This blog is continued at:
http://divineneutrality.org
Monday, July 7, 2008
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Out of the Mud Comes the Lotus
"May all that have life be delivered from suffering"
Gautama Buddha
"Is it possible to conquer all suffering? Is that conquest even a rational idea?"
Marvin Chester
The foundational structure of Buddhism is enunciated in THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS:
1. The world is full of suffering (dukkha).
2. Suffering is caused by desire (attachment, craving: tanha)
3. If one can eliminate desire, one can eliminate suffering.
4. The Noble Eight-fold Path can eliminate desire.
Buddha's idea:
Suffering is no good.
It's caused by desire.
Eliminate them both.
Is this a sound philosophy? Does it even make sense?
It contradicts the second of the Buddha's own THREE GREAT TRUTHs: that everything changes. If everything changes, even freedom from suffering - nirvana - must end.
(Happily the entire world system of Buddhism is nicely encapsulated for us in the THREE GREAT TRUTHs, the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHs and the NOBLE EIGHT-FOLD PATH.)
One cannot rationally insist that ALL suffering is caused by desire. Or even insist that it is caused by any aspect of volition - like craving or love. Only SOME suffering is self-inflicted by one's own philosophy. The facts of nature are these: that there are times of suffering and times of pleasure. There are places of more suffering than others. And there are people on whom special suffering is visited while others are spared and, instead, are visited with special happiness. Suffering can be caused by natural disaster, by war, by climate, by oppression, by accident, by physical disability, by psychological defects ...
An oppressed man who does not resent oppression escapes suffering. But should we praise him for conquering his resentment and not cry out at his condition?
Those who do not crave to be released from physical pain escape suffering. What would it take to become a Buddhist virtuoso of that magnitude? Under torture, not to suffer? Only a dedication of every waking moment to inuring oneself to pain could do it. Is such a life worth living? And whence come such people? They do not exist. It is not the human condition.
Suffering is not something to be eliminated. It is a component of life as is laughter and joy and well being. They are interwoven. Some pleasures would not exist without an attached suffering. A mountain climb. Writing a book. The pleasure of any great achievement is mixed with suffering.
Consider the implications of the idea: that you may, by self discipline, eliminate your suffering.
Here's one implication: Your suffering is your own fault! The logic is this: If you are suffering it's because you haven't taken the trouble to eliminate it. So, with Buddha's idea we end up blaming the victim for her misery. "Take yourself out of your misery," is the verbal dagger delivered with innocent good will by Buddha's idea. Compassion for those who succumb to their cravings does not fit into this philosophy. Buddha's idea can be quite cruel.
Here's another implication: To eliminate ones personal suffering is a very selfish undertaking. Compare it with the power and nobility of this undertaking: to dedicate oneself to the welfare of others. Buddhists strive to achieve nirvana. This is a self serving goal.
- Buddhists call the state in which all suffering is ended Nirvana. Nirvana is an everlasting state of great joy and peace. The Buddha said, "The extinction of desire is Nirvana." -
from http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/footsteps.htm
By his own actions the Buddha revealed the selfish and cruel behavior his own philosophy produces. He abandonned his wife and child to their suffering in order to go on a quest concerning his own suffering. One can't get much more selfish than that.
The Buddha emphasized that pleasure is fleeting. That fact disturbed him.
So what? That pleasures are fleeting is not a valid argument against having them. Is inuring oneself against suffering a permanent condition? It's no more permanent than the enjoyment of pleasure. Evidently life has pleasure and it has suffering. They alternate interminably. Both are fleeting.
Now here is a remarkable thing. On this foundation of unsensible ideas arise practices that produce remarkably happy people. My sister, Simma, who has explored the world, reports that in Buddhist countries people smile a lot. They seem to be happier than elsewhere in the world. They are peaceful. They smile because they see value in achieving a happy disposition. To find elements of happiness even in the midst of suffering is certainly a precious attribute. The Buddha's Eight-fold Way is a prescription for achieving a state of amused contentment. In this state you are not easily made angry. It is far pleasanter to be with such people than with angry ones.
In the holy books of western religions - Christianity, Judaism, Islam - there is great violence, righteous indignation and vengeance. There are also words of compassion and charity. Most followers choose to select the latter messages for emphasis. Albeit some choose religious violence. But in Buddhist writings no selection need be made. There is no vengeance and righteous indignation in the texts. That produces gentler people.
The purpose in Buddhism is not to serve God but rather to mold oneself. It's a goal as overtly selfish as is the goal of serving God selfless. Uncritical devotion to either goal is not advised. They contain cruelty and virtue, both.
Regarding Buddhism the rationale for it is senseless but the practice has much to recommend it. Out of the mud comes the lotus.
Gautama Buddha
"Is it possible to conquer all suffering? Is that conquest even a rational idea?"
Marvin Chester
The foundational structure of Buddhism is enunciated in THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS:
1. The world is full of suffering (dukkha).
2. Suffering is caused by desire (attachment, craving: tanha)
3. If one can eliminate desire, one can eliminate suffering.
4. The Noble Eight-fold Path can eliminate desire.
Buddha's idea:
Suffering is no good.
It's caused by desire.
Eliminate them both.
Is this a sound philosophy? Does it even make sense?
It contradicts the second of the Buddha's own THREE GREAT TRUTHs: that everything changes. If everything changes, even freedom from suffering - nirvana - must end.
(Happily the entire world system of Buddhism is nicely encapsulated for us in the THREE GREAT TRUTHs, the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHs and the NOBLE EIGHT-FOLD PATH.)
One cannot rationally insist that ALL suffering is caused by desire. Or even insist that it is caused by any aspect of volition - like craving or love. Only SOME suffering is self-inflicted by one's own philosophy. The facts of nature are these: that there are times of suffering and times of pleasure. There are places of more suffering than others. And there are people on whom special suffering is visited while others are spared and, instead, are visited with special happiness. Suffering can be caused by natural disaster, by war, by climate, by oppression, by accident, by physical disability, by psychological defects ...
An oppressed man who does not resent oppression escapes suffering. But should we praise him for conquering his resentment and not cry out at his condition?
Those who do not crave to be released from physical pain escape suffering. What would it take to become a Buddhist virtuoso of that magnitude? Under torture, not to suffer? Only a dedication of every waking moment to inuring oneself to pain could do it. Is such a life worth living? And whence come such people? They do not exist. It is not the human condition.
Suffering is not something to be eliminated. It is a component of life as is laughter and joy and well being. They are interwoven. Some pleasures would not exist without an attached suffering. A mountain climb. Writing a book. The pleasure of any great achievement is mixed with suffering.
Consider the implications of the idea: that you may, by self discipline, eliminate your suffering.
Here's one implication: Your suffering is your own fault! The logic is this: If you are suffering it's because you haven't taken the trouble to eliminate it. So, with Buddha's idea we end up blaming the victim for her misery. "Take yourself out of your misery," is the verbal dagger delivered with innocent good will by Buddha's idea. Compassion for those who succumb to their cravings does not fit into this philosophy. Buddha's idea can be quite cruel.
Here's another implication: To eliminate ones personal suffering is a very selfish undertaking. Compare it with the power and nobility of this undertaking: to dedicate oneself to the welfare of others. Buddhists strive to achieve nirvana. This is a self serving goal.
- Buddhists call the state in which all suffering is ended Nirvana. Nirvana is an everlasting state of great joy and peace. The Buddha said, "The extinction of desire is Nirvana." -
from http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/footsteps.htm
By his own actions the Buddha revealed the selfish and cruel behavior his own philosophy produces. He abandonned his wife and child to their suffering in order to go on a quest concerning his own suffering. One can't get much more selfish than that.
The Buddha emphasized that pleasure is fleeting. That fact disturbed him.
"There is happiness in life,
happiness in friendship,
happiness of a family,
happiness in a healthy body and mind,
...but when one loses them, there is suffering."
Dhammapada
So what? That pleasures are fleeting is not a valid argument against having them. Is inuring oneself against suffering a permanent condition? It's no more permanent than the enjoyment of pleasure. Evidently life has pleasure and it has suffering. They alternate interminably. Both are fleeting.
Now here is a remarkable thing. On this foundation of unsensible ideas arise practices that produce remarkably happy people. My sister, Simma, who has explored the world, reports that in Buddhist countries people smile a lot. They seem to be happier than elsewhere in the world. They are peaceful. They smile because they see value in achieving a happy disposition. To find elements of happiness even in the midst of suffering is certainly a precious attribute. The Buddha's Eight-fold Way is a prescription for achieving a state of amused contentment. In this state you are not easily made angry. It is far pleasanter to be with such people than with angry ones.
In the holy books of western religions - Christianity, Judaism, Islam - there is great violence, righteous indignation and vengeance. There are also words of compassion and charity. Most followers choose to select the latter messages for emphasis. Albeit some choose religious violence. But in Buddhist writings no selection need be made. There is no vengeance and righteous indignation in the texts. That produces gentler people.
The purpose in Buddhism is not to serve God but rather to mold oneself. It's a goal as overtly selfish as is the goal of serving God selfless. Uncritical devotion to either goal is not advised. They contain cruelty and virtue, both.
Regarding Buddhism the rationale for it is senseless but the practice has much to recommend it. Out of the mud comes the lotus.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Measurement Problem
Rovelli's work is 2006. see http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002. When I think about it I don't see how he solves the measurement problem. He solves Schroedinger's cat. Idea: The cat measures the radioactive decay by dieing or not. But you can't talk about the cat until you interact with it by opening the box. I like Rovelli's notion that there is no distinction between observer and the observed. Everything is a system: observer or observed are just interacting systems. But the measurement problem is far more profound. I gathered some quotes to state it.
ALL POSSIBILITIES ARE LEFT OPEN. BUT A DEFINITE OUTCOME OCCURS.
“The quantum measurement parodox.. stated succinctly... In quantum mechanics all possibilities... are left open whereas in ... experience a definite outcome always (occurs).”
A. J. Leggett in
Foundation of Physics. 18, 939 (1988)
“How is the measuring instrument proded into making up its mind which value it has observed?”
Bryce S. Dewitt Physics Today 23, 30 (1970)
“Some explanation must be provided for the fact that the Hilbert—space vector... collapses onto a certain eigenvector during a measurement process...”
J. Bub, Nuovo Cimento v. 57, Nr.2, 503 (1968)
The probability amplitudes evolve deterministically until a measurement is made: the measurement stops the evolution. What is the essential element that changes the evolution of the system from being in a state |S> = superposition of states |n>, into being in a state |n=3>, one from among the superposition? Marvin Chester, never published
Somehow the answer to these questions must be explicable in terms other than it "comes out of a subtle result on the structure of Hilbert spaces".
ALL POSSIBILITIES ARE LEFT OPEN. BUT A DEFINITE OUTCOME OCCURS.
“The quantum measurement parodox.. stated succinctly... In quantum mechanics all possibilities... are left open whereas in ... experience a definite outcome always (occurs).”
A. J. Leggett in
Foundation of Physics. 18, 939 (1988)
“How is the measuring instrument proded into making up its mind which value it has observed?”
Bryce S. Dewitt Physics Today 23, 30 (1970)
“Some explanation must be provided for the fact that the Hilbert—space vector... collapses onto a certain eigenvector during a measurement process...”
J. Bub, Nuovo Cimento v. 57, Nr.2, 503 (1968)
The probability amplitudes evolve deterministically until a measurement is made: the measurement stops the evolution. What is the essential element that changes the evolution of the system from being in a state |S> = superposition of states |n>, into being in a state |n=3>, one from among the superposition? Marvin Chester, never published
Somehow the answer to these questions must be explicable in terms other than it "comes out of a subtle result on the structure of Hilbert spaces".
Thursday, December 6, 2007
The Problem of Evil
Is there a "Problem of Evil" when there is no God? i.e. Is there evil in the world? Can any act be said to be evil, the concept being completely subjective? Do people who do evil agree that they are doing evil? Why then do they do it? What does evil mean?
David Hume, the eighteenth century British philosopher, stated the logical problem of evil when he inquired about God,
How do you measure evil?
If free will is an illusion then so is evil. Both the result of natural process in the individual experience.
David Hume, the eighteenth century British philosopher, stated the logical problem of evil when he inquired about God,
Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
How do you measure evil?
If free will is an illusion then so is evil. Both the result of natural process in the individual experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)