Theravada against mathematics

[Dan74-MkII]

The objection is reduced to the statement that a deterministic event can not occur in an infinite number of tests.

This is possible only if in this infinite set of tests there is no combination of causes and conditions that precedes such a deterministic event А. But this combination - like any test - is also a deterministic event.

If there is no test, there are no reasons for it with conditions, and so we deny the causes and conditions to infinity. In all infinity of causes and conditions, there is not a single combination that could trigger a sequence of steps that ends with a given deterministic event А.

The final combination of dhammas before the manifestation of Nibbana is an impossible event.

I think we are making progress.

What I think is erroneous in your statement above is that it is possible to have a process, deterministic or even random, that arrives at a desired outcome for the first time after infinitely many steps. So that while the infinite past contains no magic sequence leading to nibbana, the future does.

I tried to give you a simple example above.

[binocular]

In the absence of a subject of free choice, all events are reduced to random, deterministic and impossible (just as in the physical model).

And, as far as I know, this is one of the salient differences between the Theravada of the suttas and the Abhidhamma: according to the suttas, one has free will and is considered a subject, while according to the Abhidhamma, one doesn't.

The final combination of dhammas before the manifestation of Nibbana is an impossible event.

So what are you going to do with this insight of yours?

[Sherab]

If there is no subject of free choice, then the path to Nibbana (the sequence of combinations of dhammas, after which Nibbana manifests) is random or deterministic. In any case, this path will be traversed for an infinite past. Here, in this thread, random events were denied in favor of fully deterministic ones. If reality is such a deterministic algorithm, then any deterministic sequence of combinations of elements is implemented in an infinite number of steps of this algorithm. All steps of the algorithm are a countable set (the “smallest” among infinite sets). All steps of the algorithm fit in the infinite past.

I said that if Nibbana is a REALIZATION, then that realization cannot come from a dependently arisen mind because that mind would have ceased when Cessation happens.

So is Nibbana a realization or not?

I have already written several times: it does not matter what Nibbana is. What is important is that Nibbana manifests after a known sequence of combinations of finite number of elements (dhammas), and not in an arbitrary way. The realization of Nibbana is the passage of a known series of dhammas combinations.

Does the dependent arisen consciousness ceased at Nibbana?

[cappuccino]

Does the dependent arisen consciousness ceased at Nibbana?

yes and no

[Sherab]

The reality is that there are many interpretations of what the Buddha actually taught amongst Theravadins and Mahayanists and within the Mahayana, the Vajrayanists.

Which compounds the problem.

Which problem?

I have seen people on this forum and its sister forum holding a position that is vulnerable to Germann's argument. His argument is logically correct, or mathematically correct as he puts it.

Yes. And it seems that some schools/lineages have attempted to fix this by imposing restrictions, like the doctrine on the icchantikas. * Or, more generally, to justify themselves as the necessary means for attaining enlightenment ("Nobody gets to nirvana except through our lineage").

The point is whenever we get a proposition that challenges the doctrines that we hold, we should go back and check our interpretations of what the Buddha actually said and taught and what are the implicit assumptions and implications of those assumptions behind our own proposition.

It is the implicit premises underlying his argument that you have to look at and address.

And fortunately or unfortunately, the same premise can be correct in the context of one Buddhist tradition, but not in another's.

No, premises are assumed to be correct within any given proposition. Therefore when those premises are challenged, we should look at whether the challenge is valid and correct, valid but incorrect (because the premises of the challenging proposition are incorrect) or invalid. We should then adjust our position accordingly if we are honest with ourselves.

We all hold different positions and beliefs. Until we reach enlightenment, it is better to assume that it is possible that there are flaws in our positions and beliefs.

But if we do that, how can we ever hope to reach enlightenment?

Enlightenment comes through practice. It does not come from intellectualization. Positions/beliefs are merely support to our practice and can never replace it. The stronger the support, the less likely that one deviates in our practice.

[Sherab]

Does the dependent arisen consciousness ceased at Nibbana?

yes and no

Why yes?
Why no?
Why yes AND no?

[Sherab]

We define the terms.

A test is a combination of causes and conditions leading to an outcome. The outcome is incidental if the test leading to any outcome has other outcomes.

A random event is any collection of random outcomes.

A deterministic event is an outcome that is sure to occur during a given test.

Impossible event is the outcome, which obviously does not happen during this test.

So, the test is the previous combination of a finite number of dhammas. The end result is a subsequent combination of a finite number of dhammas.

In the absence of a subject of free choice, all events are reduced to random, deterministic and impossible (just as in the physical model).

If there are random events, the topic about the infinite monkeys theorem is valid. If there are no random events, then all events are reduced to deterministic and impossible. If there are no random events, then all possible events are deterministic.

The final combination of dhammas before the manifestation of Nibbana is deterministic event А.

The objection is reduced to the statement that a deterministic event can not occur in an infinite number of tests.

This is possible only if in this infinite set of tests there is no combination of causes and conditions that precedes such a deterministic event А. But this combination - like any test - is also a deterministic event.

If there is no test, there are no reasons for it with conditions, and so we deny the causes and conditions to infinity. In all infinity of causes and conditions, there is not a single combination that could trigger a sequence of steps that ends with a given deterministic event А.

The final combination of dhammas before the manifestation of Nibbana is an impossible event.

(1) What is your definition of free choice?
(2) Are you conflating fatalism with determinism? If no, what is your definition of fatalism and what is your definition of determinism?
(3) Is Nibbana a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned as per Udana 8.3?

[cappuccino]

Does the dependent arisen consciousness ceased at Nibbana?

yes and no

Why yes?
Why no?
Why yes AND no?

consciousness depends on eyes, ears, it also doesn't

[chownah]

So what are you going to do with this insight of yours?

Don't you know? It is not a matter of what he is going to do.....he is doing it right now....this thread is what he is doing.....you are what he is doing.....he has accomplished alot and frankly what he has accomplished does not shine a very pleasant light on the quality of the discussion here....in my view.
chownah

[binocular]

/.../

Thank you for your reply. I don't think we're in any serious disagreement on anything and could easily bridge whatever gaps there may be. But since the OP isn't really engaging in discussion, I don't feel inspired to continue.

Today we saw the first snake in our garden, most likely it's a poisonous one. I spend a lot of time working in the garden. But now that I know there's a snake there, my priorities shifted.

[binocular]

Don't you know? It is not a matter of what he is going to do.....he is doing it right now....this thread is what he is doing.....you are what he is doing.....he has accomplished alot and frankly what he has accomplished does not shine a very pleasant light on the quality of the discussion here....in my view.

Everyone has to work out their salvation by themselves.

[Germann]

The objection is reduced to the statement that a deterministic event can not occur in an infinite number of tests.

This is possible only if in this infinite set of tests there is no combination of causes and conditions that precedes such a deterministic event А. But this combination - like any test - is also a deterministic event.

If there is no test, there are no reasons for it with conditions, and so we deny the causes and conditions to infinity. In all infinity of causes and conditions, there is not a single combination that could trigger a sequence of steps that ends with a given deterministic event А.

The final combination of dhammas before the manifestation of Nibbana is an impossible event.

I think we are making progress.

What I think is erroneous in your statement above is that it is possible to have a process, deterministic or even random, that arrives at a desired outcome for the first time after infinitely many steps. So that while the infinite past contains no magic sequence leading to nibbana, the future does.

I tried to give you a simple example above.

You did not indicate what the error was.

[Dan74-MkII]

The objection is reduced to the statement that a deterministic event can not occur in an infinite number of tests.

This is possible only if in this infinite set of tests there is no combination of causes and conditions that precedes such a deterministic event А. But this combination - like any test - is also a deterministic event.

If there is no test, there are no reasons for it with conditions, and so we deny the causes and conditions to infinity. In all infinity of causes and conditions, there is not a single combination that could trigger a sequence of steps that ends with a given deterministic event А.

The final combination of dhammas before the manifestation of Nibbana is an impossible event.

I think we are making progress.

What I think is erroneous in your statement above is that it is possible to have a process, deterministic or even random, that arrives at a desired outcome for the first time after infinitely many steps. So that while the infinite past contains no magic sequence leading to nibbana, the future does.

I tried to give you a simple example above.

You did not indicate what the error was.

[scratches head..] You maintain (now) that either Nibbana would have been attained in the past or it is impossible, correct? I said that there is a third option. Not attained in the infinite past, but attained in the future. And gave an example.

[Germann]

I think we are making progress.

What I think is erroneous in your statement above is that it is possible to have a process, deterministic or even random, that arrives at a desired outcome for the first time after infinitely many steps. So that while the infinite past contains no magic sequence leading to nibbana, the future does.

I tried to give you a simple example above.

You did not indicate what the error was.

[scratches head..] You maintain (now) that either Nibbana would have been attained in the past or it is impossible, correct? I said that there is a third option. Not attained in the infinite past, but attained in the future. And gave an example.

It is excluded: there is no reason for such a development of events. In order for your proposal to be true, there must be a mistake in my proof.

[Dan74-MkII]

You did not indicate what the error was.

[scratches head..] You maintain (now) that either Nibbana would have been attained in the past or it is impossible, correct? I said that there is a third option. Not attained in the infinite past, but attained in the future. And gave an example.

It is excluded: there is no reason for such a development of events. In order for your proposal to be true, there must be a mistake in my proof.

Indeed! Except 'proof' is somewhat liberally used in the above.