Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

[rossum]

Using reason, we can conclude that God, as the most perfect being, cannot be under time.

I was not talking about the properties of God, I was talking about the properties of causation. Causation requires time because the cause must come before the effect and we cannot determine before in the absence of time.

The effects of the will are coming into being and passing out of being within time, but the will itself is not changing.

Then I just repeat my analysis: will is unchanging and can cause nothing, effects-of-will changes and can cause things. There is an obvious infinite regress here. We now have three different objects: unchanging God, unchanging Will and changing effect-of-will.

Jesus’ human nature died, but His divine nature did not change.

Then why was Jesus’ sacrifice considered sufficient where other deaths of humans were not? If just the human part of Jesus died then there was nothing special about that death - humans die all the time. If God did not change over those three days then nothing special actually happened.

His will is eternal, but it is eternally predicated to change within time.

What triggers the change? What sustains the change? What stops the change? The eternal cannot change. What changes cannot be eternal.

A more accurate description is self-existent, but “unchanging” is conventionally used to denote aspects about that self existent in less abstract terms.

Nagarjuna’s basic analysis of the nature of being shows that anything that is self-existent cannot change; if it causes itself then its own cause is always present.

I notice that you place a lot of stock in words. Just because a human term does not perfectly capture something does not mean that the concept behind the word is incorrect.

But all too often we forget that the word indeed does not perfectly capture the thing. This is another source of error in our mental models.

God does not pull and release the trigger in the sense you are thinking of it. God wills things eternally, and they are willed to appear in time. Time is present to God in totality and things come and pass in time based on the timeless will of God.

I will just repeat my analysis of what is changing and what is not changing and separate the two or more parts. One single thing cannot both change and not change.

For example, I can will for my whole life that I will attend college at a certain time.

Then you have an unchanging will and changing actions. That is two separate things.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I read about Vienna in books. I see pictures online. I hear people talk about it. In other words, I have a mental model of Vienna. Catholics argue that our mental model corresponds to reality.

As do Buddhists, there is a reality and to some extent our mental models do reflect that reality.

As a Catholic, I can know about the truth of Vienna precisely because I have a mental model of it. In Buddhism our mental model can be illusory.

Not illusory, deceptive. Your mental model of Vienna does not match the real Vienna, there are differences between them.

Furthermore, Buddhism lacks a way to reach outside the mental model because the only justification for the validity of Buddhism is within the model too.

How can we reach outside our own minds? How can we know things except through our senses? All we can do is to refine our models.

People within your mental model have been getting to Nirvana ever since the Buddha. On what basis can you say that this knowledge is not illusory?

On the basis of my own experience and the experience of other Buddhists. Buddhism is pragmatic, as the Kalama sutta shows.

In other words, you have a baseline that all other things are compared too. In reality, dogs are not scary, so you had an incorrect mental model of it.

I analysed the elements of my model and found that some of those elements were reflected in external reality while others were overlaid onto the model by my own mind. By separating those internal elements from the external elements I was able to construct a better model. Once you get beyond the basic morality a large part of Buddhism is focused on analysing our own minds and the sources of the various elements that make up our models. The word “meditation” covers a very wide range of practices.

In contrast, Buddhism views everything as potentially transient. Reason is likewise potentially transient, and we have no way to know for the present moment whether it is true or not. Because of this we cannot know what the baseline is and thus we cannot correct our mental model of the dog.

I do not need a fixed baseline. I start from where I am. If a practice lets me advance relative to where I am now then I follow that practice. If a practice does not let me advance or pushes me back then I stop that practice. I only need to know where I am now, and in which direction the destination lies. The Buddhist path provides direction and guidance.

In reference to what do you say that your previous mental model of the dog was incorrect?

My ability to deal reasonably with dogs. I could observe how other people dealt with dogs and compare that to the way I dealt with dogs.

My mental model of reality is very clouded. Many things that I percieve are illusory and false. You mention “good results, goodness, and wisdom” as evidence that Buddhism will help clear my mind. Since my mind is still clouded, on what basis should I think that my mental perception of these “good effects” of Buddhism is not illusory?

We start in cloud. If some actions help thin the cloud then we continue those actions. If other actions help thicken the cloud then we avoid those actions. You agree that we can perceive the cloud; all we need to do is to compare cloud with cloud.

This is the crux of the matter. Your propose a system where our mental models are incorrect and we lack a way to know in what ways they are incorrect.

Our mental models are incorrect, but we do have a way to correct them. By testing the effects of different practices. What helps to thin the cloud? What tends to thicken the cloud?

rossum

 

[Detales]

Fran~*You have stated that everything is temporary - a basic buddhist teaching.

You then state that all will attain nirvana, all will reach the end. That is a universal and something that you implicitly claim as always true whilst there are living beings.

You contradict yourself and have lost this argument.*

All things are temporary. Nirvana is not a thing, but a state of Conscious Awareness. It does not need a “thing” to embody it.

 

[Fran65]

Detales,

In Buddhism all is temporary - not just ‘things’.

rossum,

My understanding is that in Buddhism no-one can claim to be enlightened or to have experienced nirvana. My memory tells me that there are explicit instructions regarding that in the vinyana.

Therefore you cannot claim that ‘many people’ have achieved nirvana. We cannot know, as some may claim to have done so but may be mistaken or lying. You assume that many have reached nirvana as a result of your Buddhist beliefs.

 

[rossum]

My understanding is that in Buddhism no-one can claim to be enlightened or to have experienced nirvana. My memory tells me that there are explicit instructions regarding that in the vinyana.

The Pali vinaya contains the rules for monks and nuns, they do not all apply to laymen/women. It is a major offence to claim to be enlightened when you are not. It is a lesser offence to claim to be enlightened when you are.

Other sects of Buddhism do not follow all of the Pali vinaya which is specific to the Theravadins.

Merely because I do not claim to have two legs does not stop other people noticing that I appear to have the characteristics of someone with two legs.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

Then why was Jesus’ sacrifice considered sufficient where other deaths of humans were not? If just the human part of Jesus died then there was nothing special about that death - humans die all the time. If God did not change over those three days then nothing special actually happened.

First of all, Jesus did not have to die in a metaphysical sense. God decided to become incarnate in the hypostatic union (two natures) in order to provide us with a pragmatic example. Jesus took on punishment for things He did not do for our sake, which is a pragmatic demonstration of love.

What triggers the change? What sustains the change? What stops the change? The eternal cannot change. What changes cannot be eternal.

Nagarjuna’s basic analysis of the nature of being shows that anything that is self-existent cannot change; if it causes itself then its own cause is always present.

Correct, something self-existent cannot change as my link explains. There is no reason an eternally willed thing cannot be eternally willed to appear at a certain point within the creation of time.

Then you have an unchanging will and changing actions. That is two separate things.

Correct. God has an unchanging will, but the actions that stem from that will are not part of God.

 

[Fran65]

So you claim to be able to tell if someone is enlightened or not…how very…insightful?

There is a major difference between behaving as if one were enlightened and others ‘knowing’ that you have attained nirvana.

Really, you have no way of knowing other than their claims or your assumptions. Neither of which in Buddhism can be relied upon.

Isn’t it also the case that the neurological changes associated with long term and advanced meditation may be responsible for the observed behavioural changes?

To return to your original point - isn’t enlightenment also temporary? Or is this one of those things that is always true in a system that says that everything is illusion?

 

[Sarpedon]

As do Buddhists, there is a reality and to some extent our mental models do reflect that reality.

How do you determine this extent?

Not illusory, deceptive. Your mental model of Vienna does not match the real Vienna, there are differences between them.

Yes, but with Catholicism I can use my intellect (which includes both reason and observation) to refine my mental model based on the actual Vienna. In other words, because my intellect is capable of grasping the true nature of things, I can know the true nature of Vienna. Under Buddhism, such an assurance is not present. The intellect may be able to know truth, or it may not be able to know truth. We have no way to determine which is it under Buddhism and therefore we lack a reliable way to refine our mental model of Vienna.

This all goes back to the degrees. You say that our mental models are correct to “some extent.” How do you determine to what extent our reasoning is correct? By using reason? How do you determine to what extent the “good effects” of Buddhism are correct? By making observations?

How can we reach outside our own minds? How can we know things except through our senses? All we can do is to refine our models.

Catholics say that our senses and reason enable us to know the true nature of things and then correct our models accordingly. Buddhism says that everything is potentially transient, and therefore it lacks an assurance that reason can actually do that in our present moment and enable us to refine our model further.

On the basis of my own experience and the experience of other Buddhists. Buddhism is pragmatic, as the Kalama sutta shows.

But there is an unknown degree of uncertainty in our mental models. On what basis do you determine whether that unknown degree extends to this experience?

I do not need a fixed baseline. I start from where I am. If a practice lets me advance relative to where I am now then I follow that practice. If a practice does not let me advance or pushes me back then I stop that practice. I only need to know where I am now, and in which direction the destination lies. The Buddhist path provides direction and guidance.

(my emphasis)

You correctly point out that we need to know where we are and where we need to go. The Catholic determines this using reason. How do you determine it?

The basic point is this- Buddhism says that everything is transient and that there is an unknown degree of uncertainty in our mental model. Since everything is transient, we lack a permanent method to correct our mental model. Now, there is nothing wrong with using a temporary method. The problem is that we cannot determine what that temporary method is. If reason can be transient, then we lack a way to evaluate whether reason is correct at any one point. If our observations are transient, then we lack a way of determining whether they are reliable at any one point. If you try to justify these things in terms of something else- such as pragmatic good effects, you still lack a way to verify that these things are in the “correct” spectrum of our mental model. Catholicism upholds reason as a permanently correct way of knowing truth. This allows the Catholic to refine his mental model based on reason. In contrast, Buddhism lacks a permanent reliable method any by extension lacks a fully reliable way to determine what is reliable at any one point.

 

[rossum]

So you claim to be able to tell if someone is enlightened or not…how very…insightful?

I make my best judgement, based on the knowledge available. I am not infallible.

Really, you have no way of knowing other than their claims or your assumptions. Neither of which in Buddhism can be relied upon.

If I waited for absolute certainty then I would never get anywhere. Every religion starts with an element of faith that this is the right religion and all the others are wrong. With Buddhism the element of faith is gradually replaced by knowledge as we progress along the path. I no longer need faith that I will find some of the early landmarks along the path because I have found those landmarks for myself. A Christian needs faith that Christianity is the right way to get to heaven. Once in heaven then that faith is no longer needed.

Isn’t it also the case that the neurological changes associated with long term and advanced meditation may be responsible for the observed behavioural changes?

Of course. All Buddhism says is that certain actions have certain effects. It does not go into detail as to why those effects happen. Is says that the effects are worthwhile and gives the actions needed to trigger them. The mechanism is not particularly important.

To return to your original point - isn’t enlightenment also temporary? Or is this one of those things that is always true in a system that says that everything is illusion?

Of cource it is temporary. All those who become enlightened start in a state of unenlightenment, as did Gautama. Temporary works in both directions in time.

rossum

 

[rossum]

How do you determine this extent?

Pragmatically. We see what works best.

Yes, but with Catholicism I can use my intellect (which includes both reason and observation) to refine my mental model based on the actual Vienna.

Only after you have been to Vienna. Before you get to Vienna you are relying on second-hand information. You do not know what was behind the cameraman, you do not know what the Guide Book did not mention.

Under Buddhism, such an assurance is not present.

Neither is it under Catholicism; we are all limited by our senses. Catholics cannot see ultra violet. Catholics cannot sense smells any better than Buddhists, and both are a lot worse then dogs. The limitations are inherent in being human.

This all goes back to the degrees. You say that our mental models are correct to “some extent.” How do you determine to what extent our reasoning is correct? By using reason? How do you determine to what extent the “good effects” of Buddhism are correct? By making observations?

If I required certainty before starting my journey then I would never start. Are you certain that of all the 1,001 varieties of Christianity, Catholicism is correct? Is there zero possibility that you are in error? I know enough to give me confidence that the journey I am starting on is worthwhile.

Buddhism says that everything is potentially transient,

Everything is transient.

and therefore it lacks an assurance that reason can actually do that in our present moment and enable us to refine our model further.

I have already refined my model using the tools available here and now. That is enough for me. I do not care if those tools will be innefective in a million years time - all I need is that they work now.

But there is an unknown degree of uncertainty in our mental models. On what basis do you determine whether that unknown degree extends to this experience?

By results. If something works then we use it. We are aware that there is uncertainty in our models, so we review our models regularly to try to reduce the uncertainty. Much of meditation is an examination of our models and how they are constructed. That analysis allows us to improve our models.

You correctly point out that we need to know where we are and where we need to go. The Catholic determines this using reason. How do you determine it?

I am climbing a mountain; I can tell if the path is tending upwards of downwards as I walk it. I am in clouds; I can tell if the clouds are thickening or thinning.

Since everything is transient, we lack a permanent method to correct our mental model.

I do not need a permanent method. When I climb a mountain at some points I might just need a good pair of boots. At other points I might need pitons and ropes. I need a method that works for where I currently am on the mountain.

Now, there is nothing wrong with using a temporary method. The problem is that we cannot determine what that temporary method is.

We look to those who have climbed the mountain before us and try the methods they suggest. If those methods move me upwards then I use them. I use what works for me. Other Buddhists may use a different selection of techniques that work for them.

If reason can be transient, then we lack a way to evaluate whether reason is correct at any one point.

How many people are incapable of making mistakes? There will always be a degree of uncertainty associated with human reason.

Catholicism upholds reason as a permanently correct way of knowing truth.

That only holds if Catholics are incapable of making logical errors. Human reason is subject to error. There is no absolute certainty there. Buddhism acknowledges that lack of certainty and has developed ways to work with it; if you fail to allow for the possibility of error then your model of human reason is flawed.

rossum

 

[Fran65]

rossum,

How do you know that you are not deceiving yourself and that any experiences are not purely the result of hallucinations induced by chronic sensory deprivation? The experience of sitting for many, many hours for years constitutes sensory deprivation in many senses.

Those landmarks you speak of appear to be entirely subjective and without any reasoned or objective foundation. Each Buddhist journey appears unique and as it is beyond words, iit cannot be discussed and compared. In this sense it could be likened to psychosis - a detachment from the world and experienced reality and a set of highy individual experiences that are not communicable in any meaningful sense. This is not the case in Christianity. The Saints always seek to communicate their experiences that others may validate and follow them on the path to God.

I do not mean to imply that Buddhist experience is a form of mental illness - I am using the term psychosis in a technical sense.

 

[Sarpedon]

Pragmatically. We see what works best.

But that involves comparing the method to a mental model that has an unknown degree of error within it.

Here’s an analogy- a computer has an unknown degree of error in its processing. We run a self-test where the computer says it is working correctly. On what basis should we trust the pragmatic conlusions of this computer given that there is an unknown degree of error within it?

Neither is it under Catholicism; we are all limited by our senses. Catholics cannot see ultra violet. Catholics cannot sense smells any better than Buddhists, and both are a lot worse then dogs. The limitations are inherent in being human.

While we are limited, what we have is accurate. While we lack perfection, we do have the ability to use our minds to accurately discern that there is an ultraviolet spectrum beyond our sight. Catholics believe that our reason and observation are universally valid methods of correcting our mental models. Can Buddhism say the same?

If I required certainty before starting my journey then I would never start. Are you certain that of all the 1,001 varieties of Christianity, Catholicism is correct? Is there zero possibility that you are in error? I know enough to give me confidence that the journey I am starting on is worthwhile.

I have a high enough degree of certainty, but not absolute certainty, as with anything. The difference is that I measure my certainty in relation to the universal of reason. While I may be unreasonable, I know that reason itself is reliable and that gives me a reason to pursue it. In contrast, Buddhism does not say that reason is always reliable and therefore there is not necessarily any worth to pursue that reason. While Buddhism does say that reason can be temporarily reliable, there is no way to determine when this happens since the only evidence for is part of a mental model with unknown degrees of accuracy.

I have already refined my model using the tools available here and now. That is enough for me. I do not care if those tools will be innefective in a million years time - all I need is that they work now.

By results. If something works then we use it. We are aware that there is uncertainty in our models, so we review our models regularly to try to reduce the uncertainty. Much of meditation is an examination of our models and how they are constructed. That analysis allows us to improve our models.

You don’t know whether your reason is correct in the here and now. On what basis do you prove that reason is reliable in the here and now? Pointing to good effects cannot work because the perception of those effects is part of a mental model with an unknown degree of certainty. The only way those perceptions could be reliable is if you corrected your model enough, but to do that you need reason, which still needs to be justified, and you can’t justify reason using your the observations in your model because you haven’t yet corrected your model, because you need reason, which needs to be justified, and you can’t use your uncorrected model as evidence. In pointing to your observations as proof for your reason, you are getting ahead of yourself here. If your observations in your mental model are reliable, then you don’t need to correct your mental model. If there is an unknown degree of uncertainty in your mental model, then you can’t use the experiences in your mental model to correct your mental model (especially with reason).

I do not need a permanent method. When I climb a mountain at some points I might just need a good pair of boots. At other points I might need pitons and ropes. I need a method that works for where I currently am on the mountain.

That part of the argument has already been addressed. If you have a temporary method, then you can use. I am asking you how you know that reason is in fact temporarily valid at this particular point. That’s the crux of the matter. So far your only justification for the accuracy of your reason in the present has been your observations. However, you also say that there is an unknown degree of uncertainty within your observations. Since you have not validated reason yet, you can’t use reason to discern which parts of your observations are correct and which are not. Since you cannot do this, you have no reason to trust that the particular observations you cite are actually part of the correct ones.

 

[Sarpedon]

That only holds if Catholics are incapable of making logical errors. Human reason is subject to error. There is no absolute certainty there. Buddhism acknowledges that lack of certainty and has developed ways to work with it; if you fail to allow for the possibility of error then your model of human reason is flawed.

But in Catholicism, reason is not human reason. Reason is based on the nature of God. While we are allowed to partake in reason, being created in the image of God, we are limited beings that can indeed make mistakes. Nevertheless, reason itself, aside from humanity, is reliable. Therefore, we can achieve every higher levels of certainty if we constantly strive to correct our mental models using reason.

In contrast, Buddhism lacks any unchanging perfection or anything like that. Therefore, reason is not necessarily reliable in of itself, and most importantly, we do not know whether it is accurate in the here and now as I have argued above. Therefore, we do not know whether it is profitable to even pursue reason in the first place.

There is a huge distinction between an error of application and an error of nature. For example, an error of application involves punching the numbers incorrectly in a true mathematical expression. Even though humans can make mistakes in punching lots of numbers, this does not mean that the mathematical expression itself is not a reliable way to know truth. If we are careful enough, we can achieve a reasonable level of certainty with the knowledge that our formula itself is valid. Catholics assert that reason itself is reliable, and therefore it is like the mathematical expression in the example. While we can make mistakes punching the numbers, we still know that the expression itself is reliable. This gives us a reason to spend our lives punching the numbers and rechecking them for accuracy.

In contrast, Buddhism lacks a way to know whether the mathematical expression is reliable.Your only evidence is your mental model, which is like pointing to the numbers generated by an expression as proof that the expression is accurate. You need to have some external baseline to valide the expression beyond the result of the expression. Buddhism lacks a way to know whether the expression is correct in the here and now. So far, you have only used the result of the expression that has an equally unknown degree of uncertainty as the original expression. Therefore, we have no reason to assume that even perfectly correct number-crunching will yield reliable results.

It’s one thing to have a true expression and make a mistake crunching the numbers. It’s a whole different matter if you don’t know whether the expression is correct in the first place, for no amount of number crunching, correct or incorrect, will resolve that problem. That’s the distinction in terms of uncertainty between Catholicism and Buddhism.

 

[Sarpedon]

I would like to summarize my argument. Each point is just as important as the other.

1. Reason is defined as abstract thought, observations, and anything mental. Buddhism says that everything is transient and this mean that mental abilities are transient. At any given point X, mental abilities may be accurate or they may not be accurate. Mental abilities come and goe out of accuracy in Buddhism, just as everything else changes. Mental abilities are of no value if they are not correct. Furthermore, we know things through mental models, and there is a certain degree of incorrectness within that model. A big part of Buddhism is eliminating that incorrect part.
2. Mental abilities must be correct for them to be useable. Although everything is temporary, there is nothing wrong with using temporarily correct mental abilities. The problem is that we need to determine whether our mental abilities are in fact correct at this particular point in time.
3. So far, your only evidence for this has been your observations of “good effects” upon the use of mental abilities. However, these good effects are percieved through your mind and therefore part of your mental model. You have said that there is an unknown degree of incorrectness in your mental model, which means that your observations about Buddhism may be correct or they may be incorrect depending on the extent and location of that error within your mental model. The problem is that you lack any way to determine the extent of that degree of error. You can’t use mental abilities for this, for we are trying to justify mental abilities in the first place. On what basis then, do you say that your observations about Buddhism are in the “correct” part of your mental model, and not in the “incorrect” part?

 

[rossum]

How do you know that you are not deceiving yourself and that any experiences are not purely the result of hallucinations induced by chronic sensory deprivation? The experience of sitting for many, many hours for years constitutes sensory deprivation in many senses.

How do you know that you are not a brain in a jar being fed sensory (name removed by moderator)uts directly through your nerves? Meditation is not sensory deprivation - my knees still hurt.

Those landmarks you speak of appear to be entirely subjective and without any reasoned or objective foundation. Each Buddhist journey appears unique and as it is beyond words, iit cannot be discussed and compared.

Some of it can be discussed and explained:Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

• Zen is Boring!

rossum

 

[rossum]

But that involves comparing the method to a mental model that has an unknown degree of error within it.

You claim to use reason, which also has an unknown degree of error in it - humans can make mistakes. We compare the different effects that different techniques have on our model. We hold our conclusions lightly because we know that we may have to change them in future. For the moment we do the best we can. It is futile to look for certainty when there is no certainty to be had.

Here’s an analogy- a computer has an unknown degree of error in its processing. We run a self-test where the computer says it is working correctly. On what basis should we trust the pragmatic conlusions of this computer given that there is an unknown degree of error within it?

If the computer calculates that the sun will rise in the west then we know that the computer is in error. If the computer calculates that the sun will rise in the east then the errors are small enough to be insignificant.

Catholics believe that our reason and observation are universally valid methods of correcting our mental models.

How can you determine that your beliefs are true and not themselves in error?

Can Buddhism say the same?

We work with sense perceptions because we have to - we know that sense perfections are imperfect but we have no alternative. We do the best we can with what we have. Wishing for what we cannot have is pointless and a waste of time.

I have a high enough degree of certainty, but not absolute certainty, as with anything. The difference is that I measure my certainty in relation to the universal of reason. While I may be unreasonable, I know that reason itself is reliable and that gives me a reason to pursue it.

How did you determine that this universal of reason exists? Do you have an inerrant way do determine that it exists or is your method of knowing subject to error?

In contrast, Buddhism does not say that reason is always reliable and therefore there is not necessarily any worth to pursue that reason.

No. It says that reason is often, but not always, reliable so we can use it while bearing in mind the possibility of error. A car is not always reliable because it may break down. That does not mean that we are never ever able to use a car in any circumstances.

While Buddhism does say that reason can be temporarily reliable, there is no way to determine when this happens since the only evidence for is part of a mental model with unknown degrees of accuracy.

I have already answered this - we stick with what works, what gets us nearer to our goal.

You don’t know whether your reason is correct in the here and now.

Neither do you. You are human so it is possible that you yourself are in error. You are in precisely the same situation as I am; I acknowledge it while you do not and go chasing your unknowable universals.

You may believe that reason is correct, but that does not make your belief correct. There are many sincerely held incorrect beliefs.

I am asking you how you know that reason is in fact temporarily valid at this particular point.

That part of the argument has already been addressed. If it works then I use it. Buddhism is pragmatic; it is a path to a goal and the point is to walk the path.

I know that I may be in error and I proceed cautiously because of that. You appear to believe that you are not in error, which is a mistake because we are both human and both capable of error.

rossum

 

[rossum]

But in Catholicism, reason is not human reason.

So the Catholic Church is run by non-human aliens? Surely every Pope, every Catholic Theologian and every Catholic is human.

Reason is based on the nature of God.

Which God? Krishna? You cannot just assume the existence of the Catholic Christian God. God is just another way for you to introduce universals into the argument. I do not accept universals or any other form of reification such as God.

While we are allowed to partake in reason, being created in the image of God, we are limited beings that can indeed make mistakes. Nevertheless, reason itself, aside from humanity, is reliable.

That is completely useless. Both of us are human so we are both stuck with unreliable human reason. Even if there is a reliable reason out there somewhere we cannot access it.

There is a huge distinction between an error of application and an error of nature.

Your use of “nature” here is just another one of those universals which Buddhism rejects. There is no inner nature to anything, no soul, no atman.

For example, an error of application involves punching the numbers incorrectly in a true mathematical expression. Even though humans can make mistakes in punching lots of numbers, this does not mean that the mathematical expression itself is not a reliable way to know truth.

How do you know? You can only test the equation by having humans type numbers into it and seeing what comes out. You have no error-free method to determine if the equation is error-free. You cannot eliminate all uncertainty, the best you can do is to reduce the uncertainty to acceptable levels.

If we are careful enough, we can achieve a reasonable level of certainty with the knowledge that our formula itself is valid.

Which is what Buddhism does - it tests things and finds what works to a reasonable level of certainty. Pragmatic certainty if you like.

In contrast, Buddhism lacks a way to know whether the mathematical expression is reliable.

No, I have explained this many times. We test the equation, accepting that our tests may be in error, and collate the results of many tests. This appears to be similar to what you say Catholics do, we just approach it differently. Catholics seem to start from certainty and move towards partial certainty. Buddhists start from uncertainty and move towards reduced uncertainty. I am not sure that there is a huge difference between your ‘partial certainty’ and my ‘reduced uncertainty’.

It’s one thing to have a true expression and make a mistake crunching the numbers.

How can you tell if the expression is true without crunching numbers? If the number crunching introduces uncertainty then you have no way to tell.

It’s a whole different matter if you don’t know whether the expression is correct in the first place, for no amount of number crunching, correct or incorrect, will resolve that problem.

You first have to establish the the equation is correct. How are you going to do that if you agree that number crunching can introduce errors?

That’s the distinction in terms of uncertainty between Catholicism and Buddhism.

Buddhists acknowledge uncertainty, Catholics try to ignore it.

rossum

 

[rossum]

1. Reason is defined as abstract thought, observations, and anything mental. Buddhism says that everything is transient and this mean that mental abilities are transient. At any given point X, mental abilities may be accurate or they may not be accurate. Mental abilities come and goe out of accuracy in Buddhism, just as everything else changes.

Correct. Everything changes and sometimes people make errors.

Mental abilities are of no value if they are not correct.

Disagree. If a person is red-green colour blind then that person’s sight is not correct. However that person’s sight is far from being of no value. Human reason is all too often incorrect but it is not of no value. Recent Popes have apologised for mistakes made in the past by the Catholic Church, does that mean that the Catholic Church is of no value? We should accept that human reason is both capable of error and capable of being of some value.

Furthermore, we know things through mental models, and there is a certain degree of incorrectness within that model. A big part of Buddhism is eliminating that incorrect part.

Broadly agree, though I would prefer “reducing” to “eliminating”.

1. Mental abilities must be correct for them to be useable.

Reasonably correct, yes. I do not always need 100% accuracy, 99% accuracy will be good enough in many circumstances.

Although everything is temporary, there is nothing wrong with using temporarily correct mental abilities. The problem is that we need to determine whether our mental abilities are in fact correct at this particular point in time.

Which we do pragmatically. We take advice from those who have travelled the path before us and we observe our own progress along the path.

1. So far, your only evidence for this has been your observations of “good effects” upon the use of mental abilities. However, these good effects are percieved through your mind and therefore part of your mental model. You have said that there is an unknown degree of incorrectness in your mental model, which means that your observations about Buddhism may be correct or they may be incorrect depending on the extent and location of that error within your mental model. The problem is that you lack any way to determine the extent of that degree of error. You can’t use mental abilities for this, for we are trying to justify mental abilities in the first place. On what basis then, do you say that your observations about Buddhism are in the “correct” part of your mental model, and not in the “incorrect” part?

I use what I have available because that is all I can use. I have a path to travel; I cannot afford so sit around doing nothing just because there is a degree of uncertainty. Suppose that you are in a hotel room when the fire alarm goes off. You smell smoke so you know it is not a test. You go to the door and see a sign pointing right saying “Fire Exit this way”. Do you:

1. *]Wait until you have determined precisely where the fire is before you decide whether to go right or left?
   *]Immediately follow the sign and go right, keeping an eye out in case the fire is between you and the Fire Exit?
   
   The Lotus Sutra uses the analogy of a burning building; we do not have time for absolute, and unattainable, certainty. We have to act now. I can see enough to know that I am in a burning building and that I need to get out. I have a sign pointing to the Fire Exit.
   
   What alternative source of knowledge are you proposing that I use? I need something practical here. What source of knowledge do I have that is not mediated through my senses or my reasoning?
   
   rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

How do you know that you are not a brain in a jar being fed sensory (name removed by moderator)uts directly through your nerves? Meditation is not sensory deprivation - my knees still hurt.

Because I have faith that my rational faculties enable me to know the true nature of things. I place faith in that universal and that makes knowledge itself possible.

You may do the same thing, but then you have no real reason to reject the concept of at least one universal. By placing faith in something (even if that “something” is saying that everything is transient), then you uphold it as true for. This is unavoidable at such a foundational level.

The key point is this- Buddhism says that everything is transient, but nevertheless asserts things as true. Even if you assert that, say, reason is temporarily true, then you have still asserted a truth which is true. That then demonstrates how not everything can be transient. If everything is transient, then you can’t make any absolute statements, and if you can’t make any absolute statements, then you have no ability to tell me that everything is transient. At the very least, you must assert the truth that “all other things are transient”, but the truth of transience cannot be upheld as transient too. If you do that, every rational consideration of the mind breaks down and we lose everything, which is not pragmatic in the least.

 

[Sarpedon]

If the computer calculates that the sun will rise in the west then we know that the computer is in error. If the computer calculates that the sun will rise in the east then the errors are small enough to be insignificant.

That part of the argument has already been addressed. If it works then I use it. Buddhism is pragmatic; it is a path to a goal and the point is to walk the path.

You are correcting the computer in relation to the known truth of observation and astronomical measurement. You are comparing one thing to another known thing.

Catholicism says that reason and observation (in nature, not application) are reliable. Therefore, we can correct our mental model in relation to reason and observation, which is analogous to correcting the computer in relation to the sun.

However, Buddhism does not say the same. Buddhism says that the computer may or may not be correct. Obviously, we need to fix that. However, Buddhism also says that our perception of the sun may or may not be correct. On what basis then, do you think that comparing one system with an unknown degree of correctness to another system with an unknown degree of correctness is going to lead anywhere?

I know that I may be in error and I proceed cautiously because of that. You appear to believe that you are not in error, which is a mistake because we are both human and both capable of error.

Not at all. The simple difference is that Catholicism upholds a true baseline (like the sun) to measure models off of (like the computer). In contrast, Buddhism says that both systems may or may not be true, which makes it impossible to correct our understanding of either one. By placing espistemological faith in one thing, Catholicism makes everything else possible. By placing epistemological faith in nothing, Buddhism makes everything else impossible.