(Buddha's Wisdom) March 30, 2025:
š WHAT IF WE FELL INTO OUR PHYSICAL BODIES?
What if we weren't born into a body but fell into one? An ancient Buddhist text called the AggaƱƱa Sutta (DN 27) describes space beings of pure light who once floated about freely through space until they alighted on earth, devolved, and developed something we all struggle with today — sensual craving or desire (tanha). That first craving for sensual pleasure began our descent into increasingly dense physical form, creating humans bound by the very cravings that landed us here and kept us stuck in the quagmire of craving, karma, and karmic results. DISCOVER:
How the Buddha taught that consciousness preceded physical form, not the other way around
The striking parallels between Buddhist cosmology and modern scientific theories
Why a human birth is considered extraordinarily rare as the Buddha taught
The unexpected connection between desire and the densification of our physical bodies
How understanding our origins can transform our approach to spiritual practice today
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 Were we once beings of light?
02:06 The Buddhist cosmological view
06:17 Scientific parallels with Buddhist origin stories
08:40 The mental evolution of humanity
12:41 Why human birth is so precious
16:33 The mystery element: Where do we go from here?
The Buddha's Creation Story: Myth as History and Inspiration
(Doug's Dharma) Should ancient stories be looked at as historical myths or as inspirational literature? Let's look at both options through the lens of the Aggañña Sutta, a famous, early Buddhist creation myth. š New book by Dr. Doug Smith, PhD: A Handbook of Early Buddhist Wisdom, with foreword by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. š§” Find this material useful? Check out Patreon and get fun benefits like exclusive videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: dougsseculardharma
Thus have I heard. The Exalted One (the Buddha) was once staying near SÄvatthÄ«, in the East Park, inside the mansion of MigÄra's Mother. Now at that time VÄseį¹į¹ha and BhÄradvÄja were passing their probationary period among the wandering ascetics, wishing to become fully ordained Buddhist monks.
Then in the evening the Exalted One, having arisen from his meditations, came down, and was walking back and forth in the open air, in the shade of the mansion. When VÄseį¹į¹ha saw this, he told BhÄradvÄja, adding:
“Let's go, friend BhÄradvÄja, let's approach the Exalted One, because we might have the good fortune to hear from the Exalted One a talk on matters of Dhamma (Doctrine)."
“Even so, friend," BhÄradvÄja replied. So VÄseį¹į¹ha and BhÄradvÄja approached the Exalted One and, having saluted him, they walked behind him as he walked back and forth. Then the Exalted One said:
“VÄseį¹į¹ha, being Brahmin (brahmana) by birth and family lineage, have gone forth from a Brahmin family and home into the left-home life of a wandering ascetic (sramana), do the other Brahmins blame and revile you?
“Venerable sir, yes, indeed, Brahmins do blame and revile us with characteristic abuse, copious, not holding back."
“VÄseį¹į¹ha, with what words do they blame you?
“Venerable sir, Brahmins say: 'The Brahmin caste is the best.... Only Brahmins are genuine children of BrahmÄ, born of Brahma's mouth, offspring of BrahmÄ, created by BrahmÄ, heirs of BrahmÄ. As for you, you have renounced the best human rank and have gone over to that low class — to shaven recluses, to the vulgar [nouveau-riche] rich, to those of dark skins, to those born of Brahma's feet. In these terms, venerable sir, do Brahmins blame and revile us with characteristic abuse, copious, not holding back....
"VÄseį¹į¹ha, surely those Brahmins have forgotten the past (ancient lore) when they say so? On the contrary, Brahmin females, wives of Brahmins, are known to be fertile, are seen to be pregnant with child, bringing forth and nursing children. Yet, it is these very [human] womb-born Brahmins who say such things… 'Brahmins are genuine children of BrahmÄ, born from his mouth; his offspring, his creation, and his heirs'! By this they make a travesty of the nature of BrahmÄ. It is false what they say, and great is the demerit that they thereby earn." More (suttacentral.net)
This article goes from the very mundane to the origins of life on this planet to the ultimate, tackling the staggering question of how everything began (begins), that is, came (comes) into existence.
What do "Buddhists" do on New Year's Day? If you're living in Pasadena, you're stuck in traffic along with everyone else, suffering government reaction to their own American terrorism in New Orleans and Las Vegas.
Is it a false flag, an excuse for suicide, GIs just following their preprogramming? Either way, both events were carried out by government issue government employees, and we can debate whether they were on or off duty. Most soldiers know. Duty never ends.
Pasadena, a prosperous city (which is putting it mildly because it was once the city famous for the biggest spread between its richest and poorest populations, where it is the best of times and worst of times and really a tale of two cities) in the LA Foothills, was made untraversable by 1,000 cops.
Either they were on duty or more likely on overtime, doing a whole lotta nothing other than blocking streets and freeway entrances with the cruisers they were leaning on while chatting with each other as some gave hand signals to turn around and go the other way. What other way? That parking lot of a jammed street we're diverting all traffic onto.
This was because some of its trained soldiers were tasked or took it upon themselves to created some public mayhem which the government could use.
1. What do Buddhists do in the beginning [of each New Year]?
Buddhists, most of them, traditionally visit a Buddhist temple or monastery to see monastics, receive blessings, protective chants, see one another, hear the Dhamma, and meditate.
It's custom and tradition, not a rule. It's a joy to do. The crowds are comforting, particularly in this country, where January 1st can seem like being back in the Old Country.
When did the Buddha ever say "line" as in the timeline? Not one that we can remember. But he often spoke of cycles, circles, and cycling. Things are spinning, or as Alan Watts explains, the world is full of squiggles rather than the lines we conceptualize and speak of. Imagine the beautiful Celtic Knot. It's a nice way of visualizing the cycles-within-cycles.
Things are going in one major cycle (through the Yugas), but they are also going through may minor cycles as they do it. The Ages go from Golden (Satya Yuga) through to Dark (Kali Yuga). But within that long loop there are many little loops. A thread, a cotton suture, may seem like one straight line, but up close, that is not how it is. It is wound, curvilinear, intersected, netted, networked, bunch, pulled, and spiraling. This gives its strength. Perfectly aligned linear fiber would not hold together.
Gibberish or a tautology, which would you prefer?
Look at that clock just hanging there.
In the same way, if the world rolled on a straight (time) line, which it does not, it makes no sense to say, "before the beginning." The timeline starts here; there is no before here. If time is everywhere all the time, then there is no time before time.
(It's an illusion arising from the hallucination/logical imposition that time is a linear line. Imagine a linear timeline. Time starts here; this is the beginning. What was before the beginning? System error. Question does not compute. This spot is the beginning, and the end is over on the other side, so there can't be a pre-begin to conceptualize -- not because it doesn't exist but because the assumptions underlying this system are in error).
If time (the world) is cyclical, the question, "What was before the beginning?" makes sense, and there's an answer. Before the beginning was the previous end. (Imagine a timecircle rather than the customary timeline. This point is the beginning. What does the point before it represent? It represents the previous end. Time is neither a circle nor a line, which are just representations to try to visualize time.
Look at an analog clockface. What do two sticks pointing straight up represent? That is 12:00 o'clock, the beginning (of a day), the first point. If that is the beginning, what was before the beginning? The end (of the previous day). That is time in Buddhist cosmology. Time seems to be more than that, something mutable, going in either direction, able to be sped up and slowed down, and subject to perceptual anomalies.
If all things are everywhere all at once, as seems to be the case, we can travel through time, but whether that actually changes time permanently is hard to say: Everything becomes impermanent because it can always be changed by such travel, whether is changed or not. That it can changed is what makes it impermanent and mutable.
So when hearing or saying the phrase "in the beginning," be not confused to think that "beginning" ever references a first point, first cause, prime mover, even if one wishes or is sure that would be God. There is a beforetime that was before time. It came into existence the moment someone set up the rule that this is the way we are going to talk about it, conceive of it, believe it to have been.
Science
Science already agrees because it says, "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." This is an outrageous statement. First, is energy even defined? "The ability to do work"? So Jebediah, who will do no work today, is full of 'energy' because he could if only he'd get up and get to it? Let's hope the axiom is true because if it is, there you have it, agreement.
Energy always is (and therefore always was and will be), and though time may have started, energy did not. So "What was there before the beginning?" makes sense. There was energy, which is everything and not a thing. So it is both true that everything, or every potential thing, has always been, and none of it is real. Didn't that slit light experiment prove anything? It seems not to have.
Let's get metaphysical. What about that double-slit? And what is quantum physics, Brian Cox?
(Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently said on his podcast with that other Black guy that the experiment is given inordinate weight and is misunderstood because the "act of observing" caused the result to change. He did not mean a human observing, like it sounds. He meant the physical scientific act of taking the measurements, as if light waves from the observation camera were impacting the photons being photographed).
2. Genesis on Earth
This being the case, on the subject of beginnings, the Buddha could be asked, "How did life on Earth begin?" (We assume this means, "How did life begin?," which it does not, instead only discussing life on Earth).
The AggaƱƱa Sutta (DN 27) is a discourse by the Buddha to two Brahmins, Bharadvaja and Vasettha, who left their family and varna (caste) to become Buddhists. The two are insulted and maligned by other Brahims for their intention to become members of the Monastic Sangha.
The Buddha explains that caste and lineage cannot be compared to the achievement of morality practice and the Dhamma, as anyone from the four castes can become a monastic and reach the state of full enlightenment (arahant).
He then explains about the beginning and the destruction of the Earth, a process determined by karma and devoid of a supreme controlling being.
The Buddha explains the origin of the social order and its structure, including the castes. He emphasizes the message of universality in the Dhamma because "the Dhamma is the best of all things."
The Buddha describes a process [not of intellectualizing but of practice] by which he discovered the origin of suffering.
The purpose of this process was to make an end of all suffering. It worked. He then realized the significance of it and famously said:
"Who sees me sees [this process], who sees [this process], sees me."*
The Five Aggregates clung to as self are dependently originated. The craving, adhering, being attracted to, and attached to the Five Aggregates is the origin of suffering. Letting go and being rid of craving and clinging for the Five Aggregates is the end of suffering.
Furthermore, the Buddha extolls, "It is because of not seeing Dependent Origination that both you and I have gone on wandering through this interminable Round of Rebirth in search of pleasure only to be reborn here, reborn there..."
What discovery could be so spectacular and significant? It is the final answer to all problems, but it is not easy to grasp or penetrate: paticcasamuppÄda.
"One who sees Dependent Origination sees the Dharma. One who sees the Dharma sees Dependent Origination."
"Dependent Origination" is the Doctrine of the Conditionality of all physical and mental phenomena.
This, together with the Doctrine of the Impersonal nature of all physical and mental phenomena (anattÄ), forms the indispensable condition for a real understanding and realization of the teaching of the Buddha, the Dhamma.
This doctrine shows the conditionality and dependent nature of the uninterrupted flux of manifold physical and psychic phenomena of existence conventionally called the ego, self, soul, personality, person, animal, etc.
The Doctrine of the Impersonal proceeds analytically by splitting (separating into elements, cutting, dissecting, analyzing) existence into its ultimate constituent parts -- which are mere empty, insubstantial phenomena or elements.
The Doctrine of Conditionality, on the other hand, proceeds synthetically by showing that all these phenomena are, in some way or other, conditionally related with each other.
In fact, the entire Abhidhamma Pitaka ("Basket Collection of the Doctrine in Ultimate Terms"), as a whole, deals only with these two doctrines -- phenomenality, implying the impersonal nature and conditionality of all existence.
The analytical method is applied in Dhammasangani, the first book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, whereas synthetical method is applied in the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka called the PatthÄna.
Although this subject of Dependent Origination has frequently been treated by Western authors, by far most of them have completely misunderstood the true meaning and purpose of the doctrine.
Even the 12 terms, known as the causal links (nidanas), have often been translated wrongly, [and the first has been made to sound like some prime mover or first cause, when the whole of the doctrine bends over backward to show how all things come into being by cogenesis, that is, by multiple causes. Everything that's a thing arises by Dependent Origination, and there isn't anything that is caused or conditioned by only one thing. Nirvana, unlike everything else, is not a thing and therefore is not subject to the characteristics or pitfalls of things, known as the Three Marks of Existence].
APPLICATION: Conditionality as the Middle Way: Not-self and Emptiness
Wikipedia edit by Wisdom Quarterly
What use is wisdom? - It depends.
Early Buddhist texts associate Dependent Origination with emptiness (shunyata) and not-self (anatta), outlining different ways in which it is a Middle Way between different sets of "extreme" views.
In the KaccÄnagotta Sutta (SN 12.15, parallelled at SA 301), the Buddha states that "this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence" then explains the right view as follows [58]:
"But when one truly sees the origin of the world with right understanding, one will not have the notion of non-existence regarding the world. And when one truly sees the cessation of the world with right understanding, one will not have the notion of existence regarding the world [59].
The KaccÄnagotta Sutta then places the teaching of Dependent Origination (listing the 12 links in forward and reverse order) as a Middle Way that rejects these two "extreme" metaphysical views, which can be seen as two mistaken conceptions of the self [60, 5, Note 8]. More
Text by Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, CC Liu (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
This Buddhist creation myth BEATS Judeo-Christian Bible and Islam's Quran
(Maya Wisdom) Explore the profound teachings of Buddhism's primary creation myth, the Agganna Sutta, and its relevance to modern scientific understanding. This video examines:
1. The Buddhist perspective on cyclical cosmic evolution and devolution
2. How it challenges traditional creation narratives
3. The concept of Dependent Origination and its implications
4. Buddhism's unique approach to deities (devas, light beings, shining ones) and divine intervention
5. The Buddha's emphasis on personal experience over scriptural authority.
Gain insights into how this ancient wisdom offers a transformative view of human nature, societal structures, and our relationship with the cosmos.
Sadly, the Agganna Sutra is not really a proper creation myth. It is only a general explanation of life on earth, and it doesn't even fully explain that. Its principal interest is to emphasize the power and significance of karma (deeds, those things willed, carried out, and stored up). How did human life begin on this plane, this planet, this earth? One day a light being (possibly a light beam if Dr. Sugunasiri's theory (Dhamma Aboard Evolution: A Canonical Study of Agganna Sutta in Relation to Science) holds up under scrutiny. He suggests it is symbolic or metaphorical, not a literal accounting. The Buddha was famous for being able to take ancient teachings from the subcontinent (proto-India) and earlier Vedic culture, which possibly encompassed the great Indus Valley Civilization and city-states of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, that people would have been familiar with and imbuing them with Buddhist knowledge of life, the universe, and everything. The problem with creation myths, including Science-ism's Big Bang Theory, is that they begin in the middle. For instance:
What was that? - Just another Bang
SCIENCE MYTH 1: Once upon a time, before everything came into existence, this happened, then it came into existence in a spontaneous Big Bang.
Q: Well, how did that happen if there wasn't anything yet?
A: Uh, umm, question does not compute, insufficient data, syntax error, program will now shut down for regularly scheduled maintenance.
4H MYTH: (Popular in the Dharmic religions). One day God (who spontaneously arose in the midst of a great void and nothingness) got bored so He made everything (maya) else to amuse Himself, and to keep it interesting and full of drama (lila) forgot it was just Him (because we're all Him or figments of His imagination in this illusion), so it's alright whatever happens, just a part of a big game with Hells and Heavens, Hierarchies and Holes in the story (so don't read too much into it).
God animated dust with breath to create Adam.
CHRISTIAN MYTH: (Applicable to all of the Abrahamic faiths, i.e., Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Yazidism, Gnosticism, Bahai, and probably their progenitors Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, ancient Mesopotamian, Babylonian, and Sumerian religion). Once upon a time, God was bored in heaven, so He made a terrarium and populated it with all sorts of creatures and even a little man like Himself, in His own image, called him Adam, gave him a partner named Lilith, whom he later divorced and remarried another named Eve, and had a whale of a time creating other fantastical living beings to be in His garden, even a scaly man who was a big smartass and troublemaker, talking Eve into all kinds of mischief so that He had to empty out the project and toss the main characters to the east, which is how we all came about in this sucky world suffering from the cradle to the grave. Nighty night, no question, time for bed!
Ooh, let's land on that blue-green one! It looks nice and inviting, and we can b*ng there.
We revolve in a cycle until liberation.
BUDDHIST MYTH: Once upon a time, in a land near, near this way, two light beings (or beams) alighted on this preexisting celestial body we call Earth, a garden like place, after flying in space and going about in their refined way. They liked it and stayed, and in so doing, they became coarser and coarser, devolving from their previous state.
Yay for Aldebaran! (Maria Orsic)
The beings were engaging in gathering, eating, tasting, and sensual experiences like sex, experiencing the results (vipaka and phala) of their collective deeds (karma), which had a profound impact on their environment, being reborn over and over, until we find ourselves in our present state with people not realizing that the things they say and do had a previous meaning they've forgotten. And that, monks, is how things in the present are like things in the past, and it's always a good idea to keep good conduct, be pure, and evolve back to that Golden Age of Truth (Satya Yuga) when things will be better before eventually, invariably, decline again and devolve in this spiraling cyclical pattern we call samsara.
Q: That's a "creation" myth?
A: No, where in the sutra does it say anything about "creation"? This is just a story about how humanoid life began on this planet/plane, devolving from a higher plane by the workings of karma.
This is how it happened, according to math.
SCIENCE MYTH 2: Once upon a time everything declined and collapsed falling in on itself then there was a Big Bounce and it re-expanded until we find ourselves and our universe expanding again as evidenced by the Doppler Effect of the redshift of visible light and there's no discernible beginning or end to it, just like the Buddha taught.
In science, anything is possible: Physicists turn light into one-dimensional gas with incredibly strange properties (IFL Science) The Big Bang is utterly dumb as a theory of everything because it says there is no need for miracles except this one. Just grant that everything came out of nothing in a nano-instant then everything else we explain will be rational, lawful (in accordance with demonstrable principles), and predictable.
Maya Wisdom (video), Sept. 3, 2024; Dhr. Seven, Pat Macpherson, Sheldon S. (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
Lost in Translation: The Bible's Genesis 1 is NOT about the creation of the universe
(James Tabor) May 23, 2024: Lost in Translation Series. The very first verse of the Jewish-Christian Bible (Genesis 1:1), which millions can quote from heart, is mistranslated in almost all major versions and all languages with very few exceptions.
The reasons are simple, marketing and commercialism. Who would buy a Bible translation that does not begin with "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"?
This short exposition shows how the original Hebrew [though according to classicist Dr. David Ammon Hillman, the original was in Ancient Greek and the Hebrew was translated down from that by idiomatic radiation, not the other way around] has a completely different meaning.
It is not a philosophical or scientific statement -- but rather a description of the ordering of the chaotic, empty, water covered, wind swept wasteland that was planet earth when the "Force of All Forces" (Elohim, always plural, always "gods," never a God) began to bring order out of the random chaos.
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:
"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)
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 š„ representing a burning flame. A burning flame is a symbol representing it, and what is it? It is temperature. What is temperature (tejo)?
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.
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," kalyÄį¹a-mittatÄ, 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 (š️). 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. š¤
(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?
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. š
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. š♂️
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)... š
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.
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 Suttaor "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.
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
.svg.png)
.png)
%20sayalay%20anutara%20pa%20auk%20forest%20monastery%20WQ.jpg)
