Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Goodie

Can everything be proved?

Recommended Posts

Tashi delek,

 

for those of us who like reasioning a lot and try to analytically prove every point of Buddhist philosophy I have found something which might be useful to avoid unnecessary work and thinking :wink: . I've found that in fact there exists in Buddhist philosophy concepts which can not be proved at all, and there exists three levels of how hard is it to prove things:

 

1) easy - things that are obvious (tib. mngon gyur): no need to prove, for example: shapes, sounds, colors, etc.

2) middle - things that are hidden (tib. lkog gyur): you can percieve these through reasoning, for example: understanding emptiness, coarse and subtle impermanence.

3) impossible - deeply hidden things (tib. shin tu lkog gyur): things that only a Buddha can understand, these things you have to accept on authority, for example: (subtle) working of karma.

 

Boris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello :)

 

I think that things that appear to be the easiest to prove are in fact the most difficult.

How do you prove a color, for example?? Is a mere verbal consensus of our individual interpretations of sense perceptions enough to be certain? How do you prove redness of the color red? And what is color red? The thing itself or a quality? Of what? :P Would there be the color red at all, if we were *all* color blind - if there was not one single being who could destinguish red from orange, or jellow from grey? :P

 

Best regards,

Khyenrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek

 

I've found that in fact there exists in Buddhist philosophy concepts which can not be proved at all, and there exists three levels of how hard is it to prove things

This shall not give the idea that because it is impossible to prove one shall not study or meditate about it! ;)

Indeed, we need to study deeply those topic, not to prove but to understand them as well as we can.

 

All the very best, Gelong T. Shenphen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Goodie,

 

May be you mean the types of perception? I.e. the theory of how we perceive things (blo-rig)?

If so, then it's logical that some things we perceive directly, without any need to prove them. The cause of this obvious perception is our consciousness' ability to perceive sounds, visible forms, smells, tastes... For example we easily perceive red color because it isn't a hidden object for us - we have an ability to perceive it directly.

Some things that are not obvious for us - are obvious for Highly Realized Beings. This is the direct perception of Emptiness. This direct perception could be only in Highly Realized Beings' mental continuum because the cause of it is Shine and deep understanding of Emptiness.

 

Then, for things that are hidden for our direct perception, we could use deduction, reasoning. If the object of perception is deeply hidden, we could use the authorities explanation, like Buddhists use Buddha's explanation. For example, we could perceive that our precious life is the effect of much merits, which we have created in our previous lives. This is hidden object, which we could perceive by reasoning. But the deeply hidden object here is WHICH EXACTLY merits have we created in the past? This could know only Buddhas and Highly Realized Beings. And here we could use our faith in Buddha to perceive this.

 

Best regards, Sasha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek Sasha,

 

May be you mean the types of perception? I.e. the theory of how we perceive things (blo-rig)?If so, then it's logical that some things we perceive directly, without any need to prove them.

Yes. There is no need to prove your direct perception of colors etc.

 

Some things that are not obvious for us - are obvious for Highly Realized Beings. This is the direct perception of Emptiness.

But not only direct perception of Emptiness. It is also intellectual understanding of emptiness and as I said before, here is also gross and subtle impermanence. I'll try to find out more examples for this category and will post them later if I find them.

 

Goodie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Privet Sasha,

 

Some of us who follow the teachings and Q&A held by Lama Shenphen Rinpoche, like to go for a pizza afterwards (open invitation for everyone :D ) and have a Dharma discussion on a hot topic. Boris’s post comes as a result of these talks. Some of us are simply incapable to fathom certain issues where one needs faith, rather than reason, to fully comprehend their meaning.

For example, we could perceive that our precious life is the effect of much merits, which we have created in our previous lives. This is hidden object, which we could perceive by reasoning. But the deeply hidden object here is WHICH EXACTLY merits have we created in the past?

I see no direct correlation between the preciousness of my present life and the merits I have accumulated in my previous life. You will have to give me a few hints as to what reasoning brought you to understand this interdependence. What is worse, I have no recollection of any of my previous lives and, therefore, little to reason on. Talking about which exact merit in my previous life created a positive effect in this life is irrelevant, when I cannot uphold the previous premises.

 

I find it hard to conjecture everything through religious or philosophical means, when a scientifical explanation is perfectly suitable. The example that red is a perceptive phenomenon does not stand. What we call red is an electromagnetic wave, with a wavelength of about 650nm perfectly measurable and, therefore, beyond the mere perception. And yes, if everyone was blind, red would still have a wavelength of 650nm. That the terms red and nanometre are forms of verbal consensus is unquestionable; but then so is everything else.

One could possibly disprove me by entering into the merit of emptiness, but I would again fail to understand the meaning.

 

Critical thinking about my own perceptions, my present knowledge of reality and the Teachings is (in my case at least) the only way to fully grasp the essence of Buddhism. Unfortunately, this same critical thinking has a fortifying effect on my Ego.

Yes, I know, there’s little to be happy about :wink: .

 

Regards, Jigme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

 

I see no direct correlation between the preciousness of my present life and the merits I have accumulated in my previous life. You will have to give me a few hints as to what reasoning brought you to understand this interdependence. What is worse, I have no recollection of any of my previous lives and, therefore, little to reason on.

 

Let's take a scientific example: if you are in the first year of your mathematical studies and there is a complicated differential equation, you can try to solve it with your first-year knowledge. If you rely only on your knowledge, and don't manage to solve that equation with it, you will find that the equation has no solution.

If then a student of the final year comes and solves it, this is proof that the equation has a solution, isn't it? And so you can safely BELIEVE that there is a solution, even if you are not yet able to find it yourself.

 

Best regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If then a student of the final year comes and solves it, this is proof that the equation has a solution, isn't it? And so you can safely BELIEVE that there is a solution, even if you are not yet able to find it yourself.

But it is also impossible for you to know that his solution is correct.

Because if it is wrong, you can't know, and then you "safely" believe in totally wrong thing.

So this belief that his solution is correct is again based on faith, isn't it?

 

Goodie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talking about which exact merit in my previous life created a positive effect in this life is irrelevant, when I cannot uphold the previous premises.

I agree. :wink: "Then what are we here talking about?" :) I believe that, yes, faith in the Buddha's words is crucial. There are some things which we cannot know at all to be true, yet are very beneficial to rely on. And Buddhist faith is as "scientific" as it gets. When you can experientally agree with teachings such as The Four Noble Truths, eventhough you are not Enlightened, you place your trust in other teachings as well, since the teachings you can correlate or identify with could not have been given by an ordinary mind; when it is clean clear that the state of the mind of the teacher was extraordinarilly awake... And the further you go, you find, step by step, that relying on the Three Jewels unquestionably is nothing but Benefit - for the others and consequently for yourself as well. :)

 

I find it hard to conjecture everything through religious or philosophical means, when a scientifical explanation is perfectly suitable. The example that red is a perceptive phenomenon does not stand. What we call red is an electromagnetic wave, with a wavelength of about 650nm perfectly measurable and, therefore, beyond the mere perception. And yes, if everyone was blind, red would still have a wavelength of 650nm. That the terms red and nanometre are forms of verbal consensus is unquestionable; but then so is everything else.

I sometimes feel that scientists can be more "religious" than the Pope himself! :) Would we construct a machine or a program that could measure the redness of the color red if our perception of sight was unable to detect it? We prove what we percieve but if there was no perception of it there would be no proving of it. So, what caused the perception? This is, I think, *the* question.

Buddhism claims the world is ultimately nothing but the projection of our senses... Nothing exists from the object's side. ;-}

 

Regards :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Jigme,

 

Buddha Shakyamuni himself told that we must check His Teaching and not to accept everything because everyone follows Him or because of the authority. So, you are completely right to my point of view that you are trying to analyze Teaching. I think faith is one of the most complicated things. It’s not easy to open heart to some new ideas, people and so on. This is huge step-by-step work, which must be done consciously.

 

What I mentioned above was an assumption of how do we perceive things. There are some ways of it. First one was so called “direct perception” which we could define as obvious perception, without any conclusions. We don’t need to prove this perception to ourselves, we just directly perceive it, like when you see red jam, you don’t need to prove yourself that this is red jam. It doesn’t matter for us that red color is “an electromagnetic wave, with a wavelength of about 650nm”. It’s not the point here.

Another way of our perception is “conclusion” which we can define as knowledge, which based on true proof of some hidden object for us(which we can’t perceive directly). Objects could be hidden and also deeply hidden. Usually if the object isn’t deeply hidden we use logic to perceive it. If it’s deeply hidden object, we use our faith. Examples I’ve written before was just to illustrate this theory, and we could easily find another examples in our life how we use logic and how we use faith(starting from trust to our friends, doctors and up to faith in Buddha and Teachers).

So, that was the matter of how we perceive things. In this theory - Blo-rig - you could find a lot of things how does consciousness work and what are the ways of perceiving things. But let’s come back to your point.

I see no direct correlation between the preciousness of my present life and the merits I have accumulated in my previous life.

Well, you should create some sort of causes to reach corresponding effect. That means if you want to reach one sort of result you create one kind of causes and if you want to reach another result you create another causes. Right? So, everything that happens has its cause. You are a human being. Isn’t it precious for you? If it is, than for such a precious result(your human birth) must be corresponding causes. Those causes can’t be negative because negative causes lead to negative results. But we say that our human life is precious, so the causes of it are “positive” or in other words: merits. Which exactly we can’t say, we can only be sure that through creating a good karma(i.e. creating merits) we are here on Earth.

 

best regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

If then a student of the final year comes and solves it, this is proof that the equation has a solution, isn't it? And so you can safely BELIEVE that there is a solution, even if you are not yet able to find it yourself.

But it is also impossible for you to know that his solution is correct.

Because if it is wrong, you can't know, and then you "safely" believe in totally wrong thing.

So this belief that his solution is correct is again based on faith, isn't it?

If we continue the example I started with, it is of course not so hard to prove that someone is in the final year of his study, is it? One can ask a professor too, and again, it is easy to prove that someone is a professor of the mentioned subject.

Both mean that these people had to prove their knowledge before some other people who were able to estimate it. So, especially if several of them agree on the matter at hand, this is a hint that the solution may be correct. So I think we can assume that it is correct - at least for the time till we ourselves reach the stage of knowledge to be able to find it.

Because, practically speaking, I think it is just a waste of energy to spend a lot of time to think about something which is yet entirely outside our knowledge and understanding.

A student of the first year will better use the energy to acquire the knowledge of the first year than thinking about matters which belong to the higher stages.

After all, the first year is then the basis for the second year, and the second year is the basis of the third, and so on.

Like if you build a house - usually you have to start with the fundament, no matter what extremely original ideas you have about the shape of the roof. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the further you go, the more you find, step by step, that relying on the Three Jewels unquestionably, brings nothing but Benefit

Buddhist approach of the four reliances:

 

Do not rely merely on the person, but on the words;

Do not rely merely on the words, but on their meaning;

Do not merely rely on the provisional meaning, but on the definite meaning; and

Do not rely merely on the intellectual understanding, but on direct experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...it is of course not so hard to prove that someone is in the final year of his study, is it?

It's easy to prove that in this example. But if you do the analogy and say that a professor is like a Buddha and students are like monks and nuns it becomes more difficult.

However, it's very hard to prove that professors are correct. Even if you ask professor if student is right, you still need to believe and have faith that professor's answer is right.

 

So, especially if several of them agree on the matter at hand, this is a hint that the solution may be correct. So I think we can assume that it is correct - at least for the time till we ourselves reach the stage of knowledge to be able to find it.

Number of people that agree about one thing is irrelevant. You know a lot of people belive in God, and according to our point of view this is completely wrong.

 

I still think that you need to have faith in the teachings of Lord Buddha because there is (unforunatelly :wink: ) simply no way for some of the teachings to be 100% proved.

Personally I like the approach that I think someone already mentioned: that you gain faith in Lord Buddha's teachings because His other teachings are correct (maybe the ones you can prove using axioms that you can't prove) and that His teachings don't contradict each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek

 

A technical note about our pizza retreats: The debates between people with a scientific background and those without are sometimes quite challenging. Wangmo, for example, ended up with a pizza indigestion. And yet, here she comes again, powerfully defending her point of view. :D

 

As a studied of chemistry I had hundreds of reaction that had to be memorised. And, yes, they were essential to understand the subjects treated in the following years. But we had lab hours where many of these reactions could be tested and proved.

 

I used to go to church and took religious classes till I was 13, because my parents wanted (forced?) me to. It is amazing the amount of nonsense we had to absorb in the first year: Darwin’s turboevolution theory in six days, First Greenpeace Ark of Noah species salvation, immaculate conception,… And why? Because it gave us the bases to follow the subsequent years. One cannot study about John the Baptist before one has covered Jesus, can one?

The study process is the same, except that faith is banned in science.

 

I have chosen to follow the Buddhist teachings and have been attempting some of the practices and at times feel intimately (vocationally) close to them. It first started with a few books, evolved through a puzzling reverence for Lama Shenphen Rinpoche and culminated with the Relics Tour in August.

What I ask myself is: At what point will I become disillusioned by the lack of something more tangible?

 

Jigme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

A technical note about our pizza retreats: The debates between people with a scientific background and those without are sometimes quite challenging. Wangmo, for example

Hum, it seems you are building on some false premises: my formal education is "physic's laboratory worker", so I am formally educated for the usage of measuring devices like Geiger counters, ohmmeters, ampermeters etc., plus the necessary statistical knowledge to evaluate the results of such measurements. I even absolved a bit of university study of physics, covering the basic fields of mechanics, optics, electricity, thermodynamics ... including lab practicum and a practicum in computer programming too. Ah yes, and I earn a big part of my living by translating technical instructions, mostly for factory machines, pumps and such. I am sorry. :wink:

 

But this is such a nice example on how tricky perception can be. One must be careful, even if you see it with your own eyes ... :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

I still think that you need to have faith in the teachings of Lord Buddha because there is (unforunatelly :wink: ) simply no way for some of the teachings to be 100% proved.

Personally I like the approach that I think someone already mentioned: that you gain faith in Lord Buddha's teachings because His other teachings are correct (maybe the ones you can prove using axioms that you can't prove) and that His teachings don't contradict each other.

If we put it scientifically: :*

By definition, a Buddha's mind has no limit. Consequently, a Buddha can prove anything with 100% reliability; statistical fault = 0. So, the "interval of trust" is 100%. In common words: one can rely on Buddhas teachings. :D

But if one can't rely on them, then this is a problem of the settings of his/her "interface", which need to be calibrated to accept the data correctly in accordance with the upper mathematical definition. :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek Wangmo :D

 

By definition, a Buddha's mind has no limit.

You need to have faith in that definition, because I think it's quite difficult for ordinary being to prove that Buddha has a mind which has no limit. So he accepts this because of faith. But if you have such a proof, then please write it, I would be very thankful :)

 

And whether such a proof exists or not, it is even harder (if not impossible) for ordinary being to prove that certain person is a Buddha or not. And for this proof I would be even more thankful and I'd buy you a pizza in the next pizza retreat :D

 

this is a problem of the settings of his/her "interface"

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

By definition, a Buddha's mind has no limit.
You need to have faith in that definition, because I think it's quite difficult for ordinary being to prove that Buddha has a mind which has no limit. So he accepts this because of faith. But if you have such a proof, then please write it, I would be very thankful :)

OK, remember mathematical analysis a bit - you don't prove a definition, do you? You prove a hypothesis - and for this purpose, in the beginning you define the variables ...

You don't define x=0,5c or y=3, and then say, ah, yes, but I must prove this first. :wink:

 

And whether such a proof exists or not, it is even harder (if not impossible) for ordinary being to prove that certain person is a Buddha or not. And for this proof I would be even more thankful and I'd buy you a pizza in the next pizza retreat :D

How fat I will get. :wink: If I - as ordinary being - pick Buddha Shakyamuni to be that certain person you are mentioning, I have in the same instant proven that he is a Buddha (by definition, as the term got its name from him) and earned a pizza ... 8)

 

this is a problem of the settings of his/her "interface"

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.

Mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you don't prove a definition, do you?

Exactly, you accept it on faith.

 

If I - as ordinary being - pick Buddha Shakyamuni to be that certain person you are mentioning, I have in the same instant proven that he is a Buddha (by definition, as the term got its name from him) and earned a pizza ... 8) .

Not so fast :wink:. If you just pick someone to be a Buddha, that's no proof, that's only a choice made by faith. How do you know for example that he was not 'only' 10th level Bodhisattva?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek everybody,

 

It is really an interesting debate , isn't?

 

We finally - soon or later - have to face our limits, but as we are indeed non-liberated living beings ( that is not at all difficult to prove, if for you, the liberation means the end of troubles), and that we must rely on the explanations of non-ordinary beings, who succed in this field!

 

All along our life we have to trust -a priori- a lot of declarations people say to us, without being able to prove their sayings!

For ex: our parents who tell us we were born such day of such year at a precise hour ( how to prove it if you don't find the doctor, and anyway you have to trust the doctor and so one...We must accept what our teachers explain, (history, geography, were you present at all these battles and event at eac century, in every countries? Did you go on the Everest, did the photographs you saw were really from the Everest?... mathematics, physics - ex the quantic theory from which a scientist said nobody could understand anything! your doctor - your dentist, your baker ( what proof you get that he didn't put arsenic in the bread, or too much salt before eating it?.. the same with cans or vegetables you buy??? we take risks everyday eating food! drivin our car ( what with the fabricant, the mechanist, the petrol ...)

We are dependant of so many people and so many things to be able to survive, it is breathtaking!

here a point for the Buddha and his theory of interdependance;

So as we trust so many people, who evidently don't have the peace of mind (but you have no proof, because maybe they are simulating - I don't see the point but why not? the use a lot of energy to look unhappy, sick, frustrated, angry, sad...! here we are in an absurd hypothesis...(at almost 99,9999999%)

 

So if we trust ordinary people -or people who look like ordinary people, but they do it very well! - why wouldn't we trust the liberated beings, or if you prefer, the beings who seem have a very, very, very strong probability to be enlightened.

 

And as we don't know the real taste of chocolate before eating it, and rely on people who tell you that is very good, (maybe there are some persons who don't like chocolate, because of the bad quality they tried, or the bad state of their liver), so we must have faith in the teachings of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.

 

Logically if we learn non-ordinary teachings, we will get non-ordinary results, no? Or this must to be proved, too?

 

We see evidently that at one point we have to "give up" all our intellectual ways of thinking for the "direct experience" like the child trusts his parents and maybe, that is the first step to the liberation...

 

Compared with all the risks we take every day in our life, what do we risk trying to apply the Buddha Dharma? As the Buddha said test my teachings, don't trust me because I am the Buddha. Very acurate.. try and see by ourself!

 

With much love and prayer

 

ani Chönyi :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

If I - as ordinary being - pick Buddha Shakyamuni to be that certain person you are mentioning, I have in the same instant proven that he is a Buddha (by definition, as the term got its name from him) and earned a pizza ... 8) .

Not so fast :wink:. If you just pick someone to be a Buddha, that's no proof, that's only a choice made by faith. How do you know for example that he was not 'only' 10th level Bodhisattva?

Of course, I am 100% sure the Buddha was a Buddha. What kind of question is this? :wink:

He was actually the basis for the definition of "Buddha", wasn't he?

 

But let's do it the mathematical way: you have a bag of pebbles, and intend to sort them by size. You pull out one and call it "x" - so you will then sort all others in relation to it (larger than x, smaller than x, = x). Then of course you will compare all the other pebbles with "x", but you don't question this first pebble to be "x" - because this was your initial premise and you based your research on it. This is no "faith", this is simply a mathematical method.

But if you then break your mind to prove that "x" is equal to "x", this can really be difficult. :))

 

Was this the second pizza? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so you will then sort all others in relation to it

In the case of figuring out who is a Buddha and who isn't then it would mean that you need to know all the realizations of two beings in order to make the relation. And this an ordinary being can't do. So sorting beings by their realizations is (unfortunately) much more complicated than sorting pebbles.

 

Was this the second pizza?
No, because I think that you didn't give me satisfying arguments yet (however, it's true that it's a bit hard to give me satisfying arguments :wink: ).

 

Ok, I see that you like math and I read that you know programming, so I ask you to do this: Write here an algorithm which tells for any being if he has achieved a state of Buddhahood or not.

 

I'm asking you this because algorithm would be a good proof, since it uses only logic, no faith, no believes.

 

- If you can write such a program, then I happily buy you a pizza :) .

- If you can't write such a program, then that means you can't check using (only) your logic to tell who is a Buddha and who is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear friends,

Very hot discussion is here! :twisted:

 

Here are Buddhas words:

"Bhikshus and scholars

Should accept my words after having

examined them thoroughly,

Just as gold is melted, cut, and polished;

They should not be followed [simply] out

of respect."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

Isn't it so that whatever we *think* of ultimate truth - is not it?

I never refered to ultimate truth. Is the knowledge if one person is a Buddha ultimate truth? I think that ultimate truth refers only to emptiness.

 

Even if there existed such an algoritm, of what use would it be?
I think that in this degenerate age, when there are a lots of self proclaimed false teachers, this would be of some use, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...