So, there's no difference between an evil person and (say) a bodhisattva - the difference in their deeds, one cruel, the other kind, means nothing and even if it did, that can be easily compensated for/reduced to naught by the vagaries of chance. — TheMadFool

I just don't understand how you come to that conclusion on the basis of what I said.

To recap - there's an element of chance in life. Buddhism is not deteminist, it doesn't say that everything that happens is determined by karma or the past. But karma nevertheless remains a prime determinant of one's experience and quality of life. As I said, it's a deep topic, I'm not claiming to be an expert in it, but can't see how you're reaching such conclusions.

Something's off, no? — TheMadFool

Do more reading. Perhaps something like this book might be helpful, as it explains Buddhism from the point of view of philosophy. Here is the author profile.

There's also a relatively recent book specifically about karma here https://g.co/kgs/NctqCc

There's always an element of chance.
— Wayfarer
In the process of the complete cessation of suffering?
Do you have a canonical reference for that? — baker

How about the Chiggala Sutta?

Let’s just point out that the whole purpose of the Buddhist path is not gaining something - Nirvāṇa is not like ‘winning the jackpot’ or having everything go your way. '

— Wayfarer

And a saying not found in the Pali Canon. — baker

I concede it's more characteristic of Mahāyāna. There are the 'eight worldly concerns' - gain and loss being among them. Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind says again and again to 'practice with no gaining idea'. 'Gaining' the true identity means 'loosing' the false sense of self, which is nearly always concerned with getting something.

Science is concerned with third-person observables. Dependent origination is something that has to be understood in the first person. It’s the ‘insight’ of ‘insight meditation’. — Wayfarer

Implied in this 'observation' is the oft-mistaken conflation, or confusion, of knowing with understanding; and the false dichotomy of third vs first person (observables?) does not clarify anything, and only obscures what's at issue.

I think [assume] Buddhism is quite open to scientific method, but not compatible with scientific materialism. — Wayfarer

Well, I think you're quite mistaken. Materialism – both scientific and philosophical – conceives of 'material stuff' as emergent from (temporary, transient, confluent, ceaseless recombinations of) swirling atoms analoguous to "co-dependent arising" and "anicca"; and, other than this, there is only void which is also analogous to "sunyata" "anatta". Clearly, Wayf, you've not studied it at all and yet you love to rant about "materialism" quite a lot. Typical idealist / anti-realist I suppose. :roll:

he false dichotomy of third vs first person (observables?) — 180 Proof

Not a false dichotomy. 'Galilean' science divides the world into the bearers of primary attributes, namely, material bodies that have measurable characteristics. The observing mind has nothing to do with what is observed. That is precisely what was called into question by the 'observer problem', which you have never shown any indication that you understand.

Phenomenology is concerned with 'the nature of experience'. That is what demarcates it from Anglo-american 'scientism' a la Daniel Dennett.

Materialism – both scientific and philosophical – conceives of 'material stuff' as emergent from (temporary, transient, confluent, ceaseless recombinations of) swirling atoms analoguous to "co-dependent arising" and "anicca"; — 180 Proof

For example? That is nothing like Lucretius, Democritus, or the French Enlightenment philosophers generally, said.

Materialism is the view that matter is what is fundamentally real. But materialism has become untenable due to the discoveries of quantum physics in the 20th century. What remains is no longer materialism, unless you're thinking of the dubious pop-sci 'philosophy' of Krauss or the like. He, and Hawkings and a few others, have attempted to prove that the universe arises from the void, the empty space of quantum flunctuations, saying that this amounts to an explanatory metaphor, as in Krauss' book the Universe from Nothing. But as David Albert, another philosopher of physics, pointed out in his review of that book, 'The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.'

Uh huh. :sweat:

You're not worth the time, 180.

Clearly, Wayf, you've not studied it at all — 180 Proof

The Buddhist conception of the atom is not the material atom of Greek atomism, but moments of experience, arising and falling in rapid succession. Buddhism always argued against there being ultimate material atoms, and generally argues against materialism as a form of nihilism, on the basis that it makes no provision for karmic continuity. And I have studied it, through an MA in Buddhist Studies which I completed ten years ago.

the material atom of Greek atomism — Wayfarer

Ah yeah, again you prove my point. Effin' clueless. :clap:

Adhoms instead of arguments, as always. For my part, I'm done responding to your incoherencies.

So, there's no difference between an evil person and (say) a bodhisattva - the difference in their deeds, one cruel, the other kind, means nothing and even if it did, that can be easily compensated for/reduced to naught by the vagaries of chance.
— TheMadFool

I just don't understand how you come to that conclusion on the basis of what I said.

To recap - there's an element of chance in life. Buddhism is not deteminist, it doesn't say that everything that happens is determined by karma or the past. But karma nevertheless remains a prime determinant of one's experience and quality of life. As I said, it's a deep topic, I'm not claiming to be an expert in it, but can't see how you're reaching such conclusions. — Wayfarer

Well, I'm acquainted with some Tibetan monks and they have a concept of luck and they believe that it can be accumulated just like good karma by performing kind acts. In short, the lucky and the morally upright can't be distinguished from each other i.e. luck is just another way karma manifests itself in our lives or, to put it another way, there's no such thing as luck, it's all your past karma, good or bad.

Do more reading. Perhaps something like this book might be helpful, as it explains Buddhism from the point of view of philosophy. Here is the author profile.

There's also a relatively recent book specifically about karma here https://g.co/kgs/NctqCc — Wayfarer

I'll take that advice. Thanks. As you said, karma is a deep subject and I should know better than shoot my mouth off before carefully studying it.

How? It seems all the more important, given how karma works, to, in this present life, take measures through good deeds to ensure our next life is as good or even better which includes getting the opportunity to learn buddhism and reacquaint ourselves with karma.
— TheMadFool
I have the impression that you think of Buddhist teachings as having the same coercive, commanding, universally binding nature as those in Christianity.

If karma is real, any ability/disability, any advantage/disadvantage we possess/experience is an effect of our actions in a past life.
No, see my post above. Hard karmic determinism is wrong view.

However, buddhism doesn't leave us without any means to remedy/improve our condition - it also informs us that we can, in this life, do good in order that our next life is better than this, the present.
— TheMadFool

Not only that, it teaches that (with some exceptions), we can attain enlightenment in this lifetime, we're not automatically doomed to work hard and wait for a future lifetime.


I maybe wrong of course but, if there's a chance factor in all this, even the best laid out plans for nirvana that span many future lives would be a waste of time. I could, god forbid, lead a life of debauchery, even order genocide and torture, in most horrible ways possible, and, by a stroke of luck, become enlightened. Nirvana, then, is nothing more than a game of die - about lucky people, not good people.
— TheMadFool
This is not what the Buddha of the Pali Canon teaches.

That you have concerns about the implications of luck and concerns about nirvana depending on luck is one thing, but what the Buddha of the Pali Canon teaches is another thing, and they should clearly be kept separate. — baker

:ok:

I'm just now reading a book on interpretations of physics, Helgoland by Carlo Rovelli. He refers to the Indian Buddhist philosopher, Nāgārjuna, as providing an explanatory framework which is compatible with his own philosophy of 'relationalism'. (I haven't finished it yet.) — Wayfarer

In his new book, ‘Helgoland…’, about Quantum Theory, Carlo Rovelli notes that All is Relational, that no entity exists independently of anything else, so that there are no intrinsic properties at all, but only features in relation to something else, which is essentially what Nagarjuna means by ‘emptiness’ in his Buddhism.

Relationism and Buddhism
(Outline gleaned from reading Rovelli)

Quantum fields form and exhaust reality,
As partless, continuous—there’s no Space!
Reality maintains itself in place
As the net of objects interacting.

Copernicus’ revolution’s complete;
External entities aren’t required
To hold the universe; God’s not needed,
Nor any background; there is no Outside.

Nor is there the ‘now’ all over the place.
GR’s relational nature extends
To Time as well—the ‘flow’ of time is not
An ultimate aspect of reality.

All is Relational: no entity
Exists independently of anything;
There are no intrinsic properties,
Just features in relation to what’s else.

Interactions and events (not things) are
Quantum entangled with such others else;
Impermanence pertains all the way through—
What Nagarjuna means by Emptiness.

There are no fundamental substances,
No permanences, no bird’s-eye view
Of All, no Foundation to Everything,
Plus no infinite regress ne’er completed.

(The fields are not from anything—causeless!
Or ‘not from anything’ is of lawless
‘Nothing’, which can’t ever form to remain.
There is no reason, then, to existence.)

Hope’s Necessary ‘God’ vanishes!
This realization of Impermanence,
No Absolutes, and Emptiness,
Is Nirvana, though coincidently.

:up: Ditto.

There's always an element of chance.
— Wayfarer
In the process of the complete cessation of suffering?
Do you have a canonical reference for that?
— baker

How about the Chiggala Sutta? — Wayfarer

Which is precisely the sutta I had in mind when I asked the above question.

Attaining nibbana does not depend on chance, but on deliberate action.

Indeed, it may be a sheer coincidence that one meets an arahant or comes across a sutta, but this alone is not the deciding factor on one's path. Many people may meet an arahant, or read a sutta, but do nothing with that.

Attaining nibbana does not depend on chance, but on deliberate action. — baker

And I didn't say that it did. I said that not everything is determined, and that chance is a factor.

:clap: Eloquent.

I said that not everything is determined, and that chance is a factor. — Wayfarer

A factor in what? The process of attaining nibbana?

See karma doesn't explain everything. Note especially comment (2).

Something odd about the middle path. I can't quite put my finger on it though. :up:

See karma doesn't explain everything. Note especially comment (2). — Wayfarer

Take the middle path.

Two positions:

1. Everything is determined (karma). No!
2. Not Everything is determined (chance factor). No!

What's the proposition that corresponds to the middle path?

3. From 1 (no!) , some things are not determined.
4. From 2 (no!) , everything is determined.

So,

5. Everything is determined (3) and some things are not determined (4) [contradiction]. No!

So,

6. Neither everything is determined nor some things are not determined. No!

I've applied Nagarjuna's tetralemma (supposedly the foundation of the middle path).

The burning question is, what is the proposition that is the middle path?

what is the proposition that is the middle path? — TheMadFool

I don't think it's a propositional form of philosophy even though it sometimes appears in the form of syllogistic logic. Nāgārjuna is notoriously difficult to interpret. There are nowadays many online courses about madhyamaka, try this one which is a series of lectures. Or explore Jay Garfield's presentations.

Thanks a ton for the links. They look interesting.

This might be relevant :point:

Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion. Neither the Mādhyamika nor Kant has any doctrine or theory of their own. — T. R. V. Murti

The point is for any proposition p, the positions that a person can take are:

1. p [it is]
2. ~p [it is not]
3. p & ~p [it is AND it is not]
4. ~(p v ~p) [neither it is nor it is not]

Nāgārjuna rejects (Nāgārjuna's tetralemma) all possible stances a person can adopt, referring to all four of them, perhaps derogatorily, as extremes and hence the middle path (mādhyamaka).

About a year or so ago, you made some posts that strongly reflected this idea of the middle path. Sorry, I can't quote them here because I can't remember the exact words, necessary for a successful search. It was very inspiring to see someone put to practice a buddhist principle that I find deeply meaningful.

Good day.

My question was specifically whether chance plays a part in the process of attaining nibbana.

You still haven't provided a canonical reference that it does, given that you seem to argue that chance exists and plays a role (in the process of attaining nibbana as well?).

I said that not everything is determined, and that chance is a factor. — Wayfarer

Tell me: How is chance a factor??

In the course of his Awakening, the Buddha discovered that the experience of the present moment consists of three factors: results from past actions, present actions, and the results of present actions. This means that kamma acts in feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; while present actions shape not only the present but also the future. This constant opening for present input into the causal processes shaping one's life makes free will possible. In fact, will — or intention — forms the essence of action.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.intro.than.html

Where is there chance in the present moment?


Sometimes, people confuse merit with good luck.

Sometimes, they conflate will with chance. Those who come from the position of hard karmic determinism have no notion of will/volition, so they think it's luck or randomness when in fact it's will.

We could say that luck, chance, randomness is what not knowing the exact workings of kamma _feels/seems_ like to a person. Because if you don't know how something works, it might, for all practical intents and purposes, just as well be luck, right? But according to Buddhist doctrine, it's not luck.

What's the proposition that corresponds to the middle path? — TheMadFool

Learning the Buddhist doctrine.

What's the proposition that corresponds to the middle path?
— TheMadFool

Learning the Buddhist doctrine. — baker

How exactly?

Do expand on how Buddhism is more able to accomodate the discoveries of modern science. — baker

First question: Are there militant Buddhist extremists who attack people in order to defend their cherished religion?

If not, why not?

Where is there chance in the present moment? — baker

There’s no saying what will happen.

Sometimes, people confuse merit with good luck. — baker

@Wayfarer

How about meeting halfway. It's not that there's no luck, there is but it's part of karmic causality. [@Jack Cummins (synchronicity/luck???)].

It's very much like saying there is altruism but altruism is just another way selfishness manifests in the world. :chin:

Learning the Buddhist doctrine. — baker

Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion. Neither the Mādhyamika nor Kant has any doctrine or theory of their own. — T. R. V. Murti

First question: Are there militant Buddhist extremists who attack people in order to defend their cherished religion?

If not, why not? — ssu

There are militant Buddhists -- like the persecution of the Rohingya by Buddhists or Sumedhananda Thero in Sri Lanka.

Secondly, in traditionally Buddhist countries, there is a penalty, sometimes more than just a fine, for failing to show proper respect to Buddhist symbols.

On the whole, I think that if Buddhists don't go out of their way to deal with the infidels, that has more to do with the snobism of the Buddhists rather than anything else.

Where is there chance in the present moment?
— baker

There’s no saying what will happen. — Wayfarer

That's not chance. That's just lack of omniscience/prescience.

Learning the Buddhist doctrine.
— baker

Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion. Neither the Mādhyamika nor Kant has any doctrine or theory of their own.
— T. R. V. Murti — TheMadFool

Insisting on discussing Buddhist doctrine, while at the same time refusing to learn said Buddhist doctrine is the mark of a fool.

How about meeting halfway. It's not that there's no luck, there is but it's part of karmic causality. — TheMadFool

Like you say:

Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion. — TheMadFool