Ask A Buddhist

[InJesusItrust]

I am saying that you are using the recursion argument to prove that an infinite chain of events cannot exist, but this is flawed because recursive functions require an initial value by definition. Thus, they are not analogous.

In a way, I can give a counterexample to your scenario with recursive functions.

f= f(n-1) +1

Define Y as the range of f, in other words the set of all this function’s output values (you probably know what range means, but since it is a technical term I explained it for the benefit of readers who forgot all their math )

Let us define as part of the definition of this function that 0 is a member of set Y.

This leaves us with a well defined recursive function with no ‘base’ as you say. We can even make deductions about this function and its domain and range. We can deduce that the range and the domain are both the same, namely the set of integers. Therefore this function is a reversible one, so it has an inverse function as well.

Even though this function has no base, we can discern a number of properties about it, in spite of the fact that it has an infinite regress in it.

I am not saying “recursion demonstrates infinite regression is impossible” I am saying “recursion illustrates why it is logically impossible” I’m using an analogy to describe something difficult in words. Presupposing that the range has an element obviously breaks the analogy I am trying to make.

I will try in words again. We know that an event has a cause. You are saying that the world is an infinite regression of creation and destruction, which are both events. The cycle cannot work unless the universe is instantiated. Once it is the cycle is no problem. But if it has to be instantiated, it has to be started in a state between these two. To try a programming analogy, you are describing the class, but an object needs to be created. The object has to be made externally to the class definition. The class code cannot run without an instiniation of my object. The cycle has to start in an intermediate state, but if it does it is no longer infinite. There was a first cause.

Forgive my analogy if it makes more confusion, I’m trying the best I can. I am no philosopher, just a software engineering student.

 

[rossum]

How can you be so sure that the Maitreya has not come yet?

Has the Maitreya come as a Bodhisattva? Perfectly possible. For example, Budai could well have been such an incarnation of the Bodhisattva Maitreya.

Has the Maitreya come as a Buddha? No.

What is your evidence?

There is no evidence of a Buddha present in the world today. There is no evidence of anyone present in the world today who has performed the Miracle of the Pairs.

rossum

 

[TomFromMD]

Buddhism analyses a human being into five parts: form, feelings, perception, impulses and consciousness. None of the five is permanent. None of the five is unchanging. Any attempt to find a permanent or unchanging ‘soul’ or ‘self’ is doomed to fail.

On what basis do you state that “this” is reincarnated to “that”? The two clearly don’t share form, feelings, perception, impulses. The only thing that they might share is consciousness, right? But if you think consciousness isn’t unchanging, do they even share that?

Is reincarnation believed to be immediate? If not, what happens to the consciousness in the mean time?

 

[notself]

On what basis do you state that “this” is reincarnated to “that”? The two clearly don’t share form, feelings, perception, impulses. The only thing that they might share is consciousness, right? But if you think consciousness isn’t unchanging, do they even share that?

Is reincarnation believed to be immediate? If not, what happens to the consciousness in the mean time?

Wonderful Wonderful. You understand the complexity and puzzle of rebirth. What is reborn? It certainly isn’t “me” or “self”.

The suttas never come out and say what is reborn. They do say that the last moment of consciousness of one life causes the first moment of consciousness to arise in the new life. This is not the consciousness of a fully aware person, but rather what is called a subtle consciousness that sustains life.

The suttas use the simile of the flame of the candle. A candle is almost used up and one lights a new candle with the last bit of flame from the old candle. Is the flame of the new candle the same as that of the old candle or is it different? Is it both the same and different?

In Theravada, rebirth is immediate.

 

[Bakmoon]

I am not saying “recursion demonstrates infinite regression is impossible” I am saying “recursion illustrates why it is logically impossible” I’m using an analogy to describe something difficult in words. Presupposing that the range has an element obviously breaks the analogy I am trying to make.

I will try in words again. We know that an event has a cause. You are saying that the world is an infinite regression of creation and destruction, which are both events. The cycle cannot work unless the universe is instantiated. Once it is the cycle is no problem. But if it has to be instantiated, it has to be started in a state between these two. To try a programming analogy, you are describing the class, but an object needs to be created. The object has to be made externally to the class definition. The class code cannot run without an instiniation of my object. The cycle has to start in an intermediate state, but if it does it is no longer infinite. There was a first cause.

Forgive my analogy if it makes more confusion, I’m trying the best I can. I am no philosopher, just a software engineering student.

1. And I am not presenting my argument as a formal proof of its possibility, either. Rather, I am using it to illustrate the brokenness of using recursive functions as an analogy for causation. For example, you noticed correctly that my counterargument is guilty of begging the question because it presupposes that the range has at least one element, but this was intentional to mirror your argument, which correspondingly assumes from the beginning that there is a value for f(1). Both of these presuppositions assume the conclusions of the argument, thus invalidating both of these arguments for the exact same reason. Can you see this?

The programing analogy suffers from the same problem, because it too assumes the existence of an initial starting point, which is the point that you are trying to demonstrate, making the argument again, guilty of begging the question.

By the way, I think studying computer programing makes very good philosophers because it teaches the necessity of rigorous and planned reasoning. Being able to analyze things logically is key.

 

[Bakmoon]

On what basis do you state that “this” is reincarnated to “that”? The two clearly don’t share form, feelings, perception, impulses. The only thing that they might share is consciousness, right? But if you think consciousness isn’t unchanging, do they even share that?

Is reincarnation believed to be immediate? If not, what happens to the consciousness in the mean time?

You could say the exact same thing about a person’s existence from one moment to the next. The thing that makes them the same ‘person’ so to speak is that there is continuity in the process. This same continuity exists through death.

The classical works on Abhidhamma in Theravada Buddhism teaches that it is instantaneous. The Bardo Thodol (commonly mis-refered to as the Tibetan Book of the Dead) found in Tibetan Buddhism, in contrast, teaches that the consciousness undergoes a complex process of visionary-like experiences in an intermediate state over the course of something like 50 days. I don’t know the view of other sects, though.

Addendum:
Wow! 21 pages, 306 postings, and over 4,000 views! I never thought people would find this interesting! I really appreciate the big response and all the intellectual engagement and discussion on this thread. It really is top-notch!

 

[InJesusItrust]

1. And I am not presenting my argument as a formal proof of its possibility, either. Rather, I am using it to illustrate the brokenness of using recursive functions as an analogy for causation. For example, you noticed correctly that my counterargument is guilty of begging the question because it presupposes that the range has at least one element, but this was intentional to mirror your argument, which correspondingly assumes from the beginning that there is a value for f(1). Both of these presuppositions assume the conclusions of the argument, thus invalidating both of these arguments for the exact same reason. Can you see this?

The programing analogy suffers from the same problem, because it too assumes the existence of an initial starting point, which is the point that you are trying to demonstrate, making the argument again, guilty of begging the question.

By the way, I think studying computer programing makes very good philosophers because it teaches the necessity of rigorous and planned reasoning. Being able to analyze things logically is key.

I
But do you see the logic in what I am trying to say? Even if the cycle is infinite it has to have an initial state, before the first creation or destruction ever occured. Otherwise if the concept I am trying to convey is still unobvious I fear I cannot do justice to why St. Aquinas was correct discounting infinite regression. Anyone else would like to try?

By the way you remind me of a friend of mine who I pray for often who recently got into Buddhism.

 

[Moore11]

Can a woman attain Nirvana?

 

[notself]

Can a woman attain Nirvana?

It is because women are capable of obtaining Nirvana that the Buddha fully ordained women. This was at a time when women were considered chattel and were not allowed to participate in Vedic religious ceremonies. Not only were women ordained, but the teachings of some of these women are part of the canon of Buddhism.

The word for monk in Pali is Bhikkhu. The word for nun is Bhikkhuni. One can see the equality of respect in the titles.

The Bhikkhuni line disappeared in Theravada due to various wars and natural disasters but it was restored in 1996 through the cooperation of Mahayana Bhikkhunis. There are fully ordained nuns of the Theravada tradition in Sri Lanka, India, Australia and the United States.

For technical reasons the Bhikkhuni lineage was never established in Tibetan Buddhism, but the Dalai Lama is working through the cultural and religious process to establish full ordination of women.

 

[Moore11]

It is because women are capable of obtaining Nirvana that the Buddha fully ordained women. This was at a time when women were considered chattel and were not allowed to participate in Vedic religious ceremonies. Not only were women ordained, but the teachings of some of these women are part of the canon of Buddhism.

The word for monk in Pali is Bhikkhu. The word for nun is Bhikkhuni. One can see the equality of respect in the titles.

The Bhikkhuni line disappeared in Theravada due to various wars and natural disasters but it was restored in 1996 through the cooperation of Mahayana Bhikkhunis. There are fully ordained nuns of the Theravada tradition in Sri Lanka, India, Australia and the United States.

For technical reasons the Bhikkhuni lineage was never established in Tibetan Buddhism, but the Dalai Lama is working through the cultural and religious process to establish full ordination of women.

Ok so HAS a woman ever achieved Nirvana and why is it that many Buddhists dont believe that they can?

 

[notself]

Ok so HAS a woman ever achieved Nirvana and why is it that many Buddhists dont believe that they can?

All of the women whose writings appear in the canon have reached Nirvana. I don’t know where you got the idea that Buddhist think that women cannot obtain enlightenment. Is it because of the word buddha, perhaps?

The word buddha means awakened one. There are two uses of the word buddha:

1)The word with the lower case “b” is used in Mahayana to denote anyone who is enlightened. Theravada uses the word arahant.
2) The word with the upper case “B” is used to describe a man who discovers the dhamma by himself without the benefit of being taught by or studying the teachings of a Buddha. This type of man is called “self awakened” and teaches the dhamma to others. This type of Buddha is always male.

Why is this teaching Buddha always male? The suttas don’t say, but in my opinion it is because life in inherently more dangerous for a single woman who is homeless and totally dependent on the alms of others. It is so dangerous that at the time of the Buddha, he passed a rule for Bhikkhunis that they had to stay in monasteries built just outside cities for their protection. This is after several bhikkhunis were raped while dwelling alone in the forest.

 

[Lokabrenna]

Ok so HAS a woman ever achieved Nirvana and why is it that many Buddhists dont believe that they can?

There have been many women who have attained Enlightenment but have chosen not to “pass on” until all have attained it (which would make them bodhisattvas). I think Tara might be regarded as a buddha in one tradition and a bodhisattva in another, but I’m not sure about that. (BTW, the concept of the bodhisattva is a Mahayana Buddhist idea (it’s not present in Theravada). So to answer your question, yes, there are women who have achieved Nirvana.

As for why some Buddhists don’t believe that women can achieve Enlightenment, my guess is that Buddhism might not be inherently sexist, but Indian society was (and still is) quite sexist (as is, well, almost every culture on Earth) and these cultural ideas influenced the development of Buddhism. One explanation I’ve heard is that women experience more suffering under a patriarchal system, and that too much suffering can be a distraction when you’re trying to attain Enlightenment. Women were also under immense pressure to marry and have children, and since nuns are celibate, well, I don’t think that went over well with some parents.

 

[Bakmoon]

I
But do you see the logic in what I am trying to say? Even if the cycle is infinite it has to have an initial state, before the first creation or destruction ever occured. Otherwise if the concept I am trying to convey is still unobvious I fear I cannot do justice to why St. Aquinas was correct discounting infinite regression. Anyone else would like to try?

By the way you remind me of a friend of mine who I pray for often who recently got into Buddhism.

The problem is that you are assuming your conclusion. As part of your premise you say that there needs to be an initial state, when this is the point that you should be trying to prove, rather than assuming it in the first place.

 

[notself]

Here is a link to the section of the Pali Canon (the Tipitaka) by enlightened women telling their stories.

accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/index.html

Since the canon has only recently been translated out of Pali into modern languages, many Buddhist have never read it. Even with translations available, many still don’t read the actual suttas but rely on books describing the suttas. I guess this may be the same with the many Christians who have never read the Bible.

You may notice that the work to translate the Therigatha from Thai to English is still ongoing on the site of the above link.

 

[Bakmoon]

Ok so HAS a woman ever achieved Nirvana and why is it that many Buddhists dont believe that they can?

Most certainly there have been. As a matter of fact, one of the most breathtaking parts of the Theravada scriptures is a collection of texts called the Therigatha, which is a collection of poems written by the various enlightened nuns who lived in the time of the Buddha, many of which recount their experiences attaining enlightenment.

Among some forms of Mahayana Buddhism and Vajrayana Buddhism there are female Buddhas as well, such as Vajrayogini and Tara.

I think that the biggest reason why some think women can’t is that they haven’t studied the scriptures, and so they profess their bigotry out of ignorance.

 

[Moore11]

Most certainly there have been. As a matter of fact, one of the most breathtaking parts of the Theravada scriptures is a collection of texts called the Therigatha, which is a collection of poems written by the various enlightened nuns who lived in the time of the Buddha, many of which recount their experiences attaining enlightenment.

Among some forms of Mahayana Buddhism and Vajrayana Buddhism there are female Buddhas as well, such as Vajrayogini and Tara.

I think that the biggest reason why some think women can’t is that they haven’t studied the scriptures, and so they profess their bigotry out of ignorance.

thanks for your answer. The internet is such a mish mosh of information.

What I gathered was this

• The Buddha ordained women as nuns, but placed greater restrictions upon them than upon men.

• The Theravada tradition no longer has a nuns order (except for novice nuns - there are no full nuns) and modern Theravada monks actively resist the creation of a full nuns order

• Many Theravada practitioners believe that only monks (ordained men) can attain enlightenment. This is not well-supported in the Pali Canon, but it is a widely held belief.

it is good to know that this is untrue.

 

[InJesusItrust]

The problem is that you are assuming your conclusion. As part of your premise you say that there needs to be an initial state, when this is the point that you should be trying to prove, rather than assuming it in the first place.

I can’t prove it. It just seems obvious to me that such a state must exist. To me it seems as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4. I wasn’t trying to prove it without doubt but trying to show it the way I see it with illustrations.

 

[Bakmoon]

I can’t prove it. It just seems obvious to me that such a state must exist. To me it seems as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4.

But we are talking about the scenario of an eternal universe, one which extends back into the past infinitely. I am holding to the position that such a scenario is not physically impossible. The problem is that you can’t say that such a universe has an initial state. It’s just undefined. That’s like asking “What’s the first number?”

 

[InJesusItrust]

Cretion cannot occur if the universe already exists and destruction cannot occur if there is no universe to destroy. How then does any iteration of the cycle suceed if there wqs no initial state somewhere between? The first number is one. Only nnatural numbers exist outside of the mind.

 

[Bakmoon]

Cretion cannot occur if the universe already exists and destruction cannot occur if there is no universe to destroy. How then does any iteration of the cycle suceed if there wqs no initial state somewhere between? The first number is one. Only nnatural numbers exist outside of the mind.

One possible model is the big bounce model in physics.

I only used the example of numbers because it acts as an analogy for why it doesn’t make sense to talk about an initial state in the context of an eternal universe. I wasn’t saying that the number line is a perfect analogy for the world.