Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:29 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
kirtu wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm
Posts: 1850
kirtu wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
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.

_________________
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
asunthatneversets wrote:
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.

_________________
May all beings be happy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:01 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
Pero wrote:
kirtu wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
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

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:06 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
deepbluehum wrote:
kirtu wrote:
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

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 12:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Posts: 1302
Location: San Francisco, CA
kirtu wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
kirtu wrote:
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm
Posts: 2755
Pero wrote:
kirtu wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
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? :lol:
I think you guys may be reading too much into it...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm
Posts: 1850
kirtu wrote:
Pero wrote:
kirtu wrote:
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. :tongue:

_________________
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Posts: 1999
Location: France
Pero wrote:
kirtu wrote:
Pero wrote:
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. :tongue:


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

Sönam :tongue:

_________________
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:45 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
Pero wrote:
kirtu wrote:
Pero wrote:
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. :tongue:

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

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:48 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
Sönam wrote:
Pero wrote:
kirtu wrote:

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. :tongue:


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

Sönam :tongue:


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

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm
Posts: 2755
I better take cover then! Image

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm
Posts: 1850
You're totally missig the point Kirt. But it's ok, no use in debating it any more.

_________________
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:44 pm
Posts: 220
Location: UK
It's basically a koan. Are we not doing non-conceptual any more?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm
Posts: 2755
No, it's not a koan! :rolling:
It's a very simple and crude example, that's all. Don't read too much into it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:44 pm
Posts: 220
Location: UK
Dechen Norbu wrote:
No, it's not a koan! :rolling:
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... :pig:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:53 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
Pero wrote:
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

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
kirtu wrote:
Pero wrote:
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. :heart:

_________________
May all beings be happy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:05 pm
Posts: 160
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:51 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
zangskar wrote:
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

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: conebeckham, heart and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group