On Buddhism and Nominalism

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28238
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Malcolm » Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:20 pm

Astus wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:52 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:03 pm
Only in Sarvastivada.
How so? Who says that conventional phenomena are not based on dharmas?
All buddhist tenets (Sautrantika on up) apart from Sarvastivada, subscribe to Anya-apoha theory, which is the Buddhist refutation of truly existent universals.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

MiphamFan
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:46 am

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by MiphamFan » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:35 am

What exactly is a "real" number?

I'm still studying discrete mathematics in the context of computer science but I find things such as the set-theoretic definition of numbers strikingly reminiscent and compatible with Buddhism.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28238
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Malcolm » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:38 am

MiphamFan wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:35 am
What exactly is a "real" number?

I'm still studying discrete mathematics in the context of computer science but I find things such as the set-theoretic definition of numbers strikingly reminiscent and compatible with Buddhism.
A real number is by definition something that must be defined on the basis of that fact that it excludes any other quantity. 2 can never be 4, 4 can never be two, or any other number. This accounts for numbers much better than sort platonic absolute number idea.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

MiphamFan
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:46 am

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by MiphamFan » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:43 am

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:38 am
MiphamFan wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:35 am
What exactly is a "real" number?

I'm still studying discrete mathematics in the context of computer science but I find things such as the set-theoretic definition of numbers strikingly reminiscent and compatible with Buddhism.
A real number is by definition something that must be defined on the basis of that fact that it excludes any other quantity. 2 can never be 4, 4 can never be two, or any other number. This accounts for numbers much better than sort platonic absolute number idea.
Yeah set theory is not Platonic, its based completely on the empty set.

0 = {}
1 = {0}
2 = {1,0}

It doesn't conflict with the definition you gave and in the end reduces to shunya.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Wayfarer » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:40 am

Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

MiphamFan
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:46 am

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by MiphamFan » Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:08 am

Anyway on the OP, read Almogi's paper on Rongzom for an argument on why a Buddha's jñana is also unreal.

User avatar
Virgo
Global Moderator
Posts: 3341
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Virgo » Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:49 am

MiphamFan wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:43 am
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:38 am
MiphamFan wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:35 am
What exactly is a "real" number?

I'm still studying discrete mathematics in the context of computer science but I find things such as the set-theoretic definition of numbers strikingly reminiscent and compatible with Buddhism.
A real number is by definition something that must be defined on the basis of that fact that it excludes any other quantity. 2 can never be 4, 4 can never be two, or any other number. This accounts for numbers much better than sort platonic absolute number idea.
Yeah set theory is not Platonic, its based completely on the empty set.

0 = {}
1 = {0}
2 = {1,0}

It doesn't conflict with the definition you gave and in the end reduces to shunya.
Russell Peters on the invention of zero:

http://dai.ly/x394wew

Virgo...
ངོ་རང་ཐོག་ཏུ་སྤྲད། །
ཐག་གཅིག་ཐོག་ཏུ་བཅད། །
གདེང་གྲོལ་ཐོག་ཏུ་བཅའ། །


http://caretoclick.com/clean-the-enviro ... -phone-use

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7007
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Astus » Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:27 am

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:20 pm
All buddhist tenets (Sautrantika on up) apart from Sarvastivada, subscribe to Anya-apoha theory, which is the Buddhist refutation of truly existent universals.
It's not a question if they take those dharmas as empty or not, but whether they are conceived as elements behind conventional appearances. They are considered a background layer, even if there are other layers beyond.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28238
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Malcolm » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:17 am

Astus wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:27 am
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:20 pm
All buddhist tenets (Sautrantika on up) apart from Sarvastivada, subscribe to Anya-apoha theory, which is the Buddhist refutation of truly existent universals.
It's not a question if they take those dharmas as empty or not, but whether they are conceived as elements behind conventional appearances. They are considered a background layer, even if there are other layers beyond.
That dies not make Dharmas universals. A universal is cowness, for example.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7007
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Astus » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:52 am

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:17 am
That dies not make Dharmas universals. A universal is cowness, for example.
But the dharmas could be called universals for actual instances of experience, however, I don't know of anyone who conceived a theoretical list of dharmas existing separately from dharmas as experience, hence they are not universals.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28238
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Malcolm » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:06 pm

Astus wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:52 am
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:17 am
That dies not make Dharmas universals. A universal is cowness, for example.
But the dharmas could be called universals for actual instances of experience, however, I don't know of anyone who conceived a theoretical list of dharmas existing separately from dharmas as experience, hence they are not universals.
Son you in fact agree, Dharmas are particulars, not universals.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Aemilius » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:27 pm

Mark Siderits writes that it is easy to see that the universal corresponds to the parikalpita of yogacara, and the particular corresponds to the paratantra.
I.e. they corresponds to imaginary nature and the dependent nature.

In Apoha: Buddhist Nominalism and the Human Condition, by Mark Siderits
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1.)

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Wayfarer » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:30 pm

Thanks for the tip.

For anyone reading:

parikalpita (Sanskrit). The ‘imagined’, one of the three natures (tri-svabhāva) according to Yogācāra philosophy. It denotes the unreal (parikalpita) duality of a perceiving subject and perceived objects that has been projected onto reality by the dependent nature (paratantra), resulting in the existence of an individual in saṃsāra.
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Aemilius » Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:06 pm

Where do you get that definition from? It sounds like parinispanna & parikalpita combined, it is not what mere parikalpita is.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1.)

smcj
Posts: 5812
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by smcj » Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:52 pm

There’s a story where the previous Kalu Rinpoche was told about Plato’s cave. He immediately related to it and said something to the effect of, “Yes, and I am the one who stood up, turned around, and saw things as they really are.”

Can’t source it, but thought I’d share anyway.
I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Wayfarer » Sun Jul 15, 2018 11:50 pm

Aemilius wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:06 pm
Where do you get that definition from?
here.
smcj wrote:There’s a story where the previous Kalu Rinpoche was told about Plato’s cave...
It seems an obvious analogy to spiritual illumination, although what Plato understood by that, seems very different to the Buddhist understanding.
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Aemilius » Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:51 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 11:50 pm
Aemilius wrote:
Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:06 pm
Where do you get that definition from?
here.
I think the explanation is wrong when it claims that the dependent nature does the projecting, which is an astonishing idea!

Here is what the Bhagavan says in the Lankavatara sutra, in the translation of D.T. Suzuki. Here parikalpita is called false discrimination:

"Further, Mahamati, let the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva be well acquainted with the three kinds of Svabhava (self-nature). [What are the three? They are (1) false discrimination, (2) knowledge of relativity, and (3) perfect knowledge.] Now, Mahamati, false discrimination rises from form (nimitta). How, Mahamati, does it rise from form? In [the consideration of] the relativity aspect of Svabhava, realities appear in various ways, as having forms, signs, and shapes; when, Mahamati, these objects, forms, and signs are adhered to [as real], this adherence takes place in two ways. The Tathagatas, Arhats, and Fully-Enlightened Ones thus declare false discrimination to consist in attachment to names and attachment to objects. By the attachment to objects is meant, Mahamati, to get attached to inner and external things [as realities]. By the attachment to names is meant to recognise in these inner and external things the characteristic marks of individuality and generality and to regard them as definitely belonging to the objects. These two modes of attachment, Mahamati, constitute false discrimination."

(Lankavatara sutra XXIII, The Three Forms Of Svabhava)
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1.)

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: On Buddhism and Nominalism

Post by Wayfarer » Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:50 pm

Thank you for the correction.

:namaste:
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

Post Reply

Return to “Academic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests