Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Question · Explain

Why did the Buddha refuse to say whether the world is eternal?

Nirmala Jayasekara Fellow
· 4 replies
Faith & reasonBuddhistThe Buddha#early-buddhism#eternity-of-the-world#poisoned-arrow#unanswered-questions
Follow

Its coordinates: 6.1 Philosophy of Religion

In the Cūḷamālukya Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya 63), the monk Māluṅkyaputta tells the Buddha he will leave the order unless he gets answers: Is the world eternal or not? Is it finite or infinite? Is the soul the same as the body? Does a Tathāgata exist after death?

The Buddha answers with the parable of a man shot with a poisoned arrow, who refuses treatment until he knows who shot it, what caste he belonged to, how tall he was, what the bow was made of. The man would die first. The Buddha says he has left these questions undeclared because answering them does not lead to disenchantment, to calm, to awakening.

There are at least two ways to read this, and they are quite different:

  1. The questions make sense but don't help. There is a fact about whether the world is eternal; knowing it just would not free anyone.
  2. The questions are badly formed. In another sutta (MN 72) the Buddha asks: when a fire goes out, in which direction did it go, north or south? The question does not apply. Perhaps "is the world eternal?" is like that.

And there is a complication. In the Aggañña Sutta (DN 27) the Buddha describes the world contracting and expanding over immense ages, which sounds like an answer after all.

Which reading do others find more convincing?

LikeAnswer
SaveFollow4 answers

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

4 answers

  1. Arjun Iyer

    Fellow

    From the Advaita side, a third reading. The Upaniṣads and the Brahma Sūtra treat saṃsāra as beginningless, so on our view there is an answer. But the answer is not given to Māluṅkyaputta because he asks as a man shopping for a philosophy. The teacher answers what the student is ready to use.

    I think your first reading is closer to this. The arrow parable is about the patient, not the question.

  2. Meera Kulkarni

    Fellow

    Nāgārjuna takes your second reading and makes it systematic. The last chapter of his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā examines exactly these views, that the world has an end, has no end, both, neither, and shows that each depends on treating the world as something with its own fixed nature. It closes by saluting Gautama, who taught the dharma for the abandoning of all views.

    So for Nāgārjuna the questions are badly formed, and the fire is the key text.

  3. Nuwan Perera

    Contributor

    My daughter asked me this at the temple last poya day. The monk told her the arrow story, and she said, "But I'm not shot." He laughed and said, "Not yet."

    I think that is the first reading, as a nine-word sermon. The question is real, but you should ask it after you've pulled the arrow out, and by then you may not want to.

  4. Somchai Charoenwong

    Reader

    Nirmala, at the temple where I was a monk our teacher always used the arrow parable in your first sense. But when I began teaching children, I found they understood the second reading better.

    A ten-year-old in my class asked whether a Buddha still exists after death. I asked her where her lap goes when she stands up. She laughed, and then she was quiet. I did not have to explain that the question was badly made. She saw that "where does it go?" did not fit the thing.

    I think the Buddha used both readings for different people, as Nuwan's monk did. For Māluṅkyaputta, who was impatient, the arrow. For Vacchagotta, who asked carefully in MN 72, the fire. Perhaps the lesson is that the same question needs a different answer depending on what the person asking wants from it.