Why are the 16 Unwise Reflections ("shall I exist in future" etc.) considered unwise? In a quest to find the Buddhist meaning of life, I stumbled upon The Unanswered Questions and the Unwise Reflections (Sabbasava-Sutta), and I am surprised that The Buddha actually advised against thinking about these questions:


  Am I?
  Am I not?
  Did I exist in the past?
  Did I not exist in the past?
  What was I in the past?
  How was I in the past?
  Having been what, did I become what in the past?
  Shall I exist in future?
  Shall I not exist in future?
  What shall I be in future?
  How shall I be in future?


The reason given is that it causes attachment to self, and some others say because they are founded on false premises.

Firstly, this is the Wikipedia, so I am not 100% sure of its accuracy, but as per my interpretation, this means that, for example, "Self" is only a concept or theory that may be false and incompatible with reality, and a question like "Who Am I" is then founded on the false premise of the "Self" concept. In short, it preoccupies us with confusion. All good so far.

Even though what I gather generally is that Science and Buddhism are consistent in approach, is Science's relentless search for answers bad for people as well? Does The Buddha (1) recognise the possibility of finding the truth for these questions, or (2) is it impossible to find the truth, or (3) is it detrimental for us to know the truth?

Is there a better (than Wikipedia) explanation why we should not reflect on these questions?

P.S. this question was partly inspired by the 14 questions left unanswered question, which I think does not answer my question. In the quoted text, it does not state what Buddha thinks of the "findability" of the answers to those questions. It only states that Buddha thinks the answer will confuse us, therefore choose to be silent. However, we are 2000 years later now and we may have better science to explain certain phenomenon. Are Buddhist scientist advised or permitted to delve into such questions?

Furthermore, I am specifically asking about the "Unwise Reflections" in Wikipedia in the bottom section, rather than the 14 questions.
Is there a better (than Wikipedia) explanation why we should not reflect on these questions?

Perhaps a better explanation is the Sabbasava Sutta itself.

The 'unwise reflections' are diverse (16 if you count them) opinions about the 'self':


  "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'


This causes views or opinions about the self:


  "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &amp; established, or the view I have no self... or [etc.]


These views aren't helpful:


  This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, &amp; death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &amp; despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &amp; stress.


The are other views to be attended to instead:


  "He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts &amp; practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.


(i.e. the 'four noble truths').

And the rest of the sutta describes dwelling with restraint; using things moderately; tolerating various things; abandoning various things; destroying (not tolerating) various evil thoughts; developing various virtues.

When the practitioner is successful, then he or she will have abandoned 'fermentations' by the various things above (restraint, use, tolerating, abandoning, destroying, and developing), and will have achieved the goal:


  He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and — through the right penetration of conceit — has made an end of suffering &amp; stress."




Even though what I gather generally is that Science and Buddhism are consistent in approach, is Science's relentless search for answers bad for people as well?

Buddhism doesn't try to answer everything.

Science tries to explain why the gravity on the moon isn't as strong as here; why chemicals react with some chemicals but not others; how photosynthesis produces oxygen; how the universe began and whether it will end; etc.

Buddhism is more like a single scientific procedure, a (repeatable) experiment, or a recipe: i.e. Buddhism is a way, teaches a way, to end suffering.

Within that context, and assuming that you want to end suffering, questions or view which don't lead to the end of suffering (which includes 'attending to' those views about the self) are called "unwise".



I don't mean to say that Science itself, or the pursuit of science, is wrong: it may be in the category of Right Livelihood.