As noted before, Mathematical Buddhism Dialogue consists of parts of private email correspondences of the author of Mathematical Buddhism and the indicated parties whose real names, titles, and exact locations are either withheld or displayed in accordance with their desires. All published parts of the correspondences have been approved by the related parties and some very private contents have been omitted in some cases according to their wishes. [The author's email address is mathbuddhist@gmail.com.]
Monday, April 7, 2014
I recently came across your website http://
"Di Parti II" (the real name withheld by request)
Undergraduate student in Philosophy
New York, New York, U.S.A.
Author’s response
Thank you for your interest in my Mathematical Buddhism blog. The most accurate answer to your question is yes and no, or neither continue nor discontinue. The main reason is that there is no point for me to write more if there is no one really interested in reading. In other words, I have been waiting for some inspiration (or encouragement) from the readers out there. All the personal experience and learning are still within me; I presume. So, it's a matter of putting them in writing.
It will be nice if you would be kind enough to tell me a little about yourself, for example, who you are, what you do, your background, why you are interested in Buddhism, at what stage of learning and development you are in the subject, etc.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Thank you for writing back. I'd be glad to tell you about myself. [I am] a college senior... My major is philosophy.... I was also influenced by Spinoza's "On the Improvement of the Understanding"....
I was interested in Buddhism since I first learned about it as a pre-pubescent. I never seriously studied Buddhism, but I learned a little about it over the years by reading websites. I've been attracted to its teachings for a few reasons. I've been dissatisfied with life, and searching for the meaning of life. I've had faith that life does have meaning, and that everything is ultimately intelligible. Buddhism, I have thought, might provide an ultimate explanation, and help me to overcome my dissatisfaction. I've also been impressed by stories of the mental and physical abilities of monks gained through meditation. The fact that meditation can lead to such abilities lends support to the truth of Buddhism. I'm interested in gaining such abilities myself, like insight, wisdom, and freedom from suffering.
One would think that my faith in Buddhism might have already led me to study it more seriously or practice mediation.... However, I felt that because of my non-Buddhist ethnic background, I should follow the religion of my own ethnicity. I reasoned that if Buddhism were true, then I could discover its truths whatever religious path I took. I also felt that if Buddhism were true, then my kamma would destine me to be part of the religious tradition I was raised in. So I decided to follow that religion for a while… now I'm too disillusioned to continue. Once again I'm thinking about becoming a follower of Buddha. To that end I've been seeking out information on Buddhism online. I'm almost a complete beginner. I don't know what tradition to follow or what texts to study. I do know, however, that mathematics and logic are in some way deeply related to the Truth, whatever that Truth may be.
...I have found that the use of formal logic in interpreting philosophical texts helps make things intelligible. I have also had a long-time interest in using formal logic to build systematic theories, especially metaphysical theories. The approach you adopt for your interpretation of Buddhism on your blog is exactly the method I would use if I were to start studying Buddhist texts. I'm sorry to hear that your approach hasn't garnered much interest. I for one am certainly interested, and I encourage you to write more.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Thank you for your reply email and sharing your personal story, .... If you had searched for my publication on the net, you would have found that I had to study mathematical logic and model theory (as well as axiomatic set theory) for my doctoral work. If you have not already, I recommend that you learn some model theory.
.... I think that learning Buddhism in the mathematical, logical, and scientific way is universal and thus independent of one's ethnic and religious background. Your college-life story in searching for “the Truth” reminds me of my years in college. You said: “I don't know what tradition to follow or what texts to study. I do know, however, that mathematics and logic are in some way deeply related to the Truth, whatever that Truth may be.” My advice: Free yourself from all traditions. Think independently in a rational way. Keep things simple. Mathematics is only a language that carries no truth within it. However, it can be employed to make things simple (= concise + precise). The following are a few texts that you may find useful:
1. Toward the Truth by Buddhadasa, edited by Donald K. Swearer
You have not told me about your comprehension of my blog. Do you understand everything said therein? Do you have questions related to any parts you have read? What questions of life and “the truth” do you have in view of it?
Author’s additional response
Here’s a little information about Santikaro, author of the article “Ajahn Buddhadasa and Inter-Religious Understanding” that I sent you yesterday.
Sumedho is another American monk, a student of Ajahn Chah, another learned monk in Thailand.
Tuesday, April10, 2014
Thank you for writing back. I'll put the reading material you sent me on my reading list. Right now I'm mired in school work, but I should have time to read a little each day. I'm also going to start organizing notes on what you wrote on the blog.
.... I haven't studied math in about six years, aside from set theory. I plan to start studying math again once the semester ends so I can go to a graduate school in computer science. Model theory is one of the subjects that are on my list of things to study in the future.
.... I listened to one of Santikaro's talks in which he mentioned some of the flaws of Buddhism in Thailand. At certain points in his critique I felt like I was listening to alternate version of myself. The more I study other religions, the more I find that my experiences are not so uncommon. That I ought to think independently is the upshot of my disillusionment with religions. Lately a lot of people have been giving me the advice you gave me.
Let me, then, proceed to learn Buddhism in the mathematical, logical, and scientific way, starting with what you wrote on your blog. The formal portion of what you wrote is admirably clear. I'm less clear on some of the concepts. I have plenty of questions, but I'll start off with just a few. Could you please explain anattatā further? What does it mean for it to be the case that when something is analyzed, the ultimate finding will always be nothingness, emptiness, or void? Also: you say that saṅkhatadhamma are entities that are in a state of constant change, impermanence, and uncertainty, and a state of constant struggle and instability. Abstract entities (e.g. numbers) are in neither of these states. Does that make abstract entities asaṅkhatadhamma? Also: Which set theory are you using? And: From where is the information in your Buddhist theory drawn? Is it drawn from oral tradition, or from a specific text?
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
You are mired in school work, while I have been busy with a construction project that should end before your semester is over (in 1-2 months?). So, it’s good that you did not bombard me with all of your many questions at once. Do continue to ask your questions, however, as I always enjoy inquisitiveness. ...
... Now, let me attend to your questions. First of all, pertaining to your question as to where the information in Mathematical Buddhism is drawn, whether it is drawn from oral tradition or a specific text, the primary source is my own understanding of Buddhism that I initially learned from Buddhadasa by at first reading many of his published lectures (sermons, if you like) and then at one occasion from a private conversation with him at Suan Mokkh.
Another source of my Buddhist learning is “Buddha-Dhamma” by P.A. Payutto.
Mathematically, the terms anattatā, “aniccatā”, and “dukkhatā” should be viewed as primitive terms and the statements related to them in the first chapter (The Nature of Things) as axioms or postulates. Any description given to a primitive term is to convey loosely its concept.
My attempt to describe anattatā is drawn from the parallels of particle physics and Buddhism. Have you read an old book titled The Tao of Physics by Frifjof Capra?
THE TAO OF PHYSICS
An Exploration of the Parallels
Between Modern Physics
and Eastern Mysticism
by Frifjof Capra
Shambhala
Boulder l 1975
Here are some parts from this book.
“In the Eastern view, the reality underlying all phenomena is beyond all forms and defies all description and specification. It is therefore often said to be formless, empty or void. But this emptiness is not to be taken for mere nothingness. It is, on the contrary, the essence of all forms and the source of all life.
The phenomenal manifestations of the mystical Void, like the subatomic particles, are not static and permanent, but dynamic and transitory, coming into being and vanishing in one ceaseless dance of movement and energy. Like the subatomic world of the physicist, the phenomenal world of the Eastern mystic is a world of samsara-of continuous birth and death. Being transient manifestations of the Void, the things in this world do not have any fundamental identity.”
Abstract entities (e.g. numbers) are saṅkhatadhamma because they are concepts created by man.
I like to keep things simple. So, I prefer Halmos’ approach to set theory:
Naive Set Theory is a mathematics textbook by Paul Halmos originally published in 1960. This book is an undergraduate introduction to not-very-naive set theory. It is still considered by many to be the best introduction to set theory for beginners. While the title states that it is naive, which is usually taken to mean without axioms, the book does introduce all the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory and gives correct and rigorous definitions for basic objects. Where it differs from a "true"axiomatic set theory book is its character: there are no long-winded discussions of axiomatic minutiae, and there is next to nothing about advanced topics like large cardinals. Instead, it tries to be intelligible to someone who has never thought about set theory before.
Halmos later stated that it was the fastest book he wrote, taking about six months, and that the book "wrote itself".
I hope that I have answered all your questions. Please feel free to inquire more.
Tuesday, April18, 2014
Greetings. I received the photographs of Suan Mokh that you sent me. It looks like a beautiful place. Perhaps one day I'll be able to visit. I also found the stories of the mathematicians you sent to me interesting. I have believed that mathematicians were discovering an eternal reality independent of human beings. However, you say:
Abstract entities (e.g. numbers) are saṅkhatadhamma because they are concepts created by man.
Well, I don't see that as being logically impossible. So abstract entities wouldn't be asankhatadhamma then. This is a new view for me.
I'm withholding on downloading the book because it might be copyrighted. But if I can find a hard copy, I'll take a look.
Mathematically, the terms anattatā, “aniccatā”, and “dukkhatā” should be viewed as primitive terms and the statements related to them in the first chapter as axioms or postulates.
I would encourage you not to take them as primitive. It would be more enlightening if you would define them further, formally. Do you feel that doing so would drag us into unnecessary metaphysical complications? I was looking into the philosophical literature on the logic of time, change and identity today, and it was a nightmare.
....
Well, that's all for now. I will continue studying what you sent me.
Take care.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Thanks again for your email that I have partially replied. I have been so busy that I could not address your comments sooner.
Perhaps, you should consider giving yourself a graduation reward of visiting Suan Mokkh and other places that may interest as well. As for Capra’s The Tao of Physics, I am sure you can find a copy in your college library; it was quite a popular book in the 70’s. On a more personal side, I met Dr. Capra when he went to attend the Symposium on the Occasion of the Proof of the Bieberbach Conjecture at Purdue University and talked to him about his book that had come out for only a couple of years and a paperback copy of which I possessed at the time and still have with me until today. In any case, I admire that you were careful in not downloading the book for fear of violating a possible copyright law. When I saw the link, I assumed that the book was made free online because it was old and perhaps out of print. By the way, the Symposium was a historic event for Purdue.
I still remember well that Louis de Branges (who solves the famous conjecture) approached me at the Math Department BBQ party for new graduate students only about a year earlier to chat with me in order to see if I might be interested in what he had been doing. I did later visit him in his office per his invitation for printed copies of his research papers, although my mind had already partially made up that I wanted to work with Thurber even before I arrived at Purdue.
Concerning asankhatadhamma, I encourage you to read further my blog. Have you noticed the open question I pose at the end of the first chapter (The Nature of Things)? You have asked good questions and you should continue to do so as well as to take notes as you have planned. Have you started on Human Nature, in which I also pose another open question?
As for anttata, aniccata, and dukkhata, they are probably the most ultimate terms in Buddhism and for that reason I take them to be primitive terms. One has to start somewhere if one is going to have a mathematical system. Even for an “abstractly physical” system, one needs to start out with a set of postulates with some primitive terms. Take a look at this example:
Finally, I would be interested in learning about your nightmare with the philosophical literature on the logic of time.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Thanks for writing, and for sharing your recollections of your career with me. My library doesn't have The Tao of Physics, but I requested that they borrow it from another library. It should be coming in the next month. I might be able to visit Thailand when I graduate. Yes, that would be nice.
I read "On Human Nature," and I saw the open questions. I was thinking for a while about the first one before I sent my last email, but I didn't come up with anything substantive that I could send you. I thought that nothing being permanent would imply a contradiction, but upon further reflection I think that depends on certain metalogical and ontological assumptions. I'm going to keep looking into these matters, and I hope I'll have something more substantive to share with you by next week. I also have some things to say about taking "The Three Marks of Existence" (‘tilakkhaṇa’?) as primitive.
So, I hope to get back to you in a week or so. I'll also brief you about the nightmare with the philosophical literature on the logic of time then.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Thank you for the two quick replies. Allow me to correct myself. The second open question is in the third chapter, The Worlds of Senses, and not in the second chapter, Human Nature.
Concerning the open question in the first chapter that you have pondered, I mention therein that Buddhists believe that set of asankhatadhmma is not empty. It seems many believe that it is a singleton. I think you can guess what that one element is.
Talking about logic, I should mention a couple of logic books that may interest you. The title is Buddhist Logic , Volumes I and II, written by F. Th. Stcherbatsky. The copy that I have is the 1962 paperback edition by Dover Publications, Inc., New York. If your college library does not have them, I am sure you get them from inter-library loan.
April 23, 2014
Buddhist Logic sounds interesting. I placed an order for it.
I have some notes and questions on what you wrote. I was thinking about editing them more over the next week, but instead I'm just going to send them to you now for feedback. Here they are:
A primitive term should be a concept we're familiar with, and it should be irreducible. Of the following primitive terms, "dhamma" is the only one that fits those criteria:
Dhamma
Anatta
Anicca
Dukkha
Asankhatadamma
Sankhatadamma
By "dhamma" I understand an entity of any type. That's very basic.
Anicca is reducible to simpler notions like changing and existing at a time. We could define anicca as follows: x is anicca iff x doesn't exist, then exists, then doesn't exist, and changes so long as it exists. To reduce anicca in that way, then one would need to introduce a way of modeling time into the system. A way of modeling time should furthermore be introduced since temporal notions are involved in the parts after "The Nature of Things."
Dhamma
Anatta
Anicca
Dukkha
Asankhatadamma
Sankhatadamma
By "dhamma" I understand an entity of any type. That's very basic.
Anicca is reducible to simpler notions like changing and existing at a time. We could define anicca as follows: x is anicca iff x doesn't exist, then exists, then doesn't exist, and changes so long as it exists. To reduce anicca in that way, then one would need to introduce a way of modeling time into the system. A way of modeling time should furthermore be introduced since temporal notions are involved in the parts after "The Nature of Things."
(Actually whether you model time is your choice, since it's your system. I'd be interested though to see how time is treated in Buddhist metaphysics.)
There are different ways to have a logic of time. Some use predicate logic, some use modal logic, and some use a combination. Disagreements about how to model time reflect metaphysical disagreements. How would you model time in the system?
Dukkha might be taken as a primitive notion, but it might also be reducible. I've seen authors defining dukkha in terms of "stress," "tension," and "pressure" among the parts of an object. Also, is "changing" synonymous with "unstable"? Because if "unstable" just means "changing" then there's overlap between "anicca" and "dukkha".
I'm still not sure of what anatta is supposed to mean. I see authors saying things like anattata is the state of not having an "ultimate identity," or "fundamental identity," or "real identity," or "absolute identity" What is supposed to be meant by "ultimate," "fundamental," "real" and "absolute?" At other times I see authors speaking of anattata as if it's some sort of "stuff" that objects are made up of. Capra says that anattata is beyond all description and specification, but then he himself describes it. He says "it's the source of all life" and "the reality underlying everything" among other things.
To illustrate anatta you say "an automobile is merely an assembly of parts, all of which can be broken down further, down to molecules, atoms, and further." But all I can conclude from this is that some things have parts. (Whether things are infinitely divisible is, so I've heard, a question for physics.) You say, "when [a dhamma] is analyzed the ultimate finding will always be nothingness, emptiness, or void." But in the automobile example, I don't see how we're ultimately finding nothingness, emptiness, or void.
"Sankhatadmma" I hear authors saying is something that is "conditioned," "asankhatadmma" something that is "unconditioned." Here we have another potential reduction: x is a sankhatadamma iff there's a y such that y conditions x. x is an asankhatadmma iff there's not a y such that y conditions x. I'd like to know further what these authors mean by "conditioned."
The meanings of at least "anatta, "dukkha," and "anicca" need to be specified further before I can assess "all sankhatadamma are anicca and dukkha" and "all dhamma are anatta." "All dhamma are anatta," I just don't know the meaning of.
"All sankhatadmma are dukkha:" Whether this is true depends on what we mean by "unstable" and "struggling." According to physics, every physical thing is unstable at the micro-level. But in the world of everyday experience, there appear plenty of things that are stable, at least for a time. Do we say these things are dukkha too because their molecules are unstable? Whether abstract objects are dukkha is questionable; I have to keep thinking about that.
"All sankhatadamma are anicca:" Similar considerations to the above. Whether abstract objects change is something I need to ponder. According to physics all physical things are changing at the micro-level. But in the world of everyday experience we see things not changing. Do we discount that because of the changes going on at the micro-level? With respect to the other part of the definition of anicca, impermanence, it is questionable whether all physical things are impermanent. It is an open question in cosmology, so I've heard, whether the universe will go on expanding forever.
How are the postulates known?
There are different ways to have a logic of time. Some use predicate logic, some use modal logic, and some use a combination. Disagreements about how to model time reflect metaphysical disagreements. How would you model time in the system?
Dukkha might be taken as a primitive notion, but it might also be reducible. I've seen authors defining dukkha in terms of "stress," "tension," and "pressure" among the parts of an object. Also, is "changing" synonymous with "unstable"? Because if "unstable" just means "changing" then there's overlap between "anicca" and "dukkha".
I'm still not sure of what anatta is supposed to mean. I see authors saying things like anattata is the state of not having an "ultimate identity," or "fundamental identity," or "real identity," or "absolute identity" What is supposed to be meant by "ultimate," "fundamental," "real" and "absolute?" At other times I see authors speaking of anattata as if it's some sort of "stuff" that objects are made up of. Capra says that anattata is beyond all description and specification, but then he himself describes it. He says "it's the source of all life" and "the reality underlying everything" among other things.
To illustrate anatta you say "an automobile is merely an assembly of parts, all of which can be broken down further, down to molecules, atoms, and further." But all I can conclude from this is that some things have parts. (Whether things are infinitely divisible is, so I've heard, a question for physics.) You say, "when [a dhamma] is analyzed the ultimate finding will always be nothingness, emptiness, or void." But in the automobile example, I don't see how we're ultimately finding nothingness, emptiness, or void.
"Sankhatadmma" I hear authors saying is something that is "conditioned," "asankhatadmma" something that is "unconditioned." Here we have another potential reduction: x is a sankhatadamma iff there's a y such that y conditions x. x is an asankhatadmma iff there's not a y such that y conditions x. I'd like to know further what these authors mean by "conditioned."
The meanings of at least "anatta, "dukkha," and "anicca" need to be specified further before I can assess "all sankhatadamma are anicca and dukkha" and "all dhamma are anatta." "All dhamma are anatta," I just don't know the meaning of.
"All sankhatadmma are dukkha:" Whether this is true depends on what we mean by "unstable" and "struggling." According to physics, every physical thing is unstable at the micro-level. But in the world of everyday experience, there appear plenty of things that are stable, at least for a time. Do we say these things are dukkha too because their molecules are unstable? Whether abstract objects are dukkha is questionable; I have to keep thinking about that.
"All sankhatadamma are anicca:" Similar considerations to the above. Whether abstract objects change is something I need to ponder. According to physics all physical things are changing at the micro-level. But in the world of everyday experience we see things not changing. Do we discount that because of the changes going on at the micro-level? With respect to the other part of the definition of anicca, impermanence, it is questionable whether all physical things are impermanent. It is an open question in cosmology, so I've heard, whether the universe will go on expanding forever.
How are the postulates known?
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Buddhist Logic sounds interesting. I placed an order for it.
Please brief me on it. This is one of the books that I have possessed for a long time, but have not got around reading.
I have some notes and questions on what you wrote. I was thinking about editing them more over the next week, but instead I'm just going to send them to you now for feedback.
Good! I prefer it this way.
A primitive term should be a concept we're familiar with, and it should be irreducible. Of the following primitive terms, "dhamma" is the only one that fits those criteria:
Dhamma
Anatta
Anicca
Dukkha
Asankhatadamma
Sankhatadamma
By "dhamma" I understand an entity of any type. That's very basic.
Dhamma
Anatta
Anicca
Dukkha
Asankhatadamma
Sankhatadamma
By "dhamma" I understand an entity of any type. That's very basic.
I consider the first four in the list as primitive terms and the last two as defined terms.
Anicca is reducible to simpler notions like changing and existing at a time. We could define anicca as follows: x is anicca iff x doesn't exist, then exists, then doesn't exist, and changes so long as it exists.
This definition depends on knowing the meaning of the term “exist”. Is it taken as primitive or defined?
To reduce anicca in that way, then one would need to introduce a way of modeling time into the system. A way of modeling time should furthermore be introduced since temporal notions are involved in the parts after "The Nature of Things."
(Actually whether you model time is your choice, since it's your system. I'd be interested though to see how time is treated in Buddhist metaphysics.)
There are different ways to have a logic of time. Some use predicate logic, some use modal logic, and some use a combination. Disagreements about how to model time reflect metaphysical disagreements. How would you model time in the system?
There are different ways to have a logic of time. Some use predicate logic, some use modal logic, and some use a combination. Disagreements about how to model time reflect metaphysical disagreements. How would you model time in the system?
That is a good question and I have not given much thought to it. Cursorily, should it all depend on how we look at the world (or universe, if you prefer)? Should we model it as a 3-dimensional Cartesian space plus a time axis, or a 4-dimensional flat spacetime of special relativity, or a curved spacetime of general relativity? Or, is it only the totality of our Internal World of Senses and External World of Senses? In any case, is “time” simply a human concept? I have not really studied the history of the concept of time. If you have, tell me if it is primarily a Western concept. My view is a simple one, perhaps, a rather naive one from the philosopher’s viewpoint. As suggested in my Mathematical Buddhism blog, the totality is D that includes (and contains) everything. “Time”, being a human concept, is sankhatadhamma. All sankhatadhamma are subject to anicca, the universe’s dynamism that gives rise to a sense of time (the passing of events), an illusion (if you like) because all are really “just so” (tathata).
This is all for now. I hope it helps. The rest of your last email shall be addressed at another time.
April 24, 2014
I have a correction to make.
I consider the first four in the list as primitive terms and the last two as defined terms.
Yes, the last two are defined terms. The thought behind my including the last two on the list, though I expressed it in the wrong way, was that you gave an extensional characterization of the them rather than an intensional characterization. I.e., being anicca and dukkha are necessary and sufficient conditions for being a sankhatadamma, but the intension of sankhatadhamma is not "a dhamma that is anicca and dukkha" but "a conditioned thing" (at least according to what I read).
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
I have a grammatical correction to make too. I wrote:
"All sankhatadhamma are subject to anicca, the universe’s dynamism that gives rise to a sense of time (the passing of events), an illusion (if you like) because all are really “just so” (tathata)."
The word "anicca" should be replaced be "aniccata".
Please explain "extensive and intensive characterizations". (You should be aware that it has become a common practice in mathematics that definitions are stated as a conditional (if), instead of the proper bi-conditional (iff), statement.)
In any case, I think what you point out from what you have read, and of which I am well aware, is a matter of semantics. Because a thing is conditioned, it is in the states of aniccata and dukkhata.
Author’s additional response
This is a reply to the rest of your April 23 email that I have not answered.
One can say that “dukkha” means stress, tension, and pressure; this does not constitute a (mathematical) definition, however. It is simply a translation of a foreign word. Whether aniccata and dukkhata are equivalent boils down to showing if the latter is a sufficient condition of the former. The original intention of my Mathematical Buddhism blog is to provide a personal interpretation of Buddhism and not to propose a new religion. I have therefore stayed as close as possible with what I see as the essence of Buddha’s teaching. I am sorry to have to tell you that your secular learning, particularly your study of philosophy, has become your obstacle to your understanding, or I should say, seeing anattata, as well as aniccata and dukkhata. Buddhism is not logic or a philosophy per se. (See the chapter on The Buddhist MBA in my main blog.) All existing descriptions of these words should be viewed as attempts to convey their meanings. This is why I have taken them to be primitive terms. You should know that serious practitioners of Buddhism believe that if and when they understand or see anattata, they become enlightened (or have reached nirvana). So, it is a joke to them to see a philosopher sitting in his/her armchair to muse about anattata. You should know (or learn) that our intellect is quite limited. There are various levels of understanding (seeing).
For starters, I highly recommend that you try the simple breathing exercise suggested in The Buddhist MBA of my main blog. Please let me know how successful you will be with it.
April 29, 2014
Your latest email was disappointing. When I first emailed you I was hoping that you would be giving very precise explanations of Buddhist concepts. Now it seems you want to eschew analytic means for meditative ones. While I have no problem with this in principle, it doesn't help me in my current situation. Though I sense from your tone that further discussion of Buddhist concepts with you will be fruitless, I feel nevertheless obliged to answer you point by point.
I have a grammatical correction to make too... The word "anicca" should be replaced be "aniccata".
Please correct me also if I grammatical mistakes with Pali.
(You should be aware that it has become a common practice in mathematics that definitions are stated as a conditional (if), instead of the proper bi-conditional (iff), statement.)
Thanks for letting me know this. I've seen this in math textbooks and wondered about it before.
This definition depends on knowing the meaning of the term “exist”. Is it taken as primitive or defined?
Existence could be defined in the first-order predicate calculus with identity: x exists if there's a y s.t. y=x.
Should we model [time] as a 3-dimensional Cartesian space plus a time axis, or a 4-dimensional flat spacetime of special relativity, or a curved spacetime of general relativity?
The philosophy of time is an abstruse subject that I have little familiarity with. This is why I called it a nightmare.
I know next to nothing about physics, but from what I hear there are debates about how to model time in that discipline. There are also debates in philosophy about how much our concept of time should be informed by how time is viewed in physics. Here are some different ways that philosophers have proposed to model time:
"The three alternative ways of [modeling time] within a still recognizable predicate- logical framework are by now well known... ‘F holds of a at t’ can be parsed in three ways:
(1) the property F holds-at-t of object a (the copula is indexed by times);
(2) the property F is a relation between object a and time t;
(3) the property F holds of a new special entity called ‘a-t’or ‘a-at-t’ (an object stage or phase or slice).
That none of these alternatives for representing time has established itself as victor over the others turns on the fact that each involves a heavy price."
Source: http://ontology.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy attributes view (3) to the Buddhist logicians Dharmakirti and his commentator Dharmottara.
That encyclopedia is a good place to look if you'd like to see what philosophers are saying about time. Here are some good articles:http://plato.stanford.edu/
http://plato.stanford.edu/
http://plato.stanford.edu/
Anyway, given your later comments about wanting to convey concepts only loosely, the question of how you would model time in your mathematical system seems irrelevant.
>In any case, is “time” simply a human concept? ...I have not really studied the history of the concept of time. If you have, tell me if it is primarily a Western concept.
I haven't really studied the history of the concept of time either. I know in the West, there is a long tradition of denying the reality of time, going back to at least the philosopher Parmenides in ancient Greece. For my part, I can't conceive of time as being unreal.
(1) the property F holds-at-t of object a (the copula is indexed by times);
(2) the property F is a relation between object a and time t;
(3) the property F holds of a new special entity called ‘a-t’or ‘a-at-t’ (an object stage or phase or slice).
That none of these alternatives for representing time has established itself as victor over the others turns on the fact that each involves a heavy price."
Source: http://ontology.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy attributes view (3) to the Buddhist logicians Dharmakirti and his commentator Dharmottara.
That encyclopedia is a good place to look if you'd like to see what philosophers are saying about time. Here are some good articles:http://plato.stanford.edu/
http://plato.stanford.edu/
http://plato.stanford.edu/
Anyway, given your later comments about wanting to convey concepts only loosely, the question of how you would model time in your mathematical system seems irrelevant.
>In any case, is “time” simply a human concept? ...I have not really studied the history of the concept of time. If you have, tell me if it is primarily a Western concept.
I haven't really studied the history of the concept of time either. I know in the West, there is a long tradition of denying the reality of time, going back to at least the philosopher Parmenides in ancient Greece. For my part, I can't conceive of time as being unreal.
> Please explain "extensive and intensive characterizations".
The "extension" of a term is synonymous with its "denotation" or "reference". The "intension" of a term is synonymous with its "connotation", "sense", or "meaning". An extensional characterization of a term for a domain gives the necessary and sufficient conditions for an entity's falling under that term in that domain. An intensional characterization for a term gives the necessary and sufficient conditions for an entity's falling under that term in any domain where our words retain the same senses (the domain could be real or imaginary).
A stock example for illustrating the distinction between extensional and intensional characterizations is taken from biology: x is a creature with a heart iff x is a creature with a kidney. This is true, and it gives me an extensional characterization of "creature with a heart" . But "creature with a heart" doesn't mean "creature with a kidney", and for someone unfamiliar with the meaning of the former, the latter wouldn't be a good definition.
A stock example for illustrating the distinction between extensional and intensional characterizations is taken from biology: x is a creature with a heart iff x is a creature with a kidney. This is true, and it gives me an extensional characterization of "creature with a heart" . But "creature with a heart" doesn't mean "creature with a kidney", and for someone unfamiliar with the meaning of the former, the latter wouldn't be a good definition.
> In any case, I think what you point out from what you have read, and of which I am well aware, is a matter of semantics. Because a thing is conditioned, it is in the states of aniccata and dukkhata.
Since semantics is the investigation of meaning, and I quite rationally want to investigate the meaning of the terms you're using, yes, I'm dealing with matters of semantics. Let me remind you of something you said on the Mathematical Buddhism dialogue blog:
"The advantage of making Buddhism mathematical with all terms and concepts defined precisely [my emphasis] is the unambiguous nature of mathematics."
Now, when it comes to sankhatadhamma, I don't know what Buddhists mean by "conditioned", and I would love for you to define it for me in the unambiguous nature of mathematics. But if by conditioned they mean "caused to exist", then the proposition that all conditioned things are in the states of aniccata and dukkhata is something that needs to be demonstrated, not something that is true just in virtue of the definition of "conditioned". Here's another pertinent remark of yours:
"Buddhism is a religion of reasons and not one that is based on faith."
"The advantage of making Buddhism mathematical with all terms and concepts defined precisely [my emphasis] is the unambiguous nature of mathematics."
Now, when it comes to sankhatadhamma, I don't know what Buddhists mean by "conditioned", and I would love for you to define it for me in the unambiguous nature of mathematics. But if by conditioned they mean "caused to exist", then the proposition that all conditioned things are in the states of aniccata and dukkhata is something that needs to be demonstrated, not something that is true just in virtue of the definition of "conditioned". Here's another pertinent remark of yours:
"Buddhism is a religion of reasons and not one that is based on faith."
> One can say that “dukkha” means stress, tension, and pressure; this does not constitute a (mathematical) definition, however. It is simply a translation of a foreign word.
I didn't put forward "stress", "tension", or "pressure" as a definition, mathematical or otherwise. What I said was: "I've seen authors defining dukkha in terms of 'stress,' 'tension,' and 'pressure' among the parts of an object." I see authors giving definitions of dukkha that involve the concepts of 'object', 'part', 'force', 'pressure', 'tension', 'stress', 'suffering', 'causing pain', and more. I'm suggesting therefore that dukkha might be defined in terms of these simpler concepts, somehow.
> Whether aniccata and dukkhata are equivalent boils down to showing if the latter is a necessary and sufficient condition of the former.
I can't do that at this point because of your vagueness about aniccata and dukkhata. But, if something being in a state of anicatta implies that it doesn't exist at some point, then I have a proof for you that A≠0.
If A=0 then everything is in a state of anicatta. If everything is in a state of anicatta then everything doesn't exist at some point. If everything doesn't exist at some point then the state of affairs of everything being in a state of anicatta doesn't exist at some point. If the state of affairs of everything being in a state of anicatta doesn't exist at some point then at that point there is something that is not in a state of anicatta. If something is not in a state of anicatta then it is not a sankhatadhamma. If something is not a sankhatadhamma then it is an asankhatadhamma. If something is an asankhatadhamma then A≠0. Therefore A≠0.
Furthermore, numbers are either concepts or they exist eternally. If numbers are concepts then they only exist if there are men. The laws of physics existed before man. The laws of physics imply the existence of numbers. Therefore numbers existed before man. Therefore numbers do not only exist if there are men. Therefore numbers are not concepts. Therefore numbers exist eternally. Therefore numbers are asankhatadhamma.
If A=0 then everything is in a state of anicatta. If everything is in a state of anicatta then everything doesn't exist at some point. If everything doesn't exist at some point then the state of affairs of everything being in a state of anicatta doesn't exist at some point. If the state of affairs of everything being in a state of anicatta doesn't exist at some point then at that point there is something that is not in a state of anicatta. If something is not in a state of anicatta then it is not a sankhatadhamma. If something is not a sankhatadhamma then it is an asankhatadhamma. If something is an asankhatadhamma then A≠0. Therefore A≠0.
Furthermore, numbers are either concepts or they exist eternally. If numbers are concepts then they only exist if there are men. The laws of physics existed before man. The laws of physics imply the existence of numbers. Therefore numbers existed before man. Therefore numbers do not only exist if there are men. Therefore numbers are not concepts. Therefore numbers exist eternally. Therefore numbers are asankhatadhamma.
> The original intention of my Mathematical Buddhism blog is to provide a personal interpretation of Buddhism and not to propose a new religion.
Why are you saying this? I am not suggesting that you propose a new religion, nor would your clarification of key terms imply that you would be proposing a new religion.
> I am sorry to have to tell you that your secular learning, particularly your study of philosophy, has become your obstacle to your understanding, or I should say, seeing anattata, as well as aniccata and dukkhata.
I think that my obstacle to understanding is rather your lack of explanation. Your statements in "On Human Nature", especially about anattata, are vague, enigmatic, and equivocal. This conflicts with what you said on your dialogue blog:
"The validity of a vague, enigmatic, or even equivocal statement can easily be determined within the mathematical system."
"The validity of a vague, enigmatic, or even equivocal statement can easily be determined within the mathematical system."
> You should know that serious practitioners of Buddhism believe that if and when they understand or see anattata, they become enlightened (or have reached nirvana). So, it is a joke to them to see a philosopher sitting in his/her armchair to muse about anattata.
Direct knowledge of anattata, which is what I presume brings about enlightenment, is not what I am pursuing in this dialogue with you. I am trying to get you to describe anattata more clearly, so that I can determine the meaning of the vague, enigmatic, and equivocal statements involving that term. According to the websites you sent me, acquiring knowledge by description of anattata is not impossible and is considered wisdom.
But you seem to be suggesting that direct knowledge of anattata is only acquired through lifelong meditation. Well, I appreciate meditation, and I would meditate. At the same time I would want to make sure that I would be meditating. If I should, for example, meditate on anattata, I would want to be meditating on the correct thing and not some figment of my imagination.
But you seem to be suggesting that direct knowledge of anattata is only acquired through lifelong meditation. Well, I appreciate meditation, and I would meditate. At the same time I would want to make sure that I would be meditating. If I should, for example, meditate on anattata, I would want to be meditating on the correct thing and not some figment of my imagination.
> You should know (or learn) that our intellect is quite limited.
Our intellect may be limited practically; and it may even be limited by its very nature; but it does not follow from that that one should cease trying to understand the Dhamma intellectually.
> For starters, I highly recommend that you try the simple breathing exercise suggested in The Buddhist MBA of my main blog. Please let me know how successful you will be with it.
If I take up the breathing exercise, it'll probably be a while until I could give you a progress report.
In closing: I've learned from my past experiences that being uncritical of religions and philosophies, and not getting clear about the meanings of their terms, is dangerous. That is why I am critiquing you the way I am now. Nevertheless, I appreciate what you did in writing up the Mathematical Buddhism blog, and I will probably continue to study what you wrote, and do the exercises you recommend.
In closing: I've learned from my past experiences that being uncritical of religions and philosophies, and not getting clear about the meanings of their terms, is dangerous. That is why I am critiquing you the way I am now. Nevertheless, I appreciate what you did in writing up the Mathematical Buddhism blog, and I will probably continue to study what you wrote, and do the exercises you recommend.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Your latest email was disappointing.
Did you mean that you were disappointed? If so, you should not because that is emotional and it will be a hindrance to your learning of Buddhism.
When I first emailed you I was hoping that you would be giving very precise explanations of Buddhist concepts.
I have tried to be as precise as I can at this stage (the foundational state).
Now it seems you want to eschew analytic means for meditative ones.
That is a misunderstanding on your part (the eschewing part). However, you should keep in mind that meditation is really the main part of Buddhism as a religion. What I have written so far in my Mathematical Buddhism blog merely scratches the surface of the body of knowledge called Buddhism.
While I have no problem with this in principle, it doesn't help me in my current situation.
I am glad to hear that you have no problem with it, but how can I help you in your “current” situation? You have not really told me about your current situation (as related to suffering – that’s what Buddhism is all about).
Though I sense from your tone that further discussion of Buddhist concepts with you will be fruitless, I feel nevertheless obliged to answer you point by point.
I don’t understand the first part.
I know next to nothing about physics, but from what I hear there are debates about how to model time in that discipline. There are also debates in philosophy about how much our concept of time should be informed by how time is viewed in physics. Here are some different ways that philosophers have proposed to model time:
...
Thank you for the education.
Anyway, given your later comments about wanting to convey concepts only loosely, the question of how you would model time in your mathematical system seems irrelevant.Did you understand what I wrote: “’Time’, being a human concept, is sankhatadhamma. All sankhatadhamma are subject to aniccata, the universe’s dynamism that gives rise to a sense of time (the passing of events), an illusion (if you like) because all are really ‘just so’ (tathata).” I think this “model” (or view) of time is not that far from Einstein’s way of including time with space (and events).
Let me remind you of something you said on the Mathematical Buddhism dialogue blog:
"The advantage of making Buddhism mathematical with all terms and concepts defined precisely [my emphasis] is the unambiguous nature of mathematics."
Exactly, and we carry it out as far as we can in this frontier.
Now, when it comes to sankhatadhamma, I don't know what Buddhists mean by "conditioned", and I would love for you to define it for me in the unambiguous nature of mathematics.
From what I have been able to gather from my reading, especially as related to the theory of dependent origination, I think what Buddhists mean by “conditioned” is: x is conditioned iff there exists a y such that y implies x.
"Buddhism is a religion of reasons and not one that is based on faith."
This is a well-known statement agreed by most, if not all, who compare World’s religions.
But you seem to be suggesting that direct knowledge of anattata is only acquired through lifelong meditation.
But you seem to be suggesting that direct knowledge of anattata is only acquired through lifelong meditation.
Well, I appreciate meditation, and I would meditate. At the same time I would want to make sure that I would be meditating. If I should, for example, meditate on anattata, I would want to be meditating on the correct thing and not some figment of my imagination.
How do you understand meditation, particularly Buddhist meditation? What do you really know about it?
> For starters, I highly recommend that you try the simple breathing exercise suggested in The Buddhist MBA of my main blog. Please let me know how successful you will be with it.
If I take up the breathing exercise, it'll probably be a while until I could give you a progress report.
In closing: I've learned from my past experiences that being uncritical of religions and philosophies, and not getting clear about the meanings of their terms, is dangerous. That is why I am critiquing you the way I am now. Nevertheless, I appreciate what you did in writing up the Mathematical Buddhism blog, and I will probably continue to study what you wrote, and do the exercises you recommend.I am glad to hear that you intend to do the exercise. I look forward to reading your progress reports. However, you should know that that simple exercise is only a beginning of the first of the four parts of the full Buddhist MBA (still to be written) and it is merely a concentration exercise (not meditation). Buddhist concentration is one of the three qualities of a tool that is used in Buddhist meditation.
In closing: I've learned from my past experiences that being uncritical of religions and philosophies, and not getting clear about the meanings of their terms, is dangerous. That is why I am critiquing you the way I am now. Nevertheless, I appreciate what you did in writing up the Mathematical Buddhism blog, and I will probably continue to study what you wrote, and do the exercises you recommend.I am glad to hear that you intend to do the exercise. I look forward to reading your progress reports. However, you should know that that simple exercise is only a beginning of the first of the four parts of the full Buddhist MBA (still to be written) and it is merely a concentration exercise (not meditation). Buddhist concentration is one of the three qualities of a tool that is used in Buddhist meditation.
Author’s additional response
I am following up with this response because of my concern of your present learning in Buddhism. I certainly don’t want to be the one who might have led you to go astray from a beneficial learning of Buddhism.
In my April 8 email, I wrote:
The following are a few texts that you may find useful:
1. Toward the Truth by Buddhadasa, edited by Donald K. Swearer
Then in my April 13 email, I wrote:
First of all, pertaining to your question as to where the information in Mathematical Buddhism is drawn, whether it is drawn from oral tradition or a specific text, the primary source is my own understanding of Buddhism that I initially learned from Buddhadasa by at first reading many of his published lectures (sermons, if you like) and then at one occasion from a private conversation with him at Suan Mokkh....
[3] Another source of my Buddhist learning is “Buddha-Dhamma” by P.A. Payutto.
You have made no reference to the above three sources and I have meant to ask you many times if you have tried to check them out. I have given you many references, but I would put the above three on top of them all, in the order listed above. The first contains a revised (better) and more concise translation of the second as well as the little book called “No Religion”. The second can be downloaded without having to be concerned of infringing a copyright as long as it is not for a commercial benefit; many dhamma books in Thailand are like that, i.e., printed for free distribution. The third is a detailed scholarship of a very learned monk and I don’t know if it has been translated into English. If you like details, there is an old book written by a German judge by the name of George Grimm (1886-1945). The fourteenth impression of the book was translated from German into English by Bhikkhu Silacara in 1926. The English title is The Doctrine of the Buddha: The Religion of Reason and meditation.
I hope the above orientation will be useful.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Putting the above two (nonmathematical and mathematical) parts together, it should be obvious that δ-elements, σ-elements, and α-elements refer to dhamma, saṅkhatadhamma, and asaṅkhatadhamma, respectively, while anattatā, dukkhatā, and aniccatā are mathematically referred to as α-property, β-property, and γ-property, respectively. Note, however, that the latter three concepts are undefined, i.e. are not defined in terms of previously defined concepts, but are only described by appealing to intuition and everyday experience. Mathematicians call this kind of concepts “primitive notions”, “primitive terms”, or “undefined terms”. In that view, “dhamma” or “A” is also considered as a primitive term. Furthermore, the above three statements made by the Buddha can be viewed as “axioms”, as in mathematics, and “laws” or “principles”, as in physics. In other words, they should be considered as starting points of the presently new discipline being proposed herewith. Those who are familiar with Buddhism know that these axioms or laws, known as “the three universal characteristics of things”, constitute the very core of Buddhism or the heart of Buddha’s teaching. Some serious practitioners of Buddhism even believe that if and when they truly understand these concepts, they would become “enlightened” or would have reached “nibbana” (or nirvana). Therefore, one can consider all that will follow as further illumination for these basic concepts. Since Buddhism is neither a purely logical system nor a philosophy per se, but a discipline with specifically practical training and self-development, the insight to be obtained from its practice will build up one’s intuition for these fundamental notions. In any case, whether the above axioms and primitive terms are sufficient to axiomatize Buddhism or the formalism will lead to an extension of modern science remains to be seen.
I neither know enough cosmology nor am familiar enough with your logic professor’s argument to make any comment. All I can say is that the human five senses are quite limited. By the way, I am not a physicist. I have studied some physics, but not enough to qualify me for the honor. Likewise, I have studied some applied mathematics and used to be a math professor, but that does not make me a mathematician either. However, if someone wants to call me “mathematical Buddhist”, I probably have to accept the label since I am in fact the founder of “Mathematical Buddhism” as expounded in my blog with the same title.
May 3, 2014
I looked at Handbook for Mankind when you first sent it. The second time you sent it I didn't recognize it because all I saw was a link. Anyway, I have the book now. Thanks.
I sympathize with your walking away from a full scholarship for religious reasons.
Well, I have quite a reading list. I'm sure I will be busy with it for some time.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Have you been able to find a copy of Swearer’s book or ordered an inter-library loan copy? The book contains five chapters with “Glossary of Pali Terms” and “Notes” at the end of the book. The titles of the five chapters are as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION: BUDDHADASA – “SERVANT OF THE BUDDHA”
II. TOWARD THE TRUTH OF BUDDHISM
III. EVERYDAY LANGUAGE AND DHAMMA LANGUAGE
IV. NO RELIGION!
V. HANDBOOK FOR MANKIND
Chapters II-V are translations (or translations of translations) of Buddhadasa’s lectures. I think Swearer’s translations should read more smoothly.
I have tried to meditate during my life by sitting upright on the floor for a while, closing my eyes, and then just sitting there. This is hard, mainly because it's so boring.
It sounds like you have not read the chapter on “The Buddhist MBA” of my MB blog. What you described is the common and rather widespread prescription for meditation practice, while in fact it is not the Buddhist meditation I understand at all. It is definitely boring, unnatural, and unrealistic. I strongly advise you to read immediately Handbook’s chapter VII: INSIGHT, BY THE NATURE METHOD, starting on page 84.
May 4, 2014
Swearer's book is on the way. I read the chapter on "The Buddhist MBA", but the time I was describing was before that. I'll take a look at chapter VII.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Good! I'm glad.
Are you done with your finals?
You know that your schooling should come first right now.
Good luck!
May 10, 2014
I have all of the books you recommended now, by the way. I've been reading them. They look good.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
You may be happy to learn that your inquisitiveness and critical inquiry have begun giving some fruits. I have added to the first chapter on “The Nature of Things” of my main blog,
the following paragraph:
May 13, 2014
Thanks for recommending me the books. I'm "enjoying them" so to speak.
I’m finished with studying for my finals for the most part. Why do you tell me that my schooling comes first when all is dukkha and anatta? I’m reading Buddhadasa, who says that nothing is worth being or becoming, and that attaching to him, Buddha, or the Sangha inhibit the attainment of Nibbanna. If that’s so, then why do anything at all?
Buddhadasa speaks of the attainment of jhanas and supernatural powers through meditation. Have you attained, or do you know anyone who has attained either of these? Have you attained, or do you know anyone who has attained Nibbanna?
By the way, is there a good place on the internet where I can hear how Thais pronounce Pali terms?
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
You are more than welcome. I am happy to hear that you are enjoying the books.
"All are dukkha" does not mean that we give up and do nothing. We learn to be wiser, not to be foolish. When you have started on something that you think to be a good thing to do, you want to complete it to the best of your ability for your own good karma.
I will address your other questions at a later time.
May 13, 2014
The addition looks good. I understand what you were getting at in our dispute now. I look forward to hearing the rest of your response.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Concerning your questions on the attainment of jhanas and supernatural powers through meditation and whether I have attained Nibbana or know anyone who has. All I can tell you is that I have only heard stories. My take on Nibbana is that it is a religious goal that many Buddhists desire to reach, as Christians desire to go to Heaven. If Nibbana is a possible state of mind, the way many Buddhists envisage, then it is a personal experience. How can one share such a personal experience with others and how can others understand the shared experience, if such sharing is possible? Furthermore, what is really the definition of Nibbana? Must Nibbana be an eternal peace? Can it be short and constantly recurrent? Since Theravada Buddhists believe that Nibbana can only be achieved by meditation or at least by a naturally concentrated mind, is meditation or such a mind then a condition for such an attainment? If so, does that make Nibbana saṅkhatadhamma and if that is the case, can it be eternal? As you can see, going that route is full of traps. My preference is as suggested in my Mathematical Buddhism blog, i.e. what I call MBA (Mental Business Administration) for the complex organization I. The ability of each CEO is judged by the results of his/her management and the consistency of the performances and the only best judge is the CEO him/herself. Therefore, my advice to you is to study the chapters on “Human Nature” and “The Worlds of Senses” and at the same time start the trainee’s course as suggested in the chapter on “The Buddhist MBA”. Perhaps, when you finish the trainee’s course, you may have a glimpse of jhanas and Nibbana. Rest assured that the trainee’s course is a “scientific” experiment (a procedure that can be repeated to obtain the “same” result), provided the term “scientific” is extended in the way I suggest in my response to “Di Parti I” (Mr. Yuttaroj Suwansumate).
As for your question if there is a good place on the Internet where you can hear how Thais pronounce Pali terms, you may try to listen to Buddhadasa’s lecture on Dhamma as Science, in which you will hear the word “dhamma” repeatedly:
This lecture was delivered on July 7, 1979.
May 13, 2014
On the subject of connections between eastern thought and contemporary physics: my logic professor dabbles in cosmology. Lately he's been putting forth an argument with zeal that "the observable physical universe is not real." I can't recapitulate the argument for you, but the crux of it is that we observe that the "spherical entropy bound" is exceeded in the observable physical universe, which implies that what we're observing is illusory. He likens this phenomenon to the Hindu statement that "all is maya;" perhaps the phenomenon might have some connection with the concept of anatta as well. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on his argument, if you're familiar with the topic, since you're a physicist.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
May 16, 2014
Thanks for writing. I will keep at the training exercise. Buddhadasa sounds like a good speaker.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Please keep me posted on your progress (including difficulties) with the breathing experiment.
May 23, 2014
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Thank you for your concern. I am fine. I just knew about it two hours after it had happened and am now trying to find out more what is going on on the Internet by watching CNN and BBC news since all the television channels here have been shut down. We are on a curfew right now, from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.
June 11, 2014
How is everything? Can I send you a note?
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
How wonderful to hear from you! I have been wondering how you have been doing. I have not written to you because I wanted to give you time for the practice and you had told me that you would give me a report when there would be some progress.
Certainly, you can send me a note -- any time.
June 12, 2014
Thank you for writing back. Its good to hear from you too. I read the books you recommended, and they were very good. I practiced the exercise, and there's been some progress. I'm sure that I'd benefit from a live instructor though.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
"I practiced the exercise, and there's been some progress. I'm sure that I'd benefit from a live instructor though."
Please view in order from top to bottom:
I will address your other questions in my next email. Meanwhile, I hope the above instructions are helpful.
Author’s additional response
Have you found the videos helpful? Please give me some idea what you think and how you feel about it. Do you consider him a good instructor?
Let me now try to answer your question concerning your thought of a religious quest in Thailand.
1. Many tourists, especially Western tourists, enjoy their travel to Thailand for nice beaches, many places to visit, a different culture, and good food and warm hospitality because the Thais are fun-loving people. Thus, many foreign tourists have left with a good memory.
2. Most Thais are not intellectual, however. Over 90% of the Thai population consider themselves as Buddhists, but they hardly know anything about Buddha-Dharma. Today, many Thais are very materialistic and seem to worship money more than anything else. They like things the easy way, selfish, self-centered, and have little respect for law and order.
3. There are Buddhist temples everywhere, but many monks are lazy and irresponsible. There are some good and very learned monks, but they scatter scarcely and some are in remote areas of the country. Furthermore, few Thai monks understand and speak English well.
4. Teaching English seems to be a common job that English-speaking foreigners like to take so that they can live in the country for cultural experience, a different life-style, etc., but hardly for the noble goal that you have. I presume the earning is not so great to allow one very comfortable accommodation and fine dining. One may have to put in more extra hours of teaching in order to live reasonably well. In any case, it should be rather difficult to find a teaching job and a good (spiritual) instructor within a commutable distance, not to mention matching schedule of your spiritual instructor.
The above are some of factors you need consider in my view. My advice to you is that you should visit one or more of the following places before you consider coming to Thailand. Maybe you can use one of them as connection to one of the best Buddhist temples for meditation in Thailand, i.e. Wat Pah Nanachat of Ajahn Chah.
Please let me know what you think after you have checked out the above places. Also, as I have already asked you before, how do you understand Chapters 2 and 3 of Mathematical Buddhism? Furthermore, I still don’t know much about your personal life. Particularly, I still don’t know what is actually bothering your mind; in other words, what your dukkha is. Without some knowledge of you as a person, it is hard to see if you can be happy in Thailand for a longer stay.
June 19, 2014
Thank you for writing back. Your last letter was filled with helpful information. I'm terribly sorry, but I can't give you much information about my life story, or my mental anguish . . . .
I'm also sorry to hear about the decadence of the laity and the Sangha in Thailand. I've already heard about what you're describing from a few other people, and it's troubling. The concerns you raise about teaching English are troubling too. I suppose this teaching idea of mine is a bust then.
The monasteries whose websites you sent me look like nice places, but I don't have enough money to visit them. I could get a low-paying job after I graduate and work for two years to save up the money to visit monasteries . . . .
If I don't quest, then I'll be going to graduate school, most likely to specialize in logic, particularly as it applies to questions of philosophy, and language. While in graduate school, I could continue my Buddhist study and practice, and learn Pali. Then I could get a job teaching, or doing something else, and earn enough money to be able to travel.
The good part about the graduate education I'm interested in is that it would give me the background to study the Pali canon (and also the background to reason well in general). I'd even be able to carry out your Mathematical Buddhism at a high level. These links, from some programs I might apply to, can give you an idea of the field I'd be entering:
The trouble with this plan is that it's a big time commitment, and the pull of worldly desires will be strong. I'll also be isolated, since I'll be the only person interested in world-renunciation.
This could all be a horrible idea. Part of me says, "Academia is not a refuge. Just get a modest job and forget about all your philosophy, science, and mathematics. Meditate and read English translations of the Tipitaka."
The instruction that Ajahn Jayasaro offered was good. It still isn't, however, quite what I need. There's something about having a live instructor that's missed in a recording. In any case, I'll make due with what I have.
Now on to chapters 2 and 3 of Mathematical Buddhism. I didn't say much about them in our earlier correspondence, because of the impassé that was our discussion of chapter 1. Here are my questions and comments:
––What is the difference between between viññana and sañña?
––What is the difference between sankhara and mental consciousness and mental perception?
––What do you consider mental? E.g., if I imagine a song playing, is that mental or auditory?
––I would not say that the sense receptors are functions. The sense receptors are concrete, whereas functions are abstract. E.g., my nose is a certain physical object, not a function.
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Let me respond to your last email paragraph by paragraph.
Thank you for writing back. Your last letter was filled with helpful information. I'm terribly sorry, but I can't give you much information about my life story, or my mental anguish . . . .
Why do you think I would react in the usual way as others do? In fact, I don’t think much of modern (or Western) psychology or psychiatry, the development of which is still rather embryonic when compared to Buddhist psychology. In any case, know that I sincerely want to help, at least to be someone whom you can talk to. I am a good listener who gives opinion only when asked.
The concerns you raise about teaching English are troubling too. I suppose this teaching idea of mine is a bust then.
I don’t view it quite that way. There are still many factors that we don’t know and should check out if we really want to go the route.
The monasteries whose websites you sent me look like nice places, but I don't have enough money to visit them. I could get a low-paying job after I graduate and work for two years to save up the money to visit monasteries.
You need to have money to come to Thailand, don’t you? Do you own a car? If not, it should not cost that much to take a bus up to the Arrow River Forest Heritage in Ontario. The “Monastic Steward” job there does not sound bad and will likely meet your goal more definitely than an English teaching job in Thailand can provide. Working at McDonald for a month should amply provide you with the bus fare for the purpose.
Monastic Steward
According to the vinaya for monks we are not allowed to store our food from day-to-day or to handle any form of money. We can only eat food that is offered to us that day by a lay person. This maintains our dependency on the lay community.In forest monasteries in non-buddhist countries this means that we need at least one lay person living with us at the monastery at all times fulfilling the functions of monastic steward. This is an on-going situation and we hope to keep it happening by having individuals stay for a period of several months. This is a great opportunity for anyone interested in simple country living and learning about traditional Buddhism. We offer only room and board by way of material supportand it would be a big asset if you had your own vehicle. The duties are not onerous. Cooking for the monks is easy because we eat only once a day and take whatever is offered. Besides that there is the purchasing of supplies and some general maintenance chores. There is plenty of time for practice or study. Anyone interested in staying here as a steward for at least three months at any time in the future should email or write to us at the Hermitage. For more information go to the Arrow Rivervisitor's section of this web-site.
If I don't quest, then I'll be going to graduate school, most likely to specialize in logic, particularly as it applies to questions of philosophy, and language. While in graduate school, I could continue my Buddhist study and practice, and learn Pali. Then I could get a job teaching, or doing something else, and earn enough money to be able to travel.
This is really not a bad idea.
The trouble with this plan is that it's a big time commitment, and the pull of worldly desires will be strong. I'll also be isolated, since I'll be the only person interested in world-renunciation.
This could all be a horrible idea. Part of me says, "Academia is not a refuge. Just get a modest job and forget about all your philosophy, science, and mathematics. Meditate and read English translations of the Tipitaka."
What do you think you will gain from reading the Tipitaka? I have never read it and have had no interest in reading it although I have been much interested in Buddhism.
What is the difference between between viññana and sañña?
Generally, vinnana comes before sanna. The former occurs when there is an interaction of a sense object and the corresponding sense organ. The latter then becomes aware of that occurrence.
What is the difference between sankhara and mental consciousness and mental perception?
Normally, sankhara occurs after vinnana and sanna.
What do you consider mental? E.g., if I imagine a song playing, is that mental or auditory?
That is mental. It is auditory when there is a sound wave entering the ears.
I would not say that the sense receptors are functions. The sense receptors are concrete, whereas functions are abstract. E.g., my nose is a certain physical object, not a function.
That is really short for saying that the sense receptors can be represented by functions in the mathematical model proposed to be used.
June 20, 2014
"The 'Monastic Steward' job there does not sound bad and will likely meet your goal more definitely than an English teaching job in Thailand can provide."
This might be a good idea. I'll keep it in mind.
"What do you think you will gain from reading the Tipitaka?"
Isn't the Tipitaka the ultimate source of your teachings?
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
Isn't the Tipitaka the ultimate source of your teachings?
No, it isn’t and has not been. In my view, it needs be rewritten entirely and succinctly in modern languages.
June 20, 2014
P.A. Payutto is said to have distilled the essence of the Tipitaka in his work Buddhadhamma. I wasn't able to get a hold of the complete work; I don't think it's been fully translated. I got an abridged version, which I already had to give back to the library. I liked the portions I read. Both Payutto and Buddhadasa drew from the Tipitaka. Don't you think it's necessary to verify for oneself that what is being taught as Buddha's teaching is really what he taught? Don't you think that this is especially true due to the unreliability of contemporary Buddhists?
Since I developed my renewed interest in Buddhism, I've been reading things online to get different perspectives. One of the most interesting perspectives I found was from an ex-Pali scholar named Eisel Mazard. Mazard lived in Southeast Asia for approximately a decade getting to know the Pali canon and different Buddhist communities. He has now given many scathing critiques of contemporary Buddhism on his blog
and his video channel
One of his themes is that contemporary Buddhists ignore or distort what's in the Pali canon. Listening to Mazard has convinced me that it's important that I study the Tipitaka. Here are some quotes:
"In the decadent West, people often convert to Buddhism first, and only find out what the religion is later --sometimes many years later… It is difficult to imagine how these people have been studying Buddhism for so many years without knowing.. there seem to be aspects of both deception and self-deception involved… There is open 'strategizing' amongst Western monks as to which aspects of the religion they should reveal, and which conceal, in drawing outsiders into the religion."
"I remember a detailed anecdote from a western traveler who decided to spend one summer going from temple to temple in Thailand, asking the same question everywhere he went: "What did the Buddha actually say about 'there is no soul'?" Although this fellow could only communicate in English, he primarily visited the temples that are set up for foreigners, and he wrote to me to report afterward that none of the monks (out of several dozen) had been able to answer the question --although some referred him to other monks, and so on. When I related this anecdote to an ex-monk (of the Thai tradition) he did not believe it, and he insisted that all of those temples are full of monks that can deliver sermons on "no soul". In reply, I pointed out that the question was not, "Can you give me a lecture on no soul", but rather, "What did the Buddha actually say about this?" To answer the latter question is a very different matter.
The problem begins and ends with ignorance of the corpus of extant texts…
The most ludicruous calumny is committed against Ajahn Chah on this score: quotations from his lectures "Food for the Heart" are taken out of context as if they were a justification for voluntary ignorance. In the fourth chapter he remarks, "For the best practice, as I see it, it isn't necessary to read many books. Take all the books and lock them away. Just read your own mind." What is forgotten in reading such an excerpt is that the lecture was not given to laypeople, and definitely not western laypeople, but to Thai monks who had already completed many years of textual study, and, indeed, written examinations. This is obvious even in the next sentence of the quotation, "You have all been burying yourselves in books from the time you entered school. I think that now you have this opportunity and have the time, take the books, put them in a cupboard and lock the door. Just read your mind." I do not think that anyone could read this set of lectures as a whole and think that Ajahn Chah was endorsing the notion that westerners who already live in ignorance should continue to live in ignorance (I say this explicitly because I have both heard and read Ajahn Chah cited as an authority to this effect). The same set of lectures contains numerous statements about the importance of textual scholarship, and the monks (addressed as the audience) are all presumed to be studiously preparing for Thailand's system of exams throughout (some of the advice emphasizing practice is stated explicitly in terms of the monks' need to recover from the distraction of having memorized and recited so much text for the exams, etc.). Somehow, this is put into the blender of post-Christian western assumptions (along with unexamined assumptions inherited from 1960s American Zen) and an anti-textual (and anti-intellectual) doctrine comes out of the mix...
I've met people who labored in ignorance for 30 years, with some badly-translated scrap of text (most often downloaded from the internet) interpreted to the effect that one should just focus on "practice" (by which they mean a modern, western definition of "meditation", regardless of what the texts may say); with this excuse established in their minds, they then go about preaching Buddhism without ever studying the texts. After 30 years of such "practice", they're as ignorant as I was more than ten years ago (they repeat the same lesson about "breathing meditation" that some other white person taught them in California, again and again, while neither learning anything nor teaching anything).
…If anyone wanted to be a member of a religion that glamorized pious ignorance, let me tell you, Theravāda Buddhism is a poor choice (you might want to try almost any other organized religion instead). Nevertheless, I meet westerners again and again who insist on precisely this point: they insist that somehow learning is an obstacle to practice, and that whatever the Buddha may have taught (i.e., in some book they haven't read) the point now is to have blind faith, deaf practice, and silent meditation. Theravāda Buddhism is built on a corpus of philosophical dialogues, but nothing could be more anathema than actually engaging in philosophical dialogue in the white, western version of Theravāda Buddhism.
I recall meeting a German man who had dedicated about 40 years of his life to Theravāda Buddhism, and who was then running some foundation (and he had some modest publications of his own); alas, he knew no language aside from German and English. I asked him simply, and with an open mind, if he had any questions about my research (really, I said nothing to provoke him: I told him that I was a Pali scholar, that I had been living in Laos for so many years, and then asked with a smile if he had any questions about my work). He became very agitated in responding to this (and, indeed, trembled visibly); he launched into a denunciation of textual research itself, and he tried to prove his point by claiming that the canon itself is "anti-intellectual" and that it wasn't the intellectuals who attained nibbāna in the Buddha's teaching. Although I was tempted to say then what I've said now (i.e., that this really isn't the right religion for you if you're looking for pious ignorance and blind obedience) but I instead responded by asking how he knew these things that he was telling me, as he had never read any of the texts himself, and was now attacking me for having dared to read them.
This fellow's attitude is not uncommon, but it is normally a bit better concealed: it is the fragile and embittered result of a lifetime spent in worshipping and even preaching a religion that the adherents themselves don't understand. Inevitably, such people attack me (even if I have said nothing controversial to them) because anything that I might say (and anything that I do know) will be a threat to their beliefs, and to their sense of their own religious authority. The world is full of meditation teachers who claim "30 years' experience" but they have no more ability to know what the Buddha taught about meditation now than they did 30 years ago."
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
June 21, 2014
Thanks for the videos. Guess I need to apply what he teaches. His criticism of psychology is similar to mine. He doesn't denigrate the value of studying the Tipitaka; just studying without meditation. I have such an aversion to the organized-religion aspect of Buddhism that I saw in those videos that I may need to rely on the Tipitaka as my vital connection to Buddha's teachings (in conjunction with commentaries and meditation). Whatever the sense of Ajahn Sumedho's injunction not to seek knowledge of Dhamma from external sources, surely he would agree that we need to seek out teachers.
Ajahn Sumedho seems like a fine human being. However, after his many decades of monasticism, he does show signs of attachment, and of having a self. Is this just an act?
“Di Parti II” (See above.)
Author’s response
"P.A. Payutto is said to have distilled the essence of the Tipitaka in his workBuddhadhamma. I wasn't able to get a hold of the complete work; I don't think it's been fully translated. I got an abridged version, which I already had to give back to the library. I liked the portions I read. Both Payutto and Buddhadasa drew from the Tipitaka. Don't you think it's necessary to verify for oneself that what is being taught as Buddha's teaching is really what he taught? Don't you think that this is especially true due to the unreliability of contemporary Buddhists?"
I am happy to learn that you did manage get a hold of Payutto’s work. As I have told you before, he is a very learned monk and I have a lot of respect for him. I guess you can say that I trust him (as well as, of course, Buddhadasa), so with his Buddhadhamma (along with many well researched work of Buddhadasa), I need not bother to read the Tipitaka. In addition, since I look at Buddhism more as a science, I can verify all the statements I have read by experimentation. When I had completed my basic study of Buddhism during those three and a half years of my spiritual journey, I intended to follow Buddha’s advice of using the real world as my stage to learn about life and all related phenomena and to observe from reality if what I have studied is really true. 
No comments:
Post a Comment