The Universe: Eternal or no?

[Gunny]

Okay, since I see where this wonderful discussion is about to go I will make one last post to it myself then duck out before it goes too much further.

Sky, while a star itself may not exist anymore, the matter and energy it was made of does still exist, just in another form and place. So the universe itself is eternal, and even if it wasn't there is also the fact of what eternal means. Due to our minds being unable to comprehend past a certain value of time to us it is eternal. It was here long before us and will remain in many forms long after. So from almost all perspectives it is eternal, however it is very fluid, the matter changes frequently, even within our own grasp of time. Energy moves in many directions and shifts into many forms, again even within our tiny grasp of time. So even if there was a true 'beginning' and will be a true 'ending' we cannot perceive this, eternal is abstract not a finite time period.

It's going somewhere?

Reconcile what you just posted in regard to fluid and matter changing frequently with SD's comment along the lines of moving in and out of existence.

The difference I see in your and my POV and SD's is we are saying the universe is infinite, while SD is stating, by saying it moves in and out of existence that something beyond must exist to support her theory. Sort of the "worlds within worlds" POV without calling it that.

 

[Gunny]

No offense taken Gunny. No insecurity that I know of. Never hurts to do a self examination.

I was just curious. Trying to pinpoint where exactly you are coming from. My POV is that no matter what anyone else believes or posts on this board ... and this discussion usually devolves into mindless insultfests ... is I am not required to change anything I believe simply because someone else believes something different.

It is a form of self-examination, IMO, to compare my beliefs to those of others. If my beliefs can't stand up to others, not comparing them wouldn't make the weakness to them go away. A hard comparison to make when one is dealing in faith.

But discussing is not selling, and I think evangelicals are cherrypicking their facts. Yes, Christ says to spread the word. Christ did not however force his words on unwilling audiences and cautions us to not waste our time doing so.

 

[RodISHI]

I was just curious. Trying to pinpoint where exactly you are coming from. My POV is that no matter what anyone else believes or posts on this board ... and this discussion usually devolves into mindless insultfests ... is I am not required to change anything I believe simply because someone else believes something different.

It is a form of self-examination, IMO, to compare my beliefs to those of others. If my beliefs can't stand up to others, not comparing them wouldn't make the weakness to them go away. A hard comparison to make when one is dealing in faith.

But discussing is not selling, and I think evangelicals are cherrypicking their facts. Yes, Christ says to spread the word. Christ did not however force his words on unwilling audiences and cautions us to not waste our time doing so.

I agree.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

OK. Where I'm coming from in this discussion is observing in nature that everything is impermanent.

Ourselves, as human beings, the universe and its contents and all beings therein are impermanent.

You cannot believe in a created universe without presuming the universe once did not exist. The universe is not eternal.

Even God folks think God created the universe, which means it did not exist eternally.

Actually the Bible does not say God created the Universe.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's why Buddhist philosophy transcends creation myths. The world appears solid and unchanging, but when examined closely it is neither.

Matter is merely atoms with alot of empty space in continuous motion. Even atoms when examined have no solidity or permanence.

The world appears to us through our five senses, and it is compelling. But the dream world appears to us in exactly the same way, and when we wake up, it vanishes.

Similarly, when we go to sleep, the 'waking world' vanishes, and we move in a dream world, with seemingly real experiences.

When we die, its just like waking up from one dream into the next.

Everything is in a continual dance of moving in and out of existence.

You can no more prove the last 2 sentences then a "God" person can prove God exists. You have FAITH those sentences are true.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No. That's not quite true. Buddhism is the path of the middle way--neither believing in eternalism nor nihilism.

In one manner of speaking, you are getting close. We talk about consciousness, and awareness quite a bit in Buddhism.

We discuss what happens in the dying process and what happens after this life.

Once again you can not prove anything happens after death except that the body decomposes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

BTW I looked up the meaning of the word and it is Aramaic for Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Buddha is a Sanskrit term that means 'one who is awake'.

In Tibetan, it is sang gye--which means to clear away and to unfold.

It is a direct, moment to moment experience. When it occurs 24/7 lifetime after lifetime we call this enlightenment.

You can not prove there are lifetimes after lifetimes anymore than I can prove God exists. Or that heaven exists.

 

[sky dancer]

You can no more prove the last 2 sentences then a "God" person can prove God exists. You have FAITH those sentences are true.

It is more an extension of logic, sarge. You don't have to believe in lifetime after lifetime. You can merely look at this very life, and all the kinds of lives we have had in just this one life.

There is the life within the womb, a more primitive life, sometimes we resembled amoeba or an animal. Then there is the life we experienced as babies, and toddlers, and children, and teenagers, and adulthood, and for some of us, middle aged.

If we live long, we will experience old age before we die. we can make this extension of other lives also when we consider the dream life we have.

You are correct, I cannot prove this--it just makes logical sense to me, but I have studied this philosophy for many years, and believing in life afer death was not something I started out believing.

Concepts of eternal heaven and hell were part of my chidlhood religious indoctrination but eternalism never made sense to me.

Everything in the universe is in a continuous state of coming into and going out of existence. Impermanence is easy to observe.

So, yes, you may say this is a belief, but it is one based on observation and logic.

The analogy of life being dreamlike makes sense to me because when we go to sleep, the waking universe for us, dissolves in our experience, and then through the five senses we experience the dream life as real.

Since Buddhist teachings are about enlightenment, this is the direction we train in.

 

[sky dancer]

Once again you can not prove anything happens after death except that the body decomposes.

What you describe is a point of view called nihilism. Nothing happens after death, because you think the body is all important. The body is merely a vehicle for consciousness. We cannot prove consciousness either. It does not have a color, smell, taste, touch or feel, but we experience consciousness in this very moment.

It is consciousness that moves the body. Even though we cannot see consciousness leave the body when we die, we do know that something has changed. When the body dies, no matter how much we loved the person, we cannot wait to get rid of the corpse. The body is not you or me. So what are we?

We are consciousness, and we can become aware of consciousness by training our minds and hearts in meditation. Then when we die, there will be a seamless transition to the next life, and if we are fortunate, that will be another human life, so that we can train again toward enlightenment.

If we train now, to experience the dream world lucidly, it will prepare us well for the dying process.

The philosophies behind all religious teachings are merely methods for experiencing and training in recognizing 'that which cannot be imagined or described.'

What's wonderful Sarge, is that you have great questions. It makes so much sense to not take anything on faith alone. You must engage your intellect and mind. In Buddhism, we don't expect anyone to take anything just on faith. Questions are encouraged. The great Khenpos or scholars in my tradition not only are well studied, but they are well practiced in meditation, and they know from direct experience, the truth of these teachings.

I have faith in them, not just because of their learnedness, but because of the qualities they demonstrate. Infallible signs of practice are limitless seeming love, compassion, joy, and equanimity.

Love does not mean merely romantic love in Buddhism, nor does it mean only the attachment we feel toward our family and loved ones. Love in Buddhism, means the wish for other beings to be happy. Compassion in Buddhism does not mean sympathy, or pity. Compassion means the sincere desire for others to be free of suffering. Each and every being, without exception.

Joy does not mean wallowing in pleasant experience. Joy in Buddhism means rejoicing in the fortune of others. Equanimity means an equal kind regard for all beings--whether they are friends, enemies or strangers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is more an extension of logic, sarge. You don't have to believe in lifetime after lifetime. You can merely look at this very life, and all the kinds of lives we have had in just this one life.

There is the life within the womb, a more primitive life, sometimes we resembled amoeba or an animal. Then there is the life we experienced as babies, and toddlers, and children, and teenagers, and adulthood, and for some of us, middle aged.

If we live long, we will experience old age before we die. we can make this extension of other lives also when we consider the dream life we have.

You are correct, I cannot prove this--it just makes logical sense to me, but I have studied this philosophy for many years, and believing in life afer death was not something I started out believing.

Concepts of eternal heaven and hell were part of my chidlhood religious indoctrination but eternalism never made sense to me.

Everything in the universe is in a continuous state of coming into and going out of existence. Impermanence is easy to observe.

So, yes, you may say this is a belief, but it is one based on observation and logic.

The analogy of life being dreamlike makes sense to me because when we go to sleep, the waking universe for us, dissolves in our experience, and then through the five senses we experience the dream life as real.

Since Buddhist teachings are about enlightenment, this is the direction we train in.

There is no "logic" that leads one to believe in reincarnation. It is simply the same desire by your beliefs to find solace in the fact we die. We believe in Heaven, you believe in multiple lives.

A non religious person would explain that as man's desire to make sense of life and death. To provide a meaning of some kind that man can grasp and hold on to.

You keep saying nothing is eternal, yet you keep saying life is a continious cycle. Which is it? IF, as you claim, life is a cycle that repeats over and over, guess what? It never ends. It just changes.

I suggest you think about eternal in a different manner. Eternal means in at least one sense, never ending. Your belief that life is a cycle that repeats over and over, also is in a way never ending.

Others have used the concept here and you seem to not be grasping it. Just because everything changes does not mean nothing is eternal. A repeating cycle that never ends would be eternal. A universe that constantly changes but continues to exist in one form or another, is eternal.

You do not have a problem grasping the concept except you get wrapped up in the Christian belief system which you do not believe in. Ignore the "eternal" God concept and apply eternal to YOUR concept of life cycles. You do not believe in God, so it does not matter if we believe he is eternal or not, since YOU believe we are worshipping a false concept.

Change alone does not negate the term eternal EXCEPT in regards a very FINITE item, entity or such.

It is all semantics. IF you believe that life is a continuing cycle from one state to another, then ask your self " Does the cycle ever end?" If your answer is no then the CYCLE is eternal.

Science supports eternity also. Science states that you can not destroy or eliminate certain things. They change , they become different, but the basic block NEVER goes away.

 

[sky dancer]

Where I think we find common ground in all religions is in what I label; 'that which cannot be imagined or described' or 'that which is' pure being itself.

Some people call that God, IMO. Where Buddhism departs from theists, is that those who belief in God tend to personify God, and put personality characteristics onto God. God is angry, God is judging, etc etc.

In Buddhism, we examine that which separates us from 'that which cannot be imagined or described' which tends to be words and concepts. Every religion IMO is trying to get to the same thing, direct experience, moment to moment of spacious presence beyond the confines of our ordinary minds.

 

[Amanda]

So Gunny, you believe in eternity? Eternal god, eternal damnation, eternal heaven?

What in this world or the universe can you point to that proves 'eternalism'?

I think all material things are limited. Only God, love, and our souls have the potential to last forever.

IMO.

 

[KittenKoder]

It's going somewhere?

Reconcile what you just posted in regard to fluid and matter changing frequently with SD's comment along the lines of moving in and out of existence.

The difference I see in your and my POV and SD's is we are saying the universe is infinite, while SD is stating, by saying it moves in and out of existence that something beyond must exist to support her theory. Sort of the "worlds within worlds" POV without calling it that.

Well ... normally when an intelligent conversation get this far it starts attracting some of those who like to degrade it for some reason, but this one is holding longer than I had expected, cool.

Perhaps the 'world within worlds' idea is what Sky is using. If so the fluid isn't the right word either. Fluid is the description used because the universe is constantly shifting forms, matter is changing between states and recently we discovered than while matter and energy cannot be destroyed or created the two are interchangeable, a shock to the scientists but a theory I had a LOOONG time ago (I got to say "I told ya so" to a local scientist, WOOT!), and this has reinforced the fluid description even more. It's using a more abstract description of the behavior of matter and energy in place of the long explanation of how everything is working on the 'action-reaction' law thus constantly changing. Also, the movement of stars and planets is often described as fluid.

 

[Abelian Sea]

Everything in the universe is in a continuous state of coming into and going out of existence. Impermanence is easy to observe.

Except that there appears to be a base substance that doesn't go away.

People die, but that of which they are made remains. People are born and grow, but physically they build themselves out of material they injest.

Same with objects; material is gathered to make them and when they end, that material is still around in some form.

That too is easy to observe and fuels my suspicion that there is something permanent underlying all that we experience.

The analogy of life being dreamlike makes sense to me because when we go to sleep, the waking universe for us, dissolves in our experience, and then through the five senses we experience the dream life as real.

That really bothered me when I was a kid. I occasionally have some very realistic dreams and I used to worry "how do I know when I'm dreaming and when I'm awake?" I heard of the "pinch me" method and, later, the smell test (the idea being that dreams don't do well with olfactory sensation, so if, for example, you smell your stinky stocks and they don't stink, you're probably dreaming) but had dreams that could pass those tests.

I got it worked out, though. There is a continuousness to waking reality. In it, you can track your sensory input back a few minutes and find all sorts of mundane details that are glossed over in dreams. You can ask, "how did I physically just get here? Did I walk, drive?" I've never had a dream that could incorporate a realistic fifteen minute car ride without disolving or becoming entirely about riding in a car with no particular destination. Waking experience has a smooth continuum of contexts, whereas the paramaters of dreams shift about willy-nilly. There's also the influence of outside forces; while awake you feel these keenly and constantly, whereas in a dream the flow is rarely disturbed by factors outside of yourself, and even then the connection between outer event and dream event is typically attenuated.

My point being, waking reality is fundamentally different from dreams, in ways that, I think, make it eminently more qualified to be called "real." It is connected and on-going. I enjoy dreaming and have paid attention to it all my life, and based on that can't help but conclude that dreams really are just momentary confusions, where the emotional and sensory background static become the sole focus of the mind, which then just makes some shit up because it's used to things making sense and being connected. Therefore, I'm wary of any analogy based on dreaming vs. waking experience that puts the two on the same level of reality.

And yes, I know waking reality could be a trick, like in the Matrix. But if it is, well, then, I'm falling for it.

 

[sky dancer]

Point to one object in the Universe that is permanent. Waking reality and dream reality are essentially the same.

 

[Amanda]

Point to one object in the Universe that is permanent. Waking reality and dream reality are essentially the same.

Not in my dreams.

Have you seen the movie Waking Life? you might enjoy it.

 

[Gunny]

Point to one object in the Universe that is permanent. Waking reality and dream reality are essentially the same.

Certainly there is a difference. However, your statement does give clarity to what I suspected, in the context of the universe moving in and out of existence. I take it you mean moving in and out of one existence into another? If that is the case, then it is still eternal, only now you have something the universe must exist within to move in and out of.

Your stance seems very logical except this part. It is not logical to assume there is no eternal stage for existence. Anything that does not exist, cannot exist without being created. Be it a human, or a universe. If the universe is created, then it exists on an even bigger stage that supports its existence.

Or, as I contend, the universe is the stage we exist on.

 

[sky dancer]

Certainly there is a difference. However, your statement does give clarity to what I suspected, in the context of the universe moving in and out of existence. I take it you mean moving in and out of one existence into another? If that is the case, then it is still eternal, only now you have something the universe must exist within to move in and out of.

Your stance seems very logical except this part. It is not logical to assume there is no eternal stage for existence. Anything that does not exist, cannot exist without being created. Be it a human, or a universe. If the universe is created, then it exists on an even bigger stage that supports its existence.

Or, as I contend, the universe is the stage we exist on.

An eternal stage for existence? That doesn't make sense to me. Everything, the universe, it's contents and all beings therein are impermanent. But what is it that the universe arises within? Is that unobstructed, authentic and incorruptible? Is that space itself indestructible? Is this what some may call God?

What if what you call "God' or I call Buddha is spacious presence, the ground of being itself? What if it is within this spacious presence that the impermanent universe, its contents and beings therein arises?

Just like a mirror is the ground for the arising of an image, the image cannot be established to be anything other than the mirror. The sky is the ground for the arising of a rainbow, the rainbow cannot be established to be anything other than the sky. This may be the essential truth of inseparability, oneness, all pervasiveness. This may be the way to determine what is true, and what is false.

Rather than describing this within the limitation of time--whether eternal or non-eternal, the essence itself, this spacious presence, the ground of being can in no way be altered by flaws, it is incorruptible. In Buddhism, we may say the perfection of sublime knowing is unborn and unceasing, free of flaws. Indescribable, inconcievable, and inexpressible.

All material objects can be injured by weapons, they are vulnerable. Since conditions can conquer or destroy them, they are destructible. Since they can change into one thing or many, they are false. Since they can be altered, they are corruptible. Since they involve movement and vacillation and have no permanent location, they are unstable. Things so characterized have no true existence.

 

[KittenKoder]

Certainly there is a difference. However, your statement does give clarity to what I suspected, in the context of the universe moving in and out of existence. I take it you mean moving in and out of one existence into another? If that is the case, then it is still eternal, only now you have something the universe must exist within to move in and out of.

Your stance seems very logical except this part. It is not logical to assume there is no eternal stage for existence. Anything that does not exist, cannot exist without being created. Be it a human, or a universe. If the universe is created, then it exists on an even bigger stage that supports its existence.

Or, as I contend, the universe is the stage we exist on.

I like the stage reference. You also make a great point, the what does the universe exist in? Then what does that exist in as well? Bah! There you go making me think on that track. *shudder* okay ... as disturbing as the possibilities are to me, it's one topic which some writers have jumped on. My two favorites have very different theories, each have their own merit. One (Asimov) believed that the universe is actually part of an atom to another, then another, etc.. The other (Lovecraft) believed it is some alien experiment that was forgotten about and that the universe is actually just a zoo for some beings so different from us we can't even imagine them.

 

[Gunny]

An eternal stage for existence? That doesn't make sense to me. Everything, the universe, it's contents and all beings therein are impermanent. But what is it that the universe arises within? Is that unobstructed, authentic and incorruptible? Is that space itself indestructible? Is this what some may call God?

What if what you call "God' or I call Buddha is spacious presence, the ground of being itself? What if it is within this spacious presence that the impermanent universe, its contents and beings therein arises?

Just like a mirror is the ground for the arising of an image, the image cannot be established to be anything other than the mirror. The sky is the ground for the arising of a rainbow, the rainbow cannot be established to be anything other than the sky. This may be the essential truth of inseparability, oneness, all pervasiveness. This may be the way to determine what is true, and what is false.

Rather than describing this within the limitation of time--whether eternal or non-eternal, the essence itself, this spacious presence, the ground of being can in no way be altered by flaws, it is incorruptible. In Buddhism, we may say the perfection of sublime knowing is unborn and unceasing, free of flaws. Indescribable, inconcievable, and inexpressible.

All material objects can be injured by weapons, they are vulnerable. Since conditions can conquer or destroy them, they are destructible. Since they can change into one thing or many, they are false. Since they can be altered, they are corruptible. Since they involve movement and vacillation and have no permanent location, they are unstable. Things so characterized have no true existence.

You keep saying the universe is impermanent and this is where I disagree. It cannot be. I agree that everything within is. However, the universe cannot pass out of existence, then back into existence without a creator. Once it passes out of existence there is nothing. Nothing is absolute. Something (the universe) cannot come from nothing of its own volition.