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.
That can be corrected. Let's talk about contingencies.
For example, in a ternary number system 2+2=11, in a quaternary number system 2+2=10, yet semantically the result is still the same. Enter abstract algebra. Let's define a set Z4 consisting of the integers 0-3. We can define an addition table where the result 3+1 wraps to 0, 3+2 wraps to 1 and so on. Since this can be shown to be an Abelian group, you have an algebraic ring in which 2+2=0. Perfectly valid, perfectly logical.
Am I digressing?
That's all very impressive (as sophistry goes) and I don't understand a word of it:) As I am sure you know, when we speak, especially little traditional examples to illustrate points, we assume a background framework, in this case, I assumed 2+2=4 in simple transfinite decimal maths.....
Your example would have been more impressive and less pernickity and more pertinent had you made it about a case when the Four Noble Truths could be falsified. After much thought I think the only way this could be is in a finite system unbounded by things like the speed of light or the second law of Thermodynamics, even then I don't know.
When the Buddha said these are eternal truths, I have a sneaking suspicion he meant it....
I assumed 2+2=4 in simple transfinite decimal maths.....
Exactly. You assumed regular integer arithmetics. That illustrates my point, which is that our ideas are intricately tied to underlying conceptual frameworks which we assume to be self-evident and which we rarely question. When you change the underlying framework, suddenly everything else changes. Granted, Z4 algebra is a little esoteric, but I could have used boolean algebra which is very common, as it is used in every digital computer.
The point is: no concept is absolute, not even 2+2=4, or classical logic. Concepts always depend on other concepts.
Your example would have been more impressive and less pernickity and more pertinent had you made it about a case when the Four Noble Truths could be falsified.
Persnicketypertinent or not, the situation with 4NT is the same. The four noble truths relate to an underlying framework, namely samsaric existence. Outside this framework they are meaningless. No concept is absolute. The absolute is not conceptual.
Its not an assumption, its a foundation/framework upon which the truth rests. Instead of saying I cannot doubt 2+2=4 I could have said I cannout doubt "I love my wife". You are missing the point.
When you change the underlying framework, suddenly everything else changes.
Sure, but the point is, the foundation is what it is. Irrespective if we talk maths or whatever....
The point is: no concept is absolute, not... classical logic.
I disagree. There can be no meaningful contradictions, that is an absolute to me. If you think otherwise then all you need do to show I am mistaken is show me a meaningful contradiction.
the situation with 4NT is the same.
I disagree. To show I am mistaken simply show me how they could be falsified in any meaningful sense.
The four noble truths relate to an underlying framework, namely samsaric existence.
I disagree. To me they show that samsaric existence is not possible, it is a delusion, but I accept this is not a common belief within Buddhists,
No concept is absolute.
What would the negation of this statement be? I have no idea?
Its not an assumption, its a foundation/framework upon which the truth rests.
That's where you are in error and this is the reason why I made the point about Z4 algebra. Regular integer algebra based on the Peano axiomatic system is not inherently more "true" than Z4 algebra. It's just more useful for the world we live in and since we use it almost exclusively we have come to believe that this is the only valid system. As mentioned, the error lies in assuming that the underlying framework is absolute.
I disagree. There can be no meaningful contradictions, that is an absolute to me. If you think otherwise then all you need do to show I am mistaken is show me a meaningful contradiction.
I did not say anything about "meaningful contradictions". I said that classical bivalent logic is not absolute. It is not the only logic that exists. There are many, for example, there is Kleene's logic, Lucasiewicz logic, fuzzy logic, n-valued logic, and so on. Again, the situation is analogous to integer numbers... we find classical bivalent logic most useful, so we usually operate in terms of the rules of inference of classical bivalent logic, but it does not mean that alternative logics are "false".
The important thing to understand is that there is no "true" or "false" underlying axiomatic system. The only property an axiomatic system is usually required to fulfil is consistency. I can't really go into detail, but it is important to understand that this applies to any symbolic system, including natural language.
That's where you are in error and this is the reason why I made the point about Z4 algebra. Regular integer algebra based on the Peano axiomatic system is not inherently more "true" than Z4 algebra.
Sure, I may be in Error, but can you show me so without using an example that doesn't involve a sports car, please:) As I said, I don't know what you talk about when you talk about these maths things I have never heard of.
To restate, I used 2+2=4 as a simple example of something I cannot doubt, and it remains, I cannot doubt it. That doesnt mean in every possible universe/framework 2+2=4 is necessarily true, it means that I cannot doubt it. Equally with the Four Noble Truths, the Law of Noncorntradiction or my love for my Wife.
I did not say anything about "meaningful contradictions". I said that classical bivalent logic is not absolute.
It is not the only logic that exists.[/QUOTE]
You are the one who keeps mentioning "absolute", not I. In fact as I said to Nios in this very thread the methodology given by The Buddha is to exchange certainty for Clarity.
There are many, for example, there is Kleene's logic, Lucasiewicz logic, fuzzy logic, n-valued logic, and so on.
Yes yes, and many different geometries and maths sytems and all of that... this is not what is relevant, in fact as The Buddha say we should not trust any system.
I do not hold non contradiction prime because I was taught it but because I cannot Doubt it.
All your very impressive mentions of all of these very exotic sounding things simply do not apply to this point, as the Buddha states explicitly in the Kalama Suttra, do not go by inference... logic.. etc however your transaltion reads.
It took me a while to get this but it is paramount to understanding how doubt powers dharma....
The important thing to understand is that there is no "true" or "false" underlying axiomatic system. The only property an axiomatic system is usually required to fulfil is consistency. I can't really go into detail, but it is important to understand that this applies to any symbolic system, including natural language.
That may be true in your analytic academic pursuits but I believe it is wrong view when applied to Dharma. There is no underlying system, there is simply each individual's personal relationship with the truths they can doubt or not.
So, to re-ask: Can you doubt the Four Noble Truths?
That doesnt mean in every possible universe/framework 2+2=4 is necessarily true, it means that I cannot doubt it.
You are correct. Logical truths cannot be doubted; according to Kant they belong to the class of analytic or synthetic a priori statements which cannot be questioned without contradiction. They are absolutely true, but still... this doesn't make them absolutes, because you can still doubt the premises. The premises are nothing but the axiomatic system on which such unquestionable truths rest, and hence, with an alternative set of axioms you get an alternative set of truths...
So, to re-ask: Can you doubt the Four Noble Truths?
Of course you can doubt the four noble truths and many -if not most- non-Buddhists do doubt the four noble truth. Again, the basis for this doubt would be given by applying a different set of premises, a different axiomatic system. In Buddhism, dukkha and dependent origination are axiomatic, hence, if one doesn't accept dukkha, or if one does not accept that craving (tanha) is the cause for dukkha, then the four noble truths are a non-starter.
You are correct.[Logical truths cannot be doubted; according to Kant they belong to the class of analytic or synthetic a priori statements which cannot be questioned without contradiction.
No, again you try to pull out the wrong conclusions from what i am saying the Buddha says. Can you please be very clear here that we are not talking about western epistemology, architectonics (Thats one of my favorite words and I think Kant coined it?) or the logical robustness of systems, but a very simple process that the Buddha discovered
It doesn't matter if the questioned truths are analytic or synthetic or a priori or posteriori, all that matters to Buddha is the process of doubt succeeding or failing.
The premises are nothing but the axiomatic system on which such unquestionable truths rest, and hence, with an alternative set of axioms you get an alternative set of truths...
There are no premiss's to Dharma, no axioms, there are the three marks of existence, which cannot be doubted (In a bounded universe).
Of course you can doubt the four noble truths
Then for the forth or fifth time in this thread can you simply tell me how. You bring out the big guns and the big names and all of that but you keep ignoring answering this question....
and many -if not most- non-Buddhists do doubt the four noble truth.
You confuse doubting with not understanding. Many non buddhists don't know about or understand the four noble truths, but that doesn't mean they doubt them, it means they dont know about or understand them.
Pick anyone and explain to them impermanence, interconnectivity, emptiness, and The Four Noble truths and, like you, they will not be able to doubt them.
Again, the basis for this doubt would be given by applying a different set of premises, a different axiomatic system.
I am sure you have read "The Bounds of Sense" and "On Certainty" but the way you speak I am not sure you that have read The Kalama Sutta; "do not go by axiom...."
Dharma has no axioms, it has a simple methodology of universal doubt (doubt everything) solved by self-directed experienced based enquery (be your own light)...
In Buddhism, dukkha and dependent origination are axiomatic
No they are not. There are no axioms, there is just the invitation to refute, an invitation which cannot be achieved.
I used to think like you, that you could in some sense prove the four noble truths as part of a ground-up system. It is wrong view. I was wrong.
hence, if one doesn't accept dukkha
How can you not accept Dukka? What would that be like? What statements would need to be true for Dukka to be false? What experiences would lead to someone thinking, Dukka is not a mark of existence of all things...
or if one does not accept that craving (tanha) is the cause for dukkha
Again, how would this be? How would you not accept it once understood. (Incidentally, when we speak of Dukka in this wide sense, tanha is not always the cause, tanha is the cause of the Dukka experience of sentient beings, Dukka is true of all things, including "inanimate" things. )
I think we are going to be going round in circles here until you loose the wrong view that the Four Noble Truths are like an equation or a theory or a set of axioms.....
I suspect admitting you are wrong is hard for you, but for the record, I admit I was was very wrong when I hold the views you do...
I get the impression you argue for the arguments sake. What I have said cannot be said any clearer. If you don't understand it, I am afraid I can't help it. It is simply wrong to state that there are no axioms to the Buddhadharma, since the Buddha could not have phrased these axioms any clearer. How long have you been studying Buddhism? Whether you find the premises self-evident is a different matter. The point is that they are there, and they are different from Advaita Vedanta, for example, and when you accept the Buddhadharma you implicitly accept these premises.
This has nothing to do with the Kalama Sutta. It is a simple observation that applies to any system of thought, whether it is Marxist ideology, algebra, or Buddhism. Your claim that non-Buddhists don't understand the four noble truths is conceited in the same way as Christians who claim that non-Christians don't understand God. It's faith-based prejudice. The fact that I realise that Buddhism involves a conceptual framework, does in no way diminish its value for me. You see, it's an extremely useful conceptual framework...
I get the impression you argue for the arguments sake.
I disagree with you, I think you are mistaken, and I am responding to your braggardly claims that I am mistaken.
I may be wrong, but you haven't shown me so., or even answered my questions inviting you to.
If you don't understand it, I am afraid I can't help it.
Apart from the maths stuff, I understand what you say, probably more than you expect. However, I think you are wrong relevant to Dharma.
I dont understand why you cant show me a reason to doubt the four noble truths.
It is simply wrong to state that there are no axioms to the Buddhadharma, since the Buddha could not have phrased these axioms any clearer.
We disasagree.
How long have you been studying Buddhism?
That isnt relevant. Would what i say be better if I said 30 years or 30 days?
Whether you find the premises self-evident is a different matter. The point is that they are there, and they are different from Advaita Vedanta, for example, and when you accept the Buddhadharma you implicitly accept these premises.
I accept nothing, as the buddha instyruicted me to.
This has nothing to do with the Kalama Sutta.
For me, its all do to with that.
If you want to follow doctrine thats fine, enjoy, I dont.
It is a simple observation that applies to any system of thought, whether it is Marxist ideology, algebra, or Buddhism.
This is the whole point, Dharma is not a belief system. Its a path of parctice.
I accept nothing, as the buddha instyruicted me to.
As much as I favor the Kalama Sutta, I think you are over-emphaszing it a bit. Not to mention, Buddha didn't instruct you to accept nothing. He said to accept things when: "when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
As much as I favor the Kalama Sutta, I think you are over-emphaszing it a bit.
I don't. In fact I feel it has been wholly under-emphasized by traditional buddhism. Why? because it undermines their doctrines due to the call to question.
Not to mention, Buddha didn't instruct you to accept nothing. He said to accept things when: "when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
Incorrect, before that in the text he instructs us to abandon certainty in ten types of knowledge, which, as I understand it, includes all kinds imaginable:)
Again, show me I am wrong, bit don't just tell me I am wrong.
I don't. In fact I feel it has been wholly under-emphasized by traditional buddhism.
I agree on that point very strongly. It seems it's only over-emphasized on the internet.
Incorrect, before that in the text he instructs us to abandon certainty in ten types of knowledge, which, as I understand it, includes all kinds imaginable:)
Again, show me I am wrong, bit don't just tell me I am wrong.
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The criterion for ACCEPTANCE
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]...when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
I'm not sure if this should be here or in another section, but, I've seen it said in quite a few places that Buddha was a Hindu, and that Buddhism was, or is, a subset of Hinduism, but, is that really true?, what is the relationship like between Hinduism and Buddhism, was Buddha a Hindu?, etc.
At the time of Buddha 'Hindus' were those who lived south of the Sindhu River (the 'S' in Sindhu is pronounced as an 'H') therefore technically Buddha could be regarded as a Hindu. The religion current at the time was Veda Dharma (the Dharma according to the Vedas) which he appeared to follow as he had Brahmin teachers.
I agree on that point very strongly. It seems it's only over-emphasized on the internet.
That is because, thankfully, here we are free from dogma and doctrine, or at least, its not essential....
I don't know how you can ignore that passage.
It is not ignored at all, it is the solution to the problem. It seems you ignore the problem, "Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning..."
It is not ignored at all, it is the solution to the problem. It seems you ignore the problem, "Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning..."
I didn't ignore it. That's simply the strict, epistemological criteria for discerning what is true.
You said that Buddha instructed to accept nothing. I pointed out that he did in fact give a criteria for acceptance.
I am responding to your braggardly claims that I am mistaken.
If I wanted to brag, I wouldn't argue with you, because you don't present a challenge. The refutation of your argument is an easy exercise, nothing to brag about. I am responding to you, simply because I hope that this will be useful. Since you are responding in personal defense now, I am not sure if I get through any longer. Unfortunately, this is a general problem with online debates.
I may be wrong, but you haven't shown me so., or even answered my questions inviting you to.
I have, but you are refusing to read. You claimed that you cannot doubt that 2+2=4 and I have shown you the conditions under which 2+2=0. You said you cannot doubt that avijja leads to dukkha and I have shown you the conditions under which this can be doubted, namely by rejecting the premises of dependent origination.
DO is phrased axiomatically. There is no sutta in the canon in which DO is deduced from a more fundamental system. If you think otherwise, show me.
Finally, you have claimed that samsaric existence is not possible, you said it is a delusion, and just a few posts later you invoked the three marks of existence to defend your point. However, the three marks of existence do define samsaric existence. Thus you cannot reject samsara and keep the three marks of existence; it is not logical. What I am hoping for is that this debate will not be understood as an affront. It is intended to help you see the inconsistencies in your point of view. You can try to recognise it or you can deny it.
Unfortunately, this is a general problem with online debates.
Sure:) And there are many problems, I guess we both think wthe other comes over badly. But its all we have here....
DO is phrased axiomatically. There is no sutta in the canon in which DO is deduced from a more fundamental system. If you think otherwise, show me.
The Buddha didn't stumble upon DO, he saw it, he knew it in itself, that was the turning point for enlightenment. It is not axiomatic, it is simply seen and known, unavailable to doubt once seen.
Finally, you have claimed that samsaric existence is not possible, you said it is a delusion, and just a few posts later you invoked the three marks of existence to defend your point. However, the three marks of existence do define samsaric existence.
I disagree. I think they show it is not possible.
Thus you cannot reject samsara and keep the three marks of existence; it is not logical.
I do not find impermanence and emptiness to be compatible with the idea of a samasric cycle. I long to be shown how they are.
What I am hoping for is that this debate will not be understood as an affront. It is intended to help you see the inconsistencies in your point of view. You can try to recognise it or you can deny it.
The Buddha didn't stumble upon DO, he saw it, he knew it in itself, that was the turning point for enlightenment. It is not axiomatic, it is simply seen and known, unavailable to doubt once seen.
Ah, finally we are getting somewhere. What does it mean to say: the Buddha "saw" DO? It means recognising thusness. It means seeing things as they are. If you see things as they are, ignorance and delusion are absent. But are you that enlightened? Do you see DO as thusness? Or do you see DO as it is phrased in the suttas? The latter is conceptual, cognizable to the intellect, and because it is conceptual and axiomatic, it can be rejected.
When you see thusness, that things are such and such, then doubt and denial appear absurd. It is absurd to deny wetness when you swim, for example. As students of the Buddha, we both agree in that there is an epistemic method which does not rely on sense perception, inference, or logical deduction. We call it direct knowledge. However, unless you claim to have direct knowledge of DO, you cannot say that Buddhist doctrine is above doubt.
I do not find impermanence and emptiness to be compatible with the idea of a samasric cycle. I long to be shown how they are.
If you tell me why you think that impermanence and emptiness are incompatible with samsara, we can discuss this. It maybe good enough for a new thread.
Ah, finally we are getting somewhere. What does it mean to say: the Buddha "saw" DO? It means recognising thusness. It means seeing things as they are.
To me it means seeing the many to many cause/effect framework of reality.
it is that which links all phenomenon, and depending on the level of abstraction you refer to, conditions human experience.
As students of the Buddha, we both agree in that there is an epistemic method which does not rely on sense perception, inference, or logical deduction.
Or testimony etc....
We call it direct knowledge. However, unless you claim to have direct knowledge of DO, you cannot say that Buddhist doctrine is above doubt.
If I cannot doubt Dharma, I can say it is beyond doubt. This doenst make it certain in the analytic sense of western science, it makes it indubitable.
It is indubitable that I love my wife, it is not certain that I do.
If you tell me why you think that impermanence and emptiness are incompatible with samsara, we can discuss this. It maybe good enough for a new thread.
Samsara, a Hindu or earlier notion, involves the preservation of "something" past system finite states (Death) and I cannot make sense of how this can be compatible with impermanences and emptiness, can you?
But your right, we go very off topic here, Start the thread and count me:)
I am not saying it is unsophisticated, I am saying it is not the simple, true, immutable and indubitable Dharma captured by the four noble truths.
It may be the worlds most awesome philosophical system (My take is it is far from that) but that doesnt mean it is relevant to the original teachings of the buddha.
Your "take" is inaccurate.
You are making assumptions and judgments with no personal experience of knowledge to back them up.
The things I mentioned before about madhyamaka and Vajrayana are certainly relevant to the "original teachings of the Buddha" (whatever that means).
If your talking about when it was said to be taught then you could say it was first taught in Heaven by the Buddha to his mother, as I just learned there is a ledgend that that is the case.
The abhibdarma was the last of the PC to be written down, and the PC was written down many centruries after the Buddha's death.
I have a copy of Kalupahana's History of Buddhist Philosophy here (yawn), Ill see if it has any more info.
I will never refer to any legends about heavenly realms etc. as historical fact.
We should all be historically responsible and recognize that even the sutta-pitaka was composed hundreds of years after the death of Buddha by a council of monks. The same is true for the vinaya and abhidamma.
The historical truth is that the abhidhamma-pitaka was being taught very early in Buddhist history, most likely right alongside the other pitaka's before they were actually compiled.
You know, one thing I know about Buddhist views is that everyone has their own take on them. Sometimes about key and core issues, sometimes about details and cultural decorations.
It isn't a competition, there is no winner or gain to be had by convincing others. At best we can say our views, say why we think them, and accept and tolerate the same from others.
You are making assumptions and judgments with no personal experience of knowledge to back them up.
Relative to me and the constraints I have about what I believe, I have enough experience and understanding to satisfy me. That is all that is relavant. Unto each their own.
The things I mentioned before about madhyamaka and Vajrayana are certainly relevant to the "original teachings of the Buddha" (whatever that means).
We will never know what the original teachings were, thankfully we don't need to, we have The Four Noble Truths and all they contain.
We should all be historically responsible and recognize that even the sutta-pitaka was composed hundreds of years after the death of Buddha by a council of monks. The same is true for the vinaya and abhidamma.
Yep, all of it is up for questioning, none of it can be considered "historical fact".
The historical truth is that the abhidhamma-pitaka was being taught very early in Buddhist history, most likely right alongside the other pitaka's before they were actually compiled.
If you believe that, that is your belief, it isn't mine. I don't believe the abhidharma was taught by the Buddha, I am not unique amoungst Buddhist in this belief.
You know, one thing I know about Buddhist views is that everyone has their own take on them. Sometimes about key and core issues, sometimes about details and cultural decorations.
Thats true, opinions and views are one thing, gross doctrinal and historical inaccuracies are another.
If you believe that, that is your belief, it isn't mine. I don't believe the abhidharma was taught by the Buddha, I am not unique amoungst Buddhist in this belief.
I dont "believe" that what we have in the scriptures of any of the pitakas are the actual "words of the Buddha", abhidamma included of course. It is however historically inaccurate for us to say that the abhidamma came into the picture vastly later than the other pitakas.
OK, I guess when I see the evidence you have for their simultaneous development I will have the views you do about this chronology.
I never said they were simultaneous.
I said that 1000 years after the death of Buddha was an exaggeration and an over-estimation.
Also, that your comments on later developments in Buddhist philosophy and practice were based on misinformed/under-informed assumptions.
I never said they were simultaneous.
I said that 1000 years after the death of Buddha was an exaggeration and an over-estimation.
Ok, if that is your issue, I apologise for my exaggeration. Can I amend it to : Between 500 to 1000 years after the Buddha's life, and we will never know exactly where?
Also, that your comments on later developments in Buddhist philosophy and practice were based on misinformed/under-informed assumptions.
I disagree, I do not not think the Ahibdharma is a part of the philosophy taught by the buddha in his lifetime.
I disagree, I do not not think the Ahibdharma is a part of the philosophy taught by the buddha in his lifetime.
We dont disagree on this. I dont think he actually taught it either.
I couldnt care less if the historical Buddha even existed to be honest.
What i feel is inaccurate is your assumption that the later developments are somehow out of line with the "original" teachings.
If you take the time to understand their purpose etc. you will see that they are very carefully situated and explained to be fully relevant and in accord with the 4NT etc.
Comments
That's all very impressive (as sophistry goes) and I don't understand a word of it:) As I am sure you know, when we speak, especially little traditional examples to illustrate points, we assume a background framework, in this case, I assumed 2+2=4 in simple transfinite decimal maths.....
Your example would have been more impressive and less pernickity and more pertinent had you made it about a case when the Four Noble Truths could be falsified. After much thought I think the only way this could be is in a finite system unbounded by things like the speed of light or the second law of Thermodynamics, even then I don't know.
When the Buddha said these are eternal truths, I have a sneaking suspicion he meant it....
Namaste
Exactly. You assumed regular integer arithmetics. That illustrates my point, which is that our ideas are intricately tied to underlying conceptual frameworks which we assume to be self-evident and which we rarely question. When you change the underlying framework, suddenly everything else changes. Granted, Z4 algebra is a little esoteric, but I could have used boolean algebra which is very common, as it is used in every digital computer.
The point is: no concept is absolute, not even 2+2=4, or classical logic. Concepts always depend on other concepts.
Persnicketypertinent or not, the situation with 4NT is the same. The four noble truths relate to an underlying framework, namely samsaric existence. Outside this framework they are meaningless. No concept is absolute. The absolute is not conceptual.
Cheers, Thomas
Its not an assumption, its a foundation/framework upon which the truth rests. Instead of saying I cannot doubt 2+2=4 I could have said I cannout doubt "I love my wife". You are missing the point.
Sure, but the point is, the foundation is what it is. Irrespective if we talk maths or whatever....
I disagree. There can be no meaningful contradictions, that is an absolute to me. If you think otherwise then all you need do to show I am mistaken is show me a meaningful contradiction.
I disagree. To show I am mistaken simply show me how they could be falsified in any meaningful sense.
I disagree. To me they show that samsaric existence is not possible, it is a delusion, but I accept this is not a common belief within Buddhists,
What would the negation of this statement be? I have no idea?
namaste
That's where you are in error and this is the reason why I made the point about Z4 algebra. Regular integer algebra based on the Peano axiomatic system is not inherently more "true" than Z4 algebra. It's just more useful for the world we live in and since we use it almost exclusively we have come to believe that this is the only valid system. As mentioned, the error lies in assuming that the underlying framework is absolute.
I did not say anything about "meaningful contradictions". I said that classical bivalent logic is not absolute. It is not the only logic that exists. There are many, for example, there is Kleene's logic, Lucasiewicz logic, fuzzy logic, n-valued logic, and so on. Again, the situation is analogous to integer numbers... we find classical bivalent logic most useful, so we usually operate in terms of the rules of inference of classical bivalent logic, but it does not mean that alternative logics are "false".
The important thing to understand is that there is no "true" or "false" underlying axiomatic system. The only property an axiomatic system is usually required to fulfil is consistency. I can't really go into detail, but it is important to understand that this applies to any symbolic system, including natural language.
Cheers, Thomas
Sure, I may be in Error, but can you show me so without using an example that doesn't involve a sports car, please:) As I said, I don't know what you talk about when you talk about these maths things I have never heard of.
To restate, I used 2+2=4 as a simple example of something I cannot doubt, and it remains, I cannot doubt it. That doesnt mean in every possible universe/framework 2+2=4 is necessarily true, it means that I cannot doubt it. Equally with the Four Noble Truths, the Law of Noncorntradiction or my love for my Wife.
It is not the only logic that exists.[/QUOTE]
You are the one who keeps mentioning "absolute", not I. In fact as I said to Nios in this very thread the methodology given by The Buddha is to exchange certainty for Clarity.
Yes yes, and many different geometries and maths sytems and all of that... this is not what is relevant, in fact as The Buddha say we should not trust any system.
I do not hold non contradiction prime because I was taught it but because I cannot Doubt it.
All your very impressive mentions of all of these very exotic sounding things simply do not apply to this point, as the Buddha states explicitly in the Kalama Suttra, do not go by inference... logic.. etc however your transaltion reads.
It took me a while to get this but it is paramount to understanding how doubt powers dharma....
That may be true in your analytic academic pursuits but I believe it is wrong view when applied to Dharma. There is no underlying system, there is simply each individual's personal relationship with the truths they can doubt or not.
So, to re-ask: Can you doubt the Four Noble Truths?
namaste
You are correct. Logical truths cannot be doubted; according to Kant they belong to the class of analytic or synthetic a priori statements which cannot be questioned without contradiction. They are absolutely true, but still... this doesn't make them absolutes, because you can still doubt the premises. The premises are nothing but the axiomatic system on which such unquestionable truths rest, and hence, with an alternative set of axioms you get an alternative set of truths...
Of course you can doubt the four noble truths and many -if not most- non-Buddhists do doubt the four noble truth. Again, the basis for this doubt would be given by applying a different set of premises, a different axiomatic system. In Buddhism, dukkha and dependent origination are axiomatic, hence, if one doesn't accept dukkha, or if one does not accept that craving (tanha) is the cause for dukkha, then the four noble truths are a non-starter.
Cheers, Thomas
No, again you try to pull out the wrong conclusions from what i am saying the Buddha says. Can you please be very clear here that we are not talking about western epistemology, architectonics (Thats one of my favorite words and I think Kant coined it?) or the logical robustness of systems, but a very simple process that the Buddha discovered
It doesn't matter if the questioned truths are analytic or synthetic or a priori or posteriori, all that matters to Buddha is the process of doubt succeeding or failing.
There are no premiss's to Dharma, no axioms, there are the three marks of existence, which cannot be doubted (In a bounded universe).
I get the impression you argue for the arguments sake. What I have said cannot be said any clearer. If you don't understand it, I am afraid I can't help it. It is simply wrong to state that there are no axioms to the Buddhadharma, since the Buddha could not have phrased these axioms any clearer. How long have you been studying Buddhism? Whether you find the premises self-evident is a different matter. The point is that they are there, and they are different from Advaita Vedanta, for example, and when you accept the Buddhadharma you implicitly accept these premises.
This has nothing to do with the Kalama Sutta. It is a simple observation that applies to any system of thought, whether it is Marxist ideology, algebra, or Buddhism. Your claim that non-Buddhists don't understand the four noble truths is conceited in the same way as Christians who claim that non-Christians don't understand God. It's faith-based prejudice. The fact that I realise that Buddhism involves a conceptual framework, does in no way diminish its value for me. You see, it's an extremely useful conceptual framework...
Cheers, Thomas
I disagree with you, I think you are mistaken, and I am responding to your braggardly claims that I am mistaken.
I may be wrong, but you haven't shown me so., or even answered my questions inviting you to.
Apart from the maths stuff, I understand what you say, probably more than you expect. However, I think you are wrong relevant to Dharma.
I dont understand why you cant show me a reason to doubt the four noble truths.
We disasagree.
That isnt relevant. Would what i say be better if I said 30 years or 30 days?
I accept nothing, as the buddha instyruicted me to.
For me, its all do to with that.
If you want to follow doctrine thats fine, enjoy, I dont.
This is the whole point, Dharma is not a belief system. Its a path of parctice.
we go round now,
have fun
As much as I favor the Kalama Sutta, I think you are over-emphaszing it a bit. Not to mention, Buddha didn't instruct you to accept nothing. He said to accept things when: "when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
.
I don't. In fact I feel it has been wholly under-emphasized by traditional buddhism. Why? because it undermines their doctrines due to the call to question.
Incorrect, before that in the text he instructs us to abandon certainty in ten types of knowledge, which, as I understand it, includes all kinds imaginable:)
Again, show me I am wrong, bit don't just tell me I am wrong.
I agree on that point very strongly. It seems it's only over-emphasized on the internet.
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The criterion for ACCEPTANCE
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]...when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/kalama1.htm
I don't know how you can ignore that passage. [/FONT]
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_River
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India
That is because, thankfully, here we are free from dogma and doctrine, or at least, its not essential....
It is not ignored at all, it is the solution to the problem. It seems you ignore the problem, "Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning..."
I didn't ignore it. That's simply the strict, epistemological criteria for discerning what is true.
You said that Buddha instructed to accept nothing. I pointed out that he did in fact give a criteria for acceptance.
.
No, doubting everything means accepting nothing, as the KS says. And elsewhere the Buddha says not to even accept his words just because they are his.
When I believe he said "Doubt everything" I believe he meant all things, including what he says...
Incorrect. You can doubt something and later observe and accept that that something is true.
This seems to be a strawman. I never claimed nor implied that we ought to accept Buddha's words merely because he said them.
Not to mention, your point is irrelevant to what I said. Buddha did lay out a criteria for acceptance, which you have yet to acknowledge.
.
Then it isn't indubitable; which is the whole point of the four noble truths and the position of supreme clarity they hold.
The criteria is to know that one knows, knows directly, know for themeslves....
If I wanted to brag, I wouldn't argue with you, because you don't present a challenge. The refutation of your argument is an easy exercise, nothing to brag about. I am responding to you, simply because I hope that this will be useful. Since you are responding in personal defense now, I am not sure if I get through any longer. Unfortunately, this is a general problem with online debates.
I have, but you are refusing to read. You claimed that you cannot doubt that 2+2=4 and I have shown you the conditions under which 2+2=0. You said you cannot doubt that avijja leads to dukkha and I have shown you the conditions under which this can be doubted, namely by rejecting the premises of dependent origination.
DO is phrased axiomatically. There is no sutta in the canon in which DO is deduced from a more fundamental system. If you think otherwise, show me.
Finally, you have claimed that samsaric existence is not possible, you said it is a delusion, and just a few posts later you invoked the three marks of existence to defend your point. However, the three marks of existence do define samsaric existence. Thus you cannot reject samsara and keep the three marks of existence; it is not logical. What I am hoping for is that this debate will not be understood as an affront. It is intended to help you see the inconsistencies in your point of view. You can try to recognise it or you can deny it.
Cheers, Thomas
Sure:) And there are many problems, I guess we both think wthe other comes over badly. But its all we have here....
The Buddha didn't stumble upon DO, he saw it, he knew it in itself, that was the turning point for enlightenment. It is not axiomatic, it is simply seen and known, unavailable to doubt once seen.
I disagree. I think they show it is not possible.
I do not find impermanence and emptiness to be compatible with the idea of a samasric cycle. I long to be shown how they are.
And I say the same to you, truely I do.
Ah, finally we are getting somewhere. What does it mean to say: the Buddha "saw" DO? It means recognising thusness. It means seeing things as they are. If you see things as they are, ignorance and delusion are absent. But are you that enlightened? Do you see DO as thusness? Or do you see DO as it is phrased in the suttas? The latter is conceptual, cognizable to the intellect, and because it is conceptual and axiomatic, it can be rejected.
When you see thusness, that things are such and such, then doubt and denial appear absurd. It is absurd to deny wetness when you swim, for example. As students of the Buddha, we both agree in that there is an epistemic method which does not rely on sense perception, inference, or logical deduction. We call it direct knowledge. However, unless you claim to have direct knowledge of DO, you cannot say that Buddhist doctrine is above doubt.
If you tell me why you think that impermanence and emptiness are incompatible with samsara, we can discuss this. It maybe good enough for a new thread.
Cheers, Thomas
To me it means seeing the many to many cause/effect framework of reality.
it is that which links all phenomenon, and depending on the level of abstraction you refer to, conditions human experience.
Or testimony etc....
If I cannot doubt Dharma, I can say it is beyond doubt. This doenst make it certain in the analytic sense of western science, it makes it indubitable.
It is indubitable that I love my wife, it is not certain that I do.
Samsara, a Hindu or earlier notion, involves the preservation of "something" past system finite states (Death) and I cannot make sense of how this can be compatible with impermanences and emptiness, can you?
But your right, we go very off topic here, Start the thread and count me:)
namaste
Your "take" is inaccurate.
You are making assumptions and judgments with no personal experience of knowledge to back them up.
The things I mentioned before about madhyamaka and Vajrayana are certainly relevant to the "original teachings of the Buddha" (whatever that means).
I will never refer to any legends about heavenly realms etc. as historical fact.
We should all be historically responsible and recognize that even the sutta-pitaka was composed hundreds of years after the death of Buddha by a council of monks. The same is true for the vinaya and abhidamma.
The historical truth is that the abhidhamma-pitaka was being taught very early in Buddhist history, most likely right alongside the other pitaka's before they were actually compiled.
You know, one thing I know about Buddhist views is that everyone has their own take on them. Sometimes about key and core issues, sometimes about details and cultural decorations.
It isn't a competition, there is no winner or gain to be had by convincing others. At best we can say our views, say why we think them, and accept and tolerate the same from others.
Relative to me and the constraints I have about what I believe, I have enough experience and understanding to satisfy me. That is all that is relavant. Unto each their own.
We will never know what the original teachings were, thankfully we don't need to, we have The Four Noble Truths and all they contain.
Yep, all of it is up for questioning, none of it can be considered "historical fact".
If you believe that, that is your belief, it isn't mine. I don't believe the abhidharma was taught by the Buddha, I am not unique amoungst Buddhist in this belief.
Thats true, opinions and views are one thing, gross doctrinal and historical inaccuracies are another.
I dont "believe" that what we have in the scriptures of any of the pitakas are the actual "words of the Buddha", abhidamma included of course. It is however historically inaccurate for us to say that the abhidamma came into the picture vastly later than the other pitakas.
OK, I guess when I see the evidence you have for their simultaneous development I will have the views you do about this chronology.
I said that 1000 years after the death of Buddha was an exaggeration and an over-estimation.
Also, that your comments on later developments in Buddhist philosophy and practice were based on misinformed/under-informed assumptions.
Ok, if that is your issue, I apologise for my exaggeration. Can I amend it to : Between 500 to 1000 years after the Buddha's life, and we will never know exactly where?
I disagree, I do not not think the Ahibdharma is a part of the philosophy taught by the buddha in his lifetime.
We dont disagree on this. I dont think he actually taught it either.
I couldnt care less if the historical Buddha even existed to be honest.
What i feel is inaccurate is your assumption that the later developments are somehow out of line with the "original" teachings.
If you take the time to understand their purpose etc. you will see that they are very carefully situated and explained to be fully relevant and in accord with the 4NT etc.