Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) Pretty self explanatory. Did the chicken come first... OR the egg? Edit: This is an incredibly important question. Actually, I think everything comes down to this question. Edited July 20, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted July 20, 2009 did the cause come first? or the effect? the effect is dependent on the cause, and the cause is dependent on the effect. there can be no "First Cause" or "First Egg" since that first cause itself needs a cause. so, the answer is neither the chicken nor the egg. infinite regression. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2009 did the cause come first? or the effect? the effect is dependent on the cause, and the cause is dependent on the effect. there can be no "First Cause" or "First Egg" since that first cause itself needs a cause. so, the answer is neither the chicken nor the egg. infinite regression. As you say, surely that first cause has its own cause? Then again, seeing that both are dependent on each other, how can you definitely say, "it is neither the chicken nor the egg" When it is the same as saying, "it is both the chicken and the egg?" But then what meaning do such statements carry in trying to relate the reality of the chicken and the egg in the first place? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted July 20, 2009 Then again, seeing that both are dependent on each other, how can you definitely say, "it is neither the chicken nor the egg" When it is the same as saying, "it is both the chicken and the egg?" well you said which came first, since its infinite regression neither came first. eh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blind Owl Posted July 20, 2009 There were eggs before chickens. (barring the possibility that chickens were created fully developed on the 5/6 day) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 20, 2009 The egg. The Unity of Tao existed prior to the 'big bang'. (We cannot look beyond the beginning.) Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taiji Bum Posted July 20, 2009 Evolutionists would say the egg was first but it was a proto-chicken first and then over time finally a chicken hatched. A creationist would say that GAWD created the fowls of the air not the eggs in the nest so thats chicken first and then egg. I'd have to go with the evolutionists on this one.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Josh Young Posted July 20, 2009 In the question itself the chicken classically comes first. People do not tend to say "which came first the egg or the chicken" so the chicken, a term, tends to come first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 20, 2009 In the question itself the chicken classically comes first. People do not tend to say "which came first the egg or the chicken" so the chicken, a term, tends to come first. Which came first Josh Young, the egg or the chicken? well you said which came first, since its infinite regression neither came first. eh? I would've expected you to say something in the lines of, "the chicken came first because the egg is made up of all the components of the chicken" . And maybe someone would've come along and say something in the lines of, "NO but WHAT is that chicken in the first place but a developed egg?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 20, 2009 Evolutionists would say the egg was first but it was a proto-chicken first and then over time finally a chicken hatched. Hehehe. You got more detailed than I did. Can you tell that I hold to the fact of evolution? Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thunder_Gooch Posted July 23, 2009 What if they both arose at the same time, and grew into their current forms together over time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) What if they both arose at the same time, and grew into their current forms together over time. what? if "they" arose at the same time, and THEN grew into their current forms.. then they weren't chicken and egg when they arose. since chicken and egg are both forms. when they arose, they were then something completely different. you must believe in an eternal substance that is behind form for that to be true. something that is unchanging that was the egg before the egg became an egg.. and if you do believe in an eternal substance than there can be no such act as "when they arose" because the "they" is eternal and "when" means there was a beginning. unless you believe in a Creator or something to that effect. then i would simply ask who created the creator? you would say well the creator is infinite and all powerful and yada yada yada.. and i'd say well what if you took out that belief and just accepted that this very reality is infinite and there was no beginning? but if you take away the Creator then you're still left with this whole eternal substance idea.. I think this sort of belief should be questioned, since how can you know that an eternal substance really exists without examining? but you are free to believe what you want. There were eggs before chickens. (barring the possibility that chickens were created fully developed on the 5/6 day) and who laid that egg? God? lol maybe God is just a giant chicken who laid the first egg? Edited July 23, 2009 by mikaelz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
h.uriahr Posted July 23, 2009 My very flawed logic tells me that since the day starts with breakfast (for me anyway) the egg had to of came first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 23, 2009 Pretty self explanatory. Did the chicken come first... OR the egg? Edit: This is an incredibly important question. Actually, I think everything comes down to this question. Ah yes... the old human dilemma... looking for the real Alpha. The Buddha transcended all this. He elaborated on dependent origination and beginningless cycling. This cosmos' beginning is based upon how the last cosmos ended, just like your thoughts. There's no Alpha... just beginning-less cyclings'. Neither came first... the evolution is beginning-less. This will help you get past substantialism, attachment to an essence, theism, monism, etc. The egg. The Unity of Tao existed prior to the 'big bang'. (We cannot look beyond the beginning.) Be well! You should read some Pali Suttas. The Buddha talks about remembering lives beyond the big-bang. As science says... this big bang is based upon how the last big suction happened. You are the microcosm of the macrocosm. Your current thought is based upon the infinite assortments of previous thoughts and their causes within infinite regress just as Michealz said. You indeed can see beyond the beginning of this cosmic eon, only through deep meditation or meditative contemplation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 23, 2009 A conversation me and my girlfriend had on this thread... [1:53:08 AM] ms.alana: yeah[1:53:18 AM] ms.alana: i mean we are so bounded by time [1:53:24 AM] jaroslav.majer75: only seemingly [1:53:31 AM] ms.alana: of course [1:53:34 AM] jaroslav.majer75: yes by the body... but that's the it [1:53:37 AM] jaroslav.majer75: there's nothing else [1:53:45 AM] jaroslav.majer75: there is only beginningless progression of time [1:53:46 AM] jaroslav.majer75: time [1:53:48 AM] jaroslav.majer75: that's the play [1:53:53 AM] ms.alana: yep [1:53:53 AM] jaroslav.majer75: what else is there to enjoy [1:54:04 AM] ms.alana: yeah [1:54:05 AM] ms.alana: haha [1:54:08 AM] ms.alana: other planets? [1:54:10 AM] ms.alana: [1:54:11 AM] jaroslav.majer75: buddhism is how best to enjoy and understand the passing of time and be free from it [1:54:20 AM] jaroslav.majer75: no.. if there is comparison, there's time [1:54:26 AM] jaroslav.majer75: and since there's only comparison [1:54:35 AM] jaroslav.majer75: since timelessness would equate with non-existence [1:54:46 AM] jaroslav.majer75: there's no non-existence because that's oxymoronic [1:55:08 AM] jaroslav.majer75: there's only the flow... since this moment is based on the past... [1:55:17 AM] jaroslav.majer75: this moment does not inherently exist, therefore it is free as it stand [1:55:18 AM] jaroslav.majer75: s [1:55:36 AM] jaroslav.majer75: of course, its not just logicalising this... it's really experiencing this and who laid that egg? God? lol maybe God is just a giant chicken who laid the first egg? God! I looove this post!! So funny... your awesome! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted July 23, 2009 Everyone knows the rooster came first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adam West Posted July 23, 2009 Hehe... clearly the chicken came first, since it is a self-existent or self-created being/force (metaphor for the Divine - Tao) which then gave birth to beings in time (egg). All rather simple! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 23, 2009 You should read some Pali Suttas. The Buddha talks about remembering lives beyond the big-bang. As science says... this big bang is based upon how the last big suction happened. You are the microcosm of the macrocosm. Your current thought is based upon the infinite assortments of previous thoughts and their causes within infinite regress just as Michealz said. You indeed can see beyond the beginning of this cosmic eon, only through deep meditation or meditative contemplation. Hi Vajrahridaya, Perhaps I should but I won't. Hehehe. But what you said, IMO, has merit. I would question though, that Buddha talked about the 'big bang' as the term was not defined back during his life-time. I do hold to the concept that life is cyclical. All life! Including the universe. I hold to the understanding that at some point in time the universe will stop expanding and begin its reversion back toward nothingness (Unity, the One). I do not hold to the concept of reincarnation. That is a Buudhist concept and not a Taoist concept. Taoism has a concept I call transmutation. That is, everything that is, is, always has been and always will be. It is just that things take different form over time. I do not hold to the concept of a universal consciousness nor of a consciousness of Tao. Therefore, IMO, all consciousness would be lost in the state of Oneness. (Actually, that is what happens in deep meditation.) So, getting back to the chicken and egg, Tao is the egg, the Manifest (things) is the chicken. The egg has always been, the chicken (things) manifested from the egg. Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stigweard Posted July 23, 2009 So, getting back to the chicken and egg, Tahttp://www.thetaobums.com/style_images/3/folder_rte_images/textcolor.gifo is the egg, the Manifest (things) is the chicken. The egg has always been, the chicken (things) manifested from the egg. Be well! The egg is the Yin counterpart of manifestation, it needs the Yang sperm to become fertile. So the egg cannot be Tao on its own. Only when Yin and Yang have intercourse do the myriad things arise. What came first? A single cell organism swimming in the pea soup of evolution. Through its natural process of self progenation it divides of itself. There is no chicken without an egg and no egg without a chicken. They are the one being. The better question perhaps is: What came before there was even such a thing as a chicken or an egg? This process of merging distinctions and appearances is the path of subtle integration, the integral way of Tao. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 23, 2009 Hi Stigweard, Nice. However ... (Yeah, in my life there are lots of 'howevers') I would still like to suggest that Tao is the egg and that Tzujan was the means of fertilization. (No chicken yet.) In fact, no Mystery, Yin, Yang or Chi yet until Tao begins its transmutation. Consider this, if you will. In the beginning, (yes, there really was no beginning, just another change) only undifferentiated Tao existed - all was One. Because of Tzujan (Nature [what-is-ness]) Tao began its transmutation. From Tao emerged Mystery (wu) (potential everything) and Chi (pure energy) (Yin and Yang being the polarities of Chi). The interactions of Chi with Mystery produced the Manifest (yo). I will stop for now. Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted July 23, 2009 Pretty self explanatory. Did the chicken come first... OR the egg? Edit: This is an incredibly important question. Actually, I think everything comes down to this question. Didn't you know? The Chicken and the Egg are dependently originated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thunder_Gooch Posted July 23, 2009 what? if "they" arose at the same time, and THEN grew into their current forms.. then they weren't chicken and egg when they arose. since chicken and egg are both forms. when they arose, they were then something completely different. you must believe in an eternal substance that is behind form for that to be true. something that is unchanging that was the egg before the egg became an egg.. and if you do believe in an eternal substance than there can be no such act as "when they arose" because the "they" is eternal and "when" means there was a beginning. unless you believe in a Creator or something to that effect. then i would simply ask who created the creator? you would say well the creator is infinite and all powerful and yada yada yada.. and i'd say well what if you took out that belief and just accepted that this very reality is infinite and there was no beginning? but if you take away the Creator then you're still left with this whole eternal substance idea.. I think this sort of belief should be questioned, since how can you know that an eternal substance really exists without examining? but you are free to believe what you want. and who laid that egg? God? lol maybe God is just a giant chicken who laid the first egg? What I am getting at is this: What if both the egg and the chicken evolved together simultaneously. Defining when it becomes a chicken or an egg in its evolutionary path is the hard part. But what if it started out as a simple reproduction strategy early on in its evolution, maybe at the early multicellular level. I don't know I am just throwing this idea out there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 23, 2009 Hi Guys, Just curious. Within the concept of Darwin's theory of evolution, how does an egg evolve? Be well! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted July 23, 2009 Didn't you know? The Chicken and the Egg are dependently originated. HAHAHHAHAHHAHHA! Brilliant! I started the thread after talking about dependent origination and emptiness with my father. The conversation went something like this, Me: "All things are inherently empty and made from dependently originated conditions!" Pops: "Yes, but who understands/thinks/preaches emptiness"? Me: "No, no, emptiness is not a concept, it's how the world is" Pops: "Yes, and whose idea is that?" Me: "Well, mine...? No but I'm just a mix of dependently originated causes and manifestations!" Pops: "Yes and who realizes that?" At this point, I realized the very folly of grasping onto the idea of emptiness, self, or any sort of assertion that declares the world to be in such and such a way. Why? Because one would inevitably fall into the trap of the mind/ego declaring an idea! I say chicken, and it will be the egg. And I say egg, and it will be the chicken. I say both, and it'll be two. i say two, and it'll be one. And so on and so on.... Biology wise, pie guy is probably right. Simultaneous coming into being as chicken and the egg. But what exactly is spontaneity, but a manifestation of a timeless event? Would that be an event...? Hahaha...and here goes another chicken and the egg...on and on... So in the end, I just sat down and shut up, be it chicken or the egg. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
