<p>This sounds like the type of philosophical questions that is mentioned in the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Acintita Sutta</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness &amp; vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You just cannot speculate on things like this. It will make you mad, says the Buddha.</p>
<p>It also doesn't help with the path to end suffering - see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Parable of the Poisoned Arrow</a>. This means such type of questioning has no practical value.</p>
<p>From <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn63/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 63</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Here, venerable sir, while I was alone in meditation, the following
thought arose in my mind: ‘These speculative views have been left
undeclared by the Blessed One…If he does not declare these to me, then
I will abandon the training and return to the low life.’ If the
Blessed One knows ‘the world is eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare
to me ‘the world is eternal’; if the Blessed One knows ‘the world is
not eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare to me ‘the world is not
eternal.’ If the Blessed One does not know either ‘the world is
eternal’ or ‘the world is not eternal, ’ then it is straightforward
for one who does not know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I
do not see.’</p>
<p>“If the Blessed One knows ‘the world is finite,’…‘the world is
infinite,’…‘the soul is the same as the body,’…‘the soul is one thing
and the body another,’…‘after death a Tathāgata exists,’ …’after death
a Tathāgata does not exist,’…If the Blessed One knows ‘after death a
Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare
that to me; if the Blessed One knows ‘after death a Tathāgata neither
exists nor does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare that to me. If
the Blessed One does not know either ‘after death a Tathāgata both
exists and does not exist’ or ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists
nor does not exist,’ then it is straightforward for one who does not
know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’”</p>
<p>“How then, Mālunkyāputta, did I ever say to you: ‘Come, Mālunkyāputta,
lead the holy life under me and I will declare to you “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Did you ever tell me: ‘I will lead the
holy life under the Blessed One, and the Blessed One will declare to
me “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists
nor does not exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“That being so, misguided
man, who are you and what are you abandoning?</p>
<p>“If anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
meanwhile that person would die. Suppose, Mālunkyāputta, a man were
wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and
companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him.
The man would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow
until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin
or a merchant or a worker.’ And he would say: ‘I will not let the
surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man
who wounded me;…until I know whether the man who wounded me was tall
or short or of middle height;… until I know whether the man who
wounded me was dark or brown or golden-skinned;…until I know whether
the man who wounded me lives in such a village or town or city;…until
I know whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a cross-bow;
…until I know whether the bowstring that wounded me was fibre or reed
or sinew or hemp or bark;…until I know whether the shaft that wounded
me was wild or cultivated;… until I know with what kind of feathers
the shaft that wounded me was fitted—whether those of a vulture or a
heron or a hawk or a peacock or a stork;…until I know with what kind
of sinew the shaft that wounded me was bound—whether that of an ox or
a buffalo or a deer or a monkey;…until I know what kind of arrowhead
it was that wounded me—whether spiked or razor-tipped or curved or
barbed or calf-toothed or lancet-shaped.’ “All this would still not be
known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Mālunkyāputta,
if anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me: “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
meanwhile that person would die.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-29T05:30:17.350Z
Yes, speculative philosophy might make us an Immanuel Kant, a Hegel, a Jean-paul Sartre, a Camus, nothing more. We may win the Nobel , but will stay angry, vicious, dissatisfied, sad. Let us rather enter the very marrow of Reality, as it were, and go beyond conditionality into the wordless , the Unconditioned Anuttara - Nibbana. Metta. – Sushil Fotedar
Sushil Fotedar
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-29T06:19:32.407Z
@SushilFotedar awesome
SacrificialEquation
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-29T03:50:15.187Z
2021-03-29T04:04:49.390Z
2021-03-29T04:04:49.390Z
ruben2020
<p>The Buddha thought everything is composed of elements (MN 115) and, for conditioned elements, the process of conditioning, called 'idappaccayatā' (SN 12.20).</p>
<p>Since the Buddha said the cessation without remainder of the four physical elements cannot be known (DN 11), it is inferred how the four elements came to be also cannot be known.</p>
<p>Therefore, the Buddha taught the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness &amp; vexation to anyone who conjectured about it. Acintita Sutta</em></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><em>'I will not engage in talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, or Unbinding — i.e., talk about kings, robbers, &amp; ministers of state; armies, alarms, &amp; battles; food &amp; drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, &amp; scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women &amp; heroes; the gossip of the street &amp; the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, <strong>the creation of the world &amp; of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.</strong>' In this way he is alert there. MN 122</em></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-01T06:37:12.777Z
2021-04-01T06:37:12.777Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>Annihilation is not Buddha's teaching.</p>
<p>One may freely make a decision if to follow Buddha's teaching, after listening to the dhamma, contemplating the dhamma, practicing the dhamma, but not to accepting or rejecting the dhamma base on one's feeling, understanding and perceptions.</p>
<p>Find out more by experiencing the dhamma yourself.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-06T03:58:09.760Z
2021-04-06T03:58:09.760Z
Mudita
<p><strong>Why there are clothes</strong></p>
<p>It seems to me the answer is, &quot;there are (they are), because mother and father made them for us.&quot;</p>
<p><strong>Buddha said <em>sabbe sankhara anicca</em> (all conditioned things are impermanent)</strong></p>
<p>A slightly different translation might be, all &quot;fabricated&quot;, all &quot;constructed&quot;, all &quot;put-together&quot;, all &quot;compound&quot; things (are impermanent).</p>
<p>And to some extent we're taught to fabricate things in our mind, and to name what we see.</p>
<p><strong>Why not nothing?</strong></p>
<p>Perhaps there <em>is</em> nothing, instead or as well -- a Buddhist doctrine which says that there is &quot;no thing&quot; -- I'm thinking of <em><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sunyata?tab=Votes">sunyata</a></em>, the doctrine about &quot;emptiness&quot;. But I find it complicated to explain.</p>
<p><strong>No conditionality ever?</strong></p>
<p>Now possibly you could be asking about enlightenment (though it doesn't seem you were) -- liberation from the Wheel of Becoming.</p>
<p>Even then I think people agree that, until <em>parinibbana</em>, consciousness continues (including an ability to name things).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-01T06:31:27.167Z
i marked this down because it gives the impression dependent origination is about the origination of the physical universe rather than about the origination of sorrow & grief. Also, in the sutta, it appears the only entity thinking & searching for consciousness continuing after the ending of life was Mara
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-01T06:46:32.807Z
You wouldn't say that the Buddha was conscious -- or at least that "consciousness continued" -- knew what was happening, able to talk to people, remember place names, make plans, and so on?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-01T07:14:13.990Z
I'm not sure I distinguish what you call "the physical universe" from mental constructs. Doing so -- the split between subjective and objective, real and ideal, physical and mental -- might be an obsession or assumption of Western philosophy (which I've never really studied).
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-01T11:43:42.550Z
I'm not sure I distinguish what you call "the physical universe" from mental constructs = Soliplism
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-01T05:37:43.817Z
2021-04-01T05:37:43.817Z
ChrisW
<p>Why is there something instead of nothing?</p>
<p>Why there are clothes , why food , why shelter , why surprise , why anger , why love , why disgust , why father , why mother , why child, why atom , why Einstein , why Buddha and also why Universe?</p>
<p>Buddha said <em>sabbe sankhara anicca</em> (all conditioned things are impermanent) ... therefore all things, whether tangible or intangible are <em>anicca</em> (impermanent) but why? Why not nothing? No conditionality ever?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-29T05:16:45.547Z
I think in physics its called as anthrophic principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
The White Cloud
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-30T14:04:30.860Z
Is this a question about Buddhism (doctrine or practice)?
ChrisW
<sankhara>
Why is there something instead of nothing?
# Why is there something instead of nothing?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-03-29)

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Why there are clothes , why food , why shelter , why surprise , why anger , why love , why disgust , why father , why mother , why child, why atom , why Einstein , why Buddha and also why Universe?

Buddha said *sabbe sankhara anicca* (all conditioned things are impermanent) ... therefore all things, whether tangible or intangible are *anicca* (impermanent) but why? Why not nothing? No conditionality ever?

**Tags:** sankhara

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think in physics its called as anthrophic principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle  
> **username_2**: Is this a question about Buddhism (doctrine or practice)?  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-03-29. Score: 3

This sounds like the type of philosophical questions that is mentioned in the [Acintita Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html):

> Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
> unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
> madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

You just cannot speculate on things like this. It will make you mad, says the Buddha.

It also doesn't help with the path to end suffering - see [Parable of the Poisoned Arrow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow). This means such type of questioning has no practical value.

From [MN 63](https://suttacentral.net/mn63/en/bodhi):

> “Here, venerable sir, while I was alone in meditation, the following
> thought arose in my mind: ‘These speculative views have been left
> undeclared by the Blessed One…If he does not declare these to me, then
> I will abandon the training and return to the low life.’ If the
> Blessed One knows ‘the world is eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare
> to me ‘the world is eternal’; if the Blessed One knows ‘the world is
> not eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare to me ‘the world is not
> eternal.’ If the Blessed One does not know either ‘the world is
> eternal’ or ‘the world is not eternal, ’ then it is straightforward
> for one who does not know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I
> do not see.’
>
> “If the Blessed One knows ‘the world is finite,’…‘the world is
> infinite,’…‘the soul is the same as the body,’…‘the soul is one thing
> and the body another,’…‘after death a Tathāgata exists,’ …’after death
> a Tathāgata does not exist,’…If the Blessed One knows ‘after death a
> Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare
> that to me; if the Blessed One knows ‘after death a Tathāgata neither
> exists nor does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare that to me. If
> the Blessed One does not know either ‘after death a Tathāgata both
> exists and does not exist’ or ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists
> nor does not exist,’ then it is straightforward for one who does not
> know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’”
>
> “How then, Mālunkyāputta, did I ever say to you: ‘Come, Mālunkyāputta,
> lead the holy life under me and I will declare to you “the world is
> eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
> exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Did you ever tell me: ‘I will lead the
> holy life under the Blessed One, and the Blessed One will declare to
> me “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists
> nor does not exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“That being so, misguided
> man, who are you and what are you abandoning?
>
> “If anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
> Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me “the world is
> eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
> exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
> meanwhile that person would die. Suppose, Mālunkyāputta, a man were
> wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and
> companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him.
> The man would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow
> until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin
> or a merchant or a worker.’ And he would say: ‘I will not let the
> surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man
> who wounded me;…until I know whether the man who wounded me was tall
> or short or of middle height;… until I know whether the man who
> wounded me was dark or brown or golden-skinned;…until I know whether
> the man who wounded me lives in such a village or town or city;…until
> I know whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a cross-bow;
> …until I know whether the bowstring that wounded me was fibre or reed
> or sinew or hemp or bark;…until I know whether the shaft that wounded
> me was wild or cultivated;… until I know with what kind of feathers
> the shaft that wounded me was fitted—whether those of a vulture or a
> heron or a hawk or a peacock or a stork;…until I know with what kind
> of sinew the shaft that wounded me was bound—whether that of an ox or
> a buffalo or a deer or a monkey;…until I know what kind of arrowhead
> it was that wounded me—whether spiked or razor-tipped or curved or
> barbed or calf-toothed or lancet-shaped.’ “All this would still not be
> known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Mālunkyāputta,
> if anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
> Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me: “the world is
> eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
> exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
> meanwhile that person would die.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Yes, speculative philosophy might make us an Immanuel Kant, a Hegel, a Jean-paul Sartre, a Camus, nothing more. We may win the Nobel , but will stay angry, vicious, dissatisfied, sad. Let us rather enter the very marrow of Reality, as it were, and go beyond conditionality into the wordless , the Unconditioned Anuttara - Nibbana. Metta. – username_4  
> **username_0**: @SushilFotedar awesome  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2021-04-01. Score: 1

The Buddha thought everything is composed of elements (MN 115) and, for conditioned elements, the process of conditioning, called 'idappaccayatā' (SN 12.20).

Since the Buddha said the cessation without remainder of the four physical elements cannot be known (DN 11), it is inferred how the four elements came to be also cannot be known.

Therefore, the Buddha taught the following:

> *Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it. Acintita Sutta*

> *'I will not engage in talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, or Unbinding — i.e., talk about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, **the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.**' In this way he is alert there. MN 122*


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2021-04-06. Score: 0

Annihilation is not Buddha's teaching.

One may freely make a decision if to follow Buddha's teaching, after listening to the dhamma, contemplating the dhamma, practicing the dhamma, but not to accepting or rejecting the dhamma base on one's feeling, understanding and perceptions.

Find out more by experiencing the dhamma yourself.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-04-01. Score: -1

**Why there are clothes**

It seems to me the answer is, "there are (they are), because mother and father made them for us."

**Buddha said *sabbe sankhara anicca* (all conditioned things are impermanent)**

A slightly different translation might be, all "fabricated", all "constructed", all "put-together", all "compound" things (are impermanent).

And to some extent we're taught to fabricate things in our mind, and to name what we see.

**Why not nothing?**

Perhaps there *is* nothing, instead or as well -- a Buddhist doctrine which says that there is "no thing" -- I'm thinking of *[sunyata](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sunyata?tab=Votes)*, the doctrine about "emptiness". But I find it complicated to explain.

**No conditionality ever?**

Now possibly you could be asking about enlightenment (though it doesn't seem you were) -- liberation from the Wheel of Becoming.

Even then I think people agree that, until *parinibbana*, consciousness continues (including an ability to name things).

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: i marked this down because it gives the impression dependent origination is about the origination of the physical universe rather than about the origination of sorrow & grief. Also, in the sutta, it appears the only entity thinking & searching for consciousness continuing after the ending of life was Mara  
> **username_2**: You wouldn't say that the Buddha was conscious -- or at least that "consciousness continued" -- knew what was happening, able to talk to people, remember place names, make plans, and so on?  
> **username_2**: I'm not sure I distinguish what you call "the physical universe" from mental constructs. Doing so -- the split between subjective and objective, real and ideal, physical and mental -- might be an obsession or assumption of Western philosophy (which I've never really studied).  
> **username_5**: I'm not sure I distinguish what you call "the physical universe" from mental constructs = Soliplism  

---

