Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

fuzzy logic

Expand Messages
  • Antonella Comba
    Dear all, I read an Italian translation of Bart Kosko s book Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. He says that he prefers the Buddha s A AND not-A
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 16, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear all,
      I read an Italian translation of Bart Kosko's book Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. He says that he prefers the Buddha's A AND not-A to Aristotle's A OR not-A. Do you know if there are some Suttas or passages in Pali Canon where Lord Buddha exposed any such logic theory?
      Thank you very much,
      Tapkina


      ---------------------------------
      Inviato da Yahoo! Mail.
      La casella di posta intelligente.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • dkotschessa
      ... Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. He says that he prefers the Buddha s A AND not-A to Aristotle s A OR not-A. Do you know if there are some Suttas
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 17, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Antonella Comba <tapkina@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear all,
        > I read an Italian translation of Bart Kosko's book Fuzzy
        Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. He says that he prefers
        the Buddha's A AND not-A to Aristotle's A OR not-A. Do you know if
        there are some Suttas or passages in Pali Canon where Lord Buddha
        exposed any such logic theory?
        > Thank you very much,
        > Tapkina

        I remember reading this book in High School, before I had much
        interest in Buddhism. It'd be very interesting to read it again
        after having several years of reading and practice.

        You might get a shorter, better answer, but you've touched on an
        interesting topic for me, so forgive my verbosity.

        In my opinion, the "A AND not-A" kind of teaching is more something
        that evolved out of the teachings over time, and not something you
        will find directly. I'll try to trace that evolution.

        Most directly, the Buddha lists logic among his criteria for
        rejection in the Kalama Sutta.

        "don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by
        logical conjecture..."

        At least in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation, Logical conjecture" is
        what is used here. Some of our Pali scholars might be able to give
        us a better sense of the word that's used.

        As the Sutta reveals, the Buddha generally avoids using logic to
        make arguments, preferring instead to show how certain views are
        helpful or destructive to the individual.

        The Buddha essentially takes any view - views of a self are the
        prime example - and rather than logically demonstrate why views
        are "wrong," will always demonstrate that they ultimately lead to
        more suffering. This is how he always defeats wandering ascetics
        bent on arguing the Buddha out of a job. (By the end of the sutta
        you will always find them taking refuge!)

        In the Maha-Nidana sutta (MN 15) the Buddha illustrates four self
        views. Form and finite, form and infinite, formless and finite,
        formless and infinite. Lest you think what remains is "I have no
        self", the Buddha rejects this view in the Sabbasava Sutta, MN 2,
        along with "I have a self."

        There are no views that can remain that comform to any kind of logic
        at this point.

        Now, I actually doubt Bart Kosko had much familiarity with the
        Canon. I am more inclined to believe that he is getting this idea
        more from Mahayana.

        Rather than something "not to be relied upon," logic becomes more of
        an adversary. Specifically it shows up in Zen's use of koans.
        Koans deal with getting one in touch with the unconditioned -
        Nibbana - by circumventing logic in a direct and experiential way.
        (Rather than all that tedious business about getting rid of
        defilements, in the Zen view of things).

        The koan "mu" is essentially a direct encounter with the "yes/no"
        duality. This is a direct experience of "A equals Not A." The
        student is forced to confront the limitations of their own dualistic
        thinking by "explaining" mu to the teacher.

        The initial breakthrough is a flash of insight that can only be
        verified by somebody who has experienced the same thing, and cannot
        be explained logically. Thus arises the whole bizarre and beautiful
        canon of Zen teachings which are "dark to the mind, bright to the
        heart."

        This touches on one of my favorite topics which is the precedent for
        Zen and mahayana teachings in the Pali Canon. (Probably mine main
        drive for studying the Canon).

        For exploring this topic in more detail, there is a recorded
        dialogue between Ajahn Amaro and Joseph Bobrow entitled "Not Two,
        Not Even "One": Non-Duality in Theravada and Zen Buddhism"

        Found here: http://www.audiodharma.org/talks-sati.html

        (scroll down a bit to get to it).

        Also Ajahn Amaro's "Small Boat, Great Mountain." Which I haven't
        quite read yet [bottomn of page for PDF]

        http://www.abhayagiri.org/index.php/main/book/138/

        -DaveK
      • Ong Yong Peng
        Dear Tapkina, DaveK and friends, I am also interested to read passages in the Pali Tipitaka containing such logical expressions too. As Dave pointed out,
        Message 3 of 3 , May 9, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Tapkina, DaveK and friends,

          I am also interested to read passages in the Pali Tipitaka containing
          such "logical expressions" too. As Dave pointed out, Kosko probably
          come across them from Mahayana literature, in particular the
          Madhyamaka philosophy, which is formulated at the time when the
          development of Buddhist logic reached its peak.

          I find "A OR not-A" an exclusive statement, as in either this or that
          and nothing else. On the other hand, I find "A AND not-A" an inclusive
          statement. Philosophically, "A AND not-A" statements are often used to
          explain about Buddhist concepts, such as nibbaana, su~n~nataa, by the
          Madhyamaka school.

          metta,
          Yong Peng


          --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Antonella Comba wrote:

          He says that he prefers the Buddha's A AND not-A to Aristotle's A OR
          not-A. Do you know if there are some Suttas or passages in Pali Canon
          where Lord Buddha exposed any such logic theory?
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.