Theravada against mathematics

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: The lifespan of satta each type of is defined in canonical comments

Post by cappuccino » Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:06 am

Germann wrote: Mathematically, Nibbana should have already been achieved.
you can't negotiate with reality

instead, seeing the nature of reality is transformative

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

The truth cannot be absurd

Post by Germann » Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:04 pm

cappuccino wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:06 am
Germann wrote: Mathematically, Nibbana should have already been achieved.
you can't negotiate with reality

instead, seeing the nature of reality is transformative
Mathematics is an abstract language for describing all conceivable variants of the universe. Mathematically correct model may or may not correspond to some reality. Mathematically incorrect model does not correspond to any reality. The truth cannot be absurd.

Buddha did not teach mathematics. But, as the owner of perfect wisdom, Buddha could not contradict mathematics.

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Theravada against mathematics

Post by Germann » Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:13 pm

Nibbana in any case should have already been achieved in the infinite past:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33879&start=630#p509911

But since the life expectancy limit of any creature cannot be any number, since the longevity of all types of deities (living longer than the Universe) is defined in the canonical Commentary - everything turned out to be simpler.

The number of all possible lives is similar to the number of Shannon.

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12675
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The lifespan of satta each type of is defined in canonical comments

Post by DNS » Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:23 pm

Germann wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:01 am
They say that there is a free choice. But if satta does not exist, then whose free choice? Free choice of Lord Shiva? If there is no satta, there is no free choice, there are only regular or random events.

Mathematically, Nibbana should have already been achieved.
Attaining nibbana is not a regular or random event; I think that is the crux of the issue here. It is not a matter of rolling a trillion sided die and having it come up with some number that is nibbana.

So, is it your conclusion / view that the issue is resolved if there is a satta, a self? Are you Hindu? (real question, not trying to be rhetorical)

Also, you appear to believe Mahayana has it correct? If so, you do realize that Mahayana accepts doctrine of anatta too? it's not just a Theravada doctrine.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by cappuccino » Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:23 pm

heaven lasts nearly forever

as well as hell

human life is almost never attained

Buddhas rarely appear

they rarely teach & few learn

for everything to come together?

…… it hasn't happened yet

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Post by Germann » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:26 pm

DNS wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:23 pm
Germann wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:01 am
They say that there is a free choice. But if satta does not exist, then whose free choice? Free choice of Lord Shiva? If there is no satta, there is no free choice, there are only regular or random events.

Mathematically, Nibbana should have already been achieved.
Attaining nibbana is not a regular or random event; I think that is the crux of the issue here. It is not a matter of rolling a trillion sided die and having it come up with some number that is nibbana.

So, is it your conclusion / view that the issue is resolved if there is a satta, a self? Are you Hindu? (real question, not trying to be rhetorical)

Also, you appear to believe Mahayana has it correct? If so, you do realize that Mahayana accepts doctrine of anatta too? it's not just a Theravada doctrine.
All events are either regular or random, or (to some extent) freely chosen. But if satta does not exist - whose is free choice? No satta - no freedom. There is freedom - one cannot deny the existence of satta. But Theravada denies: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=34767#p519606

In the Mahayana, the self-existent is denied, but there is no total denial of human existence; there is no total denial of the existence of satta.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by cappuccino » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:32 pm

If you're responsible, if you have free will, make it happen!

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12675
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re:

Post by DNS » Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:23 am

Germann wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:26 pm
In the Mahayana, the self-existent is denied, but there is no total denial of human existence; there is no total denial of the existence of satta.
Mahayana is very large, so it depends on which tradition within Mahayana you are referring to. I have seen some Mahayana and Vajrayana teachers take a very hard-core anatta view (if we want to see it as a spectrum from full satta view to no-self and then to nihilism). And then others that refer to a tathagatagarbha or some sort of true-self. The Madhyamaka refers to the 2 truths doctrine where there is the conventional language and ultimate language, just for convenience in language in discussing a perceived self, not a full blown real satta. All is sūnyatā (emptiness) according to Nagarjuna.

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:34 am

One of possible scenarios:

Buddha [not particular Buddhists] must be right.
And, Mathematics [not particular Mathematicians] must be right. (Tho' many a times Mathematics itself is not right enough***.)


In that perspective (of both Buddha and Maths being right), if one still can't yet reconcile the two, but still want to, one should increase one's understanding of either one of them or both.


As for me, Buddhism and Mathematics can coexist peacefully together. If mathematicians want to question Buddhism, they should do so only after successfully squaring of the circle, in legitimate ways.




===============
***(The flip side of this fundamental relationship between math and the universe is that math is so simplified that a lot of information is lost when you translate a real world event into a mathematical description. For example, if I have one apple, and add another apple, I have two apples. We can represent that by saying 1+1=2. But think about how much information was just left out- what color are the apples? Weight? Sugar content? Ripeness? Where are they? Are they tasty? What variety? What’s their dna? How many cells do they have? Does the pair have any of these attributes in common? 1+1=2 seems like an extreme simplification all of a sudden!
For certain calculations, this information may not be relevant. But this demonstrates that math is always an approximation, it never represents anything perfectly. So there is a certain fundamental “wrongness” to math as a whole. Most people think of math as exact and certain, but it is in reality the opposite- a lazy shortcut to get a rough answer quickly. https://www.quora.com/Has-maths-ever-been-wrong )
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re:

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:36 am

Germann wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:26 pm
...
But if satta does not exist - whose is free choice? No satta - no freedom.
...
Easy.

If satta does not exit, who feels? The dhamma which feels feels.
If satta does not exit, who knows? The dhamma which knows knows.
...
...
If satta does not exist, who chooses? The dhamma which chooses chooses.
Needed no involvement of the good old satta.
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Re:

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:42 am

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:36 am
Germann wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:26 pm
...
But if satta does not exist - whose is free choice? No satta - no freedom.
...
Easy.

If satta does not exit, who feels? The dhamma which feels feels.
If satta does not exit, who knows? The dhamma which knows knows.
...
...
If satta does not exist, who chooses? The dhamma which chooses chooses.
Needed no involvement of the good old satta.
The suttas say there is no dhamma which feels, there is just feeling.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:31 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:42 am
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:36 am
Germann wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:26 pm
...
But if satta does not exist - whose is free choice? No satta - no freedom.
...
Easy.

If satta does not exit, who feels? The dhamma which feels feels.
If satta does not exit, who knows? The dhamma which knows knows.
...
...
If satta does not exist, who chooses? The dhamma which chooses chooses.
Needed no involvement of the good old satta.
The suttas say there is no dhamma which feels, there is just feeling.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Interesting :clap:

In that sense:
there is no dhamma which chooses, there is just choice 🤔. umm...


Edit:
Just read. Found this:
"Lord, who feels?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feels.' If I were to say 'feels,' then 'Who feels?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes feeling?' And the valid answer is, 'From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.'"

The point is ... 'Who' and 'dhamma' are so different.


Image
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Re:

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:27 pm

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:31 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:42 am
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:36 am


Easy.

If satta does not exit, who feels? The dhamma which feels feels.
If satta does not exit, who knows? The dhamma which knows knows.
...
...
If satta does not exist, who chooses? The dhamma which chooses chooses.
Needed no involvement of the good old satta.
The suttas say there is no dhamma which feels, there is just feeling.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Interesting :clap:

In that sense:
there is no dhamma which chooses, there is just choice 🤔. umm...


Edit:
Just read. Found this:
"Lord, who feels?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feels.' If I were to say 'feels,' then 'Who feels?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes feeling?' And the valid answer is, 'From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.'"

The point is ... 'Who' and 'dhamma' are so different.


Image
Nobody making choices is the one I find tricky. Where do the choices" come from"? Presumably choices arise in dependence upon conditions, but those conditions result from previous choices..... :thinking:
So no free will, just conditioned will?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:46 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:27 pm
...
...
Nobody making choices is the one I find tricky. Where do the choices" come from"? Presumably choices arise in dependence upon conditions, but those conditions result from previous choices..... :thinking:
Yep.
To be a choice, there must be something which [not who] has the ability to choose [otherwise it would end up in fatalism], that something is some appropriate dhamma.
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by Dinsdale » Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:55 pm

Buddha save me from new-agers!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], dhammacoustic, DooDoot, form, SDC and 134 guests