Do Buddhists have a theological answer as to what would happen if an impact event wiped out all current and future generations of life on Earth, ending the cycle of Samsara forever as there are no new bodies to be born into?
It depends on the vehicle and the school of Buddhism, but generally (not universally!) it is agreed upon in Buddhism that there are multiple inhabitable worlds in this universe, and multiple universes. There are also six (or five, depending on your vehicle of school!) realms of existence, not just the human realm. I believe the realms of humans, animals, and hungry ghosts are one and the same though.Let's say, however, that all realms were destroyed at once. No more Devas, Asuras, humans, animals, hungry ghosts, narakas, etc. What is Buddhism's answer to this?Well, in Buddhism, all things are transient, nothing exists permanently. It is believed to be possible for every entity in all of the realms to eventually achieve parinirvana and cease existing, and if every entity ceased to exist then every realm would be empty anyway; and if nothing exists permanently, then the realms couldn't exist permanently either. Some way or another they'd go away. All of the realms being destroyed wouldn't be too crazy. It'd be more strange if any of the realms never ceased to exist.tl;dr, nothing would happen. Mindstreams would simply cease to exist as if they had achieved parinirvana anyway.
>>18499493buddhist and likewise hindu universe isn't limited to earth, its not even limited to this single universe, nor a cluster of universes, there are multiverses and clusters of multiversesThis current universe also has a specific time for when it started, when it will end, and when it will be recreated as well. The cycle is always a thing. Pics related, AI created from the framework of the Buddhist cosmology. So not only are there multiple billions of world in the current universe, but there are infinite multiverses that each billion more of the worlds each.
>>18499517I appreciate this visual aid but I must kindly remind you that use of generative AI violates the second precept, anon.
>>18499522I dont buy into the interpretation. If I learn another's style from watching their drawings, I'm not stealing. This is how humans learn from each other from time immemorial. Extend that to machine produced arts that learned from the art works of others isn't stealing. You'll have to explain your reasoning. Especially if the major models are trained upon corpus of public arts, and licensed arts from other mass art vendors where the owners of the art licenses were already paid for
>>18499534Several artists now have said that their art was used for training data without permission, and there's many websites that allow users to train and/or upload models based on other artists' styles without their permission at all, including civitai. Twitter and google have made open statements saying that they train models based on public works uploaded to their services. Github's terms of service state that using the site means you consent to your code being used as training data for microsoft's AI too.Humans don't learn skills by copying information wholesale and archiving it in their brains losslessly, and AI training is not the same as "learning."Furthermore, generative AI is used to replace artists, often but not necessarily the same artists whose works were trained from without their informed consent. Consider the layoffs done in various companies to replace information workers with AI, consider the number of art pieces that were made using AI rather than commissioning an artist. If it is an artist's livelihood to make art, and we should all strive to love all sentient beings, then I believe supporting the artist is a greater expression of metta than circumventing communicating with or paying the artist for their work.Please let me know your thoughts.
>>18499534>If I learn another's style from watching their drawings, I'm not stealing. This is how humans learn from each other from time immemorial.Ok.>Extend that to machine produced artsYou can't extend that to machines because machines don't perceive anything so they can't genuinely learn, only model their inputs and regurgitate.
>>18499493>Do Buddhists have a theological answer as to what would happen if an impact event wiped out all current and future generations of life on Earth, ending the cycle of Samsara foreverI don't think the premise of your scenario (permanent barrenness) is even compatible with the basic premise of Buddhism (impermanence), except in the way of a dualistic concept ("life on Earth") getting rug-pulled. Even if there was no more life in the universe, sooner or later something capable of suffering would emerge again. Even if the universe itself collapsed, sooner or later another universe would form. Even if it takes unfathomable stretches of time, you're in a framework where time itself is an illusion.
>>18499493Trying to forcefully remove yourself from samsara will only reincarnate you into a lesser being.The cycle won't break.Maybe the reincarnation is long in the future or other planets, but you will be reincarnated and you will like it.
>>18499592>Humans don't learn skills by copying information wholesale and archiving it in their brains losslessly, and AI training is not the same as "learning."AI isnt losslessly. Its all approximate. Humans do the same approximation. We have millions of Mona Lisa clones by now
>>18499618>Humans do the same approximation.You're trivially and obviously wrong, as demonstrated by the fact that art exists at all.
>>18499493Matter comes out of nothing eventually. Life then comes out of matter eventually. Then that life experiences something.
>>18499493>as there are no new bodies to be born into?This is where your hypothetical fails.Abrahamicists believe they and the Earth are special and unique and the only important planet.Buddhists and another dharmic religions have no problem admitting there's likely countless worlds with intelligent life and countless different dimensions and realms one could be reborn into.Thus any one planet being destroyed, while a major calamity of suffering, doesn't really pose any issues to their theology.
>>18499624>>Humans do the same approximation.>You're trivially and obviously wrong, as demonstrated by the fact that art exists at all./threadif diffusionslop is the same as human creativity, corpos can just train their models on random photos, i'm sure they'll get something that looks like art eventually and not just photo regurgitations
>>18499506>it is agreed upon in Buddhism that there are multiple inhabitable worlds in this universe, and multiple universes. There are also six (or five, depending on your vehicle of school!) realms of existence, not just the human realm. I believe the realms of humans, animals, and hungry ghosts are one and the same though.
>>18499493>ending the cycle of Samsara forever as there are no new bodies to be born into?It's funny when atheists reveal themselves to be christcucks in disguise when they act like that earth is the most fundamental object in the whole universe.
>>18500213I didn't know Buddhists found the existence of life beyond Earth. Or do they just take that on faith
>>18500284If you can believe that evolution happens over the course of million of years, you can believe life can arise anywhere after billions and trillions.
>>18499506Nothing ever happens, the religion
>>18501136That was basically Nagarjuna's philosophy, he was the OG "nothing ever happens" Chuddha.>There is not the slightest difference between Samsara and Nirvana
An aeon ends in fire and water
