Theravada against mathematics

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 644
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:25 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:55 pm
And then we have suttas like this:

https://suttacentral.net/an10.216/en/bodhi

https://suttacentral.net/an3.23/en/sujato
Thanks a lot.

I'm very glad to find that the title of AN 3.23 is rendered as "Choices" by Bhikkhu Sujato and as "Volitional Activities" by Bhikkhu Bodhi.
Choices and Volitional activites. Great. They speak for themselves, dhamma-wise.


Image
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

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

Post by Germann » Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:42 pm

DNS wrote:
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.
In Tibetan schools, the self-existing “ego” is denied, but not the cause-dependent “ego”. This is what the Dalai Lama says.

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

Post by Germann » Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:47 pm

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.
Then Theravada Buddhism is a teaching not for people, but for elements, for dhammas. But dhammas cease without religion and the fate of all dhammas is the same. Dhammas do not need religion.

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

The finite number of possible lives is less than the infinite number of lives already lived

Post by Germann » Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:51 pm

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:34 am

As for me, Buddhism and Mathematics can coexist peacefully together.
The lifespan of each type of satta is defined in canonical comments. (For example, in the Abhassara world, the life span of deities is eight cosmic cycles.) But deities, people, animals, etc. (satta), in fact, does not exist. There are combinations of dhammas. Each life is a finite sequence of dhammas combinations. And life expectancy can not be any - it is defined.

Similarly, Shannon determined the duration of a chess game in 40 moves, and calculated the number of all possible combinations of moves, the number of all possible chess games.

In the same way, if the deadline for life is limited (and it is LIMITED in Theravada), the number of all possible life choices is very large (much more than the Shannon number), but finite.

The finite number of possible lives is less than the infinite number of lives already lived. (Which is infinite, since there are no first ones in the series of conditioned dhammas that have arisen without preceding kammic causes.)

As in any infinite time any chess game from among Shannon should be played, so in the endless past the life leading to Nibbana should already be lived.

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 already be achieved EVERYBODY.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2712
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by cappuccino » Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:36 pm

Mathematically, Nibbana should already be achieved.
your math is flawed

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16954
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by mikenz66 » Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:58 pm

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:25 pm
Choices and Volitional activites. Great. They speak for themselves, dhamma-wise.
I find Bhikkhu Sujato's choice of choice to translate saṅkhāra to be extremely illuminating in suttas such as this one:
Bodhi Translation wrote: (1) “Here, bhikkhus, some person generates afflictive bodily activities, afflictive verbal activities, and afflictive mental activities. In consequence, he is reborn in an afflictive world. .When he is reborn in an afflictive world, afflictive contacts touch him. ..
https://suttacentral.net/an3.23/en/bodhi#sc2
Sujato Translation wrote: Firstly, a certain person makes hurtful choices by way of body, speech, and mind. Having made these choices, they’re reborn in a hurtful world, where hurtful contacts touch them. ...
https://suttacentral.net/an3.23/en/sujato#1
And in this case:
Bodhi Translation wrote: ... if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the meritorious; ...
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.51/en/bodhi#sc13
Sujato Translation wrote: If an ignorant individual makes a good choice, their consciousness enters a good realm.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.51/en/sujato#9.1
:heart:
Mike

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12418
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re:

Post by DNS » Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:07 pm

Germann wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:42 pm
In Tibetan schools, the self-existing “ego” is denied, but not the cause-dependent “ego”. This is what the Dalai Lama says.
{you tube video link above}
The video does not provide the Dalai Lama's words (I assume he was speaking english, but can't hear it). The translator spoke in Russian. I don't understand Russian, do you have a translation of what the Dalai Lama said? Or another version of his answer in English or another language I might know?

Dan74
Posts: 3057
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Dan74 » Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:12 am

DNS wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:07 pm
Germann wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:42 pm
In Tibetan schools, the self-existing “ego” is denied, but not the cause-dependent “ego”. This is what the Dalai Lama says.
{you tube video link above}
The video does not provide the Dalai Lama's words (I assume he was speaking english, but can't hear it). The translator spoke in Russian. I don't understand Russian, do you have a translation of what the Dalai Lama said? Or another version of his answer in English or another language I might know?
HH the Dalai Lama simply says that a dependently originated self exists of course. Not any sort of an "absolute self". As you said earlier, David, he is simply invoking the relative perspective. Nothing controversial there.

Our friend Germann appear to be struggling with the concept of doing without the doer, which isn't much different to a 'happening' without a 'happener'. It has nothing to do with Mahayana vs Theravada, but a fundamental (though subtle) Buddhist teaching.

Yes, some Mahayana teachings do refer to a kind of an impersonal self, Buddha-nature, Tathagatha-garbha, etc something that can be taken as an absence of delusion or a boundless matrix of awareness, as far as I can make it out. But it's really not relevant to this discussion.
_/|\_

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

Avijjamana means non-existence

Post by Germann » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:11 am

DNS wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:07 pm
Germann wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:42 pm
In Tibetan schools, the self-existing “ego” is denied, but not the cause-dependent “ego”. This is what the Dalai Lama says.
{you tube video link above}
The video does not provide the Dalai Lama's words (I assume he was speaking english, but can't hear it). The translator spoke in Russian. I don't understand Russian, do you have a translation of what the Dalai Lama said? Or another version of his answer in English or another language I might know?
Avijjamana means non-existence, emptiness does not mean non-existence.

https://amyedelstein.com/dalai-lama/
"HHDL: Buddha himself taught different levels of emptiness. But generally, emptiness means the lack of true existence of the “object of negation.” To begin with we have to ask: What is that object of negation? There are different modes and processes of identifying the object of negation. These include processes for identifying the selflessness of the person, the selflessness of phenomena and so forth. And there are different interpretations and different concepts about emptiness according to different schools of thought.
Now according to Madhyamika [the philosophy of the “middle way”], generally, emptiness is the absence of independent existence. So this means that something exists, and emptiness is one of the qualifications and characteristics of that which exists. We cannot talk about these qualities in reference to a nonexistent object; there is some base. The absence of independent existence is nature—it is the way of existence—and the absence of independent existence is possible only because there is something that exists. So therefore, the mere unfindability of the object of designation is not what “emptiness” refers to. If we search for a totally nonexistent object and we do not find it, that is not emptiness. For example, there is no flower on this table. If we look, we see that there is no flower on the table. That “absence” of flower is not emptiness. But now, let us take the example of the tape recorder, and investigate: What is the actual nature of the tape recorder? If you look at the shape, material and color of the tape recorder separately, there is no longer the existence of “tape recorder.” So you see, although there is a tape recorder, if we investigate its individual qualities and characteristics, we can’t find it. Then you can see that “tape recorder” is a mere designation. But, again, the mere “absence” of flower is not emptiness."

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

Avijjamana means non-existence

Post by Germann » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:20 am

Dan74 wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:12 am
DNS wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 11:07 pm
Germann wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:42 pm
In Tibetan schools, the self-existing “ego” is denied, but not the cause-dependent “ego”. This is what the Dalai Lama says.
{you tube video link above}
The video does not provide the Dalai Lama's words (I assume he was speaking english, but can't hear it). The translator spoke in Russian. I don't understand Russian, do you have a translation of what the Dalai Lama said? Or another version of his answer in English or another language I might know?
HH the Dalai Lama simply says that a dependently originated self exists of course. Not any sort of an "absolute self". As you said earlier, David, he is simply invoking the relative perspective. Nothing controversial there.

Our friend Germann appear to be struggling with the concept of doing without the doer, which isn't much different to a 'happening' without a 'happener'. It has nothing to do with Mahayana vs Theravada, but a fundamental (though subtle) Buddhist teaching.

Yes, some Mahayana teachings do refer to a kind of an impersonal self, Buddha-nature, Tathagatha-garbha, etc something that can be taken as an absence of delusion or a boundless matrix of awareness, as far as I can make it out. But it's really not relevant to this discussion.
Bhikkhu Ñánamoli (The Path of Purification p. 233):
(2) Concept of the non-existent, which is, for example, the conceptualizing of “female,” “male,” “persons,” etc., which are non-existent by that standard and are only established by means of current speech in the world; similarly “such impossibilities as concepts of a fifth truth or the other sectarians’ Atom, Primordial Essence, World Soul, and the like.”

The World Soul is not exist ("avijjamana") - the World Soul is not "empty of independent existence". Mereological nihilism of Theravada is not similar to the philosophy of Madhyamaka. Theravada denies reality of “female,” “male,” “persons”, Madhyamaka does not deny reality of “female,” “male,” “persons”. Theravada denies reality of World Soul, and Mahayana denies reality of World Soul. The World Soul is not exist.

justindesilva
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Theravada against mathematics

Post by justindesilva » Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:42 am

cappuccino wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:36 pm
Mathematically, Nibbana should already be achieved.
your math is flawed
I see that we speak of Buddhism with sammuti sacca. As lay Buddhists all that we perceive is with three dimensions , say with X, Y, Z coordinates. Science and maths on effects of sights sound and even signals on touch identify its objects three dimensionally. Eg: Doppler effects. Therefore we understand even the pancaskanda three dimensionally. Yet as we clear the doubts about damma we have to grasp it on a scale beyond the three dimensions as explained by Mulaparyaya sutta which drags us on to the Paramatta sacca.
Once we walk the path of arya ashtangika marga , we will develop the wisdom or pragna beyond our three dimensional visions. State of Nirvana after all cannot be restricted to dimensions.

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

The one who makes a free choice

Post by Germann » Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:00 am

Dan74 wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:12 am
'happening' without a 'happener'
The one who makes a free choice ("happener") is a fluid flow of experience, not something that doesn't exist (as in Theravada), and not something independently existing (not something permanent, eternal, unchanging), as in the systems of Tirthika.

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

Sammuti sacca does not create another reality in addition to paramattha.

Post by Germann » Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:14 am

justindesilva wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:42 am

I see that we speak of Buddhism with sammuti sacca.
Example by analogy.

Sammuti sacca it's a way of saying: "UN Deputy Chief Interviews Social Robot Sophia". This does not negate the reality in which there is no interview, but there is the functioning of the hard and software. This does not create another reality in which a woman named Sophia turns out to be real.

Sammuti sacca does not create another reality in addition to paramattha. Sammuti is not one of the two facets of reality, as one of the "two truths" in Madhyamaka. The only reality is paramattha. Sammuti sacca is a convenient way to talk about the reality of paramattha, which remains the same.

The way to speak is not the same as reality.


justindesilva
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Sammuti sacca does not create another reality in addition to paramattha.

Post by justindesilva » Sat Jul 27, 2019 10:14 am

Germann wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 6:14 am
justindesilva wrote:
Sat Jul 27, 2019 5:42 am

I see that we speak of Buddhism with sammuti sacca.
Example by analogy.

Sammuti sacca it's a way of saying: "UN Deputy Chief Interviews Social Robot Sophia". This does not negate the reality in which there is no interview, but there is the functioning of the hard and software. This does not create another reality in which a woman named Sophia turns out to be real.

Sammuti sacca does not create another reality in addition to paramattha. Sammuti is not one of the two facets of reality, as one of the "two truths" in Madhyamaka. The only reality is paramattha. Sammuti sacca is a convenient way to talk about the reality of paramattha, which remains the same.

The way to speak is not the same as reality.

It is better to download " Mulapariyaya sutta" and read if one needs to understand that an unskilled layman understands what and how apo tejo vayo patavi akasa is understood against a skilled person who has wisdom and pragna.
The reason why lord Buddha preached this sutta is to highlight such differences.

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 644
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re:

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:55 am

Germann wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:47 pm
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.
Then Theravada Buddhism is a teaching not for people, but for elements, for dhammas. But dhammas cease without religion and the fate of all dhammas is the same. Dhammas do not need religion.


Thanks. I like the way you mentioned:

A teaching...
    • Of the dhammas
      By the dhammas
      For the dhammas
      On the Dhamma
Image
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Viachh and 129 guests