Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal: A Buddhist Genesis: How life began

Impersonal organic broth or 'primordial soup' fed by stars needed energy to move. Lightning!

A human can develop ESP?

In the beginning, which repeats in an endless cycle of inconceivable duration, there were the great elements or maha-dhatus. These are not things but characteristic of materiality. The things they are characteristics of are minute particles, kalapas.

Physical, material, tangible things are conglomerates of these particles, which amazingly are discernible to minds purified by profound stillness and attention in meditation. It is within the capacity of human minds. By the time physical beings came into being on this human plane and this planet in particular, the world was already very old.

The third eye can see molecules and particles?

And something preexisted it, a more subtle plane of the immaterial, the energetic, the abstract. These two domains are interdependent and not found apart except in the immaterial sphere (arupa loka). Between the extremes of that immaterial sphere (a set of four rarefied worlds somewhat like places of Platonic forms) and our sensual sphere (kama loka), there is a third sphere of subtle form (rupa loka).

The 31 Planes of Existence (and more)

From the sensual to the fine-material to the immaterial (formless) there are planes of rebirth. All 31 Planes of Existence within these three spheres are reached by karma, in particular the tremendously weighty karma of meditative absorption (the jhanas). It is because one gained, developed, and mastered the four formless attainments that rebirth is possible in those worlds in accordance with that attainment.

Because of gaining, developing, and mastering the four form attainments, rebirth is possible in the fine-material sphere or "heavens" (sagga).

Otherwise, skillful karma (good, profitable, beneficial action of mind, speech, and body) leads to welcome states in our sensual sphere, which is replete with sensual heavens far superior to the pleasures possible for humans experiencing bliss on the human plane. But here within this lowest and densest of the three spheres, we have worlds of great suffering of seemingly interminable duration.

Science says earth's organic life began with impersonal amino acids (star dust) and energy.

If a kalapa is an "atom," does it look like one? No. It is fast and resembles a dying ember.

The IVC had nuclear bombs long before the USA

It might be alright, tolerable, and sufferable to do a misdeed here, expressing some harmful intention in an ill-done deed, and as a result be reborn as an animal and then come back to the human plane. That might be alright. It might seem horribly disproportionate to what we did -- let's say steal a bunch of food and hog it down like a certain kind of animal. But this is not what happen. The results are far worse because once someone falls in the "great waste" or "downfall" (niraya), it is not clear when one will emerge from those worlds.

Instead, one revolves and turns, going from worse to worse to worse in accordance with our karma (our "just desserts"). The Buddha made this point particularly clear in one sutra where he speaks of going from bright to bright worlds, bright to dark worlds, or dark to dark worlds. Imagine one is born in poverty in the human world on account of past greed and an unwillingness to share.

Ancient IVC = Indus Valley Civilization

Then, still suffering form that active form of greed, one gets in trouble in the human world, engages in unskillful karma, and as a result is reborn in a subhuman world. From there, with the possibility of doing any skillful karma but instead feeling a necessity to engage in more and more unskillful karma to "survive" or get by, one inherits the result of new misdeeds and plunges into more trouble and misery.

This having happened, what is the chance of turning it around and emerging out of this abyss or downfall? It is not likely, and when it eventually happens (as it will because these worlds are not eternal), it will be because of some past skillful deed finally fortuitously coming to fruit and providing an opportunity.

Having come out and being reborn a human again? What is most likely to happen? Habit is likely to draw one back into the entire morass of all that previous suffering. We don't learn very well, and the universe is not trying to "teach" us anymore than a branch reaches out to scratch us or a fire leaps to burn us. Thorn and flame are there; we bump them. They do not attack back for our bump. The bump merely bears a result.

I like sex, so I married a rich 16-year-old and took her from the UK to US to start a cult.

Who needs wisdom? You got crazy

This is quoted beautifully in The Tibetan Book of the Dead by Sixties sex guru Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche a beloved former lama (shyster, fraud, and sex abuser) caught up in the delights of our Western world. I bought the whole crumby book thinking there would be more gems in it like this, presented as if Rinpoche had come up with this brilliance. But it is the poetic product of Portia Nelson that, if memory serves (and it does not), runs something like this in the book:

I walk down the street

There's a hole in the sidewalk

I fall in.

It takes forever to get out.

I fall right back in.

It takes forever to get out.

I get out carefully...

Autobiography in Five Short Chapters | by Cristiano Rastelli | Medium

"There's a Hole in My Sidewalk: Autobiography in Five Short Chapters" (Portia Nelson).

What about the symbolism on Buddhist temple walls? This is an oversimplified version of the 31 Planes of Existence as Six Worlds (devas, asuras, humans, animals, hungry ghosts, hellions)

Not only do those subtle physical heavens exist, but there are also lower subhuman states -- the planes of animals, ghosts, shapeshifting spirits, monsters (ogres, ghouls), demons (demigods), and hellions.

These may seem unbelievable to us, just as for many the idea of any kind of "heaven" is silly. But as American Theravada scholar-monk Bhikkhu Bodhi has pointed out (As It Is), does it not make sense that there would be worlds for experiencing the results of deeds good and ill?

What are the Four Elements?

All of these things and places pre-existed the "beginning." Why? The beginning we speak of is the one we can see, the one that would have taken place in this world. But this world is just one of countless similar worlds all within the human plane (manussya loka). So to speak of the beginning is a flaw pursuit. We are already on shaky boards. There was already warmth, sky, ground, and the deep. There were already the Four Elements or the 14 specific characteristics of our tangible materiality.

When we imagine the theory of the Four Elements (earth, wind, fire, water) is an antiquated notion easily replaced by our modern Periodic Table of Elements, it is only because we do not understand the former, and we assume the latter is stable when it is actually fluctuating and hurtling toward replacement all the time.

Earth Element: solidity, heaviness (teeth, bones, hair, flesh in the body)
Water Element: liquidity, cohesion (mucus, blood, spit, sweat)
Fire Element: temperature (heat, warmth, cool, cold)
Wind Element: rapid movement, gases (upward moving, downward)

I walked right into that hole! I didn't see it.

The Buddha did not come along and say, "Oh, yes, this old theory of there being Four Elements, that's correct." People by then did not understand the theory in detail, so he either restored it to what it originally meant or refined it to give an accurate explanation using the archaic terms.

For example, let is look at "fire." As a mahadhuta or great element, it does not mean the symbol 🔥 representing a burning flame. A burning flame is a symbol representing it, and what is it? It is temperature. What is temperature (tejo)?

Unique flow of info IDed in the human brain

It is cold as well as heat and includes chemical fire such as we see in digestion (dissolving, dissolution, breaking apart). This need not stay at an abstract level of belief and categorization; in the practice of Four Elements Meditation (💩🔥💧💨), we see it directly and know it intimately. All of the characteristics of matter are brought into consciousness and made very noticeable, just as the breath grows more and more subtle and is known more and more clearly with practice of stillness and attention (samma-samadhi, which is part of the Noble Eightfold Path).

There could be more than the classical elements. It wouldn't change the fact that all things are impermanent, disappointing, and impersonal. What else could there be? There is space (akasha) and ether, metal, plasma, the Higgs Boson...

Emerald Tablets (B. Carson)

A successful meditator can SEE a kalapa? Yes. How? These particles are fast, very fast, arising, turning, and falling away in a finger snap. They are too fast to see. However, and this is a big however, human perception is such that it is recorded in the seat of consciousness near the heart.

If a successful meditator looks down, there's a greenish mirror of sorts. This reflects what has been perceived. While the active kalapa is far too rapid to discern, the "tape" or trace of it recorded by perception can be review. In the review, the particle can be slowed down, making it discernible. This is one secret why a knowledgeable and experienced guide is necessary. One would not stumble on this problem and find a solution by chance.

Former nun is a noble friend (Beth Upton)

We are humans and rely on culture, and culture means handing down knowledge. The Buddha is the best friend we have (utilizing the idea of Buddhist "noble friendship," kalyāṇa-mittatā, because he made known how he awoke, and others awoke, and all of those awakened in any of the four major phases of awakening became the Noble Sangha, the community of enlightened practitioners). Learning the Dharma (Dhamma) from these individuals.

THEREFORE, none of the aforementioned is a "theory" for science to decide on. It is an outline of what happens already, what works already, what others have done already. There are awakened people in the world, not all of them Buddhist monastics, all of them practitioners of these sorts of things. The Buddha was like a candle, giving rise to countless other candles in the world. THESE THINGS ARE ALL PERSONALLY VERIFIABLE.

But that would take individual initiative and effort, first finding a teacher who can actually teach these things just as the historical Buddha did. (They exist in the Year 2024. Contact us, and we will point some out).

How did life begin?

All of these things can be known-and-seen

If all the inanimate elements were present, and if the immaterial energies or the formless intelligence, structure, or "software" were present, all that had to happen was the merging of the two. They are, after all, interdependent. One does not exist without the other.

When DOES it all begin? This might be a better question. This weekend we were out in the woodlands above Los Angeles learning survival skills with the School of Self-Reliance. It is revelation to have the wisdom of the Native Americans handed down to us and our urban-suburban mindsets. The ancients were very clever and efficient.

The surprise came when we tried figuring out how to make a net out of simple cordage, yarn, fibrous strings rolled up in a spindle. Well, there's no way to do. It's like trying to connect some points within in box without lifting the pencil. (The secret is always to "think outside the box"). If one does, one suddenly sees a way, has an aha moment.

Abhidhamma (Sayalay Susila, Dhr. Seven)

The instructor and nature guide Christopher took a length of string and cut it. That was the first aha. We're making a net, yet we cut the string? Yes. He tied both ends to two twin coastal live oak trees (which are going extinct after thousands of years because of chemtrail corruption and artificial drought but being blamed on the cleanup crew, the oak beetle, that takes out sick trees).

Then he cut more lengths. That was the second aha. (We had been trying to imagine a way of weaving the one string into itself to form a basket of loops like a bunch of fancy Celtic knots). Then he had us tie lengths of string to the line tied to the tree. This can also be done with a circle armature by taking a supple branch and making a basketball hoop then tying down from there, which is good for skirt making and anything requiring a closed basket like pattern.

Does the West have any idea?

The final aha came when we began tying simple knots into the hanging strings, taking one side and tying it to the next. That's when the big AHA hit us. Once a netmaker starts doing this, there suddenly is no beginning and no end. But there is a beginning! That first knot! But that "knot" didn't come from nowhere and nothing. It came from all the non-knot things (string and structure, pattern and pulpy material). There is actually no "knot" (in an ultimate or philosophical sense) because there, when we analyze it, are actually only two things -- the material and the metaphysical, neither of which are the "knot."

See the new bear knot for a demonstration of this magic trick, this very useful camping, survival, and construction technique in rope use and knotting, recently released on TikTok.

This wise Western monk can explain in detail.

But when we combine the two, usher them into interdependence, suddenly we see "knot." That is to say, the illusion of "knot" arises. The knot is unreal, but it has form and function. It is easily returned to the unreal when undone. Nothing new actually comes into being. Nothing is born. What was there is still there.

What was there? In the beginning, there was the material (Four Elements or characteristics of matter in varying degrees to make every other physical things). And there was the metaphysical, the pattern, the design, the intelligence, the immaterial, the software, the idea, the "name" if you will. In ancient times these two were known as nama-rupa, "name and form." Name is mind, and form is body (or the physical inanimate thing that becomes animated by the formless thing, in a manner of speaking).

How does any "thing" (dhamma) come to be? The Buddha had a very, very profound explanation of this. All things are Dependently Originated. (They may be no thing, but they are not nothing). And if we say to anyone that there is no "knot," or no "self," or no "ego," they will necessarily misunderstand what this means.

For those with a greedy (lobha-type) nature, it will seem that there must be a merging with the eternal and clinging to it;
For those with a hate (dosa-type) nature, it will seem that there must be an annihilation or separation from the eternal and rejecting it;
For those with a deluded (moha-type) nature, it will seem uncertain, unknowable, doubtful, confusing.

All explained in detail (Sayalay Susila)

But it's actually knowable and answerable. IF a "knot" indeed comes into actual existence when tied, then where does "it" go when untied? Does it go into the eternal, the world of Platonic forms, that is, the immaterial world of ideas, names, software, the mystical Judeo-Christian logos? (In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was good, God, Good god, gawdammit? What was the first word? Om (🕉️). Why?

Because this whole universe, the world we see and the unseen world behind what we see, is vibrating at varying frequencies. So all that is seen and experienced is a sort of binary of on-off (1-0) in endlessly varying degrees and quantities, magnitudes and tones, and if one listens very carefully, one can hear or at least imagine that one hears the hum of the universe. This mechanism, vast and spread out, is revolving and doing something, and that is making a low hum sound. What does it sound like? Listen. It sounds like aummmmmmmm. (To Catholic and Christian ears, it may sound like this, A'mennnnnnnnnn).

Is this the logos (word) Judeo-Christians mean?

Or does "it" go to nothingness, the abyss, emptiness, annihilation, the dark?

It doesn't "go" anywhere. What was there before is still there (name and form); what was never there (the thing, in this case the knot) is still not there. So it does not go away and it does not return, but it sure seems like it does.

Are we light like devas (shining ones)?

So what does it do? It manifests or does not. It is seen or remains unseen. The software works its magic on the hardware, and the hardware reflects the magic and limitations of the software. This happens interdependently so that the limitations and magic of the hardware are also revealed by the software. (E.g., if we want to run up a rocky hill, we might be able to, given the will and a body that does not wear out or crash. All the wanting won't make it so if the body gives out, and all the perfection of the body will not make it so if the will is not present, obviously).

Help, Alan Watts!

Everything's a verb; nothing's a noun.
Each thing, every thing, arises dependent on other things. What other things? Its constituents. Therefore, in this way, paradoxically, it (the actual thing) does not arise; there is just what there was before (the constituents and the pattern), but now they are functionally integrated and so give the illusion of something new coming into being. This is what there is: an illusion (maya) has come into being. What will go out of being at death? The illusion will go out. Where will it go? It will go back to potential rather than manifested. One can go into physics and sound all too metaphysical. But this is actually quite simple and self-evident and can be proven in an instant. Alan Watts pointed this out: Take your hand, open it wide, and look at your palm. Now make a fist. Where did the hand go?
It's right there, same as before.
Yes, but now there's a "fist." ✊
(Open the hand). No, there isn't. 🤚
(Ball the hand). Yes, there is. Look! ✊
Ah, yes, that thing.
Yes, it's a fist. ✊
So a "fist" came into existence just now?
Yes, obviously.
It looks like a hand (palm-hub, radiating fingers, wrist, muscles, skin, blood, bones...), the same as before.
Yeah, but now it's a "fist."
But when you open it, it's a "wave."
(Open it). It's a wave!
(Ball it). It's a fist!
What's going on?
A "fist" is just what we call the functional integration of these elements (palm, fingers, etc.) in this way (pattern). In another way, it's a "wave."
What defines it?
Interestingly, Watts had the genius to realize long ago, it's NOT a thing but rather a process.
Huh?
When it's waving, we call it a wave. When it's fisting (balling up into a fist), we call it a "fist." When it's handing, we call it a hand....
But isn't it?
Sure, conventionally speaking, but ultimately of course it's not. It's always just a hand (handing) -- a hand being defined by what it's doing.
But what is a "hand"?
It's a thing (constituent amalgam)` that is handing, that is all these mudras (hand poses)
So what are we? I'm a "being," you're a "being," right?
Why?
Because we're just "being"?
We're doing no such thing!!!
You're not "being"? Then what are you?
You mean, what am I doing?
Yeah, okay.
I'm becoming. You're becoming. We're always becoming.
What's that supposed to mean?
We're always in flux, transforming, decaying, perishing, hurtling toward destruction, even when we're birthing, surviving, growing...like this wave, falling away, becoming a fist, falling away, becoming a wave (waving goodbye), just a hand, handing, falling away.
Oh yeah. I guess maybe that's what the Buddha meant when he emphasized impermanence (anicca)?
Yes! There's no static "being" here, but what there is (the Five Aggregates clung to as self) is always becoming, turning, morphing, changing, falling away, rearising, endlessly. This is samsara, the endless cycling. We're usually too busy to ever notice. But a little stillness, or even an attempt at stillness (samadhi) reveals it.
But isn't a "fist" real? Say yes, or I'll punch you. 👊
Yes. Of course, it's real on a certain level, the day to day, in the conventional way of speaking.
What else is there but the conventional way of speaking?
Unclench your fist and I'll tell you.
Oh, sorry. 🙇‍♂️
There's the ultimate (paramatha), of course, as in what is it really?
But it's not really a "fist"?
No, it's just a hand fisting. And when it's chopping, we call it a "chopper" (thing that chops), or a slapper (slapping), or a clapper (clapping), or a wiper (wiping), or a poker (poking)... 👃
Oh yeah, huh?
Yeah.

Help, Thich Nhat Hanh!

The simpler one makes it, the better (Thay).
The late great Thich Nhat Hanh said this in a much prettier way when he observed one day on tour, coming through Pasadena, California, and stopping at the Convention Center. Jeff and I were there to see what greatness he would evince, what pearl of wisdom he would utter. He didn't say much of anything. But he did say this. He pulled out a bag of rocks being sold or given to kids to meditate with at Plum Village in France. We have Deer Park here in Southern California, and I didn't see this bag of pebbles for sale, though I imagine they must have been available somewhere. And taking out a pebble at a time, there was a word on it to reflect on. As I pulled my eyes back down because they were rolling too much and someone might see, Thay (Ven. Hanh) said something profound. It caught me by surprise.
He asked, "Did you ever notice that clouds are made completely out of non-cloud elements?" Huh? Well, ground water is not a "cloud," and heat is not a "cloud," and the mysterious process of condensation is not a "cloud," and altitude is not a "cloud," and "white" or "blue" or "fluff" is not a cloud. BUT when these merge, what arises but a "cloud"? Or the illusion "cloud" seems to come into being, arise, appear. It's just the name given by the mind to the functional integration of all these constituent factors, the elements. I wasn't sure he knew what he had just said.

No Mud, No Lotus (Thay)

Fortunately, he immediately gave another example to prove he had. He asked, "Did you ever notice that flowers are made completely of non-flower elements?" There's mud and fertilizer (very anti-flowery dung and watery dirt), the seed, the sun, the heat, the season, all this and more. Then they all come together when the conditions are "right" (and we'll call them "right" after the fact then try to assemble them again for it to happen again). For what to happen again? Flower(ing). Look at the flower, its beautifully scented, delicately structured transience. Is it mud? There's no trace of mud that was so important to its birth. Is it dung? Doesn't smell like it. Is it water? It's not water but there must be water in it, wet yet dry to the touch...it's clearly not water. Is it air? It's airy or must have air in it, but it's not air. Is it color? It has color but clearly is not the color itself. Is it any of these things of which it is made? No, not as such, yet there's nothing else here but the immaterial stuff, the structure, the pattern, the math, the sort of invisible parts. Did Thay think up this example? It was almost worth waiting around in there looking at "now" watches to hear just this one example.

Back to the point, the final and biggest aha: When one gets to the stage of making the first knot (assuming the previous things were not knots when they probably were, tying to the tree and hanging the strands of string down from the first line), one grabs any strand and ties it to the strand next to it.

Seemingly out of nowhere, a "net" starts to emerge. It starts to arise. It starts to appear.

Because there has been a net existing before (somewhere in the netmaker's past or mind or schooling), the net is actually reemerging, rearising, reappearing, and for this reason all birth is rebirth, patisandhi, not a first birth.

Where is the beginning? It cannot be found, and it doesn't matter. It is not apparent in the net. It is not "right" to say it began with this knot (even though we marked it so we would be able to say with certainty that it was this one) because it is very unsatisfying. There is a net of many identical knots all strung together, and that's the beginning? Why, how, who says so? The point is, it is not obvious in the data, in the tangible, observable, sensible field of perception. There's no reason why that one is or should be the first, but it is, and the real question is not "What was the beginning?" but, What preceded the beginning? What gave rise to that? As we have seen, there were many beginnings, many things setting up before a net came into illusory being, but once it started, there it is rolling along.

SOLUTION: A better simile might be the convective power of water drawn through a hose. Cause low pressure in the hose by blowing or sucking on it, and water starts to come through all on its own. Now place the other end of the hose into the tank being sucked out, and when will it end? When did it begin? As soon as the loop completes, the question doesn't make sense. That is to say, it becomes meaningless. What we want is not a first point but a better explanation to, Why? What for? To what end? What is the purpose of life. And for that, Buddhism has an answer. But people aren't going to like it. It doesn't satisfy. What if all this were just for its own sake, just impersonal phenomena rolling along, things clinging to themselves as the fundamental attachment causing all of this strife, worry, dread, and longing for eternal life or endless anything? If ending is the problem, then not-ending must be the solution. This sounds logical, perfect, but it is incorrect. The real solution would be not to start. Bringing the process to an end, if it does not rearise then there's no problem. We dread this solution because what about all the aspects of the illusion we like? Are we to lose those? You propose to take away our illusion(s)? Told ya you wouldn't like it. Awaken to the Truth; it's much better.

Buddhism likes science because both attempt to explain the world. Ask the Dalai Lama.

If the Abhassara devas are streaming light...

And having been born (not really), it will die (not really). It will not do these things, because it itself in an ultimate sense did not exist, does not exist, and will not exist, but the illusion that arose, that did come into being, that does carry on for awhile, and that does "die" or come to an end until it is arises again.

This is how life began. For details on how life began in this world (on this planet if this is a spinning planet and not a stationary platform much bigger than what we are shown with a hollow center of other levels as described in Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain cosmologies since ancient times) this time around, see the Agganna Sutta or "A Buddhist Genesis" a discourse on "Knowledgeof Beginnings."

The Buddha leaves out what was stated here and begins with a preexisting world and the subtle light beings (or, according to at least one sagacious scholar, Dr. Sugunasiri, Ph.D., light beams) that alighted on it, became coarse, and lost their subtle abilities, becoming denser and denser, in accordance with karma (habits) of the past reemerging again in a new cycle.