One of the classic problems in philosophy is Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover”. The question is how can something move and at the same time move itself? One problem with this idea is is that what is moved the mover? We are drawn into an infinite regress. We have the thing that moved moved by a prior mover which in turn must have a prior mover moving it. So we never arrive at a state of stasis and always must look for previous movers.
Another problem is that if something creates something then the thing it creates must be distinct from that which was created. But when something is created the thing it creates is foreign to the creator. If this creation is foreign to God then how can God be all-powerful? It seems clear that the thing God creates is limited in contrast to God’s infinite power. How can this be? It seems that the thing that the infinite God creates must be divine itself, but if this is so how are we to decide that it is in fact separate? Also closely related is the question of how can something created by God have nothing in common with God if God is infinite (e.g., encompassing all)? This is one reason for the angels and later the Christ which tied together the infinite and the finite.
The one way to address these problems is to avoid at least directly that the connection between the creator is that which moves and the created that which lies in stasis. Asian thought addresses these issues in a different way. In Taoism there is the trinity of Non-Being, Being and the 10,000 things. Non-Being can be thought of as pure potentiality, like an acorn that grows into a great oak tree. All of the great oaks potential lies in the acorn although it is clear that the great oak is not the acorn and are at least in this sense separate from the great oak but not the oak itself. Likewise when thinking of the 10,000 things, actually representing all of the diversity in the world, especially within humankind, one can characterize the difference between individual (the 10,000 things), the gross aggregate components of the universe (e.g., Being) and creative potentiality (e.g., Non-Being) where humans draw their difference from Non-Being and Being by it’s status as an ethical being. Non-Being then is potential, and Being is existence then the individual is morality. Morality is the individual human component and contribution to the infinite. It is clear that humans could not exist without existence and this existence could not exist without the potentiality or possibility of Non-Being (e.g., the potential of existence). Likewise Non-Being would not be pure potentiality if it did not potentiate Being or existence. And of course also Being would not be without the existence of “things” in the universe (e.g., human beings for example). So we can see that each aspect of the Tao (e.g., Non-Being, Being and the 10,000 things) depend on each other and in fact are ultimately inseparable. Yet by the same token the manifestation of each is unique (at least conceptually). No causal factor is implied because there is no hierarchy of factors and all are necessary and essential (Non-Being, Being and the 10,000 things). Since there is no primary mover then the uniquely western problem of which came first the chicken or the egg is not played out (e.g., the Aristotelian Mover and the Moved). Non-Being is conceptual but dynamic rather than being a discrete entity and this serves well as illustration.
Hinduism has struggled with this problem between the moved and the mover. It has tried to resolve this problem by stating that that which is infinite or eternal (e.g., Brahman) is that which is “real” but that which exists (e.g., the material world) is simply an illusion. While not really solving the problem of the unmoved mover because the question is how can an illusion come out of that which is fundamentally real, but it is also clearly nonintuitive (and I think sometimes it is safe to trust our intuitions) where that which is intangible (atemporal and aspatial ) is that which is real and that which is tangible (the temporal and the spatial) is that which is an illusion. Logically it is difficult to see why such things might be and seems difficult to defend.
Buddhism on the other hands simply throws out the metaphysical aspect of this discussion (e.g., God, the infinite, Non-Being) and talks about the practical aspect of things where we live in the world and therefore our focus should address the problems of the world. Unfortunately this seems to just ignore or throw out the foundational problem of the unmoved mover which moves something else. Buddhism does advance the theory of dependent origination which escapes the problem of the unmoved/moved mover problem because everything that exists is dependent on everything else. Therefore there is no need to posit that which is essential or primal. But one problem that needs to be addressed it seems is why are things as they are? How did things get to be as they are? Are the things truly real if they don’t depend on everything else to exist? This draws back on the question that “Do we really exist?” Like Hinduism, Buddhism embraces the idea of reincarnation but if we do not exist essentially then what is reincarnated? How can certain aspects of one’s lives be carried over to the subsequent existence? It seems that Buddhism can’t have it both ways by ignoring both creation and the created, at the same time, by using dependent origination.
It is important to note that things do exist or at least seem to. We are constantly getting sensory feedback of this fact. It is easy to examine the logic of this fact.
For something to exist it must be composed of the aggregates of existence (e.g., your car, the stars, your house, your children, etc.). If this were not true then of course nothing would or could exist. If there were no existence then the potential of existence would not be part of the equation either because this potential must ultimately realize something or no potential is there as stated before. But it is even simpler than this because there must be the things of existence for there to be existence for without existence we would arrive at the Buddhism void or nothingness. This void or nothingness cannot be objectified so cannot even be talked about. It is a mystical concept. Many might claim, and they might be right, that to talk about this Void is impossible and therefore ridiculous to contemplate. Ordinarily you are not going to get very far in a conversation when talking about the void. At any rate it seems to talk about existence and the void as being the same in the same breath is to be non-intuitive and bizarre.
But it seems that we do exist, that is if we are not deluded. Of course if we are deluded that fact “a priori” determines that we do in fact exist. So ipso facto we do exist! This reminds me of Descartes “I think therefore I am” but avoids the mind/body problem: (e.g., how can an atemporal aspatial “thing” [the mind] have a relationship between that and the spatial and temporal thing [the body] where in fact they never seem to meet). The fact is that for there to be existence things must exist. We avoid the Mover/Unmoved Mover dilemma. We are drawn out of this monism (e.g., oneness) because if we do not and cannot assert the void and don’t believe that which we take as existing is not and cannot be illusion then existence is, can and must be distinct from some metaphysical construct. For how could these “things” be at all if they did not exist. It seems existence is the only logical answer.
So rest assured that you do exist because it now has been proven (as if you had any doubt in the first place). I ‘m sure in fact you haven’t really questioned this unless you are on your way to the insane asylum. Therefore a distinction need not be made beween the mover (e.g., the creator) and the thing moved (e.g., that which finds itself in the state of stasis) because things must be as they are and cannot be any other way. When you have an accident or enjoy a drink you can feel comfortable that your sensations and feelings are in fact yours and that they must be so. But of course you already knew that!
It seems in infinity all things remain possible and necessary (including existence) so then what is the nature of the infinite?