"2+1=3 it also equals 21." ChNN

[deepbluehum]

Come on - you would not find this statement in Wittgenstein. Secondly Tibetans are ignorant of mathematics and science.

In "Philosophical Investigations" he says many things like this. See p. 226.

[Pero]

I wanted to discuss a little bit the appropriateness of applying modern philosophical ideas to ancient Buddha-dharma. The quote by ChNN comes from his movie. His statement appears to be an application of Dzogchen teachings on being free from limitations and to look at things from many possibilities. This is also the kind of statement that you might read from Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations."

Come on - you would not find this statement in Wittgenstein. Secondly Tibetans are ignorant of mathematics and science.

LMAO. This has nothing to do with either mathematics or science. It's a simple example he sometimes uses to show our limitations. It's pretty funny to create a philosphical debate out of it.

[dharmagoat]

Wouldn't it be true that the perversion of the teachings into "dogma" is contingent upon individual interpretation? I suppose I see no dogma, all tenets of the dharma are merely pointers, none are meant to be absolute laws, rules or regulations. If one turns such things into dogma then that is merely the error of that individual, the tendency for such misinterpretation to be paraded as truth and taught to others (in it's skewed state) is again dependent on human error.

I agree. If there is a problem, it is with the dogmatist rather than with the doctrine. If certain outmoded teachings are understood for what they are, and care is taken to view them within their original cultural context, then their intended meaning can still be appreciated.

[kirtu]

I wanted to discuss a little bit the appropriateness of applying modern philosophical ideas to ancient Buddha-dharma. The quote by ChNN comes from his movie. His statement appears to be an application of Dzogchen teachings on being free from limitations and to look at things from many possibilities. This is also the kind of statement that you might read from Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations."

Come on - you would not find this statement in Wittgenstein. Secondly Tibetans are ignorant of mathematics and science.

LMAO. This has nothing to do with either mathematics or science. It's a simple example he sometimes uses to show our limitations. It's pretty funny to create a philosphical debate out of it.

Lamas and teachers shouldn't use nonsensical examples and should stay away from arithmetic, math and science.

The example itself is not appropriate to show our limitations because the example itself is not correct.

However wielded in the hands of a teacher like NNR then it can become useful.

Kirt

[kirtu]

Come on - you would not find this statement in Wittgenstein. Secondly Tibetans are ignorant of mathematics and science.

In "Philosophical Investigations" he says many things like this. See p. 226.

No he doesn't. On page 226 he is talking about language, meaning, and thought (as always). His seemingly stream of consciousness approach doesn't help continuity but then he rejected the approach of his youth.

The closest thing to what yo are asserting is the cow eating, dunging a rose, and an assertion that can arise that the rose has teeth - again examining meaning.

Kirt

[deepbluehum]

Come on - you would not find this statement in Wittgenstein. Secondly Tibetans are ignorant of mathematics and science.

In "Philosophical Investigations" he says many things like this. See p. 226.

No he doesn't. On page 226 he is talking about language, meaning, and thought (as always). His seemingly stream of consciousness approach doesn't help continuity but then he rejected the approach of his youth.

The closest thing to what yo are asserting is the cow eating, dunging a rose, and an assertion that can arise that the rose has teeth - again examining meaning.

Kirt

That is exactly what ChNN's example is about. How have you missed this point?

[Dechen Norbu]

I wanted to discuss a little bit the appropriateness of applying modern philosophical ideas to ancient Buddha-dharma. The quote by ChNN comes from his movie. His statement appears to be an application of Dzogchen teachings on being free from limitations and to look at things from many possibilities. This is also the kind of statement that you might read from Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations."

Come on - you would not find this statement in Wittgenstein. Secondly Tibetans are ignorant of mathematics and science.

LMAO. This has nothing to do with either mathematics or science. It's a simple example he sometimes uses to show our limitations. It's pretty funny to create a philosphical debate out of it.

It seems a little silly, isn't it?
I think you guys may be reading too much into it...

[Pero]

Come on - you would not find this statement in Wittgenstein. Secondly Tibetans are ignorant of mathematics and science.

LMAO. This has nothing to do with either mathematics or science. It's a simple example he sometimes uses to show our limitations. It's pretty funny to create a philosphical debate out of it.

Lamas and teachers shouldn't use nonsensical examples and should stay away from arithmetic, math and science.

The example itself is not appropriate to show our limitations because the example itself is not correct.

Heh, I think this is exactly what he was talking about...
BTW Kirt, you're a programmer right? Write '2' + '2' in Phython and see what you get.

[Sönam]

LMAO. This has nothing to do with either mathematics or science. It's a simple example he sometimes uses to show our limitations. It's pretty funny to create a philosphical debate out of it.

Lamas and teachers shouldn't use nonsensical examples and should stay away from arithmetic, math and science.

The example itself is not appropriate to show our limitations because the example itself is not correct.

Heh, I think this is exactly what he was talking about...
BTW Kirt, you're a programmer right? Write '2' + '2' in Phython and see what you get.

or 1+1=10 for a basic exemple ...

Sönam

[kirtu]

LMAO. This has nothing to do with either mathematics or science. It's a simple example he sometimes uses to show our limitations. It's pretty funny to create a philosphical debate out of it.

Lamas and teachers shouldn't use nonsensical examples and should stay away from arithmetic, math and science.

The example itself is not appropriate to show our limitations because the example itself is not correct.

Heh, I think this is exactly what he was talking about...
BTW Kirt, you're a programmer right? Write '2' + '2' in Phython and see what you get.

This is why I think the example isn't good. You are mixing operations.

2+2 is arithmetic addition
"2" + "2" is string concatenation

I was just going to accept BlueHum's wrap up above but Pero makes my point for me.

Kirt

[kirtu]

Lamas and teachers shouldn't use nonsensical examples and should stay away from arithmetic, math and science.

The example itself is not appropriate to show our limitations because the example itself is not correct.

Heh, I think this is exactly what he was talking about...
BTW Kirt, you're a programmer right? Write '2' + '2' in Phython and see what you get.

or 1+1=10 for a basic exemple ...

Sönam

Not funny Soman: mixing operations or taking them out of context is dangerous.

2+2 => 4 // base 10 addition arithmetic
"2" + "2"{ => "22" // string concatenation
1 + 1 => 10 // base 2 addition

Kirt

[Dechen Norbu]

I better take cover then!

[Pero]

You're totally missig the point Kirt. But it's ok, no use in debating it any more.

[underthetree]

It's basically a koan. Are we not doing non-conceptual any more?

[Dechen Norbu]

No, it's not a koan!
It's a very simple and crude example, that's all. Don't read too much into it.

[underthetree]

No, it's not a koan!
It's a very simple and crude example, that's all. Don't read too much into it.

Ha! I probably have a simple and crude understanding of koans, come to think of it...

[kirtu]

You're totally missig the point Kirt. But it's ok, no use in debating it any more.

Nonconceptuality does not mean that we can make up anything we like. One aspect of nonconceputality is not being rigidly attached to our ideas about the world. Rigid attachment to our ideas obscures reality. But thinking clearly free of ignorance illuminates reality.

Proper operations in their context is dependent origination. The foundations of arithmetic and thus of what we call mathematics is dependent origination. Mixing arithmetic operations causally is a form of real ignorance.

Put another way, saying that 2+1 => 3 and is also equals 21 is like saying that a left-turn in a car and backing a car up are the same. The operations have elements in common but they aren't the same.

Kirt

[dharmagoat]

You're totally missig the point Kirt. But it's ok, no use in debating it any more.

Nonconceptuality does not mean that we can make up anything we like. One aspect of nonconceputality is not being rigidly attached to our ideas about the world. Rigid attachment to our ideas obscures reality. But thinking clearly free of ignorance illuminates reality.

Proper operations in their context is dependent origination. The foundations of arithmetic and thus of what we call mathematics is dependent origination. Mixing arithmetic operations causally is a form of real ignorance.

Put another way, saying that 2+1 => 3 and is also equals 21 is like saying that a left-turn in a car and backing a car up are the same. The operations have elements in common but they aren't the same.

Kirt

You are both right. Have a lolly.

[zangskar]

Kirtu, if you say "2 and 1 is 3 but it also equals 21" then it would have been ok with you wouldn't it?That's probably the intended wording I'd assume even if a small mistake was made.
Best wishes
Lars

[kirtu]

Kirtu, if you say "2 and 1 is 3 but it also equals 21" then it would have been ok with you wouldn't it?That's probably the intended wording I'd assume even if a small mistake was made.
Best wishes
Lars

Hello Lars!

No I wouldn't agree with that either because the language is unclear and as before two very different operations are being invoked as if one had an equal choice in the result. One can choose one operation or the other but the rules of the operations are different and the outcomes are different.

Really to put this in context I'd like to see what NNR said before this snippet.

Kirt