The flame that lights itself? Over & over?

[Quidam]

I was just reading a comment on here that said, ‘the Buddha recalled 40 thousand eons of expansion and contraction’.

Bare with me a minute, and please inform me if I am missing something here … but I’m sure I’ve read that a Buddha is ‘born’ each eon. (Yes?? No ??)

… and this Buddha gets enlightened each time ? Otherwise they are not exactly the Buddha? Right?

…. And therefore by default gets Nibbana-d ?

Sooooo, what’s going on here?

I can’t explain how consciousness first originated, … but I ‘can’ just put it in the context of ‘magical things that I don’t know’, and accept that if it (consciousness) can be extinguished like blowing out a flame, then it must by default also be a flame that somehow lights itself first.

So, if the Buddha recalls 40 million eons of expansion and contraction … and has been enlightened and extinguished 40 million times, …. then is not the Buddha the same stream of consciousness to have that 40m eon memory?

If so, then how does that fit with extinguishment? How can you truly be extinguished if you keep popping back up like one of those ‘joke/gag’ birthday candles?

How do I make this make sense?

The Eternal now? Everything everywhere all at once? … and we just get dropped / anchored anywhere on the ‘timeline’ perceiving it is as linear rather than curved? We are all one? …and any ol life the Buddha tapped in to was also his, also yours, also mine?

I got kicked out of religious ed in grade 5 for asking too many ‘questions like this lol … but maybe this is just a simple misunderstanding of info on my part tho ???

[Dogen]

@Quidam

So, if the Buddha recalls 40 million eons of expansion and contraction … and has been enlightened and extinguished 40 million times, …. then is not the Buddha the same stream of consciousness to have that 40m eon memory?

While Mahāyāna has such ideas (in which Buddha is like an eternal god, who chooses to be reborn over and over); in Theravāda, Buddha is reborn over and over, but only gets enlightened this final life on this earth.

So, all those expansions, universes and all, he was just an ordinary person for the most part.

[Invo]

First of all not every eon has a Buddha, there is nothing like that in any canonical sources. Secondly, every “Buddha” (as a title) is a seperate entity, separate stream of kamma/consciousness, however one understands it. Once a Buddha Parinibbanas, the next Buddha in a different time is a different Buddha altogether.

There is no one Buddha, every Samma-Sambuddha is unique. But of course in our time, by the Buddha we usually mean Buddha Gotama born in India 5th century BC, who according to Threravada/Early Buddhism, as every Buddha/Arahant, after Parinibbana is never going back.

Hope that explains it for you.

[Meggers]

These are beliefs. There are also things like beliefs in a cosmic primal buddha (adibuddha) and bodhisattvas who wander around spontaneously enlightening people. DN 1 gives a list of false views that includes the belief in eons of rebirths (under Eternalism). Buddha goes on to say:

The Realized One understands this: Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato pajānāti: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’ ‘ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā evaṅgahitā evaṁparāmaṭṭhā evaṅgatikā bhavanti evaṁabhisamparāyā’ti,

He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized quenching within himself. tañca tathāgato pajānāti, tato ca uttaritaraṁ pajānāti; tañca pajānanaṁ na parāmasati, aparāmasato cassa paccattaññeva nibbuti viditā.

Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping. Vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ viditvā anupādāvimutto, bhikkhave, tathāgato.

These are the principles—deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute—which the Realized One makes known after realizing them with his own insight. And those who genuinely praise the Realized One would rightly speak of these things. Ime kho te, bhikkhave, dhammā gambhīrā duddasā duranubodhā santā paṇītā atakkāvacarā nipuṇā paṇḍitavedanīyā, ye tathāgato sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti, yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṁ vaṇṇaṁ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṁ.

So it’s a distraction and you don’t need to worry about it.

Myself, I think this

The Realized One understands this: Tayidaṁ, bhikkhave, tathāgato pajānāti: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’ ‘ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā evaṅgahitā evaṁparāmaṭṭhā evaṅgatikā bhavanti evaṁabhisamparāyā’ti,

is an Upanisadic point of view. As a matter of fact, I am quite sure that it is and could probably look up the source for it if I had the time and inclination.

[HumanBlade]

Is there textual evidence of Shakyamuni referring to past Buddhas as himself? I know he refers to himself as being boddhisattva but any indication that there’s any transmigration of consciousness from a previous Buddha from a previous life, I have never read this.
I think it ends there, no?

[BethL]

@Meggers

DN 1 gives a list of false views that includes the belief in eons of rebirths (under Eternalism).

@Meggers

So it’s a distraction and you don’t need to worry about it.

That seems to sum it up quite well.

Re: DN 1 and if you haven’t already (since Meggers cited it), I recommend reading Bhante Sujato’s accompanying notes – starting with this section:

3.1.1. Eternalism

It seems that references to the “expansion and contraction of eons” are not related to how transmigration works, really. Rather, they show an appreciation of the vast horizon of time that a discussion about eternalism demands.

From The Buddhist Cosmos by Punnadhammo Mahāthero.

The Buddha said that a first beginning of saṃsāra cannot be discerned. Strictly speaking, this is not a definite affirmation that the universe is beginningless. Indeed, whether the universe is eternal or not is one of the questions the Buddha categorically refused to answer. He discouraged such speculation on the grounds that is was useless for the project of awakening…

If you research a few suttas (using SuttaCentral search) where the Buddha talks about the “expansion and contraction” of eons, there’s a pattern to to this teaching.

As an aside, how about some Early Buddhist Text study. (Yes, I actually consider this fun .)

The pāli word kappa means eon in English. The plural form is kappe.

So saṃvaṭṭavivaṭṭakappe means the contraction (saṃvaṭṭa) and expansion (vivaṭṭa) of kappe – eons.

saṃvaṭṭa and vivaṭṭa share the same root pāli verb vaṭṭati which is, more literally, to turn (around).

The difference is the prefix sam versus vi which convey opposite orientations.

More generally, then, we have a sense of the kappe “rolling toward” as in contraction and “rolling away” as in expansion.

Eons contracting and expanding.

@stephen tell me where I overreached with this word study.

Interestingly, the root meaning of kalpa in Sanskrit (from Wikipedia):

Kalpa (Sanskrit: कल्प) means “proper, fit”

How, exactly, we get to “eons” from the Sanskrit kalpa I can’t say…it only seems to exist in Sanskrit as an adjective.

[Meggers]

@BethL

It seems that references to the “expansion and contraction of eons” are not related to how transmigration works, really. Rather, they show an appreciation of the vast horizon of time that a discussion about eternalism demands.

You know this cosmology ends up becoming a fundamental part of Shaktism with Tara (star) as the model One in this respect. The devi Kala (time) is also one of the conquering Ones. It’s pretty interesting. Ladies are the big bang.

[Quidam]

Thank you everyone. I have a couple of comments /questions on reading your responses, … but later - my brain is not functioning properly yet.

Gone away to see the in-laws for the weekend, different bed, couldn’t get to sleep until 3.30 am, then they got up at 6.30 am and turned the tv on vol 78 I reckon, so that was the end of my sleep and I’m too brain fried

[NgXinZhao]

Classical Theravada answer:

Buddha was called Bodhisatta before his enlightenment. And he was called Bodhisatta only after first getting the prediction from Dīpaṅkara Buddha so long ago. For all the previous life of this Buddha, he was not even a stream winner.

It’s just some misunderstanding to attribute Buddha, the title obtained that make it his final life, vs the stream of consciousness which goes back to past infinity.

@BethL

@Meggers

DN 1 gives a list of false views that includes the belief in eons of rebirths (under Eternalism).

@Meggers

So it’s a distraction and you don’t need to worry about it.

That seems to sum it up quite well.

Just so people do not misunderstand here.

The standard, orthodox and Early buddhism view of rebirth is that there’s no discernable beginning to it. It’s not a soul which transmigrate from life to life, but for ease of references, a stream of consciousness, linked by causality does exist going back life to life to endless past.

Eternalism refers to a soul. Something which remains the same all throughout this beginningless rebirth. The Buddhist view is to just drop the soul, but not beginningless rebirth.

@BethL

It seems that references to the “expansion and contraction of eons” are not related to how transmigration works, really. Rather, they show an appreciation of the vast horizon of time that a discussion about eternalism demands.

To have beings able to have beginningless rebirth, the physical universe also must be beginningless, and cyclic cosmology of expansion and contraction is the Buddhist model and current science does not rule this out.

Eternalism with a soul implies after parinibbāna, there’s an eternal heaven like thing called nibbāna, where the soul enjoys eternal happiness, without suffering forever. This is the view that’s rejected by orthodox Theravada.