There is a few logical conclusion one can obtain from the Buddhist sutras. One of them is that there is infinite amount of sentient beings in Buddhism.
Here is how we can arrive at this conclusion.
Firstly, Buddhism claims that there is no beginning.
Second is that fully enlightened buddhas appears, back into the infinite past and future.
This leads to the conclusion that there was infinite number of buddhas in the past. Each time a Buddha appeared, at least one being is liberated from samsara.
Given that there is a constant reduction of total sentient beings over an infinite period until now, and the fact that there is still sentient beings in samsara. We conclude that the only way for this to happen is that there is infinite amount of sentient beings.
Assumption inherent is that no new sentient beings are "created" out of nothing. Another assumption is that there was no primordial or first Buddha.
From this, it is reasonable to further conclude that Buddhism requires infinite number of universes. Or an infinite sized universe. This is to house the infinite amount of sentient beings. This also lends credit to the teachings of pure land as a universe with that exact property.
There seems to be a disappointment to Mahayana Buddhists. If there is infinite amount of sentient beings, how can we liberate them all?
One answer I got from a zen master is: can a superhero stop all crime? Or is it enough to stop as much as they can?
The Buddha also gave this answer in a sutta. His goal is to just teach suffering and the way to end it. Who so ever follows the way, will end it, who doesn't will not.
Assumptions:
ReplyDelete1) there is no beginning, i.e. there is infinite time in the past.
2) there were Buddhas in the past
(1) and (2) are not sufficient to infer that there are infinite Buddhas in the past. For example the graph y=1/x has infinite past (negative x), but yet there is only 1 asymptote. Similarly I can give example of any finite number of asymptote graphs which infinite negative x values.
You need a (3) assumption that time in the past was somehow cyclic. E.g.
3) For any state at time = t1 in the past, there is another time = t2 in the past with the same state.
Now we can conclude that if there was a past Buddha x1 years ago, then by (3) there would be another past Buddha within x2 years ago, etc. Hence the logic in the article about infinite Buddhas holds only if (3) is assumed.
If we have to assume (3), i.e. cycles in past time, then this becomes a weak point in logic again, because like y=1/x, there is no reason to objectively conclude that cycles must exist in the past.
Buddhas are singular. So we are dealing with countable numbers. Not uncountable. And specifically to Natural numbers, not even rational numbers.
DeleteAsymptotes usually involve real numbers to work. So I don't find the sample equation you provided as credible.
I did put in an additional hidden assumption up there that there's no first Buddha, whereas with asymptotes, we can have numbers less than 1 but never go to zero, the point where the number is 1 is the first Buddha. Contradicting the assumption of no first Buddha.
Assuming that there are infinite sentient beings, it is not sufficient assumption to conclude that there are therefore infinite universes. Counter example: within 1 cm of a ruler, it contains uncountably many real numbers between the 0cm mark and the 1cm mark, e.g. 0.13, 0.1333, 0.133333, etc (uncountably unlistable). Thus the infinite can be within finite space.
ReplyDeleteAnother example: there are uncountably infinite amount of real numbers but they can be classified into positive numbers (including 0) and negative numbers. Thus 2 universes are enough to contain them all.
In Buddhism, there are classifications such as 6 realms, and 31 planes of existences. Thus the infinite can be contained in finite universes.
We can define universes to be inherently "infinite possible" by limiting finite number of sentient beings per universe. But this would be "cheating" by using definitions isn't it?
Again, same issue, individuality counts. We can only use natural numbers to count sentient beings. Not uncountable reals.
DeleteThe 31 realms of existence doesn't prevent us from having infinite copies of world system, with each world system having it's own set of the realms from Maha Brahma and below.
Can the finite liberate the infinite? Of course, but it really depends on the definition of "liberate". If "liberate" requires liberator to physically meet every single liberation candidate, then it would be hard to do so. If however "liberate" only requires the liberator to influence the liberation candidate directly or indirectly, then it would quite doable! For example we dedicate our work to the great liberation, then it affects many lives, which in turn affect many other lives, and in the future, etc. This would already affect infinite number of sentient beings through time. In fact due to dependent origination, every of our action or inaction, already affect infinitely many sentient beings. Thus for example do not think that an Arhat going into Nirvana is a "selfish" act. That act itself also liberates infinite number of sentient beings.
ReplyDelete