Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Tutareture
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2020 3:08 am

Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by Tutareture »

a cat is made up of flesh,organs,cells,molecules and atoms,quarks etc this cannot go in infinitely(even if infinity could exist) as Fr. Robert Spitzer writes,
Since every hypothetical conditioned reality is dependent upon other nonexistent conditioned realities for its existence, it will never come into existence. It does not matter whether one posits an infinite number of them; for each one in the series of dependence is still equal to nothing without the reality of the others. But if the “others” are nothing without others, and those “others” are nothing without still others, it does not matter if one postulates an infinite number of others (or arranges the infinite number of others in a circle). They are all still nothing in their dependence upon nonexistent conditions.
so there must be atleast one unconditioned reality .

this must also be immutable as Karlo Broussard writes:
The second key attribute is that of immutability (the inability to change). Change, as defined in the Aristotelian-Scholastic tradition, is simply the actualization of a potential within a being. For example, the cold tea that’s been sitting on my desk all afternoon has the potential to become hot and when I put it in the microwave or on the stove to re-heat it that potential will be made actual. As you read this article, you have the potential to learn something about change. Hopefully upon completing this article, you will have actualized that potential and thus will have experienced a growth in knowledge, i.e., change.

Now, every instance of change requires a changer (there must exist something that brings about the change). To use our previous example, the cold tea becomes hot due to the electromagnetic radiation in the microwave or the heat on the stove. Such a principle is not merely derived from our experiential knowledge of examples, like the tea getting hot, but from the very nature of change itself, which, recall, is the actualization of some potential. The tea’s potential to become hot cannot be actualized without something already actual precisely because the hotness of the tea is a mere potential when it is cold.

Furthermore, that which actualizes the tea’s potential for hotness would have to be something other than the tea itself. It could not actualize its own potential for hotness because in such a case it would have to be actually hot prior to actualizing the potential to become hot. In other words, it would have to be actually hot and potentially hot in the same respect at the same place and time. Obviously this amounts to an intrinsic contradiction and thus cannot be true. Therefore, the tea’s potential to become hot can only be actualized by something already actual and that something must be something other than the tea itself.

In light of this understanding of change, there are two ways in which we can see why the unconditioned reality cannot change.

First, if the one unconditioned reality could change, then that would mean it would depend upon something outside itself to actualize its potential, in which case an aspect of its being would be conditioned by that actualizer. But the unconditioned reality cannot have any aspect of its being that is conditioned by something outside itself for the simple reason that it is unconditioned reality. Therefore, the unconditioned reality cannot change.

The second line of reason that precludes mutability for the unconditioned reality involves its absolute simplicity (or the fact that it is pure being or pure existence without any real or really possible incompatible state of being on the same level of simplicity). According to the Aristotelian-Scholastic tradition, something that is pure being or pure existence is that which is purely actual. The reason is that something is in act in as much as it exists. To return to our previous example, the state of hotness for the tea did not exist until the heat on the stove made it actual. Grant it the potential for hotness was present in the tea in a way that other potentials are not (such as the potential to become a dragon) but it was not there actually while the tea was still cold. Therefore, existence and actuality are interchangeable. So, if unconditioned reality is pure existence then it must be pure actuality.

Now, something lacks potentiality in as much as it is in act. The cold tea has the potential for hotness but lacks or loses that potential when it becomes actually hot. So, if unconditioned reality is pure actuality, then it would be devoid of all potentiality – that is to say there is no aspect of being that a purely actual being can potentially acquire or lose.

Now, if change involves the actualization of some potential, and unconditioned reality has no potentiality whatsoever, then it logically follows that unconditioned reality cannot be subject to change. Therefore, the unconditioned reality is immutable.
it must also be immaterial as Karlo Broussard writes:
Now, the argument for the attribute of immateriality follows a very similar line of reason as does the argument for eternality.

First, if the unconditioned reality was restricted in its mode of existence by matter, then it would be restricted by a spatial restriction since all matter has extension in space – it would exist here instead of there. Now, such an intrinsic restriction would allow for a real or really possible incompatible state of being that would be excluded from it. But recall that the unconditioned reality cannot have any real or really possible incompatible states of being on the same level of simplicity that would be excluded from it less we end up with an intrinsic contradiction. Therefore, the unconditioned reality cannot be restricted in its mode of existence by a spatial restriction. And if the unconditioned reality cannot be restricted by a spatial restriction, then it cannot be restricted by matter. In other words, it must be immaterial.

Furthermore, like eternality, the second argument for immateriality comes from the immutability of the unconditioned reality. We know from our experience and from reason that all material things are subject to change. The reason is that all material things have potentiality built into them. The tree has the potential to be cut down; it’s wood to be made into paper. My body has the potential to break down into its component parts and become dust in the grave. The hot tea has the potential to become cool. So, everything that is material is subject to change. But, as proven above, the unconditioned reality is immutable. Therefore, the unconditioned reality must be immaterial.
This must be a continuous creator as kshanabhangavada is impossible logically speaking.if a thing perishes,its predecessor cannot arise after the fact especially when this happens simultanouesly.it cannot be atoms,as atoms are material.
אַל-תְּהִי צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה, וְאַל-תִּתְחַכַּם יוֹתֵר: לָמָּה, תִּשּׁוֹמֵם. Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself? -Ecclesiastes 7:16
User avatar
Tutareture
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2020 3:08 am

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by Tutareture »

Karlo Broussard also talks about the immateriality because of absolute simplicity:
The first step for understanding this metaphysical idea of absolute simplicity is to think about how the realities of our experience are restricted to particular modes of being. They have distinguishing notes or diversifying principles that makes them this being instead of that being. These distinguishing notes or diversifying principles constitute what philosophers call restrictions or boundaries. Such restrictions can be spatial (X exists here instead of there), temporal (X exists now instead of then), or a way of existence (X exists and behaves in this way, the way of an electron for example, instead of that way, the way of a proton—this is called “essence” in Scholastic jargon).

Now, it’s important to note that such restrictions (or boundaries) cause exclusion between existents and make for incompatible states of being. Take for example the proton and the electron. The restricted way of behaving like a proton (the attraction of electrons) excludes and is incompatible with the restricted way of behaving like an electron (the repulsion of electrons)—in other words the proton is not going to act and behave like the electron in the same respect at the same place and time. They are incompatible states of being—the proton exists and behaves in this way as opposed to that way (the way of an electron) and the electron exists and behaves in this way as opposed to that way (the way of a proton).

Moreover, even though two existents may exist in the same way (i.e., have the same essence), they still can be separated or excluded from one another due to spatial or temporal restrictions. For example, if proton A exists here, then proton B is excluded from proton A because it cannot exist in the same spatial point at the same time (spatial restriction). If proton A exists now but proton B existed then, then obviously proton A would be excluded from proton B because proton B no longer exists while proton A does (temporal restriction).

So, in short, restrictions (or boundaries) exclude and make for incompatibility.

The second step for understanding absolute simplicity considers how some realities are less exclusive and more compatible with other modes of being and consequently have fewer restrictions that limit their mode of existence (i.e., less boundaries). Take for example, as Fr. Spitzer does in his book, the electromagnetic field, the medium through which protons and electrons interact. What if that field had the existential restrictions of an electron—that is to say it existed in the electron way and not the proton way? Obviously the protons would not be able to interact with it because they would be excluded by and incompatible with the field’s electron restrictions. What if the electromagnetic field had the existential restrictions of a proton? Similarly, the electrons would not be able to interact with it because they would be excluded by and incompatible with the field’s proton restrictions. But the protons and electrons do interact with the electromagnetic field. Therefore, the electromagnetic field is compatible with both the restrictions of the proton and the restrictions of the electron. It is less exclusive and more inclusive.

What this means is that the electromagnetic field must have fewer restrictions (or boundaries) in its mode of existence. Why? Because restrictions cause exclusion and incompatibility; thus less exclusion and more compatibility means fewer restrictions. Since the electromagnetic field is less exclusive and more compatible than protons and electrons, it follows that it has fewer restrictions that limit its mode of being—metaphysically speaking it’s simpler in nature (higher level of simplicity) than protons and electrons.

So, we have arrived at an important metaphysical principle: the less exclusive and more compatible a thing is with other realities, the fewer restrictions it has to limit its mode of being (less boundaries)—that is to say the simpler it is.

In light of this, we can ask for step three, “What would an absolutely simple being be like?” Well, since the simplicity of a thing is proportioned to the degree of restrictions that limit its mode of existence, it follows that a reality that is absolutely simple would have no restrictions whatsoever to limit its act of being. In other words, it would be totally unrestricted in its act of being—not being restricted to existing in this way or that way; nor being restricted to existing here instead of there; nor being restricted to existing now instead of then; but simply be pure existence or pure being itself (the scholastic jargon is "Pure Actuality" since something is in act in as much as it exists). Consequently, such a reality would be totally compatible with and inclusive of any real or possibly real mode of being. Nothing would (or could) be excluded from it because it would have no restrictions to give rise to exclusion or incompatibility.

Now that we have explained what absolute simplicity is in the metaphysical sense, we are in a position to move to the question, “Is unconditioned reality, considered in and of itself, absolutely simple or pure being itself?”

We can start with the following idea: Any reality X that has restrictions (thus limiting its mode of being to existing in this way and not that way; or existing here instead of there; or existing now instead of then, i.e., not absolutely simple) is going to have a real or really possible incompatible state (i.e., a not X) on the same level of simplicity. For example, it’s the restrictive existence of the proton that allows for the real possibility of the incompatible state of the electron (as well as neutrons and perhaps a billion of other possible other types of particles). Similarly, the restrictive existence of the electromagnetic field allows for the real or real possibility of the incompatible state of other kinds of fields, such as the neutrino field, the gravitational field, the quark field, and the electron field. So, the question of whether unconditioned reality itself is absolutely simple is really a question of whether unconditioned reality itself can have any real or really possible incompatible states of being on the same level of simplicity (like the protons and non-protons; like the electromagnetic field and non-electromagnetic fields). The answer to such a question is no.

Let’s say for argument sake that unconditioned reality was reality “X” and due to its restrictions it had a real or really possible incompatible state of being, “not X,” on the same level of simplicity. Since restrictions cause exclusion and incompatibility, the real or really possible state, “not X,” would be incompatible with and thus exclude from itself the only thing that can ultimately fulfill the conditions for its existence, namely unconditioned reality (see the previous post). But if this incompatible state of being, “not X,” would exclude from itself and be incompatible with the only thing that could ultimately fulfill its conditions for existence, namely unconditioned reality, then it could not in principle be real or really possible—i.e., it couldn’t exist or even possibly exist.

For example, if unconditioned reality had the restrictive mode of existence of a proton, then unconditioned reality would be incompatible with an electron and consequently the electron would be excluded from unconditioned reality (remember protons and electrons are incompatible states of being due to their existential restrictions or boundaries). Now, if the electron was excluded from unconditioned reality, then the electron could not exist because it would be excluded from the only condition that is sufficient for its existence (remember every conditioned reality has its conditions fulfilled ultimately by unconditioned reality). The same reasoning applies if we reverse the roles and postulate unconditioned reality having the restrictions of an electron in which case protons could not exist.

A similar outcome would ensue if unconditioned reality was restricted to a position in a spatial manifold or a point in a temporal manifold. Consider for example unconditioned reality existing in a spatial position that an electron or a proton was not. In such a case that electron or proton could not have its conditions fulfilled (and thus not exist) because unconditioned reality would be unable to interact with it in order to fulfill its conditions. If unconditioned reality existed at a point in time when a particular electron or proton did not, then obviously that electron or proton would never have its conditions fulfilled and would be nonexistent.

So, we can see how if unconditioned reality had any restrictions that would give rise to any real or really possible incompatible state of being on the same level of simplicity then that state of being could not exist—it could not be real or really possible.

If one has “eyes to see and ears to hear,” the hypothesis that unconditioned reality can have a real or really possible incompatible state of being on the same level of simplicity is an intrinsic contradiction. Think about it in light of what we have proven so far: If unconditioned reality has a real or really possible incompatible state of being on the same level of simplicity, then such a state of being could not have its conditions fulfilled—i.e., it could not in principle be real or really possible. So what we have here is the following: if restriction in unconditioned reality, then a real or really possible incompatible state of being on the same level of simplicity that cannot be real or really possible. This obviously is a contradiction and thus cannot be true. Therefore, unconditioned reality cannot be any reality that would have a real or really possible incompatible state of being.

Now, if unconditioned reality cannot have any real or really possible incompatible state of being on the same level of simplicity, then it cannot have any restrictions (or boundaries) that would limit its mode of being to existing in this way instead of that way; or here instead of there; or now instead of then. Why? Remember, if restrictions, then incompatibility – no incompatibility, therefore no restrictions. If unconditioned reality itself has no restrictions to its mode of being, then nothing (whether real or really possible) can be excluded from it, which means that it must be compatible with and inclusive of all other real or really possible restricted states of being. In other words, unconditioned reality must be pure being itself or pure existence itself without any restrictions whatsoever to its act of existence – in short it must be absolutely simple.
אַל-תְּהִי צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה, וְאַל-תִּתְחַכַּם יוֹתֵר: לָמָּה, תִּשּׁוֹמֵם. Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself? -Ecclesiastes 7:16
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by cappuccino »

Tutareture wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:48 am there must be at least one unconditioned reality
Nirvana is the final dimension
User avatar
Tutareture
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2020 3:08 am

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by Tutareture »

cappuccino wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:33 am
Tutareture wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:48 am there must be at least one unconditioned reality
Nirvana is the final dimension
Nirvana is not a continuous creator of all that exists,nor is it a spiritual reality.its simply breaking up of the aggregates .
אַל-תְּהִי צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה, וְאַל-תִּתְחַכַּם יוֹתֵר: לָמָּה, תִּשּׁוֹמֵם. Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself? -Ecclesiastes 7:16
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by cappuccino »

Tutareture wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:35 am its simply breaking up of the aggregate
“There is that sphere where there is no earth, no water, no fire nor wind; no sphere of infinity of space, of infinity of consciousness, of nothingness or even of neither-perception-nor non-perception; there, there is neither this world nor the other world, neither moon nor sun; this sphere I call neither a coming nor a going nor a staying still, neither a dying nor a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution and no support: this, just this, is the end of dukkha.”
~ Ud 8.1
User avatar
Tutareture
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2020 3:08 am

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by Tutareture »

cappuccino wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:37 am
Tutareture wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:35 am its simply breaking up of the aggregate
“There is that sphere where there is no earth, no water, no fire nor wind; no sphere of infinity of space, of infinity of consciousness, of nothingness or even of neither-perception-nor non-perception; there, there is neither this world nor the other world, neither moon nor sun; this sphere I call neither a coming nor a going nor a staying still, neither a dying nor a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution and no support: this, just this, is the end of dukkha.”
~ Ud 8.1
karlo broussard in his other articles has proven this reality must be personal possesing the three Omnis(omnipotence,omniscience,and omnipotence).nirvana is a state of being for the arhat,and when he dies he goes into complete cessation.that is theravadan orthodoxy.if you believe nirvana is some spiritual sphere and posseses volition,and is the creator of all that exists then you can reconcile it with these new philosophical proofs.
אַל-תְּהִי צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה, וְאַל-תִּתְחַכַּם יוֹתֵר: לָמָּה, תִּשּׁוֹמֵם. Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself? -Ecclesiastes 7:16
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by cappuccino »

Tutareture wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:40 am nirvana is a state of being for the arhat, and when he dies he goes into complete cessation.
speaking falsehood of Nirvana is evil

:shrug:
SarathW
Posts: 21234
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by SarathW »

Unconditioned is not a thing or reality in my opinion.
In Buddhism, it is hard to answer this question as it is considered one of the unanswerable questions.
However, I agree that it may not be spiritual.
It depends on what you call spiritual.
Do you mean there could be more than one unconditioned?
:D
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by cappuccino »

SarathW wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:04 am it is considered one of the unanswerable questions.
No…
SarathW
Posts: 21234
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by SarathW »

cappuccino wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:07 am
SarathW wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:04 am it is considered one of the unanswerable questions.
No…
"What lies on the other side of release?"

"Unbinding lies on the other side of release."

"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 gains a footing in 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."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by cappuccino »

SarathW wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:13 am "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."
dhammawheel
the Blessed One wrote:There is that sphere where there is no earth, no water, no fire nor wind
User avatar
Tutareture
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2020 3:08 am

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by Tutareture »

cappuccino wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:16 am
SarathW wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:13 am "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."
dhammawheel
the Blessed One wrote:There is that sphere where there is no earth, no water, no fire nor wind
Do you believe nirvana is a continuous creator of all that exists and is absolutely unique?
אַל-תְּהִי צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה, וְאַל-תִּתְחַכַּם יוֹתֵר: לָמָּה, תִּשּׁוֹמֵם. Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself? -Ecclesiastes 7:16
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by cappuccino »

Tutareture wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:57 am Do you believe nirvana is a continuous creator of all that exists and is absolutely unique?
Omega is Nirvana
User avatar
Tutareture
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2020 3:08 am

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by Tutareture »

SarathW wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:04 am Unconditioned is not a thing or reality in my opinion.
In Buddhism, it is hard to answer this question as it is considered one of the unanswerable questions.
However, I agree that it may not be spiritual.
It depends on what you call spiritual.
Do you mean there could be more than one unconditioned?
:D
No because it's absolutely unique.and immateriality must be a key attribute of any unconditioned reality.
אַל-תְּהִי צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה, וְאַל-תִּתְחַכַּם יוֹתֵר: לָמָּה, תִּשּׁוֹמֵם. Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself? -Ecclesiastes 7:16
User avatar
Tutareture
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2020 3:08 am

Re: Why there must be atleast one unconditioned reality and why it must be spiritual?

Post by Tutareture »

cappuccino wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:59 am
Tutareture wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:57 am Do you believe nirvana is a continuous creator of all that exists and is absolutely unique?
Omega is Nirvana
But the unconditioned reality is the source of all conditioned things by definition .if you reject God I don't know how you will believe in a unconditioned reality that is immaterial,unique,simple and possessing the three omnis as karlo broussard has proven.
אַל-תְּהִי צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה, וְאַל-תִּתְחַכַּם יוֹתֵר: לָמָּה, תִּשּׁוֹמֵם. Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself? -Ecclesiastes 7:16
Post Reply