Hi all a question I have is if we’ve been stuck in a samsaric existence from beginningless cycles of Aeons then wouldn’t over an infinite amount of time as beings come in contact with the Dhamma and become enlightened the number of life streams trapped in Samsara eventually become zero and shouldn’t there be a no life streams remaining if this has been an infinite process.
To hear Dhamma and to understand Dhamma unfortunately are two quite different things.
Unless there are also an infinite number of beings, as we discussed here:
There’s also a subtler problem with this logic, which is that getting enlightened is an arbitrary event, not a random one, and thus modeling it stochastically is a category error, as discussed here:
It could be that a Buddha only arises to teach the Dhamma a finite number of times, for example.
5 Likes
Bhante, I find this unlikely within the Buddhist Philosophy. 
There was a Zen proverb, “When there’s ignorance, a Buddha appears and gives voice to Dharma.” In this perspective, a Buddha is a function of ignorance’s resolution.
(And to get pedantic with Arhat - Pacce - Sambuddha definitions, these would be relative and conventional labels that only signify temporal proximity and comparative effect of said resolution — for a Buddha with a 1000 arhats retenue, a Buddha with a following of 5 people is considered a “Pacce” Buddha, etc.)
For ignorance to never resolve, it would imply there are certain sets of ignorances (that is, the ignorance of four noble truths) that are in fact permanent. This directly challenges Sabbe sankhara anicca, IMO.
To recap my thesis:
- Sabbe sankhara anicca implies any instance of ignorance of four noble truths will cease at some point.
- When ignorance ceases, this is called Nirvana.
- Whether a specific instance of Nirvana is described for an Arhat, Pacce or Sambuddha (as mere conventions) depends on this instance’s relationship, distance and/or comparative effect with other such resolutions.
This would depend on the velocity of proliferation — in other words, if the number of instances of ignorance coming into existence is greater than the effect of Buddhas’ Dharma.
Not all infinite sets are equal, and some infinite sets are greater than the others. It’s a deep, quite arcane thing. 
Therefore, it just might be that there are more beings coming into existence than any amount of Buddhas can meaningfully extinguish.
In fact, if it wasn’t this case, we wouldn’t be living in Samsara, so it’s an argument for this.
In short: Who knows? 
Per the links included above, so do I.
And yet, the Buddha specifically refused to endorse the view that eventually everyone gets enlightened.
1 Like
I’ve heard such remarks before too, sounds like a conundrum! What would be the sutta reference of it, Bhante?
an10.95?
CIPS>enlightenment>will all attain?
1 Like
“But when the worthy Gotama teaches in this way, is the whole world saved, or half, or a third?”
Bhante, I’m not seeing how this question is related to any given sentient being (or, each instance of ignorance) being liberated. Rather, I feel like it’s asking something along the lines of OP, which is entire world being liberated at once, or half third, etc. ?
There are no unenlightened sentient beings that isn’t a result of ignorance of four noble truths, and this ignorance of four noble truths is impermanent. Thus, it stands to reason that all given sentient beings will eventually get liberated. What am I missing?
I am not very skilled in mathematics, but just home made computation: if you and me from infinite time haven’t succeeded to understand the Four Noble Truths, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t continue like this infinitely.
Ignorance is impermanent, it merely pretends to be Absolute, but it pretends that quite well.
For Grenier, the Absolute is not (as with Bradley) the totality of experiences, but is to be reached at the very heart of personality by a thought transcending the relativity of all things, perceiving therein a void (pp. 100-1). Precisely—and what, ultimately, is this Absolute but avijjā, self-dependent and without first beginning? And what, therefore, does the Buddha teach but that this Absolute is not absolute, that it can be brought to an end?
1 Like
Two points.
Firstly, I’m not sure if the suttas are actually categorically saying there are infinite past lives. They are rather cagey are coming down on whether the universe is finite or infinite (and discourage preoccupation with that and similar questions). The terminology uses for past lives often seems to be in translation, “with no known beginning” (Sujato) or “with no discoverable beginning” (Bodhi). The phrasing seems to be a bit ambiguous.
Secondly, infinity is a pretty weird. A famous example is Hilbert’s Hotel. Imagine there’s a hotel with an infinite number of rooms numbered 1, 2, … etc. with one guest per room. Imagine that each morning all guests staying in odd numbered rooms 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, … check out and that then every remaining guest is reassigned to the room with their current room number divided by 2 (guest in room 2 is reassigned to room 1, guest in room 4 is reassigned to room 2, guest in room 6 is reassigned to room 3 etc.). After that step, all rooms again have exactly one occupant.
We can keep repeating that process for an infinite of days and the hotel will, day after day, remain completely full though we check out half of the guests every single day!
2 Likes
Ambiguity in this particular case is dependently arisen someone’s own understanding of Dhamma. Since one aspect of absence of knowledge is not knowledge about what is infinite, without begining and end, just cannot help it has to fall into infinite regression.
Unless one actually doesn’t exlude possibly that asankhata dhatu actually has some begining.
That’s the point, infinity isn’t thing which can be imagine by the mind used to deal with finite things in space and time. Perhaps the only way the mind can realise infinity is by stopping imagining which is always based on namarupa.
1 Like
Thank you for providing those links to the previous similar discussions!
1 Like
Maybe we are the only one’s remaining. One has to walk the path by oneself.
Samsara is beginningless, but not a countdown of fixed “life streams.” As long as ignorance and craving persist, new becoming arises; time alone does not empty samsara
The workable task is ending craving in this very life stream; when ignorance ceases here, this whole mass of suffering ceases…
Also I don’t think there is anything like infinite. It is just inability given a stylish name and more than that contemplating that seems fruitless. I feel it is more correct to use words like innumerable or uncountable. They make more sense to me than infinite.