Talk:Buddhist Philosophy/Esoteric Buddhism

Please explain the formula. The process of evaluating seems to lead to nothing:

(Infinity)=1=0 is either true or false.

It is false unless you redefine '=:' I will assume you have a way to.

Then you get the mathematical logic statement:

0/2 OR 1/2.

It means nothing except maybe (emptiness)/2 OR (form)/2, which also has little/no meaning except they can have similar terms.

If you explain the possibly contradictory meaning for 0/2 (in which the numerator is false,) then you get the mathematical statement:

0/2 AND 1/2.

However, you still have not explained why you put infinity in the numerator. Did you want to use Aleph-null and Aleph-one or something? You would still have to show what it meant. Why have '2' in the denominator?

Infinity was sort of not in the quote, but the previous AND says the preceding OR has both conditions true. If both are true it describes symmetry in infinity. When you evaluate whether that is true or not you probably get a subjective answer.

I checked out some Buddhist logic texts but did not get far into them, and I doubt many people reading this will have read through them or mathematical logic. I recall reading Eastern logic has not just true and false, but binary states of combinations of those. Then evaluating "0 AND 0.5 " could give 4 different answers:

0 AND (NOT 1)

0 AND 1

(NOT 0) AND (NOT 1)

(NOT 0) AND 1

Each can be simplified to 0 (false) or 1 (true,) but the idea may have been that would be too simple, so it would be good to allow non-false numbers other than 1, which if Boole did not suggest, others do now.

You still did not explain any of that or where such a mathematical statement is in Buddhism or perennial Philosophy--because if it is true it has to make sense in all reasonable Philosophy which esoterically agrees with Buddhism and vice-versa. Pythagoras or at least Socrates would not try to argue numbers-based proofs. Pythagoras probably would not want you to be restricted to any number, and Socrates would see little reason to try to make statements with unnecessary numbers instead of plainly--or perhaps with a formal grammar/logic system--which can explain numbers but does not rely on them (though they can be shorthand for 'truth values or degrees.')--Dchmelik (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)