All compounded things are impermanent. ~ The Buddha

Jul 3, 2012 -- 9:05AM, SeraphimR wrote:

Jul 3, 2012 -- 8:55AM, Kwinters wrote:

Jul 3, 2012 -- 8:47AM, SeraphimR wrote:

So is arithmetic permanent or not?  Are things which framework of minds not subject to the law of impermanence?

Are you suggesting words have existence?  What color is 2? What is the atomic weight of 4? What does the quadratic equation taste like?

How can concepts be subject to impermanence? Where are their aggregates?

OK, so arithmetic is not subject to impermanence.  That is what I said in the beginning.

But the key point is that it isn't subject to it or not. Maths are not permanent, they are not unchanging.

Concepts are excluded from the discussion of impermanence because they are not things.  They are ideas.

I was thinking something like Gravity is a physical law, it simply is, how it behaves what it does doesn't change, but our knowledge has changed from BN before Newton to AN after Newton and today I understand Einstein's theories and string theories challange Newtons.

The point I am trying to make is; ideas creeds beliefs philosophies theologies are man made not eternal. Yes the eternal principles exist  but our understanding changes.

Therefore our beliefs are of our own making and impermanent.

Beliefs are more like tools to reach for truth. Truth exists, its the way things really are. Beliefs are not the end but are means to an end.

Some parts of beliefs can be incorrect, so the believer has to be able to let incorrect parts go.

Jul 3, 2012 -- 11:34AM, SeraphimR wrote:

Jul 3, 2012 -- 11:02AM, Kwinters wrote:

Jul 3, 2012 -- 9:05AM, SeraphimR wrote:

Jul 3, 2012 -- 8:55AM, Kwinters wrote:

Jul 3, 2012 -- 8:47AM, SeraphimR wrote:

So is arithmetic permanent or not?  Are things which framework of minds not subject to the law of impermanence?

Are you suggesting words have existence?  What color is 2? What is the atomic weight of 4? What does the quadratic equation taste like?

How can concepts be subject to impermanence? Where are their aggregates?

OK, so arithmetic is not subject to impermanence.  That is what I said in the beginning.

But the key point is that it isn't subject to it or not.

Sorry, I can't parse this sentence.

Maths are not permanent, they are not unchanging.

When was the last time arithmetic changed?

Concepts are excluded from the discussion of impermanence because they are not things.  They are ideas.

I found at least one Buddhist who thinks ideas are subject to impermanence.

"The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. "

www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.h...

I think you are confusing the concept of permanence and impermanent with the idea that something is true by definition. As for when mathematics change, it evolves all the time.

Maths can't be permanent or impermanent because they are merely concepts.

You know that 2 + 2 = 4 because you assign meaning to those shapes and symbols.  What if I wrote

ó*~

Is that true or false?

Also, what the author is says above is that we get attached to transient things and to ideas, not that ideas are permanent or impermanent.

Again, I think it is important to clearly identify what impermanence is and what it is not.

All conditioned things (sankaras) are impermanent. If something is impermanent, it is subject to change, and therefore is suffering (non-satisfactory). wisdomthroughmindfulness.blogspot.de/200...

Ideas, such as maths, have no existence.  They are concepts, not conditioned things.  We, humans are conditioned things and we use concepts to organize our experience.  We can get attached to other conditioned things, we can even get attached to concepts, but that doesn't change the fact that the concept is merely a mental construct.

There is no 'truth' that exists external to mind that is 'out there' to be found.  Maths are how we describe the world, but they do not exist seperate from the world.

This author restates my views:

I think the main difference between the theistic religions like Christianity and Islam and non-theistic one like Buddhism might not appear as large as one might think. Buddhism would have no problem recognizing the Big Mind alluded to above, so long as that refers, not to some external being, but in fact to our own minds. It is us who create mathematics and it is ultimately speaking our own minds, working together collectively, that create the world such that it is true of mathematics. In other words, we could also say that we human beings are gods unto ourselves. There is a Big Mind that creates reality corresponding to math, yes, but that Mind is not apart from us.

Whether this is shocking or not depends on your view on theism. If you believe that humans are apart from God, then you’d find this shocking. However, this is entirely correspondent with the Buddhist attitude that salvation is ultimately the person’s own responsibility and lies entirely within the person’s power to achieve. The Buddha is only a teacher. You don’t need to follow his teaching. The Buddha has no power to drag you to Liberation. No being does. You have to do it yourself.

Coming down from theological discussion and back down to earth, we see that the idea that it is human mind itself that creates mathematics to which reality belongs makes quite a lot of sense. We form mathematics and we perceive the world according to the same conceptual structure that formed the math in the first place, so no wonder the world corresponds to it. However, even thought mathematics looks very certain, it does not describe what reality is like ultimately speaking. This is because all mathematics depends on concepts and language (so is logic), and once you have concepts, you have to divide reality into separate chunks. So at best mathematics is a model or a map, and no map can become identical to the reality it is the map of. This refers to the doctrine of Emptiness or sunyata. We can say that math can always approach that, but never reach it, because if it does, then it would cease to be the math that it is.

soraj.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/buddhism-...

Jul 8, 2012 -- 1:40AM, Aka_me wrote:

Jul 6, 2012 -- 12:22PM, gangajal wrote:

Buddha: 'So that monk, as swiftly as a strong man might flex or unflex his arm, vanished from the Brahma world and appeared in my presence. He prostrated himself before me, then sat down to one side, and said:"Lord, where do the  four great elements - the earth element, the water element, the fire element and the air element - cease without reminder?"

Buddha replied:"....Monk, you should not ask this question this way .... Instead, this is how the question should have been put:
 
'Where do earth, water, fire and air not find footing? Where are long and short, small and great, fair and foul - where are "name and form" wholly destroyed?'

And the answer is:

'Where consciousness is signless, boundless, all-luminous, that's where earth, water, fire and air find no footing, here both long and short, small and great, fair and foul - here "name-and-form" are wholly destroyed.""

(3) Mahjima Nikaya Brahmanimantanika Sutta 49.25/i.330 also makes Buddha say,

"Consciousness non-manifesting, boundless, luminous all-round"

The translator (Bodhi) acknowledges that these lines in Digha Nikaya and Mahjima Nikaya have been a perennial challenge to Buddhist scholarship and  even Acharya Buddhaghosha seems to founder over them. The Upanishadic description of Brahman matches all three descriptions of Buddha!

the secular humanist is going to ask "what the h e double hockey sticks are you talking about? there is no such place, show it to me".

and that ain't going to happen, at least not in this lifetime.

Buddha explained that that place is within one's own mind. Not an issue at all for a secular humanist, and as usual you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

   Does it make your weak little bit of faith feel better when you blow smoke up your ass by whining about secular humanists and atheists?