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.
So, Nothing is Set in Stone?
MindGate
United States Veteran
This question is meant with the upmost respect for Buddhism, but I'm just wondering people's thoughts on this. 
So, according to Buddhism, nothing is permanent? Everything is always changing? Well... does that mean 2 + 2 = 4 won't be that way forever, or... what? :wtf:
So, according to Buddhism, nothing is permanent? Everything is always changing? Well... does that mean 2 + 2 = 4 won't be that way forever, or... what? :wtf:
0
Comments
Numbers are concepts that exist only in the human mind, therefore, they are dependently arising phenomena because they depend on the human mind for their "existence".
Do not hold your breath waiting for a paradigm shift of reality, but, in fact the time will come when 2 + 2, will not equal 4.
If you put 2 hamsters in a cage with 2 other hamsters, you will have four hamsters in the cage for a month or two. In six months you may find over thirty hamsters in the cage.
The reality that math represents is the Dharma. Math itself is a conditioned phenomena that arose due to conditions, changes due to conditions, and will cease to be based on conditions.
All I meant about the math is that math is conditioned, but that doesn't change the true aspect that if an amount is put with an amount, you have a greater/larger amount and so forth; not in so many words (in fact in no words at all), but there's a truth there. It would still depend upon an observer to notice it, but the tree in the forest still makes a sound regardless.
The statement "Dharma is itself dependently arisen phenomena" doesn't make any sense unless you're talking about the teachings themselves (which are phenomena); I was talking about the Dharma (the truths that the Buddha-Dharma point toward, not the Buddha-Dharma itself). Dharma is the law or nature of all phenomena -- impermanent, without an abiding self, and so forth. These are what can be directly experienced, and by the enlightened mind known without any further doubt, but to think that things are or can be other than what is in direct experience... that is speculating.
I'm really on wobbly ground here, but I think 2+2=4 will always be true only so long as the mind imagines it's true.
Please don't yell at me.
The Buddha realized the unconditioned. This did not break him out of being conditioned, but did break him out of the cycle of Samsara (Dependent Origination, which requires Ignorance to continue). His teachings were called the dharma, but they are the finger pointing toward the moon; the Dharma. It's easier to use small "d" and big "D" to differentiate, but not everyone does.
Actually Chandrakirti constantly said the same sort of thing in his great work, the "Madhyamakavatara". He basically said that since on the ultimate level words cannot describe emptiness, or the dependent nature of phenomena that goes beyond all extremes, whenever we do resort to using words this takes it down to the conventional level of understanding. Of course we need language to convey information and ideas and so-forth, but...
I think that Chandrakirti has a brilliant approach.
If one reacts in fear because one views a rope as a snake, and someone tells you "There is no snake, you are confused" and you then see the mistake you have made, that does not make no-snake-ness a characteristic of the rope. It is only a characteristic of one's own confusion.
As to your question MindGate, I believe the Buddha was referencing the material ie. "formed" world, not mental concepts. 2+2=4 is obvious, you can see it from direct experience. And I believe the Buddha put a great deal of value on direct experience.
And for those of you about to jump me, I know the Buddha referred to impermanence on feelings as well, but that is not what I meant. Thanks!
Dharmakaya is also different because it is the buddha (within context of reliance on triple gem) but it cannot be conceptualized as Shakyamuni or the bliss body.
We hear this all the time. Protextants asking Catholics not to pray to Mary. Clouds we are on two very related branches of the same tree. As we get closer to the root of suffering we join again. Then the dharma is just suchness. Thus gone to the other shore.
I think it is important to realise that impermanence is about all conditioned things. that is, all things that might be or might not be, that were or could have been. Something that could have been otherwise.
So all of the things in this universe are impermanent, but maths and logic and the dharmic truths themselves do not seem to be conditioned, 2+2=4 isn't conditioned.
namaste
The Buddha could convey the totality of dharma in one evening, if we are to believe the suttras. I fear if he had to convey what now is Buddhism it would take even Lord Buddha a little more than a night in a potting shed.
It is very much "our bad" I feel, and also only up to us as all to simplify and clarify and bring back from over-complication.
How about this, you, we, all of us on this forum, we write a book on Buddhism on this forum that seeks to simplify dharma for the audience of New Buddhists. Where there are different views to be expressed, we can express all views in the book. I am constantly learning here, and I think there is a wealth of info and insight amongst us that could produce a very organic and useful book for those interested in Buddhism? Would you be into such a project Cloud?
Namaste
Explain all of those in enough succinct detail without extraneous complications, add in two or three reliable methods of meditation, and you're good. So if something like that was done by a community or a forum, or even a group, it'd be good yes. It wouldn't please everyone though, especially when it comes to rebirth and reincarnation. Many have taken it personally, which is what you're not supposed to do. All of this is impersonal, even this life.
This is what makes the whole discussion of foundational truths so perilous. Our "-isms" are roadmaps, not the territory itself. If we assume that they are more than that, we get stuck eating the menu instead of the meal.
{2,2,4}
3 variables or unknowns and 1 equation. Therefore 1 more equations are needed to solve for busch NA and decaf in relation to peas.
{2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,4,4,4,4}
Lots of equations are needed to solve for the variables b, u, s, c, h, N, A, C, u, p, s, d, e, c, a, f, p, e,a,s
something like that I forgot the notation.
One time I went to a frat party and ended up getting some peace in the graveyard by my dorm. So confusing. It felt so peaceful. Weird I know. It was spontaneous and I still wonder.
Thankyou for any tips.
Bo