for the author only

Dear Author,

you said,“The world exists dependent on causes and conditions—ignorance, craving and hatred. When ignorance, craving, and hatred are present, the world exists; when they are not present, the world ceases to exist.”

Then how do ignorance, craving, and hatred exist? Does it then suggest they are something external to the world? Are they conditioned?

thanks!

P.S: btw i think your "implications" section is VERY well explained = )

--Nekkhamma (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


APOLOGIES!!!

Dear fellow users,

this is my first time posing discussion topic. In the attempt to create a new topic, I have unknowingly deleted the previous inputs. My sincerest apologies.

Dear webmaster, can you pls kindly restore the previous inputs in this discussion page and pls dont block me.

thanks and apologies again.

--Nekkhamma (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored on 04 August 2009

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The unanswered questions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The unanswered questions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP rules?

There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of WP concepts both in the article and in this talk.

A WP article reports verifiable facts and qualified opinions to inform people about specific topics. The first part of the article is fine, but the "Implications" are obviously provided by an author who is not even identified let alone demonstrably qualified. This is the sort of personal commentary that has flooded the web. But WP tries to provide a higher quality than this.

As for attempting to answer the questions (or quote Kant), as suggested in the talk, it demonstrates a complete lack of grasp of why the Buddha avoided such topics, suggesting that the article hasn't fulfilled its aim. It's fine if you are conducting a class in Western Philosophy but not if you are trying to grasp Buddhism--which presumably most visitors to the page are.

--50.68.134.51 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No commentary is good

The page is fine as it is now: the list of the "silly" questions only, without unsourced pseudocommentary. Pruning this puffery was supprisingly a commendable and meritorius act. Zezen (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The unanswered questions contain the examples of Catuṣkoṭi, don't they?

It looks so. But I'm not a specialist and not sure how they relate. Maybe the questions stayed unanswered exactly because catuṣkoṭi logic system happened to be wrong? Or… Could somebody find sources and clarify how they are related? Grv87 (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_unanswerable_questions&oldid=1088955229"