Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Puzzle - Enlightenment
20 views
Skip to first unread message
pi
Nov 7, 2012, 5:48:24 PM11/7/12
to
Hello,
I've recently spotted this riddle:
Seven monks are living in a monastery. They have taken a vow of
silence, and cannot communicate with each other in any way. Each
morning, the monks silently enter a large meditation chamber, where
they all sit silently facing each other to meditate, then return to
their own rooms at night. They are expected to meditate every day, but
if they ever become aware that they have reached enlightenment, they
will pack up their belongings in the night and leave the monastery.
When a monk reaches enlightenment, a dark mark appears on his
forehead. There are no mirrors in the monastery, so each monk cannot
see his own forehead, though he *can* see the foreheads of all of the
other monks when they are all in the meditation chamber together. One
night, while all the monks are in their own rooms, a booming voice
rings out: "At least one of you has reached enlightenment!" Will any
of the monks leave the monastery? When?
http://logic.stanford.edu/classes/csxyz/puzzles/enlightenment.html
pi :)
P.S. Just for reference, I've found this through an introductory logic
course from a recently released educational service called Coursera:
https://www.coursera.org/course/intrologic
I've recently spotted this riddle:
Seven monks are living in a monastery. They have taken a vow of
silence, and cannot communicate with each other in any way. Each
morning, the monks silently enter a large meditation chamber, where
they all sit silently facing each other to meditate, then return to
their own rooms at night. They are expected to meditate every day, but
if they ever become aware that they have reached enlightenment, they
will pack up their belongings in the night and leave the monastery.
When a monk reaches enlightenment, a dark mark appears on his
forehead. There are no mirrors in the monastery, so each monk cannot
see his own forehead, though he *can* see the foreheads of all of the
other monks when they are all in the meditation chamber together. One
night, while all the monks are in their own rooms, a booming voice
rings out: "At least one of you has reached enlightenment!" Will any
of the monks leave the monastery? When?
http://logic.stanford.edu/classes/csxyz/puzzles/enlightenment.html
pi :)
P.S. Just for reference, I've found this through an introductory logic
course from a recently released educational service called Coursera:
https://www.coursera.org/course/intrologic
pi
Nov 7, 2012, 8:50:16 PM11/7/12
to
pi wrote:
> Seven monks are living in a monastery. They have taken a vow of
> silence, and cannot communicate with each other in any way. Each
> morning, the monks silently enter a large meditation chamber, where
> they all sit silently facing each other to meditate, then return to
> their own rooms at night. They are expected to meditate every day, but
> if they ever become aware that they have reached enlightenment, they
> will pack up their belongings in the night and leave the monastery.
> When a monk reaches enlightenment, a dark mark appears on his
> forehead. There are no mirrors in the monastery, so each monk cannot
> see his own forehead, though he *can* see the foreheads of all of the
> other monks when they are all in the meditation chamber together. One
> night, while all the monks are in their own rooms, a booming voice
> rings out: "At least one of you has reached enlightenment!" Will any
> of the monks leave the monastery? When?
I mean, I can't solve it :(
> Seven monks are living in a monastery. They have taken a vow of
> silence, and cannot communicate with each other in any way. Each
> morning, the monks silently enter a large meditation chamber, where
> they all sit silently facing each other to meditate, then return to
> their own rooms at night. They are expected to meditate every day, but
> if they ever become aware that they have reached enlightenment, they
> will pack up their belongings in the night and leave the monastery.
> When a monk reaches enlightenment, a dark mark appears on his
> forehead. There are no mirrors in the monastery, so each monk cannot
> see his own forehead, though he *can* see the foreheads of all of the
> other monks when they are all in the meditation chamber together. One
> night, while all the monks are in their own rooms, a booming voice
> rings out: "At least one of you has reached enlightenment!" Will any
> of the monks leave the monastery? When?
pi
liaM
Nov 7, 2012, 9:13:05 PM11/7/12
to
the concierge whose booming voice heralds the event. The concierge
obviously is not a monk, heh, Pi :)
pi
Nov 7, 2012, 10:29:58 PM11/7/12
to
Never mind, you no doubt solved the riddle I couldn't. There we go
again. I mean, I still can't understand the book you suggested. God
willing, I'll understand it one day.
About the concierge, he doesn't come into the picture out of logical
reasoning but pretty much out of the blue, which is just what God
indulges in doing in moral reasoning.
Anyway, it wouldn't be the first time God comes into the picture
dressed up as a concierge, I guess ;)
Thank you :)
pi
noname
Nov 8, 2012, 5:07:43 AM11/8/12
to
question is who is going to squeeze your balls and why you were stupid
enough to let them get a good grip.
pi
Nov 8, 2012, 8:07:28 AM11/8/12
to
My eyeballs are almost falling out while I am trying to produce a LISP
compiler which compiles itself (on the top of my modest x86) and
that's without any ball squeezing from another party :)
The thing truly is, I don't seem to have the real balls to be squeezed
by me or anyone anymore. They seem to have been smashed long ago. I
just sorta wander around pointlessly without really having an
achievable agenda.
The riddle completes the course I am not able to go through right to
the end because I just don't have enough energy :(
pi
Nobody in Particular
Nov 8, 2012, 6:44:59 PM11/8/12
to
> "pi" wrote in message
> news:3b622c7e-cc76-41fc...@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
How about this one:
A dark mark appears on one of the monks. Each of the others are wondering if
his is the only one, or if they have one as well. One of the monks finally
is driven nuts by the uncertainty, so he booms out the statement, figuring
that the others won't be able to tell who "boomed", since nobody has heard
another's voice before. The one monk with the mark realizes that it must be
him that is enlightened, since he has not seen a mark on anyone else's head.
So he leaves.
> news:3b622c7e-cc76-41fc...@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
A dark mark appears on one of the monks. Each of the others are wondering if
his is the only one, or if they have one as well. One of the monks finally
is driven nuts by the uncertainty, so he booms out the statement, figuring
that the others won't be able to tell who "boomed", since nobody has heard
another's voice before. The one monk with the mark realizes that it must be
him that is enlightened, since he has not seen a mark on anyone else's head.
So he leaves.
pi
Nov 9, 2012, 5:17:39 AM11/9/12
to
formalize the whole thing (oh well, I can't do that) since it seems to
be merely a logical one dressed up as a monastery-context case.
Anyway, their having embeded this puzzle in this context reminds of
noname's words: nobody ever carries a sign on the forehead or a batch
saying: This guy is enlightened. Or Allen's words: If you meet the
fully enlightened, kill the fully enlightened :)
Thank you very much for writing :)
pi
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 9, 2012, 10:39:38 PM11/9/12
to
pi said:
> Nobody in Particular wrote:
> > > "pi" wrote in message
> > >news:3b622c7e-cc76-41fc...@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com....
> Nobody in Particular wrote:
> > > "pi" wrote in message
truth (we'll call that Premise 1), at least one of you must be
enlightened. Let's further assume (Premise 2) that all monks in this
particular Order are perfect logicians, or they wouldn't have made it
past novicehood.
Now, let's start with you, Brother Pi, as one of the enlightened monks
the Voice was booming on about.
Case 1: You don't see a mark on any of the other monks, then you know
the voice was talking about you, so you leave the monastery that night
(Night 1), just like Nobody in Particular says.
Case 2: You see a mark on one of the other monks, a certain brother
Franciscus, but (unbeknownst to you) he also sees a mark on you. The
next day you see that brother Franciscus hasn't left during the night.
Then you conclude that you too must be enlightened, because booming
voices are never wrong, by Premise 1. This is how you reached the
conclusion: "Bro Frank is still here, so it seems he can't be the only
one with a mark. None of the others I've seen have a mark, so the only
alternative left is that I'm the second enlightened monk. So this is how
it feels to be enlightened, huh? Who would have thought?" Then you pack
your things and leave in the night (Night 2).
Case 3: You see marks on two other monks, brother Franciscus and brother
Rabbit (you've never talked to the guy, this being a silent order, so
you just made that name up for brother Rabbit, because of what he looks
like). Anyway, Night 1 passes, and they're both still there, because
they haven't been able to figure out if this is Case 1 or something
else. Night 2 passes, and you see they're still in the meditation hall
the next day, so it isn't Case 2 either. But it would have been a Case 2
if there weren't a third monk with a mark, and since you saw only two
marks, you know the third mark must be on you. So you up and leave
during Night 3, just like brother Franciscus and brother Rabbit, who
also are perfect logicians like all monks of this particular Order.
Case 4: You spot three marked monks during meditation, and you reason
like in Case 3, just incrementing everything by one mark or one night as
appropriate. You get to leave during Night 4.
Cases 5 to 7: Just like Case 4.
So far, all is well, but what if you weren't one of the enlightened
monks, then what? Then you just stay in the monastery while the
enlightened monk or monks go through the things you would have done if
you were marked as enlightened.
I've read about some similar logic riddles, but those were about
coloured hats put on in the dark, or playing cards held to the forehead
where everyone but the holder could see them. I think these riddles may
be pretty hard the first time you come across them.
S.
Nobody in Particular
Nov 10, 2012, 1:07:14 AM11/10/12
to
> "Sevenhundred Elves" wrote in message
> news:k7ki9q$s9k$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
The voice said, "at least one", which means one *or* more.
How do you know it's more than one?
> news:k7ki9q$s9k$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
How do you know it's more than one?
Wet Paper Bag
Nov 10, 2012, 4:08:07 AM11/10/12
to
ohhhh ... i dont know. they would all be running around clucking and
the fox would be on the prowl.
what if every one then started running away from every one.
that would get them out... wouldn't it?
:)
pi
Nov 10, 2012, 6:16:57 AM11/10/12
to
be, although I expected it to be really hard. Surely, like you kindly
mentioned, there's a certain abstract thought structure here embedded
in a more concrete context which is to be ferreted out, formalized and
solved. I need to study much more to understand it though.
Btw, as I go on with my studies I see more and more abstract ideas
embedded in concrete everyday contexts of the world around me, ones
which usually serve the function of trying to make me (not) do stuff.
Those are found anywhere from kids' stories and movies to car shapes.
It took me a few years to understand the following words of Shunryu
Suzuki "(...) we should wear this civilization without being bothered
by it, without ignoring it, without being caught by it."
Anyway, I've been trying to give this riddle some very simple thoughts
on my own and I've sort of concluded, all technicalities of this case
aside, that noone indeed wears a badge or carries a sign on their
forehead which says that they're enlightened. Indeed, if asked what
enlightenment is myself, I'd merely say that it is a state of knowing
that the world is what it is whilst not knowing what it is ultimately
and hence accepting that indeed "What and what they think it is
otherwise" (The Dhammapada). One could, of course, rephrase it in a
little modernized and technichal parlance, namely that simplified
models are everything we've *so far* been able to make of it all.
(This applies to religious thinking in particular where locally
adaptive tribal heuristics are elevated to the status of divine and
ultimate wisdom).
That said, anyone who knows they don't know everything while also
taking the possibility of knowing what they know in an opaque way,
anyone like that is already enlightened. Imho, all the monks who
managed to get as far as sitting to meditate with Brother Frank were
entitled to pack up their things and leave.
Myself, I'd never leave. I'd stay at the Monastery all my life to chop
wood, carry water and brush the floor. I am worried, however, that I'd
be refused these duties on account of my being too crippled and
immobile. I mean, mentally as well as physically. So what? Time will
help :)
Do you think time MIGHT help, please?
Thank You :)
pi
P.S. Anyway, Coursera is really great. I don't seem to have enough of
it:
https://www.coursera.org/courses
:)
brian mitchell
Nov 10, 2012, 4:13:46 PM11/10/12
to
indetectible to the one that has it, and those who can detect it are not able to communicate the
fact, why don't they all just sit there till they expire, each one believing themselves to be the
only unenlightened one?
pi
Nov 10, 2012, 4:32:30 PM11/10/12
to
slowly even when the enunciation I am trying to comprehend is as
lucidly worded as yours. Actually, I bet the world is a much prettier
place from the POV of a logician, let alone a perfect logican, of
course, which may not be available for me after all.
I bet Brother Frank would advise me to answer on my own the Seven
Hundred Questions I want to ask you now :)
So be it :) Such wonderful encouragement is more than I deserve
anyway :)
pi
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 10, 2012, 9:56:24 PM11/10/12
to
easily figured that out and left during the night. But he didn't leave.
That must be because he saw a mark on someone else brother Pi), and
wasn't sure if he (Franciscus) had a mark or not. When he sees that Pi
(who has the mark of enlightenment on his forehead) didn't leave during
the night, he concludes that he is marked himself, just like Pi. During
the following night, they will both pack their things and leave.
S.
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 10, 2012, 10:06:05 PM11/10/12
to
mathematical problems, where all things are crystal clear and mistakes
are ruled out by the assumption of perfect logic.
S.
Nobody in Particular
Nov 10, 2012, 10:09:09 PM11/10/12
to
> "Sevenhundred Elves" wrote in message
> news:k7n44m$jj4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 10, 2012, 10:23:39 PM11/10/12
to
What would be the result if the booming voice was lying, and NONE of the
monks were enlightened? What would happen? And then what? What would a
clever monk do if he couldn't be entirely sure that the voice was
telling the truth? What should each monk do to ensure it wouldn't matter
at all if the voice was booming out truth or lies? I assure you there is
a wise way of acting to ensure a correct result even if the booming
voice is lying. See if you can find it!
You didn't really think I'd give an easy answer without posing a harder
question as well? ;-)
S.
pi
Nov 10, 2012, 10:29:06 PM11/10/12
to
the floors with the hope of being once promoted to the position of a
garbage person, which he couldn't dream of becoming outside the walls
where pity is the rarest of jewels :)
pi
Nobody in Particular
Nov 10, 2012, 11:17:02 PM11/10/12
to
> "Sevenhundred Elves" wrote in message
> news:k7n5np$mfr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Waiting with bated breath for the solution.
niunian
Nov 10, 2012, 11:27:27 PM11/10/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:06:05 +0100 Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> brian mitchell said:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 04:39:38 +0100, Sevenhundred Elves
>> <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >pi said:
>> >
>> >> Nobody in Particular wrote:
>> >> > > "pi" wrote in message
>> >> > >news:3b622c7e-cc76-41fc-8e6e-
> brian mitchell said:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 04:39:38 +0100, Sevenhundred Elves
>> <sevenh...@elves.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >pi said:
>> >
>> >> Nobody in Particular wrote:
>> >> > > "pi" wrote in message
c0c101...@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com....
entirely another to give it any significance in terms of Buddhism. If
enlightenment is such stupid thing that it has to be told by another to
be confirmed, then enlightenment doesn't worth the paper it is printed
on. You guys are fools to speculate such meaningless endeavor.
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 11, 2012, 12:13:45 AM11/11/12
to
Nobody in Particular said:
> > "Sevenhundred Elves" wrote in message
> > news:k7n5np$mfr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> > "Sevenhundred Elves" wrote in message
> > news:k7n5np$mfr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> > You think it's over already? Oh, no! I have another exercise for you:
> >
> > What would be the result if the booming voice was lying, and NONE of the
> > monks were enlightened? What would happen? And then what? What would a
> > clever monk do if he couldn't be entirely sure that the voice was
> > telling the truth? What should each monk do to ensure it wouldn't matter
> > at all if the voice was booming out truth or lies? I assure you there is
> > a wise way of acting to ensure a correct result even if the booming
> > voice is lying. See if you can find it!
> >
> > You didn't really think I'd give an easy answer without posing a harder
> > question as well? ;-)
>
> I give up.
> Waiting with bated breath for the solution.
Let's hope Pi will come up with the solution soon, then. I think I'll
> >
> > What would be the result if the booming voice was lying, and NONE of the
> > monks were enlightened? What would happen? And then what? What would a
> > clever monk do if he couldn't be entirely sure that the voice was
> > telling the truth? What should each monk do to ensure it wouldn't matter
> > at all if the voice was booming out truth or lies? I assure you there is
> > a wise way of acting to ensure a correct result even if the booming
> > voice is lying. See if you can find it!
> >
> > You didn't really think I'd give an easy answer without posing a harder
> > question as well? ;-)
>
> I give up.
> Waiting with bated breath for the solution.
reveal it later on, if nobody can solve it. I believe Peter Olcott is
something of a logician, too. Maybe he'd like to take a shot at it. I
wouldn't want to spoil anybody's fun by giving the answer at once.
S.
noname
Nov 11, 2012, 5:54:12 AM11/11/12
to
quality control measures. What good is God without an associated Devil
to test the product? How can one know what is right by simply accepting
an answer proffered by either? Is it possible to discern one from the
other aside from the hat he wears? The whole thing is pointless.
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 11, 2012, 7:46:13 AM11/11/12
to
noname said:
> On 11/10/2012 10:13 PM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> > Nobody in Particular said:
> >
> >>> "Sevenhundred Elves" wrote in message
> >>> news:k7n5np$mfr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >
> >
> >>> You think it's over already? Oh, no! I have another exercise for you:
> >>>
> >>> What would be the result if the booming voice was lying, and NONE of the
> >>> monks were enlightened? What would happen? And then what? What would a
> >>> clever monk do if he couldn't be entirely sure that the voice was
> >>> telling the truth? What should each monk do to ensure it wouldn't matter
> >>> at all if the voice was booming out truth or lies? I assure you there is
> >>> a wise way of acting to ensure a correct result even if the booming
> >>> voice is lying. See if you can find it!
> >>>
> >>> You didn't really think I'd give an easy answer without posing a harder
> >>> question as well? ;-)
> >>
> >> I give up.
> >> Waiting with bated breath for the solution.
> >
> > Let's hope Pi will come up with the solution soon, then. I think I'll
> > reveal it later on, if nobody can solve it. I believe Peter Olcott is
> > something of a logician, too. Maybe he'd like to take a shot at it. I
> > wouldn't want to spoil anybody's fun by giving the answer at once.
> >
> > S.
> >
>
> Even the sloppiest semiconductor fabrication facilities uphold stringent
> quality control measures.
Not that I see what that's got to do with anything, but hey: Good job,
> On 11/10/2012 10:13 PM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> > Nobody in Particular said:
> >
> >>> "Sevenhundred Elves" wrote in message
> >>> news:k7n5np$mfr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >
> >
> >>> You think it's over already? Oh, no! I have another exercise for you:
> >>>
> >>> What would be the result if the booming voice was lying, and NONE of the
> >>> monks were enlightened? What would happen? And then what? What would a
> >>> clever monk do if he couldn't be entirely sure that the voice was
> >>> telling the truth? What should each monk do to ensure it wouldn't matter
> >>> at all if the voice was booming out truth or lies? I assure you there is
> >>> a wise way of acting to ensure a correct result even if the booming
> >>> voice is lying. See if you can find it!
> >>>
> >>> You didn't really think I'd give an easy answer without posing a harder
> >>> question as well? ;-)
> >>
> >> I give up.
> >> Waiting with bated breath for the solution.
> >
> > Let's hope Pi will come up with the solution soon, then. I think I'll
> > reveal it later on, if nobody can solve it. I believe Peter Olcott is
> > something of a logician, too. Maybe he'd like to take a shot at it. I
> > wouldn't want to spoil anybody's fun by giving the answer at once.
> >
> > S.
> >
>
> Even the sloppiest semiconductor fabrication facilities uphold stringent
> quality control measures.
sloppy semiconductor fabricators!
> What good is God without an associated Devil to test the product?
turn to theology, all of a sudden?
> How can one know what is right by simply accepting an answer proffered by either?
fields of sociology or psychology, as these fields of study concern
themselves with things like the socialization of the individual and the
origins of the superego. The logical puzzle was not about that.
Instead we have the less lofty goal of examining how these monks can
figure out which of them (if any) are enlightened/has a mark on his
forehead, regardless of whether the voice that tells them that at least
one of them is/has, is lying or telling the truth. I say the monks can
do it, and I put it as a little challenge to anybody with an interest in
logical puzzles to prove how.
> Is it possible to discern one from the other aside from the hat he wears?
guess they are like people, so yes, they would be individually
discernable even without hats. If you mean God and the Devil then I'm
not prepared to answer that right now, as I've not yet had an
opportunity to see them next to each other, with hats off and on.
> The whole thing is pointless.
you say above are just as pointless to me, not to say meaningless and
disconnected to the topic at hand, so I know how you must feel.
S.
Lee Rudolph
Nov 11, 2012, 7:49:10 AM11/11/12
to
Sevenhundred Elves <sevenh...@elves.invalid> writes:
>If you mean God and the Devil then I'm
>not prepared to answer that right now, as I've not yet had an
>opportunity to see them next to each other
Hmmm. Has *anybody* ever seen them together?
>If you mean God and the Devil then I'm
>not prepared to answer that right now, as I've not yet had an
>opportunity to see them next to each other
This may be one of those Clark Kent/Superman things!
Lee Rudolph
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 11, 2012, 7:58:38 AM11/11/12
to
discussion! Just solve the puzzle, m'kay?
S.
niunian
Nov 11, 2012, 8:30:39 AM11/11/12
to
enlightenment which the puzzle is based on. It may be ignored in a logic
class for the sake of logic alone, but by bring it to here, it becomes
utterly ridiculous to those who have the least understanding about
enlightenment.
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 8:32:43 AM11/11/12
to
niunian wrote:
> It's one thing to take this shit as a mere exercise of logic. It's
> entirely another to give it any significance in terms of Buddhism. If
> enlightenment is such stupid thing that it has to be told by another to
> be confirmed, then enlightenment doesn't worth the paper it is printed
> on. You guys are fools to speculate such meaningless endeavor.
Precisely so. IMHO, *total* enlightenment would amount to transcending
> It's one thing to take this shit as a mere exercise of logic. It's
> entirely another to give it any significance in terms of Buddhism. If
> enlightenment is such stupid thing that it has to be told by another to
> be confirmed, then enlightenment doesn't worth the paper it is printed
> on. You guys are fools to speculate such meaningless endeavor.
our current methodology, i.e. logic and becoming one with the Tao,
i.e. becoming imnipotent, omnipresent and what have you.
Indeed, the core of the exercise in question is an abstract exercise
in our current methodology, i.e. logic, not a discussion of what
*total* enlightenment really is all about and whether it's humanly
achievable or perhaps even worth talking about ;)
Again, it's more of an abstract scherzo dressed up a little in a
Buddhist context vocabulary to make it more engaging and fun. Again,
all IMVHO.
pi
niunian
Nov 11, 2012, 8:43:43 AM11/11/12
to
miserable situation in the Japanese zen society? Perhaps, this logic
exercise is created just to make fun of them Japanese. I don't know.
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 11, 2012, 9:05:58 AM11/11/12
to
the puzzle as anything other than just a logical puzzle, obviously made
up in the western world by someone who knows very little about
enlightenment and monastic life. Everyone here already knows that we
don't get marks on our foreheads when/if we reach enlightenment. We also
know that once you get enlightened, you're the first to know, not the
last. Since everybody here knows at least that much, can't you see that
the story poses no danger to the Buddhist faith whatsoever. Besides, why
do you care? You're a Christian, after all.
S.
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 9:09:18 AM11/11/12
to
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> You think it's over already?
Actually, I haven't quite started yet. I need to do several more most
> You think it's over already?
fundamenal things: prove 1+1=2 PM's style from disjunction,
quantifiers etc., produce a LISP compiler with lambda as the sole
primitive (on the top of some x86 architecture to be lambda
interpreted also). Finally, all computational models should prove to
be equivalent and share incompleteness metaproperties which directly
pertain to Buddhism.
>Oh, no! I have another exercise for you:
question :) what do you think it'll take me to answer a hard one from
you? :)
A perfect logician would run preprocessing tests to establish the
query time. Let's see :)
> What would be the result if the booming voice was lying, and NONE of the
> monks were enlightened? What would happen? And then what? What would a
> clever monk do if he couldn't be entirely sure that the voice was
> telling the truth? What should each monk do to ensure it wouldn't matter
> at all if the voice was booming out truth or lies? I assure you there is
> a wise way of acting to ensure a correct result even if the booming
> voice is lying.
Computing query time. Please kindly wait...
The query time is Seven Hundred Years :) :) :)
pi>>
pi>> See if you can find it!
Of course I can, but that'll take over half a millenium :)
pi>> You didn't really think I'd give an easy answer without posing a
harder
pi>> question as well? ;-)
pi>>
pi>> S.
No, of course I wouldn't dare think that. In all frankness, I am slow
on original ideas. This is partly because I ceased to trust the
original booming voice which I inherited as part of my indoctrination
and which guided me for so many years until I became assured it was
lying, which happened thanks to another voice which told me to read A.
Turing's original paper on intelligence.
It will however give me tremendous pleasure to entertain the
question :)
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/robohorsegm1.jpg
Query scheduled. Thank You :)
pi>>
niunian
Nov 11, 2012, 9:19:34 AM11/11/12
to
just made is to assume the elightenened one is the first to know that he
or she has awakened. The truth is, he or she is always the last one to
know. Figure that out before you open your mouth again. Or just stay in
the dark be satisfied that you know nothing.
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 9:26:34 AM11/11/12
to
niunian wrote:
> What you don't realize is the gross misunderstanding of the idea of
> enlightenment which the puzzle is based on. It may be ignored in a logic
> class for the sake of logic alone, but by bring it to here, it becomes
> utterly ridiculous to those who have the least understanding about
> enlightenment.
Imho, mentioning enlightenment as a property of an individual ought
> What you don't realize is the gross misunderstanding of the idea of
> enlightenment which the puzzle is based on. It may be ignored in a logic
> class for the sake of logic alone, but by bring it to here, it becomes
> utterly ridiculous to those who have the least understanding about
> enlightenment.
not to be mistakenly regarded in the current exercise as a discussion
of what enlightenment is all about, but rather in abstract terms of
there being *a* property individuals might (or not) share in such a
way that ... (here a translation into abstract language should
follow).
I brought it all up so I feel obliged to say this. Imho, there is
nothing sacrilegious about wrapping up an innocent abstract exercise
for the mind in Buddhist terminology as long as the following
disclaimer is made:
This is not a discussion of what enlightenment is all about, but an
abstract logical puzzle innocently wrapped up in Buddhist terminology.
It can just as well be about wearing hats or badges or having whatever
other individual property :)
The question of the contents of the property "enlightened" is another
thing.
pi
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 11, 2012, 9:29:31 AM11/11/12
to
then?
Maybe you can tell me who knew that the Buddha was enlightened before
the Buddha knew it himself, you who say that the enlightened himself
would be the last one to know that he's enlightenment?
S.
niunian
Nov 11, 2012, 9:34:59 AM11/11/12
to
that out, then be satisfied that you know nothing.
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 9:38:00 AM11/11/12
to
On 11 Lis, 14:43, niunian <niun...@ymail.com> wrote:
> It's a rather amateur attempt to appear interesting.
To me it was about getting an answer to a logical puzzle I couldn't
solve on my own.
> or is that the real miserable situation in the Japanese zen society?
> Perhaps, this logic exercise is created just to make fun of them Japanese.
> I don't know.
We're all merely humans and our affairs are mere human affairs before
the Tao, imho.
pi
> It's a rather amateur attempt to appear interesting.
To me it was about getting an answer to a logical puzzle I couldn't
solve on my own.
> or is that the real miserable situation in the Japanese zen society?
> Perhaps, this logic exercise is created just to make fun of them Japanese.
> I don't know.
the Tao, imho.
pi
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 9:43:50 AM11/11/12
to
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> Let's hope Pi will come up with the solution soon, then. I think I'll
> reveal it later on, if nobody can solve it. I believe Peter Olcott is
> something of a logician, too. Maybe he'd like to take a shot at it. I
> wouldn't want to spoil anybody's fun by giving the answer at once.
>
> S.
It seems impossible for me to solve this at this instant. I need to
> Let's hope Pi will come up with the solution soon, then. I think I'll
> reveal it later on, if nobody can solve it. I believe Peter Olcott is
> something of a logician, too. Maybe he'd like to take a shot at it. I
> wouldn't want to spoil anybody's fun by giving the answer at once.
>
> S.
wisen up a big deal before I tackle something of this magnitude. I
mean, this is even harder than the puzzle crowning the whole Coursera
course covering everything up to second order logic and Peano
arithmetic plus natural language interpretation in logic.
IMHO, your kindly revealing an answer is not spoling anyone's fun. It
*is* hard enough :)
pi
niunian
Nov 11, 2012, 9:45:58 AM11/11/12
to
"sacrilegious". How can that be when it exposes the utter foolishness of
Japanese zen so easily? It's all good. It's only the people who are fools
themselves to be blamed. And you can't be responsible for that.
niunian
Nov 11, 2012, 9:49:52 AM11/11/12
to
even if they have their institutions to back them up.
:-)
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 11, 2012, 10:44:16 AM11/11/12
to
pi said:
> Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>
> > You think it's over already?
>
> Actually, I haven't quite started yet. I need to do several more most
> fundamenal things: prove 1+1=2 PM's style from disjunction,
> quantifiers etc.,
But Russell and Whitehead already proved that. Do you hope to prove them
> Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>
> > You think it's over already?
>
> Actually, I haven't quite started yet. I need to do several more most
> fundamenal things: prove 1+1=2 PM's style from disjunction,
> quantifiers etc.,
wrong, to the consternation of every mathematician and merchant in the
world?
> produce a LISP compiler with lambda as the sole
> primitive (on the top of some x86 architecture to be lambda
> interpreted also).
of Forth (there are 16 lines per block). If you could locate that, you
might have something to build from. I think it was in the book Dr Dobb's
Toolbook of Forth.
> Finally, all computational models should prove to
> be equivalent and share incompleteness metaproperties which directly
> pertain to Buddhism.
Olcott, whom I frankly believe to be the only one here capable of
actually solving the riddle, doesn't seem to read this thread, I'll tell
you:
See, if the booming voice is lying when it says "At least one of you is
enlightened!" then that means that _none_ of them are enlightened, or he
wouldn't be lying, right?
So what happens is that each and everyone of the monks believes himself
to be enlightened, since he can't see an enlightenment mark on any of
the others. Each of them assumes the mark must be on himself, and only
on himself. So each of the monks sneaks out of the monastery that night,
in secret, and unbeknownst to the others.
Here's the trick: A smart monk (and they're all smart, remember) goes
back to the monastery the next day, to check. What he sees is that the
monastery is empty, nobody is in the meditation room, they have all left
during the night. They all come back to the monastery at about the same
time, and then they know, despite what the booming voice told them, that
none of them were enlightened.
If one of them had been enlightened, the others would have seen that he
had the mark, and they would have acted according to the non-enlightened
monks in Case 1 (described in a previous post); they would wait another
day to see what the marked one would do.
So it doesn't matter if the booming voice belongs to the Lord or to the
Devil, to the truth-speaker or the long-tongued liar, because in this
case, both the truth and the lie will serve the same purpose. This is a
bit paradoxical, isn't it?
In fact, they could have a tape recorder with a voice that boomed, say,
twice a month, "At least one of you is enlightened!", and it would serve
the purpose of letting them find out twice monthly which ones, if any,
of them were enlightened.
So, those of you who have read Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching may now be able to
give an example of when what he says in stanza 49 is useful and
appropriate. He says:
"The truthful I trust.
The untruthful I also trust.
The virtue is trust."
Okay, I know that nobody here has seen this particular translation, and
I admit I haven't seen it exactly like that in any English book, but I
translated it into English from my memory of a super-serious Swedish
translation. But there are many, many renderings of that verse, and who
is to say that this one isn't as good as any other? Okay, Niunian might
say it, out of spite. And Tang may happen to know THE Only Correct
Translation, as verified by a million obscure researchers and
sinologists, but aside from those two, who? Ah, yes, I guess Noname has
a better translation, too, one he lives by or something. But <BOOMING
VOICE> Trust Me On This:
Trust everybody, but check the facts anyway.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hey, where *IS* Tang, by the way? Is he okay? And Halfawake is missing
too, it seems. And Stumper. And Evelyn. Did they pack up and leave this
wicked monastery (with a rule of babbling instead of a rule of silence)
because they got enlightened? Lots of people went missssing while I was
away.
S.
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 11:45:24 AM11/11/12
to
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> pi said:
>
> > Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>
> > > You think it's over already?
>
> > Actually, I haven't quite started yet. I need to do several more most
> > fundamenal things: prove 1+1=2 PM's style from disjunction,
> > quantifiers etc.,
>
> But Russell and Whitehead already proved that.
Luckily for me, yes :)
> pi said:
>
> > Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>
> > > You think it's over already?
>
> > Actually, I haven't quite started yet. I need to do several more most
> > fundamenal things: prove 1+1=2 PM's style from disjunction,
> > quantifiers etc.,
>
> But Russell and Whitehead already proved that.
> Do you hope to prove them wrong, to the consternation of every mathematician
> and merchant in the world?
effort to do so.
> > produce a LISP compiler with lambda as the sole
> > primitive (on the top of some x86 architecture to be lambda
> > interpreted also).
>
> I once saw the source for a LISP compiler written in just a few blocks
> of Forth (there are 16 lines per block). If you could locate that, you
> might have something to build from. I think it was in the book Dr Dobb's
> Toolbook of Forth.
consulting MIT Open Courseware on this:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-001-structure-and-interpretation-of-computer-programs-spring-2005/video-lectures/
Indeed, in the words of one of the authors from one of the final
lectures "It's incredible that it gets there so fast". Yes, it is
indeed incredible. (It's even more incredible how much time I am
consuming trying to understand this.)
> > Finally, all computational models should prove to
> > be equivalent and share incompleteness metaproperties which directly
> > pertain to Buddhism.
>
> Uh.. can't help you there, I'm afraid.
> > pi>>
>
> Well, allright then. Since Nobody in Particular has given up, and Peter
> Olcott, whom I frankly believe to be the only one here capable of
> actually solving the riddle, doesn't seem to read this thread, I'll tell
> you:
> See, if the booming voice is lying when it says "At least one of you is
> enlightened!" then that means that _none_ of them are enlightened, or he
> wouldn't be lying, right?
>
> So what happens is that each and everyone of the monks believes himself
> to be enlightened, since he can't see an enlightenment mark on any of
> the others. Each of them assumes the mark must be on himself, and only
> on himself. So each of the monks sneaks out of the monastery that night,
> in secret, and unbeknownst to the others.
>
> Here's the trick: A smart monk (and they're all smart, remember) goes
> back to the monastery the next day, to check. What he sees is that the
> monastery is empty, nobody is in the meditation room, they have all left
> during the night. They all come back to the monastery at about the same
> time, and then they know, despite what the booming voice told them, that
> none of them were enlightened.
>
> If one of them had been enlightened, the others would have seen that he
> had the mark, and they would have acted according to the non-enlightened
> monks in Case 1 (described in a previous post); they would wait another
> day to see what the marked one would do.
>
> So it doesn't matter if the booming voice belongs to the Lord or to the
> Devil, to the truth-speaker or the long-tongued liar, because in this
> case, both the truth and the lie will serve the same purpose. This is a
> bit paradoxical, isn't it?
My brain switches off at the faintest instance of excitement. I will
study that and, with permission, report the moment I understand it.
Paradoxical, say you? IMHVO, there's just one paradoxical thing to a
perfect logician, namely, the liar's paradox. A layperson like me can
be stunned even by the most obvious things in the world, e.g. the
question Which religion is right (with a tacid assumption that one of
them is right)? They can't all be right, only one of them can be right
(right?). No, they're all equivalently wrong and this is where the
Buddha is right, again IMVHO.
In all frankness, I still fail to understand your lucid explanation,
so please kindly let me postpone a direct answer to this question.
> In fact, they could have a tape recorder with a voice that boomed, say,
> twice a month, "At least one of you is enlightened!", and it would serve
> the purpose of letting them find out twice monthly which ones, if any,
> of them were enlightened.
I am sorry :)
> So, those of you who have read Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching may now be able to
> give an example of when what he says in stanza 49 is useful and
> appropriate. He says:
>
> "The truthful I trust.
> The untruthful I also trust.
> The virtue is trust."
>
> Okay, I know that nobody here has seen this particular translation, and
> I admit I haven't seen it exactly like that in any English book, but I
> translated it into English from my memory of a super-serious Swedish
> translation. But there are many, many renderings of that verse, and who
> is to say that this one isn't as good as any other? Okay, Niunian might
> say it, out of spite. And Tang may happen to know THE Only Correct
> Translation, as verified by a million obscure researchers and
> sinologists, but aside from those two, who? Ah, yes, I guess Noname has
> a better translation, too, one he lives by or something. But <BOOMING
> VOICE> Trust Me On This:
>
> Trust everybody, but check the facts anyway.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
words. But I do place bets on the latter with respect to whether
they're babbling or *lucid and most motivating lecturing*, again, the
latter being the case of your posts.
Anyway, can we trust the facts? It's another question, right?
Actually, I've been privileged to receiving so much help and
encouragement from these boards I just don't know how to thank you
all :)
> Hey, where *IS* Tang, by the way? Is he okay?
> And Halfawake is missing too, it seems.
one who originally encouraged me to continue to post my babbling here
however silly it looked as long as I was hoping to obtain and accept
sensible commentary, which I've since enjoyed :)
> And Stumper. And Evelyn. Did they pack up and leave this
> wicked monastery (with a rule of babbling instead of a rule of silence)
> because they got enlightened? Lots of people went missssing while I was
> away.
>
> S.
allow me to do many things at once, I am afraid. Plus, not being a
perfect logician, I still don't qualify as a novice, which keeps me
refraining from polluting these boards with my babbling.
Anyway, on to study your answer. Again, thank you very much indeed and
a billion times :)
pi
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 11:47:17 AM11/11/12
to
niunian wrote:
> I guess there is nothing wrong to expose a few fakeries and pretences
> even if they have their institutions to back them up.
>
> :-)
Again, the Tao is the Tao, men and their affairs are something else,
> I guess there is nothing wrong to expose a few fakeries and pretences
> even if they have their institutions to back them up.
>
> :-)
IMHO.
pi
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 11:57:24 AM11/11/12
to
niunian wrote:
> Don't be scared. I can assure you that there is indeed nothing
> "sacrilegious". How can that be when it exposes the utter foolishness of
> Japanese zen so easily? It's all good. It's only the people who are fools
> themselves to be blamed. And you can't be responsible for that.
Well, again, I guess one can throw in these abstract slots whatever
> Don't be scared. I can assure you that there is indeed nothing
> "sacrilegious". How can that be when it exposes the utter foolishness of
> Japanese zen so easily? It's all good. It's only the people who are fools
> themselves to be blamed. And you can't be responsible for that.
one wants with the structure and the result of the inherent logical
outcome being doubtfully affected.
Indeed, when it doubt, keep it out ;)
I don't understand politics beyond very simple measures, so (with
permission) I'll refrain from discussing any such agendas. If that's
OK, OC :)
Anyway, thanks :)
pi
small tortoiseshell
Nov 11, 2012, 2:09:31 PM11/11/12
to
On Nov 11, 8:44 pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
wrote:
>
> See, if the booming voice is lying when it says "At least one of you is
> enlightened!" then that means that _none_ of them are enlightened, or he
> wouldn't be lying, right?
Wrong, if the booming voice was the enlightend one which could well be
and at least should be considered. In that case the whole riddle is a
joke on behalf of the readers who try to solve it, as it was a joke on
the munks who tried to solve it not considering the booming voice to
be the enlightened one as well. No respect for teacher these days.
lol. Probably the head munk (booming voice) was sitting miles away
with his buddies playing a prank on his stupid students with a loud
speaker and cellphone, or he had instructed one of his students to
ventriloquiate the whole event. Or, the whole bunch of them had gone
pshycotic and was experiencing a collective autitive pshycosis. Its
not often assemblies of munks hear disembodied booming voices giving
puzzles of this kind to solve i can imagine. After a couple of days
confusion as to who was and who wasnt enlightened of the fashion you
describe he may have stepped out from behind the curtain and given
them a good smack or three after one of them pulled the plug to the
speaker.
>
> "The truthful I trust.
> The untruthful I also trust.
> The virtue is trust."
"
I have faith in people who are faithful.
I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
Because Virtue is faithfulness. "
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 49
The sage has no mind of his own.
He is aware of the need of others.
I am good to people who are good.
I am also good to people who are not good.
Because Virtue is goodness.
I have faith in people who are faithful.
I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
Because Virtue is faithfulness.
The sage is shy and humble - to the world he seems confusing.
Men look to him and listen.
He behaves like a little child.
(translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English)
>
> Lots of people went missssing while I was
> away.
yeah, thats logic. lol
>
> S.
wrote:
>
> See, if the booming voice is lying when it says "At least one of you is
> enlightened!" then that means that _none_ of them are enlightened, or he
> wouldn't be lying, right?
and at least should be considered. In that case the whole riddle is a
joke on behalf of the readers who try to solve it, as it was a joke on
the munks who tried to solve it not considering the booming voice to
be the enlightened one as well. No respect for teacher these days.
lol. Probably the head munk (booming voice) was sitting miles away
with his buddies playing a prank on his stupid students with a loud
speaker and cellphone, or he had instructed one of his students to
ventriloquiate the whole event. Or, the whole bunch of them had gone
pshycotic and was experiencing a collective autitive pshycosis. Its
not often assemblies of munks hear disembodied booming voices giving
puzzles of this kind to solve i can imagine. After a couple of days
confusion as to who was and who wasnt enlightened of the fashion you
describe he may have stepped out from behind the curtain and given
them a good smack or three after one of them pulled the plug to the
speaker.
>
> "The truthful I trust.
> The untruthful I also trust.
> The virtue is trust."
"
I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
Because Virtue is faithfulness. "
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 49
The sage has no mind of his own.
He is aware of the need of others.
I am good to people who are good.
I am also good to people who are not good.
Because Virtue is goodness.
I have faith in people who are faithful.
I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
Because Virtue is faithfulness.
The sage is shy and humble - to the world he seems confusing.
Men look to him and listen.
He behaves like a little child.
(translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English)
>
> Lots of people went missssing while I was
> away.
>
> S.
Nobody in Particular
Nov 11, 2012, 3:30:37 PM11/11/12
to
> "niunian" wrote in message news:k7oa2f$i2q$1...@dont-email.me...
Don't worry your little head about it.
You take thinks WAY too literal, an unfortunate characteristic of the
Chinese
(along with a grotesque need for "saving face" and appearing superior).
This is *only* an exercise in logic, something you would not understand.
You take thinks WAY too literal, an unfortunate characteristic of the
Chinese
(along with a grotesque need for "saving face" and appearing superior).
This is *only* an exercise in logic, something you would not understand.
Nobody in Particular
Nov 11, 2012, 3:33:14 PM11/11/12
to
> "Lee Rudolph" wrote in message news:k7o6s6$8b2$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Right.
Isaiah 45:7
Isaiah 45:7
Nobody in Particular
Nov 11, 2012, 3:38:03 PM11/11/12
to
> "niunian" wrote in message news:k7od2e$i2q$4...@dont-email.me...
In other words, you are stumped and cannot come up with a clever or
not-so-clever answer in order to feel superior, so you resort to insult.
It does not work, except in your own mind. We all can easily see through
your very transparent failure.
not-so-clever answer in order to feel superior, so you resort to insult.
It does not work, except in your own mind. We all can easily see through
your very transparent failure.
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 3:38:30 PM11/11/12
to
small tortoiseshell wrote:
> yeah, thats logic. lol
Yeah, at the very long last someone understood we've been discussing
this puzzle having been meaning its abstract (logical) content to be
of our reference and not some bullshit added content referring to
Allah (may He be praised for all time), Israeli-Palestine conflict and
its relation to the Arab Spring, Iran, territorial disputes between
Japan and China, the Holocaust etc.
Thank You :) you are a genius :)
<sigh>
;)
pi
> yeah, thats logic. lol
Yeah, at the very long last someone understood we've been discussing
this puzzle having been meaning its abstract (logical) content to be
of our reference and not some bullshit added content referring to
Allah (may He be praised for all time), Israeli-Palestine conflict and
its relation to the Arab Spring, Iran, territorial disputes between
Japan and China, the Holocaust etc.
Thank You :) you are a genius :)
<sigh>
;)
pi
brian mitchell
Nov 11, 2012, 4:12:06 PM11/11/12
to
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>Hey, where *IS* Tang, by the way? Is he okay?
Tang is currently taking a rest from handing down edicts from the Abbot's chair. He may be working
>Hey, where *IS* Tang, by the way? Is he okay?
on his thesis about Pure Reason, or perhaps he belatedly fell in love.
>And Halfawake is missing
>too, it seems. And Stumper. And Evelyn. Did they pack up and leave this
>wicked monastery (with a rule of babbling instead of a rule of silence)
>because they got enlightened?
moderated) monastery on Facebook. It's difficult to tell who, exactly, because people are using
different nyms or names. I'm sure you'd be welcomed. Look up the group "Hotei's Hut". Evelyn is
there, and Jigme. Halfawake seems to have retired altogether for the time being.
>Lots of people went missssing while I was
>away.
So, what accounts for the new tone of authority in your voice?
Nobody in Particular
Nov 11, 2012, 4:41:37 PM11/11/12
to
> "pi" wrote in message
> news:f5d50bf8-30a1-45c4...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
I don't see a paradox there if the statement is false, since the opposite of
"all Cretans" is "not all Cretans."
So the speaker is a liar, some Cretans may also be, or not.
The more modern one, "this sentence is false," appears to be a paradox.
However, if there appears to be a logical paradox, i question the
assumptions. In this case, the assumption is that the statement is logical.
The problem is not with the statement, but with the assumption. If that
assumption is removed, it may be conceded that the statement itself is
nonsensical, i.e. no paradox.
> A layperson like me can
> be stunned even by the most obvious things in the world, e.g. the
> question Which religion is right (with a tacid assumption that one of
> them is right)? They can't all be right, only one of them can be right
> (right?). No, they're all equivalently wrong and this is where the
> Buddha is right, again IMVHO.
Again, I see that as a problem with the assumption.
If they claim to be true, the assumption is that they claim others to be
false. That is not necessarily so, even if adherents of a particular
religion (Christianity and Islam come to mind) make that claim. If one sets
strict logic aside and examines the core of most religions, i find that they
point at the same truth, which however cannot be explained directly. So
metaphors are used which, when interpreted by a strictly logical mind,
appear to contradict each other. Christianity, at its very core, points at
the same truth as Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, and even Islam.
Don't look toward the shrill bible-thumpers or salafists. Look at people
like Meister Eckhart and George Berkeley in Christianity, or the Sufi
masters in Islam (who incidentally are hated by the salafists). So the
problem is not really the religions themselves, but some (which can be the
vast majority) of its adherents.
At the very core, i see all the religions i have studied so far, to be true.
> news:f5d50bf8-30a1-45c4...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paradoxical, say you? IMHVO, there's just one paradoxical thing to a
> perfect logician, namely, the liar's paradox.
One of the original ones is, "All Cretans are liars," uttered by a Cretan.
> Paradoxical, say you? IMHVO, there's just one paradoxical thing to a
> perfect logician, namely, the liar's paradox.
I don't see a paradox there if the statement is false, since the opposite of
"all Cretans" is "not all Cretans."
So the speaker is a liar, some Cretans may also be, or not.
The more modern one, "this sentence is false," appears to be a paradox.
However, if there appears to be a logical paradox, i question the
assumptions. In this case, the assumption is that the statement is logical.
The problem is not with the statement, but with the assumption. If that
assumption is removed, it may be conceded that the statement itself is
nonsensical, i.e. no paradox.
> A layperson like me can
> be stunned even by the most obvious things in the world, e.g. the
> question Which religion is right (with a tacid assumption that one of
> them is right)? They can't all be right, only one of them can be right
> (right?). No, they're all equivalently wrong and this is where the
> Buddha is right, again IMVHO.
If they claim to be true, the assumption is that they claim others to be
false. That is not necessarily so, even if adherents of a particular
religion (Christianity and Islam come to mind) make that claim. If one sets
strict logic aside and examines the core of most religions, i find that they
point at the same truth, which however cannot be explained directly. So
metaphors are used which, when interpreted by a strictly logical mind,
appear to contradict each other. Christianity, at its very core, points at
the same truth as Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, and even Islam.
Don't look toward the shrill bible-thumpers or salafists. Look at people
like Meister Eckhart and George Berkeley in Christianity, or the Sufi
masters in Islam (who incidentally are hated by the salafists). So the
problem is not really the religions themselves, but some (which can be the
vast majority) of its adherents.
At the very core, i see all the religions i have studied so far, to be true.
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 11, 2012, 4:48:30 PM11/11/12
to
small tortoiseshell said:
> On Nov 11, 8:44 pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > See, if the booming voice is lying when it says "At least one of you is
> > enlightened!" then that means that none of them are enlightened, or he
> On Nov 11, 8:44 pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > See, if the booming voice is lying when it says "At least one of you is
> > wouldn't be lying, right?
>
> Wrong, if the booming voice was the enlightend one which could well be
> and at least should be considered. In that case the whole riddle is a
> joke on behalf of the readers who try to solve it, as it was a joke on
> the munks who tried to solve it not considering the booming voice to
> be the enlightened one as well. No respect for teacher these days.
> lol. Probably the head munk (booming voice) was sitting miles away
> with his buddies playing a prank on his stupid students with a loud
> speaker and cellphone, or he had instructed one of his students to
> ventriloquiate the whole event. Or, the whole bunch of them had gone
> pshycotic and was experiencing a collective autitive pshycosis. Its
> not often assemblies of munks hear disembodied booming voices giving
> puzzles of this kind to solve i can imagine. After a couple of days
> confusion as to who was and who wasnt enlightened of the fashion you
> describe he may have stepped out from behind the curtain and given
> them a good smack or three after one of them pulled the plug to the
> speaker.
That's one mean head monk.
>
> Wrong, if the booming voice was the enlightend one which could well be
> and at least should be considered. In that case the whole riddle is a
> joke on behalf of the readers who try to solve it, as it was a joke on
> the munks who tried to solve it not considering the booming voice to
> be the enlightened one as well. No respect for teacher these days.
> lol. Probably the head munk (booming voice) was sitting miles away
> with his buddies playing a prank on his stupid students with a loud
> speaker and cellphone, or he had instructed one of his students to
> ventriloquiate the whole event. Or, the whole bunch of them had gone
> pshycotic and was experiencing a collective autitive pshycosis. Its
> not often assemblies of munks hear disembodied booming voices giving
> puzzles of this kind to solve i can imagine. After a couple of days
> confusion as to who was and who wasnt enlightened of the fashion you
> describe he may have stepped out from behind the curtain and given
> them a good smack or three after one of them pulled the plug to the
> speaker.
I can't believe he did that.
Pictures, or it didn't happen!
> > "The truthful I trust.
> > The untruthful I also trust.
> > The virtue is trust."
>
> "I have faith in people who are faithful.
> I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
> Because Virtue is faithfulness. "
de osannf�rdiga tror jag �ven.
Dygden �r tro",
is how the Swedish translator put it. I don't think he is a Taoist, but
he's a learned scholar. I forget his name, though. I trust you
understand Swedish, so you can compare it with the other versions. Also,
I think the Chinese character in the original can mean both faith, trust
and belief, just like the Swedish word "tro", or Norwegian/Danish "tru",
so I think the Swedish translation preserves the ambiguity of the
original better than any English version, including the one I came up
with.
> Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 49
>
> The sage has no mind of his own.
> He is aware of the need of others.
>
> I am good to people who are good.
> I am also good to people who are not good.
> Because Virtue is goodness.
> I have faith in people who are faithful.
> I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
> Because Virtue is faithfulness.
>
> The sage is shy and humble - to the world he seems confusing.
> Men look to him and listen.
> He behaves like a little child.
>
>
> (translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English)
> > Lots of people went missssing while I was away.
>
> yeah, thats logic. lol
S.
liaM
Nov 11, 2012, 4:46:44 PM11/11/12
to
Le 11/11/2012 16:44, Sevenhundred Elves a �crit :
I ever met Tang, I was a fan of Ting (Forth guru and bookshop owner)
> I once saw the source for a LISP compiler written in just a few blocks
> of Forth (there are 16 lines per block). If you could locate that, you
> might have something to build from. I think it was in the book Dr Dobb's
> Toolbook of Forth.
I must have them sitting like a fond memory, on a bookshelf here. Before
> of Forth (there are 16 lines per block). If you could locate that, you
> might have something to build from. I think it was in the book Dr Dobb's
> Toolbook of Forth.
I ever met Tang, I was a fan of Ting (Forth guru and bookshop owner)
Julian
Nov 11, 2012, 5:36:41 PM11/11/12
to
It's not often we get a Chinese comedian gigging these boards.
niunian
Nov 11, 2012, 5:47:37 PM11/11/12
to
alt.zen domain.
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 11, 2012, 5:50:28 PM11/11/12
to
book was destroyed in a fire long ago.
I'm not sure if it was actually a LISP compiler, thinking back it seems
more likely that it was a LISP interpreter written in a few screens of
Forth.
S.
niunian
Nov 11, 2012, 6:03:12 PM11/11/12
to
too consuming for them. It's good they don't have to suffer my stringent
interrogative criticism anymore.
niunian
Nov 11, 2012, 6:05:54 PM11/11/12
to
The same can't be said otherwise.
liaM
Nov 11, 2012, 6:00:22 PM11/11/12
to
Le 11/11/2012 23:50, Sevenhundred Elves a �crit :
Must've been an interpreter. Those were the days. Software Warehouse's
muMath (written in lisp) running on a Radio Shack TRS-Model I.
muMath (written in lisp) running on a Radio Shack TRS-Model I.
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 11, 2012, 6:14:09 PM11/11/12
to
breadcrumb or something got stuck in the s-key.
>
> So, what accounts for the new tone of authority in your voice?
of authority, I didn't hear that tone myself. Sorry if I unwittingly
usurped someone else's authority by the tone of my voice. Back when I
was a more regular contributor to these boards I had more practice in
curbing the innate pompousness of my habits of speech. I practiced self
control to the hilt in order to not sound overly bombastic. I'm just a
bit rusty and out of practice, that's all.
S.
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 6:19:40 PM11/11/12
to
breached.
pi
niunian
Nov 11, 2012, 6:20:18 PM11/11/12
to
for a good reason. Your reactionary mudslinging only exposes your
miserable personality and absolutely zero of Buddhist training and
practice. You expose yourself as a fake whenever you open your fucking
mouth.
brian mitchell
Nov 11, 2012, 6:41:17 PM11/11/12
to
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> ... Sorry if I unwittingly
I'm sure Tang won't stay away for long, btw. He also declines to join Facebook.
> ... Sorry if I unwittingly
>usurped someone else's authority by the tone of my voice. Back when I
>was a more regular contributor to these boards I had more practice in
>curbing the innate pompousness of my habits of speech. I practiced self
>control to the hilt in order to not sound overly bombastic. I'm just a
>bit rusty and out of practice, that's all.
It wasn't a complaint.
>was a more regular contributor to these boards I had more practice in
>curbing the innate pompousness of my habits of speech. I practiced self
>control to the hilt in order to not sound overly bombastic. I'm just a
>bit rusty and out of practice, that's all.
I'm sure Tang won't stay away for long, btw. He also declines to join Facebook.
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 6:43:21 PM11/11/12
to
Nobody in Particular wrote:
> > "pi" wrote in message
> >news:f5d50bf8-30a1-45c4...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Paradoxical, say you? IMHVO, there's just one paradoxical thing to a
> > perfect logician, namely, the liar's paradox.
>
> One of the original ones is, "All Cretans are liars," uttered by a Cretan.
> I don't see a paradox there if the statement is false, since the opposite of
> "all Cretans" is "not all Cretans."
> So the speaker is a liar, some Cretans may also be, or not.
>
> The more modern one, "this sentence is false," appears to be a paradox.
Yes.
> > "pi" wrote in message
> >news:f5d50bf8-30a1-45c4...@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Paradoxical, say you? IMHVO, there's just one paradoxical thing to a
> > perfect logician, namely, the liar's paradox.
>
> One of the original ones is, "All Cretans are liars," uttered by a Cretan.
> I don't see a paradox there if the statement is false, since the opposite of
> "all Cretans" is "not all Cretans."
> So the speaker is a liar, some Cretans may also be, or not.
>
> The more modern one, "this sentence is false," appears to be a paradox.
> However, if there appears to be a logical paradox, i question the
> assumptions. In this case, the assumption is that the statement is logical.
> The problem is not with the statement, but with the assumption. If that
> assumption is removed, it may be conceded that the statement itself is
> nonsensical, i.e. no paradox.
> > A layperson like me can
> > be stunned even by the most obvious things in the world, e.g. the
> > question Which religion is right (with a tacid assumption that one of
> > them is right)? They can't all be right, only one of them can be right
> > (right?). No, they're all equivalently wrong and this is where the
> > Buddha is right, again IMVHO.
>
> Again, I see that as a problem with the assumption.
>
> If they claim to be true, the assumption is that they claim others to be
> false. That is not necessarily so, even if adherents of a particular
> religion (Christianity and Islam come to mind) make that claim. If one sets
> strict logic aside and examines the core of most religions, i find that they
> point at the same truth, which however cannot be explained directly. So
> metaphors are used which, when interpreted by a strictly logical mind,
> appear to contradict each other. Christianity, at its very core, points at
> the same truth as Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, and even Islam.
truly nonsensical. I mean, I really haven't thought very carefully
about what I said. My bad, I am sorry.
I was *perhaps* trying to say that no religious symbolism comes before
any other symbolism (plus no symbolism/form can reflect the ultimate
reality) and no religious code of conduct comes before any other code.
Morals are locally adaptive sets of rules elevated (perhaps) to the
status of divine knowledge by administrative powers. I watched this
talk by Jarred Diamond recently on this very subject and might have
misapprehended what he said:
J. Diamond, The evolution of religions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOsOb0QRaQs
Again, I am sorry. Am I rightly concluding that what you mean is that
all religions point out at some inaccessible realm while naming it in
different ways and that is where they all agree and where they're all
true?
You might or might not have the time and patience to correct me. I
understand.
> Don't look toward the shrill bible-thumpers or salafists. Look at people
> like Meister Eckhart and George Berkeley in Christianity, or the Sufi
> masters in Islam (who incidentally are hated by the salafists). So the
> problem is not really the religions themselves, but some (which can be the
> vast majority) of its adherents.
> At the very core, i see all the religions i have studied so far, to be true.
meant but have badly mispronounced is that no access can be claimed to
the contents (moral or other) to the other realm (the Tao) whose
existence is the result of the shortcomings of our present methodology
and it is consequently wrong to claim to be in possession of e.g.
codes of conduct coming from there. It is still right, and every
religion does that, to claim the existence of such a realm (which,
again, is still not accessible).
Sorry, it's all just my babbling. I much prefer to listen than talk
(although I like talking very much indeed :)
Kindest regards,
pi
niunian
Nov 11, 2012, 6:48:50 PM11/11/12
to
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 6:55:06 PM11/11/12
to
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> Then maybe you could scan the relevant pages and mail them to Pi?
This course is all I need:
> Then maybe you could scan the relevant pages and mail them to Pi?
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-001-structure-and-interpretation-of-computer-programs-spring-2005/
It's got everything in it explained as well as it can ever be. I just
need a better brain, that's all :)
Thank you very much anyway.
I am sorry about the fire.
pi
Nobody in Particular
Nov 11, 2012, 8:29:13 PM11/11/12
to
> "pi" wrote in message
> news:2122f858-744d-424d...@p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
I wouldn't call it inaccessible; plenty of people have accessed it in the
past, and are accessing it now (from all sorts of paths). I meant not
explainable in ordinary language.
> You might or might not have the time and patience to correct me. I
> understand.
I don't mean to "correct" you, since that would imply that i have knowledge
superior to you. I just offer my opinion for discussion.
> > Don't look toward the shrill bible-thumpers or salafists. Look at people
> > like Meister Eckhart and George Berkeley in Christianity, or the Sufi
> > masters in Islam (who incidentally are hated by the salafists). So the
> > problem is not really the religions themselves, but some (which can be
> > the
> > vast majority) of its adherents.
>
> I see. Thank you very much.
>
> > At the very core, i see all the religions i have studied so far, to be
> > true.
>
> Again, please kindly let me say that again. What I think I really
> meant but have badly mispronounced is that no access can be claimed to
> the contents (moral or other) to the other realm (the Tao) whose
> existence is the result of the shortcomings of our present methodology
> and it is consequently wrong to claim to be in possession of e.g.
> codes of conduct coming from there. It is still right, and every
> religion does that, to claim the existence of such a realm (which,
> again, is still not accessible).
Exactly.
> news:2122f858-744d-424d...@p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
past, and are accessing it now (from all sorts of paths). I meant not
explainable in ordinary language.
> You might or might not have the time and patience to correct me. I
> understand.
superior to you. I just offer my opinion for discussion.
> > Don't look toward the shrill bible-thumpers or salafists. Look at people
> > like Meister Eckhart and George Berkeley in Christianity, or the Sufi
> > masters in Islam (who incidentally are hated by the salafists). So the
> > problem is not really the religions themselves, but some (which can be
> > the
> > vast majority) of its adherents.
>
> I see. Thank you very much.
>
> > At the very core, i see all the religions i have studied so far, to be
> > true.
>
> Again, please kindly let me say that again. What I think I really
> meant but have badly mispronounced is that no access can be claimed to
> the contents (moral or other) to the other realm (the Tao) whose
> existence is the result of the shortcomings of our present methodology
> and it is consequently wrong to claim to be in possession of e.g.
> codes of conduct coming from there. It is still right, and every
> religion does that, to claim the existence of such a realm (which,
> again, is still not accessible).
pi
Nov 11, 2012, 8:35:03 PM11/11/12
to
niunian wrote:
> Haven't you heard that evil people also practice Tao?
"All politicians and political commentators should read it." -- Sunday
> Haven't you heard that evil people also practice Tao?
Times
http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1347464192l/1890087.jpg
Mephistopheles
small tortoiseshell
Nov 12, 2012, 6:14:39 AM11/12/12
to
On Nov 12, 2:48 am, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
wrote:
> Pictures, or it didn't happen!
the headmunk only shows the tape on special occasions, like when
enlightenment certificates are given, just to put them in the right
frame of mind when receiving it.
>
> > > "The truthful I trust.
> > > The untruthful I also trust.
> > > The virtue is trust."
>
> > "I have faith in people who are faithful.
> > I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
> > Because Virtue is faithfulness. "
>
> "De sannfärdiga tror jag,
> de osannfärdiga tror jag även.
> Dygden är tro",
the word ' tillit' as in a childs ' tillit' does not differentiate
between a lying or not lying person and therefore substituting tro
with tillit would me more in accord with how i perceive the intended
meaning of the verse at least, if one wants to keep a religiosly
conditioned response out of it. Otherwise" tro" as hinting in the
direction of adhering to a particular beliefsystem would be just fine
I guess. If he translated it from Chinese, I wouldnt know, since i
dont know what word in chinese are used for ' truthfulness' or '
faithfulness'. If they are interchangable or not or branches off into
sub meanings that can not adequately be translated into neither
English or Swedish or what. Tang would know this i guess. Maybe
Niunian also.
> I forget his name, though. I trust you
> understand Swedish, so you can compare it with the other versions. Also,
> I think the Chinese character in the original can mean both faith, trust
> and belief, just like the Swedish word "tro", or Norwegian/Danish "tru",
you may be a shy chinese language expert of course, knowing what you
talk about, and if so, could you explain in more detail the meaning of
these characters? Does the chinese, or the chinese language at least,
not differentiate between what in English is called trust, belief, and
faith? Is there really only one character for all those terms? And if
you are not a shy chinese language expert, I like to know anyways.
> so I think the Swedish translation preserves the ambiguity of the
> original better than any English version, including the one I came up
> with.
If you can read the original in chinese like a chinese, but having
swedish as your mothertongue, by all means you seem qualified to judge
the swedish translation as better then the english i guess. At least
from a ' scholarly' point of view, which doesnt necessarily mean '
spiritual' understanding. that said and since i dont know chinese, and
disagreed with the swedish translation as well, I.m fine with the
English translation until somebody lays it out for me what the chinese
characters both translations are based on really means. I would not be
surprised to hear that the word ' tillit' may occur rather then '
faith'. or some such. doesnt really matter though, just blabbering
away while i wait for my lunch, which is here. Bon apetit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 49
>
> > The sage has no mind of his own.
> > He is aware of the need of others.
>
> > I am good to people who are good.
> > I am also good to people who are not good.
> > Because Virtue is goodness.
> > I have faith in people who are faithful.
> > I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
> > Because Virtue is faithfulness.
>
> > The sage is shy and humble - to the world he seems confusing.
> > Men look to him and listen.
> > He behaves like a little child.
>
> > (translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English)
>
> It's nice. I always liked the Tao Te Ching.
>
> > > Lots of people went missssing while I was away.
>
> > yeah, thats logic. lol
>
> Touché!
>
> S.
wrote:
> small tortoiseshell said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 8:44 pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> > > See, if the booming voice is lying when it says "At least one of you is
> > > enlightened!" then that means that none of them are enlightened, or he
> > > wouldn't be lying, right?
>
> > Wrong, if the booming voice was the enlightend one which could well be
> > and at least should be considered. In that case the whole riddle is a
> > joke on behalf of the readers who try to solve it, as it was a joke on
> > the munks who tried to solve it not considering the booming voice to
> > be the enlightened one as well. No respect for teacher these days.
> > lol. Probably the head munk (booming voice) was sitting miles away
> > with his buddies playing a prank on his stupid students with a loud
> > speaker and cellphone, or he had instructed one of his students to
> > ventriloquiate the whole event. Or, the whole bunch of them had gone
> > pshycotic and was experiencing a collective autitive pshycosis. Its
> > not often assemblies of munks hear disembodied booming voices giving
> > puzzles of this kind to solve i can imagine. After a couple of days
> > confusion as to who was and who wasnt enlightened of the fashion you
> > describe he may have stepped out from behind the curtain and given
> > them a good smack or three after one of them pulled the plug to the
> > speaker.
>
> That's one mean head monk.
> I can't believe he did that.
He sure did, out of compassion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 8:44 pm, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> > > See, if the booming voice is lying when it says "At least one of you is
> > > enlightened!" then that means that none of them are enlightened, or he
> > > wouldn't be lying, right?
>
> > Wrong, if the booming voice was the enlightend one which could well be
> > and at least should be considered. In that case the whole riddle is a
> > joke on behalf of the readers who try to solve it, as it was a joke on
> > the munks who tried to solve it not considering the booming voice to
> > be the enlightened one as well. No respect for teacher these days.
> > lol. Probably the head munk (booming voice) was sitting miles away
> > with his buddies playing a prank on his stupid students with a loud
> > speaker and cellphone, or he had instructed one of his students to
> > ventriloquiate the whole event. Or, the whole bunch of them had gone
> > pshycotic and was experiencing a collective autitive pshycosis. Its
> > not often assemblies of munks hear disembodied booming voices giving
> > puzzles of this kind to solve i can imagine. After a couple of days
> > confusion as to who was and who wasnt enlightened of the fashion you
> > describe he may have stepped out from behind the curtain and given
> > them a good smack or three after one of them pulled the plug to the
> > speaker.
>
> That's one mean head monk.
> I can't believe he did that.
> Pictures, or it didn't happen!
enlightenment certificates are given, just to put them in the right
frame of mind when receiving it.
>
> > > "The truthful I trust.
> > > The untruthful I also trust.
> > > The virtue is trust."
>
> > "I have faith in people who are faithful.
> > I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
> > Because Virtue is faithfulness. "
>
> de osannfärdiga tror jag även.
> Dygden är tro",
>
> is how the Swedish translator put it. I don't think he is a Taoist, but
> he's a learned scholar.
sannfardiga ( truthful) is not the same as troende (faithful) . to me
> is how the Swedish translator put it. I don't think he is a Taoist, but
> he's a learned scholar.
the word ' tillit' as in a childs ' tillit' does not differentiate
between a lying or not lying person and therefore substituting tro
with tillit would me more in accord with how i perceive the intended
meaning of the verse at least, if one wants to keep a religiosly
conditioned response out of it. Otherwise" tro" as hinting in the
direction of adhering to a particular beliefsystem would be just fine
I guess. If he translated it from Chinese, I wouldnt know, since i
dont know what word in chinese are used for ' truthfulness' or '
faithfulness'. If they are interchangable or not or branches off into
sub meanings that can not adequately be translated into neither
English or Swedish or what. Tang would know this i guess. Maybe
Niunian also.
> I forget his name, though. I trust you
> understand Swedish, so you can compare it with the other versions. Also,
> I think the Chinese character in the original can mean both faith, trust
> and belief, just like the Swedish word "tro", or Norwegian/Danish "tru",
talk about, and if so, could you explain in more detail the meaning of
these characters? Does the chinese, or the chinese language at least,
not differentiate between what in English is called trust, belief, and
faith? Is there really only one character for all those terms? And if
you are not a shy chinese language expert, I like to know anyways.
> so I think the Swedish translation preserves the ambiguity of the
> original better than any English version, including the one I came up
> with.
swedish as your mothertongue, by all means you seem qualified to judge
the swedish translation as better then the english i guess. At least
from a ' scholarly' point of view, which doesnt necessarily mean '
spiritual' understanding. that said and since i dont know chinese, and
disagreed with the swedish translation as well, I.m fine with the
English translation until somebody lays it out for me what the chinese
characters both translations are based on really means. I would not be
surprised to hear that the word ' tillit' may occur rather then '
faith'. or some such. doesnt really matter though, just blabbering
away while i wait for my lunch, which is here. Bon apetit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 49
>
> > The sage has no mind of his own.
> > He is aware of the need of others.
>
> > I am good to people who are good.
> > I am also good to people who are not good.
> > Because Virtue is goodness.
> > I have faith in people who are faithful.
> > I also have faith in people who are not faithful.
> > Because Virtue is faithfulness.
>
> > The sage is shy and humble - to the world he seems confusing.
> > Men look to him and listen.
> > He behaves like a little child.
>
> > (translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English)
>
> It's nice. I always liked the Tao Te Ching.
>
> > > Lots of people went missssing while I was away.
>
> > yeah, thats logic. lol
>
>
> S.
noname
Nov 12, 2012, 7:10:53 AM11/12/12
to
whether your principles are intact or not, keep ready to deal with that.
noname
Nov 12, 2012, 7:15:55 AM11/12/12
to
On 11/11/2012 07:05 AM, Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> poses no danger to the Buddhist faith whatsoever
So the catechism books will not suddenly burst into flames, check.
> poses no danger to the Buddhist faith whatsoever
niunian
Nov 12, 2012, 7:17:04 AM11/12/12
to
enough to abandon Tao without knowing. Ever consider that?
Tsukino Usagi
Nov 12, 2012, 8:03:11 AM11/12/12
to
On 12/11/2012 5:38 AM, Nobody in Particular wrote:>
> In other words, you are stumped and cannot come up with a clever or
> not-so-clever answer in order to feel superior, so you resort to insult.
> It does not work, except in your own mind. We all can easily see through
> your very transparent failure.
>
Hate to be a party pooper but isn't that why you have been ignoring me
> In other words, you are stumped and cannot come up with a clever or
> not-so-clever answer in order to feel superior, so you resort to insult.
> It does not work, except in your own mind. We all can easily see through
> your very transparent failure.
>
all these years?
pi
Nov 12, 2012, 8:21:35 AM11/12/12
to
Nobody in Particular wrote:
> > "pi" wrote in message
> > "pi" wrote in message
> > Again, I am sorry. Am I rightly concluding that what you mean is that
> > all religions point out at some inaccessible realm while naming it in
> > different ways and that is where they all agree and where they're all
> > true?
>
> I wouldn't call it inaccessible; plenty of people have accessed it in the
> past, and are accessing it now (from all sorts of paths). I meant not
> explainable in ordinary language.
Right, I see.
> > all religions point out at some inaccessible realm while naming it in
> > different ways and that is where they all agree and where they're all
> > true?
>
> I wouldn't call it inaccessible; plenty of people have accessed it in the
> past, and are accessing it now (from all sorts of paths). I meant not
> explainable in ordinary language.
> > You might or might not have the time and patience to correct me. I
> > understand.
>
> I don't mean to "correct" you, since that would imply that i have knowledge
> superior to you. I just offer my opinion for discussion.
for someone like me, to hope to be corrected. I mean, I attempted to
read the Dhammapada as well as the TTC many many times, but I could
"understand" just a couple of verses (maybe) from these fundamental
texts. Essentially, like any work of art, they're both patterns of
matter (spots of ink in the case of literature) and cannot be
interpreted without considerable contextual knowledge which needs to
embeded in the mind of the reader before he can attempt to grasp the
message intented by the author.
The best I can ever hope for around these boards is to make myself
heard (and thank you very much for your kind attention), have my
"thoughts" supplemented and, well indeed, corrected :)
I mean, if all I am saying were correct, I'd have a mark on my
forehead (I've just looked into the mirror - that's not allowed, is
it? ;) and there's nothing there :)
Please kindly correct me whenever you wish and however sternly you
wish.The more you do so, the happier I am :)
> > Again, please kindly let me say that again. What I think I really
> > meant but have badly mispronounced is that no access can be claimed to
> > the contents (moral or other) to the other realm (the Tao) whose
> > existence is the result of the shortcomings of our present methodology
> > and it is consequently wrong to claim to be in possession of e.g.
> > codes of conduct coming from there. It is still right, and every
> > religion does that, to claim the existence of such a realm (which,
> > again, is still not accessible).
>
> Exactly.
pi
Sevenhundred Elves
Nov 12, 2012, 1:56:52 PM11/12/12
to
he has a better understanding of ancient Chinese texts than Niunian.
I suspect that if we ask Niunian he might say that the whole verse is
all about how we must have faith that Jesus will send the unfaithful
heathens to Hell for eternal torture while the faithful will be rewarded
in paradise.
> > I forget his name, though. I trust you
> > understand Swedish, so you can compare it with the other versions. Also,
> > I think the Chinese character in the original can mean both faith, trust
> > and belief, just like the Swedish word "tro", or Norwegian/Danish "tru",
>
> you may be a shy chinese language expert of course, knowing what you
> talk about, and if so, could you explain in more detail the meaning of
> these characters? Does the chinese, or the chinese language at least,
> not differentiate between what in English is called trust, belief, and
> faith? Is there really only one character for all those terms? And if
> you are not a shy chinese language expert, I like to know anyways.
than "Ni hao" even though I had a Chinese girlfriend for some time. No,
what I did, in lieu of actually knowing what I talk about, was find a
site on the Internet where an English translation and the Chinese
original were put side by side, and you could click on the chinese
characters to have them translated:
http://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing49.php
(It was actually another, quite similar site, but googling for it now I
couldn't find that one.)
S.
pi
Nov 12, 2012, 3:36:11 PM11/12/12
to
was priviledged to talk to in private were you, Tsukino AND Nobody in
Particular. Seldom is it that I cheer but, but you could both do that
in an instant :)
Just sayin' :)
pi
Tsukino Usagi
Nov 13, 2012, 12:07:23 AM11/13/12
to
him from seeing that.
noname
Nov 13, 2012, 5:48:33 AM11/13/12
to
can begin to move.
It is the very same thing your Holy Bible refers to when it says that
angels will prevent your stepping on a stone, but the occasional wisdoms
found in that book have been successively obfuscated for thousands of
years and their forms have become distant from useful meaning.
noname
Nov 13, 2012, 5:52:08 AM11/13/12
to
On 11/12/2012 06:21 AM, pi wrote:
> I mean, if all I am saying were correct, I'd have a mark on my
> forehead (I've just looked into the mirror - that's not allowed, is
> it? ;) and there's nothing there :)
Nicely ambiguous, either your skin is unblemished, or you are a vampire
> I mean, if all I am saying were correct, I'd have a mark on my
> forehead (I've just looked into the mirror - that's not allowed, is
> it? ;) and there's nothing there :)
and have no reflection; neither is remotely relevant.
Julian
Nov 13, 2012, 6:08:21 AM11/13/12
to
after just a couple of posts
to these groups.
niunian
Nov 13, 2012, 7:46:58 AM11/13/12
to
all your needs. Being such a baby who doesn't dare to take a single step
without the permission of his nanny, are you sure you can learn anything
at all? Are you sure you really want to live in such boring life?
Step away from the Tao, fuck the evil dalai lama in the ass for a change.
You may find life is actually quite interesting.
pi
Nov 13, 2012, 8:34:07 AM11/13/12
to
Tsukino Usagi wrote:
> Sure. We all have our problems I suppose. It's just that Bill's prevent
> him from seeing that.
Tsukino, you know I do like you. And Bill knows I do like him. I could
> Sure. We all have our problems I suppose. It's just that Bill's prevent
> him from seeing that.
honestly chat with both of you until Jesus comes, but I do know I am
boring, so I forced no further conversations on any of you :)
Not being a psychologist, the best I can do is to say the above.
Actually, would you care to spare a few seconds in private, please? I
have a small question regarding the English language.
pi6...@gmail.com
Kindest regards,
Tom
pi
Nov 13, 2012, 8:46:30 AM11/13/12
to
the people who I consider my tutors and to whose knowledge, experience
and intelligence I'd aspire, if I could one day aspire to anything.
noname.
:)
pi
P.S. Actually, "pi" was originally meant to be "pie" (taken from your
- pie in the face when things start getting too serious), but of
course, I mistyped it and continued to overlook the error. The usual.
Then Rosie, and I adore English girls, started interpreting it as this
math thingo, the number pi. And because I continously fail my math, it
stuck to me as a joke kind of name :)
pi
Nov 13, 2012, 8:56:02 AM11/13/12
to
Julian wrote:
> He was identified as a vampire
> after just a couple of posts
> to these groups.
I used to be obsessed ;) about pussy, but I managed to turn that into
> He was identified as a vampire
> after just a couple of posts
> to these groups.
obsession ;) about knowledge :)
pi
P.S. Ever tried to eat bloody red fresh juice dripping rasperries out
of a pussy stuffed with them? I guess that's what vampires feel when
they're licking/drinking out of a fresh neck wound ;)
niunian
Nov 13, 2012, 9:55:05 AM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 05:46:30 -0800 pi wrote:
> noname wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 06:21 AM, pi wrote:
>>
>> > I mean, if all I am saying were correct, I'd have a mark on my
>> > forehead (I've just looked into the mirror - that's not allowed, is
>> > it? ;) and there's nothing there :)
>>
>> Nicely ambiguous, either your skin is unblemished, or you are a vampire
>> and have no reflection; neither is remotely relevant.
>
> I don't know who I am, the best I can do to identify myself is to name
> the people who I consider my tutors and to whose knowledge, experience
> and intelligence I'd aspire, if I could one day aspire to anything.
> noname.
Knowledge, experience and intelligence are a dime a dozen. Try to acquire
> noname wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 06:21 AM, pi wrote:
>>
>> > I mean, if all I am saying were correct, I'd have a mark on my
>> > forehead (I've just looked into the mirror - that's not allowed, is
>> > it? ;) and there's nothing there :)
>>
>> Nicely ambiguous, either your skin is unblemished, or you are a vampire
>> and have no reflection; neither is remotely relevant.
>
> I don't know who I am, the best I can do to identify myself is to name
> the people who I consider my tutors and to whose knowledge, experience
> and intelligence I'd aspire, if I could one day aspire to anything.
> noname.
some of your own with some real practice, then you can outsmart them all.
Nobody in Particular
Nov 13, 2012, 5:53:31 PM11/13/12
to
> "pi" wrote in message
> news:3b220819-ecab-47a5...@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
Like this Halloween Pumpkin Pi?
http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-418762-galleryV9-hpug.jpg
> news:3b220819-ecab-47a5...@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-418762-galleryV9-hpug.jpg
pi
Nov 13, 2012, 6:16:31 PM11/13/12
to
On 13 Lis, 15:55, niunian <niun...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Knowledge, experience and intelligence are a dime a dozen. Try to acquire
> some of your own with some real practice, then you can outsmart them all.
I am here to be a friend and to find friends, however naive that may
> Knowledge, experience and intelligence are a dime a dozen. Try to acquire
> some of your own with some real practice, then you can outsmart them all.
sound (I honestly don't give two fucks whether I sound naive), and not
to build some kind of ill sensed self-esteem.
It's a global competitive world and because of its immediate feudal
past competition can easily be mistaken for war, imho. I've had my ass
kicked and been beaten down to the ground by strangers as well as my
beloved ones enough times to know that it's friendship and cooperation
that really matter in life.
For the record, I am going to start learning Chinese any time soon (I
hope :)
http://www.languagepod101.com/
I mean, I am a Pole and the man who originally pointed me in the right
direction was a German :) What do you make of that? :) :) :)
LOL!
pi
P.S. The last question is rhetoric, OC :)
pi
Nov 13, 2012, 6:36:57 PM11/13/12
to
On 13 Lis, 23:53, "Nobody in Particular" <nob...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Like this Halloween Pumpkin Pi?
http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-418762-galleryV9-hpug.jpg
I used to be a maniac cinema goer. It helped me a lot through very
> Like this Halloween Pumpkin Pi?
http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-418762-galleryV9-hpug.jpg
many dark days. I originally thought of it as means of being
distracted from reality. But of course, the more I watched the more
patterns I found. Then, with the advent of the Internet around here,
my intake of visual information started growing expotentially in time.
I began to appreciate movies as artistic endavors, which was where I
began to appreciate art in general. I never studied any of it formally
though and I never learnt to interpret any of it properly. Thus,
movies, paintings, literature etc. are a mystery to me until the
present day. Lots of knowledge from all domains is necessary to tell
what a work of art is trying to tell you or what it's trying to make
you (not) do. To make a long story short, there's usually some kind of
agenda to artistic endeavour, but I usually fail to uncover it.
To my simple mind, the picture is quite nice. But if the little "pi
thing" is going to be played with and torn to pieces by the cat ...
yeah, I've been there :) "I am already dead" as a frequent thought can
do wonders to one's psyche :)
pi
Nobody in Particular
Nov 13, 2012, 6:53:19 PM11/13/12
to
> "niunian" wrote in message news:k7tfg0$bp0$1...@dont-email.me...
Christianity?
>
> Step away from the Tao, fuck the evil dalai lama in the ass for a change.
How do you reconcile your homosexuality with your fundamentalist
> Step away from the Tao, fuck the evil dalai lama in the ass for a change.
Christianity?
brian mitchell
Nov 13, 2012, 7:02:23 PM11/13/12
to
pi wrote:
>On 13 Lis, 23:53, "Nobody in Particular" <nob...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Like this Halloween Pumpkin Pi?
>
>http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-418762-galleryV9-hpug.jpg
>On 13 Lis, 23:53, "Nobody in Particular" <nob...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Like this Halloween Pumpkin Pi?
>
>http://cdn3.spiegel.de/images/image-418762-galleryV9-hpug.jpg
>To my simple mind, the picture is quite nice. But if the little "pi
>thing" is going to be played with and torn to pieces by the cat ...
Is that what you saw? I thought the cat was bowing to the unfathomable mystery of Mathematics.
>thing" is going to be played with and torn to pieces by the cat ...
pi
Nov 13, 2012, 8:35:53 PM11/13/12
to
beautiful thing. It was so wonderful I still can't get it out of my
head although it went to play with its new braun new toy long ago :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Rorschach1.jpg/220px-Rorschach1.jpg
What do you see? The first time I looked at it I saw a bat. But now
that I've gathered a bit of context for it and I understand it's
merely a trick to pull stuff out of one's mind. It's ambiguous enough
to cover a whole variety of possible associations.
A book I've recently come across wandering around a book shop (I am
sure everyone here is already familiar with it):
http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1346459264l/114363.jpg
I didn't actually read through it quite yet (I am a LISP addict at the
moment), but I've glanced over it enough to see a bit of relevance to
this sub-thread :)
pi
noname
Nov 14, 2012, 3:10:32 AM11/14/12
to
reminded that they are making a choice they must change their mind; you
think too much and you seem to do it poorly. In doing-without-doing,
intellectual thinking is irrelevant. There is a reason that most
computers present a confirmation dialog when you are about to
permanently delete a file; when you decide to act on something you've
pondered up it's analogous to saving a macro, and a confirmation is
entirely appropriate. Confirmation is not conformation.
noname
Nov 14, 2012, 3:20:18 AM11/14/12
to
remnants of the past which constitute current circumstance are relevant
to the present; past judgments are useless unless one ignorantly defines
change out of the realm we call reality. Is that too literal for you?
Oops, too bad.
noname
Nov 14, 2012, 3:26:28 AM11/14/12
to
English girl.
Aspirations are without merit; letting your inherent value structures
and your ability to freely choose from the immediately available
alternatives bring forth whatever emerges is quite sufficient, if one
can avoid being frightened away from the present.
Julian
Nov 14, 2012, 3:43:43 AM11/14/12
to
noname
Nov 14, 2012, 7:38:33 AM11/14/12
to
niunian
Nov 14, 2012, 8:00:35 AM11/14/12
to
present. In the present, the evil dalai lama may pretend to have anything
to do with love or kindness, but the brutal history of his old Tibet will
always haunt him to the end of time.
By denying the past, you will lose the chance to learn your mistakes to
renew and redeem yourself. Therefore, all you dummies who idolize the
present moment, beware that you will be damned because of your past.
Julian
Nov 14, 2012, 10:22:31 AM11/14/12
to
pi
Nov 14, 2012, 1:42:23 PM11/14/12
to
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
> pi said:
>
> > Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>
> > > You think it's over already?
>
> > Actually, I haven't quite started yet. I need to do several more most
> > fundamenal things: prove 1+1=2 PM's style from disjunction,
> > quantifiers etc.,
>
> But Russell and Whitehead already proved that. Do you hope to prove them
> wrong, to the consternation of every mathematician and merchant in the
> world?
>
> > produce a LISP compiler with lambda as the sole
> > primitive (on the top of some x86 architecture to be lambda
> > interpreted also).
>
> I once saw the source for a LISP compiler written in just a few blocks
> of Forth (there are 16 lines per block). If you could locate that, you
> might have something to build from. I think it was in the book Dr Dobb's
> Toolbook of Forth.
>
> > Finally, all computational models should prove to
> > be equivalent and share incompleteness metaproperties which directly
> > pertain to Buddhism.
>
> Uh.. can't help you there, I'm afraid.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >Oh, no! I have another exercise for you:
>
> > It took me two days to understand your lucid answer to my (simple)
> > question :) what do you think it'll take me to answer a hard one from
> > you? :)
>
> > A perfect logician would run preprocessing tests to establish the
> > query time. Let's see :)
>
> > > What would be the result if the booming voice was lying, and NONE of the
> > > monks were enlightened? What would happen? And then what? What would a
> > > clever monk do if he couldn't be entirely sure that the voice was
> > > telling the truth? What should each monk do to ensure it wouldn't matter
> > > at all if the voice was booming out truth or lies? I assure you there is
> > > a wise way of acting to ensure a correct result even if the booming
> > > voice is lying.
>
> > pi, v. 1.01
>
> > Computing query time. Please kindly wait...
>
> > The query time is Seven Hundred Years :) :) :)
>
> > pi>>
>
> > pi>> See if you can find it!
>
> > Of course I can, but that'll take over half a millenium :)
>
> > pi>> You didn't really think I'd give an easy answer without posing a
> > harder
> > pi>> question as well? ;-)
> > pi>>
> > pi>> S.
>
> > No, of course I wouldn't dare think that. In all frankness, I am slow
> > on original ideas. This is partly because I ceased to trust the
> > original booming voice which I inherited as part of my indoctrination
> > and which guided me for so many years until I became assured it was
> > lying, which happened thanks to another voice which told me to read A.
> > Turing's original paper on intelligence.
>
> > It will however give me tremendous pleasure to entertain the
> > question :)
>
> >http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/robohorsegm1.jpg
>
> > Query scheduled. Thank You :)
>
> > pi>>
>
> Well, allright then. Since Nobody in Particular has given up, and Peter
> Olcott, whom I frankly believe to be the only one here capable of
> actually solving the riddle, doesn't seem to read this thread, I'll tell
> you:
>
> See, if the booming voice is lying when it says "At least one of you is
> enlightened!" then that means that _none_ of them are enlightened, or he
> wouldn't be lying, right?
>
> So what happens is that each and everyone of the monks believes himself
> to be enlightened, since he can't see an enlightenment mark on any of
> the others. Each of them assumes the mark must be on himself, and only
> on himself. So each of the monks sneaks out of the monastery that night,
> in secret, and unbeknownst to the others.
>
> Here's the trick: A smart monk (and they're all smart, remember) goes
> back to the monastery the next day, to check. What he sees is that the
> monastery is empty, nobody is in the meditation room, they have all left
> during the night. They all come back to the monastery at about the same
> time, and then they know, despite what the booming voice told them, that
> none of them were enlightened.
>
> If one of them had been enlightened, the others would have seen that he
> had the mark, and they would have acted according to the non-enlightened
> monks in Case 1 (described in a previous post); they would wait another
> day to see what the marked one would do.
>
> So it doesn't matter if the booming voice belongs to the Lord or to the
> Devil, to the truth-speaker or the long-tongued liar, because in this
> case, both the truth and the lie will serve the same purpose. This is a
> bit paradoxical, isn't it?
>
> In fact, they could have a tape recorder with a voice that boomed, say,
> twice a month, "At least one of you is enlightened!", and it would serve
> the purpose of letting them find out twice monthly which ones, if any,
> of them were enlightened.
>
> So, those of you who have read Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching may now be able to
> give an example of when what he says in stanza 49 is useful and
> I admit I haven't seen it exactly like that in any English book, but I
> translated it into English from my memory of a super-serious Swedish
> translation. But there are many, many renderings of that verse, and who
> is to say that this one isn't as good as any other? Okay, Niunian might
> say it, out of spite. And Tang may happen to know THE Only Correct
> Translation, as verified by a million obscure researchers and
> sinologists, but aside from those two, who? Ah, yes, I guess Noname has
> a better translation, too, one he lives by or something. But <BOOMING
> VOICE> Trust Me On This:
>
> Trust everybody, but check the facts anyway.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Hey, where *IS* Tang, by the way? Is he okay? And Halfawake is missing
> too, it seems. And Stumper. And Evelyn. Did they pack up and leave this
> wicked monastery (with a rule of babbling instead of a rule of silence)
> because they got enlightened? Lots of people went missssing while I was
> away.
>
> S.
Right. I get it all :) thank you :)
I am sorry, my brain sort of switches off whenever it pleases. I guess
I am just a little tired.
Again, thank you very much indeed for all the kinds words and that
which I need most, real encouragement :)
pi
> pi said:
>
> > Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>
> > > You think it's over already?
>
> > Actually, I haven't quite started yet. I need to do several more most
> > fundamenal things: prove 1+1=2 PM's style from disjunction,
> > quantifiers etc.,
>
> But Russell and Whitehead already proved that. Do you hope to prove them
> wrong, to the consternation of every mathematician and merchant in the
> world?
>
> > produce a LISP compiler with lambda as the sole
> > primitive (on the top of some x86 architecture to be lambda
> > interpreted also).
>
> I once saw the source for a LISP compiler written in just a few blocks
> of Forth (there are 16 lines per block). If you could locate that, you
> might have something to build from. I think it was in the book Dr Dobb's
> Toolbook of Forth.
>
> > Finally, all computational models should prove to
> > be equivalent and share incompleteness metaproperties which directly
> > pertain to Buddhism.
>
> Uh.. can't help you there, I'm afraid.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >Oh, no! I have another exercise for you:
>
> > It took me two days to understand your lucid answer to my (simple)
> > question :) what do you think it'll take me to answer a hard one from
> > you? :)
>
> > A perfect logician would run preprocessing tests to establish the
> > query time. Let's see :)
>
> > > What would be the result if the booming voice was lying, and NONE of the
> > > monks were enlightened? What would happen? And then what? What would a
> > > clever monk do if he couldn't be entirely sure that the voice was
> > > telling the truth? What should each monk do to ensure it wouldn't matter
> > > at all if the voice was booming out truth or lies? I assure you there is
> > > a wise way of acting to ensure a correct result even if the booming
> > > voice is lying.
>
> > pi, v. 1.01
>
> > Computing query time. Please kindly wait...
>
> > The query time is Seven Hundred Years :) :) :)
>
> > pi>>
>
> > pi>> See if you can find it!
>
> > Of course I can, but that'll take over half a millenium :)
>
> > pi>> You didn't really think I'd give an easy answer without posing a
> > harder
> > pi>> question as well? ;-)
> > pi>>
> > pi>> S.
>
> > No, of course I wouldn't dare think that. In all frankness, I am slow
> > on original ideas. This is partly because I ceased to trust the
> > original booming voice which I inherited as part of my indoctrination
> > and which guided me for so many years until I became assured it was
> > lying, which happened thanks to another voice which told me to read A.
> > Turing's original paper on intelligence.
>
> > It will however give me tremendous pleasure to entertain the
> > question :)
>
> >http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/robohorsegm1.jpg
>
> > Query scheduled. Thank You :)
>
> > pi>>
>
> Well, allright then. Since Nobody in Particular has given up, and Peter
> Olcott, whom I frankly believe to be the only one here capable of
> actually solving the riddle, doesn't seem to read this thread, I'll tell
> you:
>
> See, if the booming voice is lying when it says "At least one of you is
> enlightened!" then that means that _none_ of them are enlightened, or he
> wouldn't be lying, right?
>
> So what happens is that each and everyone of the monks believes himself
> to be enlightened, since he can't see an enlightenment mark on any of
> the others. Each of them assumes the mark must be on himself, and only
> on himself. So each of the monks sneaks out of the monastery that night,
> in secret, and unbeknownst to the others.
>
> Here's the trick: A smart monk (and they're all smart, remember) goes
> back to the monastery the next day, to check. What he sees is that the
> monastery is empty, nobody is in the meditation room, they have all left
> during the night. They all come back to the monastery at about the same
> time, and then they know, despite what the booming voice told them, that
> none of them were enlightened.
>
> If one of them had been enlightened, the others would have seen that he
> had the mark, and they would have acted according to the non-enlightened
> monks in Case 1 (described in a previous post); they would wait another
> day to see what the marked one would do.
>
> So it doesn't matter if the booming voice belongs to the Lord or to the
> Devil, to the truth-speaker or the long-tongued liar, because in this
> case, both the truth and the lie will serve the same purpose. This is a
> bit paradoxical, isn't it?
>
> In fact, they could have a tape recorder with a voice that boomed, say,
> twice a month, "At least one of you is enlightened!", and it would serve
> the purpose of letting them find out twice monthly which ones, if any,
> of them were enlightened.
>
> So, those of you who have read Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching may now be able to
> give an example of when what he says in stanza 49 is useful and
> appropriate. He says:
>
> "The truthful I trust.
> The untruthful I also trust.
> The virtue is trust."
>
> Okay, I know that nobody here has seen this particular translation, and
>
> "The truthful I trust.
> The untruthful I also trust.
> The virtue is trust."
>
> I admit I haven't seen it exactly like that in any English book, but I
> translated it into English from my memory of a super-serious Swedish
> translation. But there are many, many renderings of that verse, and who
> is to say that this one isn't as good as any other? Okay, Niunian might
> say it, out of spite. And Tang may happen to know THE Only Correct
> Translation, as verified by a million obscure researchers and
> sinologists, but aside from those two, who? Ah, yes, I guess Noname has
> a better translation, too, one he lives by or something. But <BOOMING
> VOICE> Trust Me On This:
>
> Trust everybody, but check the facts anyway.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Hey, where *IS* Tang, by the way? Is he okay? And Halfawake is missing
> too, it seems. And Stumper. And Evelyn. Did they pack up and leave this
> wicked monastery (with a rule of babbling instead of a rule of silence)
> because they got enlightened? Lots of people went missssing while I was
> away.
>
> S.
Right. I get it all :) thank you :)
I am sorry, my brain sort of switches off whenever it pleases. I guess
I am just a little tired.
Again, thank you very much indeed for all the kinds words and that
which I need most, real encouragement :)
pi
pi
Nov 14, 2012, 3:29:06 PM11/14/12
to
noname wrote:
> Rosie Lea is, as I recall, a Canadian bloke; most definitely not an
> English girl.
Really? I thought he was a Briton from Liverpool :)
> Rosie Lea is, as I recall, a Canadian bloke; most definitely not an
> English girl.
> Aspirations are without merit; letting your inherent value structures
> and your ability to freely choose from the immediately available
> alternatives bring forth whatever emerges is quite sufficient, if one
> can avoid being frightened away from the present.
experience? Can one master fear entirely?
I've managed to figure out lots my silly little fears I had learnt to
experience (by enculturation) under various circumstances (the
silliest being black cats and certain numbers, perhaps), but there are
a few big ones left. I guess those are the ones on which the structure
of the society rests.
Again, is it possible to master all fear and be entirely free from
this emotion?
pi
"All religions are based on fear." -- Bertrand Russell
Tsukino Usagi
Nov 14, 2012, 11:02:13 PM11/14/12
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages