That only holds true for circles drawn on a flat surface, not warped space. A circle drawn on a sphere, for example, with have a shorter circumference than one drawn on a flat sheet, and one drawn on the surface of a saddle will have a longer circumference even though they all have the same radius (e.g., see The Elegant Universe, pp 64-65).
Any Universe will need to have at least 2 - 3 dimensions. As long as you have 2 dimensions you can draw a circle. As long as you can draw a circle you have C = 2 pi * R. It is irrefutable. Have it checked by your nearest astro physicist. Disprove me in the simpler question - any 2 dimensional circle has length of circumference 2 pi * r and it is eternal truth [ before going to 3 dimensions ]
That may very well be true; but then, the foundation of mathematics is a murky subject. Betrand Russell, for example, found this out while trying to discern the logical foundation of mathematics. The scope and definition of mathematics are still a debated topic today. That said, it's entirely possible that these things are constant and not dependent upon any conditions whatsoever — i.e., that they're some kind of eternal truths — but I'm not presently convinced of that (although I do think you're making a fairly good case for them being so). Moreover, assuming that these things are universal laws or truths, then I think they could easily fall under an expanded scope of what the commentarial tradition of Theravada calls dhamma-niyamas
, universal, dhammic laws (e.g., the three characteristics
That's not necessarily true. A new universe could theoretically have entirely different laws and constants.
A ) Then if a new Universe could have new laws and constants it will not have a circle ? Note: I carefully avoided saying electron charge will be constant since a new Universe could have separate particles. 2 and 3 dimensional geometry is constant.
B ) If a new Universe has new laws then Nibbana may not be
eternal just as 2 pi * R according to you is not eternal. A new Universe could have new laws of Kamma
I honestly have no idea what a universe radically different from our own would or wouldn't have. My only point above is that even things like the circumference of a circle is relative and dependent upon context. Three circles with the exact same radius can have complete different circumferences. What applies to a circle drawn on a flat surface doesn't apply to all circles, and who knows what would apply in the context of a black hole or pre-Big Bang. Conventionally speaking, I'd say that things like certain equations and universal phenomena do appear to be constant; but I'm not so sure they're constant in an ultimate sense since they depend upon things like time and space, something which nibbana
(depending on how you interpret it) doesn't.
If we take nibbana as being an existing reality or state from an ontological standpoint, as some interpret it to be, for example, then nibbana, being unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, unconditioned, uncompounded, etc. (Ud 8.3
), is something which lies outside of space and time. As such, it is, by its very nature, characterized by constancy in the ultimate sense of the term (nicca
), regardless of what universal laws exist, since anything unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, unconditioned, uncompounded, etc. and lying outside of space and time can be characterized by constancy in any context as it remains unaffected by anything phenomenal, i.e., nibbana in this sense doesn't depend on the existence or non-existence of a universe, and can be said to be constant in a truly ultimate sense.
But this, I think, while interesting to contemplate, takes the Buddha's teachings out of context and their intended purpose. Personally, I view Buddhism as a type of process philosophy
. The Buddha isn't trying to prove or disprove the ultimate existence of mathematic formulas; he's trying to get us to look at our experience in a way that helps us understand mental stress and suffering and removing its causes. From this perspective, nibbana is better understood as a self-realization that's constant or permanent.
What I mean by that is awaking, the experience of nibbana, in the Buddhist context isn't simply a meditative state that one only experiences while in meditation that goes away during normal everyday life (such as was the case with the Buddha's first two teachers, who mistook the third and fourth arupa jhanas as awakening). This 'liberation of mind' (cetovimutti
), as the Buddha occasionally calls it, on the other hand, is said to be unshakable, total, and permanent in the sense that an arahant
achieves irreversible release — i.e., complete eradication of the mental defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion — and can never fall back to a lower stage. It's also said (at least in the commentarial tradition of Theravada, at any rate) that they experience uninterrupted happiness/bliss (sukha
) for as long as their five sense faculties still remain as a result of awakening. For one reference, see "Nibbana as Living Experience
" by Lily de Silva.
What that means for an arahant after death, or whether nibbana is indeed an independent reality or state, though, I can't say since such things lie beyond the range of language and my own understanding. In addition, I'm currently at an airport waiting for a flight, so I can't really give this discussion the full attention it deserves, although I'm certainly enjoying it and looking forward to seeing how it evolves.