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, “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 really 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 and becoming part of it, 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 could be 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 origin of the universe is indeed from something “non-physical and immaterial” but might not be God.
- By theorizing that the “uncaused cause of all things” must be God, Leibniz excluded the possibility that the “uncaused cause of all things” could 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 universe is not created as if something from nothing, which is the premise for invoking God as the originator of the universe.
- The universe originated from something “non-physical and immaterial,” but it is not God.
- Instead, it is mentality.
We start the discussion with Buddha’s teachings in the Mohe Zhigua.
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.”
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 at the highest level of the meditative state, one can perceive directly the inconceivable realm (Chinese=不可思議境).
As discussed earlier, inconceivability means that mentality is “beyond all conceptualization.” Furthermore, “beyond conceptualization” refers to the fact that mentality cannot be conceptualized “in ways we do not govern” and, therefore, cannot be “seen” as “the world we experience,” all terms Dr. Fisch uses in this discussion on “How Do We Know What We Know,” discussed earlier.
In other words, the “inconceivable realm” refers to a realm with Nothing but Mentality.
So, what insight can one expect after reaching the inconceivable realm (Chinese=不可思議境)?
First, a rhetorical question:
“What insight can be had (Chinese=所觀者何)?”
The answer:
“Nothing outside of rupa and citta (Chinese=不出色，心).”
“Citta gives rise to rupa (Chinese=色從心造).”
“All are ontologically citta (Chinese=全體是心). “
While Citta, by definition, is mentality, rupa (Chinese=色), according to The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, is “in Sanskrit and Pali, “body,” “form,” or “materiality,” viz., that which has shape and is composed of matter. More generally, rupa refers to materiality, which serves as the object of the five sensory consciousness (vijnana): visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile.”
In other words, rupa represents the “body,” “form,” or “materiality” of the physical world humans experience through what they see, hear, smell, taste, and touch.
So, “citta gives rise to rupa (Chinese=色從心造)” is Buddha’s statement that the world was not created as if something from nothing, but it originated from mentality, referring specifically to the fluctuating mentality of non-luminosity (Chinese=無明).
To discuss how the universe originated from non-luminosity and its “noncausal” nature, we start with Buddha’s teaching known as the Two Conditionalities of Dharma. In the Two Conditionalities of Dharma (Chinese=二為法), Buddha teaches that everything in the cosmos exists either unconditioned (Chinese=無為) or conditioned (Chinese=有為). Dharma is a Romanized Sanskrit word that can mean phenomena.
An unconditioned phenomenon exists uncompounded and “not subject to impermanence.” Citta, the quiescent mentality of the Ultimate Reality, is the only unconditioned phenomenon in the cosmos.
The relationship between the Ultimate Reality and Citta is comparable to philosopher Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Noumenon and the thing-in-itself. Like Noumenon, the Ultimate Reality “exists indepedently of human senses.” Like the thing-in-itself, Citta, as Nothing but Mentality, “is the status of the object as it is.”
In contrast to the quiescent mentality of the Ultimate Reality, non-luminosity is a realm of the fluctuating mentality, existing conditioned, compounded, and impermanently because it “is produced through the concomitance of causes and conditions. Since non-luminosity is the foundational block of Buddha’s conscious universe, it exists conditionally and impermanently because all its phenomena “are produced through the concomitance of causes and conditions.”
Moreover, Buddha teaches that there is an adventitious relationship between the Ultimate Reality and non-luminosity, i.e., they are associated by chance and non-integral. In Buddhism, associating by chance means there cannot be a causal relationship between them. 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 teaches that Citta and non-luminosity are “noncausal, not natural (Chinese=非因緣, 非自然).” In other words, Citta and non-luminosity exist without any external factors causing them to exist. In fact, in Such Is The Way of Dharma, Buddha teaches that they have existed since time immemorial. The two realms are “not natural” to humans because they are inconceivable to those who understand reality solely through inferentially connected word-based knowledge.
Additionally, in the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (Chinese=勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經, English = Lion’s Roar of Queen Śrīmālā), Buddha describes non-luminosity as “without beginning (Chinese=無始無明).” Furthermore, in Śūraṅgama Sūtra, upon inquiry from Purna (Chinese=富樓那), a disciple of Buddha and the “foremost in expounding the Dharma,” “Where does non-luminosity without a beginning come from (Chinese=無始無明是怎麼來的?)” Buddha replied, “There is no reason; it comes from nowhere and goes nowhere (Chinese=它沒有原因，它沒有來處，也沒有去處).” In other words, non-luminosity is noncausal and eternal, with no beginning or end.
However, the most significant reason that non-luminosity is noncausal is its role as 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 “Buddhis” 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.
Significantly, non-luminosity is the first link in the Twelvefold Chain of Dependent Origination. Indeed, only when non-luminosity is noncausal can it serve as the first link in the Twelvefold Chain of Dependent Origination without causing a chicken-egg dilemma.
As “Dependent Origination” implies, everything in Buddha’s universe exits dependently upon the simultaneous presence of the right conditions. The origin of the universe is no exception.
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 specifically, 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.
Consequently, in Buddha’s universe where everything is mental and inconceivable to humans, 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 universe became visible.
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.
So, what changes upon observation if reality does not change?
Dr. Fisch gives a hint of what changes when he describes “the world we experience” as can be “seen on the screen.” Indeed, while the projection from the conscious mind, “the world we experience,” is visible, the input to the consciousness of the eyes, “the waves of consciousness carrying the “experiential contents” is invisible, even though they are both consciousness.”
By turning the invisible waves of consciousness into their visible epiphenomena, which is the universe, human observation explains, “Why Is There Something Than Nothing?” There is something rather than nothing because human observation makes the inconceivable mental world visible.
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 the Observation Effect 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 delusional misunderstanding of reality.
In other words, the event that caused the question, “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing,” starts with the first and smallest conscious being in the cosmos buried deep in the foundational block of the universe, non-luminosity,
Indeed, “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing” would be unanswerable without Buddha’s direct perception, which allowed him to understand the inconceivable mental world and teach it to humanity.
(If you like this post, please like it on our Facebook page and share. Thank you.)
