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: 27370
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: 908
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: 27370
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: 908
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
Posts: 3765
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: 908
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
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: The American Colosseum

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...

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 6859
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: 27370
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: 6859
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: 27370
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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests