Theravada against mathematics

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Germann
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by Germann »

Pseudobabble wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:57 pm

None of that means that Theravada is reducible to Abhidhamma.
I understand that Theravada can be called a new religious movement of Pali monasticism, copying the Madhyamaka philosophy. But if we talk about the ancient school (younger than Madhyamaka, but also ancient) - if we talk about the Pali commentator tradition - then this is an abhidhammmic school.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 4921
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by cappuccino »

Germann wrote: then this is an abhidhammmic school.
Abhidhamma should be ignored
User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by Pseudobabble »

Germann wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:04 pm
Pseudobabble wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:57 pm

None of that means that Theravada is reducible to Abhidhamma.
I understand that Theravada can be called a new religious movement of Pali monasticism, copying the Madhyamaka philosophy. But if we talk about the ancient school (younger than Madhyamaka, but also ancient) - if we talk about the Pali commentator tradition - then this is an abhidhammmic school.
Right, of course you conveniently left out everything that doesn't fit your pre-planned trajectory.

Answer me this - have you ever meditated?
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha
User avatar
Germann
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

will lose proper meditation

Post by Germann »

Pseudobabble wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:57 pm Earlier you 'refuted' Theravada on the basis that the Abhidhamma is mathematically incoherent. So what if it is?
If Theravada is right, then by becoming a Mahayanist, a Buddhist will not lose anything - after all, a completely non-existent person does not lose anything and nothing threatens him. (“Man” is the same simulacrum as “World Soul” - avijjamana, non-existent).

If Mahayana is right, then by becoming a Theravadin, a Buddhist will lose proper meditation - instead of what is actually (manifestations that are empty from self-existence, one in taste), the beholder will concentrate on an erroneous concept (on mirage of absolutely impersonal mechanical causality).

At the same time, the Theravadin school Abhidhamma is clearly wrong, offering a mathematically impossible model of reality.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 8761
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by Ceisiwr »

I can see this thread going on ad infinitum :jumping:
"Analysis and synthesis are praised by the wise,
liberation in the Sāsana comes from analysis and synthesis;
the purpose of the method of analysis and synthesis is the ultimate"


Nāmarūpapariccheda
User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: will lose proper meditation

Post by Pseudobabble »

Germann wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:06 pm
Pseudobabble wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:57 pm Earlier you 'refuted' Theravada on the basis that the Abhidhamma is mathematically incoherent. So what if it is?
If Theravada is right, then by becoming a Mahayanist, a Buddhist will not lose anything - after all, a completely non-existent person does not lose anything and nothing threatens him. (“Man” is the same simulacrum as “World Soul” - avijjamana, non-existent).

If Mahayana is right, then by becoming a Theravadin, a Buddhist will lose proper meditation - instead of what is actually (manifestations that are empty from self-existence, one in taste), the beholder will concentrate on an erroneous concept (on mirage of absolutely impersonal mechanical causality).

At the same time, the Theravadin school Abhidhamma is clearly wrong, offering a mathematically impossible model of reality.
You failed to answer the question.

'A Mahayanist', 'a Theravadin', 'a Madhyamika' - names, designations. Being correct, being right, seems to be a great concern of yours. Naturally, it is normal to want to be correct - but at what point does the desire for correctness become an obstacle?

Have you ever meditated, Germann?
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha
User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by Pseudobabble »

clw_uk wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:28 pm I can see this thread going on ad infinitum :jumping:
Yep, it certainly looks that way. At first I wanted to ignore it, but since Germann is apparently here to stay, we might as well play along.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha
binocular
Posts: 8006
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: will lose proper meditation

Post by binocular »

Germann wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:06 pmIf Theravada is right, then by becoming a Mahayanist, a Buddhist will not lose anything - after all, a completely non-existent person does not lose anything and nothing threatens him. (“Man” is the same simulacrum as “World Soul” - avijjamana, non-existent).

If Mahayana is right, then by becoming a Theravadin, a Buddhist will lose proper meditation - instead of what is actually (manifestations that are empty from self-existence, one in taste), the beholder will concentrate on an erroneous concept (on mirage of absolutely impersonal mechanical causality).
And if the Protestants are right, we will all burn in hell for all eternity!

I mean, how did you come to whittle down your options to just these two -- either Mahayana or Theravada?

Why not worry about all the other religions where choosing for or against them is said to have momentuous repercussions?
If you can't build with them, don't chill with them.
Freddie
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:22 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Freddie »

If all events are completely deterministic, then for an infinite number of steps in the deterministic algorithm of combinations of elements any possible combination is also realized. Nibbana should already be achieved. The path to Nibbana should have been fully formed.
This is false. Even if all events in a universe with a finite number of objects are mechanistically determined it does not follow that there are a finite number of possible states that will be fulfilled in a finite time, provided the existence of a spatial continuum in which the objects (dhammas) can move within. This false assumption leads to Nietzsche's fallacious concept of the Eternal Recurrence. To quote Walter Kauffman's criticism on the Eternal Recurrence:


Even if there were exceedingly few things in a finite space in an infinite time, they would not have to repeat in the same configurations. Suppose there were three wheels of equal size, rotating on the same axis, one point marked on the circumference of each wheel, and these three points lined up in one straight line. If the second wheel rotated twice as fast as the first, and if the speed of the third wheel was 1/π of the speed of the first, the initial line-up would never recur


Thus your inference that determinism+finite constituent parts of the universe+infinite past time equals all possible events have already occurred is wrong as long as space is not discrete. The monkey-typewriter example is inappropriate here because the alphabet is not a continuum, there are not an infinite number of gradations between letters of the alphabet while space and time are infinitely divisible.
Last edited by Freddie on Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dan74-MkII
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:22 am

Re: Life is a finite sequence of combinations of a finite set of elements (dhammas).

Post by Dan74-MkII »

Germann wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:50 pm
Dan74-MkII wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:46 pm I am not sure why you talk about "all possible lives". We have a finite number of sentient beings. They have their unique pasts. Think of the grid example, can you phrase your question in its terms, so that it is more concrete and understandable?
If you do not deny the limit on longevity for the gods of the sphere of light (not the fact that their lifespan can be arbitrarily long), then the set of all possible lives is a finite set, similar to the Shannon number (when the length of a game of chess is limited to 40 moves). A finite set of possible lives with an infinite set of past lives also means that all possible lives have already been lived ... But an infinite set of possible lives will be lived, because their set is countable.

http://mymathforum.com/number-theory/34 ... ments.html

Life is a finite sequence of combinations of a finite set of elements (dhammas).
I don't follow.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Re:

Post by Sherab »

Germann wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:40 am
Sherab wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:04 pm
Germann wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:22 pm
If satta, the subject of free choice, is totally denied, then all events are random or predetermined.
The lack of free choice (i.e. a choice that is not determined by any cause or influence by any condition (I am not even sure if there is such a thing in reality)) does not mean that there is no choice.

The ability to choice is something that is needed in the context of limited information. In any other context, it makes no sense. In a context of limited information, we have to decide based on what we are taught and what we have experienced. There is always uncertainty around the importance of the factors that will affect a choice. Therefore the outcome of an act of choosing is deterministic but not pre-determined. There will always be different possible outcomes depending on what choice is made. The past is therefore fixed but the future is not pre-determined.
For this, a subject of free choice is needed (the subject is a stream of dharmas), and not a denial of the existence of the subject (the stream of dharmas exists, the "man" is called the stream of dharmas). It is not about absolute freedom. There is some degree of freedom, that's enough.
If a subject does not have free choice, but choice as I have described, are you okay with this? Or do you still hold that a subject must have free choice in order to ensure that the Theravadin's interpretation of the Buddha's teachings is not against mathematics?
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re:

Post by Sherab »

Germann wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:46 am
Sherab wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:53 pm
Germann wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:41 am
Nibbana can be anything. Theravadin Nibbana is most similar to Nirguna Brahman - a transcendental entity, an absolute reality that remains out of experience, after all phenomena cease.
What are your reasons for saying the above?
Absolute reality that exists after the cessation of phenomena.
Absolute reality is there with relative reality. Is it NOT that absolute reality exists AFTER the cessation of phenomena.

Udana 8.3
There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.
Last edited by Sherab on Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by Sherab »

Germann wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:51 am
Sherab wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:52 pm
Germann wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:34 am
Nibbana has no kammic reasons, but its manifestation has conditions. The realization of Nibbana is the well-known sequence of dhammas. This sequence of dhammas, if possible, has a non-zero probability.
If Nibbana is mere cessation, then we can say that mere cessation requires that condition of the cessation of the phenomenon of mind. If Nibbana is not mere cessation but a realization, then that realization cannot come from the mind in the realm of phenomena because that mind has already ceased. The realization of Nibbana therefore comes from a different consciousness. Therefore, that realization has nothing to do with any casually chained events.

The obvious question to ask then is did the Buddha himself alluded to the fact that there is two type of consciousness in the Pali canon? The answer is yes.
If there is no subject of free choice, then the path to Nibbana (the sequence of combinations of dhammas, after which Nibbana manifests) is random or deterministic. In any case, this path will be traversed for an infinite past. Here, in this thread, random events were denied in favor of fully deterministic ones. If reality is such a deterministic algorithm, then any deterministic sequence of combinations of elements is implemented in an infinite number of steps of this algorithm. All steps of the algorithm are a countable set (the “smallest” among infinite sets). All steps of the algorithm fit in the infinite past.
I said that if Nibbana is a REALIZATION, then that realization cannot come from a dependently arisen mind because that mind would have ceased when Cessation happens.

So is Nibbana a realization or not?
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 4921
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by cappuccino »

not a sudden realization, a very gradual insight
User avatar
Germann
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Germann »

Sherab wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:50 pm
Germann wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:40 am
Sherab wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:04 pm
The lack of free choice (i.e. a choice that is not determined by any cause or influence by any condition (I am not even sure if there is such a thing in reality)) does not mean that there is no choice.

The ability to choice is something that is needed in the context of limited information. In any other context, it makes no sense. In a context of limited information, we have to decide based on what we are taught and what we have experienced. There is always uncertainty around the importance of the factors that will affect a choice. Therefore the outcome of an act of choosing is deterministic but not pre-determined. There will always be different possible outcomes depending on what choice is made. The past is therefore fixed but the future is not pre-determined.
For this, a subject of free choice is needed (the subject is a stream of dharmas), and not a denial of the existence of the subject (the stream of dharmas exists, the "man" is called the stream of dharmas). It is not about absolute freedom. There is some degree of freedom, that's enough.
If a subject does not have free choice, but choice as I have described, are you okay with this? Or do you still hold that a subject must have free choice in order to ensure that the Theravadin's interpretation of the Buddha's teachings is not against mathematics?
No one exists, but there is a free choice? This is absurd.

Such a "free choice" is no different from a conditioned event, as in physics (it is simply a conditioned Dhamma), or the freedom of choice of this dhamma itself and has. If the dhamma is a subject, then it has no recompense, because any such Dhamma has the same end regardless of its choice - cessation, death. A man like the Parliament of dhammas, a rather strange idea - but does not save the system.
Post Reply