What does Gautama Buddha say about an End to the Saha World? And All Emancipation?

Will the Saha one day finally End? Will the Multiverses, and more, possibly there being infinite of them, one day enter full Tranquility? It may be difficult to comprehend Infinity and Eternity, but will all sentient beings be saved one day? Without powerful Buddhas creating more sentient beings in order to bring Endless infinite varieties of eventual Buddhas into Mahaparinirvana and viewing a “possible sentient being” as one that must enter Existence in order for new Metta to appear. And is there a Buddha willing to work on the problems of other’s karma forever? Without ever entering the Final Nibbana themselves? (Gautama Buddha says He never enters Extinction Himself [Nibbana] in the Lotus Sutra, but my personal acquisition of that is that He is already there and was always there and came and comes to us as an Expedient Means). There must be certain ways for a Buddha to experience Eternity.

I have read many EBT’s, some Mahayana Scriptures so including the Lotus and Diamond Sutras which I also greatly Revere, and I am wondering about this subject, as it started to me simply with the pondering of “Infinite Universes”.

With Metta.


It seems the Tathāgata has no concern with the subject of your question.

“… the Tathāgata has no concern whether the entire world will be emancipated, or half the world, or a third of the world. But he can be sure that all those who have been emancipated, or who are being emancipated, or who will be emancipated from the world first abandon the five hindrances, corruptions of the mind that weaken wisdom, and then, with their minds well established in the four establishments of mindfulness, develop correctly the seven factors of enlightenment. It is in this way that they have been emancipated or are being emancipated or will be emancipated from the world.”


Well, it is very certain in that Sutta that the Tathagata did not want to answer the question then. Thank you for your kind reply. I think the inquirer in that Sutta would be too weighed down by the answer of a forever ongoing Saha World, so the Buddha simply stated; “just practice Buddhism, the answer is not important to your Emancipation.”

This reminds me of when the Dalai Lama was asked a question about whether God exists during an interfaith meeting, and He simply put His hands together with His speaker and said something to the extent of: “Let us concern ourselves with whether there is or isn’t a God, while you simply practice being a good person.”

That is the insight given. But I think the Buddha doesn’t concern himself with this question because it is already answered to Him within, and the answer to someone may just be too heavy to fathom.

But in the Sutta since the Buddha did not answer in concordance to the question, it could mean that He didn’t want to put such a heavy answer out yet, and that possibly His concern has long ago been answered. But there is a time and a place for other practitioners to get the answer. Om.


As for me, I think the Buddha doesn’t concern himself with the question because he knows that the answer is not knowable.

That is, it may be the case that each and every living being will sooner or later decide to abandon the five hindrances and develop the four establishments of mindfulness and the seven factors of enlightenment. Or, it may be the case that there are certain beings who will never choose to do this. But in a Buddhist universe (which is to say, a non-fatalistic one) neither of these possibilities can be an inevitability. Since neither can be an inevitability, it is undetermined (aniyata) and therefore unsayable (avyākata) whether “the entire world, or half of the world or a third of the world will be emancipated.”


Okay, thank you greatly for your response. But I highly believe that a Buddha can have access to Omniscience if even Brahma and Narayan come to the Tathagata for Enlightenment. I certainly think the Buddha’s goal, if topmost, contains the Topmost.

I had a friend walk away from me once saying “Buddhas are Gods,” in my Spiritual Practice Buddhism is my primary concern, but Divine Essence is important to me too… I believe Buddhahood is the Highest Enlightenment and Achievement, but whether one decides to save sentient beings forever or be reborn as a Beautiful Flower in the Pure Land as a Buddha, also for others’ sake, the Love is the Same, and we need both. Generally someone’s greatest fear is their own death, but what if one becomes Enlightened and finds they have become Death Personified themselves? Then great fear turns into great Love, just like before Emancipation one may look at Omniscience as a Godly quality, but once Enlightened can achieve Spiritual Super Consciousness. That is why I believe it is an important question. In the Lotus Sutra Buddha’s Lifespan is considered incalculable by others, because it includes Eternal Worlds among many others, but I believe there is a Way to calculate Eternity by a Buddha, without someone raising it as an incorrect question to ask. There is always yet a remedy in Buddhism about the inquiry of all Seekers into Buddhism, because it is no “temporary” philosophy, but Eternal Dhamma, even as the Wheel is Turned and Spins.

It’s incorrect to equate the unconditioned with ‘spinning’:

"Now, as long as I did not have direct knowledge of the fourfold round with regard to these five clinging-aggregates, I did not claim to have directly awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening in this cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans & contemplatives, its royalty & common people. But when I did have direct knowledge of the fourfold round with regard to these five clinging-aggregates, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening in this cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans & contemplatives, its royalty & common people.

“The fourfold round in what way? I had direct knowledge of form… of the origination of form… of the cessation of form… of the path of practice leading to the cessation of form.”–Samyutta Nikaya 22.56

Oh, interesting. I read it differently, more in line of Brahma’s request to teach: even if only a few beings will be clever enough to understand the teachings, it’s still worthwhile to teach, even if they represent a miniscule percent of beings. An important reminder in our own times where #scale is so important, that it’s still worthwhile to do good things that are, in the grand scheme, small.

But yes, epistemic humility is also an important stance in the face of the wide world :blush::pray:

1 Like

Maybe it is not answered because to answer it would be counterproductive.

Imagine if Buddha said: “All beings would eventually attain enlightenment. Samsara will be empty, everyone enter Nirvana.”

The beings, me included, will think, “I will attain enlightenment eventually. My future is safe.” And then they will be lazy and not putting any effort.

1 Like

Hello Bodhisattva,

On this topic I choose to just accept the Buddha when he tells that some questions are unanswerable so it’s best to leave them aside. So we can focus on the goal of Right Knowledge and Right Liberation.

I think with the quote @Dhammanando cited, it’s not so much that the answer would be “heavy”, it’s that the question is attending unwisely and truly has no basis in the spiritual life. If for instance you hold to the view that all beings will or all beings won’t be enlightened that is having a view of strict Determinism. Fatalism was rejected by the Buddha because it argues peoples have no control over choice or intention.

This discussion, as well as your comment on divine essence, remind me about something @sujato wrote in another thread.

One of the culprits here is the elevationist tendency in white spirituality: everything is lifted from somewhere else and presented in the most hushed, awed tones of reverence, while at the same time any differences are explained away or ignored, because the highest value is ultimately not freedom or transcendence, but niceness.

This comment was about an entirely different topic(here’s Here’s a link to that thread . However the issue of “divine essence” this ultimate niceness. Which I’m not sure can really be taken from the Buddhist teaching. The goal is not an ultimate godhead or omniscience, but rather the ending of dukkha.