According to this Wikipedia article, “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing,” “is a question about the reason for basic existence which has been raised or commented on by a range of philosophers and physicists, including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Martin Heidegger, who called it “the fundamental question of metaphysics.”
German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz introduced his inquiry more than three hundred years ago.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, according to this Wikipedia article, “was a German polymath active as a mathematician, philosopher, scientist and diplomat who is credited, alongside Sir Isaac Newton, with the creation of calculus in addition to many other branches of mathematics, such as binary arithmetic and statistics. Leibniz has been called the “last universal genius“ due to his vast expertise across fields, which became a rarity after his lifetime with the coming of the Industrial Revolusion and the spread of specialized labor. He is a prominent figure in both the history of philosophy and the history of mathematics. He wrote books on philosophy, theology, ethics, politics, law, history, philology, games, music, and other studies. Leibniz also made major contributions to physics and technology, and anticipated notions that surfaced much later in probability theory, biology, medicine, geology, psychology, linguistics, and computer science.”
According to this article, Gottfried W. Leibniz (1646-1716) posed the question “in regard to the origin of the universe as part of his argument for the existence of God.“ The argument that justifies God as the answer to “Why Is There Something Rather Than Noting“ is known as the Leibniz Contingency Argument or the Leibniz Cosmological Argument.
The Leibniz Contingency Argument has the following four parts.
- Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.
- If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
- The universe exists.
- Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.
The author wrote, “As with all such logical arguments, if the premises are true (points 1-3), then the conclusion must be true (point 4). The question is whether or not the first three points are more likely to be true than they are false.“
“Certainly, everyone would agree that the universe exists, so at least we are safe with point number 3.
But what about points 1 and 2? Is it accurate to say that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence and that the sole explanation for the existence of the universe is God?“
Furthermore, the author opined that Leibniz’s Argument “uses the very existence of the universe as a means to show that there must be an uncaused cause of all things. It argues that there must be a Creator of the universe. There must be a God.“
However, from the Buddhist perspective, one must ask a fundamental question before making a logical argument, “Is making assumptions necessary when discussing the origin of the universe?“
Scientists make assumptions, and philosophers argue on a priori grounds because their knowledge comes from inferentially connected word-based knowledge. However, as Dr. Kuhn understood, while inferentially connected word-based knowledge informs how “everything is related to something else,“ it provides “no foundation between what I believe and what the world really is. So, how do I know anything?“ Without a foundation to understand what the world really is, making assumptions becomes the first step in the scientific method and philosophical opinions when they want to investigate what the world is.
However, a phrase such as “I opine“ does not exist in Buddhist sutras. Indeed, Buddhism is not a philosophical dissertation developed from assumptions Buddha made. Buddha does not need to make assumptions because his understanding of reality is through direct perception. By perceiving the nature of reality directly, Buddha does not need to make assumptions because his knowledge of reality is based on empirical grounds. Without making assumptions, it is unnecessary to make logical arguments.
An unavoidable problem with making assumptions is that they necessarily exclude other options, no matter how reasonable they seem to those who use inferentially connected word-based knowledge.
- For example, by assuming that his God created the universe, Leibniz excluded the possibility that the creation is a natural event.
- Furthermore, by limiting the origin of the universe to something that is “non-physical and immaterial“ and assuming that it must be God, Leibniz excludes the possibility that the “non-physical and immaterial“ object originating the universe is “non-physical and immaterial,“ but not God.
- By theorizing that the “uncaused cause of all things“ must be God, Leibniz excluded the possibility that the “uncaused cause of all things“ can be natural.
Indeed, while these assumptions all seem reasonable from the standpoint of those limited to using word-based knowledge to understand the world, it is not so from Buddha’s perspective because he uses direct perception to understand the “experiential contents“ of the mental world by becoming part of it.
Indeed, Buddha teaches that:
- The builder of the universe is “non-physical and immaterial,“ but it is not God. Instead, it is mentality.
- The universe is not created as if something from nothing, which is the premise for invoking God as the originator of the universe.
- Instead of God, Buddha teaches that the universe arose from a natural pre-existing “uncaused“ base called non-luminosity when conditions were right.
Mohe Zhiguan (Chinese=摩訶止觀) is a “voluminous“ and “comprehensive Buddhist doctrinal summa which discusses meditation and various key Buddhist doctrines. ….. It is particularly important in the development of Buddhist meditation….,“ and “a major focus of the Móhē zhǐguān is the practice of Samatha (止 zhǐ, calming or stabilizing meditation) and Vipassana (觀 guān, clear seeing or insight). Most importantly, Mohe Zhiguan “is founded firmly on scripture; every key assertion of the text is supported by sutra quotations.“
As a “doctrinal summa“ with “every key assertion of the text supported by sutra quotations,“ Mohe Zhiguan is comprehensive, highly credible, and authoritative.
In Mohe Zhiguan, Buddha teaches that:
- There are only two realities in the cosmos: “rupa and mentality (Chinese=不出色，心).“
- Furthermore, “mentality gives rise to rupa (Chinese=色從心造).
- “Everything is ontologically mental (Chinese=全體是心).“
The statement in Mohe Zhiguan makes clear that rupa and mentality are the only realities in the cosmos. However, rupa is also mental because mentality gives rise to it. “Everything is ontologically mental“ summarizes it all.
Indeed, as discussed when discussing the Five Aggregates, while rupas are considered “body,” “form,“ or “materiality“ of the world humans experience, they are, in fact, mental because they are “mere projections of consciousness.“
So, the question is, in a cosmos where there is only “rupa and mentality,“ what separates them when both are mental?
In his doctrine known as the Two Conditions of Dharma (Chinese=爾為法), Buddha teaches that all phenomena in the cosmos exist in one of two conditions: unconditioned (Chinese=無為) and conditioned (Chinese=有為).
An unconditioned phenomenon exists uncompounded, without conditions, and is permanent. On the contrary, conditioned phenomena are impermanent and produced through the concomitance of causes and conditions.
So, what separates the unconditioned and conditioned mentality? The answer is that they have different fluctuation statuses: the unconditioned phenomenon belongs to the quiescent mentality, while the conditioned phenomena belong to the fluctuating mentality. Moreover, Buddha teaches that there is an adventitious relationship between them, i.e., they are associated by chance and non-integral. In Buddhism, associating by chance means they are non-causal. Non-integral makes it clear that the quiescent and fluctuating mentality exist separately in their respective realms.
In his doctrine known as Such Is The Way of Dharma (Chinese=法爾如是), Buddha describes these two realms as “not causal, not natural (Chinese=非因緣, 非自然).“
Not Causal:
- “Not Causal“ means that these two realms exist naturally without external factors causing them.
- In other words, these two realms exist naturally without being caused by external factors or each other.
- “Suchness“ is another term for the Ultimate Reality that describes “the eternal nature of reality that is “ever thus,“ or “just so“ and free of all conceptual elaborations.”
- Additionally, Buddha teaches that mentality is inconceivable, i.e., “beyond conceptualization.” “Beyond conceptualization“ implies that even if mentality goes through the observation progress described by the Five Aggregates, it cannot be conceptualized.
- Because it cannot be conceptualized, mentality is an undetectable phenomenon.
- Since mentality is undetectable, it is also ineffable.
- Therefore, by describing these two realms as “Such Is The Ways of Dharma,“ Buddha conveys the message that the eternal nature of these two realms can only be described as “ever thus“ or “just so.“ As the late CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite used to say after his broadcast every evening, “And that’s the way it is.“ Suchness is Buddha’s way of relaying the same message: they are what they are.
- Furthermore, Buddha teaches that they are eternal and spread throughout the cosmos (Chinese=周遍法界).
Not Natural
- “Not Natural“ means that the nature of reality in these two realms is not the nature with which humans are familiar. Indeed, the natural existence of two realms of reality since time immemorial is not something humans are familiar with, nor can humans understand the mental nature of these two realms since their knowledge is from inferentially connected word-based knowledge. This is why Buddha teaches in Kalama Sutta that word-based knowledge can not lead to discovering the unchanging Truth. Therefore, Buddha teaches that it must be directly perceived.
The existence of two realms of reality in the cosmos is in contrast to what science teaches.
The image below represents the scientific view of how the universe is structured.
- According to NASA, the universe is a simple two-category structure: a 95.4% “dark“ realm consisting of dark energy and matter and a 4.6% atomic realm.
- However, according to NASA, “Dark matter and dark energy are mysterious substances that affect and shape the cosmos, and scientists are still trying to figure them out.“ In other words, 95.4% of the universe is unknown.
- The problem with that structure is that it leads to the Cosmological Constant Problem, deemed “the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of science“ and “the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics.“
The image below shows the construction of the cosmos according to Buddha.
As can be seen, Buddha’s cosmos has two realms of reality: the realm of unconditioned quiescent mentality and another conditioned with mentality fluctuating incessantly.
a) The Quiescent Realm
- Buddha deems the unconditioned quiescent realm the Ultimate Reality. The quiescent mentality is the Ultimate Reality because, without fluctuations, its “realness“ can never change.
- In Kantian philosophical terms, the Ultimate Reality exists as Noumenon and mentality as the thing-in-itself. Indeed, existing as Nothing but Mentality, the Ultimate Reality is the status of mentality as it is.
- As a realm of quiescent mentality, the Ultimate Reality fits Buddha’s definition of enlightenment. Therefore, Buddha deems it enlightened and luminous.
- The quiescent mentality is comparable to dark energy because they are considered where the universe expands in their respective doctrines. There is no comparison to the dark matter in Buddhism.
b) The Fluctuating Realm
- Contrary to the enlightened Ultimate Reality, Buddha deems the realm of fluctuating mentality defiled. Therefore, the realm of fluctuating mentality is known as non-luminosity (Romanized Sanskrit=tamasa; Chinese=無明).
- Non-luminosity is comparable to the quantum field in science for many reasons. For the current discussion, they are comparable because both are considered fluctuations as the foundational blocks of their respective universes, although what fluctuates in their fields is different.
- Therefore, the realm of incessantly fluctuating mentality is the realm of rupa, defined as “body,” “form,“ or “materiality,“ viz., that which has shape and is composed of matter” that arises from a fluctuating mentality, as Buddha teaches in Mohe Zhiguan.
c) Buddha
- As discussed previously when discussing direct perception, Buddha is part of the cosmos because he needs to be part of the cosmos to empirically understand all the “experiential content“ that nature has to offer through direct perception until enlightened.
With the structure of the cosmos explained, we can discuss the origin of the universe as humans experience it.
The significance of non-luminosity is that it is the first link in Buddha’s doctrine known as the Twelvefold Chain of Dependent Origination.
Twelvefold Chain of Dependent Origination (Romanized Sanskrit=Pratityasamutpada; Chinese=十二緣起), according to The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, is “in Sanskrit, “dependent origination,” “conditioned origination,“ lit., “origination by dependence“ (of one thing on another); one of the core teachings in the Buddhist doctrinal system.“ Additionally, “In one of the earliest summaries of the Buddha’s teaching, Buddha is said to have taught: “When this is present, that comes to be. /From the arising of this, that arises. /When this is absent, that does not come to be. /From the cessation of this, that ceases.”
In the doctrine, Buddha enumerates twelve interconnected links, with each link serving as the cause (Romanized Sanskrit=nidana, Chinese=因緣/尼陀那) for giving rise to the following link until the lifecycle ends.
Indeed, as the only uncaused natural phenomenon in its domain, non-luminosity is the only entity that can serve as the first link in a cycle that originates all rupas, the “body,” “form,“ or “materiality“ without causing a chicken and egg dilemma.
So, how does rupa arise from non-luminosity?
In Buddha’s universe where all are dependently originated, nothing arises without the simultaneous presence of the right conditions.
Condition (Romanized Sanskrit=pratyaya; Chinese=緣), according to The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, refers “to the subsidiary factors whose concomitance results in the production of an effect from a cause.” “For example, in the production of a sprout from a seed, the seed would be the cause (Hetu), while such factors as heat and moisture would be conditions (pratyaya.).“
While Buddha never indicates what conditions caused what, with the right conditions being necessary, the formation of anything in Buddha’s universe occurs only when the right conditions are present simultaneously. The origination of the universe from non-luminosity is no exception. The conscious universe could only arise from non-luminosity when natural conditions were right.
One of the conditions that scientists theorize is that the universe arose when the density of matter and the density of space were roughly equal. The universe exists now because the conditions were right for the universe to arise more than 13 billion years ago and continue to be so. It will go away when the right conditions no longer exist. It is why the universe is a conditioned and impermanent phenomenon.
Indeed, by empirically understanding the universe through direct perception, Buddha can teach that the “uncaused cause“ giving rise to the universe is non-luminosity, a naturally pre-existing eternal phenomenon. The material that builds the universe is mentality, which is “non-physical and immaterial,” as Leibniz anticipated. However, it is not God. In addition to our universe, it is possible that a multiverse can arise from the same “uncaused cause.“
(The above briefly summarizes Buddha’s core teachings, which may be unfamiliar to many people. If you are interested, you can find more detailed supporting posts on these teachings in the categories: Such Is The Way of Dharma, The Ultimate Reality, Non-Luminosity, and The Two Realms.)
So, in Buddha’s universe where everything is Nothing but Mentality, the answer to “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?“ is not about how the conscious universe was created from absolute nothingness. Instead, “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?“ is about how the inconceivable, conscious universe became the visible rupa.
The answer to that is the Observer Effect, discussed in the previous post.
As mentioned then, according to the Five Aggregates, “the human observation process begins when the conscious waves carrying the “experiential contents“ of the world impact the visual consciousness of the eyes, to the “experiential contents“ becoming “reading in of the mind,“ to their getting conceptualized “in ways we do not govern,“ to the conscious mind projecting the conceptualized “experiential contents“ to be “seen“ on the “screen“ as “the world we experience,“ as Dr. Fisch describes it, there is no change in reality because everything from the beginning to end is consciousness.”
Instead, “what changes during the human observation process is not reality but the different visibilities of the same reality. While the conscious waves are invisible, their epiphenomenon, “the world we experience,“ is visible.” Rupa is the epiphenomenon, “the world we experience,” as Dr. Fisch describes it.
By turning the invisible mentality into its visible epiphenomena, human observation explains, “Why Is There Something Than Nothing?“ in the conscious universe.“ There is something rather than nothing because of human observation.
That human observation causes the appearance of the universe should be verifiable because the universe should disappear when observation stops. To the extent that human observation requires an active mind, observation should stop when the mind is quiescent. A quiescent mind is what Buddha defines as an enlightened mind. In other words, enlightenment in the Buddhist way should lead to the disappearance of the universe.
The disappearance of the universe was indeed the enlightenment experience of the contemporary American Adyashanti and two ancient Chinese Dharma. When they became enlightened by keeping their minds quiescent, they all experienced the vanishing of the universe, thus illustrating its illusional nature. That our universe is illusional was probably not what Leibniz expected.
As discussed in the Three Delicate Marks, Buddha teaches that observation begins not in human beings but in the first conscious being in Buddha’s conscious universe, the smallest epiphenomena known as the Neighbor-to-Emptiness dust“ with the simultaneous debut of observer-observed duality and the Five Aggregates.
In other words, the event that caused the question, “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing,“ is a natural event buried deep in non-luminosity, the foundational block of the universe.
Indeed, the root cause of “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing“ is unanswerable without help from Buddha.
(If you like this post, please like it on our Facebook page and share. Thank you.)
