The problem of action at a temporal distance

[Dhammanando]

Lokacintā Sutta, SN56.41

[josephzizys]

Thanks @Dhammanando ! And ooh! Have i discovered a parallel @sujato ? suttacentral doesnt list EA29.6 as a parallel to SN56.41 ??

[Ceisiwr]

@cdpatton

But Buddhists weren’t willing to throw out the beliefs the inspired those ideas of personal spirits or essences. They kept the moral framework because human society needs a moral framework. Without it, humans descend into cycles of destructiveness that leads to wars and tyrannies. Keeping the belief in the moral universe meant keeping the belief in rebirth.

Of course, from a non-secular POV they were also kept because the Buddha knew such things, as did following monks and nuns.

[Ceisiwr]

@josephzizys

I always felt that the materialist argument for the permanent end of consciousness with the end of the body was based not so much on evidence as on an appeal to a particular philosophical argument that very obviously begged the question, and it is one of the great comforts of my encounter with buddhism that it so eloquently explains why and how this is so.

Emergentism isn’t science. It’s philosophy. This is why arguments against banning abortion tend to fall flat. Materialism & Physicalism aren’t scientific either, despite usually being portrayed as such.

[faujidoc1]

@Jayarava

what drove the evolution of Buddhist doctrine?

Anicca. The same force that drives Samsara.

AN10.29
As far, bhikkhus, as this thousandfold world system extends, Mahābrahmā there ranks as the foremost. But even for Mahābrahmā there is alteration; there is change.

@Jayarava

why did Buddhists make up new and often contradictory doctrines? Something must have been going on. Right? I’m just asking what that something was.

Lust, Aversion and Delusion. Attachment to Views… one’s own in particular.
Blind men, not seeing the Elephant (Ud 6.4).

Snp4.12
Question

What some say is the truth,
Others say is false.
So they argue, disagreeing;
Why don’t the ascetics teach one truth?

Buddha

Indeed the truth is one, there’s not another,
about this the One who Knows
does not dispute with another,
but the Samaṇas proclaim their varied “truths”
and so they speak not in the same way.

[Luis]

@josephzizys

If the doer is identical to the temporially distant experiencer of the consequences then there is presumably some one that endures temporally. If the doer of the action is not identicle with the experiencer or the consequences then then there is one who does not endure through time and another who suffers consequences not of thier own making.

You might find it interesting to read Nagarjuna’s analysis from Mulamadhyamakakarika. A recommended translation is the one by Mark Siderits and Shoryu Katsura. Nagarjuna demonstrates through logical analysis that things that are dependent on one another cannot be the same nor different. The agent cannot be the same nor different from the consumer of the action, etc. His approach is compatible with the one presented in the SN sutta you quoted. According to Nagarjuna, this shows how notions such as agent, consumer, etc. are not based on facts, if we look closely at them. They only work provisionally in accordance with how things seem to us, based on our delusion of there being a self, an agent, a consumer, etc.

I’m not convinced that the branching of buddhist schools took place in the way Jayarava depicted it in this thread. It was certainly a much more smooth and gradual process. There are records of early mahayanists living within the same monasteries as those that rejected mahayana texts. The differences in doctrine were not that radical, and evolved over time while each group made sense and practiced what the previous generation had given them. Differences become greater with temporal and geographical distance.
And the “issue” that drives them is suffering. It is practitioners trying to make sense and practice what the Buddha taught, within the context of the activities and ideas that seem relevant during one’s time (such as conversation in an internet forum, inter-religious debates within monasteries during the Gupta period, systematization of the suttas during the period of formation of abhidhamma literature, etc.).

[Erika_ODonnell]

Why not start with a simpler problem? This is a common strategy in science

Problem: Say I am hungry, I eat, and then I’m not hungry anymore, I’m full.

Let’s call the person who was hungry Person X and the person who is full Person Y.

Is Person X identical to Person Y? Clearly they are at minimum different regarding the experience of hunger and fullness. They are not, like, categorically identical, they aren’t literally the same in all aspects.

Is Person X and Person Y completely different, in the sense that I (the writer of this post) am different from you, the reader, who is reading this through the internet?

No, because Person X and Person Y are in a relationship with each other that is in some sense unique: statistical dependence of action and experiences.

Think about it: If I eat, it does not make anyone else feel full. My eating and others’ feelings of fullness or hunger are statistically independent from each other.

Like, some instances of experience are in tight statistical relationships with each other while being statistically independent of almost all others. This is the stream of conditions we usually refer to as a being, IMO.

[yeshe.tenley]

I feel it is important to note that even this simple presentation - which I can’t immediately find any fault with - is assuming a lot of a priori knowledge. Non-exhaustively, it is assuming a few important points that end up doing a lot of the work:

• The ability to find and identify persons as saccato thetato
• The assumption that statistically independence is saccato thetato
• The ability to find and actually quantify statistical relationships between entities that themselves have not even been identified as saccato thetato

I don’t think this assumed a priori knowledge should go unremarked upon. The a priori knowledge being merely assumed, the conclusions drawn from it are also merely assumed.

PS According to some theories of modern physics statistically independence can never be actually demonstrated, but rather it can only be assumed. It is a foundational assumption of Bell’s inequality for instance. The fact that this is an assumption is not something most scientists like to talk about. When people do talk about it, often the reactions can be hyperbolic with some scientists saying not assuming it destroys science. Others disagree. Here is an interesting video on the subject giving one scientists point of view.

[Erika_ODonnell]

@yeshe.tenley

I don’t think this assumed a priori knowledge should go unremarked upon. The a priori knowledge being merely assumed, the conclusions drawn from it are also merely assumed.

I am just using ordinary language and everyday experiences here though?

When I say statistical independence, I mean like “when flipping a coin, the result of one coin flip does not affect the next coin flip”.

This and things like me eating doesn’t make you feel full are like, just readily observable, right? This isn’t some fancy philosophical stuff

[yeshe.tenley]

@Erika_ODonnell

This and things like me eating doesn’t make you feel full are like, just readily observable, right? This isn’t some fancy philosophical stuff

Right! If we’re just talking on the level of convention, then I can find no fault with anything you’re saying. However, in my experience beings have a tendency to take what is mere convention and assume it to be saccato thetato. The aside I made above of truly differentiating was to point out that when one tries to go beyond the merely conventional level to differentiate; things quickly seem to fall apart. Your coin flip example is a case in point. This assumes statistical independence between the coin flips which has not been actually demonstrated. Statistical independence on the conventional level is fine and we’re in agreement, but if we analyse further it unravels and we have to recognize that we’re merely assuming and not basing anything on direct knowledge. Right?

[Erika_ODonnell]

@yeshe.tenley

Right! If we’re just talking on the level of convention, then I can find no fault with anything you’re saying.

Oh, assuming that there is something beyond the level of convention, are we? Isn’t that… a priori

(Just imagine me saying this like Dr. Evil and then cackling evily)

Edit: I know I’m being silly, but this is the watercooler after all

[yeshe.tenley]

@Erika_ODonnell

Oh, assuming that there is something beyond the level of convention, are we? Isn’t that… a priori

(Just imagine me saying this like Dr. Evil and then cackling evily)

Edit: I know I’m being silly, but this is the watercooler after all

LOL. Right. No assuming beyond the conventional. Is that what I’m saying? Is that what you’re saying? I’ve never been silly in my life. I don’t even know what ‘silly’ means. I’ve been asking others to explain it to me, but I’m too dense to get it apparently.

[josephzizys]

@Luis

Nagarjuna demonstrates through logical analysis that things that are dependent on one another cannot be the same nor different.

Thanks for the recommendation @Luis I think you are making good sense, I have spent a little time with Nagarjuna in the wake of my undeclared points research and i agree that there is fryitful work to be done rehabilitating Nagarjuna as “orthodox” with regard to the undeclared and dependence, I just am less sure exactly what new arguments Nagarjuna gives, beyond consistent application of the undeclared points. Do you know of any good online sources, especially of any transliterated sanskrit, for the MMK?

[josephzizys]

ooh! @Luis and other, this may be of interest;

Bodisvara has a transliteration of the MMK here.

[Hasantha]

@Erika_ODonnell

Problem: Say I am hungry, I eat, and then I’m not hungry anymore, I’m full.

I like this analogy, but you could rephrase in what I think would be the Buddhist way:

1. A blood sugar below 3 mmol/L triggers a response from the brain to seek glucose
2. The body with the low blood sugar eats carbohydrate
3. The body blood sugar increases
4. The low blood sugar signal ceases

There would be no need to insert “person” to either step 1 or step 4, but if you wanted to do that in order to use the English language in the way we use it and so that the person (perhaps a non-Buddhist) could understand, then that is OK…but its not actually what happened. What happened is what is outlined in steps 1 to 4…the only difference is that there is also a volitional element that is not just a mechanistic process. That is the magic in all of this cause and effect molecules just doing what they have to do to obey all the “laws of science”. I think what the Buddha adds to the scientific literature, if they bothered to listen, are the accompanying “laws of mind” that are basically identical to the physical laws…just cause and effect (ie. insert karma as the cause an effect law in the conscious domain as physics is the cause and effect law in the physical domain)

[Hasantha]

@Erika_ODonnell

No, because Person X and Person Y are in a relationship with each other that is in some sense unique: statistical dependence of action and experiences.

Think about it: If I eat, it does not make anyone else feel full. My eating and others’ feelings of fullness or hunger are statistically independent from each other.

Like, some instances of experience are in tight statistical relationships with each other while being statistically independent of almost all others. This is the stream of conditions we usually refer to as a being, IMO.

…and in response to your comment about statistics, which is an interest of mine too :), the question is whether you would analyse based on the 2 independent sample concept (using a student t test) or based on the 2 paired sample concept (using a paired t test). I think neither would be the perfect fit, and for some outcome variables it should be the former (i.e., the glucose thing over a few minutes) and for some it should be the latter (e.g., analysing from a thousand lifetimes ago to now)

[Hasantha]

…as a side note, my description of the low blood sugar scenario is actually how many doctors talk to each other “bed 3 needs a glucose bolus” or “…can you go and organise a repeat brain CT for the ependymoma” (as opposed to “…for John who has an ependymoma”

I remember a story from Ajahn Brahm who reports a conversation with a Pyschiatrist (from singapore from memory) asking “how do you treat Schizophrenia?”, to which he replied “I dont, I treat the other bits”, which I absolutely love and recount to medical students whenever I have the opportunity so that they dont dehumanise patients and just treat diseases…but perhaps the students are all arahants and just understand the concept of anatta better than me LOL

[Luis]

@josephzizys

I just am less sure exactly what new arguments Nagarjuna gives, beyond consistent application of the undeclared points. Do you know of any good online sources, especially of any transliterated sanskrit, for the MMK?

It is difficult to understand MMK if you read it alone and if you never studied Sarvastivada Abhidharma. There is a lot of reference and refutation of concepts from Abhidharma.
I have learned it from Thomas Doctor and he was amazing in bringing the main points and reasonings. One thing that is appealing about MMK is that it is not simply based on arguments of authority (as in: the Buddha said this or that, this or that remained undeclared, etc.). It presents reasonings so that we can come to our own conclusions and build confidence about what is or isn’t the case.

[Meggers]

@yeshe.tenley

Devote yourself to meditation, and you will soon be free of defilements

I read an extended essay (maybe it was even a dissertation) from a student of Murti’s that traced the philosophical disputes between sarvastivada and sautrantika that were taken up by Nagarjuna (madhyamika). It was fascinating. I created a new folder just on its basis, but … somehow … it up and disappeared. If someone comes across it, or something like it, boy I would appreciate having it in my hands. Its loss stymied completion of one of my projects. I can’t remember anything except that Murti himself commented on it, saying that he appreciated both the work and that the author accepted his line of argument.