Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Did the Buddha Believe these statements were true?

MatSaltedMatSalted
edited January 2010 in Buddhism Basics
Hi

Do you think Buddha believed these statements were true:
  1. All systems are consistent.
  2. All systems are impermanent.
  3. All systems are connected.
  4. All systems are empty.
  5. All systems inevitably tend towards the negative.
  6. All causes have many effects.
  7. All effects have many causes.
  8. All effects are causes.

Please, I am only interested in constructive critsism/refutation/debate regarding the above points:)

Thanks

Mat

Comments

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited January 2010
    Couldn't one system be that apples are the best. And another system be that oranges are the best?

    One system called capitalism and one system called communism. One system called the wishbone offense and another system called the spread offense? One system pc. One system mac.

    What are systems empty of?

    Towards the negative? Isn't the eventual progression towards enlightenment. The mind is clear luminous and unimpeded.

    My teacher says that cause and effect is relative knowledge only. As the sun rises in the east. It is not the ultimate nature of reality but only an appearance.
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited January 2010
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Couldn't one system be that apples are the best. And another system be that oranges are the best?

    One system called capitalism and one system called communism. One system called the wishbone offense and another system called the spread offense? One system pc. One system mac.

    What are systems empty of?

    Towards the negative? Isn't the eventual progression towards enlightenment. The mind is clear luminous and unimpeded.

    My teacher says that cause and effect is relative knowledge only. As the sun rises in the east. It is not the ultimate nature of reality but only an appearance.

    The notion if systems when you talk about things like "best" or "communism" becomes cloudy because of contingent and emergent properties. That's not relevant to this:)

    If you don't like the term "system" then substitute it for "contingent things":)

    Do you believe the Buddha thought this about contingent things?

    Thanks

    Mat
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited January 2010
    MatSalted wrote: »
    All systems are connected.
    What you have said is tautological. A system implies connection.

    :)
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited January 2010
    Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »
    What you have said is tautological. A system implies connection.

    :)


    Hi DD

    Sorry, I don't see the tautology? A system is an arrangement of points or other systems, a tautology is an argument?

    What's the tautology here?

    :)

    Mat
  • Quiet_witnessQuiet_witness Veteran
    edited January 2010
    Enlightenment is contingent upon one's full awarness of the truth in all things.

    That is a system that is eternal, isn't it?
  • limbolimbo
    edited January 2010
    I'm not quite as learned in the Buddha's teaching as I'd like to be so maybe this is obvious but when did the Buddha say that all systems are consistent?

    Additionally, what do you mean by "negative" in "All systems inevitably tend towards the negative"? what property is being measured?
  • jinzangjinzang Veteran
    edited January 2010
    Consistency is a property of statements and not physical objects. In other words, you've made a category mistake.

    Not all effects are causes. One effect could be the the annihilation of a thing ("system") and a non-existent thing cannot serve as a cause.
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited January 2010
    this is too convoluted
  • BrotherBobBrotherBob
    edited January 2010
    I imagine NOT:)

    Shalom and Hugs
  • DeshyDeshy Veteran
    edited January 2010
    Pietro Pumokin wrote: »
    this is too convoluted

    Yeah. I am sure you can go on and on debating over this, rationalizing and playing around with philosophies. I would suggest you read the suttas and see what the Buddha has said. As far as I know he did not answer all the questions in the world; he just taught suffering and how to get rid of suffering
    <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited January 2010
    jinzang wrote: »
    Consistency is a property of statements and not physical objects. In other words, you've made a category mistake.

    Not all effects are causes. One effect could be the the annihilation of a thing ("system") and a non-existent thing cannot serve as a cause.

    No, I dont so:)_ Consistency is a property of statements and the world.

    Consistent statements describe the consistent world.
    Inconsistent statements describe a logically impossible world:)

    Mat
Sign In or Register to comment.