Why Does World Exist

[Lyric Maro]

Icame across this Ted Talk by philosopher and author Jim Holt which raised the question as to why the universe, as we know it, exists at all as opposed to existence. The viewpoints discussed in the video are all modern and none of them speak in the context of Indian metaphysical treatises and philosophies like the Gita, Advaita, Dvaita, Buddhism etc. Just out of sheer curiosity, I wanted to know the standpoint of various Indian philosophies and treatises when it comes to the question "why does the world exist at all as opposed to nothingness".

One answer would be if the world was eternal : The world would exist because it had always existed. However in the Pāli Canon, Gautama Buddha declares this undeclared, e.g. Majjhima Nikaya 63, Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta:

"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared,and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me?'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is noteternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmosis infinite,' ... is undeclared by me.

Mahāmati, it is like the city of the Gandharvas which the unwittedtake for a real city, though it is not so in fact. This city appearsin essence owing to their attachment to the memory of a city preservedin seed from beginningless time. This city is thus neither existentnor non-existent. In the same way, Mahāmati, clinging to the memory(vāsanā) of erroneous speculations and doctrines since beginninglesstime, they hold fast to ideas such as oneness and otherness, being andnon-being, and their thoughts are not at all clear about what is seenof Mind-only.

This leads somewhere interesting though. Putting the question of the eternity of the cosmos aside in the manner of Kant's unresolvable antimonies, or as a Derridean 'transcendental signified', in an interesting lecture by Zheng Li: What Is the Meaning of Beginningless? eternity is found in the eighth consciousness tathāgatagarbha, (which seems to be potentiality).

Because of the existence of the eighth consciousness tathāgatagarbha,the five aggregates and eighteen elements of all sentient beings, thetwelve links of dependent arising, and all other dharmas cansubsequently be produced and created. Based on the sequential arisingand ordering of all these dharmas, the concept of "time" is thenestablished. What is "time"? Time is a construct based on themomentary change between consecutive moments in the mind of sentientbeings.

As pure self-affection, time is not an acting affection that strikes aself which is at hand (vorhandenes Selbst). Instead, as pure itforms the essence (Wesen) of something like self-activating(Sich-selbst-angehen as self-relating, to relate to self,angegangen werden zu knnen). However, if it belongs to the essence of the finite subject to be able to be activated as a self,then timeas pure self-affection forms the essential structure of subjectivity.Only on the grounds of this self-hood can the finite creature be whatit must be: dependent upon taking things in stride (angewiesen aufHinnahme). (Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, 132) [GA 3, 1929]

So this now is subjective time originating with the self. Inevitably this self exists if it is now reading, and would not be thinking anything if it did not exist. Returning to the the question "why does the world exist at all as opposed to nothingness". Why do I exist? (Why does my world exist?) Did it always exist in the potentiality of its eighth consciousness tathāgatagarbha? On the possibility of ascertaining this I would return to The Kantbook, p. 200

Again a closed avenue. But returning to the question, now modified, why does one exist rather than not? One can imagine a few of the myriad reasons and causes, (e.g. supernovae, parental romance etc.), and the astronomically minute probability of one's existence. For a more traditional Indian perspective one direction of inquiry points to the eighth consciousness tathāgatagarbha.

Many thanks Sir Michael James for your uplifting article.

Yes, we should take a leaf out of Sri Ramana's book. He insisted that we should each investigate 'I' and discover for ourself what he had discovered.

We should try it even if we probably do not have the same prequalification ! Let us have the cheeky bravery and boldness !

Otherwise we will drown in the vast ocean of uncertainty.

As Michael James says let us find for ourself from our own experience a conclusive answer to all metaphysical questions.

So we may find that we are the infinite reality, which is untouched by the appearance of any duality, multiplicity or otherness.

The example of seeing only a mental image of a tree does not cover the whole range of perceptual sense impressions.

If ten people take a close look at the same tree and all ten observers feel the trunk, the bark, the branches of the same tree and all hear the chirping of the birds, the rustle of the leaves, smell the scent of the blossoms,eat the fruits of the same tree, saw up some branches of the same tree, climb the same tree, if some car drivers ram the same tree on the verge of the street, ten photographers take a photograph of the same tree, ten cameramen make a film about filmactors sitting on the same tree, the lightning has struck the same tree, the woodpecker knocks at the same tree,the gardener transplants the same tree transporting it with a truck, and so on... we need not doubt if the tree is part of an external world. To say that we have no adequate evidence that the mentioned tree actually exists we may calmly leave to the sceptical dreams of philosophers. If Hume cannot see any basis either in our experience or in reasoning for the common supposition that there is an external world that causes our perceptions (here the perception for instance of a tree)let him think so and be satisfied with his thoughts.

But as you say Michael,we should take that dispute as an opportunity to investigate ourself in order to find for ourself a conclusive answer to the question 'who or what am I ?

Michael,

I do easily comprehend the difficulty which your friend had accepting or understanding the quoted passage from section 616 of Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi:

"anankara shoots up like a rocket and instantaneously spreads out as the Universe".

Did Ramana ever explain that hair-raising assertion ?

With the greatest respect for Sri Ramana :

how should the ego be able to create the universe ? In which way could that work ?

Has Ramana ever seen a rocket ?

Where should be the missile launching site ?

Or did he speak of the word with the same spelling but botanic meaning of the word rocket ?

But the viewpoint of a jnani of the highest order maybe completely different from all our common world view or world order.

However, we ajnanis have experiences based only on our five senses.

But in the face of Maya's gigantic power of veiling reality I would not put anything past ego !

It would be nice if we could get some detailed clarification and expounded insights into the reasons about the claim:

"If the ego comes into existence,

everything comes into existence.

If the ego does not exist,

everything does not exist.

The ego itself is everything."

Because we have not the power to avoid the experience of the world so the fact that we experience the (waking) world in the waking state has sufficient evidence.

Our mind is not able to answer the mentioned question.

Even in waking state we don't have any certain knowledge if anything - including ourself - really do exist at all.

Not at all do we know anything for sure in the dream state and deep sleep.

But there is no need of an answer to the academic question.

We have no reason to doubt if the world does not exist in all three states. To ask the next - door neighbour and his confirmation of our speculation of an existing world during our sleeping time maybe make no scientific proof. Because we find essentially the same world at waking as we went to sleep is practical evidence enough.

That we have no certainty about that conclusion does not matter. To make further inquiries about it does not help us further.

Let the world be what it wants to seem to be.

Nevertheless let us investigate 'I' and as Sri Ramana insisted try to discover for ourself what he had discovered.

Incidentally the question "How can anything exist" would be interesting.

(continued from previous comment)

What if someone goes to the doctor for a colonoscopy and they find a 95% pre-cancerous polyp which the doctor removes? If they hadn't gone for the colonoscopy, it would have developed or not according to the natural laws, *regardless of whether they knew about it or not* - a patient who had not gone for a colonoscopy may only have become aware of it later once the cancer had spread. This suggests the world exists in its own way and operates according to certain natural laws.

Regarding whether the physical body exists in sleep: it is quite common for people to go to the toilet before going to bed. When they wake up in the morning, they need to urinate. Why is this? It's because the body continued to produce urine while they were sleeping, which filled the bladder.

We can infer from paleontology - with its study of the fossil records - that this planet existed long before the human species and human minds, and will presumably exist long after humans are wiped out.

Regarding the common question 'if a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear it, does it make a sound?': even though sound is when the vibrations in the air are detected by our ear, even with noone around the vibrations which we call 'sound waves' still occur, and this can be measured by various instruments.

Regarding differences in sense perceptions between different species, or general suggestions that what we experience is just a representation of the world in our brain: even though human senses see a wall completely differently to how a fly perceives it, if either of them walk towards the wall they will bump into it. This is because there is something physical there that we call a 'wall', regardless of differences in sensory apparatuses and perceptions between species.

I understand you question the assumptions we make about the information we receive through the senses, but to say the world doesn't exist at all without human minds is to ignore the vast majority of the evidence that we learn about the world.

I prefaced this by suggesting that the experience of the Self would not be dependent on any particular philosophical position or interpretation... but if we are going to have an explanation of the world as well, why not have one that incorporates and explains both the Self and the physical realities? Otherwise it will repeatedly conflict with the facts and practicalities of our day-to-day life (for example: needing to fix a leak in the roof).

If instead we recognise that the *concept* of the world we *imagine* based on the information received by the senses is always a projection of the mind no more real than a dream - because of the way the mind works whereby it always forms a conceptualisation based on the ego, and perceives and operates based on that, where our whole concept of the world is nothing more than that dualistic interpretation formed from the ideas and beliefs of the mind - can we not withdraw from the conceptual world and abide in the Self, without having to ignore or create a conflict with the practical realities and natural laws?

To suggest there is a physical world or that there are practical realities and natural laws may in itself automatically cause the reaffirmation of the mind's conceptual world and dualities that it perceives to be real... but this is the fault of the mind and the way that it operates, and not of inconscient matter!

Thanks

Martin Potter

3a8082e126