Prometheus

Because genuine Buddhists can only come from the far east, right?

Are you Pleroma? I'll join the site and debate a later today or tomorrow when i get a chance.

Here are two more forums, which might have a higher percentage of your genuine Buddhists you might want to try:

http://www.dharmawheel.net/

http://www.dhammawheel.com/index.php

I'm English and proud to be European.

Perhaps its time for you to reassess your thinking then.

It's always time to reassess my thinking.

Wallace is a Buddhist scholar and as he says those who think that Buddhism is non-theistic are inexcusably ignorant

Wallace is entitled to his opinion. But just because he says something doesn't make it true. You can find Buddhist scholars who think the Buddha had a golden bell end (glans penis, if that doesn't translate internationally) if you want to believe that too.

Your personal wish-thinking has no bearing in reality and in scriptural evidence.

Would that be the scriptural evidence i'm still waiting for you to post? BTW nothing Wallace writes, as imminent a scholar as he may be, will ever be scripture. You do realise this?

Tibetan Buddhism is the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, don't try to make it as a separate sect

I can only assume you jest. Or do you honestly believe Tibetan Buddhism is the culmination of all Buddhist teachings? They are a branch of Buddhism, among many. There are even branches within Tibetan Buddhism. But the to say that represents the entirety of Buddhism... wow.

Everything in Buddhism is made esoteric, just because you think that such a core concept doesn't exist in the eight fold path to nirvana doesn't mean that the people of Vajrayana tradition doesn't know to interpret the same core concepts from the same scriptures which you study.

Yes, the Vajrayana tradition does interpret scripture in very esoteric ways. What about the other Mahayana traditions, or the Theravadin traditions? Apparently they are not Buddhism - only the Vajrayana tradition?

Its disappointing to see people who claim themselves to be... Buddhists etc themselves don't know what are the true doctrines of their own religions.

Tell you what. I don't think anyone here actually cares about our discussion - and why should they, this is a science forum.

Why don't we take this debate to a Buddhist forum or two and continue where many Buddhists can contribute?

If it is amenable to the mod team here, perhaps we can provide a link to this Buddhist forum here so people can follow the debate (if someone has read all our squibbles this far, it is clear they have a genuine wish to know the truth about Buddhism and so it wouldn't be like sending traffic away).

Would you agree to this compromise?

One of the few science orientated stars from my childhood. He will be remembered.

Plus he was an awesome Gamesmaster, if anyone remembers that.

 

Its very clear from A Wallace's point that Buddhism is not non-theistic, a very careful analysis of the scriptures shows that the concept of Aeons in gnostic Christianity is the same concept of gods that exists in Buddhism. All these religions have a single theory and they take the existence of these Aeons very seriously.

 

 

If you want to know what is the correct concept of gods that exists in Buddhism then you should read this.

 

http://www.turtlehill.org/khen/zhikhro.pdf

 

 

Wallace's point may well be clear, but that does not make it right. I have already given my reasons and references for thinking otherwise.

The Christian concept of Aeons may well be the same as the buddhist concept of devas. I have no wish to study Buddhist or Christian mysticism to find out. I have given samples from Buddhist scripture indicating the Buddha did not think teachings about god(s) as important to the dharma.

The link you provide is to a Tibetan Buddhist scholar. They have a great many gods never directly mentioned by the Buddha himself or referred to in any other form of Buddhism. Notice even in the link you provide it acknowledges itself as a later addition to the Buddha's teaching (no pages numbers, but very early on).

I'm not saying Tibetan Buddhism is the wrong interpretation of the Buddha's teaching - but it is only one interpretation among a great many. If you amend your claim to saying teachings about god(s)/devas are important to Tibetan Buddhism I would have no problems - but Tibetan Buddhism does not represent all Buddhism. Far from.

So I am basically talking of Aeons or Buddhas and genuine Buddhists do take the existence of these buddhas very seriously and its the very core of Buddhism.

This is the point which A Wallace is making in his work "Is Buddhism really non-theistic?" and the answer is that no they have their own pantheon and they have their own Buddhas or Aeons and Buddhism is theistic because they take the existence of gods very seriously and their entire doctrine is dependent on them.

Please show a direct reference from the scriptures (not later commentaries) demonstrating the Buddha's doctrine is entirely dependent on the existence of god(s).

BTW, the core teachings of Buddhism are regarded as being the four noble truths, the noble eight-fold path and the five precepts, all from the very first discourse he gave (Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dharma (Dharmacakra Pravartana Sūtra). None of which even mention god(s) in passing.

If such a core concept, would it not have been included as a noble truth?

These gods or Aeons are not scoundrels, eastern religions or gnostic christianity does not entertain such thoughts all the peaceful and wrathful deities are manifestations of the Self and they are with in the Self and hence they should be happily accepted as part of things which resides in the Self and one should get through it.

 

This is Buddhism.

Buddhism most certainly does not teach about permenant self. There is no 'thing' which is self - god manifestations or otherwise. Our sense of self as some kind of transcendent being is an illusion in Buddhism. The doctrine of Annatta is very clear about this is Buddhism. Seriously, if you think Buddhism teaches there is such thing as a self you are grossly mistaken.

From the Dhammapada (i think).

a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates (Matter, Sensation, Perception, Mental Formation/Volitional activities/Karma, Consciousness) nothing more... nowhere ... was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being

Yes, you're at a lost.

Sorry i thought you might actually be a Buddhist when i asked you that. If i am at a loss it is only by your reckoning.

Its wrong to worship only the empty Self and its also wrong to worship only the gods because they both lead us to a great darkness. The correct method is to worship them together.

I would go further. It is a bad idea to worship anything.

As you have quoted speculating Buddhist philosophy makes one go mad because buddhism is a series of contradictions which leads you to the ultimate truth

 

Not what was said. Speculating on any philosophy is a waste of time according to the Buddha. That includes Buddhist philosophy as well as any other. Thinking about elaborate metaphysical propositions which can never be proved is at best a waste of time. To the best of my sincere practice this is what the Buddha taught, not about god(s), devas, transcendence or self.

Taking some courses which will teach certain maths programmes but i was wondering which ones to focus on. At the moment i am learning mathcad, but later will have the option of learning C++. I'm told C++ is similar to mathmatica, so by learning one you get to know the other a bit. Is it worth learning mathcad at all?

Also learning some stats packages, S+ and R. Are these used outside the world of stats at all?

I'm far from proficient at it, just learned it myself, but if you post the problem we can try to tackle it together.

. Any one mental state can be realized by any number of brain states, but any given brain state can only realize one mental state. Mental states aren't the same as brain states. It's a materialist attempt at a solution to the mind-body problem, yes, but to say "mental states are physical states" is off the mark. Per functionalism, they're more like information states.

 

But,by functionalism, if mental states aren't the same as brain states, would that not imply 'something' else that mental states are? Unless mental states are simply mental states and no further reduction is sought.

I got something like 758, pretty sure it was the right answer. Also pretty sure i've got this down now, so long as i sketch out the functions first. Just need to practice now.

Thanks for all your help - i'll be sure to bug you with more questions later - moving onto differential equations soon, which i'm told are like integration problems, but harder.

 

This is what I call a sheer double standards. If you doesn't want to believe in gods go find yourself an another religion or simply admit yourself that you're an atheist but for god sake don't misrepresent eastern religions and don't be so dogmatic about the non-existence of devas in these religions.

• B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?", p. 7

Only ignorant people think that Buddhism is non-theistic.

 

 

Well we could play wikipedia trumps, in which case i would play this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism ,which directly addresses A Wallace's point. But i don't think that will be fruitful, so lets quote from Buddhist scripture.

A lot will depend on how you want to define god(s).

God as a creator, from the Pali Canon....

 

"These four imponderables are not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about them would go mad & experience vexation. Which four?

 

....Speculation about (the first moment, purpose, etc., of) the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about these things would go mad and experience vexation."

 

This of course does not deny the existence of a creator god, simply that it is not worth considering in Buddhism.

God as Brahman, self as Atman: One of the core teachings of the Buddha was the doctrine of Anatta - no self. From samyutta nikaya 22.59:

This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self,’ he should see it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling...whatever is perception...whatever are the habitual tendencies...whatever is consciousness, past, future or present, internal...thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self,’ he should see it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Seeing it thus, monks, the instructed disciple of the pure one turns away from material shape, he turns away from feeling, turns away from perception, turns away from the habitual tendencies, turns away from consciousness; turning away he is detached; by his detachment he is freed; in freedom there is the knowledge that he is freed and he comprehends: Destroyed is birth, brought to a close the holy-life, done is what was to be done, there is no more being such or so.

It follows if there is no Atman there can be no Brahman in the Hindu sense of the word (Brahman means something else in Buddhist scripture: sometimes a holy person, sometimes a deva).

God as moral creator and/or arbiter: couldn't find a direct quote from scripture, so i'll quote from "What the Buddha taught" by Walpola Sri Rahula (p32):

The idea of moral justice... arises out of the conception of...a God, who sits in judgement, who is a law-giver and who decides what is right and wrong. The term justice is ambiguous... and in its name more harm than good is done... The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect... it is a natural law, which has nothing to do with the idea of justice or reward and punishment.

Again, not denying the existence of God, only that the concept is not relevant to Buddhist morality. This book is from a Sri Lankan Theravadan scholar.

God(s) as devas: The definition of a deva in Buddhism is a being which occupies a realm in which there are too many luxuries around for such a being to properly contemplate the dharma. They are referred to numerous times throughout scripture, it is clear that the Buddha believed in them. It is equally clear that they are entirely irrelevant to the Buddha's teachings. My favourite quote on the subject comes from Nagarjuna, an Indian Buddhist philosopher from the 2nd century:

The gods are all eternal scoundrels

Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.

Those who serve them and venerate them

May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.

We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;

Therefore the wise man believes them not

The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions

Therefore the wise man may not rely on gods.

By so forcefully repudiating them, their existence is reinforced. But i ask you 2 things. Is this buddhist concept of deva really what you mean when you say god(s)? Is anything lost at all if someone denies the existence of something the Buddha obviously thought of as irrelevant to his teachings? Bottom line, belief in god(s) is not necessary to be Buddhist.

By all means, read a lot of Dennett, but don't misrepresent him. And especially don't misrepresent him to that extent.

 

I'm happy to stand corrected, but the difference between type-identity theory and functionalism doesn't seem so great. Presumably they both are entirely reducible to physical matter? That mental states are something the brain does rather than something it is would not change this.

Now an appeal to authority so that you can continue holding on to your false views.

 

 

 

Anyone who thinks that there are no gods in Buddhism is inexcusably ignorant. You definitely need to read about eastern religions before questioning about my authority. Your views are blatantly wrong and not true at all.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala

 

[/size][/font]

 

 

Buddhism is not theistic, even though Tibetan Buddhism has a pantheon of gods. Buddhism is agnostic. The concept of god was entirely irrelevant to any of the Buddha's teachings. Look up the 10 imponderables if you are in any doubt. Buddhism teaches dharma. Dharma does not necessarily teach Buddhism.

I didn't realise that people have written who have conclusively solved the problem of consciousness. You will have to point me to those books/articles.

As for testing whether there is such thing as mind, by denying that you can you have already assumed that mind is something immaterial. It would be better to do it the other way round surely? Test the hypothesis that the mind is 'nothing but' the brain - that its entirely reducible to physical phenomena. If it can be proved, no problems. If it can't be solved this way, then we can begin to 'immaterial' explanations.

Was pretty sure i had deciding on the limits down - i'll wait to see what you get.

No rush though, I handed in a while back, just trying to make sense of it.

P.S. How hard are these sorts of questions considered? These questions are part of a stats course, I've no uni/college maths background before doing this so not sure where it sits in the scheme of things.

Are you talking to yourself again?

Many do think of mental states as states as physical states, read up on Daniel Dennett if you're interested. As for our perceptions of a thing not being the same as the thing itself makes sense to me. I'm just not sure how far we can take the analogy of 'coding' in the brain - whether the brain is entirely computational or has some non-computational components - Roger Penrose has interesting thoughts on this (i just wish i understood more of them). I didn't understand the second bit, something about different consciousnesses existing in one brain (which is a theory put forward before).

About the metaphysical claims: it might be impossible to test whether 'mental' substances, whatever they are, exist - but surely if the mind is entirely a function of physical components then it should be possible to empirically test such this hypothesis, in theory if not in practice at least?

Think i got it. I changed the order of integration to make the sums easier:

[math]\int_{0}^{4} \int_{0}^{3x} y \sqrt{36+x^3} \ dy \, dx[/math]

I'll do it like this, but just wondering was i even close with my first attempt.

Hope you enjoyed the concert!

Which is exactly the answer i got the very first time i worked it out. But i was under the impression that it didn't make sense to report an integral a a negative, because areas and volumes are not negative. And i thought just taking the absolute value of whatever you had was considered 'cheating', so i thought i had the limits wrong. Is this just something taught by certain mathematicians? Nevermind, you have greatly helped my understanding anyway. As for the two methods, i think i prefer changing the order of integration.

On to another one:

[math]\int_{0}^{12} \int_{\frac{y}{3}}^{4} y \sqrt{36+x^3} \ dx \, dy[/math]

I did think about trying to change the variable, but i don't really know what i'm doing with that. So i tried the substitution [math]U=\sqrt{36+x^3}[/math] which led to [math]\frac{3x^2}{2\sqrt{36+x^3}}[/math] which i than solved by parts giving:

[math]\int_{0}^{12}y [x\sqrt{36+x^3} - \frac{9}{2}ln|36+x^3|]_{\frac{y}{3}}^{4} \ dy[/math]

After computations i got another negative answer, so had thought it was wrong again - but maybe not...?

The key is that the function used for the lower bound will be less than the other function along the axis of integration.

Is this always the case? I need to be able to visualise why this is the case. Is it simply so we don't end up with negative answers?

Any way I got [math]336[/math] when changing the order of integration. I then split it like this:

[math]\int_2^{8} \int_{-\sqrt2y}^{4-y}2xy \ dx \, dy + \int_0^{2} \int_{-\sqrt2y}^{\sqrt2y}2xy \ dx \, dy [/math]

But i got around [math]371[/math]. Think i'm getter closer to understanding, hopefully this was just a computational error.

Thanks a lot Daedalus,

As i thought, my problem was with the limits.

I don't have a graphics calculator but they were easy functions to sketch - i don't think i'll ever be able to tackle such problems without a sketch.

The problems you are having is that you do not have the limits of integration arranged properly when first integrating along the [math]y[/math] axis...The key is that the function used for the lower bound will be less than the other function along the axis of integration.

If i imagine a line running through the plane, vertical in the case of the changed integral then the lower function will be the lower limit, so it will be:

[math]\int_2^{-4} \int_{\frac{1}{2}x^2}^{4-x}2xydydx[/math]

For which i make it 180. But i'm still not convinced about the limits of the outer integral. Thinking of that same vertical line passing through the plane, if i imagine it passing from left to right it first passes the point -4 then 2. So then the upper limit is the first point encountered?

I'll try the split integral later.

I'm in a similar position. I hope to go on to a neuroscience PhD. My biggest worry was being too old to significantly contribute, but i convinced myself determination is more important than age. I've no doubt it will be a long hard road, so best of luck.

Weird question for a homework assignment. What's it for?

Thought about using the blood brain barrier to reduce the number of potential proteins responsible for the effect?

I've a few homework questions involving multiple integrals. I think most of my problems come from the limits of the integrals. Pointers would be most welcome. This is the 1st one.

[math]\int \int_D2xydxdy[/math] where D is the bounded region between [math]y=\frac{1}{2}x^2[/math], [math]x+y=4[/math] and the [math]x[/math]-axis.

Wasn't sure whether to split the integral or change the order if integration here (but both should work, right?), so i tried both and got very different answers.

So changing the order of integration i make the limits:

[math]\int_2^{-4} \int_{4-x}^{\frac{1}{2}x^2}2xydydx[/math]

For which eventually i get 2752 - seems too big.

Splitting the integral i get:

[math]\int_2^{8} \int_{\sqrt2y}^{4-y}2xydxdy + \int_0^{2} \int_{\sqrt2y}^{2}2xydxdy[/math]

Which eventually leads to [math]\frac{332}{3}[/math]. This is closer to what i expected. Either way obviously something wrong somewhere, so could someone tell if the limits are correct? Aslo, is there any way sketching these functions here, might help my understanding.

Cheers.

Just started to learn a bit of set theory, and was hoping someone could aid my understanding of power sets.

As i understand it a power set is the set of all subsets within a given set.

This includes the null set - easy enough. It also includes each of the elements within the set. Isn't this saying that each element of a set is also a subset of the set?

It then includes the set of all elements. Since all the elements are the set, isn't this saying that set A is a subset of itself?

Hopefully i'm just confusing an element with a subset, but any help is appreciated.

P.S.

And am i right in thinking there can be no subsets of the power set, only elements?

Um... Isn't 'ridicule', or at least reluctance to accept, part of how the scientific method works? We put ideas to the sword, repeatedly, and if they survive they are probably good ideas. For this to work you need people to take strong (unreasonably strong?) opposing views to the idea put forward.

Something i don't understand.

In what way is a moral 'objective' just because it comes from a god(s). I assume it was still made by the 'creator'? Is it simply that if god(s) says it's bad, it's bad? In theory then, if god(s) changes his mind and says, actually homosexualtiy is OK, does that then become the objective moral? Or does the attribute of all-knowing allow god(s) access to knowledge of what is eternally good and bad, but is something that somehow exists independently of god(s)?

If the former, then i am glad the bringer of light, Lucifer, revolted against the tyranny of the literal biblical god. If the latter, we're no closer to knowing 'where' objective morals come from, and god(s) is simply a messenger.