"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"

[SarathW]

Following question and answer extract from Cula Vedalla Sutta

http://buddhasutra.com/files/cula_vedalla_sutta.htm

===========
"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"

"You've gone too far, friend Visakha. You can't keep holding on up to the limit of questions. For the holy life plunges into Unbinding, culminates in Unbinding, has Unbinding as its final end. If you wish, go to the Blessed One and ask him the meaning of these things. Whatever he says, that's how you should remember it."
======

Say some one ask the question "Who create God" when some one answer "God create the world"
Can the answer be "You have gone too far .......... etc"

If not why?

[culaavuso]

Say some one ask the question "Who create God" when some one answer "God create the world"
Can the answer be "You have gone too far .......... etc"

All of the previous questions in the series of MN 44 have a definite observable phenomenon as their answer. When asking "Who first created the world?" the answer seems to be given in SN 15.3:

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.

Thus answering "God created the world" is construing what is inconstruable, or to use the words of the Culavedalla Sutta the question has "gone too far".

[tiltbillings]

"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?" Simply one is no longer bound by conditioning experience with greed, hatred, and delusion. What more do you want?

[binocular]

Say some one ask the question "Who create God" when some one answer "God create the world"
Can the answer be "You have gone too far .......... etc"

All of the previous questions in the series of MN 44 have a definite observable phenomenon as their answer. When asking "Who first created the world?" the answer seems to be given in SN 15.3:

From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.

Thus answering "God created the world" is construing what is inconstruable, or to use the words of the Culavedalla Sutta the question has "gone too far".

I think the question has "gone too far" in that it is being asked.

To say "answering "God created the world" is construing what is inconstruable" is based on the conviction that one _knows_ the exact mental state and qualification of the person who says "God created the world."
It is typically theists who say "God created the world." Can we really say we know their exact mental state and qualification for making that claim? I don't think we do. Perhaps they are in fact telling the truth, but it is us who are unable to see it.

I think "Who created the world?" is going too far because it is a basic existential question. It is in the nature of basic existential questions that we cannot meaningfully ask them of anyone, because they are such basic existential questions.
"What is the meaning of my life?", "Who am I?" are further examples of basic existential questions.

Consider what happens when one asks someone a question like "Who created the world?", "What is the meaning of my life?", or "Who am I?".
Of course, many people are all too willing to reply to such questions. And typically, the asker is not satisified with the answer (at least not satisfied for long). There can be a feeling of being violated, abused by the reply, the reply seems to be forced upon oneself somehow.

I think this is because those questions are such that there would need to exist a relationship of total trust in order for the asker to accept the reply; the asker would need to totally trust the person whom they are asking those questions. But since that trust typically doesn't exist between the asker and the replier, there is a sense of being violated by the reply.

Basic existential questions necessarily address issues pertaining to the person asking the question and to their relationship to the person of whom they are asking the question. And as long as those issues are not cleared up, asking basic existential questions necessarily goes too far.

I've never yet seen this explanation before, it is the only one that makes sense to me. I think it also fits in with Buddhism. I find that the way the Buddha answers questions in the Pali Canon is such that it requires no or minimum trust. So that a person asking a question, even though they are asking a basic existential question, typically doesn't leave the Buddha empty-handed, violated or confused, instead, they leave with something they can actually work with. (Whereas the usual experience of asking basic existential questions is that one leaves the replier empty-handed, violated or confused, at a loss what to do next.)

[barcsimalsi]

Say some one ask the question "Who create God" when some one answer "God create the world"
Can the answer be "You have gone too far .......... etc"

If not why?

No, because the question is advocating creation and intelligent design hence the creator must also has a creator and so forth to keep the logic alive.

In Buddhism, creation of the world does not apply. It is formation and natural order.

[Bakmoon]

Say some one ask the question "Who create God" when some one answer "God create the world"
Can the answer be "You have gone too far .......... etc"

If not why?

I think that a persona actually can answer the question "who created God" with something like "God is eternal so the question doesn't apply." I don't think the answer is actually true of course, but I also don't think the answer is strictly speaking logically inconsistent. The only problem with the answer (well, it's actually kind of a big one actually) is that the answer assumes the existence of God, which has to be demonstrated prior, but that is a substantive problem with its initial premise rather than a problem with the actual logic of the answer.

[waterchan]

Say some one ask the question "Who create God" when some one answer "God create the world"
Can the answer be "You have gone too far .......... etc"

If not why?

Some questions are valid. Some are nonsense.

"Who created God?" is a valid question.
"What lies on the other side of unbinding?" is a nonsense question.
"How many angles does a potato have?" is a nonsense question.

[Ananda26]

Following question and answer extract from Cula Vedalla Sutta

http://buddhasutra.com/files/cula_vedalla_sutta.htm

===========
"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"

"You've gone too far, friend Visakha. You can't keep holding on up to the limit of questions. For the holy life plunges into Unbinding, culminates in Unbinding, has Unbinding as its final end. If you wish, go to the Blessed One and ask him the meaning of these things. Whatever he says, that's how you should remember it."
======

The question and answer in the sutta lead to Nibbana. Nibbana is discernable by the wise. The question has the assumption what is the counterpart or what lies on the other side of Unbinding, but one may need to abandon a false assumption implied in the wording of the question.

When a fire is extinguished where does it go to the east the west the north or the south? That does not apply, the fire is simply reckoned as extinguished.

Similarly the question what lies on the other side of Unbinding does not apply. The Arahant who has attained final Nibbana is understood as freed from suffering, freed from the round of rebirths.

[binocular]

Some questions are valid. Some are nonsense.

Who decides which is which, and by what criteria?

[Ananda26]

Some questions are valid. Some are nonsense.

Who decides which is which, and by what criteria?

There are 4 types of questions. The question calling for a reply. The question calling for an explanation. The question calling for a counter question, and the question to be set aside.

Buddha has demonstrated his response to questions many times in the suttas.