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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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?
2 Likes
“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!
3 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!
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
My intuition is that there are infinite mindstreams in samsara constantly becoming and ceasing. This is not really discussed in the early texts and the exact hows and whys are arguably not worth pondering because the concept of infinity is itself infinitely ponderable and does not pertain directly to liberation here-and-now. But it’s helpful for me to think about it this way, personally. There is no telos in Buddhism, though. Reality is open-ended, as is the potential for liberation, and also the potential to remain endlessly in samsara.
2 Likes
In the ending(AN10.95) Ven.Ananada gives the answer.
Uttiya, you were just asking the Buddha the same question as before in a different way.
That’s why he didn’t answer.”
So the question of cosmos being infinite/finite etc also means beings finite/infinite etc.
I would add one more thing next to above statement. That is, “…also the potential to fall in bad states of existence such as among bad humans or animals or even worse”. (This is the thing which is most scary and dangerous!)
I think this is a good translation. Time is linear, speaking about infinite past is non-sense and non-demonstrable. Since beings are in samsara, even if they had multiple lives, some of those lives had to be their first.
Another interesting question on this topics are:
- is the number of beings in samsara decreasing only?
- if yes, then there must have been a one time singularity event.
- if not, how exactly are new beings emerging in samsara?
Thus even if one answers yes or no, one is met with quite a tough question. For example, Christians believe in singularity event of creation. How would you answer?
If you claim that at certain point you just came into being, just out of nothing, definitely it cannot be excluded as possibility, an alternative option for the possibility that you being (bhava) has no beginning.
But such belief contradict Dhamma, since the reason why you come into being must be other than ignorance.
Existence is an operation. Operation comes into being with a leap, and at once extends back to infinity and forward to infinity, yet with the personal horizon that conceals both infinities.
Nanamoli Thera
As you see, not everyone shares you belief.
Action
“Bhikkhus, I will teach you new and old action, the cessation of action, and the way leading to the cessation of action. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak….
“And what, bhikkhus, is old action? The eye is old action, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. The ear is old action … The mind is old action, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. This is called old action.
SN 35 : 146
An earliest point of nescience, monks, is not manifest: ‘Before this, nescience was not; then afterwards it came into being’. Even if that is said thus, monks, nevertheless it is manifest: ‘With this as condition, nescience’. I say, monks, that nescience, too, is with sustenance, not without sustenance.
The Aïguttara Sutta (X,vii,1)but as long as there is the attitude ‘I am’ there is organization of the five faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. SN 22: 47
Anyone who is not willing to accept infinite regress, without begining, just cannot help, contradict these Suttas.
“Without action (kamma), without asmimana, the body appeared spontaneously, and before that ignorance was not.” - sounds like wrong view, at least according to Suttas.
And then I thought about eternity and realized how strong our habits of thinking are. How much easier it is to imagine that eternity has no end, because that is what we’ve heard since childhood. By contrast, it’s quite impossible to imagine that eternity also has no beginning. Such a thought is capable of turning the eyeballs around 180 degrees.
Bobkowski Wartime Notebooks
It is a function of faith to accept certain things which go against our habitual thinking. And intelligentce, to recognise that they are quite possible, and our resistance is mostly psychological, not intellectual.
The traditional response is to ask in turn who or what created god. “Always existed!” the Christians enthusiastically reply. We can’t comprehend how ‘something’ can always exist, but if we call that something ‘god’, then that’s different.
In the community guidelines however it states that this site is to discuss EBT’s so I will not give the traditional response. My actual response is to recall the Buddhist teaching that if one understands ending as it truly is, one doesn’t think in terms of beginning. (I am aware there are different translations for beginning/becoming/existing).
This was discussed at great length here.
Edit to add…
For a while, I followed a book series La femme sans peur. Although there are multiple books in the series, one of them had to be first right? Well yes, but no…
What was the origin of the first book in the series? Perhaps when it came off the printing press, however there would certainly have been draft copies prior to that. Maybe we could call one of those drafts the beginning of the first book. Prior to the first draft though, there were concepts kicking around in the authors mind so maybe we call that the beginning of the book. Let’s explore further…
A book can’t be just a collection of disembodied ideas floating through space - we use an actual language to convey the ideas. Maybe then the beginning of any book is the beginning of the language it uses, but where is the start point of any language found? Of course, over very long timeframes languages change greatly. Heck, even the letters themselves are added, changed or removed.
The illustration above is roughly how I understand the quote from SN12.15:
But for one who truly sees the origin of the world with right understanding, the concept of non-existence regarding the world does not occur. And for one who truly sees the cessation of the world with right understanding, the concept of existence regarding the world does not occur.
3 Likes