Truly Exist, dependently exist, dependently ceased, truly not existing

Discussion
121

If you’re asking me if Turing machines have essence I’d say no. They can be expressed in the lambda calculus as well as the SKI calculus and other combinator calculus. They are likely possible to express in a gazillion different ways. They also are posited by mind and labeled on that basis.

I don’t think a blank paper is a perfect analogy. I confess I don’t even see the analogy let alone regard it as perfect :joy:

There is no fundamental difference between a paper, a turing machine and the entire world because what is fundamental I don’t think exists. Show me what is fundamental and I might think otherwise, but until then it’s turtles all the way down bub :joy: :pray:

1 Like
122

Amazing! So with non-duality, we can understand that any difference between this and that, part and whole, paper, turing machine and entire world, are just another appearance of delusion; an enlightened mind sees no difference between this and that. Would you not agree?

Zen masters understand entire world expressed in a single lotus petal. What makes a turing machine so abhorrent that it can’t function what a lotus petal can? :smiley:

1 Like
123

There is difference, but thinking it is fundamental difference I would agree is delusion. Sneaky sneaky @dogen omitting the “fundamental” qualifier :joy: :pray:

124

I have no experience with zen masters. Maybe they are beyond poor Yeshe and can express the entire world with a Turing machine. :joy: :pray:

1 Like
125

Then you put conventional reality to a place of such exaltence that it doesn’t matter if a Turing Machine is a perfect fundamental analogy of the entire cosmos?

1 Like
126

If I’m right it wouldn’t matter, but if it were shown to be right it would cause an earthquake underneath those who believe in physical reductionism. It probably would be as big a result as Gödel’s incompleteness theorems or the quantum revolution… probably quite a bit bigger. It would mean the goal of a universal physical theory would be unrealizable. Hypothesizing further we might also begin to understand why it has been so difficult resolving quantum field theory with general relativity. Would that matter? I guess it depends upon your perspective. :joy: :pray:

PS you would also probably find a lot of Buddhists waking up the next day and authoring newspaper articles and papers declaring the Buddha was right and that he potentially knew something beyond logic.

1 Like
127

I think that conversation went of a stasis there then. :slight_smile:

Back to my original (truly/not truly) distinction then, if I may.

Imagine I lie:

“I saw three suns rise from the east today” (false)

This is truly not true, and I think it is a crucial difference between P =! NP.

Either we start with P =! NP, or there’s no reason for us to discuss anything, and everything you propose is irrelevant. :slight_smile:

I think abstracting truly from what is experienced truly with six-sense fields is on the whole, wrong, dangerous and impractical:

If someone says “I’m suffering”, do you say “Ah my good man; you’re not truly suffering!” This doesn’t sound very compassionate at all!

If the argument is “You’re only delusional and ignorant” then I must be truly delusional and ignorant.

Either I’m delusional or I’m not; your exposition on LEM doesn’t solve this problem. Because if you’re correct (that is, if emptiness [which is phenomena not having a permanent essence] implies a non-truth), then that means you’re not truly correct, and so everything you say is also false. LEM explains this perfectly.

Trying to argue from the Conventional/Ultimate Truth perspective is also wrong, because Ultimate Truth assumption is also a proposition and it has to also present its case in a logically coherent fashion. In short, there’s no Conventional/Ultimate Truth, there’s only Truth.

Let’s argue from the other side:

Paraphrasing: Ultimate Truth asserts that, there’s only emptiness, which is charecterised with lack of a permanent essence, and so you follow, phenomena are not truly arising/ceasing, this is a mirage, or so you say. Is this a proper way to explain your view?

If things didn’t cease without remainder, they would be permanent. Being permanent, they would have a substantial essence. Having a substantial essence, they would be real.

So, if you propose that phenomena are not real, then it follows than phenomena have to cease in order to satisfy this. So, there’s the cases where P = Phenomena arising, and NP = Cessation of phenomena - this is what’s implied with emptiness, insubstantial.

If we try to extrapolate Middle Way to reject truth propositions; this is also a truth proposition which is rejected on said premise.

In other words, if Nibbāna = Samsara, then that also means Nibbāna =! Samsara. Because that’s the definition of Nibbāna - absence of samsara, negation of samsara. Either one or the other. You can’t propose a Middle Way on truth propositions without using binary truth propositions. Either the illusioniness is real, or it’s not an illusion to begin with. :slight_smile:

In other words, what you propose as Middle Way analysis should be understood with its assumptions: Middle Way analysis can’t be said to be true or false.

What I’m proposing, as does Kaccānagottasutta, is rejecting existence/non-existence of permanent properties, in favor of arising/cessation of processes.

Phenomena can arise and cease (and cease completely) which is the basis of our salvation. Buddha explains cessation of dukkha without remainder - this should not be contentious.

This doesn’t mean dukkha is now non-existent. To suggest as such would require it to have had a fundamental substance to begin with: Only things that are said to have existed can be said to be not-existing. Non-existence is an imaginary state that applies to things we imagine having a substantial existence. These are truly non-real.

But as dukkha arose, so it is ceased without remainder. Isn’t that what the teacher explains?

Non-duality can be understood as All cases of P is dukkha. This allows us a functional differentiation between P and NP, True/False, Suffering/Nibbāna.

‘It is only suffering that arises, and only suffering that ceases’ – this, Kaccāna, is ‘Right perspective.’ SN12.15

Some parting questions:

  • If refusal of Existence/Non-Existence (Atthi/Natthi) means N = NP, what does the teacher mean when he talks about arising/cessation (Samudo/Nirodha) in Kaccānagottasutta?
  • What does the teacher mean by cessation of dukkha without remainder?
  • What does the teacher mean by “Rebirth is ended, there’s no more [translation: to this self, to this being, to this presence] here (nāparaṁ itthattāya)”?
  • What does the teacher mean by ‘It is only suffering that arises, and only suffering that ceases’?
128

Ok I see. There’s a sutta in which the Buddha gives a simile of senses being fire and their subjects being the fuel. You are basically saying that mind recreates itself by its subjects, which are its fuel. hmm…

Edit - Can we compare the mind to a CPU? Is such analogy appropriate and useful? I worry such comparisons would be inappropriate because of a different paradigm that we live in compared to the Buddha’s time.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, when a CPU has nothing to do, no processes whatsoever, we can say it essentially turns off? Is this a state of no-power? or that there is power but it is barely used if at all?
Assuming it equals a state of total shutdown and the power is generated exlusively for the CPU, then where does the power go when it’s not used anymore?
One could also think about it in terms of an electricity circuit as I wrote in another thread.

That is what I originally meant by “power”, not the processes that would be subjects of CPU.

I think the Buddha’s simile does not quite fit into the CPU analogy. In that case, the fire could be used to boil water for instance, like the CPU processes. So the subject would be the water. If there is no use-case for the fire, then its existence would be undermined. One could blow it off. But it would not extinguish on its own. The fuel would be there until it runs out. But we know that at that time the fire would not disappear either, it would simply convert to another form of energy, as it was happening already anyway.

@Dogen
Honestly, I don’t think language and logic would take you anywhere on this path. If it could, with all the great philosophers and logicians throughout history, much more clever and knowledgable than me and you, would have come to a decisive conclusion on the matter of existence. Like, even Aristotle had to resort to a first cause.
You are not really getting Buddhism, if you think about it in terms of logic. That is why, in Buddhism there are such paradoxical phrases in the first place. To show that language and logic are of little use in such realms.

In my humble opinion such matter might be better understood from a subjective point of view, rather than ontological and objective. For example, why some musical chords sound sad or joyful or some sound in-between, like those suspense chords. It cannot be merely explained in terms of notes relations and frequencies.

129

Logic alone is not enough on the path to freedom. But the path to freedom isn’t bereft of logic either or illogical either. :slight_smile:

See, even in your proof you use logic! :smiley:

130

The purpose of logic in this case is to kill logic. For that, most people would first need to exhauste it so much so that it turns into despair. IMHO.

That is true, I am not sure what I am doing here. Seriously.

Honestly I think it would be more beneficial if instead I would drink beer, , or better yet , practice Setar, or help people somehow. :slightly_smiling_face: haha

https://suttacentral.net/dn9/en/sujato?lang=en

131

That is a fact, not truth. Two concepts seemingly similar but different.

132

How would you distinguish between my usage of ‘truth’ here and ‘a fact’? :pray:

133

”Facts are the enemy of truth” - Don Quijote

I would add to this:

Insight is the enemy to both facts and truths. :wink:

134

In that whole paragraph I would substitute word ‘fact’ in place of truth. Eg.: facts are conditioned, convention etc.

On the other hand, in suttas: it is stated one preserves truth by truthfully saying ‘such is my faith’, ‘such is my belief’, ‘such is my view’ etc.
In MN140 adherence to truth is one foundation.
In MN86 there is a miracle performed by relying on truth

By this truth, may both you and your baby be safe.

And in Bible:

Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.
John 14:6

So while facts are simply facts, by relying on truth even miracles can occur. That is quite a difference between these two.

3 Likes